March 2, 2016
“By now Lewis and Clark were growing ever more anxious to
catch sight of the Rockies, the mountain barrier they knew they would have to
cross. In the last week of May, Lewis saw the mountains for the first time. He
was filled with joy, immediately tempered by a realization of the challenge that
lay ahead." http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lewisandclark/journey_leg_7.html
|
Colorado Read Act – Fact Sheet
Supporting K-3 Literacy Development
Achieving
reading competency by the end of third grade is a critical milestone for
every student and predicts ongoing educational success. If a student enters
fourth grade without achieving reading competency, he or she is significantly
more likely to fall behind in all subject areas beginning in fourth grade and
later grades. Early literacy development is … one of Colorado’s top education
priorities. (http://www.cde.state.co.us/)
|
We cheered the passage of the READ Act in 2012 and continue to hope it
will achieve a key purpose: to see more students achieve “reading competency by
the end of third grade.” But after three
years of data, I trust no one believes we are anywhere
close to seeing all Colorado
students enter 4th
grade reading at grade level.
Last spring’s
PARCC results for 3rd graders makes it only more clear
that—as READ Act advocates know full well—the new law only addressed a fraction
of the tens of thousands of K-3 students who struggle with reading.
No news there: we knew the problem is bigger than the READ Act could tackle—which
was designed, to use the polysyllabic mouthful–to serve K-3 boys and girls
determined to be Significantly Deficient
Readers (SRD). But are we willing to
admit what a steep climb we have ahead of us, if we are to accomplish the READ
Act’s ultimate goal?
I know this: we do not help matters by overstating our “success”—if
success it is—in our implementation of the READ Act.
Last July I thought it was
important to say – addressing the other
end of the K-12 system – that our “higher graduation rates” are probably
inflated because we have no consistent measure across our 178 districts of what
it means to qualify as a high school graduate.[1] I make
the same point here regarding the number of K-3 struggling readers in
Colorado’s schools. READ Act figures are
not the full story.
Our first PARCC results for third graders suggest that perhaps 40% of Colorado
students entered 4th grade this past August well below the proficient level in English Language Arts – and over
60% were not yet proficient (see page 5).
Quite a different message than one might take from the first external
report on the Colorado READ Act, “An Evaluation of Implementation and Outcomes
after Year One,”[2]
released last summer. It was hard to get
past the Executive Summary and not think—WOW! GOOD NEWS!
“The results of this research
are immensely positive, and we are thrilled to see that the policy’s implementation
has had a significant impact on the lives of thousands of Colorado students.”
Scott Laband, President Colorado Succeeds
“The READ Act is making an
incredibly positive impact in the lives of thousands of Colorado kids after
just one year…. The majority of
Colorado schools reduced the number of
students with an SRD (significant reading deficiency). Many schools have
seen dramatic reductions in the
overall number of students with an SRD…. Statewide, the number of students with
an SRD was reduced from 16% in 2013 to 14% in 2014, resulting in nearly 5,000 fewer students with a significant
reading deficiency.” Executive
Summary, page 6 (Bold mine)
The headlines that followed the report’s release cheered
as well:
·
Early
literacy effort having impact, advocacy group reports (Chalkbeat
Colorado)
·
Colorado’s READ Act has a Positive
Impact, Report Shows
(Colorado Children’s Campaign)
And yet a close look
at the study (henceforth referred to as the CRA report) makes one wonder. Such a big change—5,000 fewer students--in
only one year? Only 14% of our K-3
students having great difficulty?
I examine the
CRA report here, in part because we have new information since it was written: Year
3 data- the 2014-15 on the number of students SRD eligible, as well as last
year’s 3rd grade PARCC scores. Also because it is imperative that we be
honest about the challenge—and about evaluating progress.
**
First, note that the CRA report only provided data on 2012-13 and
2013-14. Not a word on 2014-15. Both Chalkbeat
Colorado[3] and the Colorado Children’s Campaign[4]
mistakenly reported that this report gave 2014-15 data. It did not, even though
it was published after the 2014-15 school year had ended. What we have since learned about 2014-15 is
that many districts increased the
number of K-3 students identified as SRD last year compared to 2013-14. Which
raises the question: does success mean fewer students judges to be SRD? What if
schools and districts that identify and serve a greater number of our struggling K-3 readers might actually be
doing more to fulfill the purpose of
the READ Act?
