Adult Literacy and

Education in America

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

38

18

42

12

21

Carl F. Kaestle, Anne Campbell, Jeremy D. Finn, Sylvia T. Johnson, and Larry J. Mikulecky

Four Studies Based on the National Adult Literacy Survey

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2001–534
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

December 2001

Adult Literacy and

Education in America

Carl F. Kaestle

Anne Campbell

Jeremy D. Finn

Sylvia T. Johnson

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

NCES 2001–534

Larry J. Mikulecky
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Grover J. Whitehurst

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips

Acting Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing,

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in

the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of

such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review

and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable,

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality

data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers,

practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information

effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we

would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006–5651

December 2001

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is: http://nces.ed.gov

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/index.asp

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Adult Literacy and

Education in America: Four Studies Based on the National Adult Literacy Survey, NCES

1999-469, by Carl F. Kaestle, Anne Campbell, Jeremy D. Finn, Sylvia T. Johnson, and Larry

H. Mikulecky. Project Officer: Andrew Kolstad. Washington, DC: 1999.

For information on how to order this report, call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or go to the Internet:

http://www.ed.gov/edpubs.html

Content Contact:

Andrew Kolstad at (202) 502-7374

E-mail: andrew_kolstad@ed.gov

Internet: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/naal92
Contents ...... iii

Foreword ........................................................................................ xv

Acknowledgments .......................................................................... xvii

Preface ............................................................................................ xix

Executive Summary........................................................................ xxiii

The Survey ....................................................................................... xxiv

Formal Education and Adult Literacy Proficiencies (Chapter 2)...... xxv

School Noncompletion and Literacy (Chapter 3) .......................... xxvi

Adults Performing at the Two Lowest Literacy Levels (Chapter 4) ........ xxvii

Education for the Workplace (Chapter 5) ...................................... xxviii

Conclusion ....................................................................................... xxix

Chapter 1: Overview ...................................................................... 1

Defining and Measuring Literacy ................................................... 2

Conducting the Survey .................................................................... 5

Reporting the Results ...................................................................... 8

About This Report ........................................................................... 12

A Note on Interpretations ............................................................... 13

Chapter 2: Formal Education and Adult Literacy Proficiencies:

 Exploring the Relevance of Gender, Race, Age, Income,

 and Parents’ Education .............................................................. 15

Literacy and Schooling .................................................................... 16

Results by Gender....................................................................... 18

Results by Race/Ethnicity ........................................................... 21

Results by Parents’ Education Level ......................................... 27

Literacy and Household Income ................................................ 29

Results by Age ............................................................................. 30

Sorting Out the Variables ................................................................ 36

Summary: Education and Mediating Variables .............................. 40

CONTENTS
iv ...... Contents

Chapter 3: School Noncompletion and Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Completers, Alternative Completers, and Noncompleters . . . . . . . . 42

The Demographics of Noncompletion and Literacy Proficiency . 43

Language Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Heterogeneity among Noncompleters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Reasons for Dropping Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Further Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

School Noncompletion and Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Chapter 4: Adults Performing at the Two Lowest

 Literacy Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

The Meaning of Prose Literacy Proficiency for Levels 1 and 2 . . . . . 74

Background, Educational Experiences, and Literacy Practices:

Prose Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

The Meaning of Document Literacy Proficiency for

Levels 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Background, Educational Experiences, and Literacy Practices:

Document Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

The Meaning of Quantitative Literacy Proficiency for

Levels 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Background, Educational Experiences, and Literacy Practices:

Quantitative Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Assignment of Proficiency Scores to Nonrespondents . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Summary of Findings for Levels 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Extending the Examination of Lower Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Education as a Sufficient Intervention for Raising Literacy . . . . . . . 106

Chapter 5: Education for the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Relating Adult Responses to Occupational Categories . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Literacy Proficiencies of Workers in Various

Occupational Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

The Literacy Practices of Adults in Various Occupations . . . . . . . . . 117

Work Related Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Those Who Rarely Read . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Enrollment in Basic Skills Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Training Participants’ Proficiencies Compared with

Other Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Where Adults Learn Their Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Contents ...... v

Impact of Non-English Language, Learning Disabilities, and Race/

 Ethnicity on Literacy Proficiency in Various Occupations . . . . . . . 133

Language Predominantly Spoken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Learning Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Appendix A: Interpreting the Literacy Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Building the Literacy Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Defining the Literacy Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Interpreting the Literacy Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Prose Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Document Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Quantitative Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Successful Task Performance across the Literacy Levels . . . . . . . . . . 179

Missing Responses to Literacy Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Performance in the Lowest Literacy Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Population Diversity within the Lowest Literacy Level . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Appendix B: Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Appendix C: Overview of Procedures Used in the National Adult

 Literacy Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Background Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Literacy Assessment Booklets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Survey Design: BIB Spiralling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Training the Data Collection Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Administering the Data Collection Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Data Collection Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Scoring the Literacy Exercise Booklets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Data Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Editing and Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
vi ...... Contents

Overview of Linking the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS)

Scales to the Young Adult Literacy Survey (YALS) Scales . . . . . . 240

Statistical Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Appendix D: Definitions of All Subpopulations and

 Variables Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Appendix E: Participants in the Development Process and

 Information About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Contents ...... vii

Figures and Tables

Table 1.1: The National Adult Literacy Survey Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 1.1: Difficulty Values of Selected Tasks Along the Prose,

Document, and Quantitative Literacy Scales . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 1.2: Description of the Prose, Document, and Quantitative

Literacy Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 2.1: Percentages at Each Level and Average Proficiencies

on Each Literacy Scale, by Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 2.1: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Adults: Sex, by Education Level . . . . . . . 19

Table 2.2: Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies

of Adults: Age and Sex, by Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 2.3: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy

Scale of Adults: Race/Ethnicity, by Education Level . . . . . 22

Table 2.4: Percentages of Adults with 11 or Fewer Years of

Schooling Reporting Number of Years and Mean

Years, by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 2.5: Percentages of Adults at Higher Education Levels Only,

by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 2.2: Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose

Proficiencies, by Race/Ethnicity and Education Level . . . 26

Table 2.6: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Adults: Respondents’ Education

Level, by Parents’ Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 2.7: Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults

at Each Education Level, by Household Income . . . . . . . . 30

Table 2.8: Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose

Proficiencies of Adults, by Age and Education Level . . . . 32

Table 2.9A: Percentages of High School Graduates/GED Holders

in Levels 1 and 2, by Decade of Schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 2.9B: Percentages of College Graduates in Levels 4 and 5,

by Decade of Schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 2.10: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis, Prose Scale . . . . 38

Table 3.1: Percentages of Adults at Each Education Level,

by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 3.2: Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults:

Sex and Race/Ethnicity, by Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 3.3: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy

Scale of Adults in Each Age Group, by Education Level . . . 47
viii ...... Contents

Table 3.4: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy

Scale of Adults at Each Education Level,

by Household Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 3.5: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy

Scale of Adults at Each Education Level,

by Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 3.6: Percentages of Adults Reporting Education Level

and Age, by Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 3.7: Percentages of Adults Reporting Childhood Language

and Current Language, by Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 3.8: Average Proficiencies and Effect Size on Each Literacy

Scale of Dropouts and High School Graduates Reporting

Childhood Language and Current Language . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 3.9: Percentages and Average Proficiencies of Adults

Speaking Non-English Childhood Language at Each

Education Level, by ESL Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 3.10: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Scale

of Adults at Each Level of Education Reporting

Frequency of Personal Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table 3.11: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Dropouts: Age, Gender, and Total,

by Reasons for Dropping Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Table 3.12: Percentages of GED Holders and Dropouts Reporting

Enrollment in School and in Basic Skills Program;

and of Dropouts, by Age and Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Table 3.13: Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of

Dropouts and GED Holders, by Enrollment in

School and in Basic Skills Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 3.14: Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of

Dropouts: Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Age, by

Number of Weeks Worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Table 3.15: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy

Scale of Dropouts Reporting Personal Literacy Practices,

by Weeks Worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table 3.16: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Dropouts: Number of Weeks

Worked, by Frequency of Job Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 4.1: Percentages at Each Level and Prose Proficiencies,

by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Education Level,

Employment Status, and Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Contents ...... ix

Table 4.1A: Percentages of Adults at Each Prose Literacy Level,

by Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table 4.2: Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies

of Adults Reporting Language in Home,

Current Language and Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Table 4.2A: Percentages at Each Prose Literacy Level of Adults

Reporting Country of Birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table 4.3: Percentages of Adults at Each Age Group

Reporting Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table 4.4: Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies

of Adults Reporting Where They Learned

Various Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Table 4.5: Percentages at Each Level and Document Proficiencies,

by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Education Level,

Employment Status, and Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table 4.6: Percentages at Each Level and Average Document

Proficiencies of Adults Reporting Where They

Learned Various Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Table 4.7: Percentages at Each Level and Quantitative Proficiencies,

by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Education Level,

Employment Status, and Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 4.8: Percentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative

Proficiencies of Adults Reporting Language in Home,

Current Language and Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Table 4.9: Percentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative

Proficiencies of Adults Reporting Where They

Learned Various Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Table 4.10: Percentages of Adults in Racial/Ethnic Groups

by Completion of Literacy Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Table 4.11: Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose

Proficiencies of Respondents and Non-Respondents,

by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Table 4.12: Percentages at Each Level and Average Proficiencies

on Each Literacy Scale, by Respondent Samples . . . . . . . . 97

Table 4.12A: Percentages of Adults in Prose, Document, and

Quantitative Literacy Level 1, by Response Status . . . . . . 97

Table 4.13: Percentages of Adults at Each Education Level

by Completion of Literacy Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Table 4.14: Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies

of Respondent Samples by Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . 100
x ...... Contents

Table 5.1: Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale

of Adults in Major Occupational Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Table 5.2: Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies

of Adults in Occupational Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Table 5.3: Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of Workers

in Major Occupational Categories, by Frequency

of Job Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Table 5.4: Percentages of Workers in Major Occupational Categories

Reporting Frequent Reading of Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table 5.5: Percentages of Workers in Major Occupational Categories

Reporting Frequent Writing of Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Table 5.6: Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of Workers

in Major Occupational Categories, by Frequency

of Combined Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Table 5.7: Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults

Reporting Enrollment in Training Programs,

by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Table 5.8: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Adults at Each Education Level,

by Where Learned to Read Prose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Table 5.9: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Adults at Each Education Level,

by Where Learned to Read Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Table 5.10: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Adults at Each Education Level,

by Where Learned to Fill Out Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Table 5.11: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Adults at Each Education Level,

by Where Learned to Write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Table 5.12: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Workers in Collapsed Occupational

Categories, by Current Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Table 5.13: Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of

Workers in Major Occupational Categories,

by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Table 5.14: Percentages of Adults Who Reported Having a

Physical, Mental, or Other Health Condition . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Table 5.15: Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose

Proficiencies of Adults Reporting Type of Physical,

Mental, or Health Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Contents ...... xi

Figure A.1: Probabilities of Successful Performance on

Two Prose Tasks by Individuals at Selected

Points on the Prose Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Figure A.2: Average Probabilities of Successful Performance

by Individuals with Selected Proficiency Scores

on the Tasks in Each Literacy Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Table A.1: Percentages and Average Proficiencies of Adults

on Each Scale, by Assessment Completion Status . . . . . . . 183

Table A.2: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Scale of Adults in Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Table A.3: Percentages and Average Proficiencies of Adults

in Level 1 with At Least One Task Correct, by

Assessment Completion Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Table A.4: Percentages and Average Proficiencies of Adults

in Level I with No Tasks Correct, by Assessment

Completion Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Table A.5P: Percentages of Adults in Selected Groups, by

Membership in Total U.S. Population, in Level 1,

and in Level 1 with No Tasks Correct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Table A.5D: Percentages of Adults in Selected Groups, by

Membership in Total U.S. Population, in Level 1, and

in Level 1 with No Tasks Correct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Table A.5Q: Percentages of Adults in Selected Groups, by

Membership in Total U.S. Population, in Level 1,

and in Level 1 with No Tasks Correct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Table B2.1: Percentages at Each Level and Average Proficiencies

on Each Literacy Scale of Adults, by Education Level . . . 191

Table B2.2P: Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose

Proficiencies of Adults, by Race/Ethnicity and

Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Table B2.2D: Percentages at Each Level and Average Document

Proficiencies of Adults, by Race/Ethnicity and

Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Table B2.2Q: Percentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative

Proficiencies of Adults, by Race/Ethnicity and

Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Table B2.3: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Prose

Proficiency, by Race/Ethnicity and Subject’s Education . . 195

Table B2.4: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Prose

Proficiency Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
xii ...... Contents

Table B3.1: Percentages of Adults Speaking Non-English Language Before

School: Participation in ESL Course, by Education Level . . . 197

Table B3.2: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Adults Reporting Frequency of

Personal Literacy Practices, by Education Level . . . . . . . . 198

Table B3.3: Percentages of Dropouts Reporting Reason for Dropping Out,

by Frequency of Personal Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Table B3.4: Percentages of Dropouts Reporting Reason for

Dropping Out of School, by Whether Studied for GED . . 200

Table B3.5: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of GED Holders Reporting

Reason for Dropping Out of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Table B3.6: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Dropouts Reporting Whether They

Studied for GED, by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Table B3.7D: Percentages and Average Document Proficiencies of

Dropouts: Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Age, by Number

of Weeks Worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Table B3.7Q: Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of

Dropouts: Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Age, by Number

of Weeks Worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Table B4.1: Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose

Proficiencies of Adults Reporting Education

Level by Place of Birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Table B4.2: Percentages at Each Level and Average Document

Proficiencies of Adults Reporting Language in Home,

Current Language and Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Table B4.3D: Percentages at Each Level and Average Document

Proficiencies of Respondents and Non-Respondents,

by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Table B4.3Q: Percentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative

Proficiencies of Respondents and Non-Respondents,

by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Table B5.1D: Percentages at Each Level and Average Document

Proficiencies of Adults in Occupational Subcategories . . . 209

Table B5.1Q: Percentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative

Proficiencies of Adults in Occupational Subcategories . . . 210

Table B5.2: Percentages at Each Level and Average Proficiencies

on Each Literacy Scale of Adults in Major Occupational

Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Contents ...... xiii

Table B5.3D: Percentages and Average Document Proficiencies

of Workers in Major Occupational Categories, by

Frequency of Job Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Table B5.3Q: Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies

of Workers in Major Occupational Categories,

by Frequency of Job Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Table B5.4: Percentages of Service, Farm, and Labor Workers

Reporting Never Reading on the Job, by Region

of the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Table B5.5D: Percentages and Average Document Proficiencies

of Workers in Major Occupational Categories,

by Frequency of Combined Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . 215

Table B5.5Q: Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies

of Workers in Major Occupational Categories,

by Frequency of Combined Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . 216

Table B5.6: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale of Workers in Collapsed Occupational

Categories, by Participation in Training Programs . . . . . . . 217

Table B5.7D: Percentages and Average Document Proficiencies

of Adults Reporting Enrollment in Training Programs,

by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Table B5.7Q: Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies

of Adults Reporting Enrollment in Training Programs,

by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Table B5.8D: Percentages and Average Document Proficiencies

of Workers in Major Occupational Categories,

by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Table B5.8Q: Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies

of Workers in Major Occupational Categories,

by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Table B5.9D: Percentages at Each Level and Average Document

Proficiencies of Adults Reporting Type of Physical,

Mental, or Other Health Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Table B5.9Q: Percentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative

Proficiencies of Adults Reporting Type of Physical,

Mental, or Other Health Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Table C.1 Composition of the Item Pool for the National

Adult Literacy Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
xvi ...... Acknowledgments
Foreword...... xv

FOREWORD

The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey provided a statistical portrait of the

literacy skills of U.S. adults age 16 years and older. The wealth of information

flowing from this survey gave new information resources to the community of

adult educators and scholars of literacy that had previously had few statistical

resources to bring to the policy arena.

The population of adults age 16 years and older changes very slowly over

time, as immigrants arrive, emigrants leave, young people are born and reach

the age of 16, and people die. Because most adults in this age group have

finished their formal schooling, changes in aggregate literacy skills are probably

marginal. Because it is safe to assume that the literacy skills of this population

change slowly over time, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

plans subsequent literacy assessments at one-decade intervals. The next

national assessment of adult literacy is expected in 2002, with data reporting

scheduled for 2003. Because changes in skills occur so slowly, it is also true that

analyses of the 1992 data remain relevant today.

A number of different secondary analysts have used the 1992 survey to

illuminate aspects of adult literacy. This study of the relationship between

education and the literacy skills of adults was commissioned by NCES as one in

a series of reports designed to provide a more detailed look at particular

aspects of adult literacy. While prepared in consultation with NCES staff and

other experts, in the end this report presents the views of the authors, not of

NCES or the U.S. Department of Education. NCES commissioned this report

to promote the exchange of ideas among researchers and policymakers.

Peggy G. Carr

Associate Commissioner

Assessment Division
xvi ...... Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments ...... xvii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We extend our appreciation to the many individuals who contributed to the

project and helped create this report. Thanks are especially due the members of

the Literacy Definition Committee, the Technical Review Committee, the

Literacy of Incarcerated Adults Review Group, and the Literacy of Older Adults

Review Group. The members of these committees, whose names are listed in

appendix E, guided the project from beginning to end.

The National Adult Literacy Survey was a cooperative effort planned by the

National Center for Education Statistics and the Division of Adult Education and

Literacy of the U.S. Department of Education. Emerson Elliott, commissioner,

provided consistent support and guidance. Andrew Kolstad, the project monitor,

conscientiously guided the project and provided careful reviews of project

deliverables. We also thank Gary Phillips, Sue Ahmed, Joan Seamon, and Ron

Pugsley, who played crucial roles in the project.

Thanks are due our colleagues at Westat, Inc., for their outstanding work in

managing the complex sampling, data collection, and composite weighting

processes for the survey. We especially thank project director Martha Berlin, senior

statistician Joe Waksberg, statisticians Leyla Mohadjer and Jim Green, field director

Sue Rieger, and field managers Rich Hilpert, Merle Klein, Judy Meader, and Cindy

Randall. The hundreds of field supervisors and interviewers who carried out the

survey deserve special thanks for their efforts. We are grateful to Renee Slobasky,

senior vice president of Westat, for her continuing support.

At Educational Testing Service, we wish to thank Sam Messick for serving as

corporate officer for the survey. Mary Michaels coordinated the committee

meetings, the publication of the assessment framework booklet, and other aspects of

the project, ensuring that the work proceeded smoothly.

Doug Rhodes coordinated the state adult literacy survey project as well as

printing and shipping operations for the national survey, assisted by Cathy

Shaughnessy. Jules Goodison provided senior guidance and support, particularly in

the operations process, and we are grateful to him for his many contributions. We

would also like to express our appreciation to Dave Hobson for his sense in

financial and other matters.
xviii ...... Acknowledgments

Our thanks go to all those who carried out the enormous volume of operations

work — in particular Debbie Giannacio, who ably coordinated the receipt of the

survey materials, follow-up activities, and quality control. She was assisted by

Kathy Miller who also provided administrative support for the project. We

acknowledge the contributions of Joanne Antonoff who helped prepare the National

Adult Literacy Survey proposal and whose memory we cherish.

We thank Don Rock and Kentaro Yamamoto of Educational Testing Service,

who directed the statistical and psychometric activities and provided invaluable

guidance on technical matters. Robert Mislevy helped us reflect on statistical as

well as philosophical questions, and Charlie Lewis, Neal Thomas, and Ming-Mei

Wang were available for statistical advice.

Norma Norris deserves special honors for conducting the statistical work and

managing the data analysis. Her support went above and beyond the call of duty,

and we are grateful for her dedication to the project. Additional thanks are extended

to Jim Ferris, Dave Freund, Tom Jirele, Bruce Kaplan, Jennifer Nelson, Inge

Novatkoski, Kate Pashley, and Lois Worthington, who shared responsibility for

conducting the data analyses. Thanks to John Barone for helping to oversee the data

analysis activities.

We also wish to thank those who assisted us on particular chapters. Colleen

Main ably assisted in preparing tabular information for chapter 3. Our hearty thanks

to Michael Olneck of the Departments of Educational Policy Studies and Sociology

at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for assistance in interpreting the regression

analysis in chapter 2.

As this report took shape, many reviewers asked questions and provided

insights that helped us sharpen our thinking and writing. In particular; we wish to

thank Paul Barton, Archie Lapointe, and Kentaro Yamamoto for their suggestions.

We appreciate the thoughtful comments we received from the government

reviewers.

Beverly Cisney provided invaluable assistance in word processing and desktop

publishing for this report. Her commitment to the project is appreciated.

Producing this report was made possible by the excellent work of the ETS

Publications Division. In particular, we thank Robin Matlack, who conceived of the

beautiful design for the report; Peter Stremic, who ensured the report met the

highest standards.

Finally, we wish to thank the thousands of adults across the country who gave

their time to respond to the survey. Without their participation, this study would not

have been possible.

Carl Kaestle Sylvia Johnson

Anne Campbell Larry Mikulecky

Jeremy Finn
Preface ...... xix

1 B.E. Bryant. (1991). “The Changing Face of the United States.” The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1991.

New York, NY: Pharos Books. p. 72

2 United States Department of Commerce. (April 1993). “Number of Non-English Language Speaking

Americans Up Sharply in 1980s, Census Bureau Says.” United States Department of Commerce News.

PREFACE

 The United States has always been a mosaic of cultures, but the diversity

of our population has increased by striking proportions in recent years. As

Barbara Everitt Bryant, former director of the Bureau of the Census, has

written: “If you gave America a face in 1990, it would have shown the first sign

of wrinkles [and] it would have been full of color.”1

 The median age of

Americans continues to rise, growing from 30 to almost 33 years during the

1980s. It is projected that by the year 2080, nearly 25 percent of the adults in

this nation will be over 65, compared with only about 12 percent today. The

racial and ethnic composition of the nation also continues to change. While 3.7

million people of Asian or Pacific Islander origin were living in this country in

1980, there were 7.2 million a decade later — an increase of almost 100

percent. The number of individuals of Hispanic origin also rose dramatically

over this time period, from roughly 6 to 9 percent of the population, or to more

than 22 million people. Our increasing diversity can not only be seen but also

be heard: today, some 32 million individuals in the United States speak a

language other than English, and these languages range from Spanish and

Chinese to Yupik and Mon-Khmer.2

Given these patterns and changes, this is an opportune time to explore the

literacy skills of adults in this nation. In 1988, the U.S. Congress called on the

Department of Education to support a national literacy survey of America’s

adults. While recent studies funded by the federal government explored the

literacy of young adults and job seekers, the National Adult Literacy Survey is

the first to provide accurate and detailed information on the skills of the adult

population as a whole — information that, to this point, has been unavailable.

Perhaps never before have so many people from so many different

sectors of society been concerned about adult literacy. Numerous reports
xx ...... Preface

published in the last decade — including A Nation at Risk, The Bottom Line,

The Subtle Danger, Literacy: Profiles of America’s Young Adults, Jump Start: The

Federal Role in Adult Education, Workforce 2000, America’s Choice: High Skills or

Low Wages, and Beyond the School Doors — have provided evidence that a

large portion of our population lacks adequate literacy skills and have

intensified the debate over how this problem should be addressed.

Concerns about literacy are not new. In fact, throughout our nation’s

history there have been periods when the literacy skills of the population were

judged inadequate. Yet, the nature of these concerns has changed radically over

time. In the past, the lack of ability to read and use printed materials was seen

primarily as an individual problem, with implications for a person’s job

opportunities, educational goals, sense of fulfillment, and participation in

society. Now, however, it is increasingly viewed as a national problem, with

implications that reach far beyond the individual. Concerns about the human

costs of limited literacy have, in a sense, been overshadowed by concerns about

the economic and social costs.

Although Americans today are, on the whole, better educated and more

literate than any who preceded them, many employers say they are unable to find

enough workers with the reading, writing, mathematical, and other competencies

required in the workplace. Changing economic, demographic, and labor-market

forces may exacerbate the problem in the future. As a study by the American

Society for Training and Development concluded, “These forces are creating a

human capital deficit that threatens U.S. competitiveness and acts as a barrier to

individual opportunities for all Americans.”3

Whether future jobs will have greater literacy requirements than today’s

jobs, or whether the gap between the nation’s literacy resources and its needs will

widen, are open questions. The evidence to support such predictions is scarce.

What many believe, however, is that our current systems of education and

training are inadequate to ensure individual opportunities, improve economic

productivity, or strengthen our nation’s competitiveness in the global

marketplace.

There is widespread agreement that we as a nation must respond to the

literacy challenge, not only to preserve our economic vitality but also to ensure

that every individual has a full range of opportunities for personal fulfillment and

participation in society. At the historic education summit in Charlottesville,

Virginia, the nation’s governors — including then-Governor Clinton — met with

then-President Bush to establish a set of national education goals that would

guide this country into the twenty-first century. As adopted in 1990 by members

of the National Governors’ Association, one of the six goals states:

3 A.P. Carnevale, L.J. Gainer, A.S. Meltzer, and S.L. Holland. (October 1988). “Workplace Basics: The Skills

Employers Want.” Training and Development Journal. pp. 20-30.
Preface ...... xxi

By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess

the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in

a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities

of citizenship.

The following year, Congress passed the National Literacy Act of 1991, the

purpose of which was “to enhance the literacy and basic skills of adults, to ensure

that all adults in the United States acquire the basic skills necessary to function

effectively and achieve the greatest possible opportunity in their work and in

their lives, and to strengthen and coordinate adult literacy programs.”

But how should these ambitious goals be pursued? In the past, whenever the

population’s skills were called into question, critics generally focused on the

educational system and insisted that school reforms were necessary if the nation

were to escape serious social and economic consequences. Today, however, many

of those who need to improve their literacy skills have already left school. In fact,

it is estimated that almost 80 percent of the work force for the year 2000 is

already employed. Moreover, many of those who demonstrate limited literacy

skills do not perceive that they have a problem. Clearly, then, the schools alone

cannot strengthen the abilities of present and future employees and of the

population as a whole. A broad-based response seems necessary.

To initiate such a response, we need more than localized reports or anecdotal

information from employers, public leaders, or the press; accurate and detailed

information about our current status is essential. As reading researchers John

Carroll and Jean Chall observed in their book Toward a Literate Society, “any

national program for improving literacy skills would have to be based on the best

possible information as to where the deficits are and how serious they are.”4

Surprisingly, though, we have lacked accurate and detailed information about

literacy in our nation — including how many individuals have limited skills, who

they are, and the severity of their problems.

In 1988, Congress asked the U.S. Department of Education to address this

need for information on the nature and extent of adult literacy. In response, the

Department’s National Center for Education Statistics and Division of Adult

Education and Literacy called for a national household survey of the literacy

skills of adults in the United States. A contract was awarded to Educational

Testing Service and a subcontract to Westat, Inc. to design and conduct the

National Adult Literacy Survey, results from which are presented in these pages.

During the first eight months of 1992, trained staff conducted household

interviews with nearly 13,600 individuals aged 16 and older who had been

4 J.B. Carroll and J.S. Chall, eds. (1975). Toward a Literate Society: A Report from the National Academy of

Education. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. p. 11.
xxii ...... Preface

randomly selected to represent the adult population in this country. In

addition, some 1,100 inmates from 80 federal and state prisons were

interviewed to gather information on the skills of the prison population. Finally,

approximately 1,000 adults were surveyed in each of 12 states that chose to

participate in a special study designed to produce state-level results that are

comparable to the national data. Each individual was asked to spend about an

hour responding to a series of diverse literacy tasks and providing information

on his or her background, education, labor market experiences, and reading

practices.

The results of the National Adult Literacy Survey comprise an enormous set

of data that includes more than a million responses to the literacy tasks and

background questions. More important than the size of the database, however, is

the fact that it provides information that was previously unavailable —

information that is essential to understanding this nation’s literacy resources.

To ensure that the survey results will reach a wide audience, the

committees that guided the project recommended that the findings be issued

in a series of reports. This volume discusses the interrelationship between

literacy and education. The series also includes a report that provides an

overview of the results of the survey as well as additional reports that offer a

more detailed look at particular issues, including:

• literacy in the work force

• literacy among prisoners

• literacy among older adults

• literacy and cultural diversity

• literacy practices

A final report conveys technical information about the survey design and

the methods used to implement it.

Although these reports focus almost exclusively on the results of the

National Adult Literacy Survey, their contents have much broader implications.

The rich collection of information they contain can be used to inform policy

debates, set program objectives, and reflect on our society’s literacy resources

and needs.

Irwin S. Kirsch

Project Director
Executive Summary ...... xxiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Adult Literacy Survey provides the most detailed portrait ever

created of the English literacy abilities of our nation’s adults. Funded by

Congress through the U.S. Department of Education, the survey was conducted

in 1992. In 1993, the Department published a summary overview of the results,

which described the literacy skills of adults in the United States and discussed

differences among various groups in the population.1

 Subsequently, the

Department invited people who had served on the two advisory committees for

the survey to produce a series of reports that look at the results of the survey,

addressing different special topics in ways they believed would interest literacy

workers, policymakers, and the general public. The present report explores the

relationship between formal schooling and adult literacy proficiency in a more

detailed and analytical way than was possible in the initial overview.

The most pervasive result of the National Adult Literacy Survey is that level

of formal schooling is strongly related to adult literacy proficiency. This may

strike some as surprising, given much recent criticism of schools for failing to

teach reading effectively and for failing to make school learning relevant to reallife tasks. Nonetheless, increased levels of formal schooling correlated with

substantial gains in adult literacy proficiency for all groups, at all levels of

education. This set of four research essays investigates that relationship in several

ways: by exploring the interrelationships of race/ethnicity and age to literacy

proficiency and formal schooling; by providing a picture of who drops out and

what impact that decision has on adult literacy proficiency; by looking at those

least effectively served by schools — those whose proficiencies were in the two

lowest levels on the literacy scales; and by exploring how these adult

proficiencies map out into the world of work.

1 I.S. Kirsch, A. Jungeblut, L. Jenkins, and A. Kolstad. (September 1993). Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results

of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
xxiv ...... Executive Summary

The Survey

The National Adult Literacy Survey avoided characterizing adults as either

literate or illiterate people. Instead, it profiled the literacy abilities of adults

based on their performance on a wide array of tasks using the kinds of materials

they actually encounter in their daily lives. The tasks assessed such literacy skills

as finding information, making inferences, interpreting tables, reading maps, and

making calculations.

The information was gathered in 1992. Trained staff interviewed over

13,600 adults in households across the country. The participants were randomly

selected to represent the adult population of the country as a whole. An additional

1,000 adults were interviewed in each of 11 states that chose to participate in a

concurrent survey designed to provide results that are comparable to the national

data. Finally, 1,150 inmates in 80 federal and state prisons were surveyed. The

prisons were randomly selected to represent prisons across the country, and the

inmates themselves were randomly selected from each of the prisons. A total of

26,000 adults participated in the study.

Using an extensive background questionnaire, interviewers collected

information about respondents’ demographic characteristics, educational

background, reading practices, and other characteristics related to literacy. Then

participants responded to a set of literacy tasks. Analyses of their responses

yielded proficiency scores that profiled their skills on three literacy scales —

prose, document, and quantitative. The scales were each divided into five levels

that define the increasing difficulty and complexity of the tasks associated with

them. Combining the results of the background questionnaires with the literacy

proficiency scores produced a wealth of information about the characteristics of

people with different literacy skills.

This report explores the links between education and literacy in several

ways. After an overview (chapter 1), the report discusses the relationship

between literacy skills and formal schooling across different social categories and

across age cohorts (chapter 2). Then it describes the literacy proficiencies and

other characteristics of individuals who did not complete high school (chapter 3),

as well as the characteristics — educational and otherwise — of individuals

whose proficiency scores were in the range of the lower two levels on the literacy

scales (chapter 4). Finally, it discusses the proficiencies and characteristics of

respondents in the workforce and explores some of the implications for adult

educators (chapter 5). Here are some of the highlights from these chapters.
Executive Summary ...... xxv

Formal Education and Adult Literacy Proficiencies (Chapter 2)

The main finding that pervades the data on education in the National Adult

Literacy Survey is that literacy proficiency is strongly related to levels of formal

schooling. Each successive level of formal education is accompanied by a rise in

average literacy proficiencies. This does not prove a causal relationship, but it

suggests that high literacy abilities and high levels of education strongly

reinforce one another. Given the many criticisms of America’s schools in recent

decades, the sturdy association of formal education and adult literacy skills

deserves our attention. If one suspects that more schooling fosters adult literacy

skills, on average, it has strong policy implications. The following figures show

how this plays out on the 500-point scale for prose literacy. Respondents who did

not complete high school averaged 231 on the prose scale. Those who completed

high school averaged 270, and those with a four-year college degree averaged 322.

Literacy proficiency also relates strongly to race/ethnicity, defined in most

of our tables as White, Black, Hispanic, and other. Although the total sample in

the National Adult Literacy Survey is very large and is representative of the

nation’s entire population, sample sizes of other racial/ethnic groups were

generally not sufficient for reporting results separately. The prose proficiency of

White adults averages 287, while that of Black adults is 237 and Hispanic adults

216. The correlation between racial/ethnic groups and literacy proficiency is

partially explained by differential levels of education, parental education,

income, or other variables that differ by race. Our data do not measure

differential quality of schooling and other factors, such as motivation and

opportunity, that might affect the acquisition of literacy skills. Our data do

demonstrate, however, that schooling plays a double role in shaping the English

literacy proficiencies by race/ethnicity: some groups are able to attain more

schooling than others, which, on average, correlates with higher literacy

proficiencies; second, at a given level of educational attainment, groups differ in

average literacy attainment. This second phenomenon may be caused by a

difference in the quality of schooling experienced by different groups and by

other factors discussed in chapter 2.

An interesting relationship is observed between literacy proficiency and age.

Average literacy proficiencies rise with each older cohort up to those who are in

their 40s and then decline in the older population. The rise from the cohort in

their 20s to the cohort in their 40s is not due to more effective schooling in earlier

decades — indeed, there is no decline in the levels of literacy proficiency at a

given level of formal education as we move from the 40-year olds to the 20-year
xxvi ...... Executive Summary

olds. Rather, it is because many people in the cohorts of 30-year olds and 40-

year olds have continued to get formal education as adults. This is a picture of a

learning society. The continuing formal education of adults is much reduced

beyond age 50, and the initial schooling levels of Americans in those older

cohorts were also lower; the literacy proficiencies of older cohorts are lower as

well. Everything seems to point toward a connection between formal education

and adult literacy skills, across all groups and all ages.

School Noncompletion and Literacy (Chapter 3)

In general, proficiency on all three dimensions of literacy is lowest for

individuals who have not graduated from high school, higher for high school

graduates and GED holders, and highest for individuals who have attended

postsecondary schooling. This pattern is found for African-American, Hispanic,

and White populations alike, for males and females alike, and for adults in all age

ranges. At the same time, the average proficiencies of Hispanic adults who did

not begin or complete high school are substantially below those of other school

noncompleters. This group represents almost half of all Hispanic individuals

sampled. The primary language spoken at home as a child may provide a partial

explanation. High school noncompleters who grew up in Spanish-speaking

homes demonstrate lower proficiencies than noncompleters from other language

homes, even though high school graduates who grew up in Spanish-speaking

homes do not exhibit this handicap.

Among high school dropouts, there is little or no relationship between

literacy proficiency and employment. For high school graduates, however, higher

proficiency is associated with an increased likelihood of being employed. Thus,

for individuals who do not complete high school, increased literacy proficiency

does not provide an advantage in obtaining part-time or full-time work.

High school dropouts who were out of the workforce demonstrate extremely

low literacy proficiencies. This group includes a large number of older

individuals (78 percent of all noncompleters 55 years of age or older) and also a

substantial number of younger adults (27 percent of under-55 dropouts). Smaller

percentages of high school graduates in either age bracket reported being out of

the workforce and, at the same time, their literacy proficiencies are not nearly as low.

In spite of the handicap in average literacy proficiency, individuals who do

not complete high school are a diverse group. They leave school for a variety of

reasons and engage in a wide range of work, education, and literacy-related
Executive Summary ...... xxvii

activities after leaving. For example, individuals who reported leaving school

because of loss of interest or behavior problems or because of pregnancy have

significantly higher proficiencies as adults and engage in significantly more literacy

practices in comparison with individuals who dropped out for other reasons.

A small but noteworthy proportion of noncompleters enrolled in part-time

or full-time educational programs after leaving school. Approximately 18

percent of noncompleters reported studying for a high-school equivalency

diploma and, by a conservative estimate, at least 4 percent completed the GED

program. Their average literacy proficiency is at least as high as that of high

school graduates. Given the generally powerful correlation between formal

schooling and adult literacy skills noted in chapter 2, it is important to keep in

mind the range of literacy skills among adults at a given education level,

including those who did not complete high school.

Adults Performing at the Two Lowest Literacy Levels (Chapter 4)

We have seen that there is a range of literacy proficiencies among those who did

not complete high school. Conversely, there is a range of educational attainment

among those whose literacy proficiencies were in the lower levels in the National

Adult Literacy Survey. About 60 percent of those in Level 1 on the prose literacy

scale did not complete high school, and 14 percent of college graduates perform

in Level 1 or 2. For policy purposes, the two-edged finding of the survey is

important: educational attainment correlates strongly and regularly with literacy

proficiency, yet some individuals with many years of schooling are among the

group with low literacy proficiency.

Nearly half the adult population perform in Level 1 or Level 2. They are

diverse in terms of educational experience and social characteristics.

Nonetheless, some relationships are evident, and they are relevant to discussions

of literacy and education. First, although level of education does not predict

literacy proficiency in individual cases, there is a strong relationship between

literacy and education. For example, among respondents who went to high school

but did not graduate, 80 percent perform in Level 1 or 2 on the prose scale;

among those who had some college but no degree, 31 percent do. There is also a

relationship between literacy and race/ethnicity: among African-American adults,

as well as among Hispanic adults, 75 percent demonstrate prose proficiency in

Level 1 or 2, compared with 39 percent of White respondents.
xxviii ...... Executive Summary

Some respondents to the National Adult Literacy Survey completed the

background questionnaire but completed none of the literacy tasks, or not enough

to produce proficiency scores. If they had been excluded from the tables, the

sample would no longer have been nationally representative; thus, procedures for

estimating their probable scores were implemented. About 12 percent of the

entire sample consisted of such nonresponders. Among those classified in Level

1, however, the percentage was much higher; about 41 percent were

nonresponders among those performing in Level 1 on the prose scale.

Respondents were asked why they did not complete the cognitive sections; if

their reply was unrelated to reading ability (for example, they had a physical

disability, or no time, or simply refused to continue), the average scores of other

respondents with similar background characteristics (age, ethnicity, gender,

region) were factored in when estimating their literacy proficiency. If their reason

was related to literacy (did not speak English, did not read well), then the

estimate was lower. The estimates were also influenced by any cognitive items

the respondent did complete.

Unfortunately, there is no way to be certain that these estimates did not

underestimate the literacy abilities of noncompleters, so caution is required in

discussing respondents demonstrating proficiency in Level 1. It may be that some

respondents had literacy abilities above Level 1 but wished to avoid the

discomfort of having their literacy abilities tested and rated. Although the

estimation procedures might underestimate some respondents’ literacy

proficiency, the same attitudes or anxieties that made them reluctant to complete

the survey may cause them to avoid other literacy tasks in their everyday lives.

Low literacy is thus a form of double jeopardy in people’s lives: it is both a

technical disadvantage and a social stigma. It can both keep one from learning

what one needs to know and add insult to injury by embarrassing an individual. It

is a double disadvantage that policymakers and adult literacy workers need to

keep in mind.

Education for the Workplace (Chapter 5)

When we follow respondents into the workforce, we find that many workers who

perform in Level 1 or 2 are laborers, in food service, in child care, and in

maintenance occupations. These individuals are unlikely to succeed

independently and consistently at the literacy tasks of moderate difficulty

demanded in many workplaces. In some occupational areas — service workers,
Executive Summary ...... xxix

farming and forestry — a substantial minority of workers say they rarely read

on the job, but most workplaces are alive with literacy activities and literacy

demands, and even in traditionally lower-status jobs many workers must write

memoranda and reports. Workers who rarely read at home or on the job,

however, demonstrate the lowest proficiencies, which is cause for concern as

research indicates that learning loss occurs when there is lack of practice.

About 8 percent of all employees have sought basic skills training from an

employer or union program, publicly sponsored classes or tutoring, or other

program. Surprisingly, the percentage is about the same at all occupational levels

and at all educational levels. Managerial and professional workers reported that

they had sought basic skills training in the same proportions as laborers or

clerical workers. Also, those enrolled in basic skills training were distributed

equally across all educational levels.

Not surprisingly, most workers reported that basic prose reading ability was

learned at school or at home, not at work. But other literacy abilities, some

respondents said, were learned mainly at work, and some interesting patterns

were evident in the data. People of lower education levels more often said that

they learned how to manipulate documents, graphs, and tables primarily at work,

perhaps because they had limited exposure to them at school or at home. People

with higher education levels tended to report that they learned to write at work,

suggesting either that they are asked to write more at work and thus learn from

the experience or that they are offered more actual instructional opportunities to

improve their writing at work.

The National Adult Literacy Survey confirms a picture of workers with

widely varying literacy proficiencies and a workplace with literacy demands for

most workers. The data should be helpful for those planning literacy instruction

in workplace settings.

Conclusion

If there is one simple message about education and literacy in the National

Adult Literacy Survey, it is that education matters. Formal education correlates

strongly with higher literacy abilities at all levels and among all groups. We

cannot prove from such correlations that education causes higher literacy

abilities, but anyone who thinks that formal education only functions to hand

out credentials, or that schools are failing to make a difference in people’s

actual functional skills, must reckon with these data. They show substantial
xxx ...... Executive Summary

literacy gains at every increasing level of formal schooling among all groups,

including males and females, racial/ethnic groups, and age groups.

Literacy is complex, however, and no simple message is very helpful. The

results also contain many double messages about the relationship between

literacy and education. First, there is always a substantial number of individuals

who defy the relationships, and policymakers must keep these possibilities in

mind. There are people with a high level of educational attainment and low

literacy skills, and vice versa. There are dropouts with average literacy skills, and

executives with minimal literacy skills. Second, the association of formal

schooling with higher literacy skills is attributable partially to other factors such

as high parental education or high economic status. People with various

advantages also tend to get a lot of education. Thus, the answer to our problems

in the United States will never be simply more education for everyone. Third, not

all groups gain equal benefit from more education, whether measured in literacy

proficiency or other cognitive outcomes. In particular, not only is there a

relationship between race/ethnicity and educational attainment, but also between

race/ethnicity and literacy proficiency at a given education level. Thus,

policymakers must look at how formal education operates for different

groups, as well as at factors beyond the schools that influence the acquisition

of literacy abilities.

In summary, the National Adult Literacy Survey reinforces traditional

notions about the importance of formal schooling but shows us a world in which

formal schooling is enmeshed in social, familial, and economic contexts that also

influence the attainment and uses of literacy.
Chapter 1 ...... 1

CHAPTER 1

Few would deny the importance of literacy in this society or the advantages

enjoyed by those with advanced skills. This shared belief in the value of

literacy, though, does not imply consensus on the ways it should be defined and

measured. In fact, opinions vary widely about the skills that individuals need to

function successfully in their work, in their personal lives, and in society, and

about the ways in which these skills should be assessed. As a result, there have

been widely conflicting diagnoses of the literacy problem in this country. The

National Adult Literacy Survey was initiated to fill the need for accurate and

detailed information on the English literacy skills of America’s adults.

In the Adult Education Amendments of 1988, the U.S. Congress called

upon the Department of Education to report on the definition of literacy and

on the nature and extent of literacy among adults in the nation. In response,

the Department’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the

Division of Adult Education and Literacy planned a national household survey

of adult literacy. In September 1989, NCES awarded a four-year contract to

Educational Testing Service (ETS) to design and administer the survey and to

analyze and report the results. A subcontract was given to Westat, Inc., for

sampling and field operations.

The plan for developing and conducting the National Adult Literacy

Survey (NALS) was guided by a panel of experts from business and industry,

labor, government, research, and adult education. This Literacy Definition

Committee worked with ETS staff to prepare a definition of literacy that would

guide the development of the assessment objectives as well as the construction

and selection of assessment tasks. A second panel, the Technical Review

Committee, was formed to help ensure the soundness of the assessment

*Portions of this chapter originally appeared in the first report on the National Adult Literacy Survey, I.S. Kirsch, A. Jungeblut,

L. Jenkins, and A. Kolstad. (September 1993). Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult

Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Overview*
2 ...... Chapter 1

design, the quality of the data collected, the integrity of the analyses

conducted, and the appropriateness of the interpretations of the final results.

An initial report released in September, 1993, discussed the main findings

of the National Adult Literacy Survey.1 Teams of members from the advisory

boards and staff from Educational Testing Service were formed to prepare

subsequent reports on special topics. This report explores the relationship

between adult literacy and education.

The remainder of this introduction discusses the definition of literacy used

in the National Adult Literacy Survey, the framework used in designing the

survey instruments, the populations assessed, the survey administration, and the

methods for reporting the results.

Defining and Measuring Literacy

The National Adult Literacy Survey is the third and largest assessment of adult

literacy funded by the federal government and conducted by ETS. The two

previous efforts included a 1985 household survey of the literacy skills of 21- to

25-year-olds, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, and a 1989-90 survey

of the literacy proficiencies of job seekers, funded by the U.S. Department of

Labor.2

 The definition of literacy that guided the National Adult Literacy Survey

was rooted in these preceding studies.

Building on earlier work in large-scale literacy assessment, the 1985 young

adult survey attempted to extend the concept of literacy, to take into account

some of the criticisms of previous surveys, and to benefit from advances in

educational assessment methodology. The national panel of experts that was

assembled to construct a definition of literacy for this survey rejected the types of

arbitrary standards — such as signing one’s name, completing five years of

school, or scoring at a particular grade level on a school-based measure of

reading achievement — that have long been used to make judgements about

adults’ literacy skills. Through a consensus process, this panel drafted the

following definition of literacy, which helped set the framework for the young

adult survey:

Using printed and written information to function in

society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s

knowledge and potential.

1 I.S. Kirsch, et al. (September 1993). Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National

Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

2 I.S. Kirsch and A. Jungeblut. (1986). Literacy: Profiles of America’s Young Adults. Princeton, NJ: Educational

Testing Service. I.S. Kirsch, A. Jungeblut, and A. Campbell. (1992). Beyond the School Doors: The Literacy

Needs of Job Seekers Served by the U.S. Department of Labor. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Chapter 1 ...... 3

Unlike traditional definitions of literacy, which focused on decoding and

comprehension, this definition encompasses a broad range of skills that adults

use in accomplishing the many different types of literacy tasks associated with

work, home, and community contexts. This perspective is shaping not only adult

literacy assessment, but policy, as well — as seen in the National Literacy Act of

1991, which defined literacy as “an individual’s ability to read, write, and speak

in English and compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to

function on the job and in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s

knowledge and potential.”

The definition of literacy from the young adult survey was adopted by the

panel that guided the development of the 1989-90 survey of job seekers, and it

also provided the starting point for the discussions of the NALS Literacy

Definition Committee. This committee agreed that expressing the literacy

proficiencies of adults in school-based terms or grade-level scores is

inappropriate. In addition, while the committee recognized the importance of

teamwork skills, interpersonal skills, and communication skills for functioning in

various contexts, such as the work place, it decided that these areas would not be

addressed in this survey.

Further, the committee endorsed the notion that literacy is neither a single

skill suited to all types of texts, nor an infinite number of skills, each associated

with a given type of text or material. Rather, as suggested by the results of the

young adult and job-seeker surveys, an ordered set of skills appears to be called

into play to accomplish diverse types of tasks. Given this perspective, the NALS

committee agreed to adopt not only the definition of literacy that was used in the

previous surveys, but also the three scales developed as part of those efforts:

Prose literacy— the knowledge and skills needed to understand and use

information from texts that include editorials, news stories, poems, and

fiction; for example, finding a piece of information in a newspaper article,

interpreting instructions from a warranty, inferring a theme from a poem, or

contrasting views expressed in an editorial.

Document literacy — the knowledge and skills required to locate and use

information contained in materials that include job applications, payroll

forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and graphs; for example,

locating a particular intersection on a street map, using a schedule to choose

the appropriate bus, or entering information on an application form.

Quantitative literacy — the knowledge and skills required to apply

arithmetic operations, either alone or sequentially, using numbers embedded

in printed materials; for example, balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip,
4 ...... Chapter 1

completing an order form, or determining the amount of interest from a

loan advertisement.

The literacy scales provide a useful way to organize a broad array of tasks

and to report the assessment results. They represent a substantial improvement

over traditional approaches to literacy assessment, which have tended to report on

performance in terms of single tasks or to combine the results from diverse tasks

into a single, conglomerate score. Such a score fosters the simplistic notion that

“literates” and “illiterates” can be neatly distinguished from one another based on

a single cutpoint on a single scale. The literacy scales, on the other hand, make it

possible to profile the various types and levels of literacy among different

subgroups in our society. In so doing, they help us to understand the diverse

information-processing skills associated with the broad range of printed and

written materials that adults read and their many purposes for reading them.

In adopting the three scales for use in this survey, the committee’s aim was

not to establish a single national standard for literacy. Rather, it was to provide an

interpretive scheme that would enable levels of prose, document, and quantitative

performance to be identified and allow descriptions of the knowledge and skills

associated with each level to be developed.

The prose, document, and quantitative scales were built initially to report on

the results of the young adult survey and were augmented in the survey of job

seekers. The NALS Literacy Definition Committee recommended that a new set

of literacy tasks be developed to enhance the scales. These tasks would take into

account the following, without losing the ability to compare the NALS results to

the earlier surveys:

• continued use of open-ended simulation tasks

• continued emphasis on tasks that measure a broad range of informationprocessing skills and cover a wide variety of contexts

• increased emphasis on simulation tasks that require brief written and/or oral

responses

• increased emphasis on tasks that ask respondents to describe how they

would set up and solve a problem

• the use of a simple, four-function calculator to solve selected quantitative

problems

Approximately 110 new assessment tasks were field tested, and 80 of these

were selected for inclusion in the survey, in addition to 85 tasks that had been
Chapter 1 ...... 5

administered in both the young adult and job-seeker assessments.

Administering a common set of simulation tasks in each of the three literacy

surveys made it possible to compare results across time and across population

groups.

A large number of tasks had to be administered in NALS to ensure that the

survey would provide the broadest possible coverage of the literacy domains

specified. Yet, no individual could be expected to respond to the entire set of 165

simulation tasks. Accordingly, the survey was designed to give each person

participating in the study a subset of the total pool of literacy tasks, while at the

same time ensuring that each of the 165 tasks was administered to a nationally

representative sample of adults. Literacy tasks were assigned to sections that

could be completed in about 15 minutes, and these sections were then compiled

into booklets, each of which could be completed in about 45 minutes. During a

personal interview, each survey respondent was asked to complete one booklet.

In addition to the time allocated for the literacy tasks, approximately 20

minutes were devoted to obtaining background and personal information from

respondents. Two versions of the background questionnaire were administered,

one in English and one in Spanish. Major areas explored included: background

and demographics — country of birth, languages spoken or read, access to

reading materials, size of household, educational attainment of parents, age,

race/ethnicity, and marital status; education — highest grade completed in

school, current aspirations, participation in adult education classes, and

education received outside the country; labor market experiences —

employment status, recent labor market experiences, and occupation; income

— personal as well as household; and activities — voting behavior, hours spent

watching television, frequency and content of newspaper reading, and use of

literacy skills for work and leisure. These background data make it possible to

gain an understanding of the ways in which personal characteristics are

associated with demonstrated performance on each of the three literacy scales.3

Conducting the Survey

NALS was conducted during the first eight months of 1992 with a nationally

representative sample of some 13,600 adults. More than 400 trained interviewers,

some of whom were bilingual in English and Spanish, visited nearly 27,000

households to select and interview adults aged 16 and older, each of whom was

asked to provide personal and background information and to complete a booklet

3 A more detailed description of the NALS design and framework can be found in an interim report:

A. Campbell, I.S. Kirsch, and A. Kolstad. (October 1992). Assessing Literacy: The Framework for the

National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
6 ...... Chapter 1

of literacy tasks. Black and Hispanic households were oversampled to ensure

reliable estimates of literacy proficiencies and to permit analyses of the

performance of these subpopulations.

To give states an opportunity to explore the skill levels of their

populations, each of the 50 states was invited to participate in a concurrent

assessment. While many states expressed an interest, 11 elected to participate

in the State Adult Literacy Survey. Approximately 1,000 adults aged 16 to 64

were surveyed in each of the following states:

California Louisiana Pennsylvania

Illinois New Jersey Texas

Indiana New York Washington

Iowa Ohio

To permit comparisons of the state and national results, the survey instruments

administered to the state and national samples were identical and the data were

gathered at the same time. Florida also participated in the state survey, but its

data collection was unavoidably delayed until 1993.

Finally, more than 1,100 inmates in some 80 federal and state prisons were

included in the survey. Their participation helped to provide better estimates of

the literacy levels of the total population and make it possible to report on the

literacy proficiencies of this important segment of society. To ensure

comparability with the national survey, the simulation tasks given to the prison

participants were the same as those given to the household survey population.

However, to address issues of particular relevance to the prison population, a

revised version of the background questionnaire was developed. This instrument

drew questions from the 1991 Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities

sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice.

These included queries about current offenses, criminal history, and prison

work assignments, as well as about education and labor force experiences.

Responses from the national household, the state, and prison samples

were combined to yield the best possible performance estimates. Unfortunately,

because of the delayed administration, the results from the Florida state survey

could not be included in the national estimates. In all, more than 26,000 adults

gave, on average, more than an hour of their time to complete the literacy

tasks and background questionnaires. Participants who completed as much

of the assessment as their skills allowed were paid $20 for their time. The

demographic characteristics of the adults who participated in NALS are

presented in Table 1.1.
Chapter 1 ...... 7

Total Population*

Assessed National

sample population

Total Population 26,091 191,289,250

Sex

Male 11,770 92,098,158

Female 14,279 98,900,965

Age

16 to 18 years 1,237 10,423,866

19 to 24 years 3,344 24,514,789

25 to 39 years 10,050 63,277,808

40 to 54 years 6,310 43,794,468

55 to 64 years 2,924 19,503,078

65 years and older 2,214 29,735,489

Race/Ethnicity

White 17,292 144,967,759

Black 4,963 21,192,151

Hispanic/Mexican 1,776 10,234,806

Hispanic/Puerto Rican 405 2,190,094

Hispanic/Cuban 147 928,116

Hispanic/Central or South American 424 2,607,829

Hispanic/Other 374 2,520,468

Asian or Pacific Islander 438 4,116,356

American Indian or Alaskan Native 189 1,802,724

Other 83 728,948

Prison Population

Assessed National

sample population

Total 1,147 765,651

Sex

Male 1,076 722,632

Female 71 43,019

Race/Ethnicity

White 417 265,602

Black 480 340,308

Hispanic 211 134,048

Asian or Pacific Islander 7 4,106

American Indian or Alaskan Native 27 17,758

Other 5 3,829

*The total population includes adults living in households and those in prison. The sample sizes for

subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes because of missing data.

Table 1.1

The National Adult Literacy Survey Sample

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
8 ...... Chapter 1

Further information on the design of the sample, the survey administration,

the statistical analyses and special studies that were conducted, and the validity

of the literacy scales is available in the technical report.

Reporting the Results

The results of the National Adult Literacy Survey are reported using three

scales, each ranging from 0 to 500: a prose scale, a document scale, and a

quantitative scale. The scores on each scale represent degrees of proficiency

along that particular dimension of literacy. For example, a low score (below

225) on the document scale indicates that an individual has very limited skills in

processing information from tables, charts, graphs, maps, and the like (even

those that are brief and uncomplicated). On the other hand, a high score

(above 375) indicates advanced skills in performing a variety of tasks that

involve the use of complex documents.

Survey participants received proficiency scores according to their

performance on the survey tasks. A relatively small proportion of the respondents

answered only a part of the survey, and an imputation procedure was used to

make the best possible estimates of their proficiencies. This procedure and

related issues are detailed in the technical report.

Although proficiency scores for groups tended to be similar across the

three literacy scales, this does not mean that the underlying skills involved in

prose, document, and quantitative literacy are the same. Each scale provides

some unique information, especially when comparisons are made across groups

defined by variables such as race/ethnicity, education, and age.

The literacy scales allow us not only to summarize results for various

subpopulations, but also to determine the relative difficulty of the literacy tasks

included in the survey. In other words, just as individuals received scale scores

according to their performance in the assessment, the literacy tasks received

specific scale values according to their difficulty, as determined by the

performance of the adults who participated in the survey. Previous research has

shown that the difficulty of a literacy task, and therefore its placement on the

literacy scale, is determined by three factors: the structure of the

material — for example, exposition, narrative, table, graph, map, or

advertisement; the content of the material and/or the context from which

it is drawn — for example, home, work, or community; and the nature of

the task — that is, what the individual is asked to do with the material, or

his or her purpose for using it.4

4 I.S. Kirsch and P.B. Mosenthal. (1990). “Exploring Document Literacy: Variables Underlying the Performance

of Young Adults,” Reading Research Quarterly, 25. pp. 5-30. P.B. Mosenthal and I.S. Kirsch. (1992).

“Defining the Constructs of Adult Literacy,” paper presented at the National Reading Conference, San

Antonio, Texas.
Chapter 1 ...... 9

The literacy tasks administered in NALS varied widely in terms of

materials, content, and task requirements, and thus in terms of difficulty. This

range is captured in Figure 1.1, which describes some of the literacy tasks and

indicates their scale values.

Even a cursory review of this display reveals that tasks at the lower end of

each scale differ from those at the high end. A more careful analysis of the range

of tasks along each scale provides clear evidence of an ordered set of

information-processing skills and strategies. On the prose scale, for example,

tasks with low scale values ask readers to locate or identify information in brief,

familiar, or uncomplicated materials, while those at the high end ask them to

perform more demanding activities using materials that tend to be lengthy,

unfamiliar, or complex. Similarly, on the document and quantitative scales, the

tasks at the low end of the scale differ from those at the high end in terms of the

structure of the material, the content and context of the material, and the nature of

the directive.

In an attempt to capture this progression of information-processing skills

and strategies, each scale was divided into five levels: Level 1 (0 to 225),

Level 2 (226 to 275), Level 3 (276 to 325), Level 4 (326 to 375), and

Level 5 (376 to 500). The points and score ranges that separate these levels on

each scale reflect shifts in the literacy skills and strategies required to perform

increasingly complex tasks. The survey tasks were assigned to the appropriate

point on the appropriate scale based on their difficulty as reflected in the

performance of the nationally representative sample of adults surveyed. Analyses

of the types of materials and demands that characterize each level reveal the

progression of literacy demands along each scale (Figure 1.2).

While the literacy levels on each scale can be used to explore the range of

literacy demands, these data do not reveal the types of literacy demands that are

associated with particular contexts in this pluralistic society. That is, they do not

enable us to say what specific level of prose, document, or quantitative skill is

required to obtain, hold, or advance in a particular occupation, to manage a

household, or to obtain legal or community services, for example. Nevertheless,

the relationships among performance on the three scales and various social or

economic indicators can provide valuable insights.
10 ...... Chapter 1

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Prose Document Quantitative

NALS Figure 1.1

149 Identify country in short article

210 Locate one piece of information

in sports article

224 Underline sentence explaining action 

stated in short article

191 Total a bank deposit entry

238 Calculate postage and fees for 

certified mail

246 Determine difference in price between 

tickets for two shows

270 Calculate total costs of purchase from 

an order form

278 Using calculator, calculate difference 

between regular and sale price from an 

advertisement

308 Using calculator, determine the 

discount from an oil bill if paid 

within 10 days

375 Calculate miles per gallon using 

information given on mileage record 

chart

325 Plan travel arrangements for meeting 

using flight schedule

331 Determine correct change using 

information in a menu

350 Using information stated in news article, 

calculate amount of money that should 

go to raising a child

368 Using eligibility pamphlet, calculate the

yearly amount a couple would receive 

for basic supplemental security income 

382 Determine individual and total costs on 

an order form for items in a catalog

405 Using information in news article, 

calculate difference in times for 

completing a race

421 Using calculator, determine the total 

cost of carpet to cover a room

69 Sign your name

151 Locate expiration date on driver's license

180 Locate time of meeting on a form

214 Using pie graph, locate type of vehicle 

having specific sales

232 Locate intersection on a street map 

245 Locate eligibility from table of 

employee benefits

259 Identify and enter background 

information on application for social 

security card

277 Identify information from bar graph 

depicting source of energy and year 

296 Use sign out sheet to respond to call 

about resident 

314 Use bus schedule to determine 

appropriate bus for given set 

of conditions 

323 Enter information given into an 

automobile maintenance record form

342 Identify the correct percentage meeting 

specified conditions from a table of such 

information

348 Use bus schedule to determine 

appropriate bus for given set 

of conditions 

379 Use table of information to determine 

pattern in oil exports across years

387 Using table comparing credit cards, 

identify the two categories used and write 

two differences between them

396 Using a table depicting information about 

parental involvement in school survey to 

write a paragraph summarizing extent to 

which parents and teachers agree

226 Underline meaning of a term given in 

government brochure on supplemental 

security income

250 Locate two features of information in 

sports article

275 Interpret instructions from an appliance 

warranty

280 Write a brief letter explaining error 

made on a credit card bill

304 Read a news article and identify

a sentence that provides interpretation 

of a situation

316 Read lengthy article to identify two 

behaviors that meet a stated condition

328 State in writing an argument made in 

lengthy newspaper article

347 Explain difference between two types 

of employee benefits

359 Contrast views expressed in two 

editorials on technologies available to 

make fuel-efficient cars

362 Generate unfamiliar theme from short 

poems

374 Compare two metaphors used in poem

382 Compare approaches stated in 

narrative on growing up

410 Summarize two ways lawyers may 

challenge prospective jurors

423 Interpret a brief phrase from a lengthy 

news article

0

225

275

325

375

500

Difficulty Values of Selected Tasks Along the Prose, Document, and Quantitative Literacy Scales

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Chapter 1 ...... 11

Description of the Prose, Document, and Quantitative Literacy Levels 

Tasks in this level tend to require the

reader either to locate a piece of

information based on a literal match or

to enter information from personal

knowledge onto a document. Little, if

any, distracting information is present. 

Most of the tasks in this level require

the reader to read relatively short text to

locate a single piece of information

which is identical to or synonymous

with the information given in the

question or directive. If plausible but

incorrect information is present in the

text, it tends not to be located near the

correct information.

Tasks in this level require readers to

perform single, relatively simple

arithmetic operations, such as addition.

The numbers to be used are provided

and the arithmetic operation to be

performed is specified.

Some tasks in this level require readers

to locate a single piece of information

in the text; however, several distractors

or plausible but incorrect pieces of

information may be present, or lowlevel inferences may be required. Other

tasks require the reader to integrate two

or more pieces of information or to

compare and contrast easily identifiable

information based on a criterion

provided in the question or directive.

Tasks in this level are more varied than

those in Level 1. Some require the

readers to match a single piece of

information; however, several

distractors may be present, or the match

may require low-level inferences. Tasks

in this level may also ask the reader to

cycle through information in a

document or to integrate information

from various parts of a document.

Tasks in this level typically require

readers to perform a single operation

using numbers that are either stated in

the task or easily located in the

material. The operation to be performed

may be stated in the question or easily

determined from the format of the

material (for example, an order form).

Tasks in this level tend to require

readers to make literal or synonymous

matches between the text and information

given in the task, or to make matches

that require low-level inferences. Other

tasks ask readers to integrate information

from dense or lengthy text that contains

no organizational aids such as headings.

Readers may also be asked to generate

a response based on information that

can be easily identified in the text.

Distracting information is present, but

is not located near the correct information.

Some tasks in this level require the

reader to integrate multiple pieces of

information from one or more

documents. Others ask readers to cycle

through rather complex tables or graphs

which contain information that is

irrelevant or inappropriate to the task.

In tasks in this level, two or more

numbers are typically needed to solve

the problem, and these must be found in

the material. The operation(s) needed

can be determined from the arithmetic

relation terms used in the question or

directive.

Level 1

0-225

Level 2

226-275

Level 3

276-325

Level 4

326-375

Level 5

376-500

Prose Document

These tasks tend to require readers to

perform two or more sequential

operations or a single operation in

which the quantities are found in

different types of displays, or the

operations must be inferred from

semantic information given or drawn

from prior knowledge.

Tasks in this level, like those at the

previous levels, ask readers to perform

multiple-feature matches, cycle

through documents, and integrate

information; however, they require a

greater degree of inferencing. Many of

these tasks require readers to provide

numerous responses but do not

designate how many responses are

needed. Conditional information is

also present in the document tasks at

this level and must be taken into

account by the reader.

These tasks require readers to perform

multiple-feature matches and to

integrate or synthesize information

from complex or lengthy passages.

More complex inferences are needed

to perform successfully. Conditional

information is frequently present in

tasks at this level and must be taken

into consideration by the reader.

Some tasks in this level require the

reader to search for information in

dense text which contains a number of

plausible distractors. Others ask

readers to make high-level inferences

or use specialized background

knowledge. Some tasks ask readers to

contrast complex information.

Tasks in this level require the reader

to search through complex displays

that contain multiple distractors, to

make high-level text-based inferences,

and to use specialized knowledge.

These tasks require readers to perform

multiple operations sequentially. They

must disembed the features of the

problem from text or rely on

background knowledge to determine

the quantities or operations needed.

Quantitative

NALS Figure 1.2

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
12 ...... Chapter 1

About This Report

This report looks at adult literacy and education, with education defined

primarily as levels of formal schooling. Because such a topic is broad in scope

and can be examined through many different lenses, the authors do not intend for

this report to be comprehensive; rather they each examine the data from the

perspective of their individual research interests and fields of expertise. While the

chapters are linked by the common theme of literacy and schooling, the authors

are individually responsible for the presentation and analysis in their respective

chapters. Leading off the discussion, chapter 2 looks at the relationship between

literacy and schooling in detail for the entire population and for particular

subgroups, including a comparison of different age cohorts. Chapter 3 narrows

the focus by profiling the literacy proficiencies of school noncompleters and

discusses their literacy-related experiences and practices. Looking at the data

through a different lens, chapter 4 focuses on adults performing in the two lowest

literacy levels in light of their education, background, and literacy practices.

Finally, in light of the concern about educating people for the workplace, chapter

5 presents information about the literacy proficiencies, practices, and educational

levels of adults in various occupations.

The five authors of this report divided responsibilities in the following way.

Carl Kaestle, the lead author, chaired the authors’ organizational conferences,

wrote the Executive Summary, chapter 2, and the Epilogue, and assisted Anne

Campbell in the editorial and adjudication tasks. Anne Campbell adapted and

rewrote chapter 1, this overview chapter, using earlier descriptions of the

National Adult Literacy Survey, and she handled most of the complex editorial

tasks involved in the report’s creation, review, and revision. The remaining

authors each wrote a chapter, reviewed others’ chapters, and participated in

various conversations about the project as a whole: Jeremy Finn, chapter 3;

Sylvia Johnson, chapter 4; and Larry Mikulecky, chapter 5. The chapter authors

are individually responsible for the presentation and data analysis of their

chapters.

In interpreting the results of this study, readers should bear in mind that the

literacy tasks contained in this assessment and the adults invited to participate in

the survey are representative samples drawn from their two respective universes.

As such, they are subject to some measurable degree of uncertainty. Scientific

procedures employed in the study design and the scaling of literacy tasks,

however, permit a high degree of confidence in the resulting estimates of task

difficulty. Similarly, the sampling design and weighting procedures applied in

this survey assure that participants’ responses can be generalized to the

populations of interest.
Chapter 1 ...... 13

When comparisons between various subpopulations are made, statistical

tests are applied to the data in order to establish that differences are significant.

These significance tests take into account the magnitude of the differences (for

example, the difference in average document proficiency between high school

and college graduates), the size of the standard errors associated with the

numbers being compared, and the number of comparisons being made. Only

statistically significant differences (at the .05 level) are discussed in this report.

Readers who are interested in making their own comparisons are therefore

advised not to use the numbers alone to compare various groups, but rather to

evaluate such comparisons using statistical tests.5

The goal of this report is to provide useful information to those involved in

various education communities — elementary and secondary schools, vocational

and technical schools, higher education institutions, adult education programs,

and workplace training programs. In considering the results, readers should keep

in mind that this was a survey of literacy only in the English language. Thus, the

results do not capture the literacy resources and abilities that some respondents

possess in languages other than English.

A Note on Interpretations

In reviewing the information contained in this report, readers should be aware

that no single factor determines what an individual’s literacy proficiencies will

be. All of us develop our own unique repertoire of competencies depending on a

wide array of conditions and circumstances, including our family backgrounds,

educational attainments, interests and aspirations, economic resources, and

employment experiences. This survey focuses on some, but not all, of these

variables.

Furthermore, although the survey results reveal that certain

characteristics are related to literacy, it is impossible to determine, from a

survey administered at one point in time, the direction of these relationships.

In other words, it is impossible to identify the extent to which literacy shapes

particular aspects of our lives or is, in turn, shaped by them. For example, there

is a strong relationship between educational attainment and literacy

proficiencies. On the one hand, it is likely that staying in school longer does

strengthen an individual’s literacy skills. On the other hand, it is also true that

5 To determine whether the difference between two groups is statistically significant, one must estimate the

degree of uncertainty (or the standard error) associated with the difference. To do so, one squares each group’s

standard error and, sums these squared standard errors, and then takes the square root of this sum. The

difference between the two groups plus or minus twice the standard error of the difference is the confidence

interval. If the confidence interval does not contain zero, then the difference between the two groups is said to

be statistically significant.
14 ...... Chapter 1

those with more advanced skills tend to remain in school longer. Other

variables, as well, are likely to play a role in the relationship between literacy

and education. In interpreting such relationships in this report, the authors

have emphasized that causal assertions are speculative.

A final note deserves emphasis. This report describes the literacy

proficiencies of various subpopulations defined by characteristics such as age,

sex, race, ethnicity, and educational background. While certain groups

demonstrated lower literacy skills than others on average, within every group

there were some individuals who performed well and some who performed

poorly. Accordingly, when one group is said to have lower average proficiencies

than another, this does not imply that all adults in the first group performed worse

than those in the second. Such statements are only intended to highlight

differences among the average proficiencies of groups and, therefore, do not

capture the variability within each group.
Chapter 2 ...... 15

CHAPTER 2

Formal Education and Adult Literacy Proficiencies:

Exploring the Relevance of Gender, Race, Age,

Income, and Parents’ Education

by Carl F. Kaestle1

How is literacy related to schooling? One finding pervades the data of the

National Adult Literacy Survey: literacy abilities are highly correlated with how

much education a person has had. This will come as no great surprise to most

people, but if we wish to understand how literacy abilities are distributed in our

society, we need to look at the association of literacy and schooling in some

detail. Given the widespread criticism of schools over the past two decades,

one might think that schools were not teaching literacy abilities very well. The

reform literature abounds with images of high school graduates who can barely

read and with complaints that students finish school without learning the

functional literacy skills they need in the workplace. Scholars who study literacy

have reinforced the notion of a disjunction between schools and adult literacy

abilities, even though they have presented a more positive image of how people

cope with adult literacy tasks. They have pointed out the differences between

school literacy and literacy as it functions in the world of most adults. School

literacy is formal and hierarchical, and reading instruction is focused largely on

prose fiction and a narrow range of expository writing. Functional literacy

outside the school is less structured, less hierarchical, involves a greater variety

of materials and settings, is more integrated with other tasks, and is more

social.2

The results from the National Adult Literacy Survey tell two contrasting

stories about the relationship of schooling to literacy abilities that are useful in

the adult world. On the one hand, the survey provides a very detailed profile of

what people with varying amounts of education can and cannot do in terms of

1 Carl Kaestle’s work on literacy has been generously supported by The Spencer Foundation and by the

Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, although this

publication does not represent or reflect official positions of these agencies.

2 S.B. Heath. (1980). “The Functions and Uses of Literacy,” Journal of Communication, 30, pp. 123-33; D.R.

Olson. (1977). “The Languages of Instruction: The Literate Bias of Schooling.” In R.C. Anderson, R.J.

