![](media/image1.jpeg){width="8.559027777777779in" height="11.0875in"}

Analysis of State K-3 Reading\
Standards and Assessments

Final Report

By

E. Allen Schenck

Douglas R. Walker

Carrie R. Nagel

RMC Research Corporation

Arlington, Va.

Loretta C. Webb

The McKenzie Group

Washington, D.C.

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

2005

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract No. ED-01-CO-0055/0011, Task 7. The project monitor was Beth A.
Franklin in the Policy and Program Studies Service. The views expressed
herein are those of the contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S.
Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Margaret Spellings

*Secretary*

**Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development**

Tom Luce

*Assistant Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Program and Analytic Studies Division**

David Goodwin

*Director*

**December 2005**

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the
front cover, which is used with permission and copyright, 2005, Getty
Images. Authorization to produce this report in whole or in part is
granted. Although permission to reprint this publication is not
necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program
Studies Service, *Analysis of State K-3 Reading Standards and
Assessments*, Washington, D.C., 2005.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.org.

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
<http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html>.

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such
as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at
(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

# Contents {#contents .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

# List of Figures iv {#list-of-figures-iv .unnumbered}

# List of Tables v {#list-of-tables-v .unnumbered}

Acknowledgments vii

# Executive Summary ix {#executive-summary-ix .unnumbered}

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# Introduction and Background 1 {#introduction-and-background-1 .unnumbered}

# Methodology 3 {#methodology-3 .unnumbered}

> Review of Standards 3
>
> Review of State Assessments 5

# Findings 7 {#findings-7 .unnumbered}

> Representation of Essential Elements by State Reading Standards 7
>
> Level of Representation, Quality, and Organization of Standards 14
>
> State Assessments as Reading First Outcome Measures 17
>
> Similarities in How Well Standards and Assessments Represent the
> Essential Elements 20

# Discussion and Conclusions 21 {#discussion-and-conclusions-21 .unnumbered}

> Degree and Quality of Standards' Representation of the Essential
> Elements 21
>
> Statewide Reading Assessments' Representation of the Essential
> Elements 22
>
> Relationship between Assessments' and Standards' Representation of the
> Essential Elements 22

# References 23 {#references-23 .unnumbered}

# Appendices 25 {#appendices-25 .unnumbered}

### Appendix A National Reading Panel Description of the Essential Components of Reading Instruction 27

### Appendix B Stratified Random Sample of 20 States 29

Appendix C Documentation Used in Review of State K-3 Reading Standards
in 2003-04 31

###  Appendix D Standards Review Instrument 35

###  Appendix E State Assessment Review Form Sample Page 51

###  Appendix F Results of Analyses of Ratings of State K-3 Reading Standards 53

# Figures {#figures .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

Figure 1. Mean Number of Clear and Ambiguous Standards Representing Each
Essential Element in 2003-04 8

Figure 2. Percentage of States by Appropriateness to Grade Level of K-3
Reading Standards Representing Each Essential Element in 2003-04 9

Figure 3. Percentage of States by Adequacy of Coverage of K-3 Reading

Standards Representing Each Essential Element in 2003-04 10

Figure 4. Percentage of States by Level of Detail of K-3 Reading
Standards Representing

Each Essential Element in 2003-04 12

Figure 5. Number of States Administering Statewide Reading Assessments
in Grades

K-3 in 2003-04 17

Figure 6. Number of States Identifying Their Statewide Reading
Assessments in Grades

K-3 as Reading First Outcome Measures in 2003-04 18

Figure 7. Number of States with Statewide K-3 Reading Assessments
Identified as

Reading First Outcome Measures in 2003-04 19

# Tables {#tables .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

Table 1. Mean Number of State K-3 Reading Standards Clearly Representing
the Essential Elements by How Adequately the Standards Cover Each
Element in 2003-04 14

Table 2. Mean Number of State K-3 Reading Standards Clearly Representing
the Essential Elements by Grade Appropriateness in 2003-04 15

Table 3. Mean Number of State K-3 Reading Standards Clearly Representing
the Essential Elements by the Appropriateness of Detail in 2003-04 16

#  {#section-1 .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

#  {#section-2 .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

#  {#section-3 .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

#  {#section-4 .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

#  {#section-5 .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

#  {#section-6 .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

#  {#section-7 .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

#  {#section-8 .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

#  {#section-9 .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

# Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

We want to thank Stephanie Al-Otaiba, Michael Coyne, Meaghan Edmonds,
Michael McKenna, and Jean Osborn, the expert reviewers who performed the
most challenging task of this study: judging state reading standards'
representation of the five essential components of reading instruction
identified by the National Reading Panel. We also appreciate the
contributions made to this study by Loretta Webb of The McKenzie Group,
particularly in organizing the reviewer orientation and in analyzing the
reviewers' explanations of their ratings. We thank Judy Carr for her
assistance in developing the standards review instrument and in
analyzing the organization of state reading standards. Finally, we
appreciate the guidance and support of our federal project officer, Beth
Franklin, at the U.S. Department of Education.

#### **Executive Summary**

# Background and Methodology {#background-and-methodology .unnumbered}

The National Reading Panel (NRP) issued a report in 2000 that responded
to a congressional mandate to help parents, teachers, and policymakers
identify key skills and instructional methods central to reading
achievement. The panel identified five areas that they found to be
critical to effective reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension (see Appendix A in the
complete final report for a description of these areas).

Using these findings as a foundation, the *No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) of 2001* established the Reading First program under Title I,
Part B, Subpart 1 of the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)*
to ensure that all children in America are reading at or above grade
level by the end of third grade. This initiative is designed to achieve
this goal through the establishment of high quality reading instruction
in kindergarten through grade 3 that includes the five essential
components identified in the research. Congress also recognized that
state academic content standards and assessments play an important role
in supporting instruction in the classroom. Section 1205 of ESEA calls
for an evaluation of whether state standards correlate with and
assessments measure these essential components of reading instruction.

This report addresses the relationship between state content standards
and assessments and the essential components of effective reading
instruction. The extent to which the essential components are addressed
in the standards and assessments indicates the extent to which states
have integrated the essential components into their reading curriculum.
This report describes reviews of state assessments and standards, the
purpose of which was twofold:

-   to evaluate the degree to which state reading content standards for
    K-3 students reflected expectations for learning in these five
    essential areas of effective reading instruction; and

-   to determine the extent to which state assessments administered in
    the K-3 grade span played a role in the measurement of Reading First
    outcomes in the five areas.

The methods used to address these two purposes differed in both emphasis
and approach. This study conducted an expert review in January 2004 of
state reading content standards for grades K-3 from a random sample of
20 states. Five consultants with expertise in reading instruction,
scientifically based reading research, staff development in reading, and
familiarly with state content standards reviewed the standards from the
20 selected states. Teams of two reviewers determined how many of each
state's standards represent the five areas of reading instruction and
the degree to which this representation is clear, is appropriate for the
intended grade level, provides complete coverage of each area, and
provides an appropriate level of detail to guide instruction.

The analysis of state assessments was made simpler by existing data.
State Reading First applications included information on which states
were using their existing statewide assessments to measure the five
essential components of effective reading instruction. Project staff
conducted a systematic review of approved Reading First applications for
all states and the District of Columbia to determine which states'
2003-04 K-3 statewide assessments were identified as measures of the
five essential areas of reading instruction.

# Key Findings {#key-findings .unnumbered}

# Comprehension and, to a lesser extent, vocabulary are better represented by sampled states K-3 reading standards than are the other three essential elements of reading instruction. {#comprehension-and-to-a-lesser-extent-vocabulary-are-better-represented-by-sampled-states-k-3-reading-standards-than-are-the-other-three-essential-elements-of-reading-instruction. .unnumbered}

-   Reading comprehension is the most represented of the essential
    elements in state K-3 reading content standards with an average of
    57 standards per state, followed by vocabulary (19), phonics (16),
    fluency (6), and phonemic awareness (6).

-   Most standards representing each essential element were judged to be
    placed at the appropriate grade by most of the states. A few states
    were found to have placed standards representing phonemic awareness
    and phonics at too high of a grade level.

-   Most states have standards that adequately cover comprehension and
    phonics, while just over half of the states provide adequate
    coverage for vocabulary, phonemic awareness, and fluency.
    Comprehension standards were judged to cover most or all of the
    appropriate content in 90 percent of the states, followed by phonics
    (80 percent), vocabulary (60 percent), phonemic awareness (60
    percent), and fluency (55 percent).

-   Most states (75 percent) provide an appropriate level of detail for
    comprehension standards, followed by vocabulary (70 percent),
    phonics (60 percent), phonemic awareness (50 percent), and fluency
    (35 percent). In most cases, when standards were judged as not
    having an appropriate level of detail, it was because they were too
    broad.

-   All of the 20 sampled states make comprehension clearly visible in
    their organization of reading standards. Almost all (18) make some
    of the other elements visible. Half make all five elements visible
    and they tend to do so at relatively high levels within their
    organizational hierarchy.

***States with larger numbers of K-3 reading standards organized to make
the five essential elements more visible were judged to represent these
elements better.***

-   For each of the essential elements, states with larger numbers of
    standards have standards that provide better coverage, are more
    likely to be at an appropriate grade level, and are written more
    often at an appropriate level of detail.

-   Both the number and quality of reading standards---within and across
    the five elements---were directly related to the degree of element
    visibility within the organization within the reading standards.

# With the possible exception of vocabulary and comprehension in grade 3, statewide reading assessments in 2003-04 do not significantly address expected student outcomes from reading instruction in the five essential areas. {#with-the-possible-exception-of-vocabulary-and-comprehension-in-grade-3-statewide-reading-assessments-in-2003-04-do-not-significantly-address-expected-student-outcomes-from-reading-instruction-in-the-five-essential-areas. .unnumbered}

-   Thirty states administer statewide reading assessments in grade 3,
    and very few do so at grades below 3.

-   Twenty of these states identify their grade 3 statewide reading
    assessments as measures of Reading First outcomes, primarily for
    just vocabulary and comprehension.

-   None of the states identify their statewide reading assessments as
    outcome measures in the area of fluency, presumably because it
    requires individual assessment of children.

# There is a slight relationship between how state standards and assessments represent the five essential elements of reading instruction.  {#there-is-a-slight-relationship-between-how-state-standards-and-assessments-represent-the-five-essential-elements-of-reading-instruction. .unnumbered}

-   States that identified their statewide reading assessments as
    Reading First outcome measures tended to have more reading standards
    that visibly represented the five essential elements of effective
    reading instruction.

