NAEP scores show top students are struggling, too
Amid the worst scores in history, we must act to help our lowest-performing students. But don’t let that focus lead to neglect at the top, where students are also in trouble. Both-and, not either-or.
The latest twelfth-grade results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress are awful, as so many outlets pointed out over the last week. Average math and reading scores hit their lowest levels on record—going back to 2005 for math and 1992 for reading—with the bottom of the score distribution faring the worst. This, rightly, is where most of the commentary and policy efforts will focus. But it shouldn’t be the only focus—because marks at the high end were bad, too.
Math performance at the Advanced achievement level and the 90th percentile is flat, and there were notable declines for top-decile Hispanic and Black students (see figure 1). Drops among those two groups are alarming, if not surprising. Since NAEP has been administered, the percentage of Hispanic students at Advanced has hovered around 0.5 and Black students have rounded to 0 percent—compared to, in the most recent results, 4 percent for White students and 15 percent for Asian students.
Figure 1. NAEP math scores, 90th percentile, by race/ethnicity, 2013–24
In reading, the percentage of students at the Advanced achievement level actually fell. And the decline, rather puzzlingly, seems to have been driven mostly by girls and kids whose families are middle class or higher—groups that historically have done better than their less affluent and male peers, respectively. The percentage of non-economically-disadvantaged students at the Advanced level fell from 9 to 7 (see figure 2), and the 90th percentile score also saw a statistically significant drop—while both metrics held steady for their economically disadvantaged peers. Likewise, girls dropped from 8 percent at Advanced to 6 percent (see figure 3), and their top-decile score declined significantly, while boys stayed flat in both.
Figure 2. NAEP reading scores, percentage at Advanced achievement level, by economically-disadvantaged status, 2013–24
Figure 3. NAEP reading scores, percentage at Advanced achievement level, male and female, 2013–24
Yes, these trends are better—in some cases far better—than those for other subgroups and students in general. But as I’ve argued consistently and frequently over the years, that’s no reason to ignore high achievers. They, like every child, are entitled to an education in which they’re nurtured and challenged and get to fulfill their potential. Leaving them to stagnate is its own form of neglect. It also matters for the country. Our economy, scientific progress, and military competitiveness hinge disproportionately on the students who reach the highest levels of skill and knowledge. And on international tests like PISA and TIMSS, the U.S. already trails gobs of similarly affluent and developed countries that are systematically cultivating their most talented students. We should do the same or else risk falling further behind.
As for the subgroups who saw the worst results at the high end—Hispanic and Black students in math and female and non-economically-disadvantaged students in reading—they call for two rather different reactions. For the former, we generally know what’s going on and what to do. School systems just tend not to do it. These students of color are more likely to live in poverty and have less access to healthcare, healthy food, safe streets, early childhood education, and more. Their schools more often suffer from crowded and unruly classrooms with less experienced teachers who are more likely to transfer or quit. Such disadvantages lead to big differences in baseline achievement and preparation for advanced instruction. Worse—and rather ironically, in the name of equity—this advanced instruction is less likely to exist in their schools, and when it does, flawed designs often favor less-marginalized peers.
The solution, then, is to build wider, more diverse pipelines of advanced learners, starting in elementary school, with universal screening for advanced instruction and then automatic enrollment into advanced education, at least by middle school.
The reading results are much more of a conundrum. Why would non-economically-disadvantaged students and girls, in particular, be slipping? We can’t yet know the answer to that question, but some plausible explanations stand out. Pandemic burnout hit girls especially hard. Many experienced higher levels of stress and anxiety than boys, and those lingering effects may be showing up in their scores. Social media is another likely culprit. The time and attention it consumes—and the unique pressures it places on girls—leaves less space for long-form reading. And the broader cultural decline in reading for pleasure only sharpens the problem. Surveys show teenagers read far fewer books now than a generation ago, and that trend is steepest among girls. Most of these possible explanations also involve tech devices that students from higher-income families are significantly more likely to possess and have access to than their less affluent peers, perhaps explaining why declines only happened among more-economically-advantaged teens.
If these tech-based explanation are accurate, then the growing call for schools to ban cellphones and limit other tech devices as much as possible will help some. As for reading, schools could try to follow the advice of my colleague Meredith Coffey: protect time for in-class reading, set school-wide expectations for longer assigned readings, and rethink test prep. Expectations for the impact schools can make should be tempered, though. Principals and teachers could plead with parents to better police screen time at home. But our broader culture is still a strong, major force here, and only so much can happen in our classrooms.
More generally, amid the worst NAEP scores in history, it should be understood that our high achievers are in trouble, too. So, by all means, address the tragic, near-universal declines, especially among our lowest-performing students. But don’t let that focus lead to neglect at the top. Both-and, not either-or.
