Decoding NAEP: Who’s Below “Basic” and Why?

“I don’t think we should ever stop paying attention to the data. I don’t think we should ever stop collecting data. I don’t think we should ever stop disaggregating and discussing it. But I do think we need to put more time into [engaging] our teachers and families who know more about our students than we might from our broader perspective.” – Melissa Castillo, Ed.D.

This discussion, part of our miniseries on the latest NAEP results, explored the data to begin to understand which students fell further behind and why.

The conversation began with a special prerecorded segment that featured Mark Schneider, Ph.D., with American Enterprise Institute and the former director of the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education from 2018 to 2024. Schneider emphasized the long-term, continuing, and growing trend of declines in literacy rates and pointed to the large and concerning growth in kids who are scoring at a “below NAEP basic” level. 

Schneider pointed out that while pandemic-related disruptions exacerbated these trends, the declines in reading performance have been ongoing for over a decade. He stressed the urgent need for evidence-based interventions to respond to these challenges, warning that without targeted action the consequences could extend far beyond the classroom, affecting economic mobility and workforce readiness. Schneider also underscored the importance of leveraging data to inform policy decisions, so that resources are directed toward strategies with a proven impact on student achievement.

Following the segment with Mark Schneider, we heard from Ian Rowe with American Enterprise Institute who reflected on the sobering NAEP results and emphasized the importance of examining not only students who are struggling but also those who are excelling to understand what contributes to their success. Rowe highlighted that the 2024 NAEP data point to a troubling milestone, with more fourth graders scoring “below basic” than “proficient.”

Rowe then discussed the NAEP student survey, which collects self-reported data on contextual factors such as family structure, noting his concerns about the reliability of responses from young students. He called for a more thorough statistical review of the survey’s effectiveness in informing our understanding of student data. 

Katharine Stevens, Ph.D., with Center on Child and Family Policy continued the conversation by arguing that focusing on averages in NAEP reporting masks critical disparities, particularly at the lowest performance levels. While breaking down results by race and income is useful, that analysis overlooks significant variations within these groups. Stevens showed that disaggregating data further reveals that the risk factors for low achievement are more complex than traditional categories suggest, emphasizing no single factor — whether race, income, or family structure — directly causes student performance but rather correlates with a range of influences requiring deeper analysis.

Stevens also shared research underscoring the importance of early childhood experiences, well before pre-K, in determining academic success. She argued that focusing on supporting parents during these formative years could be key to closing achievement gaps and improving long-term student outcomes.

Closing out the discussion, Melissa Castillo, Ed.D., formerly with the U.S. Department of Education, emphasized the need for more nuanced data to make strategic decisions for students below grade level. She echoed Katharine Stevens’ point that conventional subgroups, particularly for Black and Latino students, overlook critical distinctions that could improve interventions. Castillo stressed that addressing learning gaps requires both closing disparities and accelerating learning. 

Castillo also highlighted the distinction between English language learners (ELLs) and multilingual learners, noting that while some ELLs are multilingual learners, not all multilingual learners are formally identified as ELLs. This distinction is crucial for providing targeted support and leveraging students’ strengths. Castillo further emphasized the importance of understanding the unique characteristics of students, especially those from Latino demographics, and ensuring teacher training is tailored to bilingual language acquisition and literacy in both English and other languages.

If you were able to attend the session, we would love to hear your feedback! We appreciate your help in filling out the following form as we seek to learn and understand the perspectives, ideas, critiques and recommendations that better inform our key audiences.