National test scores show Texas students still lag in math and reading
Texas' fourth- and eighth-grade students' overall reading and math scores dropped in 2024, though Texas children learning English and Black fourth-graders ranked near the top of the country in some of those areas, according to national test results released on Wednesday.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, tests a sample of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students every two years, measuring how children across different states perform in core subjects. Nearly 240,000 students took the exam nationwide, with Texas students making up roughly 5% of the test takers.
Unlike the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, better known as the STAAR test, the NAEP exam — often referred to as the Nation's Report Card — does not track student progress on subject standards set by the Texas State Board of Education.
A decline in math scores continued for many Texas students who took the NAEP test last year. Texas' lower-income students scored worse than their wealthier peers in reading and math. The state's Black and Hispanic students also lagged behind white students.
Texas' overall eighth-grade math scores plummeted by 4 points, continuing a decline dating back to 2011, according to a Texas Tribune data analysis. Math scores nationwide have also collapsed over a similar period. Texas' fourth-grade math scores, on the other hand, climbed by 2 points and rose six spots in national rankings.
In reading, fourth-grade students in Texas experienced a 2-point drop in scores compared to 2022, while eighth-grade reading scores decreased by 3 points. No state in the country saw gains on the reading exam in either grade compared to the 2022 results, according to the exam's governing board.
'These results highlight the continued challenges our students face in literacy and numeracy and should sound the alarm for school leaders and policymakers alike,' Gabe Grantham, an education policy adviser for Texas 2036, said in a statement. 'While we are encouraged by slight gains in fourth-grade math, the overall picture is clear — Texas students need more support from both schools and the state to build strong reading and math foundations.'
The nationwide test results have raised significant worries among public education advocates across the country about the profound difficulty in helping students rebound from learning loss caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Still, the picture wasn't completely bleak in Texas.
Texas students learning English ranked among the top five in the nation in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math, respectively, compared to their peers, according to a snapshot of data from the Texas Education Agency.
In addition, Black fourth graders in Texas led the way in math scores when compared to other Black students in the same grade across the country. Asian students who took the fourth-grade math exam ranked second among their counterparts, as did low-income fourth-grade students.
Disclosure: Texas 2036 has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
5 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Bruce Rauner: Don't lower the bar for Illinois students
If you've ever watched the high jump event in track and field, you know they raise the bar a little at a time to determine who can clear the greatest height without knocking the bar to the ground. It's exhilarating to watch each athlete rise to the challenge. Now imagine if they did it in reverse, lowering the bar in each round so everyone feels good about their performance and gets awarded a medal. It would spare some frustration and disappointment, but it also would defeat the entire purpose of the event — and no one would ever improve. The same principle applies in education. If we keep lowering expectations to create the illusion of success, we fail the very students we claim to be helping. According to state education officials, Illinois currently has 'some of the highest proficiency benchmarks in the nation.' Yet instead of keeping that bar high or even raising it, they're proposing reworking the state's benchmarking system because it 'unfairly mislabels students.' State Superintendent of Education Tony Sanders recently proposed that Illinois lower its state assessment standards to 'provide us with more accurate data.' Lowering the standards doesn't make the scores more accurate. It sends the wrong signal to students and creates misinformation for parents and educators that results in more students falling through the cracks. This is part of a troubling trend picking up steam across the country. In 2024, Oklahoma and Wisconsin revised their academic standards by lowering the passing scores on their state tests. As a result, students this year were not required to demonstrate the same level of mastery as those in previous years. This change means that some students who would have previously been identified as needing additional support are now considered to be meeting expectations. Oklahoma realized the folly in lowering the bar and recently reversed course to reinstate higher expectations. According to the Nation's Report Card, a biannual assessment of math and reading administered to students in every state, Illinois needs to commit to more rigorous standards, not weaken them. This year's scores showed stagnant or declining results in the number of fourth grade students able to score at or above proficient for math and reading. By lowering expectations on state assessments, the number of students listed as below, at or above proficient could look wildly different than the scores reported by National Assessment of Educational Progress. This is what is known as an 'honesty gap.' It's an active choice to fudge proficiency scores because state leaders believe they're unfair. Lowering expectations for students in Illinois will only widen the honesty gap between state-reported performance and how students actually compare to their peers nationwide, leaving them unprepared for the realities they'll face after graduation. That's the most unfair thing we can do to our students. Numerous studies have shown a strong connection between reading achievement and long-term outcomes, such as college enrollment and lifetime earnings. Similarly, a recent Urban Institute study found that raising math scores by just 0.5 standard deviations for students up to age 12 led to greater increases in earnings by age 30 than any other factor examined. We don't want our students to be unprepared for the academic or professional challenges they will face after K-12 education. This is why Illinois should instead look to bolster current standards with more comprehensive policy solutions that will support students where they are: promoting and challenging those who are testing above proficiency and providing rapid evidence-based interventions and support to those who are testing below proficiency in an effort to bring them up to speed. Illinois policymakers just voted to give more than $300 million in additional funding to public schools. Billions of dollars in new spending has been allocated since we passed historic school funding reform in 2017, yet accountability continues to be eroded. Taxpayers deserve to know whether that additional funding leads to students improving in meaningful, measurable ways. Consistently high standards are the only way to ensure that. It might feel good in the short term to see more students clear the bar, but those same students are likely to wind up more disadvantaged in the long run because they won't get the support they need to make real improvement. Bruce Rauner was the 42nd governor of Illinois.
Los Angeles Times
5 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
Los Angeles Times
5 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Is it needed, or just needy?
To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there. But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president. Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend's state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris' 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing. Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out. Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts? Barabak: I'll start by noting this is the first convention I've attended — and I've been to dozens — rated 'R' for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome. I've covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, 'I have a [expletive deleted] dream.' Both were pretty darned effective leaders. Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn't going to win them back the White House or control of Congress. Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I'm not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand 'toxic.' Walz told his fellow Dems: 'We're in this mess because some of it's our own doing.' It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I'm not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance. I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I'm starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris' loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values? Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why. That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election. This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It's not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness. Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection. In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected. Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: 'A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study.' Sound familar? So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout. Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one. I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it's all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don't like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don't want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won't hold the line until the midterms. They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there's a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation. Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it? Barabak: No, and no. I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000. But Trump's margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn't even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%. As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute's Yuval Levin, who noted Trump's victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century. Challengers 'win elections because their opponents were unpopular,' Levin wrote, 'and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists' agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular.' It's a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028. But Levin is sure looking smart. Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I'd argue that Harris wasn't resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some. Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy 'maybe' period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable. But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' Sometimes there's truth in anger. Musk's money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn't resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication? Barabak: Chabria: Mark? Barabak: Sorry. I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world's richest man going all neener-neener with the world's most powerful man I lost track of where we were. With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It's not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage. Then, come 2028, they'll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment. Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox.
