educationnext.org SUMMER 2016 / EDUCATION NEXT 9
feature
by PAUL E. PETERSON, SAMUEL BARROWS, and THOMAS GIFT
IN SPITE OF TEA PARTY CRITICISM, union skepticism, and
anti-testing outcries, the campaign to implement Common
Core State Standards (otherwise known as Common Core) has
achieved phenomenal success in statehouses across the country.
Since 2011, 45 states have raised their standards for student
proficiency in reading and math, with the greatest gains occurring
between 2013 and 2015. Most states set only mediocre
expectations for students for nearly 10 years after the passage
of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Now, in the
wake of the Common Core campaign, a majority of states have
made a dramatic move forward.
Common Core State Standards
In 2009, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State
School Officers formed a consortium that established Common
Core. Put simply, the standards outlined what students should know
and be able to accomplish at each grade level in reading and math.
Forty-five states raise
the student proficiency bar
AFTER
COMMON
CORE,
STATES SET
RIGOROUS
STANDARDS
10 EDUCATION NEXT / SUMMER 2016 educationnext.org
feature
STATE STANDARDS PETERSON, BARROWS & GIFT
Eventually, 43 states and the District of Columbia fully
adopted Common Core, while one other state, Minnesota,
adopted only the reading standards. Although much of the
debate surrounding Common Core has focused on the nature
of the curriculum for each grade level, proponents have
also sought to raise the proficiency level on tests that assess
student learning. In fact, one of the consortium’s central
goals has been to encourage states to set their proficiency
standards on par with those set internationally.
To motivate states to adopt Common Core standards, the
U.S. Department of Education provided incentives in 2009
via its Race to the Top initiative. The department announced
a competition that would award grants totaling more than
$4.3 billion to states that proposed to undertake reforms
drawn from an extensive list provided by the department.
Adopting “college-and-career-ready” standards was among
the recommended reforms. All but four states submitted
Race to the Top proposals, and 18 states and the District of
Columbia received awards.
Subsequently, the Department of Education further
encouraged states to adopt Common Core by offering waivers
from NCLB requirements, which many states had found
increasingly onerous, in exchange for pursuing departmentapproved
alternatives similar to those suggested as part of
Race to the Top.
The priority given to Common Core by both Race to
the Top and the waiver program provoked outcry among
some conservatives, who feared that the national standards
would both undermine local control of schools and lower
expectations for students. “The Common Core national
math standards are not ‘internationally benchmarked,’ … not
world class and competitive with the best … and not ‘second
to none’ (though advertised as such when announced),”
testified Hoover Institution researcher Williamson Evers
before the Ohio legislature. Similarly, Jamie Gass at the
Pioneer Institute in Boston declared, “Common Core is
dumbed down.”
Meanwhile, teachers unions also expressed trepidation
that Common Core standards would be used to assess teachers,
especially since test-based evaluations of teachers ranked
high on the Race to the Top agenda. The District of Columbia
Public Schools, for example, had introduced such evaluations
over heavy union opposition, and teachers unions across the
country mobilized against accountability systems that leveraged
statewide tests as a basis for evaluating their members.
With opposition mounting in both liberal and conservative
circles, support for Common Core slipped significantly
among the public at large, casting doubt on its very viability.
But despite staunch political dissent, a careful look at proficiency
standards reveals that most states have delivered on
their commitments to tighten them.
Measuring State Proficiency Standards
Beginning in 2005, Education Next has published the
grades given to state proficiency standards on an A-to-F scale
designed by researchers in the Program on Education Policy
and Governance (PEPG) at Harvard University. In 2005,
only six states received an “A,” while just three states earned
this distinction as recently as 2011. In 2015, however, 24 of
the 49 states (including the District of Columbia) for which
data were available as of mid-January 2016 earned an “A.”
Meanwhile, the number of states receiving a “D” or an “F”
has dwindled from 17 and 13 in 2005 and 2011, respectively,
to a grand total of 1 in 2015 (See Figure 1). In short, state
standards have suddenly skyrocketed.
State proficiency standards were initially required when
Congress passed NCLB in 2002. Under that law and continuing
under its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA), the U.S. Department of Education has required states
to test students in math and reading in grades 3 through 8
and again in high school. States must also set the performance
level that students must reach on the exams to be identified
as “proficient.” States report proficiency rates for each school
as well as for the state as a whole. Importantly, each state
chooses its own tests and establishes its own proficiency bar.
Federal law also mandates the periodic administration of
tests in selected subjects to a representative sample of students
in 4th and 8th grade as part of the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called “the nation’s
report card.” The performance levels that the NAEP deems as
proficient are roughly equivalent to those set by international
organizations that estimate student proficiency worldwide.
Data from both the NAEP and state tests allow for periodic
assessments of the rigor of each state’s proficiency standards.
If the percentage of students identified as proficient in any
given year is essentially the same for both the NAEP and the
state exams, we can infer that the state has established as
strict a proficiency standard as that of the NAEP. But if the
state identifies a higher percentage of students as proficient
than the NAEP, we can conclude that the state has set its
The last two years have witnessed the largest jump
in state standards since they were established as part
of the federal accountability program.
educationnext.org SUMMER 2016 / EDUCATION NEXT 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Rhode Island
Colorado
Maryland
New Mexico
Arkansas
New Jersey
Kansas
North Dakota
New York
District of Columbia
Illinois
Montana
Alaska
Vermont
Utah
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Arizona
Maine
Georgia
Connecticut
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Idaho
Nevada
West Virginia
California
Massachusetts
Michigan
Louisiana
Washington
Wyoming
Delaware
Oregon
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Hawaii
Minnesota
Missouri
North Carolina
Indiana
South Carolina
Ohio
Nebraska
Virginia
Oklahoma
Iowa
Texas
Florida
Wisconsin
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B+
A
A
A
A
A
B+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B+
B+
B
A
B+
A
B+
A
B+
A
B
B+
B+
B
C+
B
B-
B
B
B-
B
C+
C-
D+
C-
C-
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B+
A
A
A
B+
A
A
B
A
B+
B
B+
B+
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
C+
C
C
C-
C
C
C
C-
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B+
B+
A
A
A
B
A
A
B+
B+
A
B+
B+
B
B+
B-
B+
B-
B+
B
C+
C+
B
B
B
B
B
B-
B+
B-
C-
D+
C-
D+
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B+
B
B+
B+
C
B+
B+
B
B+
B+
B
B+
B+
B
B
B+
B
B-
C+
D+
C
C-
C-
D+
C-
D
B
D
B-
C+
C
C
C
C+
C
C-
C-
B-
D-
B
A
D-
C-
C
C-
C-
B
A
C
C-
C+
A
C
B-
F
B+
A
D-
C
A
C
C-
D-
F
C
D
C+
D-
C-
C+
B-
C-
D+
C-
C
C
C
C
D
D+
D-
D+
A
F
C-
C
D+
D
C
F
B-
A
D+
C-
C
A
C-
C
C+
F
D-
B
A
F
C-
A
C
D-
D
D-
D+
D
C
D+
C
C+
C-
C+
C
C
C-
C-
C
D-
C
D
B-
D+
D-
C+
D+
C+
F
C-
C
D+
D
C
F
B-
A
D
D+
C+
C-
D+
C-
C
F
D-
B
C+
B+
D
C-
A
C-
F
D
F
D+
D-
C
D+
C
C+
D+
C
D+
C
D
C-
D+
C
D
C
D
C+
D+
C
C+
D+
C
F
C-
C-
C-
D-
C
C
C
A
D-
D
C+
C
D+
D+
C
F
F
C
C+
