California NAEP test scores stagnant

Schools Chief Jack O'Connell Comments
on Latest NAEP Reading Results

SACRAMENTO — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today commented on the release of the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading results for participating fourth and eighth graders.

The 2009 NAEP results for California show no significant change in overall scores from the 2007 assessment, which was the last time NAEP tested students in the fourth and eighth grades in reading. Nationally, the results are similar, with overall scores holding steady at the fourth grade level and a slight improvement in the eighth grade.

Overall average scores for students at both the state and the national level remain at the NAEP "basic" achievement level, which denotes partial mastery of fundamental skills at each grade. While reading scores for both fourth and eighth grade students remains flat overall, the average reading score for California's grade eight African American students improved slightly, moving the subgroup from "below basic" to the NAEP "basic" achievement level. Unfortunately, the NAEP reading results reveal no narrowing of the achievement gap between students who are white or Asian students and their peers who are African American or Latino.

"While we have seen a slight narrowing of the achievement gap on our state assessments, that trend is absent in these national test results," said O'Connell. "It's critical for the future of our state and nation that we close the achievement gap and prepare all students for successful futures. We must continue to focus our efforts ever more diligently on finding and using effective strategies that help all students learn to their full potential.

"These results also particularly highlight the need to better serve students who are learning the English language. In California, English learners make up a quarter of our student population, yet as a group, this population scores far behind nearly every other subgroup. It is critically important for us to search for the best strategies to assist these students to succeed academically in order for California to thrive and maintain its place as a leading world economy."

The NAEP data also reveal that students with access to books at home and who read for fun scored significantly higher on the reading assessment.

"Reading is fundamental to learning," said O'Connell. "Parents play a crucial role in helping their children build a solid foundation for learning by encouraging them to read every day. It is so important that we support school libraries and public libraries that provide students access to a wealth of reading materials and other literary resources."

NAEP is a national assessment that tests a representative sample of students in grades four, eight, and twelve in various subjects including reading, writing, math, and science. NAEP provides a common yardstick for measuring student achievement nationwide, allowing for state comparisons. NAEP assessments are not aligned to California's content standards, but are based on an assessment framework developed under the direction of the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP. Results are released for the nation, states, and certain large urban school districts. There are no student- or school-level results. The limited large urban school district results for the 2009 reading assessment are expected to be released in May. National-level grade twelve reading results will be released later this year.

Recently, California joined 47 other states, two territories, and the District of Columbia in signing a compact to explore the development of rigorous common core standards that are designed to ensure that every state prepares students for success in college and the workforce.

"I strongly support the idea of common core standards that prepare all students for success in college and careers," said O'Connell. "When states develop and adopt high-quality common standards, assessments like NAEP will become more meaningful tools for measuring learning and comparing scores nationwide. I look forward to the convening of the Academic Content Standards Commission and its work to help integrate the common core standards here in California."

Complete results for the 2009 NAEP reading assessment are available online at The Nation's Report Card - National Assessment of Educational Progress - NAEP (Outside Source).

California has some of the highest standards in the nation.  What we do not have is most of our  students achieving these standards. The proposed Arne Duncan school reforms are to raise the national standards. This will have no significant impact on California.  We have the high standards, not the achievement.

