Joining the NAEP-Sayers.

The bandwagon is loading at think tanks around the country. NAEP is being touted as the prototype for a national test. The disparity in difficulty levels across individual state assessments has been documented by comparing proficiency rates on NAEP with proficiency rates on each state’s assessment. No one is surprised how this turned out. However, is the answer a national test? Do we really need for every state to target the same curriculum and the same proficiency level? NCLB left the development and standard setting for assessments up to individual states. Seems the founding fathers would have liked that.

Have we seen the price tag for a national, NAEP-like test? Only 26 states tested enough students on NAEP for national comparisons.

The Eduguru speaks: That bandwagon only has two wheels. I’ve traveled across the states. They have different speed limits, gasoline prices, graduation requirements, home prices, laws, taxes, accents, etc. That seems to work. Take a peek at Texas—80 MPH speed limit between the derricks, no income tax, everyone’s “fixin’ to git a Dr. Pepper,” relatively easy state test, relatively high performance on NAEP by minority and economically disadvantaged students. Come again with why Texas would want a national test? I’ll be looking for a state that does. The logic of district accountability clearly extends to states. Ah, but states fund districts. USED only funds a small %. I vote for states rights when they are paying the bill.

Comments

[Dr. Elements]

I have to admit I intellectually agree with G., but I am realistic enough to agree with the EduGuru. It is crazy for us to have different content standards and tests if we really want to hold schools accountable for students learning what they need to know to succeed in life. This mishmash of standards means that the US performs poorly against other countries. But we also know that if schools in some Southern states, including Texas, were to have to perform as well as schools in states like Iowa and Minnesota, then almost all Texas schools would be low performing. It’s like a Catch 22.

[g.]

I strongly disagree with the so-called Edu”guru”. Algebra is Algebra, where ever you go. The logic of district accountability clearly extends to states. One need only look at the disparity in NAEP vs % proficient on state test in certain low-standards (primarily SE) states. Otherwise, we might as well go back to the totally fragmented system of district autonomy. With life-long mobility, the impact of quality education, both good and bad, is regional and national, not local. National impact means national accountability, best served by a national test.

With that said, Texas is equally clearly its own country. I suggest that Texas be excluded from NAEP and the rest of the country combine together in a national assessment system with Canada.

[They call me the king]

Algebra may be algebra but an assessment is not an assessment. NAEP can be an illuminating benchmark for evaluating local state assessments. We should shine spotlights on the states that are at both extremes of the comparison, but let public pressure adjust the local state standards. Apparently, I have much higher faith in local communities to bring pressure to bear when shown there may be a problem.

Multiple state assessment systems may appear to be inefficient, i.e. not benefiting from the economy of scale of a single monolithic solution. There will be duplicate effort as each state does similar work. But this type of environment promotes competition in assessment design and delivery. We’ve seen great strides over the recent years in assessment technology and administration. Test vendors have found ways to do on-line assessments, handle open responses, improve remote scoring techniques, and shorten result reporting turn-around times. These improvements have largely been driven by the competitive pressures of an open market.

As we’ve seen across society, multiple vendor offerings brings faster improvement, greater choices and flexibility, more nimble systems that can react to change, reduced risk and improved security. No single vendor has the current capacity to administer a national test. And if one did, there would be little motivation for others to attempt to build that capacity. We would be locking ourselves to an environment that would stifle innovation and improvement.

The type of Socialist approach g. proposes is great for assuring all systems are equally poor.