• Print
  • PDF
  • Download
  • Copy Chart
  • Embed
    This feature allows you to add a graph to your website or blog. The graph will automatically update whenever data are added to kidsdata.org.

Reading Proficiency


Third Grade Students Scoring Proficient or Higher on English Language Arts CST, by Socioeconomic Status: 2010 See Source and Notes
(Socioeconomic Status: All)

California Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 30% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 64% Barchart image
Alameda County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 29% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 68% Barchart image
Alpine County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged LNE
Non-Economically Disadvantaged LNE
Amador County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 29% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 53% Barchart image
Butte County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 29% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 52% Barchart image
Calaveras County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 33% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 50% Barchart image
Colusa County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 19% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 49% Barchart image
Contra Costa County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 26% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 67% Barchart image
Del Norte County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 34% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 39% Barchart image
El Dorado County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 35% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 67% Barchart image
Fresno County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 31% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 68% Barchart image
Glenn County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 24% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 51% Barchart image
Humboldt County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 29% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 51% Barchart image
Imperial County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 30% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 50% Barchart image
Inyo County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged LNE
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 57% Barchart image
Kern County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 26% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 54% Barchart image
Kings County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 30% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 57% Barchart image
Lake County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 26% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 54% Barchart image
Lassen County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 30% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 51% Barchart image
Los Angeles County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 31% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 64% Barchart image
Madera County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 28% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 48% Barchart image
Marin County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 33% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 79% Barchart image
Mariposa County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 36% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 49% Barchart image
Mendocino County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 25% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 55% Barchart image
Merced County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 29% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 50% Barchart image
Modoc County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 29% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged LNE
Mono County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 27% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 65% Barchart image
Monterey County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 20% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 57% Barchart image
Napa County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 23% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 54% Barchart image
Nevada County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 32% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 51% Barchart image
Orange County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 30% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 68% Barchart image
Placer County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 38% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 67% Barchart image
Plumas County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 52% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 62% Barchart image
Riverside County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 32% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 58% Barchart image
Sacramento County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 32% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 60% Barchart image
San Benito County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 23% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 50% Barchart image
San Bernardino County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 29% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 55% Barchart image
San Diego County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 32% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 68% Barchart image
San Francisco County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 36% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 62% Barchart image
San Joaquin County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 25% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 51% Barchart image
San Luis Obispo County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 32% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 62% Barchart image
San Mateo County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 30% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 69% Barchart image
Santa Barbara County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 24% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 63% Barchart image
Santa Clara County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 32% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 73% Barchart image
Santa Cruz County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 19% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 61% Barchart image
Shasta County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 37% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 58% Barchart image
Sierra County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged LNE
Non-Economically Disadvantaged LNE
Siskiyou County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 32% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 45% Barchart image
Solano County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 30% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 54% Barchart image
Sonoma County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 29% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 61% Barchart image
Stanislaus County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 29% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 57% Barchart image
Sutter County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 34% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 56% Barchart image
Tehama County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 40% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 66% Barchart image
Trinity County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 30% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 51% Barchart image
Tulare County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 26% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 55% Barchart image
Tuolumne County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 37% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 58% Barchart image
Ventura County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 25% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 64% Barchart image
Yolo County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 23% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 62% Barchart image
Yuba County Percent Range: 0 - 95%
Range scale
Economically Disadvantaged 31% Barchart image
Non-Economically Disadvantaged 50% Barchart image

Definition: Percentage of all public school students tested in third grade who scored proficient or advanced on the English-Language Arts California Standards Test (CST), by socioeconomic status (e.g., 30% of economically disadvantaged third graders in California scored proficient or advanced in 2010). In order to score Proficient, a student must demonstrate a competent and adequate understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area; scoring Advanced requires a comprehensive and complex understanding.

Data Source: California Department of Education, Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Results. Accessed online at http://star.cde.ca.gov/ (June 2011).

Footnote: Years presented are the final year of a school year (e.g., 2009-2010 is shown as 2010). "Socioeconomically Disadvantaged" is defined as a student neither of whose parents have received a high school diploma or a student who is eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program, also known as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). LNE (Low Number Event) refers to data that have been suppressed because there were fewer than 20 estimated students with proficient or advanced scores. N/A means that data are not available.

Learn More About this Topic

Measures of Reading Proficiency on Kidsdata.org

On kidsdata.org, reading proficiency is measured by the percentage of 3rd graders in public schools who score proficient or higher on the English Language Arts California Standards Test (CST). These data are available by English fluency, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Why This Topic Is Important

Third grade reading scores are highly correlated with later academic success; some research indicates that reading proficiency at the end of third grade is predictive of whether or not a student will graduate from high school. By the end of third grade, children should show evidence of reading comprehension and be able to read unfamiliar words by employing various strategies, such as roots, prefixes, and suffixes. Early intervention is critical for children who are struggling with reading. Third grade marks the transition from instruction in reading to relying on students' reading skills to teach subject material -- moving from "learning to read" to "reading to learn" (1).

