Upload
buicong
View
220
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
B y D o l o r e s P e r i n 2 0 1 6
Country profiles of formal and non-formal adult education opportunities in
literacy, numeracy and other skills: USA
This paper was commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report as background information to assist in drafting the 2016 report. It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the Global Education Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the Global Education Monitoring Report 2016, Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all”. For further information, please contact [email protected].
ED/GEMR/MRT/2016/P1/39
Background paper prepared for the 2016 Global Education Monitoring Report
Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all
08 Fall
2
Introduction
In the United States, 76% of the population (total 320m) are adults, defined from a legal
standpoint as individuals aged at least 18 years1. However, the minimum age for both eligibility
for adult education services and inclusion in national adult literacy surveys is 16 years.
Approximately 16% of the U.S. population aged 16 and above have low literacy skills, one third
have low numeracy skills (OECD, 2013c) and 9% have low English language proficiency
(Batalova & Fix, 2010). Further, according to the 2010 U.S. Census, 18% of adults have not
completed secondary education.
Historical development
In the 19th century, adult education began to be offered by charitable, religious, and other
organizations. In 1918, the federal government began to fund adult education in response to a
perception that many First World War recruits were functionally illiterate. From the 1960s to the
current day, national funding has been made available to the individual states for the operation of
adult education programmes. Other funding comes from non-governmental sources. At the
present time, formal and non-formal adult education focuses on literacy and numeracy skills
(adult basic education, or ABE) preparation for the high school equivalency diploma (adult
secondary education, or ASE), and English for speakers of other languages (ESOL). Woven into
this instruction are civics, citizenship skills, family literacy, financial literacy, information and
communication technologies (ICT), and college and career readiness.
1 This legal minimum contrasts with international definitions in which adulthood begins at age 15 (UNESCO, 2013).
3
Definitions
As frequently noted, it is difficult to delineate formal and non-formal education. Examples of
definitions are as follows. “Formal learning is always organised and structured, and has learning
objectives. From the learner’s standpoint, it is always intentional: i.e. the learner’s explicit
objective is to gain knowledge, skills and/or competence” (Chao & Mantero, 2014). Non-formal
learning is defined as “learning through a programme but it is not usually evaluated and does not
lead to certification” (Cameron & Harrison, 2012, p. 280) and “learning embedded in planned
activities that are not explicitly designated as learning, but which contain an important learning
element. Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s point of view” (Colardyn &
Bjornavold, 2004, p. 71). In the current report, formal adult education is operationalized as in-
person classroom instruction or online courses guided by curriculum centering adult education
objectives, and non-formal adult education is defined as structured learning opportunities that do
not involve classrooms or course work but nevertheless address identifiable adult education
objectives. Examples of non-formal adult education are tutoring by volunteers, and digital
resources for language practice.
National surveys in the U.S. define adult literacy in terms of three constructs, prose, document,
and quantitative literacy. Prose literacy is the ability to comprehend written stories, brochures,
instructional materials, and other text an adult may encounter in community, work or educational
contexts. Document literacy refers to the ability to understand information contained in written
forms, transportation schedules, maps, medicine labels and other authentic materials that do not
involve extended text. Quantitative literacy (or numeracy) is the ability to compute numbers in
real-life situations, for example calculating financial expenses, dosage of medicine from a
prescription, or amount of interest due for a financial loan2.
2 See appendix for a summary of levels of prose, document and quantitative literacy of U.S. adults.
4
Approaches to formal and non-formal adult education.
Formal adult education consists of organized classes following a curriculum of skills in literacy,
numeracy, and/ or English language. These classes are usually taught in person although they are
sometimes also available online. The terminal credential is the high school equivalency diploma
(popularly known as the General Education Development diploma, or GED), which is intended
to substitute for completion of traditional secondary education. Much of non-formal adult
education consists of individualized and small group tutoring by volunteers. This instruction is
offered by many different organizations, including public libraries, housing authorities, homeless
shelters, religious organizations, and advocacy groups such as those focusing on undocumented
mothers, and women who have been abused. Digital resources directly accessible through
websites are another non-formal option.
