Study concludes high-performing states use less stringent standards than lower-performing
A new study from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) concludes that many of the states that claim to have large shares of their students reaching proficiency in reading and mathematics under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) have set less stringent standards than lower-performing states. The study measures the achievement levels of individual states’ reading and math tests against the proficiency standards used by the National Assessment of Educational Programs (NAEP). NCES’ analysis appears to back up the suspicions of some who are skeptical about state data showing high percentages of students reaching the "proficient" level in reading and math. According to the study, the enormous variations among states in the percentage of students reaching proficiency "can be largely attributed to differences in the stringency of [state] standards" in setting achievement levels. According to Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst, the director of the Institute of Education Sciences, the arm of the U.S. Department of Education that oversees the NCES, the study uses a "common ruler" to judge state proficiency standards, but he adds the study could not determine whether setting high proficiency standards resulted in better instruction. The study, titled "Mapping 2005 State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales," makes no judgment about the difficulty of individual state tests or how they compare with NAEP. Instead, it compares where states set minimum scores for determining proficiency under the NCLB against the bar set by NAEP on the 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests. U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings points out that states have the right under the federal education law to set different proficiency levels. That flexibility was justified, she said, given the different academic challenges facing different states. "I’m confident that they will ratchet it up over time," she says. The NCES study was unveiled shortly after the Center for Education Policy (CEP) released a report showing that student scores on state tests have increased since the enactment of NCLB in 2002. Secretary Spellings, citing CEP’s report, asserts NCLB is having a positive effect on student achievement. Although she declines to pass judgment on the bars set by individual states, the secretary suggests that the benefit of the NCES study is that it brings new public scrutiny to those standards.
Meanwhile, according to a Gannett News Service (GNS) analysis of test scores, many states have taken the safe route by keeping standards low. Critics contend states are more worried about creating the appearance of academic progress than in raising standards. "Ironically, No Child reforms may have the exact opposite effect they were intended to have," says Bruce Fuller, an education and public policy professor at the University of California at Berkeley. The GNS analysis found that relying on state test scores to judge students' performance is misleading. For example, 89% of Mississippi fourth-graders passed the state's reading test in 2005, but only 18% passed the NAEP test. That gap of 71 percentage points was the widest in the nation. Massachusetts had one of the smallest gaps, with 50% of fourth-graders passing the state reading test and 44% passing the NAEP test. Mr. Fuller's research indicates the gap between state test scores and NAEP scores has actually widened in many states since the federal law took effect. State education officials deny critics' claims that they're gaming the system by making their tests easier by pointing out that changes in testing policies came after careful review and were designed to help children meet state standards. "We didn't game anything, says Tom Horne, superintendent of public instruction in Arizona, which lowered passing scores on several tests in 2005. "We called together a task force and the state (school) board decided to follow their recommendation." States use a number of "cheap tricks" to create the illusion that students are doing better than they really are, said Dan Koretz, a Harvard University testing expert. Those include designing tests easy enough for almost all students to pass or lowering passing scores to make sure most students make the grade. Philadelphia schools chief Paul Vallas thinks the answer is national standards. Every grade in every state would teach the same material and administer the same test. "The shocker ... is how poorly the kids have done in another state," he said. States and some independent experts argue comparing scores on the federal and state tests isn't valid, because the national exam was never designed to compare standards from state to state. They also note teachers and students are far more focused on state tests because those tests determine whether schools make adequate progress and, in some cases, whether seniors graduate. Some states are taking the issue seriously. In 2005, Tennessee reported the largest difference in the nation between eighth-grade student scores on the state's math and reading tests and scores on NAEP. The state looked at its standards and found them largely in line with NAEP standards, said Rachel Woods, spokeswoman for the state Department of Education. But the Tennessee tests focused on a multiple-choice format as opposed to NAEP, which demands more essay responses. Now, Tennessee is rewriting its tests and increasing requirements for high school graduation. That will almost certainly lower the number of kids scoring in the proficient range and increase the number of schools flagged as poor performers, Woods said. But she said, "What's important is having more kids graduate with the skills they need to succeed in life."
Education Week
By Sean Cavanagh
[Full story]
USA Today
By Lenyard King
[Full story]
[Editor’s Note: Information on the CEP report is provided below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on CEP report]