National Assessment of Educational Progress
The Nation’s Report Card
™
Reading
2005
CONTENTS
U.S. Department of Education
Institute of Education Sciences
NCES 2006–451
Executive Summary
1
National Results
2
Student Group Results
3
Percentiles
12
State Results
13
Student Demographics
22
Framework and
Sample Questions
24
Technical and Data Appendix
32
The Nation’s Report Card™
The National Assessment Governing Board
Darvin M. Winick, Chair
President
Winick & Associates
Dickinson, Texas
Sheila M. Ford, Vice Chair
Former Principal
Horace Mann Elementary
School
Washington, D.C.
Honorable Keith King
Member
Colorado House of
Representatives
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Kim Kozbial-Hess
Fourth-Grade Teacher
Fall-Meyer Elementary School
Toledo, Ohio
Francie Alexander
Chief Academic Officer,
Scholastic, Inc.
Senior Vice President,
Scholastic Education
New York, New York
Andrew C. Porter
Professor
Leadership Policy and
Organizations
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee
David J. Alukonis
Chairman
Hudson School Board
Hudson, New Hampshire
Luis A. Ramos
Community Relations Manager
PPL Susquehanna
Berwick, Pennsylvania
Amanda P. Avallone
Assistant Principal &
Eighth-Grade Teacher
Summit Middle School
Boulder, Colorado
Mark D. Reckase
Professor
Measurement and
Quantitative Methods
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Honorable Jeb Bush
Governor of Florida
Tallahassee, Florida
Barbara Byrd-Bennett
Chief Executive Officer
Cleveland Municipal
School District
Cleveland, Ohio
Carl A. Cohn
Superintendent
San Diego City Schools
San Diego, California
Shirley V. Dickson
Educational Consultant
Laguna Niguel, California
John Q. Easton
Executive Director
Consortium on Chicago
School Research
Chicago, Illinois
Honorable Dwight Evans
Member
Pennsylvania House of
Representatives
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
David W. Gordon
Sacramento County
Superintendent of Schools
Sacramento County Office
of Education
Sacramento, California
Kathi M. King
Twelfth-Grade Teacher
Messalonskee High School
Oakland, Maine
John H. Stevens
Executive Director
Texas Business and
Education Coalition
Austin, Texas
Mary Frances Taymans, SND
Executive Director
National Catholic
Educational Association
Washington, D.C.
Oscar A. Troncoso
Principal
Socorro High School
Socorro Independent School
District
El Paso, Texas
Honorable Thomas J. Vilsack
Governor of Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa
Michael E. Ward
Former State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
North Carolina Public Schools
Jackson, Mississippi
Eileen L. Weiser
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
NAGB
Washington, D.C.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Margaret Spellings
Secretary
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES
Grover J. Whitehurst
Director
NATIONAL CENTER FOR
EDUCATION STATISTICS
Grover J. Whitehurst
Acting Commissioner
OCTOBER 2005
What is The Nation's
Report Card™?
The Nation’s Report Card™, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
is a nationally representative and continuing
assessment of what America’s students know
and can do in various subject areas. For over
three decades, assessments have been conducted
periodically in reading, mathematics, science,
writing, history, geography, and other subjects.
By making objective information on student performance available to policymakers 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 under this program. The
privacy of individual students and their families is protected, and the identities of participating schools are not
released.
NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the
National Center for Education Statistics within the
Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department
of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistics
is responsible, by law, for carrying out the NAEP project
through competitive awards to qualified organizations.
In 1988, Congress established the National
Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to oversee and
set policy for NAEP. The Board is responsible for selecting the subject areas to be assessed; setting appropriate
student achievement levels; developing assessment objectives and test specifications; developing a process for
the review of the assessment; designing the assessment
methodology; developing guidelines for reporting and
disseminating NAEP results; developing standards and
procedures for interstate, regional, and national comparisons; determining the appropriateness of all assessment
items and ensuring the assessment items are free from
bias and are secular, neutral, and nonideological; taking
actions to improve the form, content, use, and reporting
of results of the National Assessment; and planning and
executing the initial public release of NAEP reports.
Reading 2005
This report presents the national and state results of
the NAEP assessment in reading and compares them
to results from assessments in 2003 and in the first year
data were available, usually 1992. In 2005, nationally
representive samples of more than 165,000 fourth-grade
and 159,000 eighth-grade students nationwide participated in that assessment.
National Reading Results
Fourth-graders’ average score was 1 point higher, and
eighth-graders’ average score was 1 point lower in 2005
than in 2003 on a 0 to 500 point scale. Average scores
in 2005 were 2 points higher than in the first assessment year, 1992, at
both grades 4 and 8.
Between 1992 and
Average reading scores
2005, there was no
were 2 points higher
significant change
in the percentage of
in 2005 compared to
fourth-graders per1992 at both grades 4
forming at or above
and 8.
Basic, but the percentage performing
at or above Proficient increased during this time. The
percentage of eighth-graders performing at or above
Basic was higher in 2005 (73 percent) than in 1992
(69 percent), but there was no significant change in the
percentage scoring at or above Proficient between these
same years.
Reading Results for Student Groups at Grade 4
White students scored higher on average in reading
than their Black and Hispanic peers. The scores for
all three racial/ethnic groups, as well as Asian/Pacific
Islanders, increased between 1992 and 2005. Looking at
the short-term trend, Black and Hispanic students each
scored higher on average in 2005 than in 2003. The
White – Black and White – Hispanic score gaps narrowed during this same time.
In 2005, students who were eligible for free or
reduced-price school lunch and those who were not
eligible had higher average scores than in 1998. In the
short term, students who were eligible showed a 2-point
increase from 2003 to 2005.
In 2005, female students scored higher on average
than their male counterparts. Male students’ average
scores increased by 3 points from 1992 to 2005.
Reading Results for Student Groups at Grade 8
White, Black, and Hispanic students scored higher, on
average, in 2005 than in 1992. The White – Hispanic
score gap decreased by 2 points between 2003 and 2005.
The average score for students who were not eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch decreased by 1 point
between 2003 and 2005. The longer trend between
1998 and 2005 showed no statistically significant
changes regardless of free-lunch eligibility.
Both male and
female students’ average scores showed
decreases between
2003 and 2005. In
the longer term, the
average score for male
students was 3 points
higher in 2005 than
in 1992.
Between 1992 and
2005, average scores
increased for White,
Black, and Hispanic
students at grades
4 and 8.
Reading Results for the States
Examining the short-term trends between 2003 and
2005, when all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
Department of Defense (DoD) schools were assessed,
shows average scores for students at grade 4 increased
in 7 states and in the DoD schools and decreased in
2 states. The percentage of students performing at or
above Basic increased in 3 states and in the DoD schools
and decreased in 2 states.
At grade 8, no state had a higher average score in
2005 than in 2003, and 7 states had lower scores. The
percentage of students performing at or above Basic
increased in 1 state and decreased in 6 states.
Turning to the longer trend at grade 4, there were 42
states and jurisdictions that participated in both 1992
and 2005. The District of Columbia and 19 states had
higher average scores, and 3 states had lower average
scores, in 2005 than in 1992. Over the same period, the
percentage of students at or above Basic increased in 15
states and decreased in 3 states.
At grade 8, the first state assessment was given in
1998 in 38 states and jurisdictions. Three states had
higher average scores in 2005 compared to 1998, and 8
states had lower average scores. The percentage of students performing at or above Basic increased in 3 states
and in the DoD schools and decreased in 11 states.
For More Information…
The NAEP initial release website (www.nationsreportcard.gov) provides additional information on the NAEP
assessments, including an interactive view of state results and links to PDF versions of all NAEP reports, a
data tool for exploring results and calculating the statistical significance of differences, and a tool for examining
released questions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
1
2
The Nation’s Report Card™
NATIONAL RESULTS
Understanding NAEP Results
Results are presented in two ways: in terms of scale scores
and as the percentage of students scoring at or above
three benchmarks called achievement levels. For results to
be presented in this report, each reporting group must
meet minimum reporting standards. Reporting standards
were met for public schools in the nation and the states.
However, too few private schools participated for their
results to be reported separately. See the Technical Notes
on page 32 for more information.
Scale Scores
NAEP reading scores are reported for grades 4 and 8 on
a 0–500 scale. Scale score results also are presented for
students at various percentiles. An examination of scores
at different percentiles on the 0–500 scale indicates
whether or not the trends seen in the overall national
average score results are reflected in the performance of
lower-, middle-, and higher-performing students.
Item maps, presented on pages 26 and 30, provide
interpretive information about a scale score in terms of
the skills and knowledge students with a certain score
are likely to have. Items placed along the scale in an item
map demonstrate how skills correspond to levels of performance.
Scales are created for other subjects independently, so
even when another subject’s scale has the same numerical
range (0–500), average scores should not be compared
across subjects.
Achievement Levels
NAEP results are reported at three achievement levels:
Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Achievement levels are
performance standards showing what students should
know and be able to do. They are set by the National
Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), based on recommendations from panels of educators and members of
the public, to provide a context for interpreting student
performance on NAEP. In this report, the achievementlevel results are reported as percentages of students performing at or above Basic and at or above Proficient.
As provided by law, the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES), upon review of congressionally mandated evaluations of NAEP, has determined that achievement
levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted with caution. However, NCES and NAGB have
affirmed the usefulness of these performance standards for
understanding trends in achievement. NAEP achievement
levels have been widely used by national and state officials.
Interpreting Results
NAEP uses widely accepted statistical standards in analyzing data. For instance, this report discusses only findings
that are statistically significant at the .05 level. However,
some differences that are statistically significant appear
small, particularly in recent assessment years, when the
sample sizes have been larger. See the Technical Notes on
page 33 for more information on interpreting the size of
score differences.
Differences between scale scores or percentages are
calculated using unrounded numbers. In some instances,
the result of the subtraction differs from what would be
obtained by subtracting the rounded values shown in the
accompanying figure or table. The first part of the report
presents the national results of all schools. However, when
state results are compared to the nation, only public
school results are shown. The national public numbers
may differ slightly from overall national numbers.
Finally, most figures show data for two samples. One
sample includes students who received accommodations
when they needed them, and the other includes students
for whom no accommodations were permitted. In 1998,
administration procedures were first introduced that
allowed the use of accommodations for students who
needed them. Therefore, the results from more recent
years are more inclusive than results from earlier years.
See tables A-1–A-3 for exclusion rates. Any comparisons
between 2005 and 1998 will be made with the accommodated sample.
NAEP Achievement-Level Descriptions
The three NAEP achievement levels, from lowest to highest, are
Basic—denotes partial mastery of the 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—signifies superior performance.
Detailed descriptions of the NAEP achievement levels for each subject and grade can be found on the NAGB
website (http://www.nagb.org/pubs/pubs.html).
Reading 2005
✓
3
Figure 1. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in reading, grades 4 and 8:
Various years, 1992–2005
KEY FINDINGS
Grade 4
GRADE 4
SCALE SCORE
SCALE SCORE
500
230
! There was no significant
difference in the percentage
of students performing at
or above Basic in 2005
compared to 1992.
! The percentage performing at
or above Proficient increased
from 29 percent in 1992 to
31 percent in 2005.
GRADE 8
220
217*
210
217*
219
215*
214*
200
0
’92
’94
’98
’00
’02 ’03
’05
29*
30
31 29*
29
31
31
62
60*
62 60*
59*
64
63
64
’92
’94
’98
’00
’02 ’03
’05
YEAR
PERCENT
100
0
31
YEAR
Grade 4
Grade 8
SCALE SCORE
SCALE SCORE
500
280
270
! The national average reading
score was 2 points higher
in 2005 than in 1992 but
1 point lower than in 2003.
219 218*
213*
NATIONAL RESULTS
! The national average grade
4 reading score was 2 points
higher in 2005 than in 1992,
and 1 point higher than in
2003.
264
260
260*
250
264* 263*
262
Accommodations not permitted
263
260*
Accommodations permitted
0
’92
’94
’98
’02 ’03
’05
YEAR
PERCENT
! The percentage performing at
or above Basic was higher
in 2005 than in 1992 but
1 percentage point lower
than in 2003.
! The percentage performing
at or above Proficient
decreased 1 point between
2003 and 2005 and was not
significantly different from the
percentage in 1992.
At or above
Proficient
100
0
29
30
33* 32
33* 32*
31
69*
70*
74 73
75*
73
’92
’94
’98
74*
’02 ’03
’05
At or above
Basic
Accommodations Accommodations
not permitted
permitted
YEAR
* Significantly different from 2005.
NOTE: Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2005 Reading Assessments.
Reporting Student Groups
In addition to national results, NAEP reports results for specified groups of students.
Because performance of a particular student group can be significantly different
from the performance of the overall student population, it is important to examine
separately the performance of each major student group.
Results are provided on the following pages for student groups defined by race/
ethnicity, eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch, and gender. These results show
how these groups of students performed in comparison with one another, and over
time. More information, including interactive charts of performance for various student
groups, can be found at www.nationsreportcard.gov.
Typically, NAEP reports also show results separately for public and private schools.
However, overall, an insufficient proportion of private schools participated in NAEP
in 2005, so the results are shown in the Technical Notes for Catholic and Lutheran
schools only.
4
STUDENT GROUP RESULTS
The Nation’s Report Card™
Results for Groups of Students
Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes
Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin
unless specified. For information about the performance
of students not classified in one of these categories, visit
www.nationsreportcard.gov.
Results by Race/Ethnicity
NAEP reports data on student race/ethnicity based on
information obtained from school rosters. Figures 2 and 3
show results for five mutually exclusive categories: White,
Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American
Indian/Alaska Native. Black includes African American,
Figure 2. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in reading, by race/ethnicity, grade 4:
Various years, 1992–2005
Grade 4
SCALE SCORE
500
270
260
250
240
230
226* 225*
224*
224*
220
210
200
216*
207
201
195*
197*
193*
188*
190
192*
180
185*
193* 193* 190* 190*
229 White
229 Asian/Pacific Islander1
226
224* 224
221
220*
229 229
225
199
204 American Indian/Alaska Native2
203 Hispanic
200 Black
202
200*
198*
170
Accommodations not permitted
Accommodations permitted
0
PERCENT
’92
’94
’98
’00
’02 ’03
’05
100
YEAR
At or above
Proficient
White
35*
36*
38* 37*
38*
41
41
41
At or above
Basic
0
71*
70*
72* 70*
70*
75
75
100
0
Black
8*
8*
10* 10*
10*
12
13
13
32*
30*
35* 36*
35*
40
40
42
100
Hispanic
12*
0
39*
12
34*
13 13
38* 37*
13
37*
15
15
16
44
44
46
100
0
Accommodations Accommodations
not permitted
permitted
76
Asian/Pacific Islander1
25*
36
34
60*
66
63
41
37
38
42
70
70
70
73
100
American Indian/Alaska Native2
0
’92
’94
’98
’00
22
16
51
47
48
’02 ’03
’05
18
YEAR
* Significantly different from 2005.
