Charlotte Observer: Public wants one reliable assessment for education

The public has finally caught on to the big flaw in the federal testing initiative. By letting every state design and use its own assessment tool and standards to evaluate performance, states have gamed the system. Some set low bars for performance and claim great progress. Others set high bars, and students struggle to meet them. The result: The federal report of progress doesn't accurately reflect whether students are performing up to par.

White House: NCLB Reauth

cites the favorite stat about more progress in most recent 5 year period than in previous 28 (LTT data)

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 25, 2007

President Bush Congratulates Presidential Scholars, Discusses No Child Left Behind Reauthorization
East Room

Video (Windows)
Presidential Remarks
Audio


Fact Sheet: No Child Left Behind: Keeping a Historic Commitment to Our Children
In Focus: Education


3:13 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Welcome to the White House. It's a neat occasion to be able to welcome the 2007 Presidential Scholars. We're glad you're here, I congratulate you on the fine honor, and of course, we wish you all the very best.

The Presidential Scholars program started in 1964. I was a senior in high school -- I didn't make it. (Laughter.) I know all of you worked hard to reach this day. Your families are proud of your effort, and we welcome your family members here. Your teachers are proud of your effort, and we welcome your teachers. And our entire nation is proud to call you Presidential Scholar. (Applause.)

I'm sorry Laura is not here, she would have loved to have welcomed you. She is off to Africa. And she's there to make sure that people on that continent understand that ours is a nation with a good heart -- after all, we're leading the fight against HIV/AIDS and malaria on that continent. And so she is spreading the goodwill of the American taxpayer by representing our country. In my judgment, there's no finer representative than Laura Bush. (Applause.)

Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. We're proud you're here -- the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings. I thank the members of Congress who have joined us: Senator Lieberman, Congressman Buck McKeon, Congressman Dale Kildee, and Congressman Mike Castle. I'm honored you took time, and so are the Presidential Scholars, they're proud you're here. (Applause.)

I want to thank the members of the Presidential Scholars Commission for picking such a fine group of people, and the Presidential Scholars probably want to thank you, as well. (Laughter.) This is a program that honors high school seniors for exceptional academic and artistic achievements. Past winners have gone on to win the Pulitzer Prize, succeed at the highest levels of business, work here at the White House.

This afternoon we honor a new class of promising young men and women. Your fellow scholars have pursued groundbreaking research, written scholarly papers, and performed at Carnegie Hall. Many of you have also reached out to those in need, and have given your time for causes greater than any individual need. And for that we thank you.

Caterina Yuan shared her passion for service with her classmates at Palo Alto High School in California. She's run food drives, raised thousands of dollars for humanitarian efforts in Africa, and helped organize a school-wide day of service. She's a scholar, but she's also a humanitarian.

Erin Jaeger, from Keene, New Hampshire, helped bring hope and comfort to those living in poverty and hardship. She made three trips to El Salvador to build houses and visit orphanages. Charlie Bridge from Belmont, Massachusetts has given back to his community through teaching. He's tutored disadvantaged middle school students, and he plans to continue this important work this summer.

One person not here today is Max Weaver. He's busy preparing for an engagement at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. In a few days he's going to begin an intensive basic training regime that cadets like to call "the Beast." We wish him luck and we thank him and all the other brave men and women who have volunteered to serve in the United States Armed Forces. (Applause.)

The reason I bring these examples up is that no matter what you do later in life, I encourage you to use your talents to help other people. The true strength of America is the fact that we've got people of good heart and good soul reaching out to people in need. And I thank you for being leaders and setting a good example.

As we celebrate your accomplishments, we also need to honor those who helped you reach this day. You know, I always say that the first teacher of a child is a mom or a dad. For the moms and dads here, congratulations on doing your job. (Applause.) And I thank the teachers who are here, as well. There's no more noble profession than being a teacher. And I suspect the reason we're honoring Presidential Scholars -- or these Presidential Scholars -- is because you and their parents set high standards, set a high bar of expectations.

You know, part of the problem we've had in our school system is for too often and too long that bar wasn't set high enough; that we had too many students who were victims of low expectations. I used to call it the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Schools just shuffled kids from grade to grade, as if the child couldn't learn to read and write and add and subtract. We never measured; we never had any idea how the child was doing until it was too late. And that was unsatisfactory for the United States of America, it's unsatisfactory for the President, it's unsatisfactory for the future.

And that's why when we came to Washington, we worked with Democrats and Republicans to pass what's called the No Child Left Behind Act. The philosophy behind the law is straightforward. It says the federal government should expect results in return for the money it spends. That's not too much to ask, I don't think. If you believe a child can learn to read, then you ought to expect a child to read. That's what you ought to expect. And the only way to determine that is to measure.

