Home  ›  Average Reading Level of American Citizens by Race .gov

Average Reading Level of American Citizens by Race .gov

Written By Friday, March 4, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Overview of literacy in the United States

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

A 2022 report by the National Center for Didactics Statistics determined that mid to high literacy in the United States is 79% with 21% of American adults categorized equally having "low level English literacy," including 4.one% classified as "functionally illiterate" and an additional 4% that could not participate.[one] According to the U.S. Department of Educational activity, 54% of adults in the United States have prose literacy below the sixth-form level.[two]

In many nations, the ability to read a simple judgement suffices as literacy, and was the previous standard for the U.South. The definition of literacy has changed profoundly; the term is presently divers as the ability to utilize printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one's goals, and to develop one's knowledge and potential.[iii]

The United States Department of Instruction assesses literacy in the full general population through its National Cess of Developed Literacy (NAAL).[4] The NAAL survey defines three types of literacy:[v]

  • prose literacy: the knowledge and skills needed to search, comprehend, and employ continuous texts. Examples include editorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materials.
  • certificate literacy: the noesis and skills needed to search, comprehend, and use non-continuous texts in various formats. Examples include job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and drug and food labels.
  • quantitative literacy: the cognition and skills required to identify and perform computations, either lonely or sequentially, using numbers embedded in printed materials. Examples include balancing a checkbook, figuring out tips, completing an guild form, or determining an amount.

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

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

History [edit]

In early on U.S. colonial history, instruction children to read was the responsibility of the parents for the purpose of reading the Bible. However, Massachusetts constabulary of 1642 and Connecticut law of 1650 required that not only children but likewise servants and apprentices were required to larn 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 increment in federal acts and models to ensure that children were developing their literacy skills and receiving education.[8] Starting in the 2000s, there has been an increment of immigrants in cities, the majority of whose children speak languages other than English language and who thus fall behind their peers in reading.[9] Elementary schoolhouse literacy has been the focus of educational reform since that time.

The National Agency of Economic Enquiry published a data fix with an overview of the history of education in the U.s. until the 20th and 21st centuries. According to the bureau, "Formal education, especially basic literacy, is essential for a well-functioning democracy, and enhances citizenship and community."[vii]

Nineteenth-century literacy rates in the United states were relatively loftier, despite the country's decentralized educational system.[7] There has been a notable increase in American citizens' educational attainment since then, but studies have also indicated a reject in reading performance which began during the 1970s.[x] Although the U.S. Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) and legislation such equally the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 had highlighted education every bit an issue of national importance,[xi] the push button for high levels of mass literacy has been a recent evolution; expectations of literacy have sharply increased over past decades.[12] Contemporary literacy standards have go more difficult to run into than historical criteria, which were applied only to the elite. Due to the proliferation (and increased accessibility) of public educational activity, the expectation of mass literacy has been practical to the entire U.S. population.

Literacy has particular importance in machismo since the changing dynamics of the American task market demand greater skills and noesis of entry-level workers. In the 2003 National Cess of Adult Literacy, young adults without a mail-secondary education experienced difficulty obtaining career positions. A multi-variable analysis indicated that low and below-basic literacy rates were characteristic of individuals without higher didactics,[13] and improving and sustaining mass literacy at earlier stages of instruction has become a focus of American leaders and policymakers.

Since A Nation at Take chances was published in 1983, interest in the performance of American students relative to other youth populations worldwide has been swell. Information technology has been observed that adolescents undergo a critical transition during their grade-school years which prepares them to acquire and apply cognition to their actions and beliefs in the exterior world.[14] As the job market place has get more than demanding, the rigor of educational institutions has increased to fix students for the more-complex tasks which volition be expected of them.[15] Addressing sub-par reading operation and low youth literacy rates are important to reach high levels of mass literacy because the issue of sub-par bookish functioning is compounded. Students who struggle at an early age continue to struggle throughout their school years because they do non have the aforementioned foundation of understanding and breadth of noesis to build upon every bit their peers; this frequently translates to below-boilerplate, poor literacy levels in later grades and into adulthood.[16]

Adult and adolescent literacy levels are under greater scrutiny in the U.S., with a number of reports and studies published annually to monitor the nation's status. Initiatives to improve literacy rates have taken the course of government provisions and external funding, which accept been driving forces behind national pedagogy reform from chief school to higher education.[7]

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

Defining adult literacy [edit]

The simplest definition of literacy in a nation is the percent of people historic period xv or older who can read and write, which is used to rank nations. More-complex 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 Centre for Education Statistics (function of the Didactics Department) measured functional literacy.[v] The heart measured three types of functional literacy: prose literacy, certificate 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.[5] 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 grade.[5]

The governments of other countries may label individuals who tin read a few thousand elementary words which they learned by sight in the start four grades in school as literate. UNESCO has collected the definitions used past 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 list distinguishes betwixt a respondent'south self-reported literacy and demonstrated power to read.[17]

