NATIONAL CENTER itech cai: leila tu EDUCATION STATISTICS Wr 111] REPORT FOR VIRGIN ISLANDS THE NATION'S REPORT eal NGEP) U.S. Depegmens of Ec oe Office of Edy a) iS So \Q ~ a WY U What is The Nation’s Report Card? THE NATION’S REPORT CARD, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of »-hat America’s students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, history, geography, and other fields. By making objective information on student performance available to policymakers at the national, state, and local levels, NAEP is an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only information related to academic achievement is collected under this program. NAEP guarantees the privacy of individual students and their families NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible, by law, for carrying out the NAEP project through competitive awards to qualified organizations. NAEP reports directly to the Commissioner, who is also responsible for providing continuing reviews, including validation studies and solicitation of public comment, on NAEP’s conduct and usefulness. In 1988, Congress established the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to formulate policy guidelines for NAEP. The Board is responsible for selecting the subject areas to be assessed from among those included in the National Education Goals; for setting appropriate student performance levels; for developing assessment objectives and test specifications through a national consensus approach; for designing the assessment methodology; for developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating NAEP results; for developing standards and procedures for interstate, regional, and national comparisons; for determining the appropriateness of test items and ensuring they are free from bias; and for taking actions to improve the form and use of the National Assessment The National Assessment Governing Board Honorable Roy Romer Former Governor of Colorado Mark D. Musick, Chair Edward H. Haertel President Professor, School of Educatior Denver, Colorado Southern Regional Education Board Stanford University Atlanta, Georgia Stanford, California Michael T. Nettles, Vice Chair Juanita Haugen Professor of Education & Public Policy Local School Board President John H. Stevens Executive Director Texas Business and Educanon Coalition Austin, Texas Honorable Nancy Kopp Adam Urbanski Maryland House of Delegates President University of Michigan Pleasanton, California Ann Arbor, Michigan Moses Barnes Secondary School Principa Fort Lauderdale, Florida Melanie A. Campbell Fourth-Grade Teacher Topeka, Kansas Honorable Wilmer S. Cody Commissioner of Educatior State of Kentucky Frankfort, Kentucky Edward Donley Former Chairman Air Products & Chemica Allentown, Pennsylvania Honorable John M. Engler Governor of Michigan Lansing, Michigan Thomas H. Fisher Director, Student Assess Florida Department allah asse Flond Michael J. Guerra Executive Director Secondary School National Catholy Washington, D¢ Bethesda, Maryland Honorable William J. Moloney Commissioner of Education State of Colorado Denver, Colorado Mitsugi Nakashima President Hawai State Board of Edu Honolulu, Hawaii Debra Paulson Eighth-Grade Mathemat tl Paso, Texas Honorable Norina Paulus Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Oregon State Department of Edu Salem, Oregon Honorable Jo Ann Pottorff Kansas House of Re present Wichita, Kansas Diane Ravitch Senior Research Sche New York University New York, Nx York Rochester Teachers Associat Rochester, New York Deborah Voltz Assistant Professor Department of Special Ed University of Louisvill Louisville, Kentucky Marilyn A. Whirry I welfth-Grade English Tea Manhattan Beach, Calitor Dennie Palmer Wolf senior Resear h A ssc wiat Harvard Graduate School of Cambridge, Massachusett C. Kent McGuire (Ex-Officio) Assistant Secretary of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Educat Washington, D« Roy Truby Executive Dire Washington, D¢ NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS NAEP 1998 ritin REPORT FOR VIRGIN ISLANDS Laura J. Jerry Nada Ballator Alfred Rogers September 1999 U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 1999-463 V U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement \ | \\ ( ; National Center for Education Statistics { Assessment Division 1’ ( ( ( September 1999 a 3EST COPY AVAILABLE Section | Overview of the NAEP Writing Assessment What Is NAEP”? What Is Reported Here What Was Assessed? Who Was Assessed”? How Are Results Reported? How Are Performance Differences Reported”? Overall Writing Results tor Public School Students Comparisons Between the Virgin Islands and Other Participating Section 2 Writing Performance by Demographic Characteristics Gender Race/Ethnicity Students’ Reports of Parents’ Highest Education Level Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Program Eligibility lype ol School \ppendix A Where to Find More Information Appendix B Figures from Section 1 Acknowledgments BEST COPY AVAILABLE NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Overview of the NAEP Writing Assessment SECTION 1 What Is NAEP? The National Assessment of Edu and continuing assessment of what students | nited States know and can do in variou academic subjects. NAEP is authorized by mgress and directed by the National Center for Education Statustics (NCES). The National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), an independent, bipartisan group, provides policy guidance tor NAEP. In 1990, assessment at the State level was instituted on a voluntary basi Ihe NAEP assessments are administered to representauive samples of students at the national level as well as at the sti level for thosc¢ states that choose to participate. The 1998 NAEP program included state-level assessments in reading at grades 4 and § and in writing at grade &. and national-level a reading, and writing at grades 4, 8. and 12 What Is Reported Here? This marks the first time that the NAEP writing assessment has been administered at level. The assessment was administered at grade 8 in both public and nonpublic schoo rhe Virgin Islands’ results are reported here, along with national results for comparison This report has two sections. This Overview provides basic information on NAEP and the overall results for public schools in tabular form, as well as comparisons of the Virgin Islands” performance with that of other participating states an@ jurisdictions in graphic form It describes the assessment, the sample of students assessed, the metrics for reporting student performance, and how the differences in performance are reported. The second section Writing Performance by Demographic Characteristics. reports findings for the grade & public school population broken down by major demographic categories as well as results by school type. This information ts presented in data tables. In addition, this report has two appendices. Appendix A, Where to Find More Information, describes the data available on the Web and provides information on sources of related data. Appendix B, Figures from Section 1, displays full-page replicas of Figures 1.2 and 1.3 This report and its companion, the NAEP 1998 Writing Report Ca States, provide a first look at the results of the NAEP 1998 writing assessment. Each participating jurisdiction receives its own customized State Report similar in format to this one The Writing Report Card otters state-level data for all participating jurisdictions for which results are reported as well as details about technical aspects of the assessment. Summary data tables providing information tor all jurisdictions for which results are reported are available at http://n