The problem of testing

Testing Issues
Added to the shortcomings of the standards movement is the recent heavy emphasis on high-stakes testing to determine the achievement of the standards. Decades of work have highlighted the effectiveness of authentic assessments (portfolios, student exhibitions, scoring rubrics, etc.) as tools for informing teachers’ instructional practices and methods for communicating to students and parents the knowledge that has been gained. However, the current practice in testing is the standardized, norm-reference test, consisting almost wholly of multiple choice questions. It is problematic that policy makers would on one hand mandate the development of elaborate content standards only to couple such policies with low-level and narrow assessments (Nichols and Berliner, 2007, Dorn 2007)
The long and troubled history of testing and test development in the United States was severely damaged by racism, which the test producers have yet to overcome (Berlak, 2000; Valdéz & Figueroa, 1994). Standardized, usually multiple choice, tests are preferred because they can be mandated by political leaders, implemented, and deliver clear results. But, as in the case of positivism and reductionism (from which these tests come), they are measuring and evaluating only a small segment of the important learning goals of schools. Low level tests do not measure human relations, respect, civic courage, and critical thinking, for example. Standardized testing is a political act that often forces teachers to change their teaching strategies. Teachers need to examine the limits of the testing processes and use classroom based assessments to inform their teaching. In many states, including Texas, California, and Massachusetts, and in many school districts, including New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, standards and a test driven curriculum have been used to reduce teacher professional choice and decision-making.
The most basic failure of the testing/accountability model was to refuse to recognize that public education is far more than production; it includes, at a minimum, facts, concepts, generalizations, skills, attitudes, critical thinking, and citizenship. Thus, a business-production model, based on low-level, multiple choice testing, only measures a small part of the important issues of schools in a democratic society (see Renzulli, 2002, Dorn 2007). Meanwhile, governors and legislators committed to the testing movement ignore other parts of the business production model, including providing as much support, including tools, training, and technical assistance for the workers as needed.
Testing systems have grown in part because they are very profitable for the companies that produce and score these low-quality tests—companies that lobby the legislatures to establish testing systems. State funding for testing grew in Texas from $19.5 million in 1995 to $ 68.6 million in 2001 and at similar rates in other states (Gluckman, Jan. 2002). Bloomberg News estimated in 2006 that the testing industry makes over $ 2.5 billion per year ( Gloven and Evans, 2006). Funding increases for testing and test preparation usually is matched by a reduction in funding for other classroom items such as textbooks, dictionaries, libraries, and teacher support. In spite of these large investments test-based accountability systems, without major improvements in the quality of testing and investments in teacher capacity-building, will not produce significant improvement in student achievement in high-risk neighborhoods (Kober, 2001; Popham, 2003, Nichols and Berliner, 2007).
Extensive evidence shows that the current testing emphasis has driven instruction away from important issues of developing democratic and multicultural content, away from critical thinking, and away from the development of citizenship and prodemocratic values (Neill, 2003; Renzulli, 2002). Available testing, particularly multiple choice testing, is not the only form of assessment. Other assessment devices include teacher observations, rubrics, student presentations, and portfolios ( Wood, Darling-Hammond, Neil, and Roschewski, 2007 ) These forms of assessment can be used to measure progress on goals of critical thinking, democracy, and important multicultural goals such as mutual respect.
Scores on most standardized skill tests actually teach us very little; they measure very imprecisely. Current objective tests measure whether the student can identify letters, words, and rhyming words, but they do not measure comprehension of a paragraph or the ability to write a creative essay. They measure skills and isolated facts rather than significant academic achievement. Tests are usually not actual measures of competencies, but measures of isolated skills that can be drilled without improving the student’s education. Rather than investing more money in the current low-quality testing systems, we could develop appropriate and useful assessments, including using computer technology, which would help the teacher. There are good uses for standardized testing. They should be short tests given frequently that assist the teacher in making decisions about individual students, teaching and review. But that is now what is happening with testing in k-12 today.
From: Choosing Democracy; a practical guide to multicultural education. 4th. ed. 2010. p. 381.
Duane Campbell

State Test Scores and NAEP

State Test Scores in Reading and Mathematics Continue
To Increase, Achievement Gaps Narrow
Positive Trends in State Test Scores Seen Since 2002

WASHINGTON, D.C. – June 24, 2008 – Student scores on state tests of reading and
mathematics have risen since 2002, and achievement gaps between various groups of students
have narrowed more often than they have widened, according to the most comprehensive and
rigorous recent analysis of state test scores. These improvements have occurred during a
period when the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), state education reforms, and local school
improvement efforts have focused on raising test scores and narrowing achievement gaps.

The report, Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002?: State Test Score Trends
Through 2006-07, was released today by the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy (CEP). It
analyzes state test data from all 50 states as well as trends through 2007 on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the only federally administered assessment of
reading and math achievement. While expanding on a similar report from last year, this study
continues the focus on two main questions: whether reading and math achievement has
increased since 2002 and whether achievement gaps between subgroups of students have
narrowed. The number of states included varies depending on the type of trend being reported.
CEP excluded state data from years that should not be compared because a state introduced a
new test, changed the passing score on its test, or made other major test changes. CEP also
looked at two indicators of achievement on state tests – the percentage of students scoring at or
above the “proficient” level and a statistic called “effect size,” which avoids some limitations of
percentages proficient.

The report includes an analysis of many of the differences between state test scores and NAEP scores.

Life is better today, or is it?

The column, “Life is better today than it was 10 years ago,” in the Sacramento Bee Forum is half right.
It should say, life is better today for those who earn over $90,000 per year, or for the upper half of our income distribution. We have had a period in which the well off have made significant gains, and the wages of the working person have significantly stagnated.
So, if you are like Weintraub, and very well paid, then yes, for you, life is much better. However, if you work for a living then life is difficult. See the California budget project for details.