Other sources may term individuals functionally illiterate if they are unable to read basic sources of written information, such as alarm labels and driving directions. According to The Earth Factbook from the U.Southward. Cardinal Intelligence Bureau (CIA), "In that location are no universal definitions and standards of literacy" and its statistics are based on the most common definition: "the ability to read and write at a specified historic period." The National Centre for Educational activity Statistics defines literacy as "the ability to sympathise, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in society, to accomplish ane's goals, and to develop one's knowledge and potential."[18] "Detailing the standards that individual countries utilize to assess the ability to read and write is beyond the telescopic of the Factbook. Information on literacy, while not a perfect mensurate of educational results, is probably the most 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 percent of people age xv or older who tin can read and write.[21] [nineteen]

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

Measuring adult literacy [edit]

Functional literacy tin can be divided into useful literacy, informational literacy and pleasurable literacy. Useful literacy reflects the most-mutual practice of using an understanding of written text to navigate daily life. Informational literacy can be divers 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 schoolhouse, community, and personal concepts. These categories refer to an private'south ability to larn near academic subjects, understand social and cultural contexts, and learn near themselves from an test of their own backgrounds.[23]

In 1988, the Department of Education was asked by Congress to undertake a national literacy survey of American adults.[24] : xi The study identifies a grade of adults who, although not meeting the criteria for functional illiteracy, face reduced job opportunities and life prospects due to inadequate literacy levels relative to requirements which were released in April 2002 and reapplied in 2003 every bit trend data. The 2002 study involved lengthy interviews with adults who were statistically balanced for age, gender, ethnicity, educational activity level, and location (urban, suburban, or rural) in 12 states across the country, and was designed to represent the U.S. population as a whole. The National Developed Literacy Survey, conducted in 1992, was the start literacy survey which provided "authentic and detailed information on the skills of the adult population as a whole." The U.South. has participated in cyclical, large-scale assessment programs undertaken by the National Assessment of Developed Literacy (NAAL) and sponsored by the National Center for Educational activity Statistics (NCES) since 1992. The survey revealed that the literacy of nearly 40 million adults was express to Level 1 (the lowest level, an understanding of basic written instructions).[half dozen]

The Found of Educational activity Sciences conducted large-calibration assessments of adult proficiency in 1992 and 2003 with a common methodology from which trends could be measured. The study measures prose, document and quantitative skills, and 19,000 subjects participated in the 2003 survey. There was no significant change in prose or document skills, and a slight increase in quantitative skills. Equally in 2008, roughly 15 per centum 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 adult Americans were "non able to locate data in text", could "non make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were "unable to integrate hands identifiable pieces of data." Most 1-quaternary of the individuals who performed at this level reported that they were born in another country, and some were recent immigrants with a limited command of English language. Sixty-ii pct of the individuals on that level of the prose scale said they had not completed high school, and 35 percent had no more than eight years of education. A relatively high percentage of the respondents at this level were African American, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander, and about 33 percentage were age 65 or older. Twenty-vi percentage of the adults who performed at Level 1 said that they had a physical, mental or wellness condition which kept them from participating fully in work and other activities, and 19 percent reported vision problems which fabricated reading print difficult. The individuals at this level of literacy had a diverse set of characteristics which influenced their operation; according to this study, 41 to 44 pct of U.S. adults at the lowest level of the literacy scale were living in poverty.[24] A NAAL follow-upward study by the same group of researchers, using a smaller database (xix,714 interviewees), was released in 2006 which indicated some upward motility of low-end (bones and below to intermediate) in U.S. developed literacy levels and a decline in the full-proficiency group.[25]

The United States was 1 of seven countries which participated in the 2003 Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL), whose results were published in 2005. The U.S. and dozens of other countries began participating in the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), a big-scale assessment of adult skills—including literacy—under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in 2011. The NCES describes the PIACC equally the "most electric current indicator of the nation'south progress in adult skills in literacy, numeracy, and trouble-solving in applied science-rich environments."[26]

Section of Education surveys [edit]

English language Language Proficiency Survey (1982) [edit]

In 1982, funded by the United States Department of Education,[27] the United States Demography Agency conducted the English language Language Proficiency Survey (ELPS): an in-dwelling literacy test of iii,400 adults.[28] The Educational activity Department considered this straight measure out of literacy more accurate 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 report which concluded that thirteen percent of adults living in the United states of america were illiterate in English.[29] Nine per centum of adults whose native language was English (native speakers) were illiterate, and 48 percentage of non-native speakers were illiterate in English language merely not necessarily illiterate in their maternal language.[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 add-on to this weakness, the reliance on written forms would have excluded many individuals who did not take a literate family fellow member to fill up out the form for them.[30] The Census Agency 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 fifth-class educational activity had at least an 80-percent chance of being literate. Kozol suggested that because illiterate people are likely to be unemployed and may not have a telephone or permanent accost, the Demography Bureau would have been unlikely to find them.[30]

National Adult Literacy Survey (1992) [edit]

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

The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) provided detailed information on the skills of the adult population every bit a whole. The survey interviewed nearly 26,000 people aged 16 and older: a nationally representative sample of about 14,000 people and an additional 12,000 surveys from states which opted into state-level assessments. Its results were published in 1993.[half-dozen] : 14 That yr, the NALS was described as a nationally representative, continuing assessment of the English-linguistic communication literary skills of American adults.[32] The report avoided a single standard of literacy, assessing individuals in 3 aspects of literacy with each aspect divers on a 500-point scale. Scores in each aspect (prose, document, and quantitative) were grouped in five levels: level ane (0-225), level 2 (226-275), level 3 (276-325), level 4 (326-375), and level 5 (376-500).