Can we have
multiple definitions of SRD - and still claim we are reducing the number of SRD
students?
|
READ Act*
|
||
|
Year
|
Eligible Students
|
% of K-3 students
|
|
2012-13
|
42,479
|
16.5%
|
|
2013-14
|
37,506
|
14.4%
|
|
2014-15
|
36,420
|
13.8%
|
|
*Figures made
available to me by CDE
|
||
My first
point: how can “The Colorado Read Act – An Evaluation of Implementation
and Outcomes after Year One,” claim such success on reducing the number of student classified as
Significantly Reading Deficient from one year to the next, when we had no common definition or assessment used in
2013 and 2014, or district to district?
I start here: there was no common test used statewide to determine
which students were classified as SRD.
There were three possible tests in year one (2012-13) and seven in year
two (2013-14), as the report itself makes clear.[5] The report also acknowledges “limitations” in
what to make of the data.[6]
So that statement should read:
…the number of students IDENTIFIED
BY SCHOOLS USING DIFFERENT TESTING OPTIONS was reduced from 16% to 14% …..
The Executive Summary also asserts that “after only one year of implementation,
we uncovered some encouraging results”:
The majority of
Colorado schools reduced the number of students with an SRD.
But again, to be accurate, that too-generous statement should read:
The majority of Colorado schools reduced the number of students IDENTIFIED BY SCHOOLS USING DIFFERENT
TESTING OPTIONS with an SRD.
The big picture - 2012-13 to 2013-14
The CRA report is packed with interesting data from individual districts
and schools, with breakdowns showing the LOWER number and percentage of
students identified as SRD in several categories in 2014 versus 2013. (Including:
“Schools that significantly reduced the percentage of ELL students with an SRD,”
and African-American/Black students, and Hispanic/Latino students,” and much
more.) But I find it strange that a 30-page
report did not present the larger story. In the fall of 2014, based on data the
Colorado Department of Education had already released[7],
I put this together.
Read Act Funding Formula - 2012-13
to 2013-14*
|
|
2012-13
|
2013-14
|
change
|
|
STATE
|
41,942
|
36,993
|
-4,949
|
|
DPS
|
6,940
|
5,172
|
-1,768
|
|
Jefferson County
|
3,267
|
2,386
|
-881
|
|
St. Vrain
|
1,635
|
1,186
|
-449
|
|
Cherry Creek
|
1,914
|
1,553
|
-361
|
|
Adams 14
|
685
|
420
|
-265
|
|
Adams 50 - Westminster
|
1,139
|
890
|
-249
|
|
Aurora Public Schools
|
3,867
|
3,637
|
-230
|
|
Adams 12
|
2,530
|
2,355
|
-175
|
*Numbers here do not always match
number from CDE’s Office Literacy, which is the source of most figures quoted
in this newsletter.
|
“Specifically, the purposes of this evaluation study
were to (1) determine if the READ Act successfully reduced the number of
students with a significant reading deficiency (SRD) after its first full
year….”
From Executive Summary of the CRA
evaluation
|
The CRA report highlights such reductions and states: “these districts
are the top performers.” Really?
I sent those numbers to and met with CDE staff in November 2014 to ask
several questions: Why the big drop in Denver, Jeffco, and several other
districts? Was CDE confident DPS and Jeffco and other districts across the
state were using the same measurements one year to the next? Is it possible DPS, Jeffco, St. Vrain, etc.
could use different criteria to identify students with a Significant Reading Deficiency?
Could DPS honestly claim greater success in meeting the needs of its lowest
readers than districts where the number identified stayed about the same, or grew, as in those below? Again, how do
we define success?
Read
Act Funding Formula
|
2012-13
|
2013-14
|
Change
|
|
|
Douglas
County
|
1,651
|
1,649
|
-2
|
|
Poudre
R-1
|
781
|
910
|
+129
|
|
Harrison
|
531
|
692
|
+161
|
|
Colorado
Springs
|
1,301
|
1,466
|
+165
|
|
Mesa
County Valley 51
|
852
|
1,130
|
+278
|
With no one consistent measure
across the state[8] of
what it meant to be identified as a student who was SRD, what did we really
know about whether we were truly making progress?
TCAP & PARCC results invite the
question: What percentage of our 3rd graders struggle to read?
Along with these SRD numbers, we now
have at least two other ways of looking at the skills of 3rd graders
in Colorado (2014-TCAP; 2015-PARCC), to gauge the number of 3rd
graders who are–I will try a deliberately vague term for the moment–struggling readers. So let’s zero in on that grade. Of course I realize that neither the 3rd
grade TCAP nor PARCC tests are a perfect match with assessments approved by the
READ Act. CDE’s 2014 “Annual Report on
the Implementation of the Colorado READ Act (co-written by Patti Montgomery, at
that time the Executive Director of the Office of Literacy at CDE) spoke directly
to the difference of TCAP scores versus those identified as SRD[9].
