After Decades of Literacy Improficiency...

I had been sharing images of the latest U.S. reading scores since 2003. Usually in the form of stop signs, like these from 2003, 2017, and 2023.

Watching these scores remain so close to flatline for 20 years led me to create a video called “A Brief Tour Through Decades of U.S. Reading Scores“.

Bottom line: Most US children and adults struggle with reading in ways that significantly-negatively affect their lives. Not just because they lack the literacy required by opportunities for academic or economic advancement. Losing confidence in their learning, feeling chronically ashamed of their learning, hurts their emotional well being, their health, and even their longevity. MOST. And, as the image above shows, the numbers get worse for most children of color. What really bothers me is not this kind of snapshot though, it’s the never improving movie. This is nothing new. It’s been like this since at least 1992! Most US children and adults struggle with reading in ways that significantly-negatively affect their lives.

The damage done to children’s faith in learning from protracted difficulty with reading, the effects of chronically not feeling good enough at learning (or ashamed of their learning: “mind-shame“), is a grand scale example of our current learning-disabling conception of learning. It’s also the reason for our decades of impotence in addressing the never ending reading crisis.

After 20 plus years of creating and sharing articles, graphics, and videos about this perennial negligence I came to the conclusion that A) the public is numb to this, and B) we can’t solve this decades long atrocity until we realize that it’s a consequence of our failure to understand learning. The reading crisis is a symptom of our far less visible learning crisis. (see my 2012 introduction to Learning Stewards)

This week my friend Tony Eller, a passionate champion of dyslexia awareness and support, asked me if I had an image representing the the latest child and adult literacy assessments. I didn’t, but I wanted to provide him one s0 I went to NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) and gathered the following national (all kids combined) reading proficiency scores:

4th Graders – Below Proficiency
The 2024 NAEP Reading results show a systemic literacy failure: ~69% of U.S. 4th graders are below “Proficient.” Proficiency reflects the ability to integrate, interpret, and evaluate meaning, not basic decoding. The data indicate long-standing, worsening gaps by socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and prior opportunity, with post-pandemic declines compounding an already fragile reading foundation—signaling that most students are not developing the level of meaning-based literacy needed for later learning.

8th Graders – Below Proficiency
The 2024 NAEP Grade 8 Reading results show a parallel systemic breakdown: ~70% of U.S. 8th graders are below “Proficient.” As with Grade 4, “Proficient” reflects meaning-based literacy—the ability to integrate, interpret, and evaluate texts, not just decode. The persistence from Grade 4 to Grade 8 indicates that early deficits are not being remediated; instead, they compound over time, producing widening gaps by income, race/ethnicity, and opportunity, and leaving the majority of students without the literacy capacity required for secondary learning, civic participation, or adaptive adulthood.

12 th Graders – Below Proficiency
The 2024 NAEP Grade 12 Reading results show the same entrenched pattern at the end of K–12: ~65% of U.S. 12th graders are below “Proficient.” “Proficient” denotes meaning-based literacy—the capacity to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate texts. The slight improvement relative to Grades 4 and 8 does not signal recovery; it reflects selective survival and stratification. The system is graduating a majority of students without the literacy needed for college-level learning, informed citizenship, or adaptive workforce participation, confirming that earlier deficits persist rather than resolve.

So a bit worse than the decades old near flatline, a worsening attributed to the Covid pandemic’s effects on schooling. To complete my friends request I also needed to update the adult literacy scores and that turned out to be more complex. It used to be, up until 2003, that the U.S. performed its own National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). But in 2011-12, another large-scale assessment of adult skills called the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) took over. It is now the most current indicator of the nation’s progress in adult skills in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments.

The PIAAC defines literacy as the capacity to understand, evaluate, use, and engage with written texts to participate effectively in society, achieve goals, and develop knowledge. It emphasizes meaning-making and real-world application, not decoding or schooling, and measures literacy on a continuum of proficiency through authentic tasks (locating information, integrating sources, evaluating arguments) rather than test-specific skills. The U.S. adult literacy proficiency results from PIAAC, show how literacy skills are distributed across the population and how they vary by age, education, employment, nativity, and race/ethnicity. PIAAC frames literacy as a functional, continuum-based capacity (below Level 1 through Level 5).

PIAAC’s most current 2023 (Cycle 2) report reveals a substantial share of adults performing at low proficiency levels, and highlights persistent inequality and skill stratification with significant implications for economic participation, civic life, and lifelong learning.

Adults – Below Proficiency
Using PIAAC’s proficiency threshold (i.e., Level 3 or higher = proficient), about
52% of U.S. adults are below proficiency.
Breakdown (U.S., PIAAC):
Below Level 1 + Level 1 + Level 2 ≈ 52% → below PIAAC proficiency
Level 3–5 ≈ 48% → at or above PIAAC proficiency

Using NAEP’s meaning of “Proficient” (integrate, interpret, evaluate meaning across texts) as the yardstick, PIAAC implies that roughly two-thirds of U.S. adults are below proficiency

Translation logic (NAEP → PIAAC):

NAEP Proficient ≈ PIAAC Levels 3–5
(Level 3 is the first level requiring sustained integration, inference, and evaluation; Levels 4–5 extend this
with complex reasoning.)
Below NAEP Proficient ≈ PIAAC Levels Below 3
(Below Level 1, Level 1, and Level 2 emphasize locating information, basic integration, or surface comprehension.)

What the numbers imply (U.S.):

~52% of adults are at PIAAC Levels 1–2 (plus Below Level 1).
~48% reach
Level 3 or higher , but Level 3 is the minimum for NAEP-like proficiency.
When applying NAEP’s stricter meaning-based standard (consistent, evaluative comprehension),
effective proficiency concentrates in a minority —on the order of one-third —because many Level 3 adults perform at the threshold, not reliably at NAEP Proficient depth.

Interpretive note:
PIAAC’s threshold is less demanding than NAEP Proficient. It marks the point where adults can handle moderately complex, goal-directed reading tasks, not sustained evaluative or integrative meaning-making. That is why the below-proficiency share drops from ~65–70% (NAEP lens) to ~52% (PIAAC’s own lens).

Bottom line:
By PIAAC’s definition, just over half of U.S. adults lack the minimum literacy needed to reliably function in text-dense modern life —and far fewer meet a meaning-rich proficiency standard.

after decades of literacy improficiency… things are even worse…