U.S. States in a Global Context 

Results From the 2011 NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study 

U.S. Department of Education 

NCES 2013–460 
-

-

Contents 

1	 How Do U.S. Students Compare 


Internationally?
 

4	 NAEP and TIMSS: A Closer Look 

11 Mathematics 

17 Science 

23 NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study 

28 Appendix 

Photo Credits: 

© DNY59/iStockphoto #1966820; © Hans Peter Merten/ 

Getty Images, Inc. #BB3597-004; © Thomas Northcut/ 

Jupiterimages #sb10067958gp-001; © Don Bayley/Getty 

Images, Inc. #165774250; © PhotoAlto/Michele Constantini/ 

Getty Images, Inc. #103057941; © Datacraft Co., Ltd./Getty 

Images, Inc. #122688704; © 13fotos/Ocean/Corbis 

#42-25363701; © Chris Schmidt/Getty Images, Inc. 

#109725571; © Brand X Pictures/Getty Images, Inc. 

#78366206; © DNY59/iStockphoto #2463459 

What Is NAEP? 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is 

an assessment program conducted by the National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES) to inform the public of what 

elementary and secondary students in the United States know 

and can do in various subject areas, including mathematics and 

science. Since 1969, NAEP, also known as The Nation’s Report 

CardTM, has been administered periodically to students at grades 

4, 8, and 12 in order to report results for the nation, participating 

states, and selected large urban school districts. The National 

Assessment Governing Board oversees and sets policy for the 

NAEP program. Additional information about NAEP is available 

at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/. 

What Is TIMSS? 

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 

(TIMSS) is an international comparative study of student 

achievement developed and implemented by the International 

Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). 

Since 1995, TIMSS has assessed the mathematics and science 

knowledge and skills of fourth- and eighth grade students. In 

addition to the United States, more than 50 countries and many 

subnational entities participate in TIMSS. More information on 

TIMSS is available at http://nces.ed.gov/timss/. 

What Is the NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study? 

NCES initiated this special study in an effort to link the NAEP scale 

to the TIMSS scale so that states could compare the performance 

of their students with that of students in other countries. The 

study was conducted in 2011 with eighth grade students in all 

52 states/jurisdictions that participated in the NAEP mathematics 

and science assessments. This highlights report presents results 

of the linking study. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 1 

How do U.S. students 

compare internationally? 

Educators and policymakers throughout the 

United States continue to debate the international 

competitiveness of their students. The ability of the 

United States to thrive in the growing global economy 

is influenced by how well our students compete 

internationally. Results from 2011 TIMSS1

1 Foy, P., Martin, M.O., and Mullis, I.V.S. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics and TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science. Chestnut Hill, 

MA: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of 

Education, Boston College. 

 (Foy, Martin, 

and Mullis 2012) indicate how the performance of 

eighth-grade students in the United States as a whole 

compares with that of students in the other countries 

and subnational education systems that participated in 

the TIMSS assessment; it does not, however, provide 

results for individual U.S. states. NCES conducted 

the NAEP-TIMSS linking study to provide each state 

with a way to examine how their students compare 

academically with their peers around the world in 

mathematics and science. 

NCES coordinated efforts across the NAEP and 

TIMSS assessment programs to conduct the 2011 

NAEP-TIMSS linking study. The National Assessment 

Governing Board and NCES modified the NAEP assessment schedule so that eighth-graders in all 50 states, 

the District of Columbia, and the Department of 

Defense schools (hereafter referred to as “states” or 

U.S. states) could be assessed in mathematics and 

science in 2011. 

The NAEP-TIMSS linking study used states’ NAEP 

scores to predict performance on TIMSS. Nine states 

participated in 2011 TIMSS at the state level. In the 

linking study, their actual TIMSS scores were used to 

validate their predicted results. 

The 38 countries and 9 subnational education systems 

from various countries that assessed eighth-graders in 

2011 TIMSS are all referred to as “education systems” 

in this report. In tables and figures, seven of the 

subnational education systems are further identified 

by their nation’s three-letter international abbreviation 

(e.g., Alberta-CAN and Dubai-UAE). Results in mathematics and science are reported as average scores on 

the TIMSS scale (0–1,000, with an average of 500). 

Linking Study Results 

Mathematics 

• Average scores for public school students in

36 states were higher than the TIMSS average 

of 500. 

