B y D o l o r e s P e r i n 2 0 1 6

Country profiles of formal and non-formal adult education opportunities in

literacy, numeracy and other skills: USA

This paper was commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report as background information to assist in drafting the 2016 report. It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the Global Education Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the Global Education Monitoring Report 2016, Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all”. For further information, please contact gemreport@unesco.org.

ED/GEMR/MRT/2016/P1/39  

Background paper prepared for the 2016 Global Education Monitoring Report

Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all

08  Fall  

   

               

2  

Introduction

In the United States, 76% of the population (total 320m) are adults, defined from a legal

standpoint as individuals aged at least 18 years1. However, the minimum age for both eligibility

for adult education services and inclusion in national adult literacy surveys is 16 years.

Approximately 16% of the U.S. population aged 16 and above have low literacy skills, one third

have low numeracy skills (OECD, 2013c) and 9% have low English language proficiency

(Batalova & Fix, 2010). Further, according to the 2010 U.S. Census, 18% of adults have not

completed secondary education.

Historical development

In the 19th century, adult education began to be offered by charitable, religious, and other

organizations. In 1918, the federal government began to fund adult education in response to a

perception that many First World War recruits were functionally illiterate. From the 1960s to the

current day, national funding has been made available to the individual states for the operation of

adult education programmes. Other funding comes from non-governmental sources. At the

present time, formal and non-formal adult education focuses on literacy and numeracy skills

(adult basic education, or ABE) preparation for the high school equivalency diploma (adult

secondary education, or ASE), and English for speakers of other languages (ESOL). Woven into

this instruction are civics, citizenship skills, family literacy, financial literacy, information and

communication technologies (ICT), and college and career readiness.

                                                                                                                         1  This  legal  minimum  contrasts  with  international  definitions  in  which  adulthood  begins  at  age  15  (UNESCO,  2013).  

   

               

3  

Definitions

As frequently noted, it is difficult to delineate formal and non-formal education. Examples of

definitions are as follows. “Formal learning is always organised and structured, and has learning

objectives. From the learner’s standpoint, it is always intentional: i.e. the learner’s explicit

objective is to gain knowledge, skills and/or competence” (Chao & Mantero, 2014). Non-formal

learning is defined as “learning through a programme but it is not usually evaluated and does not

lead to certification” (Cameron & Harrison, 2012, p. 280) and “learning embedded in planned

activities that are not explicitly designated as learning, but which contain an important learning

element. Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s point of view” (Colardyn &

Bjornavold, 2004, p. 71). In the current report, formal adult education is operationalized as in-

person classroom instruction or online courses guided by curriculum centering adult education

objectives, and non-formal adult education is defined as structured learning opportunities that do

not involve classrooms or course work but nevertheless address identifiable adult education

objectives. Examples of non-formal adult education are tutoring by volunteers, and digital

resources for language practice.

National surveys in the U.S. define adult literacy in terms of three constructs, prose, document,

and quantitative literacy. Prose literacy is the ability to comprehend written stories, brochures,

instructional materials, and other text an adult may encounter in community, work or educational

contexts. Document literacy refers to the ability to understand information contained in written

forms, transportation schedules, maps, medicine labels and other authentic materials that do not

involve extended text. Quantitative literacy (or numeracy) is the ability to compute numbers in

real-life situations, for example calculating financial expenses, dosage of medicine from a

prescription, or amount of interest due for a financial loan2.

                                                                                                                         2  See  appendix  for  a  summary  of  levels  of  prose,  document  and  quantitative  literacy  of  U.S.  adults.  

   

               

4  

Approaches to formal and non-formal adult education.

Formal adult education consists of organized classes following a curriculum of skills in literacy,

numeracy, and/ or English language. These classes are usually taught in person although they are

sometimes also available online. The terminal credential is the high school equivalency diploma

(popularly known as the General Education Development diploma, or GED), which is intended

to substitute for completion of traditional secondary education. Much of non-formal adult

education consists of individualized and small group tutoring by volunteers. This instruction is

offered by many different organizations, including public libraries, housing authorities, homeless

shelters, religious organizations, and advocacy groups such as those focusing on undocumented

mothers, and women who have been abused. Digital resources directly accessible through

websites are another non-formal option.

