Education

The Pandemic Is Not the Only Reason U.S. Students Are Losing Ground

Published

7 months ago

April 7, 2025

The Pandemic Is Not the Only Reason U.S. Students Are Losing Ground

There was once a time when America’s lowest-performing students were improving just as much as the country’s top students.

Despite their low scores, these students at the bottom made slow but steady gains on national tests for much of the 2000s. It was one sign that the U.S. education system was working, perhaps not spectacularly, but at least enough to help struggling students keep pace with the gains of the most privileged and successful.

Today, the country’s lowest-scoring students are in free fall.

The reason is not just the pandemic. For at least a decade, starting around 2013, students in the bottom quartile have been losing ground on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a key exam that tests a national sample of fourth and eighth grade students in math and reading.

The bottom quartile is made up of students from various backgrounds, but it includes a higher proportion of students with disabilities, students learning English and children from poor families. Since the pandemic, their scores have often continued to fall, even as high achieving students stabilize.

“Whatever is happening to the lower performers is still happening,” said Nat Malkus, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, who has tracked the trend.

Researchers point to a number of educational and societal changes over the past decade, including a retrenchment in school accountability, the lasting effects of the Great Recession and the rise of smartphones, which has coincided with worsening cognitive abilities even among adults since the early 2010s.

Figuring out what has happened to the lowest performers is critical, not just for their futures, but for the country’s success.

By leaving behind a huge swath of students, the United States is preparing fewer citizens to do the most technical and high-paying jobs, said Jason Dougal, who studies effective school systems at the National Center on Education and the Economy.

That only widens income inequality in the labor market, he said. And it pushes the United States further from top countries on education — places like Singapore, Japan and Ireland — which succeed not just by raising scores for their top performers, but by lifting up their lowest students.

“To get high average performance, you can’t allow a significant portion of your population to be performing at low levels,” Mr. Dougal said.

More students with challenges

Since the early 2010s, the United States has taken in more immigrants, which means more students learning English have entered public schools. Schools are also serving more students with disabilities.

Those demographic shifts could help explain some change in scores. Both groups are more likely to score below their peers on standardized tests. But it is most likely not the biggest factor, experts said.

The increases are small as a share of the total public school population.

And since 2013, almost every student category has seen significant declines among low performers, said Chad Aldeman, an education researcher and columnist for The 74, a nonprofit news site, who has written about the phenomenon.

The declines have sometimes been greater for more advantaged groups.

For example, in eighth grade math, the bottom 10 percent of proficient English speakers lost more ground than the lowest-scoring English learners, Mr. Aldeman found. Similarly, his analysis showed that the lowest-scoring students who did not have a disability fell more than the lowest-scoring students who did. The bottom scoring middle- and higher-income students lost more ground than the bottom low-income students.

This suggests that there is something about being a low-achieving student, regardless of background, that is driving the trend.

School accountability has faded

One possible explanation is the end of No Child Left Behind, the contentious school accountability law President George W. Bush signed in 2002.

The law is perhaps best known for its legacy of standardized testing, including annual exams in math and reading in third through eighth grade.

But it also put a sharp focus on low performers, part of Mr. Bush’s campaign against what he called “the soft bigotry of low expectations” in public schools. The law set a goal of having all students reach proficiency. Schools were required to break out testing data by race, income and special education status, and schools that did not show progress could face penalties.

It corresponded with a period of rapid improvement in test scores, particularly in math. Reading scores also improved, though more modestly.

The biggest increases were for students at the bottom.

But the law was also deeply unpopular on the left and the right.

Critics argued it was too punitive, with unrealistic goals. Many said it led a “drill and kill” culture of teaching to the test, leaving less time for other important subjects like social studies and the arts.

By the early 2010s, states had gotten waivers from the law, and in 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act returned power to the states, which in many cases led to more relaxed accountability.

Around the same time, scores among low performers began to fall.

“When we had meaningful accountability at the state and local level, kids were doing better,” said Margaret Spellings, Mr. Bush’s education secretary from 2005 to 2009. “When we stopped doing that, we went the wrong direction.”

Other theories: screen time and the Great Recession

School policies are most likely only part of the picture.

Adults have also been struggling with literacy since 2012, not only in the United States but also in other countries, according to an international survey of 16- to 65-year-olds.

