Washington State
Institute for
Public Policy
110 Fifth Avenue Southeast, Suite 214 • PO Box 40999 • Olympia, WA 98504-0999 • (360) 586-2677 • www.wsipp.wa.gov
TENTH-GRADE WASL IN SPRING 2006:
ASSOCIATIONS AMONG SUBJECT AREAS
The 2006 Legislature directed the Washington State
Institute for Public Policy (Institute) to conduct a “review
and statistical analysis of Washington assessment of
student learning data.”1 A previous report describes
overall results for the 10th-grade Washington Assessment
of Student Learning (WASL) in spring 2006.2
This report describes associations among subject-area
results for the 78,020 10th-grade students who
completed the WASL in spring 2006.
The analysis finds that the associations among
subject-area results on the WASL are strong even
though more 10th graders met standard in reading
and writing than in math.
ASSOCIATIONS AMONG SUBJECT-AREA SCORES
As might be expected, students who do well in one
subject typically do well in others. One method for
examining associations among subject-area WASL
results is to perform a correlational analysis. Exhibit 1
presents correlations among reading, writing, and math
scores.
Exhibit 1
Correlations Among Subject-Area
Scores on the Spring 2006 WASL
Reading Writing
Writing Score 0.64 — standard in writing; similarly, nearly half of
Math Score 0.69 0.62
Correlations measure the degree of linear association
between scores. The statistic ranges between -1.0 and
+1.0, where 0 represents no association and ±1.0
indicates a perfect linear association. By convention,
correlations above 0.50 are considered to be strong.3
1
SSB 6618, Chapter 352, Laws of 2006.
2
Wade Cole and Robert Barnoski. (2006). Tenth-Grade WASL in Spring
2006: Summary Results. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public
Policy, Document No. 06-10-2201.
3
Jacob Cohen. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
November 2006
SUMMARY
This report describes associations among
subject-area results for the 10th-grade WASL in
spring 2006.
With respect to performance in reading and math,
the analysis finds that:
• Students who met standard in math almost
always met standard in reading as well.
• Most students who did not meet standard in
reading did not meet standard in math.
• However, meeting standard in reading did not
guarantee that students would also meet
standard in math, nor were below-standard
math scores always associated with
substandard performance in reading.
Thus, in most cases, meeting standard in reading
is a necessary but insufficient condition for meeting
standard in math.
With respect to performance in reading and
writing, the analysis finds that:
• Most students who met standard in reading
also met standard in writing, and vise versa.
• On average, more than half of students with
below-standard reading scores did not meet
students with below-standard writing scores did
not meet standard in reading.
The relationship between writing and math is
similar to that between reading and math.
In sum, the analysis suggests that students must
be able to read in order to meet standard in writing
and math, but the ability to read does not
guarantee success in other subjects. Moreover,
students who meet standard in math usually meet
standard in reading and writing as well.
Each correlation between subject-area results Exhibit 2
surpasses 0.60. That is, students with high or low Average Math Scores Given Reading Scores
scores in one subject tend to have correspondingly high on the Spring 2006 WASL
or low scores in other subjects. The strongest 550
correlation is between reading and math scores.
500
The ensuing analyses explain how subject-area scores Math Scores =
can be strongly correlated and yet more students met Reading Scores

Math Score
standard in reading and writing than in math. 450

400
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN READING AND MATH SCORES
350
Exhibit 2 demonstrates that, although math and
reading scores are strongly correlated—that is, the
relationship is roughly linear—reading scores 300
consistently exceed math scores. The solid line plots 300 350 400 450 500 550
average math scores for each reading score. The Reading Score
WSIPP 2006
dashed line serves as a reference: for points falling
below this line, average math scores are lower than
average reading scores.
Exhibit 3
For example, among students with a reading score of Average Writing Scores Given Reading Scores
400,4 the average math score is 370. On average, math on the Spring 2006 WASL
scores increase 7.6 points for every 10-point increase in
23
reading scores. Put differently, student performance in
math does not keep pace with performance in reading.5 21
All points fall below the dashed line, indicating that 19
average reading scores always exceed average math
Writing Score

scores. 17

15

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN READING AND WRITING SCORES 13

11
Exhibit 3 shows that student performance in writing
9
keeps pace with performance in reading until reading
scores reach 450, at which point the slope declines 7
appreciably.6 Nevertheless, on average, a 10-point 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525
increase in reading scores is associated with a 0.6-point Reading Score
increase in writing scores—a noteworthy relationship WSIPP 2006