Country setting and literate environment

Setting. The United States is an industrialized country in which a high level of literacy is required

for civic participation and all but menial employment (U.S. Department of Education Office of

Career Technical and Adult Education (OCTAE), 2015). The high school equivalency diploma,

though the end point of adult education, and though associated with an increase in wages (Bowen

& Nantz, 2014; Reder, 2014), is only a step towards postsecondary education, which is considered

essential for full social involvement and career advancement in the U.S.

Legislation. The legislation governing federal expenditures on formal adult education is the Adult

Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), which is part of the Workforce Innovation and

Opportunity Act (WIOA) and has been in effect for over 50 years. The most recent legislation,

signed into law in July 2014, requires the development of “one-stop” services that integrate adult

literacy, numeracy and ICT skills with workforce preparation. Under AEFLA, funds are

   

               

5  

distributed to the states by formula based on census data to provide ABE, ASE and ESOL

instruction for individuals 16 years or older who have not completed secondary education and are

not attending school. Community colleges, school districts, community-based organizations and

religious organizations within each state are eligible to compete for funding. Eighty-three percent

of a state’s funding is awarded for instruction and the rest is retained by the state for teacher

training, administration, and other expenses.

The recently re-authorized legislation expands AEFLA’s purpose to transition from adult to

postsecondary education and career advancement, and also increases its focus on the needs of

immigrants, including instruction on U.S. government and values, responsibilities of citizenship.

The legislation now requires that adult education incorporate workforce skills, critical thinking,

digital literacy and self-management skills, and competencies needed to access and comprehend

resources on postsecondary transition or career preparation. WOIA requires common outcome

measures on the percentage employed after exit, earnings, attainment of credential, gain in skills,

and job performance, as applicable.

Description of current provision

Formal adult education. Formal adult education is offered in secondary school buildings,

community colleges, trade union facilities, prisons, and other settings. Based on assessment at

programme entry, students are placed in ABE, ASE, or ESOL classes at levels corresponding to

learner skills. Female participation is approximately 53% (Tomassia, Lennon, Yamamoto, &

Kirsch, 2007). The largest proportion of students (approximately 45%) are aged 25-44 years.

However, there has been a recent influx of youth aged 16-21 who have little chance of completing

traditional secondary education and are no longer attending school but wish to obtain a high

school equivalency diploma.

   

               

6  

In fiscal year 2015, the federal government appropriated $568,955,000 for adult education,

$5,000,000 more than in the previous fiscal year. Adult education expenditures are significantly

lower than for public elementary and secondary education (World Education cites annual figures

of $800 versus $10,000 per student). AEFLA funding is administered by the Office of Career,

Technical, and Adult Education of the U.S. Department of Education.

Short-term formal adult education is also provided in special projects funded by grants and

contracts. Examples are ABE classes taught as part of intervention research by the Center for the

Study of Adult Literacy, a five-year, $10m initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Education;

and ABE, career preparation and ICT classes provided under a $450m Trade Adjustment

Assistance Community College and Career Training grant programme of the U.S. Department of

Labor. Another venue for formal adult education is in workplace literacy programmes provided in

partnerships between businesses and entities including community colleges. These programmes

may be funded through a combination of limited-term federal, state or local grants, and

corporation funding, and follow curricula developed based on job or industry needs.

There is no national adult education curriculum, although a statewide curriculum may be used.

Increasingly, a single set of standards is being used to shape curriculum. These standards are based

on the Common Core Standards for College and Career Readiness (National Governors'

Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010a, 2010b), developed for use in

elementary and secondary education, and modified slightly for adult use (Pimentel, 2013). Some

states have developed alternative educational standards which cover the same ground.

