National Endowment for the Arts

To Read or Not To Read

A Question of National Consequence
Executive Summary
Reseaich Repoit #47
Executive Summaiy
Novembei 2007
National Endowment for the Arts
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20506-0001
Telephone: 202-682-5400
Pioduced by the Oce of Reseaich & Analysis
Sunil Iyengai, Diiectoi
Sta contiibutois: Saiah Sullivan, Bonnie Nichols, Tom Biadshaw,
and Kelli Rogowski
Special contiibutoi: Maik Baueilein
Editoiial and publication assistance by Don Ball
Designed by Beth Schleno Design
Fiont Covei Photo: Getty Images
Piinted in the United States of Ameiica
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
To iead oi not to iead : a question of national consequence.
p. cm. (Reseaich iepoit , #47)
Pioduced by the Oce of Reseaich & Analysis, National
Endowment foi the Aits, Sunil Iyengai, diiectoi, editoiial and
publication assistance by Don Ball.
1. Books and ieadingUnited States. 2.
LiteiatuieAppieciationUnited States. I. Iyengai, Sunil, 1973
II. Ball, Don, 1964 III. National Endowment foi the Aits.
Z1003.2.T6 2007
028.9dc22
2007042469
202-682-5496 Voice/TTY
(a device foi individuals who aie deaf oi heaiing-impaiied)
Individuals who do not use conventional piint mateiials
may contact the Aits Endowments Oce foi AccessAbility at
202-682-5532 to obtain this publication in an alteinate foimat.
is publication is available free of charge at www.arts.gov,
the Web site of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Pvrrcr
T
o Read or Not To Read gatheis and collates the best national data available to
piovide a ieliable and compiehensive oveiview of Ameiican ieading today.
While it incoipoiates some statistics fiom the National Endowment foi the
Aits 2004 iepoit, Reading at Risk, this new study contains vastly moie data fiom
numeious souices. Although most of this infoimation is publicly available, it has
nevei been assembled and analyzed as a whole. To oui knowledge, To Read or Not
To Read is the most complete and up-to-date iepoit of the nations ieading tiends
andpeihaps most impoitanttheii consideiable consequences.
To Read or Not To Read ielies on the most accuiate data available, which consists
of laige, national studies conducted on a iegulai basis by U.S. fedeial agencies, sup-
plemented by academic, foundation, and business suiveys. Reliable national statisti-
cal ieseaich is expensive and time-consuming to conduct, especially when it iequiies
accuiate measuiements of vaiious subgioups (age oi education level, foi example)
within the oveiall population. Likewise, such ieseaich demands foimidable iesouices
and a commitment fiom an oiganization to collect the data consistently ovei many
yeais, which is the only valid way to measuie both shoit and long-teim tiends. Few
oiganizations outside the fedeial goveinment can manage such a painstaking task.
By compaiison, most piivate-sectoi oi media suiveys involve quick and isolated polls
conducted with a minimal sample size.
When one assembles data fiom dispaiate souices, the iesults often piesent con-
tiadictions. Tis is not the case with To Read or Not To Read. Heie the iesults aie
staitling in theii consistency. All of the data combine to tell the same stoiy about
Ameiican ieading.
Te stoiy the data tell is simple, consistent, and alaiming. Although theie has been
measuiable piogiess in iecent yeais in ieading ability at the elementaiy school level,
all piogiess appeais to halt as childien entei theii teenage yeais. Teie is a geneial
decline in ieading among teenage and adult Ameiicans. Most alaiming, both ieading
ability and the habit of iegulai ieading have gieatly declined among college giaduates.
Tese negative tiends have moie than liteiaiy impoitance. As this iepoit makes cleai,
the declines have demonstiable social, economic, cultuial, and civic implications.
Howdoes one summaiize this distuibing stoiy? As Ameiicans, especially youngei
Ameiicans, iead less, they iead less well. Because they iead less well, they have lowei
levels of academic achievement. (Te shameful fact that neaily one-thiid of Ameii-
can teenageis diop out of school is deeply connected to declining liteiacy and ieading
compiehension.) With lowei levels of ieading and wiiting ability, people do less well
in the job maiket. Pooi ieading skills coiielate heavily with lack of employment,
lowei wages, and fewei oppoitunities foi advancement. Signicantly woise ieading
skills aie found among piisoneis than in the geneial adult population. And decient
ieadeis aie less likely to become active in civic and cultuial life, most notably in vol-
unteeiism and voting.