National Cess of Adult Literacy (2003) [edit]

The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)[33] was sponsored by the National Heart for Education Statistics (NCES) equally ane of its assessment programs.[34] The study included comparisons to the 1992 survey. Adults over sixteen years of historic period were scored on their prose, document, and quantitative literacy. Although at that place was no significant change in prose and certificate literacy between 1992 and 2003, quantitative literacy improved.[26] The study maintained the do of the 1992 National Developed Literacy Survey of dividing literacy into three aspects, each measured on a 500-point calibration. Scores in each aspect were again grouped into five unlike levels, using a new numerical scale which differed for each aspect.

International surveys [edit]

Developed Literacy and Life Skills Survey [edit]

The Usa participated in the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL) with Bermuda, Canada, Italy, Kingdom of norway, Switzerland, and the Mexican state of Nuevo León. Data was nerveless in 2003, and the results were published in 2005.[35] Adults were scored on v levels of difficulty in prose, document and numeracy literacy. In 2003, only 8 percent of the population aged sixteen to 65 in Norway brutal into the lowest skill level (level 1). The highest pct was 47 percent, in Italy; the United States was tertiary-highest at twenty pct.[35] : 17

Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies [edit]

The United States participated in the Plan for the International Cess of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), which was "developed under 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] According to the National Middle for Education Statistics (NCES), the PIACC provides the "near current indicator of the nation'southward progress in developed skills in literacy, numeracy, and trouble-solving in engineering-rich environments" and is a "large-scale assessment of adult skills."[26]

In 2012, 24 countries participated in the large-scale written report; xxx-3 countries participated in 2014.[37] The 2013 OECD report "Offset 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 United States [had] remained relatively unchanged in the decade since the previous report,[ description needed ] while other countries have been showing improvements, especially among adults with low basic skills."[38] The 2011 literacy test for was contradistinct: "Before the PIAAC 2011 survey, however, essentially all that one could infer about the literacy skills of adults below Level i was that they could not consistently perform accurately on the easiest literacy tasks on the survey. One could not estimate what literacy tasks they could do successfully, if any."[39]

In 2016, PIAAC 2012 and 2022 data were released.[37] Participating adults in Singapore and the United States had the largest number of adults scoring "at or below Level ane in literacy proficiency" compared to other participating countries in their operation in "all three reading components". Co-ordinate to the authors of the OECD report, "These results may be related to the language background of the immigrant population in the Us."[36]

According to the 2012-2014 information, 79% of U.Due south. adults (or 43.0 million people) have "English literacy skills sufficient to consummate tasks that crave comparing and contrasting data, paraphrasing, or making low-level inferences." In this study, immigrants are over-represented in the low English language literacy population. Adults born outside the U.S. make up 34% of adults with low literacy skills while making up only 15% of the population. Nonetheless, of the adults with low English language literacy skills, 66% were born in the U.S.[xl]

Primal Connecticut State University study [edit]

From 2005 to 2009, Jack Miller of Central Connecticut Land University conducted annual studies aimed at identifying America'southward most literate cities. Miller drew from a number of available data resource, and the CCSU America'due south Well-nigh Literate Cities report ranks the largest cities (population 250,000 and above) in the United States. The report focuses on six indicators of literacy: paper apportionment, number of bookstores, library resources, periodical-publishing resources, educational attainment, and Internet resources.[41]

City Rankings
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Seattle, WA 1 1.five 2 1 1
Washington, D.C. 2 3 5 3.v 3
Minneapolis, MN 3 i.five ane 2 2
Pittsburgh, PA 4 12 9 6 eight
Atlanta, GA v half dozen 8 3.5 4
Portland, OR 6 x.5 12 ten xi
St. Paul, MN 7 four 3 5 9.5
Boston, MA 8 8 x xi seven
Cincinnati, OH 9 x.5 xi 7 9.5
Denver, CO 10 seven 4 8 six

Uncomplicated school literacy [edit]

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

History of inequity [edit]

The 1960s was a time when almost African-American, Latino, and Native American students were primarily educated in unlike and segregated schools that were also "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 educational activity hinged on the assumption that Asian Americans were inherently different—namely, depraved and disloyal—and consequently needed an education that would deter them from criminal delinquency."[43] Rhetoric scholar Haivan Hoang asserts that unequal literacy practices persist today and that modernistic perceptions of the American literate private is normalized in non-racial minority identities.[43]

