In January, the surveyed more than 1,600 public K-12 schools from every state and the District of Columbia — where 53 percent in low poverty neighborhoods said they do a “very good” or “excellent” job preparing students for college and 52 percent said the same for the workforce.

But public school educators in high poverty neighborhoods were lower at 33 and 43 percent respectively.

“If they’re assessing themselves based on the post-graduation success of their students, it makes sense why they feel they’re not doing as well,” said Josh Wyner, founder and executive director of the .

Wyner said the college enrollment rate of high school students from low-income backgrounds is generally less than those from higher income areas, and they end up facing lower wages long-term if they go directly into the workforce.

“While it’s discouraging that schools serving lower income and more diverse students believe they’re not doing as good a job, something they can do about it appears in the study,” he added, noting the correlation between offering more advanced coursework — such as Advanced Placement and dual enrollment — and their perception of how they prepare high school students for the next stage of their lives.

The survey, which serves as part of the latest tracking the pandemic’s impact on public education, asked educators how they viewed their preparation of high school students for college and the workforce on a five-point scale — from “poor” to “excellent.”

About 47 percent said they do a “very good” or “excellent” job preparing students for college and 50 percent said the same for the workforce.

“I hope this data will spark important conversations that lead to improved opportunities for all students,” said NCES commissioner Peggy Carr in a statement.

Here are four things to know about the survey findings:

1. Public school educators in high poverty neighborhoods with more students of color were less likely to say they’re preparing students well for college and the workforce.

The report found public schools in low poverty neighborhoods were more likely to say they do a “very good” or “excellent” job preparing students for college compared to those in high poverty neighborhoods — a difference of 53 and 33 percent respectively.

Statistics were similar about the workforce — a difference of 52 and 43 percent respectively.

The report also found public schools with fewer students of color were more likely to say they do a “very good” or “excellent” job preparing students for college compared to those with a majority — a difference of 57 and 36 percent respectively.

Statistics were similar about the workforce — a difference of 55 and 41 percent respectively.

Wyner said the contrast based on poverty level and the number of students of color comes from the disproportionate access to advanced coursework.

“We’ve known for a long time that AP access is inequitable, but the fact that dual enrollment access is also inequitable…is troubling,” Wyner said.

The study found 73 percent of public schools offered at least one of the following: Advanced Placement, Pre-Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or dual enrollment courses.

About 76 percent of public schools in low poverty neighborhoods offered advanced coursework compared to 65 percent of those in high poverty neighborhoods.

But the difference was greater based on the number of students of color.

About 84 percent of public schools with fewer students of color offered advanced coursework compared to 65 percent of those with a majority.

“It’s a little bit of a surprise because [a majority] of those courses are offered by community colleges which are often located in areas that serve high need high school students,” Wyner said. 

“So you would think that those partnerships would be stronger and enable expanded access to advanced courses — but they don’t.”

2. Public school educators with smaller student populations were less likely to say they’re preparing students well for college and the workforce.

Public schools with less than 300 students were the least likely to say they do a “very good” or “excellent” job preparing students for college and the workforce compared to those with a larger population.

Wyner said this is because public schools with fewer students are generally located in less densely populated areas, such as towns and rural areas, with less resources and proximity to other educational institutions.

“Some of this has to do with urbanicity,” Wyner said. “In some communities, economic opportunity is limited…so high school students, no matter how well-prepared, may not readily be able to find a job if they’re staying in these areas.”

3. Public school educators in towns were less likely to say they’re preparing students well for college — but those in cities had similar attitudes for the workforce.

Public schools in towns were the least likely to say they do a “very good” or “excellent” job preparing students for college compared to those in cities, suburbs or rural areas.

But those in cities were the least likely to have the same attitude about preparing students for the workforce.

Wyner said the local economies are likely driving these perceptions — with public schools in towns and rural areas having a higher number of blue collar jobs compared to cities having a higher number of college opportunities.

“The reality is that schools that are in knowledge-based economies, which tend to be centered in cities, will consider themselves more capable of preparing students for a liberal arts education whereas schools in areas with a higher percentage of jobs in agriculture, manufacturing or some of the more blue collar jobs will view themselves as stronger in preparing students for the workforce,” Wyner said.

