Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« Inner City Kids catch a break | Main | $10,000??? »
February 27, 2006
What is proficient?
Basic Instincts
By CHESTER E. FINN JR. and DIANE RAVITCH
February 27, 2006; WSJ Page A14
U.S. students lag behind their peers in other modern nations -- and the gap widens dramatically as their grade levels rise. Our high school pupils (and graduates) are miles from where they need to be to assure them and our country a secure future in the highly competitive global economy. Hence, any serious effort at education reform hinges on our setting world-class standards, then candidly tracking performance in relation to those standards. Even when gains are slender and results disappointing, we need the plain truth. Which is why recent attempts by federal and state governments to sugarcoat the performance of students is so alarming.
Our most rigorous standards are those of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a federally funded testing program that began in 1969. At a time when many states, responding to the accountability prods of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, are embracing low performance norms for their students -- and pumping out misleading information about how many youngsters are "proficient" and how many schools are making "adequate yearly progress" -- NAEP functions as an indispensable external benchmark. It unblinkingly reported that only 29% of eighth grade public school pupils were "proficient" in math and reading in 2005. It also showed starkly that the results reported by many states are far too rosy. Observe (in the adjacent chart) the contrasts between what states claimed and what NAEP found.
Not surprisingly, NAEP's role as honest auditor makes state officials squirm. Since NCLB expects each state to set its own academic norms and choose its own tests, the temptation to dumb them down is irresistible; NAEP is the main antidote. Congress knew that in 2001 when, as part of No Child Left Behind, it required all states to take part in NAEP reading and math tests in grades four and eight. (Previously, state participation was voluntary.) Since 1988, NAEP's standards and policies have been set by the independent, bipartisan National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). In 1990, that body promulgated three achievement levels for reporting NAEP results. These it labeled "basic," "proficient" and "advanced."
"Basic" denoted "partial mastery of knowledge and skills." "Advanced" signified "superior performance beyond grade-level mastery." "Proficient," though, was the key. NAGB termed it "the central level," representing "solid academic performance for each grade tested" and "a consensus that students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter and are well prepared for the next level of schooling." NAGB intended that "proficient" would represent the skills that every student ought to possess -- even if many were not there yet. On NAEP tests since 1990, this level of performance has usually been reached by about three kids in 10. Everyone knows that's unsatisfactory. But it's also reality, an accurate gauge of the gap between U.S. pupils' prowess and what they need to match world standards.
From the outset, some educators protested that NAGB's "proficient" was too ambitious, but the board stuck to its guns. For the past 15 years, both NAGB and the Department of Education, which manages NAEP, have resisted pressure from politicians and educators to back away from, or dumb down, the "proficient" standard. With NCLB, however, that's begun to change. More voices are demanding that NAEP focus attention on the much-lower "basic" standard. Explains a spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Education: "NAEP's basic is comparable to our proficient." Federal officials should push back, insisting on NAGB's "proficient" as the gold standard. They should continue to highlight -- and deplore -- any gaps between it and state test results. But the White House and Education Department now crave proof that NCLB is succeeding and seek to accommodate state pleas for "flexibility" and pacify governors threatening to withdraw from NCLB.
Hence they, too, are subtly substituting "basic" for "proficient" when they report NAEP results -- and downplaying standards altogether in favor of simple up-and-down trend lines. In releasing the 2005 scores, the Education Department for the first time published comparison tables showing state-specific progress only in relation to "basic." And even NAGB members now highlight "basic" rather than "proficient." In October, chairman Darvin M. Winick, a long-time Texas associate of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and President Bush, spoke only of gains at the basic level. His "reporting and dissemination" committee acknowledged that "We're trying to draw attention to basic as an achievement level with some value."
Last month, when releasing 2005 NAEP results for 11 big cities, Mr. Winick's statement focused entirely on trend lines, not standards. (He and his colleagues also suggested that students should be compared with others of the same race rather than in relation to standards.) Staffers guiding journalists and other statistical amateurs through these complex data cited "studies" asserting that NAEP's "basic" is closer to states' "proficient" norms -- which is certainly true but should be interpreted as proof that NAEP must maintain its high standards, not succumb to states' lesser aspirations.