given that writing scores range from 0 to 24 points,

while reading scores vary between 225 and 550 points.
A correlational analysis explains only part of the
The average writing score for students with a reading story—it shows the association between
score of 400 is 17 points. Incidentally, students meet subject-area scores, but makes it difficult to
standard in reading when they achieve a score of 400 compare students who met standard in one
or higher, and in writing with a score of 17 or higher.7 subject but not in others. Reading and math
scores are correlated, for instance, even though
4
400 is the “cut score” for meeting standard in reading and math. a substantially higher percentage of students
5
For students with a reading score of 400, the “middle half” of math met standard in reading than in math.8
scores—that is, scores that fall between the 25th and 75th
percentiles—ranges between 353 and 385 points, a 32 point
spread. This variation in math scores increases as reading scores
increase.
6
This may be partially attributable to a ceiling effect, as raw writing 8
For met standard rates, see: Wade Cole and Robert
scores do not exceed 24. Barnoski. (2006). Tenth-Grade WASL in Spring 2006:
7
http://www.k12.wa.us/Assessment/TestAdministration/ Summary Results. Olympia: Washington State Institute for
pubdocs/PerformanceLevel_CutScores2006WASL.pdf Public Policy, Document No. 06-10-2201.
2
 Exhibit 4a Explaining the relationships between subject-
Percentage Meeting Standard in Reading Given area results in terms of meeting standard
Performance in Math on the Spring 2006 WASL requires a different kind of analysis.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEETING STANDARD

98.9%
IN READING AND MATH
73.3%
Exhibits 4a and 4b illustrate the relationship
between meeting standard in reading and math:

• Students who met standard in math also

almost always met standard in reading.
• Most students with below-standard
26.7%
reading scores also scored below
standard in math.
• Students who met standard in reading did
not necessarily meet standard in math.
Met
Did Not
Reading • The majority of students with below-
1.1%
Meet Math standard math scores nevertheless met
standard in reading.
Did Not
Met Meet Reading
Math
Exhibit 4a displays the percentage of students
WSIPP 2006 who met standard in reading given their
performance in math:

Exhibit 4b • 98.9 percent of students who met standard

Percentage Meeting Standard in Math Given in math also met standard in reading.9
Performance in Reading on the Spring 2006 WASL
• 73.3 percent of students who did not meet
standard in math met standard in reading.
As such, 26.7 percent of students who did
not meet standard in math also had
below-standard reading scores.
95.3%
Exhibit 4b charts the percentage of students
63.1% who met standard in math given their
performance in reading:

4.7% • 63.1 percent of students who met

standard in reading also met standard in
math. Put differently, 36.9 percent of
students who met standard in reading did
36.9% not meet standard in math.
Met
Math
• Conversely, 95.3 percent of students with
Did Not below-standard reading scores did not
Meet Reading
meet standard in math.
Did Not
Met Meet Math
Reading The appendix to this report replicates this
analysis by performance levels—Level 1
WSIPP 2006
through Level 4.

9
Note that column totals (“Met Math” and “Did Not Meet Math”) sum
to 100 percent, such that a corresponding 1.1 percent of students
who met standard in math did not meet standard in reading.
3
 Exhibit 5a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEETING STANDARD IN
Percentage Meeting Standard in Reading Given READING AND WRITING
Performance in Writing on the Spring 2006 WASL
Exhibits 5a and 5b depict the relationship
between meeting standard in reading and
writing:
• Most students who met standard in writing
94.3%
also met standard in reading.
• Similarly, most students who met standard
48.6% in reading also met standard in writing.
• Approximately half of students who did not
51.4% meet standard in writing performed below
standard in reading.
• More than half of students who did not
meet standard in reading also received
below-standard scores in writing.

Met Exhibit 5a depicts the percentage of students

Did Not 5.7% Reading who met standard in reading given their
Meet Writing
performance in writing:

Met Did Not • 94.3 percent of students who met standard

Meet Reading
Writing in writing also met standard in reading.
WSIPP 2006
This means that only 5.7 percent of
students who met standard in writing
performed below standard in reading.
Exhibit 5b • Slightly less than half (48.6 percent) of
Percentage Meeting Standard in Writing Given students who did not meet standard in
Performance in Reading on the Spring 2006 WASL writing, met standard in reading.
Correspondingly, just over half (51.4
percent) of the students who did not meet
standard in writing also performed below
standard in reading.
91.9%
Exhibit 5b displays aggregate student
performance in writing given performance in
reading:
39.0%
61.0% • 91.9 percent of students who met standard
in reading also met standard in writing.
• 61 percent of the students who did not
meet standard in reading also performed
below standard in writing. Put another
way, 39 percent of students met standard
Met in writing despite below-standard
Writing
8.1% performance in reading.
Did Not
Meet Reading
Did Not
Meet Writing
Met
Reading

WSIPP 2006

4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This report examines the associations among

reading, writing, and math results from the 10th-
grade WASL in spring 2006.

With respect to reading and math, we conclude

that students who met standard in math were
almost always competent readers as well, and that
students who did not meet standard in reading
almost always received below-standard scores in
math.

The converse, however, is not true: proficiency in

reading did not guarantee that students would also
meet standard in math, nor were below-standard
math scores necessarily associated with
substandard performance in reading.

In most cases, the ability to read well is therefore a

necessary but insufficient condition for meeting
standard in math.