“There are also many parts of the country that have long traditions of having jobs that don’t require postsecondary training,” he added, pointing to the lingering impact of careers in the automotive, steel mill and manufacturing industries.

4. Public school educators in the Midwest were less likely to say they’re preparing students well for college — but those in the West had similar attitudes for the workforce. 

Public schools in the Midwest were the least likely to say they do a “very good” or “excellent” job preparing students for college compared to those in the Northeast, South and West.

But those in the West were the least likely to have the same attitude about preparing students for the workforce.

“It makes sense why we see a correlation between location, morality and postsecondary and employment opportunities for students,” Wyner said.

“This study should offer guidance to [public schools] to find the right ways to prepare students for college and the workforce…and give them that sense of self-efficacy that they know what’s right for them.”

The revelation comes from The Condition of Education 2023, the latest in a series of annual digests from the National Center for Education Statistics surveying the landscape of K–12 schools. Its contents offer a nuanced account of how COVID-19 affected student experiences both inside and outside the classroom.

But the report also represents the fullest record yet of the decade preceding that once-in-a-century jolt to learning, during which K–12 spending climbed, school choice blossomed and the teaching pipeline narrowed. Compiling surveys and other data collections from over a dozen federal and international sources, the report captures how trends dating back to the middle of the Obama administration were either accelerated or untouched by the emergence of COVID.

The number of pupils enrolled in charter schools leapt from 1.8 million in 2012 to 3.7 million in 2021, when they accounted for 7 percent of all public school enrollment. Over the same period, white students shrank from a narrow majority of the total American student body to a smaller plurality. Public school revenues grew by 13 percent — compared with a 3 percent increase in student enrollment — while the dropout rate (measured as the percentage of 16–24-year-olds who haven’t earned a diploma and aren’t attending school) fell from 8.3 percent to 5.2 percent.

“The condition of education, as one might expect, is a complicated picture for the United States,” Peggy Carr, the commissioner of NCES, told reporters. “The impact of COVID on our education system gives us…an opportunity to rethink where we were.”

One bleak and well-known phenomenon that came into focus in the 2010s was the worsening mental health reality for adolescents, many of whom have reported spiraling rates of depression and anxiety. Those problems were clearly aggravated by pandemic-related school closures, which separated tens of millions of children from friends and teachers for months at a time.

In survey findings gathered last spring, leaders at 70 percent of schools said that they were faced with higher proportions of students seeking psychological and behavioral support. But only 56 percent of respondents agreed (and just 12 percent strongly agreed) that their school was able to effectively deliver that support.

Overall, 72 percent of schools said they provided mental health trauma support during the 2021–22 school year, just one of the strategies employed to help children recover from pandemic-related setbacks to learning and social-emotional development. The same percentage said they were offering remedial instruction, while three-quarters said they had implemented summer enrichment programs before the school year started.

But such supplemental services were undoubtedly difficult to roll out during a time of spiking demand for school staff. Across a dozen varied academic disciplines and specialties, more schools said they had difficulty hiring for positions in 2020–21 than in 2011–12. In particular, during the first full pandemic year, substantial portions of public schools looking to hire said they had difficulty filling vacant roles in foreign languages (42 percent), special education (40 percent), physical sciences (37 percent), mathematics (32 percent), and computer science (31 percent).

Chad Aldeman, a school finance and labor market analyst, said in an email that the differences in hiring conditions between the two comparison years made it somewhat predictable that job candidates would be at a premium during the hottest jobs economy in decades.

“We were in a totally different economic environment in 2021–22 than we were a decade prior,” said Aldeman. “The ‘ was very low [during the Great Recession], and the unemployment rate was 8.3 percent in January 2012, compared to 4 percent in January 2022. It would be surprising if schools were bucking these trends and not struggling to hire in this environment.”

At the same time, however, a breakdown in the teacher training pipeline might have contributed to the apparent pandemic-era shortages in teachers and other school staff. Between the 2012–13 and 2019–20 school years, the report showed, the number of candidates enrolled in traditional teacher preparation programs shrank by 30 percent; the number of people completing such programs declined by 28 percent, from 161,000 to 116,100, during that interval.

On the heels of those developments, public school enrollment counts were profoundly changed by the impact of COVID and the switch to online learning. 

