LISTEN TO THE EPISODE

Welcome to Education on the Line, a podcast series focused on the latest threats and challenges to public education, and strategies for confronting them. I’m Louis Freedberg, host of the podcast.
Today, we’ll try to make sense of a barrage of test scores that are often conflicting—or at least appear to be—and how they too often become weapons in the political arena, used to advance or roll back a range of policy agendas. We’ll dig into what the tests tell us, why we need them at all, and how test scores can—or should—inform what actually goes on in schools.
To that end, I’m thrilled to be joined by two people who are better positioned than almost anyone
in education to help make sense of this often confusing testing landscape. First, I’m pleased to welcome Linda Darling-Hammond, the founding president and now chief knowledge officer of the Learning Policy Institute. For many years, she was a professor of education at Stanford University. She is a past president of the American Educational Research Association and served as executive director of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. She led the education policy transition teams for both President Obama and President Biden. In 2022, she won the prestigious Yidan Prize for Education Research for her work on shaping more equitable and effective ways to teach and learn. And if that weren’t enough, she is also president of the
California State Board of Education. Welcome, Linda.
Linda Darling-Hammond (2:04)
Great to be here. Thank you.
Louis Freedberg (2:06)
I’m also pleased to welcome Pedro Noguera, whom many of you know as a regular host of this podcast and who joins us today as a guest. Pedro is the dean of the USC Rossier School of Education. He has been a professor at UC Berkeley—where I first met him many years ago—as well as at Harvard, NYU, and UCLA. He has published more than 250 research articles and 15 books. His most recent book, co-authored with Rick Hess, is Common Schooling: Conversations About the Tough Questions and Complex Issues Confronting K-12 Education in the United States. Welcome, Pedro.
Pedro Noguera (2:52)
Thanks, Louis. Good to see you, Linda.
Louis Freedberg (2:54)
Let me jump in with you, Linda, with a basic question—one we could spend the entire half hour discussing. Are tests important? Do we need them?
Linda Darling-Hammond: 3:36
Some tests are important and useful. We need to be clear that we’re testing what we should be testing, in ways that are appropriate and useful. When that’s the case, the data can help us to understand where we are and what is important for kids to be focusing on. Not all tests that we use, however, are actually useful, and that’s a whole other conversation.
Louis Freedberg: 3:36
Pedro, your quick thoughts.
Pedro Noguera: 3:42
For the public, a helpful analogy is testing when you go to the doctor’s office. They almost always do a blood pressure test or other tests to see how you’re doing. The test doesn’t treat you; it just gives you a gauge of where you are. Similarly, in school, we need to know where a child is in terms of reading and math and how they compare to other kids at the same age. But by itself, the test does not address that child’s needs. So is testing necessary? Yes. But it is only one part of what we need to do to ensure kids are getting the education they need.
Louis Freedberg: 4:25
We have the NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, we have state scores, we have PISA, the international assessments. Where do we stand in terms of what these tests are actually telling us?
Linda Darling-Hammond: 5:11
All three of those tests measure things differently, so you’re going to get different outcomes partly for that reason. NAEP, when it comes to California, tests less than 0.2 percent of our population. It’s a very small sample, so you’re getting a limited snapshot.
Louis Freedberg: 5:36
And NAEP is often called the nation’s report card, so it gets a lot of attention.
Linda Darling-Hammond: 5:44
It does get a lot of attention, but at the state level it’s based on a very small proportion of students. Since the pandemic, NAEP has had difficulty getting schools to participate, so the composition of the sample has been changing in different states. That creates a lot of noise around the test.
All three measures did show dips during the pandemic, so that’s a common thread. However, for California, the most reliable assessment is the state test, which 95 to 96 percent of students take.
That gives us a large, continuous sample. There we see improvement over the last two years as students come out of the pandemic.
Another interesting point is that the United States has been doing better on PISA in recent years.
There’s a common narrative that schools are failing because a certain percentage of kids score 3 below “proficient.” But “proficient” is a very high aspirational bar. It is not the same as grade level, though it’s often misinterpreted that way.
We also hear talk of a literacy crisis, that students can’t read. Yet on international tests, which are often more intellectually rigorous than U.S. tests, we rank sixth in the world in reading and twelfth in science. Math is where we struggle; we’re below the international average, and we should be having a serious conversation about that.
So you get very different perspectives depending on the assessment. In California, where nearly all students are tested every year, we are making gains. That test also measures writing, research, and listening, making it a more robust measure of what students can actually do.
