The COVID-19 pandemic led to severe disruptions in K–12 student learning beginning with the abrupt switch to remote instruction for the majority of schools and students in March 2020. Specifically, in spring 2020, 77% of public schools reported that they transitioned to online remote instruction, and 83% of public school teachers reported that all or some of their classes were moved to online distance-learning formats (Berger et al. 2022). Schools began a slow transition back to in-person instruction during the 2020–21 school year, although only about half of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students attended full-time, in-person classes by the end of May 2021. That percentage had increased to nearly 100% by spring 2022 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] 2022).^{​These data are from the School Pulse Panel (https://ies.ed.gov/schoolsurvey/spp/), a study sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to collect data on issues concerning the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on students and staff in U.S. public primary, middle, high, and combined-grade schools. The Census Bureau conducts the School Pulse Panel on behalf of NCES.}

Assessment data released in 2022 by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show sharp declines in student mathematics performance compared with pre-pandemic scores.^{​This report focuses on mathematics data because new NAEP science data were not available at the time of publication. NAEP science data were last collected in 2019 and reported on in an NSF InfoByte released in May 2022 (Rotermund and Burke 2022). The next NAEP science data collection is scheduled for winter 2024 and will be administered to students in grade 8.} These data also show a disproportionate negative impact of COVID-19 on assessment scores for students living in poverty and for students from historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups who are underrepresented in the STEM workforce. The use of assessment data to understand the impact of disrupted learning is critical as policymakers, school systems, state leaders, educators, and parents seek ways to support students who were affected by school-related closures and learning disruptions during the pandemic. This section of the report will focus on indicators related to the impact of COVID-19 on elementary and secondary students and an analysis of student performance in an international context in 2019 prior to the pandemic.

Assessment data indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic set national educational progress in mathematics back approximately 20 years in terms of point drops in NAEP assessment scores. The NAEP data collected in 2022 show sharp declines in fourth- and eighth-grade student mathematics performance compared with pre-pandemic scores.^{​NAEP administered two mathematics assessments in 2022: the main NAEP and the NAEP long-term trend (LTT) assessment. Between January and March 2022, the main NAEP mathematics assessment was administered to representative samples of fourth- and eighth-grade students in the nation. Originally scheduled to be administered in spring 2021, the administration was delayed to 2022. The main NAEP is typically administered every 2 years, and mathematics results are available dating back to the first administration in 1990. The NAEP LTT assessment is designed to track long-term trends in student performance; it is administered every 4 years (rather than every 2 years) and is administered to students by age rather than grade level. The LTT has remained relatively unchanged since first administered in 1978, whereas the main NAEP assessment changes every decade or so to reflect curricular and framework changes. Last administered in 2020, the next LTT assessment was scheduled for 2024, but the National Center for Education Statistics added an assessment in 2022 to measure the impact of COVID-19 on student performance. Results from both NAEP assessments are reported as average scores on a 0–500 scale. Discussion of 12th-grade scores has not been included because no new data are available for 2022. Data through 2019 for 12th-grade students are available in Table SK12-2.} The NAEP long-term trend (LTT) assessment in mathematics shows a 7-point drop among 9-year-old students from 2020 to 2022 (Figure K12-1). The main NAEP assessment in mathematics shows a 5-point drop among fourth graders and an 8-point drop among eighth graders from 2019 to 2022 (Figure K12-2). These average mathematics scores in 2022 are lower than scores going back to 2004 for 9-year-olds, 2005 for fourth graders, and 2003 for eighth graders.

In addition to illustrating the differences in scores from 2019 to 2022, an examination of 2022 main NAEP scores reveals differences within student groups. Male students scored higher than female students in the fourth and eighth grades, with differences of 6 points in 2022 and 3 points in 2019, respectively (Figure K12-3). Students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch at both grade levels scored approximately 25 points lower than students not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.^{​The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operated in public and private nonprofit schools and residential childcare centers. To be eligible for free lunch, a student must be from a household with an income at or below 130% of the federal poverty guideline; to be eligible for reduced-price lunch, a student must be from a household with an income between 130% and 185% of the federal poverty guideline. Student eligibility for this program is a commonly used indicator of family socioeconomic status.} Score differences by race or ethnicity ranged from 42 points in fourth grade to 53 points in eighth grade, with Asian students at the high end and Black students at the low end of the distribution (Figure K12-4). An analysis of score differences by race or ethnicity within school lunch categories shows that these score differences exist regardless of lunch eligibility status (Table K12-1).

The substantial score differences among different student groups in the fourth and eighth grades highlight the existence of inequality and racial disparities in the nation’s education system. Research literature suggests that persistently lower scores for economically disadvantaged students and students from historically marginalized groups, including Black students, Hispanic students, and American Indian or Alaska Native students, may be attributable to a variety of educational and social inequities, including (but not limited to) schools with inadequate resources and less-qualified teachers, inadequate medical care, food insecurity, disproportionate disciplinary practices, lack of a social safety net, and exposure to trauma (Bowman, Comer, and Johns 2018; Carnevale et al. 2019; Gordon and Reber 2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] 2019; Pearman 2020; Reardon, Kalogrides, and Shores 2019).

