# data[].attributes.headline
This is a report from 2023 sourced from "The Nation's Report Card" titled "NAEP Long Term Trend Assessment Results: Reading and Mathematics" (author unknown).

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a report from 2023 sourced from "The Nation's Report Card" titled "NAEP Long Term Trend Assessment Results: Reading and Mathematics" (author unknown).

# data[].attributes.body
"The average scores for 13-year-olds declined 4 points in reading and 9 points in mathematics compared to the previous assessment administered during the 2019–20 school year. Compared to a decade ago, the average scores declined 7 points in reading and 14 points in mathematics."

I chose this as a concise articulation of how students are performing much poorly in reading assessments over time.

"Results reflect the performance of a nationally representative sample of 8,700 thirteen-year-olds in each subject."

I chose this so that the sample population was clear.

"In 2023, fourteen percent of students reported reading for fun almost every day. This percentage was 3 percentage points lower than 2020, and 13 percentage points lower than 2012. Overall, the percentage of 13-year-old students who reported reading for fun almost every day was lower in 2023 than in all previous assessment years."

I chose this because it brings up the correlation between those who choose to read for fun and their reading scores.

"Fifty-one percent of 13-year-old students scoring at or above the 75th percentile in 2023 reported that they read for fun on their own time at least once a week, whereas 28 percent of 13-year-old students scoring below the 25th percentile reported doing so. The percentage of students who reported reading for fun on their own time once or twice a month was also larger for students at or above the 75th percentile. Conversely, the percentages of students who reported reading less frequently—a few times a year or never or hardly ever—were larger for students performing below the 25th percentile."

This makes it clear that those who performed better on the assessment also tend to read for fun more often.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scores decline again for 13-year-old students in reading and mathematics

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) administered the NAEP long-term trend (LTT) reading and mathematics assessments to 13-year-old students from October to December of the 2022-23 school year. The average scores for 13-year-olds declined 4 points in reading and 9 points in mathematics compared to the previous assessment administered during the 2019-20 school year. Compared to a decade ago, the average scores declined 7 points in reading and 14 points in mathematics.

Figure Trend in NAEP long-term trend reading and mathematics average scores for 13-year-old students

Loading...

* Significantly different ( p < .05) from 2023.

NOTE: The NAEP long-term trend (LTT) assessment results are reported by the year in which the school year ends. For example, the age 13 assessment was administered during the fall of the 2022-23 school year and results are reported as 2023 LTT at age 13.

This Highlights report compares performance on the NAEP long-term trend reading and mathematics assessments for age 13 students during the 2022-23 school year to previous assessment results, with a focus on results obtained in the 2019-20 school year. Results reflect the performance of a nationally representative sample of 8,700 thirteen-year-olds in each subject. Performance comparisons are based on statistically significant differences between assessment years and between groups. Explore details about the long-term trend assessments and how they differ from main NAEP assessments.

I. Performance Trends by Percentiles

Reading scores decline at all selected percentiles since 2020

NAEP reports scores at five selected percentiles to show changes over time by lower- (10th and 25th percentiles), middle- (50th percentile), and higher- (75th and 90th percentiles) performing students. Percentiles are useful for understanding how overall score gains or losses are distributed across the student population and provide context for the national average score.

The 2023 reading scores for age 13 students at all five selected percentile levels declined compared to 2020. The declines ranged from 3 to 4 points for middle- and higher-performing students to 6 to 7 points for lower-performing students, though the score declines of lower performers were not significantly different from those of their middle- and higher-performing peers.

Larger declines since 2020 for lower-performing students in mathematics

The 2023 mathematics scores for age 13 students at all five selected percentile levels declined compared to 2020. The declines ranged from 6 to 8 points for middle- and higher-performing students to 12 to 14 points for lower-performing students, with larger declines for lower performers in comparison to their higher-performing peers.

II. Performance Trends by Student Group

Scores decline for many student groups in reading, and for nearly all student groups in mathematics

The 2023 average scores in reading declined compared to 2020 for many student groups reported by NAEP; for example, scores were lower for both male and female 13-year-olds, for students eligible and not eligible for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and for students attending schools in the Northeast and the Midwest regions. In mathematics, scores declined compared to 2020 for most student groups; for example, scores were lower for Black, Hispanic, and White 13-year-olds, for students attending schools in all regions of the country, for students eligible and not eligible for the NSLP, and for students at all reported levels of parental education.

