U.S. Department of Education
NCES 2007–496
Reading 2007
National aSSESSMENT OF eDUCATIONAL pROGRESS AT grades 4 and 8
EMBARGOED until
September 25, 2007
10 a.m. E.D.T.
DO NOT CITE
Contents
2 Executive Summary
4 Overview of the Reading Assessment
6 Reporting NAEP Results
84th Grade
268th Grade
44Technical Notes
46Appendix Tables
What is
The Nation’s
Report Card™?
Executive Summary
Reading skills are improving for both
fourth- and eighth-graders, particularly
among lower- and middle-performing
students. Many student groups made
gains in both grades; however, these
gains were not always accompanied by
significant closing of racial/ethnic and
gender gaps.
Students demonstrated their reading comprehension
skills by responding to questions about various types of
reading passages on the 2007 National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessment.
Reading abilities were assessed in the contexts of literary
experience, gaining information, and performing a task.
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.
A nationally representative sample of more than 350,000
students at grades 4 and 8 participated in the 2007
reading assessment. Comparing these results to results
from previous years shows the progress fourth- and
eighth-graders are making both in the nation and in
individual states.
For over three decades, NAEP assessments have
been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics,
science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and
other subjects. By collecting and reporting
information on student performance at the national,
state, and local levels, NAEP is an integral part of
our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress
of education. Only information related to academic
achievement and relevant variables is collected.
The privacy of individual students and their families
is protected, and the identities of participating
schools are not released.
Fourth-graders scored higher in 2007 than in all the
previous assessment years. The average reading score was
up 2 points since 2005 and 4 points compared to the first
assessment 15 years ago. Higher percentages of students
were performing at or above the Basic and Proficient
achievement levels in 2007 than in previous years.
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.
2
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
The average reading score for eighth-graders was up
1 point since 2005 and 3 points since 1992; however,
the trend of increasing scores was not consistent over all
assessment years. In comparison to both 1992 and 2005,
the percentage of students performing at or above the
Basic level increased, but there was no significant
change in the percentage of students at or above the
Proficient level.
White, Black, and Hispanic students
in both grades make gains
Four states AND JURISDICTIONS
maKe gains in reading at both
grades
As indicated on the chart below, White, Black, and
Hispanic students all scored higher in 2007 than in the
first assessment 15 years ago at both grades 4 and 8.
However, improvements for minority students did not
always result in the narrowing of the achievement gaps
with White students. Only the White – Black gap at
grade 4 was smaller in comparison to the gaps in 2005
and 1992.
ND
MA
WY
Student groups
Grade 4
Since 1992
Since 2005
Grade 8
Since 1992
Since 2005
Overall
White
Black
NJ
IN
MD
KS
DC
NM
TX
AK
HI
1
MS
AL
DoDEA1
GA
FL
Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).
Compared with 2005,
4 states and jurisdictions (District of Columbia,
Florida, Hawaii, and Maryland) improved at
both grades,
13 states and Department of Defense schools
improved at grade 4 only,
2 states improved at grade 8 only,
2 states declined at grade 8, and
30 states showed no significant change at either grade.
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific
Islander
American Indian/
Alaska Native
RI
PA
IA
NV
Female students outperform males
Patterns in improvement for male and female
students varied by grade. Scores for both male and
female students increased since 2005 at grade 4, but
not at grade 8. In 2007, female students scored 7 points
higher than male students at grade 4 and 10 points higher
at grade 8. These gender score gaps were not significantly
different from the gaps seen 15 years ago.
VT
‡
‡
Gaps
Differing patterns emerged when results were examined
by the contexts for reading. For example, 5 of the 44
states and jurisdictions that showed no change in overall
performance at grade 8 did show a gain in at least one of
the three reading contexts.
Male – Female
White – Black
White – Hispanic
Indicates the score was higher or the gap increased in 2007.
Indicates the score was lower or the gap decreased in 2007.
Indicates there was no significant change in the score or the gap in
2007.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size was insufficient to permit
a reliable estimate.
READING 2007
3
Overview of the Reading Assessment
As the key that allows access to many forms of knowledge and information,
reading literacy is a skill critical to learning. The NAEP reading assessment
measures reading comprehension by asking students to read passages and
answer questions about what they have read. In this way, it collects valuable
information on the progress of literacy and provides a broad picture of what our
nation’s students are able to read and understand at specific grade levels.
The Reading Framework
The NAEP reading framework serves as the blueprint for
the assessment, specifying what should be assessed.
Developed under the direction of the National Assessment Governing Board, the framework reflects ideas
from a variety of organizations involved in reading
education, including reading experts, school administrators, policymakers, teachers, parents, and others.
The current NAEP reading framework was first used to
guide the development of the 1992 assessment and has
continued to be used through 2007. Updates to the
framework over the years have provided more detail
regarding the assessment design but did not change the
content, allowing students’ performance in 2007 to be
compared with previous years. For more information on
the framework, see http://www.nagb.org/frameworks/
reading_07.pdf.
The framework provides a broad definition of reading
that includes developing a general understanding of
written texts, interpreting texts, and using texts for
different purposes. In addition, it views reading as an
interactive and dynamic process involving the reader, the
text, and the context of the reading experience.
Recognizing that readers vary in their approach to
reading according to the demands of any particular text,
the framework specifies that reading performance be
measured in two dimensions: reading contexts and
aspects of reading. Three contexts for reading provide
guidance for the types of texts included in the
assessment. Four aspects of reading provide guidance
for the types of questions that are asked about the texts.
Contexts FOR Reading
Reading for literary experience includes exploring events, characters, themes,
settings, plots, actions, and the language of literary works by reading novels, short
stories, poems, plays, legends, biographies, myths, and folktales.
Reading for information involves reading materials such as magazines, newspapers,
textbooks, essays, and speeches in order to better understand the world.
Reading to perform a task requires readers to apply what they learn from reading
materials such as bus or train schedules, directions for repairs or games,
classroom procedures, maps, and so on.
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Assessment Design
Table 1. Target percentage of assessment time in NAEP
reading, by grade and aspect of reading: 2007
Because of the large number of questions and the variety
of texts included in the NAEP reading assessment, each
student took just a portion of the test, consisting of
two 25-minute sections or one 50-minute section. Each
section contained a reading passage and a set of related
questions. The passages used in the assessment reflect
those typically available to students, such as collections
of stories, children’s magazines, or informational books.
Students were asked to respond to both multiple-choice
and constructed-response (i.e., open-ended) questions.
Each question in the NAEP reading assessment measured
one of the aspects of reading within the broader context
for reading. All three contexts for reading are assessed at
grade 8, but only two—reading for literary experience and
reading for information—are assessed at grade 4. At both
grades, the framework recommends that the assessment
time for each aspect of reading be distributed as shown
in table 1.
Aspects of reading
Grade 4
Grade 8
Forming a general
understanding/
Developing interpretation1
60%
55%
Making reader/text
connections
15%
15%
Examining content and
structure
25%
30%
For the purpose of distribution by assessment time, forming a general understanding
and developing interpretation were combined as per the specifications for the
assessment.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board,
Reading Framework for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2006.
1
Aspects of Reading
Forming a general understanding involves considering
the text as a whole and having an overall understanding
of it.
Developing interpretation requires extending initial
impressions and linking information across parts of
the text, as well as focusing on specific information.
Making reader/text connections includes linking
information in the text with knowledge and
experience and applying ideas to the real world.
Examining content and structure involves
understanding and critically evaluating text content,
features, or appropriateness.
READING 2007
Reporting NAEP Results
The students selected to take the NAEP assessment represent all fourth- and
eighth-grade students across the U.S. Students who participate in NAEP play an
important role by demonstrating the achievement of our nation’s students and
representing the success of our schooling. NAEP data can only be obtained with
the cooperation of schools, teachers, and students nationwide.
Representative samples of schools and students at
grades 4 and 8 participated in the 2007 NAEP reading
assessment (table 2). The national results reflect the
performance of all fourth- and eighth-graders in public
schools, private schools, Bureau of Indian Education
schools, and Department of Defense schools. The state
results reflect the performance of students in public
schools only.
NAEP reading results are reported on a 0–500 scale.
Because NAEP scales are developed independently for
each subject, average scores cannot be compared across
subjects even when the scale has the same range.
Grade
Schools
Students
Grade 4
7,830
191,000
In addition to reporting an overall reading score for each
grade, scores are reported at five percentiles (10th, 25th,
50th, 75th, and 90th) to show trends in performance
for lower-, middle-, and higher-performing students.
Scores are also reported for two contexts for reading at
grade 4 and three contexts at grade 8. Here again, the
scales were set separately for each context for reading;
therefore, direct comparisons cannot be made from one
to another.
Grade 8
6,930
160,700
Achievement Levels
Table 2. Number of participating schools and students
in NAEP reading assessment, by grade: 2007
NOTE: The numbers of schools are rounded to the nearest ten, and the numbers of
students are rounded to the nearest hundred.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
2007 Reading Assessment.
At grade 4, national results from the 2007 reading
assessment are compared to results from seven previous
assessment years. The 2007 national results for grade 8 are
compared to results from six previous assessments, as the
2000 assessment was administered at grade 4 only. The
2007 state results are compared to results from six earlier
assessments at grade 4 and four earlier assessments at
grade 8.
Changes in students’ performance over time are
summarized by comparing the results in 2007 to those in
the next most recent assessment and first assessment,
except when pointing out consistent patterns in results
across all assessments.
Scale Scores
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
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.
They provide another perspective with which to interpret
NAEP ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS
Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite
knowledge and skills that are fundamental for
proficient work at a given grade.
Proficient represents solid academic performance.
Students reaching this level have demonstrated
competency over challenging subject matter.
Advanced represents superior performance.
student performance. 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.
Item Maps
Item maps provide another way to interpret the scale scores
and achievement-level results for each grade. The item
maps displayed in each grade section of this report show
student performance on NAEP reading questions at
different points on the scale.
Accommodations and Exclusions in NAEP
Testing accommodations, such as extra testing time or
individual rather than group administration, are provided for
students with disabilities or English language learners who
could not fairly and accurately demonstrate their abilities
without modified test administration procedures. Prior to
1998, no testing accommodations were provided in the
NAEP reading assessment. This resulted in the exclusion of
some students. In 1998, administration procedures were
introduced allowing certain accommodations for students
requiring such accommodations` to participate.
Note that most figures in this report show two data points
in 1998—one permitting and the other not permitting
accommodations. Both 1998 data points are presented in this
report, but comparisons between 1998 and 2007 are based on
accommodated samples.
Even with the availability of accommodations, there still
remains a portion of students excluded from the NAEP
assessment. Variations in exclusion and accommodation
rates, due to differences in policies and practices regarding
the identification and inclusion of students with disabilities
and English language learners, should be considered when
comparing students’ performance over time and across states.
While the effect of exclusion is not precisely known,
comparisons of performance results could be affected if
exclusion rates are comparatively high or vary widely over
time. See appendix tables A-1 through A-5 for the
percentages of students accommodated and excluded at the
national and state levels. More information about NAEP’s
policy on inclusion of special-needs students is available at
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp.
Interpreting Results
Changes in performance results over time may reflect not
only changes in students’ knowledge and skills but also
other factors, such as changes in student demographics,
education programs and policies (including policies on
accommodations and exclusions), and teacher qualifications.
NAEP results adopt widely accepted statistical standards;
findings are reported based on a statistical significance
level set at .05 with appropriate adjustments for multiple
comparisons. In the tables and figures of this report that
present results over time, the symbol (*) is used to indicate
that a score or percentage in a previous assessment year is
significantly different from the comparable measure in
2007. This symbol is also used in tables to highlight
differences between male and female students within 2007.
As a result of larger student sample sizes beginning in 2002,
smaller differences (e.g., 1 or 2 points) can be found
statistically significant than would have been detected with
the smaller sample sizes used in earlier assessments.
Score differences or gaps cited in this report are calculated
based on differences between unrounded numbers.
Therefore, the reader may find that the score difference
cited in the text may not be identical to the difference
obtained from subtracting the rounded values shown in the
accompanying tables or figures.
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/nde.
For additional information, visit http://nationsreportcard.gov.
READING 2007
4th Grade
Fourth-graders reading at higher levels
Fourth-graders’ reading comprehension skills have risen compared to
15 years ago. As shown in figure 1,
the average score of 221 in 2007 was
higher than in any of the previous
assessment years. Fourth-graders
in 2007 scored 2 points higher than
in 2005 and 4 points higher than in
1992.
Figure 1. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores
Scale score
500
230
217*
220
214*
219*
217*
213*
218*
219*
221
215*
210
200
0
’92
’94
’98
Accommodations not permitted
’00
’02
’03
’05
’07
Year
Accommodations permitted
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading Assessments.
Gains in reading contexts
Although not shown here, gains were also made in each of the two reading contexts assessed at grade 4. The score
in reading for literary experience increased from 219 in 1992 to 223 in 2007. The score in reading for information
increased from 214 in 1992 to 219 in 2007.
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Improvement for lower- and middle-performing students
Figure 2. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading percentile scores
Percentile
Scale score
500
260
261*
263
263
250
240
243
230
219*
219*
200
190
160
0
263* 264
263
264
242*
243*
244* 244*
244*
246
221* 221*
221*
217*
196* 195 *
196*
218*
224
193*
194*
180
170
262
220*
220
210
262
244
242*
189*
191*
189*
199
167*
170*
159*
’92
Higher reading scores were seen
particularly among lower- and
middle-performing students (at the
10th, 25th, and 50th percentiles). The
score at each of these percentiles was
higher in 2007 than in all previous
assessments (figure 2). While the
score in 2007 for students at the
75th percentile was higher than in
both 2005 and 1992, the score for
students at the 90th percentile
showed no significant change in
comparison to 2005 but was higher
than in 1992.
’94
163*
’98
170* 169*
171*
’02
’05
174
90th
75th
50th
25th
10th
159*
’00
Accommodations not permitted
’03
’07
Year
Accommodations permitted
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
The performance increases were
reflected in higher percentages of
students performing at or above the
Basic level and the Proficient level.
The percentage of fourth-graders
performing at or above Basic
increased from 62 percent in 1992 to
67 percent in 2007 (figure 3). The
percentage at or above Proficient
increased from 29 to 33 percent over
the same period.
Figure 3. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading achievement-level performance
Percent
100
80
60
40
7
7
7*
8
8
8
29*
31*
31*
31*
33
6*
7
29*
30*
31* 29*
62*
60*
62* 60*
59*
64*
63*
64*
67
’92
’94
’98
’00
’02
’03
’05
’07
7
20
0
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading
Assessments.
Year
% at Advanced
% at or above Proficient
% at or above Basic
Accommodations
not permitted
Accommodations
permitted
READING 2007
Most racial/ethnic groups show improvement
Figure 4. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading average
scores, by race/ethnicity
Year
White
224*
224*
226*
225*
224*
229*
229*
229*
231
’92
’94
’98
’00
’02
’03
’05
’07
Reading performance improved for four of the five racial/
ethnic groups over the last 15 years. White, Black, Hispanic,
and Asian/Pacific Islander students all showed higher average
reading scores in comparison to 2005 and 1992 (figure 4).
Since 1992, Black and Asian/Pacific Islander students made
greater gains (increases of 11 and 16 points, respectively)
than White students (a gain of 6 points1).
There was no significant change in the average reading score
for American Indian/Alaska Native students compared to all
previous assessment years for which data were available.
Black
192*
’92
’94
1
185*
The score-point gain is based on the difference of the unrounded scores.
193*
193*
190*
199*
198*
200*
203
’98
’00
’02
’03
’05
’07
Hispanic
197*
’92
’94
188*
195*
193*
190*
201*
200*
203*
205
’98
’00
’02
’03
’05
’07
Asian/Pacific Islander
216*
220*
221*
215
225
224*
226*
229*
232
’92
’94
’98
’00
’02
’03
’05
’07
Achievement-level results…
American Indian /Alaska Native
211
214
207
’94
’00
’02
’03
’05
’07
202
204
203
0
170
180
190
200
210
Scale score
10
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
220
Accommodations
not permitted
Accommodations
permitted
230
500
Information is available on achievement-level results for
racial/ethnic groups and other reporting categories at
http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/data.asp.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
NOTE: Sample sizes were insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska
Native fourth-graders in 1992 and 1998. 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, 1992–
2007 Reading Assessments.
White – Black score
gap narrows
Figure 5. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores and score gaps,
by selected racial/ethnic groups
Scale score
500
The increase in the score for Black
fourth-graders contributed to the
narrowing of the score gap with
their White peers. While there was a
27-point gap between White and
Black students in 2007, the gap was
smaller than in all previous
assessments (figure 5).
240
230
224*
226* 225*
224*
224*
220
210
200
190
32*
192*
0
193* 193*
190*
’98
’00
185*
180
The 26-point score gap between
White and Hispanic students in 2007
was not significantly different from
the gaps in 2005 or 1992.
33* 32* 34*
38*
’92
’94
229* 229*
229*
231
30* 31*
29*
27 SCORE
GAP
199* 198*
200*
’02
’05
’07
229* 229*
229*
231
28 28*
26
26
201* 200*
203*
’03
203
White
Black
Year
Scale score
500
240
230
224*
226* 225*
224*
224*
220
210
27
200
190
197*
195* 193*
188*
180
0
31* 32
35*
’92
’94
’98
35*
205
White
SCORE
GAP
Hispanic
190*
’00
Accommodations not permitted
’02
’03
’05
’07
Year
Accommodations permitted
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
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 3. Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP reading,
by race/ethnicity: Various years, 1992–2007
Race/ethnicity
1992
1994
1998
2000
2002
2003
2005
2007
White
73*
72*
66*
63*
61*
60*
59
58
Black
17
17
15
17
17*
17
16
16
16*
17*
18
19
Hispanic
7*
7*
14*
14*
Asian/Pacific
Islander
2*
3*
4
4
4*
4*
5
5
American Indian/
Alaska Native
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
In each assessment year, NAEP
collects information on student
demographics. As shown in table 3,
there have been no significant
changes since 2005 in the
percentages of students in any
of the five racial/ethnic groups. In
comparison to 1992, the percentage
of White students in the population
has declined, while the percentages
of Hispanic and Asian/Pacific
Islander students have increased.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
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 the “unclassified”
race/ethnicity category.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading Assessments.
READING 2007
11
Females outperform males
The overall improvement in
reading at grade 4 was seen in the
performance of both male and
female students. Reading scores
were higher in 2007 than in all
previous assessment years for both
groups (figure 6).
Figure 6. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores and score gaps,
by gender
In 2007, female fourth-graders
scored higher on average in reading
than their male counterparts. The
7-point score gap between the
two groups was not significantly
different from the gaps in 2005 or
in 1992.
230
Scale score
500
260
250
240
221*
220
210
213*
200
0
10*
8
’92
6
220*
5
220*
11*
219*
217*
214* 212*
209*
’94
’98
6
7
6
7
224
222* 222*
222*
215* 215*
216* 218
SCORE
GAP
Female
Male
208*
’00
Accommodations not permitted
’02
’03
’05
’07
Year
Accommodations permitted
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores.
