National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: References
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agenda for Public Forum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

Appendix A

Agenda for Public Forum

INTERPRETATIONS AND USES OF NAEP ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS

May 27, 2015
1:00-5:00

Committee on the Evaluation of NAEP Achievement Levels for
Mathematics and Reading

National Academy of Sciences Building
Lecture Room
2101 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington DC

AGENDA

This session is sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on the Evaluation of NAEP Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading, which is charged with evaluating the extent to which NAEP achievement levels are reasonable, reliable, valid, and informative to the public. The committee’s goal for the session is to gather information on uses/interpretations of NAEP results that will help to guide their evaluation.

The session is separated into 5 parts, each led by a group of panelists from a variety of perspectives. The panel discussions will each be facilitated by a committee member, with the goal of having a free-flowing, moderated conversation among the panelists, audience, and committee members.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agenda for Public Forum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

1:00

WELCOME, OVERVIEW OF AGENDA

Brian Junker, Carnegie Mellon, Committee Member

1:10

PANEL DISCUSSION 1: EDUCATION WRITER PERSPECTIVES

Facilitator: Brian Junker, Carnegie Mellon, Committee Member
  • Sarah Butrymowicz, Hechinger Report
  • Catherine Gewertz, Education Week
  • Lyndsey Layton, Washington Post
  • Emily Richmond, Education Writers Association
  • Bob Rothman, Alliance for Excellent Education

1:55

PANEL DISCUSSION 2: STATE AND LOCAL POLICY PERSPECTIVES

Facilitator: Scott Norton, CCSSO, Committee Member

  • Michael Casserly, Council of Great City Schools
  • Scott Jenkins, National Governors Association
  • Wendy Geiger, Virginia Department of Education
  • Nathan Olson, Washington Department of Education

2:40

Break

2:55

PANEL DISCUSSION 3: EDUCATION POLICY AND ADVOCACY PERSPECTIVES

Facilitator: Laura Hamilton, RAND, Committee Member
  • Patte Barth, National School Board Association
  • Renee Jackson, National PTA
  • Sonja Brookins Santelises, Education Trust
  • Dara Zeehandelaar, Fordham Institute

3:40

PANEL DISCUSSION 4: USES OF NAEP ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS FOR ASSESSMENTS OF THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS

Facilitator: Suzanne Lane, University of Pittsburgh, Committee Member
  • Enis Dogan, Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
  • Jacqueline King, Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

4:10

PANEL DISCUSSION 5: SYNTHESIS

Facilitator: Brian Junker, Carnegie Mellon, Committee Member

  • Michael Kane, ETS
  • Lorrie Shepard, University of Colorado
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agenda for Public Forum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

4:50

Wrap Up, Final Q&A

5:00

Adjourn Open Session

Instructions for Panelists

We know that NAEP achievement-level results are used for the following general purposes:

  • To compare student achievement overall and by student groups for the nation, states, and urban districts
  • To compare U.S. student achievement with international benchmarks
  • To compare students’ performance on the state assessment—and serve as an audit of the results
  • To serve as models/external benchmarks in devloping achievement levels (and their descriptions) for other assessments

For the workshop, we would like to delve into these (and other) uses more deeply and explore the interpretations, decisions, and actions that result from the information.

As a very simplistic example, when state NAEP results are released, state officials compare their current results with their past results, those of other states, and those from their own state assessment. They interpret the comparisons and make inferences about student performance. They communicate those inferences to others, and decisions may be made or actions may be taken.

Given that example, please consider how you (or the consituency you represent) use NAEP results.

  1. What comparisons do you make? What inferences do you draw from them? Who do you communicate them to? What decisions are made and what actions are taken?
  2. NAEP reports performance results as mean scale scores and cumulated percentages of students who score at each achievement level (% Basic and above, % Proficient and above, and % Advanced). How do you use scale score information versus achievement–level information?
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agenda for Public Forum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
  1. Are there any particular groups that you track, such as at-risk students? If so, please discuss the information that you use, the kinds of inferences you make, and the actions/decisions that result.
  2. When you examine the results, do you use any of the NAEP questionnaire data (e.g., to cross-tabulate the test scores by questionnaire responses)? If so, please explain what you do.
  3. The performance-level categories (Basic, Proficient, Advanced) each include a description (called Achievement-Level Descriptions or Performance-Level Descriptions). Do you use these descriptions? If so, please explain how you use them.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agenda for Public Forum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 261
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agenda for Public Forum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 262
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agenda for Public Forum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agenda for Public Forum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 264
Next: Appendix B: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff »
Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $69.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Since 1969, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been providing policymakers, educators, and the public with reports on academic performance and progress of the nation’s students. The assessment is given periodically in a variety of subjects: mathematics, reading, writing, science, the arts, civics, economics, geography, U.S. history, and technology and engineering literacy. NAEP is given to representative samples of students across the U.S. to assess the educational progress of the nation as a whole.

Since 1992, NAEP results have been reported in relation to three achievement levels: basic, proficient, and advanced. However, the use of achievement levels has provoked controversy and disagreement, and evaluators have identified numerous concerns. This publication evaluates the NAEP student achievement levels in reading and mathematics in grades 4, 8, and 12 to determine whether the achievement levels are reasonable, reliable, valid, and informative to the public, and recommends ways that the setting and use of achievement levels can be improved.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!