Jefferson County Board of Education member Linda Duncan is one confused lady.
She writes in the Courier-Journal that she is upset because the state’s educators want kids to at least score “Proficient” in math and reading on the state’s assessments.
Ms. Duncan mistakenly thinks the level of performance considered “Proficient” as determined by Frankfort is somehow equivalent to the much higher, but necessary, level of performance defined by the National Center of Education Statistics and the National Assessment Governing Board for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Where did Ms. Duncan get such a completely wrong idea? Soon to be departing Jefferson County superintendent Sheldon Berman, perhaps?
In fact, the low level of student performance required to reach “Proficient” in Kentucky’s testing program is NOTHING like the requirements to be scored “Proficient” in the NAEP.
We discuss this extensively in our new reports on KERA @ 20, available here.
Here is Figure 8 from the full report. This shows how seriously inflated Kentucky’s fourth grade reading proficiency rate has become in comparison to reported rates based on higher standards for the NAEP. NAEP proficiency rates are shown by the dark blue bars, while the reading proficiencies reported by Kentucky’s KIRIS (to 1998) and CATS testing (actually from the CATS Kentucky Core Content Tests, or KCCT, from 1999 on) are shown by the pink bars. 
Notice how the proficiency rates from Kentucky’s tests exploded over the years. Kentucky’s fourth grade reading proficiency rates now run over twice as high as those reported for the same students by the NAEP.
Clearly, the CATS KCCT for reading has become grossly inflated. And, the CATS KCCT proficiency standard is NOTHING like the NAEP’s.
Still, even though Kentucky set low standards for itself – nothing like NAEP’s – Ms. Duncan is whining.
Ms. Duncan, please read our reports and get better informed. The kids in Louisville are depending upon you to do a better job, but your letter shows you are not doing your homework.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wanting low standards in Louisville
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I love your blog! I’ve included it on a site I’ve created, which is a compilation of some of the best blogs in the city.
Perhaps Ms. Duncan came across these quotes from the National Center for Education Statistics and the National Assessment Governing Board as she read in places other than the Bluegrass blog or reports?
[NCES Quote]. State assessments often define "proficiency" as solid grade-level performance, often indicating readiness for promotion to the next grade. NAEP’s policy definition of its "Proficient" achievement level is "competency over challenging subject matter" and is implicitly intended to be higher than grade-level performance. -- Andrew Kolstad, Senior Technical Advisor, Assessment Division, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009
[NAGB Quote]. Notice that there is no mention of “at grade level” performance in these [NAEP] achievement goals. In particular, it is important to understand clearly that the Proficient achievement level does not refer to “at grade” performance. Nor is performance at the Proficient level synonymous with “proficiency” in the subject. That is, students who may be considered proficient in a subject, given the common usage of the term, might not satisfy the requirements for performance at the NAEP achievement level. -- National Assessment Governing Board, 2009
The question come to mind, why don’t these clarifying quotations like these from the National Center for Education Statistics and the National Assessment Governing Board make it up-front into the Bluegrass blog or reports?
I get discouraged every time I read something about Kentucky's failing education system. When are we going to wake up and realize that our schools are failing, are kids are suffering, and we have no hope of improvement if we maintain the status quo (and by status quo-I mean Kentucky's sub-par status quo not the status quo maintained by most other states)? We need REAL accountability and merit-based standards for teachers. Otherwise, our dismal system will continue to be just as dismal.
RE - Bert on December 1, 2010 1:55 PM
Bert, there you go again, confusing what is with what needs to be.
The NAEP “Proficient” standard actually seems rather well aligned with what kids need for college and careers, based on a comparison of NAEP Proficiency rates for Kentucky eighth grade students and the percentage of those same students who score at or above the EXPLORE Benchmark Scores that are indeed aligned with college and career needs.
We need our kids to score somewhere around NAEP “Proficient.” Far too many don’t.
Grade level performance today is pretty widely understood by almost everyone – except you and a few other apologists for the status quo – to be inadequate for what kids need. When people like Kolstad and those on NAGB say state “Proficient” indicates kids score at about grade level average performance, that does not mean Kolstad and company think this is an adequate level of performance. I don’t understand how you continue to miss that.
In fact, NAGB has now said it very explicitly. They want kids to reach NAEP “Proficient” performance, as I pointed out here: http://bluegrasspolicy-blog.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-goal-in-naep-is-not-for-kids-to.html.
The Common Core State Standards initiative also said it loud and clear. Current state standards simply are not good enough, and are not aimed at what kids need: preparation for college and careers.
Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge that NAGB isn’t impressed with most states’ “Proficient” level of performance? While you continue to sell the fiction that current grade level performance in the US is just fine, the Chinese, South Koreans, Japanese, Singaporeans, Fins, and a host of others are starting to eat our economy alive because we are falling behind in education.
In any event, it was Ms. Duncan who got NAEP “Proficient” confused with what the state calls “Proficient” on the Kentucky Core Content Tests. You have been jumping up and down about the fact that the two proficiency standards are very different. How come you are not hammering Ms. Duncan?
