Home  ›  Average Reading Level in the United States

Average Reading Level in the United States

Written By Friday, March 4, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Overview of literacy in the Usa

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 Instruction Statistics determined that mid to high literacy in the United States is 79% with 21% of American adults categorized as having "low level English literacy," including 4.1% classified as "functionally illiterate" and an additional 4% that could not participate.[1] According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of adults in the United States accept prose literacy beneath the 6th-grade level.[2]

In many nations, the ability to read a simple sentence suffices every bit literacy, and was the previous standard for the U.S. The definition of literacy has changed profoundly; the term is shortly defined every bit the ability to employ printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one'due south goals, and to develop 1's 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:[5]

  • prose literacy: the knowledge and skills needed to search, embrace, and utilise continuous texts. Examples include editorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materials.
  • document literacy: the knowledge and skills needed to search, embrace, and employ non-continuous texts in various formats. Examples include job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and drug and food labels.
  • quantitative literacy: the noesis 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 order class, or determining an corporeality.

Modernistic jobs oftentimes demand a high level of literacy, and its lack in adults and adolescents has been studied extensively.

According to a 1992 survey, most 40 million adults had Level one literary competency, the everyman level, comprising understanding only bones written instructions.[6] A number of reports and studies are published annually to monitor the nation's status, and initiatives to improve literacy rates are funded by government and external sources.[vii]

History [edit]

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

The National Agency of Economic Inquiry published a data set with an overview of the history of teaching in the United States until the 20th and 21st centuries. According to the bureau, "Formal pedagogy, especially basic literacy, is essential for a well-functioning democracy, and enhances citizenship and customs."[vii]

Nineteenth-century literacy rates in the United States were relatively high, despite the country'due south decentralized educational system.[7] There has been a notable increase in American citizens' educational attainment since then, merely studies have also indicated a decline in reading performance which began during the 1970s.[10] Although the U.S. Adult Didactics and Literacy System (AELS) and legislation such as the Economical Opportunity Human action of 1964 had highlighted pedagogy as an issue of national importance,[eleven] the push button for high levels of mass literacy has been a recent development; expectations of literacy have sharply increased over past decades.[12] Contemporary literacy standards have become more difficult 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 entire U.S. population.

Literacy has detail importance in adulthood since the changing dynamics of the American job market demand greater skills and knowledge of entry-level workers. In the 2003 National Cess of Adult Literacy, immature adults without a post-secondary pedagogy experienced difficulty obtaining career positions. A multi-variable analysis indicated that depression and beneath-basic literacy rates were feature of individuals without higher education,[13] and improving and sustaining mass literacy at earlier stages of education has become a focus of American leaders and policymakers.

Since A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, interest in the functioning of American students relative to other youth populations worldwide has been great. It has been observed that adolescents undergo a critical transition during their grade-school years which prepares them to learn and utilize knowledge to their actions and behavior in the exterior world.[fourteen] Equally the chore market has go more demanding, the rigor of educational institutions has increased to prepare students for the more-complex tasks which will be expected of them.[15] Addressing sub-par reading performance and low youth literacy rates are important to achieve high levels of mass literacy considering the issue of sub-par academic functioning is compounded. Students who struggle at an early on age continue to struggle throughout their school years because they do not take the same foundation of understanding and latitude of noesis to build upon as their peers; this often translates to below-average, 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'southward status. Initiatives to amend literacy rates accept taken the grade of government provisions and external funding, which have been driving forces behind national pedagogy reform from primary school to higher education.[7]

In 2019, the National Center for Educational Statistics reported that 4.i% of US adults had literacy abilities beneath level 1, defined every bit "unable to successfully determine the meaning of sentences, read relatively curt texts to locate a unmarried piece of information, 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 per centum of people age fifteen or older who can read and write, which is used to rank nations. More than-complex definitions, involving the kind of reading needed for occupations or tasks in daily life, are termed functional literacy, prose literacy, certificate 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 Educational activity Statistics (part of the Education Department) measured functional literacy.[5] The center measured iii 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.[5] Certificate literacy consists of the "knowledge and skills needed to perform document tasks", which include job applications, payroll forms and maps.[5] Similarly, quantitative literacy is the "knowledge and skills required to perform quantitative tasks"; those tasks include balancing a checkbook and filling out an order form.[five]

The governments of other countries may characterization individuals who can read a few k simple words which they learned past sight in the first 4 grades in school as literate. UNESCO has collected the definitions used by nations in their tables of literacy in its General Metadata on National Literacy Information table; variations depend on whether childhood literacy (age vi) or adult literacy was measured. The list distinguishes between a respondent'due south self-reported literacy and demonstrated ability to read.[17]

