THE TIME TRAP: WHY IT’S MISGUIDED TO REPORT STATE ASSESSMENT RESULTS AS“YEARS OF LEARNING”

Oct 15, 2026

Explores how converting student test performance into “years of learning” became widespread after the pandemic, even though it misleads non-technical audiences. Argues that time-based reporting overstates and distorts the meaning of learning loss and recovery by relying on problematic assumptions and by substituting summary metrics for what is occurring for individual students. Synthesizes technical foundations, empirical validation, utility considerations, and concludes with clear recommendations for more accurate interpretation.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages27

Reading Time1 h 8 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Semantics

Learning: The unfortunate rise of a misleading label: “learning loss”

Time: Out of favor as a determinant of achievement

Technical Foundations

Principles and problems associated with GE scores

Takeaway points

Empirical Validation

Data and methodology used in the analyses

A more modest interpretation

Utility

Time-based reporting leads to time-based solutions

Aggregate-level results are not representative of what is taking place at the individual level

Time-based reporting is devoid of content

Conclusions

References

THE TIME TRAP: WHY IT’S MISGUIDED TO REPORT STATE ASSESSMENT RESULTS AS“YEARS OF LEARNING” August 2024 Damian Betebenner Center for Assessment Charles A. DePascale Psychometric Confections National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment Dover, New Hampshire Presented at the 2024 Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Inc. (the Center for Assessment) is a New Hampshire based not-for-profit (501(c)(3)) corporation. Founded in September 1998, the Center’s mission is to improve student learning by partnering with educational leaders to advance effective practices and policies in support of high-quality assessment and accountability systems. The Center for Assessment does this by providing services directly to states, school districts, and partner organizations to support state and district assessment and accountability systems. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY) . To view a copy of this license, visit [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Authors are listed alphabetically and contributed equally to the ideas expressed in this work. Betebenner, D. & DePascale, C. (2024) . The time trap: Why it’s misguided to report state assessment results as “years of learning.” Dover, NH: The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................... 3 SEMANTICS ............................................................. 5 • Learning: The unfortunate rise of a misleading label: “learning loss” .................... 6 • Time: Out of favor as a determinant of achievement ...................................................... 7 TECHNICAL FOUNDATIONS................................... 8 • Principles and problems associated with GE scores ................................................... 9 • Takeaway points ............................................. 11 EMPIRICAL VALIDATION ...................................... 12 • Data and methodology used in the analyses ................................................ 15 • A more modest interpretation ...................... 17 UTILITY ................................................................. 18 • Time-based reporting leads to time-based solutions...................................... 19 • Aggregate-level results are not representative of what is taking place at the individual level ........................... 21 • Time-based reporting is devoid of content............................................ 22 CONCLUSIONS...................................................... 24 REFERENCES.......................................................... 25 PAGE 2 INTRODUCTION The long-dormant practice of reporting student academic performance, particularly test results, in terms of weeks, months or years of learning has experienced a resurgence since the onset of the pandemic. The desire to communicate the magnitude of learning loss and recovery in an understandable way to non-technical audiences has made this practice commonplace. Time is an obvious choice as a metric, since PK-12 education is routinely broken down into units of time, and virtually all stakeholders (policymakers, educators, students, parents) ask how long it will take students to recover any learning lost during the pandemic. The makers of widely used assessments were among the first to characterize the pandemic’s impact on student learning. In May 2020, only a few months into the pandemic, states were determining whether schools should try to teach new content remotely or simply reinforce previously taught material when NWEA published its estimate that “students are likely to return in fall 2020 with approximately 63-68% of the learning gains

FAQs

Why does the report focus on “years of learning” as a problematic metric?

The report argues that time-based reporting became common after the pandemic, but it misrepresents what assessment results mean for student learning and recovery, especially for non-technical audiences.

What role does the report assign to “learning loss” terminology?

It explains how “learning loss” emerged as a misleading label, affecting how readers interpret assessment score changes and the implied meaning of learning gaps.

How does time-based reporting affect interpretation at different levels?

The report contends that aggregate-level time reporting does not represent what is happening at the individual student level and that it can lead to time-based conclusions that lack substantive content.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Jordan Avery