FAQ icon

Need Answers?

Directory Icon

Email, Phone, and Addresses

Graduation cap icon

Explore Degrees

Gina Cervetti discusses making standardized tests of reading comprehension more equitable in EdWeek

August 18, 2021

Professor Gina Cervetti was quoted in an Education Week article discussing the new framework for designing the reading assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the test known as the “nation’s report card.” Cervetti is a member of the framework development panel. 


In the article, journalist Sarah Schwartz summarizes the changes that will go into effect for the 2026 test administration and covers the battle between framework developers over the role of “informational universal design elements,” text introductions, pop-ups, and videos that give students some background knowledge about the passages that they are about to read.

Early versions of the framework put forth a sociocultural model of reading comprehension. The model argues that reading is in part about what’s going on inside a student’s head—the cognitive processes—but that comprehension is greatly influenced by social and cultural contexts like home, school, and community. But some members of the development panel felt that the final version diverged too far from the initial drafts—and that commitments made to equity were stripped by a vocal minority of NAGB’s main board.

Cervetti said that beefing up knowledge scaffolds would have made NAEP a truer test of students’ reading comprehension ability. It would test their knowledge of text structures, or their skills in analyzing information, rather than their content knowledge, she said. It would level the playing field for students who come to the test with different stores of knowledge.

When this version of the framework was put out for public comment, though, it brought forth harsh criticism from some corners of the education world. “This came to be seen as an attempt to inflate the scores of traditionally underperforming students,” Cervetti said. “And nothing could be further from the truth.”

Informational UDEs are still in the framework, but they play a much smaller role. This concerns Cervetti, who maintains that a more robust set of informational UDEs would make the NAEP more like “real” reading, not less.

“In the real world, outside of a standardized assessment, we rarely read completely unfamiliar texts in isolation,” she said. If a student reads a word they didn’t know, they can look it up. “We all have phones, and computers, and people [around us], and dictionaries,” Cervetti said.


Featured in this Article

Professor, Marsal Family School of Education

More News

September 28, 2020
Professor Nell Duke was quoted in a Chalkbeat Colorado article by Ann Schimke, “More social studies in elementary school may produce better readers, new study suggests.”
August 27, 2020
The site now features materials to support online learning and extensive materials to support bilingual and multilingual learners.
May 15, 2020
Elizabeth Moje joined Stephen Henderson on Detroit Today to discuss the settlement in the “right to literacy” case brought by Detroit students.
March 06, 2020
Nell Duke and colleagues co-published a commentary piece in the Chicago Tribune calling for improvements in the education of Black male youth.
February 28, 2020
Nell Duke, with alumnae Lauren Katz and Crystal Wise, analyzed records and depositions to determine how well some California schools taught reading in light of a recent lawsuit.
February 14, 2020
Michigan is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to improve literacy as part of its third-grade reading law but the architects of the law now say that’s not enough money.
December 18, 2019
In an article for The Michigan Daily, reporter Alex Harring wrote about U-M students who are advocating against a controversial state reading law. Among them is Educational Studies student Gabriel DellaVecchia.
December 11, 2019
Professor Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar is the 2019 recipient of the P. David Pearson Scholarly Influence Award, which is presented annually by the Literacy Research Association for a single contribution to research that has demonstrably and positively influenced literacy instruction and/or policy.