Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (2017)
Chapter: Appendix A: Agenda for Public Forum
Appendix A
Agenda for Public Forum
INTERPRETATIONS AND USES OF NAEP ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS
May 27, 2015
1:00-5:00
Committee on the Evaluation of NAEP Achievement Levels for
Mathematics and Reading
National Academy of Sciences Building
Lecture Room
2101 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington DC
AGENDA
This session is sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on the Evaluation of NAEP Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading, which is charged with evaluating the extent to which NAEP achievement levels are reasonable, reliable, valid, and informative to the public. The committee’s goal for the session is to gather information on uses/interpretations of NAEP results that will help to guide their evaluation.
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.
|
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 | |
|
|
|
1:55 |
PANEL DISCUSSION 2: STATE AND LOCAL POLICY PERSPECTIVES |
|
Facilitator: Scott Norton, CCSSO, Committee Member |
|
|
|
|
2:40 |
Break |
|
2:55 |
PANEL DISCUSSION 3: EDUCATION POLICY AND ADVOCACY PERSPECTIVES |
| Facilitator: Laura Hamilton, RAND, Committee Member | |
|
|
|
3:40 |
PANEL DISCUSSION 4: USES OF NAEP ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS FOR ASSESSMENTS OF THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS |
| Facilitator: Suzanne Lane, University of Pittsburgh, Committee Member | |
|
|
|
4:10 |
PANEL DISCUSSION 5: SYNTHESIS |
|
Facilitator: Brian Junker, Carnegie Mellon, Committee Member |
|
|
|
4:50 |
Wrap Up, Final Q&A |
|
5:00 |
Adjourn Open Session |
Instructions for Panelists
We know that NAEP achievement-level results are used for the following general purposes:
- To compare student achievement overall and by student groups for the nation, states, and urban districts
- To compare U.S. student achievement with international benchmarks
- To compare students’ performance on the state assessment—and serve as an audit of the results
- To serve as models/external benchmarks in devloping achievement levels (and their descriptions) for other assessments
For the workshop, we would like to delve into these (and other) uses more deeply and explore the interpretations, decisions, and actions that result from the information.
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. They communicate those inferences to others, and decisions may be made or actions may be taken.
Given that example, please consider how you (or the consituency you represent) use NAEP results.
- What comparisons do you make? What inferences do you draw from them? Who do you communicate them to? What decisions are made and what actions are taken?
- NAEP reports performance results as mean scale scores and cumulated percentages of students who score at each achievement level (% Basic and above, % Proficient and above, and % Advanced). How do you use scale score information versus achievement–level information?
- Are there any particular groups that you track, such as at-risk students? If so, please discuss the information that you use, the kinds of inferences you make, and the actions/decisions that result.
- 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)? If so, please explain what you do.
- The performance-level categories (Basic, Proficient, Advanced) each include a description (called Achievement-Level Descriptions or Performance-Level Descriptions). Do you use these descriptions? If so, please explain how you use them.