With respect to reading and writing, we conclude

that proficient readers tended also to be
competent writers, and vise versa. However, on
average, more than half of students with below-
standard reading scores did not meet standard in
writing. Similarly, nearly half of students with
below-standard writing scores did not meet
standard in reading.

Although not displayed in this report, the

relationship between writing and math was similar
to that between reading and math.

Overall, the analysis suggests that students must

be able to read in order to meet standard in writing
and math, but that the ability to read does not
guarantee success in other subjects. Conversely,
students who perform well in math are also
competent readers and writers.

5
 APPENDIX
Exhibit A1 This appendix provides a more
Level of Achievement in Reading Given nuanced picture of the relationship
Performance in Math on the Spring 2006 WASL between different subject areas of the
WASL by disaggregating student
performance into the following levels:
• Level 1 (Below Basic)
15.2%
50.9% • Level 2 (Basic)
36.3% 80.7%
• Level 3 (Proficient)

33.7% 38.6%
95.9%
• Level 4 (Advanced)

Students meet standard on the WASL

when they receive Level 3 or Level 4
14.7% 9.9%
17.7% scores.

Math Reading For example, Exhibit A1 displays the

Level 1
0.6% 1.5% 4.0%
Level 4 percentage of students who earned
Level 1, 2, 3, or 4 scores in reading
Math Reading given their performance in math.
Level 2 Level 3
0.1% 0.1%
Among students who received a Level
Math Reading
Level 3 Level 2 1 score in math, performance in
0.0% reading was as follows:
Math
Level 4
Reading
Level 1
• 14.7 percent received Level 1
scores,
WSIPP 2006
• 33.7 percent received Level 2
scores,
Exhibit A2 • 36.3 percent received Level 3
Level of Achievement in Math Given scores, and
Performance in Reading on the Spring 2006 WASL
• 15.2 percent received Level 4
scores.

0.1% Conversely, students who received

Level 4 scores in math performed in
reading as follows:
0.7% 0.2%
94.1% • 95.9 percent received Level 4
scores,
5.2% 5.8% 3.5%
• 4.0 percent received Level 3
26.5% 26.5% 30.6% scores,
• 0.1 percent received Level 2
67.5%
44.8%
scores, and
41.2%
Reading
Level 1
Math
Level 4
• No one received Level 1 scores.

Thus, students who performed well in

Reading Math
Level 2 28.9% 20.1% Level 3 math also performed well in reading.
However, students who performed
Reading
poorly in math did not necessarily
Math
Level 3 Level 2 perform below standard in reading.
4.5%

Reading Math
Level 4 Level 1
WSIPP 2006
 Exhibit A3 Exhibits A3 and A4 illustrate the
Level of Achievement in Reading Given relationship between reading and
Performance in Writing on the Spring 2006 WASL writing.

For instance, Exhibit A3 displays

the percentage of students who
earned Level 1, 2, 3, or 4 scores in
3.2%
reading given their performance in
18.7% writing.
14.6%
55.6%
33.4% 37.8%
87.0%
Among students who received a
Level 1 score in writing,
48.8%
performance in reading was as
33.7% 33.6% follows:
• 48.8 percent received Level 1
Writing Reading
scores,
Level 1 11.8%
• 33.4 percent received Level 2
9.8% 9.9% Level 4

scores,
Writing Reading
Level 2
0.8% 1.1%
Level 3 • 14.6 percent received Level 3
scores, and
Writing Reading
Level 3 Level 2 • 3.2 percent received Level 4
0.0%
scores.
Writing Reading
Level 4 Level 1
Conversely, students who received
WSIPP 2006 Level 4 scores in writing performed
in reading as follows:

Exhibit A4 • 87.0 percent received Level 4

Level of Achievement in Writing Given scores,
Performance in Reading on the Spring 2006 WASL • 11.8 percent received Level 3
scores,
• 1.1 percent received Level 2
scores, and
• No one received Level 1
0.7%
scores.
10.7% 5.4%
Students who performed well in
38.7% 42.2%
22.6% reading also performed well in
writing; similarly, students who
61.6%
49.9% 41.7%
56.9% performed well in writing also
performed well in reading.

34.9% Writing
However, students with below-
Reading
Level 1 10.7% 18.6% Level 4 standard in reading did not
necessarily perform below standard
Reading Writing in writing, nor did students below-
Level 3
Level 2 1.9% 3.4% standard scores in writing necessarily
perform below standard in reading.
Reading Writing
Level 3 Level 2
0.2%

Reading Writing
Level 4 Level 1

WSIPP 2006
For further information, please contact:
Robert Barnoski at barney@wsipp.wa.gov (360) 586-2744, or
Wade Cole at wcole@wsipp.wa.gov (360) 586-2791 Document No. 06-11-2204

Washington State
Institute for
Public Policy
The Washington State Legislature created the Washington State Institute for Public Policy in 1983. A Board of Directors—representing the
legislature, the governor, and public universities—governs the Institute and guides the development of all activities. The Institute’s mission is to carry
out practical research, at legislative direction, on issues of importance to Washington
8 State.