• 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 Race/Ethnicity: 2010 See Source and Notes
(Race/Ethnicity: All)

California Percent
African American/Black 32%
Asian American 67%
Caucasian/White 61%
Filipino 59%
Hispanic/Latino 30%
Native American/Alaska Native 36%
Pacific Islander 39%
Multiracial 57%
Alameda County Percent
African American/Black 30%
Asian American 75%
Caucasian/White 71%
Filipino 58%
Hispanic/Latino 29%
Native American/Alaska Native 54%
Pacific Islander 39%
Multiracial 51%
Alpine County Percent
African American/Black N/A
Asian American N/A
Caucasian/White LNE
Filipino N/A
Hispanic/Latino N/A
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander N/A
Multiracial N/A
Amador County Percent
African American/Black N/A
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 51%
Filipino N/A
Hispanic/Latino LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander N/A
Multiracial LNE
Butte County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American 26%
Caucasian/White 44%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 29%
Native American/Alaska Native 31%
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 39%
Calaveras County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 46%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
Colusa County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 52%
Filipino N/A
Hispanic/Latino 19%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
Contra Costa County Percent
African American/Black 29%
Asian American 71%
Caucasian/White 67%
Filipino 61%
Hispanic/Latino 30%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander 31%
Multiracial 56%
Del Norte County Percent
African American/Black N/A
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 40%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
El Dorado County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American 82%
Caucasian/White 60%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 36%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 66%
Fresno County Percent
African American/Black 29%
Asian American 43%
Caucasian/White 64%
Filipino 70%
Hispanic/Latino 32%
Native American/Alaska Native 36%
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 57%
Glenn County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 53%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 22%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial N/A
Humboldt County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 45%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 24%
Native American/Alaska Native 27%
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 51%
Imperial County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 58%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 32%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander N/A
Multiracial LNE
Inyo County Percent
African American/Black N/A
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 50%
Filipino N/A
Hispanic/Latino LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander N/A
Multiracial LNE
Kern County Percent
African American/Black 26%
Asian American 57%
Caucasian/White 50%
Filipino 49%
Hispanic/Latino 26%
Native American/Alaska Native 36%
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 45%
Kings County Percent
African American/Black 25%
Asian American 64%
Caucasian/White 54%
Filipino 49%
Hispanic/Latino 30%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 45%
Lake County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 43%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 22%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
Lassen County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 43%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
Los Angeles County Percent
African American/Black 33%
Asian American 70%
Caucasian/White 65%
Filipino 63%
Hispanic/Latino 32%
Native American/Alaska Native 39%
Pacific Islander 41%
Multiracial 57%
Madera County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 47%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 27%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 62%
Marin County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American 79%
Caucasian/White 79%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 35%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 75%
Mariposa County Percent
African American/Black N/A
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 45%
Filipino N/A
Hispanic/Latino LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander N/A
Multiracial LNE
Mendocino County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 47%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 17%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
Merced County Percent
African American/Black 30%
Asian American 40%
Caucasian/White 52%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 28%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 34%
Modoc County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 38%
Filipino N/A
Hispanic/Latino LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander N/A
Multiracial LNE
Mono County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 71%
Filipino N/A
Hispanic/Latino LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander N/A
Multiracial LNE
Monterey County Percent
African American/Black 32%
Asian American 56%
Caucasian/White 64%
Filipino 43%
Hispanic/Latino 20%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 48%
Napa County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 60%
Filipino 58%
Hispanic/Latino 22%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 50%
Nevada County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 45%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 43%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
Orange County Percent
African American/Black 39%
Asian American 72%
Caucasian/White 70%
Filipino 64%
Hispanic/Latino 30%
