If passed, HB 2872 would have created a mandatory third-grade retention policy for students who could not read effectively and established an enforcement mechanism to align Missouri’s teacher preparation programs with the science of reading.

One of the reasons cited by opponents of the bill was that we needed to wait and let Missouri’s 2022 early literacy reforms take “full effect.” The earlier legislation had some positive aspects, but HB 2872 would have filled important gaps that are clearly seen in a new 2026 report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ).

The NCTQ report evaluates colleges and universities across the United States on how effectively their curriculum addresses the five core components of the science of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. It also considers whether programs teach practices found to be ineffective, such as the three-cueing method.

Among the 50 states, Missouri ranks 44th in addressing the core components of the science of reading, with an average of just 2.3 out of 5.0 components. Half of all states scored 4.0 or higher, while often-praised Mississippi scored 4.7.

Even more alarming, Missouri ranks 2nd in the nation, behind only Maine, in teaching ineffective reading practices. Our participating programs taught almost four times more ineffective practices, on average, than the national average.

These results suggest Missouri cannot afford to simply wait for our prior literacy reforms to “take effect.” Today’s students in Missouri’s teacher preparation programs are the teachers of tomorrow’s children, and many are not learning how to teach reading correctly.

Nearly half of the universities in Missouri evaluated by NCTQ received an “F” in teaching the science of reading, including Northwest Missouri State University, Truman State University, and Missouri Southern State University. By comparison, 73% of Mississippi’s programs received an A and none earned an F.

It’s also concerning that 52 percent of Missouri’s programs either refused to participate, provided heavily redacted materials, or were otherwise unresponsive to the survey. These institutions partner with the state to prepare future teachers, and there should be transparency about how they train teachers.

The success stories of early literacy reforms are well known. Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Indiana have posted meaningful gains in reading achievement after implementing reforms, while Missouri continues to slide in national rankings. We fell from 27th to 38th in fourth-grade reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress between 2013 and 2024.

In 2023, Indiana required teacher preparation programs to be aligned with the science of reading and prohibited the use of the three-cueing method. Any unaligned program loses the right to be called “accredited.” In a previous NCTQ report from 2023 based on data from before Indiana implemented reforms, 33 percent of Indiana’s programs received an A+ or an A. In 2026, 96 percent received an A+ or A.

The reforms in HB 2872 were modeled on Indiana’s policy and would have helped ensure that future Missouri teachers are trained in the science of reading. Early literacy reform would have built on past successes and helped more students become confident, capable readers. All we can do now is try again next year.

The post Missouri Missed an Opportunity on Reading Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The upcoming release of the movie Supergirl got me thinking about another Superman-related film—one without laser vision or chiseled jawlines.

Waiting for Superman, released in 2010, follows families hoping to use lottery systems to get into a charter school. These families were stuck in failing public schools and desperate for a way out. Parents profiled in the film cried tears of joy when their children “won” the lottery and were so disheartened when they didn’t.

Its message was simple: droves of students are stuck in failing public schools and are waiting desperately for someone to help.

Missouri has been content allowing students to wait for Superman (or Supergirl now). My colleague, Susan Pendergrass, describes the problem well:

For years, the education establishment in Missouri has relied on a predictable playbook. Whenever state test scores drop or national rankings look bleak, we are told that the data don’t capture the whole picture, or that a new bureaucratic report card will soon show things are turning around. We are urged to wait, to invest more taxpayer money, and to trust the system.

But each year, more students move through the system either underprepared or unprepared. Thankfully, there are proven policies that can help.

Charter schools, open enrollment, and education savings accounts (ESAs) give parents choice, which in turn fosters more competition. With increased competition and accountability, schools are incentivized to innovate.

But Missouri parents have significant limits on choice.

Charter schools face a quasi-ban across the entire state, except in the St. Louis City School District, the Kansas City 33 School District, and all school districts in Boone County. (A charter school does operate in Normandy Schools Collaborative due to an accreditation provision). Missouri does not have open enrollment, and the ESA program reaches only a fraction of the state’s more than 900,000 students.

This needs to change.

Also concerning is Missouri’s reluctance to embrace comprehensive early literacy reform.

When Waiting for Superman was released in 2010, Mississippi ranked 48th in fourth-grade reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Louisiana ranked 47th, Tennessee ranked 38th, Indiana ranked 27th, and Missouri ranked 31st.

Since then, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Indiana have implemented serious early literacy reform. They all recognized teaching children to read is a serious undertaking that requires serious solutions.

Success has followed. By 2024, Mississippi had risen from 48th to 9th in fourth-grade reading. Louisiana climbed from 47th to 15th. Tennessee improved from 38th to 23rd. Indiana jumped from 27th to 6th. Do those states have more work to do? Of course.

But while they’ve shown improvement, Missouri has fallen from 31st to 38th, as 42% of our fourth graders scored below basic on the reading portion of NAEP.

There was a clear opportunity to pass early literacy reform to mimic the successes of these other states with House Bill 2872. But opponents in the Senate argued that Missouri should allow the state’s 2022 early literacy reforms (Senate Bills 681 and 682) to take full effect. In other words, keep waiting.

Superman does not exist, and neither does Supergirl.

But policymakers do.

Missouri students cannot afford to spend another year waiting. There are proven reforms that can expand educational opportunity and improve outcomes. This year, Missouri chose not to pursue them. For the sake of our students, that needs to change next year.

The post Waiting for Supergirl appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Missouri House of Representatives recently passed a bill requiring that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) assign A–F letter grades to schools and districts statewide. The bill now heads to the Senate, which is also considering its own version.