Table 4. Average scores in fourth-grade NAEP reading, by reading context and
gender: 2007
Gender
Reading for literary experience
Reading for information
Male
219*
216*
Female
227
221
* Significantly different (p < .05) from female students in 2007.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading Assessments.
Public school students score lower than private school students
Ninety percent of fourth-graders
attended public schools in 2007,
and 10 percent attended private
schools. The average reading score
for fourth-graders in public schools
(220) was lower than for students in
private schools overall (234) and
lower than for students in Catholic
schools specifically (232).
Sample sizes for private schools as
a whole were not always large
enough to produce reliable
estimates of student performance in
some of the previous assessments,
12
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
limiting the comparisons that
can be made in performance over
time (see the section on School
and Student Participation Rates
in the Technical Notes for more
information). Trend results for
public and Catholic school
students, and for private school
students in those years in which
sample sizes were sufficient,
are available at: http://
nationsreportcard.gov/reading_
2007/r0038.asp.
Average reading scores remained
higher for female students than for
male students when results were
examined by each context for
reading. Female students scored
8 points higher in reading for
literary experience and 5 points
higher in reading for information
(table 4).
Both higher- and lower-income level students
make gains
A student’s eligibility for free or
reduced-price school lunch is used
as an indicator of socioeconomic
status; students from low-income
families are typically eligible
(eligibility criteria are described in
the Technical Notes), while students
from higher-income families
typically are not.
Students who were not eligible
continued to score higher on average
than students who were eligible for
free or reduced-price lunch;
however, average reading scores
were higher in 2007 than in 2005 for
all three groups (figure 7). When
comparing the performance of the
two eligible groups in 2007, those
students eligible for reduced-price
lunch scored higher on average than
students eligible for free lunch.
Figure 7. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading
average scores, by eligibility for free or
reduced-price school lunch
Scale score
500
240
230
220
210
200
229*
230*
211*
212*
201*
199*
232
215
203
Not eligible
Eligible for reduced-price lunch
Eligible for free lunch
190
0
’03
’05
’07
Year
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
Table 5. Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP reading, by
eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003, 2005, and 2007
Eligibility status
Eligible for free lunch
Eligible for reduced-price lunch
2003
32*
2005
2007
34
35
8*
7*
6
Not eligible
50*
50*
52
Information not available
10*
8*
7
More than one-third of fourth-graders
assessed were eligible for free lunch
in 2007 (table 5).
Changes in these percentages may
reflect not only a shift in the
population but also changes in the
National School Lunch Program and
improvements in data quality. See
the Technical Notes for more
information.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
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), 2003, 2005, and 2007 Reading Assessments.
READING 2007
13
State Performance at Grade 4
State results for public school students make it possible to compare each state’s
performance to other states and to the nation. All 50 states and 2 jurisdictions
(i.e., the District of Columbia and Department of Defense schools) participated
in the 2007 reading assessment. These 52 states and jurisdictions are all
referred to as “states” in the following summary of state results. All states also
participated in 2005, and 42 participated in the 1992 assessment, allowing for
comparisons over time.
Scores increase since 2005 in one-third of states
The map on the right highlights the
18 states that showed an increase in
their overall average reading score
from 2005 to 2007 (figure 8). Of
these 18 states, scores also increased
for White students in 6 states, Black
students in 8 states, and Hispanic
students in 2 states. Scores increased
for all three racial/ethnic student
groups in New Jersey.
accommodation rates for students
with disabilities and English
language learners. Differences in
performance could be affected if
exclusion rates are comparatively
high or vary widely over time. See
appendix tables A-3 through A-5 for
state exclusion and accommodation
rates.
Figure 8. Changes in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores between
2005 and 2007
In no state did scores decline since
2005 for public school students
overall or for any of the racial/ethnic
student groups.
MA
WY
When making state comparisons, it
is important to remember that
performance results may be affected
by differences in demographic
makeup and exclusion and
PA
IA
NV
NJ
IN
MD
KS
DC
NM
MS
AL
DoDEA1
GA
AK
FL
HI
Significant score increase
No significant change
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), 2005 and 2007 Reading Assessments.
14
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Scores higher than in 1992 for 25 states
Of the 42 states that participated in
both the 1992 and 2007 assessments,
25 showed increases in average
scores, and 1 state showed a
decrease (figure 9). Twenty-one of
the 25 states with score increases
also showed increased percentages
of students performing at or above
Basic and at or above Proficient.
These and other state results for
grade 4 are provided in figure 10,
tables 6 and 7, and appendix tables
A-7 through A-13.
Figure 9. Changes in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores between
1992 and 2007
MN
ID
MA
NY
MI
PA
NV
OH
CA
VA
KY
MD
DC
NC
AR
SC
MS
AL
DoDEA1
GA
TX
AK
FL
HI
Significant score increase
CT
DE
CO
OK
NJ
Significant score decrease
No significant change
Did not participate in 1992
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), 1992 and 2007 Reading Assessments.
1
States’ progress varies by context for reading
All of the texts used to measure reading comprehension at grade 4 are classified within
the framework dimension of context for reading: reading for literary experience and
reading for information. Reading for literary experience is measured with fictional texts
that include stories and folktales. Reading for information is measured with articles from
children’s magazines or from textbooks.
Nationally, students improved their performance
overall and in both reading contexts from 2005 to
2007. States’ overall performance was not always
consistent with their performance in each reading
context. Some states improved overall and in both
reading contexts. Others did not improve in their
overall performance, but did improve in one of the
reading contexts. Even states that experienced an
overall decline in reading performance may not have
declined in both reading contexts.
When compared to 2005…
…6 of the 18 states that posted overall gains also
showed gains in both reading contexts. They
were Alabama, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.
Twelve states showed gains in either reading for
information or reading for literary experience
but not both.
…9 of the 34 states that showed no significant
change in overall performance showed gains in
reading for information. None of these 34 states
improved in reading for literary experience.
READING 2007
15
Figure 10. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for fourth-grade public school students, by state: 2007
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
score
Basic
Below Basic
220
216
214
210
217
209
224
227
225
224
219
213
223
219
222
225
225
222
207
226
225
236
220
225
208
221
227
223
211
229
231
212
224
218
226
226
217
215
226
219
214
223
216
220
221
228
227
224
215
223
225
34
38
38
44
36
47
30
27
27
30
34
41
30
35
32
26
28
32
48
27
31
19
34
27
49
33
25
29
43
24
23
42
31
36
25
27
35
38
27
35
41
29
39
34
31
26
26
30
37
30
27
197
229
34
33
33
32
35
30
34
31
39
36
37
33
35
33
35
38
36
35
32
37
33
32
34
36
33
35
37
36
33
35
34
34
33
35
40
37
38
34
32
35
33
37
34
36
35
34
37
34
35
35
37
61
100
90
80
70
60
50
10
40
30
20
32
10
0
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
4
38
Percentage below Basic and at Basic
State/jurisdiction
24
7
22
7
22
6
20
5
23
5
18
5
27
9
29
12
27
7
26
8
23
5
20
5
27
8
24
8
26
7
29
7
28
8
25
8
17
3
28
7
26
10
33
16
25
8
28
9
16
3
25
7
31
8
27
8
20
5
31
11
31
12
19
5
26
10
23
6
29
6
28
8
22
4
22
6
29
11
24
7
20
5
27
7
21
6
23
6
26
8
30
11
29
9
27
10
23
5
27
8
29
8
25
22
Advanced
Proficient
10
8
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), 2007
Reading Assessment.
1
16
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Table 6. Average scores in NAEP reading for fourth-grade public school students, by state: Various years, 1992–2007
Accommodations not permitted
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)1
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
Accommodations permitted
1992
215*
207*
—
209
211*
202*
217*
222*
213*
208*
212*
203*
219*
—
221
225
—
213*
204
227
211*
226*
216*
221*
199*
220
—
221
—
228
223*
211
215*
212*
226
217*
220*
—
221*
217
210*
—
212
213*
220
—
221*
—
216
224
223
1994
212*
208*
—
206
209*
197*
213*
222*
206*
205*
207*
201*
—
—
220
223
—
212*
197*
228
210*
223*
—
218*
202*
217*
222*
220
—
223*
219*
205*
212*
214*
225
—
—
—
215*
220
203*
—
213
212*
217*
—
213*
213*
213
224
221*
1998
215*
211*
—
207
209*
202
222
232
212*
207*
210*
200*
—
—
—
223
222
218*
204
225
215*
225*
217
222
204
216*
226
—
208
226*
—
206*
216*
217
—
—
220
214
—
218
210
—
212
217
215*
—
218*
217*
216
224
219*
1998
213*
211*
—
206
209*
202*
220
230
207*
206*
209*
200*
—
—
—
220*
221
218*
200*
225
212*
223*
216*
219*
203*
216*
225
—
206*
226
—
205*
215*
213*
—
—
219
212
—
218
209*
—
212*
214*
216*
—
217*
218*
216
222
218*
2002
217*
207*
—
205
213*
206
—
229
224
214*
215*
208*
220*
—
222
223
222
219*
207
225
217*
234
219
225
203*
220
224
222
209
—
—
208*
222
222*
224*
222
213*
220*
221*
220
214
—
214
217
222
227
225
224
219*
—
221*
2003
216*
207*
212
209
214
206
224
228
224
218*
214*
208*
218*
216
220
223
220*
219
205
224
219*
228*
219
223
205
222
223*
221
207*
228
225*
203*
222
221*
222*
222*
214*
218
219*
216
215
222
212
215*
219
226
223*
221
219*
221
222*
2005
217*
208*
211*
207
217
207
224
226
226
219*
214*
210*
222
216
218*
221*
220*
220
209
225
220*
231*
218
225
204*
221
225
221
207*
227
223*
207*
223
217
225
223
214
217
223*
216
213
222
214
219
221
227
226
223
215
221
223*
2007
220
216
214
210
217
209
224
227
225
224
219
213
223
219
222
225
225
222
207
226
225
236
220
225
208
221
227
223
211
229
231
212
224
218
226
226
217
215
226
219
214
223
216
220
221
228
227
224
215
223
225
188*
—
179*
—
182*
222*
179*
220*
191*
224*
188*
224*
191*
226*
197
229
— Not available. The jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007 when only one jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.
1
National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.
2
Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data
presented here were recalculated for comparability.
NOTE: State-level data were not collected in 2000.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years,
1992–2007 Reading Assessments.
READING 2007
17
Table 7. Percentage of fourth-grade public school students and average scores in NAEP reading, by selected student groups
and state: 2007
Race/ethnicity
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
DoDEA1
See notes at end of table.
18
Black
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/
Alaska Native
Percentage
of students
56
58
54
44
70
28
62
64
53
47
48
16
81
55
80
86
73
84
49
96
52
75
71
78
47
75
83
76
44
92
59
32
53
56
88
75
60
69
76
68
56
84
70
37
81
94
60
66
93
79
84
Average
scale score
230
227
228
224
226
227
234
238
233
232
230
227
227
230
226
227
229
225
220
226
236
241
227
231
222
226
230
230
224
230
238
228
234
228
229
231
223
222
233
227
224
228
224
232
226
229
233
229
216
229
228
Percentage
of students
17
37
4
5
20
7
5
14
34
21
39
3
1
20
10
5
8
11
48
2
34
8
20
8
51
20
1
8
9
2
15
3
19
27
2
17
10
3
15
9
36
2
25
16
1
2
26
6
6
11
2
Average
scale score
203
201
207
206
195
200
210
203
213
208
205
212
‡
201
201
205
208
203
194
‡
208
211
197
198
195
200
‡
194
202
215
212
208
208
202
‡
204
204
198
200
198
199
‡
192
207
‡
‡
213
206
202
191
‡
Percentage
of students
20
3
4
44
8
52
28
16
9
25
8
4
13
20
6
6
13
1
2
1
8
10
4
6
2
3
3
13
37
3
18
55
19
10
2
2
8
18
6
18
4
2
3
43
13
1
7
15
1
7
10
Average
scale score
204
197
206
197
202
195
204
203
218
218
212
205
204
205
207
208
209
‡
213
‡
213
209
210
200
‡
213
220
203
196
209
214
204
206
205
‡
214
198
190
200
198
205
209
208
212
201
‡
216
206
‡
208
210
Percentage
of students
5
1
6
2
1
11
4
4
3
2
2
65
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
5
6
3
6
1
2
1
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
1
1
2
6
3
4
1
1
2
4
3
2
5
11
1
2
1
Average
scale score
231
‡
217
229
‡
228
233
244
246
241
232
210
‡
240
‡
235
229
‡
‡
‡
243
241
233
218
‡
‡
‡
‡
220
235
245
‡
236
228
‡
‡
221
218
228
219
‡
‡
‡
236
217
‡
237
232
‡
222
‡
Percentage
of students
1
#
26
4
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
1
2
#
#
#
2
#
1
#
#
#
1
2
#
#
12
1
2
#
#
8
#
2
8
#
20
2
#
1
#
12
#
#
2
1
#
3
#
1
4
Average
scale score
206
‡
188
187
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
202
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
205
‡
‡
204
‡
‡
‡
‡
197
‡
202
204
‡
213
206
‡
‡
‡
196
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
205
‡
‡
200
6
49
258
235
86
19
192
218
7
14
206
223
1
7
‡
228
#
1
‡
‡
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Table 7. Percentage of fourth-grade public school students and average scores in NAEP reading, by selected student groups
and state: 2007—Continued
Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch
Eligible
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
Gender
Not eligible
Male
Female
Percentage of
students
45
55
42
51
56
53
38
30
38
49
50
42
43
44
40
32
40
52
69
36
33
26
36
28
69
42
37
39
42
18
27
65
47
47
31
36
54
44
35
40
52
36
48
54
36
31
29
38
52
32
34
Average
scale score
205
203
197
196
205
195
206
201
214
213
207
203
212
204
209
212
212
212
200
213
207
214
204
206
200
208
215
208
197
212
210
203
209
205
215
211
209
200
207
202
201
209
202
209
208
212
213
210
206
205
214
Percentage of
students
54
45
58
46
44
44
62
70
61
50
49
58
56
56
59
68
60
48
31
64
67
73
64
72
29
57
60
61
55
80
71
35
52
51
69
64
46
54
65
60
48
64
52
44
63
69
71
58
48
67
65
Average
scale score
232
232
227
224
232
225
235
239
232
234
231
221
232
232
231
231
233
234
225
233
234
243
229
233
225
230
234
232
222
233
238
228
237
229
231
234
227
228
237
230
228
231
229
232
229
235
233
234
225
232
231
Percentage of
students
50
51
51
52
50
51
51
51
50
51
49
51
51
51
50
50
49
49
51
51
50
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
50
50
51
49
49
50
51
51
50
51
50
51
53
51
50
50
50
51
50
51
52
51
50
Average
scale score
216
213
210
206
213
204
221
224
222
220
216
208
221
217
219
222
221
219
203
223
221
233
216
223
204
216
225
221
208
226
228
210
220
214
224
223
214
212
223
215
210
220
213
217
217
225
224
221
211
222
222
Percentage of
students
50
49
49
48
50
49
49
49
50
49
51
49
49
49
50
50
51
51
49
49
50
50
50
50
50
49
49
49
50
50
49
51
51
50
49
49
50
49
50
49
47
49
50
50
50
49
50
49
48
49
50
Average
scale score
223
219
219
214
221
213
226
231
228
227
222
219
226
222
224
228
228
226
212
228
228
238
224
227
212
225
228
225
214
232
234
213
227
222
229
228
220
218
230
223
218
227
219
223
225
232
230
227
220
224
228
66
#
188
‡
34
#
216
‡
48
50
194
226
52
50
200
233
# Rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is 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” and for students whose eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch was not available.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007
Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
19
Assessment Content at Grade 4
The content of the assessment varied by grade to reflect the reading skills
appropriate for each grade level, with differing proportions of assessment
questions devoted to each of the contexts for reading. At grade 4, assessment
questions were divided between two of the contexts for reading: reading for
literary experience and reading for information, with a slightly higher proportion
of assessment questions devoted to reading for literary experience. The 2007
fourth-grade reading assessment included a total of 10 reading passages and
100 questions.
Reading Achievement Levels at Grade 4
The following descriptions are abbreviated versions of the full achievement-level descriptions for
grade 4 reading. The cut score depicting the lowest score representative of that level is noted in
parentheses.
Basic (208): Fourth-grade students performing at the
Basic level should demonstrate an understanding of the
overall meaning of what they read. When reading text
appropriate for fourth-graders, they should be able to
make relatively obvious connections between the text
and their own experiences and extend the ideas in the
text by making simple inferences.
Proficient (238): Fourth-grade students performing at
the Proficient level should be able to demonstrate an
overall understanding of the text, providing inferential as
well as literal information. When reading text appropriate
to fourth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas
in the text by making inferences, drawing conclusions,
and making connections to their own experiences. The
connections between the text and what the student infers
should be clear.
Advanced (268): Fourth-grade students performing at
the Advanced level should be able to generalize about
topics in the reading selection and demonstrate an
awareness of how authors compose and use literary
devices. When reading text appropriate to fourth grade,
they should be able to judge texts critically and, in
general, give thorough answers that indicate careful
thought.
The full descriptions can be found at http://www.nagb.org/frameworks/reading_07.pdf.
20
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
What Fourth-Graders Know and Can Do in Reading
The item map below is useful for understanding
performance at different levels on the scale. The scale
scores on the left represent the average scores for students
who were likely to get the items correct or complete. The
lower-boundary scores at each achievement level are noted
in boxes. The descriptions of selected assessment questions
are listed in the right column and indicate what students
needed to do to answer the question successfully. For
example, the map on this page shows that fourth-graders
performing near the middle of the Basic range (students
with an average score of 220) were likely to be able to
recognize the meaning of specialized vocabulary from
context. Students performing near the lower end of the
Proficient range (with an average score of 239) were likely
to be able to identify a character’s problem and describe
how it was solved.
Advanced
GRADE 4 NAEP READING ITEM MAP
Scale score
500
347
326
324
302
290
290
284
277
268
Question description
Integrate text ideas to provide and explain their application
Evaluate titles and support judgment about them
Provide text-based inference and support with story details
Explain causal relation between character’s action and story outcome
Read across text to provide a sequence of specific information
Describe change in story character and explain cause
Use dialogue or action to provide inference about character trait
Recognize author’s purpose for including information
Provide causal relation between text ideas
Proficient
268
265
264
257
250
242
239
238
Connect relevant text ideas to provide an explanation
Extend text information to provide an opinion
Recognize the main purpose of an article
Use local story context to recognize meaning of a word (shown on page 24)
Retrieve relevant information to fit description
Identify character’s problem and describe how it was solved
Recognize the main message of a story
Basic
238
237
236
231
226
220
216
209
Use story details to infer and describe character’s feelings
Use character trait to make a comparison
Recognize fact supported by text information
Recognize paraphrase of explicitly stated supporting example
Recognize meaning of specialized vocabulary from context
Recognize support for interpretation of character
Recognize literal information from text
208
205
Make simple inference to recognize relationship of picture to text
203
Recognize the main topic of an article
200
Provide text-based explanation of character’s importance to story
193
Recognize character’s motivation for central story action
189
Recognize important lesson based on story theme
158
Use explicitly stated information to provide character motivation (shown on page 25)
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 scale score attained by students
who had a 65 percent probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question, or a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a four-option multiple-choice question. For constructedresponse questions, the question description represents students’ performance rated as completely correct. Scale score ranges for reading 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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
21
Sample Reading Passage
The short story below is an example of what a fourth-grader might read for
literary experience. The story centers around one main character and how her
actions over the course of a single day bring about a change in her situation.
