Some CSAP Perspective

At this time of year when the annual results of CSAP testing come out, it is a good time to put things in perspective. Colorado had implemented the CSAP tests before the No Child Left Behind law was passed by the US Congress. The NCLB had a fairly simple goal, getting every child to “proficient or better” in the tested subjects by the 2013/14 school year. The term AYP or Adequate Yearly Progress is simply a straight line projection from the starting point (current situation by school and district) to the 100% proficient goal. Thus, if a school or district doesn’t make their AYP requirement it means they have fallen behind the linear path to the goal envisioned in the NCLB law. The requirement for proficiency is for each disaggregated group, e.g. male, female, ethnic group, English as a second language, etc. If AYP is not fully met for several years in a row sanctions apply. The law addressed the concern that American kids were continuing to perform poorly on international testing comparing achievement in literacy, math and science among children in participating countries around the world.

It makes sense to be concerned about this because the global environment is increasingly more competitive as huge chunks of population that were mired in socialist, uncompetitive economies have embraced capitalism and are now competing vigorously. The biggest examples are billions of people in India, China and Eastern Europe. There is a growing realization that our kids will need a dramatically better education if they are to be able to compete and maintain a high standard of living.

Sadly, while the NCLB has had some positive impact the law was written with a loophole big enough to drive a very large truck through. That is because the law depended on individual states to set the proficiency levels on their own state tests. While that may sound reasonable, it has allowed states to set the bar lower to make it easier to pass AYP. As you might guess states have a range of rigor in their testing. However, in general, most are set weakly compared to the levels tested for by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests. The sad thing is that the NAEP test is set significantly below the levels set by our best competitors. For example, the Singapore math requirements are about 3 grade levels higher than the NAEP. So to recap, the state tests are generally set at lower levels than the national test which is set at lower levels than our strongest competitor nations. This is not a good way to try to become more competitive internationally. It is a good way to reduce the “heat” on the education establishment and hide the truth. This allows the perpetuation of the status quo at the expense of our kids’ futures.

The obvious question for Coloradans is how difficult are our CSAP tests compared to other state tests? While that is not an easy question to answer, because Colorado uses the same methodology as 26 other states, comparisons within that group are quite possible. The Proficiency Illusion by the Thomas B Fordham Institute (Oct 2007) compares the proficiency implications for those 26 states. The report points out that Colorado is the only state that reports students who scored partially proficient on the CSAP as proficient for NCLB purposes. Of course, this reduces greatly the odds that NCLB sanctions will apply. Thus, the comparisons in the report are for that partially proficient level in Colorado. That level is basically at the bottom for the reading and math areas evaluated in the report. Massachusetts, California, and South Carolina are at the high end of expectations among the 26 states on their tests. That is, the California, Massachusetts and South Carolina tests are much more difficult than the CSAP tests. The report also points out that Colorado has lowered cut scores in certain areas in recent years which makes year to year “improvement” claims suspect. My conclusion is that the “hurdles” set by Colorado in their CSAP exams are akin to a stripe painted on the sidewalk and not a “high hurdle” at all.

Something that bothers me when I consider the CSAP lack of rigor is what does that say about the performance of our “best performing” school districts. Are they merely the best of the poor in national and international competitive terms? Norm Augustine of the National Academies of Science said in his article, Is America Falling Off the Flat Earth? “The problem of low expectations has not been confined to California. Alabama, for example, reported that in 2005, 83% of its fourth-graders ranked as “proficient” on its state test of academic achievement. But in the most widely accepted national test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 22% of Alabama’s fourth-graders scored at or above the proficient level. In truth, neither of the measures matters much. What counts today is how the children of Alabama rank with the children of Singapore, Moscow, Hong Kong, Delhi, Beijing, and Berlin. There is little consolation in being first among losers.”

Copyright by Paul W Richardson 2008. All rights reserved. Quotation of excerpts permitted with attribution.