Q; "If Swedish fourth-graders sat for our National Assessment of Educational Progress reading test, what proportion of them would be labeled 'proficient or better'?"
A: Thirty-three percent.
Q: "If Singaporean eighth-graders sat for our NAEP science test, what proportion would be labeled 'proficient or better'?"
A: Fifty-one percent.
Q: "In the Third International Mathematics and Science Study of 1995, where did American fourth-graders rank in science among the 26 participating nations?"
A: Third.
Q: "What percentage of American fourth-graders were labeled "proficient or better" in the 1996 NAEP science assessment?"
A: Twenty-nine percent.
Q: "What indicators of achievement 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?"
A: "The NAEP achievement levels: basic, proficient and advanced."
Q: "What are the first words in set-off text that one encounters in the Leaders and Laggards report released in February by the Center for American Progress and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?"
A: "The measures of our educational shortcomings are stark indeed; most 4th and 8th graders are not proficient in either reading or mathematics."
Bracey's assessment:
So why does the government continue to report such misleading information? The Leaders and Laggards report illustrates why: The numbers are useful as scare techniques. If you can batter people into believing the schools are in awful shape, you can make them anxious about their future -- and you can control them.Comment: There is clearly information contained in the results of educational testing, but that information seems to be presented in a way that often fails to produce real understanding for the recipient. An interesting quandary for those interested in Knowledge for Development! JAD
No comments:
Post a Comment