The fluidity of literacy, and why it matters in Canada

Literacy is typically taken for granted in most countries in the twenty-first century, and, at first glance, the data seem to support this. There are only 13 countries where a majority of the adult population remains illiterate [1], and 87 percent of adults aged 15 and over are literate worldwide, including 90 percent of men and 83 percent of women. There are also indicators that the situation is continuing to improve. Literacy is clearly fluid between generations. In Haiti, for example, only 15 percent of the elderly population is literate, compared to 83 percent of young adults [3]. However—especially for countries with near-universal adult literacy rates—it would be an oversimplification to assume that basic literacy represents functional literacy: to write or understand any texts an average person might encounter or need to create without significant difficulty. 

For example, with a vocabulary of a few hundred words, one may be able to write their name and age, but lack the skills to read or write on more complex topics. These skills are not just academic concerns but have practical effects as well, such as the ability to understand leases, contracts, and laws. Lacking these skills can lead to massive barriers in all facets of life. Therefore, the question of literacy may be better answered not with a simple “yes” or “no” but with a scale of understanding, ranging from no knowledge of characters or letters to the ability of a literary scholar. Similarly, one would not simply say they understand a topic such as science or history in an abstract sense but instead that they have a degree of knowledge ranging from minimal to highly advanced. Not only is literacy fluid in generations and countries, but it is fluid in its very definition.

There is a generally accepted way of measuring this fluid degree of knowledge. Between 1994 and 1998, 20 countries collaborated on the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) to determine a general literacy scale. While the survey is imperfect in its methodology— it mostly consists of wealthier Indo-European language speaking countries and includes no African or Asian countries—it is still the broadest source available on measuring the ability to effectively understand information in texts, numbers, and basic charts. The IALS defines five categories of literary knowledge. Level one defines those with rudimentary skills, who may be “unable to determine the correct amount of medicine to give a child from information printed on the package.” Level two consists of those with more knowledge than level one but would find it “difficult to face novel demands, such as new job skills.” Level three is where full literacy begins, with skills “suitable for coping with the demands of everyday life and work.” Levels four and five, not relevant here, include those with “higher-order information processing skills” [4]. This more nuanced understanding is useful in evaluating the fluid distribution and range of literary skills among a population.

Despite boasting an official literacy rate of about 99 percent, 49 percent of Canadian adults cannot read or write above level two [5], while a minimum of level three is required to live and participate to a full degree in the modern world. In other words, nearly half of Canadian adults are at least partially illiterate, with 15 percent scoring at level one, functionally illiterate [6]. Instinctively, one may blame younger people for this trend, perhaps due to a lack of reading, or overuse of the internet. However, it is older Canadians who are less likely to be literate. This is due to declining cognitive abilities, lower use of phones and computers (which create regular exposure to written language), and, most importantly, lack of tasks involving literacy such as school and work. 

Literacy, like any other skill, erodes over time with lack of use. According to statistics from the Centre for Literacy of Quebec, 53 percent of Canadians over age 65 fall into level one of the IALS measurement [7], making it difficult, for example, to understand prescription and safety information on pill bottles. 27 percent fall into level two, making four out of five of older Canadians not fully literate, and over half functionally illiterate [7]. Between the ages of 56 and 65, the numbers fall to the still high percentages of 38 and 26 in levels one and two, respectively [7]. Literacy is not something to be taken for granted, and as Canadian and world populations continue to age due to various medical advancements, these older and less literate groups will continue to form a larger proportion of the population, further raising the overall percentage of individuals lacking basic literacy skills.

Literacy skills are not only fluid among different age groups: they are closely connected with wealth, race, and poverty. For example, a 2005 Statistics Canada survey found that “a low skilled adult is two times more likely to be unemployed compared to a medium to high skilled adult” [8], low skilled meaning IALS level two or lower. The text also states, “[l]ow skilled adults are more likely than medium to high skilled adults to experience … labour force inactivity for six or more months” [8], due to the difficulty in finding new jobs. Low literacy is an issue of social justice. Illiteracy means not being able to complete services like online banking. It means not being able to further one’s education, even if one does have the time and resources. It means being unable to complete applications or navigate websites for employment and services, further perpetuating the cycles of poverty that contribute to illiteracy in the first place. 

With this information, it is unsurprising that the situation is also worse for Indigenous peoples. While Indigenous and non-Indigenous people with similar levels of education score similarly on the IALS, a disproportionate amount of Indigenous people live in poverty and/or have a low level of education due to the history of colonialism, ongoing discrimination, and systemic racism in Canada. This has caused a higher proportion of Indigenous peoples to have lower literacy scores, ranging from 70 percent in Saskatchewan to 52 percent in Ontario (compared to 47 percent of non-Indigenous people in Ontario) [9]. While there are issues with the methodology of these surveys, such as including only those who live off-reserve, and not acknowledging whether a respondent’s first language may be neither French nor English, this does show the impact of underfunded services and racialized poverty on affected groups’ education and skills. Even First Nations individuals with a level three or above score are still significantly less likely to be employed than equally skilled non-First Nations individuals, at 75 percent and 91 percent, respectively [10]. The federal government admits that “Non-Aboriginal adults aged 25 to 54 with lower literacy skills (level 2 or lower) were more likely to be employed than off-reserve First Nations adults with higher skills (level 3 or higher), even after accounting for other factors related to the probability of employment.” [10] This shows the power of the systemic racism and marginalisation that even more well-educated Indigenous individuals face, and it is especially relevant as Canada sees inadequate, reduced funding and opportunities for Indigenous education, such as at Laurentian University [11], whose program was shuttered after the institution’s financial insolvency. Any conversation about literacy in Canada must centre these realities. Fluidity in literacy is rarely a passive phenomenon, but one that is actively enforced through social inequality.

The impact of racism is also evident in the situation for immigrants in Canada, as “both low and medium to high skilled immigrants are disadvantaged in terms of employment, even compared to low skilled native-born adults.” [12] This is particularly relevant to the GTA, which contains nearly four-fifths of Ontario’s and over a third of Canada’s immigrant population. Still, less than 5 percent of Ontarians, immigrant or otherwise, participate in adult literacy programs [13]. Because illiteracy is often shamed or used as a punchline, many are reluctant to seek out the help they need, not to mention accessibility issues, and the declining public access to sources of aid, as shown by Laurentian’s situation and the declining share of public funding of non-compulsory education in Canada. 

Despite the Supreme Court ruling in the 2012 case Moore v. British Columbia (Education) that all Canadians, regardless of learning disabilities, have the right to learn to read, this standard is far from realised. All this does not mean that basic literacy statistics are useless or intentionally deceptive. They record what they intend to: the simple ability to understand letters and basic sentences. However, they do lack a degree of nuance in isolation, nuance which is especially important when examining the situations of, for example: the elderly; Indigenous peoples; and immigrants. Literacy is a liquid phenomenon, not a binary one, and it is only through such an understanding that this problem can be properly identified and acted upon.