Other sources may term individuals functionally illiterate if they are unable to read bones sources of written information, such every bit warning labels and driving directions. According to The World Factbook from the U.S. Central Intelligence Bureau (CIA), "There are no universal definitions and standards of literacy" and its statistics are based on the nigh common definition: "the ability to read and write at a specified age." The National Centre for Education Statistics defines literacy as "the ability to empathize, evaluate, use and appoint with written texts to participate in society, to achieve i'south goals, and to develop i's knowledge and potential."[18] "Detailing the standards that individual countries employ to appraise the ability to read and write is beyond the scope of the Factbook. Information on literacy, while not a perfect measure of educational results, is probably the nearly easily bachelor 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 percentage of people historic period 15 or older who tin can read and write.[21] [nineteen]

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

Measuring developed literacy [edit]

Functional literacy tin 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, empathise, and appoint 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's ability to learn near academic subjects, sympathize social and cultural contexts, and acquire about 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 written report identifies a form of adults who, although non meeting the criteria for functional illiteracy, face up reduced job 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 study involved lengthy interviews with adults who were statistically balanced for historic period, gender, ethnicity, education level, and location (urban, suburban, or rural) in 12 states beyond the country, and was designed to correspond the U.S. population as a whole. The National Adult Literacy Survey, conducted in 1992, was the outset literacy survey which provided "accurate and detailed information on the skills of the adult population as a whole." The U.S. has participated in cyclical, large-scale assessment programs undertaken by the National Cess of Adult Literacy (NAAL) and sponsored past the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) since 1992. The survey revealed that the literacy of about twoscore million adults was limited to Level i (the lowest level, an understanding of bones written instructions).[6]

The Establish of Pedagogy Sciences conducted large-scale assessments of adult proficiency in 1992 and 2003 with a common methodology from which trends could exist measured. The study measures prose, document and quantitative skills, and 19,000 subjects participated in the 2003 survey. There was no pregnant change in prose or document skills, and a slight increase in quantitative skills. As in 2008, roughly 15 percentage of the sample could function at the highest levels of all 3 categories; about 50 pct were at basic or below-basic levels of proficiency in all three categories.[24] The government report indicated that 21 to 23 percentage of adult Americans were "non able to locate information in text", could "not make depression-level inferences using printed materials", and were "unable to integrate easily identifiable pieces of information." About one-4th of the individuals who performed at this level reported that they were born in another country, and some were recent immigrants with a limited control of English language. 60-two percent of the individuals on that level of the prose scale said they had not completed high schoolhouse, and 35 percentage had no more than eight years of education. A relatively loftier percentage of the respondents at this level were African American, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander, and about 33 percent were age 65 or older. Twenty-six percent of the adults who performed at Level 1 said that they had a concrete, mental or health condition which kept them from participating fully in work and other activities, and nineteen percentage reported vision problems which made reading print difficult. The individuals at this level of literacy had a various fix of characteristics which influenced their performance; according to this report, 41 to 44 percent of U.Due south. adults at the lowest level of the literacy scale were living in poverty.[24] A NAAL follow-upwards study by the aforementioned group of researchers, using a smaller database (19,714 interviewees), was released in 2006 which indicated some upward movement of depression-cease (basic and below to intermediate) in U.Southward. developed literacy levels and a turn down 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 Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), a large-calibration assessment of adult skills—including literacy—under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-performance and Development (OECD), in 2011. The NCES describes the PIACC as the "nigh current indicator of the nation'south progress in adult skills in literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving in applied science-rich environments."[26]

Department of Didactics surveys [edit]

English Linguistic communication Proficiency Survey (1982) [edit]

In 1982, funded past the United States Department of Didactics,[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 straight measure of literacy more authentic than a 1979 gauge which inferred literacy from the number of years of pedagogy completed.[29] Data from the ELPS were presented in a 1986 Census Agency study which ended that xiii percent of adults living in the United States were illiterate in English.[29] 9 percent of adults whose native language was English (native speakers) were illiterate, and 48 pct of non-native speakers were illiterate in English only not necessarily illiterate in their maternal language.[29]

In his 1985 volume, Illiterate America, Jonathan Kozol ascribed the very-high figures for literacy to weaknesses in methodology.[30] Kozol noted that in addition to this weakness, the reliance on written forms would take excluded many individuals who did not take a literate family unit member to fill out the class for them.[thirty] The Demography 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-grade pedagogy had at least an 80-percent chance of being literate. Kozol suggested that considering illiterate people are probable to exist unemployed and may non have a telephone or permanent address, the Census Bureau would take been unlikely to find them.[30]

