In the past five decades, the global literacy rate among adults has grown from 67 percent in 1976 to 87.36 percent in 2023. In 1976, males had a literacy rate of 76 percent, compared to a rate of 58 percent among females. This difference of over 17 percent in 1976 has fallen to just seven percent in 2020. Although gaps in literacy rates have fallen across all regions in recent decades, significant disparities remain across much of South Asia and Africa, while the difference is below one percent in Europe and the Americas. Reasons for these differences are rooted in economic and cultural differences across the globe. In poorer societies, families with limited means are often more likely to invest in their sons' education, while their daughters take up a more domestic role. Varieties do exist on national levels, however, and female literacy levels can sometimes exceed the male rate even in impoverished nations, such as Lesotho (where the difference was over 17 percent in 2014); nonetheless, these are exceptions to the norm.

The statistic shows the degree of adult literacy in China from 1982 to 2020. In 2020, the literacy rate, which is defined as people aged 15 and above who can read and write, had reached about 97.15 percent in China.

Global literacy rates

By 2020, around 86.8 percent of the world population aged 15 years and above had been able to read and write. While in developed regions this figure ranged a lot higher, only around 67 percent of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa was literate. Countries with the lowest literacy rates are also the most underdeveloped worldwide. According to UNESCO, literacy is a human right, especially in a fast-changing and technology-driven world. In China, the literacy rate has developed from 79 percent in 1982 to 97 percent in 2020, indicating that almost one million people per year had become literate over three decades. In India, the situation was entirely different. The second most populous country in the world displayed a literacy rate of merely 76 percent in 2022.

Literacy in China

The dramatic increase in literacy in China has a lot to do with the efficacy of numerous political, economic and educational policies. In 1982, compulsory education was written into the Chinese constitution, postulating a nine-year compulsory education funded by the government. As is shown by the graph above, there was a large gender gap in literacy rate in China as of 1982. Though this gap still existed in 2020, it was narrowed down to three percent, starting from 28 percent in 1982. Since 1990, the national education policy was directed at females, especially from poor and/or minority families. Over the past years, China has achieved gender parity in primary schooling.

However, regional literacy disparities in China should not to be overlooked. Regions with a strong economic background tend to display illiteracy rates below national average. In contrast, economically underdeveloped regions have a much larger share of people who cannot read nor write. Tibet for instance, a region where 92 percent of the population belong to an ethnic minority, showed the highest illiterate rate nationwide, with around 34 percent in 2022.

Abstract

The Kenya National Adult Literacy Survey was conducted throughout the country between June 8 to August 8, 2006 by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) and the Department of Adult Education (DAE). The purpose was to generate accurate and up-to-data on the status of adult literacy with a view of using that information to expand and strengthen literacy programmes, and also plan for general national development. Underlying this is the fact literacy is fundamental to socio-economic development and poverty alleviation. The specific objectives were: Determine the magnitude, levels and distribution of adult literacy for persons aged 15 and above. Obtain comprehensive data and information on adult literacy from literacy providers and stakeholders both in the private and public sectors. Identify issues of concern, which need to be addressed in the promotion of adult literacy. About 18,000 households were sampled for the survey and out of that, 15,696 were occupied in 4,782 in urban and 10,914 in rural areas. Out of the occupied households, 15,504 were successfully interviewed, which gave a response rate of 98.8 per cent. In addition, eight adult education centers or classes in each district were sampled and their teachers of managers interviewed to generate information on the perspective of the service providers. The study used various instruments to collect the data. Four questionnaires were developed for the survey and targeted the following: households, individuals, institutions providing literacy, and literacy (assessment) tests. The survey was conducted in English, Kiswahili and 18 other local languages, which provided the respondents with the opportunity to respond in a language that they were quite comfortable with. Significantly, 70 per cent of the respondents took the literacy assessments tests in either English or Kiswahili. To arrive at the adult literacy levels, two methods were used: self reporting (one's ability to read and write) and actual testing (assessment of literacy skills) of the population. Unlike previous surveys that relied on self confessions, this time round, tests were administered to examine the respondents' mastery levels in literacy and numeracy. The competency levels in either literacy or numeracy were graded on a scale of one to five, with those who attained Levels Four and Five being considered as having the desirable levels of mastery of the skills. Those who attained Levels Three, Four and Five were considered to have attained the minimum mastery level.