Nevertheless, TCAP and PARCC scores tell us something useful about how many 3rd graders are not proficient readers—and, given the
various categories below proficient, how many are really struggling. Do these
scores raise legitimate questions about the SRD numbers? I believe they do. (If
I am wrong, feel free to ignore what follows.)
SRD 2014: The CRA report tells us that in 2013-14, out of 64,382 3rd
graders assessed, 11,220 (17%) were identified as SRD. First grade (18%) and second grade (16%) had
a similar percentage.[10]
2014 – 3rd
grade - TCAP – 28% not proficient - vs. - 17% SRD
TCAP data from 2014 included a breakdown of the students in the state
and in each district who scored in the lowest two categories as Not Proficient in reading: Unsatisfactory and Partially Proficient. That
number and percentage increased from
2013 to 2014.
|
TCAP - 3rd
grade reading
|
2012-13
|
2013-14
|
Change
|
|
Unsatisfactory
|
6,047
- 10%
|
6,447 - 10%
|
+400
|
|
Partially Proficient
|
10,585
– 17%
|
11,326 - 18%
|
+741
|
|
TOTAL
|
16,632 – 27%
|
17,773 – 28%
|
+1,141
– +1%
|
Again, I know: TCAP and SRD are entirely different assessments. I
realize it is unlikely that all Partially Proficient 3rd grade
readers would be identified as significantly
deficient readers. I merely point
out that the number not proficient on TCAP increased
from 2013 to 2014 (16,632 to 17,773), while the number identified as SRD decreased over those same years (12,241
to 11,220) (CRA
report. p. 10).
3rd grade - 2014 TCAP Reading: 71%
proficient vs. 2015 PARC English: 38.2% meeting
expectations
The READ report’s Executive Summary used the 2014 TCAP results when it framed
the problem this way:
Colorado’s most
recent third grade reading results show that literacy continues to be an area
of dire need of improvement. Third grade reading results went down statewide with just over 71% of students scoring
proficient or above.
(bold mine)
But now that we have 2015 PARCC scores, we can update that statement—revealing
an even greater crisis for early literacy in our state. That “over
71%” proficient in reading,
above, becomes “just over 38%” meeting
expectations in English. Again, I understand
that PARCC provides us with only one score—combining results for reading and writing—so yes, an inexact
comparison. But telling? As so few third graders opted out of the
PARCC assessments last spring[11],
we cannot use that as an excuse to dismiss these scores (as some do for PARCC
results for 11th graders).
Most frightening—if we believe these numbers—is to see that in several
districts, less than 20% met expectations: Aurora-18.4%,
Adams 50-16.8%, and Adams 14-14.3%.
Now see how the number of students scoring in the lowest two categories in English on PARCC match up with number
identified as SRD in 2014-15. (NOTE: On PARCC, 23.2% scored in a third
category for students not at grade level: Approaching
Expectations. So in all, 61.8% of our 3rd graders (23.2 plus 38.6,
below) were not meeting expectations; 38.2% were
meeting expectations.)
SRD 2015: CDE gave me the 2014-15 results, which are fairly
consistent with the previous year: out of 66,117 3rd graders tested,
10,639 (16.1%) were identified as SRD.
In first grade (16.9%) and second grade (15.4%), not much different.
2015 - 3rd grade - PARC English:
38.6% well below meeting expectations
-
vs. - 16.1% SRD
PARCC results – grades 3: % in
lowest two categories – 7 districts
below state average – vs. SRD
|
|
PARCC – English Language Arts–2014-15
|
SRD – 2014-15
|
||
|
|
Did not yet meet
expectations
|
Partially met expectations
|
TOTAL % in bottom 2 categories[12]
|
|
|
STATE
of Colorado
|
19.6
|
19.0
|
38.6
|
16.1%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adams 12
|
23.9
|
20.0
|
43.9
|
21.1%
|
|
Pueblo City
|
20.3
|
26.3
|
46.6
|
14.5%
|
|
Greeley
|
25.9
|
21.4
|
47.3
|
24.8%
|
|
DPS
|
27.8
|
20.2
|
48.0
|
23.8%
|
|
Westminster (Adams 50)
|
33.7
|
27.5
|
61.2
|
35.5%
|
|
Aurora
|
40.7
|
23.1
|
63.8
|
35.2%
|
|
Adams 14
|
39.9
|
26.1
|
66.0
|
38.9%
|
Perhaps the first
column, Did not yet meet expectations, captures most 3rd graders found
by the various READ Act assessments used last year to be significantly reading
deficient (last column). Note the similar percentages. But if PARCC gives us a
valid assessment on English skills—used across the state—it reveals that the enormous
number of students we might call struggling
readers. Just look at the percentage
of students who only Partially met expectations. Add
that percentage in and we find that in a district (like DPS), nearly 50% of the
3rd grade students score in the bottom two categories on English
Language Arts. In Aurora and Adams 14, nearly
two-thirds score that low. To restate: the
READ Act only identifies a fraction of our youngest students struggling to read.