Longer-term trends show a steady increase in total students, from 49.5 million to 50.8 million, between fall 2010 and fall 2019; but over the next academic year, the entirety of that decade-long growth — 3 percent of all public school students — vanished as public school enrollment fell back to 49.4 million. (Notably, persistent growth in the charter school sector continued during the early stages of the pandemic, with charter school enrollment swelling by 7 percent between fall 2019 and fall 2020.)

As earlier reporting has indicated, drops in head counts were heavily concentrated among the youngest students. While 54 percent of three- and four-year-olds were enrolled in school in 2019, just 50 percent were in 2021. The percentage of five-year-olds in school also fell, from 91 percent to 86 percent, during those two years. 

Thomas Dee, an economist at Stanford who has carefully examined state enrollment figures during the pandemic, said the statistics were “a potent reminder” of the educational harms suffered since March 2020.

“The sustained declines in pre-K and kindergarten enrollment are important,” Dee wrote in an email. “Many of our youngest learners are missing important early learning opportunities, and it will be years before most age into conventional testing windows that will provide some indication of what this means for their learning.”

Posted this morning, results from last year’s administration of the nationally representative test — sometimes referred to as the “Nation’s Report Card” — showed history scores dropping by an average of five points on a 500-point scale. Average civics scores fell by two points on a 300-point scale, the first-ever decline in the 25-year history of the test. After modest increases over the last few decades, performance in both subjects has fallen back to levels measured in the 1990s, when the subjects were first tested. 

Taken together, the scores provide only the latest evidence of declining U.S. academic performance across a range of disciplines. Just last fall, the release of math and English scores showed severe damage inflicted during the pandemic, with years’ worth of academic growth similarly erased or massively reduced.

Peggy Carr, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, told reporters that the unprecedented reversal in civics was “alarming,” though not of the same magnitude as last year’s release. More disquieting were the history results, she added, which began their slide nearly a decade ago and are now nine points lower than in the 2014 iteration of NAEP. 

“For U.S. history, I was very, very concerned,” Carr said. “It’s a decline that started in 2014, long before we even thought about COVID. This is a decline that’s been [going] down for a while.”

Beyond the headline figures, the test also measured lower performance across all four of the sub-themes included on the NAEP U.S. history test, including changes in American democracy (minus-five points), interactions of peoples and cultures (minus-five), economic and technological development (minus-five), and America’s evolving role in the world (minus-three).

Equally noteworthy, Carr observed, was a phenomenon that has been consistent across multiple rounds of NAEP stretching back over the better part of a decade: Scores for the most successful test takers (those at 90th percentile in U.S. history and both the 75th and 90th percentile in civics) are statistically unchanged since 2018, while relatively lower-performing students did significantly worse.

Those diverging trends were reflected in the numbers of participants scoring at NAEP’s different achievement thresholds. The percentage of eighth graders scoring below NAEP’s lowest benchmark of “basic” in U.S. history (defined as only partial mastery of the requisite skills and knowledge in a given subject) grew from 29 percent in 2014 to an incredible 40 percent in 2022. In civics, the proportion of students scoring below the basic level rose to 31 percent from 27 percent in 2018.

By contrast, just 13 percent of test takers managed to score at or above NAEP’s “proficient” benchmark in U.S. history (defined as being able to read, interpret, and draw conclusions from primary and secondary sources) — the lowest proportion of eighth-grade students reaching that level out of any subject tested by NAEP. Only about one-fifth of students met or exceeded the proficient level in civics, the second-lowest proportion for any subject. 

Patrick Kelly, a 12th-grade teacher of AP U.S. government in suburban Columbia, South Carolina, said that the results, while disappointing, could hardly be called a surprise. In spite of their importance to the country’s social fabric, he continued, requisite attention and precedence has not been granted to either history or civics.

“When it comes to social studies instruction, we’ve marginalized it for quite a while nationally,” said Kelly, who also serves as a member of the National Assessments Governing Board, which oversees the construction and administration of NAEP. “You get out of something what you put into it, and we haven’t been putting enough in to get anything other than the results we’re seeing.”

A ‘neglected sphere of learning’

The new scores arrive at a period of contention around social studies, when both policymakers and members of the public allege partisan interference in classroom instruction. 