B+
C-
C-
D+
C-
F
D-
C-
D+
F
C
D
C
B-
C-
C+
D
C
D
C-
C+
C
D-
C
D
C+
D+
C-
C+
C-
C
F
D+
C-
D+
D-
C
B-
C
A
D-
D
C+
D+
C
C-
C
B
F
C
C+
B
D+
D+
D+
D+
C
D
D+
D
F
C
D+
C
B-
C
C+
D
C+
D+
C
A
C-
C+
C
D+
A
D+
C
C-
C
F
D+
A
C-
D-
C
B-
C
A
B-
D
B-
C-
C-
C
B+
B
F
C
C+
B
A
D+
D+
D+
C-
C
D
C
D+
B-
A
37.3
27.6
36.5
26.1
47.6
27.7
42.9
35.2
-3.5
35.8
23.1
33.3
40.6
-1.4
37.1
23.2
31.7
22.4
51.2
34.2
-1.9
29.1
40.4
19.1
10.3
17.0
-2.6
9.9
35.8
8.8
23.5
23.8
17.4
-4.1
-0.1
44.1
18.2
7.8
-2.3
-12.1
18.3
19.1
16.3
-0.5
-8.8
0.4
-3.5
-0.6
30.6
55.6
40.1
25.3
22.2
37.2
41.2
36.9
31.8
29.9
33.6
27.2
41.5
16.9*
38.9
47.3
18.7*
38.0
-2.0
46.4
30.3
22.7
35.0
39.1
18.9
44.7
11.9
-12.2
28.1
25.0
20.0
-7.0
23.3
16.7
11.4
47.4
37.1
-1.4
8.7*
-15.2
38.1
17.2
-20.7
9.3
14.5
6.9
13.2
4.4
3.3
Rank
State
Math
Reading
Math
Reading
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B+
B+
B+
B+
B+
B+
B+
B+
B+
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C+
C+
C+
C-
C-
C-
C-
D+
2015
2013–
2015
2005–
2015
36.5
27.7
42.8
24.2
46.9
29.5
37.2
37.5
24.2
31.1
48.7
33.0
41.2
21.5
39.2
30.8
18.2
31.5
21.2
50.8
33.1
29.8
31.7
41.4
21.4
10.2
19.0
-3.8
40.3
33.4
10.4
27.5
14.9
25.5
20.3
0.6
40.2
18.2
6.3
0.7
24.5
19.8
18.9
16.9
-3.1
10.4
4.1
5.9
10.8
2011–
2015
Change in difference
between state
and NAEP
Strength of state
proficiency standards 2015 Overall averages
by year 4th grade 8th grade
*2005 data are missing; change is calculated from 2007.
NOTE: A positive number indicates narrowing the difference between the NAEP and state exams.
SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on NAEP and state exams
Rigor of State Proficiency Standards(Table 1)
Standards have strengthened in the majority of states over time, and roughly half of the states
received a grade of “A" for their standards in 2015.
12 EDUCATION NEXT / SUMMER 2016 educationnext.org
proficiency bar lower than that of the NAEP.
To be clear, high proficiency standards do not necessarily
reflect high student performance. Rather, good grades
suggest that states are setting a high proficiency bar—that
students must perform at a high level to be deemed proficient
in a given subject at their grade level. Grades gauge “truth in
advertising” by indicating the degree to which states inform
parents of how well their students are doing on an internationally
accepted scale.
Dramatic Rise in Standards
Education Next has evaluated the rigor of state proficiency
standards each time results from both state and NAEP tests
have been available for the same year. This is the seventh in
a series of reports that grade state proficiency standards on
the traditional A-to-F scale (see educationnext.org/edfacts
for a complete list of these reports). Each state earns a grade
according to the size of the difference between the percentages
of students identified as proficient by state and by NAEP
exams in 4th- and 8th-grade math and reading.
Previous reports (most recently “States Raise Proficiency
Standards in Math and Reading,” features, Summer 2015)
show that states, on average, established proficiency benchmarks
that were much lower than those set by the NAEP
and that state standards varied widely. Furthermore, prior
reports revealed that until 2011, states did not markedly
increase their proficiency standards nor did the variation
among the states narrow. If anything, trends drifted in the
opposite direction.
