The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is frequently called “the Nation’s Report Card.” It’s the most reliable source for comparable state-by-state education performance in the US. The latest results, which measure 4th and 8th grade reading and math, were released in January.
Oregon is weak in the raw scores of the NAEP—somewhere near last and well-below the national average. Arguably, raw scores don’t tell the full story because student demographics make a difference. If a student is just learning English, for example, we wouldn’t expect them to do as well in reading as someone who’s a native speaker. So we can adjust for that to get a better picture of how well various state education systems are working.
These adjustments make a difference. When raw NAEP scores are adjusted for student demographics (including race/ethnicity, poverty/free or reduced-price lunch eligibility, English learner status, special education status, gender, and age), the state rankings shift dramatically. This “value-added” approach, produced annually by the Urban Institute, attempts to show how well states’ schools perform relative to what would be expected given their student populations—essentially answering “how effective are the schools at teaching the kids they have?”
The answer for Oregon is “not well.”
The most authoritative demographically adjusted analysis of the 2024 NAEP comes from the Urban Institute (released April 2025). After adjustments:
• Southern states dominate the top of the leaderboard, a pattern that has strengthened over the last decade and is often called the “Mississippi Miracle” extended to neighboring states.
• Mississippi ranks #1 nationally in three of the four tests (4th-grade reading, 4th-grade math, 8th-grade math) and very high in the fourth.
• Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Alabama, and other Southern/lower-income states surge upward because they outperform expectations given higher poverty rates and more historically disadvantaged students.
• Traditionally high-raw-score Northeastern states (e.g., Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire) drop several spots because their stronger demographics (lower poverty, fewer ELL students) would predict even higher scores than they achieve.
In the Urban Institute’s demographically adjusted 2024 NAEP rankings (averaging grades 4 & 8 reading and math, controlling for student poverty, race/ethnicity, English learner status, special education, etc.), Oregon ranks dead last—51st out of 51 (including Washington, DC as a jurisdiction, or 50th out of 50 states if excluding DC).
The demographic adjustment penalizes Oregon heavily because its relatively favorable demographics (lower poverty rates, fewer historically disadvantaged groups compared to Southern states) would predict much higher performance than it actually achieves—meaning its schools are significantly underperforming relative to expectation.
Multiple independent analyses and discussions of the Urban Institute’s 2024 adjustments confirm this bottom placement for Oregon, often highlighting it as one of the starkest examples of a wealthy, progressive state failing to deliver results for its students. This continues a trend where Oregon has ranked near or at the very bottom in adjusted NAEP performance for several cycles now.
If that’s not sobering enough, Salem-Keizer’s results are worse than Oregon’s.
What is the solution? What Mississippi did. They were in Oregon’s shoes in 2013, 49th or 50th in rankings.
Key components include:
• Third-grade reading gate with retention—Students who don’t pass a reading assessment at the end of 3rd grade are held back (with “good cause” exemptions for certain cases like English learners or special education students). Retained students get intensive interventions, not just repetition. This was controversial at first but is now widely credited with motivating schools, teachers, and families—and giving struggling kids an extra year to catch up. Research shows retention explains only ~20–25% of the gains, but it’s a powerful accountability tool when paired with supports.
• State-funded literacy coaches—Mississippi hired and trained hundreds of full-time reading coaches deployed to low-performing schools to work directly with teachers (not just one-off training).
• Mandatory teacher training in the science of reading—All K–3 teachers (and many others) received rigorous professional development on evidence-based methods, often through programs like LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling).
• Universal early screening and individualized reading plans—Every K–3 student is screened three times a year; those behind get mandatory intervention plans.
• Parent and family engagement requirements—Schools must notify and involve parents early if a child is struggling.
Supporting Reforms Around the Same Time
• State-funded pre-K programs (Early Learning Collaboratives) for at-risk 4-year-olds, emphasizing literacy readiness.
• School accountability system with A–F grades for districts and schools, putting pressure on low performers.
• Alignment of state tests to NAEP standards, making Mississippi’s own assessments more rigorous (and comparable nationally).
• Strong, sustained leadership: State Superintendent Carey Wright (2013–2022) was the driving force, bringing expertise from Maryland and partnering with federal Regional Educational Laboratories for research-backed implementation.
From 2013–2024, Mississippi saw the largest national gains in 4th-grade reading and math on NAEP—with Black, Hispanic, and low-income students often leading the country in progress for their demographics. The state outperforms expectations dramatically because the reforms lifted the lowest performers the most, closing gaps in a state with high poverty (~25–30% child poverty rate).
Retention rates are higher than average (~7–10% in early grades), but studies show the average age of 4th graders hasn’t changed much—gains are real learning, not just from “older kids.” The biggest improvements are in the bottom quartile of students.
It wasn’t one magic bullet—it was a comprehensive, faithfully implemented system focused on early literacy, backed by funding, coaching, accountability, and political will (bipartisan at the start, sustained by Republicans since). Other Southern states (Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee) copied similar packages and also surged in adjusted rankings. Mississippi proves that even in high-poverty areas, systematic phonics + support + consequences can produce massive, lasting gains. Many experts now call it a blueprint for the rest of the country.
Oregon, and Salem-Keizer especially, should follow that blueprint.