How Kids’ Reading Skills Changed During Trump and Biden’s Terms: A Closer Look at COVID’s Impact
When we look at how kids’ reading skills have changed over the past few years, it’s clear that something went wrong, especially during the pandemic. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scores from 4th and 8th graders show a downward trend, with the most significant drops happening during the Biden administration, largely due to the disruptions caused by COVID-19.
Breaking Down the Numbers:
4th-Grade Reading Proficiency:
2017 (Trump’s first year): About 35% of 4th graders scored at or above the proficient level in reading.
2019 (Trump’s final year): That number dropped slightly to 34%.
2022 (Biden’s term): The percentage dipped further to 33%, signaling a bigger decline.
While there was a small drop in the years leading up to the pandemic, the more noticeable fall came after the pandemic hit, especially in 2022.
8th-Grade Reading Proficiency:
2017 (Trump): 36% of 8th graders were proficient in reading.
2019 (Trump): That number dropped to 34%.
2022 (Biden): The percentage plummeted to 29%, marking a bigger drop than before.
These declines show that the longer the disruptions, the worse the impact on kids’ learning, and the 8th-grade numbers illustrate just how much more severe the fallout was under Biden’s watch.
The Pandemic’s Role: Why the Declines Happened
The COVID-19 pandemic was a game-changer. Schools were forced to close, and many stayed shut down for longer than expected—especially in some Democratic-led states. This led to learning losses that were especially damaging to kids who were already struggling in school.
While President Biden took office in the middle of the pandemic, he faced the aftermath of delayed school reopenings in places like California, New York, and Illinois, where kids were out of the classroom for extended periods of time. Unfortunately, many of these students came from urban areas where resources were already stretched thin, making it even harder for them to catch up.
Who Suffered the Most?
The biggest losers in this situation were the kids who needed help the most:
Black and Hispanic Students: These groups saw the achievement gap grow during the pandemic, as many of these kids had less access to technology and struggled more with online learning.
Low-Income Students: In many urban areas, low-income students had a hard time accessing online learning, lacked adequate support at home, and didn’t have the resources they needed to succeed.
The data shows these groups were already falling behind before the pandemic, but the extended closures only made the gap wider.
What Trump Tried to Do:
President Trump was very vocal about his opposition to long-term school closures. He argued that students—especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds—would suffer the most from being kept out of school. Trump pushed for a quicker return to in-person learning and advocated for more resources to help schools reopen safely, like providing personal protective equipment (PPE).
Trump’s approach included:
Reopening Schools Quickly: Trump wanted schools to reopen as soon as it was safe. He believed that keeping kids home any longer would only harm their education.
Helping Parents with Choices: Trump also emphasized giving parents more options for their children’s education, such as charter schools or private schooling, especially in areas where public schools were struggling.
Targeted Support for Students: Trump’s plans included directing funding toward programs designed to help kids catch up on missed learning, focusing on subjects like reading and math.
Trump’s strategy centered on getting kids back into the classroom and ensuring that resources were available to support them, while Biden’s focus was more on long-term recovery through increased federal funding for education.
Biden’s Approach and Its Challenges:
President Biden’s administration did work to allocate more federal funds for schools, particularly through the American Rescue Plan. However, many feel that this funding didn’t address the immediate needs of kids who were falling behind during the school closures. In places where schools stayed closed longer, like California, New York, and Illinois, many students, particularly in urban areas, found themselves unable to catch up, especially in key subjects like reading.
Some argue that Biden’s focus on long-term educational reforms and teacher union priorities diverted attention from the urgent need to get kids back in the classroom and get them the support they needed right away.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Texas took a significantly more aggressive approach to reopening schools compared to President Biden’s administration. Here's a comparison:
Texas Approach:
Early Reopenings: Texas Governor Greg Abbott was one of the first to push for the rapid reopening of schools, even when many states were still hesitant. In May 2020, Texas announced that public schools could begin reopening for in-person learning in the fall, as long as they followed certain safety protocols. This early action was in line with Abbott’s stance that keeping schools closed for too long would negatively impact students' education and mental health.
