Critical Literacy 1

Newman

Running head: CRITICAL LITERACY: A CLOSE EXAMINATION AND INTERPRETATION

Critical Literacy: A Close Examination and Interpretation

Of Ruthie and the (Not So) Teeny Tiny Lie

Alyssa Newman

Teachers College, Columbia University

Critical Literacy: A Close Examination and Interpretation

Of Ruthie and the (Not So) Teeny Tiny Lie

The literature a teacher presents to students has the capability to explicate more than just

the words on the page. Teachers must discern underlying concepts threaded throughout books

for children. Often times, these notions are woven into stories unintentionally by authors;

however, their presence within the print and illustrations is likely to be noticed—especially by

those who are marginalized. Jones (2006) explains the importance of critical literacy and how it

serves as a foundation for deconstructing texts which are filled with the author’s perspectives and

beliefs. Focusing students’ attention on these issues enables them to actively engage with the

text and apply what they know by critically questioning, “What’s wrong with the picture?”

(Jones, p. 68) an inquiry often evaded when discussing children’s literature.

The examination of stories that were written simply to enliven, humor, and entertain

children might ultimately expose a secretly (to most) notorious reputation: these stories often

contain and communicate privileged and powered perspectives. This precise notion is

represented in Ruthie and the (Not So) Teeny Tiny Lie by Laura Rankin, which tells the

seemingly innocent story of a young fox, Ruthie, who lied to her teacher about a teeny, tiny

camera she found, claiming it belonged to her. Rankin carries her reader’s through Ruthie’s

journey of experiencing an overwhelming sense of guilt, her realization that she made a poor

choice, and her determination to make things right.

Ruthie appears innocuous enough, but when examined through a critical lens, inherent

allocations of power and privilege to the middle/upper-class are evident. The cover of the

picturebook previews the reader with an image of the story’s central character: a perfectly-put-

together fox, trendily dressed with a plaid skirt, a floral sweater, and flat Mary-Janes. The
 Critical Literacy 3
Newman

illustrations continue to be essential throughout the text as they convey much meaning and

provide insight into specific representations. The illustrations depict a perfectly typical,

middle/upper class, worry-free, loving family and community. These pictures present a pristine

school building filled with smiling faces, endless school supplies, and a massive playground

(Rankin, 2007, pp. 5-6, 13-14). When Ruthie comes home from school, the reader is introduced

to her home-life; it would be practical to assume that Ruthie’s Momma does not work, and she is

home preparing a meal when Ruthie comes home from school. Her purse is on the counter next

to some grocery bags, indicating that she probably spent the day running errands (Rankin, p. 16).

At dinner time, Ruthie’s Momma and Papa join her at a beautifully set table complete with

endless homemade options for dinner (Rankin, p. 17). Because Rankin depicts the characters as

animals, it is a bit difficult to definitively define race within this text, as one cannot conclude the

“white bunny” portrays “white skin” or the “brown bear” portrays “dark skin.” Since all of the

students’ fur is different colors, one can assume that the class is composed of a racially diverse

student body. However, it should be noted that even though Rankin portrays the students as

differently colored, aside from this, all of the characters look exactly alike in terms of clothing

(trousers/skirts/tucked in shirts) appearance (smiling faces/without physical disability/height) and

class, which subscribes them to a sense of middle/upper class conformity.

Much of the language the text embodies is similarly stereotypical. The story opens

describing Ruthie’s playtime at the beach, which alludes to a variety of privileges, including a

suburban background or summer vacations. This privilege is represented amidst Ruthie and

Martin’s argument when he says, “…I got it for my birthday…” and Ruthie angrily replies, “I

got it for MY birthday!” (Rankin, pp. 12-13). Although these are seemingly simple sentences,

they are embedded with the casual idea that it is normal for children to receive presents on their
 Critical Literacy 4
Newman

birthdays. Another piece of language that is noteworthy is the constant questioning from

Ruthie’s Momma and Papa: “How was school?” “Aren’t you feeling well?” “What’s the

matter?” “What do you think went wrong?” (Rankin, pp. 17-18, 21). This questioning indicates

her parents’ caring nature, and their ability to spend time with their daughter, even late into the

night after dinner, until her problems are solved. The parents are positioned as the powerful

“knowers” who have the magical ability to make Ruthie feel better about anything. Ruthie

clearly trusts her parents and is comfortable enough to share what she has done wrong—she is

not “scared” that she will get in any kind of trouble for what she has done (Rankin, p. 21).

