Editorial
When it comes to measuring how well children read, numbers can mislead as easily as inform. The Chicago Tribune recently blasted Illinois for “moving the goalposts” by lowering cut scores for proficiency on new state tests, while Nebraska has set a bold goal of reaching 75% proficient in reading by 2030 (Nebraska.tv). Both discussions lean heavily on a single statistic — percent proficient — as though it were an objective truth. It is not.
Proficiency is not a naturally occurring milestone waiting to be discovered. It is a policy choice. States establish cut scores based on achievement level descriptors (ALDs) that outline what it means to perform at “basic,” “proficient,” or “advanced.” On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), for example, “proficient” often requires analyzing complex or challenging texts. That is a commendable aspiration, but it is not synonymous with “at grade level.” A student can be reading at grade level and still fall below NAEP’s definition of proficiency.
The Tribune editorial ignores this nuance. By decrying lowered thresholds, it assumes that the original cut scores were the “true” markers of proficiency. But Illinois, like every state, has the authority and, indeed, the responsibility to align its benchmarks with what the state’s curriculum and assessments are designed to measure. Moving from the SAT to the ACT or adjusting state test standards does not automatically mean lowering expectations. It means recalibrating measures to fit the content being taught and the purposes the state needs the tests to serve.
The more important issue is whether Illinois will ensure proper equating of its new tests with the old ones. Psychometricians have developed multiple methods (equipercentile equating, etc.) that allow results from different assessments to be placed on a comparable scale. With sound equating, we can track performance trends over time even when the underlying tests change. To suggest otherwise, as the Tribune does, is to mislead the public into thinking comparability is impossible when, in fact, it is a well-established practice.
Nebraska’s case shows the flip side of the same coin. Setting a target of 75 percent proficiency is only meaningful once we understand where the cut score is set. If the line is drawn higher, fewer students will meet it; if drawn lower, more will. Because student performance tends to follow a roughly normal distribution, any chosen benchmark will slice the curve differently, and the percentage above or below will shift accordingly. That does not make the goal illegitimate, but it does remind us that the benchmark is not a fact of nature. It is a policy decision reflecting the ambitions and priorities of state leaders.
Parents and educators deserve honesty about what “percent proficient” really means. When headlines scream about declines, or when states trumpet goals for future gains, readers should know those numbers rest on human judgments about where to place the cut score on a single test given over just a few days of a 180-day school year. Lowering standards won’t help children read better, but neither will inflating expectations beyond what’s realistic for most students. The real work lies in teaching. It lies in helping every child learn to read fluently and critically while using assessments to guide instruction and allocate resources.
We do students no favors when we let debates over test cut scores eclipse the underlying mission. Illinois’s change of assessments should be judged on whether it produces more useful data for teachers and families, not on whether it maintains arbitrary old thresholds. Nebraska’s literacy plan should be evaluated on whether it leads to stronger readers, not on whether it meets a politically convenient percentage target. If we reduce education to “percent proficient,” we risk mistaking the scoreboard for the game.