Unlike in some other countries, (Andersson, Köpsén, Larson, & Milana, 2013), there is no adult

education credential for instructors although many states require a teaching credential from

elementary or secondary education. The large majority of adult education instructors teach classes

   

               

7  

as a part-time job and as such constitute a relatively low-paid workforce. There tends to be only

minimal training or professional development within programmes although the Literacy

Information and Communication System (LINCS) of the U.S. Department of Education offers

online professional development through webinars, study circles, and discussion boards, at no

charge. Various types of support are provided to promote instructional quality. An example is the

“STudent Achievement in Reading” (STAR) programme3, which, through U.S. Department of

Education funding, provides online resources to states and local programs to help them develop

and improve reading instruction for adults who read an intermediate level.

Non-formal adult education. Non-formal programmes are operated using limited-term funding from

federal, state and local government, philanthropic organizations, business corporations, public

libraries, housing authorities, religious organizations and private donations. Some states have

statewide organizations, such as Literacy Texas4, that coordinate and provide resources to non-

formal programmes.

An example of an organization providing non-formal education is ProLiteracy, which, through

grants, corporate sponsorship, and donations, provides tutoring to over 256,000 adults per year

(38% female, 62% male)5. The organization has existed since the 1930s and was previously named

Laubach Literacy, and Literacy Volunteers of America. According to the organization, over

235,000 adults in the U.S. receive services each year. ProLiteracy provides low cost training and

free resources for its instructors, 87% of whom are volunteers. Besides providing tutoring,

                                                                                                                         3  See  http://www.startoolkit.org/    

4  See  http://www.literacytexas.org/    

5  See  http://www.proliteracy.org/members/statistical-­‐report    

   

               

8  

ProLiteracy produces high interest, low readability adult books through its publishing arm, New

Readers Press.

Another example a non-formal provider is Literacy Partners6, which offers literacy and numeracy

instruction to over 1,500 low-income adults per year (53% female). Instruction is provided by both

volunteer tutors and paid teachers, and covers incorporates financial literacy, health literacy, and

job preparation. Financial literacy includes skills needed for banking, comprehending a paycheck,

and financial planning. Health literacy includes reading medicine labels, understanding medical

dosage, comprehending instructions regarding hazardous materials, and understanding health

issues. A further example of a non-formal provider is the Fortune Society, which provides ABE

and job skills training to formerly-incarcerated adults (the tutoring is provided by ex-inmates)7.

Non-formal digital resources are directly accessible by learners, and include materials such as

“Connect with English8” and “Crossroads Café9,” both available at no charge. Further, there is a

growing number of online digital resources for high school equivalency preparation for use

directly by adults. Digital and online resources are also occasionally used by teachers in formal

adult education programmes as a curriculum supplement.

Scale of programmes. Publicly funded, formal adult education programmes provide instruction to

up to 3m adults each year, which is a small fraction of the low-skilled population. In the year

2011-12, the most recent year for which national figures are reported, 1,085,182 adults were                                                                                                                          6  See  http://www.literacypartners.org/    

7  See  http://fortunesociety.org/    

8  See  http://www.learner.org/resources/series71.html    

9  See  http://www.ketadultlearning.org/esl/crossroads_cafe.htm    

   

               

9  

enrolled in ABE and ASE, and 1,818,806 in ESOL programmes (U.S. Department of Education

Office of Career Technical and Adult Education, 2015), i.e. 37% ABE and ASE combined, and

63% ESOL. A 2010 survey of local programmes conducted by the National Council of State

Directors of Adult Education (response rate one third) found that 160,000 adults were on waiting

lists, sometimes for as long as two years. The longest waiting lists by far were for ESOL classes.

Data on the scale of privately-funded and non-formal adult education is not available, although

63% of non-formal programmes offered through ProLiteracy have reported waiting lists of two to

three months. Information on scale or total funding of non-formal programs across the country

has evidently not been compiled to date.

Monitoring and evaluation

Since 1997, programmes operating under federal AEFLA funding have been accountable through

the National Reporting System (NRS, Division of Adult Education and Literacy, 2015). Outcome

measures comprise educational gain expressed in levels of reading, mathematics and English

language skills, obtaining the high school equivalency diploma, and employment indicators.

