{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02682763246143528, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010731052984574111, 'mean_word_length': 5.812785388127854, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Response to “Adult Literacy: The Next Generation”

Recent surveys in the U.S., Britain, Australia, and other OECD nations continue to report unacceptably high levels of adult illiteracy (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997a, 1997b). In the present context of unprecedented growth in symbolic sophistication associated with the current technological revolution (Castells 1996,1997), claims of widespread adult illiteracy in "advanced" societies present an anachronism begging careful and responsible analysis, explanation, and redress. Efforts to bring clarity and insight to the adult illiteracy conundrum should be welcomed and engaged in academically rigorous discussion. We respond accordingly to "Adult Literacy: The New Generation." Our stance is that of a critical colleague. We share what we see as Wagner and Venezky's literacy ideal: a universally literate citizenry that employs literacy effectively in the individual and collective pursuit of social, cultural, and economic purposes that benefit all on an equitable basis. Our response interrogates their article against this goal, from the standpoint of Academic critics approaching the article on academic and scholarly grounds; Policy analysts evaluating the case for continued and increased support for adult literacy initiatives; Literacy researchers and scholars wanting to understand literacy in ways that are consistent with ethical and social ideals of equity, democratic participation, fairness and dignity, and so on.