Changes

: <edit conflict>  Looking at the Detroit data:  Remember that when they refer to "functioning at the lowest literacy level", they do not necessarily mean completely unable to read.  The NALS report explains the definitions of literacy level they used in their survey.  They group people into four different levels.  Those in the lowest level include people who can do basic tasks like identifying a specific piece of information in a news article; those people have basic reading skills.  66% to 75% of the people in this lowest level described themselves as being able to read or write English "well" or "very well".  It's important also to look at who is in this lowest group.  It includes immigrants, for whom English may not be their native language (25%), people with physical, mental, or health conditions that affect literacy (26%), people age 65 and older who may not have had the educational opportunities offered to today's students (one-third), and those with visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print (19%).  So the whole question of literacy is much more complex than simply "can this person read or not", and the 99% number cited in some sources is measuring something quite different than the "functional literacy" rate referred to by the Detroit Literacy Coalition.  (Note also that the NALS survey included some mathematics in their definition of literacy.)  I am not surprised that a depressed inner city like Detroit includes a large number of people who struggle with literacy.  However, we obviously cannot conclude that the Detroit rate is in any way similar to an overall US rate.  As an example, the Detroit Literacy Coalition puts the functional illiteracy rate in Michigan at only 18%.  This of course implies that there are areas of Michigan where the rate of illiteracy is significantly lower than 18% - perhaps wealthier, suburban areas.  <br>

: <edit conflict>  Looking at the Detroit data:  Remember that when they refer to "functioning at the lowest literacy level", they do not necessarily mean completely unable to read.  The NALS report explains the definitions of literacy level they used in their survey.  They group people into four different levels.  Those in the lowest level include people who can do basic tasks like identifying a specific piece of information in a news article; those people have basic reading skills.  66% to 75% of the people in this lowest level described themselves as being able to read or write English "well" or "very well".  It's important also to look at who is in this lowest group.  It includes immigrants, for whom English may not be their native language (25%), people with physical, mental, or health conditions that affect literacy (26%), people age 65 and older who may not have had the educational opportunities offered to today's students (one-third), and those with visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print (19%).  So the whole question of literacy is much more complex than simply "can this person read or not", and the 99% number cited in some sources is measuring something quite different than the "functional literacy" rate referred to by the Detroit Literacy Coalition.  (Note also that the NALS survey included some mathematics in their definition of literacy.)  I am not surprised that a depressed inner city like Detroit includes a large number of people who struggle with literacy.  However, we obviously cannot conclude that the Detroit rate is in any way similar to an overall US rate.  As an example, the Detroit Literacy Coalition puts the functional illiteracy rate in Michigan at only 18%.  This of course implies that there are areas of Michigan where the rate of illiteracy is significantly lower than 18% - perhaps wealthier, suburban areas.  <br>

:As to Ancient Greece - while Socrates may have had a big following, they would have been men who were wealthy enough to have time for philosophy.  Women, slaves, and the lower classes would not have been part of his followers.  Remember also that in the democracy of Athens, only men who owned land were eligible to vote - again, women, slaves, and the lower classes were not included.  I do not know anything about the number of people in each of these groups, except that it is reasonable to assume that women were around 50% of the population.  Even if we assume the US's rate of functional literacy is 72% (based on Michigan's), it seems unlikely that Ancient Greece would come anywhere near this, given that most women, slaves, and the lower classes do not seem to have been, generally speaking, functionally literate. Leaving out the women alone gives a literacy rate of 50% - removing the slaves and the lower classes would bring it even lower. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:As to Ancient Greece - while Socrates may have had a big following, they would have been men who were wealthy enough to have time for philosophy.  Women, slaves, and the lower classes would not have been part of his followers.  Remember also that in the democracy of Athens, only men who owned land were eligible to vote - again, women, slaves, and the lower classes were not included.  I do not know anything about the number of people in each of these groups, except that it is reasonable to assume that women were around 50% of the population.  Even if we assume the US's rate of functional literacy is 72% (based on Michigan's), it seems unlikely that Ancient Greece would come anywhere near this, given that most women, slaves, and the lower classes do not seem to have been, generally speaking, functionally literate. Leaving out the women alone gives a literacy rate of 50% - removing the slaves and the lower classes would bring it even lower. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)