NAAL *2003: Indirect County and State Estimates of the Percentage of Adults at the Lowest Literacy Level for 1992 and 2003 just released.
National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) assessed the English literacy skills of a nationally representative sample of 18,500 U.S. adults (age 16 and older) residing in private households. NAAL is the first national assessment of adult literacy since the *1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS).
California State estimate: 23%
Estimates for California Counties (top 5 with lowest literacy rates):
41% Imperial
34% Colusa
33% Los Angeles
32% Tulare
29% Madera
Complete List @ ~ can view county-by-county for each state
~~~ note: can copy counties table and then sort by %'s
State estimates (full report):
~ can view state numbers by individual state or compare 2 states
~ the only table of all 50 states is Table B-1 mentioned above
*2003 SAAL states: KY, MD, MA, MO, NY, and OK
*1992 SALS states: CA, IL, IN, IA, LA, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TX, and WA
a few newspaper articles from around CA:
California literacy at bottom
Press Enterprise: Jan 8, 2009 by Shirin Parsavand
Almost 1 in 4 adults in California have such poor literacy skills they cannot follow a simple newspaper article, a federal study released Thursday said.
1 in 5 lacks basic literacy skills
Illiteracy numbers shot up between 1992 and 2003
NC Times: Jan 8, 09 by Stacy Brandt
The estimate is based on information that the National Center for Education Statistics collected in 2003 about adult literacy. It wasn't until recently that the center, a federal agency that gathers and analyzes education-related data, broke down the numbers to the state and county level.
In San Diego County, 21 percent of people 16 or older are functionally illiterate, the data show.
and a comment from Stephen Krashen's newsletter:
The "Decline" in Adult Literacy: Don't Blame Teachers and Schools!
Stephen Krashen, Professor Emeritus, USC - January 12, 2009
A number of newspaper articles have announced yet another "decline in literacy." This time it's adults, who, it is claimed, have dropped in literacy between 1992 and 2003, with a greater percentage lacking basic literacy.
This has resulted in the usual pious pronouncements about the low quality of our schools, our teachers, and poor teaching methods at all levels. Education Secretary Spellings, for example, was quoted in USA Today as saying that adult literacy programs are "inefficient" and "not using research-based methods" (January 8, 2008).
A look at the actual report shows that these conclusions are completely unjustified.
In 1992, only 24,000 adults in 11 states were actually tested on literacy. In 2003, only 18,500 adults in seven states were tested on literacy, a tiny percentage of the population. Researchers then gathered data on factors known to be connected to literacy, factors such as poverty levels, level of education, and minority status. They then used this data to make an educated guess about levels of literacy for the rest of the population.
In other words, one or more of the values of the predictors changed between 1992 and 2003 (the report does not specify which predictors have changed or how much). The change in the values of the predictors is undoubtedly the major reason for the "decline" of literacy that was reported. Literacy wasn't actually measured for most of the country.
The estimates of adult literacy are probably fairly accurate, and the value of the study is that it gives planners of adult literacy programs some idea of what they are up against.
The study does not, however, tell us whether schools are improving or getting worse, or whether one method of teaching reading is better than another, or whether teachers in general are better or worse than they were. All we really know from the study is that some things have changed between 1993 and 2003, factors that have nothing to do with teaching methods and teachers.
Critics should not blame schools for factors that have nothing to do with schools.
National Assessment of Adult Literacy: Indirect County and State Estimates of the Percentage of Adults at the Lowest Literacy Level for 1992 and 2003.
In fact, in the 1992, 24,000 adults in 11 states
2003: 18,500 in 7 states
They then estimated literacy rates in states not included, poverty, level of education, and minority status. Studies have shown that all of these are related to literacy.
In other words, most of the data is really a report on poverty, level of education, and minority status. In other words, what has changed between 1992 and 2003 is levels of poverty, levels of education, and percentage of minorities. They ASSUME from this that literacy levels have changed.
High poverty means less access to reading material.
Poverty not included in 1992 estimates, which may be why they are higher!
In other words, WHAT CHANGED WAS NOT LITERACY BUT LEVELS OF POVERTY, LEVELS OF EDUCATION AND PERCENTAGE OF MINORITIES.