Country setting and literate environment
Setting. The United States is an industrialized country in which a high level of literacy is required
for civic participation and all but menial employment (U.S. Department of Education Office of
Career Technical and Adult Education (OCTAE), 2015). The high school equivalency diploma,
though the end point of adult education, and though associated with an increase in wages (Bowen
& Nantz, 2014; Reder, 2014), is only a step towards postsecondary education, which is considered
essential for full social involvement and career advancement in the U.S.
Legislation. The legislation governing federal expenditures on formal adult education is the Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), which is part of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA) and has been in effect for over 50 years. The most recent legislation,
signed into law in July 2014, requires the development of “one-stop” services that integrate adult
literacy, numeracy and ICT skills with workforce preparation. Under AEFLA, funds are
5
distributed to the states by formula based on census data to provide ABE, ASE and ESOL
instruction for individuals 16 years or older who have not completed secondary education and are
not attending school. Community colleges, school districts, community-based organizations and
religious organizations within each state are eligible to compete for funding. Eighty-three percent
of a state’s funding is awarded for instruction and the rest is retained by the state for teacher
training, administration, and other expenses.
The recently re-authorized legislation expands AEFLA’s purpose to transition from adult to
postsecondary education and career advancement, and also increases its focus on the needs of
immigrants, including instruction on U.S. government and values, responsibilities of citizenship.
The legislation now requires that adult education incorporate workforce skills, critical thinking,
digital literacy and self-management skills, and competencies needed to access and comprehend
resources on postsecondary transition or career preparation. WOIA requires common outcome
measures on the percentage employed after exit, earnings, attainment of credential, gain in skills,
and job performance, as applicable.
Description of current provision
Formal adult education. Formal adult education is offered in secondary school buildings,
community colleges, trade union facilities, prisons, and other settings. Based on assessment at
programme entry, students are placed in ABE, ASE, or ESOL classes at levels corresponding to
learner skills. Female participation is approximately 53% (Tomassia, Lennon, Yamamoto, &
Kirsch, 2007). The largest proportion of students (approximately 45%) are aged 25-44 years.
However, there has been a recent influx of youth aged 16-21 who have little chance of completing
traditional secondary education and are no longer attending school but wish to obtain a high
school equivalency diploma.
6
In fiscal year 2015, the federal government appropriated $568,955,000 for adult education,
$5,000,000 more than in the previous fiscal year. Adult education expenditures are significantly
lower than for public elementary and secondary education (World Education cites annual figures
of $800 versus $10,000 per student). AEFLA funding is administered by the Office of Career,
Technical, and Adult Education of the U.S. Department of Education.
Short-term formal adult education is also provided in special projects funded by grants and
contracts. Examples are ABE classes taught as part of intervention research by the Center for the
Study of Adult Literacy, a five-year, $10m initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Education;
and ABE, career preparation and ICT classes provided under a $450m Trade Adjustment
Assistance Community College and Career Training grant programme of the U.S. Department of
Labor. Another venue for formal adult education is in workplace literacy programmes provided in
partnerships between businesses and entities including community colleges. These programmes
may be funded through a combination of limited-term federal, state or local grants, and
corporation funding, and follow curricula developed based on job or industry needs.
There is no national adult education curriculum, although a statewide curriculum may be used.
Increasingly, a single set of standards is being used to shape curriculum. These standards are based
on the Common Core Standards for College and Career Readiness (National Governors'
Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010a, 2010b), developed for use in
elementary and secondary education, and modified slightly for adult use (Pimentel, 2013). Some
states have developed alternative educational standards which cover the same ground.
