Fwd: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Needed: a "no spin" factor

[P. David Pearson]

I agree with Tom that a 10 point increase is not 
much to write home about.  But, I would remind us 
all that when we posted 8 and 9 scale score point 
gains in the 70s and 80s, we made a big deal 
about it, especially with respect to poor and 
minority kids--said we were closing the 
achievement gap, we did.  So 10 points over 4 
years doesn't seem so bad.  But 4 points over 24 
years, that doesn't seem so great.

The other perspective one has to take to get a 
better handle on NAEP is to translate these scale 
score points onto a more palpable scale.  I'll 
bet you anything that a scale score increase of 
10 points translates into getting an average of 
about 1 more item right.  Anyone know what the 
translation of scale score points into raw scores 
is?  Or even into percentiles?

David

>Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:06:30 -0700
>From: tsticht at znet.com
>To: reading-hall-of-fame at nottingham.ac.uk
>Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Needed: a "no spin" factor
>X-BeenThere: reading-hall-of-fame at nottingham.ac.uk
>List-Id: Private list for Reading Hall of Fame members
>	<reading-hall-of-fame.nottingham.ac.uk>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame>,
> 
>	<mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-request at nottingham.ac.uk?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: 
><http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame>
>List-Post: <mailto:reading-hall-of-fame at nottingham.ac.uk>
>List-Help: <mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-request at nottingham.ac.uk?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame>,
> 
>	<mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-request at nottingham.ac.uk?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at nottingham.ac.uk
>
>Forum
>Letters to the Editor
>Reading TODAY
>
>Needed: A "No Spin" Factor
>
>The headline on the front page of Reading TODAY for August/September 2005
>states in big, bold letters: LONG-TERM NAEP SCORES SHOW SOLID GAINS. But
>the graph on page 6 suggests a bit of "spin" being given to NAEP data.
>There are no indications of "solid gains" in the graph of average scores on
>the NAEP for 9, 13, or 17 year olds for the thirty year period from 1971 to
>2004. In a scale ranging from 200 to around 320 scale scores, 9 year olds
>increased from 208 in 1971 to 215 in 1980 and then fell to 209 in 1990 and
>then rose again to 219 in 2004. This is only 4 scale score points higher
>than in 1980.  This is not evidence of "solid gains" but of ups and downs
>over a thirty year period. There is a similar lack of evidence of any
>"solid gains" for 13 and 17 year olds over this period.
>
>The lack of evidence for gains by 9 year olds is made even more apparent,
>and disappointing,  when the data for 9 year olds at differing percentiles
>of achievement are examined. In 1971 students at the 90th percentile scored
>260, then rose gradually to 266 in 1990 and then fell to 264 in 2004. Nine
>year olds at the 50th percentile scored as indicated above. Really poorly
>reading students, those at the 10th percentile scored 152 in 1971, then
>rose to 165 in 1980 and then rose again to 169 in 2004, though the latter
>was not statistically greater than 25 years ago in 1980.
>
>Thirteen year olds  at the 10th percentile scored 208 in 1971, rose to 213
>in 1988, and then fell to 210 in 2004. The least able 17 year old readers,
>those at the 10th percentile, scored 225 in 1971, rose to 241 in 1988, and
>then fell to 227 in 2004.
>
>Altogether, data for the last 25 to 30 years indicate that these poorly
>reading students have made hardly any change, and certainly not any "solid
>gain" that has any practical meaning. This suggests to me that reading
>professionals, researchers, and policymakers need to take another look at
>what is being done to try to increase reading scores of the weakest readers
>in the nation. Strategies of the last thirty years have apparently failed
>for these students, that’s the "no spin" finding.
>
>Thomas G. Sticht
>International Consultant in Adult Education
>2062 Valley View Blvd.
>El Cajon, CA 92019-2059
>Tel/fax: (619) 444-9133
>Email: tsticht at aznet.net
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
>Reading-hall-of-fame at nottingham.ac.uk
>http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame


-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PLEASE NOTE:  SOCRATES IS DEAD, at least as an e-mail server
  at Berkeley!!!!
PLEASE DROP IT FROM MY ADDRESS!
NEW ADDRESS: ppearson at berkeley.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
***********************************
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P. David Pearson
Professor and Dean
Graduate School of Education
1501 Tolman Hall #1670
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley CA 94720-1670
GSE Office: 510 643-6644
LHS Office: 510 642-7753
5519 Research Office:  510 643-5004
fax 510 643-8904
speakerphone 510 643-6739
ppearson at berkeley.edu
website: 
*******************
Home:  851 Euclid Ave
Berkeley, CA  94708 -1305
510 526 6986
Cell:  510 543 6508
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***********************************