 |
|
|
||
|
By Valerie Strauss THE FINDINGS: The benchmarks used to score the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a set of standardized tests known as the nation’s report card, are set so high that too many students are classified as less than proficient in math and reading, according to a new study from the Brown Center on Education Policy at the nonprofit Brookings Institution. As a result, the report says, it is not realistic to expect many schools to quickly elevate students to “proficient” levels as required under the No Child Left Behind law. The report also cites another new study, by Gary W. Phillips, a former acting commissioner of the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics. He suggests that 25 to 50 percent of students from nations that rank highest in international comparisons — Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan — would be labeled less than proficient, not doing much better than U.S. students. DISAGREEING: Charles Smith, executive director of the National Assessment Governing Board, an independent bipartisan group created by Congress to set policy for the “nation’s report card”: “For the last 12 or 15 years since the achievement levels have been in place, there have been numerous comments made about them pro and con. Some reports have said just what this one said: They are set too high. Others contend they are set too low. “Our view from the board perspective is that we have considerable faith in the process we use. . . . We believe it has proved over time to be valid and reliable.” CONCURRING: Gerald Bracey, an independent education researcher, is an expert on standardized testing. He has argued for years that the NAEP benchmarks for proficiency are too high and that international comparisons based on test scores are bogus. His response to the report: What took Brookings so long? |
||||
|
|
||||