Stiictly undeistood, the data in this iepoit do not necessaiily show cause and
eect. Te statistics meiely indicate coiielations. Te habit of daily ieading, foi
instance, oveiwhelmingly coiielates with bettei ieading skills and highei academic
To Read or Not To Read 3
Photo by Vance Jacobs
achievement. On the othei hand, pooi ieading skills coiielate with lowei levels of
nancial and job success. At the iisk of being ciiticized by social scientists, I suggest
that since all the data demonstiate consistent and mostly lineai ielationships between
ieading and these positive iesultsand between pooi ieading and negative iesults
ieading has played a decisive factoi. Whethei oi not people iead, and indeed how
much and how often they iead, aects theii lives in ciucial ways.
All of the data suggest how poweifully ieading tiansfoims the lives of individu-
alswhatevei theii social ciicumstances. Regulai ieading not only boosts the likeli-
hood of an individuals academic and economic successfacts that aie not especially
suipiisingbut it also seems to awaken a peisons social and civic sense. Reading
coiielates with almost eveiy measuiement of positive peisonal and social behavioi
suiveyed. It is ieassuiing, though haidly amazing, that ieadeis attend moie conceits
and theatei than non-ieadeis, but it is suipiising that they exeicise moie and play
moie spoitsno mattei what theii educational level. Te cold statistics conim
something that most ieadeis knowbut have mostly been ieluctant to declaie as fact
books change lives foi the bettei.
Some people will inevitably ciiticize To Read or Not To Read as a negative iepoit
undeistating the good woiks of schools, colleges, libiaiies, and publisheis. Ceitainly,
the tiends iepoited heie aie negative. Teie is, alas, no factual case to suppoit geneial
giowth in ieading oi ieading compiehension in Ameiica. But theie is anothei way
of viewing this data that is haidly negative about ieading.
To Read or Not To Read conimswithout any seiious qualicationthe cential
impoitance of ieading foi a piospeious, fiee society. Te data heie demonstiate that
ieading is an iiieplaceable activity in developing pioductive and active adults as well
as healthy communities. Whatevei the benets of newei electionic media, they pio-
vide no measuiable substitute foi the intellectual and peisonal development initiated
and sustained by fiequent ieading.
To Read or Not To Read is not an elegy foi the bygone days of piint cultuie, but
instead is a call to actionnot only foi paients, teacheis, libiaiians, wiiteis, and pub-
lisheis, but also foi politicians, business leadeis, economists, and social activists. Te
geneial decline in ieading is not meiely a cultuial issue, though it has enoimous con-
sequences foi liteiatuie and the othei aits. It is a seiious national pioblem. If, at the
cuiient pace, Ameiica continues to lose the habit of iegulai ieading, the nation will
suei substantial economic, social, and civic setbacks.
As with Reading at Risk, we issue this iepoit not to dictate any specic iemedial
policies, but to initiate a seiious discussion. It is no longei ieasonable to debate
whethei the pioblem exists. It is now time to become moie committed to solving it
oi face the consequences. Te nation needs to focus moie attention and iesouices
on an activity both fundamental and iiieplaceable foi demociacy.
Dana Gioia
Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts
4 To Read or Not To Read
Exrcu:ivr Surrvv
I
n 2004, the National Endowment foi the Aits published Reading at Risk: ASurvey
of Literary Reading in America. Tis detailed study showed that Ameiicans in
almost eveiy demogiaphic gioup weie ieading ction, poetiy, and diamaand
books in geneialat signicantly lowei iates than 10 oi 20 yeais eailiei. Te declines
weie steepest among young adults.
Moie iecent ndings attest to the diminished iole of voluntaiy ieading in Ameii-
can life. Tese newstatistics come fioma vaiiety of ieliable souices, including laige,
nationally iepiesentative studies conducted by othei fedeial agencies. Biought
togethei heie foi the ist time, the data piompt thiee unsettling conclusions:
Americans are spending less time reading.
