Webinar of The Nation's Report Card: 2010 U.S. History, Grade 8 - VoiceTube: Learn English through videos!

Subtitles section Play video

Welcome to today's briefing to release the results of the Nation's Report Card, U.S. History 2010.
I am David Gordon, Superintendent of Schools of the Sacramento County Office of Education
and member of the National Assessment Governing Board.
The Governing Board is an independent, bipartisan board that sets policy for the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, also called "NAEP."
The assessment results are reported to the country as the Nation' s Report Card.
The governing board is pleased to host today's event.
As most of you know,
NAEP is the only ongoing nationally representative assessment of student per performance in the United States,
so today's results are both of importance and interest.
Before we begin the data presentation, Juan, our webinar producer, will address the logistics
and mechanics for using WebEx.
But first I'd like to run through our agenda.
After Juan makes sure we are all WebEx savvy, Dr. Jack Buckley,
Commissioner of National Center for Education Statistics, will present the National NAEP 2010
U.S. History results for grades 4, 8 and 12.
Then governing board member, Dr. Steven Paine, will offer his perspective on the results.
Steven is the former West Virginia School Superintendent,
who is now Vice President of Strategic Planning and Development at CTB McGraw Hill,
and he also used to be a Social Studies teacher, with one of his subjects being U S History.
Finally, we are pleased to welcome internationally recognized education expert Dr. Diane Ravitch.
Diane wears many hats.
She's Research Professor of Education at New York University, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution,
a prolific author, blogger, and speaker, and education historian,
and I might add, a former member of our governing board.
She will share her response to the history results.
We will conclude with time for questions during the webinar and off air at its completion.
Before we start, I wanted to let you know that you can take part in a new interactive element of today's webinar.
During the webinar, please look to the Chat and Polling panels at the right of your WebEx viewer.
There we will display questions from previous NAEP History assessments at grades 4, 8, and 12,
and provide instant polling results.
Responses are anonymous, so test your history knowledge against other webinar participants.
And now, Juan, please share with us what attendee need to know.
All righty.
Ladies and gentlemen, again, we want to make today's webinar interactive,
and we want you to submit your questions.
You'll notice on the right side of your screen the Q&A panel.
To submit your questions, just simply type in the white box, type your question in and then hit "Send."
Make sure that on the dropdown that you select "All panelists."
Be sure to include your full name and organizational affiliation with your question.
And again, as mentioned, if you experience any technical difficulties, please refer to your confirmation e-mail
or call (866) 779-3239.
Okay.
And back to you.
Let us begin.
It's my pleasure to introduce Dr. Jack Buckley.
Jack is the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics.
On leave from his position as a professor of Applied Statistics at NYU, he is known for his research on school choice,
particularly charter schools, and on statistical methods for public policy.
Jack, thank you for being here.
We're all looking forward to hearing the results.
Well thank you, Dave, and happy Flag Day to everyone.
Good morning.
I'm here today to release the results of the 2010 U.S. History assessment,
our first History assessment since 2006.
The assessment measures how well students know the specific facts of American History,
how well they evaluate historical evidence, and how well they understand change and continuity over time.
The assessment was administered in early 2010.
We have national results for grades 4, 8, and 12.
7,000 4th graders and approximately 12,000 8th and 12th graders took the assessment.
Overall results are based on the performance of both public and private school students.
At grades 4 and 12,
participation rate standards for separate reporting results for private schools students were not met,
so we only have separate private school results for grade 8 for 2010.
We present student performance in two ways; average scale scores with a single zero to 500 scale for all three grades;
and separate achievement levels for each grade.
The NAEP achievement levels, basic, proficient, and advanced, are set by the National Assessment Governing Board,
which sets policy for NAEP.
NAEP scale scores tells what students know and can do,
while the NAEP achievement levels provide standards for what students should know and be able to do.
For both scale scores and achievement level performance,
we will be making comparisons back to previous assessments in 1994, 2001, and 2006.
When making these comparisons we must remember that all NAEP results
are based on samples from the overall population of students.
This means that there is a margin of error associated with every score and percentage.
When discussing changes in student performance, either increases or decreases,
we only discuss those that are statistically significant; that is, those that are larger than the margin of error.
In the tables and figure that follow, an asterisk is used to indicate statistically significant differences,
comparing scores from previous assessments to those in 2010.
The U.S. History assessment identifies four major themes in American History.
At each grade, a specified percentage of questions or items deals with each theme.
We have enough items for each theme to allow us to measure student performance on each theme separately.
The first theme is Changing Continuity in American Democracy from Colonial Times to the Present,
focusing on ideas, institutions, events, key figures and controversies.
The second theme is Culture, the gathering and interactions of peoples, cultures and ideas in American society.
The third theme is Technology, economic and technological changes
and their relationship to society, ideas, and the environment.
And the final theme is World Role, which focuses on the changing ideas, institutions,
and ideologies that affect American foreign relations.
The questions on the NAEP assessment measure these four historical themes across eight time periods of U.S. History.
While these periods are largely sequential, there is some overlap to allow for concentration on a single broad topic.
For example, the fifth period, Crisis of the Union, devoted to the Civil War, overlaps with the period
before and after the war, allowing for questions that relate to the causes of the war, the war itself,
and the reconstruction that followed.
