Mathematics

Mathematics 2009
N ATI O N A L AS SES SM EN T O F ED U CATI O N A L PRO G RES S AT G R A D ES 4 A N D 8
Institute of Education Sciences
U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2010451
Contents
1 Executive Summary
4 Introduction
7 Grade 4
22 Grade 8
38 Technical Notes
40 Appendix Tables
What is The Nations Report Card?

The Nations Report Card informs the public about the academic achievement of elementary and secondary students in the United States. Report
cards communicate the findings of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), a continuing and nationally representative measure of
achievement in various subjects over time.
Since 1969, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading,
mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and other
subjects. NAEP collects and reports information on student performance at
the national and state levels, making the assessment an integral part of our
nations evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only academic
achievement data and related background information are collected. The
privacy of individual students and their families is protected.
NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences of the
U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is
responsible for carrying out the NAEP project. The National Assessment
Governing Board oversees and sets policy for NAEP.
Photo Credits:
Bonnie Jacobs/iStockphoto; Veer/Corbis; Glow Images/Getty Images; Simon Jarratt/Corbis/Jupiterimages; Media Bakery; Duane Osborn/Somos Images/Corbis; Bill Noll/iStockphoto; Simon Jarratt/
Corbis/Jupiterimages; Veer/Corbis; Medioimages/Photodisc; Andreea Manciu/iStockphoto; Nick M. Do/iStockphoto; Chris Scredon/iStockphoto; Corbis/Jupiterimages; Image Werks/Corbis; Duane
Osborn/Somos Images/Corbis; Stefan Klein/iStockphoto; Ekaterina Monakhova/iStockphoto; Jose Luis Pelaez Inc/Blend Images/Jupiterimages; Corbis/Jupiterimages; Duane Osborne/Somos Images/Corbis;
Jack Hollingsworth/Digital Images/Jupiterimages; Jose Luis Pelaez Inc/Blend Images/Corbis; Zefa/Corbis/Jupiterimages; Vlad Mereuta/iStockphoto; Stretch Photography/Blend Images/Jupiterimages;
Westend61/Corbis; Image Source/Corbis; Andersen Ross/Blend Images/Jupiterimages; Brand X Pictures/Jupiterimages; iStockphoto; Ron Chapple Stock/Corbis; BananaStock/Jupiterimages;
Ron Nickel/Design Pics/Corbis; Bill Noll/iStockphoto; Beau Lark/Corbis; Sean Locke/iStockphoto; Image Source/Jupiterimages; Image Werks/Corbis; Corbis/Jupiterimages; American Images Inc./
Digital Images/Jupiterimages; Jose Luis Pelaez Inc/Blend Images/Corbis; LWA-Sharie Kennedy/Corbis; Thinkstock/Corbis; Media Bakery; Simon Jarratt/Corbis/Jupiterimages; Laurence Mouton/PhotoAlto/
Corbis; Image Source/Corbis; Simon Jarratt/Corbis/Jupiterimages; Corbis/Jupiterimages; Image Source/Corbis; Ragnar Schmuck/Getty Images; Image Source/Corbis; Corbis/Jupiterimages;
BananaStock/Jupiterimages; Glow Images/Getty Images; Ariel Skelley/Blend Images/Jupiterimages; Duane Osborn/Somos Images/Corbis; Julia Nichols/iStockphoto; Image Werks/Corbis; Larry Dale
Gordon/Corbis; Brand X Pictures/Jupiterimages; Duane Osborn/Somos Images/Corbis; Image Werks/Corbis; Stefan Klein/iStockphoto; Veer/Corbis; Pascal Genest/iStockphoto; Corbis/Jupiterimages
Executive Summary
Mathematics scores up since 2007 at grade 8,
but unchanged at grade 4
Nationally representative samples of more than
168,000 fourth-graders and 161,000 eighth-graders
participated in the 2009 National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics. At each
grade, students responded to questions designed to
measure their knowledge and abilities across five
mathematics content areas: number properties and
operations; measurement; geometry; data analysis,
statistics, and probability; and algebra.
fourth-graders in 2009 was unchanged from the score

in 2007. The upward trend seen in earlier assessments
for eighth-graders continued with a 2-point increase
from 2007 to 2009.
A similar pattern of results was seen for students
performing at different achievement levels. The percentages of fourth-graders performing at or above Basic
(82 percent) and at or above Proficient (39 percent) in
2009 were unchanged from those in 2007, but still
remained higher than in the assessment years from
1990 to 2005. The percentages of eighth-graders
performing at or above Basic (73 percent) and at or
above Proficient (34 percent) in 2009 were higher than
those in 2007 and in all earlier assessment years.
Gains in students average mathematics scores seen in

earlier years did not continue from 2007 to 2009 at
grade 4 but did continue at grade 8 (figure A). While
still higher than the scores in the six assessment years
from 1990 to 2005, the overall average score for
Figure A. Trend in fourth- and eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores

Scale score
500
290
280
270
263*
268*
272* 270*
278*
273*
279*
281*
283
238*
240
240
Grade 8
260
250
240
235*
230
220
213*
220*
224* 224*
Grade 4
226*
210
0
90
92
96
00
03
Accommodations not permitted
05
07
09
Year
Accommodations permitted
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 19902009 Mathematics Assessments.
MATHEMATICS 2009
Gaps persist despite gains for some

student groups
Results for student groups were generally similar to those for students overall.
At grade 4, there were no significant
changes in the average mathematics
scores from 2007 to 2009 for students
in different racial/ethnic groups, or
for those attending public or private
schools. Scores for these groups did,
however, remain higher than the scores
in 1990.
There was no significant change at
grade 4 in either the White Black or
White Hispanic score gaps since 2007.
However, greater gains over the years for
Black students than for White students
contributed to a smaller score gap in
2009 than in 1990. The gap between
private and public school students in
2009 was not significantly different
from the gap in 2007, but was narrower
than the gap in 1990.
At grade 8, average mathematics scores
were higher in 2009 than in both 2007
and 1990 for most racial/ethnic groups;
however, gaps between White and Black
students and between White and
Hispanic students showed no significant
change in comparison to either year.
The average score for eighth-grade public
school students increased from 2007 to
2009, and the score for private school
students showed no significant change
over the same period. There was no
significant change in the gap
between the two groups in
comparison to either 2007
or 1990.
THE NATIONS REPORT CARD
GRADE 4
Characteristic
GRADE 8
Since 1990
Since 2007
Since 1990
Since 2007
Asian/Pacific Islander
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
American Indian/
Alaska Native
t
t
t
t
t
p
p
t
t
p
p
Narrowed
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Overall
Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Type of school
Public
Private
Gaps
White Black
White Hispanic
Private Public
t
Narrowed
p Indicates the score was higher in 2009.
t Indicates no significant change in the score or the gap in 2009.

Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
Examples of math skills

for GRADE 4
43% identified parallel and
perpendicular lines
59% divided a three-digit number
by a one-digit number
75% made a pictograph of
given information
Five states and jurisdictions make gains

at both grades 4 and 8
Compared to 2007, average mathematics scores
for public school students in 2009
WA
MT
VT
NH
ID
SD
WY
NV
IN
UT
WV
CO
MO
KY
CT
NJ
DE
MD
DC
RI
increased at both grades in the District of

Columbia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont;
i ncreased at grade 4 only in Colorado,
Kentucky, and Maryland;
DoDEA1
GA
decreased at grade 4 only in Delaware,

Indiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming;
i ncreased at grade 8 only in Connecticut,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri,
Montana, New Jersey, South Dakota, Utah,
and Washington; and
HI
Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).
s howed no significant change at either

grade in 30 states and jurisdictions.
Examples of math skills

for GRADE 8
47% found the change in y given the
change in x for a linear equation
69% identified the side with the same
length in congruent figures
72% determined a quantity based on a
given percent
MATHEMATICS 2009
Introduction
The NAEP mathematics assessment measures students knowledge and skills in mathematics
and students ability to apply their knowledge in problem-solving situations. The results from
the 2009 assessment presented in this report are compared to those from previous years,
showing how students performance in mathematics has progressed over time.
The Mathematics Framework

The National Assessment Governing Board oversees the
creation of the NAEP frameworks, which describe the specific
knowledge and skills that should be assessed. Frameworks
incorporate ideas and input from subject area experts, school
administrators, policymakers, teachers, parents, and others.
NAEP frameworks also describe the types of questions that
should be included and how they should be designed and
scored. Collectively, the questions are to span a range of demands on students thinking. To ensure an appropriate balance
of content along with allowing for a variety of ways of knowing
and doing mathematics, the Mathematics Framework for the
2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress specifies
that each question in the assessment measures one of five
mathematical content areas.
Although the names of the content areas, as well as some of the
topics in those areas, have changed over the years, there has
been a consistent focus across frameworks on collecting information on students performance in five areas: number properties and operations; measurement; geometry; data analysis,
statistics, and probability; and algebra.
Results by Content Area

Average scale scores for each of the five content areas are available in the
NAEP Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
Mathematics content areas

Number properties and operations measures
students understanding of ways to represent,
calculate, and estimate with numbers.
Measurement assesses students knowledge
of units of measurement for such attributes as
capacity, length, area, volume, time, angles, and
rates.
Geometry measures students knowledge
and understanding of shapes in two and three
dimensions, and relationships between shapes
such as symmetry and transformations.
Data analysis, statistics, and probability
measures students understanding of data
representation, characteristics of data sets,
experiments and samples, and probability.
Algebra measures students understanding
of patterns, using variables, algebraic
representation, and functions.
The three levels of mathematical complexity (low, moderate,

and high) described in the framework form an ordered description of the demands that questions make on students thinking.
Mathematical complexity involves what a question asks
students to do and not how they might undertake it. The
complexity of a question is not directly related to its format,
and therefore it is possible for some multiple-choice questions
to assess complex mathematics and for some constructedresponse (i.e., open-ended) questions to assess routine
mathematical ideas.
Reporting NAEP Results

The 2009 mathematics assessment results are based on
nationally representative samples of 168,800 fourth-graders
from 9,510 schools and 161,700 eighth-graders from 7,030
schools. Results for the nation reflect the performance of
students attending public schools, private schools, Bureau
of Indian Education schools, and Department of Defense
schools. Results for states and other jurisdictions reflect
the performance of students in public schools only and are
reported along with the results for public school students
in the nation.
Levels of Mathematical Complexity
Scale scores
Low complexity questions typically specify what a student is to

do, which is often to carry out a routine mathematical procedure.
NAEP mathematics results for grades 4 and 8 are reported

as average scores on a 0500 scale. Because NAEP scales
are developed independently for each subject, scores cannot
be compared across subjects.
Moderate complexity questions involve more flexibility of

thinking and often require a response with multiple steps.
High complexity questions make heavier demands and often
require abstract reasoning or analysis in a novel situation.
The complete mathematics framework for 2009 is

available at http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/
math-framework09.pdf.
In addition to reporting an overall mathematics score for each

grade, scores are reported at five percentiles to show trends
in results for students performing at lower (10th and 25th
percentiles), middle (50th percentile), and higher (75th and
90th percentiles) levels.
Achievement levels
Based on recommendations from policymakers, educators,
and members of the general public, the Governing Board sets
specific achievement levels for each subject area and grade.
Achievement levels are performance standards showing what
students should know and be able to do. NAEP results are
reported as percentages of students performing at or above
the Basic and Proficient levels and at the Advanced level.
As provided by law, NCES, upon review of congressionally
mandated evaluations of NAEP, has determined that achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be
interpreted with caution. The NAEP achievement levels have
been widely used by national and state officials.
NAEP Achievement Levels

Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and
skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.
Proficient represents solid academic performance. Students
reaching this level have demonstrated competency over
challenging subject matter.
Advanced represents superior performance.
MATHEMATICS 2009
Interpreting the Results

Changes in performance over time
National results from the 2009 mathematics assessment
are compared to results from seven previous assessment
years for both grades 4 and 8, while state results from 2009
are compared to results from six earlier assessments at
grade 4 and seven earlier assessments at grade 8. Changes in
students performance over time are summarized by comparing the results in 2009 to 2007 and the first assessment year,
except when pointing out consistent patterns across
assessments.
NAEP reports results using widely accepted statistical standards; findings are reported based on a statistical significance
level set at .05 with appropriate adjustments for multiple
comparisons (see the Technical Notes for more information).
The symbol (*) is used in tables and figures to indicate that
an earlier years score or percentage is significantly different
from the 2009 results. Only those differences that are found
to be statistically significant are discussed as higher or lower.
The same standard applies when comparing the performance
of one student group to another.
When scores significantly increase or decrease from one
assessment year to the next, we are confident that student
performance has changed. However, NAEP is not designed
to identify the causes of these changes. Further, the many
factors that may influence average student achievement
scores also change across time. These include educational
policies and practices, the quality of teachers, available
resources, and the demographic characteristics of the
student body.
Explore Additional Results

Not all of the data for results discussed in this report are
presented in corresponding tables or figures. These and
other results can be found in the NAEP Data Explorer at
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
Accommodations and exclusions in NAEP

Many of the same testing accommodations allowed on state
assessments (e.g., extra testing time or individual rather than
group administration) are provided for students with disabilities or English language learners participating in NAEP.
Accommodations were first made available at the national
level in 1996 and at the state level in 2000. Prior to 1996, no
accommodations were provided in the NAEP mathematics
assessment.
Because providing accommodations represented a change in
testing conditions that could potentially affect the measurement of changes over time, split samples of students were
assessed nationally in 1996 and at the state level in 2000. In
each of these years, one sample permitted accommodations,
and the other did not. Although the results for both samples
are presented in the tables and figures, the comparisons to
these years in the text are based on just the accommodated
samples.
Even with the availability of accommodations, some students
may still be excluded. Variations in exclusion and accommodation rates, due to differences in policies and practices
for identifying and including students with disabilities
and English language learners, should be considered
when comparing students performance over time and
across states. States and jurisdictions also vary in their
proportions of special-needs students (especially English
language learners). While the effect of exclusion is not
precisely known, comparisons of performance results could
be affected if exclusion rates are markedly different among
states or vary widely over time. See appendix tables A-1
through A-8 for the percentages of students accommodated
and excluded at the national and state levels. More information about NAEPs policy on the inclusion of special-needs
students is available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
about/inclusion.asp.
GRADE4
Fourth-graders performance
unchanged from 2007
There has been no significant change in the performance of the nations
fourth-graders in mathematics from 2007 to 2009. State results, however,
show increases in average scores from 2007 to 2009 for eight states and
decreases for four states.
MATHEMATICS 2009
No change in average
mathematics score
since 2007
Figure 1. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores

Scale score
500
240
230
220*
220
224* 224*
240
238*
235*
240
226*
While higher than in the six assessments from 1990 to 2005, the overall
average score in 2009 was unchanged
from the score in 2007 (figure 1). These
results reflect the performance of all
fourth-graders nationally (i.e., those
attending both public and private
schools).
213*
210
0
90
92
96
00
03
05
09
07
Year
As shown in figure 2, there were no

significant changes in scores from
2007 to 2009 for lower-performing
students (at the 10th and 25th percentiles), middle-performing students
(at the 50th percentile), or higherperforming students (at the 75th
and 90th percentiles).
Figure 2. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics percentile scores

Scale score
500
Percentile
280
270
260
253*
250
235*
240
230
214*
220
259*
242*
221*
210
200
193*
199*
190
180
171*
177*
265*
262* 262*
246* 245*
226* 225*
270*
273*
275
275
255*
258*
260
260
236*
239*
242
241
220* 222
221
202
202
182* 182*
75th
248*
227*
216*
204* 203*
90th
205*
197*
200*
50th
Results consistent
across performance
levels
25th
10th
Achievement-level results also showed

no change between 2007 and 2009,
with 82 percent of fourth-graders performing at or above Basic, 39 percent
performing at or above Proficient, and
6 percent performing at Advanced in
both years (figure 3).
184*
170
0
90
92
96
00
03
05
07
Year
09
Figure 3. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level performance

Percent
100
80
60
40
1*
13*
2*
18*
2*
2*
3*
21*
21*
24*
4*
5*
32*
36*
39
39
% at Advanced
% at or above Proficient
% at or above Basic
20
0
50*
59*
64* 63*
65*
77*
80*
82
82
90
92
96
00
03
05
07
09
Year
Accommodations
not permitted
Accommodations
permitted
No significant change since 2007 in performance of racial/ethnic groups

As was seen in the results for fourthgraders overall, there were no significant
changes in scores between 2007 and
2009 for any of the five racial/ethnic
groups (figure 4). Scores for White,
Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific
Islander students in 2009 did, however,
remain higher than those from the
assessment years prior to 2007. The
apparent increase in the score for
American Indian/Alaska Native students in comparison to 1996 was not
found to be statistically significant.
Figure 4. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by race/ethnicity
White and Asian/Pacific Islander

students continued to score higher on
average than Black, Hispanic, and
American Indian/Alaska Native
students in 2009. Asian/Pacific Islander
students also scored higher on average
than White students.
96
Year
220*
90
227*
231*
232*
234*
92
96
00
03
05
07
09
188*
90
92
193*
199*
198*
203*
00
03
05
07
09
Information is available on achievementlevel results for racial/ethnic groups and

other reporting categories at http://
nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/.
BLACK
216*
220*
222
222
200*
202*
205*
207*
208*
90
92
96
Achievement-Level Results
WHITE
243*
246*
248
248
00
03
05
07
09
HISPANIC
222*
226*
227
227
225*
90
92
231*
226*
229*
96
ASIAN/
PACIFIC ISLANDER
246*
251*
253
255
03
05
07
09
217
96
00
208*
AMERICAN INDIAN/
ALASKA NATIVE
223
226
228
225
03
05
07
09
0
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
500
Scale score

NOTE: Special analysis raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2000;
therefore, they are omitted from this figure. Sample sizes were insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska
Native students in 1990, 1992, and 1996 (accommodations not permitted sample). Black includes African American, Hispanic includes
Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.
MATHEMATICS 2009
Racial/ethnic gaps
persist
Figure 5. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps, by
selected racial/ethnic groups
Scale score
500
250
243*
240
230
220*
227*
220
210
32*
200
35*
190
193*
188*
90
234*
231* 232*
27*
31*
32* 34*
199*
92
216*
248
248
246*
WHITE
26 26
26
SCORE GAP
BLACK
222
222
220*
203*
198*
96
00
03
05
07
09
The 26-point score gap in mathematics

scores between White and Black students in 2009 was not significantly
different from the gap in 2007, but was
narrower than in 1990 (figure 5). The
21-point score gap between White and
Hispanic students in 2009 was not
found to be significantly different from
the gaps in either 2007 or 1990.
Year
Scale score
500
250
243*
240
230
220*
220
210
200
190
0
20
200*
90
227*
25*
202*
234*
231* 232*
27*
27 25
227
226*
SCORE GAP
HISPANIC
227
208*
205* 207*
92
222*
WHITE
21 21
20
22
248
248
246*
96
00
03
05
07
09
Year

NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are
calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores.
Table 1.Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by

race/ethnicity: Various years, 19902009
Race/ethnicity
19901 19921 1996
2000
2003
2005
2007
2009
White
75*
73*
66*
64*
60*
58*
57*
56
Black
18*
17*
16
16
17
16
16
16
Hispanic
6*
6*
11*
15*
18*
19*
20
21
Asian/Pacific
Islander
1*
2*
4*
American Indian/
Alaska Native
1*
1*
Reporting standards not met. Special analysis raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students
in 2000; therefore, they are omitted from this table.
1
Accommodations were not permitted in this assessment year.
NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.
Detail may not sum to totals because results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified.
The proportion of fourth-graders

in each of the five racial/ethnic
groups NAEP reports on has
remained relatively stable since
2007 (table 1). However, in
comparison to the first assessment in 1990, the percentage of
White students decreased from
75 to 56 percent, the percentage
of Hispanic students increased
from 6 to 21 percent, and the
percentage of Asian/Pacific
Islander students increased
from 1 to 5 percent.
10
Male students score higher than female students

Average mathematics scores for male
and female students in 2009 remained
unchanged from 2007. Male students
continued to score 2 points higher on
average than female students in 2009
(figure 6).
Figure 6. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps, by gender
Scale score
500
250
239*
236*
240
230
221*
220
214*
210
213*
200
227*
222* 223*
224*
3 #
90
92
96
00
190
0
219*
226* 224*
237*
233*
3*
03
241
241
239
239
05
07
09
MALE
FEMALE
SCORE GAP
Year
# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Score differences were not found to be
statistically significant in 1990, 1992, 1996 (accommodations permitted), and 2000.
Private school students outperform public school students

public schools was 7 points lower than
the overall score for students attending
private schools, and 6 points lower
than for students in Catholic schools
specifically (figure 7).
It is important to note there may be

many reasons why private school
students perform differently, on average, from public school students.
Differences in demographic composition, availability of resources, admissions policies, parental involvement,
and other factors not measured in
NAEP can influence average student
achievement scores.
There were no significant changes in the

average scores for students attending
public schools, private schools, or
Catholic schools from 2007 to 2009.
The 7-point score gap between private
and public school students in 2009 was
not significantly different from the gap
In 2009, the average mathematics

score for fourth-graders attending
in 2007 but was smaller than the gap

in 1990.
Ninety-one percent of fourth-graders
attended public schools in 2009, and
9 percent attended private schools,
including 4 percent in Catholic schools.
The proportions of students attending
public and private schools have not
changed significantly in comparison
to either 2007 or 1990.
Figure 7. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by type of school

Scale score
500
260
250
240
230
224*
220
219*
210
212*
90
228*
228*
219*
92
237* 235*
232* 232*
222* 222*
96
246
244
238*
244
244
237*
234*
246
239
237*
246
245
PRIVATE
239
PUBLIC
CATHOLIC
224*
00
03
05
07
09
Year

NOTE: Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian private schools. Results are not shown for private
schools in 2005 because the participation rates fell below the required standard for reporting.
MATHEMATICS 2009
11
Results by family income level show no change since 2007

NAEP uses students eligibility for the
National School Lunch Program as an
indicator of low income. Students from
lower-income families are eligible for
either free or reduced-price school
lunches, while students from higherincome families are not (see the
Technical Notes for eligibility criteria).
Figure 8. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by

eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch
Students who were not eligible have

typically scored higher on average than
those eligible for reduced-price lunch,
who in turn scored higher than those
eligible for free lunch (figure 8). The
scores for all three groups showed no
significant change from 2007 to 2009,
but remained higher than in 2003.
230
Scale score
500
260
250
244*
240
230*
220*
220
Eligible for free lunch

Eligible for reduced-price lunch
250
234
236
235
224*
225
226
NOT ELIGIBLE
ELIGIBLE FOR REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH
ELIGIBLE FOR FREE LUNCH
03
05
07
09
Year
2003
2005
2007
2009
33*
35*
36*
38
8*
7*
52*
49
Not eligible
50
Information not available
10*

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
249
210
Table 2. Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP

mathematics, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school
lunch: Various years, 200309
Eligibility status
248*
50
8*
Some changes were seen since 2007 in the

proportion of fourth-graders eligible for the
National School Lunch Program. The percentage
of fourth-graders eligible for free lunch increased
from 36 percent in 2007 to 38 percent in 2009,
while the percentage of students who were not
eligible decreased from 52 percent to 49 percent
(table 2). There was no change in the percentage of students eligible for reduced-price lunch
from 2007 to 2009.
12
State Performance at Grade 4

NAEP state results make it possible to examine the progress of public school students
in each participating state over time. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
Department of Defense schools participated in the 2009 mathematics assessment.
These 52 states and jurisdictions are all referred to as states in the following
summary of results. State results are also available for six earlier assessments at
grade 4. While all states participated in the assessments since 2003, not all have
participated or met the criteria for reporting in earlier assessment years.
Scores increase since 2007 in eight states and decrease in four states
The map shown below highlights changes in states
average mathematics scores from 2007 to 2009 at
grade 4 (figure 9). While there was no significant
change in the overall average score for fourth-grade
public school students in the nation from 2007 to 2009,
scores did increase in eight states (Colorado, District of
Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, and Vermont) and decrease in four states

(Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming). Scores
were higher in 2009 than in 1992 for all 42 states that
participated and met reporting standards in both years,
including the four states that showed a decline from 2007
to 2009.
Figure 9. Changes in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores between 2007 and 2009
VT
NH
WY
RI
NV
IN
WV
CO
KY
DE
MD
DC
DoDEA1
Score increased
Score decreased
No significant change
1
Department of Defense Education Activity

(overseas and domestic schools).
AK
HI
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.
MATHEMATICS 2009
13
A Closer Look at State Results

Changes in states overall average scores do not always
reflect comparable changes in scores for all student groups.
Among the 12 states listed in figure 10 that showed either an
increase or decrease in the overall average score, most had at
least one racial/ethnic group that maintained the same level
of performance since 2007.
Only the District of Columbia showed increases from 2007
to 2009 for all the student groups with samples large enough
to report results. In the other 7 states where overall average
fourth-grade mathematics scores increased since 2007,
results for racial/ethnic groups showed increases for White
students in Rhode Island, for Black students in Maryland, and
for Hispanic students in Nevada.
In the 4 states where fourth-grade mathematics scores

decreased since 2007, the average score for Black students
in Delaware decreased from 2007 to 2009, and scores for
White students in West Virginia and Wyoming decreased.
Although not shown here, among the 40 states where
mathematics scores showed no significant change since
2007, there was a decrease in the average score for
Hispanic students in Texas.
Additional state results for grade 4 are provided in figure 11,
table 3, and appendix tables A-9 through A-16.
Figure 10. Change in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores between 2007 and 2009, by selected student groups and state/jurisdiction
Race/ethnicity
State/jurisdiction
Overall
White
Black
Hispanic
Nation (public)
Colorado
t
t
Delaware
t
t
t
t
t
t
District of Columbia
Indiana
Kentucky
t
t
Maryland
t
t
t
Nevada
New Hampshire
t
t
t
t
t
Rhode Island
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
t
t
Asian/Pacific
Islander
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Male
Female
Eligible
Not eligible
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
p Score increased
Eligibility for free/reducedprice school lunch
Gender
q Score decreased
p
p
t
t
t No significant change
NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Only states/jurisdictions that showed a significant change in overall scores between 2007
and 2009 are shown.
14
4
Figure 11. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009
State/jurisdiction
Below Basic
Average
score
Nation (public)
239
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
228
237
230
Arkansas
California
Colorado
238
232
243
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
245
239
242
Georgia
Hawaii
236
236
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
241
238
243
Iowa
Kansas
243
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
245
239
229
244
244
252
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
236
249
227
241
244
239
235
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
251
247
230
241
244
245
244
Oklahoma
Oregon
237
238
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
244
239
236
242
232
Texas
Utah
240
240
Vermont
Virginia
248
243
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
242
233
244
Wyoming
242
Other jurisdictions
219
DoDEA1
240
100
Basic
19
43
46
41
43
44
41
39
39
47
46
44
41
44
42
46
45
43
44
49
42
41
36
43
35
47
42
43
44
46
36
39
46
43
43
47
40
49
43
39
42
44
44
46
47
40
38
43
41
49
40
47
30
22
29
20
28
16
14
16
14
22
23
15
20
13
13
11
19
28
13
15
8
22
11
31
17
12
18
21
8
12
28
17
13
9
15
18
20
16
19
22
14
26
15
19
11
15
16
23
15
13
44
80
70
60
33
50
40
30
20
Nation (public)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
24
4
31
25
Arkansas
California
Colorado
5
37
38
8
8
31
35
29
32
36
31
36
36
40
31
21
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
5
5
5
Georgia
Hawaii
5
5
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
7
5
5
Iowa
6
2
7
9
45
12
30
5
42
21
6
6
4
3
10
5
8
5
8
3
5
20
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
5
5
5
3
4
6
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
7
7
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
2
8
4
Wyoming
Other jurisdictions
3
34
10
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
9
3
35
35
40
38
30
32
38
34
29
37
26
34
35
41
35
36
26
37
36
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
11
2
35
40
34
29
46
40
23
10
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
38
35
14
State/jurisdiction
2
32
48
Percentage below Basic and at Basic
Advanced
22
39
14
90
Proficient
4
30
40
DoDEA1
50
60
100
Percentage at Proficient and Advanced

NOTE: The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment.
1
MATHEMATICS 2009
15
4
Table 3.Average scores in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years,
19922009
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
DoDEA1

1992
1996
2000
219*
222*
226*
208*
212*
218*
224*
215*
218*
219*
210*
216*
217*
208*
209*
214*
221*
226*
227*
232*
234*
218*
215*
214*
216*
216*
215*
220*
214*
215*
216*
222*
227*
225*
221*
229*
234*
230*
229*
233*
232*
215*
220*
221*
204*
209*
218*
232*
232*
231*
217*
221*
222*
227*
229*
235*
220*
226*
231*
228*
232*
235*
202*
208*
211*
222*
225*
229*
228*
230*
225*
228*
226*
218*
220*
230*
227*
227*
213*
214*
214*
218*
223*
227*
213*
224*
232*
229*
231*
231*
219*
231*
220*
225*
223*
227*
224*
226*
215*
220*
225*
212*
213*
220*
211*
219*
220*
218*
229*
233*
224*
227*
227*
225*
232*
221*
223*
230*
225*
215*
223*
225*
229*
231*
225*
223*
229*
193*
187*
224*
193*
228*
2000
224*
217*
219*
216*
213*
234*
219*
216*
224*
223*
233*
231*
232*
219*
218*
230*
222*
233*
229*
234*
211*
228*
228*
225*
220*
213*
225*
230*
230*
230*
224*
224*
224*
220*
220*
231*
227*
232*
230*
223*
229*
192*
227*
2003
2005
2007
234*
237*
239
223*
225*
229
233*
236
237
229
230
232
229*
236
238
227*
230
230
235*
239*
240*
241*
242*
243
236*
240
242*
234*
239*
242
230*
234
235
227*
230*
234
235*
242
241
233*
233*
237
238*
240*
245*
238*
240*
243
242*
246
248
229*
231*
235*
226*
230
230
238*
241*
242
233*
238*
240*
242*
247*
252
236
238
238
242*
246*
247
223*
227
228
235*
235*
239
236*
241*
244
236
238
238
228*
230*
232*
243*
246*
249*
239*
244
249
223*
224*
228
236*
238*
243
242
241*
242
238*
243*
245
238*
242
245
229*
234*
237
236
238
236
236*
241
244
230*
233*
236*
236
238*
237
237*
242
241
228*
232
233
237*
242
242
235*
239
239
242*
244*
246*
239*
240
244
238*
242
243
231
231
236*
237*
241*
244
241
243
244*
205*
237*
211*
239*
214*
240
Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.
1
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 19922009
Mathematics Assessments.
16
2009
239
228
237
230
238
232
243
245
239
242
236
236
241
238
243
243
245
239
229
244
244
252
236
249
227
241
244
239
235
251
247
230
241
244
245
244
237
238
244
239
236
242
232
240
240
248
243
242
233
244
242
219
240
Assessment Content at Grade 4

To reflect a different emphasis across grade levels, the proportion of the mathematics
assessment devoted to each of the five content areas varies by grade.
40%
Number properties and operations

These questions focus on computation
with or understanding of whole numbers
and common fractions and decimals.
20%
Measurement
These questions focus on customary units
such as inch, quart, pound, and hour, and
common metric units such as centimeter,
liter, and gram, as well as the geometric
attribute of length.
15%
Geometry
These questions focus on simple figures
and their attributes, including plane figures
such as triangles and circles and solid
figures such as cubes and spheres.
10%

These questions focus on students understanding of how data are collected and
organized, how to read and interpret
various representations of data, and basic
concepts of probability.
15%
Algebra
These questions measure understanding of
algebraic representation, patterns, and rules;
graphing points on a line or a grid; and using
symbols to represent unknown quantities.
Because the assessment covered a breadth of content and included more

questions than any one student could reasonably answer, each student took
just a portion of the assessment. The 159 questions that made up the entire
fourth-grade assessment were divided into 10 sections, each containing
between 15 and 19 questions, depending on the balance between multiplechoice and constructed-response questions. Each student responded to
questions in just two 25-minute sections.
Some sections of the assessment incorporated the use of calculators,
rulers, geometric shapes, or other manipulatives that were provided.
Fourth-graders were provided with a four-function calculator to use on
approximately 20 percent of the assessment.
MATHEMATICS 2009
17
NAEP Mathematics Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 4

The policy definitions of achievement levels provided in the Introduction apply to all NAEP subjects. The specific descriptions of what fourth-graders should know and be able to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced mathematics achievement levels are presented below. NAEP achievement levels are cumulative; therefore, students performing at the Proficient
level also display the competencies associated with the Basic level, and students at the Advanced level also demonstrate
the skills and knowledge associated with both the Basic and the Proficient levels. The cut score indicating the lower end of
the score range for each level is noted in parentheses.
18
Basic (214)
Proficient (249)
Advanced (282)
Fourth-grade students performing at

the Basic level should show some
evidence of understanding the mathematical concepts and procedures in
the five NAEP content areas.
Fourth-grade students performing at the

Proficient level should consistently apply
integrated procedural knowledge and
conceptual understanding to problem
solving in the five NAEP content areas.
Fourth-graders performing at the Basic

level should be able to estimate and
use basic facts to perform simple
computations with whole numbers;
show some understanding of fractions
and decimals; and solve some simple
real-world problems in all NAEP
content areas. Students at this level
should be able to usealthough not
always accuratelyfour-function
calculators, rulers, and geometric
shapes. Their written responses are
often minimal and presented without
supporting information.
Fourth-graders performing at the

Proficient level should be able to use
whole numbers to estimate, compute,
and determine whether results are
reasonable. They should have a
conceptual understanding of fractions
and decimals; be able to solve realworld problems in all NAEP content
areas; and use four-function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes
appropriately. Students performing at
the Proficient level should employ
problem-solving strategies such as
identifying and using appropriate
information. Their written solutions
should be organized and presented both
with supporting information and
explanations of how they were achieved.
Fourth-grade students performing

at the Advanced level should apply
integrated procedural knowledge and
conceptual understanding to complex
and nonroutine real-world problem
solving in the five NAEP content areas.
Fourth-graders performing at the

Advanced level should be able to solve
complex nonroutine real-world problems in all NAEP content areas. They
should display mastery in the use of
four-function calculators, rulers, and
geometric shapes. These students are
expected to draw logical conclusions
and justify answers and solution
processes by explaining why, as well as
how, they were achieved. They should
go beyond the obvious in their
interpretations and be able to
communicate their thoughts clearly
and concisely.
What Fourth-Graders Know and Can Do in Mathematics

The item map below is useful for understanding performance
at different levels on the NAEP scale. The scale scores on the
left represent the average scores for students who were likely
to get the items correct. The cut score at the lower end of the
range for each achievement level is boxed. The descriptions
of selected assessment questions are listed on the right along
with the corresponding mathematics content areas.
For example, the map on this page shows that fourth-graders

performing in the middle of the Basic range (students with an
average score of 230) were likely to be able to use place value
to write a number. Students performing in the middle of the
Proficient range (with an average score of 265) were likely to
be able to divide a three-digit number by a one-digit number.
GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS ITEM MAP

Scale score
Content area
Question description

Algebra
Geometry
Measurement
Algebra
Find the median price from a table

Identify the expression that models a scenario
Identify parallel and perpendicular lines
Solve a story problem involving remainders
Indicate measurements on a ruler
Identify the fraction closest to the given value
Reason using equivalences to make and explain a conclusion (calculator available)

Geometry
Measurement
Geometry
Identify a pictorial representation of equivalent fractions

Plot points on a grid to satisfy the given conditions (shown on page 21)
Reason about odd and even numbers
Read and interpret a line graph
Divide a three-digit number by a one-digit number
Identify the figure with the greatest area on a grid
Identify the shape of a shaded region
Determine the probability of a particular event
Measurement
Algebra
Algebra
Geometry
Solve a story problem involving quarts and cups

Subtract a two-digit number from a three-digit number (shown on page 20)
Determine the missing shapes in a pattern
Determine a ratio from a diagram
Determine the value of an unknown in a number sentence
Use place value to write a number
Determine how many given pieces cover a shape
Represent the same whole number in different ways
Make a pictograph of the given information

Measurement
Algebra
Geometry
Measurement
Recognize the result of multiplying by 10

Compute the product of a two-digit number and a one-digit number
Identify an appropriate unit for measuring length (calculator available)
Find the unknown in a whole number sentence
Compute a value using multiplication and division (calculator available)
Identify the figure that is not symmetric (calculator available)
Identify the appropriate measuring device
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
500
300
299
295
291
288
288
285
282
281
277
273
270
265
257
252
250
249
246
243
241
237
233
230
228
222
222
214
207
205
202
199
188
183
176
0
NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice question. The position of a question on the scale represents the average score attained by students who had a
65 percent probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question, or a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a four-option multiple-choice question. For constructed-response questions, the
question description represents students performance rated as completely correct. Scale score ranges for mathematics achievement levels are referenced on the map.
MATHEMATICS 2009
19
Sample Question: Number Properties and Operations

