Data On The Achievement Gap

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 How Black and White Students

NCES 2009-455
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
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
Institute of Education Sciences
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
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.
Executive Summary
In 2007, mathematics scores for both Black and White assesses public schools in its state assessments, this report
public school students in grades 4 and 8 nationwide, as contains only public school results. The most recent results
measured by the main NAEP assessments of the National in this report are for 2007.
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), were higher
NAEP long-term trend assessments are administered by
than in any previous assessment, going back to 1990. This
age rather than grade. This report references long-term
was also true for Black and White fourth-graders on the
trend assessment public school results from the earliest
NAEP 2007 Reading Assessment. For grade 8, reading
assessment through 2004, with results for ages 9 and 13
scores for both Black and White students were higher in
instead of grades 4 and 8. The long-term trend assessments
2007 than in the first reading assessment year, 1992, as well
provide public school results for mathematics going back to
as the most recent previous assessment year, 2005.
1978 and for reading going back to 1980, at ages 9, 13, and
White students, however, had higher scores than Black stu 17, at the national level only, on a 0-500 point scale.
dents, on average, on all assessments. While the nationwide
At both ages 9 and 13, mathematics scores for both Black
gaps in 2007 were narrower than in previous assessments at
and White students were higher in 2004 than in any previ
both grades 4 and 8 in mathematics and at grade 4 in read
ous assessment. The 23-point Black-White achievement
ing, White students had average scores at least 26 points
gap in mathematics for age 9 public school students in
higher than Black students in each subject, on a 0-500 scale.
2004 was narrower than in the first assessment in 1978 but
This report will use results from both the main NAEP and
not significantly different from the gap in the most recent
the long-term trend NAEP assessments to examine the
previous assessment in 1999. The same was true for the 26
Black-White achievement gaps, and changes in those gaps,
point gap at age 13.
at the national and state level.
For age 9 reading, scores for both Black and White students
The main NAEP 2007 Reading and Mathematics
were higher in 2004 than in any previous assessment, going
Assessments included grade 4 and grade 8 students both
back to 1980. The 26-point gap between Black and White
nationally and for all 50 states, as well as the Department of
students in 2004 was not significantly different from the
Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) and the District of
gap in 1980, but was narrower than the gap in 1999. At age
Columbia (hereinafter referred to as states). Not all states
13 reading, scores were higher for Black students in 2004
had Black (or White) student populations large enough to
than in 1980, but did not show a significant difference from
provide reliable data, and not all states participated in the
1999. Scores for White students were not significantly dif
earliest NAEP state assessments.
ferent for either comparison year. The 21-point gap in stu
Most of the data in this report comes from the main NAEP dent performance at age 13 reading in 2004 was narrower
assessments, supplemented with some data from the NAEP than in both 1980 and 1999.
long-term trend assessments. Main NAEP assessments,
The following two sections summarize state-level achieve
which began in 1990 for mathematics and 1992 for read
ment gaps between Black and White students in the main
ing, are administered at the fourth and eighth grades, both
NAEP assessments in mathematics and reading.
nationally and at the state level. Because main NAEP only
iii
■ At grade 4, eight states had reading gaps that were larger
State Black-White Achievement than the 2007 national gap of 27 points, while nine had
Gaps—Mathematics gaps that were smaller.
■ At the state level, gaps in grade 4 mathematics existed in ■ At grade 8, one state had a reading gap that was larger
2007 in the 46 states for which results were available. In than the 2007 national gap of 26 points, while nine had
15 states, the 2007 gaps were narrower than in 1992, as gaps that were smaller.
Black students demonstrated a greater gain in average
The NAEP reading and mathematics scales make it possi
scores than that of the White students.
ble to examine relationships between students’ performance
■ At grade 8, mathematics gaps existed in 2007 in the 41 and various background factors measured by NAEP, such
states for which results were available. The gaps were as race. However, a relationship that exists between achieve
narrower in 2007 than in 1990 in four states: Arkansas, ment and another variable does not reveal its underlying
Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas. In all four, scores for cause, which may be influenced by a number of other vari
both Black and White students increased, but scores for ables. Similarly, the assessments do not reflect the influence
Black students increased more. of unmeasured variables. At the state level, changes in the
size of the achievement gap between Black and White stu
■ At grade 4, five states had mathematics gaps in 2007 that
dents could be affected by demographic changes in the size
were larger than the national gap of 26 points, while 10
and makeup of the populations involved, as well as policy
states had gaps that were smaller.
changes in the schools and communities. The results of this
■ Atgrade 8, seven states had mathematics gaps in 2007 study are most useful when they are considered in combi
that were larger than the national gap of 31 points, while nation with other knowledge about the student population
12 had gaps that were smaller. and the education system, such as trends in instruction,
changes in the school-age population, and societal demands
State Black-White Achievement and expectations.
Gaps—Reading This report focuses on the size of the achievement gap

between Black and White students and the direction of aver
■ At the state level, gaps in grade 4 reading existed in 2007 age scores within states, regardless of the states’ scores. Large
in the 44 states for which results were available. Gaps gaps may occur in some states with scores above the national
narrowed from 1992 to 2007 in Delaware, Florida, and average, as well as in states with scores below the national
New Jersey, due to larger increases in Black students’ average. Similarly, small gaps may occur in states with scores
scores. above or below the national average. All differences discussed
■ At grade 8, reading gaps existed in 2007 in 41 of the 42 in this report are statistically significant at the .05 level after
states for which results were available. In Hawaii, the controlling for multiple comparisons. The technical notes for
7-point difference between Black and White students’ this report provide information about sampling, accommo
scores in 2007 was not statistically significant, and thus dations, interpreting statistical significance, and other techni
there was no gap for Hawaii. There was no significant cal features. For more information on both the main NAEP
change in the gap in any state from 1998 to 2007. and long-term trend assessments, see appendix A.
iv
Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Sources of the Main NAEP data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Sources of the Long-Term Trend NAEP data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Understanding score gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Understanding statistical significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Cautions in interpreting the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
How this report is organized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
MATHEMATICS
Long-Term Trend Results for Black and White 9- and 13-Year-Olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps, 1978–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Main NAEP National Results for Black and White Fourth- and Eighth-Graders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by gender, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by family income, 2003–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Main NAEP State Results for Black and White Fourth- and Eighth-Graders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
READING
Long-Term Trend Results for Black and White 9- and 13-Year-Olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps, 1980–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Main NAEP National Results for Black and White Fourth- and Eighth-Graders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Reading scores and achievement gaps by gender, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Reading scores and achievement gaps by family income, 2003–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Main NAEP State Results for Black and White Fourth- and Eighth-Graders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 4, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 4, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 8, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 8, 1998–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Appendix A: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Frameworks, development, administration, scoring, and analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

v
Sources of the data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
NAEP sampling procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Understanding NAEP reporting groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
Inclusion and exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
Accommodations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Drawing inferences from the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Weighting and variance estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Analyzing group differences in averages and percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Conducting multiple tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Cautions in interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Appendix B: Supplemental Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
vi
List of Tables
Table Page
1. Percentage of public school students assessed in NAEP mathematics by eligibility for free or reduced-price
school lunch, race/ethnicity and grade: 2003, 2005, and 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
2. Percentage of public school students assessed in NAEP reading by eligibility for free or reduced-price
school lunch, race/ethnicity and grade: 2003, 2005, and 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
A-1. School and student participation rates, and target student population, Long-Term Trend Reading
assessment, public school students only, by age: 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
A-2. School and student participation rates, and target student population, grade 8 reading assessment, public
school students only, by state or jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
A-3. National Long-Term Trend mathematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample,
by age, type of assessment and race/ethnicity: 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
A-4. National mathematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample, public schools only,
by grade and race/ethnicity: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
A-5. Mathematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample, public schools only, by grade,
race/ethnicity and jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
B-1. Administration of NAEP national and state mathematics assessments, by grade: Various years,
1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
B-2. Average mathematics scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and 8, by gender and
eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
B-3. Administration of NAEP national and state reading assessments, by grade: Various years, 1992–2007 . . . . .65
B-4. Average reading scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and 8, by gender and eligibility
for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
vii
List of Figures
Figure Page
1. Trends in average mathematics scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 9:
Various years, 1978–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
2. Trends in average mathematics scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 13:
Various years, 1978–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
3. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 4: Various
years, 1990–2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
4. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 8: Various
years, 1990–2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
5. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4, by gender:
Various years, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
6. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8, by gender:
Various years, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
7. 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, 2005, and 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
8. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8, by eligibility
for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003, 2005, and 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
9. The Black-White achievement score gap in mathematics for public school students at grade 4, by state or
jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
10. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4, by state:
Various years, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
11. The Black-White achievement score gap in mathematics for public school students at grade 8, by state or
jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
12. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8, by state:
Various years, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
13. Trends in average reading scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 9:
Various years, 1980–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
14. Trends in average reading scale scores and score gaps for White students and Black students at age 13:
Various years, 1980–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
15. Reading achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 4: Various years,
1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
16. Reading achievement score gaps between Black and White public school students at grade 8: Various years,
1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
17. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4, by gender:
viii Various years, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
18. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8, by gender:
Various years, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
19. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4, by eligibility for
free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003, 2005, and 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Figure Page
20. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8, by eligibility for
free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003, 2005, and 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
21. The Black-White achievement score gap in reading for public school students at grade 4, by state or
jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
22. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 4, by state: Various
years, 1992–2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
23. The Black-White achievement score gap in reading for public school students at grade 8, by state or
jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
24. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade 8, by state: Various
years, 1998–2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
ix
x
Introduction
The past half century has witnessed considerable gains in Issues relating to the Black-White achievement gap have
educational attainment in the United States. Between 1950 been addressed by a number of recent studies. Status and
and 2005, the percentage of young adults ages 25-29 who Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities,5
had completed high school rose from 53 to 86. For White issued by the National Center for Education Statistics
young adults, the percentage increased from 56 to 93, and (NCES), for example, examined the education of all major
for Black young adults it increased from 24 to 86.1 racial and ethnic groups in the United States from pre
kindergarten through the postsecondary level, along with
There have also been gains in educational achievement.
employment and income data for these groups. The report
National and state mathematics scores in grades 4 and 8 on
identified a variety of factors which are correlated with
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
the achievement gap between Black and White students.
were at their highest levels in 2007.2 Reading scores for
For example, Black students were more likely than White
the nation and a substantial number of states have also
students to come from families living in poverty, which is
increased since the early 1990s.3
associated with lower educational performance.
Although scores have increased for both Black students
Other reports have used NAEP data in analyses attempt
and White students, on average Black students do not per
ing to isolate important factors related to the Black-White
form as well as their White peers. At the national level, the
achievement gap. For example, The Family: America’s
fourth-grade Black-White achievement gap in mathematics
Smallest School,6 issued by the Educational Testing Service,
for 2007 was narrower than in 1990, while the fourth-grade
correlates student achievement, as measured by NAEP,
reading gap was narrower than in either 1992 or 2005. At the
with four home factors: the presence of two parents in the
eighth grade, the gap in mathematics was narrower in 2007
home, the hours children spend watching television, the
than in 2005, while the reading gap did not change signifi
hours parents spend reading to them, and the frequency of
cantly compared to either prior assessment year.
absence from school. Compared to White students, Black
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act4 when first children were less likely to come from a family with both
authorized intended to improve the educational achieve parents in the home, spent more hours watching television,
ment of low-performing students, particularly low-income were read to by their parents for fewer hours, and were
students and Black students. Subsequent reauthorizations more likely to be absent from school.
of the act have reaffirmed the importance of closing the
Another report issued by the Educational Testing Service,
achievement gaps. This report uses NAEP data to examine
Parsing the Achievement Gap II,7 considered 16 factors previ
the progress of the nation and each of the states in reducing
ously identified as being correlated with how well students
the gap between Black and White students at grades 4 and
performed in school. Seven were school-related (including,
8 in both reading and mathematics.
for example, curriculum rigor and teacher preparation),
eight “before and after” school factors (including, for
1
example, weight at birth, exposure to lead, and excessive
Snyder, T.D., Dillow, S.A., and Hoffman, C.M. (2007). Digest of Education
Statistics 2006 (NCES 2007-017). National Center for Education Statistics, TV watching), and the “home school connection,” parent
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
DC. 5
KewalRamani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., and Provasnik, S. (2007). Status and
2
Lee, J., Grigg, W., and Dion, G. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities (NCES 2007-039). National
2007 (NCES 2007-494). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department 1
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. of Education. Washington, DC.
3 6
Lee, J., Grigg, W., and Donahue, P. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading Barton, P., and Coley, R. (2007). The Family: America’s Smallest School. Princeton,
2007 (NCES 2007-496). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. 7
Barton, P., and Coley, R. (2009). Parsing the Achievement Gap II. Princeton, NJ:
4
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, P.L. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27. Educational Testing Service.
participation. Using data from NAEP and other sources, The major questions addressed in this study are: 1) how
the report said that for all 16 factors there were gaps that do gaps in 2007 compare to the gaps in the initial and most
favored White students over Black students—for example, recent prior years of the NAEP national and state assessment
White students were more likely than Black students to series? And 2) how do states compare to the nation in 2007?
attend schools offering rigorous curriculums and less likely The current report presents these results in graphs that show
to suffer from low birth weight. the NAEP achievement gaps in a format that makes it pos
sible to see at a glance the national and state gaps results for
This report uses data from both the “main NAEP” and
all available years.
the NAEP long-term trend assessments. NCES and the
National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy In previous NAEP reports, achievement gaps results have
for NAEP, have maintained comparability of data for both been available to users in two ways: 1) online, using the
main and long-term trend NAEP. Main NAEP assess NAEP Data Explorer, and 2) by year, in the report cards
ments, which began in 1990 for mathematics and 1992 for for a given assessment. The NAEP Achievement Gaps
reading, are administered at the fourth and eighth grades, report is the first NCES publication to present the Black
both nationally and at the state level. The most recent and White NAEP achievement gaps across time for all the
administration was in 2007. The long-term trend assess states and the nation, including results for every assessment
ments provide public school results for mathematics going year since state assessments began.
back to 1978 and for reading going back to 1980, at ages
States first participated in the eighth-grade mathematics
9, 13, and 17, at the national level only. The most recent
assessment in 1990, the fourth-grade reading and math
long-term trend report available at the time of the prepa
ematics assessments in 1992, and the eighth-grade reading
ration of this report contains results for the assessments
assessment in 1998. The No Child Left Behind Act of
administered in 2004. Discussion of main NAEP grade 12
2001 requires each state, beginning in 2003, to partici
assessments is omitted in this report because these assess
pate in the NAEP mathematics and reading assessments
ments are conducted at the national level only.
if they are to receive Title I education funding (Public
While the main NAEP assessments do not go as far back Law 107-110 Title I Part A, Sec. 1111). Prior to the pas
in time as the long-term trend assessments, they allow the sage of the Act, participation was voluntary and about
examination of trends in the Black and White performance 40 states participated in each assessment. (In this report,
gap in every state, plus the District of Columbia and the “state” and “jurisdiction” will be used interchangeably to
U.S. Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) refer to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the
schools. In addition, the main NAEP assessments use Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA)
frameworks that are more closely aligned with current schools.) Additional information about the years when
practices regarding instructional content; they include more the national and state assessments were administered is in
questions overall and more questions that require a written appendix B.
response; and they employ much larger samples than long-
term NAEP. Sources of the Main NAEP data
All data presented in this report for main NAEP are for This report presents national data from the NAEP reading
public school students only. Main NAEP and long-term and mathematics assessments for Black and White public
2 trend provide national results for both public and private school students at the fourth and eighth grades. Only results
school students, but NAEP state results are for public for White (non-Hispanic) and Black (non-Hispanic) public
school students only. To maintain consistency of data for school students are contained in this report. Additional
comparison purposes, this report uses only public school information on the national and state assessments is given
data at the national level as well. in appendix B.
Administration of main NAEP national and state reading and mathematics assessments
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007
National v v v v v v v v
4th Grade
State v v v v v v v
Reading
National v v v v v v v v
8th Grade
State v v v v v
National v v v v v v v
4th Grade
State v v v v v v
Mathematics
National v v v v v v v
8th Grade
State v v v v v v v
In 2007, Black and White students together comprised NAEP assessments are conducted in a six-week window
about three-fourths of the nation’s public school students starting in January of each assessment year. The same
at the fourth and eighth grades. At the fourth-grade assessment is administered in both the national and state
level, 58 percent of assessed students were White and assessments. Because the content of the assessments given
16 percent were Black. At the eighth-grade level, 60 to fourth-graders and eighth-graders differs, scores for
percent of assessed students were White and 16 percent the two grades should be compared with caution, even
were Black. though the scores appear on similar 0-500 scales. Scores
for reading and mathematics cannot be compared because
In the earliest main NAEP assessments, students with
the two assessments are scaled independently. See appen
disabilities and English language learners did not receive
dix A for more details.
accommodations. Since 1994 (1996 at the state level) stu
dents receiving accommodations on their state assessment
received the same accommodations on NAEP, as long as Sources of the Long-Term Trend
NAEP approved them (see appendix A for details.) NAEP data
This report presents national data for public school stu
In 2007, the reading assessment was given to 183,000
dents aged 9 and 13 from the 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1992,
fourth-graders and 155,000 eighth-graders, while the
1994, 1996, 1999, and 2004 mathematics long-term trend
mathematics assessment was given to 190,000 fourth-
assessments and the 1982, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996,
graders and 147,000 eighth-graders. The main NAEP
1999, and 2004 reading long-term trend assessments.
samples are so large because they include representative
Unlike the main NAEP assessments, these assessments
samples for each of the 50 states, plus the District of
did not allow accommodations for students with disabili
Columbia and Department of Defense school system for
ties and English language learners for the years included
Armed Forces dependents in the United States and over 3
in this report. Sample sizes for the 2004 long-term trend
seas. This allows examination of the achievement gaps for
assessments were 7,500 (9-year-old students) and 8,300
public school students for individual states as well as for
(13-year-old students) for reading and 7,300 (9-year-old
the nation as a whole.
students) and 7,500 (13-year-old students) for mathemat
ics. See appendix A for more details.
Understanding score gaps It is important to note that although NAEP data can iden
tify gaps and changes in gaps, these data cannot explain
Ways the gap can change why gaps exist or why they change. NAEP assessments are
The achievement gap between Black and White students designed to measure student performance and identify fac
is defined as the difference between the average score for tors associated with it, not to identify or explain the causes
Black students and the average score for White students. of differences in student performance.
Comparisons are made for main NAEP between the most
recent assessment year (2007) and all previous assessment Understanding statistical significance
years. Only changes between the earliest assessment year and NAEP data are based on samples of students, and the results
2007, and between 2005 and 2007, are discussed. For long- are subject to sampling and measurement error. Statistical
term trend, only changes between the earliest assessment year tests are used to determine whether the differences between
and 2004, and between 1999 and 2004, are discussed. average scores are statistically significant—that is, whether
Changes in the size of the achievement gap depend on both they exceed the margin of error. Changes in average scores
changes in the average scores for Black and White students for Black students and White students and changes in the
and the rate of change in those scores. Generally, widening size of the gap between these scores are analyzed separately.
gaps are seen as undesirable, while narrowing gaps are seen Therefore, it is possible for the size of the achievement gap
as desirable. However, it is possible for the gap to widen even to increase or decrease even though the average scores of
if scores for both Black students and White students increase, neither Black nor White students changed statistically sig
if scores for the higher scoring group increase more than nificantly during the same period.
scores for the other group. And it is also possible for the gap The term “significant” is not intended to imply a judgment
to narrow even if scores for both Black and White students about the absolute magnitude or the educational relevance
decline, if scores for the higher scoring group decline more of the differences. It is intended to identify statistically reli
than those of the other group. The following images illus able population differences to help inform discussion among
trate the various ways that gaps can narrow. policymakers, educators, researchers, and the public.
Beginning in 2002, the main NAEP national sample was
Ways gaps can narrow obtained by aggregating the samples from each state, rather
The average scores of both groups increase, while than by using an independently selected national sample.
the score of the lower performing group increases As a result, the national samples in mathematics and read
even more.
ing were larger in 2003, 2005, and 2007 than in previous
The average score of the higher performing group assessment years. Thus, smaller score differences between
does not change, while the score of the lower per
years or between student groups were found to be statisti
forming group increases.
cally significant than would have been detected in previ
The average score of the higher performing group ous assessments. All differences discussed in the text are
declines, while the score of the lower performing
group increases.
significant at the .05 level with appropriate adjustments for
part-to-whole and multiple comparisons.
The average score of the higher performing group
declines, while the score of the lower performing Statistical comparisons of NAEP scores from different
4 group does not change. assessment years are made using a multiple comparison
The average scores of both groups decline, but procedure (see appendix A, “Conducting multiple tests,”
the score of the higher performing group declines for details). However, in figures 9, 11, 21, and 23, com
even more.
parisons of the size of the Black-White achievement gap
for each state to the national gap are made using pairwise will differ from that of another. Inferences related to student
comparisons, where each state is compared to the nation group performance should take into consideration the many
one at a time. For this reason, the results shown in these socioeconomic and educational factors that may also be associ
four figures may not correspond to results obtained from ated with performance.
the NAEP Online Data Tool, which currently does not
All statistical tests are performed using unrounded scale
permit pairwise comparisons for this type of gap analysis.
scores. The Black-White achievement gap is calculated
by subtracting the average scale score for Black students
Cautions in interpreting the data from the average scale score for White students. Because all
All results given here are in terms of average scores, which results are presented as rounded numbers, occasionally the
reflect a wide range of student performance. Many Black lower scale score plus the gap will not equal the higher scale
students score above the average for White students and many score shown in this report’s graphics.
White students score below the average for Black students. For
detailed information on variations in performance, including How this report is organized
standard deviations, consult the NAEP Data Explorer online
The remainder of this report presents first mathematics
at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/viewresults.asp
and then reading results. In each section, long-term trend
The analysis of NAEP data contained in this report should results are presented first, giving national results only for
not be seen to imply causal relations. Simple cross-tabulations public school students ages 9 and 13. These are followed by
of a variable with measures of educational achievement, like both national and state results for public school fourth- and
the ones presented here, cannot be considered as evidence that eighth-graders from main NAEP. National data from main
differences in the variable cause differences in education NAEP are also presented by 1) gender and 2) eligibility
al achievement. As noted earlier, NAEP surveys are not categories for the National School Lunch Program. The
designed to identify causal relationships. There are many pos last section consists of an appendix that contains relevant
sible reasons why the performance of one group of students technical notes and supplemental tables.
5
Mathematics
Long-Term Trend Results
National Grades 4 & 8
■
for Black and White 9- and 13-Year-Olds
Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps, 1978–2004

