Reading Scores Dropped in NY...But Are Tests Measuring What Really Matters?

This week, New York’s reading scores came out, and they were hard to ignore. Preliminary results show a real decline in ELA performance, and New York City saw an especially noticeable drop. Across NYC, reading proficiency in grades 3–8 fell about six percentage points. The decline was even steeper in the elementary grades: third-grade proficiency dropped approximately 14 percentage points and fifth grade about 13 points.

Those numbers deserve our attention.

But before we immediately decide that children cannot read or teachers aren't teaching, I think there is a much bigger conversation we need to have.

What exactly are we measuring when we give a child the New York State ELA test?

Because there is a lot to unpack on that test. And I mean a lot.

As a teacher and now a consultant, I have already started working with students to prepare them for everything they have to unpack when taking these assessments. Sometimes I find myself wondering: Are we assessing literacy, or are we also assessing how well an eight-year-old can navigate a complicated testing situation?

Students aren't simply being asked, "Did you understand what you read?" They have to read unfamiliar passages, understand vocabulary, figure out what a question is really asking, go back into the text, find evidence, distinguish between answers that may sound reasonable, organize written responses, and maintain their concentration through the assessment.

Oh, and don't forget to read carefully.

But keep moving.

That combination alone should make us think.

And there is an important distinction here. The New York State ELA test is not technically a timed test. NYSED says students should be given as much time as necessary within the regular school day to complete each testing session. But that doesn't mean the pressure disappears. Students still need the stamina to work through two testing sessions, navigate unfamiliar passages and questions, produce written responses, and manage the very real feeling of knowing this is the state test.

There is another change worth paying attention to. Spring 2026 marked the first year New York required computer-based testing across all grades 3–8, following a gradual rollout in previous years. That doesn't mean computer testing caused the decline in reading scores, and I don't think it would be fair to make that claim without evidence. But when we see a significant change in scores during the same year that the testing format reaches full implementation across these grades, shouldn't that at least be part of the conversation?

There is a lot to unpack here before we decide that one number tells us the entire story.

The Pressure Nobody Talks About Enough

Teachers feel the pressure long before testing week.

Teachers know the scores are coming. Administrators know they're coming. Districts know they're coming. Parents know they're coming. Eventually children figure out that this "one test" everyone keeps telling them not to worry about is apparently important enough for every adult in the building to be talking about it.

Is that fair?

I don't think it is.

Teachers are working against instructional calendars and pacing guides. Schools have curriculum mandates. Teachers are being asked to differentiate, remediate, accelerate, collect data, implement new curricula, and prepare children for increasingly complex literacy expectations.

And somewhere in between all of that, we would also like children to actually enjoy reading.

No pressure.

There is another huge piece of this year's results that we cannot ignore: New York City is changing the way it teaches reading while we are evaluating the results.

We Are Still Living Through the Reading Wars

To understand what is happening with literacy scores right now, we also have to look at the bigger shift happening in how we teach children to read.

For years, education has debated how children learn to read and how reading should be taught. Balanced literacy and workshop-based approaches became incredibly influential in New York City and elsewhere. More recently, the pendulum has shifted toward what is commonly called the science of reading—a large body of research emphasizing the importance of explicit foundational instruction alongside vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

NYC Reads began rolling out during the 2023–24 school year and expanded across elementary districts the following year. NYC Public Schools describes the initiative as research-based literacy instruction grounded in the science of reading. In grades K–2, schools also use approved foundational-skills programs targeting areas including phonological awareness and decoding.

I actually believe much of this shift is necessary.

In my own work with struggling readers, I have repeatedly seen the value of structured literacy and Orton-Gillingham approaches. Children need explicit instruction in how language works. We cannot simply surround a struggling reader with wonderful books and hope all the pieces eventually fall into place.

But changing reading instruction is not like changing the batteries in a remote.

You don't introduce new curricula, train thousands of educators, and suddenly expect every child to be reading proficiently the following spring.

Teachers need time to understand a curriculum deeply enough that they aren't simply following a script. Children currently sitting in third, fourth, and fifth grade may also have experienced different approaches to literacy instruction during their early elementary years.

That doesn't prove the curriculum transition caused these lower scores either.