Now we'll look at results of the 2010 assessment in detail, beginning with grade 4.
Fourth-grade students had an average score of 214 on a 500-point scale in 2010,
which was higher than their average score of 205 in 1994,
but not significantly different from their score of 211 in 2006.
Breaking in the scores by percentile, we see increases from lower-performing students of 22 and 12 points since 1994,
and increases of 6 and 4 points for students performing at the 50th and 75th percentiles.
When we compare student performance to 2006, we see only one statistically significant increase for students,
this at the 50th percentile.
This bar chart shows the percents of grade 4 students at the three achievement levels for the past four assessments,
plus the percentage who scored below basic.
The bar for 1994 at the top shows the percentage of students below basic at 36%, with 47% at basic,
15% at proficient, and 2% at advanced.
The percentile chart on the previous slide showed increasing scores among lower-performing students
when comparing 2010 to the assessments before 2006.
We see that reflected here,
as the percentage of students for performing below basic fell from 36% in 1994 to 27% in 2010.
We also see the increase in scores at the 75th percentile,
reflected in the increase in the percentage of students at proficient during the same time period.
This next slide presents a lot of information,
showing the percentages of students at the three achievement levels by race ethnicity.
We see declines in the percentages of students scoring below basic for
white, black, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander students when comparing 2010 to 1994.
Only white students showed an increase in the percentage at proficient.
Our sample for American Indian and Alaskan Native students
was not large enough to provide reliable results in either 1994 or 2001.
Although it isn't shown here, when we compared 2006 to 2010,
we see no significant changes in the percentage of these students at any of the achievement levels.
Since 1994 the gaps in scores for white students as compared to black students
and for white students compared to Hispanic students have narrowed at grade 4.
This graph shows the scores for white students in U.S. History increasing from 214 in 1994, to 224 in 2010.
When we bring in the scores for black students, we see that their scores have increased as well, from 176 to 198.
The effect of this larger increase for black students was to narrow the gap from 38 points to 26.
We see a similar pattern when we bring in the results for white and Hispanic students.
The 23-point increase for Hispanic students from 1994 to 2010 was larger than the 9-point increase for white students,
reducing the gap to 26 points.
In 2010, male fourth graders scored 215 on the U.S. History assessment, as shown by the blue bar at the top,
while female fourth graders scored 213, shown by the orange bar;
however, this two-point difference was not statistically significant.
When we examine scores by the individual history themes, however,
male students did score higher than female students by a statistically significant margin in two cases;
Change in Continuity in American Democracy and World Role.
In the Culture and Technology themes the differences were not statistically significant.
NAEP reports results according to student eligibility for the National School Lunch Program.
This gives us three groups, ranked according to family income level; those students eligible for free lunches,
those eligible for reduced price lunches,
and those whose family income is to high to make them eligible in this program.
Because of changes in the availability of data, we are only showing comparisons back to 2006.
As the graph shows, scores varied according to student family income level,
with lower income students having lower scores.
Grade 4 students who were eligible for free lunch
and those who are with not eligible showed increases from 2006 to 2010.
This drawing, which dates from 1849 and shows a Sioux Indian camp,
was used in the question on the grade 4 U.S. History assessment.
Students were asked to describe three ways the Sioux used natural resources to meet their needs based on the picture.
The answers shown here received a complete rating.
In the answer the student noted that the Sioux used wood for fire, animal skins for housing,
and wood for making barrels.
23% of students received a complete rating on this question, while 36% received a partial,
meaning that they supplied one or two descriptions from the picture.
Next we'll look at grade 8 results.
At grade 8, scores were higher than they had been in any previous assessment, rising from 259 in 1994, to 266 in 2010.
Comparing 1994 to 2010, we also see increases at all five percentile levels.
In comparing 2006 to 2010, we see increases for the lower- and middle-performing students.
This bar graph, again, shows the achievement level results over time for grade 8.
On the previous slide, we saw that the scores improved for both low- and high-performing students from 1994 to 2010.
This improvement is, again, reflected here in the declining percentages of students scoring below basic
and the increased percentages of students at basic and proficient.
When we look at the white/black score gap at grade 8,
we see that the 23-point gap in 2010 was narrower in than that in either 1994 or 2006.
Scores for white students rose by eight points since 1994, while scores for black students rose by 13.
The white/Hispanic score gap was 21 points in 2010.
It was not significantly different from the gap in 1994 but was narrower than the gap in 2006.
The average score for white students in 2010 was higher than in 1994 but not significantly different from 2006.
For both black and Hispanic students, scores in 2010 were higher than in any previous assessment.
Turning again to the gender gap, in 1994 both male and female students scored 259, and there was no gender gap;
however, since that time,
the increase in scores for male students has been larger than the increase for female students,
and the 2010 gap of four points is statistically significant.
Male eighth graders had higher scores than female students in three U.S. History themes;
Changing Continuity in American Democracy, Technology, and World Role.
One of the questions on the grade 8 assessment asked students to identify the method chosen
by the 1787 Constitutional Convention to settle the issue
of whether slaves would be counted as part of a state's population.
59% correctly chose the answer, stating that each slave was to be counted as three-fifths of a person.
Now we'll look at the results for grade 12.
The average score for 12th graders in 2010 was higher in 1994, but not significantly different from 2006.
