James Harvey, executive director of the National Superintendents Roundtable, warns parents and the public not to be fooled by the “proficiency” standard of NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The NAEP scores for 2017 will be released today, and you will hear loud lamenting about how many students are “not proficient.”
Under the leadership of Chester (Checker) E. Finn, Jr., the National Assessment Governing Board adopted “achievement levels” in 1992. The levels are: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. They have been “provisional” since that time. They are determined by the subjective guesswork of adult panels who decide what students in fourth and eighth grade “should know and be able to do.” Sometimes these panels include teachers, but not always.
Before 1992, NAEP results were reported only as “scale scores” on a scale of 500 (they still are). One could see if the scores went up or down but not deplore their rise or fall because the scale scores tell you what is, not what ought to be. Checker has long been a critic of American schools, and he pushed for an easily understandable way to gauge the slow progress of the schools. Progress on a mass test is always incremental. When it is not, the measure is suspect.
Achievement levels provided a way to make simple (and simplistic) judgment calls. Most often, in this time of lamentations and chest-pounding about the younger generation, the achievement levels have turned into a cudgel with which to beat teachers, students, and public schools, usually by ignorant politicians who want to pass laws to ensure that “no child will be left behind” and that “every student succeeds.” Laws don’t teach children, nor do bluffs and fake threats.
My term on NAGB, the NAEP governing board, did not overlap Checker’s. I served later, from 1998-2004. I came to believe that the Advanced level represented A+ performance; Proficiency was a solid A, A-, even a B+; Basic was a B to C- level, where the plurality of students scored, and Below Basic was D and F. That was my judgment, not the policy of the board. When anyone asserts that all or almost all students should score in the Proficient range, I think of this as massive grade inflation. Reaching Proficient is a very high bar. It is entirely unrealistic to use NAEP Proficient as a passing standard, as the Common Core Tests do. Any school in which every student scores an A or A- or B+ must be a school for gifted students.
James Harvey writes:
NAEP TERM “PROFICIENT” IS MISLEADING
STATEMENT OF JAMES HARVEY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL SUPERINTENDENTS ROUNDTABLE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEATTLE, April 9, 2018 – As the U.S Department of Education prepares to release the latest findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the American people should understand that the misleading term “proficient” sets a performance benchmark beyond the reach of most students in the world.
A detailed analysis released in January concluded that the vast majority of students in most countries could not demonstrate proficiency as NAEP defines the term.
The authors of the analysis, the National Superintendents Roundtable and the Horace Mann League, linked NAEP’s proficiency benchmark to the performance of students around the world on international assessments such as TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study).
The report on this work (How High the Bar?) concluded that:
In no nation do even 40 percent of students meet the NAEP Proficient benchmark in Grade 4 reading.
Only one nation has 50 percent or more of its students meeting the Proficient benchmark in Grade 8 science (Singapore).
Just three nations have 50 percent or more of their students meeting the Proficient benchmark in Grade 8 math (Singapore, Republic of Korea, and Japan).
Citing U.S. Department of Education documents, the report criticized the Department for misusing the term “Proficient.” The term, as the Department acknowledges, does not mean performing at grade level. Surprisingly, according to the Department’s statements, it does not even mean proficient, as most people understand the term.
Roundtable and Horace Mann League officials have insisted that the problem can be addressed without lowering standards by changing the term “proficient” to “high.” Without such a change, they maintain, the misuse of the term will continue to confuse both the public and educators, as in the past it has confused U.S. Secretaries of Education.
CONTACT: JAMES HARVEY: Office (206) 526-5336
Cell (206) 579-9272
******************************************
National Superintendents Roundtable
9425 35th Avenue, NE, Suite E
Seattle, WA 98115
*****************************************
National Superintendents Roundtable
9425 35th Avenue, NE
Suite E
Seattle, WA 98115
206-526-5336
Web: superintendentsforum.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ntsupsrt
Twitter: @natsupers
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Why do we have to rate and rank children at all? Why do we need to compare ourselves to other nations using our children? Shouldn’t the achievements of our Nation as a whole be enough to prove that our children are “proficient”? After all, we did put a rocket into space and men on the moon (1965-1975). No one was doubting our schools and what they “produced” then. We became the greatest Nation of immigrants all without a bunch of tests, rating and ranking children and having them compete against each other in a “Hunger Games” type scenario. Even the NAEP tests need to go.
Well said.
Imagine if the scores we actually cared about were the statistical comparison of nations in how well they fed, clothed, housed and cared for their children.
DeVos is using the scores to promote and market the Florida approach to public schools.
Does the US Department of Education worry that they’ve been so completely and utterly captured by these lobbyists for charters and vouchers that they have no credibility left?
Do we really need a federally-funded privatization lobby? Can’t the ed reform billionaires pick up this cost?
The scores don’t matter. If they go up, it means more ed reform. If they go down it also means more ed reform.
The agenda was set before any of these kids sat for this test. They wasted their time.
This is why I believe that every school teacher in every school district needs to walk out/strike. This is why I believe the USDoEd needs to be dismantled (with it’s useful parts being absorbed into other agencies!!!). It’s a Catch 22 with all of this madness and it ALL makes money for the people controlling the message.
Told ya. The response of the echo chamber to the scores?
More of the same! More tests! More charters and vouchers!
If the scores had gone up the response would be EXACTLY the same.
https://edexcellence.net/articles/naep-scores-are-inexcusably-stuck-in-the-mud-but-we-can-get-them-out
YUP, Chiara.
Thank you.
This country is STUCK in a LOT of MUCK and SEWAGE.
Chiara: you have hit the proverbial nail smack dab on the head.
And if I may slightly reword what you wrote: if these and other standardized test scores/rankings/ratings go up, down or remain the same—
Why use such “measurements/guidelines” at all if our actions are set ahead of time regardless of the results?
IMHO, it boils down to one thing: that the 3DM [DataDrivenDecisionMaking] of the corporate education reform crowd is literally an empty sham used as a selling point. And not just any selling point. It often employs the considerable power of mathematical intimidation to do more than mislead: it’s greatest power is in shutting people up, cutting off discussion, and avoiding any kind of critical review of the entire privatization project.
Avoiding, don’t you know, that worst of all possibilities: the “circling of the wagons” by those who know what’s best for us so their tender sensibilities aren’t hurt.
😱
Thank you so much for your comments.
😎
All roads lead to privatization regardless of results.
Nah, retired teachers.
They are losing.
They will take over some urban districts, fail, and move on to something else.
Never lose hope.
The Center for Education Reform, a school choice advocacy group, also put out a press release wringing their hands about the awful terrible very bad scores. What is needed? They say, not surprisingly, Choice.