The two sample questions that follow were based on this reading passage.
DISHPAN DUCKS
By Margaret Springer
Illustrated by Don Dyen
school
Rosa walked home from
buildings
slowly. The rows of apartment
ed all
and the streets full of cars look
.
cold
was
it
the same. And
She had
Rosa missed her country.
, but she
lish
Eng
e
som
begun to learn
t to do
wha
or
say
did not know what to
y were
The
nd.
when other kids were arou
e.
alon
g
bein
r
friendly, but Rosa felt safe
ent
Behind Rosa’s brick apartm
ll creek
sma
a
ce,
in her
building was a special pla
and she could speak to them
ool. There were ducks there,
sch
r
afte
ped
stop
ays
alw
a
Ros
where
to understand.
language. The ducks seemed
Mama
and watched the ducks until
concrete slab above the creek
a
on
sat
a
Ros
on
rno
afte
ry
Eve
came home from work.
she
d” was not right for ducks. But
knew that most “people foo
She
m.
the
d
a’s
fee
Ros
r
not
ove
did
a
Ros
ng. Once they even walked
d and walk up to her, quacki
.
watched them swim and fee
y like me, Rosa said to herself
out on the bumpy grass. The
ed
tch
stre
t
fee
her
with
lay
tummy as she
n
not waddle toward Rosa, eve
e not in the water. They did
wer
ks
duc
the
ool,
sch
r
afte
One day
Something was wrong.
though she stayed very still.
sick?” she whispered. They
ducks were huddled. “Are you
the
re
whe
to
oed
tipt
a
Ros
Gently,
greasy.
looked different. They looked
s of color on the water’s
film covered it, making patche
oily
An
ek.
cre
the
iced
not
a
They could not swim.
Then Ros
ir feathers were stuck together.
The
ks.
duc
the
at
ely
clos
ed
surface. She look
They could not fly.
ma told me not to speak
how? I don’t know anyone. Ma
But
.
self
her
to
a
Ros
said
p,
I must get hel
know how to ask in English.
to strangers. Besides, I don’t
22
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
raced around
affic light, then
tr
e
th
to
d
ke
, wal
ck to the street
She rushed ba
.
ea
id
an
d
ha
Rosa
hool yard.
teacher. Rosa
back to the sc
ll with the gym
ba
se
ba
g
in
tic
the corner and
prac
ere still there,
oys and girls w
B
.
ck
lu
in
as
Rosa w
this country.
ed baseball in
had never play
less, “Ducks!”
id Rosa, breath
sa
”
e!
m
Co
e!
“Pleas
trouble?”
r. “What’s the
he
ac
te
e
re of. “Come.
th
id
a,” sa
ds she was su
or
w
h
is
gl
“Hello, Ros
En
few
as one of the
osa again. It w
R
id
sa
!”
ks
“Duc
e didn’t care.
!”
g at her, but sh
in
ar
st
e
Please. Ducks
er
w
kids
the creek. The
e direction of
th
in
d
te
in
po
.
.
She
r eyes pleading
lked all at once
said again, he
at Rosa and ta
ed
ok
lo
r
ei
ey
“Ducks!” she
th
Th
.
and
glish to his team
d their jackets
They all grabbe
something in En
.”
id
us
sa
w
r
ho
he
“S
ac
.
te
The
Rosa,” he said
k.
r smiled. “OK,
osa to the cree
Then the teache
fore. First
and followed R
,
ts
ba
d
an
er seen there be
s
ev
d
ha
e
sh
an
baseball mitt
big trucks
creek th
ters with their
ople at Rosa’s
gh
pe
efi
e
fir
or
e
m
th
e
e
er
w
cam
there
d sirens. Then
Pretty soon
r squad cars an
ei
th
ith
w
e
m
the police ca
their vans.
dish detergent.
ciety workers in
els and liquid
So
w
e
to
an
d
an
um
H
ns
d
pa
an
sh
building with di
the apartment
om
fr
was happening.
t
t
ou
ha
e
w
m
People ca
, but she knew
lk
ta
e
up and held
th
l
al
derstand
rounded them
un
t
ds
ki
no
r
d
he
di
a
ot
e
os
R
with
d th
n away. She an
s for each duck
eak to fly or ru
d. Four washe
w
ke
o
or
to
w
e
le
er
w
op
s
pe
ety
ash.
The duck
of doing the w
e Humane Soci
reminded Rosa
shpans while th
It
di
.
e
er
th
at
in
w
r
em
ea
th
n fluffy-dry.
s with cl
and four rinse
cks were blow
t,
du
e
en
rg
th
te
as
de
d
mild
ughe
-dryer. Rosa la
y vans.
brought a blow
ne
eo
Humane Societ
m
e
so
th
le
in
hi
s
w
ge
a
r
ca
te
to
Af
in
refully
the natural
were packed ca
time to regain
ey
ed
th
ne
e,
y
on
he
“T
by
.
One
said
factory upstream
of the workers
properly. A big
few days,” one
im
a
sw
r
t to
d
fo
an
em
m
th
ar
w
a mess! You go
selves
“We’ll keep
st night. What
can keep them
la
s
ey
er
th
w
so
se
,
m
rs
or
he
e st
oils in their feat
esel fuel into th
d gallons of di
re
nd
hu
ur
fo
d
spilled
g lady.”
iled at her, an
st in time, youn
w everyone sm
ho
w
sa
e
these ducks ju
sh
t
, bu
man was saying
know what the
t
no
d
di
a
os
a
R
were gone. Ros
and the people
ns
va
e
e
re
th
she felt proud.
th
d
an
ith
ll w
cars
playing baseba
me home, the
alone. She was
osa’s mama ca
t
R
no
e
as
tim
w
e
e
th
sh
y
B
e creek. But
at English, too.
ial place by th
getting better
as
a
w
e
was in her spec
Sh
ll.
ba
parking lot. Ros
as good at base
almost to the
ll
ba
e
th
d
friends. Rosa w
ge
slug
hing, after she
e shouted, laug
sh
”
n!
ru
e
.
om
fe
“H
ducks were sa
d the dishpan
was happy. An
io
90 by Highlights
Copyright © 19
., Columbus, Oh
for Children, Inc
READING 2007
23
Sample Question About Vocabulary in Context
This sample question asked fourth-graders to use their
understanding of a part of the story to identify the
meaning of a word. The meaning of the word is related
to a major event in the story. This question was classified
under the reading aspect, developing interpretation.
Fifty-two percent of fourth-graders selected the
correct answer (choice B), demonstrating their
understanding that the main character knows only a few
English words and so uses her eyes to ask for help with
the emergency. Of the incorrect answers, choices C
and D, which are ordinary functions of the eyes, were
selected by 41 percent of fourth-graders.
Percentage of fourth-grade students in each
response category in 2007
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
Omitted
7
52
21
20
1
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
The table below shows the percentage of fourthgraders within each achievement level who answered the
question correctly. For example, 76 percent of fourthgraders performing at the Proficient level understood
the meaning of the word.
Percentage correct for fourth-grade students at each
achievement level in 2007
Overall
Below Basic
At Basic
52
23
51
At Proficient At Advanced
76
92
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Reading Assessment.
24
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
What does the word “pleading” mean,
as it is used in the sentence below?
“Ducks,” she said again, her eyes pleading.
A
B
Yelling
C
Looking
Begging
D
Blinking
Sample Question About Character Motivation
This sample question asked students to demonstrate
their understanding of the main character by
providing the motivation for an action at a particular
point in the story. In addition, students needed to support
their answer with details from the story. This question
was classified under the reading aspect, developing
interpretation.
Explain why Rosa visits the ducks at the
beginning of the story. Use details from
the story in your answer.
Response rated as “Full comprehension”
Student responses for this question were rated using the
following three-level scoring guide:
Full comprehension—These responses use details from
the story to explain why Rosa visits the ducks at the
beginning of the story.
Partial or surface comprehension—These responses
demonstrate a general understanding of why Rosa visits
the ducks at the beginning of the story but do not support
it with details from the story. Or, responses may provide a
story detail related to Rosa visiting the ducks but are
unrelated to why she visits them.
Little or no comprehension—These responses provide
inappropriate information or personal opinions that are
not related to why Rosa visits the ducks at the beginning
of the story.
Missing responses were considered intentional
omissions.
The first student response on the right was rated as “Full
comprehension” because it provided both a reason why
Rosa visits the ducks—“because she feels safer”—and
supports it with details related to why she feels safer with
the ducks. Fifty-four percent of fourth-graders provided
a response rated as “Full comprehension.” The second
response was rated as “Partial” because it provides a
story detail related to Rosa visiting the ducks at the
beginning of the story. Thirty-four percent of fourthgraders provided a response rated as “Partial.”
Response rated as “Partial comprehension”
Percentage of fourth-grade students in each
response category in 2007
Full Partial or surface
comprehension
comprehension
54
34
Little or no
comprehension
Omitted
11
1
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because a small percentage of responses that did not
address the assessment task are not shown.
The table below shows the percentage of fourth-graders
within each achievement level whose answer to the
question above was rated as “Full comprehension.” For
example, 56 percent of fourth-graders performing at the
Basic level were able both to provide a reason and support
it with details to demonstrate full comprehension.
Percentage rated as “Full comprehension” for
fourth-grade students at each achievement level
in 2007
Overall
Below Basic
At Basic
54
34
56
At Proficient At Advanced
69
78
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
25
8th Grade
Eighth-graders show improvement
The average eighth-grade reading
score in 2007 was higher than in 2005
(figure 11). The score was also higher
than the first reading assessment in
1992.
Figure 11. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores
Scale score
500
270
260
260*
260*
264
264*
263
262*
263
263
250
240
0
’92
’94
’98
Accommodations not permitted
’02
’03
’05
’07
Year
Accommodations permitted
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading Assessments.
Gains in two reading contexts
Gains in the overall reading score since 1992 were reflected in two of the three contexts for reading assessed at
grade 8. Although not shown here, the score in reading for literary experience increased from 259 in 1992 to 262
in 2007, and the score in reading for information increased from 261 to 264 over the same period. The score for
reading to perform a task showed no significant change in comparison to the score in 1992.
26
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Lower- and middle-performing students score higher than in 2005
Figure 12. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading percentile scores
Percentile
Scale score
500
310
305
305
305
306
305
306*
305
285
286
288*
288
288
288*
286
262*
262*
267
266
267*
266
265*
242
240*
217
216*
305
90th
300
290
Overall gains were seen for lowerand middle-performing students.
Scores for eighth-graders at the
10th, 25th, and 50th percentiles
were higher in 2007 than in 2005
and 1992, while there was no
significant change in the scores for
students at the 75th and 90th
percentiles in comparison to either
2005 or 1992 (figure 12).
287
75th
280
270
265
50th
260
250
237*
240
236*
242
241
217
216
244*
230
220
213*
210
0
’92
211*
’94
220*
’98
’02
Accommodations not permitted
’03
242
25th
217
’05
10th
’07
Year
Accommodations permitted
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007. The score for the 50th percentile was lower in 2005 (264.51) than in
2007 (265.36).
NAEP achievement-level results also
reflected gains for lower- and middleperforming students. The percentage
of students performing at or above
the Basic level increased from
73 percent in 2005 to 74 percent in
2007 and was higher in 2007 than in
1992 (figure 13). There was no
significant change in the percentage
of students performing at or above
Proficient in comparison to either
2005 or 1992.
Figure 13. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading achievement-level
performance
Percent
Percent
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3*
3*
3
3
3
3
29
29
30
30
33* 32
33* 32
33*
33*
32*
32*
31
31
31
31
69*
69*
70*
70*
’92
’92
’94
’94
74 73
74 73
75*
75*
74
74
73*
73*
74
74
’98
’98
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
The percentage at Advanced was higher in
2003 (3.16) than in 2007 (2.77).
Source: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National
Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), various years, 1992–2007
Reading Assessments.
’02
’02
’03
’03
’05
’05
’07 Year
’07 Year
% at Advanced
% at Advanced
% at or above Proficient
% at or above Proficient
% at or above Basic
% at or above Basic
Accommodations
Accommodations
Accommodations
Accommodations
not permitted
permitted
not permitted
permitted
READING 2007
27
Gains for White, Black, and Hispanic students
Figure 14. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading
average scores, by race/ethnicity
The overall gains for eighth-graders were not consistent
across all racial/ethnic groups. Scores for White and Black
students in 2007 were higher than in both 2005 and 1992
(figure 14). The score for Hispanic students has not changed
significantly in comparison to 2005, but was higher than in
1992. Over the last 15 years, scores for Asian/Pacific
Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native students showed
no significant change in comparison to all previous
assessment years in which results were available.
Year
White
267*
267*
271
270
272
272
271*
272
’92
’94
’98
’02
’03
’05
’07
Although not shown here, the increase since 1992 for
White students was seen mostly in the scores for lower- and
middle-performing students (those at the 10th, 25th, and
50th percentiles), while the increase over the same period for
Black students was seen across all the performance levels
(those at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles).
Black
237*
236*
243
244
245
244
243*
245
’92
’94
’98
’02
’03
’05
’07
Hispanic
241*
243*
245
243
247
245
246
247
’92
’94
’98
’02
’03
’05
’07
Asian/Pacific Islander
268
265
267
264
267
270
271
271
’92
’94
’98
’02
’03
’05
’07
American Indian /Alaska Native
Accommodations
not permitted
248
250
246
249
247
’94
’02
’03
’05
’07
0
220
230
240
250
Accommodations
permitted
260
270
280
500
Scale score
*Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
NOTE: Sample sizes were insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American
Indian/Alaska Native eighth-graders in 1992 and 1998. 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, 1992–2007 Reading Assessments.
28
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Achievement-level results…
Information is available on achievement-level results for
racial/ethnic groups and other reporting categories at
http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/data.asp.
No change in score gaps
Figure 15. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores and score gaps,
by selected racial/ethnic groups
Significant score gaps persisted
between White and minority
eighth-graders. Although the
average scores in 2007 for Black
and Hispanic students increased in
comparison to their scores in 1992,
the White – Black and White –
Hispanic score gaps showed no
significant change (figure 15).
Scale score
500
290
280
270
260
250
267*
30
271
267*
28 26
30
240
230
237*
0
’92
Scale score
500
243
271*
272
27 28
28
27 SCORE
GAP
245
244
243*
245
’02
’03
’05
’07
272
272
271*
272
272
270
244
272
White
Black
236*
’94
’98
Year
290
280
270
260
250
240
267*
267*
26
24
241*
243*
’92
’94
271
270
26 27
26 27*
25
25
245 243
247
245
246
247
’02
’03
’05
’07
White
SCORE
GAP
Hispanic
230
0
’98
Accommodations not permitted
Year
Accommodations permitted
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
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 8. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP reading, by
race/ethnicity: Various years, 1992–2007
Race/ethnicity
1992
1994
1998
2002
2003
2005
2007
White
72*
72*
70*
65*
63*
61*
60
Black
16
16
15*
15*
16
16
16
16*
17
Hispanic
8*
8*
11*
14*
15*
Asian/Pacific
Islander
3*
3*
3
4
4
4*
5
American Indian/
Alaska Native
1*
1
#*
1
1
1
1
The percentage of White eighth-graders
in the population was lower in 2007
than in all previous assessments, while
the percentage of Hispanic students
was higher (table 8). The percentage of
Asian/Pacific Islander students was
higher in 2007 than in 2005 and
1992.
#Rounds to zero.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
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 the
“unclassified” race/ethnicity category.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading Assessments.
READING 2007
29
Score gains vary by gender
Neither male nor female students
showed significant score changes
between 2005 and 2007. While the
score for female students showed no
significant change in comparison to
1992, the score for male students
was higher in 2007 than in 1992
(figure 16).
Figure 16. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores and score gaps, by
gender
Female students continued to score
higher on average in reading than
male students in 2007. The 10-point
score gap between the two groups in
2007 was not significantly different
from the gap in either 2005 or 1992.
260
Scale score
500
300
290
280
267
270
13
250
254*
267
15*
252*
270*
270*
269* 269
9
13* 14*
11
260* 258
257 256
267
268
10 10
257
Female
SCORE
GAP
258 Male
240
0
’92
’94
’98
’02
Accommodations not permitted
’03
’05
’07
Year
Accommodations permitted
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores.
Table 9. Average scores in eighth-grade NAEP reading, by reading context and
gender: 2007
Gender
Reading for literary
experience
Reading for
information
Reading to perform
a task
Male
256*
260*
256*
Female
267
268
268
Female students scored higher on
average than male students in all
three contexts for reading. Female
students scored 11 points higher in
reading for literary experience,
8 points higher in reading for
information, and 13 points2 higher
in reading to perform a task (table 9).
* Significantly different (p < .05) from female students in 2007.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading Assessments.
2
Gaps in performance of public and
private school students
Ninety-one percent of eighth-graders attended
public schools in 2007, and 9 percent attended
private schools. The average reading score for
eighth-graders in public schools (261) was lower
than for students in private schools overall (280)
and lower than for students in Catholic schools
specifically (282).
Trend results for public and Catholic school
students, and for private school students in those
years in which sample sizes were sufficient, are
available at: http://nationsreportcard.gov/
reading_2007/r0038.asp.
30
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
The score difference between the two groups is
based on the calculation using unrounded
scores.
No gains for lower-income students since 2005
Changes in reading performance
since 2005 varied by students’
family incomes as indicated by their
eligibility for free or reduced-price
school lunch. Students who were
not eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch scored 1 point higher in 2007
than in 2005 (figure 17). On the
other hand, average scores for
students who were eligible for either
free or reduced-price lunch showed
no significant change in comparison
to 2005.
As in grade 4, eighth-graders who
were not eligible for free or reducedprice lunch scored higher on average
than those who were eligible, and
those eligible for reduced-price
lunch scored higher than those
eligible for free lunch.
Figure 17. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading
average scores, by eligibility for free or
reduced-price school lunch
Scale score
500
280
270
271
260
258
250
244*
270*
271
255
255
245
246
240
Not eligible
Eligible for reduced-price lunch
Eligible for free lunch
230
0
’03
’05
’07
Year
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
Table 10. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP reading, by
eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: 2003, 2005, and 2007
Eligibility status
Eligible for free lunch
Eligible for reduced-price lunch
2003
2005
2007
26*
29*
31
7*
7*
6
Not eligible
55
Information not available
11*
56
55
8
7
Changes over time in the percentages
of students based on their eligibility for
free or reduced-price school lunch are
presented in table 10. About one-third
of eighth-graders assessed were
eligible for free lunch in 2007.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007.
