How do you define literate?

[Weird Harold]

This thread is a reprise of a thread I started on the General Board 05-16-2001; Very little has changed over the intervening six years, so the following is a verbatim copy of that original post:

Several threads in the last few days have raised questions about the literacy level of high school graduates. We have castigated school administrators and some teachers for "teaching the test" and deplored standardized testing as "forcing" schools to resort to such practices.

We have bemoaned the necessity of "remedial" classes for college freshmen, or boldly asserted such remedial classes are not needed.

We have laughed at the geographical ignorance of travelers and cursed the lack of advanced mathematics.

Many of us have touted the benefits of home schooling, private schools, and/or parental involvement as remedies for the failings of the public school system.

In the not so distant past, we have discussed the relevance of "literary classics" on reading lists for college and high school levels and suggested numerous alternatives for those required reading lists.

So, Just how to we define a "good education?"

What level of reading speed and comprehension qualifies as literate?

What level of mathematical or arithmetic ability is required to be considered literate?

What level of Geography, Literature, Rhetoric, Computer Skills, Music, History, Chemistry, Physics, General Science, Logic, Etc, is required to be considered an "educated person?"

Last, but not least, how do we determine when a student has met the minimum requirements to be considered "educated?"

It is patently obvious that the current method of allowing each teacher and school district to make the determination isn't working. Aside from the fact that students are being graduated from many schools without meeting the requirements of that school, the wide disparity in what is considered "literate" in different school districts means there is, effectively, no standard at all.

It is also becoming clear that standardized testing isn't the whole answer either. The current tests are culturally biased, incomplete, and unfairly applied.

My personal opinion, is that there must be some minimum level of knowledge that anyone can agree qualifies as "literate." There is some level of reading ability, mathematical skill, and general knowledge, that is greater than "semi-literate" and "functionally illiterate" that will enable someone to function in the 21st century.

Until society can define where that line is, define the goal of our educational system, there can be no progress towards teaching our children what they need to know to survive.

 

[TheEarl]

I'd say that literate involves reading capability and vocabulary to comprehend an average current work of fiction within a reasonable time limit (I read fast, so I don't actually know what a reasonable limit would be). It would also involve the capacity to spell the x most common words correctly.

Numerate would involve the skill to perform addition, subtraction, simple long multiplication and division, using a piece of paper and the capability to use a calculator.

The other subjects are more difficult to quantify, but I'd say that literacy and numeracy were the only real necessities for a base level education.

The Earl

 

[rgraham666]

Don't ask me. I'm a high school dropout.

 

[Liar]

My personal opinion, is that there must be some minimum level of knowledge that anyone can agree qualifies as "literate." There is some level of reading ability, mathematical skill, and general knowledge, that is greater than "semi-literate" and "functionally illiterate" that will enable someone to function in the 21st century.

Until society can define where that line is, define the goal of our educational system, there can be no progress towards teaching our children what they need to know to survive.

Problem is that beyond being able to process text and numbers, what our children needs to survive is a question that neither can be answered neutrally (more than the way individual teachers try to answer it today), nor stays static from week to week, let alone year to year.

My sixteen year old brother have a clear grasp of microcredit economy. He's shit at maths according to centralized school tests and criteria, but manages checks and balances for two different operations, a frisbee club, and a paypal account for selling amatrur artwork (he's a pretty talented illustrator, and found a savvy channel to make pocket money from it). He's shit at English in school according to national tests, but writes a fluent blog and talks daily on Skype with an international group of friends (a bit like you people, but less perverted ETA: that I know of ).

So why did he fail the tests? Maths because a bad teacher who never explained to him why equations was something he could have use for in life, so he didn't care. (We had a little chat about that, of the 'man up and make an effort so mom don't have to worry about you, kiddo'-variety.) English because the test was an ambitious one, looking into things beyond mere spelling and grammar, into language convenrtions and common phrases. But a test that was 1,5 years old. And he answered with language that was not incorrect per se, but 1,5 months young, using metaphors and references that the test had no method to relate to.

 

[Weird Harold]

Don't ask me. I'm a high school dropout.

But are you literate/numerate/educated?

Judging from your posts, I'd say you probably are at least above some theoretical dividing line between igorant and edumacated.

Problem is that beyond being able to process text and numbers, what our children needs to survive is a question that neither can be answered neutrally (more than the way individual teachers try to answer it today), nor stays static from week to week, let alone year to year.

