Implications for Action

There are many implications for action that might be derived from the findings of this provincewide consultation on literacy and learning in BC. After careful thought, the following are reflections on what all of the foregoing implies in terms of future action around literacy and learning in BC – loosely grouped for simplicity under the four headings of Positioning the Issue, Programming and Delivery Strategies, Community-Based Collaboration, and Funding and Accountability. They are the views of the author of the report and are intended to serve as the springboard for discussion and to contribute to the development of a long term strategic plan for literacy and learning in British Columbia.

Positioning the Issue…

1. Continue Benchmarking Awareness

There is value in continuing to track awareness and understanding around literacy issues on a regular basis so as to provide at least one indicator of the effectiveness of the communications strategies undertaken in the future. Using the identical telephone survey instruments used in the Leaders in BC and the Supplemental Business/Labour surveys, and using the findings of this first set of surveys as a benchmark, we recommend surveying randomly chosen representatives of these same groups every three years.

2. Be Diligent in Our Approach to Collecting, Promoting, and Using IALS Data

Educators and those in the literacy community should be cautious and diligent in their approach to using and promoting IALS and other data in three ways:

Firstly, there should be over-sampling in BC for the 2004 IALS data so as to have more accurate regional and community information.

Secondly, educators and those in the literacy community should not assume that just because people did not directly attribute their greater understanding of literacy issues to the IALS data, the promotion of those findings did not have an effect. We recommend continuing to communicate IALS findings as an integral part of our communications strategy about the issue.

Thirdly, having said that, we recommend being cautious in the over-use and over-statement of the IALS data. To avoid getting bogged down in discussions about the validity of the IALS data, greater emphasis should be placed on the implications of those findings rather than on the precise percentages of Canadians at Levels 1, 2, and 3.

3. Reconcile the “Disconnects” in Our Own Definitions of Literacy

Some of the murk around literacy is a result of the sometimes contradictory ways it is talked about. We recommend engaging educators and those in the literacy community in strategizing and agreeing on messaging that reconciles the two most problematic “disconnects” this consultation identified: