<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; font-family: Helvetica;"><font size="4"></font><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">Since having good reading comprehension means being able to read about a wide variety of common topics, table 1 seems just fine. But testing companies’ silence about what their reading comprehension tests actually measure is not. <b>They say they are measuring “reading comprehension skill,” but their guidelines show that they are measuring a vaguely defined body of “common knowledge.”</b></font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">Common words are not common to all. Even “common” knowledge is knowledge that must be taught, and right now—at home and at school—far too many children from low-income homes don’t have an opportunity to learn that knowledge (which <i>is</i> common to youth from middle-class and wealthy homes). <b>That’s why reading comprehension scores are so strongly and stubbornly correlated with socioeconomic status.</b></font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">These tests of “common” knowledge are accurate assessments and predictors of reading comprehension ability; but they are not fair or productive tests for holding children (and their teachers) accountable before an opportunity to learn has been provided.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">If all testing companies would clearly explain that their reading comprehension tests are tests of knowledge, and if they would explain—as the <a href="http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2014/Dougherty.pdf"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; color: rgb(2, 30, 170);"><b>ACT’s Chrys Dougherty does</b></span></a>—that <b>the only way to prepare for them is to build broad knowledge</b>, then we could begin to create a fair and productive assessment and accountability system. <b>Before the end of high school, all students should have broad enough knowledge to perform well on a reading comprehension test.</b> But what about in third, fourth, or even seventh grade? In the early and middle grades, is a test drawn only from topics that have been taught in school the only fair way to test reading comprehension? How many years of systematically teaching “common” knowledge are needed before a reading comprehension test that is not tied to the curriculum is fair, especially for a student whose opportunities to learn outside of school are minimal?</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">The answer depends not so much on the test as on what is done with the scores. <b>If we accepted the fact that reading comprehension depends on broad knowledge, we would radically alter our accountability policies.</b> Scores on “common knowledge” reading comprehension tests would be recognized as useful <b>indicators of where students are in their journey toward broad knowledge</b>—they would not be mistaken for indicators of teaching quality or children’s capacity. Instead of holding schools accountable for scores on tests with content that is not tied to the curriculum, we would hold them accountable for creating a content-rich, comprehensive, well-sequenced curriculum and delivering it in a manner that ensures equal opportunity to learn. To narrow the inevitable gaps caused by differences in out-of-school experiences, we would dramatically increase free weekend and summer enrichment opportunities (for toddlers to teenagers) in lower-income neighborhoods. (We would also address a range of health-related disparities, but that’s a topic for another day.)</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">In sum, reading comprehension <b>really does rely</b> on having a great deal of common knowledge, so our current reading comprehension tests really are valid and reliable.<b> To make them fair and productive, children from lower-income families must be given an equal opportunity to learn the knowledge that is “common” to children from higher-income homes.</b></font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: center;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i><font size="4">Reading is always a test of knowledge.</font></i></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: center;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i><font size="4">=============</font></i></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">Comment:</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">In this context, I would draw readers’ attention to the description in the ACT Technical Manual (p. 11) of the content areas from which selections are drawn for the ACT Reading Test:</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">“a. Prose Fiction. The items in this category are based on short stories or excerpts from short stories or novels.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">“b. Social Studies. The items in this category are based on passages in the content areas of anthropology, archaeology, biography, business, economics, education, geography, history, political science, psychology, and sociology.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">“c. Humanities. The items in this category are based on passages from memoirs and personal essays and in the content areas of architecture, art, dance, ethics, film, language, literary criticism, music, philosophy, radio, television, and theater.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">“d. Natural Sciences. The items in this category are based on passages in the content areas of anatomy, astronomy, biology, botany, chemistry, ecology, geology, medicine, meteorology, microbiology, natural history, physiology, physics, technology, and zoology.”</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4">These passages reflect the wide range of reading that a college-ready student or an avid adult reader should be able to do. A student who receives <b>a broad, content-rich education in preschool through high school </b>is more likely to have the necessary “common knowledge” from these fields to have an advantage on the ACT, in college, and in life.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font size="4"><i>Comment by Chrys Dougherty — October 1, 2014 @ </i><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; color: rgb(2, 30, 170);"><i><a href="http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2014/10/01/reading-test-developers-call-knowledge-a-source-of-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-79710">10:51 pm</a></i></span></font></span></p><div><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; color: rgb(2, 30, 170);"><br></span></span></div></div></div><br></div></div><br></div></div></div><br></body></html>