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.

California politics and Race to the Top?

Re "State can't let money slip away" (Editorial, Aug. 20):
The Bee editorial argues that California must not let federal money slip away for school reform and that we must alter California law on the use of test results to evaluate teachers. The problem with this position is that writers and policymakers do not understand the tests nor their results. All STAR and NAEP exams are in English. Some 1.6 million California students are English language learners (ELLs). At least half of these are at a low level of English learning.
If you do not speak a language well, taking a test in that language is not a valid measure of your knowledge. ELL students score more than 25 percent below native English speakers on these tests. Decades of research show that tests given in a language the student does not understand are invalid and unreliable measures of the students' achievement.
In many classrooms, up to one-third of the students are English language learners. If you use these test results to measure the teachers or the schools, teachers working with ELL students will always score low. To use these scores to evaluate teachers would be unfair, inaccurate and poorly informed.
– Duane Campbell, Sacramento

English Learners and Test Scores

The Organization California Together Responds to the publication of California STAR test results. August 18,2009.

“System Failure; For the seventh straight year, the achievement gap between English Learners and English proficient children has widened. The State Board of Education and State Superintendent equally share the blame for what can only be described as a system failure. Children, parents, teachers and administrators deserve better.

The reforms of the State Board of Education, Superintendent O’Connell and the Secretary of Education have not kept their promise of closing the achievement gap. The system has failed nearly 1.6 million English Learners, 25% of California’s student population.”

Note: California’s school accountability program relies upon testing only in English. Thus, they do not accurately test the 1.6 million English Language learners. The accountability measures focus only on English and have severe negative consequences for some schools. When that school has a large percentage of English Language Learners, the testing is not valid nor reliable.
We are rewarding some schools and teachers, and punishing others, based upon non reliable and non valid measurements.
Distributed at California State Senate Latino Caucus event.
www.californiatogether.org

State Superintendent Jack O’Connell:
Aug. 18,2009. On the CDE web site:

"The number one priority of my office is to close this persistent achievement gap that deprives too many students of color opportunities to succeed in school and in life,' O'Connell said. "We must continue to push our education system to better serve all students. I remain committed to making changes at the state level to support the work being done at the school and district level to close the gap.'
The performance of African American students and Hispanic students continues to lag behind that of white, Asian, and Filipino students regardless of economic status in most cases. (Tables 3, 4, 8 and 9) The 2009 STAR data reveal that the percentage of not economically disadvantaged African American students (35 percent) achieving the proficient level and above in math is eight percentage points lower than economically disadvantaged white students (43 percent) achieving at the same level. Likewise, the percentage of not economically disadvantaged Hispanic students (41 percent) achieving at high levels in math remains two percentage points lower than that of the economically disadvantaged white students (43 percent). The lone exception to this situation is the percentage of Hispanic students who are not economically disadvantaged scoring proficient or above in English language arts is two percentage points higher than the white students who are economically disadvantaged.
Under the STAR program, California students attain one of five levels of performance on the CSTs for each subject tested: advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic. The State Board of Education has established the proficient level as the desired achievement goal for all students. The proficient level represents a solid performance. Students demonstrate a competent and adequate understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area. This goal is consistent with school growth targets for state accountability and the federal No Child Left Behind requirements. The state target is for all students to score at the proficient or advanced levels.

See the following post on ELL learners and Race to the top.

California Star Test Results

State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell Releases 2008 STAR Program Results Showing California Students Continue to Improve
LOS ANGELES/SAN JOSE — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today released the results of the 2008 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program that show California students continue to make steady gains in English-language arts, math, science, and social science.

"California public school students are continuing to make solid, steady progress learning the skills and concepts necessary for success in school and in life. Since 2003, 532,494 more California students have become proficient in English-language arts and 415,129 more students have become proficient in math. While we still have a lot of work to do to reach our goal of universal proficiency, this year's gains are particularly encouraging considering they build upon five years of steady growth," O'Connell said.

"The results also show significant increases in science and social science. California has some of the highest standards in the nation, and I am exceptionally proud of the hard work and dedication of our students, teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals, and parents that led to this achievement," he said.

The STAR results may be found at: Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Results.

In the six years since all California Standards Tests (CSTs) were completely aligned to state standards, the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced increased by 11 points in English-language arts (ELA) or from 35 percent to 46 percent, (Table 1) and 8 points in math, from 35 percent to 43 percent (Table 5). The percentage of students scoring at the proficient and advanced levels on the fifth grade science test has increased by 22 points since 2004; the first year the test was given (Table 10).

The percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in grades two, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine have increased in ELA by double digits over the five-year span beginning in 2003 (Table 1).

The greatest improvement over the five-year period for math was made by students in grades three, four, five, six, and seven with the proficient and advanced percentage increasing by 15, 16, 16, 10, and 11 points, respectively (Table 5).

"While we celebrate the progress made by all subgroups of students over the last five years, we can not lose sight of the fact that more than half of our students, and too many students of color, are still not meeting our high standards," O'Connell said. "It is good news that all students continue to improve. It is imperative that we help those students who have historically struggled the most to accelerate their learning so they may effectively and fully participate in school, the workforce, and in society."

All student subgroup populations have continued to improve since 2003, and the gap in achievement between African Americans and whites and the gap in achievement between Hispanics or Latinos and whites narrowed slightly since last year. But, overall proficiency rates for Latino and African American students were significantly lower than those of white or Asian students. (Table 14 and Table 15).

Particularly concerning are results that continue to show African American and Latino students who are not economically disadvantaged score lower in math than white students who are economically disadvantaged. (Table 8 and Table 9). In English-language arts, non-poor African American students scored at the same level as white students who are poor. Latino students who are not poor scored slightly higher than white students who are poor. (Table 3 and Table 4).

"It is a moral and economic imperative that we close the achievement gap. California cannot afford to allow our Latino students and our African American students to continue to lag academically behind their peers," O'Connell said.

"While we must close the gap that exists between all subgroups, I am acutely concerned about our African American students. African American students as a whole scored in English-language arts just one point above Latino students, a subgroup that includes a significant number of English learners. This, coupled with an alarming dropout rate among African Americans, indicates a crisis in the education of black children," he said. "My statewide P-16 Council has made a series of recommendations aimed at closing the achievement gap and improving the way we provide education services to African American students. We must redouble our efforts to find and share effective strategies that will help African American students succeed."

Note: while STAR test results continue to improve, national test results for California on the NAEP do not show improvement.
These test results are useful for district level management. They provide very little useful information for teachers.
This kind of test results primarily uses blame and shame as a strategy. Teachers working in low income and minority schools are blamed and shamed. Teachers working in high income schools are glad that they are not included in the blame. It does little or nothing to improve instruction.
To improve instruction test scores would need to be frequent and feedback provided during the teaching year.
And, teachers would need useful inservice on how to improve the scores.
On the other hand, the test results continue to indicate that the legislature and the governor have failed to adequately fund school improvement efforts. Current budget cuts will make matters worse,
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.

California schools fail : again. How the Right wing sees it

An interesting essay, even though I do not agree with the solution.


Back to Article
When state proficiency standards are lowered, there will be NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
California's test scores hit a plateau - not good news

Liam Julian
Sunday, October 14, 2007
California's state test scores leveled off in 2007, after having jumped seven percentage points in the previous two years. This may be worse news than many Californians think.

Why? Because from 2003 to 2006, California's state test has become easier for the kids taking it. If achievement remains stagnant while the tests are getting easier, that means California's students actually know less today than they did a year ago. In fact, the previous test-score gains reported by the Golden State from 2003 to 2006 may have not actually occurred.

At the heart of the No Child Left Behind Act is the call for all American schoolchildren to become "proficient" in reading and mathematics by 2014. Yet the law allows each state to craft its own definition of proficiency, and to craft the tests that will measure it.

Until now, Californians had to believe that their state's idea of proficiency was a rigorous one - they had to trust that their state officials in Sacramento were going to hold all students to consistently high standards. Unfortunately, it seems that trust may have been misplaced.

Researchers for a new report, "The Proficiency Illusion," compared the test scores of California students on the state test, with their scores on a national assessment, Measures of Academic Progress. Then, in order to measure their consistency over time, California's cut scores (the score needed to reach "proficient" on its tests) were compared to their equivalent scores on the MAP test.

Why not just compare cut scores on the CST to cut scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress, a national test commonly called the nation's report card (although it's not part of any accountability system)? A few reasons: That national test assesses at only three grade levels (4, 8 and 12), and results are not recorded at the individual or school level (which may diminish test-taker motivation). Overall, the MAP shares more in common with California's state test than the other test does.

Despite the fact that California's 2006 cut scores were among the most challenging of the 26 states evaluated, since 2003 the Golden State's cut scores in reading decreased substantially in fourth, seventh and eighth grades.

The test has been getting easier for those who take it. That means that even if California's students made no real academic progress, their test scores would have nonetheless increased - in fourth and eighth grade, stagnant progress would have yielded a gain of 12 percentile points.