Is No Child Left Behind corrupting NAEP? It's too soon to be sure. But it's clear that, for those in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill whose own reputations hinge on the perceived success of NCLB, NAEP results now carry consequences, just as they do for states.
Just how demanding is "proficient" anyway? Here's how NAGB defined it for fourth grade math: "Fourth graders performing at the proficient level should be able to use whole numbers to estimate, compute, and determine whether results are reasonable. They should have a conceptual understanding of fractions and decimals; be able to solve real-world problems in all NAEP content areas; and use four-function calculators, rulers and geometric shapes appropriately." Is this too much to expect? Hardly. America's great education problem is that for years we settled for "basic skills" rather than true proficiency. The Bush administration does a disservice to the nation if it tells educators and state officials that "basic" is acceptable. You can be sure that our competitors aren't doing any such thing.
Mr. Finn served on the NAGB from 1988 to 1996, including two years as chairman, and Ms. Ravitch served on it from 1998 to 2004. Both are senior fellows at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Comments
Alan,
Can you also post the link to the page where the Star links to that? I'd like to get some context.
I think it's great that the AFT is spending the requisite dollars to review NCLB. As you can read in the article by Finn & Ravitch, much of what the establishment is doing (Feds included) is caving on what is meant by "proficient".
But I think the cartoon that the AFT puts out saying basically everything is fine, is at best, creative.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at February 27, 2006 02:35 PMTim ~
It's an ad that runs at the bottom of some of the Star's articles/pages. Like most online advertising, they rotate ads for home loan refi's, insurance quotes, etc. Just browse their site long enough and you might see it (its usually at the bottom of the article in the shape of a box).
Posted by: Alan at February 27, 2006 04:11 PMTim,
The title of the cartoon is " Get it right". The AFT is not saying everything is fine. That is why they have an ad promoting change. Now, if that change is the right change should be the debate.
Posted by: brian at February 27, 2006 05:34 PMFair enough Alan - What would be your thoughts for "getting it right". I didn't see any ideas in the cartoon?
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at February 27, 2006 06:00 PMFair enough Alan - What would be your thoughts for "getting it right". I didn't see any ideas in the cartoon?
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at February 27, 2006 06:00 PMDid you click on the link?
Posted by: brian at February 27, 2006 06:13 PMTim - I honestly don't have any thoughts on the issue. I just saw the ad and thought to send it to you. I did think that the cartoon was a little corny.
Posted by: Alan at February 27, 2006 09:33 PMIt is disgusting to see how far the education community will go to conceal evidence of the failure to teach students basic skills. I applaud the efforts of Chester Finn & Diane Ravitch to expose this “cover up” but they should have gone further in their comparisons. What they failed to dramatically point out is just how low the NAEP bench marks really are.
http://edreform.com/_upload/NAEPmath.pdf
In a 2001 presentation John Hoven of the Center for Education Reform pointed out that the “hard’ 8th grade questions on the NAEP are only equivalent to a 5th grade level question from Singapore, the recognized world leader in Math education. Given this perspective the obviously “dumbed down” state benchmarks for basic proficiency should be considered criminal.
Jo Anne Cobasko
Save Our Children from Mediocre Math
Website: http://socmm.home.att.net
I have already responded in writing to the Fordham Foundation's press release in October (Finn's organization) and to Ravitch's NY Times opinion piece. Pure bunkum! You can find the responses on the Idaho NAEP website at http://www.sde.state.id.us/naep/ Click on the RESPONSE links near the top of the page.
Posted by: Bert Stoneberg at March 2, 2006 12:07 PMJo Anne & Bert:
Thanks for your comments? How did you find our fun little educational outpost here?
Jo Anne - When did you found your organization, what kind of progress is it making? Are you running into resistance, and why?
What do math teachers say about all this? Anyone?
