Mathematics 2009 N ATI O N A L AS SES SM EN T O F ED U CATI O N A L PRO G RES S AT G R A D ES 4 A N D 8 Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education NCES 2010–451 Contents 1 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 7 Grade 4 22 Grade 8 38 Technical Notes 40 Appendix Tables What is The Nation’s Report Card™? The Nation’s Report Card™ informs the public about the academic achievement of elementary and secondary students in the United States. Report cards communicate the findings of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a continuing and nationally representative measure of achievement in various subjects over time. Since 1969, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and other subjects. NAEP collects and reports information on student performance at the national and state levels, making the assessment an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only academic achievement data and related background information are collected. The privacy of individual students and their families is protected. NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible for carrying out the NAEP project. The National Assessment Governing Board oversees and sets policy for NAEP. Photo Credits: © Bonnie Jacobs/iStockphoto; © Veer/Corbis; © Glow Images/Getty Images; © Simon Jarratt/Corbis/Jupiterimages; © Media Bakery; © Duane Osborn/Somos Images/Corbis; © Bill Noll/iStockphoto; © Simon Jarratt/ Corbis/Jupiterimages; © Veer/Corbis; © Medioimages/Photodisc; © Andreea Manciu/iStockphoto; © Nick M. Do/iStockphoto; © Chris Scredon/iStockphoto; © Corbis/Jupiterimages; © Image Werks/Corbis; © Duane Osborn/Somos Images/Corbis; © Stefan Klein/iStockphoto; © Ekaterina Monakhova/iStockphoto; Jose Luis Pelaez Inc/Blend Images/Jupiterimages; © Corbis/Jupiterimages; © Duane Osborne/Somos Images/Corbis; © Jack Hollingsworth/Digital Images/Jupiterimages; © Jose Luis Pelaez Inc/Blend Images/Corbis; © Zefa/Corbis/Jupiterimages; © Vlad Mereuta/iStockphoto; © Stretch Photography/Blend Images/Jupiterimages; © Westend61/Corbis; © Image Source/Corbis; © Andersen Ross/Blend Images/Jupiterimages; © Brand X Pictures/Jupiterimages; © iStockphoto; © Ron Chapple Stock/Corbis; © BananaStock/Jupiterimages; © Ron Nickel/Design Pics/Corbis; © Bill Noll/iStockphoto; © Beau Lark/Corbis; © Sean Locke/iStockphoto; © Image Source/Jupiterimages; © Image Werks/Corbis; © Corbis/Jupiterimages; © American Images Inc./ Digital Images/Jupiterimages; © Jose Luis Pelaez Inc/Blend Images/Corbis; © LWA-Sharie Kennedy/Corbis; © Thinkstock/Corbis; © Media Bakery; © Simon Jarratt/Corbis/Jupiterimages; © Laurence Mouton/PhotoAlto/ Corbis; © Image Source/Corbis; © Simon Jarratt/Corbis/Jupiterimages; © Corbis/Jupiterimages; © Image Source/Corbis; © Ragnar Schmuck/Getty Images; © Image Source/Corbis; © Corbis/Jupiterimages; © BananaStock/Jupiterimages; © Glow Images/Getty Images; © Ariel Skelley/Blend Images/Jupiterimages; © Duane Osborn/Somos Images/Corbis; © Julia Nichols/iStockphoto; © Image Werks/Corbis; © Larry Dale Gordon/Corbis; © Brand X Pictures/Jupiterimages; © Duane Osborn/Somos Images/Corbis; © Image Werks/Corbis; © Stefan Klein/iStockphoto; © Veer/Corbis; © Pascal Genest/iStockphoto; © Corbis/Jupiterimages Executive Summary Mathematics scores up since 2007 at grade 8, but unchanged at grade 4 Nationally representative samples of more than 168,000 fourth-graders and 161,000 eighth-graders participated in the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics. At each grade, students responded to questions designed to measure their knowledge and abilities across five mathematics content areas: number properties and operations; measurement; geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra. fourth-graders in 2009 was unchanged from the score in 2007. The upward trend seen in earlier assessments for eighth-graders continued with a 2-point increase from 2007 to 2009. A similar pattern of results was seen for students performing at different achievement levels. The percentages of fourth-graders performing at or above Basic (82 percent) and at or above Proficient (39 percent) in 2009 were unchanged from those in 2007, but still remained higher than in the assessment years from 1990 to 2005. The percentages of eighth-graders performing at or above Basic (73 percent) and at or above Proficient (34 percent) in 2009 were higher than those in 2007 and in all earlier assessment years. Gains in students’ average mathematics scores seen in earlier years did not continue from 2007 to 2009 at grade 4 but did continue at grade 8 (figure A). While still higher than the scores in the six assessment years from 1990 to 2005, the overall average score for Figure A. Trend in fourth- and eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores Scale score 500 290 280 270 263* 268* 272* 270* 278* 273* 279* 281* 283 238* 240 240 Grade 8 260 250 240 235* 230 220 213* 220* 224* 224* Grade 4 226* 210 0 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 Accommodations not permitted ’05 ’07 ’09 Year Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 1 Gaps persist despite gains for some student groups Results for student groups were generally similar to those for students overall. At grade 4, there were no significant changes in the average mathematics scores from 2007 to 2009 for students in different racial/ethnic groups, or for those attending public or private schools. Scores for these groups did, however, remain higher than the scores in 1990. There was no significant change at grade 4 in either the White – Black or White – Hispanic score gaps since 2007. However, greater gains over the years for Black students than for White students contributed to a smaller score gap in 2009 than in 1990. The gap between private and public school students in 2009 was not significantly different from the gap in 2007, but was narrower than the gap in 1990. At grade 8, average mathematics scores were higher in 2009 than in both 2007 and 1990 for most racial/ethnic groups; however, gaps between White and Black students and between White and Hispanic students showed no significant change in comparison to either year. The average score for eighth-grade public school students increased from 2007 to 2009, and the score for private school students showed no significant change over the same period. There was no significant change in the gap between the two groups in comparison to either 2007 or 1990. 2 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD GRADE 4 Characteristic GRADE 8 Since 1990 Since 2007 Since 1990 Since 2007 p t p p Asian/Pacific Islander p p p p p p p p p p p p American Indian/ Alaska Native ‡ t t t t t ‡ t p p t t p p p Narrowed t t t t t t t t t Overall Race/ethnicity White Black Hispanic Type of school Public Private t Gaps White – Black White – Hispanic Private – Public t Narrowed p Indicates the score was higher in 2009. t Indicates no significant change in the score or the gap in 2009. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. Examples of math skills for GRADE 4 43%identified parallel and perpendicular lines 59% divided a three-digit number by a one-digit number 75%made a pictograph of given information Five states and jurisdictions make gains at both grades 4 and 8 Compared to 2007, average mathematics scores for public school students in 2009 WA MT VT NH ID SD WY NV IN UT WV CO MO KY CT NJ DE MD DC RI increased at both grades in the District of Columbia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; i ncreased at grade 4 only in Colorado, Kentucky, and Maryland; DoDEA1 GA decreased at grade 4 only in Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming; i ncreased at grade 8 only in Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington; and HI 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). s howed no significant change at either grade in 30 states and jurisdictions. Examples of math skills for GRADE 8 47%found the change in y given the change in x for a linear equation 69%identified the side with the same length in congruent figures 72%determined a quantity based on a given percent MATHEMATICS 2009 3 Introduction The NAEP mathematics assessment measures students’ knowledge and skills in mathematics and students’ ability to apply their knowledge in problem-solving situations. The results from the 2009 assessment presented in this report are compared to those from previous years, showing how students’ performance in mathematics has progressed over time. The Mathematics Framework The National Assessment Governing Board oversees the creation of the NAEP frameworks, which describe the specific knowledge and skills that should be assessed. Frameworks incorporate ideas and input from subject area experts, school administrators, policymakers, teachers, parents, and others. NAEP frameworks also describe the types of questions that should be included and how they should be designed and scored. Collectively, the questions are to span a range of demands on students’ thinking. To ensure an appropriate balance of content along with allowing for a variety of ways of knowing and doing mathematics, the Mathematics Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress specifies that each question in the assessment measures one of five mathematical content areas. Although the names of the content areas, as well as some of the topics in those areas, have changed over the years, there has been a consistent focus across frameworks on collecting information on students’ performance in five areas: number properties and operations; measurement; geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra. Results by Content Area Average scale scores for each of the five content areas are available in the NAEP Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/. 4 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Mathematics content areas Number properties and operations measures students’ understanding of ways to represent, calculate, and estimate with numbers. Measurement assesses students’ knowledge of units of measurement for such attributes as capacity, length, area, volume, time, angles, and rates. Geometry measures students’ knowledge and understanding of shapes in two and three dimensions, and relationships between shapes such as symmetry and transformations. Data analysis, statistics, and probability measures students’ understanding of data representation, characteristics of data sets, experiments and samples, and probability. Algebra measures students’ understanding of patterns, using variables, algebraic representation, and functions. The three levels of mathematical complexity (low, moderate, and high) described in the framework form an ordered description of the demands that questions make on students’ thinking. Mathematical complexity involves what a question asks students to do and not how they might undertake it. The complexity of a question is not directly related to its format, and therefore it is possible for some multiple-choice questions to assess complex mathematics and for some constructedresponse (i.e., open-ended) questions to assess routine mathematical ideas. Reporting NAEP Results The 2009 mathematics assessment results are based on nationally representative samples of 168,800 fourth-graders from 9,510 schools and 161,700 eighth-graders from 7,030 schools. Results for the nation reflect the performance of students attending public schools, private schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and Department of Defense schools. Results for states and other jurisdictions reflect the performance of students in public schools only and are reported along with the results for public school students in the nation. Levels of Mathematical Complexity Scale scores Low complexity questions typically specify what a student is to do, which is often to carry out a routine mathematical procedure. NAEP mathematics results for grades 4 and 8 are reported as average scores on a 0–500 scale. Because NAEP scales are developed independently for each subject, scores cannot be compared across subjects. Moderate complexity questions involve more flexibility of thinking and often require a response with multiple steps. High complexity questions make heavier demands and often require abstract reasoning or analysis in a novel situation. The complete mathematics framework for 2009 is available at http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/ math-framework09.pdf. In addition to reporting an overall mathematics score for each grade, scores are reported at five percentiles to show trends in results for students performing at lower (10th and 25th percentiles), middle (50th percentile), and higher (75th and 90th percentiles) levels. Achievement levels Based on recommendations from policymakers, educators, and members of the general public, the Governing Board sets specific achievement levels for each subject area and grade. Achievement levels are performance standards showing what students should know and be able to do. NAEP results are reported as percentages of students performing at or above the Basic and Proficient levels and at the Advanced level. As provided by law, NCES, upon review of congressionally mandated evaluations of NAEP, has determined that achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted with caution. The NAEP achievement levels have been widely used by national and state officials. NAEP Achievement Levels Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. Proficient represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter. Advanced represents superior performance. MATHEMATICS 2009 5 Interpreting the Results Changes in performance over time National results from the 2009 mathematics assessment are compared to results from seven previous assessment years for both grades 4 and 8, while state results from 2009 are compared to results from six earlier assessments at grade 4 and seven earlier assessments at grade 8. Changes in students’ performance over time are summarized by comparing the results in 2009 to 2007 and the first assessment year, except when pointing out consistent patterns across assessments. NAEP reports results using widely accepted statistical standards; findings are reported based on a statistical significance level set at .05 with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons (see the Technical Notes for more information). The symbol (*) is used in tables and figures to indicate that an earlier year’s score or percentage is significantly different from the 2009 results. Only those differences that are found to be statistically significant are discussed as higher or lower. The same standard applies when comparing the performance of one student group to another. When scores significantly increase or decrease from one assessment year to the next, we are confident that student performance has changed. However, NAEP is not designed to identify the causes of these changes. Further, the many factors that may influence average student achievement scores also change across time. These include educational policies and practices, the quality of teachers, available resources, and the demographic characteristics of the student body. Explore Additional Results Not all of the data for results discussed in this report are presented in corresponding tables or figures. These and other results can be found in the NAEP Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/. 6 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Accommodations and exclusions in NAEP Many of the same testing accommodations allowed on state assessments (e.g., extra testing time or individual rather than group administration) are provided for students with disabilities or English language learners participating in NAEP. Accommodations were first made available at the national level in 1996 and at the state level in 2000. Prior to 1996, no accommodations were provided in the NAEP mathematics assessment. Because providing accommodations represented a change in testing conditions that could potentially affect the measurement of changes over time, split samples of students were assessed nationally in 1996 and at the state level in 2000. In each of these years, one sample permitted accommodations, and the other did not. Although the results for both samples are presented in the tables and figures, the comparisons to these years in the text are based on just the accommodated samples. Even with the availability of accommodations, some students may still be excluded. Variations in exclusion and accommodation rates, due to differences in policies and practices for identifying and including students with disabilities and English language learners, should be considered when comparing students’ performance over time and across states. States and jurisdictions also vary in their proportions of special-needs students (especially English language learners). While the effect of exclusion is not precisely known, comparisons of performance results could be affected if exclusion rates are markedly different among states or vary widely over time. See appendix tables A-1 through A-8 for the percentages of students accommodated and excluded at the national and state levels. More information about NAEP’s policy on the inclusion of special-needs students is available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ about/inclusion.asp. GRADE 4 Fourth-graders’ performance unchanged from 2007 There has been no significant change in the performance of the nation’s fourth-graders in mathematics from 2007 to 2009. State results, however, show increases in average scores from 2007 to 2009 for eight states and decreases for four states. MATHEMATICS 2009 7 4 No change in average mathematics score since 2007 Figure 1. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores Scale score 500 240 230 220* 220 224* 224* 240 238* 235* 240 226* While higher than in the six assessments from 1990 to 2005, the overall average score in 2009 was unchanged from the score in 2007 (figure 1). These results reflect the performance of all fourth-graders nationally (i.e., those attending both public and private schools). 213* 210 0 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 Accommodations not permitted ’05 ’09 ’07 Year Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. As shown in figure 2, there were no significant changes in scores from 2007 to 2009 for lower-performing students (at the 10th and 25th percentiles), middle-performing students (at the 50th percentile), or higherperforming students (at the 75th and 90th percentiles). Figure 2. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics percentile scores Scale score 500 Percentile 280 270 260 253* 250 235* 240 230 214* 220 259* 242* 221* 210 200 193* 199* 190 180 171* 177* 265* 262* 262* 246* 245* 226* 225* 270* 273* 275 275 255* 258* 260 260 236* 239* 242 241 220* 222 221 202 202 182* 182* 75th 248* 227* 216* 204* 203* 90th 205* 197* 200* 50th Results consistent across performance levels 25th 10th Achievement-level results also showed no change between 2007 and 2009, with 82 percent of fourth-graders performing at or above Basic, 39 percent performing at or above Proficient, and 6 percent performing at Advanced in both years (figure 3). 184* 170 0 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 Accommodations not permitted ’05 ’07 Year ’09 Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. Figure 3. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level performance Percent 100 80 60 40 1* 13* 2* 18* 2* 2* 3* 21* 21* 24* 4* 5* 6 6 32* 36* 39 39 % at Advanced % at or above Proficient % at or above Basic 20 0 50* 59* 64* 63* 65* 77* 80* 82 82 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 Year Accommodations not permitted Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 8 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 4 No significant change since 2007 in performance of racial/ethnic groups As was seen in the results for fourthgraders overall, there were no significant changes in scores between 2007 and 2009 for any of the five racial/ethnic groups (figure 4). Scores for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2009 did, however, remain higher than those from the assessment years prior to 2007. The apparent increase in the score for American Indian/Alaska Native students in comparison to 1996 was not found to be statistically significant. Figure 4. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by race/ethnicity White and Asian/Pacific Islander students continued to score higher on average than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students in 2009. Asian/Pacific Islander students also scored higher on average than White students. ’96 Year 220* ’90 227* 231* 232* 234* ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 188* ’90 ’92 193* 199* 198* 203* ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 Information is available on achievementlevel results for racial/ethnic groups and other reporting categories at http:// nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/. BLACK 216* 220* 222 222 200* 202* 205* 207* 208* ’90 ’92 ’96 Achievement-Level Results WHITE 243* 246* 248 248 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 HISPANIC 222* 226* 227 227 225* ’90 ’92 231* 226* 229* ’96 ASIAN/ PACIFIC ISLANDER 246* 251* 253 255 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 217 ’96 ’00 208* AMERICAN INDIAN/ ALASKA NATIVE 223 226 228 225 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 0 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 500 Scale score Accommodations not permitted Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. NOTE: Special analysis raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2000; therefore, they are omitted from this figure. Sample sizes were insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 1990, 1992, and 1996 (accommodations not permitted sample). Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 9 4 Racial/ethnic gaps persist Figure 5. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps, by selected racial/ethnic groups Scale score 500 250 243* 240 230 220* 227* 220 210 32* 200 35* 190 193* 188* 0 ’90 234* 231* 232* 27* 31* 32* 34* 199* ’92 216* 248 248 246* WHITE 26 26 26 SCORE GAP BLACK 222 222 220* 203* 198* ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 The 26-point score gap in mathematics scores between White and Black students in 2009 was not significantly different from the gap in 2007, but was narrower than in 1990 (figure 5). The 21-point score gap between White and Hispanic students in 2009 was not found to be significantly different from the gaps in either 2007 or 1990. Year Scale score 500 250 243* 240 230 220* 220 210 200 190 0 20 200* ’90 227* 25* 202* 234* 231* 232* 27* 27 25 227 226* SCORE GAP HISPANIC 227 208* 205* 207* ’92 222* WHITE 21 21 20 22 248 248 246* ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 Accommodations not permitted ’07 ’09 Year Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Table 1. Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity: Various years, 1990–2009 Race/ethnicity 19901 19921 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 White 75* 73* 66* 64* 60* 58* 57* 56 Black 18* 17* 16 16 17 16 16 16 Hispanic 6* 6* 11* 15* 18* 19* 20 21 Asian/Pacific Islander 1* 2* 5 ‡ 4* 4 5 5 American Indian/ Alaska Native 1* 1* 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‡ Reporting standards not met. Special analysis raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2000; therefore, they are omitted from this table. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. 1 Accommodations were not permitted in this assessment year. NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Detail may not sum to totals because results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified. The proportion of fourth-graders in each of the five racial/ethnic groups NAEP reports on has remained relatively stable since 2007 (table 1). However, in comparison to the first assessment in 1990, the percentage of White students decreased from 75 to 56 percent, the percentage of Hispanic students increased from 6 to 21 percent, and the percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander students increased from 1 to 5 percent. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 10 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 4 Male students score higher than female students Average mathematics scores for male and female students in 2009 remained unchanged from 2007. Male students continued to score 2 points higher on average than female students in 2009 (figure 6). Figure 6. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps, by gender Scale score 500 250 239* 236* 240 230 221* 220 214* 210 213* 200 227* 222* 223* 224* 1 2 3 # 3 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 190 0 219* 226* 224* 237* 233* 3* ’03 Accommodations not permitted 241 241 239 239 3 2 2 ’05 ’07 ’09 MALE FEMALE SCORE GAP Year Accommodations permitted # Rounds to zero. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Score differences were not found to be statistically significant in 1990, 1992, 1996 (accommodations permitted), and 2000. Private school students outperform public school students public schools was 7 points lower than the overall score for students attending private schools, and 6 points lower than for students in Catholic schools specifically (figure 7). It is important to note there may be many reasons why private school students perform differently, on average, from public school students. Differences in demographic composition, availability of resources, admissions policies, parental involvement, and other factors not measured in NAEP can influence average student achievement scores. There were no significant changes in the average scores for students attending public schools, private schools, or Catholic schools from 2007 to 2009. The 7-point score gap between private and public school students in 2009 was not significantly different from the gap In 2009, the average mathematics score for fourth-graders attending in 2007 but was smaller than the gap in 1990. Ninety-one percent of fourth-graders attended public schools in 2009, and 9 percent attended private schools, including 4 percent in Catholic schools. The proportions of students attending public and private schools have not changed significantly in comparison to either 2007 or 1990. Figure 7. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by type of school Scale score 500 260 250 240 230 224* 220 219* 210 212* 0 ’90 228* 228* 219* ’92 237* 235* 232* 232* 222* 222* ’96 246 244 238* 244 244 237* 234* 246 239 237* 246 245 PRIVATE 239 PUBLIC CATHOLIC 224* ’00 ’03 Accommodations not permitted ’05 ’07 ’09 Year Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. NOTE: Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian private schools. Results are not shown for private schools in 2005 because the participation rates fell below the required standard for reporting. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 11 4 Results by family income level show no change since 2007 NAEP uses students’ eligibility for the National School Lunch Program as an indicator of low income. Students from lower-income families are eligible for either free or reduced-price school lunches, while students from higherincome families are not (see the Technical Notes for eligibility criteria). Figure 8. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch Students who were not eligible have typically scored higher on average than those eligible for reduced-price lunch, who in turn scored higher than those eligible for free lunch (figure 8). The scores for all three groups showed no significant change from 2007 to 2009, but remained higher than in 2003. 230 Scale score 500 260 250 244* 240 230* 220* 220 Eligible for free lunch Eligible for reduced-price lunch 0 250 234 236 235 224* 225 226 NOT ELIGIBLE ELIGIBLE FOR REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH ELIGIBLE FOR FREE LUNCH ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 Year * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. 2003 2005 2007 2009 33* 35* 36* 38 8* 7* 6 6 52* 49 7 7 Not eligible 50 Information not available 10* * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 249 210 Table 2. Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: Various years, 2003–09 Eligibility status 248* 50 8* Some changes were seen since 2007 in the proportion of fourth-graders eligible for the National School Lunch Program. The percentage of fourth-graders eligible for free lunch increased from 36 percent in 2007 to 38 percent in 2009, while the percentage of students who were not eligible decreased from 52 percent to 49 percent (table 2). There was no change in the percentage of students eligible for reduced-price lunch from 2007 to 2009. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 2003–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 12 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD State Performance at Grade 4 NAEP state results make it possible to examine the progress of public school students in each participating state over time. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Department of Defense schools participated in the 2009 mathematics assessment. These 52 states and jurisdictions are all referred to as “states” in the following summary of results. State results are also available for six earlier assessments at grade 4. While all states participated in the assessments since 2003, not all have participated or met the criteria for reporting in earlier assessment years. Scores increase since 2007 in eight states and decrease in four states The map shown below highlights changes in states’ average mathematics scores from 2007 to 2009 at grade 4 (figure 9). While there was no significant change in the overall average score for fourth-grade public school students in the nation from 2007 to 2009, scores did increase in eight states (Colorado, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) and decrease in four states (Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming). Scores were higher in 2009 than in 1992 for all 42 states that participated and met reporting standards in both years, including the four states that showed a decline from 2007 to 2009. Figure 9. Changes in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores between 2007 and 2009 VT NH WY RI NV IN WV CO KY DE MD DC DoDEA1 Score increased Score decreased No significant change 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). AK HI SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 and 2009 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 13 4 A Closer Look at State Results Changes in states’ overall average scores do not always reflect comparable changes in scores for all student groups. Among the 12 states listed in figure 10 that showed either an increase or decrease in the overall average score, most had at least one racial/ethnic group that maintained the same level of performance since 2007. Only the District of Columbia showed increases from 2007 to 2009 for all the student groups with samples large enough to report results. In the other 7 states where overall average fourth-grade mathematics scores increased since 2007, results for racial/ethnic groups showed increases for White students in Rhode Island, for Black students in Maryland, and for Hispanic students in Nevada. In the 4 states where fourth-grade mathematics scores decreased since 2007, the average score for Black students in Delaware decreased from 2007 to 2009, and scores for White students in West Virginia and Wyoming decreased. Although not shown here, among the 40 states where mathematics scores showed no significant change since 2007, there was a decrease in the average score for Hispanic students in Texas. Additional state results for grade 4 are provided in figure 11, table 3, and appendix tables A-9 through A-16. Figure 10. Change in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores between 2007 and 2009, by selected student groups and state/jurisdiction Race/ethnicity State/jurisdiction Overall White Black Hispanic Nation (public) t Colorado p t t Delaware q t t t q t t t District of Columbia p p p p Indiana q Kentucky p t t Maryland p t t t Nevada p New Hampshire p t t t t t Rhode Island p p Vermont p t West Virginia q q Wyoming q q p t ‡ t ‡ t ‡ p t t ‡ ‡ t Asian/Pacific Islander t t t ‡ ‡ ‡ t t t t ‡ ‡ ‡ Male Female Eligible Not eligible t t t t t t t q q t t t p p p p t t t t p p p p t p p p p p p t t q q t t t t t t t p t t t t p p Score increased ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. Eligibility for free/reducedprice school lunch Gender q Score decreased p p t t t No significant change NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Only states/jurisdictions that showed a significant change in overall scores between 2007 and 2009 are shown. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 and 2009 Mathematics Assessments. 14 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 4 Figure 11. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009 State/jurisdiction Below Basic Average score Nation (public) 239 Alabama Alaska Arizona 228 237 230 Arkansas California Colorado 238 232 243 Connecticut Delaware Florida 245 239 242 Georgia Hawaii 236 236 Idaho Illinois Indiana 241 238 243 Iowa Kansas 243 Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts 245 239 229 244 244 252 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada 236 249 227 241 244 239 235 New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio 251 247 230 241 244 245 244 Oklahoma Oregon 237 238 Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee 244 239 236 242 232 Texas Utah 240 240 Vermont Virginia 248 243 Washington West Virginia Wisconsin 242 233 244 Wyoming 242 Other jurisdictions District of Columbia 219 DoDEA1 240 100 Basic 19 43 46 41 43 44 41 39 39 47 46 44 41 44 42 46 45 43 44 49 42 41 36 43 35 47 42 43 44 46 36 39 46 43 43 47 40 49 43 39 42 44 44 46 47 40 38 43 41 49 40 47 30 22 29 20 28 16 14 16 14 22 23 15 20 13 13 11 19 28 13 15 8 22 11 31 17 12 18 21 8 12 28 17 13 9 15 18 20 16 19 22 14 26 15 19 11 15 16 23 15 13 44 80 70 60 33 50 40 30 20 6 Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona 6 24 4 31 5 25 Arkansas California Colorado 5 37 38 8 8 31 35 29 32 36 31 36 36 40 31 21 Connecticut Delaware Florida 5 5 5 Georgia Hawaii 5 5 Idaho Illinois Indiana 7 5 5 Iowa 6 2 7 9 45 12 30 5 42 21 6 6 4 3 10 5 8 5 8 3 5 20 Oklahoma Oregon 8 Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee 5 5 5 3 4 6 Texas Utah 9 Vermont Virginia 7 7 Washington West Virginia Wisconsin 2 8 4 Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia 3 34 10 New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio 9 3 35 35 40 38 30 32 38 34 29 37 26 34 35 41 35 36 26 37 36 0 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada 11 2 35 40 34 29 46 40 23 10 Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts 6 38 35 14 State/jurisdiction 2 32 48 Percentage below Basic and at Basic Advanced 22 39 14 90 Proficient 4 30 40 DoDEA1 50 60 100 Percentage at Proficient and Advanced Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 1 MATHEMATICS 2009 15 4 Table 3. Average scores in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1992–2009 State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Accommodations not permitted 1992 1996 2000 219* 222* 226* 208* 212* 218* — 224* — 215* 218* 219* 210* 216* 217* 208* 209* 214* 221* 226* — 227* 232* 234* 218* 215* — 214* 216* — 216* 215* 220* 214* 215* 216* 222* — 227* — — 225* 221* 229* 234* 230* 229* 233* — — 232* 215* 220* 221* 204* 209* 218* 232* 232* 231* 217* 221* 222* 227* 229* 235* 220* 226* 231* 228* 232* 235* 202* 208* 211* 222* 225* 229* — 228* 230* 225* 228* 226* — 218* 220* 230* — — 227* 227* — 213* 214* 214* 218* 223* 227* 213* 224* 232* 229* 231* 231* 219* — 231* 220* — 225* — 223* 227* 224* 226* — 215* 220* 225* 212* 213* 220* — — — 211* 219* 220* 218* 229* 233* 224* 227* 227* — 225* 232* 221* 223* 230* — 225* — 215* 223* 225* 229* 231* — 225* 223* 229* 193* — 187* 224* 193* 228* 2000 224* 217* — 219* 216* 213* — 234* — — 219* 216* 224* 223* 233* 231* 232* 219* 218* 230* 222* 233* 229* 234* 211* 228* 228* 225* 220* — — 213* 225* 230* 230* 230* 224* 224* — 224* 220* — 220* 231* 227* 232* 230* — 223* — 229* 192* 227* Accommodations permitted 2003 2005 2007 234* 237* 239 223* 225* 229 233* 236 237 229 230 232 229* 236 238 227* 230 230 235* 239* 240* 241* 242* 243 236* 240 242* 234* 239* 242 230* 234 235 227* 230* 234 235* 242 241 233* 233* 237 238* 240* 245* 238* 240* 243 242* 246 248 229* 231* 235* 226* 230 230 238* 241* 242 233* 238* 240* 242* 247* 252 236 238 238 242* 246* 247 223* 227 228 235* 235* 239 236* 241* 244 236 238 238 228* 230* 232* 243* 246* 249* 239* 244 249 223* 224* 228 236* 238* 243 242 241* 242 238* 243* 245 238* 242 245 229* 234* 237 236 238 236 236* 241 244 230* 233* 236* 236 238* 237 237* 242 241 228* 232 233 237* 242 242 235* 239 239 242* 244* 246* 239* 240 244 238* 242 243 231 231 236* 237* 241* 244 241 243 244* 205* 237* 211* 239* 214* 240 — Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 16 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 2009 239 228 237 230 238 232 243 245 239 242 236 236 241 238 243 243 245 239 229 244 244 252 236 249 227 241 244 239 235 251 247 230 241 244 245 244 237 238 244 239 236 242 232 240 240 248 243 242 233 244 242 219 240 Assessment Content at Grade 4 To reflect a different emphasis across grade levels, the proportion of the mathematics assessment devoted to each of the five content areas varies by grade. 40% Number properties and operations These questions focus on computation with or understanding of whole numbers and common fractions and decimals. 20% Measurement These questions focus on customary units such as inch, quart, pound, and hour, and common metric units such as centimeter, liter, and gram, as well as the geometric attribute of length. 15% Geometry These questions focus on simple figures and their attributes, including plane figures such as triangles and circles and solid figures such as cubes and spheres. 10% Data analysis, statistics, and probability These questions focus on students’ understanding of how data are collected and organized, how to read and interpret various representations of data, and basic concepts of probability. 15% Algebra These questions measure understanding of algebraic representation, patterns, and rules; graphing points on a line or a grid; and using symbols to represent unknown quantities. Because the assessment covered a breadth of content and included more questions than any one student could reasonably answer, each student took just a portion of the assessment. The 159 questions that made up the entire fourth-grade assessment were divided into 10 sections, each containing between 15 and 19 questions, depending on the balance between multiplechoice and constructed-response questions. Each student responded to questions in just two 25-minute sections. Some sections of the assessment incorporated the use of calculators, rulers, geometric shapes, or other manipulatives that were provided. Fourth-graders were provided with a four-function calculator to use on approximately 20 percent of the assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 17 4 NAEP Mathematics Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 4 The policy definitions of achievement levels provided in the Introduction apply to all NAEP subjects. The specific descriptions of what fourth-graders should know and be able to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced mathematics achievement levels are presented below. NAEP achievement levels are cumulative; therefore, students performing at the Proficient level also display the competencies associated with the Basic level, and students at the Advanced level also demonstrate the skills and knowledge associated with both the Basic and the Proficient levels. The cut score indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is noted in parentheses. 