1 Sample size was insufficient
to permit reliable estimates for
Asian/Pacific Islander students in
1998 (accommodations-permitted
sample).
2 Sample sizes were insufficient to
permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native students
in 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, National
Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), various years,
1992–2005 Reading Assessments.
Reading 2005
✓
5
Figure 3. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in reading, by race/ethnicity, grade 8:
Various years, 1992–2005
KEY FINDINGS
Grade 8
SCALE SCORE
500
GRADE 4
300
! The average reading scores
for White, Black, Hispanic,
and Asian/Pacific Islander
students were all higher in
2005 than in 1992.
290
! Black students’ average
score increased from 198
to 200 between 2003 and
2005. During this same time,
average scores for Hispanic
students increased from 200
to 203.
270
! In 2005, higher percentages
of White, Black, and Hispanic
students performed at or
above Basic than in 1992,
and higher percentages of
White and Black students
performed at or above
Proficient than in 1992.
! The percentage of White
students performing at or
above Proficient decreased by
2 points between 2003 and
2005.
267*
271 270
272* 272*
267*
250
271 White
271 Asian/Pacific Islander
270
267*
265
240
241*
243*
230
237*
236*
’92
’94
’98
35*
35*
40 39
41
41*
39
77*
77*
82 81
84* 83*
82
260
250
267
245
264
244
243 243
249 American Indian/Alaska Native1
246 Hispanic
243 Black
246
247 245* 244 245
220
210
200
0
PERCENT
’02 ’03
’05
100
0
0
Black
9*
10
13 13
13
13
12
45*
43*
52 53
55* 54
52
100
0
Hispanic
13
15
15 14
15
15
15
49*
51*
54 53
57
56
56
37
34
35 33
36
40
40
76
72*
77 75
76
79
80
100
0
YEAR
White
100
GRADE 8
! White, Black, and Hispanic
students scored higher, on
average, in 2005 than in 1992.
268
STUDENT GROUP
RESULTS
! Higher percentages of White,
Black, Hispanic, and Asian/
Pacific Islander students
performed at or above Basic
and at or above Proficient in
2005 than in 1992.
280
Asian/Pacific Islander
100
American Indian/Alaska Native1
0
’92
’94
’98
17
17
61
57
59
’02 ’03
’05
17
* Significantly different from 2005.
1 Sample sizes were insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 1992,
1994, and 1998.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2005 Reading Assessments.
YEAR
Accommodations not permitted
Accommodations permitted
At or above
Proficient
At or above
Basic
Accommodations Accommodations
not permitted
permitted
6
STUDENT GROUP RESULTS
The Nation’s Report Card™
White – Black and White – Hispanic Score Gaps
Another way to view trends in student performance is
to determine whether the score “gap” between student
groups has narrowed or widened since earlier years.
Figures 4 and 5 show the score gaps between White and
Black students and between White and Hispanic students
across assessment years. Score gaps are calculated by subtracting the unrounded average scale score of one student
group from that of another. Here, the average score for
Black or Hispanic students is subtracted from the average
score for White students.
Figure 4. Average reading scale scores and score gaps for White – Black and White – Hispanic
students, grade 4: Various years, 1992–2005
Grade 4
White – Black
SCALE SCORE
500
270
260
250
240
230
224*
224*
226* 225*
224*
229 229
229 White
220
210
200
32
38*
33 32 34*
192*
193* 193*
185*
Score gap
200 Black
199 198*
190
180
29
30 31*
190*
170
0
’92
’94
’98
’00
’02 ’03
’05
YEAR
Grade 4
White – Hispanic
SCALE SCORE
500
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
224*
27
200
190
224*
35*
31 32
224*
35*
229 229
229 White
26
28 28*
188*
195* 193*
Score gap
203 Hispanic
201 200*
197*
180
226* 225*
190*
170
0
’92
’94
’98
’00
* Significantly different from 2005.
NOTE: Score gaps, displayed in the shaded area, are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scale scores.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
various years, 1992–2005 Reading Assessments.
’02 ’03
’05
YEAR
Accommodations not permitted
Accommodations permitted
Reading 2005
✓
7
KEY FINDINGS
! In 2005, at both grades 4
and 8, White students scored
higher, on average, than Black
and Hispanic students.
GRADE 4
Grade 8
White – Black
SCALE SCORE
500
300
290
280
! The White – Hispanic score gap
at grade 4 narrowed by
2 points between 2003
and 2005 but was not
statistically different
between 1992 and 2005.
GRADE 8
270
267*
267*
260
250
30
30
271 270
28 26
27 28
243 244
245* 244
240
230
237*
272* 272*
271 White
28
Score gap
243 Black
236*
220
210
200
! The apparent difference
between 1992 and 2005 in
the White – Black score gap at
grade 8 was not statistically
significant.
! The White – Hispanic gap at
grade 8 narrowed by 2 points
between 2003 and 2005 but
was not statistically different
between 1992 and 2005.
0
’92
’94
’98
’02 ’03
’05
YEAR
Grade 8
White – Hispanic
SCALE SCORE
500
300
290
280
270
267*
267*
260
250
26
24
272* 272*
26 27
26 27*
271 White
25
Score gap
246 Hispanic
240
230
271 270
241*
243*
245
243
247 245
220
210
200
0
’92
’94
’98
* Significantly different from 2005.
NOTE: Score gaps, displayed in the shaded area, are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scale scores.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
various years, 1992–2005 Reading Assessments.
’02 ’03
’05
YEAR
Accommodations not permitted
Accommodations permitted
STUDENT GROUP
RESULTS
! At grade 4, the White – Black
score gap narrowed by
2 points between 2003 and
2005 but was not statistically
different between 1992 and
2005.
Figure 5. Average reading scale scores and score gaps for White – Black and White – Hispanic
students, grade 8: Various years, 1992–2005
8
STUDENT GROUP RESULTS
The Nation’s Report Card™
Results by Eligibility for Free/Reduced-Price
School Lunch
Average reading scores and achievement-level results
by students’ eligibility for free/reduced-price school
lunch are shown in figure 6 for grade 4 and figure 7 for
grade 8. NAEP first began collecting information on
student lunch eligibility for the reading assessment in
1998; therefore, results for these student groups are not
available for 1992 and 1994.
An indicator of a student’s socioeconomic status is
whether or not that student is eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch under the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP). Children from families with incomes
at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible
for free meals. Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible
for reduced-price meals. (For the period July 1, 2004,
through June 30, 2005, for a family of four, 130 percent of the poverty level was $24,505, and 185 percent
was $34,873. See http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/
for more information.)
The percentage of students with available information has changed over time. In addition, the regulations
on classifying students have changed over the years. See
Changing Demographics of Students at Grades 4 and 8
on page 22 for more information.
Figure 6. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in reading, by students’
eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch, grade 4: Various years, 1998–2005
Grade 4
SCALE SCORE
500
270
260
250
Information
232 not available
230 Not eligible
240
227*
226*
230 230
223*
225*
226* 229
230
220
210
203 Eligible
200
203 201*
190
196*
193*
180
170
0
PERCENT
’98
’00
’02 ’03
’05
100
0
Eligible
13*
13*
16
15
16
39*
38*
46
45*
46
40
39
42
42
42
73*
73*
77
76*
77
100
0
Not eligible
100
0
YEAR
45
37
40
39* 43
69*
71*
71* 76
77
’98
’00
’02 ’03
’05
Information
not available
At or above
Proficient
At or above
Basic
YEAR
* Significantly different from 2005.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years,
1998–2005 Reading Assessments.
Reading 2005
✓
9
KEY FINDINGS
! In 2005, students who were not
eligible for free or reduced-price
school lunch scored higher, on
average, than students who
were eligible, at both grades 4
and 8.
GRADE 4
! Between 2003 and 2005, the
average score for students who
were eligible rose 2 points.
! Higher percentages of
students who were eligible for
free or reduced-price school
lunch and of those who were
not eligible performed at
or above Basic in reading
in 2005 than in 2003 or in
1998.
! The percentage of students
who were eligible performing
at or above Proficient was
3 points higher in 2005 than in
1998.
Figure 7. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in reading, by students’
eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch, grade 8: Various years, 1998–2005
Grade 8
SCALE SCORE
500
300
290
! There were no significant
differences for any group
between 1998 and 2005.
272* 272
269
271 271*
Information
275 not available
270 Not eligible
245
249* 247
247 Eligible
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
0
PERCENT
’98
’02 ’03
’05
100
0
14
17*
16
15
56
60*
57
57
38
40* 40*
39
80
84* 82*
81
43
41* 42
45
80
81
81
84
’02 ’03
’05
Not eligible
100
0
YEAR
Eligible
100
0
! The percentages of students
who were not eligible for free
or reduced-price school lunch
performing at or above Basic
and at or above Proficient
decreased by 1 percentage
point each between 2003 and
2005.
272
280
GRADE 8
! Students who were not eligible
for free or reduced-price
school lunch showed a 1-point
decrease in average reading
score between 2003 and 2005.
STUDENT GROUP
RESULTS
! Both those who were eligible
for free or reduced-price
school lunch and those who
were not eligible scored
higher, on average, in 2005
than in 1998.
’98
Information
not available
At or above
Proficient
At or above
Basic
YEAR
* Significantly different from 2005.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years,
1998–2005 Reading Assessments.
10
STUDENT GROUP RESULTS
The Nation’s Report Card™
Results by Gender
The average reading scores and percentages of students
at or above Basic and at or above Proficient are shown by
gender at grade 4 in figure 8 and at grade 8 in figure 9.
Figure 8. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in reading, by gender, grade 4:
Various years, 1992–2005
Grade 4
SCALE SCORE
500
270
260
250
240
230
220
221
220*
213*
209*
220
217*
219*
210
200
214
212*
222 222
222 Female
216 Male
215 215*
208*
190
180
170
Accommodations not permitted
Accommodations permitted
0
’92
’94
’98
’00
’02 ’03
’05
YEAR
PERCENT
100
0
Male
25
26
28 27
25*
28
28
29
58
55*
59 57*
55*
61
60*
61
100
0
Female
32
34
33 32
34
35
67
66
65 62*
64
67
67
67
’92
’94
’98
’00
’02 ’03
’05
35
At or above
Proficient
34
At or above
Basic
* Significantly different from 2005.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2005 Reading Assessments.
Accommodations Accommodations
not permitted
permitted
YEAR
Reading 2005
✓
11
KEY FINDINGS
! In 2005, female students
scored higher on average in
reading than male students at
both grades 4 and 8.
GRADE 4
Figure 9. Average scale scores and achievement-level results in reading, by gender, grade 8:
Various years, 1992–2005
Grade 8
SCALE SCORE
500
300
! Male students had a higher
average reading score in 2005
than in 1992.
280
270
267
267
260
270* 270*
269* 269*
267 Female
260* 258*
257 Male
257
250
254*
240
252*
256
STUDENT GROUP
RESULTS
! The percentage of male
students at or above Basic
increased by 1 point from
2003 to 2005.
290
230
220
GRADE 8
210
200
! Male students’ average
reading score in 2005 was 3
points higher than in 1992
and 1 point lower than in
2003.
! The average score for female
students decreased from 269
in 2003 to 267 in 2005 but
was not statistically different
from the 1992 score.
0
PERCENT
0
! The percentage of male
students performing at or
above Basic in reading was
higher in 2005 than in 1992.
’94
’98
’02 ’03
’05
YEAR
Male
23
23*
27 26
28* 27*
26
64*
62*
68 67
71* 69*
68
35
36
40* 39
38* 38*
36
76
77
81* 80*
80* 79*
78
’92
’94
’98
’02 ’03
’05
100
0
! The percentages of male and
female students scoring at or
above Basic and at or above
Proficient decreased by 1 to
2 points between 2003 and
2005.
’92
100
Female
* Significantly different from 2005.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
various years, 1992–2005 Reading Assessments.
YEAR
Accommodations not permitted
Accommodations permitted
At or above
Proficient
At or above
Basic
Accommodations Accommodations
not permitted
permitted
12
The Nation’s Report Card™
PERCENTILES
Comparing Scores Among Lower-, Middle-, and Higher-Performing
Students
Examining trends in the performance of students at
selected percentiles can indicate whether trends for
lower-, middle-, or higher-scoring students diverge from
the picture for students overall. The 10th and 25th
percentiles represent lower-scoring students; the 50th
represents middle-scoring; the 75th and 90th represent higher-scoring students. A percentile indicates the
percentage of students whose scores fell at or below a
particular score. For example, figure 10 shows that 25
percent of students assessed at grade 4 scored at or below
196 in 2005, one point higher than the 25th percentile
score of 2003. The only other group showing a higher
score in 2005 than in 2003 was the 10th percentile. The
longer term trend from 1992 indicates that at grade 8
most of the increases occurred among lower performing
students. For example, the 10th percentile score increased
from 213 in 1992 to 216 in 2005. All but the lowest percentile showed a decrease between 2003 and 2005.
Figure 10. Reading scale score percentiles for grades 4 and 8: Various years, 1992–2005
Grade 4
PERCENTILE
SCALE SCORE
500
263
260
261
250
263
242*
230
243
219
210
263 90th
243*
244 244
244 75th
218*
221 221
221 50th
196 195*
196 25th
170 169*
171 10th
242*
220
220
263 264
262
244
240
262
219*
217*
200
193*
190
194
180
189*
191*
189*
170
167*
159*
170
160
163*
159*
0
’92
’94
’98
’00
’02 ’03
’05
YEAR
Grade 8
PERCENTILE
SCALE SCORE
500
300
305
305
285
286
270
262*
288* 288*
286 75th
267* 266*
265 50th
244* 242*
240 25th
220* 217
216 10th
266
262*
242
237*
241
236*
220
210
288
267*
240
230
305 90th
288*
260
250
305 306*
305
290
280
306
217
213*
200
Accommodations not permitted
216
211*
Accommodations permitted
0
’92
’94
’98
’02 ’03
’05
YEAR
* Significantly different from 2005.
