I served on the National Assessment Governing Board from 1998-2004. NAGB is the governing agency for NAEP, the federal test. I was appointed by President Bill Clinton. I learned about the inner workings of standardized testing, much of which made me skeptical of it.
I have often observed that critics of public schools assume that NAEP Proficient is the same as “grade level,” when in fact NAEP warns readers explicitly in every score report that NAEP Proficient is NOT “grade level.” In fact, NAEP Proficient represents mastery of what was tested, which I would characterize as an A or A-.
In 2010, when the anti-public school documentary “Waiting for ‘Superman’” was released, I reviewed it for The New York Review of Books and criticized it for confusing NAEP Proficiency with grade level, then claiming that most American kids can’t read, all because of their terrible public schools, their terrible teachers and those awful unions. The way to a better future, the documentary claimed, was charter schools. Not true. Even Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona has repeated this erroneous claim. Apparently neither he nor his speech writers reads NAEP reports with care and no one has briefed them.
I have explained this confusion on several occasions on the blog. I even called the Commissioner of the National Center on Education Statistics and proposed that NAEP Proficient be renamed “NAEP Mastery,” to clarify its meaning. She sounded enthusiastic about the idea (which came from a reader of this blog) but nothing changed.
I am very happy to see that Professor Paul Thomas at Furman University in South Carolina has launched a series called “Big lies in Education,” and this claim is one of the Big Lies. It is a lie because the fact that NAEP Proficient is not grade level is stated plainly in every release of NAEP scores.
Thomas begins:
One of the most bearish statistics for the future of the United States is this: Two-thirds of fourth graders in the United States are not proficient in reading,” wrote Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times.
Kristof’s piece in 2023 can be traced back to a similar claim by Emily Hanford in 2018: “More than 60 percent of American fourth-graders are not proficient readers, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and it’s been that way since testing began in the 1990s,” including a surprisingly ineffective graphic.
Open the link to see this and other graphics.
The student reading proficiency Big Lie grounded in misrepresenting or misunderstanding NAEP is likely one of the most complicated Big Lies of Education.
In media and political rhetoric, first, the terms “reading proficiency” and “grade level reading” are commonly jumbled and used inappropriately as synonyms.
Achievement levels such as “basic” and “proficient,” such as used in NAEP for reading, are misleading and complicated for most people not familiar with technical terminology.
NAEP “basic” is approximately grade level (although even that claim is problematic since no standard exists in the US for “proficient” or “grade level”), and “proficient” on NAEP is high:
Another important graph. Open the link.
Hanford’s and Kristof’s Big Lie, then, is a combination of blurring NAEP achievement levels with grade level reading achievement and manufacturing a reading crisis with that misinformation.
Ironically, NAEP grade 4 reading scores for a decade show that 2/3 of students are reading at or above grade level, the inverse of the false crisis claims of the media:
Open the link for the graph.
This is an excellent expose, which everyone should read. The claim that most kids read below grade level is foundational to the claim that public schools are in crisis. Its a Big Lie.

Proficiency on the NAEP corresponds to the “70th percentile for the 4th and 8th grade tests.” It is unfortunate that neither Secretary Cardona nor Kristoff at the NYT did their due diligence. Instead, they amplified the misinformation of the privatizers which then got picked up by the mainstream media that also failed to their homework. The press should not be spreading misinformation, and Sec. Cardona should know better.
There is a M4L candidate running for school superintendent where I live. On social media she recently criticized the schools because the district scored 69% proficiency in reading because “all students must be proficient.” I explained the whole bell shaped curve on standardized tests and explained why her assumption was wrong. Lots of local educated folks that had taken a statistics course in college agreed with me. We must not allow extremists to control the narrative with their blatant lies and misinformation.
LikeLike
Given the number of times that it has been pointed out to folks who should know better that Proficient does not equal grade level, I have to conclude that the misinformation is a purposeful attempt to undermine public education. Or, the anti-public education, anti-teacher ideological blinders are so firmly in place that some simply cannot see the truth.
LikeLike
but nothing changed…
Doing more of what DIDN’T produce
meaningful change, is a gift to the status quo.
Reducing the “crisis” to a lexical semantic
violation issue, HASN’T convinced the
test givers to STOP giving tests.
LikeLike
For many years our state used statistical “quartiles”. 0-25%, 26-50% and so on. For a time we were using criterion referenced scores. This is far superior. It reports scores based on how students perform on the various skill sets or knowledge areas on the test. This is much more helpful. The resulting data is also more useful to parents. For instance: One year our students did not perform well on a geography test given in 7th grade. There was lots of discussion about working more on, basically, map skills. However, an examination of the scores on the different things tested revealed that our students did well on map skills. They did poorly on interpreting data presented in graph form. A lot of extra map emphasis would not improve this. I’m not sure anyone will read this, but I’m throwing it out there.
LikeLike
Perhaps the biggest problem is that that the Hanford’s and the Kristof’s of the “I know more than you do” world refuse to listen to the rebuttal. It has always been frustrating to hear any reporter or pundit, even in Ed news, cite test scores as evidence of decline without questioning the veracity of the assessments. I often wonder how we can claim the country is so illiterate when tech bros make their record billions off of customers who do so much reading. Our crisis is not in reading, but in critical thinking.
LikeLike
I clicked through to the link… This is all excellent stuff.