# Introduction and Background {#introduction-and-background .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

Many children struggle when learning to read. This failure can have a
tremendous long-term impact on their self-confidence, motivation to
learn, future performance in school, and success in life. An extensive
knowledge base now exists that pinpoints the skills children must learn
in order to read well and the components of reading instruction which
are essential to that learning (Armbruster, Lehr, and Osborn, 2003).
This information can serve as the foundation for educational policy
decisions, curriculum development and instructional planning aimed at
helping children learn to read and overcome the problems that come with
reading failure.

The National Reading Panel (NRP) issued a report in 2000 that responded
to a congressional mandate to help parents, teachers, and policymakers
identify skills and methods central to reading achievement (National
Reading Panel \[NRP\], 2000). The NRP was charged with reviewing
research in reading instruction and identifying instructional methods
that consistently relate to reading success.

The NRP identified five areas as critical to effective reading
instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text
comprehension. They found that reading is a complex system of deriving
meaning from print. To be effective, instruction in reading must address
all of the five critical areas explicitly and systematically. The
panel's report (NRP, 2000) details the nature and importance of each of
these five essential reading components. Excerpts from this report
describing these components and the evidence of their importance are
presented in Appendix A.

Using these findings as a foundation, the *No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) of 2001* established the Reading First program under Title I,
Part B, Subpart 1 of the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)*
to ensure that all children in America read at or above grade level by
the end of third grade. This initiative is designed to achieve this goal
by establishing high quality reading instruction in kindergarten through
grade 3 that includes the five essential components identified in the
research. Congress recognized the need to study the implementation of
this initiative, including instructional practices and materials,
reading assessments used for screening, diagnosis, and student progress,
and professional development. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has
funded two other evaluations related to Reading First. The Reading First
Implementation study is an evaluation of how the Reading First program
is being implemented in a nationally representative sample of Reading
First schools. Results from this evaluation are expected in 2006 and
2007. The Reading First Impact Study will focus primarily on impact
using a quasi-experimental design (regression discontinuity). The
evaluation will collect data from 250 Reading First and non-Reading
First schools. Reports are expected in 2007 and 2008.

Congress also recognized that state academic content standards and
assessments play an important role in supporting instruction in the
classroom. The impact that effective reading instruction has on
students' learning to read will depend on the alignment of state
standards and assessment with that instruction (e.g., Cohen, 1987; Smith
and O'Day, 1991; Webb, 1997). Absent a central focus of state reading
standards and related state assessments on student expectations in these
five areas, it is less likely that local curriculum and classroom
instruction will address the five essential elements. In Section 1205,
the Reading First legislation calls for an evaluation of whether state
standards correlate with and assessments measure these essential
components of reading instruction. Accordingly, ED also funded a review
of the relationship between state standards and assessments in K-3
reading and these components.

This report presents the results of this review of state standards and
assessments, the purpose of which was twofold:

-   to evaluate the degree to which state reading content standards for
    K-3 students reflect expectations for learning in the five essential
    areas of effective reading instruction; and

-   to determine the extent to which state assessments administered in
    the K-3 grade span play a role in the measurement of Reading First
    outcomes in the five essential areas.

The methods employed to conduct these two reviews are described next.
Then the results of the reviews are presented. The final section
contains a discussion of these results and conclusions.

# Methodology {#methodology .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

# Review of Standards {#review-of-standards .unnumbered}

A review of state reading standards was conducted to examine the
standards' relationship to the five essential elements by addressing
five questions:

-   Which reading standards describe student knowledge and skills in
    each essential area?

-   How clearly and explicitly does each standard represent the area?

-   How appropriate are the standards representing each area for the
    grade(s) to which the state has assigned them?

-   Do the identified standards provide complete coverage of student
    knowledge and skills in the area?

-   Do the standards representing each area provide an appropriate level
    of detail with sufficient specificity to promote alignment among
    curriculum, instruction, and assessment and sufficient flexibility
    to provide curricular guidelines that could be translated into
    instructional activities tailored to the needs of different
    students?

    These questions address important aspects of how well each state's
    reading standards represent the five essential elements of reading
    instruction. They are based on a previous review of state reading
    standards for the primary grades, conducted by the Center for the
    Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) (Wixson and Dutro,
    1998). The CIERA study examined how well state reading standards for
    grades K-3 represented five areas of important reading content that
    are quite similar to the five essential components of reading
    instruction that are the basis for this review. The four criteria
    employed by CIERA---complexity, level of detail, content coverage,
    and appropriateness of content---also informed the construction of
    the above questions addressed by this review.

A sample of 20 states was randomly selected to be geographically
representative of the country and to include states with relatively
large numbers of students. The 50 states and the District of Columbia
were stratified by region, and a probability sample of 20 states was
drawn with the probability of being sampled proportionate to total
enrollment.[^1] The sampled states accounted for almost 70 percent of
the country's total enrollment, and four to six states were sampled from
each of four geographical regions. A list of the sampled states with
their enrollment and region, as well as additional sampling details, can
be found in Appendix B.

The content standards for reading in grades K-3 were obtained from the
20 sampled states during January 2004. The documentation collected for
the review process included descriptions of the state K-3 reading
standards, per se, and descriptions of benchmarks or grade-level
expectations that provided the most specific available delineation of
expected student knowledge and skills in reading. Although states
organize and describe their K-3 reading standards in a variety of ways,
it was possible in most cases to obtain documentation that dealt
exclusively with reading expectations for grades K‑3. States vary with
regard to the amount of material they include in their standards
documents and the "grain size" of the material presented. What is a
standard in one state might be a grade level expectation in another.
Many states use "large" standards that cut across grade levels, but one
state has different standards for each grade level. No state explicitly
uses the five essential components of reading instruction as the
organizer for standards and grade level expectations in grades K-3.
While aspects of varying components are present to varying degrees in
the respective sets of standards (as will be discussed further below),
they are somewhat "scattered" throughout the documents. A listing of
these documents and the Internet addresses where these documents were
found is presented in Appendix C.

A data collection instrument was designed to obtain information about
each state's reading standards that answered the five review questions
stated above (see Appendix D). The instrument asks for the
identification of state standards that represent each of the five
essential elements of reading instruction described by the National
Reading Panel. It also asks how clearly each standard represents an
element, how appropriate the standards are for the grade level at which
they are assigned, how well they cover the elements, and how appropriate
their level of detail is for guiding instruction. Comments are requested
on the ratings given and on the strengths and weaknesses of the entire
set of K-3 reading standards.

Five consultants with expertise in reading instruction, scientifically
based reading research, and staff development in reading, and who are
familiar with the findings of the National Reading Panel and state
content standards, were recruited to review the standards from the 20
selected states. The reviewers attended a one-day training session where
the data collection instrument was explained, and expectations for the
conduct of the review were presented. They were introduced to the
standards review project and their role was explained. The data
collection instrument was shared and explained, and expectations for the
conduct of the review were presented. Most of the day was spent
practicing and discussing issues emerging from the use of the instrument
with documents describing the K-3 reading standards of a state not in
the sample of 20.

Two experts reviewed each state's standards. Assignments were made so
that each expert was paired with each of the other four experts for two
states. Thus, each expert reviewed the standards of eight states.
Assignment was arbitrary; however, reviewers were not assigned the
standards of any states with which they had any professional affiliation
or contact. Reviewers worked independently. However, they were allowed,
but not required, to discuss their findings for any state with the
assigned co-reviewer. They were not required to attain consensus on each
state's ratings.

The pairing of each expert with all others reduced the need for
calibrating the ratings of individual reviewers that might have been
unusually high or low in their ratings. Consensus was not required
because differences in points of view were important to capture. In
spite of very little reported collaboration between co-reviewers,
discrepancies of more than one rating scale value occurred less than 10
percent of the time. These differences were judged small enough to use
the average value of the two reviewers for each state in the analysis.

# Review of State Assessments {#review-of-state-assessments .unnumbered}

The Reading First program requires states to provide evidence that their
proposed assessments for screening, diagnosis, and measuring student
progress address phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
text comprehension (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). In addition,
states are required to identify valid and reliable assessments of
reading achievement that are used to evaluate the outcomes of the
Reading First program. This report determines the extent to which states
are using their own statewide assessments of reading to measure Reading
First outcomes for the essential components. Using assessments already
in place would be more efficient than requiring schools participating in
the Reading First program to administer additional assessments. More
importantly, any state assessment that provides valid and reliable
measurement of outcomes in one or more of the five essential
instructional areas in the K-3 grade span supports the delivery of
instruction in these areas throughout the entire state---not just for
schools participating in the Reading First program.

A review of all state Reading First applications approved by ED prior to
Oct. 1, 2004, was conducted to answer the following questions:

-   How many states administer reading assessments to virtually all
    students in one or more grades in the K-3 span?

-   How many states identify their K-3 statewide reading assessments as
    outcome measures for Reading First programs?

-   For which of the five essential areas of reading instruction are K-3
    statewide reading assessments identified?

This information was summarized on the State Assessment Review Form (see
Appendix E) using the following procedure:

First, the reviewer determined what, if any, reading assessments were
administered by the state to all students in any one of grades K-3.
Next, the reviewer determined whether or not the state assessment was
identified in the application as a Reading First outcome measure and, if
so, whether or not the application indicated for which of the five
essential components. If the components were identified, the reviewer
indicated whether or not the state assessment was the only outcome
measure for each component.

A statewide assessment was included in this review if it was clear that
the assessment was in place when the Reading First application was
approved and that it could be used for measuring Reading First outcomes.
If a state only required school districts to administer assessments
selected from an approved list, or if a state only required school
districts to administer a particular assessment because they were
implementing a special initiative, these assessments were considered to
be statewide if virtually all districts (\>90 percent) chose the same
assessment or participated in the program or initiative.

# Findings {#findings .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

This section presents the results of the reviews of state reading
content standards and assessments. These results address the twofold
purpose of this study---to evaluate how well state standards reflect the
five essential components of reading instruction, and to determine the
role of state assessments in measuring Reading First outcomes. Results
of analyses of the relationship between how well state standards reflect
these components and the use of state assessments are also provided.