See average score results for selected student groups through the drop-down menu selection below. Symbols in the figure indicate the score change between two sets of assessment years: from 2012 to 2020 and from 2020 to 2023. For example, in the figure below for race/ethnicity, the gray diamonds indicate that the 2020 reading score was not significantly different from the 2012 score for any racial/ethnic group with reportable results, and the down arrows indicate that 2023 reading scores declined for White and Black students and for students of Two or More Races in comparison to 2020.

In mathematics, the 11-point score decrease for female students compared to the 7-point decrease for male students resulted in a widening of the Male−Female score gap in comparison to 2020. Also, the 13-point score decrease among Black students compared to the 6-point decrease among White students resulted in a widening of the White−Black score gap from 35 points in 2020 to 42 points in 2023. In reading, there were no statistically significant changes in these score gaps in 2023 compared to 2020.

Figure Changes in NAEP long-term trend reading and mathematics average scores for 13-year-old students, by race/ethnicity: 2012, 2020, and 2023

Loading...

NAEP long-term trend performance levels for age 13

NOTE: Results are not shown for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students because reporting standards were not met. The NAEP long-term trend (LTT) assessment results are reported by the year in which the school year ends. For example, the age 13 assessment was administered during the fall of the 2022-23 school year and results are reported as 2023 LTT at age 13.

III. Student Learning Experience

Students who took the long-term trend assessments in reading and mathematics during the 2022-23 school year also responded to a survey questionnaire. Students taking the long-term trend reading assessment were asked how often they read for fun on their own time; students taking the long-term trend mathematics assessment were asked which type of mathematics course they were currently taking; and all students were asked about the number of days they had been absent from school in the previous month.

Students' responses to survey questions provide information with which to compare performance based on their self-reported characteristics and educational experiences. This information may be valuable in helping parents, educators, and policymakers understand what aspects of students' experiences are related to achievement. Survey questionnaire results, however, do not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the characteristic or experience and student achievement. NAEP is not designed to identify the causes of performance differences. Numerous factors interact to influence student achievement, including local educational policies and practices, the quality of teachers, and available resources. Such factors may change over time and vary among student groups.

Percentage of students missing 5 or more days of school monthly has doubled since 2020

Students who took the 2023 long-term trend reading and mathematics assessments were asked how many days of school they had missed in the last month. Responses to the survey question for both subjects indicate a decrease in the percentages of 13-year-old students reporting having missed none to 2 days in the past month compared to 2020. Conversely, there were increases in the percentages of 13-year-old students who reported missing 3 or 4 days and students who reported missing 5 or more days in the last month. The percentage of students who reported missing 5 or more days doubled from 5 percent in 2020 to 10 percent in 2023.

For both reading and mathematics, students with fewer missed school days generally had higher average scores in 2023 than students with more missed school days.

Figure Percentage of 13-year-old students in NAEP long-term trend reading, by number of days student absent from school in a month: 2020 and 2023

Loading...

Fourteen percent of students report reading for fun almost every day,lower than previous years

In 2023, fourteen percent of students reported reading for fun almost every day. This percentage was 3 percentage points lower than 2020, and 13 percentage points lower than 2012. Overall, the percentage of 13-year-old students who reported reading for fun almost every day was lower in 2023 than in all previous assessment years.

The average reading score in 2023 for those students who reported reading for fun on their own almost every day was 275, which was higher than the scores for students who reported other levels of frequency for reading on their own time. See a data table with average score results.

Compared to their lower-performing peers, larger percentage of higher-performing students report more frequently reading for fun

Fifty-one percent of 13-year-old students scoring at or above the 75th percentile in 2023 reported that they read for fun on their own time at least once a week, whereas 28 percent of 13-year-old students scoring below the 25th percentile reported doing so. The percentage of students who reported reading for fun on their own time once or twice a month was also larger for students at or above the 75th percentile. Conversely, the percentages of students who reported reading less frequently- a few times a year or never or hardly ever- were larger for students performing below the 25th percentile.

Figure Percentage of 13-year-old students in NAEP long-term trend reading, by selected percentiles and by how often they read for fun on their own time: 2023

How often do you read for fun on your own time?

Proportion of lower-performing students (below 25th percentile)

Proportion of higher-performing students (at or above 75th percentile)

* Significantly different ( p < .05) from students performing at or above the 75th percentile.

NOTE: The NAEP long-term trend (LTT) assessment results are reported by the year in which the school year ends. For example, the age 13 assessment was administered during the fall of the 2022-23 school year and results are reported as 2023 LTT at age 13.

