Results of the Nation’s Report Card Prompt Handwringing and Soul Searching. What’s To Be Done?

By AYZ Education Law Group

December 1, 2022

Earlier this month, the National Center for Education Statistics, the statistical center of the U.S. Department of Education, released the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which is also known as “The Nation’s Report Card.” The NAEP is a nationwide standardized math and reading test that was administered earlier this year to randomly selected students in the fourth and eighth grades. The NAEP has not been administered since 2019.

The results reflect that a majority of states saw a decline in fourth- and eighth grade math scores. The national average score for fourth graders dropped five points as compared to 2019 and, for eighth graders, the change was even more significant – an eight-point drop. The change in reading scores across both cohorts was less stark, with scores falling only three points.

Pennsylvania results for the NAEP were largely consistent with national trends. Though the average fourth grade math score in Pennsylvania was 3 points higher than it was nationally, it was still 6 points lower than in 2019; for eighth graders, math scores were one point higher than the national average but dipped a shocking 11 points as compared to 2019. Reading scores for Pennsylvania fourth graders fell by four points but were three points above the national average; those for Pennsylvania eighth graders were at the national average and fell five points as compared to 2019.

Results of the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests, which were administered earlier this year, reflected similar outcomes. Performances in math lagged behind performances in language arts, and performances overall were worse than pre-pandemic levels. In Pennsylvania, the percentage of students who are considered below basic in math has increased at several grade levels, while the percentage of students who are proficient or above has dropped across all grade levels.

Many commentators point to Covid-related school closures for what U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona has called “appalling and unacceptable” nationwide scores, and it would be hard to suggest that any other factor could have been as important.

Analysts who have dug further into the NAEP data, however, have made some interesting comments and suggestions. First, the decline in math scores relative to reading ones likely reflects that parents, through their actions at home, were more able to keep kids’ reading levels on track by reading to their kids or encouraging them to do so independently; something parents likely find more difficult to do with math. In short, actions at home can make big difference.

Second, the scores of top performers in math declined on average only 2 points, while the scores of the bottom performers declined by an average of 7 points. In other words, the kids who were already struggling have returned to school post-pandemic struggling even more. Third, and relatedly, researchers with the Education Recovery Scorecard, who have evaluated data across different districts within some of our neighboring states, found that recent achievement losses were highly dependent on poverty levels. In math especially, losses were higher in districts with more students receiving federal lunch subsidies, and less significant in districts with fewer students receiving federal lunch subsidies. This raises the question, especially in districts with more poor students: how should schools spend large amounts of pandemic-related federal relief money? If schools decide to direct funding towards measures designed to help poor and struggling students, what are they? Studies suggest, for example, that “high dose” tutoring of groups of students multiple times per week is highly effective. Pre-Covid, studies showed that targeted use of technology for at-risk students was effective in closing achievement gaps; now that students are back in the classroom, should schools re-assess the best way to utilize tech-assisted learning?

Furthermore, in light of this information, schools should remain vigilant with regard to their legal obligations to address student needs. For example, schools must ensure that students with IEPs make “meaningful progress” toward their annual goals. Low test scores may put a school on notice that a student with an IEP is not progressing as expected. In these situations, most students with IEPs can be helped through program modifications and additional supports. However, in exceptional circumstances, schools may need to consider “compensatory services” to ensure that the student remains where they would have been but for the pandemic-related disruption.

Likewise, schools should remain cognizant of their Child Find responsibilities. Under the IDEA, schools must locate, identify, and evaluate all children with disabilities from birth through age 21. This includes children who are suspected of having a disability, including those who receive passing grades and are “advancing from grade to grade.” 34 C.F.R. 300.111(c). Put differently, a school has a duty to evaluate a child for possible special education eligibility when it has reason to suspect that the child may qualify under the IDEA. Myriad factors impact whether a school has reason to suspect that a child qualifies under the IDEA. Although, generally speaking, no single factor alone will trigger a school’s Child Find obligation, declining scores could indicate a need for further evaluation.

In short, the NAEP results certainly show that many students, regardless of disability status, lost ground due to pandemic-related school closures. Now, schools have decisions to make about how best to ensure that those most affected will be provided with the appropriate supports.

Should you have any questions about the NAEP’s “Nation’s Report Card” or its general or special education implications, please do not hesitate to reach out to William J. Zee, or any of the attorneys in the Appel, Yost & Zee Education Group.