Students are assessed as functioning one of four levels of ABE, two levels of ASE, and/ or six

levels of English language proficiency. Each ABE and ASE level describes competence in reading,

writing, numeracy, functional literacy, and workplace skills, and the English language levels

describe listening and speaking, as well as the same literacy, functional and workplace skills

described for ABE and ASE.

Detailed descriptions of each educational level are provided in guidelines for programme

managers (Division of Adult Education and Literacy, 2015). Basic reading and writing skills at the

highest ABE and ASE levels cover adults’ ability to understand, explain and analyze a variety of

written materials, use information from context and higher order processes to interpret meanings

in printed text, and demonstrate writing that is cohesive, contains clear ideas and displays

   

               

10  

sophisticated sentence structures and few errors. At the highest ABE and ASE levels, numeracy

skills include application of the four basic maths operations with whole numbers and fractions,

determination of correct operations to solve mathematical problems, conversion of decimals and

fractions, mathematical estimation of time and space, application of principles of geometry and

trigonometry. Measured functional and workplace skills include ability to follow multistep

directions, understand common legal forms and manuals, understand information from texts,

charts and graphs, fill out forms, create résumés, interpret text concerning job functions, use

common computer applications, and understand the use of new software and technology. English

language skills include the ability to understand and communicate in English in various daily life

and work contexts, understand and participate in everyday conversation, use basic grammar and

simpler English sentence structures, and demonstrate basic fluency in speech.

Levels of performance are entered to the NRS by programmes while the student is enrolled. After

the student exits, if the participant has declared a goal of completion of secondary education or

employment goals, the programme is required to report whether the whether the student passed

the high school equivalency test, whether he/ she entered and was retained in employment, and

whether the participant entered postsecondary education or training10. These follow-up data are

collected either through contact with the student or from state databases.

Performance is measured by standardized tests, which may be administered using paper or

computer. The tests used must be approved by the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult

Education (OCTAE, previously called the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, OVAE)11.

The most widely used tests of basic literacy and numeracy skills are the Test of Adult Basic

                                                                                                                         10  Requirements  changed  as  of  the  2012-­‐13  year  such  that  follow-­‐up  data  is  now  collected  for  all  participants  rather  than  only  those  declaring  the  relevant  goal  (Division  of  Adult  Education  and  Literacy,  2015,  p.  2).    

11  See  http://www.nrsweb.org/docs/federalregistrarnotice_2015-­‐19847.pdf    

   

               

11  

Education (TABE) and the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems (CASAS). An

example of a widely used test of oral English language skills is the Basic English Skills Test

(BEST). Test scores are translated by programme staff based on prescriptive NRS guidelines; a

range of scores is specified for each level (Division of Adult Education and Literacy, 2015, Exhibit

2.1).

The TABE measures skills in reading, basic mathematics (numeracy), language, language

mechanics, vocabulary, and spelling, as well as knowledge and skill required for the high school

equivalency examination, including science, social studies, algebra, geometry and writing. The

CASAS measures English language oral comprehension, mathematics, reading and writing skills.

The BEST requires an individualized interview, and measures speaking proficiency and

comprehension in the English language. Scores on these and the other approved measures

translate to NRS educational levels (six ABE/ ASE and six EL).

In addition to the above-mentioned performance measures, programmes must report the number

of hours a student attends, and the type of programme, such as prison, family or workplace

literacy programmes. Programmes are also required to report demographic data, including income

status (e.g., low income), and whether single parent, and/ or learning disabled.

Each state compiles annual statistics using the NRS variables12. Descriptive data for all states are

compiled in annual reports to Congress (the most recent report being for the 2011-2012 year: U.S.

