[MOSAIC] Students who don't learn to read

[Diane]

Joan Matuga wrote:
> Each state has their own tests and some states that look proficient on state-administered tests are woefully failing if reading is measured on national tests?
>
> NCLB may be a politically motivated document.  However, the reading rates are alarming.

The problems with the NAEP (national test) levels, and comparing them 
with state test levels, are summarized well in the article linked below.

http://www.weac.org/Resource/2006-07/NAEP.htm

Here's an excerpt.
--------------

*The NAEP Standards *

For several years Gerald Bracey ("Where are the Standards?") has 
criticized NAEP’s standards by calling attention to the following evidence:

    * In the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, U.S.
      students ranked third among all countries participating, yet fewer
      than one-third of U.S. 4th graders were proficient or advanced on
      NAEP.
    * Likewise, on the 2002 reading assessment U.S. 3rd graders finished
      2nd in the world, yet only 31% scored proficient or advanced on NAEP

Bracey maintains that we should be asking why is it that U.S. elementary 
level students do so well on international assessments, yet only 
one-third of them are judged proficient or advanced by NAEP.

Bracey is not the only critic. NAEP also has been severely criticized by 
the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office, and other testing and measurement experts. In particular, the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) says NAEP’s standards are 
“fundamentally flawed. . . producing unreasonable results.” Further, NAS 
concludes that the judgment tasks are “ . . . difficult and confusing; 
raters’ judgments of different item types are internally inconsistent; 
appropriate validity evidence for the cut scores is lacking; and the 
process has produced unreasonable results.”

The most compelling evidence that something may be wrong with NAEP’s 
standards comes from the National Assessment Government Board itself. It 
states on its own Web site that its standards should be used on a “trial 
basis” with “caution” until the Commissioner of Education Statistics 
determines that the achievement levels are “reasonable, valid, and 
informative to the public” ("The Status of Achievement Levels").

The National Assessment Governing Board was directed by the "No Child 
Left Behind" act of 2001 to come up with an alternative. To date, this 
has not been done (confirmed in an e-mail sent on September 22, 2006, 
from Susan Loomis, representative of the National Assessment Governing 
Board, to Russ Allen, WEAC).

--------------------