← Back to scans

Will US test scores in Math decline? — Significant decrease

KXUSTESTSMATH-26-SD · Politics · 2026-04-25
40%
Agent
55%
Market Price
-15.0%
Edge
35%
Confidence
Volume: 10,735
Spread: 7.0c
Days to resolution: 615
Markets in event: 3
Final Rationale
My independent estimate of 31% rested on NAEP base rates (~22% of cycles show significant declines) and floor-effect reasoning from already-depressed 2022/2024 levels. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT the critique: the floor-effect argument is indeed weakened by 12th grade hitting new lows in 2024, and resolution criteria ambiguity (vs 2024 vs 2019, what threshold counts as 'significant') should widen uncertainty toward 50% — I add ~5-7%. I REJECT full deference to the 55% market given low volume (89 contracts/day), wide historical range (35-69%), and thin orderbook spreads suggesting noisy price discovery. I deviate from the market by 15% because the underlying NAEP base rate from a depressed baseline genuinely favors stabilization over further significant decline, and IES disruption (which may delay publication) cuts toward NO resolution, not YES.
Price vs. prediction
How the market moved after the agent's call. Solid blue line is the actual market price; dashed line is the agent's static forecast at $t{=}0$.
$n = 58$ follow-ups
1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan
Tools chosen: article_search web_search wikipedia_lookup kalshi_data kalshi_orderbook code_execution
Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)
  1. Will NAEP 8th grade math scores in 2026 show a statistically significant decline compared to the most recent prior assessment? (w=0.45)
  2. Is there a continuing trend of declining US 8th grade math scores that would project a significant decrease by 2026? (w=0.30)
  3. Will NAEP administer and publish 8th grade math assessment results in time to resolve this market by end of 2027? (w=0.25)
Planner reasoning
This question resolves YES if US 8th grade math test scores experience a 'significant decrease' in 2026, almost certainly referring to the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), which is the primary standardized benchmark for US student achievement. Key considerations: (1) NAEP administers assessments in odd-numbered years (2025 being the next after 2022), so the 2025 results would be published in early-to-mid 2026 — this is the most likely data source for resolution. (2) After COVID-19, 2022 NAEP scores saw the largest single-period decline in the assessment's history (8 points for 4th grade, 8 points for 8th grade), so the question is whether this drop continues in 2025/2026 or stabilizes/recovers. (3) The definition of 'significant decrease' matters: NAEP uses statistical significance thresholds, typically ~3-5 scale score points. (4) Reference class: prior to COVID, scores were roughly flat or slightly positive; COVID caused a historic drop. Post-COVID recovery has been partial. (5) Temporal analysis: NAEP 2025 assessments would be administered Jan-March 2025, results published ~late 2025 or early 2026, which falls within the resolution window. The question is whether these newly published 2025 scores show further decline from 2022's already-depressed baseline. Given that 2022 scores were already historically low, further significant decline is possible but not the base case — partial recovery or stabilization is more likely. The market resolves by Dec 31, 2027, giving ample time for NAEP 2025 results to be available.
2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2
ToolStatusTimeItemsSummary
article_search OK 0.8s -
web_search OK 57.4s -
wikipedia_lookup OK 1.3s -
kalshi_data OK 1.8s -
kalshi_orderbook OK 0.2s -
code_execution OK 0.0s -
3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 19 items · legacy v2
#StrengthCredibilityDirectionSourceClaimPriced In
1 STRONG 88 ↑ UP web_search NAEP 2024 Grade 4 & 8 math results were released in January 2025; 8th grade math performance was nine points below pre-pandemic (2019) levels, roughly a full grade level behind. Yes
2 STRONG 85 ↑ UP web_search Almost 4 in 10 eighth graders scored below basic in math on the 2024 Nation's Report Card — the lowest scores since the test began in the early 2000s. Yes
3 MODERATE 80 ↓ DOWN web_search 4th grade math scores showed slight improvement since 2022 but remained 3 points below 2019 levels in 2024, suggesting partial but incomplete recovery at lower grades. Yes
4 STRONG 88 ↑ UP article_search September 2025 Nation's Report Card showed 8th-graders' science scores fell 4 points since 2019 and 12th-graders' math and reading scores fell 3 points, indicating a continuing decline across grade levels in 2024 assessments. Yes
5 MODERATE 72 ↑ UP article_search The Trump administration cut more than half the workers at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which oversees NAEP data processing, potentially disrupting future assessment administration. Yes
6 MODERATE 70 ↓ DOWN code_execution Historical base rate analysis shows statistically significant declines (≥3 points) occurred in only 2 of 9 NAEP 8th grade math assessment cycles (22%), suggesting significant further decline from an already-depressed baseline is not the modal outcome. No