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), 2003, 2005, and 2007 Reading Assessments.
READING 2007
31
State Performance at Grade 8
All of the 52 states and jurisdictions that participated in 2007 also participated
in 2005, and 38 participated in the 1998 assessment, allowing for comparisons
over time. As with grade 4, it is important to remember that performance results
for states may be affected by differences in demographic makeup and exclusion
and accommodation rates for students with disabilities and English language
learners, which may vary considerably across states as well as across years.
Six states show score increases since 2005
The map on the right highlights
changes in states’ average reading
scores since 2005, with increases in
six states and decreases in two states
(figure 18). Of the six states with
increases, Texas and Vermont
showed increases both for students
who were eligible for free/reducedprice school lunch and students who
were not eligible.
Figure 18. Changes in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores between
2005 and 2007
ND
VT
RI
MD
DC
DoDEA1
TX
FL
HI
Significant score increase
Significant score decrease
No significant change
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), 2005 and 2007 Reading Assessments.
FOR MORE INFORMATION...
State Comparison Tool orders states by students’ performance overall and
for student groups both within an assessment year and based on changes
across years (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/statecomp).
32
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
State Profiles provide information on each state’s school and student
populations and a summary of its NAEP results (http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/states).
Scores up in six states and down in seven states since 1998
Figure 19. Changes in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores between
1998 and 2007
Of the 38 states that participated
in both the 1998 and 2007
assessments, 6 showed increases,
and 7 showed decreases in average
scores (figure 19). Three of the 6
states that had score gains also
showed increases in the percentages
of students performing both at or
above Basic and at or above
Proficient. These and other state
results for grade 8 are provided in
figure 20, tables 11 and 12, and
appendix tables A-14 through A-20.
MA
WY
RI
PA
IA
NV
IN
DE
WV
DC
AZ
NM
NC
OK
DoDEA1
FL
Significant score increase
Significant score decrease
No significant change
Did not participate in 1998
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), 1998 and 2007 Reading Assessments.
1
One state gains in all three reading contexts
The texts used to measure reading comprehension at grade 8 are classified with the framework dimension of context
for reading. In addition to reading for literary experience and reading for information, the context reading to perform a
task is also measured at grade 8. Reading for literary experience is measured with fictional texts that include stories
and poetry. Reading for information is measured with articles and textbook material. Reading to perform a task is
measured with documents and procedural materials.
Nationally, students improved their performance
overall from 2005 to 2007, but they improved in only
one of the reading contexts, reading for information.
States also varied in their overall performance
compared to their performance in the three reading
contexts. For example, some states that showed
increases in overall performance only improved their
performance in one or two of the three reading
contexts. Conversely, those states that decreased in
their overall performance since 2005 did not decline in
every reading context.
When compared to 2005…
…1 of the 6 states that posted overall gains, Vermont,
also showed gains in all three reading contexts,
while 5 states showed gains in one or two of the
reading contexts.
…1 of the 2 states showing a decrease in overall
performance also showed a decrease in reading for
literary experience and reading to perform a task,
and 1 state showed a decrease in reading for
information.
…5 of the 44 states that showed no significant change
in overall performance showed gains in at least one
of the reading contexts, and 3 states showed a
decline in one of the three reading contexts.
READING 2007
33
Figure 20. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for eighth-grade public school students, by state: 2007
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
score
261
252
259
255
258
251
266
267
265
260
259
251
265
263
264
267
267
262
253
270
265
273
260
268
250
263
271
267
252
270
270
251
264
259
268
268
260
266
268
258
257
270
259
261
262
273
267
265
255
264
266
27
38
29
35
30
38
21
23
23
29
30
38
22
25
24
20
19
27
36
17
24
16
28
20
40
25
15
21
37
18
19
38
25
29
16
21
28
23
21
31
31
17
29
27
25
16
21
23
32
24
20
241
273
90
80
70
60
11
50
40
30
37
20
10
0
Nation (public)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Other jurisdictions
District of Columbia
DoDEA1
1
48
Percentage below Basic and at Basic
State/jurisdiction
27
2
20
1
25
2
22
2
24
1
20
2
32
2
33
5
28
2
26
2
24
2
19
1
30
2
27
2
29
2
33
2
33
2
25
3
18
1
34
3
30
3
39
4
26
2
34
3
16
1
29
3
37
2
32
3
20
2
34
3
35
4
17
1
30
3
26
2
31
1
33
3
25
1
31
3
33
3
25
2
23
2
35
2
24
2
26
2
28
2
38
4
31
3
31
3
22
1
31
3
31
2
36
13
Advanced
Proficient
43
41
44
41
44
41
44
40
47
43
44
42
47
45
45
44
45
46
45
46
42
41
44
44
43
44
46
44
42
45
42
45
43
43
51
44
46
43
42
42
44
47
46
45
45
42
45
43
45
43
47
52
100
Basic
Below Basic
10
20
2
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), 2007
Reading Assessment.
1
34
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Table 11. Average scores in NAEP reading for eighth-grade public school students, by state: Various years, 1998–2007
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)1
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
Accommodations not
permitted
1998
261
255
—
261*
256
253
264
272*
256*
253*
257
250
—
—
—
—
268
262
252
273
262
269*
—
267
251
263
270
—
257*
—
—
258*
266
264*
—
—
265*
266
—
262*
255
—
259
262
265
—
266
265
262*
266
262*
236*
269*
Accommodations permitted
1998
261
255
—
260*
256
252
264
270
254*
255*
257
249
—
—
—
—
268
262
252
271
261
269*
—
265
251
262
271
—
258*
—
—
258*
265
262*
—
—
265*
266
—
264*
255
—
258
261
263
—
266
264
262*
265
263*
2002
263*
253
—
257
260
250
—
267
267*
261
258
252
266
—
265
—
269
265*
256
270
263
271
265*
—
255*
268*
270
270*
251
—
—
254*
264
265*
268
268
262*
268
265
262*
258
—
260
262
263
272
269
268*
264*
—
265
2003
261
253
256
255
258
251
268
267
265
257
258
251
264
266*
265
268
266
266*
253
268
262
273
264
268
255*
267*
270
266
252
271
268
252
265
262
270
267
262
264
264
261*
258
270
258
259
264
271*
268
264
260*
266
267
2005
260*
252
259
255
258
250
265
264
266
256*
257
249*
264
264
261
267
267
264
253
270
261*
274
261
268
251
265
269
267
253
270
269
251
265
258
270*
267
260
263
267
261*
257
269
259
258*
262
269*
268
265
255
266
268
2007
261
252
259
255
258
251
266
267
265
260
259
251
265
263
264
267
267
262
253
270
265
273
260
268
250
263
271
267
252
270
270
251
264
259
268
268
260
266
268
258
257
270
259
261
262
273
267
265
255
264
266
236*
269*
240
273
239
272
238*
271
241
273
— Not available. The jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007 when only one jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.
1
National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.
2
Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data
presented here were recalculated for comparability.
NOTE: State-level data were not collected in 1992, 1994, or 2000.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years,
1998–2007 Reading Assessments. READING 2007
35
Table 12. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students and average scores in NAEP reading, by selected student groups
and state: 2007
Race/ethnicity
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
DoDEA1
See notes at end of table.
36
Black
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/
Alaska Native
Percentage
of students
58
60
55
47
68
33
64
69
55
49
46
13
84
60
79
87
77
84
53
96
51
76
75
82
44
75
84
80
46
94
57
32
57
58
88
76
59
75
77
70
56
87
68
39
81
94
61
68
94
81
85
Average
scale score
270
261
270
269
266
266
275
276
274
268
271
262
268
271
268
270
272
264
264
270
276
278
267
273
264
270
274
271
263
270
278
265
274
270
270
274
266
270
272
267
268
272
267
275
266
273
273
270
256
270
269
Percentage
of students
17
36
5
5
24
7
7
13
34
23
45
2
1
17
12
5
8
12
44
2
38
8
19
6
53
20
1
7
11
1
17
3
19
30
1
18
11
2
14
9
38
2
27
16
1
2
26
5
5
9
1
Average
scale score
244
236
250
248
236
237
252
246
250
244
246
255
‡
244
242
247
246
247
240
‡
249
253
236
245
238
242
‡
243
248
‡
249
248
246
241
‡
246
243
250
248
239
242
‡
240
249
‡
‡
252
247
241
231
‡
Percentage
of students
18
3
4
39
6
47
25
15
8
23
5
3
12
17
5
6
10
2
2
1
5
9
3
5
2
3
2
10
33
2
17
51
17
7
2
1
7
14
6
18
3
1
3
41
13
1
6
14
1
6
9
Average
scale score
246
250
257
241
249
239
249
243
257
256
250
249
243
250
255
250
248
‡
‡
‡
258
251
241
245
‡
248
‡
255
238
252
257
246
246
246
‡
260
241
243
244
233
244
‡
252
251
242
‡
258
247
‡
247
248
Percentage
of students
5
1
7
2
1
12
3
3
3
3
2
68
2
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
2
6
1
2
1
2
8
2
9
1
7
2
1
1
2
5
3
3
1
1
2
3
4
2
5
10
#
3
1
Average
scale score
269
‡
263
277
‡
264
269
272
277
278
‡
249
‡
277
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
287
281
‡
258
‡
‡
‡
‡
261
‡
285
‡
269
265
‡
‡
‡
270
284
258
‡
‡
‡
280
261
‡
280
268
‡
264
‡
Percentage
of students
1
#
26
7
1
1
1
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
2
#
1
#
#
#
1
1
#
#
11
1
2
#
#
12
#
1
8
#
21
2
#
1
#
9
#
#
1
1
#
3
#
1
4
Average
scale score
248
‡
236
233
‡
251
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
247
‡
‡
249
‡
‡
‡
‡
234
‡
236
248
‡
256
260
‡
‡
‡
249
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
252
‡
‡
253
3
47
‡
278
88
19
238
259
8
15
249
273
1
7
‡
276
#
#
‡
‡
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Table 12. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students and average scores in NAEP reading, by selected student groups
and state: 2007—Continued
Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch
Eligible
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
Gender
Not eligible
Male
Female
Percentage of
students
40
49
37
44
51
48
32
26
33
42
48
41
37
39
35
31
36
48
59
33
29
26
32
26
66
38
34
32
36
16
26
60
46
44
26
31
50
38
31
33
47
30
45
52
32
26
26
33
46
29
27
Average
scale score
247
241
244
241
247
239
251
243
254
249
247
243
256
249
251
253
253
252
245
261
251
256
244
254
242
252
260
254
240
257
251
242
250
246
258
251
252
253
253
242
245
259
247
249
252
260
252
251
246
246
255
Percentage of
students
58
51
62
54
49
48
68
74
67
57
52
59
62
61
65
69
64
52
41
67
71
74
68
72
32
61
65
68
60
81
73
40
53
55
74
67
50
59
68
67
53
70
55
48
67
74
74
65
54
69
73
Average
scale score
271
263
268
265
269
264
273
275
270
268
270
257
270
272
271
274
275
271
265
274
271
279
268
273
266
271
277
273
260
272
277
264
275
270
272
275
268
274
275
267
269
274
269
273
267
278
272
272
263
272
270
Percentage of
students
50
50
51
50
49
51
51
49
50
52
50
50
51
49
50
52
51
48
50
50
49
52
50
51
52
50
52
50
49
50
51
52
50
52
51
50
52
50
50
50
50
50
49
49
51
49
49
49
51
50
50
Average
scale score
256
247
253
251
253
246
262
262
260
254
253
244
260
259
259
263
263
257
248
264
260
269
255
263
246
259
265
262
245
264
266
247
258
254
264
264
255
260
265
256
253
266
254
256
258
268
262
260
248
257
261
Percentage of
students
50
50
49
50
51
49
49
51
50
48
50
50
49
51
50
48
49
52
50
50
51
48
50
49
48
50
48
50
51
50
49
48
50
48
49
50
48
50
50
50
50
50
51
51
49
51
51
51
49
50
50
Average
scale score
266
257
264
259
263
257
271
272
269
266
264
259
270
267
270
272
272
266
258
276
270
278
266
274
255
268
278
272
259
275
274
255
269
265
272
272
264
271
270
261
262
274
264
266
267
278
272
270
262
272
271
65
#
234
‡
35
#
253
‡
44
50
235
267
56
50
245
279
# Rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is 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” and for students whose eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch was not available.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007
Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
37
Assessment Content at Grade 8
All three contexts for reading were assessed at grade 8. The proportion of assessment
questions devoted to reading for literary experience was lower than the proportion at
grade 4. At grade 8, equal proportions of assessment questions were devoted to
reading for literary experience and reading for information. The remaining assessment
questions were devoted to reading to perform a task, which was allotted one-half as
much time as either literary or informational reading. The 2007 eighth-grade reading
assessment included a total of 13 reading passages and 140 questions.
Reading Achievement Levels at Grade 8
The following descriptions are abbreviated versions of the full achievement-level descriptions for
grade 8 reading. The cut score depicting the lowest score representative of that level is noted in
parentheses.
Basic (243): Eighth-grade students performing at the
Basic level should demonstrate a literal understanding of
what they read and be able to make some interpretations.
When reading text appropriate to eighth grade, they
should be able to identify specific aspects of the text that
reflect the overall meaning, extend the ideas in the text
by making simple inferences, recognize and relate
interpretations and connections among ideas in the text
to personal experience, and draw conclusions based on
the text.
Proficient (281): Eighth-grade students performing at
the Proficient level should be able to show an overall
understanding of the text, including inferential as well as
literal information. When reading text appropriate to
eighth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas in
the text by making clear inferences from it, by drawing
conclusions, and by making connections to their own
experiences—including other reading experiences.
Proficient eighth-graders should be able to identify some
of the devices authors use in composing text.
Advanced (323): Eighth-grade students performing at
the Advanced level should be able to describe the more
abstract themes and ideas of the overall text. When
reading text appropriate to eighth grade, they should be
able to analyze both meaning and form and support their
analyses explicitly with examples from the text, and they
should be able to extend text information by relating it to
their experiences and to world events. At this level,
student responses should be thorough, thoughtful, and
extensive.
The full descriptions can be found at http://www.nagb.org/frameworks/reading_07.pdf.
38
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
What Eighth-Graders Know and Can Do in Reading
The item map below illustrates the range of reading
ability demonstrated by eighth-graders. For example,
students performing in the middle of the Basic range
(with an average score of 261) were likely to be able to
identify the appropriate text recommendation for a
specific situation. Students performing near the top of
the Proficient range (with an average score of 318) were
likely to be able to infer and explain traits of a character
using specific examples.
Advanced
GRADE 8 NAEP READING ITEM MAP
Scale score
500
365
357
337
329
326
Question description
Use understanding of character to interpret author’s purpose
Use examples to explain importance of setting to plot
Search dense text to retrieve relevant explanatory facts
Recognize narrative device and explain function in story
Follow directions to fully complete task
Proficient
323
321
318
315
312
308
299
298
293
288
284
Integrate story details to explain central conflict
Use specific examples to infer and explain character traits (shown on page 43)
Apply text information to real life situation
Infer and provide lesson based on historical biography
Describe difficulty of a task in a different context
Recognize explicit information from highly detailed article
Use metaphor to interpret character
Recognize author’s device to convey information related to a task
Identify genre of story
Recognize what story action reveals about a character
Basic
281
279
278
272
265
262
261
261
259
253
248
244
Use task directions and prior knowledge to make a comparison
Infer character’s action from plot outcome
Describe central problem faced by the main character
Recognize author’s purpose for including a quotation (shown on page 42)
Identify causal relation between historical events
Use context to identify meaning of vocabulary
Identify appropriate text recommendation for a specific situation
Provide specific text information to support a generalization
Read across text to provide explanation
Recognize information included by author to persuade
Support opinion with text information or related prior knowledge
243
235
Recognize explicitly stated reason for action in an article
230
Recognize reason for character’s central emotion
218
Identify inference based on part of the document
215
Recognize an explicitly stated embedded detail
206
Identify appropriate description of character’s feelings
205
Use global understanding of the article to provide explanation
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 scale score attained by students
who had a 65 percent probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question, or a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a four-option multiple-choice question. For constructedresponse questions, the question description represents students’ performance rated as completely correct. Scale score ranges for reading 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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
39
Sample Reading Passage
The article below is an example of what an eighth-grader might read for
information. The article uses a human interest approach to relate the
investigative efforts of a middle-school student and how her efforts
helped her community. The two sample questions that follow were
based on this reading passage.
Kid Fights Cheater Meters
And Wins!
stopwatch and a bag
The true story of a girl with a
al parking scandal
of nickels who uncovered a loc
her state . . .
and helped change the laws of
to spark a revolt, she just
Ellie Lammer wasn’t trying
the fall of 1997. Ellie was
wanted a haircut. That was in
she was getting her tresses
11 years old at the time, and
Berkeley, California. When
trimmed in her hometown of
their car, they found a
Ellie and her mom returned to
dshield. It didn’t seem
parking ticket stuck to the win
lier, Ellie had pumped an
possible: Less than an hour ear
meter. But now the needle
hour’s worth of coins into the
owed $20.
was at zero, and Ellie’s mom
the knob. The needle
kel in the meter and twisted
nic
r
the
ano
d
ppe
dro
e
Elli
meter.
Feeling cheated,
ch while her mom watched the
te mark. Ellie stared at her wat
inu
r-m
fou
the
cheated.
n
to
r
bee
ove
y’d
ked
the
clic
was: proof that
the time had expired. There it
of
all
r,
late
s
ute
min
e
thre
n
Less tha
ut the meter.
n Ellie’s mom complained abo
The city tore up the ticket whe
inaccurate. Six months later,
how many other meters were
ing
der
won
e
Elli
left
nce
erie
—and that meter
But the exp
for a good science-fair project
und
aro
ing
look
n
bee
’d
She
.
hit the streets.
she decided to find out
nickels and a stopwatch, she
of
bag
a
h
wit
ed
arm
So
.
in Berkeley still bothered her
50 meters
so she focused on a sample of
or money to test every meter,
e
tim
the
e
hav
h after 6
n’t
arc
did
e
rese
Elli
sts, she did her
avoid inconveniencing motori
To
.
city
the
of
ts
par
nt
ere
of
diff
located in
t minutes’ worth nickels in
e not in use. She put in eigh
wer
ters
me
the
n
whe
s,
day
P.M. and on Sun
much time it really gave.
each meter, then measured how
of every ten meters
gested that more than nine out
sug
ings
find
e’s
Elli
tty.
pre
e too quickly.
The results were not
g meter was running out of tim
kin
par
rth
fou
ry
eve
t
tha
nd
in the city were inaccurate—a
tickets. As Ellie wrote in her
, that meant a lot of undeserved
city
the
in
ters
me
g
kin
par
at the City of Berkeley.
