z40\doc\web\2000\03\morenaep.txt
Date sent:      	Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:21:03 -0500
From:           	"Richard G. Innes" <70224.434@compuserve.com>
Subject:        	[education-consumers] More Hot Stuff on NAEP
To:             	"ClearingHouse" <education-consumers@lists.dundee.net>
Send reply to:  	"Richard G. Innes" <70224.434@compuserve.com>


=====================================================================






ECC and 'Beyond':


Two important articles are on line in the March 15th electronic edition of
"Education Week" at edweek.org.  They deal with the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) and certainly need discussion.   


The first is 'NAEP Drops Long-Term Writing Data.'  


This article brings up some very important points:


1.  Many state tests that use open response questions may have the same
validity problems that the article says have surfaced in the NAEP.  This
poses some serious questions for federal requirements for states to use
assessments.  


This is really an issue for Kentucky.  Kentucky uses about the same number
of questions that NAEP administrators are now saying leads to validity
problems.  This means that Kentucky's new CATS assessment can now be
challenged with the authority of NAEP and ETS as support!  I suspect the
same will be true elsewhere.


2.  This article indicates that, nationally, the Long-Term trend NAEP
Writing Assessment has generally shown flat or declining results.  It is
this information that NAEP now is trying to discredit and bury.


3.  At the same time, the Main NAEP Writing Assessment (this is a
different assessment program with NAEP) was completely revised in 1998 and
cannot be compared to earlier Main Writing Assessments.  


So, dropping the Long-Term Trend NAEP leaves us in the dark about trends
in writing until at least the year 2002 *unless* the Long-Term Trend NAEP
Writing Assessment is reinstated.  It might be interesting to do that
despite possible validity issues.  Right now, all the Long-Term Writing
data has apparently been purged from the NCES web site, unfortunately.


I for one would rather have the scores made available rather than see them
tossed aside.  That is always bad science.




Bottom line:  Is the decision to drop the Long-Term Assessment really
valid, or is this just a move to hide 10 years of failure to improve
writing?  There evidently was good evidence in the scores that NCES
decided to throw out that kids years ago wrote at least as well as our
current students.  It's not hard to understand why some would want to bury
this disappointing result.




The second article is 'States Report Trouble with Special Ed. Testing.'
This outlines the problems the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
has created for NAEP and the states, as I have discussed in ECC before.  


It is interesting that "Education Week" says there is a larger study
under way on the 1998 NAEP to see if exclusions impacted scores.  I am not
quite sure what is meant by that because the Kentucky study, at least, was
supposed to be complete back in September.  In fact, Acting Commissioner
of Education Statistics Gary W. Phillips said there would be no more study
of this issue in September.  


At best, I am highly confused, but more study certainly is needed.


By the way, I think the study Ed. Week refers to is "Increasing the
Participation of Special Needs Students in NAEP, NCES 2000-473."  It is on
line at the National Center for Education Statistics web site.  Long, but
interesting stuff.


Dick