NAEP 2024: Interpreting Math Data with Action in Mind
The latest NAEP math scores are out, and once again, the national conversation is in full swing. Is this a wake-up call for education leaders, or is it simply reinforcing what teachers and administrators have already been saying? If you ask the educators working with students every day, the answer is clear—this isn’t new information.
The data may be disheartening, but the real question is: how can we use these results to make better decisions for students, rather than fueling another round of alarmist headlines? NAEP provides valuable insight into long-term math performance trends, and understanding where these scores fit in the broader assessment landscape is key to using them productively.
Breaking Down the Numbers
The 2024 NAEP math results continue to show declines, particularly for students who were already struggling before the pandemic. While fourth-grade math scores showed a slight improvement since 2022, they remain below pre-pandemic levels. Eighth-grade math scores, however, continued to drop—reinforcing concerns that students who missed foundational skills in earlier grades are struggling to catch up.
The widening gap between the highest and lowest performers is another key takeaway. High-achieving students have remained relatively stable, while lower-performing students have seen the sharpest declines. This suggests that interventions to support struggling students are not closing the gap as effectively as hoped. View the full report HERE.
A Reminder, Not a Surprise
For math educators, these scores confirm what they’ve been experiencing in their classrooms. The pandemic’s disruption may have accelerated the decline, but it didn’t create these gaps. Students who were behind before 2020 have struggled even more in the years since, while those with stronger foundations have managed to maintain progress.
There’s also a broader issue at play: math instruction in the U.S. has long struggled with balancing procedural fluency (how to do math) and conceptual understanding (why it works). Too often, students can follow a set of steps to solve a problem but lack the deeper understanding needed to apply math skills in different contexts.
Instead of reacting with panic, we should be using these results to ask better questions:
Are we ensuring students have strong foundational math skills before moving to higher-level content?
Are interventions effectively supporting struggling students rather than just adding more practice problems?
How do these results align with other assessment data, and what patterns are emerging?
Where Do These Scores Fit in the Bigger Picture?
If we only look at NAEP results in isolation, we risk missing the full story. NAEP is unique in its stability and rigor, making it one of the best long-term indicators of student achievement. However, it is just one piece of the broader assessment landscape.
For a more detailed look at how NAEP fits alongside state assessments, classroom data, and other indicators of student performance, check out our previous blog post, which breaks down the broader assessment landscape and how each type of data serves a distinct role in supporting student learning.
Key Takeaways for School and District Leaders
The NAEP math results highlight long-standing challenges in math education. School and district leaders can use this data strategically to drive meaningful improvements.
1. Prioritize Early Math Foundations
NAEP data consistently shows that early gaps in math skills persist and widen over time. Fourth-grade performance is an early indicator of future math challenges, making it essential to build strong numeracy, reasoning, and problem-solving skills from the start. Review early math curricula and intervention programs to ensure they emphasize conceptual understanding and procedural fluency.
Equip teachers with tools and training to effectively teach conceptual understanding and procedural fluency in the early grades. Recently there has been a strong focus for training in early literacy and reading for teachers at the early grades (K-3) which has overshadowed mathematics training. Since student understanding relies so heavily upon teacher understanding, balancing early literacy and numeracy professional development is necessary.
Ensure district and school assessments reflect more than just computation skills—are they measuring problem-solving and reasoning? If so, are those results being used to their fullest extent and appropriately?
2. Rethink Intervention Approaches
The gap between high and low performers continues to widen, indicating that traditional remediation strategies may not be effective. Instead of reteaching the same content in the same way, interventions should leverage student strengths and provide multiple ways to engage with mathematical thinking. Audit existing intervention programs—do they emphasize strengths-based learning rather than rote remediation?
Provide targeted professional development on interventions that build student confidence and mathematical reasoning to all teachers, not only those working with the lowest performing students. Embedding remediation strategies across all levels of instruction may fill the unexpected gaps in student understanding owing to interruptions in their learning.
Use local and classroom assessment data to inform flexible grouping so students engage with grade-level content while receiving on-going support. Small group instruction is not just for early elementary teachers, it can be highly effective across all grades when used appropriately. The key word here is ‘flexible’ because each grouping should be tightly focused on the specific skill being developed and not permanent classification or sorting of students!
3. Align Metrics with Meaningful Growth
NAEP provides a national benchmark, but local assessments should complement it by providing actionable data. If school and district assessments focus only on test scores, they may miss opportunities to understand student reasoning and problem-solving processes. Analyze your local and state assessment data alongside NAEP trends to determine instructional gaps.
Incorporate qualitative data (e.g., student reflections, teacher observations) to provide a fuller picture of student learning in your school or district. Also facilitate conversations with teachers to ensure assessment results are used to support students.
4. Support Teachers in Reframing Math Instruction
The NAEP results reinforce what many educators already know—rote memorization and procedural drills are not enough. Engaging students in mathematical thinking, reasoning, and discourse is key to long-term success.
Offer professional learning on conceptual math instruction and the role of formative assessment in daily teaching.
Encourage school-wide discussions about reducing math anxiety and fostering engagement in math learning.
Reframe how math progress is communicated—focus on growth, effort, and problem-solving rather than just final scores.
Connecting NAEP Math to the Compassionate Assessment Framework
To ensure NAEP results are used constructively, we must shift from a deficit-based mindset to one that empowers action. The Compassionate Assessment Framework provides a lens for reflecting on how we interpret and apply assessment data in ways that truly support students, educators, and schools. By considering the following questions through the four CAF components, we can move beyond simply tracking performance and begin leveraging assessment data to strengthen instruction, build confidence, and create meaningful learning opportunities.
Assessment Technical Quality & Design: Analyze your district’s assessment system to ensure it measures deep mathematical reasoning, problem-solving, and conceptual understanding and not just focus too heavily on procedural fluency. The test you use need to align with the instructional priorities in order to be useful for teachers.
Assessment Environment: Are math assessments creating a culture of fear and stress, or are they positioned as learning tools that provide meaningful feedback? How the testing experience is framed makes a huge difference. Simple shifts, such as allowing students to demonstrate mathematical understanding in different ways, can make a big difference.
Student Attitudes & Beliefs: Do students see math as something they can succeed in, or as something they will always struggle with? When students receive consistent, clear messaging that growth matters more than perfection in math learning it will shift how they think about their own mathematical abilities. Self-perception matters, in math and in life.
Final Thoughts: Moving Forward with a Growth Mindset
The NAEP math results are not telling us anything new—but they are reminding us where urgent action is needed. Instead of reacting with alarm, let’s focus on building strong math foundations, improving interventions, expanding instructional and assessment practices and using data to inform our strategies.
The real question isn’t whether scores went up or down. It’s whether we’re using this data effectively to create real change for students. Let’s turn these results into something actionable—together.
