LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

The more important we make test results, the greater the incentive for educators to use all available means to make their test results look good. Within two months of the passage of NCLB, some were suggesting that states might be wise to label as "Proficient" the level of academic achievement NAEP now classifies as merely "Basic".

Proponents of this point of view argued that the NAEP standards are clearly too high, the proof being that so few students students qualify as "Proficient" on NAEP tests – only about 25% overall, and well under 10% in the case of less advantaged students. Even though NCLB may allow states to use such cosmetic means to make their results look respectable, NCLB also requires state participation in NAEP. Any significant mismatch between state and NAEP standards will be exposed by a corresponding mismatch in the test results reported from these two sources.

Efforts to look good by adopting low standards will therefore provide no long-term comfort unless the NAEP also changes its standards. That seems unlikely, since the NAEP's test series now has a history of consistency spanning more than three decades. So let's hope educators don't fall victim to a strategy that can only result in some short term relief, at the risk of far greater public disapproval in the long run. One favorable result of NCLB is the requirement for disaggregated reporting of test results for those groups of students most prone to being "left behind" – economically disadvantaged students and certain racial and ethnic groups.

Let's hope this leads to more valid interpretation of the relative performance of schools, avoiding the mistaken impressions created when schools are compared based on average scores, without regard to the demographic circumstances of the students they serve.

Hilton Head Island, SC