Achievement Gaps

How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
Statistical Analysis Report

NCES 2009-455

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Achievement Gaps

U.S. Department of Education NCES 2009-455

How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
Statistical Analysis Report

July 2009

Alan Vanneman Linda Hamilton Janet Baldwin Anderson
NAEP Education Statistics Services Institute

Taslima Rahman
National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education Arne Duncan Secretary Institute of Education Sciences John Q. Easton Director National Center for Education Statistics Stuart Kerachsky Acting Commissioner The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries. NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain. We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to National Center for Education Statistics Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006-5651 July 2009 The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.
The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Suggested Citation Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., and Rahman, T. (2009). Achievement Gaps: How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, (NCES 2009-455). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. For ordering information on this report, write to U.S. Department of Education ED Pubs P.O. Box 1398 Jessup, MD 20794-1398 or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org. Content Contact Taslima Rahman (202) 502-7316 taslima.rahman@ed.gov

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a congressionally mandated project of the U.S. Department of Education, informs the public periodically about the academic achievement of elementary and secondary students in reading, mathematics, science, writing and other subjects. Only information related to academic achievement and relevant variables is collected under this program from students representing the country. By making objective information available on performance of all race/ethnic groups at the national and state levels, NAEP is an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education. While the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education conducts the survey, the National Assessment Governing Board oversees and sets policies for NAEP.

2005. The same was true for the 26­ point gap at age 13. scores for both Black and White students were higher in 2004 than in any previous assessment. 1992. Main NAEP assessments. At both ages 9 and 13. and not all states participated in the earliest NAEP state assessments. The long-term trend assessments provide public school results for mathematics going back to 1978 and for reading going back to 1980. as well as the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) and the District of Columbia (hereinafter referred to as states). as well as the most recent previous assessment year. however. reading scores for both Black and White students were higher in 2007 than in the first reading assessment year. this report contains only public school results. going back to 1980. While the nationwide gaps in 2007 were narrower than in previous assessments at both grades 4 and 8 in mathematics and at grade 4 in read­ ing. but was narrower than the gap in 1999. mathematics scores for both Black and White students were higher in 2004 than in any previ­ ous assessment. with results for ages 9 and 13 instead of grades 4 and 8. but did not show a significant difference from 1999. This report will use results from both the main NAEP and the long-term trend NAEP assessments to examine the Black-White achievement gaps. at the national level only. NAEP long-term trend assessments are administered by age rather than grade. At age 13 reading. are administered at the fourth and eighth grades. going back to 1990. at the national and state level. Not all states had Black (or White) student populations large enough to provide reliable data. For grade 8. which began in 1990 for mathematics and 1992 for read­ ing. had higher scores than Black stu­ dents. The most recent results in this report are for 2007. 13.Executive Summary In 2007. were higher than in any previous assessment. both nationally and at the state level. mathematics scores for both Black and White public school students in grades 4 and 8 nationwide. as measured by the main NAEP assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The 26-point gap between Black and White students in 2004 was not significantly different from the gap in 1980. The 21-point gap in stu­ dent performance at age 13 reading in 2004 was narrower than in both 1980 and 1999. The following two sections summarize state-level achieve­ ment gaps between Black and White students in the main NAEP assessments in mathematics and reading. For age 9 reading. scores were higher for Black students in 2004 than in 1980. and 17. and changes in those gaps. at ages 9. This report references long-term trend assessment public school results from the earliest assessment through 2004. The main NAEP 2007 Reading and Mathematics Assessments included grade 4 and grade 8 students both nationally and for all 50 states. White students had average scores at least 26 points higher than Black students in each subject. on all assessments. Scores for White students were not significantly dif­ ferent for either comparison year. This was also true for Black and White fourth-graders on the NAEP 2007 Reading Assessment. Because main NAEP only assesses public schools in its state assessments. supplemented with some data from the NAEP long-term trend assessments. Most of the data in this report comes from the main NAEP assessments. on a 0-500 scale. iii . on a 0-500 point scale. White students. on average. The 23-point Black-White achievement gap in mathematics for age 9 public school students in 2004 was narrower than in the first assessment in 1978 but not significantly different from the gap in the most recent previous assessment in 1999.

Oklahoma. gaps in grade 4 reading existed in 2007 The NAEP reading and mathematics scales make it possi­ ble to examine relationships between students’ performance and various background factors measured by NAEP. This report focuses on the size of the achievement gap between Black and White students and the direction of aver­ age scores within states. as Black students demonstrated a greater gain in average scores than that of the White students. ■ At grade 4. the assessments do not reflect the influence of unmeasured variables. and other techni­ cal features. State Black-White Achievement Gaps—Reading ■ At the state level. while 12 had gaps that were smaller. iv . eight states had reading gaps that were larger than the 2007 national gap of 27 points. in the 44 states for which results were available. Colorado. For more information on both the main NAEP and long-term trend assessments. the 2007 gaps were narrower than in 1992. and Texas. Similarly. as well as in states with scores below the national average.State Black-White Achievement Gaps—Mathematics ■ At the state level. accommo­ dations. All differences discussed in this report are statistically significant at the . the 7-point difference between Black and White students’ scores in 2007 was not statistically significant. The technical notes for this report provide information about sampling. Gaps narrowed from 1992 to 2007 in Delaware. while 10 states had gaps that were smaller. In Hawaii. changes in the size of the achievement gap between Black and White stu­ dents could be affected by demographic changes in the size and makeup of the populations involved. interpreting statistical significance. ■ At grade 8. ■ At grade 8. seven states had mathematics gaps in 2007 that were larger than the national gap of 31 points. However. were larger than the national gap of 26 points. There was no significant change in the gap in any state from 1998 to 2007. and societal demands and expectations. reading gaps existed in 2007 in 41 of the 42 states for which results were available. changes in the school-age population. which may be influenced by a number of other vari­ ables. a relationship that exists between achieve­ ment and another variable does not reveal its underlying cause. five states had mathematics gaps in 2007 that ■ At grade 8. In all four. while nine had gaps that were smaller. gaps in grade 4 mathematics existed in ■ At grade 4. regardless of the states’ scores. The results of this study are most useful when they are considered in combi­ nation with other knowledge about the student population and the education system. Similarly. such as trends in instruction. grade 8. one state had a reading gap that was larger than the 2007 national gap of 26 points. The gaps were narrower in 2007 than in 1990 in four states: Arkansas. At the state level. mathematics gaps existed in 2007 in the 41 states for which results were available. while nine had gaps that were smaller. as well as policy changes in the schools and communities. see appendix A. such as race. ■ At 2007 in the 46 states for which results were available. but scores for Black students increased more. and New Jersey. In 15 states. Large gaps may occur in some states with scores above the national average. due to larger increases in Black students’ scores. scores for both Black and White students increased. small gaps may occur in states with scores above or below the national average. and thus there was no gap for Hawaii. Florida.05 level after controlling for multiple comparisons.

. . . . . .6 Main NAEP National Results for Black and White Fourth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Race/ethnicity . . . . 1 Sources of the Main NAEP data . .4 . . . 1978–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Reading scores and achievement gaps by gender. . . . . . . . . .13 . . . . . . . . . .and Eighth-Graders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 . . .7 Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990–2007 . . . . Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and Eighth-Graders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . .30 Reading scores and achievement gaps by family income. . . . . Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 . . . . . . . 50 v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 . . . . . . . 7 Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps.50 . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . .32 Main NAEP State Results for Black and White Fourth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992–2007 State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources of the Long-Term Trend NAEP data Understanding score gaps . . . . . . .50 . . . . . . . . . . . . development. . . . . . .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cautions in interpreting the data . . . . . 1980–2004 . . . . administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2007 . . . . . . . . . . scoring. . . . .44 .28 Main NAEP National Results for Black and White Fourth. . . . . State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 MATHEMATICS Long-Term Trend Results for Black and White 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 . . . . . . . 1992–2007 . . . . . Understanding NAEP reporting groups . . . . 2003–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . .50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Understanding statistical significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frameworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 READING Long-Term Trend Results for Black and White 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003–2007 . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990–2007 . .10 Main NAEP State Results for Black and White Fourth. . . . . . . .Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and Eighth-Graders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and 13-Year-Olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by family income. . . 1998–2007 .21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8. . . .55 . . . . . . . . . . . . .and 13-Year-Olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources of the data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and Eighth-Graders . . . . . . . . . . NAEP sampling procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Appendix A: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How this report is organized . . . . . . . . . 29 Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cautions in interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Appendix B: Supplemental Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weighting and variance estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 vi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drawing inferences from the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conducting multiple tests . . . . Analyzing group differences in averages and percentages . .Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 . . . . . . . . . . . . Inclusion and exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accommodations . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mathematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample. . . . . . . . . . .64 B-2. . and target student population. . . . . . . .59 B-1. . . . . . by age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005. . . . . . . .51 A-2. . . National Long-Term Trend mathematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample. 5 6 B-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . race/ethnicity and grade: 2003. . . . by grade and race/ethnicity: 2007 . . . . . . . . . National mathematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample. . . . . . grade 8 reading assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . by grade: Various years. . . . . . . . . . by gender and eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years. . . . . . . School and student participation rates. . . . 1990–2007 . . . . . . . .65 vii . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . .54 A-3. . . . . . . by age: 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . race/ethnicity and grade: 2003. Long-Term Trend Reading assessment. . public schools only. . . by grade. . . Page Percentage of public school students assessed in NAEP mathematics by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch. . . . . . . . . and 2007 . . . . . . by grade: Various years. . . . . . . . . . by state or jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005. . . . School and student participation rates. . . . . .57 A-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 A-5. Administration of NAEP national and state reading assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . .64 B-3. public schools only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990–2007 . and target student population. . Administration of NAEP national and state mathematics assessments. . . . . . . . 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .List of Tables Table 1. . . . . . . . public school students only. . . . . . public school students only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . type of assessment and race/ethnicity: 2004 . . . . . . . . . . by gender and eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years. . . . . . . . . . race/ethnicity and jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . Average reading scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and 8. .32 A-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and 2007 . . . .10 Percentage of public school students assessed in NAEP reading by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average mathematics scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and 8.

. .11 9. . . . . . 1990–2007 . . . . . . . and 2007. . . . Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 8. 1990–2007. . . . . . . . . . and 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992–2007 . . Trends in average mathematics scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 9: Various years. . . . 1978–2004 . . . 2005. . . . . 1980–2004 . .9 6. . . Trends in average reading scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 9: Various years. . by state or jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trends in average mathematics scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 13: Various years. . . . . . . . . . 1992–2007 . . . Trends in average reading scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 13: Various years. . . . . . . .7 4. . . .List of Figures Figure Page 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. . . . by state: Various years. . . . . . . . . . . . by gender: Various years. . . . . . . 1992–2007 . . . . . Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990–2007. . . . . . . . . .15 11. . . . . . . The Black-White achievement score gap in mathematics for public school students at grade 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by state or jurisdiction: 2007 . .29 viii 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992–2007 . . . . . . . 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. . . . . .33 . . . . . . . . . . Mathematics achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 4: Various years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1980–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Black-White achievement score gap in mathematics for public school students at grade 4. . . . . . .21 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005. . . . 1978–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by gender: Various years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 4: Various years. 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . Mathematics achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 8: Various years. . .29 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 13. . . . . by gender: Various years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by state: Various years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003. . . . .13 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and 2007. . . . . by gender: Various years. . . . . . . . . .28 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 8: Various years. . . . . . . . . . . .9 7. . . . . . . . . . Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. . . . . .28 14.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Black-White achievement score gap in reading for public school students at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by state: Various years. . . . . . . . 1998–2007. . . . . . . . . . 1992–2007. . . . 2005. . .37 23. . . . . . Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 22. . . . . by state: Various years. . . . . . . . . . .43 24. . . . Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. . . . . . . .Figure Page 20. . . . and 2007 . . . .45 ix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by state or jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . by state or jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Black-White achievement score gap in reading for public school students at grade 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x .

S. D. Institute of Education Sciences.. Lee. particularly low-income students and Black students.. U. and Coley. Washington. and Provasnik. examined the education of all major racial and ethnic groups in the United States from pre­ kindergarten through the postsecondary level.” parent 5 KewalRamani. 89-10. L. for example. 7 .D. P. Other reports have used NAEP data in analyses attempt­ ing to isolate important factors related to the Black-White achievement gap. W. The report identified a variety of factors which are correlated with the achievement gap between Black and White students. 3 Lee. Washington. Black students were more likely than White students to come from families living in poverty. Black children were less likely to come from a family with both parents in the home. Washington.S. Dillow. the gap in mathematics was narrower in 2007 than in 2005.. Grigg. and Donahue. and were more likely to be absent from school. The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007-496).L. P. and for Black young adults it increased from 24 to 86. J.2 Reading scores for the nation and a substantial number of states have also increased since the early 1990s. Grigg. and Coley. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2007 (NCES 2007-494). Parsing the Achievement Gap II. which is associated with lower educational performance. spent more hours watching television.7 considered 16 factors previ­ ously identified as being correlated with how well students performed in school.. Department of Education. Subsequent reauthorizations of the act have reaffirmed the importance of closing the achievement gaps. Seven were school-related (including. with four home factors: the presence of two parents in the home..C. and Hoffman. National and state mathematics scores in grades 4 and 8 on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) were at their highest levels in 2007. Snyder.. T. This report uses NAEP data to examine the progress of the nation and each of the states in reducing the gap between Black and White students at grades 4 and 8 in both reading and mathematics. Institute of Education Sciences.. Department of Education. Princeton.3 Although scores have increased for both Black students and White students. C.M. 4 2 1 1 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. S.Introduction The past half century has witnessed considerable gains in educational attainment in the United States. National Center for Education Statistics. Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities. M. were read to by their parents for fewer hours. the hours children spend watching television.S. R. At the national level. A. The Family: America’s Smallest School. as measured by NAEP. Parsing the Achievement Gap II.. Fox. Princeton. the hours parents spend reading to them. At the eighth grade. (2007). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act4 when first authorized intended to improve the educational achieve­ ment of low-performing students. The Family: America’s Smallest School. DC. U. 79 Stat.S. (2007). weight at birth. National Center for Education Statistics. and the “home school connection. for example. For example. and excessive TV watching). (2007). Between 1950 and 2005. exposure to lead.C. D. Issues relating to the Black-White achievement gap have been addressed by a number of recent studies. and Dion. U. S. National Center for Education Statistics. P. eight “before and after” school factors (including. the percentage increased from 56 to 93. NJ: Educational Testing Service. J. For example. Barton. 27. Department of Education. U. on average Black students do not per­ form as well as their White peers. R. correlates student achievement. Gilbertson. Digest of Education Statistics 2006 (NCES 2007-017). 6 Barton. for example. while the reading gap did not change signifi­ cantly compared to either prior assessment year. the percentage of young adults ages 25-29 who had completed high school rose from 53 to 86. W. DC. Institute of Education Sciences. while the fourth-grade reading gap was narrower than in either 1992 or 2005. NJ: Educational Testing Service. curriculum rigor and teacher preparation). Compared to White students. National Center for Education Statistics. Institute of Education Sciences. and the frequency of absence from school.6 issued by the Educational Testing Service.. G. (2009). the fourth-grade Black-White achievement gap in mathematics for 2007 was narrower than in 1990. (2007). Department of Education. For White young adults.. Washington. P.1 There have also been gains in educational achievement. Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities (NCES 2007-039).. along with employment and income data for these groups.A. Another report issued by the Educational Testing Service.5 issued by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

to partici­ pate in the NAEP mathematics and reading assessments if they are to receive Title I education funding (Public Law 107-110 Title I Part A. both nationally and at the state level. at ages 9. and 2) by year. which sets policy for NAEP. plus the District of Columbia and the U. the District of Columbia. The most recent administration was in 2007. The long-term trend assess­ ments provide public school results for mathematics going back to 1978 and for reading going back to 1980. The most recent long-term trend report available at the time of the prepa­ ration of this report contains results for the assessments administered in 2004.S. Main NAEP and long-term trend provide national results for both public and private school students. and they employ much larger samples than longterm NAEP. the report said that for all 16 factors there were gaps that favored White students over Black students—for example. and 17. and the eighth-grade reading assessment in 1998. The major questions addressed in this study are: 1) how do gaps in 2007 compare to the gaps in the initial and most recent prior years of the NAEP national and state assessment series? And 2) how do states compare to the nation in 2007? The current report presents these results in graphs that show the NAEP achievement gaps in a format that makes it pos­ sible to see at a glance the national and state gaps results for all available years. Only results for White (non-Hispanic) and Black (non-Hispanic) public school students are contained in this report. 2 . using the NAEP Data Explorer. at the national level only. the main NAEP assessments use frameworks that are more closely aligned with current practices regarding instructional content. Sec.) Additional information about the years when the national and state assessments were administered is in appendix B. (In this report. In addition. are administered at the fourth and eighth grades. To maintain consistency of data for comparison purposes. Main NAEP assess­ ments. While the main NAEP assessments do not go as far back in time as the long-term trend assessments. This report uses data from both the “main NAEP” and the NAEP long-term trend assessments. NCES and the National Assessment Governing Board. Sources of the Main NAEP data This report presents national data from the NAEP reading and mathematics assessments for Black and White public school students at the fourth and eighth grades. 1111). but NAEP state results are for public school students only. the fourth-grade reading and math­ ematics assessments in 1992. “state” and “jurisdiction” will be used interchangeably to refer to the 50 states. including results for every assessment year since state assessments began. States first participated in the eighth-grade mathematics assessment in 1990. participation was voluntary and about 40 states participated in each assessment. Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools. and the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools. achievement gaps results have been available to users in two ways: 1) online. Discussion of main NAEP grade 12 assessments is omitted in this report because these assess­ ments are conducted at the national level only. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires each state. 13. All data presented in this report for main NAEP are for public school students only. In previous NAEP reports. The NAEP Achievement Gaps report is the first NCES publication to present the Black and White NAEP achievement gaps across time for all the states and the nation.participation. beginning in 2003. in the report cards for a given assessment. White students were more likely than Black students to attend schools offering rigorous curriculums and less likely to suffer from low birth weight. which began in 1990 for mathematics and 1992 for reading. they allow the examination of trends in the Black and White performance gap in every state. they include more questions overall and more questions that require a written response. Prior to the pas­ sage of the Act. have maintained comparability of data for both main and long-term trend NAEP. Using data from NAEP and other sources. this report uses only public school data at the national level as well. Additional information on the national and state assessments is given in appendix B.