Spiro, and W.E. Montague, eds., Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum; W.A. Diehl and L. Mikulecky. (1980). “The Nature of Reading at Work,” Journal of Reading 24,

pp. 221-228.
16 ...... Chapter 2

literacy tasks; and indeed, the abilities people display at a given level of school

attainment may not be what we need for effective citizenship, parenting, work,

and personal fulfillment. On the other hand, the strength and pervasiveness of

the correlation between schooling and adult literacy abilities in these data

reinforces the conventional notion that one’s literacy abilities are related to how

much schooling one has had. Although the correlation does not prove a causal

relationship, it is hard to imagine a successful strategy for improving future

adult literacy abilities that would ignore the importance of more and better

schooling for individuals.

This chapter presents the National Adult Literacy Survey findings on the

relationship between literacy and schooling for the whole assessment

population and then explores the relationship between adult literacy

proficiency, formal education, and various characteristics of the subjects in the

assessment, including race/ethnicity, gender, age, parents’ education level, and

household income. Subsequent chapters will take up special populations:

school dropouts in chapter 3 and those who scored in the lower literacy levels

in chapter 4. Chapter 5 will consider insights the survey provides about

education and literacy in the workplace.

Chapter 2 will show that literacy proficiencies increase as people reach

higher levels of education. Second, literacy abilities at a given level of schooling

are influenced by gender, race/ethnicity, parents’ education, and income in

important ways. Finally, the data will show that the average literacy proficiency

scores of 30-year-old cohort are higher (across all groups) than those of 20-year

olds, and those of 40-year olds are higher still. The data suggest that these

increases are associated with continued formal schooling as adults, not with

more extensive or more effective initial education. This phenomenon, a feature

of our learning society, tapers off in the cohort in their fifties. Successive

cohorts have lower levels of schooling and lower average literacy proficiencies.

Literacy and Schooling

Figure 2.1 gives average proficiency scores by the subjects’ education level, and

then, in the bar graphs, the percentages of people at each education level who

perform at each of the five proficiency levels, for each of the three literacy

scales. The regular and strong relationship of education level to literacy

proficiency is dramatized in this figure. According to the data for prose

proficiency, for example, those subjects who had only 0 to 8 years of schooling

average 177 on the prose scale, while those with a four-year college degree
Chapter 2 ...... 17

Percentages at Each Level and Average Proficiencies on Each Literary Scale, by Education Level

NALS Figure 2.1

75

20

4

0* 0*

Average Proficiency

 177 231 268 270 294 308 322 336 

Four year

degree

Graduate

studies/degree

Two year

degree

High school Some college

diploma

Still in 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years GED

high school

80

60

40

20

0

Percentage in Level

PROSE

Levels

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

38

17

2

42

0*

39 39

7

0*

14 16

36 37

10

1

23

8

45

22

3

19

4

41

32

4

11

4

35

40

10 7

2

28

47

16 16

36 37

11

0*

Average Proficiency

 170 227 264 264 290 299 314 326 

Four year

degree

Graduate

studies/degree

Two year

degree

High school Some college

diploma

Still in 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years GED

high school

80

60

40

20

0

Percentage in Level

DOCUMENT

Levels

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

15

35 38

12

1

79

18

3 0* 0*

37

15

2

46

0*

42

34

7

17

0*

20

38

33

9

1

9

27

42

20

2 6

23

43

25

3 4

15

37 36

8

3

10

34

41

12

Average Proficiency

 169 227 268 270 295 307 322 334 

Four year

degree

Graduate

studies/degree

Two year

degree

High school Some college

diploma

Still in 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years GED

high school

80

60

40

20

0

Percentage in Level

QUANTITATIVE

Levels

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

19

35 32

12

1

16

38

35

10

1

18

33 37

12

1

8

23

42

23

4 4

19

43

29

5 4

12

35 38

12

2

9

30

42

18 17

5 1

76

0*

45

34

17

3 0*

*Percentages below .5 are rounded to 0.

Level 1 (0 to 225) Level 2 (226 to 275) Level 3 (276 to 325) Level 4 (326 to 375) Level 5 (376 to 500)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

269

274

271
18 ...... Chapter 2

average 322. Put another way, 95 percent of those with only 0 to 8 years of

education perform in the lower two literacy levels on the prose scale and none

in the highest two levels, while 15 percent of college graduates perform in the

lowest two levels and 50 percent in the highest two levels. The profiles for the

document and quantitative scales are nearly identical to those of the prose

scale. In each case the average proficiency scores increase with each

succeeding level of educational attainment. Subjects whose highest level of

education was the GED had very similar scores to those whose highest level

was the high school diploma, so they will be combined in subsequent tables.

(Note that these data do not provide a comparison of all GED holders with all

high school graduates because they do not include any GED or high school

diploma holders who went on to further education.) Even at the higher levels

of the formal education system, additional years of schooling are usually

correlated with a lower proportion of individuals in the lower literacy levels

and a greater proportion in the higher two levels.3

 (Also see table B2.1 in

appendix B.)

Two complications must be emphasized. First, as tempting as it is to make

a correlation into a causal relationship, the high association of schooling and

literacy does not prove that schooling causes higher literacy; it especially does

not prove that schooling is responsible for all the differences in literacy ability

shown in people of differing levels of educational attainment. People with high

education levels may have wealthier families or more highly educated parents,

for example. This chapter separates out (controls for) some of these effects.

Even after controlling for such factors, it is possible that people with high

literacy skills (however they learned them) tend to seek and receive higher

amounts of education. Furthermore, even when they have equal amounts of

education, some groups have different average literacy proficiencies. The

relationship of schooling to literacy varies for different groups defined by

gender, age, race/ethnicity, parents’ education, and household income. The

analysis now turns to these important variables.

Results by Gender

Table 2.1 gives proficiency scores by gender and by education level for all three

literacy scales. Males and females demonstrate similar performance on the

prose literacy scale at all levels of education; the only statistically significant

3 The following are statistically significant relationships: on the prose and document scales, when adults with a

two-year degree are compared with adults with a four-year degree, who are, in turn, compared with adults

with some graduate studies, the percentages in Level 2 decline and the percentages in Levels 4 and 5

increase with level of education. On the quantitative scale, comparing the same groups, there is a significant

decrease in Level 2 percentages and an increase in Level 5 percentages as level of education increases.
Chapter 2 ...... 19

difference occurs among adults whose highest level of education is a GED or

high school diploma, where the males’ scores are seven points lower than the

females’. Across all education levels, however, males and females differ by only

2 points on the prose scale, and the difference is not statistically significant. On

the document scale, the average proficiency of males is about 4 points higher

than females at the college levels, resulting in a statistically significant

difference of 3 points across all education levels. A more substantial difference

exists between males’ and females’ literacy abilities on the quantitative scale.

Here the gap in proficiency scores across all education levels is 11 points.

Although the data cannot tell us the reason for this gap, it is possible that many

schools and workplaces have given females less encouragement, opportunity,

training, and responsibility to do tasks that require quantitative literacy. Table

2.2 was produced to explore whether this gap decreased over the years, but the

sample sizes were not sufficient to guarantee statistical significance. Other

TABLE 2.1

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults:

Sex, by Education Level

EDUCATION LEVEL

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total 25,989 190,430

Prose 4 ( 0.1) 10 ( 0.3) 13 ( 0.2) 31 ( 0.1) 21 ( 0.2) 21 ( 0.2) 100 ( 0.0) 

 271 ( 2.0) 177 ( 2.7) 231 ( 1.4) 270 ( 1.0) 294 ( 1.0) 325 ( 1.1) 273 ( 0.6) 

Document 4 ( 0.1) 10 ( 0.3) 13 ( 0.2) 31 ( 0.1) 21 ( 0.2) 21 ( 0.2) 100 ( 0.0) 

 274 ( 1.9) 169 ( 2.5) 227 ( 1.6) 264 ( 1.0) 290 ( 0.9) 316 ( 0.9) 267 ( 0.7) 

Quantitative 4 ( 0.1) 10 ( 0.3) 13 ( 0.2) 31 ( 0.1) 21 ( 0.2) 21 ( 0.2) 100 ( 0.0) 

 269 ( 2.3) 169 ( 3.2) 227 ( 1.7) 270 ( 1.0) 295 ( 1.4) 324 ( 1.0) 272 ( 0.7) 

Male 11,739 91,849

Prose 5 ( 0.2) 10 ( 0.5) 12 ( 0.4) 29 ( 0.5) 20 ( 0.4) 23 ( 0.5) 100 ( 0.0) 

 270 ( 3.3) 174 ( 3.5) 228 ( 2.1) 266 ( 1.8) 293 ( 1.4) 326 ( 1.5) 272 ( 0.8) 

Document 5 ( 0.2) 10 ( 0.5) 12 ( 0.4) 29 ( 0.5) 20 ( 0.4) 23 ( 0.5) 100 ( 0.0) 

 273 ( 3.1) 169 ( 3.0) 227 ( 2.4) 264 ( 1.8) 292 ( 1.2) 318 ( 1.4) 269 ( 0.9) 

Quantitative 5 ( 0.2) 10 ( 0.5) 12 ( 0.4) 29 ( 0.5) 20 ( 0.4) 23 ( 0.5) 100 ( 0.0) 

 272 ( 3.4) 172 ( 3.9) 232 ( 2.3) 273 ( 1.7) 301 ( 1.7) 331 ( 1.4) 277 ( 0.9) 

Female 14,250 98,581

Prose 4 ( 0.2) 9 ( 0.3) 14 ( 0.4) 32 ( 0.4) 21 ( 0.4) 20 ( 0.5) 100 ( 0.0) 

 273 ( 2.6) 179 ( 3.4) 233 ( 2.1) 273 ( 1.1) 295 ( 1.3) 325 ( 1.1) 274 ( 0.8) 

Document 4 ( 0.2) 9 ( 0.3) 14 ( 0.4) 32 ( 0.4) 21 ( 0.4) 20 ( 0.5) 100 ( 0.0) 

 275 ( 3.0) 169 ( 3.5) 227 ( 2.1) 264 ( 1.0) 288 ( 1.3) 314 ( 1.2) 265 ( 0.9) 

Quantitative 4 ( 0.2) 9 ( 0.3) 14 ( 0.4) 32 ( 0.4) 21 ( 0.4) 20 ( 0.5) 100 ( 0.0) 

 266 ( 3.0) 166 ( 4.3) 224 ( 2.1) 267 ( 1.2) 291 ( 1.4) 317 ( 1.2) 266 ( 0.9) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data);

RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be within

2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

SEX

Still in high

school 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years GED/Highschool

Some

postsecondary

College

graduate Total
20 ...... Chapter 2

TABLE 2.2Q

Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of Adults:

Age and Sex, by Education Level

EDUCATION LEVEL

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

16 to 19 Year Olds

Males 854 7,711 60 ( 2.4) 3 ( 0.7) 10 ( 1.1) 19 ( 1.5) 7 ( 1.1) 0†( 0.0) 100 ( 0.0) 

 272 ( 3.4) *** (  ) 241 ( 6.3)! 274 ( 7.9) 305 ( 6.8)! ** * ( ****) 269 ( 2.8) 

Females 872 6,591 51 ( 1.6) 2 ( 0.6) 15 ( 1.6) 23 ( 1.5) 9 ( 0.9) 0†( 0.2) 100 ( 0.0) 

 267 ( 3.0) *** (  ) 246 ( 6.3)! 280 ( 6.1) 303 ( 5.8)! ** * ( ****) 269 ( 2.0) 

Total 1,726 14,302 56 ( 1.4) 3 ( 0.5) 12 ( 1.1) 21 ( 1.0) 8 ( 0.7) 0†( 0.1) 100 ( 0.0) 

 270 ( 2.1) 200 (10.0)! 244 ( 4.8) 277 ( 5.5) 304 ( 3.6)! *** (  ) 269 ( 1.7) 

20 to 29 Year Olds

Males 2,903 20,606 0†( 0.1) 4 ( 0.4) 13 ( 0.9) 38 ( 1.5) 26 ( 1.2) 19 ( 1.1) 100 ( 0.0) 

 ** * ( ****) 161 ( 8.4)! 235 ( 4.6) 270 ( 2.7) 304 ( 2.6) 328 ( 3.3) 281 ( 1.9) 

Females 3,222 20,562 0†( 0.1) 3 ( 0.4) 12 ( 0.7) 38 ( 1.0) 27 ( 0.9) 19 ( 0.9) 100 ( 0.0) 

 *** (  ) 163 ( 8.8)! 230 ( 3.8) 269 ( 2.4) 295 ( 2.4) 320 ( 2.0) 278 ( 1.5) 

Total 6,125 41,168 0†( 0.1) 3 ( 0.3) 13 ( 0.5) 38 ( 0.7) 27 ( 0.6) 19 ( 0.7) 100 ( 0.0) 

 ** * ( ****) 162 ( 6.2)! 233 ( 3.2) 270 ( 1.9) 299 ( 2.0) 324 ( 1.7) 279 ( 1.2) 

30 to 39 Year Olds

Males 3,070 20,244 0†( 0.0) 6 ( 0.6) 11 ( 0.8) 31 ( 1.2) 23 ( 1.0) 30 ( 1.0) 100 ( 0.0) 

 *** (  ) 164 ( 6.9)! 231 ( 4.8)! 278 ( 2.8) 304 ( 2.6) 336 ( 2.4) 289 ( 1.8) 

Females 3,650 22,041 0†( 0.0) 5 ( 0.4) 12 ( 0.9) 31 ( 1.0) 25 ( 1.0) 28 ( 1.0) 100 ( 0.0) 

 ** * ( ****) 151 ( 7.0)! 226 ( 4.5) 276 ( 1.8) 297 ( 2.4) 324 ( 2.0) 282 ( 1.5) 

Total 6,720 42,285 0†( 0.0) 5 ( 0.4) 11 ( 0.6) 31 ( 0.7) 24 ( 0.6) 29 ( 0.6) 100 ( 0.0) 

 *** (  ) 158 ( 4.9)! 229 ( 3.5) 277 ( 1.9) 300 ( 1.7) 330 ( 1.7) 286 ( 1.2) 

40 to 49 Year Olds

Males 2,181 15,683 0†( 0.3) 7 ( 0.7) 9 ( 0.9) 26 ( 1.1) 22 ( 1.2) 36 ( 1.2) 100 ( 0.0) 

 ** * ( ****) 165 (10.2)! 227 ( 7.1)! 280 ( 4.0) 308 ( 2.9) 336 ( 2.4) 294 ( 1.8) 

Females 2,489 16,632 0†( 0.0) 6 ( 0.6) 9 ( 0.8) 31 ( 1.3) 23 ( 1.2) 31 ( 1.1) 100 ( 0.0) 

 *** (  ) 179 ( 9.7)! 220 ( 4.5)! 271 ( 3.0) 296 ( 3.0) 324 ( 2.6) 282 ( 1.8) 

Total 4,670 32,314 0†( 0.1) 6 ( 0.5) 9 ( 0.6) 28 ( 1.0) 23 ( 0.9) 33 ( 0.7) 100 ( 0.0) 

 ** * ( ****) 172 ( 6.8)! 223 ( 3.8)! 275 ( 2.7) 302 ( 1.9) 330 ( 1.9) 288 ( 1.3) 

50 to 59 Year Olds

Males 1,331 10,114 0†( 0.0) 13 ( 1.5) 12 ( 1.1) 32 ( 1.6) 17 ( 1.1) 25 ( 1.4) 100 ( 0.0) 

 *** (  ) 178 ( 8.6)! 234 ( 6.8)! 276 ( 3.8) 297 ( 4.2) 334 ( 3.2) 277 ( 3.0) 

Females 1,706 10,985 0†( 0.0) 10 ( 1.0) 15 ( 0.9) 34 ( 1.3) 21 ( 0.9) 20 ( 1.3) 100 ( 0.0) 

 ** * ( ****) 166 ( 6.8)! 231 ( 4.1) 273 ( 2.9) 289 ( 3.5) 315 ( 3.2) 267 ( 2.3) 

Total 3,037 21,099 0†( 0.0) 12 ( 0.9) 13 ( 0.8) 33 ( 0.9) 19 ( 0.8) 23 ( 0.9) 100 ( 0.0) 

 *** (  ) 172 ( 5.5) 232 ( 3.4) 274 ( 2.5) 293 ( 2.7) 325 ( 2.0) 272 ( 1.9) 

60 to 69 Year Olds

Males 903 9,374 0†( 0.4) 20 ( 1.8) 19 ( 2.0) 22 ( 1.9) 16 ( 1.3) 22 ( 1.7) 100 ( 0.0) 

 ** * ( ****) 185 ( 8.6) 241 ( 6.8) 262 ( 4.2) 291 ( 7.5)! 323 ( 4.4) 261 ( 3.6) 

Females 1,356 10,653 0†( 0.2) 18 ( 1.7) 19 ( 1.3) 35 ( 1.8) 16 ( 1.0) 12 ( 1.3) 100 ( 0.0) 

 *** (  ) 179 ( 6.9) 231 ( 4.2) 260 ( 3.7) 275 ( 3.3)! 292 ( 6.4)! 246 ( 2.8) 

Total 2,259 20,027 0†( 0.2) 19 ( 1.1) 19 ( 1.2) 29 ( 1.3) 16 ( 0.7) 17 ( 0.9) 100 ( 0.0) 

 ** * ( ****) 182 ( 5.2) 236 ( 4.0) 261 ( 2.9) 283 ( 4.5) 312 ( 4.0) 253 ( 2.0) 

70 Years or Older

Males 491 8,098 0†( 0.1) 33 ( 2.4) 16 ( 1.6) 23 ( 1.9) 13 ( 1.5) 15 ( 1.9) 100 ( 0.0) 

 *** (  ) 167 ( 9.0) 208 ( 9.8)! 259 ( 8.2) 272 ( 8.8)! 305 ( 6.6)! 229 ( 4.7) 

Females 950 11,106 0†( 0.2) 29 ( 1.8) 22 ( 1.8) 25 ( 1.9) 15 ( 1.4) 9 ( 0.8) 100 ( 0.0) 

 ** * ( ****) 157 ( 6.8) 199 ( 4.7) 232 ( 5.4) 255 ( 7.8)! 264 ( 8.6)! 209 ( 3.5) 

Total 1,441 19,204 0†( 0.1) 31 ( 1.3) 19 ( 1.4) 24 ( 1.2) 14 ( 1.0) 12 ( 0.9) 100 ( 0.0) 

 *** (  ) 161 ( 6.5) 202 ( 4.4) 243 ( 4.3) 262 ( 6.2) 287 ( 5.7) 218 ( 3.3) 

Grand Total

Grand Total 25,978 190,399 4 ( 0.1) 10 ( 0.3) 13 ( 0.2) 31 ( 0.1) 21 ( 0.2) 21 ( 0.2) 100 ( 0.0) 

 269 ( 2.3) 169 ( 3.2) 227 ( 1.7) 270 ( 1.0) 295 ( 1.4) 324 ( 1.0) 272 ( 0.7) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data);

RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be within

2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

** * Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

SEX BY AGE

Still in high

school 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years GED/Highschool

Some

postsecondary

College

graduate Total

TABLE 2.2
Chapter 2 ...... 21

studies suggest, however, that significant differences persist today in males’ and

females’ scores on assessments of quantitative skills.4

The gender gap in quantitative literacy shows that one group can have a

distinctive profile in comparison with another group on one of the three scales

but not be very different on another scale; in other words, the three scales are

independent of each other. With respect to race/ethnicity, however, the data

show that proficiencies on all three scales are affected by group differences.

The analysis now turns to differences among racial/ethnic groups.

Results by Race/Ethnicity

Table 2.3 shows literacy proficiencies of different racial/ethnic groups,

subdivided by level of education. Combining all education levels, the prose

proficiency of White subjects is on average 49 points higher than that of Black

subjects. In turn, the average proficiency of Black adults is 21 points higher

than that of Hispanic respondents. Some of these differences are accounted for

by differences in educational attainment. As table 2.3 shows, 24 percent of

White adults were college graduates, while only 11 percent of Black and 9

percent of Hispanic adults were. Conversely, only 7 percent of White adults

reported 0 to 8 years of schooling, while 12 percent of Black adults and 26

percent of Hispanic subjects reported that level of schooling. Looking at the

columns of literacy proficiency scores by education levels, one can see the

effect of “controlling” for education. The gap between Black and White adults

remains substantial at all education levels; for example, White college

graduates outperform Black college graduates on the prose scale by 42 points

and on the quantitative scale by 51 points.

Although the gap between Black and White adults’ literacy proficiency

scores is smaller at any given education level than it is for the two entire

populations without controlling for education, there is reason to be skeptical

about how much of the reduction is attributable to education per se. The

relationship between race, education, and literacy proficiency is influenced by

other factors. Educational attainment is affected by such factors as parents’

education and household income, so those variables are silently brought into

the analysis when we produce tables on literacy proficiency by race and

education. A more complex statistical analysis, which controls for several of

those variables at once, appears below. Suffice it to say here that the portion of

4 See G.Z. Wilder and K. Powell. (1989). Sex Differences in Test Performance: A Survey of the Literature.

New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
22 ...... Chapter 2

TABLE 2.3

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults:

Race/Ethnicity, by Education Level

EDUCATION LEVEL

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total 26,027 190,695

Prose 4 ( 0.1) 10 ( 0.3) 13 ( 0.2) 31 ( 0.1) 21 ( 0.2) 21 ( 0.2) 100 ( 0.0) 

 271 ( 2.0) 176 ( 2.7) 231 ( 1.5) 270 ( 1.0) 294 ( 1.0) 325 ( 1.1) 273 ( 0.6) 

Document 4 ( 0.1) 10 ( 0.3) 13 ( 0.2) 31 ( 0.1) 21 ( 0.2) 21 ( 0.2) 100 ( 0.0) 

 274 ( 1.9) 169 ( 2.4) 227 ( 1.6) 264 ( 1.0) 290 ( 0.9) 316 ( 0.9) 267 ( 0.7) 

Quantitative 4 ( 0.1) 10 ( 0.3) 13 ( 0.2) 31 ( 0.1) 21 ( 0.2) 21 ( 0.2) 100 ( 0.0) 

 269 ( 2.3) 169 ( 3.2) 227 ( 1.7) 270 ( 1.0) 295 ( 1.4) 324 ( 1.0) 272 ( 0.7) 

White 17,281 144,791

Prose 4 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.3) 11 ( 0.3) 32 ( 0.3) 21 ( 0.3) 24 ( 0.3) 100 ( 0.0) 

 283 ( 2.2) 201 ( 3.2) 243 ( 1.6) 278 ( 1.1) 301 ( 1.2) 331 ( 1.2) 286 ( 0.7) 

Document 4 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.3) 11 ( 0.3) 32 ( 0.3) 21 ( 0.3) 24 ( 0.3) 100 ( 0.0) 

 286 ( 2.3) 191 ( 3.2) 238 ( 1.9) 271 ( 1.1) 297 ( 1.0) 322 ( 1.0) 280 ( 0.8) 

Quantitative 4 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.3) 11 ( 0.3) 32 ( 0.3) 21 ( 0.3) 24 ( 0.3) 100 ( 0.0) 

 283 ( 2.4) 194 ( 3.9) 242 ( 2.2) 279 ( 1.1) 304 ( 1.5) 330 ( 1.1) 287 ( 0.8) 

Black 4,953 21,150

Prose 6 ( 0.5) 12 ( 0.7) 21 ( 0.8) 31 ( 1.0) 19 ( 0.9) 11 ( 0.7) 100 ( 0.0) 

 247 ( 4.0) 158 ( 3.9) 213 ( 2.3) 242 ( 1.6) 267 ( 1.8) 289 ( 2.7) 237 ( 1.4) 

Document 6 ( 0.5) 12 ( 0.7) 21 ( 0.8) 31 ( 1.0) 19 ( 0.9) 11 ( 0.7) 100 ( 0.0) 

 248 ( 3.9) 150 ( 3.1) 207 ( 2.2) 235 ( 1.6) 261 ( 2.2) 277 ( 2.6) 230 ( 1.1) 

Quantitative 6 ( 0.5) 12 ( 0.7) 21 ( 0.8) 31 ( 1.0) 19 ( 0.9) 11 ( 0.7) 100 ( 0.0) 

 234 ( 4.8) 139 ( 4.2) 197 ( 2.9) 233 ( 1.9) 258 ( 2.2) 279 ( 2.5) 224 ( 1.4) 

Hispanic 3,093 18,236

Prose 6 ( 0.5) 26 ( 1.0) 18 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1.1) 17 ( 0.8) 9 ( 0.8) 100 ( 0.0) 

 245 ( 7.0)! 135 ( 3.6) 200 ( 4.8) 241 ( 3.8) 265 ( 3.5) 294 ( 5.3)! 216 ( 2.2) 

Document 6 ( 0.5) 26 ( 1.0) 18 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1.1) 17 ( 0.8) 9 ( 0.8) 100 ( 0.0) 

 246 ( 6.6)! 130 ( 3.7) 197 ( 5.0) 240 ( 4.3) 263 ( 3.4) 293 ( 5.2)! 214 ( 2.6) 

Quantitative 6 ( 0.5) 26 ( 1.0) 18 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1.1) 17 ( 0.8) 9 ( 0.8) 100 ( 0.0) 

 241 ( 6.8)! 128 ( 3.7) 196 ( 5.4) 240 ( 4.2) 265 ( 3.5) 295 ( 6.3)! 213 ( 2.4) 

Other 700 6,518

Prose 6 ( 1.1) 12 ( 2.2) 11 ( 1.5) 24 ( 3.0) 21 ( 1.9) 26 ( 2.7) 100 ( 0.0) 

 *** (  ) 155 (10.9)! 212 (11.0)! 233 (10.5)! 269 ( 6.6)! 286 ( 5.6)! 244 ( 4.1) 

Document 6 ( 1.1) 12 ( 2.2) 11 ( 1.5) 24 ( 3.0) 21 ( 1.9) 26 ( 2.7) 100 ( 0.0) 

 ** * ( ****) 171 (11.7)! 212 (10.3)! 234 ( 9.0)! 266 ( 7.2)! 287 ( 5.6)! 246 ( 3.5) 

Quantitative 6 ( 1.1) 12 ( 2.2) 11 ( 1.5) 24 ( 3.0) 21 ( 1.9) 26 ( 2.7) 100 ( 0.0) 

 *** (  ) 169 (17.8)! 213 ( 9.5)! 242 ( 7.5)! 271 ( 6.1)! 297 ( 6.4)! 252 ( 3.8) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data);

RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be within

2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

** * Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

RACE /

ETHNICITY /

LITERACY

SCALE

Still in high

school 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years GED/Highschool

Some

postsecondary

College

graduate Total
Chapter 2 ...... 23

the gap in literacy proficiencies of different racial/ethnic groups that is

attributable to education is modest, suggesting that problems of racial and

ethnic disparities extend far beyond educational institutions. To say that

education does not explain all of the literacy differences between groups, of

course, does not mean that education is not strongly correlated with literacy

performance within groups.

In interpreting the literacy proficiencies by racial/ethnic groups, it is

important to emphasize that this survey assessed only English-language literacy

proficiencies. No non-English versions of the assessment were developed. This

may account for some part of the gap between Hispanic adults on the one hand

and both White and Black adults on the other hand. Furthermore, because the

first two education categories are quite broad (0 to 8 years, and 9 to 12 years)

one might wonder whether the categories mask differences in educational

attainment by racial/ethnic groups. Table 2.4 shows that the average number of

years of schooling attained was very similar for Black and White respondents

who reported 0 to 11 years of schooling, but that the average for the Hispanic

WGT N = population size estimate /1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes because of

missing data); CPCT = column percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to

be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

YEARS OF

SCHOOLING

TABLE 2.4

Percentages of Adults with 11 or Fewer Years of Schooling

Reporting Number of Years and Mean Years, by Race/Ethnicity

RACE /ETHNICITY

White

WGT N (/1,000)

26,284

CPCT (SE)

Black

WGT N (/1,000)

6,664

CPCT (SE)

Hispanic

WGT N (/1,000)

7,228

CPCT (SE)

Other

WGT N (/1,000)

1,449

CPCT (SE)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Mean

0.5 (0.2) 0.6 (0.3) 10.9 (2.2) 5.9 (2.6)

0.3 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) 1.7 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0)

0.5 (0.1) 1.4 (0.2) 2.8 (0.5) 1.6 (1.1)

1.4 (0.4) 2.5 (0.4) 6.2 (0.8) 4.4 (2.9)

1.9 (0.3) 2.7 (0.4) 4.5 (0.9) 4.7 (1.4)

1.9 (0.3) 4.7 (0.6) 5.6 (0.9) 8.2 (4.2)

3.9 (0.5) 5.1 (0.8) 14.2 (1.1) 9.9 (3.6)

6.3 (0.7) 5.3 (0.6) 4.2 (0.6) 6.7 (2.1)

22.3 (1.3) 13.2 (1.2) 9.9 (1.2) 13.4 (4.1)

17.9 (1.0) 15.1 (1.6) 13.0 (1.3) 12.0 (2.8)

20.2 (1.0) 19.7 (1.7) 10.8 (1.1) 13.0 (3.8)

22.9 (1.3) 29.1 (2.0) 16.2 (1.3) 20.1 (4.3)

8.8 (0.1) 8.7 (0.1) 6.7 (0.2) 7.5 (0.4)
24 ...... Chapter 2

population was lower. Among those White respondents who reported 11 or

fewer years of schooling, the average number of years completed was 8.8;

among Black adults the average was 8.7; among Hispanic adults the average

was 6.7. The reason, as shown in table 2.4, is that a very large proportion of

Hispanic subjects reported no schooling whatsoever (10.9 percent, compared

with 0.5 percent for White adults and 0.6 percent for Black adults). Perhaps

this results from lack of educational opportunity not only for Hispanic people

who immigrated, but also for those who were born in this country. Although

the average years of schooling are similar for Black and White respondents who

have eleven or fewer years of schooling, the distributions are quite different. At

the lower attainment levels, however, our sample size is not sufficient to

provide statistically significant estimates of these differences.5

These distributions suggest, however, that some of our broad categories

mask differences in educational attainment by race. Thus, some of the

differences in literacy proficiency by race/ethnicity at a given education level

may be due to differences in educational attainment within the broad

categories. Table 2.5 illustrates this phenomenon at the higher levels of

attainment. Table 2.3 combined all those with any higher education but no

degree into some postsecondary and all degree-holders (2-year, 4-year, and

postgraduate) into college degree. Table 2.5 breaks these higher education

categories into four more finely defined categories. While the percentage of

White adults who attained two or more years but no degree (21.5) is somewhat

similar to that for Hispanic adults (17.4) and for Black respondents (18.9), the

rate for White 4-year-college-degree holders (10.5 percent) is about twice that

of Black 4-year-college-degree holders (5.3 percent), while 4 percent of

Hispanic respondents held such degrees. At the postgraduate level the ratio of

White attainment is about three times that of Black or Hispanic attainment.

The broader categories of table 2.3, then, do not fully control for level of

education.

Differences persist, however, even when level of educational attainment is

better controlled. For example, in the case of high school or GED graduates

with no further education (table 2.3), the average prose proficiencies of White,

Black, and Hispanic respondents are 278, 242, and 241, respectively. The

possible reasons for such differences include disparities in other factors that

vary by race, such as family income and parental education, as well as

disparities in the quality of schooling received by different groups and

disparities in opportunities for lifelong learning depending on job

5 Similar distributions are reported in R. Kominski and A. Adams. (1992). Educational Attainment in the

United States: March 1991 and 1990. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 462. Washington, DC:

Bureau of the Census. Further research is needed on members of different racial and ethnic groups who

receive very low levels of formal schooling.
Chapter 2 ...... 25

TABLE 2.5

Percentages of Adults at Higher Education Levels Only, by 

Race/Ethnicity

RACE/

ETHNICITY

HIGHER EDUCATION LEVELS

2 years or more, 2-year 4-year Postgraduate

no degree degree degree work or degree

WGT N 

(/1,000) RPCT* ( SE) RPCT* ( SE) RPCT* ( SE) RPCT* ( SE)

144,762 21.5 (0.3) 3.9 (0.2) 10.5 (0.2) 9.9 (0.3)

21,150 18.9 (0.9) 2.4 (0.4) 5.3 (0.4) 3.5 (0.4)

18,234 17.4 (0.8) 2.1 (0.3) 4.0 (0.6) 3.1 (0.4)

White

Black

Hispanic

opportunities and other adult activities. Figure 2.2 shows the resulting pattern

of literacy abilities by racial/ethnic group, expressed as percentages of each

group at each of the five literacy levels, subdivided by education level.

Combining all education levels, 40 percent of White subjects perform in the

lower two levels on the prose scale, while 75 percent of Black and Hispanic

subjects and 63 percent of the subjects from other racial/ethnic groups perform

in either of those levels. Looking at the higher levels, 25 percent of White

adults perform in Level 4 or 5, while 4 percent of Black adults, 7 percent of

Hispanic adults, and 12 percent of other groups perform in either of those

levels. (Also see tables B2.2P, D, and Q.)

Schooling plays an important double role in shaping these English literacy

proficiencies by race/ethnicity. First, people with more education demonstrate

higher proficiencies on the literacy assessment, on average; and, as we noted

above, the amount of schooling attained within the broad educational levels

differs among racial groups, so that even if people at the same education level

attained exactly the same literacy proficiency, the groups would still have

different average literacy proficiencies, attributable to different amounts of

WGT N = population size estimate /1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes because of

missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

* Percentages do not add up to 100 because data for lower educational levels are not included in the table.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
26 ...... Chapter 2

NALS

Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies, by Race/Ethnicity and Education Level

Figure 2.2

Average Proficiency

283 202 243 278 302 331 287

Still in 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years H.S. dip. Some College Overall

high school or GED college degree

Levels

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percentage in Level

1 2 34 5

10

1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5

WHITE

32

44

14

1

64

34 41

22

3

29

6 0* 0* 0*

11

35 41

12

1 4

21

47

25

3 2

8

32

45

13 14

26

36

21

4

Average Proficiency

247 159 213 242 267 289 327

Still in 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years H.S. dip. Some College Overall

high school or GED college degree

Levels

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percentage in Level

1 2 34 5

27

1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5

BLACK

51

21

1 0*

88

57

36

7 11

1 0* 0* 0* 0*

32

47

19

2 0*

17

38 37

7 0*

8

29

44

16

2

38 37

21

4 0*

Average Proficiency

246 135 200 241 265 294 216

Still in 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years H.S. dip. Some College Overall

high school or GED college degree

Levels

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percentage in Level

1 2 34 5

34

1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5

HISPANIC

38

23

5 0*

92

62

30

7 1 6 1 0* 0* 0*

32

39

26

4 0*

21

30 36

12

25 1

9

25

37

25

4

49

26

19

6 1

Average Proficiency

155 211 232 268 285 243

Still in 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years H.S. dip. Some College Overall

high school or GED college degree

Levels

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percentage in Level

1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5

OTHER

82

56

31

12

1

17

1 0* 0* 0*

37 33

24

5 1

21

30 31

16

2

13

26

38

20

3

34 29 25

10

2

*Percentages below .5 are rounded to 0.

Level 1 (0 to 225) Level 2 (226 to 275) Level 3 (276 to 325) Level 4 (326 to 375) Level 5 (376 to 500)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Chapter 2 ...... 27

schooling attained by different groups. Second, however, members of different

groups in fact have different literacy proficiencies at the same education level;

other variables, such as family conditions and school quality, may account for

differences in literacy skills for different racial and ethnic groups with the same

amount of schooling. It would seem, then, that efforts to improve the English

literacy abilities of minorities face uphill challenges both in terms of quantity

and effectiveness of education.

Results by Parents’ Education Level

Respondents in the National Adult Literacy Survey were asked to state the

highest year of schooling attained by their parents or guardians. Table 2.6

presents the literacy proficiencies of respondents with different levels of

schooling, by the highest level of education received by either parent. Parents’

education level correlates with higher proficiency on the literacy scales, when

controlling for the subject’s education level. It is not a huge effect (compared,

for example, with the respondent’s own education), but it is very consistent.

Compare, for example, the prose literacy scores of respondents with a high

school diploma. Those whose parents had no more than 8 years of schooling

average 255; those whose parents had 9 to 12 years of education average 267.

When at least one of the subject’s parents had a high school diploma, the

proficiency is 275, and when one had a college degree, the subject’s proficiency

averages 286. These data remind us that while we focus on the strong

correlation of schooling and literacy ability, we must also be aware of the strong

and consistent conditioning effects of family variables. Parents’ education level

may be a proxy for the family’s socioeconomic status; but it may also stand as a

measure of educational resources in the home or of parents as educational role

models and as shapers of their children’s aspirations. Any of these roles could

help explain the relationships observed in table 2.6.
28 ...... Chapter 2

TABLE 2.6

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults:

Respondents' Education Level, by Parents' Education Level

PARENTS’ EDUCATION LEVEL

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

0 to 8 Years 1,412 11,983

Prose 77 ( 1.6) 8 ( 1.0) 13 ( 1.4) 2 ( 0.5) 

 173 ( 2.9) 190 ( 7.5)! 208 ( 7.7)! *** (  ) 

Document 77 ( 1.6) 8 ( 1.0) 13 ( 1.4) 2 ( 0.5) 

 165 ( 2.9) 181 ( 7.7)! 202 ( 7.0)! ** * ( ****) 

Quantitative 77 ( 1.6) 8 ( 1.0) 13 ( 1.4) 2 ( 0.5) 

 168 ( 3.8) 181 ( 8.0)! 200 ( 8.5)! *** (  ) 

9 to 12 Years 2,245 16,932

Prose 46 ( 1.4) 19 ( 1.1) 30 ( 1.5) 5 ( 0.7) 

 218 ( 2.1) 235 ( 3.5) 244 ( 2.7) 256 ( 7.1)! 

Document 46 ( 1.4) 19 ( 1.1) 30 ( 1.5) 5 ( 0.7) 

 212 ( 2.3) 232 ( 4.3) 243 ( 2.8) 258 ( 6.9)! 

Quantitative 46 ( 1.4) 19 ( 1.1) 30 ( 1.5) 5 ( 0.7) 

 217 ( 2.8) 232 ( 4.6) 242 ( 3.2) 257 ( 6.4)! 

High School 4,577 37,485

Prose 28 ( 1.0) 15 ( 0.7) 48 ( 1.0) 9 ( 0.6) 

 255 ( 2.4) 267 ( 3.1) 275 ( 1.7) 286 ( 3.5) 

Document 28 ( 1.0) 15 ( 0.7) 48 ( 1.0) 9 ( 0.6) 

 245 ( 2.5) 260 ( 2.3) 271 ( 1.6) 286 ( 4.4) 

Quantitative 28 ( 1.0) 15 ( 0.7) 48 ( 1.0) 9 ( 0.6) 

 255 ( 2.5) 266 ( 3.4) 277 ( 1.8) 284 ( 3.5) 

4 Year College Degree 1,487 10,683

Prose 14 ( 1.1) 7 ( 0.9) 43 ( 2.0) 35 ( 1.7) 

 296 ( 4.1)! 308 ( 5.8)! 318 ( 2.1) 324 ( 2.3) 

Document 14 ( 1.1) 7 ( 0.9) 43 ( 2.0) 35 ( 1.7) 

 284 ( 4.0)! 294 ( 6.9)! 310 ( 2.2) 320 ( 2.4) 

Quantitative 14 ( 1.1) 7 ( 0.9) 43 ( 2.0) 35 ( 1.7) 

 303 ( 4.8)! 313 ( 7.1)! 320 ( 2.2) 324 ( 2.4) 

Total Population 17,266 126,380

Prose 31 ( 0.6) 13 ( 0.4) 41 ( 0.6) 16 ( 0.4) 

 233 ( 1.5) 264 ( 1.7) 284 ( 0.9) 305 ( 1.4) 

Document 31 ( 0.6) 13 ( 0.4) 41 ( 0.6) 16 ( 0.4) 

 225 ( 1.6) 258 ( 1.7) 279 ( 0.7) 302 ( 1.5) 

Quantitative 31 ( 0.6) 13 ( 0.4) 41 ( 0.6) 16 ( 0.4) 

 233 ( 1.7) 264 ( 2.0) 284 ( 0.9) 304 ( 1.9) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

** * Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

RESPONDENTS’

EDUCATION LEVEL/

LITERACY SCALE 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years High school 4 year college

degree
Chapter 2 ...... 29

Literacy and Household Income

Total household income of a subject is quite regularly related to literacy levels

in the National Adult Literacy Survey. Table 2.7 shows that the average

proficiency of high school graduates in households with incomes below $20,000

is 261 on the prose scale. Those whose family income was $20,000 to $39,999

average 276, while those with a family income of $40,000 to $74,999 average

284. As logical as the connection may seem, the data are difficult to interpret.

The cell sizes are small, so some differences do not reach statistical

significance. Furthermore, it is not possible to determine whether higher

household income is the cause or the effect of higher literacy proficiencies. For

younger adults, higher family income may represent resources that allow them

to pursue more education. For older adults, higher family income may reflect

the subject’s own enhanced earning power due to higher literacy proficiencies

attained earlier. Chapter 5 documents that among professionals 64 percent

perform in Level 4 or Level 5 on the prose scale; among clerical workers 26

percent do; and among nonsupervisory farm workers, 9 percent.6 The data

from this survey also indicate that adults with lower literacy scores are

disproportionately poor. For example, of adults performing in Level 1 on the

prose scale, 43 percent are in poverty, whereas only 12 percent of those in

Level 3 are.7

Income can be a conditioning background factor influencing whether a

person acquires literacy abilities, but income can also be the outcome of one’s

literacy abilities. In both cases, higher income is correlated with higher literacy

proficiencies. The relationship of household income to literacy proficiency is

straightforward as a correlation: the higher the one, the higher the other. It is

complex when one inquires how the income relates to literacy proficiency: as a

resource, as a consequence, or as a proxy for a literacy-rich household

environment. These data yield no answers to these questions, about which one

can only speculate.

6 See table 5.2 in chapter 5.

7 See I.S. Kirsch, et al. (1993). Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult

Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, p. 60.
30 ...... Chapter 2

TABLE 2.7

Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults at

Each Education Level, by Household Income

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Still in high school 366 3,234 27 ( 4.2) 24 ( 3.1) 30 ( 3.3) 19 ( 2.5) 

 247 ( 6.8)! 273 ( 5.0)! 289 ( 6.5)! 301 ( 9.1)!

0 to 8 years 1,264 11,394 70 ( 2.0) 22 ( 1.8) 7 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.4) 

 179 ( 3.0) 194 ( 5.4) 197 (11.2)! *** (  )

9 to 12 years 1,975 16,747 50 ( 1.6) 34 ( 1.5) 14 ( 1.0) 3 ( 0.5) 

 225 ( 2.0) 242 ( 3.1) 254 ( 4.8)! ** * ( ****) 

GED/High school 5,196 42,983 30 ( 0.9) 38 ( 1.0) 27 ( 0.7) 6 ( 0.5) 

 261 ( 1.8) 276 ( 1.5) 284 ( 1.8) 290 ( 3.1)!

Some postsecondary 5,068 31,020 23 ( 1.1) 34 ( 0.9) 34 ( 1.1) 10 ( 0.7) 

 286 ( 2.6) 294 ( 1.9) 305 ( 1.6) 313 ( 2.9) 

College graduate 4,938 34,594 11 ( 0.7) 23 ( 0.8) 41 ( 1.0) 25 ( 1.1) 

 311 ( 3.4) 320 ( 2.2) 330 ( 1.5) 341 ( 1.7) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

EDUCATION LEVEL

$0 to $19,999 $20,000 to

$39,999

$40,000 to

$74,999

$75,000 and

over

Results by Age

The relevance of the subjects’ age to their literacy proficiencies is also complex.

In this case, the correlation is curvilinear, that is, literacy proficiencies rise as we

move from the group in their twenties to those in their thirties, and again to

those in their forties. Thereafter, however, the line bends downward as the

average literacy proficiencies drop among subjects in their fifties and

subsequent cohorts. Table 2.8 presents prose literacy proficiencies and the
Chapter 2 ...... 31

percentages performing at each literacy level for different age groups, and,

within the age groups, by the amount of education the participants completed.

The age cohorts include one group for the 16- to 19-year olds, cohorts by

decade up through age 69, and then one group for the subjects who were 70

and older. The participants aged 20 to 29 became 18 years old in the 1980s;

thus, they reflect educational conditions of that decade for most of their

elementary and secondary schooling. The 30-year olds are the generation of the

1970s; those in their 40s were high school age in the 1960s, and so forth.

Overall prose proficiency by age cohort, across all education levels, rises

from 273 for the 16- to 19-year olds to 281 for the 20- to 29-year olds, to 287

for the 30- to 39-year olds and 288 for the 40- to 49-year olds, and then

declines: 271 among 50- to 59-year olds, 252 among 60- to 69-year olds, and

222 among those 70 and over. If one controls for level of education, of course,

these differences are reduced, although the older cohorts show a slight

tendency toward lower scores at a given education level. The main trends,

though, are that average prose literacy proficiency rises from the 20- to 29-

year-old cohort through the 40- to 49-year-old cohort, and then people in the

three oldest cohorts demonstrate decreasing overall prose proficiency.

It is tempting to make historical generalizations from cohort data, but

strictly speaking the data do not allow historical comparisons. They do not

provide a comparison of the 20-year olds now with the 60-year olds when they

were 20, so we cannot make generalizations about the relationship between

their schooling experiences and their literacy abilities. The 60-year olds have

had the subsequent 40 years to learn, to improve their literacy in non-school

settings, or, conversely, to forget some of their skills. Demographers call these

differences that are due to changes in individuals’ life-course experiences

maturation effects, in contrast to the different historical circumstances

experienced by different generations, which are called cohort effects. One

plausible explanation of the curvilinear trend in overall literacy scores across

cohorts — rising until the age of 50, then declining — is that in early adulthood

people continue to learn, both in formal schooling and in other settings (a

maturation effect), but that older generations do less of this, and their lower

school attainment rates (a cohort effect) account for much of their lower

literacy scores.

Whatever the cause, the maturation effects seem more salient up to about

age 50, and the cohort effects are more obvious in those over 50. This is true of

both assessed literacy proficiencies (table 2.8) and educational attainment

(table 2.2). There we note that among 20- to 29-year olds, only 3 percent

terminated schooling with eight or fewer years, and 13 percent received 9 to 12

years. These figures do not change much in the succeeding cohorts up to age
32 ...... Chapter 2

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

16 to 19 Years Old

Still in high school 947 8,012 15 ( 1.8) 36 ( 2.2) 37 ( 2.6) 11 ( 2.0) 0†( 0.5) 272 ( 2.0) 

0 to 8 years 58 400 57 ( 9.2) 33 (10.3) 10 ( 7.0) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 203 ( 9.8) 

9 to 12 years 260 1,763 27 ( 4.6) 42 ( 5.4) 27 ( 4.0) 4 ( 2.1) 0†( 0.4) 251 ( 4.9) 

GED/High school diploma 269 2,974 8 ( 2.3) 31 ( 6.2) 48 ( 6.6) 13 ( 3.6) 1 ( 0.6) 284 ( 3.9) 

Some postsecondary 192 1,147 2 ( 1.1) 18 ( 4.8) 52 ( 7.6) 25 ( 6.9) 3 ( 2.0) 306 ( 4.0) 

College graduate 2 14 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

Total 1,728 14,310 15 ( 1.3) 34 ( 2.4) 39 ( 2.3) 11 ( 1.4) 1 ( 0.4) 273 ( 1.5) 

20 to 29 Years Old

Still in high school 18 127 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

0 to 8 years 262 1,371 74 ( 5.5) 21 ( 5.8) 5 ( 2.2) 0†( 0.4) 0†( 0.0) 168 ( 6.9) 

9 to 12 years 935 5,168 36 ( 2.5) 41 ( 2.9) 20 ( 3.2) 3 ( 1.0) 0†( 0.2) 237 ( 3.2) 

GED/High school diploma 1,834 15,779 16 ( 1.2) 36 ( 1.9) 37 ( 1.7) 10 ( 1.3) 0†( 0.2) 270 ( 1.8) 

Some postsecondary 1,972 11,056 6 ( 0.7) 22 ( 1.6) 44 ( 2.0) 25 ( 1.6) 3 ( 0.7) 299 ( 1.6) 

College graduate 1,111 7,728 2 ( 0.8) 8 ( 1.7) 35 ( 3.0) 44 ( 2.3) 11 ( 1.6) 327 ( 2.4) 

Total 6,132 41,229 15 ( 0.7) 27 ( 1.1) 35 ( 1.1) 19 ( 1.0) 3 ( 0.4) 281 ( 1.2) 

30 to 39 Years Old

Still in high school 3 10 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

0 to 8 years 351 2,286 81 ( 3.1) 15 ( 3.5) 4 ( 3.2) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.0) 158 ( 5.3) 

9 to 12 years 719 4,811 38 ( 3.2) 39 ( 2.6) 20 ( 2.7) 3 ( 1.1) 0†( 0.1) 235 ( 3.3) 

GED/High school diploma 1,899 12,989 13 ( 1.3) 34 ( 1.6) 39 ( 2.3) 13 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.4) 276 ( 1.5) 

Some postsecondary 1,834 10,156 6 ( 1.1) 20 ( 1.3) 46 ( 1.9) 25 ( 1.7) 3 ( 0.6) 299 ( 1.6) 

College graduate 1,925 12,125 2 ( 0.5) 7 ( 1.0) 32 ( 1.7) 45 ( 1.8) 14 ( 1.1) 332 ( 1.5) 

Total 6,731 42,376 15 ( 0.7) 22 ( 0.6) 34 ( 1.1) 23 ( 0.9) 5 ( 0.4) 287 ( 1.2) 

40 to 49 Years Old

Still in high school 1 41 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

0 to 8 years 293 2,067 71 ( 5.4) 23 ( 4.8) 6 ( 3.1) 0†( 1.0) 0†( 0.0) 172 ( 7.5) 

9 to 12 years 413 2,953 46 ( 3.9) 36 ( 4.2) 16 ( 3.2) 2 ( 2.0) 0†( 0.3) 227 ( 3.8) 

GED/High school diploma 1,260 9,232 13 ( 1.5) 35 ( 2.3) 41 ( 3.2) 10 ( 1.7) 1 ( 0.5) 274 ( 2.3) 

Some postsecondary 1,201 7,350 5 ( 0.8) 21 ( 2.0) 47 ( 2.8) 24 ( 2.5) 3 ( 0.9) 299 ( 2.2) 

College graduate 1,513 10,734 2 ( 0.6) 9 ( 1.3) 29 ( 2.3) 46 ( 2.0) 14 ( 1.2) 332 ( 2.1) 

Total 4,681 32,376 14 ( 0.7) 22 ( 1.1) 34 ( 1.2) 24 ( 0.9) 5 ( 0.5) 288 ( 1.5) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

AGE BY EDUCATION

LEVEL Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency

TABLE 2.8

Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults,

by Age and Education Level
Chapter 2 ...... 33

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

50 to 59 Years Old

Still in high school 00 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

0 to 8 years 344 2,482 74 ( 4.0) 23 ( 4.3) 3 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.0) 177 ( 5.1) 

9 to 12 years 364 2,765 39 ( 3.6) 42 ( 4.9) 16 ( 4.8) 2 ( 1.0) 0†( 0.1) 234 ( 3.8) 

GED/High school diploma 938 7,049 15 ( 1.6) 36 ( 2.3) 40 ( 2.9) 10 ( 1.8) 0†( 0.2) 272 ( 1.9) 

Some postsecondary 699 4,054 7 ( 1.3) 24 ( 3.7) 49 ( 5.0) 17 ( 2.8) 1 ( 1.2) 290 ( 2.2) 

College graduate 694 4,759 2 ( 0.7) 11 ( 1.6) 38 ( 2.7) 40 ( 2.8) 10 ( 1.7) 324 ( 2.0) 

Total 3,039 21,109 21 ( 1.1) 27 ( 1.5) 34 ( 1.9) 16 ( 1.3) 3 ( 0.4) 271 ( 1.6) 

60 to 69 Years Old

Still in high school 2 53 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

0 to 8 years 391 3,832 70 ( 3.6) 26 ( 3.7) 4 ( 1.9) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 188 ( 4.0) 

9 to 12 years 360 3,830 43 ( 3.7) 39 ( 4.0) 16 ( 3.3) 1 ( 1.0) 0†( 0.0) 233 ( 3.2) 

GED/High school diploma 651 5,817 19 ( 2.5) 41 ( 2.9) 34 ( 3.1) 6 ( 1.3) 0†( 0.4) 262 ( 2.5) 

Some postsecondary 466 3,186 11 ( 2.7) 34 ( 4.2) 42 ( 3.4) 12 ( 3.2) 1 ( 0.5) 278 ( 3.2) 

College graduate 392 3,325 4 ( 1.7) 21 ( 3.2) 41 ( 3.4) 27 ( 3.9) 7 ( 1.8) 308 ( 3.3) 

Total 2,262 20,043 30 ( 1.7) 33 ( 1.9) 27 ( 1.4) 8 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.3) 252 ( 1.6) 

70 Years or Older

Still in high school 2 26 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

0 to 8 years 468 5,919 80 ( 3.1) 17 ( 2.6) 3 ( 1.2) 0†( 0.9) 0†( 0.1) 177 ( 4.8) 

9 to 12 years 259 3,691 62 ( 4.1) 31 ( 3.9) 7 ( 2.3) 0†( 0.4) 0†( 0.0) 206 ( 3.3) 

GED/High school diploma 316 4,663 31 ( 4.0) 47 ( 4.7) 20 ( 3.0) 3 ( 2.0) 0†( 0.2) 242 ( 4.3) 

Some postsecondary 220 2,681 26 ( 4.6) 36 ( 4.3) 31 ( 4.7) 5 ( 2.7) 1 ( 0.9) 256 ( 5.7) 

College graduate 178 2,239 14 ( 3.4) 32 ( 5.1) 34 ( 4.8) 17 ( 4.9) 3 ( 2.2) 281 ( 5.2) 

Total 1,443 19,220 49 ( 2.0) 31 ( 1.8) 16 ( 1.4) 4 ( 1.2) 0†( 0.3) 222 ( 2.6) 

Grand Total

Grand Total 6,744 60,372 33 ( 0.9) 31 ( 1.0) 26 ( 1.0) 10 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.2) 249 ( 1.3) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

AGE BY EDUCATION LEVEL

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency

TABLE 2.8 Continued

Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults,

by Age and Education Level
34 ...... Chapter 2

50: for 30- to 39-year olds the two rates are 5 and 11 percent, and for people 40

to 49 years old, 6 and 9 percent. Above age 50, however, these low-end

schooling rates increase: among 50- to 59-year olds 12 percent had 8 or fewer

years, while 13 percent had 9 to 12 years; among 60- to 69-year olds the rates

were 19 percent for both categories, and for those over 70 they were 31 and 19

percent, meaning that half of the adults over 70 did not receive a high school

diploma. In the meantime, for the rest of these cohorts, formal learning

continued quite impressively through the 40-year-old cohort. The percentage

of the 20- to 29-year-old cohort that graduated from college is 19 percent;

among the 30- to 39-year olds it is 29 percent; for 40- to 49-year olds, it

increases again to 33 percent. We know that these increases were maturation

effects — that is, individuals who continued their college education as older

adults. They were not cohort effects, because we know that college enrollment

rates were not higher in earlier decades.8 But after age 50 this effect

reduces, probably because fewer individuals pursue formal degrees in their

own life course beyond age 50, combined with the effect of lower college

enrollment rates in the older cohorts’ historical experience of earlier decades.

Thus, among 50- to 59-year olds, the percentage of college graduates is 23

percent; among 60- to 69-year olds, it is 17 percent; and among those 70 and

older, it is 12 percent. Because literacy abilities are highly correlated with

educational attainment, this profile of very different schooling experiences of

people at different ages obviously affects the overall literacy profile of the

different cohorts.

Although the data in table 2.8 mix historical and life course experiences,

they shed some light on one historical question. During the mid-1970s and

1980s, many school critics charged that the schools had declined in standards

and effective teaching during the period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s.

They cited declining scores on college entrance tests and school achievement

tests; and they urged a return to basics and more academic emphasis. To the

extent that there was a general decline, one might expect to see it reflected in

the literacy performance of adults at the same education level in the different

cohorts. The data provide no support for such a hypothesis. Tables 2.9A and B

summarize the relevant data. Among those with a high school diploma or GED

in this sample, the group that became 18 years old during the 1980s had a

slightly larger percentage in the lowest two literacy levels (52 percent) than the

1970s cohort (47 percent) and the 1960s cohort (48 percent). Then the cohort

that went to high school in the 1950s displays slightly larger percentages in

8

 See S. Harris. (1972). A Statistical Portrait of Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 413; and

National Center for Educational Statistics. (1992). Digest of Educational Statistics, 1992. Washington, DC:

Department of Education, p. 9.
Chapter 2 ...... 35

these lower literacy levels (51 percent) and the 1940s generation included even

more (60 percent). As table 2.9A shows, many of these slight changes across

decades are not statistically significant. The important point is not whether

these increased proficiencies in younger cohorts are statistically significant, but

that there is no indication of decline in proficiency at a given education level

for the generations that completed high school in the 1960s or 1970s. The same

point can be made by looking at college graduates across the cohorts and asking

how many scored in Level 4 and Level 5 in prose literacy (table 2.9B). Most of

the comparisons are not statistically significant, and there is no suggestion in

these data of a decline in the 1960s or 1970s.

What these data show is consistent with our whole discussion of age,

schooling, and literacy abilities. These cohort data imply that, on average,

adults continue to improve their literacy proficiencies as they get older until

sometime in their 40s. On average, they acquire more formal schooling, which

correlates with the higher literacy proficiencies. In the older cohorts, schooling

levels decline, as do literacy proficiencies at a given education level. The

reasons, of course, do not emerge from these correlations; there are several

possibilities. Rates of acquiring additional schooling slow down among adults

50 and older, and increasing education is associated with higher literacy scores.

TABLE 2.9A

Percentages of High School Graduates/GED Holders

in Levels 1 and 2, by Decade of Schooling

GED/HS

Significant Significant

Percent in Level difference from Percent in difference from

Level 1 (SE) the decade Level 2 (SE) the decade

above? above?

16 (1.2) N/A 36 (1.9) N/A

13 (3.2) NO 34 (1.6) NO

13 (1.5) NO 35 (2.3) NO

15 (1.6) NO 36 (2.3) NO

19 (2.5) NO 41 (2.9) NO

31 (4.0) YES 47 (4.7) NO

1980s (age 20-29)

1970s (age 30-39)

1960s (age 40-49)

1950s (age 50-59)

1940s (age 60-69)

1930s (age 70+) or earlier

(SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate

with 95% certainty).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
36 ...... Chapter 2

9

 See L.C. Stedman and C.F. Kaestle. (1991). “Literacy and Reading Performance in the United States from

1880 to the Present.” In Kaestle, et al., Literacy in the United States: Readers and Reading Since 1880. New

Haven: Yale University Press.

10 See H. Brown, R. Prisuta, B. Jacobs, and A. Campbell. (1996). Literacy of Older Adults in America.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

The learning curve for acquiring literacy skills in work and other adult roles

may also slow down for many. The historical experience of the older cohorts

may contain relevant factors as well, but studies have not shown a significant

increase (nor a decrease) across the decades in schools’ ability to teach reading

ability at a given grade level.9 Some literacy abilities may decline with aging if

they are not used regularly; and disabilities may play a role in the correlations

we observe here between older cohorts and lower literacy scores.10

Sorting Out the Variables

The background variables that influence adults’ literacy proficiencies confound

each other; they overlap. Some of the differences in literacy proficiencies by

race may be due to the fact that White adults are wealthier than minorities, on

average. Some of the differences in literacy associated with parents’ education

may be due to the fact that parents’ education is a proxy for family income.

TABLE 2.9B

Percentages of College Graduates in Levels 4 and 5,

by Decade of Schooling

COLLEGE GRADUATE

Significant Significant

Percent in Level difference from Percent in difference from

Level 4 (SE) the decade Level 5 (SE) the decade

above? above?

44 (2.3) N/A 11 (1.6) N/A

45 (1.8) NO 14 (1.1) NO

46 (2.0) NO 14 (1.2) NO

40 (2.8) NO 10 (1.7) NO

27 (3.9) YES 7 (1.8) NO

17 (4.9) NO 3 (2.2) NO

1980s (age 20-29)

1970s (age 30-39)

1960s (age 40-49)

1950s (age 50-59)

1940s (age 60-69)

1930s (age 70+) or earlier

(SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate

with 95% certainty).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Chapter 2 ...... 37

How do we sort out these overlapping categories? One statistical method,

called multiple regression analysis, attempts to estimate the independent effect

of each of the background variables while controlling for the effect of each of

the others. For example, how much increase in prose literacy is associated with

an increase in parental education level, other things being equal? This analysis

gives an estimate for increases in literacy due to parental education among

individuals whose race, household income, region, and age are the same.

The results of a regression analysis performed on the data are found in

table 2.10. The regression coefficients tell us how much of an increase or

decrease in prose proficiency score would be attributable to a change of one

category in the variable being looked at, while all the other variables in the

equation are held constant. For example, among respondents who had one

parent whose highest level of education was high school completion, the

average prose proficiency score is 31 points higher than the average score

among respondents whose parents received only 0 to 8 years of education, but

some of that difference is attributable to other variables that are also correlated

with parents’ education, such as race and income. Regression #1 controls for

the effects of race/ethnicity, region, gender, household income, and subject’s

age. In this regression, parents’ education level accounts for 17 points of the

difference between the two groups. In regression #2 we controlled for the

subject’s own education, and the impact of parents’ education dropped to 7.4

points. In other words, parents’ education accounts for 7.4 points of the

average score difference between children whose parents had 0 to 8 years of

education and children whose parents had a high school diploma, after

controlling for the other variables. Parents’ education is still an important

correlate, but not nearly as decisive as it appears when we simply look at the

literacy proficiencies of respondents whose parents had different amounts of

education. This is the sort of perspective regression analysis can give us.

Regarding race/ethnicity categories, the contrast group is Black adults. For

example, Mexican American adults’ average prose proficiency score,

uncontrolled for other variables, is 31 points lower than that of Black adults

(the zero-order relationship). When controlling for the variables in the first

regression, including region, gender, parents’ education, household income,

and age of subject (but not subject’s education), the gap narrows to 23 points;

in other words, about 8 points of the difference between Mexican American

adults and Black American adults on prose proficiency is attributable to the

variables controlled, not to the race/ethnicity difference. When education levels

are introduced, the gap narrows again, to about 13 points, so the subject’s

education has accounted for about another 10 points of the difference.
38 ...... Chapter 2

11 The regression coefficients state the difference between each group and the contrast group, while

 controlling for the effect of the other variables listed.

12 Subjects still in high school deleted.

TABLE 2.10

Results of Multiple Regression Analysis, Prose Scale

Regression #1 Regression #2 

(controls for 

VARIABLE subject’s education)

(CONTRAST GROUP)

Race/Ethnicity (Black Adults)

Mexican -31 -23.4 -8.5* -13.2 -5.5*

Puerto Rican -19 -11.3 -2.2* -8.8 -1.9

Cuban -26 -20.8 -3.1* -11.9 -2.1*

Central/South American -30 -31.1 -6.9* -24.9 -6.0*

Other Hispanic 23 10.2 2.2* 11.4 2.7*

Asian/Pacific Island 5 -11.8 -2.9* -18.3 -4.9*

Native American/Alaskan Indian 17 11.9 2.1* 12.7 2.4*

White 49 37.2 22.4* 32.3 21.5*

Other/Missing -24 -27.2 -3.3* -21.1 -2.8*

Region (Northeast)

Midwest 9 7.7 5.5* 7.0 5.7*

South -3 1.1 0.7 2.1 1.6

West 6 8.6 5.5* 6.6 4.7*

Gender (Male)

Female 1 8.0 7.6* 6.8 7.2*

Parents’ Education Level

(0 to 8 years)

9 to 12 years 31 17.0 8.9* 7.4 4.3*

High school/GED graduate 50 27.3 19.5* 13.1 10.3*

Some postsecondary 66 41.8 22.2* 22.1 13.0*

College graduate 78 52.3 32.2* 27.4 17.5*

Household Income ($0 to 9,999)

$10,000 to 19,999 20 16.4 7.7* 10.1 5.4*

$20,000 to 29,999 40 26.7 12.5* 14.3 7.7*

$30,000 to 39,999 50 33.6 15.4* 16.9 8.9*

$40,000 to 49,999 61 38.2 16.1* 19.5 9.0*

$50,000 to 74,999 73 47.4 20.2* 22.7 10.8*

$75,000 and over 88 57.5 22.6* 28.3 12.8*

Missing data 16 8.9 4.9* 0.8 0.5*

Subject’s Age (16- to 18-year-olds)

19- to 24-year olds 6 14.1 6.0* 2.8 1.3

25- to 29-year olds 8 11.4 5.1* -1.8 -0.9

40- to 54-year olds 4 11.0 4.6* -2.6 -1.2

55- to 64-year olds -25 -3.1 -1.2 -9.9 -4.3*

65 years or older -57 -24.2 -9.4* -23.5 -10.4*

Subject’s Education Level12

(0 to 8 years)

9 to 12 years 57 37.8 20.1*

High school/GED graduate 94 62.8 32.8*

Some postsecondary 120 80.0 35.9*

College graduate 146 102.5 49.1*

Average

Difference in

Proficiency by

Category

(Uncontrolled)

Unstandardized

Regression

Coefficient11 T-statistic

Unstandardized

Regression

Coefficient

T-statistic

* Suggests significant regression coefficient.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Survey, 1992.
Chapter 2 ...... 39

Regarding the difference in prose proficiency between White adults and

Black adults, the zero-order difference is 49 points higher, on average, for

White subjects. When we control for the variables in the first regression, the

White-Black difference reduces to 37 points, and when we add subject’s

education level into the equation, it reduces to a 32-point difference. The

portion of the difference in prose scores across racial/ethnic groups that is

specifically attributable to level of schooling in this regression analysis may

seem modest at first (10 points for the Mexican American-Black difference, 5

points for the White-Black difference).

Three important caveats must be emphasized. First, this equation, which

accounts for level of education as well as a number of family background

variables (household income, parents’ education) tells us the minimum amount

of the cross-group proficiency difference attributable to education level,

because education is also already operating partially through the background

variables of household income and parents’ education (in other words, one

reason that high parental education levels are associated with high levels of

proficiency in their children is because they send their children to more years

of school). Thus, the actual impact of education is almost certainly larger than

is expressed in this regression equation.13 Second, the variable called subject’s

education measures broad categories of school attainment, such as 0 to 8 years

of schooling, or college degree, which lump together people with quite

different levels of education (see table 2.5 above, which breaks down the

categories of those who have received some higher education). Third, the

variable called subject’s education in this regression analysis says nothing about

the quality of education offered to people. There is much evidence that school

quality differs greatly and that the differences are often associated with racial/

ethnic differences of the students.14

Therefore, we should conclude from this more detailed consideration of

the regression analysis that what appears to be a modest association of school

attainment with differences in the prose proficiency of different racial/ethnic

groups, as seen in the regression analysis presented in table 2.10 (and in two13 In contrast, the maximum amount of the difference attributable to the subject’s education, controlling for

race-ethnicity, is estimated if we regress only the subject’s education and race ethnicity on the dependent

variable (prose proficiency). The results of this regression are presented in B2.3. For example, for White

respondents, education accounts for at least 5 points of the difference in their scores compared with Black

respondents, but it may approach something closer to 15 points. For Mexican Americans, when education is

added after controlling for family variables, it is associated with 8 points of the difference between that

group and Black respondents, but it approaches 20 points when education is regressed alone against raceethnicity.

14 See, for example, L. Darling-Hammond. (1994). “Performance-based Assessment and Educational Equity,”

Harvard Educational Review, 60 (1), pp. 5-30; J. Kozol. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York: Crown

Publishers; and L. Hedges, R. Levine, and R. Greenwald. (April 1994). “Does Money Matter: A MetaAnalysis of Studies of the Effects of School Inputs on Student Outcomes,” Educational Researcher, 23, pp.

5-14.
40 ...... Chapter 2

way tables such as table 2.3) should be considered as a minimum impact, while

the true impact of education is quite substantial. Furthermore, within groups,

education is associated with regular and substantial differences in prose literacy

proficiency. Nonetheless, another substantial amount of the race/ethnicity

differences in literacy proficiency remains unaccounted for through an analysis

of the variables we could measure. There are surely multiple causes for these

differences, and assertions about causes are speculative. The message from the

data is a double message about education, race/ethnicity, and adult literacy:

while education is strongly associated with literacy proficiency for all racial/

ethnic groups, differences in education as measured in this study account for

only a part of the literacy proficiency differences across racial/ethnic groups.

Efforts to reduce those differences will, thus, have to address many kinds of

disparities of condition, aspiration, and opportunity in our society.

Summary: Education and Mediating Variables

Years of schooling, we have seen, is strongly correlated with one’s level of

performance on the literacy assessment. Also related are other variables, such

as gender, race, parents’ education, and family income. We do not know exactly

what causes these correlations. We do not know, for example, what features of

child rearing or schooling might condition literacy skill attainment by males

and females. We do not know exactly how the level of parents’ education

affects one’s acquisition of literacy skills, although we can imagine many ways it

might. All educators can do is attempt to give equal opportunity and

encouragement to members of all groups. Uneven distribution of literacy skills

is deeply rooted in our social structure. Strategies for correcting such

imbalances range from changing attitudes, to changing curriculum materials, to

changing the allocation of resources. In addition to decrying this unevenness of

literacy proficiency for different groups with similar amounts of schooling,

many educators have also expressed concern that the average proficiency

across all groups at a given level of education is not as high as is needed in our

society. The data cannot tell us precisely how education relates to adult literacy,

but they testify to the striking association of increased formal schooling to

increased adult proficiencies, across all ages, all levels of schooling, and all

social groups.
Chapter 3 ...... 41

CHAPTER 3

School Noncompletion and Literacy

by Jeremy D. Finn

According to the U.S. Department of Education, in 1995 about 12 percent

of all persons in the United States between ages 16 and 24 (or about 3.9 million

individuals) had not earned a high school diploma.1

 In the same year, the

Bureau of the Census reported that 18.3 percent of all persons 25 years old and

over had not completed high school.2

 These rates represent significant declines

from previous years. For example, the Census reported that the percentages of

persons over 25 who had not completed a high school degree in 1950, 1960,

1970, 1980, and 1990 were 65.7 percent, 58.9 percent, 47.7 percent, 33.5

percent, and 22.4 percent respectively.

Although the percentage of noncompleters has declined over the past

several decades, the number of American adults who do not hold a high school

diploma is substantial. Chapter 2 of this report indicates that literacy

proficiencies are strongly associated with levels of formal schooling; those with

the least schooling often have poor literacy skills. Further, chapter 5 shows that

many employees do not have the literacy skills needed to change workplaces or

to meet upgraded job requirements. Those who terminate their formal

education may encounter literacy difficulties in work, family, and citizenship

roles alike.

Three questions are addressed in this chapter about literacy and high

school completion. First, how does the population of high school graduates

compare with individuals who did not complete high school, who completed

alternative certification programs (GED), or who continued formal schooling

beyond the high school years? Second, what additional educational and training

experiences are undertaken by high school noncompleters and how are these

experiences related to literacy proficiencies? Finally, we examine diversity

among high school noncompleters. In particular, is leaving school without

graduating necessarily associated with continuing hardship, or have some

1 National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Dropout Rates in the United States: 1995 Report NCES

97-473. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (Does not include persons still enrolled in high

school.)

2 U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1996). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1996 (116th ed.). Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
42 ...... Chapter 3

groups maintained employment, literacy practices, and literacy proficiency in

spite of the absence of a high school diploma?

Completers, Alternative Completers, and Noncompleters

The percentages of respondents in four educational attainment categories are

given in table 3.1.3

 Overall, about 24 percent of all individuals aged 16 and over

did not complete high school or a high school equivalency program (termed

noncompleters or dropouts). About 4 percent of the population earned a GED

diploma, but did not go on to further schooling. Twenty-eight percent

graduated from high school but did not go on to further schooling,while 44

percent of individuals 16 and over completed some post-high school

education.4

The percentages of males and females who dropped out or attained a

GED are similar, but more males than females reported postsecondary

experience. There are substantial differences in attainment by race/ethnicity.

