Functional Illiteracy and American Discourse

You may have already seen the recent data released about literacy rates in the United States. It’s not a pretty picture.

The data was released by the National Assessment of Educational Progress and is colloquially referred to as the “Nation’s Report Card”.

Findings include that K-12 students are not reading at their grade level. This isn’t new. It’s frequently pointed out that this pre-dates the pandemic. The Washington Post reported that the “Average reading scores in the US have been declining since 2017.” The role of absenteeism and performance is considered to have strong correlation.

There is evidence of a relationship between test scores and future wages. Put another way, low literacy rates means massive losses for the U.S. economy in the future. If you don’t think this has something to do with TikTok as Chinese spyware, think again. Dumbing down American youth is a nefarious tactic although of course, in the realm of the spy world and improving your people’s economic opportunities over your competitors, this is well-played by China. DeepSeek may be another targeted attack— an opportunity to scrape data from American consumers and get a leg up on competition. Keep in mind, at the end of the day, China is less an enemy than a top trading partner. But geopolitical politics is not historically about fair play. Trump tariff threats as a cudgel to strongarm weaker nations like Colombia do not inspire high trust or favorability. If you are Mexico or Canada or Panama or Greenland, what would you do in response to Trump’s imperialist threats?

We can split hairs over how data is gathered or whether average American reading levels are closer to 5^th grade or 6^th grade… but, let’s be real, the issue is this is very low. I’m not even going to compare the U.S. to other “developed” nations. Let’s just focus on the state of the U.S.

Donald Trump famously said, “I love the uneducated!” and we know why. A poorly educated populace is easily manipulated.

I’m not interested in punching down. Frankly, there’s too much at stake.

The U.S. does not rank well in literacy. We’re not #1. We’re not even in the Top 25.

Here’s where we can split hairs… a bit. The data discusses literacy and illiteracy in broad terms. There’s talk of what constitutes being “functionally illiterate” and that strikes me as one of the more important areas to focus on. While the technical levels are a little science-y, the overall point is that those who cannot get beyond the first level of proficiency lack basic skills that are essential for performing tasks in everyday life. (No, I’m not talking about ADLs.) This helps explain why people don’t understand nutrition, for example. They don’t really know what they’re looking at when they look at the nutritional information on a package. It’s only at Level Two, where a person is able to make more nuanced decisions such as evaluating product reviews. I know, sounds kinda basic, right? But, sadly, no. Level Two abilities are typically available to a child who has a 7-9 year old reading level. At another time, I’ll discuss how Donald Trump’s vocabulary is actually limited to a child around this age (though potentially somewhat by design as it’s common for Populists to use a limited vocabulary). At Level Two reading comprehension, a person may struggle to engage in tasks that include reading and understanding a restaurant menu, reading children’s books, reading news articles, or understanding the information provided with medical prescriptions. At a psychological level, a person with this level of reading ability is likely to have self-esteem issues (including feelings of shame and embarrassment) and feel a general sense of powerlessness. We’re seeing how that sense of powerlessness can manifest.

There are many problems with lack of adequate literacy. As explored above, this goes well beyond whether or not a person reads books. There’s separate data about how people vote and who read a book in the last year. You can guess who comes down on which side. Unsurprising. Again, less a dig and more about meeting people where they’re at. This podcast episode of ‘UNDISTRACTED’ addresses a number of important issues. I especially appreciate what Anand Giridharadas shares. Giridharadas calls attention to a failure of Leftists and Progressives to speak in a way that gives people a door to get closer to our side, without perfection, and being open to helping people understand our views. When someone flips to a Left-leaning worldview (think: Liz Cheyney or Adam Kinzinger or any number of anti-Trump folks who were previously staunch Republicans). Giridharadas notes that we have a bad habit of saying something to the extent of, “What took you so long?” as opposed to cheering people on for having come around to our worldview. Additionally, we need to work on our invitation skills. How do those of us who are Left-of-Center (or generally against what Trump is selling) encourage respectful and fervent discussion with an authentic aim to bring people in— to evangelize for our side the way that churches and Conservatives are all too ready to make space for those who are feeling lost and disillusioned (think: young men, Working Class, POC who long ago the DNC should have learned are not a monolith).

Back to the problem of functional illiteracy, in the aforementioned UNDISTRACTED podcast episode, Giridharadas points to a statement he made on another podcast saying that, in short, he wanted to find ways to create more “male feminists”. This resulted in receiving lots of angry notes. After reading a bunch of them, he realized the notes were not about being anti-feminist; rather, this was a misunderstanding. Listeners did not understand the meaning of the word feminist which is common use in educated/left/progressive discourse. The people who were upset heard the word “feminist” and thought it was synonymous with “feminine”. So, they believed that Giridharadas was trying to “convert” men into being more feminine or “feminizing” men. It’s a small leap and you realize what listeners mishear is a call by progressives/leftists to emasculate men and make men more like women. The words we use matter. In this case, our team is often saying “feminist” as a shorthand. What we mean is we want fair and equal treatment for women. By using a word that we see as normative and obvious is problematized when received as charged/polarizing diction by those who are low trust and worry our agendas are not aligned.

This is just one example of a misunderstanding that takes a highly problematic turn due to literacy issues and word usage.

Giridharadas’ story struck me, in part, because there are a lot of terms that are thrown around in common Progressive/Left circles and in Higher Ed spaces. Certain types of language common to those privileged with a good education are not terms a person would necessarily stumble upon in real world situations if you grew up different, did not attend college, are siloed in more conservative circles, and the list goes on. Again, remember, no interest in punching down. People are people and people are different. In the post-election search for answers, we’re all digging for reasons why Trump remained a viable candidate.

In many parts of the country, people do not speak the same language. Certainly not the language of East Coast liberals and elites like myself. I learned how to code switch when I lived in other places. For one thing, it was a matter of safety. It was a good lesson in checking myself. Especially as a talker. (Have you met me?) I had to stay on my toes and not word vomit my stances and worldviews at every turn. When I admit this to folks, they sometimes question why a person would live like this or say that it sounds inauthentic and disingenuous. I don’t think that’s true. I think I was being a good listener and doing my best to hear what people were saying as they expressed who they are from their life station. Did I secretly judge some folks for holding problematic beliefs? Sure. Privately. But that’s not the point. The point is to meet people where they’re at and try to get to a place where you can have a productive dialogue. Talking past each other doesn’t do any good.

This isn’t a call to dumb yourself down, by the way. It’s a consideration of language use. In the political sphere, Progressives/Leftists (and the not-even-moderate but, historically speaking, Center-Leaning Right Democratic Party) need to find ways to use language that communicates in a manner that can connect and resonate with those who have a different vocabulary, suspicion of liberals/elites and elite institutions, and lack the language and resources to easily reshape their worldview. Class plays a major role in this. People are not always inflexible by choice. They need adequate mental bandwidth (time) and access to adequate resources (education) to learn forms of communication that may seem natural or obvious to those with privilege.

What lessons do we take away? How can we learn to communicate better?