world literacy summit keynote: why low-literacy matters and what policy can do

LITERACIES: KEY TO INCLUSIVE SOCIETIESDirk Van DammeHead of the Innovation and Measuring Progress division, Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD

2

• Inform you on what the most evidence tells us– EFA Monitoring Report

– OECD’s PISA 2012

– OECD’s Adult Skills Survey / PIAAC

• Draw lessons for policies and practices from the available evidence

• Make a case for evidence-based advocacy and action

Purposes

3

• Progress is made, but not enough

• Low literacy is not a destiny: policies and practices matter!

• Literacy impacts on various economic and social outcomes

• Looking beyond literacy– Not just about the very basic skills

– Multi-literacies: multi-dimensionality of literacy

– Not only skills development, but also skills use

• Conclusions: literacy policies for inclusive societies

Outline

4

PROGRESS, BUTNOT ENOUGH

5

• The adult illiteracy rate fell from 24% in 1990 to 18% in 2000 and 16% in 2011.

• However, the number of illiterate adults remains stubbornly high at 774 million, a fall of 12% since 1990 but just 1% since 2000.

• The number of illiterate adults is projected only to fall to 743 million by 2015. In 32 out of 89 countries, the adult literacy rate will still be below 80%.

• In sub-Saharan Africa, the number of illiterate adults has increased by 37% since 1990, mainly as a result of population growth.

• Women make up nearly two-thirds of the total, and since 1990 there has been no progress in reducing this share.

Progress made, but slowing down

EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/14

6

Many countries have decreased their numbers of low-performing 15-year olds

J

apan

8.6

H

ong

Kong

-Chi

na...

K

orea

8.4

N

ew Z

eala

nd

...

4.4

F

inla

nd

...

3.7

F

ranc

e

4.4

C

anad

a

-3.

9

Bel

gium

A

ustr

alia

-5.9

I

rela

nd

-9

.8

Lie

chte

nste

in...

N

orw

ay

-1

2.7

P

olan

d

...

-9.6

I

srae

l

5.5

-6.7

S

witz

erla

nd .

..-8

.1

Ger

man

y

-1

.6

OEC

D a

vera

...

Uni

ted

Stat

es

...

10.1

S

wed

en

...

I

taly

C

zech

Rep

ublic

...

6.5

Ic

elan

d

...

-7.4

P

ortu

gal

H

unga

ry

Spa

in

Aus

tria

D

enm

ark

-

2.7

G

reec

e

Rus

sian

Fed

erati

...

Bul

gari

a

2.1

-13.

1

Lat

via

R

oman

ia

-1

8.0

A

lban

ia

...

T

haila

nd

-1

5.2

C

hile

A

rgen

tina

-

1.2

B

razi

l

-1

9.7

P

eru

M

exic

o

-1

3.4

In

done

sia

...0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2012 2000

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s be

low

pro

ficie

ncy

Leve

l 2 in

rea

ding

Countries are ranked in descending amount of progress

But many countries still have 30, 40, … to even 60% of low-literate 15 year-olds

PISA 2012

7

• Progress is not only uneven across countries, but also unevenly distributed within countries

• Many are excluded from the benefits of educational expansion and skills improvement, but exclusion is often concentrated in particular groups– Gender, location, ethnicity, socio-economic

background, age, immigrant status, language, …

Progress not only too slow, but also unevenly distributed

8

Huge social disparities in youth literacy

EFA 2013

9

LOW LITERACY ISNO DESTINY – POLICIES

AND PRACTICES MATTER

10

Low literacy risk among youth related but not completely explained by mean literacy levels

Peru

Kazak

hsta

n

Argen

tina

Mala

ysia

Colom

biaBra

zil

Mon

tene

gro

Bulgar

ia

Costa

Rica

Chile

Serbia

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Turke

y

Lithu

ania

Icela

nd

Croat

ia

Portu

gal

Spain

Latv

iaIta

ly

Denm

ark

United

King

dom

Franc

e

Viet N

am

Mac

ao-C

hina

Nethe

rland

s

New Z

ealan

d

Eston

ia

Canad

a

Irelan

d

Korea

Singap

ore

Shang

hai-C

hina

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Mean score on the reading scale Exponential (Mean score on the reading scale)% of students below Level 2 Exponential (% of students below Level 2)

