Bob C. Cleckler

Reading education page

Hi there! I notice you recently added a Wikipedia account. You did a lot of work on the reading instruction page, which is great. I wanted to let you know taht I actually reverted most of it (i.e., I returned it to its original form). I did this because the information you added overlapped with information already in the page and had a non-neutral point of view. You clearly showed which approach to reading you favor. While I also have opinions on this topic, I try to maintain strict neutrality in my editing. I am happy to work with you on this page. I actually favor an almost complete rewrite. I look forward to hearing your perspective. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Best, Kearnsdm 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Literacy page

Hi again. I reverted your edits to the Literacy page because they were (a) not from a neutral point of view or (b) overly detailed when a simpler version would be better.

In the former case, you assert a claim about reading education that is not wholly supported by primary source evidence. In point of fact, the additions to the reading education page also reflect a non-neutral point of view, as you see I discussed above. Furthermore, your additions to that page seem to reflect original research rather than the accumulation of knowledge produced by others. I have done little to change the REading education page--although I intend to work with you in the future to do so. I am more concerned, however, about the literacy page at this time and suggest that we work together to come up with mutually agreeable edits that are neutral and in keeping with the preponderance of evidence produced by others.

In the latter case, the additional material related to adult literacy in the United States is overwhelming rather than helpful and makes the page seem to favor U.S. literacy over international literacy. If you think you might incorporate key points from the report while keeping the addition pithy, that would be an excellent thing. Otherwise, it may make sense to avoid adding this material. I look forward to working with you. Please communicate with me through my talk page. Kearnsdm 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

United States Literacy Statistics

The change made on June 22 is a neutral point of view, up-to-date, accurate assessment of U.S. literacy. It is not original research. It is a description of the most comprehensive study of U.S. adult literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government completed in 1993 and the 2003 follow-up study reported in 2006. These two massive reports are a withering attack on the U.S. reading education system, which is perhaps why some wikipedia contributors want to revert the article without the courtesy of reading the two government reports upon which the article is based. The change made June 22 is as "pithy" as possible without omitting vital facts to verify the actual state of U.S. literacy. Reverting to the previous version which mentions only a few details of the 2003 report would be a disservice to any reader of wikipedia who wants to know the true status of U.S. literacy.

Anyone thinking that the change made June 22 "seems to favor U.S. literacy over world-wide literacy," should remember that the change is to the subsection titled "United States." They are welcome to make all the addtions to other subsections of the literacy article they choose to emphasize literacy elsewhere to make the entire literacy section "balanced."

Follow Up on the Literacy Page

Hey there! I'm glad we're finally getting to correspond about this. I want to clarify a few things and add an explanation for the reason I think we should favor a shorter piece on U.S. literacy.

In terms of clarifications, I wanted to make sure it was clear that my comments about original research and neutrality were with reference to the additions made to the Reading Education page, not the literacy page (although I do think some of the language used in the section on U.S. literacy had a non-neutral tone).

With regard to the U.S. literacy piece, I want to explain why I think the original edit (which I did not make) is better than the new one. First, the addition gives a historical perspective on changing definitions of U.S. literacy that isn't precisely germane to this section. This section of the article deals with literacy rates in the U.S. at the present time (as does the subsection titled "Other countries", so the updated results of the 2003 study are the most appropriate ones to use here. I find the historical perspective quite interesting, but readers will expect to see the most current assessment of U.S. literacy in this section, and we should give this to them.

Second, the addition is simply too long. Your point regarding balance is well-taken (that those interested in other countries should add the germane sections), but it is also important to limit the scope of the U.S. section. The addition of information on U.S. literacy was nearly 1/10 of the entire article, and that is too much for a single subtopic in such a wide-ranging piece. Sentence such as this one exemplify additional material that is overlong and non-encyclopedic: "Some reporters may also scan through the body of the report, but very few of them do a mathematical analysis of the data (since most of them are journalists not mathematicians) which--in the case of this particular report--is necessary to find the most important conclusions proven by the report." While possibly true, it is not important in terms of telling readers about the current U.S. literacy rate.

Finally, the edits made seemed non-neutral. The bolded italics and capital letters imply bias because they highlight sections for the reader rather than allowing the reader to judge what is important. An encyclopedia should allow the reader to make the judgments. The above quotation regarding reporters also demonstrates a non-neutral point of view because it makes clear a distaste for reporters' reporting from the authors' point of view. Furthermore, since it is unsourced, it amounts to original research or someone's opinion. Another example comes from the commentary on the census, where it is written that the Census Bureau made a decision "for some reason." In is, the authors appear to implicate the Census Bureau in some possibly underhanded or inappropriate scheme. If that is the opinion of some authoritative or noteworthy source, that might be appropriate (although it would still not be appropriate for this section, in my view), but as it is currently written, it is clear the author has an opinion. That is not, as already stated here, appropriate for an encyclopedia.