This sample question from the 2009 fourth-grade assessment measures students performance in the number
properties and operations content area. The question asks
students to subtract a two-digit number from a three-digit
number, which requires regrouping to obtain the correct
answer of 226 (Choice A). Students were not permitted to
use a calculator to answer this question.
Approximately two-thirds (67 percent) of fourth-grade
students answered correctly. The most common incorrect
answer (Choice C), which was selected by 14 percent of
the students, is a place-value error that can result from
incorrect regrouping in the tens place. The average score
for students likely to select the correct answer was 243 on
the item map.
Percentage of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2009

Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
Omitted
67
14
11
SAMPLE QUESTION:
301
75
A
B
C
D
226
235
236
374
The table below shows the percentage of fourth-graders

within each achievement level who answered this question
correctly. For example, 64 percent of fourth-graders at the
Basic level selected the correct answer choice.
Percentage correct for fourth-grade students at each achievement

level: 2009
Overall
Below Basic
At Basic
At Proficient
At Advanced
67
33
64
85
94
20 THE NATIONS REPORT CARD
Sample Question: Geometry

This sample constructed-response question measures fourthgraders performance in the geometry content area. It is a
multistep problem that requires students to plot and identify
points in the plane, and to use visualization skills to determine
additional points that could be connected to form a rectangle.
Students were not permitted to use a calculator to answer this
question. Student responses to this question were rated using five
scoring levels.
Extended responses
correctly plotted the three given points, (B,1), (B,3),
and (D,5),
correctly plotted three other points that formed a rectangle
and gave their coordinates, and
connected the dots to form a rectangle.
Satisfactory responses met all of the criteria for an extended
rating, but contained a minor error or omission.
Partial responses correctly plotted the three given points
and partially plotted three other points that formed a
rectangle and gave their coordinates.
Minimal responses plotted three points clearly (either the
given points, the new points, or some combination), or partially met one of the criteria specified for an extended rating.
All other responses were rated as incorrect.
SAMPLE QUESTION:
On the grid below, plot the points that

have coordinates (B, 1), (B, 3), and (D, 5).
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
A B C D E
F G
Plot 3 more points on the grid so that

when you connect all 6 points you will
make a rectangle.
List the coordinates for the 3 new points.
________ ________ ________
Connect the 6 points to show your
rectangle.
The sample student response shown on the right was rated as

Extended because it correctly answered all parts of the question. Twenty-seven percent of fourth-graders responses to this
question received an Extended rating. The average score for
students likely to provide Extended responses was 277 on
the item map.
Percentage of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2009

Extended
Satisfactory
Partial
Minimal
Incorrect
Omitted
27
10
32
24
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because the percentage of responses rated as Off-task is not shown. Off-task
responses are those that do not provide any information related to the assessment task.
The table below shows the percentage of fourth-graders within

each achievement level whose response to this question was
rated as Extended. For example, 16 percent of fourth-graders
at the Basic level provided a response rated as Extended.
Percentage of answers rated as Extended for fourth-grade students

at each achievement level: 2009
Overall
Below Basic
At Basic
At Proficient
At Advanced
27
16
46
73
MATHEMATICS 2009
21
GRADE8
Eighth-graders performance
continues to improve
Improvement in mathematics performance at grade 8 continued into 2009.
The national average mathematics score for eighth-graders was higher in 2009
than in all previous assessment years. Scores also increased from 2007 to
2009 in 15 states, and no states showed a decline.
Eighth-graders post
highest score to date
Figure 12. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores

Scale score
500
290
280
270
263*
268*
278*
273*
272* 270*
281*
279*
Eighth-graders scored higher in mathematics in 2009 than in any previous

assessment year. The upward trend
continued with a 2-point increase since
2007 (figure 12). These results reflect
the performance of eighth-grade students nationally (i.e., those in both
public and private schools).
283
260
0
90
92
96
00
03
05
09
07
Year
Percentile scores were higher in 2009

than in 2007 for all but the lowestperforming students (those at the
10th percentile), where there was no
significant change in the score since
the last assessment (figure 13).
Figure 13. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics percentile scores

Percentile
Scale score
500
330
320
315*
317* 316*
320*
307*
310
300
288*
290
294*
280
270
264*
269*
300*
298* 297*
275*
273* 273*
260
250
239*
240
230
215*
220
243*
221*
248*
249*
245*
224*
323*
324*
303*
304*
279*
280*
254*
255*
230*
231*
327*
329
306*
308
283*
284
258*
259
235
236
90th
Gains consistent across

performance levels
75th
50th
Improvement was also seen in the

achievement-level results. The percentages of students performing at or above
Basic, at or above Proficient, and at
Advanced all showed increases of 1 to 2
percentage points from 2007 to 2009
(figure 14).
25th
10th
223*
221*
210
0
90
92
96
00
03
05
09
07
Year
Figure 14. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level performance

Percent
100
80
60
2*
40
15*
3*
4*
4*
5*
21*
24*
23*
26*
5*
6*
7*
29*
30*
32*
34
% at Advanced
% at or above Proficient
% at or above Basic
20
0
52*
58*
62* 61*
63*
68*
69*
71*
73
90
92
96
00
03
05
07
09
Year
Accommodations
not permitted
Accommodations
permitted
MATHEMATICS 2009
23
Most racial/ethnic groups continue to make gains

Most racial/ethnic groups made gains
since 2007 (figure 15). Average scores
for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/
Pacific Islander students were higher in
2009 than in 2007. The score in 2009
for American Indian/Alaska Native
students was not found to be significantly different from the scores in any of the
earlier assessments.
In 2009, both White and Asian/Pacific
Islander students scored higher on
average than Black, Hispanic, and
American Indian/Alaska Native students.
The average score for Asian/Pacific
Islander students was also 8 points
higher than the score for White students.
Figure 15. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by race/ethnicity

Year
270*
90
92
277*
281*
281*
284*
288*
289*
291*
293
96
00
03
05
07
09
WHITE
237*
237*
242*
240*
244*
90
92
96
00
03
05
07
09
BLACK
252*
255*
260*
261
246*
249*
251*
251*
253*
90
92
96
00
03
05
07
09
HISPANIC
259*
262*
265*
266
275*
90
92
00
03
05
07
09
290
288*
291*
295*
297*
301
ASIAN/
PACIFIC ISLANDER
259
00
03
05
07
09
263
264
264
266
0
240
250
260
270
AMERICAN INDIAN/
ALASKA NATIVE
280
290
300
500
Scale score

NOTE: Special analysis raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander
students in 1996; therefore, they are omitted from this figure. Sample sizes were insufficient to permit reliable
estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 1990, 1992, and 1996. Black includes African American,
Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.
Racial/ethnic gaps
persist
Figure 16. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps, by
selected racial/ethnic groups
Scale score
500
290
280
270
284*
281* 281*
277*
288*
270*
260
33 40*
250
40*
39* 41*
252*
240
237*
230
0
90
237*
92
242*
WHITE
32 32
34*
35*
293
291*
289*
BLACK
261
260*
255*
SCORE GAP
244*
240*
96
00
03
05
07
09
Year
Achievement-Level Results
Scale score
500
300
290
280
277*
24
28
249*
246*
90
31*
30 30
92
293
291*
289*
WHITE
26 26
29* 27
259*
250
240
288*
284*
281* 281*
270*
270
260
Significant score gaps persisted between

White students and their Black and
Hispanic peers in 2009. Because all
three racial/ethnic groups have made
progress, neither the White Black nor
the White Hispanic score gap in 2009
was significantly different from the
corresponding gaps in 2007 or 1990
(figure 16).
HISPANIC
266
265*
262*
SCORE GAP
Information is available on achievementlevel results for racial/ethnic groups and

other reporting categories at http://
nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/.
253*
251* 251*
96
00
03
05
07
09
Year

NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are calculated
based on differences between unrounded average scores.
Table 4. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by
race/ethnicity: Various years, 19902009
Race/ethnicity
19901 19921 1996
2000
2003
2005
2007
2009
White
73*
73*
69*
65*
63*
61*
59*
58
Black
16
16*
17
16
16*
16*
16*
15
Hispanic
7*
8*
10*
13*
15*
16*
18*
20
Asian/Pacific
Islander
2*
2*
4*
4*
5*
American Indian/
Alaska Native
1*
Reporting standards not met. Special analysis raised concerns about the accuracy and precision of the results for Asian/Pacific Islander students
in 1996; therefore, they are omitted from this table.
1
NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. The
percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students in 2007 (1.27) was significantly different from the percentage in 2009 (1.11). Detail may not sum to
totals because results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified.
The percentage of White students

decreased from 59 percent in 2007
to 58 percent in 2009, and the
percentage of Black students
decreased from 16 to 15 percent
(table 4). In contrast, the percentage of Hispanic students increased
from 18 to 20 percent over the
same period. In comparison to
1990, the percentage of White
students was lower in 2009, and
the percentages of Hispanic and
Asian/Pacific Islander students
were higher.
MATHEMATICS 2009
25
Scores increase for both

male and female
students
Average mathematics scores increased
from 2007 to 2009 for both male and
female students (figure 17). Because the
increases since 2007 were comparable
for both groups, the 2-point score gap
between male and female students in
2009 was not significantly different from
the gap in 2007.
Public and Catholic

school students make
gains since 2007
The average mathematics score for
eighth-graders attending public school
was 2 points higher in 2009 than in 2007
(figure 18). While there was no significant change from 2007 to 2009 in the
average score for students attending
private schools overall, there was an
increase in the score for students attending Catholic schools.
Although the average scores for public
and private school students in 2009 were
both higher than in 1990, the 14-point gap
between the two groups in 2009 was not
significantly different from the gap in any
of the previous assessment years in which
results were reported for both groups.
Figure 17. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps, by gender
Scale score
500
300
290
280
270
263*
260
269*
268*
272*
271*
272*
269*
274*
272*
278*
280*
282*284
277*
278*
280*
MALE
282
FEMALE
262*
250
240
0
90
92
2
96
00
03
05
07
09
SCORE GAP
Year

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Score differences were not found to be
statistically significant in 1990, 1992, 1996, and 2000. Score gaps reflect the average scores for male students minus the scores for
female students.
Figure 18. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by type of school
Scale score
500
300
290
280
270
260
281*
271*
271*
262*
278*
267*
284* 285*
285*
283*
286*
271* 269*
272*
293
292*
289*
290*
292*
276*
278*
280*
284*
297
CATHOLIC
296
PRIVATE
282
PUBLIC
250
0
90
92
96
00
03
05
07
09
Year

NOTE: Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian private schools. Results are not shown for private schools
in 2005 because the participation rates fell below the required standards for reporting.
Ninety-one percent of eighth-graders

attended public schools in 2009, and
9 percent attended private schools,
including 5 percent in Catholic schools.
The proportions of students attending
public and private schools have not
changed significantly in comparison to
either 2007 or 1990.
Scores increase across

income levels
Scores were higher in 2009 than in 2007
both for students who were eligible for
free and reduced-price school lunch, as
well as for students who were not eligible
(figure 19). As was seen in the results for
grade 4, eighth-graders who were not
eligible for free or reduced-price school
lunch scored higher on average than
those who were eligible, and students
eligible for reduced-price lunch scored
higher than those eligible for free lunch.
Figure 19. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by
eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch
Scale score
500
300
290
280
270
260
287*
288*
271*
270*
260*
256*
294
291*
274*
276
263*
265
NOT ELIGIBLE
ELIGIBLE FOR REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH

ELIGIBLE FOR FREE LUNCH
250
0
03
05
07
09
Year
Table 5. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by
eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: Various years, 200309
Eligibility status
Eligible for free lunch
2003
2005
2007
2009
26*
29*
32*
34
7*
7*
Not eligible
55*
56*
55*
54
11*
8*
Eligible for reduced-price lunch

About 40 percent of eighth-graders

were eligible for free or reduced-price
school lunch in 2009 (table 5). Since
2007, the percentage of students who
were eligible for free lunch increased
by 2 percentage points, while the
percentage of students who were not
eligible decreased by 1 percentage
point.
MATHEMATICS 2009
27
M-br03-gr8-LOC.eps
Scores increase for students in city and rural schools

Students performance on the mathematics assessment differed based on
the location of the schools they attended. In 2009, students attending schools
in suburban locations scored the
highest on average (figure 20). Those
in rural schools scored higher on
average than students attending
schools in cities and towns. See the
Technical Notes for more information
on how these school location categories
were defined.
Score gains since 2007 varied by school
location. Average scores were higher
in 2009 than in 2007 for students
attending schools in city and rural
locations, but showed no significant
change for students whose schools
were located in suburbs or towns.
Figure 20. Average scores in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics, by
school location: 2007 and 2009
Year
City
07
09
275*
279
Suburb
286
287
07
09
Town
280
279
07
09
Rural
282*
284
07
09
0
240
250
270
280
290
300
500
Scale score
Table 6. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade
NAEP mathematics, by school location: 2007 and 2009
School location
260
2007
2009
City
29
29
Suburb
37
37
Town
13
13
Rural
21
22
In 2009, a higher proportion of eighth-graders

(37 percent) attended schools in suburban
locations than in other locations (table 6). The
proportion of students in each type of location
has remained stable over time, with no significant
changes detected in the percentages of students
attending schools in any of the four categories
from 2007 to 2009.
State Performance at Grade 8

All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Department of Defense schools
participated in the 2009 mathematics assessment. These 52 states and
jurisdictions are all referred to as states in the following summary of results.
State results are also available for seven earlier assessments at grade 8. While all
states participated in the assessments since 2003, not all have participated or met
the criteria for reporting in earlier assessment years.
Scores increase since 2007 for public school students in 15 states,

and no states show a decline
The map shown below highlights changes in states
average mathematics scores from 2007 to 2009 at
grade 8 (figure 21). While the overall average score for
eighth-grade public school students in the nation was
higher in 2009 than in 2007, increases were seen in less
than one-third of the states. Scores were higher in 2009
than in 2007 for 15 states, and scores showed no

significant change in the remaining states. No states
showed a decline since 2007. In comparison to the
results in 1990, scores were higher in 2009 for all
38 states that participated in both years.
Figure 21. Changes in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores between 2007 and 2009
WA
MT
VT
NH
ID
SD
NJ
NV
CT
RI
UT
DC
MO
DoDEA1
Score increased
GA
No significant change
1
Department of Defense Education Activity

(overseas and domestic schools).
AK
HI
MATHEMATICS 2009
29
A Closer Look at State Results

Not all student groups made gains in states where overall
eighth-grade mathematics scores increased from 2007 to
2009. Results by students eligibility for free/reduced-price
school lunch showed higher scores in 2009 than in 2007 both
for students who were eligible and for those who were not
eligible in 6 of the 15 states shown in figure 22 with overall
score gains. Scores increased just for eligible students in
Nevada, and just for students who were not eligible in
Hawaii, Idaho, South Dakota, Vermont, and Washington.
Although not shown here, among the 37 states where mathematics scores showed no significant change since 2007,
scores increased for students who were eligible for the school
lunch program in Florida, and for students who were not eligible
in Arizona, Arkansas, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, and
Wisconsin.
Additional state results for grade 8 are provided in figure 23,
table 7, and appendix tables A-17 through A-24.
Figure 22.Change in eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores between 2007 and 2009, by selected student groups and state/jurisdiction
Race/ethnicity
State/jurisdiction
Overall
White
Black
Hispanic
Nation (public)
Connecticut
t
t
t
t
Georgia
Hawaii
t
t
Idaho
t
t
t
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Rhode Island
t
t
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Washington
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Eligibility for free/reducedprice school lunch
Gender
Asian/ Pacific
Islander
Male
Female
Eligible
Not eligible
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
p Score increased
t
t
t
t
t
p
p
t No significant change
NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Only states/jurisdictions that showed a significant change in overall scores between 2007
and 2009 are shown.
8
Figure 23.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009
State/jurisdiction
Average
score
Nation (public)
282
Alabama
Alaska
269
283
Arizona
Arkansas
California
277
276
270
Colorado
Connecticut
287
289
Delaware
Florida
284
279
Georgia
Hawaii
278
274
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
287
282
287
284
289
279
272
286
288
299
278
294
265
286
292
284
274
292
293
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
270
283
284
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
293
286
276
285
288
278
280
291
Tennessee
Texas
275
287
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
284
293
286
Washington
289
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
270
288
286
Other jurisdictions
DoDEA1
254
287
Below Basic
Basic
29
39
38
41
38
40
36
36
38
44
41
40
40
40
40
42
42
40
43
42
42
35
34
37
36
39
41
39
40
38
38
36
39
39
38
43
40
44
38
38
41
39
41
39
41
40
38
41
39
41
40
43
42
25
33
33
41
24
22
25
30
33
35
22
27
22
24
21
30
38
22
25
15
32
17
46
23
18
25
37
18
20
41
27
26
14
24
32
25
22
32
31
17
35
22
25
19
24
22
39
21
22
60
90
80
70
60
25
50
40
30
20
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)
Alabama
Alaska
27
6
23
6
23
4
18
5
30
10
30
10
26
6
23
6
21
5
21
4
30
8
26
7
29
7
27
7
31
8
22
5
16
4
27
8
28
12
34
17
24
7
34
13
14
2
29
7
34
10
27
8
20
5
32
11
30
14
17
3
26
8
26
9
36
7
28
8
20
3
28
8
30
10
22
6
23
7
34
7
21
4
28
8
29
7
31
13
27
8
29
11
17
2
31
8
28
7
9
30
10
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
DoDEA1
43
Percentage below Basic and at Basic
Advanced
17
29
21
100
Proficient
10
6
20
30
40
50
60
100
Percentage at Proficient and Advanced

NOTE: The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
1
MATHEMATICS 2009
31
8
Table 7.Average scores in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 19902009
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
DoDEA1
1990
262*
253*
260*
256*
256*
267*
270*
261*
255*
259*
251*
271*
261*
267*
278*
257*
246*
261*
264*
275*
280*
276*
273*
270*
256*
261*
250*
281*
264*
263*
271*
266*
260*
258*
264*
256*
274*
272*
231*