My sixteen year old brother have a clear grasp of microcredit economy. He's shit at maths according to centralized school tests and criteria,

You're missing the point -- I'm not interested in whether the school consider your brother "literate/numerae/educated" but whether he meets YOUR definition of "Literate" (in a broad, inaccurate, sense of having sufficient intellectual skills to be considered "educated.")

The basic, minimum level of education required to survive hasn't changed much in the thirty-nine years since I graduated athough the specifc applications of some of the principles have changed over the years -- here wasn't much tangible use for Boolean Algebra when I first learned it, but it certainly makes computer literacy easier.

The question is more about what educational deficiency(s) would make you classify someone as inadequately educated -- what is the absolute minimum intellectual ability/knowledge level required to consider someone "educated."

 

[rgraham666]

But are you literate/numerate/educated?

Judging from your posts, I'd say you probably are at least above some theoretical dividing line between igorant and edumacated.

I suppose that depends on who you talk to. I know at least three regular posters on this forum who think I'm an idiot.

A weak, pacifist, cowardly idiot to boot.

 

[R. Richard]

The basic, minimum level of education required to survive hasn't changed much in the thirty-nine years since I graduated athough the specifc applications of some of the principles have changed over the years -- here wasn't much tangible use for Boolean Algebra when I first learned it, but it certainly makes computer literacy easier.

The question is more about what educational deficiency(s) would make you classify someone as inadequately educated -- what is the absolute minimum intellectual ability/knowledge level required to consider someone "educated."

If I may start by saying that I use Boolean algebra in my day to day thinking. It allows me to completely analyze rather complex structures by making sure that I have examined all possible states.

I would start by requiring a literate person to be able to read well written, complete instructions and use said instructions to properly perform some sort of traceable process according to the instructions read. [I don't feel that a person's emotional reaction to the material read has anything to do with literacy.]

The ability to read would also include some understanding of simple grammar.

The next step would be for the person to be able to handle simple mathematics. Simple mathematics would include addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, the concept of a numeric radix and positional notation, set theory, infinite series, simple analytic geometry, the calculus and matrix theory.

Next I would require a literate person to be able to write properly spelled [more, rather than less,] well written, complete instructions so that a person of normal intellgence could use said instructions to properly perform some sort of traceable process according to the instructions read.

Next I would require a literate person to be able to generate a simple phase structured grammar [e.g. BNF.]

Next I would dequire a literate person to be able to program a computer in at least one high-order language [e.g. BASIC.]

I would also require that a literate person be able to speak at least one natural language in a manner such that said spoken language could be understood by native born speakers with average intelligence.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I just gave a version of my notion in the edu drops the ball thread:

On this side of the pond, when I talk to someone who has graduated from high school I expect them to understand an allusion to what happened in 1776, 1787, 1863, and 1945; perform basic algebra; have some conception of what the scientific method is; and many other items without which one can hardly be considered to be an educated person. Too often they snicker at the thought that the notion that they should be expected to know such things.


(What would the analogous dates be over there? 1066, 1649, 1688, 1914-18, 1940, etc. ?)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If I may start by saying that I use Boolean algebra in my day to day thinking. It allows me to completely analyze rather complex structures by making sure that I have examined all possible states.

No you absolutely may not (start that way). It's completely pretentious.

Just kidding. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Liar]

You're missing the point -- I'm not interested in whether the school consider your brother "literate/numerae/educated" but whether he meets YOUR definition of "Literate" (in a broad, inaccurate, sense of having sufficient intellectual skills to be considered "educated.")

Really? I just didn't reply to the question in your post, but to another section of it. I even quoted the section.

But ok, let's look at the questions:

What do I consider "literacy"? The ability to comfortably process and produce written and spoken language in several different domains. Not only the correct language, but also an ability to determine what kind of language to use in different situations. One may have a large vocabulary and flawless grammar, and still fail grandly at writing coherently. For mathematics? Not sure, I haven't given that as much thought, but I guess there's an equivalence. Learn the basic tools, plus when, if and why to use them.

What do I consider nessecary education?A bit of the above. But when it comes to the actual content of anything from history to literature to science, I think the important thing is not to serve a compact dish of as much information as possible, but to teach kids how to find and review the information they need at the time they need it. I've seen students from third grade to college who are terrified of information. Because the only stuff they see as facts are those than an autority tells them are facts. Which they're not. They may be facts, but it may be their teacher's or their textbook's opinion or misinterpretation. Or merely outdated. Just like any other source they dare not trust. Students need to get used to research, critically evaluate and motivate their choices. This may well mean that they get it wrong now and then, but that's not the end of the world. The end of the world is if they're not practising that.

