Home  ›  What Is the Percentage of People Over the Age of 15 Than Can Read and Write in the Us

What Is the Percentage of People Over the Age of 15 Than Can Read and Write in the Us

Written By Thursday, 10 March 2022 Add Comment Edit

Overview of literacy in the United states of america

Barbara Bush and a young girl, seated next to each other in a room full of people and smiling at each other

A 2019 report by the National Center for Education Statistics determined that mid to loftier literacy in the Us is 79% with 21% of American adults categorized equally having "low level English literacy," including 4.i% classified equally "functionally illiterate" and an additional 4% that could not participate.[1] According to the U.Southward. Department of Education, 54% of adults in the The states have prose literacy below the sixth-grade level.[2]

In many nations, the ability to read a simple sentence suffices as literacy, and was the previous standard for the U.S. The definition of literacy has changed greatly; the term is presently defined as the power to utilize printed and written information to function in social club, to achieve one'due south goals, and to develop one'southward knowledge and potential.[3]

The United States Department of Education assesses literacy in the general population through its National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL).[iv] The NAAL survey defines three types of literacy:[v]

  • prose literacy: the cognition and skills needed to search, cover, and use continuous texts. Examples include editorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materials.
  • document literacy: the cognition and skills needed to search, comprehend, and use non-continuous texts in diverse formats. Examples include task applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and drug and nutrient labels.
  • quantitative literacy: the knowledge and skills required to identify and perform computations, either alone or sequentially, using numbers embedded in printed materials. Examples include balancing a checkbook, figuring out tips, completing an society form, or determining an corporeality.

Mod jobs often need a high level of literacy, and its lack in adults and adolescents has been studied extensively.

According to a 1992 survey, about 40 million adults had Level 1 literary competency, the lowest level, comprising understanding just basic written instructions.[6] A number of reports and studies are published annually to monitor the nation'south status, and initiatives to improve literacy rates are funded by government and external sources.[7]

History [edit]

In early U.South. colonial history, teaching children to read was the responsibility of the parents for the purpose of reading the Bible. Withal, Massachusetts constabulary of 1642 and Connecticut law of 1650 required that not only children but also servants and apprentices were required to learn to read.[8] During the industrial revolution, many nursery schools, preschools and kindergartens were established to formalize education.[eight] Throughout the 20th century, there was an increase in federal acts and models to ensure that children were developing their literacy skills and receiving teaching.[eight] Starting in the 2000s, there has been an increase of immigrants in cities, the majority of whose children speak languages other than English and who thus fall behind their peers in reading.[9] Elementary school literacy has been the focus of educational reform since that time.

The National Bureau of Economic Inquiry published a data set with an overview of the history of pedagogy in the The states until the 20th and 21st centuries. According to the bureau, "Formal education, peculiarly bones literacy, is essential for a well-functioning democracy, and enhances citizenship and customs."[7]

Nineteenth-century literacy rates in the United states of america were relatively high, despite the country'south decentralized educational system.[7] There has been a notable increase in American citizens' educational attainment since so, but studies have too indicated a decline in reading functioning which began during the 1970s.[10] Although the U.S. Developed Didactics and Literacy Arrangement (AELS) and legislation such equally the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 had highlighted instruction as an issue of national importance,[eleven] the push for loftier levels of mass literacy has been a recent development; expectations of literacy take sharply increased over past decades.[12] Contemporary literacy standards take become more hard to meet than historical criteria, which were applied only to the elite. Due to the proliferation (and increased accessibility) of public education, the expectation of mass literacy has been applied to the unabridged U.S. population.

Literacy has particular importance in machismo since the changing dynamics of the American job market place demand greater skills and knowledge of entry-level workers. In the 2003 National Assessment of Developed Literacy, young adults without a post-secondary education experienced difficulty obtaining career positions. A multi-variable analysis indicated that low and below-bones literacy rates were characteristic of individuals without higher instruction,[13] and improving and sustaining mass literacy at earlier stages of pedagogy has go a focus of American leaders and policymakers.

Since A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, interest in the operation of American students relative to other youth populations worldwide has been smashing. It has been observed that adolescents undergo a critical transition during their course-school years which prepares them to learn and utilize knowledge to their actions and behavior in the outside globe.[14] As the job market has become more demanding, the rigor of educational institutions has increased to prepare students for the more-complex tasks which will be expected of them.[xv] Addressing sub-par reading functioning and low youth literacy rates are important to accomplish high levels of mass literacy because the upshot of sub-par academic operation is compounded. Students who struggle at an early historic period proceed to struggle throughout their schoolhouse years considering they practice not have the same foundation of understanding and breadth of cognition to build upon as their peers; this often translates to below-average, poor literacy levels in later on grades and into adulthood.[16]

Developed and adolescent literacy levels are under greater scrutiny in the U.South., with a number of reports and studies published annually to monitor the nation's status. Initiatives to ameliorate literacy rates accept taken the form of government provisions and external funding, which accept been driving forces backside national education reform from primary school to higher education.[vii]

In 2019, the National Centre for Educational Statistics reported that 4.1% of US adults had literacy abilities beneath level 1, defined equally "unable to successfully decide the meaning of sentences, read relatively brusque texts to locate a single piece of data, or complete simple forms", and could exist classified as "functionality illiterate".[1]

Defining adult literacy [edit]

The simplest definition of literacy in a nation is the percent of people age 15 or older who can read and write, which is used to rank nations. More-circuitous definitions, involving the kind of reading needed for occupations or tasks in daily life, are termed functional literacy, prose literacy, document literacy and quantitative literacy. These more-complex definitions of literacy are useful to educators, and are used by the Department of Education.

