National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 1996. Evaluation of "Redesigning the National Assessment of Educational Progress". Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5419.
×

Summary

The National Assessment Governing Board has proposed a redesign of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). A central premise of the document is that NAEP must be simplified; over time the assessment has been asked (National Assessment Governing Board, 1996:i; reprinted in appendix):

. . . to do more and more beyond its central purposes. Additions have been made without changing its basic design, making the National Assessment overly complex and costly.

The Governing Board seeks to initiate a process for streamlining NAEP's design in core subject areas, increasing the usefulness and timeliness of reports, and maintaining the accuracy, reliability, and validity of NAEP data.

This report comments on the May 1996 draft redesign plan, as requested by the U.S. Department of Education. It is part of the congressionally mandated evaluation of NAEP by the National Research Council (NRC). The NRC's Committee on the Evaluation of National and State Assessments of Educational Progress is charged with reviewing NAEP generally and evaluating the developmental state assessments, student performance levels, and the extent to which results are reasonable, valid, and informative to the public.

The committee concludes that the motivation for the redesign of NAEP is sound. During the past 25 years, policy concerns about educational opportunity, human resource needs, and school effectiveness have driven the program in varied and, in some cases, conflicting directions. Without changing NAEP's basic design, structural elements have been added and features have been changed in response to the diverse interests of the growing constituency for assessment in America's schools. We applaud the Governing Board for initiating this important redesign process and are pleased to see that the Commissioner of Education Statistics is hastening to address the issues raised in the redesign proposal.

The committee's chief conclusion is that the proposed redesign is at once too ambitious and not ambitious enough. It is too ambitious in the sense that it tries to be responsive to the interests of all kinds of users as well as to myriad criticisms of NAEP. The very degree of responsiveness militates against the overall goal of simplification and streamlining. At the same time, and more importantly, the current redesign proposal does not go far enough in addressing the root cause of the problems that motivated the redesign. We attribute much of the dilemma surrounding NAEP today as flowing from the multiplicity of purposes for this assessment program that has accrued over the years. What we do not see in the redesign proposal is a clear sense of priorities from which decisions about audience, information needs, measurement design and administration design would flow.

The committee also finds that the proposed changes in the NAEP design, administration, analysis, and reporting schemes are largely unspecified. Not only does the proposal not suggest choices—or at least recognize the need for choices—among many and varied design principles, it does not describe the process by which principles and plans would be implemented. The proposal does not specify mechanisms for deciding among conflicting program elements and ensuring the coherence and integrity of the assessment.

Finally, several aspects of the proposal involve suppositions about the future program for which there is a limited empirical base. Some of the proposal's basic premises are stated without data on feasibility or dis-

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 1996. Evaluation of "Redesigning the National Assessment of Educational Progress". Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5419.
×

cussion of design tradeoffs. Proposed actions such as annual administrations are predicated on cost savings derived from simplification of NAEP 's measurement and administration designs. Whether or not a simplified assessment can be realized is as yet unknown. Should real cost savings not materialize, several redesign tenets would either have to be dropped or be saved at the expense of presently unspecified components of the program.

These considerations lead us to recommend that the National Assessment Governing Board and the National Center for Education Statistics, which has responsibility for developing the instruments and carrying out the National Assessment of Educational Progress, view the current redesign process as an interim solution. The implicit correlate is that a fundamental rethinking of NAEP is needed. Hence, care needs to be taken that decisions or choices made at this time do not compromise a more ambitious reconceptualization of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 1996. Evaluation of "Redesigning the National Assessment of Educational Progress". Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5419.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 1996. Evaluation of "Redesigning the National Assessment of Educational Progress". Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5419.
×
Page 2
Next: Evaluation »
Evaluation of "Redesigning the National Assessment of Educational Progress" Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $47.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  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!