Monday, January 14, 2008

Quality Counts 2008 - Math & Poverty Gap


Interesting data from Ed Week.

Remember this is the NAEP data and shenanigans may abound.

The NAEP is only useful for same state comparisons from year to year.
Look out for huge changes in exclusions and accommodations ala NY.

Here is poverty gap analysis from 8th grade NAEP score changes based on the Education Week's Quality Counts 2008 data tables.

Poverty Gap change from 2003 to 2007

negative values = narrowing the Gap

California 8th grade math -3.6 {#12}

Washington 8th grade math +3.3 {#48}

From the Best to the worst here we go #48 is WA out of 51

"Math 8th Grade
NAEP Scale Score"
-6.9 Georgia {#1}
-6.8 New York
-6.4 Tennessee
-5.8 Wisconsin
-5.6 Florida
-4.9 Maryland
-4.6 Louisiana
-4.5 Pennsylvania
-4.3 Vermont
-4.1 Illinois {#10}
-3.7 Delaware
-3.6 California {#12}
-3.2 New Jersey
-2.8 Hawaii
-2.4 Idaho
-2.4 Rhode Island
-2.3 Massachusetts
-2.3 Maine
-2.2 District of Columbia (the other Washington DC)
-2.0 North Dakota {#20}
-2.0 Iowa
-1.6 Colorado
-1.5 Michigan
-1.4 Kentucky
-1.3 Texas
-1.3 Oklahoma
-1.2 New Hampshire
-1.1 Wyoming
-0.9 South Carolina
-0.7 Arizona {#30}
-0.7 Mississippi
-0.6 Virginia
-0.5 Ohio
-0.4 Utah
-0.3 South Dakota
-0.2 Nevada
-0.1 Minnesota
+0.1 North Carolina
+0.5 Indiana
+0.7 West Virginia {#40}
+1.1 Alabama
+1.3 Alaska
+1.4 New Mexico
+1.6 Missouri
+2.2 Arkansas
+2.6 Nebraska
+2.9 Kansas
+3.3 Washington {#48}
+4.0 Oregon
+4.2 Connecticut
+4.3 Montana {#51}


Anonymous said...

+3.3 what?

I looked at the study, and it took about 4 to 6 mins to find the citation to that poverty gap thing, and I ran outta patience because I'd ahve to go to ANOTHER web site.

+3.3 = bananas divided by kiwi fruit?

where do they come up with these idiotic metrics?

if you're rich you get 3.3 points, kiwis? shoes?


anon on wed.

dan dempsey said...

NAEP testing can be any of three separate tests. The NAEP LTT, Long Term Trends is given approximately every four years.

The LTT was given in 2003 and in 2007.

The LTT tests the same type of content every time. The regular NAEP content changes over time. The LTT gap change is measured in test points.

Thus plus 3.3 means that the Washington students effected by poverty had their scoring gap increase by 3.3 from 2003 to 2007.

Example let us supposed that in 2003 the non-poor students out performed the poor by 4.2 points then in 2007 the non-poor out performed the poor by 7.5 points.

The NAEP was developed principally for evaluation of a state's performance over time.

Because of the many differences from State to State in terms of poverty, parental education level, percent of English Language learners, etc. direct State to State comparison is pointless as it does not measure what is happening with schooling with much validity if any, rather it measures the conditions within the state that are favorable to educational achievement (most of which are beyond the control of the school system).

You will notice that California which has in most places abandon reform mathematics significantly narrowed the achievement gap from 2003 to 2007.

In Washington as more and more districts felt the pressure from OSPI to adopt math materials in supposed alignment with the WASL, like TERC/Investigations, Everyday Math, Trailblazers, Connected Math, etc. Washington's Achievement Gap expanded.

We have been led by OSPI down a very expensive road to the cleaners. Now the question becomes is the populace bright enough to realize we have been fleeced and courageous or angry enough to do anything about it?

Find out on January 22 at Roosevelt high school in Seattle at 6 PM.


dan dempsey said...

My mistake in the previous post the data used was not from the long term trends NAEP in 2003 and 2007 but from the regular NAEP.

The NAEP LTT was most recently given in 1999 and 2004.
One of the primary objectives of NAEP is to track trends in student performance over time. This report presents the results of NAEP long-term trend assessments in reading and mathematics, which were most recently administered in 2004 to students ages 9, 13, and 17. Because the assessments have been administered at different times in the 35-year history of NAEP, they make it possible to chart educational progress since 1971 in reading and 1973 in mathematics. Prior to 2004, the most recent long-term trend assessment was given in 1999, when results were reported for reading, mathematics, and science.