d.gov/nationsreporteard/, the NAEP Web sits sEST COPY AVAILABLE NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virein Islands Phe demographic data provided in this report are only a small portion of the data avallable from the several hundred questions asked of students, teachers, and school principals n order to provide context tor NAEP results. Overall results tor demographic and contextual student and school variables for public school students in each participating jurisdiction are lable in summary data tables at the NAEP Web What Was Assessed? For each assessment in NAEP. the Ail mandated national consensus project document called the tramework of questions that will | ccd to measure tt The W) ft) / OrK anld Specificatl a forthe | VaTiona \yysessmnes as first developed tor the National Assessment Governing Board by n Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) tor the 1992 writing w the 1998 assessment, detailed guidelines for new kinds of questions ind tor new ways to score student writing were developed by American College Testing (ACT) ind added to the framework. The Writing bhramework retlects recent theories of writing, which is an act of discovery for the writer as well as a way to communicate with readers W writing Phe writing assessment questions asked for three major kinds of writing: some required narrative, some informative, and some persuasive writing. Each student who participated in the state assessment was given two questions and had 25 minutes to respond to each question Phe questions asked students to write ina variety of forms, such as essays, letters, and stories well as to a variety of audiences, such as teachers, other students, and school boards In addition to requiring a variety of kinds of writing, the assessment provided many kinds of visual and written materials to stimulate students’ writing Some students were asked to Write In response to questions that incorporated photographs or cartoons. Other questions Incorporated poems or stories, so that students were responding to literature as they answered those questions. At grade &, there were 20 writing questions. Seven of those questions (35% asked for narrative writing, seven (456°) asked tor informative writing, and six (30% ) asked lor persuasive writing. The tramework specified that distribution as appropriate for eighth grade Who Was Assessed? Selection of Schools and Students ; For the NAEP state assessment, participating schools within a given jurisdiction and student In those schoo! revselected using prooability sampling methods. These methods are d. In the Virgin Islands. 614 public school students trom 1998 state writing assessment. For nonpublic schools, there wer hovel NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Participation Guidelines Po ensure comparability in a particular subject across all jurisdictions, NCES and NAGB hav established guidelines for school and student participation rates. In order for assessment results to be reported, a jurisdiction must have its weighted participation rate for the initial sample ot schools greater than or equal to 70 percent. The NAEP state assessment in writing was idministered in both public and nonpublic schools at grade & in 1998; participation rates are calculated separately for these two samples. The Virgin Islands met the participation guidelin for reporting both public and nonpublic school results. Details on participation rates and tuidelines for all participating jurisdictions can be found in Appendix A of the Writing Rep Cara Possible Sources of Bias in Reported Results Within a certain state sample that meets the guidelines for publication of results, there sull may exist possible sources of bias of the results due to nonparticipation of selected schools of due to nonparticipation of certain student groups. These possible sources of bias are indicated by notations and are specified and described in Appendix A of the Writing Report Car Virgin Islands’ public schools did not receive any notations to indicate the pr Participation by Students with Disabilities or who are Limited English Proficient NAEP endeavors to assess all students selected in the r domized sampling process includin students with disabilities (SD) as well as students who are beginning to learn Enelish and ar classified by their schools as limited English proficient (LEP). The guidelines used to classify students into these two categories vary from state to state. The percentages of students classified as SD or LEP in all participating states and jurisdictions are available in \ppendix A of the Writing Report Card NAEP participation guidelines specity levels of SD/LEP student nonparticipation tha put the sample at risk for nonresponse bias: however, all jurisdictions met these guideling the 1998 writing assessment NAEP offers certain accommodations for SD or LEP students who need them (for example, having the prompt read aloud or having extended time to respond), as described in the Writing Report Card and in a forthcoming report focusing on 1998 assessment results for SD and LEP students. However, school personnel make the ultimate decision as to whether or not a particular student should take the assessment and whether accommodations are needed Phe table on the following page shows the percentage of students in the Virgin Islands and th nation who were classified as SD or LEP in 1998, the percentage of students who were excluded trom NAEP at the discretion of school personnel, and the percentage of SD or LEP students who were assessed with and without accommodations NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virein Islands Grade 8 students who are classified as limited English proficient (LEP) or having disabilities (SD) Percentage of all students who are Virgin Islands Nation Public Nonpublic Public Nonpublic How Are Results Reported? In this report, as in other NAEP reports, only those results based on preestablishe¢ ample sizes are reported. The results are reported in terms of two metrics—average cores und percentages of students at or above each achievement level (a percentage below the Basic level). Descriptions of the two metrics follow. Further det can be found in the Writing Report Card The NAEP Writing Scale Students’ responses to a writing prompt were analyzed to determine the percentages of falling into each of six score categories. That information from all the writing prompts combined using item response theory (IRT) methodology to form a writing performances One scale was developed that encompasses the three purposes for writing (narrative Informative, and persuasive writing) in the assessment. Each grade (4, 8, and 12) has its scale ranging trom 0 to 300 with a mean of 150 and a standard deviation of 35. This seale | the metric used to present the average scale scores and selected percentiles in this and other reports. Details on scaling procedures will be available in the forthcoming Technical Rep The Writing Achievement Levels In addition to the NAEP writing scale. results are also reported in terms of the writtt achievement levels authorized by the NAEP legislation’ and adopted by the National \ssessment Governing Board (NAGB). The achievement levels are performance standard based on the collective judgments of a broadly representative panel that included teachers (SS), non-teaching educators (15), and members of the general public (30). These achievement levels reflect the panel's consensus as to what students should be expected to know and to do. Viewing students’ performance trom this perspective provides some insig into the adequacy of students’ knowledge and skills and the extent to which they achieved } ! and adopted the recommended