The declines were driven by adults in the bottom tier of literacy, a shift that could not be explained by demographic trends, said Andreas Schleicher, director for education and skills at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which manages the survey.

He and other researchers pointed to another possibility: the rise of smartphones, which before 2013 had not reached half of American adults. Today, 90 percent of U.S. adults and a similar share of teenagers own a smartphone, as do one in three 9-year-olds.

It’s not entirely clear why smartphone use would have a greater effect on low performers. But smartphones also take time away from other activities. Children (and adults) are reading fewer books than in the past, with low-scoring students being the least likely to read recreationally.

Still, other societal changes could also be at play.

After the Great Recession, states cut school spending, leading to teacher layoffs and other cutbacks. The spending cuts took place over several years, peaking in the 2011-2012 school year. Experts say the cuts were more likely to affect low-scoring students, who tend to be in poor school districts that relied heavily on state funding.

“Many things can be true at the same time, but I’m confident that changes in school spending over time are a big part of it,” said Kirabo Jackson, an economist at Northwestern University, whose research found that students most exposed to Great Recession cuts experienced greater declines in test scores and college attendance.

What now?

Part of the answer may lie in simply focusing on students at the bottom, said Carey Wright, the former state superintendent in Mississippi, where the lowest-performing students have defied national trends.

Mississippi’s lowest-scoring fourth graders have improved since 2013, and eighth graders have fallen less than the national average. Mississippi received widespread attention for dramatically improving reading scores after adopting a new, phonics-based approach to teaching reading in 2013.

But the state also approved a new school accountability policy that same year. Schools receive A-F letter grades based on how well students perform on tests, with an emphasis on the progress made by the lowest 25 percent of students. Literacy coaches are also assigned to the lowest-performing schools.

“We really started drawing teachers’ eyes, principals’ eyes, to who is in the bottom? What do they need?” said Dr. Wright, now the superintendent in Maryland.

Soon, though, there could be even less reliable information on how the lowest-performing students are doing, as the Trump administration seeks to shrink the role of the federal government in education.

As part of a major downsizing at the U.S. Department of Education last month, the Trump administration laid off nearly all federal employees who work on education research, including the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the only test that makes it possible to compare students across the country.

The cuts could hamper the national test, which is required by law every two years.

“Eventually, I hope we’re going to be closing these gaps,” said Thomas Kane, an economist at Harvard University who focuses on student achievement. But the test results are “the only way we’re going to know it.”

Click to comment

Education

Opinion | New York City Mayoral Candidates: Who Would Be Best?

Published

2 days ago

October 29, 2025

Press Room

Opinion | New York City Mayoral Candidates: Who Would Be Best?

Times Opinion convened a
panel of New Yorkers to
assess the mayoral candidates
for the Nov. 4 election.

Oct. 29, 2025

On a scale from 0-10, we asked panelists to rate each candidate’s potential to be a great mayor of New York City.

New York City has rarely had a mayoral election so transfixing, or with such critical stakes for its future. In the cross hairs of President Trump’s assault on America’s cities and facing an acute affordability crisis, voters will choose on Nov. 4 from a unique slate of candidates: Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist, who surprised experts by winning the Democratic primary in June; Andrew Cuomo, the three-term governor forced to resign amid a wave of sexual misconduct accusations, now running as an independent; and Curtis Sliwa, a Republican making his second run for mayor.

Times Opinion brought together 14 panelists to assess the candidates and their ability to lead the city; 11 returned from the panel we convened for the Democratic primary in June. In particular, the panelists explored how Mr. Cuomo stacked up against Mr. Mamdani, who has maintained a steady lead in the polls after energizing a broad coalition of voters with a message laser-focused on the cost of living.

Some of the panelists who favored Brad Lander, the city’s comptroller, in the June primary, embraced Mr. Mamdani’s vision for fresh approaches to seemingly intractable problems, while placing a bet that he would overcome his relative inexperience in government. “We’re riding on hope here,” said one. Many agreed with another panelist’s assessment that it was “time for a generational shift.” A few panelists spoke favorably about Mr. Cuomo’s long experience in government, but most felt he represented a tired and pugilistic style of politics and hadn’t done enough to change that dynamic.