The U.Southward. public didactics has been "highly decentralized" compared to other nations, such equally French republic.[44] A decentralized public education system may result in coordination problems amid staff and kinesthesia, an expectation to carry out a "large group of staff specialists at enormous cost," and in that location is no standardization of education at a national scale.[45] Diverse studies from the early 2000s and later reveal that the U.S. was ranked number 20 out of the 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in terms of earning average or beneath-average grades in reading, science, and mathematics.[46] A news report stated that out of the total number of unproblematic school students that reached middle school course in the The states, simply 44 percent of them were proficient in reading and math by the year 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 up simply equal" unconstitutional, beginning the desegregation of schools.[47] Even so, the effects of segregation are all the same visible today, as many Yard-12 schools are in areas that are predominately home to BIPOC (Black Indigenous People of Colour). This historical injustice relates directly to why a bulk of the uncomplicated schools with struggling readers are in low income and/or minority areas today. Currently, studies show that socioeconomically disadvantaged students, including those with free/reduced lunch, score low reading levels.[48] In addition, English language language 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 student in the aforementioned grade levels, merely each student learns at a different reading level and often is non able to appoint with the text.[50] [51] Without distinguishing curriculum and standards, English linguistic communication learners and children from low-income families fall behind their peers.[50] [ix] Teachers spend a bulk of their class time reading and supporting struggling readers, merely teachers take not been able to do this all the time.[50] Other than the educational risks of non working towards an equitable education, the ever-changing "economic and demographic landscapes" also demanded that there be a need for a "more robust policy [and] strategies" which would accost the gaps in elementary education.[52] Moreover, there was too an issue regarding the funding gap betwixt the rich and poor schools. A report published during the Obama assistants found that the funding gap grew to over 44 percent within 10 years spanning from the early 2000s to 2012.[53]Along with that, the Supreme Court's conclusion in San Antonio School District V. Rodriquez ruled that educational activity is "not within the express category of the rights recognized by the Constitution" and thus not protected by the Constitution.[54]

Solutions to elementary literacy gap in the Usa [edit]

Solutions by the Usa Government [edit]

Starting in the 1960s, there were federal responses to accost the issues of struggling English language learners and overstretched teachers. Head Start was created in 1964 for children and families living under the poverty line to fix children under 5 for elementary schoolhouse and provide their family support for their health, nutrition, and social services. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Deed as a federal response to ensure that each child gets equal education regardless of their class or race. In response to English linguistic communication learners, in 1968 Congress passed the Bilingual Education Human activity. The act allowed ELL students to acquire in their get-go language and provided resource to help schools with ELL students. Even as new legislation has come virtually throughout history that grants rights to Black and Chocolate-brown citizens, they are already behind because of the history of white supremacy. This generational discrimination connects directly to why students who struggle in reading proficiency and/or nourish underfunded schools are BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color). To put it in perspective, schools that take 90% or more than students of colour spend $733 less per student than schools with 90% or more students that are white.[55] This statistic displays the disproportionate lack in funding for students of color in full general and the same trend is seen in elementary school of the The states specifically.[56]

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

Components of the "Tutoring Model" propose the components that can ensure that service from a not-certified tutor tin can in fact prove to be effective:

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

(2) a sequenced word study or phonics curriculum,

(3) regularly scheduled tutoring sessions (at least two sessions per week),

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

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

These components support the notion that tutoring elementary school students is extremely effective when it is accompanied by a series of canonical curriculum, training, and systems of accountability.

By Jan 12, 2015, civil rights groups and education advocates drafted and released a document called the 'shared ceremonious rights principles for the reauthorization of the Unproblematic and Secondary Didactics Act (ESEA),' which pushed for the reauthorization of a beak termed ESEA, which was initially drafted in 2002. Though non still passed, the bill had innumerable pathways that insured coin for the teaching sector. Nevertheless, due to the Senate and the House's polarization, it had not been re-canonical and had been pending approval since 2007. The bill would push for equal admission to educational opportunities for students across the land. "As of January 16, 22 organizations [had] signed the principles".[59] The post-obit day, on January 17, "Sen. Lamar Alexander, R. Tenn., released a typhoon reauthorization bill for ESEA".[59]

Following ESEA approval, Lease I, likewise called Title I schools, according to the National Center for Education Statistics(NCES), received $6.4 billion in "Basic Grants," $1.3 billion in "Full-bodied Grants," and $iii.iii billion in "Targeted Grants" in 2015, in response to Elementary and Secondary Teaching Act (ESEA) being passed.[60] ESEA ensures financial assistance is provided to local educational agencies who piece of work for children coming from low-income families in pursuit of help, and hence fulfill the goals of state academic standards. These Championship I schools can contract private nonprofit tutoring programs to work with their students in enhancing skills such equally reading comprehension, analytical skills, and word recognition.[60]

The provisions through the "No Child Left Behind Act adopted" in 2002, the reauthorization of the ESEA in 2015, and the "Every Pupil Succeeds Human activity (ESSA) in 2015" build upon specific guidelines, weather condition, and fiscal policies, indicating progress towards equity in education.[61] According to a study conducted in the state of Alabama, the "addition of [certain pedagogy] standards and a means of measuring whether a district has met those educational standards have heightened the awareness of a need for capability".[62]

