Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (52453)	10/26/2000 1:09:51 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

In the interests of balance: Statement by David Grissmer, Lead Author of RAND’s Main Report on NAEP and Student Achievement in Texas released July 25, 2000 The newly released RAND Issue Paper (IP) would not have changed anything written or concluded in our RAND Main Report (MR). There are two reasons for this. First there is very little overlap in the two publications. Our study used data from all states and the entire set of NAEP scores to perform a statistical analysis trying to understand what states were doing well on three different measures, and whether the level and way that resources were utilized explained the results. If resources could not explain state performance, we hypothesized that state reform efforts were responsible. So, the new IP only addresses a very narrow portion of our study. Second, in the area of overlap where there is disagreement, I continue to support our conclusions that Texas NAEP score increases were among the highest across states. The reason I support our conclusions is that we used all the state NAEP tests in the analysis that enabled a longer period of comparison, and performed statistical tests to determine the level of significance of the results. The other conclusion about Texas we made- namely that comparisons of scores for students from similar families also showed Texas among the top states- was not challenged by the new IP. Issue papers at RAND are used to raise significant questions about public policies, but need not provide compelling evidence as to the answers to the questions. It is an important function, and one I support. My colleagues have raised important issues that must be settled by future research. It is important to allow researchers to raise alternate hypotheses and disagree, since that is what fuels progress in research. When that future research is completed, a RAND MR is the means of conveying compelling research results. The standards for review of an MR are higher than for an Issue Paper, and both have their legitimate place in public policy analysis. Finally, in my opinion, it is pre-mature based on the current evidence to conclude that there is something amiss in the TAAS and other state testing programs. TAAS and other state tests are narrowly designed tests that try to measure what is taught in particular grades. They are not designed to measure wider knowledge not taught in the curriculum. NAEP tests are based on the wider set of knowledge at a particular grade that students have. This knowledge can come from differences in curriculum (i.e, things taught at a given grade in another state, but not in Texas) or can reflect knowledge that students have outside of school. The gains in NAEP tests may always reflect a lower rate of improvement than state tests simply because they are designed to do different things. State tests reflect curriculum specific knowledge in a given state, while NAEP reflects more of an average curriculum across states and also knowledge gained outside what is specifically taught in a given grade in school. For instance, if we had a national curriculum that all states taught to, it is possible that the differences we see in NAEP trends and state trends would be substantially reduced. However, this is a hypothesis that, like the hypothesis raised in the IP, must be addressed by future research.