achieven expected levels of pertormance. NAGB reviewed level derived trom th Vor this] | NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virein Islands For each grade tested. NAGB has adopted three ac hievement | ICNVCIS ra and Advanced. For reporting purposes, the achievement Ik vel cut scores for each grade represent the boundaries between four ranges on the NAEP writing scale: below Basic, Bas Proficient. and Advanced. The policy detinitions of the achievement levels are shown on the following pave he text of the descriptions of expected writing I ! performance at each achievement level nd the cut scores that divide the levels are shown in Figure | On pare ) Definitions of the achievement levels Bask t tia istery f prerea nowledae nd , Proficient Advanced omn On mandated manizations, that the achn iow of the available Academy of Science (NAS current achievement level 1 evidence tor the cut scores lack Therefore. the Acting Commissions to be considered developmental and should continu In a recent study, I] testing expr pros achievement-level-setting process responded to contains turther information on th Commissioner and NAGB belteve th » achievement educational achievement of students in the United States wing achieves level descriptions focus on i audience, organizauion, u NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORI The Virein Islands THE NATION'S FIGURE 1.1 REPORT caro | SOP — 7 — 1o0n(tt} Levels of Writing Achievement at Grade 8 State Assessmen Eighth-grade students performing at the basic level should be able to produce an tive response within the time allowed that shows a general understanding of the writing task they have been assigned. Their writing should show that these students aware of the audience they are expected to address, and it should include supporting details in an organized way efte re Eighth-grade studerts performing at the proficient level should be able to produce a detailed and organized response within the time allowed that shows an understanding of both the writing task they have been assigned and the audience they are expected to address. Their writing should include precise language and varied sentence structure, and it may show analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking bie t REPORT The Virein Islands THE NATION 5 FIGURE 1.1 (continued) AEPORT ' CARD nd {| | Levels of Writing Achievement at Grade 8 1908 State Assessment Eighth-grade students performing at the advanced level should be able to produce a fully developed response within the time allowed that shows a clear understanding of both the writing task they have been assigned and the audience they are expected to address. Their writing should show some analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking and may make use of literary strategies to clarify a point. At the same time, the writing should be clearly organized, demonstrating precise word choice and varied sentence structure t ghtt ADVANCED LEVEL (224) How Are Performance Differences Reported? In this report, statements that compare groups by using terms such as “higher” or “not Significantly different” (e.g.. “females scored higher than males”) are based on the results of Statistical tests. Because the percentages of students and the average writing scale scores presented in this report are based on samples—rather than on the entire population of eighth graders ina jurisdiction—the numbers reported are necessarily estimates. As such, they are subject to sampling error, a measure of uncertainty reflected in the standard error” of the estimate. When the percentages or average scale scores of certain groups are compared, itt essential to take the standard error into account rather than to rely solely on observed similariues or differences. The compartsons discussed in this report are based on statistical tests that consider both the magnitude of the differences between the averages or percentages and the standard errors of those statistics. The reader is cautioned to rely on the results of these tatistical tests rather than simply on the size of any difference in scale scores or percentages in making inferences trom the data Phe statistical tests determine whether the evidence—based on the data trom the group in the sample—is strong enough to conclude that there is an actual difference in the averages or percentages for those groups in the population. Tf the evidence ts strong (.e., the difference is Statistically significant), the report deseribes the group averages or percentages as being different (e.g., one group performed /iigher than or lower than another group) regardless of the apparent size of the difference. Hf the evidence ts not sufficiently strong (e.. the difference Is not staustically significant), the averages or percentages are described as being nor vigmificauntly different—again, regardless of whether the sample averages or sample percentages appear to be about the same or widely discrepant NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virein Islands Overall Writing Results for Public School Students Presented below are results for the Virgin Islands’ eighth-grade publi Wool students as compared to students nationwide. Additional results trom the ass nent can be found in the Writing Report Card and at http://www.nces.ed.gov/natior portcard NAEP Web site Students’ Overall Scale Scores Fable 1.1A shows the overall pertormance of the Virgin Istane uublic school students, as well as the overall perforinance for the nation we column of ults gives the average scale score on the NAEP 0-300 writing scale A broader and more delineated view of writing ability can be gained by looking at the scale scores across the performance continuum, The columns to the right of the average scale score show this distribution of scale scores by selected percentiles. An examination of the data at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, or 90th percentile can provide a picture of how closely the performance of the Virgin Islands’ students with lower or higher writing ability matches that of the nation In terms of the average NAEP writing scale score tor the Virgin Islands’ public school students. Table 1.1A shows the following The average scale score of public school students in the Virgin Islands was 124. lower than that of eighth graders in public schools nationwide (148) THE NATION'S TABLE 1.1A REPORT CARD Naep =< Average writing scale scores and selected percentiles for public 1998 school students State Assessment Scale score distribution Average = scale score 10th 25th 50th 75th percentile percentile percentile percentile Virgin Islands 2¢ 77 (10.1) 5.3 123 ( 3.3) 147 ( 4.0) Nation }) 102 ( 1.0) 149 ( 0.6) 172 ( 0.8) The NAEP writing rang ron 0) f f rors >» statistics appear in parentheses OURCE: Nat " enter f Ed it tatist Nat Asse ment Educatior Progress (NAEF 1998 Writir NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Overall Results in Terms of Achievement Levels lable 1.1B presents the percentages of students who pertormed below Basic, at or above Basic, at or above Proficient, and at Advanced levels. Because the percentages in the levels are cumulative from Basic to Proficient to Advanced, they sum to more than 100 percent. Only the percentage of students at or above Basic (which includes Proficient and Advanced) plus the percentage of students below Basic will always sum to 100 percent Fable 1.1B indicates the following in terms of achievement levels attained by the Virgin Islands’ public school students he percentage of public school eighth graders in the Virgin Islands who performed at or e the Proficient level was 9 percent. This percentage was smaller than that of public