NOTE: Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2005 Reading Assessments.
Reading 2005
✓
KEY FINDINGS
GRADE 4 (pages 14–15, 18)
! Eight states increased
in average reading score
between 2003 and 2005, and
2 decreased.
! Between 2003 and 2005, the
percentage performing at or
above Basic increased in 4
states and decreased in 2.
! Of the 42 states that
participated in both the 1992
and 2005 assessments, 20
had higher average scores,
and 3 had lower average
scores in 2005.
GRADE 8 (pages 16–17, 19)
! No state had a higher average
reading score in 2005 than
in 2003, and 7 had a lower
score.
! The percentage of students
performing at or above Basic
increased between 2003
and 2005 in 1 state and
decreased in 6 states.
! Of the 38 states that
participated in both the 1998
and 2005 assessments, 3
had higher average scores
in 2005, and 8 had lower
average scores.
! Between 1998 and 2005, the
percentage at or above Basic
increased in 4 states and
decreased in 11 states.
Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Reading Results for States
and Jurisdictions
The following pages show the results of
the 2005 reading assessment for students
at grades 4 and 8 who attended public schools in the 50 states and 2 other
jurisdictions (which are all referred to as
“states” in the key findings).
Beginning in 2003, states were required
to participate biennially in NAEP reading
and mathematics assessments at grades 4
and 8 in order to receive Title I funding.
Results do not appear for some states in
the early years because they either did not
participate or did not meet the minimum
participation guidelines for reporting. In
2005, all states met the minimum participation guidelines at both grades 4 and
8. The percentage of students scoring at
or above Basic is shown in every year for
which state data are available, beginning
in 1992 at grade 4 (see table 1) and in
1998 at grade 8 (see table 2).
In comparing states to one another,
it is important to consider that overall
averages do not take into account the
different demographics of the states’ student populations. Further information
on student groups is provided in tables 5
and 6, as well as in the appendix tables.
For instance, the performance of Hispanic
students from different states can be
compared for the same grade level. More
information on these types of comparisons, including interactive state maps and
state ranking tools, can be found at www.
nationsreportcard.gov.
When making comparisons across states
and within states over time, it is important to consider the differential exclusion
rates across the states and over time.
Although every effort is made to include
as many students as possible, different
states have different policies, and those
policies have changed over time. States
that are more inclusive—that is, they
assess greater percentages of their students
with disabilities and English language
learners—may have lower average scores
than states that exclude greater percentages of these students. Table A-3 shows
the exclusion rates for each state.
Finally, sample sizes and rounding can
result in apparent inconsistencies. For
example, in table 1, for both 2003 and
2005 the percentage of students performing at or above Basic in public schools
nationwide is 62, yet the numbers are
marked as being statistically different. The
actual unrounded numbers are 61.57 in
2003 and 62.47 in 2005, a 0.9 percentage
point difference that is statistically significant, due in part to the large numbers of
students who participated in NAEP those
two years.
STATE RESULTS
! Between 1992 and 2005, the
percentage at or above Basic
increased in 15 states and
decreased in 3 states.
13
More information on performance for
a particular state is available at http://nces.
ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states.
Student Samples
The national results are based on a representative sample of students in public
schools, private schools, Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, and Department of
Defense schools. Private schools include Catholic, Conservative Christian, Lutheran,
and other private schools. The state results are based on public school students
only.
Before 2002, the national sample was separate from the state sample. Beginning
in 2002, the NAEP national sample was obtained by aggregating the samples from
each state, rather than by obtaining an independent national sample. As a result,
the size of the national sample increased, and smaller differences between years or
between types of students were found to be statistically significant than would have
been detected in assessments before 2002.
14
The Nation’s Report Card™
STATE RESULTS
Figure 11. Average reading scale scores and percentage of students within each achievement level, grade 4 public schools:
By state, 2005
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
1
DoDEA
Average
score
217
below Basic
Basic
38
33
208
211
47
42
31
207
217
48
37
50
31
28
33
29
33
29
32
207
224
226
210
222
29
35
70
60
50
40
30
7
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
26
23
23
7
Idaho
Illinois
7
7
Indiana
Iowa
26
7
25
8
23
7
17
3
27
9
Maine
Maryland
33
35
34
34
35
34
35
34
36
21
6
23
6
27
8
28
10
29
8
27
8
21
5
26
7
27
7
22
20
10
24
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
41
36
32
28
28
30
39
33
29
25
Percentage below Basic
23
20
6
18
5
27
8
21
5
23
7
27
9
23
7
20
6
27
6
67
12
10
25
28
26
17 4
30
7
Mississippi
Missouri
28
10
7
8
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
7
9
4
26
23
7
28
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
17
9
10 20
8
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
29
30
8
7
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
1
DoDEA
2
39
0
Connecticut
Delaware
7
34
35
33
33
32
32
37
49
80
28
31
40
38
31
38
43
30
26
32
100 90
Colorado
12
31
38
28
48
191
226
8
27
31
31
36
32
36
33
29
32
225
223
214
217
223
216
213
222
214
219
221
227
226
223
215
221
223
Arkansas
California
34
36
34
31
36
52
227
223
207
223
217
6
32
24
28
15
3
22
37
29
221
225
221
207
Alaska
Arizona
32
34
31
33
30
220
231
218
225
204
23
5
28
34
34
34
33
36
47
209
225
17
33
34
33
34
35
221
220
220
6
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)
Alabama
5
18
36
38
36
216
218
4
21
32
29
31
Advanced
7
18
39
35
42
47
214
23
30
27
35
226
219
Proficient
40
50
6
60
70
80
90 100
Percentage at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
15
Table 1. Percentage of students at or above Basic in reading, grade 4 public schools: By state, various years, 1992–2005
Accommodations not permitted
State/jurisdiction
Nation
(public)1
1994
Accommodations permitted
1998
1998
2002
2003
2005
60*
59*
61
58*
62
62*
62
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
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
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*
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*
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
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
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
30
—
24*
—
28*
68*
27*
66*
31
72
31
71*
33
75
— Not available. The jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
* Significantly different from 2005 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, 1992–2005
Reading Assessments.
STATE RESULTS
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
1992
16
The Nation’s Report Card™
STATE RESULTS
Figure 12. Average reading scale scores and percentage of students within each achievement level, grade 8 public schools:
By state, 2005
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
1
DoDEA
Average
score
below Basic
Basic
Proficient
260
29
42
26
252
259
37
30
41
44
20
25
255
258
35
31
42
43
21
24
250
40
39
44
25
265
264
Advanced
3
Alabama
2
Alaska
Arizona
2
Arkansas
California
2
2
28
3
266
256
26
20
34
41
50
41
23
2
257
33
42
22
2
42
249
264
264
261
267
267
264
21
45
22
25
43
45
31
17
27
20
268
251
24
18
20
265
269
267
253
37
38
25
31
270
267
260
263
267
261
257
269
259
258
262
269
268
265
255
266
268
60
50
40
30
26
39
26
5
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
2
34
1
28
34
32
21
3
3
3
4
4
1
30
3
23
29
41
42
33
26
3
10
3
3
2
33
2
25
1
24
2
27
2
33
4
32
3
31
3
21
1
31
3
33
2
11
10 20
2
23
1
46
0
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
1
18
42
47
44
43
44
42
43
41
45
42
45
Mississippi
Missouri
3
34
33
33
20
Maine
Maryland
4
4
1
3
16
70
4
1
34
32
24
30
55
Percentage below Basic
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
34
18
Indiana
Iowa
3
3
17
22
28
26
29
31
27
21
22
25
33
23
19
80
19
Idaho
Illinois
3
25
18
100 90
Hawaii
2
3
2
42
47
42
47
41
33
238
271
1
31
28
41
42
42
43
42
20
20
270
269
251
265
258
Florida
Georgia
31
42
42
45
45
45
40
Connecticut
Delaware
2
30
28
26
44
43
39
39
44
19
261
274
261
17
Colorado
4
29
44
44
44
36
253
270
30
39
24
25
27
Nation (public)
2
19
35
30
40
50
60
State/jurisdiction
2
70
80
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
1
DoDEA
90 100
Percentage at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
17
Table 2. Percentage of students at or above Basic in reading, grade 8 public schools: By state, various years, 1998–2005
Accommodations not permitted
State/jurisdiction
Nation
(public)1
1998
2002
2003
2005
72
71
74*
72*
71
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*
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*
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
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
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
44
80*
44
79*
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 from 2005 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, 1998–2005
Reading Assessments.
STATE RESULTS
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
18
The Nation’s Report Card™
STATE RESULTS
Table 3. Average reading scale scores, grade 4 public schools: By state, various years, 1992–2005
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
1992
1994
Accommodations permitted
1998
1998
2002
2003
2005
215*
212*
215*
213*
217
216*
217
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
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
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*
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*
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
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
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
188*
—
179*
—
182*
222*
179*
220*
191
224*
188
224*
191
226
— Not available. The jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
* Significantly different from 2005 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, 1992–2005
Reading Assessments.
Reading 2005
19
Table 4. Average reading scale scores, grade 8 public schools: By state, various years, 1998–2005
Accommodations not permitted
State/jurisdiction
Nation
(public)1
1998
2002
2003
2005
261
261
263*
261*
260
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*
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*
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*
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
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
236
269
236
269
240
273*
239
272
238
271
— Not available. The jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
* Significantly different from 2005 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, 1998–2005
Reading Assessments.
STATE RESULTS
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
20
The Nation’s Report Card™
STATE RESULTS
Table 5. Average reading scale scores, grade 4 public schools: By state and student group, 2005
Eligibility for free/reducedprice school lunch
Race/ethnicity
State/jurisdiction
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific
Islander
American
Indian/
Alaska Native
Eligible
Not eligible
Gender
Male
Female
Nation (public)
228
199
201
227
205
203
230
214
220
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
220
225
224
225
225
232
234
235
228
226
224
226
230
223
224
225
222
223
225
232
237
226
231
220
226
228
228
219
228
232
225
232
227
228
230
219
223
229
224
225
226
222
232
226
227
233
228
215
227
227
188
212
193
194
195
207
201
212
203
199
205
‡
194
197
201
196
203
195
‡
201
211
190
192
190
200
‡
194
192
‡
199
206
207
200
‡
197
197
200
200
197
197
‡
195
206
‡
‡
207
212
202
194
‡
‡
209
192
212
193
206
203
216
215
203
211
199
199
208
200
203
‡
‡
‡
210
203
‡
204
‡
210
226
202
194
‡
206
199
208
204
‡
211
204
194
203
192
215
‡
199
210
199
‡
218
202
‡
208
204
‡
206
224
‡
222
231
236
239
230
243
205
‡
230
‡
224
238
‡
‡
‡
239
234
‡
216
‡
‡
‡
‡
212
‡
241
‡
237
221
‡
‡
‡
220
233
219
‡
‡
‡
234
218
‡
239
230
‡
226
‡
‡
183
‡
‡
213
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
201
‡
‡
‡
‡
190
‡
‡
198
‡
211
‡
‡
‡
‡
201
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
196
193
192
206
193
208
202
214
209
201
197
210
198
207
208
208
212
200
213
198
211
201
209
196
209
212
205
192
213
203
199
210
202
214
206
205
204
205
197
200
210
200
208
208
210
209
213
206
204
216
223
223
223
230
224
232
235
233
230
229
221
230
230
227
227
230
228
226
231
231
239
227
232
222
231
232
232
219
231
232
225
234
229
230
233
225
225
233
228
228
231
226
232
229
234
234
231
225
230
228
205
207
203
213
203
221
222
223
217
210
205
218
215
214
218
218
218
208
221
217
230
216
221
200
218
222
219
203
224
221
203
220
213
222
219
211
213
219
212
210
219
210
216
216
223
223
219
211
219
221
211
215
211
221
210
227
230
229
222
219
214
225
218
222
224
223
222
211
228
223
233
221
229
208
224
227
224
212
231
226
211
225
221
227
226
217
220
227
221
217
227
218
222
226
230
228
228
218
224
226
252
232
187
218
193
219
‡
223
‡
‡
183
‡
215
‡
186
222
195
230
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
NOTE: Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was “unclassified” and for students whose eligibility status for free/reduced-price 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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
21
Table 6. Average reading scale scores, grade 8 public schools: By state and student group, 2005
Eligibility for free/reducedprice school lunch
Race/ethnicity
State/jurisdiction
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific
Islander
American
Indian/
Alaska Native
Eligible
Not eligible
Gender
Male
Female
269
242
245
270
251
247
270
255
266
263
268
267
266
264
273
272
274
265
268
261
267
272
265
269
271
266
264
270
272
279
268
273
264
270
272
271
261
270
278
264
276
267
272
272
265
267
273
268
267
272
265
270
265
269
275
268
256
271
270
235
249
242
236
240
254
240
252
238
241
‡
‡
244
241
246
247
248
240
‡
244
253
239
239
237
242
‡
243
240
‡
251
‡
242
240
‡
243
243
245
239
243
242
‡
240
246
‡
‡
251
255
236
236
‡
‡
254
242
250
239
247
245
253
252
247
242
246
253
247
256
249
‡
‡
‡
256
246
250
244
‡
258
‡
245
241
‡
251
245
250
248
‡
245
247
245
246
237
‡
‡
‡
248
243
‡
259
245
‡
247
256
‡
260
‡
‡
264
269
279
276
273
275
246
‡
281
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
283
282
‡
262
‡
‡
‡
‡
263
‡
291
‡
274
275
‡
‡
‡
267
275
257
‡
‡
‡
280
266
‡
282
270
‡
262
‡
‡
240
240
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
248
‡
‡
‡
‡
240
‡
‡
250
‡
254
‡
‡
‡
‡
245
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
255
‡
‡
251
239
241
242
247
239
248
243
254
246
243
239
256
248
250
255
254
256
244
261
243
256
246
252
241
253
259
253
240
255
252
243
253
244
260
251
252
252
247
243
246
259
246
247
254
255
253
251
245
249
259
265
267
265
268
262
272
272
271
264
269
256
269
273
268
272
275
271
264
274
269
280
267
275
266
272
274
274
259
273
276
263
276
267
274
274
267
269
276
269
268
274
268
269
266
274
273
272
263
272
272
245
253
249
252
246
261
258
261
249
251
242
258
258
256
261
262
258
247
264
256
269
256
263
246
260
265
261
247
264
266
247
260
251
267
261
254
258
262
256
252
264
255
254
255
262
263
260
250
261
264
260
265
260
263
255
268
270
271
262
263
256
271
269
267
273
271
270
259
276
266
278
266
274
255
270
274
274
258
275
273
255
270
266
274
272
265
268
271
266
262
273
264
263
269
276
273
269
261
273
272
301
276
235
258
247
268
‡
274
‡
‡
234
‡
249
‡
230
266
245
276
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
NOTE: Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was “unclassified” and for students whose eligibility status for free/reduced-price 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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
STATE RESULTS
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
22
The Nation’s Report Card™
STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
Changing Demographics of Students at Grades 4 and 8
NAEP collects information on student demographics.
