The Middle Child of American Education: How Removing Writing Assessment Silenced a Core Discipline

by Traci C. Eshelman, PhD

Introduction

For generations, American schooling was founded on three disciplines: Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. Historically, writing has functioned as the “middle child” of the trio, quietly expected to mature on its own, assumed to develop naturally, and routinely overshadowed by its louder siblings, reading and arithmetic. Over the past two decades, however, this middle‑child neglect has intensified. Writing has been pushed so far aside by reading and math priorities that it now resembles a stepchild in national policy. As federal policy shifted toward high‑stakes testing in reading and mathematics, writing was quietly squeezed out of the nation’s accountability systems. The consequences have been profound. Writing instruction has diminished. Writing competence has declined. Most significantly, however, is that the nation has lost one of its most powerful contributors of cognitive development. The removal of writing assessment from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) cycle in 2007 marked a turning point: without national measurement, writing ceased to be a priority in classrooms, curricula, and teacher preparation. This analysis traces the consequences of removing writing assessment by examining its effects on college readiness, career preparation, cognitive development, cross‑disciplinary learning, and educational equity.

Background: The Removal of Writing Assessment

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 prioritized standardized assessments in reading and mathematics that incentivized math and reading instructional time in tested subjects at the expense of writing (Phillips, 2022). Writing, already complex to assess reliably, became increasingly marginalized. By 2007, NAEP discontinued state‑level reporting of writing achievement, effectively removing writing from the national policy conversation and consequently, the American classroom. Writing isn’t even a required assessment in all but seven states and the absence of national measurement has resulted in far‑reaching implications for student outcomes, instructional practices, and educational equity.

State‑level writing assessments also declined in quality and frequency. Behizadeh et al. (2016) found that states struggled to maintain consistent, fair measures of writing, leading to weakened standards and reduced instructional emphasis. The adoption of Common Core further exacerbated the problem by narrowing writing to short, text‑dependent responses and minimizing the writing process of drafting, revising, and extended composition. Common Core-aligned writing instruction failed at the exact place it claimed to be strongest, with teachers overwhelmingly assigning low‑level tasks that prevented students from developing reasoning, evidence use, and organization (Matsumura et al., 2015). The removal of writing assessment has removed meaningful writing from the nation’s classrooms.

Implications of Removing Writing Assessment

College Readiness and Remediation Costs

The decline in writing instruction has directly affected college readiness. Prior to 2007, NAEP data showed that only 25% of students across grades 4, 8, and 12 were proficient in writing (Hough et al., 2012). Without national measurement since then, no official record exists of progress, however higher education provides the evidence. A national analysis by the Center for American Progress found that remedial courses cost students and families about $1.3 billion every year across all 50 states and D.C. (Jimenez and Sargrad, 2016). These costs come from tuition paid for courses that do not count toward a degree, extending time‑to‑completion and increasing debt. Education Reform Now (2016) stated one in four students entering college require remediation Another NCES report places the cost of remedial course taking at over $2 billion annually. These estimates include both two‑year and four‑year institutions and reflect the widespread need for remediation.

Colleges report increasing rates of remediation in writing, with billions of dollars spent annually on non‑credit remedial courses that reteach basic writing skills students should have mastered in K-12. According to Teachers College, Columbia University, current national cost are between $2.5-$7 billion annually. Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce (2026) estimates the long term and indirect costs of remediation exceed $7 billion.

The costs are greater than financial. These courses delay degree completion, increase student debt, and disproportionately affect first‑generation and low‑income students. The absence of robust writing instruction in K-12 has created a readiness gap that higher education is forced to absorb.

Career Readiness and Workplace Competence

Beyond college readiness, the consequences extend into the workforce. Employers consistently rank writing as one of the most deficient skills among new hires. NACE’s 2024-2025 data found a ~25% gap between what new graduates believe their communication skills are and what employers think they are. Employers consistently rate “communication” (including written) as a critical competency, but graduates overestimate their proficiency (Gray, 2025). AAC&U’s College to Career Success project (2020, 2022) identified written communication alongside critical thinking, problem-solving, and teamwork as one of the top-ranked skills employers value, yet also one of the most common weaknesses in new hires (Rose & Flatby, 2022). LinkedIn and McKinsey studies show that while Gen Z brings strong tech skills, leaders express concern about interpersonal and communication skills, including written clarity (Linville, 2021).

Writing is foundational to communication, documentation, problem‑solving, and professional clarity. When writing instruction is reduced to short, constrained responses, students do not learn to produce sustained, coherent, audience‑appropriate writing. This deficit affects employability, promotion, and workplace effectiveness. The removal of writing assessment has therefore weakened the nation’s workforce pipeline, leaving graduates underprepared for the writing‑intensive demands of modern careers.