Results from the 2022 NAEP LTT show that COVID-19 had a greater negative impact on outcomes for certain student groups, including Black students and Hispanic students, students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and students scoring in the 10th percentile on mathematics assessments. Students already at a disadvantage because of persistently lower scores are now farther behind because they had higher declines in 2022 than other students did. For example, the NAEP LTT shows that scores in 2022 dropped 13 points for Black 9-year-old students, 8 points for Hispanic 9-year-old students, and 5 points for White 9-year-old students compared with scores in 2020 (Figure K12-5). These declines in average scores resulted in a score gap of 33 points between White students and Black students (Table SK12-1). Similarly, the average score for students scoring in the 90th percentile dropped 3 points from 2020 to 2022, compared with a drop of 12 points for students scoring in the 10th percentile.^{​The NAEP uses percentiles to indicate how students perform at different levels of the score distribution. A percentile is defined by the percentage of students scoring lower than a particular scale score. For example, if the 25th percentile score is 281, it means that 25% of the students scored below 281 and that 75% scored higher. NAEP reports scores at five selected percentiles to show the progress made by lower-performing (10th and 25th percentiles), middle-performing (50th percentile), and higher-performing (75th and 90th percentiles) students. Percentile changes over time help indicate trends in how students perform at higher and lower levels.} As a result, the gap between the 90th and 10th percentile scores widened to 105 points, the largest it has been since the assessment began. A review of publications about the effects of COVID-19 provides additional insight into the short- and long-term impacts on elementary and secondary students. (See sidebar Impact of COVID-19 on K–12 Students.)

In addition to providing scale scores, the main NAEP also reports student performance in terms of achievement levels. The assessment’s three achievement levels—NAEP Basic, NAEP Proficient, and NAEP Advanced—are measures of what students should know and be able to do at each grade level.^{​As provided by law, the Commissioner for Education Statistics has determined that the NAEP achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted and used with caution. However, the Commissioner and the National Assessment Governing Board believe these performance standards are useful for understanding trends in student achievement. For information on NAEP achievement levels, see https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/guides/scores_achv.aspx. For information about NAEP sampling procedures, see https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/sample_design/.} Unlike NAEP scale scores, which are not comparable across grade levels, NAEP achievement levels allow for comparison of student performance across grade levels. NAEP Proficient represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter. NAEP Proficient represents the goal for what all students should know.

In 2022, the percentage of students scoring NAEP Proficient or above declined to the lowest level since 2005 for fourth graders and since 2000 for eighth graders. In 2022, 36% of fourth graders and 26% of eighth graders scored NAEP Proficient or above, indicating that student performance is lower in higher grades (Figure K12-6). The percentages in 2022 represent drops of 5 percentage points for fourth graders and 7 percentage points for eighth graders compared with 2019 (Table SK12-3).

Comparison of proficiency levels by student characteristics shows that many student groups have low percentages of students scoring NAEP Proficient or above in mathematics. In 2022, 9% of Black eighth graders and 14% of Hispanic eighth graders scored NAEP Proficient or above (Figure K12-7). Lower percentages were seen for eighth graders identified as students with a disability at 7% and for eighth graders identified as English learners at 4%.

Average student scores also varied by state. Average NAEP mathematics scores in 2022 for students in eighth grade ranged from 259 to 284 (Figure K12-8). Students in New Mexico, the District of Columbia, and West Virginia had the lowest average scores, whereas students in Massachusetts, Utah, and Idaho had average scores that were higher than average scores for students in 40 other states. At the regional level, students in the Northeast (278) and Midwest (277) scored higher than students in the West (273) and South (272) (Table SK12-2). NAEP also provides average scores for students in 26 urban districts across the United States.^{​In 2001, after discussion among the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the National Assessment Governing Board (Governing Board), and the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS), Congress appropriated funds for a district-level NAEP assessment on a trial basis. A primary goal of the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) is to focus attention on urban K–12 education and academic achievement in urban districts. In collaboration with NCES and CGCS, the Governing Board invites districts that meet certain selection criteria to volunteer to participate in TUDA. Selection criteria are based on district size, percentages of African American or Hispanic students, and percentages of students eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program. TUDA began in 2002 with six urban districts participating in the NAEP reading and writing assessments. In 2009, 18 districts participated in mathematics, reading, and science. Twenty-one districts participated in 2011, 2013, and 2015; 27 districts participated in 2017 and 2019; and 26 districts participated in 2022.} In 2022, students in Charlotte had a higher average score than students in all urban districts except for San Diego. Students in Detroit had the lowest average score (Figure K12-9). Charlotte was the only district whose students scored significantly higher than the national average, whereas in 23 districts, including New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, student scores were significantly lower than the national average score.