Louis Freedberg: 7:58
The California test—and really state tests generally—are intended to help teachers, parents, and students understand how to improve. I’ve never heard of NAEP being used that way. Is that an important distinction when thinking about usefulness?
Linda Darling-Hammond: 8:25
Yes. NAEP is a national yardstick. It samples students across states to show how the nation is doing overall, but it doesn’t measure the same things as most state tests. Most state tests are rooted in the Common Core standards, which many states adopted a decade ago. NAEP is not. It gives us a broad benchmark, but it isn’t comparable to the assessments actually being used to guide instruction in schools.
Louis Freedberg: 9:05
Pedro, when test scores come out—especially NAEP—they’re often used to argue that schools are failing. That was particularly the case when the most recent NAEP scores were released, with claims that money has been wasted and the education system continues to fail students. To what extent are you concerned about how these scores get politicized?
Pedro Noguera: 10:00
That’s been an issue for a long time. Scores are often politicized and used to blame teachers, students, or schools. What we’re seeing now is a lack of leadership. Previous administrations laid out goals and policies to move the nation forward. This administration has not only failed to do that but has begun dismantling the Department of Education and eliminated the National Center for Education Statistics, which monitors the data. At the same time, it has failed to articulate goals or strategies for improving academic performance. “Make America Great Again” does not include a plan for improving learning outcomes, and that should concern all of us.
Linda Darling-Hammond: 11:07
I’d add one more point about how NAEP scores are used. There’s widespread misunderstanding about the “proficient” level. It’s often equated with grade level, but it’s not. It was intentionally set as an aspirational benchmark above the median. Checker Finn, who helped establish NAEP, recently wrote about this very issue.
Another factor is who is taking the test. In recent years, we’ve seen increases in students who are low income, experiencing homelessness, living with disabilities, or learning English. Each of those factors is associated with greater resource needs. As the population changes, average scores are affected. That can’t be attributed solely to schools; it reflects broader social conditions and supports.
Louis Freedberg: 13:14
There’s also the issue that averages can disguise what’s really happening. Within any district, many students are doing very well while others are struggling. Differences among schools and districts get obscured. How useful is the average as a measure?
Pedro Noguera: 14:07
For education leaders, the real work is breaking the data down—by school, by student, even by classroom—to identify patterns. Poverty is a major factor. When students with greater needs are concentrated in particular schools, leaders have to ask what additional supports are required: after-school programs, better preschool, stronger teaching, more instructional time.
Scores alone don’t explain what’s happening. Using the health analogy again, a doctor doesn’t just tell you your blood pressure is high; they explain what needs to be done to lower it. That’s what good leadership does—use the data to decide what actions to take.
Linda Darling-Hammond: 15:15
In California, as the share of low-income students has grown, we’ve expanded community schools that provide wraparound supports. Recent data show that these schools have significantly reduced chronic absenteeism and suspensions and increased math and reading scores compared to similar schools without those supports. That’s part of why California’s scores are improving, especially for Black students, Latino students, and low-income students.
Louis Freedberg: 16:32
Some districts are clearly beating the odds. Los Angeles Unified is now doing better than before the pandemic. Compton is another example. What do we know about what helps schools improve?
Pedro Noguera: 17:21
It’s usually the basics: strong instruction, strong support for teachers, and targeted support for students who need it. Sometimes students need more time or a different curriculum. We’ve seen gains in places that adopted phonics-based reading curricula.
The state can play a role by highlighting successful districts like Compton and Los Angeles and sharing what they’re doing with others that aren’t seeing the same progress.
Linda Darling-Hammond: 18:23
Both of those districts invested heavily in their teacher and leadership workforce. Los Angeles raised teacher salaries and began the school year fully staffed. Compton reduced turnover and invested in professional learning. That stability created the foundation for curriculum improvements.
Compton also emphasized project-based learning, science, technology, and robotics—creating a more engaging curriculum. They use interim assessments to track progress and ensure students receive support throughout the year.
Louis Freedberg: 19:45
Engagement seems fundamental. California has expanded learning opportunities, including summer programs that combine academics with enrichment. How important is that?
Linda Darling-Hammond: 20:24
It matters a great deal. Summer learning loss has long disadvantaged low-income students.
