A comprehensive new study, co-authored by researchers from the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University and The Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University, has unveiled a concerning trend: significant declines in U.S. student academic achievement began well before the COVID-19 pandemic, a period often cited as the primary catalyst for educational disruption. The report, which meticulously analyzes decades of academic data, suggests that the pandemic merely accelerated a downward trajectory that had been in motion for years, challenging the prevailing narrative that solely attributes current educational challenges to recent global events.
The Roots of Declining Achievement: A Look Back
The research highlights that improvements in student academic performance in the United States first began to manifest in the 1990s. This period of growth continued into the era of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), signed into law in 2002 by President George W. Bush. NCLB fundamentally reshaped the educational landscape by mandating nationwide test-based accountability for schools. This system held educational institutions answerable for their students’ performance on standardized tests, with the expectation that all students would achieve proficiency in reading and mathematics by the 2013-14 academic year.
However, the report’s findings indicate that the effectiveness and impact of this test-based accountability system began to wane significantly after 2013. Researchers noted that the decline in achievement after this point was remarkably similar in states that received waivers from NCLB requirements and those that did not. This suggests that the erosion of academic progress was not solely tied to the specific accountability measures or their relaxation.
The Unraveling of Accountability: Waivers and the Stigma of Failure
The Obama administration introduced accountability waivers starting in the 2012-13 school year. These waivers provided states with flexibility from certain NCLB mandates in exchange for adopting approved reform plans. By 2012, many states had already begun to de-emphasize identifying schools as not making "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) under NCLB, anticipating the widespread adoption of these waivers. Ultimately, 38 states received accountability waivers for the 2012-13 academic year, with an additional six states following suit in the subsequent two years, encompassing nearly the entire nation.
The report’s authors suggest that the decline in student achievement after 2013 cannot be directly attributed to a reduction in test-based accountability. While the waivers may have lessened the immediate pressure on schools to boost test scores, a more fundamental breakdown in the accountability system itself was occurring. A key factor identified was the unrealistic goal set by NCLB: expecting 100 percent student proficiency by 2013-14. As this deadline approached, it became clear that virtually every school would fail to meet this benchmark. This widespread "failure" diluted the impact of sanctions and incentives, as being labeled a failing school lost its stigma.
Alternative Perspectives on the Decline
While the Harvard and Stanford report points to a breakdown in the accountability framework, FairTest, an organization that advocates against standardized testing, offers a different interpretation. Harry Feder, the executive director of FairTest, contends that test-based accountability has not disappeared. He argues that attributing the decline to a loosening of this accountability is inaccurate.
Instead, Feder points to the pervasive integration of technology in classrooms and daily life as a more significant contributing factor. He specifically highlights the rise of the iPhone, tablets in schools, and young children learning on Google Chromebooks as temporal correlations that warrant closer examination. Feder advocates for a shift in focus from "weighing the pig" through excessive testing to "feeding the pig" by investing in more meaningful educational experiences and resources. FairTest has historically been a vocal critic of standardized testing, arguing in a 2018 critique that it consumes valuable classroom time, narrows the curriculum, discourages students, and can perpetuate a false narrative of failure, particularly impacting schools in low-income communities by putting them at risk of closure or privatization. The organization also intensified its calls for opting out of standardized testing during the pandemic.
The Pandemic’s Role: An Accelerator, Not the Cause
Dale Chu, an assessment expert and independent education policy consultant, echoes the sentiment that the pandemic acted as an accelerant for pre-existing trends. He states that the "deeply concerning trend" of declining achievement was already evident and foreseeable. Professor Tom Kane, faculty director of the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University and a lead author of the report, eloquently described the situation: "The pandemic was the mudslide that followed seven years of erosion in student achievement. The ‘learning recession’ started a decade ago."
This perspective suggests that the educational system was already on shaky ground, and the abrupt shift to remote learning, school closures, and widespread disruption exacerbated existing vulnerabilities. The "learning recession," as termed by Professor Kane, implies a period of stagnation or regression in academic progress that predates the crisis.
Implications for the Future of Education
Given the report’s findings that academic decline began years before the pandemic, the researchers argue that aiming for a return to pre-pandemic (2019) achievement levels is insufficient. Instead, they advocate for a more ambitious goal of exceeding previous benchmarks to compensate for the lost decade.
The researchers propose that state education leaders should:
- Recognize the protracted nature of the decline: Acknowledge that the "learning recession" is not a recent phenomenon and requires sustained, long-term strategies.
- Implement evidence-based interventions: Focus on pedagogical approaches and interventions that have a proven track record of improving student outcomes.
- Prioritize foundational skills: Ensure students have a strong grasp of core academic concepts in reading and mathematics.
- Address the impact of technology: Explore how technology can be leveraged effectively to support learning, rather than potentially hindering it, as suggested by FairTest.
- Re-evaluate assessment strategies: Consider a more balanced approach to assessment that includes performance-based and interim assessments alongside standardized tests, addressing concerns about curriculum narrowing and teaching to the test.
Dale Chu further emphasizes the importance of sustained focus and pressure on academic outcomes. He notes that while academic results can respond to consistent effort, gains can erode quickly when that focus dissipates due to "political fatigue, shifting priorities, or skepticism toward accountability itself."
The report’s implications are far-reaching. It suggests that educational policy decisions made in the coming years must be informed by a deeper understanding of historical trends rather than solely reacting to the immediate impacts of the pandemic. The findings underscore the need for robust, long-term strategies that address the systemic issues contributing to academic stagnation, ensuring that future generations are not further disadvantaged by policies that fail to recognize the complex and evolving nature of educational progress. The challenge now is for policymakers and educators to move beyond the immediate crisis and implement sustained, evidence-based reforms that can genuinely uplift student achievement for the long haul.
