Third graders can’t read. That’s a common assertion. How do we know? Colorado’s CMAS standardized tests for third graders tell us. What the chicken littles who bemoan these tests scores, mostly individuals on the “pro school choice” and “voucher” side of the public education debate, don’t explain are the underlying design failures built into the tests themselves.

The length of third- and fourth-grade reading tests guarantees failure. Reading depends on the interest and engagement of the reader, right? Reading for long intervals, say more than 15 minutes, requires fascination and concentration, right? When an adult reads news, the first scan is the headline. That takes a second. The next scan is the opening line, or the “lede.” That’s maybe 15 to 30 seconds. A decision then occurs: to read or not to read.

Let’s examine how these reading decisions apply to third graders.

Typical third graders can sit and read for 15 to 20 minutes. If children find what they’re reading particularly engaging, their time on task can extend to 25 minutes or so. If the reading is difficult or boring, concentration time declines to 8 to 10 minutes.

The third-grade CMAS test for reading lasts 80 to 90 minutes. To engage a third grader for ultimate performance for the entire test requires breaking the exam down into at least four to five sections. The third-grade CMAS reading test, however, is administered in two, 45-minute time frames.

Within 15 to 20 minutes of the beginning of test administration, antsy third graders lose accuracy and working memory. Comprehension drops when students sit too long without movement. The testing allows for students to perform brief stretching, but it doesn’t build movement into the examination timeframe.

The time frames described above are for typical third graders without learning challenges. Children with perception problems, cognitive processing issues, or limited English will experience more difficulty. At 45 minutes per test, the exam is measuring stamina more than reading.

CMAS reading samples are created by test experts, teachers and other specialists. Test builders design for complexity and alignment with state standards. Interest is not a test-building criterion.

The nuances of a reading passage along with the test questions may not make sense to a third grader. Here’s an example. A story from CMAS has a girl with a missing lunch box. It turns out, a boy took the lunch box to eat the lunch because he forgot his. The boy gets caught out by the girl and a teacher.

The story describes the boy’s reaction: “Jordan’s face turned red. ‘I — I didn’t mean to take it,’ he said. ‘I forgot mine (the lunchbox) at home, and I was too embarrassed to tell anyone.’”

A question on the passage asks: What sentence from the passage best shows why Jordan apologizes. Answers are: 1. Jordan’s face turned red. 2. “I-I didn’t mean it,” he said. 3. “Next time, just ask,” Maya said. 4. Mr. Diaz soon joined them.

The correct answer, according to the test result, is number 2, “I — I didn’t mean It.” But imagine a third-grade boy or girl who just binged on Superman comics. That child wouldn’t pick “I didn’t mean it” because Jordan did mean to do the unhappy deed. “I didn’t do it” is disingenuous, a lie, and Superman doesn’t abide lies. Our Superman aficionados would select the first choice: “Jordan’s face turned red,” because that reaction suggests the truth for which Jordan chooses to apologize.

Though this analysis may be a quibble, it shows how subjective a reading test can be. Some children may choose the “wrong” answer because they parse too closely. Bored children may not even choose an answer, or will choose any answer, because they find the passage uninspired or biased. After all, why is it a boy who takes the lunchbox?

Reading passages that contain complexity may inadvertently offer more than one correct answer (“best,” after all, is subjective). Since each child grows up in an individual environment with individual tastes, the reading themes may be unfamiliar, confusing, or unpleasant. Parents should not be surprised if their children complain the tests take too long or are confusing and dull.

The test makers and the Colorado Department of Education have not produced third graders’ assessments on how engrossing the CMAS reading samples are. A cynical critic might point out test makers such as PARCC, Colorado’s test designer, have incentives to develop exams that produce poor results.

This testing system has bad effects: kids are stressed, parents are worried, teachers are too often blamed for bad results, learning time is wasted, public education critics vilify teachers and students, and the media loves a disaster.

These tests chew up hours of time for school districts, schools and teachers in preparation and administration. Third-grade children are made to do what they cannot do — sit still for 45 minutes, concentrate, read, select answers from sometimes ambiguous questions and tolerate a process that probably is not meaningful to them. Parents live with a false sense test scores are accurate. Something needs to change.

Paula Noonan owns Colorado Capitol Watch, the state’s premier legislature tracking platform.