Across our nation’s public schools, student high – stakes math proficiency is waning as measured by standardized tests. While these outcomes suggest school – based learning and teaching problems, it is worthwhile to examine the other contributing factors behind the reported high-stakes testing figures.
For example, politicians have criticized Baltimore, City Schools, claiming their secondary students are ” unable to pass a basic math assessment.” There are two problems with this claim. Referring to high-stakes math testing as “basic math” suggests that some policymakers do not understand the national standards and the rigor of what is being assessed. These are not the traditional fundamental math exams of the past, and many who sit in the seat of judgement might struggle to demonstrate proficiency on these assessments.
Additionally, thirteen high schools in Baltimore City were identified as having 0% mathematics proficiency rate on standardized testing. I encourage a thorough review of each school’s transience data and the special population of students they exist to serve. Due diligence research reveals a complete picture; only a fraction of the story is told through the numbers that are spouted without context.
High- stakes testing results should not serve as the sole public-facing measure of urban school performance. While useful for comparisons at local, state, national, and international levels, it is essential to consider multiple variables that influence the reliability and validity of the assessments as well as the trustworthiness of the data reporting.
Ultimately, those who point fingers bear some of the responsibility for these outcomes and should reflect critically. Much of the current rhetoric appears driven more by political agendas than concern for students. High-stakes, quantitative data are being weaponized against districts, schools, students, and educators who are already marginalized.
Excellent learning and teaching has the most significant impact on student achievement. However, as educators acknowledge our accountability, we also have credible voice to add about how to better support students, teachers, and school leaders. Even more we have street data on other factors that inhibit student achievement progress in significant ways – things beyond the instructional core that are harmful and not helpful to schools.
The Urban Education Change Equation has a vision for a world-class education for every student, regardless of zip code. Achieving this requires moving beyond an adversarial culture rooted in politics and unsupported generalizations. It also requires shared responsibility rather than placing sole blame on school leaders, teachers, and even students.
Go deep or go home should be our expectation for data analysis and reporting. If we want a clear picture of student progress and performance, triangulation is key.
Triangulating data means using multiple sources, methods, or researchers to study the same topic, enhancing the credibility, validity, and depth of findings. It involves comparing data to confirm findings, fill in gaps, or explain discrepancies, reducing bias from relying on a single source (personal communication, March 12, 2026, evalacademy.com).
Various measures. Various methods. Comparison over time. Not relying on a single source.
As politicians and others continue to report national student data, our country must move away from punitive measures, reliance on limited quantitative data, and finger-pointing. Improving public education outcomes is a collective effort—America’s responsibility—from the White House to every community.