Part 2 – 2002 - 2018
ELA scores do not provide schools, teachers, parents, or
students critical information
In last week’s newsletter (AV#192 - Part 1–1993-2001 - https://anotherviewphj.blogspot.com/) I recounted Colorado’s implementation of
and commitment to our reading and writing standards, and to assessments that
gave us useful information on where students performed as both readers and as writers. This week you will see how we maintained this focus for more
than a decade, up until 2015. Today annual reports on the Colorado Measures of
Academic Success (CMAS: Mathematics, English Language Arts (ELA), Science
and Social Studies Data and Results[i])
no longer provide a distinction between a student’s proficiency in reading versus writing. We see only one ELA
score (e.g. Grade 3 - 40.4%). Although state law changed to allow this (more
later; see Addendum A), I wonder if
this is what legislators intended (see “elimination”). Or if this is what teachers and parents want—and
need.
2018 CMAS Achievement Results[ii]
|
||
Subject
|
Grade
|
% Met or Exceeded Expectations
|
Mathematics
|
3
|
39%
|
Social
Studies
|
4
|
22.4%
|
Science
|
5
|
35.5%
|
Reading
|
all
|
Not available
|
Writing
|
all
|
Not available
|
Today the
state reports on the percentage of students in various grades Meeting or Exceeding Expectations in
addressing the state standards in math,
science, and social studies—but not on
reading. And not on writing. Do you
see the problem now?
Or try
this: The state’s 2018 ELA score tells us 40.4% of third graders Met or Exceeded Expectations. Assume today’s
gap in reading and writing for third graders matches what
we saw in 2014 on the final TCAP score: 72%
proficient in reading, 51% in writing. Let’s create a 2018 and 2014
comparison. Reduce each TCAP score by a third: 48% in reading, 34% in writing.
Together, that might give us an ELA score of 41%. (I know, nothing
scientific—but what if?) What if we
saw a gap of 14% points like that from the CMAS test? How would it impact our
debate on the READ Act, literacy instruction, and much more?
I begin with the explanation the Colorado Department of
Education (CDE) gave for this change, when I wrote AV#168, “ELA scores hide the gap.” Then I
continue my chronological review, from 2002 to 2018.
What I heard from the Assessment Office at CDE - 2017
In the summer of 2017 I asked CDE’s Assessment Office why
the state no longer provided the same information on reading and writing we
had seen for over 15 years. Here is part
of the first response:
“CSAP/TCAP had
separate reading and writing tests with established performance levels, which
is why the state posted proficient and advanced for them separately. CMAS has a
single ELA test with established performance levels; so percent met and
exceeded expectations is available for ELA only.… Subscore information is
available through the school and district reports… These reports are not
public, since they include student information.” (7/28/2017)
I then pestered Joyce Zurkowski, who continues to lead the
Assessment Unit at CDE, with numerous questions. She was helpful
and forthright in her answers. Keep in mind the following points she made as
you read the rest of this newsletter. Do they leave you, too, with more
questions? Here are her words:
1. “Below is the timeline for implementation and
elimination of the writing assessments.
AV#168, “ELA scores
hide the gap: time for the truth on reading and writing scores,” Oct. 3, 2017,
includes more of CDE’s response to my questions at that time. (At Another View's website)
|
1997: 4th grade
1999: 7th grade
2001: 10th grade
2002: 3rd, 5th,
6th, 8th and 9th grades
2014: last administration of writing and reading assessments (Bold mine)
2015: first
administration of English language arts assessments” (email 9/5/17)
2. “We have not posted subscores historically. Under
CMAS, those subscores include reading and writing, along with physical science,
life science, and earth systems for science and other subscores for math and
social studies. We do not believe subscores should be used for high stakes
policy decisions… With that said, yes,
we believe educators should have access to subscores, including the reading and
writing subscores under CMAS, and they do.” (email 9/19/17)
3. My email to her: “Reading and
writing are two of the central standards, so this is really not like subscores
for ‘physical science, life science, and earth systems for science.’” (email 9/20/17)
Her response: “Actually, they are parallel.
The Reading, Writing and Communicating standards have four standards: Oral
Expression and Listening, Reading for All Purposes, Writing and Composition,
and Research and Reasoning. There are three science standards as you identified
above.”
4. In
that same email I sent her: “At present I
think the state is not being as forthcoming as it should be in presenting vital
information it has re student performance on these two separate and critical
standards. ELA results actually mask something you know, and we should
all know.”