Unlike in some other countries, (Andersson, Köpsén, Larson, & Milana, 2013), there is no adult
education credential for instructors although many states require a teaching credential from
elementary or secondary education. The large majority of adult education instructors teach classes
7
as a part-time job and as such constitute a relatively low-paid workforce. There tends to be only
minimal training or professional development within programmes although the Literacy
Information and Communication System (LINCS) of the U.S. Department of Education offers
online professional development through webinars, study circles, and discussion boards, at no
charge. Various types of support are provided to promote instructional quality. An example is the
“STudent Achievement in Reading” (STAR) programme3, which, through U.S. Department of
Education funding, provides online resources to states and local programs to help them develop
and improve reading instruction for adults who read an intermediate level.
Non-formal adult education. Non-formal programmes are operated using limited-term funding from
federal, state and local government, philanthropic organizations, business corporations, public
libraries, housing authorities, religious organizations and private donations. Some states have
statewide organizations, such as Literacy Texas4, that coordinate and provide resources to non-
formal programmes.
An example of an organization providing non-formal education is ProLiteracy, which, through
grants, corporate sponsorship, and donations, provides tutoring to over 256,000 adults per year
(38% female, 62% male)5. The organization has existed since the 1930s and was previously named
Laubach Literacy, and Literacy Volunteers of America. According to the organization, over
235,000 adults in the U.S. receive services each year. ProLiteracy provides low cost training and
free resources for its instructors, 87% of whom are volunteers. Besides providing tutoring,
3 See http://www.startoolkit.org/
4 See http://www.literacytexas.org/
5 See http://www.proliteracy.org/members/statistical-‐report
8
ProLiteracy produces high interest, low readability adult books through its publishing arm, New
Readers Press.
Another example a non-formal provider is Literacy Partners6, which offers literacy and numeracy
instruction to over 1,500 low-income adults per year (53% female). Instruction is provided by both
volunteer tutors and paid teachers, and covers incorporates financial literacy, health literacy, and
job preparation. Financial literacy includes skills needed for banking, comprehending a paycheck,
and financial planning. Health literacy includes reading medicine labels, understanding medical
dosage, comprehending instructions regarding hazardous materials, and understanding health
issues. A further example of a non-formal provider is the Fortune Society, which provides ABE
and job skills training to formerly-incarcerated adults (the tutoring is provided by ex-inmates)7.
Non-formal digital resources are directly accessible by learners, and include materials such as
“Connect with English8” and “Crossroads Café9,” both available at no charge. Further, there is a
growing number of online digital resources for high school equivalency preparation for use
directly by adults. Digital and online resources are also occasionally used by teachers in formal
adult education programmes as a curriculum supplement.
Scale of programmes. Publicly funded, formal adult education programmes provide instruction to
up to 3m adults each year, which is a small fraction of the low-skilled population. In the year
2011-12, the most recent year for which national figures are reported, 1,085,182 adults were 6 See http://www.literacypartners.org/
7 See http://fortunesociety.org/
8 See http://www.learner.org/resources/series71.html
9 See http://www.ketadultlearning.org/esl/crossroads_cafe.htm
9
enrolled in ABE and ASE, and 1,818,806 in ESOL programmes (U.S. Department of Education
Office of Career Technical and Adult Education, 2015), i.e. 37% ABE and ASE combined, and
63% ESOL. A 2010 survey of local programmes conducted by the National Council of State
Directors of Adult Education (response rate one third) found that 160,000 adults were on waiting
lists, sometimes for as long as two years. The longest waiting lists by far were for ESOL classes.
Data on the scale of privately-funded and non-formal adult education is not available, although
63% of non-formal programmes offered through ProLiteracy have reported waiting lists of two to
three months. Information on scale or total funding of non-formal programs across the country
has evidently not been compiled to date.
Monitoring and evaluation
Since 1997, programmes operating under federal AEFLA funding have been accountable through
the National Reporting System (NRS, Division of Adult Education and Literacy, 2015). Outcome
measures comprise educational gain expressed in levels of reading, mathematics and English
language skills, obtaining the high school equivalency diploma, and employment indicators.