With 3,600
cheat you and which meters che
ters
me
ch
whi
ned
lear
“I
ort,
science-project rep
are.”
meters cheat someone, so bew
But I learned that almost all
40
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
generated
with computers
ng
di
fin
r
he
ey have
esented
“It’s not like th
ound, Ellie pr
t.
ar
ec
d
oj
lle
pr
r
ro
ir
he
fa
in
ed
with
science
’t very interest
was a huge hit
When the
assmates weren
ut her project
B
cl
.
er
ns
H
ai
.
ories
pl
st
hs
ex
or
ap
e
,” sh
eter horr
charts and gr
a parking meter
own parking-m
in
r
ey
ei
th
on
e
m
t
ar
pu
sh
t to
to drive a car or
ed up that nigh
50 of them lin
an
th
e
or
M
s.
parent
got a call from
few weeks, Ellie
a
in
ith
W
with Ellie.
.
st
with more
read fa
ing its meters
eter project sp
ac
m
pl
’s
re
lie
g
in
El
t
er
id
ou
cons
word ab
sed. “We
e, Berkeley was
After that,
ns were impres
tim
ia
e
ic
th
lit
At
po
y.
e
th
lle
d
Diane Woo
dollars,” one
s at city hall, an
local politician
of thousands of
ared her finding
sh
ds
re
lie
nd
El
.
hu
es
s
on
nt
l
ta
accurate digita
we pay consul
new meters.
thorough when
is
th
s
rchase 2,000
rt
pu
po
re
to
t
d
de
ci
de
don’t ge
ey
th
udy,
After Ellie
ed on Ellie’s st
eater meters.
ch
on
n
w
remarked. Bas
do
k
unties to
to crac
lifornia’s 26 co
e also decided
Ca
ur
s
at
sl
ire
gi
qu
le
re
e
at
which
antled.
nia st
ammer’s Law,”
be fixed or dism
The Califor
t
“L
d
us
te
m
ac
te
en
ra
cu
ey
ac
in
findings, th
eter found to be
presented her
meters. Any m
g
in
rk
pa
At the time, he
of
cy
ber 1, 1998.
em
ov
test the accura
N
on
w
the la
e Californians
Wilson signed
atitude of thos
gr
te
e
Pe
th
r
r
no
he
er
ed
ov
G
ers, only to
s earn
California
to feed the met
d dedication ha
ge
an
an
ity
ch
nu
t
ge
ac
in
ex
s
llie’
ch of
commented, “E
pockets in sear
rking ticket.”
eir purses and
th
h
ug
velope of a pa
ro
en
th
n
g
ee
gr
d
de
ea
who’ve du
dr
g the
on local
eir cars bearin
y and featured
th
tr
d
un
fin
co
to
e
th
rn
tu
er
re
a
l ov
newspapers al
r. She was even
story about he
ity. She was in
a
br
d
le
di
ity,”
ce
N
br
a
le
e
CN
m
ce
.
a
being
of 1998
Ellie beca
mmer and fall
eird moment of
su
w
e
a
th
of
g
nd
rin
ki
du
s
was
television new
Letterman. “It
ow with David
Sh
te
La
e
th
guest on
of the work
hool, is proud
Sc
e
dl
id
M
g
she says.
in
ther K
mind being
r at Martin Lu
ht now I don’t
de
ig
ra
“R
-g
th
k:
or
gh
w
ei
s
e’
’s now an
itoring as her lif
ng different.”
Ellie, who
t see meter mon
l want somethi
n’
I’l
es
e
lif
do
e
in
r
sh
te
ut
la
at
she’s done. B
but I’m sure th
ing-meter girl,
rk
pa
e
th
as
n
know
t
057, a nonprofi
s, NY 10703-1
ZILLIONS.®
S., Inc. Yonker
rs Union of U.
2000 issue of
me
ust
ug
nsu
Co
y/A
by
Jul
the
© 2000
d.
rmission from
copying permitte
printed with pe
al use or photo
organization. Re
ly. No commerci
on
ses
rpo
pu
g.
Reports.or
For educational
www.Consumers
illions.org and
Log onto www.Z
READING 2007
41
Sample Question on Supporting Idea
This sample question asked students to take a critical
perspective on a sentence from the article. The focus is
not on the information itself, but on how that
information functions in relation to other information in
the article. This question was classified under the
reading aspect, examining content and structure.
Seventy-two percent of eighth-graders selected the
correct answer (choice C), recognizing that this
supporting information was included to highlight the
main subject of the article. Of the incorrect answers,
choice B was selected by 14 percent of eighth-graders,
perhaps making a literal connection between the money
amount and the word “budget.”
Percentage of eighth-grade students in each
response category in 2007
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
Omitted
8
14
72
7
#
# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
The table below shows the percentage of students
within each achievement level who answered the
question above correctly. For example, 72 percent of
eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level
selected the correct answer choice.
Percentage correct for eighth-grade students at each
achievement level in 2007
Overall
Below Basic
At Basic
72
45
72
At Proficient At Advanced
92
99
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Reading Assessment.
42
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
“We don’t get reports this thorough
when we pay consultants hundreds
of thousands of dollars.”
The author included this information to
A
show how the city saves money
B
describe the city budget
C
emphasize Ellie’s achievement
D
criticize the city of Berkeley
Sample Question on Drawing Conclusions
This sample question asked students to consider specific
information provided in the article and to draw a
conclusion from this information about the character of
the person discussed in the article. This question was
classified under the reading aspect, developing
interpretation.
Student responses to this question were rated using the
following four-level scoring guide:
Extensive —Responses use information in the article to
provide a description of Ellie Lammer. Responses at this
level provide at least two specific text-based things that
she did and explain what those things say about her
character.
Choose two things Ellie Lammer did and
explain what those things tell about her.
Use examples from the article to support
your answer.
Response rated as “Extensive”
Essential—Responses at this level provide one
example of something Ellie Lammer did and explain
what that says about her character. Responses at this
level may provide a generalization about Ellie’s actions
without providing a specific example from the article;
however, these responses do explain what her actions say
about her character.
Partial—Responses at this level may focus on Ellie’s
actions without explaining what the actions tell about her
character.
Unsatisfactory—Responses at this level demonstrate no
understanding of Ellie’s actions as described in the
article or what those actions say about her character.
The first response on the left was rated “Extensive”
because it uses two things that Ellie did as the bases for
explaining two different aspects of her character. While
the second response, rated “Essential,” gives two aspects
of Ellie’s character, only the first is based on something
Ellie did. Thirty-two percent of eighth-graders provided
a response rated as “Extensive” on this question.
Percentage of eighth-grade students in each
response category in 2007
Extensive
Essential
Partial
Unsatisfactory
Omitted
32
17
41
5
5
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because a small percentage of responses that did not
address the assessment task are not shown.
Response rated as “Essential”
The table below shows the percentage of eighth-graders
within each achievement level whose answer to the
question on the left was rated as “Extensive.” For example,
29 percent of eighth-graders performing at the Basic level
provided extensive responses—they were able both to
provide a reason and support it with details.
Percentage rated as “Extensive” for eighth-grade
students at each achievement level in 2007
Overall
Below Basic
At Basic
32
8
29
At Proficient At Advanced
54
77
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
43
Technical Notes
Sampling and Weighting
Interpreting Statistical Significance
The schools and students participating in NAEP
assessments are selected to be representative both
nationally and for 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.
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 students assessed are of the entire
population.
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.
More information on sampling can be found at http://
nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/nathow.asp.
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 difference between Black and
Hispanic students may be statistically significant, while
a 2-point difference between Black and 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/nde.
Each school that participated in the assessment, and each
student assessed, represents a portion of the population
of interest. Results are weighted to make appropriate
inferences between the student samples and the
respective populations from which they are drawn.
Sampling weights account for the disproportionate
representation of the selected sample. This includes
oversampling of schools with high concentrations of
students from certain minority groups and the lower
sampling rates of students who attend very small
nonpublic schools.
44
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
School and Student Participation Rates
National School Lunch Program
To ensure unbiased samples, NCES and the Governing
Board established participation rate standards that states
and jurisdictions were required to meet in order for their
results to be reported. Participation rates for the original
sample needed to be at least 85 percent for schools to
meet reporting requirements. In the 2007 reading
assessment, all 52 states and jurisdictions met
participation rate standards at both grades 4 and 8.
NAEP first began collecting data in 1996 on student
eligibility for the National School Lunch Program
(NSLP) as an indicator of poverty. 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, 2006 through June 30, 2007, for a
family of four, 130 percent of the poverty level was
$26,000, and 185 percent was $37,000.)
The national school participation rates for public and
private schools combined were 98 percent for grade 4
and 97 percent for grade 8. Student participation rates
were 95 percent for grade 4 and 92 percent for grade 8.
Participation rates needed to be 70 percent or higher to
report results separately for private schools. While the
school participation rate for private schools did meet
the standard in 2007, it did not always meet the
standard in previous assessment years. Therefore,
comparisons could not be made for private schools as a
group across all years. Participation rates for Catholic
schools, however, were sufficient for reporting in 2007
and in previous assessment years. These data and other
private school data are available at http://
nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/r0038.asp.
As a result of improvements in the quality of the data on
students’ eligibility for NSLP, the percentage of students
for whom information was not available has decreased in
comparison 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/.
READING 2007
45
Appendix Tables
Table A-1. Fourth- and eighth-grade public and nonpublic school students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL)
identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP reading, as a percentage of all students: Various years, 1992–2007
Accommodations not permitted
Student characteristics
Accommodations permitted
1992
1994
1998
1998
2000
2002
2003
2005
2007
10
13
16
16
18
19
20
21
22
Grade 4
SD and/or ELL
Identified
Excluded
6
5
9
6
6
6
6
6
6
Assessed
4
8
7
10
12
13
14
15
16
Without accommodations
4
8
7
7
10
9
9
9
9
With accommodations
†
†
†
3
2
4
5
6
7
Identified
7
10
11
10
11
12
13
13
13
Excluded
4
4
6
4
4
5
4
5
4
SD
Assessed
3
6
5
6
7
7
8
8
9
Without accommodations
3
6
5
3
5
4
4
3
3
With accommodations
†
†
†
3
2
3
4
5
5
3
4
6
6
8
8
10
10
10
Excluded
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
Assessed
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
8
ELL
Identified
Without accommodations
1
2
2
3
5
6
6
6
6
With accommodations
†
†
†
1
#
1
1
2
2
Identified
10
13
12
12
—
17
17
17
18
Excluded
7
7
6
4
—
5
5
5
5
Assessed
4
6
7
9
—
11
12
13
13
Grade 8
SD and/or ELL
Without accommodations
4
6
7
6
—
8
7
7
6
With accommodations
†
†
†
2
—
4
5
6
6
Identified
8
11
10
10
—
12
13
12
12
Excluded
5
6
5
3
—
4
4
4
4
Assessed
3
5
5
7
—
8
9
8
8
SD
Without accommodations
3
5
5
5
—
5
4
3
2
With accommodations
†
†
†
2
—
3
5
5
6
ELL
Identified
3
3
3
3
—
6
6
6
6
Excluded
2
1
1
1
—
2
1
1
1
Assessed
1
1
2
2
—
4
4
5
5
Without accommodations
1
1
2
2
—
4
4
4
4
With accommodations
†
†
†
#
—
#
1
1
1
— Not available. Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000.
† Not applicable. Accommodations were not permitted in this sample.
# 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, 1992–2007 Reading
Assessments.
46
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Table A-2. Fourth- and eighth-grade public and nonpublic school students with disabilities (SD) and/or English
language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP reading, as a percentage of all
students, by selected race/ethnicity categories: 2007
Race/ethnicity
Student characteristics
White
Black
Hispanic
14
17
46
Grade 4
SD and/or ELL
Identified
Excluded
4
6
10
Assessed
10
10
36
Without accommodations
4
4
26
With accommodations
6
7
10
Identified
13
15
12
Excluded
4
6
5
Assessed
9
9
7
Without accommodations
4
3
3
With accommodations
6
6
4
Identified
1
2
40
Excluded
#
1
8
Assessed
1
2
32
Without accommodations
1
1
25
With accommodations
#
1
7
Identified
12
17
34
Excluded
4
6
8
Assessed
9
11
26
Without accommodations
3
3
19
With accommodations
6
8
8
Identified
12
16
12
SD
ELL
Grade 8
SD and/or ELL
SD
Excluded
4
6
5
Assessed
8
10
7
Without accommodations
2
3
3
With accommodations
6
7
5
Identified
1
1
27
ELL
Excluded
#
#
6
Assessed
1
1
21
Without accommodations
#
1
17
With accommodations
#
#
4
# 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),
2007 Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
47
Table A-3. Fourth- and eighth-grade public school students with disabilities (SD) and English language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and
accommodated in NAEP reading, as a percentage of all students, by state: 2007
Grade 4
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
SD
Overall
excluded Identified Excluded
Grade 8
ELL
Accommodated Identified Excluded
SD
Overall
Accommodated excluded Identified Excluded
ELL
Accommodated Identified Excluded
14
12
15
11
13
10
11
14
18
16
13
10
11
15
16
13
12
15
19
19
13
18
14
14
11
16
12
16
13
18
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
19
14
15
16
13
12
18
15
15
17
14
16
5
3
3
4
6
3
3
2
10
4
8
2
3
5
4
4
5
7
4
6
7
5
4
3
2
3
4
5
5
4
5
7
4
2
8
7
7
4
5
3
4
6
10
7
5
6
7
4
2
4
4
6
3
8
4
4
3
7
9
5
11
2
6
5
6
7
7
4
3
11
9
4
10
5
6
4
8
6
7
4
12
7
4
10
10
3
6
5
6
8
11
5
4
2
3
4
8
4
5
7
6
8
11
3
15
17
7
33
15
6
5
9
3
10
8
9
4
5
9
2
1
2
5
6
3
8
1
2
5
7
23
3
4
23
9
8
3
2
5
15
3
8
4
4
2
16
12
3
7
8
1
7
4
2
1
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
#
#
3
2
#
1
#
#
#
1
5
1
2
8
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
5
2
1
2
1
#
2
1
2
#
5
2
3
2
5
3
1
4
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
#
#
#
1
1
1
3
#
1
2
2
6
1
1
3
6
4
#
1
1
4
1
3
1
#
#
2
2
#
2
1
#
2
#
5
4
2
5
6
3
3
3
7
5
7
3
3
5
5
5
5
8
3
6
8
7
6
4
3
3
4
4
6
4
7
9
6
4
9
9
7
3
5
4
7
6
8
7
5
5
8
5
2
7
4
13
13
12
11
13
9
10
13
16
14
11
15
11
14
15
16
13
13
14
17
12
18
15
12
9
13
13
13
11
18
15
15
14
15
14
17
16
11
18
18
14
11
12
13
10
20
14
11
15
14
14
5
3
2
4
5
2
3
2
6
3
7
2
3
4
5
5
4
7
3
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
5
6
5
3
9
9
6
3
5
3
6
6
7
6
4
5
6
4
2
6
3
6
2
8
4
4
3
6
9
7
10
3
8
4
8
8
10
6
3
10
8
4
10
8
6
4
7
7
6
4
10
8
4
9
10
3
7
5
4
9
11
4
4
2
3
4
9
5
5
6
7
7
7
2
17
11
4
22
7
4
3
6
2
6
6
4
3
3
4
1
1
2
2
4
2
6
#
2
5
3
10
1
4
18
5
4
2
2
3
8
2
4
2
1
1
8
9
2
4
6
1
5
3
2
#
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
#
#
1
2
2
#
1
#
#
1
1
3
#
2
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
#
#
3
1
#
2
2
#
2
1
1
#
6
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
#
2
1
#
1
1
1
#
#
#
1
#
#
1
#
#
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
#
#
#
2
1
1
#
#
#
1
1
#
#
1
#
2
1
14
5
15
10
11
3
3
4
9
6
4
2
4
2
13
3
18
7
12
2
4
5
4
4
2
2
1
#
# 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), 2007 Reading Assessment. 48
Accommodated
6
3
4
6
7
4
4
4
12
7
8
4
3
7
5
5
6
8
4
6
9
6
5
4
2
4
4
5
8
4
7
12
6
3
9
8
7
5
5
5
4
6
11
10
6
7
8
5
2
5
4
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Table A-4. Fourth- and eighth-grade public school students with disabilities excluded in NAEP reading, as a percentage of all students, by state:
Various years, 1992–2007
Grade 4
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
Grade 8
1992
5
5
—
5
5
4
5
4
5
7
5
4
3
—
4
4
—
4
4
5
6
6
4
4
5
4
—
4
—
4
3
6
4
4
2
6
8
—
3
4
6
—
5
5
4
—
6
—
5
6
4
1994
5
5
—
4
6
4
6
6
6
9
5
4
4
—
5
4
—
4
6
10
7
5
6
4
6
5
3
4
—
6
4
6
6
5
2
—
—
—
5
4
6
—
6
7
5
—
6
4
7
7
4
1998
5
8
—
5
4
3
3
7
1
5
4
4
—
3
—
5
3
7
7
7
5
4
5
3
4
6
2
—
6
3
—
7
4
6
—
—
9
4
—
5
7
—
3
7
4
—
6
4
8
7
3
2002
5
2
—
5
4
3
—
4
7
5
3
4
4
4
4
7
4
8
10
6
6
4
7
4
4
8
5
4
5
—
—
7
6
10
5
8
5
5
4
3
4
—
3
8
4
5
8
4
10
6
2
2003
5
2
2
5
5
3
2
4
10
3
3
3
3
5
4
7
2
8
6
7
6
3
6
3
6
7
5
4
5
3
3
4
5
6
4
6
5
7
3
3
7
4
4
7
3
6
8
4
9
4
2
2005
5
2
3
4
6
3
3
3
12
5
5
2
3
5
4
5
3
8
14
6
5
7
7
3
4
7
5
5
5
3
4
6
4
3
5
8
5
5
4
2
6
4
7
7
4
5
10
3
5
4
2
2007
5
3
3
4
6
3
3
2
10
4
8
2
3
5
4
4
5
7
4
6
7
5
4
3
2
3
4
5
5
4
5
7
4
2
8
7
7
4
5
3
4
6
10
7
5
6
7
4
2
4
4
1998
3
6
—
3
4
2
3
5
2
4
4
4
—
3
—
—
3
3
5
5
3
3
—
1
5
3
4
—
4
—
—
5
4
5
—
—
8
3
—
5
5
—
5
4
3
—
5
3
7
5
2
2002
5
2
—
4
4
2
—
3
6
4
3
4
3
3
4
—
4
6
10
4
4
4
6
2
5
7
4
5
4
—
—
7
8
8
4
7
4
4
2
4
5
—
3
6
3
4
7
3
10
5
3
2003
4
2
2
5
4
3
2
3
8
4
2
3
3
4
3
4
3
7
5
5
3
3
6
3
5
8
5
4
2
3
2
5
5
6
4
5
4
4
2
3
8
3
2
7
2
4
8
3
9
5
2
2005
4
1
1
3
5
2
2
2
10
3
5
3
2
4
4
4
4
7
8
7
4
6
6
2
4
8
5
3
3
2
4
5
5
3
7
7
4
3
3
3
7
3
7
5
3
4
6
3
6
4
3
2007
5
3
2
4
5
2
3
2
6
3
7
2
3
4
5
5
4
7
3
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
5
6
5
3
9
9
6
3
5
3
6
6
7
6
4
5
6
4
2
6
3
7
—
5
—
6
3
7
3
5
2
7
3
11
3
4
1
6
1
6
1
6
2
12
2
1
1
— Not available. The 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). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data presented here were
recalculated for comparability.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading
Assessments.