I'm sure some of your classmates would say you don't like to take a test. Well, I didn't either. (Laughter.) But that's too bad, because the only way to determine whether a child is reading at grade level is to have accountability in our school systems. And that's the basic strategy of No Child Left Behind. It says, here's some money; we expect you to teach; we want to measure to determine if you are teaching; we look forward to patting you on the back; but if you're not teaching a child the basics, then we expect you to change, before it is too late.

Measuring results helps teachers spot problems. In other words, you can't solve a problem until you diagnose it. It gives teachers tools and schools tools; the key tool necessary to determine whether or not a curriculum needs to change, or whether or not a child needs to get special attention.

Measuring results gives parents key information about how their child's school is doing. You know, it's amazing how many parents will say, the school my child goes to is doing just fine. That's what everybody hopes and that's what everybody assumes, until scores get posted. It's amazing what happens when you hold people to account. It certainly gets a parent's attention when they find out that their child's school isn't doing as good as the neighborhood's school is, for example, or school next door.

No Child Left Behind is working. In other words, we're making good progress. During the most recent five-year period on record, nine-year-olds made more progress in reading than in the previous 28 years combined. (Applause.) You can't say that unless you measure. You can't stand in front of the taxpayers and say, your money is being well spent because we're measuring; we know, we're measuring. Before, it was just -- you were just guessing. Now, thanks to No Child Left Behind, there is accountability that's important to be able to report progress to the American people.

Speaking about progress, the Non-Partisan Center on Education Policy found that many states have seen reading and math test scores increase since we've passed No Child Left Behind. The study found that minority and low-income students are making some of the biggest gains. And that's positive and important news for the American people.

We had an achievement gap in our country and that's not right to have an achievement gap in America. And this achievement gap is becoming closed thanks to hard work by teachers, but also thanks to the fact that we're measuring and correcting problems early, before they're too late.

The No Child Left Behind Act is working and Congress needs to re-authorize this good piece of legislation. Re-authorizing No Child is one of the top priorities of my administration and I know it's a top priority in members of Congress. Buck McKeon is going to be handling the re-authorization on the Republican side in the House of Representatives. And he is determined to work with people in both sides of the aisle to help to get this job done. We made a historic commitment and I believe we have a moral obligation to keep it.

Our ability to compete in the 21st century depends upon educating children just like the ones standing behind me. Whether we like or not, we're in a global world. And if the world needs engineers or scientists, and those scientists are being educated in China and India, and not being educated in the United States, the jobs of the 21st century are likely to go there. And so we better make sure that we have a strategy aimed at making sure that we have high expectations and good results for every child in the United States, if we expect to remain competitive.

As Presidential Scholars, you leave your high school with confidence in your ability, and you've got a great foundation for success. We want to make sure that same confidence is instilled in every single child that's getting out of high school. And so what can we do? First, we can make sure No Child Left Behind gets reauthorized. You cannot compete in a global world unless you're certain that we're achieving certain standards. We want every child reading at grade level by the 3rd grade. And the only way you know whether that's the case is you measure.

And by the way, inherent in No Child Left Behind is a novel idea that said if a child needs extra help, there's going to be money available to help that child. That's how you make sure that you use the accountability system to achieve results, achieve expectations.

But we need to do more. Our high schools need to have accountability. We want to make sure that same rigor that we've applied in the elementary and middle schools are applied to our high schools. If we want to be competitive, the high school diploma has to mean something. We want to make sure that we expand advance placement. I bet most kids here took AP courses, and AP is a great way to raise standards and raise expectations. And we've got to help teachers learn how to teach AP courses as part of our strategy.

We want to make sure that we have a rigorous course of study available for all our kids. We want to make sure we strengthen math and science. And that's why I proposed a program to encourage 30,000 math and science professionals to become part-time teachers. I remember we went to a school in Maryland, Margaret, and there was two guys there that were making science look cool. I can't do that. Most parents aren't able to do that. (Laughter.) But it's amazing what a scientist can do.

And why do we need that? Why do we need 30,000 math and science professionals to go into classrooms to stimulate interest? Because we can't be a competitive nation without more scientists and more mathematicians. Because in order for us to make sure the best jobs are in America requires us having mathematicians and scientists and engineers and physicists. And the best way to stimulate that interest is from people who actually know what they're talking about.

We want to make sure that we work with Congress to have extra funding for under-performing schools. I told you if you measure, we've got extra money for the children -- we've also got extra money for under-performing schools. And those schools need flexibility. In other words, we've got to trust local folks to make the right decisions for local schools. So Margaret is going to work with the school districts and with the Congress to make sure they've got flexibility to use the resources where they're most needed, to tailor reforms to the specific needs of individual schools.

In other words, people say, well, you can't be for No Child Left Behind, it's the federal government telling you what to do. Quite the opposite. The federal government has said, we believe in local control of schools, you reform them, you fix them. We're just going to insist that you measure, in return for the billions we spend on your behalf.

