Talk:Functional illiteracy

Correlation with learning disabilities
Also not addressed here is the association of functional illiteracy with learning disabilities in the individual. It may be tempting to think that all of these people in the United States have somehow not been taught to read. This is rather unlikely. More likely, their particular learning disabilities were not identified in school, or were not adequately addressed in special education. Of course, there is also an economic (and thus also racial) component, which also needs to be addressed. A few statistics on this issue:

From the International Dyslexia Association: "15-20% of the population have a language-based learning disability. Of the students with specific learning disabilities receiving special education services, 70-80% have deficits in reading."

From the Learning Disabilities Association of America: "Among children who struggle with basic reading and language skills—the most common learning problems—75% of those who do not receive help until the third grade will struggle with reading throughout their lives. But if those same kids receive appropriate help by the first grade, fully 90% of them will achieve normal reading ability."

From the National Center for Learning Disabilities: "Studies show that learning disabilities do not fall evenly across racial and ethnic groups. For instance, in 2001, 1% of white children and 2.6% of non-hispanic black children were receiving LD-related special education services*. The same studies suggest that this has to do with economic status and not ethnic background. LD is not caused by economic disadvantage, but the increased risk of exposure to harmful toxins (lead, tobacco, alcohol, etc.) at early stages of development are prevalent in low-income communities."

Regards, --Taitcha 03:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Recognizing Words

 * For example, a functionally illiterate adult is unable to fill out an employment application, follow written instructions, read a newspaper, read traffic signs, or understand a school bus schedule, among many other daily functions

I think the sign one is inaccurate; an illiterate adult would learn to recognize words like "OPEN," "CLOSED," "STOP," and the like, much as Americans in China would quickly learn relevant hanzi without necessarily being able to reproduce or pronounce them. &mdash;Casey J. Morris 21:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can imagine that higway signs can be difficult to comprehend for functionally illiterate people. Not only do you have to read and interpret them quickly, there are arrows and numbers on them too. I think everyone at least needs to concentrate to even read the whole sign in one pass, at least I do. That's why they are repeated a couple of times.83.118.38.37 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this article again, and then reading this on the talk page, I now believe that it is quite likely that there are multiple definitions of functional literacy/illiteracy. The Canadian definition, for example, is based on the ability to cope not with "everyday life", but to be able to function within the structure of a western, knowledge-based economy such as Canada's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.161.228 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced statistics
"The correlation between crime and functional illiteracy is well known to criminologists and sociologists throughout the world. It is estimated that 60 percent of adults in prisons are functionally or marginally illiterate and 85 percent of juvenile offenders have problems associated with reading, writing and basic math." Any idea whether this applies just to the U.S., another country or worldwide? -Estrellador* 18:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Things I would like to know
Some things this page needs to cover:
 * What's the threshold between functional illiteracy and literacy? illiteracy? Is there consesus on this? Is there a test used to determine functional illiteracy?
 * When was the name created?
 * Does functional illiteracy correlate with any particular geographic area? Do some languages have a greater tendency towards functional illiteracy? Stilgar135 01:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll add a question, too:
 * So, what exactly does functional illiteracy mean? I get it has something to do not understanding written language, but to what extent? --209.102.188.220 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If a person from an foreign country moves to an English speaking country and is unable to read and write English texts, then they are functionally illiterate because they would be unable to purchase a meal from a restaurant, use a computer, drive a car, ride a train, operate a business, file tax returns etc. (Ie. they would be unable to survive in that host country).
 * (However if the person originated from a European country then they would not have this issue because all Europeans are taught English at school).
 * On the other hand, if an English-speaking expatriate who is highly skilled at computer programing is seconded by his employer to the company's subsidiary office branch in a non-English speaking foreign country, then he would still be considered functionally literate because when he reaches the foreign country, he is still able to continue his employment as a computer programmer, order a meal from the local restaurant, drive a car, buy train tickets to ride on a train, use his smartphone and laptop computer and use google maps to navigate around the place. --BrianJ34 (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What about the funcitional illiteracy of lawyers, technocrats, sociologists, management scientists et al. Anybody who has had to try and translate their gibberrish into another language(as I have) would recognise that they have and that they constitute a problem. The article ignores them completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurjermyn (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Lawyers would not consider themselves to be functionally illiterate. On the other hand, college graduates from law school are expected by the existing lawyers to understand all the existing legal terminology in order to be 'literate' as a lawyer - any graduate who does not like this fact would not be able to qualify to work as a lawyer. They do not care how complex their legal terms are seen in wider society. Most of the legal terms are borrowed from Latin or French because these nations in the past had a documented legal system that was more advanced than the English legal system.

