Truth Behind the Numbers

Educational statistics have become part of everyday conversations for many in this country. We hear people speak of merit pay, national standards, teacher evaluation, reading proficiency, and graduation rates; however, we don't really understand what's being said. Statistics can always be spun, and that reality shines through in the world of education as much as anywhere.

Let's look at the educational statistic most relevant to Reach's work: proficiency in reading. How are we to understand the statistic related to reading proficiency? According to the DC Comprehensive Assessment System (DC-CAS), 43% of the District's secondary students are proficient in reading. However, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 13% of DC's secondary students are proficient in reading. How is that possible?

Well, NAEP is considered the gold standard of educational assessments, but it doesn't paint a very bright picture of the District's public education system. So, states generally only highlight their own proficiency data (and credit is due to DC for publishing NAEP scores on their website). No Child Left Behind forced states to develop accountability systems, but it gives states the ability to define proficiency. That means that proficiency as DC measures it is not the same as proficiency by Pennsylvania's definition. Some argue that states can improve statistics simply by lowering standards. NAEP allows us to compare states. DC-CAS and NAEP provide two totally different definitions of proficiency, and we tend to see a preference based on what is most convenient for the writer/speaker.

As you can imagine, Reach often uses the 13% number. To garner support for our programming, it's important that a bleak picture be painted. The seriousness of the problem creates a sense of urgency about fixing the problem (though, to be fair, why are we more satisfied with 43% of our kids reading proficiently?). To truly understand the problems we face, we must understand the nature of the statistics we so often see.

Thanks, as always, for reading.

Mark