California now has the largest expanded learning program in the country, which grew during the pandemic. Los Angeles was among the first districts to offer these opportunities—and tutoring—at scale, and it’s making a difference.
Pedro Noguera: 21:26
We also need to focus on learning itself: how to engage students, spark curiosity, and motivate them. With artificial intelligence becoming ubiquitous, it’s more important than ever that students develop critical thinking skills. Making learning appealing is essential if students are going to thrive.
Linda Darling-Hammond: 22:18
California’s linked learning pathways are a good example. These industry-themed academies keep students engaged through project-based and community-connected learning. During the pandemic, these schools maintained attendance because students found the learning meaningful.
Programs like the Golden State Pathways build on that success.
Louis Freedberg: 23:25
Before we let Pedro go, let’s talk about cell phones. Research suggests removing them from classrooms improves outcomes. How important is this issue?
Pedro Noguera: 24:01
It’s very important. Cell phones are distracting and contribute to anxiety and mental health challenges. Limiting or eliminating phone use during school is a positive step. I’d encourage parents to consider similar limits at home. We need more time together and less time on our phones.
Louis Freedberg: 24:50
Linda, your view?
Linda Darling-Hammond: 24:57
Social media pressures, cyberbullying, and phone addiction are real challenges. Removing phones during class can help, but it’s not a complete solution. Schools also need to focus on social-emotional learning, community building, and helping students develop healthy relationships with technology.
Louis Freedberg: 26:19
In California, districts are required to have cell phone policies. Is that right?
Linda Darling-Hammond: 26:38
Yes. Every district must have a policy restricting phone use during instructional time, though some allow use at other times. There are safety and communication concerns to balance, but instructional time must be protected.
Louis Freedberg: 27:11
You played a key role in developing the California School Dashboard, which moved away from judging schools based on a single test score. Is that approach working?
Linda Darling-Hammond: 28:00
It’s very helpful. The dashboard provides information on attendance, graduation, college and career readiness, suspension rates, and more. That context helps schools understand what’s driving outcomes and what to improve. Addressing issues like chronic absenteeism often leads to gains in achievement.
Louis Freedberg: 29:34
Nationally, we moved from No Child Left Behind to the Every Student Succeeds Act, which reduced the emphasis on testing. Are we where we should be?
Linda Darling-Hammond: 30:15
ESSA allowed states to look at multiple measures, which is an improvement. Accountability should help us understand what works and spread good practice. Under No Child Left Behind, despite extensive testing, outcomes didn’t improve—and in some cases worsened.
We also need to pay attention to what’s on the tests. High-performing countries use assessments that require deep thinking, research, and problem-solving. During the No Child Left Behind era, we relied too heavily on low-level multiple-choice tests, which narrowed the curriculum.
California has begun to reverse that, especially with performance tasks in science, but there’s more to do.
Louis Freedberg: 33:29
What would you say to educators who feel discouraged when scores don’t rise as quickly as hoped?
Linda Darling-Hammond: 33:54
Test scores are not the be-all and end-all. No other country relies on testing the way we do. Tests tell us some things, but not everything. We need better assessments that measure what we truly value, and we need to focus on the whole child—engagement, motivation, safety, and belonging.
A major threat to public education is that families leave when schools don’t provide supportive relationships. We need to transform schools so learning is meaningful and connected to students’ lives and communities.
Louis Freedberg: 36:57
After all these years, do you ever get discouraged?
Linda Darling-Hammond: 37:17
Education in the U.S. is deeply politicized, so progress often feels like two steps forward and one step back. That’s discouraging. But over the long view—over 50 years—we’ve made enormous progress in access, equity, and understanding how students learn. That gives me hope.
Louis Freedberg: 38:36
What encourages you when it comes to testing?
Linda Darling-Hammond: 38:45
Graduation rates are up, more students are staying in school, and we’ve closed some achievement gaps. I’m also encouraged by movement toward more authentic assessments—like students designing apps or conducting research.
Gradually, we’re moving away from artificial measures toward assessments that reflect real thinking and performance.
Louis Freedberg:
Some tests are important and useful. We need to be clear that we’re testing what matters, in ways that are appropriate. When that happens, the data can help us understand where students are and what they should focus on. But not all tests are useful, and that’s a separate conversation.
Pedro, your quick thoughts?
Pedro Noguera
A helpful analogy is medical testing. A blood pressure test doesn’t treat you; it tells you where you are. In school, tests can tell us where a child stands in reading or math compared with peers.
But the test alone doesn’t address the child’s needs. Testing is necessary, but it’s only one piece of what students need to succeed.