Department of Education Office of Career Technical and Adult Education, 2015). Impact on

skills and knowledge is measured in terms of completion of at least one level. Annual percentages

of participants in each programme, i.e. ABE/ ASE, and EL are compared over three years. In the

                                                                                                                         12  See  http://www.nrsweb.org/reports/state_snap.aspx    

   

               

12  

2011-2012 year there 1,818,806 participants, 47% in ABE, 13% in ASE, and 40% in ESOL

programmes.

National three-year data for 1,326,797 participants were reported for participants in ABE/ ASE

programmes; 1,110,204 in ESOL; 468,894 who had set a secondary completion goal; 144,867

aiming for postsecondary education or training; 231,395 with short-term employment goals; and

247,466 with job retention goals. In the 2011-12 year, 43% of ABE/ ASE participants completed

one or more levels, compared with 42% and 40% for the two preceding years, respectively.

Among ESOL students, 46% completed at least one educational level, compared to 44% for each

of the two preceding years. In addition, 61% of participants who set a goal of secondary

completion passed the high school equivalency examination, which was no change from the

preceding year but an increase from the 52% reported for 2009-2010. Fifty-eight percent entered

postsecondary education or training, compared from 56% and 60% in the two preceding years,

respectively. Among those who set employment goals, 47% entered employment compared to

48% and 49% for the two preceding years, and 66% retained their jobs, compared with 62% and

64% in the two earlier years (U.S. Department of Education Office of Career Technical and Adult

Education, 2015, Figures 4-9). In addition to the national data, results are stated in the report to

Congress for the same variables for each state.

Challenges regarding monitoring and assessment

Although federally-funded adult education programmes seem to be well monitored through the

NRS, there are significant challenges inherent in the assessment itself, as follows.

1. The outcome variables used in the NRS are not uniform with or easily translatable to those

used in other countries, ruling out international comparisons.

   

               

13  

2. There is no identifiable theoretical framework underlying the NRS accountability system.

Adult literacy and numeracy performance is assessed in terms of standardized tests which

themselves have little theoretical grounding in regard to authentic adult literacy and

numeracy practices.

3. By their nature, standardized tests are not designed to describe adult functioning but rather

to discriminate between and rank test-takers. Although the National Reporting System

provides rigorous guidelines for translating test scores to educational levels, the actual test

items do not easily translate into adult literacy functions, casting doubt on the meaning of

the educational levels themselves.

4. No comparative data are collected, which prevents meaningful programme evaluation. The

only comparisons permitted in the current dataset are basic descriptive statistics for

successive years.

5. There is no analysis of the outcome data using covariates, making it impossible to know

whether gains can be attributed to programme, learner or social variables, or some

combination thereof. For example, the descriptive impact measurement does not permit

inferences as to why over half of ABE/ ASE and ESOL students (57% and 54%,

respectively) did not gain at least one educational level, and why over one third (39%) of

participants setting a secondary completion goal did not obtain the high school equivalency

diploma.

   

               

14  

6. The statistical significance of annual programme gains is not reported, making it difficult to

assess impact.

7. National monitoring and assessment are only conducted for programmes in receipt of

federal funds i.e., under AEFLA, excluding instruction under non-federal funding, and

non-formal adult education from analysis.

Recommendation for developing a monitoring framework

Recommendations for the development of a monitoring framework are as follows.

1. Use uniform outcome variables. In the context of global sustainable development goals,

indicators of impact used in an adult education monitoring and assessment framework

should be uniform across countries. Such uniformity would allow countries to identify best

practices that could be shared and adopted to improve and possibly expand adult

education. Interested countries could collaborate to select feasible outcome variables. Since

literacy, numeracy, technological and workplace functions may differ considerably across

countries, it would be important to identify common basic functions that could be

measured in order to permit comparison. Measures used in a recent international survey of

adult literacy skills, the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult

Competencies (PIAAC, OECD, 2013a) might be a start although it is noted that of the 33

countries participating in this study, none were from Africa or Latin America.

2. Inform framework with theory. The development of a sustainable adult education

assessment and monitoring framework would benefit from a theory of adult education.

Theoretical constructs of adults’ literacy and numeracy practices as well as non-cognitive

   

               

15  

variables, such as motivation and self-efficacy that influence these practices, would allow

more meaningful assessment of adult education.