National Adult 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 Middle for Education Statistics, part of the Department of Education, awarded a contract to the Educational Testing Service and a subcontract to Westat to blueprint and carry the survey.[31]

The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) provided detailed information on the skills of the developed population equally a whole. The survey interviewed about 26,000 people anile 16 and older: a nationally representative sample of almost xiv,000 people and an additional 12,000 surveys from states which opted into state-level assessments. Its results were published in 1993.[6] : 14 That year, the NALS was described equally a nationally representative, continuing assessment of the English-language literary skills of American adults.[32] The study avoided a single standard of literacy, assessing individuals in three aspects of literacy with each aspect defined on a 500-point scale. Scores in each attribute (prose, document, and quantitative) were grouped in five levels: level 1 (0-225), level 2 (226-275), level 3 (276-325), level 4 (326-375), and level 5 (376-500).

National Assessment of Adult Literacy (2003) [edit]

The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)[33] was sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) as 1 of its assessment programs.[34] The study included comparisons to the 1992 survey. Adults over sixteen years of age were scored on their prose, document, and quantitative literacy. Although there was no significant change in prose and document literacy betwixt 1992 and 2003, quantitative literacy improved.[26] The written report maintained the do of the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey of dividing literacy into three aspects, each measured on a 500-point calibration. Scores in each aspect were again grouped into 5 different levels, using a new numerical scale which differed for each attribute.

International surveys [edit]

Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey [edit]

The United States participated in the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL) with Bermuda, Canada, Italy, 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 5 levels of difficulty in prose, certificate and numeracy literacy. In 2003, only eight pct of the population aged sixteen to 65 in Kingdom of norway fell into the everyman skill level (level 1). The highest pct was 47 percentage, in Italy; the Usa was tertiary-highest at twenty per centum.[35] : 17

Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies [edit]

The United states of america participated in the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), which was "developed under the auspices" of the OECD. The PIACC is a "collaborative endeavour 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 Center for Teaching Statistics (NCES), the PIACC provides the "near current indicator of the nation's progress in adult skills in literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving in technology-rich environments" and is a "big-calibration assessment of adult skills."[26]

In 2012, 24 countries participated in the big-scale study; thirty-three countries participated in 2014.[37] The 2013 OECD study "Beginning 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 written report,[ description needed ] while other countries have been showing improvements, peculiarly among adults with depression basic skills."[38] The 2011 literacy test for was contradistinct: "Before the PIAAC 2011 survey, still, substantially all that one could infer nigh the literacy skills of adults below Level one was that they could not consistently perform accurately on the easiest literacy tasks on the survey. One could not approximate what literacy tasks they could do successfully, if any."[39]

In 2016, PIAAC 2012 and 2014 data were released.[37] Participating adults in Singapore and the United states had the largest number of adults scoring "at or below Level 1 in literacy proficiency" compared to other participating countries in their performance in "all 3 reading components". According to the authors of the OECD report, "These results may be related to the language background of the immigrant population in the U.s.a.."[36]

According to the 2012-2014 data, 79% of U.South. adults (or 43.0 million people) take "English literacy skills sufficient to complete tasks that require comparing and contrasting information, paraphrasing, or making low-level inferences." In this written report, immigrants are over-represented in the low English literacy population. Adults built-in exterior the U.S. make upward 34% of adults with low literacy skills while making up but 15% of the population. However, of the adults with low English literacy skills, 66% were born in the U.Southward.[forty]

Central Connecticut Country University study [edit]

From 2005 to 2009, Jack Miller of Key Connecticut State University conducted annual studies aimed at identifying America'southward well-nigh literate cities. Miller drew from a number of available data resources, and the CCSU America'south Well-nigh Literate Cities study ranks the largest cities (population 250,000 and above) in the U.s.. The study focuses on 6 indicators of literacy: newspaper 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 one.5 two i one
Washington, D.C. 2 3 5 3.5 3
Minneapolis, MN iii ane.five 1 ii 2
Pittsburgh, PA four 12 ix 6 viii
Atlanta, GA 5 6 8 3.5 four
Portland, OR 6 10.five 12 x 11
St. Paul, MN 7 iv 3 5 ix.5
Boston, MA 8 8 10 11 vii
Cincinnati, OH 9 x.five 11 7 9.5
Denver, CO 10 7 4 8 6

Unproblematic school literacy [edit]

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

History of inequity [edit]

