Since the 1970s adult reading and writing literacy is a crucial part of adult education in Germany. It contributes to the overall aim of enabling adults to fully participate in modern society. Especially in the light of social change and biographical transitions, basic reading and writing skills are considered fundamental requirements to cope with challenges in everyday life and work (cf. European Commission 2007). In the course of international literacy surveys conducted by the OECD since the 1990s literacy is increasingly understood as a continuum that can be divided into several stages or levels. Those hierarchical skill models often imply normative decisions about the value of literacy skills and literacy levels (Euringer/Heinemann 2014). A commonly used concept is that of functional illiteracy drawing a boundary between lower and higher skills and defining which literacy levels are at least suitable or sufficient and which are not. For example, the International Assessment of Literacy Skills (IALS), conducted by the OECD in the 1990s, is based on a literacy model consisting of five levels. A boundary is drawn between level 2 and 3 by defining that “Level 3 is considered a suitable minimum for coping with the demands of everyday life and work in a complex, advanced society.” (OECD/Statistics Canada 2000, p. X). The fact that such decisions are not strictly of scientific nature but can always be traced back to political interests and power relations is often overlooked.

This contribution outlines the international debate on the issue of a suitable minimum and deals critically with the question of which reading and writing skills are considered suitable today. Therefore, several expert reports published by the Canadian Centre for Literacy in 2011 are discussed, addressing the political and academic reactions to the results of the IALS in the 1990s. The entanglement of political interests and the definition of a suitable minimum regarding adult reading and writing skills is discussed. Due to high illiteracy rates some countries decided to lower the suitable minimum to literacy levels below the IALS level 3 recommended by the OECD (cf. Gabrielsen 2011; Brooks 2011). Focussing on the IALS level one, the UK develops the Entry Levels and Germany develops the Alpha-Levels (Grotlüschen/Riekmann 2012). As a consequence, the recently initiated German national strategy for adult literacy and basic education (BMBF/KMK 2012) aims to reduce the extent of functional illiteracy represented by the Alpha-Levels 1-3 which are considered equivalent to the IALS Level-One.

Currently, there is a debate on the definition of functional illiteracy in Germany. Referring to the term of adult basic education the extension of adult literacy to a broader concept is claimed (cf. Linde 2007). However, it is highly unclear up to which reading and writing skills adult literacy is considered suitable within the scope of basic education. The challenge of an empirical approach to this issue is attempted by introducing the results of the Linking Study conducted at Hamburg University from 2012 to 2015. The Linking Study compares the German Alpha-Levels to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in order to discuss the definition of a suitable minimum. While the Alpha-Levels are established in the field of adult literacy, the CEFR is an international established reference model in the context of language learning. It includes reading, writing, listening and speaking skills separated into six levels (A1-C2). The aim is to examine which Alpha-Level corresponds with the CEFR level B1, which is officially considered a suitable minimum within the German immigration law to acquire German citizenship.

This contribution deals with the definition of a suitable minimum referring to theoretical discussions and empirical results.

BMBF/KMK (2012): Vereinbarung über eine gemeinsame nationale Strategie für Alphabetisierung und Grundbildung Erwachsener in Deutschland 2012 - 2016. URL http://www.bmbf.de/pubRD/NEU_strategiepapier_nationale_alphabetisierung%281%29.pdf Brooks, G. (2011): A tale of IALS’s influence (or not) in the UK. URL: http://www.centreforliteracy.qc.ca/sites/default/files/Brooks_England%20Country%20Story.pdf Euringer, C./Heinemann, A. (2014): Bildungspolitische Konsequenzen (inter-)nationaler Vergleichsstudien zur Literalitätskompetenz. Zur Relevanz der Bestimmung eines Mindestniveaus in der Alphabetisierung. In: REPORT, Jg. 37, H. 2, pp. 29–38 European Commission (2007): Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. European Reference Framework. European Communities. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/ll-learning/keycomp_en.pdf Gabrielsen, E. (2011): IALS in Norway. URL: http://www.centreforliteracy.qc.ca/sites/default/files/Gabrielsen_NorwayCountryStory.pdf Grotlüschen, A./Bonna, F./Euringer, C./Heinemann, A. M. (2014): Konsequenzen der Konstruktion von Literalität hinsichtlich der Vergleichbarkeit der Alpha-Levels mit den Niveaustufen des Europäischen Referenzrahmens Sprachen. In: Felden, H. v./Schmidt-Lauff, S./Pätzold, H. (Ed.): Programme, Themen und Inhalte in der Erwachsenenbildung. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren, pp. 51–65 Grotlüschen, A./Riekmann, W. (2012): Funktionaler Analphabetismus in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der ersten leo. - Level-One Studie. Münster: Waxmann Kang, T./Petersen, N. (2009): Linking Item Parameters to a Base Scale. In: ACT Research Report Series, H. 2. URL: http://www.act.org/research/researchers/reports/pdf/ACT_RR2009-2.pdf Linde, A. (2007): "Alphabetisierung", Basic Education, or Literacy. In: Grotlüschen, Anke; Linde, A. (Ed.): Literalität, Grundbildung oder Lesekompetenz. Beiträge zu einer Theorie-Praxis-Diskussion. Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann , pp. 237–245 OECD/Statistics Canada (2000): Literacy in the Information Age. Final Report of the International Adult Literacy Survey. URL: http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/41529765.pdf