I suggest that if a community needs to reach her goals of literacy then concerted efforts should be towards a manner of communication that trains and allows for understanding without compromising basic ethics of construction. By this I mean especially in a written form. In a spoken form, accessibility can be eased in gradually, as opposed to creating deafening silence prior to attaining capacity for engagement.
Let’s suppose we assume an inability to read and write, assimilating a written communication in legible but broken form, till remains a distant possibility- so what is achieved is not literacy goals but at best a further depression from any basic learning, or a learnt anomaly. This would only fulfil an often itemised plan of obliterating illiteracy. It would neither bridge a class divide of articulate communicators nor urge a generation of enthusiasts towards elitism. I hardly can find any deliberate agenda.
However those already priviledged in this regard, might consider what is at stake is the potential for societal cohesion through understandable expressions, whether be of matter of policy or necessary activities. Less manipulation through illiteracy would have meant less unjustifiable control. The United Nations, and other individual nations, sensing the relevance has since thrown their weight behind achieving a literacy programme and appropriate understanding; not a skewed version, so proficiency is not compromised. The effectiveness of awareness campaigns and carrying out highly skilled business and training at several levels hinge on this. I’m yet to see the relevance of training towards non-proficiency though I see the aims of interpretations. But bear in mind if there is a skill to read it can be geared towards proficiency not irrelevant duplicity. I think there is a nexus between understanding your priviledges or rights, and protection, the first would more easily aid achieving the later. I urge goals towards literacy, in all of its appropriate forms.