Geographic coverage

The sample for the KNALS covered the population residing in households across the country

Analysis unit

population residing in households across the country

Universe

All members of the household selected aged 15 years and above were eligible for inclusion in the literacy survey. However, only one eligible member from each household was selected during the administration of individual questionnaire and test items.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A probability sample of about 18,000 households was selected for the survey to allow for separate estimates for key indicators for each of the provinces and districts in the country and for urban and rural areas separately. The survey utilised a two-stage sample design. The first stage involved selecting clusters from the national master sample maintained by KNBS.A total of 1,200 clusters comprising 377 urban and 823 rural were selected from this master frame. The second stage of selection involved the systematic sampling of households from a list of all households. Fifteen households were sampled from each of the sampled clusters. The household listing was updated recently while preparing for the Kenya Integrated and Household Budget Survey (KIHBS). Selection of clusters and households for the survey was done by KNBS experts in Nairobi and the sample lists were given to survey supervisors. All members of the household selected aged 15 years and above were eligible for inclusion in the literacy survey.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

These included: a household questionnaire, an individual questionnaire, a literacy assessment instrument and an institutional questionnaire.

Response rate

A total of 17,892 households were sampled of which 15,695 (4,781 urban and 10,914 rural) were occupied at the time of the survey and therefore eligible for interviews. Some of the sampled households could not be accessed because they were no longer inhabited thus contributing to a large extent to the recorded shortfall. Out of a total of 15,695households occupied at the time of the survey, 15,504 were successfully interviewed yielding a response rate of 98.8 per cent. Rural households realized a 99.7 per cent response rate compared to a response rate of 96.6 per cent in urban areas. Members of households aged 15 years and above were eligible for the individual interviews. Of the total 15,695 respondents identified, 15,473 were successfully interviewed, giving an individual response rate of 98.6 per cent. Response rates are higher in rural areas compared to the response rates in urban areas. Response rates for the literacy assessment test were lower than those for the individual interviews. Out of15, 695 eligible respondents, 14,761 took the literacy test giving a response rate of94.0 per cent (91.3 per cent urban and 95.3 per cent rural)

ABSTRACT Based on the concept of literary literacy, this article investigates the expectations of the National Book and Teaching Material Program (PNLD) of 2017 (Brazilian Portuguese) and the National Curricular Parameters (PCNs) in relation to literary reading in the final years of Elementary School. In addition, it investigates how a set of activities present in a textbook approved by the guide addresses the literary text in its activities. Metalinguistic development and reading level studies guide the activities’ analyses. The results point to the lack of discussion about literary literacy and the specificities of literary reading, along with expectations on its realization. The didactic activities analyzed seem to reflect the gap between the expectations and the lack of discussion about possibilities of contribution to the formation of literary readers.

Literacy in India has been increasing as more and more people receive a better education, but it is still far from all-encompassing. In 2023, the degree of literacy in India was about 77 percent, with the majority of literate Indians being men. It is estimated that the global literacy rate for people aged 15 and above is about 86 percent. How to read a literacy rateIn order to identify potential for intellectual and educational progress, the literacy rate of a country covers the level of education and skills acquired by a country’s inhabitants. Literacy is an important indicator of a country’s economic progress and the standard of living – it shows how many people have access to education. However, the standards to measure literacy cannot be universally applied. Measures to identify and define illiterate and literate inhabitants vary from country to country: In some, illiteracy is equated with no schooling at all, for example. Writings on the wallGlobally speaking, more men are able to read and write than women, and this disparity is also reflected in the literacy rate in India – with scarcity of schools and education in rural areas being one factor, and poverty another. Especially in rural areas, women and girls are often not given proper access to formal education, and even if they are, many drop out. Today, India is already being surpassed in this area by other emerging economies, like Brazil, China, and even by most other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. To catch up, India now has to offer more educational programs to its rural population, not only on how to read and write, but also on traditional gender roles and rights.

