Despite a year of disruptions, students largely made academic gains this past year that paralleled their growth pre-pandemic and outpaced the previous school year, according to new research released Tuesday from NWEA, a nonprofit research group that administers standardized tests.
Gains across income levels partially closed the gap in learning that resulted from the pandemic, researchers found. But students in high-poverty schools had fallen further behind, making it likely they will need more time than their higher-income peers to make a full recovery.
The results are a measured sign of hope for academic recovery from COVID-19. But sustained effort and investment in education remain crucial.
"These signs of rebounding are especially heartening during another challenging school year of more variants, staff shortages, and a host of uncertainties. We think that speaks volumes to the tremendous effort put forth by our schools to support students," Karyn Lewis, director of the Center for School and Student Progress at NWEA, and the study's co-author, said in a statement.
People are also reading…
The study used data from more than 8 million students who took the MAP Growth assessment in reading and math during the three school years impacted by COVID. Those numbers were then compared with data from three years before the pandemic.
Many teens are suffering from depression in the pandemic, a new survey from the CDC finds.
The study found that if rebounding occurs at the same pace it did in the 2021-2022 school year, the timeline for a full recovery would likely reach beyond the 2024 deadline for schools to spend their federal funds.
For the average elementary school student, researchers projected it would take three years to reach where they would have been without the pandemic. For older students, recovery could take much longer. Across grade levels, subject and demographic groups, the exact timeline can vary widely and researchers found most students will need more than the two years where increased federal funding is available.
Some of the most successful interventions for students involved increasing instructional time, ranging from more class time, intensive tutoring, or high-quality summer programming, said Lindsay Dworkin, senior vice president for policy and communications at NWEA. But those initiatives can be costly and complex, and districts may hesitate to implement them when recovery funds have a fast-approaching deadline to be spent.
"The funding expires in such a short amount of time that districts are really struggling with, 'What can I do that will be big and impactful and I only need to do for two years?'" Dworkin said in an interview. "I think if they knew that there would be more federal money coming and that it would be sustained, that would make all the difference both in the kind of creativity we would see from states and districts."
Dworkin also said that while the study looked at national trends, understanding the unique and specific local context was essential to figuring out how to best support children in schools. In addition to variation across student groups, districts that share similar characteristics, such as demographics and poverty levels, still showed large variation in student outcomes.
"If you are a district leader, there's just no national story that is going to tell you enough about your district context, without the hard work of digging into the data and understanding what it says and then tailoring the interventions to match," Dworkin said.
The states with the best public schools
Math proficiencies have leveled off while reading proficiencies are fading
Yet while the national data indicates that many students struggle with math and reading, state-level statistics show that certain states have found a way to buck the national trend. To determine the states with the best public schools, researchers at HireAHelper used data from the U.S. Department of Education and the Census Bureau to generate a composite score based on the following weighted factors: NAEP reading scores (25%): the difference between the state reading score and the national average for fourth- and eighth-grade students on the NAEP exam. NAEP math scores (25%): the difference between the state math score and the national average for fourth- and eighth-grade students on the NAEP exam. Total state spending per student (10%): the total elementary-secondary per-pupil spending on instruction, support services, and other functions. Pupil-teacher ratio (20%): the number of public school students per teacher. Graduation rate (20%): the public high school four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.
Northeastern states have the best public schools
In many cases, the states with the best test scores are also the states that spend the most money per student—as is the case for Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, and Massachusetts. But this trend is inconsistent. New York and Alaska stand out as states that have significantly above-average funding per student, but report below-average academic results. On the other hand, Idaho and Utah have the lowest public education spending per student of all 50 states, but achieve significantly above-average scores on the NAEP. When taking all these factors into account—test scores, funding, student-teacher ratios, and graduation rates—the states with the best public education systems are disproportionately concentrated in the Northeast. Here are the states with the best public schools.
15. Indiana
Overall composite score: 80.8 Reading scores (difference from national average): +3.5 points Math scores (difference from national average): +5.0 points Total state spending per student: $10,397 Pupil-teacher ratio: 17.3 Graduation rate: 87%
14. Minnesota
Overall composite score: 80.9 Reading scores (difference from national average): +2.5 points Math scores (difference from national average): +9.0 points Total state spending per student: $13,387 Pupil-teacher ratio: 15.4 Graduation rate: 84%
13. Montana
Overall composite score: 81.2 Reading scores (difference from national average): +3.0 points Math scores (difference from national average): +2.0 points Total state spending per student: $11,988 Pupil-teacher ratio: 14.1 Graduation rate: 87%
12. Maine
Overall composite score: 83.6 Reading scores (difference from national average): +2.5 points Math scores (difference from national average): +1.0 points Total state spending per student: $14,614 Pupil-teacher ratio: 12.0 Graduation rate: 87%
11. Virginia
Overall composite score: 84.8 Reading scores (difference from national average): +2.5 points Math scores (difference from national average): +6.5 points Total state spending per student: $12,641 Pupil-teacher ratio: 14.8 Graduation rate: 88%
10. Pennsylvania
Overall composite score: 85.4 Reading scores (difference from national average): +3.0 points Math scores (difference from national average): +4.0 points Total state spending per student: $16,864 Pupil-teacher ratio: 14.0 Graduation rate: 87%
9. Nebraska
Overall composite score: 85.9 Reading scores (difference from national average): +2.5 points Math scores (difference from national average): +4.0 points Total state spending per student: $12,743 Pupil-teacher ratio: 13.6 Graduation rate: 88%
8. North Dakota
Overall composite score: 86.9 Reading scores (difference from national average): +1.5 points Math scores (difference from national average): +4.0 points Total state spending per student: $14,004 Pupil-teacher ratio: 12.0 Graduation rate: 88%
7. Wisconsin
Overall composite score: 87.3 Reading scores (difference from national average): +3.0 points Math scores (difference from national average): +5.0 points Total state spending per student: $12,598 Pupil-teacher ratio: 14.4 Graduation rate: 90%
6. Vermont
Overall composite score: 87.4 Reading scores (difference from national average): +4.5 points Math scores (difference from national average): +2.5 points Total state spending per student: $20,315 Pupil-teacher ratio: 10.5 Graduation rate: 85%
5. Wyoming
Overall composite score: 87.5 Reading scores (difference from national average): +5.5 points Math scores (difference from national average): +5.5 points Total state spending per student: $16,304 Pupil-teacher ratio: 12.9 Graduation rate: 82%
4. New Hampshire
Overall composite score: 93.3 Reading scores (difference from national average): +5.5 points Math scores (difference from national average): +5.5 points Total state spending per student: $17,462 Pupil-teacher ratio: 12.2 Graduation rate: 88%
3. Connecticut
Overall composite score: 94.3 Reading scores (difference from national average): +6.5 points Math scores (difference from national average): +4.0 points Total state spending per student: $21,310 Pupil-teacher ratio: 12.3 Graduation rate: 89%
2. Massachusetts
Overall composite score: 95.0 Reading scores (difference from national average): +11.5 points Math scores (difference from national average): +10.0 points Total state spending per student: $17,748 Pupil-teacher ratio: 13.0 Graduation rate: 88%
1. New Jersey
Overall composite score: 98.0 Reading scores (difference from national average): +8.0 points Math scores (difference from national average): +8.5 points Total state spending per student: $20,512 Pupil-teacher ratio: 12.0 Graduation rate: 91%
Ma covers education and equity for AP's Race and Ethnicity team. Follow her on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/anniema15
The Associated Press' reporting around issues of race and ethnicity is supported in part by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