000 fourthgraders and 147. 1982. and 2004 reading long-term trend assessments. See appendix A for more details. these assessments did not allow accommodations for students with disabili­ ties and English language learners for the years included in this report. Sample sizes for the 2004 long-term trend assessments were 7.500 (13-year-old students) for mathemat­ ics. 60 percent of assessed students were White and 16 percent were Black. NAEP assessments are conducted in a six-week window starting in January of each assessment year. At the eighth-grade level. 1994. while the mathematics assessment was given to 190. 1992. 1996. Since 1994 (1996 at the state level) stu­ dents receiving accommodations on their state assessment received the same accommodations on NAEP. Scores for reading and mathematics cannot be compared because the two assessments are scaled independently. and 2004 mathematics long-term trend assessments and the 1982. 3 . students with disabilities and English language learners did not receive accommodations.000 fourth-graders and 155.) In 2007. The main NAEP samples are so large because they include representative samples for each of the 50 states. 58 percent of assessed students were White and 16 percent were Black. as long as NAEP approved them (see appendix A for details. Sources of the Long-Term Trend NAEP data This report presents national data for public school stu­ dents aged 9 and 13 from the 1978. 1999. 1990. 1990. See appen­ dix A for more details. 1996. scores for the two grades should be compared with caution. The same assessment is administered in both the national and state assessments. 1992.300 (13-year-old students) for reading and 7. This allows examination of the achievement gaps for public school students for individual states as well as for the nation as a whole. 1999. Black and White students together comprised about three-fourths of the nation’s public school students at the fourth and eighth grades. Because the content of the assessments given to fourth-graders and eighth-graders differs.000 eighth-graders. the reading assessment was given to 183.Administration of main NAEP national and state reading and mathematics assessments 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 National 4th Grade Reading 8th Grade State National State National 4th Grade Mathematics 8th Grade State National State v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v In 2007.000 eighth-graders.300 (9-year-old students) and 7. At the fourth-grade level. Unlike the main NAEP assessments. In the earliest main NAEP assessments. 1986. 1986.500 (9-year-old students) and 8. 1994. plus the District of Columbia and Department of Defense school system for Armed Forces dependents in the United States and over­ seas. even though the scores appear on similar 0-500 scales.

The following images illus­ trate the various ways that gaps can narrow. The average scores of both groups decline. the main NAEP national sample was obtained by aggregating the samples from each state. The average score of the higher performing group does not change. if scores for the higher scoring group decline more than those of the other group. 21. However.05 level with appropriate adjustments for part-to-whole and multiple comparisons. while narrowing gaps are seen as desirable. these data cannot explain why gaps exist or why they change. if scores for the higher scoring group increase more than scores for the other group. smaller score differences between years or between student groups were found to be statisti­ cally significant than would have been detected in previ­ ous assessments. only changes between the earliest assessment year and 2004. while the score of the lower performing group increases. and 2007 than in previous assessment years.Understanding score gaps Ways the gap can change The achievement gap between Black and White students is defined as the difference between the average score for Black students and the average score for White students.” for details). and between 2005 and 2007. Generally. whether they exceed the margin of error. Statistical tests are used to determine whether the differences between average scores are statistically significant—that is. Understanding statistical significance NAEP data are based on samples of students. but the score of the higher performing group declines even more. It is intended to identify statistically reli­ able population differences to help inform discussion among policymakers. The average score of the higher performing group declines. For longterm trend. and the public. Only changes between the earliest assessment year and 2007. the national samples in mathematics and read­ ing were larger in 2003. researchers. com­ parisons of the size of the Black-White achievement gap 4 . while the score of the lower performing group increases even more. “Conducting multiple tests. rather than by using an independently selected national sample. it is possible for the gap to widen even if scores for both Black students and White students increase. And it is also possible for the gap to narrow even if scores for both Black and White students decline. educators. Comparisons are made for main NAEP between the most recent assessment year (2007) and all previous assessment years. Beginning in 2002. The term “significant” is not intended to imply a judgment about the absolute magnitude or the educational relevance of the differences. All differences discussed in the text are significant at the . are discussed. while the score of the lower per­ forming group increases. It is important to note that although NAEP data can iden­ tify gaps and changes in gaps. However. it is possible for the size of the achievement gap to increase or decrease even though the average scores of neither Black nor White students changed statistically sig­ nificantly during the same period. Therefore. NAEP assessments are designed to measure student performance and identify fac­ tors associated with it. and between 1999 and 2004. are discussed. in figures 9. As a result. Changes in average scores for Black students and White students and changes in the size of the gap between these scores are analyzed separately. and 23. Statistical comparisons of NAEP scores from different assessment years are made using a multiple comparison procedure (see appendix A. 2005. widening gaps are seen as undesirable. Ways gaps can narrow The average scores of both groups increase. The average score of the higher performing group declines. while the score of the lower performing group does not change. not to identify or explain the causes of differences in student performance. and the results are subject to sampling and measurement error. Thus. Changes in the size of the achievement gap depend on both changes in the average scores for Black and White students and the rate of change in those scores. 11.

the results shown in these four figures may not correspond to results obtained from the NAEP Online Data Tool. will differ from that of another. long-term trend results are presented first.and eighth-graders from main NAEP. Inferences related to student group performance should take into consideration the many socioeconomic and educational factors that may also be associ­ ated with performance. which currently does not permit pairwise comparisons for this type of gap analysis. NAEP surveys are not designed to identify causal relationships. including standard deviations. For this reason. which reflect a wide range of student performance. 5 . consult the NAEP Data Explorer online at http://nces. For detailed information on variations in performance. occasionally the lower scale score plus the gap will not equal the higher scale score shown in this report’s graphics.asp The analysis of NAEP data contained in this report should not be seen to imply causal relations. The Black-White achievement gap is calculated by subtracting the average scale score for Black students from the average scale score for White students. In each section. where each state is compared to the nation one at a time. Simple cross-tabulations of a variable with measures of educational achievement. like the ones presented here.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/viewresults. Because all results are presented as rounded numbers. giving national results only for public school students ages 9 and 13. cannot be considered as evidence that differences in the variable cause differences in education­ al achievement. As noted earlier. Many Black students score above the average for White students and many White students score below the average for Black students. Cautions in interpreting the data All results given here are in terms of average scores. National data from main NAEP are also presented by 1) gender and 2) eligibility categories for the National School Lunch Program.ed. These are followed by both national and state results for public school fourth. There are many pos­ sible reasons why the performance of one group of students How this report is organized The remainder of this report presents first mathematics and then reading results.for each state to the national gap are made using pairwise comparisons. All statistical tests are performed using unrounded scale scores. The last section consists of an appendix that contains relevant technical notes and supplemental tables.

S. SOURCE: U. Trends in average mathematics scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 13: Various years. as scores of Black students showed a greater increase than those of White students. Figure 1. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Institute of Education Sciences. various years. Institute of Education Sciences. SOURCE: U.05) from 2004. In addi­ tion. 1978–2004 Scale score 500 250 223* 200 222* 225* 234* 234* 235* 236* 238* 31* 192* 28 194* 24 201* 27 27 24 25 207* 207* 211* 211* 28 210* White 23 Gap 225 Black 247 150 0 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 * Significantly different (p<. . 1978–2004 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments. Figure 2. National Center for Education Statistics.and 13-year­ old Black and White students were higher in 2004 than on any previous long-term trend assessment (figures 1 & 2). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Department of Education.and 13-Year-Olds Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps.Mathematics ■ National Grades 4 & Long-Term 8Trend Results for Black and White 9. 1978–2004 Mathematics scores for both 9.05) from 2004. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 1978–2004 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments. various years. National Center for Education Statistics. Department of Education. the score gaps for Black and White students were narrower in 2004 than in the first assessment in 1978 for both age groups. Trends in average mathematics scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 9: Various years. 1978–2004 Scale score 500 300 270* 250 273* 273* 276* 278* 280* 280* 282* 288 White 41* 229* 33* 240* 24 249* 27 29 32 28 248* 249* 248* 252* 32 250* 261 26 Gap Black 200 0 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 6 * Significantly different (p<.S. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The gaps in 2004 were not sig­ nificantly different from the gaps in 1999.

Although scores for both groups were higher in 2007. average fourth-grade mathematics scores for the nation were higher in 2007 than in 1990 for both Black and White public school students (figure 3). The 31-point gap in 2007 was not significantly different from the 33-point gap in 1990. 7 . a greater increase in Black students’ scores caused the gap to narrow. National Center for Education Statistics. Average mathematics scores were higher in 2007 than in 1990 for both Black and White eighth-graders (figure 4). Figure 3. 1990–2007 Scale score 500 325 269* 276* 279* 283* 287* 288* 290 White Black National average 275 33 225 236* 40* 236* 40* 239* 40* 243* 35* 252* 33* 254* 31 Gap 259 0 1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 n Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). than in 2005. However. the gap was narrower in 2007. Institute of Education Sciences. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). various years.S. at 33 points. 1990–2007 Mathematics Assessments. * Significantly different (p<. due to the increased sample size in that year. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 1990–2007 Scale score 500 275 219* 227* 231* 233* 243* 246* 225 31* 175 187* 35* 192* 33* 198* 30* 203* 27 216* 26 220* White 26 Gap 222 Black 248 National average 0 1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 n Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment. allowed the difference in 2005 to be identified as statistically significant. Department of Education. Figure 4. The greater increase for Black fourthgraders resulted in the gap narrowing from 31 points in 1990 to 26 points in 2007. scores increased for both Black and White students. * Significantly different (p<. It is possible that the smaller standard errors in 2005.8 National Grades Main NAEP National Results for Black and White Fourth-4 &and Eighth-Graders ■ Mathematics Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps.05) from 2007. National Center for Education Statistics. SOURCE: U. 1990–2007 In main NAEP. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 4: Various years. Department of Education. but there was no significant change in the gap.05) from 2007. various years. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. From 2005 to 2007.S. The 2-point decrease in the gap from 2005 to 2007 was significant while the 2-point decrease from 1990 to 2007 was not. 1990–2007 Mathematics Assessments. Institute of Education Sciences. SOURCE: U. at 31 points. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 8: Various years.

the Black-White mathematics gap did not change significantly for either males or females. the gaps did not change significantly either for males or for females during this period. the gap was narrower in 2007 as the average score gains of Black females were greater than those of their White peers. However. mathematics scores increased from 2005 to 2007 for Black and White students. regardless of gender (figure 5). 8 . 1990–2007 Average mathematics scores were higher in 2007 than in 1990 for the nation’s Black and White fourth-graders. while the gap for males did not change significantly. Female eighth-graders showed a narrowing of the gap during this period as Black females’ scores increased more than those of White females. At grade 8. In addition to the 17-year gain. Among fourth-grade males.Mathematics National ■ Grades 4 & 8 Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by gender. regardless of gen­ der. 2005 to 2007. Among females. for both Black and White fourth-graders. In 2007. However. regardless of gender (figure 6). the Black-White gap did not change significantly. average mathematics scores were higher than they had been in 1990 for Black and White eighth-graders (figure 6). mathematics scores also increased during the two-year period.

* Significantly different (p<. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). 1990–2007 Scale score 500 Male 288* 292 Female 289 325 270* 275 275* 280* 284* 287* 35 235* 39* 236* 39 240* 42* 242* 36* 251* 34 254* 34 258 268* 276* 279* 282* 286* 31 237* 40* 236* 41* 238* 37* 244* 252* White 32* 29 Gap 33* Black 255* 260 287* 225 0 1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 n Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment. 9 . SOURCE: U. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8.05) from 2007. various years. by gender: Various years. 1990–2007 Scale score 500 Male Female 275 219* 228* 232* 236* 244* 247* 249 225 32 175 187* 36* 192* 35* 197* 33* 202* 29 216* 28 219* 28 221 218* 225* 230* 231* 30* 188* 34* 192* 32* 198* 27 204* White 24 Gap 25 24 223 Black 216* 220* 241* 244* 246 0 1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 n Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.S. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. National Center for Education Statistics. 1990–2007 Mathematics Assessments. Figure 6. various years. 1990–2007 Mathematics Assessments. Department of Education. by gender: Various years.S. * Significantly different (p<. Institute of Education Sciences.05) from 2007. SOURCE: U. Institute of Education Sciences.Mathematics National ■ Grades 4 & 8 Figure 5. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Not eligible: Students who are not eligible for the program because their family’s income is above 185 percent of the poverty level. the percentage of students for whom information was not available has decreased in comparison to the percentages reported prior to the 2003 assessment. At grade 8. National Center for Education Statistics. mathematics scores were higher in 2007 than in 2003 and 2005 for all Black and White public school students.S. The Black-White score gaps for students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch narrowed in 2007 in comparison to both previous assessments. for students eligible for reduced-price lunch. SOURCE: U. Eligible for free lunch: Students who are eligible for free lunch because their family’s income is below 130 percent of the poverty level. Table 1. and 2007 Mathematics Assessments. Percentage of public school students assessed in NAEP mathematics by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch. the only significant Black-White gap change was between 2003 and 2007. Department of Education. 2005. 2003. Therefore. trend comparisons are only made back to 2003 in this report. mathematics scores were higher in 2007 than in 2003 and 2005 for all Black and White public school stu­ dents (figure 8). and 2007 Eligible for reduced-price lunch Black White 7 8 9 7 9 9 6 7 8 5 6 6 Not eligible Black White Grade 4 2007 2005 2003 Grade 8 2007 2005 2003 26 25 24 32 31 32 72 71 72 76 75 76 Eligible for free lunch Black White 66 66 66 60 58 56 21 20 19 18 17 15 NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.Mathematics National ■ Grades 4 & 8 Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by family income. as scores for eligible Black students showed greater gains than those of their White peers. race/ethnicity and grade: 2003. 2005. 10 . Despite these increases. regardless of school-lunch eligibility (figure 7). Eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch is based on students’ family income in relation to the federally established poverty level. At grade 4. 2003–2007 NAEP uses student eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch as an indicator of family income. Eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch NAEP collects data on students’ eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)—sometimes referred to as the free and reduced-price school lunch program—as an indicator of family economic status. Eligible for reduced-price lunch: Students who are eligible for reduced-price lunch because their family’s income is between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level. Institute of Education Sciences. As a result of improvements in the quality of the data on students’ eligibility for NSLP.

and 2007 Mathematics Assessments.S. 2003.S. 2005. Institute of Education Sciences.Mathematics National ■ Grades 4 & 8 Figure 7. 2005. and 2007 Scale score 500 Not eligible Eligible for reduced-price lunch Eligible for free lunch 375 291* 275 292* 295 29 262* 28 264* 27 268 276* 277* 280 21* 255* 20* 256* 15 265 268* 271* 23* 245* 23* 249* White 21 Gap 253 Black 274 225 0 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 * Significantly different (p<. and 2007 Scale score 500 Not eligible Eligible for reduced-price lunch Eligible for free lunch 275 247* 225 250* 252 20 227* 20 230* 20 232 235* 238* 241 16* 219* 14 224* 13 228 229* 233* 235 White 18 211* 18 215* 17 217 Gap Black 175 0 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 * Significantly different (p<. SOURCE: U. 2005. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Department of Education. by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003. and 2007 Mathematics Assessments. National Center for Education Statistics. by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003. Figure 8. 11 . Institute of Education Sciences.05) from 2007. SOURCE: U. 2003. 2005. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4.05) from 2007. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8.

2000. the District of Columbia. the mathematics scores and gaps for the nation are presented for reference. In 2003. 1996. and the DoDEA participated. 2000. also con­ tains a dotted red line representing the national average for public school students.Mathematics Main NAEP State Results for Black and White Fourth. and 2007 and to public school eighthgraders in 1990. as well as the national figure. 12 . 1996. 1992. 40 or more states participated in each prior assessment. and 2007. and 2007. Typically. The data for the national aver­ ages are located in the appendix in Table B-2. Each state figure. Comparisons of fourth-grade mathematics gaps in 2007 between each state and the nation are presented in figure 9. 2003. Comparisons of the mathematics gaps within a state over time are presented in a series of small graphs in figure 10. all 50 states. Before 2003. 2005.and Eighth-Graders The NAEP state mathematics assessments were admin­ istered to public school fourth-graders in 1992. 2005. states were not required to participate in NAEP to qualify for Title I education funds. 2005. At the top left of each two-page spread. State results are presented in two ways. 2003.