I proposed an interesting idea that I hope Congress passes, and that is creating a teacher incentive fund, of nearly $200 million for the next year as the beginning -- as a down payment to encourage teachers to teach in districts where they need a little extra help; reward teachers who will go into these school districts that need high expectations. We need people to walk in and say, the status quo is unacceptable, people who show that educational entrepreneurship necessary to make sure every single child gets a good education. And I hope Congress works on that with us.

When schools fail to make progress, No Child Left Behind needs to give parents different options. In other words, you cannot tolerate a system where a child is stuck in a school which will not teach and will not change. There has to be a consequence. We've got remedies in the bill that say we're going to help schools effect their programs, but ultimately a parent must be given the ability to transfer their child out to another public school or free tutoring for their children. In other words, there has to be a consequence in order to make sure that there's effectiveness when it comes to reform -- schools that need to be reformed.

I strongly believe that parents are the front lines of the decision-making and should be empowered -- empowered through information and empowered through different options available through the public school system.

We did something else interesting, and I look forward to working with Congress on this -- and I must confess, it's slightly controversial -- and that is, is that we promoted the first federally funded opportunity scholarship program here in Washington, D.C. It basically said to low-income parents that here's some money to help you send your child to a private school or a parochial school, your choice. In other words, it said, if you're tired of being in a system that simply hasn't met expectations, that there ought to be something different, and that I believe that -- I think it's the role of government to help low-income parents have different options.

The program is working. It's over-subscribed. I mean, there are thousands of families that have been helped through this Washington, D.C. program, which ought to say to policymakers, there's a huge demand for something better. People are sick of mediocrity in the status quo. Obviously, it hasn't happened with these kids, for which we're grateful. But there's still too many schools that just aren't meeting expectations. And so I look forward to working to see if we can't expand this kind of program.

The reason I've asked to speak to you is because I want people to understand how important this No Child Left Behind Act is to America and its future. And we will talk about ways to make the law better. I know some members and senators have got concerns about the law, and we're more than willing to talk about flexibility. But there is no compromise when it comes to setting high standards and measurement. You cannot compromise away the principle of saying, we expect good results, and we're going to measure to determine whether or not we've achieved those results. And when you've achieved the results that we, a society, expect, we'll give you the big embrace. (Applause.)

But if not, for the sake of the country, for the sake of kids who deserve better, we expect you to change. That's what we're going to say, loud and clear and often. And it's working; the program is working.

I want to thank Margaret for working hard with members of Congress. She's engaged, as you know -- she's probably wearing you out, Buck. (Laughter.) And Dale. But that's good. She's up there working. Laura is all involved, too. She's met with a lot of members of Congress, and she'll stay involved, as will I. This is a very important piece of legislation. We want every child in America to be a Presidential Scholar. We want every child in this country to realize the great potential of America by starting them off with a good, sound education that lets them realize their dreams.

Ours is a fabulous country. We've got kids standing up here who not only are scholars, but have volunteered to help a neighbor in need. We've got people volunteering to help protect this country. And the thing we've got to do as policymakers is to make sure that we continue to advance America by giving people the tools necessary to realize the great promise of America.

Thanks for coming. God bless you all, and God bless our country. (Applause.)

END 3:30 P.M. EDT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070625-7.html

Dept. of Ed: $116 Million Awarded for 122 Grants to Improve Teaching of American History

$116 Million Awarded for 122 Grants to Improve Teaching of American History

FOR RELEASE: June 21, 2007

Contact: Jane Glickman or Stephanie Babyak (202) 401-1576

U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings today announced the award of $116 million for 122 new grants to improve the quality of American history education. The grants are being awarded to school districts in 40 states nationwide.

"These grants will provide teachers with the resources they need to engage their students and provide them with a better understanding of our nation's history and the principles of our democracy," said Secretary Spellings. "A strong foundation in American history will ensure that our young people grow up to become active and informed citizens."

The Teaching American History discretionary grant program supports three-year projects to improve teachers' knowledge and understanding of traditional American history through intensive, on-going professional development. Grantees must work in partnership with one or more organizations that have extensive knowledge of American history, including libraries, museums, nonprofit history or humanities organizations and higher education institutions.

History is one of the core academic subjects under the landmark No Child Left Behind Act; however, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, which is commonly known as the "Nation's Report Card," shows that less than one-quarter of America's students in grades 4, 8 and 12 are proficient in American history. To improve student achievement, the Teaching American History grant program will immerse history teachers in American history content and research-based teaching strategies, to help them teach American history in an exciting and engaging way.

More information about Teaching American History grant program is available at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/teachinghistory/index.html.

EdWeek Chat: Diplomas Count 2007: A Conversation With the Experts

What is the impact of high-stakes testing on the dropout crisis? Particularly high school exit exams. Are there national trends toward multiple measures to demonstrate proficiency, and is there a general agreement that standards are changed with the addition of multiple measures?

