 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"it became increasingly more appeal" should be "it became increasingly more appealing"
re: History - Add your source as a link at the bottom. Use additional sources. Caity57 ( talk) 00:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
re: History - When you say "smaller areas" do you mean rural areas? DanChristian1 ( talk) 00:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
re:Largo - article is fixed. Hager Sharp ( talk) 20:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This entire article as it stands is just a copy of the page at [1]. Doesn't that violate some Wikipedia guideline? — Largo Plazo ( talk) 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The History section is a (somewhat garbled) paraphrase from the paper it cites, an acacemic history of the NAEP commissioned by the NAGB. It can and should be improved. But it puzzles me that a history of why there is an NAEP should be struck from the NAEP article. M.boli ( talk) 19:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The unsourced "darts" quote I just reverted came from this blog post at the Washington Post:
- James Harvey (Nov. 04 2011).
"NAEP: A flawed benchmark producing the same old story".
The Answer Sheet (blog). Washington Post.
{{ cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=( help); External link in|work=
The author was disagreeing with how NAEP sets the benchmarks, the threshold numbers used for declaring "proficient." Conceivably there is room in this article for a section on critiques. But from its placement, its lack of explanation, and its lack of context, this edit seems to be merely an attempt to insert an unflattering-sounding quote. M.boli ( talk) 08:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I just made a small edit, removing the phrase "is a trusted resource" from the line "NAEP is a trusted resource and has been providing valid and reliable data on student performance since 1969." The terms 'valid' and 'reliable' have technical definitions when applied to data that makes them more than simply matters of opinion, and I assume this statement is more than just a matter of opinion, however, calling NAEP 'trusted' without saying trusted by whom for what purpose makes the whole line sound more like a PR blurb than an informative statement. The simplest solution is to delete the phrase. It leaves open the question, however, of the objectivity of the rest of the line and the rest of the article. I don't have the time or inclination to edit the whole page for POV, but someone who cares about this page ought to review it. Baon ( talk) 12:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
NAEP has undergone significant changes since this article was last up dated. Hopefully someone can bring it up to date from roughly 2012 to 2024. As a parent, you can decline to have your child take place in NAEP, but most school administrations will try to deny that option exists. Seki1949 ( talk) 00:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)