Students are assessed as functioning one of four levels of ABE, two levels of ASE, and/ or six
levels of English language proficiency. Each ABE and ASE level describes competence in reading,
writing, numeracy, functional literacy, and workplace skills, and the English language levels
describe listening and speaking, as well as the same literacy, functional and workplace skills
described for ABE and ASE.
Detailed descriptions of each educational level are provided in guidelines for programme
managers (Division of Adult Education and Literacy, 2015). Basic reading and writing skills at the
highest ABE and ASE levels cover adults’ ability to understand, explain and analyze a variety of
written materials, use information from context and higher order processes to interpret meanings
in printed text, and demonstrate writing that is cohesive, contains clear ideas and displays
10
sophisticated sentence structures and few errors. At the highest ABE and ASE levels, numeracy
skills include application of the four basic maths operations with whole numbers and fractions,
determination of correct operations to solve mathematical problems, conversion of decimals and
fractions, mathematical estimation of time and space, application of principles of geometry and
trigonometry. Measured functional and workplace skills include ability to follow multistep
directions, understand common legal forms and manuals, understand information from texts,
charts and graphs, fill out forms, create résumés, interpret text concerning job functions, use
common computer applications, and understand the use of new software and technology. English
language skills include the ability to understand and communicate in English in various daily life
and work contexts, understand and participate in everyday conversation, use basic grammar and
simpler English sentence structures, and demonstrate basic fluency in speech.
Levels of performance are entered to the NRS by programmes while the student is enrolled. After
the student exits, if the participant has declared a goal of completion of secondary education or
employment goals, the programme is required to report whether the whether the student passed
the high school equivalency test, whether he/ she entered and was retained in employment, and
whether the participant entered postsecondary education or training10. These follow-up data are
collected either through contact with the student or from state databases.
Performance is measured by standardized tests, which may be administered using paper or
computer. The tests used must be approved by the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult
Education (OCTAE, previously called the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, OVAE)11.
The most widely used tests of basic literacy and numeracy skills are the Test of Adult Basic
10 Requirements changed as of the 2012-‐13 year such that follow-‐up data is now collected for all participants rather than only those declaring the relevant goal (Division of Adult Education and Literacy, 2015, p. 2).
11 See http://www.nrsweb.org/docs/federalregistrarnotice_2015-‐19847.pdf
11
Education (TABE) and the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems (CASAS). An
example of a widely used test of oral English language skills is the Basic English Skills Test
(BEST). Test scores are translated by programme staff based on prescriptive NRS guidelines; a
range of scores is specified for each level (Division of Adult Education and Literacy, 2015, Exhibit
2.1).
The TABE measures skills in reading, basic mathematics (numeracy), language, language
mechanics, vocabulary, and spelling, as well as knowledge and skill required for the high school
equivalency examination, including science, social studies, algebra, geometry and writing. The
CASAS measures English language oral comprehension, mathematics, reading and writing skills.
The BEST requires an individualized interview, and measures speaking proficiency and
comprehension in the English language. Scores on these and the other approved measures
translate to NRS educational levels (six ABE/ ASE and six EL).
In addition to the above-mentioned performance measures, programmes must report the number
of hours a student attends, and the type of programme, such as prison, family or workplace
literacy programmes. Programmes are also required to report demographic data, including income
status (e.g., low income), and whether single parent, and/ or learning disabled.
Each state compiles annual statistics using the NRS variables12. Descriptive data for all states are
compiled in annual reports to Congress (the most recent report being for the 2011-2012 year: U.S.
Department of Education Office of Career Technical and Adult Education, 2015). Impact on
skills and knowledge is measured in terms of completion of at least one level. Annual percentages
of participants in each programme, i.e. ABE/ ASE, and EL are compared over three years. In the
12 See http://www.nrsweb.org/reports/state_snap.aspx
12
2011-2012 year there 1,818,806 participants, 47% in ABE, 13% in ASE, and 40% in ESOL
programmes.