Mathematics scores for both 9- and 13-year
Figure 1. Trends in average mathematics scale scores and
old Black and White students were higher
score gaps for White students and Black students
in 2004 than on any previous long-term
at age 9: Various years, 1978–2004
trend assessment (figures 1 & 2). In addi
tion, the score gaps for Black and White Scale score
students were narrower in 2004 than in 500
the first assessment in 1978 for both age White

247
groups, as scores of Black students showed 250 234* 234* 235* 236* 238*
223* 222* 225* 23 Gap
a greater increase than those of White 27 27 24 25 28
31* 28 24 225 Black
200
students. The gaps in 2004 were not sig 201* 207* 207* 211* 211* 210*
192* 194*
nificantly different from the gaps in 1999. 150
0
1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004
* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2004.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1978–2004 Long-Term Trend
Mathematics Assessments.
Figure 2. Trends in average mathematics scale scores and

score gaps for White students and Black students
at age 13: Various years, 1978–2004
Scale score
500
300 282* 288 White

270* 273* 273* 276* 278* 280* 280*
26 Gap
250 41* 33* 24 27 29 32 28 32
Black
261
249* 248* 249* 248* 252* 250*
240*
229*
200
0
1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004
6 Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1978–2004 Long-Term Trend
Mathematics Assessments.
Mathematics
Main NAEP National Results for Black and White Fourth- and
National Grades 4 & 8 ■
Eighth-Graders
Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps, 1990–2007

In main NAEP, average fourth-grade
mathematics scores for the nation were Figure 3. Mathematics achievement score gaps between
higher in 2007 than in 1990 for both Black Black and White public school students at
and White public school students (figure grade 4: Various years, 1990–2007
3). The greater increase for Black fourth-
Scale score
graders resulted in the gap narrowing
500
from 31 points in 1990 to 26 points in 2007.
From 2005 to 2007, scores increased for 275
both Black and White students, but there 243* 246* 248 White
227* 231* 233*
219* 27 26 26 Gap
was no significant change in the gap. 225
33* 30*
31* 35* 216* 220* 222 Black
203*
Average mathematics scores were high- 175 187* 192* 198*
National
er in 2007 than in 1990 for both Black average
and White eighth-graders (figure 4). The 0

1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007
31-point gap in 2007 was not significantly
different from the 33-point gap in 1990. n
Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.
However, the gap was narrower in 2007, NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.
at 31 points, than in 2005, at 33 points. Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2007 Mathematics
Assessments.
Although scores for both groups were
higher in 2007, a greater increase in Black
students’ scores caused the gap to narrow.
The 2-point decrease in the gap from 2005 Figure 4. Mathematics achievement score gaps between
to 2007 was significant while the 2-point Black and White public school students at
decrease from 1990 to 2007 was not. It is grade 8: Various years, 1990–2007
possible that the smaller standard errors in
2005, due to the increased sample size in Scale score
500
that year, allowed the difference in 2005 to
be identified as statistically significant. 325
283* 287* 288* 290 White

276* 279*
269*
275
35* 33* 31 Gap
33 40* 40* 40*
252* 254* 259 Black
225 236* 236* 239* 243*
National
average
0
1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007
n

7
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2007 Mathematics
Assessments.
Mathematics
National ■ Grades 4 & 8
Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by gender, 1990–2007

Average mathematics scores were higher in 2007 than In 2007, average mathematics scores were higher than
in 1990 for the nation’s Black and White fourth-graders, they had been in 1990 for Black and White eighth-graders
regardless of gender (figure 5). Among females, the gap (figure 6). However, the Black-White mathematics gap did
was narrower in 2007 as the average score gains of Black not change significantly for either males or females.
females were greater than those of their White peers.
At grade 8, mathematics scores increased from 2005 to
Among fourth-grade males, the Black-White gap did not
2007 for Black and White students, regardless of gender
change significantly.
(figure 6). Female eighth-graders showed a narrowing
In addition to the 17-year gain, mathematics scores also of the gap during this period as Black females’ scores
increased during the two-year period, 2005 to 2007, for increased more than those of White females, while the gap
both Black and White fourth-graders, regardless of gen for males did not change significantly.
der. However, the gaps did not change significantly either
for males or for females during this period.
8
Mathematics
Figure 5. Gaps in average mathematics scores between Black and White public school students at
grade 4, by gender: Various years, 1990–2007
Scale score
500 Male Female
275
244* 247* 249 244* White
246
236* 241*
232* 230* 231*
219*
228*
29 28 28 218* 225*
25 24 24 Gap
225 27
35* 33* 32* Black
32 36* 216* 219* 221 30* 34* 216* 220*
223
197* 202* 198* 204*
175 187* 192* 188* 192*
0
1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007
n
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years,
1990–2007 Mathematics Assessments.
grade 8, by gender: Various years, 1990–2007
Scale score
500 Male Female
325 292
284* 287* 288* 286* 287* 289
White
280* 279* 282*
270* 275* 276*
34 268*
36* 34 33* 32* 29 Gap
275 39 42* 40* 41* 37*
35 39* 31 Black
251* 254* 258 252* 255* 260
240* 242* 244*
235* 236* 237* 236* 238*
225
0
1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007
n
9
Mathematics
Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by family income,

2003–2007
NAEP uses student eligibility for free or reduced-price
school lunch as an indicator of family income. At grade Eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch
4, mathematics scores were higher in 2007 than in 2003
NAEP collects data on students’ eligibility for the National
and 2005 for all Black and White public school students,
School Lunch Program (NSLP)—sometimes referred to as
regardless of school-lunch eligibility (figure 7). Despite the free and reduced-price school lunch program—as an
these increases, the only significant Black-White gap indicator of family economic status. Eligibility for free and
change was between 2003 and 2007, for students eligible reduced-price lunch is based on students’ family income
for reduced-price lunch. in relation to the federally established poverty level.
At grade 8, mathematics scores were higher in 2007 than Not eligible: Students who are not eligible for the program
in 2003 and 2005 for all Black and White public school stu because their family’s income is above 185 percent of the
poverty level.
dents (figure 8). The Black-White score gaps for students
eligible for free or reduced-price lunch narrowed in 2007 Eligible for reduced-price lunch: Students who are
in comparison to both previous assessments, as scores for eligible for reduced-price lunch because their family’s
eligible Black students showed greater gains than those of income is between 130 percent and 185 percent of the
poverty level.
their White peers.
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. Percentage of public school
students assessed in NAEP

As a result of improvements in the quality of the data on
mathematics by eligibility for free

students’ eligibility for NSLP, the percentage of students
or reduced-price school lunch,

for whom information was not available has decreased in
race/ethnicity and grade: 2003,

comparison to the percentages reported prior to the 2003
2005, and 2007

assessment. Therefore, trend comparisons are only made
back to 2003 in this report.
Eligible for
reduced-price Eligible for free
Not eligible lunch lunch
Black White Black White Black White
Grade 4
2007 26 72 7 6 66 21
2005 25 71 8 7 66 20
2003 24 72 9 8 66 19
Grade 8
2007 32 76 7 5 60 18
2005 31 75 9 6 58 17
2003 32 76 9 6 56 15
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), 2003, 2005, and 2007 Mathematics Assessments.
10
Mathematics
grade 4, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003, 2005, and 2007
Scale score
500 Not eligible Eligible for reduced-price lunch Eligible for free lunch
275
247* 250* 252
235* 238* 241 235 White
20 20 229* 233*
20 14 13
225
230* 232 16* 18 18 17 Gap
227* 224* 228
219* 215* 217
211* Black
175
0
2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, and
2007 Mathematics Assessments.
grade 8, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003, 2005, and 2007
Scale score
375
291* 292* 295
27 276* 277* 280
271* 274 White
275 29 28 15 268*
21* 20* 23* 21 Gap
262* 264* 268 265 23*
255* 256* 253 Black
245* 249*
225
0
2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007

