No it doesn’t rule it out. It makes it unlikely but doesn’t rule it out. As someone else has also pointed out.
…Well as other people have already pointed out. He may be developing a vision problem. He may refuse to wear his glasses. Maybe THAT’s why his mom and sister are helping him buy clothes.
Why? Because he didn’t look it? Maybe he’s a little slow.
…Calling you out on making attacks on this kids mother, isn’t judgement.
Never mind everything else, so what? I haven’t worn jeans in over 15 years. I prefer chinos / slacks.
First of all, it’s “judgment.” Second, is it so hard for you to accept that there are some people in the world who are illiterate? Whose parents don’t teach them, and aren’t interested in teaching them? Thirdly, when someone starts taking apart my posts line by line I stop listening to them.
Quartz, it’s only an issue because my husband looks damned good in jeans. 
The boy’s inability to read might possibly be something that his mother can do nothing about. But the choice of slogans on a tee shirt is certainly something that parents can and should control, assuming that it is the parents’ money that is buying the shirt.
In a recent post, I mentioned having seen an elementary-school-age girl in a shirt that said BABY SLUT in rhinestones. I see lots of young kids wearing shirts with drug and booze slogans on them, in addition to the ubiquitous snarky, insulting mottos that many of today’s adults seem to find acceptable. A 13-year-old boy who used to mow our lawn occasionally wore a shirt that said FUCK YOUR HONOR STUDENT. I guess it’s pretty obvious who’s running a lot of households these days. It ain’t the parents.
Let’s not pretend that my anecdote was offered in a vacuum. You asked “Apparently the sister had no trouble reading right? What’s that say?”
My reply illustrated exactly what that says: That someone encouraged the sister to learn at least minimal reading skills. If everyone who could read had parents who fostered that ability in them, then your question (or suggestion) would have been pertinent.
As it stands, the #1 cause of illiteracy is a failure of education, and education begins at home. Yes, there is a chance that the kid’s inability is rooted in a learning disability – however, the mother’s described actions show that she was not encouraging her son to read for himself, and was, in fact, acting as an enabler. Enabling behaviour is a huge part of persisting illiteracy, and the single biggest motivation for adult illiterates to enter remedial literacy programs is a changed situation resulting in separation from enabling individuals. Statistically, and on observation, there is a very strong probability that the situation was in fact exactly as it appeared to Elysian.
You have no grounds to condemn the OP.
Sorry, but “judgment” is the bastard American spelling of “judgement,” foisted on y’all by the same loons who gave you “honor” and “color,” and pushed hard to propagate spelling reform “thru the skools,” before everyone woke up and realized that they were a bunch of crackpots mucking up a perfectly good language.
Wow, that’s petty.
So… you’d rather just attack a parent without knowing ANYTHING about them other than the 10 to 15 minutes you observed them? You say in the OP you would literally like to attack the mother, shaking her “until her teeth rattled”. :dubious:
Is it so hard for you to accept that you don’t know everything and that maybe the people in this thread who have explained possible explanations and reasonings might be right or atleast make you reevaluate what conclusion you came to? Apparently you and the pope are the only ones infallible.
I had no idea that “judgement” was an acceptable alternate spelling.
Could that SOMEONE have been the mother? Is that a possibility? Even in the slightest? Of course it is. That’s what is being tossed aside.
It’s unfair to condemn and attack the mother when NONE of us know anything more that a brief episode related to us.
This kid could be recently adopted for all we know. A foster child. Who knows.
Yeah, there’s a remote possibility of that. Even if it were so, it would not absolve the mother from blame in the case of her illiterate son.
This is where you’re wrong. There is enough information in the OP to determine that the mother is very likely at fault for her son’s inability to read.
Even if one or all of the straw-grasping exculpatory scenarios you have suggested were true, (and that seems like an extremely remote possibility,) the described behaviour of the mother exacerbates and perpetuates the problem.
Look, I spent three years as a (volunteer) one-on-one literacy instructor at an adult learning center. I taught people who were illiterate for a number of reasons. For some, English was a second language. Some were held back by dyslexia or ADHD. Most, however, simply missed out at the beginning somehow, and went through school and life avoiding reading. No matter what the reason for the delay is, these situations are exactly the same in the most fundamental way. Two things are required in order to effect a change: A person who wants to read, and a person who wants to help them to read.
The mother and the daughter were not helping. You know what I heard again and again in those three years? “My wife used read for me, but she died. So here I am.” “My brother helped me out, but he moved out of province. So here I am.”
I will never understand why someone would “cover” for an illiterate person, rather than encouraging them to learn to read. That’s not helping.
Even if momma did adopt an iliterate kid – she has responsibilities. Tutoring at home. Facilitating tutoring or placement in an appropriate class or school. Encouraging the kid to read, instead of enabling his illiteracy. This last is particularly important, and this was demonstrably not happening. When that sort of complacency and apathy is apparent, and it’s clear that the kid’s between seven and ten years behind the program, it’s the safest bet that it’s her damned fault.