Louisiana. Department of Education. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Vermont. Institute of Education Sciences. The gaps ranged from 14 points in Hawaii and West Virginia to 54 points in the District of Columbia. National Center for Education Statistics. Hawaii. Gaps that are different from the nation’s gap are indicated with an asterisk (figure 9). the gap was not significantly different from the nation’s gap. Reporting standards not met for Idaho.Mathematics State ■ Grade 4 State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4. 2007 Mathematics Assessment. North Dakota. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). by state or jurisdiction: 2007 Jurisdictions Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia DoDEA1 Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin 0 200 213 219 217 218 224 220 Black 222 25 227 28 28 29 Gap 26 238 20* White 248 247 246 245 247 249 252 249 26 32* 230 20* 262 209 54* 246 227 19* 250 225 25 246 222 24 244 230 14* 248 216 32* 249 224 25 245 224 21 252 226 26 238 219 19* 240 219 21* 243 221 22 251 223 29 257 232 25 244 216 28 252 222 31 239 217 22* 245 218 26 244 211 33* 243 219 23 250 226 24 255 232 23 242 220 22 251 225 26 251 224 27 250 225 25 242 220 22* 241 219 22 249 222 26 242 219 23 248 221 26 245 221 24 240 214 26 253 230 23* 251 228 23 248 222 26 237 223 14* 250 212 38* 210 220 230 240 Scale score 250 260 270 280 500 13 * Significantly different (p<. Kentucky. Texas. and West Virginia) and five had a gap that was larger (Connecticut. . NOTE: States whose Black student population size was insufficient for comparison are omitted.S. and Wyoming. SOURCE: U. In 31 states. Utah. DoDEA. District of Columbia. Nebraska. The fourth-grade mathematics gap in 2007 was statistically significant in all 46 states for which data could be reported. and Wisconsin). Delaware. Illinois.05) from the nation (public) when comparing one state to the nation at a time. The Black-White achievement score gap in mathematics for public school students at grade 4. Oklahoma. Figure 9. Mississippi. Montana. 2007 Ten states had a smaller Black-White gap than the nation’s 26-point gap in 2007 (Alaska.

Mathematics State ■ Grade 4 Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4. Short-term changes were also notable. there was no significant change in the gap. Fifteen of these states also narrowed the achieve­ ment gap as Black students’ scores increased more than White students’ scores. New Jersey. From 2005 to 2007. In Illinois. the gap narrowed between 1992 and 2007 as gains of Black students outpaced the gains of White students. In 35 states. California Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Louisiana Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi New Jersey Pennsylvania South Carolina Texas Virginia In Rhode Island. and Virginia. 14 . the gap narrowed between 2005 and 2007 as Black students’ scores increased while those of White students did not change significantly. both Black students and White students achieved higher average scores in mathematics from 1992 to 2007. Narrowing of the Gap In the following 15 states. National results). average scores for both Black and White students increased between 2005 and 2007. as Black students’ scores showed a greater gain than White students’ scores (figure 10. 1992–2007 The Black-White mathematics gap among the nation’s public school fourth-graders was narrower in 2007 than in 1992.

White: 60%) Connecticut (Black: 13%. White: 58%) Alaska (Black: 5%. White: 48%) 275 225 62* 189* 65 183* 66* 188* 60 58 202* 207 54 209 231* 233* 242* 245 246 White 243* 247* 250 224* 227* 22 209* 20 213* 15* 19 227 227 19 227 28 23 215* 224 25 225 Gap 15 34* 189* 33* 193* Black 175 National average 0 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure. White: 64%) 252 249 250 250 Delaware (Black: 33%. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. White: 54%) 244* 249 226* 225* 249 275 227* 225 232* 243* 247 28 175 199* 35 196* 26 25 217 222 26 224 235* 240* 242* White 40* 195* 35 205* 32 210* 32 32 217 219 32 220 22 23 20 Gap 30* 197* 31* 194* 230 223* 226* Black National average 0 1992 n 1996 n 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2003 2005 2007 500 District of Columbia (Black: 84%. White: 55%) 247 White 275 227* 225 230* 233* 35* 175 192* 31 199* 30* 203* 27 26 26 218* 221* 227* 232* 235* 238 232* 242* 244 216* 220* 222 30 188* 29 193* 24 203* 24 24 208* 211 25 213 25 206* 20 18 221 226 20 227 Gap Black National average 1996n 0 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 500 Arizona (Black: 5%. White: 27%) 247 White 275 225* 225 228* 230* 241* 243* 246 26 175 199* 31 197* 22 207* 26 25 215 217 28 219 217* 223* 225* 245 237* 242* 243* 245 221* 223* 228* 29 188* 30 193* 31 194* 31 29 206* 214 28 217 30 29 213* 215 29 218 Gap 39* 182* 34 188* 33 194* Black National average 0 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 500 Colorado (Black: 6%. 1992–2007 Scale score 500 NATIONAL1 (Black: 17%. White: 55%)2 243* 246* 248 Alabama (Black: 37%. White: 67%) California (Black: 7%. White: 51%) Florida (Black: 21%. . White: 43%) Arkansas (Black: 22%.Mathematics State ■ Grade 4 Figure 10. by state: Various years. White: 6%) 251* 248 254 262 266 262 DoDEA3 (Black: 17%.

Mathematics State ■ Grade 4 Figure 10. White: 81%) Illinois (Black: 19%. White: 73%) 246* 249* 252 Kentucky (Black: 11%. 1992–2007—Continued Scale score 500 NATIONAL1 (Black: 17%. White: 46%) Hawaii (Black: 3%. White: 78%) 249 242* 245* Gap data not available 275 223* 227* 238* 245 245 235* 244* 245* 248 White 225 33 202* 34 33 32 224* 232* 235* 210* 212* 216 29 196* 27 205* 25 211* 27 24 215* 221 25 224 Gap Black 175 National average n n 0 1992 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 500 Iowa (Black: 5%. White: 84%) 275 231* 225 230* 233* 241* 242* 245 237* 25 205* 16 216 26 18 215 224 21 224 29 208* 29 22 217* 228 26 226 217* 222* 223* 238 231* 234* White 17 200* 19 203* 27 196* 16 17 214 217 19 Gap 219 Black National average 175 0 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 500 Louisiana (Black: 49%. White: 56%) Indiana (Black: 10%. White: 95%) Maryland (Black: 35%. White: 17%) 275 227* 225 230* 233* 35* 175 192* 31 199* 30* 203* 27 26 26 228* 224* 230* 241* 243 246 216* 220* 222 32* 196* 23 201* 26 204* 24 22 217* 221 24 222 222* 226* 227* 238* 221 241 244 230 White 18 204* 18 208* 15 211* 16 21 221 14 Gap Black National average 0 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 500 Idaho (Black: 1%. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. White: 47%) Maine (Black: 2%. by state: Various years. . White: 55%)2 243* 246* 248 Georgia (Black: 38%. White: 86%) Kansas (Black: 8%. White: 50%) 244* 250 251 Gap data not available 275 218* 221* 230* 242 241 240 232* 232* 230* 238* 241 243 White 225 16 31* 175 187* 27* 194* 25 205* 28* 22 213* 219 21 219 22 221 228* 234* 236* 34 195* 35* 198* 34 202* 27 30 216* 220 29 223 Gap Black National average n 0 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure.

Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. White: 43%) New Hampshire (Black: 2%. White: 75%) Nevada (Black: 8%. White: 78%) 252 White 246* 251 275 231* 225 232* 239* 36* 195* 26 206* 27 213* 26 24 222* 228 25 232 227* 232* 237* 244 245 244 42* 185* 34 198* 37* 199* 35 35 209 211 28 216 231* 235* 238* 38 193* 40 196* 30 208* 28 32 219 219 31 Gap 222 Black National average 175 0 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 500 Mississippi (Black: 52%. White: 77%) Montana (Black: 1%. White: 71%) Minnesota (Black: 8%. White: 29%) New York (Black: 19%. . White: 53%) 246* 247* 251 White 275 236* 225 239* 38* 198* 35* 204* 31* 217* 27 224* 23 232 224* 227* 227* 237* 238* 242 22 202* 20 25 216 213 22 220 228* 233* 238* 31 197* 31 202* 27 210* 26 25 219* 222 26 Gap 17 225 Black National average 175 0 1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure. White: 57%) 255 248* 251* New Mexico (Black: 3%. 1992–2007—Continued Scale score 500 Massachusetts (Black: 7%. White: 75%) 257 247* 252* Michigan (Black: 21%.Mathematics State ■ Grade 4 Figure 10. White: 91%) 244* 246* 250 230* 226 275 228* 225 231* 230* 241* 244 244 224* 226* 236* 240 243 White Black 38 175 191* 34 197* 38 193* 31 34 211 211 33 211 29 195* 23 203* 21 26 215 214 23 219 24 Gap National average n 0 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 2003 2005 2007 500 New Jersey (Black: 14%. by state: Various years. White: 83%) 275 236 225 219* 221* 222* 238 239 Gap data not available 227* 230* 233* 240* 240* 245 231* 231* 247 238* 243* White 30* 175 189* 25 196* 24 198* 24 23 212* 216 22 217 32 195* 29 200* 31 202* 24 25 216 215 26 218 Gap Black National average 0 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 500 Nebraska (Black: 7%. White: 45%) Missouri (Black: 19%.

White: 75%) 250 Oklahoma (Black: 11%. White: 87%) Gap data not available 275 227* 225 230* 233* 35* 175 192* 31 199* 30* 203* 27 26 26 216* 220* 222 30 193* 30 204* 23 215* 26 25 225 225 27 224 230* 232* 232* 248 240* 245* White Gap Black National average 0 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 500 Ohio (Black: 18%. 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 . 1992–2007—Continued Scale score 500 NATIONAL1 (Black: 17%. White: 71%) 275 235* 225 222* 243* 248 28 175 194* 29 206* 26 28 25 225 224* 229* 235* 240 242 240 226* 227* 243 222 241 219 White 217* 221 23 201* 24 205* 24 23 211* 217 22 220 17 21 223 22 Gap 31 196 Black National average 1992n 1996n 0 1992n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 500 Pennsylvania (Black: 14%. White: 57%) 250 275 230* 225 231* 243* 247 249 31 27 212* 219 26 222 221* 225* 232* 239* 241 242 225* 224* 246 233* 248 White 36* 175 194* 34* 197* 30 191* 32 194* 32* 200* 29 30* 23 210* 211* 219 23 26 222 223 26 221 Gap 31* 194* 26 198* 30 203* Black National average 0 1992 n 1996 n 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 500 South Dakota (Black: 2%. White: 55%) 251 223* 233* 238* 250 251 North Dakota (Black: 2%. White: 58%) Oregon (Black: 3%. White: 36%) 248* 254 253 230 275 241* 245 225 245 White 24 221 217* 226* 227* 235* 238 240 230* 240* 241* 18 175 26 191* 28 197* 29 198* 27 25 208* 214 26 214 31* 199* 29* 212* 22 220* 22 25 226 228 23 Gap Black National average n n n n 0 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure. White: 83%) Tennessee (Black: 26%. White: 55%)2 243* 246* 248 North Carolina (Black: 28%. White: 69%) Texas (Black: 15%.Mathematics State ■ Grade 4 Figure 10. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. by state: Various years. White: 77%) Rhode Island (Black: 8%. White: 70%) South Carolina (Black: 36%.

Scale score 500 Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. White: 65%) 248 216* West Virginia (Black: 5%. State-level data were not collected in 1990. Where data are not present. Department of Education. not on aggregated state samples. DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 1992–2007 Mathematics Assessments. Institute of Education Sciences. White: 80%) Vermont (Black: 2%. White: 94%) Virginia (Black: 26%. Comparative performance results may be affected by changes in exclusion rates for students with disabilities and English language learners in the NAEP samples.05) from 2007. White: 58%) 246* 247* 251 Gap data not available 275 225* 225 228* 230* 238* 242 244 Gap data not available 232* 242* 244* 247 228* White 225* 230* 237* 29* 199* 27 203* 26 211* 23 24 23 Gap 223* 224* 228 Black 175 National average 1992n 1996n 1996n 1992n 1996n 0 2000 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 500 Washington (Black: 6%. White: 77%) 250 243* 247* 275 242* 246 229* 225 19 15* 26 222 231* 222 224* 224* 231* 231* 237 233* 236* White 27 202* 15 201* 19 205* 20 205* 10 221 226 5* 14 223 37 195* 38 198* 35 37 38 209 210 212 Gap Black 175 National average 1996n 1992n 1996n 1992n 1996n 0 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 500 Wyoming (Black: 2%. 1 2 National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample. * Significantly different (p<. Black and White percentages are based on students tested in 2007. 1992–2007—Continued Utah (Black: 1%. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). 19 .Mathematics State ■ Grade 4 Figure 10. 3 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). National Center for Education Statistics. Pre-2005 data pre­ sented here were recalculated for comparability. Before 2005. White: 93%) Wisconsin (Black: 10%.S. various years. by state: Various years. White: 84%) Gap data not available 275 227* 225 225* 231* 243* 245 246 White 175 National average 1992n 1996n 0 2000 2003 2005 2007 n Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment. SOURCE: U. the jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.

20 .

Gaps that are different from the nation’s gap are indicated with an asterisk (figure 11). Hawaii. Reporting standards not met for District of Columbia. Figure 11. National Center for Education Statistics. NOTE: States whose Black or White student population size was insufficient for comparison are omitted. Maryland. and Wyoming. and South Carolina) and seven had a gap that was larger (Connecticut. Georgia. . Colorado. the gap was not significantly different from the nation’s gap. North Dakota. New Hampshire. Michigan. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Oregon. Mississippi. South Dakota. DoDEA. Oklahoma. Institute of Education Sciences. In 22 states. SOURCE: U. Louisiana.Mathematics State ■ Grade 8 State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8. Massachusetts. Department of Education. Montana. and Wisconsin). Nebraska. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). 2007 Twelve states had a smaller gap than the nation’s 31-point gap in 2007 (Alaska.05) from the nation (public) when comparing one state to the nation at a time. Utah. The eighth-grade mathematics gap in 2007 was statistically significant in all 41 states for which data could be reported. The Black-White achievement score gap in mathematics for public school students at grade 8. by state or jurisdiction: 2007 Black 259 246 32 271 266 254 253 255 265 272 259 261 253 259 257 267 257 258 29 27* 38* 32 31 25* 25* 28 35 272 Gap 31 278 23* 23* 282 24* 38* 29 19* White 290 294 289 287 296 293 294 291 289 288 291 290 288 295 Jurisdictions Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware DoDEA1 Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin 0 28 282 283 36* 300 265 40* 305 264 41* 285 244 37 297 260 28* 279 251 34 288 253 51* 291 240 26 282 255 35 298 264 21* 285 264 32 290 258 29 295 266 33 291 258 22* 280 258 16* 289 272 36 293 257 34 284 250 293 265 27* 28 282 254 29 300 271 28 296 268 26 291 264 21 271 250 292 247 45* 240 250 260 270 280 Scale score 290 300 310 320 500 21 * Significantly different (p<. The gaps ranged from 16 points in Oregon to 51 points in Nebraska. Maine. Arizona. 2007 Mathematics Assessment. New Mexico. Vermont. Idaho. Illinois.S. Kentucky.

as increases in Black students’ scores were greater than those of their White peers. Arkansas Colorado Oklahoma Texas In Colorado. mathematics scores of both Black and White eighth-graders were higher in 2007 than in 1990. In Colorado. the mathematics gap nar­ rowed between 1990 and 2007 as gains of Black stu­ dents outpaced the gains of White students. The 2007 gap was narrower in Arkansas. The gap was narrower in 2007 than in 2005. gaps narrowed in Arkansas and Florida as scores for Black eighth-graders increased while those of their White peers showed no change.Mathematics State ■ Grade 8 Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8. 1990–2007 The national Black-White mathematics gap was not sig­ nificantly narrower in 2007 than in 1990. but a greater increase in Black students’ scores caused the gap to narrow. scores for both groups increased. Narrowing of the Gap In the following four states. the gap narrowed between 2005 and 2007 as Black students’ scores increased while those of White students did not change significantly. 22 . and Texas. Colorado. Oklahoma. National results). the gap narrowed between 2005 and 2007 as Black students’ scores showed greater increases than those of their White peers. Between 2005 and 2007. despite higher average scores for both Black and White students in 2007 (figure 12. In Arkansas and Florida. In 26 states.