students across the nation (24 pereent) Phe percentage of students who performed at or above the Basic level in the Virgin Islands was 61 percent. This percentage was smaller than that of public school students nationwide (83° percent) THE NATION'S TABLE 1.1B REPORT caro | SP = Percentages of public school students attaining achievement 1998 levels State Assessment ¥ * ay rv - Vag * , At or Above Basic At or Above Proficient Advanced Below Basic Virgin Islands 39 ( 3.9) 61 ( 3.9) 9 ( 2.1) 1 io Gaal Nation 17 (0,5) 83 ( 0.5) 24 ( 0.8) Teoh The achievement levels correspond to the following points on the NAEP writing scale at grade 8: Basic, 114-172 Proficient, 173-223; and Advanced, 224 and above. The standard errors of the statistics appear in parentheses * Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined Center for tion < Natior A ac cmer enter for Educa statistics, National Assessme NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virein Islands Comparisons Between the Virgin Islands and Other Participating Jurisdictions In 1998, 41 states and other jurisdictions participated 1 Met statistical reporting requirements for publishing their publ on the NAEP writing assessment. The map in Figure 1.2 shows the parti » States and indicates their membership in tour geographic regions. Note that the Virgin Island the Department of Defense Education Activity domestic (DDESS) and overseas (DODDS) schools do not belong to any these region Writing results for all participating states and other jurisdictions are available at the NAEP Web site. Figures 1.2 and 1.3 are also availabh in color at the NAEP Web site. In the companion Writing Report Card, there are additional data tables as well as multiple comparison charts permitting comparison of each participatin jurisdicuion ’ 1 ir r « jure 13 permits f percentages of publi onversely, those performing at the Basic level and bel arranged into categories reflecting student performance compared wit Islands. The jurisd tions are grouped by whether the percentage of their student res at or above the Proficient level (including Advanced) was higher than, not jifferent from, or lower than the percentage in the Virgin Islands. Note that the arr f the states and other jurisdictions within each category is alphabetical: stati y ymMparisons amon jurisdi t > ate ry are not included her Figure 1.3 graphically displays the percentages of eighth-grade students whose scores put them in the Proficient and Advanced categories (to the right of the vertical line). To the left of the vertical line is the proportion of students whose scores placed them in the Basic and below Basic categories Phe text and tables in this report refer to the percentage of students who score “at o1 above Proficient and “at or above Basic.” These percentages are cumulative. For instance, in Table 1.1B, “ator above Proficien™ appears as a single percentage. In order to compare the percentage in Figure 1.3 with that in Table 1.1B, the percentage appearing in the Proficient band in the figure must be added to the percentage in the Advanced band to obtain the percentage of students whose scores categorize them as “at or above Proficient.” Similarly, the sum of the percentages appearing in the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced bands yields the percentage of students “at or above Basic.” The numbers in the figure may not add to the exact percentages at or above the achievement levels due to rounding: be sure to refer to the percentages in Table 1.1B for the correct cumulative percentages NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virein Islands nee Manos FIGURE 1.2 CARD a? i The Virgin Islands’ 1998 average writing scale score compared with those 1998 ! of other participating jurisdictions for public school students at grade 8 State Assessment ee Target state oe State has higher average scale score than target state State is not significantly different from target state in average a State has lower average scale score than target state State did not meet minimum participation rate guidelines State did not participate in the NAEP 1998 Writing State Assessment SOURCI Nut ( ter? kd 3EST COPY AVAILABLE NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORI The Virgin Islands THE NATION'S FIGURE 1.3 REPORT caro |“S6F| Achievement levels for writing: Comparing the percentage of public a school students at or above the Proficient level in the Virgin Islands with State Assessment those in other participating jurisdictions at grade 8 in 1998 n NAEP writing acmeveme ay be nipared a CME = Sasic | Proficient Higher than Virgin Islands Alabama Alabama Arizona Arizona California California Colorado Colorado Connecticut Connecticut Delaware Delaware DoDEA/DDESS DoDEA/DDESS DoDEA/DoDDS DoDEA/DoDDS Florida Florida Georgia Georgia Hawaii Hawaii Kentucky Kentucky Maine Maine Maryland Maryland Massachusetts Massachusetts Minnesota Minnesota Missouri Missouri Montana Montana Nevada Nevada New Mexico New Mexic¢ New York New York North Carolina North Carolina Oklahoma Oklahoma Oregon Oregon Rhode Island Rhode Isiand South Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Tennessee Texas Texas Utah Utah Virginia Virginia Washington Washington West Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Wisconsin Wyoming Wyoming Not different from Virgin Islands Arkansas Arkansas District of Columbia District of Columbia Louisiana Louisiana Mississippi Mississippi VIRGIN ISLANDS 8 j VIRGIN ISLANDS a u 2 2 Y Percent Basic and Below Basic Percent Proficient and Advanced BEST COPY AVAILABLE NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Writing Performance by Demographic Characteristics oH Its tneeptllon i 1969, NAEP’s mission has been to collect, analyze, and produc e Valid ind reliable information about the academic performance of students in the United States in ious learning areas. In 1990, the mission of NAEP was expanded lo provide Stute-by-statk sults on academic achievement. To provide each state with an individual report presenting | its own results, the computer-generated reporting system was developed: this report was produced using that system From 1990 through 1996, NAEP provided state reports with several variables chosen from the student, school, and teacher background questionnaires for their general interest to most states. Because of new Internet capabilities, and with the approval of the state NAEP representatives, the 1998 state reports are tailored to provide information of most immediate need to all states. Consequently, results are reported here by total population and broken out by major demographic variables only. State NAEP results on the Internet provide resources for customized reports not possible in the past Reported in this section are the results for student performance broken down by the main demographic variables usually reported by NAEP Gendet Race/ethnicity Levels of parental education Eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Pype of school Each of these variables is reported first by average scale score and selected percentiles and then by percentages of students at or above each achievement level. Results are presented only for those groups meeting preestablished minimum sample size requirements. Interpretations and conclusions based on an examination of the differences between subgroups of students should be made cautiously, as should inferences abet the effectiveness of the NSLP or types of school control (public or nonpublic), because there are generally many other factors involved that are not discussed here and possibly not addressed by NAEP Phe average scale scores attained by a selected population do not reflect entirely the range