When we examine scored by percentile, we see no statistically significant differences at all.
Turning to the achievement level results for grade 12,
there are also no statistically significant changes for the percentages of grade 12 students
at any of the NAEP achievement levels for any year.
Looking at the white/black score gap in 2010, we see no changes in the size of the gap
compared to previous assessments.
The average score for white students did increase from 1994 but not from 2006,
and there were no changes for black students on average.
The white/Hispanic score gap also did not change significantly.
Scores for Hispanic students were higher, however, in 2010 than in 1994.
Overall, male students scored four points higher than female students at grade 12 in 2010.
They also scored higher on two of the four U.S. History themes;
Change in Continuity in American Democracy and World Role.
Recall that male students at grades 4 and 8 also had higher scores in these two themes.
Turning to a sample question,
one question on the grade 12 assessment asked students to identify the country
that supplied troops that opposed U.S. and South Korean forces in the Korean War other than North Korea itself.
22% of students identified China correctly as the source of those troops.
In 2010, 24% of grade 12 students reported taking an advanced placement or AP U.S. History course.
The average score for these students was 304,
while the average store for those students who said they did not take an AP U.S. History course was 284.
While 24% of grade 12 students said they took a AP U.S. History course in 2010,
a year earlier, NAEP's 2009 High School Transcript Study found that 13% did so
based on a review of a nationally-representative sample of actual high school transcripts.
This suggests that some grade 12 students may have meant that they were taking an Advanced History course,
which they perceived as the equivalent of an AP course.
We'd like to supplement the results of the 2010 U.S. History assessment for grade 12 students
with some additional data from the 2009 High School Transcript study,
which presents information for those students who graduated from high school in 2009.
This graph shows the percentages of the students, of high school graduates rather,
who had access to U.S. History Advanced Placement courses;
that is, those who attended schools where they could have taken such courses
rose from 51% in 1990 to 80% in 2009.
And as we see, the increases occurred for all four racial or ethnic groups as well.
This bar graph shows the percentages of students who had access to AP U.S. History courses in 1990 and 2009,
as determined by their attendance at low-, medium-, or high-minority schools.
Low-minority schools, in this case, are schools whose student body included less than 10% black and Hispanic students,
while medium minority schools had student bodies that were 10% to 49%, black and Hispanic,
and high minority schools were 50% or more.
Access increased for graduates at tending all three types of schools in 2009,
but only 66% of those attending low-minority schools had access to AP U.S. History,
compared to 88% and 90% respectively for those attending medium- and high-minority schools.
Many low-minority schools are located in rural areas.
This slide shows the percentages of graduates attending schools where AP U.S. History courses are offered,
classifying the schools according to location, whether urban, suburban, or rural.
In comparing the percentages for the years 2000 and 2009,
we see statistically significant increases for the percentages of graduates with access to AP History
who attend suburban and rural schools;
however, the percentage for rural schools still remains lower than the percentages for the other two locations.
This next graph shows the percentages of graduates who actually took an AP U.S. History course for both 1990 and 2009.
The increase for all graduates from 6% to 13%, was statistically significant,
as was the increase for all major racial ethnic groups, except for black graduates.
In 2009, almost one-third of Asian or Pacific Islander graduates had taken an AP U.S. History course.
And if we look at the percentages of high school graduates who actually took an AP U.S. History course
according to whether they attended a low-, medium-, or high-minority school,
we see increases for graduates attending all three types of schools from 1990 to 2009.
By 2009, the percentage was lower for graduates attending low-minority schools
than for graduates attending either medium- or high-minority schools.
If we look at the percentages of high school graduates who took an AP U.S. History course
according to whether they attended an urban, suburban, or rural school,
we again see increases regardless of location when comparing 2000 to 2009;
however, the percentage in 2009 remained lower for graduates in rural schools.
So I'll conclude with a summary of our 2010 U.S. History results.
For grade 4, scores were higher in 2010 than 1994.
Scores increased for most students over this time period,
with lower-performing students showing larger gains than higher-performing students.
For grade 8, scores in 2010 were higher than in any previous assessment.
In addition, students at all five percentile levels had higher scores than in 1994.
And at grade 12, overall scores were higher in 2010 than 1994, but not than 2006.
In looking back again at comparisons of student performance in 2010 with 1994 and 2006
for all five racial ethnic groups, here we'll denote increases in scores with orange triangles.
At grade 4, shown at the left, scores were higher in 1994 for all groups except American Indian
or Alaskan Native students, where our sample in 1994 was not large enough to provide reliable reporting.
There were no significant changes in scores since 2006.
At grade 8, scores were higher in 2010 than in any 1994 for all five groups,
and there were also increases since 2006 for black and Hispanic students.
And at grade 12, scores were higher in 2010 than 1994 for white, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific Islander students,
but there were no score increases for any of the racial ethnic groups since 2006.
Our full report, the 2010 U.S. History Report Card, provides all of this information and much more.
In addition, the initial release website will allow you to explore extensive information
on the performance of students in each state, access to released assessment questions
through NAEP's Question Center, and the NAEP Data Explorer, our online data analysis tool.
In conclusion, as always, I'd like to offer our sincere thanks to the students, teachers, and schools
who participated in the 2010 U.S. History assessment.
Thank you, Jack.
