Re: Fw: Report on High Achievers Offers Useful Analyses but Overstates Policy Implications

[aburke5054@aol.com]

Why is that most salient, since states are responsible for raising 
achievement against their own standards on their own tests, and not on 
NAEP?  Do you want to throw out state tests and go with a NAEP-like 
national test, or do you just want to talk about NAEP scores if you 
think they show that NCLB is not "working."

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: gbracey1@verizon.net
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 8:11 am
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: Report on High Achievers Offers Useful 
Analyses but Overstates Policy Implications


 I think the most salient part of Loveless' analysis of NAEP
data--which he missed--is that NAEP gains slowed after NCLB.  This is
consonant with analyses from NWEA and Mike Smith at the Hewlett
Foundation (Mike's analyses are thus far unpublished). 
 

Jerry 
 


On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Monty Neill wrote: 
 

> Great Lakes Center For Education Research & Practice 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Great Lakes Center 

To: monty@fairtest.org <mailto:monty@fairtest.org>  
<mailto:monty@fairtest.org>   

Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:00 AM 

Subject: Report on High Achievers Offers Useful Analyses but Overstates
Policy Implications 
 


http://www.greatlakescenter.org <http://www.greatlakescenter.org>  
<http://www.greatlakescenter.org> 
 


      FOR IMMEDIATE20RELEASE 
 

      Report on High Achievers Offers Useful Analyses but Overstates
Policy Implications 
 

      Contact: Teri Battaglieri, (248) 444-7071;
greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org
<mailto:greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org>  
<mailto:greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org> 

      Gregory Camilli, (732) 932-7496; camilli@rutgers.edu
<mailto:camilli@rutgers.edu>   <mailto:camilli@rutgers.edu> 
 

      EAST LANSING, Mi. (July 29, 2008)-A recent report suggests that
high-achieving students are losing out under the No Child Left Behind
Act and recommends incentives for schools to better serve such 
students.
A Think Twice review of the report praises its focus on high achievers,
especially those from resource-poor schools, but concludes that the
report's presentations of findings and policy implications
inappropriately overreach. 
 

      The two-part report, High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB
was published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and was reviewed by
Professor Gregory Camilli of Rutgers University. The report comes as
Congress considers a redesign of NCLB, and Camilli notes it is framed 
to
influence that discussion. 
 

      The report consists of 1) an analysis of mathematics and reading
achievement among higher- and lower-achieving students as measured by a
national standardized test, and 2) the20results of a survey of teachers
about how schools serve high achievers while meeting NCLB's
requirements. 
 

      Analyzing results of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics for students at the 10th
(lower-achieving) and 90th (higher-achieving) percentiles on those
exams, the report concludes that the gap between the two groups has
narrowed since NCLB took effect. This result was due to achievement
gains by low rather than higher achievers. The report then suggests 
that
lower-income and minority high achievers may be at risk for losing out
on opportunities under NCLB. 
 

      The second part of the report highlights findings concerning
teachers' perceptions and beliefs regarding the education of higher
achievers. For instance, 86% of the teachers responding indicated that
it is more important to focus on achievement among all students,
regardless of their advantages, rather than to focus primarily on
struggling, disadvantaged students. 
 

      Camilli applauds the spotlight placed by the report on Black,
Hispanic, and poor high achievers, and he concludes that it provides a
"meaningful statistical description of these student populations." But
he also offers several criticisms of the report: 
 

        a.. While the report includes acknowledgements that its
correlational analyses cannot be used to draw causa
l inferences, such
inferences nonetheless are used pervasively to bolster policy
recommendations. Camilli is particularly critical of such over-reaching
in the report's foreword, written by Fordham's Chester Finn and Michael
Petrelli, as well as in the executive summary. 
 

        b.. There are in fact two NAEP data sets from which gap
statistics can be calculated. The report's analysis of the gap between
high and low achievers uses only one. Camilli shows that with the other
data set, much less convincing results are obtained, thus limiting the
generalizability of the gap trends presented in the report. 
 

        c.. The report suggests policies that would increase
stratification of educational opportunities, contradicting "a large 
body
of research" that questions the efficacy of tracking students by
perceived ability. This research is not discussed in the report. 
 

        d.. Response bias to the survey of teachers may be a problem. 
It
received only a 15% return rate and did not provide appropriate
breakdowns by such characteristics as grade level and urbanicity that
might have better informed readers. The wording of certain questions 
may
have inadvertently led to response bias. 

      Camilli concludes that the report's two studies inappropriately
"attempt to inform broad policies on the strength of two fairly narrow
analys
es." 
 

      Find Gregory Camilli's review and the The Fordham Institute's
report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org
<http://www.greatlakescenter.org>   <http://www.greatlakescenter.org> . 
 

      About the Think Tank Review Project 

      The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and 
the
press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank
publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies
Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public
Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded
by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. 
 

      ### 

     
 

      The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public
education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the 
support
and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on
education policy and practices. 
 

      Visit the Great Lakes Center website at:
http://www.greatlakescenter.org <http://www.greatlakescenter.org>  
<http://www.greatlakescenter.org> 

     
 


To unsubscribe, please email unsubscribe@greatlakescenter.org
<mailto:unsubscribe@greatlakescenter.org>  
<mailto:unsubscribe@greatlakescenter.org>  with the subject 
unsubscribe.
Please note that20if this message has been forwarded to you from a
listserve other than ours we may be unable to remove you individually. 

------------------------------------------------ 

Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net 







**************************************
See what's new at http://www.aol.com