Literacy levels in 1908 versus now

[MistyMountain]

http://haltcommoncore.com/2016/02/15/middle-school-reading-lists-100-years-ago-vs-today-show-how-far-american-educational-standards-have-declined/#sthash.mJ3nw3Wh.dpuf

 

I have seen the above article plus another comparing grade levels that compares reading lists from 1908 to one from 2014. They are saying we are much less educated now but I do not think it is neccasarily true. IQ scores have been going up over time and that comes from increased knowledge and exposure. A lot of people did not even have the chance to get an education in 1908. Life certainly was not ideal back then. I am all for exposure to classics and I do think it is good but I think the typical adolescent from 100 years ago is much smarter then a typical adolescent from today.

[Guest]

No, literacy rates are indeed much lower, and the equivalent functional education at eighth grade is less rigorous now than it was then. This is pretty easy to determine, just utilizing vintage materials and seeing how the modern ones, or public school transfer students, stack up.

 

Some may argue they go deeper and less broad, and I agree with that as well. But there is something to be said for being completely solid in literacy and numeracy (with appropriate exposure to geography, history, and science through reading selections) without a lot of humanities fluff.

 

These numbers also reflect some of the assimilation issues with the most recent immigration waves (Hispanic populations have assimilated the least and had the least wealth and academic gains per generation of any over American history, some good stats on that somewhere in my bookmarks) and the effects of urban poverty and the family issues contributing to that instability. It's kind of a constellation of issues that has stacked the deck against certain children in a way that wasn't nearly as pronounced or entrenched in the beginning of the 20th century.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Guest]

That reading list is on par for what I expect of my kiddos and the track we are on. But that's also not a representative sampling - my kids are neurotypical, from a stable family, with a highly educated father and moderately educated mother. Furthermore, literacy and numeracy are valued in our family and they receive direct instruction.

 

For many students, public school cannot replicate or surpass the benefits of an involved, interested, active parent.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[HomeAgain]

The difference between then and now is too vast.

Now:

-education is seen as a right, not a privilege

-learning disabilities are identified and defined

-the percentage of children who graduate high school is around 90%

 

Then:

-You may make it through 8th grade.  A diploma was a big thing.

-Those with learning disabilites, or ESL were left behind in the process

-the scope of knowledge was smaller than available and taught today

 

You can't compare.  There are so many variables that it's like looking at apples and oranges.  YES, there are things we could do to make education better, more tailored to the student, and still available to all (and have high school mean something for adulthood).  But you're not going to find answers by comparing book lists that a lot of children wouldn't have read anyway.

[G5052]

My grandmother was a one-room schoolhouse teacher ten years after that list was published. I agree that it's a bit skewed because the reality is that most people didn't go very far with their education then.

 

The number of kids that she taught through high school was actually very, very small. The majority had dropped out by then. The few high schoolers she had left read pretty rigorous stuff because she was that type of person. She loaned them books from her person library in rotation and tutored them individually. One of her students because a Secretary of the Treasury!

 

Our friend who is in her 90's and who used to be our piano teacher experienced the same thing. She took four years of Latin in high school because if you stayed in that long, you did a rigorous program. But by then only 1/3 or less of the teens were still going to school. Most had dropped out after 8th grade if not earlier to farm or work for the railroad.

[FaithManor]

Apples and oranges.

 

As for adolescents being smarter in 108? Not. They just knew and were exposed to different things. My maternal grandmother was functionally illiterate by any standard having only been allowed to attend school sporadically through the 6th grade. As an adult she could not handle simple forms, read much past about a 4th or 5th grade level, etc. But she knew how to cater a meal for a large group of people, embroider complicated patterns, sew for her family, darn socks, figure how much feed she needed for a year for her flock of chickens, churn butter, cook and bake all kinds of masterful things without recipes, you name it. She was very SMART. She was not very educated.

 

Levels of "smart" cannot be compared. In terms of IQ? Not too many people in 1908 ever had their IQ evaluated. Actually, very few people prior to the mid-1990's actually took IQ tests as those were generally limited only to those being tested for specific learning disabilities. There isn't a baseline for "IQ" for 100+ years ago.