National three-year data for 1,326,797 participants were reported for participants in ABE/ ASE
programmes; 1,110,204 in ESOL; 468,894 who had set a secondary completion goal; 144,867
aiming for postsecondary education or training; 231,395 with short-term employment goals; and
247,466 with job retention goals. In the 2011-12 year, 43% of ABE/ ASE participants completed
one or more levels, compared with 42% and 40% for the two preceding years, respectively.
Among ESOL students, 46% completed at least one educational level, compared to 44% for each
of the two preceding years. In addition, 61% of participants who set a goal of secondary
completion passed the high school equivalency examination, which was no change from the
preceding year but an increase from the 52% reported for 2009-2010. Fifty-eight percent entered
postsecondary education or training, compared from 56% and 60% in the two preceding years,
respectively. Among those who set employment goals, 47% entered employment compared to
48% and 49% for the two preceding years, and 66% retained their jobs, compared with 62% and
64% in the two earlier years (U.S. Department of Education Office of Career Technical and Adult
Education, 2015, Figures 4-9). In addition to the national data, results are stated in the report to
Congress for the same variables for each state.
Challenges regarding monitoring and assessment
Although federally-funded adult education programmes seem to be well monitored through the
NRS, there are significant challenges inherent in the assessment itself, as follows.
1. The outcome variables used in the NRS are not uniform with or easily translatable to those
used in other countries, ruling out international comparisons.
13
2. There is no identifiable theoretical framework underlying the NRS accountability system.
Adult literacy and numeracy performance is assessed in terms of standardized tests which
themselves have little theoretical grounding in regard to authentic adult literacy and
numeracy practices.
3. By their nature, standardized tests are not designed to describe adult functioning but rather
to discriminate between and rank test-takers. Although the National Reporting System
provides rigorous guidelines for translating test scores to educational levels, the actual test
items do not easily translate into adult literacy functions, casting doubt on the meaning of
the educational levels themselves.
4. No comparative data are collected, which prevents meaningful programme evaluation. The
only comparisons permitted in the current dataset are basic descriptive statistics for
successive years.
5. There is no analysis of the outcome data using covariates, making it impossible to know
whether gains can be attributed to programme, learner or social variables, or some
combination thereof. For example, the descriptive impact measurement does not permit
inferences as to why over half of ABE/ ASE and ESOL students (57% and 54%,
respectively) did not gain at least one educational level, and why over one third (39%) of
participants setting a secondary completion goal did not obtain the high school equivalency
diploma.
14
6. The statistical significance of annual programme gains is not reported, making it difficult to
assess impact.
7. National monitoring and assessment are only conducted for programmes in receipt of
federal funds i.e., under AEFLA, excluding instruction under non-federal funding, and
non-formal adult education from analysis.
Recommendation for developing a monitoring framework
Recommendations for the development of a monitoring framework are as follows.
1. Use uniform outcome variables. In the context of global sustainable development goals,
indicators of impact used in an adult education monitoring and assessment framework
should be uniform across countries. Such uniformity would allow countries to identify best
practices that could be shared and adopted to improve and possibly expand adult
education. Interested countries could collaborate to select feasible outcome variables. Since
literacy, numeracy, technological and workplace functions may differ considerably across
countries, it would be important to identify common basic functions that could be
measured in order to permit comparison. Measures used in a recent international survey of
adult literacy skills, the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC, OECD, 2013a) might be a start although it is noted that of the 33
countries participating in this study, none were from Africa or Latin America.
2. Inform framework with theory. The development of a sustainable adult education
assessment and monitoring framework would benefit from a theory of adult education.
Theoretical constructs of adults’ literacy and numeracy practices as well as non-cognitive
15
variables, such as motivation and self-efficacy that influence these practices, would allow
more meaningful assessment of adult education.