 

[slyc_willie]

I would consider a person adequately literate if they could type, read, and understand all the posts on this thread without having to refer to a dictionary, thesaurus, or text.

Among the people with whom I work, I would consider the majority of them as borderline literate. They mainly come from the 'spell check' generation, as I call it. Their knowledge of mathematics is keyed to the calculator on their cell-phone. Not one knows what pi or phi are, beyond being 'something I learneded in high school.' When frustrated, they resort to redundant and ridiculous use of 'fuck' and its derivatives.

That's not how I grew up, how I learned, how I taught myself and continue to do so. I think, with each passing day, that I am falling into a minority.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Hey Liar - those key dates that I mentioned in my last post? What would be comparable ones for your country. (You are pretty literate so you may know these even though they are not for your country, but 1776 is the Decaration of Independence [which I would be surprised if you didn't know], 1787 is the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, 1863 the most dramatic year of the U.S, civil war [I actually meant to make that 1862 when Lincoln freed the slaves but messed up], etc.

~~~~

It bothers me a lot that history is not taught in a way that makes it interesting. To me it seems that you have to really work to make it boring, given the fascinating drama and critical importance to who we are today. As I said in that other thread, it doesn't matter if the kids get the date exactly right (just like I flubbed the emancipation proclamation) so long as they apperciate the meaning and context of the underlying events. If they do, then they will also know the approximate dates. As it is, some embarassingly large number of American college students can't even identify the 50 year period within which the U.S. Civil War took place. WTF? The debate about whether shools here are doing an adequate job should end right there.

I volunteer sometimes at a school run by a relative to lecture to grade schoolers on history. The last time I did it was to 5th graders and the subject was WWII. I gave them an overview, and then focused on a few really dramatic events, like the Battle of Britain, where "a few hundred brave fighter pilots - about the same number as there are students in this school - defeated Hitler's Luftwaffe (air force) and prevented an invasion of England. Many were killed." I put some personality into it, and they were rapt. The root of the word history is "story." Good history is story telling, about dramatic events of great import. How the hell can they make that boring?

 

[slyc_willie]

I feel you, Roxanne. Some of the people I know think the US Civil War happened in the 20th century and was entirely about freeing the slaves. Others give me blank stares when subjects such as the WWII Holocaust, the Cold War, and Nixon come up.

I doubt any of the kids at my job could correctly name the succession of presidents in the last twenty years. Or that it was the atomic bomb at Nagasaki, and not Hiroshima, that pushed the Japanese into capitulating (hell, some of them don't even understand the reasons why the bombs were used!). Or that Nixon faced impeachment. Or that . . . .

Grrrrr. I'm getting frustrated now.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I doubt any of the kids at my job could correctly name the succession of presidents in the last twenty years.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
"Read my lips."
"I smoked but didn't inhale."
"Stategery."

 

[cantdog]

I feel you, Roxanne. Some of the people I know think the US Civil War happened in the 20th century and was entirely about freeing the slaves. Others give me blank stares when subjects such as the WWII Holocaust, the Cold War, and Nixon come up.

I doubt any of the kids at my job could correctly name the succession of presidents in the last twenty years. Or that it was the atomic bomb at Nagasaki, and not Hiroshima, that pushed the Japanese into capitulating (hell, some of them don't even understand the reasons why the bombs were used!). Or that Nixon faced impeachment. Or that . . . .

Grrrrr. I'm getting frustrated now.

One of my students asked another, "You mean Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings?"

Get used to it.

 

[slyc_willie]

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
"Read my lips."
"I smoked but didn't inhale."
"Stategery."

"Ich bin ein Berliner!"
"Our troops will be home by the end of the year."
"I am not a crook!"

 

[rgraham666]

One of my students asked another, "You mean Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings?"

Get used to it.

I heard that in a record store in the late '70s.

Everyone turned to look at the poor girl.

 

[slyc_willie]

One of my students asked another, "You mean Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings?"

Get used to it.

Shit.

"Live And Let Die was a remake? Who did it first?"

 

[amicus]

Weird Harold: "...My personal opinion, is that there must be some minimum level of knowledge that anyone can agree qualifies as "literate." There is some level of reading ability, mathematical skill, and general knowledge, that is greater than "semi-literate" and "functionally illiterate" that will enable someone to function in the 21st century.

