[Reading-hall-of-fame] Literacy Classism in ABE

[Thomas Sticht]

11/9/2021

Literacy Classism in Adult Basic Skills Education

Tom Sticht, International Consultant in Adult Education (Ret.)

In reporting on illiteracy in the United States, as found in the census of
1900, Hill (1906) referred to those who could neither read nor write as
“illiterate” and those who could read but not write as “partial
illiterates”. He reported that the partially illiterate made up about 15.5
percent of the total illiterate population. Then he went on to explain that
in his further discussion both the total and the partial illiterates were
combined and referred to as “illiterates”.

Jumping ahead some 114 years, Rothwell (2020) prepared a report in which
the term “partially illiterate” is used, this time referring to those
adults who scored below level 3 on the literacy tests of the Program for
the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). This led to 130
million adults, some 54 percent of those represented in the PIAAC tests,
being considered as “partially illiterate”.

This reveals a remarkable change in the concept of “partial illiteracy” in
the last 114 years. Earlier, “illiterate” meant someone who could neither
read nor write. Then, in Hill’s 1906 paper, the concept of someone who
could read but not write, became “partially illiterate”. Then in Rothwell’s
2020 paper the term “partially illiterate” refers to an adult who could
both read and write but who did not score at level 3 on the PIAAC, at which
level it was said they would be considered “fully literate”. In Rothwell’s
report the term “partially illiterate” occurs once and thereafter all
adults scoring in or below PIAAC level 2 are simply referred to as
“illiterate”. Not surprisingly then,  news articles about the study
followed suit and decried the plight of the 130 million “illiterates” in
the nation, even though most of them scoring in or below level 2 were not,
in fact, “illiterate”.

In contrast to Rothwell’s (2020) characterization of adults who scored in
or below PIAAC literacy level 2 as “illiterate”, a year earlier a U.S.
Department of Education Data Point report of July 2019, also using data
from the PIAAC, refers to adults scoring in literacy levels 2 and above as
possessing “mid or high English literacy” and those scoring in or below
level 1, including those who could not be tested at all,  as possessing
“low English literacy”, avoiding referring to any of the adults in these
groups as “illiterates”.



Given all the evidence that “illiteracy” is not a major problem in the
United States one wonders why the term seems to be a default label for
adults at the lower ends of the literacy distribution. In a recent article,
Quigley (2021) discusses the problem of what he calls “literacy classism”
when seeking funding and other resources for adult literacy education. He
notes that today, “…it is unacceptable to denigrate the LGBTQ community,
those living with HIV/ AIDS, those with disabilities, the aged, Native
Americans; and, here in Canada, First Nations, Métis, and the Inuit. These
changes tell us there is hope. Over the past few decades, such previously
marginalized populations have gained a voice, at least some levels of
respect, and have now some degree of greater equity. Yet, why is it that,
"It is still "acceptable to denigrate…illiterates."



Now it seems that the word “illiterate” is, itself, being used to denigrate
the less literate and even the mid-level literate adults. And the funding
for adult basic skills education, including literacy and numeracy indicates
that it belongs in the “lower class” of education with a grossly
underfunded education system formed by Title II of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act in which the last two decades have witnessed a decline
of enrollments from around 4 million to 1.2  million students, most of whom
do not make a measurable gain in English literacy in an academic year, and
in which they are taught largely by part-time teachers with little or no
benefits and no certain job tenure from year to year.



Clearly, as Quigley (2021) notes, there is “literacy classism” in the
United States and it works to help keep less literate adults from gaining
access to a first class literacy education system and denigrates them by
using the pejorative “illiterates” to suggest they belong to a lower class

of citizen, leading to a question Quigley reported hearing at one meeting
about adult literacy education, "Why should we invest more money into
programs for ‘losers?’"  Quigley goes on to ask, "Why did no one disagree
with that blatant ‘losers’ statement?” And even more important today: "Why
has so little changed?” Indeed!



References




Hill, J. (1906). Illiteracy. Special reports: Supplementary analysis and
derivative tables. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, Government
Printing Office (328-375). Online at:
https://ia800208.us.archive.org/31/items/cu31924032599585/cu31924032599585.pdf



Quigley, A. (2021, Fall).  "Naming the Elephant": Literacy Classism, Human
Rights and the Need for a New Conversation: Viewpoint, Adult Literacy
Education. Online at:
https://www.proliteracy.org/Portals/0/pdf/Research/ALE%20Journal/ALE_ResearchJournal-v003_03-2021.pdf

Rothwell, J. (2020). Assessing the Economic Gains of Eradicating Illiteracy
Nationally and Regionally in the United States. Online at:
https://www.barbarabush.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/BBFoundation_GainsFromEradicatingIlliteracy_9_8.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. )2019, July). Data Point: Adult Literacy in
the United States. Online at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20211109/71349b6a/attachment.html>