results from the 2005 naep high school transcript study

high school graduates 

america’s

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007-467
what is the nation’s report cardTM?

The Nation’s Report CardTM 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. The Nation’s Report CardTM compares performance 

among states, urban districts, public and private schools, and student demographic groups.

For over three decades, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, history, 

geography, and other subjects. By making objective information available on student performance at the national, state, and local 

levels, NAEP is an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only information related 

to academic achievement and related variables is collected. The privacy of individual students is protected, and the identities of participating schools are not released. NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) within the Institute for 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.

WHAT IS THE HIGH SCHOOL 

TRANSCRIPT STUDY?

The High School Transcript Study (HSTS) 

collects and analyzes transcripts from a 

representative sample of America’s 

public and private high school graduates. 

The study is designed to inform the 

public about the types of courses that 

graduates take during high school, how 

many credits they earn, and their grade 

point averages. The HSTS also explores 

the relationship between coursetaking 

patterns and student achievement, as 

measured by the National Assessment 

of Educational Progress (NAEP). High 

school transcript studies have been 

conducted periodically for nearly two 

decades, permitting the reporting of 

trends in coursetaking and GPA as well 

as providing information about recent 

high school graduates. In addition to 

collecting transcripts, the HSTS collects 

student information such as gender, 

graduation status, and race/ethnicity and 

information about the schools studied.
  Executive Summary

 4 Understanding the

results

 6 records

 14 NAEP 

 0 Gender

 6 racial/Ethnic

5 Technical Notes

contents
executive summary

This report presents information about the types of courses 2005 high school 

graduates took during high school, how many credits they earned, and the 

grades they received. Information on the relationships between high school 

records and performance in mathematics and science on the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is also included. Transcripts 

were collected from about 640 public schools and 80 private schools for 

the 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS). These transcripts constituted 

a nationally representative sample of 26,000 high school graduates, representing 

approximately 2.7 million 2005 high school graduates. The 2005 results are 

compared to the results of earlier transcript studies, and differences among 

graduates by race/ethnicity, gender, and parent education are examined. 

Because the study is restricted to high school graduates, it contains no information about dropouts, who may differ from graduates. Graduates who 

receive a special education diploma or certificate of completion are also 

excluded from analyses in this report unless noted otherwise.

Graduates earn more credits and achieve higher GPAs

n In 2005, graduates earned about three credits more than their 1990 

counterparts, or about 360 additional hours of instruction during their 

high school careers.

n In 2005, the overall grade point average (GPA) was approximately a third 

of a letter grade higher than in 1990. There are many possible reasons for 

this apparent increase, including “grade inflation,” changes in grading 

standards and practices, and growth in student performance. 

Graduates with stronger academic records obtain higher 

NAEP scores

n Graduates whose highest mathematics course was geometry or below had 

average NAEP mathematics scores below the Basic achievement level. 

Graduates who took calculus had average NAEP scores at the Proficient level. 

n Graduates whose highest science course was chemistry or below had 

average NAEP science scores below the Basic achievement level; those 

who had completed physics or other advanced science courses had 

 | executive summary
average scores at the Basic level. Advanced science courses are 

courses that contain advanced content (like AP biology, IB chemistry, 

AP physics, etc.) or are considered second-year courses (chemistry II, 

advanced biology, etc.) 

n Graduates who had completed a rigorous curriculum or had GPAs 

placing them in the top 25 percent of graduates had higher average 

NAEP scores than other graduates.

Comparisons by gender

n Male and female graduates’ GPAs overall and in mathematics and 

science have increased since 1990. Female graduates’ GPAs overall and in 

mathematics and science were higher than the GPAs of male graduates 

during each year the HSTS was conducted. 

n In 2005, a higher percentage of female than male graduates completed a 

rigorous or midlevel curriculum, compared to 1990 when there was no 

significant difference in the percentages of males and females completing 

at least a midlevel curriculum.

n Among those who have taken higher level mathematics and science 

courses, male graduates had higher NAEP scores than female graduates. 

There was no significant difference in scores between males and females 

who had not taken these higher level courses.

Comparisons by race/ethnicity

n Increased percentages of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific 

Islander graduates completed at least a midlevel curriculum in 2005 

compared with 1990. The GPAs of all four racial/ethnic groups also 

increased during this time.

n Since 1990, Black graduates have closed a 6 percentage point gap 

with White graduates in the percentage completing at least a midlevel 

curriculum; however, the corresponding White-Hispanic gap in 2005 

was not significantly different from that in 1990.

n In 2005, both Black and Hispanic graduates were less likely than White 

graduates to have completed calculus or advanced science courses and to 

have higher GPAs.

Curriculum levels in this reportaredefinedbythe numberof coursecreditsearnedbygraduates in specifiedtypesof coursesduring high school,as follows:

standard: At least four creditsofEnglish

andthreeeach in social studies, mathematics,

andscience.

Midlevel: In addition tostandard,geometry

andalgebraIor II mustbecompleted;at least two

courses in biology, chemistry,andphysics;andat

leastonecreditofaforeign language.

Rigorous: In addition tomidlevel,an additional

credit inmathematicsincludingprecalculusor

higher;biology, chemistry,andphysics;andat

least threeforeign languagecredits.

Defining curriculum levels

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 
understanding the results

Overview of the High School Transcript Study

This report presents information about the types of courses that graduates 

took during a 4-year high school curriculum, how many credits they earned, 

and the grades they received. Information on the relationships between 

high school records and performance in mathematics and science on the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is also included. 

Transcripts were collected from about 640 public schools and 80 private 

schools for the 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS). These transcripts constituted a nationally representative sample of 26,000 public and 

private high school graduates, representing approximately 2.7 million 

2005 high school graduates. The 2005 results are compared to the results 

of the 1990, 1994, 1998, and 2000 NAEP HSTSs, and differences among 

graduates by gender, race/ethnicity, and parent education are examined. 

The sample size was insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American 

Indian/Alaska Native graduates in 2005.

Standardizing transcript information

Not all high schools have the same standards for course titles, assigning 

credits, and grade scales. To allow comparisons, HSTS standardizes the 

transcript information. To control for the variation in course titles, a coding 

system called the Classification of Secondary School Courses (CSSC) is 

used for classifying courses on the basis of information available in school 

catalogs and other information sources. (For more information, see 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ hst/courses.asp.)

Course credits are converted to standardized Carnegie units of credits (or 

Carnegie credits), in which a single unit is equal to 120 hours of classroom 

time over the course of a year. Schools provided information on how many 

course credits represent a Carnegie credit at their school. The course credits 

recorded on the transcript were then converted (standardized) into Carnegie 

credits for the data analysis for this report.

Points are assigned to each letter grade as shown in figure 1. The points are 

weighted by the number of Carnegie credits earned, so that a course with 60 

hours of instruction counts half as much as one with 120 hours. The average 

of the points earned for all the courses taken is the grade point average (GPA). 

Courses in which a graduate did not receive a grade, such as pass/fail and 

audited courses, do not factor into the GPA calculation. No additional 

grade points were assigned for Advanced Placement (AP), International 

Baccalaureate (IB), and other honors classes. This process does not standardize 

for differences in grading practices among schools and teachers.

figure 1

Gradepointaverage

in a standard 

four point scale...

A 4 points

B 3 points

C 2 points

D 1 point

F 0 points

| understanding the results
The NAEP connection

Approximately 17,400 of the graduates included in the transcript study 

also participated in the NAEP twelfth-grade mathematics or science 

assessments in 2005. Thus, findings of the HSTS can be linked with NAEP 

results, allowing a comparison of coursetaking patterns and educational 

achievement as measured by NAEP.

Caution in interpreting results

The results presented in this report describe information from the collected 

transcripts and cannot be used to determine the reasons behind these 

findings. NCES uses widely accepted statistical standards in analyzing 

data. Unless otherwise noted, the text of this report discusses only findings 

that are significant at the .05 level. In the tables and charts of this report, 

the symbol (*) is used to indicate findings that are significantly different 

from one another. The results in this report are estimates based on samples 

of students and schools and are therefore subject to sampling and 

measurement errors.

