Return-Path: <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9RJ1j929819; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <s9f9969a.008@langate.gsu.edu> Errors-To: alcrsb@langate.gsu.edu Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Daphne Greenberg" <ALCDGG@langate.gsu.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:1085] NIFL's response to Forbes article X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Status: O Content-Length: 5784 Lines: 37 Susan has asked all the NIFL listserv moderators to pass this along: 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 Here is the letter: 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 - 14:46:47 EST