kitchen table math, the sequel: The Proficiency Illusion

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The Proficiency Illusion

I know that CJ wrote about it back in October, but it is worth revisiting:

Executive Summary of Fordham Institute's report, The Proficiency Illusion.


At the heart of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is the call for all students to be “proficient” in reading and mathematics by 2014. Yet the law expects each state to define proficiency as it sees fit and design its own tests. This study investigated three research questions related to this policy:

1. How consistent are various states’ expectations for proficiency in reading and mathematics? In other words, is it harder to pass some states’ tests than others?

2. Is there evidence that states’ expectations for proficiency have changed since NCLB’s enactment? If so, have they become more or less difficult to meet? In other words, is it getting easier or harder to pass state tests?

3. How closely are proficiency standards calibrated across grades? Are the standards for earlier grades equivalent in difficulty to those for later grades (taking into account obvious grade-linked differences in subject content and children’s development)? In other words, is a state’s bar for achievement set straight, sloping, or uneven?

This study used data from schools whose pupils participated both in state testing and in assessment by the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) to estimate proficiency cut scores (the level students need to reach in order to pass the test for NCLB purposes) for assessments in twenty-six states. Here are the results:

• State tests vary greatly in their difficulty.

• Most state tests have not changed in difficulty in recent years.

• Improvements in passing rates on state tests can largely be explained by declines in the difficulty of those tests.

• Mathematics tests are consistently more difficult to pass than reading tests.

• Eighth-grade tests are consistently and dramatically more difficult to pass than those in earlier grades (even after taking into account obvious differences in subject-matter complexity and children’s academic development).



worth downloading and reading, especially if you live in a low-expectations state.

Here's the URL to download the PDF:

http://edexcellence.net/doc/The_Proficiency_Illusion.pdf

3 comments:

Catherine Johnson said...

Hi Liz -- Thanks for posting this!

Do you have a position on...."bad accountability vs. no accountability" or "accountability vs. choice"?

I don't put a lot of stock in my own opinions re: policy and change.

I do, however, believe that the concepts of path dependency and relative autonomy are solid, real, and apropos.

Pissedoffteacher said...

I have not seen a test in years that measures proficiency in math.

The Math A regents is so easy that a bright 6th grader can pass it. I've taught kids to pass this exam when they know nothing.

The Math B exam requires so much knowledge that it is really difficult to prepare adequately for it.

Anonymous said...

For a short critical view of the Fordham report see
http://www.bdsphd.zoomshare.com/