Defining curriculum levels

In this report, threecurriculum levelsareusedto

reporton thecoursetakingpatternsofgraduates:

standard,midlevel,andrigorous.Thecurriculumlevels

arebasedon the numberof creditsandthetypesof

coursesgraduatescompleted. Forexample,astandard

curriculum level consistsof four creditsofEnglish;

threecreditseach of social studies, mathematics,

andscience;and noforeign languagecredits. Figure2

describes thecoursecreditsgraduates needto

completetobeclassifiedateach curriculum level.

standard midlevel rigorous

english 4 4 4

social studies 3 3 3

mathematics 3 3

(including geometry and 

algebra I or II)

4 

(including precalculus 

or higher)

science 3 3

(including at least two 

of biology, chemistry, 

and physics)

3

(including biology, 

chemistry, and physics)

foreign language 0 1 3

NOTE:	 This isa modifiedversion of curriculum levelsusedbyLaura Horn andLawrence K. Kojaku(High School Academic Curriculum and the Persistence Path Through College, NationalCenter

forEducation Statistics, NCES2001–163, U.S. DepartmentofEducation,Washington, DC:2001).Thestandardcurriculum level isequivalent to what Horn and Kojakurefer toas

acorecurriculum; the nomen­clatureusedin this report isdifferent toavoidconfusion with corecreditsalsodiscussedin this report. Onedifferencebetween this reportandthe

classification by Horn and Kojakuis that tobeconsideredas havingcompletedarigorous curriculum, this reportdoes not requiregraduates to havetaken an APor honors

course.This modification was madetoensurethat HSTSdataforearlieryearsareconsistent with datafor2005.

figure 2Coursecredit requirements toattain specifiedcurriculum levels

 america’s high school graduates 2005 |
records

for 2005 high school graduates show an increase 

in the number of credits earned, the rigor of the 

curricula followed, and GPAs compared with 

those for 1990 graduates. 

The upward trend in credits and GPA was evident in both core (English, 

mathematics, science, and social studies) and other academic courses (fine 

arts, foreign languages, and computer-related studies). 
2005 graduates earn more credits than 

previous graduation classes

The average number of credits earned by high school graduates has 

increased over the last 15 years, as seen in figure 3. In 2005, graduates 

earned over three credits more than 1990 graduates (26.8 in 2005 

compared to 23.6 in 1990). Each Carnegie credit represents 120 hours 

of classroom instruction. 

Graduates in 2005 earned almost two credits more in core academic fields 

than 1990 graduates and approximately one-and-one-half credits more in 

other academic fields. In other courses, such as vocational education, personal 

health, and physical education, the total number of credits earned was not 

higher for 2005 graduates than 1990 graduates. 

What’s behind the upward trend?

The increase in credits earned since 1990 is consistent with data from other 

NCES transcript studies dating back to 1982 (U.S. Department of Education, 

various years). 

Although average credits earned have increased, the number of school days 

in the school term and the length of the school day have remained fairly 

stable during this time. From 1987 to 2004, many states increased the 

number of credits required in mathematics, science, and social studies 

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

14.6*

4.5*

6.2

25.3*

15.6

5.1

6.2

26.8

14.3*

4.0*

6.0

24.3*

13.7*

3.6*

6.4

23.6*

15.0*

4.8*

6.3

26.2*

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

TOTAL COURSE CREDITS

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

NOTE:	 Details may not sum tototalbecauseof rounding. Numbersabovethebars represent total credits.CorecreditsareEnglish, mathematics, science,andsocial

studies. Otheracademic creditsare finearts, foreign languages,andcomputer-relatedstudies. Other credits includecourses such asvocationaleducation,

personal health,andphysicaleducation.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, InstituteofEducation Sciences, NationalCenterforEducation Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

figure 3 Trends in creditsearned,by coursetypes:1990–2005

Corecredits	 	 Otheracademic credits	 	 Other credits 

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 
Graduates consistently earn more credits in English than 

other core course fields

Among the core course fields, graduates consistently earned the most 

credits in English, as shown in figure 4, followed by social studies, 

mathematics, and science. Graduates earned almost one credit more in 

English than in science and half a credit more than in mathematics. In 

com­parison with their 1990 counterparts, the 2005 high school graduates 

earned more credits in each core course field.

(Council of Chief State School Officers 2004). These increases in the 

required number of credits needed for graduation may partly explain 

the upward trend in average course credits taken.

Although it differed from state to state, schools averaged around 1,000 

hours per year of instruction time in 2004 or the equivalent of 8.3 Carnegie 

credits per year. If all instruction time were used solely for courses with 

credits, over 4 years, graduates would have earned about 33.3 Carnegie 

credits. Approximately 81 percent of the instruction time was used for 

credit courses by 2005 graduates versus 71 percent for 1990 graduates 

(Council of Chief State School Officers 1990).

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

SOCIAL

STUDIES

ENGLISH

SCIENCE

MATHEMATICS

4.1*

3.5*

3.2*

2.8*

4.2*

3.6*

3.4*

3.1*

4.1*

3.8*

3.5*

3.1*

4.3

4.1

3.8

3.4

4.3

3.9*

3.7*

3.2*

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

COURSE CREDITS

Figure 4

Trends in corecourse fields:1990–2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

NOTE: Graduates maytake morethan onecourse

ayear in aspecific course field. Forexample,

astudent maytakeEnglish IV andalsotake

journalism or creative writingin thesameyear.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Instituteof

Education Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),

variousyears,1990–2005.

 | academic records
Social studies consistofabroadrangeof individual

subjects. As shown in table1, there has notbeen a

significant changein thepercentageofgraduates

whotooktraditional subjects, such as U.S. history

andgovernment/civics/politics compared with

1990. A majorityofgraduates tookthesesubjects

in 1990andstilldoin 2005. 

However, thepercentageofgraduates taking

courses in world history, worldgeography,and

psychology/sociologyin 2005 wasgreater

than in 1990.Thecoursein which there was the

largest increase was world history.Three-quarters

ofgraduates in 2005tookat leastone world

historycourse, compared with 60percent in 1990.

Thepercentageofgraduatestakingworldgeography

increasedfrom 21percent in 1990to31percent

in 2005.

Graduates earn more credits in computer-related studies, fine 

arts, and foreign languages

As seen in figure 5, high school graduates in 2005 earned about 0.4 credits 

more than 1990 graduates in foreign languages and 0.5 credits more in fine 

arts and computer-related studies. Graduates earned more credits in each 

of these fields in 2005 than in 1990. However, computer-related studies 

was the only field among the other academic courses to show an increase 

in the credits earned compared with 2000 graduates. 

Which social studies subjects are being taken more frequently? 

 subject 1990 2000 2005

 u.s. history 95.6 92.3 94.1

 government/civics/politics 78.9 78.6 79.2

 economics 48.8 49.8 46.6

 world history 60.1* 69.4* 76.5

 world geography 21.2* 29.3 30.9

 psychology/sociology 33.8* 37.2 37.8

FOREIGN

LANGUAGES

FINE ARTS

COMPUTERRELATED

STUDIES

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

COURSE CREDITS

2.1

1.7* 1.8*

2.0*

2.0

1.5* 1.6*

1.9

1.0

0.5* 0.6* 0.7* 0.8*

2.1

2.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

Figure 5

Trends in otheracademic fields

*Significantly(p<.05)different from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Instituteof

Education Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),

variousyears,1990–2005.

table 1Percentageofgraduates takingsocial studies:1990,2000,and2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, InstituteofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation Statistics, High

SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

 america’s high school graduates 2005 |
2005 graduates complete more challenging 

curriculum levels

More 2005 high school graduates completed a range of higher level 

courses—such as physics and calculus—during their high school years 

than had done so in previous years. The rigor of graduates’ curriculum 

levels is an important factor associated with the graduates’ entry and 

success in postsecondary education (Horn and Nuñez 2000).

Figure 6 shows that 68 percent of the 2005 graduates completed a curriculum 

at or above the standard level—an increase of 28 percentage points over 

the graduates in 1990. Also, the percentage of graduates completing a 

rigorous curriculum doubled from 5 percent to 10 percent during the 

same time period.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

PERCENT

13* 13*

34*

9

56*

17

41

10

68

12*

33*

6*

51*

9*

26*

40*

36*

10

59*

5*

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

NOTE: Details may not sum tototalbecauseof rounding. Numbersabovethebars represent thepercentagecompletingat leastastandardcurriculum.

SOURCE: U.S. Departmentof Education, Instituteof Education Sciences, NationalCenter for Education Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy (HSTS),

various years,1990–2005.

figure 6 Trends in curriculum levels:1990–2005

Standard	 	 Midlevel	 	  Rigorous 

High school graduates expecting to graduate from college 

complete a more challenging curriculum

More than twice as many 2005 high school graduates who expected to 

graduate from college completed a curriculum at or above midlevel than 

those who did not expect to graduate from college. Figure 7 indicates that 

26 percent of graduates with expectations of graduating from college did 

not complete at least a standard curriculum.

10 | academic records
The pattern for mathematics coursetaking is, in large part, set in the freshman year

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 BELOW ALGEBRA I ALGEBRA I GEOMETRY

PERCENT

MATHEMATICS COURSE COMPLETED IN NINTH GRADE

6

23

27

34*

47*

15*

83*

15*

2*

figure 8

Highest level mathematics course

taken in high school,by mathematics

coursetaken in the ninth grade

Geometry 

AlgebraI I 

Advanced mathematics/calculus 

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from below algebraI.

