[KingMachiavelli]

> Some of these high county-level percentages stem from high populations of immigrants, whose first language is not English. The PIAAC only assesses English literacy, though its background questionnaire is given in English and Spanish.

If you look at the map (and read the article), it's fairly obvious that they are NOT adjusting for non-English first language speakers. This is partly on purpose since it's those demographics that need the most assistance and funding to learn English. However, it's really disappointing that this data is used to make statements and titles regarding people's "literacy" or reading comprehension when it's specifically testing a single language.

[MOARDONGZPLZ]

It’s a study done by the US Dept of Education. I don’t think it’s bad or even unusual that it tests English (and some Spanish) only. The implication is it is testing useful literacy in the US. After all, being literate in Tagalog isn’t a useful thing in the US, so why call someone who is literate in Tagalog only literate for the US?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment.

[madaxe_again]

I’m not certain this is as big an effect as you might imagine.

I’m an immigrant in Portugal, I have been here five years - and I am far more literate in Portuguese than a good many of the people I encounter here, who are born and bred Portuguese. Sure, they speak better than me, of course, and it took me a while to realise that many of them could barely read or write - but the educational system in rural Portugal did not, and seemingly still does not, produce people with anything above bare-bones literacy.

This isn’t a judgment - purely an observation that literacy is something that translates across language barriers for the literate quite readily, and poor education results in poor literacy - not being foreign.