Resource Center

National Scores Suggest Need for Targeted Investments to Ensure All Students Succeed

• By Morgan Craven, J.D. & Chloe Latham Sikes, Ph.D. • IDRA Newsletter • March 2025 •

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called “the nation’s report card,” is a federally administered exam given to samples of students across the country. NAEP only provides a snapshot of how certain students are performing and tests different students each time, limiting how the results should be interpreted.

Still, the recently released results of the 2024 assessment of fourth and eighth grade students in reading and math show that many schools still struggle to support student achievement following post-pandemic declines in scores (NCES, 2024).

NAEP Findings Highlights

Fourth graders increased their math scores since 2022, though those scores remained below 2019 pre-pandemic levels. In reading, fourth graders’ average scores declined by two points compared to 2022 and five points compared to 2019.

For eighth graders, math scores remained essentially unchanged since 2022 but were eight points lower than in 2019. Reading scores were two points lower than in 2022 and five points lower than in 2019.

In both grades and subjects, many students scored below NAEP “proficient” levels, indicating they only have partial mastery of the fundamental knowledge and skills assessed by the test. For example, 72% of eighth graders scored below the NAEP proficient level in math, and 69% of fourth graders scored below the proficient level in reading.

The NAEP results are further disaggregated to show performance by student characteristics, including race and gender, and whether the student is economically disadvantaged, has a disability, or is an English learner.

While scores stayed relatively consistent across racial groups, scores for Latino eighth graders dropped by several points. Overall, Black and Latino students continue to score lower than their white peers.

Using NAEP scores to propose sweeping educational changes that exacerbate segregation and achievement gaps will most harm the students needing the most support.

NAEP data by state and district show that students in all 50 states scored below pre-pandemic levels in at least one grade and subject. In Texas, eighth grade reading and math scores fell slightly and were below the national average. The state’s fourth grade scores also declined slightly in reading. But scores for fourth graders increased in math, particularly for Black, Asian American and economically disadvantaged students.

Similarly, in Georgia, students’ overall reading and math scores declined slightly for eighth graders and for fourth graders in reading.

However, overall score trends do not give the full picture. The NAEP data are also collected to show the changes in performance over time of lower-, middle- and higher-performing students. The recent results show striking differences in higher- and lower-performing students, with the 10th and 25th percentiles of students showing the greatest declines. In 2024, there was a 107-point gap between the reading scores of fourth grade students in the 10th and 90th percentiles of students.

These data divisions are critical to understanding how different student groups are faring over time and to provide targeted support that ensures states and schools are able to serve all students.

The strongest trends in students’ score gaps occur along socioeconomic lines. Students who are classified as economically disadvantaged make up the majority of students who are performing in the bottom 25% of scores.

In contrast, students who are from households with middle and higher incomes comprise the majority of students scoring in the top 25% of scores.

Test Scores Not an Excuse to Inflict Harmful Policies

What we certainly know from the NAEP results is that policies that further segregate students by race and class will do nothing to close achievement gaps. However, some lawmakers have proposed such policies and cited NAEP scores to justify them.

At the same time, some state lawmakers are currently proposing bills to increase teachers’ authority to remove students from classrooms, impose criminal penalties against students who miss class, and introduce new systems for other school-based discipline issues (Wilson, 2025).

Yet NAEP scores show across the board that students who missed three or more days of school in the testing year performed lower than students who did not. Policies that keep students in school and funnel targeted investments to students who need the most educational support can close these national gaps (Craven, 2022; Darling-Hammond et al., 2025).

State and federal lawmakers have also cited NAEP scores to justify proposals to significantly change the federal education infrastructure and implement federal private school vouchers. In an executive order, President Trump provided the 2024 NAEP scores as “proof” that the U.S. Department of Education is ineffective and should have its authority stripped.

In a recent federal hearing, lawmakers and witnesses argued that declining student achievement is proof of the need for expansive state- and federally-funded voucher systems (Committee on Education and Workforce, 2025). These claims fly in the face of decades of research showing that voucher programs exacerbate income- and race-based segregation in schools and do not lead to significant increases in student achievement (PFPS, 2025a; 2025b).