In education Weintraub claims that in 2007 there were increased numbers of 4th. Graders proficient or better in reading. I assume that he is using state test scores.
However, on national tests the NAEP Reading Scores for California give an average score of 209; we rank right along with Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia.
The NAEP results are important because schools and teachers can and do drill for the state tests, but not the NAEP. California has remained with the most poverty stricken states for the last 12 years. National scores on math have improved a little. (NAEP, 2007)
Since Prop.13 , California has dropped from one of the best school systems in the nation to 49th in class size and counselors per student, and 37th. in per pupil expenditure.
So, if you are well off, upper income, and live in a suburb- or if send your child to a private school, then, “Life is indeed better today than it was 10 years ago”.
However, if you work for a living and send your children to public schools- it is time for a change.
I would have sent this as a letter to the editor, but it is 300 words long. They only accept letters 200 words and less.

Duane Campbell
Professor. Education. CSU-Sacramento

California reading scores shameful -again.

California reading scores shameful- again: National Scores essentially stagnant.

Governors, Senators, and Assemblymembers , and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction have given many speeches, but as of last year they had not provided more funds for the schools. This makes for large class sizes. The results of their budget decisions are in.
The NAEP Reading Scores for California give an average score of 209; we rank right along with Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia.
The NAEP results are important because schools and teachers can drill for the state tests, but NAEP measures against a national standard of whether children can actually read (NAEP, 2007). California has remained with these poverty stricken states for the last 12 years. Remember when the ideologues all claimed that by switching to phonics reading scores were going to go up? Or, others claimed that by eliminating bilingual education would produce dramatic gains. Well- where is the data?

Scores are similarly shameful for 8th. Graders with even Alabama out scoring California.

So, what do you do if you are an elected official, responsible for providing adequate resources but failing to do so? Well, you change the subject. You talk about state tests, where teaching to the test is possible, and the “achievement gap”. Stressing the achievement gap –which is real- places the responsibility and the blame on teachers and parents and shifts the focus away from the resource gap created by inadequate budgets.

This year new money began to be sent to low performing schools. It will take several years of consistently improved funding to overcome the reading deficits imposed upon our children in the last decade.

On the national level, the reading scores are essentially stable for the last decade. That is, there was no progress produced by No Child Left Behind. (perhaps because in part it was under funded by 52 Billion). You have to read the scores carefully since the U.S. Dept. of Education has become skilled at the process of claiming great progress for a one or two point gain. But, compare the scores over the last ten years and you will find very little change.

National scores on the math exams have improved over the same decades. More to come on that issue.
Duane Campbell
Professor of Education
author: Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. ( 2004)

NAEP results: not definitive

The 2007 NAEP results are presently available on line. They are not yet available in print. As per past years, the Bush administration is making claims about the scores which are not supported by the evidence.
Here's a more intelligent article on the NAEP results than I've seen elsewhere. It brings out most of the important points, in my view. To wit:

1. The recent gains are quite modest, especially when it comes to closing "achievement gaps."
2. The upward trends in math and in 4th grade reading started well before NCLB took effect and appear to have leveled off a bit since that time.
3. The NAEP data offer no clear conclusions for policy -- it doesn't prove that NCLB is either helping or hurting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119076129895539227.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Schoolkids Post Modest Gains in National Test
NAEP Scores Are Up Since '05, But Persistent Gaps Fuel Fight Over No Child Left Behind
By JOHN HECHINGER
Wall Street Journal
September 26, 2007; Page D1

NAEP study: Schools not doing better

Study says students are learning less
By Mitchell Landsberg
Times Staff Writer

7:52 PM PST, February 22, 2007

U.S. high school students are taking tougher classes, receiving better grades and, apparently, learning less than their counterparts of 15 years ago.

Those were the discouraging implications of two reports issued Thursday by the federal Department of Education, assessing the performance of students in both public and private schools. Together, the reports raised sobering questions about the past two decades of educational reform, including whether the movement to raise school standards has amounted to much more than window dressing.

"I think we're sleeping through a crisis," said David Driscoll, the Massachusetts commissioner of education, during a Washington news conference convened by the Department of Education. He called the study results "stunning."

Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, said he found the results "dismal." After years of reforms aimed primarily at elementary schools, Fuller said the studies "certainly support shining the spotlight on the high school as a priority for reform efforts."

The reports summarized two major government efforts to measure the performance of high school seniors as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. One was a standardized test of 12th graders conducted in 2005. The other was an analysis of the transcripts of students who graduated from high school that year.

The transcript study showed that, compared to students in similar studies going back to 1990, the 2005 graduates had racked up more high school credits, had taken more college preparatory classes and had strikingly higher grade point averages. The average GPA rose from 2.68 in 1990 to 2.98 -- close to a solid B -- in 2005.

