1041
The world is a big place
(lemmy.world)
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics” - Mark Twain
Not in your link, but I found the same statistics as your link in another with a critical piece of information:
"According to researchers, 4 out of 5 Americans 18 and over possess medium to high proficiency in English reading and writing." source
These statistics, both your link and mine, may only be measuring literacy in English.
So looking to get a clue how many may have literacy in another language:
"Today, 13.8 percent of the nation's residents are foreign-born" source
So at least a percentage of those being counted as USA illiterate may indeed be literate in another language that isn't English.
The word "may" is doing all the heavy lifting here.
Of course it is a low confidence answer for that non-English but literate population. I'm not saying that 100% of those called illiterate are actually literate in another language. I'm saying that the statement that the illiteracy rate is as high as posted is likely wrong because it only accounts for English.
The "may" statement you're taking issue with is a quick attempt to find out possibly how big that non-English but literate population might be. Its not a definitive answer. You're welcome to spend your time chasing a more precise number. I'd exhausted my interested when I got my number.
I'm not going to say it was your intention, but it reads like "immigrants are lowering the literacy rate". It's something I've seen too often.
Regardles, from the page you linked:
That would not be explained by a 13.8 percent of foreign-born residents.
The emphasis is because "American" is not the same as "foreign-born resident".
I'm having trouble seeing the mental gymnastics to get that reading when I'm saying that the immigrants are unfairly being called illiterate, when they ARE literate, just in a different language.
I'm discarding any of the statistics from that page I linked because I don't trust their methodology. I linked it not to support OPs argument about the rate if illiteracy, but to discredit it for being questionable based. The stats from my linked page match much of the stats from their linked page. My guess is that both draw from the same flawed measures and should not be trusted.