For example, 55% of private school students in Texas are white, and 58% reside in families earning over $100,000 in annual income (PFPS, 2025b). Seventy-one percent of private school students in Georgia are white, and 56% come from households earning $100,000 and up. In contrast for both states, the majority of public school students are Black, Latino and considered economically disadvantaged with households earning less than $100,000 a year.

The NAEP scores offer insight into how today’s students are learning in math and reading, but they do not offer a full picture and certainly should not lead to knee-jerk policies that could do more harm than good. Using NAEP scores to propose sweeping educational changes that exacerbate segregation and achievement gaps will most harm the students needing the most support.

What Needs to Happen Now

Continue investing in research-based, targeted programs in schools. Schools and state agencies can use NAEP data, along with other data and research points, to target services and funding to the programs in schools that are best serving students.

Research, including perspectives from students and families, tells us that students learn best when they are supported and engaged in schools with qualified teachers who reflect their backgrounds in well-funded and resourced classrooms.

Funding in schools matters. Yet we continue to have inequitably resourced schools. NAEP data showing the significant differences in outcomes for higher- and lower-performing students can help us to understand where increased, targeted resources can result in higher academic achievement for students.

IDRA’s own research and data analyses on attrition rates in Texas show that school-based programs and policies that focus on keeping young people engaged in school can help address chronic absenteeism and improve academic performance for students (IDRA, 2024). NAEP data connecting higher absenteeism and lower test scores could help states determine where certain school engagement programs can be focused.

Continue collecting and publishing disaggregated data. Robust data, disaggregated by race, gender, special education status, economically disadvantaged status and other characteristics help us to more fully understand how schools and students are doing. The NAEP scores are a perfect example. The overall data give us a picture of how students are faring generally, but the disaggregated data enable us to identify gaps in achievement between student groups.

Schools should strive to ensure all students are learning and succeeding and no group is ignored and left to flounder. Publishing disaggregated data, including NAEP data and other large federal data collections, like the Civil Rights Data Collection, can help to achieve these critical goals.

As with any assessment system, NAEP data have limits on what they can tell us about school and student performance. But these data can supplement other information to help states and schools to get a clearer picture of which programs are serving students best and how to deepen investments in them.

Resources

Committee on Education and Workforce. (2025). The State of American Education, Full Committee Hearing. U.S. House of Representatives.

Craven, M. (2022). What Safe Schools Should Look Like For Every Student – A Guide to Building Safe and Welcoming Schools and Rejecting Policies that Hurt Students. IDRA.

Darling-Hammond, L., Kaplan, J., & DiNapoli, Jr. M.A. (February 2025). How Education Funding Matters: Lessons from NAEP, the Pandemic, and Recovery Efforts. Learning Policy Institute, Money Matters series.

IDRA. (2024). Attrition and Dropout Rates in Texas, webpage.

NAEP. (2024). National Assessment of Educational Progress, dashboard. National Center for Education Statistics.

PFPS. (2025a). Research – Public Funds Public Schools. Public Funds Public Schools.

PFPS. (2025b). PFPS Launches New Interactive Tool Examining Public and Private School Student Populations. Public Funds Public Schools.

Wilson, T. (February 2025). Progressing Backward – IDRA SEEN State-Level Legislative 2024 Recap and 2025 Trends. IDRA.

Morgan Craven, J.D., is the IDRA national director of policy, advocacy and community engagement. Comments and questions may be directed to her via email at morgan.craven@idra.org. Chloe Latham Sikes, Ph.D., is IDRA’s deputy director of policy. Comments and questions may be directed to her via e-mail at chloe.sikes@idra.org.

[© 2025, IDRA. This article originally appeared in the March edition of the IDRA Newsletter. Permission to reproduce this article is granted provided the article is reprinted in its entirety and proper credit is given to IDRA and the author.]