7 MODERATE 75 NEUTRAL web_search The 2022 NAEP 8th grade math score was 274 (-8 from 2019), and 2024 data is not yet available as a direct comparison point; the question of whether the next cycle (2025 assessment, results in 2026) shows further decline from 274 remains open. Yes
8 STRONG 87 ↑ UP web_search 8th grade math scores have been declining for over a decade, with the pandemic dramatically accelerating the trend; scores are currently at their lowest since the early 2000s. Yes
9 STRONG 85 ↑ UP article_search 12th grade math and reading scores reached new all-time lows in 2024, with declines pre-dating COVID and continuing post-pandemic despite recovery hopes — suggesting structural rather than temporary decline. Yes
10 MODERATE 80 ↑ UP web_search The lowest-performing students (10th percentile) continue to see the largest declines, with a growing achievement gap — a structural trend unlikely to reverse quickly. Yes
11 MODERATE 68 ↓ DOWN web_search In 2025, states generated $76 million in new math funding impacting 3.9 million students, and 2026 legislative sessions are anticipated to expand math interventions — suggesting policy response may mitigate further decline. Yes
12 WEAK 55 ↓ DOWN wikipedia_lookup The 'Mississippi Miracle' and 'Southern surge' demonstrate that targeted state-level policy changes can rapidly improve K-12 test scores, providing a counterexample to inevitable decline. Yes
13 MODERATE 78 NEUTRAL code_execution The 2022 NAEP 8th grade math score was 274, down 8 points from 2019 (282); the 2024 data point is not yet available as a direct 8th grade math comparison, making direct trend projection to 2025 uncertain. Yes
14 STRONG 88 ↑ UP web_search The 2024 NAEP reading and math results for grades 4 and 8 were released in January 2025, approximately 9-12 months after administration (Jan-March 2024), establishing a precedent for the 2025 assessment cycle. Yes
15 STRONG 85 ↑ UP wikipedia_lookup NAEP is congressionally mandated, with administration by NCES/IES and independent oversight by NAGB; the program has operated continuously since 1969 with biennial 4th and 8th grade assessments. Yes
16 MODERATE 72 ↓ DOWN article_search The Trump administration laid off more than half the IES workers, which could delay or disrupt the processing and publication of NAEP 2025 assessment data. Yes
17 STRONG 80 ↑ UP web_search If the 2025 NAEP is administered Jan-March 2025 and follows the typical 9-12 month publication timeline, results would be published late 2025 or early 2026, well within the Dec 31, 2027 resolution window. Yes
18 MODERATE 55 ↑ UP kalshi_data The Kalshi market for 'Significant decrease' in US Math test scores 2026 is currently priced at 55%, with a 7-day decline of 8 points and a 30-day gain of 3 points, suggesting recent downward pressure on the YES probability. Yes
19 WEAK 50 ↓ DOWN kalshi_data The related Reading significant decrease market is at 57%, with a 7-day drop of 7 points and 30-day drop of 9 points — showing correlated recent downward movement suggesting new information or re-evaluation. No
Information Gaps
  • No confirmed data on whether NAEP 2025 assessments (administered Jan-March 2025) were actually administered as scheduled, given IES staff cuts
  • No direct 8th grade math score from the 2024 NAEP administration — the web search references 8th grade scores being 9 points below pre-pandemic but it is unclear if this is the 2024 result or the 2022 result extrapolated
  • No clarity on whether the question refers to the 2025 NAEP cycle (results published 2026) or some other assessment; resolution criteria for 'significant decrease' are not formally defined
  • No information on current IES operational status after staff cuts — whether the NAEP 2025 cycle was delayed, cancelled, or proceeding normally
  • No data on whether any state or federal policy interventions since 2022 have measurably impacted 8th grade math trajectories
  • No information on the exact 2024 NAEP 8th grade math score to use as baseline for comparing 2025 results
Key Uncertainties
  • Whether IES staffing cuts will delay or prevent publication of NAEP 2025 results before Dec 31, 2027 — this is the primary resolution risk
  • Whether 8th grade math scores will stabilize or continue declining from the 2022/2024 historic low baseline — recovery from rock-bottom is also plausible
  • The exact definition of 'significant decrease' used for resolution — whether it means NAEP statistical significance (~3-5 points) or a larger/smaller threshold
  • Whether the question resolves on NAEP 2025 (administered 2025, published 2026) or NAEP 2024 results already published in January 2025
  • The recent 8-point drop in Kalshi market price over 7 days may reflect new information about IES disruption or NAEP scheduling changes
Market Context
Price: 0.55 · 7d: -0.08 · 30d: +0.03
Volume: LOW · Depth: HIGH
Reliability: LOW-MEDIUM — low average daily volume (89 contracts) limits price discovery reliability; large spread in orderbook (yes_bid=$0.01, no_bid=$0.00) suggests thin active trading despite high depth; the 55% price has ranged widely from 35-69%, indicating high uncertainty. Recent 8-point drop may signal new information about IES/NAEP disruption but could also be noise given low volume.