Abstract

The PIRLS 2011 aimed to generate a database of student achievement data in addition to information on student, parent, teacher, and school background data for the 57 areas that participated

Geographic coverage

In 2011, nationally representative samples of students in 49 countries participated in PIRLS and prePIRLS. Forty-five countries assessed fourth grade students, and some countries participated in one or more of the other available options initiated in 2011 to permit wider participation at the end of the primary school cycle: four countries assessed their sixth-grade students; and three countries participated in prePIRLS, a less difficult version of PIRLS inaugurated in 2011 to be a stepping stone to PIRLS. In addition, PIRLS 2011 included nine benchmarking participants, mostly regions of countries that also participated in PIRLS, including three Canadian provinces, two Emirates, the Andalusian region of Spain, and the US state of Florida. Malta and South Africa used benchmarking to collect information relevant to their language of instruction policies.

Analysis unit

Units of analysis in the study are schools, students, parents and teachers

Universe

PIRLS is a study of student achievement in reading comprehension in primary school and is targeted at the grade level in which students are at the transition from learning to read to reading to learn, which is the fourth grade in most countries. The formal definition of the PIRLS target population makes use of UNESCO's International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) in identifying the appropriate target grade:

"…all students enrolled in the grade that represents four years of schooling, counting from the first year of ISCED Level 1, providing the mean age at the time of testing is at least 9.5 years. For most countries, the target grade should be the fourth grade, or its national equivalent."

As a new initiative in 2011, prePIRLS was developed as a less difficult version of PIRLS to provide more assessment options for developing countries where students may not be prepared for the demands of PIRLS. prePIRLS is based on the same view of reading comprehension as PIRLS but is designed to assess basic reading skills that are a prerequisite for success on PIRLS. Botswana, Colombia, and South Africa administered prePIRLS to their fourth grade students. Colombia also administered PIRLS to the same fourth grade students, providing the basis for a link between the PIRLS and prePIRLS scales.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The basic sample design used in PIRLS 2011 was a two-stage stratified cluster design, with the first stage consisting of a sample of schools, and the second stage consisting of a sample of intact classrooms from the target grade in the sampled schools. Intact classes of students are sampled rather than individuals from across the grade level or of a certain age because PIRLS pays particular attention to students’ curricular and instructional experiences.

Each country participating in PIRLS 2011 needed a plan for defining its national target population and applying the TIMSS and PIRLS sampling methods to achieve a nationally representative sample of schools and students. The development and implementation of the national sampling plan is a collaborative exercise involving the country’s National Research Coordinator (NRC) and the PIRLS sampling experts.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

• PIRLS Background Questionnaires By gathering information about children’s experiences together with reading achievement on the PIRLS test, it is possible to identify the factors or combinations of factors that relate to high reading literacy. An important part of the PIRLS design is a set of questionnaires targeting factors related to reading literacy. PIRLS administered four questionnaires: to the tested students, to their parents, to their reading teachers, and to their school principals.

• Student Questionnaire Each student taking the PIRLS reading assessment completes the student questionnaire. The questionnaire asks about aspects of students’ home and school experiences – including instructional experiences and reading for homework, selfperceptions and attitudes towards reading, out-of-school reading habits, computer use, home literacy resources, and basic demographic information.

• Learning to Read (Home) Survey The learning to read survey is completed by the parents or primary caregivers of each student taking the PIRLS reading assessment. It addresses child-parent literacy interactions, home literacy resources, parents’ reading habits and attitudes, homeschool connections, and basic demographic and socioeconomic indicators.

• Teacher Questionnaire The reading teacher of each fourth-grade class sampled for PIRLS completes a questionnaire designed to gather information about classroom contexts for developing reading literacy. This questionnaire asks teachers about characteristics of the class tested (such as size, reading levels of the students, and the language abilities of the students). It also asks about instructional time, materials and activities for teaching reading and promoting the development of their students’ reading literacy, and the grouping of students for reading instruction. Questions about classroom resources, assessment practices, and home-school connections also are included. The questionnaire also asks teachers for their views on opportunities for professional development and collaboration with other teachers, and for information about their education and training.

