What is Proficiency? The Kansas Assessment cut scores are being reset to align with changes to the state education standards. As public school parents and grassroots public education advocates committed to helping patrons stay informed about policies and practices that impact the quality of and access to public education for Kansas school-age youth, we share our perspective regarding efforts to set the new cut scores for the next decade. We hope that the cut scores are significantly changed and that decisionmakers will consider the framework of Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) as a potential anchor for the Performance Level Descriptors (PLDs).
The collective challenge:
As we are painfully aware, efforts to clearly communicate to parents and community members about the four Kansas Assessment performance levels has been an uphill battle since 2015. Multiple factors contribute to confusion over the meaning and role of state assessment scores, some are technical limitations and some political. In addition, the actual data established over time showed that the predicted 2015 cut scores were somewhat out of alignment with their PLDs, as a large portion of students achieved post-secondary success above where their cut score levels placed them. Our operating assumption moving forward is that meaningfully anchored levels of performance are more informative, more relevant, more difficult to dismiss, more likely to be trusted, and stand a better chance of shaping sound policy and practice.
Before addressing the central points, we acknowledge the following:
Multiple Metrics. We understand the Kansas Assessment scores to be one of many metrics to yield information about students’ progress through school and their post-secondary readiness following graduation.
Powerful Predictors. We know that high school course rigor, grades in core courses, and school attendance are among the strongest predictors of post-secondary outcomes, accounting for demographic differences among youth and their school communities.
Aspirational Goals. We support the aspirational goals of the Kansans Can Vision that were established, and reaffirmed, with the collective input of stakeholders across the state.
What the tests are NOT. We know from the psychometricians that technically, the Kansas Assessments are not a “grade-level” test, nor a test of “mastery.” This is due in large part to the excessive amount of time it would take for students to complete such a test. We understand that many questions above and below grade-level would have to be added, making the test too long. We also understand that students are not expected to answer all, or even most, questions correctly in order to be deemed proficient.
7 Year Cycle. We understand that the Kansas education standards must be reviewed and revised at least every 7 years by state law, in part, because what high school graduates need to know and to be able to do is not a static expectation. While algebraic concepts, for example, are a constant in education standards, instruction has shifted towards applied mathematics, emphasizing an engineering, real-world problem-solving approach over rote memorization. Algebra now plays a crucial role in fields like machine learning and artificial intelligence, such that students are being taught the basics of how to code. The work of the Kansas legislative Dyslexia Task Force back in 2019 is another example that called for changes to the standards, with associated changes to the assessments. Nuanced changes such as these in the standards call for cyclical updates to the state assessments.
Vertical Alignment. We understand the value of making adjustments to future cut scores in order to achieve vertical alignment of scale scores and performance levels from grade 3 tests, to grade 4, through grade 10. If a student’s performance level changes, parents should be able to understand this is due to a growth or decline in their child’s progress rather than an artifact of test construction.
Regarding the new cut scores, a foundational question is where the bottom of level 3 will be set and what definition of proficiency will be used.
Standards-Based. We see that the new PLDs are no longer defined in terms of post-secondary outcomes. This 2015 definition, in part, created challenges for elementary grade levels in particular. However, without an alternate anchor, the new descriptors appear normative/relative, which is contrary to standards-based education. State assessments are intended to reflect how students are performing in relation to the standards, rather than to one another.
Multiple Definitions of Proficiency. The term “proficient” has been reintroduced with the new PLDs. We know that the meaning and use of this word is significantly different for parents and the general public than for psychometricians and the NAEP Board. Common use of the term proficient is being capable, good at something and in the context of education, being on track, at grade level but not an expert. On the flip side, “not yet” proficient in any given content standard does NOT mean “failure.” According to the NAEP website, “NAEP Proficient does not represent grade level proficiency. NAEP does not follow the same proficiency scoring standards as other state or district assessments” (NAEP, 2025 – https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/guides). Further,
NAEP officials urge that proficient not be interpreted as reflecting grade level work. It is a standard set much higher than that. Scholarly panels have reviewed the NAEP achievement standards and found them flawed. The highest scoring nations of the world would appear to be mediocre or poor performers if judged by the NAEP proficient standard. Even large numbers of U.S. calculus students fall short.
As states consider building benchmarks for student performance into accountability systems, they should not use NAEP proficient—or any standard aligned with NAEP proficient—as a benchmark. It is an unreasonable expectation, one that ill serves America’s students, parents, and teachers–and the effort to improve America’s schools (Brookings Institute, Loveless, 2016, The NAEP Proficiency Myth – https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-naep-proficiency-myth).
We know that Kansas public school graduates can read, do math, and are completing high school with college level credits and industry credentials, contrary to proclamations of some policymakers. Anchoring Kansas level 3 proficient with NAEP Proficient will only perpetuate the misnomer of failure among parents and patrons, vastly underestimating the competencies of Kansas students and falling short of being a meaningful yet high stakes benchmark. And, while we share educators’ commitment to continuous improvement, we also note that Kansas public schools outperform states such as Florida and Arizona on NAEP tests, dating back to 2003 (Kansas PTA/NAEP, 2025 – https://kansas-pta.org/what-do-naep-scores-tell-us).