The 1960s was a time when well-nigh African-American, Latino, and Native American students were primarily educated in dissimilar and segregated schools that were likewise "funded at rates many times lower than those serving white" students.[42] Asian Americans also were subject to unjust and inhumane literacy didactics practice: "Early arguments for Asian American education hinged on the assumption 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 diff literacy practices persist today and that modern perceptions of the American literate individual is normalized in non-racial minority identities.[43]

The U.S. public education has been "highly decentralized" compared to other nations, such as France.[44] A decentralized public education arrangement may result in coordination problems among staff and kinesthesia, an expectation to carry out a "large group of staff specialists at enormous toll," and in that location is no standardization of instruction at a national scale.[45] Various studies from the early on 2000s and later reveal that the U.S. was ranked number 20 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 total number of unproblematic school students that reached eye schoolhouse course in the United States, only 44 pct of them were proficient in reading and math by the year 2015.[46] Compared to their white counterparts at the historic period of 5, blackness and Hispanic children score lower in expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, and other acuity indicators.[46]

Chocolate-brown v. Lath of Instruction of 1954 ruled the concept of "separate but equal" unconstitutional, beginning the desegregation of schools.[47] Even so, the effects of segregation are even so visible today, every bit many K-12 schools are in areas that are predominately home to BIPOC (Black Indigenous People of Color). This historical injustice relates directly to why a majority of the elementary 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 tiffin, score low reading levels.[48] In improver, English language learners (ELL) and children of immigrants take high dropout rates and low scores on standardized tests.[49] School districts provide the same materials for every student in the same grade levels, just each pupil 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 low-income families fall behind their peers.[50] [nine] Teachers spend a majority of their course fourth dimension reading and supporting struggling readers, but teachers have non been able to do this all the time.[50] Other than the educational risks of not 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 address the gaps in elementary education.[52] Moreover, at that place was also an issue regarding the funding gap between the rich and poor schools. A study published during the Obama administration found that the funding gap grew to over 44 percent inside ten years spanning from the early 2000s to 2012.[53]Along with that, the Supreme Court's decision in San Antonio Schoolhouse Commune V. Rodriquez ruled that pedagogy is "not within the limited category of the rights recognized by the Constitution" and thus non protected by the Constitution.[54]

Solutions to uncomplicated literacy gap in the U.s. [edit]

Solutions by the United States Authorities [edit]

Starting in the 1960s, there were federal responses to address the problems 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 unit support for their health, nutrition, and social services. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Simple and Secondary Education Act every bit a federal response to ensure that each child gets equal education regardless of their class or race. In response to English language learners, in 1968 Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act. The act allowed ELL students to learn in their commencement language and provided resources to help schools with ELL students. Even every bit new legislation has come nigh 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 attend underfunded schools are BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color). To put information technology in perspective, schools that accept ninety% or more 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 general and the same trend is seen in uncomplicated school of the United States specifically.[56]

Teachers play an extremely important role in the classroom given that they work with the educatee consistently enough to notice which students struggle most. Studies have shown that teacher judgment assessments are a really accurate determinant for elementary schoolhouse students' reading proficiency.[57] They are non equally precise every bit the curriculum based measurements (CBM) but extremely accurate on average. This gives faster and more personal results in terms of identifying which student needs more than help. In 1997, President Bill Clinton proposed that tutors work with children reading below their grade level. Tutoring programs include partnerships with academy organizations in which college students tutor and develop the literacy skills of elementary schoolhouse students. Using non-certified teachers reduces the corporeality 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] And so many underprivileged elementary school students need this reading proficiency assist simply 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 not-certified tutor can in fact testify 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 group of non certified tutors (para-professionals or community volunteers), and

(5) 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 approved curriculum, preparation, and systems of accountability.

By Jan 12, 2015, civil rights groups and education advocates drafted and released a certificate chosen 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 beak had innumerable pathways that insured money for the education sector. Still, due to the Senate and the Firm's polarization, it had not been re-approved and had been pending approval since 2007. The pecker would push button for equal admission to educational opportunities for students across the country. "As of January 16, 22 organizations [had] signed the principles".[59] The following twenty-four hours, on January 17, "Sen. Lamar Alexander, R. Tenn., released a draft reauthorization bill for ESEA".[59]

Following ESEA approving, Charter I, as well called Title I schools, according to the National Eye for Education Statistics(NCES), received $vi.4 billion in "Basic Grants," $1.3 billion in "Full-bodied Grants," and $3.3 billion in "Targeted Grants" in 2015, in response to Elementary and Secondary Teaching Act (ESEA) being passed.[60] ESEA ensures financial aid 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 state bookish standards. These Title I schools can contract private nonprofit tutoring programs to work with their students in enhancing skills such as reading comprehension, analytical skills, and give-and-take recognition.[60]