 

My friend who teaches adult literacy says amongst her colleagues (she has a PHD in something related to literacy can't remember the degree exactly) functional literacy is a very different thing from true literacy, and that the current pegging of it at 5th to 6th grade reading level is actually quite inaccurate (ie. not at all functional/huge deficit) because due to the difficulty of deciphering tax forms and the instructions with them, driver's exams, auto manuals, etc., 8th grade reading level should be the minimum anyway. Not a lot of people in 1908 were educated to that level.

[LibraryLover]

I can read and understand 'the classics', but I could not turn on the remote (and why so many?)  and find a program I wanted to watch until a child of mine wrote down each step of the process.  In the old days you could just give Nellie Olsen's Dad 2 pennies, and boom, calico and groceries. I feel like a genius on InstaCart. (And whoever invented that is a genius.)

Edited February 16, 2016 by LibraryLover

[Ausmumof3]

I think that education has switched focus from vocabulary rich stuff and rote learning to more science and math and cognitive skills.

[Tsuga]

http://haltcommoncore.com/2016/02/15/middle-school-reading-lists-100-years-ago-vs-today-show-how-far-american-educational-standards-have-declined/#sthash.mJ3nw3Wh.dpuf

 

I have seen the above article plus another comparing grade levels that compares reading lists from 1908 to one from 2014. They are saying we are much less educated now but I do not think it is neccasarily true. IQ scores have been going up over time and that comes from increased knowledge and exposure. A lot of people did not even have the chance to get an education in 1908. Life certainly was not ideal back then. I am all for exposure to classics and I do think it is good but I think the typical adolescent from 100 years ago is much smarter then a typical adolescent from today.

 

I thought that was deeply disappointing. Leaving aside the fact that we cover more subjects now--my stepdaughter is reading a biology textbook that has equations that weren't even available to doctors in 1908--they talk as if a larger spread over time of the books selected is indicative of anything other than availability.

 

There is very little critical analysis of the text or scientific or statistical analysis of the complexity.

 

The conclusion doesn't even come close to following from the premises.

[LucyStoner]

No, literacy rates are indeed much lower, and the equivalent functional education at eighth grade is less rigorous now than it was then. This is pretty easy to determine, just utilizing vintage materials and seeing how the modern ones, or public school transfer students, stack up.

 

Some may argue they go deeper and less broad, and I agree with that as well. But there is something to be said for being completely solid in literacy and numeracy (with appropriate exposure to geography, history, and science through reading selections) without a lot of humanities fluff.

 

These numbers also reflect some of the assimilation issues with the most recent immigration waves (Hispanic populations have assimilated the least and had the least wealth and academic gains per generation of any over American history, some good stats on that somewhere in my bookmarks) and the effects of urban poverty and the family issues contributing to that instability. It's kind of a constellation of issues that has stacked the deck against certain children in a way that wasn't nearly as pronounced or entrenched in the beginning of the 20th century.

100 years ago the number of people without an 8th grade education was very large.

 

Also, if you look at the curriculum then you have a lot of memorization of facts and algorithms. You don't have a lot of critical thinking or problem solving until much higher levels of education. You have a lot of the three Rs and not much science or technology.

 

I have no doubt that my 7th grader has a vastly superior education to a 19th century 8th grade graduate of a one room school house.

 

Also, are you under the mistaken impression that poverty was not a serious and entrenched problem 100 years ago? Who do you think was in the workhouses, sweatshops and then low paid labor jobs? Why do you suppose the settlement houses and large charities were founded? Why do you think workers, getting tired of dangerous to the point of deadly working conditions and very low pay, organized into unions? To address poverty and living conditions that were on par with what we see now in the developing world.

 

ETA- a little more than a hundred years ago, my great great grandmother was widowed when her blacksmith husband was murdered in a religiously motivated bias crime. Within a year, her youngest child was dead, due to inadequate food and as the story goes, no money for wood or coal in a frigid urban climate. Added to illustrate my point that these were not idyllic times. They were gritty, rough years for a lot of people.