of abilities within that population. In addition, differences between subgroups cannot be attributed simply to students’ subgroup identification. A complex array of factors combine to affect students’ achievement and their performance on measures of writing ability. Important Issues such as opportunities to learn and sociocultural environmental factors must be considered In interpreting these difference 3EST COPY AVAILABLE NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT Gender One issue covered in many studies and by comparisons below ts that of differences in performance between males and females. Several studies show that females outperform mal in development of literacy at the elementary and middle school grades; reports documenting or surveying gender differences in writing include NAEP 1996 Trends in Acaden Progress. The Condition of Education. and The ETS Gender Stua Inthe 1998 NAEP vriting assessment, eighth-grade females’ average scale score v r than that of in every participating jurisdiction Scale Score Results by Gender In terms of average writing scale scores for the Virgin | Fable 2.1A shows the following In the \V Irgin Islands, male students’ average scale COT females (131) Phe average writing scale score of males in the Virgin Islands (114) wa of males across the nation (138). Similarly, Virgin Islands females” averas (131) was lower than that of females nationwide (158) THE NATION'S TABLE 2.1A REPORT naep CARD =< Average writing scale scores and selected percentiles for public school students by gender 1998 State Assessment Percentage Scale score distribution Avera of total reife. 20 ' scale score 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th population percentile percentile percentile percentile percentile Males Virgin Islands 44 ( 2.1) 114 ( 4.7) 69 ( 8.7) 92(5.0) 114(3.9) 136(6.9 Nation 51(0.4) 138 ( 0.8) 93 (0.9) 115(1.1) 139(0.8) 162 ( 1.0) Females Virgin Islands 96 (2.1) | 131 ( 4.0) 3/7 (5.0) 109( 45) 131(3.9) 153 (4.7) Nation 49(0.4) 158(06) 114(0.9) 136(0.9) 159(0.9) 181 (0.9) The NAEP writing scale ranges from 0 to 300. The standard errors of the statistics appear in parenthe National Center for Education Statisti National Assessment of Educational Proare NAEF NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Achievement Level Results by Gender As shown in Table 2.1B. the following ts true of Islands” public school students In the Virgin Islands, 5 percent of males and 11 percent of females pr the Proficient level. These percentages were not significantly different In the Virgin Islands, 50° percent of males performed at or abo was lower than the percentage of females performing at or abo (70 percent) Phe percentage of males at or above the Proficient level in the \ maller than that of males in the nation (1S) percent) Phe percentage of females in the Virgin Islands performing at or abov 1 | percent) was smaller than that of females nationwide (34° pet THE NATION'S TABLE 2.1B REPORT CARD — Percentages of public school students attaining achievement levels by gender 1998 State Assessment ead 4 Below Basic At or Above * Basic At or Above Proficient Advanced Males Virgin Islands Nation Females Virgin Islands Nation > achievement leve correspond t » following points on the NAEF cient, 173-223; and Advanced, 224 and above The standard err Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined for Ed ' fatet ph i i Nat il A M98 WRITING SEATE REPORI The Virgin Islands Race/Ethnicity \s part of the background questionnaire administered with the assessment, students were asked to identify the racial/ethnic subgroup that best described them. The tive mutually exclusive categories were White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian. The information provided by the students was the primary contributor to the classifications appearing in Tables 2.2A and 2.2B Only those racial/ethnic subgroups with sufficient membership to meet reporting requirements in the Virgin Islands are reported Scale Score Results by Race/Ethnicity In terms of average writing scale scores for the Virgin Islands’ public school students Fable 2.2A indicates the following Phe average scale score of Black students in the Virgin Islands was not significantly lifferent from that of Hispanic students Phe average scale scores of Black and Hispanic students in the Virgin Islands were not significantly different from those of similar students nationwide THE NATION'S TABLE 2.2A REPORT carp | “26 = Average writing scale scores and selected percentiles for public a 1998 L— school students by race/ethnicity State Assessment Percentage Scale score distribution Average of total osele dunes 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th population percentile percentile percentile percentile percentile Black Virgin Islands 76 ( 1.9) 124 ( 3.7) 60 (8.1) 103(3.6) 124(3.8) 146(4.7) 167 ( 6.2) Nation 15 ( 0.2) 130 ( 1.0) 31 (1.9) TIC-C1.8). 181.017.4) 150(1.4) -166¢ 1.2) Hispanic Virgin Islands eu (1.7) | 196:( 65) 74(15.9) 93(9.0) 120(10.1) 141 (11.3) 164 (11.2) Nation 14 (0.2) 129 ( 1.5) oFt tS) Wels.) WOttS) 1531.7) 173:-62.1) ranges from 0 to 300. The standard errors of the statistics appear in parentheses ition Statist National Asse ment of Educational Progress (NAEP NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Achievement Level Results by Race/Ethnicity Fable 2.2B shows the following to be true of achie: t levels attained by the public school students In the Virgin Islands, the percentage of BI tudents performing at or ab level was not significantly different trom that of Hispanic student In the Virgin Islands, the percentage of Black students performing: level was not significantly different from that of Hispanic students Phe percentages of Black and Hispanic students in the Virgin Islands performing at o1 above the Proficient level were not ny muy different trom those of similar student nationwide THE NATION'S TABLE 2.2B REPORT carp | “6 =x Percentages of public school students attaining achievement 1998 levels by race/ethnicity State Assessment At or Above Below Basic Besic At or Above Proficient Advan Black Virgin Islands Nation Hispanic Virgin Islands Nation achievement levels correspond to the W 173-223; and Advanced, 224 and at Standard error estimates cannot be accurate RCE: National Center for Educatior tatist NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORI The Virgin Islands Students’ Reports of Parents’ Highest Education Level \s part of the background questionnaire administered with the assessment, students were as} to identity the highest level of education completed by each parent. The groupings wer determined by the highest educational level reported for either parent Phi Level of parental education has always exhibited the same general pattern in NAEP the higher the level of parental education, the higher the level of student performance finding ts borne out by other studies; for instance, see a paper by Grissmer. Kirby Berends, and Williamson (1994) that includes findings trom the National Longitudinal Survey i] | { Youth (NLSY) and the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) Note that the format for the question ts different for the 1998 writing assessment than in NAEP assessment Ihe format change is described in the Writing Report Card Scale Score Results by Parents’ Education In terms of average writing scale scores for the Virgin Islands’ eighth-grade public hoo tudents in 1998, Table 2.3A indicates the following Ihe average scale score of students in the Virgin Islands reporting that at least one parent graduated trom high school was not significantly different from those of students reporting that at least one parent had some