Two variables—race/ethnicity and eligibility for free/
reduced-price lunch—have shown changes over time,
potentially affecting overall results.
Figures 13 and 14 display the distribution over time
of students nationwide taking the reading assessment
for these two demographic variables. Table 7 provides
similar information for national and state-level public
schools. Figure 13 shows that, at grade 4, White students made up a smaller proportion of the population in
2005 (59 percent) than they did in 1992 (73 percent).
At the same time, the percentage of Hispanic students
increased from 7 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2005.
This pattern of changing demographics was also evident
at grade 8.
Figure 14 shows the distribution of students by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch. Here, differences
could reflect a change in reporting practices associated
with changing regulations and definitions of free lunch
eligibility. Alternatively, the differences could be associated
with changing demographics. For instance, at grade 4 the
percentage of students for whom information on school
lunch eligibility was not available decreased from 14 percent in 2000 to 8 percent in 2005. At the same time, the
percentage of fourth-graders categorized as eligible for free
or reduced-price lunch increased from 38 to 41 percent.
The percentage of students not eligible remained around
50 percent.
Figure 13. Percentage distribution of students by race/ethnicity, grades 4 and 8: Various years, 1992–2005
White
Black
Hispanic
Grade 4
Asian/Pacific American Indian/
Islander
Alaska Native
Grade 8
Year
73*
17
Year
7* 2* 1
1992
72*
16
8* 3* 1*
72*
16
8* 3* 1
70*
15*
11* 3 #*
1992
72*
17
7* 3* 1
1994
1994
66*
15
14*
41
1998
1998
63*
17
14*
41
16*
4* 1
2000
61*
17
65*
15*
14*
4 1
16
15*
4 1
16
4 1
2002
2002
60*
17
17*
63*
4 1
2003
2003
59
16
18
61
5 1
16
2005
2005
Percent
Percent
# The estimate rounds to zero.
* Significantly different from 2005.
NOTE: The “unclassified” race/ethnicity category is not shown in this figure. Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2005
Reading Assessments.
Figure 14. Percentage distribution of students by eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch, grades 4 and 8:
Various years, 1998–2005
Eligible
Grade 4
Year
Information
not available
Not eligible
Grade 8
38
11
51
Year
28*
56
17*
1998
1998
38*
48
14*
40*
47*
13*
2000
31*
54*
15*
2002
2002
40*
50
33*
10*
2003
55
11*
2003
41
50
36
8
56
8
2005
2005
Percent
Percent
* Significantly different from 2005.
NOTE: Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000. 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, 1998–2005
Reading Assessments.
Reading 2005
23
Table 7. Percentage distribution of students by race/ethnicity, grades 4 and 8: By state, various years 1992–2005
Grade 4
White
State/jurisdiction
1992
Grade 8
Black
2005
1992
Hispanic
2005
1992
White
2005
1998
Black
2005
1998
Hispanic
2005
1998
2005
72*
57
18
17
7*
19
68*
60
16*
17
12*
17
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*
58
55
46
69
31
64
69
56
49
49
17
83
55
76
85
74
85
49
97
52
76
71
81
47
76
85
77
47
94
58
31
53
58
88
74
61
71
75
72
54
84
70
40
82
96
61
71
93
77
84
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*
38
4
5
24
8
5
13
32
23
39
3
1
20
15
5
8
11
48
1
35
9
19
8
51
18
1
8
12
1
17
3
20
27
1
20
10
4
17
8
41
2
25
14
1
1
25
5
6
13
1
#*
—
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*
2
5
40
5
49
27
13
9
23
7
3
13
21
4
6
11
2
2
1
8
10
5
5
1
4
2
12
32
2
16
54
18
8
1
2
8
16
6
16
3
2
3
43
12
1
6
13
1
6
11
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
58
57
49
69
33
65
69
58
51
52
14
87
61
81
89
77
88
52
96
51
77
73
81
48
78
87
84
53
95
59
33
57
61
89
78
62
77
78
74
58
86
75
42
84
96
61
75
94
80
87
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
38
5
6
25
8
7
16
32
23
37
2
1
21
13
4
8
9
44
2
40
8
21
8
50
18
1
6
10
2
20
2
18
29
1
17
11
3
15
8
38
1
22
15
1
1
27
6
4
10
1
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
2
4
37
4
45
24
13
7
21
6
3
10
14
3
4
9
1
2
1
4
10
3
4
1
3
2
8
28
2
14
53
18
5
1
2
7
11
5
14
2
2
2
39
10
1
7
10
1
6
7
5
—
4
48
91*
—
85
19
3*
—
9
14
3
47*
3
43
90
21
89
22
6
10*
6
13
— Not available. The jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
# The estimate rounds to zero.
* Significantly different from 2005 when only one jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years 1992–2005 Reading Assessments.
STUDENT
DEMOGRAPHICS
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
24
The Nation’s Report Card™
FRAMEWORK AND SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Grade 4 Reading Framework
The content of the NAEP reading assessment is based
on a framework, which describes in detail how reading
should be assessed by NAEP. The current NAEP reading
framework was first used for the 1992 assessment and has
continued to be used through 2005.
This framework, developed through a comprehensive
national consultative process and adopted by NAGB,
provides a broad definition of reading that includes developing a general understanding of written text, thinking
about texts, and using various 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. The framework specifies that
the fourth-grade reading assessment should measure reading performance in two dimensions: contexts for reading
and aspects of reading.
Contexts for reading. Because different contexts for
reading lead to real differences in what readers do, the
NAEP reading framework specifies that fourth-graders be
assessed in two different contexts. One context, reading
for literary experience, is assessed by having fourth-graders read literary materials like short stories, legends, and
myths. For the other context, reading for information,
fourth-graders are assessed with informational pieces like
magazine articles and biographies. The framework calls
for these two contexts to be represented in the fourthgrade assessment in the following proportions:
Reading for
literary experience
Reading for
information
55%
45%
Aspects of reading. Each comprehension question in the
NAEP assessment measures one of the following four
aspects of reading: forming a general understanding,
developing interpretation, making reader/text connections, and examining content and structure. In forming
a general understanding, readers must consider the text
as a whole and provide a global understanding of it.
As readers engage in developing interpretation, they
must extend their initial impressions to develop a more
complete understanding. When making reader/text connections, the reader must connect information in the
text with knowledge and experience. Finally, examining
content and structure requires evaluating critically and
understanding the effect of different text features. The
framework calls for students’ assessment time to be divided among these aspects in the following proportions:
Forming a general
understanding and
Developing
interpretation
Making reader/
text connections
Examining content
and structure
60%
15%
25%
The fourth-grade reading assessment consists of ten
25-minute sections. Each section contains a reading
passage or pair of passages accompanied by a set of comprehension questions. As specified in the framework, the
fourth-grade passages range in length from 250 to 800
words. The comprehension questions are formatted as
either multiple choice or constructed response. Multiplechoice questions require students to select an answer
from four options, while constructed-response questions
require students to write either short or extended answers.
Each student receives only a portion of the entire assessment, consisting of a booklet containing two 25-minute
sections of reading passages and comprehension questions.
Item Maps
The item maps presented on pages 26 and 30 illustrate the knowledge and skills demonstrated by students
performing at different score points on the 2005 NAEP reading assessment. In order to provide additional
context, the cut scores for the three NAEP achievement levels are marked on the item maps. The map location
for each question represents the probability that, for a given score point, 65 percent of the students for a
constructed-response question or 74 percent of the students for a multiple-choice question answered that
question successfully. For constructed-response questions, responses may be completely or partially correct;
therefore, different types of responses to the same question could map onto the scale at different score levels.
Reading 2005
25
Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 4
Reading achievement-level descriptions are based on
NAGB achievement-level policy descriptions with subject- and grade-specific information added. The following
descriptions are abbreviated versions of the full achieve-
ment-level descriptions for grade 4 reading. The full
descriptions can be found at http://www.nagb.org/pubs/
readingbook.pdf.
Basic: 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: 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 connection between the text and what the student infers should be clear.
Advanced: 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 text critically and, in general, to give thorough answers that indicate careful thought.
Cut scores represent the minimum score required for performance at each NAEP achievement level.
NAEP cut scores were determined through a standard-setting process that convened a cross-section
of educators and interested citizens from across the nation. The group was asked to determine what
students should know and be able to do relative to a body of content reflected in the reading framework.
NAGB then adopted a set of cut scores on the 0–500 scale that define the lower boundaries of the Basic,
Proficient, and Advanced achievement levels. The reading cut scores, which appear on the item maps, are
as follows:
Grade 4
Grade 8
Basic
208
243
Proficient
238
281
Advanced
268
323
FRAMEWORK AND
SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Cut Scores
26
The Nation’s Report Card™
FRAMEWORK AND SAMPLE QUESTIONS
NAEP Reading Scale
Grade 4
Item Map
500
This map describes the knowledge
or skill associated with answering
individual reading comprehension
questions. The map identifies the
score point at which students had
a high probability of successfully
answering the question.1
300
300 Describe character’s changing feelings and explain cause
290
291 Provide text examples that support description
280
276 Use story details to support opinion about fictional character
Advanced
268
270
260
270
268
268
264
Generate a comparison based on character traits
Explain author’s use of direct quotations
Provide overall message of story
Explain author’s statement with text information
256 Make inference to identify character motivation
255 Discriminate between closely related text ideas to find relevant detail
250
Proficient
240
238
230
220
Basic
208
242
238
238
233
231
229
226
222
220
Retrieve relevant information to fit description
Identify main theme of story
Identify explicitly stated but embedded text detail—Sample Question 1
Provide explanation of character’s feeling
Recognize fact supported by text information
Infer or identify a lesson based on text information—Sample Question 2
Recognize reason that explains feelings of biographical subject
Make inference to identify intent of description
Recognize meaning of specialized vocabulary from context
215 Recognize support for interpretation of character
210
200
190
211
207
202
201
200
Recognize literal information from text
Identify trait describing main character
Provide story detail to support opinion
Recognize main topic of article
Provide text-based explanation of character’s importance to story
193 Retrieve and provide a text-related fact
180
170
172 Recognize central problem faced by story character
O
1
Each grade 4 reading question in the 2005 reading assessment was mapped onto the NAEP 0–500 reading scale. 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. Only selected questions are presented. Scale score ranges for reading achievement levels are referenced on the map. For constructed-response questions, the question description represents
students’ performance at the scoring level being mapped.
NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice question.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
27
The following sample questions assessed students’ comprehension of an article entitled, Dr. Shannon Lucid:
Space Pioneer, which describes the remarkable achievements of one of the few women to explore outer space,
Shannon Lucid. The article discusses how, in 1996,
Dr. Lucid spent over 6 months in space aboard Mir, a
Russian vessel, researching how long-term space travel
affects the human body. Shannon Lucid is presented as a
courageous woman who pursued her dreams.
Sample Grade 4 Multiple-Choice Question
Sample question 1 is a multiple-choice question, which asked students to recognize a detail from the passage.
1. According to the passage, what was the purpose of the space station Mir
program?
To learn how the body reacts to long-term travel in space
B To observe how people from different cultures live together
C To see what the seasons look like from outer space
D To take pictures of the Earth and of water currents
65 percent of fourth-graders answered this question correctly.
Sample Grade 4 Short Constructed-Response Question
Sample question 2 is a short constructed-response question, which asked students to make an inference about a lesson
that can be learned and support that inference with information from the passage. Responses to this task were rated
according to a three-level scoring guide in one of the following categories: “Evidence of full comprehension,” “Evidence
of partial comprehension,” “Evidence of little or no comprehension.” This sample response was rated as “Evidence of full
comprehension.”
2. What is one lesson that could be learned from reading this passage? Use
information from the passage to support your answer.
FRAMEWORK AND
SAMPLE QUESTIONS
58 percent of fourth-graders wrote responses rated as "Evidence of full comprehension."
28
The Nation’s Report Card™
FRAMEWORK AND SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Grade 8 Reading Framework
As at grade 4, the reading framework for grade 8
describes in detail how reading should be assessed, and
has been the basis for developing the assessment’s content
since 1992. Although the general definition of reading
is the same at grade 8, the framework calls for expanded
contexts for reading and a different proportion of assessment time devoted to the four aspects of reading. These
differences between the two grades reflect the developmental differences between fourth- and eighth-grade
students and the different expectations for students in
reading.
Contexts for reading. In addition to the two contexts
assessed at grade 4, the framework calls for the assessment of a third context at grade 8 to reflect the changing
demands on readers at this grade level. Reading for literary experience is assessed by having eighth-graders read
literary materials like short stories, excerpts from novels,
poems, and historical fiction. Reading for information
is assessed by having eighth-graders read informational
pieces like newspaper and magazine articles, biographies,
essays, and excerpts from textbooks. The third context
added at grade 8, reading to perform a task, is assessed by
having eighth-graders read and respond to practical texts
like bus or train schedules, directions, documents, forms,
and charts. The framework calls for these three contexts
to be represented in the eighth-grade assessment in the
following proportions:
Reading for
literary experience
Reading for
information
Reading to
perform a task
40%
40%
20%
Aspects of reading. As at grade 4, each comprehension
question in the eighth-grade assessment measures one
of four aspects of reading. In forming a general understanding, readers must consider the text as a whole and
provide a global understanding of it. As readers engage in
developing interpretation, they must extend their initial
impressions to develop a more complete understanding. When making reader/text connections, the reader
must connect information in the text with knowledge
and experience. Finally, examining content and structure
requires evaluating critically and understanding the effect
of different text features. In comparison to grade 4, the
framework calls for eighth-graders’ assessment time to be
divided among these aspects in slightly different proportions. The proportion devoted to each aspect is shown
below.
