Review of "Lessons from State Performance on NAEP: Why Some High-Poverty Students Score Better than Others"

Autor/in	Nichols, Sharon L.
Institution	University of Colorado at Boulder, National Education Policy Center
Titel	Review of "Lessons from State Performance on NAEP: Why Some High-Poverty Students Score Better than Others"
Quelle	(2016), (12 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; School Effectiveness; Disadvantaged Schools; Poverty; Scores; Achievement Gap; Adoption (Ideas); Predictive Validity; Predictive Measurement; Grade 4; Grade 8; Mathematics Achievement; Academic Standards; Research Reports; Evidence; Research Utilization; Research Methodology; Regression (Statistics); Educational Practices; Educational Policy; Student Improvement + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Schuleffizienz; Armut; Ideas; Ideenfindung; School year 04; 4. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 04; School year 08; 8. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 08; Mathmatics sikills; Mathmatics achievement; Mathematical ability; Mathematische Kompetenz; Research report; Forschungsbericht; Evidenz; Forschungsumsetzung; Research method; Forschungsmethode; Regression; Regressionsanalyse; Bildungspraxis; Politics of education; Bildungspolitik
Abstract	This Center for American Progress report examines whether states' adoption of standards-based policies predicts low-income students' NAEP achievement trends in fourth and eighth grade math and reading throughout the 2003-2013 decade. The report claims to analyze changes across five separate two-year intervals, but it only reports findings for 2009-2011, with no explanation of why or any documentation of the representativeness of that single interval. The reported finding for the selected interval is that state adoption of standards policies positively predicts fourth (but not eighth) grade math NAEP and eighth (but not fourth) grade reading NAEP. Even these selected positive results are statistically significant only at the generally unacceptable 0.10 level of significance. The report includes effect sizes but nothing about the percentage of the variance explained in their model. In short, the report does not adequately describe variables or analytic methods or completely report findings, and the data and methods used do not allow for any causal findings. They use state standards adoption across grade levels and subject areas as well as selected accountability mandates as predictors but fail to assess their quality or fidelity of implementation. Yet based on these very problematic and limited analyses, the authors conclude that their analysis "strongly supports the potential of the Common Core to drive improvements in educational outcomes." The study simply does not support this conclusion or the set of recommendations that follow. Contains a list of combined notes and references. [For "Lessons from State Performance on NAEP: Why Some High-Poverty Students Score Better than Others," see ED567859.] (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	National Education Policy Center. School of Education 249 UCB University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309. Tel: 303-735-5290; e-mail: nepc@colorado.edu; Web site: http://nepc.colorado.edu
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01