In a 2003 study of adults, the National Center for Education Statistics (part of the Didactics Department) measured functional literacy.[5] The middle measured 3 types of functional literacy: prose literacy, document literacy, and quantitative literacy. Prose literacy consists of the "knowledge and skills needed to perform prose tasks", and includes the ability to read news articles and brochures.[five] Document literacy consists of the "knowledge and skills needed to perform document tasks", which include job applications, payroll forms and maps.[five] Similarly, quantitative literacy is the "knowledge and skills required to perform quantitative tasks"; those tasks include balancing a checkbook and filling out an order course.[5]

The governments of other countries may label individuals who can read a few thousand unproblematic words which they learned by sight in the first 4 grades in schoolhouse equally literate. UNESCO has nerveless the definitions used by nations in their tables of literacy in its General Metadata on National Literacy Data table; variations depend on whether childhood literacy (historic period six) or adult literacy was measured. The listing distinguishes between a respondent's self-reported literacy and demonstrated ability to read.[17]

Other sources may term individuals functionally illiterate if they are unable to read basic sources of written data, such every bit warning labels and driving directions. According to The World Factbook from the U.Due south. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), "In that location are no universal definitions and standards of literacy" and its statistics are based on the most common definition: "the power to read and write at a specified historic period." The National Center for Education Statistics defines literacy every bit "the ability to understand, evaluate, utilize and appoint with written texts to participate in social club, to achieve one's goals, and to develop i'southward noesis and potential."[xviii] "Detailing the standards that private countries use to assess the power to read and write is across the scope of the Factbook. Information on literacy, while non a perfect measure out of educational results, is probably the virtually easily available and valid for international comparisons."[19] The World Factbook does not include the U.S. literacy rate in its reporting.[20] Using its definition, literacy refers to the per centum of people historic period fifteen or older who can read and write.[21] [19]

Failure to consummate secondary school is blamed for some problems with literacy, and programs directly addressing literacy have increased.[22]

Measuring developed literacy [edit]

Functional literacy can be divided into useful literacy, informational literacy and pleasurable literacy. Useful literacy reflects the most-common practice of using an understanding of written text to navigate daily life. Informational literacy can exist defined as text comprehension and the ability to connect new information presented in the text to previous knowledge. Pleasurable literacy is the ability of an individual to read, understand, and engage with texts that he or she enjoys.[23] In a more-abstract sense, multiple literacy can be classified into school, customs, and personal concepts. These categories refer to an individual'southward ability to learn virtually academic subjects, understand social and cultural contexts, and acquire nigh themselves from an examination of their own backgrounds.[23]

In 1988, the Department of Education was asked past Congress to undertake a national literacy survey of American adults.[24] : xi The written report identifies a class of adults who, although not meeting the criteria for functional illiteracy, face reduced task opportunities and life prospects due to inadequate literacy levels relative to requirements which were released in April 2002 and reapplied in 2003 as trend data. The 2002 report involved lengthy interviews with adults who were statistically balanced for age, gender, ethnicity, education level, and location (urban, suburban, or rural) in 12 states across the country, and was designed to represent the U.S. population every bit a whole. The National Adult Literacy Survey, conducted in 1992, was the first literacy survey which provided "accurate and detailed data on the skills of the adult population every bit a whole." The U.S. has participated in cyclical, large-scale assessment programs undertaken by the National Assessment of Developed Literacy (NAAL) and sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) since 1992. The survey revealed that the literacy of about xl meg adults was limited to Level 1 (the lowest level, an understanding of basic written instructions).[6]

The Institute of Education Sciences conducted big-calibration assessments of adult proficiency in 1992 and 2003 with a mutual methodology from which trends could exist measured. The study measures prose, certificate and quantitative skills, and 19,000 subjects participated in the 2003 survey. There was no significant alter in prose or document skills, and a slight increase in quantitative skills. As in 2008, roughly 15 percent of the sample could function at the highest levels of all three categories; about fifty percent were at basic or below-basic levels of proficiency in all three categories.[24] The authorities study indicated that 21 to 23 percent of developed Americans were "not able to locate information in text", could "not brand low-level inferences using printed materials", and were "unable to integrate easily identifiable pieces of information." About one-fourth of the individuals who performed at this level reported that they were born in some other country, and some were recent immigrants with a express control of English. Sixty-ii percent of the individuals on that level of the prose scale said they had non completed high school, and 35 percent had no more than eight years of teaching. A relatively high percentage of the respondents at this level were African American, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander, and most 33 percent were age 65 or older. Twenty-six percent of the adults who performed at Level 1 said that they had a physical, mental or health condition which kept them from participating fully in work and other activities, and 19 percentage reported vision issues which fabricated reading print difficult. The individuals at this level of literacy had a diverse set up of characteristics which influenced their functioning; according to this study, 41 to 44 percent of U.S. adults at the everyman level of the literacy scale were living in poverty.[24] A NAAL follow-up study by the same grouping of researchers, using a smaller database (19,714 interviewees), was released in 2006 which indicated some up movement of depression-finish (basic and beneath to intermediate) in U.S. developed literacy levels and a pass up in the full-proficiency group.[25]

The United States was one of seven countries which participated in the 2003 Developed Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL), whose results were published in 2005. The U.S. and dozens of other countries began participating in the Plan for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), a large-calibration assessment of adult skills—including literacy—under the auspices of the Organization for Economical Co-functioning and Development (OECD), in 2011. The NCES describes the PIACC as the "near current indicator of the nation's progress in adult skills in literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving in technology-rich environments."[26]

Department of Education surveys [edit]

English Language Proficiency Survey (1982) [edit]

In 1982, funded by the United States Section of Education,[27] the United States Census Bureau conducted the English Language Proficiency Survey (ELPS): an in-home literacy test of 3,400 adults.[28] The Education Department considered this direct measure of literacy more authentic than a 1979 estimate which inferred literacy from the number of years of education completed.[29] Data from the ELPS were presented in a 1986 Census Bureau written report which concluded that 13 percentage of adults living in the United States were illiterate in English.[29] Nine percentage of adults whose native language was English language (native speakers) were illiterate, and 48 percent of not-native speakers were illiterate in English but not necessarily illiterate in their maternal linguistic communication.[29]

In his 1985 book, Illiterate America, Jonathan Kozol ascribed the very-high figures for literacy to weaknesses in methodology.[thirty] Kozol noted that in addition to this weakness, the reliance on written forms would take excluded many individuals who did not accept a literate family member to make full out the form for them.[30] The Census Bureau reported a literacy rate of 86 percent, based on personal interviews and written responses to Census Bureau mailings. The bureau considered an individual literate if they said that they could read and write, and assumed that anyone with a 5th-grade education had at to the lowest degree an 80-percent hazard of being literate. Kozol suggested that considering illiterate people are probable to be unemployed and may not have a telephone or permanent address, the Demography Bureau would take been unlikely to discover them.[30]

