Page i

NAEP REPORTING PRACTICES

INVESTIGATING DISTRICT-LEVEL AND MARKET-BASKET REPORTING

Committee on NAEP Reporting Practices

Pasquale J. DeVito and Judith A. Koenig, editors

Center for Education

Board on Testing and Assessment

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Page i NAEP REPORTING PRACTICES INVESTIGATING DISTRICT-LEVEL AND MARKET-BASKET REPORTING Committee on NAEP Reporting Practices Pasquale J. DeVito and Judith A. Koenig, editors Center for Education Board on Testing and Assessment National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
Page ii NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. The study was supported by Contract/Grant No. EA 95083001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Education. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project. Suggested citation: National Research Council. 2001. NAEP Reporting Practices: Investigating District-Level and Market-Basket Reporting. Committee on NAEP Reporting Practices. Pasquale J. DeVito and Judith A. Koenig, editors. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. International Standard Book Number 0-309-07313-8 Additional copies of this report are available from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418 Call (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) This report is also available online at http://www.nap.edu Printed in the United States of America Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

OCR for page R1
Page iii THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine National Research Council The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
Page iv

OCR for page R1
Page v COMMITTEE ON NAEP REPORTING PRACTICES: INVESTIGATING DISTRICT-LEVEL AND MARKET-BASKET REPORTING PASQUALE DEVITO (Chair), Office of Assessment, Rhode Island Department of Education LINDA BRYANT, Westwood Elementary School, Pittsburgh C. MELODY CARSWELL, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky MARYELLEN DONAHUE, Office of Research, Assessment, and Evaluation, Boston Public Schools LOU FABRIZIO, Division of Accountability Services, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction LEANN GAMACHE, Assessment and Evaluation, Education Services Center, Littleton Public Schools, Littleton, Colorado DOUGLAS HERRMANN, Department of Psychology, Indiana State University AUDREY QUALLS, Iowa Testing Program, Iowa City, Iowa MARK RECKASE, Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education, Michigan State University DUANE STEFFEY, Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, San Diego State University JUDITH KOENIG, Study Director KAREN MITCHELL, Senior Program Officer KAELI KNOWLES, Program Officer DOROTHY MAJEWSKI, Senior Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
Page vi BOARD ON TESTING AND ASSESSMENT EVA L. BAKER (Chair), The Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles LORRAINE MCDONNELL (Vice Chair), Departments of Political Science and Education, University of California, Santa Barbara LAURESS L. WISE (Vice Chair), Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, Virginia RICHARD C. ATKINSON, President, University of California CHRISTOPHER F. EDLEY, JR., Harvard Law School RONALD FERGUSON, John F. Kennedy School of Public Policy, Harvard University MILTON D. HAKEL, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University ROBERT M. HAUSER, Institute for Research on Poverty, Center for Demography, University of Wisconsin, Madison PAUL W. HOLLAND, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey DANIEL M. KORETZ, RAND Corporation, Arlington, Virginia RICHARD J. LIGHT, Graduate School of Education and John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University BARBARA MEANS, SRI, International, Menlo Park, California ANDREW C. PORTER, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison LORETTA A. SHEPARD, School of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder CATHERINE E. SNOW, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University WILLIAM L. TAYLOR, Attorney at Law, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM T. TRENT, Department of Educational Policy Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign GUADALUPE M. VALDES, School of Education, Stanford University VICKI VANDAVEER, The Vandaveer Group, Inc., Houston, Texas KENNETH I. WOLPIN, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania

OCR for page R1
Page vii Acknowledgments The Committee on NAEP Reporting Practices wishes to thank the many people who helped to make possible the preparation of this report. An important part of the committee's work was to gather information on the desirability, feasibility, and potential impact of district-level and market-basket reporting for the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). Many people gave generously of their time during committee meetings and workshops and in preparing papers for the committee. Staff from National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), under the direction of Gary Phillips, acting commissioner, and staff from the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), under the leadership of Roy Truby, executive director, were valuable sources of information. Peggy Carr, Patricia Dabbs, Arnold Goldstein, Steve Gorman, Andrew Kolstad, and Holly Spurlock of NCES and Roy Truby, Mary Lyn Bourque, Sharif Shakrani, Lawrence Feinberg, and Raymond Fields of NAGB provided the committee with important background information on numerous occasions. Papers prepared for the committee's workshops by Roy Truby and Andrew Kolstad were particularly helpful as were the papers and information provided by John Mazzeo and Robert Mislevy of ETS, and Keith Rust and Richard Valliant of Westat. In September 1999, the committee held a workshop to gather information on issues related to district-level reporting for NAEP. A great many people contributed to the success of this workshop, which brought together representatives from state and local assessment offices, experts in educa-