James E. Rosenbaum:
This is not my expertise. A very good book by Martin Carnoy, the new accountability, indicates that Texas managed to avoid increasing dropout rate because it used high-stakes testing that required LOW standards. That may have assisted in raising the minimum achievement, which is a desirable goal, but it did not affect higher achieving students. High-stakes with high standards might have undesirable effects on dropouts, as some research has suggested.

Question from William H. Bailey, Ph.D., Geography, Georgia State University:
Do you think that geography and history should be strong threads that permeate elementary, middle, and high school curricula in order to help high school graduates know and know how to know about the world's people and places in view of the globalization phenomenon?

James E. Rosenbaum:
Yes I do. However it is a challenge to make these subjects feel real to students, especially those who have no opportunities to travel

Full chat transcript here: http://www.edweek.org/chat/transcript_06_20_2007.html

Chester Finn: Why National Standards are Needed

Finn compares US federalism to Australia and discusses the similar challenges faced in nationalizing curriculums.

Working through this won't be any easier for Australia than for the United States. Though the over-40 generation is generally well-educated in a traditional sort of way, I met my share of charming featherheads among those under 30. Like America, Oz could do with a curricular makeover, higher standards, and universal accountability. But as on our own shores, some of its more perceptive education critics worry that any centralized standards will end up being drafted by the very experts whose handiwork caused the problems that national standards and curricula are meant to help solve.

Ed Week: Education Research Can Improve Schools, but Probably Won't

Research is not readily accessible—either physically or intellectually—to the potential users. Summaries of major studies appear in periodicals like Education Week, but the detailed results (usually written for other researchers in academic-speak) are usually available only in separate reports or in relatively low-circulation journals that don’t reach those who most need to know.

Even if research findings were widely available and written in clear prose that even a dimwit like me could understand, the reports would not be widely read. Most teachers are not consumers of research, nor are most principals or superintendents.

And even if educators and policymakers did read all the studies in a timely fashion, schools and education practice would not change very much, mainly because making significant changes means altering value structures, disrupting routines, and teaching old dogs new tricks.

Moreover, researchers seem to delight in neutralizing each other. That’s easier to do in social science than the physical sciences because there are so many uncontrollable variables. And the bigger the question addressed, the more vulnerable the findings.

Full article here:

$600

Interesting thoughts on money, motivation and high stakes testing.

After the test, Luisa told me she had hadn't really tried. Other students said they started guessing half way through. They were tired. The test didn't matter, not to them. But it mattered a great deal to their school and their teacher. We would be judged on their scores.

I thought of Luisa when I heard about New York's pilot program to pay students for achievement. Among other incentives, the program would pay high school students $600 for passing standardized tests. The idea is to align their short term interests with their long term interests, while alleviating poverty and making test data more meaningful. I’m not convinced.

Ed Week: To Know NCLB is to Like It, ETS Finds

Familiarity with law’s emphasis on standards found to boost support

The more Americans learn about the No Child Left Behind Act, they more they like it, according to a poll scheduled to be released this week.

EdWeek: Spellings Pans U.S. Standards

Attention local-control advocates: Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings isn’t planning on pushing for national standards in the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, scheduled for this year.

Full story: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/20/42fedfil.h26.html

commentary from Petrilli, Jennings

EdWeek: Job Skills of Future in Scholars’ Crystal Ball

Economists, researchers, and educators from all over the country recently took turns here looking into a crystal ball with two urgent questions: No. 1, what job skills will employers need in the decades ahead? And, No. 2, are students getting the education they’ll need to be employable?

As with most prognostications, the answers at a research workshop hosted by the prestigious National Academies depended on whom you consulted.

Full story here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/20/42skills.h26.html

The Heritage Foundation's Education Notebook: No Child Left Behind and the Race to the Bottom

