The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in Reading aims to measure reading comprehension for students in the United States and to monitor progress in our education system. NAEP Reading is developed based on an assessment framework document that is periodically revised to reflect the latest understandings about reading comprehension and its assessment. A key goal of the Visioning Panel (VP) and the Development Panel (DP) charged with updating the NAEP Reading Assessment Framework for 2026 was to lay the foundation for an assessment that made progress toward greater fairness, equity, and validity. In this essay, we discuss how the Framework development process unfolded and its results. We document the unusual ways the National Assessment Governing Board (“the Board”) shaped the development process. We provide evidence that a small group of Board members aimed to preserve the status quo in reading assessment by downplaying reliance on expertise and authoritative sources of research on reading, learning, and assessment and by removing attention to equity in NAEP Reading. We also discuss both successful (i.e., approved by the Board) and unsuccessful (i.e., rejected by the Board) recommendations for changes to the 2026 Framework that initially were proposed by the DP. We end by considering how, despite the efforts of the small group of Board members, we as a literacy field can improve the nature and impact of our large-scale reading assessments, and NAEP in particular.
2026 NAEP Reading Framework Visioning Panel (2019, November 27). Visioning panel guidelines for the 2025 NAEP reading framework update.
2.
AfflerbachP.ChoB.Y.PearsonD. (2021, December). A brief history of NAEP and its frameworks [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Atlanta, GA, USA.
3.
AndersonR. C.PearsonP. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In PearsonP. D.BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). Longman, Inc.
CervettiG.HinchmanK.BrynelsonN.HainB. (2021, December). Interpreting the contexts of the NAEP 2026 Reading Framework [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Atlanta, GA, United States.
10.
de JongT. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In ElenJ.ClarkD. (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 107–128). Elsevier Science.
11.
FairbairnS. B.FoxJ. (2009). Inclusive achievement testing for linguistically and culturally diverse test takers: Essential considerations for test developers and makers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.01133.x
12.
FengG. (2016, July). NAEP process data updates. [presentation slides]. Educational Testing Service.
Immordino-YangM. H.GottliebR. (2017). Embodied brains, social minds, cultural meaning: Integrating neuroscientific and educational research on social-affective development. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 344S–367S. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216669780
18.
JacobsenR.RothsteinR. (2014, February 26). What NAEP once was, and what NAEP could again be. [Presentation]. National Assessment Governing Board’s 25 Anniversary Celebration, Washington, D.C.
JonesL. J. (1996). A history of the National Assessment of Educational Progress and some questions about the future. Educational Researcher, 25(7), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025007015
22.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
LangerJ. A. (1990). The process of understanding: Reading for literary and informative purposes. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(3), 229–260. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171165
25.
LeeC. D. (2016). Influences of the experience of race as a lens for understanding variation in displays of competence in reading comprehension. In AfflerbachP. (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 286–304). Taylor & Francis.
26.
LeeC. D. (2020). Social and cultural diversity as lens for understanding student learning and the development of reading comprehension. In MojeE. B.AfflerbachP. P.EncisoP.LesauxN. K. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. V, pp. 37-56). Routledge.
27.
LeeC. D.ForzaniE.GuthrieJ. (2021, December). NAEP going forward: Honoring commitments and the journey toward a more informative NAEP [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Atlanta, GA, USA.
28.
McCarthyK. S.McNamaraD. S. (2021). The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist, 56(3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379
29.
MislevyR. J. (2016). How development in psychology and technology challenge validity argumentation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 53(3), 265–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12117
30.
MislevyR. J. (2019). Advances in measurement and cognition. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219843816
31.
MojeE. B.DillonD. R.O’BrienD. (2000). Reexamining roles of learner, text and context in secondary literacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(3), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598705
32.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783
33.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Monitoring educational equity. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25389
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1970). Reading objectives. Author.
42.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1974). Recipes, wrappers, reasoning, and rate: A digest of the first reading assessment. Educational Commission of the States.
43.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1981). The reading report card: Progress toward excellence in our schools. Educational Testing Service.
44.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1987). Reading objectives: 1986 and 1988 assessments. Educational Testing Service.
45.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021a, April 23). Overview of the NAEP reading assessment and projections. Extracted from the Material of the May 13–15 Quarterly Meeting of the National Assessment Governing Board.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 NAEP reading assessments (NCES 2013 452). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.). PISA test. Programme for International Student Assessment. Retrieved 27 May, 2022, fromhttps://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/
50.
PearsonP. D.CervettiG. N. (2015). Fifty years of reading comprehension theory and practice. In PearsonP. D.HiebertE. H. (Eds.), Research-based practices for teaching common core literacy (pp. 1–39). Teachers College Press.
51.
PearsonP. D.ValenciaS. W.WixsonK. (2014). Complicating the world of reading assessment: Toward better assessments for better teaching. Theory Into Practice, 53(3), 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.916958
52.
PressleyM.AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Routledge.
RosenblattL. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.
55.
SalingerT.CampbellJ. (1998). The national assessment of reading in the USA. In HarrisonC.SalingerT. (Eds.), Assessing reading: Theory and practice (pp. 96–109). Routledge.
SkerrettA. (2020). Social and cultural differences in reading development: Instructional processes, learning gains, and challenges. In MojeE. B.AfflerbachP. P.EncisoP.LesauxN. K. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. V, pp. 328–344). Routledge.
59.
SkerrettA.UccelliP.CoiroJ.PachecoM.GarciaG. E. (2021, December). Goals and outcomes: What we wanted, what we got [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Atlanta, GA, United States.
60.
ThompsonS. J.JohnstoneC. J.ThurlowM. L. (2002, June). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report No. 44). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/onlinepubs/synth44.pdf
van den BroekP.HelderA. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes, 54(5–6), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1306677
64.
WilderT.JacobsenR.RothsteinR. (2008). Grading education: Getting accountability right. Teachers College Press and the Economic Policy Institute.
65.
WillisA. I. (2007). Reading comprehension research and testing in the U.S.: Undercurrents of race, class, and power in the struggle for meaning. Routledge.