Forming a general
understanding and
Developing
interpretation
Making reader/
text connections
Examining content
and structure
55%
15%
30%
The eighth-grade reading assessment consists of twelve
25-minute sections and one 50-minute section. Each
section contains a reading passage or pair of passages
accompanied by a set of comprehension questions. As
specified in the framework, the eighth-grade passages
range in length from 400 to 1,000 words. As at grade
4, the comprehension questions are formatted as either
multiple choice or constructed response. Multiple-choice
questions require students to select an answer from four
options, while constructed-response questions require
students to write either short or extended answers. Each
student receives only a portion of the entire assessment,
containing either two 25-minute sections or one 50minute section of reading passages and comprehension
questions.
For More Information…
The complete reading framework is available on the NAGB website (http://www.nagb.org/pubs/pubs.html).
For full text of questions, including passages and sample responses and statistics, visit the NAEP questions
tool at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrls/.
Reading 2005
29
Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 8
Reading achievement-level descriptions are based on
NAGB achievement-level policy descriptions with subject- and grade-specific information added. The following
descriptions are abbreviated versions of the full achieve-
ment-level descriptions for grade 8 reading. The full
descriptions can be found at http://www.nagb.org/pubs/
readingbook.pdf.
Basic: 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 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: 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: 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; 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.
FRAMEWORK AND
SAMPLE QUESTIONS
30
The Nation’s Report Card™
FRAMEWORK AND SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Grade 8
Item Map
NAEP Reading Scale
500
This map describes the knowledge
or skill associated with answering
individual reading comprehension
questions. The map identifies the
score point at which students had
a high probability of successfully
answering the question.1
340
336 Use examples to compare poetic language to everyday speech
330
Advanced
323
320
332
327
325
323
Negotiate dense text to retrieve relevant explanatory facts
Explain action in narrative poem with textual support—Sample Question 3
Provide specific explication of poetic lines
Explain the meaning of an image in a poem
318 Extend text information to generate related question
310
300
290
Proficient
281
280
270
260
250
Basic
243
240
301
300
299
297
295
Describe difficulty of a task in a different context
Provide support for judgment
Recognize author’s device to convey information
Recognize meaning of poetic comparison—Sample Question 4
Use metaphor to interpret character
284 Apply text information to hypothetical situation and explain
284 Recognize what story action reveals about character
279 Relate text information to hypothetical situation
278 Infer character’s action from plot outcome
275 Use task directions and prior knowledge to make a comparison
267
262
261
260
Provide supporting details to explain author’s statement
Use context to identify meaning of vocabulary
Identify causal relation between historical events
Identify appropriate text recommendation for a specific situation
254 Explain reason for major event
253 Make inference based on supporting details to identify feeling
248 Recognize information included by author to persuade
248 Provide specific text information to support a generalization
247 Locate specific information in detailed document
237 Recognize significance of article’s central idea
230
234 Provide partial or general explication of poetic lines
232 Identify characterization of speaker in poem
228 Recognize an explicitly stated supporting detail
220
O
1
Each grade 8 reading question in the 2005 reading assessment was mapped onto the NAEP 0–500 reading scale. 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 multiplechoice question. Only selected questions are presented. Scale score ranges for reading achievement levels are referenced on the map. For constructed-response questions, the question
description represents students’ performance at the scoring level being mapped.
NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice question.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
31
The following sample questions assessed students’ comprehension of a narrative poem by Elizabeth Bishop
entitled, The Fish. The narrator of the poem tells about
catching a tremendous and very old fish. The poet uses
powerful and visual language to describe details of the
fish’s appearance, and to convey that the fish appears to
be like an old, venerable, and wise warrior. Impressed and
moved by the fish’s appearance and seeming ability to
evade capture (shown by five old hooks in its mouth), the
narrator is inspired to let the fish go.
Sample Grade 8 Short Constructed-Response Question
Sample question 3 is a short constructed-response question, which asked students to explain the action of a character in
a narrative poem and provide textual support. Responses to this task were rated according to a three-level scoring guide in
one of the following categories: “Evidence of full comprehension,” “Evidence of partial comprehension,” “Evidence of little or
no comprehension.” This sample response was rated as “Evidence of full comprehension.”
3. Why does the person let the fish go? What in the poem makes you
think so?
29 percent of eighth-graders wrote responses rated as "Evidence of full comprehension."
Sample Grade 8 Multiple-Choice Question
Sample question 4 is a multiple-choice question, which asked students to recognize the meaning of descriptive language
used in a poetic comparison.
A victory
fishhooks
C trophies
D fish scales
53 percent of eighth-graders answered this question correctly.
FRAMEWORK AND
SAMPLE QUESTIONS
4. When the poet says “Like medals with their ribbons frayed and wavering”
(lines 61–62), she is referring to
32
The Nation’s Report Card™
TECHNICAL AND DATA APPENDIX
Technical Notes
NAEP Sampling Procedures
School and Student Participation Rates
The schools and students participating in NAEP assessments are chosen to be nationally representative. Samples
of schools and students are selected 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 overall
national performance and of the performance of individual states and other jurisdictions (hereafter referred
to as states). Results are weighted to take into account
the fact that states, and schools within states, represent
different proportions of the overall national population.
For example, since the number of students assessed in
most states is roughly the same (to allow for stable state
estimates and administrative efficiencies), the results
for students in less populous states are assigned smaller
weights than the results for students in more populous states. The definition of the national sample has
changed in 2005; it now includes all of the international
Department of Defense schools.
In order to ensure unbiased samples, NCES and NAGB
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 in
order to meet reporting requirements. In the 2005 reading assessment, all states and jurisdictions met NAEP
participation rate standards at both grades 4 and 8.
Private School Results
The results for private school students overall are not
presented in this report because the participation rates
for this group were too low to produce valid and reliable
estimates. Results are, however, available for students who
attended certain types of private schools. For example, the
table below shows average scale scores and achievementlevel results for students in Catholic and Lutheran schools
in 2005.
Accommodations
It is important to assess all selected students from the
target population. Before 1998, however, no testing
accommodations were provided in the reading assessment to students with disabilities and English language
learners. In 1998, administration procedures were
introduced that allowed the use of accommodations for
students who required them to participate, such as extra
testing time or individual rather than group administration. Because this assessment measures students’ reading
performance, some accommodations allowed in the
mathematics assessment were not allowed here, including
read aloud and bilingual booklets. The 1998 and 2000
(grade 4 only) reading assessments used a split-sample
design to make it possible to report trends in students’
reading achievement across all the assessment years
and, at the same time, examine how including students
assessed with accommodations affected overall assessment results. Separate samples of students were assessed
with each of the administration procedures. Based on
analysis of the results, it was decided that, beginning
with the 2002 reading assessment, NAEP would permit the use of accommodations. In this report, the first
year with a split sample, 1998, shows results for both
samples. For subsequent years, only results from the
accommodated sample are shown.
Percentage of students
Average scale
score
At or above
Basic
At or above
Proficient
Catholic
234
80
46
Lutheran
231
77
44
Catholic
280
90
49
Lutheran
280
89
49
Type of school
Grade 4
Grade 8
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Reading
Assessment.
These data and other private school data are
available in the NAEP data tool (http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/naepdata).
Interpreting Statistical Significance
Comparisons over time or between groups are based on
statistical tests that consider both the size of the differences and the standard errors of the two statistics being
compared. Standard errors are margins of error, and estimates based on smaller groups are likely to have larger
margins of error. The size of the standard errors may also
be influenced by other factors such as how representative
Reading 2005
the students assessed are of the population as a whole.
When an estimate—such as an average score—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
statistics. For example, a 3-point difference between male
and female students may be statistically significant, while
a 3-point difference between White and Hispanic students may not be. Standard errors for the NAEP scores
and percentages presented in this report are available on
the NAEP website (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
naepdata/).
In the tables and charts of this report, the symbol (*) is
used to indicate that a score or percentage in a previous
assessment year is significantly different from the comparable measure in 2005. Statistically significant differences
between groups of students—for example, between
White students and Black students—are not identified
in the table and charts, but they were tested in the same
way. Any difference between scores or percentages that is
identified as higher, lower, larger, or smaller in this report
meets the requirements for statistical significance. The
differences described in this report have been determined
to be statistically significant at the .05 level with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons.
Interpreting Score Differences
Although this report discusses only changes that have
been calculated to be statistically significant, it is important to provide some context about what constitutes a
small or large difference in average scale scores. Beginning
in 2002, the national samples have been derived from the
sum of all of the state samples, instead of from a separate
and smaller nationally representative sample. Therefore,
national sample sizes have increased dramatically.
Standard errors are an estimate of the uncertainty in the
data, and larger sample sizes reduce this uncertainty. So
while a small—1- or 2-point—difference may not have
met the standard for significance before 2002, that same
difference may meet that standard in later years because
of the smaller standard errors.
Figure A-1. Selected average reading scale score differences,
grade 4: Various years, 2000–2005
Scale score difference
Year
49
2000
Non ELL – ELL
35
35
2005
Non ELL – ELL
30
32
29
27
26
2005
2005
2005
2005
Not SD – SD
White – Black
Not eligible – Eligible for FRPL
White – Hispanic
11
2000
Female – Male
6
2005
Female – Male
3
2003
White – Asian/Pacific Islander
50
Description of comparison
45
40
25
20
15
10
5
0
NOTE: All differences are significant at the .05 level. SD = students with disabilities. ELL = English
language learners. FRPL = free or reduced-price lunch.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 2000–2005
Reading Assessments.
Figure A-2. Selected average reading scale score differences,
grade 8: Various years, 1998–2005
Scale score difference
Year
Description of comparison
50
45
40
43
2003
Non ELL – ELL
39
2005
Not SD – SD
28
2005
White – Black
25
2005
White – Hispanic
23
2005
Not eligible – Eligible for FRPL
14
1998
Female – Male
10
2005
Female – Male
6
2002
White – Asian/Pacific Islander
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
NOTE: All differences are significant at the .05 level. SD = students with disabilities. ELL = English
language learners. FRPL = free or reduced-price lunch.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1998–2005
Reading Assessments.
TECHNICAL
TECHNICALAND
ANDDATA
DATA
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
To get a sense of the magnitude of score differences,
figures A-1 and A-2 provide examples of score gaps of
different sizes. For instance, in figure A-1, the score gaps
range in size from 3 points (between White and Asian/
Pacific Islander grade 4 students in 2003) to 49 points
(between non-English language learners and English language learners in grade 4 in 2000).
33
34
The Nation’s Report Card™
TECHNICAL AND DATA APPENDIX
Table A-1. Total number of students assessed and percentage of sampled students identified, excluded, and assessed with
and without accommodations, by students with disabilities and English language learners, grades 4 and 8 public and
nonpublic schools: Various years, 1992–2005
Accommodations not permitted
Student characteristics
Accommodations permitted
1992
1994
1998
1998
2000
2002
2003
2005
6,300
7,400
7,700
7,800
8,100
140,500
187,600
165,700
10
13
16
16
18
19
20
21
Excluded
6
5
9
6
6
6
6
6
Assessed
4
8
7
10
12
13
14
15
Without accommodations
4
8
7
7
10
9
9
9
With accommodations
†
†
†
3
2
4
5
6
7
10
11
10
11
12
13
13
Excluded
4
4
6
4
4
5
4
5
Assessed
3
6
5
6
7
7
8
8
Without accommodations
3
6
5
3
5
4
4
3
With accommodations
†
†
†
3
2
3
4
5
3
4
6
6
8
8
10
10
Excluded
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
2
Assessed
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
Without accommodations
1
2
2
3
5
6
6
6
With accommodations
†
†
†
1
#
1
1
2
9,500
10,100
11,100
11,200
—
115,200
155,200
159,400
10
13
12
12
—
17
17
17
Excluded
7
7
6
4
—
5
5
5
Assessed
4
6
7
9
—
11
12
13
Without accommodations
4
6
7
6
—
8
7
7
With accommodations
†
†
†
2
—
4
5
6
8
11
10
10
—
12
13
12
Excluded
5
6
5
3
—
4
4
4
Assessed
3
5
5
7
—
8
9
8
Without accommodations
3
5
5
5
—
5
4
3
With accommodations
†
†
†
2
—
3
5
5
3
3
3
3
—
6
6
6
Grade 4
Total number of students assessed
SD and/or ELL
Identified
SD only
Identified
ELL only
Identified
Grade 8
Total number of students assessed
SD and/or ELL
Identified
SD only
Identified
ELL only
Identified
Excluded
2
1
1
1
—
2
1
1
Assessed
1
1
2
2
—
4
4
5
Without accommodations
1
1
2
2
—
4
4
4
With accommodations
†
†
†
#
—
#
1
1
— Not available. Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000.
† Not applicable. Accommodations were not permitted in this sample.
# The estimate rounds to zero.
NOTE: SD = students with disabilities. ELL = English language learners. 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. The numbers of students are rounded to the nearest hundred. The percentages presented in the table are based on the number of students selected to be
assessed, which is different from the number of students actually assessed shown in the table. 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, 1992–2005
Reading Assessments.
