I think there is a flaw in the logic of this study. I do not dispute that those who are more literate make more money. But it is the behaviors associated with acquiring literacy that make the difference. Having intact parents who read to their children, making sure they succeed in school, and having the self discipline to use their schooling to improve themselves.
Having worked in education for over 30 years it would appear to me that what you are seeing is that it is the behaviors associated with people who are education resistant that lead to low literacy and low incomes and not the other way around. The schools are full of educationally resistant kids, and in the inner cities the numbers of JERKS (Just Educationally Resistant Kids) increases all the time.
The pattern to me seems to be fatherless children, with extremely young uneducated mothers who prefer taking their government checks to get their nails done, and iphones rather than making sure their kids learn and read. No discipline is instilled in their children and they cannot function in a setting that expects personal responsibility and self control. Gang membership, theft, constant fighting and disruptive behavior in classes is the norm. These are the reasons they are not literate, and they don’t care that they can’t read and don’t know anything. Literacy and learning are not culturally supported and not supported in their families.
Teaching them to be more literate, which they will resist, is not going to take away the other causes of lower income. For most that I have seen, they are “poor” because they continually make very poor choices and do not take responsibility for themselves. They have had 12 years of education on the taxpayer’s dime and they chose to continually not use that time to improve themselves.
Joe Rogan had a very fine rant about “inequality of outcome” and he said the real problem is “inequality of effort”.
People who are resistant to education, who do not try to succeed in school, who do not care about improving themselves, are going to be poor. It’s just one bad decision after another. Then they whine about “inequality of outcome”.
Having worked in education for over 30 years .... They have had 12 years of education on the taxpayer’s dime and they chose to continually not use that time to improve themselves.
***Nothing changes if nothing changes, to quote a phrase from 12 step programs. If you had spent those 30 years in a system of education with vouchers, where the kids who are motivated to get every penny’s worth of 12 years to get as much college education as they could, and where the kids who were unmotivated get to sit in disruptable babysitting ‘classroooms’ not pulling down others like crabs in a bucket... well then shiite woulda changed where shiite shoulda changed.
it would appear to me that what you are seeing is that it is the behaviors associated with people who are education resistant that lead to low literacy and low incomes and not the other way around. The schools are full of educationally resistant kids, and in the inner cities the numbers of JERKS (Just Educationally Resistant Kids) increases all the time.
The pattern to me seems to be fatherless children, with extremely young uneducated mothers who prefer taking their government checks to get their nails done, and iphones rather than making sure their kids learn and read. No discipline is instilled in their children and they cannot function in a setting that expects personal responsibility and self control. Gang membership, theft, constant fighting and disruptive behavior in classes is the norm. These are the reasons they are not literate, and they don’t care that they can’t read and don’t know anything. Literacy and learning are not culturally supported and not supported in their families.
Teaching them to be more literate, which they will resist, is not going to take away the other causes of lower income. For most that I have seen, they are “poor” because they continually make very poor choices and do not take responsibility for themselves.
Good analysis, your #13.