1990–2007 Scale score 500 NATIONAL1 (Black: 17%. White: 65%) Connecticut (Black: 13%.Mathematics State ■ Grade 8 Figure 12. White: 60%) Alaska (Black: 4%. White: 56%) 325 269* 276* 280* 283* 287* 288* 290 262* 264* 270* 275 274 276 278 285* 290* 288* 294 271 263 266 White 275 33 40* 225 236* 236* 39* 241* 31 40* 35* 33* 243* 252* 254* 259 30 34 232* 230* 38 232* 35 240* 34 36 32 240* 240* 246 27 22 23 Gap National average Black 0 1990n 1992n 500 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996n 2003 2005 2007 Arizona (Black: 5%. White: 48%) Florida (Black: 23%. White: 69%) California (Black: 7%. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. White: 3%) 317 300 DoDEA3 (Black: 18%. White: 31%) 325 270* 274* 277* 281* 284* 288 289 269* 268* 275* 281 282 270* 275* 277* 277* 283* 284* 287 White 275 26 22 245* 253* 22 256 37 244* 28 27 23 266 256 261 264* 264* 34* 35* 231* 229* 35 235* 41* 227* 28 36* 38* 239* 243* 254 38 42 231* 233* 33 244 42 235* 37 35 35 Gap National average 225 246 248 253 Black 0 1990n 1992n 500 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 Colorado * (Black: 7%. . by state: Various years. White: 47%) Arkansas (Black: 22%. White: 56%) 325 273* 278* 282* 292* 292* 296 275 36* 36* 238* 242* 26 255* 24 37* 36* 272 255* 256* 277* 283* 287* 291 293 293 293 37 41 240* 242* 43 244* 45* 247* 38 44 38 255 249 255 268* 272* 275* 294 287* 291* White 26 27 29 Gap National average 27 30 241* 241* 31 244* 260* 264 265 Black 225 0 1990 1992 500 n n 1996 n 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 n n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 n n 1996 n 2003 2005 2007 District of Columbia (Black: 88%. White: 48%) 325 282* 275 286* 293 292 291 265* 272* 277* 270 267 272 286 286 289 69 229* 232* 230* 231* 76 240* 241* 245 28* 254* 27* 23 25 19 259* White 34 36* 231* 236* 42* 235* 37* 35* 29 249* 251* 259 Gap 23 National average Black 225 0 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure. White: 58%)2 Alabama (Black: 35%. White: 69%) Delaware (Black: 31%.

by state: Various years. White: 14%) 325 275 269* 276* 280* 283* 287* 288* 290 270* 270* 276* 279* 284 284 288 Gap data not available 276 259* 263* 274 273 277 278 White 33 40* 225 236* 236* 39* 241* 31 40* 35* 33* 243* 252* 254* 259 32 30 239* 241* 35* 240* 34* 244* 34* 29 27 261 250* 255* Gap Black National average 0 1990n 1992n 500 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 Idaho (Black: 1%. White: 52%) Maine (Black: 2%. . White: 86%) 325 279* 284* 275 285 287 286 288 287* 290* 289* 295 29 256 30 30 31 257 256 257 43 245 28 38* 33 252* 256 267 259* 264* 269* 272* 277* 276* 282 White 18 24 240* 241* 21 247 22 250 27 21 25 Gap National average 250 255 257 Black 225 0 1990 1992 500 n n 1996 n 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 n n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 Louisiana (Black: 43%. 1990–2007—Continued Scale score 500 NATIONAL1 (Black: 17%. White: 88%) Kansas (Black: 8%. White: 51%) 325 266* 275* 281 281 283 279* 284 281* 282* 281* 287 272* 278* 284* 286* 289* 292* 300 White 275 259* 263* 24 225 30 31 229* 232* 31* 235* 36* 239* 31* 29 25 258 250* 252* 9 270 35 39 236* 239* 43* 241* 42 244* 33 33 256* 258* 36 265 Gap National average Black 0 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure. White: 46%) Hawaii (Black: 2%. White: 96%) Maryland (Black: 37%. White: 60%) Indiana (Black: 12%.Mathematics State ■ Grade 8 Figure 12. White: 82%) Illinois (Black: 16%. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. White: 76%) Kentucky (Black: 10%. White: 77%) Gap data not available 325 273* 277* 280* 284* 284* 287 270* 285* 289 289 291 270* 273* 280* 285* 286* 286* 290 White 275 33 38 252 232* 40 40 38 249 249 253 28 32 242* 241* 33 247* 29 256 35 29 32 Gap Black National average 259 251 257 225 0 1990 1992 500 n n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 n n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 Iowa (Black: 4%. White: 58%)2 Georgia (Black: 43%.

White: 80%) Nevada (Black: 10%. White: 47%) New Hampshire (Black: 2%. White: 55%) 325 279* 283* 275 292* 295* 298 38 41 35 39 35 253* 260 264 271* 272* 277* 274* 282 279* 285 28 22 21 254 257 264 273* 280* 283* 284* 293 290 290 White 39 46* 234* 233* 40 243* 33 251 37 32 32 255 259 258 Gap 25 National average Black 225 241* 242* 0 1990n 1992n 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure.Mathematics State ■ Grade 8 Figure 12. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. White: 57%) New Mexico (Black: 3%. White: 75%) Montana (Black: 1%. White: 75%) Minnesota (Black: 7%. White: 32%) New York (Black: 19%. by state: Various years. . White: 75%) 305 270* 276* Michigan (Black: 18%. 1990–2007—Continued Scale score 500 Massachusetts (Black: 8%. White: 85%) Gap data not available 325 268* 275* 279 279 275* 278* 277* 284* 284* 288 282* 286* 288* 289* 290 291 White 275 262* 265* 33* 225 230* 31 234* 30 237* 29 32 28 246* 247* 251 34 242* 34 244 39 238* 34 36 34 250 247 253 Gap Black National average 1990n 1996n 0 1992n 500 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 Nebraska (Black: 7%. White: 94%) Gap data not available 325 279* 281* 275 285* 285* 287* 289 291 273* 278 280 282 273* 278* 287 286* 289 White 45 44 225 234 237 32* 254* 37* 247 41* 46 51 247 243 240 29 244 30 33 26 248 247 255 Gap Black National average 0 1990 1992 500 n n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 n n 2003 2005 2007 New Jersey (Black: 17%. White: 81%) 325 277* 275 283* 284* 292* 297* 34 225 243* 33 250* 26* 258 40 33* 34 260 263 264 284 285 286 285 285 277* 284* 287* 290* 295 296 297 White 39 44 231* 233* 39 245 45 239 41 38 41 245 247 244 41 236* 39 248 44 46 37 251 251 260 Gap National average Black 0 1992 500 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 n n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 n n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 Mississippi (Black: 51%. White: 47%) Missouri (Black: 19%.

by state: Various years. White: 67%) Texas (Black: 15%. White: 76%) Oklahoma (Black: 9%. White: 58%)2 North Carolina (Black: 30%. White: 76%) Rhode Island (Black: 9%. White: 86%) Tennessee (Black: 28%.Mathematics State ■ Grade 8 Figure 12. White: 89%) Gap data not available 325 269* 276* 280* 283* 287* 288* 290 261* 266* 277* 287* 294 292* 295 284* 284* 286* 285* 290* 290* 295 White 275 33 40* 225 236* 236* 39* 241* 31 40* 35* 33* 243* 252* 254* 259 30 28 231* 238* 30 247* 35* 252* 34 28 29 260* 263 266 Gap Black National average 0 1990n 1992n 500 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 Ohio (Black: 18%. White: 56%) 325 272* 276* 293 285* 287* 265* 271* 275* 275* 280* 281* 284 291 294 293 273* 273* 277* White 275 36 39 225 236* 238* 38 37 36 257 247* 250 37 30 228* 240 38 237* 35 240 36 32 34 244 249 250 33* 241* 29 244* 30 247* 33* 32 27 265 258* 263 Gap National average Black 0 1990 1992 500 n n 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 n n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 South Dakota (Black: 1%. White: 73%) 325 268* 274* 285* 287* 289 291 268* 272* 274* 278 278 280 273* 278* 284* 284* 287 289 White 275 35 41 225 233* 234* 34 251 30 34 33 257 255 258 32* 34* 236* 238* 29 245* 29 29 22 249 249* 258 20 29 265 258 16 272 Gap National average Black 0 1990 1992 n n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 n n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 n 1996 n 2000 2003 2005 2007 500 Pennsylvania (Black: 15%. White: 38%) 300 290* 295* 271 260* 264* Gap data not available 325 288* 291 292 275 266* 270* 269* 277* 278* 282 272* 278* 284* 286* 26 225 32 234* 35 234* 34 235* 28 35* 32 242* 246* 254 38* 35 234* 243* 35 249* 37 250* 29 30 31 White Gap National average Black 0 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. 1990–2007—Continued Scale score 500 NATIONAL1 (Black: 17%. White: 59%) Oregon (Black: 3%. 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 . White: 56%) North Dakota (Black: 1%. White: 70%) South Carolina (Black: 38%.

DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Comparative performance results may be affected by changes in exclusion rates for students with disabilities and English language learners in the NAEP samples. . Pre-2005 data pre­ sented here were recalculated for comparability. Department of Education. White: 95%) Virginia (Black: 26%. by state: Various years. National Center for Education Statistics.Mathematics State ■ Grade 8 Figure 12. * Significantly different (p<. White: 80%) 325 281* 275 285* 289 291 38 243* 22 23 26 262 265 264 256* 260* 265* 267* 271 270 271 279* 282* 288* 290 291 292 White 23 17 234* 242 21 245 20 247 18 18 21 253 251 250 42 37 236 245 48 240 49 45 45 241 246 247 Gap National average Black 225 0 1996n 500 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 Wyoming (Black: 1%. White: 69%) West Virginia (Black: 4%. White: 61%) Gap data not available 325 276* 275 278* 277* 285 283* 286 Gap data not available 280* 281* 286* 288* 292 279* 283* 290* 293 296 262* 263* 268 White 271* 275* 29 30 225 242* 245* 35 244* 30 253* 28 31 28 Gap National average Black 0 1992n 500 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 Washington (Black: 5%. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 1990–2007 Mathematics Assessments. Before 2005.S. White: 94%) Wisconsin (Black: 10%. White: 86%) Gap data not available 325 274* 277* 277* 278* 286* 284* 290 275 White 225 National average 1990n 1992n 1996n 0 2000 2003 2005 2007 n Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment. White: 82%) Scale score 500 Vermont (Black: 1%. 2 Black and White percentages are based on students tested in 2007. 3 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).05) from 2007. not on aggregated state samples. 1990–2007—Continued Utah (Black: 1%. 1 27 National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample. various years. the jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. Where data are not present. Institute of Education Sciences.

National Center for Education Statistics. At age 13. SOURCE: U.S.05) from 2004. 1980–2004 Scale score 500 300 263 250 261 260 241 261 264 263 264 265 264 244 White 32* 231* 26 235* 19 22 29* 30* 31* 239 235 233 233 29* 236 21 Gap Black 200 0 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 28 * Significantly different (p<. but the gap narrowed for that time period as well. resulting in a narrowing of the gap. but was narrower than the gap in 1999. Scores did not change significantly for either Black or White students from 1999 to 2004. 1980–2004 Scale score 500 250 220* 200 217* 216* 215* 217* 217* 218* 220* 32 188* 32* 185* 29 35* 33* 32 28 188* 190* 181* 183* 185* 35* 185* White 26 Gap 199 Black 225 150 0 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 * Significantly different (p<. due to a greater increase in Black students’ scores as compared to White students. 1980–2004 Reading scores for both Black and White 9-year-old students were higher in 2004 than on any previous long-term trend assessment (figure 13). Department of Education. Trends in average reading scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 13: Various years. Institute of Education Sciences. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The score gap in 2004 did not differ significantly from the gap in 1980. various years. National Center for Education Statistics.S. scores were higher in 2004 than in 1980.05) from 2004. Trends in average reading scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 9: Various years. Department of Education. Figure 14. reading scores for White stu­ dents were not significantly different in 2004 than in 1980 (figure 14). 1980–2004 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments. . 1980–2004 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments. Institute of Education Sciences. SOURCE: U. A statistically signifi­ cant change can occur over time in the gap between two scores even though the scores themselves do not change significantly because changes in gaps are calculated separately from changes in scores. various years.Reading Long-Term Trend Results for Black and White 9. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Figure 13.and 13-Year-Olds Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps. For Black students.

1992–2007 Reading Assessments.S.National Grades Main NAEP National Results for Black and White Fourth-4 & 8 and Eighth-Graders ■ Reading Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps.05) from 2007. various years. * Significantly different (p<. Institute of Education Sciences. 1992–2007 Scale score 500 260 223* 210 222* 223* 223* 227* 227* 228* 230 White 32* 191* 38* 184* 31 192* 34* 189* 29*30* 198* 197* 29* 199* 27 Gap 203 Black National average 160 0 1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment. Department of Education. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). 29 . National Center for Education Statistics. * Significantly different (p<. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).05) from 2007. Reading achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 8: Various years. The 27-point gap in 2007 was narrower than in any previous assessment year except 1998. various years. Figure 15. the reading gap for Black and White fourth-graders narrowed in 2007 in comparison to both 1992 and 2005 (figure 15). 1992–2007 Scale score 500 300 265* 250 265* 268 271 270 269* 29 236* 30 235* 26 242 27 27 244 244 27 242* White 26 Gap 244 Black 270 200 National average 1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 0 n Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment. Department of Education. 1992–2007 Reading Assessments. SOURCE: U. a greater increase in scores for Black students caused the gap to narrow. SOURCE: U. Eighth-grade reading scores for both Black and White students were higher in 2007 than in either 1992 or 2005. NOTE: Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000. Although scores for both Black and White students were higher in 2007 than in either comparison year. n Figure 16. National Center for Education Statistics.S. 1992–2007 In main NAEP. Institute of Education Sciences. but the gap in 2007 was not significantly different from either prior year (figure 16). Reading achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 4: Various years.

regardless of gender (figure 17). Average reading scores for eighth-graders were higher in 2007 than in 1992 for Black and for White students. the Black-White gap did not change significantly for either gender during this period. the 2007 gaps in eighth-grade reading achievement showed no sig­ nificant differences from the 1992 gaps for either males or females. Scores increased for Black females but not for White females. 30 . Among males. However. regardless of gender (figure 18). Fourth-grade reading scores were higher in 2007 than in 2005 for both Black and White males and females. However. and the achievement gaps narrowed for both groups during this period. From 2005 to 2007. 1992–2007 Average reading scores were higher in 2007 than in 1992 for Black and for White fourth-graders.Reading National ■ Grades 4 & 8 Reading scores and achievement gaps by gender. as the scores of Black fourth-graders increased more than those of their White peers. the Black-White gap did not change significantly. Among fourth-grade females. average reading scores for eighthgraders increased for both Black and White males. the gap narrowed as the scores of Black males increased more than those of their White peers.

Figure 18. SOURCE: U. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4.S. SOURCE: U. various years. Institute of Education Sciences. * Significantly different (p<. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).05) from 2007. by gender: Various years.Reading National ■ Grades 4 & 8 Figure 17. Department of Education. Department of Education. 1992–2007 Scale score 500 Male Female 260 219* 210 217* 219* 218* 224* 223* 225* 227 227* 227* 227* 228* 231* 231* 231* 35* 184* 40* 178* 30 189* 38* 180* 30* 31* 31* 193* 192* 194* 28 199 29 197* 36* 191* 33* 194* 31* 28* 29* 27* 197* 202* 202* 204* White 25 Gap 207 Black 233 160 0 1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 n Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment. NOTE: Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000. by gender: Various years.S. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). * Significantly different (p<. National Center for Education Statistics.05) from 2007. Institute of Education Sciences. 1992–2007 Reading Assessments. various years. 1992–2007 Reading Assessments. 31 . 1992–2007 Scale score 500 Male Female 300 258* 250 257* 261* 266 265 264* 265 272* 272* 276 276 276 275 275 29 229* 29 228* 27 234* 27 27 239 238 28 236* 28 238 29 243* 31 242* 26 249 27 27 250 249 27 248* White 26 Gap Black 250 200 0 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 n Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment. National Center for Education Statistics. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8.

2005. Institute of Education Sciences. Therefore. and 2007 Reading Assessments. Eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch NAEP collects data on students’ eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)—sometimes referred to as the free and reduced-price school lunch program—as an indicator of family economic status. Eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches is based on students’ family income in relation to the federally estab­ lished poverty level. 2005. There were no statistically significant changes in the sizes of the gaps. regardless of school-lunch eligibility (figure 19). National Center for Education Statistics. Not eligible: Students who are not eligible for the program because their family’s income is above 185 percent of the poverty level. trend comparisons are only made back to 2003 in this report. 32 . 2003.S. SOURCE: U.Reading National ■ Grades 4 & 8 Reading scores and achievement gaps by family income. Eligible for free lunch: Students who are eligible for free lunch because their family’s income is below 130 percent of the poverty level. race/ethnicity and grade: 2003. scores were higher for Black and White noteligible students only. and 2007 Not eligible Black White 73 72 72 76 75 76 Eligible for reduced-price lunch Black 7 8 9 7 9 9 Eligible for free lunch Black 66 66 65 59 57 56 White 6 7 8 5 6 6 White 21 20 18 18 17 14 Grade 4 2007 2005 2003 Grade 8 2007 2005 2003 26 25 24 32 32 32 NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 2003–2007 NAEP uses student eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch as an indicator of family income. while the gap for students eligible for free lunch was narrower than in either previous assessment. At grade 4. reading scores were higher in 2007 than in 2003 for both Black and White public school students. The gap in 2007 for not-eligible students was narrower than in 2003. Eligible for reduced-price lunch: Students who are eligible for reduced-price lunch because their family’s income is between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level. As a result of improvements in the quality of the data on students’ eligibility for NSLP. At grade 8. comparing 2007 with 2005 (figure 20). the percentage of students for whom information was not available has decreased in comparison to the percentages reported prior to the 2003 assessment. ercentage of public school P students assessed in NAEP reading by eligibility for free or reduced- price school lunch. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Department of Education. Table 2.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Institute of Education Sciences. and 2007 Not eligible Eligible for reduced-price lunch Eligible for free lunch Scale score 500 300 274 250 273* 274 21 253 22 251* 20 254 262 260 262 14 248 15 245 15 248 255 256 17 237 20 236 White 19 Gap 238 Black 257 200 0 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 * Significantly different (p<. and 2007 Reading Assessments. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. 2003. 2005. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). National Center for Education Statistics.05) from 2007.S.S. Institute of Education Sciences. by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003. and 2007 Reading Assessments. by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003. Figure 20. and 2007 Not eligible Eligible for reduced-price lunch Eligible for free lunch Scale score 500 260 232* 210 233* 235 21* 211* 20 212* 19 216 216* 218* 221 15 201* 16 202* 13 208 211* 213 214 197 White 19* 191* 19* 193* 16 Gap Black 110 0 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 * Significantly different (p<. SOURCE: U. 2003. 2005. Department of Education. SOURCE: U. 2005. Department of Education.Reading National ■ Grades 4 & 8 Figure 19. 2005. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. 33 . National Center for Education Statistics.05) from 2007.