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at March 2, 2006 09:23 PMA fellow CVUSD activist for strong academics sent me this link.
Save Our Children from Mediocre Math (SOCMM) was founded in October of 2004 upon my discovery that Conejo Valley Unified School District had adopted Everyday Math. EM is a constructivist curriculum which has been rejected TWICE by the State Board of Education for failing to meet CA math standards.
There is no indication from CVUSD administrators at this time any change is forthcoming. There is strong resistance to giving parents a choice to use state approved programs. Educators promote constructivism and approve curricula that will support that agenda. http://socmm.home.att.net/constructivism050824.htm
Local principals have pointed out how much the children enjoy EM, and how parents who hate math love this program (not a stellar recommendation in my mind).
http://www.conejo.k12.ca.us/banyan/B_News/MarchBanner.PDF (see pg 2)
Basically you have administrators with little or NO math skills making bad choices regarding math curriculum for our children.
There is progress in our efforts to bring this important matter to the attention of parents. Many have no clue CVUSD math curriculum is so weak. Often parents don’t realize learning gaps exist until it may be too late, when students hit 4th and 5th grade, and the cumulative effects of this grossly inferior curriculum become obvious.
It is our hope that new leadership on the school board will help our efforts to bring about a much needed change.
What do Math Teachers say about all this?
Over 220 Professors of Mathematics and science from some of the most prestigious universities in this country signed an open letter to the Secretary of Education questioning the promotion of Everyday Math and other constructivist math programs. This letter was published in a full page add in the Washington Post. http://mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm
Locally, in yesterday’s article entitled “Open classrooms: Another alternative in education,” published in the T.O. Acorn, a parent indicates that a CVUSD Conejo Elementary teacher felt the “usual” math program was not meeting the needs of her students. It further indicated that the instructor then chose another book. (Everyday Math is the usual curriculum for CVUSD) http://www.toacorn.com/news/2006/0302/Community/012.html
The Acorn a week prior highlighted a story by a part time CVUSD teacher from Newbury Park who has chosen to homeschool her son. The article states, “Changes in educational approaches—the new, new math, for example—and that parents lack control over which curricula and textbooks are used are additional reasons that [she] prefers homeschooling.” http://www.toacorn.com/news/2006/0216/Front_page/106.html
To find out more about Everyday Math and our organization - Save our Children from Mediocre Math (SOCMM) please visit our website at http://socmm.home.att.net
A math teacher emailed asking for a comment about the "Basic Instincts" piece. Here is what I sent her:
Both the state and NAEP performance scores for Idaho 8th-grade mathematics that Finn and Ravitch used for their "Go figure...." chart are clearly wrong.
Finn/Ravitch said that 21 percent of Idaho's 8th-graders met Idaho's AYP reporting standard for mathematics in 2005 (i.e., ISAT proficient). In fact, it was 69.5 percent.
Finn/Ravitch said that 28 percent of Idaho's 8th-graders scored at or above NAEP Proficient on the 2005 mathematics assessment. In fact, it was 30 percent. [Finn/Ravitch did not note that 73 percent of Idaho's 8th-graders scores at or above NAEP Basic on the 2005 mathematics assessment, which is not too different from the 69.5 percent scoring at or above ISAT proficient. Nonetheless, statistical analyses from the NAEP Validity Panel have determined that "percent at or above NAEP Basic" are most appropriately used for comparisons with state level "percent at or above proficient."]
I have no idea where Finn/Ravitch get their numbers, but I found the ISAT percentages on the Idaho State Board of Education website and the NAEP percentages in the NAEP Data Explorer on the National Center for Education Statistics website.
Mr. Stoneberg’s repudiation of the Fordham findings
(http://www.sde.state.id.us/naep/info/naep2005_Response_to_Fordham_Foundation.pdf
reminds me of the recent article published January 28, 2006 in the New York Times which indicated that public schools actually perform better than private schools.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30714F93A5B0C7B8EDDA80894DE404482
The article states as follows:
“The study found that while the raw scores of fourth graders in Roman Catholic schools, for example, were 14.3 points higher than those in public schools, when adjustments were made for student backgrounds, those in Catholic schools scored 3.4 points lower than those in public schools.”