Reading 2005
35
Table A-2. Percentages of sampled students of each race/ethnicity identified as
students with disabilities and English language learners, excluded, and
assessed, grades 4 and 8 public and nonpublic schools: 2005
Student characteristics
White
Black
Hispanic
14
17
47
Grade 4
SD and/or ELL
Identified
Excluded
4
7
11
Assessed
10
10
36
Without accommodations
4
3
27
With accommodations
5
6
8
13
15
12
SD only
Identified
Excluded
4
7
5
Assessed
9
9
7
Without accommodations
4
3
3
With accommodations
5
6
4
1
2
40
ELL only
Identified
Excluded
#
#
9
Assessed
1
1
31
Without accommodations
1
1
25
With accommodations
#
#
6
Grade 8
SD and/or ELL
Identified
12
17
34
Excluded
4
6
8
Assessed
9
11
26
Without accommodations
3
4
19
With accommodations
5
7
7
SD only
Identified
12
16
12
Excluded
4
6
4
Assessed
8
10
8
Without accommodations
3
4
4
With accommodations
5
7
4
ELL only
Identified
1
1
26
Excluded
#
#
6
Assessed
#
1
21
Without accommodations
#
1
17
With accommodations
#
#
4
TECHNICAL AND DATA
APPENDIX
# The estimate rounds to zero.
NOTE: SD = students with disabilities. ELL = English language learners. 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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
36
The Nation’s Report Card™
TECHNICAL AND DATA APPENDIX
Table A-3. Percentages of sampled students identified as students with disabilities and English
language learners and excluded, grades 4 and 8 public schools: By state, 2005
Grade 4
SD
Overall
excluded
Identified
Nation (public)
7
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
2
3
6
8
5
4
3
13
6
6
3
3
7
5
6
4
9
14
6
6
8
7
3
4
8
5
5
7
4
5
10
6
4
5
8
6
7
5
4
7
5
7
11
4
5
12
4
5
6
2
7
4
State/jurisdiction
Grade 8
ELL
SD
Excluded
Overall
excluded
Excluded
Identified
14
5
11
2
12
15
12
13
9
12
12
17
19
13
10
10
13
16
15
13
14
23
18
13
20
14
14
12
15
13
17
12
19
15
14
15
17
15
13
18
15
15
20
15
15
11
14
13
15
15
13
17
14
16
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
2
19
20
5
33
11
5
4
8
3
9
8
10
3
4
7
2
1
1
4
6
3
7
1
2
3
7
16
3
3
24
7
7
2
1
5
14
3
7
2
4
2
16
10
1
9
9
1
7
5
#
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
15
11
7
3
6
7
1
1
8
3
ELL
Identified
Excluded
Identified
Excluded
5
13
4
6
1
2
2
4
6
3
4
3
11
5
5
4
3
5
4
4
4
7
8
7
4
7
6
3
4
8
5
4
4
2
5
8
6
4
7
7
5
4
3
4
7
3
7
7
5
4
7
4
6
6
3
12
12
11
14
9
9
14
14
15
12
14
11
15
15
15
13
12
16
19
12
18
13
12
9
16
13
14
12
19
16
16
14
15
15
13
15
11
15
20
13
11
12
14
11
19
14
12
17
14
14
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
1
14
13
2
22
7
3
3
6
2
7
5
3
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
6
1
1
4
2
11
1
2
16
5
4
2
1
4
8
1
4
1
2
2
8
8
1
4
6
1
4
4
#
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
#
16
8
6
2
3
4
2
1
# The estimate rounds to zero.
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
NOTE: SD = students with disabilities. ELL = English language learners. 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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
37
Table A-4. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by race/ethnicity, grade 4 public schools: By state, 2005
White
Black
Percentage of students
State/jurisdiction
Percentage Average
of all
scale
students
score
Below
Basic
At or
above
Basic
Hispanic
Percentage of students
At or Percentage
above
of all
Proficient
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
above
Basic
Percentage of students
At or Percentage
above
of all
Proficient
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
above
Basic
At or
above
Proficient
57
228
25
75
39
17
199
59
41
12
19
201
56
44
15
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
58
55
46
69
31
64
69
56
49
49
17
83
55
76
85
74
85
49
97
52
76
71
81
47
76
85
77
47
94
58
31
53
58
88
74
61
71
75
72
54
84
70
40
82
96
61
71
93
77
84
220
225
224
225
225
232
234
235
228
226
224
226
230
223
224
225
222
223
225
232
237
226
231
220
226
228
228
219
228
232
225
232
227
228
230
219
223
229
224
225
226
222
232
226
227
233
228
215
227
227
33
27
30
27
29
21
19
15
25
27
31
26
22
30
29
28
33
30
29
21
15
28
23
34
27
25
25
35
25
21
28
20
26
25
23
33
31
24
30
30
25
32
21
27
28
20
25
39
26
25
67
73
70
73
71
79
81
85
75
73
69
74
78
70
71
72
67
70
71
79
85
72
77
66
73
75
75
65
75
79
72
80
74
75
77
67
69
76
70
70
75
68
79
73
72
80
75
61
74
75
32
36
37
37
37
46
47
46
39
37
37
37
42
35
36
37
33
32
35
45
51
38
43
31
38
39
40
28
39
46
36
43
39
38
41
30
34
42
36
36
37
33
44
38
38
45
40
26
38
38
38
4
5
24
8
5
13
32
23
39
3
1
20
15
5
8
11
48
1
35
9
19
8
51
18
1
8
12
1
17
3
20
27
1
20
10
4
17
8
41
2
25
14
1
1
25
5
6
13
1
188
212
193
194
195
207
201
212
203
199
205
‡
194
197
201
196
203
195
‡
201
211
190
192
190
200
‡
194
192
‡
199
206
207
200
‡
197
197
200
200
197
197
‡
195
206
‡
‡
207
212
202
194
‡
69
42
67
66
62
48
58
46
55
60
51
‡
65
59
58
60
55
65
‡
58
43
69
64
70
57
‡
65
65
‡
58
50
50
59
‡
62
60
55
57
60
60
‡
63
51
‡
‡
51
43
54
66
‡
31
58
33
34
38
52
42
54
45
40
49
‡
35
41
42
40
45
35
‡
42
57
31
36
30
43
‡
35
35
‡
42
50
50
41
‡
38
40
45
43
40
40
‡
37
49
‡
‡
49
57
46
34
‡
8
24
12
10
11
18
12
15
13
12
21
‡
9
12
12
10
15
9
‡
12
20
10
10
7
14
‡
10
10
‡
15
24
17
13
‡
10
10
15
15
15
11
‡
11
15
‡
‡
15
20
15
10
‡
2
5
40
5
49
27
13
9
23
7
3
13
21
4
6
11
2
2
1
8
10
5
5
1
4
2
12
32
2
16
54
18
8
1
2
8
16
6
16
3
2
3
43
12
1
6
13
1
6
11
‡
209
192
212
193
206
203
216
215
203
211
199
199
208
200
203
‡
‡
‡
210
203
‡
204
‡
210
226
202
194
‡
206
199
208
204
‡
211
204
194
203
192
215
‡
199
210
199
‡
218
202
‡
208
204
‡
45
63
45
66
51
55
36
39
54
47
58
56
48
55
54
‡
‡
‡
46
55
‡
51
‡
46
25
55
63
‡
51
57
48
54
‡
43
55
64
56
65
43
‡
64
46
59
‡
35
55
‡
51
52
‡
55
37
55
34
49
45
64
61
46
53
42
44
52
45
46
‡
‡
‡
54
45
‡
49
‡
54
75
45
37
‡
49
43
52
46
‡
57
45
36
44
35
57
‡
36
54
41
‡
65
45
‡
49
48
‡
19
11
21
10
17
15
22
25
14
27
11
14
11
15
14
‡
‡
‡
21
11
‡
18
‡
21
36
12
12
‡
19
14
17
17
‡
24
17
10
19
11
29
‡
13
19
14
‡
26
14
‡
20
16
4
48
252
232
8
18
92
82
70
44
85
19
187
218
71
35
29
65
8
24
9
14
193
219
63
34
37
66
12
26
See notes at end of table.
TECHNICAL AND DATA
APPENDIX
Nation (public)
38
The Nation’s Report Card™
TECHNICAL AND DATA APPENDIX
Table A-4. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by race/ethnicity, grade 4
public schools: By state, 2005—Continued
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Percentage of students
State/jurisdiction
Percentage Average
of all
scale
students
score
Below
Basic
At or
above
Basic
Percentage of students
At or Percentage
above
of all
Proficient
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
above
Basic
At or
above
Proficient
Nation (public)
4
227
28
72
40
1
205
51
49
19
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
7
2
1
10
3
4
3
2
3
65
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
3
5
1
2
1
2
8
2
8
1
7
3
1
1
1
5
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
6
8
#
3
1
‡
206
224
‡
222
231
236
239
230
243
205
‡
230
‡
224
238
‡
‡
‡
239
234
‡
216
‡
‡
‡
‡
212
‡
241
‡
237
221
‡
‡
‡
220
233
219
‡
‡
‡
234
218
‡
239
230
‡
226
‡
‡
50
30
‡
32
20
20
20
24
16
52
‡
25
‡
32
22
‡
‡
‡
17
20
‡
38
‡
‡
‡
‡
44
‡
16
‡
19
37
‡
‡
‡
34
22
36
‡
‡
‡
24
38
‡
16
22
‡
29
‡
‡
50
70
‡
68
80
80
80
76
84
48
‡
75
‡
68
78
‡
‡
‡
83
80
‡
62
‡
‡
‡
‡
56
‡
84
‡
81
63
‡
‡
‡
66
78
64
‡
‡
‡
76
62
‡
84
78
‡
71
‡
‡
19
36
‡
35
42
49
55
43
57
19
‡
44
‡
40
55
‡
‡
‡
55
47
‡
28
‡
‡
‡
‡
24
‡
57
‡
50
31
‡
‡
‡
35
47
29
‡
‡
‡
47
30
‡
53
40
‡
34
‡
1
26
6
1
1
1
1
#
#
#
#
2
#
#
1
2
#
#
#
#
#
#
2
#
#
10
2
1
#
#
11
1
2
9
#
21
3
#
1
#
11
#
#
1
1
#
2
#
1
3
‡
183
‡
‡
213
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
201
‡
‡
‡
‡
190
‡
‡
198
‡
211
‡
‡
‡
‡
201
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
71
‡
‡
46
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
55
‡
‡
‡
‡
67
‡
‡
60
‡
43
‡
‡
‡
‡
56
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
29
‡
‡
54
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
45
‡
‡
‡
‡
33
‡
‡
40
‡
57
‡
‡
‡
‡
44
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
9
‡
‡
23
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
13
‡
‡
‡
‡
8
‡
‡
9
‡
22
‡
‡
‡
‡
14
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
2
7
‡
223
‡
30
‡
70
‡
33
#
1
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
# The estimate rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
NOTE: 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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
39
Table A-5. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by gender, grade 4 public schools:
By state, 2005
Male
Female
Percentage of students
Percentage of students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
above
Basic
Nation (public)
50
214
41
59
27
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
52
51
51
49
50
52
52
49
50
50
50
49
52
50
50
50
52
51
49
48
51
50
49
48
50
50
51
50
52
53
51
50
51
50
50
50
49
50
50
51
53
49
50
50
48
48
50
50
51
51
205
207
203
213
203
221
222
223
217
210
205
218
215
214
218
218
218
208
221
217
230
216
221
200
218
222
219
203
224
221
203
220
213
222
219
211
213
219
212
210
219
210
216
216
223
223
219
211
219
221
49
45
51
42
53
33
33
30
38
47
51
34
38
39
35
36
38
48
31
38
24
39
32
56
35
31
35
53
28
34
53
33
42
30
35
43
42
35
42
46
35
44
40
37
31
31
34
43
36
32
51
55
49
58
47
67
67
70
62
53
49
66
62
61
65
64
62
52
69
62
76
61
68
44
65
69
65
47
72
66
47
67
58
70
65
57
58
65
58
54
65
56
60
63
69
69
66
57
64
68
46
50
186
222
72
29
28
71
State/jurisdiction
At or Percentage
above
of all
Proficient
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
above
Basic
At or
above
Proficient
50
220
34
66
33
22
24
21
26
19
33
34
30
28
22
20
29
28
27
29
30
29
19
31
30
42
29
34
16
30
33
31
17
35
34
17
30
26
33
31
23
26
32
26
23
29
23
26
29
35
34
30
23
31
33
48
49
49
51
50
48
48
51
50
50
50
51
48
50
50
50
48
49
51
52
49
50
51
52
50
50
49
50
48
47
49
50
49
50
50
50
51
50
50
49
47
51
50
50
52
52
50
50
49
49
211
215
211
221
210
227
230
229
222
219
214
225
218
222
224
223
222
211
228
223
233
221
229
208
224
227
224
212
231
226
211
225
221
227
226
217
220
227
221
217
227
218
222
226
230
228
228
218
224
226
45
38
44
33
47
27
25
24
33
37
43
28
37
33
30
32
32
46
27
33
21
35
25
48
31
26
30
43
23
29
44
29
34
26
28
37
34
28
34
39
25
38
32
27
25
26
26
36
30
27
55
62
56
67
53
73
75
76
67
63
57
72
63
67
70
68
68
54
73
67
79
65
75
52
69
74
70
57
77
71
56
71
66
74
72
63
66
72
66
61
75
62
68
73
75
74
74
64
70
73
23
29
26
34
24
41
43
38
33
30
27
37
30
34
37
35
33
22
39
35
45
34
42
21
36
38
36
24
43
40
24
36
33
38
37
27
33
40
34
28
38
30
32
40
42
39
41
28
35
36
9
31
54
50
195
230
63
21
37
79
13
40
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
TECHNICAL AND DATA
APPENDIX
Percentage
of all
students
40
The Nation’s Report Card™
TECHNICAL AND DATA APPENDIX
Table A-6. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch, grade 4 public
schools: By state, 2005
Eligible
Not eligible
Percentage of students
State/jurisdiction
Percentage Average
of all
scale
students
score
Below
Basic
Information not available
Percentage of students
At or
At or Percentage
above
above
of all
Basic Proficient
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
Nation (public)
45
