Greetings Tom and all,

Could we finally just erase all the raw numbers and percentages of learners who are claimed to be "illiterate" and start afresh? 

Firstly, I and presumably many others who are at least somewhat familiar with the stigmatization of "illiteracy" are well aware that most individuals are highly adept at concealing their inability to read at whatever the requisite levels may be at any given time and place.  This concealment has considerable predictive value: self-proclaimed literacy levels will be far higher than what they actually are.  (In my experience in the United States, non-native English speaking (NNES) newcomer immigrants are much more willing to develop their literacy skills - defined as the ability to read, write, and compute - than are native English speakers, or NESs.)  I attribute this to their socioeconomic status at least in their countries of origin, because of which they didn't at all or barely attended school to help make ends meet for their families and themselves - something to be proud of and for which they are not stigmatized, or at least not nearly to the
 extent they would be or would have been in the United States.

Secondly, we really need to get back to the drawing board, dismantle, and piece together again the operational characteristics of literacy itself.  In previous posts, I alluded to the ludicracy of repeated surveys that result in percentages of human beings defined to be illiterate.  Until the early 1990s, the prevalent illiteracy rate in the U.S. that was flung about was ca. 20% (in line, I presume, with claims, also made on this list,  that 1 in 5 learners have a "learning difference" or "dyslexia" or some other label).  If I remember correctly, it was in 1990 that the Governer's Council on Literacy in Hawaii (chaired by Lynn Waihee, wife of then-governor John Waihee) published a report claiming that Maui County had the 2nd highest rate of illiteracy in the nation (at 34%) surpassed only by Hawaii (the Big Island) County with 36%. Today, in 2009, a systemic composite nationwide percentage rate of ca. 40% ("functional") illiteracy is being
 flung around in a rather commonplace manner.

Thirdly, in response to a few posts, the notion that literacy has to be developed at a young age: I have experienced no evidence of that whatsoever.  What is true, however, is that we learn to read in the first 3 or so years of school so that we may than read to learn.  In other words, what happens to a child who does not attain requisite level of literacy to maneuver the realm of academia is that the remaining number of years they continue to attend school so often end up being a waste of time and of life itself.

Finally, we have more reason than ever before, in the face of emerging national standards in education, to revisit what literacy itself means.  Xth grade literacy in 1960 does not equal Xth grade literacy today.  It is obvious that there are a multiplicity of literacies at play in our increasingly complex world.  Furthermore, some do not subscribe to its values (with resultant huge affective barriers to learning or willingness to learn),  which is also a reason to go back to square one. 

It's time to wipe the slate clean and start all over again; and Tom: your comment a while back that we should begin with parents-to-be to help their children be prepared to learn still resonates loudly!

Michael
 
Michael A. Gyori 
Maui International Language School 
www.mauilanguage.com




________________________________
From: "tsticht at znet.com" <tsticht at znet.com>
To: learningdisabilities at nifl.gov
Sent: Fri, November 6, 2009 2:55:33 PM
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4290] Re: Dyslexia Awareness Week in the UK

Colleagues: Lucille Cuttler raises an interesting issue. She notes that 20
percent-one out of five-have a learning difference. Then she goes on to
say, The kid struggling in 4th grade becomes the illiterate adult. This
seems to imply that some 20 percent of adults grow up to become illiterate
adults. But the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) of 1993 reported that
only about 5 percent of adults surveyed read so poorly that they could not
take the test, and half of these were non-English speaking. The NALS also
reported that some 95 percent of adults said they read well or very well.
Similarly, on the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) of 1993 some
95 percent of adults said their reading skills met their daily needs and
their needs at work. Of course there are always problems in accepting such
self-reports, for instance the desire to not appear too unskilled and so
one may overstate his or her skills. But we accept other self-reports, such
as adults who report they feel more confident after taking a literacy
course, or they report reading various things (newspapers, books, forms,
etc.), so it seems that many adult educators accept self-perceptions as
having some validity.

All this seems to raise problems about understanding what happens to 4th
grade children with learning differences, particularly those relating to
learning to read, when they grow up.

Tom Sticht

----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Learning Disabilities mailing list
LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
Email delivered to tesolmichael at yahoo.com



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/attachments/20091107/2279ade9/attachment.html