• School Questionnaire The principal of each school sampled for PIRLS responds to the school questionnaire. It asks school principals about enrollment and school characteristics (such as where the school is located, resources available in the surrounding area, and indicators of the socioeconomic background of the student body), characteristics of reading education in the school, instructional time, school resources (such as the availability of instructional materials and staff), home-school connections, and the school climate.

Response rate

For a full table of school participation rates, which vary by country, please see Appendix C on page 262 of the PIRLS 2011 Report.

This dataset presents national-level literacy rates, compiled from multiple official sources, including the National Sample Survey (NSS), Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), Population Census, National Family Health Survey (NFHS), and data published by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI).

It provides literacy rates disaggregated by gender, region (urban and rural), and age group. The inclusion of age groups is essential, as the criteria for calculating literacy rates have changed over time. To allow consistent comparisons across sources and years, an ‘age group’ column is included in the dataset. In general, literacy is assessed based on whether a person above a specified age can read and write a simple message with understanding in at least one language. The age specified as per these sources is as follows:

Census: Population aged 7 years and above (used since 1981; previously, it was 5 years and above). Data is available for 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001, and 2011 NSS: Population aged 5 years and above. Data is available for 2005, 2007-08, 2010, 2011-12, 2014, and 2017-18 PLFS: Survey typically covers population aged 15 years and above, but literacy data is also available for 5 years and above and 7 years and above. Data is available for 2017-18 to 2023-24. NFHS: Covers population aged 15–49 years only. Literacy rate refers to women and men who have completed standard 6, 9, or higher, or those who can read a full or partial sentence among individuals assumed to be literate. Data is available for 2005-06, 2015-16, and 2019-21. MoSPI: Follows the NSS age criteria, usually 5 years and above. Data is available for 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2011

The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) is an oral student assessment designed to measure the most basic foundation skills for literacy acquisition in the early grades: recognizing letters of the alphabet, reading simple words, understanding sentences and paragraphs, and listening with comprehension.

The USAID Education Data for Decision Making (EdData II) project developed the EGRA methodology and has applied it in 11 countries and 19 languages. It has been adopted and used by other implementing partners in more than 30 other countries and more than 60 other languages. Data from EGRA have been used for feedback on teacher practice in rigorous but easy-to-understand ways. Many countries have shown an interest in using it as a springboard to improve reading, and have gone on to redesign their teacher training around reading.

Provincial-level diagnostic assessment of basic reading skills in grades 2 to 4 in English.

• Collection start: 2012
• Collection end: 2012

This is the proportion of children in the area at expected level in each of the Early Learning Goals (ELGs) within the Literacy area of the assessment. Literacy is one of the 4 specific areas of learning and covers the ELGs: Comprehension, Word reading, and Writing.

The early years foundation stage (EYFS) profile is a teacher assessment of children’s development at the end of the EYFS, specifically the end of the academic year in which a child turns 5. This is typically the summer term of reception year. The EYFSP was introduced in 2012/13.

As part of wider reforms to the EYFS, the EYFS profile was revised significantly in September 2021. Changes included revisions to all 17 ELGs across the 7 areas of learning, the removal of ‘exceeding’ assessment band, and the removal of statutory local authority moderation. It is therefore not possible to directly compare 2021/22 assessment outcomes with earlier years. The 2019/20 and 2020/21 collections were cancelled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Teacher assessments cover all schools and early years providers with children registered for government-funded early years provision at the end of the EYFS. These include all state-funded schools and maintained nursery schools, children in private, voluntary and independent (PVI) providers, including childminders. Excludes a child who has not been assessed due to long periods of absence, for instance a prolonged illness, or arrived too late in the summer term for teacher assessment to be carried out, or for an exemption.

Local authority district data are based on matching the postcode of the school or provider to the National Statistics Postcode Lookup (NSPL). Percentages may not sum to 100.

Data is Powered by LG Inform Plus and automatically checked for new data on the 3rd of each month.