READING 2007
49
Table A-5. Fourth- and eighth-grade public school English language learners excluded in NAEP reading, as a percentage of all students, by
state: Various years, 1992–2007
Grade 4
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
Grade 8
1992
2
#
—
3
#
11
2
3
#
2
1
2
1
—
#
#
—
#
#
#
1
2
1
1
#
#
—
1
—
#
2
2
2
1
#
1
1
—
1
4
#
—
#
3
1
—
1
—
#
1
#
1994
2
#
—
3
#
9
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
—
#
#
—
#
#
#
1
3
#
1
#
#
#
1
—
#
2
2
3
1
#
—
—
—
1
1
#
—
#
5
1
—
1
1
#
1
#
1998
3
#
—
6
1
12
3
4
#
1
1
2
—
3
—
1
1
#
1
#
1
2
1
1
#
#
#
—
6
#
—
4
4
1
—
—
#
2
—
3
#
—
1
7
2
—
1
2
#
1
1
2002
2
#
—
5
1
3
—
2
2
3
1
2
1
4
1
1
2
#
1
#
2
2
1
2
#
1
1
2
7
—
—
6
3
3
1
1
1
4
1
3
1
—
1
5
3
#
3
1
#
3
1
2003
2
#
1
4
1
4
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
4
#
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
2
5
3
2
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
5
3
1
3
2
#
2
#
2005
2
#
1
3
2
4
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
#
#
2
2
1
1
#
1
#
1
3
1
2
7
2
1
#
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
#
3
2
#
2
1
2007
2
1
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
#
#
3
2
#
1
#
#
#
1
5
1
2
8
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
5
2
1
2
1
#
2
1
1998
1
#
—
3
1
3
1
1
#
2
#
1
—
1
—
—
1
#
#
#
#
2
—
#
#
#
#
—
2
—
—
4
4
1
—
—
2
1
—
2
#
—
1
2
1
—
1
1
#
1
#
2002
2
#
—
3
1
2
—
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
#
—
2
1
#
#
1
3
1
1
#
1
1
3
3
—
—
5
3
2
#
1
1
2
1
2
#
—
#
3
2
#
2
1
#
2
#
2003
2
1
#
4
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
#
#
#
1
2
1
1
#
1
#
2
2
#
1
5
2
2
#
#
1
3
#
2
#
#
#
3
1
#
2
1
#
1
#
2005
1
#
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
#
1
1
#
1
#
1
1
1
1
#
#
1
#
2
#
1
4
2
1
#
#
1
2
#
1
1
#
1
2
2
#
1
1
#
2
#
2007
2
#
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
#
#
1
2
2
#
1
#
#
1
1
3
#
2
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
#
#
3
1
#
2
2
#
2
1
3
—
4
—
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
— Not available. The 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). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data presented here were
recalculated for comparability.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading
Assessments.
50
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Table A-6. Percentage distribution of fourth- and eighth-grade students in NAEP reading, by selected race/ethnicity categories and state: 1992,
1998, and 2007
Grade 4
White
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)1
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
Grade 8
Black
Hispanic
White
1992
72*
65*
—
61*
75*
51*
74*
76*
68*
64*
60*
23*
92*
—
87*
93*
—
90*
54
99*
63*
84*
80*
92*
42
83*
—
89*
—
97*
69*
47*
63*
66*
96*
85*
78*
—
82*
82*
58
—
75
50*
93*
—
71*
—
96*
87*
91*
2007
56
58
54
44
70
28
62
64
53
47
48
16
81
55
80
86
73
84
49
96
52
75
71
78
47
75
83
76
44
92
59
32
53
56
88
75
60
69
76
68
56
84
70
37
81
94
60
66
93
79
84
1992
18
33
—
5
23
8
5
12
27*
24
37
3
#*
—
11
3
—
10
44
#*
31
8
15
3*
57*
15
—
6
—
1*
16
3
15
30
#*
12*
8
—
13
6*
41
—
23
14
#*
—
25
—
2*
7*
1*
2007
17
37
4
5
20
7
5
14
34
21
39
3
1
20
10
5
8
11
48
2
34
8
20
8
51
20
1
8
9
2
15
3
19
27
2
17
10
3
15
9
36
2
25
16
1
2
26
6
6
11
2
1992
7*
#*
—
23*
#*
28*
17*
10*
3*
11*
1*
3
6*
—
1*
2*
—
#*
1*
#*
2*
4*
2
1*
#*
1*
—
3*
—
1*
11*
44*
16
1*
#*
1*
3*
—
3
7*
#*
—
1*
33*
3*
—
1*
—
#*
3*
6*
2007
20
3
4
44
8
52
28
16
9
25
8
4
13
20
6
6
13
1
2
1
8
10
4
6
2
3
3
13
37
3
18
55
19
10
2
2
8
18
6
18
4
2
3
43
13
1
7
15
1
7
10
5*
—
6
49
91*
—
86
19
3*
—
7
14
1998
68*
64
—
62*
75*
40*
73*
77*
64*
57*
58*
19*
—
—
—
—
83*
89*
58
97
59*
79
—
85
51*
85*
90*
—
68*
—
—
42*
60
64*
—
—
72*
86*
—
82*
58
—
76*
50*
90*
—
66
79*
95
85
89*
3
47
Black
2007
58
60
55
47
68
33
64
69
55
49
46
13
84
60
79
87
77
84
53
96
51
76
75
82
44
75
84
80
46
94
57
32
57
58
88
76
59
75
77
70
56
87
68
39
81
94
61
68
94
81
85
3
47
1998
16*
34
—
4
22
9
4
12
30*
27
36*
2
—
—
—
—
8
9
41
1*
33
7
—
4
48*
13*
#*
—
8*
—
—
3
19
29
—
—
9
3
—
7*
40
—
22
12
1
—
27
4
3
9
1
90
21
Hispanic
2007
17
36
5
5
24
7
7
13
34
23
45
2
1
17
12
5
8
12
44
2
38
8
19
6
53
20
1
7
11
1
17
3
19
30
1
18
11
2
14
9
38
2
27
16
1
2
26
5
5
9
1
1998
12*
1*
—
26*
2*
37*
19*
8*
4*
13*
2*
2
—
—
—
—
6*
#*
1
#
3
9
—
2*
#*
1*
2
—
18*
—
—
44*
15
1*
—
—
4*
6*
—
7*
1*
—
1*
33*
5*
—
3*
7*
#*
3
6*
2007
18
3
4
39
6
47
25
15
8
23
5
3
12
17
5
6
10
2
2
1
5
9
3
5
2
3
2
10
33
2
17
51
17
7
2
1
7
14
6
18
3
1
3
41
13
1
6
14
1
6
9
88
19
6
10*
8
15
— Not available. The jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
# Rounds to zero. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007 when only one jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.
1
National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.
2
Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data presented here were
recalculated for comparability.
NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1998, and 2007 Reading Assessments.
READING 2007
51
Table A-7. Percentage of fourth-grade public school students at or above Basic in NAEP reading, by state: Various years, 1992–2007
Accommodations not permitted
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)1
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
Accommodations permitted
1992
60*
51*
—
54
56*
48*
64*
69
57*
53*
57*
48*
67*
—
68
73
—
58*
46*
75
57*
74*
62
68*
41*
67
—
68
—
76
69*
55
61*
56*
74
63*
67
—
68*
63
53*
—
57
57*
67
—
67*
—
61
71
71
1994
59*
52*
—
52
54*
44*
59*
68*
52*
50*
52*
46*
—
—
66
69*
—
56*
40*
75
55*
69*
—
65*
45*
62*
69*
66*
—
70*
65*
49*
57*
59*
73
—
—
—
61*
65
48*
—
58
58*
64*
—
57*
59*
58*
71
68*
1998
61*
56*
—
53
55*
48
69
78*
57*
54*
55*
45*
—
—
—
70
71
63*
48
73
61*
73*
63
69
48
63
73
—
53
75
—
52*
62*
62
—
—
66
61
—
65
55
—
58
63
62*
—
64*
63*
62
72
65*
1998
58*
56*
—
51*
54*
48
67
76
53*
53*
54*
45*
—
—
—
67*
70
62*
44*
72
58*
70*
62
67*
47*
61*
72
—
51*
74
—
51*
62*
58*
—
—
66
58
—
64
53*
—
57
59*
62*
—
62*
64*
60
69
64*
2002
62*
52*
—
51*
58*
50
—
74
71
60*
59*
52*
67
—
68
69*
68
64*
50
72
62*
80
64
73
45*
66
71
68
54
—
—
52*
67
67
71*
68*
60*
66
66*
65
58
—
58
62
69
73
71
70
65
—
68*
2003
62*
52*
58
54
60
50
69
74
71
63*
59*
53*
64*
61
66
70
66*
64*
49
70
62*
73*
64
69*
49
68
69*
66*
52*
75
70*
47*
67
66
69*
69*
60*
63
65*
62
59
69
57
59*
66
73
69*
67
65
68
69*
2005
62*
53*
58
52
63
50*
69
71
73
65*
58*
53*
69
62
64*
67*
66*
65
53
71
65*
78*
63
71
48
67
71*
68
52*
74
68*
51*
69
62
72*
69*
60*
62
69
62
57
70
59
64
68
72
72
70
61
67
71
2007
66
62
62
56
64
53
70
73
73
70
66
59
70
65
68
74
72
68
52
73
69
81
66
73
51
67
75
71
57
76
77
58
69
64
75
73
65
62
73
65
59
71
61
66
69
74
74
70
63
70
73
30*
—
24*
—
28*
68*
27*
66*
31*
72*
31*
71*
33*
75*
39
78
— Not available. The jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007 when only one jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.
1
National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.
2
Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data presented here were
recalculated for comparability.
NOTE: State-level data were not collected in 2000.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading
Assessments.
52
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Table A-8. Percentage of fourth-grade public school students at or above Proficient in NAEP reading, by state: Various years, 1992–2007
Accommodations not permitted
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)1
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
Accommodations permitted
1992
27*
20*
—
21
23*
19
25*
34*
24*
21*
25
17*
28*
—
30
36
—
23*
15*
36
24*
36*
26*
31*
14*
30
—
31
—
38
35*
23
27*
25*
35
27*
29
—
32*
28
22*
—
23
24*
30
—
31*
—
25
33
33*
1994
28*
23*
—
24
24*
18*
28*
38
23*
23*
26
19*
—
—
33
35
—
26*
15*
41*
26*
36*
—
33*
18
31
35
34
—
36*
33*
21
27*
30
38
—
—
—
30*
32
20*
—
27
26
30
—
26*
27*
26
35
32*
1998
29*
24*
—
22
23*
20
34
46
25*
23*
24
17*
—
—
—
35
34
29*
19
36
29*
37*
28
36
18
29
37
—
21
38
—
22
29*
28
—
—
30
28
—
32
22
—
25
29
28*
—
30*
29*
29
34
30*
1998
28*
24*
—
22
23*
20
33
43
22*
22*
24*
17*
—
—
—
33
34
29*
17
35
27*
35*
28
35
17
28
37
—
20*
37
—
21
29*
27
—
—
30
26
—
31
22*
—
25
28
28*
—
30*
30*
28
34
29*
2002
30*
22*
—
22
26
21
—
43
35
27*
28
21*
32
—
33
35
34
30
20
35
30*
47
30
37
16*
32
36
34
21*
—
—
21
35
32
34
34
26
31
34*
32
26
—
25
28
33
39
37
35
28
—
31*
2003
30*
22*
28
23
28
21
37
43
33
32
27
21*
30*
31
33
35
33
31
20
36
32
40*
32
37
18
34
35
32
20*
40
39*
19*
34
33*
32
34
26
31
33*
29
26
33
26
27*
32
37*
35
33
29
33
34
2005
30*
22*
27
24
30
21
37
38
34
30*
26
23
33
29
30
33
32
31
20
35
32
44*
32
38
18
33
36
34
21*
39
37*
20
33
29
35
34
25
29
36*
30
26
33
27
29
34
39
37
36
26
33
34
2007
32
29
29
24
29
23
36
41
34
34
28
26
35
32
33
36
36
33
20
36
36
49
32
37
19
32
39
35
24
41
43
24
36
29
35
36
27
28
40
31
26
34
27
30
34
41
38
36
28
36
36
10*
—
8*
—
10*
33*
10*
32*
10*
34*
10*
35*
11*
36*
14
40
— Not available. The jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007 when only one jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.
1
National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.
2
Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data presented here were
recalculated for comparability.
NOTE: State-level data were not collected in 2000.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2007 Reading
Assessments.
READING 2007
53
Table A-9. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for fourth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and state:
2007
White
Black
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
230
227
228
224
226
227
234
238
233
232
230
227
227
230
226
227
229
225
220
226
236
241
227
231
222
226
230
230
224
230
238
228
234
228
229
231
223
222
233
227
224
228
224
232
226
229
233
229
216
229
228
Below
Basic
23
27
23
29
26
26
19
16
18
19
21
26
25
23
27
24
23
29
33
27
19
13
26
21
30
26
21
21
29
23
14
24
19
25
22
20
28
30
19
25
29
24
29
20
26
25
19
24
37
23
23
258
235
4
16
See notes at end of table.
