Journal of Education, 2016Issue 66, http://joe.ukzn.ac.zaProxies and perplexities: What is thecurrent state of adult (il)literacy in SouthAfrica? John Aitchison(Received 3August 2015; accepted 26 November 2015)AbstractThis article provides a detailed analysis of the data from a range of official sources thathave been used to enumerate the number of people who can be described as totally orfunctionally illiterate and estimates whether illiteracy in South Africa can be reduced in theforeseeable future.The study examines the use of years of schooling (conventionally now set at Grade 7) asthe proxy indicator of a person being functionally literate by the main sources, the GeneralPopulation Censuses of 1996, 2001, and 2011 and the annual General Household Surveysand shows that these sources give somewhat contradictory and discordant estimates of therate at which there is gradual decline of illiteracy in South Africa. Other indicators based onself reporting, also used in the Census and General Housing Surveys, show that a largenumber of adult South Africans have difficulty in reading, writing and calculating withnumbers. The study also shows that the data presented by these surveys about participationin literacy and adult basic education and training classes is inaccurate. Note is made thatcurrently South Africa does not make use of any means of direct testing of adult literacy.The article concludes with an exploration on whether South Africa is able to reach the goalof halving illiteracy by 2015. The target of such a reduction is necessarily based on whatthe baseline number of illiterates is as well as decision on whether full function literacymust be obtained or a merely a basic level of alphabetisation. Through a detailed estimationof the results of the Kha Ri Gude adult literacy campaign since 2008 a finding is made thatthe halving of illiteracy will be made, but only at the most basic level, and that attainingfull functional literacy for all South Africans remains a major task. 112 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016What is the current state of adult (il)literacy in SouthAfrica?The answers to this question:!require an examination of a variety of data (much of it somewhat suspect)!imply judgements about the successes and failures of the provision ofadult education in the twenty years since South Africa became ademocratic state!provide the baseline data for the planning of the final eradication ofilliteracy!inform prognostications about how long that process will take.This article, which tries, inadequately, to answer the question, is broken downinto two parts, the first looks at the data on illiteracy and the second at thewhether the efforts to significantly reduce illiteracy have succeeded (or willsucceed) in the near future.The data on adult (il)literacy levelsThe data on literacy levels in South Africa is derived from three types of data:!proxy measures of literacy based on education (schooling) levels(recorded through census and other surveys)!self-reports of literacy competency (usually collected through surveys)!direct measures of literacy skills (usually done through smaller surveys orstudies).Estimating literacy using proxy indicatorsConventionally and until recently, UNESCO has recorded national statisticson illiteracy using proxy measures such as census data on education levels.Such proxy measures usually recorded “No schooling” as meaning totally Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 113illiterate and “Below a certain grade level” as indicating functional illiteracy.In 1995 Harley et al. argued that in South Africa an adult with less than grade7 was likely to be functionally illiterate (Harley et al., 1996, pp. 23-25), aposition accepted by Statistics South Africa in its General Housing Surveyreports (see Statistics South Africa, 2014, p. 24) and by the Department ofBasic Education (see Department of Basic Education, 2014, p. 38).The estimates based on census dataTable 1 summarises figures for the literacy and basic education levels of adultSouth Africans aged 15 and over, using data from the 1996, 2001 and 2011General Population Censuses. (The age of 15 is chosen as the lower age limitbecause this is UNESCO usage in recording adult literacy levels.) Table 1Literacy and basic education levels of South Africans aged 15 andoverLevel of educationGeneral Population Census199620012011Full general education (grade9 and more)13.1 million (50%)15.8 million (52%)24.3 million (68%)Less than full generaleducation (less than grade 9)13.2 million (50%)14.6 million (48%)11.5 million (32%)None to less than grade 78.5 million (32%)9.6 million (32%)6.9 million (19%)No schooling4.2 million (16%)4.7 million (16%)2.7 million (8%)These figures show that by 2001 there had been no decrease since 1995/1996in the percentage of functionally illiterate adults (less than grade 7) and theyhad actually increased in raw numbers. Some 32% of the adult population ofabout 30½ million could therefore be regarded as functionally illiterate and thefunctional literacy rate (taking grade 7 education as the criterion of functionalliteracy) amongst the adult population had accordingly remained at 68% since1996. There had been a very slight drop in the in the proportion of no 114 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016General Household Surveys are conducted annually by Statistics South Africa and collect 1data from a sample of private households and residents in worker hostels in the wholecountry. The aim of the survey is to provide government departments and organisationswith information on the progress of development in South Africa for monitoring and policypurposes. The survey covers six broad areas, namely education, health and socialdevelopment, housing, household access to services and facilities, food security, andagriculture (Statistics South Africa, 2015, p. 10). A Community Survey, by comparison, is amini census, undertaken in 2007 in South Africa, because of the large ten year gap betweenthe 2001 census and the 2011 census.They also suggest lower overall population figures for South Africa than extrapolations of 2the 2001 census data would predict.schooling illiterates but their raw number had increased. All provinces, exceptthe Northern Cape had increasing numbers of adults with no