# Representation of Essential Elements by State Reading Standards {#representation-of-essential-elements-by-state-reading-standards .unnumbered}

# Reading comprehension is the most represented of the essential elements.  {#reading-comprehension-is-the-most-represented-of-the-essential-elements. .unnumbered}

Presumably, the number of standards clearly representing each of the
essential elements suggests the relative emphasis the state reading
standards are placing on each element. An average of 104 K-3 reading
standards per state were identified as representing the five essential
elements (see Table E-1 in Appendix E).[^2] Almost 80 percent of these
standards were judged to do so in a clear and explicit manner. There is
a very large range in the number of relevant standards identified across
the 20 states---from 19 to 227.

An example of a standard that a reviewer judged to clearly represent
phonics is:

> *Use letters sounds, word patterns and parts of simple compound words
> to decode unfamiliar words when reading.*

An example of a standard not clearly representing phonics is:

*Identify letters, words and sentences.*

The average number of standards representing each essential element also
varies considerably across the essential elements (see Figure 1). The
highest average number of the standards identified was in the area of
comprehension (57) and this area has the highest percentage of clear
standards (84 percent). The second most frequently represented element
is vocabulary; the average number of standards is 19, and phonics comes
in third with an average of 16. The smallest average number of standards
was identified in the areas of phonemic awareness and fluency (6), and
these areas also have the smallest percentages of clear standards (60
percent and 66 percent, respectively).

# Figure 1 {#figure-1 .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

# Mean Number of Clear and Ambiguous K-3 Standards {#mean-number-of-clear-and-ambiguous-k-3-standards .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

# Representing Each Essential Element, 2003-04 {#representing-each-essential-element-2003-04 .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

![](media/image2.pct)

The reviewers found that half of the states did not make a clear
distinction between standards representing phonemic awareness and
phonics. For example, one state presents a standard entitled, "Phonemic
Awareness, Word Recognition and Fluency" and lists more specific
expectations for kindergarten students, including

-   Identify and complete rhyming words and patterns.

-   Distinguish the number of syllables in words by using rhythmic
    clapping, snapping or counting.

-   Distinguish and name all upper- and lowercase letters.

-   Recognize, say and write the common sounds of letters.

-   Hear and say the separate phonemes in words, such as identifying the
    initial consonant sound in a word, and blend phonemes to say words.

-   Read one-syllable and often-heard words by sight.

According to the reviewers, the first two expectations represent
phonological awareness, the next two represent phonics, the next
represents phonemic awareness, and the last fluency.

# Most standards were judged to be placed at the appropriate grade. {#most-standards-were-judged-to-be-placed-at-the-appropriate-grade. .unnumbered}

The grade appropriateness of state standards is relatively high for all
five elements (see Table F-2 in Appendix F and Figure 2). Virtually all
sampled states have at least most of their comprehension, vocabulary,
and fluency standards at an appropriate grade level. The degree of grade
appropriateness for standards representing phonics and phonemic
awareness, however, is not as high; 25 and 33 percent of the states,
respectively, were judged to have half or less of their standards
assigned to an appropriate grade level. For example, two vocabulary
standards from a state illustrating appropriate placement at second and
third grade are:

> *Grade 2---Use knowledge of base words to interpret meaning of
> unfamiliar words*
>
> *Grade 3---Decode words using knowledge of base words, root words, and
> common prefixes and suffixes*

# Figure 2 {#figure-2 .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

# Percentage of States by Appropriateness to Grade Level of K-3 {#percentage-of-states-by-appropriateness-to-grade-level-of-k-3 .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

# Reading Standards Representing Each Essential Element in 2003-04 {#reading-standards-representing-each-essential-element-in-2003-04 .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

![](media/image3.pct)

The reviewers' main comment about standards in phonemic awareness and
phonics was that the standards were not sufficiently challenging. This
comment was found in the review of 13 states. For example, one state
placed the following standard at the second grade:

> *The student demonstrates the ability to segment words by phonemes
> according to beginning, middle, and ending sounds.*

According to a reviewer, this standard should have been placed at
kindergarten.

A reviewer comment regarding phonics provides another example:

> *Most standards are one or two grades too late. For example, Grade 2:
> PS 1 states "decode unknown words using basic elements of phonetic
> analysis (e.g., common letter-sound relationships)." Students should
> have mastered this standard in kindergarten/first grade. Second grade
> students should be using more advanced phonic strategies (spelling
> patterns, letter combinations, etc.)*

Very few comments were made that phonemic awareness and phonics were
mentioned in standards in inappropriately early grades.

# Most sampled states have standards that adequately cover comprehension and phonics. {#most-sampled-states-have-standards-that-adequately-cover-comprehension-and-phonics. .unnumbered}

The third review item asked for the reviewer's judgment of how well all
of a state's standards, identified as representing an essential element,
cover the student knowledge and skills taught in that area of
instruction. Again, standards representing reading comprehension do
fairly well. Almost two-thirds of the sampled states were judged to have
standards that adequately cover the entire area of comprehension, and 90
percent of the states have standards that provide coverage of all or
most of that area (see Table E-3 in Appendix E and Figure 3).

# Figure 3 {#figure-3 .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

# Percentage of States by Adequacy of Coverage of K-3 Reading {#percentage-of-states-by-adequacy-of-coverage-of-k-3-reading .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

# Standards Representing Each Essential Element, 2003-04 {#standards-representing-each-essential-element-2003-04 .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

![](media/image4.pct)

Phonics appears to be well-covered by most states, too. Eighty percent
of the sampled states were judged to have standards that provide
coverage for all or most of the phonics area. Fluency is the most poorly
covered element, although the results for this area are only slightly
lower than vocabulary and phonemic awareness. The reading standards for
two states do not address phonemic awareness at all.

The reviewers found a variety of missing content for phonemic awareness
(e.g., phoneme isolation, identity, segmentation, blending,
manipulation, etc.) The primary coverage issue for fluency appears to be
not including all of the subcomponents, namely rate, accuracy, and
expression (prosody). Comments about missing content in vocabulary
center on failing to include direct instruction or strategies for
determining the meaning of new words. A large number of comments point
out that vocabulary is not covered at all in certain grades, especially
kindergarten and grade 1. Also, there are several references to a
tendency for states to place what the reviewers believe is phonics
content under vocabulary.

# The number of states providing an appropriate level of detail was greatest for comprehension standards, followed by vocabulary, phonics, phonemic awareness, and fluency. {#the-number-of-states-providing-an-appropriate-level-of-detail-was-greatest-for-comprehension-standards-followed-by-vocabulary-phonics-phonemic-awareness-and-fluency. .unnumbered}

The fourth review item asked how well a state's standards, which were
identified as representing an essential element, provide a level of
detail appropriate for guiding instruction in that area. The reviewers
found 75 percent of the states to have reading comprehension standards
that have an appropriate level of detail, sufficiently specific to
promote alignment among curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and
sufficiently flexible to guide instructional activities tailored to the
needs of different students. The other states' comprehension standards
are either somewhat too broad or somewhat too specific (see Table E-4 in
Appendix E and Figure 4).

Most (70 percent) sampled states' vocabulary standards were also judged
to have an appropriate level of detail. The rest were judged somewhat or
much too broad. Reading standards representing fluency received the
lowest judgments of detail level; 65 percent of the states were rated as
having fluency standards that were somewhat or much too broad. Phonemic
awareness and phonics fall between vocabulary and fluency.

Here is an example from one state related to phonemic awareness that was
rated as too broad:

> *Demonstrate phonemic awareness by blending or segmenting phonemes in
> a one-syllable word*

Here is an example from one state related to phonemic awareness
standards rated as an appropriate level of detail:

> > \[S\]egment one-syllable spoken words into individual phonemes,
> > including three and four phoneme words, clearly producing beginning,
> > medial, and final sounds

It appears that when state reading standards are not at an appropriate
level of detail, with the exception of the area of comprehension, they
err on the side of being too broad.

# Figure 4 {#figure-4 .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

# Percentage of States by Level of Detail of K-3 Reading {#percentage-of-states-by-level-of-detail-of-k-3-reading .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

# Standards Representing Each Essential Element in 2003-04 {#standards-representing-each-essential-element-in-2003-04 .Style-Heading-1.3-+-Centered .unnumbered}

![](media/image5.pct)

The reviewers noted that the standards representing phonemic awareness
and phonics most often compress important sub-elements together in a
single statement or description of a standard, for example:

> *The student uses basic elements of phonetic analysis to decode
> unknown words (e.g., one-syllable words with 3-4 phonemes).*

They also cited the grouping together of standards about phonemic
awareness and phonics as contributing to the lack of specificity.

The reviewers frequently criticized fluency standards for lack of
specificity. For example, a state's standard for grade 1 makes no
attempt to delineate fluency into automaticity and expression:

> *Student will read aloud independently with fluency and comprehension
> any text that is appropriately designed for emergent readers.*

Also, many comments were made about the absence of specific criteria for
the rate of reading, for example:

> *Student reads primarily in large, meaningful phrases with only a few
> slowdowns for problem solving of words or reading to confirm accuracy
> or meaning.*

# All sampled states make comprehension clearly visible in their organization of reading standards. {#all-sampled-states-make-comprehension-clearly-visible-in-their-organization-of-reading-standards. .unnumbered}

In addition to the above analyses of reviewer ratings and comments
regarding how well state standards represent the five essential
elements, this study examined the visibility of these elements in the
organization of each state's reading standards for K-3. There are two
ways in which the organization can make these elements more visible: the
use of language in labels and content which is consistent with these
elements, and using this language closer to the top of the
organizational hierarchy. Presumably, higher-level descriptions are more
visible to teachers and curriculum specialists and are more likely to
guide instruction.

The results of this examination varied substantially across the
essential elements. Text comprehension is visible in the content
standards of all sampled states. For example, in one state English
language arts is divided into Reading, Writing, Conventions, and
Listening and Speaking. Standards are organized under three areas of
focus: (a) word analysis, fluency, and vocabulary; (b) reading
comprehension; and (c) literary response and analysis. All essential
elements except comprehension are under the first area of focus.
Comprehension standards are very visible under the second area.

Standards focusing on phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and
vocabulary are not always visible. Half of the sample of 20 states use
categories of organization or have statements of student expectations at
the most specific levels that clearly represent all five elements (e.g.,
phonemic awareness, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary acquisition,
and reading process---concepts of print and comprehension). Another
eight states use language that represents one or two elements in
addition to comprehension (e.g., reading process and comprehension,
analysis of texts, and phonics and word study or analysis). The other
two states make only comprehension clearly visible (e.g., applying a
variety of comprehension strategies, understanding literature, and
understanding information texts).