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

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

While Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) in teaching were also not prevalent during the early 2000s, but with the declining standards of education, NGOs, which included both not-profits and for-profits emerged, which focused more on the "individual engagement", the 1-on-one teaching mode.[44] "Private engagement [by tutoring programs] is not only altering the delivery of teaching merely besides participating in the reshaping of the politics of education" since the usage of textile and manner of pedagogy does help mold the manner a student views the world.[44] Also, since the 1990s, and up until the early 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 address.[44] Though the work of NGOs in any field is to an extent independent of government intervention, however, there is some overlap and collaboration between them.[63]

Reading Partners [edit]

Reading Partners' history dates back to 1999 when three customs leaders from Menlo Park in California launched a ane-on-ane tutoring program to help these children facing the aforementioned problems at Belle Haven Customs 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 K-12 education tended to focus on what has been chosen non-instructional services".[44]

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

The arrangement currently works just with Charter I schools, low-income public elementary schools which are independently operated. The reason backside such a directed target is what Reading Partner calls the reduction in students "experiencing poverty [who] face immense educational barriers and enter elementary schoolhouse already further backside their peers who are not experiencing poverty".[64]

Reading Partners, among other Not-profit organizations, in collaboration with other academic and authorities institutions, crafted a curriculum aligned with the Common Core Country Standards (CCSS), which take been implemented by most states. This ensures that the tutees' instruction would be synonymous with other students in all other schools. Pre-and Postal service-reading questions were added to initiate critical thinking from the students in every lesson.[65] There was increased use of colored books to catch attention and enlarged fonts to forestall the tutee's reading difficulty. Mid-semester tests, chosen STAR assessments, were designed and employed, which allowed reinforcement of vocabulary and concepts during preceding lessons, since "students learn circuitous information nigh effectively if they are immune to experience the information in various formats".[66] Reading Partners' approach to improving the reading skills of students is grounded within the research on "literacy interventions in general and one-to-one tutoring specifically".[67] Also, the use of "ii-or three-dimensional graphics, color illustrations, audio, and video sequences, and even two-or iii-dimensional animation and simulations" by Reading Partners, proved to exist "an invaluable pedagogical advance".[68]

Many research models accept 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 enquiry focused on the comparison of various approaches to additional reading instruction for low-achieving second-class students. The study found out that "approaches that combined discussion recognition and reading comprehension treatment increased phonological decoding significantly more than than the treated control or give-and-take recognition only treatment and had the highest consequence size".[69] In some other study, the treated children receiving additional instruction were seen to ameliorate significantly more in the areas of phonological decoding and reading real words than did those in another programme, and the "combined discussion recognition and reading comprehension treatment, which was explicit, had the highest effect sizes for both pseudoword and existent-word reading." It was recognized from the study that the most effective supplemental instruction to increment phonological decoding was the combination of explicit word recognition and detailed reading comprehension grooming.[69] Besides, according to a 2017 study, for the average Reading Partners student, after omnipresence of i year in Reading Partner's tutoring plan, in that location was an "comeback [that] was equivalent to moving from the 15th percentile to the 21st percentile".[lxx]

The function of tutors is of swell importance in Reading Partners, though the utilization of tutors effectively is incumbent on their training, and education level. The minimum requirement for being chosen every bit a volunteer tutor is based on completing secondary schoolhouse in the U.S. The tutors are required to attend grooming and shadow i or more sessions with another experienced tutor or staff member to accumulate the logistical and bookish rigor at to the lowest degree two times a week, with each session being a 45-minute session.[71] One tutor is assigned with one pupil for a whole school year, and tutors follow a pre-designed and pre-approved curriculum. The excellent use 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 equally pre-and postal service-lecture questions focusing on the lecture's primary ideas, to better the tutee's reading, comprehension, and belittling skills, resulted in fruitful gains. A study institute that such tutoring interventions "accept a significant positive upshot on participating students' exact skills" also.[72] Tutors have, over the years, been showing increasing interest in giving back to the community and making a mark in order by watering the seeds of today, the students, that volition sprout into a tree tomorrow, literate citizens. As Bethany Grove puts it in her research written report, "tutors who volunteer with Reading Partners are there to brand a deviation for students, just every bit volunteers with other organizations are seeking to brand an affect".[67] In terms of reducing the achievement that is present in the United States, specifically for elementary students, "inquiry on volunteer tutoring found that despite many limitations," the programs which employ one-on-one tutoring instruction "tin can exist effective in improving pupil accomplishment".[73]