Smaller percentage of students report taking algebra compared to a decade ago, but no change from 2020

Students were asked, "What kind of mathematics are you taking this year?" and were given five response options: I am not taking mathematics this year; regular mathematics; pre-algebra; algebra; and other. Compared to 2020, there were no significant changes in the percentages of students by type of mathematics taken during the 2022-23 school year.

Compared to 2012, however, the percentage of 13-year-old students in 2023 who reported they were taking regular mathematics increased from 28 to 42 percent, while the percentage of students taking pre-algebra decreased from 29 to 22 percent, and the percentage of students taking algebra dropped from 34 to 24 percent.

Average scores were lower in 2023 for all types of mathematics courses presented compared to 2020. See a data table with average score results.

Compared to their lower-performing peers, larger percentage of higher-performing 13-year-old students report taking algebra

Forty-four percent of 13-year-old students scoring at or above the 75th percentile in 2023 reported that they were taking algebra during the 2022-23 school year, whereas 10 percent of students scoring below the 25th percentile reported doing so. There was no significant difference between the percentages of lower- and higher-performing 13-year-old students who reported currently taking pre-algebra. The percentage of students who reported taking regular mathematics was higher for students performing below the 25th percentile: Fifty-two percent of lower performers reported taking regular mathematics compared to 23 percent of higher-performing students who reported doing so.

Figure Percentage of 13-year-old students in NAEP long-term trend mathematics, by selected percentiles and by type of mathematics taken during the school year: 2023

What kind of mathematics are you taking this year?

Proportion of lower-performing students (below 25th percentile)

Proportion of higher-performing students (at or above 75th percentile)

Not taking mathematics

#

# Rounds to zero.

* Significantly different ( p < .05) from students performing at or above the 75th percentile.

NOTE: The NAEP long-term trend (LTT) assessment results are reported by the year in which the school year ends. For example, the age 13 assessment was administered during the fall of the 2022-23 school year and results are reported as 2023 LTT at age 13.

IV. Explore More Long-Term Trend Data

Generate custom tables for age 13 students in NAEP long-term trend reading and mathematics across all assessment years.

V. More About the Age 13 Assessment Content and Sample

Since the 1970s, the NAEP long-term trend assessments have been administered to monitor the academic performance of students across three age levels (9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students). This report mainly focuses on the comparison of age 13 students (typically in grade 8) between 2020 and 2023. A report card summarizing results for 9- and 13-year-old students across all administrations back to the 1970s is forthcoming.

There are several differences between long-term trend and main NAEP assessments in reading and mathematics.

LTT reading was first administered in 1971 and LTT mathematics was first administered in 1973. Main NAEP assessments in reading and mathematics date back to the 1990s; frameworks for these assessments are periodically revised to reflect curricular changes.

LTT assessments in reading and mathematics are administered to students sampled by age, while main NAEP assessments are administered to students sampled by grade.

LTT assessments in reading and mathematics are less frequently updated than main NAEP assessments in these subjects and are less reflective of changes in curriculum.

LTT assessments are paper-based, while main NAEP assessments are digitally-based.

The instruments and methodologies of LTT and main NAEP assessment programs are different; therefore, direct comparisons between the LTT results presented in this report and the assessment results presented in other main NAEP reports are not possible. Read more about the differences between long-term trend and main NAEP assessments.

Although the LTT assessments are typically administered every four years, NCES decided to administer the long-term trend assessments to provide data on post-pandemic student performance. The assessments at age 13 were administered from October to December of the 2022-23 school year. Results are based on a nationally representative sample of approximately 8,700 students in each subject. Of the 460 schools that participated in 2023, eighty-two percent had participated in 2020. The LTT data collection at age 13 complements the data previously collected and reported for age 9.

The long-term trend (LTT) assessment in reading requires age 13 students to read a variety of short texts (expository pieces, poems, riddles, advertisements, and story excerpts) and to respond to questions about what they read. Students participating in the 2023 LTT reading assessment read passages and responded to questions in three 15-minute sections. Each section contained three or four short passages and approximately 10 questions. The majority of questions were presented in a multiple-choice format, though most sections included one constructed-response question.

Assessment questions are designed to measure reading comprehension skills, primarily to

locate specific information in the text provided;

make inferences based on information in two or more parts of the text; and

identify the main idea in the text.

The LTT assessment in mathematics requires age 13 students to respond to a variety of questions designed to measure

knowledge of basic mathematical facts;

ability to carry out computations using paper and pencil;

knowledge of basic measurement formulas, as they are applied in geometric settings; and

ability to apply mathematics to daily living skills, such as those involving time and money.

Students participating in the LTT mathematics assessment responded to questions in three 15-minute sections. Most sections contained between 22 and 26 questions. The majority of questions students answered were presented in a multiple-choice format, but some constructed-response questions were included in each of the sections.