Conservatives, including a swell of newly emergent parent groups, have spent much of the past few years complaining that teachers and school district leaders are indoctrinating children through ideological instruction on topics like race, gender and sexuality. Progressives counter that Republican-led moves to narrow topics of classroom discussion and remove controversial books from school libraries constitute a more pernicious form of political meddling.

In a statement, Secretary Cardona echoed some of the latter claims, arguing that the lower NAEP scores reflect the disruptive effects of COVID-19. Restricting the autonomy of teachers “does our students a disservice and will move America in the wrong direction,” he said.

“The latest data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress further affirms the profound impact the pandemic had on student learning in subjects beyond math and reading,” Cardona wrote, adding that it is “not the time…to limit what students learn in U.S. history and civics classes.”

But whatever the impact of recent disputes over lengthy school closures or district-led equity initiatives, the drop in history knowledge can be traced back to 2014. It was around that time that a new federal education law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, replaced No Child Left Behind — a development that would reduce classroom focus on the core subjects of math and English and make more room in the school day for instruction in science, social studies, and the arts.

If that shift occurred, it can’t be detected in the latest NAEP results. , a renowned historian who serves as both a humanities professor and president emeritus of the University of Richmond, said that history education still languishes as “a neglected, de-emphasized sphere of learning” within the K–12 world.

The downward-trending performance “reflects 30 years of disinvestment in the teaching of social studies,” reflected Ayers, who recently launched to provide free learning resources to K–12 teachers. “It reflects the diminished amount of testing devoted to those subjects. We have emphasized STEM and reading and sacrificed this kind of learning in schools across the country.”

Recent findings from nationally prominent research and advocacy groups have sounded a similar note. A of the elementary social studies landscape was conducted by the RAND Corporation, warning of a “missing infrastructure” for the teaching of civics and history in elementary schools. Few states require regular assessment of social studies knowledge, the study found, and many rely on low-quality standards. While 98 percent of elementary principals reported evaluating their teachers on math and reading instruction, just 67 percent said the same of social studies. A of teachers said that the task of selecting curricular materials for social studies lessons fell to them, and just 16 percent said they worked from a textbook.

Survey responses from eighth graders who took the exam dovetailed somewhat with those findings. Between 2018 and 2022, the proportion of students who said they were enrolled in a dedicated U.S. history course declined from 72 percent to 68 percent. Just 55 percent said they had a teacher whose “primary responsibility” was teaching U.S. history, compared with 62 percent four years prior.

Ayers said that the “diminished” focus on history endangered the development of civic skills and inclinations. Only a renewed push for more and better instruction in social studies could reverse that, he said.

“I care about people living in public, living with one another. And there’s nothing like getting outside of yourself — that’s kind of what the humanities do generally. To step outside your own perspective and imagine another time, another place, another gender, another skin, is the best way to foster a sense of common purpose.”

The High School Transcript Study, from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, shows that high school graduates’ overall scores in math declined between 2009 and 2019, while science scores remained flat. 

Only students taking the most rigorous math courses — including precalculus or higher — scored at the proficient level. But even their average score declined from 189 to 184 over the 10-year period. During that same decade, the typical high school senior’s graduating GPA rose .11 points to 3.11, or roughly a B average.

Peggy Carr, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, which administers the NAEP program, suggested that the content of high school courses is not always “as advertised.”

“Algebra I is not Algebra I just because it’s labeled Algebra I,” she said during a Tuesday call with reporters, but noted that the reasons behind the mismatch are complex. During a separate interview with The 74, she added, “We do have evidence from prior investigations that these courses may say they’re doing one thing, but they’re suspect about the rigor.”

The good news, she said, is that more students of all backgrounds are taking higher-level courses — often because schools require them for graduation. She also noted that the average scores of Black students taking calculus have increased, from 161 to 177.

The lack of alignment between NAEP results and student performance in high school is not a new phenomenon. Officials reported the same trend in 2009, Carr said.

GPAs have increased for all racial groups over time, but since 1990, the gaps between Black and white students and Hispanic and white students have increased. The study also shows that students are earning their highest GPAs in career and technical courses or in those described as “other” — not in the core academic courses measured by NAEP. 

