Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9QH7U906478; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <B24038C0D3E160419E320030D92C22DE142964@hobbes.cal.org> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "MaryAnn Florez" <maryann@cal.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:5252] FW: "The Crisis that Isn't" by Dan Seligman, 10/2/00 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 6677 Lines: 178 >From the folks at NIFL: -----Original Message----- From: Green, Susan [mailto:Susan_Green@NIFL.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 12:40 PM To: 'Avlahakis@aol.com'; 'Helen@healthliteracy.com'; 'ALCDGG@langate.gsu.edu'; 'dlipschu@ala.org'; MaryAnn Florez; 'nsledd@famlit.org'; 'Rgspacone@aol.com' Subject: FW: "The Crisis that Isn't" by Dan Seligman, 10/2/00 Dear Folks -- Could you please post the message below on your respective listservs? I'm having trouble posting it directly. Thanks a lot. Susan Green Dear Colleagues: We want to share with you a copy of Andy Hartman's letter to Forbes Magazine in response to Dan Seligman's 10/2 article, "The Crisis That Isn't." Thanks to all of you who posted comments on the article -- your thoughtful remarks helped a lot. Susan Green Communications Specialist > Original Message----- > From: Green, Susan > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 6:18 PM > To: 'readers@forbes.com' > Subject: "The Crisis that Isn't" by Dan Seligman, 10/2/00 > > > > The National Institute for Literacy > 1775 I Street, NW, Suite 730 > Washington, D.C. 20006 > 202-233-2025 > > October 25, 2000 > > > To the editor: > > In his October 2 article, "The Crisis that Isn't," Dan Seligman suggests > that changed definitions and measures of literacy are > simply tools being used by politicians to manufacture an "illiteracy > crisis" that the government should solve. As director of the > National Institute for Literacy, one of the organizations cited by > Seligman, I take strong issue with both the substance and the > dismissive tone of his arguments, which reinforce a number of misleading > public perceptions about America's literacy challenges. > > First, people with any real knowledge of our country's educational needs > no longer talk about "illiteracy," let alone proclaim a crisis > in this basic area of learning. As research from the National Center for > Education Statistics shows, the percentage of Americans > 14 years old and over who are unable to read or write in any language has > decreased since 1870 to almost nothing. Fewer than > five percent cannot read and write at all. There is no "illiteracy crisis" > in the U.S. - but there is an undeniable problem of low > literacy. > > As far as definitions go, of course "literacy" does not mean what it did a > century ago. The new definitions of literacy that go > beyond simple reading and writing and signing one's name have to do with > society's changing demands on its citizens, and not > politicians' urge to trump up an issue. Our world has undergone radical > and rapid changes - from the post-industrial to information > age -- and those changes have had a profound impact on what all Americans > need to know and be able to do. > > How many businesses in today's economy are choosing to hire workers with > second or third grade reading and writing skills over > workers with critical thinking, teamwork, and oral communication skills? > How many can afford to? Studies show that businesses > are having real problems finding employees with the requisite skills for > even entry-level jobs. Arguing about whether to call these > higher-order skills "literacy" or not obscures the fact that today's > families, communities, and employers all need adults with > stronger skills than ever. This is why a major corporation like Verizon, > for just one important example, is putting more and more > of its resources into literacy and basic skills activities, and why its > CEO Chuck Lee has said that investing in literacy yields > benefits for everyone. > > Seligman talks about the poor literacy of prisoners and asks whether we > really want better-educated criminals. He neglects to > consider the connection between the limited employment options of those > with low basic skills and their involvement in illegal > activities. Prisoners get out of jail after an average of three years of > incarceration - would Seligman prefer that they not have had > the chance to gain skills that would help them get legitimate employment? > In fact, studies are beginning to show lower recidivism > rates among releasees who participated in prison basic skills programs. > > In talking about the results of the 1992 National Adult literacy Survey > (NALS), Seligman points out that it's "hardly anything new" > -- "hardly a crisis" -- that one segment of the population has poorer > skills than the rest, and that "those in the lower percentiles are > not contributing as much as we are...." [emphasis added] And he implies > that what we call literacy is actually intelligence, raising > the specter of the controversial book, "The Bell Curve." The implication > clearly is that intelligence does not change, so why > bother. > > In fact, as cognitive scientist Tom Sticht points out, "The Bell Curve" > actually studied the social correlates of low "IQ" based on > analyses of data from the Armed Forces Qualifications Test - not an IQ > test but a test of basic skills. Skill levels and intelligence > can both change. Whether we're talking about a basic definition of > literacy or a 21st century definition that includes higher-order > skills, research shows that learning can play at least as great a role as > innate ability. Until we've thoroughly tested the extent to > which learning can make a difference, we don't have to, should not, and > cannot give up on adults at the lower end of the literacy > scale. > > But we have to be able to provide opportunities for this learning, and > that's not yet happening in any significant way. Seligman > makes the curious implication that the government is on the verge of > wasting a lot of taxpayer dollars on adult literacy. This would > be quite a change. The federal government last year spent $365 million > for adult literacy programs, or about $1.72 per student. > Out of $35 billion federal dollars spent for education, less than 1.5 > percent is spent on adult education. And there are states that > don't appropriate even a dollar. Unfortunately, many of our > decision-makers seem to suffer from the same lack of understanding > as Mr. Seligman. > > Actually, "The Crisis that Isn't" may have done us all a favor by acting > as an emphatic wake-up call for the literacy community. > We clearly need to do a much better job of letting the press and the > public know what the nation's literacy circumstances really > are, and why everyone needs to be concerned - not panicked, or > manipulated, but genuinely and actively concerned. > > > Sincerely, > > > > > Andrew J. Hartman > > Director >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:45:12 EST