We often see articles in newspapers or magazines about the shocking extent of poverty in America or some other English-speaking nation. But how often do the articles examine the cause of the poverty? I cannot remember ever seeing such an article. Many persons of influence — celebrities, educators, and politicians — bemoan the extent of poverty. Many of them want to help. Some of them actually do help, but the help is almost always something involving providing money or physical items to temporarily relieve the symptoms — the pain and suffering brought on by poverty. It is almost never something which will enable those in poverty to permanently escape their poverty. It is like the saying, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Using this analogy, in order to teach a man to fish (i.e. escape poverty through his own actions), you have to understand what is causing him to be in poverty. Otherwise, any help you provide will merely fight the symptoms of the problem rather than solving the problem. It is like giving someone aspirin to relieve the pain of pneumonia rather than antibiotics to end the pneumonia.
The most statistically accurate and thorough study of English functional illiteracy ever commissioned by the U.S. government was a five-year, $14 million study involving lengthy interviews of 26,049 U.S. adults. The interviewees were statistically balanced for age, gender, ethnicity, and location (urban, suburban, or rural in a dozen states and several prisons across the U.S.) to represent the entire U.S. population. This study, titled Adult Literacy in America, proves that 48.7% of U.S. adults (over 93 million of them) are functionally illiterate (i.e. they read and write so poorly that they cannot hold an above-poverty-level-wage job) and proves they are more than twice as likely to be in poverty because of functional illiteracy as for all other reasons combined.
The U.S. Census Bureau reports a much higher literacy rate, but if you see how the literacy rate that they report was obtained, you will undoubtedly agree with Jonathan Kozol (who describes the literacy rate determination process in his shocking book Illiterate America) that the reported figure vastly overestimates the literacy rate — and the Adult Literacy in America report proves it. Although there is no evidence of deliberate falsification of the literacy rate, it is in the short term best interest of educators and politicians to believe the rosy reports of our literacy rate.
Believing that we are much more literate than we actually are, however, alleviates any necessity of the drastic action needed to solve the problem. Instead we just continue to treat the symptoms of pain and suffering to the illiterates and the continued high cost to every U.S. adult. Functional illiteracy costs every adult — reader and non-reader alike — an average of $5186 each year for (1) government programs that illiterates use, (2) for truancy, juvenile delinquency, and crime directly related to illiteracy, and (3) the higher cost of consumer goods as a result of functional illiterates in the workplace. The higher cost of consumer goods results from (1) higher costs for recruiting and training employees, (2) the cost of preventing and correcting errors made by illiterate workers, and (3) the reduction in sales of reading materials, higher education courses, and more expensive and luxury items.
A study of the changes made in the method used to teach reading and the results achieved by these changes prove that there have not been any statistically significant improvements in the last eighty years or more. Most of the changes made have come as a result of the 1983 “Nation At Risk” report stating that if a foreign nation had imposed upon us our 1983 education system, we would have considered it an act of war.
Most American school children of normal intelligence require a minimum of two yearsless than three months to learn to read. Dr. Frank Laubach, who taught adults to read in over 313 alphabetic languages (and even invented spelling systems for scores of language groups who had no written language) found that in 98% of the languages in which he taught, he could teach them to read and write fluently in . In some of the simplest languages, such as one or more dialects of the Philippine language, he found that they could learn to read in one hour! Dr. Laubach stated on page 48 of his book, Forty Years With the Silent Billion, “If we spelled English phonetically, American children could be taught to read in a week.” As far as grammar and syntax are concerned, English is neither the easiest nor the most difficult. One week may be somewhat optimistic, but the grammar and syntax of English is easier than many European languages, all of whose speakers learn to read in less than three months.
There are more than 1.3 billion English-speaking people around the world, more than speak any language dialect other Mandarin Chinese. The vast majority of Mandarin Chinese speakers live in China. English is used more than any other language to speak to someone who does not understand the speaker’s native dialect. It is estimated that 600 million of the English-speaking people worldwide (including over 93 million in the U.S. alone) are functionally illiterate.
People who are honest in evaluating the serious physical, mental, emotional, medical, and financial problems of illiterates and the extent of English functional illiteracy of English-speaking people will have to admit that the many half-measures we have been using for the last eighty years are only fighting the symptoms of the problem, not solving the problem. If we had to endure the problems that functional illiterates must constantly live with, we would consider our problems a crisis.
Literacy Research Associates, Inc. and NuEnglish, Inc., two non-profit educational corporations, have researched and perfected a system that Dr. Laubach (now deceased) would undoubtedly advocate to solve our literacy problems — the only proven solution known to be available. It has been proven in over 300 alphabetic languages, but never tried in English.