Edited February 17, 2016 by LucyStoner

[SKL]

There was little or no help for kids who could not meet those standards, so they just stopped attending, once it was no longer possible to sit quietly at the back of the room and be ignored.

 

I think a lot of kids who do have the capability could be challenged more.  And many do challenge themselves more.

[LucyStoner]

That reading list is on par for what I expect of my kiddos and the track we are on. But that's also not a representative sampling - my kids are neurotypical, from a stable family, with a highly educated father and moderately educated mother. Furthermore, literacy and numeracy are valued in our family and they receive direct instruction.

 

For many students, public school cannot replicate or surpass the benefits of an involved, interested, active parent.

1. My sons are not neurotypical and my older son has read many of the books on both those lists. He devoured Treasure Island at 7 and much of Mark Twain's more familiar canon by the end of 6th grade.

 

2. I dismiss the notion that the second book list is of much lesser quality than the first. Old books =\= better books.

 

3. I was very poor, from an unstable family and my (brilliant but disabled) mother *never finished 6th grade*. I was extremely well read by the time I started college largely thanks to these public schools that everyone seems to think are all crap "these days". There have ALWAYS been good schools and mediocre and poor ones. The cold hard truth is that had I been in school 100 years ago, it is exceedingly unlikely that I would have even had access to high school. And if I did and finished, there wasn't really much in the way of funding for young women from poor families like mine to go to college. I probably would have gone to work in a factory or in domestic service or, owing to my Catholic heritage, joined a convent. Perhaps I would have been able to become a teacher in one of these fabled schools of olde, assuming I was able to save enough to pay for 2 years at the state normal school. That is likely as high as a woman "from my station" could aspire to. I'd like to think I would have been a suffragette organizer but most of them were wealthy or middle class with at least some free time on their hands.

Edited February 17, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Tsuga]

 

 

 The cold hard truth is that had I been in school 100 years ago, it is exceedingly unlikely that I would have even had access to high school. And if I did and finished, there wasn't really much in the way of funding for young women from poor families like mine to go to college. I probably would have gone to work in a factory or in domestic service or, owing to my Catholic heritage, joined a convent. Perhaps I would have been able to become a teacher in one of these fabled schools of olde, assuming I was able to save enough to pay for 2 years at the state normal school. That is likely as high as a woman "from my station" could aspire to. I'd like to think I would have been a suffragette organizer but most of them were wealthy or middle class with at least some free time on their hands.

 

Me too. Born out of wedlock to a mixed-race couple. Grandma didn't even finish high school, who cares what the rich boys who evaded the draft somehow were reading in 1945? My grandparents were working. My own parents made their own bad choices... but my mom still has four years of college and nearly a BSN.

[SKL]

In my ancestry, I don't know of any high school graduates except in my dad's paternal line.  His dad was supposedly pretty intellectual and came from educated, aristocratic parents.  My parents & other 3 grandparents dropped out for various reasons.  I'm pretty sure that reading all those books was pretty far from their concerns as young teens.

[MotherGoose]

The people who were educated then had parents who valued it. If ey didn't, or if they were needed on the farm, then the kids were at home working. So you have a select group in schools at that level already. And of course they could kick out anyone who didn't behave, or discipline them severely. I don't think behaviors were much of an issue. By high school, everyone who was there wanted to be there. Huge difference from now. Not saying, by the way that we should go back to that.

[Onceuponatime]

Hmm, that article didn't really say anything relevant. It compared two *recommended* reading lists from one state and came to conclusions that were not justified, based just on those lists. It doesn't indicate whether most students actually read the books, what percentage of the population could read at that level, what percentage of the population attended school at that grade level, and what percentage of the population had access to those books. It seems clear that immigrants and minorities, who made up a large portion of the population, would have had a distinct disadvantage.

 

Not one of my grandparents finished high school. Most of their parents were immigrants. They worked in woolen mills, shoe factories, and as farm hands. The only book they were guaranteed to have in their house was a bible, except for one grandfather who was a travelling encyclopedia salesman in one of his many jobs.