National Developed Literacy Survey (1992) [edit]

In 1988, the Department of Education was asked by Congress to undertake a national literacy survey of American adults.[24] : xi The National Center for Educational activity Statistics, part of the Department of Education, awarded a contract to the Educational Testing Service and a farm to Westat to design and comport the survey.[31]

The 1992 National Developed Literacy Survey (NALS) provided detailed data on the skills of the adult population every bit a whole. The survey interviewed about 26,000 people aged 16 and older: a nationally representative sample of about 14,000 people and an boosted 12,000 surveys from states which opted into land-level assessments. Its results were published in 1993.[6] : xiv That year, the NALS was described as a nationally representative, continuing assessment of the English language-language literary skills of American adults.[32] The study avoided a unmarried standard of literacy, assessing individuals in three aspects of literacy with each aspect defined on a 500-betoken scale. Scores in each aspect (prose, document, and quantitative) were grouped in v levels: level 1 (0-225), level 2 (226-275), level three (276-325), level four (326-375), and level v (376-500).

National Assessment of Adult Literacy (2003) [edit]

The National Cess of Developed Literacy (NAAL)[33] was sponsored by the National Middle for Education Statistics (NCES) as one of its assessment programs.[34] The study included comparisons to the 1992 survey. Adults over 16 years of historic period were scored on their prose, document, and quantitative literacy. Although there was no significant change in prose and document literacy between 1992 and 2003, quantitative literacy improved.[26] The study maintained the practice of the 1992 National Developed Literacy Survey of dividing literacy into three aspects, each measured on a 500-point scale. Scores in each aspect were again grouped into five different levels, using a new numerical calibration which differed for each aspect.

International surveys [edit]

Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey [edit]

The United States participated in the Developed Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL) with Bermuda, Canada, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, and the Mexican country of Nuevo León. Data was collected in 2003, and the results were published in 2005.[35] Adults were scored on v levels of difficulty in prose, certificate and numeracy literacy. In 2003, only 8 percentage of the population aged 16 to 65 in Norway savage into the lowest skill level (level i). The highest percentage was 47 percent, in Italia; the United States was tertiary-highest at 20 percent.[35] : 17

Program for the International Cess of Developed Competencies [edit]

The United states of america participated in the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), which was "developed nether the auspices" of the OECD. The PIACC is a "collaborative attempt involving the participating countries, the OECD Secretariat, the European Committee and an international consortium led by Educational Testing Service (ETS)".[36] Co-ordinate to the National Middle for Education Statistics (NCES), the PIACC provides the "most electric current indicator of the nation's progress in adult skills in literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving in engineering-rich environments" and is a "large-calibration assessment of adult skills."[26]

In 2012, 24 countries participated in the large-scale report; thirty-iii countries participated in 2014.[37] The 2013 OECD study "First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills", which published the results of tests conducted in 2011 and 2012, said that the "skills of adults in the Usa [had] remained relatively unchanged in the decade since the previous report,[ clarification needed ] while other countries have been showing improvements, especially amongst adults with low bones skills."[38] The 2011 literacy test for was contradistinct: "Before the PIAAC 2011 survey, however, essentially all that 1 could infer nearly the literacy skills of adults below Level i was that they could not consistently perform accurately on the easiest literacy tasks on the survey. 1 could not guess what literacy tasks they could do successfully, if any."[39]

In 2016, PIAAC 2012 and 2014 information were released.[37] Participating adults in Singapore and the United States had the largest number of adults scoring "at or beneath Level one in literacy proficiency" compared to other participating countries in their functioning in "all three reading components". According to the authors of the OECD report, "These results may be related to the language groundwork of the immigrant population in the Usa."[36]

Co-ordinate to the 2012-2014 data, 79% of U.S. adults (or 43.0 one thousand thousand people) have "English literacy skills sufficient to complete tasks that crave comparison and contrasting data, paraphrasing, or making low-level inferences." In this report, immigrants are over-represented in the low English literacy population. Adults born outside the U.Due south. brand upwardly 34% of adults with depression literacy skills while making up only xv% of the population. However, of the adults with low English language literacy skills, 66% were built-in in the U.S.[40]

Central Connecticut State University study [edit]

From 2005 to 2009, Jack Miller of Central Connecticut State University conducted annual studies aimed at identifying America's virtually literate cities. Miller drew from a number of bachelor information resource, and the CCSU America's Most Literate Cities study ranks the largest cities (population 250,000 and above) in the U.s.a.. The report focuses on vi indicators of literacy: newspaper circulation, number of bookstores, library resources, periodical-publishing resources, educational attainment, and Internet resources.[41]

Urban center Rankings
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Seattle, WA ane 1.5 2 one one
Washington, D.C. two three five iii.5 3
Minneapolis, MN 3 1.5 ane 2 two
Pittsburgh, PA 4 12 ix 6 8
Atlanta, GA five vi 8 three.5 4
Portland, OR 6 ten.5 12 x 11
St. Paul, MN 7 4 iii 5 9.5
Boston, MA 8 viii x 11 7
Cincinnati, OH 9 10.five xi 7 9.5
Denver, CO ten 7 4 viii 6

Uncomplicated school literacy [edit]

School curriculum and literacy standards are divers class-wise, for all students.

