[AAACE-NLA] a definition

Thu Jun 22 11:27:49 EDT 2006

Hello Catherine and others.

Working from memory here, Allan Quigley had an ABE article published in the 
early 90s which laid out some of the context of thr 1991 NLA definition.  
According to the article it was a field-based defintion and viewed as an 
improvement of other possible definitions that were circulating.  As I 
remember from Quigley's article, the field had to be quite diligent to get 
the definition that did get accepted as well as the bill as enacted into 
law.  Even still, the definition of a national literacy institution (which 
became NIFL a year later--also as part of the NLA law) was a good deal less 
comprehensive than what Forest Chisman proposed in Jump Start.  I picked up 
that info from a source other than Quigley's article.

Perhaps some of those in the policy realm with long memories, can confirm, 
correct, add upon, or revise what I've said in the effort to set the 
historical record straight.

Also, and this is just a supposition on my part, I assume the emphasis on 
"English literacy" in the definition had to do with making the definition 
broad enough to include both ABE/adult literacy and ESOL sectors.

George Demetrion

From: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king at verizon.net>
Reply-To: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king at verizon.net>,National Literacy 
Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE<aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>
To: "National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by 
AAACE"<aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] a definition
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:15:21 -0500

Hello George:

Do you think, as it is written, the NLA definition might harbor
xenophobic tendencies on the part of unaware writers, or at
least, perhaps, latent Anglo-centered provincialism?  Or perhaps
like Jesse Jackson says, "standard" English is the "cash language"
of our world?  I'd really like to know what they meant by it so that
I don't think bad of them.

On the other issue, the problem of developing benchmarks for
literacy (not that it cannot be done) is rooted in the fact that
communication is a movement of meaning, and meaning is vast,
multi-dimensional and fluid.

There is, however, a rather clear distinction to be had between
oral communications and written communications.  And if we
are seeking a technical definition of "literacy" (already related to
the term "letters") perhaps it should begin there--between this
distinction between oral and written, within the larger and vast
field of communications--which everyone does--to a restriction
within that larger field, where our understanding of meaning in
communication expands from oral, or from various kinds of
paralanguage (body language), to the written word.

Of course, as everyone here knows who learned to read the written
word at some point, meaning accumulation is an ongoing process;
and what meaning we come to understand through the written word
doesn't stop changing or growing when we "learn to read."  It's not
a moment, but a process of moments where one insight builds on
another until we have a matrix of learning to draw on and, voila,
"That word means . .  "  And so we can now translate written
language into oral language.

Also, we all know from our own experience that the same text read
twice often means more or differently upon the second reading than
it did on the first, as do oral conversations.  So the meaning keeps
on flowing in its mysteriously complex way, only now we can
translate the written word into oral language, and back again,
and now we can ponder what else it might mean besides what
we understood on our first reading.

Also, the term "literacy" has taken on new meaning as the terms:
"computer literacy," or other kinds of "literacy" have entered our
common dialogue.  So noting the difference between the fuzzy and
ever-changing meaning of "literacy," on the one hand, and
developing a defined technical meaning of that same term, is
important so that we don't get the meanings mixed up with that
fuzzy and changing field.  We de-fine and limit a term's meaning
that way; however, we also clarify it for our own purposes and
get it out of that wonderful but horribly messy field of "common"
communications.

Just some thoughts,

Catherine King

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion at lvgh.org>
To: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king at verizon.net>; "National Literacy Advocacy
List sponsored by AAACE" <aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] a definition

 > Hi Catherine,
 >
 > I would imagine that was the intent of the legislation, to have a
 > comprehensive definition that covered ESOL as well as literacy and ABE
 > programs.
 >
 > Perhaps someone who was involved in setting the policy at that time
 > could clarify.
 >
 > George
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: aaace-nla-bounces at lists.literacytent.org
 > [mailto:aaace-nla-bounces at lists.literacytent.org] On Behalf Of Catherine
 > B. King
 > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:13 PM
 > To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE
 > Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] a definition
 >
 > Hello George:
 >
 > The definition seems to equate "literacy" with "English"?  giving
 > the impression that people who speak and write other languages
 > are illiterate if they don't also speak English?  Who let that one
 > get by?
 >
 > Lurking Lately,
 >
 > Catherine King
 >
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion at lvgh.org>
 > To: "National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE"
 > <aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>
 > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:49 AM
 > Subject: [AAACE-NLA] a definition
 >
 >
 >>I thought it made sense to add a definition of literacy to the
 > document.
 >> This is what I propose:
 >>
 >> Literacy:  A Definition
 >>
 >> The National Literacy Act of 1991 defines literacy as "an individual's
 >> ability to read, write, and speak English and compute and solve
 > problems
 >> on the job and in society, to achieve one's goals, and develop one's
 >> knowledge and potential."  The following factors contributing to low
 >> literacy among adults presuppose this definition.
 >>
 >> Comments, suggestions, alternatives, concerns, etc.
 >>
 >> George Demetrion
 >>
 >> _______________________________________________
 >> AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
 >> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
 >> LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
 >> http://literacytent.org
 >>
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
 > http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
 > LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
 > http://literacytent.org
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
 > http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
 > LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
 > http://literacytent.org
 >

_______________________________________________
AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org