Flat Gains on U.S. Tests Clash with Picture of Progress in NYC

On December 7, the National Center for Education Statistics released the results of standardized testing in 21 of the nation's urban districts, called the Trial Urban District Assessment, or TUDA. As was true for most participating districts, New York City's scores have largely stagnated since 2009, the last time the tests were offered. Changes in New York were so slight that none reached the level of statistical significance, according to the NCES. Yet New York City Department of Education leadership touted substantial gains.

"Scores for New York City students …have improved significantly" – since 2003, according to the Chancellor. In fact, scores rose by 6 to 8 points on three of the four tests in question – measures that assess reading and math proficiency in grades 4 and 8 – between 2003 and 2009, but not since. (The tests are graded on a 0 – 500 scale.)

NAEP the "gold standard"

National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, tests differ from state exams in that the test assesses student "samples," rather than testing every student. Their results are expressed as averages because students do not receive individual test scores.

Walcott has called the NAEP the "gold standard" measure of student achievement. But NAEP differs in substantial ways from New York State tests, especially in its more-stringent intellectual demands, according to NYC DOE and New York State Education Department staffers – and the lack of harsh accountability consequences that accompany the test's outcome.

School survival decisions are not tied to NAEP scores at the state or federal level, as is the case for state tests and for the No Child Left Behind criteria of Annual Yearly Progress, or AYP. Unlike the state tests, there's no direct test prep for NAEP exams – children don't practice taking the NAEP, and they don't learn test-taking strategies or tips as part of their regular coursework or after-school programsFor NAEP advocates, this means that the test results are more objective, less vulnerable to coaching, and thus, more reliable.

NAEP scores don't paint a rosy picture of American education – or of city students' achievement. In New York City, about a third of fourth-graders are proficient in reading and math. For eighth grade, the news is worse: Just under a quarter of students score as proficient in the same subjects.

Better than Buffalo

Yet DOE frames these outcomes as gains, not cause for alarm: "The percentage of New York City students scoring at or above proficient has also climbed significantly since 2003," in fourth-grade reading and math. Test scores have risen: Students from low-income families fare better in New York than elsewhere in the state and many parts of the U.S., for example –but rising to a level where most students are not proficient in reading and math is sour lemonade. City Journal's Sol Stern calls this the "We're better than Buffalo" defense – DOE promotes its gains over other big cities in New York instead of acknowledging scant progress.

In fact, consistently fewer students are scoring at the highest levels, "above proficient," on NAEP tests – a negative outcome that DOE omits from its official discussion of the city's performance.

And since 2009 – the last time the exams were offered – progress is flat, scores stagnant. Some scores have even fallen backward: White and Hispanic fourth-graders' math scores fell in 2011, even as scores for black students bumped up, by one point. (New York City's hardly alone in this test-score plain: Scores for New York State and U.S. averages are all flat, essentially unchanged since 2009.)