NOTE: The NAEP long-term trend (LTT) reading and mathematics scales range from 0 to 500. Because the scales were developed separately for each subject, comparisons cannot be made from one subject to another. Black includes African American. Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. The information about National School Lunch Program (NSLP) variable is based on available school records. If school records were not available, the student was classified as "Information not available." The category "students with disabilities" includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The results for students with disabilities and English learners are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. See more information about student group variables. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or the omission of categories. Although the estimates (e.g., average scores or percentages) are shown as rounded numbers in the charts, the positions of the data points in the graphics are based on the unrounded numbers. Unrounded numbers were used for calculating the differences between the estimates, and for the statistical comparison test when the estimates were compared to each other. Not all apparent differences between estimates are statistically significant. NAEP reports results using widely accepted statistical standards; findings are reported based on a statistical significance level set at .05, with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons. Only those differences that are found to be statistically significant are referred to as "higher" or "lower."

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1971-2023 Long-Term Trend (LTT) Reading and Mathematics Assessments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NAEP Long-Term Trend Assessment Results: Reading and Mathematics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2023 NAEP Long-Term Trend Assessment - Results Highlights at Age 13

# data[].attributes.body
I have not given, received, or used any unauthorized assistance. This work is mine.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a 2024 blog post from "Beanstack" titled "Integrating Reading into the School Day: Best Practices" (author unknown).

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a 2024 blog post from "Beanstack" titled "Integrating Reading into the School Day: Best Practices" (author unknown).

# data[].attributes.body
"Integrating reading into the daily curriculum also fosters social and emotional learning (SEL) by promoting empathy, representation, and mindfulness. Books allow students to experience diverse perspectives and cultures, which helps them understand and connect with others. When students see themselves in stories, it fosters a sense of belonging and validation. Additionally, literature encouraging mindfulness can reduce stress and create a more welcoming classroom environment."

The article begins by delving into how important reading is for students.

"Incorporating reading into day-to-day curriculums can take on many different forms. One way is to designate a daily scheduled time when the main focus is reading. Getting students accustomed to a daily reading block for 20–30 minutes can build positive reading habits and encourage them to get excited about reading."

The article proposes one method for reading times, a short block everyday.

"Allowing students to select books based on their interests communicates that their opinions matter and involves them in their learning. "

This article mentions that not only is having structured reading times important but students should have the ability to choose their own material.

"Shared reading experiences have many benefits. Discussing books and topics with peers makes reading a collaborative experience. Students can learn from one another and develop discussion skills in small groups or partner sharing."

This article mentions pairing reading time with small group discussions which is important as it encourages students to analyze the material on their own without the assistance of technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Integrating Reading Into the School Day: Best Practices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover the best practices for integrating reading into the school day and learn about the impact reading has on student success.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is Steve Underwood's literacy brief from 2019 sourced from the "Education Northwest Literacy Brief" titled "What is the Evidence for an Uninterrupted, 90 - Minute Literacy Instruction Block".

# data[].attributes.subject
This is Steve Underwood's literacy brief from 2019 sourced from the "Education Northwest Literacy Brief" titled "What is the Evidence for an Uninterrupted, 90 - Minute Literacy Instruction Block".

# data[].attributes.body
"While the NRP did attempt to find a connection to overall instructional time, they reported that the available evidence was both inconsistent and inadequate (NRP, 2000, pp. 5–12). It’s important to note that the NRP only included findings from studies that used experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Under ESSA guidelines, these types of studies would be classified as the two highest levels of evidence (strong and moderate) of the four levels described as acceptable. In 2000, most of the studies that examined the effects of instructional time fell into the two lower levels of evidence (promising and demonstrates a rationale), which the NRP did not consider. The panel did provide one example of a study that found positive effects in kindergarten programs that implemented systematic phonics instruction “for 1 hour per day for 12 weeks during the latter half of kindergarten” (NRP, 2000, pp. 2–124), but that alone was not enough to warrant a specific recommendation."

This article delves into early considerations of a literacy block and discusses there initially being a misalignment with research proving its efficacy.

"During this time the fields of literacy, school improvement, and special education research were beginning to converge around the concepts of core instruction and early, intensive intervention. Research conducted up to that point undergirds the now well-established practices of MTSS, Education Northwest | Evidence for an Uninterrupted, 90-Minute Literacy Instruction Block Literacy Brief 3 including well-defined core instruction, additional tiers of support, data-based decision-making, and the use of diagnostic assessments and progress monitoring (American Institutes for Research, n.d.). Despite the fact that the early Reading First guidance did not use MTSS-type terminology, it appears that the evidence base for the 90-minute block arose from this complex, difficult-to-trace mix of research, expert opinion, and practitioner knowledge. Under ESSA, this evidence would be considered to meet the “demonstrates a rationale” level of rigor."