History of inequity [edit]

The 1960s was a time when nigh African-American, Latino, and Native American students were primarily educated in unlike and segregated schools that were besides "funded at rates many times lower than those serving white" students.[42] Asian Americans also were subject to unjust and inhumane literacy education practice: "Early arguments for Asian American didactics hinged on the supposition that Asian Americans were inherently different—namely, depraved and disloyal—and consequently needed an didactics that would deter them from criminal delinquency."[43] Rhetoric scholar Haivan Hoang asserts that unequal literacy practices persist today and that mod perceptions of the American literate private is normalized in non-racial minority identities.[43]

The U.S. public teaching has been "highly decentralized" compared to other nations, such as France.[44] A decentralized public didactics system may issue in coordination problems among staff and faculty, an expectation to bear out a "large grouping of staff specialists at enormous price," and in that location is no standardization of teaching at a national calibration.[45] Various studies from the early 2000s and afterward reveal that the U.South. was ranked number twenty out of the 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Evolution (OECD) in terms of earning average or below-average grades in reading, science, and mathematics.[46] A news report stated that out of the full number of elementary schoolhouse students that reached center school grade in the Usa, only 44 per centum of them were skillful in reading and math by the yr 2015.[46] Compared to their white counterparts at the age of 5, blackness and Hispanic children score lower in expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, and other acuity indicators.[46]

Brown v. Board of Education of 1954 ruled the concept of "split only equal" unconstitutional, commencement the desegregation of schools.[47] Even then, the effects of segregation are still visible today, as many K-12 schools are in areas that are predominately home to BIPOC (Black Indigenous People of Color). This historical injustice relates direct to why a majority of the elementary schools with struggling readers are in depression income and/or minority areas today. Currently, studies prove that socioeconomically disadvantaged students, including those with costless/reduced dejeuner, score low reading levels.[48] In addition, English language linguistic communication learners (ELL) and children of immigrants have high dropout rates and low scores on standardized tests.[49] School districts provide the same materials for every educatee in the same grade levels, but each student learns at a different reading level and often is not able to engage with the text.[50] [51] Without distinguishing curriculum and standards, English language learners and children from depression-income families fall behind their peers.[50] [ix] Teachers spend a majority of their grade time reading and supporting struggling readers, but teachers take non been able to exercise this all the time.[l] Other than the educational risks of non working towards an equitable education, the always-changing "economic and demographic landscapes" also demanded that in that location exist a need for a "more than robust policy [and] strategies" which would address the gaps in elementary didactics.[52] Moreover, there was also an issue regarding the funding gap between the rich and poor schools. A report published during the Obama administration institute that the funding gap grew to over 44 percentage within ten years spanning from the early 2000s to 2012.[53]Along with that, the Supreme Court's decision in San Antonio Schoolhouse District Five. Rodriquez ruled that instruction is "not within the limited category of the rights recognized by the Constitution" and thus not protected by the Constitution.[54]

Solutions to elementary literacy gap in the The states [edit]

Solutions past the Usa Government [edit]

Starting in the 1960s, in that location were federal responses to address the problems of struggling English learners and overstretched teachers. Head Start was created in 1964 for children and families living under the poverty line to ready children under 5 for uncomplicated school and provide their family unit support for their health, nutrition, and social services. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Simple and Secondary Education Act as a federal response to ensure that each child gets equal instruction regardless of their class or race. In response to English language learners, in 1968 Congress passed the Bilingual Education Human activity. The deed immune ELL students to learn in their commencement language and provided resource to help schools with ELL students. Fifty-fifty as new legislation has come up about throughout history that grants rights to Black and Brown citizens, they are already backside because of the history of white supremacy. This generational discrimination connects straight to why students who struggle in reading proficiency and/or attend underfunded schools are BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color). To put information technology in perspective, schools that accept xc% or more students of color spend $733 less per student than schools with ninety% or more students that are white.[55] This statistic displays the disproportionate lack in funding for students of color in general and the same tendency is seen in elementary school of the United States specifically.[56]

Teachers play an extremely important role in the classroom given that they work with the student consistently enough to discover which students struggle most. Studies have shown that teacher judgment assessments are a actually authentic determinant for elementary school students' reading proficiency.[57] They are not every bit precise as the curriculum based measurements (CBM) but extremely accurate on boilerplate. This gives faster and more than personal results in terms of identifying which educatee needs more assistance. In 1997, President Pecker Clinton proposed that tutors work with children reading beneath their class level. Tutoring programs include partnerships with university organizations in which college students tutor and develop the literacy skills of elementary school students. Using not-certified teachers reduces the corporeality of money that a school would have to put into hiring many certified teachers, which increases the number of children that tin can be helped.[58] So many underprivileged uncomplicated schoolhouse students need this reading proficiency help but also deserve the best quality given the historical inequities within the educational system.

Components of the "Tutoring Model" suggest the components that can ensure that service from a non-certified tutor can in fact evidence to be effective:

"(1) engaging reading materials that are carefully graded in difficulty,

(2) a sequenced word report or phonics curriculum,

(3) regularly scheduled tutoring sessions (at to the lowest degree two sessions per calendar week),

(4) a committed group of non certified tutors (para-professionals or community volunteers), and

(v) a knowledgeable reading teacher who provides ongoing supervision to the tutors." [58]

These components support the notion that tutoring uncomplicated schoolhouse students is extremely effective when it is accompanied past a series of approved curriculum, training, and systems of accountability.

By January 12, 2015, ceremonious rights groups and education advocates drafted and released a document called the 'shared civil rights principles for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Teaching Act (ESEA),' which pushed for the reauthorization of a bill termed ESEA, which was initially drafted in 2002. Though not yet passed, the neb had innumerable pathways that insured money for the education sector. Still, due to the Senate and the House'southward polarization, it had not been re-approved and had been pending approval since 2007. The bill would push button for equal access to educational opportunities for students across the country. "As of January 16, 22 organizations [had] signed the principles".[59] The following twenty-four hour period, on January 17, "Sen. Lamar Alexander, R. Tenn., released a typhoon reauthorization bill for ESEA".[59]

Following ESEA approving, Lease I, also called Title I schools, according to the National Center for Education Statistics(NCES), received $6.4 billion in "Basic Grants," $i.iii billion in "Concentrated Grants," and $3.3 billion in "Targeted Grants" in 2015, in response to Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) beingness passed.[60] ESEA ensures financial assistance is provided to local educational agencies who work for children coming from low-income families in pursuit of help, and hence fulfill the goals of land academic standards. These Title I schools tin can contract individual nonprofit tutoring programs to work with their students in enhancing skills such as reading comprehension, analytical skills, and word recognition.[60]