NOTE: Advancedmathematicsincludescourses,other than

calculus, thataregenerallytaken afteralgebraII (e.g.,

AP statisticsandprecalculus). Graduatescompletingmore

than one mathematics courses in the ninth gradeare

classifiedbythe highest levelof thecourses completed.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Instituteof

Education Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

Thelevelof mathematics coursegraduates

completedin the ninth grade wasagood

predictorof the highest levelcoursethegraduates

completedduring high school. Among2005

graduates,themathematicscoursemostfrequently

completedin the ninth grade wasalgebraI

(completedby57percentof thegraduates).The

second most commonlycompletedcourse was

geometry(completedby20percent), followedby

below algebraI (completedby13percent). An

additional7percent tookacourseabovegeometry

(i.e.,algebraII,advancedmathematics,orcalculus)

and4percent completed no mathematics course

in the ninth grade. Figure8shows the highest

level mathematics coursecompletedbythose

graduates who, in the ninth grade, completed

oneof thethreemost commonlycompletedtypes

of mathematics courses.

Amongthosegraduates whotooka mathematics

coursebelowalgebraI in the ninth grade,6percent

wenton tocompletecalculusoranotheradvanced

mathematics course,as shown in figure8. Among

thosegraduates who hadcompletedalgebraI in

the ninth grade,34percent completedcalculusor

anotheradvanced mathematics courseprior to

graduation. Furthermore, theoverwhelming

majority(83percent)of thosewho hadcompleted

geometryin the ninth grade wenton tocomplete

calculusoranotheradvancedmathematicscourse.

Advanced mathematics includes courses,other

than calculus, thataregenerallytaken after

algebraII (e.g., APstatisticsandprecalculus).

DOES EXPECT

TO GRADUATE

FROM COLLEGE

26 14 47 12

PERCENT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

DOES NOT EXPECT

TO GRADUATE

FROM COLLEGE

50* 26* 23* 1*

figure 7

Curriculum levelsattainedby2005

graduates,bycollegeexpectations

Rigorous 

Midlevel 

Standard 

Less than standard 

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from high schoolgraduates whoexpect tograduatefrom college.

NOTE: 	 Details may not sum tototal becauseof rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, InstituteofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation Statistics, High School

TranscriptStudy(2005)and National AssessmentofEducationalProgress (NAEP)Student Questionnaire(2005).

NOTE: Thedefinitionsofadvanced mathematicsandscienceusedin this reportareconsistent with thoseusedin the NationalEducation LongitudinalStudyandtheEducation

LongitudinalStudyexcept that theyincludecalculus in theiradvanced mathematics courses, whilethis report treats calculusasaseparatecategory.

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 11
 

overall gpa climbs

In 2005, high school graduates earned an overall grade point average of 

2.98, or about a “B” letter grade. As shown in figure 9, this overall GPA was 

significantly higher in 2005 than in the previous years. There are many possible 

reasons for this apparent increase, including “grade inflation,” changes in 

grading standards and practices, and growth in student performance. 

There was an increase in average GPA in core courses from 2.47 in 1990 to 

2.77 in 2005. This increase of approximately a third of a letter grade is not 

significantly different from the increases seen for other academic courses 

and other courses. 

Graduates earned lower GPAs in the core courses than in other academic 

courses. Graduates earned the highest GPAs in other courses. 

4.0

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

GRADE POINT AVERAGE

OTHER

OTHER

ACADEMIC

OVERALL

CORE

3.03*

2.83*

2.68*

2.47*

3.16*

2.94*

2.79*

2.57*

3.26*

3.03*

2.90*

2.69*

3.36

3.12

2.98

2.77

3.31*

3.09

2.94*

2.73*

figure 9

Trends in GPA:overallandbycoursetype:

1990–2005

*Significantly(p<.05)different from 2005.

NOTE:CorecoursesareEnglish, mathematics,

science,andsocial studies. Otheracademic

coursesare finearts, foreign languages,and

computer-relatedstudies. Other courses include

courses such asvocationaleducation,personal

health,andphysicaleducation.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Institute

ofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter for

Education Statistics, High SchoolTranscript

Study(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

2005 graduates have higher GPAs but earn fewer credits in their senior year than earned as underclassmen

Duringtheir senioryear,2005graduates,on

average,earned higher GPAs (3.05comparedto

2.96) than theydidin earlieryearsof high school.

However, seniorsearnedfewer credits (6.4

compared with 6.8) than theydidasunderclassmen.This0.4creditsdifferenceisequivalent to48

hoursof classroom instruction (HSTS2005).

Several factors contributedtothe higher senior

year GPAs. Although not shown here, in addition

totakingfewer courses in their senioryear,2005

graduatesalsotookfewer courses in mathematics

andscience, subjectsgenerallyassociated with

lowergrades. Manygraduates fulfilledtheir core

requirements in scienceand mathematicsbythe

timetheycompletedtheir junioryear. In 2005,

seniorsearnedan averageof0.7credits in

mathematicsand0.6credits in science, compared

tothe1.0credit in mathematicsand0.9credits in

sciencethey hadearnedannuallyasunderclassmen.

Notonlydidseniors takefewer corecourses than

in earlieryears,but theyalsoearnedaround0.3

fewer credits in otheracademic courses in their

senioryear than they hadasunderclassmen. On

theother hand, theyearned morecredits in other

courses thatareassociated with high GPAs.

12 | academic records
SOCIAL

STUDIES

ENGLISH

SCIENCE

MATHEMATICS

2.56*

2.52*

2.39*

2.34*

2.67*

2.63*

2.50*

2.44*

2.79*

2.74*

2.62*

2.56*

2.88

2.82

2.69

2.63

2.83*

2.77*

2.67

2.60

4.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

GRADE POINT AVERAGE

figure 10

Trends in GPAs for corecourse fields:

1990–2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Institute

ofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter for

Education Statistics, High SchoolTranscript

Study(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

Percentage of graduates completing a rigorous curriculum

n 10	 percentofallgraduates

n 11	 percentofWhitegraduates

	 6	 percentof Blackgraduates

	 8	 percentof Hispanicgraduates

	 22	 percentof Asian/Pacific Islandergraduates

n 10	 percent malegraduates

	 11	 percent femalegraduates

n 5	 percent with parents whodid notgraduatefrom high school

	 5	 percent with parents whograduatedfrom high school

	 8	 percent with parents who hadsomepost-high schooleducation

	 16	 percent with parents whograduatedfrom college

	 3	 percentdid notknow parents’educational level

n 26	 percentofgraduates in thetop GPA quartile(3.43–4.00)

	 11	 percentofgraduates in thethird GPA quartile(2.98–3.42)

	 4	 percentofgraduates in thesecond GPA quartile(2.54–2.97)

	 1	 percentofgraduates in thebottom GPA quartile(0.00–2.53)

Percentage of graduates completing a less than standard curriculum

n 32	 percentofallgraduates

n 31	 percentofWhitegraduates

	 27	 percentof Blackgraduates

	 46	 percentof Hispanicgraduates

	 27	 percentof Asian/Pacific Islandergraduates

n 36	 percent malegraduates

	 29	 percent femalegraduates

n 43 percent with parents whodid notgraduatefrom high school

	 34	 percent with parents whograduatedfrom high school

	 31	 percent with parents who hadsomepost-high schooleducation

	 24	 percent with parents whograduatedfrom college

	 48	 percentdid notknow parents’educational level

n 17	 percentofgraduates in thetop GPA quartile(3.43–4.00)

	 24	 percentofgraduates in thethird GPA quartile(2.98–3.42)

	 38	 percentofgraduates in thesecond GPA quartile(2.54–2.97)

	 51	 percentofgraduates in thebottom GPA quartile(0.00–2.53)

To helpin understandingdifferences in levelsof curriculaachievedamonggraduategroups, this section shows thepercentageofgraduates in each of severalgroups.

Forexample,11percentofWhitegraduates completedarigorous curriculum comparedto6percentof Blackgraduates.

Curriculum-level profiles

Highest average GPA in core subjects is in social studies

As shown in figure 10, in each year of the transcript study, GPAs in social 

studies and English were significantly higher than GPAs in science and 

mathematics. The graduates’ GPAs in each core subject in 2005 were 

higher than in 1990 by about a third of a grade. 

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, InstituteofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 13
scores are highest for those graduates completing 

a more challenging curriculum and higher level 

mathematics and science courses. 

Graduates with a mathematics GPA in the top 25 percent or completing a calculus 

course reached the Proficient level on the NAEP mathematics assessment on 

average. Graduates with mathematics GPAs in the bottom 25 percent or who 

completed geometry or below as their highest level mathematics course scored, 

on average, below the Basic level.

naep
understanding naep scores

National Assessment of Educational Progress achievement levels are 

performance standards showing what students should know and be able 

to do. Results are reported as scale scores and percentages of students 

performing at or above three achievement levels:

n basic: Denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are 

fundamental for proficient work at a given grade. 

n Proficient: Represents solid academic performance. Students reaching 

this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter.

n Advanced: Signifies superior performance.

The National Assessment Governing Board sets specific achievement levels 

for each subject area and grade, based on recommendations from panels of 

educators and members of the public, to provide a context for interpreting 

student performance on NAEP. 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. NAEP achievement levels have been widely used by national 

and state officials. Many consider Proficient to be the desired level for all 

students. Additional information about NAEP achievement levels can be 

found at http://www.nagb.org/pubs/pubs.html.

