Mathematics 2011

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS AT GRADES 4 AND 8

U.S. Department of Education NCES 2012-458

Contents
1 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 9 Grade 4 34 Grade 8 58 NAEP Inclusion 60 Technical Notes 64 Appendix Tables

What Is The Nation’s Report Card™?
The Nation’s Report Card™ informs the public about the academic achievement of elementary and secondary students in the United States. Report cards communicate the findings of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a continuing and nationally representative measure of achievement in various subjects over time. Since 1969, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and other subjects. NAEP collects and reports information on student performance at the national and state levels, making the assessment an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only academic achievement data and related background information are collected. The privacy of individual students and their families is protected. NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible for carrying out the NAEP project. The National Assessment Governing Board oversees and sets policy for NAEP.
Photo Credits:
© Bill Denison Photography; © Frederic Cirou/PhotoAlto/Corbis #42-26277308; © Ocean/Corbis #42-28148561; © Jose Luis Pelaez, Inc./Blend Images/Corbis; © Comstock/Getty Images #86803754; © David Buffington /Photodisc/Getty Images #ED000670; © Avava/Veer #1555409; © Blend Images/Punchstock #119702398; © Chris Schmidt/track5/iStock #11619460; © Ann Cutting/Brand X Pictures/Getty Images #78316943; © Hasan Shaheed/Shutterstock #42138193; © Image Source/Getty Images #88623945; © Tetra images/Punchstock #119706866; © Digital Vision/PunchStock #dv1807047

Executive Summary
Nationally representative samples of 209,000 fourth-graders and 175,200 eighthgraders participated in the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics. At each grade, students responded to questions designed to measure what they know and can do across five mathematics content areas: number properties and operations; measurement; geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra.

Both fourth- and eighth-graders score higher in 2011 than in previous assessment years
At grade 4, the average mathematics score in 2011 was 1 point higher than in 2009, and 28 points higher than in 1990 (figure A). • Scores were higher in 2011 than in 2009 for White, Black, and Hispanic students but did not change significantly for Asian/Pacific Islander or American Indian/Alaska Native students. There were no significant changes in the White – Black or White – Hispanic score gaps from 2009 to 2011. • Scores were higher in 2011 than in 2009 for both male and female students. At grade 8, the average mathematics score in 2011 was 1 point higher than in 2009, and 21 points higher than in 1990. • The average score for Hispanic students was higher in 2011 than in 2009, and the White – Hispanic score gap was smaller than in 2009. There were no other significant changes from 2009 to 2011 in the scores for other racial/ ethnic groups. • Female students scored higher in 2011 than in 2009, but the score for male students was not significantly different from the score in 2009.

Figure A. Trend in fourth- and eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores

Grade 4

Grade 8

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990-2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

1

Highest percentages to date of fourth- and eighth-graders performing at or above the Proficient level
At grade 4, the percentages of students performing at or above the Proficient level and at Advanced were higher in 2011 than in any of the previous assessment years (figure B). The percentage of students at or above Basic did not change significantly from 2009 to 2011. Eighty-two percent of students had at least a basic knowledge of fourth-grade mathematics in 2011 compared to 50 percent of students in 1990. Figure B. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level results
% at Advanced % at or above Proficient % at or above Basic

% at Advanced % at or above Proficient % at or above Basic

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

At grade 8, the percentage of students at or above Proficient in 2011 was higher than in earlier assessment years (figure C). The percentages at or above Basic and at Advanced in 2011 were not significantly different from 2009 but were higher than in 1990. Seventy-three percent of students had at least a basic knowledge of eighth-grade mathematics in 2011 compared to 52 percent in 1990. Figure C. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level results
% at Advanced % at or above Proficient % at or above Basic

% at Advanced % at or above Proficient % at or above Basic

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

Examples of knowledge and skills demonstrated by students performing at each achievement level
Basic
• Compute the difference of two 4-digit numbers (grade 4). • Identify congruent angles in a figure (grade 8).

Advanced
• Solve a story problem involving time (grade 4). • Compare similar parallelograms (grade 8).

Proficient
• Draw a line segment of a given length (grade 4). • Use an algebraic model to estimate height (grade 8).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990-2011 Mathematics Assessments.

2

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Scores in 18 states and jurisdictions higher than in 2009 at grade 4 or 8 and lower in 2 states
Changes in average mathematics scores for public school students from 2009 to 2011
Both grades Grade 4 only Alabama Arizona Georgia Maryland Wyoming New York Grade 8 only Arkansas Colorado Maine Mississippi Nevada Missouri Ohio Oklahoma Texas West Virginia

Higher

District of Columbia Hawaii New Mexico Rhode Island

Lower

Scores were not significantly different from 2009 at either grade in 32 states and jurisdictions.

Other information presented in this report
• Results in 2011 for additional racial/ethnic groups • Calculator use at grade 4 • Mathematics coursetaking at grade 8

Score gaps narrow in some states
At grade 4
White – Black score gaps narrowed from 1992 to 2011 in 16 of 35 participating states with samples large enough to report results for Black students. Alabama California Delaware Florida Georgia Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi New Jersey New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Texas Virginia White – Hispanic score gaps narrowed from 1992 to 2011 in 4 of 21 participating states with samples large enough to report results for Hispanic students. Massachusetts New Jersey New York Rhode Island

Racial/ethnic gaps did not widen from 1992 to 2011 in any of the states that participated in both years.

At grade 8
Score gaps between higher- and lowerincome students narrowed from 2003 to 2011 in four states. Georgia Illinois Massachusetts New York Score gaps between higher- and lowerincome students widened from 2003 to 2011 in one jurisdiction. District of Columbia

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Higher-income students are not eligible for NSLP.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

3

Introduction
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics assessment measures students’ knowledge and skills in mathematics and students’ ability to apply their knowledge in problem-solving situations. The results from the 2011 assessment presented in this report are compared to those from previous years, showing how students’ performance in mathematics has changed over time.

The Mathematics Framework
The National Assessment Governing Board oversees the development of NAEP frameworks that describe the specific knowledge and skills to be assessed in each subject. Frameworks incorporate ideas and input from subject area experts, school administrators, policymakers, teachers, parents, and others. NAEP frameworks also describe the types of questions to be included and how they should be designed and scored.

4

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Mathematics content areas
To ensure an appropriate balance of content and allow for a variety of ways of knowing and doing mathematics, the Mathematics Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress specifies that each question in the assessment measure one of five mathematical content areas. Although the names of the content areas, as well as some of the topics in those areas, have changed over the years, there has been a consistent focus across frameworks on collecting information on students’ performance in the following five areas: Number properties and operations measures students’ understanding of ways to represent, calculate, and estimate with numbers. At grade 4, number properties and operations questions focus on computation with or understanding of whole numbers and common fractions and decimals. At grade 8, questions measure computation with rational and common irrational numbers as well as students’ ability to solve problems using proportional reasoning and apply properties of select number systems. Measurement assesses students’ knowledge of units of measurement for such attributes as capacity, length, area, volume, time, angles, and rates. At grade 4, measurement questions focus on customary units such as inch, quart, pound, and hour, and common metric units such as centimeter, liter, and gram, as well as the geometric attribute of length. At grade 8, questions concentrate on the use of square units for measuring area and surface area, cubic units for measuring volume, degrees for measuring angles, and rates. Geometry measures students’ knowledge and understanding of shapes in two and three dimensions, and relationships between shapes such as symmetry and transformations. At grade 4, geometry questions focus on simple figures and their attributes, including plane figures such as triangles and circles and solid figures such as cubes and spheres. At grade 8, questions address the properties of plane figures, especially parallel and perpendicular lines, angle relationships in polygons, cross sections of solids, and the Pythagorean theorem. Data analysis, statistics, and probability measures students’ understanding of data representation, characteristics of data sets, experiments and samples, and probability. At grade 4, data analysis, statistics, and probability questions focus on students’ understanding of how data are collected and organized, how to read and interpret various representations of data, and basic concepts of probability. At grade 8, questions address organizing and summarizing data (including tables, charts, and graphs), analyzing statistical claims, and probability. Algebra measures students’ understanding of patterns, using variables, algebraic representation, and functions. At grade 4, algebra questions measure students’ understanding of algebraic representation, patterns, and rules; graphing points on a line or a grid; and using symbols to represent unknown quantities. At grade 8, questions measure students’ understanding of patterns and functions; algebraic expressions, equations, and inequalities; and algebraic representations, including graphs.

Mathematics Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress
The complete mathematics framework for the 2011 assessment is available at http://www.nagb.org/ publications/frameworks/ math-2011-framework.pdf and contains detailed information on the mathematical content areas, levels of complexity, format of assessment questions, and assessment design. Updates to the framework over the years have provided more detail regarding the assessment design for grades 4 and 8 but have not changed the content, allowing for the comparison of students’ performance in 2011 to previous assessment years.

Levels of mathematical complexity
The framework describes three levels of mathematical complexity that reflect the cognitive demands that questions make on students’ thinking. Low complexity questions typically specify what a student is to do, which is often to carry out a routine mathematical procedure. Moderate complexity questions involve more flexibility of thinking and often require a response with multiple steps. High complexity questions make heavier demands on students’ thinking and often require abstract reasoning or analysis in a novel situation.
MATHEMATICS 2011 5

Mathematical complexity involves what a question asks students to do and not how they might undertake it. The complexity of a question is not directly related to its format, and therefore it is possible for some multiple-choice questions to assess complex mathematics and for some constructed-response (i.e., open-ended) questions to assess routine mathematical ideas.

Assessment Design
Because the 2011 mathematics assessment covered a breadth of content and included more questions than any one student could answer, each student took just a portion of the assessment. The 158 questions that made up the entire fourth-grade assessment were divided into 10 sections, each containing between 15 and 19 questions, depending on the balance between multiple-choice and constructed-response (i.e., open-ended) questions. The eighth-grade assessment contained 155 questions that were divided into 10 sections of between 14 and 17 questions. At both grades, each student responded to questions in two 25-minute sections. Some questions incorporated the use of rulers (at grade 4) or ruler/protractors (at grade 8), and some questions incorporated the use of geometric shapes or other manipulatives that were provided for students. Twenty percent of the fourth-grade assessment allowed for the use of a four-function calculator that was provided to students. Thirty percent of the eighth-grade assessment allowed for the use of a scientific or graphing calculator; students could either use their own calculator or one provided by NAEP. The proportion of assessment questions devoted to each of the five content areas varied by grade to reflect the differences in emphasis in each area specified in the framework (table 1). The largest portion of the fourth-grade assessment focused on number properties and operations (40 percent), and the largest portion of the eighth-grade assessment focused on algebra (30 percent). Table 1. Target percentage distribution of NAEP mathematics questions, by grade and content area: 2011 Content area Number properties and operations Measurement Geometry Data analysis, statistics, and probability Algebra Grade 4 40 20 15 10 15 Grade 8 20 15 20 15 30

Reporting NAEP Results
The 2011 mathematics assessment results are based on nationally representative samples of 209,000 fourth-graders from 8,500 schools and 175,200 eighth-graders from 7,610 schools. Because the elementary schools participating in NAEP are given the option of including all of their fourth-grade students in the sample, and fourth-grade response rates are typically higher, the number of students assessed at grade 4 is larger than the number of students at grade 8. Results for the nation reflect the performance of students attending public schools (including charter schools), private schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and Department of Defense schools. Results for states and other jurisdictions reflect the performance of students in public schools only and are reported along with the results for public school students in the nation.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board, Mathematics Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2010.

6

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Scale scores
NAEP mathematics results for grades 4 and 8 are reported as average scores on a 0–500 scale. Because NAEP scales are developed independently for each subject, scores cannot be compared across subjects. In addition to reporting an overall mathematics score for each grade, scores are reported at five percentiles to show trends in results for students performing at lower (10th and 25th percentiles), middle (50th percentile), and higher (75th and 90th percentiles) levels.

Explore Additional Results
Not all of the results from the NAEP mathematics assessment are presented in this report. Additional results (including average scores in each of the five mathematical content areas) can be found on the Nation’s Report Card website at http:// nationsreportcard.gov/ mathematics_2011/ and in the NAEP Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/ naepdata/.

Achievement levels
Based on recommendations from policymakers, educators, and members of the general public, the Governing Board sets specific achievement levels for each subject area and grade. Achievement levels are performance standards showing what students should know and be able to do. NAEP results are reported as percentages of students performing at or above the Basic and Proficient levels and at the Advanced level. Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. Proficient represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter. Advanced represents superior performance. As provided by law, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), upon review of congressionally mandated evaluations of NAEP, has determined that achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted with caution. The NAEP achievement levels have been widely used by national and state officials.

MATHEMATICS 2011

7

Interpreting the Results

Differences in performance over time and between student groups
National results from the 2011 mathematics assessment are compared to results from eight previous assessment years for both grades 4 and 8. State results from 2011 are compared to results from seven earlier assessments at grade 4 and eight earlier assessments at grade 8. Changes in students’ performance over time are summarized by comparing the results in 2011 to 2009 and the first assessment year, except when pointing out consistent patterns across assessment years. NAEP reports results using widely accepted statistical standards; findings are reported based on a statistical significance level set at .05 with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons (see the Technical Notes for more information). An asterisk (*) is used in tables and figures to indicate that an earlier year’s score or percentage is significantly different from the 2011 results. Only those differences that are found to be statistically significant are discussed as higher or lower. The same standard applies when comparing the performance of one student group to another. A score that is significantly higher or lower in comparison to an earlier assessment year is reliable evidence that student performance has changed. However, NAEP is not designed to identify the causes of these changes. Although comparisons are made in students’ performance based on demographic characteristics and educational experiences, the results cannot be used to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between student characteristics and achievement. Many factors may influence student achievement, including educational policies and practices, available resources, and the demographic characteristics of the student body. These factors may change over time and vary among student groups.

Accommodations and exclusions in NAEP
It is important to assess all selected students from the population, including students with disabilities (SD) and English language learners (ELL). To accomplish this goal, many of the same accommodations that students use on other tests (e.g., extra testing time or individual rather than group administration) are provided for SD and ELL students participating in NAEP. Accommodations were first made available in mathematics at the national level in 1996 and at the state level in 2000. Prior to 1996, no accommodations were provided in the NAEP mathematics assessments. Because providing accommodations represented a change in testing conditions that could potentially affect the measurement of changes over time, split samples of students were assessed nationally in 1996 and at the state level in 2000. In each of these years, accommodations were permitted in one sample and were not permitted in the other. Although the results for both samples are presented in the tables and figures, any comparisons to these years in the text are based on only the accommodated samples. Even with the availability of accommodations, some students may still be excluded. Differences in student populations and in state policies and practices for identifying and including SD and ELL students should be considered when comparing variations in exclusion and accommodation rates. States and jurisdictions also vary in their proportions of special-needs students (especially ELL students). The National Assessment Governing Board has been exploring ways to reduce variation in exclusion rates for SD and ELL students across states and districts. See the section in this report on NAEP Inclusion for more information about the Governing Board’s new policy on inclusion.

8

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

Fourth-graders post highest score to date
The average mathematics score for the nation’s fourth-graders in 2011 was higher than the scores in the eight previous assessment years (figure 1). Students scored 1 point higher in 2011 than in 2009 and 28 points higher than in 1990. Other national results highlighted in this section show higher scores in 2011 than 2009 for White, Black, and Hispanic students; both male and female students; and students from lower- and higher-income families. State results show higher scores in 2011 than 2009 for 9 of the 52 participating states and jurisdictions, and a lower score in 1 state. Figure 1. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

9

GRADE

4

Scores higher than in 2009 for all but the lowest-performing students
Scores were higher in 2011 than in 2009 for students at each of the percentiles reported on except the 10th percentile, at which there was no significant change in comparison to 2009 (figure 2). Scores at all five percentiles were higher in 2011 than in 1990, with larger gains for lower-performing students at the 10th and 25th percentiles than for higher-performing students at the 90th percentile. Figure 2. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics percentile scores

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

10

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

A closer look at some of the background characteristics of lower- and higher-performing students
Profiles of students scoring at the lower end of the scale (below the 25th percentile) and those scoring at the higher end (above the 75th percentile) show how the two groups differed demographically. Among fourth-graders who scored below the 25th percentile (i.e., below a score of 222) in 2011, • 31% were White, 28% were Black, 34% were Hispanic, and 2% were Asian; • 74% were eligible for free/reducedprice school lunch; • 24% were identified as students with disabilities; and • 22% were identified as English language learners. Among fourth-graders who scored above the 75th percentile (i.e., above a score of 261) in 2011, • 72% were White, 5% were Black, 10% were Hispanic, and 10% were Asian; • 23% were eligible for free/reducedprice school lunch; • 4% were identified as students with disabilities; and • 3% were identified as English language learners.

The percentages of students performing at or above Proficient and at Advanced were higher in 2011 than in any of the previous assessment years (figure 3). The percentage of students at or above Basic did not change significantly from 2009 to 2011 but was higher in 2011 than in 1990. Figure 3. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level results

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

% at Advanced % at or above

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

11

GRADE

4

White, Black, and Hispanic students make gains; gaps persist
Average scores for White, Black, and Hispanic students were higher in 2011 than in any of the previous assessment years (figures 4 and 5). The 25-point score gap between White and Black students in 2011 was not significantly different from the gap in 2009. However, larger gains from 1990 to 2011 for Black students than for White students contributed to a smaller gap in 2011 in comparison to the first assessment year. The 20-point score gap between White and Hispanic students in 2011 was not significantly different from the gap in either 2009 or 1990. Figure 4. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for White and Black students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Black includes African American. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores.

Figure 5. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for White and Hispanic students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: White excludes students of Hispanic origin. Hispanic includes Latino. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

12

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

The average score for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2011 did not change significantly from the score in 2009 but was higher than the score in 1990 (figure 6). Asian/Pacific Islander students scored 7 points higher on average than White students in 2011, which was unchanged from the score gap in 2009. The average score for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 2011 was not significantly different from the score in 2009 (figure 7). The 24-point score gap between American Indian/ Alaska Native and White students in 2011 was also not significantly different from the gap in 2009. Figure 6. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for Asian/Pacific Islander and White students

1 Score gaps reflect the average score for Asian/Pacific Islander students minus the score for White students. NOTE: Special analyses raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2000; therefore, they are omitted from this figure. Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Score differences between Asian/Pacific Islander and White students were not found to be statistically significant in 1990, 1992, and 1996.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

Figure 7. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for White and American Indian/Alaska Native students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Sample sizes were insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 1990, 1992, and 1996 (accommodations-not-permitted sample). Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. The score difference between White and American Indian/Alaska Native students was not found to be statistically significant in 1996.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

13

GRADE

4

The percentage of White fourth-graders was smaller in 2011 than in any of the earlier assessment years, and the percentage of Hispanic students was larger (table 2). In comparison to the first assessment year in 1990, the percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander students was larger in 2011, and the percentage of Black students was smaller. Table 2. Percentage distribution of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity: Various years, 1990–2011
Race/ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races 19901 75* 18* 6* 1* 1* #* 19921 73* 17* 6* 2* 1* 1* 1996 66* 16 11* 5 1 1* 2000 64* 16 15* ‡ 1 1* 2003 60* 17* 18* 4* 1 1* 2005 58* 16* 19* 4* 1 1* 2007 57* 16 20* 5 1 1* 2009 56* 16 21* 5 1 2* 2011 54 15 22 5 1 2

# Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Special analyses raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2000; therefore, they are omitted from this table. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. 1 Accommodations not permitted. NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Prior to 2011, students in the two or more races category were categorized as unclassified. The percentages of American Indian/Alaska Native students in 1990 (0.56) and 1992 (0.56) were significantly different from the percentage in 2011 (1.10). Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

NAEP Results for Newly Reported Racial/Ethnic Groups
In compliance with new standards from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for collecting and reporting data on race/ethnicity, additional information on students’ race/ethnicity was collected in 2011 so that results could be reported separately for Asian students, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students, and students categorized as being two or more races (multiracial). See the Technical Notes for more information. The average score in 2011 for Asian students was higher than the scores for all other reported racial/ethnic groups (table 3). Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students scored higher on average than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students, but lower than White and multiracial students. The score for multiracial students was higher than the scores for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students, but lower than the score for White students. Table 3. Percentage of students, average scores, and achievement-level results in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by selected racial/ethnic groups: 2011
Percentage of students Selected racial/ethnic groups Asian Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Two or more races Percentage of students 5 # 2 Average scale score 257 236 245 Below Basic 7 23 13 At Basic 28 43 42 At Proficient 44 28 35 At Advanced 20 7 10

# Rounds to zero. NOTE: Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

14

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

Percentages of Hispanic students at Proficient and Advanced higher than in 2009
A closer look at achievement-level results shows where improvements were made for different racial/ethnic groups. The percentages of Hispanic students performing at Proficient and at Advanced were higher in 2011 than in 2009 (figure 8). The percentage of White students at Advanced was also higher in 2011 than in 2009. There was no significant change from 2009 to 2011 in the percentages of students in any of the five racial/ethnic groups performing below or at the Basic level. In comparison to 1990, the percentage of students performing below the Basic level was lower in 2011, and the percentage at Proficient was higher for all the racial/ethnic groups with samples large enough to report results. The percentages of Black and Hispanic students at Basic were higher in 2011 than in 1990, and the percentage of White students at Advanced was higher. Higher percentages of Black and American Indian/Alaska Native students than other racial/ethnic groups continued to perform below Basic in 2011. The percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander students at Advanced was higher than the percentages of other racial/ethnic groups in 2011.

MATHEMATICS 2011

15

GRADE

4

Figure 8. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level results, by race/ethnicity

# Rounds to zero. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. 1 Accommodations not permitted. NOTE: Special analyses raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2000; therefore, they are omitted from this figure. Sample sizes were insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 1990 and 1992. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified or two or more races. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

16

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

No significant change in gender gap from 2009
In 2011, male students scored 1 point higher on average than female students (figure 9). Scores for both male and female students were higher in 2011 than in any of the earlier assessment years. The average score for male students in 2011 (241.4) was 1 point higher than the score in 2009 (240.6), and the average score for female students was also 1 point higher. Figure 9. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps, by gender

# Rounds to zero. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Score differences between male and female students were not found to be statistically significant in 1990, 1992, 1996 (accommodations-permitted sample), and 2000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

17

GRADE

4

Private school students score higher than those in public schools
In 2011, the average mathematics score for fourth-graders attending public schools was 7 points lower than the overall score for students attending private schools, and 5 points lower than for students attending Catholic schools specifically (figure 10). There may be many reasons why private school students perform differently, on average, from public school students. Differences in demographic composition, availability of resources, admissions policies, parental involvement, and other factors not measured in NAEP may influence student achievement scores. The average score for public school students was 1 point higher in 2011 than in 2009, while there was no significant change in the score for private school students overall or for Catholic school students over the same period. Scores for all three groups were higher in 2011 than in 1990; however, the 7-point score gap between private and public school students in 2011 was not significantly different from the gap in 1990. Figure 10. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by type of school

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian private schools. Results are not shown for private schools in 2005 because the participation rates fell below the required standards for reporting.