1992
1996
267*
271*
252*
257*
278*
265*
268*
256*
262*
261*
263*
272*
276*
274*
280*
263*
267*
260*
264*
259*
262*
257*
262*
275*
270*
276*
283
284
262*
267*
250*
252*
279*
284
265*
270*
273*
278*
267*
277
282*
284*
246*
250*
271*
273*
283*
278*
283
278*
272*
260*
262*
266*
270*
258*
268*
283*
284*
268*
268*
276*
271*
266*
269*
261*
261*
259*
263*
265*
270*
274*
277*
279*
268*
270*
276*
259*
265*
278*
283*
275*
275*
235*
233*
274*
2000
274*
262*
271*
261*
262*
282*
266*
263*
278*
277*
283*
284*
272*
259*
284
276*
283*
278
288*
254*
274*
287*
281*
268*
260*
276*
280*
283*
283
272*
281*
273*
266*
263*
275*
275*
283*
277*
271
277*
2000
272*
264*
269*
257*
260*
281*
265*
262*
277*
275*
281*
283*
270*
259*
281*
272*
279*
277
287*
254*
271*
285*
280*
265*
259*
271*
276*
282*
281*
270*
280*
269*
265*
262*
273*
274*
281*
275*
266*
276*
234*
278*
235*
277*
2003
2005
2007
276*
278*
280*
262*
262*
266
279*
279*
283
271*
274
276
266*
272*
274
267
269
270
283*
281*
286
284*
281*
282*
277*
281*
283
271*
274*
277
270*
272*
275*
266*
266*
269*
280*
281*
284*
277*
278*
280
281*
282*
285
284
284
285
284*
284*
290
274*
274*
279
266*
268*
272
282*
281*
286
278*
278*
286
287*
292*
298
276
277
277
291*
290*
292
261*
262
265
279*
276*
281*
286*
286*
287*
282
284
284
268*
270*
271*
286*
285*
288*
281*
284*
289*
263*
263*
268
280
280
280
281
282
284
287*
287*
292
282*
283
285
272*
271*
275
281*
282
284
279*
281*
286
272*
272*
275*
277
281
282
285*
287*
288*
268*
271*
274
277*
281*
286
281*
279*
281*
286*
287*
291*
282*
284
288
281*
285*
285*
271
269
270
284*
285*
286
284*
282*
287
243*
285*
245*
284*
248*
285
2009
282
269
283
277
276
270
287
289
284
279
278
274
287
282
287
284
289
279
272
286
288
299
278
294
265
286
292
284
274
292
293
270
283
284
293
286
276
285
288
278
280
291
275
287
284
293
286
289
270
288
286
254
287
1
Assessment Content at Grade 8

The distribution of items among the five content areas reflects the relative emphasis in
each area specified in the mathematics framework for each grade.
20%

These questions measure computation
with rational and common irrational
numbers, and ratios and proportions.
15%
Measurement
These questions focus on the use of square
units for measuring area and surface area,
cubic units for measuring volume, degrees
for measuring angles, and rates.
20%
Geometry
These questions focus on properties of
plane figures, especially parallel and
perpendicular lines, angle relations in
polygons, cross sections of solids, and the
Pythagorean theorem.
15%

These questions focus on organizing and
summarizing data (including tables, charts,
and graphs), analyzing statistical claims,
and probability.
30%
Algebra
These questions measure understanding of
patterns and functions; algebraic expressions, equations, and inequalities; and
algebraic representations, including graphs.
The 159 questions that made up the entire eighth-grade mathematics

assessment were divided into 10 sections, each containing between 14
and 18 questions, depending on the balance between multiple-choice and
constructed-response questions. Each student responded to questions in
just two 25-minute sections.
Some sections incorporated the use of a calculator, ruler/protractor, geometric shapes, or other manipulatives that were provided. Eighth-graders
were permitted to use their own scientific or graphing calculator or were
provided with a scientific calculator to use on approximately 30 percent
of the assessment.
MATHEMATICS 2009
33
NAEP Mathematics Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 8

The policy definitions of achievement levels provided in the Introduction apply to all NAEP subjects. The specific descriptions of what eighth-graders should know and be able to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced mathematics achievement levels are presented below. NAEP achievement levels are cumulative; therefore, students performing at the Proficient
level also display the competencies associated with the Basic level, and students at the Advanced level also demonstrate
the skills and knowledge associated with both the Basic and the Proficient levels. The cut score indicating the lower end of
the score range for each level is noted in parentheses.
Basic (262)
Proficient (299)
Advanced (333)
Eighth-grade students performing at

the Basic level should exhibit evidence
of conceptual and procedural understanding in the five NAEP content areas.
This level of performance signifies
an understanding of arithmetic
operationsincluding estimationon
whole numbers, decimals, fractions,
and percents.
Eighth-grade students performing

at the Proficient level should apply
mathematical concepts and procedures
consistently to complex problems in
the five NAEP content areas.
Eighth-grade students performing

at the Advanced level should be
able to reach beyond the recognition,
identification, and application of
mathematical rules in order to
generalize and synthesize concepts and
principles in the five NAEP content
areas.
Eighth-graders performing at the Basic

level should complete problems
correctly with the help of structural
prompts such as diagrams, charts, and
graphs. They should be able to solve
problems in all NAEP content areas
through the appropriate selection and
use of strategies and technological
toolsincluding calculators, computers,
and geometric shapes. Students at this
level also should be able to use
fundamental algebraic and informal
geometric concepts in problem solving.
As they approach the Proficient level,
students at the Basic level should be
able to determine which of the available
data are necessary and sufficient for
correct solutions and use them in
problem solving. However, these
eighth-graders show limited skill in
communicating mathematically.
Eighth-graders performing at the

Proficient level should be able to
conjecture, defend their ideas, and
give supporting examples. They should
understand the connections among
fractions, percents, decimals, and other
mathematical topics such as algebra
and functions. Students at this level
are expected to have a thorough
understanding of Basic level arithmetic
operationsan understanding sufficient
for problem solving in practical
situations.
Quantity and spatial relationships in
problem solving and reasoning should
be familiar to them, and they should be
able to convey underlying reasoning
skills beyond the level of arithmetic.
They should be able to compare and
contrast mathematical ideas and
generate their own examples. These
students should make inferences from
data and graphs; apply properties of
informal geometry; and accurately use
the tools of technology. Students at this
level should understand the process
of gathering and organizing data and
be able to calculate, evaluate, and
communicate results within the
domain of statistics and probability.
Eighth-graders performing at the

Advanced level should be able to probe
examples and counterexamples in order
to shape generalizations from which
they can develop models. Eighthgraders performing at the Advanced
level should use number sense and
geometric awareness to consider the
reasonableness of an answer. They are
expected to use abstract thinking to
create unique problem-solving
techniques and explain the reasoning
processes underlying their conclusions.
What Eighth-Graders Know and Can Do in Mathematics

The item map below illustrates the range of mathematical
knowledge and skills demonstrated by eighth-graders. The scale
scores on the left represent the average scores for students who
were likely to get the items correct. The cut score at the lower
end of the range for each achievement level is boxed. The descriptions of selected assessment questions are listed on the
right along with the corresponding mathematics content areas.
For example, students performing near the middle of the Basic

range (with an average score of 285) were likely to be able to
determine the possible dimensions of a rectangle, given the area.
Students performing near the top of the Proficient range (with an
average score of 332) were likely to be able to set up and solve an
algebraic equation.
GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS ITEM MAP

Scale score
Content area
Question description

Algebra
Measurement
Geometry
Algebra
Algebra
Determine the complete sample space

Find the coordinates of collinear points
Identify the figures with equivalent areas
Use the given pieces to make a shape with certain properties
Read and interpret the information in a graph
Use an algebraic model to make a prediction (calculator available)
Find the next term in a geometric sequence
Algebra
Algebra
Geometry
Measurement
Geometry
Algebra
Set up and solve an algebraic equation

Find the change in y given the change in x for a linear equation
Find the length of a hypotenuse
Solve a problem involving unit conversions (calculator available)
Identify the piece used to form a figure
Solve a problem using division
Represent the length of a rectangle in terms of the width (shown on page 37)
Determine a number that satisfies the given conditions
Geometry
Measurement
Geometry
Algebra
Algebra
Identify the steps in a transformation

Identify the number with the given digit in the hundredths place
Determine the possible dimensions of a rectangle, given the area
Identify the side with the same length in congruent figures
Identify the solution from a graph of linear equations
Determine a quantity based on a given percent
Determine the probability of a particular outcome (shown on page 36)
Read information from a graph

Measurement
Geometry
Measurement
Algebra
Recognize misrepresented data

Solve a problem involving rates (calculator available)
Identify the result of combining two shapes
Use estimation to find a difference
Find the greatest number that can be bought (calculator available)
Measure the length of a line segment
Determine the value of the unknown in a number sentence
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
500
361
350
347
342
339
337
336
333
332
331
330
324
319
312
306
300
299
292
288
285
283
281
278
267
264
262
260
259
257
253
236
233
224
0
NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice question. The position of a question on the scale represents the average score attained by students who had a 65 percent
probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question, a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a four-option multiple-choice question, or a 72 percent probability of correctly answering a five-option
multiple-choice question. For constructed-response questions, the question description represents students performance rated as completely correct. Scale score ranges for mathematics achievement levels are referenced on
the map.
MATHEMATICS 2009
35
Sample Question: Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability

This sample question from the 2009 eighth-grade assessment measures students performance in the data analysis,
statistics, and probability content area. It asks students to
determine the probability of a simple event. Obtaining the
correct answer requires first determining that there is a total
of 15 pencils to choose from (6 red plus 4 green plus 5 blue).
Students were not permitted to use a calculator to answer this
question.
Since 4 of these pencils are green, the correct answer is 4 out
of 15 (Choice D), which was selected by 77 percent of the
eighth-grade students. The most common incorrect answer
(Choice C), which was selected by 12 percent of the students,
represents the probability of picking any one pencil from the
total of 15 pencils. The average score for students who were
likely to select the correct answer was 267 on the item map.
SAMPLE QUESTION:
Marty has 6 red pencils, 4 green

pencils, and 5 blue pencils.
If he picks out one pencil without
looking, what is the probability that
the pencil he picks will be green?

A
B
C
D
1 out of
1 out of
1 out of
4 out of
3
4
15
15
Percentage of eighth-grade students in each response category: 2009

Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
Omitted
12
77
The table below shows the percentage of eighth-graders

correctly. For example, 81 percent of eighth-graders at the
Percentage correct for eighth-grade students at each achievement

level: 2009
Overall
Below Basic
At Basic
At Proficient
At Advanced
77
48
81
94
98
Sample Question: Algebra
SAMPLE QUESTION:
This sample question measures eighth-graders performance

in the algebra content area. The question asks students to
identify an algebraic expression that models a relationship
that is given in a geometric context. Students were not permitted to use a calculator to answer this question.
The length of a rectangle is 3 feet

less than twice the width, w (in feet).
What is the length of the rectangle
in terms of w ?
About one-half (51 percent) of the eighth-grade students

selected the correct answer (Choice E). The most common
incorrect answer (Choice A) represents a common error
when translating less into an algebraic expression. The
average score for students likely to select the correct answer
was 306 on the item map.
Percentage of eighth-grade students in each response category: 2009

Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
Choice E
Omitted
21
13
51
A
B
C
D
E
3 2w
2(w + 3)
2(w 3)
2w + 3
2w 3
The table below shows the percentage of eighth-graders

correctly. For example, 47 percent of eighth-graders at the
Percentage correct for eighth-grade students at each achievement

level: 2009
Overall
Below Basic
At Basic
At Proficient
At Advanced
51
17
47
79
95
NAEP Questions Tool

Explore other sample questions from the
mathematics assessment at http://nces.
ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/.
MATHEMATICS 2009
37
Technical Notes
Sampling and Weighting
School and Student Participation
The schools and students participating in NAEP assessments are selected to be representative of all schools
nationally and of public schools at the state level. Samples
of schools and students are drawn from each state and from
the District of Columbia and Department of Defense schools.
The results from the assessed students are combined to
provide accurate estimates of the overall performance of
students in the nation and in individual states and other
jurisdictions.
National participation
While national results reflect the performance of students

in both public schools and nonpublic schools (i.e., private
schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and
Department of Defense schools), state-level results reflect
the performance of public school students only. Results are
also reported separately for Department of Defense schools
in state tables and maps. More information on sampling can
be found at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
nathow.asp.
Because each school that participated in the assessment, and
each student assessed, represents a portion of the population
of interest, the results are weighted to account for the disproportionate representation of the selected sample. This includes
oversampling of schools with high concentrations of students
from certain racial/ethnic groups and the lower sampling rates
of students who attend very small nonpublic schools.
To ensure unbiased samples, NAEP statistical standards

require that participation rates for original school samples
be 70 percent or higher to report national results separately
for public and private schools. In instances where participation rates meet the 70 percent criterion but fall below
85 percent, a nonresponse bias analysis is conducted to
determine if the responding school sample is not representative of the population, thereby introducing the potential
for nonresponse bias.
The weighted national school participation rates for the
2009 mathematics assessment were 97 percent for grade 4
(100 percent for public schools and 73 percent for private
schools), and 97 percent for grade 8 (100 percent for public
schools and 72 percent for private schools). Weighted
student participation rates were 95 percent at grade 4,
and 93 percent at grade 8. The nonresponse bias analysis
for private schools at grades 4 and 8 showed that, while
the original responding school sample may not have been
fully representative, the potential bias was reduced by
including substitute schools and by adjusting the sampling
weights to account for school nonresponse.
State participation
Standards established by the National Assessment Governing Board require that school participation rates for the
original state samples need to be at least 85 percent for
results to be reported. In 2009, all 52 states and jurisdictions participating in the mathematics assessment at
grades 4 and 8 met this participation rate requirement.
Interpreting Statistical Significance

Comparisons over time or between groups are based on
statistical tests that consider both the size of the differences
and the standard errors of the two statistics being compared.
Standard errors are margins of error, and estimates based on
smaller groups are likely to have larger margins of error. The
size of the standard errors may also be influenced by other
factors such as how representative the assessed students are
of the entire population.
When an estimate has a large standard error, a numerical
difference that seems large may not be statistically significant. Differences of the same magnitude may or may not be
statistically significant depending upon the size of the standard errors of the estimates. For example, a 2-point change in
the average score for White students may be statistically
significant, while a 2-point change for American Indian/
Alaska Native students may not be. Standard errors for the
estimates presented in this report are available at http://nces.
ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
To ensure that significant differences in NAEP data reflect
actual differences and not mere chance, error rates need to
be controlled when making multiple simultaneous comparisons. The more comparisons that are made (e.g., comparing
the performance of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific
Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native students), the
higher the probability of finding significant differences by
chance. In NAEP, the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery
Rate (FDR) procedure is used to control the expected proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses relative to the number of
comparisons that are conducted. A detailed explanation
of this procedure can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/tdw/analysis/infer.asp. NAEP employs
a number of rules to determine the number of comparisons
conducted, which in most cases is simply the number of
possible statistical tests. However, there are two exceptions
where the FDR is not applied: when comparing multiple years
and when comparing multiple jurisdictions to the nation,
neither the number of years nor the number of jurisdictions
counts toward the number of comparisons.
National School Lunch Program

NAEP first began collecting data in 1996 on student eligibility
for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) as an indicator
of low income. Under the guidelines of NSLP, children from
families with incomes below 130 percent of the poverty level
are eligible for free meals. Those from families with incomes
between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible
for reduced-price meals. (For the period July 1, 2008 through
June 30, 2009, for a family of four, 130 percent of the poverty
level was $27,560, and 185 percent was $39,220.) Note that
in some schools all students are categorized as eligible for
free lunch because the school participates in a special provision of the National School Lunch Act that simplifies the
process of determining eligibility. Under this provision,
schools may certify all students as eligible once it is established that an eligibility threshold (typically 60 to 75 percent
of students) has been met.
Because of the improved quality of the data on students
eligibility for NSLP, the percentage of students for whom
information was not available has decreased compared to the
percentages reported prior to the 2003 assessment. Therefore, trend comparisons are only made back to 2003 in this
report. For more information on NSLP, visit http://www.fns.
usda.gov/cnd/lunch/.
School Location
NAEP results are reported for four mutually exclusive
categories of school location: city, suburb, town, and rural.
The categories are based on standard definitions established
by the Federal Office of Management and Budget using
population and geographic information from the U.S. Census
Bureau. Schools are assigned to these categories in the NCES
Common Core of Data locale codes based on their physical
address.
The classification system was revised for 2007; therefore,
results are only included in this report for 2007 and 2009.
The new locale codes are based on an addresss proximity
to an urbanized area (a densely settled core with densely
settled surrounding areas). This is a change from the original
system based on metropolitan statistical areas. To distinguish
the two systems, the new system is referred to as urbancentric locale codes. More details on the classification
system can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.
asp.
MATHEMATICS 2009
39
Appendix Tables
Table A-1.Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public and nonpublic school students with disabilities (SD) and/or English
language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by
grade and SD/ELL category: Various years, 19922009
Grade and SD/ELL category
1992
1996
1996
2000
2003
2005
2007
2009
9
6
3
3
14
6
8
8
15
4
11
7
5
18
4
14
9
5
21
4
17
9
8
21
3
18
9
9
21
3
19
9
10
21
2
19
8
10
7
4
3
3
11
5
6
6
10
3
7
4
4
12
3
9
5
4
13
3
10
4
6
13
2
10
3
7
13
2
10
3
7
13
2
11
3
8
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
6
1
5
3
2
7
1
6
4
1
10
1
8
6
2
10
1
8
6
2
10
1
9
6
3
10
1
9
6
3
9
6
4
4
11
4
6
6
12
3
8
6
3
13
4
10
7
3
17
3
14
7
6
17
3
14
6
8
17
4
13
6
7
17
3
14
5
9
7
4
3
3
9
4
5
5
9
3
6
4
2
10
3
7
5
2
13
3
10
4
6
12
3
10
3
7
12
3
8
2
6
12
3
9
2
8
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
#
4
1
3
2
1
6
1
5
4
1
6
1
5
4
1
6
1
5
4
2
5
#
5
3
2
Grade 4
SD and/or ELL
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
Without accommodations
With accommodations
SD
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
With accommodations
ELL
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
With accommodations
Grade 8
SD and/or ELL
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
With accommodations
SD
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
With accommodations
ELL
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
With accommodations
Not applicable. Accommodations were not permitted in this assessment year.

