This weekend brought another call for states to create tests as "rigorous" as NAEP, in the form of a New York Times editorial titled "Real Tests for Real Children." Despite the headline, the editorialists seem to be out of touch with the reality of NAEP tests and cut scores.

They write:

Instead of moving toward the educational excellence that the country needs to compete in the global economy, many states opted for dumbed-down tests and deliberate sleight of hand to create the fraudulent appearance of progress.  As a result, states that perform well with their own watered-down exams do shockingly poorly when their students take the far more rigorous federal test known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

The first sentence expresses dismay that states are gaming the system to deal with AYP, though the editorialists ignore AYP's inability to measure progress accurately. The second sentence links national standards, national tests, and federal funding to NAEP proficiency levels and NCLB's 100% proficiency requirement.  Combining NAEP proficiency and NCLB's 100% target is a recipe for disaster.  (We've written about this before, but it's one of those bad, Hydra-like ideas that keeps coming back.)  

The AFT's recommendations for reauthorizing NCLB include grants for voluntary consortia of states to develop common academic standards, curriculum and assessments to provide more consistency in the definition of proficiency and growth across participating states.  We continue to support high standards and rigorous tests. 

But here's why relying on NAEP proficiency levels is over the top.  In 1995 the National Education Goals Panel published a study suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect 100% of students to reach NAEP's "proficient" level.  Researchers converted scores for the top-performing countries on an international exam (called the IAEP) to NAEP-equivalent scores and found that even the top-performing countries fell far short of 50% proficiency.  Taiwan, for example, finished first in the world in 8th grade math and science, but just 41% of Taiwan's students scored at the "proficient" or "advanced" levels on this test.

Another NCES study, linking state NAEP results with TIMSS scores, showed that some states competed very well with the top countries. Only Singapore out-performed Wisconsin, for example, but in the 19 times that Wisconsin's students have taken NAEP exams, the state has never broken the 50% percent NAEP proficiency threshold.

It seems that no country or state has ever had 50% of students performing at the level of NAEP proficiency. Yet the Times seems to be recommending that we shoot for NAEP proficiency for 100% of students.  The Times' editorialists should understand that they are asking America's students to fly twice as high as any other group of students, anywhere else in the world, has ever flown.  That isn't a noble call for rigororous tests, high standards and accountability.  It's an awful, unrealistic recommendation that would put a federal "failure" stamp on large numbers of teachers and schools -- even if America's students outperform those in every other nation.