And before we hear from Dr. Steven Paine,
I wanted to remind participants again to take part in the new interactive element of today's webinar.
During the webinar, please look to the Chat and Polling panels at the right of your WebEx viewer.
We will display questions from previous NAEP History assessments for grades 4, 8, and 12
and provide instant polling results, and responses are anonymous,
so test your history knowledge against other participants in the webinar.
Next, we turn to Dr. Steven Paine.
Steven will discuss his take on the results from his work as a teacher, administrator, and ultimately, superintendent,
and explain why History and other Social Sciences are important subjects like Reading and Math.
Thank you for being here with us today, Steven.
Thank you, David, my pleasure.
I'm very pleased to be a part of a panel that discusses the NAEP performance of a subject
in the realm of Social Studies, a content area that far too often takes a backseat to Reading and Mathematics.
The results on the NAEP U.S. History assessment that we see today
paint a picture of not just the performance of our nation's students
but also why History and other Social Studies subjects are truly important.
The report shows some significant gains in U.S. History performance,
especially among our fourth and eighth grade students, as Jack has pointed out.
When you look at those who have scored at or above the basic achievement level since 1994,
the results look very impressive.
But look at the performance of our high school seniors.
This is very troubling.
For every NAEP U.S. History assessment since 1994, over half of 12th graders scored below basic,
and for all grade levels since 1994, no more than 20% of our students
scored at or above the proficient achievement level.
Until very recently, I was the State Superintendent of West Virginia, but long before that,
I had the pleasure to teach Social Studies subjects at the middle and high school levels, including U.S. History,
West Virginia History, American Government, Civics, and World Cultures,
and from this vantage point I always saw History as a critically important content area to be studied by our students.
The role of an educator is to make sure students understand the facts
and to teach them how to apply those facts in real-life contextual situations
so they can become strong thinkers and problem solvers.
In this regard, I think U.S. History as a content area sets itself apart.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned from where we've been as a nation
that students can apply to contemporary culture;
moreover, being knowledgeable of our nation' s heritage helps to assure
that our students don't forget the principles upon which our great country was founded,
and this, in turn, will pave the way for them to become civic-minded and productive citizens
in this country and, indeed, in our global world.
Over the years, as I have transitioned from roles in instruction to administration,
I have seen how reading skills can be enhanced by the study of History and other Social Studies.
In addition, I think students have a keen interest in all of the important events
and the people that have shaped our history.
The task we really need to carry out in education is engaging students and stimulating and peaking that interest.
As School Chief in West Virginia, I made sure that we placed tremendous value on history in our state assessments
and standards for Social Studies.
We felt very strongly about giving History priority attention.
So we tried to push ourselves to think out of the box regarding ways students learned History and other Social Studies.
For example, some of our students have created History-related projects online using graphics
and multimedia presentations.
We also strengthen our civics education component including the teaching of patriotism.
And in that regard, we partnered with the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
the country's largest American organization of combat,
whose members have provided first-hand accounts to our curriculum developers, teachers,
and most importantly, to our students to further stoke interest in important historical events.
I believe this kind of encouragement needs to start early in the elementary grades
so we can build a strong foundation in U.S. History.
According to background variable data from the NAEP U.S. History assessment that could be found on the NAEP website,
it is reported that nationally about 45% of fourth graders had teachers who spent more than two hours a week
on Social Studies in their classrooms.
I think this is, quite frankly, inadequate,
and I' d really like to see a higher percentage on our next history report card.
This is a critically important time where we can put U.S. History in its proper place in academics
and the world stage.
Overall, the quality and success of our lives can only be enhanced by a study of our roots.
They say history repeats itself, and I believe that.
But it may be even more accurate to say, "If you don't know your past you will not have a future."
Thank you.
David.
Yes, welcome Diane.
Hi.
This is Diane Ravitch, and I'm very happy to be, once again, involved in NAGB activities.
I've been advocating for a better History curriculum instruction for at least the past 25 years.
As I was listening, I just counted it up, and it actually going back to 1983.
So when I first saw the upward movement in some of the NAEP scores in U.S. History, I was very excited about this.
But then I took a closer look at the patterns in some of the questions, and I was less joyful.
The improvement in fourth grade U.S. History is concentrated amongst the lowest scoring groups,
which is certainly good news, but I suspect that these gains reflect an improvement in reading skills
and not an improvement in knowledge of history.
Fewer than half of the students in fourth grade have had more than two hours a week devoted to Social Studies,
which may or may not mean U.S. History.
More likely, they have learned about a few iconic figures and major holidays.
So when fourth grade students were asked to identify a photograph of Abraham Lincoln
and give two reasons why Lincoln was important in American history, only 9% of the fourth graders were able to do so.
I suspect that many of these children recognized Lincoln' s photograph,
but they were not too sure about why he was important.
When children in fourth grade were asked the meaning of President Kennedy' s famous line from his inaugural address,
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,"
about half correctly responded that it meant you should use your skills to help the United States.
I'm willing to bet that many more than a half of those fourth graders have no idea who President Kennedy was,
but they were able to deduce the correct response by being able to read the question and the possible answers
and figure out which one made sense.
Similarly, and I think this is striking,
43% of fourth graders correctly answered a multiple choice question about a quote from Aung San Suu Kyi,
the human rights leader in Myanmar who won the Nobel Peace Price.
