NAEP in Tennessee Tennessee had a call to

NAEP in Tennessee

Tennessee had a call to action moment in education in 2007. • In 2007, the U. S. Chamber of Commerce gave Tennessee an “F” in “Truth in Advertising” when comparing proficiency on state assessments to Tennessee’s performance on Nation’s Report Card and a second “F” in postsecondary and workforce readiness. • Tennessee had the largest gap in the country between the percentage of students that were deemed proficient in reading and math on state tests— 90 percent—and the percent that were deemed proficient on the National Assessment of Educational Progress— 26 percent.

This call to action sparked a series of action in Tennessee. • Implementation of more demanding standards for students. • Development of more rigorous assessments with higher, more honest cut scores. – When Tennessee increased cut scores on its new assessment in 2010, proficiency rates dropped by more than half and achievement gaps more than doubled. – In 2016, a new, more rigorous assessment rolled out with new cuts that were based on achievement level descriptors closely matched to those used by NAEP. • Greater accountability to ensure that we meet our responsibilities to provide all students with a world-class education.

In 2011 TN set a goal to be the fastest improving state on NAEP by 2015. Tennessee saw NAEP as a barometer by which to measure the success of the education reforms we put in place. This goal created greater awareness of NAEP by districts and schools.

The Tennessee Succeeds strategic plan was released in October 2015 to build on this foundation.

Why did TN include NAEP in our strategic goals? – NAEP is one indicator that our students are meeting key education benchmarks compared with their peers in other states. – The National Assessment of Educational Progress has long been viewed as one of the best ways to see what America’s students know and can do in key subject areas.

Tennessee has used NAEP data to analyze a number of topics. • Content area performance on NAEP compared to sub-scores on our state assessments. • Subgroup performance and achievement gap trends • Relationship between student factors and student performance