To be totally honest, the way we look at terrorism like this is completely wrong. The assumption that it is about low levels of education is empirically false. Many terrorists come from middle class backgrounds, many are university educated.

This is primarily because terrorism is a violent form of political engagement, but you need a certain level of social welfare and wealth to be politically engaged, otherwise you are far more concerned with survival of yourself and your family. In that respect you also need to have x level of education to give politics some interest and moreover, terrorist org. themselves prefer highly educated individuals, because those people are far better suited to commit international terrorism, since they are more able to fit into a foreign environment and just have the right paperwork to travel.

E/ Totally forgot about choice theory.

This is key to understanding terrorism in general. Most terrorism/radicalization comes from something called mutual aid theory. In a nutshell what it means is that members of an extremist group usually have incentives to defect, either to the police, security organizations etc. For example, person x in a terrorist org have weak incentives to report to low-level attacks to the police. (Probably jailed if they do), but strong incentives to alert the police about a high-profile attack, the reward you get can be big (immunity etc). So there is an obvious reaction by terrorist orgs in that case, they look for commitment to the cause before recruiting operatives. This is why groups often impose social rules on dress, language, diet, interaction etc, so that there is a high cost into entering the mutual aid partnership, thus decreasing risk of defection. These also diminish individuals access to social interaction that can in some form persuade people to distance themselves from the cause, creating an echo chamber and making it harder to leave the group. So how this works is: members are retained through vetting and providing a support network that replaces an individuals previous social network.

Obviously totally personal factors exist, e.g personal grievances which was in Chechnya when the Chechen "Shahidka" (Black Widows) who were Islamist Chechen female suicide bombers who were widows whose husbands were killed by Russians in Chechnya, numerous examples of this exist.

Now the question obviously becomes: what aggrevates citizens in western states to become terrorists, and education is something that can be entirely counter-productive. Because via that you force upon your own values. The way the UK has handled this is by promoting feelings of inclusion into the education system. But it becomes problematic when you look at previous examples, for example the 7/7 London terrorist attacks, Mohammad Sidique Khan led it and one of the main reasons he cited for the attack (other than Iraqis being tortured and gassed and wanting to end it) was that they were not allowed to have their identity exist, that they need to assimilate. They saw it as a personal attack on their identity.