The legislation is meant to build on and improve Governor Kehoe’s executive order from January. Unfortunately, it does not improve on the executive order; in fact, the version that emerged from the House is much worse.

The main problem with the House bill is that it has veered off topic. Governor Kehoe’s short and simple executive order mandates letter grades based on academic performance. This is what we need. The House bill adds language that would create new school climate ratings based on surveys of teachers, parents, and students, which would also go on the report card.

This is problematic for three reasons:

Most importantly, it will distract us from academic outcomes. Academics are where our schools are struggling, and until we focus on them, the situation is not going to improve. This is illustrated most easily with data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, which is widely viewed as providing the most credible test data in the country. Here are charts showing changes over time in Missouri’s national rank on NAEP, in 4th- and 8th-grade reading, since about the turn of the century:

Our 4th-grade reading results are especially bleak—we rank 38th out of the 50 states as of 2024, whereas two decades earlier we ranked in the low twenties. Today, an alarming 42 percent of our 4th graders score Below Basic on NAEP.

Making matters worse, our ranking decline since about 2015 is in the context of generally declining test scores nationwide. Our scores are declining faster than the rest of a declining nation.

Governor Kehoe was correct to focus on academic outcomes, and the focus should stay that way.

Unlike data on academic achievement, which we already collect, survey data for this new school-climate requirement do not exist. It is difficult to develop and implement a high-quality survey with a high response rate. Have our lawmakers considered how we would get these surveys done?

As one of several concrete technical issues, consider the survey response rate. We cannot make parents fill out surveys. So, what if they don’t? What if we end up with schools and districts where fewer than 10 percent of parents fill out a survey (which is very possible)? Are we going to hold a school with a 10-percent parent response rate accountable for negative survey results? If the results look good, are we going to give the school a high rating?

Even if we ignore the first two issues, do we really want to compel DESE to undertake this work? We hear a lot of grumbling around the capitol about how DESE has gotten too big. This is how that happens. Developing and administering surveys to Missouri’s more than 800,000 students and their parents, and 70,000 teachers, across thousands of schools and hundreds of districts would require more administrative expansion. That is far outside the low-cost, straightforward scope of the original report card plan.

Governor Kehoe issued a clear and simple executive order on school and district report cards in January, which properly emphasizes academic performance. The order is fundamentally sound. There’s always room for improvement, but the legislation that came out of the House has moved this effort in the wrong direction. We hope our lawmakers can get it back on track.

The post Legislation on A–F Report Cards for Schools and Districts Has Gone Sideways appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I attended the Missouri House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee hearing on Wednesday, January 28. The hearing covered two bills under current consideration—one on A–F letter grades for schools, and the other on literacy reform.

The committee is a diverse group with diverse views, as were the individuals giving testimony. I was expecting a lively debate and opinions from all different angles, and that’s what happened.

However, one thing I wasn’t expecting was the view expressed by several members of the committee that Missouri schools are doing just fine, or even excelling. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Missouri schools are performing very poorly. The data on this point are publicly available and unambiguous.

The best evidence comes from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, which is widely viewed as providing the most credible test data in the country. Here are charts showing the changes over time in Missouri’s national rank on NAEP, in 4th- and 8th-grade reading, since about the turn of the century:

(These graphs are courtesy of the Show-Me Institute’s Avery Frank.)

Our 4th-grade reading results are especially bleak—we rank 38th out of the 50 states as of 2024, whereas two decades earlier we ranked in the low twenties. Today, an alarming 42 percent of our 4th graders score Below Basic on NAEP.

Making matters worse, our ranking decline since about 2015 is in the context of generally declining test scores nationwide during this time. Our scores are declining faster than the rest of a declining nation.

The only reason not to be worried about this is if you don’t believe these tests tell us anything important. On this point, there is overwhelming evidence that NAEP—and standardized tests more broadly—are highly predictive of consequential long-term outcomes. There are hundreds—maybe thousands—of articles that show a link between standardized test performance and later life outcomes.

In fact, just last year a high-quality study on NAEP scores found the following: “More recent birth cohorts in states with large increases in NAEP math achievement enjoyed higher incomes, improved educational attainment, and declines in teen motherhood, incarceration, and arrest rates compared to those in states with smaller increases.” Whatever outcome you care about for our children, NAEP scores predict it. (If you’re interested in recent, related evidence from Missouri’s MAP test, see here.)

Our declining test scores should concern all of us. Whether the committee members recognize it or not, under their watch and the watches of their predecessors over the last decade plus, Missouri’s academic performance has been declining. An overwhelming body of research tells us the decline will have real consequences for our children, and ultimately this will have real consequences for the future of our state.

I recognize we won’t all agree on the solutions, but it became apparent during the hearing that we don’t even agree on the problem. I encourage skeptics of my message—especially members of the education committee, who have the power to make change—to look at the data themselves. Putting our heads in the sand will not make the consequences any less dire down the road.

(If you’d like to see specific examples to get a sense of the kinds of NAEP questions Missouri children can and cannot answer correctly, see an earlier post here.)

The post To the Missouri House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee: We Have a Problem appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Too many Missouri students are struggling to read at all grade levels.

The Solution

Adopt evidence-based early literacy policies that have a proven track record in other states.

Key Facts

• On the 2024 National Assessment of Education Progress, 42% of Missouri fourth-graders scored “below basic” in reading, up from 30% in 2015.

• Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) scores have not returned to prepandemic levels.