18 Basic (214) Proficient (249) Advanced (282) Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should show some evidence of understanding the mathematical concepts and procedures in the five NAEP content areas. Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should consistently apply integrated procedural knowledge and conceptual understanding to problem solving in the five NAEP content areas. Fourth-graders performing at the Basic level should be able to estimate and use basic facts to perform simple computations with whole numbers; show some understanding of fractions and decimals; and solve some simple real-world problems in all NAEP content areas. Students at this level should be able to use—although not always accurately—four-function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes. Their written responses are often minimal and presented without supporting information. Fourth-graders performing at the Proficient level should be able to use whole numbers to estimate, compute, and determine whether results are reasonable. They should have a conceptual understanding of fractions and decimals; be able to solve realworld problems in all NAEP content areas; and use four-function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes appropriately. Students performing at the Proficient level should employ problem-solving strategies such as identifying and using appropriate information. Their written solutions should be organized and presented both with supporting information and explanations of how they were achieved. Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should apply integrated procedural knowledge and conceptual understanding to complex and nonroutine real-world problem solving in the five NAEP content areas. THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Fourth-graders performing at the Advanced level should be able to solve complex nonroutine real-world problems in all NAEP content areas. They should display mastery in the use of four-function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes. These students are expected to draw logical conclusions and justify answers and solution processes by explaining why, as well as how, they were achieved. They should go beyond the obvious in their interpretations and be able to communicate their thoughts clearly and concisely. 4 What Fourth-Graders Know and Can Do in Mathematics The item map below is useful for understanding performance at different levels on the NAEP scale. The scale scores on the left represent the average scores for students who were likely to get the items correct. The cut score at the lower end of the range for each achievement level is boxed. The descriptions of selected assessment questions are listed on the right along with the corresponding mathematics content areas. For example, the map on this page shows that fourth-graders performing in the middle of the Basic range (students with an average score of 230) were likely to be able to use place value to write a number. Students performing in the middle of the Proficient range (with an average score of 265) were likely to be able to divide a three-digit number by a one-digit number. GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS ITEM MAP Scale score Content area Question description Data analysis, statistics, and probability Algebra Geometry Number properties and operations Measurement Number properties and operations Algebra Find the median price from a table Identify the expression that models a scenario Identify parallel and perpendicular lines Solve a story problem involving remainders Indicate measurements on a ruler Identify the fraction closest to the given value Reason using equivalences to make and explain a conclusion (calculator available) Number properties and operations Geometry Number properties and operations Data analysis, statistics, and probability Number properties and operations Measurement Geometry Data analysis, statistics, and probability Identify a pictorial representation of equivalent fractions Plot points on a grid to satisfy the given conditions (shown on page 21) Reason about odd and even numbers Read and interpret a line graph Divide a three-digit number by a one-digit number Identify the figure with the greatest area on a grid Identify the shape of a shaded region Determine the probability of a particular event Measurement Number properties and operations Algebra Number properties and operations Algebra Number properties and operations Geometry Number properties and operations Data analysis, statistics, and probability Solve a story problem involving quarts and cups Subtract a two-digit number from a three-digit number (shown on page 20) Determine the missing shapes in a pattern Determine a ratio from a diagram Determine the value of an unknown in a number sentence Use place value to write a number Determine how many given pieces cover a shape Represent the same whole number in different ways Make a pictograph of the given information Number properties and operations Number properties and operations Measurement Algebra Number properties and operations Geometry Measurement Recognize the result of multiplying by 10 Compute the product of a two-digit number and a one-digit number Identify an appropriate unit for measuring length (calculator available) Find the unknown in a whole number sentence Compute a value using multiplication and division (calculator available) Identify the figure that is not symmetric (calculator available) Identify the appropriate measuring device Basic Proficient Advanced 500 300 299 295 291 288 288 285 282 281 277 273 270 265 257 252 250 249 246 243 241 237 233 230 228 222 222 214 207 205 202 199 188 183 176 0 NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice question. The position of a question on the scale represents the average score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question, or a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a four-option multiple-choice question. For constructed-response questions, the question description represents students’ performance rated as completely correct. Scale score ranges for mathematics achievement levels are referenced on the map. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 19 4 Sample Question: Number Properties and Operations This sample question from the 2009 fourth-grade assessment measures students’ performance in the number properties and operations content area. The question asks students to subtract a two-digit number from a three-digit number, which requires regrouping to obtain the correct answer of 226 (Choice A). Students were not permitted to use a calculator to answer this question. Approximately two-thirds (67 percent) of fourth-grade students answered correctly. The most common incorrect answer (Choice C), which was selected by 14 percent of the students, is a place-value error that can result from incorrect regrouping in the ten’s place. The average score for students likely to select the correct answer was 243 on the item map. Percentage of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2009 Choice A Choice B Choice C Choice D Omitted 67 5 14 11 2 SAMPLE QUESTION: 301 –75 A B C D 226 235 236 374 NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. The table below shows the percentage of fourth-graders within each achievement level who answered this question correctly. For example, 64 percent of fourth-graders at the Basic level selected the correct answer choice. Percentage correct for fourth-grade students at each achievement level: 2009 Overall Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced 67 33 64 85 94 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 20 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 4 Sample Question: Geometry This sample constructed-response question measures fourthgraders’ performance in the geometry content area. It is a multistep problem that requires students to plot and identify points in the plane, and to use visualization skills to determine additional points that could be connected to form a rectangle. Students were not permitted to use a calculator to answer this question. Student responses to this question were rated using five scoring levels. Extended responses • correctly plotted the three given points, (B,1), (B,3), and (D,5), • correctly plotted three other points that formed a rectangle and gave their coordinates, and • connected the dots to form a rectangle. Satisfactory responses met all of the criteria for an extended rating, but contained a minor error or omission. Partial responses correctly plotted the three given points and partially plotted three other points that formed a rectangle and gave their coordinates. Minimal responses plotted three points clearly (either the given points, the new points, or some combination), or partially met one of the criteria specified for an extended rating. All other responses were rated as incorrect. SAMPLE QUESTION: On the grid below, plot the points that have coordinates (B, 1), (B, 3), and (D, 5). 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A B C D E F G Plot 3 more points on the grid so that when you connect all 6 points you will make a rectangle. List the coordinates for the 3 new points. ________ ________ ________ Connect the 6 points to show your rectangle. The sample student response shown on the right was rated as “Extended” because it correctly answered all parts of the question. Twenty-seven percent of fourth-graders’ responses to this question received an “Extended” rating. The average score for students likely to provide “Extended” responses was 277 on the item map. Percentage of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2009 Extended Satisfactory Partial Minimal Incorrect Omitted 27 10 3 32 24 3 NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because the percentage of responses rated as “Off-task” is not shown. Off-task responses are those that do not provide any information related to the assessment task. The table below shows the percentage of fourth-graders within each achievement level whose response to this question was rated as “Extended.” For example, 16 percent of fourth-graders at the Basic level provided a response rated as “Extended.” Percentage of answers rated as “Extended” for fourth-grade students at each achievement level: 2009 Overall Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced 27 2 16 46 73 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 21 GRADE 8 Eighth-graders’ performance continues to improve Improvement in mathematics performance at grade 8 continued into 2009. The national average mathematics score for eighth-graders was higher in 2009 than in all previous assessment years. Scores also increased from 2007 to 2009 in 15 states, and no states showed a decline. 22 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 8 Eighth-graders post highest score to date Figure 12. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores Scale score 500 290 280 270 263* 268* 278* 273* 272* 270* 281* 279* Eighth-graders scored higher in mathematics in 2009 than in any previous assessment year. The upward trend continued with a 2-point increase since 2007 (figure 12). These results reflect the performance of eighth-grade students nationally (i.e., those in both public and private schools). 283 260 0 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 Accommodations not permitted ’05 ’09 ’07 Year Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. Percentile scores were higher in 2009 than in 2007 for all but the lowestperforming students (those at the 10th percentile), where there was no significant change in the score since the last assessment (figure 13). Figure 13. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics percentile scores Percentile Scale score 500 330 320 315* 317* 316* 320* 307* 310 300 288* 290 294* 280 270 264* 269* 300* 298* 297* 275* 273* 273* 260 250 239* 240 230 215* 220 243* 221* 248* 249* 245* 224* 323* 324* 303* 304* 279* 280* 254* 255* 230* 231* 327* 329 306* 308 283* 284 258* 259 235 236 90th Gains consistent across performance levels 75th 50th Improvement was also seen in the achievement-level results. The percentages of students performing at or above Basic, at or above Proficient, and at Advanced all showed increases of 1 to 2 percentage points from 2007 to 2009 (figure 14). 25th 10th 223* 221* 210 0 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 Accommodations not permitted ’05 ’09 ’07 Year Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. Figure 14. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level performance Percent 100 80 60 2* 40 15* 3* 4* 4* 5* 21* 24* 23* 26* 5* 6* 7* 8 29* 30* 32* 34 % at Advanced % at or above Proficient % at or above Basic 20 0 52* 58* 62* 61* 63* 68* 69* 71* 73 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 Year Accommodations not permitted Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 23 8 Most racial/ethnic groups continue to make gains Most racial/ethnic groups made gains since 2007 (figure 15). Average scores for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/ Pacific Islander students were higher in 2009 than in 2007. The score in 2009 for American Indian/Alaska Native students was not found to be significantly different from the scores in any of the earlier assessments. In 2009, both White and Asian/Pacific Islander students scored higher on average than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students. The average score for Asian/Pacific Islander students was also 8 points higher than the score for White students. Figure 15. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by race/ethnicity Year 270* ’90 ’92 277* 281* 281* 284* 288* 289* 291* 293 ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 WHITE 237* 237* 242* 240* 244* ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 BLACK 252* 255* 260* 261 246* 249* 251* 251* 253* ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 HISPANIC 259* 262* 265* 266 275* ’90 ’92 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 290 288* 291* 295* 297* 301 ASIAN/ PACIFIC ISLANDER 259 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 263 264 264 266 0 240 250 260 270 AMERICAN INDIAN/ ALASKA NATIVE 280 290 300 500 Scale score Accommodations not permitted Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. NOTE: Special analysis raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 1996; therefore, they are omitted from this figure. Sample sizes were insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 1990, 1992, and 1996. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 24 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 8 Racial/ethnic gaps persist Figure 16. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps, by selected racial/ethnic groups Scale score 500 290 280 270 284* 281* 281* 277* 288* 270* 260 33 40* 250 40* 39* 41* 252* 240 237* 230 0 ’90 237* ’92 242* WHITE 32 32 34* 35* 293 291* 289* BLACK 261 260* 255* SCORE GAP 244* 240* ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 Year Achievement-Level Results Scale score 500 300 290 280 277* 24 28 0 249* 246* ’90 31* 30 30 ’92 293 291* 289* WHITE 26 26 29* 27 259* 250 240 288* 284* 281* 281* 270* 270 260 Significant score gaps persisted between White students and their Black and Hispanic peers in 2009. Because all three racial/ethnic groups have made progress, neither the White – Black nor the White – Hispanic score gap in 2009 was significantly different from the corresponding gaps in 2007 or 1990 (figure 16). HISPANIC 266 265* 262* SCORE GAP Information is available on achievementlevel results for racial/ethnic groups and other reporting categories at http:// nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/. 253* 251* 251* ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 Accommodations not permitted ’07 ’09 Year Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Table 4. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity: Various years, 1990–2009 Race/ethnicity 19901 19921 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 White 73* 73* 69* 65* 63* 61* 59* 58 Black 16 16* 17 16 16* 16* 16* 15 Hispanic 7* 8* 10* 13* 15* 16* 18* 20 Asian/Pacific Islander 2* 2* ‡ 4* 4* 5* 5 5 American Indian/ Alaska Native 1 1 1 2 1 1 1* 1 ‡ Reporting standards not met. Special analysis raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 1996; therefore, they are omitted from this table. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. 1 Accommodations were not permitted in this assessment year. NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. The percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students in 2007 (1.27) was significantly different from the percentage in 2009 (1.11). Detail may not sum to totals because results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified. The percentage of White students decreased from 59 percent in 2007 to 58 percent in 2009, and the percentage of Black students decreased from 16 to 15 percent (table 4). In contrast, the percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18 to 20 percent over the same period. In comparison to 1990, the percentage of White students was lower in 2009, and the percentages of Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander students were higher. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 25 8 Scores increase for both male and female students Average mathematics scores increased from 2007 to 2009 for both male and female students (figure 17). Because the increases since 2007 were comparable for both groups, the 2-point score gap between male and female students in 2009 was not significantly different from the gap in 2007. Public and Catholic school students make gains since 2007 The average mathematics score for eighth-graders attending public school was 2 points higher in 2009 than in 2007 (figure 18). While there was no significant change from 2007 to 2009 in the average score for students attending private schools overall, there was an increase in the score for students attending Catholic schools. Although the average scores for public and private school students in 2009 were both higher than in 1990, the 14-point gap between the two groups in 2009 was not significantly different from the gap in any of the previous assessment years in which results were reported for both groups. Figure 17. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps, by gender Scale score 500 300 290 280 270 263* 260 269* 268* 272* 271* 272* 269* 274* 272* 278* 280* 282*284 277* 278* 280* MALE 282 FEMALE 262* 250 240 0 1 –1 ’90 ’92 –1 2 ’96 2 2 2 2 2 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 Accommodations not permitted SCORE GAP Year Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Score differences were not found to be statistically significant in 1990, 1992, 1996, and 2000. Score gaps reflect the average scores for male students minus the scores for female students. Figure 18. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by type of school Scale score 500 300 290 280 270 260 281* 271* 271* 262* 278* 267* 284* 285* 285* 283* 286* 271* 269* 272* 293 292* 289* 290* 292* 276* 278* 280* 284* 297 CATHOLIC 296 PRIVATE 282 PUBLIC 250 0 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 Accommodations not permitted ’05 ’07 ’09 Year Accommodations permitted * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. NOTE: Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian private schools. Results are not shown for private schools in 2005 because the participation rates fell below the required standards for reporting. Ninety-one percent of eighth-graders attended public schools in 2009, and 9 percent attended private schools, including 5 percent in Catholic schools. The proportions of students attending public and private schools have not changed significantly in comparison to either 2007 or 1990. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 26 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 8 Scores increase across income levels Scores were higher in 2009 than in 2007 both for students who were eligible for free and reduced-price school lunch, as well as for students who were not eligible (figure 19). As was seen in the results for grade 4, eighth-graders who were not eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch scored higher on average than those who were eligible, and students eligible for reduced-price lunch scored higher than those eligible for free lunch. Figure 19. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch Scale score 500 300 290 280 270 260 287* 288* 271* 270* 260* 256* 294 291* 274* 276 263* 265 NOT ELIGIBLE ELIGIBLE FOR REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH ELIGIBLE FOR FREE LUNCH 250 0 ’03 ’05 ’07 ’09 Year * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. Table 5. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: Various years, 2003–09 Eligibility status Eligible for free lunch 2003 2005 2007 2009 26* 29* 32* 34 7* 7* 6 6 Not eligible 55* 56* 55* 54 Information not available 11* 8* 7 7 Eligible for reduced-price lunch * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. About 40 percent of eighth-graders were eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch in 2009 (table 5). Since 2007, the percentage of students who were eligible for free lunch increased by 2 percentage points, while the percentage of students who were not eligible decreased by 1 percentage point. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 2003–09 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 27 8 M-br03-gr8-LOC.eps Scores increase for students in city and rural schools Students’ performance on the mathematics assessment differed based on the location of the schools they attended. In 2009, students attending schools in suburban locations scored the highest on average (figure 20). Those in rural schools scored higher on average than students attending schools in cities and towns. See the Technical Notes for more information on how these school location categories were defined. Score gains since 2007 varied by school location. Average scores were higher in 2009 than in 2007 for students attending schools in city and rural locations, but showed no significant change for students whose schools were located in suburbs or towns. Figure 20. Average scores in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by school location: 2007 and 2009 Year City ’07 ’09 275* 279 Suburb 286 287 ’07 ’09 Town 280 279 ’07 ’09 Rural 282* 284 ’07 ’09 0 240 250 270 280 290 300 500 Scale score * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009. Table 6. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by school location: 2007 and 2009 School location 260 2007 2009 City 29 29 Suburb 37 37 Town 13 13 Rural 21 22 In 2009, a higher proportion of eighth-graders (37 percent) attended schools in suburban locations than in other locations (table 6). The proportion of students in each type of location has remained stable over time, with no significant changes detected in the percentages of students attending schools in any of the four categories from 2007 to 2009. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 and 2009 Mathematics Assessments. 28 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD State Performance at Grade 8 All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Department of Defense schools participated in the 2009 mathematics assessment. These 52 states and jurisdictions are all referred to as “states” in the following summary of results. State results are also available for seven earlier assessments at grade 8. While all states participated in the assessments since 2003, not all have participated or met the criteria for reporting in earlier assessment years. Scores increase since 2007 for public school students in 15 states, and no states show a decline The map shown below highlights changes in states’ average mathematics scores from 2007 to 2009 at grade 8 (figure 21). While the overall average score for eighth-grade public school students in the nation was higher in 2009 than in 2007, increases were seen in less than one-third of the states. Scores were higher in 2009 than in 2007 for 15 states, and scores showed no significant change in the remaining states. No states showed a decline since 2007. In comparison to the results in 1990, scores were higher in 2009 for all 38 states that participated in both years. Figure 21. Changes in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores between 2007 and 2009 WA MT VT NH ID SD NJ NV CT RI UT DC MO DoDEA1 Score increased GA No significant change 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). AK HI SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 and 2009 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 29 8 A Closer Look at State Results Not all student groups made gains in states where overall eighth-grade mathematics scores increased from 2007 to 2009. Results by students’ eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch showed higher scores in 2009 than in 2007 both for students who were eligible and for those who were not eligible in 6 of the 15 states shown in figure 22 with overall score gains. Scores increased just for eligible students in Nevada, and just for students who were not eligible in Hawaii, Idaho, South Dakota, Vermont, and Washington. Although not shown here, among the 37 states where mathematics scores showed no significant change since 2007, scores increased for students who were eligible for the school lunch program in Florida, and for students who were not eligible in Arizona, Arkansas, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. Additional state results for grade 8 are provided in figure 23, table 7, and appendix tables A-17 through A-24. Figure 22. Change in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores between 2007 and 2009, by selected student groups and state/jurisdiction Race/ethnicity State/jurisdiction Overall White Black Hispanic Nation (public) p p Connecticut p p t t t t District of Columbia p p Georgia p Hawaii p ‡ t t p Idaho p p t t t Missouri p t Montana p p Nevada p p New Hampshire p p New Jersey p Rhode Island p t t South Dakota p p Utah p p Vermont p t Washington p p t ‡ ‡ t ‡ t ‡ t t ‡ ‡ ‡ t p ‡ p t t t t t ‡ t Eligibility for free/reducedprice school lunch Gender Asian/ Pacific Islander Male Female Eligible Not eligible t t ‡ ‡ p p p p p p p p t t p p p p t p p p p ‡ ‡ ‡ t ‡ t t ‡ t ‡ p p t t t p p p p p p p p p p p t p p p p p p p t t t t t t t t t t p Score increased p t t p p t t t t p t p p t No significant change ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Only states/jurisdictions that showed a significant change in overall scores between 2007 and 2009 are shown. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 and 2009 Mathematics Assessments. 30 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 8 Figure 23. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009 State/jurisdiction Average score Nation (public) 282 Alabama Alaska 269 283 Arizona Arkansas California 277 276 270 Colorado Connecticut 287 289 Delaware Florida 284 279 Georgia Hawaii 278 274 Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey 287 282 287 284 289 279 272 286 288 299 278 294 265 286 292 284 274 292 293 New Mexico New York North Carolina 270 283 284 North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota 293 286 276 285 288 278 280 291 Tennessee Texas 275 287 Utah Vermont Virginia 284 293 286 Washington 289 West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 270 288 286 Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 254 287 Below Basic Basic 29 39 38 41 38 40 36 36 38 44 41 40 40 40 40 42 42 40 43 42 42 35 34 37 36 39 41 39 40 38 38 36 39 39 38 43 40 44 38 38 41 39 41 39 41 40 38 41 39 41 40 43 42 25 33 33 41 24 22 25 30 33 35 22 27 22 24 21 30 38 22 25 15 32 17 46 23 18 25 37 18 20 41 27 26 14 24 32 25 22 32 31 17 35 22 25 19 24 22 39 21 22 60 90 80 70 60 25 50 40 30 20 State/jurisdiction Nation (public) 4 Alabama Alaska 27 6 23 6 23 4 18 5 30 10 30 10 26 6 23 6 21 5 21 4 30 8 26 7 29 7 27 7 31 8 22 5 16 4 27 8 28 12 34 17 24 7 34 13 14 2 29 7 34 10 27 8 20 5 32 11 30 14 17 3 26 8 26 9 36 7 28 8 20 3 28 8 30 10 22 6 23 7 34 7 21 4 28 8 29 7 31 13 27 8 29 11 17 2 31 8 28 7 9 30 10 0 Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 2 43 Percentage below Basic and at Basic Advanced 7 17 29 21 100 Proficient 10 6 20 30 40 50 60 100 Percentage at Proficient and Advanced Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 1 MATHEMATICS 2009 31 8 Table 7. Average scores in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1990–2009 State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 1990 262* 253* — 260* 256* 256* 267* 270* 261* 255* 259* 251* 271* 261* 267* 278* — 257* 246* — 261* — 264* 275* — — 280* 276* — 273* 270* 256* 261* 250* 281* 264* 263* 271* 266* 260* — — — 258* — — 264* — 256* 274* 272* 231* — Accommodations not permitted 1992 1996 267* 271* 252* 257* — 278* 265* 268* 256* 262* 261* 263* 272* 276* 274* 280* 263* 267* 260* 264* 259* 262* 257* 262* 275* — — — 270* 276* 283 284 — — 262* 267* 250* 252* 279* 284 265* 270* 273* 278* 267* 277 282* 284* 246* 250* 271* 273* — 283* 278* 283 — — 278* — 272* — 260* 262* 266* 270* 258* 268* 283* 284* 268* — 268* — — 276* 271* — 266* 269* 261* 261* — — 259* 263* 265* 270* 274* 277* — 279* 268* 270* — 276* 259* 265* 278* 283* 275* 275* 235* — 233* 274* 2000 274* 262* — 271* 261* 262* — 282* — — 266* 263* 278* 277* 283* — 284* 272* 259* 284 276* 283* 278 288* 254* 274* 287* 281* 268* — — 260* 276* 280* 283* 283 272* 281* — 273* 266* — 263* 275* 275* 283* 277* — 271 — 277* 2000 272* 264* — 269* 257* 260* — 281* — — 265* 262* 277* 275* 281* — 283* 270* 259* 281* 272* 279* 277 287* 254* 271* 285* 280* 265* — — 259* 271* 276* 282* 281* 270* 280* — 269* 265* — 262* 273* 274* 281* 275* — 266* — 276* 234* 278* 235* 277* Accommodations permitted 2003 2005 2007 276* 278* 280* 262* 262* 266 279* 279* 283 271* 274 276 266* 272* 274 267 269 270 283* 281* 286 284* 281* 282* 277* 281* 283 271* 274* 277 270* 272* 275* 266* 266* 269* 280* 281* 284* 277* 278* 280 281* 282* 285 284 284 285 284* 284* 290 274* 274* 279 266* 268* 272 282* 281* 286 278* 278* 286 287* 292* 298 276 277 277 291* 290* 292 261* 262 265 279* 276* 281* 286* 286* 287* 282 284 284 268* 270* 271* 286* 285* 288* 281* 284* 289* 263* 263* 268 280 280 280 281 282 284 287* 287* 292 282* 283 285 272* 271* 275 281* 282 284 279* 281* 286 272* 272* 275* 277 281 282 285* 287* 288* 268* 271* 274 277* 281* 286 281* 279* 281* 286* 287* 291* 282* 284 288 281* 285* 285* 271 269 270 284* 285* 286 284* 282* 287 243* 285* 245* 284* 248* 285 2009 282 269 283 277 276 270 287 289 284 279 278 274 287 282 287 284 289 279 272 286 288 299 278 294 265 286 292 284 274 292 293 270 283 284 293 286 276 285 288 278 280 291 275 287 284 293 286 289 270 288 286 254 287 — Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 32 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Assessment Content at Grade 8 The distribution of items among the five content areas reflects the relative emphasis in each area specified in the mathematics framework for each grade. 20% Number properties and operations These questions measure computation with rational and common irrational numbers, and ratios and proportions. 15% Measurement These questions focus on the use of square units for measuring area and surface area, cubic units for measuring volume, degrees for measuring angles, and rates. 20% Geometry These questions focus on properties of plane figures, especially parallel and perpendicular lines, angle relations in polygons, cross sections of solids, and the Pythagorean theorem. 15% Data analysis, statistics, and probability These questions focus on organizing and summarizing data (including tables, charts, and graphs), analyzing statistical claims, and probability. 30% Algebra These questions measure understanding of patterns and functions; algebraic expressions, equations, and inequalities; and algebraic representations, including graphs. The 159 questions that made up the entire eighth-grade mathematics assessment were divided into 10 sections, each containing between 14 and 18 questions, depending on the balance between multiple-choice and constructed-response questions. Each student responded to questions in just two 25-minute sections. Some sections incorporated the use of a calculator, ruler/protractor, geometric shapes, or other manipulatives that were provided. Eighth-graders were permitted to use their own scientific or graphing calculator or were provided with a scientific calculator to use on approximately 30 percent of the assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 33 8 NAEP Mathematics Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 8 The policy definitions of achievement levels provided in the Introduction apply to all NAEP subjects. The specific descriptions of what eighth-graders should know and be able to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced mathematics achievement levels are presented below. NAEP achievement levels are cumulative; therefore, students performing at the Proficient level also display the competencies associated with the Basic level, and students at the Advanced level also demonstrate the skills and knowledge associated with both the Basic and the Proficient levels. The cut score indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is noted in parentheses. Basic (262) Proficient (299) Advanced (333) Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should exhibit evidence of conceptual and procedural understanding in the five NAEP content areas. This level of performance signifies an understanding of arithmetic operations—including estimation—on whole numbers, decimals, fractions, and percents. Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should apply mathematical concepts and procedures consistently to complex problems in the five NAEP content areas. Eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to reach beyond the recognition, identification, and application of mathematical rules in order to generalize and synthesize concepts and principles in the five NAEP content areas. Eighth-graders performing at the Basic level should complete problems correctly with the help of structural prompts such as diagrams, charts, and graphs. They should be able to solve problems in all NAEP content areas through the appropriate selection and use of strategies and technological tools—including calculators, computers, and geometric shapes. Students at this level also should be able to use fundamental algebraic and informal geometric concepts in problem solving. As they approach the Proficient level, students at the Basic level should be able to determine which of the available data are necessary and sufficient for correct solutions and use them in problem solving. However, these eighth-graders show limited skill in communicating mathematically. 34 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Eighth-graders performing at the Proficient level should be able to conjecture, defend their ideas, and give supporting examples. They should understand the connections among fractions, percents, decimals, and other mathematical topics such as algebra and functions. Students at this level are expected to have a thorough understanding of Basic level arithmetic operations—an understanding sufficient for problem solving in practical situations. Quantity and spatial relationships in problem solving and reasoning should be familiar to them, and they should be able to convey underlying reasoning skills beyond the level of arithmetic. They should be able to compare and contrast mathematical ideas and generate their own examples. These students should make inferences from data and graphs; apply properties of informal geometry; and accurately use the tools of technology. Students at this level should understand the process of gathering and organizing data and be able to calculate, evaluate, and communicate results within the domain of statistics and probability. Eighth-graders performing at the Advanced level should be able to probe examples and counterexamples in order to shape generalizations from which they can develop models. Eighthgraders performing at the Advanced level should use number sense and geometric awareness to consider the reasonableness of an answer. They are expected to use abstract thinking to create unique problem-solving techniques and explain the reasoning processes underlying their conclusions. 8 What Eighth-Graders Know and Can Do in Mathematics The item map below illustrates the range of mathematical knowledge and skills demonstrated by eighth-graders. The scale scores on the left represent the average scores for students who were likely to get the items correct. The cut score at the lower end of the range for each achievement level is boxed. The descriptions of selected assessment questions are listed on the right along with the corresponding mathematics content areas. For example, students performing near the middle of the Basic range (with an average score of 285) were likely to be able to determine the possible dimensions of a rectangle, given the area. Students performing near the top of the Proficient range (with an average score of 332) were likely to be able to set up and solve an algebraic equation. GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS ITEM MAP Scale score Content area Question description Data analysis, statistics, and probability Algebra Measurement Geometry Data analysis, statistics, and probability Algebra Algebra Determine the complete sample space Find the coordinates of collinear points Identify the figures with equivalent areas Use the given pieces to make a shape with certain properties Read and interpret the information in a graph Use an algebraic model to make a prediction (calculator available) Find the next term in a geometric sequence Algebra Algebra Geometry Measurement Geometry Number properties and operations Algebra Number properties and operations Set up and solve an algebraic equation Find the change in y given the change in x for a linear equation Find the length of a hypotenuse Solve a problem involving unit conversions (calculator available) Identify the piece used to form a figure Solve a problem using division Represent the length of a rectangle in terms of the width (shown on page 37) Determine a number that satisfies the given conditions Geometry Number properties and operations Measurement Geometry Algebra Number properties and operations Data analysis, statistics, and probability Algebra Identify the steps in a transformation Identify the number with the given digit in the hundredths place Determine the possible dimensions of a rectangle, given the area Identify the side with the same length in congruent figures Identify the solution from a graph of linear equations Determine a quantity based on a given percent Determine the probability of a particular outcome (shown on page 36) Read information from a graph Data analysis, statistics, and probability Measurement Geometry Number properties and operations Number properties and operations Measurement Algebra Recognize misrepresented data Solve a problem involving rates (calculator available) Identify the result of combining two shapes Use estimation to find a difference Find the greatest number that can be bought (calculator available) Measure the length of a line segment Determine the value of the unknown in a number sentence Basic Proficient Advanced 500 361 350 347 342 339 337 336 333 332 331 330 324 319 312 306 300 299 292 288 285 283 281 278 267 264 262 260 259 257 253 236 233 224 0 NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice question. The position of a question on the scale represents the average score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question, a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a four-option multiple-choice question, or a 72 percent probability of correctly answering a five-option multiple-choice question. For constructed-response questions, the question description represents students’ performance rated as completely correct. Scale score ranges for mathematics achievement levels are referenced on the map. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 35 8 Sample Question: Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability This sample question from the 2009 eighth-grade assessment measures students’ performance in the data analysis, statistics, and probability content area. It asks students to determine the probability of a simple event. Obtaining the correct answer requires first determining that there is a total of 15 pencils to choose from (6 red plus 4 green plus 5 blue). Students were not permitted to use a calculator to answer this question. Since 4 of these pencils are green, the correct answer is 4 out of 15 (Choice D), which was selected by 77 percent of the eighth-grade students. The most common incorrect answer (Choice C), which was selected by 12 percent of the students, represents the probability of picking any one pencil from the total of 15 pencils. The average score for students who were likely to select the correct answer was 267 on the item map. SAMPLE QUESTION: Marty has 6 red pencils, 4 green pencils, and 5 blue pencils. If he picks out one pencil without looking, what is the probability that the pencil he picks will be green? A B C D 1 out of 1 out of 1 out of 4 out of 3 4 15 15 Percentage of eighth-grade students in each response category: 2009 Choice A Choice B Choice C Choice D Omitted 4 6 12 77 1 NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. The table below shows the percentage of eighth-graders within each achievement level who answered this question correctly. For example, 81 percent of eighth-graders at the Basic level selected the correct answer choice. Percentage correct for eighth-grade students at each achievement level: 2009 Overall Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced 77 48 81 94 98 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 36 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 8 Sample Question: Algebra SAMPLE QUESTION: This sample question measures eighth-graders’ performance in the algebra content area. The question asks students to identify an algebraic expression that models a relationship that is given in a geometric context. Students were not permitted to use a calculator to answer this question. The length of a rectangle is 3 feet less than twice the width, w (in feet). What is the length of the rectangle in terms of w ? About one-half (51 percent) of the eighth-grade students selected the correct answer (Choice E). The most common incorrect answer (Choice A) represents a common error when translating “less” into an algebraic expression. The average score for students likely to select the correct answer was 306 on the item map. Percentage of eighth-grade students in each response category: 2009 Choice A Choice B Choice C Choice D Choice E Omitted 21 8 13 7 51 1 A B C D E 3 – 2w 2(w + 3) 2(w – 3) 2w + 3 2w – 3 NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. The table below shows the percentage of eighth-graders within each achievement level who answered this question correctly. For example, 47 percent of eighth-graders at the Basic level selected the correct answer choice. Percentage correct for eighth-grade students at each achievement level: 2009 Overall Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced 51 17 47 79 95 NAEP Questions Tool Explore other sample questions from the mathematics assessment at http://nces. ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 37 Technical Notes Sampling and Weighting School and Student Participation The schools and students participating in NAEP assessments are selected to be representative of all schools nationally and of public schools at the state level. Samples of schools and students are drawn from each state and from the District of Columbia and Department of Defense schools. The results from the assessed students are combined to provide accurate estimates of the overall performance of students in the nation and in individual states and other jurisdictions. National participation While national results reflect the performance of students in both public schools and nonpublic schools (i.e., private schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and Department of Defense schools), state-level results reflect the performance of public school students only. Results are also reported separately for Department of Defense schools in state tables and maps. More information on sampling can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/ nathow.asp. Because each school that participated in the assessment, and each student assessed, represents a portion of the population of interest, the results are weighted to account for the disproportionate representation of the selected sample. This includes oversampling of schools with high concentrations of students from certain racial/ethnic groups and the lower sampling rates of students who attend very small nonpublic schools. 38 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD To ensure unbiased samples, NAEP statistical standards require that participation rates for original school samples be 70 percent or higher to report national results separately for public and private schools. In instances where participation rates meet the 70 percent criterion but fall below 85 percent, a nonresponse bias analysis is conducted to determine if the responding school sample is not representative of the population, thereby introducing the potential for nonresponse bias. The weighted national school participation rates for the 2009 mathematics assessment were 97 percent for grade 4 (100 percent for public schools and 73 percent for private schools), and 97 percent for grade 8 (100 percent for public schools and 72 percent for private schools). Weighted student participation rates were 95 percent at grade 4, and 93 percent at grade 8. The nonresponse bias analysis for private schools at grades 4 and 8 showed that, while the original responding school sample may not have been fully representative, the potential bias was reduced by including substitute schools and by adjusting the sampling weights to account for school nonresponse. State participation Standards established by the National Assessment Governing Board require that school participation rates for the original state samples need to be at least 85 percent for results to be reported. In 2009, all 52 states and jurisdictions participating in the mathematics assessment at grades 4 and 8 met this participation rate requirement. Interpreting Statistical Significance Comparisons over time or between groups are based on statistical tests that consider both the size of the differences and the standard errors of the two statistics being compared. Standard errors are margins of error, and estimates based on smaller groups are likely to have larger margins of error. The size of the standard errors may also be influenced by other factors such as how representative the assessed students are of the entire population. When an estimate has a large standard error, a numerical difference that seems large may not be statistically significant. Differences of the same magnitude may or may not be statistically significant depending upon the size of the standard errors of the estimates. For example, a 2-point change in the average score for White students may be statistically significant, while a 2-point change for American Indian/ Alaska Native students may not be. Standard errors for the estimates presented in this report are available at http://nces. ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/. To ensure that significant differences in NAEP data reflect actual differences and not mere chance, error rates need to be controlled when making multiple simultaneous comparisons. The more comparisons that are made (e.g., comparing the performance of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native students), the higher the probability of finding significant differences by chance. In NAEP, the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure is used to control the expected proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses relative to the number of comparisons that are conducted. A detailed explanation of this procedure can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/tdw/analysis/infer.asp. NAEP employs a number of rules to determine the number of comparisons conducted, which in most cases is simply the number of possible statistical tests. However, there are two exceptions where the FDR is not applied: when comparing multiple years and when comparing multiple jurisdictions to the nation, neither the number of years nor the number of jurisdictions counts toward the number of comparisons. National School Lunch Program NAEP first began collecting data in 1996 on student eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) as an indicator of low income. Under the guidelines of NSLP, children from families with incomes below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those from families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals. (For the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009, for a family of four, 130 percent of the poverty level was $27,560, and 185 percent was $39,220.) Note that in some schools all students are categorized as eligible for free lunch because the school participates in a special provision of the National School Lunch Act that simplifies the process of determining eligibility. Under this provision, schools may certify all students as eligible once it is established that an eligibility threshold (typically 60 to 75 percent of students) has been met. Because of the improved quality of the data on students’ eligibility for NSLP, the percentage of students for whom information was not available has decreased compared to the percentages reported prior to the 2003 assessment. Therefore, trend comparisons are only made back to 2003 in this report. For more information on NSLP, visit http://www.fns. usda.gov/cnd/lunch/. School Location NAEP results are reported for four mutually exclusive categories of school location: city, suburb, town, and rural. The categories are based on standard definitions established by the Federal Office of Management and Budget using population and geographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau. Schools are assigned to these categories in the NCES Common Core of Data locale codes based on their physical address. The classification system was revised for 2007; therefore, results are only included in this report for 2007 and 2009. The new locale codes are based on an address’s proximity to an urbanized area (a densely settled core with densely settled surrounding areas). This is a change from the original system based on metropolitan statistical areas. To distinguish the two systems, the new system is referred to as “urbancentric locale codes.” More details on the classification system can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales. asp. MATHEMATICS 2009 39 Appendix Tables Table A-1. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public and nonpublic school students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by grade and SD/ELL category: Various years, 1992–2009 Accommodations not permitted Grade and SD/ELL category Accommodations permitted 1992 1996 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 9 6 3 3 † 14 6 8 8 † 15 4 11 7 5 18 4 14 9 5 21 4 17 9 8 21 3 18 9 9 21 3 19 9 10 21 2 19 8 10 7 4 3 3 † 11 5 6 6 † 10 3 7 4 4 12 3 9 5 4 13 3 10 4 6 13 2 10 3 7 13 2 10 3 7 13 2 11 3 8 3 2 1 1 † 3 1 2 2 † 6 1 5 3 2 7 1 6 4 1 10 1 8 6 2 10 1 8 6 2 10 1 9 6 3 10 1 9 6 3 9 6 4 4 † 11 4 6 6 † 12 3 8 6 3 13 4 10 7 3 17 3 14 7 6 17 3 14 6 8 17 4 13 6 7 17 3 14 5 9 7 4 3 3 † 9 4 5 5 † 9 3 6 4 2 10 3 7 5 2 13 3 10 4 6 12 3 10 3 7 12 3 8 2 6 12 3 9 2 8 2 2 1 1 † 3 1 2 2 † 3 1 2 2 # 4 1 3 2 1 6 1 5 4 1 6 1 5 4 1 6 1 5 4 2 5 # 5 3 2 Grade 4 SD and/or ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations SD Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations Grade 8 SD and/or ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations SD Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations † Not applicable. Accommodations were not permitted in this assessment year. # Rounds to zero. NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 40 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-2. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public and nonpublic school students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by selected racial/ethnic groups, grade, and SD/ELL category: 2009 Race/ethnicity Grade and SD/ELL category White Black Hispanic 14 2 12 4 8 16 3 13 3 10 43 3 40 24 17 13 2 11 3 8 15 3 12 3 9 11 2 9 2 7 1 # 1 # # 2 # 1 1 1 37 2 35 23 12 12 2 10 2 8 17 4 13 2 11 29 3 26 14 12 12 2 9 2 7 16 4 12 2 10 11 2 9 2 7 # # # # # 1 # 1 # 1 21 1 20 13 7 Grade 4 SD and/or ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations SD Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations Grade 8 SD and/or ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations SD Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations ELL Identified Excluded Assessed Without accommodations With accommodations # Rounds to zero. NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/ or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. 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), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 41 Table A-3. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public and nonpublic school students identified as students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) excluded and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all identified SD and/or ELL students, by grade and SD/ELL category: 2009 Percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students Grade and SD/ELL category Excluded Assessed Assessed without accommodations Assessed with accommodations 10 15 6 90 85 94 40 23 59 50 62 35 17 22 8 83 78 92 29 15 58 54 63 34 Grade 4 SD and/or ELL SD ELL Grade 8 SD and/or ELL SD ELL NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. 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), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 42 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-4. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students with disabilities (SD) and English language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and accommodated in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009 Grade 4 Grade 8 SD State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 ELL SD ELL Overall AccomAccom- Overall AccomAccomexcluded Identified Excluded modated Identified Excluded modated excluded Identified Excluded modated Identified Excluded modated 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 5 5 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 4 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 13 10 17 13 12 10 11 13 15 17 11 10 10 15 16 14 14 15 20 18 14 19 14 14 10 14 12 18 12 18 16 13 16 15 16 14 15 16 15 17 14 15 14 10 12 19 14 12 17 15 16 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 4 5 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 8 4 12 8 8 5 9 10 11 12 7 8 7 9 8 10 9 7 15 14 7 12 8 8 6 8 8 9 6 14 12 8 14 10 8 9 7 9 10 13 8 8 7 5 7 13 9 7 9 11 11 10 2 10 15 6 30 11 6 4 8 4 10 5 8 4 5 9 2 2 2 6 7 3 8 1 2 3 7 20 3 4 17 8 6 2 2 4 12 3 6 5 2 2 21 9 2 7 10 # 7 2 1 # # # # 1 # 1 # # # # # 1 # # # # # # 1 1 # 1 # # # # 1 # 1 1 1 # # # # 1 # 1 # # # 1 1 # # # # 1 # 4 # 7 8 4 2 6 5 3 7 3 6 2 5 3 3 4 1 2 1 4 2 1 4 1 1 1 3 12 2 3 9 7 4 1 2 2 7 2 3 2 1 2 4 5 1 5 5 # 4 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 4 3 3 5 2 2 7 6 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 5 5 6 3 3 2 4 2 4 5 3 2 4 2 2 3 2 13 10 13 12 12 9 11 13 15 15 11 12 9 14 14 14 12 12 15 17 12 19 13 12 9 13 12 14 11 20 16 13 16 12 15 15 15 13 17 18 14 10 11 12 10 20 14 11 15 14 14 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 7 5 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 5 5 6 3 3 2 4 2 4 5 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 8 3 9 7 9 5 7 9 12 12 8 8 5 9 8 10 8 6 12 12 4 10 8 7 6 7 8 8 6 12 13 8 13 10 6 9 7 6 12 13 5 6 6 5 6 13 7 7 10 10 10 6 1 11 6 4 20 7 3 2 5 2 7 4 3 3 2 6 1 1 2 3 3 2 5 1 1 3 3 8 1 2 11 5 5 2 1 3 6 2 3 3 2 1 7 5 2 4 4 # 4 2 # # 1 1 # 1 # # 1 # # 1 # 1 # # # # # # # 1 # 1 # # # # # # # 1 1 # 1 1 # # # 1 # # # 1 # # # # # 1 # 2 # 6 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 # # 1 1 4 # 2 5 4 3 # # 1 2 1 2 1 # 1 1 2 1 2 2 # 2 1 4 2 14 12 4 1 8 8 8 7 1 1 5 3 6 2 17 8 6 1 10 5 4 5 1 1 2 2 # Rounds to zero. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once in overall, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 43 Table A-5. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students with disabilities excluded in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1990–2009 State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA2 19921 5 4 — 3 5 3 4 4 5 7 5 5 3 — 3 3 — 3 4 6 3 6 5 3 5 4 — 4 — 4 3 6 3 3 2 6 7 — 3 4 5 — 4 5 4 — 5 — 4 5 3 19961 5 6 4 7 6 5 7 7 6 7 6 4 — — 5 5 — 6 7 7 7 7 6 5 6 5 5 4 5 — 5 8 5 6 3 — — 6 4 5 5 — 6 7 5 6 6 5 8 7 4 2000 3 3 — 3 4 3 — 3 — — 3 6 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 4 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 — — 5 2 4 1 4 4 2 — 2 5 — 2 6 3 3 3 — 3 4 2 Grade 4 2003 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 6 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 5 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 4 2 4 3 4 2 2 6 1 2 7 2 4 4 2 3 3 1 2005 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 7 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 2 4 1 3 5 2 3 4 2 2 2 1 2007 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 4 5 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 4 4 5 2 2 2 2 1 6 5 2 2 4 2 1 2 2 2009 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 4 5 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 19901 — 5 — 3 7 3 4 5 4 5 3 3 2 4 5 4 — 5 4 — 4 — 4 3 — — 2 3 — 4 5 6 4 3 2 5 5 2 5 5 — — — 4 — — 4 — 5 4 3 19921 5 5 — 4 6 4 4 5 4 5 4 3 3 — 4 4 — 5 4 4 4 6 6 3 7 4 — 4 — 5 6 4 6 3 2 6 6 — 4 4 6 — 5 5 4 — 5 — 6 4 4 19961 4 7 5 5 7 5 4 7 8 7 6 4 — — 5 5 — 4 6 5 6 7 5 3 7 6 3 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 3 — — 3 — 5 6 — 4 6 5 4 7 5 8 7 2 7 — 7 4 3 2 4 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 4 — 8 — 8 2 Grade 8 2000 2003 3 3 6 2 — 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 — 1 5 3 — 8 — 2 4 2 4 3 2 1 3 4 3 2 — 2 3 2 4 4 2 4 3 4 2 3 2 2 4 4 1 2 5 5 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 2 — 3 — 1 7 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 4 5 4 2 2 3 — 1 3 3 4 7 — 2 2 3 7 6 2 2 3 3 5 6 — 2 3 3 4 3 1 1 5 1 5 1 2005 3 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 10 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 4 4 6 4 2 3 4 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 4 5 4 2 3 3 6 2 5 5 2 4 4 2 3 3 2 2007 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 1 6 2 5 1 1 5 5 2 4 6 3 5 7 9 4 2 2 5 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 6 7 8 3 4 2 5 2 6 5 2 4 6 3 2 4 2 2009 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 7 5 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 5 5 6 3 3 2 4 2 4 5 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 5 1 9 1 6 1 — Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. 1 Accommodations were not permitted in this assessment year. 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 44 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-6. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public school English language learners excluded in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1990–2009 State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA2 19921 2 # — 2 # 10 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 — # # — # # # 1 1 1 # # # — # — # 2 1 2 # # # # — 1 3 # — # 4 1 — 1 — # 1 # 2 — 19961 2 # 1 7 # 12 2 2 1 3 2 1 — — # 1 — # 1 # 1 2 1 1 # # # 1 4 — 1 5 3 1 # — — 3 1 2 # — 1 5 1 # 1 1 # 1 # 4 1 2000 1 # — 3 # 3 — 1 — — 1 3 2 2 1 1 # # # # 1 2 1 1 # 1 # 1 4 — — 2 3 1 # # 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 2 1 # 2 — # 1 # Grade 4 2003 1 # # 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 # 1 # 1 # 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 # 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 # 1 1 1 1 2 # # # 2 1 # 2 1 # 1 # 2005 1 # 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 # 1 # # # 1 1 1 1 # # # 1 1 # 1 1 1 1 # # 1 1 # 1 # # 1 2 1 # 1 1 # 1 # 2007 1 # 1 2 1 1 # # 1 2 # 1 # 1 # # # # # # 1 1 # 1 # # # 1 2 # # 2 1 1 1 1 # 1 # 1 # # # 2 1 # 1 1 # 1 # 2009 1 # # # # 1 # 1 # # # # # 1 # # # # # # 1 1 # 1 # # # # 1 # 1 1 1 # # # # 1 # 1 # # # 1 1 # # # # 1 # 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 19901 — # — 1 # 4 1 1 # 2 # 1 # 1 # # — # # — 1 — # # — — # # — # 2 1 2 # # # # # # 2 — — — 2 — — 1 — # # # 19921 2 # — 2 # 5 1 1 # 2 # 2 # — # # — # # # 1 2 # # # # — # — # 1 1 3 # # # # — # 2 # — # 2 1 — 1 — # # # 1 — 2 — 19961 1 # 1 4 # 6 1 2 # 3 1 1 — — # # — # # # 1 1 1 # # 1 # 1 3 # 2 4 3 1 # — — 1 — 2 # — # 3 1 # 1 1 # 1 # 3 1 Grade 8 2000 2003 1 1 # # — # 1 2 # 1 2 2 — 1 2 1 — 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 1 # 2 1 # # — # # 1 1 1 # 1 # # 1 1 2 1 # 1 1 1 # # # # # # 1 1 1 1 — # — 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 # # 1 # # 1 1 1 — # 1 2 # # — # 1 1 2 2 # 1 1 # 1 2 — 1 # # 1 1 # # 2 1 1 1 2005 1 # # 2 1 1 1 # 1 1 # 1 1 1 # # 1 # # # # 1 # 1 # # # # 1 # 1 2 1 1 # # 1 1 # 1 # # # 2 1 # 1 1 # 1 # 2007 1 # 1 1 # 1 # # 1 1 # 1 # 1 # # # # # # # 1 # # # # # 1 1 # 1 2 1 # # # 1 1 1 1 # # # 2 1 # 1 1 # 1 # 2009 # # 1 1 # 1 # # 1 # # 1 # 1 # # # # # # # 1 # 1 # # # # # # # 1 1 # 1 1 # # # 1 # # # 1 # # # # # 1 # 1 1 1 1 1 1 — Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. # Rounds to zero. 1 Accommodations were not permitted in this assessment year. 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 45 Table A-7. Percentage of fourth-grade public school students identified as students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) excluded and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all identified SD and/or ELL students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009 SD and/or ELL State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Assessed without accomExcluded Assessed modations Percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students SD Assessed Assessed without with accomaccommodations Excluded Assessed modations ELL Assessed Assessed without with accomaccommodations Excluded Assessed modations Assessed with accommodations 10 8 5 6 8 6 8 13 18 8 9 7 8 12 12 11 14 18 8 8 25 20 16 9 8 16 12 11 8 11 14 9 6 11 22 18 21 11 14 9 10 12 21 11 12 12 11 9 9 12 7 90 92 95 94 92 94 92 87 82 92 91 93 92 88 88 89 86 82 92 92 75 80 84 91 92 84 88 89 92 89 86 91 94 89 78 82 79 89 86 91 90 88 79 89 88 88 89 91 91 88 93 40 62 25 42 21 79 28 12 10 17 27 27 37 26 31 19 32 32 17 17 14 27 36 39 31 29 28 42 36 16 10 33 5 22 26 13 33 32 22 23 38 37 20 61 31 20 25 36 39 17 25 50 30 70 53 71 15 64 75 72 75 64 66 55 62 57 71 55 50 75 75 61 53 48 52 61 55 61 47 56 73 75 58 89 67 52 69 45 57 64 68 52 51 58 29 57 68 64 55 52 71 68 16 9 7 10 11 21 13 14 20 10 11 11 10 12 15 12 20 19 9 8 32 25 18 11 8 18 14 13 19 11 15 15 6 13 23 20 26 14 16 9 12 13 24 28 16 11 14 13 9 14 7 84 91 93 90 89 79 87 86 80 90 89 89 90 88 85 88 80 81 91 92 68 75 82 89 92 82 86 87 81 89 85 85 94 87 77 80 74 86 84 91 88 87 76 72 84 89 86 87 91 86 93 22 56 23 33 20 28 11 11 10 21 25 14 27 28 32 15 18 31 16 15 15 11 27 34 31 28 21 37 29 14 11 18 5 20 25 11 28 30 22 17 34 36 22 21 28 17 24 28 38 15 23 62 35 70 57 69 51 76 75 70 69 64 75 63 60 53 73 62 49 75 77 53 64 55 55 61 54 65 49 52 74 75 66 88 67 52 69 47 56 63 74 54 51 54 51 56 72 62 59 53 71 70 6 3 3 2 3 4 4 13 7 5 3 4 3 15 4 6 5 13 # 8 15 13 8 6 5 8 6 5 5 11 20 4 8 4 16 14 6 6 11 9 5 # 6 5 6 18 5 4 # 10 6 94 97 97 98 97 96 96 87 93 95 97 96 97 85 96 94 95 87 100 92 85 87 92 94 95 92 94 95 95 89 80 96 92 96 84 86 94 94 89 91 95 100 94 95 94 82 95 96 100 90 94 59 88 27 47 22 88 45 12 12 6 31 39 55 21 28 28 49 34 24 44 10 64 71 43 35 27 48 53 37 26 8 39 3 26 31 23 52 34 22 39 48 46 9 76 32 41 24 43 52 21 37 35 8 70 51 75 8 52 75 81 89 66 57 42 65 68 66 46 53 76 48 75 23 21 50 61 65 46 42 59 63 73 56 90 69 53 62 42 60 68 52 47 54 85 20 62 40 71 53 48 69 57 21 11 79 89 13 35 65 54 27 12 73 88 11 26 61 62 14 14 86 86 15 45 71 41 # Rounds to zero. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. 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), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 46 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-8. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students identified as students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) excluded and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all identified SD and/or ELL students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009 SD and/or ELL State/jurisdiction Excluded Assessed Nation (public) 17 83 Alabama 13 87 Alaska 16 84 Arizona 12 88 Arkansas 7 93 California 6 94 Colorado 11 89 Connecticut 13 87 Delaware 15 85 Florida 12 88 Georgia 20 80 Hawaii 12 88 Idaho 11 89 Illinois 19 81 Indiana 27 73 Iowa 16 84 Kansas 17 83 Kentucky 36 64 Louisiana 10 90 Maine 12 88 Maryland 48 52 Massachusetts 27 73 Michigan 21 79 Minnesota 15 85 Mississippi 17 83 Missouri 26 74 Montana 19 81 Nebraska 20 80 Nevada 14 86 New Hampshire 14 86 New Jersey 11 89 New Mexico 14 86 New York 14 86 North Carolina 10 90 North Dakota 33 67 Ohio 33 67 Oklahoma 35 65 Oregon 15 85 Pennsylvania 17 83 Rhode Island 11 89 South Carolina 27 73 South Dakota 16 84 Tennessee 34 66 Texas 28 72 Utah 21 79 Vermont 11 89 Virginia 21 79 Washington 17 83 West Virginia 10 90 Wisconsin 15 85 Wyoming 12 88 Other jurisdictions District of Columbia 31 69 DoDEA1 13 87 Assessed without accommodations Percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students SD Assessed with accommodations Excluded Assessed Assessed without accommodations ELL Assessed with accommodations Excluded Assessed Assessed without accommodations Assessed with accommodations 29 60 25 29 21 69 27 18 7 6 11 32 37 16 17 15 26 13 13 20 8 18 21 34 16 19 21 25 35 27 9 33 5 16 26 9 21 41 14 19 33 28 10 37 30 26 27 26 26 16 19 54 26 59 59 72 25 61 69 78 82 69 56 51 65 56 69 57 51 76 69 44 55 58 52 67 56 60 55 50 59 80 53 81 74 42 58 44 44 69 70 41 56 57 35 50 63 52 57 64 70 69 22 13 25 16 9 15 16 14 15 13 23 11 15 20 31 16 24 37 11 12 56 28 24 17 17 26 22 23 22 14 11 22 14 12 34 33 41 20 19 10 32 17 36 39 27 11 24 19 10 16 13 78 87 75 84 91 85 84 86 85 87 77 89 85 80 69 84 76 63 89 88 44 72 76 83 83 74 78 77 78 86 89 78 86 88 66 67 59 80 81 90 68 83 64 61 73 89 76 81 90 84 87 15 59 8 21 17 25 14 16 6 6 10 24 28 13 12 11 10 12 11 17 8 15 15 23 13 18 15 19 21 26 10 20 4 9 24 8 12 31 10 18 29 23 9 18 15 24 23 20 25 12 17 63 28 67 63 74 59 70 69 79 81 67 65 57 68 57 73 66 51 78 71 36 56 62 60 70 56 64 58 57 61 79 58 82 80 42 58 47 50 71 72 39 60 55 43 58 64 53 60 65 72 70 8 17 6 9 3 4 6 11 24 9 9 15 2 19 10 15 5 36 3 10 16 25 7 10 16 28 4 8 6 15 13 6 14 8 36 43 9 6 17 21 5 11 37 11 5 8 12 12 7 15 # 92 83 94 91 97 96 94 89 76 91 91 85 98 81 90 85 95 64 97 90 84 75 93 90 84 72 96 92 94 85 87 94 86 92 64 57 91 94 83 79 95 89 63 89 95 92 88 88 93 85 100 58 67 41 39 32 81 44 24 12 5 19 43 60 27 42 38 57 21 41 46 7 34 54 59 50 35 53 52 47 51 8 43 6 32 38 22 60 58 44 22 49 61 11 68 59 41 39 40 66 27 34 34 15 53 52 65 15 51 66 64 86 73 42 38 54 49 47 38 44 56 44 77 42 39 31 34 37 43 40 47 34 79 51 80 60 26 34 31 36 40 58 47 28 52 21 36 50 49 48 27 58 66 12 35 57 52 34 13 66 87 7 27 59 60 27 16 73 84 28 46 45 38 # Rounds to zero. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. 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), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 47 Table A-9. Percentage distribution of fourth-grade students assessed in NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity, eligibility for free/reduced- price school lunch, and state/jurisdiction: 1992, 1996, and 2009 Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch Race/ethnicity State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA2 White 19921 2009 Black Hispanic Asian/ American Indian/ Pacific Islander Alaska Native Eligible Not eligible 19921 2009 19921 2009 19921 2009 19921 2009 19961 2009 19961 2009 72* 65 — 62* 75* 50* 73* 76* 70* 63* 60* 23* 92* — 87* 95* — 90* 53 98* 62* 83* 79* 91* 42 83* — 90* — 96* 69* 45* 63* 65* 95* 86* 77* — 81* 82* 58 — 73 49* 93* — 71* — 96* 87* 90* 54 61 50 40 66 28 61 66 51 46 47 14 81 51 76 84 69 83 47 94 48 68 71 76 45 76 83 73 42 91 55 28 52 54 86 72 58 69 71 68 55 80 69 31 77 94 56 62 92 75 84 18* 34 — 4 24 7 6 11 25* 24 38 3 #* — 11 2* — 9 45 #* 32 8 16 3* 58 15 — 6 — 1* 16 4 15 31 #* 12* 9 — 14 7* 41* — 25 14 1* — 25 — 2* 6* 1 16 33 4 6 23 7 5 12 33 22 36 2 1 19 11 5 10 10 48 3 35 8 20 9 52 17 1 7 10 2 16 3 19 27 2 19 11 4 15 10 35 2 24 13 2 2 26 6 6 10 2 7* #* — 23* #* 30* 17* 10* 2* 12* 1* 2 6* — 2* 1* — #* 1* #* 2* 4* 3* 2* #* 1* — 3* — 1* 11* 45* 17 1* 1* 1* 3* — 3* 7* #* — #* 34* 4* — 2* — #* 2* 6* 22 4 7 45 8 51 29 17 12 25 11 3 14 22 7 8 15 3 4 1 11 17 5 7 2 4 3 16 39 4 21 58 20 11 2 3 10 17 9 18 6 3 5 51 16 1 8 18 1 9 11 3* # — 1* 1* 12 2* 2* 1* 1 1* 62 1* — 1 2 — #* 2 1* 3* 4 1* 3* # 1* — #* — 1* 5* 1 4* 1* 1* 1* #* — 2* 4 1* — 1 2 2* — 3* — #* 2 1* 5 1 8 3 2 11 4 4 4 2 3 65 2 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 6 3 6 1 2 1 2 8 3 8 2 9 2 1 2 2 6 4 3 2 1 1 4 4 2 6 9 1 3 1 1 1 — 10 # 1 1 # # # # # 1 — # # — # # #* # # 1 1* # # — 1 — # # 4* # 2 3* # 9* — # # # — # # 1 — # — # 2 2 1 # 24 6 1 1 1 # # # # # 2 # # # 1 # # 1 # # 1 2 # # 12 2 1 # # 9 # 1 9 # 20 2 # 1 1 13 # # 1 # # 3 # 2 3 34* 49 25* 36* 45* 44* 29* 25* 30* 47* 44* 40 — — 29* 31* — 47 58* 32* 32* 24* 31* 22* 64 36* 35* 33* 15* — 33 50* 44* 34* 24* — — 31* 33 34* 52 — 36* 43* 27* 26* 31 32* 46* 25* 33 48 54 44 54 59 53 38 30 43 55 56 45 43 46 45 37 49 51 70 40 39 34 43 31 69 44 41 42 41 22 32 68 52 48 33 40 55 46 39 41 55 37 51 59 36 34 34 45 57 39 35 52 48 30* 44 52* 40 66 72 47* 48 49 57 — — 69* 64 — 51 32 62 64 66 62 65 35 63* 60 57 28* — 65 37 49 58* 65 — — 60* 58 65* 48 — 59* 52* 60 65 65 62* 49* 64 64 51 46 55 44 41 45 61 70 57 45 44 55 57 54 55 63 51 49 30 60 61 66 56 68 31 55 57 58 58 77 66 32 46 51 67 59 45 52 61 59 45 63 48 40 61 63 66 55 43 60 65 5* — 7 49 91* — 80 16 3* — 11 16 1* — 2 7 # — # # 74 ‡ 74 # 21* ‡ 26 # — Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. # Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Accommodations were not permitted in this assessment year. 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified and for students whose eligibility status for free/reduced-price school lunch was not available. Data on eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch were not collected until 1996. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1996, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments. 48 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-10. Percentage of fourth-grade public school students at or above Basic in NAEP mathematics, by state/ jurisdiction: Various years, 1992–2009 Accommodations not permitted State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Accommodations permitted 1992 57* 43* — 53* 47* 46* 61* 67* 55* 52* 53* 52* 63* — 60* 72* — 51* 39* 75* 55* 68* 61* 71* 36* 62* — 67* — 72* 68* 50* 57* 50* 72* 57* 60* — 65* 54* 48* — 47* 56* 66* — 59* — 52* 71* 69* 1996 62* 48* 65* 57* 54* 46* 67* 75* 54* 55* 53* 53* — — 72* 74* — 60* 44* 75* 59* 71* 68* 76* 42* 66* 71* 70* 57* — 68* 51* 64* 64* 75* — — 65* 68* 61* 48* — 58* 69* 69* 67* 62* 67* 63* 74* 64* 2000 67* 57* — 58* 56* 52* — 77* — — 58* 55* 71* 66* 78* 78* 75* 60* 57* 74* 61* 79* 72* 78* 45* 72* 73* 67* 61* — — 51* 67* 76* 75* 73* 69* 67* — 67* 60* — 60* 77* 70* 73* 73* — 68* — 73* 2000 64* 55* — 57* 55* 50* — 76* — — 57* 55* 68* 63* 77* 75* 76* 59* 57* 73* 60* 77* 71* 76* 45* 71* 72* 65* 60* — — 50* 66* 73* 73* 73* 67* 65* — 65* 59* — 59* 76* 69* 73* 71* — 65* — 71* 2003 76* 65* 75* 70 71* 67* 77* 82* 81* 76* 72* 68* 80* 73* 82* 83* 85* 72* 67* 83* 73* 84* 77 84* 62* 79* 81* 80 69* 87* 80* 63* 79* 85 83* 81* 74* 79 78* 72* 79 82* 70* 82* 79 85* 83 81 75 79* 87 2005 79* 66 77 70 78 71 81 84 84 82* 76 73* 86 74* 84* 85 88 75* 74 84* 79* 91 79 88 69 79* 85* 80 72* 89* 86 65* 81 83* 89* 84 79 80 82 76* 81* 86 74 87 83 87 83 84 75 84 87 2007 81 70 79 74 81 70 82 84 87* 86 79 77 85 79 89 87 89 79 73 85 80* 93 80 87 70 82 88 80 74* 91 90 70 85 85 91 87 82 79 85 80 80 86 76 87 83 89 87 84 81* 85 88 2009 81 70 78 71 80 72 84 86 84 86 78 77 85 80 87 87 89 81 72 87 85 92 78 89 69 83 88 82 79 92 88 72 83 87 91 85 82 80 84 81 78 86 74 85 81 89 85 84 77 85 87 23* — 20* 64* 24* 70* 24* 69* 36* 84 45* 85 49* 86 56 86 — Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2009 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 49 Table A-11. Percentage of fourth-grade public school students at or above Proficient in NAEP mathematics, by state/ jurisdiction: Various years, 1992–2009 Accommodations not permitted State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Accommodations permitted 1992 17* 10* — 13* 10* 12* 17* 24* 17* 13* 15* 15* 16* — 16* 26* — 13* 8* 27* 18* 23* 18* 26* 6* 19* — 22* — 25* 25* 11* 17* 13* 22* 16* 14* — 22* 13* 13* — 10* 15* 19* — 19* — 12* 24* 19* 1996 20* 11* 21* 15* 13* 11* 22* 31* 16* 15* 13* 16* — — 24* 22* — 16* 8* 27* 22* 24* 23* 29* 8* 20* 22* 24* 14* — 25* 13* 20* 21* 24* — — 21* 20* 17* 12* — 17* 25* 23* 23* 19* 21* 19* 27* 19* 2000 25* 14* — 17* 13* 15* — 32* — — 18* 14* 21* 21* 31* 28* 30* 17* 14* 25* 22* 33* 29* 34* 9* 23* 25* 24* 16* — — 12* 22* 28* 25* 26* 16* 23* — 23* 18* — 18* 27* 24* 29* 25* — 18* — 25* 2000 22* 13* — 16* 14* 13* — 31* — — 17* 14* 20* 20* 30* 26* 29* 17* 14* 23* 21* 31* 28* 33* 9* 23* 24* 24* 16* — — 12* 21* 25* 25* 25* 16* 23* — 22* 18* — 18* 25* 23* 29* 24* — 17* — 25* 2003 31* 19* 30* 25 26* 25* 34* 41* 31* 31* 27* 23* 31* 32* 35* 36* 41* 22* 21 34* 31* 41* 34 42* 17* 30* 31* 34* 23* 43* 39* 17* 33* 41 34* 36* 23* 33 36* 28* 32 34* 24* 33* 31* 42* 36* 36* 24* 35* 39 2005 35* 21 34 28 34 28 39* 42 36 37* 30* 27* 40 32* 38 37 47 26* 24 39* 38* 49* 38 47* 19 31* 38* 36 26* 47* 45 19* 36* 40 40* 43 29 37 41 31* 36 41 28 40 37* 44* 39 42 25 40* 43 2007 39 26 38 31 37 30 41 45 40* 40 32 33 40 36 46* 43 51 31* 24 42 40 58 37 51 21 38 44 38 30 52 52 24 43 41 46 46 33 35 47 34* 36 41 29 40 39 49 42 44 33* 47 44* 2009 38 24 38 28 36 30 45 46 36 40 34 37 41 38 42 41 46 37 23 45 44 57 35 54 22 41 45 38 32 56 49 26 40 43 45 45 33 37 46 39 34 42 28 38 41 51 43 43 28 45 40 5* — 5* 19* 6* 23* 5* 21* 7* 31* 10* 35 14* 37 17 38 — Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 50 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-12. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and state/ jurisdiction: 2009 White Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Black Percentage of students Hispanic Percentage of students Average At or At or Average At or At or Average At or At or scale Below above above At scale Below above above At scale Below above above At score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 248 237 249 243 245 247 252 253 249 250 247 247 244 249 247 245 251 241 241 245 255 258 243 255 241 245 247 245 245 252 255 245 248 254 248 249 241 243 249 247 245 247 239 254 246 248 251 247 233 250 244 10 18 9 14 12 11 7 7 7 7 10 11 12 10 9 10 6 16 13 12 6 3 14 6 13 12 9 11 10 7 5 12 9 5 6 9 13 14 9 11 12 9 17 5 13 11 7 11 22 9 10 90 82 91 86 88 89 93 93 93 93 90 89 88 90 91 90 94 84 87 88 94 97 86 94 87 88 91 89 90 93 95 88 91 95 94 91 87 86 91 89 88 91 83 95 87 89 93 89 78 91 90 50 34 52 44 46 51 57 58 50 53 48 51 44 52 48 45 55 39 37 46 60 67 43 61 37 46 49 45 46 57 63 47 50 59 49 54 40 43 53 50 46 47 36 61 48 51 54 51 28 53 44 8 4 9 7 7 9 11 11 8 9 8 7 5 10 6 6 8 6 3 7 15 14 6 14 3 7 6 5 5 10 12 7 7 13 6 9 4 6 9 7 7 6 3 9 8 9 9 8 2 9 5 222 211 225 222 217 217 225 222 226 228 221 232 ‡ 216 222 226 224 220 218 228 228 236 212 227 215 221 ‡ 213 218 ‡ 228 225 225 226 ‡ 222 222 223 223 221 220 225 213 231 221 ‡ 225 227 225 217 ‡ 37 51 30 41 44 44 33 38 30 27 38 24 ‡ 46 34 31 34 41 43 31 28 16 52 34 47 40 ‡ 52 43 ‡ 27 33 33 29 ‡ 36 36 37 36 37 40 35 51 21 39 ‡ 31 29 34 45 ‡ 63 49 70 59 56 56 67 62 70 73 62 76 ‡ 54 66 69 66 59 57 69 72 84 48 66 53 60 ‡ 48 57 ‡ 73 67 67 71 ‡ 64 64 63 64 63 60 65 49 79 61 ‡ 69 71 66 55 ‡ 15 7 17 19 12 13 23 14 17 20 15 33 ‡ 11 13 17 18 14 8 28 21 30 9 25 8 17 ‡ 10 12 ‡ 19 19 19 18 ‡ 14 14 18 17 15 14 17 7 23 15 ‡ 16 24 20 11 ‡ 1 # # 3 # 1 2 1 # 1 # 2 ‡ 1 # 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 # 2 # 1 ‡ # # ‡ 2 2 1 1 ‡ 1 1 # 2 # 1 # # 1 1 ‡ 1 3 1 # ‡ 227 220 232 220 233 219 228 227 231 238 231 230 225 227 230 223 233 227 230 ‡ 238 232 227 232 ‡ 237 241 224 227 234 232 224 231 236 ‡ 233 229 221 227 219 232 233 225 233 219 ‡ 234 227 ‡ 228 231 30 39 23 40 21 41 31 30 23 16 25 26 34 28 23 36 19 33 25 ‡ 17 22 29 27 ‡ 22 14 34 30 21 23 34 25 16 ‡ 21 25 39 32 41 23 25 34 20 43 ‡ 20 31 ‡ 29 23 70 61 77 60 79 59 69 70 77 84 75 74 66 72 77 64 81 67 75 ‡ 83 78 71 73 ‡ 78 86 66 70 79 77 66 75 84 ‡ 79 75 61 68 59 77 75 66 80 57 ‡ 80 69 ‡ 71 77 21 11 27 15 26 14 24 18 22 33 26 28 18 20 23 17 24 22 23 ‡ 32 25 20 29 ‡ 37 41 16 19 31 25 18 25 27 ‡ 25 20 16 23 14 28 27 19 26 16 ‡ 28 20 ‡ 22 22 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 ‡ 4 2 1 2 ‡ 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 ‡ 2 2 1 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 ‡ 2 1 ‡ 1 # 270 245 1 10 99 90 81 45 33 5 213 229 50 26 50 74 9 19 # 1 227 235 30 20 70 80 24 30 1 2 See notes at end of table. MATHEMATICS 2009 51 Table A-12. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and state/jurisdiction: 2009—Continued Asian/Pacific Islander Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 American Indian/Alaska Native Percentage of students Average At or At or Average At or At or scale Below above above At scale Below above above At score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 255 ‡ 236 245 ‡ 257 246 257 258 261 256 235 ‡ 265 ‡ 259 258 265 ‡ ‡ 259 264 252 243 ‡ 255 ‡ 251 245 257 261 ‡ 257 259 ‡ ‡ ‡ 245 258 242 ‡ ‡ ‡ 259 241 ‡ 258 253 ‡ 240 ‡ 9 ‡ 22 13 ‡ 7 15 7 6 7 7 23 ‡ 3 ‡ 6 6 7 ‡ ‡ 5 4 13 18 ‡ 11 ‡ 10 12 9 5 ‡ 8 7 ‡ ‡ ‡ 18 9 14 ‡ ‡ ‡ 4 17 ‡ 5 9 ‡ 21 ‡ 91 ‡ 78 87 ‡ 93 85 93 94 93 93 77 ‡ 97 ‡ 94 94 93 ‡ ‡ 95 96 87 82 ‡ 89 ‡ 90 88 91 95 ‡ 92 93 ‡ ‡ ‡ 82 91 86 ‡ ‡ ‡ 96 83 ‡ 95 91 ‡ 79 ‡ 61 ‡ 35 45 ‡ 61 51 65 66 73 60 35 ‡ 73 ‡ 66 64 69 ‡ ‡ 67 70 55 44 ‡ 62 ‡ 55 45 67 72 ‡ 67 62 ‡ ‡ ‡ 48 62 40 ‡ ‡ ‡ 71 39 ‡ 64 56 ‡ 39 ‡ 18 ‡ 4 12 ‡ 20 11 15 19 21 18 5 ‡ 25 ‡ 23 16 35 ‡ ‡ 18 28 19 11 ‡ 22 ‡ 11 7 16 22 ‡ 16 25 ‡ ‡ ‡ 12 22 10 ‡ ‡ ‡ 17 7 ‡ 18 16 ‡ 12 ‡ 227 ‡ 216 215 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 233 ‡ ‡ 228 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 217 ‡ 232 226 ‡ 234 223 ‡ ‡ ‡ 220 ‡ ‡ 219 ‡ ‡ 227 ‡ 228 ‡ 32 ‡ 47 49 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 26 ‡ ‡ 32 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 43 ‡ 23 29 ‡ 21 37 ‡ ‡ ‡ 40 ‡ ‡ 46 ‡ ‡ 31 ‡ 29 ‡ 68 ‡ 53 51 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 74 ‡ ‡ 68 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 57 ‡ 77 71 ‡ 79 63 ‡ ‡ ‡ 60 ‡ ‡ 54 ‡ ‡ 69 ‡ 71 ‡ 23 ‡ 14 13 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 27 ‡ ‡ 23 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 14 ‡ 30 17 ‡ 29 15 ‡ ‡ ‡ 15 ‡ ‡ 17 ‡ ‡ 21 ‡ 21 ‡ 2 ‡ 2 1 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 5 ‡ ‡ 2 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ # ‡ 2 2 ‡ 2 3 ‡ ‡ ‡ # ‡ ‡ # ‡ ‡ 3 ‡ 1 ‡ ‡ 244 ‡ 9 ‡ 91 ‡ 42 ‡ 5 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ # Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified. 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), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 52 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-13. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by gender and state/jurisdiction: 2009 Male Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Female Percentage of students Average At or At or Average At or At or scale Below above above At scale Below above above At score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 240 228 238 230 239 233 244 246 241 243 237 235 242 240 243 243 246 240 230 247 244 253 238 251 227 241 247 239 236 252 248 231 242 244 247 245 238 240 245 240 236 243 232 241 241 249 245 242 234 245 243 19 30 21 30 20 28 16 14 16 14 23 23 15 20 13 13 11 18 27 11 16 8 22 11 33 17 10 19 21 8 12 28 16 14 8 13 18 19 15 18 23 13 26 15 18 11 15 17 22 15 12 81 70 79 70 80 72 84 86 84 86 77 77 85 80 87 87 89 82 73 89 84 92 78 89 67 83 90 81 79 92 88 72 84 86 92 87 82 81 85 82 77 87 74 85 82 89 85 83 78 85 88 40 25 40 30 39 32 46 49 40 42 35 37 42 41 42 43 48 39 24 48 44 59 37 56 23 43 49 39 34 58 51 27 43 44 47 48 35 40 48 43 36 44 29 39 42 53 46 45 30 47 43 7 3 7 4 6 6 9 11 6 6 5 6 5 7 6 6 7 7 2 9 11 14 7 14 2 7 7 4 4 11 11 4 6 8 7 9 4 7 9 6 5 6 3 5 7 11 9 8 3 9 4 238 228 236 230 236 231 242 243 238 241 236 236 240 237 242 242 244 238 229 242 243 251 235 248 228 240 242 239 234 250 245 229 239 244 244 242 236 236 242 237 235 241 231 240 239 247 241 242 232 242 241 19 29 22 29 20 29 16 15 17 14 21 22 15 21 12 13 11 20 28 14 14 7 22 12 29 17 14 17 22 8 13 29 17 13 10 16 19 21 16 21 22 14 26 14 19 11 14 15 24 15 14 81 71 78 71 80 71 84 85 83 86 79 78 85 79 88 87 89 80 72 86 86 93 78 88 71 83 86 83 78 92 87 71 83 87 90 84 81 79 84 79 78 86 74 86 81 89 86 85 76 85 86 37 24 36 26 34 29 44 44 33 39 32 37 39 35 41 40 44 34 21 42 43 55 33 51 21 39 41 37 30 54 46 25 37 42 42 43 30 34 43 36 32 39 28 37 40 49 39 42 26 43 38 5 2 5 3 4 5 7 6 4 5 4 4 4 6 4 5 6 5 1 5 7 10 4 9 1 5 5 4 3 9 7 2 5 8 3 6 2 4 6 4 4 3 2 3 5 8 6 6 1 7 4 218 242 45 13 55 87 17 42 4 4 221 238 42 16 58 84 17 33 3 3 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 1 MATHEMATICS 2009 53 Table A-14. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by eligibility for free/reduced- price school lunch and state/jurisdiction: 2009 Eligible Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Not eligible Percentage of students Information not available Percentage of students Average At or At or Average At or At or Average At or At or scale Below above above At scale Below above above At scale Below above above At score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 228 217 226 219 229 220 228 225 229 235 225 224 234 224 232 232 236 229 223 235 229 237 222 234 221 229 235 227 226 237 229 223 233 232 236 230 231 227 228 224 226 232 222 233 227 235 230 231 227 229 234 29 43 33 42 28 40 30 33 27 20 32 33 23 34 22 23 18 28 35 20 26 17 36 24 39 29 19 30 31 18 27 36 25 22 16 27 23 30 29 34 32 25 38 21 33 22 26 26 30 27 21 71 57 67 58 72 60 70 67 73 80 68 67 77 66 78 77 82 72 65 80 74 83 64 76 61 71 81 70 69 82 73 64 75 78 84 73 77 70 71 66 68 75 62 79 67 78 74 74 70 73 79 22 13 24 15 23 15 24 18 21 29 19 23 30 18 26 25 32 21 14 31 20 31 17 31 14 24 31 23 20 35 22 17 28 25 29 24 23 22 23 18 20 27 16 26 24 32 23 27 20 24 29 1 # 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 250 241 247 243 250 246 252 253 248 251 249 245 246 251 251 249 254 249 245 251 253 260 247 257 242 250 251 247 242 255 255 245 249 255 250 253 244 248 253 249 248 248 242 252 248 254 250 251 241 252 246 9 14 12 14 8 14 8 7 8 7 9 14 10 9 6 7 5 10 9 8 8 3 11 6 12 9 6 9 14 5 6 11 8 6 5 7 12 11 7 9 10 8 13 6 11 6 9 8 13 7 8 91 86 88 86 92 86 92 93 92 93 91 86 90 91 94 93 95 90 91 92 92 97 89 94 88 91 94 91 86 95 94 89 92 94 95 93 88 89 93 91 90 92 87 94 89 94 91 92 87 93 92 54 39 49 44 55 48 58 58 48 55 53 48 49 54 54 51 60 53 43 54 59 70 49 64 41 54 56 49 41 62 62 45 52 60 52 60 44 50 60 54 51 50 42 57 50 60 52 56 40 58 47 10 5 9 7 9 11 12 11 8 9 9 8 7 11 9 7 10 11 4 10 14 17 9 15 4 9 8 7 5 12 13 7 7 14 7 11 5 9 11 8 9 6 5 9 8 12 10 11 4 11 5 240 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 227 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 258 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 251 257 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 22 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 35 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 8 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 11 3 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 78 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 65 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 92 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 89 97 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 42 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 25 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 69 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 57 64 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 7 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 4 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 17 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 12 14 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 211 ‡ 52 ‡ 48 ‡ 8 ‡ # ‡ 242 ‡ 19 ‡ 81 ‡ 42 ‡ 12 ‡ ‡ 240 ‡ 14 ‡ 86 ‡ 38 ‡ 4 # Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: 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), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 54 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-15. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by status as students with disabilities (SD) and state/jurisdiction: 2009 SD Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Average scale score Below Basic 220 194 218 209 215 208 218 222 220 230 215 196 219 223 228 220 227 226 215 225 228 237 220 232 212 225 223 222 218 231 230 212 220 224 231 220 220 218 222 214 211 226 210 222 219 226 225 217 217 222 227 41 71 45 57 46 57 43 39 42 28 47 70 44 38 30 40 31 35 50 34 33 19 42 28 53 36 34 39 43 26 30 50 40 36 22 40 41 46 40 49 55 35 57 39 44 34 37 49 45 40 31 59 29 55 43 54 43 57 61 58 72 53 30 56 62 70 60 69 65 50 66 67 81 58 72 47 64 66 61 57 74 70 50 60 64 78 60 59 54 60 51 45 65 43 61 56 66 63 51 55 60 69 19 5 16 15 14 16 15 19 16 26 13 9 16 23 24 12 23 21 10 19 27 32 19 32 10 26 16 18 16 27 27 10 13 23 21 18 16 17 19 13 13 22 11 18 18 22 21 17 14 18 20 193 222 77 40 23 60 4 17 Not SD Percentage of students At or At or above above At Basic Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic At or At or above above At Basic Proficient Advanced 2 # 1 1 # 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 3 1 1 4 4 2 5 # 2 1 2 1 2 4 # 1 2 2 # 1 3 3 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 242 231 241 233 240 234 246 248 242 244 238 240 243 241 245 246 248 241 233 249 245 255 238 252 229 243 247 242 237 255 249 232 244 247 247 247 239 241 247 243 239 245 234 242 243 252 246 245 236 247 245 16 26 17 26 17 26 13 11 13 11 19 18 12 18 10 9 8 17 23 8 13 6 19 9 29 15 9 14 19 4 10 26 12 10 7 11 15 16 12 13 17 11 22 13 16 7 11 12 18 11 9 84 74 83 74 83 74 87 89 87 89 81 82 88 82 90 91 92 83 77 92 87 94 81 91 71 85 91 86 81 96 90 74 88 90 93 89 85 84 88 87 83 89 78 87 84 93 89 88 82 89 91 41 26 42 30 39 31 49 50 39 43 36 40 43 40 44 46 49 39 26 50 46 61 37 57 23 43 49 42 34 61 52 28 45 46 48 49 35 40 50 44 37 45 31 40 44 56 46 46 31 49 44 6 3 7 4 5 6 9 9 5 6 5 6 5 7 6 6 7 6 2 8 9 13 6 12 2 6 6 5 3 12 10 3 6 9 5 8 3 6 8 6 5 5 3 5 7 11 8 8 3 8 4 1 1 222 243 40 11 60 89 19 40 4 4 # Rounds to zero. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: The results for students with disabilities are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 55 Table A-16. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by status as English language learners (ELL) and state/jurisdiction: 2009 ELL Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Average scale score Below Basic 218 ‡ 202 201 227 211 216 216 221 226 220 209 210 215 226 221 231 232 225 ‡ 227 221 216 224 ‡ ‡ 214 213 220 230 216 208 218 229 ‡ 239 219 213 215 209 232 ‡ 212 228 209 ‡ 229 214 ‡ 223 ‡ 43 ‡ 64 69 29 52 47 49 39 31 41 56 61 47 28 38 20 28 29 ‡ 29 38 48 36 ‡ ‡ 50 49 39 27 51 60 43 25 ‡ 19 40 52 53 56 25 ‡ 54 26 57 ‡ 24 50 ‡ 34 ‡ 57 ‡ 36 31 71 48 53 51 61 69 59 44 39 53 72 62 80 72 71 ‡ 71 62 52 64 ‡ ‡ 50 51 61 73 49 40 57 75 ‡ 81 60 48 47 44 75 ‡ 46 74 43 ‡ 76 50 ‡ 66 ‡ 12 ‡ 4 2 21 6 9 9 11 19 14 12 7 11 19 14 21 28 15 ‡ 17 15 12 15 ‡ ‡ 10 6 12 28 10 5 13 18 ‡ 36 9 6 12 10 28 ‡ 13 20 6 ‡ 19 8 ‡ 15 ‡ 215 232 47 22 53 78 14 22 Not ELL Percentage of students At or At or above above At Basic Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic At or At or above above At Basic Proficient Advanced 1 ‡ # # 2 # 1 1 # 1 # 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 ‡ 2 1 1 2 ‡ ‡ # # 1 # 1 # # 1 ‡ 6 # # # 1 3 ‡ 1 1 # ‡ 1 # ‡ 1 ‡ 242 228 241 235 238 240 246 246 240 243 237 239 243 240 243 244 247 239 230 245 245 254 237 252 227 241 245 241 239 252 247 234 242 245 245 244 238 241 244 241 236 243 232 244 243 248 244 245 233 245 243 16 29 17 23 19 19 12 13 16 12 21 19 13 18 12 12 10 19 28 13 14 6 21 9 31 17 10 16 17 7 11 22 15 13 9 15 17 16 14 17 22 13 25 12 15 11 14 12 23 14 12 84 71 83 77 81 81 88 87 84 88 79 81 87 82 88 88 90 81 72 87 86 94 79 91 69 83 90 84 83 93 89 78 85 87 91 85 83 84 86 83 78 87 75 88 85 89 86 88 77 86 88 41 25 42 32 37 40 50 48 37 42 35 40 42 40 43 43 49 37 23 45 45 60 36 57 22 41 47 40 37 56 50 30 42 45 45 45 34 41 46 41 34 43 29 43 44 51 44 47 28 47 41 6 2 6 4 5 8 9 9 5 6 5 6 5 7 6 5 7 6 2 7 9 13 5 12 2 6 6 4 4 10 9 3 6 9 5 8 3 6 8 5 5 5 3 5 7 9 8 8 2 8 4 1 1 220 241 43 14 57 86 17 38 3 4 # Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: The results for English language learners are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 56 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-17. Percentage distribution of eighth-grade students assessed in NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity, eligibility for free/reduced- price school lunch, and state/jurisdiction: 1990, 1996, and 2009 Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch Race/ethnicity Black White State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA2 Hispanic Asian/ American Indian/ Pacific Islander Alaska Native Eligible Not eligible 19901 2009 19901 2009 19901 2009 19901 2009 19901 2009 19961 2009 19961 2009 73* 67* — 62* 75* 49* 77* 79* 70* 64* 62* 20* 93* 70* 87* 95* — 90* 57 — 62* — 82* 93* — — 91* 92* — 98* 69* 42* 61* 63* 93 84* 77* 91* 82 86* — — — 50* — — 70* — 96* 88* 86 56 60 53 44 69 28 61 70 54 46 47 14 81 58 76 86 73 85 52 94 49 73 74 79 48 80 85 77 44 92 59 29 54 55 88 78 58 72 77 71 54 84 70 37 80 94 59 68 93 79 84 16 32 — 3* 24 7 5 11 26* 22 36 2 # 19 9 2* — 9 40 — 31 — 14 2* — — #* 5* — #* 17 2 19 32 # 12 11 2 14 5* — — — 14 — — 25 — 3* 9 1 16 35 4 5 21 6 6 11 34 22 37 3 1 18 12 5 9 10 43 2 35 8 18 7 50 14 1 8 10 2 16 3 19 28 1 15 10 2 13 9 38 2 25 14 1 2 26 5 5 10 1 7* #* — 26* 1* 30* 15* 8* 2* 12* 1* 2* 4* 8* 2* 1* — #* 1 — 2* — 2* #* — — 1* 2* — 1* 9* 42* 13* 1* 1 1* 2* 3* 2* 5* — — — 33* — — 2* — #* 1* 6* 21 3 6 42 8 51 28 15 9 26 10 3 14 18 7 6 14 2 2 1 10 11 4 5 2 3 3 12 35 3 17 58 20 10 2 2 11 16 6 17 5 2 3 46 14 1 8 15 1 7 10 2* 1* — 2* 1 12 2* 2* 1* 2 1* 67 1 2 1 1* — 1* 1 — 4* — 2 3* — — 1* 1* — 1* 4* 2 4* 1* 1 1 1 3* 1* 2* — — — 2 — — 3* — 1 2* 1 5 1 9 3 1 13 4 4 3 2 3 68 2 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 7 6 2 6 1 2 1 2 9 2 8 1 7 2 1 1 2 5 3 3 1 1 2 4 3 2 6 8 1 3 1 1 # — 7 #* 1 1 # #* # # # 1 # # # — # # — # — 1 2 — — 7* #* — # # 11 1 2 5 # 9* 2 # #* — — — # — — # — # 1 2* 1 1 22 6 1 1 1 # # # # 1 2 # # 1 2 # 1 1 # # 1 2 # 1 10 1 1 # # 9 # 1 9 # 19 2 # 1 # 11 # # 1 1 # 3 # 1 3 30* 39* 15* 27* 32* 36* 24* 21 20* 39* 32* 30* — — 23* 19* — 34* 48* 22* 25* 18* 20* 20* 53* 26* 25* 27* — — — 42* 37 31* 24* — — 22* — 26* 44* — 27* 37* 20* 19* 23* 25* 36* 20* 21* 43 50 36 47 53 53 35 26 38 48 49 41 36 39 37 33 42 48 62 35 31 29 38 27 66 36 34 37 35 20 27 63 44 44 29 34 48 41 33 38 51 32 43 53 27 29 31 37 52 31 29 56 59* 33* 50 60* 47 65 74 59* 53 54 65* — — 77* 74* — 58* 44* 73* 70 75 66 65* 42* 66 59* 69* — — — 43* 54 62* 67* — — 62 — 70* 55* — 64* 57* 70* 73 67 72* 61* 67 73* 56 50 62 51 47 45 63 74 62 52 50 59 62 61 63 67 57 52 38 65 69 71 62 73 33 64 66 63 65 77 71 35 52 54 71 66 52 57 67 62 49 68 57 47 64 71 69 63 48 66 71 3 — 3 46 93* — 87 16 3* — 9 16 1* — 2 9 # — # 1 55* ‡ 73 # 30* ‡ 26 # — Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. # Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Accommodations were not permitted in this assessment year. 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified and for students whose eligibility status for free/reduced-price school lunch was not available. Data on eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch were not collected until 1996. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1990, 1996, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 57 Table A-18. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students at or above Basic in NAEP mathematics, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1990–2009 Accommodations not permitted State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Accommodations permitted 1990 51* 40* — 48* 44* 45* 57* 60* 48* 43* 47* 40* 63* 50* 56* 70* — 43* 32* — 50* — 53* 67* — — 74* 68* — 65* 58* 43* 50* 38* 75* 53* 52* 62* 56* 49* — — — 45* — — 52* — 42* 66* 64* 1992 56* 39* — 55* 44* 50* 64* 64* 52* 49* 48* 46* 68* — 60* 76 — 51* 37* 72* 54* 63* 58* 74* 33* 62* — 70* — 71* 62* 48* 57* 47* 78* 59* 59* — 62* 56* 48* — 47* 53* 67* — 57* — 47* 71* 67* 1996 61* 45* 68* 57* 52* 51* 67* 70* 55* 54* 51* 51* — — 68* 78 — 56* 38* 77 57* 68* 67 75* 36* 64* 75* 76 — — — 51* 61* 56* 77* — — 67* — 60* 48* — 53* 59* 70* 72* 58* 67* 54* 75 68* 2000 65* 52* — 62* 52* 52* — 72* — — 55* 52* 71* 68 76 — 77 63* 48* 76 65* 76* 70 80 41* 67* 80 74 58* — — 50* 68 70 77* 75 64 71 — 64* 55* — 53* 68* 68* 75* 67* — 62 — 70* 2000 62* 53* — 60* 49* 50* — 70* — — 54* 51* 70* 67* 74 — 76 60* 47* 73* 62* 70* 68 80 42* 64* 79* 73 55* — — 48* 63* 67* 76* 73 62* 71 — 59* 53* — 52* 67* 66* 73* 65* — 58 — 69* 2003 67* 53* 70* 61* 58* 56 74 73* 68* 62* 59* 56* 73* 66* 74* 76 76 65* 57* 75 67* 76* 68 82 47* 71* 79* 74 59* 79 72* 52* 70 72 81* 74 65 70* 69* 63* 68 78* 59* 69* 72* 77* 72* 72* 63 75* 77 2005 68* 53* 69* 64 64 57 70* 70* 72* 65* 62* 56* 73* 68* 74* 75 77 64* 59 74* 66* 80* 68 79* 52 68* 80* 75 60 77* 74* 53* 70 72 81* 74 63* 72 72* 63* 71 80* 61 72* 71* 78* 75 75 60 76 76 2007 70* 55 73 66 65 59 75 73* 74 68 64 59* 75* 70 76 77 81 69 64 78 74 85 66 81 54 72* 79* 74 60 78* 77 57 70 73 86 76 66 73 77 65 71 81 64 78 72 81 77 75 61 76 80 2009 71 58 75 67 67 59 76 78 75 70 67 65 78 73 78 76 79 70 62 78 75 85 68 83 54 77 82 75 63 82 80 59 73 74 86 76 68 75 78 68 69 83 65 78 75 81 76 78 61 79 78 17* — 22* — 20* 64* 23* 70* 23* 68* 29* 79 31* 76* 34* 78 40 79 — Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 58 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-19. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students at or above Proficient in NAEP mathematics, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 1990–2009 Accommodations not permitted State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Accommodations permitted 1990 15* 9* — 13* 9* 12* 17* 22* 14* 12* 14* 12* 18* 15* 17* 25* — 10* 5* — 17* — 16* 23* — — 27* 24* — 20* 21* 10* 15* 9* 27* 15* 13* 21* 17* 15* — — — 13* — — 17* — 9* 23* 19* 1992 20* 10* — 15* 10* 16* 22* 26* 15* 15* 13* 14* 22* — 20* 31 — 14* 7* 25* 20* 23* 19* 31* 6* 20* — 26* — 25* 24* 11* 20* 12* 29* 18* 17* — 21* 16* 15* — 12* 18* 22* — 19* — 10* 27* 21* 1996 23* 12* 30 18* 13* 17* 25* 31* 19* 17* 16* 16* — — 24* 31 — 16* 7* 31* 24* 28* 28 34* 7* 22* 32* 31 — — — 14* 22* 20* 33* — — 26* — 20* 14* — 15* 21* 24* 27* 21* 26* 14* 32* 22* 2000 26* 16* — 21* 14* 18* — 34* — — 19* 16* 27* 27* 31* — 34* 21* 12* 32 29* 32* 28 40* 8* 22* 37* 31 20* — — 13* 26* 30* 31* 31* 19* 32* — 24* 18* — 17* 24* 26* 32* 26* — 18 — 25* 2000 25* 16* — 20* 13* 17* — 33* — — 19* 16* 26* 26* 29* — 34* 20* 11* 30* 27* 30* 28 39* 9* 21* 36* 30* 18* — — 12* 24* 27* 30* 30* 18* 31* — 22* 17* — 16* 24* 25* 31* 25* — 17 — 23* 2003 27* 16* 30* 21* 19* 22 34* 35* 26* 23* 22* 17* 28* 29 31* 33 34* 24 17 29* 30* 38* 28 44 12 28* 35* 32 20* 35* 33* 15* 32 32 36* 30* 20* 32* 30* 24* 26* 35* 21 25* 31* 35* 31* 32* 20 35* 32 2005 28* 15* 29* 26 22* 22 32* 35* 30 26 23* 18* 30* 29* 30* 34 34* 23* 16 30* 30* 43* 29 43* 14 26* 36* 35 21* 35* 36* 14* 31 32 35* 33 21 34 31* 24* 30 36* 21* 31* 30* 38* 33 36 18 36 29* 2007 31* 18 32 26 24 24 37 35* 31 27 25 21* 34* 31 35 35 40 27 19 34 37 51 29 43 14 30* 38* 35 23 38* 40 17 30 34 41 35 21 35 38 28 32 39 23 35 32 41 37 36* 19 37 36 2009 33 20 33 29 27 23 40 40 32 29 27 25 38 33 36 34 39 27 20 35 40 52 31 47 15 35 44 35 25 43 44 20 34 36 43 36 24 37 40 28 30 42 25 36 35 43 36 39 19 39 35 3* — 4* — 5* 22* 6* 27* 6* 26* 6* 33* 7* 33 8* 33 11 36 — Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. MATHEMATICS 2009 59 Table A-20. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and state/ jurisdiction: 2009 White Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Black Percentage of students Average At or At or scale Below above above At score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Hispanic Percentage of students Average At or At or scale Below above above At score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Average At or At or scale Below above above At score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 292 280 293 292 284 289 299 298 294 289 289 282 292 294 291 287 294 282 283 287 303 305 286 300 279 290 296 291 287 293 302 288 294 297 296 291 282 290 294 286 293 295 282 301 289 293 294 295 271 294 289 18 28 14 19 24 22 13 13 14 20 20 26 17 15 17 21 15 27 23 21 11 9 23 11 26 18 13 17 22 17 11 19 14 15 10 17 24 19 16 23 17 13 27 11 19 18 16 15 39 14 18 82 72 86 81 76 78 87 87 86 80 80 74 83 85 83 79 85 73 77 79 89 91 77 89 74 82 87 83 78 83 89 81 86 85 90 83 76 81 84 77 83 87 73 89 81 82 84 85 61 86 82 43 29 44 42 34 39 51 49 43 39 39 31 43 44 41 37 45 29 29 36 56 59 37 53 25 39 47 41 36 44 54 39 44 49 46 41 29 41 45 35 43 46 30 54 40 44 44 46 20 45 38 10 5 8 11 6 10 14 13 9 9 9 6 9 10 8 7 10 5 6 8 18 20 8 15 3 7 11 9 8 11 17 7 10 14 8 9 4 9 11 7 11 8 6 16 8 13 10 12 2 10 8 260 248 268 269 251 250 263 261 267 264 262 271 ‡ 255 266 259 264 258 257 261 266 272 246 264 251 260 ‡ 253 256 ‡ 267 259 262 262 ‡ 260 261 264 260 256 263 ‡ 254 272 ‡ ‡ 268 269 263 254 ‡ 51 66 42 42 64 60 47 50 42 47 50 40 ‡ 59 46 50 48 55 57 54 45 38 68 47 64 54 ‡ 60 59 ‡ 42 45 49 47 ‡ 55 49 47 51 55 48 ‡ 60 34 ‡ ‡ 41 40 47 62 ‡ 49 34 58 58 36 40 53 50 58 53 50 60 ‡ 41 54 50 52 45 43 46 55 62 32 53 36 46 ‡ 40 41 ‡ 58 55 51 53 ‡ 45 51 53 49 45 52 ‡ 40 66 ‡ ‡ 59 60 53 38 ‡ 12 6 17 23 8 10 16 10 13 13 11 21 ‡ 9 14 9 15 8 7 14 15 23 5 13 5 11 ‡ 10 10 ‡ 17 13 13 12 ‡ 11 10 12 13 8 12 ‡ 10 17 ‡ ‡ 14 16 11 11 ‡ 1 1 1 5 # 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 ‡ 1 1 2 1 # 1 5 1 3 1 2 # 2 ‡ 2 1 ‡ 2 2 1 1 ‡ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‡ 1 2 ‡ ‡ 1 4 1 2 ‡ 266 260 275 265 269 256 267 263 278 274 270 276 264 269 273 266 274 272 ‡ ‡ 275 271 269 269 ‡ 284 278 262 262 270 272 262 262 274 ‡ 267 263 264 266 255 269 268 270 277 259 ‡ 274 264 ‡ 268 269 44 51 31 44 37 55 45 45 28 34 41 30 46 41 36 43 35 37 ‡ ‡ 36 38 38 45 ‡ 24 30 50 50 45 37 50 48 33 ‡ 42 50 46 45 57 43 38 39 30 54 ‡ 35 47 ‡ 44 40 56 49 69 56 63 45 55 55 72 66 59 70 54 59 64 57 65 63 ‡ ‡ 64 62 62 55 ‡ 76 70 50 50 55 63 50 52 67 ‡ 58 50 54 55 43 57 62 61 70 46 ‡ 65 53 ‡ 56 60 17 10 23 16 15 11 18 14 22 22 18 26 15 17 19 15 22 22 ‡ ‡ 26 21 17 21 ‡ 37 27 10 13 22 22 12 15 24 ‡ 16 12 15 18 8 16 13 19 25 11 ‡ 23 13 ‡ 20 15 2 # 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 4 1 1 2 1 3 3 ‡ ‡ 4 4 2 4 ‡ 4 5 1 2 6 3 1 2 2 ‡ # 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 ‡ 3 2 ‡ 3 3 ‡ 294 ‡ 13 ‡ 87 ‡ 44 ‡ 9 249 269 64 40 36 60 8 14 # 1 265 281 42 28 58 72 18 28 2 4 See notes at end of table. 60 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-20. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and state/jurisdiction: 2009—Continued Asian/Pacific Islander Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 American Indian/Alaska Native Percentage of students Average At or At or Average At or At or scale Below above above At scale Below above above At score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 300 ‡ 282 295 ‡ 294 301 305 312 302 300 274 ‡ 304 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 320 314 309 283 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 283 308 323 ‡ 309 311 ‡ ‡ 289 296 305 292 ‡ ‡ ‡ 313 276 ‡ 304 302 ‡ 289 ‡ 16 ‡ 28 19 ‡ 18 14 10 8 13 14 36 ‡ 11 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 5 10 11 32 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 30 9 5 ‡ 10 13 ‡ ‡ 20 20 13 15 ‡ ‡ ‡ 8 36 ‡ 11 15 ‡ 18 ‡ 84 ‡ 72 81 ‡ 82 86 90 92 87 86 64 ‡ 89 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 95 90 89 68 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 70 91 95 ‡ 90 87 ‡ ‡ 80 80 87 85 ‡ ‡ ‡ 92 64 ‡ 89 85 ‡ 82 ‡ 53 ‡ 31 52 ‡ 46 55 61 69 55 49 25 ‡ 60 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 76 66 59 35 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 33 62 77 ‡ 63 65 ‡ ‡ 38 50 60 40 ‡ ‡ ‡ 67 27 ‡ 55 53 ‡ 40 ‡ 20 ‡ 7 18 ‡ 13 18 18 27 19 20 4 ‡ 19 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 35 35 28 11 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 7 26 43 ‡ 26 36 ‡ ‡ 8 18 25 10 ‡ ‡ ‡ 31 7 ‡ 24 22 ‡ 7 ‡ 267 ‡ 262 254 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 277 ‡ ‡ 260 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 256 ‡ 256 263 ‡ 269 273 ‡ ‡ ‡ 266 ‡ ‡ 263 ‡ ‡ 269 ‡ ‡ ‡ 43 ‡ 49 57 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 26 ‡ ‡ 49 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 54 ‡ 55 48 ‡ 40 36 ‡ ‡ ‡ 45 ‡ ‡ 49 ‡ ‡ 42 ‡ ‡ ‡ 57 ‡ 51 43 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 74 ‡ ‡ 51 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 46 ‡ 45 52 ‡ 60 64 ‡ ‡ ‡ 55 ‡ ‡ 51 ‡ ‡ 58 ‡ ‡ ‡ 20 ‡ 15 12 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 21 ‡ ‡ 16 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 10 ‡ 14 16 ‡ 19 25 ‡ ‡ ‡ 17 ‡ ‡ 18 ‡ ‡ 23 ‡ ‡ ‡ 3 ‡ 2 2 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 4 ‡ ‡ 2 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 1 ‡ 2 2 ‡ 2 6 ‡ ‡ ‡ 1 ‡ ‡ 1 ‡ ‡ 8 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 292 ‡ 17 ‡ 83 ‡ 44 ‡ 8 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ # Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified. 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), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 61 Table A-21. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by gender and state/jurisdiction: 2009 Male Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Female Percentage of students Average At or At or Average At or At or scale Below above above At scale Below above above At score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 283 268 283 279 275 272 289 288 284 281 277 271 288 284 288 285 290 281 272 288 290 300 280 296 265 287 292 286 275 293 295 271 283 284 294 287 278 287 290 278 281 292 275 287 285 294 287 290 271 289 288 28 42 26 32 34 39 24 23 24 29 35 38 21 26 21 24 21 29 39 22 24 14 31 17 45 23 18 24 36 19 19 39 27 27 13 23 31 24 22 32 31 17 36 22 25 19 23 21 40 20 20 72 58 74 68 66 61 76 77 76 71 65 62 79 74 79 76 79 71 61 78 76 86 69 83 55 77 82 76 64 81 81 61 73 73 87 77 69 76 78 68 69 83 64 78 75 81 77 79 60 80 80 34 21 34 31 27 26 41 39 32 31 27 24 39 35 39 35 43 30 21 38 42 53 32 49 15 37 45 37 26 45 47 21 36 37 45 38 26 40 42 29 31 44 26 38 37 45 38 41 21 41 38 8 4 7 7 4 6 11 11 7 7 6 5 9 9 8 8 9 6 5 10 14 18 8 15 2 8 11 9 5 13 16 4 8 9 10 9 4 10 12 6 8 9 4 8 7 14 9 12 3 10 8 281 269 283 276 277 268 286 289 283 278 278 276 286 280 285 284 287 278 273 284 287 298 277 293 265 285 291 283 273 292 290 269 282 284 291 284 274 283 287 278 280 289 275 286 283 292 285 288 270 287 284 29 42 25 33 32 42 25 21 25 31 32 32 22 29 24 24 21 30 37 23 25 15 33 18 46 23 17 26 38 18 20 42 28 25 14 25 34 26 22 31 31 18 35 23 25 19 24 23 39 22 24 71 58 75 67 68 58 75 79 75 69 68 68 78 71 76 76 79 70 63 77 75 85 67 82 54 77 83 74 62 82 80 58 72 75 86 75 66 74 78 69 69 82 65 77 75 81 76 77 61 78 76 31 20 33 27 27 21 38 41 31 27 27 27 37 31 34 33 36 25 20 32 38 50 29 45 15 34 42 32 24 42 42 19 32 34 42 34 21 33 37 26 29 39 25 35 33 42 33 38 18 38 31 7 3 5 5 5 4 9 10 6 5 5 4 7 6 7 5 7 4 3 6 11 16 5 11 1 5 9 7 4 10 12 3 7 9 5 7 3 7 8 5 6 5 4 9 6 11 7 10 2 7 6 252 288 61 19 39 81 12 38 2 6 255 286 59 22 41 78 11 34 2 6 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 62 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-22. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by eligibility for free/ reduced-price school lunch and state/jurisdiction: 2009 Eligible Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Not eligible Percentage of students Information not available Percentage of students Average At or At or Average At or At or Average At or At or scale Below above above At scale Below above above At scale Below above above At score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 266 255 269 262 264 258 267 263 271 269 265 261 276 264 273 269 276 268 263 272 267 278 260 273 256 272 277 267 263 276 270 261 270 268 280 269 266 270 268 261 268 276 261 276 268 277 268 271 262 269 274 43 56 40 47 46 53 43 46 37 41 47 48 33 47 36 39 33 42 48 36 45 31 50 37 57 37 30 42 49 34 39 50 40 42 25 41 43 39 40 49 43 31 51 31 43 33 40 38 49 40 33 57 44 60 53 54 47 57 54 63 59 53 52 67 53 64 61 67 58 52 64 55 69 50 63 43 63 70 58 51 66 61 50 60 58 75 59 57 61 60 51 57 69 49 69 57 67 60 62 51 60 67 17 10 19 14 15 12 19 13 17 18 13 15 25 14 21 17 24 15 11 19 17 29 13 21 8 19 27 17 14 24 20 11 22 18 27 18 14 21 18 12 16 24 13 23 20 24 15 20 11 20 20 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 2 5 1 4 # 2 3 1 2 4 3 1 4 3 4 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 4 1 3 1 2 2 293 282 292 291 290 285 298 298 292 289 290 282 294 294 295 292 298 290 288 294 298 307 289 302 283 294 299 294 280 296 300 284 293 298 298 294 285 296 298 288 294 297 285 299 290 300 294 299 280 297 291 17 27 17 20 19 26 14 13 17 20 20 26 16 15 14 16 12 19 21 15 16 8 21 10 22 15 11 15 30 15 13 24 16 14 9 15 22 15 13 21 18 11 24 13 19 13 16 12 29 12 17 83 73 83 80 81 74 86 87 83 80 80 74 84 85 86 84 88 81 79 85 84 92 79 90 78 85 89 85 70 85 87 76 84 86 91 85 78 85 87 79 82 89 76 87 81 87 84 88 71 88 83 45 31 42 42 40 37 51 49 41 40 41 32 46 45 45 42 51 38 35 44 50 61 41 56 30 45 52 45 31 48 53 34 43 50 49 45 33 48 50 37 45 49 35 51 40 51 45 51 28 48 41 12 6 8 11 8 10 14 13 9 9 10 6 10 11 10 9 12 8 9 11 17 22 10 17 4 9 13 11 6 13 18 6 10 15 9 11 5 13 13 8 12 9 7 15 8 17 12 15 4 11 9 284 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 269 308 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 307 ‡ ‡ 284 285 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 294 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 291 ‡ 28 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 38 12 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 11 ‡ ‡ 33 22 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 14 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 18 ‡ 72 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 62 88 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 89 ‡ ‡ 67 78 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 86 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 82 ‡ 35 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 17 61 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 61 ‡ ‡ 40 29 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 45 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 41 ‡ 10 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 2 27 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 24 ‡ ‡ 12 7 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 8 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 13 ‡ 247 ‡ 66 ‡ 34 ‡ 7 ‡ # ‡ 272 ‡ 42 ‡ 58 ‡ 24 ‡ 7 ‡ ‡ 287 ‡ 21 ‡ 79 ‡ 36 ‡ 6 # Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: 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), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 63 Table A-23. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by status as students with disabilities (SD) and state/jurisdiction: 2009 SD Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Average scale score Below Basic 249 221 247 235 238 229 252 256 255 252 245 230 248 250 258 243 254 250 244 257 265 271 239 263 233 255 244 252 242 264 259 236 255 251 268 255 240 246 254 245 248 255 239 254 243 261 253 248 237 255 254 64 87 66 75 75 82 61 54 60 61 72 81 65 62 59 73 60 67 72 58 46 41 75 50 82 59 69 61 71 48 53 77 57 61 38 57 75 68 58 70 67 60 77 59 75 53 60 66 78 55 61 36 13 34 25 25 18 39 46 40 39 28 19 35 38 41 27 40 33 28 42 54 59 25 50 18 41 31 39 29 52 47 23 43 39 62 43 25 32 42 30 33 40 23 41 25 47 40 34 22 45 39 9 1 6 5 4 3 11 13 9 8 6 3 8 8 12 5 9 7 6 10 18 21 3 16 1 9 6 10 9 14 13 6 10 11 13 11 5 6 10 5 7 8 6 14 6 11 10 6 2 10 8 213 254 94 60 6 40 1 10 Not SD Percentage of students At or At or above above At Basic Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic At or At or above above At Basic Proficient Advanced 1 # # 1 # # 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 1 3 # 1 # 1 1 2 3 # 1 2 1 1 # 1 1 # 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 # 1 1 285 273 287 282 281 274 291 293 288 284 281 279 291 287 290 290 292 282 277 292 290 304 283 298 268 289 297 288 277 298 298 274 287 288 296 289 279 290 294 284 284 294 278 289 287 300 290 293 276 293 291 24 37 21 28 28 37 21 18 19 25 29 29 18 23 18 17 17 27 33 16 24 11 27 14 43 19 12 21 34 12 14 36 22 22 11 20 28 20 16 24 27 13 32 19 21 11 19 18 33 16 17 76 63 79 72 72 63 79 82 81 75 71 71 82 77 82 83 83 73 67 84 76 89 73 86 57 81 88 79 66 88 86 64 78 78 89 80 72 80 84 76 73 87 68 81 79 89 81 82 67 84 83 35 22 36 32 30 25 43 43 35 32 29 28 41 36 39 38 43 29 22 40 41 57 34 51 16 38 48 38 26 50 50 22 37 39 47 38 26 40 45 32 33 45 27 38 37 51 39 43 22 44 38 8 4 7 7 5 6 11 11 7 6 6 5 9 8 8 7 9 5 5 9 13 19 7 14 2 7 11 8 5 13 16 4 9 10 8 9 4 9 11 7 7 8 5 9 7 15 9 12 3 9 8 # 1 259 290 55 17 45 83 13 38 2 7 # Rounds to zero. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: The results for students with disabilities are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. 64 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD Table A-24. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by status as English language learners (ELL) and state/jurisdiction: 2009 ELL Percentage of students State/jurisdiction Nation (public) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other jurisdictions District of Columbia DoDEA1 Average scale score Below Basic 243 ‡ 243 224 257 237 248 240 ‡ 241 ‡ 231 241 249 270 ‡ 260 ‡ ‡ ‡ 249 238 256 255 ‡ ‡ 236 245 234 ‡ 241 238 231 259 ‡ 261 239 241 253 237 267 ‡ ‡ 254 239 ‡ 264 246 ‡ 259 ‡ 72 ‡ 73 89 51 79 68 75 ‡ 70 ‡ 82 73 68 44 ‡ 52 ‡ ‡ ‡ 69 78 58 59 ‡ ‡ 76 70 84 ‡ 72 80 80 49 ‡ 51 80 75 63 76 45 ‡ ‡ 59 78 ‡ 45 72 ‡ 55 ‡ 28 ‡ 27 11 49 21 32 25 ‡ 30 ‡ 18 27 32 56 ‡ 48 ‡ ‡ ‡ 31 22 42 41 ‡ ‡ 24 30 16 ‡ 28 20 20 51 ‡ 49 20 25 37 24 55 ‡ ‡ 41 22 ‡ 55 28 ‡ 45 ‡ 5 ‡ 2 2 8 3 4 6 ‡ 4 ‡ 2 1 7 19 ‡ 10 ‡ ‡ ‡ 8 8 10 9 ‡ ‡ 1 3 2 ‡ 11 3 4 11 ‡ 11 1 3 11 8 17 ‡ ‡ 6 2 ‡ 13 3 ‡ 9 ‡ ‡ 264 ‡ 53 ‡ 47 ‡ 10 Not ELL Percentage of students At or At or At above above Basic Proficient Advanced Average scale score Below Basic At or At or At above above Basic Proficient Advanced 1 ‡ 1 # # # # 1 ‡ 1 ‡ # # # 5 ‡ # ‡ ‡ ‡ 1 1 # 3 ‡ ‡ # # # ‡ 2 # 1 1 ‡ # # 1 1 3 3 ‡ ‡ 1 # ‡ 3 1 ‡ # ‡ 284 269 288 281 277 278 290 290 284 281 278 276 289 283 287 285 290 280 273 287 289 300 279 296 265 286 293 285 278 293 294 273 285 286 293 286 277 288 289 279 281 291 275 289 286 293 287 290 270 289 287 26 41 20 29 33 32 21 20 24 28 33 32 20 26 22 23 19 29 38 22 24 13 32 15 46 23 16 24 33 18 19 36 25 25 13 24 31 22 21 30 30 17 35 20 23 18 23 20 39 20 21 74 59 80 71 67 68 79 80 76 72 67 68 80 74 78 77 81 71 62 78 76 87 68 85 54 77 84 76 67 82 81 64 75 75 87 76 69 78 79 70 70 83 65 80 77 82 77 80 61 80 79 34 21 37 31 28 28 42 41 32 30 27 27 40 34 37 35 41 27 20 36 41 53 31 49 15 36 45 36 27 44 45 22 35 37 43 36 25 39 40 28 31 42 25 38 37 44 36 41 19 40 35 8 4 7 7 5 6 11 10 6 6 6 5 8 7 7 7 9 5 4 8 12 18 7 14 2 7 10 8 5 11 14 4 8 10 7 8 3 9 10 6 7 7 4 9 7 13 8 11 2 9 7 ‡ 2 254 288 59 19 41 81 11 37 2 6 # Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: The results for English language learners are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. MATHEMATICS 2009 65 U.S. Department of Education The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a congressionally authorized project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. The National Center for Education Statistics, within the Institute of Education Sciences, administers NAEP. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible by law for carrying out the NAEP project. Arne Duncan John Q. Easton Secretary U.S. Department of Education Stuart Kerachsky Director Institute of Education Sciences Acting Commissioner National Center for Education Statistics The National Assessment Governing Board In 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board to set policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as The Nation's Report CardTM. The Governing Board is an independent, bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives, and members of the general public. Honorable David P. Driscoll, Chair Doris R. Hicks Former Commissioner of Education Melrose, Massachusetts Amanda P. Avallone, Vice Chair Assistant Principal and Eighth-Grade Teacher Summit Middle School Boulder, Colorado Principal and Chief Executive Officer Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School for Science and Technology New Orleans, Louisiana Former Chairman Hudson School Board Hudson, New Hampshire Warren T. Smith Kim Kozbial-Hess Mary Frances Taymans, SND Fourth-Grade Teacher and Educational Technology Trainer Toledo, Ohio Carol A. D’Amico President and Chief Executive Officer Conexus Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Louis M. Fabrizio Henry Kranendonk Mathematics Consultant Milwaukee Public Schools Milwaukee, Wisconsin Director, Accountability Policy and Communications North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Raleigh, North Carolina Tonya Miles Honorable Anitere Flores Honorable Steven L. Paine Member Florida House of Representatives Miami, Florida Alan J. Friedman Consultant Museum Development and Science Communication New York, New York David W. Gordon County Superintendent of Schools Sacramento County Office of Education Sacramento, California Dean Graduate School of Education University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Kathi M. King Twelfth-Grade Teacher Messalonskee High School Oakland, Maine David J. Alukonis Andrew C. Porter Chief Departmental Administrator Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Mitchellville, Maryland The report release site is http://nationsreportcard.gov. The NCES web electronic catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch. For ordering information, write to U.S. Department of Education ED Pubs P.O. Box 1398 Jessup, MD 20794-1398 or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org. Vice President Washington State Board of Education Olympia, Washington Executive Director Secondary Schools Department National Catholic Educational Association Washington, D.C. Oscar A. Troncoso Principal Anthony High School Anthony Independent School District Anthony, Texas Honorable Leticia Van de Putte T H E N AT I O N ’S RE P O R T C A RD Mathematics Senator Texas State Senate San Antonio, Texas 2009 State Superintendent of Schools West Virginia Department of Education Charleston, West Virginia Eileen L. Weiser OCTOBER 2009 Honorable Sonny Perdue Darvin M. Winick Governor of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia Susan Pimentel Educational Consultant Hanover, New Hampshire W. James Popham Professor Emeritus Graduate School of Education and Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles Wilsonville, Oregon General Public Representative Ann Arbor, Michigan President Winick & Associates Austin, Texas John Q. Easton (Ex officio) Director Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education Washington, D.C. Cornelia S. Orr Executive Director National Assessment Governing Board Washington, D.C. “ T h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Ed u c a t ion’s mission is to promote student a c h i eve m e n t a n d p re p a ra t i on for global competitiveness by fo ste r i n g e d u c a t i o n a l exce llence and ensuring equal access.” MORE INFORMATION w w w.ed.gov SUGGESTED CITATION National Center for Education Statistics (2009). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2009 (NCES 2010–451). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. CONTENT CONTACT Jonathan Beard 202-502-7323 Jonathan.Beard@ed.gov Prepared by Educational Testing Service under contract with the National Center for Education Statistics.