All this money!! Can we (the public) have access to the receipts as to how all this money is spent and who gets a lot of the dough? Three and a half million dollars to help three year olds prepare for kindergarten? Does that mean new mini-vans fer every mom who's baby goes to kindergarten? How many three year olds in kindergarten in the next few years? Is pre-kindergarten also know as daycare? What about our birthrate? Maybe they should have a program called Ready, Set, Spend for taxpayers in this province. Too many dollar and too many questions to be asked. A noble pursuit but it is still a whole lotta dough!

Considering that the population of BC is approx (4) Million, with (1) Million illiterate, that is 1/4 of the population. After 100 years of funding education in this Province, along with the high cost of Schools, Universitys, Teachers, etc; how can we possibly have 1/4 of the population illiterate. Where do they come from, considering that going to school to the age of 15 is mandatory.

If in fact the numbers are true, then this is an admission that the school system in this Province is a total failure. Having children going to school at an eariler age is hardly the solution.

Sticking to the three *rs* in our school system, along with some good sound teaching abilities, would go a long way to solve this problem.

Good news for the buffet restaurants in B.C. Can't read a menu? No prob. Just line up fer the food. Problem solved.

Palopu

Don't make up stupid stats. The population of BC is very close to 100% literate.

When you get into the 25% illiterate, it is primarily the older adult population that is spoken about. The illiteracy referred to is typically FUNCTIONAL illiteracy. They can read and write, but they do not know some of the technical information required to be successful in today's world.

The $5 million program involves adult completion of grade school, adult involvement with teaching kids how to do their school work (which has the side effect of ehlping adults who might be weak in those areas as well), adult education in more advanced but practical fields.

So the illiterascy is most often even illiteracy in the sciences and mathematics. Talk about global warming and many will not have the faintest clue how to asses the veracity of the science - same with air pollution, personal health, mountain pine beetle, etc.

When people tune out of topics like that it is not only because they might not be interested, it is often for the same reason why those who cannot read or write will skirt around an issue dealing with reading. (I forgot my glasses, can you please read it to me?) They simply cannot understand it.

I think I have said it on a few occasions on here. When the pulp industry was looking at training individuals without a grade 12 completion to move from a manual task to tasks with monitoring processes as things got more and more automated, the main problem they had was functional or technical illiteracy. It was huge and I believe a big surprise to both the union and management. So, some basics had to be covered before they could move on to learning directly applicable to the industry.

I think it is necessary also to point out that the population of BC were not all educated in BC, nor even in Canada. We have a large immigrant population from many parts of the world, including me, and many of those were educated in languages other than those used in Canada. People may be illiterate in English but completely literate in their own natural language. Literacy problems are not in any way a reflection on our educational system, possibly just a reflection of the practical difficulties of a new society.

Good example of a condescending attitude Owl. Lets continue to make excuses for the great unwashed while we entertain our friends with our high grade intelligence.

Firstly the article above clearly states that **Recent studies show that more than one million adult British Columbians do not have the skills necessary to read a newspaper or to fill out a job application**.

How Owl can get from that statement to **The illiteracy referred to is typically FUNCTIONAL illiteracy. They can read and write, but they do not know some of the technical information required to be successful in to-days world**

Its pretty obvious that Owl didnt read the article correctly, or by some sort of **telepathy** can see beyond what the article actually said to what the article was supposed to say **According to Owl**

Ill stick with my original statement. I do not beleive the numbers, even if you did include immigrants which is a **red herring** most immigrants in a very short period of time can read and write english, and also the article did not distinquish between English and other languages.

To suggest that the illiteracy is somehow primarily the older population is an old **wives tale** it may have had some merit 20 or 30 years ago, however it has none to-day. The older population to-day are primarily people born in the 40's and 50's who would be 50 and 60 years old to-day. Most of these people would have attended school, to at least the grade 6 to 8 level and up from there and would not be considered illiterate by the standard set out in the 1st paragraph of this article, or any other article.

We have been hearing for years that our school system has been putting out students that graduate (or pretend) to graduate that cannot read, nor write, nor spell. Are these the illiterates that they are talking about.??? Who knows.

Palopu ...

If you cannot understand the following, you are functionally illiterate .... you might be able to read, and are literate in that sense of the word. However, because you cannot understand it, you are functionally illiterate .....

You seem to have to attack me personally to try to make a point. A sorry state for a person to find themselves in, I must say.

http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/brokword/page7.htm

some quotes from the above for those who choose not to click through ....

1. Illiteracy increases from west to east, rising from a low of 17 per cent among adults in British Columbia to an astonishing high of 44 per cent in Newfoundland;

2. Nearly half of the 4.5 million functional illiterates identified in the survey are 55 or older, even though this group only accounts for 29 per cent of the total population; (DOES THAT RING A BELL WITH YOU FROM WHAT I STATED? OF COURSE NOT! YOU WOULD NOT ADMIT SUCH AN ERROR ON YOUR PART)

3. The survey's definition of functional literacy was the ability to use printed and written information to function in society. Experts agree this approach is more relevant today than the traditional definition of just being able to sign a name or read a simple sentence. (MAYBE YOU CAN PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER AND UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING ABLE TO READ A NEWSPAPER AND BEING ABLE TO REPEAT WHAT THE ARTICLE YOU JUST READ MEANS. READING IS ONE THING, UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU READ IS ANOTHER ALL TOGETHER)

An interesting example from the above. Quote: "illiteracy still affects 22 per cent of Canadian-born adults -- more than one in five."