The NAEP twelfth-grade mathematics and science results are reported on a 

0–300 scale. The ranges of scores that fall within each of the achievement levels 

are shown in figure 11. Because NAEP scales are developed independently 

for each subject, scores cannot be used to make comparisons across subjects.

Cautions in interpreting results

There can be many explanations of an association between NAEP scores 

and other variables (e.g., curriculum level, average GPA, and highest course 

taken). HSTS data do not support conclusions about cause and effect 

between variables. For example, graduates who take a more challenging 

curriculum score higher on NAEP assessments. This could be because taking 

a more challenging curriculum provided them with the information they 

needed to do well on NAEP, or it could be that the best prepared and most 

motivated students did better on NAEP and chose to take more challenging 

curricula, or it could be a mixture of these influences and others. 

graduates completing a rigorous curriculum 

have higher naep scores

Figure 12 shows that the scores on the science NAEP assessments were 

higher for those graduates who completed a rigorous curriculum than for 

those who completed a lower level curriculum. 

achievement

level

mathematics

scores

advanced 216 

or higher

proficient 176–215

basic 141–175

figure 11

Rangeof NAEP mathematicsandscience

scores foreach NAEPachievement level

achievement

level

science

scores

advanced 210 

or higher

proficient 178–209

basic 146–177

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 15
16 | naep

ALGEBRA I

OR BELOW

GEOMETRY ALGEBRA II ADVANCED 

MATH

CALCULUS

HIGHEST LEVEL MATHEMATICS COURSE COMPLETED

110*

126*

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

0

NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORE

142*

164*

192

BASIC

PROFICIENT

ADVANCED

GENERAL /

EARTH

BIOLOGY CHEMISTRY PHYSICS ADVANCED

SCIENCE

HIGHEST LEVEL SCIENCE COURSE COMPLETED

115*

129*

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

0

NAEP SCIENCE SCORE

144*

157*

173

BASIC

PROFICIENT

ADVANCED

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from next highest level coursecompleted.

NOTE:	 Advancedmathematics includescourses,other than calculus, thataregenerallytaken afteralgebraII (e.g., APstatisticsandprecalculus). Advancedsciencecourses

arecourses thatcontain advancedcontent (like APbiology, IB chemistry, APphysics,etc.)orareconsideredsecond-yearcourses (chemistryII,advancedbiology,etc.).

SOURCE:	 U.S. DepartmentofEducation, InstituteofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

Graduates completing higher level mathematics and science 

courses have higher NAEP scores

As seen in figure 13, NAEP scores are higher for those graduates who 

completed the most challenging mathematics and science courses. For 

example, the average NAEP mathematics score among graduates whose 

highest course was geometry or below fell below the Basic achievement 

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

0

NAEP SCIENCE SCORE

DOES NOT EXPECT 

TO GRADUATE

FROM COLLEGE

DOES EXPECT 

TO GRADUATE

FROM COLLEGE

124 125*

133

143 144*

156*

180

BASIC

PROFICIENT

ADVANCED

TOTAL

137 139*

154*

179

‡

Figure 12

NAEPsciencescores,bycurriculum level

completedandcollegeexpectations:2005

Rigorous 

Midlevel 

Standard 

Less than standard 

‡ Reportingstandards not met.

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from next

highest level completed.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Instituteof

Education Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(2005)and

National AssessmentofEducationalProgress

(NAEP)Student Questionnaire(2005).

High school graduates who expected to graduate from college scored 

higher on the NAEP science assessment than those who did not expect to 

graduate. Those who completed a less than standard curriculum and 

expected to graduate from college scored higher on the assessment than 

graduates who took a midlevel curriculum but did not expect to graduate.

Figure 13 NAEP mathematicsandsciencescores,by highest level coursetaken:2005
level. On the other hand, the average score of graduates who had taken 

calculus was at the Proficient level. Graduates whose highest science class 

was chemistry or below had an average NAEP science score that placed 

them below Basic. Graduates who completed physics and other advanced 

science courses had average scores placing them at Basic. With each 

additional course level completed in mathematics or science, the graduate’s 

average score increased. 

in mathematics and science, higher gpas are 

associated with higher naep scores 

As shown in figure 14, on average, graduates who earned higher GPAs in 

mathematics courses scored higher on the NAEP mathematics assessment 

and those earning high GPAs in science had higher NAEP science scores. 

Scores ranged from an average of 129 for graduates in the bottom 25 

percent of mathematics GPAs to 178 for graduates in the top 25 percent. 

For science, the average scores ranged from 129 for those in the bottom 

science GPA quartile to 172 for those in the top quartile.

BOTTOM

25%

SECOND

25%

THIRD

25%

TOP

25%

MATHEMATICS GPA QUARTILES

129*

144*

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

0

NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORE

155*

178

BASIC

PROFICIENT

ADVANCED

BOTTOM

25%

SECOND

25%

THIRD

25%

TOP

25%

SCIENCE GPA QUARTILES

129*

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

0

NAEP SCIENCE SCORE

141*

153*

172

BASIC

PROFICIENT

ADVANCED

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from next highestquartile.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, InstituteofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

Figure 14 NAEP mathematicsandsciencescores,by GPA quartiles:2005

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 17
18 | naep

Mathematics– Advanced

n 89	 percent hadcalculusas highest coursecompleted

	 11	 percent hadadvanced mathematicsas highest coursecompleted

	 <1	percent hadalgebraIIas highest coursecompleted

	 <1	percent completedless than algebraII

n 85	 percent top25%mathematics GPA (3.20–4.00)

	 11	percent2nd highest25%mathematics GPA (2.62–3.19)

	 4	percent3rd highest25%mathematics GPA (2.00–2.61)

	 <1	percentbottom 25%mathematics GPA (0.00–1.99)

n 86	percent took AP/IB mathematics course

	 14	percentdid not take AP/IB mathematics course

Mathematics – below Basic

n 1	 percent hadcalculusas highest coursecompleted

	 13	 percent hadadvanced mathematicsas highest coursecompleted

	 43	percent hadalgebraIIas highest coursecompleted

	 26	percent hadgeometryas highest coursecompleted

	 17	percent hadalgebraIorbelow as highest coursecompleted

n 7	 percent top25%mathematics GPA (3.20–4.00)

	 20	percent2nd highest25%mathematics GPA (2.62–3.19)

	 29	percent3rd highest25%mathematics GPA (2.00–2.61)

	 44	percentbottom 25%mathematics GPA (0.00–1.99)

n 1	percent took AP/IB mathematics course

	 99	percentdid not take AP/IB mathematics course

Science– Advanced

n 72	 percent hadadvancedscienceas highest sciencecoursecompleted

	 23	 percent hadphysicsas highest sciencecoursecompleted

	 4	percent hadchemistryas highest sciencecoursecompleted

	 1	percent hadbiologyas highest sciencecoursecompleted

	 <1	percent completedless than biology

n 81	 percent top25%science GPA (3.27–4.00)

	 13	percent2nd highest25%science GPA (2.67–3.26)

	 4	percent3rd highest25%science GPA (2.00–2.66)

	 1	percentbottom 25%science GPA (0.00–1.99)

n 61	percent took AP/IB sciencecourse

	 39	percentdid not take AP/IB sciencecourse

Science – below Basic

n 8	 percent hadadvancedscienceas highest sciencecoursecompleted

	 18	 percent hadphysicsas highest sciencecoursecompleted

	 37	percent hadchemistryas highest sciencecoursecompleted

	 32	percent hadbiologyas highest sciencecoursecompleted

	 5	percent hadgeneralorearth scienceas highestsciencecoursecompleted

n 9	 percent top25%science GPA (3.27–4.00)

	 20	percent2nd highest25%science GPA (2.67–3.26)

	 32	percent3rd highest25%science GPA (2.00–2.66)

	 39	percentbottom 25%science GPA (0.00–1.99)

n 3	percent took AP/IB sciencecourse

	 97	percentdid not take AP/IB sciencecourse

academic profiles and naep scores

Academic profiles of 2005 graduates are presented below and average 

NAEP scores are presented in figure 15. The profiles show the academic 

characteristics of graduates at a given achievement level. For example, of 

the graduates who reached the Advanced level in mathematics, 88 percent 

had completed calculus as their highest course. Figure 15 shows the average NAEP scores of graduates with particular academic characteristics. For 

example, it shows that the average NAEP mathematics score of graduates 

who took calculus was 192. This average score is at the Proficient level, 

even though some graduates had scores that placed them at a higher or a 

lower achievement level. 