11
Mathematics
Main NAEP State Results for Black and White Fourth- and
Eighth-Graders
The NAEP state mathematics assessments were admin Comparisons of the mathematics gaps within a state over
istered to public school fourth-graders in 1992, 1996, time are presented in a series of small graphs in figure 10.
2000, 2003, 2005, and 2007 and to public school eighth- At the top left of each two-page spread, the mathematics
graders in 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2005, and 2007. scores and gaps for the nation are presented for reference.
Before 2003, states were not required to participate in Each state figure, as well as the national figure, also con
NAEP to qualify for Title I education funds. Typically, tains a dotted red line representing the national average
40 or more states participated in each prior assessment. for public school students. The data for the national aver
In 2003, 2005, and 2007, all 50 states, the District of ages are located in the appendix in Table B-2.
Columbia, and the DoDEA participated.
State results are presented in two ways. Comparisons of
fourth-grade mathematics gaps in 2007 between each state
and the nation are presented in figure 9.
12
Mathematics
State ■ Grade 4
State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4,

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

1992–2007
The Black-White mathematics gap among the nation’s
Narrowing of the Gap
public school fourth-graders was narrower in 2007 than in
1992, as Black students’ scores showed a greater gain than In the following 15 states, the gap narrowed between
White students’ scores (figure 10, National results). From 1992 and 2007 as gains of Black students outpaced the
2005 to 2007, there was no significant change in the gap. gains of White students.
In 35 states, both Black students and White students California Michigan

Connecticut Mississippi
achieved higher average scores in mathematics from 1992
Delaware New Jersey
to 2007. Fifteen of these states also narrowed the achieve District of Columbia Pennsylvania
ment gap as Black students’ scores increased more than Florida South Carolina
White students’ scores. Georgia Texas
Louisiana Virginia
Short-term changes were also notable. In Illinois, New Massachusetts
Jersey, and Virginia, average scores for both Black and
In Rhode Island, the gap narrowed between 2005 and
White students increased between 2005 and 2007. 2007 as Black students’ scores increased while those of
White students did not change significantly.
14
Mathematics
State ■ Grade 4
grade 4, by state: Various years, 1992–2007
Scale score
500 NATIONAL1 Alabama Alaska
(Black: 17%, White: 55%)2 (Black: 37%, White: 58%) (Black: 5%, White: 55%)
275
243* 246* 248 242* 244 247 White
230* 233* 232* 235* 238 232*
227*
27 26 26 218* 221* 227*
20 18 20 Gap
225
30* 24 24 25 25
35* 31 24 226 227 Black
216* 220* 222 30 29 213
221
203* 203* 208* 211 206*
199* 193*
175 192* 188* National
average
0
1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996n 2003 2005 2007
500 Arizona Arkansas California

(Black: 5%, White: 43%) (Black: 22%, White: 67%) (Black: 7%, White: 27%)
275
241* 243* 246 245 243* 245 247 White
237* 242*
225* 228* 230* 228*
26 25 28 223* 225* 28 221* 223* 30 29 29 Gap
225
22
217* 31 29
26 31 219 30 31 34 33 218 Black
215 217 29 214 217 39* 213* 215
207* 206*
199* 197* 193* 194* 194*
175 188* 182* 188* National
average
0 n n n n n n
1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007
500 Colorado Connecticut Delaware

275
249 250 250 252 White
243* 247 240* 242* 244* 249 249
232* 235*
227*
26 25 26 32 32 32 226* 225* 22 23 20 Gap
225 35 32
28 35 222 224 40* 30* 31* 223* 226*
230 Black
217 217 219 220
205* 210*
199* 196* 195* 197* 194*
175 National
average
0 n n n n n n
1992 1996 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2003 2005 2007
500 District of Columbia DoDEA3 Florida

275 262 266 262

251* 254 White
248 242* 245 246 243* 247* 250
231* 233*
60 58 54 15* 19 19 224* 227*
28 23
25 Gap
225 66* 22 20
62* 65 227 227 227 33* 224 225 Black
213* 34* 215*
209 209* 15
202* 207
175 189* 188* 189* 193*
183* National
average
0 n n n n n
1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2003 2005 2007
See notes at end of figure.

Mathematics
State ■ Grade 4
grade 4, by state: Various years, 1992–2007—Continued
Scale score
500 NATIONAL1 Georgia Hawaii
275
243* 246* 248 241* 243 246
238* 241 244 White
227* 230* 233* 228* 230* 227*
27 26 26 224* 24 222* 226* 14 Gap
225 24 22 16 21
31 30* 23 26 18 18 15 230
35* 216* 220* 222 32* 217* 221 222 221 221 Black
203* 208* 211*
199* 201* 204* 204*
192* 196*
175 National
average
0 n n n n n n
1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007
500 Idaho Illinois Indiana

Gap data not available
275
245 245 244* 245* 248 242* 245*
249 White
238* 235* 232* 235*
223* 227*
32 224*
27 24
25 Gap
225 34 33 27 25
33 29 224 Black
210* 212* 216 211* 215* 221
202* 205*
196*
175 National
average
0 n n n
1992 2000 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007
500 Iowa Kansas Kentucky

275
241* 242* 245 246* 249* 252 White
237* 238
231* 230* 233* 26 231* 234*
225 26 18
21 29 22 217* 222* 223* 19 Gap
25
16 29 16 17
224 224 228 226 17 19 27
216 215
208*
217* 214 217 219 Black
205* 200* 203*
175 196*
National
average
0
1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007
500 Louisiana Maine Maryland

275
242 241 243 244* 250
251 White
240
232* 232* 238* 241 234* 236*
230* 230* 228*
225 218* 221*
28* 22 21 22 27 30
29 Gap
25 34 35* 34 Black
27* 221 216* 220
223
31* 213* 219 219
16 194*
205*
195* 198* 202*
175 187* National
average
0 n n n n n n
1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

Mathematics
State ■ Grade 4
Scale score
500 Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota
275 257
247* 252* 245 246* 251 252 White
239* 244 244 238*
231* 232* 25 232* 237* 231* 235*
26 24 227*
28 28 32 31 Gap
225
26 27 232 35 35 30
36* 222* 228 34 37* 38 40 222 Black
213* 42* 216 219 219
206* 209 211 208*
195* 198* 199* 193* 196*
175 185* National
average
0 n n n n n n
1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007
500 Mississippi Missouri Montana

275
247
236 238 239 233* 240* 240* 245 238* 243* White
227* 230* 231* 231*
219* 221* 222* 22 24 25 26
225 24 23
29 31 Gap
25 24 217 32 218
30* 212* 216 216 215 Black
196* 198* 200* 202*
189* 195*
175 National
average
0
1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007
500 Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire

275
244* 246* 250
White
241* 244 244
236* 240 243
228* 231* 230* 226* 230* 24 Gap
224* 23
225 31 34 33 21 26
38 34 38 29 23 219
226
Black
211 211 211 215 214
197* 203*
191* 193* 195*
175 National
average
0 n n n n
1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 2003 2005 2007
500 New Jersey New Mexico New York

275
255
248* 251* 246* 247* 251 White
236* 239* 23 237* 238* 242 233* 238*
31*
27 224* 227* 227*
22
228*
26 25
26 Gap
225 35* 232 20 25 27
38* 224* 22 220 31 31 219* 222 225 Black
217* 216 213
204* 210*
198* 202* 197* 202* 17
175 National
average
0
1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007

Mathematics
State ■ Grade 4
Scale score
500 NATIONAL1 North Carolina North Dakota
275
251 250 251 248 White
243* 246* 248 238* 240* 245*
230* 233* 233* 27 230* 232* 232*
227* 26 25
225 27 26 26 223*
23 Gap
31 30* 30 225 225 224
35* 216* 220* 222 30 215* Black
199* 203* 204*
192* 193*
175 National
average
0
1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007
500 Ohio Oklahoma Oregon

275
243* 248 250 243 White
242 240 241
235* 229* 235* 240
222* 28 25 224* 226* 227*
17 21
225 29
26 24 23 22 22 Gap
225 23 24 31 223 222
28 217* 221 211* 217
220 219 Black
206* 201* 205*
194* 196
175 National
average
0
1992n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007
500 Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina

275
243* 247 249 242 246 250 248 White
239* 241 233*
230* 231* 232*
225 31 27 26 221* 225*
29 30* 23
225* 224* 23 26 26 Gap
36* 34* 32* 26 30 223
222 32 31* 222 221 Black
212* 219 30 210* 211*
219
197* 200* 198* 203*
194* 191* 194* 194*
175 National
average
0 n n n n n n
1992 1996 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007
500 South Dakota Tennessee Texas

275
248* 254 253 White
241* 245 245
235* 238 240 240* 241*
24 226* 227* 230* 22 25 23 Gap
225 217*
27 25 26 29* 22
221 28 29 31* 220* 226 228 230 Black
26 208* 214 214 212*
18 197* 198* 199*
175 191* National
average
0 n n n n
2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

Mathematics
State ■ Grade 4
Scale score
500 Utah Vermont Virginia
Gap data not available Gap data not available
275
246* 247* 251 White
238* 242 244 242* 244* 247 237*
230* 232* 230* Gap
225* 228* 225* 228* 23 24 23
225
27 26
29* 223* 224* 228 Black
211*
199* 203*
175 National
average
0
1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007
500 Washington West Virginia Wisconsin

275
248 250 White
242* 246 243* 247*
229* 231* 231* 237 233* 236*
19 15* 26 224* 224* Gap
225
27 231*
216* 10 5* 14 35 37 38
222 222 19 20 221 226 223 37 38
15 212 Black
205* 205* 209 210
202* 201* 195* 198*
175 National
average
0
1996n 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007
500 Wyoming
(Black: 2%, White: 84%)
275
243* 245 246 White
227* 225* 231*
225
175 National
average
0
1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007
n
1
National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples. 19
2
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 1990. Comparative performance results may be affected by changes in exclusion rates for students with disabilities and English language learners in
the NAEP samples.
20
Mathematics
State ■ Grade 8
State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8,

2007
Twelve states had a smaller gap than the
nation’s 31-point gap in 2007 (Alaska, Figure 11. The Black-White achievement score gap in
Arizona, Colorado, DoDEA, Georgia, mathematics for public school students at grade
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New 8, by state or jurisdiction: 2007
Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Jurisdictions Black Gap White
Carolina) and seven had a gap that was Nation (public) 259 31 290
larger (Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Alabama 246 32 278
Alaska 271 23* 294
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, and Arizona 266 23* 289
Wisconsin). In 22 states, the gap was not Arkansas 254 28 282
California 253 35 287
significantly different from the nation’s 272 24* 296
Colorado
gap. Gaps that are different from the Connecticut 255 38* 293
Delaware 265 29 294
nation’s gap are indicated with an asterisk
DoDEA1 272 19* 291
(figure 11). Florida 259 29 289
Georgia 261 27* 288
The eighth-grade mathematics gap in 2007 Illinois 253 38* 291
Indiana 259 32 290
was statistically significant in all 41 states Iowa 257 31 288
for which data could be reported. The Kansas 267 28 295
Kentucky 257 25* 282
gaps ranged from 16 points in Oregon to Louisiana 258 25* 283
51 points in Nebraska. Maryland 265 36* 300
Massachusetts 264 40* 305
Michigan 244 41* 285
Minnesota 260 37 297
Mississippi 251 28* 279
Missouri 253 34 288
Nevada 255 26 282
New Mexico 264 21* 285
New York 258 32 290
Ohio 258 33 291
Oregon 272 16* 289
South Carolina 265 27* 293
Texas 271 29 300
Virginia 268 28 296
West Virginia 250 21 271
0 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 500
Scale score 21
1
NOTE: States whose Black or White student population size was insufficient for comparison are omitted.
Reporting standards not met for District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Mathematics Assessment.
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, despite higher
average scores for both Black and White students in 2007
In the following four states, the mathematics gap nar
(figure 12, National results). The gap was narrower in 2007
rowed between 1990 and 2007 as gains of Black stu
than in 2005. dents outpaced the gains of White students.
In 26 states, mathematics scores of both Black and White Arkansas Oklahoma
eighth-graders were higher in 2007 than in 1990. The 2007 Colorado Texas
gap was narrower in Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, and
Texas, as increases in Black students’ scores were greater In Colorado, the gap narrowed between 2005 and 2007
than those of their White peers. as Black students’ scores showed greater increases than
those of their White peers.
Between 2005 and 2007, gaps narrowed in Arkansas and
Florida as scores for Black eighth-graders increased while In Arkansas and Florida, the gap narrowed between 2005
and 2007 as Black students’ scores increased while
those of their White peers showed no change. In Colorado,
those of White students did not change significantly.
scores for both groups increased, but a greater increase in
Black students’ scores caused the gap to narrow.
22
Mathematics
State ■ Grade 8
grade 8, by state: Various years, 1990–2007
Scale score
500
NATIONAL1 Alabama Alaska
325
287* 288* 290 285* 290* 288* 294 White
280* 283*
276* 275 274 276 278
275 269*
31 262* 264*
270* 27 22 23 Gap
39* 40* 35* 33* 35 34 36 32 271
33 40* 30 34 38 263 266 Black
252* 254* 259
225 236* 236* 241* 243* 240* 240* 240* 246
232* 230* 232* National
average
0
1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996n 2003 2005 2007
500
Arizona Arkansas California
325
284* 288 289 283* 284* 287 White

270* 274*
277* 281*
269* 275* 281 282 270* 275*
277* 277*
268*
275
22 28 27 23 264* 264*
28 37 35 35 Gap
26 22 37 36* 38* 33 42
256 256 261
266 34* 35* 35 41* 38 42 Black
253* 254
245* 244* 244 246 248 253
225 235* 239* 243* 235*
231* 229* 227* 231* 233* National
average
0
1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007
500
Colorado Connecticut Delaware
* 7%, White: 65%)
(Black: (Black: 13%, White: 69%) (Black: 31%, White: 56%)
325
292* 292* 296 287* 291 293 293 293 287* 291*
294 White
273* 278*
282* 277* 283* 275*
24 268* 272* 27 29 Gap
275
26 37* 36* 45* 38 44 38 26
43
36* 36* 272 37 41 27 30 31
260* 264 265 Black
255* 255* 256* 255 249 255
244* 247* 244*
225 238* 242* 240* 242* 241* 241*
National
average
0
n n n n n n n n n
1990 1992 1996 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 1996 2003 2005 2007

325 317
300
293 292 291
282* 286* 286 286 289 White
277*
275 76 27* 23 25 19 265* 272*
69 28* 37* 35* 29 Gap
270 267 272 42*
254* 259* 34 36* 259 Black 23
249* 251*
225 240* 241* 245
229* 232* 230* 231* 231* 236* 235* National
average
0
1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007

Mathematics
State ■ Grade 8
Scale score
500
NATIONAL1 Georgia Hawaii

325
283* 287* 288* 290 284 284 288 White

280* 279*
276* 270* 270* 276* 276 274 273 277 278
275 269* Gap
40* 35* 33*
31
34* 34* 29 27 259* 263*
33 40* 39* 32 30 35*
252* 254* 259
261 Black
244* 250* 255*
225 236* 236* 241* 243* 239* 241* 240*
National
average
0
1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007

325
284* 284* 287 285* 289 289 291 285* 286* 286* 290 White
280* 280*
273* 277* 270* 270* 273*
275 35 29 32 Gap
33 40 40 38 33 29
38 28 32
256 251 257
259 Black
252 249 249 253 247*
225 242* 241*
232* National
average
0
n n n n n n
1990 1992 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