3. Use meaningful instrumentation. Assessment instruments should have a clear relation to

authentic adult literacy and numeracy practices. The determination of literacy and

numeracy levels should be anchored in these practices rather than proposed based on

scores from standardized tests, which tend to feature artificial rather than authentic items.

4. Compare outcomes. Design adult education evaluation research that permits comparison

not only longitudinally but between groups receiving different curricula and pedagogical

approaches. No-treatment comparisons should be included to ascertain the overall impact

of adult education.

5. Include covariates in impact analysis. Variables that may be moderators or mediators in

the ability to benefit from adult education should be included in impact evaluation.

Inclusion of non-cognitive variables such as intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy, as well

as social variables such as level of poverty, previous access to schooling, and mother’s

highest level of education, would provide a fuller account of program impact. Another

covariate that could be included is the quality of the teaching workforce, including

preparation of teachers in literacy and numeracy education as well as competence in

teaching adults as a unique population.

6. Report statistical significance and effect sizes. The monitoring of adult education

programmes should report on whether gains occurred by chance or may be attributed

   

               

16  

systematically to programme participation. The magnitude of statistically significant

differences (effect sizes) should be reported.

7. A monitoring framework would benefit from including not only government-funded

programmes but those funded privately, and also from inclusion of non-formal adult

education efforts. Adopting a sustainable development perspective will require more than

simple accountability to funders; rather it would be useful to broaden the perspective to

adult education as a national and international endeavour. Thus, data should be collected

not only for monitoring the use of funds but for promoting adult literacy and numeracy for

the good of individual well-being as well as the country and the world beyond.

Literature Review

Adult literacy and numeracy skills are multi-faceted, and have been defined as follows: “Literacy

is defined as the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in

society, achieve one’s goals, and develop one’s knowledge and potential… Numeracy is

defined as the ability to access, use, interpret and communicate mathematical information and

ideas in order to engage in and manage the mathematical demands of a range of situations in

adult life” (OECD, 2013b, p. 4). Adult functional literacy, comprising reading, numeracy, critical

thinking and technological skills used in the multiple contexts of adult lives, have been measured

in two major surveys, one in the U.S. (Kutner et al., 2007, see appendix for summary) and the

other across 33 countries (OECD, 2013b). Literacy and numeracy skills among adults in the U.S.

have been measured for specific populations such as incarcerated adults (E. Greenberg, Dunleavy,

& Kutner, 2008).

   

               

17  

Although the level of adults’ competency may be similar in some respects to that of children

(Nanda, Greenberg, & Morris, 2010), adults differently from children. For example, it has been

proposed that adults benefit from involvement in planning and evaluating their education;

mistakes adults make can be utilized as learning experiences; adults will learn best when the

content and skills taught are directly relevant to their current needs; and adults benefit most from

learning that centres on specific, personally-experienced problems (Knowles, 1984). Further, non-

cognitive variables such as intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy, which affect learning across the

age span, should not be overlooked in understanding adult education outcomes (MacArthur,

Philippakos, & Graham, 2015; Merriam & Bierema, 2013).

Only a fraction of adults with low literacy and numeracy skills participate in adult education in

the U.S. Based on findings of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, it has been estimated

that 36m adults need basic skills instruction. However, it appears that only about 2m adults

participate each year in federally-funded adult education programmes (U.S. Department of

Education Office of Career Technical and Adult Education, 2015). The number of participants in

other kinds of programmes, and who learn skills through non-formal means, is unknown but

seems likely to be relatively low. Research points to considerable challenges to adult education in

the U.S., such as sporadic attendance, attrition, and personal and social difficulties that impede

learning (Darkenwald & Valentine, 1985; D. Greenberg et al., 2013). It will be important to find

effective approaches to help this population access programmes, and improve their basic literacy,

numeracy and language skills. This is a pressing need, given pressure to replace an ageing

workforce, as well as new workplace demands in an information and technology economy, and

high levels of immigration to the U.S. of individuals for whom English is a new language.

