When the state test scores were released a couple of weeks ago, they showed sharp drops in proficiency for NYC students, particularly in reading. This led to commentators to speculate what this drop in scores may or may not mean. Critics of the mandated curriculums like the organization Racially Just Public Schools used the results to question the value of the pre-packaged NYC Reads program and insist on the need for more culturally responsive programs.
The NYC Reads initiative required NYC schools and districts to choose between three scripted curriculums for elementary schools, EL Learning, Wit & Wisdom, or HMH Into Reading. Many teachers, parents and students have found these programs to be overly rigid and formulaic and lack sufficient time for studentsto read and enjoy whole books. The administration nevertheless plans to expand these programs at 102 middle schools this fall.
With the drop in the state scores, Michael Mulgrew the President of the NYC teachers union, who up to now had been supportive of these mandates, came out swinging: “The Department of Education is completely incompetent and irresponsible in its implementation, and we are not going to stand by.” he was quoted as saying. Without reforms, he said, “we’re going to just have to pull our support for it.”
Indeed, there is little or no evidentiary support for these three particular curriculums, except for the fact that they were cited as “high quality” by Ed Reports, an organization funded mainly by the Gates Foundation which bases their evaluations not on actual studies showing they result in learning gains, but only whether they are aligned with the Common Core standards.
At the same time, when the drop in test scores was announced, Gates-funded groups like Educators for Excellence refused to moderate their support for NYC Reads, even though last year the group celebrated an increase in state test scores by saying that “today’s state test results deliver another resounding proof point of the impact of NYC Reads.”
Chancellor Samuels and Mayor Mamdani insisted that the expansion of NYC Reads will continue, and Mamdani was quoted as saying, “NYC Reads marked a turning point in our commitment to ensuring every child gets the evidence-based instruction they deserve. Across the nation, we’ve seen transformative literacy rates using the pedagogy we know works, and we will continue to pursue that same approach,” without citing any evidence for these particular programs.
At the same time, the Department of Education press release put forward the contrary results of the i-Ready and MAP assessments that students are required to take several times a year, supposedly for diagnostic purposes, claiming they showed continued improvement in reading, though screeners were never designed for that purpose.
The release linked to a PowerPoint depicting the upward trend of NYC student results according to these screeners compared to national norms. Yet in very small print beneath the charts, there is a disclaimer: ”Recent updates to MAP and iReady norms may have contributed to an increase in the percentage of students above the national median in 2026.”
To make any claims based on the results of these screeners is even more questionable given how the MAP tests are owned by HMH, the most commonly employed and most criticized program used by our schools. IReady screeners have also been widely criticized as having no independent studies that attest to their validity, and the company was recently sued in DC court on consumer protection grounds, alleging that they engage in false advertising about the value and effectiveness of its product.
Amidst the hullabaloo on both sides, little attention was paid to the fact that the ups and downs in NY state exams have rarely if ever been replicated in the results of the far more reliable national exams called the NAEPs, which are given by the federal government to a sample of students in NYC every two years, in 4th and 8th grade reading and math. They have shown no significant change in the city’s 4th grade reading scores since 2003.
Here is a chart produced by analysts Fred Smith and Robin Jacobowitz for a forthcoming study. It illustrates the stark contrast between the rollercoaster results of the state tests in 4th grade reading, as contrasted with the flat line NAEP scores over the last 23 years.
As I was quoted in the Queens Chronicle, “Unfortunately the state has been unable to develop and administer properly scaled tests with reliable results for many years that would allow anyone to gain insights about what is working or not in our schools.”
We will have to wait for the NAEP results to see if whether there has been any real change in reading or math achievement in the last two years. These exams were given last spring with the results expected in early 2027.
After the NAEPs are released, however, even if the city’s scores have significantly changed, it will be difficult to ascribe this to any one factor such as a particular set of curriculums, when so many demographic changes and other developments have occurred over the last two years, including a decline in average class sizes in many schools.
The chart by Fred Smith and Robin Jacobowitz is eye-popping.