Reading comprehension skills are eroding.
These declines have serious civic, social, cultural, andeconomic implications.
A. Arrvics Avr Rroio Lrss
Teens and young adults iead less often and foi shoitei amounts of time when com-
paied with othei age gioups and with Ameiicans of the past.
1. Young adults are reading fewer books in general.
Neaily half of all Ameiicans ages 18 to 24 iead no books foi pleasuie.
Te peicentage of 18- to 44-yeai-olds who iead a book fell 7 points fiom 1992
to 2002.
2. Reading is declining as an activity among teenagers.
Less than one-thiid of 13-yeai-olds aie daily ieadeis.
Te peicentage of 17-yeai-olds who iead nothing at all foi pleasuie has
doubled ovei a 20-yeai peiiod. Yet the amount they iead foi school oi home-
woik (15 oi fewei pages daily foi 62 of students) has stayed the same.
To Read or Not To Read 5
Percentage of Young Americans Who Read a Book Not Required for Work or School
Age group 1992 2002 Change Rate of decline
1824 59% 52% -7 pp -12%
2534 64% 59% -5 pp -8%
3544 66% 59% -7 pp -11%
All adults (18 and over) 61% 57% -4 pp -7%
pp = percentage points
Source: National Endowment for the Arts
Voluntaiy ieading iates diminish fiom childhood to late adolescence.
3. College attendance no longer guarantees active reading habits.
Although ieading tiacks closely with education level, the peicentage of college
giaduates who iead liteiatuie has declined.
65 of college fieshmen iead foi pleasuie foi less than an houi pei week oi not
at all.
Te peicentage of non-ieadeis among these students has neaily doubled
climbing 18 points since they giaduated fiom high school.
6 To Read or Not To Read
Percentage of Students Reading for Fun
Age 13 Age 17
Reading frequency 1984 2004 Change 1984 2004 Change
Never or hardly ever read 8% 13% +5 pp 9% 19% +10 pp
Read almost every day 35% 30% -5 pp 31% 22% -9 pp
pp = percentage points
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Percentage Who Read Almost Every Day for Fun
1984 1999 2004
9-year-olds 53% 54% 54%
13-year-olds 35% 28% 30%
17-year-olds 31% 25% 22%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Percentage Who Read a Book the Previous Day (Outside School or Work)
In 2004
For at least 5 minutes For at least 30 minutes
8- to 10-year-olds 63% 40%
11- to 14-year-olds 44% 27%
15- to 18-year-olds 34% 26%
Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year-Olds (#7251), 2005
Percentage of Literary Readers Among College Graduates
Change Rate of decline
1982 1992 2002 19822002 19822002
82% 75% 67% -15 pp -18%
pp = percentage points
Source: National Endowment for the Arts
By the time they become college seniois, one in thiee students iead nothing at
all foi pleasuie in a given week.
4. Teens andyoung adults spendless time reading thanpeople of other age groups.
Ameiicans between 15 and 34 yeais of age devote less leisuie time than oldei
age gioups to ieading anything at all.
15- to 24-yeai-olds spend only 710 minutes pei day on voluntaiy ieading
about 60 less time than the aveiage Ameiican.
To Read or Not To Read 7
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
21%
39%
26% 26%
T
o
t
a
l
None
Less than 1 hour
As high school seniors
in 2004
As college freshmen
in 2005
Reading per week:
Percentage of U.S. College Freshmen Who Read Little or Nothing for Pleasure
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
21%
35%
28% 28%
T
o
t
a
l
None
Less than 1 hour
As high school seniors
(mainly pre-2002)
As college seniors
in 2005
Reading per week:
Percentage of U.S. College Seniors Who Read Little or Nothing for Pleasure
Source: University of California, Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute
Source: University of California, Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute
i
U.S. Census Buieau, Computer
and Internet Use in the United
States, 1997 and 2003, and
PewiInteinet & Ameiican Life
Pioject, Home Broadband
Adoption 2007.
By contiast, 15- to 24-yeai-olds spend 2 to 2 houis pei day watching TV. Tis
activity consumes the most leisuie time foi men and women of all ages.
