Indeed, appearances can be deceiving. Educational testing and academic standards are no exception to that old adage. In fact, studies in the last couple of years have shown significant discrepancies between how students perform on tests developed at the state level and how they perform on grade-level tests developed at a national level.

One study by Stanford University and the University of California, which looked at how 12 states conducted their testing programs from 1992 through 2006, found that students performed well on their state tests in reading and math and, in comparison, quite poorly on the federal NAEP test. In some of the states, score differentials between the state tests and the NAEP reading and math tests exceeded 50 points.

A study from the Fordham Institute identified Colorado and Wisconsin as among those with the lowest state standards, and California, Massachusetts, and Indiana as among those with the highest standards. One reason for the difference is that some states are designing tests to ensure high scores and continued No Child Left Behind (NCLB) funding.

Receiving the NCLB funds is contingent on a state's agreeing to test students, measure student improvement, and meet certain academic standards. That is precisely why some states have found their own ways to guarantee a share of the NCLB funds. States have lowered the standards for evaluating whether their students are making adequate yearly progress, the NCLB standard for funding, and have devised weak tests intended to assure their students meet those lowered standards.

This situation is not going to change until we have national standards and national tests in math and reading adopted by all states. Only then can we measure progress accurately and fairly, and only then can we truly compare student performance on a national scope.

(Problems with NCLB extend beyond testing, but that story is for another day. The expectations of NCLB are not the problem. They are good standards to which to aspire and standards that will do our children justice. But the law has created too many challenges--not only inequitable testing concerns, but also issues around funding the initiative adequately and meeting the needs of a diverse student population.)