Ninety-two percent of fourth-graders attended public schools in 2011, and 8 percent attended private schools, including 4 percent in Catholic schools (table 4). In comparison to 1990, the percentage of students attending public schools in 2011 was larger, and the percentage attending private schools was smaller. Table 4. Percentage distribution of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by type of school: Various years, 1990–2011
Type of school Public Private Catholic
1

19901 89* 11* 7*

19921 88* 12* 8*

1996 89* 11* 8*

2000 90* 10* 5*

2003 90* 10* 5*

2005 90* 10 5*

2007 91* 9* 4*

2009 91 9 4

2011 92 8 4

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

Accommodations not permitted. NOTE: Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian private schools. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

18

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

Highest scores to date for students across income levels
Students’ eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is used in NAEP as an indicator of family income. Students from lower-income families are eligible for either free or reduced-price school lunches, while students from higher-income families are not (see the Technical Notes for eligibility criteria). Because of the improved quality of the data on students’ eligibility in more recent years, results are only compared back to 2003. Average mathematics scores were higher in 2011 than in earlier assessment years both for students who were eligible for free and reduced-price school lunch, as well as for students who were not eligible (figure 11). In 2011, fourth-graders who were eligible for free lunch scored 24 points lower on average than those not eligible. Students eligible for reduced-price lunch scored 13 points lower than those not eligible. Figure 11. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

In comparison to previous assessment years, the percentage of fourth-graders eligible for free school lunch was larger in 2011, and the percentages of students eligible for reduced-price school lunch or not eligible for NSLP were smaller (table 5). Table 5. Percentage distribution of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: Various years, 2003–11
Eligibility status Eligible for free lunch Eligible for reduced-price lunch Not eligible Information not available
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

2003 33* 8* 50* 10*

2005 35* 7* 50* 8*

2007 36* 6* 52* 7

2009 38* 6* 49* 7*

2011 43 5 46 6

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 2003–11 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

19

GRADE

4

More students have teachers not permitting calculators during mathematics lessons in 2011 than in previous years
Teachers reported on the extent to which they permitted students to use calculators during mathematics lessons. Teachers selected one of three responses indicating “unrestricted use,” “restricted use,” or “calculators are not permitted.” Sixty-two percent of fourth-graders had teachers who reported permitting the restricted use of calculators in 2011 (table 6). Because teachers were asked the same question as part of the 2005, 2007, and 2009 assessments, the percentages can be compared over time. A higher percentage of students had teachers who did not permit the use of calculators in 2011 than in earlier assessment years, while the percentage permitting restricted use was lower in 2011 than in earlier years. Table 6. Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by the extent of calculator use in mathematics lessons: Various years, 2005–11
Extent of calculator use Unrestricted use Restricted use Calculators are not permitted
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

2005 5* 75* 20*

2007 4 69* 27*

2009 4 67* 29*

2011 4 62 34

The extent to which students had teachers who permitted calculator use for mathematics lessons was different for those who were or were not eligible for NSLP. The percentage of students whose teachers permitted restricted use of calculators was higher for students who were not eligible for NSLP than for students who were eligible, and the percentage of students whose teachers did not permit them to use calculators was higher for eligible students (figure 12). Figure 12. Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch and extent of calculator use in mathematics lessons: 2011

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 2005–11 Mathematics Assessments.

20 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

In 2011, students whose teachers permitted restricted use of calculators during mathematics lessons scored higher on average than students whose teachers allowed unrestricted use or did not permit the use of calculators (figure 13). Figure 13. Average scores in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by teachers’ responses to a question about the extent to which their students use calculators during mathematics lessons: 2011

Explore Additional Results
Results for other background questions from the fourth-grade student, teacher, and school questionnaires are available in the NAEP Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/ naepdata/.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

21

State Performance at Grade 4
NAEP state results make it possible to examine the progress of students in each participating state over time. The national and state results presented in this section are for public school students only and may differ from the national results presented earlier that are based on data for both public and private school students. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Department of Defense schools participated in the 2011 mathematics assessment. These 52 states and jurisdictions are all referred to as “states” in the following summary of results. State results for grade 4 are also available for seven earlier assessment years (table 7). While all states have participated in the assessments since 2003, not all have participated or met the criteria for reporting in earlier assessment years.

Scores higher than in 2009 for students in nine states and lower in one state
The map below highlights changes in states’ average fourth-grade mathematics scores from 2009 to 2011 (figure 14). Scores were higher in 2011 than in 2009 in Alabama, Arizona, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Wyoming. The average score in New York was lower in 2011 than in 2009. Forty percent1 of fourth-grade public school students performed at or above the Proficient level in 2011, with percentages ranging from 22 percent1 in the District of Columbia to 58 percent in Massachusetts (figure 15). Among the nine states that had higher average scores in 2011 than in 2009, only Arizona and the District of Columbia also had higher percentages of students at or above Proficient in 2011 (see appendix table A-14).
1

Figure 14. Changes in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores between 2009 and 2011

The percentage is based on the sum of the unrounded percentages as opposed to the rounded percentages shown in the figure.

Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).
1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 and 2011 Mathematics Assessments.

22 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

Table 7. Average scores in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1992–2011
Accommodations not permitted State/jurisdiction       Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 1992 219* 208* — 215* 210* 208* 221* 227* 218* 214* 216* 214* 222* — 221* 230* — 215* 204* 232* 217* 227* 220* 228* 202* 222* — 225* — 230* 227* 213* 218* 213* 229* 219* 220* — 224* 215* 212* — 211* 218* 224* — 221* — 215* 229* 225* 193* — 1996 222* 212* 224* 218* 216* 209* 226* 232* 215* 216* 215* 215* — — 229* 229* — 220* 209* 232* 221* 229* 226* 232* 208* 225* 228* 228* 218* — 227* 214* 223* 224* 231* — — 223* 226* 220* 213* — 219* 229* 227* 225* 223* 225* 223* 231* 223* 187* 224* 2000 226* 218* — 219* 217* 214* — 234* — — 220* 216* 227* 225* 234* 233* 232* 221* 218* 231* 222* 235* 231* 235* 211* 229* 230* 226* 220* — — 214* 227* 232* 231* 231* 225* 227* — 225* 220* — 220* 233* 227* 232* 230* — 225* — 229* 193* 228* 2000 224* 217* — 219* 216* 213* — 234* — — 219* 216* 224* 223* 233* 231* 232* 219* 218* 230* 222* 233* 229* 234* 211* 228* 228* 225* 220* — — 213* 225* 230* 230* 230* 224* 224* — 224* 220* — 220* 231* 227* 232* 230* — 223* — 229* 192* 227* 2003 234*  223* 233* 229* 229* 227* 235* 241 236* 234* 230* 227* 235* 233* 238* 238* 242* 229* 226* 238* 233* 242* 236 242* 223* 235* 236* 236* 228* 243* 239* 223* 236 242* 238* 238* 229* 236 236* 230* 236 237* 228* 237* 235* 242* 239* 238* 231* 237* 241* 205* 237* Accommodations permitted 2005 237*  225* 236 230* 236 230* 239* 242 240 239 234* 230* 242 233* 240* 240* 246 231* 230 241* 238* 247* 238 246* 227* 235* 241* 238 230* 246* 244* 224* 238 241* 243* 242 234* 238 241* 233* 238 242 232 242 239* 244* 240* 242 231* 241* 243 211* 239* 2007 239*  229 237 232* 238 230* 240* 243 242* 242 235* 234* 241 237 245 243 248 235* 230 242 240* 252 238 247 228 239 244 238 232* 249* 249 228* 243* 242* 245 245 237 236 244 236* 237 241 233 242 239* 246 244 243 236 244 244 214* 240 2009 239*  228* 237 230* 238 232 243 245 239 242 236* 236* 241 238 243 243 245 239 229 244 244* 252 236 249 227 241 244 239 235 251 247 230* 241* 244 245 244 237 238 244 239* 236 242 232 240 240 248 243 242 233 244 242* 219* 240 2011 240 231 236 235 238 234 244 242 240 240 238 239 240 239 244 243 246 241 231 244 247 253 236 249 230 240 244 240 237 252 248 233 238 245 245 244 237 237 246 242 237 241 233 241 243 247 245 243 235 245 244 222 241

— Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

23

GRADE

4

Figure 15. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: 2011

Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.
1

24 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

States vary in racial/ethnic makeup
The performance of students in individual states should be interpreted in the context of differences in their demographic makeup. For example, the proportions of students from different racial/ethnic groups reported in NAEP varied widely across states in 2011 (figure 16). • White students made up the largest proportion of fourth-grade public school students in the nation (52 percent), with percentages in the states ranging from 8 percent in the District of Columbia to 92 percent in Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia. • Black students made up 16 percent of fourth-grade public school students nationally, ranging from 1 percent of the students in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to 77 percent in the District of Columbia. • Hispanic students made up 24 percent of fourth-grade public school students in the nation, ranging from 1 percent of the students in Vermont and West Virginia to 60 percent in New Mexico. • Asian students made up 5 percent of fourth-grade public school students in the nation but over one-third of the students in Hawaii (36 percent). • American Indian/Alaska Native students made up 1 percent of fourth-grade public school students in the nation but about one-fifth of the students in Alaska (23 percent) and in Oklahoma (18 percent). Although not shown in the figure, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students made up 33 percent of the students in Hawaii, and 2 percent or less of the students in all the other states. The Department of Defense schools had the highest proportion of multiracial students (11 percent); 8 percent or less of the students in other states identified with two or more races. Almost all of the states that participated in the mathematics assessment in 1992 had larger percentages of Hispanic students and smaller percentages of White students in 2011 (see appendix table A-12). There were no significant changes in the percentages of Hispanic students in New York or White students in Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, or Tennessee; and the percentages of White students in the District of Columbia and Mississippi were higher in 2011 than in 1992.

State Profiles
Additional information on each state’s school and student populations and their performance on NAEP assessments is available at http://nces .ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ states/.

White – Black score gaps narrow from 1992 in 16 states, and White – Hispanic score gaps narrow in 4 states
Average mathematics scores for White, Black, and Hispanic students were higher in 2011 than in 1992 for fourth-graders in the nation and in all the states that participated in both assessment years and had samples large enough to report results for each group (figure 17). The White – Black score gap narrowed from 1992 to 2011 in 16 of the 35 states with samples large enough to report results for Black students. The White – Hispanic gap narrowed from 1992 to 2011 in 4 of the 21 states with samples large enough to report results for Hispanic students. Both the White – Black and White – Hispanic score gaps narrowed in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.

MATHEMATICS 2011

25

GRADE

4

Figure 16. Percentage range of fourth-grade public school students assessed in NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity: 2011
White Black

Hispanic

Asian

American Indian/Alaska Native

Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander or two or more races.
1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

26 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

Figure 17. Changes between 1992 and 2011 NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for fourth-grade public school students, by selected race/ethnicity categories and state/jurisdiction
Race/ethnicity State/jurisdiction   Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Overall White Black Hispanic Score gap White – Black Narrowed Narrowed — Narrowed Narrowed Narrowed Narrowed White – Hispanic Narrowed —

p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
— — — — — — — — — —

p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
— — — — — — — — — —

p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
— — — — —

p p

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

p p p p p p
— —

t t t t t
‡ ‡

t

‡ ‡

t t t t t t
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

t t

— —

— Narrowed Narrowed Narrowed Narrowed Narrowed — — Narrowed Narrowed Narrowed

p p

Narrowed

t

t t t

p

— — Narrowed Narrowed

t

p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
— — — —

p p p

t t t t t t
‡ ‡

t
‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

p p p
— —

— Narrowed — Narrowed — Narrowed —

— Narrowed —

t
‡ ‡

t

‡ ‡

p p
— —

‡ ‡

— —

t t
‡ ‡

p p p

t t

t t

p

t

t

p Higher in 2011. — State/jurisdiction did not participate in 1992. t Not significantly different from 2011. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Included in the overall results but not shown separately are students whose race/ethnicity was Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, unclassified, or two or more races. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 2011 Mathematics Assessments.
1

MATHEMATICS 2011

27

Assessment Content at Grade 4
Additional insight into students’ performance on the NAEP mathematics assessment can be obtained by examining what fourth-graders are expected to know and be able to do and how they performed on some of the assessment questions designed to measure their knowledge and skills.

Mathematics Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 4
NAEP mathematics achievement-level descriptions outline expectations of student performance at each grade. The specific descriptions of what fourth-graders should know and be able to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced mathematics achievement levels are presented below. (Note that the shaded text is a short, general summary to describe performance at each achievement level.) NAEP achievement levels are cumulative; therefore, students performing at the Proficient level also display the competencies associated with the Basic level, and students at the Advanced level also demonstrate the skills and knowledge associated with both the Basic and the Proficient levels. The cut score indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is noted in parentheses.

Basic (214)
Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should show some evidence of understanding the mathematical concepts and procedures in the five NAEP content areas.
Fourth-graders performing at the Basic level should be able to estimate and use basic facts to perform simple computations with whole numbers; show some understanding of fractions and decimals; and solve some simple real-world problems in all NAEP content areas. Students at this level should be able to use—although not always accurately—four-function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes. Their written responses are often minimal and presented without supporting information.

Proficient (249)
Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should consistently apply integrated procedural knowledge and conceptual understanding to problem solving in the five NAEP content areas.
Fourth-graders performing at the Proficient level should be able to use whole numbers to estimate, compute, and determine whether results are reasonable. They should have a conceptual understanding of fractions and decimals; be able to solve real-world problems in all NAEP content areas; and use four-function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes appropriately. Students performing at the Proficient level should employ problem-solving strategies such as identifying and using appropriate information. Their written solutions should be organized and presented both with supporting information and explanations of how they were achieved.

Advanced (282)
Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should apply integrated procedural knowledge and conceptual understanding to complex and nonroutine real-world problem solving in the five NAEP content areas.
Fourth-graders performing at the Advanced level should be able to solve complex nonroutine real-world problems in all NAEP content areas. They should display mastery in the use of four-function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes. These students are expected to draw logical conclusions and justify answers and solution processes by explaining why, as well as how, they were achieved. They should go beyond the obvious in their interpretations and be able to communicate their thoughts clearly and concisely.

28 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

What Fourth-Graders Know and Can Do in Mathematics
The item map below is useful for understanding performance at different levels on the NAEP scale. The scale scores on the left represent the scores for students who were likely to get the items correct or complete. The cut score at the lower end of the range for each achievement level is boxed. The descriptions of selected assessment questions indicating what students need to do to answer the question correctly, along with the corresponding mathematics content areas, are listed on the right. For example, the map on this page shows that fourth-graders performing at the Basic level with a score of 216 were likely to be able to determine the measurements needed for computing area. Students performing at the Proficient level with a score of 279 were likely to be able to recognize and extend an algebraic pattern. Students performing at the Advanced level with a score of 290 were likely to be able to compare two sets of data presented graphically.

GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS ITEM MAP
Scale score
500

Content area

Question description

//
330 317 293 291 290 282 279 278 276 275 269 261 259 254 250 249 243 240 239 232 230 226 221 216 214 211 195 180 175

Number properties and operations Geometry Measurement Algebra Data analysis, statistics, and probability Algebra Number properties and operations Measurement Number properties and operations Geometry Number properties and operations Number properties and operations Data analysis, statistics, and probability Measurement Algebra Number properties and operations Number properties and operations Number properties and operations Number properties and operations Data analysis, statistics, and probability Geometry Measurement Number properties and operations Algebra Geometry Measurement

Compose numbers using place value to determine winners of a game Divide a square into various shapes Solve a story problem involving time (calculator available) (shown on pages 32 and 33) Identify the growth relationship from a table (calculator available) Compare two sets of data using graphs Recognize and extend a growing pattern Order fractions with unlike denominators Draw a line segment of a given length Use place value to determine the total amount Compare simple figures to identify a common property (shown on page 31) Identify and use factors to solve a problem in context (calculator available) Use place value to find a sum Create a pictograph of a set of data (calculator available) Find areas of a scale drawing on a grid Label sections on a grid from a list of coordinates Determine the sum of numbers represented on a number line (calculator available) Explain a property of divisibility Compute the difference of two 4-digit numbers (shown on page 30) Solve a story problem involving division (calculator available) Identify the most likely outcome from a given spinner (calculator available) Describe a real-world object in terms of a geometric solid Identify measurements needed to determine area Compute the difference of fractions with like denominators Determine numerical value of an unknown quantity in a whole number sentence Identify a figure that is not symmetric (calculator available) Identify the appropriate measuring device for a given attribute

Basic

Proficient

Advanced

//
0

NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice question. The position of a question on the scale represents the scale score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question, or a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a four-option multiple-choice question. For constructed-response questions, the question description represents students’ performance rated as completely correct. Scale score ranges for mathematics achievement levels are referenced on the map. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

29

GRADE

4

Mathematics Content Area: Number Properties and Operations
Subtract:

A B C D

6,090 – 4,843 1,147 1,247 2,257 2,853

This multiple-choice question from the 2011 mathematics assessment asks students to answer a subtraction problem involving two 4-digit numbers. The problem requires students to regroup twice to obtain the correct answer of 1,247 (Choice B). Students were not permitted to use a calculator to answer this question. Seventy-four percent of fourth-grade students answered this question correctly. The most common incorrect answer (Choice D), selected by 13 percent of the students, resulted from not doing any regrouping and just subtracting the smaller number from the corresponding larger number at each place value. Choices A and C, while selected less frequently, represent different regrouping errors.

Percentage of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Choice A 7 Choice B 74 Choice C 5 Choice D 13 Omitted 1

The table below shows the percentage of fourth-grade students performing at each achievement level who answered this question correctly. For example, 73 percent of fourth-graders at the Basic level selected the correct answer choice.

Percentage of fourth-grade students responding correctly at each achievement level: 2011
Overall 74 Below Basic 40 At Basic 73 At Proficient 90 At Advanced 97

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

30 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

Mathematics Content Area: Geometry

How are the right triangle and the rectangle alike? A Each figure has at least one right angle. B Each figure has parallel sides. C Each figure has at least one line of symmetry. D Each figure has at least two sides that are the same length.

This multiple-choice question measures student performance in the geometry content area. The question asks students to compare two geometric figures—a right triangle and a rectangle— and identify a property common to both figures. Students were not permitted to use a calculator on this question. Forty-nine percent of fourth-grade students were able to correctly recognize that each figure has at least one right angle (Choice A). The most common incorrect answer (Choice D), selected by 29 percent of students, may have been the result of misinterpreting the length of the hypotenuse as being equal in length to the longer leg of the right triangle.

Percentage of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Choice A 49 Choice B 9 Choice C 12 Choice D 29 Omitted 1

The table below shows the percentage of fourth-grade students performing at each achievement level who answered this question correctly. For example, 64 percent of fourth-graders at the Proficient level selected the correct answer choice.

Percentage of fourth-grade students responding correctly at each achievement level: 2011
Overall 49 Below Basic 28 At Basic 39 At Proficient 64 At Advanced 90

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

31

GRADE

4

Mathematics Content Area: Measurement

MOVIE TIMES
Early Show Late Show 3:15 7:30

The early show and the late show for a movie last the same amount of time. The early show begins at 3:15 P.M. and ends at 4:27 P.M. The late show begins at 7:30 P.M. At what time does the late show end? Show your work.

This short constructed-response question measures fourth-graders’ ability to perform computations using units of time. The first step requires students to determine the length of the movie from the starting and ending times of the early show. The second step requires that they add that length of time to the starting time of the late show. Students were permitted to use a calculator to solve this question. Responses were rated using three scoring levels. Correct responses gave an answer of 8:42 for the ending time of the late show and provided supporting work, which included either showing a computation for determining the length of the movie from the times of the early show (4:27 - 3:15 = 1:12, “1 hour and 12 minutes”), or showing the addition of 1:12 to 7:30. Partial responses did one of the following: • Gave an answer of 8:42 with no work or incorrect work, • Determined the length of the movie (1 hour and 12 minutes) but did not answer 8:42, or • Incorrectly determined the length of the movie but correctly used that time to determine the ending time of the late show. Incorrect responses gave an incorrect end time for the late show.

32 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

4

The student response shown below was rated as “Correct” because it provided the correct answer with supporting work. Thirty-one percent of fourth-graders’ responses to this question received a rating of “Correct.”

Explore Additional Sample Questions and Data
Additional sample questions from the NAEP mathematics assessment can be found in the NAEP Questions Tool (NQT) at http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/ landing.aspx. The NQT makes it possible to search for questions by subject, grade, difficulty, and other characteristics. You can view questions, scoring guides, sample student responses, and performance data, as well as create customized reports.

The student response shown below was rated as “Partial” because the ending time of the late show was correctly determined based on an incorrect time for the length of the movie. Eighteen percent of fourth-graders’ responses to this question received a rating of “Partial” for one of the reasons described on the previous page.

Percentage of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Correct 31 Partial 18 Incorrect 47 Omitted 4

The table below shows the percentage of fourth-graders performing at each achievement level who received a rating of “Correct” on the question. For example, 76 percent of students performing at the Advanced level provided a response rated as “Correct.”

Percentage of fourth-grade students’ responses rated as “Correct” at each achievement level: 2011
Overall 31 Below Basic 1 At Basic 19 At Proficient 52 At Advanced 76

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

33

GRADE

8

Eighth-graders score higher in 2011 than in previous assessment years
The average mathematics score for the nation’s eighth-graders in 2011 was higher than the scores in the eight previous assessment years (figure 18). Students scored 1 point higher in 2011 than in 2009 and 21 points higher than in 1990. Other national results show higher scores in 2011 than 2009 for Hispanic students, female students, and students from both lower- and higher-income families. State results show higher scores in 2011 than in 2009 for 13 of the 52 participating states and jurisdictions, and a lower score in 1 state. Figure 18. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

34 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

8

Improvement from 2009 to 2011 among middle-performing students
Scores were higher in 2011 than in 2009 for students at the 25th and 50th percentiles, but did not change significantly for lower-performing students at the 10th percentile, or higherperforming students at the 75th and 90th percentiles (figure 19). Scores at all five percentiles were higher in 2011 than in 1990. Figure 19. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics percentile scores

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

35

GRADE

8

A closer look at some of the background characteristics of lower- and higher-performing students
Profiles of students scoring at the lower end of the scale (below the 25th percentile) and those scoring at the higher end (above the 75th percentile) show how the two groups differed demographically. Among eighth-graders who scored below the 25th percentile (i.e., below a score of 260) in 2011, • 33% were White, 28% were Black, 32% were Hispanic, and 2% were Asian; • 68% were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch; • 25% were identified as students with disabilities; and • 15% were identified as English language learners. Among eighth-graders who scored above the 75th percentile (i.e., above a score of 309) in 2011, • 72% were White, 5% were Black, 11% were Hispanic, and 10% were Asian; • 20% were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch; • 2% were identified as students with disabilities; and • 1% were identified as English language learners.

Thirty-five percent of eighth-graders performed at or above the Proficient level in 2011, which was higher than the percentage in any of the previous assessment years (figure 20). The percentages of students performing at or above the Basic level and at Advanced did not change significantly from 2009 to 2011, but were still higher in 2011 than in the earlier assessments from 1990 to 2007. Figure 20. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level results

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

% at Advanced % at or above Proficient % at or above Basic

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

36 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

8

Scores higher than in 2009 for Hispanic students but not significantly different for other racial/ethnic groups
While there were no significant changes from 2009 to 2011 in the average scores for White or Black students (figure 21), the average score for Hispanic students was 4 points higher in 2011 than in 2009 (figure 22). Scores for all three groups were higher in 2011 than in 1990. The 31-point score gap between White and Black students in 2011 did not differ significantly from the gap in either 2009 or 1990. The 23-point score gap between White and Hispanic students in 2011 was smaller than the gap in 2009 but not significantly different from the gap in 1990. Figure 21. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for White and Black students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Black includes African American. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores.

Figure 22. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for White and Hispanic students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: White excludes students of Hispanic origin. Hispanic includes Latino. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

37

GRADE

8

The average score for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2011 did not change significantly from the score in 2009 but was higher than the score in 1990 (figure 23). Asian/Pacific Islander students scored 9 points higher on average than White students in 2011, which was not significantly different from the score gap in 2009. The average score for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 2011 was not significantly different from any of the earlier assessments in which samples were large enough to report results (figure 24). American Indian/Alaska Native students scored 28 points lower on average than White students in 2011, which was not significantly different from the gap in 2009. Figure 23. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for Asian/Pacific Islander and White students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Special analyses raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 1996; therefore, they are omitted from this figure. Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Score differences between Asian/Pacific Islander and White students were not found to be statistically significant in 1990, 1992, and 2000.

