• yourjizzx cum
  • Policy Briefs

    National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as the nation’s report card, is the only national evaluation program for United States. It measures student performance on twelve main subject including math, science, reading and arts. NAEP samples a number of schools across the country similar to the demographics of the nation. It gives an overview of how American children are doing. In addition, it breaks down results between the four regions in US (northeast, southeast, central, west) and students with certain demographic feature, for example gender, race, and disabilities. With its concrete standards throughout the years, it is often seen as the golden standard for assessment.

    Early NAEP only report national wide results, it does not report state-level data. In fact, NAEP was not originally designed for state comparisons. As most educational policies in the US are implemented in the district or state level, policy makers have been pushing for a valid test on the state level. After a few trial runs, state NAEP is now part of the nation’s report card. Nevertheless, NAEP still have no data on district level. Most states have developed a state assessment to evaluate district-level performance. In Michigan, the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) was used as the state assessment. Comparison between different state assessments is not meaningful due to the varying difficulty of state assessments.

    Enormous changes were made after the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, more commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001. NCLB require states to evaluate 4th, 8th grade students regularly with NAEP in math and reading. In other words, states are required to hold up accountability of educational performances by holding tests and report the test results regularly. NCLB also sets the progress plans for the schools. Ultimately, all students have to be “proficient” by 2014.

    As discussed by several scholars, the ultimate standard set by NCLB is practically impossible which can be seen as an oxymoron. In addition, schools not fulfilling the agenda will lose some of their funding. This gives the states the incentive to “cheat” on the test. Common measures include states giving out easier tests or setting lower standard of proficiency. Driven by the political pressure, results from states assessment reported that "all states are above average".

    References:

    http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/

    http://www.nagb.org/publications/95222.pdf

    Rothstein, Richard, Rebecca Jacobsen, and Tamara Wilde. 2006. “'Proficiency for All' – An Oxymoron” Education Week, November 29

    .
    Home
    Agriculture
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    Commerce & Regulation
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    Criminal Justice
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    In The Courts
    Timeline
    Employment
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    Great Lakes & Recreation
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    Energy and Environment
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    Health Care
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    K-12 Education
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    Morality and Family
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    Political Reform
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    Social Services & Seniors
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    State Budget
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    Taxes
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    Transportation
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline
    Urban Affairs
    Policy Briefs
    Current Issues
    National Context
    Interviews
    Blog
    Most Popular Posts
    Timeline

    About Us

    The Michigan Policy Network is a student-led public education and research program to report and organize news and information about the political process surrounding Michigan state policy issues. It is run out of the Department of Political Science at Michigan State University, with participation by students from the College of Social Science, the College of Communication, and James Madison College. 

    Read more about us...

    Sponsors

    Michigan State University    Department of Political Science 
     College of Communication Arts & Sciences    James Madison College
     College of Social Science    University Outreach and Engagement

     

    The thoughts, opinions, and positions represented herein are solely those of the participating students and in no way represent an official position or policy recommendation of Michigan State University.

    Our sponsors...

    Meet your Policy Fellow: Andy Chou and Andrew Revard

    Andy Chou and Andrew Revard are Education Policy Correspondents for the Michigan Policy Network. Andy is a first-year student in Economics at Michigan State University. Andrew is a senior in Political Science at MSU.