The latest Nation’s Report Card dashed hopes that U.S. students might have finally closed pandemic learning gaps.
The results show reading scores are down nationally in both 4th and 8th grade, compounding declines on the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP.
Math scores ticked upwards from 2022 in 4th grade, but not enough for students to reach achievement levels seen in 2019. And scores were flat in 8th grade after a historic drop in 2022.
Persistent learning loss is pervasive nationwide: achievement in each state lags pre-pandemic levels on at least one test.
And it’s intensifying inequality. The gain in 4th-grade math reflected improvement among high-achieving students. The reading declines were largest for low achievers.
There are plenty of factors contributing to our ongoing slide, but I’m increasingly convinced a big part of the problem is that many stakeholders (from policymakers to parents to educators) are thinking about learning loss the wrong way.
When my exercise routine gets disrupted by an injury or a busy stretch at work, my conditioning quickly deteriorates. When I’m able to return to the gym, the first few workouts are a grind. But if I stick it out and resume my routine, I find that I’m back to my baseline (48-year-old) fitness level within a few weeks.
I worry many people think recovery from educational disruptions works much the same way—that if we just get kids back into classrooms and learning under normal conditions, they’ll get back on track in short order.
When my colleagues and I surveyed American parents in May 2022, for example, only 9 percent doubted their children would catch up fully from Covid-related learning loss within a year or two. About half were confident their child would catch up that quickly, while 43 percent reported no learning loss in the first place. Clearly, few parents thought we’d still be seeing large declines in student achievement nearly five years after Covid sent kids home from school.
A better metaphor for learning loss is saving for retirement. If a household emergency forces me to skip a planned deposit, the shortfall in my savings account will persist until I make up for that missed payment. In fact, that shortfall will grow over time due to the foregone opportunity to earn interest on my savings.
The savings metaphor is more realistic because it incorporates a bedrock principle of the science of learning and development known as the “Matthew Effect”—an allusion to the biblical book’s teaching that the rich tend to get richer while the poor get poorer.
The Matthew Effect pervades education, especially in the domain of literacy. Children who are strong in phonics, for example, have a systematic advantage when it comes to building their vocabularies. Students with robust vocabularies are in turn better positioned to develop the background knowledge needed to excel across subject areas—and on tests of reading comprehension like NAEP.
The Matthew Effect helps explain why it is often more cost-effective to intervene in children’s academic development in early childhood than later. Early intervention can help kids develop cognitive skills and habits of mind that make learning easier and more efficient as they progress through school. As Nobel-winning economist James Heckman puts it, “skill begets skill.”