PISA 2012

Vietnam

Croatia

Estonia

Denmark

Costa Rica

Macao-China

Turkey

Albania

Indonesia

Sweden

Italy

Luxembourg

Israel

France

New Zealand

Rank mean reading score

Rank

per

cent

age

stud

ents

bel

ow le

vel 2

Less inclusive countries: with higher percentage students below

level 2 than predicted by their mean score

More inclusive countries: with lower percentage students below level 2 than predicted by their mean score

PISA 2012

12

National income plays a role, but with a lot of variation – poverty is no excuse

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

GDP per capita (in thousand USD converted using PPPs)

% o

f stu

dent

s bel

ow L

evel

2

PISA 2012

13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Indonesia

Vietnam


% o

f stu

dent

s bel

ow L

evel

2

PISA 2012

14


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


% o

f stu

dent

s bel

ow L

evel

2

PISA 2012

15


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Argentina

Latvia

Shanghai, PRC


% o

f stu

dent

s bel

ow L

evel

2

PISA 2012

16

Inequality in income distribution matters for inequality in literacy, but not in a deterministic way

1.41.451.51.551.61.651.7

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.33593915

0.26078351

0.323504170000001

0.256125120.2478

0.3150587

0.25947413

0.29544 0.29327448

0.3366040.32925796

0.3150.29374042

0.2501

0.3144635

0.25663323

0.31701137

0.259326

0.37823832

0.2591987

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Literacy skills inequality (9th/1st decile)

Income inequality (Gini coefficient)

Low income inequalityLow skills inequality

High income inequalityLow skills inequality

High income inequalityHigh skills inequality

Low income inequalityHigh skills inequality

Ave

rag

e

Average

PIAAC 2012

17

PIAAC 2012

18

Schooling matters a lot, but is not the only reason why adults lack basic literacy skills

Japa

n

Nethe

rland

s

Finlan

d

Sweden

Austra

lia

Czech

Rep

ublic

Flande

rs (B

elgium

)

Norway

United

Sta

tes

OECD ave

rage

Poland

Austri

a

Englan

d (U

K)

Englan

d/N. I

relan

d (U

K)

North

ern

Irelan

d (U

K)

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Franc

e

Germ

any

Denm

ark

Irelan

d

Korea

Canad

a

Eston

iaSpa

inIta

ly

Russia

n Fed

erat

ion210

230

250

270

290

310

330

Tertiary Education Below upper secondary education Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education

PIAAC mean literacy proficiency scores for 25-64 year-olds by educational attainment (2012)

PIAAC 2012

19

Level 2

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

Age matters a lot for literacy, even after correcting for education and other factors

Age

Score

Literacy unadjusted

Numeracy unadjusted

Numeracy adjusted

Literacy adjusted

20

LITERACY IMPACTS ON VARIOUS ECONOMIC AND

SOCIAL OUTCOMES

21

1

2

3

4

5Average Germany England (UK) Flanders (Belgium)

Likelihood of positive social and economic outcomes among highly literate adults

(scoring at Level 4/5 compared with those scoring at Level 1 or below)

Odds ratio

PIAAC 2012

22

The effect of education and literacy on labour market participation

PIAAC 2012

23

Literacy skills impact on employment, but qualifications determine earnings

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Earnings

Employment rate (%) Average monthly earn-ings ($USD)

ISCED 0/1/2 ISCED 3/4 ISCED 5/6

Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4/5

Flemish Community, Belgium

PIAAC 2012

24

Low literacy skills increase likelihood to negative social outcomes

Czech

Rep

ublic

Irelan

d

Avera

ge

Nethe

rland

s

Finlan

d

Japa

n

Sweden

Englan

d/N. I

relan

d (U

K)

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Norway

Poland

Denm

ark

Austra

liaIta

ly

Flande

rs (B

elgium

)

Canad

a

Korea

Estonia

Spain

Austri

a

Germ

any

United

Sta

tes

1

2

3

4

5

Trust Political efficacy volunteer Health

Odd

s ra

tio –

ref

eren

ce is

Lev

el 4

/5

Odds ratios adjusted for age, gender, education and immigrant and language background