June 18, 2007
No Child Left Behind and the Race to the Bottom By Dan Lips and Evan Feinberg As Congress prepares to decide the future of No Child Left Behind, it seems everyone has become an expert on the law, including Comedy Central’s Steven Colbert. On a recent episode of The Colbert Report, Mr. Colbert shared his thoughts on the landmark federal education law, highlighting one of its central problems - how No Child Left Behind is causing states to dumb down state standards. Colbert picked on Mississippi to demonstrate the problem. “Only 18 percent of fourth graders in Mississippi passed the standardized national (NAEP) reading test,” Colbert explained. “Fortunately, it’s the state reading test that counts. And 89 percent of Mississippi fourth graders passed the state test. You see, folks, with one deft move Mississippi is a shining example of how easy it is to succeed…if you simply redefine ‘success’ as ‘below whatever you’re currently achieving.’” Colbert’s report on No Child Left Behind came on the heels of two important studies that shed light on whether the landmark federal education law is working. The first report, from the Center on Education Policy, trumpeted good news for NCLB supporters. The study looked at state proficiency scores and measured whether states were reporting improvement after the enactment of No Child Left Behind. It found that state math and reading scores had improved since the law had passed. “American educators and students were asked to raise academic achievement, and they have done so,” said Jack Jennings, president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings also heralded the study’s findings as evidence that “confirms that No Child Left Behind has struck a chord of success with our nation’s schools and students.” But NCLB supporters shouldn’t be too quick to celebrate. Days later, the Department of Education released a report that explains why state test scores alone don’t show whether NCLB is working. The Department report showed that state-defined proficiency standards are often far lower than proficiency standards on the NAEP, a national snapshot of American students’ academic achievement. This means that states which claim large numbers of students scoring “proficient” on reading and math tests may just have easier tests than other states. Secretary Spellings called the report “sobering news.” The Department of Education report shows why, as Mr. Colbert explained, it is possible for 89 percent of Mississippi’s fourth graders to score “proficient” in reading when only 18 percent scored “proficient” on the NAEP exam. To be sure, state tests have always differed from the national exam. The real problem is that No Child Left Behind actually put in place incentives for states to weaken their standards - making it more pressing for them to meet political objectives than to improve student achievement by objective measures. Under NCLB, states are required each year to increase the percentage of students scoring “proficient” on state exams. Ultimately, the law requires that all students meet the goal of “proficient” on state tests by 2014. This has led states to simply lower the bar, as humorously articulated by Mr. Colbert: “Well, that sounds hard. So here’s what I suggest: Instead of passing the test, just have kids pass a test…. Eventually, we’ll reach a point when ‘math proficiency’ means, ‘you move when poked with a stick,’ and ‘reading proficiency’ means, ‘your breath will fog a mirror.’” Researchers have studied trends in state testing and report that states are indeed participating in a “race to the bottom” by lowering state standards to meet NCLB goals. A 2006 study by University of California researchers found that the gap between state and NAEP proficiency scores had widened in 10 out of 12 states examined since NCLB was enacted. Professor Bruce Fuller, the lead author of the report, pointed to the likely reason: “State leaders are under enormous pressure to show that students are making progress. So they are finding inventive ways of showing higher test scores.” The bad news is that this problem will worsen as the 2014 deadline approaches. If nothing changes, parents should expect to see significant increases in state tests scores. But this improvement probably won’t be evident on the national measures like the NAEP. Mr. Colbert’s jokes aside, this isn’t a laughing matter. No Child Left Behind was intended to strengthen accountability and transparency in public education, but it is actually having the opposite effect. The “race to the bottom” is threatening to erode real transparency about academic performance. Parents and taxpayers soon may not be able to judge whether their children are learning and whether their public schools are working. This is just one of No Child Left Behind’s significant flaws that must be addressed in the upcoming Congressional reauthorization debate. ### Dan Lips is Education Analyst at The Heritage Foundation and Evan Feinberg is a Research Assistant in Domestic Policy at The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org.

Ed Week: Report Finds Lack of Economics Instruction

Read Full Story: Report Finds Lack of Economic Instruction

Even as state policymakers stress the importance of preparing students to compete in a global economy, fewer than half the states require students to take even a basic course in economics. What’s more, the number of states that test students on the concepts of economics is declining.

That’s according to the latest national report card on the state of economics and personal-finance education, released last week by the National Council on Economic Education.

Pitt Gazette: In High Schools, a 'B' is a new 'C'

At high schools across the country, more and more students are graduating with grade-point averages of A, including some whose averages are well above the traditional 4.0 for an A.

Grades -- some weighted with extra points or fractions of points for taking harder courses -- are getting so high that a solid B is becoming the new C, which years ago was considered average.

Consider these examples:

A college freshman survey -- released in April by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA -- said that the trend of grade inflation has continued "unabated" since 1987, noting that nearly half of freshmen reported high school grade point averages of A- or higher in 2006, compared with 19.4 percent in 1966.

A report on members of the Class of 2006 who took the SAT college entrance exam noted that grades have gone up even though SAT scores haven't increased as much or have even dropped.

And a study of high school transcripts and the National Assessment of Educational Progress -- known as the Nation's Report Card -- shows grades have risen without a similar boost in national test scores.

Read the full article here:

Today's Blog Roundup on State Standards

Olympia Business Watch: States Struggling with Academic Standards
A couple of recent education reports continue to attract attention. Carrying the scintillating title, Mapping 2005 State Proficiency standard Onto the NAEP Scales, a report by the National Center of Education Statistics looks at how various state accountability tests (like our WASL) stack up against the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The crux: Not well.

The Official John Cox Campaign Blog: National Standards for Schools?
In a report released last Thursday by the Department of Education, the proof is freely available for everyone to that States Differ on School Standards.
The report found that most of the scores that would label a student proficient on state tests don’t yield that grade on the national tests.
We certainly don’t need National Standards. The NAEP test should continue and its results published. This should happen faster than it does now however. The test results just released from 2004-2005. These are almost 2 years behind since the 2006-2007 school year has just come to a close around the country. It should not take this long. This delay is the fault of the bureaucracies that lay between the actual tests and the parents and taxpayers.

