Three quick points:

First: Aaron Pallas looked at NAEP results from 2003 to 2011 (the NCLB years) for all 50 states and DC to identify instances in which whites gained while lower-scoring other groups gained even more, hence closing the gap in a positive way. For the 4 tests (reading and math at grades 4 and 8) there were very few cases, and occurred in one state usually affected only one demographic group in one subject and grade in that state. No state showed systematic progress. This is a clearly written, short piece. Pallas points out that while NAEP alone cannot fairly evaluate NCLB, it is one piece of evidence, and the evidence is not friendly to NCLB. http://eyeoned.org/content/the-nations-report-card-and-nclb-friends-or-foes_277/#more-277

Second, I agree with Sandy Kress that we spend too much time going back and forth with each other, but the idea that there is some 'middle period' between pre-and post NCLB is fairly absurd. The law was signed January 2002, and many of its provisions did not go into effect for several or more years. 2003 may have been a transition year, but surely nothing before. I concur with Aaron Pallas, the effective NCLB years begin with 2093, with regard to NAEP tests.

Third, I concur with those who say that indeed the US should view NAEP as a wakeup call (one among many). But to do what? Here the differences are, I suspect, huge. I'll just repost the Forum on Educationaly Accountability site as the location of multiple documents that point us in a very different direction - http://www.edaccountability.org - particularly our two short signing statements, and also recommend the Broader, Bolder Agenda and the Opportunity to Learn Campaign. Let's start by acknowledging the consequences of poverty, stop pretending schools alone can solve them, then stop pretending that the NCLB-era "solutions" made the situation any better.

Monty

It’s hard to believe we even need to have a debate on whether or not -- and how -- the paltry results of the 2011 National Assessment of Education Progress, or The Nation’s Report Card, have an impact on policy decisions among our local, state and national leaders and what we should learn from those results. Consider what the data really shows:

• Barely one percentage point gain overall compared to 2009 scores; specifically 4th- and 8th grade math was only one point higher as was 8th-grade reading. There were no gains in 4th-grade reading.
  
• A persistent achievement gap that still represents a 25-point spread between black and white students, and 20%or higher in some cases between white and Hispanic.
  
• Forty-two states have shown no significant improvement on either test since 2009.

Not to sound flippant, but I don’t really care what our goals are as a nation or locally, as long as we have fewer than 40% of our students in all but a few cases able to meet proficiency standards that are arguably less rigorous than the NAEP of old. Indeed, while it’s still the gold standard and exposes state tests for being inflated and lacking real meaning, NAEP has had it’s own roll backs so even a point here or there is nothing to cheer.

Beyond being a reminder that flatlining is not a good thing; there is also an important takeaway from the data when you scratch below the surface. Like both SAT and ACT results which, while not samples, also show stagnant results, NAEP scores among those who many believe have great schools at their disposal remain well below standards. While we must work hardest to improve conditions for our disadvantaged youth, we should be alarmed that white student progress remains alarmingly low considering all the wealth, all the time and attention these students seem to get when compared with those on the opposite side of the achievement gap.

Why can’t the school districts the realtors boast about do more with the clientele they get that they can’t blame for being hungry, poor or disengaged?

Our college bound youth that will graduate from a 4-year college remains an elite crop, and it’s no wonder, since even their proficiency scores are barely above 50% in most states. We have accepted mediocrity because those youth hide behind As and Bs, in schools, an abundance of AP tests and every resource educators could ever want. But their gains, their own matriculation through school and their achievements are a challenge for the US in this global economy.

The complacency that plagues more advantaged Americans has an impact on our ability to fix the problems with our disadvantaged citizens. For a long as there is a majority which believes its schools are great, no bold policy proposals that do away with failure once and for all will gain any meaningful traction.

The latest NAEP scores should be a real cause for alarm, particularly in states like Connecticut where we have lost ground on closing achievement gaps. The findings for the Nutmeg State are certainly “not so awesome,” and some may say downright awful as overall student performance in the state is essentially stagnant.