schooling.These estimates assume the accuracy of the 2001 census figures, which alsocorrespond to similar estimates in October Household Surveys from the late1990s. The estimates informed the planning of the Kha Ri Gude literacycampaign (Aitchison, 2006). The corollary of these statistics is that the statesystem of adult basic education and training and its parallels in the businesssector and non-governmental organisations had by 2001 failed to reduce thenumber or percentage of functionally illiterate people in South Africa. At bestABET provision was keeping the percentage of functional illiterates the same,though their raw numbers continued to grow.However, the situation shown in the 2011 census suggests a startling reversalof the growth in raw numbers of the poorly educated and a rapid decline in thepercentage of those with less than grade 9 and grade 7. In addition, a new setof proxy based estimates now also challenge the 1996 and 2001 census basedfigures (and also, though to a lesser extent, the 2011 census data itself). The estimates based on post-2001 General householdSurveysSubsequent to the General Population Census of 2001, a number of annualgeneral household surveys present a suite of results of proxy-based estimates 1which generally suggest a lower and declining number of both total illiteracy 2(No schooling) and functional illiteracy (Less than Grade 7 amongst those Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 115It needs to be noted that every year these figures are retrospectively revised downwards 3(presumably by reweighting). The original General Household Survey figures in the reporton each year from 2002 to 2013 have these No schooling figures: 11.8%, 11.2%, 10.8%,10.4%, 10.5%, 9.3%, 8.7%, 7.4%, 7.0%, 6.6%, 5.8%, 5.6%. Only 2012 and 2013 remainunaltered.with only some primary education) as seen in Table 2 based on Figure 9 fromthe General Household Survey 2013 (Statistics South Africa, 2014, p. 23):3Table 2Literacy and basic education levels of South Africans aged 20 andoverGeneral Household Surveys 2002 to 2013Date of surveyNo schoolingSome primaryBoth 200210.6%17.0%27.6% 20039.9%15.8%25.7% 20049.6%15.5%25.1% 20059.4%15.0%24.4% 20069.5%14.3%23.8% 20078.6%14.3%22.9% 20088.7%13.9%22.6% 20097.2%12.3%19.5% 20106.8%12.1%18.9% 20116.4%11.5%17.9% 20125.8%10.9%16.7% 20135.6%10.7%16.3%The General Household Survey report starts with an estimate of the Noschooling group as having been 10.6% (3 016 000 people) in 2002 (indicatingconsiderable divergence from the Census 2001 estimate of 17.9% for thoseaged 20 and over with No schooling) dropping to 5.6% (1 788 000 people) in2013, both a percentage decline and a real number decline. The decline in numbers each year (except for 2006 and 2008 when there weresmall increases in the No schooling percentages) is erratic, ranging from 1% to 116 Journal of Education, No. 66, 201613%. Given that the explanation for the decline would presumably focusmainly on the fact that older people with no education would gradually bedying out and younger people who had benefited from the more generalavailability of schooling would be coming in, the erratic nature of the declinessuggests some kind of error, whether of sampling or weighting (andretrospective reweighting – as it is clear that with each successive annualhousehold survey the previous survey figures are retrospectively reviseddownwards (as shown in the example of the 2009 survey in the Table 3below)).The 2013 general household survey claims a decline in total illiteracy (Noschooling) and functional illiteracy (schooling of less than Grade 7) amongadults aged 20 years and older from 27.3% in 2002 to 16.2% in 2013.Table 3Percentage of adults (aged 20+) with lessthan Grade 7 educationYearGHS of theyearGHS 2009GHS 2013200228.927.927.3200327.426.225.5200426.525200525.624.824.2200625.123.7200723.723.222.7200822.422.4200919.719.719.3201019.218.8201118.117.7201216.516.5201316.216.2 Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 117Table 3 shows that the General Housing Surveys from 2002 to 2013 indicateda decline every year in the percentage of undereducated adults. The GeneralHousing Survey of 2013 show how Statistics South Africa has alsoretrospectively re-weighted the figures for most years.The Department of Basic Education has made use of these General HouseholdSurvey reports and has issued reports based on their own analysis andcalculations of the education statistics in the General Household Surveys from2009 to 2013 (Department of Education, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014) as well as asummary one on the 2002 to 2008 surveys (Department of Basic Education,2010).Their latest summary (Department of Basic Education, 2014, p. 40) of literacyprogress using the Grade 7 and higher proxy measure of functional literacy isshown in Table 4:Table 4Percentage of adults aged 20 and above who have completedGrade 7 and higher, 2009 - 2012Group2009201020112012African75.076.078.979.1Coloured83.985.572.386.4Indian/Asian95.592.192.692.0White99.898.898.097.5All79.480.080.782.2[It might be noted that it is impossible for any country or population group in the world to actuallyhave a 99.8% Grade 7 schooling achievement – because there is a percentage (usually at least 3% to5%) of every population which is largely uneducable because of major physical or mental handicap.Current estimates suggest that as many as half a million disabled South African children may not bein school (Human Rights Watch, 2015, pp. 74-75).]The Department of Basic Education’s General Housing Survey (GHS) 2012Report – Focus on schooling (Department of Basic Education, 2014, p. 40)states: 118 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016As the Department of Basic Education (2014, p. 38) notes: “an adult who has completed 4Grade 7 and above is regarded as literate. The completion of primary education is used as aproxy for measuring literacy; that is, it is assumed that the person is capable of reading,writing and doing some basic numeracy. This calculation is in line with the UNESCOInstitute of Statistics calculations.” Overall the percentage of adults who are literate across all population groups has increasedfrom 79% in 2009 to approximately 82% in 2012. This may be attributed to the introductionof Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) now