0.7 Ward, s. (february 2009). what every educator should know about  (Page 3/7)

While NCLB requires all students to be proficient in math and reading by the year 2014, it also allows each state to create statewide testing programs and to determine their own level of proficiency (Peterson&Hess, 2006). Because NCLB allows the states to determine the content of these tests and what constitutes proficiency, researchers have already noted a pattern whereby states lower passing thresholds and otherwise “dumb down” state tests to achieve increased proficiency and avoid federal sanctions (Hickok&Ladner, 2007; Greene, Winters,&Forster, 2003). Some educators argue that states can manipulate the test results by lowering the bar that determines the cut scores for the proficient category, thereby allowing more students to pass (Shakrani, 2007). Because much of education policy and practice has historically been left to the states, there are variations in the level of rigor in both the scope of content standards and the meaning of test results (Mills, 2008, p. 13).

Many education experts and business groups say a patchwork of state standards are inefficient and ineffective because it prevents reliable or valid comparisons between states on core academic areas of mathematics, science, and English. They contend that students in states with low standards will have trouble competing in the global economy or in post secondary education (Shakrani, 2007).

The ambiguity of proficiency

The national and state accountability systems clearly delineate the numerical targets necessary to earn Adequate Yearly Progress. However, the specific domains covered in state tests vary dramatically (Fuller, Gesicki, Kang,&Wright, 2006); moreover, the performance standards upon which these targets are based remain unclear. For example, the California Department of Education (CDE) purports that to be proficient in English or math, students in grades 2 through 8 must achieve scores of 350 or higher on state content standards tests ranging from 150-600. Even though this numerical target is clear, when California’s definition of proficient is measured against that of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the state’s definition of proficient falls short. The California Department of Education reports that in 2007, 51% of the state’s 4th graders were proficient in English language arts and 56% of them were proficient in math. In contrast, The National Assessment of Educational Progress