education after high school or at least one parent vraduated trom college Phe average scale scores for students in the Virgin Islands reporting that at least one parent graduated from high school, at least one parent had some education after high school, o1 at least one parent graduated from college were lower than those of similar students nationwide NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT THE NATION'S REPORT CARD aan 1998 State Assessment Percentage of total population Graduated from high school Virgin Island Nation Some education after high school Virgin Islands Nation Graduated from college Virgin Island Nation The NAEP wr The Virgin Islands TABLE 2.3A = Average writing scale scores and selected percentiles for public —— school students by parents’ highest level of education Scale score distribution Average = scale score 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th percentile percentile percentile percentile percentile NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virein Islands Achievement Level Results by Parents’ Education In terms of achievement levels attained by the Virgin Islands’ eighth-grade public students in 1998, Table 2.3B indicates the following Phe percentage of students in the Virgin Islands reporting that at least one parent graduated from high school pertorming at or above the Proficient level was not significantly different trom the corresponding percentages for students reporting that at least one parent had son ducation atter high school or that at least one parent graduated trom college Phe percentage of students in the Virgin Islands reporting that at least one parent graduated from high school performing at or above the Basic level was not significantly different from the corresponding percentages for students reporting that at least one parent had lucation atter high school or that at least one parent graduated trom college For students reporting that at least one parent graduated trom high school, at least on parent had some education after high school, or at least one parent graduated from colle gs the percentage performing at or above the Proficient level was smaller in the Virgin Island than ross the nation NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands THE NATION'S TABLE 2.3B REPORT carp | “#6? Percentages of public school students attaining achievement 1998 } ae I nen reer levels by parents’ highest level of education At or Above Below Basic At or Above Basic Proficient Graduated from high school Virgin Island Natior Some education after HS Virgin Islands Nation Graduated from college Virgin Island Nation The aichhevement level Proficient, 173-223. and Advance * Standard error estimate ICE Nat " enter { Ed NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Program Eligibility NAEP tracks eligibility for the federal program providing tree or reduced-price school lunches Phe tree/reduced-price lunch component of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) ottered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), ts designed to ensure that children near or below the poverty line receive nourishing meals. This program ts available to public schools, nonprotit private schools, and residential child care institutions. Eligibility ts determined through the USDA’s Income Eligibility Guidelines, and results for this category of students are included as an indicator of poverty. More information is available at the USDA Web site, in particular under “Welcome to the School Lunch Program (NSLP)" at http://www.tns.usda.gov/end/Lunch/Detfault.htm. NAEP collects data on student eligibility for the NSLP in five categories: eligible tor reduced-price lunches, eligible for tree lunches, not eligible for the NSLP. information was not avatlable, or schools did not provide the information. Because some of these groups were small, the categories were combined into eligible, not eligible, and information not available as reported here for groups meeting Minimum sample size requirements Scale Score Results by Eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Program In terms of average writing scale scores for the Virgin Islands’ public school students in 1998 Fable 2.4A shows the following In the Virgin Islands, the average writing seal re of students eligible for ) free/reduced-price lunch was 123 Students in the Virgin Islands eligible tor tree/reduced-price lunch had an average scale score (123) that did not differ significantly from that of similar erghth eraders nationwide (131) NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands THE NATION'S TABLE 2.4A REPORT (rgep = Average writing scale scores and selected percentiles for public i! school students by free/reduced-price lunch eligibility CARD 1998 State Assessment Scale score distribution Percentage Average of total petting scale score 10th 25th 50th 75th population percentile percentile percentile percentile Eligible Virg Islar Nation Information not available Virgin Islands 20 ( 0.7) 25 ( 7.6) 2(9:5 103 (8.9) 126(7.7) 147 (10.7) 165 (15.4) Nation 12 ( 2.0) sae l2( 3.2 26(2.4) 152(.< 75 (3.0) 196 (2.9) Ss WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Achievement Level Results by Eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Program In terms of achievement levels attained by public school students in 1998, Table 2.4B indicates the tollowing e In the Virgin Islands, 9 percent of students who were eligible for the free/reduced-price lunch program pertormed at or above the Proficient level For students who were eligible for the free/reduced-price lunch program, the percentage at or above the Proficient level in the Virgin Islands (9 percent) was not significantly different from the corresponding percentage for eligible students nationwide (10) percent) THE NATION'S TABLE 2.4B REPORT CARD ay Percentages of public school students attaining achievement 1998 levels by free/reduced-price lunch eligibility State Assessment At or Above Basic elow Basic At or Above Proficient Advanced Eligible Virgin Island Nation Information not available Virgin Islands Nation ndard error: NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Type of School The Virgin Islands’ nonpublic schools participated in and met participation rate guidelines tor reporting results for the NAEP 1998 writing state assessment. Presented below are results tor students in public schools (repeated from the Section | for ease of comparison), in nonpublic schools, and in public and nonpublic schools combined. The reader should use caution in making inferences from any differences in performance between students attending public schools and those attending nonpublic schools. Such differences may be related to socioeconomic and sociological factors, such as the level of parental involvement in a child's education. Additional information on nonpublic schools, including breakdown by type of nonpublic school for the national sample, is in the Writing Report Card Scale Score Results by Type of School In terms of average writing scale scores for the Virgin Islands’ students, Table 2.5A provid the following information Phe average scale score for students in nonpublic schools in the Virgin stand This was higher than that for students in public schools (124) Phe average scale score tor the Virgin Islands’ nonpublic school students (156) was not significantly different from that for students in the nation’s nonpublic schools (167) Phe average scale score for students in public and nonpublic schools combined in th Virgin Islands (131) was lower than that for students in the nation chools (150 THE NATION'S TABLE 2.5A REPORT CARD Average writing scale scores and selected percentiles by type 1998 of school