Louis Freedberg
We’re constantly hearing about test scores going down. We have NAEP, California’s state tests, and international tests like PISA. What are these tests really telling us?
Linda Darling-Hammond
They measure different things in different ways, so results will differ. NAEP, for example, tests a very small sample of students in California, which creates a lot of statistical noise—especially since participation has declined since the pandemic.
All three assessments showed dips during the pandemic. But California’s state test, taken by nearly all students, shows improvement over the last two years as students recover.
Internationally, the U.S. ranks sixth in reading and twelfth in science, though we perform poorly
in math. The narrative that schools are broadly failing is often based on misunderstanding what “proficient” means. It’s an aspirational benchmark, not the same as grade level.
Louis Freedberg
NAEP scores often get used to claim schools are failing. How concerned are you about that politicization?
Pedro Noguera
Very concerned. Test scores are routinely weaponized to blame schools and teachers. What’s
troubling now is the absence of leadership—no clear goals for improving learning, and even
efforts to dismantle institutions that collect and analyze education data. Criticism without a
strategy doesn’t help students.
Linda Darling-Hammond
Another problem is misinterpreting who is being tested. We have more students today who are low-income, homeless, have disabilities, or are English learners. Those realities affect average scores and can’t be attributed solely to schools.
Louis Freedberg
Averages also hide big differences—between students, schools, and districts. How useful are they?
Pedro Noguera
Leaders have to disaggregate the data. They need to ask where challenges are concentrated and what supports are needed—more time, better instruction, stronger early education, or additional services. Scores alone don’t tell you what to do next.
Linda Darling-Hammond
California has responded by expanding community schools that provide wraparound supports.
The data show reduced absenteeism and suspensions and higher reading and math scores. That helps explain why state scores are rising, particularly for Black, Latino, and low-income students.
Louis Freedberg
Some districts are beating the odds—Los Angeles Unified and Compton, for example. What’s working?
Pedro Noguera
The basics: strong instruction, support for teachers, and targeted help for students who need it. In
some places, curriculum changes—like phonics-based reading—have helped. The state should
spotlight districts that are making progress so others can learn from them.
Linda Darling-Hammond
Both districts invested heavily in their workforce—raising salaries, reducing turnover, and improving professional learning. That stability made it possible to improve curriculum and instruction. Compton also emphasized project-based learning and used interim assessments to guide support during the year.
Louis Freedberg
Engagement matters too. California has expanded learning programs, including summer learning. How important is that?
Linda Darling-Hammond
Very important. Summer learning loss disproportionately affects low-income students. California now has the largest expanded learning program in the country, and districts like Los Angeles have paired it with tutoring at scale.
Pedro Noguera
We also need to focus on motivation and curiosity. With AI everywhere, students need critical thinking skills. Making learning engaging isn’t optional—it’s essential.
Louis Freedberg
What about cell phones in schools?
Pedro Noguera
They’re a major distraction and contribute to anxiety. Limiting phone use during school is a positive step, and parents should consider similar limits at home.
Linda Darling-Hammond
Removing phones during class helps, but it’s not enough. Schools also need to address social-emotional learning, community, and students’ relationships with technology.
Louis Freedberg
California now requires districts to restrict phone use during instructional time.
Linda Darling-Hammond
Yes, every district must have a policy, though they vary in how they balance communication and safety concerns.
Louis Freedberg
You helped design the California School Dashboard to move beyond test scores alone. Is it working?
Linda Darling-Hammond
Yes. It provides a fuller picture—attendance, graduation, college and career readiness, school climate. That information helps schools understand what’s driving outcomes and how to improve them.
Louis Freedberg
Are we in the right place nationally on testing and accountability?
Linda Darling-Hammond
We’re better off than under No Child Left Behind, which emphasized low-level testing without improving outcomes. Accountability should help spread effective practice, not punish schools.
We also need better assessments—ones that measure deep thinking, writing, research, and problem-solving.
Louis Freedberg
What would you say to educators who feel discouraged?
Linda Darling-Hammond
Tests are limited tools. They don’t capture everything that matters. What matters most is whether students are engaged, supported, and motivated to learn. If schools focus on meaningful learning and strong relationships, long-term success will follow.
Louis Freedberg
After all these years, what keeps you hopeful?
Linda Darling-Hammond
Graduation rates are up, more students are staying in school, and assessments are slowly becoming more authentic. Progress isn’t linear, but over time we are moving forward.