Be-Think: States Satisfy No Child Law; Proficiency Standards Are Lowered
Days ago the news reports were filled with images and icons. Illusions and delusions were delivered to an expectant public. Paris Hilton appeared on every screen. Cable, network, and local stations covered her body and her burgeoning tensions. She is in jail. She is legally out of prison. The hotel heiress is partying at home or piteous in court. America was fixated. People pondered; wresting with facts and figures all pertaining to Paris.

USA Today Opinion/Opposing View

This did run in today's print edition too.

Our view on education standards: States game the system
Gaps in test performance reveal need for more uniform measures.
Today's pop quiz: Mississippi elementary school students are (A) the best readers in the USA, (B) the worst readers in the USA, or (C) both.Continue reading.


Opposing view: We're attacking the issues
Mississippi is developing rigorous assessments, tougher curriculum.
By Hank M. Bounds
In Mississippi, we recognize the discrepancy between what students are expected to know on our tests and on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). We have developed a much more rigorous curriculum and will launch a more rigorous assessment system aligned to it next year. Continue reading.

13th Floor From Governing: A Test of Standardized Tests

A Test of Standardized Tests

posted by Josh Goodman

SHOCKING NEWS!!!!!! The federal government has released an interesting report.

That would be a Department of Education study, which reveals (or at least seems to reveal) which states are dumbing down their standardized tests under No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

The report presents the percentages of students meeting proficiency standards on their NCLB tests (which states design) compared to the percentage who are proficient on "the Nation's Report Card" -- the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The subtext: If students in a state are scoring much higher on the NCLB tests than they are on NAEP, then that probably means the NCLB tests are too easy.

The federal report looks at scores for fourth grade reading, fourth grade math, eighth grade reading and eighth grade math. To make the data more digestible, I've averaged all these scores and then found the difference between the NCLB average and the NAEP average.

Full story here: http://governing.typepad.com/13thfloor/2007/06/a_test_of_stand.html

SEGA Tech: Lowering Standards and Raising Scores

Today, my colleague Lisa Burkhalter sent me an article from Education Week called State Tests, NAEP often a Mismatch. A new federal report found that many states who claim to have high test scores in reading and math have less stringent standards than other lower performing states (see the official study here).

The study compared the actual tests - not scores - with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (or NAEP), often referred to as “the nation’s report card. Basically, it looked at the baseline expectations of proficiency that each test demanded from students and compared that with the NAEP’s baseline expectations.

U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings called it “sobering news” as the nation seeks to raise academic demands on students. States “must do their part by setting high standards and expectations,” she said in a statement. “I hope this report will be a catalyst for positive change.”

Full story here: http://segatech.us/archives/1928

Our Education: Proficient Here, But Below Basic There?

There are several common misconceptions about the No Child Left Behind Act, but perhaps the most significant one is that it creates a uniform set of standards for all of America's children. While standards are indeed the crux of the law, along with the requirement that schools test their students to see whether the standards are being met, the misconception is that there is any kind of uniformity within the standards for school aged youth. In other words, whether a child is scored as below basic, basic, proficient, or advanced in a subject like reading may have less to do with her aptitude in that subject area and more to do with her zip code.

The reason for this discrepancy is simple: NCLB charges each of the 50 states to set its own standards in core subject areas, and allows the states considerable leeway in interpreting how high--or low--to set their bars. A report released by the US Department of Education just last week underscores the severe inconsistency that has resulted from this state-by-state system of standard setting. It does so by comparing the scores that students need to hit proficiency standards in each of the 50 states against the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), so as to create a common benchmark for performance.

Full post here: http://blog.oured.org/2007/06/proficient_here_but_below_basi.php

The Colbert Report

Talks about NCLB and release of the state standards report http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=88431

Straight A's: MAPPING 2005 STATE PROFICIENCY STANDARDS ONTO THE NAEP SCALES: New Research Report Compares NAEP and State Proficiency Standards

Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), states must test students annually in grades three through eight and once in high school in reading and mathematics. The law allows each state to design its own test and to set a score that all students must meet to be considered proficient. However, there is no way to compare results across states, and, as a new report from the National Center for Education Statistics notes, the percentages of students deemed proficient vary widely across states for a given subject and grade.

The report, Mapping 2005 State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales, suggests that the wide difference in scores could be due to differences in the stringency of the standards adopted by the states. In an effort to compare the various state tests, the report’s authors use a mapping exercise to project state standards onto the scale used by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Specifically, the authors use the percentages of students who reach proficiency on state tests in reading and math to estimate what the equivalent proficiency score would be on the NAEP tests in reading and math.

For example, in Hawaii, only 20 percent of eighth-grade students scored at the proficient level on the state test in math. However, by using the mapping exercise, the report’s authors project that scoring at proficiency on Hawaii’s state test would be equivalent to scoring 296 on the NAEP test in math. Conversely, while 88 percent of Tennessee’s eighth graders scored at proficiency on the state test in math, the proficient level on the Tennessee test would equal a score of 230 on the NAEP test. In order to score at the proficient level on NAEP, a student would need a score of 299 or above. A score of 262 or above would place a student at the basic level on NAEP.