My best guess on that number: 40% of our 265,000 K-3 students—over 100,000
students.
2014-15 SRD numbers: in several districts an increase (and what if this
is GOOD news?)
Since
the CRA report about 2012-13 and 2013-14 was produced, we now have Year 3
(2014-15) data, specifically the number of students eligible as SRD when the
2015-16 school year began. Two points: 1) It shows how the numbers
bounce frequently enough from year 1 to year 2 to year 3, again raising questions
about the consistency and reliability of the assessment being used. 2)
It, too, challenges the assumption in the report that success equals a
reduction in the number of SRD students.
That assumption would cheer significant
reductions in K-3 students identified as SRD in districts, such as these below.
But when numbers bounce up and
down this drastically, isn’t there good reason to doubt the consistency and
validity in determining which students are SRD?
|
|
2012-13
|
2013-14
|
2014-15
|
Changes
over time
|
|
STATE
|
42,479
|
37,506
|
36,420
|
-6,059 fewer SRD students over 2 yrs
|
|
Mesa County Valley 51
|
852
|
1,130
|
599
|
cut # by 531 - nearly 50% - in one year!
|
|
St. Vrain
|
1,635
|
1,186
|
743
|
cut # by 892
- over 50% - from 2012-13
|
|
Thompson R2-J
|
674
|
581
|
359
|
cut # by 315 - over 47% - from 2012-13
|
|
DPS
|
6,940
|
5,172
|
5,027
|
cut # by 1,913 - over 27% - from 2012-13
|
That
assumption would also suggest that the many districts—like the 10 below, who identified more
significantly deficient readers in 2015 than in 2014—are doing a poor job
of implementing the READ Act.[13]
Read Act Funding Formula - 2013-14 to 2014-15*
|
|
2013-14
|
2014-15
|
Change from previous year
|
|
STATE
|
36,993
|
35,974
|
-1,109
|
|
Jefferson County
|
2,386 – 10%
|
2,799 – 11.4%
|
+413
|
|
Adams County 14
|
420 – 17.9%
|
591 – 25.1%
|
+171
|
|
Pueblo 60
|
809 – 13.7%
|
952
– 15.9%
|
+143
|
|
Greeley
|
1,247 -18.3%
|
1,383 - 20.1%
|
+136
|
|
Poudre
|
910 – 10.7%
|
972 – 11%
|
+62
|
|
Colorado Springs
|
1,466 – 16.4%
|
1,524 – 17.3%
|
+58
|
|
Adams 12
|
2,355 - 18.4%
|
2,405 – 20%
|
+50
|
|
Fountain
|
427 – 14.4%
|
470 – 16.7%
|
+43
|
|
Montrose County RE-1J
|
251 – 15.4%
|
290 – 17.6%
|
+39
|
|
Littleton 6
|
304 – 7.2%
|
340 – 7.9%
|
+36
|
*Numbers here do not always match
number from CDE’s Office Literacy, which is the source of most figures quoted
in this newsletter.
Another View – a contrary view–might be
the districts are more successful when they identify a higher percentage
of their struggling readers. For it
means a greater number of boys and girls who are not reading at grade level
will benefit from the funds ($32 million this year) and the services made
available through the READ Act.
The
CRA report highlighted “success” in one district, Westminster (Adams 50), and
several schools
Finally, the report offered a closer study of one school district,
Westminster (pages 22-23), and four elementary schools (pages 116-21)—“recognized
for their success in reducing the number of students with an SRD.” A 2015 update—now with PARCC assessments in
front of us—suggests the CRA report was cheering too soon.
