According to a new report, 47 percent of Detroiters are ”functionally illiterate.” The alarming new statistics were released by the Detroit Regional Workforce Fund on Wednesday.
WWJ Newsradio 950 spoke with the Fund’s Director, Karen Tyler-Ruiz, who explained exactly what this means.
“Not able to fill out basic forms, for getting a job — those types of basic everyday (things). Reading a prescription; what’s on the bottle, how many you should take… just your basic everyday tasks,” she said....
jpw wrote: Detroit lost its industry, out went the city. What is left is a non-economy. Have you all see the pictures of the lost facteries, all gutted out, vehicles dropped off of ledges, some places there look like war zones. Without a desire for biblical knowledge or the apprenticing of the next generation for work, and without development of land for healthy foods, there is really no need and no incentive for literacy.
jpw Your posts brings to my mind "the modern 21st century "church"".
We have throw away "our industry" (doing the will of God) fervent intercessory prayer and soul winning - that would be making genuine born again converts who grow in solid Biblcal faith to be God fearing Spirit filled disciples.
And essentially replaced it with "Christian Entertainment and Fun Activities" so the typical attender has no incentive to so read his or her Bible as if they do it won't be long till they might have a better knowledge of Scripture and more of it in their daily lives than their Sunday School teachers, and sadly even their pastor - which will make them a "trouble makers" for those playing church.
John Stossel has a really interesting and informative program covering this and related issues called "Stupid in America". You can watch it on YouTube.
Detroit lost its industry, out went the city. What is left is a non-economy. Have you all see the pictures of the lost facteries, all gutted out, vehicles dropped off of ledges, some places there look like war zones. Without a desire for biblical knowledge or the apprenticing of the next generation for work, and without development of land for healthy foods, there is really no need and no incentive for literacy.
Contrarian wrote: You can "keep" illiterate people voting for you more than literate people? No doubt you have evidence for that. And this works for just any "a politician"? Do please tell how this works exactly Mr Mike.
"Mr Mike" Wow, no need to be so formal, we're all friends here, right? Not that all means all, but you know what I mean.
You already know the answers, don't you? Surely even a contrarian knows it's easier to get followers who cannot do research for themselves, don't you agree? A "leader" makes a pretty speech, blames someone else for your troubles. If you're illiterate, what basis would you have to refute him? He makes promises, which sound good, but under scrutiny(requiring literacy) are no more than empty words designed to keep you coming back for more. As for literate folks, there are always going to be some gullible types who vote with their feelings, even though they can read and write. This does not lessen the reality that illiteracy among the masses is a gift for demagogues.
If you want evidence, read history. You have an advantage. Being literate, you can choose to read.
Mike wrote: If you're a politician, keeping the little people illiterate is a means used to keep them voting for you.
You can "keep" illiterate people voting for you more than literate people? No doubt you have evidence for that. And this works for just any "a politician"? Do please tell how this works exactly Mr Mike.
I would be interested how many people are functionally illiterate in the uk it is probably as high as the states It is interesting that the tv watching is going down in the states does that mean more people will be reading more
Contrarian wrote: Whilst illiteracy does not justify disengagement, it is worth noting that around half of the parents are also probably functionally illiterate.
If you're a politician, keeping the little people illiterate is a means used to keep them voting for you.
Barry from KY wrote: I agree Rufus, public education has lot's of problems! But, if the parents of these kids that are unable to read were no more interested in them then, how would homeschooling have helped? Or any other alternative for that matter. When I read an article like this, I always wonder why the parents weren't more involved.
Fair question. First, eliminating public schools would provide clarity in responsibility. Rather than parents believing education to be the responsibility of the state, it would be clearly understood that their children are their responsibility. There would be a direct economic and liberty benefit to citizens as property taxes could be eliminated. Those funds could be used towards bringing momma home to educate, applied towards tutors or applied to businesses willing to educate for profit. For the poor, charitable organizations such as churches could fill the gap. It would be imperfect, some would fall through the cracks but it would not be as bad as the current situation and it would not cost $900mil+ per major municipality.
I agree Rufus, public education has lot's of problems! But, if the parents of these kids that are unable to read were no more interested in them then, how would homeschooling have helped? Or any other alternative for that matter. When I read an article like this, I always wonder why the parents weren't more involved.
COMMENTS | 