So, I hope that clarifies my original comments and provides more context for the reversion of new edits. I remain steadfastly committed to creating a better article and believe we could work together toward this aim. We should communicate by talk page and work jointly on the edit before adding anything new to the page. At this point, we are probably subject to the three revert rule.

I look forward to working with you! Best, Kearnsdm 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow Up

Wikipedia suggests that when tensions rise, the best thing to do is to step back for a moment. I'm going to do that. I think that perhaps you could do the same. In the meantime, let us leave the discussion and the page as they are. I will respond to you in a couple of days. If you think you could add more productive comments to your post on my page at some point, I would certainly love to read them.

I remain quite sanguine about the possibility of you and I working together, but it will count on a fully productive dialogue. I'll speak with you soon. Kearnsdm 23:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC) (PS -- Wikipedia likes people to sign their posts by adding four tildes; it will give your username and the date of the post.)

Comments=

Thank you for the extensive explanation you gave for your perspective. I'll respond in parts.

First, let me say thank you for your apology.

Second, let me say that, in principle, I agree with you. Illiteracy is a very serious problem and should not be overlooked or underestimated.

Third, I am not sure I agree with your interpretations of the Adult Literacy in America study. Your characterization of the Levels identified in the report differs qualitatively from my reading of it. First, you link decoding ability and illiteracy in ways that the report does not. Furthermore, the report describes Level 1 in a way that reveals its heterogeneity, which your edit did not. The individuals at Level 1 are a very diverse group of individuals and their large numbers are partly explained by factors not related to the American education system (i.e., many have intellectual disabilities, are over the age of 65, and are recent immigrants). The authors concluded that this latter group accounted for a great proportion of Level 1. I am not trying to trivialize the seriousness of the problem, but it is important to lay bare the details of the report in order to understand the nature of the problem.

Fourth, it probably makes sense to restrain the section on illiteracy in the United States despite the laudable principle underlying your changes. I think that we can take some of the material from the report to present a pithy summary of its findings. What we should avoid is polemical language. If I have learned anything from the current age of American politics, it is that citizens are constantly bombarded by the "hard sell," and they are sick of it. Therefore, we should be careful to present only the facts about the proportion of Americans whose literacy skills are quite limited and leave it to the reader to generate his/her own outrage. Advocacy, although important, is not the purpose of an encyclopedic entry. To be frank, I think that the section on U.S. illiteracy, as written before the edits, captured the most salient facts from the report. In your edit, you outlined ways in which the report could be examined more deeply to calculate the financial impact of illiteracy, for example. You make a very good case, but it is a case best made in an advocacy book--as you have already done!

Finally, I want to urge you to consider viewing educators, "experts" (by which I imagine you refer to educational researchers), and even politicians somewhat differently. I have no doubt that your charges--that educators can be resistant, that experts can be corrupt, and that politicians can be callous--have merit in some (and in the case of politicians, perhaps many) cases. I do not share your bleak perspective on the whole. I find it difficult to believe that teachers would renounce effective educational practices for fear of losing their jobs, especially in the current educational climate. If there were a 3-month magic bullet, as you suggested, I feel certain that many schools desperately trying to reach AYP would be using it already. With experts, the Reading First scandal certainly revealed the true colors of a few important leaders in literacy education, but many others remain unblemished and their work important. If you applied to publishers alone the words you reserved for all "experts" I would have agreed with you; their motivations are very far from pure. But even experts who work with them are often doing very good and important work. I will waste few words on politicians, but I think we should consider their views with strong skepticism but without cynicism--even when they come from corners we do not expect. No Child Left Behind is an interesting piece of legislation in this regard; its pedigree is at the same time conservative and liberal and there are many good ideas within it, whatever your political perspective (although the left and right might not agree on what is good about it). I use that important piece of legislation to illustrate how skepticism but not cynicism is critical in considering the politics of literacy.

To close, let me restate the most important points I have to make, the first being that your passion is, in m view, well placed and your energy and enthusiasm a great asset. Secondly, it may benefit you to channel your passion toward your advocacy work and focus your Wikipedia articles on the essential facts of the topics in which you are interested. I do believe the saying, however banal, that that the truth will set us free; given this, it makes little sense to confine the truth in polemical language.

I would like to work with you on the Reading education article to pare and shape it somewhat. I look forward to your response. Most sincerely, Kearnsdm 07:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Usertalk:kearnsdm

A tag has been placed on Usertalk:kearnsdm, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

The content is in the wrong namespace. It appears that the comment was intended to be put at User talk:Kearnsdm.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mysdaao ^talk 13:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Functional illiteracy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Research Associates, Inc.|accessdate=20 October 2014}}</ref> and <ref name=EndIlliteracy20>{{cite book|last1=Cleckler|first1=Bob|title=Let's End Our Literacy Crisis, Revised Edition|date=2009|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)