[Bluegoat]

It's not a great article.  However, anyone I know who attened a one room school  found the level of instruction high, and in fact in my province, the tiny schools are consistently the ones with the best results. 

 

We also have some Mennonite schools ere which only go up to grade 8.  I am hesitant to say this means that people are less educated.  In fact, their education to that point is quite solid, and puts them in a good position to educate themselves to whatever degree they are motivated afterward.  Most go into trade or farming but continue to read and be interested in what goes on around them, and so do decide to do things like go on to university and study to get themselves to that point.

 

I think that in terms of real education, we tend sometimes to underestimate regular people.

 

The other interesting thing is, if we are "education" more people, but in many cases to a lower level because many are not academic, whereas before they would have one to work, what are we really trying to accomplish with that?

[FaithManor]

If you look at the teacher examination tests during the late 1800's and early 1900's you will find that what the teacher had to know was rudimentary at best. Laura Ingalls Wilder's test covered only math and grammar that is equivalent to Abeka 6th grade. Terms of school were three months long with boys rarely attending during planting and harvesting season until mandatory attendence laws became the norm and enforced. To put this in perspective, the teacher licensing exams then were less intensive than the.Test of Basic Skills for entrance to education programs today. The ToBS for Michigan is embarassingly easy. I gave my middle boy one just for fun when he was a 7th grader and he earned a 92%. Most of the one room school house teachers back in the day would fail this test miserably as they would not have been exposed to that level of math or reading comprehension.

 

Most students did not actually, at least in America, make it to 8th grade, and the 8th grade exit exam did not include any higher math, conversions between decimals and fractions, basic geometry such as area of a triangle, essay writing - the writing portion was actually quite easy - nor significant vocabulary and we see today to say nothing of life science.

 

Though Laura nearly graduated from high school back in the day, she would not be able to pass a GED exam today.

 

There were places where the education was higher, much more rigorous, but the middle class and poor did not have the money to attend those schools especially when one considered what books cost in relation to income. There was a much higher literacy level in the colonies than during the Industrial Revolution and Westward Expansion.

 

I do not wish to hark back to the days when less than a GED is perfectly acceptable and normal.

 

I will give you this, they were drilled a lot more on geography and spelling, even history, thiugh the history was terribly inaccurate and lacking a great deal in anything but American philosophy of manifest destiny.

[Tanaqui]

(Hispanic populations have assimilated the least and had the least wealth and academic gains per generation of any over American history, some good stats on that somewhere in my bookmarks)

 

 

I don't think that's true. 150 years ago, immigrants lived, worked, and died in their immigrant communities and didn't leave them. We had public schools, in America, that operated entirely in German because that's what the students spoke at home. It used to take three generations for an immigrant family to become an English-speaking family. Hispanics today are doing that in two - and they're not just living in all-Dominican or all-Cuban or all-Mexican neighborhoods either. I mean, some are, but by and large those aren't the ones who have been here two generations.

 

It's easy to look around and go "Well, we don't currently have a lot of Gaelic, Italian, and Yiddish speakers, so those previous groups assimilated like whoa", but that doesn't mean that conclusion is even a little bit accurate.

[Lady Florida.]

This is another of those romanticizing the past articles. While the past wasn't awful (though for some it was) it also was never as rosy as any of these types of things would have us believe. 

 

I won't repeat what others have said about education levels, teacher training, students with disabilities, etc. but will just add my voice to the apples and oranges chorus.

[Guest]

I don't think that's true. 150 years ago, immigrants lived, worked, and died in their immigrant communities and didn't leave them. We had public schools, in America, that operated entirely in German because that's what the students spoke at home. It used to take three generations for an immigrant family to become an English-speaking family. Hispanics today are doing that in two - and they're not just living in all-Dominican or all-Cuban or all-Mexican neighborhoods either. I mean, some are, but by and large those aren't the ones who have been here two generations.

 

It's easy to look around and go "Well, we don't currently have a lot of Gaelic, Italian, and Yiddish speakers, so those previous groups assimilated like whoa", but that doesn't mean that conclusion is even a little bit accurate.

Here are a few articles on the subject.