Solutions by Non-Turn a profit Tutoring Programs [edit]

While Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) in education were also 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 date", the one-on-ane instruction style.[44] "Private date [by tutoring programs] is not merely altering the delivery of education but also participating in the reshaping of the politics of didactics" since the usage of material and mode of educational activity does help mold the way a student views the world.[44] Also, since the 1990s, and up until the early on 21st century, there was a more significant concern regarding "the need for better articulation and specification of concepts," which were challenges that NGOs had to accost.[44] Though the work of NGOs in any field is to an extent independent of government intervention, still, there is some overlap and collaboration between them.[63]

Reading Partners [edit]

Reading Partners' history dates back to 1999 when three community 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 School.[64] Reading Partners was founded on enhancing reading and comprehension skills which would produce literate global citizens. "Before the 1990s, contracting for services in Thou-12 education tended to focus on what has been called non-instructional services".[44]

Over time, the program acquired a nonprofit organization'southward status, garnered support from local and state leaders, and gained fiscal and social help 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 organization has a hierarchical system with a board of directors on elevation. Each lath member oversees a specific branch of the organisation, such every bit the logistical branch, support branch, PR branch, and a branch focused on crafting an educational curriculum.

The organization currently works only with Charter 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] face immense educational barriers and enter uncomplicated school already further behind their peers who are non experiencing poverty".[64]

Reading Partners, among other Non-profit organizations, in collaboration with other bookish and government institutions, crafted a curriculum aligned with the Common Core Land Standards (CCSS), which have been implemented past most states. This ensures that the tutees' pedagogy would be synonymous with other students in all other schools. Pre-and Post-reading questions were added to initiate critical thinking from the students in every lesson.[65] In that location was increased utilise of colored books to catch attention and enlarged fonts to prevent the tutee's reading difficulty. Mid-semester tests, chosen STAR assessments, were designed and employed, which immune reinforcement of vocabulary and concepts during preceding lessons, since "students acquire complex data virtually effectively if they are allowed to experience the information in various formats".[66] Reading Partners' approach to improving the reading skills of students is grounded within the enquiry on "literacy interventions in general and i-to-one tutoring specifically".[67] Besides, the utilize of "two-or 3-dimensional graphics, color illustrations, sound, and video sequences, and fifty-fifty two-or three-dimensional animation and simulations" by Reading Partners, proved to be "an invaluable pedagogical advance".[68]

Many research models have been employed to test the efficacy of instructional models, including Reading Partners' crafted schemes. The organization focuses on word 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 additional reading instruction for depression-achieving second-grade students. The study constitute out that "approaches that combined word recognition and reading comprehension treatment increased phonological decoding significantly more than the treated control or discussion recognition merely handling and had the highest effect size".[69] In another study, the treated children receiving additional educational activity were seen to amend significantly more in the areas of phonological decoding and reading existent words than did those in some other program, and the "combined word recognition and reading comprehension treatment, which was explicit, had the highest effect sizes for both pseudoword and real-word reading." Information technology was recognized from the study that the about effective supplemental instruction to increase phonological decoding was the combination of explicit word recognition and detailed reading comprehension training.[69] Also, according to a 2022 study, for the boilerplate Reading Partners student, afterward attendance of 1 year in Reading Partner's tutoring plan, there was an "improvement [that] was equivalent to moving from the 15th percentile to the 21st percentile".[lxx]

The part of tutors is of groovy importance in Reading Partners, though the utilization of tutors finer is incumbent on their grooming, and didactics level. The minimum requirement for being chosen equally a volunteer tutor is based on completing secondary schoolhouse in the U.S. The tutors are required to attend training and shadow one or more sessions with another experienced tutor or staff member to accumulate the logistical and academic rigor at least two times a week, with each session being a 45-minute session.[71] Ane tutor is assigned with one student for a whole school year, and tutors follow a pre-designed and pre-approved curriculum. The excellent apply of visual aids, including stills and colorful drawings, and the deployment of alluring graphics in each tutoring session for the tutee accept been very benign for the students. The testable approaches employed, such as pre-and post-lecture questions focusing on the lecture's primary ideas, to better the tutee's reading, comprehension, and analytical skills, resulted in fruitful gains. A report found that such tutoring interventions "have a significant positive result on participating students' verbal skills" too.[72] Tutors have, over the years, been showing increasing interest in giving back to the community and making a marker in gild past watering the seeds of today, the students, that will sprout into a tree tomorrow, literate citizens. Equally Bethany Grove puts it in her enquiry study, "tutors who volunteer with Reading Partners are there to make a difference for students, but as volunteers with other organizations are seeking to make an bear upon".[67] In terms of reducing the achievement that is present in the U.s.a., specifically for elementary students, "enquiry on volunteer tutoring institute that despite many limitations," the programs which apply one-on-one tutoring pedagogy "can exist effective in improving student achievement".[73]

NAEP [edit]

