Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9QIef915997; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:40:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:40:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <001d01c03f7a$3dc737c0$9f07f7a5@l1d9f0> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Helen Osborne" <Helen@healthliteracy.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:2673] Fw: "The Crisis that Isn't" by Dan Seligman, 10/2/00 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: OR To all, Remember the article about literacy, "The Crisis That Isn't," that recently appeared in Forbes magazine? Below is a note from Susan Green, and then a copy of a letter from Andy Hartman, director of the National Institute for Literacy, to Forbes Magazine. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and reactions. Helen Osborne, MEd., OTR/L Co-moderator, NIFL-Health & Health Literacy Consulting, Natick, MA Phone: 508-653-1199 * Fax: 508-650-9492 mailto:Helen@healthliteracy.com http://www.healthliteracy.com ***************************************************************** > 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 - 14:43:08 EST