Turning to eighth-grade students’ reading scores, the report finds that only 57 percent of Arkansas’s students scored at proficient on the state test, but that scoring at proficient on the Arkansas test is equivalent to scoring 254 on the NAEP test in reading. In North Carolina, however, 88 percent of eighth-grade students scored at proficient on the state test, but scoring at proficient on the North Carolina state test is only equivalent to scoring 217 on the NAEP test, as reflected in the chart to the right. A score of 243 would place a student at the basic level on NAEP while a score of 281 would place him or her at the proficient level.

The report also offers several key findings about state tests as they relate to the NAEP test. Specifically, it finds that states vary widely in the NAEP equivalents of their proficiency standards, with up to an eighty-one point difference in proficiency standards between the states. In addition, as evidenced by the chart above, most state proficiency standards fall within the NAEP basic range—except in fourth-grade reading, where most fall below basic.

The complete report, which includes charts for fourth-grade reading and math, as well as eighth- grade math, is available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2007482.pdf.

Bluegrass Policy Blog: Confusion About New Report on State Standards

A new report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) involving the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) titled “Mapping 2005 State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales” is creating a stir across the nation as it exposes the considerable score inflation in state tests used for No Child Left Behind. This NCES report presents a sort of grading scale for state standards where the higher numbers indicate more stringent standards and lower numbers indicate standards are more watered down.

The report also compares the state standards to the standards used to grade the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

There is both good and bad news for Kentucky....

...One example of how the federal report got misinterpreted is in the Georgetown News-Graphic for Jun 11 titled “Kentucky students score well nationally.”

I contacted the reporter who was very receptive to my comments and promised to do a correction article. That is exactly the responsible attitude we like to see, as even the Bluegrass Institute staff sometimes makes an error or gets better information that requires a change in position on an issue. I look forward to reading that updated article in the News-Graphic.

And, for our other readers, please remember we are always happy to help if you have a question about education. Sometimes the jargon and the reporting is confusing (if not downright intentionally misleading), and we want to insure the commonwealth and its citizens have the most accurate information possible so they can make informed decisions.

Full story here: http://www.bipps.org/blog/archives/2007/06/confusion_about.html

Cogitorium on Education: Unifying State Standards

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released a report last week aligning scores state assessment scores with the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP). The analysis reveals striking differences in standards from state to states

Full post here: http://edu-cogitorium.blogspot.com/

Sherman Dorn: National Standards as Policy Machismo

Alexander Russo and I agree on National (Yawn) Standards (Again) (his title), regarding last week's CEP report on state proficiency percentage trends and the NCES comparison of state proficiency cut-scores and NAEP cut-scores and also the double-report week's politics. In a different way, I also agree with U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings in her dissing of national standards. Same (in a yet third way) with the Education Sector's Danny Rosenthal. And I disagree with all of them.

Russo is right on the politics of national standards: dead for now. He's at his best in pegging the accountability politics, and since that's his focus in the last few weeks, I'll give him a pass for now on where I disagree with him. Spellings is right that the federal government does a better job of collecting data than telling the states what to do. She's wrong that the federal government does a better job of telling the states what to do when it's labeled NCLB. Rosenthal is correct that there is a difference between setting curriculum standards and setting cut scores. He's wrong in asserting that the cut scores are what is important.

full post here: http://www.shermandorn.com/mt/archives/000928.html

Democracy: America's Teaching Crisis

by Jason Kamras (former teacher of the year) and Andy Rotherham

For too many students, American public education is failing. Class and race still play a significant and disturbing role in determining access to educational opportunity, and as a result large and unjust gaps in achievement and outcomes still divide American children. The 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress indicates that, by the time they are in the fourth grade, low-income children are roughly two-and-a-half times less likely to be meeting grade-level proficiency standards as compared to their more affluent peers.

Full story here (about teaching): http://www.democracyjournal.org/article.php?ID=6535 (free login)

New York Times: States Found to Vary Widely on Education

Academic standards vary so drastically from state to state that a fourth grader judged proficient in reading in Mississippi or Tennessee would fall far short of that mark in Massachusetts and South Carolina, the United States Department of Education said yesterday in a report that, for the first time, measured the extent of the differences.

Full story here

State Mapping Round-Up: State Coverage

A weekend smattering from the states:

Vermont: This is Good News?
Vermont: Is Vermont Asking Enough of Public School Kids?

Arizona: Arizona Schools Above Average for Less Money

Wisconsin: State Testing Doesn't Measure Up
Wisconsin: Do States Put Image Ahead of Performance?
Wisconsin: Q&A, State Tests vs. National

Mississippi: Changes Coming in Spring

Kentucky: Kentucky Students Score Well Nationally
Wow. Swing and a miss.