•	 Scores ranged from 466 for Alabama to 561 for

Massachusetts. 

•	 Massachusetts scored higher than 42 of the

47 participating education systems.

•	 Alabama scored higher than 19 education

systems. 

Science 

•	 Average scores for public school students in

47 states were higher than the TIMSS average

of 500. 

•	 Scores ranged from 453 for the District of
 

Columbia to 567 for Massachusetts.
 

•	 Massachusetts and Vermont scored higher than

43 participating education systems.

•	 The District of Columbia scored higher than

14 education systems.

It should be noted that numerous differences between 

the NAEP and TIMSS administrations, assessment 

contents, and program policies could contribute to 

the sources of error around predicted TIMSS scores. 

Therefore, predicted TIMSS scores should not be 

interpreted as actual TIMSS scores. 
2 

MATHEMATICS 

Compared to the TIMSS average of 500, average scores for 

36 states were higher 

10 states were not significantly different 

6 states were lower 

1

 Validation state. 

2

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

NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment 

at the state level. Results for validation states are based on actual results from the TIMSS 

mathematics assessment, while results for the other states are predicted results. The results 

for all states include public schools only. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for 

Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics 

Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement 

(IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

Find 2011 state NAEP mathematics results at 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/. 

Compare your state to participating education systems at 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/ 

naep_timss/. 
2011 NAEP–TIMSS 3 

SCIENCE 

Compared to the TIMSS average of 500, average scores for 

47 states were higher 

2 states were not significantly different 

3 states were lower 

1

 Validation state. 

2

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

NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment 

at the state level. Results for validation states are based on actual results from the TIMSS 

science assessment, while results for the other states are predicted results. The results for all 

states include public schools only. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center 

for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science 

Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement 

(IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

Find 2011 state NAEP science results at 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/. 

Compare your state to participating education systems at 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/ 

naep_timss/. 
4 

A CLOSER LOOK 

NAEP AND TIMSS: 

The NAEP and TIMSS assessments in mathematics and science both measure 

student achievement. The programs, however, differ in several important respects. 

The chart below contrasts selected features of the NAEP and TIMSS programs. For 

instance, NAEP assesses students in late winter, while TIMSS assesses students at 

different times of the year in different parts of the world. The testing populations of 

the two programs also vary. For instance, NAEP includes students who are tested with 

accommodations, while TIMSS does not. (See appendix tables A-1 and A-2 for exclusion 

rates for states and education systems.) In addition, results reported for the 52 states by 

NAEP are based on students in public schools only, whereas most education systems in 

TIMSS assess students in public and private schools. The NAEP and TIMSS frameworks and 

assessments are discussed later in this section under Assessment Design. In the United States, 

educational policies and resources vary across the states, as they do across the 47 education 

systems that participated in TIMSS 2011. Thus, individual state results are better indicators of 

the condition of education in the United States than the nation’s overall average TIMSS score. 

Comparison of the NAEP and TIMSS programs 

Program 

features NAEP TIMSS 

Where 

administered 

50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and 

Department of Defense schools 

Over 50 countries and many subnational entities 

(The 47 education systems that participated in 

TIMSS at grade 8 in 2011 are shown on the map.) 

Testing window January through March October through December in the Southern 

Hemisphere 

April through June in the Northern Hemisphere 

Results
 

reported as 

Average scores on separate scales for each
 

subject 

 0–500 for mathematics 

 0–300 for science 

Percentages of students reaching the three 

achievement levels 

 Basic 

 Proficient 

 Advanced 

Average scores on separate scales for each subject 

 0–1,000 for mathematics 

 0–1,000 for science 

Percentages of students reaching the four 

international benchmarks 

 Low 

 Intermediate 

 High 

 Advanced 

Accommodations 

for students with 

disabilities and 

English language 

learners 

Accommodations similar to most of those 

available for state assessments are provided, 

such as extra testing time or individual rather 

than group administration. 

No accommodations are provided by TIMSS. 

However, school accommodations are permitted, 

such as magnifying glasses, dictionaries for 

translation of terms, and sitting near natural light. 
5 

Reporting Results 

The NAEP 2011 mathematics results for eighth-graders 

in each state are based on representative samples of 

about 3,200 students from 50 to 230 schools. The 

NAEP 2011 science results for each state are based 

on representative samples of about 2,300 students 

from 50 to 220 schools. Results for the 52 NAEP 

state samples used in the linking study reflect the 

performance of students in public schools only. 