Liteiaiy ieading declined signicantly in a peiiod of iising Inteinet use. Fiom
19972003, home Inteinet use soaied 53 peicentage points among 18- to 24-
yeai-olds. By anothei estimate, the peicentage of 18- to 29-yeai-olds with a
home bioadband connection climbed 25 points fiom 2005 to 2007.
i
5. Even when reading does occur, it competes with other media. is multi-
tasking suggests less focused engagement with a text.
58 of middle and high school students use othei media while ieading.
Students iepoit using media duiing 35 of theii weekly ieading time.
20 of theii ieading time is shaied by TV-watching, videoicomputei game-
playing, instant messaging, e-mailing oi Web suing.
8 To Read or Not To Read
Percentage Using Other Media While Reading
7th-12th Graders in 20032004
% who use other media while reading
Most of the time 28%
Some of the time 30%
Most/some 58%
Little of the time 26%
Never 16%
Little/never 42%
Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Media Multitasking Among Youth: Prevalence, Predictors
and Pairings (# 7592), 2006
Average Time Spent Reading in 2006
Hours/minutes spent reading
Weekdays Weekends
and holidays
Total, 15 years and over :20 :26
15 to 24 years :07 :10
25 to 34 years :09 :11
35 to 44 years :12 :16
45 to 54 years :17 :24
55 to 64 years :30 :39
65 years and over :50 1:07
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Percentage of 18- to 24-Year-Olds Reading Literature
1982 1992 2002
Percentage reading literature 60% 53% 43%
Change from 1982 # -7 pp -17 pp
Rate of decline from 1982 # -12% -28%
pp = percentage points
Source: National Endowment for the Arts
ii
Foi the puipose of this analysis,
family oi household is used
instead of the Buieau of Laboi
Statistics technical teim con-
sumei unit. In addition to families
and households, a consumei unit
may desciibe a peison living
alone oi shaiing a household with
otheis oi living as a ioomei in a
piivate home oi lodging house oi
in peimanent living quaiteis in a
hotel oi motel, but who is nan-
cially independent.
iii
Albeit N. Gieco and Robeit M.
Whaiton, Book Industry TRENDS
2007 (New Yoik, N.Y.: Book
Industiy Study Gioup, 2007),
vaiious pages.
6. American families are spending less on books than at almost any other time
in the past two decades.
Although nominal spending on books giew fiom 1985 to 2005, aveiage annual
household spending on books diopped 14 when adjusted foi ination.
ii
Ovei the same peiiod, spending on ieading mateiials dipped 7 peicentage
points as a shaie of aveiage household enteitainment spending.
Amid yeai-to-yeai uctuations, consumei book sales peaked at 1.6 billion
units sold in 2000. Fiom 2000 to 2006, howevei, they declined by 6, oi
100 million units.
iii
Te numbei of books in a home is a signicant piedictoi of academic
achievement.
To Read or Not To Read 9
$26
$28
$30
$32
$34
$36
1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
Average Annual Spending on Books, by Consumer Unit
Adjusted for Inflation
The Consumer Price Index, 19821984 (less food and energy), was used to adjust for inflation.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Percentage of Time Spent Reading While Using Other Media
7th- to 12th-Graders in 20032004
Percentage of reading time
Reading while:
Watching TV 11%
Listening to music 10%
Doing homework on the computer 3%
Playing videogames 3%
Playing computer games 2%
Using the computer (other) 2%
Instant messaging 2%
E-mailing 1%
Surfing websites 1%
Using any of the above media 35%
Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Media Multitasking Among Youth: Prevalence, Predictors
and Pairings (# 7592), 2006
B. Arrvics Avr Rroio Lrss Wrii
As Ameiicans iead less, theii ieading skills woisen, especially among teenageis and
young males. By contiast, the aveiage ieading scoie of 9-yeai-olds has impioved.
1. Reading scores for 17-year-olds are down.
17-yeai-old aveiage ieading scoies began a slow downwaid tiend in 1992.
Foi moie than 30 yeais, this age gioup has failed to sustain impiovements in
ieading scoies.
Reading test scoies foi 9-yeai-oldswho show no declines in voluntaiy
ieadingaie at an all-time high.
Te dispaiity in ieading skills impiovement between 9-yeai-olds and 17-yeai-
olds may ieect bioadei dieiences in the academic and social climate of
those age gioups.
10 To Read or Not To Read
Average Test Scores by Number of Household Books, Grade 12 (20052006)
Average Average Average
science score civics score history score*
Reported number of
books at home
More than 100 161 167 305
26100 147 150 289
1125 132 134 275
010 122 123 265
* Science and civics scores range from 0 to 300. History scores range from 0 to 500.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
10
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004
Reported as differences from 1984 reading scores.
Age 17
Age 9
Trend in Average Reading Scores for Students Ages 17 and 9
Test years occurred at irregular intervals.
Trend analysis based on data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
iv
Foi 12th-giadeis, Piocient
coiiesponds with a ieading scoie
of 302 oi gieatei (out of 500).
2. Among high school seniors, the average score has declined for virtually all
levels of reading.
Little moie than one-thiid of high school seniois now iead piociently.
iv
Fiom 1992 to 2005, the aveiage scoie declined foi the bottom 90 of ieadeis.
Only foi the veiy best ieadeis of 2005, the scoie held steady.
Te ieading gap is widening between males and females.
To Read or Not To Read 11
Average 12th-Grade Reading Scores by Gender
1992 2005
Female 297 292
Male 287 279
Male-female gap -10 -13
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Change in 12th-Grade Reading Scores, by Percentile: 1992 and 2005
Percentile 1992 2005 Change
90th 333 333 0
75th 315 313 -2
50th 294 288 -6
25th 271 262 -9
10th 249 235 -14
All score changes from 1992 are statistically significant.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Percentage of 12th-Graders Reading at or Above the Proficient Level
1992 2005 Change Rate of decline
40% 35% -5 pp -13%
pp = percentage points
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
v
Foi adults, Piocient coiie-
sponds with a piose liteiacy scoie
of 340 oi gieatei (out of 500).
vi
Exceptions aie adults still in
high school and those with a GED
oi high school equivalency. In
both cases, scoie changes fiom
1992 to 2003 weie not statistically
signicant.
3. Reading prociency rates are stagnant or declining in adults of both genders
and all education levels.
Te peicentage of men who iead at a Piocient level has declined. Foi women,
the shaie of Piocient ieadeis has stayed the same.
v
Aveiage ieading scoies have declined in adults of viitually all education levels.
vi
Even among college giaduates, ieading piociency has declined at a 2023
iate.
4. Reading for pleasure correlates strongly with academic achievement.
Voluntaiy ieadeis aie bettei ieadeis and wiiteis than non-ieadeis.
Childien and teenageis who iead foi pleasuie on a daily oi weekly basis scoie
bettei on ieading tests than infiequent ieadeis.
Fiequent ieadeis also scoie bettei on wiiting tests than non-ieadeis oi
infiequent ieadeis.
12 To Read or Not To Read
Percentage of Adults Proficient in Reading Prose, by Gender
1992 2003 Change Rate of decline
Female 14% 14% 0 pp 0%
Male 16% 13% -3 pp -19%
Both genders 15% 13% -2 pp -13%
pp = percentage points
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Average Prose Literacy Scores of Adults, by Highest Level of Educational
Attainment: 1992 and 2003
Education level: 1992 2003 Change
Less than/some high school 216 207 -9
High school graduate 268 262 -6
Vocational/trade/business school 278 268 -10
Some college 292 287 -5
Associates/2-year degree 306 298 -8
Bachelors degree 325 314 -11
Graduate study/degree 340 327 -13
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Percentage of College Graduates Proficient in Reading Prose
1992 2003 Change Rate of decline
Bachelors degree 40% 31% -9 pp -23%
Graduate study/degree 51% 41% -10 pp -20%
pp = percentage points
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
To Read or Not To Read 13
Almost every day
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a month
Never or hardly ever
302
292
285
274
Almost every day
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a month
Never or hardly ever
165
154
149
136
Average Reading Scores by Frequency of Reading for Fun
Grade 12 in 2005
Average Writing Scores by Frequency of Reading for Fun
Grade 12 in 2002
Reading scores range from 0 to 500.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Writing scores range from 0 to 300.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
vii
Statistics Canada and OECD,
Learning a Living: First Results of
the Adult Literacy and Life Skills
Survey, 2005, 145.
viii
Te National Commission on
Wiiting, Writing: A Ticket to
Workor a Ticket Out: A Survey of
Business Leaders, 2004, 29, and
Writing: A Powerful Message from
State Government, 2005, 32.