3. Use meaningful instrumentation. Assessment instruments should have a clear relation to
authentic adult literacy and numeracy practices. The determination of literacy and
numeracy levels should be anchored in these practices rather than proposed based on
scores from standardized tests, which tend to feature artificial rather than authentic items.
4. Compare outcomes. Design adult education evaluation research that permits comparison
not only longitudinally but between groups receiving different curricula and pedagogical
approaches. No-treatment comparisons should be included to ascertain the overall impact
of adult education.
5. Include covariates in impact analysis. Variables that may be moderators or mediators in
the ability to benefit from adult education should be included in impact evaluation.
Inclusion of non-cognitive variables such as intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy, as well
as social variables such as level of poverty, previous access to schooling, and mother’s
highest level of education, would provide a fuller account of program impact. Another
covariate that could be included is the quality of the teaching workforce, including
preparation of teachers in literacy and numeracy education as well as competence in
teaching adults as a unique population.
6. Report statistical significance and effect sizes. The monitoring of adult education
programmes should report on whether gains occurred by chance or may be attributed
16
systematically to programme participation. The magnitude of statistically significant
differences (effect sizes) should be reported.
7. A monitoring framework would benefit from including not only government-funded
programmes but those funded privately, and also from inclusion of non-formal adult
education efforts. Adopting a sustainable development perspective will require more than
simple accountability to funders; rather it would be useful to broaden the perspective to
adult education as a national and international endeavour. Thus, data should be collected
not only for monitoring the use of funds but for promoting adult literacy and numeracy for
the good of individual well-being as well as the country and the world beyond.
Literature Review
Adult literacy and numeracy skills are multi-faceted, and have been defined as follows: “Literacy
is defined as the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in
society, achieve one’s goals, and develop one’s knowledge and potential… Numeracy is
defined as the ability to access, use, interpret and communicate mathematical information and
ideas in order to engage in and manage the mathematical demands of a range of situations in
adult life” (OECD, 2013b, p. 4). Adult functional literacy, comprising reading, numeracy, critical
thinking and technological skills used in the multiple contexts of adult lives, have been measured
in two major surveys, one in the U.S. (Kutner et al., 2007, see appendix for summary) and the
other across 33 countries (OECD, 2013b). Literacy and numeracy skills among adults in the U.S.
have been measured for specific populations such as incarcerated adults (E. Greenberg, Dunleavy,
& Kutner, 2008).
17
Although the level of adults’ competency may be similar in some respects to that of children
(Nanda, Greenberg, & Morris, 2010), adults differently from children. For example, it has been
proposed that adults benefit from involvement in planning and evaluating their education;
mistakes adults make can be utilized as learning experiences; adults will learn best when the
content and skills taught are directly relevant to their current needs; and adults benefit most from
learning that centres on specific, personally-experienced problems (Knowles, 1984). Further, non-
cognitive variables such as intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy, which affect learning across the
age span, should not be overlooked in understanding adult education outcomes (MacArthur,
Philippakos, & Graham, 2015; Merriam & Bierema, 2013).
Only a fraction of adults with low literacy and numeracy skills participate in adult education in
the U.S. Based on findings of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, it has been estimated
that 36m adults need basic skills instruction. However, it appears that only about 2m adults
participate each year in federally-funded adult education programmes (U.S. Department of
Education Office of Career Technical and Adult Education, 2015). The number of participants in
other kinds of programmes, and who learn skills through non-formal means, is unknown but
seems likely to be relatively low. Research points to considerable challenges to adult education in
the U.S., such as sporadic attendance, attrition, and personal and social difficulties that impede
learning (Darkenwald & Valentine, 1985; D. Greenberg et al., 2013). It will be important to find
effective approaches to help this population access programmes, and improve their basic literacy,
numeracy and language skills. This is a pressing need, given pressure to replace an ageing
workforce, as well as new workplace demands in an information and technology economy, and
high levels of immigration to the U.S. of individuals for whom English is a new language.