The percentage of noncompleters among Hispanics is the highest of the four

racial/ethnic groups, comprising about 46 percent of all Hispanic individuals

aged 16 and over. The percentages of GED holders are similar for Black,

White, and Hispanic individuals. White and Asian/Pacific Islander adults have

the lowest percentages of dropouts, while the highest percentage of individuals

with postsecondary education are of Asian/Pacific Island origins.5

There are substantially more noncompleters among older Americans (55

to 64; 65 or older) than among the younger groups.6

 The percentage of GED

recipients is relatively stable across age cohorts, although the percentage for

those 65 and older is less than that for other groups. At the same time, the

percentage of individuals with postsecondary schooling is lowest among the two

older age groups. Further information about the educational attainments of

various age groups is given in chapter 2.

3 The dropout classification includes all individuals who are not currently enrolled in high school and who

have not completed a high school or GED degree. Respondents who are still enrolled in high school are

excluded from the tables in this chapter.

4 In this survey, individuals who have earned a GED diploma or received a high school diploma and who have

also gone on to some form of postsecondary education are counted in the postsecondary classification.

Individuals who terminated their education with a GED certificate or high school diploma are the only

respondents counted in the GED or high school classification, respectively. The literacy levels associated

with these groups would probably be higher if continuing students were also included.

5 The race/ethnicity figures are consistent with those published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The survey

did not include a sufficient number of American Indians or Alaskan Natives to permit finer breakdowns to

be made in this chapter. Thus, these groups are not included in any of the race/ethnicity categories in this

chapter.

6 The dropout percentage among 16-to-18-year-old adults is artificially inflated by the exclusion of individuals

in that age bracket who are still in school. That is, most 16-year-old adults and some 17-year-old adults are

not included in the counts, and few individuals in this age range would have the opportunity to have

attended postsecondary education.
Chapter 3 ...... 43

The Demographics of Noncompletion and Literacy Proficiency

The average literacy proficiencies for dropouts, GED holders, high school

graduates, and those with at least some postsecondary education are given in

table 3.2. These results tell a three-part story. First, the mean literacy

proficiencies for dropouts are significantly lower than the proficiencies of GED

TABLE 3.1

Percentages of Adults at Each Education Level,

by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

EDUCATION LEVEL

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

Total Population

Total 25,054 182,427 24 ( 0.2) 4 ( 0.2) 28 ( 0.2) 44 ( 0.2) 

Sex

Male 11,231 87,044 23 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.3) 27 ( 0.5) 46 ( 0.6) 

Female 13,785 95,118 24 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.3) 29 ( 0.5) 43 ( 0.4) 

Race/Ethnicity

Black 4,731 19,836 35 ( 1.2) 4 ( 0.4) 29 ( 1.1) 32 ( 1.2) 

White 16,715 139,276 19 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.2) 29 ( 0.4) 48 ( 0.4) 

Hispanic 2,939 17,179 46 ( 1.2) 5 ( 0.6) 21 ( 1.0) 28 ( 1.1) 

Asian/Pacific Islander 418 3,872 20 ( 2.7) 1 ( 0.6) 19 ( 3.1) 60 ( 2.7) 

Age

16 to 18 345 2,829 54 ( 3.9) 2 ( 0.8) 37 ( 3.9) 7 ( 1.8) 

19 to 24 3,261 23,886 15 ( 0.8) 5 ( 0.7) 39 ( 0.8) 41 ( 0.7) 

25 to 39 10,017 63,052 17 ( 0.5) 5 ( 0.3) 27 ( 0.5) 51 ( 0.6) 

40 to 54 6,299 43,683 17 ( 0.7) 4 ( 0.3) 26 ( 0.7) 53 ( 0.8) 

55 to 64 2,918 19,434 31 ( 1.2) 4 ( 0.5) 29 ( 1.2) 37 ( 1.0) 

65 or older 2,203 29,512 48 ( 1.1) 2 ( 0.3) 24 ( 0.9) 27 ( 1.0) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

SEX, RACE/ETHNICITY,

AND AGE

Dropout GED High school

graduate

Any

postsecondary

education
44 ...... Chapter 3

TABLE 3.2

Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults:

Sex and Race/Ethnicity, by Education Level

EDUCATION LEVEL

 WGT N

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total Population 25,054 182,427

Prose 208 ( 1.6) 268 ( 1.8) 270 ( 1.1) 310 ( 0.8) 

Document 203 ( 1.7) 264 ( 2.2) 264 ( 1.1) 303 ( 0.7) 

Quantitative 203 ( 1.9) 268 ( 2.7) 270 ( 1.1) 310 ( 0.9) 

Male 11,231 87,044

Prose 204 ( 2.3) 265 ( 2.7) 267 ( 2.0) 310 ( 0.9) 

Document 201 ( 2.3) 262 ( 3.2) 264 ( 1.9) 306 ( 0.9) 

Quantitative 205 ( 2.3) 270 ( 3.4) 273 ( 1.9) 317 ( 1.1) 

Female 13,785 95,118

Prose 212 ( 2.0) 272 ( 2.2) 273 ( 1.2) 309 ( 1.1) 

Document 204 ( 2.2) 266 ( 3.0) 264 ( 1.1) 301 ( 1.0) 

Quantitative 201 ( 2.2) 267 ( 3.3) 267 ( 1.2) 303 ( 1.1) 

Black 4,731 19,836

Prose 194 ( 2.6) 243 ( 4.1) 242 ( 1.6) 275 ( 1.7) 

Document 187 ( 2.1) 235 ( 4.2) 235 ( 1.7) 267 ( 1.8) 

Quantitative 177 ( 2.6) 235 ( 4.5) 232 ( 2.0) 266 ( 1.9) 

White 16,715 139,276

Prose 227 ( 1.7) 276 ( 2.0) 278 ( 1.2) 317 ( 0.9) 

Document 220 ( 2.0) 272 ( 2.2) 271 ( 1.2) 310 ( 0.8) 

Quantitative 224 ( 2.1) 277 ( 3.1) 279 ( 1.2) 318 ( 0.9) 

Hispanic 2,939 17,179

Prose 162 ( 3.4) 240 ( 6.8)! 242 ( 4.4) 275 ( 2.9) 

Document 158 ( 3.7) 236 ( 6.4)! 242 ( 4.9) 273 ( 2.8) 

Quantitative 155 ( 3.3) 240 ( 7.8)! 240 ( 4.8) 276 ( 3.0) 

Asian/Pacific Islander 418 3,872

Prose 164 (13.3)! *** (  ) 209 (16.0)! 277 ( 5.3) 

Document 181 (12.2)! ** * ( ****) 214 (13.2)! 276 ( 6.2) 

Quantitative 184 (18.2)! *** (  ) 227 (12.5)! 288 ( 5.9) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to

be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

** * Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

SEX AND

RACE/ETHNICITY/

LITERACY SCALE Dropout GED High school

graduate

Any

postsecondary

education
Chapter 3 ...... 45

holders or high school graduates. Second, the average literacy proficiencies of

GED holders and high school graduates are similar. And third, the

proficiencies of individuals with any postsecondary education are higher than

all other groups. The same pattern is found on all three literacy scales. For the

total population, the difference between the mean proficiencies of dropouts

and high school graduates is just over nine-tenths of a standard deviation on

each scale — a substantial difference indeed.7

There are also some noteworthy differences in literacy proficiencies by

sex. For prose literacy, both female dropouts and female high-school graduates

out perform their male counterparts. The gender gap disappears in the

postsecondary group, however, with both groups demonstrating about the same

average proficiency. For document and quantitative literacy, there are no

significant differences between male and female dropouts or GED holders. In

contrast, male high school graduates demonstrate higher quantitative

proficiencies than females, and males with postsecondary education

demonstrate higher document and quantitative proficiencies than females.

Nevertheless, the association of literacy proficiency with level of schooling

reveals the same pattern for both males and females. For each group and each

literacy scale, dropouts demonstrate lower proficiency than GED recipients or

high school graduates, who in turn demonstrate lower proficiency than

individuals with postsecondary experience.

White adults perform significantly better than Black or Hispanic adults on

the three literacy scales at all levels of educational attainment.8

 The

proficiencies of Black and Hispanic adults are very similar at most levels of

schooling (except the quantitative proficiencies at the postsecondary level), but

that is not the case for dropouts. On average, Hispanic adults who did not

complete high school perform substantially below Black noncompleters on all

three scales.

Racial/ethnic differences can also be viewed in terms of the relationship

between educational attainment and proficiency. The pattern of association is

the same for Black, Hispanic, and White adults: dropouts have lower

proficiencies than high school graduates and GED holders, who, in turn, have

lower proficiencies than adults with postsecondary schooling. However, the

magnitude of the difference between dropouts and high school graduates and

between dropouts and GED holders is substantially greater for Hispanic

individuals than for other groups.

7 The standard deviations of the prose, document, and quantitative literacy scales are 65.97, 66.44, and 71.66,

respectively.

8 Asian/Pacific Islanders are omitted from these comparisons because of the small number of individuals in

the lowest three education classifications.
46 ...... Chapter 3

The difference between the literacy scores of high school graduates and

those of dropouts is about three-fourths of a standard deviation on each scale

for White and Black adults, but about 1.2 standard deviations on each scale for

Hispanic adults. The difference between individuals with postsecondary

education and high school graduates is similar for Black, White, and Hispanic

adults — just over one-third of a standard deviation. Thus, one result stands

out with regard to the relationship of education level and literacy: the

particularly low average literacy proficiencies of Hispanic individuals who have

not completed high school or an alternative certification program.9

Unfortunately, this group represents 46 percent of all Hispanic individuals

sampled (table 3.1).10

Generally, individuals aged 16 through 54 demonstrate higher literacy

proficiencies on all three scales when compared with older adults in the same

education category (table 3.3).11 Still, the same pattern in average proficiencies

is found for both the younger and older groups: lower average proficiency for

dropouts, similar proficiencies for high school graduates and GED holders, and

higher average proficiency for those with postsecondary schooling. Leaving

school without graduating was much more common in the older group (41

percent compared with 17 percent in the 16-to-54 age range), and participating

in postsecondary schooling was less common (31 percent compared with 49

percent in the 16-to-54 age range). Yet the magnitude of the difference

between the average literacy levels of dropouts and high school graduates is

similar for both age groupings, that is, between eight- and nine-tenths of a

standard deviation on each of the literacy scales. The relationship of literacy

proficiency with high school graduation or completion of a GED diploma is

remarkably consistent.

The distribution of family income for each educational attainment

classification is given in table 3.4. About 28 percent of dropouts are in the

lowest income category ($0 to $9,999) and about 30 percent are in the next

lowest category ($10,000 to $19,999). In contrast, only 10 and 19 percent,

respectively, of high school graduates have incomes as low as these, and only 6

and 11 percent, respectively, of individuals with postsecondary education. In

fact, the median income category is $10,000 to $19,999 for high school

noncompleters, $30,000 to $39,999 for high school graduates, and $40,000 to

$49,999 for individuals with postsecondary experience.

9 Further analysis indicates that this effect is especially pronounced among younger Hispanic individuals, and

somewhat less apparent among those over 54 years of age. (tables B3.1 to B3.3.)

10 A number of these individuals report no formal schooling (see chapter 2). 11 The age groups were collapsed to allow for a sufficient sample size for some of the subcategories.
Chapter 3 ...... 47

TABLE 3.3

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale

of Adults in Each Age Group, by Education Level

EDUCATION LEVEL

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Prose

16 to 54 years old 19,922 133,450 17 ( 0.3) 5 ( 0.2) 29 ( 0.3) 49 ( 0.3) 

 216 ( 2.0) 271 ( 1.8) 275 ( 1.2) 315 ( 0.8) 

55 years old or greater 5,121 48,945 41 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.2) 26 ( 0.6) 31 ( 0.6) 

 200 ( 2.4) 256 ( 5.4)! 256 ( 2.0) 287 ( 2.1) 

Document

16 to 54 years old 19,922 133,450 17 ( 0.3) 5 ( 0.2) 29 ( 0.3) 49 ( 0.3) 

 214 ( 2.2) 268 ( 2.2) 272 ( 1.1) 310 ( 0.7) 

55 years old or greater 5,121 48,945 41 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.2) 26 ( 0.6) 31 ( 0.6) 

 189 ( 2.2) 244 ( 5.2)! 241 ( 1.8) 274 ( 1.8) 

Quantitative

16 to 54 years old 19,922 133,450 17 ( 0.3) 5 ( 0.2) 29 ( 0.3) 49 ( 0.3) 

 211 ( 2.1) 270 ( 2.4) 275 ( 1.2) 314 ( 0.8) 

55 years old or greater 5,121 48,945 41 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.2) 26 ( 0.6) 31 ( 0.6) 

 193 ( 3.0) 261 ( 7.7)! 256 ( 2.0) 292 ( 2.2) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

LITERACY SCALE/AGE

Dropout GED High school

graduate

Any

postsecondary

education

The relationship of educational attainment with employment is parallel to

that of income. Table 3.5 indicates that 30 percent of high school dropouts

reported holding a full-time job and another 10 percent reported holding a

part-time job. In contrast, 52 percent of high school graduates held full-time

jobs and another 13 percent held part-time jobs.
48 ...... Chapter 3

Tables 3.4 and 3.5 also show the proficiencies for respondents classified by

income and employment status. In terms of educational attainment, the pattern

found for the total population is generally seen at all income levels and for all

employment patterns as well. That is, high school noncompleters have the

lowest average literacy proficiencies, high school graduates and GED

TABLE 3.4

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale

of Adults at Each Education Level, by Household Income

INCOME CATEGORIES

 WGT N RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Prose

Dropout 3,239 28,142 28 ( 1.3) 30 ( 1.1) 18 ( 0.9) 17 ( 0.9) 7 ( 0.6) 

 196 ( 2.6) 210 ( 3.0) 226 ( 3.5) 231 ( 4.5) 246 ( 6.4)! 

GED 683 5,377 17 ( 1.9) 20 ( 2.0) 19 ( 2.4) 27 ( 2.2) 18 ( 2.0) 

 258 ( 5.4)! 262 ( 6.6)! 275 ( 4.0)! 280 ( 4.9)! 282 ( 6.7)! 

High school graduate 4,513 37,606 10 ( 0.5) 19 ( 0.9) 20 ( 0.8) 32 ( 1.1) 20 ( 1.1) 

 253 ( 2.8) 266 ( 2.6) 273 ( 1.7) 280 ( 1.7) 289 ( 2.6) 

Any postsecondary education 10,006 65,614 6 ( 0.5) 11 ( 0.5) 14 ( 0.4) 28 ( 0.7) 42 ( 0.8) 

 291 ( 4.8) 297 ( 1.9) 302 ( 2.0) 311 ( 1.4) 327 ( 1.2) 

Document

Dropout 3,239 28,142 28 ( 1.3) 30 ( 1.1) 18 ( 0.9) 17 ( 0.9) 7 ( 0.6) 

 187 ( 2.8) 204 ( 3.1) 221 ( 4.0) 227 ( 5.2) 244 ( 5.9)! 

GED 683 5,377 17 ( 1.9) 20 ( 2.0) 19 ( 2.4) 27 ( 2.2) 18 ( 2.0) 

 255 ( 5.2)! 258 ( 6.3)! 270 ( 4.3)! 274 ( 5.3)! 276 ( 8.1)! 

High school graduate 4,513 37,606 10 ( 0.5) 19 ( 0.9) 20 ( 0.8) 32 ( 1.1) 20 ( 1.1) 

 245 ( 3.3) 259 ( 2.6) 267 ( 1.8) 274 ( 2.1) 283 ( 2.7) 

Any postsecondary education 10,006 65,614 6 ( 0.5) 11 ( 0.5) 14 ( 0.4) 28 ( 0.7) 42 ( 0.8) 

 285 ( 5.2) 290 ( 2.1) 297 ( 1.7) 305 ( 1.5) 319 ( 0.9) 

Quantitative

Dropout 3,239 28,142 28 ( 1.3) 30 ( 1.1) 18 ( 0.9) 17 ( 0.9) 7 ( 0.6) 

 181 ( 3.1) 209 ( 3.2) 225 ( 3.9) 236 ( 4.7) 251 ( 6.0)! 

GED 683 5,377 17 ( 1.9) 20 ( 2.0) 19 ( 2.4) 27 ( 2.2) 18 ( 2.0) 

 253 ( 5.6)! 265 ( 6.3)! 274 ( 4.8)! 278 ( 6.3)! 285 ( 8.3)! 

High school graduate 4,513 37,606 10 ( 0.5) 19 ( 0.9) 20 ( 0.8) 32 ( 1.1) 20 ( 1.1) 

 245 ( 3.1) 267 ( 2.7) 273 ( 1.6) 282 ( 2.1) 290 ( 2.5) 

Any postsecondary education 10,006 65,614 6 ( 0.5) 11 ( 0.5) 14 ( 0.4) 28 ( 0.7) 42 ( 0.8) 

 287 ( 5.0) 296 ( 1.8) 302 ( 2.1) 312 ( 1.6) 327 ( 1.2) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

LITERACY

SCALE/EDUCATION

LEVEL

$0 to

$9,9999

$10,000 to

$19,999

$20,000 to

$29,999

$30,000 to

$49,999

$50,000 or

greater
Chapter 3 ...... 49

TABLE 3.5

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale

of Adults at Each Education Level, by Employment Status

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Prose

Dropout 4,828 42,031 30 ( 1.0) 10 ( 0.4) 9 ( 0.6) 51 ( 1.0) 

 217 ( 2.7) 223 ( 2.9) 217 ( 3.6) 198 ( 2.4) 

GED 857 6,918 52 ( 2.5) 9 ( 1.3) 12 ( 1.7) 27 ( 1.8) 

 272 ( 2.4) 274 ( 8.0)! 267 ( 6.5)! 259 ( 4.6) 

High school graduate 5,760 49,831 52 ( 1.0) 13 ( 0.7) 8 ( 0.4) 27 ( 1.0) 

 275 ( 1.4) 279 ( 3.1) 259 ( 2.8) 260 ( 1.7) 

Any postsecondary education 11,717 77,603 61 ( 0.6) 13 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.2) 21 ( 0.5) 

 316 ( 0.8) 315 ( 1.9) 298 ( 3.0) 290 ( 1.7) 

Document

Dropout 4,828 42,031 30 ( 1.0) 10 ( 0.4) 9 ( 0.6) 51 ( 1.0) 

 215 ( 2.5) 216 ( 3.1) 214 ( 3.4) 190 ( 2.4) 

GED 857 6,918 52 ( 2.5) 9 ( 1.3) 12 ( 1.7) 27 ( 1.8) 

 269 ( 2.7) 270 ( 9.1)! 263 ( 6.9)! 253 ( 4.3) 

High school graduate 5,760 49,831 52 ( 1.0) 13 ( 0.7) 8 ( 0.4) 27 ( 1.0) 

 272 ( 1.5) 270 ( 2.3) 256 ( 3.3) 248 ( 1.8) 

Any postsecondary education 11,717 77,603 61 ( 0.6) 13 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.2) 21 ( 0.5) 

 311 ( 0.7) 306 ( 1.6) 293 ( 2.4) 281 ( 1.8) 

Quantitative

Dropout 4,828 42,031 30 ( 1.0) 10 ( 0.4) 9 ( 0.6) 51 ( 1.0) 

 218 ( 2.5) 219 ( 3.9) 208 ( 3.5) 189 ( 3.0) 

GED 857 6,918 52 ( 2.5) 9 ( 1.3) 12 ( 1.7) 27 ( 1.8) 

 275 ( 3.0) 269 ( 8.1)! 263 ( 6.7)! 258 ( 5.5) 

High school graduate 5,760 49,831 52 ( 1.0) 13 ( 0.7) 8 ( 0.4) 27 ( 1.0) 

 278 ( 1.5) 275 ( 2.7) 256 ( 3.2) 257 ( 1.8) 

Any postsecondary education 11,717 77,603 61 ( 0.6) 13 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.2) 21 ( 0.5) 

 318 ( 1.0) 311 ( 1.7) 296 ( 2.3) 291 ( 1.9) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

LITERACY SCALE/EDUCATION

LEVEL

Full-time Part-time Unemployed Out of work

force
50 ...... Chapter 3

holders have higher average proficiencies, and individuals with postsecondary

schooling have the highest average proficiencies.12

Proficiency is positively related to income among dropouts, high school

graduates, and individuals with postsecondary education alike.13 The pattern

that emerges is that proficiencies increase with increases in income brackets.

On all three scales, dropouts with the lowest incomes ($0 - $9,999 and $10,000

- $19,999) are those whose proficiencies are clearly below other dropouts.

Likewise, high school graduates in the lowest income category ($0 to $9,999)

are those with the lowest proficiencies of all high school graduates. Thus,

whether or not an individual has completed high school, those with the lowest

literacy proficiencies have the lowest family incomes.

Although dropouts who were more literate had higher incomes, there was

little relationship between literacy and employment for this group. High school

dropouts who were employed during the preceding year did not have higher

proficiencies than those who were unemployed but were still seeking work,

except on the quantitative scale. For high school graduates and persons with

postsecondary experience, employment was associated with significantly higher

proficiency than unemployment on all three scales. Thus, it appears that for

individuals who do not graduate from high school, higher literacy levels do not

provide an advantage in obtaining part-time or full-time work. Only when an

individual completes high school or some postsecondary schooling is literacy

related to employment status.

High school dropouts who were out of the workforce perform substantially

below all other groups on all three literacy scales. Their mean proficiencies are

198, 190, and 189 on the prose, document, and quantitative scales, respectively

— all in the lowest literacy level (Level 1). Twenty-seven percent of high school

dropouts under 55 years of age and 78 percent of dropouts 55 years or older

are out of the workforce (table 3.6). In contrast, among 16- to 54-year-old

adults, only 15 percent of high school graduates and 13 percent of adults with

postsecondary schooling are out of the workforce. When compared with the

younger population, more of the 55 and older population are out of the

workforce (66 percent of high school graduates and 57 percent of those with

some postsecondary), which is to be expected because the age group includes

retirees; however, the percentages are significantly below the 78 percent of

dropouts who are 55 or older. The literacy proficiencies of high school

12 Although the pattern repeats itself, specific results marked with an exclamation point (!) in tables 3.4 and

3.5 must be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes.

13 The pattern for GED holders is similar to that of high school graduates; however, since many GED results

are based on small samples, this group is not described explicitly in the discussion of income or

employment.
Chapter 3 ...... 51

graduates and postsecondary school adults who are out of the workforce, while

lower than those of their employed age-counterparts, are not nearly so extreme

as those of dropouts who are out of the workforce (table 3.5).

TABLE 3.6

Percentages of Adults Reporting Education Level and Age,

by Employment Status

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

Dropout

16 to 54 years old 3,016 22,109 45 ( 1.5) 13 ( 0.6) 15 ( 1.0) 27 ( 1.3) 

55 years and older 1,812 19,922 14 ( 1.0) 6 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.5) 78 ( 1.2) 

GED

16 to 54 years old 727 5,736 56 ( 2.7) 10 ( 1.4) 14 ( 2.0) 21 ( 1.7) 

55 years and older 130 1,183 34 ( 5.0) 4 ( 1.7) 3 ( 1.9) 59 ( 5.1) 

High School Graduate

16 to 54 years old 4,494 37,463 61 ( 1.2) 14 ( 0.7) 10 ( 0.5) 15 ( 1.0) 

55 years and older 1,265 12,359 23 ( 1.4) 10 ( 1.0) 2 ( 0.3) 66 ( 1.6) 

Any Postsecondary

16 to 54 years old 9,920 62,946 68 ( 0.6) 13 ( 0.4) 6 ( 0.3) 13 ( 0.5) 

55 years and older 1,790 14,636 29 ( 1.1) 12 ( 0.9) 2 ( 0.3) 57 ( 1.0) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

EDUCATION LEVEL/ AGE

Full-time Part-time Unemployed Out of the labor

force
52 ...... Chapter 3

Language Background

The language an individual speaks plays a central role in facilitating or

hindering educational attainment and literacy in English.14 According to the

Census Bureau, the number of U.S. residents 5 years old and over who speak a

language other than English at home in 1990 was approximately 31,845,000, an

increase of almost 38 percent from 1980. The most reported non-English

second language at home was Spanish (17.3 million) followed by French (1.7

million), with German, Italian, and Chinese close behind.

In this survey, respondents were asked what language or languages were

spoken in their home when they were growing up and which single language

they usually speak now. Table 3.7 gives the percentages of individuals reporting

particular languages at each level of educational attainment. The dropout rate

is lower for adults growing up in English-speaking homes (21 percent),

compared with the rates for those growing up in homes where Spanish, another

language, or English and Spanish were spoken; the rate is highest for adults

who grew up with Spanish spoken in the home (60 percent). The high school

graduation rate for individuals reporting Spanish in the home is similar to that

for the category of other languages (about 20 percent), but fewer individuals

reporting Spanish have gone on to postsecondary schooling. For those who

grew up in bilingual English/Spanish homes, the dropout rate and high school

graduation rate are similar to those of individuals who grew up speaking other

languages or English and another language.

An estimated 8 percent of the adult population grew up in homes where

Spanish was spoken, while relatively few respondents reported that Spanish

was their primary adult language (an estimated 4 percent of the adult

population).15 Seventy-two percent of these individuals, however, did not

complete high school. In comparison, only 22 percent of adult English speakers

and 41 percent of adults who speak other languages did not complete high

school.

The average literacy proficiencies for dropouts and high school graduates

by language spoken are given in table 3.8. The column labeled effect size is the

14D. Bradley, (1992). Language Characteristics and Academic Achievement: A Look at Asian and Hispanic

Eighth Graders in NELS: 88 Report No. NCES 92-479. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Educational Research and Improvement; K. Gutierrez. (1990). “Enhancing Academic Literacy for

Language Minority Students.” In J.G. Bain and J.L. Herman (Eds.) Making Schools Work for

Underachieving Minority Students: Next Steps for Research, Policy, and Practice. New York: Greenwood

Press, pp. 127-136; M. Saville - Troike. (Spring 1991). Teaching and Testing for Academic Achievement: The

Role of Language Development (occasional papers in Bilingual Education No. 4). Washington, DC: National

Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

15 These percentages were calculated using the weighted Ns in table 3.7. For present language the weighted

N for Spanish was divided by the total weighted N. For childhood language the sum of the weighted Ns for

Spanish and English/Spanish was divided by the total weighted N.
Chapter 3 ...... 53

TABLE 3.7

Percentages of Adults Reporting Childhood Language and Current

Language, by Education Level

EDUCATION LEVEL

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

Childhood Language

English 20,417 149,515 21 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.2) 30 ( 0.3) 46 ( 0.3) 

Spanish 1,759 10,262 60 ( 1.9) 4 ( 0.6) 17 ( 1.5) 20 ( 1.6) 

Other 818 7,890 32 ( 2.2) 2 ( 0.7) 20 ( 1.5) 46 ( 2.0) 

English and Spanish 745 4,082 30 ( 2.3) 6 ( 1.1) 25 ( 1.9) 40 ( 2.5) 

English and other 1,283 10,429 25 ( 2.0) 2 ( 0.6) 24 ( 1.6) 48 ( 2.0) 

Current Language

English 23,558 172,790 22 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.2) 29 ( 0.2) 46 ( 0.2) 

Spanish 1,246 7,202 72 ( 1.7) 3 ( 0.6) 13 ( 1.2) 12 ( 1.3) 

Other 216 2,233 41 ( 5.2) 2 ( 1.0) 25 ( 3.9) 32 ( 3.8) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

CHILDHOOD

LANGUAGE AND

CURRENT LANGUAGE Dropout GED High school

graduate

Any

postsecondary

education

difference between the mean proficiency score for graduates and the mean for

dropouts, divided by the standard deviation of the scale; it is the number of

standard deviations between the mean for graduates and the mean for

dropouts.

The same patterns are seen in table 3.8 for all three literacy scales.

Individuals who grew up in an English-speaking home, whether it was the only

language or one of several, demonstrate significantly higher English literacy

proficiencies than individuals who reported only Spanish or only another

language in the home. This difference is found among dropouts and high

school graduates alike. Dropouts who grew up in Spanish-speaking homes

demonstrate lower proficiencies than dropouts from other language homes — a

difference that is not found among high school graduates.
54 ...... Chapter 3

TABLE 3.8

Average Proficiencies and Effect Size on Each Literacy Scale of Dropouts and 

High School Graduates Reporting Childhood Language and Current Language

CHILDHOOD LANGUAGE 

AND CURRENT 

LANGUAGE/SCALE

EDUCATION LEVEL

High school 

Dropout graduate

WGT N

n (/1,000) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) Effect Size

Childhood Language

Prose

English 20,417 149,515 223 (1.6) 275 (1.2) 0.79

Spanish 1,759 10,262 144 (2.8) 212 (4.7) 1.03

Other 818 7,890 168 (6.6) 209 (7.8)! 0.62

English and Spanish 745 4,082 220 (5.3)! 262 (5.7)! 0.64

English and other 1,283 10,429 222 (6.3)! 265 (3.9)! 0.65

Document

English 20,417 149,515 216 (1.8) 269 (1.1) 0.80

Spanish 1,759 10,262 141 (3.1) 214 (4.7) 1.10

Other 818 7,890 171 (5.3) 214 (7.5)! 0.65

English and Spanish 745 4,082 220 (4.9)! 261 (6.5)! 0.62

English and other 1,283 10,429 209 (5.8)! 252 (3.9)! 0.65

Quantitative

English 20,417 149,515 217 (1.8) 275 (1.3) 0.81

Spanish 1,759 10,262 139 (3.1) 216 (5.4) 1.07

Other 818 7,890 170 (7.0) 223 (8.0)! 0.74

English and Spanish 745 4,082 217 (6.7)! 255 (4.9)! 0.53

English and other 1,283 10,429 214 (8.4)! 262 (4.3)! 0.67

Current Language

Prose

English 23,558 172,790 220 (1.6) 273 (1.1) 0.80

Spanish 1,246 7,202 134 (3.3) 187 (6.3)! 0.80

Other 216 2,233 148 (12.4)! 153 (11.6)! 0.08

Document

English 23,558 172,790 213 (1.7) 267 (1.0) 0.81

Spanish 1,246 7,202 131 (3.5) 192 (6.1)! 0.92

Other 216 2,233 169 (11.2)! 170 (10.7)! 0.02

Quantitative

English 23,558 172,790 214 (1.9) 273 (1.1) 0.82

Spanish 1,246 7,202 129 (3.6) 190 (7.0)! 0.85

Other 216 2,233 166 (17.9)! 179 (10.2)! 0.18

Prof = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate

with 95% certainty); ES = Effect Size.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution — the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Chapter 3 ...... 55

The advantage of graduating from high school (the effect size), with no

further formal education, is about four-fifths of a standard deviation for

individuals who grew up in an English-speaking home. The advantage of high

school graduation for individuals from Spanish-speaking homes is over one full

standard deviation. Thus, graduation from high school is accompanied by a

reduced gap in literacy between individuals from Spanish-speaking homes and

individuals from homes where English was spoken. The survey data do not

reveal whether high school graduation increased the literacy of individuals

from Spanish-speaking homes relative to the English group or whether more

literate individuals from Spanish-speaking homes managed to graduate from

high school. There is little question, however, that the interaction of literacy

and schooling is a two-way street. Literacy skills mediate the effects of formal

education on learning. At the same time, the failure to participate in school

precludes any possibility that individuals’ English literacy will be improved

from this experience.

The advantage of high school graduation for bilingual groups is about

three-fifths of a standard deviation; they demonstrate significantly higher

proficiencies than graduates from Spanish only or other language homes.

The literacy proficiencies of adults who currently speak English as their

primary language are much the same as adults who grew up in a home only

where English was spoken. The adults who speak Spanish as their primary

language have slightly lower proficiencies than the larger group of individuals

who grew up in Spanish-speaking homes. This deficit is found for dropouts and

high-school graduates alike. Current Spanish speakers also seem to have

benefited slightly less by graduation from high school, compared with the

group of graduates from Spanish-speaking homes — about four-fifths or ninetenths of a standard deviation compared with slightly over a full standard

deviation for adults from Spanish-speaking homes. The small number of adults

who currently speak other languages primarily show little or no benefit in their

literacy proficiencies from high school graduation — less than one-tenth of a

standard deviation.

One of the mechanisms by which speakers of other languages may

become more proficient in English is to enroll in a course that teaches English

as a second language (ESL). Respondents who did not learn to speak English

before starting school were asked if they had ever taken an ESL course. Of

individuals who spoke only a language other than English during their

childhood, approximately 39 percent of high school dropouts, 49 percent of

high school graduates, and 61 percent of individuals with postsecondary

experience reported taking an ESL course (table 3.9). In general, the

proficiencies of individuals who took ESL classes are not significantly different

from those who did not take an ESL class. Of nine comparisons, there are two
56 ...... Chapter 3

TABLE 3.9

Percentages and Average Proficiencies of Adults Speaking Non-English

Childhood Language at Each Education Level, by ESL Course

DID YOU TAKE AN ESL COURSE?

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Prose

Dropout 1,221 8,389 100 ( 0.0) 39 ( 2.0) 61 ( 2.0) 

 149 ( 2.7) 147 ( 4.8) 151 ( 3.4) 

GED 78 472 100 ( 0.0) 57 ( 7.1) 43 ( 7.1) 

 211 (10.2) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) 

High School Graduate 380 3,134 100 ( 0.0) 49 ( 3.3) 51 ( 3.3) 

 208 ( 4.9) 200 ( 7.8) 215 ( 5.4) 

Any Postsecondary 816 5,435 100 ( 0.0) 61 ( 2.2) 39 ( 2.2) 

 258 ( 2.7) 248 ( 3.6) 274 ( 5.5) 

Document

Dropout 1,221 8,389 100 ( 0.0) 39 ( 2.0) 61 ( 2.0) 

 148 ( 2.8) 153 ( 4.3) 144 ( 3.1) 

GED 78 472 100 ( 0.0) 57 ( 7.1) 43 ( 7.1) 

 209 ( 9.5) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) 

High School Graduate 380 3,134 100 ( 0.0) 49 ( 3.3) 51 ( 3.3) 

 212 ( 4.8) 210 ( 7.7) 214 ( 5.9) 

Any Postsecondary 816 5,435 100 ( 0.0) 61 ( 2.2) 39 ( 2.2) 

 259 ( 2.6) 254 ( 3.5) 269 ( 5.4) 

Quantitative

Dropout 1,221 8,389 100 ( 0.0) 39 ( 2.0) 61 ( 2.0) 

 146 ( 2.7) 155 ( 4.5) 140 ( 3.6) 

GED 78 472 100 ( 0.0) 57 ( 7.1) 43 ( 7.1) 

 215 (11.2) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) 

High School Graduate 380 3,134 100 ( 0.0) 49 ( 3.3) 51 ( 3.3) 

 217 ( 4.6) 215 ( 7.4) 219 ( 6.1) 

Any Postsecondary 816 5,435 100 ( 0.0) 61 ( 2.2) 39 ( 2.2) 

 269 ( 3.1) 264 ( 3.7) 277 ( 6.5) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

LITERACY

SCALE/EDUCATION

LEVEL

Total ESL course taken No ESL course taken
Chapter 3 ...... 57

exceptions. Dropouts who took ESL classes perform significantly better on the

quantitative scale than dropouts who did not, and people with postsecondary

experience who did not take ESL classes perform significantly better on the

prose scale than those who did. The overall picture is one of little or no

difference in mean literacy proficiencies of adults who did and did not take

ESL courses. Because the data of this survey are from one point in time, it is

not possible to examine improvement that may have occurred as a result of

ESL classes, leaving several possible interpretations of these results. It is

possible that ESL classes did not affect the literacy levels of the participants, or

that those who chose to enroll in ESL programs were the most deficient

initially and the courses brought them up to the level of their more proficient

counterparts.

Among those who did not take ESL classes, 45 percent dropped out of

high school, 23 percent graduated from high school or obtained a GED

certificate, and 32 percent went on to some postsecondary education. (See

table B3.1.) The percentages for individuals who had taken an ESL course

were 38 percent, 22 percent, and 40 percent, respectively. That is, fewer ESL

participants dropped out of high school and more went on to postsecondary

schooling. Again, several explanations are possible. The ESL class may have

provided the motivation or additional skills needed to promote further

schooling, or else individuals with higher levels of motivation initially may have

undertaken both ESL classes and additional years of education.

In terms of literacy proficiencies, the advantage of graduation from high

school was slightly larger for individuals who had not taken an ESL class —

between 1.0 and 1.1 standard deviation on each scale, compared with .8 to .9

standard deviation for individuals who had taken an ESL class.16 While the

findings regarding ESL classes are mixed, the literacy assessment does not

permit us to examine the full range of effects of participation in such training.

Literacy Practices

A personal literacy practices index was created from respondents’ answers to

questions about how often they engaged in literacy-related activities for

personal use. The practices include reading letters, magazines, and directions

for medicines or home products, writing letters, writing bills, invoices, or

budgets, and doing calculations that involve adding, subtracting, multiplying,

dividing, or measuring. Table 3.10 gives the percentages of individuals who

engaged in personal literacy practices rarely, weekly, and often, and the mean

literacy proficiencies for each group. Altogether, 18 percent of American adults

16 That is, the difference in mean literacy proficiencies between those who graduated from high school and

 those who dropped out.
58 ...... Chapter 3

engaged in personal literacy practices rarely, about 43 percent weekly, and

about 39 percent often. The first of these figures is cause for concern. Over

32,000,000 Americans rarely if ever engaged in such literacy activities as

reading magazines or instructions, filling in forms, or adding or subtracting.

Some of these individuals (27 percent) graduated from high school and others

(16 percent) undertook some postsecondary schooling (table B3.2).

The relationship of literacy activities to educational attainment is also clear

from table B3.2. Over half (54 percent) of those who rarely engaged in

personal literacy practices dropped out of high school; at the other extreme, 60

TABLE 3.10

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Scale of

Adults at Each Level of Education Reporting Frequency of

Personal Literacy Practices

LEVEL OF 

EDUCATION/

LITERACY SCALE

FREQUENCY

Rarely Weekly Often

WGT N RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

n (/1,000) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

Total 23,904 181,614 18 (0.4) 43 (0.5) 39 (0.6)

Dropout 4,932 42,932 41 (1.1) 40 (1.0) 19 (0.9)

Prose 177 (2.3) 226 (2.2) 239 (2.5)

Document 171 (2.4) 220 (2.2) 234 (2.9)

Quantitative 166 (2.8) 224 (2.1) 238 (3.1)

GED 879 7,094 14 (1.5) 42 (2.1) 44 (2.2)

Prose 240 (6.5)! 268 (3.6)! 277 (2.9)!

Document 235 (6.5)! 263 (3.4)! 274 (2.7)!

Quantitative 233 (6.9)! 270 (4.1)! 279 (3.6)!

H.S. Graduate 5,953 51,183 17 (0.5) 49 (1.1) 40 (0.9)

Prose 244 (2.9) 271 (1.3) 283 (1.6)

Document 239 (2.8) 264 (1.3) 277 (1.4)

Quantitative 242 (2.4) 271 (1.5) 284 (1.8)

Any Postsecondary 12,140 80,405 7 (0.3) 41 (0.6) 53 (0.7)

Prose 273 (2.8) 306 (1.2) 317 (0.9)

Document 266 (2.9) 300 (1.1) 311 (0.8)

Quantitative 268 (3.1) 307 (1.0) 318 (1.1)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate /1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes

because of missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution — the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Chapter 3 ...... 59

17 R.B. Ekstrom, M.E. Goertz, J.D. Pollack, and D.A. Rock. (1986). “Who Drops Out of High School and Why? Findings from a

National Study.” Teachers College Record, 87, pp. 356-373.

percent of those who often engaged in literacy practices completed some

postsecondary education. Higher educational attainment is generally associated

with higher degrees of engagement in personal literacy practices.

Literacy proficiency is related both to educational attainment and to

literacy practices. The association of higher literacy proficiency with high

school or GED completion is discussed in the preceding section of this chapter.

In addition, table 3.10 shows that mean proficiency scores increase with

increases in the frequency of literacy practices. It is not surprising that those

individuals who engage in literacy activities regularly have higher proficiencies

on all three scales. In each case, however, the difference in proficiencies

between “rarely” and “weekly” is substantially larger than the difference

between “weekly” and “often.” That is, the decrement in proficiency scores for

individuals who rarely engaged in personal literacy activities is especially

pronounced. High school dropouts who rarely engage in literacy practices seem

to have a double handicap. The literacy proficiencies of this group of about

17.7 million American adults are approximately three-fourths of a standard

deviation below the next lowest group in the table, that is, substantially lower

than high school dropouts who engage in literacy practices weekly. In contrast,

the literacy proficiencies of dropouts who engage in literacy practices weekly

are only one-fifth of a standard deviation below dropouts who engage in

literacy practices often.

Heterogeneity among Noncompleters

The act of leaving school without graduating does not have the same meaning

for everyone; in fact, dropouts comprise a very heterogeneous group.

Individuals’ reasons for dropping out vary and so do their employment

patterns, literacy practices, and motivation for further schooling after they

leave school. A national longitudinal study of high school students indicated

that, among the 15 percent of students who were sophomores in 1980 but did

not complete school in 1982, not liking school and getting poor grades were

only two in a list of self-reported reasons for leaving.17 Males also reported

choosing to work and helping to support a family among the most common

reasons, and females reported marriage and pregnancy. It is likely that the

reasons for leaving school without graduating are reflected in attitudes toward

school and to subsequent post-schooling activities.
60 ...... Chapter 3

Reasons for Dropping Out

The literacy survey asked respondents who did not graduate from high school

to state the main reason for leaving school. The results are summarized in table

3.11. Leaving school for work or military service was the most common

response (24 percent) and academic problems were cited the least (3

percent).18 Although the percentages of male and female dropouts are similar

(table 3.1), significantly more males than females gave financial problems, work

or military service, and lost interest or behavior problems as reasons for

dropping out, while more females cited pregnancy and family or personal

problems. Older age groups also gave different reasons from those of 16- to 24-

year-old adults. Both older groups of respondents reported financial problems

and the need to work more often than younger respondents; older adults cited

lack of interest or behavior problems and pregnancy less often.

On all three literacy scales, those who dropped out because of financial

problems generally perform significantly below all other groups.19 For example,

those who cited financial problems as the primary reason score between onethird and two-fifths of a standard deviation below those who cited work or

military service. Forty-nine percent of those citing financial problems indicated

that they read, wrote, or did arithmetic computations only rarely (table B3.3).

In contrast, those who cited pregnancy and lost interest or behavior

problems as reasons for dropping out generally demonstrate the highest mean

literacy proficiencies.20 While not at the level of high school completers, the

literacy proficiencies of these individuals are significantly above those of other

noncompleters. Furthermore, fewer of these two groups reported engaging in

literacy activities rarely when compared with those who dropped out because

of financial reasons (table B3.3). At the time of this survey, people in these two

groups had not attained a high school equivalency diploma, but 36 percent of

those who left because of pregnancy and 28 percent of those who left because

they lost interest or had behavior problems reported studying for an

equivalency degree (table B3.4). Thus, at least some high school dropouts are

able to maintain moderate literacy skills, habits, and motivation even after

leaving school. It may be productive to explore whether their failing to

graduate could have been avoided and what ways there are to continue to

foster their engagement in intellectual activities.

18 Of course, this response does not preclude the possibility that these individuals were not doing well

academically.

19 Those who dropped out for academic reasons demonstrate about the same proficiency on the prose and

quantitative scales, although the data should be interpreted with caution.

20 Exceptions are when the proficiencies of these two groups are compared with the proficiencies for those

who dropped out for academic reasons, although the data should be interpreted with caution.
Chapter 3 ...... 61

TABLE 3.11

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Dropouts:

Age, Gender, and Total, by Reason for Dropping Out

AGE, GENDER,

AND TOTAL

REASON FOR STOPPING SCHOOLING

Financial

problems

Work or 

military Pregnancy

Lost interest 

or 

behavior

Academic 

problems

Family or

personal

problems

Other 

reasons

Age

16 to 24

25 to 54

55 or older

Gender

Male

Female

Total Population

Total

Prose

Document

Quantitative

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate /1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes because of 

missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value 

can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution — the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

WGT N

n (/1,000) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

883 4,935 8 (1.1) 12 (1.9) 14 (1.5) 24 (2.0) 3 (1.0) 15 (1.5) 24 (2.0)

2,675 17,726 15 (0.9) 19 (1.2) 9 (0.7) 18 (1.0) 4 (0.5) 20 (1.4) 17 (1.0)

1,827 19,957 20 (1.6) 32 (1.3) 1 (0.2) 8 (0.6) 2 (0.3) 20 (1.3) 18 (1.1)

2,459 19,880 19 (1.3) 34 (1.5) 1 (0.2) 17 (1.1) 3 (0.5) 14 (1.1) 11 (0.9)

2,920 22,684 14 (1.0) 15 (0.9) 11 (0.7) 11 (0.7) 2 (0.3) 24 (1.2) 24 (1.2)

5,386 42,619 16 (1.0) 24 (0.8) 6 (0.4) 14 (0.7) 3 (0.3) 19 (1.0) 18 (0.8)

PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

185 (4.1) 208 (3.0) 230 (3.5) 224 (2.9) 211 (7.7)! 208 (3.1) 208 (3.0)

179 (3.4) 201 (2.9) 228 (3.6) 221 (2.9) 208 (7.4)! 201 (3.7) 204 (3.2)

179 (4.9) 207 (3.3) 213 (3.8) 221 (3.7) 204 (8.2)! 201 (4.0) 202 (3.5)

Further Education and Training

While 24 percent of American adults have not completed high school (table

3.1), another 4 percent dropped out but later attained a high school

equivalency degree.21 The percentage attaining a GED diploma is similar

among males and females, Black, White, and Hispanic adults, and most age

groups. Fewer Asians and fewer individuals in the youngest and oldest age

brackets (i.e., 16 to 18 and 65 or older) completed a GED program.22

21 The actual percentage is greater than this, since individuals who attained a GED and also attended college

are included with the postsecondary education data. These may include a number of the more highly

literate GED-attainers.

22 Further information on GED recipients is given in J. Baldwin, I.S. Kirsch, D.A. Rock, & K. Yamamoto.

(1995). The Literacy Proficiencies of GED Examinees: Results from the GED-NALS Comparison Study.

Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
62 ...... Chapter 3

The reasons individuals with a GED gave for leaving school early were

generally similar to those for dropouts (table B3.5), although somewhat fewer

GED recipients than dropouts gave financial problems (9 percent compared

with 16 percent) and family problems (14 percent compared with 19 percent)

as the primary reason and somewhat more GED recipients reported leaving

due to pregnancy (10 percent compared with 6 percent) and lost interest or

behavior problems (20 percent compared with 14 percent). (See table 3.11 for

dropout data.) Differences in mean proficiencies among the reasons for leaving

seem to be smaller and less consistent than those among dropouts.23

In addition to adults who completed a GED program, 18 percent of high

school dropouts reported having studied for but, at the time of this survey, not

completing GED requirements.24 (See table B3.6.) This group consisted of 23

percent of the Black dropouts, 18 percent of the White dropouts, and 12

percent of the Hispanic high school dropouts. As a group, the proficiencies of

dropouts who reported studying for the GED were significantly above those of

dropouts who did not. The means for GED studiers were 241, 239, and 236 on

the prose, document, and quantitative scales, respectively, and for non-studiers

201, 195, and 196 on the three scales, respectively. The proficiencies of GED

studiers, however, were still about two-fifths of a standard deviation below

those of GED holders who averaged around 265 on the three scales.

High school dropouts and GED recipients were asked whether they were

currently enrolled in a part-time or full-time school program (e.g., a high

school equivalency program, a vocational, trade, or business school, or even a

college program) or if they have ever taken part in a program to improve their

basic skills, that is, reading, writing, and arithmetic. Basic skills training could

have been obtained in courses given by an employer or union, publicly

sponsored programs such as those offered by the Job Training Partnership Act,

or local tutoring that might be available through a library or church.

Only 5 percent of high school dropouts reported being enrolled in a school

program and 9 percent reported having taken a basic skills course (table 3.12).

Among GED recipients, 9 percent were currently enrolled in school and 16

percent had participated in basic skills training. Participation rates for high

school dropouts differ by age and by race/ethnicity.25 Twenty-four percent of

the youngest group (16 to 24) were currently enrolled in school. These

23 The data for GED holders need to be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes.

24 According to a 1992 survey of participants in the U.S. Department of Labor’s Job Training Partnership Act

and Employment Service/Unemployment Insurance programs, approximately 60 percent of high-school

dropouts who reported studying for the GED actually completed the certification requirements. (See I.S.

Kirsch, A. Jungeblut, and A. Campbell. (1992). Beyond the School Doors: The Literacy Needs of Job Seekers

Served by the U.S. Department of Labor. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.) 25 The sample sizes for GED recipients are too small to permit further breakdowns by age or race/ethnicity.
Chapter 3 ...... 63

TABLE 3.12

Percentages of GED Holders and Dropouts Reporting Enrollment in School

and in Basic Skills Program; and of Dropouts, by Age and Race/Ethnicity

EDUCATION

LEVEL/AGE

AND RACE/

ETHNICITY

ENROLLMENT

Currently

in school

Not currently in school Never in a basic 

skills program

Ever in a basic 

skills program

WGT N

n (/1,000) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

879 7,084 9 (1.5) 91 (1.5) 16 (1.9) 84 (1.9)

4,934 42,799 5 (0.4) 95 (0.4) 9 (0.7) 91 (0.7)

737 4,917 24 (1.9) 76 (1.9) 13 (1.5) 87 (1.5)

2,366 17,742 5 (0.7) 95 (0.7) 12 (1.2) 88 (1.2)

1,831 20,140 1 (0.1) 99 (0.1) 6 (0.7) 94 (0.7)

1,284 6,726 8 (0.8) 92 (0.8) 14 (1.4) 86 (1.4)

2,291 26,788 4 (0.5) 96 (0.5) 7 (0.7) 93 (0.7)

1,244 7,796 5 (0.8) 95 (0.8) 10 (1.1) 90 (1.1)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate /1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes due to missing data);

RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution — the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Total GED

Total Dropout

Age

16 to 24

25 to 54

55 or older

Race/ Ethnicity

Black

White

Hispanic

individuals may still be completing high school requirements but taking longer

than the rest of their age cohort or they may be pursuing their high school

equivalency by an alternative route. Small percentages of both groups over age

24 were enrolled in school programs, and only 6 percent of individuals aged 55

and older had participated in any basic skills training. Significantly higher

percentages of Black dropouts than Hispanic or White dropouts were currently

enrolled in school, and more Black dropouts than White dropouts had taken a

basic skills course.

The average literacy proficiencies of dropouts who were enrolled in a

school program are significantly higher than those who were not enrolled, on

all three scales (table 3.13). It is not clear whether more literate individuals are

electing to continue their education or whether the additional schooling is

increasing their literacy levels. It is clear, however, that higher literacy levels

are associated with continued schooling, even beyond the usual age of

graduation. Although the data should be interpreted with caution, individuals

who completed a GED program and were still enrolled in school seem to
64 ...... Chapter 3

demonstrate about the same average proficiencies as GED completers who

were not enrolled in school.

At the same time, dropouts who reported participating in basic skills

training performed no better, on average, than those who did not participate in

such programs. To this extent, the effects of community and work courses on

high school dropouts are minimal.

School Noncompletion and Work

Table 3.14 gives the number of weeks that dropouts worked during the 12

months prior to the survey. Overall, an estimated 53 percent of high school

dropouts did not work at all during the year. The rate is significantly higher

among females and among adults 55 years and older, many of whom may be

retired or otherwise out of the workforce. Forty-two percent of younger

TABLE 3.13

Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Dropouts and GED

Holders, by Enrollment in School and in Basic Skills Program

EDUCATION

LEVEL/LITERACY

SCALE

ENROLLMENT

Currently

in school Not currently in school

Never in a basic 

skills program

Ever in a basic 

skills program

WGT N

n (/1,000) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

4,934 42,799

230 ( 6.1) 207 ( 1.6) 210 ( 4.6) 208 ( 1.7)

229 ( 6.2) 201 ( 1.7) 207 ( 4.2) 202 ( 1.8)

222 ( 5.0) 202 ( 1.9) 205 ( 4.2) 203 ( 1.9)

879 7,084

271 ( 8.6)! 268 ( 2.0) 270 ( 4.5)! 268 ( 2.1)

267 ( 9.1)! 264 ( 2.1) 267 ( 4.9)! 263 ( 2.5)

264 ( 6.8)! 269 ( 2.8) 269 ( 4.9)! 268 ( 3.2)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate /1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes due to missing data);

PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample

estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution — the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Dropout

Prose

Document

Quantitative

GED

Prose

Document

Quantitative
Chapter 3 ...... 65

TABLE 3.14

Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of Dropouts: Sex,

Race/Ethnicity, and Age, by Number of Weeks Worked

NUMBER OF WEEKS WORKED

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total Population

Total 4,936 42,961 53 ( 1.1) 16 ( 0.6) 31 ( 1.1) 

 199 ( 2.0) 219 ( 3.4) 219 ( 2.4) 

Sex

Male 1,998 19,926 42 ( 1.5) 18 ( 1.0) 40 ( 1.4) 

 192 ( 3.7) 210 ( 4.2) 212 ( 3.2) 

Female 2,931 22,980 62 ( 1.3) 14 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1.1) 

 202 ( 2.4) 229 ( 4.8) 228 ( 3.7) 

Race/Ethnicity

Black 1,284 6,734 54 ( 2.3) 15 ( 0.9) 30 ( 2.2) 

 184 ( 3.0) 209 ( 6.0)! 203 ( 4.2) 

White 2,292 26,906 55 ( 1.8) 15 ( 0.9) 30 ( 1.6) 

 212 ( 2.3) 240 ( 3.5) 247 ( 2.9) 

Hispanic 1,245 7,823 44 ( 2.3) 17 ( 1.1) 39 ( 2.1) 

 160 ( 4.6) 164 ( 6.5) 162 ( 4.2) 

Age

16 to 24 737 5,007 29 ( 2.2) 42 ( 2.4) 29 ( 2.9) 

 224 ( 5.6) 237 ( 5.0) 237 ( 6.0) 

25 to 54 2,366 17,791 32 ( 1.4) 19 ( 0.9) 48 ( 1.6) 

 201 ( 3.2) 210 ( 4.7) 217 ( 2.9) 

55 or older 1,833 20,163 76 ( 1.3) 6 ( 0.7) 17 ( 1.2) 

 195 ( 2.8) 214 ( 6.4)! 214 ( 4.3) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

SEX,

RACE/ETHNICITY,

AND AGE Zero weeks worked 1 to 39 weeks worked 40 or more weeks

worked

dropouts (16 to 24 years) worked for part of the year (one to 39 weeks) while

48 percent of 25- to 54-year-old adults worked more than 40 weeks. While

Hispanic adults have a higher dropout rate than other racial/ethnic groups

(table 3.1), the percentage of Hispanic dropouts who did not work during the
66 ...... Chapter 3

year (44 percent) was below that of Black (54 percent) or White (55 percent)

dropouts.26

Literacy patterns among the groups are very similar for the prose,

document, and quantitative scales, so that only the averages for prose literacy

are given in table 3.14. (The document and quantitative data are found in

tables B3.7D and B3.7Q.) Dropouts who worked at all during the past 12

months demonstrate significantly higher proficiencies than those who did not

work at all. Further, there is no significant difference between the average

proficiency of dropouts who worked part of the year and those who worked for

the entire year. The proficiencies for those who worked during the year are

approximately three-tenths to two-fifths of a standard deviation above those

who did not work but are still far below those of the full sample of high school

graduates (table 3.2).

The difference between workers and non-workers is found for both males

and females and for Black and White dropouts. In each case the proficiency

scores of dropouts who worked are higher than those of dropouts who did not

work. In contrast, no significant difference in proficiencies is found between

Hispanic dropouts who worked and those who did not work during the

preceding year.27 The mean proficiencies of Hispanic dropouts are generally

below those of other racial/ethnic groups, regardless of work status.

The differences in proficiencies for age groups are mixed. For the

youngest group, the proficiencies of dropouts who had worked and who had

not worked are generally about the same. At the other extreme, for 55-or-older

dropouts working seems to be related to proficiency. For example, those who

worked over 40 weeks during the preceding year have significantly higher

proficiencies than non-workers on all three scales.

Is working related to the literacy practices of dropouts, either on the job

or in their personal lives? The literacy proficiencies of dropouts classified by

personal literacy practices and weeks worked are given in table 3.15.

The relationship of personal literacy activities to employment is clear.

Among dropouts who reported rarely reading, writing, or doing arithmetic

tasks for their own use, fully 64 percent did not work at all during the

preceding year. Fewer adults who engaged in literacy activities weekly or more

often were unemployed: 47 percent and 39 percent, respectively. While these

unemployment rates are high compared with adults who completed their

schooling (see chapter 5), personal literacy habits may be an additional factor

that influences the ability to secure a job. Among dropouts who engaged in

26 Although we use the term dropout, this group also includes individuals who reported no formal schooling at

all. As indicated in chapter 2, this was a substantial percentage of Hispanic respondents (10.9 percent).

27 The same pattern was found for all three literacy scales.
Chapter 3 ...... 67

literacy practices often, 42 percent worked for 40 weeks or more during the

preceding year, a higher percentage than dropouts who engaged in literacy

practices only weekly or rarely.

Among dropouts who reported they rarely engaged in literacy activities,

increased employment is not associated with increased proficiency. That is,

individuals who do not engage in literacy practices generally maintain low

proficiencies regardless of whether they hold a regular job or not. In contrast,

among dropouts who engage in literacy practices on a regular basis (either

weekly or more often), those who worked during the preceding year generally

TABLE 3.15

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of

Dropouts Reporting Reporting Personal Literacy Practices, by Weeks Worked

NUMBER OF WEEKS WORKED

 WGT N RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Prose

Personal practices rarely 2,066 17,689 64 ( 1.5) 12 ( 0.9) 24 ( 1.3) 

 177 ( 2.8) 178 ( 5.3)! 177 ( 4.8) 

Personal practices weekly 1,990 17,265 47 ( 1.7) 18 ( 0.9) 34 ( 1.6) 

 217 ( 2.6) 233 ( 4.5) 234 ( 3.1) 

Personal practices often 876 7,978 39 ( 2.1) 19 ( 1.5) 42 ( 2.1) 

 230 ( 4.7) 246 ( 5.1)! 245 ( 3.6) 

Document

Personal practices rarely 2,066 17,689 64 ( 1.5) 12 ( 0.9) 24 ( 1.3) 

 168 ( 2.7) 175 ( 5.1)! 175 ( 4.6) 

Personal practices weekly 1,990 17,265 47 ( 1.7) 18 ( 0.9) 34 ( 1.6) 

 209 ( 2.7) 232 ( 4.0) 230 ( 2.9) 

Personal practices often 876 7,978 39 ( 2.1) 19 ( 1.5) 42 ( 2.1) 

 222 ( 4.7) 245 ( 5.6)! 240 ( 3.6) 

Quantitative

Personal practices rarely 2,066 17,689 64 ( 1.5) 12 ( 0.9) 24 ( 1.3) 

 162 ( 3.5) 172 ( 5.3)! 174 ( 5.2) 

Personal practices weekly 1,990 17,265 47 ( 1.7) 18 ( 0.9) 34 ( 1.6) 

 213 ( 3.3) 233 ( 4.5) 236 ( 3.1) 

Personal practices often 876 7,978 39 ( 2.1) 19 ( 1.5) 42 ( 2.1) 

 226 ( 5.2) 245 ( 5.5)! 245 ( 3.6) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

LITERACY SCALE/

PERSONAL PRACTICES Zero weeks worked 1 to 39 weeks worked 40 or more weeks

worked

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of

Dropouts Reporting Personal Literacy Practices, by Weeks Worked
68 ...... Chapter 3

have higher literacy proficiencies than those who did not. It is not clear

whether employers give preference to individuals who are both more literate

and engaged in personal literacy practices, or if more active high school

dropouts seek jobs that utilize or reward their higher proficiencies.

Nevertheless, there is a substantial number of dropouts who have regular

employment, who engage more frequently in literacy practices, and who have

higher literacy levels than other groups of school noncompleters.

In addition to the personal literacy practices index, a job literacy practices

index was obtained by asking respondents how often they read a range of

documents, wrote letters, reports, or other documents, or performed

arithmetic tasks as part of their job. Job literacy practices reflect the tasks an

employee must perform for his or her work. While an individual may seek a job

that involves more or fewer literacy practices, most employees have less ability

to influence their job literacy practices than their literacy practices for personal

use. The connections among job literacy practices, employment patterns, and

literacy proficiency are complex, and the workplace may serve as a setting that

promotes or discourages literacy activities and literacy proficiency.

The results for job literacy practices are shown in table 3.16. Altogether an

estimated 47 percent of high school noncompleters held short-term (1 to 39

weeks) or longer-term (40 or more weeks) jobs during the previous year.28

Many positions held by school noncompleters required literacy practices only

rarely (49 percent for 1 to 39 weeks, and 37 percent for 40 or more weeks).

Nevertheless, about half the jobs of those working 1 to 39 weeks and well over

half the jobs of those working 40 or more weeks required literacy practices

weekly or more often. On average, the individuals holding positions that

required literacy activities demonstrated significantly higher literacy

proficiencies than those working in jobs that did not require reading, writing,

or arithmetic. At the same time, the lowest average proficiencies are

demonstrated by dropouts working 40 or more weeks in jobs that rarely

required literacy tasks to be performed (except on the quantitative scale).

In total, the results for literacy practices and employment exhibit diversity.

Noteworthy numbers of high school dropouts held jobs that required reading,

writing, and arithmetic skills, and others maintained long-term employment in

spite of poor literacy proficiencies. While the literacy proficiencies of

noncompleters are generally poor relative to those of high school graduates,

dropouts are not by any means a homogeneous group with regard to literacy

proficiencies, literacy practices, or the number of weeks they work.

28 This percent was computed using the weighted Ns in table 3.16. The sum of the weighted Ns for 1 to 39

and 40 or more weeks was divided by the sum of the weighted Ns for all three categories.
Chapter 3 ...... 69

Summary

The results of the National Adult Literacy Survey show clearly that average

literacy proficiencies are lowest among individuals who did not complete high

school, higher among high school completers and individuals who completed

an alternative GED program, and highest among those with some

postsecondary schooling. Proficiencies of individuals with a GED certificate

are no lower, and are often slightly above, the proficiencies of high school

graduates. These differences are found consistently among males and females,

among younger and older adults, among individuals of four racial/ethnic

groups, and among individuals at all income levels and employment statuses.

Leaving school without graduating is more common among Hispanic and

Black populations than among White or Asian populations. An estimated 46

TABLE 3.16

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of

Dropouts: Number of Weeks Worked, by Frequency of Job Practices

FREQUENCY OF JOB LITERACY PRACTICES

 WGT N RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Prose

1 to 39 weeks worked 868 6,799 49 ( 2.2) 29 ( 2.0) 22 ( 1.8) 

 201 ( 4.1) 230 ( 5.1) 243 ( 5.0) 

40 or more weeks worked 1,605 13,526 37 ( 1.8) 29 ( 1.4) 34 ( 1.8) 

 183 ( 4.4) 232 ( 3.6) 246 ( 2.5) 

Document

1 to 39 weeks worked 868 6,799 49 ( 2.2) 29 ( 2.0) 22 ( 1.8) 

 198 ( 3.9) 229 ( 5.0) 243 ( 4.8) 

40 or more weeks worked 1,605 13,526 37 ( 1.8) 29 ( 1.4) 34 ( 1.8) 

 180 ( 4.3) 227 ( 3.8) 243 ( 3.0) 

Quantitative

1 to 39 weeks worked 868 6,799 49 ( 2.2) 29 ( 2.0) 22 ( 1.8) 

 196 ( 4.0) 231 ( 5.3) 244 ( 5.3) 

40 or more weeks worked 1,605 13,526 37 ( 1.8) 29 ( 1.4) 34 ( 1.8) 

 179 ( 4.2) 232 ( 3.9) 250 ( 2.9) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

LITERACY SCALE BY

NUMBER OF WEEKS

WORKED

Job practices rarely Job practices weekly Job practices often
70 ...... Chapter 3

percent of all Hispanic adults have not completed high school. This high

percentage figure is accompanied by mean proficiencies that are substantially

lower than those of any other racial/ethnic group regardless of educational

attainment.

In terms of language background, the dropout rate among individuals who

grew up in Spanish-speaking homes was high — an estimated 60 percent. At

the same time, the advantage of graduating from high school is greatest for

Spanish-speaking individuals, that is, the difference in literacy proficiency is

greatest between Spanish-speakers who graduated from high school and

Spanish-speakers who did not.

Individuals who grew up in bilingual Spanish/English homes did not have

a higher dropout rate than other non-English-speaking groups. The mean

proficiencies of individuals who grew up in English speaking homes and

bilingual homes are higher, on average, than those of individuals who grew up

in a non-English speaking home. In general, growing up in a bilingual home is

not associated with as great a literacy handicap as growing up in a home in

which English is not spoken at all.

The personal literacy practices in which individuals engage are also related

to educational attainment and to literacy proficiency. High school dropouts

read, write, or perform simple arithmetic tasks only infrequently in daily life.

Individuals who both dropped out of school and rarely engage in literacy

activities have by far the lowest average literacy proficiencies of any group

identified in this survey. Unfortunately, this is not a small group of American

adults.

The literacy assessment also reveals that individuals who do not complete

high school with their age cohort are a diverse group. They left school for a

variety of reasons and engaged in a wide range of work, education, and literacyrelated activities after they left. Those who gave financial problems as their

primary reason for dropping out have the lowest literacy proficiencies and

poorest patterns of education and literacy activities after leaving school,

suggesting that the reasons for leaving may have been broader than just

financial conditions.

At the other extreme, those who cited lost interest or behavior problems

and pregnancy as reasons for leaving school have significantly higher average

literacy proficiencies than other groups of dropouts and engaged in

significantly more post-high school literacy practices. Behavior problems in

school are highly visible to teachers and administrators but are not necessarily

indicative of academic failure. It is possible that among these groups of

dropouts, many could, conditions permitting, successfully complete high school

or even further years of schooling.
Chapter 3 ...... 71

A small number of high school dropouts engaged in further educational

activities after leaving school. About 5 percent reported being enrolled in a

part-time or full-time school program at the time of the survey, and 18 percent

reported having studied for GED certification. Their average literacy

proficiency is significantly above those who did not undertake further

education. Another 4 percent of the sample who did not graduate from high

school with their age cohort later completed the requirements for GED

certification. Their average literacy proficiency is higher still and, in fact, is at

least as high as that of high school graduates.29

The employment rate for high school dropouts is indeed poor, with about

53 percent reporting that they did not work at all during the preceding year.

The percentages not working were higher still among females and among

individuals over 55 years of age. While the dropout rate for Hispanic adults was

substantially above other groups, the percentage not working was significantly

lower than that for Black or White dropouts.

In general, high school noncompleters who worked during the previous

year have significantly higher average literacy proficiencies than those who did

not work. Higher proficiencies associated with employment were found for

males and females and for Black and White dropouts alike. In contrast,

Hispanic dropouts who worked did not have higher proficiencies than those

who were unemployed. The literacy proficiencies of dropouts whose jobs

required them to engage in literacy practices on a regular basis are especially

elevated in comparison with those whose jobs did not involve reading, writing,

or arithmetic activities.

In summary, the results of this survey indicate that the average literacy

proficiencies of individuals who dropped out of high school are substantially

below those of high school or GED completers. At the same time, it is clear

that even among high school dropouts, a substantial group of adults undertake

further educational activities, engage in literacy practices regularly, hold fairly

regular jobs, and demonstrate literacy levels that are significantly higher than

those of their less active and/or unemployed counterparts. Failure to complete

high school, while associated with many adverse consequences, does not

necessarily mean that an individual has ceased to engage in educational and

literacy-related endeavors.

29 The reader is reminded that still other dropouts who completed the GED requirements went on to

participate in postsecondary schooling. These individuals are included with the postsecondary data.
72 ...... Chapter 3
Chapter 4 ...... 73

CHAPTER 4

Adults Performing at the Two Lowest Literacy Levels

by Sylvia T. Johnson

Literacy is an outcome of education and an enabler of achievement and

vocational advancement. Literacy skills, improved proficiencies, and active

involvement in reading probably work in complex, interactive ways to influence

one another. Yet, the adults who performed in the two lowest levels on the

National Adult Literacy Survey are a surprisingly diverse group in terms of

their educational and language background, age, and other characteristics.

Even within the two lowest literacy levels, the range of proficiency skills is also

diverse.

Because of this range of skills in Levels 1 and 2 on all three scales, it is not

accurate or appropriate to characterize those whose skills fall in these levels as

non-readers. Respondents varied a great deal as to the extent of meaning and

inferences they drew from words, sentences, paragraphs, documents and

quantitative information. While these results constitute a current snapshot of

literacy proficiency at a single point in the adult life cycle, it is important to

recognize that over time, the literacy skills of adults can change based on

cumulative educational and life experiences.

This chapter examines the meaning of literacy proficiency by exploring the

prose, document, and quantitative tasks that most adults in these levels are

likely to be able to perform and the backgrounds and literacy activities of

people who perform in these levels. Adults in Level 2 showed themselves to be

consistently successful with all tasks in Level 1, and were successful with most

Level 2 tasks. In addition, some adults at the upper end of Level 2 were more

likely to succeed than to fail with Level 3 tasks, but they did not reach the

criterion success rate of 80 percent.1

 Adults in Level 1 have more limited skills.

Unlike the other four levels, Level 1 includes adults who are not able to meet

the requirements of Level 1 tasks. For this and other reasons, adults in Level 1

display a very broad range of proficiencies.

1 Literacy tasks are mapped onto the literacy scale at the point at which a person has at least an 80 percent

chance of correctly answering the question. For example, a person whose proficiency score is 210 or more

has at least an 80 percent chance of correctly answering a task that is mapped at 210 on one of the literacy

scales and is described as “able to do” that task.
74 ...... Chapter 4

• Some adults near the upper end of Level 1 were consistently successful

with Level 1 tasks and were more likely to succeed than to fail with Level 2

tasks, though they were not consistent enough with Level 2 tasks to reach

the 80 percent success criterion.

• Some adults, particularly those with a limited educational or English

language background, were successful with most of the simpler literacy

tasks that are found in Level 1.

• Some adults were unable to succeed consistently even with the simplest of

literacy tasks. This group can be found at the low end of Level 1 on the

three literacy scales.

• Some adults in Level 1 have skills that are too low to be tested. It would

not make sense to limit reporting of literacy skills to that population literate

enough to be assessed. In spite of inevitable inaccuracies in placement,

those who have such low skills were included at the low end of the literacy

scales, so that the assessment would reflect the full range of literacy skills of

all adults.

• Some adults may appear in Level 1 or 2 because they performed below

their true abilities. This can occur when respondents had low motivation to

succeed on the assessment or did not invest the amount of time required to

complete the assessment carefully. The National Adult Literacy Survey was

a low-stakes test, with no job or career decisions depending on the

outcome of one’s performance.

The importance of context in interpreting the proficiency findings is explored,

and the extent to which education is a sufficient intervention for raising literacy

levels is also discussed. This chapter, then, presents a picture of the adults

performing in the lowest levels of the survey. It describes the nature of their

skills, their educational experiences, backgrounds, and ordinary literacy

activities, as well as the procedures used for determining their scores and their

prospects for improved literacy through education.

The Meaning of Prose Literacy Proficiency for Levels 1 and 2

The meaning of proficiency in prose literacy Levels 1 and 2 can be understood

by examining the types of tasks that characterize these levels on the prose

literacy scale. Survey evidence showed that 52 percent of the total adult

population performed above Level 2 on the prose literacy scale, 27 percent of

the total adult population performed in Level 2, and the remainder in Level 1.

Some adults at the low end of Level 1 were unable to succeed consistently even

with the simplest of literacy tasks — 4 percent of all adults (8.2 million) failed
Chapter 4 ...... 75

to answer correctly a single prose literacy task (see appendix tables A.2 and

A.5P).2 This section discusses a variety of reasons why people might perform at

these lower levels.

