STATEMENT ON NAEP TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT IN READING AND WRITING 2002

FOR RELEASE
Tuesday, July 22, 2003

Contact: Lawrence Feinberg
(202) 357-6942

STATEMENT ON NAEP TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT IN READING AND WRITING 2002

SHEILA M. FORD

Member, National Assessment Governing Board; Principal, Horace Mann Elementary School, Washington, D.C.

Today's reports represent a step of enormous courage by the urban school districts that decided to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Yes, student achievement in these districts is too low. Yes, there's a tremendous amount of work for them to do. But they knew that, and their communities knew that before the NAEP assessments were administered. What NAEP shows, and what couldn't be seen so clearly before, is that the education picture in these big-city school districts isn't just the dreary gray of failure. When students in the urban districts are compared to each other and to similar groups of students nationwide—which NAEP lets us do for the first time-there are fascinating, thought-provoking variations.

Generally, student writing in these districts is better than student reading. The fourth graders do better, compared to national averages, than do the students in eighth grade, compared to their counterparts nationwide. But there are important differences for various groups of students from one district to the next. For example, in fourth grade reading, among children from low-income families who qualify for the national school lunch program, the proportion at or above the Basic achievement level ranges from 42 percent in New York City to 25 percent in the District of Columbia. In eighth grade reading, the range among low-income children reaching Basic is even wider, from 59 percent in Chicago to 38 percent in Atlanta.

In both grades, the higher percentage—still not satisfactory—is about the same as the proportion of low-income children meeting the Basic standard nationwide. Unfortunately, the smaller percentages are even lower than the performance of students from low-income families across the country.

As several speakers have said, the reports out today are a first-time event. There will be more to see in the results for 2003 when four more big cities are added. And there will be even more after that when the trial urban assessments continue in 2005 and beyond, which I hope they will. Then we will be able to measure change.

NAEP will have its greatest value to the big cities—as it already has to many states-when it can serve as a fair and independent monitor of change. It is an assessment apart from a district's or a state's own standards and tests. Even the skeptics can look to it and trust the results. Hopefully, NAEP will vindicate the efforts and confirm the improvements we all hope to make.

The school district leaders, principals and teachers of the big-city schools should get together now and in the years ahead, as more NAEP results are reported. We should study what is working in each of the jurisdictions and try to figure out why, so we can share our successes and use them to improve all our schools.

Yes, the National Assessment is a tough test, but as Michael Casserly said, large-city communities want a tough test. They want high standards. They don't want anything less for their children than what Americans want throughout the country.

It is important to say again that NAEP is a fair test. It can cover an enormous amount of material and an enormous range because it uses a system of sampling in which each child takes only a small part—about 50 minutes—of what otherwise would be a very long, four to six hour exam. This lets NAEP show changes in all parts of the distribution—among low-achieving children and high-achieving ones too. NAEP can't give scores for any individual child. However, it does let us see how important groups of students are doing and whether they are making gains.

For decades people have used the political cry of improving education. Now I think finally that's taking place. The No Child Left Behind Act, which the President signed 18 months ago, was a completely bipartisan bill. There were about as many Democrats supporting it as Republicans, and it took good ideas from both sides of the aisle. One of those ideas is using data to bring about change. Another is setting high standards and focusing our efforts on achieving them. Another—and I hope our leaders will stick to this—is marshalling the resources needed to get results.

The big cities are not an explicit part of the No Child Left Behind law, but the school report cards and the state standards it requires should have a powerful effect. State NAEP reporting every two years is required by the law; participating in district-level NAEP is not required. But the districts in the first Trial Urban District Assessment and the others who will join them in the future clearly want the information that NAEP provides. They don't want to hide things or sweep them under the rug.

Sometimes what NAEP shows us will be good news. Sometimes it will be painful or unpleasant. It is brave to ask for this independent report card. The districts in NAEP understand that all our children are part of a competitive world and they need the same skills, the same ability to read and write, as students across the country. NAEP gives us two forms of perspective—with other urban districts and with students nationwide. We should use NAEP as a challenge and redouble our efforts to get strong results.