Common Core

The National Center for Education Statistics’ big report on state proficiency standards was released this morning. (Also see Fordham’s previous work on the subject.)

From the report:

“In grade 4 reading, 31 states set grade 4 standards for proficiency (as measured on the NAEP scale) that were lower than the cut point for Basic performance on NAEP (208). In grade 8 reading, 15 states set standards that were lower than the Basic performance on NAEP (243).”

Math proficiency standards were not much better:

“In grade 4 mathematics, seven states set standards for proficiency (as measured on the NAEP scale) that were lower than the Basic performance on NAEP (214). In grade 8 mathematics, eight states set standards that were lower than the Basic performance on NAEP (262).”

The report also finds:

“Most of the variation (approximately 70 percent) from state to state in the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on state tests can be explained by the variation in the level of difficulty of state standards for proficient performance. States with higher standards (as measured on the NAEP scale) had fewer students scoring proficient on state tests.”

The report (PDF) can be read here.

Readers of this blog know we’re NCLB skeptics. So we were more than a little suspicious when we saw NCLB boosters crediting the law for the recent uptick in NAEP scores. Common Core co-chairman Diane Ravitch also was skeptical, so she mined the data and found the real story: NCLB is slowing achievement. Especially for minorities. Read her analysis here:

There are many ways to interpret the latest test scores released by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is why press reports have been so inconsistent. The New York Times pointed out that racial gaps were not narrowing, which was the point of No Child Left Behind. The scores showed higher performance since the 1970s, but the biggest gains were made by black and Hispanic students in the 1970s and 1980s. Margaret Spellings saw the scores as vindication of NCLB, saying that the results were best in grades 3-8, where the law focused.

The first thing that the public should understand is that there are two different versions of NAEP. There is “Main NAEP,” which tests American students (national, states, and certain cities) every other year in reading and mathematics at grades 4 and 8 (and occasionally tests other subjects as well, such as science, history, civics, writing, etc.). The other version of NAEP is called “Long Term Trend,” which tests only reading and math and is given nationally (not by state and not by city) every four years. Unlike Main NAEP, Long Term Trend NAEP tests students at ages 9, 13, and 17. The latest release is not Main NAEP (which will report later this year on the 2009 testing) but Long Term Trend NAEP. The results of Main NAEP and Long Term Trend NAEP are not precisely the same, because the tests are not precisely the same. Whereas Main NAEP is periodically revised to reflect state frameworks and professional consensus, Long Term Trend NAEP has essentially the same questions and content across many assessments (content has been periodically updated to remove obsolete items, such as a reference to “green stamps” or some technology that has disappeared).

So let’s take a look at the scores. At age 9, reading scores were up significantly from 2004 to 2008 by four points, from an average of 216 to 220. But the scores preceding NCLB increased even more from 1999 to 2004 (five years rather than four) by seven points. So the rate of progress did not increase and possibly decreased after NCLB. At age 13, reading scores were up significantly from 2004 to 2008, from 257 to 260. This is a finding that conflicts with Main NAEP, where eighth grade scores have been flat for the past 20 years. It should be noted, however, that the average score for age 13 (260) is identical to the score posted in 1992. So while there was a gain from 2004 to 2008, that gain takes achievement back to where it was 17 years ago. At age 17, reading scores are also up significantly, from 283 to 286. But too soon to pop the champagne corks, because this score is lower than it was in several previous assessments. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was 290.

In mathematics, there was a significant gain for 9-year-olds, whose scores rose four points from 2004 to 2008. But this was a smaller gain than the one posted from 1999-2004, which went from 232 to 241. The 13-year-olds saw a significant gain too of two points (from 279 to 281), which was smaller than the previous assessment, which was five points higher (from 276 to 281). The scores of 17-year-olds did not change. Indeed, they have barely budged since 1973. With the exception of a brief fall and rise in the 1980s, math scores at this age have been flat.

As for the racial gaps, the biggest improvement occurred between 1999 and 2004, when the gap between black and white students was reduced by 9 points, from 35 to 26 points. Since NCLB, from 2004 to 2008, the gap has shrunk by 3 points, from 27 to 24 points. At age 13, the black-white gap shrunk by four points, from 25 to 21; but from 1999 to 2004, it narrowed by seven points, from 29 to 22. At age 17, the black-white gap is 29 points, larger than in 2004, and much larger than it was in 1988, when it was only 20 points.

Thus, when one looks at the patterns, it suggests the following: First, our students are making gains, though not among 17-year-olds. Second, the gains they have made since NCLB are smaller than the gains they made in the years preceding NCLB. Third, even when they are significant, the gains are small. Fourth, the Long Term Trend data are not a resounding endorsement of NCLB. If anything, the slowing of the rate of progress suggests that NCLB is not a powerful instrument to improve student performance.

Diane Ravitch