1. Faculty Council Provost Comments January 17, 2014

2. Overview of Issues Involving Student- Athlete Reading Ability Had we previously received the dataset in question? What test was used to determine reading grade levels? What data were used to determine grade levels? Does the dataset support the claims that have been made?

3. Did we have the dataset in question? Despite assurances to the contrary, the answer is no We looked at everything we had, and when I received the dataset it became clear that this was the first time anyone had received it There were also claims that the dataset had been given to the Office of the General Counsel

4. Note to UNC attorney

5. What test was used to determine reading grade levels? Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults (not SAT) – Reading Vocabulary Subtest (not comprehension) – One page, 25 questions, 10 minutes “Read the four words and identify one of three possible relations among the words. One possibility is that two words have the same meaning [or] they have opposite meanings [or] none of the words are related in meaning.”

6. Sample Items

7. Should the SATA RV subtest be used to determine grade equivalents? Consulting experts in this area From Examiner’s Manual: – The SATA recommends always testing reading comprehension: “any standardized test purporting to provide a comprehensive measure of reading that does not assess sentence or passage comprehension should be considered inadequate” (Wiederhold & Bryant, 1987, p. 96, quoted in SATA Manual on p. 28).

8. What data were used to determine grade levels? Results of SATA RV can be expressed as – Raw scores, standard scores, percentiles, or grade equivalents Dataset provided was in standard scores, but scores used to make allegations were reported as if they were grade equivalents This leads to serious errors in any conclusions drawn from this dataset

9. Illustration of Differences between Standard Scores and Grade Equivalents Standard ScoreGrade Equivalent Student 169 Student 2710 Student 3812.7 Student 4912.7

10. Sample implication of errors Claim made using erroneous data – “more than 60% of the 183 student-athletes [in revenue sports] read between a 4 th and 8 th grade level” There is absolutely no basis in the dataset on which to make this claim

11. Conclusions Serious accusations were made about the literacy levels of our students based on – a ten-minute test that is at best an incomplete and inadequate indication of reading ability – erroneous data analysis Our conclusion at this point is that claims made based on this dataset are virtually meaningless and grossly unfair to our students and to the university that admitted them