The 2011 TIMSS results for each of the participating 

education systems are based on a representative 

sample of no fewer than 4,000 eighth-grade students 

from at least 150 public and private schools. Because 

Botswana, Honduras, and South Africa assessed ninthgraders, their results are not included in this report. In 

the United States, over 10,000 eighth-graders from 

about 500 public and private schools participated in 

the 2011 TIMSS. 

Find 2011 TIMSS mathematics and science reports at 

http://timss.bc.edu/isc/publications.html. 

Predicting TIMSS scores 

The linking study design consisted of the following 

samples, in addition to the national samples of NAEP 

and TIMSS described previously. Separate samples 

of U.S. public school students were administered 

braided booklets containing NAEP and TIMSS test 

questions, one for mathematics and one for science, 

during the NAEP testing window. Similarly, a sample 

of U.S. students was administered braided booklets 

during the TIMSS testing window. Three linking 

methods—statistical moderation, calibration, and 

statistical projection—were applied in linking the NAEP 

and TIMSS scales. All three linking methods produced 

similar results. 

The statistical moderation linking method was selected 

to predict the average TIMSS scores reported for the 

43 U.S. states that participated only in NAEP. The 

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 
6 

accuracy of the predicted scores was evaluated by 

comparing the actual TIMSS scores with predicted 

TIMSS scores for the nine validation states—Alabama, 

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, and North Carolina. Find 

more information about the linking study design and 

methods used in the study beginning on page 24. 

As with NAEP, the TIMSS mathematics and science 

scores cannot be compared to each other because the 

scales are developed independently.

The performance of students in the states is compared 

to the TIMSS average for each subject. Findings are 

reported based on a statistical significance level set 

at .05, with no statistical adjustments to account for 

multiple comparisons. Only those differences found 

to be statistically significant are discussed as higher 

or lower.

More information about the 2011 TIMSS assessment 

can be found in the Highlights from TIMSS 2011 report 

(NCES 2013–009). 

TIMSS benchmarks

In addition to reporting average scores, TIMSS reports 

on the performance of students at four international 

benchmarks for each subject and grade—Advanced 

(625), High (550), Intermediate (475), and Low (400). 

The cutpoint at the lower end of the range for each of the 

benchmarks is noted in parentheses. These benchmarks 

provide a way to interpret the average scores and 

understand how students’ proficiency in mathematics 

and science varies along the TIMSS scale. They are 

based on the kinds of skills and knowledge that students 

reaching each score cutpoint would need to answer the 

mathematics and science questions successfully. 

For example, at the Advanced level in mathematics at 

grade 8, students can reason with information, draw 

conclusions, make generalizations, and solve linear 

equations. At the High level, students can apply their 

understanding and knowledge in a variety of relatively 

complex situations. At the Intermediate level in 

mathematics, students can apply basic mathematical 

knowledge in a variety of situations, and at the Low level, 

students have some knowledge of whole numbers and 

decimals, operations, and basic graphs. 

At the Advanced level in science at grade 8, students 

apply knowledge and understanding of scientific 

processes and relationships and show some knowledge 

of the process of scientific inquiry. At the High level, 

students apply their knowledge and understanding of the 

sciences to explain phenomena in everyday and abstract 

contexts. At the Intermediate level in science, students 

have basic knowledge and understanding of practical 

situations in the sciences. At the Low level , students 

show some elementary knowledge of life, physical, and 

earth sciences. 

For more information on the TIMSS international 

benchmarks, see page 16 for mathematics and page 22 

for science. Extensive descriptions of each benchmark 

are available in the TIMSS 2011 international reports 

in mathematics and science. Results are reported 

as the percentages of students reaching each of the 

benchmarks.

Context for Performance

The variation in student performance across the United 

States and around the world can be attributed to a variety 

of factors, including educational policies and practices, 

available resources, and the demographic characteristics 

of the student body. To provide context for the results, 

tables 1 and 2 (see pages 9 and 10) present selected 

demographic, economic, and educational variables for the 

U.S. states and the 47 participating education systems. 

