The term “proficient” is commonly used to describe a level of adequate skill or competence. Someone might say they are proficient in cooking, driving, or a foreign language, implying they are reasonably capable. However, in specific contexts, particularly in education, the word “proficient” carries a much deeper and more rigorous meaning. This is especially true when discussing assessments like the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often referred to as “The Nation’s Report Card.” Understanding the nuances of “proficient” is crucial for accurately interpreting educational data and having informed discussions about student achievement.
The NAEP Definition of Proficient: A Higher Standard
Since 1990, NAEP has been a key indicator of student performance across the United States. It defines proficiency not merely as competence, but as “demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter.” This definition, as experts interpret it, signifies a high level of academic achievement, far beyond basic competence.
This elevated definition often clashes with the general understanding of “proficient.” While many might consider proficient to be simply “good enough,” NAEP uses it to represent mastery of complex material. This discrepancy leads to significant confusion, especially when NAEP scores are released and analyzed by the media and the public.
For example, when NAEP releases its biennial scores, headlines often highlight that only a percentage of students—typically between 30 to 40 percent of 4th and 8th graders—are “proficient” in subjects like math and reading. This statistic can be easily misinterpreted to mean that the majority of students are failing or underperforming. However, this interpretation is based on the common understanding of “proficient,” not NAEP’s rigorous standard.
Critics argue that NAEP’s demanding definition of “proficient” can have unintended negative consequences. It may contribute to setting unrealistically high standards in curricula like Common Core, potentially demoralizing educators and administrators. Furthermore, it can lead to unwarranted anxiety and disappointment among the general public regarding the state of education, overshadowing actual progress. Observers point out that student performance in the US has been improving, especially in the long term, and NAEP’s terminology can obscure these positive trends.
Peggy Carr, associate commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the agency overseeing NAEP, acknowledges this confusion. “We have gotten an earful from our stakeholders about the confusion of the word ‘proficient’ as we use it,” she states. “We get it, and we are trying to communicate this discrepancy, but it’s just not an easy task.”
Moving Beyond “Proficient”: Understanding Achievement Levels
To provide a more comprehensive picture of student performance, NAEP categorizes scores into three achievement levels: basic, proficient, and advanced. According to Dr. Carr, to accurately gauge how many students are performing at their grade level, it is more informative to examine the “basic” scores rather than focusing solely on “proficient.”
If media reports shifted their focus to the “basic” category, the narrative around educational achievement could change significantly. For instance, instead of emphasizing low proficiency rates, headlines might highlight that approximately 68 percent of 4th graders in the US perform at or above grade level in reading, and 80 percent in math. For 8th graders, these figures are 76 percent and 70 percent, respectively. While overall scores may show stability compared to previous years, a focus on “basic” levels provides a more positive and nuanced view of student progress. It is also important to note concerns about equity, as data indicates that while high-performing students have shown improvement, the lowest-performing students have unfortunately regressed in some areas.
When proficiency rates are correctly understood within NAEP’s framework, they reveal significant long-term progress. National proficiency rates in 4th and 8th-grade math have dramatically increased since the early 1990s, doubling and tripling respectively. Reading proficiency has also seen substantial growth for both grades, increasing by half.
Sarah Theule Lubienski, a professor of math education at Indiana University, suggests that NAEP’s ambitious standards may have contributed to these gains. She notes NAEP’s influence on the math education reform movement around 1990, which introduced more advanced concepts like algebra, probability, and geometry into elementary education.
“NAEP was really out ahead… pushing the envelope and saying, ‘This is what we think students should know,’” Lubienski explains. “It’s all in the name of holding high standards for students, making sure there is plenty of room to grow, and that has been achieved.”
While proficiency level improvements have plateaued since 2009-2010, following the widespread adoption of curriculum changes from the 1990s, this plateau should not overshadow the “incredible gains” made over the preceding decades.
Tom Loveless, an education policy analyst and former senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, emphasizes just how demanding NAEP’s “proficient” standard is. He points out that to achieve math proficiency in 8th grade today, students must master concepts equivalent to those expected of 12th graders in 1990. concepts as a 12th grader in 1990.
Dr. Loveless cautions against misusing these statistics to support a narrative of educational failure. He argues that some groups with a reformist agenda may exploit NAEP proficiency data to exaggerate the shortcomings of the US education system.
“There is a huge group of people who want to tell everyone, ‘Look how bad our schools are,’ and ‘Look how ignorant our kids are,’ and they seize on [NAEP proficiency] because it fits their argument,” Loveless states.
Exploring Alternatives to “Proficient”
Carr clarifies that the confusion surrounding “proficient” is not intentional on the part of NCES. The terminology was established in 1988, prior to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002, which adopted “proficient” to denote grade-level performance, further complicating NAEP’s original definition.
“The confusion really got started long after we released our naming convention,” Carr explains.
Changing NAEP’s terminology now would require policy adjustments by the National Assessment Governing Board, composed of 26 political figures, educators, and experts appointed by the Department of Education. For an assessment that relies on year-over-year comparisons for its credibility, altering established terms presents a significant challenge.
A report by the National Superintendents Roundtable (NSR) and the Horace Mann League, titled “How High the Bar?,” suggests adopting benchmarks used in international assessments like PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Survey) and TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study).
These international assessments utilize achievement levels such as low, intermediate, high, and advanced. James Harvey, executive director of NSR, argues that these terms offer a more neutral and less loaded way to present student scores, avoiding the potentially misleading connotations of “basic” and “proficient.” He suggests that replacing NAEP’s current terms with PIRLS and TIMSS’s four-level system would be a straightforward adjustment, allowing NAEP to maintain its scoring consistency while improving clarity.
“We tried to make it clear that we don’t mind high standards, we just want them labeled correctly,” Harvey concludes. “If they would stop using ‘proficient’ and replace with ‘high,’ we would be quite happy.”
In conclusion, while “proficient” in common language suggests competence, NAEP employs a much more rigorous definition, signifying a high level of mastery. Understanding this distinction is critical for accurately interpreting educational data and appreciating the progress and challenges within the US education system. Recognizing the different achievement levels and considering alternative terminologies can lead to more informed and constructive conversations about student success.
