A new report confirms what we already know: NAEP’s definition of proficiency is too high, as shown by the fact that only a handful of Asian countries could do better than the U.S.  On the other hand, here is general agreement that many states are setting their own proficiency bars too low.  The extreme example is Mississippi, where 71 percent fewer are “proficient” on NAEP than on the state assessment. And Mississippi has plenty of company---every state has a gap between the percentage of students deemed proficient on NAEP and the percentage on the state assessment.

So, Goldilocks, what’s a just right standard of proficiency?  And what to do about the current inconsistency? The "sunshine and shame" tactic of comparing NAEP results to state standards is getting policymakers' attention now but will get tiresome after years of little or no change. Allowing states to do what they want, including lowering proficiency standards, is equally problematic for a Congress and administration touting an education law that is supposedly built upon high standards and accountability.

I am not sure what "just right" is, but the AFT is recommending what could be a compromise until everyone figures it out: grants to consortia of states to develop common standards, assessments and curricula as a step toward consistency and higher quality.