Daily Archive for October 16th, 2007

How low is your state’s bar?

Time magazine interactive graphic

Time graphic

To what extent does a US state’s high-stakes test correspond with a consistent standard assessment? Using data from the Education Trust and the Colorado (US) Department of Education Time, magazine’s Feilding Cage (with help from Jackson Dykman) created one of those nifty Flashy things that provides an interactive means of displaying data. The interactive map, linked from the thumbnail shown here, shows the degree to which states’ reading and math assessments differ from the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the standard US metric for achievement.

The results from fewer than 5% of the states’ tests (~2*50) tests are higher than the NAEP. Mostly, it is far easier to meet standards on the state tests. In the image that I’ve clipped here, one can see that fewer students are judged proficient on South Carolina’s 8th-grade math assessment than on the NAEP. Thus the South Carolina test is more demanding than the NAEP.

To compare across states (i.e., to see where SC’s students stand nationally), one would need to have a consistent measuring stick. The NAEP provides such. States’ high-stakes tests clearly do not.

Because of the way that NAEP scores are developed, this comparison is not based on the scores of the same student on each test, but rather, on an overall comparison. There are lots of technical ins and outs about these comparisons, but the big picture is informative.

I’m attending a meeting of the federal Reading First Advisory Committee and, as serendipity would have it, I stumbled on this article. We were just discussing the problems we’re encountering with not-comparable measures of reading progress across the states; as a result, we’re having a difficult time assessing the effects that Reading First is having on children’s outcomes.

To learn more about the Education Trust, visit the organization’s site. To view another interactive map that allows one to download a detailed comparison of each individual state’s testing, click here. To download a copy of a relevant scholaraly paper from Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation by Bert Stoneberg, look here.

Flash of the electrons to Maya Frost for her post that alerted me to the Time article.

Sphere: Related Content

Woo work

Liz Ditz, who has often identified instances of bologna masquerading a fine cuisine, has posted notes about the Woo Handbook, a product of Skeptico. Check out her recent entry, “Just in Time: The Woo Handbook and The Woo-Woo Credo

Skeptico apparently has found a guide to countering scientific thinking. Skeptico suggests that those engaging in debate on matters where some shreds of scientific evidence and reason might be relevant. Before listing 20 tactics to use in debate, Skeptico suggests that one be careful when engaging in the fray.

Before you start though, you should remember that skeptics have many things on their side. Things like evidence, facts, logic. But don’t despair. If you follow the techniques described below it may seem like you have a valid argument more often that you would imagine, given your actual lack of knowledge, evidence or facts. Good luck, and I’m visualizing your success.

Link to Skeptico’s handbook.

Sphere: Related Content




Bad Behavior has blocked 988 access attempts in the last 7 days.

*/goog +1 script added 20110711 */