Most of the states with all elements clearly visible do so with
organizing language at the top of the hierarchy; only three do so at an
intermediate or most specific level. On the other hand, most of the
states with partial representation of the elements do so at the most
specific level of organization. Thus, there is a relationship between
the completeness with which states represent the essential elements in
their organization of reading standards and the level where that
representation occurs.

# In summary, comprehension and, to a lesser extent, vocabulary are better represented by sampled state K-3 reading standards than are the other three essential elements of reading instruction. {#in-summary-comprehension-and-to-a-lesser-extent-vocabulary-are-better-represented-by-sampled-state-k-3-reading-standards-than-are-the-other-three-essential-elements-of-reading-instruction. .unnumbered}

Clearly, the number and quality of standards, as judged by the expert
reviewers, favors the area of comprehension of text. Not only do states
have a substantially larger number of standards in this area, but these
standards are, on average, clearer, more likely to be assigned to an
appropriate grade level, more comprehensive in coverage, at a more
appropriate level of detail, and more visible. Conversely, the area of
phonemic awareness faired the worst. Looking at the average counts and
ratings (see Appendix E), this element is the lowest or second lowest on
all criteria.

# Level of Representation, Quality, and Organization of Standards {#level-of-representation-quality-and-organization-of-standards .unnumbered}

It is difficult to present information about the number, coverage,
detail, and grade appropriateness of state reading standards without
entertaining the idea that there might be some relationships among these
characteristics---perhaps for some of the essential elements, or even
all of them. Analyses were carried out to study these relationships and,
more specifically, to answer the following questions:

-   Is the number of state standards clearly representing an essential
    element related to the coverage of that element?

-   Is the number of state standards clearly representing an essential
    element related to their grade appropriateness?

-   Is the number of state standards clearly representing an essential
    element related to their level of detail?

-   Do standards with more appropriate level of detail provide better
    coverage?

-   How does organizational visibility relate to number and coverage,
    grade appropriateness, and level of detail?

# States with larger numbers of standards have standards that provide more adequate coverage. {#states-with-larger-numbers-of-standards-have-standards-that-provide-more-adequate-coverage. .unnumbered}

Clearly, states with reading standards that provide adequate coverage
have more standards---at least twice as many---clearly representing each
of the five essential elements (see Table 1).

Table 1

Mean Number of State K-3 Reading Standards Clearly Representing the
Essential Elements by How Adequately the Standards Cover Each Element in
2003-04

+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| **Essential Element   | **S  |               | *     |              |
| of Reading            | tand |               | *Stan |              |
| Instruction**         | ards |               | dards |              |
|                       | P    |               | Pr    |              |
|                       | rovi |               | ovide |              |
|                       | de** |               | Inade |              |
|                       |      |               | quate |              |
|                       | **   |               | Cover |              |
|                       | Adeq |               | age** |              |
|                       | uate |               |       |              |
|                       | Cove |               |       |              |
|                       | rage |               |       |              |
|                       | \*** |               |       |              |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
|                       | Nu   | Mean Number   | N     | Mean Number  |
|                       | mber | of Clear      | umber | of Clear     |
|                       | of   | Standards     | of    | Standards    |
|                       | St   |               | S     |              |
|                       | ates |               | tates |              |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| Phonemic Awareness    | 12   | 5.1           | 8     | 1.7          |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| Phonics               | 16   | 13.8          | 4     | 2.8          |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| Fluency               | 11   | 5.9           | 9     | 2.1          |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| Vocabulary            | 12   | 18.2          | 8     | 9.8          |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| Comprehension         | 18   | 50.6          | 2     | 20.2         |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+

\* Adequate coverage means that the standards cover all or most of the
element's content.

# States with larger numbers of standards have standards that are more likely to be at an appropriate grade level. {#states-with-larger-numbers-of-standards-have-standards-that-are-more-likely-to-be-at-an-appropriate-grade-level. .unnumbered}

For reading standards representing phonemic awareness and phonics,
states that were rated as assigning most of their standards to an
appropriate grade level had many more standards clearly representing
these two areas (see Table 2). Although there may be no reason to expect
larger numbers of standards to be associated with their grade
appropriateness, this finding---combined with the other associations in
this section---suggests that states with better standards in general
have created relatively larger numbers of standards as well. Because all
but one state had their standards in the other three areas rated as
mostly appropriate for the assigned grade level, comparisons with states
whose standards were not rated mostly appropriate is impossible or
difficult.

Table 2

Mean Number of State K-3 Reading Standards Clearly Representing the
Essential Elements by Grade Appropriateness in 2003-04

  ----------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
  **Essential Element of  **Standards Are                 **Standards Are 
  Reading Instruction**   Mostly                          Not Mostly      
                          Appropriate**                   Appropriate**   

                          Number of       Mean Number of  Number of       Mean Number of
                          States          Clear Standards States          Clear Standards

  Phonemic Awareness      12              5.3             6               1.8

  Phonics                 15              14.2            5               3.6

  Fluency                 19              4.4             1               1.0

  Vocabulary              19              15.5            1               1.0

  Comprehension           20              47.5            0               \--
  ----------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

# States with larger numbers of standards have standards that are written more often at an appropriate level of detail. {#states-with-larger-numbers-of-standards-have-standards-that-are-written-more-often-at-an-appropriate-level-of-detail. .unnumbered}

The average number of standards representing each essential element for
states with standards having appropriate detail and for states with
standards that are either too broad or too specific is presented in
Table 3.

Table 3

Mean Number of State K-3 Reading Standards Clearly Representing the
Essential Elements by the Appropriateness of Detail in 2003-04

+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| **Essential Element   | **S  |               | *     |              |
| of Reading            | tand |               | *Stan |              |
| Instruction**         | ards |               | dards |              |
|                       | Ha   |               | Are   |              |
|                       | ve** |               | Too   |              |
|                       |      |               | Broad |              |
|                       | *    |               | or    |              |
|                       | *App |               | Too   |              |
|                       | ropr |               | Spe   |              |
|                       | iate |               | cific |              |
|                       | Deta |               | \***  |              |
|                       | il** |               |       |              |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
|                       | Nu   | Mean Number   | N     | Mean Number  |
|                       | mber | of Clear      | umber | of Clear     |
|                       | of   | Standards     | of    | Standards    |
|                       | St   |               | S     |              |
|                       | ates |               | tates |              |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| Phonemic Awareness    | 9    | 5.7           | 9     | 2.7          |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| Phonics               | 13   | 13.0          | 7     | 9.0          |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| Fluency               | 7    | 6.1           | 13    | 3.2          |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| Vocabulary            | 14   | 17.2          | 6     | 9.2          |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+
| Comprehension         | 18   | 49.8          | 2     | 27.5         |
+-----------------------+------+---------------+-------+--------------+

\* Standards were always too broad except for the comprehension element.

Again, for all five of the essential elements, states with standards
written at an appropriate level of detail have more standards that
clearly represent each element than states with standards judged to be
either too broad or too specific.

# There is a modest relationship between level of detail and adequacy of coverage. {#there-is-a-modest-relationship-between-level-of-detail-and-adequacy-of-coverage. .unnumbered}

The relationship between the standards' level of detail and adequacy of
coverage is of interest because some might argue that it is easier to
provide greater coverage with standards that are fairly broad in their
level of detail. Yet, when states were grouped on these two
characteristics above, states with broad standards and states with
inadequate coverage had fewer standards, suggesting that the same states
might tend to have broad standards and standards providing inadequate
coverage. Correlation coefficients calculated between coverage and level
of detail ranged between 0.24 (for phonemic awareness) and 0.45 (for
fluency), indicating a small, but positive, relationship between these
two characteristics of state reading standards. States with standards
that have an appropriate level of detail tend to be the same states
whose standards provide adequate coverage of the essential elements.

# There is a positive relationship between the visibility of the essential elements within the organization of reading standards and how well the standards represent these elements. {#there-is-a-positive-relationship-between-the-visibility-of-the-essential-elements-within-the-organization-of-reading-standards-and-how-well-the-standards-represent-these-elements. .unnumbered}

Both the number and quality of reading standards---within and across the
five elements---were found to be directly related to the degree of
element visibility. For example, the average number of standards clearly
representing all five elements for the 10 states with all elements
visible is 98.6. For the eight states with some elements visible, the
average number of standards is 72.0, and for the two states with only
comprehension visible, the average is 24.5. This is not simply due to
the "better visibility" states having more standards in certain areas
such as phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency. This pattern in the
average number of standards is the same for each essential element. For
example, the average number of standards clearly representing
comprehension of text for states with all, some, or only comprehension
elements visible is 55.1, 43.4, and 20.2, respectively.

The percentage of states providing coverage for most or all of each
element is similarly related to the degree of element visibility. That
is, states that organize their standards so that the elements are
visible were more likely to be judged to have standards that provide
good coverage of the elements. Coverage is also directly related to the
level at which the elements are visible. Coverage is best for states
that make the elements visible in the top of their hierarchies and worst
for states with elements visible at the bottom, most specific level.

# State Assessments as Reading First Outcome Measures {#state-assessments-as-reading-first-outcome-measures .unnumbered}

# Thirty of the 51 states (59 percent) administer statewide reading assessments in at least one grade in the K-3 grade span.  {#thirty-of-the-51-states-59-percent-administer-statewide-reading-assessments-in-at-least-one-grade-in-the-k-3-grade-span. .unnumbered}

#  {#section-10 .unnumbered}

These 30 states all administer statewide reading assessments in the
third grade, whereas only 13 (26 percent) do so in second grade, seven
(14 percent) in first grade, and six (12 percent) do so in kindergarten
(see Figure 5).

**Figure 5**

**Number of States Administering Statewide**

**Reading Assessments in Grades K-3, 2003-04**

![](media/image6.pct)

The few states with statewide reading assessments in K-2 include two
states (Texas and Virginia) with reading assessments that are not,
strictly speaking, required of all students, but, in fact, are
administered to virtually all students in these grades.

# Twenty-one states (41 percent) identify statewide reading assessments as measures of Reading First outcomes in at least one of the K-3 grades.  {#twenty-one-states-41-percent-identify-statewide-reading-assessments-as-measures-of-reading-first-outcomes-in-at-least-one-of-the-k-3-grades. .unnumbered}

Twenty (39 percent) identify their third-grade assessments as Reading
First outcome measures. Very few states have reading assessments in K-2,
and fewer still also identify these assessments for Reading First---six
(12 percent) in second grade, three (6 percent) in first grade, and four
(8 percent) in kindergarten (see Figure 6).