54
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
77
42
10
73
39
9
77
40
9
71
36
8
74
36
7
74
40
10
81
47
12
84
52
16
82
44
10
81
44
11
79
40
8
74
40
11
75
39
9
77
42
12
73
37
8
76
38
8
77
41
9
71
36
9
67
31
6
73
36
8
81
49
15
87
56
19
74
39
9
79
42
10
70
31
5
74
37
8
79
42
9
79
40
9
71
35
8
77
42
11
86
52
15
76
40
9
81
47
13
75
39
9
78
38
7
80
42
9
72
31
5
70
34
7
81
47
14
75
39
9
71
35
8
76
37
8
71
34
7
80
44
11
74
38
9
75
41
11
81
46
11
76
41
11
63
28
5
77
41
10
77
39
9
96
84
74
49
Hispanic
38
11
Average
scale
score
203
201
207
206
195
200
210
203
213
208
205
212
‡
201
201
205
208
203
194
‡
208
211
197
198
195
200
‡
194
202
215
212
208
208
202
‡
204
204
198
200
198
199
‡
192
207
‡
‡
213
206
202
191
‡
Below
Basic
54
57
46
48
65
58
44
53
42
48
52
41
‡
56
57
45
48
54
64
‡
50
43
62
57
66
59
‡
59
53
42
43
48
48
55
‡
54
54
62
56
60
60
‡
68
49
‡
‡
40
47
54
65
‡
192
218
67
35
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
46
14
2
43
13
2
54
20
2
52
20
2
35
9
1
42
13
2
56
18
3
47
15
2
58
18
2
52
16
2
48
14
1
59
23
2
‡
‡
‡
44
14
2
43
12
1
55
16
2
52
18
2
46
14
2
36
9
1
‡
‡
‡
50
17
3
57
19
2
38
12
2
43
12
1
34
8
1
41
12
1
‡
‡
‡
41
10
#
47
16
2
58
25
7
57
22
4
52
15
1
52
17
2
45
12
1
‡
‡
‡
46
14
1
46
11
1
38
10
1
44
13
2
40
10
1
40
12
1
‡
‡
‡
32
8
1
51
17
2
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
60
19
2
53
21
4
46
13
2
35
11
2
‡
‡
‡
33
65
9
26
1
3
Average
scale
score
204
197
206
197
202
195
204
203
218
218
212
205
204
205
207
208
209
‡
213
‡
213
209
210
200
‡
213
220
203
196
209
214
204
206
205
‡
214
198
190
200
198
205
209
208
212
201
‡
216
206
‡
208
210
Below
Basic
51
55
47
58
52
61
52
53
36
36
42
48
53
50
49
47
46
‡
42
‡
43
45
44
54
‡
41
31
53
58
48
39
50
49
51
‡
45
56
65
57
57
51
46
47
42
55
‡
39
49
‡
50
44
206
223
45
28
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
49
17
3
45
17
3
53
17
4
42
13
2
48
16
2
39
11
1
48
15
2
47
16
3
64
24
4
64
28
6
58
21
3
52
21
5
47
15
2
50
18
3
51
17
1
53
18
1
54
19
3
‡
‡
‡
58
26
5
‡
‡
‡
57
21
3
55
18
2
56
19
3
46
16
3
‡
‡
‡
59
22
5
69
30
6
47
16
2
42
14
2
52
20
4
61
23
4
50
16
2
51
18
3
49
18
3
‡
‡
‡
55
21
2
44
15
2
35
10
2
43
15
4
43
12
2
49
17
3
54
15
3
53
20
4
58
21
3
45
15
2
‡
‡
‡
61
26
5
51
18
2
‡
‡
‡
50
17
2
56
21
3
55
72
15
31
2
5
Table A-9. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for fourth-grade public
school students, by race/ethnicity and state: 2007—Continued
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
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
231
‡
217
229
‡
228
233
244
246
241
232
210
‡
240
‡
235
229
‡
‡
‡
243
241
233
218
‡
‡
‡
‡
220
235
245
‡
236
228
‡
‡
221
218
228
219
‡
‡
‡
236
217
‡
237
232
‡
222
‡
Below
Basic
24
‡
40
20
‡
26
24
16
8
14
22
45
‡
13
‡
18
27
‡
‡
‡
13
13
19
35
‡
‡
‡
‡
34
22
11
‡
21
26
‡
‡
34
38
28
36
‡
‡
‡
19
38
‡
14
24
‡
29
‡
‡
228
‡
23
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
76
45
14
‡
‡
‡
60
28
7
80
46
10
‡
‡
‡
74
42
13
76
47
16
84
59
25
92
62
21
86
57
18
78
49
12
55
22
4
‡
‡
‡
87
54
16
‡
‡
‡
82
49
15
73
42
16
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
87
57
21
87
58
20
81
44
12
65
29
7
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
66
30
6
78
43
15
89
60
23
‡
‡
‡
79
50
20
74
41
13
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
66
36
9
62
32
9
72
41
12
64
30
7
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
81
48
16
62
26
6
‡
‡
‡
86
48
13
76
47
16
‡
‡
‡
71
33
5
‡
‡
‡
‡
77
‡
41
‡
7
Average
scale
score
206
‡
188
187
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
202
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
205
‡
‡
204
‡
‡
‡
‡
197
‡
202
204
‡
213
206
‡
‡
‡
196
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
205
‡
‡
200
Below
Basic
49
‡
67
67
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
55
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
48
‡
‡
50
‡
‡
‡
‡
60
‡
54
52
‡
39
47
‡
‡
‡
60
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
53
‡
‡
56
‡
‡
‡
‡
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
51
20
4
‡
‡
‡
33
10
2
33
9
2
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
45
20
8
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
52
20
2
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
50
17
3
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
40
13
2
‡
‡
‡
46
17
5
48
15
1
‡
‡
‡
61
25
5
53
21
6
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
40
12
1
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
47
18
4
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
44
18
2
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
# Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is 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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
55
Table A-10. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for fourth-grade public
school students, by gender and state: 2007
Male
Female
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
216
213
210
206
213
204
221
224
222
220
216
208
221
217
219
222
221
219
203
223
221
233
216
223
204
216
225
221
208
226
228
210
220
214
224
223
214
212
223
215
210
220
213
217
217
225
224
221
211
222
222
Below
Basic
38
41
42
48
41
51
32
31
31
34
38
47
32
37
35
29
32
35
53
29
34
21
38
29
52
37
26
31
46
27
25
44
34
40
27
29
38
41
31
39
45
33
43
37
36
30
29
33
42
31
30
194
226
64
25
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
62
29
6
59
27
6
58
24
5
52
22
4
59
25
4
49
19
4
68
34
7
69
37
10
69
29
5
66
30
6
62
25
4
53
22
4
68
32
6
63
30
7
65
31
6
71
32
6
68
33
6
65
30
7
47
17
3
71
33
6
66
32
8
79
46
14
62
29
6
71
35
8
48
16
2
63
27
5
74
36
7
69
33
7
54
23
4
73
37
9
75
39
10
56
24
5
66
33
9
60
26
5
73
32
4
71
33
6
62
25
4
59
25
5
69
37
11
61
27
6
55
23
5
67
30
5
57
25
5
63
27
5
64
30
6
70
37
9
71
34
7
67
34
8
58
24
4
69
35
8
70
34
7
36
75
12
35
3
6
Average
scale
score
223
219
219
214
221
213
226
231
228
227
222
219
226
222
224
228
228
226
212
228
228
238
224
227
212
225
228
225
214
232
234
213
227
222
229
228
220
218
230
223
218
227
219
223
225
232
230
227
220
224
228
Below
Basic
31
35
34
40
32
43
28
24
24
25
31
35
28
33
29
23
24
28
43
25
28
17
30
25
45
28
23
27
39
21
21
41
27
32
22
24
32
35
24
30
37
25
36
31
27
22
22
26
33
28
23
200
233
59
18
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
69
35
9
65
31
7
66
33
8
60
27
5
68
32
6
57
26
7
72
38
11
76
46
14
76
38
8
75
38
10
69
31
6
65
29
7
72
38
9
67
35
9
71
35
8
77
40
9
76
40
9
72
37
10
57
23
4
75
38
9
72
40
12
83
52
18
70
36
9
75
39
9
55
22
4
72
37
8
77
41
9
73
36
9
61
26
5
79
46
12
79
47
14
59
24
4
73
39
11
68
33
7
78
39
8
76
39
9
68
29
5
65
32
8
76
44
12
70
35
9
63
29
6
75
38
9
64
29
7
69
33
8
73
38
9
78
45
13
78
41
10
74
39
11
67
32
6
72
36
9
77
39
9
41
82
16
45
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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
56
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
4
9
Table A-11. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for fourth-grade public school students, by eligibility for free/
reduced-price school lunch and state: 2007
Eligible
Not 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
Average
scale
score
205
203
197
196
205
195
206
201
214
213
207
203
212
204
209
212
212
212
200
213
207
214
204
206
200
208
215
208
197
212
210
203
209
205
215
211
209
200
207
202
201
209
202
209
208
212
213
210
206
205
214
Below
Basic
50
53
56
59
50
62
49
56
41
41
49
53
42
52
46
40
43
43
57
41
52
40
52
47
58
47
37
46
58
42
44
52
46
51
37
42
44
54
47
52
56
45
56
47
45
42
42
44
47
49
39
188
‡
71
‡
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
50
17
2
47
15
2
44
15
2
41
13
2
50
17
2
38
11
1
51
17
2
44
13
1
59
19
2
59
22
3
51
15
2
47
16
2
58
23
4
48
16
2
54
19
2
60
22
2
57
21
3
57
21
3
43
14
2
59
20
3
48
16
3
60
22
4
48
16
2
53
19
2
42
12
1
53
18
2
63
26
4
54
20
3
42
13
1
58
21
3
56
20
3
48
15
2
54
20
3
49
16
2
63
23
3
58
19
2
56
19
2
46
14
2
53
19
3
48
14
2
44
14
2
55
19
3
44
14
2
53
17
2
55
23
4
58
21
3
58
20
2
56
21
3
53
19
3
51
18
3
61
24
3
29
‡
6
‡
Information not available
#
‡
Average
scale
score
232
232
227
224
232
225
235
239
232
234
231
221
232
232
231
231
233
234
225
233
234
243
229
233
225
230
234
232
222
233
238
228
237
229
231
234
227
228
237
230
228
231
229
232
229
235
233
234
225
232
231
Below
Basic
21
21
25
28
20
29
18
15
19
18
20
32
20
21
22
19
19
20
27
19
21
11
24
19
27
23
17
18
31
20
15
24
16
23
19
18
24
25
17
23
25
20
24
20
24
18
19
19
27
20
20
216
‡
42
‡
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
79
44
12
79
45
12
75
39
9
72
36
8
80
44
10
71
37
10
82
48
13
85
53
17
81
43
10
82
46
12
80
42
8
68
33
8
80
44
10
79
45
12
78
43
10
81
43
10
81
46
11
80
46
14
73
36
7
81
45
10
79
46
14
89
59
20
76
42
11
81
44
11
73
34
7
77
42
10
83
47
10
82
44
11
69
33
7
80
46
12
85
51
15
76
41
10
84
51
16
77
41
10
81
41
8
82
46
11
76
36
7
75
40
9
83
52
16
77
42
11
75
39
9
80
42
9
76
39
9
80
44
11
76
40
10
82
50
14
81
45
11
81
47
14
73
37
7
80
44
11
80
43
10
58
‡
29
‡
10
‡
Average
scale
score
220
‡
‡
218
‡
206
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
214
‡
‡
‡
204
‡
‡
‡
‡
226
‡
‡
‡
212
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
241
‡
‡
‡
214
‡
‡
‡
Below
Basic
34
‡
‡
37
‡
50
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
46
‡
‡
‡
48
‡
‡
‡
‡
27
‡
‡
‡
42
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
10
‡
‡
‡
41
‡
‡
‡
‡
229
‡
22
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
66
33
9
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
63
31
5
‡
‡
‡
50
20
4
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
54
25
3
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
52
23
4
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
73
34
8
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
58
26
4
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
90
51
16
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
59
29
9
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
78
‡
40
‡
8
# Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is 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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
57
Table A-12. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for fourth-grade public
school students, by status as students with disabilities (SD) and state: 2007
SD
Not 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
190
179
181
180
183
175
194
190
205
195
202
171
185
193
192
180
191
200
181
199
202
213
191
196
184
193
191
196
190
199
202
180
186
188
208
197
180
180
190
190
182
202
203
195
178
194
209
192
178
191
196
Below
Basic
64
72
70
74
68
74
62
66
53
62
52
80
70
63
65
77
64
56
73
59
54
46
64
56
71
63
64
56
59
60
54
68
74
68
47
59
70
74
64
65
73
54
54
60
71
63
48
61
72
63
60
162
203
85
55
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
36
13
2
28
11
3
30
10
1
26
10
1
32
11
2
26
8
1
38
13
3
34
12
2
47
16
3
38
12
1
48
17
2
20
7
1
30
11
2
37
14
4
35
13
2
23
6
#
36
13
2
44
18
5
27
8
1
41
14
2
46
15
2
54
23
6
36
14
2
44
17
4
29
10
1
37
12
2
36
13
2
44
17
3
41
22
6
40
14
2
46
18
3
32
13
2
26
8
2
32
10
2
53
17
1
41
12
2
30
8
1
26
9
1
36
15
4
35
12
2
27
8
1
46
17
3
46
25
9
40
17
4
29
9
1
37
12
2
52
24
4
39
13
2
28
9
1
37
14
3
40
13
1
15
45
5
17
#
3
Average
scale
score
223
220
219
212
220
211
227
232
227
228
220
217
227
223
226
230
227
224
212
230
227
239
223
228
210
225
230
227
213
234
233
214
229
223
228
228
221
220
231
224
218
226
217
221
225
234
229
228
222
227
230
Below
Basic
31
35
34
42
34
44
27
22
25
25
33
38
26
32
27
21
25
29
44
22
29
15
31
24
47
29
21
26
41
18
20
40
25
31
23
24
31
33
22
29
37
26
38
32
28
20
23
26
31
26
22
199
231
60
19
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
69
34
8
65
31
7
66
31
7
58
26
5
66
30
6
56
24
5
73
38
10
78
45
13
75
36
7
75
37
9
67
29
5
62
27
6
74
37
8
68
34
8
73
36
8
79
39
8
75
38
8
71
35
9
56
23
4
78
39
8
71
37
11
85
53
17
69
34
8
76
39
9
53
19
3
71
35
7
79
41
8
74
37
8
59
25
5
82
46
12
80
46
13
60
25
5
75
40
11
69
32
7
77
37
7
76
38
8
69
29
5
67
31
7
78
44
13
71
34
8
63
28
6
74
36
7
62
27
5
68
31
6
72
36
8
80
45
12
77
39
9
74
39
10
69
31
6
74
38
9
78
40
9
40
81
14
42
# 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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
58
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
4
8
Table A-13. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for fourth-grade public
school students, by status as English language learners (ELL) and state: 2007
ELL
Not 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
188
192
182
166
188
184
188
185
207
197
185
189
191
183
198
203
201
‡
‡
‡
204
205
203
188
‡
‡
192
193
179
203
188
182
185
192
‡
211
182
176
187
176
201
195
‡
196
199
‡
210
182
‡
201
194
Below
Basic
70
57
72
84
70
74
72
74
51
62
76
67
70
77
60
56
54
‡
‡
‡
60
50
52
67
‡
‡
66
63
77
55
70
73
74
64
‡
50
74
78
69
78
54
63
‡
62
58
‡
46
78
‡
58
64
198
210
58
47
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
30
7
1
43
15
2
28
8
1
16
3
#
30
7
2
26
6
1
28
6
1
26
8
1
49
15
1
38
12
1
24
4
#
33
8
1
30
7
1
23
3
#
40
8
#
44
13
2
46
14
1
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
40
15
6
50
15
3
48
13
1
33
8
1
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
34
9
1
37
9
1
23
4
#
45
13
1
30
7
1
27
6
1
26
5
#
36
8
#
‡
‡
‡
50
18
5
26
6
#
22
4
#
31
10
3
22
4
1
46
19
3
37
8
1
‡
‡
‡
38
9
#
42
14
3
‡
‡
‡
54
21
3
22
6
1
‡
‡
‡
42
10
1
36
14
2
42
53
9
20
#
3
Average
scale
score
223
217
220
216
219
220
229
229
226
225
220
216
226
222
222
226
227
222
207
226
225
237
221
228
208
221
228
225
218
230
232
218
227
220
227
226
218
221
227
222
214
224
216
223
224
229
228
227
215
225
226
Below
Basic
31
38
33
38
34
34
24
25
27
28
34
39
27
32
31
25
26
32
48
27
30
18
33
24
48
32
23
27
35
23
22
36
27
34
24
26
33
32
27
32
41
28
39
31
28
25
24
26
38
28
25
197
230
61
21
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
69
34
8
62
29
7
67
32
7
62
28
5
66
30
6
66
31
7
76
41
10
75
43
13
73
34
7
72
35
8
66
29
5
61
27
6
73
37
8
68
34
9
69
34
7
75
37
8
74
38
8
68
33
8
52
20
3
73
36
8
70
36
10
82
51
16
67
33
8
76
39
9
52
19
3
68
32
7
77
40
8
73
36
8
65
29
6
77
42
11
78
44
12
64
28
5
73
38
11
66
31
7
76
36
7
74
37
8
67
28
5
68
32
7
73
41
12
68
33
8
59
26
5
72
35
7
61
27
6
69
32
7
72
36
8
75
41
11
76
39
9
74
39
10
62
27
5
72
37
9
75
37
8
39
79
14
41
4
8
# Rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is 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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
59
Table A-14. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students at or above Basic in NAEP reading, by state: Various years, 1998–2007
Accommodations not permitted
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)1
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
Accommodations permitted
1998
72
66
—
73*
68
64
76
82*
66*
65*
68
60
—
—
—
—
81
74
64
84
72
80
—
81
61
76
83
—
69*
—
—
70*
78
76*
—
—
80*
78
—
74*
65
—
71
76
77
—
78
77
74*
79
76*
1998
71
67*
—
72*
68
63
77
81
64*
67*
68
59*
—
—
—
—
81
74
63
83
70*
79*
—
78
62
75
83
—
70*
—
—
71*
76
74
—
—
80*
78
—
76*
66
—
71
74
77
—
78
76
75*
78
76
44
80*
44
79*
2002
74*
64
—
68
72
61
—
76
81*
72
70
64
79
—
77
—
81
78*
68
82
73
81
77
—
67*
82*
85
83*
62
—
—
64
76
76*
82
82
76*
80
77
73*
68
—
71
73
75
82
80
78
77*
—
78
2003
72
65
67*
66
70
61
78
77
77
68*
69
61
76
77
77
79
77
78*
64
79*
71*
81
75
78
65*
79*
82
77
63
81
79
62
75
72
81
78
74
75
76
71
69
82
69
71
76
81
79
76
72
77
79
2005
71*
63
70
65
69
60*
75
74
80*
66*
67
58*
76
75
73
79
78
75
64
81
69*
83
73
80
60
76
82*
80
63
80
80
62
75
69
83
78
72
74
77
71
67
82
71
69*
73
79*
78
75
67
77
81
48
88
47
85
45
84
— Not available. The jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007 when only one jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.
1
National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.
2
Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data presented here were
recalculated for comparability.
NOTE: State-level data were not collected in 1992, 1994, or 2000. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1998–2007 Reading
Assessments.
60
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
2007
73
62
71
65
70
62
79
77
77
71
70
62
78
75
76
80
81
73
64
83
76
84
72
80
60
75
85
79
63
82
81
62
75
71
84
79
72
77
79
69
69
83
71
73
75
84
79
77
68
76
80
48
87
Table A-15. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students at or above Proficient in NAEP reading, by state: Various years, 1998–2007
Accommodations not permitted
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)1
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
Accommodations permitted
1998
31
21
—
28
23
22
30*
42*
25*
23*
25
19
—
—
—
—
35
29
18
42*
31
36*
—
37
19
29
38
—
24
—
—
24*
34
31
—
—
29
33
—
30
22
—
26
28
31
—
33
32
27*
33
29*
1998
30
22
—
27
23
21
30*
40
23*
23*
25
19
—
—
—
—
36
30
17
41
31
38*
—
36
19
28
40
—
23
—
—
23*
32
30
—
—
30
35
—
32*
22
—
27
27
31
—
33
32
28*
34
31
2002
31*
21
—
23
27
20
—
37
33
29
26
20
34
—
32
—
38
32*
22
38
32
39
32*
—
20
33
37
36
19
—
—
20
32
32
35
35
28
37
35
30
24
—
28
31
32
40
37
37
29*
—
31
2003
30*
22
27
25
27
22
36
37
31
27
26
22
32
35*
33
36
35
34*
22
37
31
43
32
37
21
34
37
35
21
40
37
20
35
29
38*
34
30*
33
32
30
24
39
26
26
32
39
36
33
25
37
34
2005
29
22
26
23
26
21
32
34
30
25
25
18
32
31
28
34
35
31
20
38
30
44
28
37
18
31
37
35
22
38
38
19
33
27
37*
36
25
33
36
29
25
35
26
26
29
37*
36
34
22
35
36
12
37
11
37
10
39
10
39
12
37
2007
29
21
27
24
25
21
35
37
31
28
26
20
32
30
31
36
35
28
19
37
33
43
28
37
17
31
39
35
22
37
39
17
32
28
32
36
26
34
36
27
25
37
26
28
30
42
34
34
23
33
33
12
39
— Not available. The jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2007 when only one jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.
1
National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.
2
Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data presented here were
recalculated for comparability.
NOTE: State-level data were not collected in 1992, 1994, or 2000.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1998–2007 Reading
Assessments.
READING 2007
61
Table A-16. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for eighth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and
state: 2007
White
Black
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
270
261
270
269
266
266
275
276
274
268
271
262
268
271
268
270
272
264
264
270
276
278
267
273
264
270
274
271
263
270
278
265
274
270
270
274
266
270
272
267
268
272
267
275
266
273
273
270
256
270
269
Below
Basic
17
27
17
20
21
22
13
14
13
20
16
27
18
17
20
18
14
24
23
17
14
11
20
15
22
18
12
17
26
18
10
21
13
18
14
15
20
18
16
20
19
14
20
14
21
16
15
18
31
18
17
‡
278
‡
9
See notes at end of table.