18
References
Andersson, P., Köpsén, S., Larson, A., & Milana, M. (2013). Qualification paths of adult
educators in Sweden and Denmark. Studies in Continuing Education, 35(1), 102-118. doi:
10.1080/0158037X.2012.712036
Batalova, J., & Fix, M. (2010). A profile of limited English proficient adult immigrants. Peabody
Journal of Education, 85(4), 511-534. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2010.518050
Bowen, B. A., & Nantz, K. (2014). What is the value of the GED? College English, 77(1), 32-54.
Cameron, R., & Harrison, J. L. (2012). The interrelatedness of formal, non-formal and informal
learning: Evidence from labour market program participants. Australian Journal of Adult Learning,
52(2), 277-309.
Chao, X., & Mantero, M. (2014). Church-based ESL adult programs: Social mediators for
empowering "family literacy ccology of communities". Journal of Literacy Research, 46(1), 90-114.
doi: 10.1177/1086296X14524588
Colardyn, D., & Bjornavold, J. (2004). Validation of formal, non-formal and informal learning:
policy and practices in EU member states. European Journal of Education, 39(1), 69-89.
Darkenwald, G. G., & Valentine, T. (1985). Outcomes of participation in adult basic skills
education. Lifelong Learning, 8(5), 17-22.
Division of Adult Education and Literacy. (2015). Implementation guidelines: Measures and
methods for the National Reporting System for adult education. Washington, DC: Division of
Adult Education and Literacy, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from
http://www.nrsweb.org/foundations/implementation_guidelines.aspx.
Greenberg, D., Wise, J. C., Frijters, J. C., Morris, R., Fredrick, L. D., Rodrigo, V., & Hall, R.
(2013). Persisters and nonpersisters: Identifying the characteristics of who stays and who leaves
19
from adult literacy interventions. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(4), 495-514.
doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9401-8
Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., & Kutner, M. (2008). Literacy behind bars: Results from the 2003
National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey. Journal for Vocational Special Needs
Education, 30(2), 27-34.
Kirsch, I. S., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in America: A first
look at the findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NCES No. 93275). Washington, DC:
National Center on Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=93275.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., & Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in
everyday life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2007-480.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/Pubs2007/2007480.pdf.
Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., & Paulsen, C. (2006). The health literacy of America's adults:
Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics,, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006483.pdf.
MacArthur, C. A., Philippakos, Z. A., & Graham, S. (2015). A multicomponent measure of
writing motivation with basic college writers. Learning Disability Quarterly(online first). doi:
10.1177/0731948715583115
Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. New York:
Jossey-Bass/ Wiley.
20
Nanda, A. O., Greenberg, D., & Morris, R. (2010). Modeling child-based theoretical reading
constructs with struggling adult readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(2), 139-153. doi:
10.1177/0022219409359344
National Governors' Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common
core state standards: English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and
technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Available http://www.corestandards.org/.
National Governors' Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common
core state standards: Mathematics: Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf.
OECD. (2013a). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris,
France: OECD Publishing. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.
OECD. (2013b). Skilled for life? Key findings from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris, France:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/SkillsOutlook_2013_ebook.pdf.
OECD. (2013c). Time for the U.S. to reskill? What the Survey of Adult Skills says. Paris, France:
OECD Publishing. Available from http://skills.oecd.org/Survey_of_Adult_Skills_US.pdf.
Pimentel, S. (2013). College and career readiness standards for adult education. Washington, DC:
MPR Associates and U.S. Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
Available from https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/CCRStandardsAdultEd.pdf.
Reder, S. (2014). The impact of ABS Program participation on long-term economic outcomes.
Portland, OR: Department of Applied Linguistics, Portland State University and NOVA Research
Company. Available https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/ABS_EconomicOutcomes.pdf.