Main commodity: NAEP

In the United states of america, the National Cess of Educational Progress or NAEP ("The Nation's Report Carte") is the national assessment of what students know and tin practice in diverse subjects. Four of these subjects—reading, writing, mathematics and science—are assessed most ofttimes and reported at the state and district level, usually for grades four and viii.[74]

In 2019, with respect to the reading skills of the nation's form-four public school students, 34% performed at or above the Proficient level (solid bookish performance) and 65% performed at or to a higher place the Basic level (fractional mastery of the skillful level skills). The results by race / ethnicity were as follows:[75]

Race / Ethnicity Proficient level Basic level
Asian 57% 82%
White 44% 76%
Two or more races forty% 72%
National Boilerplate 34% 65%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 24% 55%
Hispanic 23% 54%
American Indian/Alaska Native 20% 50%
Black 18% 47%

NAEP reading cess results are reported every bit average scores on a 0–500 scale.[76] The Basic Level is 208 and the Skillful Level is 238.[77] The boilerplate reading score for form-four public school students was 219.[78] Female students had an average score that was seven points higher than male person students. Students who were eligible for the National School Lunch Programme (NSLP) had an average score that was 28 points lower than that for students who were non eligible.

Reading scores for the individual states and districts are bachelor on the NAEP site.[79] Between 2022 and 2022 Mississippi was the but state that had a course-four reading score increase and 17 states had a score decrease.[80] [81]

English-language learners and literacy

Literacy standards and tests also apply to non-English language speaking populations in schools. Implemented in 2010, Common Core serves equally the national teaching curriculum and standards by which most public schools must bide. It serves as the latest vision of literacy in America, including comprehension skills in writing and reading and methods to reach almanac standards. Common Core'due south aim is to meliorate and expand literacy for students by the end of their high school careers. Inside this organisation there are principals to accost English language learners (ELL), and their placement within classrooms of native English speakers. This area of curriculum is designed to offering an extra layer of support for ELL. The United states Section of Education and National Eye for Education Statistics have constitute discrepancies within Common Core's curriculum that do not fully address the needs of ELL populations. Educational gaps are created by inequality inside classrooms, in this case, a separation between ELL and native English speakers are due in part by Common Core's lack of back up.[82]

E.L.50. have 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 wheel of needing to "take hold of upwardly" or needing to be at the aforementioned level equally other students without the extra accommodations. A study from 2011 ended that 65% of Bay Area, eighth-grade E.L.L.s scored "Below Basic" on standardized writing assessments, with just 1% scoring at the "Proficient" level.[83]

Come across besides [edit]

