AV#218 - Any progress on reading? What do we know?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Part 1- AV #217 -K-3 (Oct. 15, 2020)

Part 2 (Grade 3-6) – NAEP & ELA scores are not enough; 

CDE must tell us more

 

Ready this week for a nonpartisan issue? An issue on which most everyone agrees?

We all support the hard work of principals, teachers, and parents to see that most students are reading by 3^rd grade (see AV #217). We applaud the extra effort supporting 4^th, 5^th and 6^th graders who continue to need help to become proficient readers. We do not give up on these kids. Even in high school. In my first teaching job I had a class of six 9^th graders, reading well below grade level. We keep at it.

But how is it possible that we can we say reading is a fundamental priority in our state when we can’t even see if our students are making progress, not on English Language Arts—that is not enough—but on r-e-a-d-i-n-g? No one is keeping score. The Colorado Department of Education no longer tells us if 35%, or 40%, or 45%, or (one current goal, to see) 50% of our students, in grades 3, 4, 5, and 6 “Meet Expectations” for the performance level of their grade, in reading.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress has provided a snapshot of the reading (and math) skills of 4^th and graders 8^th in our state and across the country for several decades. “A representative sample of students” in the state participate (3,200 4th graders in 170 public schools in Colorado in 2019), so it tells us something. See the scores, page 2: 40% proficient in reading in 2019. 

But it is not enough. Our own state assessments, given to all 4^th graders, could tell us so much more. As they did for almost two decades. Fourth graders were the first to have their reading and writing scores reported back in 1997. More grades followed. By 2002-03 grades 3-10 took the reading and writing test.

% of Colorado students proficient or advanced in reading
TEST	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6
2001 - CSAP	72	63	64	63
2002 - CSAP	72	61	63	65
Few major changes from 2003-2011, the final year of CSAP.
2013 - TCAP	73	68	70	73
2014 - TCAP	72	67	71	71
CHANGE - ’01–’14	same	+4	+7	+8

The Colorado Department of Education reported results, for reading and writing, each year. Elementary schools could track progress. Parents were told, in clear terms, if their child was reading at grade level. However, all this ended in 2015. 

            4^th graders – reading 1997-2019

 

Let’s zero in on one grade. I present (below) what we were told back in the late 1990’s with that first state assessment for 4^th grade. Page 2 summarizes what we were able to learn each year regarding progress, or a lack of it, for the past two decades, for Colorado 4^th graders, in reading. NAEP’s biennial reporting continued through 2019. But the Colorado Department of Education stopped reporting the percentage of students proficient in reading in 2015. 

% of Colorado 4^th graders proficient or advanced on the Colorado Student Assessment

	Reading	Writing	Headlines
1997	57	31	Kids read better than they write (RMN, Nov. 13, 1997)
1998	57	36	Youths stalled in reading – Latest Colo. test shows skills lacking (DP, Oct. 1, 1998)
1999	59	34	Writing-test scores show wide gender gap (RMN, Sept. 30, 1999)

What we have been told, over the past two decades, on the progress made in reading. 

