Comments on: Thomas B. Fordham Institute Report: The Proficiency Illusion http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2007/10/04/thomas-b-fordham-institute-report-the-proficiency-illusion/ Closing the Achievement Gap: Teaching Content Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:59:33 -0600 hourly 1 By: Bert D http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2007/10/04/thomas-b-fordham-institute-report-the-proficiency-illusion/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Bert D Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:34:28 +0000 http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/?p=12#comment-8 In the forward to "The Proficiency Illusion" (2007), Finn and Petrilli claim standards-based education is in deep trouble foremost because "on the whole, states do a bad job of setting (and maintaining) the standards that matter most — those that define student proficiency for purposes of NCLB and states — own results-based accountability systems." No state enjoys the financial resources and technical expertise that is available to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for setting achievement level standards or "proficiency cut scores." Not one state. Federal law requires that NAEP use achievement levels only on a trial basis until the Commissioner of Education Statistics determines that the achievement levels are "reasonable, valid, and informative to the public." Not there yet! NAEP still uses achievement level scores on a trial basis and urges strong caution in their use and interpretation. This is true even with the just released NAEP 2007 achievement level results for reading and mathematics. It seems a bit unreasonable and unfair to castigate any state's performance on a complex task that even the national assessment has not yet fully mastered. For more see http://www.bdsphd.zoomshare.com In the forward to “The Proficiency Illusion” (2007), Finn and Petrilli claim standards-based education is in deep trouble foremost because “on the whole, states do a bad job of setting (and maintaining) the standards that matter most — those that define student proficiency for purposes of NCLB and states — own results-based accountability systems.” No state enjoys the financial resources and technical expertise that is available to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for setting achievement level standards or “proficiency cut scores.” Not one state. Federal law requires that NAEP use achievement levels only on a trial basis until the Commissioner of Education Statistics determines that the achievement levels are “reasonable, valid, and informative to the public.” Not there yet! NAEP still uses achievement level scores on a trial basis and urges strong caution in their use and interpretation. This is true even with the just released NAEP 2007 achievement level results for reading and mathematics. It seems a bit unreasonable and unfair to castigate any state’s performance on a complex task that even the national assessment has not yet fully mastered.

For more see http://www.bdsphd.zoomshare.com

]]>