I suggest that 25% or more of the adult population has problems understanding the notion of percentage. The fact that the above statement includes the redundant information that 22% is more than 1 in 5 speaks to that point of view.

Lets try another simple one. When a highway sign says: "truckers gear down 8% grade ahead" how many drivers do you think know how that compares to the steepness of a 16% grade hill?

Or how about a price comparison of item A at $100 to item B at $300. Item B is 3 times as high as item A. What is that expressed in percentage?

For further reading about literacy on Canadian sites:
http://www.nald.ca

To see whether you are functionally illiterate with respect to driving in accordance to posted traffic signs, try this test for driving in Quebec:

http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/en/securite/jeux/signalisation.asp

Palopu wrote: "Considering that the population of BC is approx (4) Million, with (1) Million illiterate, that is 1/4 of the population."

The article above said: " Recent studies show that MORE THAN one million ADULT British Columbians do not have the skills necessary to read a newspaper or to fill out a job application."

Not all 4+ million are adults. If we take 20 as the first year of adulthood, then About 25% are 19 years of age or under. Thus there are only about 3+ million who are adults and there are 1+ million of those who cannot read a newspaper. That would make about 33% of adults who cannot read a newspaper.

It appears that you were not able to read the article above from the functional point of view:

- you did not pick up that it was adults

- and/or you forgot that not all 4 million or so are adults

- and you did not have a good understanding of demographics since you would otherwise know that about 20 to 25% of the population would be non-adults depending on which age you actually wish to make the cut off, such as 20 when you use 5 year cohorts, or 19 when you use the legal age of consent.

Thus, again, you are functionally illiterate when discussing this topic.

And, of course, discussing this and pointing these things out makes me condescending, as opposed to simply standing my ground.

Palopu: "Lets continue to make excuses for THE GREAT UNWASHED"

And you call me condescending. ;-)

Owl. This whole discussion from my point of view relates to the statement made in the article ie:

**Recent studies show that more than one million adult British Columbians do not have the skills necessary to read a newspaper or to fill out a job application.**

Lets keep our focus on that statement. Dont try to put your interpretation of literacy into the comment. Anyone can look up the statistics on illiteracy and make all the comments and references that you are making, however it has absolutely nothing to do with the article in question.

I repeat the article states one million adult British Columbians do not have the skills to read a newspaper or to fill out a job application.

I suggest to you that the statement as printed is incorrect. While your interpretation of what constitues illiteracy in Canada, or BC, may in fact be correct, it has no bearing on the interpretation of this particular article.

If in fact the statement as printed is correct, then 1/4 of the population of BC would be by that definition *illiterate*

Get it?

Owl. I can agree that if you take out 20% of the population that would not be considered **Adult** this would change the dynamics somewhat, however the end result would be: 1/3 of the adult population of BC is illiterate rather than 1/4. In any event we are talking about 1 Million people in BC who cannot read a newsaper or fill out a job application, which I find hard to beleive. Therefore I dispute the articles numbers as printed.

What did they say ?

Owl, can you enclose links to pictures, so I can see what you guys are talking about ?

:-)

If people don't want to learn, you can't spend money to force them to learn. I have done some teaching in a specialized field and I have been utterly frustrated by people that lazily sit there with the attitude "Make me learn it". After all of my ramblings, even reapeated 6 times, they still don't remember a word I said.

I can't count the number of times I've heard, "You gotta teach me this stuff".
How about I teach, and "You gotta learn it".

Tell you what Palopu. Do not count on me interpreting it. Call Shirley Bond's office. She is the Minister responsible for edcuastion in the K-12 system. I am sure that they will provide you with exactly what they mean by illiteracy which includes that high a number of people. That way you do not have to call me condescending and I do not have to get pissed off at you.

The teacher in me would love to be able to get you to understand the only sensible meaning that phrase can have in the context of that high a number of illiterates. However, I realize when I cna go no further due to a barrier which has been raised.

So, in order for me to try to get you to see what it actually means, the bast way to do it is to get help elsewhere. That source is best from the horse's own mouth. No matter what I say or do, I have lost your confidence, if I ever had it.
-------------------------
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/illiterate
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0858750.html

http://www2.literacy.bc.ca/facts/why.htm

this is under "LITERACY" not under "FUNCTIONAL LITERACY"

"More than half of Canadians (55%) do not have the minimum numeracy skills necessary to meet the information demands of today’s world."

So... under the title literacy form the people that deal with the issue in BC, we have that statement which is actually "numeracy" or mathematic skills.

In fact, if you cannot type these days, you could be considered to be functionally illiterate when you have to work on a computer and have to work on a computer fairly efficiently.

BTW ... I could call you, Palopu, functionally illiterate because you do not budge from your positions which could make it difficult to work with you in some cases. Thus, one of us would be functionally illiterate.

A third person who would lead the project would have to determine which one of us that would be.

;-)

BTW...I could call you, Owl, the neurotic poster. Why don't you let it go already, or just beat him up after school.
{:-{

Yeah--I am getting bored already!!

I think the phrase **Palopu dont make up stupid stats** got the issue started.

I am responding to what was printed by Opinion 250 and what others would read. To suggest that what was printed means something else entirely and that it can be verfied by searching the Web or calling Shirley Bond is great but how may people would do that.