	READING - GRADE 4			Headlines in The Denver Post (DP), Rocky Mountain News (RMN), & EdNews Colorado (ENC) highlighted what the state assessment told us about the reading skills of Colorado students.
	National   NAEP	Colorado  NAEP	Colorado   CSAP/TCAP
	% at NAEP proficient & advanced levels		% at proficient and advanced
2003	31%	37%	63%	DP –Gender: Reading gap starts early (8/2/03)    RMN – Closing gap in boys’ reading (8/2/03)
2004			63%
2005	31%	36.6%	64%	DP – 3rd-Grade Reading - 3rd-graders’ reading off slightly (6/7/05)                                                      DP - CSAP still stalled on reading (8/2/05)
2006			68%	DP-3rd-Grade Reading-CSAP scores slip for reading (5/2/06)                                                        RMN- After years of flat scores in reading, DPS sees a big jump (8/3/06)
2007	33%	36%	64%	DP – 3rd-Grade Reading – Slight jump in children rated at least proficient (5/4/07)
2008			66%	DP – 3rd-Grade Reading – No gains in reading – Nearly a third of third graders not reading at grade level (5/2/08)                                                 RMN – DPS matches record gains in reading (7/29/08)
2009	33%	40%	65%	RMN- 3rd-Grade reading results highest since 2004 (5/1/09)                                                                       DP – Many who lag in 3 R’s will stay behind (8/8/09)
2010			66%	DP - 30 percent of Colorado 3rd-graders not reading at their level, CSAP finds (5/4/10)
2011	34%	38.5%	65%	DP - Colo. third-graders improve on CSAP reading tests (5/10/11)
2012			TCAP - 67%	ENC - TCAP reading results reveal trends (5/9/12)    “Nearly three-quarters of third graders are reading at grade level, a slight increase…"
2013	35%	40.6%	TCAP - 68%	DP - Colorado 3rd-grade reading scores remain stagnant, test results show (5/7/13)
2014			TCAP - 67%	DP – 3rd-Grade Reading - Colorado TCAP reading scores off slightly as READ Act gets underway (5/6/14)
Change 2003-14	+4%	+3.6%	+4%
2015	36%	38.6%	Co. Department of Education no longer reports reading scores on the state assessment to the general public.        And so, for the past 5 years, not one article on                reading results from CMAS scores.
2016
2017	37%	40%
2018
2019	35%	40%
Change 2003-19	+4	+3
3% points better in 17 years. For more on Colorado’s NAEP scores, see Addendum A.

English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA)

 Colorado Measures of Academic Progress

We turn now to the English Language Arts/Literacy scores on CMAS. The critical difference from CSAP/TCAP, as I have pointed out before*, is that ELA scores mask what any of us who taught English for 18 years knows full well: students’ reading skills and their writing skills often differ. (CSAP and TCAP results made this obvious. Recall that 26-point gap in 1997 for 4^th graders, page 1. This had narrowed to a 15-point gap by 2014: 67% proficient in reading, 52% proficient in writing. Still significant.) Today, this difference is what districts and schools can analyze in the detailed CMAS reports they receive from the state. And it is exactly what parents can see in the Confidential Student Performance Report that goes home: the CMAS English Language Arts two-pager breaks out Reading and Writing results.

“Your student’s overall performance in Reading,” a reading scale score and its “relation to school, district, and state averages.” Then the percent of points earned on three subclaims for reading:

•   Literary Text  
•  Informational Text   
•  Vocabulary

                              

From CMAS and Co Alt Interpretive Guide 2019 –           Sample Report, page 10.               https://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/cmas_coalt_interpretiveguide_2019

 

Although difficult to interpret, it is a step towards clarity. In 1997 CDE gave me the Reading and Writing Average Scale Scores (AV #168). I have put in a request for these figures, 2015-2019. No word yet.

 

ELA scores – progress for grades 3-6 – telling us what on reading?

Page 4 shows what the public has seen the past five years. Note the positive trend, especially the impressive gains for grades 4 and 5, for low-income students too. Does this indicate good news for the reading skills of our elementary students? It is unlikely these gains could all be due to better writing skills, so we can assume that the stronger ELA scores tell us their reading skills are improving. It might even show greater improvement in reading than we saw for 4^th graders on NAEP the past five years—see page 2 (38.6 % NAEP proficient/advanced in 2015, 40% in 2019). Don’t you wish we knew?

(A side note on the impact of the READ Act: what if some of the good work done to improve how we serve our struggling readers back in 2014-16—all of them, not just those labeled “significantly reading deficient”—was a factor behind the rising ELA scores in 2017-19 for students in grades 4, 5, and 6?)

Which leads me to an – almost! — upbeat conclusion. If ELA’s results actually demonstrate that the reading skills of our youngest students are improving across the state of Colorado, this would be just what our elementary teachers need to hear. Some reassurance their hard work is paying off.

Not enough to celebrate, that is clear. We cannot look at the dramatic gap in achievement based on free and reduced lunch eligibility (page 4) and let up in our efforts to do better by our low-income students.

Still, where there is good news, how welcome it would be. Especially now.

Can ELA results—on reading—verify such good news? I will keep asking CDE. Perhaps you will too.

**

*AV #168 – ELA scores hide the gap: give us reading and writing scores (again)  (Oct. 3, 2017)

AV #192 – Assessing reading and writing: different skills, different results 

   Part 1 – 1993-2002: What we don’t know can hurt us  (April 9, 2019)

AV #193 - Part 2 – 2002-2018  (April 16, 2019)

**

 SIGNS of PROGRESS: English Language Arts–Colorado Measures of Academic Progress (2015-19)

Grade 3

	ALL Students	Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	Not Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	GAP - Not Eligible vs. Eligible
2015	38.2	21.3	51.6	-30.3
2016	37.4	21.4	50.7
2017	40.1	23.5	53.7
2018	40.4	23.6	53.6
2019	41.3	24.1	54.2	-30.1
CHANGE ’15-’19	+3.1	+2.8	+2.6	Better by .2%

                                                                                                                                                                    NOTE: GAP column – my own math.

 

Grade 4                                                                                                                              

	ALL	Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	Not Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	GAP - Not Eligible vs. Eligible
2015	41.7	23.8	56.2	-32.4
2016	43.9	26.5	58.4
2017	44.1	27.2	58.1
2018	46.1	28.4	60.1
2019	48.0	30.0	61.9	-31.9
CHANGE ’15-’19	+6.3	+6.2	+5.7	Better by .5%

 

 

Grade 5

	ALL	Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	Not Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	GAP - Not Eligible vs. Eligible
2015	40.5	22.4	54.7	-32.3
2016	41.2	24.1	55.2
2017	46.3	28.7	60.6
2018	47.4	29.9	61.4
2019	48.4	30.7	62.4	-31.7
CHANGE ’15-’19	+7.9	+8.3	+7.7	Better by .6%

 

 

Grade 6

	ALL	Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	Not Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	GAP - Not Eligible vs. Eligible
2015	39.1	21.8	52.3	-30.5
2016	38.3	20.9	52.2
2017	40.6	23.1	54.8
2018	42.8	24.6	56.9
2019	43.6	25.2	57.5	-32.3
CHANGE ’15-’19	+4.5	+3.4	+5.2	Worse by 1.8%

Data from Colorado Department of Education. Much of this is based on CDE’s presentation to the State Board of Education on Aug. 15, 2019.

 

  

Addendum A

NAEP READING scores – COLORADO – 2003-2019

READING – GRADE 4

	National	Colorado	Colorado – Free / Reduced Lunch		GAP - Eligible     vs Not Eligible
			Eligible	Not Eligible
2003	216	224	207	231	-25
2005	217	224	208	232	-24
2007	220	224	206	235	-28
2009	220	226	206	238	-32
2011	220	223	205	239	-33
2013	221	227	210	239	-29
2015	221	224	208	238	-30
2017	221	225	208	238	-29
2019	219	225	208	238	-30
CHANGE ’03 -’19	+3	+1	+1	+7	GAP               5 points worse

·     Colorado’s highest scores for the 4^th grade Reading portion of NAEP were in 2013 (227) & 2009 (226).

·        Overall an improvement for 4^th graders in Reading of 1 point in 17 years: 224 to 225.

·        Specifically, only 1 point better in 17 years for 4^th graders eligible for free and reduced lunch.

·        Significant improvement, 7 points better, for 4^th graders not eligible for free and reduced lunch. This is where the NAEP result says something important that we may not wish to hear. For, if accurate, it tells us that, for 4^th graders, the achievement gap in 2019 was even greater than we saw in 2003.

COMMENT: EQUITY - One more reason we need to know if NAEP is correct, or if a breakdown of reading scores from our ELA assessment between 2015 and 2019 offers more encouraging news.

READING – GRADE 8

	National	Colorado	Colorado – Free / Reduced Lunch		GAP - Not Eligible vs. Eligible
			Eligible	Not Eligible
2003	261	268	250	274	-24
2005	260	265	248	272	-24
2007	261	266	251	273	-22
2009	262	266	251	273	-22
2011	264	271	254	281	-27
2013	266	271	256	281	-25
2015	264	268	253	280	-27
2017	265	270	254	281	-27
2019	262	267	250	278	-28
CHANGE ’03-’19	+1	-1	unchanged	+4	GAP             4 points worse

 

COMMENT: For 8^th grade, an even more alarming trend on reading than we saw over 17 years for 4^th grade. No progress overall since 2003? Or since 2015? A 267 score = 38% performing at Proficient or Advanced. Another reason to ask if CMAS results on reading tell us, for 8^th graders, do we see progress?