C. Tnr Drciirs i Rroio Hvr Civic, Socii, o Ecooric
Irviic:ios
Advanced ieadeis acciue peisonal, piofessional, and social advantages. Decient
ieadeis iun highei iisks of failuie in all thiee aieas.
1. Employers nowrank reading and writing as top deciencies in newhires.
38 of employeis nd high school giaduates decient in ieading compiehen-
sion, while 63 iate this basic skill veiy impoitant.
Wiitten communications tops the list of applied skills found lacking in high
school and college giaduates alike.
One in ve U.S. woikeis iead at a lowei skill level than theii job iequiies.
vii
Remedial wiiting couises aie estimated to cost moie than $3.1 billion foi laige
coipoiate employeis and $221 million foi state employeis.
viii
14 To Read or Not To Read
Percentage of Employers Who Rate High School Graduates as Deficient
in Basic Skills
Writing in English 72%
Foreign languages 62%
Mathematics 54%
History/geography 46%
Government/economics 46%
Science 45%
Reading comprehension 38%
Humanities/arts 31%
English language 21%
Source: The Conference Board, Are They Really Ready to Work?, 2006
Percentage of Employers Who Rate Job Entrants as Deficient in Applied Skills
High school graduates deficient in: College graduates deficient in:
Written communication 81% Written communication 28%
Leadership 73% Leadership 24%
Professionalism/work ethic 70% Professionalism/work ethic 19%
Critical thinking/problem solving 70% Creativity/innovation 17%
Lifelong learning/self direction 58% Lifelong learning/self-direction 14%
Source: The Conference Board, Are They Really Ready to Work?, 2006
Rated Very Important by Employers
Percentage of employers who rate the following basic skills as very important for high school graduates:
Reading comprehension 63%
English language 62%
Writing in English 49%
Mathematics 30%
Foreign languages 11%
Source: The Conference Board, Are They Really Ready to Work?, 2006
2. Good readers generally have more nancially rewarding jobs.
Moie than 60 of employed Piocient ieadeis have jobs in management, oi in
the business, nancial, piofessional, and ielated sectois.
Only 18 of Basic ieadeis aie employed in those elds.
Piocient ieadeis aie 2.5 times as likely as Basic ieadeis to be eaining $850 oi
moie a week.
3. Less advanced readers report fewer opportunities for career growth.
38 of Basic ieadeis said theii ieading level limited theii job piospects.
Te peicentage of Below-Basic ieadeis who iepoited this expeiience was 1.8
times gieatei.
Only 4 of Piocient ieadeis iepoited this expeiience.
To Read or Not To Read 15
Percentage of Full-Time Workers by Weekly Earnings and Reading Level in 2003
$850$1,149 $1,150$1,449 $1,450$1,949 $1,950 or more Total earning $850
or more
Proficient 20% 13% 13% 12% 58%
Basic 12% 5% 2% 4% 23%
Below Basic 7% 3% 1% 2% 13%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Percentage Employed in Management and Professional Occupations, by Reading
Level in 2003
Management, business Professional Total in either job
and financial and related category
Proficient 19% 42% 61%
Basic 8% 10% 18%
Below Basic 3% 4% 7%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Percentage of Adults Who Said Their Reading Skills Limited Their Job
Opportunities, by Reading Level in 2003
A little Some A lot Total
Proficient 2% 1% 1% 4%
Basic 14% 15% 9% 38%
Below Basic 13% 22% 35% 70%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
ix
National Endowment foi the
Aits, e Arts and Civic Engage-
ment: Involved in Arts, Involved in
Life, 2006.
x
Ibid.
4. Good readers play a crucial role in enriching our cultural and civic life.
Liteiaiy ieadeis aie moie than 3 times as likely as non-ieadeis to visit
museums, attend plays oi conceits, and cieate aitwoiks of theii own.