 

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c0099.pdf

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/05/15/mexican-immigrants-prove-slow-to-fit-in

interesting healthcare data: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/08/13/hispanics-and-health-care-in-the-united-states-access-information-and-knowledge/

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/latinos-assimilating-american-culture_n_1123862.html

 

 

Assimilation is more than language obviously, and the cultural outcomes are more concerning (and long term poverty indicators like out of wedlock birth statistics and criminal behavior). The trend toward accommodating Spanish instead of forcing English in many areas can mask some of the linguistic challenges as well. As with all things it varies by community and even country of origin. Bolivian and Cuban immigrants have different outcomes than Mexican, but are rarely distilled out in statistical analysis.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/03/20/mexican-segregation-not-dropping/1997655/

 

It's a side point and one to contest but I'd say the data suggests some major cultural barriers that aren't being broken down by time, especially in education and family outcomes. Some data points to education and second and third generation immigrants improving the statistics, but not at the rate of other groups. There is some fuzziness as to why.

 

Quite the aside, but it's an interesting topic. That's all the further I'll digress on that.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The difference is in literacy rates between now and 1908 is mostly related to how literacy is measured. It is an apples and oranges comparison.

The outright abuse of historical literacy data is one of the reasons I have never been able to view John Taylor Gatto as anything other than a charlatan.

Edited February 17, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[MistyMountain]

Here are a few articles on the subject.

 

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c0099.pdf

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/05/15/mexican-immigrants-prove-slow-to-fit-in

interesting healthcare data: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/08/13/hispanics-and-health-care-in-the-united-states-access-information-and-knowledge/

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/latinos-assimilating-american-culture_n_1123862.html

 

 

Assimilation is more than language obviously, and the cultural outcomes are more concerning (and long term poverty indicators like out of wedlock birth statistics and criminal behavior). The trend toward accommodating Spanish instead of forcing English in many areas can mask some of the linguistic challenges as well. As with all things it varies by community and even country of origin. Bolivian and Cuban immigrants have different outcomes than Mexican, but are rarely distilled out in statistical analysis.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/03/20/mexican-segregation-not-dropping/1997655/

 

It's a side point and one to contest but I'd say the data suggests some major cultural barriers that aren't being broken down by time, especially in education and family outcomes. Some data points to education and second and third generation immigrants improving the statistics, but not at the rate of other groups. There is some fuzziness as to why.

 

Quite the aside, but it's an interesting topic. That's all the further I'll digress on that.

This is not comparing them to any immigrant group in the past but recent ones. It makes sense they are less assimilated because they are coming to the country easier then the process is from other countries and it is easier to go back and forth between the Mexico and the U.S. There are also more immigrants since Mexico is so close and they do not all go through the rigorous process others go through so that does make it easier to not need to learn English. It is not really about them refusing to adapt but the reasons they immigrate are very different and it is easier to go back to their country of origin. Just like comparing the situation in the past to now it is comparing apples and oranges when you look at reasons different immigrant groups immigrate or not in the past or now.

Edited February 17, 2016 by MistyMountain

[Tanaqui]

I don't like to click pdfs (slow load time) so unless you aver that this link is awesome, I'm skipping that one.

 

Your first article compares assimilation rates of Mexicans compared to other immigrant groups today. There is no comparative analysis between modern immigrants and immigrants of the past. It also includes a counter argument in the same article, that takes up almost as much space as the premise.

 

Your second link, on health care, is interesting - and I'll give it more time later - but it also doesn't seem to show any comparative data.

 

Your Huffington Post link asserts that studies suggest greater integration of Latinos in the US within the next generation. There's very little solid information in that article, and nothing comparing assimilation rates of any groups, today or in the past.

 

Your final link does show that segregation of Mexicans (but not other Hisapanics) is pretty high, while other Hispanics are living in increasingly less segregated conditions. However, again, it does nothing to compare de facto segregation of Mexicans today with immigrants of the past.

 

Arctic Mama, you asserted that immigrant groups in the past assimilated more rapidly than Hispanics today. Nothing you've presented even tries to answer that question.