203
54
46
15
53
230
23
77
42
2
218
38
62
32
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
56
38
48
55
56
35
28
36
52
52
47
42
42
41
33
44
49
65
34
31
27
33
29
67
43
36
39
43
20
28
67
49
44
33
37
57
39
36
37
53
41
45
53
36
28
33
38
53
33
37
196
193
192
206
193
208
202
214
209
201
197
210
198
207
208
208
212
200
213
198
211
201
209
196
209
212
205
192
213
203
199
210
202
214
206
205
204
205
197
200
210
200
208
208
210
209
213
206
204
216
60
60
63
50
65
48
55
39
47
57
61
44
59
48
46
47
44
58
42
61
45
57
46
62
47
42
52
66
42
55
58
46
56
40
50
50
52
52
59
57
44
57
48
47
46
48
42
49
52
39
40
40
37
50
35
52
45
61
53
43
39
56
41
52
54
53
56
42
58
39
55
43
54
38
53
58
48
34
58
45
42
54
44
60
50
50
48
48
41
43
56
43
52
53
54
52
58
51
48
61
12
14
12
19
10
20
14
18
19
13
12
21
13
19
20
20
22
12
22
11
19
16
22
11
20
22
16
9
21
17
13
20
14
23
17
17
17
17
13
13
20
14
17
20
21
16
23
17
16
27
41
61
39
45
40
65
72
59
48
48
53
57
58
57
67
56
50
34
64
67
73
66
71
32
55
61
60
56
78
66
28
48
54
67
60
43
57
63
63
47
59
55
46
61
70
67
57
47
66
59
223
223
223
230
224
232
235
233
230
229
221
230
230
227
227
230
228
226
231
231
239
227
232
222
231
232
232
219
231
232
225
234
229
230
233
225
225
233
228
228
231
226
232
229
234
234
231
225
230
228
31
30
31
22
30
21
19
19
23
25
35
22
22
27
26
23
26
25
22
23
14
27
22
31
22
20
20
34
21
22
29
17
25
22
20
27
28
20
26
27
21
27
22
24
20
18
22
28
23
23
69
70
69
78
70
79
81
81
77
75
65
78
78
73
74
77
74
75
78
77
86
73
78
69
78
80
80
66
79
78
71
83
75
78
80
73
72
80
74
73
79
73
78
76
80
82
78
72
77
77
34
35
36
43
36
46
48
43
42
41
33
41
41
39
40
42
39
36
42
43
53
40
45
34
42
44
45
30
43
46
36
46
41
42
45
35
37
46
40
40
42
37
44
41
46
47
44
36
42
39
2
1
14
#
4
#
#
5
1
#
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
1
2
3
#
1
#
1
2
2
1
1
2
6
4
3
1
1
3
#
4
1
#
#
#
#
1
4
2
#
5
#
1
4
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
228
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
223
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
24
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
35
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
76
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
65
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
38
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
35
76
#
183
‡
75
‡
25
‡
6
‡
23
#
215
‡
41
‡
59
‡
29
‡
2
100
‡
226
‡
25
‡
75
‡
36
# The estimate rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
41
Table A-7. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by students with disabilities (SD), grade 4 public schools:
By state, 2005
SD
Not SD
Percentage of students
State/jurisdiction
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
Percentage of students
At or
above
Basic
At or
above
Proficient
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
above
Basic
At or
above
Proficient
10
190
67
33
11
90
220
34
66
32
10
13
8
7
7
10
10
5
15
8
9
7
9
13
11
10
7
11
12
8
14
8
12
9
9
9
13
7
16
11
9
11
14
10
6
13
11
11
18
10
11
5
8
9
11
6
10
12
10
15
165
180
174
176
175
187
189
209
197
191
167
184
190
188
176
187
200
180
200
198
208
194
195
180
206
193
195
185
198
188
175
191
188
202
201
181
194
191
190
189
192
170
197
192
194
211
190
190
189
188
82
75
75
76
79
71
69
47
62
63
85
73
64
68
80
70
60
77
59
58
47
61
61
75
51
67
65
70
62
70
78
68
70
54
54
76
62
65
66
69
66
75
62
63
68
45
68
65
71
71
18
25
25
24
21
29
31
53
38
37
15
27
36
32
20
30
40
23
41
42
53
39
39
25
49
33
35
30
38
30
22
32
30
46
46
24
38
35
34
31
34
25
38
37
32
55
32
35
29
29
7
9
9
8
6
9
10
19
14
15
4
6
15
12
4
11
14
5
13
17
17
14
17
6
20
10
11
10
10
8
7
7
9
16
16
7
13
13
12
9
11
7
12
14
11
22
11
11
9
7
90
87
92
93
93
90
90
95
85
92
91
93
91
87
89
90
93
89
88
92
86
92
88
91
91
91
87
93
84
89
91
89
86
90
94
87
89
89
82
90
89
95
92
91
89
94
90
88
90
85
212
216
210
220
209
228
230
227
223
217
214
225
219
223
226
224
221
213
228
222
235
220
229
207
223
228
225
209
233
228
210
227
222
227
224
219
220
227
222
216
226
216
221
224
231
227
227
218
225
229
43
37
45
35
48
26
25
26
31
40
44
28
35
31
27
30
33
43
25
33
18
35
24
50
31
25
27
46
19
27
46
26
33
25
30
34
34
27
32
40
26
39
34
29
23
27
26
36
29
22
57
63
55
65
52
74
75
74
69
60
56
72
65
69
73
70
67
57
75
67
82
65
76
50
69
75
73
54
81
73
54
74
67
75
70
66
66
73
68
60
74
61
66
71
77
73
74
64
71
78
24
29
25
31
23
40
41
35
33
27
25
35
31
33
37
35
32
22
38
34
48
33
41
19
34
38
37
21
44
41
22
37
33
38
36
28
32
39
34
27
36
28
30
36
42
38
38
28
36
39
9
8
154
194
88
65
12
35
3
7
91
92
195
229
65
22
35
78
12
38
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
NOTE: SD = students with disabilities. 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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
TECHNICAL AND DATA
APPENDIX
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
42
The Nation’s Report Card™
TECHNICAL AND DATA APPENDIX
Table A-8. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by English language learners (ELL), grade 4 public schools:
By state, 2005
ELL
Non-ELL
Percentage of students
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
Nation (public)
9
187
73
27
7
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
18
18
3
31
10
4
3
6
2
8
8
7
2
3
6
1
1
1
2
5
2
6
1
1
3
6
14
2
2
19
5
6
1
1
4
12
2
6
1
3
2
10
9
1
6
8
1
5
4
‡
177
175
205
183
191
193
206
193
182
183
191
176
‡
‡
195
‡
‡
‡
‡
198
‡
199
‡
‡
‡
187
176
‡
‡
182
186
192
‡
‡
192
187
196
172
‡
178
‡
196
191
‡
214
191
‡
202
190
‡
77
81
53
77
71
66
53
68
80
78
69
82
‡
‡
65
‡
‡
‡
‡
61
‡
57
‡
‡
‡
74
83
‡
‡
76
75
70
‡
‡
66
73
58
85
‡
85
‡
65
67
‡
40
70
‡
58
71
‡
23
19
47
23
29
34
47
32
20
22
31
18
‡
‡
35
‡
‡
‡
‡
39
‡
43
‡
‡
‡
26
17
‡
‡
24
25
30
‡
‡
34
27
42
15
‡
15
‡
35
33
‡
60
30
‡
42
29
5
6
177
203
80
56
20
44
State/jurisdiction
Formerly ELL
Percentage of students
At or
At or Percentage
above
above
of all
Basic Proficient students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
90
220
34
66
32
‡
7
4
17
5
7
8
16
7
4
6
6
4
‡
‡
9
‡
‡
‡
‡
11
‡
10
‡
‡
‡
4
3
‡
‡
5
3
7
‡
‡
8
7
16
2
‡
2
‡
8
11
‡
22
6
‡
14
4
99
82
82
97
66
90
96
97
91
98
92
92
92
98
97
94
99
99
99
98
94
98
94
99
99
97
93
86
98
98
81
90
93
99
99
95
88
98
94
99
97
98
87
90
98
94
92
99
95
95
208
219
214
217
217
227
227
226
222
215
212
225
220
218
222
222
220
209
225
221
233
219
227
205
222
226
224
212
228
224
213
225
219
225
223
215
221
223
219
213
224
215
222
225
227
227
226
215
222
225
47
34
41
37
38
26
28
26
33
41
44
28
34
36
31
32
35
47
29
35
20
36
27
52
32
27
30
42
25
31
42
29
36
28
31
38
33
31
35
42
29
40
32
29
28
27
27
39
31
27
53
66
59
63
62
74
72
74
67
59
56
72
66
64
69
68
65
53
71
65
80
64
73
48
68
73
70
58
75
69
58
71
64
72
69
62
67
69
65
58
71
60
68
71
72
73
73
61
69
73
4
11
95
94
191
228
66
24
34
76
Percentage of students
At or
At or Percentage
above
above
of all
Basic Proficient students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
1
217
38
62
26
23
31
28
30
29
40
40
35
32
27
25
35
32
31
34
34
31
20
35
33
46
32
40
18
33
37
36
23
39
38
24
35
31
36
35
26
33
36
31
26
34
27
32
37
39
38
38
26
34
36
#
#
1
#
2
1
#
#
4
#
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
2
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
#
6
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
2
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
221
‡
‡
‡
209
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
208
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
222
215
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
33
‡
‡
‡
50
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
53
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
33
40
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
67
‡
‡
‡
50
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
47
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
67
60
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
30
‡
‡
‡
20
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
16
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
29
28
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
12
37
#
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
# The estimate rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
NOTE: ELL = English language learners. Formerly ELL = students who passed their state’s English-language proficiency examination within the past 2 years. 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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
43
Table A-9. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by race/ethnicity, grade 8 public schools: By state, 2005
White
Black
Percentage of students
State/jurisdiction
Percentage Average
of all
scale
students
score
Below
Basic
Hispanic
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
60
269
19
81
37
17
242
49
51
11
17
245
45
55
14
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
58
57
49
69
33
65
69
58
51
52
14
87
61
81
89
77
88
52
96
51
77
73
81
48
78
87
84
53
95
59
33
57
61
89
78
62
77
78
74
58
86
75
42
84
96
61
75
94
80
87
263
268
267
266
264
273
272
274
265
268
261
267
272
265
269
271
266
264
270
272
279
268
273
264
270
272
271
261
270
278
264
276
267
272
272
265
267
273
268
267
272
265
270
265
269
275
268
256
271
270
25
20
21
22
25
16
17
11
25
21
28
22
16
23
19
18
23
23
18
19
12
20
15
23
18
15
16
27
19
12
24
13
21
15
17
20
22
16
22
22
14
23
18
24
21
15
22
32
18
17
75
80
79
78
75
84
83
89
75
79
72
78
84
77
81
82
77
77
82
81
88
80
85
77
82
85
84
73
81
88
76
87
79
85
83
80
78
84
78
78
86
77
82
76
79
85
78
68
82
83
31
35
34
33
32
40
42
41
33
35
29
34
39
32
36
39
32
30
39
42
50
34
42
30
36
40
38
29
38
48
33
45
35
38
41
30
36
41
36
34
38
31
39
32
38
45
38
22
40
38
38
5
6
25
8
7
16
32
23
37
2
1
21
13
4
8
9
44
2
40
8
21
8
50
18
1
6
10
2
20
2
18
29
1
17
11
3
15
8
38
1
22
15
1
1
27
6
4
10
1
235
249
242
236
240
254
240
252
238
241
‡
‡
244
241
246
247
248
240
‡
244
253
239
239
237
242
‡
243
240
‡
251
‡
242
240
‡
243
243
245
239
243
242
‡
240
246
‡
‡
251
255
236
236
‡
56
41
47
54
53
35
50
35
53
51
‡
‡
47
51
44
44
42
52
‡
47
35
52
52
56
49
‡
52
51
‡
38
‡
49
51
‡
46
49
47
52
47
50
‡
52
44
‡
‡
37
33
56
56
‡
44
59
53
46
47
65
50
65
47
49
‡
‡
53
49
56
56
58
48
‡
53
65
48
48
44
51
‡
48
49
‡
62
‡
51
49
‡
54
51
53
48
53
50
‡
48
56
‡
‡
63
67
44
44
‡
9
18
12
9
11
18
11
13
11
10
‡
‡
12
10
15
15
15
9
‡
12
18
10
11
7
9
‡
13
12
‡
14
‡
11
10
‡
10
13
18
12
11
11
‡
9
14
‡
‡
16
27
10
9
‡
2
4
37
4
45
24
13
7
21
6
3
10
14
3
4
9
1
2
1
4
10
3
4
1
3
2
8
28
2
14
53
18
5
1
2
7
11
5
14
2
2
2
39
10
1
7
10
1
6
7
‡
254
242
250
239
247
245
253
252
247
242
246
253
247
256
249
‡
‡
‡
256
246
250
244
‡
258
‡
245
241
‡
251
245
250
248
‡
245
247
245
246
237
‡
‡
‡
248
243
‡
259
245
‡
247
256
‡
32
51
39
53
44
46
34
38
41
51
43
35
44
33
40
‡
‡
‡
33
44
39
45
‡
33
‡
46
50
‡
35
45
39
43
‡
47
44
47
45
52
‡
‡
‡
41
48
‡
30
45
‡
43
32
‡
68
49
61
47
56
54
66
62
59
49
57
65
56
67
60
‡
‡
‡
67
56
61
55
‡
67
‡
54
50
‡
65
55
61
57
‡
53
56
53
55
48
‡
‡
‡
59
52
‡
70
55
‡
57
68
‡
20
11
13
10
15
13
16
21
14
15
14
19
17
20
14
‡
‡
‡
23
15
16
14
‡
23
‡
12
11
‡
14
12
16
17
‡
14
13
15
17
9
‡
‡
‡
15
12
‡
23
15
‡
18
21
3
43
301
276
6
12
94
88
74
47
89
22
235
258
58
27
42
73
9
20
6
13
247
268
41
17
59
83
18
30
See notes at end of table.