The NAEP definition of Proficient, as stipulated, is technical and is not synonymous with grade-level proficiency in a subject (in fact, it represents above grade level proficiency). By contrast, NCLB requires the states to focus on grade-level performance. “We remain committed to ensuring that all students can read and do math at grade level or better by 2014. This is the basic purpose and mission of the No Child Left Behind Act” (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
What "need to be" is a fundamental change in federal policy, a fundamental change in NCLB. Until that happens it is dishonest to compare state proficiency required by NCLB with NAEP Proficiency, and to condemn the states the because the percentage of their students performing at-grade-level on the NCLB state test is lower than the percentage of their students performing above-grade-level on NAEP.
Nobody can disagree that the more students we have performing above grade level, the better off we will be as a nation. It doesn't help us get there to falsely comdemn the schools because they are complying with federal law. It would help, however, to change the federal law. Bluegrass policy ought to be committed to just that, but I'm not going to help my breath. . . .
You charge "While you continue to sell the fiction that current grade-level performance in the US is just fine...." That charge is false! Completely false! What I continue to sell is that unlike NAGB's preference for higher than grade-level performane, NCLB is the law of the land with which schools must comply. NCLB requires states to set grade-level content standards, to test students with grade-level assessments, and to define "state proficient" as grade-level performance. I continue to sell that we should focus on changing NCLB rather than misrepresenting test data to condemn public schools.
RE – Bert at December 1, 2010 10:50 PM and December 1, 2010 11:09 PM
Bert, I don’t see how you can claim that NCLB required states to settle for watered down standards based on their current, low performance classrooms. Selecting low standards was something that status quo, anti-reform educators in various states chose to do on their own.
In fact, the danger that educators would pull this stunt was so obvious that Congress wrote mandatory participation in NAEP into NCLB so there would be an evidence trail if states did decide to travel the ‘low road.’
That evidence is now in, and it is abundantly clear that many states set low-ball standards in an attempt to subvert accountability and pressure for real change. Even worse, the variation in what passes as proficient work from state to state is nothing short of a national embarrassment.
By the way, not every state took the low road. If your claim were actually true – that NCLB forced states to accept low standards – then how could South Carolina have set a very high standard for NCLB, way above their current classroom performance?
Bert, I am sorry, but nothing in NCLB required states to set low standards. The fact that the states were allowed to do so was a combined failure on the part of the US Department of Education and the obviously flawed, rubber-stamp peer review process you say we shouldn’t even criticize.
Now, here is a litmus test for your comments, which I invite readers to consider. What in all you are saying does anything to benefit students? It’s a very simple test. I don’t think your comments pass.
As far as I can recall, all your comments sum up to a defense of adults in the education system who clearly don’t want to be troubled to make significant changes that our students need.
Does NCLB need work? Sure it does! But, if that work winds up watering down our expectations just to make educators look good, it will be our children who will suffer.
The NAGB preference is for as many students as possible to score at or above NAEP Proficient (which NAGB indicates is higher than grade-level proficiency as the term "proficiency" is commonly understood). NCES also confirms that NAEP Proficient is higher than grade-level performance.
NCLB set the standard at 100% of a state's students at proficient by 2014. NCLB used the term "proficient" as used in common language. No reasonable person would argue that NCLB required that all students, including students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency, be performing "above grade-level" by 2014.
All students at grade-level or better. That's the measure school's are required to meet.
Many, if not most, states didn't have a state test and performance standards in place before NCLB. This causes me to wonder. If no previous standards existed, how does one actually know whether a state "dumbed down its NCLB required standard?"
Bert asks how anyone can know if states dumbed down their NCLB standards if they had no standards prior to the act’s implementation.
That’s easy. States have lowered their standards more since the passage of the act.
For example, Kentucky did that in 2007, when the US Department of Education rolled over while we ‘dumbed down’ our CATS scoring even more.
This is obvious in Figure 7 on page 35 in my new report, “KERA (1990 – 2010): What Have We Learned,” on line here: http://www.freedomkentucky.org/images/8/86/Dick%27s_KERA_report._final_with_cover.pdf.
There has been a lot of reporting about this well-known dodge. Here is one article from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/education/30educ.html.
A simple Google search with the term “states lower standards on NCLB” turned up this one and at least 10 more Google pages of articles and reports on the subject.
Bert, I recommend doing more checking before spouting off about something so obvious and well-reported.
I Googled "states lower standards on NCLB" as you suggested. Oh, the precision I find. A NY Times article said "nearly a third of the states" lowered their standards [or over two-thirds did not]. The politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com said "something like 15 to 18 states" have lowered their standard [or "something like" 32 to 35 states did not].
Why do you insist on condemning the states ["something like" ALL states]for lowering their standards? The Google sources that you sent me to sure don't.
Gee, Bert.
I said the Google search turned up at least 10 pages of articles. Did you look at any of the rest of them?
Bert,
Let me add to my previous short comment. I did not say "All" states lowered their standards. That is your fabrication.
But, even if only 1/3 of the states did lower standards after NCLB came along, that would be far too many. And, it is disappointing that you seem to be dismissing the gaming of state standards as unimportant. However, I am confident our readers are not making the same mistake.
It's just that I've never any empirical evidence of a consistent and significant relationship between the rigor of educational standards and actual student achievement.
RE: Bert on December 17, 2010 1:29 PM
Well, Massachusetts has what many believe are the best education standards in the country, and they are on top on the NAEP, as well.
Generalizations from a single point are generally wrong.
Unfortunately, I cannot post a graphic comparing rigor and achievement scores from all 50 states. They are all over the place, with no meaningful correlation.
Post a Comment