Results of National Tests Show Importance of Recently Passed Michigan Literacy Laws and Other Reform Efforts

LANSING – Michigan’s newly released 2024 fourth-grade math score on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) test shows marginal progress from 2022, while eighth-grade math and fourth- and eighth-grade reading scores declined slightly. None of the changes were statistically significant, according to NAEP reports provided by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

The test performance illustrates the importance of the state’s new K-12 early literacy and dyslexia laws and the fact that more work must be done to improve reading and math achievement for Michigan’s children.

“These results show the need for the recently passed Michigan literacy and dyslexia laws and other reform efforts for which we have advocated, some of which—like Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) professional development for early elementary teachers—have already begun in local schools,” said State Superintendent Dr. Michael F. Rice.

While LETRS training is ongoing in many school districts and preparations for implementing the new literacy laws have begun, Dr. Rice said, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) is supporting additional legislative action that’s needed to help the state’s schools improve student achievement in reading, math, and other areas.

The ongoing and proposed work to improve reading and math achievement include:

• Implementing the literacy/dyslexia laws signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in late 2024. Over time, these generational new literacy laws will require, among other things, public schools to screen all students in kindergarten through third grade for characteristics of dyslexia; ensure that reading intervention is provided to all K-12 students who demonstrate characteristics of dyslexia; provide professional learning, instructional practices, and accommodations that have strong evidence for improving literacy outcomes and are consistent with the Science of Reading; and select from a list of approved reading instructional materials. These laws will help improve early literacy instruction and student achievement in Michigan, particularly if all Michigan elementary educators receive LETRS Science of Reading professional development. MDE is advocating for the legislature to make this training mandatory for Michigan public school elementary teachers. So far, 3,200 educators have completed LETRS training, with another 6,800 working on the training.
• Changing state law to provide more in-person instructional time for children.

The legislature has chipped away at in-person classroom time with teachers, despite the lessons learned during the pandemic about reduced student learning through virtual instruction.

State law requires at least 180 days of instruction annually. Students typically experience fewer. Law permits nine days for closures for conditions outside the control of school officials. In 2019, the state school aid act was amended to permit seven days of educator professional development to count as student instructional time. In 2023, despite lessons from the pandemic, state law was amended to permit 15 instructional days to be virtual. That can bring the total days of in-person instruction down to 149.

Michigan needs to roll back these changes from 2019 and 2023 for students in grades pre-K-10 and create greater flexibility in the days and hours of the education of 11th and 12th graders. Professional development is very important but shouldn’t be a replacement for student instructional time.

• Continuing increases in pre-K-12 education funding.

The last three education budgets have been the best three consecutively over the last 30 years. Michigan’s schools remain underfunded by billions of dollars, however, according to School Finance Resource Collaborative (SFRC) study recommendations. To properly staff schools and support teachers as they educate children, Michigan must fund inflation-adjusted recommendations, including those for base funding and for economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, English learners, preschool students, students in rural/isolated districts, and students in career and technical education.

Rice said he appreciates the additional funding from Gov. Whitmer and the state legislature but noted that studies have shown that Michigan’s education system remains significantly underfunded due to years of inadequate budgets. Michigan ranked dead last out of the 50 states in total revenue growth, inflation adjusted, for K-12 education from 1995 through 2015, and third to last in per pupil revenue growth, inflation adjusted, for the 20-year period, according to a study led by David Arsen of the Michigan State University College of Education. Michigan schools continue to grapple with both the underfunding and the teacher and other staff shortages created by the underfunding.

• Continuing to address the teacher shortage in Michigan. The state already has made great progress in this area that has attracted national attention, but more work is needed to rectify staff shortages. “We need to continue to fund teacher shortage rectification measures, including school districts’ Grow Your Own programs for support staff and students to become teachers, scholarships and student teacher stipends for aspiring teachers, and student loan repayments for current teachers, as well as mentoring and induction grants for educators who are starting out in a wide range of education positions,” Dr. Rice said.
• Providing more support for economically disadvantaged students, including lower class sizes for children in grades K-3 in high-poverty schools. Low class sizes in high-poverty early elementary grades have been shown to help teachers drive higher student achievement.
• Increasing the number of children who enroll in preschool. An extra year of education, especially when children are young, is of value for both students and staff.
• Passing other legislative priorities outlined in a Jan. 15 letter from Dr. Rice to the state legislature. The priorities are consistent with Michigan’s Top 10 Strategic Education Plan, approved by the State Board of Education in August 2020.

The national tests are taken by a sample of students in each state. For each assessment, about 2.7% of Michigan’s fourth- and eighth-grade students in approximately 130 schools of the state’s more than 3,000 schools took the math or reading tests in 2024.

Michigan was one of 29 states whose improvement or declines in scores from 2022 to 2024 were not statistically significant in any grade or subject.

The National Center for Education Statistics notes that NAEP results should not be compared without considering statistical significance.

Scores in Michigan and nationally dipped following the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020. In 2024, Michigan’s fourth-grade math achievement as measured by NAEP improved to the point where there is no longer a statistically significant difference to achievement before the pandemic.

Reports hosted by NCES provide state comparison reports. The NCES provides a profile page that describes Michigan results.

The following table illustrates Michigan scores in 2022 and 2024 and how the state’s most recent scores compare to other states.

Michigan NAEP Scores

*Difference may appear to not match scale scores due to rounding.

Average scores for Michigan’s largest school district, Detroit Public Schools Community District, increased marginally from 2022 to 2024 for fourth-grade math and eighth-grade reading, but no score changes from 2022 to 2024 were statistically significant. Detroit is the only Michigan school district for which NAEP releases district test results.

Nationally, average fourth-grade math scores increased by a statistically significant two points from 2022, while eighth-grade math scores were essentially unchanged. Average national reading scores for both fourth grade and eighth grade declined by two points, changes that the NCES reports as statistically significant.

NCES has provided a presentation on 2024 results and 5 Tips for Interpreting NAEP results.

# # #