   

               

18  

References

Andersson, P., Köpsén, S., Larson, A., & Milana, M. (2013). Qualification paths of adult

educators in Sweden and Denmark. Studies in Continuing Education, 35(1), 102-118. doi:

10.1080/0158037X.2012.712036

Batalova, J., & Fix, M. (2010). A profile of limited English proficient adult immigrants. Peabody

Journal of Education, 85(4), 511-534. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2010.518050

Bowen, B. A., & Nantz, K. (2014). What is the value of the GED? College English, 77(1), 32-54.

Cameron, R., & Harrison, J. L. (2012). The interrelatedness of formal, non-formal and informal

learning: Evidence from labour market program participants. Australian Journal of Adult Learning,

52(2), 277-309.

Chao, X., & Mantero, M. (2014). Church-based ESL adult programs: Social mediators for

empowering "family literacy ccology of communities". Journal of Literacy Research, 46(1), 90-114.

doi: 10.1177/1086296X14524588

Colardyn, D., & Bjornavold, J. (2004). Validation of formal, non-formal and informal learning:

policy and practices in EU member states. European Journal of Education, 39(1), 69-89.

Darkenwald, G. G., & Valentine, T. (1985). Outcomes of participation in adult basic skills

education. Lifelong Learning, 8(5), 17-22.

Division of Adult Education and Literacy. (2015). Implementation guidelines: Measures and

methods for the National Reporting System for adult education. Washington, DC: Division of

Adult Education and Literacy, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of

Education. Retrieved from

http://www.nrsweb.org/foundations/implementation_guidelines.aspx.

Greenberg, D., Wise, J. C., Frijters, J. C., Morris, R., Fredrick, L. D., Rodrigo, V., & Hall, R.

(2013). Persisters and nonpersisters: Identifying the characteristics of who stays and who leaves

   

               

19  

from adult literacy interventions. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(4), 495-514.

doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9401-8

Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., & Kutner, M. (2008). Literacy behind bars: Results from the 2003

National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey. Journal for Vocational Special Needs

Education, 30(2), 27-34.

Kirsch, I. S., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in America: A first

look at the findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NCES No. 93275). Washington, DC:

National Center on Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=93275.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., & Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in

everyday life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2007-480.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/Pubs2007/2007480.pdf.

Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., & Paulsen, C. (2006). The health literacy of America's adults:

Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Statistics,, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department

of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006483.pdf.

MacArthur, C. A., Philippakos, Z. A., & Graham, S. (2015). A multicomponent measure of

writing motivation with basic college writers. Learning Disability Quarterly(online first). doi:

10.1177/0731948715583115

Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. New York:

Jossey-Bass/ Wiley.

   

               

20  

Nanda, A. O., Greenberg, D., & Morris, R. (2010). Modeling child-based theoretical reading

constructs with struggling adult readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(2), 139-153. doi:

10.1177/0022219409359344

National Governors' Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common

core state standards: English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and

technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Available http://www.corestandards.org/.

National Governors' Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common

core state standards: Mathematics: Retrieved from

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf.

OECD. (2013a). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris,

France: OECD Publishing. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.

OECD. (2013b). Skilled for life? Key findings from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris, France:

Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/SkillsOutlook_2013_ebook.pdf.

OECD. (2013c). Time for the U.S. to reskill? What the Survey of Adult Skills says. Paris, France:

OECD Publishing. Available from http://skills.oecd.org/Survey_of_Adult_Skills_US.pdf.

Pimentel, S. (2013). College and career readiness standards for adult education. Washington, DC:

MPR Associates and U.S. Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

Available from https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/CCRStandardsAdultEd.pdf.

Reder, S. (2014). The impact of ABS Program participation on long-term economic outcomes.

Portland, OR: Department of Applied Linguistics, Portland State University and NOVA Research

Company. Available https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/ABS_EconomicOutcomes.pdf.

