[NLA] breaking news

[PDRNRI@aol.com]

Everyone:

I second Janet's concern.  

Many of the numbers produced by the NRS don't seem to lend themselves to any 
ready analysis.  As I remember my own NRS reporting experience, "Left before 
completing program" can be interpreted differently not only by different 
states but in some cases by different organizations within that state, making 
even state by state data on that point irrelevant.   

Comparing percentages completing levels is even more problematic; students 
often complete levels due to the fact that they enter with a high test score 
within the range of a given level, then advance only a few points to pass the 
benchmark.  Others in the same class may enter with scores in the low range 
for a level, make a greater gain in test scores, and fail to meet the 
benchmark.  Programs which have the poor luck of having more students enter 
at the lower end of a level relative to other programs may make greater gains 
but compare poorly.

We could probably generate a great many example on this list of ways in which 
this system is flawed (or perhaps completely misguided); what troubles me 
more is the sense that certain sets of data (e.g., the insignificant 
correlation between spending and performance gains) can be used (not 
coincidentally, perhaps, by the same folks who brought you the reporting 
system) to justify spending freezes and cuts.  

While we're on the topic of data which is difficult to interpret, can anyone 
(perhaps someone in California) explain to me why 979,716 fewer people 
participated in the system in 1999-2000?  I may have missed something, but I 
had no idea that was happening. 

Thanks, 

David Hayes
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org