A Key Study on Early Literacy

John Westall and Amy Cummings at Michigan State University released a comprehensive national analysis of state early literacy policies in 2023 in which they identified 16 policies that consistently showed evidence of improving literacy. States with all 16 saw significant and sustained increases in reading scores, indicating a path forward for Missouri.

Third-Grade Retention for Struggling Readers

Westall and Cummings found no evidence that reading scores increase without a retention policy to hold back struggling readers.

Missouri technically has a form of third-grade retention on the books, but it is not based on objective academic benchmarks, and it is rarely used.

In the fourth grade, reading instruction shifts from learning to read to reading to learn. Students who cannot read effectively struggle to keep up. While retention is a difficult experience, it is less so when the retention occurs early, and research shows that retained students do benefit. Ideally, prospective fourth-grade students would take a state literacy assessment for reading. Those who do not meet the established reading benchmark would receive summer remediation and another chance to pass the test.

Good-cause exceptions could be made for some students. In other states, these include students with some types of disabilities, English language learners, and previously retained students.

Elimination of the Three-Cueing Method

Three-cueing is an approach to teaching reading that relies on text (the letters on the page) as little as possible and instead uses language cues.

However, reading is not an intuitive skill—rather, it is a technique to be learned. Research shows that skilled readers learn to read each letter rapidly and fluently as they connect the letters’ sounds with their oral vocabulary (phonics instruction). Three-cueing relies more on how the “whole word” looks, along with other context, like pictures. Fluency and decoding, rather than guessing and memorization, should define reading instruction.

Last year, Senate Bill 68 came close to banning three-cueing instruction. It needs to be fully eliminated in classrooms.

Align Teacher Preparation Programs

The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) released a report on how well teacher preparation programs across the country teach the science of reading. Half of Missouri’s participating universities received an “F.”

Indiana requires programs that certify teachers to include science-of-reading content and prohibit three-cueing. Missouri should follow suit.

Policy Recommendations

• Establish a mandatory third-grade retention program based on objective academic benchmarks with multiple opportunities and good-cause exceptions.

• Fully eliminate the three-cueing method.

• Ensure that Missouri’s teacher preparation programs train prospective teachers in the science of reading.

The post Early Literacy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri parents don’t have access to accurate and easy-to-understand information about the quality of their children’s schools.

The Solution

Mandate the creation of transparent online school report cards (with an easy-to-interpret rating system, such as letter grades) that clearly communicate measures of school quality to parents and community members.

Key Facts

• The federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires every state to publish report cards on schools and districts. High-quality school report cards help parents make informed choices and help states prioritize schools for academic improvement interventions.

• The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has no rating system for schools or districts, and the information it shares is not provided in a way that is useful to parents or policymakers.

Parents Are Being Kept in the Dark

When done well, school report cards are a powerful tool for communicating school performance to parents. According to a 2019 Phi Delta Kappa survey, 66% of parents who are aware of school report cards read them, and of those, 82% find them useful.

Federal law requires the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to produce report cards for every school and district in the state. While DESE has technically met this requirement, the current report cards are not useful. They provide a lot of data, but they do not label the data clearly or give context in which to understand the data.

What Missouri needs are clear, parent-friendly report cards that provide straightforward ratings across key performance indicators. These should include student proficiency and growth in English/language arts and math, with results disaggregated by student subgroup. This is not uncharted territory. Much is known about what makes a school report card useful, relevant, and easy to understand, and many other states already produce high-quality school report cards. Missouri doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel here. We simply need to follow the example set by states that have done this well. It is no coincidence that states with clear and transparent school report cards tend to significantly outperform Missouri on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

In 2021, the Show-Me Institute created its own website, MOSchoolRankings.org, with letter grades for all schools and districts in the state. Ideally, the legislature would require DESE to create something similar.

Policy Recommendation

• Mandate the design and creation of a transparent online school report card system that clearly communicates measures of school quality to parents and community members, including an easy-to-interpret rating system such as letter grades, for every school and district. The report cards should be mobile- and print-friendly.

The post School Report Cards appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Dr. Jim Wyckoff, professor at the University of Virginia and director of the Education Policy Ph.D. program, about the long-term decline in student academic achievement. They discuss how national test scores, especially for the lowest-performing students, began falling well before the pandemic, why the usual explanations like COVID or Common Core miss the bigger picture, and what states can do to reverse the trend, and more.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Spotify

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Understanding Declining Academic Achievement
02:47 Historical Context of Academic Performance
05:43 The Impact of Policy Changes
08:31 Exploring Causes of Decline
11:14 Success Stories and Lessons Learned
13:51 The Role of State Legislation
16:49 Future Directions and Solutions

Episode Transcript

(Download)

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Thanks so much for joining us on the podcast, Professor Wyckoff of the University of Virginia. So you have a recent paper that really caught my eye. I’m puzzling over declining academic achievement in this country. And it’s something that I’ve been thinking about a lot. And sort of as a companion issue, I work in Missouri and I’ve been talking for a long time that Missouri enrollment’s been declining and folks are like, well, yeah, the pandemic—the pandemic, kids left public schools, but they’ll probably come back. And I’m like, no, no, we had our largest kindergarten class in 2013. Any data forecaster, demographer would see this coming. This is not a pandemic problem. And I think it exacerbated it, but I think this has happened with basic student test scores in this country, where people are like, well, the pandemic caused it, and we’re gonna come back out of this.
You have a paper that’s out recently on the fact that maybe the pandemic didn’t cause it and it predated it. So I’d love it if you could just tell me a little bit about what you found looking back and why, in my opinion, it’s a bigger problem than many folks are thinking it is.