The data for the national averages are located in appendix B in table B-4. the District of Columbia. all 50 states. Comparisons of fourth-grade reading gaps in 2007 between each state and the nation are presented in figure 21. 1994. 34 . 2003. 2005. states were not required to participate in NAEP in order to qualify for Title I education funds. the reading scores and gaps for the nation are presented for reference. also contains a dotted red line representing the national average for public school students. and the DoDEA schools participated. and 2007. State results are presented in two ways. 1998.and Eighth-Graders The NAEP state reading assessments were administered to public school students in fourth grade in 1992. 40 or more states participated in each assessment prior to 2003. and 2007. In 2003. 2002. 2002. At the top left of each two-page spread. as well as the national figure.Reading Main NAEP State Results for Black and White Fourth. 2005. 2003. 2005. Comparisons of the reading gaps within a state over time are presented in a series of small graphs in figure 22. Before 2003. and 2007 and in eighth grade in 1998. Typically. Each state figure.

and West Virginia) and eight had a gap that was larg­ er (Arkansas. the gap was not different from the national gap. North Dakota. Pennsylvania.Reading State ■ Grade 4 State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 4. . Nebraska. 2007 Reading Assessment. South Dakota. National Center for Education Statistics. Department of Education. Hawaii. Connecticut. 2007 Nine states had a Black-White gap that was smaller than the nation’s 27-point gap in 2007 (Arizona. by state or jurisdiction: 2007 Black 203 201 207 206 195 200 203 Gap 27 26 22 17* White 230 227 228 224 226 227 Jurisdictions Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia DoDEA1 Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin 0 180 24 234 34* 238 20* 233 213 67* 192 17* 235 218 24 232 208 25 230 205 15* 227 212 29 230 201 24 226 201 22 227 205 22 229 208 21* 225 203 26 220 194 28 236 208 31 241 211 30 227 197 33* 231 198 27 222 195 26 226 200 36* 230 194 22 224 202 14* 230 215 26 238 212 20 228 208 26 234 208 26 228 202 27 231 204 19* 223 204 25 222 198 33* 233 200 29 227 198 26 224 199 32* 224 192 25 232 207 20* 233 213 23 229 206 13* 216 202 38* 229 191 190 200 210 220 230 Scale score 240 250 31* 27 210 258 260 500 35 * Significantly different (p<. The Black-White grade 4 reading gap in 2007 was significant in all 44 states for which data could be reported. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Virginia. New Hampshire. NOTE: States whose Black student population size was insufficient for comparison are omitted. Oklahoma. Delaware. Tennessee. District of Columbia. DoDEA. Kentucky. Montana. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Minnesota. In 27 states. Institute of Education Sciences. Reporting standards not met for Idaho. and Wyoming. The Black-White achievement score gap in reading for public school students at grade 4.05) from the nation (public) when comparing one state to the nation at a time. The gaps ranged from 13 points in West Virginia to 67 points in the District of Columbia. and Wisconsin). Vermont.S. Utah. Figure 21. Gaps that are different from the national gap are indicated with an asterisk (figure 21). SOURCE: U. Maine.

the reading gap narrowed between 2005 and 2007 as Black students’ scores increased while those of White students did not change significantly.Reading State ■ Grade 4 Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 4. the reading gap was nar­ rower in 2007 than in 1992. Narrowing of the Gap In the following three states. as Black students’ scores increased more than those of their White peers. 36 . and New Jersey—the gap was narrower in 2007 than in 1992 as Black students’ scores increased more than those of White students. 1992–2007 The Black-White reading gap among the nation’s public school fourth-graders was narrower in 2007 than in 1992 as average scores for Black students demonstrated a larger increase than average scores for White students (figure 22. In three states—Delaware. Arizona. both Black and White fourth-graders achieved higher average scores in reading during this period. the reading gap narrowed between 2005 and 2007 as Black students’ scores increased more than White students’ scores. In 13 states. gaps narrowed from 2005 to 2007 in Alabama. National results). Delaware Florida New Jersey In Alabama. Florida. In Arizona and Virginia. and Virginia. In addition.

by state: Various years. White: 44%) Arkansas (Black: 20%. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. White: 49%) Florida (Black: 21%. White: 53%) 233 White 260 221* 220* 210 226* 232 232 234 230* 233* 237 233 233 235 221* 215* 218* 21 29 200 192* 30 197 23 208 25 207 24 210 34 45 195 189 34 203 31 37 33 206 201 201 34 203 26* 28* 195* 187* 24 22 23 209* 211 212 20 213 Gap 30* 189* Black 160 National average n n n n n n 0 1992 1994 1998 2003 2005 2007 1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 500 District of Columbia (Black: 86%. White: 70%) California (Black: 7%. White: 62%) Connecticut (Black: 14%. White: 54%) 260 223* 222* 210 223* 223* 227* 227* 228* 230 217* 219* 222 218* 219* 220* 227 226 209 225 212 228 White 32* 38* 191* 184* 31 34* 29* 30* 29* 27 199* 203 30 33* 187* 185* 31 191* 30 30 32* 188* 188* 188* 26 201 17 13 22 Gap 192* 189* 198* 197* 207 Black National average 160 0 1992 1994 n n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992 1994 n n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 500 Arizona (Black: 5%.Reading State ■ Grade 4 Figure 22. White: 58%) Alaska (Black: 4%. White: 28%) 260 220 210 219 219 220 223 224 224 218* 217* 216* 222 223 225 226 22 31* 198 188* 28 191* 21 27 31* 17 199 196 193* 206 217* 212* 217* 223 224 225 227 White 29 34 189* 182* 32 184* 33 33 32 188* 190 194 31 195 36 30 181* 182* 31 186* 27 31 30 196 193 195 27 Gap 200 Black National average 160 0 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 500 Colorado (Black: 5%. White: 47%) 260 227* 210 230* 230* 232* 235 62 73 185* 174* 72 174* 60 70 66 67 18 209* 15 16 14 17 218 218* 217* 217* 226* 229 228* 232 White 215 214 218 33* 36* 185* 181* 31* 186* 30 31* 26 24 Gap 37 160 188* 184* 187* 192 203* 208 196* 198* Black National average 0 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure. . White: 6%) 246 248 247 248 254 252 258 DoDEA3 (Black: 19%. White: 64%) 237 238 234 238 Delaware (Black: 34%. White: 56%)2 Alabama (Black: 37%. 1992–2007 Scale score 500 NATIONAL1 (Black: 17%.

White: 52%) 236 White Gap data not available 260 215 213* 210 218 221 223 223 220 227 229 225 225 224 225 226 220* 222* 224* 230* 231* 232 26 189 38 160 35* 178* 38* 180* 30 35* 28 192 189* 195 26 194 29 37* 192* 185* 34 190* 30 31 32 199* 200* 201* 28 Gap 208 Black National average 0 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure. White: 81%) Illinois (Black: 20%. .Reading State ■ Grade 4 Figure 22. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. White: 96%) Maryland (Black: 34%. White: 55%) 230 230 227 228 Indiana (Black: 10%. White: 56%)2 Scale score 500 Georgia (Black: 39%. White: 48%) Hawaii (Black: 3%. White: 80%) 226 White Gap data not available 260 221* 210 224* 222* 226 224 224 225 224 223 34 36 29 25 31 200 192 23 28 26 202 197 197 24 Gap 194* 194* 201 160 201 Black National average 0 1992n 2002 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 2002 2003 2005 2007 500 Iowa (Black: 5%. White: 84%) 260 226 210 224 222 225 226 224 227 227 226 225 225 229 18 208 39 185 31 191 18 30 23 207 196 201 22 205 30 197 20 28 29 206 197* 196* 22 208 214* 214* 220* 222 221 222 225 White 18 24 196 190* 21 199 23 20 19 199 202 203 21 203 Gap Black 160 National average 0 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 500 Louisiana (Black: 48%. White: 73%) Kentucky (Black: 11%. by state: Various years. White: 86%) Kansas (Black: 8%. 1992–2007—Continued NATIONAL1 (Black: 17%. White: 16%) 260 223* 222* 210 223* 223* 227* 227* 228* 230 223* 221* 221* 226 226 226 230 32* 38* 191* 184* 31 34* 29* 30* 192* 189* 29* 27 198* 197* 199* 203 28 37* 195* 184* 30 191* 26 27 27 25 212* 214* 205 214* 219* 221 224 227 White 200* 199* 199* 205 7 17 197 11 203 1210 19 208 211 205 15 212 Gap Black 160 National average 1992n 1994n 1992n 1994n 1992n 1994n 0 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 500 Idaho (Black: 1%. White: 49%) Maine (Black: 2%.

White: 59%) 233* 231* 235 232* 238 New Mexico (Black: 3%. White: 44%) New Hampshire (Black: 2%. White: 75%) 239 234* 237* 241 Michigan (Black: 20%. White: 76%) Nevada (Black: 9%. White: 47%) Missouri (Black: 20%.Reading State ■ Grade 4 Figure 22. White: 83%) 260 217 210 218 215* 218 221 220 222 225 221* 221* 226 227 197 203 226 226 Gap data not available 225* 227 226 227 228 230 White 31 33 186* 185* 26 189* 29 29 30 189* 192 190 27 195 30 30 195 191 33 188 28 24 26 200 26 200 Gap Black National average 160 0 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 500 Nebraska (Black: 8%. 1992–2007—Continued Scale score 500 Massachusetts (Black: 8%. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4. . White: 53%) 235 235 232 234 White 228 226* 226* 228* 260 210 35* 40* 198* 191* 36* 33 200* 199* 26 212 223 220* 222 223 222 202 225 206 21 24 202 196 26 196 20 18 20 208 27 36* 199* 190* 37* 191* 32 32* 24 202 203* 207 26 Gap 39 208 Black National average 160 0 1992 1994 n n 2003 2005 2007 1992 1994 n n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992 1994 n n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure. White: 71%) Minnesota (Black: 8%. White: 78%) 260 230* 230* 210 228* 26 204 33 196* 26 202* 2727 26 212 207 211 31 211 222* 223 226 228 226 227 223* 221* 224* 229 229 231 231 White 35 187 36 187 31 40* 36 195 189 190 30 197 34 45 189 176 40 184 27 35 39 202 194 192 33 Gap 198 Black National average 160 0 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 500 Mississippi (Black: 51%. White: 92%) 260 224* 223* 210 226 225* 228 230 28 33 196 190 17*21* 34 209 203 194 36 194 213* 218* 217* 219* 224 228 224* 227 229 228 230 215 White 30 183* 22 25 27 196 193 192 22 202 14 Gap Black National average 160 0 1992n 1994n 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2003 2005 2007 500 New Jersey (Black: 15%. by state: Various years. White: 75%) Montana (Black: 1%. White: 32%) New York (Black: 19%.

Reading
State

Grade 4

Figure 22.

Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4, by state: Various years, 1992–2007—Continued NATIONAL1
(Black: 17%, White: 56%)2

Scale score 500

North Carolina
(Black: 27%, White: 56%) 232* 232* 227 228 226 227

North Dakota
(Black: 2%, White: 88%)

260 223* 222* 210 223* 223* 227* 227* 228* 230 220* 224 223*

Gap data not available
226 224* 228 229 White

32* 38*
191* 184*

31 34*
192* 189*

29* 30* 29* 27

26 32
194* 192*

30
193*

27 29 27
205 203 200

26
202

Gap
Black
National average

198* 197* 199* 203

160

0

1992n 1994n

1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007

1992n 1994n

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

1992n 1994n

2002 2003 2005 2007

500

Ohio
(Black: 17%, White: 75%) 229 226* 230 231

Oklahoma
(Black: 10%, White: 60%)

Oregon
(Black: 3%, White: 69%) 223 222 223 222 White

260 220* 210 223 225 220 220 219 223 217*

23
197

27 25 33
202 202 197

27
204

22
201

30
195

32* 25 22
188* 195 197

19
204

25
191

20 19 23
204 202 200

25
198

Gap

Black

160

National average 1992n 1992n

0

2002 2003 2005 2007

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

500

Pennsylvania
(Black: 15%, White: 76%) 228* 227* 229* 233

Rhode Island
(Black: 9%, White: 68%)

South Carolina
(Black: 36%, White: 56%)

260 227* 224* 210 223 225 226 227 224 224 227

36
190*

46*
178*

37 36 29
192 191* 200

33
200

221 218*

221

225 226 225

224

White

31 28
192 197

34
192

26 28 28
201 196 197

29
198

27
194

36*
182*

29
192*

26 27 27
199 199 197

26
199

Gap

Black
National average

160

0

1992n 1994n

2002 2003 2005 2007

1992n 1994n

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

1992n 1994n

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

500

South Dakota
(Black: 2%, White: 84%)

Tennessee
(Black: 25%, White: 70%) 228 223* 226*

Texas
(Black: 16%, White: 37%) 230 232 227* 232 232 White

260

Gap data not available
227 226 218* 219 218* 220 220 222 224

210

26 31
192 188

25
193

26 32 27
194 188 195

32
192

24 36
199* 190*

39*
191*

30 25 26
202 202 206

25
207

Gap

40
160

Black

National average 1992n 1994n 1992n 1994n

0

2003 2005 2007

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

See notes at end of figure.

Reading
State

Grade 4

Figure 22.

Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4, by state: Various years, 1992–2007—Continued Utah
(Black: 1%, White: 81%)

Scale score 500

Vermont
(Black: 2%, White: 94%)

Virginia
(Black: 26%, White: 60%) 233 White

Gap data not available
260 222* 219* 210 220* 224 223 226 226

Gap data not available
227 226 227 229 227* 224* 225* 233 231 233

26 32*
201* 192*

27*
199*

27* 25 26* 20

Gap

213 Black 205* 206* 207* National average

160

0

1992n 1994n

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

2002 2003 2005 2007

1992n 1994n

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

500

Washington
(Black: 6%, White: 66%)

West Virginia
(Black: 6%, White: 93%)

Wisconsin
(Black: 11%, White: 79%)

260 216* 210 221* 227 226 228 229

19
198

17
204

14 14* 16
213 212 212

23
206

216

214

216

220 220* 215 207 203 202

13
200

23*
194

13 17 13 13
202

216

227

227

228

225

227

229 White

28 32
198 196

41
187

25* 33
200 194

38

Gap

191 Black National average

160

0

1994n

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

1992n 1994n

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

1992n 1994n

1998

2003 2005 2007

500

Wyoming
(Black: 2%, White: 84%)

Gap data not available
260 225* 223* 210 220* 224* 224* 227 228

White

Gap
Black

160

National average

0

1992n 1994n

1998

2002 2003 2005 2007

n

Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2007.
1 2

National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples. Black and White percentages are based on students tested in 2007. 3 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data pre­ sented here were recalculated for comparability. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Where data are not present, the jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. State-level data were not collected in 2000. Comparative performance results may be affected by changes in exclusion rates for students with disabilities and English language learners in the NAEP samples. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading Assessments.

41

42

Reading
National

Grade 8

State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 8, 2007
Nine states had a Black-White gap that was smaller than the nation’s 26-point gap in 2007 (Alaska, Delaware, DoDEA, Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, and West Virginia) and one had a gap that was larger (Wisconsin). In 32 states, the gap was not significantly dif­ ferent from the nation’s. State gaps that are either significantly larger or smaller than the national gap are indicated with asterisks (figure 23). In Hawaii, the 7-point difference between the average scores for Black and White students was not statistically significant, and thus there was no Black-White gap for grade 8 reading in that state in 2007. In the other 41 states for which reliable data could be reported, the differences were sta­ tistically significant. The gaps ranged from 15 points in West Virginia and Nevada to 38 points in Wisconsin. Figure 23. The Black-White achievement score gap in reading for public school students at grade 8, by state or jurisdiction: 2007
Black 244 236 26 250 248 31 29 252 246 250 244 246 Gap 26 261 20* 21 White 270 270 269 266 266 275 276 274 278

Jurisdictions Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware DoDEA Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin 0

236 237

22 30 23*

19* 259 24 268 25 271 255 7* 262 27 271 244 26 268 242 22 270 247 27 272 246 17* 264 247 23 264 240 27 276 249 25 278 253 31 267 236 28 273 245 25 264 238 28 270 242 28 271 243 15* 263 248 29 278 249 17* 265 248 29 274 246 29 270 241 27 274 246 22 266 243 20 270 250 25 272 248 29 267 239 26 268 242 27 267 240 26 275 249 20* 273 252 23 270 247 15* 256 241 38* 270 231 230 240 250 260 270 Scale score 280 290 300 310 500

43

* Significantly different (p<.05) from the nation (public) when comparing one state to the nation at a time. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: States whose Black or White student population size was insufficient for comparison are omitted. Reporting standards not met for District of Columbia, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Reading Assessment.

During this period. In Delaware. the gap did not change in any state. 1998–2007 Reading scores for the nation’s public school students in the eighth grade were higher in 2007 than in 1992 for both Black and White students. but there was no significant change in gap. 44 . five other states showed significant changes in average scores in one. but were not significantly differ­ ent than in 1998 (figure 24. of the two student groups. but not both. the 7-point difference in Black and White students’ scores in Hawaii for 2007 was itself not statistically significant. From 2005 to 2007. National results). Despite the fact that no statistically significant changes in state gaps were identified. the national eighth-grade reading gap has not changed since either 1992 or 1998.Reading State ■ Grade 8 Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 8. Moreover. scores for both Black and White eighth-graders were higher in 2007 than in 1998. so that no Black-White score gap in grade 8 reading existed for that state. From 1998 to 2007. NAEP first conducted eighth-grade reading assessments at the state level in 1998. the Black-White score gap did not change for any state.

