Guest Opinion | The Testing Score Blindspot: What Gets Overlooked When Focusing on Test Scores

The California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) has become a cornerstone of evaluating academic achievement in California, providing metrics that classify students into performance categories like “Level 4” (standard exceeded) and “Level 3” (standard met). These scores are frequently used in discussions about the performance of a school district, but often without the context necessary to truly understand the nuances of student learning. While test scores serve as important indicators, focusing exclusively on proficiency rates risks overlooking critical elements of student progress, especially for students who are on grade level but not yet deemed “proficient.”

Recently, during a presentation on student achievement, we expanded on what these metrics do—and don’t—tell us. CAASPP proficiency rates are often interpreted as an indicator of “on-grade level” performance. However, the data publicly available on the CAASPP website oversimplifies these nuances, focusing on whether students have met or exceeded standards rather than offering a complete picture of student growth.

One significant oversight is the treatment of students in “Level 2,” whose performance, according to the CAASPP, indicates they are on grade level but not yet “proficient.” These students are progressing toward proficiency, yet the language surrounding test scores often minimizes their progress. The emphasis on “percent proficient” in discussions about district success often neglects these students’ achievements, implicitly categorizing them as “below grade level,” when in reality, they’re advancing toward mastery. In essence, the focus on student proficiency rates loses sight of the students who are on-grade level progressing towards proficiency.

This discrepancy between “students on grade level” and “students who are proficient” may seem trivial but carries substantial implications for students. When school district leaders are asked, “What are you doing to improve test scores?” the question is framed around the percentage of proficient students, and shapes not only public perception but also how students perceive their own academic abilities. For example, 46% of PUSD students were proficient in English language arts based on the 2024 CAASPP results. However, 68% of students were on grade level, with about 1 in 4 students working toward proficiency. All of this illustrates the first major blind spot in focusing on students’ achievement solely on state assessments: those who are on grade level but not proficient do not get their fair share of attention because they are often deemed “below grade level.” Ignoring their progress robs students of the success they have earned and dismisses their efforts

Another misconception arises from the California Dashboard’s focus on “change”—the difference in performance between years—which is often misinterpreted as growth. However, since only students in grades 3-8 and grade 11 take the CAASPP, comparing cohorts year-over-year does not account for the actual progress of individual students. For example, comparing eighth graders’ scores in one year to those of the previous year’s eighth graders is like comparing apples to oranges; they are different groups of students with distinct educational needs and contexts.

What should be prioritized, and yet is not even tracked in the California Dashboard, is individual student-level growth over time. Unlike proficiency, which is a single snapshot of performance at a fixed point in time, student growth can provide details about how a student is progressing across their academic career within a subject. It affords opportunities to identify whether a student has made gains toward proficiency.

In PUSD, we’ve worked to prioritize true learning growth over year-to-year changes in status. A three-year study to build the capacity of teachers to implement grade-level curriculum and accelerate learning to improve middle-grade math has yielded substantial growth and shows that tracking the progress of individual students over time works. This “learning growth” provides a more accurate reflection of the impact of instructional practices and the sustained efforts by educators to help students make strides toward proficiency.

This success illustrates a simple point: focusing on proficiency rates exclusively does not determine whether initiatives such as the implementation are working. Our commitment to highlighting growth rather than just proficiency is rooted in a fundamental belief: students deserve to be recognized for the progress they are making, regardless of whether they meet an arbitrary threshold at a single point in time. Over the past three years, teachers have shown that sustained, quality instruction can lead to tangible progress, even if it doesn’t immediately translate to proficiency. This approach requires acknowledging incremental gains and valuing the efforts students and teachers alike contribute daily to the learning process. It takes sustained effort to build the capacity of classroom teachers and school site leaders for student achievement to grow.

Unfortunately, some have chosen to disregard this context, framing PUSD’s performance as a district “failing to educate children.” This rhetoric is not only misleading but also deeply harmful. It trivializes the dedication of educators and overlooks the successes students achieve on their way to proficiency.

In a society that values data-driven decision-making, we must be mindful of how we interpret and discuss test scores. When we allow proficiency rates to dominate our discourse on student achievement, we risk a reductionist view that fails to capture the depth and breadth of students’ learning journeys. It’s essential that we look beyond the narrow lens of proficiency and embrace a more nuanced understanding of student growth and achievement. Only then can we create an educational environment that truly values and supports every student’s path to success.

Elizabeth Blanco, Ed.D., is the Superintendent of the Pasadena Unified School District. David Rennie, Ed.D., is the district’s Coordinator of Data & Continuous Improvement.