  • Books in the United States
  • Learning to read

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b "Study on Developed Literacy in the Us" (PDF). nces.ed.gov. Us Department of Educational activity. July 2019. Retrieved October 16, 2021. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Nietzel, Michael T. "Low Literacy Levels Amongst U.S. Adults Could Exist Costing The Economy $2.ii Trillion A Twelvemonth". Forbes . Retrieved 2021-10-xvi . [ citation needed ]
  3. ^ "Framework -> Definition of Literacy". National Cess of Adult Literacy. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved 25 September 2019.
  4. ^ "National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)". National Center for Education Statistics. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019.
  5. ^ a b c d eastward "3 Types of Literacy". National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), U.S. Department of Didactics . 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). Adult Literacy in America (Study). National Centre for Educational Statistics. National Center for Education Studies.
  7. ^ a b c d Goldin, Claudia (August 1999). "A Brief History of Education in the Us" (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 Childhood". American Journal of Speech-Linguistic communication Pathology. 19 (4): 341–355. doi:ten.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0038). PMID 20581109.
  9. ^ a b Cassidy, Jack. Ortlieb, Evan. Grote-Garcia, Stephanie. Beyond the Common Core: Examining 20 Years of Literacy Priorities and Their Affect on Struggling Readers. OCLC 1051805986. {{cite volume}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ Stedman, Lawrence C.; Kaestle, Carl F. (1987). "Literacy and Reading Performance in the U.s., from 1880 to the Nowadays". Reading Research Quarterly. 22 (one): 8. doi:10.2307/747719. ISSN 0034-0553. JSTOR 747719.
  11. ^ Sticht, Thomas M. (November 1995). "Adult Education for Family Literacy". Adult Learning. 7 (2): 23–24. doi:10.1177/104515959500700212. 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.iii.27263381g038222w. ISSN 0017-8055.
  13. ^ Ying, Jin (2009). Preparing youth for the future: the literacy of America'due south young adults. U.South. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. OCLC 733296227.
  14. ^ Ippolito, Jacy; Steele, Jennifer 50. (2012). Boyish literacy. ISBN978-0916690526. OCLC 773348894.
  15. ^ Alvermann, Donna E. (June 2002). "Effective Literacy Educational activity for Adolescents". Journal of Literacy Inquiry. 34 (2): 189–208. CiteSeerXten.1.1.1024.1927. doi:ten.1207/s15548430jlr3402_4. ISSN 1086-296X. S2CID 143884081.
  16. ^ 1000., Barone, Diane (2006). Narrowing the literacy gap : what works in high-poverty schools . Guilford Press. ISBN978-1593852771. OCLC 64555680.
  17. ^ "Teaching: Literacy rate". UNESCO Institute for Statistics. February 2019. Retrieved July 2, 2019. Metadata table opens in a spreadsheet
  18. ^ "Adult Literacy in the United States". nces.ed.gov. 2019-07-02. Retrieved 2020-10-06 .
  19. ^ a b "References: Definitions and Notes, Literacy". CIA World Factbook. Retrieved October 29, 2017.
  20. ^ "Literacy – The World 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 plain sight: The adult literacy crunch". The Respond Sheet. The Washington Post . Retrieved July 2, 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 S.; Jungeblut, Ann; Jenkins, Lynn; Kolstad, Andrew (Apr 2002), Developed Literacy in America (PDF) (3 ed.), National Heart for Educational Statistics, retrieved October 29, 2017, Prose level iv: "These tasks crave readers to perform multiple-feature matches and to integrate or synthesize information from circuitous or lengthy passages. More complex inferences are needed to perform successfully." Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  25. ^ A First 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 Centre for Educational activity Statistics, 2017, retrieved October 29, 2017
  27. ^ Language Characteristics and Schooling in the U. Southward.: A Irresolute Flick, 1979 and 1989. p. 4.
  28. ^ "English language Linguistic communication Proficiency Study (ELPS), 1982 Microdata File. Technical Documentation". 1987.
  29. ^ a b c Werner, Leslie Maitland (Apr 21, 1986), "13% of U.Due south. adults are illiterate in English, a Federal 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-iv.
  31. ^ "Adult Literacy in America" (PDF). p. xiii. Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  32. ^ Schierloh, Jane One thousand. (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 Adult Literacy (NAAL)".
  34. ^ "What is NALS?". National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). n.d. Retrieved October 29, 2017.
  35. ^ a b Learning a Living: Kickoff 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 globe." "Level one:Tasks in this level tend to require the respondent either to locate a slice of data based on a literal friction match or to enter information from personal knowledge onto a document. Little, if any, distracting information is nowadays
  36. ^ a b OECD Skills Studies Skills Matter Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills (PDF) (Written report). OECD Skills Studies. Paris: System for Economic Co-performance and Development (OECD). doi:x.1787/9789264258051-en. ISBN978-92-64-25805-1.
  37. ^ a b Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2016, retrieved October 29, 2017
  38. ^ OECD Skills Outlook 2013: Starting time Results from the Survey of Developed Skills (Report). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-functioning and Development (OECD). 2013. Retrieved October 29, 2017.
  39. ^ Sabatini, John, Agreement the Bones Reading Skills of U.Due south. Adults: Reading Components in the PIAAC Literacy Survey, Educational Testing Service (ETS)
  40. ^ "Adult Literacy in the United States". nces.ed.gov . Retrieved 2021-12-31 .
  41. ^ America's Most Literate Cities, Fundamental Connecticut State University.
  42. ^ Darling-Hammond, Linda. "Diff Opportunity: Race and Education". Brookings . Retrieved 2021-05-13 .
  43. ^ a b Hoang, Haivan 5. (2015). Writing against Racial Injury : The Politics of Asian American Student Rhetoric. University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 160.
  44. ^ a b c d e f Bulkley, Katrina E.; Burch, Patricia (July 2011). "The Changing Nature of Private Appointment in Public Education: For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations and Educational Reform". Peabody Journal of Education. 86 (3): 236–251. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2011.578963. ISSN 0161-956X. S2CID 154941048.