Assessment Design 

The NAEP and TIMSS frameworks for mathematics 

and science describe the types of questions that should 

be included in the assessments and how they should 

be scored. The following charts on mathematics and 

science compare some features of the NAEP and 

TIMSS assessments that are more fully described in 

the frameworks. As shown in the charts, the content 

areas and their coverage in the assessments are 

somewhat different between NAEP and TIMSS. In 

addition, there are differences between the NAEP and 

TIMSS assessments in testing time and the testing aids 

allowed. The testing time is different because NAEP 

assesses the subjects separately, and NAEP allows 

more accommodations to have broader coverage 

of the population.

A comprehensive comparison of the NAEP and TIMSS 

assessment frameworks and a comparison of TIMSS 

assessment items against NAEP frameworks show that 

NAEP and TIMSS differ somewhat in what is assessed. 

Results of these comparisons are available at http://

nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/naep_timss/.
 

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 7 

Mathematics 

Assessment features NAEP TIMSS 

Content areas (with percentage of 

assessment time in parentheses) 

Number properties and operations 

(18%) 

Measurement (16%) 

Geometry (17%)

Data analysis, statistics, and 

probability (16%) 

Algebra (33%) 

Number (30%) 

Geometry (20%) 

Data and chance (20%) 

Algebra (30%) 

Question types Multiple-choice and constructedresponse Multiple-choice and constructedresponse 

Student testing time Two 25-minute sections, each 

containing from 14 to 17 mathematics

questions 

Two 45-minute sections,

each containing two blocks of 

approximately 12 to 18 questions. One 

section contains two mathematics 

blocks, and the other section contains 

two science blocks. 

Testing aids allowed Regular or scientific calculator 

permitted for some questions 

Ruler/protractor and geometric 

shapes or other manipulatives 

provided for some questions 

Regular calculator permitted 

throughout the assessment for 

mathematics questions only 

The complete 2011 NAEP mathematics framework is available at 

http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/math-2011-framework.pdf, 

and the complete 2011 TIMSS framework with sections on both mathematics and science is available at 

http://timss.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/TIMSS2011_Frameworks.pdf. 
	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

8 

Science
 

Assessment features NAEP TIMSS 

Content areas (with percentage of 

assessment time in parentheses) 

Physical science (30%) 

Life science (30%) 

Earth and space sciences (40%)

Physics (25%) 

Biology (35%) 

Chemistry (20%) 

Earth science (20%) 

Question types Multiple-choice and constructedresponse questions Multiple-choice and constructedresponse questions 

Student testing time Two 25-minute sections, each 

containing from 14 to 18 science

questions 

Two 45-minute sections,

each containing two blocks of 

approximately 12 to 18 questions. One 

section contains two mathematics 

blocks, and the other section contains 

two science blocks. 

Testing aids allowed None permitted None permitted for science questions 

The complete 2011 NAEP science framework is available at 

http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/science-2011.pdf, 

and the complete 2011 TIMSS framework with sections on both science and mathematics is available at 

http://timss.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/TIMSS2011_Frameworks.pdf. 
Table 1. Selected characteristics of states in NAEP-TIMSS linking study: 2009, 2010, and 2011

State Total population

Public elementary 

school enrollment

Real GDP 

per capita 

(in U.S. dollars)

