I got an e-mail earlier today with the subject line “States have lowered ‘proficiency’ bar under NCLB.” Of course that caught my eye, so I went in for a closer look.

What I found was that the e-mail was based on a report released earlier today by National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007. I had written about a similar report NCES released two years ago, based on 2005 NAEP scores, so I went to check out this latest version.

What I found did not quite match the gloomy headline. When comparing the rigor of each state’s standard for proficiency, only a handful of states lowered their standards in a particular subject. Eighth grade math had the most states that decreased their standards (9 states). But at the same time, three states increased the rigor of their standards. Not exactly a mass lowering of standards.

We are right to be concerned about states lowering standards. However, the question should be whether states have the right standards, not whether they have been increased or decreased.

A state may have such high standards that they are unreachable by most students. While it’s good to have a high goal, standards need to be reachable to be effective. Also, a state may have increased its standards but if it is starting off with very low standards, it still may be expecting much less of their students than the state that lowered its standards. So when comparing state standards, don’t get caught up in whether they increased or decreased. Rather, determine whether the standards ask enough of their students so they will be prepared for life after high school.

On that note here are some other findings from the report.

• The differences where states set their proficiency standards vary greatly.
  • The difference in scores between the states with the five highest and lowest standards is comparable to the difference in scores between NAEP’s Basic and Proficient levels.
• States set lower standards for proficiency in reading
  • In grade four reading, thirty-one states set their standards for proficiency below NAEP’s Basic level.
  • At the eighth-grade level, fifteen states did the same.
• States had higher standards for proficiency in math than in reading.
  • At the fourth grade level, just seven states set their proficiency standard below NAEP’s Basic level
  • Eight states did so at the eighth-grade level.
• States with higher standards for proficiency had fewer students scoring proficient on state tests.
• States were more likely to have decreased their standards in the eighth grade than in fourth grade.
  • At the fourth-grade level, twelve states substantively changed their reading assessment between 2005 and 2007. Of those twelve, four states increased their standards, four states decreased their standard, and the other four kept the rigor basically the same.
  • However, at the eighth-grade level fourteen states substantively changed their reading assessment between 2005 and 2007. Seven of those states decreased the rigor of their standards, while the other seven kept the rigor relatively the same.
  • Similar results were found in math.

Keep in mind:

• NAEP does not necessarily define proficiency the same as states do.
  • NAEP defines Proficiency as: Competency over challenging subject matter, not grade-level performance.
  • NAEP defines Basic as: Partial mastery of skills necessary for Proficient performance. 
• No country, not even the highest performing countries, would have 100 percent of their students reach NAEP’s Proficiency level.
• Some leading assessment experts have stated that proficiency for accountability purposes probably lies somewhere between NAEP’s Basic and Proficient levels.

For more information on how NAEP’s proficiency levels compare to state’s check out the Center for Public Education’s The proficiency debate: A guide to NAEP achievement levels. –Jim Hull