So, it is only after manipulating raw data for any possible social inequity, when measuring student achievement, that public education can hope to show it has in some aspect managed to out perform private schools.
The process of “norming” the data from standardized achievement exams can be very helpful to educators especially if they wish to mask any drop in scores. In their book “School Figures: The Data Behind the Debate” Hanna Skandera & Richard Sousa point out the following regarding the SAT I:
“The new recentered scale reflects a normal curve distribution of scores that accounts for a larger, more diverse population and boosts average scores by 100 points...”
Skandera & Sousa also pointed to other factors influencing scores such as making test taking easier by removing difficult parts, extending lengths of time for taking the exam, and allowing the use of calculators.
The education community, unfortunately for most students, does not choose to improve academic rigor, instead they simply move the goal posts closer making it easier to score.
I certainly hope Mr. Stoneberg will share how this blog was brought to his attention.
Jo Anne Cobasko
Save Our Children from Mediocre Math (SOCMM)
http://socmm.home.att.net
Cathy Carlson from TO here: Jo Anne has done our community in Thousand Oaks a great service by setting up a super website a couple of years ago which is now read coast to coast! She is a frequent speaker at the CVUSD school board, and the administrators know she is a force to be reckoned with. Everyday Math is NOT an approved program from the State. Conejo had to get a waiver to implement it. Our kids math education is suffering, but since parents here enroll their kids in 7 different tutoring centers to undo the damage, the district takes the credit for any increase in scores. Another case of the "educrats" designer new programs to justify their reason for being. This fuzzy math is definitely weakening the math foundation our children will need to rely on for the rest of their lives. Parents who enroll their kids in special tutoring should boycott the state tests (yes, you can without consequences) so that the schools can't take credit for any math successes that these families have had courtesy of their own time and money. THEN the schools would wake up to the fact of the poor performance of their strictly Everyday Math kids. THEN we can get back to the recommended programs and orderly learning of algorithms, rather than spirally and floating from concept to concept without mastery of any.
Here is a link to the NAEP report that was mentioned in the ABC newsreport today.
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/15B22876-20C8-47B8-9AF4-FAB148A225AC/0/PPSCreport.pdf
Scroll to the last few pages and look at how low California State scores are compared to the a National Standard for proficient by NAEP.
Here is the link to the ABC news article.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/US/story?id=1685078&page=1
Posted by: Cathy Carlson at March 3, 2006 07:28 PMI sent my limited response to the March, 2006, Education Trust report directly to the authors. You can find it on the web at
http://www.sde.state.id.us/naep/info/naep2005_ResponseToEducationTrust(02-Mar-06).htm
I found this site when a teacher in the Boise schools emailed me asking what I thought about the Finn/Ravitch WSJ piece entitled "Basic Instincts." At the time I wasn't aware of the piece, so I did a Google search, which listed this site. Please be assured that I had no sinister motive or anything like that. I just wanted to find out what Finn/Ravitch wrote so I could make an intelligent response to the teacher.
Posted by: Bert Stoneberg at March 17, 2006 02:50 PMI am wondering why the comments for this blog are now being hidden from view. I certainly hope that the web master will post them up front as they were previously presented. It is also troubling that one of my most recent letters published in the Star of April 21, 2006 has been eliminated from the Stars web site, along with many others complaining of the Everyday Math debacle in CVUSD. Is it possible that the information contained in my letters is embarassing to the incumbents running for CVUSD reelection? Probably so. I certainly hope the Star is not practicing CENSORSHIP of opposing view points, that would not bode well for first amendment rights.
Posted by: Jo Anne Cobasko at August 25, 2006 12:27 PM
Hi Tim,
Have you seen this?
http://www.letsgetitright.org/cartoon/
There was a link to this website on the Star's web site. Not sure what that says, what do you think?
~Alan
Posted by: Alan at February 27, 2006 01:24 PM