This probably happened not because the students had any idea who she was,
but because the answer was contained in the question, and the students could read well enough to figure the answer out.
Now it should concern us all that 12th graders' knowledge of history has barely changed at all over the past decade.
This is found across almost every group that was sampled, including low-performing students, high-performing students,
and those in the middle ranges.
White high school seniors saw a score gain from 2001 to 2006 but not from 2006 to 2010.
Amongst every other demographic group, average scores have been virtually flat over the past nine years,
since the assessment of 2001.
History should inform our political decision-making and our political intelligence.
In 2010, seniors were asked about the Brown decision of 1954,
which is very likely the most important decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the past 70 years.
Students were given an excerpt from the Brown decision, including the famous phrase, quote,
"We conclude that in the field of public education, separate but equal has no place.
Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
And the NAEP question asked, what social problem -- what social problem
was Brown versus Board of Education supposed to correct?
The answer was right there in front of them,
yet only 2% of the students in the sample were able to give a complete answer,
and another 26% offered only a partial answer.
The rest gave either an inappropriate response or didn't answer at all.
This is alarming.
Bear in mind that virtually every student takes American History, usually in the 11th grade.
It's worth noting that of the seven school subjects tested by NAEP,
History has the smallest proportion of students who score proficient or above in the most recent results available.
Amongst the 12th graders, for example, only 12% reach proficient in U.S. History, compared to 21% in Science,
24% in both Civics and Writing, 25% in Geography, 26% in Mathematics, 38% in Reading.
As the report explains, proficient on NAEP means solid academic performance.
This expresses the governing board's judgment of what students should know and be able to do,
not the current weak averages for grade-level performance.
I consider proficient on the NAEP to mean about an A or a very high-level B performance.
So why does History matter?
All of these students are going to be voters in a year,
and almost 40% of them are already eligible to vote when they took the assessment.
They're going to be making decisions in the voting booth that influence our lives.
They should be well informed and capable of weighing the contending claims of the candidates,
especially when the candidates rest their arguments on historical precedent.
The results of this assessment tell us that we as a nation must pay more attention to the teaching of U.S. History.
We should make sure that there is time for it in the school day;
that those who teach it have a strong history education;
that there' s time for students to write research papers and to use prime resource documents and documentaries;
and that schools have the resources they need to engage students in this important study.
And just as an aside, I would like to say that before anyone casts any stones at our students or teachers,
I'd like to invite journalists, Members of Congress, and other elected officials to take the NAEP 12th grade test
and see how you compare.
Thank you.
Thank you, Diane.
Now we will address your questions during our question-and-answer session.
We will open up the floor now, and our facilitator, Amy Buckley, will take the reins from here.
Thank you so much, Dave, and thank you to our panelists.
For those of you wishing to explore deeper the results, please send in your questions now.
As Juan mentioned, we ask that you direct your questions to all panelists.
We will not go too far past the hour out of respect for everyone's time,
so should we end this event without answering your question, please know that we will try to respond via e-mail.
Also, in addition to the panelists you've already heard from today,
we're fortunate to have Dr. Cornelia Orr, Executive Director of the National Assessment Governing Board,
and Dr. Peggy Carr, Associate Commissioner of NCES, available to address your questions.
The first question comes from Ana Taboada from George Mason University.
She asks, "Could you describe the types of items in the History assessments.
I'm interested in learning more about the balance between factual
and more conceptual application of knowledge-type items."
Dr. Carr, could you address that question?
Yes.
Just a moment, please.
Just cycle back to me in just a second.
Sure.
While we look for some information, let me go to the second question,
and that is from Russ Heller with Boise Independent School District and the Idaho Council for History Education.
He states, "As was the case with Civic questions and NAEP,
History content is not necessarily aligned with state district scope and sequence designs.
Also, constructed extended responses on the NAEP do not mirror the deeper reflective writing required
on some districts' end-of-course examinations.
Are these issues of concern for NAEP?
Should districts presume NAEP is intended to drive a national scope or sequence?"
Dr. Orr, can you address that question?
I can.
First of all, I'd just like to say that for students, NAEP is only a 50-minute assessment,
so we are limited by the time available to test students,
and therefore, that limits the extent of involved responses.
However, there are longer responses.
While there might not be a research paper-type requirement as some states could use,
we do have students respond in a longer way.
Some of those examples you can see in the report card and also on the website that contains more released items.
I'd like to just address briefly the question about end-of-course assessment.
These are not universally used across the United States, but they are beginning to be more prevalent.
It is not the intention of NAEP to drive the national scope and sequence for U.S. History,
but it is intended to reflect what is being taught and assessed across the nation.
So the latest framework, I believe, does that,
and we will be continually looking at the importance of re-evaluating the framework and modifying it.
The governing board has a committee of educators, primarily the assessment development committee,
that can address this concern.
Thank you so much.
If I could just jump back to the initial question about the balance
between factual and more conceptual knowledge-type items,
the assessment design of the U.S. History assessment specifies that a portion of the assessment
should be devoted to questions that measure students' historical knowledge and perspective,
so more fact-based questions,
but also that a proportion should measure historical analysis and interpretation,
so more conceptual or application-type items.