Public spending 

on education as a 

percentage of GDP

Public elementary 

school studentteacher ratio

Alabama1 4,802,740 534,000 $31,301 4 21

Alaska 722,718 92,000 61,853 5 17

Arizona 6,482,505 752,000 35,032 4 21

Arkansas 2,937,979 346,000 31,142 5 20

California1 37,691,912 4,294,000 46,041 4 25

Colorado1 5,116,796 601,000 45,792 4 22

Connecticut1 3,580,709 387,000 56,242 4 13

Delaware 907,135 90,000 63,159 3 20

District of Columbia 617,996 54,000 148,291 1 15

DoDEA2 — — — — —

Florida1 19,057,542 1,858,000 34,689 4 25

Georgia 9,815,210 1,202,000 37,270 4 17

Hawaii 1,374,810 128,000 42,171 3 21

Idaho 1,584,985 194,000 32,469 4 25

Illinois 12,869,257 1,455,000 45,231 4 14

Indiana1 6,516,922 729,000 36,970 4 22

Iowa 3,062,309 348,000 41,993 4 14

Kansas 2,871,238 343,000 39,484 5 20

Kentucky 4,369,356 480,000 32,331 4 21

Louisiana 4,574,836 512,000 45,002 3 14

Maine 1,328,188 129,000 33,746 5 11

Maryland 5,828,289 588,000 45,360 4 16

Massachusetts1 6,587,536 666,000 52,915 4 14

Michigan 9,876,187 1,076,000 34,166 5 30

Minnesota1 5,344,861 570,000 45,822 4 21

Mississippi 2,978,512 351,000 28,293 5 23

Missouri 6,010,688 643,000 35,952 4 19

Montana 998,199 98,000 32,041 4 14

Nebraska 1,842,641 210,000 43,356 4 14

Nevada 2,723,322 307,000 41,311 3 28

New Hampshire 1,318,194 132,000 42,916 4 12

New Jersey 8,821,155 981,000 48,380 5 15

New Mexico 2,082,224 239,000 33,857 5 25

New York 19,465,197 1,869,000 52,214 5 19

North Carolina1 9,656,401 1,058,000 39,879 3 21

North Dakota 683,932 66,000 50,096 3 12

Ohio 11,544,951 1,223,000 36,283 5 23

Oklahoma 3,791,508 483,000 35,381 4 21

Oregon 3,871,859 393,000 48,098 3 19

Pennsylvania 12,742,886 1,210,000 39,272 5 19

Rhode Island 1,051,302 98,000 41,532 4 18

South Carolina 4,679,230 516,000 30,620 5 15

South Dakota 824,082 88,000 41,795 3 14

Tennessee 6,403,353 702,000 36,543 3 15

Texas 25,674,681 3,587,000 44,788 4 21

Utah 2,817,222 425,000 38,452 4 32

Vermont 626,431 68,000 36,665 6 18

Virginia 8,096,604 871,000 46,408 4 27

Washington 6,830,038 714,000 45,520 3 25

West Virginia 1,855,364 201,000 30,056 6 21

Wisconsin 5,711,767 598,000 38,822 4 21

Wyoming 568,158 63,000 55,516 5 16

— Not available.

1

 Validation state.

2

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

NOTE: GDP = Gross domestic product. Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. The number of students enrolled is rounded to the nearest thousand. 

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary,” 2010–11; U.S. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis; Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance: 2009–10; and 2010 Annual Survey of Local Government Finances - School Systems. 

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 9
10 

Table 2. Selected characteristics of education systems in TIMSS assessment at grade 8: 2010 and 2011 

Education system 

Population size 

(in millions) 

Primary school 

enrollment 

Gross national 

income per capita 

(in U.S. dollars) 