known as Adult Education and Training(AET), the Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign and other initiatives introduced to improve theliteracy rates of adults by Government.This statement has a puzzling set of claims about the causes of the reduction inilliteracy (and ignores the most obvious one, the deaths of older illiterates).Firstly, the number of ABET learners had remained more or less static sincethe mid-1990s and the output of learners with a full ABET grade 9equivalence was derisory (only 8 221 in the six years from 2001 to 2006). So-called AET is not the same as ABET as it includes both ABET (grade 1 to 9equivalence) and adult Further Education and Training (grade 10 to 12equivalence). Further, the Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign, whatever itachievements in reducing total illiteracy, has little impact on functionalliteracy statistics as its output level is grade 3 equivalence only. 4Anomalies in the post-census 2001 surveys The anomalies in the post-census 2001 surveys are a cause for perplexity.Take the following example in Table 5 of a comparison between theCommunity Survey 2007 and the General Housing Survey 2007 with theCensus 2001 figure. The variations in the differences in the separateprovincial declines in the number of illiterates are inexplicable (and theycertainly cannot be explained away by assuming either systematic sampling,weighting or coding errors in the whole datasets for Census 2001, or the two2007 surveys, or a selective genocide of illiterate adults over the age of 50). Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 119Table 5Decline in number of unschooled persons between 2001 and 2007Census 2001CommunitySurvey 2007Decline as %GeneralHouseholdSurvey 2007Decline as %KwaZulu-Natal1 539 299645 47158%617 00060%Limpopo858 681511 71440%480 00044%Eastern Cape778 204366 59053%399 00049%Gauteng515 747277 28546%238 00054%Mpumalanga468 747307 74034%296 00037%North West437 791260 38141%230 00047%Free State257 140132 11049%126 00051%Western Cape167 61994 72443%84 00050%Northern Cape91 30476 35816%71 00022%South Africa5 114 5322 672 37348%2 541 00050%To be noted are the large declines in provinces with the highest illiteracylevels (KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo and the Eastern Cape) and the tiny decline inthe Northern Cape.Even more alarming are some other results in the General Household Survey2009 (Statistics South Africa, 2010). For example, as shown in Table 6, itreports (p. 9) that there were only 18,000 person attending literacy classes at atime when the Kha Ri Gude adult literacy campaign had 613 643 learnersregistered that year (and of whom some 545 666 submitted their final 120 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016The Kha Ri Gude adult literacy campaign was launched in April 2008 after a two year 5process of investigation and development. Some 357,195 learners were enrolled in 2008,613 643 in 2009, 609 199 in 2010, 660 924 in 2011, 676 323 in 2012, and 562 926 in 2013.The South African Qualifications Authority has conducted an annual verification exerciseinvolving a moderation of a sample of Learner Assessment Portfolios that are submittedfrom every learner and conveyed to the head office for moderation and verification. By theend of 2012 some 2 305 492 learners had passed this assessment and been recorded on theNational Learner Record Database. The Auditor-General also conducted a verificationexercise in 2014. Even allowing for some margin of error in the statistics it is incontestablethat huge numbers of people participated in Kha Ri Gude classes.assessment portfolio at the end of the six month programme) (South AfricanQualifications Authority, 2010, 2013). 5Table 6Comparison between Kha Ri Gude registrations in 2009 and the GeneralHousehold Survey 2009 tally of people in literacy classesProvinceKha RiGudeGHS 2009GHS as % of Kha RiGudeEastern Cape142 671 6 000 4.2% KwaZulu-Natal133 486 2 000 1.5% Limpopo103 828 4 000 3.9% Gauteng75 678 1 000 1.3% Mpumalanga55 971 < 1000 <1.3% Free State50 984 4 000 7.8% North West32 193 1 000 3.1% Western Cape11 173 1 000 9.0% Northern Cape7 654 < 1000 <13.1% 613 643 18 000 2.9% Even if one assumes that some literacy learners have been recorded as being inAdult Basic Education and Training Classes (the survey records 120 000 Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 121The General Household Survey seems to have been somewhat confused (as many people 6are) on the distinction between literacy classes and ABET classes. Buy even such confusiondoes not explain the overall miscount.attendees), this is still far short of the number of Kha Ri Gude registrations. It 6is a catastrophic miscount.So, on questions of accurate sampling, the General Household Survey of 2009hardly inspires confidence.Table 7 shows the situation with the 2012 General Household Survey(Statistics South Africa, 2013, p. 9) and exposes an equally dire miscountingproblem:Table 7Comparison between Kha Ri Gude registrations in 2012 and theGeneral Household Survey tally of people (aged 5+) in literacyclassesProvinceKha RiGudeGHS 2012GHS as % of Kha RiGudeEastern Cape161 155 Less than 5 726Less than 3.6% KwaZulu-Natal148 687 Less than 1 688Less than 3.9% Limpopo109 035 Less than 1 002Less than 0.9% Gauteng88 821 Less than 1 543Less than 1.7% Mpumalanga56 907 Less than 659Less than 1.2% Free State52 892 Less than 397Less than 0.8% North West35 917 Less than 1 018Less than 2.8% Western Cape15 315 Less than 3 684Less than 24% Northern Cape7 589 Less than 162Less than 2.1% 676 323 15 6922.3% 122 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016So the general question arises: “If the General Household Survey can get thisdata so wrong, how can one trust any of these post-census 2001 surveys’illiteracy statistics?”The problems with the two suites of proxy estimatesEstimating South Africa’s illiteracy levels using proxy measures iscomplicated by what are now clearly two suites of statistics – the earlierCensus and pre-2000 Household Surveys and the new set of Community andHousehold surveys. These latter surveys have come up with figures thatsuggest three options:!the Census figures were wrong !there has been a dramatic decline in illiteracy!the recent survey