Academic profiles of graduates who scored at the Advanced and below the Basic achievement levels on NAEP assessments

NOTE:	 Details may not sum tototalsbecauseof rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, InstituteofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.
below basic basic proficient advanced

0-145	 146-177	 178-209	 210-300

Figure 15Average mathematicsandscience NAEPscores,byacademic characteristics

174 GPA in advanced science in 3.00-3.99

172 Overall GPA in top 25%

171 Science GPA in top 25%

162 GPA in advanced science in 2.01-2.99

153 Overall GPA in second 25%

153 Science GPA in second 25%

149 GPA in advanced science in 2.0 or less

below basic basic proficient advanced

0-140	 141-175	 176-215	 216-300

139	 Below standardcurriculum completed

129	 Bottom 25%mathematics GPA (0.00–1.99)

126	 Geometry: highest coursecompleted

110	 AlgebraIorbelow: highest mathematics

coursecompleted

199	 GPA in calculus is4.0

193	 Took AP/IB mathematics course

192	 Calculus: highest mathematics coursecompleted

188	 Rigorous curriculum completed

178	 Top25%mathematics GPA (3.20–4.00)

164	 Advanced mathematics: highest mathematics

coursecompleted

156	 Midlevel curriculum completed

155	 2nd highest25%mathematics GPA (2.62–3.19)

145	 Did not take AP/IB mathematics course

144	 3rd highest25%mathematics GPA (2.00–2.61)

142	 AlgebraII: highest mathematics coursecompleted

141	 Standardcurriculum completed

145	 Did not take AP/IB sciencecourse

144	 Chemistry: highest sciencecoursecompleted

141	 3rd highest25%science GPA (2.00–2.66)

139	 Standardcurriculum completed

137	 Below standardcurriculum completed

129	 Biology: highest sciencecoursecompleted

129	 Bottom 25%science GPA (0.00–1.99)

115	 Generalorearth science: highest science

coursecompleted

184	 GPA in advancedscienceis4.0

180	 Took AP/IB sciencecourse

179	 Rigorous curriculum completed

173	 Advancedscience: highest science

coursecompleted

172	 Top25%science GPA (3.27–4.00)

157	 Physics: highest sciencecoursecompleted

154	 Midlevel curriculum completed

153	 2nd highest25%science GPA (2.67–3.26)

Thispresents theaverage NAEP mathematics scores forgraduates with different

curriculaand GPAs. Forexample, theaverage NAEP mathematics scoreforgraduates

with a4.0 GPA in calculus is199.

mathematics science

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, InstituteofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 19
gender

differences exist in academic records. While females 

complete more challenging curricula and earn 

higher GPAs, they do not perform as well on 

NAEP as males with the same academic records.

Over time, female graduates have caught up with, and now surpass, male 

graduates in completing rigorous curricula and earning mathematics and 

science credits.
both males and females complete more 

challenging curricula

As seen in figure 16, in 2005, the percentage of male graduates who had 

completed a rigorous curriculum was 10 percent compared to 5 percent in 

1990. For female graduates, the comparable rates were 11 percent in 2005 

compared to 4 percent in 1990. The percentage of graduates who had 

completed a midlevel or standard curriculum was also higher in 2005 than 

in 1990 for both males and females. Between 2000 and 2005, the percentages 

completing a standard or midlevel curriculum also increased; however, 

there were no significant differences in the percentages who had completed 

a rigorous curriculum for either males or females. 

The female-male curriculum level gaps at the midlevel and above curricula 

were significantly larger in 2005 than in 1990. The percentage of females 

completing a rigorous curriculum was 1 percentage point higher than males 

in 2005 compared to its being 1 percentage point lower than males in 1990. 

In 2005, the percentage of females completing a midlevel curriculum was 

8 percentage points higher than males compared to a 2 percentage point 

difference in 1990. None of the curriculum level gaps changed significantly 

between 2000 and 2005.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

MALE

1990 2000 2005

FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

PERCENT

60

10

25

5

36

17

37

10

61

9*

27*

4*

29*

16

44*

11*

45

14

32

9

37*

12*

40*

11* figure 16

Curriculum level completed,

bygender:1990,2000,and2005

Rigorous 

Midlevel 

Standard 

Less than standard 

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from males.

NOTE: Details may not sum tototal

becauseof rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Institute

ofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),

variousyears,1990–2005.

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 21
As seen in figure18, male-femaledifferencesvary

across thethree fields constitutingotheracademic

courses. In finearts, femalegraduatesearned

almost50percent morecredits than male

graduatesdid(2.4creditscomparedto1.7credits).

Femalegraduatesalsoearned morecredits in

foreign languages than malegraduatesdid(2.3

credits comparedto1.9credits); however, the

differenceis smaller than that for finearts (0.7

credits comparedtothe0.4credits). In computerrelatedstudies, femalegraduatesearnedfewer

credits than malegraduates (0.8to1.1credits).

Females earn more credits in other academic courses than males

figure 18

Credits completedin otheracademic

courses,bygender:2005

Male 

Female 

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from males.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Instituteof

Education Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

FINE 

ARTS

FOREIGN 

LANGUAGES

COMPUTER-RELATED 

STUDIES

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

COURSE CREDITS

1.7

2.4*

1.9

2.3*

1.1

0.8*

Figure 17 shows that female graduates have also surpassed their male 

counterparts in credits earned in mathematics and science. In 2005, 

females earned 0.2 credits more than males in mathematics and science 

combined or an additional 24 hours of classroom instruction in these 

fields. In 1990, female graduates earned 0.1 fewer mathe­matics and 

science credits than male graduates did.

MALE

FEMALE

7.3

6.1*

6.5*

6.7* 7.1

6.0*

6.4*

6.6*

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

COURSE CREDITS

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

6.9*

6.8*

figure 17

Creditsearnedin mathematics

andscience,bygender:1990–2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Institute

ofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter for

Education Statistics, High SchoolTranscript

Study(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

 22 | gender
Figure 20

Mathematicsandsciencecombined GPA,

bygender:1990–2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Institute

ofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter for

Education Statistics, High SchoolTranscript

Study(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

4.0

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

GRADE POINT AVERAGE

FEMALE

MALE

2.56*

2.39*

2.67*

2.50*

2.72*

2.54* 2.42*

2.30*

0.12*

0.16*

0.17

0.18 0.20

2.76

2.56

Females outperform males on GPA overall and in 

mathematics and science

As shown in figure 19, female graduates’ overall GPA was significantly 

higher than male graduates’ GPA in all HSTS years. Although the gap in 

2005 did not differ significantly from that in 2000, it was significantly 

larger in 2005 than in 1990. 

In addition to having higher overall GPAs, female graduates had higher 

combined GPAs in mathematics and science than male graduates in all years, 

as shown in figure 20. The 2005 gap between female and male graduates 

in both fields was larger in 2005 than in 1990. Both male and female 

graduates had higher overall GPAs and higher mathematics and science 

GPAs in 2005 than in 1990.

4.0

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

0

1991 1992 1993

FEMALE

MALE

3.09

2.77*

0.18*

0.22

2.90*

3.00* 3.05*

2.86

2.59*

2.68*

2.79* 2.83

GRADE POINT AVERAGE

0.21

0.22

0.23

1995 19901996 1997 1994 1999 19982001 2002 2000 2003 2004 2005

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

figure 19

Overall GPA,bygender:1990–2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Institute

ofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter for

Education Statistics, High SchoolTranscript

Study(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 23
Males earn higher NAEP mathematics and science scores 

than comparable female graduates 

In 2005, NAEP mathematics and science scores for males were both 4 

points higher than for females. As seen in figure 21, a disparity in scores 

was evident at most levels of coursetaking. Males outperformed females by 

an average of 5 to 6 points if the highest level mathematics course completed 

was geometry, algebra II, advanced mathematics, or calculus. There was no 

significant gender difference in scores if the highest mathematics class taken 

was algebra I or below. In science, the size of the male-female gap in scores 

ranged from 3 points if the highest science course taken was chemistry to 

9 points if the highest science class taken was advanced science. There was 

no significant difference between male and female graduates whose highest 

science course taken was earth science or a general science course. 

ALGEBRA I

OR BELOW

GEOMETRY ALGEBRA II ADVANCED 

MATH

CALCULUS

HIGHEST LEVEL MATHEMATICS COURSE COMPLETED

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

0

NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORE

BASIC

PROFICIENT

ADVANCED

110 111

129 124*

145 140*

167 161*

195

189*

GENERAL/

EARTH

BIOLOGY CHEMISTRY PHYSICS ADVANCED

SCIENCE

HIGHEST LEVEL SCIENCE COURSE COMPLETED

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

0

NAEP SCIENCE SCORE

BASIC

PROFICIENT

ADVANCED

116 113

132 127*

146 143*

177

169*

160

153*

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from males.

NOTE:	 Advancedmathematics includescourses,other than calculus, thataregenerallytaken afteralgebraII (e.g., APstatisticsandprecalculus). Advancedsciencecourses

arecourses thatcontain advancedcontent (like APbiology, IB chemistry, APphysics,etc.)orareconsideredsecond-yearcourses (chemistryII,advancedbiology,etc.).

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, InstituteofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

Figure 21NAEP mathematicsandsciencescores,by highest coursecompletedandgender:2005

The pattern of male graduates outperforming female graduates on the 

NAEP mathematics and science assessments was also apparent when 

comparing students in the same mathematics or science GPA quartiles. 

For example, as seen in figure 22, male graduates achieved higher average 

NAEP mathematics scores than female graduates in all four mathematics 

GPA quartiles. The size of the gap ranged from 5 to 11 points. As with 

Male  Female

 24 | gender
*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from males.

