Mapping State Proficiency Standards

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as The Nation’s Report Card™, is an assessment program conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to inform the public of what elementary and secondary students in the United States know and can do in various subject areas, including reading, mathematics, and science.

Since 1969, NAEP has been a common measure of student achievement across the country. The NAEP program includes Long-Term Trend NAEP and Main NAEP. Long-Term Trend NAEP monitors trends and reports student performance based on nationally representative samples of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds. Main NAEP reflects current educational content and assessment methodology and measures performance of students in grades 4, 8, and 12 at the national level. Main NAEP also reports results of grades 4 and 8 reading and mathematics for participating states and selected large urban school districts.

The National Assessment Governing Board oversees and sets policy for the NAEP program. Additional information about Main NAEP is available at https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/assessments/.

Formally titled Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales: Results From the 2017 NAEP Reading and Mathematics Assessments, this report is the seventh in the series. NCES produced this report to present findings from a study that compares states’ reading and mathematics standards for proficient performance in grades 4 and 8 using NAEP as the common metric. In the report, NAEP equivalent scores are estimated for state proficiency standards using state public school assessment results for the 2016–17 school year as well as 2017 NAEP assessment results in reading and mathematics for grades 4 and 8. For the second time, this report includes standards for three testing programs: ACT Aspire (ACT), Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). The findings in this report indicate that while states continue to have different definitions of student proficiency, those definitions are becoming more rigorous, and differences among state standards have narrowed over the past decade. In 2017, most state proficiency standards mapped at the NAEP Basic achievement level. Only Massachusetts set expectations for proficient performance on all of its assessments that mapped at the NAEP Proficient achievement level.

Under the 2001 and 2015 reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, states are required to define and report their standards for grades 4 and 8 reading and mathematics. However, since each state independently develops or chooses assessments to measure its students’ knowledge and skills and sets standards for determining its students’ performance, it is not possible to compare state standards unless they are placed or mapped on a common scale. Because all states participate in NAEP for these grades and subjects, per a federal law, NAEP can be used as the common metric to compare the relative stringency of states’ proficiency standards.

Note that the comparison of state standards presented in the report is not intended to suggest that any findings reflect deficiencies in the design of or standards for either state assessments or NAEP assessments. State assessments and NAEP assessments may vary in purpose, format, and administration for various reasons.

NAEP achievement levels are developed by the National Assessment Governing Board, an organization within the U.S. Department of Education that makes policies for NAEP. A broadly representative panel of teachers, specialists interested in the nation’s education, policymakers, and members of the general public help refine and review NAEP achievement levels. Learn more about the NAEP achievement levels.

Achievement levels differ across grades and subjects assessed by NAEP. In general, the NAEP Proficient achievement level demonstrates solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter. Under NAEP's legislation, NAEP achievement levels are to be used on a “trial basis” and interpreted with caution until the Commissioner of NCES determines that the achievement levels are reasonable, valid, and informative to the public. Visit the NCES website to view a detailed description of NAEP achievement levels by grade and subject as well as sample questions that students are to correctly answer at each achievement level.

NAEP achievement levels indicate what students should know and be able to do according to the National Assessment Governing Board. The board sets the aspirational goal that all students should reach the NAEP Proficient achievement level.

Performance standards for students can serve different purposes. States may construct their standards for the same purpose as NAEP, or they may use them to define minimum competency, determine promotion to the next grade, or address other purposes. Note that reaching the NAEP Proficient level is not necessarily the same as reaching a state’s standard for proficient performance at a given grade level.

This report is a comparison of performance standards, not of student achievement. NAEP achievement scores of states’ student populations would be a better measure to compare achievement across states than where states set their bar for proficiency.

Some states are not included in the report for various reasons. New Hampshire was not included in the 2017 mapping report for either grade or subject because the state did not use the same assessment for all students in either grade or subject. Puerto Rico was not included in 2017 for grades 4 and 8 reading because the NAEP reading assessments were not administered in the jurisdiction. Some other states were not included for grade 8 because these states did not require all eligible grade 8 students to take a general reading or mathematics assessment, as some students took end-of-course tests such as English I, algebra I, or geometry. As a result, the student population assessed by the state may not necessarily be the same student population assessed by NAEP. The following table lists states that were not included in the 2017 mapping report by grade and subject.

The 2017 results were compared with results from two earlier years: 2007 (to show longer-term change) and 2015 (to show immediate change). Although 2005 and earlier years of mapping results were available, 2007 was chosen for the longer-term comparison for two reasons. First, the 10-year timeframe for the comparison is one that readers find intuitive and meaningful. Second, the 2007 data included a larger number of states than did the 2005 data. The two figures for each grade and subject combination in the report compare the number of states whose state standards are classified into the NAEP achievement levels across years. This comparison is meaningful only if data are available for states in all years being compared, and using 2007 data allows for more states to be included.

A state’s proficiency standard is determined to be in a given NAEP achievement level range if its NAEP equivalent score is statistically significantly lower than the cut score of the next highest achievement level. For example, using the grade 4 reading assessment as an illustration, if the NAEP score equivalent to a state standard is 235 points with a standard error of 1 point, the upper limit of the margin of error is 237 (235 + 2 x 1), which is lower than the cut score of the NAEP Proficient level (238). Thus, this state’s standard is categorized in the NAEP Basic level. If, however, the state’s score is 235 points with a standard error of 2 points, the upper limit of the margin of error is 239 (235 + 2 x 2), which is higher than the cut score of the NAEP Proficient level. Therefore, this state’s standard would be categorized in the NAEP Proficient level.

Yes, it is possible for the NAEP equivalent scores for one year to be statistically different from those of another year for the same state, even though there were no changes in the state’s assessments or cut scores for performance standards. It is also possible for a group of states that used the same assessment and had the same cut scores for performance standards to have different NAEP equivalent scores when estimated for each state separately. In such cases, further investigation can help ascertain the factors that may have contributed to those differences. In general, changes in the state assessment are a likely reason for changes in the NAEP equivalent scores. However, other factors could lead to these differences. For example, from one assessment year to the next, changes in classroom instructional practices or curricula might have placed more emphasis on subject matter covered more on the state assessments than on the NAEP assessments, or changes in state exclusion policies might have changed the rates of participation of students with disabilities and/or English learners in the state assessments or NAEP assessments.