Figure 24. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for White and American Indian/Alaska Native students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Sample sizes were insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 1990, 1992, and 1996. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

38 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

8

The percentage of White eighth-graders was smaller in 2011 than in any of the earlier assessment years, and the percentage of Hispanic students was larger (table 8). The percentage of Asian/ Pacific Islander students did not change significantly from 2009 to 2011 but was larger in 2011 than in 1990. Table 8. Percentage distribution of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity: Various years, 1990–2011
Race/ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races 19901 73* 16 7* 2* 1 #* 19921 73* 16* 8* 2* 1 1 1996 69* 17 10* ‡ 1 #* 2000 65* 16 13* 4* 2 1* 2003 63* 16* 15* 4* 1 1* 2005 61* 16* 16* 5* 1* 1* 2007 59* 16 18* 5* 1* 1* 2009 58* 15 20* 5 1* 1* 2011 55 15 21 6 1 2

# Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Special analyses raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 1996; therefore, they are omitted from this table. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. 1 Accommodations not permitted. NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Prior to 2011, students in the two or more races category were categorized as unclassified. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

NAEP Results for Newly Reported Racial/Ethnic Groups
In compliance with new standards from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for collecting and reporting data on race/ethnicity, additional information on students’ race/ethnicity was collected in 2011 so that results could be reported separately for Asian students, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students, and students categorized as being two or more races (multiracial). See the Technical Notes for more information. The average score in 2011 for Asian students was higher than the scores for all the other reported racial/ethnic groups (table 9). Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students scored higher on average than Black students, lower than White and multiracial students, and not significantly different from Hispanic and American Indian/ Alaska Native students. The score for multiracial students was higher than the scores for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students, but lower than the score for White students. Table 9. Percentage of students, average scores, and achievement-level results in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by selected racial/ethnic groups: 2011
Percentage of students Selected racial/ethnic groups Asian Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Two or more races Percentage of students 5 # 2 Average scale score 305 269 288 Below Basic 12 41 22 At Basic 30 37 38 At Proficient 34 17 28 At Advanced 24 4 11

# Rounds to zero. NOTE: Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

39

GRADE

8

Percentages of Hispanic students at Proficient and Advanced higher than in 2009
A closer look at achievement-level results shows where improvements were made for different racial/ethnic groups. The percentages of Hispanic students performing at Proficient and at Advanced were higher in 2011 than in 2009 (figure 25). There were no significant changes from 2009 to 2011 in the percentages of students in other racial/ethnic groups performing at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels. In comparison to 1990, the percentages of students performing below the Basic level were lower in 2011 for all the racial/ethnic groups with samples large enough to report results; however, the percentage of Black students below Basic in 2011 (49 percent) was still higher than the percentages of other racial/ethnic groups. White, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander students all had higher percentages at Advanced in 2011 than in 1990. The percentage of Asian/ Pacific Islander students at Advanced in 2011 (22 percent) was double the percentage for White students (11 percent).

40 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

8

Figure 25. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level results, by race/ethnicity

# Rounds to zero. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. 1 Accommodations not permitted. NOTE: Special analyses raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 1996; therefore, they are omitted from this figure. Sample sizes were insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 1990, 1992, and 1996. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified or two or more races. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

41

GRADE

8

Female students score higher than in 2009
The average score for female students was higher in 2011 than in 2009, while there was no significant change in the score for male students over the same period (figure 26). Scores for both groups were higher in 2011 than in the earlier assessment years from 1990 to 2007. Male students scored 1 point higher on average than female students in 2011. Figure 26. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps, by gender

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Score differences between male and female students were not found to be statistically significant in 1990, 1992, 1996, and 2000. Score gaps reflect the average scores for male students minus the scores for female students.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

42 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

8

No significant change in gap between public and private school students
In 2011, the average mathematics score for eighth-graders attending public schools was 13 points lower than the overall score for students attending private schools, and 13 points2 lower than for students attending Catholic schools specifically (figure 27). The score gap between private and public school students in 2011 was not significantly different from the gaps in previous assessment years. The average score for public school students was 1 point higher in 2011 than in 2009, while there was no significant change in the scores for private school students overall or for Catholic school students over the same period. Scores for all three groups were higher in 2011 than in 1990. Ninety-two percent of eighth-graders attended public schools in 2011, and 8 percent attended private schools, including 4 percent in Catholic schools. The proportions of students attending public and private schools have not changed significantly in comparison to 2009 or 1990.
2

The score-point difference is based on the difference between the unrounded scores as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure.

Figure 27. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by type of school

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian private schools. Results are not shown for private schools in 2005 because the participation rates fell below the required standards for reporting.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

43

GRADE

8

Students across income levels score higher in 2011
Average mathematics scores were higher in 2011 than in earlier assessment years both for students who were eligible for free and reduced-price school lunch, as well as for students who were not eligible (figure 28). In 2011, eighth-graders who were eligible for free lunch scored 28 points lower on average than those not eligible. Students eligible for reduced-price lunch scored 16 points3 lower than those not eligible.
3

The score-point difference is based on the difference between the unrounded scores as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure.

Figure 28. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.

In comparison to previous assessment years, the percentage of eighth-graders eligible for free school lunch was larger in 2011, and the percentages of students eligible for reduced-price school lunch or not eligible for NSLP were smaller (table 10). Table 10. Percentage distribution of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: Various years, 2003–2011
Eligibility status Eligible for free lunch Eligible for reduced-price lunch Not eligible Information not available

2003 26* 7* 55* 11*

2005 29* 7* 56* 8*

2007 32* 6* 55* 7*

2009 34* 6* 54* 7*

2011 39 5 50 6

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 2003–11 Mathematics Assessments.

44 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

8

One-third of students taking algebra I in eighth grade
Eighth-graders participating in the 2011 NAEP mathematics assessment were asked what math class they were taking that year. Students selected one course from the following list: • Geometry • Algebra II • Algebra I (one-year course) • First year of a two-year Algebra I course • Second year of a two-year Algebra I course Thirty-four percent of eighth-graders reported taking algebra I (one-year course) in 2011, which was higher than the percentages of students who reported taking each of the other types of mathematics classes listed (table 11). The next highest percentage of students reported taking basic or general mathematics followed by those taking an introductory algebra class. The percentage of students who reported taking algebra I in 2011 was not significantly different from 2009 but was higher than the percentage who reported taking it in 2005. The percentage of students who reported taking an introductory algebra class was lower in 2011 than in 2009 and 2005. There has been no significant change in the percentage of students taking a basic or general mathematics class. Table 11. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by the type of mathematics class taken during the school year: Various years, 2005-11
Type of class taken Geometry Algebra II Algebra I (one-year course) First year of a two-year Algebra I course Second year of a two-year Algebra I course Introduction to algebra or pre-algebra Basic or general eighth-grade math Integrated or sequential math Other math class
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

• Introduction to algebra or pre-algebra • Basic or general eighth-grade math • Integrated or sequential math • Other math class

2005 4* 3* 30* 3* 2 27* 25 1* 5*

2007 4* 3* 31* 3* 2 27* 25 1 4

2009 4* 3* 33 2 2 25* 25 1 4

2011 5 4 34 2 2 23 25 1 4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 2005-11 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

45

GRADE

8

Students who reported taking algebra I scored higher on average than students taking an introductory algebra class or a basic or general mathematics class (figure 29). The average score for students who reported taking a basic mathematics class was lower than the score for students taking an introduction to algebra. Figure 29. Average scores in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by the type of mathematics class students took during the school year: 2011

NOTE: Results are not shown for the other types of mathematics classes taken by students.

The proportions of students taking certain mathematics courses in 2011 varied by race/ethnicity (table 12). For example, with one exception, the percentage of Asian students taking algebra I was higher than the percentages of other racial/ethnic groups (the percentage of Asian students was not significantly different from the percentage of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students taking algebra I). The percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students taking an introductory algebra class was higher than the percentages of other racial/ethnic groups. The percentages of students taking a basic math course were higher for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students than for White, Asian, and multiracial students. Table 12. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity and the type of mathematics class taken during the school year: 2011
American Indian/Alaska Native 24 32 29 Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander 37 20 26 Two or more races 34 24 23

Type of class taken Algebra I (one-year course) Introduction to algebra or pre-algebra Basic or general eighth-grade math

White 36 25 23

Black 28 23 30

Hispanic 33 20 29

Asian 45 13 13

NOTE: Results are not shown for the other types of mathematics classes taken by students. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

46 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

State Performance at Grade 8
All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Department of Defense schools participated in the 2011 mathematics assessment at grade 8. These 52 states and jurisdictions are all referred to as “states” in the following summary of results. State results for grade 8 are also available for eight earlier assessment years (table 13). While all states have participated in the assessments since 2003, not all have participated or met the criteria for reporting in earlier assessment years. As in the grade 4 section, the results presented in this section for the nation and states are for public school students only and may differ from the national results presented earlier that are based on data for both public and private school students.

Scores higher than in 2009 for students in 13 states and lower in 1 state
The map below highlights changes in states’ average eighth-grade mathematics scores from 2009 to 2011 (figure 30). Scores were higher in 2011 than in 2009 in Arkansas, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia. The average score in Missouri was lower in 2011 than in 2009. Thirty-four percent of eighth-grade public school students performed at or above the Proficient level in 2011, with percentages ranging from 17 percent in the District of Columbia to 51 percent in Massachusetts (figure 31). The percentages of students at or above Proficient were higher in 2011 than in 2009 in the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Virginia (see appendix table A-23). Percentages of students at or above Proficient were lower in 2011 than in 2009 in Missouri, New York, and Oregon.

Figure 30. Changes in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores between 2009 and 2011

Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).
1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 and 2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

47

GRADE

8

Table 13. Average scores in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1990–2011
Accommodations not permitted State/jurisdiction       Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 1990 262* 253* — 260* 256* 256* 267* 270* 261* 255* 259* 251* 271* 261* 267* 278* — 257* 246* — 261* — 264* 275* — — 280* 276* — 273* 270* 256* 261* 250* 281* 264* 263* 271* 266* 260* — — — 258* — — 264* — 256* 274* 272* 231* — 1992 267* 252* — 265* 256* 261* 272* 274* 263* 260* 259* 257* 275* — 270* 283 — 262* 250* 279* 265* 273* 267* 282* 246* 271* — 278* — 278* 272* 260* 266* 258* 283* 268* 268* — 271* 266* 261* — 259* 265* 274* — 268* — 259* 278* 275* 235* — 1996 271* 257* 278* 268* 262* 263* 276* 280* 267* 264* 262* 262* — — 276* 284 — 267* 252* 284* 270* 278* 277 284* 250* 273* 283* 283 — — — 262* 270* 268* 284* — — 276* — 269* 261* — 263* 270* 277* 279* 270* 276* 265* 283* 275* 233* 274* 2000 274* 262* — 271* 261* 262* — 282* — — 266* 263* 278* 277* 283 — 284* 272* 259* 284* 276* 283* 278 288* 254* 274* 287* 281 268* — — 260* 276 280* 283* 283* 272* 281 — 273* 266* — 263* 275* 275* 283* 277* — 271* — 277* 234* 278* 2000 272* 264* — 269* 257* 260* — 281* — — 265* 262* 277* 275* 281* — 283* 270* 259* 281* 272* 279* 277 287* 254* 271* 285* 280* 265* — — 259* 271* 276* 282* 281* 270* 280 — 269* 265* — 262* 273* 274* 281* 275* — 266* — 276* 235* 277* 2003 276* 262* 279* 271* 266* 267* 283* 284* 277* 271* 270* 266* 280* 277* 281* 284 284* 274* 266* 282* 278* 287* 276 291* 261* 279* 286* 282 268* 286* 281* 263* 280 281* 287* 282* 272* 281 279* 272* 277* 285* 268* 277* 281* 286* 282* 281* 271 284* 284* 243* 285* Accommodations permitted 2005 278* 262* 279* 274* 272* 269* 281* 281* 281* 274* 272* 266* 281* 278* 282* 284 284* 274* 268* 281* 278* 292* 277 290* 262* 276* 286* 284 270* 285* 284* 263* 280 282* 287* 283* 271* 282 281* 272* 281 287* 271* 281* 279* 287* 284* 285* 269* 285* 282* 245* 284* 2007 280* 266 283 276* 274* 270 286* 282* 283 277 275* 269* 284* 280 285 285 290 279* 272 286* 286 298 277 292* 265* 281 287* 284 271* 288* 289* 268* 280 284 292 285* 275* 284 286 275* 282 288* 274 286* 281 291* 288 285* 270* 286* 287 248* 285* 2009 282* 269 283 277 276* 270 287* 289 284 279 278 274* 287 282 287 284 289 279 272 286* 288 299 278 294 265* 286* 292 284 274* 292 293 270* 283 284 293 286* 276* 285 288 278* 280 291 275 287* 284 293 286 289 270* 288 286 254* 287 2011 283 269 283 279 279 273 292 287 283 278 278 278 287 283 285 285 290 282 273 289 288 299 280 295 269 282 293 283 278 292 294 274 280 286 292 289 279 283 286 283 281 291 274 290 283 294 289 288 273 289 288 260 288

— Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

48 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

8

Figure 31. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: 2011

Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.
1

MATHEMATICS 2011

49

GRADE

8

Over one-third of states have 50 percent or more of eighth-graders eligible for school lunch
Information about differences in the demographic makeup of individual states provides a necessary context for interpreting state results. For example, the proportions of eighth-graders from lower-income families who were eligible for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) varied among states (figure 32). Forty-eight percent of eighth-grade public school students in the nation were eligible for either free or reduced-price school lunch in 2011 (see appendix table A-21). The percentages of eligible students ranged from 23 percent in New Hampshire to 71 percent in the District of Columbia. In comparison to 2003, the percentages of eligible students were larger in 2011 for the nation and all the states except West Virginia where there was no significant change. Figure 32. Percentage range of eighth-grade public school students assessed in NAEP mathematics who were identified as eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch: 2011

1

Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).

Score gaps between higher- and lower-income students narrow from 2003 in four states and widen in one state
Average mathematics scores were higher in 2011 than in 2003 both for students who were not eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch (those from higher-income families) and students who were eligible (those from lower-income families) in the nation and in 44 states (figure 33). Only five states had a statistically significant change in the score gaps between the two groups over that period. • Score gaps in Georgia, Illinois, and Massachusetts narrowed, where scores for both groups were higher than in 2003. • The gap in New York narrowed, where the score for students who were not eligible did not change significantly, and the score for eligible students was higher than in 2003. • The gap in the District of Columbia widened, where scores for both groups were higher than in 2003.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

50 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

8

Figure 33. Changes between 2003 and 2011 NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for eighth-grade public school students, by eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch and state/jurisdiction
Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch State/jurisdiction   Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Not eligible Eligible Score gap Not eligible – Eligible Narrowed

p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p

p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p

t

Narrowed Narrowed

t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t

Compare Results Among Participating States
The NAEP State Comparison Tool (http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/ statecomparisons/) provides tables and maps showing how the average scores in states overall and for selected student groups compare, or how the change in performance between two assessment years compares across states.

Narrowed

t

t

t

t

Narrowed

t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t

t

t

t

t

Widened

p Higher in 2011. t Not significantly different from 2011.
1

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 and 2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

51

Assessment Content at Grade 8
Additional insight into students’ performance on the NAEP mathematics assessment can be obtained by examining what eighth-graders are expected to know and be able to do and how they performed on some of the assessment questions designed to measure their knowledge and skills.

Mathematics Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 8
NAEP mathematics achievement-level descriptions outline expectations of student performance at each grade. The specific descriptions of what eighth-graders should know and be able to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced mathematics achievement levels are presented below. (Note that the shaded text is a short, general summary to describe performance at each achievement level.) NAEP achievement levels are cumulative; therefore, students performing at the Proficient level also display the competencies associated with the Basic level, and students at the Advanced level also demonstrate the skills and knowledge associated with both the Basic and the Proficient levels. The cut score indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is noted in parentheses.

Basic (262)
Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should exhibit evidence of conceptual and procedural understanding in the five NAEP content areas. This level of performance signifies an understanding of arithmetic operations—including estimation— on whole numbers, decimals, fractions, and percents. Eighth-graders performing at the Basic level should complete problems correctly with the help of structural prompts such as diagrams, charts, and graphs. They should be able to solve problems in all NAEP content areas through the appropriate selection and use of strategies and technological tools—including calculators, computers, and geometric shapes. Students at this level also should be able to use fundamental algebraic and informal geometric concepts in problem solving. As they approach the Proficient level, students at the Basic level should be able to determine which of the available data are necessary and sufficient for correct solutions and use them in problem solving. However, these eighth-graders show limited skill in communicating mathematically.

Proficient (299)
Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should apply mathematical concepts and procedures consistently to complex problems in the five NAEP content areas. Eighth-graders performing at the Proficient level should be able to conjecture, defend their ideas, and give supporting examples. They should understand the connections among fractions, percents, decimals, and other mathematical topics such as algebra and functions. Students at this level are expected to have a thorough understanding of Basic level arithmetic operations—an understanding sufficient for problem solving in practical situations.

Advanced (333)
Eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to reach beyond the recognition, identification, and application of mathematical rules in order to generalize and synthesize concepts and principles in the five NAEP content areas.

Eighth-graders performing at the Advanced level should be able to probe examples and counterexamples in order to shape generalizations from which they can develop models. Eighth-graders performing at the Advanced level should use number sense and geometric awareness to consider the Quantity and spatial relationships in problem reasonableness of an answer. They are expected to use abstract thinking to solving and reasoning should be familiar to create unique problem-solving them, and they should be able to convey underlying reasoning skills beyond the level of techniques and explain the reasoning processes underlying their conclusions. arithmetic. They should be able to compare and contrast mathematical ideas and generate their own examples. These students should make inferences from data and graphs; apply properties of informal geometry; and accurately use the tools of technology. Students at this level should understand the process of gathering and organizing data and be able to calculate, evaluate, and communicate results within the domain of statistics and probability.

52 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

8

What Eighth-Graders Know and Can Do in Mathematics
The item map below is useful for understanding performance at different levels on the NAEP scale. The scale scores on the left represent the scores for students who were likely to get the items correct or complete. The cut score at the lower end of the range for each achievement level is boxed. The descriptions of selected assessment questions indicating what students need to do to answer the question correctly, along with the corresponding mathematics content areas are listed on the right. For example, the map on this page shows that eighth-graders performing at the Basic level with a score of 290 were likely to be able to solve a story problem that involves computing with money. Students performing at the Proficient level with a score of 317 were likely to be able to use an algebraic model to estimate height. Students performing at the Advanced level with a score of 346 were likely to be able to use number properties to determine the parity of an unknown number.

GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS ITEM MAP
Scale score
500

Content area

Question description

//
394 355 346 334 333 333 333 332 331 330 325 317 315 306 302 299 294 294 290 285 280 272 265 264 262 260 258 254 250

Algebra Data analysis, statistics, and probability Number properties and operations Algebra Measurement Geometry Algebra Algebra Number properties and operations Measurement Algebra Geometry Geometry Data analysis, statistics, and probability Algebra Data analysis, statistics, and probability Number properties and operations Algebra Geometry Measurement Algebra Number properties and operations Data analysis, statistics, and probability Measurement Geometry Number properties and operations

Solve problems based on a linear graph (calculator available) Make a prediction using a line of best fit Use number properties to determine the parity of an unknown number Determine equation of a line given a point and the slope (shown on page 55) Recognize a unit of volume Compare similar parallelograms (calculator available) Set up and solve an algebraic equation Compute the slope and y-intercept given an equation of a line Solve a story problem using ratios Solve a problem involving unit conversions (calculator available) Use an algebraic model to estimate height Draw lines of symmetry (calculator available) Determine radius of a circle inscribed in a square (calculator available) Label a spinner for a given probability (calculator available) (shown on pages 56 and 57) Choose an equation that describes the relationship in a table Use the average (mean) to solve a problem Solve a story problem that involves computing with money (calculator available) Identify a graph that shows how speed changed (calculator available) Identify congruent angles in a figure (shown on page 54) Find the angle with a specified degree measure Read information from the graph of a function Use measuring cups to describe a fraction (calculator available) Recognize misrepresented data Solve a story problem involving rates (calculator available) Identify a result of combining two shapes Use order of operations

Basic

Proficient

Advanced

//
0
NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice question. The position of a question on the scale represents the scale score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question, or a 72 percent probability of correctly answering a five-option multiple-choice question. For constructed-response questions, the question description represents students’ performance rated as completely correct. Scale score ranges for mathematics achievement levels are referenced on the map. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

53

GRADE

8

Mathematics Content Area: Geometry

In this figure, line is parallel to line m. Which of the following pairs of angles must have the same measure?
A B C D E

Angles 1 and 2 Angles 1 and 5 Angles 2 and 3 Angles 4 and 5 Angles 4 and 8

In this multiple-choice question from the grade 8 mathematics assessment, students are presented with a set of parallel lines cut by a nonperpendicular transversal and are asked to identify a pair of angles that must have the same measure. This question requires students to use properties of parallel lines and transversals to recognize pairs of congruent angles. Students were not permitted to use a calculator to answer this question. Seventy-one percent of eighth-graders were able to correctly identify that angles 4 and 5 must have the same measure (Choice D). The other answer choices represent different pairs of supplementary angles. The most common incorrect answer (Choice C) was selected by 15 percent of students and may have been selected more frequently because it is the only choice where the pair of angles are consecutive interior angles.

Percentage of eighth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Choice A 4 Choice B 5 Choice C 15 Choice D 71 Choice E 4 Omitted 1

The table below shows the percentage of eighth-grade students performing at each achievement level who answered this question correctly. For example, 72 percent of eighth-graders at the Basic level selected the correct answer choice.

Percentage of eighth-grade students responding correctly at each achievement level: 2011
Overall 71 Below Basic 39 At Basic 72 At Proficient 93 At Advanced 99

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

54 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

8

Mathematics Content Area: Algebra

Which of the following is an equation of a line that passes through the point (0, 5) and has a negative slope?
A B C D E

y = 5x y = 5x – 5 y = 5x + 5 y = – 5x – 5 y = – 5x + 5

This question asks students to identify an equation of a line that satisfies two conditions: the graph of the line passes through a given point, and it has a negative slope. The given point is the y-intercept of the graph of the line, and all answer choices were presented in slope-intercept form. Students were not permitted to use a calculator to answer this question. The correct answer (Choice E) was chosen by 31 percent of eighth-grade students. Students who correctly answered this question were able to recognize properties of a line written in slope-intercept form. The equations in the incorrect answer choices had the following properties: • Choice A is an equation of a line having a positive slope and y-intercept at (0, 0), • Choice B is an equation of a line having a positive slope and y-intercept at (0, -5), • Choice C is an equation of a line with the correct y-intercept at (0, 5), but the slope is positive, and • Choice D is an equation of a line having a negative slope, but an incorrect y-intercept at (0, -5). The most commonly selected incorrect answer (Choice B) may have been the result of reversing the signs of the values in the equation that represents the slope and the y-intercept.

Percentage of eighth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Choice A 12 Choice B 27 Choice C 9 Choice D 20 Choice E 31 Omitted 1

The table below shows the percentage of eighth-grade students performing at each achievement level who answered this question correctly. For example, 84 percent of eighth-graders at the Advanced level selected the correct answer choice.

Percentage of eighth-grade students responding correctly at each achievement level: 2011
Overall 31 Below Basic 14 At Basic 21 At Proficient 47 At Advanced 84

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

55

GRADE

8

Mathematics Content Area: Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability
The circular spinner shown below is divided into 6 congruent sectors. The sectors are yellow or blue.

Label each of the sectors either yellow (Y) or blue (B) so that the probability of spinning the arrow 1 once and landing on yellow is 3 .