The findings, based on a sample of 14,300 graduates from 1,400 public and private schools, follow a series of NAEP results that point to sagging academic performance for the nation’s students. Data released last fall showed disturbing declines among 13-year-olds in both reading and math between 2012 and 2020. And the gaps between the highest- and lowest-scoring students have grown over time. More students, however, are taking tougher courses in high school. The percentage taking “mid-level” or rigorous courses, including Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses, has climbed since 2000 from 46 percent to 63 percent.

Some say the mismatch between students’ grades and NAEP performance reflects that students earn credit for tasks that don’t necessarily reflect learning. Others argue the traditional A-F grading system is and that grade inflation is rampant: Higher grades might boost students’ confidence and increase graduation rates, some experts say, but leave them less prepared for college.

Seth Gershenson, an associate professor of public policy at American University, who studied in 2018, said the pandemic has probably exacerbated grade inflation, but added he hasn’t seen any recent data on the issue. 

“Learning decreased, but a variety of pressures likely kept grades from dipping too hard,” he said. The current NAEP study only reflects scores and GPAs prior to the pandemic.

Carr said her team is already considering what adjustments they’ll have to make when they conduct the next transcript study in 2024, since it will focus on students whose education was disrupted by the pandemic, when many students completed courses online. Most districts across the country shifted to policies that kept grades from slipping below what they were when schools shut down in March, 2020. Some students also had opportunities during the 2020-21 school year to raise their lowest grades. 

In Ohio’s Oberlin City Schools, near Cleveland, high school history teacher Kurt Russell said there was some pushback from teachers at his school when administrators decided to give all students an A or a C on the work they submitted once schools shut down. 

But even before the pandemic, he said he noticed a shift toward allowing students to make up assignments that were significantly past due. 

“In the past, it was a 0 in the gradebook. Now I see a lot of teachers giving full credit for assignments that are very tardy,” said Russell, one of four current finalists for National Teacher of the Year. His policy is to knock off a letter grade for each day an assignment is late. 

“I think we still need to hold our students accountable,” he said.

Gershenson also studied teachers’ in 2020 and found that students learn more when teachers are tougher. 

“Teachers who set a higher bar for a good grade had students who went on to learn more, even after they left that teachers’ class,” said Michael Petrilli, president of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which published the study. “Students learned to exert more effort. They inferred that their teacher held high expectations for them. Teachers face a ton of pressure to give easy A’s. Those that don’t are real heroes.”

Non-achievement factors 

Some experts who study grading policy note that teachers traditionally consider a lot more than a student’s academic work when assigning final grades.

Matthew Townsley, an assistant professor of educational leadership at the University of Northern Iowa, said there’s a “widening disconnect” between GPAs and standardized assessments because course grades reflect a lot of non-achievement factors, such as attendance and assignment completion — regardless of the quality of student performance on  assignments.

The NAEP study, he said, could help strengthen the case for a movement called — giving students credit for what they actually learn and often more than one chance to learn it.

Some educators consider the practice more equitable because submitting assignments early or racking up extra credit points might be easier for students with high-speed Wi-Fi at home and access to private tutors, but can be an ongoing struggle for those in lower-income families. 

While were moving toward such a grading system before the pandemic, interest has spread as educators look for methods that don’t unfairly disadvantage students in poverty. 

“I believe schools seeking to separate achievement from non-achievement factors in their grading were not only well positioned to assess and communicate learning during the pandemic,” Townsley said, “but also to communicate learning in the future that better aligns with NAEP and other external measures.”

The scores offer more discouraging evidence from NAEP, often referred to as “the Nation’s Report Card.” Various iterations of the exam, each tracking different subjects and age groups over several years, have now shown flat or falling numbers. 

The latest release comes from NAEP’s 2020 assessment of long-term trends, which was administered by the National Center for Education Statistics to nine- and 13-year-olds before COVID-19 first shuttered schools last spring. In a Wednesday media call, NCES Commissioner Peggy Carr told reporters that 13-year-olds had never before seen declines on the assessment, and the results were so startling that she had her staff double-check the results.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

“I asked them to go back and check because I wanted to be sure,” Carr recalled. “I’ve been reporting these results for…decades, and I’ve never reported a decline like this.”

The eight-year gap between 2020’s exam and its predecessor, in 2012, is the longest interval that has ever passed between successive rounds of the long-term trend assessment; a round that was originally scheduled for 2016 was for budgetary reasons. Given the length of time between exams and the general trend of increasing scores over multiple decades, observers could have expected to see at least some upward movement.

