by Maureen Thomas

Created on: November 25, 2008

What exactly, is the definition of "literate?" Is it the denotative, "able to read and write", or the deeper, connotative, "educated, cultured"? Both are listed in the dictionary, and interestingly enough, the connotative meaning is listed first. Are we truly a literate nation? Can we be? In the 2007 World Almanac it states that the U.S. is 97% literate. So, most of our population is able to read and write. However, the statistics are naturally unable to report the ability level and and involvement with reading in our culture. As a high school English teacher, I would venture to guess that about 30-40% of our population is truly literate in the broad, connotative sense.

We're not a nation of "egg heads". Many of my students confess openly how much they hate reading. I sympathize, as much of the enforced curriculum has little or no connection to their lives; yes it is important to have that frame of reference, to be culturally literate as it were, but is it really necessary to analyze and dissect every aspect of "Julius Caesar"? Sure, expose them to it, give them an overview, then allow them to move on to something more relevant, something that will captivate them, perhaps inspire them to eventually pick up a book on their own simply because they want to. From my perspective,all misguided albeit well-meaning efforts to "close the achievement gap", and "not leave anyone behind", have created more of a division. The "honors" kids who may not "love" literature any more than those who are headed for a career in the trades, but are able to write about symbolism, archetypes, and the minutae of five or six great works, versus the "regular" kids, who are forced into a slightly watered down version of the same sterile curriculum, few of them doing anything beyond gettting through the basic plot structure of a work like "Julius Caesar", and then forgetting what they read as soon as the test is over. Unfortunately, the large class sizes (30-35), enforced curriculum, and state testing which forces teachers to spend hours on really earth-shattering principles such as appositive nouns(something a literate person does NOT need to know) makes it difficult to engage students with things literature circles, seminar, and above all, choices in reading. When a teacher comes across a book that has literary merit as well as a contemporary, engaging plot structure there is all sorts of "hoop-jumping" just to allow the kids to read it as a supplemental book, let alone to get it integrated into the curriculum.

But all is not lost. I see my kids reading on their own; graphic novels have inspired many kids to become engaged. And before you scoff, think Maus, and Persepolis; it's not all junk. Popular series such as Twilight and the ubitquitous Harry Potter have created scores of kids who realize picking up a book isn't all bad. I'm not saying that these books are the cultural equivant of John Steinbeck or Maya Angelou, but they are a start. And the bottom line is, public education can reinfoce and promote literacy, but it can't create it. It really all starts at home. Buy your kids books (They're really cheap at Goodwill). Read them to them. Turn off the TV and the video games. Literacy can only be developed where imagination is present. I realize that socio-economics and literacy go hand in hand. A family that struggles economically might not have the luxury of the time to read to their kids. But for the "average" parent who has a little time and disposable income, the choice in how you spend that time with your kids in their developmental stages may determine if your kid is going to grow up to read "Huck Finn" or to be him.

Learn more about this author, Maureen Thomas.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.