G.F. Brandenburg keeps a close watch on D.C. Schools. In this series of posts, he compares academic gains in D.C. before and after the chancellorship of Michelle Rhee. What he finds is a district that was showing steady improvement before Rhee arrived, and where the gains post-Rhee were continuous with earlier trends. He also compares the performance of public and charter schools in the district on NAEP, as well as the scores of different groups of students.
Aficionados of test scores in D.C. will find these posts of great interest:
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I worked with a teacher who had a student that scored on the preprimer level in the hi stakes test, 2 levels behind on a computerized test, and on level with the QRI, a test given one on one for real results. nuff said
LikeLike
While doing doctoral work in literacy studies, I did a correlational study with the results of my 5th grade class between the State and City reading tests. None existed! This data is interesting, my first question would be, who chooses the student population in a school to do these tests. Ms. Rhee already has a record regarding questionable practices for testing. I am also concerned about someone getting to the excellent criterion-referenced NAEP that have proved to be the “gold standard” in the past. Large leaps in literacy achievement is very questionable, when there is a level playing field, particularly with commercial vendors.
LikeLike
Great work! Would love to see a Washington Post editorial responding to these hard facts (not holding my breath).
The most likely explanation for the trend lines are: 1) changing demographics in DC (middle-class whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians replacing poor whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians); 2) devoting an increasing percentage of instructional time to the tested subjects (after Rhee instituted IMPACT — teacher discharge based on student test scores); and 3) as Brandenburg suggests, charters syphoning off the more motivated students from the neighborhood public schools.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, Brandenburg’s scores for black kids in DC charters seem different from the scores available from the NAEP Data Explorer.
(The NCES has made this a fairly mystifying process. Is it clear that his data are correct?)
The larger question is one of interpretation. If DC charters are siphoning off growing numbers of DC’s more motivated students, it’s hard to compare current scores in DC’s regular schools to such scores from the past.
LikeLike
To answer the question in the title of the post: Absolutely nothing! NAEP suffers the same flaws and errors that N. Wilson has elucidated that render all results invalid or as he puts it “vain and illusory”.
To understand why,
Read and comprehend what Wilson says in his never refuted nor rebutted “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Join the Quixotic Quest to rid the world of educational standards, standardized testing and the nefarious “grading” of students. Begin below but don’t stop there as there is so much more to what Wilson has to say.
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A quality cannot be quantified. Quantity is a sub-category of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category by only a part (sub-category) of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as one dimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing we are lacking much information about said interactions.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. As a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it measures “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
LikeLike
Please, a one paragraph summary
LikeLike
How about a two 1/2 word sentence summary:
It’s bullshit!!!
LikeLike