**Figure 6**

**Number of States Identifying Their Statewide**

**Reading Assessments in Grades K-3 as Reading**

**First Outcome Measures, 2003-04**

![](media/image7.pct)

Looking only at the 30 states with statewide reading assessments in at
least one of the K-3 grades, most (21 or 70 percent) identify their
state assessments as Reading First outcome measures in at least one
grade. Of the 30 states with statewide reading assessments in third
grade, 20 (67 percent) identify them for Reading First. Six of 13 (46
percent) do so in second grade, three of seven (43 percent) in first
grade, and four of six (67 percent) in kindergarten (see Figure 7).

**Figure 7**

**Number of States with Statewide K-3 Reading**

**Assessments Identified as Reading First**

**Outcome Measures, 2003-04**

![](media/image8.pct)

# Most states identifying their statewide assessments as Reading First outcome measures specify the targeted reading components, and they tend to be comprehension and vocabulary. {#most-states-identifying-their-statewide-assessments-as-reading-first-outcome-measures-specify-the-targeted-reading-components-and-they-tend-to-be-comprehension-and-vocabulary. .unnumbered}

Of the 21 states that use their statewide reading assessments as Reading
First outcome measures, most (15 or 71 percent) specify the components
of reading instruction their assessments are expected to measure. At
specific grades, 14 of 20 (70 percent) specify the components for third
grade, three of six (50 percent) do so for second grade, one of three
(33 percent) for first grade, and two of four (50 percent) for
kindergarten. Of the six states that do not specify the measured reading
components, two indicate that their statewide reading assessments are
being used in conjunction with other assessments (e.g., the DIBELS or
the Woodcock-Johnson) required by the state for all Reading First
districts.

For kindergarten, the two states identifying reading components indicate
their statewide assessments are intended to measure all components
except fluency. In one of these states, the statewide assessment is the
only Reading First outcome measure identified for these elements; in the
other state, additional assessments are required as Reading First
outcome measures. For grade 1, the one state identifying reading
components indicates the statewide assessment measures all components
except fluency. That state also requires districts to employ other
assessments as Reading First outcome measures for these components.

For grade 2, phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension are the components
measured by the statewide reading assessments of the three states. One
state identifies its statewide assessment as the only Reading First
outcome measure of vocabulary and comprehension, while there are
additional outcome measures for phonics. In the other two states,
additional outcome measures are required for Reading First districts.

For grade 3, all 14 states identify their statewide reading assessment
as measuring comprehension; 11 also identify vocabulary. Phonics is
identified by only three states. Nine of these 14 states identify the
statewide reading assessment as the only Reading First outcome measure
for a component. Five states require other assessments for Reading First
districts. Two states use both strategies for different components.

In summary, 30 states administer statewide reading assessments in grade
3, and few do so at grades below 3. Twenty of these states identify
their grade 3 statewide reading assessments as measures of Reading First
outcomes, primarily for just vocabulary and comprehension. None of the
states identify their statewide reading assessments as outcome measures
in the area of fluency, presumably because it requires individual
assessment of children.

# Similarities in How Well Standards and Assessments Represent the Essential Elements {#similarities-in-how-well-standards-and-assessments-represent-the-essential-elements .unnumbered}

This study looked for similarities in how well state K-3 reading
standards represent the five essential elements and whether the state
identified its reading assessments as measuring Reading First outcomes.
Few relationships were found in the 20 sampled states. There is a
moderate difference in the number of reading standards clearly
representing the essential elements. States identifying their reading
assessments as Reading First outcome measures average 92.6 standards,
while states not identifying their assessments and states with no K-3
assessments average 72.1 and 76.1 standards, respectively. Also, the
degree of visibility of the five essential elements in the organization
of state reading standards was found to relate somewhat to the
identification of state reading assessments as Reading First outcome
measures. Five of the eight states (62.5 percent) that identify their
statewide reading assessments as Reading First outcome measures make all
elements visible, compared to 50 percent of the states that do not
identify their assessments for Reading First or have no K-3 reading
assessments.

# Discussion and Conclusions {#discussion-and-conclusions .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

# Degree and Quality of Standards' Representation of the Essential Elements {#degree-and-quality-of-standards-representation-of-the-essential-elements .unnumbered}

State reading standards for K-3 represent reading comprehension better
than any of the other essential elements of reading instruction in the
20 sampled states. Comprehension of text is represented by the largest
number of standards and the highest percentage of clear standards,
followed by vocabulary, phonics, fluency, and phonemic awareness. Some
standards representing phonemic awareness or phonics were judged unclear
due to the confusion and mixing together of standards representing these
two elements.

The appropriateness of the grade level assignment of standards was
fairly high overall. The lowest percentage of states judged to have
assigned most or all standards to an appropriate grade level was 67
percent for phonemic awareness. The highest percentage was for
comprehension, followed by vocabulary, fluency, phonics, and phonemic
awareness. A typical reviewer comment was that the grade placement of
phonemic awareness and phonics standards was too high, suggesting that
expectations in these two areas could be increased, especially for
students in kindergarten and grade 1.

The coverage of content in each essential element followed a similar
pattern. Comprehension standards were judged to cover most or all of the
appropriate content in 90 percent of the states. Comprehension was
followed by phonics, vocabulary, phonemic awareness, and fluency.
Fluency standards appeared to include some but not all of three
subcomponents: rate, accuracy, and expression (prosody). The phonemic
awareness standards were also faulted for failing to include all
subcomponents but not any in particular. Some states left out phoneme
identity, some left out phoneme segmentation, etc. The content missing
for vocabulary was most frequently direct instruction and strategies for
figuring out the meaning of new words.

State reading standards were not judged as high on appropriate level of
detail, erring primarily on the side of being too broad. The highest
percentage of states with an appropriate level of detail was 80 percent
for comprehension of text, followed by vocabulary, phonics, phonemic
awareness, and fluency. In most cases, when standards were judged as not
having an appropriate level of detail, it was because they were too
broad. Fluency standards appeared to be judged too broad because, as in
the case of content coverage, they did not include specifics about all
three subcomponents: rate, accuracy, and expression.

Overall, standards representing comprehension were most numerous, clear,
at an appropriate grade level, comprehensive in coverage, and written at
an appropriate level of detail. Vocabulary usually came next. This
outcome is consistent with states' having a great deal of experience
developing standards in comprehension and vocabulary, and less
experience with the other three elements only recently emphasized by the
National Reading Panel reports.

There were several interesting relationships observed among the
reviewers' judgments about the number and quality of reading standards.
States with larger numbers of standards have standards that provide
better coverage, are more likely to be at an appropriate grade level,
and are written more often at an appropriate level of detail. A
relationship between coverage and level of detail was also found.
Apparently, reviewers required a reasonably small "grain size" to be
able to see whether there was adequate coverage.

Finally, certain aspects of the organization of reading standards were
related to how well the standards represent the essential elements of
effective reading instruction. Both the number and quality of reading
standards were directly related to the number of essential elements that
were clearly visible in the organizational hierarchy. The more elements
that were clearly visible, the more standards there were representing
each of the elements and the better the coverage that was provided for
each element. Coverage was also found to relate to the organization
level at which the elements were made visible. Visibility at the highest
level related to better coverage of the elements.

# Statewide Reading Assessments' Representation of the Essential Elements {#statewide-reading-assessments-representation-of-the-essential-elements .unnumbered}

The review of the 50 state and the District of Columbia Reading First
applications suggests that statewide reading assessments in place during
the 2003-04 school year do not play a significant role in promoting
reading instruction in the five essential areas, with the possible
exception of vocabulary development and text comprehension in grade 3.
Only 30 states administer statewide reading assessments in grade 3, and
very few do so at grades below 3. Even in grade 3, only two-thirds of
the states with statewide reading assessments (20 out of 30) identify
their assessments as measures of Reading First outcomes, and primarily
for only vocabulary and comprehension. As states develop statewide
reading assessments for grade 3 students to comply with NCLB, they may
develop them to be compatible with the Reading First program
requirements.

Most states identifying their statewide assessments as Reading First
outcome measures also identify the essential elements that are measured.
None of the states identifies its statewide reading assessments as
Reading First outcome measures in the area of fluency. They target
phonemic awareness and phonics as well as early vocabulary development
and comprehension skills. The measurement of (oral) fluency presents,
and will probably continue to present, challenges to large-scale
assessment programs, because it requires individual assessment of
children which is costly and time-consuming.

# Relationships between Standards' and Assessments' Representation of Essential Elements {#relationships-between-standards-and-assessments-representation-of-essential-elements .unnumbered}

Modest differences in the number and visibility of reading standards
were found between states that identified their statewide reading
assessments as Reading First outcome measures and those that did not. It
is possible that states identifying their assessments for Reading First
outcome measures have paid more attention to whether their assessments
and standards are aligned with the essential elements of effective
reading instruction.

# References {#references .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., and Osborn, J. (2003). *Put reading first:
The research building blocks for teaching children to read.* (2nd ed.)
Washington, D.C.: Partnership for Reading.

Cohen, S. A. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic
bullet. *Educational Researcher,* 16(8), 16-20.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). *Criteria for
standards*. Washington, D.C.: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. *Common core of data,
2001-02:* *Build a table.* U.S. Department of Education. Available:
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). *Digest of Education
Statistics, 2002*. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

National Reading Panel (2000). *Teaching children to read: An
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on
reading and its implications for reading instruction*. Washington, D.C.:
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Smith, M. S., and O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H.
Fuhrman and B. Malen (eds.), *The politics of curriculum and testing*.
Bristol, Pa.: Falmer.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). *Guidance for the Reading First
program.* Washington, D.C.: Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education, U.S. Department of Education.

Webb, N. L. (1997). *Determining alignment of expectations and
assessments in mathematics and science education*. Madison, Wis.:
National Center for Improving Science Education, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.

#  {#section-11 .unnumbered}

Wixson, K. K. and Dutro, E. (1998). *Standards for primary-grade
reading: An analysis of state frameworks*. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Center for
the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, University of Michigan.

#  {#section-12 .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

# Appendices {#appendices .Style-Heading-1.1-+-Bottom:-(Single-solid-line-Auto--2.25-pt-Line... .unnumbered}

***Appendix A. National Reading Panel Description of the Essential
Components of Reading Instruction***

***Appendix B. Stratified Random Sample of 20 States***

***Appendix C. Documentation Used in Review of State K-3 Reading
Standards***

***Appendix D. Standards Review Instrument***

***Appendix E. State Assessment Review Form***

***Appendix F. Results of Analyses of Ratings of State K-3 Reading
Standards***

# Appendix A. National Reading Panel Description of the Essential Components of Reading Instruction {#appendix-a.-national-reading-panel-description-of-the-essential-components-of-reading-instruction .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

The following excerpts are taken from the summary report of the National
Reading Panel (2000). They provide a brief description of each of the
five essential components of reading instruction and the evidence for
their impact on learning to read.