OCR for page R1
Page viii tional measurement, and others familiar with the issues related to reporting district-level NAEP results. We are indebted to: Nancy Amuleru-Marshall, Atlanta Public Schools; Albert Beaton at Boston College's School of Education; Peter Behuniak, Connecticut State Department of Education; Carmen Chapman Pfeiffer, Illinois State Department of Education; Mitchell Chester, School District of Philadelphia; Judy Costa, Clark County School District in Nevada; Gerald DeMauro, Office of State Assessment in Albany, New York; Steve Dunbar with the University of Iowa's College of Education; Sharon Lewis, Council of the Great City Schools; Wayne Martin, Council of Chief State School Officers; Thomas McIntosh, Nevada Department of Education; Paula Mosley, Office of Instruction, Los Angeles; Carole Perlman, Chicago Public Schools; Edward Roeber, Measured Progress in Dover, New Hampshire; Harry Selig, Houston Independent School District; Robert Silverman, Office of Public Instruction in Olympia, Washington; Don Watson, Colorado Department of Education; and Lauress Wise, Human Resources Research Organization in Alexandria, Virginia. The committee conducted a second workshop in February 2000 to collect information on issues related to market-basket reporting. We are grateful to the representatives from state and local assessment offices, experts in educational measurement, and others familiar with the issues related to market-basket reporting who helped make this workshop a success. The committee thanks the many panelists and discussants: R. Darrell Bock with University of Chicago's Departments of Psychology and Education; Paul Cieslak, Milwaukee Public Schools; Richard Lee Colvin, Los Angeles Times; Ronald Costello, Noblesville Schools in Indiana; Marlene Hartzman, Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland; Paul Kimmelman with Illinois' West Northfield School District; David Kroeze with Illinois' Northbrook School District 27; Wayne Martin, Council of Chief State School Officers; Marilyn McConachie, Illinois State Board of Education; Donald McLaughlin, American Institutes for Research; Joseph O'Reilly, Mesa Unified School District in Arizona; Ken Stewart, Bureau of Labor Statistics; David Thissen, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Carrol Thomas, Beaumont Independent School District in Texas; and C. Scott Trimble, Kentucky Department of Education. We are especially grateful to Patricia Kenney with the University of Michigan for her extensive review and discussion of the plans for constructing NAEP short forms.

OCR for page R1
Page ix We acknowledge the contribution of a number of individuals at the NRC who provided guidance and assistance at many stages during the organization of the workshops and the preparation of this report. We thank Michael Feuer, executive director of the Center for Education and former director of the Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA), for his expert guidance and leadership of this project. We are indebted to BOTA staff officer, Karen Mitchell, for her assistance in planning both workshops and writing this report. Karen was a principal source of expertise in both the substance and process for this workshop. We also wish to thank BOTA staff members Patricia Morison, Alix Beatty, and Naomi Chudowsky for their assistance and advice during this study. We thank Kirsten Sampson Snyder for guiding the report through the review process and Yvonne Wise for her editorial assistance. Special thanks are due to Dorothy Majewski, administrative associate, for her masterful handling of the logistical aspects of this project. In addition to handling the responsibilities associated with setting up committee meetings, Dorothy very capably managed the logistics of holding two workshops within a six-month period, each requiring arrangements for numerous panelists and guests. Subsequent to each workshop, a summary report was prepared and published, and Dorothy was of invaluable assistance in managing the logistics of manuscript preparation, distribution, and review. Special thanks are also due to Kaeli Knowles, NRC program officer, for her fine work on this project. Kaeli played a major role in setting up the workshop on district-level reporting, contacting workshop participants and guiding them in developing their presentations. Kaeli's assistance during the preparation of both workshop summaries and this final report was immensely helpful. This project could not have been completed without the capable leadership, management skills, and energy of Judith Koenig, study director. Judith skillfully guided the project through each of its phases to a successful completion. We, as a committee, are truly indebted to Judith for her superb work. Above all, we thank the committee members for their outstanding contributions to this study. They drafted text, prepared background materials, and helped to organize and run workshops. During the course of the preparation of this final report, the committee chair assumed a new position as BOTA director. Committee members were superbly helpful during this transition, assisting with all aspects of report preparation including writing major portions of this report, responding to reviewer concerns, and revis-

OCR for page R1
Page x ing text in accordance with reviewer comments. The chair is particularly grateful to his colleagues on the committee. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Johnny Blair, University of Maryland, College Park; Chris Cross, Council for Basic Education, Washington, DC; Jonathan Dings, Boulder Valley Public Schools, Boulder, Colorado; Stephen Dunbar, University of Iowa; Paul Holland, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey; Don McLaughlin, American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, California; Thanos Patelis, The College Board, New York City. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Alan Schoenfeld, University of California, Berkeley, appointed by the Center for Education and Lyle Jones, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, appointed by the NRC's Report Review Committee, who were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. Pasquale J. DeVito Chair

OCR for page R1
Page xi Contents Executive Summary 1 1     Introduction 13 2     Current NAEP 21 3     Reporting District-Level NAEP Results 30 4     Market-Basket Reporting 50 5     Changed NAEP: Use of a Short-Form Version of NAEP 71 6     Designing Reports of District-Level and Market-Basket NAEP Results 86 7     Implications of District-Level and Market-Basket Reporting 101 References 112 Appendix A:     Background and Current Uses of the Consumer Price Index 119 Appendix B:     Depicting Changes in Reading Scores—An Example of a Usability Evaluation 125 Biographical Data 137

OCR for page R1
Page xii