The literacy tasks in Level 1, which mapped onto the prose literacy scale

between 149 and 224, required the respondent to read a relatively short text to

locate a single piece of information that was identical to or synonymous with

the information given in the question. If the text contained plausible but

incorrect information, it was not located near the correct information. For

example, one task with a difficulty level of 210 required respondents to read a

newspaper article and to underline the sentence that tells what a swimmer ate

during her swim (see appendix A for the full text). There was only one

reference to food, and although it did not use the word “ate,” it said that the

swimmer “kept up her strength with banana and honey sandwiches, hot

chocolate, lots of water and granola bars.” The reader had to match the word

“ate” in the question with the only food reference in the article.

Prose tasks in Level 2, which mapped onto the literacy scale from 226 to

274, also required the reader to locate a single piece of information in the text;

however, for some tasks in this level several distractors or plausible but

incorrect pieces of information were present, or lower-level inferences were

required. Other tasks in this level required the integration of two or more

pieces of information, or the comparison or contrast of easily identifiable

information based on a criterion provided in the question or directive. For

example, a Level 2 question based on the sports article mentioned above asked

at what age the swimmer began to swim competitively. The second paragraph

of the article provided the current age of the swimmer, 23, a plausible but

incorrect answer. The correct information, age 15, could be found later in the

article.

Prose literacy tasks in Level 3 were more difficult because they required

the reader to perform several steps or to deal with text that contains factors

that increase difficulty or inhibit the easy location of the correct answer. The

reader may have had to match literal or synonymous information in the text

with that which the task requests, integrate multiple pieces of information, or

generate a response based on information that could easily be identified in the

text. The text may have been dense, lengthy, or contained no headings or other

organizational aids; distracting information may have be present, but not

located near the correct information; or low-level inferences may have been

required. Prose literacy tasks in Levels 4 and 5 shared many of the same factors

2 This estimate of the proficiency distribution is partially based on information from the twelve percent of

survey respondents who did not complete the assessment. Such respondents constituted 41 percent of the

adults scoring in Level 1, and 8 percent of adults scoring in Level 2 on the prose scale (table 4.11). The

procedures used in detecting adults with such low literacy skills that they could not be assessed and the

pitfalls in estimating their literacy skills are described below and in Appendix A.
76 ...... Chapter 4

that made Level 3 tasks difficult, but in addition, required the reader to make

use of background knowledge, to make higher-level inferences from

incomplete information, or to make a more elaborate response. At higher levels

of difficulty on the prose scales, materials generally were more complex and

more distracting information was present. (Appendix A provides a more

detailed description of the nature of the tasks that comprise the three literacy

scales.)

Background, Educational Experiences, and Literacy Practices:

Prose Literacy

Nearly half the total adult population was estimated to perform in Level 1 or 2

on the prose literacy scale, and they were a diverse group in many respects.

Adults with limited schooling were more likely to perform in the lower prose

literacy levels (table 4.1). Ninety-five percent of adults who did not begin high

school and 80 percent who did not complete high school demonstrated prose

proficiencies in Level 1 or 2. Still, limited schooling is not the only reason for

performance in these low levels. Among adults in prose literacy Level 1 (see

table 4.1A), those who did not complete high school still comprised 62 percent

of the Level 1 cases, but only 26 percent of the level 2 cases. Thus, sizable

proportions of those performing in Level 1 or 2 earned high school diplomas or

continued towards more advanced schooling.

The average prose literacy performance of men and women did not differ

significantly (table 4.1), and similar proportions of males and females (48

percent) performed in Level 1 or 2. Still, more men than women performed in

the lowest level (22 and 20 percent, respectively).

More adults from Black and Hispanic backgrounds than from a White

background performed in Level 1 or 2. Among Hispanic and African American

adults, 49 percent and 38 percent, respectively, performed in Level 1

compared with 14 percent of White adults. Similarly, 75 percent of both

Hispanic and African American adults performed in Level 1 or 2, compared

with 39 percent of White adults (table 4.1).

While prose literacy skills are also related to employment status, many

adults with relatively low literacy skills do maintain full-time employment.

Among those working full time, 13 and 24 percent demonstrate proficiency in

Levels 1 and 2, respectively. Performance in these levels is more characteristic

of the unemployed, of whom 24 and 35 percent perform in Levels 1 and 2,

respectively (table 4.1).
Chapter 4 ...... 77

TABLE 4.1

Percentages at Each Level and Prose Proficiencies, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity,

Education Level, Employment Status, and Literacy Practices

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total Population

Total 26,091 191,289 21 ( 0.4) 27 ( 0.6) 32 ( 0.7) 17 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.2) 272 ( 0.6) 

Sex

Male 11,770 92,098 22 ( 0.6) 26 ( 0.9) 31 ( 1.2) 18 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.3) 272 ( 0.9) 

Female 14,279 98,901 20 ( 0.5) 28 ( 0.7) 33 ( 0.7) 17 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.2) 273 ( 0.8) 

Race/Ethnicity

Black 4,963 21,192 38 ( 1.1) 37 ( 1.3) 21 ( 1.0) 4 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.1) 237 ( 1.4) 

White 17,292 144,968 14 ( 0.4) 25 ( 0.6) 36 ( 0.8) 21 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.3) 286 ( 0.7) 

Hispanic 3,126 18,481 49 ( 1.4) 26 ( 1.4) 19 ( 1.4) 6 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.3) 215 ( 2.2) 

Level of Education

Still in school 973 8,268 16 ( 1.8) 36 ( 2.2) 37 ( 2.6) 11 ( 1.9) 0†( 0.5) 271 ( 2.0) 

Less than high

school 2,167 18,356 75 ( 1.7) 20 ( 1.4) 4 ( 0.9) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.0) 177 ( 2.6) 

Some high school 3,311 24,982 42 ( 1.4) 38 ( 1.1) 17 ( 1.0) 2 ( 0.4) 0†( 0.1) 231 ( 1.5) 

GED or high school

diploma 7,169 58,514 16 ( 0.7) 36 ( 1.1) 37 ( 1.4) 10 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.2) 270 ( 1.0) 

Some college (no

degree) 6,587 39,634 8 ( 0.5) 23 ( 0.8) 45 ( 0.9) 22 ( 0.8) 3 ( 0.3) 294 ( 1.0) 

College degree (2

or more years) 5,820 40,941 3 ( 0.4) 11 ( 0.8) 33 ( 1.2) 41 ( 1.2) 12 ( 0.7) 325 ( 1.1) 

Employment Status

Full-time 12,466 89,723 13 ( 0.6) 24 ( 0.7) 36 ( 1.0) 23 ( 0.7) 5 ( 0.3) 288 ( 0.9) 

Part-time 3,051 23,600 14 ( 0.8) 26 ( 1.5) 36 ( 1.8) 20 ( 1.3) 4 ( 0.5) 284 ( 1.4) 

Unemployed 1,942 13,557 24 ( 1.3) 35 ( 1.7) 29 ( 2.7) 11 ( 1.8) 1 ( 0.4) 260 ( 2.1) 

Out of work 4,207 30,386 29 ( 0.9) 29 ( 1.1) 29 ( 0.9) 13 ( 1.1) 2 ( 0.4) 256 ( 1.5) 

Retired 2,527 27,921 41 ( 1.4) 32 ( 1.4) 21 ( 1.5) 5 ( 1.0) 1 ( 0.3) 235 ( 1.8) 

Personal Practices

Rarely 4,163 33,885 53 ( 1.3) 27 ( 1.2) 15 ( 1.0) 4 ( 0.6) 1 ( 0.2) 212 ( 1.9) 

Weekly 10,580 81,912 18 ( 0.6) 30 ( 0.9) 33 ( 1.1) 16 ( 0.7) 3 ( 0.3) 275 ( 0.8) 

Often 10,189 74,650 9 ( 0.5) 24 ( 0.9) 38 ( 0.9) 25 ( 0.6) 5 ( 0.4) 297 ( 0.8) 

Job Practices

Rarely 3,907 29,660 35 ( 1.0) 30 ( 1.3) 25 ( 1.2) 10 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.2) 243 ( 1.4) 

Weekly 5,024 38,187 15 ( 0.7) 30 ( 1.3) 35 ( 1.3) 17 ( 0.8) 3 ( 0.3) 280 ( 1.3) 

Often 11,204 80,016 7 ( 0.4) 22 ( 0.6) 39 ( 1.1) 26 ( 0.8) 6 ( 0.4) 301 ( 0.7) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

DEMOGRAPHIC

SUBPOPULATIONS Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

Proficiency
78 ...... Chapter 4

Extent and type of literacy activities were related to proficiency. Personal

literacy practices (as defined in appendix D) were strongly associated with level

of prose literacy (table 4.1); 53 percent of the people who rarely engaged in

personal literacy activities performed in Level 1, compared with 9 percent of

those who often engaged in these activities. Similarly, on-the-job literacy

practices (as defined in appendix D) were strongly associated with level of

prose literacy; 65 percent of adults who reported rarely using prose materials at

work performed in Level 1 or 2, compared with 29 percent of those who often

used prose materials at work.

Early familiarity with English, as one would expect, is related to prose

proficiency in English. Among adults who spoke only English in the home

when growing up, 43 percent performed in Level 1 or 2, while among adults

who spoke only Spanish while growing up, 91 percent performed in Level 1 or

2 (table 4.2). Among adults who grew up in a home where only a language

other then English and Spanish was spoken, 73 percent performed in Level 1

or 2. Those who spoke English and another language while growing up were

more similar in performance to those adults who spoke only English when

growing up. Among those who spoke either English and Spanish or English

and another language, 57 percent and 46 percent, respectively, performed in

Level 1 or 2.

TABLE 4.1A

Percentages of Adults at Each Prose Literacy Level, by Educational

Attainment

EDUCATIONAL 

ATTAINMENT

PROSE LEVELS

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

CPCT (SE) CPCT (SE) CPCT (SE) CPCT (SE) CPCT (SE)

Still in school 3 (1.5) 6 (1.9) 5 (2.0) 3 (1.4) 1 (0.6)

0 to 8 years 35 (1.6) 7 (1.3) 1 (0.7) 0 (0.3) 0 (0.0)

9 to 12 years 27 (1.3) 19 (1.0) 7 (1.0) 2 (0.4) 0 (0.3)

GED 3 (1.4) 6 (1.8) 5 (2.4) 2 (1.1) 1 (0.7)

High school 21 (0.6) 36 (1.3) 31 (1.2) 16 (1.0) 4 (1.0)

Some college (no degree) 8 (0.5) 18 (0.8) 29 (0.9) 28 (0.8) 17 (0.9)

2-year degree 1 (0.8) 3 (1.8) 5 (2.2) 7 (2.4) 4 (0.9)

4-year college degree 2 (0.6) 4 (1.1) 10 (1.2) 22 (1.3) 30 (2.5)

Graduate studies/degree 1 (0.4) 2 (0.8) 8 (1.2) 23 (1.3) 43 (3.0)

Percentages less than 0.5 were rounded to zero.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Chapter 4 ...... 79

TABLE 4.2

Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults

Reporting Language in Home, Current Language and Age

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Language Spoken in Home

English only 21,242 156,620 16 ( 0.4) 27 ( 0.6) 34 ( 0.8) 19 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.2) 282 ( 0.7) 

Spanish only 1,866 10,979 71 ( 2.1) 20 ( 1.7) 7 ( 1.3) 2 ( 0.7) 0†( 0.2) 178 ( 3.1) 

Other 849 8,274 46 ( 2.6) 27 ( 2.9) 19 ( 1.9) 7 ( 1.3) 1 ( 0.6) 222 ( 3.9) 

English and Spanish 789 4,406 23 ( 2.4) 34 ( 3.3) 32 ( 2.9) 10 ( 2.1) 1 ( 0.7) 261 ( 3.2) 

English and other 1,308 10,722 19 ( 2.1) 27 ( 1.8) 34 ( 2.1) 17 ( 2.0) 3 ( 0.6) 276 ( 3.2) 

Current Language

English 24,513 180,996 17 ( 0.4) 28 ( 0.6) 34 ( 0.8) 18 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.2) 279 ( 0.6) 

Spanish 1,311 7,634 85 ( 2.2) 12 ( 1.7) 3 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.3) 0†( 0.3) 153 ( 3.8) 

Other 227 2,393 75 ( 4.1) 17 ( 3.4) 7 ( 2.1) 1 ( 1.0) 0†( 0.1) 174 ( 6.9) 

Age

16 to 18 years old 1,237 10,424 16 ( 1.3) 35 ( 1.9) 38 ( 2.4) 11 ( 1.7) 1 ( 0.4) 271 ( 1.8) 

19 to 24 years old 3,344 24,515 14 ( 1.1) 29 ( 1.7) 37 ( 1.8) 18 ( 1.3) 2 ( 0.4) 280 ( 1.3) 

25 to 39 years old 10,050 63,278 15 ( 0.5) 24 ( 0.7) 34 ( 0.8) 22 ( 0.8) 5 ( 0.4) 284 ( 0.9) 

40 to 54 years old 6,310 43,794 15 ( 0.7) 23 ( 1.0) 34 ( 1.4) 22 ( 0.9) 5 ( 0.4) 286 ( 1.4) 

55 to 64 years old 2,924 19,503 26 ( 1.5) 31 ( 1.3) 30 ( 1.5) 12 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.3) 260 ( 1.9) 

65 years old or older 2,214 29,735 44 ( 1.6) 32 ( 1.6) 19 ( 1.3) 5 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.3) 230 ( 2.1) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

DEMOGRAPHIC

SUBPOPULATIONS Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency

Prose proficiencies in Level 1 or 2 are prevalent among the nearly 10

percent of the population who reported that they had been born outside of the

United States. Seventy-five percent of this group (see table 4.2A), or about 7.5

percent of the total population,3

 perform in Level 1 or 2 on the prose scale.

These values need cautious interpretation, however, since nearly one-third of

the Hispanic sample did not answer the cognitive questions and their scores

were estimated.

Age of respondents was related to prose proficiency (table 4.2). Although

the proportions performing in Level 1 were stable at about 15 percent for the

age groups from 16 through 54, the percentage performing in Level 1

increased to 26 percent for the group aged 55 to 64 and to 44 percent for those

3 This figure was calculated by dividing the sum of the weighted Ns of those born outside of the United States by the total

population size to get 10 percent, and then multiplying that figure by the 75 percent of those born in another country or

territory who perform in Level 1 or 2.
80 ...... Chapter 4

TABLE 4.2A

Percentages at Each Prose Literacy Level of Adults Reporting 

Country of Birth

WHERE BORN

PROSE LEVELS

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

In the USA 17 (0.4) 27 (0.6) 34 (0.8) 18 (0.5) 3 (0.2)

Outside the USA or

in a US territory 53 (1.4) 22 (1.1) 17 (1.3) 7 (0.7) 1 (0.4)

Rows totals may not exactly equal 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992

65 or older. Older adults (that is, adults 55 and over) were over-represented in

the two lowest proficiency levels. The combined proportion performing in

Levels 1 and 2 was 51 percent among those aged 16 to 18. Among the

subsequent age groups, the combined proportions in Levels 1 and 2 decreased

or stayed the same through age 54 (43, 39, and 38 percent). Then for the group

aged 55 to 64, the proportion in Level 1 or 2 was 57 percent, and for those 65

years old or older, 76 percent. While the lower proficiencies for older

respondents may reflect some lowering of functioning with age, their

educational attainment, along with the content and context of their educational

experiences in terms of changing vocabulary and language usage, should be

considered. The older age group had much more limited educational

opportunities, and their parents, whose literacy activities would have had some

influence on them, would have had even fewer educational opportunities.

Educational attainment across age groups varied widely. Among 16- to 19-

year olds, over half (56 percent) were still in high school, 21 percent had

graduated and were not currently in school, 8 percent had some college or

postsecondary work underway or completed, and 15 percent had terminated

their education prior to high school completion (table 4.3). Adults who did not

complete high school were heavily concentrated at the two lowest prose

proficiency levels (table 4.1). Dropouts among all age groups were discussed in

detail in chapter 3 (see table 3.1).

Among those aged 20 to 29, 16 percent dropped out of school prior to or

during high school (table 4.3), and again, adults who did not complete high

school were concentrated in proficiency Levels 1 and 2 (table 4.1). Thirty-eight

percent of this age group had completed high school and were not currently in
Chapter 4 ...... 81

TABLE 4.3

Percentages of Adults at Each Age Group Reporting Education Level

EDUCATION LEVEL

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

16 to 19 year olds 1,728 14,310 56 ( 1.4) 3 ( 0.5) 12 ( 1.0) 21 ( 1.0) 8 ( 0.7) 0†( 0.1) 

20 to 29 year olds 6,132 41,229 0†( 0.1) 3 ( 0.3) 13 ( 0.5) 38 ( 0.7) 27 ( 0.6) 19 ( 0.7) 

30 to 39 year olds 6,731 42,376 0†( 0.0) 5 ( 0.4) 11 ( 0.5) 31 ( 0.7) 24 ( 0.6) 29 ( 0.6) 

40 to 49 year olds 4,681 32,376 0†( 0.1) 6 ( 0.5) 9 ( 0.6) 29 ( 1.0) 23 ( 0.9) 33 ( 0.7) 

50 to 59 year olds 3,039 21,109 0†( 0.0) 12 ( 0.9) 13 ( 0.8) 33 ( 0.9) 19 ( 0.8) 23 ( 0.9) 

60 to 69 year olds 2,262 20,043 0†( 0.2) 19 ( 1.1) 19 ( 1.2) 29 ( 1.2) 16 ( 0.7) 17 ( 0.9) 

70 years or older 1,443 19,220 0†( 0.1) 31 ( 1.3) 19 ( 1.4) 24 ( 1.2) 14 ( 1.0) 12 ( 0.9) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

AGE

Still in high

school 0 to 8 years 9 to 12 years GED/High school Somepostsecondary College graduate

school, 27 had some postsecondary education, and 19 percent had completed

college.

The group aged 30 to 39 is the largest numerically of the decade groups.

Sixteen percent of this group left school prior to completing high school (table

4.3). Thirty-one percent had completed high school, 24 percent had some

postsecondary work, and 29 percent had completed college. Among

respondents aged 40 to 49, 15 percent had not completed high school, 29

percent were high school graduates, 23 percent had some postsecondary

education, and one-third had college degrees. Among those aged 50 to 59, 25

percent reported that they had not completed high school. One-third had

completed high school, 19 percent had some postsecondary education, and 23

percent had completed college. Among the group aged 60 to 69, 38 percent

had not completed high school. High school graduates or GED holders make

up 29 percent of this age group, along with 16 percent who have some

postsecondary education, and 17 percent who completed college. Educational

distributions for the group aged 70 or older reflect the lesser educational

opportunities available to them in their earlier years. Half had not completed

high school, 24 percent were high school graduates or GED holders, 14

percent had some postsecondary education, and 12 percent were college

graduates.
82 ...... Chapter 4

TABLE 4.4

Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults

Reporting Where They Learned Various Skills

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Read books

In school 15,103 114,780 19 ( 0.5) 28 ( 0.7) 33 ( 0.8) 17 ( 0.6) 3 ( 0.3) 275 ( 0.7) 

At home 9,245 71,149 21 ( 0.6) 26 ( 0.9) 31 ( 0.9) 18 ( 0.8) 3 ( 0.3) 273 ( 1.1) 

At work 307 2,333 41 ( 4.7) 23 ( 4.6) 27 ( 4.7) 8 ( 2.4) 1 ( 0.6) 239 ( 5.7) 

Did not learn 217 1,605 98 ( 2.1) 2 ( 2.1) 1 ( 0.3) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 108 ( 6.1) 

Other 38 313 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

Read graphs

In school 19,996 149,609 15 ( 0.3) 27 ( 0.7) 35 ( 0.8) 20 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.3) 282 ( 0.6) 

At home 2,239 18,480 30 ( 1.4) 31 ( 1.5) 27 ( 1.6) 11 ( 1.0) 2 ( 0.4) 253 ( 2.2) 

At work 1,387 11,470 24 ( 2.2) 29 ( 2.5) 33 ( 2.2) 13 ( 1.1) 2 ( 0.4) 265 ( 2.1) 

Did not learn 1,097 8,826 75 ( 1.9) 19 ( 2.2) 6 ( 1.1) 0†( 0.7) 0†( 0.1) 173 ( 3.5) 

Other 184 1,728 61 ( 4.6) 21 ( 3.4) 13 ( 4.3) 4 ( 1.6) 0†( 1.3) 205 ( 5.3) 

Fill out forms

In school 15,283 114,133 17 ( 0.4) 28 ( 0.7) 34 ( 0.8) 18 ( 0.7) 4 ( 0.3) 280 ( 0.8) 

At home 4,715 36,733 26 ( 0.9) 27 ( 1.1) 29 ( 1.4) 16 ( 1.0) 3 ( 0.3) 265 ( 1.6) 

At work 4,121 32,751 18 ( 1.0) 27 ( 1.1) 34 ( 1.5) 18 ( 0.8) 3 ( 0.6) 278 ( 1.5) 

Did not learn 599 5,103 85 ( 2.3) 11 ( 2.3) 4 ( 1.3) 1 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.2) 148 ( 5.0) 

Other 187 1,487 41 ( 6.5) 28 ( 4.7) 18 ( 3.4) 12 ( 3.2) 1 ( 2.6) 237 ( 9.7) 

Write letters

In school 18,235 137,491 17 ( 0.3) 28 ( 0.6) 34 ( 0.9) 18 ( 0.6) 3 ( 0.3) 278 ( 0.6) 

At home 3,665 29,550 33 ( 1.4) 27 ( 1.3) 25 ( 1.2) 12 ( 0.9) 2 ( 0.2) 251 ( 1.9) 

At work 2,520 19,301 12 ( 1.1) 21 ( 1.3) 36 ( 1.9) 26 ( 1.5) 6 ( 0.7) 295 ( 1.8) 

Did not learn 393 3,148 86 ( 2.6) 10 ( 2.4) 3 ( 1.7) 1 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.3) 142 ( 4.9) 

Other 86 715 60 ( 7.7) 23 ( 7.5) 12 ( 5.1) 5 ( 2.0) 0†( 0.4) 202 (11.1) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

WHERE

LEARNED BY

SKILL

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

Proficiency

Where adults learned to use printed and written text is related to their

prose literacy skills. Most respondents learned to read books and to write

letters in school. Among adults who learned to read books either in school or at

home, 47 percent performed in Level 1 or 2 on the prose scale, compared with

64 percent of those who learned this at work (table 4.4). Among adults who

learned to write letters in school, 45 percent performed in Level 1 or 2,
Chapter 4 ...... 83

compared with 60 percent of those who learned this at home and 33 percent of

those who learned at work. The preponderance of the very small proportion of

adults who reported that they had not yet learned to read books (about 1

percent) or to write letters (less than 2 percent) performed in Level 1 (98 and

86 percent, respectively). Again, it should be noted that Level 1, unlike the

other four levels, includes adults who are unable to perform successfully the

requirements of the prose tasks in this level.

The Meaning of Document Literacy Proficiency for Levels 1 and 2

The meaning of proficiency in document literacy Levels 1 and 2 can be

understood by examining the tasks that map onto these levels on the document

literacy scale. Survey evidence showed that 49 percent of the total adult

population performed above Level 2 on the document literacy scale, 28

percent of the total adult population performed in Level 2, and the remainder

in Level 1 (table 4.5). Some adults at the low end of Level 1 were unable to

succeed consistently even with the simplest of literacy tasks — 2 percent of all

adults (4.7 million) failed to answer correctly a single document literacy task

(see appendix tables A.2 and A.5D).4

The literacy tasks in Level 1, which map onto the document literacy scale

between 69 and 224, require the respondent to match one piece of information

in the directive with an identical or synonymous piece of information in the

document. For example, readers may be asked to write a piece of personal

background information — such as their name or age — in the appropriate

place on a document. For example, in one task, readers were asked to

complete a section of a job application by providing several pieces of

information. Respondents had to conduct a series of one-feature matches,

rather than a single match, so the difficulty of this task (218) was near the high

end of Level 1.

Document literacy tasks in Level 2, which map on the scale from 228 to

275, may require the reader to match on two pieces of information in the

document or to integrate information from different parts of the document by

looking for similarities or differences. For example, a task with difficulty of 268

asked respondents to study a line graph showing a company’s seasonal sales

over a three-year period, then predict the level of sales for the following year,

based on the seasonal trends shown in the graph (graph shown in appendix A).

4 This estimate of the proficiency distribution is partially based on information from the 12 percent of survey

respondents who did not complete the assessment. Such respondents constituted 38 percent of the adults

scoring in Level 1, and 7 percent of adults scoring in Level 2 on the document literacy scale (table B4.3D).
84 ...... Chapter 4

Document literacy tasks in Level 3 are more difficult because they require

the reader to integrate multiple pieces of information from one or more

documents, to cycle through rather complex tables or graphs that contain

information that is irrelevant or inappropriate to the task, or to make low-level

inferences. For tasks at higher levels of difficulty on the document scale,

materials generally are more complex, there is more distracting information, a

greater degree of inferencing or specialized knowledge is required, or multiple,

but an unspecified number of responses, are needed.

Background, Educational Experiences, and Literacy Practices:

Document Literacy

The population distribution on the document literacy scale is similar to that on

the prose literacy scale (table 4.5). Around half the total population in the

United States demonstrated proficiency in Level 1 or 2 on the document

literacy scale. Level of education is strongly associated with document literacy

performance. Among those with less than a high school education, 97 percent

performed in Level 1 or 2, and among those who attended but did not

complete high school, 83 percent performed in Level 1 or 2. Thus, when one

considers the population proportions that did not attend or complete high

school, 89 percent5

 are estimated to perform in Level 1 or 2.

On average, men performed somewhat better than women on the

document literacy scale (table 4.5). The proportion of men in Level 1 or 2 (50

percent) was slightly lower than the proportion of women in the two lower

levels (53 percent).

More adults from Black and Hispanic backgrounds than from a White

background performed in Level 1 or 2. Among Hispanic and African American

adults, 50 percent and 43 percent, respectively, performed in Level 1

compared with 16 percent of White adults. Similarly, among Hispanic and

African American adults, 76 and 79 percent, respectively, performed in Level 1

or 2 compared with 43 percent of White adults (table 4.5).

While document literacy skills are related to employment status, many

adults with relatively low document literacy skills do maintain full-time

employment. Among those working full-time, 40 percent demonstrated

document proficiency in Level 1 or 2 — 14 and 26 percent, respectively (table

5 This percentage was calculated using data in table 4.5. The weighted Ns performing in Levels 1 and 2 for

the two education levels were calculated by multiplying the weighted N for each education level by the

percentages performing in Levels 1 and 2. The sum of these weighted Ns was divided by the sum of the

weighted N for the two education levels.
Chapter 4 ...... 85

TABLE 4.5

Percentages at Each Level and Document Proficiencies, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity,

Education Level, Employment Status, and Literacy Practices

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total Population

Total 26,091 191,289 23 ( 0.4) 28 ( 0.5) 31 ( 0.5) 15 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.2) 267 ( 0.7) 

Sex

Male 11,770 92,098 23 ( 0.6) 27 ( 0.5) 31 ( 0.8) 17 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.2) 269 ( 0.9) 

Female 14,279 98,901 23 ( 0.6) 30 ( 0.7) 31 ( 0.6) 14 ( 0.5) 2 ( 0.2) 265 ( 0.9) 

Race/Ethnicity

Black 4,963 21,192 43 ( 1.0) 36 ( 1.2) 18 ( 0.9) 3 ( 0.4) 0†( 0.1) 230 ( 1.2) 

White 17,292 144,968 16 ( 0.5) 27 ( 0.6) 34 ( 0.7) 19 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.2) 280 ( 0.8) 

Hispanic 3,126 18,481 50 ( 1.7) 26 ( 1.6) 18 ( 1.4) 5 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.3) 213 ( 2.5) 

Level of Education

Still in school 973 8,268 15 ( 1.5) 35 ( 2.3) 38 ( 2.6) 12 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.6) 274 ( 1.9) 

Less than high

school 2,167 18,356 79 ( 1.7) 18 ( 1.6) 3 ( 0.8) 0†( 0.1) 0†( 0.0) 170 ( 2.4) 

Some high school 3,311 24,982 46 ( 1.7) 37 ( 1.6) 15 ( 1.3) 2 ( 0.4) 0†( 0.1) 227 ( 1.6) 

GED or high school

diploma 7,169 58,514 19 ( 0.8) 38 ( 0.9) 33 ( 1.0) 9 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.2) 264 ( 1.0) 

Some college (no

degree) 6,587 39,634 9 ( 0.4) 27 ( 0.8) 42 ( 1.0) 20 ( 0.8) 2 ( 0.4) 290 ( 0.9) 

College degree (2

or more years) 5,820 40,941 4 ( 0.5) 14 ( 0.8) 37 ( 0.8) 36 ( 1.2) 9 ( 0.8) 316 ( 0.9) 

Employment Status

Full-time 12,466 89,723 14 ( 0.7) 26 ( 0.6) 35 ( 0.7) 21 ( 0.7) 4 ( 0.3) 284 ( 0.9) 

Part-time 3,051 23,600 17 ( 0.9) 29 ( 1.3) 34 ( 1.7) 17 ( 1.0) 3 ( 0.4) 277 ( 1.3) 

Unemployed 1,942 13,557 26 ( 1.2) 34 ( 1.7) 29 ( 1.6) 9 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.4) 257 ( 1.7) 

Out of work 4,207 30,386 31 ( 0.9) 28 ( 1.0) 28 ( 1.2) 11 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.2) 251 ( 1.5) 

Retired 2,527 27,921 48 ( 1.7) 33 ( 1.6) 16 ( 1.1) 3 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.2) 223 ( 2.1) 

Personal Practices

Rarely 4,163 33,885 56 ( 1.4) 26 ( 1.3) 14 ( 0.8) 4 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.2) 207 ( 2.0) 

Weekly 10,580 81,912 21 ( 0.6) 31 ( 0.7) 32 ( 0.9) 14 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.3) 270 ( 0.8) 

Often 10,189 74,650 10 ( 0.7) 26 ( 0.6) 37 ( 0.7) 22 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.4) 291 ( 0.8) 

Job Practices

Rarely 3,907 29,660 36 ( 1.1) 30 ( 1.4) 25 ( 1.6) 8 ( 0.6) 1 ( 0.2) 239 ( 1.4) 

Weekly 5,024 38,187 17 ( 0.9) 32 ( 1.0) 34 ( 0.9) 16 ( 0.8) 2 ( 0.4) 275 ( 1.3) 

Often 11,204 80,016 8 ( 0.4) 25 ( 0.6) 39 ( 0.7) 24 ( 0.7) 5 ( 0.5) 296 ( 0.8) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

DEMOGRAPHIC

SUBPOPULATIONS Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

Proficiency
86 ...... Chapter 4

4.5). Performance in these levels was more prevalent among the unemployed.

For comparison, 60 percent of unemployed respondents performed in Level 1

or 2 — 26 and 34 percent, respectively.

Extent and type of literacy practices were related to document proficiency.

Personal literacy practices were strongly associated with level of document

literacy (table 4.5). Among those who rarely read books, magazines and related

materials for personal use, 56 percent performed in Level 1, while among those

often reading such materials, 10 percent performed in Level 1. This

relationship was stronger when these literacy activities are pursued for personal

use than when they are carried out in the workplace. The results for job literacy

practices found that among those rarely using written materials on the job, 36

percent demonstrated document literacy in Level l, while among those often

using written materials on the job, 8 percent performed in Level 1.

Where adults learned to use document information is related to their

document literacy skills (table 4.6). Most adults learned to read graphs and fill

out forms at school. Among those who learned to read graphs at school, 46

percent performed in Level 1 or 2 on the document scale, compared with 58

percent of those who learned to read them at work and 65 percent of those

who learned at home. Among adults who learned to fill out forms either at

school or at work, 48 percent performed in Level 1 or 2, compared with 56

percent of those who learned to fill out forms at home. Most adults learned to

write letters at school. Among those who learned to write letters at home, 65

percent performed in Level 1 or 2 on the document literacy scale, compared

with 50 percent of those who learned this skill in school and 37 percent of

those who learned it at work. This difference in favor of learning this skill at

work may reflect the writing of formal business letters by those in a whitecollar job setting.

More than three-quarters of the small proportions of the adult population

who had not yet learned to read graphs (about 5 percent), to fill out forms

(about 3 percent), or to write letters (about 2 percent) performed in Level 1 on

the document literacy scale (78, 86, and 87 percent, respectively). Level 1,

unlike the other four levels, includes adults who are unable to perform

successfully the requirements of the document literacy tasks in this level.

The Meaning of Quantitative Literacy Proficiency for Levels 1 and 2

Understanding the requirement of quantitative literacy tasks in Levels 1 and 2

helps to illustrate the meaning of proficiency on the quantitative literacy scale.

Survey evidence showed that 52 percent of the total adult population
Chapter 4 ...... 87

TABLE 4.6

Percentages at Each Level and Average Document Proficiencies of Adults

Reporting Where They Learned Various Skills

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Read books

In school 15,103 114,780 21 ( 0.5) 29 ( 0.7) 32 ( 0.6) 16 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.2) 270 ( 0.7) 

At home 9,245 71,149 24 ( 0.8) 28 ( 0.7) 30 ( 0.9) 16 ( 0.6) 3 ( 0.2) 266 ( 1.2) 

At work 307 2,333 43 ( 4.1) 26 ( 4.3) 24 ( 3.4) 6 ( 2.0) 0†( 0.3) 235 ( 5.2) 

Did not learn 217 1,605 95 ( 3.2) 4 ( 2.6) 1 ( 2.0) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 121 ( 5.9) 

Other 38 313 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

Read graphs

In school 19,996 149,609 18 ( 0.5) 28 ( 0.7) 33 ( 0.6) 18 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.2) 277 ( 0.6) 

At home 2,239 18,480 35 ( 1.7) 30 ( 1.3) 24 ( 1.6) 9 ( 1.0) 1 ( 0.4) 246 ( 2.3) 

At work 1,387 11,470 25 ( 1.8) 33 ( 2.0) 30 ( 2.1) 11 ( 1.3) 1 ( 0.4) 259 ( 2.0) 

Did not learn 1,097 8,826 78 ( 2.1) 18 ( 2.8) 3 ( 1.2) 0†( 0.4) 0†( 0.1) 166 ( 3.3) 

Other 184 1,728 66 ( 4.8) 21 ( 4.2) 11 ( 2.6) 3 ( 1.5) 0†( 0.0) 199 ( 5.1) 

Fill out forms

In school 15,283 114,133 19 ( 0.5) 29 ( 0.5) 33 ( 0.6) 16 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.3) 274 ( 0.8) 

At home 4,715 36,733 29 ( 1.3) 27 ( 1.4) 28 ( 1.2) 14 ( 0.8) 2 ( 0.4) 259 ( 1.8) 

At work 4,121 32,751 20 ( 0.9) 28 ( 1.2) 33 ( 1.5) 16 ( 0.9) 3 ( 0.4) 272 ( 1.1) 

Did not learn 599 5,103 86 ( 2.1) 10 ( 2.5) 3 ( 1.4) 1 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.2) 146 ( 4.4) 

Other 187 1,487 46 ( 6.1) 24 ( 4.2) 17 ( 4.8) 10 ( 3.3) 2 ( 1.5) 227 (11.6) 

Write letters

In school 18,235 137,491 20 ( 0.4) 30 ( 0.6) 32 ( 0.5) 16 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.2) 272 ( 0.8) 

At home 3,665 29,550 38 ( 1.4) 27 ( 1.5) 23 ( 1.2) 11 ( 0.7) 2 ( 0.3) 243 ( 1.9) 

At work 2,520 19,301 13 ( 1.1) 24 ( 1.2) 35 ( 1.3) 23 ( 1.2) 4 ( 0.5) 289 ( 1.9) 

Did not learn 393 3,148 87 ( 2.7) 10 ( 2.5) 3 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.2) 142 ( 5.2) 

Other 86 715 62 ( 8.3) 14 ( 5.1) 18 ( 6.4) 5 ( 2.4) 1 ( 0.7) 202 (12.7) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

WHERE

LEARNED BY

SKILL

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

Proficiency

performed above Level 2 on the quantitative literacy scale, 25 percent of the

total adult population performed in Level 2, and the remainder in Level 1

(table 4.7). Some adults performed below the level of the easiest quantitative

literacy tasks and were unable to succeed with any literacy task. An estimated 6
88 ...... Chapter 4

percent of all adults (10.6 million) failed to answer correctly a single

quantitative literacy task (see appendix tables A.2 and A.5Q).6

The literacy tasks in Level 1, which mapped onto the quantitative literacy

scale between 191 and 220, required the respondent to locate easily

identifiable numbers and perform a single operation, such as addition, when

the operation is made explicit. For example, the least demanding task on the

quantitative scale (191) required the reader to total two numbers that had

already been entered on a bank deposit slip. In this task, both the numbers and

the arithmetic operation were easily identifiable and the addition was already

set up in column format.

Quantitative literacy tasks in Level 2, which mapped onto the scale from

238 to 270, required the reader to perform a single operation using numbers

that were either stated in the task or easily located in the document. The

operation to be performed was stated in the question or easily determined

from the format of the material. For example, one task near the high end of

Level 2 (270) required the reader to use a table on an order form for office

supplies to locate the appropriate shipping charges based on the amount of a

specified set of office supplies, to enter the correct amount on an order form,

and then to calculate the total price of the supplies.

Quantitative literacy tasks in Level 3 were more difficult because they

required the reader to work with two or more numbers found in the document

and to determine the needed operation from the language used to describe the

arithmetic relationships. For tasks at higher levels of difficulty on the

quantitative scale, materials generally were more complex, there was more

distracting information, the operations consisted of a longer sequence of steps,

features of the problem had to be disembedded from the text, or background

knowledge was required to determine the quantities or operations needed.

Background, Educational Experiences, and Literacy Practices:

Quantitative Literacy

Nearly half of the total U.S. population demonstrated quantitative proficiencies

in Level 1 or 2 (table 4.7). Level of education is again strongly related to

quantitative literacy, as it was for prose and document literacy. Among those

whose schooling ended prior to high school, 94 percent demonstrated

6 This estimate of the proficiency distribution is partially based on information from the 12 percent of survey

respondents who did not complete the assessment. Such respondents constituted 39 percent of the adults

scoring in Level 1, and 7 percent of adults scoring in Level 2 on the quantitative literacy scale (table B4.3Q).
Chapter 4 ...... 89

TABLE 4.7

Percentages at Each Level and Quantitative Proficiencies, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity,

Education Level, Employment Status, and Literacy Practices

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total Population

Total 26,091 191,289 22 ( 0.5) 25 ( 0.6) 31 ( 0.6) 17 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.2) 271 ( 0.7) 

Sex

Male 11,770 92,098 21 ( 0.7) 23 ( 0.5) 31 ( 0.6) 20 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.3) 277 ( 0.9) 

Female 14,279 98,901 23 ( 0.5) 28 ( 0.9) 31 ( 1.0) 15 ( 0.6) 3 ( 0.3) 266 ( 0.9) 

Race/Ethnicity

Black 4,963 21,192 46 ( 1.0) 34 ( 1.1) 17 ( 1.0) 3 ( 0.4) 0†( 0.1) 224 ( 1.4) 

White 17,292 144,968 14 ( 0.5) 24 ( 0.6) 35 ( 0.7) 21 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.2) 287 ( 0.8) 

Hispanic 3,126 18,481 50 ( 1.3) 25 ( 1.3) 19 ( 1.3) 5 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.2) 212 ( 2.5) 

Level of Education

Still in school 973 8,268 19 ( 1.7) 35 ( 3.0) 32 ( 2.3) 12 ( 2.0) 1 ( 0.9) 269 ( 2.2) 

Less than high

school 2,167 18,356 76 ( 2.0) 18 ( 1.8) 5 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.3) 0†( 0.2) 169 ( 3.1) 

Some high school 3,311 24,982 45 ( 1.6) 34 ( 1.6) 17 ( 1.3) 3 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.1) 227 ( 1.7) 

GED or high school

diploma 7,169 58,514 18 ( 0.7) 34 ( 1.1) 36 ( 1.0) 11 ( 0.5) 1 ( 0.2) 270 ( 1.0) 

Some college (no

degree) 6,587 39,634 8 ( 0.6) 23 ( 1.2) 42 ( 1.4) 23 ( 1.3) 4 ( 0.4) 295 ( 1.4) 

College degree (2

or more years) 5,820 40,941 3 ( 0.3) 12 ( 0.6) 34 ( 1.0) 38 ( 1.0) 13 ( 0.7) 324 ( 1.0) 

Employment Status

Full-time 12,466 89,723 13 ( 0.6) 23 ( 0.9) 35 ( 1.1) 23 ( 0.6) 6 ( 0.3) 290 ( 0.9) 

Part-time 3,051 23,600 15 ( 1.1) 27 ( 1.3) 36 ( 1.6) 18 ( 1.3) 3 ( 0.5) 280 ( 1.5) 

Unemployed 1,942 13,557 28 ( 1.5) 32 ( 1.8) 28 ( 2.0) 10 ( 1.3) 2 ( 0.4) 256 ( 1.9) 

Out of work 4,207 30,386 33 ( 1.1) 27 ( 1.3) 26 ( 1.2) 12 ( 1.2) 2 ( 0.4) 249 ( 1.6) 

Retired 2,527 27,921 42 ( 1.6) 27 ( 1.3) 22 ( 1.1) 8 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.4) 233 ( 2.7) 

Personal Practices

Rarely 4,163 33,885 55 ( 1.4) 24 ( 1.1) 15 ( 0.8) 4 ( 0.6) 1 ( 0.2) 205 ( 2.1) 

Weekly 10,580 81,912 19 ( 0.7) 28 ( 0.7) 33 ( 0.8) 16 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.3) 275 ( 0.8) 

Often 10,189 74,650 10 ( 0.5) 22 ( 1.1) 37 ( 1.0) 25 ( 0.6) 6 ( 0.3) 297 ( 0.9) 

Job Practices

Rarely 3,907 29,660 37 ( 1.0) 29 ( 1.0) 25 ( 1.0) 9 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.2) 239 ( 1.4) 

Weekly 5,024 38,187 16 ( 1.0) 29 ( 1.2) 34 ( 1.2) 17 ( 1.0) 3 ( 0.4) 279 ( 1.3) 

Often 11,204 80,016 7 ( 0.4) 21 ( 0.8) 38 ( 0.9) 26 ( 0.6) 7 ( 0.4) 303 ( 0.7) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

DEMOGRAPHIC

SUBPOPULATIONS Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

Proficiency
90 ...... Chapter 4

quantitative proficiency in Level 1 or 2. Those who began but did not complete

high school demonstrate somewhat better quantitative proficiency, with 79

percent performing in Level 1 or 2. Thus, among those who were old enough,

but did not complete high school, 85 percent performed in Level 1 or 2 on the

quantitative literacy scale.7

On average, men performed somewhat better than women on the

quantitative literacy scale (table 4.7). The proportion of men in Level 1 or 2 (44

percent) was lower than the proportion of women in the two lower levels (51

percent).

More adults from Black and Hispanic backgrounds than from a White

background performed in Level 1 or 2. Among Hispanic and African American

adults, 50 percent and 46 percent, respectively, performed in Level 1

compared with 14 percent of White adults. Similarly, among Hispanic and

African American adults, 75 and 80 percent, respectively, performed in Level 1

or 2 compared with 38 percent of White adults (table 4.7).

Quantitative literacy skills are related to employment status. Among adults

working full-time, 36 percent demonstrated document proficiency in Level 1

or 2 — 13 and 23 percent, respectively (table 4.7). Performance in these lower

levels was found more often among the unemployed; 60 percent of

unemployed respondents performed in Level 1 or 2 — 28 and 32 percent,

respectively.

Again, the extent and type of literacy practices were related to quantitative

literacy. Relatively few respondents (15 percent) reported rarely reading books,

magazines and related materials for personal use, but among those who did, 79

percent performed in Level 1 or 2. By comparison, among those often reading

such materials, 32 percent performed in the lower levels.

Similar results were found for job literacy practices. Few respondents (18

percent) reported rarely practicing literacy activities in the workplace, but

among those who did, 66 percent demonstrated quantitative literacy in Levels l

or 2, while among those who practiced literacy skills often on the job, 28

percent performed in these levels. In the case of quantitative literacy, personal

literacy practices showed a stronger relationship than did job literacy practices.

Language background, as shown in language spoken in the home while

growing up and language currently spoken, is related to quantitative literacy

(table 4.8). Among adults who spoke only English at home when growing up,

43 percent performed in Level 1 or 2, while among adults who spoke only

Spanish while growing up, 88 percent performed in the lower levels; and

7 This percentage was calculated using data in table 4.7. The weighted Ns performing in Levels 1 and 2 for

the two education levels were calculated by multiplying the weighted N for each education level by the

percentages performing in Levels 1 and 2. The sum of these weighted Ns was divided by the sum of the

weighted N for the two education levels.
Chapter 4 ...... 91

TABLE 4.8

Percentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of Adults

Reporting Language in Home, Current Language and Age

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Language Spoken in Home

English only 21,242 156,620 18 ( 0.6) 25 ( 0.6) 33 ( 0.7) 19 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.2) 280 ( 0.8) 

Spanish only 1,866 10,979 68 ( 1.9) 20 ( 1.9) 10 ( 1.2) 2 ( 1.0) 0†( 0.3) 177 ( 3.4) 

Other 849 8,274 41 ( 2.2) 26 ( 2.1) 21 ( 2.1) 9 ( 1.3) 2 ( 0.8) 232 ( 4.2) 

English and Spanish 789 4,406 28 ( 2.5) 31 ( 2.4) 29 ( 3.1) 9 ( 2.2) 2 ( 0.9) 257 ( 3.8) 

English and other 1,308 10,722 21 ( 2.2) 25 ( 1.9) 32 ( 2.3) 18 ( 1.7) 3 ( 0.9) 273 ( 3.8) 

Current Language

English 24,513 180,996 19 ( 0.5) 26 ( 0.6) 33 ( 0.6) 18 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.2) 277 ( 0.8) 

Spanish 1,311 7,634 81 ( 2.2) 13 ( 2.0) 4 ( 1.0) 1 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.3) 150 ( 3.9) 

Other 227 2,393 63 ( 3.5) 19 ( 3.8) 12 ( 3.2) 5 ( 2.6) 1 ( 1.1) 194 ( 8.4) 

Age

16 to 18 years old 1,237 10,424 20 ( 1.7) 35 ( 2.6) 33 ( 1.9) 12 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.5) 268 ( 1.8) 

19 to 24 years old 3,344 24,515 16 ( 1.1) 28 ( 1.4) 37 ( 1.4) 16 ( 1.0) 2 ( 0.5) 277 ( 1.6) 

25 to 39 years old 10,050 63,278 17 ( 0.6) 23 ( 0.7) 33 ( 0.6) 21 ( 0.6) 5 ( 0.4) 283 ( 0.9) 

40 to 54 years old 6,310 43,794 16 ( 0.9) 22 ( 1.0) 33 ( 1.1) 23 ( 1.1) 6 ( 0.4) 286 ( 1.2) 

55 to 64 years old 2,924 19,503 25 ( 1.5) 30 ( 1.9) 30 ( 1.6) 13 ( 1.2) 2 ( 0.6) 261 ( 2.0) 

65 years old or older 2,214 29,735 45 ( 1.6) 26 ( 1.2) 20 ( 1.2) 7 ( 0.7) 2 ( 0.4) 227 ( 2.6) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

DEMOGRAPHIC

SUBPOPULATIONS Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency

among those who spoke both English and Spanish while growing up, 59

percent performed in those levels. Among those currently speaking English, 19

percent perform in Level 1, while among those currently speaking Spanish, 81

percent perform in Level 1.

Age of respondents was related to quantitative literacy (table 4.8), but not

in the regularly increasing way of the other two scales. The proportions of

adults in Level 1 were similar for the age groups ranging from 16 to 18 years of

age to 40 to 54 years of age — 20 percent or less. Among adults aged 55 to 64,

however, 25 percent performed in Level 1, and among adults aged 64 or older,

45 percent performed in Level 1. Older adults were also over-represented in

the two lowest proficiency levels. The combined proportion performing in

Levels 1 and 2 was 55 percent among the 16- to 18-year olds. Among the

subsequent age groups, the combined proportions in Levels 1 and 2 decreased

or stayed the same through age 54 (44, 40, and 38 percent). Then for the 55- to
92 ...... Chapter 4

64-year-old group, the combined proportion in Levels 1 and 2 was 55 percent,

and for those 65 years old or older, 71 percent.

Where adults learned to read graphs and fill out forms is related to their

quantitative literacy (table 4.9). Most adults learned to read graphs and fill out

forms in school. Among those who learned to read graphs in school, 17 percent

performed in Level 1 on the quantitative scale, compared with 22 percent of

TABLE 4.9

Percentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of Adults

Reporting Where They Learned Various Skills

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Read books

In school 15,103 114,780 20 ( 0.5) 26 ( 0.5) 32 ( 0.6) 18 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.2) 275 ( 0.7) 

At home 9,245 71,149 23 ( 0.8) 25 ( 1.0) 31 ( 0.9) 18 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.4) 271 ( 1.3) 

At work 307 2,333 38 ( 4.4) 25 ( 4.4) 25 ( 4.7) 11 ( 4.9) 1 ( 1.6) 246 ( 5.5) 

Did not learn 217 1,605 97 ( 2.3) 2 ( 2.3) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.0) 89 ( 6.2) 

Other 38 313 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

Read graphs

In school 19,996 149,609 17 ( 0.4) 25 ( 0.5) 33 ( 0.6) 20 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.2) 281 ( 0.6) 

At home 2,239 18,480 31 ( 1.5) 28 ( 1.5) 28 ( 1.4) 11 ( 1.0) 2 ( 0.6) 252 ( 2.2) 

At work 1,387 11,470 22 ( 1.7) 28 ( 1.7) 32 ( 2.4) 16 ( 2.2) 2 ( 0.7) 270 ( 2.2) 

Did not learn 1,097 8,826 77 ( 1.7) 17 ( 1.4) 6 ( 1.3) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.1) 161 ( 3.5) 

Other 184 1,728 61 ( 5.7) 20 ( 3.7) 14 ( 3.5) 4 ( 1.5) 1 ( 1.3) 201 ( 8.5) 

Fill out forms

In school 15,283 114,133 18 ( 0.5) 26 ( 0.6) 33 ( 0.7) 18 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.3) 278 ( 0.7) 

At home 4,715 36,733 27 ( 1.2) 25 ( 1.3) 29 ( 1.2) 15 ( 0.9) 3 ( 0.6) 263 ( 1.7) 

At work 4,121 32,751 18 ( 0.9) 24 ( 1.2) 33 ( 1.2) 20 ( 1.0) 5 ( 0.6) 281 ( 1.3) 

Did not learn 599 5,103 87 ( 1.7) 8 ( 1.3) 4 ( 1.2) 1 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.2) 132 ( 5.1) 

Other 187 1,487 36 ( 7.9) 19 ( 4.4) 25 ( 6.8) 14 ( 3.8) 6 ( 2.4) 252 (12.4) 

Write letters

In school 18,235 137,491 19 ( 0.5) 27 ( 0.6) 33 ( 0.7) 18 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.2) 276 ( 0.7) 

At home 3,665 29,550 35 ( 1.4) 25 ( 1.3) 26 ( 1.6) 12 ( 0.9) 2 ( 0.3) 246 ( 2.0) 

At work 2,520 19,301 11 ( 1.2) 19 ( 1.1) 36 ( 1.3) 27 ( 1.1) 8 ( 0.9) 300 ( 1.7) 

Did not learn 393 3,148 88 ( 2.5) 8 ( 2.6) 3 ( 1.6) 1 ( 0.8) 0†( 0.4) 127 ( 4.4) 

Other 86 715 51 ( 9.2) 20 ( 9.4) 23 ( 9.3) 5 ( 3.8) 1 ( 0.9) 216 (13.7) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

WHERE

LEARNED BY

SKILL

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

Proficiency
Chapter 4 ...... 93

those who learned graphs at work and 31 percent of those who learned to read

them at home. Among adults who learned to fill out forms either at school or at

work, 18 percent performed in Level 1 on the quantitative scale, compared

with 27 percent of those who learned to fill out forms at home. Again, it should

be noted that age could be a factor here, since those who are more likely to

have had less schooling and to have learned these skills at home are also more

likely to be in the higher age groups.

Assignment of Proficiency Scores to Nonrespondents

Some adults in Level 1 have skills that are too low to be tested. It would be

misleading to limit reporting of skills for the nation to that part of the

population that is literate enough to be assessed. In spite of inevitable

inaccuracies in placement, those who did not complete the assessment, but

who, from available information, were believed to have such low skills were

included at the low end of the literacy scales. In this way, the assessment would

reflect the full range of literacy skills of all adults. The procedures used in

estimating proficiencies of adults with such low literacy skills that they could

not be assessed and the pitfalls in this estimation of their literacy skills are

described here. (See appendix A of this report and the Technical Report and

Data File User’s Guide for the National Adult Literacy Survey for further

discussion of the methods used.)

The methods used in the National Adult Literacy Survey relied primarily

on interviewers to report the reasons for nonresponse to the assessment.

Different procedures were used to fill in missing data, depending on whether

the reason reported for not completing the assessment was literacy related or

not. If the reason for nonresponse was thought to be literacy related, missing

data were treated as wrong answers, and proficiency scores at the low end of

Level 1 were assigned. The methods for the assignment of literacy scores for

nonrespondents may set some limits on interpretations of these data, especially

among groups in which large proportions of scores were assigned.

The estimation problem is further complicated by the fact that the values

being estimated are at the extreme of the lower end of the continuum of

proficiency. There is no real “zero point” of literacy, and assessment questions

that tap performance at very low levels are sparse. Thus, if an individual is not

able or willing to answer the easiest of the tasks posed, it is difficult to know if

the person might have been more responsive to a simpler task, had one been

provided.

The assessment consisted of two parts — a background questionnaire that

asked questions about the characteristics of the respondent and a cognitive
94 ...... Chapter 4

section that presented prose, document, and quantitative literacy tasks. Among

the sample of 26,091 individuals participating in the survey, 2,994 completed

fewer than five items per scale, and most of those completed two or fewer

items, although they had answered the background demographic and

descriptive questions. This group represents 12 percent of the U.S. adult

population (the total of which is estimated to be 191,289,000). About half (5.7

percent) of these individuals indicated to the interviewer that they had a

reading or language difficulty or a mental or learning disability, or the

interviewer obtained this information from another household member or from

observation; thus, these individuals are referred to as literacy-related

nonrespondents. The other half were recorded by interviewers as either

refusing or having a physical disability, but not as having reading or mental

difficulty as the basis for their non-response; they are referred to as nonliteracy-related nonrespondents.

When the literacy-related nonrespondents (referred to as literacy-related

incomplete in table 4.10) are broken down into racial/ethnic groups, they

represent 2 percent of the White population, 8 percent of the African

TABLE 4.10

Percentages of Adults in Racial/Ethnic Goups by Completion

of Literacy Tasks

COMPLETION OF LITERACY TASKS

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

Race/Ethnicity

Total 25,381 184,641 88 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.2) 6 ( 0.3) 

Black 4,963 21,192 84 ( 0.8) 8 ( 0.6) 8 ( 0.6) 

White 17,292 144,968 91 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.2) 6 ( 0.4) 

Hispanic 3,126 18,481 68 ( 1.6) 27 ( 1.5) 5 ( 0.5) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

RACE/ETHNICITY

Complete Literacy related

incomplete

Non-literacy related

incomplete

Percentages of Adults in Racial/Ethnic Groups by Completion

of Literacy Tasks
Chapter 4 ...... 95

American population, and 27 percent of the Hispanic population.

Furthermore, they represent 16, 21, and 54 percent of the White, African

American, and Hispanic population, respectively, performing in Level 1 on the

prose scale (table 4.11).8

 The proportions of non-literacy-related

nonrespondents are much more similar across racial/ethnic groups. They

represent 6 percent of the White population, 8 percent of the African

American population, and 5 percent of the Hispanic population.

Proficiency scores for all survey respondents have been estimated using

both their actual responses to the cognitive and background survey questions

and the average scores of other respondents with background characteristics

similar to any given respondent. This procedure is required because each

8 Note that the percentages in table 4.11 are column percentages. See tables B4.3D and B4.3Q for document

and quantitative literacy data.

TABLE 4.11

Precentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies of

Respondents and Non-Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total Population

Complete 22,504 162,701 60 ( 0.4) 92 ( 0.8) 96 ( 0.6) 98 ( 0.5) 99 ( 0.4) 285 ( 0.6) 

Literacy related incomplete 1,469 9,944 27 ( 0.4) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 126 ( 1.6) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 1,408 11,996 14 ( 2.1) 8 ( 1.6) 4 ( 1.3) 2 ( 1.0) 1 ( 0.5) 237 ( 2.9) 

Black

Complete 4,232 17,757 66 ( 1.0) 94 ( 1.4) 96 ( 1.3) 97 ( 2.1) *** (  ) 250 ( 1.3) 

Literacy related incomplete 341 1,677 21 ( 0.7) 0†( 0.6) 0†( 0.1) 0†( 0.0) ** * ( ****) 129 ( 3.7) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 390 1,759 14 ( 3.1) 6 ( 2.7) 4 ( 2.1) 3 ( 2.1) *** (  ) 206 ( 4.0) 

White

Complete 16,144 132,337 67 ( 0.7) 91 ( 1.0) 96 ( 0.6) 98 ( 0.6) 99 ( 0.4) 293 ( 0.7) 

Literacy related incomplete 283 3,284 16 ( 0.9) 0†( 0.7) 0†( 0.6) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 138 ( 2.9) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 865 9,347 17 ( 2.4) 8 ( 2.0) 4 ( 1.6) 2 ( 1.2) 1 ( 0.6) 245 ( 3.6) 

Hispanic

Complete 2,128 12,608 40 ( 1.4) 96 ( 1.8) 96 ( 2.0) 96 ( 1.8) ** * ( ****) 254 ( 1.8) 

Literacy related incomplete 845 4,984 54 ( 0.4) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.5) *** (  ) 116 ( 1.8) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 153 890 6 ( 5.1) 4 ( 4.7) 4 ( 3.5) 4 ( 2.8) ** * ( ****) 219 ( 7.7) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); CPCT = column percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the

true population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

RACE/ETHNICITY/ COMPLETION

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

Proficiency
96 ...... Chapter 4

survey respondent was given less than a quarter of all assessment questions, not

enough to score reliably any one individual. This procedure results in an

estimated distribution of scores for each case, rather than a single specific

score, and is a more valid and reliable procedure in general for estimating

population values from samples.

For the nonresponders (those answering fewer than five cognitive

questions per scale), however, because there was little of the proficiency

component to use, answers to the background questions had to be utilized.

If the basis for nonresponse was not literacy-related, scores were mostly

determined from the average scores of those who did respond and who had

characteristics similar to the nonrespondents. If the basis for nonresponse was

literacy-related, scores were estimated by presuming they had answered the

cognitive questions incorrectly and combining the resulting wrong answers

with a component based on scores of people with characteristics similar to

their own.

This procedure resulted in each half of the nonrespondents receiving

proficiency scores which combined their initial cognitive scores with those of

actual respondents similar to them in age, education, occupation, initial score,

and other characteristics. For the literacy-related nonrespondents, however,

the initial cognitive score was based on assigning wrong answers to cognitive

questions that had been left blank. For the non-literacy-related

nonrespondents, the initial cognitive score was based on omitting all of the

missing answers.

As a result of this procedure, the literacy-related nonrespondents were

assigned scores at the low end of the score range, averaging over 100 points

below the scores for the other nonrespondents. For example, on the prose

scale, the average scores for the two groups of nonrespondents were 126 and

237, respectively (table 4.11). Though a majority (73 percent) of non-literacyrelated nonrespondents (referred to as non-literacy-related incomplete in table

4.12) were assigned prose scores in Level 1 or 2, their scores were distributed

throughout the five levels (table 4.12).

In contrast, the prose literacy scores of literacy-related nonrespondents

(referred to as literacy related incomplete in table 4.12) were concentrated

almost entirely in Level 1 (99 percent). Thus, the results for these two groups

show large differences, but part of the differences is a function of the initial

score assignment. When the two groups of nonrespondents are combined with

data from those who responded more fully to the cognitive questions, the

proportions of cases in Level 1 are significantly increased (see table 4.12A).

While these outcomes may be viewed as a pitfall of the procedure for handling

nonrespondents, it is probably the most sound way of estimating population

values under difficult circumstances.
Chapter 4 ...... 97

TABLE 4.12

Percentages at Each Level and Average Proficiencies on Each

Literacy Scale, by Respondent Samples

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Prose

Complete exercise 23,097 168,042 14 ( 0.3) 28 ( 0.6) 35 ( 0.8) 19 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.2) 285 ( 0.6) 

Literacy related incomplete 1,547 10,850 99 ( 0.4) 1 ( 0.3) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 124 ( 1.5) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 1,447 12,398 42 ( 2.3) 31 ( 2.2) 19 ( 1.8) 6 ( 1.2) 1 ( 0.4) 237 ( 3.0) 

Document

Complete exercise 23,097 168,042 16 ( 0.4) 30 ( 0.5) 34 ( 0.5) 17 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.2) 279 ( 0.5) 

Literacy related incomplete 1,547 10,850 100 ( 0.2) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 116 ( 1.4) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 1,447 12,398 49 ( 2.1) 29 ( 1.9) 17 ( 1.5) 5 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.4) 228 ( 2.8) 

Quantitative

Complete exercise 23,097 168,042 15 ( 0.5) 27 ( 0.6) 34 ( 0.6) 19 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.2) 284 ( 0.6) 

Literacy related incomplete 1,547 10,850 99 ( 0.5) 1 ( 0.3) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.1) 0†( 0.1) 114 ( 1.9) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 1,447 12,398 46 ( 2.2) 26 ( 1.7) 19 ( 1.9) 7 ( 1.3) 2 ( 0.6) 231 ( 3.6) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

RESPONDENT SAMPLE BY SCALE

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

Proficiency

TABLE 4.12A

Percentages of Adults in Prose, Document, and Quantitative Literacy

Level 1, by Response Status

RESPONSE STATUS

PROSE, DOCUMENT, AND QUANTITATIVE LEVEL 1

Prose Document Quantitative

Pct (SE) Pct (SE) Pct (SE)

Respondents who completed 5 or 14 (0.3) 16 (0.4) 15 (0.5)

more cognitive questions per scale 

All respondents 21 (0.4) 23 (0.4) 22 (0.5)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
98 ...... Chapter 4

This situation would be less of a problem if the literacy-related

nonrespondents were distributed across social groups more or less randomly,

but they are not. They constitute 27 percent of the Hispanic population and 8

percent of the African American population, compared with 2 percent of the

White population.9

 Further, they constitute 54 and 21 percent, respectively, of

Hispanic and African American adults performing in Level 1, compared with

16 percent of White adults in Level 1. These assigned values for missing data

may tend to distort the overall results for minority groups.

The validity of these procedures depends on how limited the English

reading abilities of the literacy-related nonrespondents actually were. It is likely

that a good number were not able to read English at all. Yet, there may have

been many reasons for the reluctance of the nonresponders to participate. It is

certainly likely that many were relatively poor readers of English and

embarrassed to reveal limited reading skills, but this does not necessarily mean

that they were simply unable to read. They may, indeed, have been able to

answer some cognitive questions.

The fact that participants with low education completion levels were much

more likely to give literacy-related reasons for nonresponse provides some

support for the validity of the estimation. Among those who dropped out

before beginning high school, 34 percent did not complete the assessment for

literacy-related reasons (table 4.13). Among those who began but did not

complete high school, 7 percent provided literacy-related reasons for

nonresponse. Among those who ended formal education with high school or

GED completion, only 3 percent did not complete the survey for reasons

related to literacy; among those who had attended but not completed college,

just 2 percent failed to participate for literacy-related reasons. Among college

graduates, less than five-tenths of 1 percent failed to complete the survey for

literacy-related reasons. Thus, for those completing high school or some

schooling beyond that, only a handful indicated literacy-based reasons for

nonresponse.

Among those who gave literacy-related reasons for nonresponse (referred

to as literacy-related incomplete in table 4.14), level of education made little

difference in their prose literacy scores, in that more than 9 out of 10 scored in

Level 1. Among other nonrespondents to the cognitive questions, however,

prose literacy scores did vary with level of educational attainment. Among

those who dropped out before beginning high school, 72 percent of those who

gave non-literacy related reasons scored in Level 1. Among those who began

9 These values were calculated by multiplying the proportions of Blacks (38 percent), Hispanics (49 percent)

and Whites (14 percent at Level 1 (see table 4.1) by the proportions of Blacks (21 percent), Hispanics (54

percent) and Whites (16 percent) at Level 1 because of literacy related incompletes (see table 4.11).
Chapter 4 ...... 99

TABLE 4.13

Percentages of Adults at Each Education Level by Completion

of Literacy Tasks

COMPLETION OF LITERACY TASKS

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

Education Level

Total 26,027 190,695 88 ( 0.4) 6 ( 0.2) 6 ( 0.3) 

Still in high school 973 8,268 98 ( 0.6) 1 ( 0.4) 1 ( 0.4) 

Less than high school 2,167 18,356 49 ( 1.6) 34 ( 1.4) 17 ( 1.2) 

Some high school 3,311 24,982 83 ( 1.0) 7 ( 0.5) 10 ( 0.9) 

GED/high school diploma 7,169 58,514 91 ( 0.6) 3 ( 0.3) 6 ( 0.4) 

Some college (no degree) 6,587 39,634 94 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.2) 4 ( 0.3) 

College degree 5,820 40,941 96 ( 0.3) 0†( 0.1) 4 ( 0.3) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

EDUCATION LEVEL

Complete Literacy related

incomplete

Non-literacy related

incomplete

but did not complete high school, 57 percent scored in Level 1. Among those

who ended formal education with high school or GED completion, 28 percent

scored in Level 1. Similarly, among those who had attended but not completed

college, 25 percent scored in Level 1. Lack of success in formal education,

however, does not necessarily imply a complete lack of literacy skills, though it

does suggest the probability of limited skills.

Summary of Findings for Levels 1 and 2

The clearest finding from the National Adult Literacy Survey with regard to

lower prose, document and quantitative literacy is that education is vitally

important. It is important as a single variable and for its role as context for

interpretation of all other dimensions. Nearly all adults who have not
100 ...... Chapter 4

TABLE 4.14

Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies of

Respondent Samples by Education Level

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total

Complete exercise 23,075 167,862 14 ( 0.3) 28 ( 0.6) 35 ( 0.8) 19 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.2) 285 ( 0.6) 

Literacy related incomplete 1,511 10,499 99 ( 0.3) 1 ( 0.3) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 124 ( 1.6) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 1,441 12,334 42 ( 2.3) 31 ( 2.4) 19 ( 1.8) 6 ( 1.2) 1 ( 0.4) 237 ( 3.1) 

Still in High School

Complete exercise 947 8,083 15 ( 1.7) 36 ( 2.3) 37 ( 2.8) 11 ( 2.0) 0†( 0.5) 273 ( 1.9) 

Literacy related incomplete 17 109 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 9 75 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) 

Less than High School

Complete exercise 1,012 8,984 59 ( 2.5) 34 ( 2.2) 6 ( 1.5) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.0) 213 ( 2.4) 

Literacy related incomplete 879 6,209 99 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.4) 0†( 0.1) 0†( 0.0) 116 ( 1.9) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 276 3,164 72 ( 5.2) 21 ( 3.9) 6 ( 3.0) 1 ( 1.4) 0†( 0.1) 197 ( 6.1) 

Some High School

Complete exercise 2,761 20,740 36 ( 1.5) 43 ( 1.2) 19 ( 1.2) 3 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.1) 241 ( 1.3) 

Literacy related incomplete 274 1,771 99 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.7) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 131 ( 3.6) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 276 2,471 57 ( 6.0) 31 ( 4.6) 11 ( 3.9) 1 ( 1.4) 0†( 0.0) 215 ( 5.4) 

GED/High School Diploma

Complete exercise 6,556 53,499 13 ( 0.6) 37 ( 1.2) 39 ( 1.5) 11 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.2) 275 ( 0.9) 

Literacy related incomplete 205 1,575 99 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.7) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 136 ( 5.1) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 408 3,440 28 ( 3.7) 43 ( 4.4) 24 ( 5.3) 6 ( 2.3) 0†( 0.4) 253 ( 4.0) 

Some College(No Degree)

Complete exercise 6,207 37,351 5 ( 0.4) 23 ( 0.8) 46 ( 1.0) 23 ( 0.8) 3 ( 0.3) 298 ( 1.0) 

Literacy related incomplete 112 681 97 ( 2.6) 3 ( 2.6) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 144 ( 5.9) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 268 1,603 25 ( 4.5) 36 ( 4.3) 31 ( 4.7) 8 ( 2.5) 0†( 0.5) 261 ( 4.5) 

College Degree

Complete exercise 5,592 39,206 2 ( 0.4) 10 ( 0.8) 33 ( 1.3) 42 ( 1.2) 12 ( 0.7) 327 ( 1.1) 

Literacy related incomplete 24 154 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 204 1,581 12 ( 3.8) 23 ( 5.6) 37 ( 5.9) 24 ( 4.4) 4 ( 3.0) 292 ( 5.6) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

SAMPLE BY TOTAL AND

EDUCATION LEVEL Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

Proficiency
Chapter 4 ...... 101

completed high school or a GED certificate have skills in the lower literacy

levels on all three scales, and most adults who have attained this level of

education or higher have skills above Level 2. Completion of high school or its

equivalent seems a necessary condition for moving to higher prose, document,

and quantitative literacy levels.

Language background and current language use were strongly associated

with prose and quantitative literacy, in that those adults who did not speak

English at home when growing up or did not speak English currently were

greatly overrepresented in Level 1 on these scales.

Proficiencies for men and women were basically similar, but there were

some differences. On average, men and women did not differ in prose literacy,

though slightly more men than women scored in the lowest prose literacy level.

On the document and quantitative literacy scales, men performed somewhat

better than women, in that men had slightly higher average scores and

somewhat fewer men scored in the two lower literacy levels.

Among racial and ethnic groups, fewer White adults scored in Level 1 or 2

on all three scales than did Hispanic and African American adults. These

findings need to be viewed in the context of known differences among racial

and ethnic social groups, including differences in their language backgrounds,

educational opportunities and experiences, and resulting family educational

and socioeconomic attainments.

Employed workers less often received low proficiency scores on all three

scales than did the unemployed, though sizable proportions of employed

persons did demonstrate low literacy skills.

Age showed a relationship to proficiency on all three scales. Those 65 and

over were overrepresented among adults with proficiencies in Level 1 or 2.

These findings also need to be viewed in the context of known differences

among age cohorts. Age groups differ in their personal and family educational

attainments and in their language backgrounds (older adults were more likely

not to have spoken English when growing up). Further, older adults faced

more limited opportunities in school and when entering the work force than

did adults in younger age groups.

Literacy practices were related to prose, document, and quantitative

literacy. Adults who rarely read books, magazines, and related materials for

personal reasons were more likely to score in Level 1 or 2 on each of the three

literacy scales. Those who rarely used printed and written materials for their

job were also more likely to score in Level 1 or 2 on each of the three literacy

scales.

Most adults learned their literacy skills at school — such as how to read

books, write letters, fill out forms, and read graphs, though some learned such
102 ...... Chapter 4

skills at home or at work. Those learning to read books at school or at home

performed in Level 1 or 2 less often on the prose literacy scales than those who

learned at work. Those learning to read graphs and fill out forms at school or at

work performed in Level 1 or 2 less often on the document and quantitative

literacy scales than those who learned at home. More than three-quarters of

those who never learned to read graphs and more than five-sixths of those who

never learned to read books, to write letters, or to fill out forms also performed

in Level 1 on each scale. Level 1, unlike the other four levels, includes those

who are unable to perform successfully the requirements of the tasks in this

level.

Extending the Examination of Lower Literacy

Level of education, ethnicity and language background, and age (along with

parent’s educational background as discussed in chapter 2) are related to

proficiency levels on all three scales. The interactions and contexts of these

conditions, however, must be considered in interpreting these relationships.

