How do you define literate?

[R. Richard]

However, there is significant research that a child's language centres are designed to be activated early and often and, in fact, start losing the capability to learn with age. Foreign languages are the major example of this one; if you've not been taught it early, then it's going to be very hard to learn.

The Earl

In the western US, where I live, generally the poorest of the poor speak 'two languages.' They speak a sort of degraded form of Mexican Spanish and what is called 'calo,' a sort of Spanglish. If they are benefiting from learning two languages, please tell me how.

 

[R. Richard]

I define literate as not having to ask someone else.

Literally, literate is being able to read and understand every day language.

The skill required in deciphering the utilisation of simple structural elements, albeit without the inherent constraints/freedoms of a greater than mean vocabulary.

I wouldn't apply literate to anything other than language.

Mathematically there are any number of people that have the ability to take any three consecutive numbers chosen randomly from points on a scale of 1 to 20 involving doubling or trebling any or all of them and subtracting the the result from a given figure ranging from 2 to 501, in the blink of an eye, but are functionally enumerate and might guess that Euclid plays for Barcelona.

Ah, but mathematics is a language!

I can understand your frustration with tha matter of Euclid. He plays for Real Madrid, as I recall.

 

[NoJo]

Anyone who reads my stories is literate enough for me.

 

[Liar]

Ah, but mathematics is a language!

I dare you to speak it whithout using another language.

Mathematics is a sociolect.

 

[oggbashan]

And a very nice qualitative definition it is, but...

How would you quantify the necessary elements that make up "function fully as a participating member ... of society?"

The measurement is likely to be qualitative as well.

I would expect a "literate" person to be able to deal with the governmental and non-governmental authorities, with retail purchases, with utilities, and whatever else is necessary to live a normal life.

If that definition must include, for example, a complete knowledge of the details of the US Tax Codes, I doubt that many of us would meet the criteria.

The call centres for some of my local utilities have been outsourced. I think I need to be literate in "Hinglish" for some of them.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

I dare you to speak it whithout using another language.

Mathematics is a sociolect.

I didn't say spoken language, just language.

I used to be a computer programmer and I used literally dozens of languages. However, the languages were essentially written, not spoken languages.

 

[R. Richard]

Anyone who reads my stories is literate enough for me.

Anyone who reads my stories and gives me a big 5 vote is literate enough for me!

 

[rgraham666]

If that definition must include, for example, a complete knowledge of the details of the US Tax Codes, I doubt that many of us would meet the criteria.

No one has a complete knowledge of the details of the US tax codes. At least none that are still sane.

 

[Liar]

I didn't say spoken language, just language.

I used to be a computer programmer and I used literally dozens of languages. However, the languages were essentially written, not spoken languages.

Different definitions for the word "language" then, I guess.

Is music notation, in your view, also a language?

Languages, according to the definifion I subscribe to, are complete code systems that stand on their own and can be used in all contexts (different medias, different situations, et al). Whereas mathematics, or music, or architecture, are described with sets of code tied to that specific context. And usually, like you say, to a specific media. You can't talk numbers whithout using another language and you can't talk construction whithout dressing it in English words. The code sets used for those things are topic specific, media specific, and situation specific. That's why I'd say they're sociolects. Like trade lingo for specific lines of work.

But heck, maybe I'm complicating things. I blame college.

 

[Weird Harold]

Literally, literate is being able to read and understand every day language.

The skill required in deciphering the utilisation of simple structural elements, albeit without the inherent constraints/freedoms of a greater than mean vocabulary.

I wouldn't apply literate to anything other than language.

Then please provide me with some term that encompasses the other elements of "possesses the necessary knowledge and skills required of a 21st century society."

I know I used Literate incorrectly, but there simply isn't any other term that comes closer to what I'm trying to find out -- at least none that will fit in a thread title.

I don't really want to go in the direction of "defining a basic education" because that implies a formal education and leads to defining minimums as meeting curriculim goals or passing the test, and that is NOT what I'm looking for.

What I'm looking for is relatively specific things that you pretty much expect anyone you meet to be able to do -- things that make you ask "how did he get to this age without knowing how to do that?" when you run into someone who can't do something.

 

[gauchecritic]

Then please provide me with some term that encompasses the other elements of "possesses the necessary knowledge and skills required of a 21st century society."

I know I used Literate incorrectly, but there simply isn't any other term that comes closer to what I'm trying to find out -- at least none that will fit in a thread title.