State Assessment Scale score distribution | Percentage A of total rnc ' scale score 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th population percentile percentile percentile percentile percentile Public Virgin Islands A 124 ( 3.8) 77 101 ( 5.3) Nation 39 | 148 ( 0.6) 124 ( 0.8) Nonpublic Virgin Islands ; 2.6 156 ( 5.3) ) 132 ( 6.3) Nation Combined Virgin Islands eile 31 ( 3.8) 82 Nation tc (ulate 150 (0.6) 104 The Combined sample may include students attending Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools and/or Departmer Defense (DODEA/DDESS) schools. These students are not included in either the Public or the Nonpublic NAEP writing scale ranges from 0 to 300. The standard errors of the statistics appear in parenthese: error estimates cannot be accurately determined National Center for Education Statist Nat NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Achievement Level Results by Type In terms of achievement levels attained by following Phe percentage of nonpublic school students in the Virgin Tslands who re at or above the Proficient level was 33> percent. This was greater than the corresponding percentage for students in public schools (9 percent) Phe percentage of nonpublic school students at or above t! the Profici Island s (33) percent) was not significantly different from the « students in the nation’s nonpublic schools (44 percent) re of students in public and nonpublic school combined performing lhe if el in the Virgin Islands (14 percent) was smaller than the { ‘for students in the nation s hool 7] THE NATION'S REPORT CARD heme. — Percentages of students attaining achievement levels by type of —— school TABLE 2.5B 1998 State Assessment Below Basic At or Above : Basic At or Above Proficient Public Nation Nonpublic Virgin Island Nati yn Combined NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Appendix A Where to Find More Information ions for finding additional NAEP results and related information Below are only a few sugge \ hyperlinked version of this section is available trom the Web page that introduces the 1998 State reports, http://nees.ed.gov/nationsreporteard/pubs/stt }998/1999463 shtml. Many of the reports and data files on the Web will require the use of the (free) Adobe Acrobat Reader: for information on installing the Reader, click on the He/p button at the NAEP Web site, http://nees.ed.gov/nationsreporteard Details of the NAEP Writing Assessment For details of the assessment, refer to the companion report, the NAEP 1998 Writing Report Card for the Nation and the States. Both that report and the NAEP 1998S Writing State Reports are avatlable on the NAEP Web site. For details of the framework on which the writing assessment was developed. see http://www.nagb.org/. Click on the Publications button on the left. and then click on Writing Framework and Specifications for the 1998 National Assessment f beducational Progress Fechnical information about the assessment will be available in the NAEP 1998 Technical in 2000. Until that technical report ts available, many questions may be answered by wehing in the Jechnical Report of the NAEP 1996 State Assessment Program in Science, to ’ found at the NAEP Web site. The science assessment was also on a within-grade scale, so 1 aling procedures would be more similar to writing than would the scaling procedures ema essment (Which was on a cross-grade scale) 1998 Participation Rates Information on each jurisdiction's participation rates for schools and students ts i \ppendix A of the Writing Report Card, to be found at the NAEP Web site Additional Results from the Writing Assessment For more tindings trom the 1998 writing assessments, refer to the 1998 results at the NAEP Web site. On the release date, the summary data tables (SDTs) at this site will include student school, and teacher variables tor all purisdictions, the nation, and the tour NAEP geographic regions. Complete SDTs will be available for all jurisdictions, with all background question cross-tabulated with the major demographic reporting variables (for instance. hours of television watched by level of parental education or limited English proficiency by race/ethnicity ) BEST COPY AVAILABLE Ss WRITING The Virein Islands Variables Reported in the State Reports The tollowing variables can be found in the summary data tables (SDTs) at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreporteard/tables. More information on these variables is avatlable tn Appendix A of the Writing Report Card at http://nees.ed.gov/nationsreporteard/, the NAEP Web site. The variables reported here, with their labels in the tables ar Gender. This is DSEX inthe SDTs. Reports documenting or surveying gender differences in writing include NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress at the NAEP Web site, 7/r Condition of Education, tor instance, Indicator 20 at http://nees.ed.gov/pubs/ce/c9620a0 1 html, and The ETS Gender Stud ttp://etsis L.ets.org/pub/res/gender. pdt Race/Ethnicity. This is DRACE in the SDTs. An instructive explanation of th appears in Appendix A of the Writing Report Card, at the NAEP Web site Students’ Reports of Parents’ Highest Education Level. PARED2 ts a derived variabk also deseribed in Appendix A ot the Writing Report Card. The etfect of parental education is discussed in a paper by Grissmer, Kirby, Berends, and Williamson (1994) at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR535/MR535.html Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Program Eligibility. The variable reported here | SLUNCHI, which is a version of SLUNCH with several of the categories of SLUNCH iG. iis reduced and Iree) combined \ description ol the free/reduced price bund h program is available at http://www.tns.usda.gov/end/Lunch/Detfault.htm Type of Location. TOL3 is the label in the SDTs. The TOL variable uses data from the most recent and Quality Education Data (QED) tile (see http://www.geddata.cony/) combined with the most recent Private School Survey PSS file (see http://nees.ed.gov/surveys/pss.html). The Common Core of Data (CCD) file (see http://nees.ed.gov/ecd/index.html) ts used to extract type of location or urbanization Information Where missing from the QED file. Through this process, the TOL variable reflects the type of location values for the school recorded on the 1995/96 CCD and PSS files. Schools with missing values for type of location were assigned the TOL of other schools within the same city, when TOL did not vary within that city. Any remaining missing TOL values were assigned using U.S. Bureau of Census publications. Additional information is available under General Information on the NAEP SDT Tool Web page and also in Chapter 3, Section 4. of the Technical Report of the NAEP 1996 Stat Assessment Program in Mathematics (http://nees.ed.gov/nationsreporteard/96report/9795 | .pdt) Type of School. SCHTYPE ts the label in the SDTs. Note that the Nonpublic schow sample includes Private and Catholic school students. BZA (Bureau of Indian Attairs) and DoDEA (Department of Defense Education Activity) students are in the Combined samp! only NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Publications from NAEP Writing Assessments NAEP also offers various special reports on writing that may be of particular interest to teachers. These may be ordered from the source at the end of this section, and some of them can be accessed and printed from the Web Writing Framework and Specifications for the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Provress. trom the National Assessment Governing Board (available at http://www.nagb.org/) VAEP 1998 Writing Report Card for the Nation and the States, the companion to this State Report (available at http://nees.ed.gov/nationsreporteard/, the NAEP Web site) lhe NAEP 1998 Writing Report Card National Highlights, a brochure with student samples, covering the national and state NAEP 1998 writing assessment (available at the NAEP W eb Site) VAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress, containing samples of student writing from the NAEP Long-Term Trend assessment (forthcoming at the NAEP Web site) VAEP Trends in Writing: Fluency and Writing Conventions, a short report from the NAEP Long-Term Trend assessment (available at the NAEP Web site) VAEPFacts: Can Students Benefit from Process Writing? To read this short publication describing selected results from the /992 Writing Report Card, vO lO http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ and enter 96845 in the box labeled “Enter NCES #.