White: 55%) 300 270* 250 275 273 254 275 277 277 275 272 276 22 248 26 19 249 22 252 32 245 38 31 32 240 244 240 30 246 263* 275 273 252 248 274 252 274 White 28 234* 2324 22 23 250 Gap Black National average 200 0 1998 500 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 District of Columbia (Black: 88%. White: 47%) 276 278 278 276 278 Florida (Black: 23%. 1998–2007 Scale score 500 NATIONAL1 (Black: 17%. White: 60%) Alaska (Black: 5%. White: 68%) California (Black: 7%. White: 69%) Delaware (Black: 34%. White: 47%) Arkansas (Black: 24%. White: 64%) Connecticut (Black: 13%. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 . White: 58%)2 Alabama (Black: 36%. White: 55%) 300 265* 265* 250 268 271 270 269* 270 265 264 262 263 261 268 249 268 249 270 White 29 30 236* 235* 26 242 2727 27 26 28 237 30 26 29 234 237 235 26 236 19 19 20 250 Gap Black National average 244 244 242* 244 200 0 1992 1994 500 n n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 Arizona (Black: 5%. White: 3%) 301 DoDEA3 (Black: 19%.Reading State ■ Grade 8 Figure 24. White: 33%) 300 269 250 267 268 250 245 267 269 263 267 266 266 266 268 265 265 242 239 264 266 White 21 248 1724 25 242 21 248 29 234 28 33 29 238 232 236 31 236 30 238 2326 24 240 29 237 Gap Black National average 200 0 1998 500 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 Colorado (Black: 7%. by state: Various years. White: 49%) 300 66 250 233 200 238 236 235 238 22 254 1619 262 258 18 19 258 259 264 269 268 244 239 265 268 White 28 236 25 29 26 238 24 244 Gap Black National average 45 0 1998 See notes at end of figure.

White: 87%) Kansas (Black: 8%. White: 58%)2 Scale score 500 Georgia (Black: 45%. 1998–2007—Continued NATIONAL1 (Black: 17%. White: 46%) Hawaii (Black: 2%. White: 84%) Illinois (Black: 17%. 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 . White: 53%) Maine (Black: 2%. White: 96%) Maryland (Black: 38%. White: 77%) Kentucky (Black: 12%. White: 84%) 300 269 250 245 200 269 246 270 247 272 273 271 271 244 243 247 272 264 267 269* 266 248 245 248 264 247 White 25 23 22 22 249 29 27 24 27 246 19 246 19 24 18 17 Gap Black National average 0 2003 2005 2007 500 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 Louisiana (Black: 44%.Reading State ■ Grade 8 Figure 24. White: 13%) 300 265* 265* 250 268 271 270 269* 270 268 268 268 268 246 244 241 271 262 29 30 236* 235* 26 242 2727 27 26 263 259 261 262 255 White 27 241 22 25 27 25 246 10 7 244 244 242* 244 253 Gap Black National average 200 0 1992n 1994n 500 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 Idaho (Black: 1%. by state: Various years. White: 51%) 274 271 272 276 300 262 250 268 267 264 264 Gap data not available 272 270 269 270 270 272 White 26 236 28 28 24 240 238 240 23 240 32 240* 28 26 29 27 246 245 244 249 Gap 46 200 Black National average 0 1998 See notes at end of figure. White: 60%) 276* 272 Indiana (Black: 12%. White: 79%) 271 300 Gap data not available 269 267 267 268 267 269 265 247 244 241 268 White 250 29 28 27 247 244 244 20 24 24 26 242 Gap Black National average 200 0 2002 2003 2005 2007 500 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 Iowa (Black: 5%. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8.

White: 82%) 273 273 273 300 270 272* 268 250 27 246 31 26 26 253 246 252 267 269 White 25 253 28 31 29 31 242 242 239 236 38 231 29 34 243 239 28 245 Gap Black National average 200 0 1998 500 2002 2003 2005 2007 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2003 2005 2007 Mississippi (Black: 53%. White: 57%) 275 274 277 276 274 300 270 250 29 27 248 251 29 249 266 268 264 265 White 22 246 17 248 28 246 28 32 34 246 246 242 29 246 Gap Black 200 National average 47 0 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. White: 57%) 277 278 278 New Mexico (Black: 3%. White: 44%) Missouri (Black: 20%. White: 46%) New Hampshire (Black: 1%. White: 80%) Nevada (Black: 11%. White: 76%) 274 278 278 279 Minnesota (Black: 6%. 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 . by state: Various years. White: 84%) 300 264 250 268 267 264 264 265* 271 272 270 250 270 Gap data not available 273 273 273 272 274 White 25 238 28 25 28 240 243 237 25 238 23 242 22 28 28 28 243 242 242 Gap Black National average 200 0 1998 500 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 Nebraska (Black: 7%. White: 94%) 300 273 271 271 250 271 264 Gap data not available 27 32 28 246 239 243 259* 262 261 234* 233* 240 263 248 272 270 270 White 28 243 23 241 15 25* 29* 21 Gap Black National average 200 0 2002 2003 2005 2007 500 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 New Jersey (Black: 17%.Reading State ■ Grade 8 Figure 24. White: 75%) 278 Scale score 500 Massachusetts (Black: 8%. White: 75%) Montana (Black: 1%. 1998–2007—Continued Michigan (Black: 19%. White: 32%) New York (Black: 19%.

White: 70%) South Carolina (Black: 38%. White: 88%) 300 265* 265* 250 268 271 270 269* 270 Gap data not available 269 272 272 270 White 29 30 236* 235* 26 242 2727 27 26 25 246 27 24 28 29 240 241 Gap Black National average 244 244 242* 244 200 0 1992n 1994n 500 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2002 2003 2005 2007 Ohio (Black: 18%. White: 39%) 300 Gap data not available 273 264 265 265 265 267 271 276 272 270 275 White 250 29 235 26 26 25 27 240 25 246 30 25 24 26 247 247 246 249 Gap Black National average 48 200 240 239 240 0 2003 2005 2007 See notes at end of figure. 1998–2007—Continued Scale score 500 NATIONAL1 (Black: 17%. White: 56%) 300 268 268 267 268 267 265 268 269 267 268 White 250 35* 25 34 243 239 236 25 248 22 246 25 26 25 29 243 241 243 239 25 240 26 25 24 26 243 244 242 242 Gap Black National average 200 0 2002 2003 2005 2007 500 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 South Dakota (Black: 2%. White: 68%) 272 272 Texas (Black: 16%. White: 87%) Tennessee (Black: 27%. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8.Reading State ■ Grade 8 Figure 24. by state: Various years. White: 77%) 271 268 273 272 Rhode Island (Black: 9%. White: 75%) 269 270 267 251 267 270 250 300 265 266 White 250 27 22 29 246 249 243 27 246 16 253* 29 27 22 22 238 240 243 243 30 239 15 22 20 245 Gap Black National average 200 0 2002 2003 2005 2007 500 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 Pennsylvania (Black: 14%. White: 58%) 274 271 267 247* 247* 270 270 North Dakota (Black: 1%. White: 58%)2 North Carolina (Black: 30%. 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 . White: 59%) 268 268 267 Oregon (Black: 2%. White: 76%) 273 271 272 274 Oklahoma (Black: 11%.

* Significantly different (p<. White: 61%) 275 275 275 252 250 251 273 273 252 300 Gap data not available 266 267 268 265 266 Gap data not available 272 271 269* 273 White 250 24 250 24 25 24 20 Gap Black National average 200 0 1998 500 2002 2003 2005 2007 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 Washington (Black: 5%. 3 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). not on aggregated state samples. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). the jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. 1998–2007—Continued Scale score 500 Utah (Black: 1%. Comparative performance results may be affected by changes in exclusion rates for students with disabilities and English lan­ guage learners in the NAEP samples. White: 68%) West Virginia (Black: 5%.S. White: 94%) Virginia (Black: 26%. SOURCE: U. 1994. 49 . Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8. 1 2 National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample.05) from 2007. Pre-2005 data pre­ sented here were recalculated for comparability. White: 81%) 300 267 250 271 268 268 247 251 255 270 247 25 242 24 17 13 23 262* 264* 260* 269 256 256 271 271 270 White 14 248 242 248 236 22 12 20 15 241 35 234 38 234 35 38 236 231 Gap Black National average 200 0 1998 500 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2003 2005 2007 Wyoming (Black: 1%. Black and White percentages are based on students tested in 2007. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. by state: Various years. Department of Education. White: 81%) Vermont (Black: 2%. Before 2005. or 2000. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. State-level data were not collected in 1992. DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Where data are not present. White: 94%) Wisconsin (Black: 9%. 1992–2007 Reading Assessments. White: 85%) Gap data not available 300 265* 250 National average 267 269 270 269 White 200 0 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 n Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.Reading State ■ Grade 8 Figure 24. various years.

Black students constituted 17 percent of the public school fourth-grade population (based on data from the NAEP reading assessment) while White students constituted 56 percent. 1999. 1992. In contrast. Eighth-grade data show a similar pattern. appears first. 2005. 1996. 2005. discussion of the long-term trend assessments. the Black or White student population is so small that valid data cannot be obtained. 1992. 2003. Results for the eighth-grade were similar: 17 percent and 58 percent. 2000.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/ and http://nces. 1992. administration.” which will be used in future long-term assessments. 1992. However. the reading assessment was also administered in the fourth grade (see tables B-1 and B-3 in appendix B). consult the information avail­ able online at http://nces. development. This report presents state data from the 1992. 2000. Black students constituted a majority of the fourth-grade popula­ tion in two states. and 2007 main NAEP mathematics assessments and the 1992.Appendix A: Technical Notes This report presents data from two different assessment series. 2000. the District of Columbia (84 percent in mathematics and 86 percent in reading) and Mississippi (52 percent in mathematics and 51 percent in reading). the long-trend assessments in reading and mathematics were conducted for two different “studies”: the “bridge study. available from the NAEP website http://nces.ed. for public school students only. 1982. which also provides links to earlier reports in the long-term trend series. 1996. Main NAEP This report presents national data from the 1990. 2003. but only for both public and private school students combined. Discussion of main NAEP grade 12 assessments is omitted in this report because these assessments are conducted at the national level only. percentages vary widely between states. and 2007 and to eighth-grade public school students in 1998. and 2007 fourth-grade main NAEP mathemat­ ics assessments and from the 1990. 1984. 1994. 2002. In most but not all cases. 2003. which present both national and state results. were drawn from the bridge study. 1990. reported in NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress and in this report. which pres­ ent national results only. 2005. 1986. The results for the 2004 assessment. 1996. 2005. the two assessments used different procedures. 1996. and the “modified study. (In 2004. and 2007 eighth-grade main NAEP mathematics assessments. respectively. 2003. Frameworks. 2002.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/ 50 Sources of the data Long-term trend This report presents national data from the 1978. 2002. and 2004 long-term trend math­ ematics assessments and the 1980. ed. NAEP sampling procedures Long-term trend The populations sampled for the 2004 NAEP long-term trend assessment results presented in this report consisted . and 2007. Earlier long-term trend assessment results are available. 1998. 1994. followed by the discussion of the main NAEP assessments.” which was identical to previous long-term assessments. and 2007 main NAEP reading assessments for Black and White public school students in the fourth and eighth grades. The main NAEP reading assessment was administered at the state level to fourth-grade public school students in 1992. Whenever a topic requires separate treatment of the two assessments.) Main NAEP 2007 reading and mathematics assessments For overviews of these topics. 1994.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/. and 2004 long-term trend reading assessments for Black and White public school students ages 9 and 13. In 2000. 2003. Nationally in 2007. scoring. 2005. and analysis Long-term trend Overviews of these topics and more extensive information about other topics for the long-term trend assessments can be obtained from NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress. 1999. Black students constituted only 2 percent of the fourth-grade public school population in states such as Wyoming and South Dakota. the NAEP long-term trend assessments and the main NAEP assessments. and for more extensive infor­ mation about other topics for the 2007 main NAEP reading and mathematics assessments. 2003. In some cases.ed. 1996. For example. 1998. 1990. 2005.

2004 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments. Eligibility for the age 9 and age 13 samples was based on calendar year: students in the age 9 sample were 9 years old on January 1. a sample of 128 age-eligible students was taken.000 3. income levels. depending on the region of the country. Schools were selected with probability proportional to a measure of size based on the estimated number of age-eligible students in the school. students were selected for participation based on a stratified three-stage sampling plan. the numbers of stu­ dents are rounded to the nearest hundred. Department of Education. education levels in the population.800 4. as well as the school and student participation rates. were drawn from a list—a sampling frame—developed using the metropolitan area designations of the U. In the first stage. The first-stage sampling units.690. and students in the age 13 sample were 13 years old on January 1. Institute of Education Sciences.000. geographic pri­ mary sampling units (PSUs) were defined and selected. percentages of racial/ethnic groups.000 3. In the third stage. by age: 2004 Participation and target population School participation Weighted school percentage Total number of schools that participated Student participation Weighted student percentage Total number of students who participated Target population Age 9 88 250 Age 13 85 230 94 92 3. Otherwise. schools were sampled from within the selected PSUs.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt). Each NAEP PSU in the frame was intended to encompass one county or contiguous multiple counties. In the second stage of sampling. and contained a minimum number of schoolaged children—10. the reader should refer to the technical documentation section of the NAEP website (http://nces. with adjustments made to compensate for the non-random manner of selection. eligible students were selected within schools. school participation rates were computed based on the schools originally selected for participation in the assessments.000 to 15. Stratification occurred at both the school level and the PSU level.S. 2004. schools were selected within PSUs. This in turn was estimated by applying population-level percentages of age-eligible students within each grade to estimated grade enrollments for each grade. Sampled schools were asked to list all students with the appropriate birth dates for each specified age sample. Sixty additional PSUs were selected in a non-random manner.of 9. and target student popula­ tion. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. and aggregat­ ing to an age-eligible total for the school. National Center for Education Statistics.000 students (17 in all) were automatically included in the sample. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Although sampled schools that refused to participate were replaced. and per­ centage of renters. The student participation rates repre­ sent the percentage of students assessed of those invited to be assessed. In the third stage of sampling. taking into account region of the country. public school students only. Sample sizes and participation rates for the long-term trend mathematics assessments were simi­ lar. with birth months January 1990 through December 1990.S. A full description of the sampling plan is beyond the scope of this appendix.700. 2004.000 51 NOTE: The numbers of schools are rounded to the nearest ten. In the second stage. All eligible students up to a pre-specified maxi­ mum (128 for both ages 9 and 13) were then selected for the assessment. . and the numbers for target populations are rounded to the nearest ten thousand. all age-eligible students were selected into the sample for that school. School and student participation rates. generally not crossing state boundaries. SOURCE: U. If a school selected for the age 9 or age 13 samples had 128 or fewer students. Census Bureau. PSUs. for additional details regarding the design and structure of the 2004 trend assessment samples. status as either metropolitan or non-metropolitan. All PSUs containing more than 800. students were sampled from within schools. Table A-1. including those assessed in follow-up ses­ sions when necessary. The actual student and school sample sizes obtained in the NAEP long-term trend reading assessments. are present­ ed in table A-1. Consistent with past national long-term trend assessments. Response rates for public school students ages 9 and 13 met NCES reporting standards for all assessments.ed. Long-Term Trend Reading assessment. with birth months January 1994 through December 1994.and 13-year-old students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools nationwide.

6 million eighth-grade public school students. Table A-2 provides a summary of the 2007 national and state school and student participation rates for the read­ ing grade 8 assessment sample. and schools within states. In 2003. The students selected from these schools represented the total population of approximately 3. all states participated and the national sample was the aggregate of the samples from all states. This report includes data for public school students for both the nation and all states. 000 eighth-grade public schools. In order to obtain a representative sample for reporting national and state public school results in 2007. as 52 .400 schools for the reading assessment and approximate­ ly 190. since the number of students assessed in most states is roughly the same (to allow for stable state estimates and administrative efficiencies). All 50 states. Samples of schools and students are selected from each state and from the District of Columbia and Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools. From 1990 through 2000. and 2007.000 eighth-graders from 6.000 eighth-graders from 6. Thus. 2005.400 schools for the mathematics assessment. the national sample was collected separately from the state samples.Main NAEP The schools and students participating in NAEP assess­ ments are chosen to be nationally representative. NCES sampled and assessed approximately 183. NAEP samples for reading and mathematics assessments administered from 1990 through 2007 are discussed in more detail below. Schools in the DoDEA school system are classified as “nonpublic” by NCES and their results are not included in the determination of NAEP national public average scale scores. results were weighted to take into account the fact that states. Sampling weights are also used to account for lower sampling rates for very small schools and are used to adjust for school and student nonresponse. From 1990 through 2001. These schools are not “private” because they are operated by the federal government and they are not “public” because only children of U. this practice was discontinued because the state samples were large enough to ensure adequate coverage for these populations. The NAEP 2007 mathematics and reading assessments were administered to fourth. Rates for reading grade 4 and mathematics grades 4 and 8 in 2007 were similar. For example. The results from the assessed students are combined to provide accurate estimates of overall national performance and of the per­ formance of individual states. The schools were selected out of approximately 51. and the DoDEA schools. In 2003.and eighth-graders in all states. Beginning in 2002. For comparison purposes. military personnel can attend them. and the DoDEA schools met the minimum guidelines for reporting their results in 2007 for both assessments. the District of Columbia. NAEP results were weighted to compensate for the oversampling. NCES oversampled schools with high minority populations (Black and Hispanic) in the national sample. the District of Columbia. the system is treated as a state and results are compared with the scores of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. rep­ resent different proportions of the overall national popula­ tion. 2005.000 fourth-grad­ ers from 7. plus small samples from the few states that did not participate.300 schools and 147. The 2002 national sample was the sum of all the state samples of the participating states. The main NAEP national samples in reading and mathematics since 2002 have been larger than in previous assessment years.S. These totals include the public schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each selected school that participated in the assessment and each student assessed represent a portion of the population.000 fourth-grade and 27. Prior to 2002. the results for students in less populous states are assigned smaller weights than the results for students in more populous states.4 million fourth-grade and 3. and 2007. smaller score differences between years or between types of student were found to be statistically significant than would have been detected in previous assessments.300 schools and 155.000 fourth-graders from 7. NCES has changed the main NAEP sampling methods over the years.