Level of education may refer to quite different educational experiences, too

often depending on the ethnicity and socioeconomic background of an

individual and his or her parents. The nature of schooling as a function of these

factors has been widely documented, most recently by Darling-Hammond.10

The ground breaking nature of the adult literacy survey has made it

possible to gain important information about the literacy activities and

proficiencies of the nation’s adults. The survey differed from previous

assessments in several ways: the everyday realism of the assessment tasks

themselves; the wide diversity in age, education, interest in literacy activities,

and other characteristics among respondents; and the manner of

administration, in that the assessment took place at the respondent’s kitchen

table or in the living room.

At the same time, these characteristics give rise to important issues for

further discussion and study. Such discussion and study would be expected with

the introduction of new assessment methodology, and the further investigation

of these issues offers the promise of even better future assessments with

innovative features.

Part of the construction of any measure, especially one designed for use in

a broad population, includes a process for the culling of assessment items that

10 L. Darling-Hammond. (1994). “Performance-Based Assessment and Educational Equity,” Harvard

Educational Review, 60 (1), pp. 5-30.
Chapter 4 ...... 103

do not scale well with other items, in that they do not measure equally well

across all groups. This culling is needed to ensure that all items broadly

measure the same thing across an entire population. While the tasks included

in this survey are relatively realistic, they do reflect a common cultural context.

Duràn has noted from cross-cultural research the extent to which sociocultural experiences are connected to perceptions of the nature of the problem

solving tasks, and the difficulty that exists in the assessment of persons from

non-English backgrounds “because of the confound existing among culture,

language, and thought.”11 Further research with realistic activities aimed at

examining task perceptions among language and culture groups should

broaden our understanding.

The use of a more individualized focus of procedures and instruments for

examining proficiency among those with limited skills has support in the

literature on improving adult literacy. For example, the use of participantgenerated text has been employed as a vehicle for workplace literacy,12 and

such an approach might serve to build a portfolio for more fully examining

literacy skills. Also, the use of generative themes13 to involve adults in choosing

and developing literacy tasks that have real meaning and significance for them

is a related approach, but more personal than work related in its focus.

The extent to which one’s forbears had access to education is another

factor to consider, especially in view of the relationship between parental

education level and proficiency. For example, in many states it was illegal for

the grandparents of African American octogenarians to learn to read, and

severe consequences accrued to these individuals and anyone teaching them.14

For their parents, access to education, while not illegal, was still greatly limited,

since the southern states where they were largely concentrated forbade their

attendance at White public schools, and there were few schools for African

American children even at the primary level, and only a handful of secondary

schools.15

It may be that more information on proficiency among diverse adults may

be provided by using some tasks for assessment of individuals with lower

educational levels that have higher problem-solving difficulty, but that are

based on familiar content. Kirsch and Mosenthal have analyzed several

11 R.P. Duràn. (1989). “Testing of Linguistic Minorities.” In R.L. Linn, ed., Educational Measurement. New

York: American Council on Education/Macmillan Publishing Co.

12 A. D’Annunzio. (1990). “A Nondirective Combinatory Model in an Adult ESL Program.” Journal of

Reading, 34, pp.198-202; and C.A. Rhoder and J.N. Frenc. (1995). “Participant-generated text: A vehicle for

workplace literacy.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, pp. 110-118. 13 P. Freire. (1971). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. 14 C.G. Woodson. (1968). The Education of the Negro Prior to 1861. New York: Arno Press. 15 H.M. Bond. (1970). The Education of the Negro in the American Social Order. New York: Octagon Books;

J.D. Anderson. (1988). The Education of the Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill, NC: University of

North Carolina Press.
104 ...... Chapter 4

elements that influence task difficulty in the 1992 National Adult Literacy

Survey and in the 1991 assessment of the literacy of job seekers. In the course

of their research, they identified several factors (type of match, plausibility of

distractors, concreteness of information, complexity of numerical operation,

and specificity of numerical operation) that predict task difficulty quite well.16

In some cases when the prediction is not accurate, literacy tasks with more

familiar content can be performed much better than these factors predict by

participants who did poorly on other items of similar complexity. Familiarity is

likely to be culturally specific.

Yet, an instrument that works well when applied to a general population

may yield less information for some subpopulations.17 It turns out that some

items that would be effective for assessment among subpopulations must be

excluded in developing a broadly based instrument. For such a broad

population as assessed by this survey, it may be that in addition to a common

core of questions, some additional questions dependent on the respondent’s

educational level or cultural or linguistic background should be included,

especially among respondents who have limited success on broader items.

Despite the relationships between proficiency levels and the variables

noted above, substantial numbers of individuals from all ethnic, age, and

educational background groups received scores in the lower proficiency levels,

and this finding has important implications for the planning of literacy

development programs. For example, age is correlated with proficiency, and

there is a larger percentage (44) of adults 65 years of age or older in Level 1 on

the prose scale than of any other age group (table 4.2). Yet, among the 25- to

39-year-old group, the 15 percent in Level 1 constitute an estimated 9,492,000

persons, about three-quarters the number of adults aged 65 or older who

perform in Level 1.

Similarly, ethnic background is related to proficiency, with larger

proportions of African American and Hispanic adults performing in Level 1.

Yet, among the White population, an estimated 20.3 million adults perform in

Level 1, which is a little over twice the population estimate of the Hispanic

total in Level 1, and about two and a half times the population estimate of the

African American total in Level 1. Thus, despite the fact that certain

characteristics are correlated with proficiency, there are large numbers of

individuals with relatively low literacy skills among all groups.

16 I.S. Kirsch, A. Jungeblut, and P.B. Mosenthal. (1999). “Evaluating the Constructs of the Scales.” In U.S.

Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Technical Report and Data File User’s

Manual for the National Adult Literacy Survey, NCES 1999-469, by Irwin Kirsch, et al. Project Officer:

Andrew Kolstad. Washington, DC. 17 S.T. Johnson. (1979). The Measurement Mystique: Issues in Selection for Professional Schools and

Employment. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Educational Policy, Howard University.
Chapter 4 ...... 105

Motivational factors may also have influenced the decisions of respondents

to continue with the survey. Children are often required to take tests in school.

Adults can choose whether or not to take tests, and many real-world priorities

and concerns could lessen the likelihood that an adult would participate

maximally in an optional literacy assessment. Among individuals who see

themselves as highly competent readers and want to be so perceived by others,

it would be important to take the time and effort to go as far as possible with

the survey. On the other hand, among those whose experiences and education

are such that they might not place the same value on the achievement and

demonstration of literacy skills, participation would not be as important, and

even identifying oneself as not able to do the task might be preferable to

actually doing it. Furthermore, respondents with superior proficiency in a

language other than English, but with modest English skills, may have

preferred not to demonstrate those limited skills to the interviewer.

Consider the standard methods used for the assessment of cognitive skills

among adults, and the usual motivation involved. Assessments for adults are

typically done for employment, admission to academic programs, professional

certification, or appraisal for treatment or placement. Such assessments occur

in workplace, academic, or medical settings under the control and supervision

of another adult. The person being assessed usually has some stake in the

outcome of the assessment which helps to assure that maximum performance

will be obtained in the assessment activities.

This innovative literacy assessment has changed the rules, by moving the

locus of a cognitive assessment to turf controlled by the person being assessed.

We have limited information on the extent to which the important assumption

of maximum performance continues to apply. For example, an adult might have

provided about the same level of courtesy as one might to an insurance

salesman with a commitment of “about an hour” of time for completing the

assessment, but as the minutes pass, the ordinary concerns of picking up

spouse or children, preparing meals, preparing to go to work, or other typical

pursuits might interfere with the intention to exhibit maximum performance.

One might conjecture that such “real life” intrusions could shift high scoring

individuals to a middle range, and middle-proficiency performers into a lower

range.

It is also possible that the effect of such intrusions would be unrelated to

score level. In that case, the entire proficiency distribution would be shifted to

a somewhat lower level. Since the proficiency levels are not based on norms,

but instead are defined in terms of the type of tasks required at each level, such

an effect would be reflected in somewhat larger numbers of adults
106 ...... Chapter 4

demonstrating proficiency in Levels 1 and 2 than would be the case without

such intrusions.

Education as a Sufficient Intervention for Raising Literacy

The previous sections reported the decreasing proportions of respondents with

scores in proficiency Level 1 or 2 as educational attainment increased. Since

educational experiences should by their very nature influence literacy status,

this finding is not surprising. It seems equally important to know, however,

whether providing education alone is sufficient to raise literacy levels. The

educational level of each survey respondent was achieved in the context of

circumstances which facilitated or impeded progress toward whatever level was

eventually attained. Can literacy proficiency among individuals currently

possessing relatively low proficiency be raised by providing educational

experiences?

Without follow-up data on a particular cohort, a firm answer to this

question is not available from these data; but as we have argued in chapter 2,

they do indirectly support the efficacy of education in raising literacy

proficiency. Among each age, sex, racial/ethnic, and language group and for

those born in and outside of the United States, higher educational levels are

accompanied by lower proportions of respondents in the two lowest proficiency

levels. There is an increasing body of literature supporting the conclusion that

educational intervention does improve academic and literacy outcomes and

that early intervention at the preschool level is particularly effective.18

Further indirect support for the effectiveness of education in improving

literacy is the finding that educationally related activity is associated with

higher literacy. Those who participate often in reading activities have much less

incidence of low literacy than those who rarely participate in those activities,

and these differences are greater when these literacy activities are pursued for

personal use than when they are carried out in the workplace. The activities

surveyed included the reading of newspapers and magazines, books of all sorts,

letters, memos, articles, reference books, catalogs, recipes, diagrams, bills,

invoices, budgets, and instructions for use of products.

18 F.A. Campbell and C.T. Ramey. (1993). Mid-Adolescent Outcomes for High Risk Students: An Examination

of the Continuing Effects of Early Intervention. Unpublished manuscript: University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill, NC and University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL; and L.I. Schweinhart, H.V. Barnes, and

D.P. Weikart. (1993). Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Pre-School Study through Age 27.

Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Number Ten. Ypsilanti, MI: The High

Scope Press.
Chapter 4 ...... 107

When considering the utility of education as an intervention to improve

literacy, the willingness of individuals scoring at Level 1 or 2 to use their

literacy skills, both in the workplace and for personal growth and development,

must also be considered. The point has been emphasized in this chapter that

respondents with relatively low literacy skills may have been reluctant to

demonstrate their skills publicly and, thus, may have chosen not to answer the

cognitive questions in the survey. If so, this reluctance is not likely to be

manifested solely in the context of the survey. It is possible that individuals with

relatively low level skills may be hesitant to undertake tasks in a workplace with

literacy demands and may have difficulty in building an information base from

newspapers, magazines, and other written materials that would be useful in

dealing with the demands of family and community life.

Thus, low-level literacy attainment is essentially double jeopardy. It

represents proficiency that is less than what is necessary for many personal and

better-paying workplace activities, and it represents a level likely to be

perceived by an individual as embarrassing to display to others. Since literacy is

further developed by participating in literacy activities, an avoidance of

situations demanding literacy is unlikely to foster an increase in proficiency.

Individuals in such circumstances may face frustrating years of decreasing

competencies and opportunities.

Programs aimed at adults with low literacy proficiencies must recognize

and respect the context in which these skill levels were attained and the

challenges posed by change. To put oneself in a position to increase literacy

skills meaningfully is a significant personal challenge in many respects. One

must disclose skill levels for diagnosis and treatment, make all of the financial

and logistical arrangements necessary to obtain help, and be prepared to deal

with the possibility of failure, which is likely to have been a frequent

experience in past literacy settings. The educational settings for such students

should be structured so as to recognize their full attainment of adult status and

to help undo the effects of long-term lower literacy functioning, while

developing personally satisfying literacy skills that can lead to increasing

proficiencies and broadened opportunities. The need for this approach to

education represents a significant challenge for adult educators, particularly

those involved with retraining members of the labor force whose jobs face

elimination due to technological change, as well as those helping younger

adults with limited literacy skills who are seeking a toehold on the rungs of

career employment.
108 ...... Chapter 4
Chapter 5 ...... 109

CHAPTER 5

Education for the Workplace

by Larry J. Mikulecky

The goal of this chapter is to present to providers of adult, adolescent, and

workplace education programs information about the literacy proficiencies,

practices, and educational patterns of adults in various occupation areas. This

information can help educators to plan and deliver instruction more effectively

to their students. The chapter is organized into six major sections that address

the following:

• how the survey’s literacy tasks are related to particular occupational

areas

• the relationship of literacy proficiencies of adults in various

occupational areas to what is known about occupational literacy

demands

• literacy practices reported by adults in various occupational areas

• the characteristics and literacy proficiencies of adults enrolled in

various types of basic skills training programs

• where adults reported learning various literacy skills

• the literacy proficiencies of various subgroups of particular concern

to educators, including ethnic minorities, non-English speakers, and

learning disabled adults

Previous research has provided us with a good deal of information about

literacy demands in the workplace. Researchers have consistently found the

vast majority of prose material in the workplace (i.e., memos, manuals, troubleshooting directions, new product information) to be of high school to college

level difficulty.1

 These difficulty levels are comparable to the difficulty levels of

most newspapers and magazines.2

 The number of workers being called upon to

use printed materials at these high levels is being influenced by technological

1 T.G. Sticht. (1982). Basic Skills for Defense. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; L.

Mikulecky. (1982). “Job Literacy: The Relationship between School Preparation and Workplace Actuality,”

Reading Research Quarterly, 17, pp. 400-419; T. Rush, A. Moe, and R. Storlie. (1986). Occupational

Literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 2 T. Wheat, M. Lindberg, and M. Nauman. (1977). “An Exploratory Investigation of Newspaper Readability,”

Illinois Reading Council Journal, 5, pp. 4-7.
110 ...... Chapter 5

and organizational changes in the workplace. As workplaces restructure to

become more productive, workers in many manufacturing and service

occupations are being called upon to monitor quality by gathering information

from charts, graphs, and computer screens, taking measurements, calculating

averages, graphing information, entering information onto various forms, and

writing brief reports indicating problems and attempted solutions. Others must

gather information from print to participate effectively in quality assurance

groups and to play active roles in improving productivity.3

 The U.S.

Department of Labor has reviewed changing demands in many industries and

described increased workplace skill requirements in publications produced by

the Labor Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.4

 Literacy is

regularly used in multi-step problem-solving applications.5

 What is more, since

workers in restructured workplaces are expected to be more flexible and do

each other’s jobs, workers are much more likely to encounter relatively

unfamiliar information, which they sometimes need to manage independently,

and to face new print demands as part of on-going workplace retraining.6

This survey does not set out to assess directly the abilities of adults to

perform workplace literacy tasks. Many of the survey tasks, however, parallel

tasks which have been reported as common in workplaces and use materials of

comparable difficulty to workplace materials. Information about adult

performance on the three literacy scales can help educators to better anticipate

potential gaps between workplace demands and adult literacy proficiencies.

Relating Adult Responses to Occupational Categories

Respondents who had worked during the three years prior to the survey were

asked three questions about their most recent industry and occupation.

Responses were coded using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 1990 Occupational

Classification system, which includes nearly 500 hundred occupational

categories.7 Many analyses in this chapter are done using eleven of the more

3 F.P. Chisman. (1992). The Missing Link: Workplace Education for Small Businesses. Washington, DC:

Southport Institute for Policy Analysis; T.E. Faison, M.P. Vencill, J.W. McVey, K.M. Hollenbeck, and W.C.

Anderson. (1992). Ahead of the Curve: Basic Skills Programs in Four Exceptional Firms. Washington, DC:

Southport Institute for Policy Analysis.

4 What Work Requires of Schools. (1991). Washington, DC: The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving

Necessary Skills, U.S. Department of Labor.

5 L.J. Mikulecky and J. Ehlinger. (1986). “The Influence of Metacognitive Aspects of Literacy on Job

Performance of Electronic Technicians,” Journal of Reading Behavior, 18 (1), pp. 41-62; J.T. Guthrie.

(1988.) “Locating Information in Documents: Examination of a Cognitive Model,” Reading Research

Quarterly, 23, pp. 178-199. 6 S. Reder. (1994). Learning to Earn: The Reward of Workplace Literacy. Philadelphia, PA: National Center

on Adult Literacy, University of Pennsylvania.

7 U.S. Department of Commerce. (January 1992). Alphabetical Index of Industries and Occupations.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Chapter 5 ...... 111

major categories within the classification system — i.e., managerial,

professional, technical, sales, clerical, laborer, service, farming-forestry-fishing,

craft, machine operative, and transportation operative. In other cases,

subcategories were created using smaller aggregations of individual

occupational classifications. For example, professionals were more tightly

defined as engineers, architects, scientists, researchers, physicians, etc. (043-

089 in the classification system), but did not include health support and

educational professionals, who were examined in their own right.

Subcategories which were specifically targeted were as follows.

Occupation Classification Code

Health support (nurses, therapists, hygienists, aids, etc.) 095-106, 203-208, 445-447

Teachers (elementary, secondary, postsecondary) 113-159

Sales occupations (cashiers, representatives, vendors) 243-285

Secretaries, steno, typists 313-315

Clerks 317-343, 356, 374, 365-366, 379

Food preparation (cooks, kitchen workers, waitress, etc.) 433-444

Cleaning and maintenance 449-454

Child care workers 466-468

Non-supervisory farming, nursery, etc. 473-474, 479, 483-484, 486, 495-496

Non-supervisory construction 563-599

Non-supervisory motor vehicle operator 804-814

These subcategories were selected for a variety of reasons; some to provide

anchors of comparison, some because the occupations are growth areas, and

many because they are jobs currently sought by learners in adult basic skills

classes. Knowing the average performances of individuals currently in such

occupations can give teachers and students a clearer sense of skills of those

currently employed. Similarly, knowing that there are high percentages of

people with low levels of proficiency in particular occupations can help

industries focus efforts for workplace basic skills programs.

Literacy Proficiencies of Workers in Various Occupational

Categories

Proficiency scores are reported in terms of the average score for members of

an occupational group on each of the prose, document, and quantitative scales.
112 ...... Chapter 5

Difficulty

Scale Score Description of Task

Prose 250 Locate two features of information from a sports article.

275 Interpret instructions from an appliance warranty.

Document 232 Locate an intersection on street map.

259 Locate and enter background information on an application

for a social security card.

Quantitative 238 Calculate postage and fees for certified mail.

270 Calculate total costs of purchase from an order form.

(See appendix A for a detailed discussion of proficiencies and levels.) By

examining particular levels and the items which reflect proficiencies at these

levels, it is possible to develop a more concrete sense of what numerical scores

mean. Since some items parallel workplace literacy tasks, it is possible (to a

lesser degree) to draw inferences about the ability of adults to perform

workplace literacy tasks independently. For example, being able to locate the

name of a country in a short newspaper article falls at 149 on the prose scale.

An individual scoring at 149 would have an 80 percent probability of being able

to perform successfully this locate task. Individuals with lower scores might

also be able to succeed, but probabilities would be lower. Many workplace tasks

involve skimming brief prose descriptions to find a detail such as a product

number or name. Consistent accuracy is expected. Individuals scoring below

149 on the prose scale are not likely to be accurate consistently, although they

are likely to be correct some of the time and perhaps even a majority of the

time. Performing below 170 on the document scale would indicate less than an

80 percent probability of being able to perform a task like locating the

expiration date on a driver’s license — a task very similar to search strategies

for receipt dates and delivery dates on work orders. A proficiency below 191 on

the quantitative scale indicates less than 80 percent probability of being able to

total accurately a fairly simple bank deposit entry. Again, this task reflects

widespread job tasks involving simple calculations in which consistency and

accuracy are crucial (see research cited in previous section). All of these items

fall in Level 1 (scores of 0 to 225), the lowest of the five proficiency levels

defined in the National Adult Literacy Survey.8

Level 2 scores range from 226 to 275. Items that represent tasks within

Level 2 are listed below along with the difficulty scores of the items.

8 See chapter 1 and appendix A for a more thorough discussion of each of the levels for the three scales.
Chapter 5 ...... 113

Most of the discussion in this chapter will revolve around the percentages

of workers in various occupational categories who perform in Levels 1 and 2.

Each of the tasks reported above have common correlates in workplaces.

Workers regularly are called upon to interpret written instructions, enter

information on forms, and calculate totals. Again, given the fact that mistakes

are costly in terms of quality control, the 80 percent level of probable success

seems reasonable. Some in industry might argue for higher cutoffs since

current industrial quality control standards often tolerate fewer than one

mistake per thousand or more interactions or parts produced. A review of the

research and visits to several hundred workplaces over the past decade suggest

that workers in Levels 1 and 2 are probable candidates for basic skills

instruction if they must train for new jobs, or handle the increasing difficulty of

basic skill demands brought about by technological and organizational changes

in their current jobs.

Average proficiencies of workers in about half of the occupational areas

tend to be in Level 3 (276 to 325) or the very low end of Level 4 (326 to 375).

Examples of tasks which reflect these levels are given in figure 1.1 of chapter 1.

Again, several Level 3 and low Level 4 items, such as using sign-out sheets to

respond to requests for information, using a calculator to compute savings from

a sale, and determining correct change from items on a menu, clearly reflect

common workplace tasks.

Table 5.1 presents the average prose, document, and quantitative

proficiencies of adults in major occupational categories. They range from

proficiencies of around 245 for the machine operative and the farming/forestry/

fishing occupations to proficiencies of around 320 for the professional and

managerial categories. No average proficiency of any group falls in level 5, the

highest level of proficiency. Only the professional group demonstrates

proficiencies in Level 4, averaging 329 on the prose scale and 326 on the

quantitative scale. Average proficiencies for all other groups range from the

middle of Level 2 (226 to 275) to the top of Level 3 (276 to 325). Many of the

problem-solving literacy tasks called for in workplaces are similar to tasks in

Level 3 and above.9

 Average proficiencies of all job classifications listed below

clerical (i.e. laborer, service, farming, forestry, fishing, craft, machine operative,

and transportation operative) on table 5.1 are below Level 3 indicating that half

or more of these workers may be ill-equipped to meet consistently the literacy

demands called for in restructured workplaces.

9 L.J. Mikulecky and J. Ehlinger. (1986). “The Influence of Metacognitive Aspects of Literacy on Job

Performance of Electronic Technicians,” Journal of Reading Behavior, 18 (1), pp. 41-62; What Work

Requires of Schools. (1991). Washington, DC: The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills,

U.S. Department of Labor.
114 ...... Chapter 5

Similar information about more specific occupations can be found in table

5.2 and tables B5.1D and Q. (Since there are few major differences in

performance across the scales, prose tables are included in the body of the text

and corresponding document and quantitative tables are in appendix B. Any

tables identified with a B are found in that appendix.) Individuals in the

occupations of cleaning and maintenance and non-supervisory farming and

nursery demonstrate proficiencies, on average, below the midpoint of Level 2

on the three scales. For example, cleaning and maintenance workers

demonstrate a prose proficiency of 233, and nonsupervisory farming and

nursery workers average 238 on the prose scale. Individuals employed in food

preparation, construction, or as motor vehicle operators have average

proficiencies ranging from the middle to the top of Level 2 on the three scales.

Furthermore, 40 percent of cleaning and maintenance workers perform in

Level 1 on the prose scale. Twenty percent of workers in food preparation, 13

percent in child care, 36 percent in farming and nursery, 25 percent in

TABLE 5.1

Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults in

Major Occupational Categories

LITERACY SCALE

 WGT N

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Managerial 1,639 11,906 319 ( 2.1) 311 ( 1.5) 322 ( 1.6) 

Professional 2,705 18,510 329 ( 1.4) 321 ( 1.4) 326 ( 1.3) 

Technical 721 4,918 308 ( 2.5) 308 ( 2.9) 308 ( 2.7) 

Sales 2,385 17,901 290 ( 2.0) 285 ( 1.6) 291 ( 1.8) 

Clerical 3,550 23,394 296 ( 1.3) 290 ( 1.4) 293 ( 1.4) 

Laborer 1,054 7,595 248 ( 3.8) 247 ( 3.2) 249 ( 3.5) 

Service 3,908 26,916 262 ( 1.4) 259 ( 1.5) 258 ( 1.7) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 576 4,990 245 ( 4.8) 245 ( 5.3) 253 ( 6.6) 

Craft 1,992 15,460 267 ( 2.1) 267 ( 2.0) 274 ( 2.3) 

Machine operative 1,355 9,878 247 ( 2.2) 242 ( 2.3) 248 ( 2.3) 

Transportation operative 758 5,387 258 ( 2.5) 260 ( 2.4) 266 ( 2.6) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to

be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Prose Document Quantitative
Chapter 5 ...... 115

construction, and 24 percent in motor vehicle operation also perform in this

lowest proficiency level on the prose scale.

Although some workers demonstrating proficiencies in Level 1 are likely

to have some literacy and computational abilities, there are others who can not

consistently succeed with basic information-locating and computational tasks

such as those represented by Level 1 items and reported by researchers to be

present in the vast majority of jobs (see research cited on pages 109 and 110).

In high performance workplaces, such as those examined by the SCANS and

TABLE 5.2

Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults in

Occupational Subcategories

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Administrators

and managers 1,638 11,904 4 ( 0.9) 14 ( 1.8) 35 ( 2.7) 37 ( 2.0) 10 ( 1.2) 319 ( 2.1) 

Professional 507 3,592 2 ( 0.8) 7 ( 2.0) 27 ( 3.0) 44 ( 2.6) 20 ( 2.9) 339 ( 3.5) 

Health support 1,337 8,159 13 ( 1.5) 25 ( 2.1) 33 ( 2.5) 24 ( 2.6) 5 ( 1.2) 290 ( 2.7) 

Teachers 887 6,057 1 ( 0.5) 9 ( 1.6) 34 ( 2.3) 44 ( 2.1) 12 ( 1.9) 328 ( 2.2) 

Sales 2,385 17,901 9 ( 0.9) 27 ( 1.9) 40 ( 2.2) 21 ( 1.7) 3 ( 0.7) 290 ( 2.0) 

Secretaries,

steno, typist 657 4,118 5 ( 1.7) 23 ( 2.9) 49 ( 2.3) 21 ( 3.0) 2 ( 0.7) 296 ( 2.5) 

Clerks 1,506 10,430 6 ( 0.7) 23 ( 1.7) 45 ( 1.9) 23 ( 1.9) 3 ( 0.8) 298 ( 1.8) 

Food preparation 1,442 10,556 20 ( 1.5) 33 ( 2.3) 34 ( 2.6) 13 ( 1.3) 1 ( 0.4) 266 ( 2.0) 

Cleaning and

maintenance 592 3,952 40 ( 3.4) 36 ( 3.7) 19 ( 3.2) 5 ( 1.9) 0†( 0.6) 233 ( 3.9) 

Child care

workers 253 1,844 13 ( 3.0) 31 ( 5.2) 42 ( 5.1) 13 ( 4.1) 1 ( 0.8) 276 ( 5.4) 

Non-supervisory

farming, nursery 478 4,071 36 ( 4.0) 28 ( 3.0) 27 ( 4.2) 9 ( 1.7) 0†( 0.5) 238 ( 6.1) 

Non-supervisory

construction 623 4,799 25 ( 3.1) 32 ( 2.9) 32 ( 2.1) 10 ( 1.9) 1 ( 0.8) 261 ( 3.9) 

Non-supervisory

motor vehicle

operator 552 4,019 24 ( 2.2) 34 ( 2.6) 32 ( 3.0) 9 ( 1.6) 1 ( 0.6) 260 ( 2.9) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
116 ...... Chapter 5

by other researchers,10 where heightened training and information processing

requirements abound, many workers in the Level 2 category are likely to

experience difficulty in consistently succeeding with high performance

workplace requirements. For example, such workplaces call for consistent, high

quality performance with the problem solving and computational tasks similar

to the more complex information searching and calculating tasks described

above for Level 3. Group problem-solving using print information calls for

estimating and making comparisons and performing multi-step calculations.

These tasks are somewhat akin to the comparison and problem-solving tasks

required by Level 4 items like comparing credit cards or using a calculator to

determine total cost of a carpet to cover a room.

In each occupational area, some individuals perform in the lowest level of

the prose scale. The percentages range from 1 percent of teachers to a

relatively high 13 percent in health support occupations. Approximately 9

percent of sales personnel also perform in the lowest level, while about 5

percent of clerks and secretaries perform in Level 1. Thus, even in occupations

calling for a good deal of paperwork ( i.e., health support, sales, clerical, and

secretarial), many workers are unlikely to succeed consistently with the kind of

moderately simple materials and tasks found in Level 2. About 40 percent of

health support personnel and sales personnel perform in Level 1 or 2, while

approximately 30 percent of clerks and secretaries perform in these levels. It is

also somewhat disturbing that about 10 percent of teachers and other

professionals perform in or below Level 2 on the prose scale. Again, to

reiterate, performing in Level 2 does not mean that one cannot read. It does

mean, however, that being able to comprehend independently and consistently

most training materials of a high school to college level difficulty and much

current workplace print information is unlikely.

Nearly one-third of laborers and machine operatives perform in Level 1,

while another third perform in Level 2 on all three scales (see tables B5.2P, D,

and Q). A reasonable conclusion is that any employer who wants to make the

transition to a high performance workplace faces considerable basic skills

training challenges. Three of each ten laborers and machine operatives are

likely to require some basic skills training to handle rudimentary literacy and

computational tasks. Data synthesized from an adult basic education program

report indicate that an average learner takes approximately 100 hours of

practice to make a grade level gain on literacy tests. Learners in award-winning

10 F.P. Chisman. (1992). The Missing Link: Workplace Education for Small Businesses. Washington, DC:

Southport Institute of Policy Analysis; T.E. Faison, M.P. Vencill, J.W. McVey, K.M. Hollenbeck, and W.C.

Anderson. (1992). Ahead of the Curve: Basic Skills Programs in Four Exceptional Firms. Washington, DC:

Southport Institute for Policy Analysis; S. Reder. (1994). Learning to Earn: The Reward of Workplace

Literacy. Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy, University of Pennsylvania.
Chapter 5 ...... 117

programs are reported to cut this time in half, but still must take several

hundred hours to move from simple literacy tasks (such as those at Level 1) to

success with more complex literacy tasks such as those at Levels 3 and above.11

Workers performing in Level 1 will predictably need a significant amount of

practice and training before they are likely to comprehend and succeed with

the high school to college level technical training materials currently used in

most workplaces and technical schools. An additional three out of each ten

laborers and machine operatives are likely to require some brushing up on

literacy and computational skills before being able to benefit much from

technical training activities.

The Literacy Practices of Adults in Various Occupations

This section examines the types of reading and writing practiced by adults in

various occupational categories. The goal is to provide educators with a sense of

the kinds and amount of reading and writing performed in various occupations.

The National Adult Literacy Survey provides, for the first time, a good deal of

information about the types and amounts of literacy engaged in by adults in

various occupation areas. Participants were asked several questions about their

reading and writing on the job and away from work. They could indicate

whether they engaged in various literacy practices daily, a few times a week,

once a week, less than once a week, or never.

Work Related Literacy Practices

All employed participants were asked about the frequency with which they

read work-related memos, reports, manuals, instructions, and diagrams. In

addition, they were asked about the frequency with which they wrote memos

and reports, and filled in forms on the job. From these questions, a job literacy

practice index was derived by totaling responses across job literacy materials

(i.e., frequency of reading memos, reports, manuals, instructions, and diagrams

and writing memos and reports and filling in forms). (See appendix D for an

explanation of this variable.) The following tables provide profiles of workrelated literacy practices. Often refers to workers who reported reading

materials daily or a few times a week; weekly indicates once a week; rarely

collapses the rarely and never categories. In addition to the percentage of each

11 L. Mikulecky. (1989). “Second Chance Basic Skills Education,” in Investing in People, Commission on

Workforce Quality and Labor Force Efficiency, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, pp.

215-258.
118 ...... Chapter 5

occupational group reporting reading for the job, table 5.3 presents the average

prose proficiency levels of workers in each category (see tables B5.3D and Q

for document and quantitative literacy).

TABLE 5.3

Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of Workers in

Major Occupational Categories, by Frequency of Job Literacy Practices

FREQUENCY OF JOB LITERACY PRACTICES

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Managerial 1,612 11,890 89 ( 0.9) 9 ( 0.7) 2 ( 0.5) 

 322 ( 1.9) 302 ( 7.6)! *** (  ) 

Professional 2,698 18,506 73 ( 1.1) 19 ( 1.0) 8 ( 0.7) 

 333 ( 1.5) 323 ( 2.9) 309 ( 4.7)!

Technical 714 4,914 71 ( 2.1) 24 ( 2.3) 5 ( 0.9) 

 310 ( 3.2) 306 ( 5.4)! ** * ( ****) 

Sales 2,344 17,877 58 ( 1.3) 31 ( 1.6) 11 ( 0.9) 

 301 ( 2.2) 279 ( 2.7) 262 ( 5.1)!

Clerical 3,524 23,379 69 ( 1.3) 22 ( 1.2) 9 ( 0.6) 

 298 ( 1.3) 298 ( 2.3) 274 ( 5.1)!

Laborer 935 7,514 26 ( 2.3) 31 ( 2.3) 43 ( 2.6) 

 266 ( 4.9) 260 ( 4.0) 229 ( 5.6) 

Service 3,764 26,821 30 ( 1.3) 30 ( 1.1) 40 ( 1.1) 

 276 ( 2.1) 274 ( 2.1) 244 ( 2.7) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 533 4,961 29 ( 2.8) 27 ( 2.7) 44 ( 2.8) 

 267 ( 5.9)! 263 ( 7.3)! 220 ( 8.6) 

Craft 1,850 15,366 54 ( 1.6) 30 ( 1.6) 16 ( 1.4) 

 281 ( 2.6) 263 ( 3.6) 227 ( 5.6) 

Machine operative 1,300 9,842 33 ( 1.6) 32 ( 1.8) 35 ( 2.0) 

 273 ( 3.8) 251 ( 4.1) 219 ( 4.3) 

Transportation operative 711 5,353 45 ( 2.4) 32 ( 2.0) 23 ( 2.1) 

 268 ( 3.1) 267 ( 5.0) 228 ( 6.5)!

Total 19,985 146,423 54 ( 0.6) 26 ( 0.5) 20 ( 0.4) 

 301 ( 0.7) 280 ( 1.3) 242 ( 1.4) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Often Weekly Rarely
Chapter 5 ...... 119

Survey results provide educators with evidence of a literacy-rich

workplace. During a given week, literacy is required of the vast majority of

workers in every job category (including laborer). In all occupational areas, a

majority of workers reported reading at least on a weekly basis (table 5.3). This

ranges from 98 percent of managers to 56 percent of farming, forestry, and

fishing workers. (It should be noted that the survey only asked about a

relatively few literacy practices and that some workers read or use other written

or printed materials such as maps and instrument displays.)

It appears, on the surface, that if one wanted to avoid literacy use, there

are still a few occupational areas in which one might work; for example, 40

percent of service workers, 43 percent of laborers, and 44 percent farmforestry workers reported that they rarely read at work. These figures are

somewhat misleading, however, because of large regional variations that, for

example, are illustrated by the data in table B5.4. Nearly four times as many

Southern laborers (46 percent) as Midwestern laborers (12 percent) reported

never engaging in literacy activities. Comparably wide variations are seen for

farm workers. In the South and West, 33 percent and 37 percent, respectively,

of farm workers reported never engaging in literacy activities. In the Northeast

and Midwest, the percentages are 9 percent and 21 percent, respectively.

For educators preparing adolescents and adults for workplace

responsibilities, it is of use to see the degree to which various specific literacy

practices are called for in particular occupational areas. Table 5.4 focuses upon

the percentage of workers who engage in particular literacy practices

frequently, that is, at least once a week. As one might expect, occupations

which tend to require higher levels of education generally have higher

percentages of members who report frequent reading of memos, reports, and

manuals. Though frequent diagram reading was reported by the majority of

workers only in crafts occupations, frequent diagram reading was reported for

by a significant fraction of workers in many occupations. If schooling is to be in

line with the literacy demands of the workplace, it might be appropriate to

include instruction in how to read and use diagrams.

The survey data also provide a clearer picture of the extent to which

Americans must write frequently on the job. Table 5.5 focuses upon the

percentages of employees in various occupations who frequently write memos

and reports or fill in forms. Surprisingly high percentages of workers reported

that they frequently write on the job (at least once a week). More than half of

workers (54 percent) reported frequently writing reports, while 45 percent

reported frequently filling out forms and 40 percent frequently writing memos.

For only two occupations — farming and laborer — did less than 30 percent of

workers report frequently writing reports. Three-fourths of managers reported

writing memos regularly, as one might expect, but so did 58 percent of clerical
120 ...... Chapter 5

12 J.I. Goodlad. (1983). A Place Called School. New York: McGraw Hill; A. Applebee. (1981). Writing in the

Secondary School. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English; J. Langer, A. Applebee, I. Mullis,

and M. Foertsch. (1990). Learning to Read in Our Nation’s Schools. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of

Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service.

TABLE 5.4

Percentages of Workers in Major Occupational Categories Reporting

Frequent Reading of Materials

OCCUPATION

MATERIAL

Memos Reports Manuals Instructions Diagrams

RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

Total 67 (0.7) 48 (0.6) 48 (0.6) 44 (4.8) 30 (0.8)

Managerial 93 (1.0) 83 (1.2) 71 (1.4) 31 (1.4) 42 (1.5)

Professional 86 (0.8) 73 (0.9) 69 (1.1) 39 (1.5) 41 (1.3)

Technical 82 (2.0) 68 (2.5) 71 (2.4) 54 (2.0) 49 (2.5)

Sales 70 (1.1) 50 (0.9) 50 (1.2) 28 (1.0) 23 (1.1)

Clerical 85 (0.9) 61 (1.0) 57 (1.2) 31 (1.0) 25 (1.0)

Service 46 (1.3) 28 (1.2) 25 (1.1) 37 (0.9) 12 (1.0)

Farming 37 (3.4) 27 (2.5) 28 (2.0) 24 (2.6) 17 (2.0)

Crafts 61 (1.5) 38 (1.6) 56 (1.6) 34 (1.3) 55 (2.0)

Machine Operative 47 (2.0) 27 (2.1) 31 (2.8) 25 (1.8) 30 (2.3)

Transportation

Operative 54 (2.2) 32 (2.6) 28 (2.2) 25 (1.9) 22 (2.0)

Laborer 41 (3.1) 19 (2.3) 28 (2.3) 20 (1.9) 22 (2.3)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate /1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes

because of missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to

be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

workers, 51 percent of sales persons, and 40 percent of transportation

operatives. In a majority of occupations, more than 40 percent of workers

reported frequently filling out forms. For educators, this suggests a large

percentage of students is likely to do some writing in the workplace. Surveys of

writing practices in schools suggest that very little writing is required of many

students and of that little writing, much is creative and narrative writing.12 If we

wish to match schooling with current writing demands in the workplace,

greater emphasis on writing and reading memos and reports seems desirable.

Those Who Rarely Read

In addition to surveying workers about job-related reading and writing, the

National Adult Literacy Survey asked about literacy practices for one’s own use.
Chapter 5 ...... 121

Table 5.6 shows the percentages and prose proficiencies of workers whose

combined job and personal literacy practices were reported as often, weekly, or

rarely. (Also see tables B5.5D and Q.)

In many occupational areas, the number of workers reporting rarely is so

small that statistical analysis is not possible or interpretation must be made with

caution. When comparison is possible (that is, for the laborer and service

occupations), however, the proficiencies of workers who reported rarely

engaging in literacy practices are significantly lower than the proficiencies of

workers who reported doing so often. Workers in these occupations who

reported reading rarely on the job and at home perform, on average, in Level 1

or barely into Level 2 on the proficiency scales.

Figures about the percentage of adults who rarely practice literacy at

home or on the job are important because of the documented phenomenon of

learning loss. Research with adults13 and with low literate adolescents14

indicates that when little literacy practice occurs, abilities actually decline. This

TABLE 5.5

Percentages of Workers in Major Occupational Categories

Reporting Frequent Writing of Materials

OCCUPATION

MATERIAL

Memos Reports Forms

RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

Total 40 (0.6) 54 (0.6) 45 (0.7)

Managerial 75 (1.4) 87 (1.3) 73 (1.5)

Professional 33 (1.1) 73 (1.0) 43 (1.4)

Technical 35 (2.4) 64 (2.5) 49 (2.5)

Sales 51 (1.3) 56 (1.1) 53 (1.2)

Clerical 58 (1.1) 71 (1.2) 63 (1.2)

Service 23 (1.0) 35 (1.0) 26 (1.1)

Farming 31 (3.1) 25 (2.3) 24 (2.2)

Crafts 34 (1.5) 47 (1.8) 42 (1.8)

Machine Operative 22 (1.3) 32 (2.0) 26 (1.7)

Transportation Operative 40 (2.0) 40 (2.9) 48 (2.7)

Laborer 28 (2.6) 26 (2.3) 28 (2.2)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate /1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes

because of missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said

to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

13 T.G. Sticht. (1982). Basis Skills for Defense. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. 14 L. Mikulecky. (April 1990). “Stopping Summer Learning Loss Among At-Risk Youth.” Journal of Reading,

33 (7) pp. 516-521.
122 ...... Chapter 5

TABLE 5.6

Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of Workers in

Major Occupational Categories, by Frequency of Combined Literacy Practices

FREQUENCY OF COMBINED LITERACY PRACTICES

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Managerial 1,612 11,906 84 ( 1.1) 15 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.2) 

 323 ( 1.8) 304 ( 5.9) *** (  )

Professional 2,698 18,510 73 ( 1.1) 23 ( 1.1) 4 ( 0.5) 

 333 ( 1.5) 321 ( 2.7) 299 ( 8.2)!

Technical 714 4,918 71 ( 2.3) 26 ( 2.5) 3 ( 0.6) 

 312 ( 3.2) 303 ( 5.3)! ** * ( ****) 

Sales 2,344 17,901 60 ( 1.2) 33 ( 1.3) 6 ( 0.7) 

 302 ( 2.0) 279 ( 2.6) 233 ( 7.9)!

Clerical 3,524 23,394 66 ( 1.2) 29 ( 1.2) 5 ( 0.4) 

 299 ( 1.3) 295 ( 1.9) 263 ( 6.9)!

Laborer 935 7,595 27 ( 2.4) 42 ( 2.3) 29 ( 2.0) 

 273 ( 4.2) 255 ( 4.3) 215 ( 6.0) 

Service 3,764 26,916 32 ( 1.1) 43 ( 1.3) 25 ( 0.9) 

 279 ( 1.9) 270 ( 1.8) 228 ( 3.6) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 533 4,990 30 ( 3.3) 39 ( 3.2) 30 ( 2.8) 

 272 ( 5.8)! 260 ( 5.6) 198 (11.7)!

Craft 1,850 15,460 49 ( 1.7) 39 ( 1.5) 11 ( 1.2) 

 282 ( 2.4) 264 ( 2.6) 212 ( 7.1)!

Machine operative 1,300 9,878 32 ( 2.0) 42 ( 2.2) 26 ( 1.9) 

 276 ( 3.6) 251 ( 3.7) 203 ( 5.2)!

Transportation operative 711 5,387 41 ( 2.7) 41 ( 2.6) 17 ( 1.8) 

 270 ( 3.7) 261 ( 4.5) 223 ( 7.4)!

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Often Weekly Rarely
Chapter 5 ...... 123

is particularly disturbing as the worker population ages. The very workers who

may need to improve in basic skills the most tend to practice the least and are

likely to become less able as time passes unless they begin to practice more.

Five percent or less of workers in managerial, professional, technical, or

clerical occupations reported reading rarely for any purpose, and 6, 11, and 17

percent of sales, craft, and transportation operative workers, respectively,

reported reading rarely. For the other occupational areas, however, the

percentages are higher, ranging from about 25 percent of service and machine

operative workers to 30 percent of laborer and farm, forestry, and fishing

workers.

Enrollment in Basic Skills Programs

This section examines how many employees in different occupational

categories reported enrolling in basic skills instruction and what type of

programs they were. The purpose of this analysis is to provide developers of

educational programs and policy makers a sense of where employees seek basic

skills instruction as well as to profile the abilities and education levels of those

pursuing basic skills instruction. In addition, this section examines where (i.e.,

home, school, work) adults from various occupational categories reported

having learned to read charts, graphs, diagrams and do the sorts of writing

called for in the workplace.

All employed adults in the National Adult Literacy Survey were asked the

following question: “Are you currently enrolled in or have you ever taken part

in a program other than in regular school in order to improve your basic skills,

that is, basic reading, writing, and arithmetic skills?” It is left to the individual

to interpret what basic reading, writing and arithmetic might be. In order to

examine the degree to which adults in various occupational areas participated

in basic skills instruction and where they received such instruction, data were

combined into four large occupational areas: managerial, professional, and

technical; sales, clerical, and service; craft occupations; and laborer, farm, etc.,

and machine and transportation operator. Each individual could respond never

enrolled or indicate if training had been received from an employer or union, a

publicly sponsored program, tutoring, or other. Since some individuals could

have received training from more than one source, it is only possible to

determine the percentage of individuals receiving basic skills instruction by

examining responses to the choice of never enrolled and subtracting that

percent from 100. Across all major occupation areas, 92 percent of workers say

they have never enrolled in basic skills classes. Reversed, this means that 8
124 ...... Chapter 5

percent of employees have enrolled for such instruction. Some have enrolled

for instruction at more than one location.

Locations where instruction was received differed somewhat among

occupation groups. The following percentages were reported (see table B5.6

for more detail).

Employers and unions are providing a substantial amount (about half) of the

basic skills instruction received by adults in the more highly skilled occupations

(i.e., manager, professional, technical, and craft). The remainder of employees

receiving basic skills instruction in these occupations and others is about

equally divided between public supported instruction and tutoring or other

sorts of instruction (i.e., home study, church, clubs, etc.).

When results for those receiving basic skills instruction are examined by

sex, race/ethnicity, and education levels (no matter where they choose to

receive basic skills instruction), the following patterns emerge (table 5.7). Eight

percent of males and 7 percent of females have enrolled in basic skills

instruction. Six percent of White adults, 13 percent of Black adults, and 9

percent of Hispanic adults reported receiving basic skills instruction. At all

education levels, the percentages of adults having received instruction are

about 7 percent, although clear proficiency differences appear by education

level. Adults with less than 12 years of education demonstrate average prose

proficiencies in Level 1; those with high school diploma or GED demonstrate

proficiencies in Level 2; and those with some postsecondary education in Level

3. (See also tables B5.7D and Q.)

It is important for educators and policy makers to make note of the fact

that basic skills instruction has been sought about equally by employees in all

occupational areas and at all education levels. A viewpoint sometimes voiced by

Employer/ Tutoring/ Never

OCCUPATION Union Public Others Enrolled

Managerial, professional, technical 5 2 3 92

Sales, clerical, service 3 3 3 92

Craft occupations 4 2 3 92

Laborer, farm, etc., machine and 2 3 3 92

transportation operator

PERCENTAGE FOR TYPE OF INSTRUCTION
Chapter 5 ...... 125

TABLE 5.7

Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults Reporting

Enrollment in Training Programs, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Education

TRAINING COURSES

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Sex

Male 10,657 89,736 92 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.2) 4 ( 0.2) 8 ( 0.4) 

 273 ( 0.9) 285 ( 3.6) 239 ( 7.0) 260 ( 4.3) 265 ( 3.1) 

Female 13,922 96,591 93 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.2) 3 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.3) 

 275 ( 0.9) 277 ( 4.6) 250 ( 4.4) 260 ( 4.9) 261 ( 3.1) 

Race/Ethnicity

White 16,637 142,077 94 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.1) 2 ( 0.2) 6 ( 0.3) 

 287 ( 0.7) 294 ( 3.8)! 269 ( 5.3)! 279 ( 4.0)! 282 ( 2.7) 

Black 4,464 20,524 87 ( 0.7) 4 ( 0.3) 6 ( 0.6) 5 ( 0.4) 13 ( 0.7) 

 236 ( 1.6) 251 ( 4.5) 225 ( 4.7) 242 ( 6.1) 237 ( 3.4) 

Hispanic 2,870 17,739 91 ( 0.8) 2 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.6) 9 ( 0.8) 

 213 ( 2.2) 252 (12.4)! 226 ( 7.4)! 225 ( 8.3)! 231 ( 5.6)!

Other 646 6,252 87 ( 2.2) 5 ( 1.9) 6 ( 1.3) 4 ( 1.3) 13 ( 2.2) 

 249 ( 4.2) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) 209 (15.5)!

Education

Still in high school 954 8,084 94 ( 1.4) 0†( 0.1) 3 ( 0.7) 4 ( 0.9) 6 ( 1.4) 

 272 ( 2.1) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) 259 ( 8.5)!

0 to 12 years 4,940 42,433 92 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.4) 8 ( 0.6) 

 208 ( 1.7) 219 ( 7.9)! 209 ( 6.1)! 203 ( 6.5)! 209 ( 3.8) 

GED/High school graduate 6,762 57,253 93 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.5) 

 271 ( 1.0) 266 ( 5.1) 248 ( 8.0) 263 ( 4.5) 259 ( 4.2) 

Some postsecondary 11,961 78,822 93 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.1) 3 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.4) 

 311 ( 0.8) 306 ( 3.2) 283 ( 4.4)! 297 ( 3.7) 298 ( 2.4) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

SEX, RACE/ETHNICITY,

AND EDUCATION Never

enrolled

Employer/

Union Public Tutoring/Other

Total

enrolled
126 ...... Chapter 5

employers and adult educators is that workplace literacy programs are mainly

for those adults who have very low skill levels (i.e., being virtually illiterate) or

who dropped out of school before graduation. These data show that high school

dropouts are not more likely to enroll in basic skills programs than are adults

with postsecondary schooling. Thus, those enrolled are distributed equally

across all educational levels.

Training Participants’ Proficiencies Compared with Other Workers

A few patterns emerge from the enrollment data (table 5.7), but one must be

careful in interpreting the meaning of these patterns. In some cases, adults

enrolled in employer or union classes outperform adults who have never

enrolled in basic skills instruction. This difference may indicate that low scoring

adults do not choose to enter employer/union programs and/or that the

programs are working. Adults enrolled in public instruction or tutoring

demonstrate lower proficiencies than those who never enrolled. Again, the

meaning of these data is open to discussion. One cannot tell to what extent

lower scores are the result of employees possibly having lower scores to begin

with. Because of small sample sizes in most of the race/ethnicity categories and

at some education levels, statistical comparison must be done with caution. It is

possible to make statistical comparisons, however, in the categories of males

and females, GED/high school graduate, and some postsecondary education.

Males who never enrolled in basic skills instruction demonstrate

significantly lower prose proficiency than those who enrolled in employer/

union programs, but demonstrate statistically higher proficiency than males

enrolled in public instruction or tutoring. It may be that males who received

their basic skills training in public or tutoring programs were less skilled than

others when they enrolled or did not have access to employer and union

programs. It is also possible that employer/union programs were more effective

than public programs and raised the proficiency levels of enrolled males

beyond those of non-enrolled males. Survey data do not make it possible to

answer these questions. Females who never enrolled for basic skills instruction

perform comparably to those in employer/union basic skills programs on the

prose scale and outperform females who were enrolled in public and tutoring

programs. Again, it is not possible to determine why from the survey data.

Comparisons by educational subgroups reveal mixed patterns. Among

adults who have a GED or high school diploma, those who never enrolled

demonstrate higher prose proficiency than those in public training programs

but are comparable to those in all other programs. At the postsecondary level,
Chapter 5 ...... 127

adults who never enrolled demonstrate higher prose proficiency than those

who enrolled in tutoring programs but are comparable to those in employer/

union programs.

This information tends to reinforce the point made earlier. About 7 to 8

percent of adults from nearly all education levels and skill levels reported

having enrolled in basic skills programs. There is a slight tendency for those

who have enrolled in public or tutoring programs to perform less well than

nonenrollees, but this is somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that

nonenrolling males are outperformed by males in employer/union programs. It

is not possible to determine from the data the extent to which comparable

performances of enrollees and nonenrollees is due to the effectiveness of

programs. One might argue that basic skills instruction has worked and that it

has brought the proficiency levels of those enrolling to the levels of peers who

did not enroll. One might equally argue, however, that if 7 to 8 percent of

workers at all education levels are choosing to enter basic skills instruction, a

small percentage of highly motivated workers with differing ideas about what

constitutes basic skills are seeking help in programs.

Where Adults Learn Their Skills

Participants in the National Adult Literacy Survey were asked where they

primarily learned to read a variety of materials (i.e., newspapers, magazines, or

books; and graphs, diagrams, or maps) and where they learned to write letters

or notes and fill out forms. The choices were in school, in home or community,

or at work. Those who designed the background questionnaire speculated that

differences in where adults learned literacy skills might suggest interventions

and curriculum guidelines for educators. For the most part, however, there are

few differences (for example, by education level) in where adults primarily

learned literacy skills.

As one would expect, most people (about 60 percent at all educational

levels) reported learning to read prose primarily at school (table 5.8). About 40

percent reported learning at home or in the community, and very few people (1

or 2 percent across all educational levels) reported learning to read prose at

work.

Learning to read graphs, diagrams, and maps (see table 5.9) occurred

primarily at school for the majority at all education levels — i.e., 71 percent of

adults with 0 to 12 years; 83 percent of GED/high school graduates; 88 percent
128 ...... Chapter 5

TABLE 5.8

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults at Each

Education Level, by Where Learned to Read Prose

WHERE LEARNED TO READ PROSE

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

0 to 12 Years 4,724 41,352

Prose 58 ( 0.9) 40 ( 0.9) 2 ( 0.3) 

 215 ( 1.7) 206 ( 2.5) 195 ( 9.9)! 

Document 58 ( 0.9) 40 ( 0.9) 2 ( 0.3) 

 210 ( 1.7) 199 ( 2.8) 185 ( 7.5)! 

Quantitative 58 ( 0.9) 40 ( 0.9) 2 ( 0.3) 

 211 ( 2.0) 201 ( 2.9) 199 ( 9.2)! 

GED/High School Graduate 6,805 58,026

Prose 64 ( 0.8) 35 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.2) 

 270 ( 1.3) 271 ( 1.2) 244 ( 8.1)! 

Document 64 ( 0.8) 35 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.2) 

 265 ( 1.2) 263 ( 1.6) 244 ( 9.3)! 

Quantitative 64 ( 0.8) 35 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.2) 

 271 ( 1.2) 270 ( 1.5) 252 (10.2)!

Postsecondary 12,109 80,195

Prose 60 ( 0.7) 39 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.1) 

 310 ( 0.9) 310 ( 1.1) 289 ( 5.3)! 

Document 60 ( 0.7) 39 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.1) 

 304 ( 0.8) 303 ( 1.0) 283 ( 5.3)! 

Quantitative 60 ( 0.7) 39 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.1) 

 311 ( 1.0) 310 ( 1.3) 295 ( 5.2)! 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

EDUCATION LEVEL /

LITERACY SCALE

Mostly in school Mostly at

home/community Mostly at work

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults at

Each Education Level, by Where Learned to Read Prose
Chapter 5 ...... 129

TABLE 5.9

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults at Each

Education Level, by Where Learned to Read Documents

WHERE LEARNED TO READ DOCUMENTS

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

0 to 12 Years 3,984 35,054

Prose 71 ( 0.8) 19 ( 0.8) 10 ( 0.6) 

 222 ( 1.9) 207 ( 3.3) 217 ( 4.3) 

Document 71 ( 0.8) 19 ( 0.8) 10 ( 0.6) 

 216 ( 2.1) 199 ( 3.1) 213 ( 4.6) 

Quantitative 71 ( 0.8) 19 ( 0.8) 10 ( 0.6) 

 216 ( 2.3) 203 ( 3.5) 223 ( 4.6) 

GED/High School Graduate 6,613 56,444

Prose 83 ( 0.6) 10 ( 0.5) 8 ( 0.5) 

 273 ( 1.0) 260 ( 3.8) 272 ( 2.7) 

Document 83 ( 0.6) 10 ( 0.5) 8 ( 0.5) 

 267 ( 0.9) 252 ( 3.3) 266 ( 2.6) 

Quantitative 83 ( 0.6) 10 ( 0.5) 8 ( 0.5) 

 272 ( 1.0) 260 ( 3.4) 278 ( 3.2) 

Postsecondary 12,025 79,650

Prose 88 ( 0.4) 8 ( 0.3) 5 ( 0.2) 

 312 ( 0.9) 297 ( 2.7) 300 ( 3.0) 

Document 88 ( 0.4) 8 ( 0.3) 5 ( 0.2) 

 306 ( 0.8) 290 ( 2.1) 294 ( 2.9) 

Quantitative 88 ( 0.4) 8 ( 0.3) 5 ( 0.2) 

 312 ( 0.9) 299 ( 2.8) 302 ( 3.3) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

EDUCATION LEVEL /

LITERACY SCALE

Mostly in school Mostly at

home/community Mostly at work

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults at

Each Education Level, by Where Learned to Read Documents
130 ...... Chapter 5

of postsecondary. Learning at work played a larger role for graph, diagram, and

map reading than it did for prose reading. Furthermore, the lower the level of

education, the greater the percentage learning to read documents at work. Ten

percent of those with 0 to 12 years of education reported learning these graph,

diagram, and map skills primarily at work compared with 8 percent of GED/

high school graduates and 5 percent of the postsecondary group. Adults with

less than a college education who reported learning these skills at home or in

the community generally demonstrate the lowest proficiencies, while there are

no significant differences in proficiencies between those who learned skills at

school and at work. At the postsecondary level, those who learned these skills at

school demonstrate higher proficiencies than those who learned at home or at

work.

About one-half of adults with 0 to 12 years of education and about twothirds of adults at the two higher education levels learned to fill out forms in

school; about 20 percent learned to fill out forms primarily at work, regardless

of education; and close to 30 percent of those with 0 to 12 years of education

and close to 20 percent of the two higher levels learned at home or in the

community (table 5.10). With the exception of adults with some postsecondary

education, those who learned to fill out forms at home or in the community

generally demonstrate significantly lower proficiency scores than those who

learned at school or work.

There does appear to be a pattern related to learning to write letters,

notes, memos or reports primarily at work (See table 5.11). Writing was learned

mostly at work for 7 percent of those with 0 to 12 years of education, for 9

percent of those with a GED/high school diploma, and 14 percent of those

with postsecondary education. For all education levels, employees with the

highest proficiency scores generally reported learning writing at work. This

suggests a need for researchers and school-based educators to examine the

sorts of formal and informal writing instruction occurring in the workplace.
Chapter 5 ...... 131

TABLE 5.10

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults at Each

Education Level, by Where Learned to Fill Out Forms

WHERE LEARNED TO FILL OUT FORMS

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

0 to 12 Years 4,346 38,058

Prose 52 ( 1.0) 29 ( 0.8) 20 ( 0.6) 

 220 ( 1.8) 210 ( 2.6) 218 ( 3.2) 

Document 52 ( 1.0) 29 ( 0.8) 20 ( 0.6) 

 215 ( 2.1) 201 ( 2.6) 213 ( 3.0) 

Quantitative 52 ( 1.0) 29 ( 0.8) 20 ( 0.6) 

 215 ( 2.2) 202 ( 3.1) 221 ( 3.5) 

GED/High School Graduate 6,745 57,443

Prose 65 ( 1.0) 17 ( 0.7) 18 ( 0.6) 

 271 ( 1.2) 264 ( 2.6) 275 ( 2.1) 

Document 65 ( 1.0) 17 ( 0.7) 18 ( 0.6) 

 265 ( 1.2) 257 ( 3.0) 269 ( 2.0) 

Quantitative 65 ( 1.0) 17 ( 0.7) 18 ( 0.6) 

 269 ( 1.3) 264 ( 2.4) 280 ( 2.2) 

Postsecondary 12,029 79,632

Prose 64 ( 0.5) 18 ( 0.5) 18 ( 0.5) 

 310 ( 0.9) 309 ( 1.5) 311 ( 1.7) 

Document 64 ( 0.5) 18 ( 0.5) 18 ( 0.5) 

 304 ( 0.9) 302 ( 1.6) 305 ( 1.3) 

Quantitative 64 ( 0.5) 18 ( 0.5) 18 ( 0.5) 

 310 ( 1.0) 308 ( 1.6) 315 ( 1.3) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

EDUCATION LEVEL /

LITERACY SCALE

Mostly in school Mostly at

home/community Mostly at work

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults at

Each Education Level, by Where Learned to Fill Out Forms
132 ...... Chapter 5

TABLE 5.11

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults at Each

Education Level, by Where Learned to Write

WHERE LEARNED TO WRITE

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

0 to 12 Years 4,556 39,876

Prose 65 ( 1.0) 28 ( 0.9) 7 ( 0.7) 

 219 ( 1.9) 197 ( 2.7) 228 ( 4.0) 

Document 65 ( 1.0) 28 ( 0.9) 7 ( 0.7) 

 214 ( 2.0) 188 ( 2.4) 224 ( 4.3) 

Quantitative 65 ( 1.0) 28 ( 0.9) 7 ( 0.7) 

 214 ( 2.2) 188 ( 3.0) 237 ( 4.9) 

GED/High School Graduate 6,765 57,768

Prose 78 ( 0.8) 13 ( 0.7) 9 ( 0.4) 

 270 ( 1.0) 263 ( 2.7) 281 ( 2.3) 

Document 78 ( 0.8) 13 ( 0.7) 9 ( 0.4) 

 265 ( 1.0) 255 ( 2.9) 273 ( 2.4) 

Quantitative 78 ( 0.8) 13 ( 0.7) 9 ( 0.4) 

 270 ( 0.9) 262 ( 2.4) 285 ( 2.9) 

Postsecondary 12,087 80,108

Prose 74 ( 0.6) 12 ( 0.4) 14 ( 0.5) 

 310 ( 0.9) 303 ( 1.8) 318 ( 1.6) 

Document 74 ( 0.6) 12 ( 0.4) 14 ( 0.5) 

 303 ( 0.9) 296 ( 2.2) 311 ( 1.7) 

Quantitative 74 ( 0.6) 12 ( 0.4) 14 ( 0.5) 

 309 ( 1.0) 302 ( 2.1) 322 ( 1.8) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

EDUCATION LEVEL /

LITERACY SCALE

Mostly in school Mostly at

home/community Mostly at work

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults at

Each Education Level, by Where Learned to Write
Chapter 5 ...... 133

Impact of Non-English Language, Learning Disabilities, and Race/

Ethnicity on Literacy Proficiency in Various Occupations

The mix of employees in America’s workplaces is becoming more diverse. Adult

education classes within workplaces are also becoming complex and varied.

This diversity includes growing minority and English-as-second-language

populations. In addition, many learning disabled adults are finding themselves

faced with increased training and basic skills demands in the workplace. Since

testing and assessment are often impossible in workplace settings, educators

find themselves without important information about the relative proficiencies

of members of these diverse populations. This inhibits the planning of

educational programs.

Several background questions gathered information about primary

language spoken, race and ethnicity, and a variety of disabilities. With the data

from these questions, it is possible to determine the relative performance of

various subgroups. A good deal of caution must be used when considering this

information, however. Knowing the relative performance levels of

subpopulations (i.e., ESL, learning disabled, etc.) can be of some use in

helping educators plan large program initiatives. It is dangerous, however, to

over generalize about the abilities of specific individuals or even portions of a

subpopulation in a particular workplace. When possible, it is always more

desirable to gather information about the individuals for whom a local program

is being planned.

Table 5.12 presents proficiency scores of workers who reported the

language they currently speak most often as English, Spanish, or other.

Occupational groups are aggregated in the following four categories: manager,

professional, and technical; sales, clerical, and service; craft; and laborer,

farmer, and machine and transportation operators.

Language Predominantly Spoken

The percentage of workers who speak predominantly English ranges from 99

percent of the manager/professional/technical category to 89 percent of the

laborer category. Predominantly Spanish speakers comprise 1 percent of the

manager category, 3 percent of the sales, clerical, and service category, 4

percent of the craft category, and 9 percent of the laborer category. Adults

speaking other languages comprise, at most, 2 percent of any one occupational

category.
134 ...... Chapter 5

TABLE 5.12

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Workers

in Collapsed Occupational Categories, by Current Language

CURRENT LANGUAGE

 WGT N RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Manager, Professional, &

Technical 5,060 35,301

Prose 99 ( 0.3) 1 ( 0.2) 1 ( 0.2) 

 324 ( 1.0) 232 (12.5)! *** (  ) 

Document 99 ( 0.3) 1 ( 0.2) 1 ( 0.2) 

 317 ( 1.0) 229 (13.2)! ** * ( ****) 

Quantitative 99 ( 0.3) 1 ( 0.2) 1 ( 0.2) 

 323 ( 1.0) 242 (13.3)! *** (  ) 

Sales, Clerical, Service 9,831 68,146

Prose 96 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 1 ( 0.1) 

 285 ( 0.9) 164 ( 5.6)! 186 ( 7.8)! 

Document 96 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 1 ( 0.1) 

 280 ( 0.9) 168 ( 4.9)! 190 (10.4)! 

Quantitative 96 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 1 ( 0.1) 

 283 ( 0.9) 167 ( 5.3)! 199 ( 8.8)! 

Craft 1,989 15,429

Prose 95 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.5) 1 ( 0.4) 

 273 ( 2.0) 146 ( 7.9)! ** * ( ****) 

Document 95 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.5) 1 ( 0.4) 

 272 ( 2.0) 156 ( 8.4)! *** (  ) 

Quantitative 95 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.5) 1 ( 0.4) 

 280 ( 2.3) 155 ( 7.5)! ** * ( ****) 

Laborer, Farmer, &

Machine/Transportation

Operative 3,738 27,826

Prose 89 ( 0.8) 9 ( 0.7) 2 ( 0.5) 

 262 ( 1.7) 146 ( 5.2)! 149 (14.6)! 

Document 89 ( 0.8) 9 ( 0.7) 2 ( 0.5) 

 259 ( 1.4) 146 ( 5.2)! 169 (14.3)! 

Quantitative 89 ( 0.8) 9 ( 0.7) 2 ( 0.5) 

 265 ( 1.7) 148 ( 5.2)! 169 (20.8)! 

Total 20,618 146,702

Prose 95 ( 0.2) 4 ( 0.2) 1 ( 0.1) 

 290 ( 0.7) 157 ( 4.3) 182 ( 7.6)! 

Document 95 ( 0.2) 4 ( 0.2) 1 ( 0.1) 

 285 ( 0.7) 160 ( 4.2) 194 ( 7.2)! 

Quantitative 95 ( 0.2) 4 ( 0.2) 1 ( 0.1) 

 289 ( 0.6) 160 ( 4.5) 200 ( 8.9)! 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION / LITERACY

SCALE English Spanish Other
Chapter 5 ...... 135

When employees across all occupation categories are aggregated, nonEnglish speakers demonstrate proficiencies more than 100 points, or two

levels, below English speakers (i.e., Level 1 vs. Level 3). Comparing data by

various occupations is not statistically advisable because of the small sample

size of non-English speakers in many occupation areas; therefore, the

comparisons must be viewed with much caution.

Race/Ethnicity

Proficiencies of workers who described themselves as White, Black, or

Hispanic were also examined by the major occupational groups (table 5.13).

The representation of White workers in occupations ranges from about 90

percent of the managerial and professional occupations to about 70 percent of

the laborer, service, and machine operative occupations. Black workers account

for about 15 percent each of the laborer, service, and machine and

transportation operatives categories, while about 15 percent of laborers,

farmers, and machine operators are of Hispanic origin. Prose proficiency scores

for various occupational groups can be found on table 5.13 below and

document and quantitative scores in tables B5.8D and Q.

For the total working population, on the prose scale White adults

outperform Black adults, who, in turn, outperform Hispanic adults. For the

one occupational category where the data can be interpreted, that is, service,

this pattern is evident as well. For some occupations, however, this may not be

the case; that is, Black and Hispanic workers may demonstrate about the same

proficiencies, although most of the data need to be interpreted with caution.

Learning Disabilities

Research performed in adult basic education classes by Keefe and Meyer

indicates that the majority (78 percent) of very low literate adults (i.e., third

grade level and below) in an ABE program had tested learning disabilities.15

Workplace educators without facilities for testing learning disabilities

occasionally have workers inform them that they have a learning disability. For

this reason, it is important for educators to have a profile of what self-reported

learning disability means in terms of proficiency levels. Is it almost always an

indication of extremely low levels of ability or are self-reported learning

disabilities spread across all literacy levels?

15 D. Keefe and V. Meyer. (1988). “Profiles of and Instructional Strategies for Adult Disabled Readers,”

Journal of Reading, 31 (7), 614-619.
136 ...... Chapter 5

TABLE 5.13

Percentages and Average Prose Proficiencies of Workers

in Major Occupational Categories, by Race/Ethnicity

RACE/ETHNICITY

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Managerial 1,598 11,597 90 ( 0.9) 6 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.6) 

 323 ( 2.2) 285 ( 5.4)! 294 (10.8)!

Professional 2,600 17,750 89 ( 0.9) 6 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.5) 

 335 ( 1.5) 287 ( 4.0)! 287 ( 6.1)!

Technical 693 4,641 84 ( 1.7) 9 ( 1.3) 7 ( 1.0) 

 316 ( 2.7) 282 ( 5.2)! 272 ( 8.6)!

Sales 2,301 16,974 82 ( 1.1) 9 ( 0.6) 9 ( 0.8) 

 300 ( 2.1) 261 ( 3.0)! 246 ( 6.3)!

Clerical 3,466 22,782 78 ( 0.9) 12 ( 0.6) 10 ( 0.7) 

 303 ( 1.5) 271 ( 2.8) 266 ( 3.8)!

Laborer 1,025 7,293 69 ( 1.9) 16 ( 1.3) 15 ( 1.5) 

 268 ( 4.2) 225 ( 6.4)! 188 ( 8.0)!

Service 3,802 25,832 70 ( 0.8) 17 ( 0.7) 13 ( 0.7) 

 282 ( 1.6) 231 ( 2.2) 211 ( 5.8) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 565 4,814 81 ( 2.9) 4 ( 1.3) 15 ( 2.6) 

 268 ( 3.5) 195 (12.4)! 154 ( 8.3)!

Craft 1,955 15,239 83 ( 0.9) 7 ( 0.7) 9 ( 0.7) 

 278 ( 2.2) 223 ( 6.7)! 208 ( 4.8)!

Machine operative 1,320 9,454 69 ( 1.8) 15 ( 1.6) 16 ( 1.3) 

 268 ( 2.9) 233 ( 3.6)! 178 ( 6.6)!

Transportation operative 747 5,280 74 ( 2.0) 15 ( 1.6) 11 ( 1.5) 

 273 ( 3.2) 221 ( 6.8)! 219 ( 9.6)!

Total 20,072 141,656 79 ( 0.2) 11 ( 0.1) 10 ( 0.2) 

 297 ( 0.8) 247 ( 1.5) 224 ( 2.4) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

White Black Hispanic
Chapter 5 ...... 137

TABLE 5.14

Percentages of Adults Who Reported Having a Physical,

Mental, or Other Health Condition

TOTAL POPULATION

TYPE OF CONDITION PCT (SE)

Physical, mental, or other health condition 12 (0.3)

Visual difficulty 7 (0.2)

Hearing difficulty 7 (0.3)

Learning disability 3 (0.1)

Mental or emotional condition 2 (0.1)

Mental retardation 0 * (0.0)

Speech disability 1 (0.1)

Physical disability 9 (0.3)

Long-term illness 8 (0.2)

Other health impairment 6 (0.3)

*Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to zero.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Survey respondents were asked to report whether they had physical,

mental, or other health conditions. Adults who reported having a learning

disability comprised only 3 percent of the total population (table 5.14). Since

the term “learning disabilities” has attained popular currency only during the

last few decades, it is likely that the percentage of older adults reporting

learning disabilities is underreported. These adults are unlikely to have been

diagnosed as learning disabled while in school.

Because the sample size is so small, it is not possible to interpret

proficiency data for learning disabled adults by occupational category; thus, the

data in table 5.15 are just by disability. According to distributions across the five

literacy levels, 58 percent of adults who reported learning disabilities perform

in Level 1 on the prose scale, with another 22 percent performing in Level 2.