Do you REALLY want to help end poverty in the U.S. and other English-speaking nations? If so, please fight to effect a cure for illiteracy, rather than fighting the symptoms of illiteracy — the pain and suffering and poverty that illiterates must constantly endure.
Bob Cleckler is a retired Chemical Engineer who worked for Hercules, Inc. for 29 years. Since 1985 he has been passionately concerned about the serious problems that illiterates must constantly endure — problems that most of us would consider a crisis if they occurred to us. His passion increased considerably when he found that about 600 million of the more than 1.3 billion English-speaking people worldwide are functionally illiterate in English (over 93 million are in the U.S. alone) and found proof that 15.2 percent of U.S. adults are in poverty and are at least twice as likely to be in poverty because of their illiteracy as for all other reasons combined. After more than a year of research (including a careful analysis of solutions that teachers’ colleges never consider) Cleckler found that there is a simple, logical, easily-implemented, PROVEN-EFFECTIVE solution to the problem of English illiteracy — a solution that many scholars have recommended for over 250 years and a solution for which all reasonable objections have been thoroughly debunked by several distinguished scholars. This simple solution, which is factually proven in Cleckler’s four published books on the subject, has never been tried in English. His latest book, Let’s End Our Literacy Crisis, Revised Edition, published by American University & Colleges Press in May 2009 is available at pdbookstore (click Education in the left column) and at amazon.com.
Image taken on 2006-09-18 08:32:35 by Lubuto Library Project. Image Source. (Used with permission)
Related posts:
easily format your paper in Chicago / Turabian Style!
(Sponsored Ad)

6 Comments
Somehow in copying this article, the following words were omitted between the bolded words “two years” and the immediatly following bolded words “less than three months” in the seventh paragraph:
to learn to read. Dr. Frank Laubach, who taught adults to read in over 313 alphabetic languages (and even invented spelling systems for scores of language groups who had no written language) found that in 98% of the languages in which he taught, he could teach them to read and write fluently in
Please correct this as soon as possible. It makes no sense and is misleading as it now appears.
Thanks,
Bob C. Cleckler
Author of the original article
CEO of Literacy Research Assoc., Inc.
Vice Pres. of R & D, NuEnglish, Inc.
Two non-profit educational corporations
The captcha cookie must be disabled.
“If we spelled English phonetically, American children could be taught to read in a week.”
Since few believe that a child can be taught to read in 3 months, Laubach’s claim is not likely to be accepted.
Some children have “cracked the phonemic code” in one week. They are able to read aloud text transcribed in a consistent code or dictionary key. It is an exaggeration to say that every child can do this in 1 week.
The time required for a class of pre-school children to over-learn a dictionary key is 3 months.
The alphabetical code in many written languages is close enough to the dictionary key to be learned quickly. Using the traditional teaching methods, it takes about 7 months (according to most reports).
Laubach literacy teachers used synthetic phonics and his students were usually older. This probably accounts for the faster rate of achievement. He seems to have reduced the average of 7 months in a typical classroom to about 3 months (3 hours per day).
Laubach would be on more solid ground to use the 3 month figure which was the time that most of his teachers in nearly 300 written languages required to teach illiterates to read a newspaper written in their native tongue.
There are many who do not accept the statistic that 48% of the population is functionally illiterate.
It probably depends on how it is measured.
In one of my studies, 50% of graduating seniors were not able to read a newspaper article with full understanding.
It would have been more revealing if I was able to show that the subjects could answer the questions if the article was read to them.
Anyone who does not believe the statistics in this article is **challenged** to carefully, honestly study the “Adult Literacy in America” report, the most statistically accurate and thorough study of U.S. adult literacy ever conducted. Although there are several ways of determining literacy rates, the willingness of for-profit businesses to spend recruiting and training money to hire **and keep employed** workers who read and write well enough to do the job is certainly more accurate than merely asking Census Bureau interviewees if they can read and recording their answer as an unsubstantiated fact, as the U.S. Census Bureau does. See especially page 61 of this report. To go there immediately, click here. In case you think the literacy rate has increased significantly since the “Adult Literacy in America” report was issued: it hasn’t, as you can see from a report issued in 2006 by the same group as issued the above report with only slightly fewer interviewees. To go there immediately, click here.
I am sorry, I left out a zero in the second URL address in the comment I sent about ten minutes ago. It should be http://nces.ed.gov.NAAL/PDF/2006470.PDF.
Thanks, Bob C. Cleckler
On my website, under the Q&A tab, following the question: How do you intend to improve the present spelling, I mentioned that in Estonia and Finland, where they have single-sound-per-letter writing, most children learn to read in about a month. This I have concluded from personal teaching experiences and from talking to many Estonians. People have told me that their children learned to read in a week, in some cases even in a few days.
My statement that it takes about a month is on the conservative side.
Write a Comment