South Carolina: SC among states setting higher standards

Louisiana: Louisiana proficiency marks map to national basic level

New York: NY Students Excel in Reading
...but NY journalists don't.

Hawaii: Hawaii Ranks High in Proficiency Standards

Tennessee: Tennessee Working to Improve Standards, Performance

Pennsylvania: PA Students Rank High in New Federal Report

Arkansas: Education in Arkansas' public schools is pushing to the forefront on the national level

Iowa Officials: Schools have High Standards

Dianne Ravitch: The Chinese Work Ethic and Other News

Next came a report from the National Center for Education Statistics, which equated state proficiency standards with NAEP standards. What it found—no surprise!—is that state standards vary so widely that a fourth grade student in Mississippi who was rated "proficient" might well be judged "failing" in Massachusetts. The report, called "Mapping 2005 State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales" was quite amazing. One point that came through in this report was that many states rate students as "proficient" who would be rated "below basic" on the NAEP scale.

I know you don't give a hoot about NAEP, and that you think its cut scores are way too high. But the important point that came across in this study is the crazy variability in state standards. The states with high standards are Massachusetts, Wyoming, and South Carolina. Close behind are Arkansas, Nevada, Connecticut, California, and New Mexico. The other states have set low to middling standards. I am sure this made the Bush administration unhappy, but the fundamental idea is that this variability makes no sense. We need accurate and consistent information about student progress.

Full conversation here:

Bracey on HuffPo

sigh. Bracey goes after Spellings (starting from the Buster incident, but more recently focussed on the June 9 WaPo OpEd), NAEP standards ( "unrealistically tough NAEP standards" or "outrageously tough NAEP standards." ), and the all time favorite quote that thanks to NCLB kids have made more progress since 1999 than in the previous 30 years. He is also against reporting NAEP side by said with NAEP results ("a great way to destroy NAEP")read the full post... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-bracey/margaret-spellings-small_b_51619.html

USAT: Fixing No Child Left Behind: Two views

opinions on the state standards GNS report, with mention of ours.


Fixing No Child Left Behind: Two views
Federal education officials plan to release a report that concludes that many states hold students to relatively low education standards in order to make the federal grade. (Schools that don't make "adequate yearly progress" risk being flagged as underperforming.)
Education experts Frederick Hess and Eva Baker raise their hands with ideas on how states can score better results.

read the full article... http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-06-06-schools-opinions_N.htm

CBS News: Soaring Test Scores

CBS News "Political Animal" reacts to CEP report:

An even better question is: even if state test scores are rising, does that indicate that student achievement is also increasing? Bob Somerby suspects that rising scores might actually be due to dumbed down tests, and unfortunately, the study itself suggests he's right.

(...)

However, there are virtually no states that improved on NAEP but fell on their own tests. A rising NAEP score really does seem to indicate better performance that shows up no matter what test you take. Conversely, there are loads of states that showed improvement on their own test even though results fell on NAEP. Peculiar, no? It's almost as though the states tests aren't really testing actual performance very well.

This Week in Education: CEP Roundup

Alexander Russo provides a round-up of coverage on the CEP report.

Click here.

Salt Lake Tribune: Critics say standardized tests don't tell the whole story for Utah students

this is a really impressive and in-depth article analyzing Utah's state and NAEP test scores.

read the full article here:

Ed Week: Reading NAEP Trend Line Could Be Severed

Breaking the trend line is never popular among followers of NAEP who want to be able to compare test scores over extended periods. But this potential disruption in the trend would come at an especially inopportune time. Educators and policymakers are attempting to gauge student progress in reading under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which President Bush signed into law in 2002, and NAEP offers perhaps the most objective means of making that determination. All states must participate in NAEP reading at the 4th and 8th grade level to receive federal Title I funds.

The No Child Left Behind law “is a strong factor. It argues for not breaking the trend,” said John Q. Easton, a governing board member. “It’s a bad time to start all over again.”

Read the rest of the story here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/05/31/39nagb.html

Condition of Education Round-Up

Education Week
Condition of Education Finds Surge in Minorities Test Taking
Focusing on special-analyisis

Chronicle of Higher Education
Enrollment Gains by Women and Minorities Continue, Federal Data Show
Focusing on statistics of post-secondary enrollment.

The Quick and The Ed
Statistics With Meaning

I left “the condition of education 2007” feeling like I had been bombarded with statistics without much context.

New York Times
U.S. Data Show Rapid Minority Growth in School Rolls
Focusing on 2005 enrollment demographics by region.

Inside Higher Ed
The Yearly Report Card
Focusing on special analysis.

Diverse: Issues in Education
Minorities Continue Growth in Degree Attainment but Attend TWIs for Advanced Degrees, Says Report
Focusing on undergraduate enrollment.

Department of Education
Statement from the Secretary

National Science Teachers Association
High School Students Taking More Science Courses