Gary W. Phillips, Ph.D., via a Richard Askey email
It is worth looking at the data to see how Wisconsin compares with some other states. Here is the mathematics comparison with Minnesota.
The “state” results are the percent of students ranked as proficient on the state test with the current cut scores being used. The international percent was obtained by using the state results on NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) and this was mapped by comparing levels of problems to the level on TIMSS, (Trends in Mathematics and Science Study).
Grade 4 Mathematics Percent proficient
State International
Wisconsin 74 45
Minnesota 68 55
Massachusetts 49 63
Grade 8 Mathematics
Wisconsin 73 33
Minnesota 56 41
Massachusetts 46 52
No, the Massachusetts scores were not reversed here. Their cut score levels are set higher than the TIMSS levels.
It is time for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction to redo the cut score levels to make them realistic. Parents in Wisconsin are mature enough to be told the truth about how well their children are doing.
The paper being sited is to a publication by American Institutes for Research. This is important later.
Better solution than upping cut scores for the label “proficient” is to report the actual scores.
A cut score is the worst of all possible worlds in determining how well kids, schools, the state are doing. Cut scores hide all variation, cannot show the distribution of scores near the cut lines.
Sure, the Feds determine AYP based on the “proficient” cut scores, but, aside the Feds punishments and mandates, cut scores are worse than useless.
There is simply little or no relationship between the label “proficient” for a cut score boundary, and the word “proficient” as used in everyday language. Further, a “proficient” cut score line gives the illusion that there is some objective scientific basis for the label, when there is certainly not.
Also, without comparing the tests used among the states, one cannot determine the relative positions of the cut scores.
Finally, this document is a paradigm of self-dealing. The basis for their argument is from “research” performed by Gary Phillips, who, to what should be no one’s surprise, has the title Dr. Gary W. Phillips. Ph D Vice President & Chief Scientist American Institutes for Research. The document cites one published paper by Phillips (in an AIR publication) — notice not in a REFEREED publication, and two that have not been published yet.
Basically, Phillips is an expert in these matters simply because he says he is, and his research should be the basis of policy decisions simply because he says it should be.
Not impressed.