The “education index” represents the potential of a population to access information and knowledge in a certain area in 2010. Such potential is measured by the capacity of educational system and the diffusion of knowledge about events that impacts local population (as likely climate change will do). The index results from the second cluster of the Principal Component Analysis preformed among 16 potential variables. The analysis identify three dominant variables, namely “adult literacy”, “primary gross enrolment rate” and “prevalence of HIV”, assigning respectively the weights of 0.40, 0.25 and 0.35. Before to perform the analysis all the variables were log transformed (except “primary gross enrolment rate”) to shorten the extreme variation and then were score-standardized (converted to distribution with average of 0 and standard deviation of 1; with inverse method for “prevalence of HIV”) in order to be comparable. The first administrative level data for the “adult literacy” (percentage of population aged 15 years and older who can, with understanding, read and write a short, simple statement on their everyday lives), “primary gross enrolment rate” (total enrollment in primary education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the population of official primary education age. GER can exceed 100% due to the inclusion of over-aged and under-aged students because of early or late school entrance and grade repetition) and “prevalence of HIV” (percentage of people ages 15-49 who are infected with HIV) were derived using survey data collected between 1998 and 2012 from DHS, UNDP National Human Development Reports, UNICEF statistics, and in some cases national survey data. Tabular data were linked by first administrative unit to the first administrative boundaries shapefile (FAO/GAUL) and then converted into raster format (resolution 0.5 arc-minute). Adult literacy rate shows the accumulated achievement of primary education and basic literacy skills of the population crucial for economic, social and political participation and development, especially in today’s knowledge societies. The gross enrolment ratio (GRE) is vital indicators that capture adaptive capacity, as they measure education access and coverage. They show the general level of participation in a given level of education and further indicate the capacity of the education system to enroll students of a particular age group. According to Leichenko et al. (2002), increased overall literacy levels reduce vulnerability by increasing people’s capabilities and access to information, thereby enhancing their ability to cope with adversities. Those without literacy skills may have problems taking advantage of health, educational, political, economic and cultural opportunities. Illiterate people may have difficulty in understanding warnings and access to recovery information. Other researches already combine HIV and education parameters to calculate index of adaptive capacity (Gbetibouo and Ringler 2009). HIV prevalence is used as indicator under the assumption that areas with higher rates of HIV/AIDS are more vulnerable. This dataset has been produced in the framework of the “Climate change predictions in Sub-Saharan Africa: impacts and adaptations (ClimAfrica)” project, Work Package 4 (WP4). More information on ClimAfrica project is provided in the Supplemental Information section of this metadata.

The percentage of non-immigrant youth and adults (15 years and above) who have achieved or exceeded a given level of proficiency in literacy. Functional literacy is defined by UIS as the capacity of a person to engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective function of his or her group and community and also for enabling him or her to continue to use reading, writing and calculation for his or her own and the community’s development. This indicator is collected via skills' assessment surveys of the adult population (e.g. the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), the Skills Towards Employment and Productivity (STEP) Measurement programme, the Literacy Assessment Measurement Programme (LAMP) and national adult literacy and numeracy surveys.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what students in the United States know and can do in various subject areas. Assessments are conducted periodically in mathematics, reading, science, writing, the arts, civics, economics, geography, United States history, and beginning in 2014, in Technology and Engineering Literacy (TEL). Since NAEP assessments are administered uniformly using the same sets of test booklets across the United States, NAEP results serve as a common metric for all states and selected urban districts. The assessment stays essentially the same from year to year, with only carefully documented changes. This permits NAEP to provide a clear picture of student academic progress over time and for teachers, principals, parents, policymakers, and researchers to use NAEP results to assess progress and develop ways to improve education in the United States. There are two types of assessments: main NAEP and long-term trend NAEP. Main NAEP is administered to fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-graders across the United States in a variety of subjects. The Main NAEP is conducted between the last week of January and the first week in March every year. National results are available for all assessments and subjects. Results for states and select urban districts are available in some subjects for grades 4 and 8. The Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) is a special project developed to determine the feasibility of reporting district-level NAEP results for large urban districts. In 2009 a trial state assessment was administered at grade 12. Long-term trend NAEP is administered nationally every four years. During the same academic year, 13-year olds are assessed in the fall, 9-year olds in the winter, and 17-year olds in the spring. Long-term trend assessments measure student performance in mathematics and reading, and allow the performance of students from recent time periods to be compared with students since the early 1970s. The 1997 and 2008 NAEP arts assessments were part of the Main NAEP Assessments. The NAEP 1997 Arts Assessment was conducted nationally at grade 8. For music and visual arts, representative samples of public and nonpublic school students were assessed. A special "targeted" sample of students took the theatre assessment. Schools offering at least 44 classroom hours of a theatre course per semester, and offering courses including more than the history or literature of theatre, were identified. Students attending those schools who had accumulated 30 hours of theatre classes by the end of the 1996-97 school year were selected to take the theatre assessment. The NAEP 2008 Arts Assessment was administered to a nationally representative sample of 7,900 eighth-grade public and private school students. Approximately one-half of these students were assessed in music, and the other half were assessed in visual arts. The music portion of the assessment measured students' ability to respond to music in various ways. Students were asked to analyze and describe aspects of music they heard, critique instrumental and vocal performances, and demonstrate their knowledge of standard musical notation and music's role in society. The visual arts portion of the assessment included questions that measured students' ability to respond to art as well as questions that measured their ability to create art. Responding questions asked students to analyze and describe works of art and design. For example, students were asked to describe specific differences in how certain parts of an artist's self-portrait were drawn. Creating questions required students to create works of art and design of their own. For example, students were asked to create a self-portrait that was scored for identifying detail, compositional elements, and use of materials. In addition, NAEP has a number of special studies that are conducted periodically. These include research and development efforts such as the High School Transcript Study and the National Indian Education Study. More information on these special studies is available on the NAEP Web site.

The NAPLAN data are collected annually (May). NAPLAN is a full cohort common test of Literacy (including separate assessment of Reading, Writing, Spelling, Grammar and Language Conventions) and …Show full descriptionThe NAPLAN data are collected annually (May). NAPLAN is a full cohort common test of Literacy (including separate assessment of Reading, Writing, Spelling, Grammar and Language Conventions) and Numeracy, of students in all school sectors in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. All students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in all school sectors unless exempted for disability or recently arrived (one year or less) non-English speaking migrants. Breakdown of data between the state level and for Local Government Areas have been separated as they are calculated differently. State level data include plausible values for absent children not officially exempt from testing; LGA data exclude these records.

The study's primary goal is to assess whether a mixed-mode professional development (PD) model that combines virtual and in-person delivery of PD activities can serve as a viable alternative to the original face-to-face delivery approach in supporting teachers' use of the Assessment-to-Instruction (A2i) system, facilitating their implementation of differentiated small-group instruction, and improving students' reading skills in a large, diverse set of schools. There are three datasets for this study: A school-level dataset that includes information collected about the 59 schools in the study. School-level information was collected from the 2017-2018 Common Core of Data provided by the National Center of Education Statistics, the 2017-2018 Civil Rights Data Collection provided by the Office of Civil Rights, and school-level reading achievement data during the 2017-2018 school year, provided by state education departments. To maintain anonymity of schools, we excluded any publicly available data about school characteristics from the dataset. In Table 3 in the study report, which compares the study schools to public elementary schools nationally, the national sample includes all public, regular elementary schools serving students in any of Grades K, 1, 2, or 3 that are not charter, magnet or virtual schools. A teacher-level dataset that includes teachers in the analysis sample (i.e. teachers in Grades K-1 in the 2017-2018 school year, expanding to Grades K-3 in the 2020-2021 school year). This dataset includes responses to the two teacher surveys administered in 2019 and 2021, information about teacher usage of the A2i platform, and the number of PD events attended by each teacher in 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. A student-level dataset that includes all information used for the student-level analysis, including student demographic from district records and student achievement data from A2i assessments, Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests administered in the spring of 2019, and state/district reading tests administered in the spring of 2021.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a federally-funded, ongoing, periodic assessment of educational achievement in the various subject areas and disciplines taught in the nation's schools. Since 1969, NAEP has gathered information about levels of educational achievement of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds across the country. In the fall of 1987, high school transcripts were collected from 34,140 students attending 433 schools that had previously been sampled for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 1986. The sample of students for the transcript study included both handicapped and nonhandicapped students who in 1985-1986 were enrolled in the 11th grade and/or were 17 years old. Approximately half of the sampled students had participated in NAEP assessments in 1986. The 1987 High School Transcript Study also collected school-level information such as course lists, graduation requirements, and the definition of units of credit and grades. Student information included sex, grade level, age, graduation status, and race/ethnicity. The following additional information was gathered for handicapped students: handicapping condition, severity of cognitive, psychosocial, and physical limitation, reading and mathematics grade level (teacher estimate), placement in mainstream, resource, and self-contained classes, and receipt of selected services.

