Are ‘literate’ and ‘illiterate’ meaningless terms? How can we judge whether somebody has become ‘literate’? What is the relationship between literacy and development? Should literacy be an end in itself? What should literacy programmes try to teach and how should they be evaluated?

A booklet drawing on the Uppingham Seminars in Development argues that most traditional adult literacy learning initiatives are built on a false model of literacy and have failed to help participants to use new skills in their everyday lives. It calls for a new definition of being 'literate’ and an end to the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to literacy.

Uncomfortable questions are asked. Is someone who can read a religious text or who can keep notes on customers and sales but can read nothing else ‘literate’? Is ‘universal literacy’ a set of skills common to all people? Is there any evidence to support UNESCO’s claim that literacy is essential for citizenship and human and social development? If we accept such a view, the study argues, we exclude those designated ‘illiterate’ from their own development and ignore the ways that adults learn from each other or from radio, television, films or even from fashion magazines. It is immoral and unjust to make adults wait to learn literacy skills before engaging in developmental tasks or to alienate those who do not come to classes.

By contrast, the ‘literacy comes second’ approach encourages participants to start with developmental activities – whether sustainable livelihoods activities, tree planting, slum improvement, water pump maintenance or community health projects. Literacy skills can be acquired through the literacy practices of the developmental activity undertaken.

The research finds that:

• Becoming literate is not a direct path from illiterate to semi-literate to literate but a messy process of acquiring skills without formal and consecutive learning.
• Funds are often wasted on literacy classes, many of whose ‘successful’ graduates are not actually using new skills.
• Some programmes are replacing a common primer and uniform programme with literacy suited to the context, offering skills related to the kind of group and the activity undertaken
• In all societies there are several different kinds of literacy – religious, school-based or commercial – and the dominant literacy is privileged
• New initiatives are replacing groups of similar non-literate people receiving teacher-focused whole class learning with groups of mixed ages and abilities in which students are able to learn from each other.

The author urges policy-makers to:

• increase diversity by using different materials and methods for different groups
• let learners choose the texts they wish to use and to create,  and do not assume that these must be 'easy texts'
• strengthen post-literacy activities: investing in the literate community members and helping them to participate in increasingly effective literacy activities may be of greater benefit to non-literate people than programmes that will only help a few
• discourage donors from their dependence on formal quantified evaluations.

Source(s):
‘Re-thinking adult literacy and post-literacy from an international perspective’ by Alan Rogers, 2001 Roby Kidd Memorial Lecture, Uppingham Press, March 2002

Funded by: The Indian Adult Education Association, Roby Kidd Foundation, DFID and other agencies in various countries

id21 Research Highlight: 2 December 2003

Further Information:
Alan Rogers
Uppingham Seminars in Development
School of Education and professional Studies,
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

Contact the contributor: alan.rogers@uea.ac.uk

University of East Anglia, UK

Other related links:
'Throwing away the primer: the 'real literacies' approach to adult literacy'

'Reading and writing in the real world: new directions for post literacy?'

'Poor return on investment? Why are literacy programmes failing to reach the poor?'