I don't really want to go in the direction of "defining a basic education" because that implies a formal education and leads to defining minimums as meeting curriculim goals or passing the test, and that is NOT what I'm looking for.

What I'm looking for is relatively specific things that you pretty much expect anyone you meet to be able to do -- things that make you ask "how did he get to this age without knowing how to do that?" when you run into someone who can't do something.

Oh no H. I didn't mean to imply that I was right and you were wrong, these days you can be al sorts of literate; computer, engineering, social etc etc.

The implication that I didn't spell out which would have helped immensely and obviated your need to re-define thread titles was that if you can read and understand say, Hardy or Lawrence then you have the capability to understand almost every other necessary day to day thing like politics or the highway code and so on. Being able to read and understand gives you access to most things that you care to look up or take an interest in. Just the ability of being able to read.

 

[CharleyH]

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.

First off, I'd like to say that a good education is probably what many North Americans have been taught. A great education is where a student learns to love learning. When a student loves to learn (whether a streamlined basic, general or advanced individual) than something has been accomplished and that individual will take it with them for the rest of their lives and life IS the continual process of the desire to learn and experience.

ADD: In essence a great education involves teaching the will to desire and want, a good education endears/ values contentedness.

 

[slyc_willie]

~~~

Well then, I guess we disagree.

\Where we disagree, I think, is that I postulate that the child is naturally curious and wants to learn and will learn, if the information is presented properly.

You purport that a child must be forced to learn, I do not./

amicus...

Close . . . .

I may have been a little too harsh in some of my wording. I understand that children have a natural desire to learn. But they do so in a haphazard way. Sticking things in their mouths as infants. Touching, picking, digging, with little regard for what might happen to them.

It is the style of learning that needs to be impressed. How to look at things, analyze them, compare them. That is what parents and teachers need to do. That is what instills the basic tenets of learning.

And, Amicus . . . don't bring a political argument in at the last moment. Just answer the question, or offer your real and personal ideas, okay?

 

[Weird Harold]

First off, I'd like to say that a good education is probably what many North Americans have been taught.

That is avoiding the question. Just what is it they have learned that makes it a good education?

Secondly, if surveys of entry level employers and college admissions can be believed, most Americans are NOT getting a "good education."

Colleges are wasting resources staffing and teaching remedial math, reading, and science courses re-teach knowledge that should have been learned no later than middle school.

Entry level employers have to invest in cash registers that don't have numbers but have pictures of the product because their entry level emplyee pool can't read and can't do he basic math required to make change.

 

[Weird Harold]

Being able to read and understand gives you access to most things that you care to look up or take an interest in. Just the ability of being able to read.

So there isn't any minimal level of math or science required for you to consider someone "educated?"

I do understand your point that the ability to read is sort of a prerequisite to learning anything else; especially if you have learn in spite of a school system instead of from a school system. But reading alone isn't enough, by itself, for someone to function in a modern 21st century society.

 

[rgraham666]

I believe, after thinking abut it for a bit, that literacy is better defined with a question than a statement. To whit, "Does this individual possess the intellectual tools to function as a citizen in our society?"

If the answer is 'no', they aren't literate. If 'yes', they are. In my opinion.

As you know I regard our education system as a production line, a manufacturing process. Its purpose is to turn out human resources suitable for employment.

Like all production lines, it can only work with raw materials and sub-assemblies that fall within a certain standard. Everything outside that standard is cast aside.

So it's hardly surprising that so many people come out of it unable to perform the most basic functions of a citizen.

 

[Weird Harold]

I believe, after thinking abut it for a bit, that literacy is better defined with a question than a statement. To whit, "Does this individual possess the intellectual tools to function as a citizen in our society?"

If the answer is 'no', they aren't literate. If 'yes', they are. In my opinion.

That's a fair statement of the premise of my original question, but it doesn't address the specifcs. Just what skills or knowledge are required to function as a "citizen in our society?"

As you know I regard our education system as a production line, a manufacturing process. Its purpose is to turn out human resources suitable for employment.

That's why I'm trying to avoid the issue of HOW and WHERE the skills/knowledge might be acquired and address the knowledge and skills that some hypothetical utopian "education pill" should include.

 

[rgraham666]

But the second you go for 'specifics' is the second you'll start excluding people. It is the big problem with 'logic' and 'reason'. It's exclusive and linear.

