subject: Student Evaluation
description- – This report presents the mathematics assessment results from the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The assessment included nearly 250,000 fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students attending approximately 10,000 schools across the nation and the states. Students' performance is categorized into three achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Among the major findings were that: (1) for the nation there were statistically significant increases in average mathematics proficiency in all grades and in both public and private schools from 1990 to 1992; (2) despite these positive findings, 60 percent of the students in grades 4, 8, and 12 were estimated to be at or above the Basic level on the 1992 mathematics assessment; (3) considerable variation in performance existed within and across states and territories; (4) increases in mathematics proficiency between 1990 and 1992 did little to alter the relative standings of the demographic groups; (5) gains were noted in the content areas of numbers and operations, measurement, geometry, data analysis, and algebra, and (6) one-fifth of the 4th graders, two-thirds of the 8th graders, and 90 percent of the 12th graders demonstrated ability in solving two-step problems involving multiplication and division. Chapter 1 contains overall achievement results for the states by grade and by state. Chapter 2 contains results for the nation and states by the demographic groups of race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian); gender; type of community (advantaged urban, disadvantaged urban, extreme rural, and other); parents' highest level of education; and type of school (public, Catholic, private). Chapter 3 contains national and state mathematical content areas of estimation, numbers and operations, measurement, geometry, statistics, algebra, and functions. The four appendices, one-third of the document, discuss NAEP's anchor-level results, the guidelines for sample participation, state contextual background factors, and an overview of the procedures used in the 1992 mathematics assessments. (MDH)
subjectcollectiondatepublishercreator description- – A recently completed landmark study of mathematics and science education in more than 40 countries gathered information that can help address questions as to why students in one country do better in math and science than students in another. This report focuses on the results of the primary school science test of students in 26 countries, from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS). Details of how the study was conducted, the nature of the science test, country characteristics, differences in student achievement, student achievement by science content area, and an analysis of example problems are included. Ideas of intended and implemented curricula are discussed and a number of questions related to these ideas that TIMMS may answer are listed. (DDR)
subjectcollectiondatepublishercreator description- – This paper was presented as expert testimony in the Williams vs. State of California class action lawsuit. That case, filed on behalf of California public schoolchildren, charged the State with denying thousands of students the basic tools for a sound education. This paper addresses whether California's current output-based accountability system accurately and sufficiently notifies the state of whether students receive essentials required for learning and, if not, whether there are alternatives to California's current accountability system. It suggests that California's Academic Performance Index (API) is incapable of providing the type of information that state policymakers need to make informed decisions about which schools need help and how to help them, noting that California's attempt to establish an educational accountability system over the past decade has been tumultuous. Seven sections examine:"History of Educational Assessment and Accountability in California";"California's Current Index of Accountability: the API"; (3)"California's Outcome Based Accountability System Cannot Help Students Receive the Kind of Education They Deserve"; (4)"The AP is Not Even an Adequate or Useful Measure of Student Academic Achievement"; (5)"California's Accountability System is a Product of Questionable Policy Decisions Made by State Officials"; (6)"The API Encourages Poor Educational Practices"; and (7)"What Must be Done?"Key points include: the API cannot achieve the goals of a state accountability system; higher APIs do not necessarily indicated improved student achievement; low API scores say nothing about why they are low; and the API system is not an adequate outcome measure. (Contains 58 references.) (SM)
subjectcollectiondatepublishercreator