Tomassia, C., Lennon, M., Yamamoto, K., & Kirsch, I. (2007). Adult education in America: A
first look at results from the Adult Education Program and Learner Surveys. Princeton, NJ:
Education Testing Service. Retrieved from
http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/report/2007/dcjr.
21
U.S. Department of Education Office of Career Technical and Adult Education. (2015). Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998: Annual report to Congress, program year 2011–12.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/resource/octae-aefla-2011-2012.pdf
U.S. Department of Education Office of Career Technical and Adult Education (OCTAE).
(2015). Making skills everyone’s business: A call to transform adult learning in the United States.
Washington, D.C.: Author. Available
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/making-skills.pdf.
UNESCO. (2013). Adult and youth literacy: National, regional and global trends, 1985-2015.
Montreal, Quebec: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/literacy-statistics-trends-1985-2015.pdf.
22
Appendix: Findings of national literacy survey
Two national surveys have been conducted since 1992 to estimate the level of literacy of adults in
the U.S. (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993; Kutner et al., 2007). Scores for prose,
document and quantitative literacy, defined above, are calculated on a 500-point scale which is
then segmented to five levels (below basic, basic, intermediate and proficient). On all three
measures, the large majority of the population falls into the basic and intermediate levels.
Approximately 5% of the population is non-literate. Labor market, family, civic indicators are
higher for individuals who score in the higher ranges of the scale, and the intermediate level can
be considered as the minimum needed to function adequately on tasks and activities requiring
literacy in the U.S. Findings for prose and document literacy on the 2003 survey were similar. On
the prose scale, 14% of those tested were below the basic level, 29% were at the basic level, 44%
were at the intermediate level and 13% were proficient. On the quantitative scale, 22% were below
basic, 33% basic, 33% intermediate, and 13% proficient.
Overall, these statistics changed very little from the 1992 survey. However, although males and
females did not differ on prose literacy in the 1992, on the 2003 survey, females had higher scores,
with 54% scoring in the intermediate range, compared to 51% of males. Females showed relative
gains in quantitative skills in comparison with males between the two surveys. In 1992 there was a
three point difference, with 31% of males versus 28% of females scoring in the intermediate range,
while in 2003 the gap narrowed to one point, with 33% of males and 32% of females in the
intermediate range (Kutner et al., 2007, Figure 2.4)
Besides prose, document and quantitative literacy skills, the 2003 survey measured health literacy,
defined as the ability to understand basic health information, measured, again, at basic,
intermediate and proficient levels (Kutner, Greenberg, Jin, & Paulsen, 2006). It was found that
14% of adults had below-basic and 22% had only basic levels of health literacy. More than half of
23
respondents (53%) scored in the intermediate range, with 55% of females compared to 51% of
males scoring at this level. Further, 16% of males but only 12% of females were below the basic
level of health literacy. Apart from health, functional areas such as financial or computer literacy
have not been measured in national adult literacy surveys in the U.S.
Interpretation of findings of the national adult literacy surveys is complicated by the fact that a
proportion of low-literate adults in the U.S. are also not proficient in spoken English but are
included in the statistics. By far the most frequently language other than English in the U.S. is
Spanish. Individuals who spoke only Spanish or another non-English language before starting
school had the lowest scores in all areas measured (prose, document, quantitative and health
literacy). On the prose scale, 49% of respondents who spoke only English prior to beginning
school, compared with 42% of bilingual English and Spanish, and 13% Spanish-only scored in the
intermediate range of skill. On the quantitative scale, 35% of English-only, 26% of English and
Spanish, and 11% of Spanish-only speakers scored in the intermediate range (Kutner et al., 2007,
Figures 2-10a and 2-10c). There was a similar range of skills on the health literacy scale; adult who
spoke on English before starting school earned an average score of 251 while Spanish-only
speakers’ average score was 174 (Kutner et al., 2006, Table D2-6). Thus, literacy and spoken
language are closely intertwined, with the latter creating a potential confound for interpreting
adult literacy skills.