Brandt summarizes her argument on 649-651: she opens with two stories, and then summarizes the argument they illustrate, and argument she says results from the 65 interviews she conducted about literacy development (see methodology description on 651). If you want to orient yourself, stop around here and see if you can paraphrase her argument in ways that make some sense to you (even if you have some questions about how she came to those conclusions).
At the bottom of 651 she notes her purpose: “to begin to identify several of the major effets of ‘accumulating literacy’ that are especially pertinent to teachers of writing and reading who are trying to think more broadly about the historical context in which we are carrying out our work” (651). Literacy accumulates in two ways, for Brandt: it piles up, and it spread out. Through 653 she continues her explanation of the purpose of the piece. Stop and check here: do the notions of piling up/spreading out make sense to you?
There’s a historical digression—on transformation—that lays out some of the functions of literacy over time (like teaching moral values in the 19th century).
Then she returns to the narratives, first with the May family, and then with the Charles Randolph. Note that with each person profiled, Brandt tells the story of literacy accumulation, and then follows it with commentary (although there is some analysis mixed in with the stories). You should look to the stories and see what Brandt draws to our attention: what themes about literacy accumulation does she identify?
After the stories, she turns to theory (starting on 664), summarizing what the interviews confirm (mid 665) and then moving into what they show that we have so far “paid less attention to” (665). Brandt sees old and new literacies as intertwining more than competing.
You can look to Brandt as one model of a literacy profile; you should be able to see the stories she tells of the Mays and the Randolphs, and you should be able to see the themes she highlights in them.