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. Detail may not sum to totals because
of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 19922009 Mathematics
Assessments.
Table A-2.Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public and nonpublic school students with disabilities (SD) and/or
English language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all
students, by selected racial/ethnic groups, grade, and SD/ELL category: 2009
Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
14
2
12
4
8
16
3
13
3
10
43
3
40
24
17
13
2
11
3
8
15
3
12
3
9
11
2
9
2
7
1
#
1
#
#
2
#
1
1
1
37
2
35
23
12
12
2
10
2
8
17
4
13
2
11
29
3
26
14
12
12
2
9
2
7
16
4
12
2
10
11
2
9
2
7
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
#
1
21
1
20
13
7
Grade 4
SD and/or ELL
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
With accommodations
SD
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
With accommodations
ELL
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
With accommodations
Grade 8
SD and/or ELL
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
With accommodations
SD
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
With accommodations
ELL
Identified
Excluded
Assessed
With accommodations
# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/
or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
MATHEMATICS 2009
41
Table A-3.Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public and nonpublic school students identified as
students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) excluded and assessed
in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all identified SD and/or ELL students, by grade and
SD/ELL category: 2009
Percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students
Excluded
Assessed
Assessed without
accommodations
Assessed with
accommodations
10
15
6
90
85
94
40
23
59
50
62
35
17
22
8
83
78
92
29
15
58
54
63
34
Grade 4
SD and/or ELL
SD
ELL
Grade 8
SD and/or ELL
SD
ELL
NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL
categories. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009
Mathematics Assessment.
Table A-4.Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students with disabilities (SD) and English language learners (ELL) identified, excluded,
and accommodated in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009

Grade 4
Grade 8
SD
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Other jurisdictions
DoDEA1
ELL
SD
ELL
Overall
AccomAccom- Overall
AccomAccomexcluded Identified Excluded modated Identified Excluded modated excluded Identified Excluded modated Identified Excluded modated
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
5
5
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
1
2
4
3
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
13
10
17
13
12
10
11
13
15
17
11
10
10
15
16
14
14
15
20
18
14
19
14
14
10
14
12
18
12
18
16
13
16
15
16
14
15
16
15
17
14
15
14
10
12
19
14
12
17
15
16
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
4
5
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
4
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
8
4
12
8
8
5
9
10
11
12
7
8
7
9
8
10
9
7
15
14
7
12
8
8
6
8
8
9
6
14
12
8
14
10
8
9
7
9
10
13
8
8
7
5
7
13
9
7
9
11
11
10
2
10
15
6
30
11
6
4
8
4
10
5
8
4
5
9
2
2
2
6
7
3
8
1
2
3
7
20
3
4
17
8
6
2
2
4
12
3
6
5
2
2
21
9
2
7
10
#
7
2
1
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
1
1
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
1
1
#
#
#
#
1
#
4
#
7
8
4
2
6
5
3
7
3
6
2
5
3
3
4
1
2
1
4
2
1
4
1
1
1
3
12
2
3
9
7
4
1
2
2
7
2
3
2
1
2
4
5
1
5
5
#
4
1
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
3
4
3
3
5
2
2
7
6
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
5
5
6
3
3
2
4
2
4
5
3
2
4
2
2
3
2
13
10
13
12
12
9
11
13
15
15
11
12
9
14
14
14
12
12
15
17
12
19
13
12
9
13
12
14
11
20
16
13
16
12
15
15
15
13
17
18
14
10
11
12
10
20
14
11
15
14
14
3
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
4
2
3
4
2
2
7
5
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
1
5
5
6
3
3
2
4
2
4
5
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
8
3
9
7
9
5
7
9
12
12
8
8
5
9
8
10
8
6
12
12
4
10
8
7
6
7
8
8
6
12
13
8
13
10
6
9
7
6
12
13
5
6
6
5
6
13
7
7
10
10
10
6
1
11
6
4
20
7
3
2
5
2
7
4
3
3
2
6
1
1
2
3
3
2
5
1
1
3
3
8
1
2
11
5
5
2
1
3
6
2
3
3
2
1
7
5
2
4
4
#
4
2
#
#
1
1
#
1
#
#
1
#
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
#
1
1
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
2
#
6
3
2
3
4
2
1
4
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
#
#
1
1
4
#
2
5
4
3
#
#
1
2
1
2
1
#
1
1
2
1
2
2
#
2
1
4
2
14
12
4
1
8
8
8
7
1
1
5
3
6
2
17
8
6
1
10
5
4
5
1
1
2
2
# Rounds to zero.
1
NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once in overall, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories.
MATHEMATICS 2009
43
Table A-5.Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students with disabilities excluded in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all
students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 19902009
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
DoDEA2
19921
5
4
3
5
3
4
4
5
7
5
5
3
3
3
3
4
6
3
6
5
3
5
4
4
3
6
3
3
2
6
7
3
4
5
4
5
4
4
5
3
19961
5
6
4
7
6
5
7
7
6
7
6
4
5
5
6
7
7
7
7
6
5
6
5
5
4
5
5
8
5
6
3
6
4
5
5
6
7
5
6
6
5
8
7
4
2000
3
3
3
4
3
3
6
1
2
2
1
3
3
3
4
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
5
2
4
1
4
4
2
2
5
2
6
3
3
3
3
4
2
Grade 4
2003
3
2
1
3
1
2
2
3
6
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
5
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
4
3
4
2
2
6
1
2
7
2
4
4
2
3
3
1
2005
3
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
7
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
4
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
4
3
2
2
4
1
3
5
2
3
4
2
2
2
1
2007
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
5
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
3
2
2
3
4
5
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
4
4
5
2
2
2
2
1
6
5
2
2
4
2
1
2
2
2009
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
4
5
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
4
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
19901
3
7
3
4
5
4
5
3
3
2
4
5
4
5
4
4
3
2
3
4
5
6
4
3
2
5
5
2
5
5
5
4
3
19921
5
5
4
6
4
4
5
4
5
4
3
3
4
4
5
4
4
4
6
6
3
7
4
5
6
4
6
3
2
6
6
4
4
6
5
5
4
6
4
4
19961
4
7
5
5
7
5
4
7
8
7
6
4
5
5
4
6
5
6
7
5
3
7
6
3
4
5
4
5
5
5
4
3
5
6
4
6
5
4
7
5
8
7
2
7
4
3
2
4
1
5
1
5
1
4
1
8
2
Grade 8
2000
2003
3
3
6
2
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
1
5
3
2
4
2
4
3
2
1
3
4
3
2
2
3
2
4
4
2
4
3
4
2
3
2
2
4
4
1
2
5
5
3
4
2
2
3
3
3
2
1
7
2
3
4
4
3
2
1
4
5
4
2
2
3
1
3
3
4
7
2
2
3
7
6
2
2
3
3
5
6
2
3
3
4
3
1
1
5
1
5
1
2005
3
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
10
2
2
2
2
3
4
2
3
3
4
4
4
6
4
2
3
4
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
5
4
2
3
3
6
2
5
5
2
4
4
2
3
3
2
2007
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
1
6
2
5
1
1
5
5
2
4
6
3
5
7
9
4
2
2
5
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
6
7
8
3
4
2
5
2
6
5
2
4
6
3
2
4
2
2009
3
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
4
2
3
4
2
2
7
5
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
1
5
5
6
3
3
2
4
2
4
5
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
5
1
9
1
6
1
1
2
Table A-6.Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade public school English language learners excluded in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all
students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 19902009
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
DoDEA2
19921
2
#
2
#
10
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
1
#
#
#
#
2
1
2
#
#
#
#
1
3
#
#
4
1
#
1
#
2
19961
2
#
1
7
#
12
2
2
1
3
2
1
#
1
#
1
#
1
2
1
1
#
#
#
1
4
1
5
3
1
#
3
1
2
#
1
5
1
#
1
1
#
1
#
4
1
2000
1
#
3
#
3
1
3
2
2
1
1
#
#
#
#
1
2
1
1
#
1
#
1
4
2
3
1
#
#
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
#
2
#
1
#
Grade 4
2003
1
#
#
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
#
1
#
1
#
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
#
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
#
1
1
1
1
2
#
#
#
2
1
#
2
1
#
1
#
2005
1
#
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
#
1
#
#
#
1
1
1
1
#
#
#
1
1
#
1
1
1
1
#
#
1
1
#
1
#
#
1
2
1
#
1
1
#
1
#
2007
1
#
1
2
1
1
#
#
1
2
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
#
1
#
#
#
1
2
#
#
2
1
1
1
1
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
2
1
#
1
1
#
1
#
2009
1
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
1
1
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
1
1
#
#
#
#
1
#
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
19901
1
#
4
1
1
#
2
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
2
1
2
#
#
#
#
#
#
2
#
#
#
19921
2
#
2
#
5
1
1
#
2
#
2
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
2
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
3
#
#
#
#
#
2
#
#
2
1
#
#
#
19961
1
#
1
4
#
6
1
2
#
3
1
1
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
1
#
#
1
#
1
3
#
2
4
3
1
#
2
#
#
3
1
#
1
1
#
1
#
3
1
Grade 8
2000
2003
1
1
#
#
#
1
2
#
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
#
2
1
#
#
#
#
1
1
1
#
1
#
#
1
1
2
1
#
1
1
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
#
#
1
#
#
1
1
1
#
1
2
#
#
#
1
1
2
2
#
1
1
#
1
2
1
#
#
1
1
#
#
2
1
1
1
2005
1
#
#
2
1
1
1
#
1
1
#
1
1
1
#
#
1
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
2
1
1
#
#
1
1
#
1
#
#
#
2
1
#
1
1
#
1
#
2007
1
#
1
1
#
1
#
#
1
1
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
#
1
2
1
#
#
#
1
1
1
1
#
#
#
2
1
#
1
1
#
1
#
2009
#
#
1
1
#
1
#
#
1
#
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
1
1
#
1
1
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
1
1
1
1
1
1
# Rounds to zero.
1
2
MATHEMATICS 2009
45
Table A-7.Percentage of fourth-grade public school students identified as students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL)
excluded and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all identified SD and/or ELL students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009
SD and/or ELL
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Other jurisdictions
DoDEA1
Assessed
without
accomExcluded Assessed modations

SD
Assessed
Assessed
without
with accomaccommodations Excluded Assessed modations
ELL
Assessed
Assessed
without
with accomaccommodations Excluded Assessed modations
Assessed
with accommodations
10
8
5
6
8
6
8
13
18
8
9
7
8
12
12
11
14
18
8
8
25
20
16
9
8
16
12
11
8
11
14
9
6
11
22
18
21
11
14
9
10
12
21
11
12
12
11
9
9
12
7
90
92
95
94
92
94
92
87
82
92
91
93
92
88
88
89
86
82
92
92
75
80
84
91
92
84
88
89
92
89
86
91
94
89
78
82
79
89
86
91
90
88
79
89
88
88
89
91
91
88
93
40
62
25
42
21
79
28
12
10
17
27
27
37
26
31
19
32
32
17
17
14
27
36
39
31
29
28
42
36
16
10
33
5
22
26
13
33
32
22
23
38
37
20
61
31
20
25
36
39
17
25
50
30
70
53
71
15
64
75
72
75
64
66
55
62
57
71
55
50
75
75
61
53
48
52
61
55
61
47
56
73
75
58
89
67
52
69
45
57
64
68
52
51
58
29
57
68
64
55
52
71
68
16
9
7
10
11
21
13
14
20
10
11
11
10
12
15
12
20
19
9
8
32
25
18
11
8
18
14
13
19
11
15
15
6
13
23
20
26
14
16
9
12
13
24
28
16
11
14
13
9
14
7
84
91
93
90
89
79
87
86
80
90
89
89
90
88
85
88
80
81
91
92
68
75
82
89
92
82
86
87
81
89
85
85
94
87
77
80
74
86
84
91
88
87
76
72
84
89
86
87
91
86
93
22
56
23
33
20
28
11
11
10
21
25
14
27
28
32
15
18
31
16
15
15
11
27
34
31
28
21
37
29
14
11
18
5
20
25
11
28
30
22
17
34
36
22
21
28
17
24
28
38
15
23
62
35
70
57
69
51
76
75
70
69
64
75
63
60
53
73
62
49
75
77
53
64
55
55
61
54
65
49
52
74
75
66
88
67
52
69
47
56
63
74
54
51
54
51
56
72
62
59
53
71
70
6
3
3
2
3
4
4
13
7
5
3
4
3
15
4
6
5
13
#
8
15
13
8
6
5
8
6
5
5
11
20
4
8
4
16
14
6
6
11
9
5
#
6
5
6
18
5
4
#
10
6
94
97
97
98
97
96
96
87
93
95
97
96
97
85
96
94
95
87
100
92
85
87
92
94
95
92
94
95
95
89
80
96
92
96
84
86
94
94
89
91
95
100
94
95
94
82
95
96
100
90
94
59
88
27
47
22
88
45
12
12
6
31
39
55
21
28
28
49
34
24
44
10
64
71
43
35
27
48
53
37
26
8
39
3
26
31
23
52
34
22
39
48
46
9
76
32
41
24
43
52
21
37
35
8
70
51
75
8
52
75
81
89
66
57
42
65
68
66
46
53
76
48
75
23
21
50
61
65
46
42
59
63
73
56
90
69
53
62
42
60
68
52
47
54
85
20
62
40
71
53
48
69
57
21
11
79
89
13
35
65
54
27
12
73
88
11
26
61
62
14
14
86
86
15
45
71
41
# Rounds to zero.
1
NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Table A-8.Percentage of eighth-grade public school students identified as students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL)
excluded and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all identified SD and/or ELL students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009
SD and/or ELL
State/jurisdiction
Excluded Assessed
Nation (public)
17
83
Alabama
13
87
Alaska
16
84
Arizona
12
88
Arkansas
7
93
California
6
94
Colorado
11
89
Connecticut
13
87
Delaware
15
85
Florida
12
88
Georgia
20
80
Hawaii
12
88
Idaho
11
89
Illinois
19
81
Indiana
27
73
Iowa
16
84
Kansas
17
83
Kentucky
36
64
Louisiana
10
90
Maine
12
88
Maryland
48
52
Massachusetts
27
73
Michigan
21
79
Minnesota
15
85
Mississippi
17
83
Missouri
26
74
Montana
19
81
Nebraska
20
80
Nevada
14
86
New Hampshire
14
86
New Jersey
11
89
New Mexico
14
86
New York
14
86
North Carolina
10
90
North Dakota
33
67
Ohio
33
67
Oklahoma
35
65
Oregon
15
85
Pennsylvania
17
83
Rhode Island
11
89
South Carolina
27
73
South Dakota
16
84
Tennessee
34
66
Texas
28
72
Utah
21
79
Vermont
11
89
Virginia
21
79
Washington
17
83
West Virginia
10
90
Wisconsin
15
85
Wyoming
12
88
Other jurisdictions
31
69
DoDEA1
13
87
Assessed
without
accommodations

SD
Assessed
with accommodations Excluded Assessed
Assessed
without
accommodations
ELL
Assessed
with accommodations Excluded Assessed
Assessed
without
accommodations
Assessed
with accommodations
29
60
25
29
21
69
27
18
7
6
11
32
37
16
17
15
26
13
13
20
8
18
21
34
16
19
21
25
35
27
9
33
5
16
26
9
21
41
14
19
33
28
10
37
30
26
27
26
26
16
19
54
26
59
59
72
25
61
69
78
82
69
56
51
65
56
69
57
51
76
69
44
55
58
52
67
56
60
55
50
59
80
53
81
74
42
58
44
44
69
70
41
56
57
35
50
63
52
57
64
70
69
22
13
25
16
9
15
16
14
15
13
23
11
15
20
31
16
24
37
11
12
56
28
24
17
17
26
22
23
22
14
11
22
14
12
34
33
41
20
19
10
32
17
36
39
27
11
24
19
10
16
13
78
87
75
84
91
85
84
86
85
87
77
89
85
80
69
84
76
63
89
88
44
72
76
83
83
74
78
77
78
86
89
78
86
88
66
67
59
80
81
90
68
83
64
61
73
89
76
81
90
84
87
15
59
8
21
17
25
14
16
6
6
10
24
28
13
12
11
10
12
11
17
8
15
15
23
13
18
15
19
21
26
10
20
4
9
24
8
12
31
10
18
29
23
9
18
15
24
23
20
25
12
17
63
28
67
63
74
59
70
69
79
81
67
65
57
68
57
73
66
51
78
71
36
56
62
60
70
56
64
58
57
61
79
58
82
80
42
58
47
50
71
72
39
60
55
43
58
64
53
60
65
72
70
8
17
6
9
3
4
6
11
24
9
9
15
2
19
10
15
5
36
3
10
16
25
7
10
16
28
4
8
6
15
13
6
14
8
36
43
9
6
17
21
5
11
37
11
5
8
12
12
7
15
#
92
83
94
91
97
96
94
89
76
91
91
85
98
81
90
85
95
64
97
90
84
75
93
90
84
72
96
92
94
85
87
94
86
92
64
57
91
94
83
79
95
89
63
89
95
92
88
88
93
85
100
58
67
41
39
32
81
44
24
12
5
19
43
60
27
42
38
57
21
41
46
7
34
54
59
50
35
53
52
47
51
8
43
6
32
38
22
60
58
44
22
49
61
11
68
59
41
39
40
66
27
34
34
15
53
52
65
15
51
66
64
86
73
42
38
54
49
47
38
44
56
44
77
42
39
31
34
37
43
40
47
34
79
51
80
60
26
34
31
36
40
58
47
28
52
21
36
50
49
48
27
58
66
12
35
57
52
34
13
66
87
7
27
59
60
27
16
73
84
28
46
45
38
# Rounds to zero.
1
NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
MATHEMATICS 2009
47
Table A-9.Percentage distribution of fourth-grade students assessed in NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity, eligibility for free/reduced-
price school lunch, and state/jurisdiction: 1992, 1996, and 2009
Eligibility for free/reduced-price

school lunch
Race/ethnicity
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Other jurisdictions
DoDEA2
White
19921
2009
Black
Hispanic
Asian/
American Indian/
Pacific Islander Alaska Native
Eligible
Not eligible
19921
2009
19921
2009
19921
2009
19921
2009
19961
2009
19961
2009
72*
65
62*
75*
50*
73*
76*
70*
63*
60*
23*
92*
87*
95*
90*
53
98*
62*
83*
79*
91*
42
83*
90*
96*
69*
45*
63*
65*
95*
86*
77*
81*
82*
58
73
49*
93*
71*
96*
87*
90*
54
61
50
40
66
28
61
66
51
46
47
14
81
51
76
84
69
83
47
94
48
68
71
76
45
76
83
73
42
91
55
28
52
54
86
72
58
69
71
68
55
80
69
31
77
94
56
62
92
75
84
18*
34
4
24
7
6
11
25*
24
38
3
#*
11
2*
9
45
#*
32
8
16
3*
58
15
1*
16
4
15
31
#*
12*
9
14
7*
41*
25
14
1*
25
2*
6*
1
16
33
4
6
23
7
5
12
33
22
36
2
1
19
11
5
10
10
48
3
35
8
20
9
52
17
1
7
10
2
16
3
19
27
2
19
11
4
15
10
35
2
24
13
2
2
26
6
6
10
2
7*
#*
23*
#*
30*
17*
10*
2*
12*
1*
2
6*
2*
1*
#*
1*
#*
2*
4*
3*
2*
#*
1*
3*
1*
11*
45*
17
1*
1*
1*
3*
3*
7*
#*
#*
34*
4*
2*
#*
2*
6*
22
4
7
45
8
51
29
17
12
25
11
3
14
22
7
8
15
3
4
1
11
17
5
7
2
4
3
16
39
4
21
58
20
11
2
3
10
17
9
18
6
3
5
51
16
1
8
18
1
9
11
3*
#
1*
1*
12
2*
2*
1*
1
1*
62
1*
1
2
#*
2
1*
3*
4
1*
3*
#
1*
#*
1*
5*
1
4*
1*
1*
1*
#*
2*
4
1*
1
2
2*
3*
#*
2
1*
5
1
8
3
2
11
4
4
4
2
3
65
2
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
6
3
6
1
2
1
2
8
3
8
2
9
2
1
2
2
6
4
3
2
1
1
4
4
2
6
9
1
3
1
1
1
10
#
1
1
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
#
#*
#
#
1
1*
#
#
#
#
4*
#
2
3*
#
9*
#
#
#
#
#
1
#
2
2
1
#
24
6
1
1
1
#
#
#
#
#
2
#
#
#
1
#
#
1
#
#
1
2
#
#
12
2
1
#
#
9
#
1
9
#
20
2
#
1
1
13
#
#
1
#
#
3
#
2
3
34*
49
25*
36*
45*
44*
29*
25*
30*
47*
44*
40
29*
31*
47
58*
32*
32*
24*
31*
22*
64
36*
35*
33*
15*
33
50*
44*
34*
24*
31*
33
34*
52
36*
43*
27*
26*
31
32*
46*
25*
33
48
54
44
54
59
53
38
30
43
55
56
45
43
46
45
37
49
51
70
40
39
34
43
31
69
44
41
42
41
22
32
68
52
48
33
40
55
46
39
41
55
37
51
59
36
34
34
45
57
39
35
52
48
30*
44
52*
40
66
72
47*
48
49
57
69*
64
51
32
62
64
66
62
65
35
63*
60
57
28*
65
37
49
58*
65
60*
58
65*
48
59*
52*
60
65
65
62*
49*
64
64
51
46
55
44
41
45
61
70
57
45
44
55
57
54
55
63
51
49
30
60
61
66
56
68
31
55
57
58
58
77
66
32
46
51
67
59
45
52
61
59
45
63
48
40
61
63
66
55
43
60
65
5*
7
49
91*
80
16
3*
11
16
1*
2
7
#
#
74
74
#
21*
26
#
# Rounds to zero.
1
2
NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified and
for students whose eligibility status for free/reduced-price school lunch was not available. Data on eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch were not collected until 1996.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1996, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.
Table A-10.Percentage of fourth-grade public school students at or above Basic in NAEP mathematics, by state/
jurisdiction: Various years, 19922009