According to the CRA report, Westminster was chosen “because it had
reduced the percentage of students identified as having an SRD by eight
percentage points from 2012-13 to 2013-14.”
The report included an interview with Mat Aubuchon, Director of Early
Childhood Education, who was asked about his “biggest celebration.”
Aubuchon: The drop in the
number of students identified as having an SRD; increased use of data in the
elementary schools; principals starting to hold K-2 teachers accountable.
28%
K-3 SRD (2014)
|
2012-13
|
2013-14
|
change
|
||||
|
# of K-3 students 2012-13
|
# of K-3 students with an SRD
|
% of students with an SRD
|
# of K-3 students 2013-14
|
# of K-3 students with an SRD
|
% of students with an SRD
|
# and percentage pts difference from 2012-13 to 2013-14
|
|
3153
|
1,139
|
36%
|
3146
|
890
|
28.5%
|
249 fewer students
8% fewer students
|
We now have 2015 SRD figures to suggest Westminster is suddenly not a “top performer”; in fact, like the
10 districts listed on the previous page, its SRD numbers went up last year.
|
2012-13
|
2013-14
|
2014-15
|
|
1,139 – 36%
|
890 – 28.5%
|
910 – 29.1%
|
Number of students and %
from https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdefinance/readactperpupilfunding-0, CRA report, and emails to me from CDE.
Hey, some will say, the overall numbers are down from 2012-13. Can’t we at least celebrate that?
But I cannot. For as I have
demonstrated, the SRD figures only reveal a portion of the K-3 students in
Colorado who struggle to read at grade level.
Westminster is a good example
In 2014, we can compare the SRD percentage with TCAP figures for third
grade in Westminster.
SRD – 3rd grade – 33.6%[14]
- about 232 students
TCAP – 3rd grade – 43.7%
not proficient (Of 690 3rd
graders taking TCAP, 16.23% scored
Unsatisfactory; 27.39% scored
Partially Proficient. A total of 301 3rd
graders not proficient in 2014.) (http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/coassess-dataandresults
In 2015, we can compare the SRD percentage with PARCC results for third
graders in Westminster.
SRD – 3rd grade – 35.5%[15]
- about 255 students
PARCC – 3rd grade –61.2%
of the 3rd graders – 440 students - fell well short of Meeting
Expectations in English.
|
2014-15 – PARCC – 3rd grade
|
|||||
|
# students
|
# students Did Not Yet Meet Expectations
|
% students
Did Not Yet Meet Expectations
|
# students Partially Met Expectations
|
% students Partially Met Expectations
|
# and percentage in two lowest categories
|
|
719
|
242
|
33.7
|
198
|
27.5
|
440 students -
61.2% of 3rd graders Did Not Meet or Partially Met Expectations
|
2014-15 update – Cole Arts and Sciences
Academy - PARCC
The CRA report also provided a picture of the work in
several elementary schools, including Cole Arts and Sciences Academy in Denver. We read of a remarkable decrease in K-3 students
identified at Cole as SRD between 2013 and 2014: 137 students (45%) down to 65
(23%) – a decrease of 22%. An inspiring
story. To hear about Jessica Jackson and her team is to make one eager to say:
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
And yet … one more inconvenient truth. OK, not a truth—just test scores. But telling?
Troubling?
Here are the grim PARCC numbers at Cole Arts and Sciences Academy:
93.1% Not Meeting Expectations or Partially Met Expectations on PARCC –
English (2015)
|
2014-15 – PARCC – 3rd grade
|
|||||
|
# 3rd grade students
|
% / # students
Did Not Yet Meet Expectations
|
% / # students Partially Met Expectation
|
% / # students Approached Expectations
|
% students Met Expectations
|
# of students Met Expectations
|
|
58
|
36.2% (21)
|
27.6% (16)
|
29.3% (17)
|
6.7%
|
4
|
Not put in front of you, or especially in front of the
Cole teachers—and so many like them who work so hard to help the boys and
girls in their care to learn to read
well in their first few years in public school—to discourage anyone.
Just to insist that we not misstate
the challenge, that we not exaggerate our "success" to date—or the tough
trek before us.
Climb every
mountain
“… we proceeded on to the top of the dividing
ridge from which I discovered immense ranges of high mountains still to the
West of us with their tops partially covered with snow."
Lewis and Clark and team headed west over
200 years ago, with an ambitious goal—to reach the Pacific. When they saw the Rockies, it must have
dawned on them too: a steep climb ahead.
We cheer the goal: to see our students
reading at grade level as they start 4th grade. But no illusions, please. It won’t be easy.