Connecticut has had and continues to have, on average, the largest achievement gap in the country as measured on NAEP – and this year’s results show that the gaps are growing. Low-income students and students of color are three grade levels behind their wealthier and white peers. Connecticut's English Language Learning (ELL) fourth graders are over five grade levels behind their non-ELL peers in reading and nearly four grade levels behind in math.

While it is tempting to explain this away by saying that our top students are tops, such an explanation is merely a suburban legend. Our low-income Hispanic fourth graders are the lowest scoring in the country on fourth grade math. And while Connecticut’s overall performance relative to other states is strong in reading at the 8th grade level, but our overall math performance ranks 22nd in fourth grade and 19th in eighth grade.

For those looking to strap on the pom-poms for number one rankings, Connecticut did score first in seven of the 16 disaggregated categories. Of course, that's a first place for largest gaps. And we’re in the top 10 for every single one of those 16.

Connecticut’s poor performance in math does not bode well for the jobs of the future, most of which will come from STEM fields. Making sure our workforce is well educated and prepared for the challenges of a 21st century economy is the most critical challenge our state leaders face. As the nation focuses on college and career readiness, these scores demonstrate that far too few of Connecticut’s – and the nation’s – young people are prepared for the rigors, challenges, and opportunities of the workforce. We can’t read. We can’t do computational math. Do we really expect today’s students will be prepared for the future?

This disappointing story should be a huge wake up call for state policy makers. The time for tinkering has come and gone. This year’s NAEP results should serve as the motivation we all need to bring about transformational, systemic reforms. In Connecticut, that starts with fixing the funding system so that our entire public education system is built on a strong foundation, and putting in place bold policy changes to make sure all children, especially those who are already the furthest behind, have access to excellent teaching.

Like so many other states across the country, Connecticut has long held the belief we were doing just fine. We discounted the gaps, with officials even referring to the achievement gap as an “optical illusion.” Meanwhile, yet another generation of students will pass through the system lacking proficiency in core academic subjects. Yet another generation of students will either drop out or obtain a high school diploma that is relatively worthless. And yet another generation of students will be denied the opportunities we claim all students are entitled to through public education.

Educators and policymakers keep standing around, waiting for a true “sense of urgency” to change how public education operates. If these latest scores, coupled with our long-standing trends of gaps and proficiency failures, don’t give us that sense of urgency, then nothing will.

Among the many ways No Child Left Behind has failed public education is by advancing the notion that NAEP proficiency standards equal “grade level” work. This heavily promoted idea has become another cudgel with which to bash public schools and public school teachers, who are accused of not bringing most students up to NAEP’s definition of proficiency and therefore failing on a grand scale.

But the levels themselves are largely bogus. The National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Education, and other independent researchers concluded the process used to set the levels was deeply flawed, leading to a definition of “proficient” that reasonably equates to what most nations (not just the U.S.) would consider advanced work. NAEP’s “basic” level represents solid learning. Jim Harvey recently reviewed this evidence. He cites two NAEP experts who explain, “[T]he proficient achievement level does not refer to 'at grade' performance.” He also reminds readers that almost no country in the world can boast anywhere close to 100% NAEP proficiency in either subject, so far is it from anything that can be thought of as "grade level"

Nevertheless, NAEP has its uses. Most experts agree it is a sound standardized test, though better at measuring more rote levels of learning than at assessing higher order thinking in reading and math. Its scale scores are consistent from year to year, allowing their use as an independent yardstick to track whether and when improvements have occurred.

The latest results confirm the trends FairTest identified in a 2009 report. Overall, growth was more rapid before and flattened after NCLB took effect. For example, 4th grade math scores jumped 11 points from 224 to 235 between 1996 and 2003, but increased only 3 points between 2005 and 2011. Grade 8 math scores went from 273 to 278 between 2000 and 2003, but increased only 1 point, from 283 to 284, between 2009 and 2011.