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
DoDEA1
1992
57*
43*
53*
47*
46*
61*
67*
55*
52*
53*
52*
63*
60*
72*
51*
39*
75*
55*
68*
61*
71*
36*
62*
67*
72*
68*
50*
57*
50*
72*
57*
60*
65*
54*
48*
47*
56*
66*
59*
52*
71*
69*
1996
62*
48*
65*
57*
54*
46*
67*
75*
54*
55*
53*
53*
72*
74*
60*
44*
75*
59*
71*
68*
76*
42*
66*
71*
70*
57*
68*
51*
64*
64*
75*
65*
68*
61*
48*
58*
69*
69*
67*
62*
67*
63*
74*
64*
2000
67*
57*
58*
56*
52*
77*
58*
55*
71*
66*
78*
78*
75*
60*
57*
74*
61*
79*
72*
78*
45*
72*
73*
67*
61*
51*
67*
76*
75*
73*
69*
67*
67*
60*
60*
77*
70*
73*
73*
68*
73*
2000
64*
55*
57*
55*
50*
76*
57*
55*
68*
63*
77*
75*
76*
59*
57*
73*
60*
77*
71*
76*
45*
71*
72*
65*
60*
50*
66*
73*
73*
73*
67*
65*
65*
59*
59*
76*
69*
73*
71*
65*
71*
2003
76*
65*
75*
70
71*
67*
77*
82*
81*
76*
72*
68*
80*
73*
82*
83*
85*
72*
67*
83*
73*
84*
77
84*
62*
79*
81*
80
69*
87*
80*
63*
79*
85
83*
81*
74*
79
78*
72*
79
82*
70*
82*
79
85*
83
81
75
79*
87
2005
79*
66
77
70
78
71
81
84
84
82*
76
73*
86
74*
84*
85
88
75*
74
84*
79*
91
79
88
69
79*
85*
80
72*
89*
86
65*
81
83*
89*
84
79
80
82
76*
81*
86
74
87
83
87
83
84
75
84
87
2007
81
70
79
74
81
70
82
84
87*
86
79
77
85
79
89
87
89
79
73
85
80*
93
80
87
70
82
88
80
74*
91
90
70
85
85
91
87
82
79
85
80
80
86
76
87
83
89
87
84
81*
85
88
2009
81
70
78
71
80
72
84
86
84
86
78
77
85
80
87
87
89
81
72
87
85
92
78
89
69
83
88
82
79
92
88
72
83
87
91
85
82
80
84
81
78
86
74
85
81
89
85
84
77
85
87
23*
20*
64*
24*
70*
24*
69*
36*
84
45*
85
49*
86
56
86
1
MATHEMATICS 2009
49
Table A-11.Percentage of fourth-grade public school students at or above Proficient in NAEP mathematics, by state/
jurisdiction: Various years, 19922009

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
DoDEA1
1992
17*
10*
13*
10*
12*
17*
24*
17*
13*
15*
15*
16*
16*
26*
13*
8*
27*
18*
23*
18*
26*
6*
19*
22*
25*
25*
11*
17*
13*
22*
16*
14*
22*
13*
13*
10*
15*
19*
19*
12*
24*
19*
1996
20*
11*
21*
15*
13*
11*
22*
31*
16*
15*
13*
16*
24*
22*
16*
8*
27*
22*
24*
23*
29*
8*
20*
22*
24*
14*
25*
13*
20*
21*
24*
21*
20*
17*
12*
17*
25*
23*
23*
19*
21*
19*
27*
19*
2000
25*
14*
17*
13*
15*
32*
18*
14*
21*
21*
31*
28*
30*
17*
14*
25*
22*
33*
29*
34*
9*
23*
25*
24*
16*
12*
22*
28*
25*
26*
16*
23*
23*
18*
18*
27*
24*
29*
25*
18*
25*
2000
22*
13*
16*
14*
13*
31*
17*
14*
20*
20*
30*
26*
29*
17*
14*
23*
21*
31*
28*
33*
9*
23*
24*
24*
16*
12*
21*
25*
25*
25*
16*
23*
22*
18*
18*
25*
23*
29*
24*
17*
25*
2003
31*
19*
30*
25
26*
25*
34*
41*
31*
31*
27*
23*
31*
32*
35*
36*
41*
22*
21
34*
31*
41*
34
42*
17*
30*
31*
34*
23*
43*
39*
17*
33*
41
34*
36*
23*
33
36*
28*
32
34*
24*
33*
31*
42*
36*
36*
24*
35*
39
2005
35*
21
34
28
34
28
39*
42
36
37*
30*
27*
40
32*
38
37
47
26*
24
39*
38*
49*
38
47*
19
31*
38*
36
26*
47*
45
19*
36*
40
40*
43
29
37
41
31*
36
41
28
40
37*
44*
39
42
25
40*
43
2007
39
26
38
31
37
30
41
45
40*
40
32
33
40
36
46*
43
51
31*
24
42
40
58
37
51
21
38
44
38
30
52
52
24
43
41
46
46
33
35
47
34*
36
41
29
40
39
49
42
44
33*
47
44*
2009
38
24
38
28
36
30
45
46
36
40
34
37
41
38
42
41
46
37
23
45
44
57
35
54
22
41
45
38
32
56
49
26
40
43
45
45
33
37
46
39
34
42
28
38
41
51
43
43
28
45
40
5*
5*
19*
6*
23*
5*
21*
7*
31*
10*
35
14*
37
17
38
1
Table A-12.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and state/
jurisdiction: 2009
White
Percentage of students
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Other jurisdictions
DoDEA1
Black
Hispanic
Average
At or
At or
Average
At or
At or
Average
At or
At or
scale Below above
above
At
scale Below above
above
At
scale Below above
above
At
score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
248
237
249
243
245
247
252
253
249
250
247
247
244
249
247
245
251
241
241
245
255
258
243
255
241
245
247
245
245
252
255
245
248
254
248
249
241
243
249
247
245
247
239
254
246
248
251
247
233
250
244
10
18
9
14
12
11
7
7
7
7
10
11
12
10
9
10
6
16
13
12
6
3
14
6
13
12
9
11
10
7
5
12
9
5
6
9
13
14
9
11
12
9
17
5
13
11
7
11
22
9
10
90
82
91
86
88
89
93
93
93
93
90
89
88
90
91
90
94
84
87
88
94
97
86
94
87
88
91
89
90
93
95
88
91
95
94
91
87
86
91
89
88
91
83
95
87
89
93
89
78
91
90
50
34
52
44
46
51
57
58
50
53
48
51
44
52
48
45
55
39
37
46
60
67
43
61
37
46
49
45
46
57
63
47
50
59
49
54
40
43
53
50
46
47
36
61
48
51
54
51
28
53
44
8
4
9
7
7
9
11
11
8
9
8
7
5
10
6
6
8
6
3
7
15
14
6
14
3
7
6
5
5
10
12
7
7
13
6
9
4
6
9
7
7
6
3
9
8
9
9
8
2
9
5
222
211
225
222
217
217
225
222
226
228
221
232
216
222
226
224
220
218
228
228
236
212
227
215
221
213
218
228
225
225
226
222
222
223
223
221
220
225
213
231
221
225
227
225
217
37
51
30
41
44
44
33
38
30
27
38
24
46
34
31
34
41
43
31
28
16
52
34
47
40
52
43
27
33
33
29
36
36
37
36
37
40
35
51
21
39
31
29
34
45
63
49
70
59
56
56
67
62
70
73
62
76
54
66
69
66
59
57
69
72
84
48
66
53
60
48
57
73
67
67
71
64
64
63
64
63
60
65
49
79
61
69
71
66
55
15
7
17
19
12
13
23
14
17
20
15
33
11
13
17
18
14
8
28
21
30
9
25
8
17
10
12
19
19
19
18
14
14
18
17
15
14
17
7
23
15
16
24
20
11
1
#
#
3
#
1
2
1
#
1
#
2
1
#
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
#
2
#
1
#
#
2
2
1
1
1
1
#
2
#
1
#
#
1
1
1
3
1
#
227
220
232
220
233
219
228
227
231
238
231
230
225
227
230
223
233
227
230
238
232
227
232
237
241
224
227
234
232
224
231
236
233
229
221
227
219
232
233
225
233
219
234
227
228
231
30
39
23
40
21
41
31
30
23
16
25
26
34
28
23
36
19
33
25
17
22
29
27
22
14
34
30
21
23
34
25
16
21
25
39
32
41
23
25
34
20
43
20
31
29
23
70
61
77
60
79
59
69
70
77
84
75
74
66
72
77
64
81
67
75
83
78
71
73
78
86
66
70
79
77
66
75
84
79
75
61
68
59
77
75
66
80
57
80
69
71
77
21
11
27
15
26
14
24
18
22
33
26
28
18
20
23
17
24
22
23
32
25
20
29
37
41
16
19
31
25
18
25
27
25
20
16
23
14
28
27
19
26
16
28
20
22
22
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
2
1
2
4
4
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
1
#
270
245
1
10
99
90
81
45
33
5
213
229
50
26
50
74
9
19
#
1
227
235
30
20
70
80
24
30
1
2
See notes at end of table.
MATHEMATICS 2009
51
Table A-12.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public
school students, by race/ethnicity and state/jurisdiction: 2009Continued

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
DoDEA1

Average
At or
At or
Average
At or
At or
scale Below above
above
At
scale Below above
above
At
255
236
245
257
246
257
258
261
256
235
265
259
258
265
259
264
252
243
255
251
245
257
261
257
259
245
258
242
259
241
258
253
240
22
13
7
15
7
6
7
7
23
6
6
7
5
4
13
18
11
10
12
9
5
8
7
18
9
14
4
17
5
9
21
91
78
87
93
85
93
94
93
93
77
97
94
94
93
95
96
87
82
89
90
88
91
95
92
93
82
91
86
96
83
95
91
79
61
35
45
61
51
65
66
73
60
35
73
66
64
69
67
70
55
44
62
55
45
67
72
67
62
48
62
40
71
39
64
56
39
18
4
12
20
11
15
19
21
18
5
25
23
16
35
18
28
19
11
22
11
7
16
22
16
25
12
22
10
17
7
18
16
12
227
216
215
233
228
217
232
226
234
223
220
219
227
228
32
47
49
26
32
43
23
29
21
37
40
46
31
29
68
53
51
74
68
57
77
71
79
63
60
54
69
71
23
14
13
27
23
14
30
17
29
15
15
17
21
21
2
1
2
2
2
3
244
91
42
# Rounds to zero.
1
NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown
for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Table A-13.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public
school students, by gender and state/jurisdiction: 2009

Male
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
DoDEA1
Female
Average
At or
At or
Average
At or
At or
scale Below above
above
At
scale Below above
above
At
240
228
238
230
239
233
244
246
241
243
237
235
242
240
243
243
246
240
230
247
244
253
238
251
227
241
247
239
236
252
248
231
242
244
247
245
238
240
245
240
236
243
232
241
241
249
245
242
234
245
243
19
30
21
30
20
28
16
14
16
14
23
23
15
20
13
13
11
18
27
11
16
8
22
11
33
17
10
19
21
8
12
28
16
14
8
13
18
19
15
18
23
13
26
15
18
11
15
17
22
15
12
81
70
79
70
80
72
84
86
84
86
77
77
85
80
87
87
89
82
73
89
84
92
78
89
67
83
90
81
79
92
88
72
84
86
92
87
82
81
85
82
77
87
74
85
82
89
85
83
78
85
88
40
25
40
30
39
32
46
49
40
42
35
37
42
41
42
43
48
39
24
48
44
59
37
56
23
43
49
39
34
58
51
27
43
44
47
48
35
40
48
43
36
44
29
39
42
53
46
45
30
47
43
7
3
7
4
6
6
9
11
6
6
5
6
5
7
6
6
7
7
2
9
11
14
7
14
2
7
7
4
4
11
11
4
6
8
7
9
4
7
9
6
5
6
3
5
7
11
9
8
3
9
4
238
228
236
230
236
231
242
243
238
241
236
236
240
237
242
242
244
238
229
242
243
251
235
248
228
240
242
239
234
250
245
229
239
244
244
242
236
236
242
237
235
241
231
240
239
247
241
242
232
242
241
19
29
22
29
20
29
16
15
17
14
21
22
15
21
12
13
11
20
28
14
14
7
22
12
29
17
14
17
22
8
13
29
17
13
10
16
19
21
16
21
22
14
26
14
19
11
14
15
24
15
14
81
71
78
71
80
71
84
85
83
86
79
78
85
79
88
87
89
80
72
86
86
93
78
88
71
83
86
83
78
92
87
71
83
87
90
84
81
79
84
79
78
86
74
86
81
89
86
85
76
85
86
37
24
36
26
34
29
44
44
33
39
32
37
39
35
41
40
44
34
21
42
43
55
33
51
21
39
41
37
30
54
46
25
37
42
42
43
30
34
43
36
32
39
28
37
40
49
39
42
26
43
38
5
2
5
3
4
5
7
6
4
5
4
4
4
6
4
5
6
5
1
5
7
10
4
9
1
5
5
4
3
9
7
2
5
8
3
6
2
4
6
4
4
3
2
3
5
8
6
6
1
7
4
218
242
45
13
55
87
17
42
4
4
221
238
42
16
58
84
17
33
3
3

MATHEMATICS 2009
53
Table A-14.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students, by eligibility for free/reduced-
price school lunch and state/jurisdiction: 2009

Eligible
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
DoDEA1
Not eligible

Average
At or
At or
Average
At or
At or
Average
At or
At or
scale Below above
above
At
scale Below above
above
At
scale Below above
above
At
228
217
226
219
229
220
228
225
229
235
225
224
234
224
232
232
236
229
223
235
229
237
222
234
221
229
235
227
226
237
229
223
233
232
236
230
231
227
228
224
226
232
222
233
227
235
230
231
227
229
234
29
43
33
42
28
40
30
33
27
20
32
33
23
34
22
23
18
28
35
20
26
17
36
24
39
29
19
30
31
18
27
36
25
22
16
27
23
30
29
34
32
25
38
21
33
22
26
26
30
27
21
71
57
67
58
72
60
70
67
73
80
68
67
77
66
78
77
82
72
65
80
74
83
64
76
61
71
81
70
69
82
73
64
75
78
84
73
77
70
71
66
68
75
62
79
67
78
74
74
70
73
79
22
13
24
15
23
15
24
18
21
29
19
23
30
18
26
25
32
21
14
31
20
31
17
31
14
24
31
23
20
35
22
17
28
25
29
24
23
22
23
18
20
27
16
26
24
32
23
27
20
24
29
1
#
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
4
2
2
1
2
2
250
241
247
243
250
246
252
253
248
251
249
245
246
251
251
249
254
249
245
251
253
260
247
257
242
250
251
247
242
255
255
245
249
255
250
253
244
248
253
249
248
248
242
252
248
254
250
251
241
252
246
9
14
12
14
8
14
8
7
8
7
9
14
10
9
6
7
5
10
9
8
8
3
11
6
12
9
6
9
14
5
6
11
8
6
5
7
12
11
7
9
10
8
13
6
11
6
9
8
13
7
8
91
86
88
86
92
86
92
93
92
93
91
86
90
91
94
93
95
90
91
92
92
97
89
94
88
91
94
91
86
95
94
89
92
94
95
93
88
89
93
91
90
92
87
94
89
94
91
92
87
93
92
54
39
49
44
55
48
58
58
48
55
53
48
49
54
54
51
60
53
43
54
59
70
49
64
41
54
56
49
41
62
62
45
52
60
52
60
44
50
60
54
51
50
42
57
50
60
52
56
40
58
47
10
5
9
7
9
11
12
11
8
9
9
8
7
11
9
7
10
11
4
10
14
17
9
15
4
9
8
7
5
12
13
7
7
14
7
11
5
9
11
8
9
6
5
9
8
12
10
11
4
11
5
240
227
258
251
257
22
35
11
3
78
65
92
89
97
42
25
69
57
64
17
12
14
211
52
48
242
19
81
42
12
240
14
86
38
# Rounds to zero.
1
Table A-15.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school students,
by status as students with disabilities (SD) and state/jurisdiction: 2009