Grounded in a strength-based (asset) model, this study explores the racial disparities in students’ learning and well-being during the pandemic. Linking the U.S. national/state databases of education and health, it examines whole-child outcomes and related factors—remote learning and protective community. It reveals race/ethnicity-stratified, state-level variations of learning and well-being losses in the midst of school accountability turnover. This data file includes aggregate state-level data derived from the NAEP and NSCH datasets, including all 50 U.S. states' pre-pandemic and post-pandemic measures of whole-child development outcomes (academic proficiency, socioemotional wellness, and physical health) as well as environmental conditions (remote learning and protective community) among school-age children. Methods To address the research questions, this study examines repeated cross-sectional datasets with nation/state-representative samples of school-age children. For academic achievement measures, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2019 and 2022 datasets are used to assess nationally representative samples of 4th-grade and 8th-grade students’ achievement in reading and math (http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard). In 2019, the NAEP samples included: 150,600 fourth graders from 8,300 schools and 143,100 eighth graders from 6,950 schools. In 2022, the NAEP samples included: (1) for reading, 108,200 fourth graders from 5,780 schools and 111,300 eighth graders from 5,190 schools; (2) for math, 116,200 fourth graders from 5,780 schools and 111,000 eighth graders from 5,190 schools. Data are weighted to be representative of the US population of students in grades 4 and 8, each for the entire nation and every state. Results are reported as average scores on a 0 to 500 scale and as percentages of students performing at or above the NAEP achievement levels: NAEP Basic, NAEP Proficient, and NAEP Advanced. In this study, we focus on changes in the percentages of students at or above the NAEP Basic level, which is the minimum competency level expected for all students across the nation. As a supplement to the NAEP assessment data, this study uses the NAEP School Dashboard (see https://ies.ed.gov/schoolsurvey/mss-dashboard/), which surveyed approximately 3,500 schools each month at grades 4 and 8 each during the pandemic period of January through May 2021: 46 states/jurisdictions participated, and 4,100 of 6,100 sampled schools responded. This study uses state-level information on the percentages of students who received in-person vs. remote/hybrid instructional modes. The school-reported remote learning enrollment rate is highly correlated with the NAEP survey student-reported remote learning experience (during 2021) across grades and subjects (r = .82 for grade 4 reading, r = .81 for grade 4 math, r = .79 for grade 8 reading, r = .83 for grade 8 math). These strong positive correlations provide supporting evidence for the cross-validation of remote learning measures at the state level. For socioemotional wellness and physical health measures, the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) data are used. The 2018/19 surveys involved about 356,052 households screened for age-eligible children, and 59,963 child-level questionnaires were completed. The 2020/21 surveys involved about 199,840 households screened for age-eligible children, and 93,669 child-level questionnaires were completed. Our analysis focuses on school-age children (ages 6-17) in the data. In addition, the NSCH data are also used to assess the quality of protective and nurturing environment for child development across family, school, and neighborhood settings (see Appendix).

The number of learners achieving a Level 1 qualification in literacy Source: Department for Innovation Universities and Skills (DIUS) Publisher: DCLG Floor Targets Interactive Geographic coverage: England Time coverage: 2006/07, 2007/08 Notes: Learning aims are given a level in the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). Those qualifications which count as literacy are defined in the NQF.

The percentage of low socio-economic status youth and adults (15 years and above) who have achieved or exceeded a given level of proficiency in literacy. Functional literacy is defined by UIS as the capacity of a person to engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective function of his or her group and community and also for enabling him or her to continue to use reading, writing and calculation for his or her own and the community’s development. This indicator is collected via skills' assessment surveys of the adult population (e.g. the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), the Skills Towards Employment and Productivity (STEP) Measurement programme, the Literacy Assessment Measurement Programme (LAMP) and national adult literacy and numeracy surveys.