In Table 1, we report a grade for each state for each of four
tests (4th-grade math, 4th-grade reading, 8th-grade math,
and 8th-grade reading). An average of the underlying scores
States are earning higher grades even though it was
harderto get an“A”in 2015 than ever before.
IN EACH OF SEVEN YEARS (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009,
2011, 2013, and 2015), 4th- and 8th-grade students have
taken both state and NAEP tests in math and reading.
The grades reported here are based on a comparison of
state and NAEP scores in 2015. For each available test,
we computed the difference between the percentage
of students said to be proficient on the NAEP and the
percentage reported to be proficient on the state’s own
tests for the same year. We also computed the standard
deviation of this difference. We then determined how
many standard deviations each state’s difference was
above or below the average difference of all observations
in the seven years on each test.
The scale for the state grades was set so that if marks
had been randomly assigned and were in a normal distribution
for all grades given in all seven years, 10 percent of
the states would earn an A, 20 percent would earn a B, 40
percent a C, 20 percent a D, and 10 percent an F. The mark
given to each state is based on how much easier it is to
be labeled proficient on the state assessment than on the
NAEP. For example, on the 4th-grade math test in 2015,
Idaho reported that 43 percent of its students had achieved
at the proficient level, but only 38 percent were identified
as proficient on the NAEP, earning the state a grade of B+.
The grade of B+ is based on the fact that Idaho’s difference
in 4th-grade math (43 percent – 38 percent = 5 percentage
points) is 1.3 standard deviations better than the average
difference between the state and NAEP tests over the seven
years for all states on 4th-grade math. That average difference
is 27 percentage points.
We do not require the meeting of any stipulated cutoff
in the differences with the NAEP to award a specific grade.
Instead, we rank states against each other in accordance
with their current position in the distribution of differences
over all seven years. Because results from 2015 are
employed in calculating the average and standard deviation
for all observations, the grades for earlier years may
change from those assigned in previous reports.
When the U.S. Department of Education used an alternative
method to estimate the 2007 state proficiency
standards, its results correlated with the Education Next
results at the 0.85 level (see Paul E. Peterson, “A Year
Late and a Million (?) Dollars Long—the U.S. Proficiency
Standards Report,” Education Next Blog, August 22, 2011).
GRADING THE STATES
educationnext.org SUMMER 2016 / EDUCATION NEXT 13
feature
STATE STANDARDS PETERSON, BARROWS & GIFT
generating these grades determines
the overall grade for the state. (The
differences between state and
NAEP proficiency rates, as well as
the changes in state standards over
time, are shown in an interactive
graphic available at educationnext.
org/edfacts). Table 1 also shows
changes in standards over three
time periods: a) 2013–2015, b)
2011–2015, and c) 2005–2015.
The results are striking: The last
two years have witnessed the largest
jump in state standards since
they were established as part of the
federal accountability program.
Overall, 36 states have strengthened
their standards since 2013,
while just 5 have loosened them,
and 7 have left their standards
essentially unchanged. In short,
the Common Core consortium
has achieved one of its key policy
objectives: the raising of state
proficiency standards throughout
much of the United States.
Even more remarkable is that
states are earning higher grades
even though it was harder to get
an “A” in 2015 than ever before.
Education Next grades the individual states on a “curve”
that includes all observations from all years dating back to
2003. Until now, state standards had changed so slightly from
one year to the next that the curve made little difference.
Yet so many states raised their standards before the 2015
administration of state tests that every state in every year is
being evaluated on a tougher scale. As a result, some states
that, for example, obtained an “A” in previous studies have
been downgraded to a “B+” in 2015.
The table and the interactive graphic on the Education Next
website display the grades under the tougher grading system
that has evolved because so many states have raised their
standards. In the text, however, we refer to grades as originally
earned in prior years. This yields slight discrepancies between
the two metrics (see sidebar, “Grading the States”). Note that
the curve does not affect the estimates of the percentage difference
in state and NAEP proficiency standards reported in
the three right-hand columns of Table 1. These columns reveal
the exact estimate of the change in proficiency standards for
all states for which data are available.