This short constructed-response question asks students to label (either yellow or blue) the sectors of a spinner that has been divided into 6 congruent sectors to match a given probability. To answer this question correctly, students must determine how many of the sectors need to be labeled yellow and how many sectors need to be labeled blue, so that the probability of spinning 1 the arrow one time and landing on a sector labeled yellow is 3 . Students who correctly answered 1 this question recognized that the given probability, 3 , needed to be converted to sixths to corre1 2 spond to the 6 sectors on the spinner. Since 3 is equivalent to 6 , a total of 2 sectors need to be labeled yellow, and the remaining 4 sectors need to be labeled blue. Students were permitted to use a calculator to solve this question. Responses were rated using two scoring levels. Correct responses labeled the spinner so that 2 sectors were labeled yellow and 4 sectors were labeled blue. (Part of the requirement for a rating of “Correct” was to label each sector of the spinner, including the correct number of blue sectors.) Incorrect responses did not have the correct number of sectors labeled yellow or blue.

56 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

GRADE

8

The student response shown below was rated as “Correct” because 2 sectors are labeled "Y" for yellow and 4 sectors are labeled "B" for blue. Fifty-two percent of eighth-graders’ responses to this question received a rating of “Correct.”

Explore More NAEP Mathematics Questions
See how well you perform on NAEP sample questions and how your answers relate to student performance in our Test Yourself tool at: http://nationsreportcard .gov/math_2011/sample_ quest.asp.

Percentage of eighth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Correct 52 Incorrect 46 Omitted 2

The table below shows the percentage of eighth-graders performing at each achievement level who received a rating of “Correct” on the question. For example, 81 percent of students performing at the Proficient level provided responses that were rated “Correct.”

Percentage of eighth-grade students' responses rated as "Correct" at each achievement level: 2011
Overall 52 Below Basic 14 At Basic 48 At Proficient 81 At Advanced 96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

57

NAEP Inclusion
It is important for NAEP to assess as many students selected to participate as possible. Assessing representative samples of students, including students with disabilities (SD) and English language learners (ELL), helps to ensure that NAEP results accurately reflect the educational performance of all students in the target population, and can continue to serve as a meaningful measure of U.S. students’ academic achievement over time. The National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP, has been exploring ways to ensure that NAEP continues to appropriately include as many students as possible and to do so in a consistent manner for all jurisdictions assessed and reported. In March 2010, the Governing Board adopted a new policy, NAEP Testing and Reporting on Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners. This policy was the culmination of work with experts in testing and curriculum, and those who work with exceptional children and students learning to speak English. The policy aims to • maximize participation of sampled students in NAEP, • reduce variation in exclusion rates for SD and ELL students across states and districts, • develop uniform national rules for including students in NAEP, and • ensure that NAEP is fully representative of SD and ELL students. The policy defines specific inclusion goals for NAEP samples. At the national, state, and district levels, the goal is to include 95 percent of all students selected for the NAEP samples, and 85 percent of those in the NAEP sample who are identified as SD or ELL. Students are selected to participate in NAEP based on a sampling procedure designed to yield a sample of students that is representative of students in all schools nationwide and in public schools within each state. First, schools are selected, and then students are sampled from within those schools without regard to disability or English language proficiency. Once students are selected, those previously identified as SD or ELL may be offered accommodations or excluded. States and jurisdictions vary in their proportions of special-needs students and in their policies on inclusion and the use of accommodations. Despite the increasing identification of SD and ELL students in some states, in particular of ELL students at grade 4, NAEP inclusion rates have generally remained steady or increased since 2003. Only a small number of states included a smaller percentage of students in the 2011 NAEP mathematics assessments than in 2009. Inclusion rates decreased by more than 1 percentage point for 3 of 52 jurisdictions at each grade. This reflects efforts on the part of states and jurisdictions to include all students who can meaningfully participate in the NAEP assessments. The new NAEP inclusion policy is an effort to ensure that this trend continues. Determining whether each jurisdiction has met the NAEP inclusion goals involves looking at three different inclusion rates—an overall inclusion rate, an inclusion rate for SD students, and an inclusion rate for ELL students. Each inclusion rate is calculated as the percentage of sampled students who were included in the assessment (i.e., were not excluded). Inclusion rate percentages are estimates because they are based on representative samples of students rather than on the entire population of students. As such, the inclusion rates are associated with a margin of error. The margin of error for each jurisdiction’s inclusion rate was

58 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

taken into account when comparing it to the corresponding inclusion goal. For example, if the point estimate of a state’s overall inclusion rate was 93 percent and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, the state was considered to have met the 95 percent inclusion goal because the 95 percent goal falls within the margin of error, which ranges from 90 percent to 96 percent. Refer to the Technical Notes for more details about how the margin of error was used in these calculations. Most of the states/jurisdictions participating in the 2011 mathematics assessment met the 95 percent inclusion goal (figure 34). The goal was not met at grade 8 in Maryland, and at grades 4 and 8 in Oklahoma. See appendix table A-4 for the inclusion rates as a percentage of all students selected in each state/jurisdiction, and table A-5 for the rates as a percentage of the SD or ELL students. Figure 34. States and jurisdictions meeting the 95 percent inclusion rate goal in NAEP mathematics at grades 4 and 8: 2011

State met 95 percent inclusion goal at both grades 4 and 8 in 2011. State met 95 percent inclusion goal at grade 4 but not at grade 8 in 2011. State did not meet 95 percent inclusion goal at both grades 4 and 8 in 2011.
1

Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).

Inclusion Policy
See the National Assessment Governing Board’s policy on NAEP Testing and Reporting on Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners at http://www.nagb.org/policies/PoliciesPDFs/ Reporting%20and%20Dissemination/naep_testandreport_studentswithdisabilities.pdf.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

59

Technical Notes
Sampling and Weighting
The schools and students participating in NAEP assessments are selected to be representative of all schools nationally and of public schools at the state level. Samples of schools and students are drawn from each state and from the District of Columbia and Department of Defense schools. The results from the assessed students are combined to provide accurate estimates of the overall performance of students in the nation and in individual states and other jurisdictions. While national results reflect the performance of students in both public and nonpublic schools (i.e., private schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and Department of Defense schools), state-level results reflect the performance of public school students only. More information on sampling can be found at http:/ /nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/nathow.asp. Because each school that participated in the assessment, and each student assessed, represents a portion of the population of interest, the results are weighted to account for the disproportionate representation of the selected sample. This includes oversampling of schools with high concentrations of students from certain racial/ethnic groups and the lower sampling rates of students who attend very small schools.

School and Student Participation National participation
To ensure unbiased samples, NAEP statistical standards require that participation rates for original school samples be 70 percent or higher to report national results separately for public and private schools. In instances where participation rates meet the 70 percent criterion but fall below 85 percent, a nonresponse bias analysis is conducted to determine if the responding school sample is not representative of the population, thereby introducing the potential for nonresponse bias. The weighted national school participation rates for the 2011 mathematics assessment were 97 percent for grade 4 (100 percent for public schools and 74 percent for private schools), and 98 percent for grade 8 (100 percent for public schools and 74 percent for private schools). Weighted student participation rates were 95 percent at grade 4, and 93 percent at grade 8. Nonresponse bias analyses were conducted for the private school samples at both grades. The results of the nonresponse bias analyses showed that, while the original responding school samples may have been somewhat different from the entire sample of eligible schools, including substitute schools and adjusting the sampling weights to account for school nonresponse were partially effective in reducing the potential for nonresponse bias. However, some variables examined in the analyses still indicated potential bias after nonresponse adjustments. For instance, smaller schools were somewhat overrepresented in the final private school samples at both grades, and the responding sample of private schools at grade 8 contained a higher percentage of Black students and a lower percentage of White students than the original sample of eligible private schools.

60 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

State participation
Standards established by the National Assessment Governing Board require that school participation rates for the original state samples need to be at least 85 percent for results to be reported. In 2011, all 52 states and jurisdictions participating in the mathematics assessment at grades 4 and 8 met this participation rate requirement with participation rates of 99 or 100 percent.

Confidence intervals for state inclusion rates
NAEP endeavors to include as many sampled students as possible in the assessment, including students with disabilities (SD) and English language learners (ELL), and has established specific inclusion goals: 95 percent of all sampled students and 85 percent of sampled students identified as SD or ELL. Inclusion rates were computed for each state/jurisdiction participating in the 2011 assessment and compared to NAEP inclusion goals. Specifically, Wilson confidence intervals were used in order to avoid having an upper bound greater than 1. Three inclusion percentages were computed for each state/jurisdiction. An overall inclusion percentage represents included students as a percentage of all students sampled within the state/jurisdiction. In addition, separate percentages were computed to report included students as a percentage of the state/jurisdiction sample that was identified as SD or ELL. Inclusion percentages are estimates based on a sample, and each estimate has a measure of uncertainty or margin of error. Confidence intervals quantify this uncertainty due to sampling, resulting in interval estimates of the inclusion percentages. Therefore, confidence intervals for inclusion percentages were used to determine upper and lower confidence bounds around the inclusion point estimates. When determining whether each state/jurisdiction met the NAEP inclusion goals, the confidence intervals were used, rather than just the point estimates. This means that if the inclusion goal of either 95 percent or 85 percent fell within the corresponding confidence interval, the state/ jurisdiction was considered as having met the goal. States/jurisdictions for which the upper bound of the confidence interval was less than 95 percent (or 85 percent) did not meet the inclusion goal.

Interpreting Statistical Significance
Comparisons over time or between groups are based on statistical tests that consider both the size of the differences and the standard errors of the two statistics being compared. Standard errors are margins of error, and estimates based on smaller groups are likely to have larger margins of error. The size of the standard errors may also be influenced by other factors such as how representative the assessed students are of the entire population. When an estimate has a large standard error, a numerical difference that seems large may not be statistically significant. Differences of the same magnitude may or may not be statistically significant depending upon the size of the standard errors of the estimates. For example, a 1-point change in the average score for fourth-grade public school students may be statistically significant, while a 1-point change for private school students is not. Standard errors for the estimates presented in this report are available at http:/ /nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/naepdata/.

MATHEMATICS 2011

61

To ensure that significant differences in NAEP data reflect actual differences and not mere chance, error rates need to be controlled when making multiple simultaneous comparisons. The more comparisons that are made (e.g., comparing the performance of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native students), the higher the probability of finding significant differences by chance. In NAEP, the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure is used to control the expected proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses relative to the number of comparisons that are conducted. A detailed explanation of this procedure can be found at http:/ /nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/analysis/infer.asp. NAEP employs a number of rules to determine the number of comparisons conducted, which in most cases is simply the number of possible statistical tests. However, when comparing multiple years, the number of years does not count toward the number of comparisons.

Race/Ethnicity
Prior to 2011, student race/ethnicity was obtained from school records and reported for the six mutually exclusive categories shown on the left side of the chart below. Students identified with more than one of the other five categories were classified as “other” and were included as part of the “unclassified” category, along with students who had a background other than the ones listed or whose race/ethnicity could not be determined.
Racial/ethnic categories Prior to 2011 1. White 2. Black 3. Hispanic 4. Asian/Pacific Islander 5. American Indian/Alaska Native 6. Other or unclassified In 2011 1. White 2. Black 3. Hispanic 4. Asian 5. Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 6. American Indian/Alaska Native 7. Two or more races

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.

In compliance with new standards from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for collecting and reporting data on race/ethnicity, additional information was collected in 2011 so that results could be reported separately for Asian students, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students, and students identifying with two or more races. Beginning in 2011, all of the students participating in NAEP were identified as one of the seven racial/ethnic categories listed on the right side of the chart. As in earlier years, students identified as Hispanic were classified as Hispanic in 2011 even if they were also identified with another racial/ethnic group. Students identified with two or more of the other racial/ethnic groups (e.g., White and Black) would have been classified as “other” and reported as part of the “unclassified” category prior to 2011, and were classified as “two or more races” in 2011. When comparing the results for racial/ethnic groups from 2011 to earlier assessment years in this report, the 2011 data for Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students were combined into a single Asian/Pacific Islander category.

62 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

National School Lunch Program
NAEP collects data on student eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) as an indicator of low family income. Under the guidelines of NSLP, children from families with incomes below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those from families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals. (For the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, for a family of four, 130 percent of the poverty level was $28,665, and 185 percent was $40,793 in most states.) Some schools provide free meals to all students irrespective of individual eligibility, using their own funds to cover the costs of noneligible students. Under special provisions of the National School Lunch Act intended to reduce the administrative burden of determining student eligibility every year, schools can be reimbursed based on eligibility data for a single base year. Participating schools might have high percentages of eligible students and report all students as eligible for free lunch. Because of the improved quality of the data on students’ eligibility for NSLP, the percentage of students for whom information was not available has decreased compared to the percentages reported prior to the 2003 assessment. Therefore, trend comparisons are only made back to 2003 in this report. For more information on NSLP, visit http:/ /www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/.

MATHEMATICS 2011

63

Appendix Tables
Table A-1. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public and nonpublic school students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by grade and SD/ELL category: Various years, 1992–2011
Accommodations not permitted Grade and SD/ELL category Grade 4 SD and/or ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations SD Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations Grade 8 SD and/or ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations SD Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations 9 6 4 4 † 7 4 3 3 † 2 2 1 1 † 11 4 6 6 † 9 4 5 5 † 3 1 2 2 † 12 3 8 6 3 9 3 6 4 2 3 1 2 2 # 13 4 10 7 3 10 3 7 5 2 4 1 3 2 1 17 3 14 7 6 13 3 10 4 6 6 1 5 4 1 17 3 14 6 8 12 3 10 3 7 6 1 5 4 1 17 4 13 6 7 12 3 8 2 6 6 1 5 4 2 17 3 14 5 9 12 3 9 2 8 5 # 5 3 2 17 2 14 4 10 12 2 10 2 8 6 # 5 3 2 9 6 3 3 † 7 4 3 3 † 3 2 1 1 † 14 6 8 8 † 11 5 6 6 † 3 1 2 2 † 15 4 11 7 5 10 3 7 4 4 6 1 5 3 2 18 4 14 9 5 12 3 9 5 4 7 1 6 4 1 21 4 17 9 8 13 3 10 4 6 10 1 8 6 2 21 3 18 9 9 13 2 10 3 7 10 1 8 6 2 21 3 19 9 10 13 2 10 3 7 10 1 9 6 3 21 2 19 8 10 13 2 11 3 8 10 1 9 6 3 22 2 20 8 12 13 2 11 2 8 11 # 10 6 4 1992 1996 1996 2000 Accommodations permitted 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

† Not applicable. Accommodations were not permitted in this assessment year. # Rounds to zero. NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

64 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-2. �Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public and nonpublic school students with disabilities (SD) and/or   English language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of students within their racial/ethnic group, by grade and SD/ELL category: 2011
Race/ethnicity Grade and SD/ELL category Grade 4 SD and/or ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations SD Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations Grade 8 SD and/or ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations SD Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations 12 2 10 2 8 12 2 10 2 8 1 # # # # 17 4 13 2 11 15 4 12 2 10 1 # 1 # 1 28 3 26 13 13 12 2 10 2 8 20 1 19 12 7 14 2 12 3 9 13 2 11 3 8 1 # 1 # # 17 3 14 3 12 15 3 12 2 10 2 # 2 1 1 45 3 43 24 19 12 2 10 2 8 38 1 37 23 14 White Black Hispanic

# Rounds to zero.
� NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for all racial/ethnic groups. Students identified as both SD and ELL were
counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education
Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
� SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

65

Table A-3. �Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public and nonpublic school students identified as   students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) excluded and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students, by grade and SD/ELL category: 2011
Percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students Assessed Grade and SD/ELL category Grade 4 SD and/or ELL SD ELL Grade 8 SD and/or ELL SD ELL 15 19 7 85 81 93 27 13 55 58 68 38 9 15 4 91 85 96 38 20 57 52 66 39 Excluded Total Without accommodations With accommodations

NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

66 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-4. Inclusion rate and confidence interval in NAEP mathematics for fourth- and eighth-grade public school students, as a percentage of all students, by state/jurisdiction: 2011
Grade 4 95% confidence interval State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA2
1 2

Grade 8 95% confidence interval Inclusion rate 97¹ 99¹ 97¹ 99¹ 99¹ 99¹ 99¹ 99¹ 97¹ 98¹ 97¹ 98¹ 99¹ 98¹ 97¹ 99¹ 99¹ 97¹ 99¹ 98¹ 94 96¹ 96¹ 98¹ 99¹ 99¹ 98¹ 96¹ 97¹ 98¹ 96¹ 98¹ 99¹ 98¹ 96¹ 95¹ 90 99¹ 98¹ 99¹ 96¹ 98¹ 96¹ 95¹ 97¹ 99¹ 97¹ 98¹ 98¹ 98¹ 99¹ 96¹ 97¹ Lower 97.2 98.1 96.2 98.3 98.2 98.6 98.7 98.2 96.2 97.6 96.0 97.5 98.3 96.9 96.5 97.8 98.1 96.1 98.0 98.0 92.7 95.0 95.6 97.1 98.4 98.0 97.9 95.6 96.4 97.7 94.7 97.5 98.1 97.6 94.9 93.8 88.8 98.0 96.8 98.3 95.4 97.8 95.2 93.9 96.7 98.3 96.2 97.7 98.0 97.3 98.2 94.9 96.5 Upper 97.5 99.2 97.4 99.2 99.0 99.2 99.5 99.0 97.5 98.6 98.2 98.6 99.1 98.2 98.1 99.0 99.1 97.2 99.0 98.8 94.5 96.8 97.0 98.5 99.3 99.1 98.8 97.1 97.4 98.6 96.7 98.5 99.0 98.6 96.4 96.0 91.4 99.0 98.2 99.1 96.9 98.6 97.1 95.6 97.8 99.2 97.8 98.8 98.9 98.5 99.1 96.3 97.9

Inclusion rate 98¹ 99¹ 97¹ 99¹ 99¹ 98¹ 99¹ 99¹ 96¹ 98¹ 98¹ 98¹ 99¹ 98¹ 98¹ 99¹ 98¹ 97¹ 98¹ 98¹ 94¹ 97¹ 98¹ 99¹ 99¹ 98¹ 98¹ 98¹ 98¹ 98¹ 97¹ 97¹ 99¹ 98¹ 96¹ 98¹ 92 97¹ 99¹ 99¹ 99¹ 98¹ 97¹ 96¹ 98¹ 98¹ 98¹ 98¹ 98¹ 98¹ 98¹ 95¹ 97¹

Lower 97.6 98.0 96.4 98.5 98.4 97.7 98.3 98.1 95.8 97.9 97.7 97.7 98.3 96.8 97.1 97.8 97.8 96.1 97.3 97.8 93.5 95.9 97.1 98.0 98.7 97.8 98.0 97.8 97.1 97.7 95.3 96.7 98.1 97.6 95.7 96.9 90.2 96.5 98.0 98.7 98.1 97.7 95.6 94.9 97.1 97.9 97.3 97.3 97.9 97.6 97.9 93.9 96.7

Upper 97.9 99.3 97.8 99.3 99.4 99.0 99.2 99.1 96.9 98.8 98.8 98.7 99.1 98.4 98.4 99.1 98.7 97.6 98.9 98.9 95.2 97.6 98.4 98.9 99.5 98.8 98.9 99.0 98.2 98.7 97.7 97.9 99.1 98.7 97.0 98.3 93.0 98.0 99.1 99.3 99.2 98.6 97.4 96.6 98.6 98.8 98.4 98.7 98.9 98.9 98.8 95.5 97.7

The state/jurisdiction’s inclusion rate is higher than or not significantly different from the National Assessment Governing Board goal of 95 percent.
� Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).
� SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
2011 Mathematics Assessment

MATHEMATICS 2011

67

Table A-5. Inclusion rate and standard error in NAEP mathematics for fourth- and eighth-grade public school students with disabilities (SD) and English language learners (ELL), as a percentage of identified SD or ELL students, by state/jurisdiction: 2011
Percentage of identified SD or ELL students Grade 4 SD State/jurisdiction Nation (public Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA2 Inclusion rate 84¹ 88¹ 86¹ 91¹ 92¹ 85¹ 90¹ 90¹ 78 91¹ 87¹ 83¹ 91¹ 86¹ 86¹ 92¹ 89¹ 81 88¹ 91¹ 57 84¹ 85¹ 91¹ 92¹ 87¹ 87¹ 92¹ 79 89¹ 81¹ 84¹ 94¹ 87¹ 77 84¹ 49 85¹ 91¹ 94¹ 91¹ 89¹ 75 60 86¹ 90¹ 84¹ 88¹ 91¹ 88¹ 90¹ 69 87¹ SE 0.5 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.7 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.3 2.1 2.4 1.7 2.5 1.9 1.8 1.5 2.4 2.2 1.6 3.1 2.3 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.5 2.4 1.5 3.3 1.9 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 3.9 2.1 1.5 1.1 1.9 1.4 3.1 3.8 2.5 1.4 2.0 2.3 1.3 2.0 1.4 2.3 1.5 ELL Inclusion rate 96¹ ‡ 92¹ 99¹ 98¹ 98¹ 99¹ 97¹ 88¹ 96¹ 95¹ 97¹ 93¹ 93¹ 98¹ 94¹ 98¹ 73¹ 99¹ 98¹ 86¹ 89¹ 94¹ 98¹ ‡ 99¹ ‡ 97¹ 98¹ 93¹ 89¹ 93¹ 94¹ 95¹ 85¹ 94¹ 86¹ 94¹ 95¹ 98¹ 99¹ 97¹ 92¹ 95¹ 94¹ ‡ 95¹ 96¹ ‡ 97¹ 96¹ 88¹ 78 SE 0.3 † 1.5 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.4 1.1 2.3 1.1 1.9 0.9 2.4 1.8 0.8 2.4 0.7 7.2 1.3 1.1 2.3 2.1 3.3 0.6 † 0.5 † 1.1 0.5 3.1 3.1 1.1 1.4 1.8 3.7 2.3 3.8 1.4 2.0 1.0 0.9 1.4 2.8 0.7 1.4 † 1.5 0.9 † 1.4 1.8 1.6 2.8 SD Inclusion rate 80 89¹ 77 89¹ 88¹ 90¹ 91¹ 89¹ 78 88¹ 74 91¹ 85¹ 84¹ 83¹ 90¹ 89¹ 72 86¹ 91¹ 43 80 73 85¹ 86¹ 89¹ 87¹ 76 71 90¹ 75 86¹ 93¹ 86¹ 68 65 40 89¹ 85¹ 94¹ 67 87¹ 68 53 75 93¹ 81¹ 87¹ 89¹ 86¹ 90¹ 78 82¹ SE 0.6 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.9 1.8 2.3 1.7 4.7 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.4 1.2 3.1 2.4 2.5 2.2 3.0 2.2 1.8 2.4 2.6 1.3 3.1 1.9 1.3 2.0 2.4 3.5 3.4 1.7 2.2 1.2 3.1 1.7 3.7 3.4 2.6 1.5 2.6 2.1 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.8 3.3 Grade 8 ELL Inclusion rate 93¹ ‡ 95¹ ‡ 96¹ 97¹ 97¹ 93¹ 90¹ 95¹ 92¹ 90¹ 95¹ 90¹ 94¹ 97¹ 99¹ 85¹ ‡ 97¹ 74 78¹ 83¹ 91¹ ‡ ‡ ‡ 90¹ 90¹ ‡ 96¹ 94¹ 94¹ 96¹ ‡ 96¹ 78¹ 98¹ 92¹ 91¹ 93¹ 80¹ ‡ 86¹ 84¹ ‡ 87¹ 95¹ ‡ 96¹ ‡ 85¹ 71 SE 0.6 † 1.4 † 1.9 0.8 1.3 2.2 4.4 1.3 4.0 1.7 2.3 2.3 2.7 1.9 1.0 4.4 † 1.7 5.5 5.1 4.7 3.0 † † † 3.7 1.3 † 2.3 1.0 1.9 1.6 † 2.7 5.1 1.0 2.7 3.0 1.8 4.7 † 2.9 2.9 † 3.5 1.6 † 1.3 † 2.4 4.7