This precise target that we try to get to, the distribution over those two types of items,
really depends on the grade, and we set them as a basis of the overall assessment time,
so students at fourth grade should spend about 40% of their time answering historical knowledge questions,
and about 60%, answering analysis questions.
Students at grade 8, the targets are about 35% to -- sorry -- to historical knowledge-type questions,
and 65% analysis questions.
And students at grade 12, the distribution is more about 30/70,
about 30% of the time historical knowledge questions and 70%.
And to put this into some perspective, what am I really talking about here?
If you have access to the report, on Page 17, there's a good example of a factual item.
This is a fourth-grade item where kids have to put in order four different historical events on a timeline.
They need to list them in the correct order.
So it's really necessary to have an idea of approximate times of these events,
as least as they relate to each other.
Page 35 in the section on the eighth grade results, there is a good example
of a more interpretive or analytic question, where, in this case,
we asked students to identify one important advantage that American forces had over the British forces
in the American Revolution, and a complete response actually required a short paragraph
or a couple sentences explaining an example of this advantage.
Great.
Thank you so much.
Our next question -- actually very similar questions were submitted by three individuals;
Kay Hill Chisholm at the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Stephanie Greenhut with the National Archives,
and Terri Blanchette with Senator John Heinz History Center all would like to know,
what role do the panelists see cultural institutions playing in improving the understanding of History
and developing critical civic thinking among our nation's students?
Dr. Ravitch, could you address that first?
Cultural institutions are a just a tremendous opportunity to get kids beyond the textbook and outside of the textbook,
and I, several years ago, had the unfortunate experience of sitting down with a dozen of the leading text books
and actually reading them, and I could see why kids might be turned off History
because they were so poorly written and so uninteresting.
And so I think that the opportunity to interact with whether it's a history museum or a historical site
or in the archives and to see the documents, to hear people talk about how they were written, why they were written,
the drama, to go into depth and detail, this is what kids don't get when the textbook is the dominant factor.
I think this is one of the areas also where technology is incredibly important in getting kids engaged in history,
because they can see and hear things that they would otherwise not.
But I do think the cultural institutions, to the extent that they are able to interact with schools,
can play a very positive role.
I would add -- this is Steve Paine -- I agree with Diane.
It's a fabulous opportunity to engage and partner with cultural institutions,
and especially digitally for kids in rural states such as West Virginia,
some of our kids may never have the opportunity to actually visit the Smithsonian,
but through virtual tours, can visit the Smithsonian
if they just simply have the instructional and digital tools to be able to do so.
So I think those are fabulous opportunities for all of America and for our educational systems.
And the rich resources and abundant resources that are offered by our cultural institutions
provide great opportunities for all of our kids.
Thank you so much, Dr. Paine.
Our next question is from Stephanie at the Archives.
She would like to know, "On behalf of National History Day teachers who are visiting the archives today,
to what could we attribute the gender gap in the test results?"
Dr. Buckley?
Well this is always the most frustrating point at any one of these report card releases, the point where, justifiably,
people ask, you know, what causes what; right, or how do I explain?
So these types of data are very good at describing differences
and notoriously limited in respect to inferring the causes of those differences.
One thing that is interesting though, we were able to do with these data is to dig at least a little bit deeper
and see, rather, where those differences are in respect to the different strands in History assessment.
And certainly something that we see across grades 4, 8, and 12 this year
in the History assessment is that the gender gap where we see it, appears to be driven,
in particular, by items asking about America's World Role, and also the Democracy Strand,
the Changing Continuity in American Democracy.
Certainly something there I think to look a little deeper at and see whether or not
there is a particular reason why boys would have either more exposure to those items
or perhaps for some reason are more engaged in the instruction around those items.
Thank you so much.
Our next question is from Joan Musbach with the Missouri Council for History Education.
She asks, "How can we expect students to score well on the national test in U.S. History
when there is no agreement on a national U.S. History curriculum?"
Dr. Paine, can you address that?
Yes, I would.
You know, it's an interesting question because, you know,
there are two camps in terms of a common core Social Studies list of curriculum standards.
One would be that we need them, the other would be we'll never be able to agree on them.
So -- and I think to a certain extent this relates back to a previous question about the role of NAEP.
NAEP has never been intended to drive what kids should know and be able to do exclusively in our public schools.
You know, we have to count and trust on the expertise of our teachers, and where that may not exist
or where we may not have -- where that capacity may not exist,
I think it' s our responsibility to provide training and the resources for the teachers,
especially at the high school level,
and there very well could be a connection in terms of the lack of growth of our high school students
and the level of preparation and resources that might be available to our teachers.
That might be an interesting area for some of us to explore.
So I think it could be a positive thing to come up with a general set of curriculum standards
but not at the expense of over prescribing directions that might not take into account
the differences of our geographic regions of our country.
Thank you so much.
Our next question is from Gabriel Reich with Virginia Commonwealth University.
He asks, "Was there any evidence that test takers from states that require writing on their high-stakes History test
did better on the constructive response items than students from states with no history writing assessment?"
And he has a second part that asks,
" What was the correlation of performance on the constructive response items and the multiple choice items?"
Dr. Buckley?
The U.S. History assessment is based on a nationally-representative sample, so reporting by state is not possible,
unfortunately, due to the fact that the samples within any given state are either small
or not designed to be representative of the state population.