The same situation applies to other specialized professions such as engineers, pharmacists, doctors, surgeons, economists, accountants, musicians, computer programmers etc. This is the real occupational literacy that most employers expect from their employees today. --BrianJ34 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

OR Template
I added OR to the links with crime section. While it makes intuitive sense to me that illiterate people will be more likely to turn to crime, I'd rather see facts backing it up than one editor's theorizing on the matter. Mbarbier (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the crime and poverty section to include links to the 2003 NCES study and begintoread.org's research page. It's not perfect, but it's a start.--Ayliana (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadian statistics
According to the Canadian Council on Learning, the statistics in Canada put illiteracy (level 2 or lower) at 48%, this is much higher than in the U.S.A and Britain it seems. http://www.ccl-cca.ca/cclflash/proseliteracy/map_canada_e.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2009/09/half_of_all_adults_in_canada_h.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.184.34.88 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced prisoner reoffending statistic
I have removed the following claim about prisoner reoffending because it was not sourced and seems unlikely to be true; please return it if a valid source can be found.


 * Adult inmates who received educational services while in prison had a 16% chance of returning to prison, as opposed to 70% for those who received no instruction.

A cut in the rate of reoffending from 70% to 16% by simple literacy training seems more hopeful than truthful. There appears to be some political bias in this article, of which this line was indicative. I'm adding a POV check tag for the time being. Michael Heseltin (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view tag
I've added the neutral point of view tag because Wikipedia is not a place to advocate anything, which this article does now due to the recent edits. I don't know where to start in fixing it. Also, Wikipedia should not be used as a source. Graham 87 03:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Ending Functional Illiteracy" section is a mess. NPOV, improper language for an encyclopedia, etc...I would scrap the whole thing and rewrite it. 65.94.131.124 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is definitely in need of some revision. --203.143.249.234 (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would just toss out the entire "Ending Functional Illiteracy" section. It is not repairable, and has the feel that is was copied and pasted from other sources. Its tone is shot and it is biased. The "Problems functional illiterates face" section also has really poor tone, and is not encyclopedic. Can we just remove the offending section? If I do it, a bot will simply block me and revert edits, even though its all trash. 209.159.219.97 (talk)

Bob C. Cleckler (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Anyone who is honestly interested in functional illiteracy (as opposed to someone who is merely trying to avoid correcting something badly in need of correcting because they want to avoid any unwanted changes) will want to know that functional illiteracy CAN be ended for all except the most severely mentally handicapped. That being the case, I defy anyone to rewrite the section in a way that will promote the change and still meet the "neutral point of view" -- which is merely a means of avoiding change. When spelling reform is the ONLY statistically and historically provable way of ending the problem of functional illiteracy -- both the extent and seriousness of which is much worse than most people realize -- it cannot be WRONG (even in an encyclopedia) to advocate that change. One of the early removals of the "Ending Functional Illiteracy" sections gave a very telling explanation of why the removal was made: "This is merely a rant against the English language." Many people feel that they must defend "our mother tongue." This section can be called a rant against the English language if you wish, but anyone who carefully and honestly examines the section explaining the linguistic problems with English spelling will have to admit that English spelling definitely DESERVES any "rant" made against it. English grammar and syntax are neither the easiest nor the most difficult characteristics. English grammar and syntax, however, are much easier than many other languages, in all of which, students can easily become fluent readers in less than three months -- as opposed to English in which very few students can become fluent in less than two years.

I agree with the above mention of removing "Ending Functional Illiteracy"--it is really just grandstanding for spelling reform and does not belong in an article defining functional illiteracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.57.51 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Bob C. Cleckler (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)There is no law that I am aware of stating that an encyclopedia article can only be used for "defining" the subject. Anyone who is honestly interested in functional illiteracy will want to know if it can be ended -- if they read enough of the article to understand that functional illiteracy is a serious and widespread problem causing both human suffering and unnecessary financial expense for both the illiterates and the fluent readers.

I am removing the "Ending Functional illiteracy" section as no one has come forward to support it or give reason for its continued existence. Reverting edits simply to restore text is counter productive and helps no one in the end. The reasons are for this removal are stated above by 209.159.219.97 and 50.32.57.51. Before reverting edits please discuss reasons on the talk page. 68.187.70.40 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bob C. Cleckler (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Anyone with any compassion for the problems that illiterates must endure almost every day of their lives -- problems that we would consider a crisis if WE had to endure them -- and anyone understanding that functional illiteracy causes a financial expense for those of us who are fluent readers will want to know the information contained in the "Ending Functional Illiteracy" section. Those who are advocating its removal should honestly examine their reasons for advocating its removal. Insisting upon pedantic exactitude in a Wikipedia article may thrill some the "scholars," but only at the expense of human suffering and unnecessary financial expense for ALL OF US.

"Problems Functional Illiterates Face" is also incredibly problematic. The fact that this article goes into extensive detail about a book published by Focus on the Family leaves me with serious doubts over the neutrality of it as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.146.3 (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Bob C. Cleckler (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)The "Problems Functional Illiterates Face" section has reference numbers 18 to 31. NOT ONE OF THESE REFERENCES mention anything published by Focus on the family. Why was this inaccurate rant made? Is someone just vehemently opposed to anything that seems even remotely connected to religion (such as being compassionate to functional illiterates)?

Rollback?
I stumbled onto this article and to say that it suffers from NPOV and encyclopedic tone problems is a massive understatement. Unfortunately as others before me have noted, in its current state it does not seem salvageable. Rather than an encyclopedia article it currently reads like an impassioned plea for action on what its main contributor obviously considers to be a major social ill.

To that end I would suggest that we roll the article back to the last version before User:Bob C. Cleckler began reworking the article. That version (which you can see here) is deficient in many ways. It already had NPOV problems, was woefully US and English-centric, and was in need of sourcing. Some of these problems had been tagged on the article since 2012. But as a starting point for editing it is much more manageable.

I want to make it absolutely clear to Bob that this is not to say that his participation is unwelcome. The problems with his prose are almost entirely related to a) its style, which is not encyclopedic and b) his use of Wikipedia's voice to identify problems and propose solutions, which violates NPOV, one of the project's core principles.

What do others think of the rollback idea? We can keep a copy of Bob's edits in a sandbox and reintroduce them progressively, working to manage the tone and keep each section NPOV. Eniagrom (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, roll it back -- I came across this article and it reads like a persuasive essay, not an encyclopedia article. The information User:Bob C. Cleckler provides could be useful in a rewrite, but as it is now, it has NPOV problems that just modifying the language won't solve. Pretendema (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have done so per apparent consensus. Eniagrom (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Rollback
This is not an encyclopedia entry. It reads like propaganda (because it is). Not that there is anything wrong with actively and passionately advocating for a cause, but this is not an appropriate forum for that.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Functional illiteracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/109.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629215446/http://www.sase.org/conf2001/papers/milner_henry.pdf to http://www.sase.org/conf2001/papers/milner_henry.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Improving External Links tab
I believe the external links for this article are, for lack of a better phrase, pretty useless. Both of the links are clearly designed to sell products that help parents teach their young children to read, which doesn't really pertain to adult functional illiteracy. I think it'd be a good idea to start this section from scratch. I know hardly anything about links to put in its place, unfortunately. Maybe links to papers on the Laubach Way to Reading (LWR) or the Wilson Reading System (WRS) would be more useful? I'd offer some examples here but I haven't found a great piece on these methods that wasn't designed for teachers specializing in adult education or trying to sell something. ⁂ (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree the external links are indeed ads, they should be removed user:Zauddelig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.125.85 (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Add a More Diversified Look at the World
This article mainly focuses on the United States and to some extent other developed countries. If functional literacy is primarily used as a concept in the U.S./Russia/U.K., then state this, but if it's an international standard then countries of varying developements should be covered in more detail to eliminate bias in what is discussed. Also, it may help to add some historical background. It may be difficult to retroactively apply the 1978 standard, though.Sechumanist (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)