325
285 287 286 288 287* 290* 289* 295 White

279* 284* 272* 277* 276* 282
28 269*
275 29 30 30 31 43 38* 33 259* 264* 25 Gap
21 22 27 21
267 18 24 Black
256 257 256 257
245
252* 256 247 250 250 255 257
225 240* 241*
National
average
0
n n n n n n
1990 1992 1996 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

325
300 White
281 281 283 284 282* 281* 287 284* 286* 289* 292*
279* 281*
266*
275* 272* 278* 36 Gap
275 259* 263* 9 33 33
31* 29 25 43* 42
31* 36* 270 35 39 265 Black
24 30 31 250* 252*
258 256* 258*
239* 241* 244*
225
229* 232* 235* 236* 239* National
average
0
1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007

Mathematics
State ■ Grade 8
Scale score
325
305
292* 297* 286 285 285 287* 290* 295 296 297 White
284* 284 285
277* 283* 277* 284*
33* 34
40 270* 276* Gap
275
33 26* 41 38 41 39 44 46 37
34 39 45 41 Black
258 260 263 264 39 44 260
250* 245 245 247 244 248 251 251
225 243* 239
231* 233* 236* National
average
0
n n n n n n n n
1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

325
284* 284* 288 286* 288* 289* 290 291 White

275* 279 279 275* 278* 277* 282*
275 262* 265* 268*
29 32 28 34 36 34 Gap
31 30 34 34 39
33* Black
246* 247* 251 244 250 247 253
225 237* 242* 238*
230* 234* National
average
0
1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007

325
285* 285* 287* 289 291 287 286* 289 White

279* 281* 273* 278 280 282 273* 278*
275 Gap
32* 37* 41* 46 51 29 30 33 26
45 44 Black
254* 255
247 247 243 240 244 248 247
225 234 237 National
average
0
n n n n n
1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 2003 2005 2007

325
292* 295* 298 293 290 290 White
279* 283* 277* 282 279* 285 280* 283* 284*
35 271* 272* 274* 273*
275 39 35 28 22 21 33 37 32 32 Gap
38 41 264 39 46*
40
260 264 254 257 255 259 258 Black 25
253* 251
225 241* 242* 243*
234* 233* National
average
0
1990n 1992n 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007

Mathematics
State ■ Grade 8
Scale score
500
NATIONAL1 North Carolina North Dakota
325
287* 288* 290 294 292* 295 290* 290* 295 White
280* 283* 287* 284* 284* 286* 285*
276* 277*
275 269*
31 261* 266* 34 28 29 Gap
39* 40* 35* 33* 30
35*
33 40* 30 28 260* 263 266 Black
252* 254* 259 247* 252*
225 241* 243* 238*
236* 236* 231* National
average
0
1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007

325
287* 289 291 White
285*
278 278 280 278* 284* 284* 287 289
275 268* 274* 268* 272* 274* 273* 16 Gap
34 30 34 33 29 29 22
20 29
29 272 Black
35 41 257 255 258 32* 34* 258
265
258
251 245* 249 249*
225 233* 234* 236* 238* National
average
0
n n n n n n
1990 1992 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

325
293 291 294 293 White
285* 287* 280* 281* 284
272* 276* 275* 275* 273* 273* 277*
265* 271* 33* 32 27 Gap
38 37 36
275
36 39 38 35 36 32 34 33* 29 30 Black
257 37 30 258* 263
265
236* 238* 247* 250 244 249 250 241* 244* 247*
225 240 237* 240 National
228* average
0
n n n n n n n
1990 1992 2003 2005 2007 1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

325
300
288* 291 292 284* 286* 290* 295* White
277* 278* 282 272* 278* 29
266* 270* 269*
275
28 30 31 Gap
35* 32 35 37
32 35 34 38* 35 271
Black
26 254 260* 264*
249* 250*
225 242* 246* 243*
234* 234* 235* 234* National
average
0
2003 2005 2007 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007

Mathematics
State ■ Grade 8
Scale score
325
285 283* 286 286* 288* 292 290* 293 296 White
276* 278* 277* 280* 281* 279* 283*
275 271* 275* 28 31 28 Gap
35 30
29 30
262* 263* 268 Black
253*
225 242* 245* 244*
National
average
0
1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007

325
285* 289 291 288* 290 291 292 White

281* 279* 282*
271 270 271
275 22 23 26 256* 260*
265* 267*
Gap
38
21 20 18 18 21 42 37 48 49 45 45
262 265 264 23 17 Black
253 251 250
225 243* 242 245 247
236
245 240 241 246 247
234* National
average
0
1996n 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 1990n 1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007
500 Wyoming
325
286* 284* 290

274* 277* 277* 278*
275
White
225 National
average
0
1990n 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007
n
* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2007. 27
1
National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.
2
3
Comparative performance results may be affected by changes in exclusion rates for students with disabilities and English language learners in the NAEP samples.
Reading
Long-Term Trend Results for Black and White 9- and
13-Year-Olds
Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps, 1980–2004

Reading scores for both Black and White
Figure 13. Trends in average reading scale scores and score
9-year-old students were higher in 2004
gaps for White students and Black students at
than on any previous long-term trend
age 9: Various years, 1980–2004
assessment (figure 13). The score gap in
2004 did not differ significantly from the Scale score
gap in 1980, but was narrower than the gap 500
in 1999, due to a greater increase in Black
students’ scores as compared to White 250
220* 217* 216* 215* 217* 217* 218* 220* 225 White
students. 26 Gap
200 32 32* 29 35* 33* 32 28 35*
199 Black
At age 13, reading scores for White stu 188* 185* 188*
181* 183* 185*
190* 185*
dents were not significantly different in 150
2004 than in 1980 (figure 14). For Black

0
students, scores were higher in 2004 than 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004
in 1980, resulting in a narrowing of the
gap. Scores did not change significantly SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
for either Black or White students from Reading Assessments.
1999 to 2004, but the gap narrowed for that

time period as well. A statistically signifi
cant change can occur over time in the gap
between two scores even though the scores Figure 14. Trends in average reading scale scores and score
themselves do not change significantly gaps for White students and Black students at
because changes in gaps are calculated age 13: Various years, 1980–2004
separately from changes in scores.
Scale score
500
300
263 261 260 261 264 263 264 265 264 White
250 32* 26 19 22 29* 30* 31* 29* 21 Gap
235* 241 239 235 236
244Black
231* 233 233
200
0
1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004
28 Reading Assessments.
Reading
Main NAEP National Results for Black and White Fourth-
National Grades 4 & 8 ■
and Eighth-Graders
Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps, 1992–2007

In main NAEP, the reading gap for Black
and White fourth-graders narrowed in Figure 15. Reading achievement score gaps between Black
2007 in comparison to both 1992 and 2005 and White public school students at grade 4:
(figure 15). Although scores for both Black Various years, 1992–2007
and White students were higher in 2007
Scale score
than in either comparison year, a greater 500
increase in scores for Black students caused
the gap to narrow. The 27-point gap in 260
2007 was narrower than in any previous 223* 222* 223* 223* 227* 227* 228* 230 White
assessment year except 1998. 210 29*30* 29* 27 Gap

32* 38* 31 34*
198* 197* 199* 203
191*
184*
192* 189* Black
Eighth-grade reading scores for both 160
National
Black and White students were higher in average
2007 than in either 1992 or 2005, but the 0
1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007
gap in 2007 was not significantly different
from either prior year (figure 16). n
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading
Assessments.
Figure 16. Reading achievement score gaps between Black

and White public school students at grade 8:
Various years, 1992–2007
Scale score
500
300
265* 265* 268 271 270 269* 270 White
250 29 30 26 27 27 27 26 Gap
242 244 244 242* 244 Black
236* 235*
200 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007
n
NOTE: Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000.
29
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading
Assessments.
Reading
Reading scores and achievement gaps by gender, 1992–2007

Average reading scores were higher in 2007 than in 1992 Average reading scores for eighth-graders were higher
for Black and for White fourth-graders, regardless of in 2007 than in 1992 for Black and for White students,
gender (figure 17). Among males, the gap narrowed as regardless of gender (figure 18). However, the 2007 gaps
the scores of Black males increased more than those of in eighth-grade reading achievement showed no sig
their White peers. Among fourth-grade females, the nificant differences from the 1992 gaps for either males
Black-White gap did not change significantly. or females.
Fourth-grade reading scores were higher in 2007 than From 2005 to 2007, average reading scores for eighth-
in 2005 for both Black and White males and females, graders increased for both Black and White males.
and the achievement gaps narrowed for both groups Scores increased for Black females but not for White
during this period, as the scores of Black fourth-graders females. However, the Black-White gap did not change
increased more than those of their White peers. significantly for either gender during this period.
30
Reading
Figure 17. Gaps in average reading scores between Black and White public school students at grade
4, by gender: Various years, 1992–2007
Scale score
500 Male Female
260
227 227* 227* 227* 228* 231* 231* 231* 233 White
219* 219* 224* 223* 225*
217* 218*
28 31* 28* 29* 27* 25 Gap
210
30 30* 31* 31* 29 36* 33*
35* 40* 38* 204* 207 Black
199 197* 197* 202* 202*
189* 193* 192* 194* 191* 194*
184* 178* 180*
160
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007
n
1992–2007 Reading Assessments.
8, by gender: Various years, 1992–2007
Scale score
500 Male Female
300
266 265 272* 272* 276 276 276 275 275 White
258* 261* 264* 265
257*
29 31 26 27 27 27 26 Gap
250 27 27 27 28 28
29 29 249 250 249 248* 250 Black
239 238 238 243* 242*
229* 234* 236*
228*
200
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007
n
NOTE: Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 31
Reading
Reading scores and achievement gaps by family income,

2003–2007
NAEP uses student eligibility for free or reduced-price
school lunch as an indicator of family income. At grade Eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch
4, reading scores were higher in 2007 than in 2003 for
NAEP collects data on students’ eligibility for the
both Black and White public school students, regardless
National School Lunch Program (NSLP)—sometimes
of school-lunch eligibility (figure 19). The gap in 2007 for referred to as the free and reduced-price school lunch
not-eligible students was narrower than in 2003, while the program—as an indicator of family economic status.
gap for students eligible for free lunch was narrower than Eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches is based on
in either previous assessment. students’ family income in relation to the federally estab
lished poverty level.
At grade 8, scores were higher for Black and White not-
eligible students only, comparing 2007 with 2005 (figure Not eligible: Students who are not eligible for the program
because their family’s income is above 185 percent of the
20). There were no statistically significant changes in the poverty level.
sizes of the gaps.
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
Table 2. Percentage of public school
poverty level.
students assessed in NAEP reading
by eligibility for free or reduced-

Eligible for free lunch: Students who are eligible for free
price school lunch, race/ethnicity
lunch because their family’s income is below 130 percent
of the poverty level.
and grade: 2003, 2005, and 2007
Eligible for As a result of improvements in the quality of the data on
reduced-price Eligible for free students’ eligibility for NSLP, the percentage of students
Not eligible lunch lunch

Black White Black White Black White
for whom information was not available has decreased in
Grade 4
comparison to the percentages reported prior to the 2003
2007 26 73 7 6 66 21
assessment. Therefore, trend comparisons are only made
2005 25 72 8 7 66 20
back to 2003 in this report.
2003 24 72 9 8 65 18
Grade 8
2007 32 76 7 5 59 18
2005 32 75 9 6 57 17
2003 32 76 9 6 56 14
(NAEP), 2003, 2005, and 2007 Reading Assessments.
32
Reading
4, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003, 2005, and 2007
Scale score
260
232* 233* 235
21* 19 216* 218* 221
213 214 White
20 13
211*
210
216 15 16 19* 16 Gap
211* 212* 208 19*
201* 202* 197
191* 193* Black
110
0
2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007

8, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003, 2005, and 2007
Scale score
Not eligible Eligible for reduced-price lunch Eligible for free lunch
500
300
274 273* 274
20
262 260 262
255 256 257 White
21 22
250 14 15 15 17 20 19 Gap
253 251* 254 248 248
245
237 236 238 Black
200
0
2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007

33
Reading
Main NAEP State Results for Black and White Fourth- and
Eighth-Graders
The NAEP state reading assessments were administered Comparisons of the reading gaps within a state over time
to public school students in fourth grade in 1992, 1994, are presented in a series of small graphs in figure 22. At
1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007 and in eighth grade in the top left of each two-page spread, the reading scores and
1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007. Before 2003, states were gaps for the nation are presented for reference. Each state
not required to participate in NAEP in order to qualify figure, as well as the national figure, also contains a dotted
for Title I education funds. Typically, 40 or more states red line representing the national average for public school
participated in each assessment prior to 2003. In 2003, students. The data for the national averages are located in
2005, and 2007, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and appendix B in table B-4.
the DoDEA schools participated.
State results are presented in two ways. Comparisons of
fourth-grade reading gaps in 2007 between each state and
the nation are presented in figure 21.
34
Reading
State ■ Grade 4
State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 4, 2007

Nine states had a Black-White gap that
was smaller than the nation’s 27-point Figure 21. The Black-White achievement score gap in
gap in 2007 (Arizona, Delaware, DoDEA, reading for public school students at grade 4,
Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, by state or jurisdiction: 2007
Oklahoma, Virginia, and West Virginia) Jurisdictions Black Gap White
and eight had a gap that was larg Nation (public) 203 27 230
er (Arkansas, Connecticut, District Alabama 201 26 227
Alaska 207 22 228
of Columbia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Arizona 206 17* 224
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin). Arkansas 195 31* 226
In 27 states, the gap was not different from Colorado 210 24 234
Connecticut 203 34* 238
the national gap. Gaps that are different Delaware 213 20* 233
from the national gap are indicated with District of Columbia 192 67* 258
DoDEA1 218 17* 235
an asterisk (figure 21). Florida 208 24 232
Georgia 205 25 230
The Black-White grade 4 reading gap Hawaii 212 15* 227
Illinois 201 29 230
in 2007 was significant in all 44 states for Indiana 201 24 226
which data could be reported. The gaps Iowa 205 22 227
Kansas 208 22 229
ranged from 13 points in West Virginia to Kentucky 203 21* 225
67 points in the District of Columbia. Louisiana 194 26 220
Maryland 208 28 236
Massachusetts 211 31 241
Michigan 197 30 227
Minnesota 198 33* 231
Mississippi 195 27 222
Missouri 200 26 226
Nevada 202 22 224
New Hampshire 215 14* 230
New Mexico 208 20 228
New York 208 26 234
Ohio 204 27 231
Oregon 198 25 222
Pennsylvania 200 33* 233
Tennessee 192 32* 224
Texas 207 25 232
Virginia 213 20* 233
0 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 500
Scale score 35
1
NOTE: States whose Black student population size was insufficient for comparison are omitted. Reporting standards
not met for Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Reading Assessment.
Reading
State ■ Grade 4
Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 4, 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 In the following three states, the reading gap was nar
increase than average scores for White students (figure 22, rower in 2007 than in 1992, as Black students’ scores
National results). increased more than those of their White peers.
In 13 states, both Black and White fourth-graders achieved Delaware New Jersey
higher average scores in reading during this period. In Florida
three states—Delaware, Florida, and New Jersey—the gap
In Alabama, the reading gap narrowed between 2005
was narrower in 2007 than in 1992 as Black students’ scores
and 2007 as Black students’ scores increased more than
increased more than those of White students. White students’ scores.
In addition, gaps narrowed from 2005 to 2007 in Alabama,
In Arizona and Virginia, the reading gap narrowed
Arizona, and Virginia. between 2005 and 2007 as Black students’ scores
increased while those of White students did not change
significantly.
36
Reading
State ■ Grade 4
4, by state: Various years, 1992–2007
Scale score
500 NATIONAL1 Alabama Alaska
260
223* 222* 223* 223* 227* 227* 228* 230 222 227 226 225 228 White
217* 219* 218* 219* 220*
210 32* 38* 31 34* 29* 30* 29* 27 26 17 13 22 Gap
30 33* 31 30 30 32* 212
209 207 Black
199* 203 201
191* 192* 189* 198* 197* 187* 185* 191* 188* 188* 188*
184*
160 National
average
0 n n n n
1992 1994 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007
500 Arizona Arkansas California

