Support RPS Addressed Rockford's Reading Data - Here is What Its Analysis Missed
Updated: Sep 8
Update — September 8, 2026 at 105pm: On September 4, the spring 2026 M-STEP results were publicly released. Rockford’s third-grade ELA proficiency rate increased from 61.7% in 2024–25 to 67% in 2025–26, reversing the decline of the previous two years. This improvement is encouraging and deserves recognition. At the same time, approximately one-third of third-grade students did not reach proficiency. M-STEP remains only one measure, and the new results provide an opportunity to examine what contributed to the improvement, whether it is reflected in other reading data, and how that progress can be sustained.
On August 26, The Rockford Squire published my article, “Rockford’s Third-Grade Reading Results Demand Accountability.” Because the Squire’s website is not currently working, I have reproduced photographs of the complete published article below so readers can review my exact words for themselves:
Support RPS recently published “What the M-STEP Data Actually Says About Rockford Third Graders”, offering additional context about Rockford’s third-grade reading results.
Megan Scanlan clarified that the post addressed questions and claims Support RPS had received from multiple sources and was not solely a response to my article. I appreciate that clarification. We also agree on one important point: saying that 38% of Rockford third-graders “can’t read” is inaccurate.
However, that is not what I wrote. My concern is that Support RPS’s alternative 85.4% figure answers a different question from Michigan’s official proficiency rate. Understanding that distinction is important when discussing the district’s results.
“Not proficient” does not mean “can’t read”
In my original article, I stated:
“In 2025, only 61.7% of Rockford third-graders scored proficient or above on the M-STEP English language arts assessment. Nearly four out of every ten did not demonstrate proficiency.”
That wording reflects Michigan’s official reporting. The Michigan Department of Education identifies four M-STEP performance levels: advanced, proficient, partially proficient and not proficient. MI School Data classifies students scoring advanced or proficient as proficient, while students scoring partially proficient or not proficient are classified as not proficient.
“Did not demonstrate proficiency” does not mean “cannot read.” One assessment also does not define an individual child. M-STEP results should be considered alongside classroom performance, local assessments, accommodations and other information. Support RPS is correct to distinguish “not proficient” from “cannot read.” However, its claim that 85.4% of students “have achieved grade-level understanding” is not the State of Michigan’s interpretation of the results.
The 85.4% figure does not represent Michigan’s proficiency standard
Support RPS arrives at 85.4% by combining students rated advanced, proficient and partially proficient. Michigan does not combine those three categories when reporting proficiency. The state classifies students scoring advanced or proficient as proficient, while students scoring partially proficient or not proficient are classified as not proficient.
The 85.4% figure may provide additional context about the range of student performance, but it does not replace the state’s official proficiency rate of 61.7%. Describing all three groups as having “achieved grade-level understanding” is Support RPS’s interpretation, not Michigan’s reported conclusion.
Measure | Categories included | Rockford figure |
Met Michigan’s proficiency benchmark | Advanced + proficient | 61.7% |
Support RPS calculation | Advanced + proficient + partially proficient | 85.4% |
Did not meet Michigan’s proficiency benchmark | Partially proficient + not proficient | 38.3% |
Michigan recognizes that partially proficient students have demonstrated some foundational knowledge and skills. That distinction is meaningful, and no student should be reduced to a test label. However, MI School Data still classifies partially proficient students as not proficient. Combining them with advanced and proficient students creates a broader measure, not a new proficiency rate.
Both figures provide information, but they are not interchangeable:
85.4% demonstrated at least partial knowledge and skills measured by the M-STEP ELA assessment.
61.7% met or exceeded Michigan’s proficiency benchmark.
My original article focused on the second figure because proficiency is the benchmark officially reported by the state. Reporting that rate does not suggest that every student below the benchmark is unable to read.
Which students are included?
MI School Data reports 583 valid Rockford third-grade M-STEP ELA assessments for 2024–25. Support RPS’s 85.4% represents 498 of those students: 207 advanced, 153 proficient and 138 partially proficient.
Students with disabilities are required to participate in statewide assessments. Most take the M-STEP, with accommodations when appropriate. MI-Access is the alternate assessment for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities when their IEP teams determine that the general assessment is inappropriate, even with accommodations. MI-Access measures alternate content expectations and uses different performance categories.
The 85.4% figure should therefore be described as a percentage of students with valid M-STEP ELA results, not necessarily every third-grader enrolled in Rockford. MI-Access results are reported separately under different standards and categories.
Results should also be examined by relevant student subgroup whenever the data are available and privacy protections allow. Districtwide averages can conceal meaningful differences in student needs, access to support and academic outcomes. Examining those differences is not about lowering expectations or explaining away the results. It is necessary to determine whether every group is receiving the support it needs.
Different measures answer different questions
Support RPS reformatted the district’s December 8, 2025 M-STEP/PSAT trend chart from a line chart into a bar chart. The chart’s appearance, however, was not the concern raised in my original article.
The presentation included state proficiency rates, national percentile rankings, different assessments, different grade levels and changing student populations. Each may provide useful information, but they do not necessarily measure the same thing or support direct comparisons. M-STEP proficiency measures performance against Michigan standards. National percentile rankings describe Rockford’s position relative to a comparison group. Districtwide NWEA results provide another measure of student performance relative to national peers. A favorable result on one measure does not negate a concerning trend on another.
Rockford can rank highly compared with other districts while still experiencing a decline in its own third-grade proficiency rate. Understanding why requires clearly defined measures, valid comparisons and an explanation of how the different data relate.
Above the statewide average should not be the finish line
Support RPS correctly notes that Rockford’s 61.7% proficiency rate exceeds Michigan’s 38.9% statewide rate. That is relevant context, and my original article acknowledged it.
Michigan’s statewide literacy results, however, are themselves a serious concern. Rockford’s standard should not be limited to outperforming a low statewide average. We should also ask whether students are demonstrating the skills they need, whether struggling students are identified and supported, and whether our results are improving over time.
Rockford should strive for excellence, not settle for relative success while its own proficiency rate declines.
School year | Rockford third-grade M-STEP ELA proficient or advanced |
2015–16 | 66.5% |
2016–17 | 58.2% |
2017–18 | 50.1% |
2018–19 | 62.3% |
2019–20 | No state assessment administered |
2020–21 | 61.6% |
2021–22 | 68.1% |
2022–23 | 68.3% |
2023–24 | 65.8% |
2024–25 | 61.7% |
The history includes earlier declines and recoveries. The current consecutive decline begins after the 68.3% result in 2022–23 and continues through the next two reported years, falling to 65.8% and then 61.7%.
That trend deserves examination, but it does not establish a cause. Each result represents a different third-grade cohort, and factors such as demographics, attendance, mobility, instruction and assessment participation may affect performance.
A credible analysis should examine both external influences and district-controlled factors, including curriculum, interventions, staffing, class sizes, professional development, attendance strategies, student supports and resource allocation. The goal should be to determine what contributed to the decline, what is working and what needs to change.
Accountability requires measurable improvement
Presenting the results more favorably by combining performance categories does nothing to help the students who need additional support. It may change how the numbers appear, but it does not change what those students have demonstrated or identify the instruction and interventions they need. Meaningful accountability begins with reporting the results as the state classifies them and then using the data to help every student improve.
When results move in the wrong direction, a strong district should examine the evidence, test its assumptions and adjust its approach when necessary. That is not an attack on teachers, students or the district. It is responsible continuous improvement.
Charts can organize data, but they do not explain why performance changed, which students need additional support or whether an intervention is working. The district should:
acknowledge and examine the decline;
identify the students and reading skills most affected;
evaluate curriculum, staffing, interventions and professional development;
establish measurable goals and timelines;
report privacy-protected results by relevant subgroup; and
explain what will change if the current approach does not produce improvement.
The district cannot control every factor affecting student performance. It is responsible, however, for examining the factors it can influence and communicating how it will measure and improve results.