Source for this narrative:

1. Musen, Lindsay. (2010). "Early Reading Proficiency." Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University.  http://www.annenberginstitute.org/pdf/LeadingIndicator_Reading.pdf

Policy Implications

Despite broad agreement on the need to boost reading proficiency among California students and to bridge the racial/ethnic achievement gap, there is sharp disagreement on policy reforms to achieve these goals. Research has documented the key domains for reading improvement (e.g. understanding the sounds words make, fluency in reading, vocabulary, etc.), but there is no single set of evidence-based approaches for making improvements in those domains. Quality teaching, however, is one key point of consensus. Teacher quality has been shown to have a significant impact on student achievement (1, 2, 3). As California and other states implement new “Common Core” state standards in English-language arts and math over the next several years, policymakers also will face challenges in authorizing new assessments, curricula, and teacher evaluation systems that align with the standards (4).

According to research and subject experts, policy options that could improve reading proficiency include:

  • Improving teacher quality at every grade level (1, 2, 3); recognizing that acquiring reading proficiency by third grade is a key indicator of later school achievement (5)
  • Investing in quality preschool for California children, to promote kindergarten readiness and lay the foundation for later achievement (6)
  • Choosing carefully before investing in reading interventions, given the developing research base and mixed results of many programs (7); key elements in successful literacy initiatives include ongoing student assessments as well as teacher professional development (8)
  • Articulating state, district, and school-level middle school policies emphasizing improving academic outcomes for all students, including tying student outcomes to teacher evaluations; aligning middle school curricula, instructional practices and assessments with state standards; and prioritizing student academic performance when selecting superintendents and principals (9)
  • Analyzing district and school-level data on student achievement and progress by racial/ethnic group, especially for children of color, so that data can inform policy (10)
  • Encouraging and investing in comprehensive, evidence-based policies to promote family involvement in school, as it is strongly related to children’s academic achievement (11). Family involvement should be integrated as part of the school instructional strategy, and family engagement policies should be evaluated for effectiveness.

For more policy ideas on reading proficiency in California, see the Research & Links section on kidsdata.org or visit the Center on the Future of Teaching and Learning, the Institute of Education Sciences What Works Clearinghouse, Education Trust-West, EdSource, and Preschool California. Also see Policy Implications on kidsdata.org under Math Proficiency, High School Dropouts and Family Income & Poverty.

Sources for this narrative:

  1. Darling-Hammond, Linda. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence. (Education Policy Analysis Archives). http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392
  2. Rivkin, et al. (2000). Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement
  3. Goe, Laura. (2007). The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes: A Research Synthesis. (National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality). http://www.tqsource.org/link.php
  4. California Department of Education. Common Core State Standards Resources. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cc/
  5. Musen, Lindsey. (2010). Early Reading Proficiency. (Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University). http://www.annenberginstitute.org/pdf/LeadingIndicator_Reading.pdf
  6. Barnett, et al. (2007). Effects of Five State Prekindergarten Programs on Early Learning. (National Institute for Early Education Research). http://nieer.org/pdf/MultiState1007.pdf
  7. US Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences. (2011). Beginning Reading. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/Topicarea.aspx?tid=01
  8. Alliance for Excellent Education, for the Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2006). Reading Next: A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy. http://www.all4ed.org/files/ReadingNext.pdf
  9. EdSource. (2010). Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better. //www.edsource.org/middle-grades-study.html
  10. EdSource. (2008). Raising African American Student Achievement: California Goals, Local Outcomeshttp://www.edsource.org/pub_AAachievement5-08_report.html
  11. Caspe, M., et al. (2007). Family Involvement in Elementary School Children’s Education. Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from: http://www.hfrp.org/family-involvement/publications-resources/family-involvement-in-elementary-school-children-s-education

How Children Are Faring

The percentage of 3rd graders scoring proficient or higher in English Language Arts on the California Standards Test (CST) increased between 2003 and 2010 statewide and in the most populous counties. Specifically, in 2010, 44% of California 3rd graders were proficient in English Language Arts, compared to 33% in 2003. Reading proficiency in 3rd grade varies by region, English fluency, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. However, the percentage of California 3rd graders demonstrating reading proficiency rose among English Learners, economically disadvantaged students, and students in all racial/ethnic groups for which data are available between 2005 and 2010.

Research and Links

Websites with Related Information

Key Reports

County/Regional Reports