A nation’s knowledge and skills in STEM derive from a foundation of elementary and secondary mathematics and science education. Assessing these skills in an international context allows policymakers and educators to assess the status and progress of STEM education in the competitive landscape of a rapidly changing global economy and to design approaches to improve STEM learning (Bush 2019; Committee on STEM Education 2018; Department of Education 2022). The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) provides data on the mathematics and science achievement of students in the United States and in a wide array of other countries.^{​TIMSS is sponsored by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), an international nonprofit organization consisting of research institutions and government research agencies from member countries and economies. The IEA members include countries—defined as complete, independent political entities—and nonnational entities (e.g., Hong Kong). The term “education system” is used here to encompass both types of TIMSS participants; this should be kept in mind when comparing U.S. students’ performance with that of their cross-national peers. In addition, the United States may be larger or more diverse than other participating education systems (e.g., Singapore, Japan), which may affect its rankings.} TIMSS, conducted every 4 years beginning in 1995 (and, most recently, in 2019), assesses mathematics and science at the fourth and eighth grades.

The analyses here focus on results for the United States and other advanced economies, as defined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (IMF 2022). The analyses also focus on the eighth-grade results. Another international assessment, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), measures the performance of 15-year-old students in mathematics and science literacy every 3 years. Indicators 2022 discusses the 2018 PISA results; new data were not available for the current Indicators report. (See the Indicators 2022 report “Elementary and Secondary STEM Education,” specifically the “International Comparisons of Mathematics and Science Performance” section.)

In general, U.S. eighth-grade students ranked in the middle of students from other advanced economies participating in TIMSS in 2019. Among 19 advanced economies that participated in TIMSS 2019 at the eighth-grade level,^{​IMF classifies Russia as a developing economy, but it is included in the analysis of the tables and figures because it is a large economy with high levels of student achievement. For the purposes of this report, Russia is included in this interpretation of the data, including the rankings of the countries.} the United States placed 7th in mathematics, with scores statistically similar to those of six other systems, including England, Finland, and Australia (Figure K12-10). Six systems, including Singapore and Taiwan, had average mathematics scores that were statistically higher than the U.S. score; seven systems, including Norway and Sweden, had scores that were statistically lower. U.S. eighth graders’ average science scores placed them 8th among the 19 advanced economies, with scores statistically similar to those of six other systems. Seven systems, including Singapore and Taiwan, had average scores that were statistically higher than the U.S. score; six systems, including Hong Kong and France, had scores that were statistically lower.

U.S. performance has improved in mathematics since the first administration of TIMSS in 1995 (Table K12-2). At the fourth- and eighth-grade levels, U.S. students on average scored higher in mathematics in 2019 than in 1995. U.S. performance in science in 2019 has shown no statistically significant change compared with 1995 at either grade level.

In addition to providing average scores across education systems and over time, TIMSS data also provide information on the percentage of students reaching defined benchmarks of performance. TIMSS designates four international benchmarks, each of which corresponds to a specific score on the 0–1,000 TIMSS scale: Low (400), Intermediate (475), High (550), and Advanced (625). Students scoring at or above a specific benchmark have demonstrated a specific set of skills and knowledge that enables a concrete interpretation of student performance at that level. For example, at the Advanced level in eighth-grade mathematics, students can “apply and reason in a variety of problem situations, solve linear equations, and make generalizations,” including solving problems involving fractions, proportions, percentages; algebraic expressions; angles, areas, and surface areas; and data displays and statistical concepts such as mean and median. For more information on the TIMSS international benchmarks, see Mullis et al. (2020).

Approximately 15% of U.S. eighth graders reached the Advanced benchmark in mathematics and science, a considerably lower percentage than those in the top-scoring countries (Figure K12-11). Half of the eighth-grade students in Singapore and in Taiwan reached the Advanced benchmark in mathematics, compared with 14% of U.S. students. The U.S. percentage of eighth-grade students reaching the Advanced benchmark in mathematics was similar to those for Russia, Australia, and Israel. In science, Singapore outpaced all advanced economies in the percentage of eighth-grade students reaching the Advanced benchmark (48%), followed by the next closest, Taiwan, at 29%. The U.S. percentage of 15% at the Advanced benchmark in science was similar to those of Finland, Russia, Sweden, and Australia. The United States posted gains in the percentage of students scoring at or above Advanced between 2015 and 2019. During that time, the percentage of eighth-grade students reaching the Advanced benchmark increased from 10% to 14% in mathematics and from 12% to 15% in science (Table SK12-6).

TIMSS data also provide insight into student performance by demographic groups in the United States, including by sex and by school percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. In 2019, there was no statistical difference in the average mathematics or science scores of female and male eighth graders (Table SK12-9). Eighth-grade students in schools where more than 75% of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch scored 454 in mathematics in 2019, compared with an average score of 606 for students at schools with less than 10% of students qualifying (Figure K12-12). The pattern for science is similar, with average scores of 460 and 602 at the respective high and low ends.