260
222 223 225 226 223 224 225 227 White
220 219 219 220 223 224 224 218* 217* 216* 217* 212* 217*
210 22 31* 28 21 27 31* 17 29 34 33 33 32 31
31 27 31 30 27 Gap
32 36 30
198 199 196 193* 206 195 196 193 195 200 Black
188* 191* 189* 182* 184* 188* 190 194 181* 182* 186*
160 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007
500
Colorado Connecticut Delaware
260
226* 232 232 234 230* 233*
237 237 238 234 238 233 233 235 233 White
221* 220* 221* 215* 218*
23 25 24 34 31 37 33 34 24 22 23 20 Gap
210 21 29 30 34 45 26* 28*
208 207 210 30* 209* 211 212 213 Black
200 197 203 206 201 201 203
192* 195 189 195* 189*
187*
160 National
average
0
n n n n n n
1992 1994 1998 2003 2005 2007 1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

258
260 246 248 247 248 254 252
227* 230* 230* 232* 235 226* 229 228* 232 White
218* 217* 217*
60 70 66
67 18 15 16 14 17 24 Gap
210 62 73 72 30 31* 26
215 214 218 218 33* 36* 31*
209* 203* 208 Black
196* 198* 37
185* 188* 184* 187* 192 185* 181* 186*
160 174* 174* National
average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

Reading
State ■ Grade 4
4, by state: Various years, 1992–2007—Continued
Scale score
500 NATIONAL1 Georgia Hawaii
260
223* 222* 223* 223* 227* 227* 228* 230 226 226 226 230 227 White
223* 221* 221* 219* 221 224
212* 214* 214* 15
210 32* 38* 31 34* 29* 30*
29* 27
28 37* 26 27 27 25
7 17 11 1210 19 Gap
30 212
208 211 205 Black
198* 197* 199* 203 195* 200* 199* 199* 205 205
197 203
191* 192* 189* 191*
184* 184*
160 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

(Black: 20%, White: 55%) (Black: 10%, White: 80%)
260
224* 222* 226 227 228 230 230 224 224 225 224 223 226 White
221*
210 34 36 29 25 31 23 28 26 24 Gap
202 197 197 201 Black
194* 194* 201 200
192
160 National
average
0
1992n 2002 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 2002 2003 2005 2007

260
226 224 222 225 226 224 227 227 226 225 225 229
220* 222 221 222 225 White
214* 214*
210 18 18 30 23 22 30 20 28 29 22 23 20 19 21 Gap
39 31 18 24 21
208 207 205 206 208
191 196 201 197 197* 196* 196 190* 199 199 202 203 203 Black
185
160 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

260
230* 231* 232 236 White
227 229 225 225 224 225 226 224*
215 213* 218 221 223 223 220 220* 222*
30 31 32 28 Gap
210
26 38* 30 35* 28 26 29 37* 34
208 Black
35* 199* 200* 201*
38 189 192 189* 195 194 192*
185* 190*
178* 180*
160 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

Reading
State ■ Grade 4
Scale score
260
239 234* 237* 241
230* 230* 228* 226 228 226 227 229 229 231 231 White
222* 223 223* 221* 224*
2727 26 31
210 26 33 26 31 40* 36 30 34 45
27 35 39 33 Gap
212 207 211 211 35 36 40
204
196* 202*
195 189 190
197 202
194 192 198 Black
187 187 189 184
160 176 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

260
222 225 221* 226 227 226 226 225* 227 226 227 228 230 White
217 218 215* 218 221 220 221*
210 27 30 30 28 24 26 26 Gap
31 33 26 29 29 30 33
195 195 197 203 200 200 Black
186* 185* 189* 189* 192 190 191 188
160 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

260
230
White
226 225* 228 230 228 224* 227 229 228
224* 223* 218* 217* 219* 224
17*21* 34
213*
22
14 Gap
210 28 33 36 22 25 27
30 215 Black
209 203 202
196 194 194 196 193 192
190 183*
160 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2003 2005 2007

260
233* 231* 235 232* 238 228*
235 235 232 234 White
223 220* 222 223 222 225 228 226* 226*
26 20 32 32* 24 26 Gap
210 35* 40* 36* 33 21 24 26 20 18 27 36* 37*
212 208 208 Black
198* 200* 199* 202 196 196 202 206 199* 202 203* 207
191* 190* 191* 39
160 National
average
0 n n n n n n
1992 1994 2003 2005 2007 1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

Reading
State ■ Grade 4
Scale score
NATIONAL1 North Dakota
500
(Black: 17%, White: 56%)2 North Carolina
260 Gap data not available

232* 232* 227 229 White
223* 222* 223* 223* 227* 227* 228* 230 220* 224 223* 228 226 227 226 224* 228
210 32* 38* 31 34* 29* 30* 29* 27 26 32 30 27 29 27 26 Gap

205 203 202 Black
192* 189* 198* 197* 199* 203 194* 192* 193* 200
191*
184*
160 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 2002 2003 2005 2007

260
229 226* 230 231
220* 223 225 220 220 219 223 217* 223 222 223 222 White
210 27 25 33 27 22 30 19 20 19 23 25 Gap
23 32* 25 22 25
202 202 197 204 201 204 204 202 200 198
197 195
188*
195 197 191 Black
160 National
average
0
1992n 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

260
227* 224* 228* 227* 229* 233 223 225 226 227 224 224 227 225 226 225 224 White
221 218* 221
33
210 36 37 36 29 31 28 34 26 28 28 29 27 29 26 27 27 26 Gap
46* 36*
200 200 197 201 196 197 198 199 199 197 199 Black
190* 192 191* 192 192 194 192*
178* 182*
160 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

228 230 232 227* 232 232 White
227 226
218* 219 218* 220 220 222 224 223* 226*
210 24 36 30 25 26 25 Gap
26 31 25 26 32 27 32 39*
202 202 206 207 Black
194 188 195 199*
40 192 188 193 192 190* 191*
160 National
average
0
2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

Reading
State ■ Grade 4
Scale score
260
227 226 227 229 227* 224* 233 231 233 233 White
222* 219* 220* 224 223 226 226 225*
26 32* 27* 25 26* 20 Gap
210 27*
213 Black
201* 199* 205* 206* 207*
192*
160 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

260
227 226 228 229 227 227 228 225 227 229 White
216* 221* 216 216 220 220* 215 216
14 14* 16 214
210 17 23 13 17 13 13 28 32 25* 33 38 Gap
19 213 212 212 13 23* 41
204 206 207 203 202 202 200
191 Black
198 200 194 198 196 194
187
160 National
average
0
1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1992n 1994n 1998 2003 2005 2007
500 Wyoming
260
White
225* 223* 224* 224* 227 228
220*
Gap
210
Black
160 National
average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007
n
1
2
3
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.
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 Figure 23. The Black-White achievement score gap in
gap in 2007 (Alaska, Delaware, DoDEA, reading for public school students at grade 8,
Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, by state or jurisdiction: 2007
Virginia, and West Virginia) and one had Jurisdictions Black Gap White
a gap that was larger (Wisconsin). In Nation (public) 244 26 270
32 states, the gap was not significantly dif Alabama 236 26 261
Alaska 250 20* 270
ferent from the nation’s. State gaps that Arizona 248 21 269
are either significantly larger or smaller Arkansas 236 31 266
than the national gap are indicated with Colorado 252 22 275
asterisks (figure 23). Connecticut 246 30 276
Delaware 250 23* 274
DoDEA 259 19* 278
In Hawaii, the 7-point difference between
Florida 244 24 268
the average scores for Black and White Georgia 246 25 271
Hawaii 255 7* 262
students was not statistically significant, 27
Illinois 244 271
and thus there was no Black-White gap Indiana 242 26 268
Iowa 247 22 270
for grade 8 reading in that state in 2007. In Kansas 246 27 272
the other 41 states for which reliable data Kentucky 247 17* 264
Louisiana 240 23 264
could be reported, the differences were sta Maryland 249 27 276
tistically significant. The gaps ranged from Massachusetts 253 25 278
Michigan 236 31 267
15 points in West Virginia and Nevada to Minnesota 245 28 273
38 points in Wisconsin. Mississippi 238 25 264
Missouri 242 28 270
Nebraska 243 28 271
Nevada 248 15* 263
New Mexico 248 17* 265
New York 246 29 274
Ohio 246 27 274
Oklahoma 243 22 266
Oregon 250 20 270
Texas 249 26 275
Virginia 252 20* 273
0 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 500
Scale score 43
1
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.
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Reading Assessment.
Reading
State ■ Grade 8
Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 8, 1998–2007

Reading scores for the nation’s public school students in there was no significant change in gap. During this period,
the eighth grade were higher in 2007 than in 1992 for both five other states showed significant changes in average
Black and White students, but were not significantly differ scores in one, but not both, of the two student groups. From
ent than in 1998 (figure 24, National results). Moreover, the 2005 to 2007, the gap did not change in any state.
national eighth-grade reading gap has not changed since
Despite the fact that no statistically significant changes in
either 1992 or 1998. NAEP first conducted eighth-grade
state gaps were identified, the 7-point difference in Black
reading assessments at the state level in 1998.
and White students’ scores in Hawaii for 2007 was itself not
From 1998 to 2007, the Black-White score gap did not statistically significant, so that no Black-White score gap in
change for any state. In Delaware, scores for both Black and grade 8 reading existed for that state.
White eighth-graders were higher in 2007 than in 1998, but
44
Reading
State ■ Grade 8
8, by state: Various years, 1998–2007
Scale score
500
NATIONAL1 Alabama Alaska
300
265* 265* 268 271 270 269* 270 265 264 262 268 268 270 White
263 261
250 29 30 26 2727 27 26 28 30 26 29 26
19 19 20 Gap
244 244 242* 244 249 249 250 Black
242 237
236* 235* 234 237 235 236
National
200 average
0
n n
1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007
500
Arizona Arkansas California
300
269 267 268 267 269 263 267 266 266 266 268 265 265 264 266 White
21 1724 25 21
250 29 28 33 29 31 30 2326 24 29 Gap
248 250 245 248
242 238 232 236 236 238 242 239 240 237 Black
234
National
200 average
0
1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007
500 Colorado Connecticut Delaware

300
270* 275 273 275 277 277 275 272 276 275 273 274 274 White
263*
22 26 19 22 32 38 31 32 30 2324 22 23 Gap
250 28
248 249 254 252 252 248 252 250 Black
245 240 244 240 246
234*
National
200 average
0
1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

301
300
276 278 278 276 278
1619 264 269 268 265 268 White
66 22 18 19
250 262 258 28 25 29 26 24 Gap
254 258 259
244 239 238 244 Black
233 238 236 235 238 236 45
National
200 average
0
1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

Reading
State ■ Grade 8
Scale score
500
NATIONAL1 Georgia Hawaii
300
265* 265* 268 271 270 269* 270 268 268 268 268 271 White
262 263 259 261 262
250 29 30 26 2727 27 26 27 22 25 27 25 10 7 Gap
253 255
236* 235* 242 244 244 242* 244 241 246 244 241 246 Black
National
200 average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

300
276* 272 271
269 267 267 268 267 269 265 268 White
29 28 27 20 24 24 26 Gap
250
247 244 244 247 244 241 242 Black
National
200 average
0
2002 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

300
269 269 270 272 273 271 271 272
264 267 269* 266 264
White
25 23 22 22 29 27 24 27 19 19 24 18 17 Gap
250
245 246 247 249 244 243 247 246 246 248 245 248 247 Black
National
200 average
0
2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

300
268 267 264 272 270 269 270 270 272 274 271 272 276 White
262 264
28 28 24 23 32 28 26 29 27 Gap
250 26
246 245 244 249 Black
240 238 240 240 240*
46 236
National
200 average
0
1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

Reading
State ■ Grade 8
Scale score
300
274 278 278 279 278 273 273 273 White
270 272* 268 267 269
27 31 26 26 25
28 31 29 31 29 34 28 Gap
250 38
253 253
246 246 252 242 242 239 243 239 245 Black
236 231
National
200 average
0
1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2003 2005 2007

300
268 267 264 271 272 270 270 273 273 273 272 274
264 264 265* White
23 22 28 28 28
250 25 28 25 28 25 Gap
250
238 240 243 237 238 242 243 242 242 Black
National
200 average
0
1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

300
273 271 271 271 272 270 270 White
264 259* 262 261 263
27 32 28 28 23 15 Gap
250 25* 29* 21
246 239 243 243 248 Black
241
234* 233* 240
National
200 average
0
2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007

300
277 278 278
270 275 274 277 276 274 White
266 268 264 265
29 27 29 22 17 28 28 32 34 29 Gap
250
248 251 249 246 248 246 246 246 242 246 Black
National
47
200 average
0
2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

Reading
State ■ Grade 8
Scale score
500
NATIONAL1 North Carolina North Dakota
(Black: 17%, White: 58%)2
300
268 271 270 269* 270 270 274 271 270 269 272 272 270 White
265* 265* 267
26 2727 27 26 25 27 24 28 29 Gap
250 29 30
236* 235* 242 244 244 242* 244 246 247* 247*
240 241 Black
National
200 average
0
1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2002 2003 2005 2007

300
273 271 272 274 268 268 267 266 269 270 267 267 270 White
265
250
27 22 29 27 16 29 27 22 22 30 15 22 20 Gap
253* 251 250 Black
246 249 243 246 243 243 245
238 240 239
National
200 average
0
2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

300
271 268 273 272 268 268 267 268 267 265 268 269 267 268 White
35* 25 34 25 22 25 26 25 29 25 26 25 24 26 Gap
250
243 239 248 246 243 241 243 239 240 243 244 242 242 Black
236
National
200 average
0
2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007


273 272 272 267 271 276 272 270 275 White
264 265 265 265
250 26 26 25 27
25 30 25 24 26 Gap
29
246 247 247 246 249 Black
48 235 240 239 240 240
National
200 average
0
2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