SD
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
DoDEA1
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
220
194
218
209
215
208
218
222
220
230
215
196
219
223
228
220
227
226
215
225
228
237
220
232
212
225
223
222
218
231
230
212
220
224
231
220
220
218
222
214
211
226
210
222
219
226
225
217
217
222
227
41
71
45
57
46
57
43
39
42
28
47
70
44
38
30
40
31
35
50
34
33
19
42
28
53
36
34
39
43
26
30
50
40
36
22
40
41
46
40
49
55
35
57
39
44
34
37
49
45
40
31
59
29
55
43
54
43
57
61
58
72
53
30
56
62
70
60
69
65
50
66
67
81
58
72
47
64
66
61
57
74
70
50
60
64
78
60
59
54
60
51
45
65
43
61
56
66
63
51
55
60
69
19
5
16
15
14
16
15
19
16
26
13
9
16
23
24
12
23
21
10
19
27
32
19
32
10
26
16
18
16
27
27
10
13
23
21
18
16
17
19
13
13
22
11
18
18
22
21
17
14
18
20
193
222
77
40
23
60
4
17
Not SD
At or
At or
above
above
At
Basic Proficient Advanced
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
At or
above
above
At
2
#
1
1
#
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
4
2
1
2
3
1
1
4
4
2
5
#
2
1
2
1
2
4
#
1
2
2
#
1
3
3
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
242
231
241
233
240
234
246
248
242
244
238
240
243
241
245
246
248
241
233
249
245
255
238
252
229
243
247
242
237
255
249
232
244
247
247
247
239
241
247
243
239
245
234
242
243
252
246
245
236
247
245
16
26
17
26
17
26
13
11
13
11
19
18
12
18
10
9
8
17
23
8
13
6
19
9
29
15
9
14
19
4
10
26
12
10
7
11
15
16
12
13
17
11
22
13
16
7
11
12
18
11
9
84
74
83
74
83
74
87
89
87
89
81
82
88
82
90
91
92
83
77
92
87
94
81
91
71
85
91
86
81
96
90
74
88
90
93
89
85
84
88
87
83
89
78
87
84
93
89
88
82
89
91
41
26
42
30
39
31
49
50
39
43
36
40
43
40
44
46
49
39
26
50
46
61
37
57
23
43
49
42
34
61
52
28
45
46
48
49
35
40
50
44
37
45
31
40
44
56
46
46
31
49
44
6
3
7
4
5
6
9
9
5
6
5
6
5
7
6
6
7
6
2
8
9
13
6
12
2
6
6
5
3
12
10
3
6
9
5
8
3
6
8
6
5
5
3
5
7
11
8
8
3
8
4
1
1
222
243
40
11
60
89
19
40
4
4
# Rounds to zero.
1
NOTE: The results for students with disabilities are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because of
rounding.
MATHEMATICS 2009
55
Table A-16.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for fourth-grade public school
students, by status as English language learners (ELL) and state/jurisdiction: 2009

ELL
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
DoDEA1
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
218
202
201
227
211
216
216
221
226
220
209
210
215
226
221
231
232
225
227
221
216
224
214
213
220
230
216
208
218
229
239
219
213
215
209
232
212
228
209
229
214
223
43
64
69
29
52
47
49
39
31
41
56
61
47
28
38
20
28
29
29
38
48
36
50
49
39
27
51
60
43
25
19
40
52
53
56
25
54
26
57
24
50
34
57
36
31
71
48
53
51
61
69
59
44
39
53
72
62
80
72
71
71
62
52
64
50
51
61
73
49
40
57
75
81
60
48
47
44
75
46
74
43
76
50
66
12
4
2
21
6
9
9
11
19
14
12
7
11
19
14
21
28
15
17
15
12
15
10
6
12
28
10
5
13
18
36
9
6
12
10
28
13
20
6
19
8
15
215
232
47
22
53
78
14
22
Not ELL
At or
At or
above
above
At
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
At or
above
above
At
#
#
2
#
1
1
#
1
#
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
1
2
1
1
2
#
#
1
#
1
#
#
1
6
#
#
#
1
3
1
1
#
1
#
242
228
241
235
238
240
246
246
240
243
237
239
243
240
243
244
247
239
230
245
245
254
237
252
227
241
245
241
239
252
247
234
242
245
245
244
238
241
244
241
236
243
232
244
243
248
244
245
233
245
243
16
29
17
23
19
19
12
13
16
12
21
19
13
18
12
12
10
19
28
13
14
6
21
9
31
17
10
16
17
7
11
22
15
13
9
15
17
16
14
17
22
13
25
12
15
11
14
12
23
14
12
84
71
83
77
81
81
88
87
84
88
79
81
87
82
88
88
90
81
72
87
86
94
79
91
69
83
90
84
83
93
89
78
85
87
91
85
83
84
86
83
78
87
75
88
85
89
86
88
77
86
88
41
25
42
32
37
40
50
48
37
42
35
40
42
40
43
43
49
37
23
45
45
60
36
57
22
41
47
40
37
56
50
30
42
45
45
45
34
41
46
41
34
43
29
43
44
51
44
47
28
47
41
6
2
6
4
5
8
9
9
5
6
5
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
2
7
9
13
5
12
2
6
6
4
4
10
9
3
6
9
5
8
3
6
8
5
5
5
3
5
7
9
8
8
2
8
4
1
1
220
241
43
14
57
86
17
38
3
4
# Rounds to zero.
1
NOTE: The results for English language learners are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because
of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics
Assessment.
Table A-17.Percentage distribution of eighth-grade students assessed in NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity, eligibility for free/reduced-
price school lunch, and state/jurisdiction: 1990, 1996, and 2009
Eligibility for free/reduced-price

school lunch
Race/ethnicity
Black
White
State/jurisdiction
Nation (public)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Other jurisdictions
DoDEA2
Hispanic
Asian/
American Indian/
Pacific Islander Alaska Native
Eligible
Not eligible
19901
2009
19901
2009
19901
2009
19901
2009
19901
2009
19961
2009
19961
2009
73*
67*
62*
75*
49*
77*
79*
70*
64*
62*
20*
93*
70*
87*
95*
90*
57
62*
82*
93*
91*
92*
98*
69*
42*
61*
63*
93
84*
77*
91*
82
86*
50*
70*
96*
88*
86
56
60
53
44
69
28
61
70
54
46
47
14
81
58
76
86
73
85
52
94
49
73
74
79
48
80
85
77
44
92
59
29
54
55
88
78
58
72
77
71
54
84
70
37
80
94
59
68
93
79
84
16
32
3*
24
7
5
11
26*
22
36
2
#
19
9
2*
9
40
31
14
2*
#*
5*
#*
17
2
19
32
#
12
11
2
14
5*
14
25
3*
9
1
16
35
4
5
21
6
6
11
34
22
37
3
1
18
12
5
9
10
43
2
35
8
18
7
50
14
1
8
10
2
16
3
19
28
1
15
10
2
13
9
38
2
25
14
1
2
26
5
5
10
1
7*
#*
26*
1*
30*
15*
8*
2*
12*
1*
2*
4*
8*
2*
1*
#*
1
2*
2*
#*
1*
2*
1*
9*
42*
13*
1*
1
1*
2*
3*
2*
5*
33*
2*
#*
1*
6*
21
3
6
42
8
51
28
15
9
26
10
3
14
18
7
6
14
2
2
1
10
11
4
5
2
3
3
12
35
3
17
58
20
10
2
2
11
16
6
17
5
2
3
46
14
1
8
15
1
7
10
2*
1*
2*
1
12
2*
2*
1*
2
1*
67
1
2
1
1*
1*
1
4*
2
3*
1*
1*
1*
4*
2
4*
1*
1
1
1
3*
1*
2*
3*
1
2*
1
5
1
9
3
1
13
4
4
3
2
3
68
2
4
2
2
2
1
2
2
7
6
2
6
1
2
1
2
9
2
8
1
7
2
1
1
2
5
3
3
1
1
2
4
3
2
6
8
1
3
1
1
#
7
#*
1
1
#
#*
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
#
#
1
2
7*
#*
#
#
11
1
2
5
#
9*
2
#
#*
#
1
2*
1
1
22
6
1
1
1
#
#
#
#
1
2
#
#
1
2
#
1
1
#
#
1
2
#
1
10
1
1
#
#
9
#
1
9
#
19
2
#
1
#
11
#
#
1
1
#
3
#
1
3
30*
39*
15*
27*
32*
36*
24*
21
20*
39*
32*
30*
23*
19*
34*
48*
22*
25*
18*
20*
20*
53*
26*
25*
27*
42*
37
31*
24*
22*
26*
44*
27*
37*
20*
19*
23*
25*
36*
20*
21*
43
50
36
47
53
53
35
26
38
48
49
41
36
39
37
33
42
48
62
35
31
29
38
27
66
36
34
37
35
20
27
63
44
44
29
34
48
41
33
38
51
32
43
53
27
29
31
37
52
31
29
56
59*
33*
50
60*
47
65
74
59*
53
54
65*
77*
74*
58*
44*
73*
70
75
66
65*
42*
66
59*
69*
43*
54
62*
67*
62
70*
55*
64*
57*
70*
73
67
72*
61*
67
73*
56
50
62
51
47
45
63
74
62
52
50
59
62
61
63
67
57
52
38
65
69
71
62
73
33
64
66
63
65
77
71
35
52
54
71
66
52
57
67
62
49
68
57
47
64
71
69
63
48
66
71
3
46
93*
87
16
3*
9
16
1*
2
9
#
1
55*
73
#
30*
26
#
# Rounds to zero.
1
2
NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified and
for students whose eligibility status for free/reduced-price school lunch was not available. Data on eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch were not collected until 1996.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1990, 1996, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.
MATHEMATICS 2009
57
Table A-18.Percentage of eighth-grade public school students at or above Basic in NAEP mathematics, by state/jurisdiction: Various
years, 19902009

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
DoDEA1
1990
51*
40*
48*
44*
45*
57*
60*
48*
43*
47*
40*
63*
50*
56*
70*
43*
32*
50*
53*
67*
74*
68*
65*
58*
43*
50*
38*
75*
53*
52*
62*
56*
49*
45*
52*
42*
66*
64*
1992
56*
39*
55*
44*
50*
64*
64*
52*
49*
48*
46*
68*
60*
76
51*
37*
72*
54*
63*
58*
74*
33*
62*
70*
71*
62*
48*
57*
47*
78*
59*
59*
62*
56*
48*
47*
53*
67*
57*
47*
71*
67*
1996
61*
45*
68*
57*
52*
51*
67*
70*
55*
54*
51*
51*
68*
78
56*
38*
77
57*
68*
67
75*
36*
64*
75*
76
51*
61*
56*
77*
67*
60*
48*
53*
59*
70*
72*
58*
67*
54*
75
68*
2000
65*
52*
62*
52*
52*
72*
55*
52*
71*
68
76
77
63*
48*
76
65*
76*
70
80
41*
67*
80
74
58*
50*
68
70
77*
75
64
71
64*
55*
53*
68*
68*
75*
67*
62
70*
2000
62*
53*
60*
49*
50*
70*
54*
51*
70*
67*
74
76
60*
47*
73*
62*
70*
68
80
42*
64*
79*
73
55*
48*
63*
67*
76*
73
62*
71
59*
53*
52*
67*
66*
73*
65*
58
69*
2003
67*
53*
70*
61*
58*
56
74
73*
68*
62*
59*
56*
73*
66*
74*
76
76
65*
57*
75
67*
76*
68
82
47*
71*
79*
74
59*
79
72*
52*
70
72
81*
74
65
70*
69*
63*
68
78*
59*
69*
72*
77*
72*
72*
63
75*
77
2005
68*
53*
69*
64
64
57
70*
70*
72*
65*
62*
56*
73*
68*
74*
75
77
64*
59
74*
66*
80*
68
79*
52
68*
80*
75
60
77*
74*
53*
70
72
81*
74
63*
72
72*
63*
71
80*
61
72*
71*
78*
75
75
60
76
76
2007
70*
55
73
66
65
59
75
73*
74
68
64
59*
75*
70
76
77
81
69
64
78
74
85
66
81
54
72*
79*
74
60
78*
77
57
70
73
86
76
66
73
77
65
71
81
64
78
72
81
77
75
61
76
80
2009
71
58
75
67
67
59
76
78
75
70
67
65
78
73
78
76
79
70
62
78
75
85
68
83
54
77
82
75
63
82
80
59
73
74
86
76
68
75
78
68
69
83
65
78
75
81
76
78
61
79
78
17*
22*
20*
64*
23*
70*
23*
68*
29*
79
31*
76*
34*
78
40
79
1
Table A-19.Percentage of eighth-grade public school students at or above Proficient in NAEP mathematics, by state/jurisdiction:
Various years, 19902009

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
DoDEA1
1990
15*
9*
13*
9*
12*
17*
22*
14*
12*
14*
12*
18*
15*
17*
25*
10*
5*
17*
16*
23*
27*
24*
20*
21*
10*
15*
9*
27*
15*
13*
21*
17*
15*
13*
17*
9*
23*
19*
1992
20*
10*
15*
10*
16*
22*
26*
15*
15*
13*
14*
22*
20*
31
14*
7*
25*
20*
23*
19*
31*
6*
20*
26*
25*
24*
11*
20*
12*
29*
18*
17*
21*
16*
15*
12*
18*
22*
19*
10*
27*
21*
1996
23*
12*
30
18*
13*
17*
25*
31*
19*
17*
16*
16*
24*
31
16*
7*
31*
24*
28*
28
34*
7*
22*
32*
31
14*
22*
20*
33*
26*
20*
14*
15*
21*
24*
27*
21*
26*
14*
32*
22*
2000
26*
16*
21*
14*
18*
34*
19*
16*
27*
27*
31*
34*
21*
12*
32
29*
32*
28
40*
8*
22*
37*
31
20*
13*
26*
30*
31*
31*
19*
32*
24*
18*
17*
24*
26*
32*
26*
18
25*
2000
25*
16*
20*
13*
17*
33*
19*
16*
26*
26*
29*
34*
20*
11*
30*
27*
30*
28
39*
9*
21*
36*
30*
18*
12*
24*
27*
30*
30*
18*
31*
22*
17*
16*
24*
25*
31*
25*
17
23*
2003
27*
16*
30*
21*
19*
22
34*
35*
26*
23*
22*
17*
28*
29
31*
33
34*
24
17
29*
30*
38*
28
44
12
28*
35*
32
20*
35*
33*
15*
32
32
36*
30*
20*
32*
30*
24*
26*
35*
21
25*
31*
35*
31*
32*
20
35*
32
2005
28*
15*
29*
26
22*
22
32*
35*
30
26
23*
18*
30*
29*
30*
34
34*
23*
16
30*
30*
43*
29
43*
14
26*
36*
35
21*
35*
36*
14*
31
32
35*
33
21
34
31*
24*
30
36*
21*
31*
30*
38*
33
36
18
36
29*
2007
31*
18
32
26
24
24
37
35*
31
27
25
21*
34*
31
35
35
40
27
19
34
37
51
29
43
14
30*
38*
35
23
38*
40
17
30
34
41
35
21
35
38
28
32
39
23
35
32
41
37
36*
19
37
36
2009
33
20
33
29
27
23
40
40
32
29
27
25
38
33
36
34
39
27
20
35
40
52
31
47
15
35
44
35
25
43
44
20
34
36
43
36
24
37
40
28
30
42
25
36
35
43
36
39
19
39
35
3*
4*
5*
22*
6*
27*
6*
26*
6*
33*
7*
33
8*
33
11
36
1
MATHEMATICS 2009
59
Table A-20.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by race/ethnicity and state/
jurisdiction: 2009
White
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
DoDEA1
Black
Average
At or
At or
scale Below above
above
At
Hispanic
Average
At or
At or
scale Below above
above
At
Average
At or
At or
scale Below above
above
At
292
280
293
292
284
289
299
298
294
289
289
282
292
294
291
287
294
282
283
287
303
305
286
300
279
290
296
291
287
293
302
288
294
297
296
291
282
290
294
286
293
295
282
301
289
293
294
295
271
294
289
18
28
14
19
24
22
13
13
14
20
20
26
17
15
17
21
15
27
23
21
11
9
23
11
26
18
13
17
22
17
11
19
14
15
10
17
24
19
16
23
17
13
27
11
19
18
16
15
39
14
18
82
72
86
81
76
78
87
87
86
80
80
74
83
85
83
79
85
73
77
79
89
91
77
89
74
82
87
83
78
83
89
81
86
85
90
83
76
81
84
77
83
87
73
89
81
82
84
85
61
86
82
43
29
44
42
34
39
51
49
43
39
39
31
43
44
41
37
45
29
29
36
56
59
37
53
25
39
47
41
36
44
54
39
44
49
46
41
29
41
45
35
43
46
30
54
40
44
44
46
20
45
38
10
5
8
11
6
10
14
13
9
9
9
6
9
10
8
7
10
5
6
8
18
20
8
15
3
7
11
9
8
11
17
7
10
14
8
9
4
9
11
7
11
8
6
16
8
13
10
12
2
10
8
260
248
268
269
251
250
263
261
267
264
262
271
255
266
259
264
258
257
261
266
272
246
264
251
260
253
256
267
259
262
262
260
261
264
260
256
263
254
272
268
269
263
254
51
66
42
42
64
60
47
50
42
47
50
40
59
46
50
48
55
57
54
45
38
68
47
64
54
60
59
42
45
49
47
55
49
47
51
55
48
60
34
41
40
47
62
49
34
58
58
36
40
53
50
58
53
50
60
41
54
50
52
45
43
46
55
62
32
53
36
46
40
41
58
55
51
53
45
51
53
49
45
52
40
66
59
60
53
38
12
6
17
23
8
10
16
10
13
13
11
21
9
14
9
15
8
7
14
15
23
5
13
5
11
10
10
17
13
13
12
11
10
12
13
8
12
10
17
14
16
11
11
1
1
1
5
#
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
#
1
5
1
3
1
2
#
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
2
266
260
275
265
269
256
267
263
278
274
270
276
264
269
273
266
274
272
275
271
269
269
284
278
262
262
270
272
262
262
274
267
263
264
266
255
269
268
270
277
259
274
264
268
269
44
51
31
44
37
55
45
45
28
34
41
30
46
41
36
43
35
37
36
38
38
45
24
30
50
50
45
37
50
48
33
42
50
46
45
57
43
38
39
30
54
35
47
44
40
56
49
69
56
63
45
55
55
72
66
59
70
54
59
64
57
65
63
64
62
62
55
76
70
50
50
55
63
50
52
67
58
50
54
55
43
57
62
61
70
46
65
53
56
60
17
10
23
16
15
11
18
14
22
22
18
26
15
17
19
15
22
22
26
21
17
21
37
27
10
13
22
22
12
15
24
16
12
15
18
8
16
13
19
25
11
23
13
20
15
2
#
5
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
4
1
1
2
1
3
3
4
4
2
4
4
5
1
2
6
3
1
2
2
#
1
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
1
3
2
3
3
294
13
87
44
249
269
64
40
36
60
8
14
#
1
265
281
42
28
58
72
18
28
2
4
See notes at end of table.
Table A-20.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public
school students, by race/ethnicity and state/jurisdiction: 2009Continued

