The government released the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress scores on Tuesday, and Mark Schneider, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, summed up the news in these words: "We're making slow and steady progress in reading, and we're doing much better in math."
But what is really going on under the headlines? Journalists expect pundits to provide instant analysis, but here are five questions worthy of leisurely study over the coming months and years.
Why is the nation making good progress in math (tripling the percentage of fourth graders "at or above proficient" since 1990) but not in reading (which is basically flat since 1992)? Some suggest that math is easier to teach than reading, especially to limited-English students and others with restricted vocabularies. Or that schools have a greater impact on math than on reading. Or perhaps there's stronger curricular alignment in math, and over a longer period of time, with state standards, state curricula, and NAEP all pegged (for better or worse) to the doctrines of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards.
Why isn't the math progress seen on NAEP showing up on international exams? Perhaps our definition of "math" differs from that of the rest of the world. Brookings scholar Tom Loveless told USA Today, "We have made some progress in a few areas in mathematics, but there are some very important areas, unfortunately, that are not covered by NAEP."
Why are we making small gains in fourth-grade reading but none in eighth grade? Since 1998, average reading scores for fourth graders are up 6 points (with four of those points coming during the pre-NCLB years), but flat in eighth grade. Are "scientifically-based reading" efforts paying off in the early grades? If so, will we eventually see greater gains at the eighth-grade level? Or is the middle-school slump a signal that students are not building the vocabularies they need in order to comprehend effectively--because schools aren't offering enough subject matter content in the form of history, literature, science, and the arts, right from the start? If early reading skills are honed on meaningless "readers" and the kids never encounter George Washington or Stuart Little, they won't have the background knowledge to understand middle-school courses.
Why aren't our top students making gains in reading? The reading abilities of fourth-graders at the 90th percentile have stagnated since 2003; in eighth grade, students at the 90th and 75th percentiles actually lost ground since then. Is No Child Left Behind's focus on bringing up the lowest performers leading schools to ignore their high achievers?
What's the secret to Massachusetts's success? Not only is the Bay State number one in every category; its gains since 1998 are also the most impressive in the nation. Consider fourth-grade reading, where Massachusetts's 2007 score bests the next state by five points (equal to half a grade level), and where its 13-point gain since 1998 leads the nation, too. Does this show that a combination of well-implemented standards-based reform, intensive scientifically-based reading instruction, higher standards for teachers, and serious results-based accountability can yield dramatic improvements in achievement?