Native American/Alaska Native 41%
Pacific Islander 45%
Multiracial 66%
Placer County Percent
African American/Black 43%
Asian American 71%
Caucasian/White 63%
Filipino 70%
Hispanic/Latino 38%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 63%
Plumas County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 63%
Filipino N/A
Hispanic/Latino LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
Riverside County Percent
African American/Black 36%
Asian American 65%
Caucasian/White 59%
Filipino 61%
Hispanic/Latino 33%
Native American/Alaska Native 36%
Pacific Islander 50%
Multiracial 56%
Sacramento County Percent
African American/Black 32%
Asian American 48%
Caucasian/White 54%
Filipino 60%
Hispanic/Latino 32%
Native American/Alaska Native 33%
Pacific Islander 35%
Multiracial 51%
San Benito County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 52%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 26%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
San Bernardino County Percent
African American/Black 31%
Asian American 70%
Caucasian/White 53%
Filipino 63%
Hispanic/Latino 31%
Native American/Alaska Native 35%
Pacific Islander 40%
Multiracial 50%
San Diego County Percent
African American/Black 36%
Asian American 71%
Caucasian/White 67%
Filipino 64%
Hispanic/Latino 33%
Native American/Alaska Native 45%
Pacific Islander 45%
Multiracial 60%
San Francisco County Percent
African American/Black 22%
Asian American 58%
Caucasian/White 70%
Filipino 44%
Hispanic/Latino 24%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
San Joaquin County Percent
African American/Black 25%
Asian American 39%
Caucasian/White 48%
Filipino 49%
Hispanic/Latino 25%
Native American/Alaska Native 31%
Pacific Islander 34%
Multiracial 42%
San Luis Obispo County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American 63%
Caucasian/White 59%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 29%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 52%
San Mateo County Percent
African American/Black 36%
Asian American 75%
Caucasian/White 75%
Filipino 52%
Hispanic/Latino 31%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander 27%
Multiracial 65%
Santa Barbara County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American 68%
Caucasian/White 63%
Filipino 61%
Hispanic/Latino 24%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 48%
Santa Clara County Percent
African American/Black 41%
Asian American 77%
Caucasian/White 74%
Filipino 54%
Hispanic/Latino 31%
Native American/Alaska Native 42%
Pacific Islander 48%
Multiracial 70%
Santa Cruz County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American 68%
Caucasian/White 64%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 18%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 69%
Shasta County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American 50%
Caucasian/White 49%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 33%
Native American/Alaska Native 36%
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 46%
Sierra County Percent
African American/Black N/A
Asian American N/A
Caucasian/White LNE
Filipino N/A
Hispanic/Latino LNE
Native American/Alaska Native N/A
Pacific Islander N/A
Multiracial N/A
Siskiyou County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 39%
Filipino N/A
Hispanic/Latino 34%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander N/A
Multiracial LNE
Solano County Percent
African American/Black 30%
Asian American 50%
Caucasian/White 55%
Filipino 55%
Hispanic/Latino 30%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander 47%
Multiracial 54%
Sonoma County Percent
African American/Black 39%
Asian American 63%
Caucasian/White 61%
Filipino 58%
Hispanic/Latino 27%
Native American/Alaska Native 39%
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 53%
Stanislaus County Percent
African American/Black 30%
Asian American 51%
Caucasian/White 53%
Filipino 75%
Hispanic/Latino 28%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 43%
Sutter County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American 49%
Caucasian/White 49%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 31%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 48%
Tehama County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 58%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 32%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
Trinity County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American N/A
Caucasian/White 41%
Filipino N/A
Hispanic/Latino LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
Tulare County Percent
African American/Black 29%
Asian American 37%
Caucasian/White 49%
Filipino 53%
Hispanic/Latino 26%
Native American/Alaska Native 33%
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
Tuolumne County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American LNE
Caucasian/White 49%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 35%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander N/A
Multiracial 48%
Ventura County Percent
African American/Black 43%
Asian American 75%
Caucasian/White 64%
Filipino 60%
Hispanic/Latino 27%
Native American/Alaska Native 44%
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial 67%
Yolo County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American 58%
Caucasian/White 56%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 23%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE
Yuba County Percent
African American/Black LNE
Asian American 35%
Caucasian/White 46%
Filipino LNE
Hispanic/Latino 27%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE
Pacific Islander LNE
Multiracial LNE

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 race/ethnicity (e.g. 59% of Filipino 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). The "Multiracial" category was created in 2010; therefore, data for this group are not available in earlier years. 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