Every once in a while, a new set of test scores is released by the National Assessment Governing Board, the federal agency that supervises the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Just a few days ago, the NAEP scores for science were released for 4th and 8th grades, and once again there was woe and gnashing of teeth in the land (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/10/31naep_ep.h31.html?tkn=VPXFO3wzO2s%2Bbex2WwFqNNnCfYtzrpCNzSmA&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1). The scores had improved, but not enough to satisfy the nay-sayers.
The media react with alarm every time the NAEP scores appear because only about one-third or so of students is rated “proficient.” This is supposed to be something akin to a national tragedy because presumably almost every child should be “proficient.” Remember, under No Child Left Behind, ALL students are supposed to be proficient in reading and math by the year 2014.
Since I served on NAGB for seven years, I can explain what the board’s “achievement levels” mean. There are four levels. At the top is “advanced.” Then comes “proficient.” Then “basic.” And last, “below basic.”
Advanced is truly superb performance, which is like getting an A+. Among fourth graders, 8% were advanced readers in 2011; 3% of eighth graders were advanced. In reading, these numbers have changed little in the past twenty years. In math, there has been a pretty dramatic growth in national scores over these past twenty years: the proportion of students who scored advanced in fourth grade grew from 2% in 1992 to 7% in 2011. In eighth grade, the proportion who were advanced in math grew from 3% in 1992 to 8% in 2011.
Proficient is akin to a solid A. In reading, the proportion who were proficient in fourth grade reading rose from 29% in 1992 to 34% in 2011. The proportion proficient in eighth grade also rose from 29% to 34% in those years. In math, the proportion in fourth grade who were proficient rose from 18% to 40% in the past twenty years, an absolutely astonishing improvement. In eighth grade, the proportion proficient in math went from 21% in 1992 to an amazing 35% in 2011.
Basic is akin to a B or C level performance. Good but not good enough.
And below basic is where we really need to worry. These are the students who really don’t understand math or read well at all. The proportion who are below basic has dropped steadily in both reading and math in fourth and eighth grades since 1992.
When the scores are broken out by race, you can really see dramatic progress, especially in math. In 1992, 80% of black students in fourth grade were below basic. By 2011, that proportion had dropped to 49%. Among white students in fourth grade math, the proportion below basic fell in that time period from 40% to only 16%.
The changes in reading scores are not as dramatic as in math, but they are nonetheless impressive. In fourth grade, the proportion of black students who were below basic in 1992 was 68%; by 2011, it was down to 51%. In eighth grade, the proportion of black students who were reading below basic was 55%; that had fallen to 41% by 2011.
The point here is that NAEP scores show steady and very impressive improvement over the past twenty years. Our problems are tough, but they are not intractable. The next time someone tells you that U.S. education is “failing,” or “declining,” tell them they are wrong.
Diane
Who is tested? How are the schools chosen and how are NAEP scores normalized against what?
Our poor and minority students have been subjected to inferior behavior psychology programs for years and years. They are now being placed in Charter Schools to “train” for low level jobs in the corporate planned or projected economy. Some are traiing on site.
See the federal legislation “School-To-Work”. Also, see the “necessary” skills suggested by the federal government for our planned “service economy”. Cheap labor for corporations and vested interest foundations is the goal. I have seen no mention of this documented fact on your web. Serfdom comes to my mind.
The core standards, I have seen over the years, have the necessary attitude skills written in for workforce training. The students and parents have been conditioned to accept whatever “career” the “test experts” indicate, and it is assumed by racists, or, money hungry, undemocratic persons, that the majority of poor and minority children are not capable of high achievement. This explains the scores on the NAPE.
Privatizing will strip our nation of representative government, especially the local schools boards. Serfdom, you bet!
Nothing explains the scores on NAEP until we know how the schools that tested children were chosen, how representative they were of the state’s and district schools, and on and on psychometrically….
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/faq.asp#ques12
If you don’t find what you want there, try google.com
My point exactly. NAEP scores are little more than who gets tested. Are they any more psychometrically sound than other metrics to tell us what students know and can do?
[…] https://dianeravitch.net/2012/05/14/what-do-naep-scores-mean/ Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
[…] (and the increasing evidence of the low quality of science instruction and curricula) , Ravitch attempted to argue that there is in fact slow and steady improvement in how we are educating our children. […]
[…] test scores in reading and math are at their highest point in our history. Forgive me if I quote an earlier blog from this […]
[…] What Do NAEP Scores Mean? is by Diane Ravitch. […]
I have always wondered why –when the bell curve of performance is so clearly defined–that we said that all students had to be in the top 50%? Were they all students in Lake at Wobegon where all the children are above average? While basic isn’t great, we don’t really expect all students to get A’s–and a C or a B is really okay!!! And then we have begun to solve the real problem around the persistent gaps.