The provisions through the "No Kid Left Behind Act adopted" in 2002, the reauthorization of the ESEA in 2015, and the "Every Student Succeeds Human activity (ESSA) in 2015" build upon specific guidelines, conditions, and financial policies, indicating progress towards equity in didactics.[61] Co-ordinate to a study conducted in the land of Alabama, the "improver of [certain education] standards and a means of measuring whether a district has met those educational standards have heightened the awareness of a demand for adequacy".[62]

Solutions past Non-Profit Tutoring Programs [edit]

While Not-governmental Organizations (NGOs) in pedagogy were too not prevalent during the early 2000s, but with the declining standards of education, NGOs, which included both non-profits and for-profits emerged, which focused more on the "individual appointment", the one-on-ane teaching fashion.[44] "Private engagement [past tutoring programs] is not simply altering the delivery of teaching simply also participating in the reshaping of the politics of education" since the usage of cloth and mode of instruction does help mold the way a educatee views the world.[44] As well, since the 1990s, and up until the early 21st century, there was a more than significant business regarding "the need for better articulation and specification of concepts," which were challenges that NGOs had to address.[44] Though the work of NGOs in any field is to an extent contained of government intervention, however, in that location is some overlap and collaboration between them.[63]

Reading Partners [edit]

Reading Partners' history dates back to 1999 when 3 customs leaders from Menlo Park in California launched a one-on-one tutoring program to assistance these children facing the aforementioned problems at Belle Haven Community Schoolhouse.[64] Reading Partners was founded on enhancing reading and comprehension skills which would produce literate global citizens. "Before the 1990s, contracting for services in K-12 education tended to focus on what has been called non-instructional services".[44]

Over time, the plan acquired a nonprofit organisation'due south condition, garnered support from local and state leaders, and gained financial and social assistance from foundations like AmeriCorps, George Kaiser Family unit Rainwater Charitable Foundation, and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. Reading Partners has now spread to several states beyond the U.S. and is headquartered in Oakland, California. "While supporting nonprofits, these foundations are engaged in what Janelle Scott and others refer to as venture philanthropy".[44] The system has a hierarchical arrangement with a lath of directors on top. Each board member oversees a specific branch of the organisation, such as the logistical branch, support co-operative, PR branch, and a branch focused on crafting an educational curriculum.

The organization currently works only with Lease I schools, low-income public elementary schools which are independently operated. The reason behind such a directed target is what Reading Partner calls the reduction in students "experiencing poverty [who] confront immense educational barriers and enter elementary school already farther behind their peers who are not experiencing poverty".[64]

Reading Partners, among other Non-profit organizations, in collaboration with other academic and government institutions, crafted a curriculum aligned with the Mutual Core Country Standards (CCSS), which accept been implemented past well-nigh states. This ensures that the tutees' instruction would be synonymous with other students in all other schools. Pre-and Post-reading questions were added to initiate disquisitional thinking from the students in every lesson.[65] At that place was increased use of colored books to take hold of attention and enlarged fonts to forestall the tutee's reading difficulty. Mid-semester tests, called STAR assessments, were designed and employed, which immune reinforcement of vocabulary and concepts during preceding lessons, since "students acquire complex information most finer if they are allowed to feel the data in diverse formats".[66] Reading Partners' approach to improving the reading skills of students is grounded inside the research on "literacy interventions in general and 1-to-one tutoring specifically".[67] Too, the use of "two-or iii-dimensional graphics, color illustrations, audio, and video sequences, and even two-or 3-dimensional animation and simulations" by Reading Partners, proved to be "an invaluable pedagogical advance".[68]

Many inquiry models accept been employed to exam the efficacy of instructional models, including Reading Partners' crafted schemes. The organization focuses on discussion recognition in the lessons and repetition of lessons prepared to test and enhance the tutees' visuospatial and phonological interpreting skills. One research focused on the comparison of various approaches to boosted reading instruction for low-achieving second-form students. The study found out that "approaches that combined discussion recognition and reading comprehension treatment increased phonological decoding significantly more than than the treated command or word recognition only handling and had the highest effect size".[69] In some other study, the treated children receiving boosted instruction were seen to improve significantly more in the areas of phonological decoding and reading real words than did those in another plan, and the "combined word recognition and reading comprehension treatment, which was explicit, had the highest effect sizes for both pseudoword and real-word reading." It was recognized from the study that the most effective supplemental instruction to increase phonological decoding was the combination of explicit give-and-take recognition and detailed reading comprehension grooming.[69] Also, according to a 2017 study, for the average Reading Partners educatee, afterwards omnipresence of i twelvemonth in Reading Partner's tutoring program, there was an "improvement [that] was equivalent to moving from the 15th percentile to the 21st percentile".[70]

The role of tutors is of great importance in Reading Partners, though the utilization of tutors finer is incumbent on their grooming, and education level. The minimum requirement for existence chosen as a volunteer tutor is based on completing secondary school in the U.S. The tutors are required to attend training and shadow 1 or more sessions with another experienced tutor or staff member to accumulate the logistical and bookish rigor at least two times a week, with each session being a 45-infinitesimal session.[71] Ane tutor is assigned with one student for a whole school year, and tutors follow a pre-designed and pre-canonical curriculum. The fantabulous utilize of visual aids, including stills and colorful drawings, and the deployment of attracting graphics in each tutoring session for the tutee have been very beneficial for the students. The testable approaches employed, such as pre-and post-lecture questions focusing on the lecture's main ideas, to better the tutee's reading, comprehension, and analytical skills, resulted in fruitful gains. A study plant that such tutoring interventions "take a significant positive upshot on participating students' exact skills" as well.[72] Tutors have, over the years, been showing increasing interest in giving dorsum to the community and making a mark in society by watering the seeds of today, the students, that will sprout into a tree tomorrow, literate citizens. As Bethany Grove puts it in her research report, "tutors who volunteer with Reading Partners are there to make a difference for students, just as volunteers with other organizations are seeking to brand an bear on".[67] In terms of reducing the achievement that is present in the United States, specifically for simple students, "enquiry on volunteer tutoring found that despite many limitations," the programs which utilize i-on-one tutoring pedagogy "tin be effective in improving student achievement".[73]

NAEP [edit]

