A few years ago, the US Department of Education released a statistic claiming that the illiteracy rate 14%. This seems like an absolutely staggering number for a modern Western country. AFAIK in most developed countries (and in at least some “developing” countries), the illiteracy rate will typically be something like 1 or 2% today. So what’s REALLY behind the overtly high figure from the USA?
Are many of those counted as illiterate immigrants from countries with low literacy rates?
Did whoever came up with the US statistic apply a different (read more rigorous/demanding/stricter) methodology than is used elsewhere? For example, did they count as literate only those who can read without problems a fairly complex text, whereas in other countries they tend to consider you literate if you can get through “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” and fully comprehend it?
Did they count people who can read in their mother tongue but not in English as “illiterate” (I certainly wouldn’t, not in the general sense).
Or are some 14% of Americans above a certain age truly, for all practical purposes, not able to read at any substantial level?
This study, from the National Center for Education Statistics, indicates that, based on testing, 17% of American adults are either at a “Level 1” literacy (or, “low literacy”), or below, and that another 4% are functionally unable to take the literacy test, due to either language barriers, or cognitive or physical disabilities.
They classify anyone who falls below “Level 1 literacy” as being functionally illiterate, which is 4% of the population in their study (and doesn’t include the 4% who are essentially untestable). Given that their study also shows that Americans with low literacy levels are more likely to have been born outside of the U.S., it would follow that a signficant reason for lack of literacy is language barriers, among immigrants for whom English is not their first language – many of them may well be literate, just not in English.
There are different levels of literacy being talked about here. Almost everyone in any first-world country is capable of reading. Some people can do it only slowly and with difficulty, and only if the language used is very simple. Some people can do it with more facility, but in practice never bother. Depending on your standard of “literacy”, or “functional literacy”, the numbers can vary wildly.
It looks like you’re comparing the functional literacy rate in the US with the total literacy rate elsewhere.
Language barriers are by far the most common cause. And of course, we have a fair number of people who have cognitive disabilities.
Now, functional illiteracy- where you have to move your lips when reading comic books- is all too common.
My wife was working at a auto parts store. He manager was a expert on auto parts, etc. knew all the shit. They had to take the ASE “Parts Pro certified” test. She passed with flying colors- he failed- even tho she didnt know a tenth of what he knew. However, she reads several books a week. He hadnt read a book since High school. This level is all too common- many Americans never read books.
It’s pretty clear that there’s no way we’re going to figure out what the real literacy rate is in the U.S. There are various levels of literacy, and some websites use one level to measure literacy and some use another. I don’t see how it’s worthwhile discussing what factors cause illiteracy when we can’t even get accurate and meaningful statistics about it.
Click pdf at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/oecd-skills-outlook-2013_9789264204256-en
to get a long document with a table on page 259 that shows 17.5% of adult Americans at Level 1 literacy or below. This is about the same as France, Germany and Ireland; ahead of Spain and Italy; behind Scandinavia and South Korea; and *way *behind Japan.
O.K., Septimus, that table looks like it’s as good as we’re going to find. On page 257 (not 259) of the document that Septimus links to, the table has most of the countries of Europe, plus the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea (the OECD countries) for the rows and five literacy levels for the columns. These countries are all pretty close in literacy, it seems, and the U.S. is somewhere in the middle. So really there’s nothing interesting to say about the level of literacy in the U.S., I think. These countries are all what you think of as fairly well-off ones, and their levels of literacy aren’t too much different.
I’m not 100% clear how these statistics include or correct for who has limited proficiency in the main language of the country in question. This separate table of literacy proficiency in the US has a note saying ‘Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this table.’ And in the OECD doc 4-some % in the US are in the ‘missing’ category.
IME in an area in the US with a very high % of foreign born residents, I would guess a significant % of foreign born people would not be excluded based on ‘can’t be interviewed because of language’ but the fact that they were educated (mainly) in another country in another language would still have a big impact on their English literacy score. They have rough spoken English but mainly function in another language, in which they also consume written news media, and their job might not require reading much English either. This is probably a factor in some of the European countries also*. Japan and ROK have some immigrants (who aren’t eg. Japanese Brazilians or Chinese Koreans who might bring language skills) nowadays, but proportionally far fewer.
Which doesn’t exclude a flat out advantage some countries have over others in the educational achievement of people at various points on the educational distribution. It’s just not 100% easy to measure.
*or language heterogeneity unrelated to recent immigration. I guess they separately consider French and Flemish written proficiency in the respective areas of Belgium, but wonder if the results are wholly unaffected in countries with pretty different spoken dialects of the main language, or small %‘s in border regions who mainly speak another language, might also result in high total literacy’ but larger %'s with fairly low practical proficiency. Italy for example.
The U.S. is not particularly high among the countries of the world in the number of foreign-born people as a percentage of the population, not is it particularly high among the countries of the world in the percentage of people who have immigrated into the country in the past few years:
In the proportion of the population that doesn’t speak English, the U.S. is pretty typical of other mostly English-speaking countries like the U.K., Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and Barbados:
Dexter Manley wasn’t completely illiterate in his twenties, but he only read at a second-grade level. At 29 he began taking reading lessons and within two years could read at a tenth-grade level. The problem was partly that he had a learning disability and partly that everyone was telling him that he would become a professional football player, so why did it matter how well he could read? There was also a lot of people around while he was playing football who told him that it was O.K. to be using cocaine. Also, he had a brain cyst that was ignored for twenty years. When it was removed when he was 49, he finally got off drugs. He wasn’t stupid. He just allowed himself to get messed up, and most of the people around him allowed him to mess himself up:
Yep. We have a certain % of mentally impaired and people who dont speak English, and a few older folks who never really learned to read. Same as everywhere else.
In California, for example, there is a substantial population of immigrants from Mexico who are field workers. A fair number of these people are illiterate in Spanish as well as English. They come from poverty-stricken rural areas in Mexico and many have never had the opportunity to attend school regularly anywhere.