About one-fifth of adults who reported being learning disabled perform in the

three higher levels, with 1 percent of those reporting learning disabilities

performing at the highest level. This suggests that the vast majority of adults

reporting learning disabilities may need basic skills support. The fact that

nearly one-fifth of adults with self-reported learning disabilities demonstrate

reading and computing skills in Level 3 or above suggests caution on the part of

educators, however. The Keefe and Meyer study cited previously found that

more than two-thirds of very low literate adults in ABE programs had vision

problems (many of which were uncorrectable). About 7 percent of adults in
138 ...... Chapter 5

TABLE 5.15

Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults Reporting

Type of Physical, Mental, or Health Condition

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Physical, mental,

health condition 2,806 22,205 46 ( 1.1) 30 ( 1.6) 18 ( 1.5) 5 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.2) 227 ( 1.6) 

Visual difficulty 1,801 14,296 54 ( 1.6) 26 ( 1.4) 15 ( 1.6) 5 ( 1.3) 0†( 0.2) 217 ( 2.4) 

Hearing difficulty 1,611 14,202 37 ( 1.9) 30 ( 2.0) 24 ( 1.9) 9 ( 1.4) 1 ( 0.4) 242 ( 2.6) 

Learning disability 875 5,820 58 ( 2.4) 22 ( 2.4) 14 ( 1.6) 4 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.6) 206 ( 3.8) 

Mental or emotional

condition 597 3,631 49 ( 3.2) 24 ( 2.8) 18 ( 2.3) 8 ( 1.8) 2 ( 0.9) 224 ( 4.8) 

Mental retardation 63 370 87 ( 6.0) 3 ( 4.4) 5 ( 4.1) 3 ( 3.2) 1 ( 1.7) 143 (13.7) 

Speech disability 383 2,767 53 ( 4.0) 26 ( 3.8) 13 ( 2.7) 7 ( 2.4) 0†( 0.4) 216 ( 6.6) 

Physical disability 2,129 17,144 44 ( 1.3) 30 ( 1.5) 19 ( 1.6) 6 ( 1.0) 1 ( 0.2) 231 ( 1.8) 

Long-term illness 1,880 14,627 41 ( 1.5) 29 ( 1.3) 21 ( 1.4) 7 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.4) 236 ( 2.4) 

Any other health

impairment 1,509 12,058 40 ( 2.1) 30 ( 2.7) 23 ( 2.2) 7 ( 1.2) 1 ( 0.3) 237 ( 2.6) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

TYPE OF CONDITION

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
Chapter 5 ...... 139

this survey reported vision problems, and the proficiency scores of these adults

are comparable to those of adults reporting learning disabilities. Since over

three-fourths of adults with learning or visual difficulties perform in the two

lowest proficiency levels, it is advisable that workplace educators be

instructionally prepared to deal with these difficulties through special

instructional approaches and collaborative efforts with specialists. (Also see

tables B5.9D and Q.)

Summary

This chapter addressed the following areas: what is known about occupational

literacy demands; the literacy proficiencies of adults in various occupations; the

literacy practices of adults in various occupational areas; the characteristics of

adults who had participated in basic skills training programs; where adults

reported learning various literacy skills; and the literacy proficiencies of various

subgroups of particular concern to educators.

Literacy Demands and Proficiencies. During the past 15 years,

researchers have documented literacy and basic skills demands for job

performance and job training across hundreds of workplaces. Many of the tasks

and demands reported by researchers parallel the tasks in this survey. For

example, a frequently reported workplace task is skimming a report or joborder for relevant details. This is comparable to being able to locate the name

of a country in a short newspaper article, which falls at 149 or in Level 1 on the

prose scale. Other Level 1 tasks are also comparable to the more basic job skills

consistently reported by researchers. Being able to locate the expiration date

on a driver’s license, a Level 1 task, is very similar to search strategies for

receipt dates and delivery dates on work orders. Being able to total a fairly

simple bank deposit entry accurately (another Level 1 task) parallels

widespread job tasks involving simple calculations. Other form-filling, map

reading, and calculation tasks reported in many workplaces parallel such Level

2 tasks as interpreting appliance instructions, locating intersections on maps,

entering information on forms, and calculating costs of materials. Even higher

literacy demands are reported by researchers who examine high performance

workplaces where work has been reorganized to require team planning and

problem solving, goal setting, and heavy worker participation in training.

Though such workplaces are currently in the minority, they call for literacy

proficiencies that are comparable to high school reading levels and to tasks in

Level 3 and higher.
140 ...... Chapter 5

Average prose, document, and quantitative proficiencies of adults in major

occupational categories range from around 245 ( mid-Level 2) for the machine

operative and the farming/forestry/fishing occupations to proficiencies of

around 320 (high Level 3) for the professional and managerial categories, with

other occupational categories falling between. When looked at by specific

occupational categories, there are sizable percentages of workers in most nonprofessional and non-managerial occupations whose proficiency scores fall in

Level 1 or 2. Thus, sizable numbers of workers (especially in labor,

maintenance, food service, child care, and other comparable occupations) are

unlikely to succeed consistently and independently with literacy tasks of even

moderate difficulty. Many of the problem-solving and training tasks called for

in workplaces attempting to restructure are likely to present problems for

workers who perform at lower proficiency levels. In such workplaces, it is likely

that a significant number of workers will need to increase their skills if

consistent, independent success with new workplace literacy tasks is required.

Literacy Practices. Self-reported information from the survey provides

evidence of a literacy-rich workplace. In all occupational areas, a majority of

workers reported reading or writing at least on a weekly basis a variety of

materials, including memos, reports, manuals, instructions, and diagrams. This

ranges from 98 percent of managers to 56 percent of farming, forestry, and

fishing workers. Occupations which tend to require higher levels of education

have higher percentages of members who report frequent reading of memos,

reports, and manuals. Although a majority of workers reported frequent

diagram reading in only the craft occupations, a significant fraction of workers

in many occupations reported reading diagrams frequently. This is important

information for educators, since there is only very limited transfer from prose

reading to diagram reading. Surprisingly high percentages of workers reported

that they frequently write on the job. Substantial percentages (over 30 percent)

of workers in most occupational areas reported regularly writing reports, filling

out forms, and writing memos. For educators, this suggests the vast majority of

students are likely to do some writing when they enter the workplace.

National Adult Literacy Survey data on workplace and home literacy

practices indicate that the vast majority of American employees do some

reading and computation regularly. Only a small percentage of adults reported

never reading, writing, or computing. Those who engage in literacy activities

the least demonstrate the lowest proficiencies. Learning-loss research suggests

that those practicing the least are likely to be losing the meager proficiencies

they have.

Basic Skills Instruction. Only 8 percent of the employed population

reported enrolling in basic skills instruction. Employers and unions are
Chapter 5 ...... 141

providing a substantial amount (about half) of the basic skills instruction

received by adults in the more highly skilled occupations (i.e., manager,

professional, technical, and craft), about one-third of instruction in sales,

clerical, and service occupations, and about 20 percent in occupations such as

laborer and machine operative. The remainder of employees receiving basic

skills instruction is about equally divided between publicly supported

instruction and tutoring or other sorts of instruction (i.e., home study, church,

clubs, etc.). Eight percent of males and 7 percent of females have enrolled in

basic skills instruction. Six percent of White adults, 13 percent of Black adults,

and 9 percent of Hispanic adults reported receiving basic skills instruction. At

all education levels, the percentages of adults having received instruction is

about 7 percent, although adults with different levels of education have

different proficiencies. Thus, basic skills instruction has been sought about

equally by employees in all occupational areas and at all educational levels, not

just by adults who have very low skill levels or who have dropped out of school

before graduation. High school dropouts are no more likely to enroll in basic

skills programs than are adults with postsecondary schooling.

Where Adults Reported Learning Literacy Skills. Very few people

across all education levels reported learning prose reading (i.e., newspapers,

magazines, or books) primarily at work. About 60 percent of adults reported

learning to read prose mainly at school and about 40 percent mainly at home or

in the community. Learning to read graphs, diagrams, and maps occurred

primarily at school for the majority at all education levels — i.e., 71 percent of

adults with 0 to 12 years; 83 percent of GED/high school graduates; 88 percent

of those with postsecondary education. Learning at work played a larger role in

graph, diagram, and map reading than it did for prose reading — especially for

those with less formal education. Ten percent of adults with 0 to 12 years of

education reported learning to read graphs, diagrams, and maps primarily at

work, compared with 8 percent of GED/high school graduates and 5 percent of

postsecondary group. Those learning these skills at home or in the community

consistently demonstrate the lowest proficiency skills.

An opposite pattern in proficiencies occurred for learning to write letters,

notes, memos or reports. Writing was learned mostly at work for 7 percent of

those with 0 to 12 years of education, for 9 percent of those with a GED/high

school diploma, and 14 percent of those with postsecondary education. For all

education levels, employees who reported learning to write at work

demonstrate the highest proficiencies. This suggests a need for educators to

examine the sorts of formal and informal writing instruction occurring in the

workplace.
142 ...... Chapter 5

Literacy Proficiencies of Minorities, Non-English Speakers, and

Learning Disabled Adults. The percentage of workers who speak

predominantly English ranges from 99 percent of the manager/professional/

technical category to 89 percent of the laborer category. Predominantly

Spanish speakers comprise 1 percent of the manager category, 3 percent of the

sales, clerical, service category, 4 percent of the craft category, and 9 percent of

the laborer category. When employees across all occupational categories are

aggregated, non-English speakers demonstrate proficiencies about 100 points

or two levels below English speakers (i.e., Level 1 vs. Level 3). Comparing data

by various occupations is not statistically feasible because of the small sample

size of non-English speakers in many occupation areas.

Survey data indicate that the percentages of White workers in occupations

range from about 90 percent of the managerial and professional occupations to

about 70 percent of the laborer, service, and machine operative occupations.

Black workers account for about 15 percent each of the laborer, service, and

machine and transportation operatives categories, while about 15 percent of

laborers, farmers, and machine operators are of Hispanic origin. Across all

occupations, White workers demonstrate higher proficiencies than Black

workers, who, in turn, demonstrate higher proficiencies than Hispanic workers.

Adults who reported having a learning disability comprised only 3 percent

of the total National Adult Literacy Survey population. Since the term learning

disabilities has attained popular currency only during the last few decades,

however, it is likely that the percentage of older adults reporting learning

disabilities is underreported. Distributions across the literacy levels indicate

that about 60 percent of adults who reported learning disabilities perform

Level 1 on the prose, document, and quantitative scales, with about 22 percent

performing in Level 2. Although the vast majority of adults reporting learning

disabilities may need basic skills support, the fact that nearly one-fifth of adults

with self-reported learning disabilities demonstrate reading and computing

skills in Level 3 or above suggests caution on the part of educators.

The Keefe and Meyer study cited earlier found that more than two-thirds

of very low literate adults in adult basic education programs had vision

problems (many of which were uncorrectable). About 7 percent of adults in

this survey reported vision problems and the proficiency scores of these adults

are comparable to those of adults reporting learning disabilities. Since large

percentages of adults with learning and visual difficulties perform in the lower

two proficiency levels, it is advisable that workplace educators be

instructionally prepared to deal with these difficulties through special

instructional approaches and collaborative efforts with specialists.
Epilogue ...... 143

EPILOGUE

The National Adult Literacy Assessment (NALS) provides a rich picture of

the nation’s literacy skills. As many people emphasized at the time the initial

report was released, NALS revealed some troubling overall findings. Across the

population of the United States as a whole, a large percentage of adults

perform at Level 1 or 2, displaying relatively limited literacy skills. Conversely,

few adults perform at Level 4 or 5, where individuals must consistently

demonstrate their ability to find information, make inferences, and engage in

multiple-step thought processes. Furthermore, those performing in the lower

levels, though diverse in their social characteristics, are disproportionately

minority and poor, raising disquieting questions in such a diverse nation as

ours.

Nonetheless, NALS also provides some reasons for hope. First and

foremost, the assessment demonstrates a consistent and strong correlation

between formal education and adult literacy skills. Although a snapshot survey

cannot establish a causal relationship, the association of years of schooling with

literacy abilities is so strong for all groups that it should have a compelling grip

on our attention as we go about the business of improving opportunity and the

quality of education for all groups. Second, at any given level of adult literacy

proficiency, there are exceptions to the overall correlations of literacy with race/

ethnicity, parents’ education, and other factors. No one who makes or

implements policies for literacy education, whether in elementary and

secondary schools, collegiate institutions, or adult education programs, should

lose sight of the potential for individuals to overcome the tendency of some

groups to perform less well than others on literacy tasks.

With regard to the relationship between formal education and adult

literacy, then, this report has emphasized that literacy skills increase quite

regularly as formal education increases. The NALS data show that both

education and literacy proficiencies are related to race/ethnicity, income, and

parents’ education as well as to the subjects’ educational attainment, although
144 ...... Epilogue

quite a bit of variation exists around those average tendencies. Both

educational attainment and the literacy skills of adults increase by age cohorts,

from those in their 20’s to those in their 30’s, and again to those in their 40’s.

The educational attainment for people who are 50 and older tapers off, and

older Americans also display lower literacy skills. These lower literacy skills

may be the result of their lower initial levels of schooling in their youth, the

cessation of continued formal education in adulthood, differential educational

opportunities, and obstacles to high literacy proficiency that may apply

increasingly to those over age 60.

The NALS data yield a portrait of those who do not complete high school,

an acknowledged problem in a society as devoted to education as ours. Since

literacy increases with increasing formal education, it is no surprise that

dropouts have very low literacy skills. This is particularly problematic for

groups such as Hispanic Americans, who have very high rates of high school

noncompletion. Quite a bit of diversity exists, however, among the

noncompleters. Some, typically those with higher literacy skills, are pursuing

diplomas or are engaged in work that requires frequent engagement in literacy

tasks. Literacy skills of drop-outs also vary depending upon the reason they cite

for not continuing in school. Those citing financial problems tend to have lower

literacy abilities, for example, than those citing pregnancy or behavior

problems. Given this diversity, a characterization of noncompleters as having

low literacy skills is not totally accurate.

Individuals in the lowest two literacy levels are also diverse. The findings

for those in Levels 1 and 2, however, must be treated with caution. Many of

these respondents were placed in those levels by procedures for imputing

scores for individuals who did not complete the assessment, and those

procedures are open to varying interpretations. Still, as in all the NALS data,

education is the key correlate of literacy skills. Those in Levels 1 and 2 have

very low education levels, whereas most individuals who graduated from high

school are in Level 3 or above. Further research is needed to understand the

lowest literacy levels and those who perform at those levels — research about

the quality of schooling, about how the nature of schooling differs for different

groups, about opportunity structures, and about individuals’ attitudes toward

displaying their literacy skills in assessments or in work situations. The findings

from cross-sectional studies such as NALS can be combined with insights from

longitudinal and qualitative studies as we seek to understand the relationships

between education and literacy skills.

As in the rest of our analysis, diversity is also a theme in the NALS

findings with regard to adult literacy skills and type of occupation. For

example, some highly literate individuals hold non-professional or non-
Epilogue ...... 145

managerial jobs. Conversely, 18 percent of managers and 9 percent of

professionals performed at Level 1 or 2 on the literacy scales. Despite this

diversity, one-third of laborers and machine operatives performed in Level 1

and another third in Level 2. When such results are viewed along with research

into the nature of the high performance workplace, in which most workers

need to have the kinds of literacy skills characterized by Level 3 or above, it is

apparent that many workers do not have the kinds of literacy skills they will

need to succeed in such a workplace.

In sum, the National Adult Literacy Survey has displayed a robust and

important correlation between adult literacy and formal education. Analysis of

the data has also delineated the constraints of race/ethnicity, income, age, and

parental education that have shaped educational opportunity and the

distribution of literacy skills in our society. On the other hand, the NALS data

also remind us of the resilience of many individuals, enabling them to

overcome those constraints. This should give us both the optimism to persist in

our efforts to improve adults’ literacy skills and the knowledge to identify

factors that will impede or enhance those efforts.
146 ...... Appendix A
Appendix A ...... 147

APPENDIX A

Interpreting the Literacy Scales*

Building on the two earlier literacy surveys conducted by Educational

Testing Service (ETS), the performance results from the National Adult

Literacy Survey are reported on three literacy scales — prose, document, and

quantitative — rather than on a single conglomerate scale. Each of the three

literacy scales ranges from 0 to 500.

The purpose of this section of the report is to give meaning to the literacy

scales — or, more specifically, to interpret the numerical scores that are used to

represent adults’ proficiencies on these scales. Toward this end, the section

begins with a brief summary of the task development process and of the way

in which the literacy levels are defined. A detailed description of the prose,

document, and quantitative scales is then provided. The five levels on each

scale are defined, and the skills and strategies needed to successfully perform

the tasks in each level are discussed. Sample tasks are presented to illustrate

the types of materials and task demands that characterize the levels on each

scale. The section ends with a brief summary of the probabilities of successful

performance on tasks within each level for individuals who demonstrated

different proficiencies.

Building the Literacy Tasks

The literacy scales make it possible not only to summarize the literacy

proficiencies of the total population and of various subpopulations, but also to

determine the relative difficulty of the literacy tasks administered in the survey.

That is, just as an individual receives a score according to his or her

performance on the assessment tasks, each task receives a value according to its

difficulty as determined by the performance of the adults who participated in

the survey. Previous research conducted at ETS has shown that the difficulty of

*This chapter originally appeared in the first report on the National Adult Literacy Survey, I. S. Kirsch,

A. Jungeblut, L. Jenkins, and A. Kolstad. (September 1993). Adult Literacy In America: A First Look at the

Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
148 ...... Appendix A

a literacy task, and therefore its placement on a particular literacy scale, is

determined by three factors: the structure or linguistic format of the material,

the content and/or the context from which it is selected, and the nature of the

task, or what the individual is asked to do with the material.

Materials. The materials selected for inclusion in NALS reflect a variety of

linguistic formats that adults encounter in their daily activities. Most of the

prose materials used in the survey are expository — that is, they describe,

define, or inform — since most of the prose that adults read is expository in

nature; however, narratives and poetry are included, as well. The prose

materials include an array of linguistic structures, ranging from texts that are

highly organized both topically and visually to those that are loosely organized.

They also include texts of varying lengths, from multiple-page magazine

selections to short newspaper articles. All prose materials included in the

survey were reproduced in their original format.

The document materials represent a wide variety of structures, which are

characterized as tables, charts and graphs, forms, and maps, among other

categories. Tables include matrix documents in which information is arrayed in

rows and columns — for example, bus or airplane schedules, lists, or tables of

numbers. Documents categorized as charts and graphs include pie charts, bar

graphs, and line graphs. Forms are documents that require information to be

filled in, while other structures include such materials as advertisements and

coupons.

The quantitative tasks require the reader to perform arithmetic operations

using numbers that are embedded in print. Since there are no materials that

are unique to quantitative tasks, these tasks were based on prose materials and

documents. Most quantitative tasks were, in fact, based on document

structures.

Content and/or Contexts. Adults do not read printed or written materials

in a vacuum. Rather, they read within a particular context or for a particular

purpose. Accordingly, the NALS materials represent a variety of contexts and

contents. Six such areas were identified: home and family; health and safety;

community and citizenship; consumer economics; work; and leisure and

recreation.

In selecting materials to represent these areas, efforts were made to

include as broad a range as possible, as well as to select universally relevant

contexts and contents. This was to ensure that the materials would not be so

specialized as to be familiar only to certain groups. In this way, disadvantages

for individuals with limited background knowledge were minimized.

Types of Tasks. After the materials were selected, tasks were developed to

accompany the materials. These tasks were designed to simulate the ways in
Appendix A ...... 149

which people use various types of materials and to require different strategies

for successful task completion. For both the prose and document scales, the

tasks can be organized into three major categories: locating, integrating, and

generating information. In the locating tasks, readers are asked to match

information that is given in a question or directive with either literal or

synonymous information in the text or document. Integrating tasks require the

reader to incorporate two or more pieces of information located in different

parts of the text or document. Generating tasks require readers not only to

process information located in different parts of the material, but also to go

beyond that information by drawing on their knowledge about a subject or by

making broad text-based inferences.

Quantitative tasks require readers to perform arithmetic operations —

addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division — either singly or in

combination. In some tasks, the type of operation that must be performed is

obvious from the wording of the question, while in other tasks the readers must

infer which operation is to be performed. Similarly, the numbers that are

required to perform the operation can, in some cases, be easily identified,

while in others, the numbers that are needed are embedded in text. Moreover,

some quantitative tasks require the reader to explain how the problem would

be solved rather than perform the calculation, and on some tasks the use of a

simple four-function calculator is required.

Defining the Literacy Levels

The relative difficulty of the assessment tasks reflects the interactions among

the various task characteristics described here. As shown in Figure 1.1 in the

Introduction to this report, the score point assigned to each task is the point at

which the individuals with that proficiency score have a high probability of

responding correctly. In this survey, an 80 percent probability of correct

response was the criterion used. While some tasks were at the very low end

of the scale and some at the very high end, most had difficulty values in the

200 to 400 range.

By assigning scale values to both the individuals and tasks, it is possible to

see how well adults with varying proficiencies performed on tasks of varying

difficulty. While individuals with low proficiency tend to perform well on tasks

with difficulty values equivalent to or below their level of proficiency, they are

less likely to succeed on tasks with higher difficulty values. This does not mean

that individuals with low proficiency can never succeed on more difficult

literacy tasks — that is, on tasks whose difficulty values are higher than their

proficiencies. They may do so some of the time. Rather, it means that their
150 ...... Appendix A

probability of success is not as high. In other words, the more difficult the task

relative to their proficiency, the lower their likelihood of responding correctly.

The response probabilities for two tasks on the prose scale are displayed in

Figure A.1. The difficulty of the first task is measured at the 250 point on the

scale, and the second task is at the 350 point. This means that an individual

would have to score at the 250 point on the prose scale to have an 80 percent

chance (that is, a .8 probability) of responding correctly to Task 1. Adults

scoring at the 200 point on the prose scale have only a 40 percent chance of

responding correctly to this task, whereas those scoring at the 300 point and

above would be expected to rarely miss this task and others like it.

In contrast, an individual would need to score at the 350 point to have an

80 percent chance of responding correctly to Task 2. While individuals

performing at the 250 point would have an 80 percent chance of success on the

first task, their probability of answering the more difficult second task correctly

is only 20 percent. An individual scoring at the 300 point is likely to succeed on

this more difficult task only half the time.

An analogy may help clarify the information presented for the two prose

tasks. The relationship between task difficulty and individual proficiency is

much like the high jump event in track and field, in which an athlete tries to

jump over a bar that is placed at increasing heights. Each high jumper has a

height at which he or she is proficient. That is, he or she is able to clear the bar

at that height with a high probability of success, and can clear the bar at lower

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

Probability of Successful Performance

150 200 250 300 350 400

Task 1

Task 2

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Probabilities of Successful Performance on Two Prose Tasks by Individuals at

Selected Points on the Prose Scale

Adults' Average Prose Proficiency

Figure A.1 NALS
Appendix A ...... 151

levels almost every time. When the bar is higher than their level of proficiency,

however, they can be expected to have a much lower chance of clearing it

successfully.

Once the literacy tasks are placed on their respective scales, using the

criterion described here, it is possible to see how well the interactions among

the task characteristics explain the placement of various tasks along the scales.1

In investigating the progression of task characteristics across the scales, certain

questions are of interest. Do tasks with similar difficulty values (that is, with

difficulty values near one another on a scale) have certain shared

characteristics? Do these characteristics differ in systematic ways from tasks in

either higher or lower levels of difficulty? Analyses of the interactions between

the materials read and the tasks based on these materials reveal that an ordered

set of information-processing skills appears to be called into play to perform

the range of tasks along each scale.

To capture this ordering, each scale was divided into five levels that reflect

the progression of information-processing skills and strategies: Level 1 (0 to

225), Level 2 (226 to 275), Level 3 (276 to 325), Level 4 (326 to 375), and

Level 5 (376 to 500). These levels were determined not as a result of any

statistical property of the scales, but rather as a result of shifts in the skills and

strategies required to succeed on various tasks along the scales, from simple to

complex.

The remaining pages of this section describe each scale in terms of the

nature of the task demands at each of the five levels. After a brief introduction

to each scale, sample tasks in each level are presented and the factors

contributing to their difficulty are discussed. The aim of these discussions is to

give meaning to the scales and to facilitate interpretation of the results

provided in the first and second sections of this report.

Interpreting the Literacy Levels

Prose Literacy

The ability to understand and use information contained in various kinds of

textual material is an important aspect of literacy. Most of the prose materials

administered in this assessment were expository — that is, they inform, define,

or describe — since these constitute much of the prose that adults read. Some

narrative texts and poems were included, as well. The prose materials were

drawn from newspapers, magazines, books, brochures, and pamphlets and

reprinted in their entirety, using the typography and layout of the original

1 I.S. Kirsch and P.B. Mosenthal. (1990). “Exploring Document Literacy: Variables Underlying the

Performance of Young Adults.” Reading Research Quarterly, 25. pp. 5-30.
152 ...... Appendix A

source. As a result, the materials vary widely in length, density of information,

and the use of structural or organizational aids such as section or paragraph

headings, italic or bold face type, and bullets.

Each prose selection was accompanied by one or more questions or

directives which asked the reader to perform specific tasks. These tasks

represent three major aspects of information-processing: locating, integrating,

and generating. Locating tasks require the reader to find information in the

text based on conditions or features specified in the question or directive. The

match may be literal or synonymous, or the reader may need to make a textbased inference in order to perform the task successfully. Integrating tasks ask

the reader to compare or contrast two or more pieces of information from the

text. In some cases the information can be found in a single paragraph, while in

others it appears in different paragraphs or sections. In the generating tasks,

readers must produce a written response by making text-based inferences or

drawing on their own background knowledge.

In all, the prose literacy scale includes 41 tasks with difficulty values

ranging from 149 to 468. It is important to remember that the locating,

generating, and integrating tasks extend over a range of difficulty as a result of

interactions with other variables including:

• the number of categories or features of information that the reader must

process

• the number of categories or features of information in the text that can

distract the reader, or that may seem plausible but are incorrect

• the degree to which information given in the question is obviously related to

the information contained in the text

• the length and density of the text

The five levels of prose literacy are defined, and sample tasks provided, in

the following pages.

Prose Level 1 Scale range: 0 to 225

Most of the tasks in this level require the reader to read relatively

short text to locate a single piece of information which is identical to

or synonymous with the information given in the question or

directive. If plausible but incorrect information is present in the text,

it tends not to be located near the correct information.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 198

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 21%
Appendix A ...... 153

Tasks in this level require the reader to locate and match a single piece of

information in the text. Typically the match between the question or directive

and the text is literal, although sometimes synonymous matches may be

necessary. The text is usually brief or has organizational aids such as paragraph

headings or italics that suggest where in the text the reader should search for

the specified information. The word or phrase to be matched appears only

once in the text.

One task in Level 1 with a difficulty value of 208 asks respondents to read

a newspaper article about a marathon swimmer and to underline the sentence

that tells what she ate during a swim. Only one reference to food is contained

in the passage, and it does not use the word “ate.” Rather, the article says the

swimmer “kept up her strength with banana and honey sandwiches, hot

chocolate, lots of water and granola bars.” The reader must match the word

“ate” in the directive with the only reference to foods in the article.

Underline the sentence that tells what Ms. Chanin

ate during the swim.

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

Chanin has twice circled Manhattan

before and trained for the new feat by

swimming about 28.4 miles a week. The

Yonkers native has competed as a swimmer

since she was 15 and hoped to persuade

Olympic authorities to add a long-distance

swimming event.

The Leukemia Society of America

solicited pledges for each mile she swam.

In July 1983, Julie Ridge became the

first person to swim around Manhattan

twice. With her three laps, Chanin came

up just short of Diana Nyad’s distance

record, set on a Florida-to-Cuba swim.

Reduced from original copy.

The Associated Press

NEW YORK—University of Maryland

senior Stacy Chanin on Wednesday became

the first person to swim three 28-mile laps

around Manhattan.

Chanin, 23, of Virginia, climbed out of

the East River at 96th Street at 9:30 p.m.

She began the swim at noon on Tuesday.

A spokesman for the swimmer, Roy

Brunett, said Chanin had kept up her

strength with “banana and honey”

sandwiches, hot chocolate, lots of water

and granola bars.”

Swimmer completes

Manhattan marathon

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
154 ...... Appendix A

Prose Level 2 Scale range: 226 to 275

Some tasks in this level require readers to locate a single piece of

information in the text; however, several distractors or plausible but

incorrect pieces of information may be present, or low-level inferences

may be required. Other tasks require the reader to integrate two or

more pieces of information or to compare and contrast easily

identifiable information based on a criterion provided in the question

or directive.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 259

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 27%

Like the tasks in Level 1, most of the tasks in this level ask the reader to

locate information. However, these tasks place more varied demands on the

reader. For example, they frequently require readers to match more than a

single piece of information in the text and to discount information that only

partially satisfies the question. If plausible but incomplete information is

included in the text, such distractors do not appear near the sentence or

paragraph that contains the correct answer. For example, a task based on the

sports article reproduced earlier asks the reader to identify the age at which the

marathon swimmer began to swim competitively. The article first provides the

swimmer’s current age of 23, which is a plausible but incorrect answer. The

correct information, age 15, is found toward the end of the article.

In addition to directing the reader to locate more than a single piece of

information in the text, low-level inferences based on the text may be required

to respond correctly. Other tasks in Level 2 (226 to 275) require the reader to

identify information that matches a given criterion. For example, in one task

with a difficulty value of 275, readers were asked to identify specifically what

was wrong with an appliance by choosing the most appropriate of four

statements describing its malfunction.
Appendix A ...... 155

Readers in this level may also be asked to infer a recurring theme. One

task with a difficulty value of 262 asks respondents to read a poem that uses

several metaphors to represent a single, familiar concept and to identify its

theme. The repetitiveness and familiarity of the allusions appear to make this

“generating” task relatively easy.

When returning appliance for servicing, include a note telling as clearly and

as specifically as possible what is wrong with the appliance.

A manufacturing company provides its customers with the following instructions for returning appliances for service:

A repair person for the company receives four appliances with the

following notes attached. Circle the letter next to the note which

best follows the instructions supplied by the company.

The clock does not run

correctly on this clock

radio. I tried fixing it, but

I couldn’t.

My clock radio is not working. It

stopped working right after I

used it for five days.

The alarm on my clock

radio doesn’t go off at the

time I set. It rings 15-30

minutes later.

This radio is broken. Please

repair and return by United

Parcel Service to the address on

my slip.

A C

B D

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
156 ...... Appendix A

Prose Level 3 Scale range: 276 to 325

Tasks in this level tend to require readers to make literal or

synonymous matches between the text and information given in the

task, or to make matches that require low-level inferences. Other tasks

ask readers to integrate information from dense or lengthy text that

contains no organizational aids such as headings. Readers may also

be asked to generate a response based on information that can be

easily identified in the text. Distracting information is present, but is

not located near the correct information.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 298

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 32%

One of the easier Level 3 tasks requires the reader to write a brief letter

explaining that an error has been made on a credit card bill. This task is at 280

on the prose scale. Other tasks in this level require the reader to search fairly

dense text for information. Some of the tasks ask respondents to make a literal

or synonymous match on more than a single feature, while other tasks ask them

to integrate multiple pieces of information from a long passage that does not

contain organizational aids.

One of the more difficult Level 3 tasks (with a difficulty value of 316)

requires the reader to read a magazine article about an Asian-American woman

and to provide two facts that support an inference made from the text. The

question directs the reader to identify what Ida Chen did to help resolve

conflicts due to discrimination.

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

List two things that Chen became involved in or has

done to help resolve conflicts due to discrimination.
Appendix A ...... 157

IDA CHEN is the first Asian-American woman to

become a judge of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

then moved on to become the first

Asian-American to serve on the

Philadelphia Commission on Human

Relations.

Appointed by Mayor Wilson Goode,

Chen worked with community leaders

to resolve racial and ethnic tensions and

also made time to contribute free legal

counsel to a variety of activist groups.

The ‘‘Help Wanted’’ section of the

newspaper contained an entry that

aroused Chen’s curiosity — an ad for a

judge’s position. Her application

resulted in her selection by a state

judicial committee to fill a seat in the

state court. And in July of 1988, she

officially became a judge of the Court of

Common Pleas. Running as both a

Republican and Democratic candidate,

her position was secured when she won

her seat on the bench at last November’s election.

At Family Court, Chen presides over

criminal and civil cases which include

adult sex crimes, domestic violence,

juvenile delinquency, custody, divorce

and support. Not a pretty picture.

Chen recalls her first day as judge,

hearing a juvenile dependency case —

‘‘It was a horrifying experience. I broke

down because the cases were so

depressing,’’ she remembers.

Outside of the courtroom, Chen has

made a name for herself in resolving

interracial conflicts, while glorying in

her Chinese-American identity. In a

1986 incident involving the desecration

of Korean street signs in a Philadelphia

neighborhood, Chen called for a

meeting with the leaders of that

community to help resolve the conflict.

Chen’s interest in community

advocacy is not limited to Asian

communities. She has been involved in

Hispanic, Jewish and Black issues, and

because of her participation in the

Ethnic Affairs Committee of the AntiDefamation League of B’nai B’rith,

Chen was one of 10 women nationwide

selected to take part in a mission to

Israel.

With her recently won mandate to

judicate in the affairs of Pennsylvania’s

citizens, Chen has pledged to work

tirelessly to defend the rights of its

people and contribute to the improvement of human welfare. She would have

made a fabulous Brownie.

— Jessica Schultz

She understands S

discrimination because she

has experienced it herself.

Soft-spoken and eminently dignified,

Judge Ida Chen prefers hearing about a

new acquaintance rather than talking

about herself. She wants to know about

career plans, hopes, dreams, fears. She

gives unsolicited advice as well as

encouragement. She instills confidence.

Her father once hoped that she

would become a professor. And she

would have also made an outstanding

social worker or guidance counselor.

The truth is that Chen wears the caps of

all these professions as a Family Court

judge of the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County, as a participant in

public advocacy for minorities, and as a

particularly sensitive, caring person.

She understands discrimination

because she has experienced it herself.

As an elementary school student, Chen

tried to join the local Brownie troop.

‘‘You can’t be a member,’’ she was told.

‘‘Only American girls are in the

Brownies.’’

Originally intent upon a career as a

journalist, she selected Temple University because of its outstanding journalism department and affordable tuition.

Independence being a personal need, she

paid for her tuition by working for

Temple’s Department of Criminal

Justice. There she had her first encounter with the legal world and it turned

her career plans in a new direction —

law school.

Through meticulous planning, Chen

was able to earn her undergraduate

degree in two and a half years and she

continued to work three jobs. But when

she began her first semester as a Temple

law student in the fall of 1973, she was

barely able to stay awake. Her teacher

Lynne Abraham, now a Common Pleas

Court judge herself, couldn’t help but

notice Chen yawning in the back of the

class, and when she determined that

this student was not a party animal but

a workhorse, she arranged a teaching

assistant’s job for Chen on campus.

After graduating from Temple Law

School in 1976, Chen worked for the

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission where she was a litigator

on behalf of plaintiffs who experienced

discrimination in the workplace, and

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
158 ...... Appendix A

Prose Level 4 Scale range: 326 to 375

These tasks require readers to perform multiple-feature matches and

to integrate or synthesize information from complex or lengthy

passages. More complex inferences are needed to perform

successfully. Conditional information is frequently present in tasks in

this level and must be taken into consideration by the reader.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 352

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 17%

A prose task with a difficulty value of 328 requires the reader to synthesize

the repeated statements of an argument from a newspaper column in order to

generate a theme or organizing principle. In this instance, the supporting

statements are elaborated in different parts of a lengthy text.

A more challenging task (with a difficulty value of 359) directs the reader

to contrast the two opposing views stated in the newspaper feature reprinted

here that discusses the existence of technologies that can be used to produce

more fuel-efficient cars.

Contrast Dewey’s and Hanna’s views about the

existence of technologies that can be used to

produce more fuel-efficient cars while maintaining

the size of the cars.

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
Appendix A ...... 159

Face-Off: Getting More Miles Per 

Demand cars with

better gas mileage

Don’t deman

to cars people 

prove gas mileage — while maintainingthe 1987 levels of comfort, performanceand size mix of vehicles. Automakers alsohave the ability to make their productssafer. The cost of these improvementswill be offset by savings at the gas pump!

Cars can average 45 mpg and light

trucks 35 mpg primarily by utilizing engine and transmission technologies already on a few cars today. Further improvements are possible by using technologies like the two-stroke engine andbetter aerodynamics that have been developed but not used.

When the current vehicle efficiency

standards were proposed in 1974, Fordwrongly predicted that they “would require either all sub-Pinto-sized vehiclesor some mix of vehicles ranging from asub-subcompact to perhaps a Maverick.”At that time, Congress required a 100%efficiency increase; raising gas mileageto 45 mpg requires only a 60% increase.

Americans want comfortable, safe and

efficient cars. If automakers won’t provide them, Congress must mandate themwhen it considers the issue this summer.

Let’s hope lawmakers put the best interest of the environment and the nation

ahead of the automakers’ lobbyists andpolitical action committees.________________Robert Dewey is a conservation analyst for the Environmental Action Foundation.Reprinted by permission of USA Today.

By Thomas H. HannaGuest columnist

DETROIT — Do Americans look forward to the day when they’ll have to haul

groceries, shuttle the kids to and fromschool or take family vacations in compactand subcompact cars?

I doubt it — which is why U.S. and

import carmakers oppose the 40-milesper-gallon to 45 mpg corporate averagefuel economy mandates that some arepushing in Congress, either to curb tailpipecarbon dioxide emissions because of allegedglobal warming or for energy conservation.

Since the mid-1970s, automakers have

doubled the fleet average fuel economy ofnew cars to 28 mpg — and further progresswill be made.

Compact and subcompact cars with

mileage of 40 mpg or better are nowavailable, yet they appeal to only 5% ofU.S. car buyers.

But to achieve a U.S. fleet average of 40

mpg to 45 mpg, carmakers would have tosharply limit the availability of familysize models and dramatically trim the sizeand weight of most cars.

There simply are not magic technologies to meet such a standard.Almost every car now sold in the USA

would hand man

As a re

be unablfor theimodels, small tru

The fle

pacts coubly plantat a cost 

Althou

are skepdeserves evaluatioaction.

Carbon 

hicles to“greenhocorporatcars — if those gas

Whate

global wathe stakecans and istic cormandate________

Thomas Hofficer of thtion of the Reprinted 

By Robert DeweyGuest columnist

WASHINGTON — Warning: Automakers are resurrecting their heavymetal dinosaurs, aka gas guzzlers.Government reports show that average

new-car mileage has declined to 28.2 milesper gallon — the 1986 level. To reversethis trend, Congress must significantlyincrease existing gas-mileage standards.

More than half our Nobel laureates

and 700 members of the National Academy of Sciences recently called globalwarming “the most serious environmental threat of the 21st century.” In 1989,oil imports climbed to a near-record 46%of U.S. consumption. Increasing gasmileage is the single biggest step we cantake to reduce oil imports and curb globalwarming. Greater efficiency also lowersour trade deficit (oil imports represent40% of it) and decreases the need to drillin pristine areas.

Bigger engines and bigger cars mean

bigger profits for automakers, who offerus the products they want us to buy.More than ever, Americans want products that have less of an environmentalimpact. But with only a few fuel-efficientcars to choose from, how do we find onesthat meet all our needs?

Government studies show automakers

have the technology to dramatically im1

1234567890123456789012

234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
160 ...... Appendix A

Two other tasks in Level 4 on the prose scale require the reader to draw

on background knowledge in responding to questions asked about two poems.

In one they are asked to generate an unfamiliar theme from a short poem

(difficulty value of 362), and in the other they are asked to compare two

metaphors (value of 374).

Prose Level 5 Scale range: 376 to 500

Some tasks in this level require the reader to search for information in

dense text which contains a number of plausible distractors. Others

ask readers to make high-level inferences or use specialized

background knowledge. Some tasks ask readers to contrast complex

information.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 423

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 3%

Two tasks in Level 5 require the reader to search for information in dense

text containing several plausible distractors. One such task (difficulty value of

410) requires the respondent to read information about jury selection and

service. The question requires the reader to interpret information to identify

two ways in which prospective jurors may be challenged.

Identify and summarize the two kinds of challenges

that attorneys use while selecting members of a jury.

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
Appendix A ...... 161

DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

QUESTION: What is the new program for

scheduling jurors?

ANSWER: This is a new way of organizing

and scheduling jurors that is being introduced all over the country. The goals of

this program are to save money, increase

the number of citizens who are summoned

to serve and decrease the inconvenience

of serving.

The program means that instead of calling jurors for two weeks, jurors now serve

only one day, or for the length of one trial

if they are selected to hear a case. Jurors

who are not selected to hear a case are

excused at the end of the day, and their

obligations to serve as jurors are fulfilled

for three years. The average trial lasts

two days once testimony begins.

An important part of what is called the

One Day – One Trial program is the

‘’standby’’ juror. This is a person called to

the Courthouse if the number of cases to

be tried requires more jurors than originally estimated. Once called to the Courthouse, the standby becomes a ‘’regular”

juror, and his or her service is complete at

the end of one day or one trial, the same

as everyone else.

Q. How was I summoned?

A. The basic source for names of eligible

jurors is the Driver’s License list which is

supplemented by the voter registration

list. Names are chosen from these combined lists by a computer in a completely

random manner.

Once in the Courthouse, jurors are

selected for a trial by this same computer

and random selection process.

Q. How is the Jury for a particular trial

selected?

A. When a group of prospective jurors is

selected, more than the number needed

for a trial are called. Once this group has

been seated in the courtroom, either the

Judge or the attorneys ask questions.

This is called voir dire. The purpose of

questions asked during voir dire is to

ensure that all of the jurors who are

selected to hear the case will be unbiased, objective and attentive.

In most cases, prospective jurors will be

asked to raise their hands when a particular question applies to them. Examples of

questions often asked are: Do you know

the Plaintiff, Defendant or the attorneys in

this case? Have you been involved in a

case similar to this one yourself? Where

the answer is yes, the jurors raising hands

may be asked additional questions, as

the purpose is to guarantee a fair trial for

all parties. When an attorney believes

that there is a legal reason to excuse a

juror, he or she will challenge the juror for

cause. Unless both attorneys agree that

the juror should be excused, the Judge

must either sustain or override the challenge.

After all challenges for cause have been

ruled upon, the attorneys will select the

trial jury from those who remain by exercising peremptory challenges. Unlike

challenges for cause, no reason need be

given for excusing a juror by peremptory

challenge. Attorneys usually exercise

these challenges by taking turns striking

names from a list until both are satisfied

with the jurors at the top of the list or until

they use up the number of challenges

allowed. Challenged jurors and any extra

jurors will then be excused and asked to

return to the jury selection room.

Jurors should not feel rejected or insulted

if they are excused for cause by the Court

or peremptorily challenged by one of the

attorneys. The voir dire process and

challenging of jurors is simply our judicial

system’s way of guaranteeing both parties to a lawsuit a fair trial.

Q. Am I guaranteed to serve on a jury?

A. Not all jurors who are summoned actually

hear a case. Sometimes all the Judges

are still working on trials from the previous day, and no new jurors are chosen.

Normally, however, some new cases begin

every day. Sometimes jurors are challenged and not selected.

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
162 ...... Appendix A

A somewhat more demanding task (difficulty value of 423) involves the

magazine article on Ida Chen reproduced earlier. This more challenging task

requires the reader to explain the phrase “recently won mandate” used at the

end of the text. To explain this phrase, the reader needs to understand the

concept of a political mandate as it applies to Ida Chen and the way she is

portrayed in this article.

Document Literacy

Another important aspect of being literate in modern society is having the

knowledge and skills needed to process information from documents. We often

encounter tables, schedules, charts, graphs, maps, and forms in everyday life,

both at home and at work. In fact, researchers have found that many of us

spend more time reading documents than any other type of material.2

 The

ability to locate and use information from documents is therefore essential.

Success in processing documents appears to depend at least in part on the

ability to locate information in complex arrays and to use this information in

the appropriate ways. Procedural knowledge may be needed to transfer

information from one source or document to another, as is necessary in

completing applications or order forms.

The NALS document literacy scale contains 81 tasks with difficulty values

that range from 69 to 396 on the scale. By examining tasks associated with

various proficiency levels, we can identify characteristics that appear to make

certain types of document tasks more or less difficult for readers. Questions

and directives associated with these tasks are basically of four types: locating,

cycling, integrating, and generating. Locating tasks require the readers to

match one or more features of information stated in the question to either

identical or synonymous information given in the document. Cycling tasks

require the reader to locate and match one or more features, but differ in that

they require the reader to engage in a series of feature matches to satisfy

conditions given in the question. The integrating tasks typically require the

reader to compare and contrast information in adjacent parts of the document.

In the generating tasks, readers must produce a written response by processing

information found in the document and also making text-based inferences or

drawing on their own background knowledge.

2 J.T. Guthrie, M. Seifert, and I.S. Kirsch. (1986). “Effects of Education, Occupation, and Setting on Reading

Practices.” American Educational Research Journal, 23. pp. 151-160.
Appendix A ...... 163

As with the prose tasks, each type of question or directive extends over a

range of difficulty as a result of interactions among several variables or task

characteristics that include:

• the number of categories or features of information in the question that the

reader has to process or match

• the number of categories or features of information in the document that

can serve to distract the reader or that may seem plausible but are incorrect

• the extent to which the information asked for in the question is obviously

related to the information stated in the document and

• the structure of the document

A more detailed discussion of the five levels of document literacy is

provided in the following pages.

Document Level 1 Scale range: 0 to 225

Tasks in this level tend to require the reader either to locate a piece of

information based on a literal match or to enter information from

personal knowledge onto a document. Little, if any, distracting

information is present.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 195

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 23%

Some of the Level 1 tasks require the reader to match one piece of

information in the directive with an identical or synonymous piece of

information in the document. For example, readers may be asked to write a

piece of personal background information — such as their name or age — in

the appropriate place on a document. One task with a difficulty value of 69

directs individuals to look at a Social Security card and sign their name on the

line marked “signature.” Tasks such as this are quite simple, since only one

piece of information is required, it is known to the respondent, and there is

only one logical place on the document where it may be entered.
164 ..... . Appendix A

Here is a Social Security card. Sign your name on

the line that reads "signature".

Respondents are given a copy of a Social Security

card to complete this task.

Other tasks in this level are slightly more complex. For example, in one

task, readers were asked to complete a section of a job application by providing

several pieces of information. This was more complicated than the previous

task described, since respondents had to conduct a series of one-feature

matches. As a result, the difficulty value of this task was higher (193).

You have gone to an employment center for help in finding a

job. You know that this center handles many different kinds of

jobs. Also, several of your friends who have applied here have

found jobs that appeal to you.

The agent has taken your name and address and given you

the rest of the form to fill out. Complete the form so the

employment center can help you get a job.

Birth date _____________ Age _____ Sex: Male ___ Female___

Height _______ Weight_______ Health ____________

Last grade completed in school _____________

Kind of work wanted:

Part-time ________ Summer ________

Full-time ________ Year -round ________
Appendix A ...... 165

Other tasks in this level ask the reader to locate specific elements in a

document that contains a variety of information. In one task, for example,

respondents were given a form providing details about a meeting and asked to

indicate the date and time of the meeting, which were stated in the form. The

difficulty values associated with these tasks were 187 and 180, respectively. The

necessary information was referred to only once in the document.

Document Level 2 Scale range: 226 to 275

Tasks in this level are more varied than those in Level 1. Some require

the reader to match a single piece of information; however, several

distractors may be present, or the match may require low-level

inferences. Tasks in this level may also ask the reader to cycle through

information in a document or to integrate information from various

parts of a document.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 249

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 28%

Some tasks in Level 2 ask readers to match two pieces of information in

the text. For example, one task with a difficulty value of 275 directs the

respondent to look at a pay stub and to write “the gross pay for this year to

date.” To perform the task successfully, respondents must match both “gross

pay” and “year to date” correctly. If readers fail to match on both features, they

are likely to indicate an incorrect amount.

What is the gross pay for this year to date?

Reduced from original copy.

500 500

REGULAR 2ND SHIFT OVERTIME TOTAL

HOURS 03/15/85

CURRENT 62500 62500

YEAR TO DATE

PERIOD ENDING

REGULAR OVERTIME GROSS DEF. ANN

426885

NET PAY

45988

FED. W/H STATE W/H CITY W/H FICA

CURRENT

YEAR TO

DATE

TAX DEDUCTIONS

10894 1375 3831

73498 26167 8250

NON-NEGOTIABLE

CR UNION UNITED FD

OTHER DEDUCTIONS

PERS INS. MISC. MISC

CODE

OTHER DEDUCTIONS

CODE TYPE AMOUNT CODE TYPE AMOUNT

0 7 DEN 412

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
166 ...... Appendix A

A second question based on this document — What is the current net

pay? — was also expected to require readers to make a two-feature match.

Accordingly, the difficulty values of the two items were expected to be similar.

The task anchored at about the 224 point on the scale, however, and an analysis

of the pay stub reveals why its difficulty was lower than that of the previous

task. To succeed on the second task, the reader only needs to match on the

feature “net pay.” Since the term appears only once on the pay stub and there

is only one number in the column, this task requires only a one-feature match

and receives a difficulty value that lies within the Level 1 range on the

document scale.

Tasks in Level 2 may also require the reader to integrate information from

different parts of the document by looking for similarities or differences. For

example, a task with a difficulty value of 260 asks respondents to study a line

graph showing a company’s seasonal sales over a three-year period, then predict

the level of sales for the following year, based on the seasonal trends shown in

the graph.

You are a marketing manager for a small

manufacturing firm. This graph shows your

company’s sales over the last three years. Given the

seasonal pattern shown on the graph, predict the

sales for Spring 1985 (in thousands) by putting an “x”

on the graph.

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

Reduced from original copy.
Appendix A ...... 167

Document Level 3 Scale range: 276 to 325

Some tasks in this level require the reader to integrate multiple pieces

of information from one or more documents. Others ask readers to

cycle through rather complex tables or graphs which contain

information that is irrelevant or inappropriate to the task.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 302

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 31%

Tasks within the range for Level 3 ask the reader to locate particular

features in complex displays, such as tables that contain nested information.

Typically, distractor information is present in the same row or column as the

correct answer. For example, the reader might be asked to use a table that

summarizes appropriate uses for a variety of products, and then choose which

product to use for a certain project. One such task had a difficulty value of 303.

To perform this task successfully, the respondent uses a table containing nested

information to determine the type of sandpaper to buy if one needs “to smooth

wood in preparation for sealing and plans to buy garnet sandpaper.” This task

requires matching not only on more than a single feature of information but

also on features that are not always superordinate categories in the document.

For example, “preparation for sealing” is subordinated or nested under the

category “wood,” while the type of sandpaper is under the main heading of

“garnet.” In addition, there are three other types of sandpaper that the reader

might select that partially satisfy the directive.
168 ...... Appendix A

You need to smooth wood in preparation for sealing

and plan to buy garnet sandpaper. What type of

sandpaper should you buy?

At the same level of difficulty (307), another task directs the reader to a

stacked bar graph depicting estimated power consumption by source for four

different years. The reader is asked to select an energy source that will provide

more power in the year 2000 than it did in 1971. To succeed on this task, the

reader must first identify the correct years and then compare each of the five

pairs of energy sources given.

Document Level 4 Scale range: 326 to 375

Tasks in this level, like those in the previous levels, ask readers to

perform multiple-feature matches, cycle through documents, and

integrate information; however, they require a greater degree of

inferencing. Many of these tasks require readers to provide numerous

responses but do not designate how many responses are needed.

Conditional information is also present in the document tasks in this

level and must be taken into account by the reader.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 340

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 15%

12345678901234567890123 12345678901234567890123

12345678901234567890123

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

Reduced from original
Appendix A ...... 169

One task in this level (348) combines many of the variables that contribute

to difficulty in Level 4. These include: multiple feature matching, complex

displays involving nested information, numerous distractors, and conditional

information that must be taken into account in order to arrive at a correct

response. Using the bus schedule shown here, readers are asked to select the

time of the next bus on a Saturday afternoon, if they miss the 2:35 bus leaving

Hancock and Buena Ventura going to Flintridge and Academy. Several

departure times are given, from which respondents must choose the correct

one.

On Saturday afternoon, if you miss the 2:35 bus

leaving Hancock and Buena Ventura going to

Flintridge and Academy, how long will you have to

wait for the next bus?

Leave

Hancock

and

Buena

Ventura

Leave

Citadel

Leave

Rustic

Hills

Leave

North

Carefree

and

Oro Blanco

Arrive

Flintridge

and

Academy

Leave

Flintridge

and

Academy

Leave

North

Carefree

and

Oro Blanco

Leave

Rustic

Hills

Leave

Citadel

Leave

Hancock

and

Buena

Ventura

Leave

Downtown

Terminal

Arrive

Downtown

Terminal

OUTBOUND

from Terminal

INBOUND

toward Terminal

ROUTE

5 VISTA GRANDE

This bus line operates Monday through Saturday providing “local service”

to most neighborhoods in the northeast section.

Buses run thirty minutes apart during the morning and afternoon rush hours Monday through Friday.

Buses run one hour apart at all other times of day and Saturday.

No Sunday, holiday or night service.

You can transfer from this bus

to another headed anywhere

else in the city bus system

AM

PM

6:20

6:50

7:20

7:50

8:20

8:50

9:20

10:20

11:20

6:15

6:45

7:15

7:45

8:15

8:45

9:15

9:45

10:15

11:15

12:15

6:27

6:57

7:27

7:57

8:27

8:57

9:27

9:57

10:27

11:27

12:27

6:42

7:12

7:42

8:12

8:42

9:12

9:42

10:12

10:42

11:42

12:42 p.m.

6:47

7:17

7:47

8:17

8:47

9:17

9:47

10:17

10:47

11:47

12:47 p.m.

6:57

7:27

7:57

8:27

8:57

9:27

9:57

10:27

10:57

11:57

12:57 p.m.

7:15

7:45

8:15

8:45

9:15

9:45

10:15

10:45

11:15

12:15

 1:15 p.m.

Monday through Friday only

Monday through Friday only

Monday through Friday only

Monday through Friday only

6:35

7:05

7:35

8:05

8:35

9:05

9:35

10:35

11:35

6:45

7:15

7:45

8:15

8:45

9:15

9:45

10:45

11:45

6:50

7:20

7:50

8:20

8:50

9:20

9:50

10:50

11:50

7:03

7:33

8:03

8:33

9:03

9:33

10:03

11:03

12:03

7:15

7:45

8:15

8:45

9:15

9:45

10:15

11:15

12:15

12:20

1:20

2:20

2:50

3:20

3:50

4:20

4:50

5:20

5:50

6:20

12:35

1:35

2:35

3:05

3:35

4:05

4:35

5:05

5:35

6:05

6:35

12:45

1:45

2:45

3:15

3:45

4:15

4:45

5:15

5:45

6:15

6:45

12:50

1:50

2:50

3:20

3:50

4:20

4:50

5:20

5:50

6:20

6:50

1:03

2:03

3:03

3:33

4:03

4:33

5:03

5:33

6:03

6:33

7:03

1:15

2:15

3:15

3:45

4:15

4:45

5:15

5:45

6:15

6:45

7:15

1:15

2:15

3:15

3:45

4:15

4:45

5:15

5:45

1:27

2:27

3:27

3:57

4:27

4:57

5:27

5:57

1:42

2:42

3:42

4:12

4:42

4:12

5:42

6:12

1:47

2:47

3:47

4:17

4:47

4:17

5:47

6:17

1:57

2:57

3:57

4:27

4:57

5:27

5:57

6:27

2:15

3:15

4:15

4:45

5:15

5:45

6:15

6:45

Monday through Friday only

Monday through Friday only

Monday through Friday only

Monday through Friday only

To be sure of a smooth transfer

tell the driver of this buss the name

of the second bus you need.

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
170 ...... Appendix A

Other tasks involving this bus schedule are found in Level 3. These tasks

require the reader to match on fewer features of information and do not

involve the use of conditional information.

Document Level 5 Scale range: 376 to 500

Tasks in this level require the reader to search through complex

displays that contain multiple distractors, to make high-level textbased inferences, and to use specialized knowledge.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 391

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 3%

A task receiving a difficulty value of 396 involves reading and

understanding a table depicting the results from a survey of parents and

teachers evaluating parental involvement in their school. Respondents were

asked to write a brief paragraph summarizing the results. This particular task

requires readers to integrate the information in the table to compare and

contrast the viewpoints of parents and teachers on a selected number of

school issues.

Using the information in the table, write a brief

paragraph summarizing the extent to which parents

and teachers agreed or disagreed on the statements

about issues pertaining to parental involvement at

their school.

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1 2

1234567890123456789012
Appendix A ...... 171

Quantitative Literacy

Since adults are often required to perform numerical operations in everyday

life, the ability to perform quantitative tasks is another important aspect of

literacy. These abilities may seem, at first glance, to be fundamentally different

from the types of skills involved in reading prose and documents and,

therefore, to extend the concept of literacy beyond its traditional limits.

However, research indicates that the processing of printed information plays a

critical role in affecting the difficulty of tasks along this scale.3

Parents and Teachers Evaluate Parental

Involvement at Their School

Do you agree or disagree that . . . ?

Level of School

Total Elementary Junior High High School

percent agreeing

Our school does a good job of

encouraging parental involvement in

sports, arts, and other nonsubject areas

Parents 77 76 74 79

Teac her s 77 73 77 85

Our school does a good job of

encouraging parental involvement in

educational areas

Parents 73 82 71 64

Teac her s 80 84 78 70

Our school only contacts parents

when there is a problem with their child

Parents 55 46 62 63

Teac her s 23 18 22 33

Our school does not give parents the

opportunity for any meaningful roles

Parents 22 18 22 28

Teac her s 8 8 12 7

Source: The Metropolitan Life Survey of the American Teacher, 1987

3 I.S. Kirsch and A. Jungeblut. (1986). Literacy: Profiles of America’s Young Adults, Final Report. Princeton,

NJ: Educational Testing Service. I.S. Kirsch, A. Jungeblut, and A. Campbell. (1992). Beyond the School

Doors: The Literacy Needs of Job Seekers Served by the U.S. Department of Labor. Princeton, NJ:

Educational Testing Service.

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
172 ...... Appendix A

The NALS quantitative literacy scale contains some 43 tasks with difficulty

values that range from 191 to 436. The difficulty of these tasks appears to be a

function of several factors, including:

• the particular arithmetic operation called for

• the number of operations needed to perform the task

• the extent to which the numbers are embedded in printed materials and

• the extent to which an inference must be made to identify the type of

operation to be performed

In general, it appears that many individuals can perform simple arithmetic

operations when both the numbers and operations are made explicit. However,

when the numbers to be used must be located in and extracted from different

types of documents that contain similar but irrelevant information, or when the

operations to be used must be inferred from printed directions, the tasks

become increasingly difficult.

A detailed discussion of the five levels of quantitative literacy is provided

on the following pages.

Quantitative Level 1 Scale range: 0 to 225

Tasks in this level require readers to perform single, relatively simple

arithmetic operations, such as addition. The numbers to be used are

provided and the arithmetic operation to be performed is specified.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 206

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 22%

The least demanding task on the quantitative scale (191) requires the

reader to total two numbers on a bank deposit slip. In this task, both the

numbers and the arithmetic operation are judged to be easily identified and the

operation involves the simple addition of two decimal numbers that are set up

in column format.
Appendix A ...... 173 DO NOT DETACH TICKET

DO NOT FOLD NO COINS OR PAPER CLIPS PLEASE

You wish to use the automatic teller machine at your

bank to make a deposit. Figure the total amount of

the two checks being deposited. Enter the amount

on the form in the space next to TOTAL.

Quantitative Level 2 Scale range: 226 to 275

Tasks in this level typically require readers to perform a single

operation using numbers that are either stated in the task or easily

located in the material. The operation to be performed may be stated

in the question or easily determined from the format of the material

(for example, an order form).

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 251

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 25%

In the easier tasks in Level 2, the quantities are also easy to locate. In one

such task at 246 on the quantitative scale, the cost of a ticket and bus is given

for each of two shows. The reader is directed to determine how much less

attending one show will cost in comparison to the other.

Availability of Deposits

Funds from deposits may not be available for immediate withdrawal. Please refer to

your institution’s rules governing funds availability for details.

Crediting of deposits and payments is subject to verification and collection of actual amounts

deposited or paid in accordance with the rules and regulations of your financial institution.

PLEASE PRINT

YOUR MAC CARD NUMBER (No PINs PLEASE)

YOUR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION

YOUR ACCOUNT NUMBER

YOUR NAME

CHECK ONE DEPOSIT

or

 PAYMENT

111 222 333 4

Union Bank

987 555 674

Chris Jones

CASH $ 00

LIST CHECKS ENDORSE WITH NAME

BY BANK NO. & ACCOUNT NUMBER

TOTAL

557 19

 75 00

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1 2

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1 2

1234567890123456789012
174 ...... Appendix A

The price of one ticket and bus for “Sleuth” costs

how much less than the price of one ticket and bus

for “On the Town”?

THEATER TRIP

A charter bus will leave from the bus stop (near the Conference Center)

at 4 p.m., giving you plenty of time for dinner in New York. Return trip

will start from West 45th Street directly following the plays. Both theaters

are on West 45th Street. Allow about 11⁄2 hours for the return trip.

Time: 4 p.m., Saturday, November 20

Price: “On the Town” Ticket and bus $11.00

“Sleuth” Ticket and bus $8.50

Limit: Two tickets per person

In a more complex set of tasks, the reader is directed to complete an order

form for office supplies using a page from a catalogue. No other specific

instructions as to what parts of the form should be completed are given in the

directive. One task (difficulty value of 270) requires the reader to use a table on

the form to locate the appropriate shipping charges based on the amount of a

specified set of office supplies, to enter the correct amount on an order form,

and then to calculate the total price of the supplies.

Quantitative Level 3 Scale range: 276 to 325

In tasks in this level, two or more numbers are typically needed to

solve the problem, and these must be found in the material. The

operation(s) needed can be determined from the arithmetic relation

terms used in the question or directive.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 293

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 31%

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
Appendix A ...... 175

In general, tasks within the range for Level 3 ask the reader to perform a

single operation of addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division. However,

the operation is not stated explicitly in the directive or made clear by the

format of the document. Instead, it must be inferred from the terms used in

the directive. These tasks are also more difficult because the reader must locate

the numbers in various parts of the document in order to perform the

operation.

From a bar graph showing percentages of population growth for two

groups across six periods, a task at the 279 point on the scale directs the reader

to calculate the difference between the groups for one of the years.

A more difficult task in Level 3 (321) requires the use of a bus schedule to

determine how long it takes to travel from one location to another on a

Saturday. To respond correctly, the reader must match on several features of

information given in the question to locate the appropriate times.

Suppose that you took the 12:45 p.m. bus from

U.A.L.R. Student Union to 17th and Main on a

Saturday. According to the schedule, how many

minutes is the bus ride?

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
176 ...... Appendix A

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

Reduced from original copy.

BUS LEAVES Bus arrives Bus arrives BUS ENDS

from at at at

U.A.L.R. 20th & 17th & Capitol &

Student Union Woodrow Main Louisiana

WEEKDAYS

A.M. 5:38 5:51 6:00 6:09

6:11 6:25 6:35 6:45

6:41 6:55 7:05 7:15

7:11 7:25 7:35 7:45

7:41 7:55 8:05 8:15

8:11 8:25 8:35 8:45

8:41 8:55 9:05 9:15

9:14 9:27 9:36 9:45

9:44 9:57 10:06 10:15

10:14 10:27 10:36 10:45

10:44 10:57 11:06 11:15

11:14 11:27 11:36 11:45

11:44 11:57 12:06 12:15

P.M. 12:14 12:27 12:36 12:45

12:44 12:57 1:06 1:15

1:14 1:27 1:36 1:45

1:44 1:57 2:06 2:15

2:14 2:27 2:36 2:45

2:44 2:57 3:06 3:15

3:14 3:27 3:36 3:45

3:43 3:56 4:05 4:15

4:13 4:26 4:35 4:45

4:43 4:56 5:05 5:15

5:13 5:26 5:35 5:45

5:45 5:58 6:07 6:17

6:11 6:22 6:30 –

6:46 6:57 7:05 –

SATURDAY

A.M. 5:38 5:51 6:00 6:09

6:45 6:57 7:06 7:15

7:45 7:57 8:06 8:15

8:45 8:57 9:06 9:15

9:45 9:57 10:06 10:15

10:45 10:57 11:06 11:15

11:45 11:57 12:06 12:15

P.M. 12:45 12:57 1:06 1:15

1:45 1:57 2:06 2:15

2:45 2:57 3:06 3:15

3:45 3:57 4:06 4:15

4:45 4:57 5:06 5:15

5:45 5:57 6:06 6:15

6:44 6:56 7:05 –

Going TOWARD Downtown

6

5

4

DOWNTOWN

LITTLE ROCK

DUNBAR

JR. HIGH

STEPHENS

ELEMENTARY

Governor’s

Mansion

Arkansas

Enterprises

for the Blind

University

of

Arkansas

Little Rock

LEAVE

HARRISON

LEWIS

WOODROW

NORTH

20TH WRIGHT

17TH

22ND

24TH

32NDFAIR PARK

8TH

4THCENTER

MAIN CAPITOL

HIGH

MAPLE

WASHINGTON

4 5 6 7

END 7

Going TOWARD Downtown

South Highland ROUTE

16 ROUTE

16
Appendix A ...... 177

Quantitative Level 4 Scale range: 326 to 375

These tasks tend to require readers to perform two or more sequential

operations or a single operation in which the quantities are found in

different types of displays, or the operations must be inferred from

semantic information given or drawn from prior knowledge.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 349

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 17%

One task in this level, with a difficulty value of 332, asks the reader to

estimate, based on information in a news article, how many miles per day a

driver covered in a sled-dog race. The respondent must know that to calculate

a “per day” rate requires the use of division.

A more difficult task (355) requires the reader to select from two unit

price labels to estimate the cost per ounce of creamy peanut butter. To perform

this task successfully, readers may have to draw some information from prior

knowledge.

Estimate the cost per ounce of the creamy peanut

butter. Write your estimate on the line provided.

Unit price You pay

11.8¢ per oz. 1.89

rich chnky pnt bt

10693 16 oz.

51144 09071

0

Unit price You pay

1.59 per lb. 1.99

creamy pnt butter

10732 20 oz. 0

51144 09071

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
178 ...... Appendix A

Quantitative Level 5 Scale range: 376 to 500

These tasks require readers to perform multiple operations

sequentially. They must disembed the features of the problem from

text or rely on background knowledge to determine the quantities or

operations needed.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 411

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 4%

One of the most difficult tasks on the quantitative scale (433) requires

readers to look at an advertisement for a home equity loan and then, using the

information given, explain how they would calculate the total amount of

interest charges associated with the loan.

You need to borrow $10,000. Find the ad for Home

Equity Loans on page 2 in the newspaper provided.

Explain to the interviewer how you would compute

the total amount of interest charges you would pay

under this loan plan. Please tell the interviewer

when you are ready to begin.

Reduced from original copy.

14.25%

SAMPLE MONTHLY REPAYMENT SCHEDULE

Amount Financed Monthly Payment

$10,000

$25,000

$40,000

$156.77

$391.93

$627.09

120 Months 14.25% APR

12345678901234567890123 12345678901234567890123

12345678901234567890123

1234567890123456789012 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012
Appendix A ...... 179

Successful Task Performance across the Literacy Levels

The main purpose of the literacy scales is to summarize how well adults can

perform on the full array of tasks in the assessment. The difficulty of the

assessment tasks increases proportionally with the progression of informationprocessing demands across the scales. The literacy levels provide a way not only

to explore this progression, but also to explore the likelihood that individuals in

each level will succeed on tasks of varying difficulty.

The following graphs (Figure A.2) display the probability that individuals

performing at selected points on each scale will give a correct response to tasks

with varying difficulty values. For example, a person whose prose proficiency is

150 has less than a 50 percent chance of giving a correct response to an average

prose task in Level 1, where the average task difficulty is 198. Individuals

whose scores were at the 200 point, on the other hand, have an almost 80

percent probability of responding correctly to these tasks.

In terms of task demands, adults performing at the 200 point on the prose

scale are likely to be able to locate a single piece of information in a brief piece

of text where there is no distracting information, or when any distracting

information is located apart from the desired information. They are likely to

have far more difficulty with the types of tasks that occur in Levels 2 through 5,

however. For example, they would have only about a 30 percent chance of

performing the average task in Level 2 correctly, where the average task

difficulty value is 259, and only about a 10 percent chance of success, or less,

on the more challenging tasks found in Levels 3, 4, and 5.

In contrast, readers at the 300 point on the prose scale have more than an

80 percent probability of success on tasks in Levels 1 and 2, and have close to

an 80 percent likelihood of success on tasks in Level 3, where the average task

difficulty value is 298. This means that they demonstrate consistent success

identifying information in fairly dense text without organizational aids. They

can also consistently integrate, compare, and contrast information that is easily

identified in the text. On the other hand, they are likely not to have mastered

tasks that require them to make higher level inferences, to take conditional

information into account, and to use specialized knowledge. The probabilities

of their successfully performing these Level 4 tasks, where the average task

difficulty value is 352, are just under 50 percent, and on the Level 5 tasks their

likelihood of responding correctly falls to less than 20 percent.

Similar interpretations can be made using the performance results on the

document and quantitative scales. For example, an individual with a

proficiency of 150 on the document scale is estimated to have less than a 50

percent chance of responding correctly to tasks in Level 1, where the average

task difficulty value is 195, and less than a 30 percent chance of responding
180 ...... Appendix A

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

Level 1

tasks

Average Probability Average Probability Average Probability

Level 2

tasks

Level 3

tasks

Level 4

tasks

Level 5

tasks

Level 1

tasks

Level 2

tasks

Level 3

tasks

Level 4

tasks

Level 5

tasks

Level 1

tasks

Level 2

tasks

Level 3

tasks

Level 4

tasks

Level 5

tasks

Average Probabilities of Successful Performance by Individuals with Selected Proficiency

Scores on the Tasks in Each Literacy Level

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

PROSE

DOCUMENT

QUANTITATIVE

Adults' Proficiency Scores: 150 200 250 300 350 400

NALS Figure A.2
Appendix A ...... 181

correctly to tasks in each of the higher levels. On the quantitative literacy scale,

adults with a proficiency of 150 are estimated to have only a 50 percent chance

of responding correctly to an average document task in Level 1, where the

average task difficulty is 206, and less than a 30 percent chance of responding

correctly to tasks in the other levels. Such individuals demonstrate little or no

proficiency in performing the range of quantitative tasks found in this

assessment. In contrast, adults with a quantitative score of 300 exceed the 80

percent criterion for the average tasks in Levels 1 and 2 and meet the 80

percent criterion for many of the tasks in Level 3. They can be expected to

encounter more difficulty with quantitative tasks in Levels 4 and 5.

Missing Responses to Literacy Tasks

In any educational, social, or political opinion survey, missing responses are

always present. Sometimes missing data can be ignored when tabulating and

reporting survey results. If the reasons the data are missing are related to the

outcome of the study, however, the missing responses will bias the results

unless some adjustment can be made to counter the bias. In this survey, there

were reasons to believe that the literacy performance data were missing more

often for adults with lower levels of literacy than for adults with higher levels.

Field test evidence and experience with surveys indicated that adults with

lower levels of literacy would be more likely than adults with higher

proficiencies either to decline to respond to the survey at all or to begin the

assessment but not to complete it. Ignoring the pattern of missing data would

have resulted in overestimating the literacy skills of adults in the United States.

For this survey, several procedures were developed to reduce biases due

to nonresponse, based on how much of the survey the respondent completed.3

Individuals who refused to participate in the survey before any information

about them was collected were omitted from the analyses. Because they were

unlikely to know that the survey intended to assess their literacy, it was

assumed that their reason for refusing was not related to their level of literacy

skills.