Main article: NAEP

In the United States, the National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP ("The Nation's Report Card") is the national assessment of what students know and tin can do in various subjects. Four of these subjects—reading, writing, mathematics and science—are assessed about oftentimes and reported at the state and district level, usually for grades four and 8.[74]

In 2019, with respect to the reading skills of the nation's grade-4 public schoolhouse students, 34% performed at or higher up the Proficient level (solid academic performance) and 65% performed at or above the Basic level (fractional mastery of the proficient level skills). The results by race / ethnicity were equally follows:[75]

Race / Ethnicity Expert level Bones level
Asian 57% 82%
White 44% 76%
Two or more than races 40% 72%
National Average 34% 65%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 24% 55%
Hispanic 23% 54%
American Indian/Alaska Native 20% l%
Blackness 18% 47%

NAEP reading assessment results are reported as boilerplate scores on a 0–500 calibration.[76] The Basic Level is 208 and the Proficient Level is 238.[77] The average reading score for grade-4 public schoolhouse students was 219.[78] Female person students had an average score that was 7 points higher than male person students. Students who were eligible for the National Schoolhouse Lunch Program (NSLP) had an boilerplate score that was 28 points lower than that for students who were not eligible.

Reading scores for the individual states and districts are available on the NAEP site.[79] Betwixt 2017 and 2019 Mississippi was the just land that had a class-iv reading score increment and 17 states had a score decrease.[80] [81]

English-linguistic communication learners and literacy

Literacy standards and tests also utilise to non-English language speaking populations in schools. Implemented in 2010, Common Core serves as the national didactics curriculum and standards by which about public schools must abide. It serves as the latest vision of literacy in America, including comprehension skills in writing and reading and methods to reach annual standards. Mutual Core'due south aim is to improve and aggrandize literacy for students by the cease of their high school careers. Within this system there are principals to address English language language learners (ELL), and their placement within classrooms of native English language speakers. This area of curriculum is designed to offer an actress layer of support for ELL. The Us Section of Instruction and National Middle for Education Statistics have found discrepancies within Common Core's curriculum that do not fully address the needs of ELL populations. Educational gaps are created past inequality within classrooms, in this case, a separation between ELL and native English language speakers are due in part past Common Cadre's lack of support.[82]

East.Fifty.L. take remained "stuck" at an intermediate level of proficiency brought on by expectations and standardized testing that places them behind and distances them from their English-speaking peers. These expectations produce a cycle of needing to "catch up" or needing to be at the same level as other students without the extra accommodations. A study from 2011 concluded that 65% of Bay Surface area, eighth-class E.L.L.s scored "Beneath Basic" on standardized writing assessments, with merely one% scoring at the "Proficient" level.[83]

Run across also [edit]