There is sufficient evidence proving the efficacy of a time block!

"Essentially, by the time the uninterrupted, 90-minute reading block came to be a requirement of Reading First, leading researchers had come to realize that schools frequently had schedules that allocated plenty of time to literacy, for example, but it was clear that the quality of instruction during that allocated time was frequently not conducive to high levels of learning."

It is an interesting consideration that implementing the time block is not enough and that there are still more issues.

"Nearly a decade earlier, a long-running school effectiveness study (Teddlie et al., 1989) had found that “classroom practices in ineffective schools (regardless of community SES)” demonstrated: • Substantially less attention paid to student time on task • Less delivery of high-quality instructional material • A lack of belief among teachers that students could attain high academic expectations • More frequent interruptions to instruction"

This section forced me to think even deeper about the issue because I never even considered that changes must be made even in schools with this literacy block.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is Julie Parrish's report from 2023 sourced from the "Instruction Partners" titled "The Hidden Resource: How time Allocation Impacts Reading Instruction".

# data[].attributes.subject
This is Julie Parrish's report from 2023 sourced from the "Instruction Partners" titled "The Hidden Resource: How time Allocation Impacts Reading Instruction".

# data[].attributes.body
The 90-minute literacy block has long been the gold standard of reading instruction in US schools, and “evidence substantiates the use of the block as a best practice in literacy instruction and meets the ESSA requirements for evidence that demonstrates a strong rationale” (Underwood, 2018).

This quote references a current standard in place and proposes a better intervention.

"We recommend 120 as a way to keep this 90-minute block for whole-class instructional activities and add an additional 30 minutes dedicated to small-group instruction in which students receive differentiated instruction targeted on skills they are still developing."

One of my ideas was having specific discussion times to encourage students to be able to interpret readings without the assistance of technology and this time block allocates time for that.

"In our experience, this additional, focused 30 minutes turbo charges student learning—it provides a guardrail so that students don’t fall behind just because they need a little extra help with a particular skill. Crucially, that also means that teachers are able to make better use of their 90-minute block because they can move the whole class along at a more consistent rate."

Not only is the extra time helpful for discussions but it also ensures that no child is left behind which is great considering my sentence revolved around "the child".

"In addition to spending time diving deeply into the school’s curriculum and aligning with other leaders tasked with supporting early literacy throughout the school or system, leaders need scheduled time to routinely observe classrooms and provide actionable feedback to teachers about their instruction."

The article takes it one step forward and even encourages changes to be made even amongst leaders in education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Hidden Resource: How Time Allocation Impacts Reading Instruction - Instruction Partners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our early literacy team presents the top three priorities for allocating time to support improved reading outcomes for K–2 students.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a article from the academic website, Impact from the Australian Catholic University, titled, "How reading can make you a better person", written by Deborah Stone (date unknown).

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a article from the academic website, Impact from the Australian Catholic University, titled, "How reading can make you a better person", written by Deborah Stone (date unknown).

# data[].attributes.body
"Readers of fiction develop their empathy because they are able to 'get inside the head' of the characters and understand the world from a different perspective, sometimes from multiple perspectives within the same work. A 2013 study that measured empathy scores after just one week of assigned fiction reading found readers self-reported significant changes in empathic skills."

This proves that reading can expand skills beyond openness and encourage empathy.

"Professor Hillel also points to the power of shared reading to create social connections – one reason she prefers paper books over the electronic variety."

“Book clubs are ethical spaces that promote dialogue and negotiated understandings. Book talk is used to discuss ethical issues of both personal and public significance. In the Australian context, this may mean, among other things, thinking through what it means to be part of a settler colonial culture and its devastating legacies,” said Dr Nolan.

This is an incredibly important take that describes how important reading is for creating dialogue around unfamiliar perspectives.

"Key issues for reading ethically include how we identify with characters, how we deal with uncertainty, and how we confront issues of privilege, gender, class and history. "

Once again, this is a statement that expands on how reading can lead to an understanding of different perspectives.

“Book club readers bring a high degree of openness and engagement to their understanding of others, even in cross-cultural contexts. Readers tend to judge the success of books on how easily they can identify with characters, and there is a danger, perhaps, that in seeking a shared emotional response, real differences can be erased,” said Dr Nolan."