Reading scores have not improved in the post-NCLB era. They remained at 221 in 4th grade from 2007 to 2011. In 8th grade there was a meager 2-point increase, from 263 and 265, in that same period.

As has been widely reported, black-white achievement gaps remain large, at 25 points, and have not budged, despite the hope that NCLB’s bright light would expose these gaps and motivate targeted, successful responses to close them. In fact, gaps have remained mostly stagnant for most groups of students at both grade levels in both subjects. Thus, NCLB has failed to produce independent test score gains overall or for low-scoring groups.

FairTest wrote in a 2004 report that NCLB was a large, complicated apparatus that would not improve educational quality and opportunity but would set up public schools and public school teachers for failure. Despite NAEP’s flaws and limits, it does illustrate that the NCLB test-and-punish era has failed in terms of its own stated goals. We need a radically transformed federal education law that sets schools up for success, not failure. This requires transforming federal involvement in assessment, accountability and school improvement.

Here's a response from Mike Petrilli, the Fordham Institute's executive vice president:

Halloween was fun for the kids, but soon after came every education wonk’s favorite holiday: NAEP release day! Here are some thoughts on the trends in reading.

The big news is that we finally eked out some statistically significant progress in 8th-grade reading. This goal has eluded us before, and has led commentators such as E.D. Hirsch to note that we’re not doing enough to build kids’ content knowledge and vocabulary. Initiatives like Reading First might have helped our youngsters to decode, goes the argument, but that’s not enough to create strong readers, especially as kids get older.

That’s still true, I think, but the NAEP results might indicate that those decoding skills are nothing to scoff at. The middle schoolers who took the NAEP last spring were in first grade in 2004–the heyday of Reading First implementation. It’s possible that scientifically-based reading instruction got them off to a better start as readers, and that head-start has been maintained through elementary and middle school. I can’t prove it (it’s NAEP–no one can prove anything!) but it’s a hypothesis worth exploring. Furthermore, the 8th graders who made the greatest progress since the early 2000s were the lowest-achievers–the very population Reading First was designed to help.

The latest NAEP report was inevitable given our unwillingness to let the reins go on a very real demand for excellence.

The most immediate and sustained gains in student achievement come from what may seem to be an overly simplistic formula: great teacher (knows subject, understands how to engage students and gauge progress) plus sufficient ancillary supports ( mission focused school community, educational resources such as content via technology or texts, plus facilities as needed per the schooling approach) and sufficient time.

There are thousands of versions of this simple model that works incredibly well for students. More every year. The urgent issue is how to allow what is obviously working well to proliferate as quickly as it would like to. The demand of parents evidenced by waiting lists at excellent schools, and the demand of teaching professionals to bring their new schools to the education arena is real and burgeoning.

The challenge at “the top” of all of our systems is to remove barriers to access. Allow excellent schools to expand or replicate, and allow (or require) the leadership of struggling or failing schools to close or reconstitute. The simplest route would be by allowing money to follow students into schools they choose. Even just in the public school sector only if that is all there is political stomach for. It’s a good place to start.

I find the coverage of and commentary on NAEP results generally shallow and unhelpful. The reporting looks at the aggregated data with a simple comparison between current results and those two years ago. So many important lessons are lost. It's a shame.

Here are some takeaways I see deeper in the data. First, here are the most worrisome observations:

1. We have made extremely limited progress in reading over the years. One must hope that the upgraded standards in reading, if effectively taught to, will do a better job of lifting proficiency in vocabulary, content knowledge, and comprehension of more complex text.

2. Increases in math achievement are notable and important, but they are largely in arithmetic and lower level content. Again, we must have greater success at the higher end of the standards, particularly in pre-algebra knowledge and skills.

3. The gains I will discuss below are significant, but they do not yet extend much to postsecondary readiness and success in completion after high school. The movement toward greater rigor and accountability in high school and postsecondary options must be accelerated and intensified.