Reading
State ■ Grade 8
Scale score
300
266 267 268 265 266 272 271 269* 273 273 275 275 275 273 White
24 24 25 24 20 Gap
250
250 252 250 251 252
Black
National
200 average
0
1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007
500
Washington West Virginia Wisconsin
300
267 271 268 268 270 269 271 271 270 White
262* 264* 260*
256 256
250 25 24 17 13 23 14 22 12 20 15 35 38 35 38 Gap
255
242 247 251 247 248 242 248 236 241
234 234 236 231
Black
National
200 average
0
1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2003 2005 2007
500
Wyoming
300
265* 267 269 270 269
White
250
National
200 average
0
1998 2002 2003 2005 2007
n
1
2
3
State-level data were not collected in 1992, 1994, or 2000. Comparative performance results may be affected by changes in exclusion rates for students with disabilities and English lan
guage learners in the NAEP samples.
Appendix A: Technical Notes
This report presents data from two different assessment 1996, 1999, and 2004 long-term trend reading assessments
series, the NAEP long-term trend assessments and the for Black and White public school students ages 9 and 13.
main NAEP assessments. In most but not all cases, the Earlier long-term trend assessment results are available, but
two assessments used different procedures. Whenever a only for both public and private school students combined.
topic requires separate treatment of the two assessments,
discussion of the long-term trend assessments, which pres Main NAEP
ent national results only, appears first, followed by the This report presents national data from the 1990, 1992,
discussion of the main NAEP assessments, which present 1996, 2000, 2003, 2005, and 2007 main NAEP mathematics
both national and state results. Discussion of main NAEP assessments and the 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, and
grade 12 assessments is omitted in this report because these 2007 main NAEP reading assessments for Black and White
assessments are conducted at the national level only. public school students in the fourth and eighth grades. In
2000, the reading assessment was also administered in the
Frameworks, development, fourth grade (see tables B-1 and B-3 in appendix B).
administration, scoring, and analysis This report presents state data from the 1992, 1996, 2000,
2003, 2005, and 2007 fourth-grade main NAEP mathemat
Long-term trend
ics assessments and from the 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003,
Overviews of these topics and more extensive information
2005, and 2007 eighth-grade main NAEP mathematics
about other topics for the long-term trend assessments
assessments, for public school students only. The main
can be obtained from NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic
NAEP reading assessment was administered at the state
Progress, available from the NAEP website http://nces.
level to fourth-grade public school students in 1992, 1994,
ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/, which also provides links to
1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007 and to eighth-grade public
earlier reports in the long-term trend series. (In 2004, the
school students in 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007.
long-trend assessments in reading and mathematics were
conducted for two different “studies”: the “bridge study,” Nationally in 2007, Black students constituted 17 percent
which was identical to previous long-term assessments, of the public school fourth-grade population (based on data
and the “modified study,” which will be used in future from the NAEP reading assessment) while White students
long-term assessments. The results for the 2004 assessment, constituted 56 percent. Results for the eighth-grade were
reported in NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress and similar: 17 percent and 58 percent, respectively. However,
in this report, were drawn from the bridge study.) percentages vary widely between states. For example, Black
students constituted a majority of the fourth-grade popula
Main NAEP 2007 reading and mathematics tion in two states, the District of Columbia (84 percent in
assessments mathematics and 86 percent in reading) and Mississippi
For overviews of these topics, and for more extensive infor (52 percent in mathematics and 51 percent in reading). In
mation about other topics for the 2007 main NAEP reading contrast, Black students constituted only 2 percent of the
and mathematics assessments, consult the information avail fourth-grade public school population in states such as
able online at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/ Wyoming and South Dakota. Eighth-grade data show a
and http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/ similar pattern. In some cases, the Black or White student
population is so small that valid data cannot be obtained.
50
Sources of the data
NAEP sampling procedures
Long-term trend
This report presents national data from the 1978, 1982, 1986, Long-term trend
1990, 1992, 1996, 1999, and 2004 long-term trend math The populations sampled for the 2004 NAEP long-term
ematics assessments and the 1980, 1984, 1990, 1992, 1994, trend assessment results presented in this report consisted
of 9- and 13-year-old students enrolled in public elementary estimated grade enrollments for each grade, and aggregat
and secondary schools nationwide. Eligibility for the age 9 ing to an age-eligible total for the school.
and age 13 samples was based on calendar year: students in the
In the third stage of sampling, students were sampled
age 9 sample were 9 years old on January 1, 2004, with birth
from within schools. Sampled schools were asked to list all
months January 1994 through December 1994, and students
students with the appropriate birth dates for each specified
in the age 13 sample were 13 years old on January 1, 2004,
age sample. All eligible students up to a pre-specified maxi
with birth months January 1990 through December 1990.
mum (128 for both ages 9 and 13) were then selected for
Consistent with past national long-term trend assessments, the assessment. If a school selected for the age 9 or age 13
students were selected for participation based on a stratified samples had 128 or fewer students, all age-eligible students
three-stage sampling plan. In the first stage, geographic pri were selected into the sample for that school. Otherwise, a
mary sampling units (PSUs) were defined and selected. In sample of 128 age-eligible students was taken.
the second stage, schools were selected within PSUs. In the
The actual student and school sample sizes obtained in
third stage, eligible students were selected within schools.
the NAEP long-term trend reading assessments, as well
Stratification occurred at both the school level and the PSU
as the school and student participation rates, are present
level. A full description of the sampling plan is beyond the
ed in table A-1. Sample sizes and participation rates for
scope of this appendix; for additional details regarding the
the long-term trend mathematics assessments were simi
design and structure of the 2004 trend assessment samples, the
lar. Although sampled schools that refused to participate
reader should refer to the technical documentation section of
were replaced, school participation rates were computed
the NAEP website (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt).
based on the schools originally selected for participation
The first-stage sampling units, PSUs, were drawn from a in the assessments. The student participation rates repre
list—a sampling frame—developed using the metropolitan sent the percentage of students assessed of those invited
area designations of the U.S. Census Bureau. Each NAEP to be assessed, including those assessed in follow-up ses
PSU in the frame was intended to encompass one county or sions when necessary. Response rates for public school
contiguous multiple counties, generally not crossing state students ages 9 and 13 met NCES reporting standards for
boundaries, and contained a minimum number of school- all assessments.
aged children—10,000 to 15,000, depending on the region
of the country.
All PSUs containing more than 800,000 students (17 in all) Table A-1. School and student participation
were automatically included in the sample. Sixty additional rates, and target student popula
PSUs were selected in a non-random manner, taking into tion, Long-Term Trend Reading
assessment, public school
account region of the country, status as either metropolitan
students only, by age: 2004
or non-metropolitan, percentages of racial/ethnic groups,
income levels, education levels in the population, and per Participation and target population Age 9 Age 13
School participation
centage of renters, with adjustments made to compensate Weighted school percentage 88 85
for the non-random manner of selection. Total number of schools that participated 250 230
Student participation
Weighted student percentage 94 92
In the second stage of sampling, schools were sampled Total number of students who participated 3,800 4,000 51
from within the selected PSUs. Schools were selected with Target population 3,700,000 3,690,000
NOTE: The numbers of schools are rounded to the nearest ten, the numbers of stu
probability proportional to a measure of size based on the dents are rounded to the nearest hundred, and the numbers for target populations
are rounded to the nearest ten thousand. Detail may not sum to totals because of
estimated number of age-eligible students in the school. rounding.
This in turn was estimated by applying population-level (NAEP), 2004 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.
percentages of age-eligible students within each grade to
Main NAEP NAEP samples for reading and mathematics assessments
The schools and students participating in NAEP assess administered from 1990 through 2007 are discussed in
ments are chosen to be nationally representative. Samples more detail below.
of schools and students are selected from each state and The NAEP 2007 mathematics and reading assessments
from the District of Columbia and Department of Defense were administered to fourth- and eighth-graders in all
Education Activity (DoDEA) schools. The results from states. This report includes data for public school students
the assessed students are combined to provide accurate for both the nation and all states. All 50 states, the District
estimates of overall national performance and of the per of Columbia, and the DoDEA schools met the minimum
formance of individual states. guidelines for reporting their results in 2007 for both
NCES has changed the main NAEP sampling methods assessments.
over the years. From 1990 through 2000, the national In order to obtain a representative sample for reporting
sample was collected separately from the state samples. national and state public school results in 2007, NCES
The 2002 national sample was the sum of all the state sampled and assessed approximately 183,000 fourth-grad
samples of the participating states, plus small samples from ers from 7,300 schools and 155,000 eighth-graders from
the few states that did not participate. In 2003, 2005, and 6,400 schools for the reading assessment and approximate
2007, all states participated and the national sample was ly 190,000 fourth-graders from 7,300 schools and 147,000
the aggregate of the samples from all states, the District eighth-graders from 6,400 schools for the mathematics
of Columbia, and the DoDEA schools. The main NAEP assessment.
national samples in reading and mathematics since 2002
have been larger than in previous assessment years. Thus, Each selected school that participated in the assessment and
smaller score differences between years or between types each student assessed represent a portion of the population.
of student were found to be statistically significant than The schools were selected out of approximately 51,000
would have been detected in previous assessments. fourth-grade and 27, 000 eighth-grade public schools. The
students selected from these schools represented the total
From 1990 through 2001, NCES oversampled schools population of approximately 3.4 million fourth-grade and
with high minority populations (Black and Hispanic) in 3.6 million eighth-grade public school students. These
the national sample. Beginning in 2002, this practice was totals include the public schools in the 50 states and the
discontinued because the state samples were large enough District of Columbia.
to ensure adequate coverage for these populations. Prior to
2002, NAEP results were weighted to compensate for the Schools in the DoDEA school system are classified as
oversampling. “nonpublic” by NCES and their results are not included
in the determination of NAEP national public average
In 2003, 2005, and 2007, results were weighted to take into scale scores. These schools are not “private” because they
account the fact that states, and schools within states, rep are operated by the federal government and they are not
resent different proportions of the overall national popula “public” because only children of U.S. military personnel
tion. For example, since the number of students assessed can attend them. For comparison purposes, the system is
in most states is roughly the same (to allow for stable treated as a state and results are compared with the scores
state estimates and administrative efficiencies), the results of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
52 for students in less populous states are assigned smaller
weights than the results for students in more populous Table A-2 provides a summary of the 2007 national and
states. Sampling weights are also used to account for lower state school and student participation rates for the read
sampling rates for very small schools and are used to adjust ing grade 8 assessment sample. Rates for reading grade 4
for school and student nonresponse. and mathematics grades 4 and 8 in 2007 were similar, as
were the rates for the 2003 and 2005 assessments. Readers to about 3.75 million. In the 1990–1996 assessments, the
who want more detail should consult the 2007, 2005 and number of schools sampled per assessment and grade for
2003 report cards, available online at http://nces.ed.gov/ the national sample ranged from approximately 120 to
pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=031. 230, while the number of students assessed ranged from
approximately 5,200 to 9,900. In the 1998–2000 assess
Participation rates in table A-2 are presented for public
ments, the number of schools sampled per assessment and
schools and public school students in grade 8 reading. The
grade ranged from approximately 330 to 390, while the
school participation rate is a school-centered, weighted per
number of students assessed ranged from approximately
centage of schools participating in the assessment. This rate
6,100 to 9,000.
is based only on the schools that were initially selected for
the assessment. The numerator of this rate is the estimated The state target populations for all main NAEP assess
number of schools represented by the initially selected ments 1990–2007 ranged from approximately 5,000 in the
schools that participated in the assessment. The denomina District of Columbia and 9,000 in sparsely populated states
tor is the estimated number of schools represented by the like Wyoming and Alaska to approximately 450,000 in
initially selected schools that had eligible students enrolled. California, followed by approximately 325,000 in Texas.
Also presented in table A-2 are weighted student par In the 1990–2000 state assessments, the number of schools
ticipation rates. The numerator of this rate is the estimated sampled per assessment and grade ranged from approxi
number of students who are represented by the students mately 30 to 150, while the number of students assessed
assessed (in either an initial session or a makeup session). ranged from approximately 1,000 to 5,900. In the 2003–
The denominator of this rate is the estimated number of 2007 state assessments, the number of schools sampled per
students represented by the eligible sampled students in assessment and grade ranged from approximately 40 to
participating schools. 250, while the number of students assessed ranged from
approximately 1,700 to 10,700.
The term “eligible students” used in the two preceding
paragraphs refers to students who can meaningfully par In earlier NAEP assessments, NCES would select substi
ticipate in NAEP. Students excluded from NAEP assess tute schools that would be used to augment the original
ments on the grounds that they cannot meaningfully sample if a large number of schools from the sample
participate—whether students with disabilities or English failed to participate. School and student participation
language learners—are not part of the population of inter rates were given both before and after substitution.
est. Initially selected schools that had no eligible students Because the No Child Left Behind Act requires states to
enrolled are excluded from the denominator of the school participate in the main NAEP reading and mathematics
participation rate because they contained no students who assessments at the fourth and eighth grades in order to
were part of the population of interest. For similar reasons, qualify for full Title I education funding, participation
the denominator of the weighted student participation rate rates are very high and NCES no longer selects substitute
consists only of eligible sampled students. schools for these assessments.
The fourth column gives the number of public school stu In order to ensure unbiased samples, NCES and the
dents who were assessed in each of the jurisdictions. The National Assessment Governing Board, which establishes
final column of table A-2 gives the target populations for policy for NAEP, set minimums for the school participa
53
each jurisdiction, that is, the eighth-grade population for tion rate before substitution of replacement schools for
that jurisdiction. any sample. From 1990 through 2002, the standard for the
state assessments required that the weighted school par
The national target population per grade for all main NAEP
ticipation rate before substitution of replacement schools
assessments 1990–2007 ranged from about 3.25 million
Table A-2. School and student participation rates, and target student population, grade 8 reading
assessment, public school students only, by state or jurisdiction: 2007
School participation Student participation
Weighted school Total number of schools Weighted student Total number of students
Jurisdiction percentage that participated percentage who participated Target population
Nation (public) 100 6,410 92 154,700 3,558,000
Alabama 100 120 93 2,800 56,000
Alaska 99 110 91 2,600 9,000
Arizona 100 130 90 2,800 73,000
Arkansas 100 120 93 2,500 34,000
California 100 310 92 8,600 477,000
Colorado 98 120 92 2,800 57,000
Connecticut 97 100 92 2,700 42,000
Delaware 100 50 93 2,800 10,000
District of Columbia 100 50 88 1,800 5,000
DoDEA1 98 60 94 1,700 5,000
Florida 100 160 91 4,100 193,000
Georgia 100 120 93 3,500 120,000
Hawaii 100 70 91 2,800 13,000
Idaho 99 110 93 2,900 20,000
Illinois 100 200 93 4,000 150,000
Indiana 100 110 92 2,700 80,000
Iowa 100 130 93 2,800 36,000
Kansas 100 150 94 2,800 34,000
Kentucky 100 110 93 2,600 46,000
Louisiana 100 110 92 2,400 47,000
Maine 98 130 93 2,700 15,000
Maryland 100 110 90 2,700 64,000
Massachusetts 100 140 93 3,600 70,000
Michigan 100 120 91 2,600 119,000
Minnesota 99 140 92 3,000 62,000
Mississippi 100 110 93 2,700 36,000
Missouri 100 130 92 2,900 70,000
Montana 98 170 92 2,600 11,000
Nebraska 100 120 94 2,700 21,000
Nevada 100 70 88 2,600 28,000
New Hampshire 98 90 92 2,900 16,000
New Jersey 97 110 92 2,800 104,000
New Mexico 100 110 89 2,600 25,000
New York 100 160 90 3,800 206,000
North Carolina 100 150 91 4,300 104,000
North Dakota 98 190 95 2,200 8,000
Ohio 100 190 92 3,500 135,000
Oklahoma 100 150 92 2,600 42,000
Oregon 100 110 92 2,700 39,000
Pennsylvania 100 110 92 2,800 140,000
Rhode Island 100 60 92 2,800 12,000
South Carolina 100 110 94 2,700 52,000
South Dakota 99 140 95 2,800 10,000
Tennessee 100 120 92 2,800 74,000
Texas 100 220 92 7,100 294,000
Utah 100 100 91 2,800 36,000
Vermont 100 120 93 2,000 7,000
Virginia 100 110 93 2,800 91,000
Washington 100 130 91 3,000 78,000
54 West Virginia 100 120 92 2,900 21,000
Wisconsin 98 130 92 2,700 62,000
Wyoming 100 80 92 2,000 7,000
1
NOTE: The numbers of schools are rounded to the nearest ten, the numbers of students are rounded to the nearest hundred, and the target population is rounded to the nearest thousand.
Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Reading
Assessment.
be 70 percent or higher. Beginning in 2003, the standard Main NAEP