† Not applicable. Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 The state/jurisdiction’s inclusion rate is higher than or not significantly different from the National Assessment Governing Board goal of 85 percent. 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: SD includes students identified as having an Individualized Education Program but excludes other students protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. SE = Standard error. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

68 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-6. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students with disabilities (SD) and English language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and accommodated in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by state/jurisdiction: 2011
Grade 4 SD Overall excluded Identified Excluded 2 13 2 1 10 1 3 16 2 1 12 1 1 13 1 10 1 2 1 11 1 1 14 1 4 16 3 2 16 1 12 1 2 2 10 2 1 11 1 2 14 2 2 16 2 15 1 1 2 14 2 3 15 3 2 20 2 2 17 2 14 5 6 3 18 3 2 13 2 1 15 1 1 9 1 13 2 2 2 12 1 2 17 1 2 11 2 2 17 2 17 3 3 3 13 2 1 16 1 2 15 2 4 15 3 14 2 2 8 15 8 3 15 2 1 15 1 1 14 1 14 1 1 2 16 2 3 14 3 4 10 4 2 13 2 17 1 2 2 13 2 2 14 2 2 18 1 2 14 2 16 2 2 5 3 15 13 5 2 ELL Accommodated Identified Excluded 9 11 # 4 2 # 11 14 1 8 12 # 10 8 # 6 32 1 9 16 # 11 6 # 10 4 # 12 9 # 8 5 # 7 11 # 7 5 # 8 8 1 9 7 # 12 6 # 9 11 # 8 2 1 16 2 # 14 3 # 7 6 1 14 8 1 8 4 # 9 10 # 5 2 # 3 # 8 7 2 # 10 8 # 6 27 # 14 3 # 12 3 # 9 17 1 14 9 1 10 7 # 8 3 # 10 3 # 5 6 1 9 14 1 11 3 # 12 6 # 8 6 # 7 5 # 7 4 # 5 22 1 7 7 # 14 2 # 8 7 # 9 11 # 9 1 # 10 8 # 11 4 # 10 8 7 7 1 1 SD Accom- Overall modated excluded Identified Excluded 3 13 2 4 1 1 10 1 9 3 13 3 9 1 11 1 5 1 11 1 4 1 10 1 1 10 1 7 5 1 12 1 2 3 14 3 8 2 14 2 3 3 10 3 2 11 1 5 2 1 8 1 6 2 14 2 5 3 14 2 4 1 15 1 1 12 1 5 1 3 12 3 1 1 14 1 2 2 18 1 5 6 11 6 4 19 3 2 1 4 12 3 4 2 13 2 1 1 8 1 2 1 13 1 2 12 2 # 5 4 14 3 18 3 10 3 2 2 18 2 3 4 17 4 2 12 2 8 8 1 16 1 3 2 14 2 1 4 14 4 3 5 15 5 10 16 9 3 7 1 13 1 2 2 16 2 2 1 16 1 2 4 11 4 2 11 1 2 3 4 12 4 4 5 11 5 4 3 10 3 1 1 18 1 3 13 2 5 7 2 12 1 # 2 13 2 6 2 14 2 2 1 13 1 5 2 4 3 17 10 4 2 Grade 8 ELL Accommodated Identified Excluded 9 6 # 3 2 # 9 11 1 8 2 # 9 5 # 6 17 1 8 7 # 10 4 # 10 2 # 12 5 # 6 2 # 8 9 1 6 4 # 10 4 # 11 3 # 12 3 # 8 7 # 7 1 # 12 1 # 14 3 # 5 3 1 14 4 1 7 2 # 8 5 # 6 1 # 10 1 # 9 2 # 8 3 # 5 10 1 13 2 # 12 2 # 8 12 1 14 6 # 10 5 # 8 2 # 9 1 # 3 3 1 9 6 # 11 2 # 12 3 # 6 4 # 7 2 # 7 2 # 4 9 1 7 5 1 14 1 # 8 6 1 9 5 # 9 1 # 11 5 # 10 2 # 12 7 6 5 1 1 Accommodated 2 # 7 1 3 4 3 3 1 4 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 # 1 1 1 4 1 2 4 5 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 # 4 1 4 1

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

# Rounds to zero. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once in overall, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

69

Table A-7. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students identified as students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) excluded in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1990–2011
State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA2 19921 7 5 — 5 5 12 5 7 5 8 5 6 3 — 3 3 — 3 4 6 4 7 5 3 5 4 — 4 — 4 6 7 5 4 2 6 7 — 4 6 5 — 4 8 4 — 5 — 4 5 4 9 — 19961 6 6 4 12 7 16 8 8 7 10 7 6 — — 5 6 — 6 8 8 8 9 6 6 6 5 5 5 9 — 6 12 8 7 4 — — 9 5 6 6 — 6 10 6 6 7 5 8 8 4 11 4 2000 4 3 — 4 4 6 — 5 — — 3 9 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 5 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 7 — — 6 5 5 1 5 5 3 — 3 5 — 3 7 3 3 4 — 3 5 2 5 3 Grade 4 2003 2005 4 3 2 1 1 2 5 4 2 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 7 8 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 4 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 5 2 4 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 5 4 4 2 2 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 6 4 1 2 3 3 7 6 3 2 4 3 6 5 3 3 3 2 4 2 1 2 4 1 6 2 2007 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 5 3 2 1 2 5 3 1 3 3 2 3 4 5 3 2 1 4 2 3 3 2 2 4 2 2 4 5 5 3 2 2 2 1 6 5 2 2 5 3 1 3 2 6 2 2009 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 5 5 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 4 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 2011 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 6 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 4 2 8 3 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 3 19901 — 5 — 5 7 7 4 6 4 6 3 4 2 5 5 4 — 5 4 — 4 — 4 3 — — 2 3 — 4 7 6 6 3 3 5 5 3 5 6 — — — 6 — — 5 — 5 4 3 5 — 19921 6 5 — 6 6 8 4 7 4 6 5 5 3 — 5 4 — 5 4 4 5 8 6 3 7 4 — 4 — 5 7 5 8 3 2 6 6 — 4 5 6 — 5 7 4 — 5 — 6 4 4 10 — 19961 5 7 5 9 7 10 4 8 9 10 7 5 — — 6 5 — 5 6 5 7 8 5 3 7 7 3 4 8 4 7 8 8 4 3 — — 4 — 7 6 — 4 9 6 4 7 6 8 7 2 10 3 2000 4 6 — 3 2 4 — 6 — — 5 5 2 5 3 — 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 2 5 3 2 4 4 — — 7 4 5 2 4 4 3 — 3 4 — 2 8 3 3 6 — 3 4 1 6 1 Grade 8 2003 4 2 1 4 2 3 2 4 9 3 2 4 1 4 2 2 3 4 5 4 4 3 5 2 5 4 2 4 2 3 2 2 5 4 1 5 2 3 2 4 7 2 3 7 3 3 7 2 3 3 1 6 1 2005 4 1 2 5 3 2 3 3 11 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 6 4 2 3 4 2 1 2 2 4 3 4 3 4 6 4 3 3 3 6 2 5 6 2 4 5 2 3 4 2 6 2 2007 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 7 3 5 2 2 6 6 2 4 7 3 5 7 9 5 2 2 5 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 6 7 8 3 4 3 5 2 6 6 3 4 7 4 2 5 2 10 2 2009 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 4 3 3 5 2 2 7 6 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 5 5 6 3 3 2 4 2 4 5 3 2 4 2 2 3 2 6 2 2011 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 6 4 4 2 1 1 2 4 3 2 4 2 1 2 4 5 10 1 2 1 4 2 4 5 3 1 3 2 2 2 1 4 3

— Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. 1 Accommodations not permitted. 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

70 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-8. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students with disabilities (SD) excluded in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of identified SD students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1990–2011
Percentage of identified SD students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA2 19921 63 44 — 47 48 43 50 42 44 51 53 46 36 — 50 36 — 39 53 41 33 38 69 43 73 37 — 32 — 31 41 51 48 30 20 60 61 — 38 35 48 — 34 50 40 — 47 — 51 50 37 84 — 19961 42 54 27 68 69 60 56 50 49 52 52 47 — — 46 44 — 56 55 51 52 49 57 45 72 35 49 31 56 — 57 60 54 52 33 — — 47 49 36 45 — 47 57 43 43 51 44 62 71 33 83 46 2000 26 25 — 24 31 39 — 31 — — 27 46 9 18 19 11 26 24 16 28 15 5 26 16 46 15 13 15 34 — — 33 21 31 13 38 28 14 — 11 30 — 23 41 29 18 23 — 21 30 13 25 23 Grade 4 2003 2005 22 19 14 11 6 7 28 23 10 16 20 22 13 15 25 14 38 43 12 12 13 13 15 15 8 8 17 15 14 8 16 12 10 16 21 16 13 16 19 18 23 23 12 18 32 26 16 15 52 19 21 13 13 17 15 12 20 21 14 11 11 13 12 12 21 18 21 14 11 14 34 27 19 22 20 23 17 15 9 12 36 27 9 9 18 24 47 39 17 13 23 20 34 28 16 15 19 11 21 13 7 8 28 10 32 11 2007 20 12 9 19 20 17 13 10 29 13 17 10 14 23 15 10 21 16 12 17 29 27 24 14 8 23 19 14 17 11 13 21 10 11 25 30 33 15 15 10 12 8 41 39 16 14 27 15 8 15 11 35 8 2009 16 9 7 10 11 21 13 14 20 10 11 11 10 12 15 12 20 19 9 8 32 25 18 11 8 18 14 13 19 11 15 15 6 13 23 20 26 14 16 9 12 13 24 28 16 11 14 13 9 14 7 27 12 2011 15 11 14 9 7 14 10 9 20 8 13 16 10 14 13 8 11 18 9 9 38 14 14 9 8 12 13 8 20 10 18 16 6 11 22 15 51 15 9 6 9 11 24 36 14 8 15 12 8 12 10 30 13 19901 — 56 — 51 70 47 42 59 41 55 49 49 35 54 67 38 — 63 63 — 42 — 51 31 — — 37 33 — 36 55 68 53 34 34 67 66 32 50 42 — — — 57 — — 53 — 58 54 42 86 — 19921 61 53 — 62 57 49 44 45 42 52 61 40 43 — 53 40 — 52 62 41 43 44 64 47 73 40 — 38 — 43 49 42 62 26 33 63 65 — 49 35 60 — 48 54 46 — 47 — 59 47 45 85 — 19961 47 53 45 55 64 55 37 52 68 59 66 47 — — 46 41 — 49 64 43 52 44 61 27 60 59 35 35 55 25 51 36 55 45 34 — — 33 — 41 57 — 38 57 49 35 56 45 67 61 18 80 33 2000 32 46 — 19 14 28 — 35 — — 39 27 14 30 25 — 26 32 20 18 16 11 34 9 52 19 20 28 22 — — 39 24 30 15 39 28 16 — 16 30 — 17 50 23 16 43 — 18 24 9 41 16 Grade 8 2003 22 15 6 23 10 13 11 23 51 13 15 17 6 24 17 14 18 31 28 23 25 14 33 14 53 23 14 19 16 17 7 10 25 21 11 38 13 18 9 13 47 16 18 41 20 17 39 13 17 17 7 32 10 2005 24 8 15 29 20 17 18 18 66 15 19 16 15 17 23 16 24 28 30 25 33 33 31 16 32 28 17 9 19 12 17 14 19 15 26 40 25 19 20 15 41 17 32 41 19 21 30 17 17 22 11 30 13 2007 30 24 31 27 18 17 15 10 43 17 50 10 14 35 36 15 30 49 26 29 62 51 32 17 22 35 22 17 28 17 18 18 22 14 43 48 56 24 24 13 40 22 53 44 24 22 43 28 11 28 14 56 9 2009 22 13 25 16 9 15 16 14 15 13 23 11 15 20 31 16 24 37 11 12 56 28 24 17 17 26 22 23 22 14 11 22 14 12 34 33 41 20 19 10 32 17 36 39 27 11 24 19 10 16 13 34 13 2011 19 11 23 11 11 9 8 10 21 11 26 9 14 15 17 9 11 27 10 8 51 18 26 14 14 10 13 24 28 9 24 14 7 12 30 34 60 10 15 6 32 12 31 42 25 6 19 12 11 14 10 22 16

— Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. 1 Accommodations not permitted. 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

71

Table A-9. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public school English language learners (ELL) excluded in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of identified ELL students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1990–2011
Percentage of identified ELL students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA2 19921 67 ‡ — 25 ‡ 45 ‡ 65 ‡ 49 ‡ 37 ‡ — ‡ ‡ — ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 45 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ — ‡ — ‡ 67 39 44 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ — ‡ 47 ‡ — ‡ 41 ‡ — ‡ — ‡ ‡ ‡ 70 — 19961 39 ‡ 18 54 ‡ 47 ‡ ‡ ‡ 54 ‡ 29 — — ‡ ‡ — ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 54 — ‡ 52 52 ‡ ‡ — — 50 ‡ 31 ‡ — ‡ 34 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 76 ‡ 2000 18 ‡ — 16 ‡ 11 — ‡ — — ‡ 44 ‡ 24 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 38 — — 11 47 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 22 — 18 ‡ — ‡ 13 11 ‡ 43 — ‡ 14 ‡ 30 ‡ Grade 4 2003 2005 14 12 ‡ ‡ 1 4 12 11 27 35 7 8 8 8 29 11 36 28 17 17 14 19 26 14 12 6 26 10 12 17 24 7 16 16 31 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 38 22 22 20 16 17 10 9 ‡ ‡ 24 17 4 4 21 8 15 9 24 13 22 24 9 6 44 20 16 11 8 ‡ 35 26 15 13 12 10 39 20 23 13 22 ‡ 7 12 ‡ 25 13 14 12 9 23 ‡ 29 9 16 13 ‡ ‡ 15 13 2 8 20 13 22 12 2007 8 11 3 10 8 3 3 3 23 20 9 5 3 16 8 4 6 11 ‡ ‡ 13 16 9 8 ‡ ‡ 6 7 9 13 11 9 12 8 22 27 8 7 10 11 5 5 15 10 5 8 14 9 ‡ 11 5 25 21 2009 6 3 3 2 3 4 4 13 7 5 3 4 3 15 4 6 5 13 # ‡ 15 13 8 6 ‡ ‡ 6 5 5 11 20 4 8 4 ‡ 14 6 6 11 9 5 ‡ 6 5 6 ‡ 5 4 ‡ 10 ‡ 14 14 2011 4 ‡ 8 1 2 2 1 3 12 4 5 3 7 7 2 6 2 27 1 2 14 11 6 2 ‡ 1 ‡ 3 2 7 11 7 6 5 15 6 14 6 5 2 1 3 8 5 6 ‡ 5 4 ‡ 3 4 12 22 19901 — ‡ — 26 ‡ 50 ‡ ‡ ‡ 70 ‡ 40 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ — ‡ ‡ — ‡ — ‡ ‡ — — ‡ ‡ — ‡ 76 ‡ 56 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 50 — — — 36 — — ‡ — ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ — 19921 72 ‡ — 31 ‡ 36 ‡ 53 ‡ 43 ‡ 35 ‡ — ‡ ‡ — ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 60 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ — ‡ — ‡ 50 37 79 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ — ‡ 44 ‡ — ‡ 37 ‡ — 35 — ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ — 19961 41 ‡ ‡ 48 ‡ 49 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ — — ‡ ‡ — ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 65 ‡ ‡ ‡ — — ‡ — ‡ ‡ — ‡ 45 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 2000 22 ‡ — 14 ‡ 10 — ‡ — — ‡ 25 ‡ ‡ ‡ — ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 27 — — 21 38 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ — 28 ‡ — ‡ 26 ‡ ‡ ‡ — ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Grade 8 2003 18 ‡ 2 13 21 9 16 23 45 22 26 23 6 31 13 10 26 ‡ ‡ ‡ 34 41 28 16 ‡ ‡ ‡ 34 14 ‡ 41 7 33 26 ‡ 29 11 15 ‡ 28 ‡ 7 ‡ 28 9 ‡ 43 12 ‡ 22 15 28 17 2005 13 ‡ 3 15 ‡ 5 16 14 38 20 13 11 9 25 13 ‡ 15 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 39 11 8 ‡ ‡ 9 4 8 ‡ 43 11 21 16 ‡ ‡ 14 10 ‡ 13 ‡ ‡ ‡ 21 10 ‡ 22 11 ‡ 31 6 28 14 2007 11 ‡ 3 12 8 4 7 9 26 21 7 10 5 24 13 3 4 ‡ ‡ ‡ 22 21 ‡ 9 ‡ ‡ 7 21 11 ‡ 18 12 15 8 ‡ 33 14 10 ‡ 34 ‡ ‡ ‡ 22 12 ‡ 29 14 ‡ 30 ‡ 23 31 2009 8 ‡ 6 9 3 4 6 11 24 9 9 15 2 19 10 15 5 36 ‡ ‡ 16 25 7 10 ‡ ‡ 4 8 6 ‡ 13 6 14 8 ‡ 43 9 6 17 21 5 ‡ ‡ 11 5 ‡ 12 12 ‡ 15 ‡ 27 16 2011 7 ‡ 5 ‡ 4 3 3 7 10 5 8 10 5 10 6 3 1 15 ‡ 3 26 22 17 9 ‡ ‡ ‡ 10 10 ‡ 4 6 6 4 ‡ 4 22 2 8 9 7 20 ‡ 14 16 ‡ 13 5 ‡ 4 ‡ 15 29

— Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. # Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Accommodations not permitted. 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

72

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-10. Percentage of fourth-grade public school students identified as students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) excluded and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students, by state/jurisdiction: 2011
SD and/or ELL Assessed Without accommodations 39 55 25 24 23 77 38 10 18 12 26 34 33 27 27 16 42 29 13 18 12 25 34 40 41 28 33 32 30 11 11 35 4 33 24 10 27 37 22 25 38 44 18 59 34 15 28 30 43 18 28 8 29 With accommodations Excluded 52 15 35 11 65 14 71 9 71 7 19 14 58 10 83 9 63 20 81 8 64 13 57 16 59 10 62 14 63 13 77 8 52 11 53 18 79 9 74 9 59 38 62 14 53 14 54 9 52 8 62 12 56 13 61 8 64 20 80 10 72 18 55 16 90 6 59 11 55 22 77 15 33 51 53 15 71 9 70 6 56 9 46 11 62 24 27 36 55 14 76 8 61 15 61 12 49 8 74 12 63 10 67 56 30 13 Percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students SD Assessed Without accommodations 20 51 19 20 17 26 9 10 16 17 23 14 23 28 28 13 28 29 10 12 12 7 23 29 40 26 24 29 26 9 11 15 5 19 20 11 19 28 22 7 30 43 21 17 30 12 25 25 42 17 24 3 22 With accommodations Excluded 65 4 38 ‡ 66 8 71 1 76 2 60 2 81 1 81 3 63 12 75 4 65 5 70 3 67 7 58 7 59 2 79 6 61 2 53 27 81 1 79 2 49 14 78 11 63 6 62 2 52 ‡ 62 1 63 ‡ 62 3 53 2 82 7 71 11 69 7 89 6 70 5 58 15 74 6 31 14 57 6 69 5 87 2 61 1 46 3 55 8 47 5 56 6 80 ‡ 60 5 64 4 49 ‡ 72 3 66 4 67 65 12 22 ELL Assessed Without accommodations 57 ‡ 27 25 33 85 53 9 22 1 32 50 51 21 23 22 56 23 36 47 8 60 73 52 ‡ 33 ‡ 35 30 23 8 46 3 56 43 4 45 45 17 63 54 43 4 75 37 ‡ 30 35 ‡ 17 43 18 41 With accommodations 39 ‡ 65 74 66 13 46 87 66 94 63 47 42 72 75 72 42 50 63 52 78 28 20 46 ‡ 66 ‡ 63 69 70 81 48 91 39 41 89 41 49 78 36 45 54 88 20 57 ‡ 65 61 ‡ 80 53 70 37

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

Excluded 10 10 10 5 5 4 5 7 19 7 10 9 8 11 10 7 7 19 8 8 30 13 13 6 7 10 11 6 7 9 17 10 6 8 21 13 40 10 8 5 7 9 20 14 11 8 11 9 8 8 9 25 15

Total 90 90 90 95 95 96 95 93 81 93 90 91 92 89 90 93 93 81 92 92 70 87 87 94 93 90 89 94 93 91 83 90 94 92 79 87 60 90 92 95 93 91 80 86 89 92 89 91 92 92 91 75 85

Total 85 89 86 91 93 86 90 91 80 92 87 84 90 86 87 92 89 82 91 91 62 86 86 91 92 88 87 92 80 90 82 84 94 89 78 85 49 85 91 94 91 89 76 64 86 92 85 88 92 88 90 70 87

Total 96 ‡ 92 99 98 98 99 97 88 96 95 97 93 93 98 94 98 73 99 98 86 89 94 98 ‡ 99 ‡ 97 98 93 89 93 94 95 85 94 86 94 95 98 99 97 92 95 94 ‡ 95 96 ‡ 97 96 88 78

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

73

Table A-11. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students identified as students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) excluded and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students, by state/jurisdiction: 2011
SD and/or ELL Assessed Without accommodations 27 59 18 16 18 63 32 14 13 4 15 37 27 18 13 10 41 12 8 19 7 13 21 37 12 15 18 23 35 21 6 46 2 19 16 8 23 32 11 23 23 28 10 44 21 18 31 27 23 12 16 8 25 With accommodations Excluded 58 19 30 11 67 23 75 11 73 11 32 9 63 8 77 10 67 21 87 11 62 26 54 9 62 14 68 15 72 17 82 9 52 11 62 27 83 10 73 8 47 51 68 18 54 26 51 14 75 14 75 10 70 13 56 24 48 28 70 9 72 24 45 14 91 7 70 12 57 30 60 34 23 60 60 10 75 15 70 6 52 32 58 12 61 31 28 42 60 25 76 6 52 19 63 12 66 11 78 14 75 10 72 56 22 16 Percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students SD Assessed Without accommodations 13 57 7 13 12 26 12 12 11 4 13 19 15 10 7 5 18 9 7 17 7 7 14 26 9 14 15 17 17 19 6 23 2 11 13 7 19 20 11 20 18 23 10 17 11 16 23 13 22 8 10 4 13 With accommodations Excluded 68 7 32 ‡ 70 5 76 ‡ 77 4 65 3 80 3 78 7 68 10 85 5 61 8 72 10 71 5 74 10 76 6 85 3 71 1 64 15 83 ‡ 75 3 42 26 75 22 59 17 60 9 77 ‡ 76 ‡ 73 ‡ 60 10 55 10 72 ‡ 71 4 63 6 91 6 77 4 57 ‡ 60 4 21 22 69 2 74 8 74 9 50 7 64 20 58 ‡ 40 14 64 16 77 ‡ 58 13 75 5 67 ‡ 78 4 80 ‡ 74 70 15 29 ELL Assessed Without accommodations 55 ‡ 29 ‡ 31 76 53 17 28 3 22 56 51 42 40 27 76 33 ‡ 69 9 41 53 60 ‡ ‡ ‡ 50 46 ‡ 13 62 1 42 ‡ 26 41 56 9 37 37 54 ‡ 73 35 ‡ 47 54 ‡ 19 ‡ 18 42 With accommodations 38 ‡ 66 ‡ 65 21 44 76 62 92 70 34 44 47 55 70 23 51 ‡ 28 66 37 30 31 ‡ ‡ ‡ 40 43 ‡ 83 32 92 54 ‡ 70 37 42 83 54 56 26 ‡ 13 49 ‡ 40 40 ‡ 78 ‡ 67 28

