Media Report Paper

Linda McGee & Wayne Miller

University of Phoenix

Media Report Paper

A vital responsibility of an educator is examining the role of the media reporting of testing results. As well, how such results are taken and made relevant to making state and national decisions for education. When scrutinizing the results of testing, several matters need to be considered. Investigation of a report for the appropriateness for making high-stake decisions, whether or not there can be another way for fulfilling that purpose, and the relevance of accessing growth over time all need consideration when evaluating results within a report that is assessing our nation’s youth educationally.

In looking at the appropriateness for making high-stake decisions in the description results for National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), it’s appropriate in a way because it is at least the same test being used for all the states and it also is measuring the same grade level year to year. However, the NAEP does not take into account the funding for different school districts. As well, there are cases of missing data for some states in subject areas, therefore skewing the data. Also, it admittedly cannot account for the higher instances in some states of disabilities and English Language Learners. Overall, it is not very appropriate given all the factors that could be faulty in its measurement endeavors to be a tool used for decision making in regards to reform. Yet, this is a highly publicized document that gives the generalized public a snapshot at what is going on within each state’s public school systems (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007).

In this way, comparing NAEP data state to state is not necessarily revealing a realistic comparison of the different states and their abilities to perform. Another way this test could have a purpose is that it could indicate what states have more funding, less students with disabilities or language barriers, and how the testing’s design is successfully taken by the members of certain societal areas (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007).

Over time, the NAEP shows that there are state-wide progress reports comparing how well the students compare year to year. Yet again, with this there is another thing to consider. This testing instrument is measuring a different group of students each year, so they will be different, good or bad, because these students are individuals. Each new batch has a new batch of skills. Therefore, progress is not really reliably compared with this instrument; instead it compares the achievement levels of today’s students to yesterday’s, therefore not necessarily measuring the progress of our nation’s youth (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007).

Our society has a very rich environment for testing results. Therefore, it is easy to find a test designed many years ago in a very different way that yields similarly disappointing results when being scrutinized for its effectiveness. Another test called Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) had been designed and given years ago to be used with statistical mixed-model methodology while testing students. This assessment worked for its intended purpose, and it didn’t work. This testing instrument is more appropriate than the previously mentioned for making decisions because it is taking into consideration many elements in order to get a more accurate depiction of the student’s achievement at the time. Even with these allotments, not all factors are considered. As well, like the previously mentioned testing results, it still has its faults with high-stakes decision making for education (Sanders, Wright, Horn, 1997).

The TVAAS testing instrument shows the growth of individual students instead of lumping data for students in groups, therefore showing individual progress. This fulfills the need for testing, while at the same time it is taking a different approach. The assessment test takes into consideration environmental factors such as classroom sizes and has found teachers make a difference with the students being tested, therefore looking at other pieces interlaced within testing situations (Sanders, Wright, Horn,1997)..

The TVAAS measures didn’t measure growth over time because it was more of a study to see different factors effects on testing. It concluded that class sizes didn’t have an effect. It also showed that the teacher was the greatest effect, shifting a conclusive look at the instructors as predictors for success. Due to results such as these, it is possible that the current testing situation focalizes so much on the teacher’s effect on student scores because of reactive reform to testing environmental factors such as this. But again, the effects that such measures created have created other effects within our educational system today (Sanders, Wright, Horn,1997).

Concluding the comparison of these two media reports, it is obvious that testing results have been a building force in our society, and that results can drive how society begins to operate. However, often times the different aspects such as demographics, lack of data, exceptional or diverse learners, funding, and state differences on approaches to educating our nation, are all factors that have an effect on interpreting the results of such measurements. Simple result summaries do not include all the variables that could influence the results from the tests. It is haphazard to apply the results from tests as indicators or guidance for instructional reform matters or condemnation for performances on such tests. In this regard, the appropriateness always needs to be considered, and perhaps retroactively our society should look at the appropriateness of the measures that spurred our current practices within our educational institutions.

References

National Center for Educational Statistics (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: State Snapshot

Report. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/stt2007/2007497NM8.pdf

Sanders, W., Wright, P., Horn, S. (1997). Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student

Achievement Implications for Teacher Evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in

Education, 11, 57-67. Retrieved from http://www.sas.com/govedu/edu/teacher_eval.pdf