State School Superintendent Patricia I. Wright
by James A. Bacon
Normally, the National Center of Educational Statistics measures the educational achievement of students — are they proficient at reading and math, or are they falling behind? Earlier this month, NAEP issued a different kind of report. This one compared the educational standards of the 50 states with those of the federal government.
And it appears that state standards are, if not entirely falling behind, not measuring up.
“Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales” compares how many 4th-grade and 8th-grade children achieve “proficiency” when measured by state standards and when measured by NAEP standards. Among the key findings: (1) state standards vary widely, and (2) most states’ standards for proficiency below the NAEP’s standard for basic performance. Indeed, comparing 2009 results with 2007 results, it more states relaxed reading and math standards rather than tightened them.
Among the states falling far short of national standards is Virginia. This year, using the NAEP standards as a common benchmark, the commonwealth’s standards ranked among the lowest in the country. For 4th grade readers, only six states performed worse. For 8th grade readers, only five states did more dismally. The results for math were only a tiny bit less discouraging. (Note: Low standards don’t necessarily translate into low achievement. It simply reflects the fact that far more kids met Virginia’s definition of “proficiency” than met the NAEP’s definition.)
Here’s the chart showing how Virginia’s 4th grade reading standards stack up compared to those of other states, using the NAEP tests as a benchmark. It ain’t a pretty picture. (Click on chart to view more legible image.)
So, how did Virginia’s educational leaders react? The day after the federal report was published, Secretary of Education Patricia I. Wright issued a prepared statement contending that the 10-year-old accountability system established by the No Child Left Behind Act “has outlived its usefulness and should be overhauled.”
Why does all this matter? The rubber meets the road in the Adequate Yearly Progress rating, which measures how well school districts and individual schools are doing in meeting the federal standards, which are ratcheting higher each year. School districts that fall short suffer sanctions such as a mandate that they offer students the option of transferring to a higher-performing school.
Said Wright: ““Accountability is not advanced by arbitrary rules and benchmarks that misidentify schools. During the coming weeks, I will begin a discussion with the state board on creating a new model for measuring yearly progress that maintains high expectations for student achievement, recognizes growth – overall and by subgroup – and accurately identifies schools most in need of improvement.”
Maybe Wright has a legitimate beef. It wouldn’t be the first time that a federal agency set arbitrary and capricious standards. But I see no explanation in her press release of just exactly how the federal standards are unreasonable. Indeed, measuring school districts against a national standard of proficiency is one of the few legitimate contributions that the federal government can make in education. I wait with great anticipation the results of Ms. Wright’s discussion on state standards.