Take my own experience. Am I literate? I believe so. Does that translate into a place in our society? No. I don't meet the 'specifics'. I have no letters after my name and according to the 'specifics' that means I'm not that bright, not much use to the system. I've never risen very high in any company that I was an employee of. According to the 'specifics' that means I lack a work ethic and ambition.

The 'specifics' can only allow for a very narrow range of human behaviour and ability. And they are unconcerned, completely unconcerned, with those who don't meet their standards.

As I said, our educational system is a manufacturing process. And like Dr. Frankenstein, our attempts to manufacture human beings are turning out to be a spectacular failure.

The question should be, "Is this person good?" The question we really ask is, "Is this person useful?" And if they're not useful we really don't care what else they are.

 

[Pure]

a literate person is one sustaining, if not carrying forward, her cultural inheritance.

 

[Weird Harold]

a literate person is one sustaining, if not carrying forward, her cultural inheritance.

A pretty platitude.

What does it mean?

 

[gauchecritic]

So there isn't any minimal level of math or science required for you to consider someone "educated?"

I do understand your point that the ability to read is sort of a prerequisite to learning anything else; especially if you have learn in spite of a school system instead of from a school system. But reading alone isn't enough, by itself, for someone to function in a modern 21st century society.

Quite honestly no.

Like a great many people my wife reads but attained very few certificates at school, for a lot of people school years are for making friends.

Due to the nature of my youngest son's illness my wife is able to quote, analyze (in a research kind of way rather than chemistry) and diagnose a great many attributes of neuro chemistry and the drugs effective thereon. Simply because she can read.

The very specific requirements of her 21st century life were available because she can read. So I still stick by my original statement, which may have seemed tongue in cheek, that an educated person doesn't have to ask someone else.

I suppose that comes down to being able to ask yourself and knowing how to learn. Knowing how to learn is what my tutors all agreed was the prime function of teaching. Showing kids not what but how to learn.

 

[Pure]

it means that the achievements of a culture, in the long run, have to be sustained by [a significant proportion of] the new adults of that culture; i'm thinking of literature, mathematics, science, morality. the "illiterate" is essentially a 'free rider,' through no fault of her own, perhaps. she has, for instance no or limited access to what others in her culture have written about the major issues people face. of course there may be oral transmission of many things; you don't have to read to know the diff between Lenin and Lennon.

 

[gauchecritic]

you don't have to read to know the diff between Lenin and Lennon.

Unless you want to know the proper lyrics to Bowie's 'Life On Mars'

 

[oggbashan]

No one can hold it all

I think that I'm literate and function well within my community (although some members of my community might disagree).

I appreciate Literature, Art and Music but I have limitations, as do most of us.

I can't follow most modern literature, the sort that gets nominated for the Booker Prize.

I find some modern artists inaccessible. I'm not surprised that I don't appreciate the sort of music that seems popular with local teenagers, but some classical music can be too abstruse for me. I recently bought a secondhand CD of Dame Janet Baker in recital. She was singing Monteverdi and Purcell. The music did nothing for me. However, it was a recording of a well attended live concert so there must be enough people who like Monteverdi and Purcell to fill a hall...

Locally we can fill a venue for Elton John; for Mozart Opera; for standard playrights etc. but we struggle to justify concerts of less popular classical music because we don't have enough people within the catchment area willing to pay to go to a concert to expand their musically appreciation. Are we less "literate"? I don't think so. It is just that the catchment area is much more limited than in or near London.

I am pleased that there are people who preserve and protect Art in its widest sense even when the "Art" is incomprehensible to me.

Og

 

[Weird Harold]

it means that the achievements of a culture, in the long run, have to be sustained by [a significant proportion of] the new adults of that culture; i'm thinking of literature, mathematics, science, morality.

You're still spouting platitudes without really saying anything.

Literature covers everything from Curious George and Dr Suess to War and Peace or a Tale of Two Cities.

Mathematics covers everything from operating a simple four-function calculator to doing differential calculus in your head.

Morality? Some of the greatest villians in history have been undoubtedy literate. Some of the most amoral people in the world today flaunt their doctoral degrees like get-past-the-lie-detector-free cards.

you don't have to read to know the diff between Lenin and Lennon.

Certainly it's possible to be "literate" or at least well adapted to a culture that doesn't rely on written records and directions without being able to read.

It is, however, difficult to do very much in a modern, western, economy without being able to read. The question is, just how well do you need to be able to read to function without a scribe following you around to do your reading for you.