62
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
83
38
3
73
29
2
83
36
3
80
37
3
79
32
2
78
34
3
87
43
3
86
46
6
87
41
3
80
36
3
84
38
3
73
31
2
82
34
2
83
38
3
80
35
3
82
38
3
86
40
2
76
30
3
77
29
2
83
38
3
86
45
5
89
49
5
80
34
2
85
41
3
78
29
2
82
37
3
88
42
2
83
39
3
74
30
3
82
37
3
90
48
5
79
29
1
87
43
4
82
39
3
86
34
1
85
42
4
80
31
2
82
37
3
84
41
4
80
35
3
81
35
2
86
39
2
80
32
2
86
43
4
79
33
2
84
42
3
85
40
4
82
39
3
69
23
1
82
38
3
83
36
2
‡
91
‡
46
Hispanic
‡
3
Average
scale
score
244
236
250
248
236
237
252
246
250
244
246
255
‡
244
242
247
246
247
240
‡
249
253
236
245
238
242
‡
243
248
‡
249
248
246
241
‡
246
243
250
248
239
242
‡
240
249
‡
‡
252
247
241
231
‡
Below
Basic
46
57
36
42
57
53
35
43
37
45
44
33
‡
46
47
42
41
45
52
‡
40
35
56
43
54
49
‡
49
44
‡
42
42
44
47
‡
43
48
43
42
52
49
‡
52
39
‡
‡
36
40
48
60
‡
238
259
55
25
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
54
12
#
43
9
#
64
17
1
58
19
1
43
8
#
47
10
#
65
18
1
57
12
#
63
14
1
55
13
#
56
13
1
67
21
#
‡
‡
‡
54
10
#
53
10
#
58
17
1
59
12
#
55
14
1
48
8
#
‡
‡
‡
60
14
1
65
17
1
44
7
#
57
13
#
46
7
#
51
10
#
‡
‡
‡
51
12
1
56
16
1
‡
‡
‡
58
17
#
58
13
#
56
14
1
53
10
#
‡
‡
‡
57
12
#
52
13
#
57
21
3
58
14
1
48
10
#
51
9
#
‡
‡
‡
48
8
#
61
14
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
64
16
#
60
16
#
52
11
#
40
8
1
‡
‡
‡
45
75
9
20
#
#
Average
scale
score
246
250
257
241
249
239
249
243
257
256
250
249
243
250
255
250
248
‡
‡
‡
258
251
241
245
‡
248
‡
255
238
252
257
246
246
246
‡
260
241
243
244
233
244
‡
252
251
242
‡
258
247
‡
247
248
Below
Basic
43
39
31
50
40
50
38
48
31
33
38
40
45
36
32
39
41
‡
‡
‡
31
37
48
44
‡
42
‡
34
52
40
30
43
44
44
‡
30
48
47
47
59
49
‡
33
36
47
‡
33
42
‡
42
38
249
273
44
11
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
57
14
1
61
20
1
69
24
1
50
11
#
60
15
#
50
11
#
62
17
#
52
14
1
69
21
2
67
23
1
62
17
1
60
21
1
55
14
#
64
16
#
68
21
1
61
16
1
59
17
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
69
24
2
63
15
1
52
14
#
56
19
1
‡
‡
‡
58
12
1
‡
‡
‡
66
21
1
48
11
#
60
20
1
70
22
1
57
12
#
56
16
1
56
16
2
‡
‡
‡
70
31
2
52
9
#
53
14
#
53
14
1
41
6
#
51
15
1
‡
‡
‡
67
18
#
64
16
#
53
12
#
‡
‡
‡
67
25
3
58
16
1
‡
‡
‡
58
17
1
62
13
#
56
89
19
40
1
1
Table A-16. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for eighth-grade public
school students, by race/ethnicity and state: 2007—Continued
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
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
269
‡
263
277
‡
264
269
272
277
278
‡
249
‡
277
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
287
281
‡
258
‡
‡
‡
‡
261
‡
285
‡
269
265
‡
‡
‡
270
284
258
‡
‡
‡
280
261
‡
280
268
‡
264
‡
Below
Basic
21
‡
25
15
‡
25
21
22
14
9
‡
39
‡
13
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
7
11
‡
31
‡
‡
‡
‡
26
‡
9
‡
20
23
‡
‡
‡
24
15
33
‡
‡
‡
12
27
‡
10
21
‡
28
‡
‡
276
‡
13
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
79
40
5
‡
‡
‡
75
27
1
85
48
8
‡
‡
‡
75
35
4
79
36
3
78
45
7
86
47
5
91
46
5
‡
‡
‡
61
18
1
‡
‡
‡
87
46
4
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
93
62
7
89
54
6
‡
‡
‡
69
27
2
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
74
26
1
‡
‡
‡
91
57
10
‡
‡
‡
80
37
3
77
34
2
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
76
44
6
85
58
13
67
27
3
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
88
52
7
73
30
2
‡
‡
‡
90
54
5
79
37
4
‡
‡
‡
72
27
5
‡
‡
‡
‡
87
‡
46
‡
4
Average
scale
score
248
‡
236
233
‡
251
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
247
‡
‡
249
‡
‡
‡
‡
234
‡
236
248
‡
256
260
‡
‡
‡
249
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
252
‡
‡
253
Below
Basic
42
‡
55
58
‡
38
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
42
‡
‡
42
‡
‡
‡
‡
58
‡
55
41
‡
33
31
‡
‡
‡
39
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
38
‡
‡
35
‡
‡
‡
‡
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
58
19
2
‡
‡
‡
45
10
#
42
9
1
‡
‡
‡
62
22
4
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
58
13
1
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
58
21
1
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
42
8
#
‡
‡
‡
45
15
#
59
13
1
‡
‡
‡
67
23
2
69
32
6
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
61
20
1
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
62
22
4
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
65
23
1
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
# Rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is 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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
63
Table A-17. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for eighth-grade public
school students, by gender and state: 2007
Male
Female
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
256
247
253
251
253
246
262
262
260
254
253
244
260
259
259
263
263
257
248
264
260
269
255
263
246
259
265
262
245
264
266
247
258
254
264
264
255
260
265
256
253
266
254
256
258
268
262
260
248
257
261
Below
Basic
32
43
35
40
36
43
25
26
27
34
35
46
26
30
29
23
24
31
42
21
29
20
33
24
45
30
20
25
43
23
22
41
30
34
19
24
33
28
23
33
36
20
34
31
29
20
26
28
38
31
25
235
267
59
18
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
68
24
1
57
18
1
65
22
1
60
21
1
64
21
1
57
17
1
75
29
1
74
31
3
73
26
1
66
22
1
65
20
1
54
14
#
74
27
1
70
26
2
71
26
1
77
30
1
76
30
1
69
23
2
58
16
#
79
29
1
71
28
2
80
37
3
67
23
1
76
30
2
55
15
1
70
27
2
80
31
1
75
28
2
57
16
1
77
31
2
78
35
2
59
14
#
70
26
2
66
24
1
81
26
#
76
31
3
67
21
1
72
28
2
77
33
3
67
24
2
64
21
1
80
32
2
66
21
1
69
23
1
71
26
1
80
35
2
74
28
2
72
28
2
62
19
1
69
25
1
75
27
1
41
82
9
31
1
1
Average
scale
score
266
257
264
259
263
257
271
272
269
266
264
259
270
267
270
272
272
266
258
276
270
278
266
274
255
268
278
272
259
275
274
255
269
265
272
272
264
271
270
261
262
274
264
266
267
278
272
270
262
272
271
Below
Basic
23
33
24
31
25
33
17
20
18
22
25
29
16
21
18
17
15
23
30
13
20
12
23
15
34
20
10
17
31
13
15
33
20
23
13
17
23
18
20
28
26
13
23
23
21
11
16
19
24
17
15
245
279
47
8
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
77
34
3
67
25
2
76
33
3
69
28
3
75
30
2
67
26
2
83
41
4
80
43
7
82
35
3
78
34
3
75
31
3
71
26
2
84
36
2
79
34
3
82
36
3
83
42
4
85
41
3
77
32
4
70
23
1
87
45
4
80
38
4
88
50
6
77
34
3
85
44
4
66
20
1
80
35
3
90
47
3
83
42
4
69
27
3
87
44
4
85
43
5
67
21
1
80
38
4
77
33
3
87
38
2
83
40
4
77
31
2
82
40
4
80
40
4
72
31
3
74
28
2
87
41
3
77
30
3
77
32
3
79
35
3
89
49
5
84
39
4
81
40
4
76
27
2
83
41
4
85
39
2
53
92
15
47
# Rounds to zero.
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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
64
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
1
3
Table A-18. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for eighth-grade public school students, by eligibility for free/
reduced-price school lunch and state: 2007
Eligible
Not 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
Average
scale
score
247
241
244
241
247
239
251
243
254
249
247
243
256
249
251
253
253
252
245
261
251
256
244
254
242
252
260
254
240
257
251
242
250
246
258
251
252
253
253
242
245
259
247
249
252
260
252
251
246
246
255
Below
Basic
42
50
44
50
42
50
36
47
34
39
43
47
31
39
37
35
34
36
46
26
39
31
47
33
49
37
26
35
50
31
38
48
38
43
28
37
36
35
37
49
45
27
42
38
36
26
35
38
41
43
31
234
‡
59
‡
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
58
15
1
50
11
#
56
14
#
50
11
1
58
15
1
50
11
#
64
18
#
53
14
1
66
18
1
61
17
1
57
14
#
53
13
#
69
22
1
61
15
1
63
16
1
65
22
1
66
20
1
64
17
1
54
12
1
74
26
1
61
17
1
69
20
1
53
12
#
67
21
1
51
10
#
63
18
1
74
24
1
65
21
1
50
12
1
69
25
1
62
16
#
52
10
#
62
19
1
57
14
1
72
20
1
63
16
1
64
18
1
65
21
1
63
20
1
51
12
#
55
11
#
73
25
1
58
14
#
62
15
#
64
21
1
74
25
1
65
16
1
62
20
1
59
15
#
57
16
1
69
22
1
41
‡
7
‡
Information not available
#
‡
Average
scale
score
271
263
268
265
269
264
273
275
270
268
270
257
270
272
271
274
275
271
265
274
271
279
268
273
266
271
277
273
260
272
277
264
275
270
272
275
268
274
275
267
269
274
269
273
267
278
272
272
263
272
270
Below
Basic
18
25
20
24
18
25
14
15
17
21
18
31
16
16
17
14
11
18
22
13
18
11
19
15
22
17
10
15
29
16
12
22
13
18
12
13
19
15
14
22
19
12
18
15
20
12
16
16
23
16
16
253
‡
40
‡
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
82
39
4
75
31
2
80
35
3
76
34
3
82
36
2
75
32
3
86
42
3
85
45
6
83
37
3
79
36
3
82
36
4
69
25
1
84
36
2
84
39
3
83
39
3
86
42
3
89
44
2
82
38
4
78
30
2
87
42
3
82
39
4
89
51
6
81
36
3
85
42
4
78
32
2
83
39
4
90
46
3
85
42
3
71
28
3
84
40
3
88
47
5
78
28
1
87
44
4
82
39
3
88
36
1
87
45
4
81
34
2
85
42
4
86
44
4
78
35
3
81
37
3
88
42
3
82
35
3
85
41
4
80
34
2
88
48
5
84
40
4
84
41
4
77
30
2
84
40
3
84
37
2
60
‡
22
‡
3
‡
Average
scale
score
255
‡
‡
272
‡
248
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
246
270
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
263
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
Below
Basic
34
‡
‡
22
‡
41
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
44
14
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
24
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
273
‡
13
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
66
27
3
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
78
44
5
‡
‡
‡
59
21
2
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
56
15
1
86
36
2
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
76
32
3
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
87
‡
39
‡
2
# Rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is 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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
65
Table A-19. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for eighth-grade public
school students, by status as students with disabilities (SD) and state: 2007
SD
Not 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
226
203
224
218
218
211
235
232
239
228
231
209
226
228
230
227
232
230
221
240
236
246
224
233
205
225
235
232
218
244
236
219
230
226
240
235
221
231
234
229
219
230
228
225
216
248
236
224
210
221
232
Below
Basic
66
89
66
76
74
79
56
58
54
64
59
81
71
65
64
66
61
65
74
54
56
45
70
59
87
70
57
62
69
47
54
70
64
62
50
58
73
63
60
64
71
62
62
69
75
41
59
69
79
73
59
210
237
81
58
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
34
7
#
11
1
#
34
6
#
24
5
#
26
3
#
21
4
#
44
8
#
42
8
#
46
10
#
36
7
#
41
6
#
19
4
#
29
6
#
35
8
1
36
5
#
34
4
#
39
6
#
35
7
#
26
3
#
46
11
#
44
9
#
55
13
1
30
6
#
41
10
1
13
2
#
30
6
#
43
7
#
38
8
#
31
7
#
53
11
#
46
10
#
30
6
#
36
9
#
38
7
#
50
8
#
42
9
#
27
4
#
37
6
#
40
10
1
36
6
#
29
6
#
38
6
#
38
15
2
31
5
#
25
4
#
59
17
1
41
9
#
31
6
1
21
3
#
27
3
#
41
6
#
19
42
4
8
#
#
Average
scale
score
265
257
263
258
261
255
269
272
268
264
260
257
268
267
268
273
271
264
257
274
267
277
265
272
253
268
275
271
255
274
274
254
267
264
270
271
264
269
273
264
261
272
261
263
265
278
270
268
262
269
270
Below
Basic
24
32
25
32
26
34
18
19
19
24
28
31
17
21
19
14
15
24
31
12
22
12
23
16
37
20
11
17
34
13
15
34
21
24
14
17
23
19
16
24
28
14
27
24
22
11
18
20
24
19
16
243
275
50
10
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
76
31
3
68
23
1
75
30
2
68
26
2
74
27
1
66
23
2
82
37
3
81
41
5
81
33
3
76
31
3
72
27
2
69
23
1
83
34
2
79
32
3
81
34
3
86
40
3
85
38
2
76
29
3
69
21
1
88
40
3
78
35
3
88
47
5
77
31
2
84
39
3
63
18
1
80
34
3
89
42
2
83
38
3
66
23
2
87
42
3
85
42
4
66
18
1
79
35
3
76
31
2
86
34
1
83
39
3
77
29
2
81
37
3
84
40
4
76
31
3
72
26
2
86
39
2
73
26
2
76
29
2
78
32
2
89
47
4
82
36
3
80
36
3
76
26
1
81
36
3
84
36
2
50
90
13
41
# 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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
66
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
1
2
Table A-20. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for eighth-grade public
school students, by status as English language learners (ELL) and state: 2007
ELL
Not 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
222
‡
230
214
234
219
222
216
‡
232
‡
219
229
219
‡
‡
227
‡
‡
‡
‡
232
‡
233
‡
‡
227
‡
217
‡
235
223
211
230
‡
‡
235
220
‡
202
‡
‡
‡
215
234
‡
246
216
‡
243
‡
Below
Basic
71
‡
63
80
58
74
72
77
‡
60
‡
81
62
75
‡
‡
67
‡
‡
‡
‡
60
‡
59
‡
‡
68
‡
74
‡
56
74
81
60
‡
‡
57
77
‡
87
‡
‡
‡
80
58
‡
47
78
‡
46
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
29
4
#
‡
‡
‡
37
7
#
20
4
#
42
6
#
26
3
#
28
3
#
23
2
#
‡
‡
‡
40
7
1
‡
‡
‡
19
3
#
38
4
#
25
3
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
33
5
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
40
4
#
‡
‡
‡
41
6
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
32
8
#
‡
‡
‡
26
6
#
‡
‡
‡
44
5
#
26
2
#
19
1
#
40
6
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
43
13
#
23
2
#
‡
‡
‡
13
2
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
20
1
#
42
9
#
‡
‡
‡
53
10
1
22
2
#
‡
‡
‡
54
11
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
Average
scale
score
263
252
265
259
259
260
269
269
265
261
259
253
267
264
264
268
269
262
253
270
265
274
261
270
250
264
273
268
255
270
271
255
265
260
268
268
260
269
268
260
258
270
259
264
265
273
267
267
255
265
267
Below
Basic
25
37
22
31
30
28
18
22
22
28
30
35
19
24
23
19
18
27
36
17
24
15
28
18
40
25
13
20
34
18
18
31
23
28
16
20
27
19
21
29
31
16
28
24
22
15
21
21
32
23
19
241
273
51
13
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
75
31
2
63
21
1
78
31
2
69
26
2
70
26
1
72
26
2
82
36
2
78
38
5
78
31
2
72
29
2
70
26
2
65
21
1
81
33
2
76
30
2
77
31
2
81
36
3
82
36
2
73
28
3
64
19
1
83
37
3
76
33
3
85
44
5
72
29
2
82
38
3
60
17
1
75
31
3
87
40
2
80
36
3
66
23
2
82
37
3
82
40
4
69
20
1
77
33
3
72
29
2
84
32
1
80
36
3
73
26
1
81
36
3
79
37
3
71
28
2
69
25
2
84
37
2
72
26
2
76
29
2
78
32
2
85
42
4
79
34
3
79
36
3
68
23
1
77
34
3
81
34
2
49
87
12
40
1
2
# Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is 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), 2007 Reading Assessment.
READING 2007
67
u . s . D epa r t men t of E duca t i on
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, a department within the
Institute of Education Sciences, administers NAEP. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible by
law for carrying out the NAEP project.
Margaret Spellings
Secretary
U.S. Department
of Education
Grover J. Whitehurst
Director
Institute of
Education Sciences
T h e N a t i ona l A ssessmen t G o v e r n i ng B oa r d
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 Card TM. 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.
Darvin M. Winick, Chair
President
Winick & Associates
Austin, Texas
Amanda P. Avallone, Vice Chair
Assistant Principal and
Eighth-Grade Teacher
Summit Middle School
Boulder, Colorado
Francie Alexander
Chief Academic Officer,
Scholastic, Inc.
Senior Vice President,
Scholastic Education
New York, New York
David J. Alukonis
Chairman
Hudson School Board
Hudson, New Hampshire
Barbara Byrd-Bennett
Executive Superintendent-inResidence
Cleveland State University
Cleveland, Ohio
Gregory Cizek
Professor of Educational
Measurement
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Shirley V. Dickson
Educational Consultant
Aliso Viejo, California
John Q. Easton
Executive Director
Consortium on Chicago School
Research
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Alan J. Friedman
Consultant
Museum Development and Science
Communication
New York, New York
Luis A. Ramos
Community Relations Manager
PPL Susquehanna
Berwick, Pennsylvania
Mary Frances Taymans, SND
Robin C. Hall
Oscar A. Troncoso
Kathi M. King
Twelfth-Grade Teacher
Messalonskee High School
Oakland, Maine
Honorable Keith King
Former Member
Colorado House of Representatives
Denver, Colorado
Kim Kozbial-Hess
Fourth-Grade Teacher
Hawkins Elementary School
Toledo, Ohio
James S. Lanich
President
Former Commissioner of Education California Business for
Massachusetts Department of
Education Excellence
Education
Sacramento, California
Malden, Massachusetts
Honorable Cynthia L. Nava
Senator
New Mexico State Senate
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Honorable David P. Driscoll
Dean
Graduate School of Education
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
County Superintendent of Schools
Sacramento County Office of Education
Sacramento, California
Principal
Beecher Hills Elementary School
Atlanta, Georgia
Commissioner
National Center for
Education Statistics
t h e na t i on ’ s
r epo r t ca r d
Reading 2007
September 2007
Andrew C. Porter
Executive Director
Secondary Schools Department
National Catholic Educational
Association
Washington, D.C.
David W. Gordon
Mark Schneider
Principal
Anthony High School
Anthony, Texas
Honorable Michael E. Ward
Former North Carolina
Superintendent of
Public Instruction
Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Eileen L. Weiser
Former Member,
State Board of Education
Michigan Department of Education
Lansing, Michigan
Grover J. Whitehurst
(Ex officio)
Director
Institute of Education Sciences
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C.
Charles E. Smith
Executive Director
National Assessment Governing
Board
Washington, D.C.
More
i nfo r ma t i on
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.
S ugges t ed
C i t a t i on
Lee, J., Grigg, W., and
Donahue, P. (2007).
The Nation’s Report Card:
Reading 2007
(NCES 2007–496).
National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C.
C on t en t C on t ac t
William Tirre
202-502-7361
William.Tirre@ed.gov
“ T h e D epa r t men t of E duca t i on ’ s m i ss i on i s t o p r omo t e s t uden t ac h i e v emen t
and p r epa r a t i on fo r g l oba l compe t i t i v eness b y fos t e r i ng educa t i ona l
e x ce l l ence and ensu r i ng e q ua l access . ”
www.ed.gov