QUOTE OF NOTE
“If the curriculum is not adapted to align with [advanced students’] ability level, they can become bored and frustrated, which can lead to underachievement and in some cases behavior difficulties. It can also mean that they don’t develop essential skills like note taking, study habits, or develop strategies for tackling challenging tasks.”
— Dr. Katrina Eddles-Hirsch, a gifted education consultant at the University of New South Wales, quoted in “Keeping pace with a gifted child: Are schools letting them down?,” The Sydney Morning Herald, Jenna Guillaume, September 16, 2025
RESEARCH REVIEW
“Robust and Semi-robust Findings From Giftedness and Talent Research: Results of a Secondary-Order Scoping Review on Meta-Analyses,” Charlotte Popp, Heidrun Stoeger, and Albert Ziegler, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, OnlineFirst, August 28, 2025
“In this second-order scoping review—that is, a broad overview of research on a particular topic, identifying key concepts and evidence gaps—we (a) provide an overview of robust (and semi-robust) findings in giftedness and talent research and (b) identify areas where giftedness and talent research has not yet produced robust (and semi-robust) findings. Of the 23 meta-analyses published between 2000 and 2023 that were identified using our search terms, 17 were categorized as robust and six as semi-robust. The most frequently considered outcome variables were achievement, cognitive processing, socioemotional factors, traits, and identification. Further topics included interventions’ effects and group differences, particularly regarding groups underrepresented in gifted education. The findings are summarized in a condensed list. The lack of standard definitions and operationalizations of crucial terms is particularly critical. We suggest that further meta-research should be used to identify robust findings on giftedness.”
“Parental Narratives of Underachievement Among Gifted Children: Onset, Factors, and Perceived Resolutions,” Ophélie A. Desmet, Fangfang Mo, and Alia Pineda Medina, Gifted Child Quarterly, OnlineFirst, August 27, 2025
“This study explored parents’ perceptions surrounding the onset and development of underachievement among their gifted children. The study employed a qualitative narrative inquiry design with 12 parent participants discussing the underachievement of their 10 (four girls, six boys) children between the ages of 12 and 16. These families lived in the Midwestern United States. Participants described a similar developmental trajectory of their child’s underachievement, beginning with early academic promise, but a critical turning point often occurs in late elementary or middle school. Internal factors such as motivation, self-regulation skills, and mental health were viewed as important contributing elements. External influences such as family dynamics, school environment, student–teacher relationships, and peer relationships also played a significant role. The interplay of these multiple factors highlights the perceived complexity of underachievement among gifted children.”
“When Talent Works Hard: Psychosocial Perceptions Predict Academic Engagement in Gifted Students,” Dante D. Dixson, Leah Jansen, and Ersie-Anastasia Gentzis, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, OnlineFirst, August 27, 2025
“This study examined the role of psychosocial perceptions in predicting academic engagement in a sample of 254 gifted adolescents. Three hierarchical linear regressions were performed to examine if, and to what extent, gifted students’ psychosocial perceptions (i.e., hope, academic self-efficacy, academic self-concept, academic motivation, and school belonging) predict their academic (i.e., behavioral, emotional, and intellectual) engagement. After controlling for demographics and previous achievement, psychosocial perceptions accounted for a meaningful amount of variance (i.e., 17.2% to 62.9%) of academic engagement. In general, academic motivation and academic self-efficacy were the most important predictors. These findings indicate that gifted students with certain psychosocial perceptions are more likely to holistically engage with their academic program, and as a result, are more likely to develop their academic talents. These results shed light on psychosocial perceptions as an important part of the academic talent development process for gifted students and have implications for gifted education.”
WRITING WORTH READING
“Keeping pace with a gifted child: Are schools letting them down?” —The Sydney Morning Herald, Jenna Guillaume, September 16, 2025
“Brown doesn’t accept AP exams for credit, but admitted students take them anyway” —The Brown Daily Herald, Teddy Fisher, September 16, 2025
“Kalamazoo hits record level of students enrolling in AP courses” —MLive, Aya Miller, September 16, 2025
“Kennedy High cuts AP classes, frustrating teachers and students” —Richmondside [Richmond, California], Jana Kadah, September 15, 2025
“Brookline High School no longer offers The Calculus Project” —Boston Globe, Marcela Rodrigues, September 11, 2025
“Gifted students thrive in new Syosset campus” —Syosset Advance, September 11, 2025
“Regents vote for tougher high school dual enrollment standards” —Times Union [New York], Kathleen Moore, September 10, 2025
“9-year-old prodigy from Montgomery County studying neuroscience at local college” —WPVI, Walter Perez, September 10, 2025
“Gadsden School District alumna earns national recognition as gifted student” —KAWC, Sisko Stargazer, September 10, 2025