Spinning again, Spinning...
Over on EdWahoo, a look at Bush Administration sound bites RE: today's new NAEP scores.
I agree that the Bush and Spellings quotes indicate a significant 2003-05 change where there isn't one, but really, the statements (as presented there-- I don't know what the greater context is) are ones of intentional vagueness not complete untruth. As EdWahoo points out, the 03-05 changes aren't significant, but if you take a longer view, 4th grade math scores have been trending up since NAEP started--they're up 25 points from 1990 to 2005. In the snazzy published tables, I couldn't find a trend line by race, so there's no quick way to look at what's happening to the Black/White achievement gap across more than 2 time points. In the next couple of days, I'll play around with the data cutting tool and see if I can't pull something together.
EdWahoo also says the following:
One wouldn't think you could find a way to declare victory when fourth-grade reading scores have improved by one point since the implementation of a landmark education law, but I continue to be amazed.But, in addition to the non-significant "change" in the past 2 years, there's another substantive problem at work here: you really shouldn't attribute 2005 NAEP scores to NCLB in the first place.
From an evaluation standpoint, you can't expect to see marked test score changes immediately after an intervention. Especially since the last two years haven't exactly represented a smooth or complete implementation of the law. It would be unfair and unrealistic to expect NCLB to produce increases outpacing the general NAEP trends in such a short time, just as it would be misguided to attribute improvements (if there were any) to the law. If correlation doesn't equal causation, coincidence certainly doesn't.
It amuses me that we're trying to attribute non-changes to a law that hasn't had time to work. Thanks for the clarity, guys.
2 Comments:
-
I think if you asked most teachers, they'd say that their instruction has changed markedly by now, 4 years after the law was passed -- certainly enough that you would expect to see SOME results from NCLB. I think you bring up a very good point that it's hard to tease out exactly what the NCLB effect is and easy to overassign blame, but it's also easy to go the other direction and say that NCLB should be completely excused.
By
I still think NCLB is a good law in terms of forcing states to account for their low-end students, but any way you cut it, it's not having a sizeable effect on national achievement, and there's little reason to think that if we looked at the 2008 NAEP the scores would be 20 points higher.
Elliot H., at October 19, 2005 10:38 PM
-
Meh-- NCLB was passed in January 2002, NAEP 2005 testing happened from January to March of this year. I doubt there was any real change in the later half of the 01-02 school year, so, if implementing new curriculum happened instantaneously (that's a big "if"), we're talking 2.5 school years of instructional change. It's just not enough time. Since a lot of the NCLB resources are focused on the early grades (ie Reading First), it would be more fair for us to look at 4th graders than 8th graders, but still. I don't think the scores reflect much of anything about the law.
By
I agree- we probably won't see a 20 point increase by 2008, either. But that's partly because there's a content validity problem with the NAEP: each state has its own standards, which may or may not line up with what's tested by "The Nation's Report Card." Hopefully we'll see some kind of substantive increase over time, but even then, NAEP is hardly a precise tool for measuring NCLB's accomplishments. NMD, at October 20, 2005 9:43 AM
<< Home
from: :: permalink