CKLA may be promising, but its results must be measured
Support RPS notes that Rockford implemented CKLA in fall 2024 and cites research supporting content-rich literacy instruction. It also acknowledges that more time is needed to determine the curriculum’s long-term effect.
I agree that a new curriculum should not be judged conclusively after one year. That makes transparent measurement especially important. The district should establish a baseline, identify the skills being targeted, set measurable goals and report results by grade and relevant student subgroup.
At this point, the information presented does not establish whether CKLA has improved Rockford’s results, narrowed achievement gaps or begun to reverse the decline. A public improvement plan with defined goals and timelines would allow the community to evaluate its effect fairly.
Important questions remain
Support RPS provides additional context about the results, but several important questions remain:
Which reading skills are students struggling to master?
How early are difficulties being identified?
How many students are receiving intervention?
Which interventions are producing measurable improvement?
Which student groups have the greatest needs?
Are achievement gaps narrowing?
What goals and timelines has the district established?
Our students are more than test scores. That is precisely why the district must look beneath districtwide averages to determine who needs support, what support they need and whether it is working.
Celebrating Rockford’s strengths and expecting measurable improvement are not competing positions. Both can and should be true.
The reported 2024–25 third-grade M-STEP ELA proficiency rate was 61.7%. Nearly four in ten students who took that assessment did not demonstrate proficiency. That does not mean they “cannot read,” but it does mean they did not meet Michigan’s proficiency benchmark on that assessment.
Rockford performs above the statewide average, but that should not be the limit of our expectations. Our students deserve excellence, transparent reporting and a measurable plan for continued improvement.
When information is shared with the community, it must be accurate and clearly explained. Combining performance categories to create a more reassuring percentage does not change Michigan’s proficiency benchmark, nor does it help the students who need additional support. Our children are not served by presenting results more favorably than the state reports them. They are served by honestly identifying where improvement is needed and committing to measurable action.
We can—and must—do better.
Megan Romano
Candidate for the Two-Year Seat
Rockford Board of Education
Source Page
Megan Romano. "Rockford's Third-Grade Reading Results Demand Accountability." The Rockford Squire, August 26, 2026 - Photographs of the complete article are reproduced above because the newspaper's webite is currently outdated.
Support RPS. “What the M-STEP Data Actually Says About Rockford Third Graders.” August 2026. Read the Support RPS post.
Michigan Department of Education. “M-STEP: What Do the Scores Mean?” Updated April 2025. Defines M-STEP performance levels. Read the MDE guidance.
MI School Data. “Grades 3–8 State Testing—Proficiency.” Official source for Rockford’s M-STEP ELA percentages, categories and numbers assessed. To reproduce the trend, select Kent ISD, Rockford Public Schools, M-STEP, third-grade content, English language arts and Trend view. Open the official report.
Michigan Department of Education. “MI-Access.” Explains alternate-assessment eligibility and standards. Read the MI-Access guidance.
MI School Data. “Student Subgroups.” Describes reporting for students with disabilities and other groups. Review the subgroup definitions.
Rockford Public Schools Board of Education. (Rockford Public Schools Board of Education, Dec. 8, 2025 meeting packet, pp. 29–30.) RPS Board of Education Agenda December 8, 2025
Rockford Public Schools. “12/9/25 District Update.” District summary of the literacy presentation. Read the update.
School News Network. Beth Heinen Bell, “Rockford Public Schools Names Veteran Educator as New Superintendent.” March 30, 2022. Confirms Dr. Matthews’s July 1, 2022 start date. Read the report.
Rockford Public Schools. “Meet the Board.” Provides current trustees’ election or appointment years and terms. View the Board information.
Rockford Public Schools. November 11, 2024 district update announcing CKLA implementation. Read the update.
Amplify. “Core Knowledge Language Arts.” Publisher information cited by Support RPS. View the program information.
National Center on Improving Literacy. “Boosting Early Literacy Through Content-Rich Instruction.” 2025. Research cited by Support RPS. Read the research summary.
Megan Romano is a candidate for the two-year seat on the Rockford Public Schools Board of Education.
Comments