PIAAC 2012

25


Czech

Rep

ublic

Irelan

d

Avera

ge

Nethe

rland

s

Finlan

d

Japa

n

Sweden

Englan

d/N. I

relan

d (U

K)

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Norway

Poland

Denm

ark

Austra

liaIta

ly

Flande

rs (B

elgium

)

Canad

a

Korea

Estonia

Spain

Austri

a

Germ

any

United

Sta

tes

1

2

3

4

5

Political efficacy Trust volunteer Health

Odd

s ra

tio –

ref

eren

ce is

Lev

el 4

/5


PIAAC 2012

26


Czech

Rep

ublic

Irelan

d

Avera

ge

Nethe

rland

s

Finlan

d

Japa

n

Sweden

Englan

d/N. I

relan

d (U

K)

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Norway

Poland

Denm

ark

Austra

liaIta

ly

Flande

rs (B

elgium

)

Canad

a

Korea

Estonia

Spain

Austri

a

Germ

any

United

Sta

tes

1

2

3

4

5

volunteer Trust Political efficacy Health

Odd

s ra

tio –

ref

eren

ce is

Lev

el 4

/5


PIAAC 2012

27


Czech

Rep

ublic

Irelan

d

Avera

ge

Nethe

rland

s

Finlan

d

Japa

n

Sweden

Englan

d/N. I

relan

d (U

K)

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Norway

Poland

Denm

ark

Austra

liaIta

ly

Flande

rs (B

elgium

)

Canad

a

Korea

Estonia

Spain

Austri

a

Germ

any

United

Sta

tes

1

2

3

4

5

Health Trust Political efficacy volunteer

Odd

s ra

tio –

ref

eren

ce is

Lev

el 4

/5


PIAAC 2012

28

• The impact of low literacy on various measures of social well-being and inclusiveness is high to very high

• But the impact also varies a lot between countries, depending on institutional contexts

• Literacy is interacting with a lot of other determinants, often reinforcing their impact

• Sometimes, literacy is also competing with other factors (e.g. educational attainment)

Literacy matters for various social outcomes

PIAAC 2012

30

• More education generally means more literacy, but the relationship is not always straightforward– High-educated people losing skills

– Low-educated people learning skills

• Whether it is educational attainment or literacy which matter most for social outcomes, differs for each measure and for each country

• More educational opportunities are of course crucial, but lack of education in early years should not condemn people for the rest of their life-course

Relationship between education and literacy

31

BEYOND LITERACY: MORE THAN JUST BASIC SKILLS

32

Evolution of employment in occupational groups defined by level of skills proficiency

33

• Labour markets and social realities are changing quickly, asking for ever higher skills needs

• Also mid-level literacy skills will soon not suffice to protect people from vulnerable jobs and living conditions, and seem to be even more endangered than low-skilled jobs

• Literacy is not a dichotomous ‘one-off’ reality, but a continuous effort to improve and enhance skills

More than just basic skills

34

BEYOND LITERACY:MULTI-LITERACIES

35

LiteracyNumerac

y

Digital literacy

Financial literacy

Media literacy

Visual literacy

Problem solving

Multi-lingualis

m

Cultural literacy

Science literacy

Emotional literacy

Multi-literacies

36

• Digital literacy (“problem-solving in ICT-environments”) is becoming a critically important skill

• From less than 7% of 16-65 year-olds in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden to around 23% or higher in Italy, Korea, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Spain lack the basic skills to use ICT for daily tasks (PIAAC, 2012)

For example: digital literacy

37

• Multi-dimensionality of literacy, but at the same time risk of inflation of the concept itself

• Various dimensions and modes of low-literacy reinforce each other, but sometimes people also compensate skills shortages

• How are modes of communication in the lives of people changing in reality?

• How are different dimensions – cognitive, problem-solving, communication, social, emotional – interacting, reinforcing or contradicting each other?

• On what dimensions should policies and practices focus to empower people?

Multi-literacies

38

BEYOND LITERACY:USES OF LITERACY SKILLS

39

• What adults do, both at work and outside work, is closely related to proficiency.