This is a particularly important quote as it directly mentions openness which is the corner stone of my arguement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Author: Deborah Stone Photographer: All images used with permission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How reading can make you a better person - Impact - Australian Catholic University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Photographer: All images used with permission.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a research article titled, "Transportation into a story increases empathy, prosocial behavior, and perceptual bias toward fearful expressions" by Dan R. Johnson published in 2012 in the scientific journal, "Personality and Individual Differences".

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a research article titled, "Transportation into a story increases empathy, prosocial behavior, and perceptual bias toward fearful expressions" by Dan R. Johnson published in 2012 in the scientific journal, "Personality and Individual Differences".

# data[].attributes.body
"Theorists from diverse disciplines purport narrative fiction serves to foster empathic development and growth."

I had assumed that reading increases openness in students and it is interesting to note the other traits that it fosters.

"According to Mar and Oatley, when reading fiction an individual simulates, that is, feels emotions and experiences thoughts congruent with the story’s characters. Readers also learn about the complex social world by abstracting meaning, drawing inferences, and making predictions about plot development and the interpersonal relationships in the story."

Reading is such an important foundation of developing skills necessary to navigate the world, it is reassuring to think that it is also backed with scientific evidence.

"In the current study, individuals who experienced high levels of affective empathy while reading were nearly twice as likely to engage in prosocial behavior as individuals experiencing low levels of affective empathy."

Again, another quote that depicts a beneficial side effect of reading.

"The primary limitation of this study is that both studies were correlational in nature. As a result, it cannot be concluded that the effects of transportation, empathy, and perceptual bias on helping behavior are causal. However, two primary alternative explanations of the results were eliminated by controlling for dispositional empathy and one’s general tendency to become absorbed in a story. This control strengthens the argument that the results in the study were due to the immediate effects of reading a fictional story. The design also capitalized on the apparent large individual differences in response to reading a fictional story. Future studies should determine the causal relationships among transportation, empathy, and prosocial behavior."

While this quote provides a slight counter to my argument by undermining the research, there is a rebuttal built in that reinforces the research's credibility.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is Stephaan Harris report from 2025 sourced from the "National Assessment Governing Board" titled "The Nation's Report Card Shows Declines in Reading, Some Progress in 4th Grade Math".

# data[].attributes.subject
This is Stephaan Harris report from 2025 sourced from the "National Assessment Governing Board" titled "The Nation's Report Card Shows Declines in Reading, Some Progress in 4th Grade Math".

# data[].attributes.body
"In 2024, average reading scores on The Nation’s Report Card declined by 2 points for both 4th and 8th grade students compared to 2022. This steepens the 3-point decline seen in both grades between 2022 from 2019. Students took the National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as The Nation's Report Card or NAEP, between January and March 2024."

This decrease in reading scores that goes beyond the pandemic clarifies this as an ongoing issue.

"No nationwide rebound from the impact of the pandemic on achievement.
Nearly five years after the COVID-19 pandemic, the nation is below its 2019, or pre-pandemic, scores in both grades and subjects on The Nation’s Report Card. Just two states have surpassed their pre-pandemic scores in a single grade and subject: Louisiana surpassed its 2019 4th grade reading score; and Alabama surpassed its 2019 4th grade math score."

While the pandemic played a heavy role in students losing crucial reading abilities, there is clearly some alternative factor still preventing growth.

"Across grades and subjects, declines in 2024 were generally driven by lower-performing rather than higher-performing students. Today the lowest-performing students score about 100 points below the highest-performing students."

Persistent gaps still exist between the highest and lowest performing students, the 120 minute literacy block proposed in another source though aims to ensure no child is left behind.

"We made progress in closing this gap until around 2010, but it’s been steadily widening since. Policymakers at all levels of government must understand and work to reverse this trend, starting by holding all students to a high standard and helping them reach that bar.”

The No Child Left Behind Act was active from 2001-2010, I think this might have played a role in the progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Nation’s Report Card Shows Declines in Reading, Some Progress in 4th Grade Math

# data[].attributes.headline
This is the 2025 transcript from an interview between William Brangham and Thomas Kane from "PBS News", titled "What's caused reading scores to drop to worst point in decades? Education expert weighs in". 

# data[].attributes.subject
This is the 2025 transcript from an interview between William Brangham and Thomas Kane from "PBS News", titled "What's caused reading scores to drop to worst point in decades? Education expert weighs in". 