Some individuals began the interview, but stopped before they completed

at least five tasks on each literacy scale.4

 The interviewers were trained to

record accurately their reasons for stopping. The reasons were subsequently

3

For a full discussion of the procedures used in scoring, scaling, weighting, and handling nonresponse

problems, see the forthcoming Technical Report and Data File User’s Manual for the National Adult

Literacy Survey, NCES 1999-469. 4

Five was the minimum number of completed tasks needed for accurate proficiency estimation. No special

procedures were needed to estimate the proficiencies of those who broke off the assessment after

attempting five or more tasks on each scale.
182 ...... Appendix A

classified as either related or unrelated to literacy skills. Literacy-related

reasons included difficulty with reading or writing, inability to read or write in

English, and mental or learning disabilities. Reasons unrelated to literacy

included physical disabilities, time conflicts, and interruptions. Some adults

gave no reason for stopping the assessment.

Overall, 88 percent of respondents completed the assessment (at least five

tasks on each literacy scale). Twelve percent started the survey but stopped

before completing five tasks. About half of these individuals, or 6 percent of

the adult population, did not complete the assessment for reasons related to

their literacy skills, while the other 6 percent did not complete it for reasons

unrelated to literacy or for no stated reason.

The missing data were treated differently depending on whether

nonrespondents’ reasons were related or unrelated to their literacy skills. The

missing responses of those who gave literacy-related reasons for terminating

the assessment were treated as wrong answers, based on the assumption that

they could not have correctly completed the literacy tasks. The missing

responses of those who broke off the assessment for no stated reason or for

reasons unrelated to literacy were essentially ignored, since it could not be

assumed that their answers would have been either correct or incorrect. The

proficiencies of such respondents were inferred from the performance of other

adults with similar characteristics.

Table A.1 shows the proficiency scores resulting from these procedures.

Adults who completed the assessment had average proficiencies ranging from

279 to 285 on the three literacy scales. Because the missing responses of adults

who did not complete the assessment for reasons related to literacy were

treated as wrong answers, the average scores of these adults were considerably

lower, ranging from 114 to 124. Nearly all adults who terminated the

assessment for literacy-related reasons scored in the Level 1 range (below 225).

Adults who stopped for other reasons or for unstated reasons had scores

between those of the other two groups, ranging from 228 to 237. These adults

were not found only in the lowest literacy level, but were distributed across the

five levels.

It is likely that there were some errors in classifying nonrespondents’

reasons for not completing the assessment. Some adults may have given an

explanation that reflected badly on their literacy skills simply because they

found completing the assessment too burdensome. Perhaps they could have

performed better if they had they tried harder. The assumption that such adults

are unable to succeed with the literacy tasks may be too strong, and the

assignment of wrong answers may underestimate their skills. Other adults may

have anticipated failure in the assessment, yet concealed their lack of literacy
Appendix A ...... 183

TABLE A.1: Percentages and Average Proficiencies of Adults on Each Scale,

by Assessment Completion Status

Literacy scale

Prose Document Quantitative

Assessment completion status CPCT PROF (se) PROF (se) PROF (se)

Total 100 272 (0.6) 267 (0.7) 271 (0.7)

Completed assessment 88 285 (0.6) 279 (0.6) 284 (0.6)

Did not complete assessment

for literacy-related reasons 6 124 (1.5) 116 (1.4) 114 (1.9)

Did not complete assessment

for reasons unrelated to literacy 6 237 (3.0) 228 (2.8) 231 (3.6)

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; PROF = average proficiency; se = standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

skills by citing other reasons for not responding, or by refusing to explain their

reason. The assumption that these adults are just like others in their

demographic group may also be too strong, and the failure to assign wrong

answers may overestimate their skills. To some extent the errors can be

expected to counterbalance one another, but the available data are insufficient

to assess which kind of classification error occurred more often.

Performance in the Lowest Literacy Level

Level 1 is somewhat different from the other literacy levels. For Levels 2

through 5, adults who can consistently perform the tasks in a given level (that

is, at least 80 percent of the time) are said to perform in that level. For

example, adults in Level 2 have a high probability of success on the tasks in that

level, and more than an 80 percent likelihood of success on the Level 1 tasks.

Likewise, adults in Level 3 have a high probability of success on the tasks in

that level, as well as on the tasks in Levels 1 and 2.

Level 1, on the other hand, includes adults with a wide range of literacy

skills, including some who performed the Level 1 tasks consistently and others

who did not. Individuals who do not have an 80 percent probability of success

with Level 1 tasks are still grouped in Level 1. Thus, some but not all adults in

this level met the relatively undemanding requirements of the Level 1 tasks.

This section describes how many adults in Level 1 did not meet the demands of

the tasks in this level.
184 ...... Appendix A

The failure to perform correctly at least one of the literacy tasks can be

taken as an indicator of not being able to meet the demands of tasks in Level 1.

Table A.2 provides information on the size of the groups that met or did not

meet the relatively undemanding requirements of the Level 1 tasks.

Most adults in the lowest literacy level on each scale performed at least

one literacy task correctly. Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of adults in Level

1 on the prose scale performed at least one task correctly, as did 83 percent of

those in Level 1 on the document scale and 66 percent of those in Level 1 on

the quantitative scale. The difference in performance among the scales occurs

because the least difficult document task had a value of 68, while the least

difficult prose task had a value of 149 and the least difficult quantitative task

had a value of 191.

TABLE A.2: Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Scale of

Adults in Level 1

Literacy scale

Prose Document Quantitative

Performance CPCT PROF CPCT PROF CPCT PROF

Total in Level 1 100 173 100 172 100 167

At least one task correct 72 190 83 182 66 190

No tasks correct 21 113 11 94 26 110

No performance data 7 177 6 177 8 159

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; PROF = average proficiency.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

A small proportion of adults in Level 1 did not perform any literacy tasks

correctly. Some of these adults completed the survey, while others did not for

literacy-related or other reasons. Those who did not succeed on any literacy

tasks constitute 21 percent of adults in Level 1 on the prose scale, 11 percent of

adults in Level 1 on the document scale, and 26 percent of adults in Level 1 on

the quantitative scale. There are wide disparities in average proficiencies

between those who performed at least one task correctly (182 to 190 across the

scales) and those who did not (94 to 113 across the scales).

For some adults in Level 1 (6 to 8 percent) there are no literacy

performance data because they did not respond to any of the literacy tasks for

reasons unrelated to their literacy skills or for unknown reasons. These persons

could not be described as either meeting or failing to meet the demands of the

literacy tasks, so they are distinguished as a separate group. Their proficiencies
Appendix A ...... 185

were inferred from the performance of other adults with similar demographic

backgrounds and fell in the middle range between the other two groups.

Nearly all adults who correctly responded to at least one literacy task also

completed the assessment. Still, some adults broke off the assessment after

already having shown some initial success. Table A.3 divides adults in Level 1

who were successful with at least one task into two groups: those who

completed the assessment (at least five literacy tasks) and those who did not.

Across the scales, from 83 to 90 percent of those in Level 1 who correctly

responded to at least one task also completed the assessment. Their average

scores ranged from 192 to 196. The remainder (10 to 17 percent) performed at

least one task correctly before breaking off the assessment. Their average

scores were much lower, ranging from 132 to 153.

TABLE A.3: Percentages and Average Proficiencies of Adults in Level 1 With 

at Least One Task Correct, by Assessment Completion Status

Literacy scale

Prose Document Quantitative

Completion status CPCT PROF CPCT PROF CPCT PROF

Total in Level 1 with

at least one task correct 100 190 100 182 100 190

Completed assessment 87 196 83 192 90 194

Did not complete

assessment 13 153 17 132 10 153

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; PROF = average proficiency.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

The population of adults who scored in Level 1 on each scale includes not

only those who demonstrated success with at least some of the tasks in Level 1

— who constituted the majority — but also those who did not succeed with any

of the tasks in this level. Nearly all of those in Level 1 who did not perform any

literacy tasks correctly also failed to complete the assessment (86 to 98

percent), as shown in table A.4. Their average scores range from 93 to 107

across the scales. Most of these adults either did not start or broke off the

assessment for literacy-related reasons, so that any literacy tasks that remained

unanswered were treated as incorrect.
186 ...... Appendix A

TABLE A.4: Percentages and Average Proficiencies of Adults in Level 1

With no Tasks Correct, by Assessment Completion Status

Literacy scale

Prose Document Quantitative

Completion status CPCT PROF CPCT PROF CPCT PROF

Total in Level 1 with

no tasks correct 100 113 100 94 100 110

Completed assessment 14 148 2 ---- 14 146

Did not complete

assessment 86 107 98 93 86 98

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; PROF = average proficiency.

---- indicates that the cell size is too small to provide reliable proficiency estimates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Two to 14 percent of the adults in Level 1 who did not succeed on any of

the literacy tasks did, in fact, complete the assessment. Their average scores

were 148 on the prose scale and 146 on the quantitative scale; too few cases

were available to estimate an average document score.

The pattern of Level 1 proficiencies associated with various combinations

of missing and incorrect answers shows the consequences of including, rather

than excluding, adults who did not complete the assessment for literacy-related

reasons. In general, the very low scores of these adults bring down the average

for any group in which they are a significant component. Omitting these

persons from the assessment would have resulted in inflated estimates of the

literacy skills of the adult population overall and particularly of certain

subgroups.

Population Diversity within the Lowest Literacy Level

Certain populations of adults were disproportionately likely not to meet the

demands of the Level 1 tasks. This section describes the characteristics of

adults in Level 1 who did not meet the relatively undemanding requirements of

the tasks in this level. Tables A.5P, D, and Q provide information on the

demographic composition of the total adult population in this country, of adults

in Level 1 on each literacy scale, and of those adults in Level 1 who did not

succeed on any of the assessment tasks.
Appendix A ...... 187

TABLE A.5P: Percentages of Adults in Selected Groups, by Membership in Total 

U.S. Population, in Level 1, and in Level 1 With No Tasks Correct

Prose scale

Level 1

Total U.S. Level 1 no tasks

population population correct

Population group CPCT CPCT CPCT

Weighted sample size

(in millions) 191.3 40.0 8.2

Country of birth

Born in another country 10 25 (1.3) 55 (2.2)

Highest level of education

0 to 8 years 10 35 (1.6) 61 (2.3)

9 to 12 years 13 27 (1.3) 17 (1.5)

HS diploma or GED 30 24 (1.4) 14 (1.5)

Race/Ethnicity

White 76 51 (0.6) 29 (2.3)

Black 11 20 (1.0) 15 (1.4)

Hispanic 10 23 (1.4) 49 (2.1)

Asian/Pacific Islander 2 4 (3.9) 5 (0.9)

Age

16 to 24 years 18 13 (0.8) 10 (1.2)

65 years and older 16 33 (1.5) 28 (1.8)

Disability or condition

Any condition 12 26 (1.0) 26 (1.7)

Visual difficulty 7 19 (1.5) 20 (1.5)

Hearing difficulty 7 13 (1.6) 13 (2.0)

Learning disability 3 9 (2.1) 15 (1.4)

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; se = standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
188 ...... Appendix A

TABLE A.5D: Percentages of Adults in Selected Groups, by Membership in Total 

U.S. Population, in Level 1, and in Level 1 With No Tasks Correct

Document scale

Level 1

Total U.S. Level 1 no tasks

population population correct

Population group CPCT CPCT CPCT

Weighted sample size

(in millions) 191.3 44.0 4.7

Country of birth

Born in another country 10 22 (1.3) 67 (3.2)

Highest level of education

0 to 8 years 10 33 (1.5) 65 (3.1)

9 to 12 years 13 26 (1.5) 12 (1.7)

HS diploma or GED 30 26 (1.7) 13 (2.1)

Race/Ethnicity

White 76 54 (0.7) 21 (3.0)

Black 11 20 (0.9) 9 (1.1)

Hispanic 10 21 (1.7) 62 (3.2)

Asian/Pacific Islander 2 3 (3.2) 5 (1.6)

Age

16 to 24 years 18 11 (0.6) 11 (1.8)

65 years and older 16 35 (1.5) 25 (2.2)

Disability or condition

Any condition 12 26 (1.2) 22 (2.5)

Visual difficulty 7 18 (1.3) 17 (2.3)

Hearing difficulty 7 13 (2.0) 12 (2.0)

Learning disability 3 8 (2.3) 14 (1.6)

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; se = standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

While 10 percent of the adult population reported that they were born in

another country, from 22 to 25 percent of the individuals who performed in

Level 1 on the three scales and 54 to 67 percent of those in Level 1 who did

not perform any tasks correctly were foreign born. Some of these individuals

were undoubtedly recent immigrants with a limited command of English.
Appendix A ...... 189

TABLE A.5Q: Percentages of Adults in Selected Groups, by Membership in Total

 U.S. Population, in Level 1, and in Level 1 With No Tasks Correct

Quantitative scale

Level 1

Total U.S. Level 1 no tasks

population population correct

Population group CPCT CPCT CPCT

Weighted sample size

(in millions) 191.3 42.0 10.6

Country of birth

Born in another country 10 22 (1.2) 54 (2.0)

Highest level of education

0 to 8 years 10 33 (1.6) 58 (2.5)

9 to 12 years 13 27 (1.5) 20 (1.5)

HS diploma or GED 30 25 (1.6) 13 (1.3)

Race/Ethnicity

White 76 50 (0.5) 34 (2.2)

Black 11 23 (0.9) 19 (1.2)

Hispanic 10 22 (1.3) 40 (1.9)

Asian/Pacific Islander 2 3 (3.6) 5 (0.9)

Age

16 to 24 years 18 14 (0.8) 10 (0.9)

65 years and older 16 32 (1.5) 32 (1.7)

Disability or condition

Any condition 12 26 (1.2) 28 (1.4)

Visual difficulty 7 19 (1.4) 21 (1.4)

Hearing difficulty 7 12 (2.1) 13 (1.5)

Learning disability 3 8 (2.7) 15 (1.0)

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; se = standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Adults who did not complete high school were also disproportionately

represented at the low end of the literacy scales. While 23 percent of the adult

population reported that they had not completed high school, 59 to 62 percent

of adults who performed in Level 1 on the three scales and 77 to 78 percent of

those in Level 1 with no tasks correct said they had not completed high school

or its equivalent.
190 ...... Appendix A

Relatively high percentages of the respondents in Level 1 were Black,

Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The largest group among those who did not

perform any tasks correctly was Hispanic. Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders

are more likely than others to be recent immigrants with a limited command of

English.

Older adults were overrepresented in the Level 1 population as well as in

the population of adults who did not meet the demands of the Level 1 tasks.

While 16 percent of the total U.S. population was age 65 or older,

approximately one-third of the Level 1 population and 25 to 32 percent of the

adults in Level 1 who performed no literacy tasks correctly were in this age

group. In contrast, compared with their representation in the total U.S.

population (18 percent), younger adults were underrepresented in Level 1 (11

to 14 percent) and in the subgroup of Level 1 that did not succeed on any of

the literacy tasks (10 to 11 percent).

Disabilities are sometimes associated with low literacy performance.

While 12 percent of the adult population reported having a physical, mental, or

health condition that kept them from participating fully in work and other

activities, 26 percent of adults who performed in Level 1 and 22 to 28 percent

of those in Level 1 who did not succeed on any of the literacy tasks had such

conditions. Further, while only 3 percent of the U.S. population reported

having a learning disability, 8 to 9 percent of the adults who performed in Level

1 on the prose, document, and quantitative scales and 14 to 15 percent of those

in Level 1 who did not succeed on any task had this type of disability.

These results show that adults in some population groups were

disproportionately likely to perform in the lowest literacy level, and among

those who performed in this level, were disproportionately likely not to succeed

on any of the literacy tasks in the assessment.
Appendix B ...... 191

APPENDIX B

Tables

TABLE B2.1

Percentages at Each Level and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale

of Adults, by Education Level

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Prose

Still in high school 973 8,268 16 ( 1.8) 36 ( 2.2) 37 ( 2.6) 11 ( 1.9) 0 ( 0.5) 271 ( 2.0) 

0 to 8 years 2,167 18,356 75 ( 1.7) 21 ( 1.3) 4 ( 0.9) 0 ( 0.3) 0 ( 0.0) 176 ( 2.7) 

9 to 12 years 3,311 24,982 42 ( 1.4) 39 ( 1.1) 17 ( 1.0) 2 ( 0.4) 0 ( 0.1) 231 ( 1.5) 

GED 1,062 7,224 14 ( 1.6) 40 ( 2.5) 39 ( 2.8) 7 ( 1.2) 0 ( 0.6) 268 ( 1.8) 

High school 6,107 51,290 16 ( 0.8) 36 ( 1.3) 37 ( 1.7) 10 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.2) 270 ( 1.1) 

Some college (no degree) 6,587 39,634 8 ( 0.5) 23 ( 0.8) 45 ( 0.9) 22 ( 0.8) 3 ( 0.3) 294 ( 1.0) 

2 year college degree 1,033 6,831 4 ( 1.1) 19 ( 2.3) 41 ( 2.9) 32 ( 2.5) 4 ( 0.9) 308 ( 2.4) 

4 year college degree 2,534 17,804 4 ( 0.7) 11 ( 1.2) 35 ( 2.0) 40 ( 1.5) 10 ( 1.3) 322 ( 1.6) 

Graduate studies/degree 2,253 16,306 2 ( 0.4) 7 ( 1.0) 28 ( 1.4) 47 ( 1.8) 16 ( 1.1) 336 ( 1.4) 

Document

Still in high school 973 8,268 15 ( 1.5) 35 ( 2.3) 38 ( 2.6) 12 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.6) 274 ( 1.9) 

0 to 8 years 2,167 18,356 79 ( 1.7) 18 ( 1.6) 3 ( 0.8) 0†( 0.1) 0†( 0.0) 169 ( 2.4) 

9 to 12 years 3,311 24,982 46 ( 1.6) 37 ( 1.6) 15 ( 1.3) 2 ( 0.4) 0†( 0.1) 227 ( 1.6) 

GED 1,062 7,224 17 ( 2.0) 42 ( 2.7) 34 ( 2.3) 7 ( 1.1) 0†( 0.5) 264 ( 2.2) 

High school 6,107 51,290 20 ( 0.8) 38 ( 1.0) 33 ( 1.1) 9 ( 0.6) 1 ( 0.2) 264 ( 1.1) 

Some college (no degree) 6,587 39,634 9 ( 0.5) 27 ( 0.8) 42 ( 1.0) 20 ( 0.8) 2 ( 0.4) 290 ( 0.9) 

2 year college degree 1,033 6,831 6 ( 1.4) 23 ( 2.0) 43 ( 2.6) 25 ( 2.7) 3 ( 0.9) 299 ( 2.6) 

4 year college degree 2,534 17,804 4 ( 0.5) 15 ( 1.3) 37 ( 1.5) 36 ( 1.2) 8 ( 1.2) 314 ( 1.4) 

Graduate studies/degree 2,253 16,306 3 ( 0.6) 10 ( 0.9) 34 ( 1.8) 41 ( 1.9) 12 ( 1.1) 326 ( 1.8) 

Quantitative

Still in high school 973 8,268 19 ( 1.7) 35 ( 3.0) 32 ( 2.3) 12 ( 2.0) 1 ( 0.9) 269 ( 2.3) 

0 to 8 years 2,167 18,356 76 ( 2.1) 18 ( 1.8) 5 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.2) 0†( 0.2) 169 ( 3.2) 

9 to 12 years 3,311 24,982 45 ( 1.6) 34 ( 1.6) 17 ( 1.3) 3 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.1) 227 ( 1.7) 

GED 1,062 7,224 16 ( 2.0) 38 ( 2.5) 35 ( 2.5) 10 ( 1.4) 1 ( 0.5) 268 ( 2.7) 

High school 6,107 51,290 18 ( 0.8) 33 ( 1.1) 37 ( 1.1) 12 ( 0.5) 1 ( 0.2) 270 ( 1.1) 

Some college (no degree) 6,587 39,634 8 ( 0.6) 23 ( 1.2) 42 ( 1.4) 23 ( 1.3) 4 ( 0.4) 295 ( 1.4) 

2 year college degree 1,033 6,831 4 ( 0.8) 19 ( 2.0) 43 ( 2.0) 29 ( 2.7) 5 ( 1.3) 307 ( 2.8) 

4 year college degree 2,534 17,804 4 ( 0.5) 12 ( 1.0) 35 ( 1.4) 38 ( 1.4) 12 ( 1.1) 322 ( 1.2) 

Graduate studies/degree 2,253 16,306 2 ( 0.5) 9 ( 0.8) 30 ( 1.4) 42 ( 1.7) 17 ( 1.4) 334 ( 1.3) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

LITERACY SCALE /

EDUCATION LEVEL Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
192 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B2.2P

Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults,

by Race/Ethnicity and Education Level

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

White

Still in high school 566 5,515 10 ( 1.9) 32 ( 3.0) 44 ( 3.7) 14 ( 2.4) 1 ( 0.7) 283 ( 2.2) 

0 to 8 years 849 10,450 64 ( 2.3) 29 ( 2.0) 6 ( 1.4) 0†( 0.5) 0†( 0.0) 201 ( 3.2) 

9 to 12 years 1,590 16,556 34 ( 1.5) 41 ( 1.3) 22 ( 1.4) 3 ( 0.7) 0†( 0.1) 243 ( 1.6) 

GED/High school diploma 4,934 46,008 11 ( 0.8) 35 ( 1.3) 41 ( 1.7) 12 ( 1.0) 1 ( 0.2) 278 ( 1.1) 

Some postsecondary 4,624 31,109 4 ( 0.6) 21 ( 0.9) 47 ( 1.0) 25 ( 0.9) 3 ( 0.4) 301 ( 1.2) 

College degree 4,718 35,152 2 ( 0.4) 8 ( 0.8) 32 ( 1.2) 45 ( 1.1) 13 ( 0.9) 331 ( 1.2) 

Total White 17,281 144,791 14 ( 0.4) 26 ( 0.6) 36 ( 0.8) 21 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.3) 286 ( 0.7) 

Black

Still in high school 222 1,315 27 ( 5.4) 51 ( 6.4) 21 ( 4.2) 1 ( 1.6) 0†( 0.0) 247 ( 4.0) 

0 to 8 years 462 2,438 88 ( 2.5) 11 ( 2.6) 1 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 158 ( 3.9) 

9 to 12 years 1,075 4,482 57 ( 2.8) 36 ( 3.3) 7 ( 2.2) 0†( 0.1) 0†( 0.0) 213 ( 2.3) 

GED/High school diploma 1,427 6,520 32 ( 2.1) 47 ( 1.9) 19 ( 1.5) 2 ( 0.8) 0†( 0.0) 242 ( 1.6) 

Some postsecondary 1,167 4,004 17 ( 1.6) 38 ( 2.5) 37 ( 2.7) 7 ( 1.3) 0†( 0.5) 267 ( 1.8) 

College degree 600 2,391 8 ( 2.0) 29 ( 3.4) 44 ( 3.1) 16 ( 2.7) 2 ( 0.8) 289 ( 2.7) 

Total Black 4,953 21,150 38 ( 1.1) 37 ( 1.3) 21 ( 1.0) 4 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.1) 237 ( 1.4) 

Hispanic

Still in high school 154 1,057 34 ( 5.9) 38 ( 6.8) 23 ( 6.0) 5 ( 3.7) 0†( 0.0) 245 ( 7.0) 

0 to 8 years 789 4,672 92 ( 2.0) 6 ( 1.5) 1 ( 1.3) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.1) 135 ( 3.6) 

9 to 12 years 582 3,231 62 ( 3.7) 30 ( 3.4) 7 ( 1.7) 1 ( 0.9) 0†( 0.0) 200 ( 4.8) 

GED/High school diploma 677 4,421 32 ( 2.9) 39 ( 3.1) 26 ( 3.2) 4 ( 1.2) 0†( 0.2) 241 ( 3.8) 

Some postsecondary 614 3,173 21 ( 2.6) 30 ( 3.0) 36 ( 3.7) 12 ( 2.3) 1 ( 0.8) 265 ( 3.5) 

College degree 277 1,681 9 ( 2.8) 25 ( 4.5) 37 ( 6.6) 25 ( 6.2) 4 ( 2.8) 294 ( 5.3) 

Total Hispanic 3,093 18,236 49 ( 1.4) 26 ( 1.4) 19 ( 1.4) 6 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.3) 216 ( 2.2) 

Other

Still in high school 31 381 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

0 to 8 years 67 796 82 ( 6.4) 17 ( 6.3) 1 ( 1.0) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 155 (10.9) 

9 to 12 years 64 712 55 ( 9.0)! 32 ( 8.7)! 12 ( 5.3)! 1 ( 3.8)! 0†( 0.0) 212 (11.0)!

GED/High school diploma 131 1,565 37 ( 6.9) 34 ( 8.2) 24 ( 8.9) 5 ( 3.1) 1 ( 1.5) 233 (10.5) 

Some postsecondary 182 1,348 21 ( 4.5) 30 ( 5.8) 31 ( 5.6) 16 ( 4.8) 2 ( 1.5) 269 ( 6.6) 

College degree 225 1,716 13 ( 4.1) 26 ( 4.4) 38 ( 6.2) 20 ( 4.5) 3 ( 1.8) 286 ( 5.6) 

Total Other 700 6,518 34 ( 3.6) 29 ( 4.0) 25 ( 4.2) 10 ( 1.5) 2 ( 0.7) 244 ( 4.1) 

Total Population

Total population 26,027 190,695 20 ( 0.4) 27 ( 0.6) 32 ( 0.7) 17 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.2) 273 ( 0.6) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

EDUCATION LEVEL BY

RACE/ETHNICITY Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
Appendix B ...... 193

TABLE B2.2D

Percentages at Each Level and Average Document Proficiencies of Adults,

by Race/Ethnicity and Education Level

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

White

Still in high school 566 5,515 8 ( 1.7) 31 ( 3.4) 44 ( 3.6) 15 ( 2.1) 1 ( 0.9) 286 ( 2.3) 

0 to 8 years 849 10,450 71 ( 2.5) 24 ( 2.4) 4 ( 1.2) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.0) 191 ( 3.2) 

9 to 12 years 1,590 16,556 38 ( 2.1) 40 ( 2.0) 20 ( 1.8) 3 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.2) 238 ( 1.9) 

GED/High school diploma 4,934 46,008 15 ( 0.9) 37 ( 1.1) 37 ( 1.3) 10 ( 0.6) 1 ( 0.2) 271 ( 1.1) 

Some postsecondary 4,624 31,109 5 ( 0.5) 24 ( 1.0) 44 ( 1.2) 23 ( 1.0) 3 ( 0.4) 297 ( 1.0) 

College degree 4,718 35,152 3 ( 0.4) 12 ( 0.8) 36 ( 0.9) 40 ( 1.4) 10 ( 0.8) 322 ( 1.0) 

Total White 17,281 144,791 16 ( 0.5) 27 ( 0.6) 34 ( 0.7) 19 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.2) 280 ( 0.8) 

Black

Still in high school 222 1,315 28 ( 4.8) 48 ( 5.0) 21 ( 3.3) 3 ( 1.6) 0†( 0.0) 248 ( 3.9) 

0 to 8 years 462 2,438 91 ( 2.0) 9 ( 2.0) 1 ( 0.4) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 150 ( 3.1) 

9 to 12 years 1,075 4,482 61 ( 2.7) 33 ( 2.6) 6 ( 1.2) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.0) 207 ( 2.2) 

GED/High school diploma 1,427 6,520 39 ( 2.0) 44 ( 2.2) 16 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.1) 235 ( 1.6) 

Some postsecondary 1,167 4,004 20 ( 1.6) 41 ( 2.9) 31 ( 2.2) 6 ( 1.3) 0†( 0.4) 261 ( 2.2) 

College degree 600 2,391 12 ( 1.9) 36 ( 3.3) 38 ( 2.9) 13 ( 1.7) 1 ( 0.6) 277 ( 2.6) 

Total Black 4,953 21,150 42 ( 1.0) 36 ( 1.2) 18 ( 0.9) 3 ( 0.4) 0†( 0.1) 230 ( 1.1) 

Hispanic

Still in high school 154 1,057 31 ( 5.3) 40 ( 5.4) 25 ( 5.4) 4 ( 4.3) 0†( 0.2) 246 ( 6.6) 

0 to 8 years 789 4,672 92 ( 1.8) 7 ( 1.8) 1 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.1) 130 ( 3.7) 

9 to 12 years 582 3,231 64 ( 4.1) 28 ( 3.3) 7 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.8) 0†( 0.0) 197 ( 5.0) 

GED/High school diploma 677 4,421 33 ( 3.1) 38 ( 3.4) 25 ( 4.2) 4 ( 2.3) 0†( 0.2) 240 ( 4.3) 

Some postsecondary 614 3,173 21 ( 1.9) 33 ( 2.7) 35 ( 3.0) 12 ( 2.3) 0†( 0.4) 263 ( 3.4) 

College degree 277 1,681 10 ( 2.2) 24 ( 4.5) 40 ( 4.3) 21 ( 4.9) 5 ( 2.6) 293 ( 5.2) 

Total Hispanic 3,093 18,236 49 ( 1.7) 26 ( 1.6) 19 ( 1.4) 5 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.3) 214 ( 2.6) 

Other

Still in high school 31 381 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

0 to 8 years 67 796 79 ( 8.5) 18 ( 9.2) 3 ( 6.1) 0†( 0.1) 0†( 0.0) 171 (11.7) 

9 to 12 years 64 712 53 ( 8.2)! 34 ( 6.6)! 13 ( 6.7)! 0†( 0.1)! 0†( 0.0) 212 (10.3)!

GED/High school diploma 131 1,565 36 ( 7.1) 36 ( 8.0) 21 ( 7.2) 6 ( 2.8) 0†( 0.2) 234 ( 9.0) 

Some postsecondary 182 1,348 22 ( 3.9) 29 ( 5.3) 35 ( 4.8) 14 ( 4.5) 1 ( 2.0) 266 ( 7.2) 

College degree 225 1,716 12 ( 3.2) 24 ( 4.4) 41 ( 5.8) 19 ( 5.3) 3 ( 1.8) 287 ( 5.6) 

Total Other 700 6,518 33 ( 2.6) 29 ( 2.9) 27 ( 2.7) 10 ( 2.0) 1 ( 0.6) 246 ( 3.5) 

Total Population

Total population 26,027 190,695 23 ( 0.4) 28 ( 0.5) 31 ( 0.5) 15 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.2) 267 ( 0.7) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

EDUCATION LEVEL BY

RACE/ETHNICITY Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
194 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B2.2Q

Percentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of Adults,

by Race/Ethnicity and Education Level

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

White

Still in high school 566 5,515 11 ( 2.0) 34 ( 3.9) 38 ( 3.0) 16 ( 2.5) 2 ( 1.3) 283 ( 2.4) 

0 to 8 years 849 10,450 65 ( 3.2) 26 ( 2.8) 8 ( 1.7) 1 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.3) 195 ( 3.8) 

9 to 12 years 1,590 16,556 35 ( 2.2) 38 ( 2.1) 23 ( 1.6) 5 ( 0.8) 0†( 0.2) 242 ( 2.1) 

GED/High school diploma 4,934 46,008 12 ( 0.8) 32 ( 1.3) 41 ( 1.1) 14 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.2) 279 ( 1.1) 

Some postsecondary 4,624 31,109 4 ( 0.6) 20 ( 1.2) 44 ( 1.4) 27 ( 1.5) 5 ( 0.5) 304 ( 1.5) 

College degree 4,718 35,152 2 ( 0.3) 9 ( 0.6) 33 ( 0.9) 41 ( 1.0) 14 ( 0.8) 330 ( 1.1) 

Total White 17,281 144,791 14 ( 0.5) 24 ( 0.6) 35 ( 0.7) 21 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.2) 287 ( 0.8) 

Black

Still in high school 222 1,315 40 ( 4.7) 44 ( 4.9) 14 ( 4.1) 2 ( 2.1) 0†( 0.0) 234 ( 4.7) 

0 to 8 years 462 2,438 92 ( 2.0) 7 ( 1.9) 1 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 140 ( 4.0) 

9 to 12 years 1,075 4,482 69 ( 2.5) 25 ( 2.5) 5 ( 1.4) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.1) 197 ( 2.9) 

GED/High school diploma 1,427 6,520 41 ( 1.7) 43 ( 1.3) 14 ( 1.7) 1 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.1) 233 ( 1.9) 

Some postsecondary 1,167 4,004 22 ( 1.6) 41 ( 2.2) 30 ( 2.5) 6 ( 1.7) 0†( 0.5) 258 ( 2.2) 

College degree 600 2,391 11 ( 1.8) 36 ( 3.4) 41 ( 3.8) 12 ( 1.9) 1 ( 0.7) 279 ( 2.5) 

Total Black 4,953 21,150 46 ( 1.0) 34 ( 1.1) 17 ( 1.0) 3 ( 0.4) 0†( 0.1) 224 ( 1.4) 

Hispanic

Still in high school 154 1,057 38 ( 5.0) 34 ( 5.4) 23 ( 5.8) 5 ( 4.2) 0†( 0.0) 241 ( 6.5) 

0 to 8 years 789 4,672 91 ( 2.0) 8 ( 1.7) 1 ( 0.8) 0†( 0.1) 0†( 0.1) 128 ( 3.7) 

9 to 12 years 582 3,231 65 ( 3.0) 26 ( 3.0) 9 ( 2.3) 0†( 1.0) 0†( 0.0) 196 ( 5.4) 

GED/High school diploma 677 4,421 33 ( 2.4) 39 ( 2.9) 24 ( 3.8) 4 ( 1.8) 0†( 0.3) 240 ( 4.2) 

Some postsecondary 614 3,173 20 ( 2.2) 30 ( 3.2) 38 ( 3.4) 11 ( 2.7) 1 ( 0.6) 265 ( 3.5) 

College degree 277 1,681 9 ( 2.6) 22 ( 4.0) 42 ( 5.2) 22 ( 5.7) 4 ( 1.9) 295 ( 6.3) 

Total Hispanic 3,093 18,236 49 ( 1.3) 25 ( 1.4) 20 ( 1.3) 5 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.2) 213 ( 2.4) 

Other

Still in high school 31 381 *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****)

0 to 8 years 67 796 77 ( 8.6) 14 ( 6.1) 5 ( 5.9) 2 ( 3.1) 2 ( 3.1) 170 (17.9) 

9 to 12 years 64 712 53 ( 8.0)! 33 ( 7.8)! 13 ( 5.1)! 0†( 0.6)! 0†( 0.1)! 211 ( 9.6)!

GED/High school diploma 131 1,565 34 ( 5.7) 31 ( 6.5) 27 ( 4.8) 7 ( 4.3) 1 ( 1.2) 242 ( 7.5) 

Some postsecondary 182 1,348 22 ( 5.7) 25 ( 9.0) 34 ( 6.6) 17 ( 3.4) 3 ( 2.2) 271 ( 6.2) 

College degree 225 1,716 11 ( 3.6) 20 ( 5.3) 38 ( 5.3) 24 ( 4.1) 6 ( 3.4) 297 ( 6.4) 

Total Other 700 6,518 32 ( 3.0) 25 ( 3.2) 27 ( 2.0) 13 ( 1.9) 3 ( 1.2) 252 ( 3.8) 

Total Population

Total population 26,027 190,695 22 ( 0.5) 25 ( 0.6) 31 ( 0.6) 17 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.2) 272 ( 0.7) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

EDUCATION LEVEL BY

RACE/ETHNICITY Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
Appendix B ...... 195

TABLE B2.3

Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Prose Proficiency, by

Race/Ethnicity and Subject's Education

VARIABLE (CONTRAST

GROUP)

Race/Ethnicity (Black Adults)

Mexican -31 -11.2 -4.7*

Puerto Rican -19 -11.0 -2.3*

Cuban -26 -12.1 -2.0*

Central/South American -30 -23.4 -5.4*

Other Hispanic 23 17.6 3.9*

Asian/Pacific Island 5 -14.4 -3.6*

Native American/Alaskan Indian 17 16.7 3.1*

White 49 35.0 22.9*

Other/Missing -24 -17.7 -2.3*

Subject's Education (0 to 8 years)

9 to 12 years 31 48.0 24.1*

High school/GED graduate 50 81.9 43.0*

Some postsecondary 66 106.0 48.7*

College graduate 78 134.3 66.9*

*Suggests significant regression coefficient.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Average Difference 

in Proficiency 

by Category

(Uncontrolled)

Unstandardized

Regression 

Coefficient

T-statistic
196 ...... Appendix B

1

 The regression coefficients state the difference between each group and Black adults, while controlling for the effect of the other variables listed. 2 Regression states average difference in prose score associated with each higher level in this variable, controlling for the other variables. 3

 Subjects still in high school deleted.

TABLE B2.4

Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Prose Proficiency Scores

VARIABLE 

REGRESSION 1

Zero-order

(Uncontrolled)

Relationship

Unstandardized

Regression

Coefficient T-statistic T-statistic

Unstandardized

Regression

Coefficient

REGRESSION 2 (controls for 

subject's education)

Race/Ethnicity1

(Contrast group is Black adults.)

Mexican -31 -25.0 -10.2* -17.0 -7.9*

Puerto Rican -19 -6.4 -1.5 -6.7 -1.7

Cuban -26 -21.0 -3.2* -14.6 -2.5*

Central/South American -30 -30.3 -7.4* -26.1 -7.3*

Other Hispanic 23 10.4 2.5* 11.1 3.0*

Asian/Pacific Island 5 -16.8 -4.9* -23.1 -7.8*

Native American/Alaskan 

Indian 17 17.5 3.6* 16.7 3.9*

White 50 37.4 25.2* 33.1 25.5*

Other/Missing N/A -23.3 -3.1* -17.7 -2.7*

Region

(Contrast groups is Northeast.)

Midwest 9 10.6 7.8* 8.9 7.5*

South -3 4.8 3.8* 4.2 3.8*

West 6 12.3 8.5* 9.2 7.3*

Gender

(Contrast group is Male.)

Female 2 8.7 9.6* 7.3 9.2*

Parents Education Level

(5 levels)2 N/A 7.6 33.2* 3.2 15.4*

Household Income 

(7 levels) N/A 10.2 41.2* 4.7 20.3*

Subject's Age 

(6 levels) N/A -7.1 -20.0* -5.7 -18.5*

Subject's Education 

Level

(5 levels)3 34+ 24.5 63.6*

*Suggests significant regression coefficient.

+Bivariate regression, Ed Level on Prose Proficiency (gives a weighted average increase per level) not calculated for the previous three variables.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Appendix B ...... 197

TABLE B3.1

Percentages of Adults Speaking Non-English Language Before

School: Participation in ESL Course, by Education Level

EDUCATION LEVEL

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

ESL course 1,329 9,217 38 ( 1.7) 3 ( 0.7) 19 ( 1.6) 40 ( 1.5) 

No ESL course 2,315 16,514 45 ( 1.4) 3 ( 0.4) 20 ( 1.3) 32 ( 1.4) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

PARTICIPATION IN

COURSE

Dropout GED High school

graduate

Any

postsecondary

education
198 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B3.2

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Adults

Reporting Frequency of Personal Literacy Practices, by Education Level

EDUCATION LEVEL

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Prose

Rarely 4,041 32,775 54 ( 0.7) 3 ( 0.4) 27 ( 0.7) 16 ( 0.7) 

 177 ( 2.3) 240 ( 6.5)! 244 ( 2.9) 273 ( 2.8) 

Weekly 10,114 77,953 22 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.2) 32 ( 0.6) 42 ( 0.5) 

 226 ( 2.2) 268 ( 3.6)! 271 ( 1.3) 306 ( 1.2) 

Often 9,749 70,886 11 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.3) 24 ( 0.6) 60 ( 0.6) 

 239 ( 2.5) 277 ( 2.9)! 283 ( 1.6) 317 ( 0.9) 

Document

Rarely 4,041 32,775 54 ( 0.7) 3 ( 0.4) 27 ( 0.7) 16 ( 0.7) 

 171 ( 2.4) 235 ( 6.5)! 239 ( 2.8) 266 ( 2.9) 

Weekly 10,114 77,953 22 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.2) 32 ( 0.6) 42 ( 0.5) 

 220 ( 2.2) 263 ( 3.4)! 264 ( 1.3) 300 ( 1.1) 

Often 9,749 70,886 11 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.3) 24 ( 0.6) 60 ( 0.6) 

 234 ( 2.9) 274 ( 2.7)! 277 ( 1.4) 311 ( 0.8) 

Quantitative

Rarely 4,041 32,775 54 ( 0.7) 3 ( 0.4) 27 ( 0.7) 16 ( 0.7) 

 166 ( 2.8) 233 ( 6.9)! 242 ( 2.4) 268 ( 3.1) 

Weekly 10,114 77,953 22 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.2) 32 ( 0.6) 42 ( 0.5) 

 224 ( 2.1) 270 ( 4.1)! 271 ( 1.5) 307 ( 1.0) 

Often 9,749 70,886 11 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.3) 24 ( 0.6) 60 ( 0.6) 

 238 ( 3.1) 279 ( 3.6)! 284 ( 1.8) 318 ( 1.1) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

LITERACY

SCALE/

FREQUENCY OF

PERSONAL

LITERACY

PRACTICES

Dropout GED High school

graduate

Any

postsecondary

education
Appendix B ...... 199

TABLE B3.3

Precentages of Dropouts Reporting Reason for Dropping Out, by

Frequency of Personal Literacy Practices

FREQUENCY OF PERSONAL LITERACY PRACTICES

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

Financial problems 756 6,837 49 ( 2.4) 35 ( 2.3) 16 ( 1.7) 

Work or military 1,010 10,104 44 ( 2.4) 38 ( 1.9) 19 ( 1.9) 

Pregnancy 467 2,510 21 ( 2.3) 52 ( 3.4) 27 ( 2.8) 

Lost interest or behavior 688 5,781 37 ( 2.2) 45 ( 2.0) 18 ( 2.5) 

Academic problems 131 1,132 40 ( 5.1) 40 ( 5.7) 20 ( 4.4) 

Family or personal problems 978 8,182 41 ( 2.2) 40 ( 2.0) 19 ( 1.4) 

Other reasons 820 7,672 42 ( 2.4) 41 ( 2.2) 17 ( 1.5) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

MAIN REASON FOR DROPPING

OUT Rarely Weekly Often
200 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B3.4

Percentages of Dropouts Reporting Reason for Dropping Out of School,

by Whether Studied for GED

STUDY FOR A GED?

WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

Financial problems 796 6,804 7 ( 1.3) 93 ( 1.3) 

Went to work or the military 1,107 10,100 16 ( 1.3) 84 ( 1.3) 

Pregnancy 474 2,484 36 ( 2.8) 64 ( 2.8) 

Lost interest or behaivor problems in school 841 5,800 28 ( 1.9) 72 ( 1.9) 

Academic problems at school 144 1,131 23 ( 4.3) 77 ( 4.3) 

Family or personal problems 1,036 8,153 18 ( 1.8) 82 ( 1.8) 

Other reasons 919 7,566 14 ( 1.7) 86 ( 1.7) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

MAIN REASON FOR DROPPING OUT

Yes No
Appendix B ...... 201

TABLE B3.5

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of GED

Holders Reporting Reason for Dropping Out of School

MAIN REASON FOR DROPPING OUT

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Prose 1,029 6,874 9 ( 1.5) 23 ( 1.7) 10 ( 1.8) 20 ( 1.4) 3 ( 0.8) 14 ( 1.3) 21 ( 1.5) 

 264 ( 7.5)! 267 ( 4.7)! 272 ( 5.3)! 271 ( 5.4)! *** (  ) 269 ( 5.6)! 261 ( 4.8)!

Document 1,029 6,874 9 ( 1.5) 23 ( 1.7) 10 ( 1.8) 20 ( 1.4) 3 ( 0.8) 14 ( 1.3) 21 ( 1.5) 

 251 ( 5.9)! 262 ( 4.7)! 274 ( 5.4)! 269 ( 5.2)! ** * ( ****) 267 ( 5.6)! 254 ( 4.9)!

Quantitative 1,029 6,874 9 ( 1.5) 23 ( 1.7) 10 ( 1.8) 20 ( 1.4) 3 ( 0.8) 14 ( 1.3) 21 ( 1.5) 

 257 ( 9.0)! 275 ( 6.4)! 265 ( 4.5)! 271 ( 5.4)! *** (  ) 269 ( 6.2)! 261 ( 4.9)!

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

** * Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

GED

HOLDERS/

LITERACY

SCALE

Financial

problems

Work or

military Pregnancy

Lost

interest or

behavior

Academic

problems

Family or

personal

problems

Other

reasons
202 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B3.6

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of

Dropouts Reporting Whether They Studied for GED, by Race/Ethnicity

STUDIED FOR GED

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE )

Total Population 5,387 42,581

Prose 18 ( 0.6) 82 ( 0.6) 

 241 ( 2.1) 201 ( 1.9) 

Document 18 ( 0.6) 82 ( 0.6) 

 239 ( 2.4) 195 ( 1.9) 

Quantitative 18 ( 0.6) 82 ( 0.6) 

 236 ( 2.6) 196 ( 2.1) 

Black 1,518 6,837

Prose 23 ( 1.4) 77 ( 1.4) 

 221 ( 3.6) 186 ( 3.0) 

Document 23 ( 1.4) 77 ( 1.4) 

 215 ( 3.1) 179 ( 2.6) 

Quantitative 23 ( 1.4) 77 ( 1.4) 

 204 ( 4.0) 168 ( 3.3) 

White 2,408 26,617

Prose 18 ( 0.8) 82 ( 0.8) 

 254 ( 2.5) 221 ( 2.0) 

Document 18 ( 0.8) 82 ( 0.8) 

 252 ( 3.0) 213 ( 2.2) 

Quantitative 18 ( 0.8) 82 ( 0.8) 

 253 ( 3.2) 218 ( 2.4) 

Hispanic 1,332 7,652

Prose 12 ( 1.1) 88 ( 1.1) 

 215 ( 5.6)! 154 ( 3.2) 

Document 12 ( 1.1) 88 ( 1.1) 

 212 ( 6.1)! 151 ( 3.6) 

Quantitative 12 ( 1.1) 88 ( 1.1) 

 203 ( 5.8)! 149 ( 3.4) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

RACE/ETHNICITY/

LITERACY SCALE Studied Did not study
Appendix B ...... 203

TABLE B3.7D

Percentages and Average Document Proficiencies of Dropouts: Sex,

Race/Ethnicity, and Age, by Number of Weeks Worked

NUMBER OF WEEKS WORKED

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total Population

Total 4,936 42,961 53 ( 1.1) 16 ( 0.6) 31 ( 1.1) 

 190 ( 2.1) 217 ( 3.3) 215 ( 2.5) 

Sex

Male 1,998 19,926 42 ( 1.5) 18 ( 1.0) 40 ( 1.4) 

 187 ( 3.7) 210 ( 3.8) 211 ( 2.9) 

Female 2,931 22,980 62 ( 1.3) 14 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1.1) 

 193 ( 2.5) 226 ( 4.5) 221 ( 4.0) 

Race/Ethnicity

Black 1,284 6,734 54 ( 2.3) 15 ( 0.9) 30 ( 2.2) 

 176 ( 2.5) 203 ( 5.4)! 196 ( 3.6) 

White 2,292 26,906 55 ( 1.8) 15 ( 0.9) 30 ( 1.6) 

 203 ( 2.5) 238 ( 4.1) 242 ( 3.0) 

Hispanic 1,245 7,823 44 ( 2.3) 17 ( 1.1) 39 ( 2.1) 

 153 ( 4.7) 165 ( 5.8) 161 ( 4.9) 

Age

16 to 24 737 5,007 29 ( 2.2) 42 ( 2.4) 29 ( 2.9) 

 223 ( 6.1) 239 ( 4.7) 237 ( 6.0) 

25 to 54 2,366 17,791 32 ( 1.4) 19 ( 0.9) 48 ( 1.6) 

 197 ( 3.5) 210 ( 4.5) 215 ( 2.8) 

55 or older 1,833 20,163 76 ( 1.3) 6 ( 0.7) 17 ( 1.2) 

 185 ( 2.6) 201 ( 7.4)! 207 ( 4.4) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

SEX,

RACE/ETHNICITY,

AND AGE Zero weeks worked 1 to 39 weeks worked 40 or more weeks

worked
204 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B3.7Q

Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of Dropouts: Sex,

Race/Ethnicity, and Age, by Number of Weeks Worked

NUMBER OF WEEKS WORKED

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total Population

Total 4,936 42,961 53 ( 1.1) 16 ( 0.6) 31 ( 1.1) 

 189 ( 2.8) 217 ( 3.5) 219 ( 2.6) 

Sex

Male 1,998 19,926 42 ( 1.5) 18 ( 1.0) 40 ( 1.4) 

 190 ( 4.5) 213 ( 4.2) 216 ( 3.0) 

Female 2,931 22,980 62 ( 1.3) 14 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1.1) 

 188 ( 2.9) 222 ( 4.6) 222 ( 4.0) 

Race/Ethnicity

Black 1,284 6,734 54 ( 2.3) 15 ( 0.9) 30 ( 2.2) 

 162 ( 3.9) 193 ( 6.3)! 191 ( 4.1) 

White 2,292 26,906 55 ( 1.8) 15 ( 0.9) 30 ( 1.6) 

 206 ( 3.1) 241 ( 3.8) 249 ( 3.2) 

Hispanic 1,245 7,823 44 ( 2.3) 17 ( 1.1) 39 ( 2.1) 

 147 ( 5.0) 159 ( 5.4) 163 ( 4.6) 

Age

16 to 24 737 5,007 29 ( 2.2) 42 ( 2.4) 29 ( 2.9) 

 213 ( 6.0) 231 ( 4.9) 235 ( 6.7) 

25 to 54 2,366 17,791 32 ( 1.4) 19 ( 0.9) 48 ( 1.6) 

 192 ( 3.5) 207 ( 4.8) 217 ( 2.7) 

55 or older 1,833 20,163 76 ( 1.3) 6 ( 0.7) 17 ( 1.2) 

 185 ( 3.6) 221 ( 8.8)! 216 ( 5.4) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

SEX,

RACE/ETHNICITY,

AND AGE Zero weeks worked 1 to 39 weeks worked 40 or more weeks

worked
Appendix B ...... 205

TABLE B4.1

Percentages at Each Level and Average Prose Proficiencies of Adults

Reporting Education Level by Place of Birth

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Born in USA or

Territories

Total 23,376 172,162 17 ( 0.4) 27 ( 0.6) 34 ( 0.8) 18 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.2) 279 ( 0.7) 

Still in high school 891 7,637 14 ( 1.8) 36 ( 2.3) 38 ( 2.7) 11 ( 1.9) 0†( 0.5) 274 ( 2.0) 

Less than high

school 1,477 13,444 69 ( 2.2) 26 ( 1.9) 5 ( 1.2) 0†( 0.4) 0†( 0.0) 193 ( 3.3) 

Some high school 2,988 22,729 39 ( 1.4) 40 ( 1.2) 18 ( 1.1) 2 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.1) 236 ( 1.3) 

GED or high school

diploma 6,680 54,500 13 ( 0.8) 37 ( 1.2) 39 ( 1.4) 10 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.2) 273 ( 1.0) 

Some college (no

degree) 6,059 36,554 5 ( 0.4) 23 ( 0.8) 46 ( 0.9) 23 ( 0.9) 3 ( 0.3) 298 ( 1.0) 

College degree (2

or more years) 5,264 37,129 2 ( 0.4) 9 ( 0.8) 33 ( 1.3) 43 ( 1.2) 12 ( 0.8) 329 ( 1.1) 

Born Outside USA

Total 2,702 19,062 53 ( 1.4) 22 ( 1.1) 17 ( 1.3) 7 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.4) 212 ( 2.4) 

Still in high school 82 631 38 ( 6.8) 38 ( 7.0) 17 ( 8.3) 6 ( 4.4) 0†( 1.5) 241 ( 7.3) 

Less than high

school 689 4,910 93 ( 2.0) 6 ( 2.0) 1 ( 1.4) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.0) 135 ( 3.6) 

Some high school 322 2,252 71 ( 3.9) 22 ( 3.4) 6 ( 1.9) 1 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.0) 182 ( 5.6) 

GED or high school

diploma 486 4,011 46 ( 3.1) 31 ( 3.2) 19 ( 3.4) 3 ( 1.9) 0†( 0.6) 222 ( 4.8) 

Some college (no

degree) 525 3,052 32 ( 3.1) 32 ( 3.0) 27 ( 3.1) 9 ( 1.8) 1 ( 0.7) 247 ( 3.6) 

College degree (2

or more years) 555 3,805 12 ( 2.7) 25 ( 2.9) 36 ( 3.6) 22 ( 3.2) 5 ( 1.7) 290 ( 3.9) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

EDUCATION LEVEL

BY PLACE OF BIRTH Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
206 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B4.2

Percentages at each Level and Average Document Proficiencies of Adults

Reporting Language in Home, Current Language and Age

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Language Spoken in Home

English only 21,242 156,620 18 ( 0.6) 29 ( 0.5) 33 ( 0.6) 17 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.2) 276 ( 0.8) 

Spanish only 1,866 10,979 70 ( 2.0) 21 ( 1.5) 9 ( 1.3) 1 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.2) 177 ( 3.4) 

Other 849 8,274 46 ( 2.3) 27 ( 2.3) 20 ( 2.2) 7 ( 1.4) 1 ( 0.5) 225 ( 3.4) 

English and Spanish 789 4,406 25 ( 2.5) 37 ( 3.0) 28 ( 3.0) 10 ( 1.9) 1 ( 0.7) 259 ( 3.0) 

English and other 1,308 10,722 25 ( 2.6) 29 ( 2.1) 30 ( 2.0) 14 ( 1.7) 2 ( 0.7) 266 ( 3.5) 

Current Language

English 24,513 180,996 20 ( 0.5) 29 ( 0.5) 32 ( 0.5) 16 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.2) 273 ( 0.7) 

Spanish 1,311 7,634 82 ( 2.1) 14 ( 1.8) 4 ( 1.0) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.1) 152 ( 3.8) 

Other 227 2,393 67 ( 4.0) 22 ( 4.6) 9 ( 3.1) 2 ( 1.1) 0†( 0.1) 187 ( 5.9) 

Age

16 to 18 years old 1,237 10,424 15 ( 1.4) 34 ( 2.2) 38 ( 2.6) 12 ( 1.9) 1 ( 0.5) 274 ( 1.8) 

19 to 24 years old 3,344 24,515 14 ( 1.0) 29 ( 1.4) 37 ( 1.6) 18 ( 1.1) 2 ( 0.4) 280 ( 1.3) 

25 to 39 years old 10,050 63,278 16 ( 0.6) 25 ( 0.7) 35 ( 0.6) 21 ( 0.8) 4 ( 0.4) 282 ( 1.0) 

40 to 54 years old 6,310 43,794 17 ( 0.8) 27 ( 0.9) 33 ( 1.0) 19 ( 1.0) 3 ( 0.5) 278 ( 1.3) 

55 to 64 years old 2,924 19,503 30 ( 1.4) 34 ( 1.4) 26 ( 1.3) 8 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.3) 249 ( 1.9) 

65 years old anor older 2,214 29,735 53 ( 1.5) 32 ( 1.2) 13 ( 1.0) 2 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.1) 217 ( 2.1) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

DEMOGRAPHIC

SUBPOPULATIONS Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency

Percentages at Each Level and Average Document Proficiencies of Adults

Reporting Language in Home, Current Language and Age
Appendix B ...... 207

TABLE B4.3D

Precentages at Each Level and Average Document Proficiencies of

Respondents and Non-Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total Population

Complete 22,504 162,701 62 ( 0.4) 93 ( 0.4) 96 ( 0.5) 98 ( 0.5) 98 ( 0.4) 280 ( 0.6) 

Literacy related incomplete 1,469 9,944 24 ( 0.2) 0†( 0.1) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 116 ( 1.5) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 1,408 11,996 14 ( 2.1) 7 ( 1.7) 4 ( 1.2) 2 ( 0.8) 2 ( 0.5) 228 ( 2.9) 

Black

Complete 4,232 17,757 68 ( 1.2) 95 ( 1.1) 97 ( 1.3) 98 ( 1.1) *** (  ) 244 ( 1.0) 

Literacy related incomplete 341 1,677 19 ( 0.3) 0†( 0.1) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) ** * ( ****) 118 ( 2.6) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 390 1,759 14 ( 3.3) 5 ( 3.1) 3 ( 1.6) 2 ( 1.1) *** (  ) 196 ( 4.3) 

White

Complete 16,144 132,337 69 ( 0.6) 93 ( 0.5) 96 ( 0.6) 98 ( 0.6) 99 ( 0.3) 287 ( 0.7) 

Literacy related incomplete 283 3,284 14 ( 0.3) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) 126 ( 2.8) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 865 9,347 18 ( 2.4) 7 ( 1.9) 4 ( 1.5) 2 ( 1.0) 1 ( 0.6) 234 ( 3.4) 

Hispanic

Complete 2,128 12,608 40 ( 1.5) 95 ( 1.6) 96 ( 1.6) 98 ( 1.1) ** * ( ****) 254 ( 1.8) 

Literacy related incomplete 845 4,984 54 ( 0.6) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) *** (  ) 109 ( 2.1) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 153 890 6 ( 4.2) 4 ( 4.0) 4 ( 2.5) 2 ( 1.8) ** * ( ****) 221 ( 7.7) 

RACE/ETHNICITY/ COMPLETION

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

Proficiency

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
208 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B4.3Q

Precentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of

Respondents and Non-Respondents, by Race/Ethnicity

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 n (/1,000) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) CPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Total Population

Complete 22,504 162,701 62 ( 0.5) 93 ( 0.4) 96 ( 0.5) 97 ( 0.4) 97 ( 0.6) 285 ( 0.6) 

Literacy related incomplete 1,469 9,944 25 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.1) 114 ( 1.8) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 1,408 11,996 14 ( 1.9) 7 ( 1.6) 4 ( 1.6) 3 ( 1.0) 3 ( 0.7) 232 ( 3.6) 

Black

Complete 4,232 17,757 70 ( 1.0) 95 ( 1.2) 96 ( 1.9) 98 ( 1.1) *** (  ) 239 ( 1.1) 

Literacy related incomplete 341 1,677 17 ( 0.3) 0†( 0.2) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.0) ** * ( ****) 108 ( 4.3) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 390 1,759 13 ( 3.2) 5 ( 2.8) 4 ( 2.6) 2 ( 1.1) *** (  ) 191 ( 6.2) 

White

Complete 16,144 132,337 66 ( 0.8) 93 ( 0.5) 96 ( 0.6) 97 ( 0.5) 97 ( 0.7) 294 ( 0.7) 

Literacy related incomplete 283 3,284 15 ( 1.0) 0†( 0.5) 0†( 0.8) 0†( 0.0) 0†( 0.1) 127 ( 3.2) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 865 9,347 18 ( 2.1) 7 ( 2.0) 4 ( 1.9) 3 ( 1.2) 3 ( 0.8) 240 ( 4.2) 

Hispanic

Complete 2,128 12,608 41 ( 1.3) 94 ( 1.7) 97 ( 1.4) 97 ( 1.2) ** * ( ****) 253 ( 2.0) 

Literacy related incomplete 845 4,984 54 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.5) 0†( 0.3) 0†( 0.0) *** (  ) 107 ( 2.4) 

Non-literacy related incomplete 153 890 5 ( 3.9) 6 ( 4.4) 3 ( 2.2) 3 ( 2.0) ** * ( ****) 218 ( 9.3) 

RACE/ETHNICITY/ COMPLETION

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

Proficiency

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Appendix B ...... 209

TABLE B5.1D

Percentages at Each Level and Average Document Proficiencies of Adults in

Occupational Subcategories

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Administrators

and managers 1,638 11,904 5 ( 0.9) 16 ( 1.4) 38 ( 2.0) 33 ( 2.1) 7 ( 1.4) 311 ( 1.5) 

Professional 507 3,592 1 ( 0.8) 9 ( 2.9) 30 ( 3.5) 43 ( 2.9) 17 ( 2.4) 334 ( 3.1) 

Health support 1,337 8,159 16 ( 1.6) 26 ( 1.5) 34 ( 2.1) 20 ( 2.0) 4 ( 0.8) 282 ( 2.9) 

Teachers 887 6,057 3 ( 1.0) 13 ( 2.0) 37 ( 2.1) 39 ( 2.7) 9 ( 1.5) 320 ( 2.0) 

Sales 2,385 17,901 11 ( 1.1) 30 ( 1.7) 39 ( 2.0) 18 ( 1.4) 2 ( 0.6) 285 ( 1.6) 

Secretaries,

steno, typist 657 4,118 6 ( 1.4) 30 ( 3.6) 45 ( 4.0) 18 ( 2.9) 1 ( 0.6) 290 ( 3.2) 

Clerks 1,506 10,430 8 ( 1.2) 28 ( 2.4) 42 ( 2.4) 20 ( 1.8) 3 ( 0.6) 291 ( 2.0) 

Food preparation 1,442 10,556 20 ( 1.4) 34 ( 2.4) 33 ( 2.2) 11 ( 1.3) 1 ( 0.6) 265 ( 2.0) 

Cleaning and

maintenance 592 3,952 43 ( 3.2) 33 ( 3.2) 20 ( 2.5) 4 ( 1.7) 1 ( 0.6) 230 ( 4.0) 

Child care

workers 253 1,844 17 ( 3.8) 40 ( 4.3) 33 ( 4.8) 9 ( 2.5) 1 ( 0.6) 266 ( 5.2) 

Non-supervisory

farming, nursery 478 4,071 35 ( 4.0) 31 ( 2.6) 26 ( 3.4) 8 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.6) 238 ( 6.6) 

Non-supervisory

construction 623 4,799 24 ( 3.2) 33 ( 4.3) 32 ( 3.1) 11 ( 2.2) 1 ( 0.5) 260 ( 3.6) 

Non-supervisory

motor vehicle

operator 552 4,019 25 ( 2.6) 32 ( 3.6) 31 ( 3.6) 10 ( 2.3) 1 ( 0.8) 262 ( 2.8) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
210 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B5.1Q

Percentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of Adults in

Occupational Subcategories

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Administrators

and managers 1,638 11,904 4 ( 0.8) 13 ( 1.5) 34 ( 2.2) 38 ( 1.6) 12 ( 1.5) 322 ( 1.6) 

Professional 507 3,592 1 ( 0.9) 5 ( 1.3) 23 ( 3.2) 42 ( 4.1) 29 ( 3.7) 350 ( 3.7) 

Health support 1,337 8,159 18 ( 1.7) 24 ( 2.2) 35 ( 2.2) 19 ( 1.6) 4 ( 1.1) 281 ( 2.9) 

Teachers 887 6,057 1 ( 0.5) 13 ( 1.8) 34 ( 1.9) 40 ( 2.6) 12 ( 1.6) 325 ( 2.0) 

Sales 2,385 17,901 10 ( 1.0) 26 ( 1.8) 39 ( 2.4) 21 ( 2.0) 4 ( 0.5) 291 ( 1.8) 

Secretaries,

steno, typist 657 4,118 6 ( 1.4) 24 ( 2.5) 48 ( 3.9) 19 ( 3.7) 2 ( 1.0) 294 ( 3.4) 

Clerks 1,506 10,430 8 ( 1.0) 25 ( 1.6) 41 ( 1.7) 22 ( 1.7) 3 ( 1.0) 294 ( 1.6) 

Food preparation 1,442 10,556 24 ( 1.5) 33 ( 2.3) 31 ( 1.9) 10 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.4) 261 ( 2.4) 

Cleaning and

maintenance 592 3,952 45 ( 2.9) 30 ( 3.8) 20 ( 2.5) 5 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.6) 229 ( 4.0) 

Child care

workers 253 1,844 18 ( 2.8) 37 ( 5.6) 34 ( 7.1) 10 ( 4.3) 1 ( 1.2) 266 ( 4.6) 

Non-supervisory

farming, nursery 478 4,071 32 ( 4.6) 26 ( 4.1) 29 ( 4.9) 11 ( 2.6) 2 ( 0.8) 245 ( 8.2) 

Non-supervisory

construction 623 4,799 21 ( 2.5) 27 ( 3.2) 34 ( 3.9) 16 ( 2.5) 1 ( 0.7) 270 ( 3.4) 

Non-supervisory

motor vehicle

operator 552 4,019 21 ( 2.9) 30 ( 4.1) 35 ( 3.3) 12 ( 3.4) 2 ( 1.1) 267 ( 2.9) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
Appendix B ...... 211

TABLE B5.2

Percentages at Each Level and Average Proficiencies

on Each Literacy Scale of Adults in Major Occupational Categories

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Prose

Managerial 1,639 11,906 4 ( 0.9) 14 ( 1.8) 35 ( 2.7) 37 ( 2.0) 10 ( 1.2) 319 ( 2.1) 

Professional 2,705 18,510 2 ( 0.5) 10 ( 1.3) 31 ( 1.2) 43 ( 1.4) 13 ( 1.2) 329 ( 1.4) 

Technical 721 4,918 3 ( 1.1) 21 ( 3.1) 40 ( 3.5) 30 ( 3.8) 6 ( 1.6) 308 ( 2.5) 

Sales 2,385 17,901 9 ( 0.9) 27 ( 1.9) 40 ( 2.2) 21 ( 1.7) 3 ( 0.7) 290 ( 2.0) 

Clerical 3,550 23,394 6 ( 0.6) 24 ( 1.1) 45 ( 1.5) 22 ( 1.3) 3 ( 0.5) 296 ( 1.3) 

Laborer 1,054 7,595 30 ( 2.7) 33 ( 2.4) 29 ( 2.4) 7 ( 1.5) 0†( 0.4) 248 ( 3.8) 

Service 3,908 26,916 23 ( 1.0) 33 ( 1.2) 32 ( 1.5) 12 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.3) 262 ( 1.4) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 576 4,990 33 ( 3.1) 28 ( 2.9) 29 ( 3.0) 10 ( 1.4) 1 ( 0.6) 245 ( 4.8) 

Craft 1,992 15,460 20 ( 1.7) 32 ( 1.8) 35 ( 1.6) 12 ( 1.2) 1 ( 0.5) 267 ( 2.1) 

Machine operative 1,355 9,878 30 ( 1.5) 34 ( 2.5) 28 ( 1.9) 8 ( 1.8) 0†( 0.2) 247 ( 2.2) 

Transportation operative 758 5,387 24 ( 1.9) 36 ( 2.7) 31 ( 2.6) 8 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.5) 258 ( 2.5) 

Document

Managerial 1,639 11,906 5 ( 0.9) 16 ( 1.4) 38 ( 2.0) 33 ( 2.1) 7 ( 1.4) 311 ( 1.5) 

Professional 2,705 18,510 3 ( 0.6) 13 ( 1.1) 36 ( 1.3) 38 ( 1.6) 10 ( 1.0) 321 ( 1.4) 

Technical 721 4,918 5 ( 1.4) 21 ( 2.4) 37 ( 3.0) 30 ( 2.5) 7 ( 2.1) 308 ( 2.9) 

Sales 2,385 17,901 11 ( 1.1) 30 ( 1.7) 39 ( 2.0) 18 ( 1.4) 2 ( 0.6) 285 ( 1.6) 

Clerical 3,550 23,394 8 ( 0.8) 29 ( 1.2) 42 ( 1.9) 19 ( 1.2) 2 ( 0.4) 290 ( 1.4) 

Laborer 1,054 7,595 31 ( 2.3) 35 ( 2.8) 27 ( 2.7) 7 ( 1.9) 1 ( 0.3) 247 ( 3.2) 

Service 3,908 26,916 25 ( 0.9) 33 ( 1.3) 30 ( 1.4) 10 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.2) 259 ( 1.5) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 576 4,990 32 ( 3.3) 30 ( 2.4) 27 ( 2.7) 9 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.7) 245 ( 5.3) 

Craft 1,992 15,460 20 ( 1.6) 32 ( 1.8) 34 ( 2.2) 13 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.5) 267 ( 2.0) 

Machine operative 1,355 9,878 32 ( 1.9) 35 ( 2.6) 26 ( 2.0) 7 ( 1.2) 0†( 0.3) 242 ( 2.3) 

Transportation operative 758 5,387 25 ( 2.3) 32 ( 2.7) 32 ( 3.4) 10 ( 1.8) 1 ( 0.6) 260 ( 2.4) 

Quantitative

Managerial 1,639 11,906 4 ( 0.8) 13 ( 1.5) 34 ( 2.2) 38 ( 1.6) 12 ( 1.5) 322 ( 1.6) 

Professional 2,705 18,510 3 ( 0.5) 12 ( 0.9) 33 ( 1.3) 38 ( 1.5) 14 ( 1.0) 326 ( 1.3) 

Technical 721 4,918 6 ( 1.4) 20 ( 2.8) 38 ( 3.2) 27 ( 3.6) 9 ( 2.6) 308 ( 2.7) 

Sales 2,385 17,901 10 ( 1.0) 26 ( 1.8) 39 ( 2.4) 21 ( 2.0) 4 ( 0.5) 291 ( 1.8) 

Clerical 3,550 23,394 8 ( 0.6) 25 ( 1.1) 43 ( 1.4) 21 ( 1.4) 3 ( 0.5) 293 ( 1.4) 

Laborer 1,054 7,595 32 ( 3.3) 30 ( 3.2) 28 ( 2.1) 9 ( 1.6) 1 ( 0.3) 249 ( 3.5) 

Service 3,908 26,916 27 ( 1.1) 32 ( 1.7) 30 ( 1.3) 11 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.3) 258 ( 1.7) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 576 4,990 29 ( 3.9) 25 ( 3.6) 30 ( 4.4) 13 ( 3.0) 3 ( 1.2) 253 ( 6.6) 

Craft 1,992 15,460 19 ( 1.5) 27 ( 1.5) 36 ( 2.1) 17 ( 1.4) 2 ( 0.6) 274 ( 2.3) 

Machine operative 1,355 9,878 30 ( 1.7) 33 ( 2.3) 28 ( 2.4) 9 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.4) 248 ( 2.3) 

Transportation operative 758 5,387 22 ( 2.5) 30 ( 3.5) 34 ( 3.1) 13 ( 3.1) 1 ( 0.9) 266 ( 2.6) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION BY

LITERACY SCALE Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
212 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B5.3D

Percentages and Average Document Proficiencies of Workers in

Major Occupational Categories, by Frequency of Job Literacy Practices

FREQUENCY OF JOB LITERACY PRACTICES

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Managerial 1,612 11,890 89 ( 0.9) 9 ( 0.7) 2 ( 0.5) 

 314 ( 1.7) 289 ( 8.9)! *** (  ) 

Professional 2,698 18,506 73 ( 1.1) 19 ( 1.0) 8 ( 0.7) 

 325 ( 1.6) 314 ( 2.4) 298 ( 4.5)!

Technical 714 4,914 71 ( 2.1) 24 ( 2.3) 5 ( 0.9) 

 311 ( 3.6) 304 ( 6.1)! ** * ( ****) 

Sales 2,344 17,877 58 ( 1.3) 31 ( 1.6) 11 ( 0.9) 

 294 ( 1.9) 276 ( 2.4) 257 ( 4.8)!

Clerical 3,524 23,379 69 ( 1.3) 22 ( 1.2) 9 ( 0.6) 

 293 ( 1.6) 290 ( 2.4) 267 ( 4.3)!

Laborer 935 7,514 26 ( 2.3) 31 ( 2.3) 43 ( 2.6) 

 267 ( 4.5) 257 ( 4.6) 227 ( 4.5) 

Service 3,764 26,821 30 ( 1.3) 30 ( 1.1) 40 ( 1.1) 

 273 ( 2.2) 270 ( 2.3) 240 ( 2.7) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 533 4,961 29 ( 2.8) 27 ( 2.7) 44 ( 2.8) 

 265 ( 5.8)! 264 ( 7.1)! 221 ( 8.4) 

Craft 1,850 15,366 54 ( 1.6) 30 ( 1.6) 16 ( 1.4) 

 280 ( 2.4) 262 ( 3.7) 229 ( 5.9) 

Machine operative 1,300 9,842 33 ( 1.6) 32 ( 1.8) 35 ( 2.0) 

 270 ( 3.7) 245 ( 4.4) 214 ( 4.8) 

Transportation operative 711 5,353 45 ( 2.4) 32 ( 2.0) 23 ( 2.1) 

 270 ( 3.0) 269 ( 4.5) 228 ( 6.5)!