That was the good news -- or so it seemed. But the standardized test results showed that 12th grade reading scores have generally been dropping since 1992, casting doubt on what students are learning in those college prep classes.

Math scores posed a different sort of mystery, because the Department of Education switched to a new test in 2005 that wasn't directly comparable to those used before. Still, the results of the new test didn't inspire confidence: Fewer than one-quarter of the 12th graders tested scored in the "proficient" range.

The reports also showed that the gap separating white and black, and white and Hispanic students, has barely budged since the early 1990s. And while the results were not broken down by state, a broad regional breakdown showed that the West and Southeast lagged well behind the Midwest and, to a lesser extent, the Northeast.

David Gordon, the Sacramento County, Calif., superintendent of schools and a participant in the Department of Education news conference Thursday, said he found it especially disturbing that the studies focused on "our best students," those who had made it to 12th grade or who had graduated.

"It's clear to me from these data that for all of our talk of the achievement gap among subgroups of students, a larger problem may be an instructional gap or a rigor gap, which effects not just some but most of our students," Gordon said.

The reading and math test was given to 21,000 high school seniors at 900 U.S. schools, including 200 private schools. The transcript study was based on 26,000 transcripts from 720 schools, 80 of them private. The reports did not give separate results for public vs. private schools.

Policy analysts nationwide said the studies were gloomy news for the American economy, since the country's educational system already measured poorly in international comparisons.

"What we see out of these results is a very disturbing picture of the knowledge and skills of the young people about to go into college and the workforce," said Daria Hall, assistant director of the Education Trust, a Washington-based nonprofit dedicated to improving education especially for poor and minority students.

Among other things, Hall said the transcript study provided clear evidence of grade inflation, as well as "course inflation" -- offering high-level courses that have "the right names" but a dumbed-down curriculum.

"What it suggests is that we are telling students that they're being successful in these courses when, in fact, we're not teaching them any more than they were learning in the past," she said. "So we are, in effect, lying to these students."

Although the reports came out five years after passage of President Bush's signature education reform initiative, No Child Left Behind, Hall and others said it would be unfair to blame that program for the students' poor showing. They were already in high school when No Child Left Behind was enacted, and it is primarily aimed at elementary and middle schools.

Driscoll recalled an earlier president's contribution to education reform -- the Nation at Risk report that seemed to galvanize the educational establishment when it was issued by President Reagan in 1983.

"That was a shocker," said Driscoll. "But here we are, 25 years later (and) ... we've just been ignoring what it's going to take to really change the system."
Perhaps they should try listening to the teachers rather than the school reform hustlers.
From the NAEP summary:
12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005
In 2005, NCES assessed twelfth-graders in reading and mathematics for the first time since 2002. The assessments were administered in early 2005 at the national level to a representative sample of over 21,000 students in some 900 schools. There are no state-by-state results.
READING
The average reading score for twelfth-graders fell 6 points from 1992 to 2005, from 292 to 286. There has been no significant change since 2002.
Twelfth-grade reading assessments were administered in 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2005. In 1992 and 1994, no accommodations were offered for students with disabilities and English-language learners who needed them to participate. In 1998, NCES had two samples-one assessed without allowing accommodations and one assessed with them. Since then, NCES has allowed accommodations for students who require them, as long as the accommodation does not affect the validity of the assessment.
READING ACHIEVEMENT-LEVEL RESULTS
The percentage of twelfth-grade students at or above Proficient decreased from 40 percent in 1992 to 35 percent in 2005. The percentage at or above Basic also declined.
Examples of what students know and can do at each level can be found in the report.
READING RESULTS BY STUDENTS' RACE/ETHNICITY
Scores fell for both White and Black students from 1992 to 2005. Scores in 2005 for the other race and ethnic groups were not significantly different from 1992 or 2002.
The 26-point gap in performance between White and Black students in 2005, and the 21-point gap between White and Hispanic students, was not significantly different from the gaps in previous years.
READING RESULTS BY GENDER
Scores for both female and male students were lower in 2005 than in 1992. The 13-point gap in 2005 in favor of female students was larger than the 10-point gap in 1992.
MATHEMATICS
The 2005 twelfth-grade mathematics assessment represents a change from previous assessments. The National Assessment Governing Board prepares new frameworks for the NAEP assessments every decade or so to stay current with changing educational objectives and curricula. The twelfth-grade mathematics assessment was based on a new framework in 2005, which means that we can't compare the 2005 results to previous assessments.