SOURCE:	 U.S. DepartmentofEducation, InstituteofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

BOTTOM

25%

SECOND

25%

THIRD

25%

TOP

25%

MATHEMATICS GPA QUARTILES

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

0

NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORE

BASIC

PROFICIENT

ADVANCED

131 126*

148

140*

185

174*

158 152*

BOTTOM

25%

SECOND

25%

THIRD

25%

TOP

25%

SCIENCE GPA QUARTILES

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

0

NAEP SCIENCE SCORE

BASIC

PROFICIENT

ADVANCED

132

125*

146

136*

179

168*

158

149*

Male  Female

mathematics, the gender differences in science scores occurred regardless 

of science GPA, with males having consistently higher average science 

scores than females within the same GPA quartile. 

Figure 22NAEP mathematicsandsciencescores,by GPA andgender:2005

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 25
groups’ curricula rigor and GPAs are increasing. 

Black graduates have closed the gap with White 

graduates at the midlevel curriculum, but Hispanic 

graduates still lag. 

GPAs for all groups have increased, with Asian/Pacific Islander and White graduates 

continuing to earn higher GPAs than Black and Hispanic graduates.

racial/ethnic
100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

PERCENT

1990 1994 1998 2000 2005

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

BLACK

WHITE

32*

26*

41*

30*

45*

38*

52

51

47*

46*

6*

11*

7*

1 -1

figure 24

White-Blackgapin percent completing

curriculum atorabove midlevel:

1990–2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Institute

ofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter for

Education Statistics, High SchoolTranscript

Study(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

all racial/ethnic groups complete more 

challenging curricula

Figure 23 indicates that the percentage of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/

Pacific Islander graduates completing curricula at or above midlevel has 

increased since 1990. Asian/Pacific Islander graduates consistently completed 

more challenging curricula than other racial/ethnic groups during this time. 

In 2005, there was not a significant difference between the percentage of 

Black and White graduates completing a curriculum at or above midlevel, 

as seen in figure 24. This differed from 1990, when there was a 6 percentage 

point White-Black gap. Although not shown, White graduates continued 

to complete a rigorous curriculum at a higher rate than Black graduates 

(11 percent compared to 6 percent). 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

ASIAN/

PACIFIC 

ISLANDER

HISPANIC

WHITE

BLACK

44* 47*

32*

41*

32*

30* 30*

38 38 *

45* 47*

46*

54* 53*

44

63

51

52

23*

26*

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

PERCENT

figure 23

Percent completingcurriculum

atorabove midlevel,byrace/ethnicity:

1990–2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Institute

ofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter for

Education Statistics, High SchoolTranscript

Study(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 27
 

The HSTSonlyobtains information about high

schoolgraduates, sotheexperiencesof high

schooldropoutsare not included. It isespecially

important tokeepthis in mindin interpreting

information for racial/ethnicgroups. Forexample,

in 2004,approximately7percentofWhites,ages

18through 24 who were nolonger in elementary

or secondaryschool, had notgraduatedfrom high

school.Thecorrespondingpercentagefor Blacks

was12percent. For Hispanics, it was24percent,

andfor Asian/Pacific Islanders, it was4percent.

Among Hispanics, those who wereborn outside

the50statesandthe DistrictofColumbia were

morelikelyto havebeen dropouts than Hispanics

born in the UnitedStates (38percentversus14

percent). (SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofCommerce,

Census Bureau,CurrentPopulation Survey,

October2004.)

Race/ethnicity of high school dropouts

As shown in figure 25, the gap between White and Hispanic graduates in 

completing a curriculum at or above midlevel in 2005 was not significantly 

larger than in 2000 or 1990. Although not shown here, there was also no 

progress in reducing the White-Hispanic gap for the percentage who 

completed a standard-level curriculum or better during this time. For 

Hispanic graduates, the percentage completing a rigorous curriculum in 

2005 was 3 percentage points less than their White counterparts (8 percent 

compared to 11 percent).

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

PERCENT

1990 1994 1998 2000 2005

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

HISPANIC

WHITE

32*

23*

41*

32*

45*

30*

51

44

47*

38*

9

10 15*

7

9

figure 25

White-Hispanicgapin percentagecompleting

acurriculum levelatorabove midlevel:

1990–2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Instituteof

Education Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),

variousyears,1990–2005.

Consistent with the 2005 racial/ethnic differences in completion of a 

curriculum at or above the midlevel, figures 26 and 27 show that there were 

significant differences by race/ethnicity in the highest level of mathematics 

and science courses taken. Asian/Pacific Islander graduates completed 

calculus or other advanced mathematics courses at a higher rate than all 

other racial/ethnic groups (62 percent compared to 46 percent for White 

 28 | racial/ethnic groups
100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/

PACIFIC ISLANDER

PERCENT

9

12

33

30

16

13*

21*

38*

21*

7*

9

16*

46*

23*

6*

3*

9*

25*

31

31*

figure 26

Highest level mathematics course

completed,byrace/ethnicity:2005

Calculus 

Advanced math 

AlgebraII 

Geometry 

AlgebraIorbelow 

*Significantlydifferent(p<.05)fromWhitegraduates.

NOTE: Details may not sum tototalbecauseof

rounding. Advanced mathematics includes courses,

other than calculus, thataregenerallytaken after

algebraII (e.g., APstatisticsandprecalculus).

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Instituteof

Education Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/

PACIFIC ISLANDER

PERCENT

4

20

30

26

20

6*

26*

35*

19*

13*

4

24*

38*

22

12*

2*

10*

26*

27

35*

figure 27

Highest level sciencecourse

completed,byrace/ethnicity:2005

Advancedscience 

Physics 

Chemistry 

Biology 

General/earth 

*Significantlydifferent(p<.05)fromWhitegraduates.

NOTE: Details may not sum tototalbecauseof

rounding. Advancedsciencecoursesarecourses

that contain advancedcontent (like APbiology,

IB chemistry, APphysics,etc.)orareconsidered

second-year courses (chemistryII,

advancedbiology,etc.).

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Instituteof

Education Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

graduates, 29 percent for Black graduates, and 28 percent for Hispanic 

graduates). They were also more likely than other racial/ethnic groups 

to have completed advanced science or physics (62 percent compared to 

46 percent for White graduates, 34 percent for Black graduates, and 32 

percent for Hispanic graduates).

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 29
gpa increases for all racial/ethnic groups 

As shown in figure 28, the GPA of graduates from all major racial/ethnic 

groups increased from 1990 to 2005. However, only White and Black 

graduates earned higher GPAs in 2005 than in 2000. In all years, White 

and Asian/Pacific Islander graduates earned higher GPAs than Black and 

Hispanic graduates. 

figure 28

Trends in GPAsofgraduates,

by race/ethnicity:1990–2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Institute

ofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter for

Education Statistics, High SchoolTranscript

Study(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

ASIAN/PACIFIC 

ISLANDER

WHITE

HISPANIC

BLACK

2.88*

3.00* 3.04

3.20

3.05

2.73*

2.84*

3.01*

2.82

2.61*

2.71* 2.75

2.80

2.69

2.42* 2.47*

2.61* 2.63*

3.16

2.96*

GRADE POINT AVERAGE

4.0

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

0

1990 1994 1998 2000 2005

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

 In each racial/ethnic group, most graduates with disabilities receive standard diplomas

Approximately90percentof2005graduates

identifiedbytheir schoolsas havingdisabilities

receivedeitherastandardor honorsdiploma.The

remaining10percentof thegraduates received

eitheraspecialeducation diplomaoracertificate

of completion.Thisanalysis,unliketheanalyses in

therestof thereport, includesgraduates who

receivedaspecialeducation diplomaora

certificateof completion. Blackand Hispanic

graduates with disabilities wereless likelyto

receiveastandardor honorsdiplomathanWhite

graduates with disabilities (81percentof Black

graduatesand87percentof Hispanicgraduates,

comparedto94percentofWhitegraduates).

 30 | racial/ethnic groups
White-Black and White-Hispanic GPA gaps increase from 

1990, but do not change significantly from 2000 

White graduates earned higher GPAs than Black or Hispanic graduates in 

all years, as shown in figures 29 and 30. The 2005 gaps were significantly 

larger than the 1990 gaps. There was no significant change in the size of 

the gaps between 2000 and 2005. The White-Black gap in 2005 was 0.36 

points, slightly more than a third of a letter grade.

figure 29

White-Blackgapin GPA:1990–2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Institute

ofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter for

Education Statistics, High SchoolTranscript

Study(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

4.0

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

GRADE POINT AVERAGE

WHITE

BLACK

2.84*

2.47*

2.96*

2.61*

3.01*

2.63*

2.73*

2.42*

0.31*

0.37

0.36

0.38 0.36

3.05

2.69

4.0

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION YEAR

GRADE POINT AVERAGE

WHITE

HISPANIC

2.84*

2.71*

2.96*

2.75

3.01*

2.80

2.73*

2.61*

0.13*

0.13*

0.21

0.21 0.23

3.05

2.82

figure 30

White-Hispanicgapin GPA:1990–2005

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) from 2005.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Institute

ofEducation Sciences, NationalCenter for

Education Statistics, High SchoolTranscript

Study(HSTS),variousyears,1990–2005.