I can answer your second part of the question though.
Overall, the correlations between the multiple choice and the constructed response items by grade,
depending on which grade you look at, the correlations are between about .6 and .7, so fourth grade is about .67,
declining at 12th grade to about .61.
Great.
Thank you so much.
Our next question is from Ashley Briggs with ICF International.
She asks, "In what ways do you think the high-stakes accountability focus at the federal and local level on tests
has and will continue to have on these indicators?
What other measures might be critical to capture progress?"
Dr. Paine addressed this briefly.
Dr. Ravitch, would you like to add to this?
You know, I think that if the question is, is the emphasis on high-stakes testing in Math and Reading
having any impact on History learning?
I mean it's really difficult to say because, you know,
the first point that Dr. Buckley made was that NAEP doesn't answer why to any questions.
It just says, " Here it is, here's where we are," and it can't explain why we're here.
I would say, based on other things that I've seen and read and learned over the past several years
that the emphasis on high-stakes testing in two specific basic skills area is bound to impact history instruction.
One way positively because kids at the lower levels are reading better, and that seems clearer;
but the other way negatively, which is that very likely there' s less time for History instruction
because all the high stakes are attached only to basic skills,
and some people think that there should be high stakes attached to History testing,
and other people think there should be no high stakes at all.
I'm in the camp of -- I'm opposed to high-stakes testing.
So I'd hate to see it attached to History testing
because I don't really think it' s been a good idea for a whole lot of reasons not related to this conference.
I just want to add though, in reference to an earlier question about whether there ought to be a national curriculum,
I think we already have a national curriculum, and if having laid out all those history textbooks,
they all have the same content in them.
They all have the same approximately 40 chapters.
They all cover the same events.
They all cover the same controversies, debates.
They have a few paragraphs or sentences about each of them, and I think that NAEP, quite accurately,
can reflect what is already a fairly common consensus about what's in the American History course.
Thank you so much.
Our next question is from Linda Salvucci with the Trinity University National Council for History Education.
She would like to know, "How do we address the glaring need for enhanced professional development,
especially when programs such as Teaching American History grants are being reduced or proposed for elimination?"
Dr. Paine can you start us with that question, please?
Yes, I will.
I suspect that part of the issues that are associated with our stagnant performance with 12th-grade students
may be just that,
that we need to enhance professional development opportunities for our teachers of U.S. History
and other Social Studies, and that we need to enhance their access to rich and robust and abundant resources
so that they can be at their finger tips.
This is not an easy question to resolve because that takes time and it takes money.
It takes an investment in assisting teachers to come together in what we called in our state
"professional learning communities," time to learn with each other, time to discuss best practices
and strategies to reach students with the most effective instructional strategies and resources.
So it's a difficult question,
and it's one that I believe firmly that can be addressed through our careful attention to the provision of time
and resources for teachers to prepare themselves to teach U.S. History.
Thank you, Dr. Paine.
Our next question is from Elizabeth McLane with Wharton College.
She asks, "How well are these students doing in World History?"
Dr. Orr, could you start us with that, please?
I will.
Currently, the National Assessment Governing Board has not recommended an assessment in World History,
although we've debated it over the years many times.
We have just proposed an extended calendar that goes out to the year 2022,
and it is proposed that we begin developing a framework
and plan to assess it during that timeframe of the new calendar that's proposed.
So while we don't yet have a framework, we would be developing one, then developing items,
ultimately ending with an assessment at some point considerably in the future.
But right now, I can't give you any information on the achievement of students in World History.
Thank you so much.
Our next question is from Carol Peters with the National Endowment for the Humanities.
She states, "The traditional mission of public schools in the U.S. has been to form good citizens.
Do you think that is it still the mission of our schools?
If not, what do you think is replaced it?
If so, how well are we doing in the 21st Century?"
Dr. Ravitch, could you address that question, please?
Yes.
And I think that's a very important question because the reason we have a public school system is
it's the role of education in a democracy, it's to create citizens,
it's to create people who will replace those of us who are now moving on
and to prepare people to vote and to serve on juries and to be responsible citizens
to maintain our commonwealth and to keep it strong.
This goal of citizenship is being eclipsed by the idea of global competition.
And, of course, global competition is important,
but the role of history has always been developing political intelligence,
and that's the same is true in Civics, where we are sustaining our democracy for the future.
And I think it's just a shame that the emphasis on being career ready, college ready,
has left out being citizenship ready because, I mean that helps to explain why, for instance,
the Teaching of American History grants has been dropped.
One of the smallest items in the federal budget, I think it was getting $50 million.
It's a crumb on the federal table, and it's been dropped.
And it meant so much to History teachers across America,
and I think we're seeing the results of that reflected in these stagnant 12th-grade scores.
Because when people talk about History education, they always use the same phrase.
They say, "We want to make history come to life."
Well you can't make it come to life if the teachers don't have the history background,
if they don' t have their resources, if they don't have the opportunity to bring their kids into contact
with the real living events of history.
And that doesn't happen when we cut the funding for tiny little programs like that,
and it doesn't happen when we cut the focus of why we educate kids.
It's not just to be global competitors, it's to be citizens of this country
and to keep this country a democracy.
I want to echo my full support for what Diane just said.
This is Steve.
