Education.com

The Need For Achievement (page 2)

By Terry M. Moe and John E. Chubb
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Notes

1 Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2007). See nces.ed.gov/naep, "Sample Questions."

2 Ibid. The actual test question reads: "What two gases make up most of the Earth's Atmosphere? A) Hydrogen and Oxygen B) Hydrogen and Nitrogen C) Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide, or D) Oxygen and Nitrogen." The correct answer is D, Oxygen and Nitrogen.

3 Ibid. The actual question reads: "Which is an example of water condensing? A) A puddle disappearing on a hot summer afternoon, B) Sweat forming on your forehead after you do a lot of exercise, C) Ice cubes melting when you put them out in the sun, or D) Dew forming on plants during a cold night." The correct answer is D, Dew forming on plants after a cold night.

4 NAEP is the only standardized test administered to representative sample of elementary and secondary students nationwide, and with consistent content and difficulty over a long period of time. The SAT and ACT are also national tests, but they are taken only by college bound students and are not random samples even of those. State assessments are administered to every public school student in their respective  states, but the tests vary widely in content and difficulty, they are subject to change from year to year, and even if somehow aggregated, they do not provide readily comparable information on student achievement nationwide.

5 NAEP is employed universally by national policy makers and education researchers to gauge how well American students are performing and progressing, and we follow that well-established practice here. We are not engaged in a detailed analysis of the NAEP data, as might be appropriate for a professional journal. We use proficiency levels - rather than scale scores or the long-term NAEP (a different set of scale scores) - because they have a straightforward conceptual meaning, and they help render the general thrust of NAEP's findings more easily understandable. Were we to use these other NAEP measures, the essence of the findings would be the same. Our goal is to simplify things and give a sense of the bigger picture. We should point out that NAEP does have its critics and that some argue, in particular, that its proficiency levels-which are more demanding than those of the states-are not set at too high a level. See Tom Loveless, "Are States Honestly Reporting Test Scores?" The Brown Center Report on American Education (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2007). We cannot deal with the specifics of these arguments here. We will simply note that NAEP is widely accepted and its proficiency levels widely employed-and there are good reasons for that. NAEP is the product of a diverse panel of distinguised educators and subject matter and testing specialists, and it is overseen by the National Assessment Governing Board, another representative, expert body. Scores from NAEP are highly correlated with important educational and economic outcomes, such as high school graduation, college attendance, and lifetime earnings. Its findings of low performance are corroborated by international data (which we discuss later in the text). And when it comes to basic substance, the items that NAEP puts on these tests are all at or below grade-level for the grade of students being assessed-yet even on the items NAEP experts classify as of "medium" difficulty, about 50 percent of the nation's students typically get them wrong. Hardly an indication that they are doing well. So although proficiency can surely be measured in different ways, and the NAEP measures are not the only way to do it, we are confident that they are in the right ballpark and are at least reasonalbe measures of the extent  to which America's students are-and are not-learning what they need to know.

6 Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2006). See nces.ed/gov/naep, "Overall Results" and "Achievement Levels," percentages of eight-grade students proficient or advanced.

7 Ibid.

8 Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2006). See nces.ed/gov/naep, "Overall Results" and "Achievement Levels," percentages of eight-grade students proficient or advanced.

9 Ibid. See "Overall Results" and "Achievement Levels," percentage of eight-grade students proficient or advanced.

10 Ibid. See "Overall Results" and "Achievement Levels," percentage of eight-grade students proficient or advanced.

11 Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2006). See nces.ed/gov/naep, "Sample Questions"

12 Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2005, 2006, 2007). See nces.ed/gov/naep, "Overall Results," "Results by Demographic Groups," and "Achievement Levels," percentages of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students proficient or advanced. The percentages for the 1990s are the earliest test given in that decade; the percentages for the 2000s are the most recent test given.

13 Strictly speaking, analyses of trends over time should use the "long-term trend" data from NAEP, which includes a subset of test items and allows comparisons of equivalent tests going back to 1970. The "main NAEP," which we report on here, does report trends, but its scores are not quite as reliable measures of change as the long-term trend data. The long-term trend data, however, are limited themselves in that they include only reading and math - excluding trends on the vital subjects of science and U.S. history - and they do not report scores as "achievement levels," making it difficult to convey how well students are doing at any given time. In any case, the trends measured by both data sets show very similar patterns of progress, or the lack of it.

14 Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters, "Leaving Boys Behind: Public High School Graduation Rates," Civic Report No. 48 (New York: Manhattan Institute, April 2006).

15 Greene and Winters, "Leaving Boys Behind."

16 Ibid.

View Full Article

Add your own comment

Ask a Question

Have questions about this article or topic? Ask
Ask
150 Characters allowed