Tomassia, C., Lennon, M., Yamamoto, K., & Kirsch, I. (2007). Adult education in America: A

first look at results from the Adult Education Program and Learner Surveys. Princeton, NJ:

Education Testing Service. Retrieved from

http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/report/2007/dcjr.

   

               

21  

U.S. Department of Education Office of Career Technical and Adult Education. (2015). Adult

Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998: Annual report to Congress, program year 2011–12.

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/resource/octae-aefla-2011-2012.pdf

U.S. Department of Education Office of Career Technical and Adult Education (OCTAE).

(2015). Making skills everyone’s business: A call to transform adult learning in the United States.

Washington, D.C.: Author. Available

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/making-skills.pdf.

UNESCO. (2013). Adult and youth literacy: National, regional and global trends, 1985-2015.

Montreal, Quebec: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from

http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/literacy-statistics-trends-1985-2015.pdf.

   

               

22  

Appendix: Findings of national literacy survey

Two national surveys have been conducted since 1992 to estimate the level of literacy of adults in

the U.S. (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993; Kutner et al., 2007). Scores for prose,

document and quantitative literacy, defined above, are calculated on a 500-point scale which is

then segmented to five levels (below basic, basic, intermediate and proficient). On all three

measures, the large majority of the population falls into the basic and intermediate levels.

Approximately 5% of the population is non-literate. Labor market, family, civic indicators are

higher for individuals who score in the higher ranges of the scale, and the intermediate level can

be considered as the minimum needed to function adequately on tasks and activities requiring

literacy in the U.S. Findings for prose and document literacy on the 2003 survey were similar. On

the prose scale, 14% of those tested were below the basic level, 29% were at the basic level, 44%

were at the intermediate level and 13% were proficient. On the quantitative scale, 22% were below

basic, 33% basic, 33% intermediate, and 13% proficient.

Overall, these statistics changed very little from the 1992 survey. However, although males and

females did not differ on prose literacy in the 1992, on the 2003 survey, females had higher scores,

with 54% scoring in the intermediate range, compared to 51% of males. Females showed relative

gains in quantitative skills in comparison with males between the two surveys. In 1992 there was a

three point difference, with 31% of males versus 28% of females scoring in the intermediate range,

while in 2003 the gap narrowed to one point, with 33% of males and 32% of females in the

intermediate range (Kutner et al., 2007, Figure 2.4)

Besides prose, document and quantitative literacy skills, the 2003 survey measured health literacy,

defined as the ability to understand basic health information, measured, again, at basic,

intermediate and proficient levels (Kutner, Greenberg, Jin, & Paulsen, 2006). It was found that

14% of adults had below-basic and 22% had only basic levels of health literacy. More than half of

   

               

23  

respondents (53%) scored in the intermediate range, with 55% of females compared to 51% of

males scoring at this level. Further, 16% of males but only 12% of females were below the basic

level of health literacy. Apart from health, functional areas such as financial or computer literacy

have not been measured in national adult literacy surveys in the U.S.

Interpretation of findings of the national adult literacy surveys is complicated by the fact that a

proportion of low-literate adults in the U.S. are also not proficient in spoken English but are

included in the statistics. By far the most frequently language other than English in the U.S. is

Spanish. Individuals who spoke only Spanish or another non-English language before starting

school had the lowest scores in all areas measured (prose, document, quantitative and health

literacy). On the prose scale, 49% of respondents who spoke only English prior to beginning

school, compared with 42% of bilingual English and Spanish, and 13% Spanish-only scored in the

intermediate range of skill. On the quantitative scale, 35% of English-only, 26% of English and

Spanish, and 11% of Spanish-only speakers scored in the intermediate range (Kutner et al., 2007,

Figures 2-10a and 2-10c). There was a similar range of skills on the health literacy scale; adult who

spoke on English before starting school earned an average score of 251 while Spanish-only

speakers’ average score was 174 (Kutner et al., 2006, Table D2-6). Thus, literacy and spoken

language are closely intertwined, with the latter creating a potential confound for interpreting

adult literacy skills.