That has been the primary core goal of public education throughout history.
And more so than ever, I think we're at a crossroads when we need to enhance and amplify
our focus on U.S. History on Civics education.
As I mentioned in my statement, we renewed our interest in teaching kids concepts of patriotism,
and more important than ever that we do that.
Thank you so much.
Our next question is from Carol Peters.
She asks "To what do you attribute the difference in achievement between male and female participants
in the Democracy and World Role sections of the test,
and is there anything being done to address the gap?"
Dr. Ravitch, you like to address this question?
Sure.
I can tell you why traditionally, and this is not new this year.
There has been traditionally a gender gap and interest in history
because traditional history has focused largely on war and on military events.
And what we've seen in previous assessments is that girls don't seem to be as interested in war as boys.
Now one would think that would have changed considerably now that there are women fighting alongside men
in various conflicts.
But I think that the History assessment this year, as in previous years,
really doesn't focus heavily on wars and on military events,
and the gap between the genders is really not as large as it used to be,
so I think it's less of a problem because History is being much more broadly construed than it has been in the past.
Dr. Buckley, would you like to add to that?
Yes.
Dr. Ravitch, I think you're exactly right.
Of course the -- what we have seen in NAEP is the gender gap, as slight as it may be,
does tend to switch back and forth over the years with respect to the Democracy Strand.
But World Role has, indeed, consistently favored males.
And if you do look at the items, even those available in the item map in the report this year,
so on Page 44, for example, but also if you look to our questions online, when you talk about World Role,
you talk more about foreign policy, and there are more war and military-related items in there,
and I think that's a very plausible explanation.
Thank you very much.
And unfortunately, we've reached a time where we'll ask one more question,
and that's from Laura McCarty with the Georgia Humanities Council.
She also is participating in the webinar from National History Day.
And she would like to ask the panelists to elaborate more on what factors they attribute these results.
Is it due to lecture and worksheet-based instructions,
lack of emphasis in teaching time for Social Studies, state standards?
Dr. Ravitch, if you could start off with, I guess,
summarizing what you believe the factors are attributed to the results today.
Well I think -- as I said in my statement, I think we're seeing stronger results in the fourth grade,
not because of deeper knowledge of history but because of better reading skills,
particularly in the lowest income groups,
and we have to certainly be happy that low-income children have improved their reading skills.
But I really think that in many of the questions that I reviewed, some of which were in the published version
and some of which are on the website,
I was dubious that the children actually had any idea who the dissident leader in Myanmar is.
I would be willing to bet that not one out of a hundred had any idea who she is.
So I think that improved reading skills in the lower-income groups is a positive thing.
I think that seeing the flat scores at the high school level is something that we should all be concerned about
because of the citizenship aspect, and I think that there is,
although kids -- almost everybody takes an American History course,
it continues to be a course that's text-book dominated,
where children are not getting the access to the cultural institutions and the experiences,
and even some of the online interactive materials that are available.
I think that if you see a documentary and you see President Kennedy giving his Inaugural Address,
and the teacher is able to talk knowledgeably about why this was an important moment and about the idealism,
that replaces the two sentences in the textbook, and that brings history to life.
So I do think we do need more funding for professional development.
We do need to encourage History teachers.
We, as the nation, have been prioritizing basic skills, and we need to get our school curriculum back into balance
and make sure that Civics and History and the other subjects like the Arts are not forgotten
and are pressed for basic skills.
I would like to add to -- this is Steve Paine -- that I think No Child Left Behind
brought about some very positive results, and Diane just mentioned
that perhaps that might have been an impetus for student achievement gains in Reading in the elementary grades,
but it also had some unintended consequences.
And we need to re-culture ourselves, if you will,
to move away to this provision of a majority of instructional time
to the teaching of Reading and English Language Arts and Writing and Mathematics, and as Diane said,
to the detriment to the teaching of Social Studies and Science and the Arts
and all of the rich subjects that can captivate kids' interests and hearts,
that can motivate them to read at higher levels, and thus seen transfer of those basic skills
and that knowledge through the teaching of rich and robust content areas such as U.S. History.
And so I really think that we need to move away from an overreliance of using standardized tests
as a determinant of student achievement
and begin to look at many other measures of student progress so that we can free the schools and school districts
to teach again rich content such as U.S. History.
Great.
Thank you all so much.
Superintendent Gordon, we're ready to move on.
Thank you, Amy, and thanks to all in attendance for your questions.
Allow me just a few closing comments.
First, be sure to visit our NAEP site at www.nationsreportcard.gov
that will have not just this report but also various tools,
including Data Explorer you can use to mine more information.
Also, if you go to www.nagb.org/history, you will see a release page with the press release,
panelists' statements and bios, and other materials from this History release.
Second, if journalists have additional questions,
please contact the Governing Board's public affairs specialist, Stephaan Harris
at (202) 357-6504, or Stephaan.harris@ed.gov.
Third, we would appreciate your taking the time to complete a brief survey
that will appear in a window when you end your session.
And finally, please stay tuned for an announcement on the date
on which we will release results from our next report card in Social Studies, 2010 NAEP Geography.
In closing, I would like to thank Jack Buckley, Steven Paine, and Diane Ravitch for being with us today
and for their outstanding comments.
And, of course, I would like to thank all of you for participating.
Good day.