Educators are barraged with a range of test scores from K-12 schools that are often confusing and seem to conflict with each other. Some show students improving. Others show the opposite

Listen to Linda Darling-Hammond and Pedro Noguera, two of the nation's premier education scholars and advocates, make the case for why we need tests --- not as weapons to label and stigmatize students and schools, but as tools to improve learning.

Darling-Hammond, founder and Chief Knowledge Officer of the Learning Policy Institute, and president of the California State Board of Education, points to latest test results showing improvements in California, as well as in districts who are beating the odds like Los Angeles and Compton Unified. An overemphasis on tests, she says, has meant less emphasis on higher-level thinking in our schools. Noguera, Dean of the USC Rossier School of Education, argues that we should pay more attention to learning itself and how to get kids engaged and motivated.

Key Topics Covered:

0:00 Beyond Confusion: What Tests Tell Us
3:05 Do Tests Matter And Why?
5:20 NAEP, State Exams, And PISA Explained
10:20 Why "Proficiency" On Tests Is Not the Same As "Grade Level"
14:10 Beyond Averages: Using Tests to Inform Teaching
18:30 Districts In Low Income Communities Show Improvements Are Possible
23:20 Engagement, Extended Learning, And Pathways
28:00 Does Smart Phone Use in Schools Affect Test Scores?
32:40 Broadening Definition of Success Beyond Test Scores
37:20 Accountability That Improves Practice
41:30 What’s On The Test Matters

LISTEN IN YOUR FAVORITE APP

Guest:

Linda Darling-Hammond is the Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education Emeritus at Stanford University and the founding president of the Learning Policy Institute.
Pedro Noguera, Distinguished Professor of Education, Emery Stoops and Joyce King Stoops Dean, Executive Director of Inclusive Practices and Support Services at the Sacramento County Office of Education. She was previously Director of Special Education for the state of California.