was raised to 85 percent. All data presented in this report In all main NAEP assessments, data about student race/
are based on samples meeting the standards in effect at the ethnicity are collected from two sources: school records
time of the assessment. and student self-reports. In this report, the race/ethnicity
Since 1990, the national weighted public school par variable has been based on the race reported by the school
ticipation rate before substitution for the grade 4 and 8 for all assessment years. In the rare cases when schoolre
reading and mathematics assessments has ranged from corded information is missing, student-reported data are
76 percent to 100 percent. Prior to 2003, a few states did used to determine race/ethnicity.
not meet the 70 percent standard. From 1990 through Schools sampled for NAEP are asked to provide lists of all
2002, the weighted public school participation rate before students in the target grade(s) along with basic demographic
substitution for states whose results are reported here information, including race/ethnicity. Students are cat
ranged from 70 percent to 100 percent. egorized into one of five mutually exclusive racial/ethnic
For more information on all the NAEP assessments refer categories plus “other.” Administration schedules—also
enced in this report, consult the individual reports devoted referred to as student rosters—are created that include
to them, available from the NCES website at http://nces. the list of sampled students along with their basic demo
ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=031. graphic information. These data are checked and updated
during data collection. This race/ethnicity information is
available for all sampled students: those that participated
Understanding NAEP reporting and those that were absent or excluded.
groups
All students who take a NAEP assessment complete a sec
NAEP results are provided for groups of students defined
tion of general student background questions, including
by shared characteristics—race/ethnicity, eligibility for
questions about their race/ethnicity. Separate questions are
free/reduced-price school lunch, and gender, for example.
asked about students’ Hispanic ethnic background and
Based on participation rate criteria, results are reported about students’ race. This race/ethnicity information is
for groups only when sufficient numbers of students and available just for students who participated in the assess
adequate school representation are present. The minimum ment and not for those who were absent or excluded. See
requirement is a total of at least 62 students in a particular http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/bgquest.asp for more
group, assessed in at least five different locations. However, information.
the data for all students, regardless of whether their group
The mutually exclusive racial/ethnic categories are White
was reported separately, were included in computing
(non-Hispanic), Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian/
over-all national results. Definitions of the student groups
Pacific Islander, American Indian (including Alaska
discussed in this report follow.
Native), and Unclassified. Unclassified students are those
whose school-reported race was “other,” or “unavailable,”
Race/ethnicity or was missing, or who self-reported more than one race
Long-term trend category (i.e., “multi-racial”) or none. Hispanic students
In long-term trend NAEP, data about student race/ethnic may be of any race. Only results for White (non- Hispanic)
and Black (non-Hispanic) students are contained in 55
ity is based on the assessment administrator’s observation.
Self-reported race/ethnicity data has been collected since this report. Information based on student self-reported
1984, and school records-based race/ethnicity data has been race/ethnicity is available on the NAEP Data Explorer
collected starting in 2004, but all long-term trend results (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde).
are reported based on observed race/ethnicity.
Eligibility for free/reduced-price Inclusion and exclusion
school lunch Long-term trend
Long-term trend Some students selected for participation in the NAEP
The long-term trend assessments do not report results long-term trend assessments were identified as English
based on school lunch eligibility. language learners (ELL) or students with disabilities
(SD). In all previous long-term trend assessments, if it
Main NAEP was decided that a student classified as SD or ELL could
As part of the Department of Agriculture’s National School not meaningfully participate in the NAEP assessment for
Lunch Program, schools can receive cash subsidies and donat which he or she was selected, the student was, according to
ed commodities in return for offering free or reduced-price NAEP guidelines, excluded from the assessment.
lunches to eligible children. Based on available school For each student selected to participate in NAEP who
records, students were classified as currently eligible for was identified as either SD or ELL, a member of the
either free lunch or reduced-price lunch, or not eligible. school staff most knowledgeable about the student com
Eligibility for the program is determined by a student’s pleted an SD/ELL questionnaire. Students with dis
family income in relation to the federally established pov abilities were excluded from the assessment if an indi
erty level. Free lunch qualification is set at 130 percent of vidualized education program (IEP) team or equivalent
the poverty level or below, and reduced-price lunch quali group determined that the student could not participate
fication is set at between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty in assessments such as NAEP; if the student’s cognitive
level. (For the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, functioning was so severely impaired that the student
for a family of four, 130 percent of the poverty level was could not participate; or if the student’s IEP required
$26,000, and 185 percent was $37,000. See http://www.fns. that the student be tested with an accommodation or
usda.gov/cnd/lunch for more information.) The classifica adaptation not permitted or available in NAEP, and
tion applies only to the school year when the assessment the student could not demonstrate his/her knowledge
was administered and is not based on eligibility in previous of the assessment subject area without that accommo
years. If school records were not available, the student was dation or adaptation. A student who was identified as
classified as “Information not available.” If the school did ELL and who was a native speaker of a language other
not participate in the program, all students in that school than English was excluded if the student had received
were classified as “Information not available.” As a result instruction in the assessment’s subject area (e.g., reading
of improvements in the quality of the data on students’ or mathematics) primarily in English for less than three
eligibility for NSLP, the percentage of students for whom school years, including the current year, or if the student
information was not available has decreased in comparison could not demonstrate his or her knowledge of reading
to the percentages reported prior to the 2003 assessment. or mathematics in English without an accommodation
Therefore, trend comparisons are only made back to 2003 or adaptation.
in this report.
Prior to 2004, NAEP long-term trend assessments did not
allow accommodations for SD or ELL students. In that
Gender
year, two versions of the long-term trend assessment were
56 Both long-term trend and NAEP assessments identify stu
given, the “bridge” (unmodified) version, which did not
dents as male or female based on school records.
allow accommodations, and the “modified” version, which
did. In 2004, results were only reported for the bridge Main NAEP
assessment and all results from the 2004 Long-Trend The NAEP program has always endeavored to assess all stu
Assessment appearing in this report are drawn from the dents selected as a part of its sampling process. In all NAEP
bridge assessment. However, table A-3 presents exclusion schools, accommodations will be provided as necessary for
rates for both versions of the 2004 assessment in order to students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language
give all the available information on the 2004 exclusion learners (ELL) or limited English proficient (LEP) students.
rates for Black and White students. (ELL is the term used since the NAEP 2005 reports; LEP
In the 2004 bridge assessment, and in all prior adminis was used before 2005.) The accommodations are available
trations of the long-term trend assessment, student race/ to students whose Individualized Education Program (IEP)
ethnicity was determined by NCES contractor staff admin specifically requires them. Because some ELL students do
istering the assessment in the individual classrooms. These not have an IEP, decisions about accommodations for these
staff never met the excluded students, so no records of the students are typically made by knowledgeable school staff.
race/ethnicity of excluded students were kept. The NAEP program has established procedures to include
In contrast, the 2004 modified assessment determined as many SD and ELL students as possible in the assess
student race/ethnicity by using school records, which did ments. School staff make the decisions about whether to
provide information on the race/ethnicity of excluded stu include such a student in a NAEP assessment, and which
dents. Exclusion data from the 2004 modified assessment testing accommodations, if any, they should receive. The
are provided here to provide information on 2004 exclusion NAEP program furnishes tools to assist school personnel
rates for Black and White students, even though this report in making those decisions.
does not include student achievement data drawn from the A sampling procedure is used to select students at each
modified assessment. grade being tested. Students are selected on a random basis,
without regard to SD or ELL status. Once the students are
selected, the schools identify which have SD or ELL status.
Table A-3. National Long-Term Trend math School staff who are familiar with these students are asked
ematics and reading exclusion a series of questions to help them decide whether each stu
rates as percentages of the total dent should participate in the assessment and whether the
sample, by age, type of assess student needs accommodations.
ment and race/ethnicity: 2004
Inclusion in NAEP of an SD or ELL student is encouraged
Age 9 Age 13
Bridge Modified Bridge Modified if that student (a) participated in the regular state academic
Mathematics assessment in the subject being tested, and (b) if that stu
Total 8 3 9 3
White † 2 † 3 dent can participate in NAEP with the accommodations
Black † 4 † 4
Reading
NAEP allows. Even if the student did not participate in the
Total 9 6 9 5 regular state assessment, or if he/she needs accommoda
White † 4 † 5
Black † 4 † 6 tions NAEP does not allow, school staff are asked whether
† Not applicable. that student could participate in NAEP with the allowable
NOTE: The 2004 bridge assessment, and all previous administrations of the long-
term trend assessment, did not obtain information on the race/ethnicity of excluded accommodations.
students.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National 57
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress History of NAEP Inclusion Policy Although NAEP
(NAEP), 2004 Long-Term Trend Mathematics and Reading Assessments.
has always endeavored to assess as high a proportion of
sampled students as is possible, prior to 1996 NAEP did The phrase “less than 3 school years including the current
not allow accommodations for SD or ELL students. This year” meant 0, 1, or 2 school years. Therefore, the guide
resulted in exclusion of some students who could not lines below were used:
meaningfully participate in the assessment without accom
■ Includewithout any accommodation all LEP or ELL
modations.
students who had received instruction in the subject
The passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education primarily in English for 3 years or more and those
Act (IDEA), as amended in 1997, led states and districts to who were in their third year;
identify increasing numbers of students as requiring accom
■ Include without any accommodation all other such
modations in assessments in order to fairly and accurately
students who could demonstrate their knowledge of the
show their abilities. It was important for NAEP to be as
subject without an accommodation;
consistent as possible with testing practices in most states
and districts while maintaining the ability to compare more ■ Include and provide accommodations permitted by
recent NAEP results to those from 1990, 1992, and 1994, NAEP to other such students who can demonstrate
when accommodations were not allowed. (Accommodations their knowledge of the subject only with those accom
were not allowed in NAEP state assessments until 1996.) modations; and
Before the 2005 assessment (when the selection process was ■ ExcludeLEP or ELL students only if they could not
detailed in a series of questions), guidelines were speci demonstrate their knowledge of the subject even with
fied by NAEP. A student identified on the Administration an accommodation permitted by NAEP.
Schedule as having a disability (SD), that is, a student with an
The percentages of students excluded from NAEP may vary
Individualized Education Program (IEP) or equivalent clas
from one state to another, as well as across years. National
sification, should be included in the NAEP assessment unless:
exclusion rates for Black and White SD and/or ELL students
■ The IEP team or equivalent group had determined that in 2007 may be found in table A-4. The “total” rates include
the student could not participate in assessments such as all students, not just those who are Black or White. For
NAEP, or information on state exclusion rates, see table A-5. For more
information on Main NAEP inclusion and exclusion, go to
■ The student’s cognitive functioning was so severely
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp
impaired that he or she could not participate, or
■ The student’s IEP required that the student be tested
Table A-4. National mathematics and read
with an accommodation that NAEP did not permit,
ing exclusion rates as percent
and the student could not demonstrate his or her ages of the total sample, public
knowledge of the subject without that accommodation. schools only, by grade and race/
A student who was identified as LEP or ELL and who was ethnicity: 2007
a native speaker of a language other than English should Grade and race/ethnicity Mathematics Reading
be included in the NAEP assessment unless: Grade 4
Total 3 6
White 2 4
■ The student had received reading or mathematics Black 4 7
58 instruction primarily in English for less than 3 school Grade 8
Total 4 6
years including the current year, and White 4 4
Black 6 7
■ The student could not demonstrate his or her knowl NOTE: “Total” exclusion percentages are for all public school students, not just
Black and White.
edge of the subject in English even with an accommoda SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
tion permitted by NAEP. (NAEP), 2007 Mathematics and Reading Assessments.
Table A-5. Mathematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample, public
schools only, by grade, race/ethnicity and jurisdiction: 2007
Percentage of students with a disability and/or English language learner, excluded in 2007
Grade 4 Mathematics Grade 8 Mathematics Grade 4 Reading Grade 8 Reading
Jurisdiction White Black White Black White Black White Black
Nation (public) 2 4 3 6 4 7 4 7
Alabama 1 2 2 4 3 3 3 4
Alaska 1 2 4 6 3 3 2 2
Arizona 2 4 2 4 3 4 3 6
Arkansas 2 5 2 3 5 8 4 7
California 1 3 1 3 2 5 2 4
Colorado 2 4 1 2 2 7 2 4
Connecticut 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 4
Delaware 4 6 5 8 9 13 5 8
District of Columbia 2 5 ‡ 10 6 12 ‡ 13
DoDEA 1 1 2 1 4 5 2 3
Florida 1 4 2 3 4 6 3 5
Georgia 2 3 4 5 7 8 6 7
Hawaii 1 1 1 ‡ 3 1 2 0
Idaho 1 ‡ 1 ‡ 3 ‡ 3 ‡
Illinois 3 5 4 10 5 6 4 6
Indiana 2 4 5 9 3 5 4 8
Iowa 1 2 2 6 3 13 4 15
Kansas 2 6 4 4 4 8 4 7
Kentucky 3 3 7 5 7 10 8 7
Louisiana 1 3 2 4 3 5 2 4
Maine 3 4 5 ‡ 6 ‡ 5 ‡
Maryland 2 5 6 9 5 10 4 10
Massachusetts 4 6 8 12 5 9 6 10
Michigan 3 4 4 7 4 6 5 9
Minnesota 2 3 2 3 3 9 3 10
Mississippi 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 4
Missouri 3 4 5 6 4 4 3 4
Montana 2 ‡ 3 ‡ 4 ‡ 4 ‡
Nebraska 2 5 2 3 4 8 3 2
Nevada 2 6 3 4 5 7 3 9
New Hampshire 2 8 3 13 4 13 3 ‡
New Jersey 1 4 2 6 5 8 4 10
New Mexico 2 4 2 3 6 9 4 11
New York 2 2 4 4 5 5 5 4
North Carolina 1 3 1 3 1 3 2 3
North Dakota 4 ‡ 5 ‡ 7 34 8 ‡
Ohio 4 8 6 12 7 12 8 10
Oklahoma 5 4 8 11 6 7 6 10
Oregon 2 5 3 5 4 7 2 5
Pennsylvania 2 3 3 4 4 6 4 8
Rhode Island 1 4 2 5 3 4 3 6
South Carolina 1 2 4 7 4 4 5 7
South Dakota 1 1 2 ‡ 5 17 5 ‡
Tennessee 5 7 6 7 9 12 7 8
Texas 5 6 4 7 6 8 4 8
Utah 2 ‡ 2 ‡ 5 ‡ 4 ‡
Vermont 2 ‡ 4 ‡ 6 29 5 ‡
Virginia 4 6 4 9 7 9 6 9 59
Washington 2 3 2 7 4 6 3 10
West Virginia 1 1 2 5 2 1 2 4
Wisconsin 2 4 3 9 3 8 5 12
Wyoming 1 ‡ 2 ‡ 3 ‡ 3 ‡
‡ Reporting standards not met.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007
Mathematics and Reading Assessments.
Accommodations the Technical Notes sections of The Nation’s Report