Critical Thinking and Cognitive Development

Writing is a cognitive process that develops reasoning, analysis, metacognition, and problem‑solving. Narrowing writing to constrained, text‑dependent responses jeopardizes writing and thinking competencies. Research confirms that writing tasks with higher cognitive demand predict stronger analytic reasoning, evidence use, and organization (Matsumura et al., 2015). When writing instruction declines, so does critical thinking. The removal of writing assessment has therefore contributed to a national decline in students’ ability to analyze, argue, synthesize, and reason. These skills are essential for academic and career success and civic participation.

Learning Deficits Across Other Domains

Writing strengthens learning across disciplines. As we see ELA and math scores plummet, much can be attributed to removing writing and writing assessment from the classroom. Students who write in science, social studies, and mathematics demonstrate deeper conceptual understanding, improved retention, and stronger problem‑solving skills. When writing disappears from classrooms, learning suffers across subjects. Troia et al. (2018) found that states with writing standards aligned to NAEP, standards emphasizing range, balance, and cognitive complexity, produced significantly stronger writing outcomes. These competencies transfer to other domains. The decline in writing instruction has therefore contributed to broader learning deficits, weakening students’ ability to engage deeply with content across the curriculum.

Educational Equity and Opportunity Gaps

The removal of writing assessment has disproportionately harmed students in under‑resourced schools. When writing is not assessed, it is not taught, and students who rely on school for access to writing instruction lose the most. Writing is a gateway skill for advanced coursework, college admissions, scholarships, and civic engagement. Without robust writing instruction, opportunity gaps widen. The absence of national writing assessment has therefore exacerbated inequities in access to high‑quality writing instruction and the long‑term opportunities it enables.

Conclusion

The marginalization of writing assessment in U.S. policy has produced cascading consequences: diminished writing instruction, weakened college and career readiness, declines in critical thinking, learning deficits across disciplines, and widening inequities. The solution is simple. Restore writing in the classroom. Restore meaningful writing. But implementation is not simple. Teachers need training, time, and support to teach writing as a full discipline. Policymakers must recognize writing as essential to the nation’s academic and economic future. Writing must return to the center of the three Rs, not as an afterthought or a multiple choice bubble to fill in, but as a foundational skill that shapes students’ minds, futures, and opportunities. If we want a workforce capable of clear thinking, clear writing, and clear communication, writing must return to the center of American schooling.

References

Behizadeh, N., & Pang, M. E. (2016). Awaiting a new wave: The status of state writing assessment in the United States. Assessing Writing, 29, 25-41.

Community College Research Center. (n.d.). Community College Research Center. Teachers College, Columbia University. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu

Education Reform Now. (2016, April 5). Americans spending at least $1.5 billion in college remediation courses; middle class pays the most. https://edreformnow.org/2016/04/05/release-americans-spending-at-least-1-5-billion-in-college-remediation-courses-middle-class-pays-the-most/

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. (2026). Springboards to opportunity. https://cew.georgetown.edu/springboards-to-opportunity/

Gray, K. (January 13, 2025). National Association of Colleges and Employers. The gap in perceptions of new grads’ competency proficiency- and resources to shrink it. https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/the-gap-in-perceptions-of-new-grads-competency-proficiency-and-resources-to-shrink-it

Hough, T. M., Hixson, M. D., Decker, D., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (2012). The effectiveness of an explicit instruction writing program for second graders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21(2), 163-174.

Jimenez, L., & Sargrad, S. (2016). The cost of catching up: How remedial education impacts students and families. Center for American Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/12082511/CostOfCatchingUp-reportINTRO.pdf

Linville, C. (2021). Real World Writing: What Employers Expect. Sacramento State University. https://webpages.csus.edu/~sac16141/RealWorldWriting.pdf

Matsumura, L. C., Correnti, R., & Wang, E. (2015). Classroom writing tasks and students' analytic text‐based writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 417-438.

Phillips, R. R. (2022). Who do you trust? In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum windows redux: What curriculum theorists can teach us about schools and society today (pp. 359–369). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-64802-971-420251031

Rose, T., and Flatby, T. (July 14, 2022). From College to Career Success. Inside Higher Ed. Employers of recent grads rate their skills (opinion)

Troia, G. A., Olinghouse, N. G., Zhang, M., Wilson, J., Stewart, K. A., Mo, Y., & Hawkins, L. (2018). Content and alignment of state writing standards and assessments as predictors of student writing achievement: An analysis of 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress data. Reading and Writing, 31(4), 835-864.