Tey aie also moie likely to play spoits, attend spoiting events, oi do outdooi
activities.
18- to 34-yeai-olds, whose ieading iates aie the lowest foi any adult age gioup
undei 65, show declines in cultuial and civic paiticipation.
ix
5. Good readers make good citizens.
Liteiaiy ieadeis aie moie than twice as likely as non-ieadeis to volunteei oi do
chaiity woik.
x
Adults who iead well aie moie likely to volunteei than Basic and Below-Basic
ieadeis.
16 To Read or Not To Read
Percentage of Adults Who Volunteered, by Reading Level in 2003
Less than Once a week Total who
once a week or more volunteered
Proficient 32% 25% 57%
Basic 16% 15% 31%
Below Basic 8% 10% 18%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Percentage of Literary Readers Who Volunteered in 2002
Literary readers Non-readers Gap between groups
43% 16% -27 pp
pp = percentage points
Source: National Endowment for the Arts
Participation Rates for Literary Readers in 2002
Literary readers Non-readers Gap between groups
Visit art museums 43% 12% -31 pp
Attend plays or musicals 36% 10% -26 pp
Attend jazz or classical concerts 29% 9% -20 pp
Create photographs, paintings, or writings 32% 10% -22 pp
Attend sporting events 44% 27% -17 pp
Play sports 38% 24% -14 pp
Exercise 72% 40% -32 pp
Do outdoor activities 41% 22% -19 pp
pp = percentage points
Source: National Endowment for the Arts
xi
Editoiial Piojects in Education,
Diplomas Count 2007: Ready for
What? Preparing Students for
College, Careers, and Life after
High School, Executive Summaiy.
84 of Piocient ieadeis voted in the 2000 piesidential election, compaied
with 53 of Below-Basic ieadeis.
6. Decient readers are far more likely than skilled readers to be high school
dropouts.
Half of Ameiicas Below-Basic ieadeis failed to complete high schoola
peicentage gain of 5 points since 1992.
One-thiid of ieadeis at the Basic level diopped out of high school.
Foi high school diopouts, the aveiage ieading scoie is 55 points lowei than foi
high school giaduatesand the gap has giown since 1992.
Tis fact is especially tioubling in light of iecent estimates that only 70 of
high school students eain a diploma on time.
xi
To Read or Not To Read 17
Percentage of Adults Who Voted in the 2000 Presidential Election, by 2003
Reading Level
Proficient 84%
Basic 62%
Below Basic 53%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Percentage of Adults at or Below Basic Prose Reading Level Who Did Not
Complete High School: 1992, 2003
Prose reading level
Below Basic Basic
1992 2003 Change 1992 2003 Change
45% 50% +5 pp 38% 33% -5 pp
pp = percentage points
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Average Prose Reading Scores for Adult High School Graduates and Those Who
Did Not Complete High School: 1992, 2003
Prose reading score
Highest level of education 1992 2003 Change
Less than/some high school 216 207 -9
High school graduate 268 262 -6
Gap between groups -52 -55
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
xii
U.S. Depaitment of Education,
National Centei foi Education
Statistics, Literacy Behind Bars:
Results from the 2003 National
Assessment of Adult Literacy
Prison Survey, 2007, 77.
7. Decient readers are more likely thanskilledreaders tobe out of the workforce.
Moie than half of Below-Basic ieadeis aie not in the woikfoice.
44 of Basic ieadeis lack a full-time oi pait-time jobtwice the peicentage of
Piocient ieadeis in that categoiy.
8. Poor reading skills are endemic in the prison population.
56 of adult piisoneis iead at oi below the Basic level.
Adult piisoneis have an aveiage piose ieading scoie of 25718 points lowei
than non-piisoneis.
Only 3 of adult piisoneis iead at a Piocient level.