TECHNICAL AND DATA
APPENDIX
Nation (public)
44
The Nation’s Report Card™
TECHNICAL AND DATA APPENDIX
Table A-9. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by race/ethnicity,
grade 8 public schools: By state, 2005—Continued
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Percentage of students
State/jurisdiction
Percentage Average
of all
scale
students
score
Below
Basic
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
Nation (public)
4
270
21
79
39
1
251
39
61
18
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
7
2
1
12
3
3
3
2
3
68
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
4
5
2
6
1
1
1
1
6
1
6
1
6
2
1
1
2
5
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
4
7
1
3
#
‡
260
‡
‡
264
269
279
276
273
275
246
‡
281
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
283
282
‡
262
‡
‡
‡
‡
263
‡
291
‡
274
275
‡
‡
‡
267
275
257
‡
‡
‡
280
266
‡
282
270
‡
262
‡
‡
29
‡
‡
25
24
12
10
18
21
45
‡
8
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
14
14
‡
28
‡
‡
‡
‡
28
‡
5
‡
18
16
‡
‡
‡
24
18
33
‡
‡
‡
13
23
‡
9
18
‡
27
‡
‡
71
‡
‡
75
76
88
90
82
79
55
‡
92
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
86
86
‡
72
‡
‡
‡
‡
72
‡
95
‡
82
84
‡
‡
‡
76
82
67
‡
‡
‡
87
77
‡
91
82
‡
73
‡
‡
24
‡
‡
33
42
50
42
47
47
16
‡
49
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
58
52
‡
29
‡
‡
‡
‡
32
‡
66
‡
45
46
‡
‡
‡
35
47
26
‡
‡
‡
50
31
‡
52
36
‡
28
‡
1
25
6
1
1
2
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
#
1
2
#
1
#
#
#
1
1
#
#
10
1
2
#
#
11
#
2
8
#
19
2
#
1
#
10
#
#
2
1
#
3
#
1
4
‡
240
240
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
248
‡
‡
‡
‡
240
‡
‡
250
‡
254
‡
‡
‡
‡
245
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
255
‡
‡
251
‡
51
54
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
43
‡
‡
‡
‡
51
‡
‡
38
‡
34
‡
‡
‡
‡
45
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
33
‡
‡
35
‡
49
46
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
57
‡
‡
‡
‡
49
‡
‡
62
‡
66
‡
‡
‡
‡
55
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
67
‡
‡
65
‡
10
12
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
16
‡
‡
‡
‡
7
‡
‡
15
‡
19
‡
‡
‡
‡
13
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
24
‡
‡
15
1
10
‡
274
‡
11
‡
89
‡
41
#
1
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
# The estimate rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
NOTE: 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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
45
Table A-10. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by gender, grade 8
public schools: By state, 2005
Male
Female
Percentage of students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
Nation (public)
50
255
34
66
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
50
50
51
50
50
52
52
48
49
49
53
51
51
51
51
51
50
49
51
51
49
50
51
48
49
51
51
50
51
50
51
50
52
50
49
50
50
50
50
48
50
52
51
49
51
50
50
52
53
50
245
253
249
252
246
261
258
261
249
251
242
258
258
256
261
262
258
247
264
256
269
256
263
246
260
265
261
247
264
266
247
260
251
267
261
254
258
262
256
252
264
255
254
255
262
263
260
250
261
264
45
36
41
37
45
28
30
25
41
39
50
30
30
33
26
27
30
43
24
36
21
32
26
45
29
22
26
42
25
23
43
30
38
20
27
33
31
27
33
39
21
34
35
33
26
26
29
39
29
22
47
51
230
266
64
20
State/jurisdiction
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
24
50
266
24
76
34
55
64
59
63
55
72
70
75
59
61
50
70
70
67
74
73
70
57
76
64
79
68
74
55
71
78
74
58
75
77
57
70
62
80
73
67
69
73
67
61
79
66
65
67
74
74
71
61
71
78
17
21
19
20
17
28
28
25
20
20
14
25
25
23
27
30
25
16
31
25
38
24
31
14
25
30
27
18
32
33
17
28
21
32
30
19
28
31
26
20
29
22
22
22
30
30
29
17
29
30
50
50
49
50
50
48
48
52
51
51
47
49
49
49
49
49
50
51
49
49
51
50
49
52
51
49
49
50
49
50
49
50
48
50
51
50
50
50
50
52
50
48
49
51
49
50
50
48
47
50
260
265
260
263
255
268
270
271
262
263
256
271
269
267
273
271
270
259
276
266
278
266
274
255
270
274
274
258
275
273
255
270
266
274
272
265
268
271
266
262
273
264
263
269
276
273
269
261
273
272
30
24
30
25
35
21
21
15
27
27
34
17
21
21
15
18
19
30
13
26
13
23
15
35
19
15
15
31
15
17
33
20
24
14
18
23
21
19
24
28
14
25
26
21
15
17
20
27
17
16
70
76
70
75
65
79
79
85
73
73
66
83
79
79
85
82
81
70
87
74
87
77
85
65
81
85
85
69
85
83
67
80
76
86
82
77
79
81
76
72
86
75
74
79
85
83
80
73
83
84
27
32
27
31
24
36
40
35
30
30
23
39
37
34
41
40
36
24
46
35
50
33
44
22
36
43
43
27
44
42
22
38
33
41
41
31
37
41
33
29
41
31
30
36
45
41
39
27
42
41
36
80
7
31
53
49
245
276
47
12
53
88
15
44
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
TECHNICAL AND DATA
APPENDIX
Percentage
of all
students
Percentage of students
46
The Nation’s Report Card™
TECHNICAL AND DATA APPENDIX
Table A-11. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch, grade 8
public schools: By state, 2005
Eligible
Not eligible
Percentage of students
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
Nation (public)
39
247
43
57
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
50
31
41
48
45
30
28
30
44
45
42
36
37
36
29
38
45
56
30
28
27
28
27
63
37
32
30
33
16
25
60
45
39
27
32
49
32
31
30
48
35
42
48
33
28
27
30
46
25
28
239
241
242
247
239
248
243
254
246
243
239
256
248
250
255
254
256
244
261
243
256
246
252
241
253
259
253
240
255
252
243
253
244
260
251
252
252
247
243
246
259
246
247
254
255
253
251
245
249
259
51
50
50
43
53
43
47
34
44
48
54
32
41
39
33
35
33
46
27
49
33
43
36
50
36
29
36
51
34
37
46
37
45
27
37
36
38
43
47
45
28
43
43
36
35
35
38
44
41
28
70
#
234
‡
59
‡
State/jurisdiction
Information not available
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
15
59
270
19
81
49
50
50
57
47
57
53
66
56
52
46
68
59
61
67
65
67
54
73
51
67
57
64
50
64
71
64
49
66
63
54
63
55
73
63
64
62
57
53
55
72
57
57
64
65
65
62
56
59
72
11
12
11
16
10
15
12
16
17
12
11
22
15
18
22
21
22
12
27
12
23
14
19
10
18
25
19
12
21
17
12
20
14
24
18
18
21
16
12
13
24
14
14
22
22
18
20
13
19
26
48
66
43
51
50
69
72
68
56
52
58
63
62
63
71
62
53
42
69
66
70
71
73
37
60
66
69
64
82
69
35
50
60
72
61
51
65
68
70
52
65
58
52
67
70
73
63
54
74
72
265
267
265
268
262
272
272
271
264
269
256
269
273
268
272
275
271
264
274
269
280
267
275
266
272
274
274
259
273
276
263
276
267
274
274
267
269
276
269
268
274
268
269
266
274
273
272
263
272
272
24
21
23
20
28
16
17
15
26
20
34
19
16
20
16
15
18
23
15
22
11
21
14
22
16
13
14
29
17
14
25
13
22
13
16
20
21
13
21
21
12
19
20
22
15
17
17
25
17
15
41
‡
8
‡
27
#
249
‡
44
‡
Percentage of students
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
38
3
258
31
69
28
76
79
77
80
72
84
83
85
74
80
66
81
84
80
84
85
82
77
85
78
89
79
86
78
84
87
86
71
83
86
75
87
78
87
84
80
79
87
79
79
88
81
80
78
85
83
83
75
83
85
32
33
32
35
30
39
42
36
32
36
24
38
41
35
39
43
38
30
43
38
52
34
44
33
38
42
41
28
41
45
30
46
35
41
43
33
38
46
37
35
41
35
37
33
44
42
42
30
40
40
2
2
15
#
5
#
#
3
#
3
#
#
1
2
#
#
1
3
2
5
3
#
#
#
3
2
1
3
1
6
5
5
1
1
8
#
3
2
#
#
#
#
#
#
2
#
7
#
#
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
282
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
6
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
94
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
52
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
56
‡
20
‡
3
100
‡
271
‡
16
‡
84
‡
37
# The estimate rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
47
Table A-12. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by students with disabilities (SD), grade 8 public schools:
By state, 2005
SD
Not SD
Percentage of students
Percentage of students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
above
Basic
At or
above
Proficient
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
above
Basic
At or
above
Proficient
Nation (public)
9
226
67
33
6
91
264
25
75
31
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
11
11
8
9
8
7
12
5
13
8
11
9
11
11
12
9
6
8
13
8
13
7
10
5
8
9
11
9
17
13
11
9
13
9
7
12
9
12
17
7
8
5
9
8
15
8
9
11
10
12
207
226
217
211
214
230
231
231
228
226
208
229
231
230
230
235
225
212
237
229
246
230
236
206
230
234
230
214
244
239
214
232
221
243
231
228
224
228
230
224
228
216
223
219
236
240
225
221
230
234
80
69
78
81
79
65
61
63
66
68
85
66
62
63
64
61
67
79
58
64
47
62
57
84
65
60
67
77
47
52
77
64
71
48
62
65
72
65
63
72
68
77
70
76
60
53
67
73
64
59
20
31
22
19
21
35
39
37
34
32
15
34
38
37
36
39
33
21
42
36
53
38
43
16
35
40
33
23
53
48
23
36
29
52
38
35
28
35
37
28
32
23
30
24
40
47
33
27
36
41
5
5
2
2
3
5
11
5
9
5
1
4
7
7
4
8
6
3
7
8
13
9
9
1
4
5
4
3
10
9
3
8
5
9
7
4
5
6
6
4
3
4
5
1
7
12
5
5
6
4
89
89
92
91
92
93
88
95
87
92
89
91
89
89
88
91
94
92
87
92
87
93
90
95
92
91
89
91
83
87
89
91
87
91
93
88
91
88
83
93
92
95
91
92
85
92
91
89
90
88
257
263
258
262
253
267
269
268
260
259
254
268
268
265
272
270
266
256
275
264
278
264
272
253
268
273
272
257
275
274
256
269
264
273
270
264
267
272
267
260
272
262
262
265
275
270
268
259
270
273
32
25
31
26
37
21
21
18
29
30
37
20
21
23
15
18
22
32
13
28
13
24
16
37
20
14
14
32
14
15
33
21
25
13
19
23
22
17
22
30
13
27
27
23
14
19
21
28
19
14
68
75
69
74
63
79
79
82
71
70
63
80
79
77
85
82
78
68
87
72
87
76
84
63
80
86
86
68
86
85
67
79
75
87
81
77
78
83
78
70
87
73
73
77
86
81
79
72
81
86
24
29
25
28
22
34
37
32
27
27
20
35
34
31
38
38
32
21
43
32
48
30
40
20
33
40
38
24
43
42
21
36
30
39
38
28
35
40
34
26
38
27
28
32
43
38
37
24
38
40
11
7
199
236
91
59
9
41
1
6
89
93
243
273
51
13
49
87
13
39
State/jurisdiction
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
NOTE: SD = students with disabilities. 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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
TECHNICAL AND DATA
APPENDIX
Percentage
of all
students
48
The Nation’s Report Card™
TECHNICAL AND DATA APPENDIX
Table A-13. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results, by English language learners (ELL), grade 8 public schools:
By state, 2005
ELL
Non-ELL
Percentage of students
Percentage
of all
students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
Nation (public)
5
224
71
29
4
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
14
12
1
20
5
2
2
4
2
5
4
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
#
2
2
5
#
#
4
2
10
1
1
13
3
3
1
#
3
7
1
3
1
2
1
6
6
1
2
4
1
2
3
‡
234
225
‡
222
229
‡
‡
221
‡
212
241
227
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
222
‡
‡
‡
‡
230
‡
221
‡
‡
224
221
236
‡
‡
‡
235
‡
215
‡
‡
‡
216
234
‡
‡
224
‡
‡
242
‡
59
75
‡
74
69
‡
‡
73
‡
85
48
66
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
74
‡
‡
‡
‡
67
‡
76
‡
‡
70
74
57
‡
‡
‡
58
‡
74
‡
‡
‡
79
60
‡
‡
70
‡
‡
50
‡
41
25
‡
26
31
‡
‡
27
‡
15
52
34
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
26
‡
‡
‡
‡
33
‡
24
‡
‡
30
26
43
‡
‡
‡
42
‡
26
‡
‡
‡
21
40
‡
‡
30
‡
‡
50
2
3
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
State/jurisdiction
Formerly ELL
Percentage of students
At or
At or Percentage
above
above
of all
Basic Proficient students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
93
263
27
73
30
‡
8
3
‡
3
5
‡
‡
5
‡
1
12
6
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
2
‡
‡
‡
‡
2
‡
2
‡
‡
3
4
7
‡
‡
‡
9
‡
3
‡
‡
‡
2
7
‡
‡
5
‡
‡
8
99
86
87
99
75
94
98
98
95
98
95
95
98
99
99
98
99
99
99
100
97
98
94
100
100
96
97
89
99
98
87
88
97
99
100
97
93
99
97
99
98
99
93
94
99
98
96
99
98
97
252
263
259
258
258
267
265
267
257
257
250
265
264
261
268
267
264
253
270
261
275
261
271
251
265
271
268
257
270
270
255
267
259
270
267
260
265
267
263
257
269
259
261
264
269
268
267
255
267
269
37
25
30
31
32
22
25
19
32
33
40
23
25
27
20
22
25
36
18
30
16
27
18
40
24
16
19
32
19
19
34
22
30
16
22
27
24
22
27
33
17
29
28
25
21
21
22
33
23
18
63
75
70
69
68
78
75
81
68
67
60
77
75
73
80
78
75
64
82
70
84
73
82
60
76
84
81
68
81
81
66
78
70
84
78
73
76
78
73
67
83
71
72
75
79
79
78
67
77
82
‡
‡
98
97
238
271
55
16
45
84
Percentage of students
At or
At or Percentage
above
above
of all
Basic Proficient students
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
At or
above
above
Basic Proficient
2
255
34
66
20
22
29
26
26
25
33
34
31
26
25
19
33
31
29
34
35
31
20
38
30
45
29
39
19
31
38
35
25
38
38
22
36
28
36
36
26
34
36
30
25
36
26
28
31
38
36
36
22
35
37
#
#
1
#
5
1
#
#
2
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
#
1
#
9
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
258
‡
‡
‡
250
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
238
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
257
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
243
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
30
‡
‡
‡
43
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
56
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
32
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
47
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
70
‡
‡
‡
57
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
44
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
68
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
53
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
20
‡
‡
‡
19
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
6
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
22
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
9
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
12
38
#
#
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
‡
# The estimate rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
1 Department of Defense Education Activity.
NOTE: ELL = English language learners. Formerly ELL = students who passed their state’s English-language proficiency examination within the past 2 years. 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), 2005 Reading Assessment.
Reading 2005
49
N a t i oTECHNICAL
n a l A s s e s sAND
m e nDATA
t o f APPENDIX
Educational Progress
The Nation’s Report Card™
Reading 2005
October 2005
MORE INFORMATION
The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is
http://nces.ed.gov.
The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
For ordering information on this report, write to
U.S. Department of Education
ED Pubs
P.O. Box 1398
Jessup, MD 20794-1398
or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs
or order online at http://www.edpubs.org
SUGGESTED CITATION
Perie, M., Grigg, W., and Donahue, P. (2005).
The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2005
(NCES 2006–451). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
CONTENT CONTACT
Arnold Goldstein
202-502-7344
Arnold.Goldstein@ed.gov
United States
Department of Education
ED Pubs
8242-B Sandy Court
Jessup, MD 20794-1398
Official Business Only
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Education
Permit No. G-17