figures themselves are inaccurate.Thus, for example, the 2007 Community Survey, found that the people withNo schooling (the comparable cohort of people enumerated in the Census2001 would now be aged 20 and over) totalled only 2,672,373 (an enormousdifference of 2,048,253 from the census figure of 4,720,626). The OctoberHousehold Survey of 2008 estimated that the Number of people adults aged20 with No schooling was now about 2,451,856. This would suggest that thenumber of No schooling=Total illiterates would be about 9% rather than the16% of the 2001 Census. If these new surveys, using proxy measures, are accurate, then the literacyproblem is nearly halved. This may be considered good news, though the raw number of illiterate peopleis still a huge challenge, even if one now assumes that the actual number offunctional illiterates may be less than the Census 2001 estimate of 9.6 million,possibly about 8.25 million (25% of adults) (Gustafsson et al., 2010, p. 21, p.14). However, the continuing ambiguity of the statistics affirms the need for a wellconducted literacy survey such as those run in Kenya and Botswana (whichboth showed the actual literacy levels to be lower than previously estimated)using direct measuring of literacy skills. Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 123One needs to note the caution by Posel (2011, p. 43-44) that respondents my over-estimate 7their literacy competence when faced with Yes/No options.Self-report measures of literacy Some recent South African community and household surveys have made useof self-report measures of literacy, though one should note the caveat ofGustaffson et al. (2009, pp. 3) that literacy data from a number of countriesindicates that self-reported literacy rates tend to be higher than rates based onproxy measures and may lead to over-estimates of adult literacy.The General Household Survey of 2008 The General Household Survey of 2008 asked respondents whether they andtheir household members could read and write and found that 10.5% of adultsaged 15 or over could not read or write, slightly more than the same survey’sproxy measure estimate of total illiteracy at about 8%.7 Table 8Cannot read or write. General Household Survey 2008Age groupMaleFemaleBothAs %15-1986000 48000 133 000 3.8% 20-24 70000 44000 114 000 3.3% 25-2992000 67000 158 000 4.5% 30-3496000 95000 191 000 5.5% 35-3984000 125000 209 000 6.0% 40-4492000 165000 256 000 7.3% 45-49138000 212000 350 000 10.0% 50-54138000 257000 396 000 11.3% 55-59153000 243000 396 000 11.3% 60-64125000 227000 353 000 10.0% 65-70127000 223000 349 000 10.0% 70-7494000 177000 270 000 7.7% 75+ 100000 226000 326 000 9.3% Totals1 394 000 2 108 000 3 501 000 100.0% 124 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016Of interest is that the raw number of illiterates peaks amongst people in theirfifties and that adult illiteracy will, in the future, become predominantly amale problem, both trends evident from the Figure 1.Figure 1These findings are replicated in the General Household Surveys in subsequentyears.The General Household Surveys from 2009 to 2013 The General Household Surveys from 2009 to 2013 asked respondents a morenuanced set of questions about whether those aged 15 or more and with lessthan Grade 7 education could write their own name, read, fill in a form, write aletter, calculate the change they should receive, and read road signs on a scaleof No difficulty/ Some difficulty/ A lot of difficulty/ Unable to do (StatisticsSouth Africa, 2011, 2012, 2013). Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 125Table 9Literacy and numeracy skills of adults aged 15 + with no or less thanGrade 7 level of education [General Housing Surveys 2009 to 2013]20092010201120122013ReadingReadingNo difficulty50%52%52%51%50%Some difficulty14%11%10%10%10%A lot of difficulty10%9%9%9%10%Unable to do27%28%29%30%30%Reading roadsignsNo difficulty49%48%51%54%58%Some difficulty15%13%12%12%11%A lot of difficulty9%11%9%9%8%Unable to do27%28%28%26%25%WritingWriting nameNo difficulty72%71%70%70%70%Some difficulty5%4%5%4%4%A lot of difficulty4%4%4%4%4%Unable to do19%20%21%21%22%Filling in aformNo difficulty32%28%32%29%29%Some difficulty16%15%13%14%13%A lot of difficulty14%16%15%15%14%Unable to do38%41%40%42%44%Writing a letterNo difficulty47%47%47%48%47%Some difficulty13%10%11%10%9%A lot of difficulty10%10%10%10%9%Unable to do30%32%33%32%34%NumeracyCalculatingchange shouldreceiveNo difficulty67%71%73%74%76%Some difficulty11%9%8%8%7%A lot of difficulty6%6%5%5%4%Unable to do16%14%13%13%12% 126 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016However one needs to note the caveat from Gustafsson (2012) who states: 8... Very importantly, the way people judge their own level of literacy in these kinds of questionswhere you tell a fieldworker what you can do (as opposed to show what you can do, for instancein a test) seems to be unstable over time. I say this because people with the same level ofeducation, in terms of highest grade attained, provide changing judgements of their level ofliteracy. Specifically, it seems South Africans have become more demanding of themselves, soover time they become less and less inclined to say they are literate, when controlling for grade.Past standardised tests have indicated that literacy levels by grade have remained more or lessunchanged, so people with the same level of education are not becoming less literate in reality, itseems. I suspect that greater social demands to be literate are making people more aware of theirown limitations.What does this mean for interpreting the data? Firstly, one needs to be extra careful whenmaking comparisons over time. No change could in fact mean there’s an improvement, butpeople are not acknowledging this because they are becoming stricter on themselves. Secondly, Ithink we should present literacy statistics by level of schooling attained to make it easier toidentify the anomalies I’m referring to.The Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign CEO, McKay (2012b) commenting on these two 9indices noted that: when we designed the questions I had hoped for a more nuanced interpretation. because weused the competences of the Botswana, Kenyan and LAMP surveys as indicators of differentlevels of competence so that we could see literacy/illiteracy