Jim Wyckoff (01:03)
Sure. So I’ve been following sort of NAEP trends, as a lot of people do, because NAEP is an incredibly reliable source of information about academic achievement at certainly the national and the state levels, and to some extent at certain large districts, the TUDA districts. And so I’ve been noticing this trend for several years now where NAEP scores have been declining—predating the pandemic by a number of years. And these declines have gotten large by almost any metric we might use to measure student achievement.
A lot of people saw the very large declines that occurred during the pandemic. And again, there was lots of discussion in both achievement and political terms about what this meant and how we were going to attribute these losses.
Last fall, I started to get more serious about wanting to understand these trends. Quite honestly, it came from a place of having some ideas, but really wanting to figure it out. The title of the article is “puzzling” because I spent a lot of time trying to better understand these trends—how large are they, when did they begin—and asking questions to help make sense of what’s going on.
One of the more surprising conclusions was that the losses that had been occurring prior to the pandemic were about half as large as the total loss that occurred by 2024. And that surprised me a little.

Susan Pendergrass (02:55)
Yeah, so we were on a bit of an upward trajectory during the era that a lot of people didn’t like, but No Child Left Behind caused a lot of anguish. I remember my oldest was in third grade the first year of No Child Left Behind testing in Virginia—SOLs—and it caused a lot of problems. But it did have results, right? No Child Left Behind, this high-accountability, high-stakes testing that people don’t like, actually improved test scores, right?

Jim Wyckoff (03:28)
Yeah, I think there are, as you suggested, large increases in NAEP scores from the early 1990s to around 2009. These increases were large by almost anyone’s standards—over 50 percent of a standard deviation, which translates to nearly two years of learning. So these were consistent, large increases.
Around 2009, the scores leveled off and then began to decline. During that 1990 to 2009 period, a number of policies played a role. NCLB began in 2002 and ran its course until around 2013 before ESSA replaced it in 2015. The best evidence we have suggests that math scores improved as a result of NCLB. Not by as much as the broader achievement gains, but still meaningful increases.

Susan Pendergrass (04:50)
Yeah. And I think it should be pointed out that in the ’90s, governors all met—actually at the University of Virginia—and there was a broader push around academic achievement. For our listeners, Missouri tracks exactly with the national results. We peaked in 2009 and have been steadily declining ever since.
Last year in Missouri and nationally, four out of ten fourth graders were essentially not literate. They didn’t reach the “basic” level in reading. We don’t know where they are between zero and basic, but they didn’t register on the scale—they’re essentially illiterate. And that, to me, is a crisis. I don’t hear it being talked about like a crisis the way it was in the ’90s after a number of major government studies. But that’s where we are. We’re back to square one, essentially—long-term NAEP trends put us back to the 1970s.

Jim Wyckoff (05:51)
Yeah, certainly for the lowest-performing kids, the decline has wiped out gains made since 1990. As you’re suggesting, these results have important implications.
Since NCLB and other developments in the 2000s, I think there’s been less emphasis on academic achievement. Other issues have come forward. People have denigrated test scores to the point where we’ve missed opportunities to understand what’s going on.
And NAEP is a low-stakes, low-accountability test—nothing really rides on it. That’s why we believe it’s a strong signal of what kids are actually learning. And what they’re learning has declined significantly, as you’re pointing out.

Susan Pendergrass (06:52)
Let’s talk about your speculation as to what’s causing this. I’ve heard a lot about smartphones in classrooms, and states are starting to get active on that. You suggest it might be part of the problem. How so?

Jim Wyckoff (07:07)
Yeah, not just me—others have made this connection. Smartphones and social media really took off around 2009. Their use became much more widespread between 2009 and 2020. If you look at the data, smartphone and social media saturation grew rapidly in that period.
There’s evidence suggesting kids have become less engaged in school. That’s led to regulations about phone use in classrooms. But the problem extends beyond school—kids are less engaged with schoolwork outside the classroom too.
It’s hard to definitively link smartphone use to declining achievement, but there’s reason to believe it’s a contributing factor. Still, I don’t think any one issue—phones, NCLB, whatever—can account for the full decline. It’s likely a combination of multiple factors that vary by place and time.
And I think we’re not good at nuance in education. But we need a comprehensive, systematic approach to address this. There’s no single fix.

Susan Pendergrass (09:08)
We have some states—people are calling them “Southern miracles”—like Mississippi and Louisiana, that are doing much better in reading. But it’s not nationwide. We have broad declines, and then these little pockets of success. What does that mean going forward?

Jim Wyckoff (09:27)
I’m not sure we’ll ever come up with a good causal understanding of what caused these declines nationally. But I do think places like Mississippi give us reason for optimism.
In 2013, Mississippi got serious about the science of reading and implemented it rigorously, with supports to help teachers. If you look at their data, they improved reading scores during a period when national scores were declining. In math, they at least held steady.
Now, their scores haven’t continued rising as they did before 2009, but they’ve fared better than most. So while the science of reading isn’t a silver bullet, it’s part of the solution.
States have a real opportunity here. That includes focusing on accountability, proven policies like science of reading, and funding.
Many states cut education funding after the 2008 recession and didn’t return to pre-recession levels, inflation-adjusted, until recently. Teacher salaries fell and in some places still haven’t recovered.
Teacher quality, especially in low-performing schools, matters a lot. And demographics play a role too—we don’t measure poverty depth well, and English language learners are increasing in number.
We need state- and district-level analysis to understand what’s going on and invest in the things that work.

