The Single Most Important Consideration When Interpreting and Communicating Illinois’ New Proficiency Benchmarks
On August 13, 2025, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) approved new student proficiency benchmarks to provide educators and families more meaningful data about student success.
While the new benchmarks are a step in the right direction toward more “right-sized” performance levels, state proficiency standards inevitably reflect qualitative state policy beyond quantitative score distributions. While raw proficiency metrics are meaningful, they lack proper context with respect to actual student performance across Illinois and the nation. Without the proper state or national context, the new proficiency benchmarks are likely to be grossly misinterpreted.
The Issue:
Variation in Rigor Across Grades and Subjects
Based on ECRA’s research of more than 1 million students across Illinois who took the state assessments in 2024 (Figures 2 and 3), it is much easier to be proficient in some grades and subjects than others. The variation in percent proficient by grade and subject is primarily attributed to differences in competitiveness of the benchmarks across grades and subjects as measured by national percentiles. Figure 1 shows an estimated national percentile corresponding to each proficiency benchmark, suggesting a range of rigor from approximately the 45th national percentile to the 69th national percentile. National percentiles were estimated using available state and national data.
For example, in mathematics:
- Most districts will see a steady drop in math proficiency from Grade 3 to Grade 8 that is unrelated to student, school, or district performance.
- To be proficient, a Grade 3 student needs to score approximately at the 55th national percentile while a student in Grade 8 needs to score approximately at the 69th national percentile.
- This lack of alignment to national percentiles corresponds to a proficiency gap of 51% in Grade 3 to 30% in Grade 8.
- A student who scores at the proficiency benchmark in Grade 3 will need to significantly outpace the nation in growth in order to remain proficient in Grade 8.
Another example, in ELA:
- Most districts will show significantly higher proficiency in ELA compared to math, despite being equally competitive compared to the state and nation.
- It is easier for a student to be proficient in ELA than in math. As can be seen in Figure 1, the new math proficiency benchmarks are more competitive than the new ELA proficiency benchmarks. In Grade 6, the estimated national percentile for proficiency in math and ELA is the 62nd and 47th national percentile respectively.
- The largest proficiency gap exists in Grade 6, where 33% of students were proficient in math while 57% were proficient in ELA.
The Solution:
Do not interpret or compare proficiency rates between grades or subjects.
The lack of empirical articulation of the new benchmarks to state and national score distributions results in variation of proficiency rates at the local level that are unrelated to student, school, or district performance. As a result, ECRA offers the following guidance for Illinois school districts when interpreting and communicating proficiency rates using the new benchmarks:
1. When interpreting or communicating proficiency, report a state or national percentile alongside the percent proficient metric for context.
It will be tempting for boards, parents, and community members to incorrectly interpret gaps in proficiency rates across grades and subjects as indicative of student or school performance. While raw proficiency is meaningful, it can be grossly misinterpreted without the proper context. For example, based on the new benchmarks, some schools and districts will observe proficiency gaps in one direction, but percentile gaps in the opposite direction. For example, in Grade 6, local school districts may see higher proficiency in ELA compared to math, but lower national percentiles in ELA compared to math.
2. When evaluating or communicating district, school, or program performance, use student growth, not proficiency. Student growth is the most meaningful school improvement metric.
Student growth is invariant to proficiency benchmarks, and natively captures progress, providing a more evidence-based approach to evaluating performance. In addition, student growth accounts for unique challenges that local districts face by capturing performance relative to a baseline, as opposed to comparing all schools to the same proficiency standard.
Key Takeaway:
The new proficiency benchmarks provide valuable insights, but without proper context they may lead to misleading conclusions. When communicating student success, schools should frame proficiency rates in relation to state or national percentile ranks and emphasize student growth as the most valid measure of school improvement.
For more information, consider registering for an upcoming webinar with Dr. Gatta or contact ECRA for a free consultation. A list of upcoming events can be found here.
Notes:
- Proficiency rates were calculated using over 1 million Illinois students who took a state exam in 2024.
- National percentiles were estimated using a sample of state and national data sets. National percentiles reported in this article are estimates and are for illustration purposes only.
Figure 1: Estimated National Percentiles by Grade Corresponding to Proficient Benchmark for Old and New Benchmarks
Figure 2: Percent of Illinois Students Meeting Math Proficiency Benchmark by Grade for Old and New Benchmarks
Figure 3: Percent of Illinois Students Meeting ELA Proficiency Benchmark by Grade for Old and New Benchmarks
Webinar Details:
Title: 3 Things Your District Should Know About the New Illinois Proficiency Benchmarks
When: Sep 10, 2025, 10:00 AM CT