In the 1998–2000 assess­ ments.were the rates for the 2003 and 2005 assessments. The denomina­ tor is the estimated number of schools represented by the initially selected schools that had eligible students enrolled. The numerator of this rate is the estimated number of students who are represented by the students assessed (in either an initial session or a makeup session). set minimums for the school participa­ tion rate before substitution of replacement schools for any sample. The national target population per grade for all main NAEP assessments 1990–2007 ranged from about 3. which establishes policy for NAEP.700. In the 2003– 2007 state assessments. NCES and the National Assessment Governing Board. followed by approximately 325.000 in Texas.200 to 9. In order to ensure unbiased samples. while the number of students assessed ranged from approximately 5. In the 1990–1996 assessments.ed. The term “eligible students” used in the two preceding paragraphs refers to students who can meaningfully par­ ticipate in NAEP. The numerator of this rate is the estimated number of schools represented by the initially selected schools that participated in the assessment. available online at http://nces. Readers who want more detail should consult the 2007.000 in sparsely populated states like Wyoming and Alaska to approximately 450. In the 1990–2000 state assessments. the number of schools sampled per assessment and grade ranged from approximately 40 to 250.100 to 9. The final column of table A-2 gives the target populations for each jurisdiction.gov/ pubsearch/getpubcats. The fourth column gives the number of public school stu­ dents who were assessed in each of the jurisdictions.900.25 million to about 3. the eighth-grade population for that jurisdiction. participation rates are very high and NCES no longer selects substitute schools for these assessments. In earlier NAEP assessments. the standard for the state assessments required that the weighted school par­ ticipation rate before substitution of replacement schools 53 .000 to 5. the number of schools sampled per assessment and grade ranged from approxi­ mately 30 to 150. 2005 and 2003 report cards. while the number of students assessed ranged from approximately 1. that is. Also presented in table A-2 are weighted student par­ ticipation rates. the number of schools sampled per assessment and grade for the national sample ranged from approximately 120 to 230.000 in California. The state target populations for all main NAEP assess­ ments 1990–2007 ranged from approximately 5. School and student participation rates were given both before and after substitution.700 to 10. For similar reasons. From 1990 through 2002.000 in the District of Columbia and 9. the number of schools sampled per assessment and grade ranged from approximately 330 to 390. The school participation rate is a school-centered. weighted per­ centage of schools participating in the assessment.900. Participation rates in table A-2 are presented for public schools and public school students in grade 8 reading. This rate is based only on the schools that were initially selected for the assessment. while the number of students assessed ranged from approximately 6. Students excluded from NAEP assess­ ments on the grounds that they cannot meaningfully participate—whether students with disabilities or English language learners—are not part of the population of inter­ est. The denominator of this rate is the estimated number of students represented by the eligible sampled students in participating schools. while the number of students assessed ranged from approximately 1. the denominator of the weighted student participation rate consists only of eligible sampled students.asp?sid=031. Because the No Child Left Behind Act requires states to participate in the main NAEP reading and mathematics assessments at the fourth and eighth grades in order to qualify for full Title I education funding. Initially selected schools that had no eligible students enrolled are excluded from the denominator of the school participation rate because they contained no students who were part of the population of interest.000.75 million. NCES would select substi­ tute schools that would be used to augment the original sample if a large number of schools from the sample failed to participate.

000 16.000 477.000 39.000 47.800 2.900 2.000 2.000 193.600 2.000 150. the numbers of students are rounded to the nearest hundred.000 104.800 7.300 2.000 10.900 4.000 7.000 64. and the target population is rounded to the nearest thousand.600 2.500 2. Department of Education. School and student participation rates.000 34.000 62.700 2.000 52.000 Target population 3.000 73.900 2. public school students only.000 36.000 42.800 1.000 62. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).000 20.000 15.000 74.000 206.600 2.800 2.000 21. and target student population.S.000 140.000 2.000 80.000 36.410 120 110 130 120 310 120 100 50 50 60 160 120 70 110 200 110 130 150 110 110 130 110 140 120 140 110 130 170 120 70 90 110 110 160 150 190 190 150 110 110 60 110 140 120 220 100 120 110 130 120 130 80 Jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia DoDEA1 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 1 Student participation Weighted student Total number of students percentage who participated 92 93 91 90 93 92 92 92 93 88 94 91 93 91 93 93 92 93 94 93 92 93 90 93 91 92 93 92 92 94 88 92 92 89 90 91 95 92 92 92 92 92 94 95 92 92 91 93 93 91 92 92 92 154. Institute of Education Sciences.000 21.900 2.000 70.800 2.000 11.800 2.000 34. 2007 Reading Assessment.400 2.558.600 3. NOTE: The numbers of schools are rounded to the nearest ten.100 2.700 2.000 70.700 3.000 8.000 56. by state or jurisdiction: 2007 School participation Weighted school Total number of schools percentage that participated 100 100 99 100 100 100 98 97 100 100 98 100 100 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 100 100 100 99 100 100 98 100 100 98 97 100 100 100 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 100 6.000 28.700 2.000 91.000 2.000 2. grade 8 reading assessment.800 1.700 2.000 119.200 3.000 120.800 2.700 2.800 3.000 42.000 57. SOURCE: U.700 2.800 2. .800 2.800 2.000 12.600 2.000 13.000 46.000 5. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.000 10.600 2.500 2.800 2.800 4.500 8.600 2.000 78.700 2.000 36.600 3.000 104.000 54 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).700 2.000 135. National Center for Education Statistics.800 2.000 7.700 2.000 5.Table A-2.000 9.700 4.600 2.800 2.000 294.000 25.100 3.

were included in computing over-all national results. a few states did not meet the 70 percent standard. regardless of whether their group was reported separately. and Unclassified. Students are cat­ egorized into one of five mutually exclusive racial/ethnic categories plus “other. These data are checked and updated during data collection. including questions about their race/ethnicity. Since 1990. All students who take a NAEP assessment complete a sec­ tion of general student background questions. data about student race/ ethnicity are collected from two sources: school records and student self-reports.gov/nationsreportcard/bgquest. American Indian (including Alaska Native).ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats. or who self-reported more than one race category (i. and school records-based race/ethnicity data has been collected starting in 2004.Hispanic) and Black (non-Hispanic) students are contained in this report.be 70 percent or higher. 55 .asp?sid=031. consult the individual reports devoted to them.e. assessed in at least five different locations. and gender. results are reported for groups only when sufficient numbers of students and adequate school representation are present. Race/ethnicity Long-term trend In long-term trend NAEP. the data for all students. “multi-racial”) or none.asp for more information. eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch. the race/ethnicity variable has been based on the race reported by the school for all assessment years. the standard was raised to 85 percent. This race/ethnicity information is available just for students who participated in the assess­ ment and not for those who were absent or excluded. Self-reported race/ethnicity data has been collected since 1984. the weighted public school participation rate before substitution for states whose results are reported here ranged from 70 percent to 100 percent. Separate questions are asked about students’ Hispanic ethnic background and about students’ race. for example. but all long-term trend results are reported based on observed race/ethnicity. In this report. Black (non-Hispanic). In the rare cases when schoolre­ corded information is missing.gov/nationsreportcard/nde). Asian/ Pacific Islander.” Administration schedules—also referred to as student rosters—are created that include the list of sampled students along with their basic demo­ graphic information. Schools sampled for NAEP are asked to provide lists of all students in the target grade(s) along with basic demographic information. The mutually exclusive racial/ethnic categories are White (non-Hispanic). For more information on all the NAEP assessments refer­ enced in this report. Information based on student self-reported race/ethnicity is available on the NAEP Data Explorer (http://nces.” or was missing. From 1990 through 2002. available from the NCES website at http://nces. Based on participation rate criteria. This race/ethnicity information is available for all sampled students: those that participated and those that were absent or excluded. Beginning in 2003. However. See http://nces. the national weighted public school par­ ticipation rate before substitution for the grade 4 and 8 reading and mathematics assessments has ranged from 76 percent to 100 percent. Understanding NAEP reporting groups NAEP results are provided for groups of students defined by shared characteristics—race/ethnicity. Hispanic students may be of any race.ed. student-reported data are used to determine race/ethnicity. Prior to 2003. Unclassified students are those whose school-reported race was “other. Main NAEP In all main NAEP assessments. data about student race/ethnic­ ity is based on the assessment administrator’s observation. Hispanic. Only results for White (non. Definitions of the student groups discussed in this report follow. ed.” or “unavailable. All data presented in this report are based on samples meeting the standards in effect at the time of the assessment. including race/ethnicity. The minimum requirement is a total of at least 62 students in a particular group..

.Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch Long-term trend The long-term trend assessments do not report results based on school lunch eligibility. including the current year. usda. two versions of the long-term trend assessment were given. students were classified as currently eligible for either free lunch or reduced-price lunch. If school records were not available. the percentage of students for whom information was not available has decreased in comparison to the percentages reported prior to the 2003 assessment. and 185 percent was $37. NAEP long-term trend assessments did not allow accommodations for SD or ELL students. Eligibility for the program is determined by a student’s family income in relation to the federally established pov­ erty level. Prior to 2004. or not eligible.” If the school did not participate in the program. See http://www.fns.g. (For the period July 1. 130 percent of the poverty level was $26. and the “modified” version.000. and the student could not demonstrate his/her knowledge of the assessment subject area without that accommo­ dation or adaptation. through June 30. A student who was identified as ELL and who was a native speaker of a language other than English was excluded if the student had received instruction in the assessment’s subject area (e. all students in that school were classified as “Information not available. 2007. which Main NAEP As part of the Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch Program. a member of the school staff most knowledgeable about the student com­ pleted an SD/ELL questionnaire. schools can receive cash subsidies and donat­ ed commodities in return for offering free or reduced-price lunches to eligible children. the student was classified as “Information not available. Based on available school records. the student was. Free lunch qualification is set at 130 percent of the poverty level or below.. trend comparisons are only made back to 2003 in this report. for a family of four. Inclusion and exclusion Long-term trend Some students selected for participation in the NAEP long-term trend assessments were identified as English language learners (ELL) or students with disabilities (SD). the “bridge” (unmodified) version. which did not allow accommodations. 2006. Students with dis­ abilities were excluded from the assessment if an indi­ vidualized education program (IEP) team or equivalent group determined that the student could not participate in assessments such as NAEP.) The classifica­ tion applies only to the school year when the assessment was administered and is not based on eligibility in previous years. Therefore. Gender 56 Both long-term trend and NAEP assessments identify stu­ dents as male or female based on school records. In that year. In all previous long-term trend assessments. For each student selected to participate in NAEP who was identified as either SD or ELL.gov/cnd/lunch for more information. and reduced-price lunch quali­ fication is set at between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level. or if the student’s IEP required that the student be tested with an accommodation or adaptation not permitted or available in NAEP. if the student’s cognitive functioning was so severely impaired that the student could not participate. or if the student could not demonstrate his or her knowledge of reading or mathematics in English without an accommodation or adaptation. reading or mathematics) primarily in English for less than three school years. excluded from the assessment. if it was decided that a student classified as SD or ELL could not meaningfully participate in the NAEP assessment for which he or she was selected.” As a result of improvements in the quality of the data on students’ eligibility for NSLP.000. according to NAEP guidelines.

) The accommodations are available to students whose Individualized Education Program (IEP) specifically requires them. table A-3 presents exclusion rates for both versions of the 2004 assessment in order to give all the available information on the 2004 exclusion rates for Black and White students. These staff never met the excluded students. accommodations will be provided as necessary for students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) or limited English proficient (LEP) students. which did provide information on the race/ethnicity of excluded stu­ dents. and in all prior adminis­ trations of the long-term trend assessment. School staff make the decisions about whether to include such a student in a NAEP assessment. SOURCE: U. decisions about accommodations for these students are typically made by knowledgeable school staff. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). school staff are asked whether that student could participate in NAEP with the allowable accommodations. The NAEP program furnishes tools to assist school personnel in making those decisions. LEP was used before 2005. School staff who are familiar with these students are asked a series of questions to help them decide whether each stu­ dent should participate in the assessment and whether the student needs accommodations. The NAEP program has established procedures to include as many SD and ELL students as possible in the assess­ ments. the schools identify which have SD or ELL status. National Center for Education Statistics. so no records of the race/ethnicity of excluded students were kept. Even if the student did not participate in the regular state assessment. Inclusion in NAEP of an SD or ELL student is encouraged if that student (a) participated in the regular state academic assessment in the subject being tested. National Long-Term Trend math­ ematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample. type of assess­ ment and race/ethnicity: 2004 Age 9 Bridge Modified Mathematics Total White Black Reading Total White Black 8 † † 9 † † 3 2 4 6 4 4 Age 13 Bridge Modified 9 † † 9 † † 3 3 4 5 5 6 † Not applicable. (ELL is the term used since the NAEP 2005 reports. However. In contrast. even though this report does not include student achievement data drawn from the modified assessment. Students are selected on a random basis. and which testing accommodations. Because some ELL students do not have an IEP. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. In all NAEP schools. if any. In 2004. they should receive. and (b) if that stu­ dent can participate in NAEP with the accommodations NAEP allows. Main NAEP The NAEP program has always endeavored to assess all stu­ dents selected as a part of its sampling process. results were only reported for the bridge assessment and all results from the 2004 Long-Trend Assessment appearing in this report are drawn from the bridge assessment. or if he/she needs accommoda­ tions NAEP does not allow. Exclusion data from the 2004 modified assessment are provided here to provide information on 2004 exclusion rates for Black and White students. by age. . Once the students are selected. NOTE: The 2004 bridge assessment. History of NAEP Inclusion Policy Although NAEP has always endeavored to assess as high a proportion of 57 Table A-3. student race/ ethnicity was determined by NCES contractor staff admin­ istering the assessment in the individual classrooms.S. without regard to SD or ELL status. and all previous administrations of the longterm trend assessment. A sampling procedure is used to select students at each grade being tested. did not obtain information on the race/ethnicity of excluded students. In the 2004 bridge assessment.did. 2004 Long-Term Trend Mathematics and Reading Assessments. the 2004 modified assessment determined student race/ethnicity by using school records.