  • Books in the The states
  • Learning to read

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b "Study on Adult Literacy in the Us" (PDF). nces.ed.gov. United states of america Section of Teaching. July 2019. Retrieved October 16, 2021. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Nietzel, Michael T. "Depression Literacy Levels Among U.South. Adults Could Be Costing The Economy $2.2 Trillion A Year". Forbes . Retrieved 2021-10-sixteen . [ citation needed ]
  3. ^ "Framework -> Definition of Literacy". National Cess of Adult Literacy. National Center for Instruction Statistics. Retrieved 25 September 2019.
  4. ^ "National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)". National Centre for Pedagogy Statistics. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019.
  5. ^ a b c d e "Iii Types of Literacy". National Cess of Adult Literacy (NAAL), U.Due south. Section of Instruction . Retrieved May 23, 2019. Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  6. ^ a b c Kirsch, Irwin S.; Jungeblut, Ann; Jenkins, Lynn; Kolstad, Andrew (September 1993). Developed Literacy in America (Report). National Heart for Educational Statistics. National Center for Education Studies.
  7. ^ a b c d Goldin, Claudia (August 1999). "A Cursory History of Education in the United States" (PDF). Cambridge, Massachusetts. doi:10.3386/h0119. S2CID 153200552.
  8. ^ a b c van Kleeck Anne; Schuele C. Melanie (2010-11-01). "Historical Perspectives on Literacy in Early on Childhood". American Periodical of Speech-Linguistic communication Pathology. 19 (4): 341–355. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0038). PMID 20581109.
  9. ^ a b Cassidy, Jack. Ortlieb, Evan. Grote-Garcia, Stephanie. Across the Mutual Core: Examining 20 Years of Literacy Priorities and Their Impact on Struggling Readers. OCLC 1051805986. {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors listing (link)
  10. ^ Stedman, Lawrence C.; Kaestle, Carl F. (1987). "Literacy and Reading Performance in the United states, from 1880 to the Present". Reading Research Quarterly. 22 (ane): 8. doi:x.2307/747719. ISSN 0034-0553. JSTOR 747719.
  11. ^ Sticht, Thomas G. (November 1995). "Developed Education for Family Literacy". Adult Learning. vii (2): 23–24. doi:x.1177/104515959500700212. ISSN 1045-1595. S2CID 150509182.
  12. ^ Resnick, Daniel; Resnick, Lauren (September 1977). "The Nature of Literacy: An Historical Exploration". Harvard Educational Review. 47 (3): 370–385. doi:10.17763/haer.47.three.27263381g038222w. ISSN 0017-8055.
  13. ^ Ying, Jin (2009). Preparing youth for the future: the literacy of America'due south young adults. U.S. Section of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. OCLC 733296227.
  14. ^ Ippolito, Jacy; Steele, Jennifer L. (2012). Adolescent literacy. ISBN978-0916690526. OCLC 773348894.
  15. ^ Alvermann, Donna E. (June 2002). "Constructive Literacy Education for Adolescents". Periodical of Literacy Research. 34 (two): 189–208. CiteSeerX10.1.one.1024.1927. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3402_4. ISSN 1086-296X. S2CID 143884081.
  16. ^ Thousand., Barone, Diane (2006). Narrowing the literacy gap : what works in loftier-poverty schools . Guilford Printing. ISBN978-1593852771. OCLC 64555680.
  17. ^ "Education: Literacy rate". UNESCO Institute for Statistics. February 2019. Retrieved July 2, 2019. Metadata tabular array opens in a spreadsheet
  18. ^ "Adult Literacy in the Us". nces.ed.gov. 2019-07-02. Retrieved 2020-ten-06 .
  19. ^ a b "References: Definitions and Notes, Literacy". CIA Globe Factbook. Retrieved October 29, 2017.
  20. ^ "Literacy – The Earth Factbook". www.cia.gov . Retrieved 2021-10-16 .
  21. ^ Literacy – The Earth Factbook. United States CIA. 2010 – via Encyclopedia of the Nations.
  22. ^ Strauss, Valerie (November 1, 2016). "Hiding in obviously sight: The developed literacy crisis". The Answer Sheet. The Washington Postal service . Retrieved July ii, 2019.
  23. ^ a b Gallego, Margaret A.; Hollingsworth, Sandra (2000). What counts as literacy: challenging the schoolhouse standard. Teachers College Press. ISBN978-0807739730. OCLC 44133067.
  24. ^ a b c d Kirsch, Irwin South.; Jungeblut, Ann; Jenkins, Lynn; Kolstad, Andrew (April 2002), Adult Literacy in America (PDF) (three ed.), National Eye for Educational Statistics, retrieved October 29, 2017, Prose level 4: "These tasks require readers to perform multiple-feature matches and to integrate or synthesize information from complex or lengthy passages. More than complex inferences are needed to perform successfully." Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  25. ^ A Get-go Await at the Literacy of America's Adults in the 21st century (PDF), National Center for Educational Statistics, 2006, retrieved 2007-12-11
  26. ^ a b c Demographics, National Eye for Instruction Statistics, 2017, retrieved Oct 29, 2017
  27. ^ Language Characteristics and Schooling in the U. S.: A Changing Picture, 1979 and 1989. p. iv.
  28. ^ "English Language Proficiency Study (ELPS), 1982 Microdata File. Technical Documentation". 1987.
  29. ^ a b c Werner, Leslie Maitland (April 21, 1986), "13% of U.Southward. adults are illiterate in English, a Federal written report finds", New York Times , retrieved October 29, 2017
  30. ^ a b c Kozol, Jonathan (1985). Illiterate America . New York: New American Library. pp. 37–39. ISBN978-0-452-26203-four.
  31. ^ "Adult Literacy in America" (PDF). p. 13. Public Domain This commodity incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  32. ^ Schierloh, Jane M. (August 30, 1993), Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey , retrieved October 29, 2017
  33. ^ "National Assessment of Developed Literacy (NAAL)".
  34. ^ "What is NALS?". National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). n.d. Retrieved October 29, 2017.
  35. ^ a b Learning a Living: First Results of the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (PDF) (Report). Paris: OECD. OECD and Statistics Canada. 2005. p. 333. Retrieved October 29, 2017. "Proportionally to population size, the United States has built the largest pool of highly skilled adults in the earth." "Level 1:Tasks in this level tend to require the respondent either to locate a piece of information based on a literal match or to enter information from personal cognition onto a document. Trivial, if any, distracting information is present
  36. ^ a b OECD Skills Studies Skills Matter Farther Results from the Survey of Adult Skills (PDF) (Report). OECD Skills Studies. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). doi:x.1787/9789264258051-en. ISBN978-92-64-25805-i.
  37. ^ a b Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), National Heart for Educational activity Statistics (NCES), 2016, retrieved Oct 29, 2017
  38. ^ OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills (Report). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-performance and Development (OECD). 2013. Retrieved Oct 29, 2017.
  39. ^ Sabatini, John, Understanding the Basic Reading Skills of U.Southward. Adults: Reading Components in the PIAAC Literacy Survey, Educational Testing Service (ETS)
  40. ^ "Adult Literacy in the U.s.". nces.ed.gov . Retrieved 2021-12-31 .
  41. ^ America's Nigh Literate Cities, Central Connecticut State University.
  42. ^ Darling-Hammond, Linda. "Diff Opportunity: Race and Education". Brookings . Retrieved 2021-05-13 .
  43. ^ a b Hoang, Haivan V. (2015). Writing against Racial Injury : The Politics of Asian American Student Rhetoric. Academy of Pittsburgh Printing. p. 160.