Susan Pendergrass (13:22)
My biggest concern is the fourth-grade scores. These kids are probably in sixth grade now, and one day they’ll go to high school unable to read their textbooks.
We’re creating an underclass that’s not going to catch up. While overall test scores are down, the steepest declines are among the lowest 10 percent of performers. I don’t know how we catch those kids up.
We’re seeing a smaller student population and a higher percentage of students who can’t read or do math. What kind of workforce will we have in ten years?
We’re dabbling in the science of reading, but accountability has dropped. Do you think Common Core contributed to this decline—or at least gave accountability a bad name?

Jim Wyckoff (14:35)
Yeah. Common Core got incredibly politicized—as a sort of top-down mandate—when in fact it came from organizations like the National Governors Association that were pushing for rigorous curriculum.
The underlying concept was good. Many states still use Common Core-style standards, even if they don’t call it that anymore.

Susan Pendergrass (15:05)
Missouri is one.

Jim Wyckoff (15:05)
Exactly. And the evidence linking Common Core to achievement declines is very thin. I don’t think it played a significant role. But like you said, these issues often get politicized and take on a life of their own.

Susan Pendergrass (15:32)
Your paper has great graphs showing projections of where we should be if we stayed on the pre-2009 trajectory. Have you done projections from 2009 forward? Because it doesn’t look good to me.

Jim Wyckoff (15:53)
If we continue the trajectory we’ve been on since 2009—or 2013—about half the decline we saw between 2019 and 2024 could’ve been predicted even without the pandemic.
So the pandemic worsened the problem, but it didn’t cause it. I see no reason to believe the decline would’ve stopped.
Unless we make serious changes, the downward trend is likely to continue. Especially for the lowest-performing group, there’s little evidence of any turnaround.
Among students at the median or higher levels, there is some evidence of recovery in math. But reading remains a problem across the board.

Susan Pendergrass (17:17)
So what should we do? I work at the state level a lot—what should state legislatures or education agencies do?

Jim Wyckoff (17:35)
This is a real opportunity for state leaders—governors and legislatures—to act.
We’re on the cusp of seeing real consequences in the workforce and higher ed outcomes. Governors could champion this issue. Academic achievement isn’t the only thing we care about in schools, but it’s a top priority.
We need to move past the cultural wars of the last decade. Most parents still care deeply about academic outcomes.
For kids from low-income families, education is their path to a better life—and we’re not serving them well right now.
This should be a bipartisan issue. Conservatives and progressives should be able to rally around this.
I know there are institutional barriers and some bureaucracies may not want the changes required, but I hope we see leadership from some states. And when we see success, others can follow.

Susan Pendergrass (19:52)
Yeah, and I really appreciate your scholarly approach to something I’ve been speculating about. This goes way back before the pandemic.
If we blame it on COVID, we’ll keep talking about “pandemic learning loss” when the issue runs much deeper.
We need to acknowledge the path we’ve been on and chart a better course. Where can people find your article or get in touch with you?

Jim Wyckoff (20:23)
The article is forthcoming in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. My email is mikeoff@virginia.edu.
I appreciate your interest in this topic and would love to see more people dig into it. What I’ve done is just the beginning.

Susan Pendergrass (20:48)
I couldn’t agree more. We’ve got to keep puzzling through these issues. Jim, thank you so much. Take care.

Jim Wyckoff (20:57)
Okay, thank you, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Understanding the Decline in Student Test Scores with Jim Wyckoff appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The 2024 NAEP results paint a bleak picture for our country. Scores in both reading and math are on the decline, continuing a decade-long trend. The pandemic made things worse, but scores were already declining prior to the pandemic.

The outlook is even worse in Missouri. Across NAEP’s four core categories—4th-grade reading and math, and 8th-grade reading and math—Missouri ranks, on average, 40th out of the 50 states  after adjusting for demographics and poverty. Our highest ranking is 35th in 8th-grade reading—still in the bottom third nationally. There is no way to sugarcoat it: the academic performance of Missouri’s students is abysmal.

This is bad news if you believe (like I do) that an educated workforce is critical for economic growth. Yet the urgency of this problem appears lost on many Missourians and by extension, our elected leaders.

One reason for the disconnect may be that NAEP scores feel abstract. What does a score of 234 in math or 210 in reading actually mean? Without context, the data can seem vague. In this short piece, I hope to provide a more concrete sense of what NAEP scores are telling us about Missouri students’ literacy and numeracy skills.

First, consider this sample question from the NAEP 4th-grade math assessment:

The question asks 4th graders to identify odd numbers. The correct answer is B: Alex, Megan, and David. What percentage of 4^th-grade students in Missouri should be able to answer this question correctly? Ideally, nearly all of them. Maybe at least 90 percent? But in reality, just 6 in 10, or 61 percent, get it right. This means 4 in 10 Missouri 4th graders cannot identify odd numbers.

Here’s another question, also from the 4th-grade NAEP test. This one asks students to complete a number pattern counting by fours:

Only 73 percent of Missouri 4th graders can correctly finish the pattern. That means over 1 in 4 cannot.

Turning to reading, NAEP results reveal that many of our students struggle to extract basic meaning from a text. Consider the following questions from the 4th-grade reading test:

The correct answer, B: Despereaux thinks the light is very beautiful, is selected by Missouri students just 62 percent of the time.