One should keep in mind that participation rates can
affect our estimates. Proficiency standards may appear more
rigorous than they actually are if lower-performing students
are more likely to participate in state testing, but less rigorous
if higher-performing students are more likely to participate
(assuming that NAEP samples are representative of all
students). In 2015, advocates sought to persuade parents
in a number of states—including New Jersey, New York,
Illinois, Colorado, and California—to “opt out” of statewide
tests. The opt-out movement seems to have been particularly
successful with high school students. New Jersey, for
example, reports that its highest nonparticipation rates occur
among juniors in high school. Our estimates are based on
the performances of 4th and 8th graders, making them less
susceptible to bias from opt-out activity. We are currently
unable to estimate patterns of participation in the opt-out
effort, but to the extent that many students who opted out
were potential high scorers, proficiency standards may be
lower than our calculations suggest.
Reaching for an “A”
In 2015, 24 of 49 states (including the District of Columbia)
earned an “A” grade. Since 2013, the average difference
between NAEP and state proficiency levels has plummeted
Average
difference
between
NAEP
and state
proficiency
levels
NOTE: Figure starts with 2005 because many states did not participate in 2003
accountability program.
SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on NAEP and state exams
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
35 36 37
35
29
11
Charting the Dramatic Improvement in Standards
(Figure 2)
The average difference between the percentages of students achieving
proficiency on NAEP and state tests decreased from to 1 percentage
points nationwide.
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
14 EDUCATION NEXT / SUMMER 2016 educationnext.org
from 29 percent to 11 percent, representing a dramatic
improvement over the previous two-year period (2011–2013),
in which the difference dropped only 6 percentage points,
from 35 percent to 29 percent (see Figure 2). Clearly, states
are tightening standards more than ever since NCLB took
effect. As mentioned earlier, no fewer than 36 states have
raised their proficiency standards over the past two years,
while just 5 relaxed them. Forty-five states have boosted their
standards since 2011.
In 2015, the following 24 states earned an “A” grade:
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, District
of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine,
Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New York,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Vermont. In 2013,
nine states earned an “A,” but of these, only New York,
Pennsylvania, and Utah remain in the elite group in 2015.
The standards for five of the other six high scorers from
2013—Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina,
and Tennessee—are among those that slipped in 2015. North
Carolina, however, is the only state where the downslide
(12.1 percentage points) exceeds 5 percentage points.
The slippage in Massachusetts suggests the importance
of viewing proficiency standards in context. In 2015, the
state allowed local school districts to choose between
the established test, the Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System (MCAS), or a newly developed test from
the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and
Careers, dubbed the PARCC. To preserve continuity with
prior testing, we report results for the MCAS. The percentage
of 8th graders identified as proficient on the MCAS, however,
is much higher than the percentage identified as proficient
on the PARCC. This could be because PARCC standards are
higher, or it may simply be that a greater number of highperforming
districts chose to retain the MCAS. The state
department of education promises to provide more specific
information on the students taking the two tests.
The lowest grade, a “D+,” goes to Texas. Four years ago,
the Texas Department of Education promised to set in place
a staircase that would result in gradual increases in the state’s
standards. The Texas commissioner of education at that
time, Michael Williams, said the “approach is intended to
minimize any abrupt single-year increase in the required
… standard for this school year and in the future.” By 2015,
however, Texas had yet to move beyond the first step of the
stairs, though it promises to do so in 2016. According to
officials, the purpose of the delay was to give teachers and
students sufficient time to adjust to more-rigorous standards.
