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

Definition: Percentage of all public school students tested in 3rd grade who scored proficient or advanced on the English Language Arts California Standards Test, by socioeconomic status (e.g., 30% of economically disadvantaged 3rd graders in California scored proficient or advanced in 2010).

Data Source: California Department of Education, Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Results, 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). Students are considered "economically disadvantaged" if they are eligible for the free/reduced price lunch program or if neither parent graduated from high school. 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.

In order to score proficient on the CST, 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.

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