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 31
asian/pacific islander and white graduates 

have higher average naep scores than black 

and hispanic graduates taking mathematics 

and science courses at the same levels 

White, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander graduates who took calculus 

had average mathematics NAEP scores at the Proficient achievement level, 

as seen in figure 31. However, the average score of Black graduates whose 

highest course was calculus was at the Basic level. 

As shown in figure 32, the average science scores of Asian/Pacific Islander 

and White graduates were higher than those of Black and Hispanic graduates 

whose highest level science course was the same. For example, the average 

White score on the NAEP science assessment for graduates completing 

advanced science was 178. This was not significantly different from the 

score for Asian/Pacific Islander graduates, but was above the scores for 

both Black and Hispanic graduates (140 and 154, respectively).

Figure 31

NAEP mathematics scores,byrace/ethnicity

and highest level coursetaken:2005

White 

Black 

Hispanic 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

‡ Reportingstandard not met.

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) fromWhitegraduates.

NOTE: Advanced mathematics includes courses,

other than calculus, thataregenerallytaken after

algebraII (e.g., APstatisticsandprecalculus).

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Instituteof

Education Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

0

NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORE

HIGHEST LEVEL MATHEMATICS COURSE COMPLETED

ALGEBRA I

OR BELOW

99* 97*

116

ADVANCED

PROFICIENT

BASIC

ALGEBRA II

133* 127*

148

141

GEOMETRY

116* 111*

133

ADVANCED 

MATHEMATICS

151*

144*

168 162

CALCULUS

181*

167*

194 195

‡ ‡

NAEP SCIENCE SCORE

HIGHEST LEVEL SCIENCE COURSE COMPLETED

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

0 GENERAL/EARTH

126

ADVANCED

PROFICIENT

BASIC

CHEMISTRY

129*

122*

153

141*

BIOLOGY

115* 111*

136

PHYSICS

143*

126*

163

156

ADVANCED SCIENCE

154*

140*

178 177

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Figure 32

NAEPsciencescores,byrace/ethnicity

and highest level coursetaken:2005

White 

Black 

Hispanic 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

‡ Reportingstandard not met.

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) fromWhitegraduates.

NOTE: Advancedsciencecoursesarecourses

that contain advancedcontent (like APbiology,

IB chemistry, APphysics,etc.)orareconsidered

second-year courses (chemistryII,

advancedbiology,etc.).

 32 | racial/ethnic groups
As seen in figures 33 and 34, within each of the mathematics and science GPA 

quartiles, White and Asian/Pacific Islander graduates had higher NAEP scores 

than Black and Hispanic graduates on the corresponding NAEP assessment. 

For example, White and Asian/Pacific Islander graduates in the top quartile 

for mathematics GPA scored, on average, at the Proficient level in mathematics, 

while Black and Hispanic graduates in the top quartile scored at Basic.

Regardless of race/ethnicity, NAEP assessment scores increased as subjectspecific and overall GPA increased. For example, among Black high school 

graduates, mathematics scores increased from an average of 117 for those 

having a mathematics GPA in the bottom quarter to 147 for those in the 

top quarter. In science, scores for Black graduates rose from an average of 

113 in the bottom quarter of the science GPAs to 142 in the top quarter.

Figure 33

NAEP mathematics scores,

byrace/ethnicityand GPA quartile:2005

White 

Black 

Hispanic 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

‡ Reportingstandard not met.

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) fromWhitegraduates.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Instituteof

Education Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORE

MATHEMATICS GPA QUARTILES

‡ ‡

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

0 BOTTOM 25%

ADVANCED

PROFICIENT

BASIC 131* 129*

150

119* 117*

135

SECOND 25% THIRD 25%

140 136* *

160 159

TOP 25%

159*

147*

181

189*

NAEP SCIENCE SCORE

SCIENCE GPA QUARTILES

300

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

0 BOTTOM 25%

ADVANCED

PROFICIENT

BASIC

128*

120*

149 143*

116* 113*

136 134

SECOND 25% THIRD 25%

135*

126*

159 156

TOP 25%

154*

142*

176 174

Figure 34

NAEPsciencescores,

byrace/ethnicityand GPA quartile:2005

White 

Black 

Hispanic 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

*Significantlydifferent (p<.05) fromWhitegraduates.

SOURCE: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, Instituteof

Education Sciences, NationalCenter forEducation

Statistics, High SchoolTranscriptStudy(HSTS),2005.

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 33
Improvements in academic records not reflected in NAEP trends

Recentlypublished NAEPdatashow that

twelfth-grade mathematicsandsciencescores

have not increasedcommensurate with the

increases in the numberof students taking

higher-level courses in mathematicsandscience,

creditsearnedin mid-andrigorous-level courses,

andimprovements in GPA describedin this report.

This raisesaquestion: How can increasing

numbersof studentsbetaking morecredits

and morerigorous curricula without increased

performanceon the Nation’s ReportCard?There

areplausibleexplanations.Thepopulation of

students tested has changed.Thecohortsof

students includedin NAEPreflectdecade-long

improvements in graduation rates, reduction in

dropout rates,andincreases in thepercentages

of students whoarelow incomeand whospeak

alanguageother than English at home(NCES

2006-071).Thelackof congruence mightalsobe

associated with declining motivation among

twelfth graders todo wellon relativelylow-stakes

assessments such as NAEP,aproblem that may

increaseas NAEPfaces increasingcompetition

from high-stakes tests such as twelfth-grade

graduation tests. 

Furtheranalysisof coursecontent, instructional

practices,andteacherpreparation couldprovide

other insightsastowhyimprovementsin academic

recordsare not reflectedin NAEPtrends. For

example, in thepast10years,advancedcourse

content might havebecomeless rigorousdueto

an increasedrangein theabilitiesof students

takingsuch courses (e.g.,acalculus coursein 1990

thatdiffers from acalculus coursein 2005in ways

that result in today’sstudentsbeingexposedtoless

content).Similarly, it ispossiblethat theincrease

in the numberof students takingadvanced

courses may haveoutpacedtheavailabilityof

effectiveteachers.

Taken together, thesepossibilities suggest that

morein-depth analysesof thesedataare needed

tounderstandthepatterns in theeducational

trends in studentperformance. Given theinherent

limitationsof thecross-sectional natureof these

studies, it may notbepossibletounderstandthe

patternsusing NAEPand HSTSdataalone—true

longitudinaldata maybe neededtoinvestigate

such issues.

 34 | racial/ethnic groups
technical notes

Sampling and weighting

The sample design for the NAEP 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) was 

designed to achieve a nationally representative sample of public and private high 

school graduates in the Class of 2005. For public schools, the HSTS sample was 

the twelfth-grade public school sample for the 2005 NAEP mathematics and 

science assessments; that is, the HSTS sample included every eligible sampled 

NAEP 2005 twelfth-grade public school that was contacted for the HSTS, 

whether or not they actually participated in the NAEP assessments. For private 

schools, the HSTS sample was a subsample from the NAEP 2005 twelfth-grade 

private school sample for the mathematics and science assessments. This 

subsampling process was carried out because private schools were oversampled 

in NAEP 2005. For HSTS, the sample design called for the private schools’ 

sample size to be proportionate to their share of eligible students.

For NAEP-participating schools, only schools that assessed students in the main 

NAEP study mathematics or science tests were eligible for the HSTS. Within 

these schools, the HSTS used the same NAEP mathematics and science student 

samples. For schools that were selected for NAEP but did not participate, 

graduates were randomly selected. Approximately 94 percent of the HSTS 

sampled students were enrolled in schools that also participated in the NAEP 

assessments. Around 63 percent of the participating HSTS students also 

participated in the NAEP. 

All estimates were weighted using sampling weights to provide unbiased 

estimates of the national population. Two types of HSTS weights, NAEP-linked 

weights and HSTS sample weights, were used in the analysis of these data. 

NAEP-linked weights were designed for analyses involving NAEP assessment 

scores or NAEP-based data such as student questionnaire data. These analyses 

only included transcripts from graduates who participated in a NAEP mathematics 

or science assessment. HSTS sample weights were designed for all aggregations 

that did not rely on NAEP-based data, and they encompassed all of the 

transcripts in the study. 

School and student participation rates 

To ensure unbiased samples, NCES established participation rate standards for 

national studies that must be met in order for the results to be reported without 

a nonresponse bias analysis. Participation rates for the original sample needed 

to be at least 85 percent for both schools and graduates. Although the weighted 

graduate within-school response rate was about 99.7 percent, the NAEP HSTS 

school response rate (84.2 percent) fell slightly below this NCES standard. 

