Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

Ohio Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
  • Research
  • Policy
  • Commentary
    • Ohio Gadfly Newsletter
    • Ohio Gadfly Blog
    • Events

All Over the Map: Comparing States’ Expectations for Student Performance in Science

Michael Ishimoto
12.14.2011

All Over the Map coverParents, be aware: The “proficient” designation that your child received on her state science test may not signify much. This new report from Change the Equation (a STEM-advocacy outfit) and the American Institutes for Research evaluates the proficiency cut scores of thirty-seven states’ eighth-grade-science assessments, comparing their rigor to that of the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. The upshot? Fifteen states set their bars for proficiency below NAEP’s basic designation. Virginia is the worst of the lot—setting its cut scores far below the rest of the pack—and repaying itself with a 91 percent proficiency rate on its state exam. Only four states (New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Louisiana) expect their students to be at or above NAEP’s "proficient" threshold. (Feeling a bit of déjà vu? This report is a lot like Fordham’s own Proficiency Illusion blockbuster from 2007, in which we drew similar conclusions about reading and math.) A word on the forthcoming common science standards: This work is necessary—and hugely important. But, as we are reminded time and again, it is not sufficient. A failure to link quality standards to rigorous assessments with balanced cut scores is akin to swiping the legs of any common science-standards initiative, just as it’s learning to walk.

Click to play

Click to listen to commentary on this science "proficiency illusion" from the Education Gadfly Show podcast.

Change the Equation and the American Institutes for Research, All Over the Map: Comparing States’ Expectations for Student Performance in Science (Washington, D.C.: Change the Equation and the American Institutes for Research, December 2011).

Topics:
Curriculum & Instruction
Tags: American Institutes for Research Louisiana Massachusetts National Assessment of Educational Progress New Hampshire Rhode Island Virginia
+2 More Show Less

Michael Ishimoto is a research intern at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. He graduated from the University of California at Berkeley, earning a B.A. in Integrative Biology and Ethnic Studies (he originally wanted to be a medical doctor, but then after spending some time teaching felt called to pursue a career in education). He earned his M.S.Ed in Higher Education from the University of Pennsylvania in May 2011, and he is…

View Full Bio
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]