\doc\web\99\02\brnaep.txt From: "Donna Garner" To: "ClearingHouse" Subject: [education-consumers] Bracey -- NAEP Date sent: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:08:06 -0600 Send reply to: "Donna Garner" Look at these statments again ----- On the 1994 NAEP, 4% of the Texas fourth graders who were tested were at or above advanced, 22% were at or above proficient, 54% were at or above basic, and 46% were below basic. No wonder we high school English teachers are constantly frustrated when only 4% of our students are able to do the very things that all high school students should be able to do. ---------------------------- This is why I have such a huge problem with criterion reference tests. Statistially, the "expected" value is what you are most likely to get if you select any one individual at random. That's why the 50th percentile level is "grade level", with half above, and half below. On the NAEP scale, 50th percentile is just above the portion that scored in the "knows nothing" category, yet that's also the statistical definition of grade level. I don't care how stupid the kids in your state or my state are, the top 5% is normally what gets called "gifted", and that's what you will find in your wealthiest suburbs and private schools, and they are the kids you find in the Ivy leagues and top state universities like UC Berkeley. I don't think it's reasonable to expect all children, or even the top 50% of kids to perform at such a level. I went to school in 1976 in a 50th percentile school, and I don't recall too many kids beside myself who could perform at such levels either. Does anybody have any evidence that the general HS population was ever capable of such levels of performance, except in the days when only the top 25 graduated from high school and only 10% went to college, about 100 years ago? (Bracey also writes about being careful about the "good old days") > ===================================================================== > > > Mr. Bracey, thank you for this information on NAEP (National Assessment of > Educational Progress). However, you have referred only to the area of > math; and my area of expertise is in the area of English / Language Arts / > Reading. Let's consider ELAR for a few minutes. > > It is my understanding that 1994 is the last NAEP reading assessment. At > that time, 2,454 Texas fourth graders were tested in reading. In order to > compare data, here are the scores from the 1992 NAEP reading: Of the Texas > fourth graders who were tested in 1992, 3% tested at or above advanced, 20% > were at or above proficient, 53% were at or above basic, and 47% were below > basic. > > On the 1994 NAEP, 4% of the Texas fourth graders who were tested were at or > above advanced, 22% were at or above proficient, 54% were at or above > basic, and 46% were below basic. That means that those 47% who were below > basic in 1992 and those 46% who were below basic in 1994 have been passing > through my ninth-grade English classes for a few years. Those are the > derelicts of whole language instruction. Those are the students who cannot > read their ninth-grade literature, history, math, science books. > > Nationwide in 1994 on the NAEP reading assessment, 5% were at or above the > advanced level: 5% at grade 4, 2% at grade 8, and 4% at grade 12. > "Advanced" indicates students who could generalize about topics in the > reading selection and demonstrate an awareness of how authors compose and > use literary devices. The students could judge texts critically and could > give thorough answers which indicate careful thought No wonder we high > school English teachers are constantly frustrated when only 4% of our > students are able to do the very things that all high school students > should be able to do. > > In 1994 Texas scored better than only five states, not as well as eight, > and about the same as twenty-eight states. > > At the risk of sounding jaded, I also must question any involvement in the > NAEP that the Texas Education Agency has. We already know that the TEA has > not proved themselves to be above reproach in the area of the TAAS data (as > evidenced by the recent report presented by the Tax Research Association of > Houston and Harris County, http://www.taxresearch.org). I would imagine > that the state coordinator for NAEP is connected to the TEA. Just how were > decisions made as to which schools would participate, which schools would > be substituted, etc.? > > By the way, I have never criticized NAEP. If they change their assessment > structure and make it almost totally performance-based with subjective > grading, then I will criticize it wholeheartedly. > > Donna Garner > dggarner@swbell.net > > ---------- > > From: Gerald W. Bracey > > To: Donna Garner > > Subject: Re: NAEP/Gerald Bracey/whole language > > Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 9:50 AM > > > > NAEP uses a firm called Westat to draw the sample. I don't know the > precise > > method but imagine it is very much like the method used by Statistics > Canada > > to draw the sample for TIMSS. > > > > They had a list of every school in each country with some demographic > > information about each. They took a random sample. If a certain > proportion > > of schools refused to participate, or if a country excluded more than the > > allowable number of eligible students (Russia excluded all non-Russian > > speaking schools, for instance), then that was noted in the report. > > > > For NAEP, if a selected school refuses, an alternative school is asked. > The > > participation rates for example, in the 1996 math assessment are given on > > page 86 of the report (you ought to get some of these before making > strong > > claims about NAEP). Texas' participation rate was 90% before subs, 95% > > after. Info is also given in the report about the % of kids who are > > disabled or LEP and how many of these were excluded. > > > > Texas had 2,245 kids in NAEP. Large samples are not necessary if your > > sampling procedures are good. The 2,245 figure is about twice as large > as > > most Harris, Roper, Gallup polls for NATIONAL results. > > > > ===================================================================== > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the internet > > Subscriptions & Archives: http://education-consumers.com or > > You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: arthurhu@halcyon.com > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net > > ===================================================================== > > For less mail, click on the following link and choose > 1) a daily digest, > 2) a daily list of subjects, or > 3) no mail (read postings on Web) > > http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers > > For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or >