Instead, both reading and math results for nine-year-olds have made no headway; scores were flat for every ethnic and gender subgroup of younger children — with the exception of nine-year-old girls, who scored five points worse on math than they had in 2012. Their dip in performance produced a gender gap for the age group that did not exist on the test’s last iteration.

More ominous were the results for 13-year-olds, who experienced statistically significant drops of three and five points in reading and math, respectively. Compared with math performance in 2012, boys overall lost five points, and girls overall lost six points. Black students dropped eight points and Hispanic students four points; both decreases widened their score gap with white students, whose scores were statistically unchanged from 2012.

In keeping with previous NAEP releases, the scores also showed significant drops in performance among low-performing test-takers. Most disturbing: Declines among 13-year-olds scoring at the 10th percentile of reading mean that the group’s literacy performance is not significantly improved compared with 1971, when the test was first administered. In all other age/subject configurations, students placing at all levels of the achievement spectrum have gained ground over the last half-century.

“It’s really a matter for national concern, this high percentage of students who are not reaching even what I think we’d consider the lowest levels of proficiency,” said George Bohrnstedt, a senior vice president and institute fellow at the American Institutes for Research.  

Tom Loveless, an education researcher and former director of the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center on Education Policy, said that the reversals in math performance were particularly disappointing because they defied NAEP’s recent trends. For roughly the last three decades, even as politicians and education policy mavens have emphasized literacy instruction, comparatively rapid growth in math scores have made that subject “the star of the show,” Loveless said. 

“Now it almost appears as if those gains are now unwinding, they’re going away. And I don’t think anyone has been able to identify why that’s happening.” 

Bohrnstedt who has followed NAEP for much of his career, said the declines in 13-year-old math performance was notable for another reason: The long-term trends assessment, which been administered by NCES for a half-century, differs substantively from from the content found on other versions of the test. Reflecting the way math was taught in the 1970s, the assessment features more naked math problems and less complex problem-solving than the so-called “main NAEP,” which is administered to fourth- and eighth-graders every two years.

“For the most part, it’s a more basic kind of math than is being taught today, so it’s disappointing to see that we’re still seeing this poor performance by large percentages of our children,” Bohrnstedt said.

Overall, Loveless said, the combination of flat scores on the biennial “main NAEP” and significant declines on this version of the test indicates that American math instruction changed direction over the last decade in a way that may have stymied learning. While hesitating to blame the Common Core curricular reforms that spread during the Obama administration — he recently wrote on the oft-maligned learning standards — Loveless called for further research to investigate possible causes.

“To me, it suggests that beginning a decade or so ago, something went wrong with how we teach math to younger students,” he said. “My own hypothesis is that an emphasis on conceptual understanding has gone too far, that without computational skills to anchor math concepts, students get lost.”

Michael Petrilli, head of the reform-oriented Thomas B. Fordham Institute and a defender of the Common Core standards, said that the results could reflect an alternative theory: That the social and financial overhang of the Great Recession profoundly disrupted skills formation for children who are now reaching their teen years. 

“Assuming that Common Core wasn’t implemented until about 2013, the 13-year-olds wouldn’t have been exposed to it until about second grade,” Petrilli wrote in an email. “The nine-year-olds, on the other hand, got it from kindergarten. So why are the 9 year olds holding steady?”

‘Very Discouraging’

Perhaps the most striking revelation from the release is the continued divergence in scores between students at the top and bottom of the performance distribution — a phenomenon that Commissioner Carr called “well-established” during Wednesday’s media session. 

Throughout all four age and subject configurations, when average scores for most students were stagnant, scores for the lowest-performing students were down; when scores for most students were down, scores for the lowest-performing plummeted.

In nine-year-old reading, where average scores remained unchanged from 2012 — and scores for the top-performing students ticked up a point — those for students scoring at the 10th percentile fell seven points. The same students lost six points in math, while 13-year-olds scoring at the 10th percentile dropped five points in reading and an astonishing 12 points in math.

Even comparatively low-performers at higher levels lost ground in some respects. Nine-year-olds marked at the 25th percentile dropped four points in math, while 13-year-olds at the 25th and 50th percentiles lost eight and five points, respectively, in the subject. 