Until society can define where that line is, define the goal of our educational system, there can be no progress towards teaching our children what they need to know to survive...."

RGraham, I think, posted an excerpt from a Heinlein novel that I admired which might be pertinent to this discussion.

I would like to cast some light on that actual use of the term, 'literate', as I think the general turn of the discussion revolves around some 'universal' means of measuring general knowledge as produced by a conveyor belt like public education system.

Some of my analogies are dated, no doubt, but should hold true in lesser degree even in the 21st century. A young man on a farm, for instance, may know a great deal about tractors and combines and fertilizers or cattle, cows, bulls calves and how to husband animals in general.

Another example might be an automobile mechanic, familiar with internal combustion engines and the differences between manufacturers and models. A knowledge of auto supply houses, hoses, belts, replacement parts, et cetera.

Yet another example might be a typical, 'mall rat' girl, who knows fashions and sales and material and brand names, food, ah damn, forgot the name, courts?

All these things can be considered 'knowledge' and may in fact provide satisfaction and even a lively hood to those who possess such knowledge.

Most likely not one has read Shakespeare or Voltaire, has only a passing interest in history or geography, insofar as it benefits their chosen vocation. Few probably read for pleasure or knowledge outside a pursuit of knowledge in their own field.


I may be reading things into your post that are not there, but I think I do detect a social expectation of what a young person should know, literate, based on some abstract social imperative put in place by mandatory education that must, by definition, offer a general overview of knowledge at levels and in subjects chosen by the ptb...powers that be (mccaffrey novel)

I also think this question does not take into consideration that fact that most children a raised in homes where both parents work full time, in a nation where a full forty percent of children have no father in the home, thus both the masculine and feminine development of children is left to schools and daycare and after school care facilities.

I think consideration must also be given to the fact that children watch television several hours per day, strictly for mindless entertainment with cartoons and such, which, amazingly has carried over into their adult life with such programs as the Simpsons, et cetera.

I think you have a mixed bag here, with many thinking of a 'classic' education, an universal education, as perhaps the ideal was once, disregarding the 'real' world that exists all around them.

Then expecting that 'conveyor belt' form of public education, force feeding unwanted knowledge into unreceptive minds.

So, literate in what sense? High school kids running an electronic cash register at a fast food outlet are learning things previous generations could not.

Working with the internet and blackberries and ipods and digital cameras, You Tube, et cetera, show a level of competence never before known in history.

I don't think your question can be answered in any general terms?

amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"Ich bin ein Berliner!"
"Our troops will be home by the end of the year."
"I am not a crook!"

"We have nothing to feah, but feah itelf."
"The buck stops here."
"We go." (To invade Normandy. OK, he wasn't prez then, but I like drama.)


(Earlier than that I cannot go, except for the really high profile ones, like "With charity for all, and malice toward none . . ." [That phrase always chokes me up.])

 

[slyc_willie]

"We have nothing to feah, but feah itelf."
"The buck stops here."
"We go." (To invade Normandy. OK, he wasn't prez then, but I like drama.)


(Earlier than that I cannot go, except for the really high profile ones, like "With charity for all, and malice toward none . . ." [That phrase always chokes me up.])

*snicker*

The furthest I can go with certainty is "Four score and seven years ago . . ."

Not that any of the kids I'm surrounded with even know how much a 'score' is.

 

[The_Fool]

*snicker*

The furthest I can go with certainty is "Four score and seven years ago . . ."

Not that any of the kids I'm surrounded with even know how much a 'score' is.

Baseball, Football and that chick they hang out with.

 

[slyc_willie]

Baseball, Football and that chick they hang out with.

Yep. Nailed it right there.

Every day I work, I'm in charge of making sure everyone does their side work duties. Cleaning up the restaurant, getting thigns ready for the next shift, etc. To insure that they have done so to my satisfaction, I sign their checkout slips, which they must give to the manager on duty. If they don't have my signature, they aren't done.

Instead of my name, I pick a 'word of the day.' I admit that may be presumptuous of me, but oh, well. Some just let me scribble the word and off they go. But there are a few who see the word and either know, guess, or ask as to its meaning.

Those are the ones I hope for.

 

[amicus]

Do I detect just a smidgen of intellectual snobbery here on this porn site?

ahem...

 

[slyc_willie]

Do I detect just a smidgen of intellectual snobbery here on this porn site?

ahem...

You might, if by 'snobbery' you mean an understanding that some of us have and continue to make the effort to educate ourselves, and only seek to help those who follow do the same.