When trying to define what a minimum level of literacy is, many definitions can be found. Hirsh states that our society does not read as well as it should. He attributes this to the fact that different social groups are educated in different manners, and as a result it is hard to find a common ground for all students to reach. Hirsh feels that to solve this problem one must obtain a minimum knowledge of culture, history, and literature in order to be considered literate. Hirsh feels that our society should take an approach which incorporates teaching cultural literacy, and taking the background of students into account. If Hirsh's core curriculum was implemented standardized test would be a valid approximation of the literacy situation in America, but the idea of making a diverse society posses a uniform set of background information does not allow for uniqueness and changing times.

Ohman addresses the idea of changing times. He feels that a common background of knowledge needs to expand with changing times. Each generation is going to have commonalties; therefore, it makes more sense to extend what is already background knowledge rather than conform everyone to the same knowledge. Ohman feels that cultural literacy makes communication easier, but that it is not necessary to communicate effectively. Ohman's idea of possessing a background knowledge that changes with time also allows for standardized tests, but not everybody needs this background knowledge. In such a diverse country people can be considered functionally literate without having the common background information that Ohman and Hirsh argue is necessary.

Sylvia Scribner feels that functional literacy cannot be specifically defined so she introduces three metaphors to describe literacy; literacy as adaptation, literacy as power, and literacy as a state of grace. Scribner's view of literacy as adaptation requires one to define functional literacy as what literacy level one must achieve to successfully function in society (Scribner, 9). The problem that arises from this is that there is not one uniform society. Scribner would be opposed to standardized test because there is not one uniform society and therefore one standardized test can not test everyone in that society.

Scribner states, "An equally important question concerns the concept of uniformity. Do all communities and cultural groups in our class based heterogeneous society confront equivalent functional demands?" (Scribner, 10) This excerpt addresses a very valid point: does each school system demand the same level of excellence from their students? The answer to this question may seem incredibly obvious, in that it would be impossible to expect every school to produce the same level of excellence as all the others, however this observation should not be overlooked. In the case of Scribner, the question of a standard academic goal is being raised, and in the question at hand, it is the idea of a standardized test to gauge our society's students. Scribner feels that our nation has tried to come up with a definition of literacy which is too narrow for our society, and that instead we need to accept the fact that our society is not a "standard" one, and thus we can never have one definition of literacy. The problem of standardized testing is related to the fact that all students are different and that they come from different backgrounds, and for this reason it is impossible to devise a standardized test which would be representative of all student's backgrounds.

Another issue which must be addressed is taking the individuality of students into account with respect to standardized testing. James Paul Gee feels as though our society's definition of literacy has become distorted, and that it is too centered on learning the technical portion of literacy (reading, grammar, and writing), instead of focusing on learning and acquiring different Discourses. A Discourse can be described as a way "of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities . . . A Discourse is a sort of "identity kit" which [allows one] . . . to take on a particular role that others will recognize" (Gee, 6-7). Gee feels that in order for our educational system to advance, we must first learn to base education on the acquisition of a secondary Discourse. Gee would disagree very strongly to the idea of using standardized tests to measure a students knowledge, or literacy. Gee's reason for objecting to standardized tests can be attributed to the fact that standardized tests do not take a student's Discourse into account in any way. Therefore the test would not be fair for a student to take because it would not test what a student acquired in the classroom, or in life. In order for a test to be acceptable by Gee's standards it would have to be written with every possible discourse in mind, thus it would be almost impossible to have a "standard test," because it would have to address so many different Discourses that no student could learn them all.

Gee's argument shows that standardized tests do not accentuate the individual, because not everyone possesses the same Discourses. Gee states, " Thus, there is no real sense in which we humans are consistent or well integrated creatures from a cognitive or social viewpoint, though, in fact, most Discourse assumes that we are (and thus we do too, while we are in them)" (Gee, 7). In this excerpt Gee is saying that humans are in no way the exact same as one another in either a social or academic manner. This idea furthers the argument that standardized tests are not and cannot be trusted as a valid way of measuring one's literacy, because their are too many differences between people to have them all group by one standardized test.

In addition to what needs to be included in a standardized test, it is necessary to examine the possibility that a multiple choice exam is not how the test should be organized as in the case with the SAT. Multiple choice exams only test the basic understanding of material and do not show that students can analyze the information that is presented. Applebee feels that understanding only the surface meaning does not constitute being literate. To be functionally literate, he believes that one must have "the ability to read and write, and to reason effectively about what one reads or writes" (Applebee, 3). He also feels that as a society

we expect a reader to be able to analyze, evaluate, and extend the ideas that are presented, just as we expect a writer to elaborate upon and defend judgments that are expressed. We expect people to know how to get information and to know how to use it to suit their needs. For example, readers must learn to relate what they are reading to their personal experience in order to integrate new ideas with what they know (Applebee, 4).

To subject very different people with very different backgrounds to one standardized test, and then have this test play and important role in their life, is very wrong. As shown by the diverse and numerous definitions of literacy one has to conclude that there can be no single definition or test for literacy. Instead literacy must be dealt with on an individual basis. A person's literacy level should be judged by asking questions like can you be a productive member of society and function normally with your literary skills? Taking into account the idea that everyone has a different discourse is not evident in standardized tests and this is another reason why these tests cannot be completely trusted. To make these tests fair to all of society they need to made more specific. Instead of one test for an entire nation, there should be many tests, as in the case with state and school proficiency exams. These tests can be made so that they are more individual and specific to the student's discourse. This solution still does not solve the problem of standardized testing because even within a school and a class there are differences. To have true results of the literacy level in the United States testing must be done on a completely individual basis.