# Phonemic Awareness {#phonemic-awareness .unnumbered}

> Phonemes are the smallest units composing spoken language. For
> example, the words "go" and "she" each consist of two sounds or
> phonemes. Phonemes are different from letters that represent phonemes
> in the spellings of words. Instruction in phonemic awareness (PA)
> involves teaching children to focus on and manipulate phonemes in
> spoken syllables and words. (p. 7)
>
> Overall, the findings showed that teaching children to manipulate
> phonemes in words was highly effective under a variety of teaching
> conditions with a variety of learners across a range of grade and age
> levels and that teaching phonemic awareness to children significantly
> improves their reading more than instruction that lacks any attention
> to PA. (p. 7)

# Phonics {#phonics .unnumbered}

> The primary focus of phonics instruction is to help beginning readers
> understand how letters are linked to sounds (phonemes) to form
> letter-sound correspondences and spelling patterns and to help them
> learn how to apply this knowledge in their reading. (p. 8)
>
> The meta-analysis revealed that systematic phonics instruction
> produces significant benefits for students in kindergarten through
> sixth grade and for children having difficulty learning to read. The
> ability to read and spell words was enhanced in kindergartners who
> received systematic beginning phonics instruction. First-graders who
> were taught phonics systematically were better able to decode and
> spell, and they showed significant improvement in their ability to
> comprehend text. Older children receiving phonics instruction were
> better able to decode and spell words and to read text orally, but
> their comprehension of text was not significantly improved. (p. 9)

# Fluency {#fluency .unnumbered}

> Fluent readers are able to read orally with speed, accuracy, and
> proper expression. Fluency is one of several critical factors
> necessary for reading comprehension. (p. 11)
>
> ... \[T\]he Panel concluded that guided repeated oral reading
> procedures that included guidance from teachers, peers, or parents had
> a significant and positive impact on word recognition, fluency, and
> comprehension across a range of grade levels. (p. 12)

# Vocabulary {#vocabulary .unnumbered}

> There are two types of vocabulary---oral and print. A reader who
> encounters a strange word in print can decode the word to speech. If
> it is in the reader's oral vocabulary, the reader will be able to
> understand it. If the word is not in the reader's oral vocabulary, the
> reader will have to determine the meaning by other means, if possible.
> Consequently, the larger the reader's vocabulary (either oral or
> print), the easier it is to make sense of the text. (p. 13)
>
> The findings on vocabulary yielded several specific implications for
> teaching reading. First, vocabulary should be taught both directly and
> indirectly. Repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary items are
> important. Learning in rich contexts, incidental learning, and use of
> computer technology all enhance the acquisition of vocabulary. (p. 14)

# Text Comprehension {#text-comprehension .unnumbered}

> ... \[C\]omprehension is an active process that requires an
> intentional and thoughtful interaction between the reader and the
> text.... Thus, readers derive meaning from text when they engage in
> intentional, problem solving thinking processes. (p. 14)
>
> ... \[T\]he evidence suggests that teaching a combination of reading
> comprehension techniques is the most effective. When students use them
> appropriately, they assist in recall, question answering, question
> generation, and summarization of texts. When used in combination,
> these techniques can improve results in standardized comprehension
> tests. (p. 15)

# Appendix B. Stratified Random Sample of 20 States {#appendix-b.-stratified-random-sample-of-20-states .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

  ----------------------------- -------------------- --------------------
  **State**                     **Enrollment**       **Region**

  Pennsylvania                  1,821,627            Northeast

  New York                      2,872,132            Northeast

  New Jersey                    1,341,656            Northeast

  Massachusetts                 973,140              Northeast

  Virginia                      1,163,091            Southeast

  South Carolina                691,078              Southeast

  North Carolina                1,315,363            Southeast

  Louisiana                     731,328              Southeast

  Florida                       2,500,478            Southeast

  Ohio                          1,830,985            Central

  Missouri                      909,792              Central

  Minnesota                     851,384              Central

  Michigan                      1,730,668            Central

  Illinois                      2,071,391            Central

  Wyoming                       88,128               West

  Washington                    1,009,200            West

  Texas                         4,163,447            West

  Nevada                        356,814              West

  New Mexico                    320,260              West

  California                    6,248,610            West

  **Total**                     32,990,572           

  Percent of U.S. Enrollment    69.2%                

  U.S. Enrollment               47,687,871           
  ----------------------------- -------------------- --------------------

**Sampling Method:** Each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia
was assigned to one of four geographic regions (using the first
definition in the *Digest of Education Statistics, 2002*). The total
student enrollment for each state was taken from the Build A Table
resource of the Common Core of Data, 2001-02. The states were stratified
by region and a probability sample of 20 states was drawn with the
probability of being sampled proportionate to total enrollment. This
procedure facilitated drawing states that were geographically
representative of the country and serving relatively large numbers of
students.

# Appendix C. Documentation Used in Review of State K-3 Reading Standards in 2003-04 {#appendix-c.-documentation-used-in-review-of-state-k-3-reading-standards-in-2003-04 .unnumbered}

The documents used to review the K-3 reading content standards for each
of the 20 sampled states are listed below. The Internet address where
these standards documents were found is also provided. (These addresses
were last accessed successfully on or about Jan. 31, 2004.)

California

*English-Language Arts Content Standards for California Public Schools:
Kindergarten Through Grade 12*

http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/standards-pdfs/english-language-arts.pdf

Florida

*Language Arts Standards: Pre-K-2 and 3-5*

*Grade Level Expectations for the Sunshine State Standards: K-2*

*Grade Level Expectations for the Sunshine State Standards: 3-5*

*Grade Level Expectations for the Sunshine State Standards: K, 1, 2, and
3*

http://www.firn.edu/doe/curric/prek12/frame2.htm

(Provides access to all of the above.)

Illinois

*English Language Arts: State Goals: 1-5*

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ils/english/english.html

*English Language Arts Performance Descriptors*

http://www.isbe.net/ils/pdfs/English_PDs_1-5.pdf

Louisiana

*Content Standards*

<http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/2909.pdf>

*English Language Arts (ELA) Grade Level Expectations*

<http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/3906.pdf>

Massachusetts

*Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework, June 2001*

<http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ela/0601.pdf>

Michigan

*Michigan Curriculum Framework (English Language Arts Section)*

<http://michigan.gov/documents/MichiganCurriculumFramework_8172_7.pdf>

*Draft Grade Level Content Expectations---Reading K-5*

(Not posted on Internet. Obtained from state.)

Minnesota

*Minnesota Academic Standards: Language Arts K-12, May 19, 2003*

http://education.state.mn.us/content/009200.pdf

Missouri

*The Show-Me Knowledge Standards: Communication Arts*

<http://dese.mo.gov/standards/comarts.html>

*Framework for Curriculum Development in Communication Arts K-12*

<http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/webframeworks/01CA.PDF>

*Communication Arts Grade-Level Expectations---Aug. 15, 2003*

http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/GLE/Comm_Arts_Grade-Level_Expectations_8.15.03.pdf

Nevada

*Nevada English Language Arts Content Standards for Kindergarten and
Grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12*

http://www.nde.state.nv.us/sca/standards/standardsfiles/ela/elacont.pdf

New Jersey

*New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards for Language Arts
Literacy*

<http://www.nj.gov/njded/cccs/02/lal.pdf>

New Mexico

*New Mexico Curriculum Framework---Language Arts*

<http://164.64.166.11/cilt/downloads/standards/stand_la.pdf>

New York

*Learning Standards for English Language Arts*. March, 1996

<http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/ela/pub/elalearn.pdf>

*English Language Arts Resource Guide: Core Curriculum*

<http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/ela/pub/ccela.pdf>

*Early Literacy Guidance: Prekindergarten---Grade 3*

<http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/ela/early.pdf>

North Carolina

*English Language Arts Curriculum (Selected Sections/Links)*

<http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/languagearts/>

(click on "Curriculum Approved: 1999" link)

Ohio

*Academic Content Standards: K-12 English Language Arts*

<http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/pdf/ENGLISH.pdf>

Pennsylvania

*Academic Standards for Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening*

<http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/lib/k12/Reading.pdf>

*Standards and Eligible Content*

<http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/cwp/view.asp?A=108&Q=98808#blueprint>

South Carolina

*South Carolina English Language Arts Curriculum Standards 2002*

<http://www.sde.state.sc.us/offices/cso/standards/ela/documents/standards.pdf>

Texas

*Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 19, Part II*

*Chapter 110. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for English Language
Arts and Reading*

<http://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter110/>

Virginia

*English Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools, Nov. 20,
2002*

<http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Superintendent/Sols/EnglishSOLFinal02.pdf>

Washington

*Essential Academic Learning Requirements---Reading*

<http://www.k12.wa.us/curriculumInstruct/reading/ealrs.aspx>

*Grade Level Expectations Reports*

<http://www.k12.wa.us/curriculuminstruct/reading/pubdocs/ReadingEALR-GLE.pdf>

Wyoming

*Wyoming Language Arts Content and Performance Standards---July 7, 2003*

http://www.k12.wy.us/eqa/nca/pubs/standards/lang.pdf

#  {#section-13 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-14 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-15 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-16 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-17 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-18 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-19 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

# . {#section-20 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-21 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-22 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-23 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-24 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-25 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-26 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-27 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-28 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-29 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-30 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-31 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-32 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-33 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-34 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-35 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-36 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-37 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-38 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-39 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-40 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-41 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-42 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-43 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

# Appendix D. Standards Review Instrument {#appendix-d.-standards-review-instrument .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

How Well Do the Standards Represent **Phonemic Awareness**?