# data[].attributes.body
"Among high school seniors, the average reading score last year was the lowest since the assessment began in 1992. What's worse, nearly a third of seniors did not have the basic reading skills needed to find the details in a given text to understand its meaning."

My main argument rests upon the critical thinking skills that reading builds as well as the empathy it cultivates, if students are unable to even find meaning in text then they are clearly deprived of benefits of reading.

"There are three hypotheses to explain what's been happening.

Number one is, there's been a decline in focus on test-based accountability since the No Child Left Behind act expired in 2015. But the two other hypotheses are the rise in social media use, which is concentrated among lower-achieving students — by the way, a number of European and Asian countries are seeing the same widening that we are.

And a third possibility is the rise in student absenteeism, which spiked during the pandemic, but remains high."

This directly mentions the same act that brought the literacy block; however, they seemed to prefer the use of testing that was proposed in the act. This is also brings up the technology use and absenteeism as the lingering effects from the pandemic.

"There's research that shows that in order for kids to be better at reading, they have to practice reading. They need to read more often."

Clearly reading is a muscle that might be exercised constantly and what better way then building it into instruction time.

"Most people don't realize that, between 1990 and 2015, there were substantial improvements in math and reading achievement. And it's clear that test-based accountability is not sufficient to produce the continued improvements we need, but once states started taking their foot off the pedal in 2015 focusing on test-based outcomes, we see the result of declining achievement, especially at the bottom, where a lot of the accountability pressures were being felt."

Seemingly testing has a larger impact on this issue than I realized. Although, I think that this does not promote a love of reading which can play such a big part in the continuation of the skill past high school.

"But I think the solution now is not just about test-based accountability. It's about states piloting ways to lower absenteeism and, as they have already done, piloting ways to lower social media use, and then us learning from those efforts, what are the impact on student achievement, so we can spread what worked."

I understand the impact of these three factors on literacy scores but I am still unsure of how cell phone use in the classroom impacts literacy scores. Is it simply that kids are not paying attention because they are using their phones or that they use their phones to look up interpretations of readings?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What’s caused reading scores to drop to worst point in decades? Education expert weighs in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Math and reading scores dropped to their lowest levels in more than two decades among high school seniors. That’s according to the Nation’s Report Card put out by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. It shows that student achievement has continued to decline since the pandemic. There are many theories about what’s going on, and William Brangham explored some of that with Thomas Kane.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a 2024 blog post by Allison Rose Socol, in "Ed Trust", titled "The Literacy Crisis in the U.S. is Deeply Concerning—and Totally Preventable".

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a 2024 blog post by Allison Rose Socol, in "Ed Trust", titled "The Literacy Crisis in the U.S. is Deeply Concerning—and Totally Preventable".

# data[].attributes.body
"There is overwhelming evidence that nearly all children can learn to read. But in schools across the country, many students — especially students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, multilingual learners, and students with disabilities — are not yet skillful readers. Last year, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), “the nation’s report card,” showed that not even half (43%) of fourth graders in the U.S. scored at or above a proficient level in reading. And for marginalized students, the numbers are much worse: just 17% of Black students, 21% of Latino students, 11% of student with disabilities, and 10% of multilingual learners can read proficiently by fourth grade."

There is a clear racial disparity present within this issue which really intensifies the impact.

"To make things worse, the wave of states and districts taking steps to restrict the teaching of so-called critical race theory (CRT), ban books, and censor the ways race can be discussed in schools is curtailing the already limited degree of curricula diversity that is essential in opening students’ hearts and minds, and fuel their engagement and love of reading."

The article explores the reading material itself, and explains the benefits of cultural rich material which is very important for the diversification of perspective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Literacy Crisis in the U.S. is Deeply Concerning—and Totally Preventable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Literacy is one of the major civil rights issues of our time. Our children’s future—and our nation’s democracy—depends on us addressing this crisis now.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is Sharon Lurye's 2024 news spotlight from "AP", titled "Not-so-great expectations: Students are reading fewer books in English class".

# data[].attributes.subject
This is Sharon Lurye's 2024 news spotlight from "AP", titled "Not-so-great expectations: Students are reading fewer books in English class".

# data[].attributes.body
"In many English classrooms across America, assignments to read full-length novels are becoming less common. Some teachers focus instead on selected passages — a concession to perceptions of shorter attention spans, pressure to prepare for standardized tests and a sense that short-form content will prepare students for the modern, digital world."

There seems to be a cascading effect. The pandemic hit, people were assigned less readings and scores declined. Then in order to improve scores, schools implemented more short excerpts to match the testing format to improve test scores which only reduced students capacity for critical thinking and reading full length books.