NAEP [edit]

Main commodity: NAEP

In the United States, the National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP ("The Nation's Report Card") is the national cess of what students know and can practice in diverse subjects. Four of these subjects—reading, writing, mathematics and science—are assessed most frequently and reported at the state and district level, usually for grades 4 and 8.[74]

In 2019, with respect to the reading skills of the nation'southward grade-4 public school students, 34% performed at or above the Adept level (solid academic functioning) and 65% performed at or in a higher place the Basic level (partial mastery of the proficient level skills). The results by race / ethnicity were every bit follows:[75]

Race / Ethnicity Good level Basic level
Asian 57% 82%
White 44% 76%
Two or more races 40% 72%
National Average 34% 65%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 24% 55%
Hispanic 23% 54%
American Indian/Alaska Native 20% 50%
Blackness 18% 47%

NAEP reading assessment results are reported equally average scores on a 0–500 scale.[76] The Bones Level is 208 and the Skilful Level is 238.[77] The boilerplate reading score for grade-4 public school students was 219.[78] Female students had an average score that was 7 points higher than male 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 private states and districts are bachelor on the NAEP site.[79] Betwixt 2017 and 2019 Mississippi was the only land that had a class-four reading score increment and 17 states had a score decrease.[80] [81]

English-linguistic communication learners and literacy

Literacy standards and tests likewise apply to non-English speaking populations in schools. Implemented in 2010, Mutual Core serves equally the national pedagogy curriculum and standards past which nigh public schools must abide. Information technology serves as the latest vision of literacy in America, including comprehension skills in writing and reading and methods to achieve annual standards. Common Core's aim is to ameliorate and expand literacy for students by the end of their high schoolhouse careers. Within this system there are principals to address English linguistic communication learners (ELL), and their placement within classrooms of native English speakers. This area of curriculum is designed to offer an extra layer of back up for ELL. The United states of america Department of Education and National Center for Instruction Statistics take establish discrepancies within Mutual Core's curriculum that do not fully accost the needs of ELL populations. Educational gaps are created past inequality inside classrooms, in this case, a separation between ELL and native English speakers are due in office by Common Core'south lack of support.[82]

East.Fifty.L. accept remained "stuck" at an intermediate level of proficiency brought on past expectations and standardized testing that places them behind and distances them from their English-speaking peers. These expectations produce a wheel of needing to "catch up" or needing to be at the same level as other students without the extra accommodations. A study from 2011 ended that 65% of Bay Surface area, eighth-grade Due east.L.L.due south scored "Below Basic" on standardized writing assessments, with but i% scoring at the "Proficient" level.[83]

See too [edit]

