Myth #5: If you can hide it, a lack of basic skills will not have an impact on your life.
This is simply not true. According to the IALS, there is a significant income penalty associated with low literacy skills. In Canada, lower levels of literacy correspond with lower levels of income and earnings. Adults at level 1 are more likely than those at level 4/5 to make under $27,000 per year and none of them makes $40,000 or more. This income relationship with literacy is not unique to Canada; everywhere but in Switzerland, literacy levels have a direct effect on wage income. Lower levels of literacy also correspond with high levels of unemployment and with fewer weeks worked per year.

• the unemployment rate is far higher for those at level 1 (26%) than it is for those at level 4/5 (4%)
• people with Level 1 literacy work about a month less per year than those at level 4/5

As well, lower levels of literacy correspond with greater reliance on EI and social assistance. A comparison between Canadians at Level 3 and those at Levels 1/2 reveal significant differences. Of those at Level 3, 37% rely on unemployment income and 27% are on social assistance. For those at Levels 1/2, the figures rise to 49% and 64%, respectively. The final paragraph of the IALS: “literacy is important: it rewards those who are proficient and penalizes those who are not. For the individual, literacy affects employment success, income and life chances; literacy is both enriching and empowering.”

Myth #6: It doesn’t matter what you read – so long as you read.
People with the highest literacy skills invariably had the greatest variety of reading materials in their homes. They use this variety of materials consistently. Of all literacy activities practiced on a daily or weekly basis, newspaper reading was the most common activity in countries studied. The IALS research data show some correlation between the literacy skills of readers and the parts of the newspapers they read. Editorial pages and insight sections appealed to the higher skilled readers who, not surprisingly, tended to devour the whole of the paper. Lower skilled readers tended towards a mix of sports, the comics, ads, and some of the entertainment and lifestyle material, depending on their needs and tastes.

Myth #7: Literacy is developed at home.
This is not a myth when it applies to children. A child’s ability to develop literacy skills at an early age depends on the home learning environment. For adults, however, the workplace, more than the home, affords more frequent opportunities to practice literacy skills. This gives employers a larger role to play in the development and maintenance of the literacy skills of Canadians than previously assumed.

Myth #8: Since we’re collectively better educated than our parents, literacy must be less of a problem than it once was.
While our young people are better educated, stay in school longer and are in higher literacy categories than ever before, statistics still show a surprising lack of change in the overall Canadian literacy rate since 1989. Low literacy levels are very common with people over 44 years of age. Although young, more literate entrants to the labour force are replacing older, less-literate workers, the literacy rate of the adult population remains stubbornly flat. The report has no answer as to why this is. The authors conclude that social and economic forces outside of formal education must be having profound effects on the literacy skills of the older cohorts. Obviously, this will be the subject for considerable further research. The IALS does allow us to speculate about some of the causal factors for this phenomenon. The IALS shows that the workplace is the key to maintaining literacy skills and improving literacy competence. The IALS puts it simply. When all else is taken into consideration, “jobs cause literacy as much as they require it.” The IALS also suggests that North American shop floors are less literacy-rich than those of some of our European competitors. Could the lack of literacy practice on the job be the key factor in the decline of skills of the older cohorts in the Canadian workforce?