Card: Mathematics 2007 at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
Long-term trend pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007494 and The Nation’s Report
The long-term trend results presented in this report are Card: Reading 2007 at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
drawn from assessments that did not permit accommoda pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007496.
tions for students with disabilities (SD) and English lan
guage learners (ELL). Future long-term trend assessments Drawing inferences from the results
will allow such accommodations. The reported statistics for both long-term trend and main
NAEP are estimates and are therefore subject to a measure
Main NAEP of uncertainty. There are two sources of such uncertainty.
From 1990 through 1994 for the nation—and through First, NAEP uses a sample of students rather than testing
1996 for the states—main NAEP assessments did not allow all students. Second, all assessments have some amount of
accommodations for either SD or ELL students. Since then, uncertainty related to the fact that they cannot ask all ques
accommodations have been permitted for those SD and tions that might be asked in a content area. The magnitude
ELL students who need accommodations in order to partici of this uncertainty is reflected in the standard error of each
pate, unless the accommodation would change the nature of of the estimates. When the percentages or average scale
what is being tested. scores of certain groups are compared, the estimated stan
To accomplish this goal, students who receive accommo dard error should be taken into account. Therefore, the
dations in their state’s assessments are offered the same comparisons are based on statistical tests that consider the
accommodations on NAEP, except where an accommoda estimated standard errors of the statistics being compared
tion would change the nature of what is being tested. For and the magnitude of the difference between the averages
example, passages and questions in the reading test are or percentages.
not permitted to be read aloud to the student, because that Standard errors for the NAEP scores and percentages pre
accommodation would make it a test of listening instead of sented in this report for both assessments are available on
a test of reading. Similarly, reading passages and questions the NAEP website (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
cannot be presented in a language other than English. naepdata).
It should be noted that students assessed with accommo The differences between statistics—such as comparisons
dations typically received some combination of accom of two groups of students’ average scale scores—that
modations. For example, students assessed in small groups are discussed in this report are determined by using
(as compared with standard NAEP sessions of about standard errors. Comparisons are based on statistical
30 students) usually received extended time. In one-on tests that consider both the size of the differences and
one administrations, students often received assistance in the standard errors of the two statistics being compared.
recording answers (e.g., use of a scribe or computer) and Estimates based on smaller groups are likely to have
were afforded extra time. relatively large standard errors. As a consequence, a
The most common accommodations are small-group numerical difference that seems large may not be statis
administration, extended time, one-on-one administra tically significant.
60 tion, the use of a scribe or computer, and the use of a Furthermore, differences of the same magnitude may or
bilingual book (mathematics only). See http://nces.ed.gov/ may not be statistically significant, depending upon the
nationsreportcard/tdw/instruments/accomm.asp for more size of the standard errors of the statistics. For example,
details on NAEP accommodations. For state accom a 3-point change in the gap between Black and White
modation rates for SD and ELL students in 2007 see fourth-graders nationwide may be significant, while a
3- point change in the gap between Black and White fourth- and (2) the uncertainty due to sampling only a relatively
graders in Kansas may not be. The differences described in small number of cognitive questions. The first component
this report have been determined to be statistically signifi accounts for the variability associated with the estimated
cant at the .05 level with appropriate adjustments for part percentages of students who had certain background char
to-whole and multiple comparisons.1 acteristics or who answered a certain cognitive question
correctly.
In the tables and figures of this report, the symbol (*) is used
to indicate that a score or percentage is significantly differ Because NAEP uses complex sampling procedures, con
ent from another. In addition, any difference between scores ventional formulas for estimating sampling variability that
or percentages that is identified as higher, lower, larger, assume simple random sampling are inappropriate. NAEP
smaller, narrower, or wider in this report, including within- uses a jackknife replication procedure to estimate standard
group differences not marked in tables and figures, meets errors. The jackknife standard error provides a reasonable
the requirements for statistical significance. measure of uncertainty for any student information that
can be observed without error. However, because each
Weighting and variance estimation student typically responds to only a few questions within a
In both long-term trend and main NAEP a complex sample content area, the scale score for any single student would
design was used to select the students who were assessed. be imprecise. In this case, NAEP’s marginal estimation
The properties of a sample selected through such a design methodology can be used to describe the performance of
could be very different from those of a simple random sam groups and subgroups of students. The estimate of the
ple, in which every student in the target population has an variance of the students’ posterior scale score distributions
equal chance of selection and in which the observations from (which reflect the imprecision due to lack of measurement
different sampled students can be considered to be statisti accuracy) is computed. This component of variability is
cally independent of one another. Therefore, the properties then included in the standard errors of NAEP scale scores.2
of the sample for the data collection design were taken into
account during the analysis of the assessment data. Analyzing group differences in
One way that the properties of the sample design were averages and percentages
addressed was by using sampling weights to account for In both long-term trend and main NAEP, statistical tests
the fact that the probabilities of selection were not identical determine whether, based on the data from the groups in
for all students. All population and subpopulation charac the sample, there is strong enough evidence to conclude
teristics based on the assessment data were estimated using that the averages or percentages are actually different for
sampling weights. These weights included adjustments for those groups in the population. If the evidence is strong
school and student nonresponse. (i.e., the difference is statistically significant), the report
describes the group averages or percentages as being dif
Not only must appropriate estimates of population charac ferent (e.g., one group performed higher or lower than
teristics be derived, but appropriate measures of the degree another group), regardless of whether the sample averages
of uncertainty must be obtained for those statistics. Two or percentages appear to be approximately the same. The
components of uncertainty are accounted for in the variabil reader is cautioned to rely on the results of the statistical
ity of statistics based on student ability: (1) the uncertainty tests rather than on the apparent magnitude of the dif
due to sampling only a relatively small number of students, 61
ference between sample averages or percentages when
1 2
Benjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the False Discovery Rate: For further detail, see Johnson, E.G., and Rust, K.F. (1992). Population
A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Inferences and Variance Estimation for NAEP Data. Journal of Educational
Statistical Society, Series B, no. 1, 289–300. Statistics, (17)2, 175–190.
determining whether the sample differences are likely this difference is plus or minus 1.96 standard errors of the
to represent actual differences among the groups in the difference:
population.
To determine whether a real difference exists between the
average scale scores (or percentages of a certain attribute)
for two groups in the population, one needs to obtain an The value zero is within the confidence interval; therefore,
estimate of the degree of uncertainty associated with the there is insufficient evidence to conclude that group A’s
difference between the averages (or percentages) of these performance is statistically different from group B.
groups for the sample. This estimate of the degree of
The procedure above is appropriate to use when it is rea
uncertainty, called the “standard error of the difference”
sonable to assume that the groups being compared have
between the groups, is obtained by taking the square of
been independently sampled for the assessment.
each group’s standard error, summing the squared stan
dard errors, and taking the square root of that sum. Such an assumption is clearly warranted when comparing
results for one state with another. This is the approach used
for NAEP reports when comparisons involving indepen
dent groups are made. The assumption of independence
The standard error of the difference can be used, just like the
is violated to some degree when comparing group results
standard error for an individual group average or percent
for the nation or a particular state (e.g., comparing national
age, to help determine whether differences among groups in
2007 results for Black and White students), since these sam
the population are real. The difference between the averages
ples of students have been drawn from the same schools.
or percentages of the two groups plus or minus 1.96 stan
dard errors of the difference represents an approximately 95 When the groups being compared do not share students
percent confidence interval. If the resulting interval includes (as is the case, for example, of comparing Black and White
zero, there is insufficient evidence to claim a real difference students), the impact of this violation of the indepen
between the groups in the population. If the interval does not dence assumption on the outcome of the statistical tests is
contain zero, the difference between the groups is statisti assumed to be small, and NAEP, by convention, has, for
cally significant at the .05 level. computational convenience, routinely applied the proce
dures described above to those cases as well.
The following example of comparing groups addresses the
problem of determining whether the average mathematics When making comparisons of results for groups that share
scale score of group A is higher than that of group B. The a considerable proportion of students in common, it is not
sample estimates of the average scale scores and estimated appropriate to ignore such dependencies. In such cases,
standard errors are as follows: NAEP has used procedures appropriate to comparing
dependent groups. When the dependence in group results
Group Average scale score Standard error
is due to the overlap in samples (e.g., when a subgroup is
A 218 0.9
being compared to a total group), a simple modification of
B 216 1.1
the usual standard error of the difference formula can be
The difference between the estimates of the average scale used. The formula for such cases is
62 scores of groups A and B is 2 points (218 – 216). The stan
dard error of this difference is
where p is the proportion of the total group contained in
the subgroup. This formula was used for this report when
Thus, an approximately 95 percent confidence interval for a state was compared to the aggregate for the nation.
Conducting multiple tests sons.5 Therefore, the FDR procedure is more suitable for
multiple comparisons in NAEP than are other procedures.
The procedures used to determine whether group differences
in the long-term trend and main NAEP samples represent Statistical comparisons of NAEP scores from different
actual differences among the groups in the population and assessment years are made using a multiple comparison pro
the certainty ascribed to intervals (e.g., a 95 percent confidence cedure. However, in figures 9, 11, 21, and 23, comparisons of
interval) are based on statistical theory that assumes that only the size of the Black-White achievement gap for each state
one confidence interval or test of statistical significance is to the national gap are made using pairwise comparisons,
being performed. However, there are times when many dif where each state is compared to the nation one at a time. For
ferent groups are being compared (i.e., multiple sets of confi this reason, the results shown in these four figures may not
dence intervals are being analyzed). correspond to results obtained from the NAEP Online Data
Tool, which currently does not permit pairwise comparisons
For multiple comparisons, statistical theory indicates that the
for this type of gap analysis.
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 Cautions in interpretation
at a particular level (e.g., .05), the standard methods must be It is possible to examine NAEP performance results for
adjusted by multiple comparison procedures.3 The procedure groups of students defined by various background factors
used by NAEP is the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery measured by NAEP, such as race. However, a relationship
Rate (FDR) procedure.4 that exists between achievement and another variable does
not reveal its underlying cause, which may be influenced
Unlike other multiple comparison procedures that control by a number of other variables. Similarly, the assessments
the family-wise error rate (i.e., the probability of making do not reflect the influence of unmeasured variables. The
even one false rejection in the set of comparisons), the results are most useful when they are considered in combi
FDR procedure controls the expected proportion of falsely nation with other knowledge about the student population
rejected hypotheses. Furthermore, the FDR procedure and the educational system, such as trends in instruction,
used in NAEP is considered appropriately less conservative changes in the school-age population, and societal demands
than family-wise procedures for large families of compari and expectations.
3
Miller, R.G. (1981). Simultaneous Statistical Inference (2nd ed.). New York:
5
Williams, V.S.L., Jones, L.V., and Tukey, J.W. (1994, December) Controlling Error in
Spinger-Verlang.
Multiple Comparisons with Special Attention to the National Assessment of Educational
4
Benjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y. (1995), op. cit.
Progress. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Institute of Statistical Sciences.
63
Mathematics
Appendix B: Supplemental Tables
Table B-1. Administration of NAEP national and state mathematics assessments, by grade: Various
years, 1990–2007
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007
Grade National State National State National State National State National State National State National State National State National State National State
4th grade v v v v v v v v v v v v v
8th grade v v v v v v v v v v v v v v
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Various years, 1990–
Table B-2. Average national mathematics scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and
8, by gender and eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 1990–
2007
1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007
All students
Grade 4 212* 219* 222* 224* 234* 237* 239
Grade 8 262* 267* 269* 272* 276* 278* 280
Student Gender
Grade 4
Male 212* 220* 222* 225* 235* 238* 240
Female 211* 218* 222* 223* 233* 236* 238
Grade 8
Male 262* 266* 270* 273* 277* 278* 281
Female 261* 267* 268* 271* 275* 277* 279
Student Eligibility for National
School Lunch Program
Grade 4
Not eligible — — ‡ ‡ 244* 248* 249
Reduced-price lunch — — ‡ ‡ 230* 234* 236
Free lunch — — ‡ ‡ 220* 224* 226
Grade 8
Not eligible — — ‡ ‡ 287* 288* 291
Reduced-price lunch — — ‡ ‡ 269* 270* 274
Free lunch — — ‡ ‡ 256* 260* 263
n
— Not available. Data were not collected prior to 1996.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Lunch eligibility data are not being reported in 1996 and 2000 because of the high percentage of students for whom information was not available.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Various years,
64
Reading
Table B-3. Administration of NAEP national and state reading assessments, by grade: Various years,
1992–2007
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007
Grade National State National State National State National State National State National State National State National State National State
4th grade v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v
8th grade v v v v v v v v v v v v
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Various years, 1992–
Table B-4. Average national reading scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and 8, by
gender and eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 1992–2007
1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007
All students
Grade 4 215* 212* 213* 211* 217* 216* 217* 220
Grade 8 258* 257* 261 — 263* 261 260* 261
Student Gender
Grade 4
Male 211* 207* 210* 206* 214* 213* 214* 216
Female 219* 218* 215* 217* 220* 220* 220* 223
Grade 8
Male 251* 250* 253* — 258* 256 255* 256
Female 264 265 268* — 267* 267 266 266
Student Eligibility for National
School Lunch Program
Grade 4
Not eligible — — ‡ ‡ ‡ 229* 230* 232
Reduced-price lunch — — ‡ ‡ ‡ 211* 212* 215
Free lunch — — ‡ ‡ ‡ 199* 201* 203
Grade 8
Not eligible — — ‡ — ‡ 271 270* 271
Reduced-price lunch — — ‡ — ‡ 256 254 255
Free lunch — — ‡ — ‡ 243* 245 246
n
— Not available. Data were not collected prior to 1996 or at grade 8 in 2000.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Lunch eligibility data are not being reported in 1998, 2000 and 2002 because of the high percentage of students for whom information was not available.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Various years,
65
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), part of
the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department
of Education.
The authors are grateful to everyone who contributed to the
design, development, review, and production of this report.
66

Data On The Achievement Gap

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Data On The Achievement Gap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Achievement Gaps

How Black and White Students in Public Schools

NCES 2009-455 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

U.S. Department of Education How Black and White Students

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Gaps—Reading This report focuses on the size of the achievement gap

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Sources of the Main NAEP data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Sources of the Long-Term Trend NAEP data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Understanding score gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Understanding statistical significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Cautions in interpreting the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

How this report is organized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Long-Term Trend Results for Black and White 9- and 13-Year-Olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps, 1978–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by gender, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by family income, 2003–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Long-Term Trend Results for Black and White 9- and 13-Year-Olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps, 1980–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Reading scores and achievement gaps by gender, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Reading scores and achievement gaps by family income, 2003–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 4, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 4, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 8, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 8, 1998–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Appendix A: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Frameworks, development, administration, scoring, and analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

NAEP sampling procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Understanding NAEP reporting groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Inclusion and exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Drawing inferences from the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Weighting and variance estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Analyzing group differences in averages and percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Conducting multiple tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Cautions in interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Appendix B: Supplemental Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

assessment, public school students only, by age: 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

school students only, by state or jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

by age, type of assessment and race/ethnicity: 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

by grade and race/ethnicity: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

race/ethnicity and jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Various years, 1978–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Various years, 1978–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Various years, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Various years, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Various years, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

jurisdiction: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Various years, 1990–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Various years, 1980–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Various years, 1980–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

viii Various years, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Various years, 1992–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003, 2005, and 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33