I was in a fast food restaurant the other day. Toward the bottom of the menu, there's a line that reads, "Picture menus available upon request."

I asked for a picture menu. The lad behind the counter looked at me like I'd asked him for the Meaning of Life (sorry, pal, we only carry eats, not existentialism). He said he had no idea where they kept the picture menus but would I like to place an order anyway?

I returned his funny look, so he asked his supervisor where they kept the picture menus. She pointed up at the giant menu where I'd first seen the line about requesting one.

I wanted to complain but then I realized that if I were illiterate I'd never have been able to read the offer of a picture menu anyway.

And it's not a big deal that they couldn’t provide me with one because, well, there's just not that many illiterates, right?

Wrong.

How big of a problem is illiteracy?

According to the National Council on Family Literacy, nearly a quarter of the American adult population only functions at the lowest level of literacy.

That's big. Literacy is one of those things that people agree is an important thing in a vague general sense, such as, "Crime is bad," "Taxes are bad" and "The elderly are good."

Illiteracy comes from students not being motivated by their schoolwork, having emotional and physical disabilities or parenting from parents who can't read.

A while ago, President George Bush the First said that by the year 2000, every adult American should be "literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship."

It's 2001 and between 15 and 17 percent of Hoosiers function at the lowest literacy level or below. This means they can fill out a bank deposit slip but they can't slip under the sheets at night with Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury," much less compete in a global economy or exercise their rights.

President Clinton took a stab at illiteracy back in 1996 as a portion of his re-election campaign. Clinton created 200,000 work-study jobs for college students to tutor adults and children to read. It was called "America Reads" and Clinton said that a literate population is a "strong and responsible one."

Thirty-six percent of Indiana's full-time job holders are only barely literate, functioning at the two lowest levels of literacy when tested — not the strong or responsible work force created from high reading comprehension skills that Clinton envisioned.

President Bush the Second campaigned on a platform of education reform. True to his word, his education program has already been put together and is being mulled over.

Bush's plan includes a portion called "Reading First." It's designed to ensure that every child is reading by the third grade and to "eliminate the reading deficit." It will help teach pre-reading skills to children in preschool and kindergarten.

This is a fabulous idea.

The illiteracy problem, however, is as much a societal one as an educational one. "What was the last good book you read?" is usually a harder question than "What did you watch on television last night?" We talk to our friends about television shows on last night and movies we saw this weekend but not the fiction that moves us.

Students in America spend 12 times as much time watching television as they do reading and more time than they do in school.

Television is easier than reading, and America likes things easy.

Not to continue pointing the finger, but this goes back to the parents of children.

Illiteracy tends to be passed from generation to generation. Parents who can't read can't teach their children to read. There is a positive correlation between literacy and income, so they've probably got less money in addition to fewer reading materials around the house.

Families with lower incomes have children with larger chances of dropping out of school and continuing the cycle.

Children tend to absorb what's around them. Their reading proficiency increases with the number of reading materials in the home. The number of reading materials in most American homes has steadily decreased in the last two decades.

Bush's plan would also increase funding towards family based literacy programs. Studies have shown this is by far the most effective way of getting students to read.

Another fabulous idea.

Remember back in elementary school? Tell me if this sounds anything like what went on: sometime in the day the class would divide into its reading groups. There were three reading groups with clever but non-derogatory names like the "Blue Birds," "Red Cardinals" and "Brown Sparrows." The Blue Birds would tote around copies of "The Red Badge of Courage" like they were special badges, while the Brown Sparrows carried "Frog and Toad's Adventures" as though the books were apt to give the children warts.

It was a shameful thing to be segregated from the smart kids in order to work at a slower pace to catch up with them.

Shame is not the best motivator for success.

So much so, in fact, that only 70 percent of Indiana students can meet the literacy standards required for graduation.

Why, then, is the other focal point of Bush's plan higher requirements from students that aren't all meeting the current requirements? The idea, to ask more and more so that students push themselves to excel, is a good one. I'm just afraid that the borderline students who squeaked their way into that 70 percent are just going to toss up their hands in frustration.

Why care about the phylum of your pet cat or the Teapot Dome scandal when you can barely handle twenty pages of "Sarah Plain and Tall"? Since the ability to receive written communication (literacy) is the foundation for learning science or history, well, if any requirements are raised, shouldn’t it be literacy?

How can you help? Read, for one thing. You made it this far, why not try a book or two? If you've got kids or want some in the future, read to them and let them catch you reading. Stack books, magazines, and newspapers in front of your television so they at least have to acknowledge their presence before sitting down for more "Temptation Island."

You've obviously got some ability to read if you've made it to college, but don't let that part of you atrophy. Understand that it's a problem and help me pray that someday, somebody in power is going to start from the basics and work up.

A parting shot: statistics show that those who read are more likely to vote. Even if you're a violent Bush opponent, you can agree with him that more people need to read.