Steve Wheeler beat me to the punch this week with his insightful post about literacy. In the last week there have been posts from the Guardian and even from the BBC decrying the fact that current literacy amongst the populace at large (i.e. London…) is far lower than they expected. Of course this sense of what literacy is was based upon a poll looking at the data related to how many books are in the average home.
The immediate feeling most people get form this sort of information is a slight sense of shock in that this information would seem to imply that we are backsliding into complete illiteracy. Well…before we make this jump, there are plenty of pretty reasonable, yet interesting questions which need to be addressed.
Since we are still living during a time where universal literacy is a presumption in our cultures…how close to the truth is this really? I probably should attempt to make some distinctions here… being ‘lettered’ (that is, to be able to mechanically read, to know the alphabet, to have been tested for this mechanical skill) is not the same thing as being literate (i.e. to actually be able to read with some semblance to comprehension, in essence to be ‘fluent’ in this companion language to speech).
Have we ever really been at universal literacy, if you use this sort of definition? If that really is the case, then why is critical reasoning (critical thinking, critical reading, etc.) considered to be so complex and difficult a thing to teach (implying that we have some spotty coverage on this topic area…)?
There are plenty of reasons why there have been some slackening standards amongst various groups of students, at the turn of the century (1900), after WWI, after WWII, in the 60’s, and so forth…up till now.
Another interesting question to consider is that reading may be one of the ‘old war horses’ in pedagogy… Along with writing and arithmetic, they used to be the mainstay of elementary education skills which mattered…is that still true (or as true as it probably once was)?
In the US (where I am) there are urban immigrant populations which have very low literacy rates (this generally equates to how long they have been here…). If you use this statistical information (as a snapshot) what does it really mean? There are all kinds of understandable structural reasons why various groups and individuals may not be as literate as we might like…
Of course, this is much like most of the19th century in this country…think about it.
Finally I can allude to the aspect of these articles which Steve Wheeler covered (check out his link!). A modern implication of this data (i.e. 30% of London school children live in homes with no books…zero books!), is that technology has some part in whatever blame should be apportioned to rectify this situation… the fact is that literacy (cultural literacy- being able to manage life inside of a culture) might be moving away from having sophisticated skills in managing text (to some degree). If you look at what most school students are presented with in their lives, Xbox or Wii are probably more important (in the aggregate) than having books in the home (BTW I am not advocating this, merely observing it!).
To me, the big question is whether you can explain why learning Shakespeare, Dickens, Faulkner, or even Proust is important in anyone’s life. Does reading have real value as an efficient and deep means of gaining information, facts, and even some knowledge…?
Literacy, wot literacy?
http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/2011/06/literacy-wot-literacy.html
I’m sat watching the evening news and I’m listening to a report about a decline in literacy, due apparently to a dwindling interest in book reading. 1 in 4 children will never read a book outside school, intones the BBC news man. Other statistics are thrown at me as I watch the news reporter build his case. 1 in 3 do not own a book and 1 in 6 children will struggle with their literacy, he says.
I’m skeptical about the BBC news item, and the idea it is propagating that literacy is on the decline. Hasn’t it always been thus? I can recall government statistics from when I was at school (oh so many years ago) saying that our country was in trouble, because of the poor standards of ‘reading, writing and arithmetic.’ I was messaged on Facebook yesterday by another Steve Wheeler (no relation, and certainly no friend) who going by his picture, is probably of the same generation as me, but behaving more in compliance with his shoe size than his age. Out of the blue, on my wall this stranger had written ‘Your not Steve Wheeler I am.’ By response I kindly pointed out to him that the correct grammatical construction should be ‘You’re not Steve Wheeler. I am.’ He fired back a snide comment. I blocked him. No matter. The key point of this story is that every generation has its literacy problems. Is there really such a decline in literacy? Has it changed all that much from previous decades? If there is a decline, should we really be placing all the blame on ‘new technology and new distractions?’ There are so many questions. It’s a complex issue.
The statement that new technology is distracting, and the implication that it is doing damage to literacy needs to be challenged. I would point those who are skeptical about the role of technology in education, and those who claim that it has had little impact on learning to the time just before Gutenberg introduced his movable type printing press. Literacy – reading and writing – was then the preserve of the elite, and it was zealously protected. Post Gutenberg, it became a world in which all could participate, and knowledge grew exponentially as a result.