It means there is a lot to unpack before we assign blame.

What If We Assessed Literacy Differently?

I am not suggesting that we stop assessing children.

Actually, I'm suggesting the opposite.

Let's assess them more—but differently.

Instead of allowing one state ELA assessment to dominate the public conversation about whether children can read, why couldn't New York develop a multiple-measures literacy model?

Keep a shorter common statewide assessment if we need statewide data.

But combine it with other meaningful measures: decoding and phonics assessments, oral-reading fluency, authentic writing samples, vocabulary measures, comprehension conversations, teacher observations, and portfolios showing a child's growth throughout the year.

This isn't some radical idea that says data doesn't matter.

Assessment specialists already distinguish between different kinds of assessments because they answer different questions. The National Center on Improving Literacy, which is supported by the U.S. Department of Education, explains that screening can identify students who may be at risk for reading difficulties so educators can determine whether additional assessment or intervention is necessary.

NYC Public Schools itself says educators use both formative and summative assessments to identify students' strengths and weaknesses and adjust instruction.

So why shouldn't our larger conversation about literacy reflect that?

Imagine a third grader sitting with a teacher and reading an unfamiliar passage aloud.

Within minutes, an experienced teacher can begin hearing things a proficiency level alone cannot explain.

Can this child decode an unfamiliar word?

Are they fluent?

Do they recognize vowel patterns?

Do they self-correct?

Can they tell me what they just read?

Now look at their writing.

Listen to them discuss a text.

Look at their progress from September to January to June.

Suddenly, we have something much more useful than simply saying "Level 1," "Level 2," "Level 3," or "Level 4."

We have a literacy profile.

Two Children Can Get the Same Score and Need Completely Different Help

This is the part that frustrates me—and makes the teacher in me want to grab a red pen and start asking questions.

Two children can receive similar ELA scores and have completely different reading needs.

One child may decode beautifully but struggle with vocabulary and comprehension.

Another may have incredible ideas and strong oral language but struggle tremendously with decoding and fluency.

Similar score.

Completely different reader.

As a consultant, I don't want to know only that a child struggled.

I need to know why.

Because that's how intervention works.

A number doesn't tell me what to teach Monday morning.

A child's reading does.

Maybe This Week's Scores Should Be a Beginning, Not a Verdict

The decline in New York's ELA scores should concern us.

We shouldn't explain it away. We shouldn't lower expectations because the numbers make us uncomfortable. And we shouldn't decide standardized testing is meaningless simply because we don't like what the results say.

But we also shouldn't look at one year's results and immediately declare that New York's children suddenly cannot read or that teachers have somehow failed.

Let's unpack it.

Let's look at the curriculum transition.

Let's look at foundational reading skills.

Let's look at teacher training.

Let's look at the transition to computer-based testing.

Let's look at what individual students actually struggled with.

And while we're doing all of that, let's ask whether our assessment system is giving teachers enough information about the actual reader sitting behind that score.

Because the goal was never supposed to be producing children who are really good at taking the ELA.

The goal is producing children who can read.

Children who can decode a word they've never seen before. Children who understand what they've read. Children who can question a text, talk about it, and write about it. And, hopefully, children who eventually pick up a book simply because they actually want to read it.

The scores released this week are telling us something.

We need to listen.

But instead of only asking:

"Why did the scores drop?"

Maybe we should also be asking:

"Are we measuring literacy in the best way possible?"

Because a state test can give us a score.

A teacher can tell us the story behind it.

Bibliography

Chalkbeat, New York. As NYC Reading Scores Plummet Amid Literacy Overhaul, Officials Investigate. August 7, 2026.

National Center on Improving Literacy. Key Considerations for Universal Screening for Literacy. U.S. Department of Education-supported National Center on Improving Literacy.

National Center on Improving Literacy. Understanding Screening: Overall Screening and Assessment.

New York City Public Schools. Literacy. NYC Public Schools.

New York City Public Schools. NYC Reads. NYC Public Schools.

New York State Education Department. Educator Guide to the 2026 Grades 3–8 English Language Arts Tests.

New York State Education Department. Computer-Based Testing. New York State Testing Program.

New York State Education Department. Grades 3–8 English Language Arts and Mathematics Tests. New York State Testing Program.