This follow-up question asks students to use the full passage to identify why Furlough’s behavior is important:

The correct answer is D: Scurrying helps mice avoid danger. Only 70 percent of Missouri students answer correctly.

These are just a handful of examples of questions that Missouri 4th graders struggle with. All are considered “easy” by NAEP. Missouri students fare much worse on more difficult items. Interested readers can look up additional examples using NAEP’s sample question tool.

I hope this post provides some clarity around what NAEP scores tell us about the state of education in Missouri. Our students are struggling mightily. We are not a small tweak away from righting the ship. If we want Missouri children to excel, we need big changes.

The post What’s in a NAEP Score? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is problematic because grades tend to carry more weight with students and parents than test scores. Many parents assume that the grades their children receive are accurate indicators of academic progress.

But this assumption is increasingly incorrect. Grades have become more and more disconnected from actual achievement. This may help explain why 90 percent of parents believe their children are performing at or above grade level in reading and math, even though only about one third of 4th- and 8th-grade students in the United States score at a proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Who is to blame for the widening honesty gap? I believe we all bear responsibility. We seem to have collectively lost our appetite for bad news. Parents don’t want to hear that their children are falling behind, and schools are reluctant to deliver that message. Meanwhile, states face little pushback when they lower testing standards and inflate proficiency rates.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the cognitive skills students learn in school really matter for later-life success, and glossing over declining test scores—our best measures of these skills—will not change this fundamental fact. Sending our children to school and pretending that they are learning is not a path to prosperity. It is a path to lower economic growth and a lower quality of life. We should demand high standards from our educational institutions, even if the truth hurts.

The post The Honesty Gap in Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I’m often asked if school choice is an effective policy. In other words—do states that let parents easily choose from a number of publicly funded options for their children do better than those that don’t? We need NAEP to know the answer. Also, folks want to know if Missouri is improving or getting worse when it comes to educating our students. Well, the state has changed its own test several times in the last decade, so the only way we can know is to look at NAEP scores.

It’s difficult to achieve accountability in a vacuum. Gutting something in the name of cutting costs can be costly in itself. Missourians should hope that NAEP, federal education data collection, and the federal role in researching what works in education get rebuilt quickly and thoughtfully.

The post Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Nat Malkus, senior fellow and deputy director of education policy at AEI, about the troubling 2024 NAEP results. They discuss declining reading scores, stagnant math performance, the rise in students performing Below Basic, criticisms of NAEP, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps:

0:00 Understanding NAEP: A Vital Educational Metric
1:54 Post-Pandemic Performance: A Troubling Reality
5:41 The Role of State Education Systems
7:45 Accountability and Its Impact on Education
12:19 The Influence of School Choice on Test Scores
18:40 The Honesty Gap: NAEP vs. State Accountability
24:44 Looking Ahead: Future Scores and Educational Strategies

Download Episode Transcript

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post NAEP 2024: Declining Scores and Rising Concerns with Nat Malkus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Chester (Checker) Finn, Distinguished Senior Fellow and President Emeritus at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, about the recent federal executive order Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling. They discuss the balance between patriotic education and federal overreach, the limits on Washington’s role in curriculum, the latest NAEP scores, and more.

Read Checker’s piece here: “Trump should stay out of what students learn in school”

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps: 

03:00 The Current State of American Education
06:11 Federal Role in Education: Weaponization vs. Minimization
08:56 Reading Proficiency Crisis Among Students
11:57 Impact of Disbanding the Department of Education
15:03 The Need for Stronger Accountability in Education
17:59 School Choice and Funding Challenges
21:03 Optimism and Pessimism in Education’s Future
24:03 Addressing Chronic Absenteeism and Disconnected Youth

Download a transcript of this episode here. 

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Patriotic Education or Federal Overreach? With Chester (Checker) Finn appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The 2024 results indicate that 4 in 10 Missouri 4th graders scored below the Basic level on the assessment. What does that mean? According to a researcher from the University of Virginia, “students performing below NAEP Basic level have less vocabulary knowledge and less world knowledge, which would limit their inferencing and comprehension capability.” Another researcher describes it thusly: “Below Basic on the NAEP means that a student is performing below the minimum expected level of academic achievement for their grade, indicating a lack of foundational skills and inability to demonstrate even basic mastery of the subject matter being assessed.”  The 42 percent of Missouri 4th graders who scored at below Basic last year are most likely now in the 5th grade trying to figure out what the heck their textbooks in any subject are trying to teach them.

Here is how the performance of Missouri 4th graders has changed over time.

This graph shows scale scores (NAEP is on a scale from 0 to 500). While Missouri was hovering just above the national average until 2017, we then began a steep slide that is barely leveling out.

But scores everywhere have declined because of COVID, right? Not so. In 2024, we outperformed just five states—Oregon, Alaska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and West Virginia. Here is the same chart for Mississippi.

Twenty six years ago, we outperformed Mississippi by 16 scale score points. Now, it’s ahead of us by seven.

What will Missouri look like in 15 years, when almost half of 25-year-olds are barely literate? We have a new governor and a new commissioner of education. Perhaps these questions should be put to them.

The post Missouri Public Schools Have a Very Serious Reading Problem appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are two key factors to consider when answering this question: academic promotion and social promotion.

• Academic promotion is straightforward—as students gain an understanding of the material, they advance to the next level and build on what they learned in the grade before.
• Social promotion is based on age and allows students to stay with their friends and peers throughout their school experience.

Social promotion largely wins the day in schools. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 40 percent of Missouri 4th graders scored below basic on the 4^th-grade reading assessment in 2022. Additionally, 15.1 percent of the same 4th graders scored below basic on the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP).