as a continuum. The approximatelevels that could be denoted - based on the other surveys (which were direct testing) were:Level 0: the learner cannot write his/her nameLevel 1: the individual can write his/her name, demonstrates some form of emergentliteracy and can read shop and road signs or labels on a package.Level 2: considered a suitable minimum for coping with demands of daily life. Can read anewspaper or book or other extended text.Level 3: Can do the above and can also produce text in the form of a letter or form.Respondent demonstrates higher-order information processing skills. Calculating change would say a lot about a degree of numeracy.Alarmingly these figures suggest a possibly worsening illiteracy problemamongst people with less than a grade 7 level of education – in 2008 some27% were unable to read at all, in 2013 it was 30%; in 2008 some 38% couldnot fill in a form, in 2013 it was 44%. This may correlate with the known 8prevalence of functional illiteracy amongst children at school and people whohave been through primary school (Smith-Greenaway, 2015). Statistics South Africa developed two possible indices of subjective literacybased on these questions in the 2009 to 2011 surveys. The first index took theNo difficulty and Some difficulty answers to the questions on whetherrespondents could read (a newspaper or book) and write a letter. The secondindex added the question on filling in a form (Roux, 2012).9 Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 127In terms of raw numbers, taking the components used in these two indices(reading, writing a letter and filling in a form), those who cannot do these oronly with great difficulty are as follows:Table 10Functionally illiterates among those aged 15+ with less than Grade7 [General Housing Surveys 2009 to 2013]20092010201120122013ReadUnable to do15360001 530 0001 582 0001 498 0001 542 000A lot of difficulty538000517 000491 000467 000485 000Totals2 074 0002 047 0002 073 0001 965 0002 027 000Write a letterUnable to do1 662 0001 760 0001 786 0001 641 0001 737 000A lot of difficulty577 000571 000533 000510 000473 000Totals2 239 0002 331 0002 319 0002 151 0002 210 000Fill in a formUnable to do2 087 0002 249 0002 198 0002 122 0002 261 000A lot of difficulty800 000877 000807 000747 000700 000Totals2 887 0003 126 0003 005 0002 869 0002 961 000These numbers are more or less consistent with these surveys’ estimates of thenumbers of number of people with no education or very low levels ofeducation.Direct measures of literacyUNESCO’s Institute for Statistics is now demanding more direct measures ofliteracy from member countries (a good African example of such being theKenya National Literacy Survey of 2007) (Aitchison and Alidou, 2009, p. 26)that will lead to better aligned policies. Gustafsson et al. (2010, p. 3) arguethat South Africa should periodically test adult literacy levels and would berelatively inexpensive relative to the cost of adult education programmes. 128 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016The Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign had engaged with Statistics South Africa about testing 10General Housing Survey 2009 respondents through reading a paragraph and writing aparagraph but the cost implications proved difficult and the suggestion to have a separatemodule during the fieldwork to focus on literacy did not materialise (McKay, 2012a).Gustafsson et al. (2010, p.4) estimate that “ if the quality of schooling in South Africa were 11where it should be (at a level befitting a middle income country), GDP would be R550billion higher than it currently is, or 23% above the current level. .. poor quality schoolingat the primary level, which increases adult illiteracy in future decades, is undoubtedly alarge, and arguably the largest, inhibitor of South Africa’s growth and development.”In South Africa the aforementioned 2008 October Household Survey and theGeneral Household Survey 2009 did ask questions about whether householdmembers could read or write (some 3,501,000 adults could not in 2008) andperform certain literacy skills (1,536,000 could not read in 2009) but thesewere not direct qualitative test-based measures. 10However a number of direct measures of reading, writing and calculationskills directed at South African schoolchildren have indicated that, whentested with widely used international instruments, the South African schoolingsystem is underachieving in literacy and numeracy (even when compared withother far poorer countries in the rest of Africa) (see the summary of thesestudies in the EFA Country Report of 2009 (Department of Basic Education,2009, pp. 29-32)). Though the testing of reading and mathematicalcompetencies amongst schoolchildren does not directly tell us about adultilliteracy, it does show that “there is a low correspondence between gradelevel and literacy level” (Posel , 2011, p. 41) and explain why manyschoolchildren graduate into functionally illiterate adults. This would suggest 11that South Africa’s rate of functional illiteracy amongst adults will indeed bevery high (indeed higher than the General Household Survey estimates since2009 using proxy measures).Gustafsson et al. (2010, p. 39) note that one interesting measure is how mayhours an adult spends reading each week and suggest that less than a hourcould be a useful measure of functional illiteracy (and in which case about25% of South African adults are functionally illiterate). Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 129The Dakar Framework for Action has two of its six goals address the themes of adult 12learning. These are Goal 3 – ensuring that the learning needs of all young are met throughequitable access to appropriate learning and life-skills programme, and Goal 4 – achievingan improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015 especially for women and equitableaccess to basic and continuing education for all.Reducing illiteracy – have the plans to halve illiteracyby 2015 worked? In 2000 South Africa committed itself to the revised (Dakar) Education for Allgoal of a 50% reduction in illiteracy by 2015. Has this commitment been 12adhered to?Setting targetsIn planning for the growth of a fully literate society one first has to make somefurther estimates of what reduction in illiteracy is already being made byexisting programmes (and of course the death of elderly illiterates) and then,on the basis of the data gained from the various measures of literacy(described above), define the target numbers before planning programmes toachieve these literacy goals.As already indicated, the process of working out how many people in SouthAfrica are illiterate is not an exact science. Numerous caveats and quibblesmust be made about the data from proxy and self-reported measures. Inaddition all countries have a percentage of the population of sub-normalintelligence or severe mental or physical handicap and it is unrealistic to thinkthat any but those countries with very high budgetary commitment toeducation can address their needs (in passing it is this problem that renderssuspicious any country’s claim to have a literacy level that rises much abovethe 95% mark). But the bottom line is that, however one massages theseestimates, South Africa definitely has several million illiterate adults whocould benefit from literacy and/or adult basic education provision. Apart from contending with the divergencies between the census 2001 and2011 and more recent household survey estimates, another, more pedagogicalissue intrudes – what intervention genuinely guarantees the lifelongacquisition of literacy skills? Whilst people with no schooling can safely be 130 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016An Auditor-General of South Africa report (2014) notes both a 52% decline in Public Adult 13Learning Centre enrolments between 2000 and 2013 (p. 11) and a failure to have Kha RiGude learners progress to ABET level 2 (grade 5 equivalency) “and continue to achievefunctional literacy” (p.12). assumed to be illiterate, how many years of schooling is likely to result in thelifelong retention of literacy competency? Harley et al. (1996) in their majorsurvey of South African literacy and adult basic education used Grade 7 as theretention indicator (a position that has been accepted by Statistics SouthAfrica), but possibly many of those who dropped out of school beforereaching grade 7 may well be functionally literate (Posel, 2011, p. 40; Smith-Greenaway, 2015). The Department of Higher Education used a moreambiguous indicator for functional literacy of “both read and write withunderstanding a short simple statement on their everyday life” (AuditorGeneral of South Africa, 2014, p. 18). The major South African intervention to reduce illiteracy amongst adults, theKha Ri Gude literacy campaign, only claimed to reach a grade 3 equivalence(ABET level 1) and the campaign drew attention to the need for follow up viathe state system of Public Adult Learning Centres (which did not happen). 13This leaves one in something of a quandary. If the grade 7 indicator is usedthen there is no prospect of South Africa reducing illiteracy by 50% by 2015.However, if the Kha Ri Gude outcome of grade 3 equivalence is accepted, thetarget may well be met, and evidence for this is analysed below. What is a realistic target? Realistic targets have to factor in a number of complex variables, that willreduce the number of people to far less than the raw statistics suggests. Tostart with, how many of the potential candidates are in effect uneducable –because of sub-normal intelligence or severe handicap? Probably about 1.7million adults. About 2.4 million adults are over the age of 64. Should oneinvest in people this old? It may not be directly of economic benefit but manyof the elderly play a crucial childcare role in South Africa and more literategrandparents may have positive long term effects. An obvious first target is to make literate the over 2 million unschooled adultseven though they are a hard to reach group and many of the truly uneducable Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 1311.7 million adults are in this group. The other obvious targets are those whodropped out of school after a year or so. It is likely that the bulk of thereachable target will be people who, for whatever reasons, dropped out orwere extruded from schooling very early on. (The Kha Ri Gude literacycampaign statistics for 2008 show that unschooled people made up 36% of thelearners and the largest group (48%) had only a year of schooling.) Making a very rough calculation on the basis of there being probably at least8.25 million functionally illiterate people, one can deduct the 1.7 millionuneducable and be left with a overall figure of 6.55 million. Half of this is3.27 million. That would then be the initial Dakar goal related target.However, that 3.27 million would have to be the actually achieved number.Because of some inevitable drop-out and attrition from interventionprogrammes this requires a larger expanded target than 3.27 million. Thus, forexample, the Ministerial Committee on Literacy report of 2006, which arguedfor a target of 3.8 million, developed a plan to enrol 4.7 million illiterate adultsby the end of 2012 (Ministerial Committee on Literacy, 2006, pp. 17-18). What progress has there been towards such a target?Has the current provision of literacy and adult basic education successfullyreached over 4 million people?The Department of Basic Education (2014, p. 40) makes the, already noted,claim:Overall the percentage of adults who are literate across all population groups has increasedfrom 79% in 2009 to approximately 82% in 2012. This may be attributed to the introductionof Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) now known as Adult Education and Training(AET), the Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign and other initiatives introduced to improve theliteracy rates of adults by Government.Let us start with the Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign as it operated from 2008to date rather than originally planned model (which aimed to enrol 4.7 millionby 2012 with double the funding that was eventually granted to the campaign).A number of technical points need to be made. The majority of Kha Ri Gudeparticipants have had no, or virtually no, schooling – Kha Ri Gude is targetingthe genuinely functionally illiterate. In the first year of operation (2008)participants who completed the programme engaged in a formal externally 132 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016validated assessment process (overseen by the South African QualificationsAuthority) and of these a negligible number failed. The results from 2009 to2013 were also externally validated and were equally positive.The graph below shows the enrolments, completions and certifications ofsuccess for the campaign for the years 2008 to 2014 (the figures for 2014 areestimates).Figure 2The cumulative totals are 4 111 080 enrolled, 3 326 216 completed, and mostof those who completed were certificated as successful – 3 200 000. This isclose to the campaign plan’s target of 3.8 million. Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 133The Department of Basic Education (2014, p. 40) statement that Adult Basic Education and 14Training (ABET) is now known as Adult Education and Training (AET) betrays a majorconceptual confusion (in both the Department of Basic Education and the Department ofHigher Education and Training). ABET refers to an adult equivalent of compulsory generalschool education and in South Africa that is still currently school grades 1 to 9. AET refersto all adult education at any level, both formal and non-formal, and therefore cannot be usedas a synonym for formal ABET (or even ABET and Further Education and Training (FET)).Sadly, Kha Ri Gude now appears to be facing serious mismanagement problems and the 15enormous potential it had to continue as a vehicle to deliver post-literacy education andtraining largely compromised.We also have to take into account the learners who gain basic literacy throughother literacy and Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) programmes. 14So far their impact on reducing illiteracy levels has been pretty insignificant(Gustafsson et al., 2010, p. 15). Table 13 in the EFA Country Report for 2009records the long standing inability of the Department of Education todisaggregate figures for genuine ABET (up to NQF level 1) and those forstudents studying for the Senior Certificate (NQF level 4). One cannottherefore use this table to make reliable estimates on the ABET contribution toreaching the 50% reduction in illiteracy. Gustafsson et al. (2010, p.15) note asurvey finding of about 50,000 per annum in ABET classes. The IndependentExaminations Board had an average of about 40 000 examination entries overthe years 2007 to 2009 (but these come from individuals writing severalcourse examinations) in industry and SETA sponsored programmes. TheGeneral Household Survey of 2009 estimated 120,000 learners in “ABET”classes. Probably one can be generous and estimate 100 000 learners a year inABET levels 1 to 4 programmes – and also assume, also overgenerously, a50% success rate. Whatever the limitations of ABET provision, this outputwould certainly take the overall Kha Ri Gude plus ABET class cumulativetotal past the 3.8 million target. South Africa can make, indeed has made, the50% reduction in total illiteracy.This achievement, albeit much of it only to the most basic level ofalphabetisation, could never have been done without the Kha Ri Gudecampaign’s first six years of work which were a model of effective servicedelivery (Aitchison and McKay, 2014) and women will have been the mainbeneficiaries of the progress made. 15A caveat to this success is that basic literacy acquisition can be rapidlyundermined by lack of use and further development of reading, numeracy and 134 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016associated skills. Unfortunately post literacy provision shows few signs ofbeing geared up adequately. There is little evidence that the nationalDepartment of Higher Education and Training has geared up or is capable offurther servicing the graduates of the Kha Ri Gude campaign (in spite of theMinisterial Committee on Literacy having warned about this back in 2006)(Ministerial Committee on Literacy, 2006, pp. 52-53). The EFA CountryReport of 2009 very frankly acknowledged the failure of the ABET system todeliver on scale (only 8 152 learners had exited fully qualified from the systemsince 2001) and states that “As a mechanism for addressing the learning needsof adults with no or little basic education the apparatus of public adulteducation governance, provision, curriculum and support has evidently provedunequal to the task.” (Department of Basic Education, 2009, pp. 22–23). Thecurrent policy development and plans for a new system of community collegesand community learning centres is still too insubstantial to be evaluated as toits potential for making South Africa a more literate society.Can any conclusions be made?This article has attempted to analyse the available sources on adult literacystatistics in South Africa and found a fair degree of inconsistency amongthem. Some discrepancies are to be expected, particularly with reading andwriting and their use in the daily functioning of people in a very complexsociety with high disparities in education and wealth and general livingconditions. In addition we have an evolution of what kind of literacy or so-called literacies are needed to function in modern society. However, one cansafely say that a more thorough form of direct testing of literacy capabilities isneeded for South Africa to have a more reliable set of baselines from which toimprove.Although some of the data sources (particularly the General Housing Surveys)have indicated that illiteracy (using Grade 7 schooling or equivalent as theproxy for functional literacy) is less of a problem, percentage wise, in rawnumbers South Africa still has an embarrassingly large number of illiteratepeople. I would personally estimate that we have a practical target of about 5million people still to be reached. It is clear that without the efforts of the Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign thenumber of totally or near totally illiterate people would be about three millionpeople larger. But the follow up to this campaign has been more or less non- Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 135existent. One can safely predict that unless something radical happens to thesupport and funding of literacy and adult basic education provision forundereducated South Africans, this will take a long time.ReferencesAitchison, J.J.W. and Harley, A. (2006). South African illiteracy statistics andthe case of the magically growing number of literacy and ABETlearners. Journal of Education, 39, 89–112.Aitchison, J.J.W and McKay, V.I. (2014). Greening the data desert – a casestudy of South Africa’s Kha Ri Gude mass literacy campaign.Unpublished paper.Auditor-General of South Africa. (2014). Discussion extract of themanagement report of the Auditor-General of South Africa on theperformance audit of the Department of Higher Education and Training.Pretoria: Auditor-General of South Africa.Department of Basic Education. (2009). Education for all (EFA) countryreport, 2009: South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.Department of Basic Education. (2010). Report on the general householdsurvey (GHS): Education focus. Pretoria: Department of BasicEducation.Department of Basic Education. (2011). Report on the 2009 generalhousehold report: Focus on schooling. Pretoria: Department of BasicEducation.Department of Basic Education. (2012). General household survey (GHS)2010: Focus on schooling. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.Department of Basic Education. (2013). General household survey (GHS)2011: Focus on schooling. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.Department of Basic Education. (2014). General household survey (GHS)2012 report: Focus on schooling. Pretoria: Department of BasicEducation. 136 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016Education for All. (2000). Dakar framework for action. Paris: UNESCO.Gustafsson, M., Van der Berg, S., Shepherd, D., and Burger, C. (2010). Thecosts of illiteracy in South Africa. Stellenbosch: University ofStellenbosch.Gustafsson, M. 2012. Personal communication (email) to McKay, V., 23 April2012.Harley, A., Aitchison, J.J.W., Lyster, E. and Land, S. with Fotheringham, R.,Hallowes, D., Hargreaves, L., McCubbin, C., Tothill, S., and Tuchten, G.(1996). A survey of adult basic education in South Africa in the 90s.Johannesburg: SACHED Books.Human Rights Watch. (2015). “Complicit in exclusion” South Africa’s failureto guarantee an inclusive education for children with disabilities.Johannesburg: Human Rights Watch.McKay, V.I. (2012a). Personal communication (email) to Libago, J., 18 April2012.McKay, V.I. (2012b). Personal communication (email) to Libago, J., 22 April2012.Ministerial Committee on Literacy. (2006). Ministerial committee on literacy:Final report. 19 June 2006. Pretoria: Department of Education.Posel, D. (2011). Adult literacy rates in South Africa: A comparison ofdifferent measures. Language Matters 42(1), 39–49.Roux, N. (2012). Personal communication (email) to Narsee, H. and Libago.J., 17 April 2012.Smith-Greenaway, E. (2015). Educational attainment and adult literacy: Adescriptive account of 31 Sub-Saharan Africa countries. DemographicResearch 33, article 35, 1015–1034. South African Qualifications Authority. (2009). SAQA’s role in the pilotimplementation of the Kha ri gude adult literacy campaign. Pretoria:South African Qualifications Authority. Aitchison: Proxies and perplexities . . . 137South African Qualifications Authority. (2010). Ascertaining the integrity ofthe marking of the Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign Learner AssessmentPortfolios Year Two: 2009. Pretoria: South African QualificationsAuthoritySouth African Qualifications Authority. (2011). Ascertaining the integrity ofthe marking of the Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign Learner AssessmentPortfolios Year Three: 2010. Pretoria: South African QualificationsAuthority.South African Qualifications Authority. (2012). Ascertaining the integrity ofthe marking of the Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign Learner AssessmentPortfolios Year Four: 2011. Pretoria: South African QualificationsAuthoritySouth African Qualifications Authority. (2012). Ascertaining the integrity ofthe marking of the Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign Learner AssessmentPortfolios Year Five: 2012. Pretoria: South African QualificationsAuthority.South African Qualifications Authority. (2012). Ascertaining the integrity ofthe marking of the Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign Learner AssessmentPortfolios Year Six: 2013. Pretoria: South African QualificationsAuthority.South African Qualifications Authority. (2012). Ascertaining the integrity ofthe Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign Learner Assessment Portfolios YearSeven: 2014. Pretoria: South African Qualifications Authority.Statistics South Africa. (2003). General household survey July 2002(Statistical release P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2004). General household survey July 2003(Statistical release P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2005). General household survey July 2004(Statistical release P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2006). General household survey July 2005(Statistical release P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. 138 Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016Statistics South Africa. (2007). General household survey July 2006(Statistical release P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2007). (Statistical release P0301). Pretoria: StatisticsSouth Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2008). General household survey 2007 (Statisticalrelease P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2009). General household survey 2008 (Statisticalrelease P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2010). General household survey 2009 (Statisticalrelease P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2011). General household survey 2009 (Statisticalrelease P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2011). General household survey 2010 (Statisticalrelease P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2012). General household survey 2011. Revised.(Statistical release P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2013). General household survey 2012 (Statisticalrelease P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2014). General household survey 2013 (Statisticalrelease P0318). Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Statistics South Africa. (2015). General household survey 2014 (Statisticalrelease.John AitchisonProfessor Emeritus of Adult Education at University of KwaZulu-Natalaitchisonjjw@gmail.com