° Some special reports on reading may be of interest to language arts teachers Listening to Children Read Aloud, Data from NAEP ’s Inteerated Reading Performance Record (IRPR) at Grade 4, results trom the 1992 TIRPR, a special study conducted with a subgroup of fourth graders who participated in the 1992 NAEP reading assessment (available in print only) Interviewing Children About their Literacy Experiences, Data from NAEP’s Integrated Reading Performance Record (IRPR) at Grade 4, results trom the 1992 TRPR, a special study conducted with a subgroup of fourth graders who participated in the 1992 NAEP reading assessment (available in print only) VAEPFacts: Listening to Children Read Aloud: Oral Fluency Yo read this NAEPFacts, summarizing NAEP’s first attempt to measure 4th graders” oral reading fluency, accuracy, and rate on a large-scale basis, go to http://nees.ed. gov box labeled “Enter NCES #, pubsearch/ and enter 95762 in the Students Selecting Stories: The Effects of Choice in Reading Assessment, results trom the NAEP Reader Special Survey of the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress (avatlable at the NAEP Web site). To see this publication, go to http://nees.ed.gov/pubsearch/ and enter 97491 in the box labeled “Enter NCES # NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands For ordering information on these reports, write U.S. Department of Education ED Pubs P.O. Box 1398 Jessup, MD 20794-1398 or call toll free 1-877-4 ED PUBS = (1-877-433-7827) NAEP reading reports in addition to those listed above are available at the NAEP Web site For many of the publications, a free copy may be ordered on line. Go to http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/, enter the NCES publication number, or enter key words from the title and select National Assessment of Educational Progress in the “Search Options” box. I printed copies are available, the next page will have a link to “Order your free copy now from EdPubs Sample NAEP Questions for Classroom Use \ll of the 1998 released items are available now in the Writing Report Card. The released items from the 1998 writing assessment will appear on the Web in the fall of 1999. They will join the released items from the NAEP 1998 reading assessment. The Sample Questions Tool presents questions, scoring guides, actual responses, and scores from released portions of NAEP assessments. To access this tool from the NAEP Web site, click on “Sample Questions.” There is a tutorial for first time users NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT The Virgin Islands Figures from Section 1 Figures 1.2 and 1.3 are displayed here in full-page format, with legends and titles but without figure numbers or page headers and footers. In each state report on the Web, these figure will appear in color. They may be printed in black-and-white or in color for other us« BEST COPY AVAILABLE NAEP 1998 WRITING STATE REPORT THE NATION'S Reroe (NAEP The Virgin Islands’ 1998 average writing scale score compared to those for other participating jurisdictions for public schoo! students at grade 8 1008 tenes State Assessment i. Target state ee State has higher average scale score than target state State is not significantly different from target state in average scale score RS State has lower average scale score than target state State did not meet minimum participation rate guidelines State did not participate in the NAEP 1998 Writing State Assessment KOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment BEST COPY AVAILABLE REPORT Po) Achievement levels for writing: Comparing the percentage of public school CARO | — students at or above the Proficient level in the Virgin Islands with those in a — other participating jurisdictions at grade 8 in 1998 State Assessment below contain estimated percentages of students in each NAEP writing achievement categor iligned at the point where the Proficient category begins, so that they may be compared at Alabama Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware DoDEA/DDESS DoDEA/DoDDS Florida Georgia Hawaii Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Missouri Montana Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina Oklahoma Oregon Rhode Island outh Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Arkansas District of Columbia Louisiana Mississippi VIRGIN ISLANDS Higher than Virgin Islands Not different from Virgin Isiands TUL =.: _ auagyaE a 4 be _ ~~ ed : abe a —_— Fy = a = . a ae SS —S See Alabama Arizona Calitornia Colorado Connecticut Delaware DoDEA/DDESS DoDEA/DoDDS Florida Georgia Hawaii Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Missouri Montana Nevada New Mexicc New York North Carolina Oklahoma Oregon Hhode Isiand oOutTh Carolir Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washingtor West Virginia VIRGIN ISLAND 70 6 § 0 » ri ) 19 »0 “ 4 Percent Basic and Below Basic Percent Proficient and Advanced BEST COPY AVAILABLE The Virein Islands ports a product of the many mdividuals wh ria) rience, and creativity to the NAEP 1998 writing assessment vho constructed the tramework, then the committees who i} Purine input from the tale curriculum pecralist VO revies tublished achievement level cut scores, the NAEP writin of interested educators, policy makers, and other citizen ment mvolved hundreds of for TEST 75S cirehth-vrader prompts, producing the result fhe States tate and local education official In 4.310 public and nonpublic school reported here and in the NAEP 1998 W) Ihe NAEP 1998 writing ass was funded through the tI (NCES). in the Ot Of Educational Research and Impro Education. The Acting Commissioner of Education Statistics, Gary W. Phil tall——Peevy Carr, Arnold Goldstemin, Andy Kolstad. Marilyn McMillen Muarenu worked closely and collegially with the authors to produce thi stance Was also provided trom staff at the Education Statistics Servi Phe NAEP project at ETS ts directed by Stephen lazer and John ted the scoring operations. Westat conducted sampling and data tion of Rene Slobasky, Naney Caldwell, Keith Rust, Leslie Wallace Printing, distribution, scormy, and processing activitics wet tion ot Brad Thayer, Patrick Bout rial Ona Cucg Charles Brungardt, Tom Hu thi Malou, Conme Smith, and with the collegial participation of other Nancy Allen, John Barone, James Carlson, and David Freund du wiivities for LUOS NARP. Prank Jenkins, drab md Hruce phan led the analy Quan ¢ ‘ in COllaboration with Tin | John Donoehue. Jo ban baan Spence Swinton, a Donna Lembeck and Mary Varone offered mnportiant require a lolol human miput require further broke through the thoroueh ediut hun Wuat NCES. M kK | vl dolby BEST COPY AVAILABLE United States Department of Education Washington, DC 20208-5653 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300 Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Education Permit No. G—17 Standard Mail (A)