Total 19,985 146,423 54 ( 0.6) 26 ( 0.5) 20 ( 0.4) 

 296 ( 0.8) 275 ( 1.3) 239 ( 1.4) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Often Weekly Rarely
Appendix B ...... 213

TABLE B5.3Q

Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of Workers in

Major Occupational Categories, by Frequency of Job Literacy Practices

FREQUENCY OF JOB LITERACY PRACTICES

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Managerial 1,612 11,890 89 ( 0.9) 9 ( 0.7) 2 ( 0.5) 

 325 ( 1.7) 298 ( 6.8)! *** (  ) 

Professional 2,698 18,506 73 ( 1.1) 19 ( 1.0) 8 ( 0.7) 

 331 ( 1.5) 318 ( 2.4) 298 ( 4.7)!

Technical 714 4,914 71 ( 2.1) 24 ( 2.3) 5 ( 0.9) 

 311 ( 3.9) 305 ( 6.4)! ** * ( ****) 

Sales 2,344 17,877 58 ( 1.3) 31 ( 1.6) 11 ( 0.9) 

 303 ( 1.9) 281 ( 2.8) 256 ( 5.3)!

Clerical 3,524 23,379 69 ( 1.3) 22 ( 1.2) 9 ( 0.6) 

 297 ( 1.5) 294 ( 2.9) 268 ( 3.7)!

Laborer 935 7,514 26 ( 2.3) 31 ( 2.3) 43 ( 2.6) 

 273 ( 4.3) 260 ( 4.2) 227 ( 5.9) 

Service 3,764 26,821 30 ( 1.3) 30 ( 1.1) 40 ( 1.1) 

 275 ( 2.2) 269 ( 2.5) 237 ( 2.9) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 533 4,961 29 ( 2.8) 27 ( 2.7) 44 ( 2.8) 

 284 ( 6.2)! 275 ( 7.3)! 220 (10.8) 

Craft 1,850 15,366 54 ( 1.6) 30 ( 1.6) 16 ( 1.4) 

 289 ( 2.8) 270 ( 3.4) 232 ( 5.7) 

Machine operative 1,300 9,842 33 ( 1.6) 32 ( 1.8) 35 ( 2.0) 

 280 ( 3.8) 252 ( 3.5) 215 ( 5.1) 

Transportation operative 711 5,353 45 ( 2.4) 32 ( 2.0) 23 ( 2.1) 

 278 ( 3.1) 271 ( 5.0) 234 ( 7.1)!

Total 19,985 146,423 54 ( 0.6) 26 ( 0.5) 20 ( 0.4) 

 303 ( 0.7) 279 ( 1.3) 239 ( 1.4) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Often Weekly Rarely
214 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B5.4

Percentages of Service, Farm, and Labor Workers Reporting

Never Reading on the Job, by Region of the Country

CENSUS REGION

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

Service 981 6,250 25 ( 1.6) 21 ( 2.3) 36 ( 2.4) 19 ( 1.9) 

Farm 205 1,479 9 ( 3.4) 21 ( 3.8) 33 ( 5.8) 37 ( 6.4) 

Labor 398 2,342 23 ( 3.0) 12 ( 2.6) 46 ( 3.9) 19 ( 3.1) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true population value can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Northeast Midwest South West
Appendix B ...... 215

TABLE B5.5D

Percentages and Average Document Proficiencies of Workers in

Major Occupational Categories, by Frequency of Combined Literacy Practices

FREQUENCY OF COMBINED LITERACY PRACTICES

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Managerial 1,612 11,906 84 ( 1.1) 15 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.2) 

 315 ( 1.7) 294 ( 5.8) *** (  )

Professional 2,698 18,510 73 ( 1.1) 23 ( 1.1) 4 ( 0.5) 

 325 ( 1.6) 311 ( 2.6) 288 ( 6.5)!

Technical 714 4,918 71 ( 2.3) 26 ( 2.5) 3 ( 0.6) 

 312 ( 3.6) 301 ( 5.8)! ** * ( ****) 

Sales 2,344 17,901 60 ( 1.2) 33 ( 1.3) 6 ( 0.7) 

 295 ( 1.8) 275 ( 2.2) 231 ( 7.9)!

Clerical 3,524 23,394 66 ( 1.2) 29 ( 1.2) 5 ( 0.4) 

 294 ( 1.5) 287 ( 2.1) 256 ( 5.4)!

Laborer 935 7,595 27 ( 2.4) 42 ( 2.3) 29 ( 2.0) 

 273 ( 5.3) 253 ( 3.6) 215 ( 5.1) 

Service 3,764 26,916 32 ( 1.1) 43 ( 1.3) 25 ( 0.9) 

 276 ( 2.0) 266 ( 1.7) 224 ( 4.0) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 533 4,990 30 ( 3.3) 39 ( 3.2) 30 ( 2.8) 

 270 ( 5.3)! 261 ( 6.3) 200 (10.4)!

Craft 1,850 15,460 49 ( 1.7) 39 ( 1.5) 11 ( 1.2) 

 282 ( 2.3) 263 ( 2.9) 215 ( 7.6)!

Machine operative 1,300 9,878 32 ( 2.0) 42 ( 2.2) 26 ( 1.9) 

 273 ( 3.2) 246 ( 4.0) 198 ( 5.7)!

Transportation operative 711 5,387 41 ( 2.7) 41 ( 2.6) 17 ( 1.8) 

 272 ( 3.6) 262 ( 4.5) 225 ( 7.3)!

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Often Weekly Rarely
216 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B5.5Q

Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of Workers in

Major Occupational Categories, by Frequency of Combined Literacy Practices

FREQUENCY OF COMBINED LITERACY PRACTICES

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Managerial 1,612 11,906 84 ( 1.1) 15 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.2) 

 327 ( 1.7) 301 ( 4.3) *** (  )

Professional 2,698 18,510 73 ( 1.1) 23 ( 1.1) 4 ( 0.5) 

 332 ( 1.5) 315 ( 2.5) 287 ( 7.5)!

Technical 714 4,918 71 ( 2.3) 26 ( 2.5) 3 ( 0.6) 

 313 ( 3.4) 299 ( 6.2)! ** * ( ****) 

Sales 2,344 17,901 60 ( 1.2) 33 ( 1.3) 6 ( 0.7) 

 304 ( 1.8) 280 ( 2.5) 229 ( 8.7)!

Clerical 3,524 23,394 66 ( 1.2) 29 ( 1.2) 5 ( 0.4) 

 298 ( 1.4) 290 ( 2.5) 257 ( 5.0)!

Laborer 935 7,595 27 ( 2.4) 42 ( 2.3) 29 ( 2.0) 

 278 ( 3.8) 256 ( 4.5) 214 ( 6.4) 

Service 3,764 26,916 32 ( 1.1) 43 ( 1.3) 25 ( 0.9) 

 278 ( 2.2) 266 ( 1.9) 221 ( 3.9) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 533 4,990 30 ( 3.3) 39 ( 3.2) 30 ( 2.8) 

 288 ( 6.1)! 270 ( 7.2) 197 (14.2)!

Craft 1,850 15,460 49 ( 1.7) 39 ( 1.5) 11 ( 1.2) 

 290 ( 2.5) 271 ( 3.4) 217 ( 7.4)!

Machine operative 1,300 9,878 32 ( 2.0) 42 ( 2.2) 26 ( 1.9) 

 282 ( 3.6) 253 ( 3.3) 197 ( 5.7)!

Transportation operative 711 5,387 41 ( 2.7) 41 ( 2.6) 17 ( 1.8) 

 280 ( 3.5) 267 ( 4.9) 229 ( 7.7)!

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Often Weekly Rarely
Appendix B ...... 217

TABLE B5.6

Percentages and Average Proficiencies on Each Literacy Scale of Workers

in Collapsed Occupational Categories, by Participation in Training Programs

TRAINING COURSES

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Manager,

Professional,

& Technical 4,946 34,650

Prose 92 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 8 ( 0.4) 

 324 ( 1.1) 319 ( 3.5)! 291 ( 5.0)! 311 ( 6.3)! 311 ( 3.2) 

Document 92 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 8 ( 0.4) 

 317 ( 1.0) 312 ( 4.1)! 283 ( 4.6)! 308 ( 6.9)! 305 ( 3.8) 

Quantitative 92 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 8 ( 0.4) 

 323 ( 1.2) 321 ( 4.0)! 288 ( 6.4)! 306 ( 5.9)! 310 ( 3.4) 

Sales, Clerical,

Service 9,464 66,632

Prose 92 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 8 ( 0.5) 

 283 ( 0.9) 279 ( 4.5)! 254 ( 4.5)! 258 ( 5.6)! 264 ( 3.5) 

Document 92 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 8 ( 0.5) 

 278 ( 0.9) 273 ( 4.6)! 250 ( 3.8)! 255 ( 6.0)! 259 ( 3.3) 

Quantitative 92 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 8 ( 0.5) 

 281 ( 1.0) 277 ( 4.9)! 247 ( 4.3)! 251 ( 5.8)! 258 ( 3.5) 

Craft 1,841 15,164

Prose 92 ( 0.8) 4 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.6) 8 ( 0.8) 

 268 ( 2.3) 266 ( 5.5)! 241 ( 7.1)! 271 ( 9.0)! 261 ( 4.6)! 

Document 92 ( 0.8) 4 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.6) 8 ( 0.8) 

 267 ( 2.2) 265 ( 5.5)! 242 ( 7.7)! 269 ( 8.6)! 260 ( 4.2)! 

Quantitative 92 ( 0.8) 4 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.6) 8 ( 0.8) 

 275 ( 2.5) 269 ( 5.5)! 247 ( 8.1)! 271 ( 6.5)! 264 ( 4.0)! 

Laborer,

Farmer, &

Mach./Trans.

Operative 3,465 27,241

Prose 92 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.5) 7 ( 0.6) 

 251 ( 1.7) 245 (12.6)! 231 ( 6.8)! 233 ( 8.3)! 236 ( 5.8)! 

Document 92 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.5) 7 ( 0.6) 

 249 ( 1.7) 245 (12.1)! 230 ( 7.5)! 235 ( 7.9)! 236 ( 5.3)! 

Quantitative 92 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.5) 7 ( 0.6) 

 254 ( 2.1) 249 (13.1)! 228 ( 7.5)! 236 ( 7.9)! 237 ( 4.9)! 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

Never

enrolled

Employer/

Union Public Tutoring/Other Total enrolled
218 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B5.7D

Percentages and Average Document Proficiencies of Adults Reporting

Enrollment in Training Programs, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Education

TRAINING COURSES

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Sex

Male 10,657 89,736 92 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.2) 4 ( 0.2) 8 ( 0.4) 

 269 ( 0.9) 281 ( 4.0) 238 ( 6.1) 258 ( 4.2) 263 ( 3.0) 

Female 13,922 96,591 93 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.2) 3 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.3) 

 266 ( 1.0) 269 ( 5.3) 245 ( 3.9) 255 ( 5.3) 255 ( 3.1) 

Race/Ethnicity

White 16,637 142,077 94 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.1) 2 ( 0.2) 6 ( 0.3) 

 280 ( 0.8) 288 ( 3.8)! 264 ( 4.2)! 274 ( 4.5)! 276 ( 2.7) 

Black 4,464 20,524 87 ( 0.7) 4 ( 0.3) 6 ( 0.6) 5 ( 0.4) 13 ( 0.7) 

 230 ( 1.3) 243 ( 4.5) 219 ( 3.9) 237 ( 6.1) 231 ( 3.1) 

Hispanic 2,870 17,739 91 ( 0.8) 2 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.6) 9 ( 0.8) 

 211 ( 2.5) 249 (14.1)! 227 ( 7.9)! 228 ( 7.7)! 232 ( 5.5)!

Other 646 6,252 87 ( 2.2) 5 ( 1.9) 6 ( 1.3) 4 ( 1.3) 13 ( 2.2) 

 251 ( 3.7) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) 215 (15.6)!

Education

Still in high school 954 8,084 94 ( 1.4) 0†( 0.1) 3 ( 0.7) 4 ( 0.9) 6 ( 1.4) 

 275 ( 2.1) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) 258 ( 6.8)!

0 to 12 years 4,940 42,433 92 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.4) 8 ( 0.6) 

 202 ( 1.9) 217 ( 8.2)! 206 ( 5.9)! 201 ( 6.1)! 206 ( 3.8) 

GED/High school graduate 6,762 57,253 93 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.5) 

 265 ( 1.0) 260 ( 5.2) 246 ( 6.8) 257 ( 5.3) 255 ( 3.9) 

Some postsecondary 11,961 78,822 93 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.1) 3 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.4) 

 304 ( 0.8) 300 ( 3.4) 276 ( 3.9)! 294 ( 4.0) 293 ( 2.3) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

SEX, RACE/ETHNICITY,

AND EDUCATION Never

enrolled

Employer/

Union Public Tutoring/Other

Total

enrolled
Appendix B ...... 219

TABLE B5.7Q

Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of Adults Reporting

Enrollment in Training Programs, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Education

TRAINING COURSES

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Sex

Male 10,657 89,736 92 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.2) 4 ( 0.2) 8 ( 0.4) 

 278 ( 0.9) 290 ( 4.2) 243 ( 6.2) 259 ( 4.9) 267 ( 3.1) 

Female 13,922 96,591 93 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.2) 3 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.3) 

 268 ( 1.0) 270 ( 5.1) 242 ( 3.8) 250 ( 5.5) 252 ( 3.2) 

Race/Ethnicity

White 16,637 142,077 94 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.1) 2 ( 0.2) 6 ( 0.3) 

 287 ( 0.8) 296 ( 3.8)! 269 ( 4.9)! 275 ( 4.6)! 281 ( 2.9) 

Black 4,464 20,524 87 ( 0.7) 4 ( 0.3) 6 ( 0.6) 5 ( 0.4) 13 ( 0.7) 

 224 ( 1.6) 239 ( 5.3) 212 ( 4.6) 229 ( 6.8) 224 ( 3.3) 

Hispanic 2,870 17,739 91 ( 0.8) 2 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.6) 9 ( 0.8) 

 210 ( 2.4) 250 (14.9)! 223 ( 7.3)! 222 ( 7.4)! 229 ( 5.6)!

Other 646 6,252 87 ( 2.2) 5 ( 1.9) 6 ( 1.3) 4 ( 1.3) 13 ( 2.2) 

 256 ( 4.3) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) 222 (14.3)!

Education

Still in high school 954 8,084 94 ( 1.4) 0†( 0.1) 3 ( 0.7) 4 ( 0.9) 6 ( 1.4) 

 270 ( 2.4) ** * ( ****) *** (  ) ** * ( ****) 255 ( 8.3)!

0 to 12 years 4,940 42,433 92 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.4) 8 ( 0.6) 

 202 ( 2.0) 212 ( 9.8)! 205 ( 5.0)! 196 ( 7.8)! 203 ( 3.8) 

GED/High school graduate 6,762 57,253 93 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.5) 

 271 ( 1.0) 265 ( 4.5) 245 ( 7.1) 258 ( 5.1) 256 ( 3.6) 

Some postsecondary 11,961 78,822 93 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.1) 3 ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.4) 

 311 ( 1.0) 309 ( 3.6) 281 ( 5.5)! 293 ( 3.7) 298 ( 2.4) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

SEX, RACE/ETHNICITY,

AND EDUCATION Never

enrolled

Employer/

Union Public Tutoring/Other

Total

enrolled
220 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B5.8D

Percentages and Average Document Proficiencies of Workers

in Major Occupational Categories, by Race/Ethnicity

RACE/ETHNICITY

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Managerial 1,598 11,597 90 ( 0.9) 6 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.6) 

 315 ( 1.8) 273 ( 5.3)! 289 ( 9.1)!

Professional 2,600 17,750 89 ( 0.9) 6 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.5) 

 326 ( 1.5) 277 ( 3.2)! 282 ( 6.2)!

Technical 693 4,641 84 ( 1.7) 9 ( 1.3) 7 ( 1.0) 

 315 ( 3.0) 278 ( 7.8)! 275 ( 9.7)!

Sales 2,301 16,974 82 ( 1.1) 9 ( 0.6) 9 ( 0.8) 

 293 ( 1.6) 257 ( 3.6)! 248 ( 5.1)!

Clerical 3,466 22,782 78 ( 0.9) 12 ( 0.6) 10 ( 0.7) 

 297 ( 1.7) 264 ( 2.8) 264 ( 3.7)!

Laborer 1,025 7,293 69 ( 1.9) 16 ( 1.3) 15 ( 1.5) 

 267 ( 3.9) 219 ( 5.8)! 190 (10.5)!

Service 3,802 25,832 70 ( 0.8) 17 ( 0.7) 13 ( 0.7) 

 278 ( 1.9) 225 ( 2.5) 210 ( 5.9) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 565 4,814 81 ( 2.9) 4 ( 1.3) 15 ( 2.6) 

 267 ( 3.8) 189 (13.3)! 150 ( 9.2)!

Craft 1,955 15,239 83 ( 0.9) 7 ( 0.7) 9 ( 0.7) 

 277 ( 2.3) 220 ( 6.0)! 212 ( 5.6)!

Machine operative 1,320 9,454 69 ( 1.8) 15 ( 1.6) 16 ( 1.3) 

 263 ( 3.0) 226 ( 4.3)! 178 ( 7.3)!

Transportation operative 747 5,280 74 ( 2.0) 15 ( 1.6) 11 ( 1.5) 

 274 ( 2.9) 218 ( 6.4)! 228 ( 9.4)!

Total 20,072 141,656 79 ( 0.2) 11 ( 0.1) 10 ( 0.2) 

 293 ( 0.8) 240 ( 1.2) 224 ( 2.9) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

White Black Hispanic
Appendix B ...... 221

TABLE B5.8Q

Percentages and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of Workers

in Major Occupational Categories, by Race/Ethnicity

RACE/ETHNICITY

 WGT NRPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE )

 PROF ( SE ) n (/1,000) PROF ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Managerial 1,598 11,597 90 ( 0.9) 6 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.6) 

 326 ( 1.7) 278 ( 5.5)! 296 ( 9.3)!

Professional 2,600 17,750 89 ( 0.9) 6 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.5) 

 332 ( 1.4) 275 ( 3.6)! 289 ( 6.2)!

Technical 693 4,641 84 ( 1.7) 9 ( 1.3) 7 ( 1.0) 

 316 ( 2.8) 268 ( 7.5)! 273 ( 7.5)!

Sales 2,301 16,974 82 ( 1.1) 9 ( 0.6) 9 ( 0.8) 

 302 ( 2.0) 252 ( 3.3)! 248 ( 5.8)!

Clerical 3,466 22,782 78 ( 0.9) 12 ( 0.6) 10 ( 0.7) 

 302 ( 1.6) 261 ( 3.5) 265 ( 4.2)!

Laborer 1,025 7,293 69 ( 1.9) 16 ( 1.3) 15 ( 1.5) 

 271 ( 3.6) 217 ( 6.1)! 187 (10.7)!

Service 3,802 25,832 70 ( 0.8) 17 ( 0.7) 13 ( 0.7) 

 279 ( 1.9) 217 ( 2.8) 206 ( 6.4) 

Farming, forestry, fishing 565 4,814 81 ( 2.9) 4 ( 1.3) 15 ( 2.6) 

 280 ( 3.8) 177 (14.1)! 148 ( 9.7)!

Craft 1,955 15,239 83 ( 0.9) 7 ( 0.7) 9 ( 0.7) 

 286 ( 2.5) 220 ( 6.4)! 214 ( 4.3)!

Machine operative 1,320 9,454 69 ( 1.8) 15 ( 1.6) 16 ( 1.3) 

 271 ( 2.9) 226 ( 5.1)! 180 ( 6.4)!

Transportation operative 747 5,280 74 ( 2.0) 15 ( 1.6) 11 ( 1.5) 

 282 ( 3.2) 217 ( 7.2)! 228 (10.1)!

Total 20,072 141,656 79 ( 0.2) 11 ( 0.1) 10 ( 0.2) 

 299 ( 0.8) 237 ( 1.5) 224 ( 2.9) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 45 respondents).

! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this statistic.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

OCCUPATION

White Black Hispanic
222 ...... Appendix B

TABLE B5.9D

Percentages at Each Level and Average Document Proficiencies of Adults

Reporting Type of Physical, Mental, or Other Health Condition

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Physical, mental,

health condition 2,806 22,205 51 ( 1.2) 30 ( 1.2) 15 ( 0.9) 4 ( 0.6) 1 ( 0.2) 218 ( 2.0) 

Visual difficulty 1,801 14,296 56 ( 1.5) 26 ( 2.1) 13 ( 1.8) 4 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.3) 211 ( 2.6) 

Hearing difficulty 1,611 14,202 39 ( 2.1) 31 ( 1.9) 22 ( 1.6) 7 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.4) 236 ( 2.8) 

Learning disability 875 5,820 60 ( 2.6) 22 ( 3.0) 13 ( 1.3) 4 ( 1.0) 1 ( 0.9) 201 ( 4.0) 

Mental or emotional

condition 597 3,631 47 ( 3.2) 26 ( 2.8) 18 ( 2.1) 7 ( 1.9) 2 ( 0.7) 223 ( 4.6) 

Mental retardation 63 370 87 ( 6.3) 5 ( 4.9) 5 ( 3.1) 3 ( 2.6) 0†( 0.7) 146 (13.4) 

Speech disability 383 2,767 55 ( 4.1) 28 ( 4.0) 12 ( 2.6) 5 ( 1.9) 0†( 0.4) 212 ( 5.7) 

Physical disability 2,129 17,144 48 ( 1.4) 29 ( 1.5) 17 ( 1.4) 5 ( 0.7) 0†( 0.1) 222 ( 2.1) 

Long-term illness 1,880 14,627 46 ( 1.7) 30 ( 2.2) 17 ( 1.6) 5 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.3) 225 ( 2.3) 

Any other health

impairment 1,509 12,058 45 ( 2.0) 30 ( 2.2) 19 ( 1.8) 5 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.2) 226 ( 2.5) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

TYPE OF CONDITION

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
Appendix B ...... 223

TABLE B5.9Q

Percentages at Each Level and Average Quantitative Proficiencies of Adults

Reporting Type of Physical, Mental, or Other Health Condition

LEVELS AND AVERAGE PROFICIENCY

 WGT N

 RPCT ( SE ) n (/1,000) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) RPCT ( SE ) PROF ( SE )

Physical, mental,

health condition 2,806 22,205 48 ( 1.2) 26 ( 1.1) 19 ( 1.3) 6 ( 0.7) 1 ( 0.4) 220 ( 2.4) 

Visual difficulty 1,801 14,296 55 ( 1.6) 24 ( 1.7) 16 ( 1.6) 5 ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.4) 210 ( 2.7) 

Hearing difficulty 1,611 14,202 37 ( 2.3) 25 ( 1.9) 26 ( 2.0) 10 ( 1.6) 2 ( 0.6) 242 ( 3.6) 

Learning disability 875 5,820 60 ( 2.9) 21 ( 2.5) 13 ( 1.4) 4 ( 1.3) 1 ( 0.6) 197 ( 4.2) 

Mental or emotional

condition 597 3,631 51 ( 3.2) 23 ( 2.7) 16 ( 2.5) 8 ( 1.9) 2 ( 1.3) 214 ( 5.7) 

Mental retardation 63 370 90 ( 4.2) 3 ( 3.7) 6 ( 4.8) 1 ( 0.9) 0†( 1.6) 115 (14.1) 

Speech disability 383 2,767 55 ( 3.2) 22 ( 3.4) 16 ( 2.6) 6 ( 2.3) 1 ( 0.9) 208 ( 7.2) 

Physical disability 2,129 17,144 47 ( 1.7) 26 ( 1.5) 20 ( 1.2) 7 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.3) 223 ( 2.5) 

Long-term illness 1,880 14,627 44 ( 1.5) 25 ( 1.4) 22 ( 1.7) 7 ( 0.8) 2 ( 0.4) 227 ( 2.7) 

Any other health

impairment 1,509 12,058 41 ( 1.8) 26 ( 1.8) 23 ( 1.9) 8 ( 1.1) 2 ( 0.7) 232 ( 3.2) 

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000 (the sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes,

due to missing data); RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate (the true

population value can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimate with 95% certainty).

† Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to 0.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

TYPE OF CONDITION

Level 1

225 or lower

Level 2

226 to 275

Level 3

276 to 325

Level 4

326 to 375

Level 5

376 or higher

Average

proficiency
224 ...... Appendix C
Appendix C ...... 225

APPENDIX C

Overview of Procedures Used in the

National Adult Literacy Survey

This appendix provides information about the methods and procedures used

in the National Adult Literacy Survey. The forthcoming technical report will

provide more extensive information about procedures. In addition, more

detailed information on the development of the background questionnaires and

literacy tasks can be found in Assessing Literacy.1

Sampling

The National and State Adult Literacy Surveys included the following three

components: a national household sample, 11 individual state household

samples, and a national prison sample. The national and state household

components were based on a four-stage stratified area sample with the

following stages: the selection of Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) consisting of

counties or groups of counties, the selection of segments consisting of census

blocks or groups of blocks, the selection of households, and the selection of

age-eligible individuals. One national area sample was drawn for the national

component; 11 independent, state-specific area samples were drawn for the 11

states participating in the state component (i.e., California, Illinois, Indiana,

Iowa, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas,

Washington.) The sample designs used for all 12 samples were similar, except

for two principal differences. In the national sample, Black and Hispanic

respondents were sampled at a higher rate than the remainder of the

population in order to increase their representation in the sample, whereas the

state samples used no oversampling. Also, the target population for the national

sample consisted of adults 16 years of age or older, whereas the target

population for the state samples consisted of adults 16 to 64 years of age.

1

 A. Campbell, I. Kirsch, and A. Kolstad. (1992). Assessing Literacy: The Framework for the National Adult

Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
226 ...... Appendix C

The sample designs for all 12 household samples involved four stages of

selection, each at a successively finer level of geographic detail. The first stage

of sampling involved the selection of PSUs, which consist of counties or groups

of counties. The PSUs were stratified on the basis of region, metropolitan

status, percent Black, percent Hispanic, and, whenever possible, per capita

income. The national component used the WESTAT 100 PSU master sample

with the Honolulu, Hawaii PSU added to the sample with certainty, to make

101 PSUs in total. The national frame of PSUs was used to construct individual

state frames for the state component and a sample of eight to 12 PSUs was

selected within each of the given states. All PSUs were selected with

probability proportional to the PSU’s 1990 population.

The second stage of sampling involved the selection of segments (within

the selected PSUs) which consist of census blocks or groups of census blocks.

The segments were selected with probability proportional to size where the

measure of size for a segment was a function of the number of year-round

housing units within the segment. The oversampling of Black and Hispanic

respondents for the national component was carried out at the segment level,

where segments were classified as high minority (segments with more than 25

percent Black or Hispanic population) or not high minority. The measure of

size for high minority segments was defined as the number of White nonHispanic households plus three times the number of Black or Hispanic

households. High minority segments were therefore oversampled at up to

three times the rate of comparable, non-highminority segments. The measure

of size for nonminority segments was simply the number of year-round housing

units within the segment, as was the measure of size for all segments in the

state components. One in 7 of the national component segments was selected

at random to be included in a “no incentive” sample. Respondents from the

remaining segments in the national component received a monetary incentive

for participation, as did respondents in the state component. (Respondents

from the “no incentive” segments are not included in the household sample of

this report.)

The third stage of sampling involved the selection of households within

the selected segments. Westat field staff visited all selected segments and

prepared lists of all housing units within the boundaries of each segment as

determined by the 1990 census block maps. The lists were used to construct

the sampling frame for households. Households were selected with equal

probability within each segment, except for White non-Hispanic households in

high minority segments in the national component, which were subsampled so

that the sampling rates for White non-Hispanic respondents would be about

the same overall.
Appendix C ...... 227

The fourth stage of sampling involved the selection of one or two adults

within each selected household. A list of age-eligible household members (16

and older for the national component, 16 to 64 for the state component) was

constructed for each selected household. One person was selected at random

from households with fewer than four eligible members; two persons were

selected from households with four or more eligible members. The

interviewers, who were instructed to list the eligible household members in

descending order by age, then identified one or two household members to

interview, based on computer-generated sampling messages that were attached

to each questionnaire in advance.

The sample design for the prison component involved two stages of

selection. The first stage of sampling involved the selection of state or federal

correctional facilities with probability proportional to size, where the measure

of size for a given facility was equal to the inmate population. The second stage

involved the selection of inmates within each selected facility. Inmates were

selected with a probability inversely proportional to their facility’s inmate

population (up to a maximum of 22 interviews in a facility) so that the product

of the first and second stage probabilities would be constant.

Weighting

Full sample and replicate weights were calculated for each record in order to

facilitate the calculation of unbiased estimates and their standard errors.

The full sample and replicate weights for the household components were

calculated as the product of the base weight for a record and a compositing and

raking factor. Demographic variables critical to the weighting were recoded

and imputed, if necessary, prior to the calculation of base weights.

The base weight was calculated as the reciprocal of the final probability of

selection for a respondent, which reflected all stages of sampling. The base

weight was then multiplied by a compositing factor which combined the

national and state component data in an optimal manner, considering the

differences in sample design, sample size, and sampling error between the two

components. Twelve different compositing factors were used, one for each of

the 11 participating states, and a pseudo factor (equal to one) for all national

component records from outside the 11 participating states. The product of the

base weight and compositing factor for a given record was the composite

weight.

The composite weights were raked so that several totals calculated with

the resulting full sample weights would agree with the 1990 census totals,

adjusted for undercount. The cells used for the raking were defined to the
228 ...... Appendix C

finest combination of age, education level, race, and ethnicity that the data

would allow. Raking adjustment factors were calculated separately for each of

the 11 states and then for the remainder of the United States. The above

procedures were repeated for 60 strategically constructed subsets of the

sample to create a set of replicate weights to be used for variance estimation

using the jackknife method. The replication scheme was designed to produce

stable estimates of standard errors for national estimates as well as for the 11

individual states.

The full sample and replicate weights for the incarcerated component

were calculated as the product of the base weight for a record and a

nonresponse and raking factor. The base weight was calculated as the

reciprocal of the final probability of selection for a respondent, which reflected

both stages of sampling. The base weights were then nonresponse adjusted to

reflect both facility and inmate nonresponse. The resulting nonresponse

adjusted weights were then raked to agree with independent estimates for

certain subgroups of the population.

Background Questionnaires

One of the primary goals of the National Adult Literacy Survey is to relate the

literacy skills of the nation’s adults to a variety of demographic characteristics

and explanatory variables. Accordingly, survey respondents were asked to

complete background questionnaires designed to gather information on their

characteristics and experiences. To ensure standardized administration, the

questionnaires were read to the respondent by trained interviewers.

As recommended by the Literacy Definition Committee, the development

of the background questionnaire was guided by two goals: to ensure the

usefulness of the data by addressing issues of concern, and to ensure

comparability with the young adult and Department of Labor (DOL) jobseeker surveys by including some of the same questions. With these goals in

mind, the background questionnaire addressed the following areas:

• general and language background

• educational background and experiences

• political and social participation

• labor force participation

• literacy activities and collaboration

• demographic information
Appendix C ...... 229

Questions in the first category asked survey participants to provide

information on their country of birth, their education before coming to the

United States, language(s) spoken by others at home, language(s) spoken while

growing up, language(s) spoken now, participation in English as a Second

Language courses, and self-evaluated proficiency in English and other

languages. This information makes it possible to interpret the performance

results in light of the increasing racial/ethnic and cultural diversity in the

United States.

The questions on educational background and experiences asked

respondents to provide information on the highest grade or level of education

they had completed; their reasons for not completing high school; whether or

not they had completed a high school equivalency program; their educational

aspirations; the types and duration of training they had received in addition to

traditional schooling; the school, home, or work contexts in which they learned

various literacy skills; and any physical, mental, or health conditions they have

that may affect their literacy skills. Information on respondents’ education is

particularly important because level of education is known to be a predictor of

performance on the prose, document, and quantitative literacy scales.

The questions on political and social participation asked participants about

the sources from which they get information, their television viewing practices,

their use of library services, and whether or not they had voted in a recent

election. Because an informed citizenry is essential to the democratic process,

information was collected on how adults keep abreast of current events and

public affairs. Information on adults’ use of library services is also important,

because libraries promote reading and often provide literacy programs. These

questions make it possible to explore connections between adults’ activities and

their demonstrated literacy proficiencies.

The questions on labor force participation asked participants to provide

information on their employment status, weekly wages or salary, weeks of

employment in the past year, annual earnings, and the industry or occupation

in which they work(ed). These questions respond to concerns that the literacy

skills of our present and future work force are inadequate to compete in the

global economy or to cope with our increasingly technological society. The

questions were based on labor force concepts widely used in economic surveys

and permit the exploration of a variety of labor market activity and experience

variables.

Questions on literacy activities and collaboration covered several

important areas. Some of the questions focused on the types of materials that

adults read, such as newspapers, magazines, books, and brief documents,

making it possible to investigate the relationship between reading practices and

demonstrated literacy proficiencies. Another set of questions asked
230 ...... Appendix C

respondents about the frequency of particular reading, writing, and

mathematics activities. Respondents were asked to provide information on

their newspaper, magazine, and book reading practices; reading, writing, and

mathematics activities engaged in for personal use and for work; and assistance

received from others with particular literacy tasks.

Finally, the survey collected information on respondents’ race/ethnicity,

age, and gender, as well as the educational attainment of their parents, their

marital status, the number of people in their family who were employed fulltime and part-time, sources of income other than employment, and family and

personal income from all sources. This demographic information enabled

researchers to analyze the characteristics of the adult population, as well as to

investigate the literacy proficiencies of major subpopulations of interest, such

as racial/ethnic groups, males and females, and various age cohorts.

Because some questions included in the household survey were

inappropriate for the prison population, a revised version of the background

questionnaire was developed for these respondents. Most of the questions in

the household background questionnaire on general and language background

and on literacy activities and collaboration were included. Many questions

concerning education, political and social participation, labor force

participation, family income, and employment status were not appropriate,

however, and were omitted. In their place, relevant questions were

incorporated from the 1991 Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities,

sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice.

As a result of these changes, the questionnaire for the prison population

addressed the following topics:

• general and language background

• educational background and experiences

• current offenses and criminal history

• prison work assignments and labor force participation

• literacy activities and collaboration

• demographic information

The information collected through these questions makes it possible, for the

first time, to explore complex relationships between prisoners’ literacy skills

and their experiences and characteristics.
Appendix C ...... 231

Literacy Assessment Booklets

The National Adult Literacy Survey measures literacy along three scales —

prose, document, and quantitative — composed of literacy tasks that simulate

the types of demands that adults encounter in everyday life. The literacy tasks

administered in this survey included 81 new tasks as well as 85 tasks that were

included in the previous young adult and job-seeker surveys. The

administration of a common pool of tasks in each of the three surveys allows for

valid comparisons of results across time for different populations.

The new literacy tasks developed for the survey serve to refine and extend

the three existing literacy scales and provide a better balance of tasks across the

three scales. The framework used to develop these tasks reflects research on

the processes and strategies that respondents used to perform the literacy tasks

administered in the young adult survey. In creating the new tasks, one goal was

to include diverse stimulus materials and to create questions and directives that

represent the broad range of skills and processes inherent in the three domains

of literacy. Another goal was to create tasks that reflect the kinds of reading,

writing, and computational demands that adults encounter in work,

community, and home settings. Because the tasks are meant to simulate reallife literacy activities, they are open-ended — that is, individuals must produce

a written or oral response, rather than simply choose the correct response from

a list of options.

The new literacy tasks were developed with attention to the following

elements:

• the structure of the stimulus material — for example, exposition,

narrative, table, graph, map, or advertisement

• the content represented and/or the context from which the

stimulus is drawn — for example, work, home, or community

• the nature of what the individual is asked to do with the material

— that is, the purpose for using the material — which in turn

guides the strategies needed to complete the task successfully

These factors, operating in various combinations, affect the difficulty of a task

relative to others administered in the survey.

The printed and written materials selected for the survey reflect a variety

of structures and formats. Most of the prose materials are expository — that is,

they describe, define, or inform — since most of the prose that adults read is

expository; however, narratives and poetry are included as well. The prose

selections include an array of linguistic structures, ranging from texts that are

highly organized both topically and visually, to those that are loosely organized.
232 ...... Appendix C

Texts of varying lengths were chosen, ranging from full-page magazine

selections to short newspaper articles. All prose materials included in the

survey were reproduced in their original format.

The document materials represent a wide variety of structures, including

tables, charts and graphs, forms, and maps. Tables include matrix documents in

which information is arrayed in rows and columns (for example, bus or airplane

schedules, lists, or tables of numbers). Documents categorized as charts and

graphs include pie charts, bar graphs, and line graphs. Forms are documents

that must be filled in, while other structures include advertisements and

coupons.

Quantitative tasks require the reader to perform arithmetic operations

using numbers that are embedded in print. Since there are no materials that

are unique to quantitative tasks, they were based on prose materials and

documents. Most quantitative tasks were, in fact, based on documents.

Adults do not read printed or written materials in a vacuum. Rather, they

read within a particular context or for a particular purpose. Accordingly, the

survey materials were chosen to represent a variety of contexts and contents.

Six such areas were identified: home and family, health and safety, community

and citizenship, consumer economics, work, and leisure and recreation. Efforts

were made to include as broad a range as possible and to select universally

relevant contexts and contents to ensure that the materials would be familiar to

all participants. In this way, the disadvantages for individuals with limited

background knowledge were minimized.

After the materials were selected, accompanying tasks were developed.

The tasks were designed to simulate the way in which people use various types

of materials and to require different strategies for successful performance. For

both the prose and document scales, the tasks can be organized into three

major categories: locating, integrating, and generating information. In the

locating tasks, readers were asked to match information given in a question or

directive with either literal or synonymous information in the text or document.

Integrating tasks asked the reader to incorporate two or more pieces of

information from different parts of the text or document. Generating tasks

required readers not only to process information located in different parts of

the material, but also to draw on their knowledge about a subject or to make

broad, text-based inferences.

Quantitative tasks required readers to perform one or more arithmetic

operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division) either singly or in

combination. The type of operation to be performed was sometimes obvious

from the wording of the question; in other tasks the readers had to infer which

operation was to be performed. In some cases the numbers required to

perform the operation could be easily identified; in others they were
Appendix C ...... 233

embedded in text. Some quantitative tasks asked the reader to explain how he

or she would solve a problem, rather than to perform the actual calculation.

The use of a simple, four-function calculator was required for some tasks.

Survey Design: BIB Spiralling

No individual could be expected to respond to the entire set of 166 simulation

tasks administered as part of the survey. Accordingly, the survey design gave

each respondent a subset of the total pool of literacy tasks, while at the same

time ensuring that each of the 166 tasks was administered to a nationally

representative sample of the adult population. Literacy tasks were assigned to

blocks or sections that could be completed in about 15 minutes, and these

blocks were then compiled into booklets so that each block appeared in each

position (first, middle, and last) and each block was paired with every other

block. Thirteen blocks of simulation tasks were assembled into 26 booklets,

each of which could be completed in about 45 minutes. During a personal

interview, each participant was asked to complete one booklet of literacy tasks

and the background questionnaire, which required approximately 20 minutes.

Training the Data Collection Staff

For the national and state samples, 24 field supervisors, 24 field editors, and

421 field interviewers were recruited and trained in January and February of

1992. The 24 supervisors were trained first at a session in Bethesda, Maryland.

The seven-day program included the interviewer training. Additionally, Westat

provided training specific to supervisory responsibilities, including the use of

Westat’s Automated Survey Control System, a computer-based system for

managing the data collection effort. Finally, supervisors and editors were

trained to perform an item-by-item edit for each data collection instrument

received from the field interviewers.

After the training offered in Bethesda, interviewers attended training

sessions geographically closest to their homes, either San Francisco (January

31- February 2) or Dallas (February 7-9). Four training groups were formed at

each of the two training sites. Each group was led by a Westat home office field

manager. Within each of the four groups, the trainees were divided into

“learning communities” with approximately 18 interviewers each. Each

community was led by the field supervisor who would supervise the

interviewers during the data collection phase.

The training program was modeled closely after Westat’s general approach

for training field staff. This approach uses a mix of techniques to present study
234 ...... Appendix C

material, focusing heavily on trainee participation and practice. The training

program was standardized with verbatim scripts and a detailed agenda to

ensure comparability in presentation across groups.

The key training topics were the data collection instruments — the

household screener, the background questionnaire, and the interview guide

and literacy exercise booklet. The majority of training time was devoted to

instructions for administering these documents. In addition, sessions were used

to present instructional material on gaining respondent cooperation, keeping

records of nonresponse cases, editing completed work, and completing

administrative forms. A bilingual field supervisor provided Spanish speaking

interviewers with training on the Spanish translations of the screener and

background questionnaires.

Prior to project-specific training, new interviewers attended an additional

one-half day of training on general interviewing techniques. Interviewers

selected to work on the prison sample received an additional day of training on

interview procedures unique to that sample.

Administering the Data Collection Instruments

Data collection instruments included the screener, which was designed to

enumerate household members and select survey respondents, the background

questionnaire, and the literacy exercise booklets. Interviewers were given their

first assignments and began work immediately after training. The interviewer

was given a call record folder and screener for each sampled dwelling unit in

his or her assignment. A computer-generated label attached to the front of

each folder and screener provided the case identification number, address, and

assigned exercise booklet number. Additionally, interviewers were provided

with all other field materials necessary to conduct interviews and meet

reporting requirements.

Case assignments were made by the field supervisors, who also mailed

letters to households about one week before the interviewers planned to

contact the household. When making contact, the interviewer first verified that

the address was in the sample and the unit was, in fact, an occupied dwelling. If

the unit did not meet the definition of a year-round housing unit or was vacant,

or for some other reason the interviewer was unable to complete a screener at

an assigned address, she or he documented the situation in a noninterview

report form.

The interviewer introduced the study using an introduction printed on the

front of the screener. As part of the introduction, the interviewer indicated that

if someone from the household was selected for an interview, the respondent
Appendix C ...... 235

would be paid $20 for participating. After introducing the study, the

interviewer proceeded to conduct the screening interview with any household

member 16 years of age or older. If the household members spoke only a

language other than Spanish or English, the interviewer could obtain the

services of a translator to complete the screener interview.

The screener was used to collect names, relationships, sex, age and race/

ethnicity of all household members at the selected dwelling unit. For the

national sample, household members aged 16 years and older were eligible for

selection. For the state sample, however, household members 16 to 64 years of

age were eligible. In households with three or fewer eligible household

members, one was randomly selected for the interview. In households with

four or more eligibles, two respondents were selected. To select respondents,

interviewers first listed the names and ages (in descending age order) of all

eligible household members. They then referred to a sampling table which

selected one or two respondents from the household.

Once the Screener was completed and a respondent(s) selected, the

interviewer proceeded to administer the background questionnaire and the

exercise booklet. If the selected respondent was not available at the time the

screener was conducted, the interviewer returned to administer the

background questionnaire and exercise booklet, which were administered on

the same visit.

The background questionnaire took approximately 20 minutes to

administer and could be conducted in English or Spanish (using the Spanish

printed version) only. In the introduction to the background questionnaire, the

respondent was told that he or she would be given a check for $20 in

appreciation of the time and effort involved in completing the interview,

questionnaires, and assessment. The background questionnaire was divided

into six sections and collected demographic data as well as data on literacyrelated behaviors. Respondents from each of the 11 participating states were

asked five state-specific questions, which appeared at the end of the

questionnaire.

When the background questionnaire was completed, the interviewer

administered the exercise booklet, which took approximately 45 minutes.

There were 26 different versions of the exercise booklet, and each version had

a corresponding interview guide, which the interviewer used to facilitate the

respondent’s completion of tasks in the booklet.

For the prison population, the interviewer informed the selected inmate

about the study using an introduction printed in the background questionnaire

since there was no screener. As part of the introduction, the interviewer

indicated that the inmate would receive a certificate of participation if he or
236 ...... Appendix C

she completed the survey. Because of varying prison regulations, it was not

possible to pay inmates $20 for their participation and so they received the

certificate. The background questionnaire and exercise booklet were

administered using the same procedures as for the household population.

Response Rates

Since there were three instruments — screener, background questionnaire,

and exercise booklet — required for the administration of the survey, it was

possible for a household or respondent to refuse to participate at the time of

the administration of any one of these instruments. Thus, response rates were

calculated for each of the three instruments. For the prison sample there were

only two points at which a respondent could refuse — at the administration of

either the background questionnaire or exercise booklet. The response rates

presented below reflect the percentage of those who had the opportunity to

participate at each stage of the survey. The response rates for the national

household and prison samples are as follows.

Response Rates

Instrument National Prison

Screener 89.1% N/A

Background Questionnaire 81.0% 85.7%

Exercise Booklet 95.8% 96.1%

Data Collection Quality Control

Several quality control procedures relating to data collection were used. These

included the interviewer field edit, a complete edit of all documents by a

trained field editor, validation of 10 percent of each interviewer’s close-out

work, and field observation of both supervisors and interviewers.

At the interviewer training session, interviewers were instructed on

procedures for performing a field edit of all data collection documents. The

main purpose of this edit was to catch and correct or explain any errors or

omissions in recording, to learn from mistakes so they were not repeated, and

to remove stray marks and completely fill in bubbles on the documents that

were to be optically scanned.

Additionally, a complete edit was performed on all documents by a trained

field editor. An item-by-item review was performed on each document, and

each error was fully documented on an edit form. The supervisor reviewed the
Appendix C ...... 237

results of the edit with the interviewer during his or her weekly telephone

conference.

Validation is the quality control procedure used to verify that an interview

was conducted and it took place at the correct address and according to

specified procedures, or that nonresponse statuses (e.g., refusals, vacancies,

language problems) were accurately reported by the interviewers. Interviewers

knew that their work would be validated but did not know to what extent or

which cases. A 10 percent subsample of dwelling units were selected and

flagged in the supervisor’s log and in the automated survey control system

(ASCS). The supervisors performed validation interviews by telephone if a

phone number was available. Otherwise, validation was performed in person by

the supervisor or by another interviewer.

Field observations of both supervisors and interviewers were performed

by Westat field management staff. One purpose of the interviewer observation

was to provide home office staff with an opportunity to observe effectively both

performance of field procedures and respondents’ reactions to the survey.

Another purpose was to provide feedback to weak interviewers when there was

concern about their skills and/or performance. In addition to in-person

observations, interviewers were required to tape record one complete

interview and assessment. The field supervisor selected the particular case in

advance and listened to the tape to “observe” each interviewer.

Finally, nine of the 24 supervisors were visited by field management staff

and evaluated on their editing, coding, office organization, ability to maintain

up-to-date records on production data, and supervision of interviewers.

Scoring the Literacy Exercise Booklets

As the first shipments of exercise booklets were received at ETS, copies were

made of actual responses to the tasks. These sample responses were then

scored by various staff, including the test developer and scoring supervisor,

using either the scoring guides developed for the young adult tasks or guides

prepared during the development of the new tasks. As the sample responses

were scored, adjustments were made to the scoring guides for the new tasks to

reflect the kinds of answers that the respondents were providing.

The sample papers comprised the training sets used to train a group of

readers who would score the exercise booklets. The purposes of the training

were to familiarize the readers with the scoring guides and to ensure a high

level of agreement among the readers. Each task and its scoring guide were

explained and sample responses representative of the score points in the guide

were discussed. The readers then scored and discussed an additional 10 to 30
238 ...... Appendix C

responses. After group training had been completed, all the readers scored all

the tasks in over a hundred booklets to give them practice in scoring actual

booklets, as well as an opportunity to score more responses on a practice basis.

A follow-up session was then held to discuss responses on which readers

disagreed. The entire training process was completed in about four weeks.

Twenty percent of all the exercise booklets were subjected to a reader

reliability check, which entailed a scoring by a second reader. To prevent the

second reader from being influenced by the first reader’s scores, the first

reader masked the scores in every fifth booklet that he or she scored. These

booklets were then passed on for a second reader to score. When the second

reader had scored every item, the first reader’s scores were unmasked. If there

was a discrepancy between the two scores for any response, the scoring

supervisor reviewed the response and discussed it with the readers involved.

The statistic used to report inter-reader reliability is the percentage of

exact agreement — that is, the percentage of times the two readers agreed

exactly in their scores. There was a high degree of reader reliability across all

the tasks in the survey, ranging from a low of 88.1 percent to a high of 99.9

percent with an average agreement of 97 percent. For 133 out of 166 openended tasks, the agreement was above 95 percent.

Data Entry

The background questionnaire was designed to be read by a computerized

scanning device. For most questions, field personnel filled in ovals next to the

respondent’s answers. Open-ended items in the background questionnaire

were coded and the ovals filled in by ETS staff before they were shipped to the

scanning department. Responses on the screener were transferred to scannable

documents by ETS personnel when the check-in process was complete, and

the screener documents were batched and sent to the scanning department on

a regular basis. Exercise booklet scores were transferred to scannable

documents by the readers who scored the items, and these were also batched

and sent to the scanning department at regular intervals. The scanned data

from screeners, background questionnaires, and exercise booklets were

transmitted to magnetic tape, which was then sent to the ETS computer center.

As each of the different instruments were processed, the data were transferred

to a database on the main computer for editing.
Appendix C ...... 239

Editing and Quality Control

Editing included an assessment of the internal logic and consistency of the data

received. For example, data were examined for nonexistent housing locations

or booklets, illogical or inconsistent responses, and multiple responses. Where

indicated, an error listing was generated and sent back to the processing area,

where the original document was retrieved and the discrepancies were

corrected. If resolution of a conflict in the data was not possible, the

information was left in the form in which it was received. Wherever possible,

however, conflicts were resolved. For example, in the infrequent cases in which

field personnel provided more than one response to a single-response

noncognitive item, specific guidelines were developed to incorporate these

responses consistently and accurately. The background questionnaires were

also checked to make sure that the skip patterns had been followed and all data

errors were resolved. In addition, a random set of booklets was selected to

provide an additional check on the accuracy of transferring information from

booklets and answer sheets to the database.

Scaling

The results from the National Adult Literacy Survey are reported on three

scales established by the NAEP 1985 Young Adult Literacy Survey: prose

literacy, document literacy, and quantitative literacy. With scaling methods, the

performance of a sample of examinees can be summarized on a series of

subscales even when different respondents have been administered different

items. Conventional scoring methods are not suited for assessments like the

national survey. Statistics based on the number of correct responses, such as

proportion of correct responses, are inappropriate for examinees who receive

different sets of items. Moreover, item-by-item reporting ignores similarities of

subgroup comparisons that are common across items. Finally, using average

percent correct to estimate means of proficiencies of examinees within

subpopulations does not provide any other information about the distribution

of skills among the examinees.

The limitations of conventional scoring methods can be overcome by the

use of item response theory (IRT) scaling. When several items require similar

skills, the response patterns should have some uniformity. Such uniformity can

be used to characterize both examinees and items in terms of a common scale

attached to the skills, even when all examinees do not take identical sets of

items. Comparisons of items and examinees can then be made in reference to a

scale, rather than to percent correct. IRT scaling also allows distributions of

groups of examinees to be compared.
240 ...... Appendix C

Scaling was carried out separately for each of the three domains of literacy

(prose, document, and quantitative). The NAEP reading scale, used in the

young adult survey, was dropped because of its lack of relevance to the current

NAEP reading scale. The scaling model used for the national survey is the

three-parameter logistic (3PL) model from item response theory.2

 It is a

mathematical model for estimating the probability that a particular person will

respond correctly to a particular item from a single domain of items. This

probability is given as a function of a parameter characterizing the proficiency

of that person, and three parameters characterizing the properties of that item.

Overview of Linking the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS)

Scales to the Young Adult Literacy Survey (YALS) Scales

Prose, document, and quantitative literacy results for the National Adult

Literacy Survey are reported on scales that were established in the Young Adult

Literacy Survey. For each scale, a number of new items unique to the national

survey were added to the item pool that was administered in the original young

adult survey. The NALS scales are linked to the YALS scales based upon the

commonality of the two assessments, namely, the original young adult survey

2

 A. Birnbaum. (1968). “Some Latent Trait Models.” In F.M. Lord and M.R. Novick, Statistical Theories of

Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. F.M. Lord. (1980). Applications of Item Response

Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

common items. Fifty-one percent of the items administered in the national

survey were common to young adult survey. The composition of the item pool

is presented in table C.1.

NALS Table C.1

Composition of the Item Pool for the National Adult Literacy Survey

 Number of Items

NALS

SCALE YALS items New items total

Prose 14 27 41

Document 56 25 81

Quantitative 15 28 43

Total 85 81 165

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy

Survey, 1992.
Appendix C ...... 241

A unidimensional IRT model like the three-parameter logistic model

employed in this study assumes that performance on all the items in a domain

can, for the most part, be accounted for by a single (unobservable) proficiency

variable. Subsequent IRT linking and scaling analyses treat each scale

separately, that is, a unique proficiency is assumed for each scale. As a result,

the linking of corresponding scales was carried out for each pair of scales

separately. The three steps used to link the scales are listed below.

1. Establish provisional IRT scales through common item parameter

calibration based on a pooling of the NALS and YALS items.

2. Estimate distribution of proficiencies on the provisional IRT scales using

“plausible value” methodology.

3. Align the NALS scale to the YALS scale by a linear transformation based

upon the commonality of proficiency distribution of the YALS sample.

Statistical Procedures

The statistical comparisons in this report were based on the t statistic.

Generally, whether or not a difference is considered significant is determined

by calculating a t value for the difference between a pair of means, or

proportions, and comparing this value to published tables of values at certain

critical levels, called alpha levels. The alpha level is an a priori statement of the

probability of inferring that a difference exists when, in fact, it does not.

In order to make proper inferences and interpretations from the statistics,

several points must be kept in mind. First, comparisons resulting in large t

statistics may appear to merit special note. This is not always the case, because

the size of the t statistic depends not only on the observed differences in means

or the percentage being compared, but also on the standard error of the

difference. Thus, a small difference between two groups with a much smaller

standard error could result in a large t statistic, but this small difference is not

necessarily noteworthy. Second, when multiple statistical comparisons are

made on the same data, it becomes increasingly likely that an indication of a

population difference is erroneous. Even when there is no difference in the

population, at an alpha level of .05, there is still a 5 percent chance of

concluding that an observed t value representing one comparison in the sample

is large enough to be statistically significant. As the number of comparisons

increases, the risk of making such an error in inference also increases.

To guard against errors of inference based upon multiple comparisons, the

Bonferroni procedure to correct significance tests for multiple contrasts was

used. This method corrects the significance (or alpha) level for the total

number of contrasts made with a particular classification variable. For
242 ...... Appendix C

each classification variable, there are (K*(K–1)/2) possible contrasts (or

nonredundant pairwise comparisons), where K is the number of categories.

The Bonferroni procedure divides the alpha level for a single t test (for

example, .05) by the number of possible pairwise comparisons in order to give

a new alpha that is corrected for the fact that multiple contrasts are being

made.

The formula used to compute the t statistic is as follows:

where P1

 and P2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their

corresponding standard errors.

t = √se1

2

 + se2

2

P1–P2
Appendix D ...... 243

APPENDIX D

Definitions of All

Subpopulations and Variables Reported

[In Order of Appearance]

Total Population

The total population includes adults aged 16 and older who participated in the

national household survey, the state surveys, and the survey of prisoners.

Highest Level of Education Completed

Respondents were asked to indicate the highest level of education they

completed in this country. The following options were given:

Still in high school (not applicable to the prison population)

Less than high school

Some high school

GED or high school equivalency

High school graduate

Vocational, trade, or business school after high school

College: less than 2 years

College: associate’s degree (A.A.)

College: 2 or more years, no degree

College graduate (B.S. or B.A.)

Postgraduate, no degree

Postgraduate degree (M.S., M.A., Ph.D., M.D., etc.)

These options were collapsed several different ways. In chapter 2, still in high

school, less than high school, and some high school were separate groups;

GED and high school graduate were collapsed; and two categories of

postsecondary education were created: some postsecondary education, but no

degree; and college graduate, that is, any college degree. In other tables, GED

and high school were separated with the other categories remaining the same.

In a third instance, postsecondary education was grouped as follows: college

with no degree, a two-year degree, a four-year degree, and graduate studies or

degree. In chapter 2, as well as in chapter 4, education was also categorized as

still in high school, less than high school, some high school, high school or
244 ...... Appendix D

GED, some postsecondary education, and college degree. In chapter 5, the

categories were as follows: still in high school, 0 to 12 years, GED or high

school graduate, and some postsecondary. In chapter 3, four education levels

were used: 0 to 12 years of education, GED, high school graduate, and any

postsecondary education.

Sex

The interviewers recorded the sex of each respondent.

Age

Respondents were asked to report their date of birth, and this information was

used to calculate their age. Ages were then grouped several ways:

16 to 19, 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 or older

16 to 18, 19 to 24, 25 to 39, 40 to 54, 55 to 64 , and 65 or older

16 to 54 and 55 or older

16 to 24, 35 to 54, and 55 or older

Race/Ethnicity

Respondents were asked two questions about their race and ethnicity. One

question asked them to indicate which of the following best describes them:

White Pacific Islander

Black (African American) Asian

American Indian Other

Alaskan Native

(The interviewer recorded from observation the races of respondents who

refused to answer the question.) The other question asked respondents to

indicate whether they were of Spanish or Hispanic origin or descent. Then,

those who responded “yes” were asked to identify which of the following

groups best describes their Hispanic origin:

Mexicano, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano

Puerto Rican

Cuban

Central/South American

Other Spanish/Hispanic
Appendix D ...... 245

All those who indicated they were of Spanish or Hispanic origin were grouped

together, regardless of their origin. Adults who indicated they were Pacific

Islander, Asian, American Indian, and Alaskan Native were grouped together as

other. All other racial/ethnic groups are reported separately. In some cases

Asian and Pacific Islander were grouped together and reported along with

White, Black, and Hispanic groups.

Average Years of Schooling

Responses to the question on the highest level of education completed were

used to calculate the average number of years of schooling completed. For the

household population, individuals who were still in high school were left out of

this analysis. Adults who had not graduated from high school were asked to

indicate exactly how many years of schooling they had completed (0 through

11). Individuals who did not provide this information were assigned a value

equal to the average number of years of schooling completed by those who did

provide this information. For adults in the category of 0 to 8 years of education,

the average number of years of schooling was 6.10. For adults in the category

of 9 to 12 years of education, the average number of years of schooling was

10.11. The remaining adults were assigned values representing the number of

years of schooling completed, as follows:

GED, high school equivalency 12

high school graduate 12

vocational, trade, or business school 13

college: less than 2 years 13

college: associate’s degree (A.A.) 14

college: 2 or more years, no degree 14.5

college graduate (B.S. or B.A.) 16

postgraduate, no degree 17

postgraduate degree 18

Using these values, the average number of years of schooling was calculated for

race/ethnicity.

Level of Parental Education

Respondents were asked to indicate the highest level of education completed

by their mother (or stepmother or female guardian) and by their father (or

stepfather or male guardian). The analyses in this report are based on the

highest level of education attained by either parent. The categories for
246 ...... Appendix D

reporting data are less than high school, some high school, high school

diploma, and four-year degree.

Household Income

Respondents were asked to give their total family income from all sources in

1991. The responses were then aggregated into the following categories:

$0 to 19,999 or $0 to 9,999

$20,000 to 39,999 $10,000 to 19,999

$40,000 to 74,999 $20,000 to 29,999

$75,000 or more $30,000 to 39,999

$40,000 to 49,999

$50,000 to 74,999

$75,000 or more

Employment Status

Respondents were asked what they were doing the week before the survey:

1) working at a full-time job for pay or profit (35 hours or more)

2) working two or more part-time jobs for pay, totaling 35

or more hours

3) working for pay or profit part-time (1 to 34 hours)

4) unemployed, laid off, or looking for work

5) with a job but not at work because of temporary illness, vacation, or

work stoppage

6) with a job but on family leave (maternity or paternity leave)

7) in school

8) keeping house

9) retired

10) doing volunteer work

Four categories were established: working full-time (or two or more part-time

jobs); working part-time; unemployed, laid off, or looking for work; and out of

the labor force. Adults in categories 1 and 2 above were considered as being

employed full-time; those in category 3 were considered as being employed

part-time; those in category 4 were counted as unemployed; categories 5 and 6

were considered as not being at work; those in categories 7 through 10 as being

out of the labor force. In chapter 4, the category of retired was reported

separately.
Appendix D ...... 247

Childhood Language

Respondents were asked what language or languages were usually spoken in

their homes while growing up. The categories derived from this question are

English, Spanish, any other language, English and Spanish, and English and

other.

Language Spoken Now

The variable of language spoken now was derived from several questions.

Respondents who indicated that they learned to speak only English before

starting school were categorized as speaking English now. Respondents who

indicated that they learned to speak at least one language other than English

before starting school were asked what language they usually speak now.

Respondents who indicated English were grouped with those who learned to

speak only English. Two other categories were also established, Spanish only

and other.

Participation in English as Second Language Courses

Respondents who indicated that they spoke a language other than English

before starting school were asked two questions about participation in courses

for English as a second language: a course to learn how to read and write

English and a course to learn how to speak English. Respondents who

answered yes to either or both of the questions were grouped together as

having taken a course; those who answered no to both questions were grouped

together as not having taken a course.

Personal Practice Index

The personal practice index is an indicator of how often adults read, write, or

use arithmetic for their personal use. Respondents were asked a series of

questions about how often they read the following materials in English for their

personal use:

letters or memos

reports, articles, magazines, or journals

manuals or reference books, including catalogs or parts lists

directions or instructions for medicines, recipes, or other products

diagrams or schematics

bills, invoices, spreadsheets, or budget tables

They were asked another series about how often they wrote or filled out letters

or memos, forms, and reports or articles for their personal use, as well as one
248 ...... Appendix D

question about how often they used arithmetic. The frequency categories for

all these questions were every day, a few times a week, once a week, less than

once a week, and never. To derive the personal practice index, the five

frequency categories were coded 5 for every day down to 1 for never. The

codes were added for the series of questions, and then the mean of the sum

was calculated, with means rounded to the nearest whole number. Means of 4

and 5 (the equivalent of every day or a few times a week) were labeled often; a

mean of 3 was labeled weekly; and means of 1 and 2 (the equivalent of less

than once a week or never) were labeled rarely.

Reason for Dropping Out of School

Respondents who reported that they had less than high school, some high

school, or a GED were asked to indicate the main reason for dropping out of

school. They were asked to choose from the following reasons:

financial problems

went to work or into the military

pregnancy

lost interest or behavior problems in school

academic problems in school

family or personal problems

other

Studying for a GED

Respondents who indicated that they did not have a high school diploma or

that they had a GED were asked if they had ever studied for a GED. The data

were analyzed separately for those with no diploma and those with a GED.

Current Enrollment in School or College

Respondents were asked if they were currently enrolled in school or college,

either full-time or part-time.

Enrollment in Basic Skills Programs

Respondents were asked, “Are you currently enrolled in or have you ever taken

part in a program other than regular school in order to improve your basic

skills, that is, basic reading, writing, and arithmetic skills?” Those who

answered “yes” were then asked to indicate if the program was a training
Appendix D ...... 249

program or courses given or sponsored by an employer or union; a publicly

sponsored education and training program, such as JTPA or ABE; a tutoring

program sponsored by a library, church, or community organization; or any

other program, such as one offered by the military, prisons, or other

institutions. Respondents were able to indicate one or more programs, as

appropriate. The resulting data include the following categories: never enrolled

in any program; enrolled or not enrolled in a employer or union sponsored

program; enrolled or not enrolled in a publicly sponsored program; enrolled or

not enrolled in a tutoring or other program.

Weeks Worked

All respondents, including those who were employed or out of the labor force

the week before the survey, were asked to indicate how many weeks they

worked for pay or profit during the past 12 months, including paid leave, such

as vacation and sick leave. The responses were aggregated into the following

categories: 0 weeks, 1 to 39 weeks, and 40 in more weeks.

Job Practice Index

The job practice index is an indicator of how often adults read, write, or use

arithmetic on the job. Respondents were asked a series of questions about how

often they read the following materials in English for their job:

letters or memos

reports, articles, magazines, or journals

manuals or reference books, including catalogs or parts lists

directions or instructions for medicines, recipes, or other products

diagrams or schematics

bills, invoices, spreadsheets, or budget tables

They were asked another series about how often they wrote or filled out letters

or memos, forms, and reports or articles for their job, as well as one question

about how often they used arithmetic. The frequency categories for all these

questions were every day, a few times a week, once a week, less than once a

week, and never. To derive the job practice index, the five frequency categories

were coded 5 for every day down to 1 for never. The codes were added for the

series of questions, and then the mean of the sum was calculated, with means

rounded to the nearest whole number. Means of 4 and 5 (the equivalent of

every day or a few times a week) were labeled often; a mean of 3 was labeled

weekly; and means of 1 and 2 (the equivalent of less than once a week or never)

were labeled rarely.
250 ...... Appendix D

Country of Birth

All respondents were asked in what country they were born. Two categories were

established: born in the United States or a territory and born outside of the United

States.

Where Adults Learned Their Skills

All participants were asked where they primarily learned to read newspapers,

magazines, or books; read graphs, diagrams, or maps; fill out forms; or write

letters, notes, memos, or reports. The response choices were mostly in school, at

home or in the community, at work, did not learn, or other.

Occupation

Respondents were asked two questions about their current or most recent job,

whether full-time or part-time. The first question asked them to indicate their

occupation or the name of their job — for example, electrical engineer, stock

clerk, typist, or farmer. The second question asked them to describe the most

important activities or duties of the job. Responses were coded according to the

Bureau of Census occupation codes. These codes were then collapsed into 11

main categories: managerial, professional, technical, sales, clerical, laborer, service,

farming/forestry/fishing, craft, machine operative, or transportation operative.

These categories were further collapsed into four general categories: managerial,

professional, and technical; sales, clerical, and service; craft; and laborer, farming,

and machine and transportation operative. In addition, occupational subcategories

were derived by grouping codes as follows:

Health support (nurses, therapists, hygienists, aids, etc.) 095-106, 203-208, 445-447

Teachers (elementary, secondary, postsecondary) 113-159

Sales occupations (cashiers, representatives, vendors) 243-285

Secretaries, steno, typists 313-315

Clerks 317-343, 356, 374, 365-66, 379

Food preparation (cook, kitchen worker, waitress, etc.) 433-444

Cleaning and maintenance 449-454

Child care workers 466-468

Non-supervisory farming, nursery, etc. 473-474, 479, 483-484, 486, 495-496

Non-supervisory construction 563-599

Non-supervisory motor vehicle operator 804-814
Appendix D ...... 251

Frequent Reading and Writing on the Job

From the same series of questions that were used to derive the job practice index,

the frequency of reading or writing specific materials was derived. Frequent

reading or writing of each material includes every day or a few times a week.

General Practices Index

The general practices index is an indicator of how often adults read, write, or

use arithmetic both on the job and for their personal use. To derive the general

practice index, the five frequency categories were coded as described above for

both series of questions on job and personal use. The codes were added and

the mean of the sum was calculated, with means rounded to the nearest whole

number. The same categories of often, weekly, and rarely were derived as

described above.

Region

Census definitions of regions are used in the survey. The four regions are the

Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. The states in each region are identified

below.

Northeast: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode

Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

Midwest: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa,

Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas

South: Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia,

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky,

Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,

Texas

West: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah,

Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii

Presence and Type of Physical, Mental, or Other Health Condition

Respondents were asked a series of questions in which they were asked to

identify whether they had any of the following:

a physical, mental, or other health condition that keeps them from

participating fully in work, school, or other activities

difficulty seeing the words or letters in ordinary newspaper print even

when wearing glasses or contact lenses, if they usually wear them
252 ...... Appendix D

difficulty hearing what is said in a normal conversation with another

person even when using a hearing aid, if they usually wear one

a learning disability

any mental or emotional condition

mental retardation

a speech disability

 a physical disability

 a long-term illness (6 months or more)

 any other health impairment

Respondents were able to indicate each physical, mental, or health condition

they had; thus, these categories are not mutually exclusive. Data are reported

by each of the specific disabilities.
Participants ...... 253

APPENDIX E

Participants in the Development Process

and Information About the Authors

Literacy Definition Committee

Ms. Barbara Clark

Regional Manager

Central Region

Los Angeles Public Library

Ms. Nancy Cobb

Manager

Human Resources Development Department

Nabisco Biscuit Company

Ms. Hanna Fingeret

Director

Literacy South

Ms. Evelyn Ganzglass

Director

Employment and Social Services Policy Studies

Center for Policy Research

National Governors’ Association

Mr. Ronald Gillum

Director

Adult Extended Learning Services

Michigan Department of Education

Mr. Karl Haigler

President

The Salem Company

Mr. Carl Kaestle

Professor of Educational Policy Studies

Wisconsin Center for Educational Research

University of Wisconsin

Mr. Reynaldo Macías

(Liaison to the Technical Review Committee)

Professor of Education and Director

UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute

University of California, Santa Barbara
254 ...... Participants

Mr. David Neice

Director of Research and Analysis Directorate

Department of the Secretary of State

Canada

Honorable Carolyn Pollan

(ex-officio member)

State Representative

Arkansas State Legislature

Ms. Lynne Robinson

Director of Support Services

Division of ACE

Sweetwater Union High School District

Mr. Anthony Sarmiento

Director

Education Department

AFL-CIO

Ms. Gail Spangenberg

Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

Business Council for Effective Literacy

Technical Review Committee

Ms. Susan Embretson

Professor

Department of Psychology

University of Kansas

Mr. Jeremy Finn

Professor

Graduate School of Education

SUNY Buffalo

Mr. Robert Glaser

Director

Learning Research and Development Center

University of Pittsburgh

Mr. Ronald Hambleton

Professor

School of Education

Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research

University of Massachusetts

Mr. Huynh Huynh

Professor

Department of Educational Psychology

University of South Carolina at Columbia

Ms. Sylvia Johnson

Professor

Howard University
Participants ...... 255

Mr. Frank Schmidt

Professor

Industrial Relations and Human Resources

College of Business

University of Iowa

Mr. Richard Venezky

(Liaison to the Literacy Definition Committee)

Professor

Department of Educational Studies

University of Delaware

Literacy of Incarcerated Adults Review Group

Ms. Caroline Wolf Harlow

Statistician

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Mr. Christopher Koch

Education Program Specialist

Office of Correctional Education

U.S. Department of Education

Ms. Harriet Lebowitz

Social Science Research Analysis

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Mr. Ronald Pugsley

Office of Vocational and Adult Education

U.S. Department of Education

Ms. Gail Schwartz

Chief for the Office of Correctional Education

U.S. Department of Education

Literacy of Older Adults Review Group

Ms. Michele Adler

Disability Policy Analyst

Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Department of Health and Human Services

Ms. Helen Brown

(Liaison to the Literacy Definition Committee

and the Technical Review Committee)

Research Analyst/Associate

American Association of Retired Persons

Ms. Bella Jacobs

Consultant

National Council on the Aging

Mr. Robert H. Prisuta

Senior Research Associate

Research and Data Resources Department

American Association of Retired Persons
256 ...... Participants

Test Development Consultants

Ms. Valerie de Bellis

Center for Mathematics, Science, and Computer

Education

Rutgers University

Mr. John Dawkins

Language and Literature Department

Bucks County Community College

Ms. Harriet L. Frankel

Secondary and Higher Education Programs

Educational Testing Service

Ms. Bonnie Hole

The Bureau of Evaluation and Student Assessment

Connecticut State Department of Education

Mr. Richard Lesh

Division of Cognitive and Instructional Science

Educational Testing Service

Ms. Ave M. Merritt

Secondary and Higher Education Programs

Educational Testing Service

Mr. Peter Mosenthal

Reading and Language Arts Center

Syracuse University

Ms. Pam Smith

Secondary and Higher Education Programs

Educational Testing Service

Ms. Wallie Walker-Hammond

Secondary and Higher Education Programs

Educational Testing Service

About the Authors

Carl F. Kaestle is University Professor of Education, History, and

Public Policy at Brown University.

Anne Campbell is an Instructor of Humanities at Diné College, the

tribal college of the Navajo Nation.

Jeremy D. Finn is a Professor in the Graduate School of Education

at the State University of New York, Buffalo.

Sylvia T. Johnson is a Professor in the School of Education at

Howard University.

Larry J. Mikulecky is a Professor in the School of Education at

Indiana University.
38

18

42

12

21

Postage and Fees Paid

U.S. Department of Education

Permit No. G-17

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

8242–B Sandy Court

Jessup, MD 20794–1398

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300