Skip to main content

Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

Appendix A: Agenda for Public Forum
Pages 261-264

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 261...
... 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.
Read the entire page →
From page 262...
... 262 EVALUATION OF ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS ON NAEP 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  anel Discussion 3: Education Policy and Advocacy P 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  acilitator: Suzanne Lane, University of Pittsburgh, Committee F Member •  nis Dogan, Partnership for Assessment of Readiness E for College and Careers (PARCC) •  acqueline King, Smarter Balanced Assessment J Consortium 4:10 Panel Discussion 5: Synthesis Facilitator: Brian Junker, Carnegie Mellon, Committee Member • Michael Kane, ETS • Lorrie Shepard, University of Colorado
Read the entire page →
From page 263...
... 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.
Read the entire page →
From page 264...
... 4. 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)
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • panel discussion
  • naep results
  • reports performance
  • naep reports
  • mean scale

  • naep questionnaire
  • scale scores
  • panel discussions
  • current results
  • state assessment

  • state naep
  • moderated conversation
  • simplistic example
  • officials compare
  • past results

  • questionnaire data
  • please consider
  • state officials
  • performance results
  • own state

  • please explain
  • achievement level
  • please discuss
  • student performance
  • scale score

  • score information
  • questionnaire responses
  • test scores
  • anel discussion
  • information versus


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.