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
DoDEA1

Average
At or
At or
Average
At or
At or
scale Below above
above
At
scale Below above
above
At
300
282
295
294
301
305
312
302
300
274
304
320
314
309
283
283
308
323
309
311
289
296
305
292
313
276
304
302
289
16
28
19
18
14
10
8
13
14
36
11
5
10
11
32
30
9
5
10
13
20
20
13
15
8
36
11
15
18
84
72
81
82
86
90
92
87
86
64
89
95
90
89
68
70
91
95
90
87
80
80
87
85
92
64
89
85
82
53
31
52
46
55
61
69
55
49
25
60
76
66
59
35
33
62
77
63
65
38
50
60
40
67
27
55
53
40
20
7
18
13
18
18
27
19
20
4
19
35
35
28
11
7
26
43
26
36
8
18
25
10
31
7
24
22
267
262
254
277
260
256
256
263
269
273
266
263
269
43
49
57
26
49
54
55
48
40
36
45
49
42
57
51
43
74
51
46
45
52
60
64
55
51
58
20
15
12
21
16
10
14
16
19
25
17
18
23
2
2
2
2
2
6
292
17
83
44
# Rounds to zero.
1
NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown
for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassified. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
MATHEMATICS 2009
61
Table A-21.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public
school students, by gender and state/jurisdiction: 2009

Male
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
DoDEA1
Female
Average
At or
At or
Average
At or
At or
scale Below above
above
At
scale Below above
above
At
283
268
283
279
275
272
289
288
284
281
277
271
288
284
288
285
290
281
272
288
290
300
280
296
265
287
292
286
275
293
295
271
283
284
294
287
278
287
290
278
281
292
275
287
285
294
287
290
271
289
288
28
42
26
32
34
39
24
23
24
29
35
38
21
26
21
24
21
29
39
22
24
14
31
17
45
23
18
24
36
19
19
39
27
27
13
23
31
24
22
32
31
17
36
22
25
19
23
21
40
20
20
72
58
74
68
66
61
76
77
76
71
65
62
79
74
79
76
79
71
61
78
76
86
69
83
55
77
82
76
64
81
81
61
73
73
87
77
69
76
78
68
69
83
64
78
75
81
77
79
60
80
80
34
21
34
31
27
26
41
39
32
31
27
24
39
35
39
35
43
30
21
38
42
53
32
49
15
37
45
37
26
45
47
21
36
37
45
38
26
40
42
29
31
44
26
38
37
45
38
41
21
41
38
8
4
7
7
4
6
11
11
7
7
6
5
9
9
8
8
9
6
5
10
14
18
8
15
2
8
11
9
5
13
16
4
8
9
10
9
4
10
12
6
8
9
4
8
7
14
9
12
3
10
8
281
269
283
276
277
268
286
289
283
278
278
276
286
280
285
284
287
278
273
284
287
298
277
293
265
285
291
283
273
292
290
269
282
284
291
284
274
283
287
278
280
289
275
286
283
292
285
288
270
287
284
29
42
25
33
32
42
25
21
25
31
32
32
22
29
24
24
21
30
37
23
25
15
33
18
46
23
17
26
38
18
20
42
28
25
14
25
34
26
22
31
31
18
35
23
25
19
24
23
39
22
24
71
58
75
67
68
58
75
79
75
69
68
68
78
71
76
76
79
70
63
77
75
85
67
82
54
77
83
74
62
82
80
58
72
75
86
75
66
74
78
69
69
82
65
77
75
81
76
77
61
78
76
31
20
33
27
27
21
38
41
31
27
27
27
37
31
34
33
36
25
20
32
38
50
29
45
15
34
42
32
24
42
42
19
32
34
42
34
21
33
37
26
29
39
25
35
33
42
33
38
18
38
31
7
3
5
5
5
4
9
10
6
5
5
4
7
6
7
5
7
4
3
6
11
16
5
11
1
5
9
7
4
10
12
3
7
9
5
7
3
7
8
5
6
5
4
9
6
11
7
10
2
7
6
252
288
61
19
39
81
12
38
2
6
255
286
59
22
41
78
11
34
2
6
1
Table A-22.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school students, by eligibility for free/
reduced-price school lunch and state/jurisdiction: 2009

Eligible
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
DoDEA1
Not eligible

Average
At or
At or
Average
At or
At or
Average
At or
At or
scale Below above
above
At
scale Below above
above
At
scale Below above
above
At
266
255
269
262
264
258
267
263
271
269
265
261
276
264
273
269
276
268
263
272
267
278
260
273
256
272
277
267
263
276
270
261
270
268
280
269
266
270
268
261
268
276
261
276
268
277
268
271
262
269
274
43
56
40
47
46
53
43
46
37
41
47
48
33
47
36
39
33
42
48
36
45
31
50
37
57
37
30
42
49
34
39
50
40
42
25
41
43
39
40
49
43
31
51
31
43
33
40
38
49
40
33
57
44
60
53
54
47
57
54
63
59
53
52
67
53
64
61
67
58
52
64
55
69
50
63
43
63
70
58
51
66
61
50
60
58
75
59
57
61
60
51
57
69
49
69
57
67
60
62
51
60
67
17
10
19
14
15
12
19
13
17
18
13
15
25
14
21
17
24
15
11
19
17
29
13
21
8
19
27
17
14
24
20
11
22
18
27
18
14
21
18
12
16
24
13
23
20
24
15
20
11
20
20
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
2
4
2
2
2
4
1
1
2
2
5
1
4
#
2
3
1
2
4
3
1
4
3
4
2
1
3
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
4
1
3
1
2
2
293
282
292
291
290
285
298
298
292
289
290
282
294
294
295
292
298
290
288
294
298
307
289
302
283
294
299
294
280
296
300
284
293
298
298
294
285
296
298
288
294
297
285
299
290
300
294
299
280
297
291
17
27
17
20
19
26
14
13
17
20
20
26
16
15
14
16
12
19
21
15
16
8
21
10
22
15
11
15
30
15
13
24
16
14
9
15
22
15
13
21
18
11
24
13
19
13
16
12
29
12
17
83
73
83
80
81
74
86
87
83
80
80
74
84
85
86
84
88
81
79
85
84
92
79
90
78
85
89
85
70
85
87
76
84
86
91
85
78
85
87
79
82
89
76
87
81
87
84
88
71
88
83
45
31
42
42
40
37
51
49
41
40
41
32
46
45
45
42
51
38
35
44
50
61
41
56
30
45
52
45
31
48
53
34
43
50
49
45
33
48
50
37
45
49
35
51
40
51
45
51
28
48
41
12
6
8
11
8
10
14
13
9
9
10
6
10
11
10
9
12
8
9
11
17
22
10
17
4
9
13
11
6
13
18
6
10
15
9
11
5
13
13
8
12
9
7
15
8
17
12
15
4
11
9
284
269
308
307
284
285
294
291
28
38
12
11
33
22
14
18
72
62
88
89
67
78
86
82
35
17
61
61
40
29
45
41
10
2
27
24
12
7
13
247
66
34
272
42
58
24
287
21
79
36
# Rounds to zero.
1
MATHEMATICS 2009
63
Table A-23.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school
students, by status as students with disabilities (SD) and state/jurisdiction: 2009

SD
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
DoDEA1
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
249
221
247
235
238
229
252
256
255
252
245
230
248
250
258
243
254
250
244
257
265
271
239
263
233
255
244
252
242
264
259
236
255
251
268
255
240
246
254
245
248
255
239
254
243
261
253
248
237
255
254
64
87
66
75
75
82
61
54
60
61
72
81
65
62
59
73
60
67
72
58
46
41
75
50
82
59
69
61
71
48
53
77
57
61
38
57
75
68
58
70
67
60
77
59
75
53
60
66
78
55
61
36
13
34
25
25
18
39
46
40
39
28
19
35
38
41
27
40
33
28
42
54
59
25
50
18
41
31
39
29
52
47
23
43
39
62
43
25
32
42
30
33
40
23
41
25
47
40
34
22
45
39
9
1
6
5
4
3
11
13
9
8
6
3
8
8
12
5
9
7
6
10
18
21
3
16
1
9
6
10
9
14
13
6
10
11
13
11
5
6
10
5
7
8
6
14
6
11
10
6
2
10
8
213
254
94
60
6
40
1
10
Not SD
At or
At or
above
above
At
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
At or
above
above
At
1
#
#
1
#
#
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
4
1
3
#
1
#
1
1
2
3
#
1
2
1
1
#
1
1
#
3
2
1
3
1
3
2
1
#
1
1
285
273
287
282
281
274
291
293
288
284
281
279
291
287
290
290
292
282
277
292
290
304
283
298
268
289
297
288
277
298
298
274
287
288
296
289
279
290
294
284
284
294
278
289
287
300
290
293
276
293
291
24
37
21
28
28
37
21
18
19
25
29
29
18
23
18
17
17
27
33
16
24
11
27
14
43
19
12
21
34
12
14
36
22
22
11
20
28
20
16
24
27
13
32
19
21
11
19
18
33
16
17
76
63
79
72
72
63
79
82
81
75
71
71
82
77
82
83
83
73
67
84
76
89
73
86
57
81
88
79
66
88
86
64
78
78
89
80
72
80
84
76
73
87
68
81
79
89
81
82
67
84
83
35
22
36
32
30
25
43
43
35
32
29
28
41
36
39
38
43
29
22
40
41
57
34
51
16
38
48
38
26
50
50
22
37
39
47
38
26
40
45
32
33
45
27
38
37
51
39
43
22
44
38
8
4
7
7
5
6
11
11
7
6
6
5
9
8
8
7
9
5
5
9
13
19
7
14
2
7
11
8
5
13
16
4
9
10
8
9
4
9
11
7
7
8
5
9
7
15
9
12
3
9
8
#
1
259
290
55
17
45
83
13
38
2
7
# Rounds to zero.
1
NOTE: The results for students with disabilities are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because
of rounding.
Assessment.
Table A-24.Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP mathematics for eighth-grade public school
students, by status as English language learners (ELL) and state/jurisdiction: 2009

ELL
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
DoDEA1
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
243
243
224
257
237
248
240
241
231
241
249
270
260
249
238
256
255
236
245
234
241
238
231
259
261
239
241
253
237
267
254
239
264
246
259
72
73
89
51
79
68
75
70
82
73
68
44
52
69
78
58
59
76
70
84
72
80
80
49
51
80
75
63
76
45
59
78
45
72
55
28
27
11
49
21
32
25
30
18
27
32
56
48
31
22
42
41
24
30
16
28
20
20
51
49
20
25
37
24
55
41
22
55
28
45
2
2
8
3
4
6
2
1
7
19
10
8
8
10
9
1
3
2
11
3
4
11
11
1
3
11
8
17
6
2
13
3
264
53
47
10
Not ELL
At or
At or
At
above
above
Average
scale
score
Below
Basic
At or
At or
At
above
above
1
#
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
5
1
1
#
3
#
#
#
2
#
1
1
#
#
1
1
3
3
1
#
3
1
284
269
288
281
277
278
290
290
284
281
278
276
289
283
287
285
290
280
273
287
289
300
279
296
265
286
293
285
278
293
294
273
285
286
293
286
277
288
289
279
281
291
275
289
286
293
287
290
270
289
287
26
41
20
29
33
32
21
20
24
28
33
32
20
26
22
23
19
29
38
22
24
13
32
15
46
23
16
24
33
18
19
36
25
25
13
24
31
22
21
30
30
17
35
20
23
18
23
20
39
20
21
74
59
80
71
67
68
79
80
76
72
67
68
80
74
78
77
81
71
62
78
76
87
68
85
54
77
84
76
67
82
81
64
75
75
87
76
69
78
79
70
70
83
65
80
77
82
77
80
61
80
79
34
21
37
31
28
28
42
41
32
30
27
27
40
34
37
35
41
27
20
36
41
53
31
49
15
36
45
36
27
44
45
22
35
37
43
36
25
39
40
28
31
42
25
38
37
44
36
41
19
40
35
8
4
7
7
5
6
11
10
6
6
6
5
8
7
7
7
9
5
4
8
12
18
7
14
2
7
10
8
5
11
14
4
8
10
7
8
3
9
10
6
7
7
4
9
7
13
8
11
2
9
7
254
288
59
19
41
81
11
37
2
6
# Rounds to zero.
1
NOTE: The results for English language learners are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. Detail may not sum to totals because
of rounding.
Assessment.
MATHEMATICS 2009
65

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a congressionally authorized project sponsored by the
U.S. Department of Education. The National Center for Education Statistics, within the Institute of Education Sciences,
administers NAEP. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible by law for carrying out the NAEP project.
Arne Duncan
John Q. Easton
Secretary
U.S. Department
of Education
Stuart Kerachsky
Director
Institute of
Education Sciences
Acting Commissioner
National Center for
Education Statistics
The National Assessment Governing Board

In 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board to set policy for the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, commonly known as The Nation's Report CardTM. The Governing Board is an independent,
bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators,
business representatives, and members of the general public.
Honorable David P. Driscoll, Chair Doris R. Hicks
Former Commissioner of Education
Melrose, Massachusetts
Amanda P. Avallone, Vice Chair

Assistant Principal and
Eighth-Grade Teacher
Summit Middle School
Boulder, Colorado
Principal and Chief Executive Officer

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School
for Science and Technology
New Orleans, Louisiana
Former Chairman
Hudson School Board
Hudson, New Hampshire
Warren T. Smith
Kim Kozbial-Hess
Mary Frances Taymans, SND
Fourth-Grade Teacher and

Educational Technology Trainer
Toledo, Ohio
Carol A. DAmico
President and Chief Executive Officer

Conexus Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Louis M. Fabrizio
Henry Kranendonk
Mathematics Consultant
Milwaukee Public Schools
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Director, Accountability Policy and

Communications
North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction
Raleigh, North Carolina
Tonya Miles
Honorable Anitere Flores
Honorable Steven L. Paine
Member
Florida House of Representatives
Miami, Florida
Alan J. Friedman
Consultant
Museum Development and Science
Communication
New York, New York
David W. Gordon
County Superintendent of Schools

Sacramento County Office of Education
Sacramento, California
Dean
Graduate School of Education
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Kathi M. King
Twelfth-Grade Teacher
Messalonskee High School
Oakland, Maine
David J. Alukonis
Andrew C. Porter
Chief Departmental Administrator

Maryland-National Capital Park and
Planning Commission
Mitchellville, Maryland
The report release site is

http://nationsreportcard.gov.
The NCES web electronic
catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/
pubsearch.
For ordering information, write to
ED Pubs
P.O. Box 1398
Jessup, MD 20794-1398
or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs
or order online at
http://www.edpubs.org.
Vice President
Washington State Board of Education
Olympia, Washington
Executive Director
Secondary Schools Department
National Catholic Educational Association
Washington, D.C.
Oscar A. Troncoso
Principal
Anthony High School
Anthony Independent School District
Anthony, Texas
Honorable Leticia Van de Putte
T H E N AT I O N S
RE P O R T C A RD
Mathematics
Senator
Texas State Senate
San Antonio, Texas
2009
State Superintendent of Schools

West Virginia Department of Education
Charleston, West Virginia
Eileen L. Weiser
OCTOBER 2009
Honorable Sonny Perdue
Darvin M. Winick
Governor of Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia
Susan Pimentel
Educational Consultant
Hanover, New Hampshire
W. James Popham
Professor Emeritus
Graduate School of Education and
Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles
Wilsonville, Oregon
General Public Representative

Ann Arbor, Michigan
President
Winick & Associates
Austin, Texas
John Q. Easton (Ex officio)

Director
Institute of Education Sciences
Washington, D.C.
Cornelia S. Orr
Executive Director
National Assessment Governing Board
Washington, D.C.
T h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Ed u c a t ions mission is to promote student

a c h i eve m e n t a n d p re p a ra t i on for global competitiveness by
fo ste r i n g e d u c a t i o n a l exce llence and ensuring equal access.

MORE INFORMATION
w w w.ed.gov
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Center for Education
Statistics (2009).
The Nations Report Card:
Mathematics 2009
(NCES 2010451).
Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, D.C.
CONTENT CONTACT
Jonathan Beard
202-502-7323
Jonathan.Beard@ed.gov
Prepared by Educational Testing Service
under contract with the National Center
for Education Statistics.

Mathematics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematics 2009

N ATI O N A L AS SES SM EN T O F ED U CATI O N A L PRO G RES S AT G R A D ES 4 A N D 8

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

What is The Nations Report Card?

fourth-graders in 2009 was unchanged from the score

Gains in students average mathematics scores seen in

Figure A. Trend in fourth- and eighth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores

Accommodations not permitted

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.

Gaps persist despite gains for some

THE NATIONS REPORT CARD

p Indicates the score was higher in 2009.

t Indicates no significant change in the score or the gap in 2009.

Examples of math skills

Five states and jurisdictions make gains

increased at both grades in the District of

decreased at grade 4 only in Delaware,

Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).

s howed no significant change at either

Examples of math skills

The Mathematics Framework

Results by Content Area

THE NATIONS REPORT CARD

Mathematics content areas

The three levels of mathematical complexity (low, moderate,

Reporting NAEP Results

Levels of Mathematical Complexity

Low complexity questions typically specify what a student is to

NAEP mathematics results for grades 4 and 8 are reported

Moderate complexity questions involve more flexibility of

The complete mathematics framework for 2009 is

In addition to reporting an overall mathematics score for each

NAEP Achievement Levels

Interpreting the Results

Explore Additional Results

THE NATIONS REPORT CARD

Accommodations and exclusions in NAEP

Figure 1. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores

Accommodations not permitted

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.

As shown in figure 2, there were no

Figure 2. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics percentile scores

Achievement-level results also showed

Accommodations not permitted

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.

Figure 3. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level performance

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.

THE NATIONS REPORT CARD

No significant change since 2007 in performance of racial/ethnic groups

Figure 4. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by race/ethnicity

White and Asian/Pacific Islander

Information is available on achievementlevel results for racial/ethnic groups and

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.

The 26-point score gap in mathematics

Accommodations not permitted

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.

Table 1.Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by

19901 19921 1996

The proportion of fourth-graders

THE NATIONS REPORT CARD

Male students score higher than female students

Accommodations not permitted

Private school students outperform public school students

increased at both grades in the District of

decreased at grade 4 only in Delaware,

s howed no significant change at either

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.

Table 1.Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics, by

Figure 7. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by type of school

Figure 8. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.

Table 2. Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP

Department of Defense Education Activity

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.