Washington, DC, June 7, 2007 – A report released today by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) titled Mapping 2005 State Proficiency Standards onto the NAEP Scales compares proficiency scores for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to individual state proficiency scores. In this report, state proficiency standards in reading and math have been mapped onto the NAEP scale using a methodology employed in the past by numerous educational researchers. CCSSO has reviewed the report and has several general comments.

The Council does not take issue with the methodology of the report and feels NAEP is a valuable assessment tool, particularly because it crosses state lines and allows for international comparisons. However, there is a foundational difference between the purpose of NAEP and the purpose of state exams. There is common agreement that the bar for NAEP proficiency is set at an ideal level for students to achieve, whereas state exams focus on where students need to be for successful lives beyond their K–12 public education. The National Assessment Governing Board, the body that determines the level of NAEP proficiency, clearly states, “Nor is performance at the Proficient level synonymous with ‘proficiency’ in the subject. That is, students who may be considered proficient in a subject, given the common usage of the term, might not satisfy the requirements for performance at the NAEP achievement level.”

The Council also believes a more accurate comparison of scores exists between NAEP basic and state proficiency standards as opposed to NAEP proficiency and state proficiency standards, as the NCES report compares. A recently released report from the Center on Education Policy cites numerous sources, including the U.S. secretary of education, showing that the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) proficiency level is more appropriately linked to the NAEP basic level. Simply comparing percent proficient across tests overlooks much of the hard work states have undertaken since the passage of NCLB, including development and implementation of new standards and assessments, accountability plans, and teacher quality plans.

“We have few concerns about the report itself, but major concerns about how it may be interpreted through simplification, distortion, or erroneous conclusions,” stated Gene Wilhoit. “It is disappointing to see individuals use the results of a narrow study to criticize states for working as hard as they can to comply with a one-size fits all law.”

CCSSO’s Education Information Management Advisory Consortium (EIMAC) commissioned two papers by Ed Haertel (Stanford University) and Andrew Ho (University of Iowa) to provide a critique of the studies: (Over)-Interpreting Mappings of State Performance Standards onto the NAEP Scale and Apples to Apples? The Underlying Assumptions of State-NAEP Comparisons.

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions. CCSSO provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues. The Council seeks members’ consensus on major educational issues and expresses their views to civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress, and the public.