  • Books in the United States
  • Learning to read

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b "Written report on Adult Literacy in the U.s." (PDF). nces.ed.gov. Usa Department of Instruction. July 2019. Retrieved October 16, 2021. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-condition (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-ten-xvi . [ citation needed ]
  3. ^ "Framework -> Definition of Literacy". National Assessment of Adult Literacy. National Center for Pedagogy Statistics. Retrieved 25 September 2019.
  4. ^ "National Assessment of Developed Literacy (NAAL)". National Eye for Pedagogy Statistics. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019.
  5. ^ a b c d e "Three Types of Literacy". National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), U.Due south. Department of Education . 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 (Written report). National Center for Educational Statistics. National Center for Education Studies.
  7. ^ a b c d Goldin, Claudia (August 1999). "A Brief History of Teaching in the Us" (PDF). Cambridge, Massachusetts. doi:10.3386/h0119. S2CID 153200552.
  8. ^ a b c van Kleeck Anne; Schuele C. Melanie (2010-xi-01). "Historical Perspectives on Literacy in Early Childhood". American Periodical of Speech-Language Pathology. xix (4): 341–355. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0038). PMID 20581109.
  9. ^ a b Cassidy, Jack. Ortlieb, Evan. Grote-Garcia, Stephanie. Beyond the Common Core: Examining xx Years of Literacy Priorities and Their Touch 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 (1): eight. doi:10.2307/747719. ISSN 0034-0553. JSTOR 747719.
  11. ^ Sticht, Thomas G. (November 1995). "Adult Educational activity for Family Literacy". Developed Learning. 7 (2): 23–24. doi:ten.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:ten.17763/haer.47.3.27263381g038222w. ISSN 0017-8055.
  13. ^ Ying, Jin (2009). Preparing youth for the hereafter: the literacy of America's immature adults. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Preparation Administration. OCLC 733296227.
  14. ^ Ippolito, Jacy; Steele, Jennifer L. (2012). Adolescent literacy. ISBN978-0916690526. OCLC 773348894.
  15. ^ Alvermann, Donna East. (June 2002). "Effective Literacy Instruction for Adolescents". Journal of Literacy Research. 34 (2): 189–208. CiteSeerXx.one.1.1024.1927. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3402_4. ISSN 1086-296X. S2CID 143884081.
  16. ^ Thou., Barone, Diane (2006). Narrowing the literacy gap : what works in high-poverty schools . Guilford Printing. ISBN978-1593852771. OCLC 64555680.
  17. ^ "Education: Literacy charge per unit". UNESCO Establish for Statistics. February 2019. Retrieved July two, 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 Earth Factbook. Retrieved October 29, 2017.
  20. ^ "Literacy – The World Factbook". www.cia.gov . Retrieved 2021-x-sixteen .
  21. ^ Literacy – The World Factbook. United States CIA. 2010 – via Encyclopedia of the Nations.
  22. ^ Strauss, Valerie (November 1, 2016). "Hiding in evidently sight: The adult literacy crisis". The Answer Sheet. The Washington Mail . Retrieved July ii, 2019.
  23. ^ a b Gallego, Margaret A.; Hollingsworth, Sandra (2000). What counts equally literacy: challenging the school standard. Teachers College Press. ISBN978-0807739730. OCLC 44133067.
  24. ^ a b c d Kirsch, Irwin Southward.; Jungeblut, Ann; Jenkins, Lynn; Kolstad, Andrew (Apr 2002), Adult Literacy in America (PDF) (3 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 circuitous or lengthy passages. More than complex inferences are needed to perform successfully." Public Domain This commodity incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  25. ^ A First Look at the Literacy of America's Adults in the 21st century (PDF), National Centre for Educational Statistics, 2006, retrieved 2007-12-11
  26. ^ a b c Demographics, National Eye for Didactics Statistics, 2017, retrieved October 29, 2017
  27. ^ Language Characteristics and Schooling in the U. S.: A Changing Flick, 1979 and 1989. p. 4.
  28. ^ "English Language Proficiency Study (ELPS), 1982 Microdata File. Technical Documentation". 1987.
  29. ^ a b c Werner, Leslie Maitland (Apr 21, 1986), "13% of U.S. adults are illiterate in English, a Federal study 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. ISBN978-0-452-26203-4.
  31. ^ "Adult Literacy in America" (PDF). p. thirteen. Public Domain This commodity incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  32. ^ Schierloh, Jane Thou. (August 30, 1993), Adult Literacy in America: A Start Wait at the Results of the National Developed Literacy Survey , retrieved October 29, 2017
  33. ^ "National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)".
  34. ^ "What is NALS?". National Middle for Education Statistics (NCES). n.d. Retrieved October 29, 2017.
  35. ^ a b Learning a Living: Starting time 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 puddle of highly skilled adults in the world." "Level i:Tasks in this level tend to require the respondent either to locate a piece of information based on a literal friction match or to enter information from personal knowledge onto a certificate. Little, if whatever, distracting information is present
  36. ^ a b OECD Skills Studies Skills Matter Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills (PDF) (Report). OECD Skills Studies. Paris: Organisation for Economical Co-performance and Development (OECD). doi:10.1787/9789264258051-en. ISBN978-92-64-25805-1.
  37. ^ a b Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), National Center for Instruction Statistics (NCES), 2016, retrieved Oct 29, 2017
  38. ^ OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills (Report). Paris: Organization for Economical Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2013. Retrieved October 29, 2017.
