Brian Creese

Today is International Literacy Day. On this day we celebrate the role that literacy plays in our lives. We also reflect on what literacy means to us all, individually, locally, nationally and globally.
There is a marked increase in interest among policy makers about literacy, much of it driven by the OECD’s PIAAC study. Its league tables, ranking countries by the literacy and numeracy proficiency of their working age populations, have attracted welcome policy attention. However, a focus on comparative proficiency levels has limited value. All of the countries involved have uncomfortably large populations of adults with literacy and numeracy skills at or below Level 1. From PIAAC we also know that the make-up of the ‘low-skilled’ population is different in each country – and that provides a more fruitful focus for our attention.
This year UNESCO has a focus on what literacy means in the 21^st century. At NRDC we have been engaged with others in the UK and internationally to try and understand both the supply of literacy and numeracy skills among the population, but also the demands placed on their literacy and numeracy skills: in the workplace, at home and in the many other settings in which people engage with an increasingly textual world.
The driving force for policymakers in England is the belief that good literacy is required to improve productivity among the workforce. The IOE’s National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy (NRDC) has been working with Ipsos Mori on a study for the Department for Business Innovation and Skills of the impact of English and maths on English employers.
The use of literacy and numeracy skills in the workplace is complex; different jobs, and the various elements within them, involve a range of literacy and numeracy practices, with workers often learning the specific skills they need for their job from peers and co-workers. Employees consistently report that they have adequate skills to do their jobs. What we see in the workplace is that we often work with others in ways that maximize our strengths and allow us to learn from them. We also see how workplaces can be adapted to remove the demand for literacy and numeracy or to scaffold its use.
Despite the policy focus on the workplace, we have continued to work with emergent adult readers on reading for pleasure. Those less confident with their reading may get great joy from reading novels, biographies or other texts in supportive, collaborative environments. They use adult experience and expertise to develop reading confidence, skills and practices gradually and communally – and in doing so are more able to tackle some of life’s other challenges, such as job interviews or finding better heating deals.
If we think about literacy in 2014 we need to consider mobile communications. People who never read a book and may see themselves as non-readers, may happily tap away at a smart-phone or tablet. We have looked at how learners ‘doing’ literacy work on a computer may see it as IT (‘I’m good at that’ ) as opposed to literacy ‘I’m not good at that’. Is reading a page of a book the same as a newspaper as a screen on a PC or screen on a smart phone? And if not, is digital literacy a new form of literacy, or literacy in a new form?
And finally, it’s worth remembering that the NRDC has long been at the avant-garde of Europe’s thinking about adult literacy, and today more than ever, with its leadership role in the new EC-funded European literacy policy network ELINET, is cementing its place as a hub for the sharing of ideas and information with colleagues across Europe. We are not alone in struggling with these problems and the only intelligent way forward is to work with like-minded organisations across the continent and, increasingly, the world.
The underlying idea of International Literacy Day is that the acquisition of literacy is a human right. We would certainly agree with that, and suggest that an important stage on the road to such a noble goal is to increase our understanding of what literacy actually means and involves in the 21^st century.
 

Brian Creese, NRDC (National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy)
Oxford English Dictionary: Illiteracy: of persons ignorant of letters or literature, spec. (in reference to census returns, voting by ballot etc.) 
Wikipedia: Functional illiteracy is reading and writing skills that are inadequate “to manage daily living and employment tasks that require reading skills beyond a basic level.” Functional illiteracy is contrasted with illiteracy in the strict sense, meaning the inability to read or write simple sentences in any language. Foreigners who cannot read and write in the native language where they live may also be considered functionally illiterate.
 
The old adage suggests that there are ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’, clearly blaming the numerate for obfuscating the truth. I think this is a calumny; it is plain to me that it is the literate and the way they subvert the meaning of words who cause all the trouble.
Once upon a time we knew what words meant, and if in doubt, we could look them up in the dictionary. But these days words change so rapidly we can have little recourse to books for help. Here at the IOE I am surrounded by potentially explosive words which have deep and subtle nuances: is that deadline challenging rather than impossible? are we teaching, supporting or delivering? dare I have a brain storm in this company? do I mean English and maths (GCSE) or literacy and numeracy (functional skills)?
Michael Gove, in a speech to the British Chambers of Commerce, declared his intention to “eliminate illiteracy and innumeracy in Britain”. In a welcome burst of ambition he went on, “…in the same way as developing nations know they need to secure clean drinking water and eliminate malaria if their children are to flourish.”
So there is no doubting Mr Gove’s ambition. But is this a hard challenge? The thrust from the likes of NRDC has been to work with those with poor or very poor literacy skills. But we have never made illiteracy a prime target, because there really aren’t many illiterate people in the country. There are undoubtedly a few who exist largely off the radar – remote Traveller families perhaps, some immigrants who may be illiterate in their own language. But usual estimates are that way under 1% of the population is illiterate.
So eliminating illiteracy doesn’t look that tricky!
But perhaps Mr Gove is using a different definition of illiteracy? The Leitch Report, one of the fundamental drivers of basic skills policy for the last Labour government, defined something called ‘functional literacy’ as the skill level possessed by those with literacy skills of Level 1 and above (equivalent to GCSE D-G scores). Confusingly, the report defined ‘functional numeracy’ as those with Entry level 3 skills and above (the average 9- to 11-year-old). This is, I think the definition used by the National Literacy Trust, who suggests there are 5.2 million ‘functionally illiterate’ adults in England alone. The trust defines the ‘functionally illiterate’ as those whose skills are “at or below those expected of an 11 year old”. I assume this means those with literacy skills below Level 1.
Meanwhile, Shadow Employment Minister Stephen Timms recently pointed out that “one in 10 jobseekers lack basic skills.” Mr Timms, however, defines ‘basic skills’ as those of people on Entry level 1 or below (the level of a 5- to 7-year-old), a rather lower benchmark than used by Leitch and the charities.
Does any of this matter? I think it does. The term ‘illiterate’ is not neutral and certainly carries with it a series of expectations which could easily stigmatise an individual. The professionals may be happy to use ‘functional illiteracy’ as a label and have a clear understanding of what it means, but label someone illiterate in the real world and the expectation will be that they cannot read or write. Indeed, the formal definition (above) suggests that illiterates are ignorant of letters.
NRDC and other organisations working with those who do indeed have poor literacy skills know well the strategies used by people to ‘get by’ in the real world. Even those at the lowest formal levels can recognise words, and deduce some meanings. To suggest that the average 11-year-old is illiterate is similarly misleading, and rather dismissive of the achievements of that age group. They may struggle to read the Financial Times but this is hardly a meaningful definition of literacy (functional or otherwise). I would suggest that most 11-year-olds function quite adequately and do have reading and writing skills that are adequate to manage their daily living. I’m sure their teachers would never define the average Year 6 child as ‘illiterate’.
So while I clearly welcome Michael Gove’s support and determination to improve the literacy and numeracy skills of the adult population, I really think his use of language was unfortunate and misleading. Please, Mr Gove, pledge to help those adults with poor literacy and numeracy skills as much as you can, but don’t label them illiterate. That is something else altogether.