A nonresponse bias analysis was conducted on public schools and private 

schools to determine whether the school characteristics from nonresponding 

schools showed significant differences from the responding schools. The 

characteristics that were analyzed in public schools included region, school 

location, grade enrollment, minority school (high/low), and percent minority 

for each of the races. The significant differences in public schools were found in 

region, school location, and percent minority. A similar analysis was conducted 

on private schools that included school type (i.e., Catholic, conservative Christian, 

Lutheran, nonreligious private, other private). Among private schools, significant 

differences were found in school type. Nonresponse weighting adjustments 

were used to correct for these differences among public and private schools. 

Although the differences found between respondents and nonrespondents are 

small for both public and private schools, it is unlikely that nonresponse 

weighting adjustments completely accounted for the differences. 

Target population

The target population for HSTS 2005 included all students in public and private 

schools in the United States who were enrolled in twelfth grade in 2004–05 

and who graduated in 2005. The HSTS collected a nationally representative 

sample of over 26,000 transcripts (from over 29,000 students in the sample), 

representing approximately 2.7 million 2005 high school graduates. The 

selected students excluded from the study included ineligibles, nongraduates, 

and students having incomplete transcripts. For each graduate, transcript 

information was collected for the ninth through the twelfth grade. Transcripts 

were collected from about 640 public schools and 80 private schools. 

Analytical sample

To be consistent with previous published analyses of the NAEP HSTS data, 

almost all of the analyses presented in this report only included graduates with 

regular or honors diplomas. However, the analysis of the type of diplomas that 

graduates with disabilities received included those graduates who received 

special education diplomas or certificates of completion. Students who did not 

graduate or who had less than 3 years of transcript data were excluded from all 

of the analyses. The criteria for inclusion in the analyses in this report were 

established to ensure that the transcripts were complete and valid. They also 

restricted the analyses to those high school graduates with 16 or more earned 

Carnegie credits and a nonzero number of English Carnegie credits. Some of the 

analyses in the report focused on NAEP and high school achievement. These 

analyses were conducted on subsets of the sample. They were limited to the 

eligible graduates from the HSTS who had also participated in the NAEP 

assessments (approximately 17,000 of the graduates in the HSTS sample). 

Curriculum-level analyses, comparisons of seniors with underclassmen, and 

analyses of the highest mathematics and science courses completed by the 

course taken in the freshman year were limited to graduates with transcript 

data in all 4 years.

Variance estimation

Graduate estimates based on the HSTS were subject to sampling error because 

they were derived from a sample, rather than the whole population. Sampling 

error was measured by the sampling variance, which indicated how much the 

 america’s high school graduates 2005 | 35
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (1990). State Education 

Indicators 1990 for the School Year 1989-1990; Prepared by: Cadelle Hemphill; 

Council of Chief State School Officers’ 1990 Policies and Practices Survey. 

Washington, DC: CCSSO. 

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2004). Key State Education 

Policies PK-12 Education: 2004 Results from a 50-State Survey conducted by 

CCSSO; Prepared by Lori Cavell, Rolf Blank, Carla Toye, and Andra Williams. 

Washington, DC: CCSSO. 

Horn, L., and Nuñez, A. (2000). Mapping the Road to College: First-Generation 

Students’ Math Track, Planning Strategies, and Context of Support (NCES 2000–

153). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Krewski, D., and Rao, J. (1981). Inference from stratified samples: properties of 

linearization, jackknife and balanced repeated replication. Annals of Statistics, 9, 

1010-1019.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). 

The Condition of Education 2006 (NCES 2006-071). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. (1982). Institute of Education Sciences, National 

Center for Education Statistics, High School and Beyond (HS&B), 1982, High 

School Transcript Study (HSTS), various years; National Education Longitudinal 

Study (NELS), 1992.

population estimate for a given statistic was likely to change if it had been references

based on another equivalent sample of individuals drawn in exactly the same 

manner as the actual sample. Since the HSTS used a complex sample design 

with two-stage sampling and unequal selection probabilities, along with 

complex weighting procedures, standard textbook formulas could not be used 

for estimating variances. Instead, variances were estimated using jackknife 

replication methods (Krewski and Rao 1981). This estimation involved 

constructing a number of subsamples (replicates) from the full sample and 

computing the statistic of interest for each replicate. Measuring the variability 

among the replicates leads to an accurate estimate of variance for the full sample.

Interpreting statistical significance

Comparisons over time or between groups were based on statistical tests that 

considered both the size of the differences and the standard errors of the two 

statistics being compared. When an estimate—such as an average score—

had a large standard error, a numerical difference that seemed large may not 

be statistically significant (i.e., a null hypothesis of no difference could not be 

rejected with sufficient confidence). Differences of the same size may or may 

not have been statistically significant for different comparisons depending on 

the size of standard errors involved. In the tables and charts of this report, the 

symbol (*) was used to indicate that a score or percentage in a previous 

assessment year was significantly different from the comparable measure in 

2005 or to indicate that, within the current year, differences between groups 

(such as scores of White and Black graduates) were significantly different.

Any differences between scores or percentages discussed in this report are 

statistically significant at the 0.05 level. No adjustments are made for 

multiple comparisons.

Nonsampling error

As in any statistical study, the HSTS estimates are subject to nonsampling 

errors as well as sampling errors. For example, the appropriate CSSC code 

for classifying courses is not always clear because of insufficient or inaccurate 

information provided by schools leading to measurement error.

 36 | technical notes

February 2007

More information

Call Janis Brown at 202-502-7482 

or email Janis.Brown@ed.gov.

The NCES web page is

http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES web electronic

catalog is http://nces.

ed.gov/pubsearch.

For ordering information,

write to

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs

or order online at 

http://www.edpubs.org.

Suggested Citation

Shettle, C., Roey, S., Mordica, J., 

Perkins, R., Nord, C., Teodorovic, J., 

Brown, J., Lyons, M., Averett, C., 

Kastberg, D. (2007).

The Nation’s Report Card:

America’s High School Graduates 

(NCES 2007-467). U.S.

Department of Education,

National Center for Education

Statistics. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

U.S. Department 

of Education

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

Institute of 

Education Sciences

Mark Schneider

Commissioner

National Center for 

Education Statistics

Peggy Carr

Associate Commissioner

National Center for 

Education Statistics

u.s. Department of Education

The National Assessment of Educational Progress is a congressionally mandated project sponsored by the U.S. Department of 

Education. The National Center for Education Statistics, a department within the Institute of Education Sciences, administers 

NAEP. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible by law for carrying out the NAEP project.

“Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote 

educational excellence throughout the nation.”

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.

Darvin M. Winick, Chair

President

Winick & Associates

Austin, Texas

Amanda P. Avallone, Vice Chair

Assistant Principal and

 Eighth-Grade Teacher

Summit Middle School

Boulder, Colorado

Francie Alexander

Chief Academic Officer 

Scholastic, Inc.

Senior Vice President

Scholastic Education

New York, New York

David J. Alukonis

Chairman

Hudson School Board

Hudson, New Hampshire

Barbara Byrd-Bennett

Executive Superintendent-

 in-Residence

Cleveland State University

Cleveland, Ohio

Shirley V. Dickson

Educational Consultant

Aliso Viejo, California

Honorable David P. Driscoll

Commissioner of Education

Massachusetts Department 

 of Education

Malden, Massachusetts

John Q. Easton

Executive Director

Consortium on Chicago 

 School Research

University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois

Alan J. Friedman

Consultant

Museum Development and 

 Science Communications

New York, New York

David W. Gordon

County Superintendent 

 of Schools

Sacramento County 

 Office of Education

Sacramento, California

Robin C. Hall

Principal

Beecher Hills Elementary School

Atlanta, Georgia

Kathi M. King

Twelfth-Grade Teacher

Messalonskee High School

Oakland, Maine

Honorable Keith King

Member

Colorado House of Representatives

Denver, Colorado

Kim Kozbial-Hess

Fourth-Grade Teacher

Hawkins Elementary School

Toledo, Ohio

James S. Lanich

President

California Business for 

 Education Excellence

Sacramento, California

Honorable Cynthia Nava

Senator

New Mexico State Senate

Las Cruces, New Mexico

Andrew C. Porter

Director

Learning Sciences Institute

Peabody College,

 Vanderbilt University

Nashville, Tennessee

Luis A. Ramos

Community Relations 

 Manager

PPL Susquehanna

Berwick, Pennsylvania

Mary Frances Taymans, SND

Executive Director

Secondary Schools Division

National Catholic 

 Educational Association

Washington, DC

Oscar A. Troncoso

Principal

Socorro High School

El Paso, Texas

Honorable Thomas J. Vilsack

Former Governor of Iowa

Des Moines, Iowa

Honorable Michael E. Ward

Former North Carolina 

 Supeintendent of Public 

 Instruction

Hattiesburg, Mississippi

Eileen L. Weiser

Former Member, State Board 

 of Education

Michigan Department 

 of Education

Lansing, Michigan

Grover J. Whitehurst 

(Ex officio)

Director

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, D.C.

Charles E. Smith

Executive Director

National Assessment 

Governing Board

Washington, DC

the nation’s report card – AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

20120.0207.7707055406