  39. ^ Sabatini, John, Agreement the Basic Reading Skills of U.S. 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, Central Connecticut Country University.
  42. ^ Darling-Hammond, Linda. "Diff Opportunity: Race and Teaching". Brookings . Retrieved 2021-05-xiii .
  43. ^ a b Hoang, Haivan V. (2015). Writing against Racial Injury : The Politics of Asian American Educatee Rhetoric. University of Pittsburgh Printing. p. 160.
  44. ^ a b c d e f Bulkley, Katrina E.; Burch, Patricia (July 2011). "The Changing Nature of Private Engagement in Public Instruction: For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations and Educational Reform". Peabody Journal of Teaching. 86 (3): 236–251. doi:ten.1080/0161956X.2011.578963. ISSN 0161-956X. S2CID 154941048.
  45. ^ Thousand, Sethy (2019-09-23). "Advantages and Disadvantages of Decentralization". Economics Give-and-take . Retrieved 2021-05-13 .
  46. ^ a b c "The costs of inequality: Education's the one key that rules them all". Harvard Gazette. 2016-02-fifteen. Retrieved 2021-05-13 .
  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 equity: Health care, pedagogy, employment, and housing in the United States". SSM – Population Health. 4: 17–24. doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.10.006. ISSN 2352-8273. PMC5730086. PMID 29250579.
  48. ^ Tivnan, Terrence; Hemphill, Lowry (May 2005). "Comparing Iv Literacy Reform Models in High‐Poverty Schools: Patterns of First‐Class Achievement". The Elementary School Periodical. 105 (5): 419–441. doi:10.1086/431885. ISSN 0013-5984. S2CID 145170869.
  49. ^ Latinos and didactics : a critical reader. Darder, Antonia; Torres, Rodolfo D. (2nd 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 near Effective Reading Pedagogy". Phi Delta Kappan. 83 (ten): 740–747. doi:10.1177/003172170208301007. ISSN 0031-7217. S2CID 144940136.
  51. ^ Allington, Richard L. (2013-03-27). "What Really Matters When Working With Struggling Readers". The Reading Instructor. 66 (seven): 520–530. doi:x.1002/trtr.1154. ISSN 0034-0561.
  52. ^ "Education inequalities at the schoolhouse starting gate: Gaps, trends, and strategies to address them". Economical Policy Plant . Retrieved 2021-05-xiii .
  53. ^ "A decade of research on education inequality in America". The Hechinger Report. 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2021-05-xiii .
  54. ^ "SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL Commune et al., Appellants, five. Demetrio P. RODRIGUEZ et al". LII / Legal Information Plant . Retrieved 2022-02-twenty .
  55. ^ Ary., Spatig-Amerikaner. Unequal Didactics: Federal Loophole Enables Lower Spending onStudents of Color. OCLC 911591323.
  56. ^ Mathewson, Tara García (2020-10-31). "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 N.; Hosp, Michelle K.; Hosp, John Fifty. (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:x.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‐Take a chance Readers: An Prove‐Based Model". The Simple School Journal. 106 (4): 351–362. doi:10.1086/503636. ISSN 0013-5984. S2CID 143590085.
  59. ^ a b "Civil Rights Groups, Education 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 instruction questions (National Center for Education 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 W.; Connell, Peggy H. (2013-04-15). "School Funding Issues: State 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 Elementary Didactics: An Analytical Study. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.28565.55523.
  64. ^ a b "Learn virtually 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. CiteSeerX10.1.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 W.; Vermeulen, Karin; Abbott, Robert D.; McCutchen, Deborah; Cotton, Susanna; Cude, Jennifer; Dorn, Susan; Sharon, Tod (Apr 2003). "Comparison of 3 Approaches to Supplementary Reading Instruction for Low-Achieving 2d-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-nineteen). "Reading Partners Evaluation". AEA Randomized Controlled Trials. doi:10.1257/rct.1908-1.0. Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  71. ^ "Larn about the history of Reading Partners!". Reading Partners . Retrieved 2021-04-25 .
  72. ^ Ritter, Gary Westward.; Barnett, Joshua H.; Denny, George Southward.; Albin, Ginger R. (March 2009). "The Effectiveness of Volunteer Tutoring Programs for Elementary and Eye School Students: A Meta-Assay". Review of Educational Research. 79 (1): iii–38. doi:x.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 Elementary and Center Schoolhouse Students: A Meta-Analysis". Review of Educational Inquiry. 79 (1): iii–38. doi:10.3102/0034654308325690. ISSN 0034-6543. S2CID 146673161.
  74. ^ "Nations report card".
  75. ^ "NAEP 2019 grade 4 reading report" (PDF).
  76. ^ "NAEP scores".
  77. ^ "The NAEP Reading Achievement Levels past Form".
  78. ^ "NAEP Fast Facts, Plant of Pedagogy Sciences".
  79. ^ "NAEP National and State Boilerplate Scores".
  80. ^ "NAEP 2019 State Average Scores".
  81. ^ Hanford, Emily (5 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-Order Thinking Skills. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
  83. ^ Olsen, Carol (2015). "English language Learners, Writing, and the Common Core". The Elementary School Journal. 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)

Farther reading [edit]

  • "How Serious Is America's Literacy Problem? Library Journal, Apr 29, 2020".
  • "News, Michigan reaches settlement in landmark correct-to-literacy case, APM Reports, 2020-05-15".

External links [edit]

  • National Cess of Developed Literacy
  • ProLiteracy

eadietwour1955.blogspot.com

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

0 Response to "Average Reading Level in the United States"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel