National assessments of U.S. high school students' writing and other verbal abilities do not show that literacy has declined substantially in recent years. In fact, scores have been relatively stable since the 1980s. The proportion of students with solid writing and reading abilities has held fairly steady but remained small during the past 25 years. During this period, however, the proportion of high school graduates who enter higher education has soared. Thus, more students with weak verbal abilities now enter college. Initiatives that encourage people to continue their education have succeeded, whereas initiatives to improve writing, reading, and reasoning abilities have not. The complex causes of entering college students' weak verbal abilities include social and cultural forces as well as decisions by educational institutions. By understanding the complicated history of this issue and reframing it in positive terms, business and technical communication faculty can help effect change.
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.