However, recently, some states have put more emphasis on academic promotion.

Some States Are Focusing More on Academic Promotion

In states such as Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, 3rd grade students can be prevented from advancing to 4th grade if they do not meet reading requirements. This is typically referred to as a “third-grade retention policy.”

All three states have seen significant gains in reading achievement. Mississippi’s commitment to mandatory phonics instruction and 3rd-grade retention has contributed to such a large boost in reading scores, it has been referred by many as the “Mississippi Miracle.”

On the NAEP, Mississippi’s scores increased by almost 10 percentage points between 2013 and 2022. Missouri’s decreased by 6 percentage points over that time period.

Mississippi also implemented targeted reading instruction based on evidence-based reading. It is hard to disconnect 3rd-grade retention from intentional instruction.

Considerations for Weighing a 3rd-Grade Retention Policy

After the pandemic, reading scores in Missouri not only initially nosedived, but they sadly continued to decrease and remained low. Missouri may need to consider new strategies to help our students in need.

However, social promotion is not unimportant. For students who are trying hard and get left behind, this can be a very tough social situation. Having friends go on to the next grade means the student left behind has less interaction with friends—different classes, different sports teams, different lunch schedules, and more.

Additionally, kids being older than their peers can create awkward social situations and increase bullying.

Mississippi’s policy attempts to balance different priorities when considering retention. It has the :

• Limited English proficient students who had less than 2 years of instruction in an English Language Learner program.
• Students with disabilities whose Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicates that participation in statewide assessment programs is not appropriate.
• Students with disabilities who demonstrate a reading deficiency but whose IEP has provided them with intensive reading remediation for more than two years.
• Students with disabilities who demonstrate a reading deficiency but were previously retained in a K-3 grade.
• Students who meet an acceptable level of reading proficiency on an alternative standardized assessment approved by the Mississippi State Board of Education.
• Students who demonstrate a reading deficiency despite having received two or more years of intensive reading intervention and have been retained in a K-3 grade for two years without meeting exceptional education criteria.

Third-grade retention has a demonstrated track record of success in other states, and it should be given consideration as Missouri students continue to struggle in reading.

The post Should Missouri Consider a 3rd-Grade Retention Policy? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The authors note that how time is used matters, as it can be difficult to convert total scheduled hours into actual instructional hours. The amount of time at recess, the use of substitute teachers, snow days, etc., all can have an impact on student learning and diminish instructional time.

In their case study of the Providence Public School District in Rhode Island, Kraft and Novicoff estimate that elementary school students lose 16 percent of their instructional time, middle school students lose 21 percent, and high school students lose 25 percent. They observe that unexcused student absences account for the largest portion of the lost time (Missouri has a serious chronic absenteeism problem), but outside interruptions and teacher absences also have an impact.

The authors note that “most school systems which (sic) substantially increase total time are able to convert this additional time into at least small gains in academic achievement.” Essentially, even if the time is used poorly, there are gains to be made just by scheduling more hours in school.

In the paper, which uses national 2017–2018 statistics, Missouri ranked 46th in average number of instructional days and 24th in average number of instructional hours. It must be noted that these were our rankings prior to the passage of Senate Bill 743 in 2018, which removed the requirement for a minimum number of school days starting in the 2019–2020 school year. That was the same year the COVID-19 pandemic broke out—leaving in its wake an immense loss in instructional time, and a need to catch up.

Rather than increasing time to make up for the lost hours, Missouri schools have decreased hours—between 20-30 fewer hours per year on average. This is a small decrease, but it’s a puzzling decision given how much COVID set students back.

Test scores have been decreasing over the last three years as well. In 2019, 39% of Missouri 4th graders scored proficient or higher on the math portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and 34% scored proficient or higher in reading. In 2022, these numbers dropped to 34% and 30%, respectively. Missouri 8th graders fared no better, dropping from 32% in math and 33% in reading to 24% and 28%.

Similarly, on the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), Missouri 4th and 8th graders have failed to bounce back from the pandemic drop. In fact, English/language arts scores are actually lower than the post-COVID year (2020-2021). In the 2021–2022 school year, 46% and 49% of Missouri 4th and 8th graders, respectively, scored above proficient. In the 2022–2023 school year, those scores fell to 43% for 4th graders and 46% for 8th graders.

Missouri students are losing out on instructional time, and our test scores are falling. There may be several reasons why scores are declining, but less time learning seems to be at least part of it. The evidence from scholars such as Kraft and Novicoff—along with common sense—makes it clear that kids are going to learn less if they have less instructional time.

Our students should be going to school more, not less.

The post Are Missouri Students in School Enough? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Next year, Alabama families making up to 250 percent of the federal poverty line ($78,000 for a family of four) will qualify to receive $7,000 in state dollars to customize their children’s education. By the 2027–28 school year, the scholarships will be available to every family in the state. Homeschoolers can receive up to $2,000. The money can be used for private school tuition or other educational expenses.

Like Missouri, Alabama’s scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have been poor for the last couple of decades. Like Missouri, Alabama has wide gaps in achievement between low-income and non-low-income students. Like Missouri, Alabama families whose children are struggling in their assigned public schools want (and need) an alternative. Alabama families now have that. What about Missouri families?