From 2003 to 2006, California reported a 10-point gain for fourth-graders and an 11-point gain for eighth-graders. Which means that those student abilities actually declined over that time. (Indeed, from 2003 to 2007, the percentage of the state's eighth-grade students at or above proficient on the national assessment test did decline.)

The same thing occurred on mathematics assessments. Looking at the data, one could fairly say that California's seventh-grade math tests were easier to pass in 2006 than in 2003.

Thankfully, California's state tests remain tougher than most others in the country. Parents of students scoring well above the proficient level can be relatively confident that their children are sound academically.

But for students on the bubble, those who just squeaked over the proficient hurdle, California's tests are much less reliable.

Johnny just reaches the proficient level in fourth grade. He continues to barely hit that mark over the next four years. While it looks like Johnny is making normal progress, he's not - the test is getting easier, and Johnny is falling behind (albeit, invisibly).

If the proficiency label is changing, it's impossible to gauge whether individual students (not to mention the state's education system) are making any academic progress.

These findings should make California citizens furious. Parents led to believe that their public-school students were making progress were fed incorrect data - the definition of progress may have changed. If it didn't, then students are surely being fed test prep strategies that would get them over the "proficient" mark in California's particular assessment, but wouldn't help them on another test. In other words, students still aren't actually learning anything but how to game the system.

Regardless of how it has happened, the dumbing down of proficiency has certainly undercut educational accountability in California. All citizens need to now reassess how well the state is running its schools - how well it's running its schools in reality, that is.

What's the solution? A rigorous national test (one that's part of an accountability system) would be best. It's crazy for a 21st century nation to struggle with the discrepant patchwork of assessments that the United States now has.

But more immediately: State policymakers should determine why, exactly, their test is getting easier, and then stop it. And in the meantime, California parents must make sure that their schools are not teaching to the test.

Learning isn't about teaching kids how to memorize the format of the state test; it's about teaching them a broad and challenging curriculum. When that happens, the test scores take care of themselves.

Liam Julian is associate writer and editor at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and a research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/14/INDOSMBFB.DTL



© 2007 Hearst Communications Inc. | Privacy Policy | Feedback | RSS Feeds | FAQ | Site Index | Contact

The test results : California ?

The test results: Lots of numbers, not much light.
Sacramento Bee. Aug.29,2007.

Peter Schrag has a long history of commenting on public education. He is well informed. He has not demonstrated an understanding of “Voices in the Classroom,” nor the teachers day to day reality, but he does understand public policy at the state and national level.
His column of Aug.29, in the Sacramento BEE argues that the tests results provide lots of numbers, not much light.
Correct. The numbers do not tell you much, particularly averages with claims of proficient, basic, etc.
According to Shrag,,
“it's still true that, over all, middle class students do far better than the economically disadvantaged. In English, 60 percent of nondisadvantaged students score at proficient levels or above compared to 29 percent of economically disadvantaged students. In math, it's 52 percent vs. 31 percent.”
Schrag says, overall. I am not certain what scores he is looking at. But, according to his report there is a 60% proficient as compared to 29% proficient. It seems that is 31% difference.
So, I looked up the scores by race. I chose to look at 4th. Grade English Language Arts. For Economically disadvantaged 24% are proficient. For advantaged, 29% are proficient.
On the same test, Black children scored 24% proficient compared to White students 29% proficient.
Given these differences, which do you work on? (Hint, you can’t change race but you can change poverty). As evidence, between 1959 and 1973, the U.S. poverty rate was reduced from 22.4% to 11.1 %. Concerted government effort can reduce poverty.

While we can not change race, we can attack racism including institutionalized racism that establishes different expectations for groups of students. In California the primary instruments for resisting racism in k-12 have been taken away from us: Prop.209, Prop. 227, and the virtual abolition of multicultural education under the pressure of standards and accountability. What remains is culturally responsive pedagogy.
And, “there was no overall score change from 2006 to 2007 in the percentage of students rated proficient in math…”
Now, I may not understand these scores. I invite others to explain what I am missing. But, it looks to me like we should acknowledge the racial differences and work on the class differences.
Yes, we should look for explanations of the racial differences- but we know what causes the class differences. And, we are not addressing these differences. It almost seems as if we are talking about the racial differences to avoid fixing the class differences. After all, that would cost money.
I am not diminishing the racial differences. But, if we are not working on the class issues, what do you think we are going to do with the racial differences? And, the racial difference theories are speculative and with very limited firm data. I am familiar with the literature on these differences. They are reviewed in my book. ( the same name as this blog) Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. (2004) I am currently working on the 4th. Edition.