State Standards Converge
Not only have standards risen across the country, but the
differences in standards among the states narrowed considerably
between 2013 and 2015. Figure 3 shows the distribution of
the states according to how much they vary from NAEP on the
proficiency standard. The 2013 distribution varies widely, while
the 2015 distribution is clustered around the NAEP standard. In
2015, the range between the highest- and the lowest-performing
state was less than 50 percentage points, as compared to nearly
65 percentage points in 2013. Even more impressive, nearly 80
percent of the states’ proficiency rates are within 15 percentage
points of the NAEP rates, with only one state possessing an average
proficiency rate differing from the NAEP standard by more
than 40 percentage points. By comparison, 25 percent of states
differed from NAEP by more than 40 percentage points in 2013.
Race to the Top
The rise in standards between 2013 and 2015 is not concentrated
among states that received Race to the Top awards.
We do not find that Race to the Top grant winners raised
their standards more than other states (results not shown).
This does not necessarily mean that Race to the Top was
ineffective, however, as the remaining states later came under
similar federal encouragement to raise standards when they
sought waivers from NCLB requirements.
Not There Yet
Although the overwhelming majority of states have established
standards that approximate international benchmarks, and no
state set standards so low as to receive an “F” grade, seven states
did earn a grade in the “C” range, and one a “D+,” indicating a
substantial divergence from the NAEP. Although proficiency
standards have climbed overall, an average difference of 10 percentage
points remains between the state proficiency levels and
the corresponding NAEP proficiency levels. Additionally, two
states—Florida and Wisconsin—had yet to report test-score
performances at the time the data for this report were prepared.
If Common Core works as its proponents expect,
higher proficiency standards could propel schools to
achieve at more impressive levels and thus raise the
nation’s ranking on international tests.
educationnext.org SUMMER 2016 / EDUCATION NEXT 15
feature
STATE STANDARDS PETERSON, BARROWS & GIFT
Since the inception of NCLB, the introduction of higher
proficiency standards has been fraught with political controversy.
With a rising proficiency bar, student performance
appears lower even when it is the bar itself—not student
performance—that has changed. Indeed, controversy rocked
Florida and New York, two of the first states to raise their
proficiency bars after 2011. Amid the furor, the state education
commissioner in Florida resigned, and in New York, the
tougher standards fueled the parental opt-out movement.
Such political storms might be avoided in the future
because states no longer need to comply with many NCLB
provisions. With the passage of ESSA, which has eliminated
NCLB sanctions for most schools, states find themselves
under less pressure to set lax proficiency standards.
Previously, districts had strong incentives to resist high
proficiency standards, as they feared their schools might be
subject to increasingly severe penalties for not producing
improved test results. Because most schools no longer need
to worry about sanctions, the waivers from NCLB and the
subsequent passage of ESSA may facilitate the increasing
rigor of state standards.
If Common Core works as its proponents expect, higher
proficiency standards could propel schools to achieve at more
impressive levels and thus raise the nation’s ranking on international
tests. Of course, it is imperative that parents, teachers,
administrators, and policymakers recognize the low levels of
student proficiency now being identified in most states as a
serious warning that action is needed. Otherwise, raising the
proficiency bars will be for naught. Still, it is a hopeful sign
that standards have moved in the right direction. If student
performance shifts upward in tandem, it will signal a longawaited
enhancement in the quality of American schools.
Paul E. Peterson, editor-in-chief of Education Next, is
professor of government and director of the Program on
Education Policy and Governance at the Harvard Kennedy
School, where Samuel Barrows and Thomas Gift are postdoctoral
fellows.
Number of states
Difference between state and NAEP scores
Distribution of the differences between state and NAEP standards
SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on NAEP and state exams
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-60–-55
-55–-50
-50–-45
-45–-40
-40–-35
-35–-30
-30–-25
-25–-20
-20–-15
-15–-10
-10–-5
-5–0
0-5
5-10
Difference in Standards among States Narrows(Figure 3)
In 2013, 25 percent of states differed by more than 40 percentage points from the NAEP standard, but nearly
80 percent of state proficiency rates were within 15 percentage points of the NAEP rates in 2015.
■ 2013 ■2015