Therefore. not just those who are Black or White. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion. or student’s IEP required that the student be tested with an accommodation that NAEP did not permit.asp Table A-4. National mathematics and read­ ing exclusion rates as percent­ ages of the total sample. . and the student could not demonstrate his or her knowledge of the subject without that accommodation. 1992. a student with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or equivalent clas­ sification. led states and districts to identify increasing numbers of students as requiring accom­ modations in assessments in order to fairly and accurately show their abilities.ed. 2007 Mathematics and Reading Assessments. It was important for NAEP to be as consistent as possible with testing practices in most states and districts while maintaining the ability to compare more recent NAEP results to those from 1990. should be included in the NAEP assessment unless: ■ The IEP team or equivalent group had determined that The phrase “less than 3 school years including the current year” meant 0. (Accommodations were not allowed in NAEP state assessments until 1996.S. ■ Include ■ Include ■ Exclude the student could not participate in assessments such as NAEP. when accommodations were not allowed. Department of Education. as amended in 1997. The “total” rates include all students. or ■ The student’s cognitive functioning was so severely impaired that he or she could not participate. The percentages of students excluded from NAEP may vary from one state to another. the guide­ lines below were used: ■ Include without any accommodation all LEP or ELL students who had received instruction in the subject primarily in English for 3 years or more and those who were in their third year. National exclusion rates for Black and White SD and/or ELL students in 2007 may be found in table A-4.sampled students as is possible. public schools only. not just Black and White. 1. This resulted in exclusion of some students who could not meaningfully participate in the assessment without accom­ modations. go to http://nces. For more information on Main NAEP inclusion and exclusion. For information on state exclusion rates. and student could not demonstrate his or her knowl­ edge of the subject in English even with an accommoda­ tion permitted by NAEP. by grade and race/ ethnicity: 2007 Grade and race/ethnicity Grade 4 Total White Black Grade 8 Total White Black ■ The A student who was identified as LEP or ELL and who was a native speaker of a language other than English should be included in the NAEP assessment unless: ■ The Mathematics 3 2 4 4 4 6 Reading 6 4 7 6 4 7 58 student had received reading or mathematics instruction primarily in English for less than 3 school years including the current year. A student identified on the Administration Schedule as having a disability (SD). that is. or 2 school years. The passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).) Before the 2005 assessment (when the selection process was detailed in a series of questions). Institute of Education Sciences. SOURCE: U. and provide accommodations permitted by NAEP to other such students who can demonstrate their knowledge of the subject only with those accom­ modations. see table A-5. National Center for Education Statistics. and LEP or ELL students only if they could not demonstrate their knowledge of the subject even with an accommodation permitted by NAEP. guidelines were speci­ fied by NAEP. and 1994. as well as across years. ■ The NOTE: “Total” exclusion percentages are for all public school students. prior to 1996 NAEP did not allow accommodations for SD or ELL students. without any accommodation all other such students who could demonstrate their knowledge of the subject without an accommodation.

excluded in 2007 Grade 4 Mathematics Grade 8 Mathematics Grade 4 Reading Grade 8 Reading White Black White Black White Black White Black 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 4 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 4 4 5 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 4 2 2 4 5 3 4 1 6 5 1 4 3 1 ‡ 5 4 2 6 3 3 4 5 6 4 3 1 4 ‡ 5 6 8 4 4 2 3 ‡ 8 4 5 3 4 2 1 7 6 ‡ ‡ 6 3 1 4 ‡ 3 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 5 ‡ 2 2 4 1 1 4 5 2 4 7 2 5 6 8 4 2 1 5 3 2 3 3 2 2 4 1 5 6 8 3 3 2 4 2 6 4 2 4 4 2 2 3 2 6 4 6 4 3 3 2 1 8 10 1 3 5 ‡ ‡ 10 9 6 4 5 4 ‡ 9 12 7 3 3 6 ‡ 3 4 13 6 3 4 3 ‡ 12 11 5 4 5 7 ‡ 7 7 ‡ ‡ 9 7 5 9 ‡ 4 3 3 3 5 2 2 2 9 6 4 4 7 3 3 5 3 3 4 7 3 6 5 5 4 3 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 6 5 1 7 7 6 4 4 3 4 5 9 6 5 6 7 4 2 3 3 7 3 3 4 8 5 7 3 13 12 5 6 8 1 ‡ 6 5 13 8 10 5 ‡ 10 9 6 9 3 4 ‡ 8 7 13 8 9 5 3 34 12 7 7 6 4 4 17 12 8 ‡ 29 9 6 1 8 ‡ 4 3 2 3 4 2 2 2 5 ‡ 2 3 6 2 3 4 4 4 4 8 2 5 4 6 5 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 5 2 8 8 6 2 4 3 5 5 7 4 4 5 6 3 2 5 3 7 4 2 6 7 4 4 4 8 13 3 5 7 0 ‡ 6 8 15 7 7 4 ‡ 10 10 9 10 4 4 ‡ 2 9 ‡ 10 11 4 3 ‡ 10 10 5 8 6 7 ‡ 8 8 ‡ ‡ 9 10 4 12 ‡ Jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia DoDEA 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 59 ‡ Reporting standards not met. 2007 Mathematics and Reading Assessments. Mathematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample. Institute of Education Sciences. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. by grade. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). race/ethnicity and jurisdiction: 2007 Percentage of students with a disability and/or English language learner. SOURCE: U. . public schools only.Table A-5.S.

First. For example. Future long-term trend assessments will allow such accommodations.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo. There are two sources of such uncertainty.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo. the estimated stan­ dard error should be taken into account. In one-on one administrations. Drawing inferences from the results The reported statistics for both long-term trend and main NAEP are estimates and are therefore subject to a measure of uncertainty. For example. Similarly. accommodations have been permitted for those SD and ELL students who need accommodations in order to partici­ pate. It should be noted that students assessed with accommo­ dations typically received some combination of accom­ modations.g. Since then. The most common accommodations are small-group administration. students often received assistance in recording answers (e. one-on-one administra­ tion. To accomplish this goal. while a Main NAEP From 1990 through 1994 for the nation—and through 1996 for the states—main NAEP assessments did not allow accommodations for either SD or ELL students. For example. the comparisons are based on statistical tests that consider the estimated standard errors of the statistics being compared and the magnitude of the difference between the averages or percentages. students assessed in small groups (as compared with standard NAEP sessions of about 30 students) usually received extended time. except where an accommoda­ tion would change the nature of what is being tested. Second. NAEP uses a sample of students rather than testing all students. a 3-point change in the gap between Black and White fourth-graders nationwide may be significant. Furthermore. reading passages and questions cannot be presented in a language other than English. students who receive accommo­ dations in their state’s assessments are offered the same accommodations on NAEP. As a consequence. For state accom­ modation rates for SD and ELL students in 2007 see 60 . The magnitude of this uncertainty is reflected in the standard error of each of the estimates. unless the accommodation would change the nature of what is being tested. Standard errors for the NAEP scores and percentages pre­ sented in this report for both assessments are available on the NAEP website (http://nces. Comparisons are based on statistical tests that consider both the size of the differences and the standard errors of the two statistics being compared. because that accommodation would make it a test of listening instead of a test of reading. depending upon the size of the standard errors of the statistics. and the use of a bilingual book (mathematics only).ed.asp for more details on NAEP accommodations. the use of a scribe or computer. extended time.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/tdw/instruments/accomm. a numerical difference that seems large may not be statis­ tically significant. When the percentages or average scale scores of certain groups are compared.ed. differences of the same magnitude may or may not be statistically significant. Estimates based on smaller groups are likely to have relatively large standard errors. Therefore.asp?pubid=2007496.. The differences between statistics—such as comparisons of two groups of students’ average scale scores—that are discussed in this report are determined by using standard errors.ed.Accommodations Long-term trend The long-term trend results presented in this report are drawn from assessments that did not permit accommoda­ tions for students with disabilities (SD) and English lan­ guage learners (ELL).asp?pubid=2007494 and The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007 at http://nces. the Technical Notes sections of The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2007 at http://nces. all assessments have some amount of uncertainty related to the fact that they cannot ask all ques­ tions that might be asked in a content area. See http://nces.gov/nationsreportcard/ naepdata). passages and questions in the reading test are not permitted to be read aloud to the student. use of a scribe or computer) and were afforded extra time.

there is strong enough evidence to conclude that the averages or percentages are actually different for those groups in the population. the properties of the sample for the data collection design were taken into account during the analysis of the assessment data. the report describes the group averages or percentages as being dif­ ferent (e. no. the symbol (*) is used to indicate that a score or percentage is significantly differ­ ent from another. The estimate of the variance of the students’ posterior scale score distributions (which reflect the imprecision due to lack of measurement accuracy) is computed.05 level with appropriate adjustments for part­ to-whole and multiple comparisons.. In addition. based on the data from the groups in the sample.. If the evidence is strong (i. and Hochberg. including withingroup differences not marked in tables and figures. and Rust. narrower.point change in the gap between Black and White fourthgraders in Kansas may not be. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Series B. in which every student in the target population has an equal chance of selection and in which the observations from different sampled students can be considered to be statisti­ cally independent of one another. any difference between scores or percentages that is identified as higher. Because NAEP uses complex sampling procedures.. Y. The jackknife standard error provides a reasonable measure of uncertainty for any student information that can be observed without error. The first component accounts for the variability associated with the estimated percentages of students who had certain background char­ acteristics or who answered a certain cognitive question correctly. Y.g. Journal of Educational Statistics. 1. NAEP uses a jackknife replication procedure to estimate standard errors. Population Inferences and Variance Estimation for NAEP Data. In this case. Two components of uncertainty are accounted for in the variabil­ ity of statistics based on student ability: (1) the uncertainty due to sampling only a relatively small number of students. The differences described in this report have been determined to be statistically signifi­ cant at the . Therefore. However.3. larger. smaller..2 Weighting and variance estimation In both long-term trend and main NAEP a complex sample design was used to select the students who were assessed. These weights included adjustments for school and student nonresponse.e. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. The properties of a sample selected through such a design could be very different from those of a simple random sam­ ple. because each student typically responds to only a few questions within a content area. E.1 In the tables and figures of this report. the scale score for any single student would be imprecise. One way that the properties of the sample design were addressed was by using sampling weights to account for the fact that the probabilities of selection were not identical for all students. lower. (17)2. or wider in this report. . but appropriate measures of the degree of uncertainty must be obtained for those statistics. The reader is cautioned to rely on the results of the statistical tests rather than on the apparent magnitude of the dif­ ference between sample averages or percentages when 2 For further detail. (1995). meets the requirements for statistical significance. 175–190. the difference is statistically significant). K.F. This component of variability is then included in the standard errors of NAEP scale scores.G. one group performed higher or lower than another group). and (2) the uncertainty due to sampling only a relatively small number of cognitive questions. con­ ventional formulas for estimating sampling variability that assume simple random sampling are inappropriate. All population and subpopulation charac­ teristics based on the assessment data were estimated using sampling weights. 289–300. regardless of whether the sample averages or percentages appear to be approximately the same. Analyzing group differences in averages and percentages In both long-term trend and main NAEP. NAEP’s marginal estimation methodology can be used to describe the performance of groups and subgroups of students. Not only must appropriate estimates of population charac­ teristics be derived. statistical tests determine whether. see Johnson. 61 1 Benjamini. (1992).

g. To determine whether a real difference exists between the average scale scores (or percentages of a certain attribute) for two groups in the population.. routinely applied the proce­ dures described above to those cases as well. this difference is plus or minus 1. has.05 level. This estimate of the degree of uncertainty. This is the approach used for NAEP reports when comparisons involving indepen­ dent groups are made. When the dependence in group results is due to the overlap in samples (e.. . an approximately 95 percent confidence interval for where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup. is obtained by taking the square of each group’s standard error. The procedure above is appropriate to use when it is rea­ sonable to assume that the groups being compared have been independently sampled for the assessment. when a subgroup is being compared to a total group). comparing national 2007 results for Black and White students). Such an assumption is clearly warranted when comparing results for one state with another. the difference between the groups is statisti­ cally significant at the . for example. since these sam­ ples of students have been drawn from the same schools. The difference between the averages or percentages of the two groups plus or minus 1. and taking the square root of that sum. The following example of comparing groups addresses the problem of determining whether the average mathematics scale score of group A is higher than that of group B. therefore. it is not appropriate to ignore such dependencies. This formula was used for this report when a state was compared to the aggregate for the nation.determining whether the sample differences are likely to represent actual differences among the groups in the population. just like the standard error for an individual group average or percent­ age. The stan­ dard error of this difference is Thus. When the groups being compared do not share students (as is the case. by convention. The formula for such cases is The standard error of the difference can be used. of comparing Black and White students). the impact of this violation of the indepen­ dence assumption on the outcome of the statistical tests is assumed to be small. one needs to obtain an estimate of the degree of uncertainty associated with the difference between the averages (or percentages) of these groups for the sample. summing the squared stan­ dard errors. to help determine whether differences among groups in the population are real.1 62 The difference between the estimates of the average scale scores of groups A and B is 2 points (218 – 216). If the resulting interval includes zero. NAEP has used procedures appropriate to comparing dependent groups. The sample estimates of the average scale scores and estimated standard errors are as follows: Group A B Average scale score 218 216 Standard error 0. there is insufficient evidence to conclude that group A’s performance is statistically different from group B. When making comparisons of results for groups that share a considerable proportion of students in common. and NAEP. If the interval does not contain zero. In such cases.96 stan­ dard errors of the difference represents an approximately 95 percent confidence interval.g.9 1. called the “standard error of the difference” between the groups. a simple modification of the usual standard error of the difference formula can be used.96 standard errors of the difference: The value zero is within the confidence interval. for computational convenience. there is insufficient evidence to claim a real difference between the groups in the population. The assumption of independence is violated to some degree when comparing group results for the nation or a particular state (e.

.L. and 23. Miller.... L. which currently does not permit pairwise comparisons for this type of gap analysis.). Research Triangle Park. the standard methods must be adjusted by multiple comparison procedures. (1995).4 Unlike other multiple comparison procedures that control the family-wise error rate (i. and Tukey. which may be influenced by a number of other variables. and societal demands and expectations. New York: Spinger-Verlang. cit. the probability of making even one false rejection in the set of comparisons). However. 11. Simultaneous Statistical Inference (2nd ed. the results shown in these four figures may not correspond to results obtained from the NAEP Online Data Tool.e. Jones. changes in the school-age population.. the FDR procedure controls the expected proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses.V. 5 Williams. Y. Cautions in interpretation It is possible to examine NAEP performance results for groups of students defined by various background factors measured by NAEP. (1994. multiple sets of confi­ dence intervals are being analyzed). NC: National Institute of Statistical Sciences. such as trends in instruction.3 The procedure used by NAEP is the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure.G. Similarly.Conducting multiple tests The procedures used to determine whether group differences in the long-term trend and main NAEP samples represent actual differences among the groups in the population and the certainty ascribed to intervals (e.e. 4 63 .05). a 95 percent confidence interval) are based on statistical theory that assumes that only one confidence interval or test of statistical significance is being performed.g. Y.. However. 21. in figures 9. For this reason. statistical theory indicates that the certainty associated with the entire set of comparisons is less than that attributable to each individual comparison from the set. To hold the significance level for the set of comparisons at a particular level (e. The results are most useful when they are considered in combi­ nation with other knowledge about the student population and the educational system. a relationship that exists between achievement and another variable does not reveal its underlying cause. December) Controlling Error in Multiple Comparisons with Special Attention to the National Assessment of Educational Progress.g. comparisons of the size of the Black-White achievement gap for each state to the national gap are made using pairwise comparisons. such as race.W. the FDR procedure used in NAEP is considered appropriately less conservative than family-wise procedures for large families of compari­ 3 sons. V. Statistical comparisons of NAEP scores from different assessment years are made using a multiple comparison pro­ cedure. Benjamini. the FDR procedure is more suitable for multiple comparisons in NAEP than are other procedures. For multiple comparisons..S. J. there are times when many dif­ ferent groups are being compared (i. However. op. R. (1981). the assessments do not reflect the influence of unmeasured variables. where each state is compared to the nation one at a time.. and Hochberg.5 Therefore. Furthermore.

Institute of Education Sciences. 1990–2007 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 National State 1990 Grade 4th grade 8th grade National State National State National State National State National State National State National State National State National State v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v SOURCE: U. SOURCE: U. Data were not collected prior to 1996. Institute of Education Sciences. Department of Education. 1990–2007 Mathematics Assessments. 1990– 2007 Mathematics Assessments. Table B-2. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Administration of NAEP national and state mathematics assessments. by grade: Various years. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Various years. * Significantly different (p<. National Center for Education Statistics.S. 64 . National Center for Education Statistics. Average national mathematics scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and 8. Various years. Lunch eligibility data are not being reported in 1996 and 2000 because of the high percentage of students for whom information was not available.05) from 2007. 1990– 2007 1990n All students Grade 4 Grade 8 Student Gender Grade 4 Male Female Grade 8 Male Female Student Eligibility for National School Lunch Program Grade 4 Not eligible Reduced-price lunch Free lunch Grade 8 Not eligible Reduced-price lunch Free lunch n 1992n 219* 267* 1996 222* 269* 2000 224* 272* 2003 234* 276* 2005 237* 278* 2007 239 280 212* 262* 212* 211* 262* 261* 220* 218* 266* 267* 222* 222* 270* 268* 225* 223* 273* 271* 235* 233* 277* 275* 238* 236* 278* 277* 240 238 281 279 — — — — — — — — — — — — ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 244* 230* 220* 287* 269* 256* 248* 234* 224* 288* 270* 260* 249 236 226 291 274 263 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment. by gender and eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years.S. — Not available.Mathematics National ■ Grades 4 & 8 Appendix B: Supplemental Tables Table B-1. Department of Education. ‡ Reporting standards not met.

Institute of Education Sciences. Lunch eligibility data are not being reported in 1998. by grade: Various years. Table B-4. 1992–2007 1992n 1994n 212* 257* 1998 213* 261 2000 211* — 2002 217* 263* 2003 216* 261 2005 217* 260* 2007 220 261 All students Grade 4 Grade 8 Student Gender Grade 4 Male Female Grade 8 Male Female Student Eligibility for National School Lunch Program Grade 4 Not eligible Reduced-price lunch Free lunch Grade 8 Not eligible Reduced-price lunch Free lunch n 215* 258* 211* 219* 251* 264 207* 218* 250* 265 210* 215* 253* 268* 206* 217* — — 214* 220* 258* 267* 213* 220* 256 267 214* 220* 255* 266 216 223 256 266 — — — — — — — — — — — — ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ — — — ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 229* 211* 199* 271 256 243* 230* 212* 201* 270* 254 245 232 215 203 271 255 246 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment. 1992– 2007 Reading Assessments. Department of Education. Data were not collected prior to 1996 or at grade 8 in 2000. — Not available. 1992–2007 1992 1994 National State 1996 National State 1998 National State 2000 National State 2002 National State 2003 National State 2005 National State 2007 National State National State Grade 4th grade 8th grade v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v SOURCE: U. Various years.S.Reading National ■ Grades 4 & 8 Table B-3. Various years. ‡ Reporting standards not met. * Significantly different (p<.S. 65 . National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). 2000 and 2002 because of the high percentage of students for whom information was not available. Administration of NAEP national and state reading assessments. SOURCE: U. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. Department of Education. 1992–2007 Reading Assessments. by gender and eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years. Average national reading scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and 8.05) from 2007.

S. review. development. Department of Education. part of the Institute of Education Sciences of the U. The authors are grateful to everyone who contributed to the design.Acknowledgments This report was prepared under a project of the NAEP Education Statistics Services Institute (NAEP-ESSI) of the American Institutes for Research (AIR) in support of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 66 . and production of this report.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful