The ‘problem’ of literacy, caused and, simultaneously, reinforced by the unsatisfactory performance of the population in the PIAAC and PISA tests (OECD & Statistics Canada, 2000; OECD & UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2003), led to the spread of a folk theory on the value and consequences of literacy at individual, social and economic level (Carrington & Luke, 1997). In accordance with this theory, the population’s literacy levels have strong effects on economic growth and citizen’s social mobility (Graff, 1979). Such correlation is based on the belief that the individuals who dominate literacy have higher cognitive characteristics. It is, indeed, a traditional approach of literacy whereby reading and writing are technical, decontextualized and measurable skills that, once they have been acquired, they can be transferred and used in any situation or context (Gee, 2004; Hannon, 2000; Street, 1984; Scribner, 1984).

Despite of the lack of evidence in the history of nations (Graff, 1979), in several reports of international organizations, such as OECD (2015) and UNESCO (2005), literacy is systematically believed as a crucial indicator of economic, social and political participation and development. Similarly, the High Level Group of Experts on Literacy (HLG, 2012) argues that improving literacy skills has substantial benefits for employees, because it reduces workforce turnover, increases productivity, improves the technology use, decreases the costs of communication. According to the Final Report of the HLG (2012), ‘low’ literacy levels among population can set up and increase social problems, such as unemployment, social exclusion and poverty.

It is upon these beliefs that European Union substantiates the four strategic objectives to address challenges in education and training systems, drawn up, firstly, under the scope of the Lisbon Strategy, and, ten years later, within the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy: making lifelong learning and mobility a reality; improving the quality and efficiency of education and training; promoting equity, social cohesion, and active citizenship; enhancing creativity and innovation (Rodriguez, Warmerdam, & Triomphe, 2010; European Commission, 2010). Following these recommendations, in the last decades, countries have developed a range of educational reforms striving to: (a) standardize school curricula focusing on literacy in all areas/disciplines, lifelong learning and labour markets demands; (b) set up targets and tests; (c) promote school self-management; (d) foster parental choice and school competition; (e) ensure the quality of teaching through teacher’s accountability and inspection (Lingard, Martino, & Rezai-Rashti, 2013; Ozga & Lingard, 2007).

In Portugal, these guidelines incorporated policy initiatives such as: the implementation of National Reading Plan (PNL); the inclusion of a new subject area in the curriculum – Portuguese as a Non-mother Tongue (PLNM); the development of the National Plan for Teaching Portuguese (PNEP); the readjustment of the framework for teachers’ professional qualification; the introduction of the assessment of teachers’ performance; the creation of new options of education and training as alternative to the regular education system, namely the Adult Education and Training (EFA) courses and the Recognition, Validation and Certification of Competencies processes (RVCC). These initiatives are carried out with the purposes of promoting literacy among school population and improving the position of Portugal in the ranking of international literacy assessments (DataAngel Policy Research Incorporated, 2009)

Do the literacy policies of the other European countries are following the same direction? Are these policies based on the same European concerns and objectives? And due to this, is it possible to identify similarities that unify them. These questions under investigation are also in line with the recent anxieties about the value and legitimacy of the decisions carried out under the auspices of the OECD and PISA tests in such dissimilar educational and socioeconomic contexts (Boyum, 2014; Grek, 2009; Ozga, 2012).

Bøyum, S. (2014). Fairness in education – a normative analysis of OECD policy documents. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 856-870. Carrington, V., & Luke, A. (1997). Literacy and Bourdieu’s Sociological Theory: A Reframing. Language and Education, 11, n.º 2, 96-112. Clarke, J. (2005). Whose Skills? Whose Life? Skills or life in the context o informal learning. Retrievied from http://www.literacy.lancs.ac.uk./rapal/docs/whose%20skills%20whose%20life.pdf. DataAngel Policy Research Incorporated (2009). A Dimensão Económica da Literacia em Portugal: Uma Análise. Lisboa: GEPE. European Commission (2010). EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels: European Commission. Gee, J.P. (2004). Situatued language and learning. A critique to traditional schooling. New York/London: Routledge. Graff, H. (1979). The Literacy Myth: Cultural Integration and Social Structure in the Nineteenth Century. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: the PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23-37. Hamilton, M. (2011). Everyday Enchantments: Literacy and the Politics of Representation. Language and Literacy, 13(2), 6-8. Hannon, P. (2000). Reflecting on literacy in education. London: Routledge/Falmer. HLG (High Level Group of Experts on Literacy) (2012). Act now!: EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy. Final Report, September 2012. Luxembourg: European Union. Lingard, B., Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti G. (2013). Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy: commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 539-556. OECD & Statistics Canada. (2000). Literacy in the information Age. Final Report of the International Adult Literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD & UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2003), Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow: Further Results from PISA 2000, Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2015). Education at a glance 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing. Ozga, J. (2012). Governing knowledge: data, inspection and education policy in Europe. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(4), 439-455. Ozga, J., & Lingard, B. (2007). Gobalization, education policy and politics. In J. Ozga & B. Lingard (Eds.), Education Policy and Politics (Vol. 1, pp. 65-82). London: Routledge. Rodriguez, R., Warmerdam, J, & Triomphe, E. (2010). The Lisbon Strategy 2000-2010. An analysis and evaluation of the methods used and results achieved. Brussels: European Parliament. Scribner, S. (1984). Literacy in Three Metaphors. American Journal of Education, 93(1), 6-21. Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. UNESCO (2005). EFA Global Monitoring Report: Literacy for life, 2006. UNESCO Publishing.