Tracking changes on state proficiency standards from 2003-2007, Peterson and Hess find the news is mixed: At the 8th grade level, standards are falling in reading and math, both among states that had standards in 2003 and states that have only adopted them more recently. In 8th-grade reading, for example, standards overall are down by 0.2 standard deviations.

Slippage at the 4th-grade level, however, is less. Math standards fell by only 0.06 standard deviations, the smallest decline Peterson and Hess observed. Most of the slippage at the 4th-grade level is due to the lower standards adopted by states that were initially slow in complying with the NCLB accountability system; those that have had standards since 2003 have not altered them significantly.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires all students to be proficient in math and reading by 2014 but allows each state to determine its own level of proficiency. Some states are presenting a misleading impression of their accomplishments by grading students against low standards, while states that have high standards may suffer by comparison.

Peterson and Hess first revealed this discrepancy in 2005 ( “Johnny Can Read . . . in Some States, ” Education Next) by comparing states ’ passing percentages on their math and reading tests with their passing percentages on the National Assessment of Education Progress. Their latest report card identifies the positive--and troubling--trends across the states.

In general, Peterson and Hess found that the states of the Northeast have the highest standards, while the states of the South and Midwest have the lowest. Western states fall in between.

Only three states--South Carolina, Massachusetts and Missouri--established world-class standards in math and reading for their students, earning each an “A ”. Every other state set a lower proficiency standard--some far short of the NAEP standard. Georgia, for instance, declared 88 percent of 8th graders proficient in reading, even though just 26 percent scored at or above the proficiency level on the NAEP. Georgia joined Oklahoma and Tennessee at the bottom of the class, each earning an “F ” for their state standards.

Twelve states--Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia--received “Ds ”. Illinois, for example, set its proficiency bar for 8th-grade reading at a level that is 1.01 standard deviations below the national average. Illinois declared 82 percent of its 8th graders proficient in reading, even though the NAEP reports that only 30 percent are.

One state improved significantly: Colorado far outstripped its competitors with a big improvement in its standards--enough to raise its grade from a “D “last year to a “B- ”. At the other end of the spectrum, Arizona, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, and Wyoming each lowered the bar and declined at least a full letter grade.

The states ’ grades are based on a comparison of state and NAEP proficiency scores in math and reading from 2003-2007. Peterson and Hess computed the difference between the percentage of students who were proficient on the NAEP and the percentage reported to be proficient on the state ’s own tests for the same year. They then determined how many standard deviations each state ’s difference was above or below the average difference on each test. The grade given each state is based on how much easier it was to be labeled proficient on the state assessment as compared with the NAEP. The overall grade for each state was determined by taking the average for the standard deviations on the tests for which the state reported proficiency percentages.

The American Institutes for Research recently showed that the NAEP ’s definition of proficiency was very similar to the standard used in international tests, giving the NAEP a “world class ” standing. As long as the NAEP standard is employed, proficiency in the United States has roughly the same meaning in Europe and Asia.

Peterson and Hess ’s report, “Few States Have World Class Standards, ” is now online at www.EducationNext.org.