Educational Researcher

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ho, A. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Educational Researcher, Vol. 37, No. 6, 351-360 (2008)
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X08323842

The Problem With "Proficiency": Limitations of Statistics and Policy Under No Child Left Behind

Andrew Dean Ho

ANDREW DEAN HO is an assistant professor in Psychological and Quantitative Foundations at the University of Iowa, 316 Lindquist Center, Iowa City, IA 52242; andrew-ho{at}uiowa.edu. His research interests are in statistical methods and conceptual frameworks for validating test-score gains under high-stakes accountability systems.

The Percentage of Proficient Students (PPS) has become a ubiquitous statistic under the No Child Left Behind Act. This focus on proficiency has statistical and substantive costs. The author demonstrates that the PPS metric offers only limited and unrepresentative depictions of large-scale test score trends, gaps, and gap trends. The limitations are unpredictable, dramatic, and difficult to correct in the absence of other data. Interpretation of these depictions generally leads to incorrect or incomplete inferences about distributional change. The author shows how the statistical shortcomings of these depictions extend to shortcomings of policy, from exclusively encouraging score gains near the proficiency cut score to shortsighted comparisons of state and national testing results. The author proposes alternatives for large-scale score reporting and argues that a distribution-wide perspective on results is required for any serious analysis of test score data, including "growth"-related results under the recent Growth Model Pilot Program.

Key Words: accountability • high-stakes testing • statistics


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




AER home page RER home page EPA home page JEB home page RRE home page