The Choice was compiled by editors in Times Opinion using a brief questionnaire, material from a round-table discussion in early October and individual discussions. The material has been edited for length and clarity.

After one participant dropped out late in the process, Joseph Borelli was added to the panel, but not in time for the round-table discussion; He conveyed his views in an interview and in the questionnaire.

About our panel

These 14 local leaders assessed the candidates independently, as individual voters, not on behalf of their organizations. Joseph Borelli was unable to attend the round-table discussion and provided his comments in separate interviews. Some panelists made donations to candidates; that information is disclosed in their biographies.

Amit Singh Bagga is a Democratic strategist who runs a political consulting firm and a veteran of New York State, city and federal government. While in city government, he helped lead the 2020 census campaign. In 2021 he made an unsuccessful bid to represent City Council District 26 in Queens.

He has contributed $100 to Zohran Mamdani’s campaign.

Neil Blumenthal is a co-founder and co-chief executive of the New York-based eyewear company Warby Parker. Since 2015, the company has partnered with New York City agencies and organizations to provide free eyeglasses to students. Mr. Blumenthal also serves on the boards of Robin Hood, Tech:NYC and the Partnership Fund for New York City.

Joseph Borelli is a Republican former city councilman who represented the South Shore of Staten Island for nearly 10 years. He was the council’s minority leader from 2021 to 2025 and chaired its Committee on Fire and Emergency Management. He served in the New York State Assembly for three years and currently works as a political strategist.

Iwen Chu is a former state senator from South Brooklyn and a former State Assembly aide and community education council member. During her two years in office, she helped secure funding for schools and Asian American community organizations. Ms. Chu was the first Asian American woman to serve in the State Senate.

Frederick A. Davie is a senior executive vice president at Union Theological Seminary in Morningside Heights. He helps lead community and civic engagement with social and economic justice organizations. He also has served in New York City administrations since the 1990s. He was deputy borough president of Manhattan in the mid-1990s and was chair of the board responsible for civilian oversight of the New York Police Department from 2017 to 2022.

Christina M. Greer is a political scientist at Fordham University who studies Black politics, mayors, elections and public opinion. She writes a weekly column for The Amsterdam News and co-hosts the podcast “FAQ NYC,” about city politics and culture.

A. Mychal Johnson is a South Bronx community leader focused on economic and social justice for working-class communities of color through grass-roots organizing and policy advocacy.

Caitlin Kawaguchi is a co-founder of the nonprofit consultancy Parkes Philanthropy and the former president of New Kings Democrats, a grass-roots organization in Brooklyn. She has served on the Brooklyn Democratic Party’s County Committee since 2018 and is an appointed member of Brooklyn’s Community Board 1.

Mitchell L. Moss is a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University and an expert on cities and technological change. He has advised city and state governments on infrastructure policy and economic growth. Mayor Eric Adams and Gov. Kathy Hochul appointed him to a committee shaping policy on transit, open space and equitable opportunity to guide New York’s economic goals.

Eleanor Randolph is a journalist who managed city and state political endorsements as a member of the New York Times editorial board from 1998 to 2016. In 2019 she wrote “The Many Lives of Michael Bloomberg.”

Whitney Toussaint is a co-president of Community Education Council 30 in western Queens. She has collaborated with the City Council and other local leaders on the construction of schools in Hunters Point and Court Square.

Ms. Toussaint has contributed $100 to Zohran Mamdani’s campaign.

Jared Trujillo is a professor at CUNY School of Law, where he teaches constitutional law and critical race theory. He is a chair of the New York City Bar Association’s L.G.B.T.Q. Rights Committee and a former president of the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys.

Antonio Weiss is a partner in the investment firm SSW, a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and a former official at the U.S. Treasury, where he led the domestic finance department. He is a trustee of the Citizens Budget Commission and a former chair of an independent budget panel advising the city.

He contributed $2,100 to Andrew Cuomo’s campaign during the primary and has contributed $2,500 to a group that supports Zohran Mamdani.

Howard Wolfson is a Democratic strategist who heads Bloomberg Philanthropies’ education work. He was a deputy mayor under Michael Bloomberg from 2010 to 2013, overseeing collaboration among the city, state and federal governments.