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

Excluded 15 10 15 10 9 5 5 8 19 10 23 9 11 14 15 8 8 26 9 8 46 18 25 12 13 10 12 22 17 9 22 9 7 10 27 31 54 8 14 7 25 14 29 28 19 6 16 10 11 11 9 20 19

Total 85 90 85 90 91 95 95 92 81 90 77 91 89 86 85 92 92 74 91 92 54 82 75 88 87 90 88 78 83 91 78 91 93 90 73 69 46 92 86 93 75 86 71 72 81 94 84 90 89 89 91 80 81

Total 81 89 77 89 89 91 92 90 79 89 74 91 86 85 83 91 89 73 90 92 49 82 74 86 86 90 87 76 72 91 76 86 93 88 70 66 40 90 85 94 68 88 69 58 75 94 81 88 89 86 90 78 84

Total 93 ‡ 95 ‡ 96 97 97 93 90 95 92 90 95 90 94 97 99 85 ‡ 97 74 78 83 91 ‡ ‡ ‡ 90 90 ‡ 96 94 94 96 ‡ 96 78 98 92 91 93 80 ‡ 86 84 ‡ 87 95 ‡ 96 ‡ 85 71

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
� 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).
� NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized
Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

74

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-12. Percentage distribution of fourth-grade public school students assessed in NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity, eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch, and state/jurisdiction: 1992, 2003, and 2011
Race/ethnicity White 2011 19921 72* 52 65 60 — 50 62* 43 75* 65 50* 25 73* 56 76* 59 70* 48 63* 40 60* 45 23* 15 92* 78 — 53 87* 72 95* 80 — 68 90* 84 53 47 98* 92 62* 43 83* 68 79* 71 91* 73 42* 50 83* 75 — 82 90* 70 — 36 96* 91 69* 54 45* 27 63* 48 65* 54 95* 84 86* 72 77* 55 — 66 81* 73 82* 64 58 54 — 77 73 68 49* 30 93* 79 — 92 71* 56 — 58 96* 92 87* 75 90* 80 5* — 8 48 Black 19921 2011 18* 16 34 32 — 4 4 5 24 21 7 7 6 4 11 13 25* 33 24 25 38 36 3 3 #* 1 — 19 11 11 2* 6 — 7 9 9 45 46 #* 3 32 35 8 9 16 16 3* 9 58* 45 15 17 — 1 6* 8 — 10 1* 2 16 14 4* 2 15 20 31* 27 #* 2 12* 17 9 11 — 2 14 13 7 8 41 36 — 3 25 22 14 13 1* 2 — 2 25 21 — 5 2* 5 6 9 1 1 91* — 77 16 Hispanic 19921 2011 7* 24 #* 5 — 6 23* 43 #* 10 30* 54 17* 33 10* 21 2* 13 12* 29 1* 13 2* 5 6* 16 — 20 2* 10 1* 9 — 16 #* 4 1* 4 #* 2 2* 11 4* 15 3* 6 2* 9 #* 3 1* 5 — 4 3* 16 — 42 1* 4 11* 23 45* 60 17 21 1* 12 1* 3 1* 4 3* 12 — 21 3* 9 7* 22 #* 6 — 3 #* 7 34* 53 4* 14 — 1 2* 11 — 21 #* 1 2* 10 6* 14 3* — 12 18 Asian/ Pacific Islander 19921 2011 3* 5 #* 1 — 8 1* 3 1* 2 12 13 2 3 2* 5 1* 4 1* 3 1* 4 62* 69 1* 2 — 4 1 1 2 2 — 3 #* 1 2 2 1* 2 3* 6 4* 6 1* 3 3* 5 #* 1 1* 2 — 1 #* 2 — 7 1* 3 5* 8 1 1 4* 10 1* 3 1* 1 1 2 #* 3 — 4 2* 3 4 3 1* 2 — 1 1 2 2 3 2* 3 — 2 3* 7 — 8 # # 2 4 1 1 1* — 2 7 American Indian/ Alaska Native 19921 2011 1 1 1 1 — 23 10 5 # # 1 # 1 1 # # # # # # # # # # 1 2 — # #* # # # — 1 # # # # # # # # # # 1 1 1* 2 # # # # — 11 1 1 — 1 # # # # 4* 9 # 1 2 1 3* 9 # # 9* 18 — 2 # # # 1 # # — 14 # # # # 1 1 — # # # — 2 # # 2 2 2 3 # — # 1 Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch Eligible 2003 2011 44* 52 57 58 33* 46 47* 58 54* 64 52 58 31* 46 30* 38 38* 50 49* 62 48* 56 49 48 43* 50 41* 49 34* 51 33* 41 40* 51 51 55 65 69 34* 46 36* 42 29 34 36* 45 27* 38 69 72 42* 51 38* 43 36* 43 42* 57 17* 27 29* 36 65* 71 50 55 42* 53 31* 36 35* 47 57 61 36* 53 37 40 40* 46 53 57 37* 43 40* 58 54* 64 34 38 29* 41 32 36 38* 46 53 52 32* 42 35* 41 71* ‡ 74 # Not eligible 2003 2011 52* 47 43 42 59* 53 42 40 43* 36 44 41 68* 54 66 62 53* 50 48* 38 46 44 51 51 50 49 55 51 65* 49 66* 59 59* 49 47 45 31 31 64* 54 60 58 63 66 63* 55 73* 62 26 28 53 49 57 57 59 57 52* 43 73 72 63 63 25 29 46 43 52 47 67 64 56 53 41 39 61* 46 60 59 52 54 46 43 62* 57 55* 42 44* 35 65 62 69* 58 66 64 52 53 45 48 65* 58 63* 59 24* ‡ 26 #

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA2

— Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. # Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Accommodations not permitted. 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified or two or more races, and for students whose eligibility status for free/reduced-price school lunch was not available. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 2003, and 2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

75

Table A-13. Percentage of fourth-grade public school students at or above Basic in NAEP mathematics, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1992–2011
Accommodations not permitted State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 1992 57* 43* — 53* 47* 46* 61* 67* 55* 52* 53* 52* 63* — 60* 72* — 51* 39* 75* 55* 68* 61* 71* 36* 62* — 67* — 72* 68* 50* 57* 50* 72* 57* 60* — 65* 54* 48* — 47* 56* 66* — 59* — 52* 71* 69* 23* — 1996 62* 48* 65* 57* 54* 46* 67* 75* 54* 55* 53* 53* — — 72* 74* — 60* 44* 75* 59* 71* 68* 76* 42* 66* 71* 70* 57* — 68* 51* 64* 64* 75* — — 65* 68* 61* 48* — 58* 69* 69* 67* 62* 67* 63* 74* 64* 20* 64* 2000 67* 57* — 58* 56* 52* — 77* — — 58* 55* 71* 66* 78* 78* 75* 60* 57* 74* 61* 79* 72* 78* 45* 72* 73* 67* 61* — — 51* 67* 76* 75* 73* 69* 67* — 67* 60* — 60* 77* 70* 73* 73* — 68* — 73* 24* 70* 2000 64* 55* — 57* 55* 50* — 76* — — 57* 55* 68* 63* 77* 75* 76* 59* 57* 73* 60* 77* 71* 76* 45* 71* 72* 65* 60* — — 50* 66* 73* 73* 73* 67* 65* — 65* 59* — 59* 76* 69* 73* 71* — 65* — 71* 24* 69* 2003 76* 65* 75 70* 71* 67* 77* 82 81* 76* 72* 68* 80* 73* 82* 83 85* 72* 67* 83* 73* 84* 77 84* 62* 79* 81* 80 69* 87* 80* 63* 79 85* 83* 81* 74* 79 78* 72* 79 82* 70* 82 79* 85* 83* 81 75 79* 87 36* 84 Accommodations permitted 2005 79* 66* 77 70* 78 71 81* 84 84 82 76* 73* 86* 74* 84 85 88 75* 74 84 79* 91* 79 88 69 79* 85 80 72* 89* 86* 65* 81 83* 89 84 79* 80* 82* 76* 81 86 74 87 83 87 83* 84 75 84 87 45* 85 2007 81 70 79 74* 81 70* 82 84 87* 86 79 77* 85 79 89 87 89 79* 73 85 80* 93 80 87 70 82 88 80 74* 91 90 70* 85* 85* 91 87 82 79 85 80* 80 86 76 87 83 89 87 84 81* 85 88 49* 86 2009 81* 70* 78 71* 80 72 84 86 84 86 78 77 85 80 87 87 89 81* 72 87 85 92 78 89 69 83 88 82 79 92 88 72 83* 87 91 85 82 80 84 81* 78 86 74 85 81* 89 85 84 77 85 87 56* 86 2011 82 75 78 77 81 74 84 82 84 84 80 80 83 80 87 86 90 85 73 87 86 93 78 88 72 83 87 83 79 92 89 75 80 88 90 86 83 77 87 84 79 86 75 85 85 89 87 83 78 86 88 60 86

— Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

76

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-14. Percentage of fourth-grade public school students at or above Proficient in NAEP mathematics, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1992–2011
Accommodations not permitted State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 1992 17* 10* — 13* 10* 12* 17* 24* 17* 13* 15* 15* 16* — 16* 26* — 13* 8* 27* 18* 23* 18* 26* 6* 19* — 22* — 25* 25* 11* 17* 13* 22* 16* 14* — 22* 13* 13* — 10* 15* 19* — 19* — 12* 24* 19* 5* — 1996 20* 11* 21* 15* 13* 11* 22* 31* 16* 15* 13* 16* — — 24* 22* — 16* 8* 27* 22* 24* 23* 29* 8* 20* 22* 24* 14* — 25* 13* 20* 21* 24* — — 21* 20* 17* 12* — 17* 25* 23* 23* 19* 21* 19* 27* 19* 5* 19* 2000 25* 14* — 17* 13* 15* — 32* — — 18* 14* 21* 21* 31* 28* 30* 17* 14* 25* 22* 33* 29* 34* 9* 23* 25* 24* 16* — — 12* 22* 28* 25* 26* 16* 23* — 23* 18* — 18* 27* 24* 29* 25* — 18* — 25* 6* 23* 2000 22* 13* — 16* 14* 13* — 31* — — 17* 14* 20* 20* 30* 26* 29* 17* 14* 23* 21* 31* 28* 33* 9* 23* 24* 24* 16* — — 12* 21* 25* 25* 25* 16* 23* — 22* 18* — 18* 25* 23* 29* 24* — 17* — 25* 5* 21* 2003 31* 19* 30* 25* 26* 25* 34* 41* 31* 31* 27* 23* 31* 32* 35* 36* 41* 22* 21* 34* 31* 41* 34 42* 17* 30* 31* 34* 23* 43* 39* 17* 33 41 34* 36* 23* 33 36* 28* 32 34* 24* 33* 31* 42* 36* 36* 24* 35* 39* 7* 31* Accommodations permitted 2005 35* 21* 34 28* 34 28* 39* 42 36 37 30* 27* 40 32* 38* 37* 47 26* 24 39* 38* 49* 38 47* 19* 31* 38* 36 26* 47* 45* 19* 36 40* 40* 43 29* 37 41* 31* 36 41 28 40 37* 44* 39* 42 25* 40* 43 10* 35* 2007 39* 26 38 31 37 30 41* 45 40 40 32* 33* 40 36 46 43 51 31* 24 42 40* 58 37 51 21* 38 44 38 30* 52* 52 24* 43* 41 46 46 33 35 47 34* 36 41 29 40 39 49 42 44 33 47 44 14* 37 2009 38* 24 38 28* 36 30 45 46 36 40 34 37 41 38 42 41 46 37 23 45 44 57 35 54 22 41 45 38 32 56 49 26 40* 43 45 45 33 37 46 39 34 42 28 38 41 51 43 43 28 45 40 17* 38 2011 40 27 37 34 37 34 47 45 39 37 37 40 39 38 44 43 48 39 26 45 48 58 35 53 25 41 45 39 36 57 51 30 36 44 46 45 33 37 48 43 36 40 30 39 43 49 46 45 31 47 44 22 39

— Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

77

Table A-15. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and state/jurisdiction: 2011
White Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Black Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Hispanic Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1
See notes at end of table.

249 240 248 246 244 252 254 253 250 250 249 248 244 249 249 246 251 243 241 246 258 258 242 255 241 246 247 247 247 252 256 247 245 253 249 249 243 243 251 249 248 246 239 253 247 248 251 249 235 251 246 272 246

9 14 10 11 12 8 7 7 7 8 9 11 12 10 9 11 7 13 13 11 6 4 14 6 14 11 9 10 11 7 5 11 11 5 6 9 11 16 8 9 10 9 18 6 10 10 8 11 21 8 9 1 9

91 86 90 89 88 92 93 93 93 92 91 89 88 90 91 89 93 87 87 89 94 96 86 94 86 89 91 90 89 93 95 89 89 95 94 91 89 84 92 91 90 91 82 94 90 90 92 89 79 92 91 99 91

52 37 50 49 45 57 60 60 53 52 51 53 44 51 51 47 56 41 40 47 64 67 41 60 38 48 50 48 48 59 64 48 46 58 52 53 41 43 56 53 52 46 36 60 49 50 56 53 32 55 47 84 47

9 4 9 8 6 12 14 11 7 9 10 10 6 10 9 6 9 6 4 8 18 15 5 14 3 7 6 7 8 10 12 8 7 10 6 8 3 7 11 10 9 5 5 9 8 8 11 10 3 10 6 33 5

224 215 225 224 219 225 225 220 227 226 224 233 ‡ 219 223 224 227 225 219 212 230 235 211 225 217 216 ‡ 213 226 235 231 226 224 229 ‡ 226 224 215 224 225 220 227 216 232 ‡ ‡ 229 227 227 217 ‡ 215 228

34 46 32 38 42 32 34 41 29 30 35 25 ‡ 42 35 37 28 31 41 55 27 19 53 37 44 47 ‡ 49 33 19 23 32 35 25 ‡ 32 34 50 33 31 39 32 45 23 ‡ ‡ 27 29 30 45 ‡ 46 27

66 54 68 62 58 68 66 59 71 70 65 75 ‡ 58 65 63 72 69 59 45 73 81 47 63 56 53 ‡ 51 67 81 77 68 65 75 ‡ 68 66 50 67 69 61 68 55 77 ‡ ‡ 73 71 70 55 ‡ 54 73

17 9 15 22 16 19 21 15 19 18 18 32 ‡ 14 15 18 18 17 12 10 23 27 8 23 10 14 ‡ 7 23 27 24 19 17 18 ‡ 20 14 14 17 20 13 21 12 25 ‡ ‡ 20 20 20 12 ‡ 13 19

1 # 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 ‡ 2 # 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 # 3 # 1 ‡ 1 1 3 2 3 1 # ‡ 2 # 2 1 2 # 1 1 1 ‡ ‡ 1 2 2 1 ‡ 1 #

229 227 239 227 233 222 230 222 231 236 233 237 223 226 234 229 235 236 230 ‡ 245 236 228 230 229 231 237 226 229 235 234 228 226 238 233 233 227 220 226 224 234 226 228 235 223 ‡ 237 226 ‡ 228 235 223 236

28 29 18 30 24 38 28 38 24 19 24 22 36 30 21 27 17 18 25 ‡ 13 20 31 27 25 23 18 32 29 23 21 29 31 14 20 24 28 42 31 33 20 29 28 19 36 ‡ 17 32 ‡ 29 20 36 18

72 71 82 70 76 62 72 62 76 81 76 78 64 70 79 73 83 82 75 ‡ 87 80 69 73 75 77 82 68 71 77 79 71 69 86 80 76 72 58 69 67 80 71 72 81 64 ‡ 83 68 ‡ 71 80 64 82

24 21 36 21 28 17 26 19 25 31 29 39 17 20 29 24 26 30 20 ‡ 43 32 21 28 22 24 31 20 24 30 28 23 20 33 24 27 19 15 20 21 28 18 19 29 17 ‡ 31 22 ‡ 22 31 21 30

2 # 5 1 3 1 3 2 1 3 3 4 1 1 3 1 1 3 # ‡ 9 4 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 ‡ 4 2 ‡ 1 2 2 2

78

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-15. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and state/jurisdiction: 2011—Continued
Asian/Pacific Islander Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score

American Indian/Alaska Native Percentage of students
Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

256 ‡ 234 249 247 256 246 255 262 257 263 237 247 257 ‡ 248 253 261 ‡ 246 267 267 263 253 ‡ 252 ‡ 241 252 264 265 254 252 263 ‡ 254 252 249 264 251 ‡ ‡ 249 263 236 ‡ 262 256 ‡ 242 ‡ ‡ 244

9 ‡ 23 13 17 9 21 10 4 4 6 21 16 7 ‡ 15 5 6 ‡ 15 5 2 7 12 ‡ 10 ‡ 15 11 5 4 11 12 3 ‡ 8 4 16 4 8 ‡ ‡ 13 3 22 ‡ 4 10 ‡ 20 ‡ ‡ 13

91 ‡ 77 87 83 91 79 90 96 96 94 79 84 93 ‡ 85 95 94 ‡ 85 95 98 93 88 ‡ 90 ‡ 85 89 95 96 89 88 97 ‡ 92 96 84 96 92 ‡ ‡ 87 97 78 ‡ 96 90 ‡ 80 ‡ ‡ 87

62 ‡ 29 53 53 63 55 62 69 64 70 37 52 63 ‡ 52 59 66 ‡ 48 74 76 71 57 ‡ 57 ‡ 40 58 70 75 63 58 71 ‡ 58 55 51 75 49 ‡ ‡ 51 69 31 ‡ 70 62 ‡ 42 ‡ ‡ 45

20 ‡ 3 14 13 19 15 18 24 17 29 6 12 19 ‡ 14 11 27 ‡ 11 33 30 25 16 ‡ 17 ‡ 10 12 29 29 18 17 26 ‡ 11 10 17 25 13 ‡ ‡ 13 27 8 ‡ 24 20 ‡ 12 ‡ ‡ 6

227 ‡ 213 216 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 233 ‡ ‡ 220 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 219 ‡ 225 221 ‡ 234 220 ‡ ‡ ‡ 220 ‡ ‡ 214 ‡ ‡ 223 ‡ 231 223 ‡ ‡

32 ‡ 50 45 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 26 ‡ ‡ 43 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 42 ‡ 36 39 ‡ 22 41 ‡ ‡ ‡ 40 ‡ ‡ 46 ‡ ‡ 37 ‡ 29 38 ‡ ‡

68 ‡ 50 55 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 74 ‡ ‡ 57 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 58 ‡ 64 61 ‡ 78 59 ‡ ‡ ‡ 60 ‡ ‡ 54 ‡ ‡ 63 ‡ 71 62 ‡ ‡

24 ‡ 14 14 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 30 ‡ ‡ 16 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 15 ‡ 20 15 ‡ 29 21 ‡ ‡ ‡ 15 ‡ ‡ 14 ‡ ‡ 20 ‡ 34 23 ‡ ‡

2 ‡ 1 1 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 4 ‡ ‡ 1 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 2 ‡ 3 1 ‡ 3 3 ‡ ‡ ‡ # ‡ ‡ 1 ‡ ‡ 1 ‡ 5 2 ‡ ‡

# Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students of two or more races. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

79

Table A-16. Percentage of students, average scores, and achievement-level results in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by selected racial/ethnic groups and state/jurisdiction: 2011
Asian Percentage of students
Percentage of students Average scale score

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Percentage of students

Two or more races Percentage of students
At or At or above above At Basic Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

At or At or Average above above At Percentage scale Basic Proficient Advanced of students score

At or At or Average above above At Percentage scale Basic Proficient Advanced of students score

5 5 1 6 3 1 12 3 5 3 3 4 36 2 4 1 2 3 1 1 2 6 6 3 5 1 2 1 2 6 3 8 1 10 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 7 7 # 4 1 2 5

257 257 ‡ 238 252 ‡ 256 246 255 263 258 263 246 ‡ 258 ‡ ‡ 253 262 ‡ 246 268 267 263 253 ‡ 253 ‡ 242 253 264 266 254 252 265 ‡ 254 254 257 265 251 ‡ ‡ 247 264 241 ‡ 262 261 ‡ 242 ‡ ‡ 247

93 92 ‡ 84 89 ‡ 92 79 90 97 96 93 86 ‡ 94 ‡ ‡ 95 94 ‡ 85 96 98 93 87 ‡ 91 ‡ 85 90 94 96 89 88 98 ‡ 92 97 91 96 92 ‡ ‡ 85 97 82 ‡ 96 94 ‡ 81 ‡ ‡ 89

64 64 ‡ 34 57 ‡ 64 56 62 70 66 70 48 ‡ 65 ‡ ‡ 60 67 ‡ 48 76 76 71 57 ‡ 56 ‡ 42 61 70 75 63 58 72 ‡ 58 58 62 75 50 ‡ ‡ 52 72 39 ‡ 70 70 ‡ 43 ‡ ‡ 49

20 21 ‡ 3 15 ‡ 19 16 18 25 17 29 9 ‡ 20 ‡ ‡ 11 27 ‡ 11 34 29 26 16 ‡ 19 ‡ 11 13 29 29 19 17 27 ‡ 11 12 22 26 13 ‡ ‡ 12 28 14 ‡ 24 23 ‡ 13 ‡ ‡ 8

# # # 2 # 1 1 # # # # # 33 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 1 # # # # # # # # 1 # # # # # # 2 # # 1 # # # # 2

236 235 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 228 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 230 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

77 76 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 70 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 72 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

34 33 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 26 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 23 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

7 7 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 3 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 2 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

2 2 # 8 # 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 7 1 3 5 2 4 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 # # 1 3 3 1 1 1 # 3 # 4 2 5 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 1 1 2 1 11

245 244 ‡ 240 ‡ ‡ 252 250 241 249 242 241 241 ‡ 244 238 240 243 237 ‡ ‡ 256 257 234 237 ‡ ‡ ‡ 235 239 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 247 ‡ 240 ‡ 242 234 238 236 ‡ ‡ 249 ‡ 245 249 249 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 243

87 85 ‡ 83 ‡ ‡ 91 89 74 94 88 79 84 ‡ 85 80 84 90 83 ‡ ‡ 91 92 77 77 ‡ ‡ ‡ 79 80 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 93 ‡ 81 ‡ 82 81 80 82 ‡ ‡ 93 ‡ 86 90 89 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 88

45 43 ‡ 38 ‡ ‡ 56 52 49 47 38 41 41 ‡ 45 35 39 42 35 ‡ ‡ 58 60 27 39 ‡ ‡ ‡ 29 39 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 48 ‡ 35 ‡ 46 27 43 33 ‡ ‡ 49 ‡ 44 50 51 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 42

10 9 ‡ 7 ‡ ‡ 16 15 10 9 8 6 7 ‡ 8 4 3 6 2 ‡ ‡ 20 22 6 6 ‡ ‡ ‡ 5 5 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 7 ‡ 8 ‡ 8 5 6 3 ‡ ‡ 14 ‡ 11 11 13 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 6

# Rounds to zero ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

80 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-17. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by gender and state/jurisdiction: 2011
Male Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Female Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1
1

241 231 237 237 238 235 246 243 241 240 238 238 241 240 245 244 247 242 231 246 248 255 238 250 229 240 245 241 238 252 249 234 238 245 246 245 237 237 247 242 237 242 233 241 244 248 247 244 235 245 245 220 242

18 26 22 21 20 25 16 17 16 17 22 21 16 19 12 14 10 14 28 12 14 8 21 12 29 18 12 17 20 8 11 24 20 12 10 14 18 23 14 17 23 14 24 15 14 11 12 17 21 14 12 42 14

82 74 78 79 80 75 84 83 84 83 78 79 84 81 88 86 90 86 72 88 86 92 79 88 71 82 88 83 80 92 89 76 80 88 90 86 82 77 86 83 77 86 76 85 86 89 88 83 79 86 88 58 86

