NAEP can’t—and shouldn’t—do it all

28 Apr NAEP can’t—and shouldn’t—do it all

By Dale Chu

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is shrinking. Due to budget constraints and shifting priorities, the federal government is scaling back the Nation’s Report Card. Upcoming assessments in science, writing, and U.S. history are being canceled or limited to fewer grade levels. Fewer students will be tested. Fewer data points will be reported. And the long-term trend lines that have helped policymakers track academic progress over decades may be at risk.

These changes—announced quietly but carrying significant implications—make one thing clear: NAEP is under pressure. Which is why a recent proposal to vastly expand NAEP’s role in U.S. education, replacing state tests altogether, couldn’t come at a more paradoxical moment.

Writing for The 74, Goldy Brown and Christos A. Makridis argue that NAEP should become a national yardstick to replace the patchwork of state exams. It’s a bold idea—and one that deserves credit for thinking outside the box. But while the intent is admirable, the tradeoffs are considerable and the path to implementation far more complex than the authors acknowledge.

For starters, this proposal runs directly counter to the growing movement to “send education back to the states.” Merging federal and state testing into a single NAEP-based system would significantly expand the federal footprint in K–12 assessment. While it’s true that testing time could be reduced if states are only required to test in grades 4 and 8, it’s hard to see how this proposal wouldn’t bring states closer to Uncle Sam. In today’s political climate, where many are already skeptical of federal overreach, this feels like a nonstarter.

The proposal also fails to address a major blind spot in our current testing system: we’re not assessing students early enough. Research and common sense suggest that if a child isn’t reading or doing basic math by third grade, her long-term academic trajectory is in jeopardy. A system that only tests in grades 4 and 8 doesn’t just maintain that gap—it institutionalizes it.

Then there’s the question of parents. Families deserve annual, objective information on how their child is doing—not just a snapshot every four years. Scaling NAEP in the way the authors propose risks losing the kind of actionable, year-over-year data that parents and educators have come to rely on. And by excluding high school altogether, the plan would leave a critical stage of students’ academic development unmeasured and unmonitored.

Equally important is the loss of growth data. One of the most valuable advances in assessment over the past two decades has been the ability to track student progress over time. Without annual testing, measuring growth becomes impossible—undermining both accountability efforts and efforts to identify which schools are truly moving the needle for kids.

Finally, there’s a practical concern the authors gloss over: transforming NAEP from a sample-based exam to one taken by all students in each state could be a massive operational lift. It could also jeopardize the long-term trend data that makes NAEP so uniquely valuable. And that’s before getting into the political wrangling such a shift would likely provoke.

To be clear: we need fresh thinking when it comes to testing. And Brown and Makridis deserve credit for contributing to that conversation. But NAEP is shrinking—not expanding. Uncle Sam is not trying to do more with less, but rather less with less. Given this, it’s hard to reconcile the idea of using NAEP as a nationwide tool to supplant state exams. Such a move would defy both logic and reality.