Reading Between the Lines: What the NAEP Scores Tell Us

The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores are disappointing but not surprising to most educators. Not only has overall performance in reading and math failed to recover to pre-pandemic levels, but the gap for our most vulnerable students continues to widen. However, beyond the numbers, these scores reveal more profound systemic challenges that require urgent attention.

Many discussions have centered around the ongoing attendance crisis in schools. While we lack disaggregated data to draw a direct link, poor attendance is likely a significant factor in the low NAEP performance. Changing norms around illness, mental health concerns, and the lingering perception that school is “optional” post-COVID have all contributed to chronic absenteeism. However, school and district leaders must also consider the role that school culture and climate play in student attendance. While many factors influencing attendance are beyond a school’s control, the best teachers consistently have the highest attendance rates across all grade levels. Why? Because students want to be in their classrooms. This underscores the idea that students engage more when they feel valued, supported, and inspired. Investing in a strong, positive school culture will ultimately pay off in academic achievement.

Beyond attendance, many schools face an ongoing teacher shortage, particularly in the schools where students struggle the most. Unfilled vacancies, mid-year turnover, substitute shortages, and increased teacher absences mean students often go without instruction from a qualified educator. The NAEP results highlight the real impact of these staffing issues. Addressing this crisis requires a long-term commitment to strengthening teacher pipelines and expanding grow-your-own programs to ensure a stable, well-prepared workforce.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment in this year’s NAEP results is in reading. Despite significant investment in aligning instruction with the Science of Reading, widespread improvement in literacy has yet to materialize. However, this should not be seen as a reason to abandon evidence-based reading instruction. Systemic change takes time, and we must anticipate that it will be years before these efforts are reflected in large-scale standardized tests like NAEP. The latest scores suggest that implementation is inconsistent and that many teachers may not have the necessary training or support to fully execute these methods. Providing ongoing professional development and coaching is essential. Additionally, schools must consider how to support older students who did not receive strong foundational reading instruction, implementing high-dosage tutoring and targeted interventions to close gaps.

While math scores fared slightly better than reading, student performance still fell below expectations. Although math standards have become more rigorous and conceptually focused, there has not been a concerted effort to identify and scale effective instructional practices. The NAEP results indicate that students are struggling to bridge the gap between conceptual understanding and practical application. To move forward, education leaders must examine what research tells us about high-quality math instruction and invest in building teacher capacity to deliver it with fidelity.

At MGT, we understand there is no one-size-fits-all solution to accelerating learning, but meaningful progress is possible when we work together. The NAEP results tell a complex story, but these results highlight key opportunities for intervention. By investing in school culture, strengthening the teacher workforce, and ensuring effective implementation of research-based instructional practices, we can close the gaps and set all students up for success.