How do US literacy rates compare to other developed countries?

1. The Claim That “The U.S. Literacy Rate Is About 99% — Case Closed?”

Multiple analyses assert a near-universal nominal literacy rate for the United States, often cited as 99%, putting the country alongside Sweden, Australia, and the UK in headline comparisons. That claim reflects traditional measures that count adults who can read and write at a basic level and appears in summary listings of country literacy rates ^[1]. Such measures capture basic literacy but do not assess the level of skill readers actually use in work, education, and citizenship. Reporting the 99% figure without qualification therefore risks obscuring meaningful differences in reading proficiency that matter for economic and civic participation ^{[1] [5]}.

2. The Counterclaim: Functional Literacy and Adult Skills Tell a Different Story

Analyses based on functional assessments and literacy-focused organizations present a contrasting picture: one source reports about 79% of U.S. adults as “literate” under a functional definition, with 54% reading below a sixth-grade level and 21% classified as illiterate, and ranks the U.S. well below top developed countries ^{[2] [6]}. International adult-skill surveys also show the United States near the international average in literacy but lagging in numeracy and problem-solving, with a ranking around 14th among 31 countries on literacy and lower rankings on other domains ^[3]. These functional measures capture real-world proficiency and reveal gaps not visible in nominal counts ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Student Performance Adds Nuance: PISA and OECD Evidence

Student assessments such as PISA complicate the comparison further: U.S. students score near the OECD average in reading and science and slightly below in mathematics on PISA 2022, with roughly 80% of students reaching at least Level 2 in reading, signaling basic proficiency ^[4]. The U.S. shows considerable socioeconomic disparities in PISA outcomes, with advantaged students outperforming disadvantaged peers by a wide margin—about 102 score points in mathematics—which indicates that national averages mask internal gaps ^{[4] [7]}. Comparisons to “other developed countries” therefore depend heavily on whether one compares top performers, averages, or distributional outcomes ^[4].

4. Measurement Matters: Nominal Rates vs. Functional Proficiency vs. International Surveys

The supplied analyses highlight three distinct measurement regimes. Nominal literacy rates capture whether adults can read and write at a basic level and often yield very high percentages for developed nations ^{[1] [5]}. Functional literacy measures and adult skills surveys examine reading comprehension, numeracy, and problem-solving applicable to workplace and civic tasks, producing lower and more variable estimates and different international rankings ^{[2] [3]}. PISA-style student assessments measure competency at school-leaving ages and reveal societal inequality effects on performance ^[4]. Any cross-country comparison must state which metric is being used, as conclusions flip depending on the measure cited ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

5. Trends, Disparities, and What Is Omitted from the Headlines

The analyses report that U.S. adult literacy and skill levels have been relatively stable with small fluctuations over decades in international surveys, while some peer countries have improved or declined ^[8]. They also highlight wide internal disparities—by socioeconomic status and marginalized groups—where functional illiteracy or low proficiency is concentrated ^{[2] [6] [4]}. What is often omitted in headline comparisons are age cohort effects, immigrant population composition, educational attainment differentials, and the distinction between basic decoding and comprehension under workplace demands; these factors materially change where the U.S. sits relative to other developed nations ^{[2] [4] [3]}.

6. Bottom Line: A Qualified Comparison for Policymakers and the Public

The fact set shows that the United States can be simultaneously reported as having near-universal nominal literacy and as lagging relative to many developed peers on functional reading proficiency and certain student outcomes. For cross-country claims to be accurate and useful, they must specify the metric—nominal adult literacy, functional adult proficiency, or student assessment scores—and account for internal inequality and demographic composition. Policymakers and analysts should therefore avoid single-number comparisons and instead present both nominal and proficiency-based indicators to portray where the U.S. stands among developed countries ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.