| dc.description.abstract | This dissertation addresses two research questions: 1. Do states misrepresent their progress on their own state assessments? 2. If states do distort their progress, are their predictors to suggest why this distortion occurs? The first research question requires that distortion be defined. For the purposes of this dissertation I calculated the growth from 2003 to 2005, 2005 to 2007, and 2007 to 2009 on each state's individual state assessment and the NAEP. To calculate the growth I used a modified growth equation that subtracts the two scores and divides that by the maximum score on that test in that year, from the first score. This calculation produces a Practical Normed Growth (PNG) for the state assessment as well as the NAEP. To determine the distortion index I subtract the NAEP's PNG from the state assessment's PNG. A positive distortion index indicates the state assessment's growth was greater than the NAEP's growth and the state distorted their progress. A negative distortion index indicates the NAEP's PNG was greater than the state assessment's PNG and the state did not misrepresent their progress. This analysis was done on the elementary reading assessment. This assessment includes three growth periods to compare, creates three observations of the 50 states, or 150 data points possible for distortion. The first research question, do states distort their progress? The answer is yes. On the elementary reading assessments the states had a positive distortion index 76 times out of a possible 150, or 51%. The observed distortions came from three basic models. First, the state assessment scores went up, but the NAEP scores went down or stayed the same. Second, the state assessment scores stayed the same, but the NAEP scores went down. Third, the state assessment scores went down, but the NAEP scores went down more. In each of these possible scenarios the states have misrepresented the education progress of their state to their stakeholders. In the first scenario, if the scores on the state assessments go up while the NAEP assessment scores go down indicates a narrowed curriculum and an overemphasis on the state assessment. In the second scenario, if the scores on the state assessment stayed the same while the NAEP scores dropped indicates a less effective focus on the state assessment, at the expense of the NAEP. The third scenario, both the state assessment and NAEP scores fall, with the NAEP scores falling faster indicates a state struggling to do anything well. The second research question, are there predictors to suggest why this distortion occurs? The answer is yes. On the elementary reading assessment comparison, two predictors were statistically significant in the final model, state population and African-American status. The coefficients of each of these predictors indicate that states with lower populations and higher numbers of African-Americans distort their progress more on the elementary reading assessments. | |