Two Levels Below. We are aware that the U.S. Department of Education requires every state that receives federal education funds to report on students’ progress using a state assessment that assigns at least 3 performance levels, 2 of which must be “below proficient” as defined by the state. It seems logical from the parent perspective that students who score below proficient are those that require additional assistance and monitoring to support their academic progress. The federal funds are intended to enhance state capacity to equalize opportunity for struggling students (due to poverty, disability, language) performing below proficient. Both the State Supreme Court and the Commissioner of Education, along with others, have focused on the importance of moving kids up and out of level 1 regardless of their obstacles to learning. The current Kansas level 1 seems to align most closely to the federal “below proficient” categorization.
Actual Data Validity Check. We understand that when educators set the cut scores in 2015, no data were available to validate whether or not students were on track to be “college and career ready,” and best estimates were made. Kansas now has data to show that the cut scores were too conservative, underestimating the portion of students graduating college and career ready. We now know that Kansas level 2 cut scores would go on to include a significant portion of students achieving post-secondary success and performing at or above “proficient.” KSDE representatives have explained that students in level 2 are going on to college (aka, not failing) and that ACT college readiness scores aligned with the top part of level 2/bottom of level 3 – in a state where only 35% of adults have a bachelor’s degree or higher (Census, 2022). Kansas also has gifted and honor students attending selective 4-year colleges, scoring level 3 and falling short of level 4 on the assessments. While the current PLDs correlate positively with post-secondary outcomes, they do not perfectly predict “college and career readiness” – if they even should. Further, we recognize that Kansas is underestimating career readiness due to logistical barriers to tracking and linking data on students entering the military or choosing to work on family farms, and such. Thus, the current cut scores underestimated aspirational college and career readiness and would even more significantly underestimate proficiency.
Aspirational Goals. We understand a 2017 Kansans Can Vision aspirational goal has been to achieve at least 75% of Kansas students performing at levels predictive of positive post-secondary outcomes (defined in 2015 as levels 3 and 4 on the state assessments when those were solely labeled to be predictive of college and career readiness). This aspirational goal was explicitly examined in 2018 at the request of the Kansas legislature and determined to require an additional investment of $1 billion in addition to the Gannon restoration of state aid (Taylor, 2018, 3.29 Kansas Cost Study Follow-up Requests FINAL, p.6). This aspirational level of funding was not selected, but instead the legislature chose to restore funding for “long-run maintenance”. To be clear, we support aspirational goals and oppose any implications that adjusting the cut scores is lowering our expectations for Kansas students. We are just concerned that fear of that criticism may keep educators from setting more meaningful, accurate cut scores.
A request for consideration:
Recent presentations to the State Board of Education regarding the state assessments have repeatedly described what the tests are not, and why. This clarity and context is important but still does not inform parents and patrons about what the assessment does measure. While performance descriptors have been assigned to each of the 4 levels – limited, basic, proficient, advanced … ability to demonstrate knowledge and skills of (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) grade standards – the operational definition of each adjective remains relative and without an anchor. If sound standardized tests of grade-level or mastery require students to answer too many more questions, then what meaningful anchors are available within the confines of a reasonably constructed test?
Consider a possible correlation or anchor to Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). Under this framework of support, we know that:
All students receive Tier 1 (Core) grade-level instruction and strong Tier 1 instruction benefits all students.
A portion of students may need additional strategic support to succeed or catch up. These students require Tier 2 supports in addition to Tier 1 (Core) instruction.
Another portion of students may need intensive support to succeed or catch up. These students require Tier 3 support in addition to Tier 1 (Core) instruction.
If we are thinking of the Kansas Assessments, with the federal requirement of having two levels as below proficient, as a sort of screener for support, then potential anchors for the 4 performance level descriptors (PLDs) on the assessment might look like:
Levels 3 and 4 – Students scoring at or above the Proficient level on the state assessment indicates that Tier 1 (Core) instruction alone has been sufficient.
Level 2 – Students scoring at the Basic level on the state assessments indicate that, in addition to Tier 1 (Core) instruction, the students may need additional targeted support (Tier 2) for them to become proficient in grade-level standards.
Level 1 – Students scoring at the Limited level on the state assessments indicate that, in addition to Tier 1 (Core) instruction, the students may need additional intensive support (Tier 3) for them to become proficient in grade-level standards.
While we are not psychometricians or teachers tasked with setting cut scores, we have years of experience dealing with the current cut scores and have witnessed the problems they have created for students, educators, parents and policy makers and we hope that real world data will inform the process for setting the new cut scores.
Originally posted to Facebook 6/7/25.