As educators, our understanding of proficiency shapes the way we teach, assess, and support learners. If we define proficiency narrowly, we risk overlooking not only important aspects of literacy, but the larger purpose of education itself. We seek not only to prepare students to perform well on tests, but to help them build the skills to engage critically with the world around them.
When we broaden our view of proficiency, we can better prepare students to use reading as a tool for lifelong learning, critical thinking, and meaningful participation in society. Too often, in schools and policy circles, proficiency is defined primarily by performance on standardized tests, and the trend is only intensifying. This limited view not only reduces the richness of what it means to be “proficient” but also narrows the true purpose of education.
How Do We Measure Proficiency?
Standardized tests like the NAEP or state assessments offer a relatively narrow perspective on proficiency, typically focusing on grade-level benchmarks and specific reading tasks. These high-stakes tests are often used to make critical decisions about students, educators, and schools. Thus, understanding how these assessments define and measure proficiency is vital.
Concerns About NAEP and Proficiency
Misunderstandings about the nature of proficiency may stem from how assessments like the NAEP define and measure it. While NAEP provides valuable national trend data, its limitations, described briefly below, suggest its definition and measurement of reading proficiency should be interpreted with caution.
- High Bar for Proficiency: The NAEP proficiency standard is set at a very high level, often higher than many states’ grade-level expectations. This leads to misunderstandings about what it means to be “proficient” on the test. Many students labeled as not proficient are actually reading at or above grade level by other measures. In fact, NAEP’s officials have articulated that “proficient” is intended to be “aspirational” rather than represent grade level performance (Harvey, 2011).
- Unproven Achievement Levels: NAEP’s achievement levels (“Basic,” “Proficient,” “Advanced”) have been criticized as flawed. Achievement levels are set by the National Assessment Governing Board and represent judgements of a panel of educators and members of the general public. The National Center for Educational Statistics website notes that NAEP achievement levels have been and continue to be used on a “trial basis“ and will remain that way until they are determined to be “reasonable, valid, and informative to the public.” Until such time, results “should be interpreted with caution” (NCES, 2025).
The Limitations of Standardized Tests
Even in the best-case scenario, standardized tests offer a narrow snapshot of student performance. While they can reveal trends over time, they fall dramatically short when it comes to capturing the full range of literacy skills that students need. Such tests, by their very nature, reduce literacy to discrete tasks, such as reading a short passage and choosing the right multiple-choice response. They don’t reflect the complex, dynamic nature of real-world reading, writing, and communication.
To truly understand proficiency, we should be asking deeper questions. Can students engage critically with a text? Can they analyze and interpret information—not just to pass a test, but to apply their learning in new contexts, make meaningful decisions, or create something original? Can they solve real-world problems and communicate their ideas clearly to different audiences? These are the skills that matter within and beyond the classroom. These are the skills that will help today’s students navigate the increasingly complex, information-rich, often overwhelming world they live in.
Another important consideration is that while the tests like the NAEP are undoubtably high-stakes in the policy arena, they provide limited actionable insights for educators. These assessments can’t tease out why students are struggling in literacy. Is a poor performance related to issues of decoding, fluency, background knowledge, or something else entirely? The tests themselves cannot pinpoint how or why a reader struggles and what to do about it.
The Purpose of Education: More Than Just Passing Tests
So, let’s be sure we are asking ourselves and others what “proficiency” really means, whether in the classroom or in a policy debate. Is proficiency demonstrated best by a student who can breeze through a standardized test, or one who can dive into a text, discuss its themes, and connect it to real life? Education is not just about passing tests; it’s about preparing students to be thoughtful, engaged individuals who can contribute meaningfully to society.
If we fail to acknowledge the limitations of standardized measurements and continue to narrowly define what is meant by proficiency, we risk undermining the true purpose of literacy and education—to cultivate empowered, critical thinkers who can question, analyze, and act in ways that shape their futures and their communities.
References
Harvey, J. (2011). NAEP’s odd definition of proficiency. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-naeps-odd-definition-of-proficiency/2011/10
National Center for Education Statistics. (2025). Scale scores and NAEP achievement levels. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/guides/scores_achv.aspx