[Guest]

Well that's a quick internet sampling - if you're interested in actual books that's my preferred source and you can PM me for my recs. Comparing assimilate to past groups is moot given the lack of data integrity but compared to other current immigrant groups, including Malaysian and North African, the outcomes have been poor within the same generational sampling.

 

The pdf is excellent and it loads quickly on my phone. It also has the most useful raw data of the quick link grab. A scholarly trawl reveals quite a bit more but everything beyond the abstracts is longer papers in pdf form. If you're genuinely interested that would be where I would direct you. Some hypotheses fall on both sides of the issue, but I'd argue in the area I grew up the evidence is compelling for a real lack of assimilation and in some cases, self segregation.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Lady Florida.]

The outright abuse of historical literacy data is one of the reasons I have never been able to view John Taylor Gatto as anything other than a charlatan.

 

OMG! I thought I was the only one who didn't think Gatto was the cat's meow. People (especially fellow homeschoolers)  look at me like I'm nuts when I tell them I'm not a fan.

[Tsuga]

Here are a few articles on the subject.

 

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c0099.pdf

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/05/15/mexican-immigrants-prove-slow-to-fit-in

interesting healthcare data: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/08/13/hispanics-and-health-care-in-the-united-states-access-information-and-knowledge/

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/latinos-assimilating-american-culture_n_1123862.html

 

 

Assimilation is more than language obviously, and the cultural outcomes are more concerning (and long term poverty indicators like out of wedlock birth statistics and criminal behavior). The trend toward accommodating Spanish instead of forcing English in many areas can mask some of the linguistic challenges as well. As with all things it varies by community and even country of origin. Bolivian and Cuban immigrants have different outcomes than Mexican, but are rarely distilled out in statistical analysis.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/03/20/mexican-segregation-not-dropping/1997655/

 

It's a side point and one to contest but I'd say the data suggests some major cultural barriers that aren't being broken down by time, especially in education and family outcomes. Some data points to education and second and third generation immigrants improving the statistics, but not at the rate of other groups. There is some fuzziness as to why.

 

Quite the aside, but it's an interesting topic. That's all the further I'll digress on that.

 

In the upper Midwest the languages of schooling choice were German, Swedish and Norwegian for some time.

 

Here we have Chinese, Japanese, and German education alongside. I don't hear Antoine* telling the Japanese they can't have their schools... Maybe that's because of internment.

 

*Anyone. Antoine, really, autocorrect? Maybe because I don't even know anyone named Antoine, so of course he's not telling me anything...

Edited February 17, 2016 by Tsuga

[LucyStoner]

OMG! I thought I was the only one who didn't think Gatto was the cat's meow. People (especially fellow homeschoolers) look at me like I'm nuts when I tell them I'm not a fan.

Oh, you and Chocolate aren't alone in this. Don't even get me started!

[Tanaqui]

Comparing assimilate to past groups is moot given the lack of data integrity but compared to other current immigrant groups, including Malaysian and North African, the outcomes have been poor within the same generational sampling.

 

But that's what we're talking about. I don't know why you'd first assert one thing, and now say that that comparison is "moot". Really, Arctic Mama, it doesn't make me feel too sanguine about your pdf or your books, but go ahead, hit me with the titles. I'll give them my best shot.

[MistyMountain]

The reasons that they discussed why they are having a hard time assimilating make perfect sense. A lot of legitimate reasons were brought up why. It makes sense that a lot are coming because their country borders ours and they are not going through the process that some other immigrants go through. There are more immigrants from Mexico so they live in neighborhoods where there are more people that speak their language and share their culture. It is easy to travel back to their country since they do not have to travel as far. The kind of labor they are coming over to do is low paid and keeps kids out of school during different times of the year. The original assertion was not compared to other modern immigrants it was to immigrants in all time periods. It makes it sound like people are refusing to assimilate but it more complicated then that.

[MistyMountain]

OMG! I thought I was the only one who didn't think Gatto was the cat's meow. People (especially fellow homeschoolers) look at me like I'm nuts when I tell them I'm not a fan.

I thought I was the only one who did not think his writings were all that great too.