The post Add Alabama to the List appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Mississippi (which typically holds back between 4–10 percent of third graders) is viewed as a successful model for this type of retention policy. Started in 2013, the Mississippi policy requires a sufficient score on the state English/language arts assessment or on either of the two retest opportunities (with certain exceptions made for English-language learning students and students with disabilities). This strategy is rooted in the idea that students need to receive a firm foundation in reading before advancing to higher grades. Mississippi has seen its efforts pay off—between 2013 and 2019, the state’s 4th-grade reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) rose by 10 points, while the national average decreased by 1. Mississippi moved from rank 49th to 29th in 4th-grade reading over this time period.

There are also drawbacks to this policy. For students who are trying hard and get left behind, this can be a very tough social situation. Having friends go on to the next grade means the student left behind has less interaction with friends—different classes, different sports teams, different lunch schedules, and more. This can be demoralizing for a student. In Mississippi, students can be held back for up to two years before automatically advancing to the next grade. Kids being potentially two years older than their peers can create awkward social situations and increase bullying. You could be driving a car in 8th grade, be an 18-year-old sophomore, or be a 20-year-old senior. One concern is that being 18 as a junior or sophomore may increase drop-out rates. However, Mississippi actually reached an all-time high in its high school graduation rate in 2022—rising from 74.5 percent in 2014 to 88.9 percent.

Can families bear these unconventional social situations in order for their children to succeed in school? Mississippi has seen drastic improvement in both scores and graduation rates since implementing its reading policy. Missouri’s 3rd-grade scores—and frankly all of our state’s test scores— indicate drastic action is needed. Implementing a reading policy such as Mississippi’s may be a good place to start.

The post Should More Missouri Students Be Held Back? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is a weak argument for several reasons. The first is that people rise out of adverse circumstances and attain success all the time. Human beings are resourceful and resilient. We’re all familiar with numerous stories of people who grew up in less-than-ideal situations and still achieved great things. The relevant question with public schools is whether kids are growing up and thriving because of their public schools, or in spite of them.

There’s also the question of how far isolated examples take you. The plural of anecdote is never data. And the data about Missouri public schools do not paint a rosy picture. Per the most recent Nation’s Report Card, 40 percent of Missouri 4th-graders scored Below Basic in reading, and 39 percent of 8th graders scored Below Basic in math. Below Basic indicates that a given student doesn’t even have a “partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work.”

The fact that vast swathes of Missouri students don’t even have partial understanding of the work at their grade level ought to be deeply concerning. Thousands of kids in Missouri are being left behind, and I don’t imagine that the families of those kids would be comforted to know that some kids in some other places around the state ended up doing alright. How many personal success stories does it take to make it okay that huge numbers of Missouri children can’t do math or read at grade level?

There are other holes to poke in this argument—the people who are success stories as adults today went to Missouri public schools decades ago in many cases, and our schools, per the numbers, are getting worse, not better. There’s also a perception that public schools in Missouri are only struggling in certain pockets of the state—particularly in our big cities. But even a cursory tour of the Institute’s school rankings website reveals that this isn’t true; there are underperforming schools in every corner of Missouri.

There’s nothing wrong with pointing out success stories from Missouri public schools. But one shouldn’t miss the forest for the trees and mistake these stories as an important indicator of the overall health of Missouri’s education system. Our standards simply need to be higher. Some kids doing okay isn’t anywhere close to good enough. We shouldn’t be content until all Missouri kids have a chance at a quality education. And I don’t see how you could argue that we’re anywhere close to that right now.

The post Anecdotes Are Not Data appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Why should we care about phonics instruction? Because it works.

There are typically two views when discussing early reading instruction: emphasis on phonics instruction involving daily lessons, and a “balanced literacy” approach which puts an emphasis on understanding meaning (three-cueing method) with occasional phonics sprinkled in. Numerous studies from independent researchers, the National Literacy Institute, and the Congressional-sponsored National Reading Panel have indicated that systematic and explicit phonics instruction is more effective in helping students learn to read than non-systematic (balanced literacy) or no phonics instruction. These results can be seen in schools that implement it, such as in Richmond or in our own backyard at KIPP Victory Academy—whose recent, explicit emphasis on phonics helped it obtain the highest English/language arts growth rate in the entire state from 2018–2021.

So why aren’t all schools using this method? Many teachers believe this approach is incredibly boring and drives the love of reading out of children. Additionally, it is hard for teachers to learn and teach; Missouri’s new phonics training program (LETRS) in Missouri takes 160 hours to complete. Finally, universities are simply not instructing future teachers to use this method effectively, or even hardly at all.

The NCTQ conducted a survey to evaluate which universities are implementing scientifically based reading instruction into their curriculum for future teachers—and the results are concerning. Per the survey, only 25 percent of higher education institutions nationally adequately address all five core components (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) of reading instruction. Missouri is no better, as nearly half of our participating* universities received an F on the NCQT’s report.

*Central Methodist University (F), Hannibal-LaGrange University (F), Lincoln University (B), Lindenwood University (B), Lindenwood University Graduate (D), Missouri Southern State University (F), Missouri Western State University (D), Northwest Missouri State University (F), Southeast Missouri State (F), University of Central Missouri (F), University of Missouri-Kansas City (A), University of Missouri-St. Louis (C), University of Missouri-St. Louis Graduate (C); all other Missouri universities declined to participate

Many universities in Missouri seem to be shying away from a strategy that can help teachers become better reading instructors. The LETRS program was a good start, but that law is primarily about identifying and addressing problems in early childhood reading, along with some additional professional development opportunities for existing teachers. We need Missouri universities to get on board and give teachers all the tools they need to effectively teach kids how to read right from the start.

The post The Science of Reading in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.