Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


[Susan notes: The original version of this letter contained this sentence as well. They shouldn't have omitted it.



Gerald Bracey noted in 2007 that the terms used for the NAEP achievement levels have been rejected by the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Education, and the Center for Research on Evaluation, Student Standards and Testing.

]

Published in Wall Street Journal
11/18/2013

To the editor





Published in the Wall Street Journal Nov. 17, 2013



The Heisenbergian Distortions in Measuring Education



Paul E. Peterson and Eric A. Hanushek's Spinning America's Report Card (op-ed, Nov. 8) claims that No Child Left Behind was responsible for a big improvement in National Assessment of Educational Progress, scores, because scores went up between 2000 and 2009.



Paul E. Peterson and Eric A. Hanushek ("Spinning America's Report Card," op-ed, Nov. 8) claim that No Child Left Behind was responsible for a big improvement in National Assessment of Educational Progress scores because scores went up between 2000 and 2009. But nearly all the gains in reading took place before NCLB was implemented. NAEP fourth-grade reading scores climbed from 213 to 219 between 2000 and 2002, accounting for most of the eight-point gain between 2000 and 2009. No Child Left Behind was signed into law in January 2002. There was no gain at all in eighth-grade reading scores between 2000 and 2009.



"Test Scores Show Small Gains" (U.S. News, Nov. 8) says that "only 42% of fourth-graders" scored at the "proficient" level. Testing experts have been pointing out for years that the term "proficient" on the NAEP really means "superior," and the results are better than they sound.





Stephen Krashen


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.