Maddie Turner, Biochemistry/Cell Biology + English, Class of ’21
Brief Summary: It has been long established that early childhood is key to lifelong development. This paper explores how early exposure to youth literary infrastructures influences a child’s resulting development, particularly in relation to reading and writing. Not limiting herself to non-governmental organizations, Turner places a special focus on how certain types of schooling influences literary outcomes.
The majority of brain growth takes place in young children before age five. A baby’s brain triples in the first year of life and is almost fully formed by the time a child begins kindergarten (Fifty par. 3). Therefore, it is crucial children are exposed to as much language and as many literary experiences as possible in their early years. Children develop language and literacy skills long before they are able to talk or read and having exposure to literature early has been shown to improve children’s reading skills later on. For example, studies report that children spoken to frequently by their mothers learn about 300 more words compared to children who don’t get the same exposure to language (Fifty par. 6).
One important factor in the degree of language and literacy exposure in children is their family’s socioeconomic status. A 1995 study showed that the average child from a family where parents have professional-level careers hears 215,000 words per week. In comparison, children from working-class families hear on average 125,000 words per week (almost half as many), and children from families that receive welfare benefits hear 62,000 words per week on average (Fifty par. 5). These discrepancies in language exposure manifest well before K-12 schooling begins. children with lower socioeconomic status (SES) develop academic skills slower than higher-SES children due to fewer literacy experiences in early childhood and less access to literary resources both at home and at school (Education par. 4). Lower academic success is correlated with higher dropout rates, higher levels of career barriers, lower career-related self-efficacy, and also has lasting impacts on physical and mental health (Education par. 6-7).
While SES does have a significant effect on the availability of family resources, academic achievement, and career success, it is only one small part of a larger picture that education sociologist Angela Valenzuela terms “subtractive schooling,” a process that actively reduces the educational and emotional resources available to students (Valenzuela, 131). After conducting a three-year ethnographic study tracking academic achievement of immigrant Mexican and Mexican American students at Seguín High School in Houston, Valenzuela observed that schools “subtract” educational resources from students in two main ways (Valenzuela 123-124). Firstly, schools “[subtract] students’ language and culture” from their educational environment, limiting opportunities for students to speak in Spanish instead of embracing and supporting the potential for bilingualism (Valenzuela, 133). While “No Spanish” rules are no longer legal in US schools, Spanish is nevertheless portrayed as a barrier to education rather than a skill, as illustrated by the fact that English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)students are referred to as “limited English proficient” instead of “Spanish dominant” (Valenzuela, 132-133). The indirect undermining of Mexican history and culture extends past language: teachers “adapt” students’ names to be more “English-sounding;” ESOL and English-only students are taught from different curriculum tracks, fostering ingroup/outgroup distinctions (Valenzuela, 134). The result is that schools “undermine the worth of [students’] unique culture and history” and reinforce differences existing between different social groups (Valenzuela, 132).
The second method of subtractive schooling that Valenzuela discusses is that teachers dismiss their students’ definition of and expectations for their education: they expect students to “care about school…before [teachers] care for them,” (italics mine) rather than providing students with the resources and emotional support they need in order to succeed and become invested in their own education (Valenzuela, 123). Within Mexican culture, “education” connotes not only book learning but also emotional learning, how to “live responsibly in the world as a caring human being” (Valenzuela, 136). This type of learning is based upon “authentic caring” that prioritizes the student’s well-being above academic drive (Valenzuela, 136). Because of the power differential already existing between teachers and students, this difference in expectation for education is often never realized or discussed; as a result, teachers feel that students do not care about school and students feel that teachers do not care about them (Valenzuela, 136). The absence of connection between teacher and student has a profound effect on students’ potential for academic success.
Because youth literacy and literary experiences have such a profound impact on almost all aspects of life, we must focus heavily on resources for youth when investigating the literary infrastructure of different cities. Simply providing physical resources to students, as shown by Angela Valenzuela’s research into subtractive schooling, is not enough to foster youth literacy: schools and literature programs must view language and culture as positives rather than barriers to entry and the adults involved in these programs must show their care about youth as people first, students second. As seen in Valenzuela’s study in Houston, traditional literary infrastructure often does not provide low-income and minority groups with the resources necessary to grow and instead devalues the resources that they already have in place . For example, Houston nonprofit Nuestra Palabra finds its funding based on its current operating budget, preventing the organization from expanding. Additionally, Tony Diaz, founder of Nuestra Palabra, explained that literary infrastructures require financial, career, and health sacrifices from their employees; lower-income folks often cannot make these sacrifices while still providing for themselves. Thus, Diaz envisions a “literary ecosystem” for Houston in which larger, better-funded literary organizations support organizations like Talento Bilingue and Nuestra Palabra. In this way, the Latinx community can maintain a thriving literary infrastructure specifically targeted to its own members and also retain power over its own narrative and cultural capital.
Houston has begun to make investments in literary infrastructure for its youth. Inprint, a literary arts nonprofit based in Houston, started the Cool Brains reading series in 2004, which hosts visiting children’s authors for free readings and book signings on Sunday afternoons (Inprint par. 2). Writers present on their work, take questions, and even stay for meet-and-greets with kids after the book signing (Inprint par. 2). The largest literary arts organization in Texas, Writers in the Schools (WITS) was founded in 1983 in Houston and seeks to engage young students in reading and writing by teaching these skills in creative ways (Our Story par. 1). They provide free writing workshops and public readings at parks, libraries, hospitals, and youth community centers, as well as creative writing summer camps, opportunities for students to perform their work, and lesson planning for teachers (About WITS n. pag.).
Literary infrastructure is an investment in a city, especially when it targets youth. As the research above shows, providing children with literary exposure from a young age improves academic, health, and career outcomes, which benefits a community overall. It is also important to create a sustained connection between youth and the literary arts into adolescence and young adulthood. Though the organizations mentioned above (Cool Brains, WITS, etc.) are a great start, the best way to expand youth literary infrastructure and make it more accessible and applicable to traditionally marginalized students in Houston is, first and foremost, to listen to students. Valenzuela’s research shows how important it is to acknowledge both students’ expectations for their own education and the resources that they already possess. No one can succeed if they feel that they aren’t being heard. Thus, we must equally speak and listen to the next generation of readers and writers to create a better future for all.
Works Cited
About WITS: transforming creativity + literacy. Writers in the Schools.
“Education and Socioeconomic Status.” American Psychological Association, 2020, www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education. Accessed 20 Apr. 2020.
“Fifty Top Literary Statistics.” Ferst Readers, ferstreaders.org/resources/fifty-top-literacy-statistics. Accessed 20 Apr. 2020.
Valenzuela, Angela. Subtractive Schooling: U.S.-Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. CMAS Books, 1999.
“2019/2020 Inprint Cool Brains! Reading Series.” Inprint, inprinthouston.org/for-readers/cool-brains/. Accessed 20 Apr. 2020.
“Our Story, Our Beliefs.” Writers in the Schools, witshouston.org/about/our-story/. Accessed 20 Apr. 2020.
