Is there a relationship between literacy and terrorism?

In the International Reading Association's journal, Reading Today, there was an article about the state of literacy in Pakistan. Pakistan is one of the 12 countries of the world that spends less than 2% of its GNP on education; its primary education system ranks among the world's least effective. The literacy rate in the province called Sindh and the province called Balochistan are 59% and 41% respectively. Only 40% of the literate population can read simple text in local languages. In schools students only read selected portions of texts to prepare for their examinations. Teachers and administrators rarely buy any books for their own reading. Most schools lack libraries. There is not a culture of reading. Reading is not seen as a way to learn. Reading for pleasure is not promoted. Could the current reading deficiency be one of the major causes of the existing wave of terrorism and extremism? These two provinces are working together to change current practices. They have opened libraries run by the collaborative efforts of teachers and students. They are also getting training. Imagine if learning to read is the real kingpin to world peace.

Are We in Too Deep?

New York State has created a series of modules to help teachers implement the Common Core Standards. These standards are incredibly ambitious. I have looked at what is planned for students in grades 3-5. The topics are excellent and the proposed lesson plans are detailed. I do object, though, to some of the reading materials used. On Friday, I took an in-depth view of one of the fourth grade modules that focuses on women's rights. Students are required to read the original speech of Susan B. Anthony from 1872. I understand that students are often able to comprehend subject matter that is way over their heads with support and scaffolding. However, I thought this article was pushing our students into the deep end of the pool with a rubber duck. Susan B. Anthony's speech is beautifully written and posits a convincing argument on why women should be allowed to vote. However, the vocabulary and sentence structures are very sophisticated. Words like oligarchy, odious, aristocracy, ex post facto are all mentioned. Will fourth graders grasp these broad ideas? Are we in too deep?