• Adults who engage more often in literacy- and numeracy-related activities and use ICTs more (both at work and outside of work) have higher proficiency in each domain

• Engagement in relevant activities outside of work has an even stronger relationship with the skills assessed than engagement in the corresponding activities at work.

Literacy skills use and proficiency strongly related

40

Reading at work is associated with literacy skills – especially in open economies

41

Reading at work is associated with literacy skills – but less so in more closed economies

42

But reading outside work matters even more

43

Also ICT-skills are closely associated with usage of such skills at work

44

• There is a clear relationship between the extent of participation in organised adult learning and the average level of key information-processing skills in a given country.

• The large variation among countries at similar levels of economic development suggests major differences in learning cultures, learning opportunities at work, and adult-education structures.

Adult education and proficiency are also strongly related

45

Likelihood of participating in adult education and training, by level of literacy proficiency

Norway

Nethe

rland

s

Fland

ers (

Belgi

um)

Italy

Czech

Rep

ublic

Finla

nd

Irela

nd

Sweden

Japa

n

Engla

nd/N

. Irel

and

(UK)

Avera

ge

Unite

d Sta

tes

Denm

ark

Estoni

a

Austri

a

Polan

d

Spain

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Austra

lia

Canad

a

Korea

Germ

any

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5

Reference group: Below Level 1

Odds Ratio

46

CONCLUSIONS: LITERACY POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE

SOCIETIES

47

• Illiteracy and low literacy remains a terrible reality for far too many people in all countries

• Literacy is unequally distributed within countries, dependent on gender, age, social background, ethnicity, migration status, language, etc.

• The impact of literacy on various measures of economic and social well-being is huge – low literacy in many cases means being excluded from jobs, full citizenship, health, community life and public communication

What the evidence tells us

48

• Low literacy levels are no destiny, but can be changed– On country level: against the odds of national

income or overall literacy levels, some countries succeed in keeping low-literacy levels under control, and others don’t

– On individual level: against the odds of their background, education and status many individuals succeed in acquiring good literacy levels, but they can’t do that alone, they need help

What the evidence tells us also

49

• Countries utterly underestimate the cost of low literacy and the potential benefits from raising literacy levels– Increasing productivity, employment, earning, tax

– Fostering social inclusion and social cohesion

– Reducing poverty, ill health, crime

– Improving the functioning of political democracy

• Neglecting or underestimating the literacy crisis comes at a cost, now and in the future!

Literacy is a matter of human rights and social justice, but also of economic and social progress

50

• Ensure a good initial education for all, including taking specific measures to guarantee that disadvantaged groups take full benefit from education

• Prevent poor initial education resulting in a vicious circle of missed opportunities for jobs, continuing learning and use of literacy skills

• Identify those who can benefit from learning most

• Make adult education more flexible, so that learners can adapt learning to their lives more easily

• Improve skills metrics and assessments, because assessment also drives change

Policies that work

51

• Create literacy-rich environments at work and in the community which help people to develop and use literacy skills

• Take specific measures to ensure that low-literate people get equal access to continuing education, health, social services, etc.

• Value literacy skills, but value also other skills people have

• Make literacy learning everybody’s business – help employers to make best use of everybody’s skills

Policies that work

52

• Valuing literacy skills more means:– Rewarding people who acquire and improve literacy

skills, for example by opening up labour markets for skills instead of diploma’s

– Potentially also penalizing low-literate adults with educational qualifications and taking away the social protection function of educational qualifications

• Creating literacy-rich environments means:– Helping people to develop, use and maintain skills

– Potentially also excluding and stigmatising low-literate people more

Literacy policies and practices face dilemma’s

53

• It is vitally important for literacy policies and actions to positively emphasize the opportunities of literacy and to empower people to learn, rather than to stigmatise low-literate adults for their lack of skills.

• Literacy actions can easily result in unwanted effects when over-problematising skills shortages from a deficit-perspective.

An empowerment approach, not a deficit one

54

• All this will not happen by itself, but needs concerted and determined action– Governments and international organisations

– Business, employers, social partners

– Education and social services

– Grass-roots movements, NGO’s

– Social entrepreneurs and innovators

URGENT ACTION IS NEEDED!

Thanks!

[email protected]/edu/ceri

twitter @VanDammeEDU

55