"The idea is not to remove books but to teach media literacy and add other texts that feel relevant to students, said Seth French, one of the statement’s co-authors. In the English class he taught before becoming a dean last year at Bentonville High School in Arkansas, students engaged with plays, poetry and articles but read just one book together as a class."

The change in educational style is supposedly just to match the times.

Deep reading is essential to strengthen circuits in the brain tied to critical thinking skills, background knowledge — and, most of all, empathy, said Maryanne Wolf, a cognitive neuroscientist at UCLA specializing in dyslexia research.

“We must give our young an opportunity to understand who others are, not through little snapshots, but through immersion into the lives and thoughts and feelings of others,” Wolf said.

Reading is so beneficial for building perspective!

“There was a trend, it happened when COVID hit, to stop reading full-length novels because students were in trauma; we were in a pandemic. The problem is we haven’t quite come back from that,” said Kristy Acevedo, who teaches English at a vocational high school in New Bedford, Massachusetts.

This year, she said she won’t accept that students are too distracted to read. She plans to teach time-management strategies and to use only paper and pencils for most of class time."

Alongside COVID, increased technology use has reduced students stamina.

"Other teachers say the trend stems from standardized testing and the influence of education technology. Digital platforms can deliver a complete English curriculum, with thousands of short passages aligned to state standards — all without having to assign an actual book.

“If admins and school districts are judged by their test scores, how are they going to improve their test scores? They’re going to mirror the test as much as possible,” said Karl Ubelhoer, a middle school special education teacher in Tabernacle, New Jersey."

An unfortunate quick fix for test scores really harms kids in the long term.

"In the long run, the synopsis approach harms students’ critical thinking skills, said Alden Jones, a literature professor at Emerson College in Boston. She assigns fewer books than she once did and gives more quizzes to make sure students do the reading."

"His school has had success encouraging reading through student-directed book clubs, where small groups pick a book and discuss it together. Contemporary authors like John Green and Jason Reynolds have been a big hit.

“It’s funny,” he said. “Many students are saying that it’s the first time in a long time they’ve read a full book.”

A form of the literacy block that also includes students choice of book!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Not-so-great expectations: Students are reading fewer books in English class | The Associated Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chris Stanislawski didn’t read much in his middle school English classes, but it never felt necessary. Students were given detailed chapter summaries for

# data[].attributes.headline
This is an opinion piece by Elliott Ruvalcaba from 2025 from San Juan Hills High School called "The Decline of Literacy and the Rise of AI: Are We Losing the Ability to Think?".

# data[].attributes.subject
This is an opinion piece by Elliott Ruvalcaba from 2025 from San Juan Hills High School called "The Decline of Literacy and the Rise of AI: Are We Losing the Ability to Think?".

# data[].attributes.body
"This decline in literacy is not an outlier. It is part of an ongoing cultural shift that spells great danger and instability for our future: the rise of anti-intellectualism and a complete overreliance on artificial intelligence platforms. Across the nation, the basic skills of reading and comprehension have been devalued over recent years, intellectual curiosity among younger generations has grown weaker, and AI is rapidly replacing human thought."

As we lose literacy, we are also losing the value of it which prevents us from attempting to solve this issue.

"According to a 2024 study by Statista.com researcher Veera Korhonen, “a whopping 86 percent [of students] said they were using artificial intelligence tools in their schoolwork. Almost a fourth of them used them on a daily basis.”

A heavy reliance on technology is shown.

"This is not just an issue that concerns education, but rather society as a whole. A people who rely on what they are told rather than thinking for themselves is one that is easily controlled and manipulated.

This overreliance on AI makes us highly susceptible to misinformation and propaganda. As a result, we can easily become subservient whether we want to or not—nuanced discourse fading into oblivion.

“If we continue on this path, we’re going to lack the proper foundation for decision-making and critical thinking that’ll be required of us in daily life,” said Cami Martinez (12). "

The effect on critical thinking is shown while also prompting another issue, becoming easily manipulated.

"What does this mean for our future as a nation? For the whole world? It means we’ll be entirely made up of a scarily incompetent workforce that can not think for themselves and ruled by an electorate that can’t distinguish fiction from reality. We’ll be a society that solely depends on machines to simply perform actions that make us human. "

This identifies a stakeholder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Decline of Literacy and the Rise of AI: Are We Losing the Ability to Think?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are witnessing a crisis—not just of literacy, but in our societal capacity to simply think for ourselves. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the percentage of U.S. adults ages 16 to 65 who fall in the lowest level of literacy has increased from 19% in 2017 to a staggering 28% in…