But, having described how much of the mountain remains to be climbed, I believe strongly we must also acknowledge and celebrate how far we've come.

Consequential accountability for achievement began in pioneering states in our country in 1993-1994. According to Hanushek and others, a majority of states had adopted such accountability policies by 1999. Then NCLB spread these policies throughout the nation after its passage by the Congress in 2001.

Let's look at NAEP results over this period for African American and Hispanic students.

There is a lot of controversy over data from 2000-2003. Is that pre-NCLB or post-NCLB? Does it reflect the impact of consequential accountability or other factors in play in the mid-late 90s? Or, were there anomalies in the testing that led for other reasons to the biggest periodic increase in scores in the history of the NAEP?

I don't have the answers to those questions but suggest that the best way to analyze the data is to look separately at the eight years from 1992-2000, the "bridge" years from 2000-2003, and finally the eight years from 2003-2011.



8th Grade Math



Here we begin to see the biggest, hugely positive takeaways of the underlying story.

Overall gains by African American students through this entire period are 26 scale score points, and those by Hispanic students are 22 scale score points. This means that kids of color are now achieving in 8th grade math at roughly 2 1/2 grade levels ahead of where they were in 1992.

Some commentators choose to focus entirely on the fact that the gaps with whites haven't closed much. This is true, but it's true because whites and other top performers have improved, too. I think we want all students to improve, right? If so, we should celebrate all these significant gains.

Of the gains, 7 points for African American students and 5 points for Hispanic students came in 1992-2000. 9 points for African American students and 6 points for Hispanic students came in 2000-2003. 10 points for African American students and 11points for Hispanic students came in 2003-2011.

Both groups are now at all time highs.



4th Grade Math



These data are so remarkable that it is literally mind-boggling that they are reported nowhere.

From 1992 to 2011, African American gains are a stunning 32 points, and Hispanic gains are 28 points. This means that both groups are achieving at roughly 3 grade levels ahead of where they were in 1992.

Do we have so many agendas that require our moaning that we can't celebrate these gains? I know we are nowhere near where we need to be. But we've climbed a very good and positive distance, and we should simply acknowledge it.

11points for African American students and 6 points for Hispanic students were garnered in 1992-2000. 13 points for African American students and 14 points for Hispanic students were garnered from 2000-2003. 8 points for African American students and 8 points for Hispanic students were garnered from 2003-2011.

Both groups are now at all time highs.



8th Grade Reading



This is the category we rightly worry about most for being stagnant. And it largely is. But there is some positive news.

African American students have gained 12 scale score points over the entire period, and Hispanic students have gained 13. That's an improvement of over a grade level.

There were African American gains of 5 points and Hispanic gains of 3 points from 1992-1998. There were African American gains of 3 points and Hispanic gains of 3 points from 1998-2003. There were African American gains of 4 points and Hispanic gains of 7 points from 2003-2011.
Both groups have a long way to go, but they are both at historic highs.



4th Grade Reading



As with 8th grade reading, these results need much bigger boosts. But there is improvement that we typically fail to notice.

African American students have improved 14 points, and Hispanic students have improved 11 points over the whole period. Again, this is over a grade level for both groups, and both groups are now at historic highs.

African American scores actually fell 1 point, and Hispanic scores fell 6 points from 1992-2000. African American scores rose 7 points, and Hispanic scores rose 11 points from 2000-2003. African American scores rose 8 points, and Hispanic scores rose 6 points from 2003-2011.


Yes, let's be sober about where we are and acknowledge how very much more we need to do to reach our goals. But let's also be true about and appreciate the gains we've made.

It's unlikely we'll make future gains if we don't understand how far we've come as well as how far there is to go. Plus, failing to do so is dishonest and, importantly, dispiriting to all the students, parents, educators, and policymakers who played their part in achieving these gains.