1\. Identify the state standards that describe student knowledge and
skills in the area of **Phonemic Awareness**. Write, copy, or reference
each standard in one of the columns below that best describes how
clearly and explicitly the standard represents this area of reading
instruction. If referencing, please use a code, such as an outline
identifier used in the state's documentation, that accurately and
uniquely identifies the standard in the state's documentation. Also,
indicate the grade level of the standard by placing a K, 1, 2, or 3 in
parentheses next to it.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Standards that clearly  Standards that require  Standards that are only
  and explicitly          some interpretation or  vaguely or remotely
  represent **Phonemic    "reading between the    related to **Phonemic
  Awareness**             lines" to make the      Awareness**
                          connection to           
                          **Phonemic Awareness**  

                                                  

  Describe below any                              
  standards or features                           
  of the state's                                  
  organization of its                             
  standards that might be                         
  inconsistent with                               
  instruction in                                  
  **Phonemic Awareness**                          
  that is based on                                
  reading research                                
  reported by the                                 
  National Reading Panel.                         
  Give or reference                               
  examples.                                       
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

2\. How well do the standards representing **Phonemic Awareness**
describe student knowledge and skills appropriate for the grades to
which the standards have been assigned by the state? (Indicate which
column is the best response by checking, circling, bolding, underlining,
etc.)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  All are        Most are       About half are Few are        None are
  appropriate    appropriate    appropriate    appropriate    appropriate

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If all are appropriate, go to item 3. If not, please explain here how
  these standards are not grade-appropriate, e.g., inappropriate
  sequencing, difficulty, or complexity. Identify which standards and
  which areas of **Phonemic Awareness** are affected.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

3\. How well do the standards provide complete coverage of the student
knowledge and skills in the area of **Phonemic Awareness**? (Indicate
which column is the best response.)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  All are        Most are       About half are Few are        None are
  covered        covered        covered        covered        covered

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If all knowledge and skills are covered, go to item 4. If not, please
  explain here what student knowledge and skills are missing. If coverage
  varies across grades, please describe how.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

4\. How well do the standards representing **Phonemic Awareness**
provide an appropriate level of detail? An appropriate level of detail
would provide sufficient specificity to promote alignment among
curriculum, instruction, and assessment and sufficient flexibility to
provide curricular guidelines that could be translated into
instructional activities tailored to the needs of different students?
(Indicate which column is the best response.)

  --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Much too        Somewhat too    Appropriate    Somewhat too   Much too
  broad/general   broad/general   level of       specific       specific
                                  detail                        

  --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If the standards provide an appropriate level of detail, go to item 5.
  If not, please describe and give examples of how these standards
  provide too little or too much detail. Explain how instruction in the
  area of **Phonemic Awareness** would be affected.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

5\. Are there any other comments you would like to make that would help
us understand how well this state's standards represent the reading
instructional area of **Phonemic Awareness**?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Additional comments:

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

How Well Do the Standards Represent **Phonics**?

1\. Identify the state standards that describe student knowledge and
skills in the area of **Phonics**. Write, copy, or reference each
standard in one of the columns below that best describes how clearly and
explicitly the standard represents this area of reading instruction. If
referencing, please use a code, such as an outline identifier used in
the state's documentation, that accurately and uniquely identifies the
standard in the state's documentation. Also, indicate the grade level of
the standard by placing a K, 1, 2, or 3 in parentheses next to it.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Standards that clearly  Standards that require  Standards that are only
  and explicitly          some interpretation or  vaguely or remotely
  represent **Phonics**   "reading between the    related to **Phonics**
                          lines" to make the      
                          connection to           
                          **Phonics**             

                                                  

  Describe below any                              
  standards or features                           
  of the state's                                  
  organization of its                             
  standards that might be                         
  inconsistent with                               
  instruction in                                  
  **Phonics** that is                             
  based on reading                                
  research reported by                            
  the National Reading                            
  Panel. Give or                                  
  reference examples.                             
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

2\. How well do the standards representing **Phonics** describe student
knowledge and skills appropriate for the grades to which the standards
have been assigned by the state? (Indicate which column is the best
response by checking, circling, bolding, underlining, etc.)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  All are        Most are       About half are Few are        None are
  appropriate    appropriate    appropriate    appropriate    appropriate

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If all are appropriate, go to item 3. If not, please explain here how
  these standards are not grade-appropriate, e.g., inappropriate
  sequencing, difficulty, or complexity. Identify which standards and
  which areas of **Phonics** are affected.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

3\. How well do the standards provide complete coverage of the student
knowledge and skills in the area of **Phonics**? (Indicate which column
is the best response.)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  All are        Most are       About half are Few are        None are
  covered        covered        covered        covered        covered

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If all knowledge and skills are covered, go to item 4. If not, please
  explain here what student knowledge and skills are missing. If coverage
  varies across grades, please describe how.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

4\. How well do the standards representing **Phonics** provide an
appropriate level of detail? An appropriate level of detail would
provide sufficient specificity to promote alignment among curriculum,
instruction, and assessment and sufficient flexibility to provide
curricular guidelines that could be translated into instructional
activities tailored to the needs of different students? (Indicate which
column is the best response.)

  --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Much too        Somewhat too    Appropriate    Somewhat too   Much too
  broad/general   broad/general   level of       specific       specific
                                  detail                        

  --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If the standards provide an appropriate level of detail, go to item 5.
  If not, please describe and give examples of how these standards
  provide too little or too much detail. Explain how instruction in the
  area of **Phonics** would be affected.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

5\. Are there any other comments you would like to make that would help
us understand how well this state's standards represent the reading
instructional area of **Phonics**?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Additional comments:

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

How Well Do the Standards Represent **Fluency**?

1\. Identify the state standards that describe student knowledge and
skills in the area of **Fluency**. Write, copy, or reference each
standard in one of the columns below that best describes how clearly and
explicitly the standard represents this area of reading instruction. If
referencing, please use a code, such as an outline identifier used in
the state's documentation, that accurately and uniquely identifies the
standard in the state's documentation. Also, indicate the grade level of
the standard by placing a K, 1, 2, or 3 in parentheses next to it.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Standards that clearly  Standards that require  Standards that are only
  and explicitly          some interpretation or  vaguely or remotely
  represent **Fluency**   "reading between the    related to **Fluency**
                          lines" to make the      
                          connection to           
                          **Fluency**             

                                                  

  Describe below any                              
  standards or features                           
  of the state's                                  
  organization of its                             
  standards that might be                         
  inconsistent with                               
  instruction in                                  
  **Fluency** that is                             
  based on reading                                
  research reported by                            
  the National Reading                            
  Panel. Give or                                  
  reference examples.                             
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

2\. How well do the standards representing **Fluency** describe student
knowledge and skills appropriate for the grades to which the standards
have been assigned by the state? (Indicate which column is the best
response by checking, circling, bolding, underlining, etc.)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  All are        Most are       About half are Few are        None are
  appropriate    appropriate    appropriate    appropriate    appropriate

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If all are appropriate, go to item 3. If not, please explain here how
  these standards are not grade-appropriate, e.g., inappropriate
  sequencing, difficulty, or complexity. Identify which standards and
  which areas of **Fluency** are affected.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

3\. How well do the standards provide complete coverage of the student
knowledge and skills in the area of **Fluency**? (Indicate which column
is the best response.)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  All are        Most are       About half are Few are        None are
  covered        covered        covered        covered        covered

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If all knowledge and skills are covered, go to item 4. If not, please
  explain here what student knowledge and skills are missing. If coverage
  varies across grades, please describe how.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

4\. How well do the standards representing **Fluency** provide an
appropriate level of detail? An appropriate level of detail would
provide sufficient specificity to promote alignment among curriculum,
instruction, and assessment and sufficient flexibility to provide
curricular guidelines that could be translated into instructional
activities tailored to the needs of different students? (Indicate which
column is the best response.)

  --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Much too        Somewhat too    Appropriate    Somewhat too   Much too
  broad/general   broad/general   level of       specific       specific
                                  detail                        

  --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If the standards provide an appropriate level of detail, go to item 5.
  If not, please describe and give examples of how these standards
  provide too little or too much detail. Explain how instruction in the
  area of **Fluency** would be affected.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

5\. Are there any other comments you would like to make that would help
us understand how well this state's standards represent the reading
instructional area of **Fluency**?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Additional comments:

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

How Well Do the Standards Represent **Vocabulary**?

1\. Identify the state standards that describe student knowledge and
skills in the area of **Vocabulary**. Write, copy, or reference each
standard in one of the columns below that best describes how clearly and
explicitly the standard represents this area of reading instruction. If
referencing, please use a code, such as an outline identifier used in
the state's documentation, that accurately and uniquely identifies the
standard in the state's documentation. Also, indicate the grade level of
the standard by placing a K, 1, 2, or 3 in parentheses next to it.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Standards that clearly  Standards that require  Standards that are only
  and explicitly          some interpretation or  vaguely or remotely
  represent               "reading between the    related to
  **Vocabulary**          lines" to make the      **Vocabulary**
                          connection to           
                          **Vocabulary**          

                                                  

  Describe below any                              
  standards or features                           
  of the state's                                  
  organization of its                             
  standards that might be                         
  inconsistent with                               
  instruction in                                  
  **Vocabulary** that is                          
  based on reading                                
  research reported by                            
  the National Reading                            
  Panel. Give or                                  
  reference examples.                             
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

2\. How well do the standards representing **Vocabulary** describe
student knowledge and skills appropriate for the grades to which the
standards have been assigned by the state? (Indicate which column is the
best response by checking, circling, bolding, underlining, etc.)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  All are        Most are       About half are Few are        None are
  appropriate    appropriate    appropriate    appropriate    appropriate

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If all are appropriate, go to item 3. If not, please explain here how
  these standards are not grade-appropriate, e.g., inappropriate
  sequencing, difficulty, or complexity. Identify which standards and
  which areas of **Vocabulary** are affected.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

3\. How well do the standards provide complete coverage of the student
knowledge and skills in the area of **Vocabulary**? (Indicate which
column is the best response.)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  All are        Most are       About half are Few are        None are
  covered        covered        covered        covered        covered

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If all knowledge and skills are covered, go to item 4. If not, please
  explain here what student knowledge and skills are missing. If coverage
  varies across grades, please describe how.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

4\. How well do the standards representing **Vocabulary** provide an
appropriate level of detail? An appropriate level of detail would
provide sufficient specificity to promote alignment among curriculum,
instruction, and assessment and sufficient flexibility to provide
curricular guidelines that could be translated into instructional
activities tailored to the needs of different students? (Indicate which
column is the best response.)

  --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Much too        Somewhat too    Appropriate    Somewhat too   Much too
  broad/general   broad/general   level of       specific       specific
                                  detail                        

  --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If the standards provide an appropriate level of detail, go to item 5.
  If not, please describe and give examples of how these standards
  provide too little or too much detail. Explain how instruction in the
  area of **Vocabulary** would be affected.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

5\. Are there any other comments you would like to make that would help
us understand how well this state's standards represent the reading
instructional area of **Vocabulary**?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Additional comments:

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

How Well Do the Standards Represent **Comprehension**?