No Statewide Mandates: Unlike many states, Texas did not impose statewide mandates for mask-wearing or extended school closures. Instead, the decision to reopen schools was largely left to local school districts. This created a more flexible and fast-paced reopening process, but it also led to inconsistent practices across the state.
Parental Choice: Texas, like Trump, emphasized parental choice when it came to schooling options. Parents were given the option to either send their children back to in-person learning or to continue with virtual schooling, with many districts providing both options.
Focus on Keeping Kids in Class: Texas was vocal about the need for children to return to school for the sake of their education, arguing that the social, mental, and developmental impacts of prolonged school closures could have long-term negative effects.
Biden Administration:
Cautious Reopening: In contrast, the Biden administration’s reopening efforts were slower and often met with resistance from teacher unions, which advocated for safety measures and vaccinations before reopening schools. While Biden did push for schools to open within his first 100 days in office, his administration faced significant delays due to these negotiations and the logistical challenges of distributing vaccines to teachers and staff.
State and Local Control: Biden's administration largely deferred to state and local governments in decisions about when to reopen schools. Though he provided guidance, financial support, and public messaging in favor of reopening, the pace varied greatly depending on local circumstances, political climates, and union agreements.
Teacher Union Influence: The Biden administration had to navigate the demands of powerful teacher unions, which played a significant role in the slower pace of school reopenings. In contrast, Texas did not face this level of union-driven delays and kept schools open more quickly.
Key Differences:
Aggressiveness of Reopenings: Texas prioritized aggressive and immediate reopening, pushing schools to resume in-person classes quickly and leaving local districts with more autonomy. Biden, on the other hand, took a more measured approach, balancing reopening with safety protocols, but faced significant pushback from unions, resulting in a slower reopening process.
State vs. Federal Influence: Texas leaned heavily on state authority and local control, allowing school districts to make their own decisions about reopening, while Biden's administration took a more hands-on approach in providing federal guidance and funds to support schools.
Timing and Pace: Texas moved quickly to get kids back into classrooms, while the Biden administration, despite a desire to reopen, faced delays and struggles with getting schools to return to normal quickly.
In summary, Texas adopted an aggressive reopening strategy that was aimed at getting kids back in the classroom as soon as possible, with less interference from federal government mandates. In contrast, the Biden administration’s approach to school reopenings was more gradual, with more emphasis on safety, negotiations, and balancing the needs of teacher unions and other stakeholders.
What We Can Learn from the Data:
During the pandemic, data showed that COVID-19 posed minimal risk to children, with most cases being mild or asymptomatic. Kids were also less likely to spread the virus, especially younger children. While the virus wasn’t harmless, the bigger concern became the toll prolonged school closures had on kids' mental health and education. Increased anxiety, depression, and learning setbacks were common, particularly among low-income and minority students.
Schools serve more than just a place to learn—they're essential for social growth, mental health, and development. The longer kids stayed home, the bigger the gap grew in their education and well-being. Given that the risk of severe illness for kids was low, reopening schools would have allowed children to recover socially, emotionally, and academically. Keeping them closed for too long caused more harm than good, with data supporting the need for a safer, faster return to in-person learning.
The NAEP data shows that the COVID-19 school closures had a major impact on kids’ reading skills, and that impact was most severe for kids from low-income and minority backgrounds. The longer schools stayed closed, the more profound the damage was, especially for children in urban centers who needed the most help.
Looking at the data, it’s clear that Trump’s focus on reopening schools and getting kids back into the classroom as quickly as possible may have helped prevent some of the damage caused by the closures. On the other hand, Biden’s plan—while focused on longer-term recovery—was too slow to address the immediate learning losses that were so evident, particularly in communities where kids already faced challenges.
As we continue to recover from the effects of the pandemic, the focus should be on making sure every child, no matter their background, has the resources and support they need to succeed in school. We need to make up for the lost time and focus on closing the gaps that have only grown wider in the wake of the pandemic.
