Prichard simplistically ranked all 50 states for their NAEP performance without paying any attention to the important fact that NAEP is a sampled test with plus and minus sampling errors.
Prichard also “conveniently” left out any data on how whites performed. Let’s see why they might have not wanted you to see the white data.
This first map shows states in green where white students scored statistically significantly higher than Kentucky’s whites in grade 8 NAEP math. States that just tied us are in tan, and the three states where whites scored statistically significantly lower than Kentucky’s whites are in salmon color.
Wow! Only three states did worse than our whites did! No wonder Prichard ‘conveniently’ left that information out.
Now, Kentucky’s educators like to play the ‘poverty card,’ so let’s see how Kentucky’s poor white eighth graders did. This next map shows that story.
When we play the poverty card, we tie more states, but a majority still statistically significantly outscores our poor whites. In fact, only two states have poor white scores that are statistically significantly lower than Kentucky’s.
Yup, Prichard really knew what they were doing on this one. If you are trying to create an image of success, you don’t want confusing stuff like the two maps above cluttering up your pitch.
Prichard also didn’t talk about how the huge disparity in exclusion rates for Kentucky in the NAEP reading assessment might have corrupted the scores they discussed so glowingly, either.
By the way, Tables A-12 and A-21 in the 2011 NAEP Math Report Card show that 84 percent of both our fourth and eighth grade student population assessed in this NAEP are white. Why would any concerned group just ignore the disaggregated performance of such a huge proportion of Kentucky’s children?