41 28 38 36 37 35 49 46 40 38 37 39 41 39 46 44 48 39 26 48 50 60 37 54 25 42 48 41 38 58 53 31 37 44 49 47 34 37 49 43 36 42 30 39 46 52 48 46 33 49 46 21 40

7 3 6 5 5 7 11 9 6 6 7 6 6 8 8 6 7 6 2 8 14 16 6 13 2 6 6 6 5 11 11 4 6 8 7 9 3 7 10 8 6 5 4 5 9 9 10 10 4 9 6 4 4

239 232 235 234 238 234 243 241 239 240 239 240 239 238 242 242 246 240 231 243 246 252 235 248 231 241 242 239 236 251 247 232 237 244 244 243 238 237 245 242 238 240 232 241 241 245 244 242 234 244 243 223 240

18 25 22 24 19 27 16 19 16 16 19 18 18 21 15 15 10 16 26 14 14 7 22 12 26 16 14 18 22 7 11 26 20 12 10 13 16 22 13 15 19 15 25 15 16 12 13 17 22 14 13 38 14

82 75 78 76 81 73 84 81 84 84 81 82 82 79 85 85 90 84 74 86 86 93 78 88 74 84 86 82 78 93 89 74 80 88 90 87 84 78 87 85 81 85 75 85 84 88 87 83 78 86 87 62 86

39 27 35 31 37 33 45 44 37 36 37 40 38 37 42 42 47 38 26 42 45 57 33 52 25 41 43 37 33 56 49 28 34 44 44 44 33 36 46 42 36 37 29 39 40 46 44 43 29 45 42 22 37

6 2 5 3 4 6 8 7 4 5 6 6 5 6 6 5 7 5 2 6 11 11 4 11 2 5 4 4 4 10 9 4 4 6 4 5 3 6 8 6 5 3 3 4 5 6 8 8 3 7 5 4 3

Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

81

Table A-18. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch and state/jurisdiction: 2011
Eligible Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Not eligible Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score

Information not available Percentage of students
Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

229 222 224 227 230 222 231 223 231 232 227 228 232 225 235 233 238 232 224 235 233 239 224 235 224 230 234 227 229 241 233 226 229 235 235 234 232 226 231 229 227 231 225 234 232 238 231 230 227 231 236 213 ‡

27 35 35 31 27 37 27 37 24 22 30 29 25 33 20 23 15 23 34 21 24 17 35 22 35 27 22 30 29 15 22 31 29 18 19 23 23 33 26 26 30 25 34 20 26 18 23 27 30 25 19 49 ‡

73 65 65 69 73 63 73 63 76 78 70 71 75 67 80 77 85 77 66 79 76 83 65 78 65 73 78 70 71 85 78 69 71 82 81 77 77 67 74 74 70 75 66 80 74 82 77 73 70 75 81 51 ‡

24 15 22 22 26 18 28 19 24 26 21 26 27 20 31 28 33 26 17 31 26 36 18 33 17 27 31 21 25 39 27 21 25 28 29 30 25 22 26 26 21 25 19 28 28 35 24 27 21 27 32 12 ‡

2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 4 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 2 2 1 2 3 1 ‡

252 244 247 247 252 251 256 254 250 252 252 248 248 252 253 250 255 251 246 252 258 261 247 258 246 252 251 250 248 256 257 248 248 256 251 253 246 250 256 252 251 249 245 253 249 253 253 255 243 254 249 246 ‡

8 12 11 12 6 11 6 7 8 7 8 11 9 8 6 8 5 6 10 6 6 3 11 6 9 7 7 8 10 5 5 9 10 4 5 6 9 10 5 8 9 7 12 6 9 7 7 7 13 6 7 16 ‡

92 88 89 88 94 89 94 93 92 93 92 89 91 92 94 92 95 94 90 94 94 97 89 94 91 93 93 92 90 95 95 91 90 96 95 94 91 90 95 92 91 93 88 94 91 93 93 93 87 94 93 84 ‡

57 44 49 49 57 56 63 62 53 56 58 52 51 56 58 54 63 55 46 57 63 70 49 65 47 57 56 53 50 64 64 50 49 62 56 59 47 54 62 57 56 51 44 59 52 59 58 61 43 61 52 48 ‡

12 5 9 8 9 14 16 13 9 11 13 10 8 12 12 8 11 10 5 11 19 19 8 17 5 9 8 8 8 13 14 9 8 13 7 11 5 11 13 11 10 6 7 11 9 11 12 15 6 12 7 13 ‡

247 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 231 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 249 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 241

12 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 19 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 11 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 14

88 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 81 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 89 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 86

49 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 19 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 50 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 39

10 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 3 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 14 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 4

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

82 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-19. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by status as students with disabilities (SD) and state/jurisdiction: 2011
SD Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Not SD Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

218 198 218 210 212 202 217 216 217 223 214 194 217 218 227 216 225 224 212 219 235 233 214 227 213 221 219 220 217 230 226 210 215 225 227 221 217 214 223 212 211 223 211 220 222 222 225 216 217 222 226 191 220

45 66 45 54 51 65 46 49 47 36 51 72 48 43 32 48 34 37 52 43 27 24 50 35 50 40 44 42 47 27 35 56 49 32 31 41 46 50 39 51 53 36 52 44 38 39 37 47 45 42 32 75 44

55 34 55 46 49 35 54 51 53 64 49 28 52 57 68 52 66 63 48 57 73 76 50 65 50 60 56 58 53 73 65 44 51 68 69 59 54 50 61 49 47 64 48 56 62 61 63 53 55 58 68 25 56

17 5 19 15 14 9 18 18 14 18 14 5 15 19 26 13 19 21 9 13 33 26 14 25 14 21 17 19 21 25 25 11 12 19 24 20 12 14 21 13 11 17 12 19 20 17 23 18 17 21 20 5 15

2 # 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 8 3 1 4 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 # 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 4 2 1 3 1 2 2

243 234 239 238 241 237 247 246 244 243 241 243 243 242 247 247 249 243 235 249 248 257 239 253 231 243 247 243 239 256 252 236 242 248 248 247 239 240 249 246 241 244 235 243 245 251 248 247 238 248 247 226 244

15 21 18 19 15 23 12 14 12 13 17 15 14 17 10 9 7 12 21 8 12 4 18 8 25 14 10 13 18 4 7 21 15 9 8 10 15 19 9 11 16 11 21 13 12 6 10 12 17 10 9 36 10

85 79 82 81 85 77 88 86 88 87 83 85 86 83 90 91 93 88 79 92 88 96 82 92 75 86 90 87 82 96 93 79 85 91 92 90 85 81 91 89 84 89 79 87 88 94 90 88 83 90 91 64 90

43 29 40 36 40 36 50 49 42 41 40 43 42 41 47 48 52 41 30 51 49 65 38 57 26 44 49 43 37 63 55 32 40 48 49 49 35 40 52 47 40 44 32 41 46 55 49 49 34 51 48 24 42

7 3 6 5 5 7 10 9 6 6 7 7 6 8 8 6 7 6 3 9 13 15 5 13 2 6 6 6 5 12 11 4 6 8 6 8 3 7 10 8 6 5 4 5 7 9 9 10 4 9 6 4 4

# Rounds to zero. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The results for students with disabilities are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

83

Table A-20. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by status as English language learners (ELL) and state/jurisdiction: 2011
ELL Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Not ELL Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

219 ‡ 201 208 227 214 218 205 211 219 219 213 204 215 231 220 233 225 227 213 231 228 217 226 ‡ 217 ‡ 216 224 228 216 209 211 229 212 230 216 209 214 207 234 208 216 228 206 ‡ 228 211 ‡ 223 219 211 223

42 ‡ 64 58 29 49 42 61 54 42 44 49 63 46 25 37 17 28 31 53 24 28 47 33 ‡ 42 ‡ 44 34 32 45 56 53 21 49 28 45 57 50 57 21 56 46 27 63 ‡ 26 56 ‡ 35 41 50 38

58 ‡ 36 42 71 51 58 39 46 58 56 51 37 54 75 63 83 72 69 47 76 72 53 67 ‡ 58 ‡ 56 66 68 55 44 47 79 51 72 55 43 50 43 79 44 54 73 37 ‡ 74 44 ‡ 65 59 50 62

14 ‡ 3 7 23 11 12 6 8 13 13 12 2 12 24 12 23 11 19 12 24 20 12 25 ‡ 14 ‡ 7 18 19 8 5 8 16 6 26 8 5 11 8 29 6 10 20 5 ‡ 19 9 ‡ 17 13 12 17

1 ‡ # # 1 1 # 1 # # 1 # # 1 3 # 1 1 # 2 2 2 1 2 ‡ # ‡ # 1 3 # # # # # 1 # # 1 # 3 # # 1 # ‡ 2 1 ‡ 1 # # 1

243 232 242 239 239 243 249 245 241 242 239 242 242 241 245 244 248 241 231 245 248 255 237 252 230 241 245 242 242 252 249 237 240 246 246 245 239 241 247 244 237 242 233 245 245 247 247 247 235 247 245 223 242

15 25 16 18 19 16 11 15 15 14 19 16 15 18 13 13 9 15 27 12 13 6 21 10 28 16 12 15 16 7 10 19 17 11 9 13 16 17 12 13 21 12 24 11 12 11 12 12 22 12 11 39 13

85 75 84 82 81 84 89 85 85 86 81 84 85 82 87 87 91 85 73 88 87 94 79 90 72 84 88 85 84 93 90 81 83 89 91 87 84 83 88 87 79 88 76 89 88 89 88 88 78 88 89 61 87

43 28 42 37 38 44 53 48 40 40 38 43 41 40 46 45 51 39 26 46 49 61 36 56 25 42 46 42 42 58 52 34 39 46 48 46 35 42 49 45 36 42 30 44 46 50 48 49 31 49 45 22 40

7 3 7 5 5 9 11 9 5 6 7 7 6 7 7 6 8 5 2 7 13 14 5 13 2 6 6 6 6 11 10 5 6 7 6 7 3 7 9 8 6 5 4 6 8 8 9 10 3 9 6 4 4

# Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: The results for English language learners are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

84 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-21. Percentage distribution of eighth-grade public school students assessed in NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity, eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch, and state/jurisdiction: 1990, 2003, and 2011
Race/ethnicity White 2011 19901 73* 54 67* 59 — 52 62* 45 75* 66 49* 26 77* 59 79* 66 70* 52 64* 45 62* 46 20* 13 93* 79 70* 51 87* 73 95* 82 — 70 90* 84 57 54 — 93 62* 45 — 73 82* 74 93* 78 — 48 — 78 91* 84 92* 74 — 39 98* 91 69* 56 42* 28 61* 51 63* 55 93* 85 84* 74 77* 55 91* 66 82* 70 86* 68 — 56 — 82 — 71 50* 32 — 78 — 93 70* 56 — 62 96* 92 88* 77 86* 82 3* — 5 46 Black 19901 2011 16 16 32 33 — 4 3* 6 24 21 7 7 5 5 11 13 26* 33 22 22 36 39 2 3 # 1 19 18 9* 14 2* 5 — 7 9 10 40 40 — 3 31 34 — 8 14 16 2* 8 — 49 — 16 #* 1 5* 6 — 9 #* 2 17 16 2 2 19 19 32* 26 #* 3 12* 17 11 11 2 3 14 19 5* 7 — 35 — 2 — 22 14 13 — 1 — 2 25 22 — 5 3* 6 9 9 1 1 93* — 82 16 Hispanic 19901 2011 7* 23 #* 5 — 6 26* 41 1* 9 30* 52 15* 28 8* 17 2* 10 12* 27 1* 9 2* 4 4* 16 8* 24 2* 8 1* 8 — 14 #* 3 1* 4 — 1 2* 11 — 13 2* 4 #* 6 — 3 — 3 1* 3 2* 15 — 38 1* 3 9* 20 42* 61 13* 22 1* 11 1* 2 1* 3 2* 11 3* 20 2* 7 5* 19 — 5 — 3 — 5 33* 51 — 15 — 2 2* 11 — 17 #* 1 1* 8 6* 12 3* — 11 17 Asian/ Pacific Islander 19901 2011 2* 6 1* 1 — 10 2* 3 1* 2 12 15 2* 4 2* 4 1* 3 2 3 1* 4 67* 72 1 2 2* 5 1 1 1* 3 — 3 1 1 1 2 — 1 4* 7 — 4 2 3 3* 6 — 1 — 2 1 1 1* 2 — 8 1* 3 4* 8 2* 1 4* 8 1* 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 3* 5 1* 3 2* 3 — 2 — 1 — 2 2 4 — 4 — 2 3* 6 — 9 1 1 2* 4 1 1 1* — 1 9 American Indian/ Alaska Native 19901 2011 1 1 # 1 — 22 7 5 #* 1 1 1 1 1 #* # #* # # # # # # 1 1 1 # # # # # # — 2 # # # 1 — 1 # # — # 1 1 2 2 — # — # 7 10 #* 1 — 1 # # # # 11* 8 1 # 2 1 5 9 # # 9* 19 2 2 # # #* 1 — # — 11 — # # # — 1 — # # # — 2 # # 1 1 2 3 # — # 1 Eligibility for free/ reduced-price school lunch Eligible 2003 2011 36* 48 47* 53 24* 41 41* 51 46* 56 41* 54 26* 37 26* 33 33* 43 43* 55 43* 56 43* 46 35* 46 37* 48 29* 44 25* 37 32* 44 42* 52 50* 62 28* 41 26* 33 23* 33 26* 42 22* 32 57* 67 31* 43 30* 38 28* 39 32* 47 13* 23 24* 30 51* 64 44* 51 37* 50 27* 31 23* 43 44* 52 26* 50 28* 40 29* 41 45* 52 32* 35 37* 53 45* 59 27* 35 25* 34 25* 32 27* 40 47 46 22* 34 27* 35 57* ‡ 71 # Not eligible 2003 2011 58* 52 53* 47 67* 58 47 46 49 43 46 45 72* 63 71 67 58 57 52* 45 52* 44 56* 53 56 53 60* 52 67* 56 72* 62 66* 56 55* 48 38 38 70* 59 67 67 65 67 66* 58 77* 68 39* 32 66* 56 65 62 68* 61 64* 53 79* 74 68 70 40 36 51 49 51 50 73* 69 65* 57 54* 48 68* 49 69* 59 63* 58 53 48 68* 65 60* 47 53* 41 70* 65 75* 66 71 68 59 60 53 54 68 64 72* 65 31 ‡ 29 #

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA2

— Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
� # Rounds to zero.
� ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
� * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.
� 1 Accommodations not permitted.
� 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).
� NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified or
two or more races, and for students whose eligibility status for free/reduced-price school lunch was not available.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1990, 2003, and 2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

85

Table A-22. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students at or above Basic in NAEP mathematics, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1990–2011
Accommodations not permitted State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 1990 51* 40* — 48* 44* 45* 57* 60* 48* 43* 47* 40* 63* 50* 56* 70* — 43* 32* — 50* — 53* 67* — — 74* 68* — 65* 58* 43* 50* 38* 75* 53* 52* 62* 56* 49* — — — 45* — — 52* — 42* 66* 64* 17* — 1992 56* 39* — 55* 44* 50* 64* 64* 52* 49* 48* 46* 68* — 60* 76 — 51* 37* 72* 54* 63* 58* 74* 33* 62* — 70* — 71* 62* 48* 57* 47* 78* 59* 59* — 62* 56* 48* — 47* 53* 67* — 57* — 47* 71* 67* 22* — 1996 61* 45* 68* 57* 52* 51* 67* 70* 55* 54* 51* 51* — — 68* 78 — 56* 38* 77 57* 68* 67 75* 36* 64* 75* 76 — — — 51* 61* 56* 77* — — 67* — 60* 48* — 53* 59* 70 72* 58* 67* 54* 75 68* 20* 64* 2000 65* 52* — 62* 52* 52* — 72 — — 55* 52* 71* 68* 76 — 77 63* 48* 76 65* 76* 70 80 41* 67* 80 74 58* — — 50* 68 70* 77* 75 64* 71 — 64* 55* — 53* 68* 68* 75* 67* — 62 — 70* 23* 70* 2000 62* 53* — 60* 49* 50* — 70* — — 54* 51* 70* 67* 74 — 76 60* 47* 73* 62* 70* 68 80 42* 64* 79* 73 55* — — 48* 63* 67* 76* 73* 62* 71 — 59* 53* — 52* 67* 66* 73* 65* — 58* — 69* 23* 68* 2003 67* 53* 70* 61* 58* 56* 74* 73 68* 62* 59* 56* 73* 66* 74 76 76* 65* 57* 75* 67* 76* 68 82 47* 71 79* 74 59* 79 72* 52* 70 72 81* 74* 65* 70 69* 63* 68 78* 59* 69* 72 77* 72* 72* 63 75* 77* 29* 79 Accommodations permitted 2005 68* 53* 69* 64* 64* 57* 70* 70* 72 65 62* 56* 73* 68* 74 75 77* 64* 59 74* 66* 80* 68 79* 52* 68 80* 75 60* 77* 74* 53* 70 72 81* 74* 63* 72 72 63* 71 80 61 72* 71 78* 75 75 60* 76 76* 31* 76* 2007 70* 55 73 66 65* 59 75* 73 74 68 64* 59* 75 70 76 77 81 69 64 78 74 85 66 81 54 72 79* 74 60* 78* 77* 57* 70 73 86 76 66* 73 77 65* 71 81 64 78* 72 81 77 75 61* 76 80 34* 78 2009 71* 58 75 67 67 59 76* 78 75 70 67 65* 78 73 78 76 79 70 62 78 75 85 68 83 54 77* 82 75 63* 82 80 59* 73 74 86 76 68* 75 78* 68* 69 83 65 78* 75 81 76 78 61* 79 78 40* 79 2011 72 60 74 68 70 61 80 75 74 68 68 68 77 73 77 77 80 72 63 78 74 86 71 83 58 73 83 74 67 82 82 64 70 75 85 79 72 72 74 73 70 82 64 81 73 82 78 77 65 79 80 48 80

— Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

86 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-23. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students at or above Proficient in NAEP mathematics, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1990–2011
Accommodations not permitted State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 1990 15* 9* — 13* 9* 12* 17* 22* 14* 12* 14* 12* 18* 15* 17* 25* — 10* 5* — 17* — 16* 23* — — 27* 24* — 20* 21* 10* 15* 9* 27* 15* 13* 21* 17* 15* — — — 13* — — 17* — 9* 23* 19* 3* — 1992 20* 10* — 15* 10* 16* 22* 26* 15* 15* 13* 14* 22* — 20* 31 — 14* 7* 25* 20* 23* 19* 31* 6* 20* — 26* — 25* 24* 11* 20* 12* 29* 18* 17* — 21* 16* 15* — 12* 18* 22* — 19* — 10* 27* 21* 4* — 1996 23* 12* 30* 18* 13* 17* 25* 31* 19* 17* 16* 16* — — 24* 31 — 16* 7* 31* 24* 28* 28 34* 7* 22* 32* 31 — — — 14* 22* 20* 33* — — 26* — 20* 14* — 15* 21* 24* 27* 21* 26* 14* 32* 22* 5* 22* 2000 26* 16 — 21* 14* 18* — 34 — — 19* 16* 27* 27* 31 — 34* 21* 12* 32* 29* 32* 28 40* 8* 22* 37* 31 20* — — 13* 26 30* 31* 31* 19* 32 — 24* 18* — 17* 24* 26* 32* 26* — 18* — 25* 6* 27* 2000 25* 16 — 20* 13* 17* — 33* — — 19* 16* 26* 26* 29* — 34* 20* 11* 30* 27* 30* 28 39* 9* 21* 36* 30 18* — — 12* 24* 27* 30* 30* 18* 31 — 22* 17* — 16* 24* 25* 31* 25* — 17* — 23* 6* 26* 2003 27* 16* 30* 21* 19* 22* 34* 35 26* 23* 22* 17* 28* 29 31* 33 34* 24* 17* 29* 30* 38* 28 44* 12* 28* 35* 32 20* 35* 33* 15* 32 32* 36* 30* 20* 32 30* 24* 26* 35* 21 25* 31* 35* 31* 32* 20 35* 32* 6* 33* Accommodations permitted 2005 28* 15* 29* 26* 22* 22* 32* 35 30 26 23* 18* 30* 29* 30* 34 34* 23* 16* 30* 30* 43* 29 43* 14* 26* 36* 35 21* 35* 36* 14* 31 32* 35* 33* 21* 34 31* 24* 30 36* 21 31* 30* 38* 33* 36* 18* 36* 29* 7* 33* 2007 31* 18 32 26* 24* 24 37* 35 31 27 25 21* 34 31 35 35 40 27* 19 34* 37 51 29 43* 14* 30 38* 35 23* 38* 40* 17* 30 34 41 35 21* 35 38 28* 32 39 23 35* 32 41* 37 36* 19* 37* 36 8* 33* 2009 33* 20 33 29 27 23 40 40 32 29 27 25* 38 33 36 34 39 27 20 35* 40 52 31 47 15* 35* 44 35 25* 43 44 20* 34* 36 43 36 24 37* 40 28* 30 42 25 36 35 43 36* 39 19 39 35 11* 36 2011 34 20 35 31 29 25 43 38 32 28 28 30 37 33 34 34 41 31 22 39 40 51 31 48 19 32 46 33 29 44 47 24 30 37 43 39 27 33 39 34 32 42 24 40 35 46 40 40 21 41 37 17 37

— Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments.

MATHEMATICS 2011

87

Table A-24. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and state/jurisdiction: 2011
White Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Black Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Hispanic Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1
See notes at end of table.