Low ieading scoies peisist in piisoneis neaiing the end of theii teim, when
they aie expected to ietuin to family, society, and a moie pioductive life.
xii
18 To Read or Not To Read
Percentage of Adult Prisoners and Household Populations by 2003 Reading Level
Prose reading level Household Prison Gap
Below Basic 14% 16% *+2 pp
Basic 29% 40% +11 pp
Intermediate 44% 41% *-3 pp
Proficient 13% 3% -10 pp
* = not statistically significant
pp = percentage points
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Percentage of Adults Employed Full-Time or Part-Time, by 2003 Reading Level
Proficient 78%
Basic 56%
Below Basic 45%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
Conclusion
Self-iepoited data on individual behavioial patteins, combined with national test
scoies fiom the Depaitment of Education and othei souices, suggest thiee distinct
tiends: a histoiical decline in voluntaiy ieading iates among teenageis and young
adults, a giadual woisening of ieading skills among oldei teens, and declining pio-
ciency in adult ieadeis.
Te Depaitment of Educations extensive data on voluntaiy ieading patteins and
piose ieading scoies yield a fouith obseivation: fiequency of ieading foi pleasuie
coiielates stiongly with bettei test scoies in ieading and wiiting. Fiequent ieadeis
aie thus moie likely than infiequent oi non-ieadeis to demonstiate academic
achievement in those subjects.
Fiom the diveisity of data souices in this iepoit, othei themes emeige. Analyses
of voluntaiy ieading and ieading ability, and the social chaiacteiistics of advanced
and decient ieadeis, identify seveial disciepancies at a national level:
Less ieading foi pleasuie in late adolescence than in youngei age gioups
Declines in ieading test scoies among 17-yeai-olds and high school seniois in
contiast to youngei age gioups and lowei giade levels
Among high school seniois, a widei iift in the ieading scoies of advanced and
decient ieadeis
A male-female gap in ieading pioclivity and achievement levels
A shaip divide in the ieading skills of incaiceiated adults veisus non-piisoneis
Gieatei academic, piofessional, and civic benets associated with high levels of
leisuie ieading and ieading compiehension
Longitudinal studies aie needed to conimand monitoi the eects of these diei-
ences ovei time. Futuie ieseaich also could exploie factois such as income, ethnicity,
iegion, and iace, and howthey might altei the ielationship between voluntaiy iead-
ing, ieading test scoies, and othei outcomes. Ciitically, fuithei studies should weigh
the ielative eectiveness and costs and benets of piogiams to fostei lifelong ieading
and skills development. Foi instance, such ieseaich could tiace the eects of elec-
tionic media and scieen ieading on the development of ieadeis in eaily childhood.
Recent studies of Ameiican time-use and consumei expendituie patteins high-
light a seiies of choices luiking in the question To iead oi not to iead? Te futuie
of ieading iests on the daily decisions Ameiicans will continue to make when con-
fionted with an expanding menu of leisuie goods and activities. Te impoit of these
national ndings, howevei, is that ieading fiequently is a behavioi to be cultivated
with the same zeal as academic achievement, nancial oi job peifoimance, and global
competitiveness.
Technical Note
Tis iepoit piesents some of the most ieliable and cuiiently available statistics on
Ameiican ieading iates, liteiacy, and ieadei chaiacteiistics. No attempt has been
made to exploie methods foi ieading instiuction, oi to delve into iacial, ethnic, oi
income tiaits of voluntaiy ieadeis, though age, gendei, and education aie discussed
at vaiious points in the analyses. Te majoiity of the data stemfiomlaige, nationally
iepiesentative studies completed aftei the 2004 publication of the NEAs Reading at
Risk iepoit. Unless a footnote is piovided, souices foi all data in this Executive Sum-
To Read or Not To Read 19
maiy aie given with each accompanying chait oi table. All adult ieading scoies and
piociency iates iefei to the Depaitment of Educations piose liteiacy categoiy.
Caution should be used in compaiing iesults fiomthe seveial studies cited in this
publication, as the studies use dieient methodologies, suivey populations, iesponse
iates, and standaid eiiois associated with the estimates, and the studies often weie
designed to seive dieient ieseaich aims. No denite causal ielationship can be made
between voluntaiy ieading and ieading piociency, oi between voluntaiy ieading,
ieading piociency, and the ieadei chaiacteiistics noted in the iepoit. Finally, except
wheie book ieading oi liteiaiy ieading iates aie specically mentioned, all iefeiences
to voluntaiy ieading aie intended to covei all types of ieading mateiials.
Oce of Reseaich & Analysis
National Endowment foi the Aits
20 To Read or Not To Read