Also, the t-shirt choices do underline that she doesn’t really think about her kid’s welfare very deeply. Sending a subliterate kid to school in a t-shirt that says “I heard you, but I still think you’re stupid” is tantamount to child abuse.
Or maybe the kid’s an honour student who just happened to be suffering a Transient Ischemic Attack in the store. WE JUST DON’T KNOW!
The subtle science of duck identification comes into play here, just a bit.
Simply inaudible. My son does not speak at all, ever. Strangers might notice that I have an exceptionally quiet child, but I doubt anyone would leap to the conclusion of “speech impediment.”
This has just gotten ridiculous.
::putting on the sarcasm hat::
Of course we must have enough information based on a second hard report from someone who is as far from unbiased in the description of events as can possibly be. It’s almost like we were there!
::taking off hat::
Again, ridiculous. It’s easier to assume for some of you that the mom is the sole reason why this kid apparently had trouble reading slogans on tshirts. There is NO other possiblity of explanation. None at all.
Please demonstrate that the OP is “far from biased.” Show your work.
Of course there’s a remote possibility that there’s some other explanation for the kid’s inability to read the T-shirts. Maybe he had some visual impairment. For the purposes of this thread, though, I’m willing to trust the average person’s ability to discern between someone who is having trouble reading and someone who is having trouble seeing. It’s not that hard.
The thing is, the most probable explanation is that the situation was exactly as it struck Elysian. If we were contemplating calling in state social workers, or something else that would actually have any effect at all on the family, I’d be inclined to agree with you. More information would be vital.
However, we’re talking about someone venting on a message board about an anonymous third party.
You are the one who’s being ridiculous. “Maybe the kid was recently adopted.” Good grief. Maybe someone spiked Elysian’s fruit punch with atropine, and she hallucinated the whole episode. If we expected corroboration and elaboration for every anecdotal thread here, we simply couldn’t have anyone relate personal events.
How can we know? We go by what’s related. What has been related is hardly an incredible story. It’s as common as dirt. Anyone who has spent any time dealing with literacy issues will have little trouble accepting the OP at face value. If you find hoofprints, you think horses, you don’t think zebras. That doesn’t deny the existence of zebras – but you ought not to work yourself into a froth because people, on seeing (or hearing of) hoofprints, are talking about horses, without dwelling too much on zebras. (Forgive me for giving old Occam a rest in favour of the more folksy zoological metaphor.)
The national average is 12%, of students identified with a learning disability. What some posters are doing is called looking for zebras. As in: “When you hear hoof beats, it’s probably a horse, not a zebra.” Sure the OP may have encountered a zebra, but given the description of the incident and my years in education, I don’t think a phone call to the wild animal park is required, here. It’s more likely he’s a plain old horse that hasn’t gotten around to learning how to read, as of yet.
And no, being illiterate doesn’t automatically quailify you for special ed, depending upon your state and district, it takes more than having trouble reading to get into the program. There’s a difference between a kid who needs special ed. and a kid who needs a tutor. A true learning disability that had as one of it’s results such illiteracy would have almost certainly been caught by his age. Why then would his family attempt to humiliate him by holding up slogans they knew he couldn’t read? The most likely scenario is that he can’t read because his family is not advocating for him in any meaningful way. Horse, not zebra.
Gaaah! It’s a typo, just a simple typo! Erm… I was testing you? Truth is, I used to be able to spell, then I started reading message boards. I’ve seen so many variations o so many words, I can’t remember which one is correct anymore.
Fionn– in my friend’s case they have enough wiggle room to send the child home until potty training is completed. If parents wanted to make a stink about it, there could be trouble.
Adopted! 
That’s a good one, keep 'em coming. What else could you come up with? He’s an alien here studying the human race and, while easily learning the language, hasn’t learned to read yet because his species record their thoughts in methane ice crystals. Oh, wait, maybe his family won’t let him read in public because they want everyone to think he’s dumb. Yeah, that’s gotta be it, that’s the most likely scenario!
:rolleyes:
Okay, that’s just weird.
Agreed, and not at all ironic that you’re the one pointing that out.
You’re right, it is easier to assume that because that’s the most likely explanation. Not the only possible one, but the one that strikes most of us reasonable people as most likely.
Considering that we Dopers are a rarified bunch, how do you think everyone else is going to see this kid? Do you expect fellow students to percieve that there might be forty-two reasons chubby Bobby can’t read or is it more likely they’re gonna call him fat and stupid? Future employers, think they’re going to search for learning disabilities or vision problems or just dismiss him and hire the competent candidate?
I was out shopping for clothes today, and I saw a similar thing happen. There was a mother and daughter, looking at some slippers. The daughter was about 12, and her mother was reading the slogans on the slippers to her.
Larry Mudd, that is weird. I didn’t preview and had been writing the post for ages, since I wanted to double-check my stats. Do you hear the Twilight Zone theme where you are?
Quick, what am I thinking right now?
I know exactly what you mean. Dependant? Dependent? Masturbate? Masterbate? Hamster? Hampster? I’m so confused!
“It’s ti… ti…”
Uh…