NAEP and political meaning

The 2015 reading and math results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) were released yesterday. The national news is unpleasant: only 35% of fourth graders and 33% of eighth graders scored at proficient or better in reading, and only 39% of fourth graders and 32% of eighth graders scored proficient or better in math.

Results for each subgroup are not great either: math and reading scores for white and black fourth- and eighth-graders remained the same or dropped since 2013; reading scores rose for Hispanic fourth graders but dropped in eighth grade; and eighth grade math and reading scores for Asian students, who are the top performers in the nation, dropped.

Although the changes are far from astronomical, it is the first time in 25 years that the NAEP math scores have decreased. What does this mean? It depends on perspective.

Public Domain. National Center for Education Statistics – National Center for Education Statistics.

Many scholars, lawmakers, journalists, and advocates have expressed well thought-out opinions about what the “Nation’s Report Card” says about the state of American education. Some national spokespersons blame lackluster NAEP scores on teachers or their unions. Others blame a school choice movement that has attracted some of the public schools’ best test takers. Select members of the anti-Common Core, PARCC or Smarter Balance camps are sporting “I told you so” grins. At the ground level, state chiefs and local superintendents are pointing to recent improvements in SAT or ACT scores for comfort, while subgroup advocates walk the line of poverty, race, class and financial inequities in search of an explanation.

At the end of the day, everyone has an opinion and, absent a clear answer for why NAEP scores have declined and what this means for American education, all are plausible.

But all of these opinions ultimately put too much stock in NAEP as a tool for evaluating academic rigor nationwide. NAEP is a political ritual, not a flashlight, and our narrative says more about bureaucratic symbolism than it does about academic vitality. This ritual plays out with the release of all standardized test scores, but especially with NAEP because of its national import and methodological rigor.

While a state education leader in Virginia and Florida, and during my time as a researcher in Wisconsin, I participated in the ritual. I waved the flag when news was good for my state or district(s) and cried foul when it was not. After huddling with our education department researchers and communication specialists, I released a press statement that highlighted our gains and massaged our drops. We fed our message to reporters, as did school boards and interest groups. After a week of coverage, winners and losers were determined by appearances above the newspaper fold or by hits on social media. We promised to do better the next time, then moved on to the next education issue.

This year, let us shift the discussion from political ritual to practical advice. Here are a few suggestions to bring some academic meaning to the discussion:

• When running for office, governors frequently promise to create jobs and boost the state economy, both of which require a qualified workforce. In light of the NAEP results, governors should explain to their constituents what NAEP is and, more importantly, what NAEP does and does not mean to the state and its economy.

• State education chiefs should host video or conference calls with current and former state teachers of the year, parent organizations, and employers. The goal should be to gather their insight about what the NAEP results mean to them. Understanding what these constituencies think about the results, and about our education system more broadly, is useful for two reasons: first, to help explain the findings to other teachers and to the public, and second, to hear ideas for improving education from outside the political bubble.

• Researchers should take advantage of the opportunity to study this new data set. My AEI colleague Nat Malkus highlights differences in public and private schools’ scores as a good example of a question from the NAEP data that begs to be analyzed. And, when sharing their findings, researchers should strive to reach the public, not just the ivory tower, by writing for a lay audience and in the popular press.

Despite NAEP scores taking an unprecedented tumble this year, one thing remains the same as in 2013: the results prompt a flurry of opinions and political maneuvering, but not much substantive discussion.

It’s time to replace political ritual with a practical exploration of how we got these NAEP scores and, most importantly, how the NAEP data can guide our math and reading education for the next group of 4^th and 8^th graders. To paraphrase a common saying, fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us.

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1KIDC1I