The illustrations alongside the text inherently appoint power to a specific group and

simultaneously exclude another. Quite obviously, Ruthie privileges middle/upper class, nuclear

families and excludes essentially the rest of society who does not coincide (i.e. different sexual

orientations, dis/abilities, socioeconomic statuses, etc.) Therefore, this book is most relatable for

children who are encapsulated within that particular realm of privilege. Power is delegated to

adults (teachers and parents) which actually detracts power from youngsters, insinuating that

they “need” adults to help solve their problems effectively and cannot do this independently.

This easily marginalizes children who do not have access to trustworthy, reliable adult supports.

Jones discusses the notion that most texts that are written for children are devised from a

standpoint which exemplifies a very typical life—“typical” constituting mommies, daddies, good

little girls and boys who listen to adults, money, comfortable homes, friendly neighborhoods, and

standard gender roles—just like Ruthie. This is upheld in the book and whether or not

intentional, is it essential for children to be aware of this authorial power. Jones asserts that

books are written from a particular perspective (the author’s) to make readers believe and feel

something, so, in a sense, we are all “being framed” (p. 71). Understanding these perspectives is
 Critical Literacy 5
Newman

the prerequisite for demolishing old stereotypes within these frames (Jones). Teachers need to

make their students aware of this by demystifying embedded meanings and facilitating the

growth of critical literacy, even in young readers.

A reader’s positionality inevitably impacts their reading and understanding of Ruthie. As

an educator interested in inclusion and literacy development, I perceive this story through a

critical lens, perhaps differently than someone who reads it from another position. Jones insists

where students are from influences their reading and understanding of a text. Regardless of a

child’s background, society has “…normalized a privileged way of life…” (Jones, p. 14) which

is why it is imperative for teachers to recognize that not all texts are neutral. The connections

students make with stories are often the foundation for their understanding and engagement.

However, this is often an issue for many students because they are presented with texts they are

unable connect with because they have no prior schema (Jones). This is illustrated in Ruthie; so

many children cannot identify with beach vacations, birthday presents, and nuclear families—

specifically ones that graciously accept their children’s mistakes.

Teachers have a responsibility to orient themselves with the practice of critically

assessing the literature their students are exposed to. This provides a foundation for teachers to

choose children’s literature carefully, with intention, and hopefully, this will foster motivation

within teachers to present their students with a wide array of texts—ones students can see

themselves in. Students need to be taught to think critically about texts as well. Jones

emphasizes critical literacy instruction creates an environment within the classroom where

students can partake in conversations about difficult issues that affect their own lives and how

injustices are often portrayed within stories. Additionally, Jones expresses this forum enables

students to have a voice in a space where they might have felt a sense of exclusion.
 Critical Literacy 6
Newman

Of course the intention is not to remove books like Ruthie and others like this from our

classroom libraries. Rather, teachers need to help students become aware of these existing

issues. When students are given the opportunity to be critical of texts, they learn to “…

deconstruct and reconstruct texts and work toward socially just understandings” (Jones, p. 127).

This idea inherently indicates that ultimately, inspiring students to acknowledge the

representations embedded within the language and illustrations of stories by “peeling layers

away from the text” (Jones, p. 75) is the foundation for their ability to critically understand the

world around them. A critical lens and an investment in choosing a balance of texts that

represent all kinds of people is essential when deciding what books students will be exposed to.
 Critical Literacy 7
Newman

References

Jones, S. (2006). Girls, social class and literacy: What teachers can do to make a difference.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rankin, R. (2007). Ruthie and the (not so) teeny tiny lie. New York, NY: Holtzbrink Publishers.