I do have question about one this sentence in the linked article:
“As Table 4 shows, the proficient level for 4th and 8th Grade reading is set an almost the 70th percentile……”
There seems to be some mystery as to how those levels are set. But it does appear that the percentiles for the various levels – basic, proficient etc – are similar from year to year. This leads one to believe that the percentage of students who are “proficient” is never going to change much. The assessments have some validity, but if the achievement levels are set at similar percentiles from year to year, the idea of “improvement” will become a zero sum game.
The confusion between “grade level” and “proficient” has been a problem since the NAEP began using those terms. My state, Oklahoma, has aligned our state testing with the NAEP terms and they are constantly misused.
LikeLike
The “cut scores” are set every time the test is administered. You want to have a “nice bell” to support the data one wants portrayed?
LikeLike
Because you have to have the bell curve to make the Big Lie work.
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
The achievement levels have been challenged by expert groups again and again, for lacking validity. They are set by subjective decision making panels. There is nothing scientific about them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks!
LikeLike
“The assessments have some validity,”
No, they don’t. There are so many invalidities and falsehoods in the onto-epistemological foundations of the standards and testing malpractice regime that render using the results “vain and illusory” as N. Wilson has proven. To understand why see his never refuted nor rebutted 1997 dissertation “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error.” Or read my book “Infidelity to Truth: Education Malpractice in American Public Education. If you would like an electronic copy gratis, email me at swackerduane@gmail.com.
LikeLike
Being a logophile, I have always wondered how anyone ever confused “proficient” with grade-level. I mean, it’s right there in the dictionary. Synonyms are accomplished, adept, expert, masterful, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Ginny. This has always bothered TF out of me!
LikeLike
Bob, can you please let me know how to access your reading article that cites Diane McGuinness? I want to share with a colleague.
Thank you!
Harriett
LikeLike
Thanks, Harriet. Here it is:
LikeLike
Thanks, Bob. You might be interested in a (nonprofit) instructional guide to reading that I have self-published, From Sound to Summary: Braiding the Reading Rope to Make Words Make Sense. From the back cover:
In 2000 The National Reading Panel published a report documenting the research supporting what are now commonly called the Big Five Pillars of Reading: Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension. This report emphasized these essential literacy components but did not fully flesh out the relationships between them to indicate where and how these five elements of skilled reading fall under the two domains of reading as expressed in the Simple View of Reading equation: Word Recognition x Language Comprehension = Reading Comprehension. From Sound to Summary: Braiding the Reading Rope to Make Words Make Sense reframes the Big Five through the strands of Hollis Scarborough’s Reading Rope. It draws upon the brain activation—hearing, speaking, seeing, understanding, remembering, and analyzing—involved in processing each of those strands: six processes—six chapters. Instructional choices matter greatly, now more than ever, because teachers are under a time crunch in the classroom as students’ needs mount and time decreases to meet these needs: physical, social, emotional, and academic. This instructional guide to reading provides suggestions for integrating literacy components into curricular routines that maximize instruction while minimizing the time allocated to literacy lessons.
LikeLike
Of course I would be interested, Harriet! How can I get a copy?
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
Amazon. Would love to hear your thoughts! Thank you
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=from+sound+to+summary&i=stripbooks&crid=JM322BHJ9DH6&sprefix=from+sound+to+summary%2Cstripbooks%2C142&ref=nb_sb_noss_2
LikeLike
I’ll let you know!!! Warm regards, Harriett!
LikeLike
Thanks, Harriet. I found it:
LikeLike
Oops. Harriett.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, the dumbing down of Republican voters to the MAGARINO level (that’s below sea level), means most of them willingly believe any lies they’re told and never fact check.
LikeLike
S.O.S. My students and I need help. We are in immediate distress. Using test scores to slander us in our public school in order to fuel a privatization locomotive with no driver and no brakes was yesterday’s problem, merely the tip of the iceberg, and we are now racing to the bottom of the cold sea on a technological hubris Titanic. We have entered a “next gen”, AI era of danger. S.O.S. Repeat, S.O.S. Education is getting sunk.
Competency Based Education is taking over. Secretary Cardona is aiding and abetting it. It is becoming impossible for me to teach my students anything. It is becoming impossible for my students to learn anything. My school district, the second largest in the country, in a state that has laws against collecting and selling student data, bought iReady. Three tests a year in addition to the California mandated SBAC interim and summative tests and the ELPAC tests for ELLs. But the tests are no longer the most prescient problem.
The problem is that online iReady test prep is being forced on us. My school is now required by the district to replace at least an hour a week of instruction with iReady “lessons”. The scare quotes are due the fact that it’s not instructive. It’s answering questions in a video game format. There’s no teaching involved. Answer a question right, earn a badge, and fight the next monster. Answer a question wrong, and your avatar dies and you start over. That’s not exactly a five step lesson plan, is it. It’s “education” at the ITT Tech level. And how many data are being gathered and sold?
Thank you if you’ve followed me thus far. My point is this: It matters less than it used to what ‘grade level’ or ‘proficient’ mean. Competency Based Education uses micro-credentials to sell more online test prep products to everyone. Everyone. Even my best students who score “proficient” or “advanced” still are forced to do the test prep and lose meaningful instruction time. Every student in my public school is being marketed and marketed to, no matter what his or her test scores may be. NO student is left behind anything other than the 8-ball. EVERY student succeeds — in learning nothing.
S.O.S. Please help us.
LikeLike
CBE is an extension of mastery learning which was tried back in the 60s-70s and found to be quite lacking. More of the same now, eh!
LikeLike