Literacy in decline: Untangling the evidence

Business Communication Quarterly

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 16-33

  Jameson, Daphne A ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Curriculum; Literacy; Reading assessment; Verbal abilities; Writing assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846966276     PISSN: 10805699     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1080569906297923     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. American Council on Education. (1971). The American freshman: National norms for fall 1971. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., & Mullis, I. V. S. (1985). Writing: Trends across the decade, 1974-84 (ETS report 15-W-01). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
3. Arenson, K. W. (2006, May 11). Colleges report mystery decline in SAT scores. The New York Times, p. 26-26.
4. Bridgeman, B., McCamley-Jenkins, L., & Ervin, N. (2000). Predictions of freshman gradepoint average from the revised and recentered SAT I: Reasoning Test (College Board Rep. No. 2000-1). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
5. Carson, C. C., Huelskamp, R. M., & Woodall, T. D. (1993). Perspectives on education in America: An annotated briefing, April 1992. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 259-310.
6. College Entrance Examination Board. (1992). College-bound seniors: 1992 profile of SAT and achievement test takers. New York: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED351352)
7. College Entrance Examination Board. (2002). 10-year trend in SAT scores indicates increased emphasis on math is yielding results; reading and writing are causes for concern (News release N0179). New York: Author.
8. College Entrance Examination Board. (2005). 2005 college-bound seniors: Total group profile report. New York: Author.
9. College Entrance Examination Board. (2006). 2006 college-bound seniors: Total group profile report. New York: Author.
10. Corcoran, S. P., Evans, W. N., & Schwab, R. M. (2004). Women, the labor market, and the declining relative quality of teachers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23, 449-471.
11. Cox, B. E., Shanahan, T., & Sulzby, E. (1990). Good and poor elementary readers' use of cohesion in writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 47-65.
12. Dorans, N. J. (2002). The recentering of SAT scales and its effects on score distributions and score interpretations (College Board Rep. No. 2002-11). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
13. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2006). Diplomas count: An essential guide to graduation policy and rates. Bethesda, MD: Author.
14. Epstein, J. (2005). The National Assessment of Educational Progress: The story of a national test in the making. American Educational History Journal, 32, 10-19.
15. Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39-50.
16. Frisch-Kowalski, S. (2003). The SAT: A timeline of changes. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
17. Hoxby, C. M., & Leigh, A. (2004). Pulled away or pushed out? Explaining the decline of teacher aptitude in the United States. American Economics Review, 94, 236-240.
18. Manno, B. V. (1995, September 13). The real score on the SATs. The Wall Street Journal, p. A12 - A12.
19. Morgan, R. (1991). Cohort differences associated with trends in SAT score averages (ETS Rep. No. 91-27). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
20. National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected 'R': The need for a writing revolution. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
21. National Council of Teachers of English. (2005). The impact of the SAT and ACT timed writing tests. Urbana, IL: Author.
22. National Endowment for the Arts. (2004). Reading at risk. Washington, DC: Author.
23. Phillips, G. W. (2000). Statement on long-term trend writing NAEP. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/ remarks2000/4_11_2000.asp
24. Postrel, V. (2004, March 25). In their hiring of teachers, do the nation's public schools get what they pay for? The New York Times, p. C2 - C2.
25. Samuelson, R. J. (1994, July 27). Merchants of mediocrity: The College Board nationalizes grade inflation. The Washington Post, p. A27 - A27.
26. Sax, L. J., Hurtado, S., Lindhold, J. A., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M. (2004). The American freshman: National norms for fall 2004. Los Angeles: UCLA, Higher Education Research Institute.
27. Smitherman, G. (1999). CCCC's role in the struggle for language rights. College Composition and Communication, 50, 349-376.
28. Stewart, D. M. (1995, October 4). New SATs for a new kind of student [Letter to the editor]. The Wall Street Journal, p. A15 - A15.
29. Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60, 627-642.
30. University of California. Higher Education Research Institute. (2003). College freshmen spend less time studying and more time surfing the net, UCLA survey reveals [Press release]. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/02_press_release.pdf
31. U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Child's day: 2000 (selected indicators of child well-being) (Rep. P70-89). Washington, DC: Author.
32. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). NAEP 1992 writing report card. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED370119)
33. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). NAEP 1994 trends in academic progress (NCES No. 97095). Washington, DC: Author.
34. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). NAEP 1996 trends in academic progress (NCES No. 97986). Washington, DC: Author.
35. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). NAEP 1996 trends in writing: Fluency and writing conventions (NCES No. 1999-456). Washington, DC: Author.
36. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The nation's report card: Fourth-grade reading 2000 (NCES No. 2001-499). Washington, DC: Author.
37. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003a). Digest of education statistics, 2002 (NCES No. 2003-060). Washington, DC: Author.
38. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003b). The nation's report card: Writing 2002 (NCES No. 2003-529). Washington, DC: Author.
39. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005a). Digest of education statistics, 2004 (NCES No. 2006-005). Washington, DC: Author.
40. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005b). NAEP 2004 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance in reading and mathematics (NCES No. 2005-464). Washington, DC: Author.
41. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006a). Digest of education statistics, 2005 (NCES No. 2006-030). Washington, DC: Author.
42. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006b). A first look at the literacy of America's adults (NCES No. 2006-470). Washington, DC: Author.
43. Winerip, M. (1994, June 11). S.A.T. increases the average score, by fiat. The New York Times, p. A1 - A1.
44. Winerip, M. (2005, May 4). SAT essay test rewards length and ignores errors. The New York Times, p. B9 - B9.