The NAEP reading scores for 2009 came in recently, the overall results showing tiny or no gains from 2007. (See here for details.) The goal is to improve “proficient” ratings — that’s what the Federal education policy aims to do. In spite of the meager advance in the last couple of years, comparing scores from the early 90s, one finds reason for optimism among 4th- and 8th-graders.
In 1992, 28 percent of 4th-graders reached proficiency in reading. Last year, that figure hit 33 percent. In 1992, 29 percent of 8th-graders reached proficiency in reading. Last year, the portion was 33 percent.
That’s not terribly encouraging to educators, given all the money and resources and legislation and publicity that have come down upon reading scores over the years.
Even worse, look at 12th-graders. The last assessment figures available are from 2005. That year, 35 percent of them reached proficiency. That’s a significant drop from 1992, when 40 percent of them reached proficiency.
Why is it that lower grades are doing better, if only slightly, and high schoolers are slipping?
I attribute that to the change in teen leisure habits during those, specifically, less book reading and more screen diversions (including screen reading, the popular forms and styles of which aren’t as proficiency-assisting as are print reading).
Here, though, Dan Willingham suggests another reason, and he focuses it on the persistent achievement gaps. He argues that elementary school reading is largely a decoding practice.
“Fourth grade scores have been improving because we’ve gotten better at teaching kids how to decode — that is, how to translate letters into sounds. In the fourth grade some kids are good decoders and some are not, so differences in reading scores are largely differences in decoding.”
As they proceed to higher grades, however, texts become more sophisticated and reading comprehension becomes more complicated, involving not just decoding but comprehending, and comprehending requires that students bring a knowledge base to the text at hand. That is, the more contextual awareness the student has, the better the student understands the text at hand.
If we want students to become more-adept readers at age 17, then, we need to focus reading instruction not just upon skills (summarize, identify a thesis, etc.) but also upon building general knowledge in their minds.
Willingham: “What’s needed is a substantial knowledge base. Knowledge of the content they are likely to encounter when reading the sorts of materials we expect them to read confidently: newspapers, magazines, and serious books. That knowledge should be accumulated beginning in pre-K, with read-alouds, activities, field trips, and the like. It should continue throughout their education.”
Remember, too, that all the gains in the world for 4th- and 8th-graders don’t mean much if they don’t sustain their progress in high school.
8 Responses to The Mystery of Test Scores
luther_blissett - April 12, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Could it also be caused by the fact that students were still allowed to drop out of school in 2005, while by 2009, students in many districts are pressured or forbidden from dropping out of school? No Child Left Behind means exactly that, even if those students are pulling down the test scores.
markbauerlein - April 12, 2010 at 5:27 pm
We don’t have scores for 12th-graders for any year past 2005, Luther, so we can’t tell about the dropout factor in 2009.
jffoster - April 13, 2010 at 8:01 am
Re Mr. Blissett’s note, some States have recently increased the school-leaving age to graduation or 18, (keeping them out of the full time labor force and off the streets a little longer). Thus No Child Left Behind has been modified to mean No Child’s Behind Left.
ccherry - April 13, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Comprehension requires not just a knowledge base, but skill at decoding language at a higher level. Just look at MB’s analysis of a recent E.J. Dionne column. I think there’s a need to teach that kind of decoding in high school so readers can make informed sense of what they read. At the least, and even without a knowledge base, readers will know not to take a piece like that at face value. It might even motivate them to get some knowledge and counter it.
marktropolis - April 13, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Actually, Willingham doesn’t just “suggest another reason.” He actually says that “Americans are reading more text than they ever have before. And kids in lower elementary already spend half their time on language arts, and less than ten percent of their time on social studies and science, combined.” And while everyone keeps saying that we shouldn’t be judging schools, teachers and students based on one test score, we keep doing it. But with “all the money and resources and legislation and publicity that have come down upon reading scores over the years” one would expect scores to go up. And yet we have a good chunk of those investments (at least during the past administration, i.e., Bush) going towards further narrowing the curriculum – in the form of Reading First. And we’re talking hundreds of millions here. For an off-the-shelf curriculum, which only encouraged teachers to get better at teaching to the test.The more we focus on these test scores, the more we increase pressure on superintendents and principals to focus on test scores, and the more teachers focus on that. If you actually look at the research, it’s pretty clear that if the teacher is good at teaching the content (in whatever form that takes, math, reading, science, etc.), the test scores will take care of themselves. But that’s not what teachers are rewarded for. They are held accountable for the one score their classroom gets. And with Duncan running things, that’s only going to get worse – what with pay for performance schemes.
marktropolis - April 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm
ccherry (#4), I’d have to push back a bit on your argument (assuming I understand it). Unless your making the argument that Bauerline was using high school level decoding in his piece on the Dionne column. Politics aside, I don’t think he (MB) did a very effective job of really decoding Dionne. And I’m not sure that’s what he was actually doing. As I understand decoding, it’s a way of comprehending and understanding someone’s writing. For his part, I saw Bauerlein as using Dionne’s work to make a political point – not to simply provide a deeper understanding of what Dionne might be trying to say.
markbauerlein - April 13, 2010 at 5:58 pm
The problem with the Dionne piece was that he relied on so many lazy and complacent formulations (“a rational approach,” “a good thing to do,” and the like) that depended not on evidence but on “right-thinking people” and “wrong-thinking people” divisions. Willingham’s (and Hirsch’s and many, many others’) point is that comprehension at higher levels requires increasing contextual knowledge. Unfortunately, in the case of English, all-too-many standards downplay contextual/domain knowledge.
ccherry - April 13, 2010 at 6:47 pm
marktropolis,MB’s decoding was way above HS level. I’m suggesting that decoding *of that sort* be taught. It would have to be dumbed down for HS. Easy examples left and right abound, so teachers would have plenty of choices to keep the instruction balanced.I thought MB did a great job of decoding EJ Dionne’s piece. I tire quickly anymore of columns like Dionne’s, and there are many, across the political spectrum. Some are subtle, like Dionne’s. Others are raucous and haughty. All spring from outrage, and I’m worn out from all the outrage.I don’t know if MB wanted to make a political point. I took it only as a thorough analysis of an op ed.