  44. ^ a b c d e f Bulkley, Katrina East.; Burch, Patricia (July 2011). "The Changing Nature of Private Engagement in Public Education: For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations and Educational Reform". Peabody Periodical of Education. 86 (iii): 236–251. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2011.578963. ISSN 0161-956X. S2CID 154941048.
  45. ^ 1000, Sethy (2019-09-23). "Advantages and Disadvantages of Decentralization". Economics Discussion . Retrieved 2021-05-thirteen .
  46. ^ a b c "The costs of inequality: Education'south the ane key that rules them all". Harvard Gazette. 2016-02-15. Retrieved 2021-05-thirteen .
  47. ^ Hahn, R.A.; Truman, B.I.; Williams, D.R. (2018-04-01). "Civil rights as determinants of public health and racial and ethnic health disinterestedness: Health intendance, education, employment, and housing in the The states". SSM – Population Health. four: 17–24. doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.x.006. ISSN 2352-8273. PMC5730086. PMID 29250579.
  48. ^ Tivnan, Terrence; Hemphill, Lowry (May 2005). "Comparison Four Literacy Reform Models in High‐Poverty Schools: Patterns of Outset‐Course Achievement". The Unproblematic Schoolhouse Periodical. 105 (5): 419–441. doi:x.1086/431885. ISSN 0013-5984. S2CID 145170869.
  49. ^ Latinos and education : a critical reader. Darder, Antonia; Torres, Rodolfo D. (2d ed.). New York: Routledge. 2014. ISBN978-0-415-53709-4. OCLC 851175305. {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  50. ^ a b c Allington, Richard L. (June 2002). "What I've Learned virtually Effective Reading Instruction". Phi Delta Kappan. 83 (ten): 740–747. doi:x.1177/003172170208301007. ISSN 0031-7217. S2CID 144940136.
  51. ^ Allington, Richard L. (2013-03-27). "What Really Matters When Working With Struggling Readers". The Reading Teacher. 66 (vii): 520–530. doi:10.1002/trtr.1154. ISSN 0034-0561.
  52. ^ "Education inequalities at the schoolhouse starting gate: Gaps, trends, and strategies to address them". Economic Policy Institute . Retrieved 2021-05-13 .
  53. ^ "A decade of research on education inequality in America". The Hechinger Report. 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2021-05-13 .
  54. ^ "SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT School District et al., Appellants, v. Demetrio P. RODRIGUEZ et al". LII / Legal Data Institute . Retrieved 2022-02-20 .
  55. ^ Ary., Spatig-Amerikaner. Unequal Education: Federal Loophole Enables Lower Spending onStudents of Colour. OCLC 911591323.
  56. ^ Mathewson, Tara García (2020-x-31). "New data: Even within the same district some wealthy schools get millions more than poor ones". The Hechinger Written report . Retrieved 2021-05-08 .
  57. ^ Missall, Kristen N.; Hosp, Michelle K.; Hosp, John L. (2019-09-01). "Reading Proficiency in Elementary: Considering Statewide Testing, Instructor Ratings and Rankings, and Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement". School Psychology Review. 48 (3): 267–275. doi:10.17105/spr-2017-0152.v48-3. ISSN 2372-966X. S2CID 210493777.
  58. ^ a b Morris, Darrell (March 2006). "Using Non-certified Tutors to Work with At‐Risk Readers: An Evidence‐Based Model". The Unproblematic School Journal. 106 (four): 351–362. doi:ten.1086/503636. ISSN 0013-5984. S2CID 143590085.
  59. ^ a b "Ceremonious Rights Groups, Pedagogy Advocates Release Shared ESEA Reauthorization Principles". The Leadership Briefing on Civil and Man Rights. 2015-01-sixteen. Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  60. ^ a b "The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many pedagogy questions (National Eye for Teaching Statistics)". nces.ed.gov . Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  61. ^ "The Every Student Succeeds Act: Replacing No Child Left Behind | Alliance For Excellent Education". Retrieved 2021-05-09 .
  62. ^ Pouncey, Warren C.; Ennis, Leslie S.; Woolley, Thomas Westward.; Connell, Peggy H. (2013-04-fifteen). "School Funding Issues: Land Legislators and School Superintendents – Adversaries or Allies?". SAGE Open. 3 (ii): 215824401348649. doi:10.1177/2158244013486492. ISSN 2158-2440.
  63. ^ Chandwani, Sanjay & Padhan, Ananda. (2012). NGO Participation in Simple Didactics: An Belittling Study. doi:10.13140/RG.two.2.28565.55523.
  64. ^ a b "Learn about the history of Reading Partners!". Reading Partners . Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  65. ^ "The Affect of Literacy on Children in Low-Income Schools". Reading Partners . Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  66. ^ "Download Limit Exceeded". citeseerx.ist.psu.edu. 2003. CiteSeerXten.1.1.452.2439 . Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  67. ^ a b Grove, Bethany (2013). "Reading Partners Tutor Perspective Project: An Ethnographic Evaluation of Volunteer Experiences" (PDF).
  68. ^ Otto, Peters (2003). Handbook of Distance Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  69. ^ a b Berninger, Virginia W.; Vermeulen, Karin; Abbott, Robert D.; McCutchen, Deborah; Cotton wool, Susanna; Cude, Jennifer; Dorn, Susan; Sharon, Tod (April 2003). "Comparison of Three Approaches to Supplementary Reading Educational activity for Low-Achieving Second-Grade Readers". Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 34 (2): 101–116. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2003/009). ISSN 0161-1461. PMID 27764491.
  70. ^ Jacob, Robin; Kaufman, Jennie (2017-01-19). "Reading Partners Evaluation". AEA Randomized Controlled Trials. doi:10.1257/rct.1908-1.0. Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  71. ^ "Acquire about the history of Reading Partners!". Reading Partners . Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  72. ^ Ritter, Gary W.; Barnett, Joshua H.; Denny, George Due south.; Albin, Ginger R. (March 2009). "The Effectiveness of Volunteer Tutoring Programs for Elementary and Eye School Students: A Meta-Analysis". Review of Educational Inquiry. 79 (1): 3–38. doi:10.3102/0034654308325690. ISSN 0034-6543. S2CID 146673161.
  73. ^ Ritter, Gary Due west.; Barnett, Joshua H.; Denny, George S.; Albin, Ginger R. (March 2009). "The Effectiveness of Volunteer Tutoring Programs for Unproblematic and Middle School Students: A Meta-Analysis". Review of Educational Enquiry. 79 (1): 3–38. doi:ten.3102/0034654308325690. ISSN 0034-6543. S2CID 146673161.
  74. ^ "Nations report bill of fare".
  75. ^ "NAEP 2019 grade 4 reading written report" (PDF).
  76. ^ "NAEP scores".
  77. ^ "The NAEP Reading Achievement Levels by Grade".
  78. ^ "NAEP Fast Facts, Constitute of Education Sciences".
  79. ^ "NAEP National and State Average Scores".
  80. ^ "NAEP 2019 State Average Scores".
  81. ^ Hanford, Emily (v Dec 2019). "Opinion, Mississippi schools, NT Times, 2019-12-05". The New York Times.
  82. ^ Ferlazzo, Sypnieski, Larry, Katie Hull (2016). Navigating the Common Core with English language Language Learners: Practical Strategies to Develop Higher-Lodge Thinking Skills. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
  83. ^ Olsen, Carol (2015). "English Learners, Writing, and the Common Core". The Elementary Schoolhouse Periodical. 115 (4): 570–592. doi:10.1086/681235. JSTOR x.1086/681235. S2CID 145528953. Retrieved 2021-04-28 . {{cite periodical}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Further reading [edit]

  • "How Serious Is America'southward Literacy Problem? Library Journal, April 29, 2020".
  • "News, Michigan reaches settlement in landmark right-to-literacy case, APM Reports, 2020-05-xv".

External links [edit]

  • National Assessment of Adult Literacy
  • ProLiteracy

bowserwhipar.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States

0 Response to "What Is the Percentage of People Over the Age of 15 Than Can Read and Write in the Us"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel