Indicators of literacy

Robert C. Calfee

ResearchPublished 1988

This Joint Note sketches a vision of literacy for future generations that is tied not to the printed page, but rather to a formal style of language that depends on structures, procedures, and strategies for effective use of language in thinking and communicating. The author presents an approach for achieving this level of critical literacy. Because current indicators of literacy are narrow, he recommends that the present system of indicators should be augmented by the informed judgments of classroom teachers. Finally, the author considers the barriers to and benefits of this proposal. He concludes that teachers will be willing and able to make the necessary judgments about student achievement if schools promote a level of professional competence by practitioners.

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Web Only
  • Year: 1988
  • Pages: 50
  • Document Number: JNE-4

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Calfee, Robert C., Indicators of literacy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1988. https://www.rand.org/pubs/joint_notes-education/JNE4.html.
BibTeX RIS

This publication is part of the RAND joint note education series. The joint note was a product of RAND from 1986 to 1991 that included documents published jointly with other organizations and reported outputs of sponsored research for general distribution.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.