Her response: “The legislature made the decision to stop having separate reading and
writing assessments and move to an ELA assessment.” (email 9/20/17) (Bold mine)
2002 – 2006 – Teaching
two of the three r’s (readin’, ‘ritin’, & ‘rithmetic) – Back in the classroom
CSAP - % Proficient or Advanced – 7th
grade
|
|||
Parker Core Knowledge Charter
School
|
|||
Grade 7
|
reading
|
writing
|
gap
|
1999
|
85
|
70
|
15 % pts
|
2000
|
94
|
72
|
22 % pts
|
2001
|
82
|
58
|
24 % pts
|
I taught English for 10 years in New England in the 1970’s and 80’s. I
was glad to return to the classroom in the fall of 2001, teaching grades 7
& 8 at Parker Core Knowledge (PCK), a K-8 school. If I had been smarter, I
would have taken note of the recent performance of students at my new school. (See box.)
Our task as Language Arts teachers is to address two standards. I depended a
good deal, as a “new” teacher, on the state’s 17-page Colorado
Model Content Standards for Reading and Writing. (Developed
by the 24 members of the Colorado Model Reading and Writing Standards Task
Force.) Page 4 lists the six specific standards: #1, #4, #5, and #6
dealt with reading; #2 and #3
addressed writing. As a Core Knowledge
school, PCK had a detailed curriculum guide that clearly met those standards in
reading. We worked hard to create a curriculum that would address the writing standards
just as well.
Each March—CSAP. I handed out the CSAP test booklet that addressed both the reading
and writing standards. Six
testing sessions, an hour each, with almost equal time for the reading and the writing sections. There were also three sessions of an hour each
for the math portion. A total of
nine hours of testing, with essentially three hours set aside for each of the three key content standards.
CSAP - % Proficient or Advanced – 7th
grade
|
||
PCK Charter School
|
Reading
|
Writing
|
2002
|
91
|
86
|
2003
|
95
|
91
|
2004
|
95
|
91
|
2005
|
98
|
93
|
2006
|
95
|
95
|
Good data matters. Especially if you use it! We received the CSAP
results in August and examined the scores for each content area. Over five years we were able to close that gap in reading and writing. (See
box.) As I was the only middle school English teacher at PCK, my 7th
graders from the previous year were now my incoming 8th graders. We
had a second chance to help those still partially proficient in writing make good progress.
2008 - 2010
In 2008 the
state began to revise its standards into ten “content areas”; one area was now
called Reading, Writing, and
Communicating.[iii] Colorado also
reviewed the newly released Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English
language arts and mathematics. In August 2010 the state board adopted these as
part of the new Colorado Academic Standards. CCSS used the terms “English Language Arts
Standards,” or “ELA/literacy” standards. Did a shift in nomenclature change our
focus? Opponents of the Common Core accuse it of all kinds of shenanigans, but CCSS
is not to blame here. Its ELA standards are all about reading and writing. Anyone
who questions the “different skills” I speak of, please look at the CCSS
paragraphs on reading and writing in the Endnotes[iv].
Or compare its five pages on Reading
Standards for Literature and Informational Text 6-12 with its six pages on Writing Standards 6-12.[v]
I rest my case.
Furthermore,
if some of the terminology changed, CDE remained committed to those standards
for another five years. By the end of 2010 it produced “Grade level specific Reading, Writing,
and Communicating standards for grades K-12.”[vi] One example: for grade 7, five pages on
Reading for all Purposes, three pages
on Writing and Composition. Good
stuff—especially for new teachers.
Gov. Bill
Ritter signed the Education
Accountability Act of 2009, which reinforced the state’s commitment to
report the reading, writing, and mathematics results each year. It added
clarity and emphasis to the growth model, with a focus on “how much growth the
students actually make in one year toward proficiency on state content standards” (Legislative
declaration – 22-11-102).
The law also
stated, in (22-11-204) Performance
indicators - measures[vii]:
(I) For each student
enrolled in a public school in the state, the department shall determine the
student's achievement level in the subjects included in the statewide
assessments, as demonstrated by the score achieved by the student on the
statewide assessments. …
(II – IV)) For each
public school… For each school district … For the state, the department shall
calculate the percentage of students enrolled … who score at each of the achievement levels on the statewide
assessments in each of the subjects included in the statewide assessments.
Back then we all agreed: “each of the subjects included”
meant … reading and writing.
The Education Accountability Act of 2009 sought “information concerning performance …[at each level: state, school district, and school] … that is perceived by educators, parents,
and students as fair, balanced, cumulative, credible, and useful.”[viii]
That last word is vital for English teachers, as it is for schools eager to
see how well their students performed on these two separate standards: reading and writing. Such distinctions are not only useful: if we are measuring separate skills, they are necessary.
Colorado stayed the course. Statewide assessments were given (CSAP through
2011; TCAP 2012-14) on each of the core content standards: reading, writing, and math.
CDE presented the results to parents and the public. And those scores (see
below) revealed the on-going gap in reading and writing skills.
Colorado – grades 3-5 - %
proficient/advanced in reading versus writing (2007-2014)[ix]
Grade 3
|
Grade 4
|
Grade 5
|
|||||||
reading
|
writing
|
gap
|
reading
|
writing
|
gap
|
reading
|
writing
|
gap
|
|
2007(CSAP)
|
71
|
54
|
17 % pts
|
64
|
49
|
15 % pts
|
69
|
57
|
12 % pts
|
2008(CSAP)
|
70
|
50
|
20 % pts
|
66
|
52
|
14 % pts
|
70
|
59
|
11 % pts
|
2009(CSAP)
|
73
|
54
|
19 % pts
|
65
|
51
|
14 % pts
|
69
|
58
|
11 % pts
|
2010(CSAP)
|
70
|
50
|
20 % pts
|
66
|
50
|
16 % pts
|
70
|
57
|
13 % pts
|
2011(CSAP)
|
73
|
51
|
22 % pts
|
65
|
56
|
9 % pts
|
69
|
60
|
9 % pts
|
2012(TCAP)
|
74
|
52
|
22 % pts
|
67
|
49
|
18 % pts
|
69
|
58
|
11 % pts
|
2013(TCAP
|
73
|
51
|
22 % pts
|
68
|
56
|
12 % pts
|
70
|
57
|
13 % pts
|
2014(TCAP)
|
72
|
51
|
21 % pts
|
67
|
52
|
15 % pts
|
71
|
55
|
16 % pts
|
2014 – CDE on Reading and Writing as part of the Colorado Model Content
Standards
As
late as September 2014, in its report on the Transitional Colorado Assessment
Program[x],
the Colorado Department of Education continued to list Reading and Writing as
part of the Colorado Model Content Standards. When there was an explanation of subcontent areas, it listed “fiction,
nonfiction, vocabulary, poetry,” etc. No one then was talking about Reading and Writing as subcontent
areas, as subscores, or sub anything. Why would they? They were content standards. (CDE’s 2019 Fact Sheet on Literacy Standards[xi]
indicates that the Office of Standards still sees both as standards. True?)
2015-2018
– PARCC/CMAS and ELA scores: Not Meeting Expectations
To
explain when—if not why—a fundamental change took place after 2014, the best
evidence I can find are the revisions in statutes made by the General Assembly in
2015. I present a comparison, 2010 versus 2015, in Addendum A, for those interested. A few tweaks in wording, with
huge consequences.
2018
CMAS[xii]
English Language
Arts/Literacy
|
|
% Met or Exceeded
Expectations
|
|
Grade 3
|
40.4%
|
Grade 4
|
46.1%
|
Grade 5
|
47.4%
|
As a
result, if I have this right, English
Language Arts has supplanted reading
and writing—not just in our
terminology, but in what gets reported. CDE’s
Assessment Office tells us reading
and writing results are subscores for
the ELA test, much like physics or life science are subscores for the
science assessment. Who would have thought, in 1993, as we began the standards
effort with the “first priority state model content standards as reading, writing …,”[xiii]
that these two standards would disappear under an amorphous term like English Language Arts?
In AV# 168, when I called these
developments “a terrible step backwards,” few agreed. And yet here in
April 2019 we are revising the READ Act (SB19-199)
without knowing what percentage of our 3rd and 4th
graders are meeting expectations in reading. Or in writing.
(See Addendum B.)
And here in April 2019 we are working on changes in the accountability system (HB18-1355)—an important, complex, and
painfully wonky effort—while ignoring such simple questions as the two with
which I began this pair of newsletters: How
well can they read? How well can they write?
English
Language Arts results do not give us the answers we need.