  45. ^ K, Sethy (2019-09-23). "Advantages and Disadvantages of Decentralization". Economics Discussion . Retrieved 2021-05-13 .
  46. ^ a b c "The costs of inequality: Education's the ane key that rules them all". Harvard Gazette. 2016-02-15. Retrieved 2021-05-13 .
  47. ^ Hahn, R.A.; Truman, B.I.; Williams, D.R. (2018-04-01). "Ceremonious rights as determinants of public health and racial and ethnic health disinterestedness: Wellness care, education, employment, and housing in the United States". SSM – Population Health. 4: 17–24. doi:ten.1016/j.ssmph.2017.10.006. ISSN 2352-8273. PMC5730086. PMID 29250579.
  48. ^ Tivnan, Terrence; Hemphill, Lowry (May 2005). "Comparing Four Literacy Reform Models in High‐Poverty Schools: Patterns of Commencement‐Class Achievement". The Uncomplicated Schoolhouse Journal. 105 (5): 419–441. doi:x.1086/431885. ISSN 0013-5984. S2CID 145170869.
  49. ^ Latinos and teaching : a critical reader. Darder, Antonia; Torres, Rodolfo D. (second ed.). New York: Routledge. 2014. ISBN978-0-415-53709-iv. OCLC 851175305. {{cite volume}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  50. ^ a b c Allington, Richard L. (June 2002). "What I've Learned nearly Effective Reading Instruction". Phi Delta Kappan. 83 (10): 740–747. doi:ten.1177/003172170208301007. ISSN 0031-7217. S2CID 144940136.
  51. ^ Allington, Richard L. (2013-03-27). "What Actually Matters When Working With Struggling Readers". The Reading Teacher. 66 (7): 520–530. doi:x.1002/trtr.1154. ISSN 0034-0561.
  52. ^ "Pedagogy inequalities at the school starting gate: Gaps, trends, and strategies to address them". Economical Policy Found . 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 Information Establish . Retrieved 2022-02-20 .
  55. ^ Ary., Spatig-Amerikaner. Unequal Education: Federal Loophole Enables Lower Spending onStudents of Color. OCLC 911591323.
  56. ^ Mathewson, Tara García (2020-ten-31). "New data: Even within the same district some wealthy schools get millions more than than poor ones". The Hechinger Report . Retrieved 2021-05-08 .
  57. ^ Missall, Kristen Northward.; Hosp, Michelle One thousand.; Hosp, John L. (2019-09-01). "Reading Proficiency in Elementary: Considering Statewide Testing, Instructor Ratings and Rankings, and Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement". Schoolhouse Psychology Review. 48 (3): 267–275. doi:10.17105/spr-2017-0152.v48-three. ISSN 2372-966X. S2CID 210493777.
  58. ^ a b Morris, Darrell (March 2006). "Using Non-certified Tutors to Work with At‐Risk Readers: An Prove‐Based Model". The Elementary School Periodical. 106 (4): 351–362. doi:10.1086/503636. ISSN 0013-5984. S2CID 143590085.
  59. ^ a b "Civil Rights Groups, Instruction Advocates Release Shared ESEA Reauthorization Principles". The Leadership Conference on Civil and Homo Rights. 2015-01-16. Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  60. ^ a b "The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many teaching questions (National Heart for Education Statistics)". nces.ed.gov . Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  61. ^ "The Every Student Succeeds Act: Replacing No Child Left Backside | Alliance For Excellent Pedagogy". Retrieved 2021-05-09 .
  62. ^ Pouncey, Warren C.; Ennis, Leslie S.; Woolley, Thomas W.; Connell, Peggy H. (2013-04-15). "School Funding Issues: State Legislators and School Superintendents – Adversaries or Allies?". SAGE Open. 3 (two): 215824401348649. doi:x.1177/2158244013486492. ISSN 2158-2440.
  63. ^ Chandwani, Sanjay & Padhan, Ananda. (2012). NGO Participation in Simple Education: An Belittling Written report. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.28565.55523.
  64. ^ a b "Learn about the history of Reading Partners!". Reading Partners . Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  65. ^ "The Impact of Literacy on Children in Low-Income Schools". Reading Partners . Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  66. ^ "Download Limit Exceeded". citeseerx.ist.psu.edu. 2003. CiteSeerXx.1.ane.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 Due west.; Vermeulen, Karin; Abbott, Robert D.; McCutchen, Deborah; Cotton fiber, Susanna; Cude, Jennifer; Dorn, Susan; Sharon, Tod (April 2003). "Comparison of Three Approaches to Supplementary Reading Instruction for Low-Achieving Second-Course Readers". Linguistic communication, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 34 (2): 101–116. doi:x.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-ane.0. Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  71. ^ "Learn most the history of Reading Partners!". Reading Partners . Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  72. ^ Ritter, Gary Due west.; Barnett, Joshua H.; Denny, George Due south.; Albin, Ginger R. (March 2009). "The Effectiveness of Volunteer Tutoring Programs for Simple and Middle School Students: A Meta-Assay". Review of Educational Research. 79 (ane): 3–38. doi:10.3102/0034654308325690. ISSN 0034-6543. S2CID 146673161.
  73. ^ Ritter, Gary W.; Barnett, Joshua H.; Denny, George S.; Albin, Ginger R. (March 2009). "The Effectiveness of Volunteer Tutoring Programs for Unproblematic and Centre School Students: A Meta-Analysis". Review of Educational Research. 79 (1): iii–38. doi:10.3102/0034654308325690. ISSN 0034-6543. S2CID 146673161.
  74. ^ "Nations report card".
  75. ^ "NAEP 2022 grade 4 reading report" (PDF).
  76. ^ "NAEP scores".
  77. ^ "The NAEP Reading Accomplishment Levels by Form".
  78. ^ "NAEP Fast Facts, Constitute of Education Sciences".
  79. ^ "NAEP National and State Average Scores".
  80. ^ "NAEP 2022 State Boilerplate Scores".
  81. ^ Hanford, Emily (5 December 2019). "Stance, 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 Learners: Practical Strategies to Develop College-Order Thinking Skills. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
  83. ^ Olsen, Carol (2015). "English Learners, Writing, and the Common Core". The Elementary School Journal. 115 (four): 570–592. doi:10.1086/681235. JSTOR 10.1086/681235. S2CID 145528953. Retrieved 2021-04-28 . {{cite journal}}: 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, 2020-05-15".

External links [edit]

  • National Assessment of Adult Literacy
  • ProLiteracy

bostwickcley1997.blogspot.com

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

0 Response to "Average Reading Level of American Citizens by Race .gov"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel