IDAHO READING INDICATOR
GROWTH IN COHORT PERCENTAGE OF
"GRADE LEVEL" READERS
"GRADE LEVEL" READERS
The Idaho Reading Indicator has been around for a while. The K-3 screener originated after a 1997 Reading Study Committee's findings led to the passage of the Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Act in 1999. The Literacy Act mandated training for pre-service and practicing teachers, provided funding for remediation, and established a reading assessment to be given twice a year to all students in grades k, 1, 2, and 3.
In 2001, legislation sponsored by senator Darrel Diede (R-Caldwell) passed the legislature and was signed by the Governor. SB 1116 set goals for the percentage of students, including that 85% of 3rd graders would read at grade level as determined by the IRI by 2006.
The "New" Law
In 2016, a new bill was passed, and became Idaho Code 33-1614. The law contained this language:
The "New" Law
In 2016, a new bill was passed, and became Idaho Code 33-1614. The law contained this language:
"Each school district shall report to the state department of education by October 1 of each year. The report shall contain the following information on the prior school year:
(a) By grade, the number and percentage of all students in grades K-3 performing at the basic or below basic level on local and statewide assessments in reading; and
(b) By grade, the number and percentage of all students in grades K-3 performing at the proficient or higher level on local and statewide assessments in reading."
Idaho Board Rule 08.02.01.801 set goals for schools based on the law, and specified that "year over year" comparisons be made:
"Statewide Trajectory Growth Targets
Statewide trajectory annual growth targets are based on aggregated student performance on the spring administration of the statewide reading assessments. Local growth targets are set by the LEA based on the LEA’s available resources and student demographics. Statewide trajectory growth targets indicated the statewide goal for year over year increases in the percentage of students reading at grade".
The comparisons, then, are of the combined percentage of students reading at or below grade level for kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and third grade in a given year for schools, districts, and for the state. So four different groups of students are combined and compared in a "year over year" fashion.
(a) By grade, the number and percentage of all students in grades K-3 performing at the basic or below basic level on local and statewide assessments in reading; and
(b) By grade, the number and percentage of all students in grades K-3 performing at the proficient or higher level on local and statewide assessments in reading."
Idaho Board Rule 08.02.01.801 set goals for schools based on the law, and specified that "year over year" comparisons be made:
"Statewide Trajectory Growth Targets
Statewide trajectory annual growth targets are based on aggregated student performance on the spring administration of the statewide reading assessments. Local growth targets are set by the LEA based on the LEA’s available resources and student demographics. Statewide trajectory growth targets indicated the statewide goal for year over year increases in the percentage of students reading at grade".
The comparisons, then, are of the combined percentage of students reading at or below grade level for kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and third grade in a given year for schools, districts, and for the state. So four different groups of students are combined and compared in a "year over year" fashion.
Recently, Idaho Education News, in accordance with the new law and rule, ran an article portraying the overall "percent at grade level" for districts on last spring's IRI testing and compared it with the percentage from 2016. Unfortunately, the overall percentage of K-3 "at grade level" students does not accurately reflect growth on the IRI, and is an inappropriate measure of progress.
Why? Well, because fall and spring percentages of "on grade level" reading on the IRI vary widely, and are always lower after kids come back from the summer break and take the fall test. Presumably the fall measure reflects expectations for the next grade level, but the drops in percentages are also presumably due to "summer loss" among the student population, and especially among students who have less access to literacy-rich environments during the summer.
To illustrate, here is a "cohort" chart of the percentage of students at "grade level" on the IRI for the 2017 3rd grade class in 5 urban districts and in the state of Idaho.
The marker for the state of Idaho is the green circle. Note that about 55% of the state's kindergartners scored a "3" on the IRI in the fall of 2013, and 79% were at that level the next spring. But when they came back for first grade? Only 62% were at grade level. If you follow the cohort you will see the peaks during the school year and valleys into fall testing, and that to the end of 3rd grade (far right) you'll see that 75% of the cohort students were at grade level - 21% higher than in the fall of kindergarten.
Large District Cohort Performance
The next chart shows the cohort growth percentage for the 3rd grade classes of 2016 and 2017 for the 20 largest school districts in the state.
Large District Cohort Performance
The next chart shows the cohort growth percentage for the 3rd grade classes of 2016 and 2017 for the 20 largest school districts in the state.
The data in the chart are sorted by the 2013 fall kindergarten percentage of "grade level" scores on the IRI, from highest to lowest. Note that:
Rural District Performance
The Ed News article was titled "Reading Scores Suggest a Widening Urban Rural Gap". When we look at the scores of cohort groups, is that the case?
Well, not really. The same pattern exists here - as a general rule, districts that start with a percentage of "grade level" Kindergartners make less growth than districts that start out lower.
The Mobility Effect
Even though the cohort method of evaluating IRI progress is better than the "year over year" method prescribed by the new reading law, it suffers from a shortcoming that all assessments bear - family mobility in our society is quite high, and it disproportionally affects achievement in schools with a high percentage of low income students . It's also not accounted for in IRI calculations.
We'll have a look at that phenomenon in the next post.
- As a general rule, districts that had higher percentages of cohort "grade level" scores in fall of kindergarten have lower growth percentages. This makes sense, in that there are fewer kids who are not reading at grade level, so it's more difficult to make substantial progress. So, for example, Caldwell's fall 2013 K "grade level" percentage was 30% (!), while West Ada's was 70% - much more room to grow in Caldwell (though their growth percentage of 31% is amazing).
- Districts up north (Lakeland, Post Falls, Coeur d'Alene) have few Limited English students. Limited English students, who are learning a new language and learning to read - often progress much more slowly.
Rural District Performance
The Ed News article was titled "Reading Scores Suggest a Widening Urban Rural Gap". When we look at the scores of cohort groups, is that the case?
The Mobility Effect
Even though the cohort method of evaluating IRI progress is better than the "year over year" method prescribed by the new reading law, it suffers from a shortcoming that all assessments bear - family mobility in our society is quite high, and it disproportionally affects achievement in schools with a high percentage of low income students . It's also not accounted for in IRI calculations.
We'll have a look at that phenomenon in the next post.
