Differences in Reading by the Economic Status of Grade 3 - Black Boys and Girls

Sep 30, 2026

Upload by James

Examined in this study was the reading achievement of Grade 3 Black boys and girls in Texas as a function of their economic status (Not Poor, Moderately Poor, and Extremely Poor). Three reading indicators (Phase-In I, Phase-In II, and Phase-In III) from the 2015–2016 State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness exam were analyzed separately. Inferential statistics indicated a stairstep effect across all three measures: as poverty increased, reading performance declined and pass rates decreased. Implications and directions for further research are discussed.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages8

Reading Time20 min

AccessFree to download

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Differences in Reading by the Economic Status of Grade 3 Black Boys and Girls LaTracy Harris, John R. Slate Sam Houston State University, USA *Corresponding Author: John R. Slate, Sam Houston State University, USA ABSTRACT Examined in this study was the reading achievement of Grade 3 Black boys and girls in Texas as a function of their economic status (i.e., Not Poor, Moderately Poor, and Extremely Poor). Three reading indicators (i.e., Phase-In I, Phase-In II, and Phase-In III) from the 2015-2016 State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness exam were analyzed separately for Grade 3 Black boys and girls. Inferential statistical analyses revealed the presence of a stairstep effect in all three dependent measures of reading. As the poverty level of Grade 3 Black boys and Black girls increased, their reading performance decreased. That is, the percentages of Grade 3 Black boys and Black girls who passed the three reading indicators decreased as their poverty level increased. Implications of the findings are discussed and suggestions for further research are made. Keywords: economically disadvantaged, STAAR, poverty, Phase-In I, Phase-In II, and Phase-In III. INTRODUCTION Teachers across the globe, regardless of geographical location, are charged with a similar mission – to educate students and to ensure mastery of grade level content. Although states may mandate divergent curriculum standards, the expectation is still the same. Teachers are expected to provide a high-quality education to all students, regardless of cognitive or environmental differences, and make certain that by the end of the academic year, all students will perform satisfactorily on district and state assessments. However, as documented by numerous researchers (e.g., Conradi, Amendum,& Liebfreund, 2016; Owens, 2010; McGown & Slate, 2017; Sharkins, Leger, & Ernest, 2017), students living in poverty perform at adisproportionally lower rate than their peers, even when given equivalent academic experiences. According to McGown and Slate (2017), boys and girls living in poverty have fewer resources available to them at home which stifles their literacy development. Moreover, boys and girls in poverty lack needed support from adults who encourage reading practice. With respect to children in the United States, 43% of them live in poverty. The effects of poverty can have a negative influence on children’s ability to learn and ultimately contribute to social, emotional, and behavioral problems (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2017) . A multitude of reasons exist for why students who are economically disadvantaged underperform academically.“Taken together, even in the face of significant family strengths, the harmful effects of poverty undermine individual students’ academic achievement and growth”(Walsh et al., 2014, p. 112) . Underachievement among students in poverty is evident in the results of standardized assessments. To inform the reader of the critical effect poverty has on reading achievement, additional research studies are discussed here. During the foundational years of learning, the primary focus for educators is to teach students how to read. Students from high-poverty settings read at a lower proficiency level than their wealthier peers (Conradi et al., 2016) . To examine the issues with reading performance in high-poverty schools, Reardon, Valention, and Shores (2012) conducted a study using existing data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) . The sample size consisted of 25,000 kindergarten students who were followed from Kindergarten through Grade 8. In their investigation, Reardon et al. (2012) established that the income- achievement gaps widened as students progressed from Kindergarten to Grade 8. Documented in their study was that the magnitude of the disparity in academic performance was substantial between highincome and low-income students (Reardon et al., 2012) . Accor

FAQs

How were Grade 3 Black boys and girls reading achievement measured in this study?

Reading achievement was assessed using three STAAR indicators: Phase-In I, Phase-In II, and Phase-In III from the 2015–2016 exam.

What relationship did the study find between poverty level and reading performance?

A stairstep effect was found across all three measures: as poverty level increased, reading performance and pass percentages decreased for both Black boys and Black girls.

Why does the paper frame poverty as an important factor for reading outcomes?

It explains that students in poverty have fewer resources and less adult support for reading practice, and that poverty-related impacts persist from childhood through early adolescence.

Sep 30, 2026

Upload by James