Public spending 

on education as a 

percentage of GDP 

Primary school 

pupil-teacher ratio 

Abu Dhabi-UAE 2 — — — 11 

Alberta-CAN 4 — $70,826 4 — 

Armenia 3 117,140 3,100 3 19 

Australia 22 2,015,017 43,770 5 — 

Bahrain 1 90,993 25,420 — — 

Chile 17 1,546,543 9,470 4 25 

Chinese Taipei-CHN 23 — 16,471 4 16 

Dubai-UAE — — — — — 

England-GBR 52 — 41,370 5 23 

Finland 5 347,060 45,940 6 14 

Georgia 4 289,137 2,530 3 9 

Ghana 24 — 1,190 6 33 

Hong Kong SAR1 7 348,549 31,570 5 16 

Hungary 10 387,969 12,980 5 10 

Indonesia 230 30,341,821 2,050 3 17 

Iran, Islamic Republic of 73 5,629,585 4,530 5 20 

Israel 7 807,424 25,790 6 13 

Italy 60 2,822,146 35,110 4 10 

Japan 128 7,098,862 38,080 4 18 

Jordan 6 819,601 3,980 4 17 

Kazakhstan 16 957,919 6,920 3 16 

Korea, Republic of 49 3,306,192 19,830 4 24 

Lebanon 4 461,719 8,060 2 14 

Lithuania 3 122,458 11,410 5 13 

Macedonia, Republic of 2 110,759 4,400 — 17 

Malaysia 27 2,947,534 7,350 4 15 

Morocco 32 3,945,201 2,770 6 27 

New Zealand 4 348,492 28,810 6 15 

Norway 5 424,052 84,640 7 11 

Oman 3 — 17,890 4 12 

Ontario-CAN 13 — 46,304 6 — 

Palestinian National Authority 4 402,866 1,749 — — 

Qatar 1 88,723 71,008 — 11 

Quebec-CAN 8 — 40,395 7 — 

Romania 21 842,238 8,330 4 16 

Russian Federation 142 — 9,340 4 17 

Saudi Arabia 25 3,321,066 17,210 6 11 

Singapore 5 — 37,220 3 19 

Slovenia 2 106,883 23,520 6 17 

Sweden 9 576,110 48,840 7 10 

Syrian Arab Republic 21 2,429,450 2,410 5 18 

Thailand 68 — 3,760 4 16 

Tunisia 10 1,030,109 3,720 7 17 

Turkey 75 6,635,156 8,720 4 22 

Ukraine 46 1,540,282 2,800 5 16 

United Arab Emirates 

United States 

5 

307 

326,588 

24,393,002 

54,738 

46,360 

1 

6 

16 

14 

— Not available.
 

1

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.
 

NOTE: GDP = Gross domestic product.
 

SOURCE: TIMSS 2011 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science (Volume 1); and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics, 2010. 

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 11 

MATHEMATICS 


Average scores for 


51 states reach 

the Intermediate 

benchmark 1 state (Massachusetts) reaches 

the High benchmark 

24education systems reach 

the Intermediate benchmark 5education systems—Chinese 

Taipei-CHN, Hong Kong SAR, 

Japan, the Republic of Korea, 

and Singapore—reach the High 

benchmark 
12 MATHEMATICS

How do U.S. states perform in relation to TIMSS 

international benchmarks in mathematics? 

The average scores of students in 51 states were at or 

above the TIMSS Intermediate benchmark cutpoint of 

475 (figure 1). TIMSS scores for 41 education systems 

ranged from below the Intermediate benchmark to above 

the High benchmark cutpoint of 550 (figure 2). Although 

not shown in the figure, six education systems scored 

below the Low benchmark cutpoint of 400. Mathematics 

performance varied more across the participating 

education systems than across the states. This variation 

in the performance of students across the U.S. states 

and around the world could be attributed to a range 

of factors such as educational policies and practices, 

available resources, and the demographic characteristics 

of the student body. 

Figure 1. Average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by state: 2011 

1

 Validation state. 


2

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


NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for validation states and the 


United States (U.S.) are based on actual results from the TIMSS mathematics assessment, while the results for the other states are predicted results. 


The results for all states and the United States include public schools only. 


SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational 


Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in 


International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 13 

Figure 2. Average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by education system: 2011 

1

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. 

NOTE: Results for all education systems include public and private schools. Results are not shown for education systems that scored below 400 

(Ghana, Indonesia, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Syrian Arab Republic). 

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 

(TIMSS), 2011. 

What is the margin of error for the scores? 

Each score has a margin of error associated with it that is expressed in terms of a standard error. The 

size of the standard errors can be influenced by survey design factors, and, therefore, vary across states 

and education systems. The lines or “tails” above and below each boxed score in the graphic represent a 

confidence interval, which indicates the range of the boxed score with a 95 percent level of confidence. At 

this level of confidence, a score’s confidence interval equals plus or minus 1.96 times the standard error 

around the score. The standard errors for U.S. state scores in mathematics ranged from 2.7 to 6.8, while the 

standard errors for education system scores ranged from 1.9 to 5.5 (see appendix tables A-5 and A-6). 

Find more information about standard errors in the Linking Study section of this report. 

It should be noted that numerous differences between the NAEP and TIMSS administrations, assessment 

contents, and program policies could contribute to the sources of error around predicted TIMSS scores. 

Therefore, predicted TIMSS scores should not be interpreted as actual TIMSS scores. 

MATHEMATICS
 

14 MATHEMATICS

How does student performance in states 


compare internationally in mathematics? 


Average scores for over two-thirds of the U.S. states and 

one-quarter of the 47 education systems were higher 

than the TIMSS average (figure 3-A). Massachusetts 

scored higher than the TIMSS average and 42 of the 

47 participating education systems. Average scores for 

10 states were not significantly different from the TIMSS 

average (figure 3-B). Alabama, although the lowest 

scoring state, scored higher than 19 education systems 

(figure 3-C). Only four education systems—Chinese 

Taipei-CHN, Hong Kong SAR, the Republic of Korea, and 

Singapore—had TIMSS scores that were higher than 

the scores for all 52 states. 