4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price
Independent estimate: 31% (42% confidence)
base rate
32%
45% conf
evidence driven
30%
40% conf
contrarian
32%
40% conf
Spread
2pp
Low disagreement
sq1: Will NAEP 8th grade math scores in 2026 show a statistically significant decline compared to the most recent prior assessment?
30%
Base rate: Significant declines (≥3 points) occurred in only ~22% of NAEP 8th grade math cycles historically. The most recent comparison point would be 2024 results (published Jan 2025), which already showed scores 9 points below 2019 — meaning much of the bad news is already baked in. From an already-depressed baseline (274 or lower), further significant decline is less likely than stabilization or modest recovery (mean reversion). Evidence: Continuing structural decline trend (12th grade hitting new lows, science declining) pushes UP ~8% from base rate. Bottom-percentile students continuing to fall pushes UP ~3%. State math funding investments and policy responses push DOWN ~3%. Floor effects on already-low scores push DOWN ~3%. The question may also already be partially answered by 2024 results if those count as 'in 2026' reporting — ambiguous. Net estimate: ~30%.
sq2: Is there a continuing trend of declining US 8th grade math scores that would project a significant decrease by 2026?
55%
Base rate for 'continuing decline trend exists': The decade-long pre-COVID decline plus post-COVID failure to recover, combined with 12th grade and science scores hitting new lows in 2024, strongly suggests a continuing structural trend. This pushes UP significantly from a neutral 50%. However, 4th grade math showed slight recovery in 2024, indicating the trend isn't monotonic. Policy interventions ($76M in state funding, Mississippi Miracle precedent) push DOWN ~5%. The trend exists but 'projects a significant decrease by 2026' is a stronger claim — moderate evidence supports it. Estimate: ~55%.
sq3: Will NAEP administer and publish 8th grade math assessment results in time to resolve this market by end of 2027?
85%
Base rate: NAEP has operated continuously since 1969, congressionally mandated. The 2024 results were published Jan 2025 on schedule. The 2025 cycle administered Jan-March 2025 would typically publish late 2025/early 2026, with the resolution window extending to Dec 2027 — over 2 years of buffer. Strong evidence (UP): Established publication precedent, congressional mandate. Moderate evidence (DOWN): IES lost >50% of staff under Trump administration, which could delay processing by months or even a year. However, even with significant delays, publication by end of 2027 (>2 year buffer) seems highly likely. Estimate: ~85%.
Show full reasoning trace
base rate: Historical NAEP 8th grade math significant declines occur in ~22% of cycles. The 2022 cycle was already a historic 8-point drop, and 2024 showed continued depression. From a depressed baseline, further significant declines are less common due to floor effects and mean reversion.
evidence updates: Continuing decline trend at 12th grade and science (UP ~8%), bottom-percentile gaps widening (UP ~3%), state policy investments (DOWN ~3%), floor effects (DOWN ~3%), IES staff cuts threatening publication timeline (DOWN ~5% via sq3).
combination method: Weighted average per question spec, but adjusted for the conditional nature: a significant decrease can only resolve YES if results are published. Effective conditional probability lower than naive weighted average.
final: Combined estimate ~32%. The most likely outcome is partial stabilization or modest recovery from 2022/2024 lows, not further significant decline. Publication is likely but with some delay risk. Confidence is medium due to ambiguity about which assessment cycle resolves the question and what 'significant' means.
ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.32, 'confidence': 0.45}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.3, 'confidence': 0.4}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.32, 'confidence': 0.4}}, 'spread': 0.02, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.32, 'evidence_driven': 0.3, 'contrarian': 0.32}}
5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed
Missing Info Reasoning Flaw
Challenges
  1. The forecaster may be misinterpreting the comparison baseline. NAEP 'significant decrease' typically refers to comparison vs the immediately prior cycle (e.g., 2026/2025 vs 2024), not vs 2019. The 2024→2025/26 comparison starts from an already-depressed 274 baseline, but the forecaster's own framing is ambiguous — if the question allows comparison vs 2019 or vs pre-pandemic baselines, the probability of YES would be much higher since we already KNOW 2024 was 9 points below 2019. This ambiguity should widen uncertainty rather than push toward 30%.
  2. The 'floor effects / mean reversion' argument is overweighted. NAEP scores are not near any actual floor — 274 is well above the theoretical minimum, and 12th grade scores hitting NEW all-time lows in 2024 is direct evidence that 'mean reversion from depressed levels' is NOT operating in this domain. The forecaster cites 12th grade hitting new lows as UP evidence but then invokes floor effects as DOWN evidence — these are somewhat contradictory.
  3. The sq3 publication probability of 85% may be too high given IES lost >50% of staff under the Trump administration. With 615 days to resolution but uncertainty about whether 2025 NAEP was even administered on schedule, the conditional structure matters: if publication probability is 70% rather than 85%, the combined forecast shifts. However, note that non-publication likely resolves NO, which is consistent with a lower p_yes — so this cuts toward the forecaster's number.
  4. The combination method is unclear. sq2 (continuing trend exists) at 55% and sq1 (significant decline in 2026) at 30% — but sq2 should largely be PRICED INTO sq1, not combined separately. The final 31.3% appears to roughly equal sq1, which is reasonable, but the ensemble shows essentially no spread (0.02), suggesting false precision/groupthink across the three perspectives rather than genuine independent reasoning.
  5. Resolution criteria ambiguity is a major information gap. Without knowing what 'significant decrease' means in the resolution source (vs 2024? vs 2019? statistically significant per NAEP? a specific point threshold?), the forecast carries more uncertainty than the 0.417 confidence suggests. The market's wide historical range (35-69%) reflects this genuine ambiguity.
Suggested adjustment: +5pp
Modest upward adjustment warranted because: (1) the floor-effect/mean-reversion argument is weakly supported given 12th grade hit new lows in 2024, contradicting the reversion thesis; (2) resolution criteria ambiguity should widen uncertainty toward 50% rather than narrow it toward 30%; (3) the ensemble spread of 0.02 indicates false precision. This is a reasoning-quality adjustment, not a market-conformity adjustment.
Market comparison: Forecaster: 31.3%, Market: 55%. Divergence is large (-23.7%) but market reliability is LOW-MEDIUM with thin volume and wide historical range (35-69%). The market is not strong evidence on its own, but the forecaster's confidence (0.417) seems too high given the resolution criteria ambiguity. A modest move to ~36% reflects reasoning concerns, not market deference.
6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast
40% (35% confidence)
My independent estimate of 31% rested on NAEP base rates (~22% of cycles show significant declines) and floor-effect reasoning from already-depressed 2022/2024 levels. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT the critique: the floor-effect argument is indeed weakened by 12th grade hitting new lows in 2024, and resolution criteria ambiguity (vs 2024 vs 2019, what threshold counts as 'significant') should widen uncertainty toward 50% — I add ~5-7%. I REJECT full deference to the 55% market given low volume (89 contracts/day), wide historical range (35-69%), and thin orderbook spreads suggesting noisy price discovery. I deviate from the market by 15% because the underlying NAEP base rate from a depressed baseline genuinely favors stabilization over further significant decline, and IES disruption (which may delay publication) cuts toward NO resolution, not YES.
7. Entry Decision Opus Trader
Side
NO
Position Size
$650
Contracts
1444
Trader Confidence
35%
Trade Rationale
Edge is meaningful at -15% (forecast 40% vs market 55%), pointing toward NO. However, forecaster confidence is low (0.35) and the Devil's Advocate flagged both missing_info and reasoning_flaw, with a +5% adjustment toward the market. Resolution criteria ambiguity (vs 2019 vs 2024 baseline, what threshold qualifies as 'significant') is a real concern over a 615-day horizon. Liquidity is LOW (orderbook depth 0), which further argues for a small position. The base-rate argument (only ~22% of NAEP cycles show significant declines) plus IES disruption risk supports NO directionally, but conviction is modest.
Allocation Logic
Sized below the $1000 baseline due to low forecaster confidence (0.35), critic flags, long resolution horizon, and zero orderbook depth. The 15% edge prevents going to the floor, but uncertainty justifies staying near $650.
Entry price: $0.45
Current: $0.60
Status: OPEN
P&L: $216.67