Over the next several weeks, more than 500,000 students across the country will take an updated version of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in math and reading, but more improvements may be on the way.
With its decades-long trendlines, cross-state comparisons, and scientific rigor, NAEP, also known as The Nation’s Report Card, is widely considered the gold standard in assessments. Put another way, it is to education leaders what the Consumer Price Index is to economists. But, like the CPI, NAEP is complex and hard to change, even when that change is a sign of progress. For example, the updated math and reading tests that today’s fourth and eighth graders are now taking are based on new frameworks that we started developing in 2018, before those fourth graders entered preschool.
The rock solid systems underpinning NAEP have helped it earn its strong reputation. But there are several imperatives for NAEP to meet in the years ahead for it to maintain its status.
We must shorten timelines that are too long. In early 2027, we will release math and reading results for students who took the assessment in early 2026, based on updated frameworks that were revised starting in 2018 (math) and 2019 (reading).
We must keep pace with technological advances. NAEP’s technology infrastructure was designed more than a decade ago. That was before large-scale assessment platforms became sophisticated and generative AI was widely available. Additionally, NAEP isn’t taking advantage of recent advances in data science, analytics, and visualization that make complex data more accessible to a range of audiences.
We should provide state-level results in subjects beyond fourth and eighth grade reading and math. Demand for more state-level results also is growing. My colleagues and I often hear, “Where’s the Mississippi Miracle in civics, history, and science?” We have NAEP assessments in those subjects but release the results only at the national, not state, level. To meet minimum sample sizes for reporting state-level results, the number of students participating would need to increase tenfold. This means an extra testing burden, so we need to find creative solutions to administer NAEP while reducing staff workload and minimizing students’ time away from classroom instruction.
* * *
These are the needs. How will we address them? The National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics are launching a new initiative to help NAEP get the public vital information about student achievement more quickly and with more state-by-state comparisons. With support from philanthropy for rapid research and development and ways to prototype new innovations, the Next Gen NAEP project will seek to create a more agile, efficient, and useful NAEP.
Through this initiative, we hope to come up with actionable solutions to five big questions:
- How can technology and AI speed up NAEP development and reporting timelines?
- How can we modernize and strengthen the NAEP technology infrastructure?
- How can NAEP data become easier to access and use?
- What cost savings can be realized and reinvested into reporting more state-level NAEP data in subjects beyond math and reading?
- How can we minimize burden for students, schools, and districts while reporting more state-level NAEP data?
Nationwide, assessment companies are considering the role of AI as they look for ways to bring down costs and timelines to meet demands of school systems and support the academic growth of students. It makes sense for the NAEP program to do the same. Of course, we need to do that while prioritizing and protecting NAEP’s best qualities, like its 30-plus year trend lines in reading and math, its rigorous content, and its innovative sampling design.
There is no shortage of great ideas for how to modernize NAEP. Yet ideas are insufficient when they fail to take into account operational realities. To modernize, we need to prototype and evaluate potential solutions. NAEP is too important to too many stakeholders to make too many changes too quickly or without sufficient research and development.
There are state leaders around the country who have tapped NAEP data to drive positive change and spur student learning gains. They include, for example, Carey Wright, who as state superintendent in Mississippi raised educational standards to align with NAEP standards and saw achievement rise. Alabama took a similar approach and became the first state to rebound to pre-pandemic achievement levels in math. Our goal is to make it easier for more states and districts to achieve this kind of success.
The Governing Board will lead the Next Gen NAEP effort, collaborating closely with NCES and convening stakeholders and experts to elicit their insights to propel the work. The Next Generation NAEP Advisory Committee, comprising leaders from NCES and the Governing Board; experts on NAEP, measurement, and AI; and education leaders from around the country will provide guidance throughout the year-long initiative. Education First, an education policy group, will serve as project manager, while the Institute of Design at Illinois Tech will lead the yearlong, structured design process. An independent fiscal sponsor will manage the philanthropic support and investments. There is a long history of educational foundations supporting the NAEP program: In the late 1960s, the Carnegie and Ford foundations funded the development of the first NAEP.
In September, the Governing Board and NCES released results on the Nation’s Report Card in 12th grade reading and math and eighth grade science. And, as mentioned, the 2026 NAEP is right now in the field assessing what students know and can do. NCES recently filled several roles related to work on 2026 NAEP and beyond. I'm proud of this work, as are leaders across the country and across the political spectrum who have affirmed their support for NAEP and its importance.
To me, that’s all the more reason to get to work modernizing the Nation's Report Card—not to ensure it survives, but to ensure it thrives.