1\. Identify the state standards that describe student knowledge and
skills in the area of **Comprehension**. Write, copy, or reference each
standard in one of the columns below that best describes how clearly and
explicitly the standard represents this area of reading instruction. If
referencing, please use a code, such as an outline identifier used in
the state's documentation, that accurately and uniquely identifies the
standard in the state's documentation. Also, indicate the grade level of
the standard by placing a K, 1, 2, or 3 in parentheses next to it.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Standards that clearly  Standards that require  Standards that are only
  and explicitly          some interpretation or  vaguely or remotely
  represent               "reading between the    related to
  **Comprehension**       lines" to make the      **Comprehension**
                          connection to           
                          **Comprehension**       

                                                  

  Describe below any                              
  standards or features                           
  of the state's                                  
  organization of its                             
  standards that might be                         
  inconsistent with                               
  instruction in                                  
  **Comprehension** that                          
  is based on reading                             
  research reported by                            
  the National Reading                            
  Panel. Give or                                  
  reference examples.                             
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

2\. How well do the standards representing **Comprehension** describe
student knowledge and skills appropriate for the grades to which the
standards have been assigned by the state? (Indicate which column is the
best response by checking, circling, bolding, underlining, etc.)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  All are        Most are       About half are Few are        None are
  appropriate    appropriate    appropriate    appropriate    appropriate

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If all are appropriate, go to item 3. If not, please explain here how
  these standards are not grade-appropriate, e.g., inappropriate
  sequencing, difficulty, or complexity. Identify which standards and
  which areas of **Comprehension** are affected.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

3\. How well do the standards provide complete coverage of the student
knowledge and skills in the area of **Comprehension**? (Indicate which
column is the best response.)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  All are        Most are       About half are Few are        None are
  covered        covered        covered        covered        covered

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If all knowledge and skills are covered, go to item 4. If not, please
  explain here what student knowledge and skills are missing. If coverage
  varies across grades, please describe how.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

4\. How well do the standards representing **Comprehension** provide an
appropriate level of detail? An appropriate level of detail would
provide sufficient specificity to promote alignment among curriculum,
instruction, and assessment and sufficient flexibility to provide
curricular guidelines that could be translated into instructional
activities tailored to the needs of different students? (Indicate which
column is the best response.)

  --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Much too        Somewhat too    Appropriate    Somewhat too   Much too
  broad/general   broad/general   level of       specific       specific
                                  detail                        

  --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  If the standards provide an appropriate level of detail, go to item 5.
  If not, please describe and give examples of how these standards
  provide too little or too much detail. Explain how instruction in the
  area of **Comprehension** would be affected.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

5\. Are there any other comments you would like to make that would help
us understand how well this state's standards represent the reading
instructional area of **Comprehension**?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Additional comments:

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

General Questions

1\. Summarize the major ways in which the state's reading content
standards provide support for the type of reading instruction called for
in the five essential areas. How could the state improve the level of
this support?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

2\. Summarize the ways in which any of the state's reading content
standards are inconsistent with the five essential areas of reading
instruction identified based on reading research reported by the
National Reading Panel. What could be done to reduce these
inconsistencies?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Appendix E. State Assessment Review Form {#appendix-e.-state-assessment-review-form .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

# Sample Page {#sample-page .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-44 .Style-Heading-1.2-+-Centered .unnumbered}

#  {#section-45 .unnumbered}

#  {#section-46 .unnumbered}

# Appendix F. Results of Analyses of Ratings of State K-3 Reading Standards {#appendix-f.-results-of-analyses-of-ratings-of-state-k-3-reading-standards .unnumbered}

**Table F-1**

**Number of State Standards Representing Student Knowledge and Skills in
Each Essential Element in 2003-04**

  --------------- -------------- ------ ------ -------------- ------ ------ -------------- ------- -------
  **Essential     **Number of                  **Number of                  **Total Number         
  Element of      Standards                    Standards                    of Standards           
  Reading         Clearly and                  Ambiguously                  Representing           
  Instruction**   Explicitly                   Representing                 Element**              
                  Representing                 Element**                                           
                  Element**                                                                        

                  Range          Mean   \%     Range          Mean   \%     Range          Mean    \%

  Phonemic        0-11           3.8    60.3   0-8            2.5    39.7   0-14           6.3     100.0
  Awareness                                                                                        

  Phonics         0-40           11.6   73.9   0-14           4.1    26.1   1-40           15.7    100.0

  Fluency         0-14           4.2    65.6   0-8            2.2    34.4   2-16           6.4     100.0

  Vocabulary      1-35           14.8   79.6   0-13           3.8    20.4   3-40           18.6    100.0

  Comprehension   9-123          47.5   83.5   0-25           9.4    16.5   9-130          56.9    100.0

  All Five        12-216         81.9   78.9   4-40           21.9   21.1   19-227         103.8   100.0
  Elements                                                                                         
  --------------- -------------- ------ ------ -------------- ------ ------ -------------- ------- -------

**Table F-2**

**Distribution of States by Appropriateness of Grade Level to Which
Standards**

**Representing Each Essential Element Are Assigned in 2003-04**

  --------------- --------------- ------ --------------- ------ --------------- ------ --------------- ------ --------------- ----- --------------------- -----------
  **Essential     **All Are              **Most Are             **About Half           **Few Are              **None Are            **Mean                
  Element of      Appropriate**          Appropriate**          Are                    Appropriate**          Appropriate**         Appropriateness\***   
  Reading                                                       Appropriate**                                                                             
  Instruction**                                                                                                                                           

                  N               \%     N               \%     N               \%     N               \%     N               \%    M                     Label

  Phonemic        6               33.3   6               33.3   4               22.2   1               11.1   0               0.0   2.3                   Most/Half
  Awareness\*\*                                                                                                                                           

  Phonics         8               40.0   7               35.0   4               20.0   1               5.0    0               0.0   2.2                   Most

  Fluency         13              65.0   6               30.0   1               5.0    0               0.0    0               0.0   1.7                   All/Most

  Vocabulary      15              75.0   4               20.0   1               5.0    0               0.0    0               0.0   1.7                   All/Most

  Comprehension   16              80.0   4               20.0   0               0.0    0               0.0    0               0.0   1.5                   All/Most
  --------------- --------------- ------ --------------- ------ --------------- ------ --------------- ------ --------------- ----- --------------------- -----------

\* Rating categories were coded 1 (for All) through 5 (for None) before
calculating the mean. The labels were assigned to the resulting averages
based on the following rules: 1-1.25=All, 1.25-1.75=All/Most,
1.75-2.25=Most, 2.25-2.75=Most/Half, 2.75-3.25=Half, etc.

\*\* Two states had no standards representing phonemic awareness.

**Table F-3**

**Distribution of States by Adequacy of Coverage of Standards
Representing Each Essential Element in 2003-04**

  --------------- ----------- ------ ----------- ------ ----------- ------ ----------- ------ ----------- ------ -------------- -----------
  **Essential     **All Are          **Most Are         **About            **Few Are          **None Are         **Mean         
  Element of      Covered**          Covered**          Half Are           Covered**          Covered**          Coverage\***   
  Reading                                               Covered**                                                               
  Instruction**                                                                                                                 

                  N           \%     N           \%     N           \%     N           \%     N           \%     M              Label

  Phonemic        7           35.0   5           25.0   2           10.0   4           20.0   2           10.0   2.7            Most/Half
  Awareness                                                                                                                     

  Phonics         4           20.0   12          60.0   1           5.0    3           15.0   0           0.0    2.4            Most/Half

  Fluency         6           30.0   5           25.0   8           40.0   1           5.0    0           0.0    2.4            Most/Half

  Vocabulary      4           20.0   8           40.0   6           30.0   2           10.0   0           0.0    2.5            Most/Half

  Comprehension   13          65.0   5           25.0   1           5.0    1           5.0    0           0.0    1.6            All/Most
  --------------- ----------- ------ ----------- ------ ----------- ------ ----------- ------ ----------- ------ -------------- -----------

\* Rating categories were coded 1 (for All) through 5 (for None) before
calculating the mean. The labels were assigned to the resulting averages
based on the following rules: 1-1.25=All, 1.25-1.75=All/Most,
1.75-2.25=Most, 2.25-2.75=Most/Half, 2.75-3.25=Half, etc.

**Table F-4**

**Distribution of States by Appropriateness of Level of Detail of
Standards Representing Each Essential Element in 2003-04**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Essential Element of Reading
Instruction</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Much Too Broad/General</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Somewhat Too Broad/General</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Appropriate Level of Detail</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Somewhat Too Specific</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Much Too Specific</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Mean Level of Detail*</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>N</td>
<td>%</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>%</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>%</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>%</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>%</td>
<td>M</td>
<td>Label</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Phonemic Awareness**</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td><p>Somewhat Broad/</p>
<p>Appropriate</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Phonics</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>30.0</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>60.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td><p>Somewhat Broad/</p>
<p>Appropriate</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Fluency</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>20.0</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>45.0</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>35.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>Somewhat Broad</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Vocabulary</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>25.0</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>70.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td><p>Somewhat Broad/</p>
<p>Appropriate</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Comprehension</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>75.0</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>15.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>Appropriate</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\* Rating categories were coded 1 (for Much Too Broad) through 5 (for
Much Too Specific) before calculating the mean. The labels were assigned
to the resulting averages based on the following rules: 1-1.25=Much Too
Broad, 1.25-1.75=Much Too Broad/Somewhat Broad, 1.75-2.25=Somewhat
Broad, 2.25-2.75=Somewhat Broad/Appropriate, 2.75-3.25=Appropriate, etc.

\*\* Two states had no standards representing phonemic awareness.

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="8.516666666666667in"
height="11.010416666666666in"}

[^1]:
    > Total enrollment was used as a proxy for the size of the Reading
    > First grant. At the time that the sample was drawn, the Reading
    > First funding levels for the first year were not available for all
    > states. The correlation between total enrollment and Reading First
    > funding is very high. Based on the 49 states for which both pieces
    > of data were available, the correlation was 0.91.

[^2]:
    > Reviewers were not asked to identify standards that did not
    > represent the five elements since some states do not clearly
    > delineate which standards represent reading. Identifying all
    > reading standards that did not represent any of the five elements
    > would have been beyond the scope of this review.