293 280 296 294 287 290 302 297 294 287 291 290 291 294 290 288 295 284 283 290 303 304 286 302 283 288 297 290 292 293 304 290 291 296 296 295 286 287 294 292 293 295 281 304 289 295 297 294 274 295 291 319 295

17 26 12 17 21 20 10 14 15 21 18 18 18 16 18 20 14 25 25 21 11 9 22 11 24 21 13 18 17 17 9 19 18 15 11 14 19 22 17 18 17 13 27 8 20 18 15 17 34 15 16 3 13

83 74 88 83 79 80 90 86 85 79 82 82 82 84 82 80 86 75 75 79 89 91 78 89 76 79 87 82 83 83 91 81 82 85 89 86 81 78 83 82 83 87 73 92 80 82 85 83 66 85 84 97 87

43 28 47 46 37 41 55 48 43 37 40 41 41 44 40 37 47 33 31 40 56 58 35 55 30 36 49 39 43 45 59 40 40 48 47 46 34 37 47 42 43 47 28 58 41 47 48 46 22 47 41 76 46

10 4 10 12 6 11 16 13 10 8 9 7 10 11 8 9 10 7 4 11 18 17 6 16 5 8 12 8 10 11 17 8 9 13 9 10 5 9 11 10 10 10 6 15 8 13 14 12 3 11 8 32 10

262 250 273 269 257 254 270 262 266 258 262 277 ‡ 260 264 258 269 261 259 265 267 275 250 266 255 254 ‡ 255 259 ‡ 272 265 264 267 ‡ 263 262 263 257 256 263 270 252 277 ‡ ‡ 268 265 260 256 ‡ 256 274

50 64 34 39 56 58 39 50 44 54 49 28 ‡ 52 46 52 41 53 54 42 45 35 66 45 60 60 ‡ 58 55 ‡ 37 49 47 43 ‡ 50 48 51 56 52 50 40 62 29 ‡ ‡ 42 44 51 57 ‡ 56 32

50 36 66 61 44 42 61 50 56 46 51 72 ‡ 48 54 48 59 47 46 58 55 65 34 55 40 40 ‡ 42 45 ‡ 63 51 53 57 ‡ 50 52 49 44 48 50 60 38 71 ‡ ‡ 58 56 49 43 ‡ 44 68

13 7 17 18 9 12 17 11 14 11 12 26 ‡ 10 11 11 16 12 10 18 18 26 7 18 8 8 ‡ 8 12 ‡ 21 16 13 15 ‡ 12 11 18 9 12 14 21 9 21 ‡ ‡ 18 15 10 11 ‡ 13 17

1 # 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 5 ‡ 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 4 # 1 # # ‡ 1 1 ‡ 3 2 1 2 ‡ 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 ‡ ‡ 1 2 # 1 ‡ 2 2

269 255 277 266 272 260 271 262 274 274 277 263 267 272 275 269 274 269 269 ‡ 273 273 274 270 273 267 285 261 266 266 274 269 263 275 ‡ 273 264 268 269 261 273 274 266 283 257 ‡ 279 269 ‡ 270 271 261 282

40 60 33 45 36 51 38 51 32 35 31 52 42 36 32 38 35 39 39 ‡ 39 36 36 41 30 42 23 52 45 45 33 41 49 34 ‡ 39 44 42 42 49 37 34 44 24 57 ‡ 31 42 ‡ 40 37 50 26

60 40 67 55 64 49 62 49 68 65 69 48 58 64 68 62 65 61 61 ‡ 61 64 64 59 70 58 77 48 55 55 67 59 51 66 ‡ 61 56 58 58 51 63 66 56 76 43 ‡ 69 58 ‡ 60 63 50 74

20 9 25 18 20 13 20 13 21 22 25 19 16 19 21 14 22 18 16 ‡ 27 21 23 18 20 16 31 11 15 15 24 18 13 23 ‡ 26 14 17 22 13 25 20 15 31 9 ‡ 27 22 ‡ 21 20 17 29

3 1 5 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 5 2 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 ‡ 4 3 5 3 2 # 7 1 2 2 3 2 1 4 ‡ 4 1 2 3 2 4 3 1 4 1 ‡ 5 3 ‡ 3 2 2 4

88 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-24. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and state/jurisdiction: 2011—Continued
Asian/Pacific Islander Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score

American Indian/Alaska Native Percentage of students
Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

302 ‡ 282 302 ‡ 298 313 307 311 312 302 277 ‡ 314 ‡ 291 300 ‡ ‡ ‡ 311 320 310 282 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 287 303 318 ‡ 302 314 ‡ ‡ 304 297 310 287 ‡ ‡ ‡ 316 284 ‡ 313 302 ‡ 290 ‡ ‡ 290

15 ‡ 29 11 ‡ 17 8 8 7 8 12 33 ‡ 8 ‡ 23 15 ‡ ‡ ‡ 9 6 13 27 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 27 16 6 ‡ 14 12 ‡ ‡ 13 18 14 23 ‡ ‡ ‡ 3 24 ‡ 7 16 ‡ 24 ‡ ‡ 17

85 ‡ 71 89 ‡ 83 92 92 93 92 88 67 ‡ 92 ‡ 77 85 ‡ ‡ ‡ 91 94 87 73 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 73 84 94 ‡ 86 88 ‡ ‡ 87 82 86 77 ‡ ‡ ‡ 97 76 ‡ 93 84 ‡ 76 ‡ ‡ 83

55 ‡ 32 58 ‡ 50 67 60 67 65 52 29 ‡ 67 ‡ 45 53 ‡ ‡ ‡ 65 72 63 35 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 41 60 73 ‡ 55 71 ‡ ‡ 60 49 62 41 ‡ ‡ ‡ 69 35 ‡ 65 55 ‡ 43 ‡ ‡ 40

22 ‡ 8 17 ‡ 19 30 20 24 25 24 6 ‡ 31 ‡ 11 22 ‡ ‡ ‡ 27 39 31 7 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 11 24 36 ‡ 21 38 ‡ ‡ 19 18 33 7 ‡ ‡ ‡ 30 7 ‡ 32 25 ‡ 16 ‡ ‡ 8

266 ‡ 258 253 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 263 ‡ ‡ 264 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 258 ‡ 265 264 ‡ 273 260 ‡ ‡ ‡ 263 ‡ ‡ 244 ‡ ‡ 256 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

45 ‡ 52 60 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 49 ‡ ‡ 47 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 56 ‡ 46 46 ‡ 36 55 ‡ ‡ ‡ 48 ‡ ‡ 73 ‡ ‡ 51 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

55 ‡ 48 40 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 51 ‡ ‡ 53 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 44 ‡ 54 54 ‡ 64 45 ‡ ‡ ‡ 52 ‡ ‡ 27 ‡ ‡ 49 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

17 ‡ 15 12 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 11 ‡ ‡ 19 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 7 ‡ 22 15 ‡ 21 16 ‡ ‡ ‡ 14 ‡ ‡ 4 ‡ ‡ 12 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

4 ‡ 3 3 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 4 ‡ ‡ 5 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 1 ‡ 5 2 ‡ 3 3 ‡ ‡ ‡ 2 ‡ ‡ 2 ‡ ‡ 2 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

# Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students of two or more races. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

89

Table A-25. Percentage of students, average scores, and achievement-level results in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by selected racial/ethnic groups and state/jurisdiction: 2011
Asian Percentage of students
Percentage of students Average scale score

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Percentage of students

Two or more races Percentage of students
At or At or above above At Basic Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

At or At or Average above above At Percentage scale Basic Proficient Advanced of students score

At or At or Average above above At Percentage scale Basic Proficient Advanced of students score

5 5 1 8 3 1 14 4 4 3 3 3 39 1 4 1 2 3 1 2 1 6 4 3 6 1 2 1 2 7 3 8 1 8 3 1 2 2 4 3 3 2 1 2 4 2 2 6 8 1 4 1 1 7

305 305 ‡ 287 303 ‡ 301 313 307 311 314 303 288 ‡ 315 ‡ 293 302 ‡ ‡ ‡ 313 321 311 282 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 292 305 318 ‡ 302 316 ‡ ‡ 305 302 312 287 ‡ ‡ ‡ 317 ‡ ‡ 313 306 ‡ 289 ‡ ‡ 292

88 88 ‡ 77 90 ‡ 86 92 92 93 94 89 78 ‡ 93 ‡ 79 87 ‡ ‡ ‡ 92 94 87 73 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 78 84 94 ‡ 86 90 ‡ ‡ 88 86 87 78 ‡ ‡ ‡ 98 ‡ ‡ 93 87 ‡ 75 ‡ ‡ 86

58 58 ‡ 38 59 ‡ 53 68 60 67 66 53 40 ‡ 68 ‡ 46 56 ‡ ‡ ‡ 67 73 63 35 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 45 62 74 ‡ 55 72 ‡ ‡ 61 53 63 42 ‡ ‡ ‡ 69 ‡ ‡ 66 59 ‡ 42 ‡ ‡ 42

24 24 ‡ 10 15 ‡ 20 30 20 24 26 24 10 ‡ 32 ‡ 12 23 ‡ ‡ ‡ 28 39 32 7 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 13 25 36 ‡ 21 38 ‡ ‡ 19 21 34 7 ‡ ‡ ‡ 31 ‡ ‡ 32 28 ‡ 16 ‡ ‡ 8

# # # 2 # 1 1 # # # # # 33 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 1 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2 # # 1 # # # # 1

269 265 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 263 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

59 55 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 53 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

22 19 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 16 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

4 3 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 1 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

2 2 # 7 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 7 1 2 4 2 4 1 # 1 3 2 2 1 # 1 1 3 4 # # 1 # 4 # 4 2 4 1 2 2 1 # 1 1 2 4 4 # 1 1 1 12

288 286 ‡ 281 ‡ ‡ ‡ 304 ‡ ‡ 283 275 276 ‡ 281 282 ‡ 280 ‡ ‡ ‡ 296 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 281 282 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 292 ‡ 284 ‡ 282 ‡ 286 ‡ ‡ ‡ 305 ‡ ‡ 290 292 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 286

78 76 ‡ 72 ‡ ‡ ‡ 89 ‡ ‡ 76 60 65 ‡ 70 74 ‡ 68 ‡ ‡ ‡ 80 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 72 73 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 81 ‡ 79 ‡ 70 ‡ 82 ‡ ‡ ‡ 83 ‡ ‡ 81 79 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 76

39 37 ‡ 32 ‡ ‡ ‡ 57 ‡ ‡ 32 23 30 ‡ 33 29 ‡ 31 ‡ ‡ ‡ 47 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 29 36 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 45 ‡ 32 ‡ 36 ‡ 30 ‡ ‡ ‡ 54 ‡ ‡ 38 44 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 36

11 10 ‡ 7 ‡ ‡ ‡ 23 ‡ ‡ 5 7 7 ‡ 7 5 ‡ 10 ‡ ‡ ‡ 16 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 7 9 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 12 ‡ 4 ‡ 7 ‡ 6 ‡ ‡ ‡ 33 ‡ ‡ 9 16 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 6

# Rounds to zero ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

90 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-26. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by gender and state/jurisdiction: 2011
Male Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Female Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

283 269 283 282 280 273 291 288 282 278 279 277 287 283 285 286 291 282 272 288 289 299 282 295 267 283 293 284 279 292 294 275 280 285 293 290 280 285 287 283 280 291 276 291 285 294 289 288 274 290 290 259 289

28 40 26 30 30 38 21 24 27 32 33 33 23 28 24 23 19 29 39 23 25 15 28 17 45 27 18 25 32 19 19 35 30 26 15 21 28 26 26 27 31 19 35 19 26 19 23 25 34 20 18 54 20

72 60 74 70 70 62 79 76 73 68 67 67 77 72 76 77 81 71 61 77 75 85 72 83 55 73 82 75 68 81 81 65 70 74 85 79 72 74 74 73 69 81 65 81 74 81 77 75 66 80 82 46 80

34 21 36 34 31 26 44 39 31 29 29 30 37 33 34 34 41 32 22 38 42 52 33 47 18 33 46 35 29 44 48 24 30 37 45 40 29 35 40 35 31 42 26 41 37 46 40 41 22 43 41 17 37

9 3 7 9 6 7 12 11 7 6 7 6 9 10 7 8 9 7 3 11 13 17 7 14 3 7 12 8 7 11 15 4 7 10 9 9 5 9 10 8 7 9 6 10 8 14 12 11 3 11 9 4 8

282 269 284 276 278 273 292 286 284 277 278 279 286 283 285 284 289 281 274 289 287 298 279 295 272 281 293 282 277 292 294 274 281 287 291 288 278 280 285 283 282 290 272 290 281 294 289 288 272 287 285 262 287

28 40 25 34 31 39 19 26 25 32 30 31 23 26 23 24 21 28 34 20 26 14 30 16 39 28 16 26 34 18 17 36 30 23 16 22 29 30 26 26 28 17 37 18 28 17 22 22 36 22 21 50 20

72 60 75 66 69 61 81 74 75 68 70 69 77 74 77 76 79 72 66 80 74 86 70 84 61 72 84 74 66 82 83 64 70 77 84 78 71 70 74 74 72 83 63 82 72 83 78 78 64 78 79 50 80

33 19 35 29 28 25 43 37 33 27 27 30 36 32 34 33 40 29 22 39 38 51 29 48 20 30 45 31 28 44 46 24 30 37 40 37 26 30 38 33 32 41 22 39 33 46 40 40 21 39 34 17 36

7 2 7 6 4 6 13 9 7 5 5 6 8 7 6 7 8 5 3 10 10 14 5 12 3 6 10 5 5 11 12 3 7 9 7 8 3 6 9 6 7 7 3 7 5 12 10 11 3 8 5 3 6

1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

91

Table A-27. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch and state/jurisdiction: 2011
Eligible Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Not eligible Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score

Information not available Percentage of students
Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

269 256 269 267 269 260 273 264 270 267 267 268 276 269 273 271 276 271 265 276 266 280 266 276 260 269 280 269 267 276 274 267 269 273 278 274 270 271 268 267 268 277 262 281 269 277 270 273 264 269 277 253 ‡

41 55 40 43 40 51 37 47 39 43 42 43 32 39 34 37 32 39 46 32 45 28 45 32 52 41 28 40 44 34 34 44 43 36 29 35 37 38 43 42 43 30 49 26 42 30 39 38 47 40 30 59 ‡

59 45 60 57 60 49 63 53 61 57 58 57 68 61 66 63 68 61 54 68 55 72 55 68 48 59 72 60 56 66 66 56 57 64 71 65 63 62 57 58 57 70 51 74 58 70 61 62 53 60 70 41 ‡

19 9 21 19 18 14 23 14 17 16 16 21 24 17 20 17 24 18 14 25 17 29 16 26 12 18 31 16 18 27 24 15 18 22 27 22 16 20 20 16 18 25 13 28 20 26 18 25 13 20 26 11 ‡

2 # 3 3 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 3 4 2 3 2 3 2 1 4 2 5 2 4 1 2 5 2 2 4 4 1 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 4 1 2 4 1 ‡

295 284 294 292 292 288 303 298 293 291 293 286 295 296 294 293 300 294 286 298 299 308 291 304 288 292 301 293 288 297 303 288 293 300 298 299 289 295 298 295 295 298 287 304 291 302 298 299 282 299 293 278 ‡

16 23 15 20 18 23 10 14 17 19 17 23 15 16 15 15 10 16 22 14 16 8 18 10 20 17 11 16 23 14 11 22 16 14 9 11 18 17 15 16 16 11 21 8 19 12 14 14 25 12 14 34 ‡

84 77 85 80 82 77 90 86 83 81 83 77 85 84 85 85 90 84 78 86 84 92 82 90 80 83 89 84 77 86 89 78 84 86 91 89 82 83 85 84 84 89 79 92 81 88 86 86 75 88 86 66 ‡

47 32 45 45 44 40 56 50 43 42 43 38 47 47 45 43 54 44 35 49 52 62 41 58 35 42 55 44 38 49 57 39 43 52 50 52 39 46 52 46 47 51 36 58 43 56 50 51 29 52 43 33 ‡

13 6 11 13 9 12 17 14 11 10 11 8 12 14 10 11 13 11 6 15 17 21 9 18 7 10 15 10 9 12 18 8 10 16 10 13 7 13 14 11 12 11 8 17 9 18 16 16 5 13 9 9 ‡

275 ‡ ‡ 284 ‡ 269 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 288

37 ‡ ‡ 21 ‡ 43 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 20

63 ‡ ‡ 79 ‡ 57 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 80

26 ‡ ‡ 35 ‡ 17 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 37

6 ‡ ‡ 3 ‡ 4 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 7

# Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

92 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-28. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by status as students with disabilities (SD) and state/jurisdiction: 2011
SD Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Not SD Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

249 225 244 235 238 232 251 261 243 250 244 230 243 252 255 246 257 253 243 257 257 268 246 260 241 249 248 250 242 262 261 245 249 254 265 258 246 247 252 248 245 255 239 261 241 257 257 244 238 252 253 220 256

65 88 70 76 78 78 60 52 73 66 70 84 72 64 56 70 57 62 71 60 54 44 68 53 71 63 68 64 73 52 52 72 64 58 44 55 67 71 63 66 71 60 77 54 77 56 57 69 77 62 60 89 62

35 12 30 24 22 22 40 48 27 34 30 16 28 36 44 30 43 38 29 40 46 56 32 47 29 37 32 36 27 48 48 28 36 42 56 45 33 29 37 34 29 40 23 46 23 44 43 31 23 38 40 11 38

9 1 6 5 3 6 8 13 5 9 4 3 6 10 7 4 10 10 5 13 12 16 7 14 4 10 6 6 6 14 18 6 5 9 10 11 10 7 11 7 7 8 4 15 4 9 12 9 3 8 9 3 11

2 # # 1 # 2 1 2 1 1 # 1 2 2 # # 2 2 # 3 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 # # 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 # 2 1 # 1

287 274 288 284 284 277 296 290 288 282 281 283 290 288 289 291 293 284 277 295 290 304 284 299 271 286 299 287 281 298 299 278 286 291 295 292 282 287 292 289 284 294 277 292 287 302 293 293 278 294 292 267 291

23 35 21 27 25 35 16 21 20 27 28 26 19 22 19 16 16 25 32 14 24 9 25 12 40 23 11 21 30 12 12 31 24 20 12 17 25 22 20 19 26 14 32 16 23 10 18 18 30 16 14 46 16

77 65 79 73 75 65 84 79 80 73 72 74 81 78 81 84 84 75 68 86 76 91 75 88 60 77 89 79 70 88 88 69 76 80 88 83 75 78 80 81 74 86 68 84 77 90 82 82 70 84 86 54 84

36 22 39 34 32 27 47 41 36 30 30 33 39 36 38 38 44 33 25 44 42 58 33 52 20 34 51 36 30 49 51 26 34 41 46 42 29 36 43 39 34 45 26 42 38 54 43 44 24 46 41 19 39

9 3 8 8 5 7 13 11 8 6 6 7 9 9 8 9 9 7 3 12 13 18 6 15 3 7 12 7 6 13 15 4 8 11 9 9 5 8 11 9 8 9 5 9 7 16 12 12 3 10 8 4 7

# Rounds to zero. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The results for students with disabilities are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS 2011

93

Table A-29. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by status as English language learners (ELL) and state/jurisdiction: 2011
ELL Percentage of students
Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic

Not ELL Percentage of students
At or above Basic At or above At Proficient Advanced

State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1

244 ‡ 235 ‡ 260 234 243 237 ‡ 246 245 243 242 243 261 248 261 238 ‡ 272 245 247 261 255 ‡ ‡ ‡ 235 241 ‡ 244 243 239 254 ‡ 248 237 245 242 227 267 ‡ ‡ 261 234 ‡ 258 240 ‡ 257 ‡ 240 266

72 ‡ 76 ‡ 53 82 71 86 ‡ 67 72 69 76 70 51 68 50 79 ‡ 37 70 67 57 58 ‡ ‡ ‡ 79 77 ‡ 67 75 81 60 ‡ 71 79 73 78 83 43 ‡ ‡ 52 82 ‡ 54 78 ‡ 53 ‡ 75 45

28 ‡ 24 ‡ 47 18 29 14 ‡ 33 28 31 24 30 49 32 50 21 ‡ 63 30 33 43 42 ‡ ‡ ‡ 21 23 ‡ 33 25 19 40 ‡ 29 21 27 22 17 57 ‡ ‡ 48 18 ‡ 46 22 ‡ 47 ‡ 25 55

5 ‡ 2 ‡ 9 2 3 # ‡ 5 6 5 2 4 9 3 9 2 ‡ 27 8 8 17 8 ‡ ‡ ‡ 3 4 ‡ 12 2 1 7 ‡ 4 4 5 6 4 19 ‡ ‡ 10 1 ‡ 5 3 ‡ 8 ‡ 6 11

1 ‡ # ‡ 1 # # # ‡ # # 1 # # 1 # # # ‡ 5 2 1 10 1 ‡ ‡ ‡ # # ‡ 4 # # # ‡ # 1 # 2 # 2 ‡ ‡ 1 # ‡ 1 1 ‡ 1 ‡ 1 #

285 270 289 280 280 280 296 289 284 279 279 281 288 285 286 286 292 282 273 289 289 300 281 297 269 282 294 284 282 293 295 278 283 288 293 289 280 285 287 285 282 292 275 293 285 295 291 291 273 290 288 262 289

25 39 20 31 29 30 16 22 25 30 31 29 20 25 22 22 18 28 36 21 25 13 29 15 42 27 16 24 28 18 17 31 27 23 14 20 27 25 25 25 29 17 35 16 25 18 21 21 35 20 19 51 19

75 61 80 69 71 70 84 78 75 70 69 71 80 75 78 78 82 72 64 79 75 87 71 85 58 73 84 76 72 82 83 69 73 77 86 80 73 75 75 75 71 83 65 84 75 82 79 79 65 80 81 49 81

35 20 39 32 30 30 47 40 32 29 28 32 38 34 35 35 43 31 23 39 41 53 31 50 19 32 46 34 31 44 48 27 32 38 44 39 28 35 40 35 32 42 24 43 36 47 42 42 21 43 38 18 38

8 3 8 7 5 7 13 10 7 6 6 6 9 8 7 8 9 6 3 10 12 16 6 14 3 7 11 7 7 11 14 4 7 10 8 8 4 8 10 8 7 8 5 10 7 13 12 12 3 10 7 4 7

# Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: The results for English language learners are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

94 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

U.S. Department of Education
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a congressionally authorized project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. The National Center for Education Statistics, within the Institute of Education Sciences, administers NAEP. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible by law for carrying out the NAEP project.
Arne Duncan
Secretary U.S. Department of Education

John Q. Easton
Director Institute of Education Sciences

Jack Buckley

Commissioner National Center for Education Statistics

Peggy G. Carr

Associate Commissioner for Assessment National Center for Education Statistics

MO RE IN F OR M AT I O N
The report release site is http://nationsreportcard.gov. The NCES Publications and Products address is http://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch. For ordering information, write to ED Pubs U.S. Department of Education P.O. Box 22207 Alexandria, VA 22304 or call toll free 1-877-4-ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.gov.

The National Assessment Governing Board
In 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board to set policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as The Nation's Report CardTM. The Governing Board is an independent, bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives, and members of the general public.
Honorable David P. Driscoll, Chair Honorable Terry Holliday
Former Commissioner of Education Melrose, Massachusetts Commissioner of Education Kentucky Department of Education Lexington, Kentucky

Andrew C. Porter

Mary Frances Taymans,  Vice Chair
Bethesda, Maryland

Richard Brent Houston
Principal Shawnee Middle School Shawnee, Oklahoma

Dean Graduate School of Education University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

B. Fielding Rolston

Andrés Alonso

Chief Executive Officer Baltimore City Public Schools Baltimore, Maryland

David J. Alukonis

Former Chairman Hudson School Board Hudson, New Hampshire Data, Research and Federal Policy Director North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Raleigh, North Carolina

Middle School Science Teacher Belin-Blank International Center and Talent Development Iowa City, Iowa

Hector Ibarra

Chairman Tennessee State Board of Education Kingsport, Tennessee

Cary Sneider

Associate Research Professor Portland State University Portland, Oregon

Honorable Tom Luna

Louis M. Fabrizio

Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Boise, Idaho

Blair Taylor

President and CEO Los Angeles Urban League Los Angeles, California

Honorable Jack Markell
Governor of Delaware Wilmington, Delaware

Honorable Leticia Van de Putte
Senator Texas State Senate San Antonio, Texas

Honorable Anitere Flores
Senator Florida State Senate Miami, Florida

Tonya Miles Dale Nowlin

T H E N AT I O N ’S RE P O R T C A RD

General Public Representative Mitchellville, Maryland Twelfth-Grade Teacher Columbus North High School Columbus, Indiana

Eileen L. Weiser

Alan J. Friedman

General Public Representative Ann Arbor, Michigan

Mathematics

Consultant Museum Development and Science Communication New York, New York

John Q. Easton (Ex officio)
Director Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education Washington, D.C.

2011

Shannon Garrison

Honorable Sonny Perdue
Former Governor of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia

NOVEMBER 2011

Fourth-Grade Teacher Solano Avenue Elementary School Los Angeles, California

SUGGESTED CITATION
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2011 (NCES 2012–458). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

Susan Pimentel

Cornelia S. Orr

Doris R. Hicks

Educational Consultant Hanover, New Hampshire

Principal and Chief Executive Officer Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School for Science and Technology New Orleans, Louisiana

W. James Popham

Executive Director National Assessment Governing Board Washington, D.C.

Professor Emeritus Graduate School of Education and Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles Wilsonville, Oregon

CONTENT CONTACT
Jonathan Beard 202-502-7323 jonathan.beard@ed.gov
This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-07-CO-0107 with Educational Testing Service. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

“ The De p a r t m en t o f Ed uc a tio n’s mi ss i on i s to p romote stu de nt a c hi eve m e nt a n d p re p ara tio n for g l oba l com pe ti t i ve n e ss by fo ster i ng e d uc a ti o na l exce l l e nce a nd e n sur ing e q ua l a cce ss.” w ww.ed.gov

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful