Are today’s students actually behind previous generations? Long-term NAEP data, PISA 2022, and TIMSS 2023 show a complicated picture: younger students have made real gains over several decades, older students have lost ground recently, and U.S. students remain competitive internationally in some subjects while lagging badly in others.

Editorial Note

This article examines student academic performance using major national and international assessments. These tests measure specific academic knowledge and skills; they do not directly measure intelligence, creativity, motivation, practical ability, character, or a student’s overall potential.

Comparisons across generations and countries also require caution. NAEP, PISA, and TIMSS assess different ages, content, and types of knowledge, while demographics, curriculum, participation rates, school systems, and social conditions change over time. The goal here is not to declare one generation or country “smarter” than another. It is to ask what the strongest available evidence says about how students are performing academically.

Are Today’s Students Really Falling Behind?

Every generation seems to have a story about what younger people can no longer do.

Students use calculators for arithmetic their parents remember doing by hand. Spellcheck catches mistakes that once had to be memorized. The internet has replaced many trips to the encyclopedia, and generative AI can now explain a concept, summarize an article, or solve a problem in seconds.

From that perspective, it is easy to conclude that students are becoming less capable.

There is an equally convincing argument in the opposite direction. Today’s students navigate computers, smartphones, global communication, digital collaboration, video production, coding platforms, enormous online databases, and tools that did not exist when many of their parents were in school.

So are students actually behind previous generations?

The data do not support a simple yes or no. The answer changes depending on the age of the student, the subject being measured, the time period being compared, and what we mean when we say one generation is “better educated” than another.

That complexity matters because nostalgia can make the past look stronger than it was, while enthusiasm for new technology can make the present look more advanced than the academic evidence supports.

Academic Achievement Is Not the Same as Intelligence

Before comparing generations, we have to separate academic achievement from intelligence.

Reading assessments tell us how well students interpret text. Mathematics assessments can measure calculation, reasoning, content knowledge, and problem solving. Science assessments examine how students understand scientific ideas and apply evidence.

Those are important abilities, but they are not a complete measure of human intelligence.

A student may have exceptional spatial reasoning, mechanical ability, creativity, leadership, artistic talent, communication skills, or technological fluency without those strengths showing up fully on a standardized reading or mathematics test.

That does not make assessments such as NAEP, PISA, or TIMSS unimportant. They remain some of the best tools available for examining whether large groups of students are gaining or losing academic skills over time.

The better question is therefore not whether today’s students are inherently smarter.

It is whether they are demonstrating stronger academic skills than comparable students did in earlier generations.

The Long-Term Data Challenge the Idea That Students Have Simply Become Worse

The 2025 NAEP Long-Term Trend assessment gives us an unusually valuable historical comparison because versions of the reading and mathematics assessment have been administered for decades. The 2025 administration included nationally representative samples of 9- and 13-year-olds.

When we take the longest view, younger students have made real progress.

Nine-year-olds in 2025 performed better in reading than 9-year-olds did in the earliest comparable assessment in 1971. Long-term mathematics performance among 9-year-olds was also higher than it was when the mathematics trend began in 1978.

Those results immediately challenge the claim that American children have simply become steadily weaker over the last half century.

They have not.

The more accurate conclusion is that U.S. education produced meaningful academic gains over portions of that period, particularly among younger children. The difficulty is that those gains have not continued consistently, and the story looks much worse when we examine older students and more recent years.

Younger Students Are Showing Signs of Recovery

The recent picture for 9-year-olds is more encouraging than it was immediately after the pandemic.

The 2025 long-term trend results showed improvement from the sharply depressed 2022 results. That suggests at least some younger students are recovering academically rather than remaining permanently stuck at pandemic-era lows.

But recovery and full recovery are not the same thing.

In mathematics, younger students remained below some pre-pandemic levels even after the recent improvement. Reading showed a somewhat stronger recovery pattern, but the broader lesson is that academic recovery has been uneven rather than complete.

That distinction matters because it prevents two opposite exaggerations. It would be inaccurate to say children have made no progress since the pandemic, but it would also be premature to declare the academic damage fully repaired.

The more troubling data appear when students reach early adolescence.

The 13-Year-Old Results Are Much Harder to Ignore

The long-term trend results for 13-year-olds show why the national conversation cannot stop at signs of elementary-school recovery.

Reading performance for 13-year-olds in 2025 remained weak compared with some earlier periods, while mathematics remained below the stronger results reached during the early 2010s. The long-term mathematics series also shows that the trajectory among older students has not simply been one of continuous improvement.

This is one of the most important findings in the entire generational comparison.

America has spent decades expanding educational technology, revising standards, developing new curriculum, increasing access to advanced coursework, changing accountability systems, expanding special-education services, and investing in instructional programs. Yet older students have not shown a clean upward academic trajectory across the same period.

That does not mean those reforms accomplished nothing, nor does it mean a student in 2026 knows exactly what a student in 1971 knew. The curriculum, student population, social environment, and skills required outside school have changed enormously.

It does mean that we should be much more cautious about assuming that more technology, more instructional programs, or more years of reform automatically produce stronger foundational academic performance.

The Most Important Story May Be the Gap Between Students

National averages can conceal a more serious problem.

The U.S. does not have one academic experience.

Some students today have opportunities that would have been difficult to imagine several decades ago. They take college-level courses in high school, learn programming in middle school, work with tutors from other countries, participate in advanced STEM programs, use sophisticated digital tools, and access almost unlimited educational information.

Other students reach middle school while still struggling with foundational reading or mathematics.

TIMSS 2023 provides a striking example of that divide. NCES reported that U.S. students performed above the TIMSS international average in mathematics and science at both fourth and eighth grade, but lower-performing U.S. students lost substantial ground. In fourth-grade mathematics, scores at the 10th and 25th percentiles reached their lowest levels since TIMSS began in 1995. The gap between students at the 10th and 90th percentiles was also larger than it had been in several earlier TIMSS administrations.

That changes the question.

Instead of asking only whether the average student is doing better than students decades ago, we should ask whether educational progress is reaching students across the performance distribution.

A system can produce extraordinary high achievers while still failing too many children at the bottom.

How Does the United States Compare With Other Countries?

International comparisons make the picture even more complicated.

PISA measures the performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics, reading, and science, with particular attention to whether students can apply what they know to unfamiliar problems and real-world situations.

In PISA 2022, U.S. students performed close to the OECD average in mathematics and above the OECD average in reading and science. That is an important correction to the common claim that American students perform poorly across the board internationally.

But “above average” does not mean “among the best.”

Singapore led all participating systems in mathematics, reading, and science, scoring 575 in mathematics, 543 in reading, and 561 in science. Japan was also among the strongest systems, particularly in mathematics and science.

The United States therefore occupies an awkward position internationally. It performs better than the popular narrative of complete educational failure suggests, especially in reading and science, but it remains far from the strongest systems in mathematics.

That distinction should shape education policy more than simplistic international rankings.

Mathematics Is the Clearest U.S. Weakness

The international data consistently give U.S. policymakers a reason to pay particular attention to mathematics.

PISA 2022 placed U.S. mathematics performance near the OECD average rather than among the highest-performing systems. Meanwhile, Singapore, Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei, and several other systems performed substantially better.

The difference becomes even more noticeable when we look at advanced performance.

Singapore had an extraordinarily large share of students reaching the highest PISA mathematics levels, while the United States had a much smaller percentage of top performers.

That does not mean the United States should copy another country’s education system wholesale. Singapore and Japan operate in different demographic, cultural, governmental, and educational contexts.

International comparisons are more useful when they lead to questions.

How is mathematics curriculum sequenced? How much time do students spend mastering foundational concepts before moving forward? How are teachers prepared? How quickly are struggling students identified? How much tutoring occurs outside school? How much mathematical reasoning is expected rather than procedural completion?

Those questions are more productive than treating international education like a sports ranking.

TIMSS Makes the United States Look Stronger Than PISA Does

TIMSS 2023 offers a somewhat more favorable picture of U.S. performance.

American fourth- and eighth-graders scored above the TIMSS international average in both mathematics and science.

At first glance, that may appear inconsistent with PISA, where U.S. mathematics performance was only around the OECD average.

The difference is partly about what the assessments measure.

TIMSS is tied more closely to the mathematics and science students encounter in school curricula. PISA places greater emphasis on applying knowledge to unfamiliar, real-world situations. The student populations also differ because TIMSS tests students by grade while PISA focuses on 15-year-olds.

Neither assessment is the definitive scoreboard for national intelligence.

Together, however, they suggest something useful: U.S. students can perform reasonably well on school-based mathematics and science measures while still having more difficulty competing with the strongest countries on applied mathematical reasoning.

That is a much more informative conclusion than simply saying America ranks above or below another country.

International Scores Should Not Be Treated Like National IQ Rankings

There is another reason to be careful with international comparisons.

Countries differ in population, educational access, poverty, immigration, language, curriculum, school structure, testing participation, and the proportion of young people still enrolled in particular educational pathways.

PISA itself notes that some countries, including the United States, did not meet every sampling standard in 2022, meaning estimates should be interpreted with appropriate caution.

That does not make the results useless. It means the numbers should be treated as evidence rather than as a simplistic national intelligence ranking.

Singapore outperforming the United States in mathematics tells us something meaningful about student achievement.

It does not prove that Singaporean children are inherently more intelligent than American children.

The distinction matters because education systems can change performance. Intelligence rankings imply something much more fixed.

COVID Was a Global Shock, Not Only an American One

The decline in academic performance after 2019 was not uniquely American.

PISA 2022 documented unusually large declines across many OECD systems, particularly in mathematics and reading. The OECD described the international downturn as unprecedented in the history of PISA.

TIMSS also documented U.S. declines between 2019 and 2023, especially in mathematics. NCES reported that both U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics scores fell during that period.

The pandemic therefore disrupted education across many countries.

But that should not become an excuse for every current weakness. Some U.S. achievement problems began before COVID, and some education systems weathered the disruption better than others.

The more useful question is why some countries, schools, and groups of students were more academically resilient than others.

Modern Students May Have Skills Traditional Tests Do Not Fully Capture

There is one legitimate argument in favor of today’s students that test-score discussions sometimes overlook.

A student growing up in 2026 operates in an information environment that bears little resemblance to the one students encountered in 1971.

Modern students may create multimedia presentations, edit video, collaborate remotely, use spreadsheets, work with AI systems, navigate digital platforms, communicate across countries, and locate information almost instantly.

Traditional academic assessments do not attempt to measure every one of those capabilities.

But we should be careful about what conclusion we draw from that fact.

It would be a mistake to assume that digital fluency automatically compensates for weak reading, writing, or mathematics. In reality, modern technology may make those foundational skills even more important.

A student can access more information than any previous generation, but access is not the same as understanding. Someone still has to evaluate the source, interpret the argument, understand the numbers, distinguish evidence from misinformation, and communicate conclusions clearly.

The ability to use technology is valuable.

The ability to think through what technology provides remains essential.

More Educational Technology Has Not Automatically Produced More Learning

One of the most uncomfortable conclusions from the long-term data is that dramatic growth in educational technology has not produced an equally dramatic rise in academic performance.

Students today have laptops, tablets, learning-management systems, online textbooks, digital libraries, adaptive software, interactive displays, educational video, and now generative AI.

Yet recent national assessments continue to show serious weaknesses, especially among older and lower-performing students.

That does not prove technology caused those problems.

It does show that technology by itself is not an educational strategy.

A device cannot replace strong instruction. An app cannot guarantee persistence. An AI system cannot automatically produce understanding. Access to information does not matter much if a student lacks enough literacy or mathematics skill to use the information independently.

Technology should therefore be judged by what students learn because of it, not by how modern the classroom looks while they are using it.

Previous Generations Were Not as Academically Uniform as Nostalgia Suggests

Comparing current students with previous generations also creates a memory problem.

Adults often remember the classmates who were academically successful. They remember difficult teachers, long assignments, multiplication drills, handwriting practice, or other parts of school that reinforce the idea that education was once more rigorous.

They may remember less clearly the students who dropped out, struggled with reading, never entered advanced classes, lacked access to special-education services, or disappeared from the educational system entirely.

The population served by American schools has also changed dramatically across the decades. The country has become more diverse, access to education has expanded, and expectations for what nearly every student should achieve have risen.

Historical comparisons remain valuable, but they should not become exercises in romanticizing the past.

The goal of modern education is not simply to reproduce the outcomes of a smaller or differently served student population.

It is to help as many students as possible reach high levels of learning.

New To Education Perspective: The Better Question Is Whether More Students Are Reaching Their Potential

I do not think the most useful question is whether children today are smarter than children fifty years ago.

The more meaningful question is whether we are helping more students reach their academic potential.

The evidence gives us reasons for both optimism and concern.

Younger students have made real long-term gains compared with children assessed several decades ago, and recent results show signs of post-pandemic recovery. At the same time, older students have experienced significant stagnation and decline, while lower-performing students often appear to be losing more ground than stronger students.

