Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 11-23

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 11...
... The assessment has two components, main NAEP and long-term trend NAEP. Main NAEP administers reading and mathematics assessments to students in the 4th and 8th grades every other year and less frequently to students in the 12th grade, as well as other subject assessments.
From page 12...
... The plausible values are not test scores for individuals in the usual sense; they are offered only as intermediary computations for calculating summary statistics for groups of students. Plausible values are used to calculate summary statistics for NAEP reports and are available for the use of NAEP data users in secondary analyses of NAEP data.
From page 13...
... history 4, 8, 12 Civics 8 Writing 4, 8, 12 aIncludes national assessments and administrations of the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)
From page 14...
... The state assessment samples each include roughly 150,000 students and 3,300 schools for each grade for each assessment; the national assessment samples each include roughly 10,000 students and 200 schools.5 Thus, in an average 4-year period, NAEP administers about 22 assessments to about 1.6 million students in about 35,000 schools, which means that, on average, there are 5.5 assessments annually for 400,000 students in 9,000 schools. Although the figures vary widely across years because of NAEP's biannual cycle for the mandated assessments in reading and mathematics, the annual averages are useful for placing average annual cost figures in context.
From page 15...
... The initial Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) program included six urban districts, and the number of districts increased to 10 in 2003 and 11 in 2005.*
From page 16...
... This careful approach has enabled NAEP to maintain trend lines for main NAEP that, in many cases, span 30 years. However, the program has broken trend lines when analysts have found that 6 NAGB's 2018 policy on framework development calls for each framework to be reviewed for potential update at least once every 10 years, though that review might determine in some cases that no update is required.
From page 17...
... . In the original design, there were several reasons to limit student testing time.
From page 18...
... NAGB develops NAEP frameworks through a national consensus-building approach among constituencies that are reflected in the board's legally prescribed composition: teachers, principals, legislators, governors, chief state school officers, local education agencies, state and local board members, business representatives, testing experts, curriculum specialists, nonpublic school representatives, and parents. Building consensus for the assessment frameworks among these constituencies requires time and effort.  Second, NAEP opens its development process to many public groups.
From page 19...
... As described above, program expansions include the mandate for state assessments in 2002, the extension to trial urban districts over several years, and the addition of 12th-grade assessments in 2009. Changes in administration include the decision to use NAEP-supported proctors for the mandated assessments in 2002 and the change from pencil-and-paper testing to digitally based administration in 2017 (though there were earlier isolated efforts with digitally based administration)
From page 20...
... NAGB has a smaller number of contracts, covering different support functions and the development of the assessment frameworks and achievement levels.12 Table 2-2 shows the panel's best estimate of current average annual costs for NAEP by function, including all funding sources. The cost differences that the panel was able to analyze were generally the ones that relate to NAEP's contract structure, since the costs inside individual contracts often 10 Information from NCES response to Q50.
From page 21...
... Although the contract structure provides information about some functions, much cannot be determined. For example, the cost for pilot testing new items is spread out across many of the contracts since it includes the separate contracts used to support data collection, scoring, and analysis, in addition to the contract related to item development.13 Annual averages are given because the costs for many of the specific functions vary by year with the assessment schedule.
From page 22...
... 16 After a prepublication version of the report was provided to IES, NCES, and NAGB, this section was edited to note that some costs of the PISA program are paid directly by the individual participating countries. A comparison between NAEP and PISA costs was removed because the panel had inadequate information about the PISA costs paid directly by individual participating countries.
From page 23...
... The international funding provided for oversight, development, analysis, and reporting of PISA for the 2020–2022 period totaled roughly $43 million.18 Averaged over the four assessments given in a 3-year cycle, the cost is roughly $11 million per assessment. However, this cost cannot be compared directly to the NAEP costs because some important PISA costs are covered by the individual participating countries, including costs for test administration and scoring, as well as some aspects of item development and reporting.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.