Another View is a newsletter by Peter Huidekoper. Comments are welcome. 303-757-1225 - peterhdkpr@gmail.com
[3] “The program rolled out in the 2013-14
school year, so results from 2014-15
provided data for comparison.” Bold
mine
[4] “The
report’s authors compared assessment data from the 2013-14 school year (the
first of implementation) with 2014-15
data….” http://www.coloradokids.org/colorados-read-act-has-a-positive-impact-report-shows/ Bold mine
[5] “In the first year of implementation, schools were
required to use one of three tests previously approved for the Colorado Basic
Literacy Act. The options available included the Developmental Reading
Assessment 2nd Edition (DRA), DIBELS (either DIBELS Next or DIBELS 6th Edition),
or the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening .… In 2013, the State Board of Education approved
seven different testing options, from which schools can choose to administer”
(p. 7).
[6] “The assessment results provided by CDE were not
always easily interpreted and we recognize the statistical and psychometric
limitations associated with analyzing data from a single year of
implementation. Some districts showed a significant and unexplained discrepancy
in the number of students in a particular category from one year to the next…”
(p. 10).
[8] I am not calling for one test. I am simply stating
that different tests makes it necessary to be cautious, at the very least,
about comparisons of SRD numbers one year, or one district, to the next. Especially, of course, when 2012-13 preceded
the distribution of any READ Act funds!
I heard concerns about the validity of SRD number from several K-1
teachers when I visited an elementary school last month: They expressed no fundamental problem with
READ Act—just concern about the amount of time spent documenting and updating
plans. Still trying to develop “an effective process to put that into effect”
in our school; “not clear” in many cases on identifying the SRD students;
“seems like a lot of gray area”; “there is so much room for error,” even with
Scantron—which provides more consistency; “I wouldn’t let different people
progress monitor” as it was leading to such a range of scores; “I think DIBELS
are really good tests, but we just need to administer them consistently.”
[9]“Students in third grade in the 2012—2013 school year
were assessed with both the Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP)
test and one of the State Board approved READ Act interim assessments in the
spring of 2013. The READ Act interim assessments identified a higher proportion
of struggling readers than the TCAP (19% and 10%, respectively). While this may
seem incongruous, it is important to remember that the interim assessments
measure only the critical early literacy indicators that are most predictive of
future reading success and therefore are not comprehensive in nature….” (http://www.cde.state.co.us/coloradoliteracy/readactannuallegislativebrief2014final)
[10] http://www.coloradosucceeds.org/publications/Colorado_Succeeds_READ_Act_Implementation_Study.pdf
from READ Act Report - 2013-14
|
|
#of K-3
students READ-Act Tested
|
# of K-3
students - SRD
|
% of
students- SRD
|
|
All K-3
|
261,343
|
37,506
|
14%
|
|
½ Day Kindergarten
|
17,822
|
1,210
|
7%
|
|
Full Day Kindergarten
|
47,411
|
2,921
|
6%
|
|
Ist Grade
|
66,309
|
11,619
|
18%
|
|
2nd Grade
|
65,419
|
10,536
|
16%
|
|
3rd Grade
|
64,382
|
11,220
|
17%
|
[11] “… test participation by elementary school
students exceeded 95 percent… “ http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/11/12/tens-of-thousands-of-colorado-students-opted-out-of-parcc-tests-last-spring-new-data-shows/#.VsSm6_IrLIV
[12] I highlight the middle column above to emphasize the
huge percentage of students scoring in
the lowest two categories. These columns do not even include that third
category of students also falling short: Approaching
Expectations, statewide, another 23.2% of third graders.
[13] Consider this example, and tell me if this school is succeeding, or failing, to implement the READ Act:
From the school’s Unified Improvement
Plan for 2013-14 -Target – Read Act
·
Number of SRD
students will lower to 5%. (DIBELS)
A year later, from the school’s UIP for 2014-15
– (A look back) - Performance on Target
·
The goal was not
met as the percent of SRD students increased to 13% at End of Year assessment.
QUESTIONS A
SCHOOL MIGHT ASK: What if we are conscientious in assessing our
new kindergarten and first grade students and identify a large percentage of them
as Significantly Reading Deficient?
Isn’t this what we should be doing?
But then, even if we help a good many of our returning SRD students
improve to the next level, our overall K-3 SRD numbers might rise. If this is implementing the READ Act well,
isn’t that “success”?
[14](email from CDE to me)
No comments:
Post a Comment