Internationally, U.S. students are not near the bottom of the developed world, despite how education debates sometimes portray them. They remain competitive in reading and science and perform above TIMSS international averages in mathematics and science.

But the country should not become comfortable with being merely competitive.

Mathematics performance remains a legitimate weakness, and the distance separating U.S. students from leading systems such as Singapore and Japan should prompt serious examination of curriculum, teacher preparation, intervention, academic expectations, and how students are taught to apply knowledge.

The most worrying result, however, may not be America’s international position at all.

It may be the growing distance between children who are thriving and children who are not.

What the Data Suggest We Should Focus On

The evidence does not point toward a single miracle reform, but several priorities become difficult to ignore.

Students need strong foundational literacy and mathematics instruction early enough that gaps do not accumulate for years. Schools need intervention systems capable of responding before a struggling elementary student becomes a struggling middle-school student.

Mathematics deserves particular attention because international comparisons repeatedly expose a relative U.S. weakness in that area.

Schools and policymakers should also look beyond averages. If high-performing students continue improving while lower-performing students lose ground, a stable national average can create the illusion that little has changed even while inequality in academic outcomes grows.

Finally, educational technology should increasingly be evaluated against actual learning. Schools have spent years counting devices, subscriptions, logins, and usage. The more important question is whether students understand more because those tools exist.

Key Takeaways

The evidence does not support the simple claim that today’s students are academically worse than previous generations. Younger U.S. students have made meaningful long-term gains in reading and mathematics compared with children assessed several decades ago.

The recent picture is less reassuring. Older students have experienced stagnation and decline, particularly compared with stronger results reached before the pandemic and during earlier periods of academic improvement.

Internationally, the United States is neither an educational disaster nor a world leader. U.S. students remain competitive in reading and science and perform above TIMSS international averages in mathematics and science, while mathematics performance on PISA remains notably weaker than that of the highest-performing systems.

The largest concern may ultimately be inequality within the student population. Some young people have access to extraordinary advanced opportunities, while others continue to struggle with foundational academic skills.

FAQ

Are students today smarter than students in previous generations?

Major education assessments cannot answer that question directly because they measure academic performance rather than overall intelligence. They can tell us whether students perform better or worse in particular subjects over time.

Are American students falling behind other countries?

The answer depends on the subject and assessment. In PISA 2022, U.S. students performed close to the OECD average in mathematics and above it in reading and science. In TIMSS 2023, U.S. fourth- and eighth-graders performed above the international average in mathematics and science.

Which country performs best academically?

There is no single measure of overall educational quality. Singapore was the highest-performing education system in PISA 2022 in mathematics, reading, and science.

Why do PISA and TIMSS produce different impressions of U.S. performance?

They measure somewhat different skills and populations. TIMSS is more closely connected to school-based mathematics and science curricula and tests students by grade. PISA tests 15-year-olds and places greater emphasis on applying knowledge in unfamiliar and real-world contexts.

Have students recovered from pandemic learning disruption?

Recovery remains uneven. Younger students have shown encouraging improvement in recent NAEP long-term trend results, but national and international data continue to show important weaknesses, particularly among older and lower-performing students.

Final Thoughts

Today’s students have access to more information, more technology, and more educational opportunities than any previous generation.

That does not automatically mean they are learning more, and it certainly does not mean they are learning less.

The strongest data tell a more complicated story. American education has produced meaningful long-term progress in some areas, especially among younger students, while recent years have brought stagnation and setbacks. U.S. students remain internationally competitive in several subjects but are clearly outperformed by leading systems in areas such as mathematics.

At the same time, the phrase “today’s students” hides enormous differences. Some students are completing advanced coursework and using sophisticated technology years earlier than previous generations could have imagined, while others are reaching adolescence without mastering foundational literacy or mathematics.

That should be the part of the data that concerns us most.

The goal of education should not be to prove that one generation was smarter than another. It should be to make sure the next generation receives a better opportunity to learn than the one before it.

If academic progress is reaching only some students, then national averages and international rankings are not enough.

We still have work to do.

Support New To Education

New To Education provides educational reporting, practical analysis, tutoring, courses, and learning opportunities for students, families, educators, and lifelong learners.

Explore New To Education

What the Latest Education Research Says About Learning, Teachers, and AI in Schools

Japan Releases 2026 National Academic Test Results as English Performance Raises Policy Questions