What Do We Know About Young Adult Literacy and What Are We Doing about It?
A Forum — September 8, 1995
The NALS is a rich source of information about levels of literacy in America and how one's level of literacy relates to measures of the quality of life -- such as levels of education, poverty and employment.
NALS respondents were assessed on 5 levels of literacy competence [with level 1 at the low end and level 5 at the high end]. The NALS surveyed adults over 16 years of age, including the incarcerated. Of the survey respondents, 21-23%, or 40 million adults, were at level 1; 90 million adults were in levels 1 and 2. Kirsch stressed that this does not mean that those adults were illiterate, but they are missing opportunities for advancement in our society.
Kirsch addressed three main questions:
- How is literacy connected to social, economic and educational outcomes in our society?
- How is literacy distributed?
- What might the NALS data mean for the future?
Kirsch used charts to illustrate the relationship between NALS levels and a variety of social, economic and educational outcomes. The detailed analysis in those charts is too dense to repeat in this brief. To receive a copy of the charts, please call the American Youth Policy Forum at (202) 775-9731 and request a copy of the overheads used in the September 8, 1995 forum.
First, Kirsch discussed the strong relationship between literacy and poverty: Someone in level 1 on the NALS is eleven times more likely to be living in poverty than someone in level 5. Similarly strong relationships exist between level of literacy and employment status, as well as average number of weeks worked.
There is not a significant difference in weekly earnings depending on literacy levels in the 16-24 age range. This illustrates a kind of general discrimination against young people, regardless of their level of literacy. However, the earnings gap widens as the people at levels 1 and 5 age: The kinds of jobs that people at levels 1 and 2 get have a relatively flat earning potential. Literacy is strongly associated with education levels: the more formal schooling a person has, the higher their literacy level.
Kirsch also discussed the relationship between the NALS and the GED. The results of another survey coming out in November indicate that 17% of level 1 NALS respondents could pass the GED; 50% of level 2; 91% of level 3; and 100% of level 4 and 5 respondents. Another key chart illustrated that those with higher literacy levels are more likely to receive basic skills training from an employer or labor union.
Kirsch pointed out that literacy is a dynamic, not static, standard and one that has been raised continually as high school graduation and employment qualifications evolve. Andy Sum, a labor economist at Northeastern University, has looked at the fastest-growing jobs in our society and found that the literacy requirements for those jobs will increase 13-17 percent between now and 2005. Most of the jobs that are leaving the labor force by 2005 have 40% lower literacy proficiency requirements.
Kirsch alluded briefly to materials on non-English speakers [the dropout rate for Hispanic youth is 3 times that of white youth] and immigration. The changes in America's economic, social and demographic structure mean that if we do as much tomorrow as we're doing today in terms of literacy services, it will not be enough.
Finally, Kirsch said that Educational Testing Service is about to release data from an international survey, comparing literacy levels among countries using the NALS literacy measures. Marilyn Bingley at the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education will distribute copies of that report. Please call her at (202) 219-2195 for further information.
Andrew Hartman of the National Institute for Literacy addressed four main points:
- While this is called "adult education," it serves a primarily young population.
- While it is a system that helps many poor and disadvantaged adults gain critical skills and knowledge for work, family and other purposes, almost half of the students are working.
- As a result of several trends, primarily immigration, the numbers and relative percentage of ESL students has increased in the system.
- Because of limited funding and historical developments in the literacy field, adult education programs struggle to provide the level of professional quality and intensity as other parts of the education system.
In addition to those three main categories, there are three other important "streams" of service: Workplace Literacy, with ESL, ASE and ABE programs provided at the work site; Family Literacy, with services targeted at parents, children and families; and Developmental Education, essentially literacy courses offered at community colleges.
According to Hartman, every year there are about 1.5 million new people who could potentially benefit from adult education and literacy services. Thus, the figures cited by Irwin Kirsch were a static snapshot of the literacy situation. The reality, Hartman said, is more like a river, with people joining the ranks of the low literate every year.
The adult education and literacy system serves primarily a young set of students: 58% of ABE students, 71% of ASE students and 61% of ESL students are 30 years old or younger.
Funding for adult education breaks down as follows: 25% of funds come from the Federal Adult Education Act; 55% come from states; 14% come from local and other sources; and 6% come from other federal money, including the Job Training Partnership Act, Pell grants, JOBS, etc. The big success story in the 1980's was the increased investment at the state level. Hartman estimated that there is less than $2 billion from all sources for adult education in the whole country.
Hartman described the staffing of adult education programs: 36% of programs do not have any full-time staff; 59% do not have full-time instructional staff; 47% do not have full-time administrative staff. On average, part-time instructors outnumber full-timers 4 to 1. These staffing patterns show not only the effects of low funding levels but also why the results of the program have not always been as strong as possible. The predominantly part-time or volunteer status of the adult education profession makes it difficult to do professional development, retain teachers over the long haul and improve instructional quality.
There are no reliable assessments of the impacts of adult education, according to Hartman. When surveyed, adult learners generally say that they are getting what they want out of the program, but considering the low retention rate in programs, it would seem difficult for learners to get the kind of long-term intensity they would need. Programs that provide services in a contextualized setting -- workplace and family literacy -- seem to have stronger results.
Hartman concluded by discussing policy implications of the information just presented on the clients and services of the adult education system. He cited a Department of Labor/Educational Testing Service study that found that 40-50% of the JTPA and Employment Services/Unemployment Insurance participants tested in the lowest two levels of literacy on a NALS-type scale. Their study found that people with the least labor market experience could gain the most from improved literacy skills. Yet the amendment to job training legislation put forth by Senator Ashcroft would restrict participation in all federally funded employment training programs to those participants who already have a GED or high school diploma.
On the NALS, 70% of welfare recipients were concentrated in the lowest two levels of literacy. People with lower levels of educational attainment, a good proxy for literacy, tend to stay on welfare longer. Hartman cited a statement by Governor Dean of Vermont that in that state, 80% of the incarcerated do not have a high school diploma; nationally, 49% of the incarcerated do not have a high school diploma.
After the two presentations, participants discussed the U.S. English movement, a push for English-only that has accompanied recent anti-immigration sentiment. Hartman emphasized that the longest waiting lists in adult education -- at times years long -- are for English as a Second Language programs. "There is a huge demand for ESL. If we want more English-speaking people, why don't we fund more ESL programs?" Hartman asked. Later, he said that there was a danger of confusing motivation with opportunity in the case of people with limited English skills.
In response to a question about the impact of volunteers on the adult education field, Hartman said that there is a stereotype that volunteers run and teach most of the programs. In the whole universe of adult education, Hartman estimated that between three and four percent of services are provided by volunteers.
Hartman and Kirsch discussed the absence of any national data, or evaluations, on the effectiveness of these programs. Kirsch pointed out that in the past, when the field was seen as a charitable system, "no one cared about longitudinal data." Kirsch added, "There is a great deal of resistance in the field about accountability. [Adult education instructors] don't want the value of their work judged by a score on adult tests. So the question is how do we build a better accountability system." Hartman said that programs don't have enough money to provide the services that are needed; they would certainly have trouble funding assessment and accountability measures. "Any other educational system in this country has an infrastructure; this one doesn't," Hartman said.
Finally, Hartman cited the lack of corporate investment in basic skills and adult education, saying that only 2-3 percent of firms are investing anything in basic skills.