Addendum A – from Standards (in
Reading and Writing) to English Language Arts
2010
|
2015
|
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 22 Education §
22-7-1006 Preschool through elementary and secondary education--aligned
assessments—adoption—revisions
(1)(a) On or before December 15, 2010, or as soon thereafter as fiscally practicable, the state board shall adopt a system of assessments that are aligned with the preschool through elementary and secondary education standards and are designed to measure students' levels of attainment of the standards and to longitudinally measure students' academic progress toward attaining the standards and toward attaining postsecondary and workforce readiness. (Bold mine.) |
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 22 Education §
22-7-10063 State assessments—administration—rules
(1)(a) Beginning
in the 2015-16 school year, the department of education, in collaboration
with local education providers, shall administer the state assessments in the
instructional areas of English
language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies, as adopted by
the state board pursuant to section 22-7-1006 , as follows:
(I) The
department shall administer a state assessment in English language arts and a state assessment in mathematics to all students enrolled
in grades three through eight in public schools throughout the state.
(II) The
department shall administer a state assessment in science to students enrolled in public elementary, middle, and
high schools throughout the state.
(III) The
department shall administer a state assessment in social studies to students enrolled in public elementary, middle,
and high schools throughout the state.
(Bold mine.)
|
Addendum
B – Comparing READ ACT figures to ELA scores, grade 3. Leading me to suspect …
Here
is one more reason we need a breakdown on reading
versus writing scores. While the
number and percentage of third grade students found to be Significantly Reading Deficient (SRD) on the READ Act assessments (not
surprisingly) closely matches those scoring in the lowest category on the ELA
test, that still leaves over 40% of the third graders who scored Partially or Approaching Meeting Expectations on the ELA assessment. In that latter
group especially, CSAP/TCAP results suggest many of these students are meeting
expectations as readers, but not as writers, and thus their overall score on
ELA fell below the minimum needed to Meet
Expectations. Would it not help to know if a good many of these third
graders are, as I suspect, reading at
grade level, but are not there yet with their writing skills?
3rd
grade –% and # SRD - and % and # in each of the performance levels for CMAS/ELA
– same year
SRD
|
CMAS/English
Language Arts – Performance Levels
|
||||
%/#
of students identified with SRD
|
%/#
Did Not Yet Meet Expectations
|
%/# Partially
Met Expectations
|
%/# Approached
Expectations
|
%
Met/Exceeded Expectations
|
|
2017
|
18.2% - 12,251
|
18.6%
- 11,831
|
17.5% - 11,131
|
23.8 –
15,139
|
40.1%
|
2016
|
17.2% - 11,560
|
19%
- 12,043
|
19.4% - 12,297
|
24.3 –
15,403
|
37.4%
|
2015
|
16.1% - 10,639
|
19.6%
- 12,284
|
19% -
11,908
|
23.2 –
14,540
|
38.2%
|
Endnotes
[iii] “2009/2010
Colorado Academic Standards … include 10 content areas for preschool through 12th grade
(comprehensive health; dance; drama and theater arts; mathematics;
music; physical education; reading, writing and communicating; science;
social studies; visual arts; and world languages. http://www.cde.state.co.us/standardsandinstruction/2009standards
[iv]
Common Core State Standards – Key
Features of the Standards
-
Reading: Text complexity
and the growth of comprehension
The
Reading standards place equal emphasis on the sophistication of what students
read and the skill with which they read. Standard 10 defines a grade-by-grade
“staircase” of increasing text complexity that rises from beginning reading to
the college and career readiness level. Whatever they are reading, students
must also show a steadily growing ability to discern more from and make fuller
use of text, including making an increasing number of connections among ideas
and between texts, considering a wider range of textual evidence, and becoming
more sensitive to inconsistencies, ambiguities, and poor reasoning in texts.
-
Writing: Text types, responding to
reading, and research
The
Standards acknowledge the fact that whereas some writing skills, such as the
ability to plan, revise, edit, and publish, are applicable to many types of
writing, other skills are more properly defined in terms of specific writing
types: arguments, informative/explanatory texts, and narratives. Standard 9
stresses the importance of the writing-reading connection by requiring students
to draw upon and write about evidence from literary and informational texts.
Because of the centrality of writing to most forms of inquiry, research
standards are prominently included in this strand, though skills important to
research are infused throughout the document.
[viii]
Education Accountability Act of 2009 – Legislative declaration 22-11-102.
[ix]
SCORES - 2007 from “CSAP Roundup – State officials hope flat results spark changes,”
The Denver Post, Aug. 1, 2007; CSAP/TCAP
SCORES - 2008-2014 from CDE web site, https://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/coassess-dataandresults.
GAP – my own math.
[xiii]
State
law (22-7-405) (1)(a). "Powers and duties of the state standards and assessments development and implementation council."
No comments:
Post a Comment