“It’s very discouraging to see this steep drop at the 10th percentile in both reading and mathematics, but especially in mathematics,” Bohrnstedt concluded. “It also confirms what we’ve seen with respect to the high percentage of kids performing at the ‘below basic’ level in the main NAEP.” 

The long-term assessment is a crucial piece of data for another reason: It was administered to students between October 2019 and March 2020, making it a final snapshot of academic trends before the emergence of COVID-19. Loveless said he hoped future analyses of how kids learned during and after the greatest disaster in K-12 history wouldn’t overlook the “deeper,” persistent stagnation that preceded it.

“These scores represent the last valid, national assessment of student achievement pre-pandemic. For that reason, they will take on historical significance as a baseline measure when future analysts attempt to gauge the impact of the pandemic on student learning.”

Those are among the updates to a “framework” for the reading assessment that the governing board in charge of the National Assessment of Educational Progress approved Thursday. The unanimous vote represented a significant shift since May, when some members of the panel bitterly opposed a version they thought overly emphasized issues of equity and fairness for students taking the test.

Over the summer, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, and Alice Peisch, vice chair, brought together members to hash out their differences and finalize what one observer called a “forward-looking” approach to measuring students’ reading skills.

“You worked extraordinarily hard to build consensus across an array of perspectives, ensuring an update for NAEP Reading that everyone here can stand behind,” Lesley Muldoon, executive director of the governing board, said during the hybrid meeting, with some members assembled in Tysons Corner, Virginia, and others joining remotely. “It would have been really easy for you all just to sort of hit pause after the May meeting and say, ‘Let’s just keep the old framework.”

The board passed a that resulted from those summer meetings, stating its commitment to equity, but dropping some of the lengthy passages on the topic in an earlier draft. Patrick Kelly, a board member and history teacher in South Carolina, who led a committee working on the document, said he felt confident that none of the members feel “the final product is 100 percent reflective of their personal views. That’s also what consensus is about.”

The board has had a long history of finding common ground despite political differences. Andrew Ho, an assessment expert at Harvard University and former member of the board, said agreement on this issue is “in everyone’s best interest.” Approval of the document means the National Center for Education Statistics, which administers the congressionally mandated testing program, can move ahead with developing and piloting assessment questions. With last year’s school closures putting students roughly half a year behind in reading, according to end-of-year results, future tests will also gauge the extent of the pandemic’s impact on learning.

“I think the gap is going to be wider between the racial and ethninc groups,” Peggy Carr, acting commissioner of NCES, told the board, noting the data showing racial differences in remote and in-person learning last school year. “I think the implications are not good for achievement.”

In May, the majority of board members were ready to approve a draft with detailed explanations for how elements in the digital test — such as student writing samples and pop-up hints for some words or concepts — could improve understanding for students who might be unfamiliar with those terms because of their language and cultural backgrounds.

But a few members, especially Russ Whitehurst, argued that highlighting those features of the test at a time when the nation has been arguing over issues of race and discrimination would prove divisive. Whitehurst, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, even offered his own draft, eliminating most references to “sociocultural” factors that influence how students comprehend what they read.

The board “itself almost came unglued” over the issue, Chester Finn Jr., president emeritus of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, wrote in his latest on the saga. But he called the new version “a masterful, praiseworthy piece of work” and “a coherent, forward-looking and intelligible approach to the modern assessment of students’ reading prowess and comprehension.”

Other changes in the new framework include reporting students’ reading skills within content areas — literature, social studies and science. The existing version only provides the categories of literature and “informational texts.” Kelly said unlike in 2004, the last time the document was updated, literacy skills are now “infused” into academic standards.

In addition, results will break out performance levels for former, current and non-English learners. This change will “shed light on any progress — or lack thereof — that might be detectable in the group of former English learners,” the document says.

But even with his glowing review, Finn, a former chair of the board, has some lingering complaints about the issue that led to the board members’ dispute — the purpose of those digital hints and nudges that are intended to motivate students to do their best on an exam that never affects their grade. In the real world, readers don’t get that kind of help, Finn wrote.

“Keep in mind that reading, that most fundamental of subjects, is not in good shape in America today,” he wrote. “We need to bend every effort to teach reading better and ensure that kids learn it well. We don’t need to conceal their deficiencies.”