In addition to average scores, TIMSS reports the 

percentages of students scoring at or above four 

international benchmark levels. Differences in the 

proportions of students reaching each benchmark reflect 

differences in the mathematics knowledge and skills 

demonstrated by students in the states and education 

systems. All states and most participating education 

systems had some students performing at the High and 

Advanced benchmarks. 

How to Read the Graphics 

In New Jersey (figure 3-A), 16 percent of 

students scored at the Advanced benchmark, 

and 50 percent scored at or above the High 

benchmark. 

Figure 3-A. 	Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade 

mathematics for students with average scores 

higher than the TIMSS average, by jurisdiction: 2011 

See notes at end of figure 3-C. 
2011 NAEP–TIMSS 	 MATHEMATICS 15 

At the Advanced benchmark in mathematics, 

eighth-graders can reason with data from several 

sources or unfamiliar representations to solve 

multi-step problems. The percentage of students 

in Massachusetts demonstrating these skills was 

higher than the percentages in 41 of the participating 

education systems. Nineteen percent of eighth-graders 

in Massachusetts reached the Advanced level, 

compared to about 50 percent of students in Chinese 

Taipei-CHN, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. 

In the states with average scores higher than the TIMSS 

average, the percentages of students scoring at or 

above the High benchmark ranged from 29 percent 

in Arkansas to 57 percent in Massachusetts. In the 

education systems that scored higher than the TIMSS 

average, the percentages of students scoring at or 

above High ranged from 27 percent in Slovenia to 

78 percent in Singapore. See appendix tables A-9 and 

A-10 for benchmark percentages and standard errors. 

Figure 3-B. 	Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade 

mathematics for students with average scores not 

significantly different from the TIMSS average, by 

jurisdiction: 2011 

See notes at end of figure 3-C. 

In South Carolina (figure 3-B), 6 percent 

of the students reached the Advanced 

benchmark, while over one-quarter of 

the students scored at or above the High 

benchmark. 

Figure 3-C. 	Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade 

mathematics for students with average scores lower 

than the TIMSS average, by jurisdiction: 2011 

1

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. 

2

 Validation state. 

3

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

NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the 

state level. Average scores appear in parentheses. Jurisdictions are ordered based on unrounded 

average scores. Results for validation states and education systems are based on actual results from 

the TIMSS mathematics assessment, while the results for other U.S. states are predicted results. In 

addition, the results for all U.S. states and United States (public) include public schools only. Results 

for education systems include public and private schools. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment; and 

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International 

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 
16 MATHEMATICS

TIMSS International Benchmarks for Achievement in Mathematics at Grade 8 

Presented below are brief descriptions of what eighthgraders should know and be able to do at the Low, 

Intermediate, High, and Advanced benchmarks in 

mathematics. TIMSS benchmarks are cumulative; 

therefore, student performance at the High benchmark 

includes the competencies associated with the Low 

and Intermediate benchmarks. Extensive descriptions 

of what students should know and be able to do 

at each benchmark can be found in the TIMSS 2011 

International Results in Mathematics report. 

ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 

625 Students can reason with information, draw conclusions, make generalizations, and solve 

linear equations. 

Students can solve a variety of fraction, proportion, and percent problems and justify their 

conclusions. Students can express generalizations algebraically and model situations. They 

can solve a variety of problems involving equations, formulas, and functions. Students can 

reason with geometric figures to solve problems. Students can reason with data from several 

sources or unfamiliar representations to solve multi-step problems. 

HIGH INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 

550 Students can apply their understanding and knowledge in a variety of relatively complex situations. 

Students can use information from several sources to solve problems involving different types 

of numbers and operations. Students can relate fractions, decimals, and percents to each 

other. Students at this level show basic procedural knowledge related to algebraic expressions. 

They can use properties of lines, angles, triangles, rectangles, and rectangular prisms to solve 

problems. They can analyze data in a variety of graphs. 

INTERMEDIATE INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 

475 Students can apply basic mathematical knowledge in a variety of situations. 

Students can solve problems involving decimals, fractions, proportions, and percentages. 

They understand simple algebraic relationships. Students can relate a two-dimensional 

drawing to a three-dimensional object. They can read, interpret, and construct graphs and 

tables. They recognize basic notions of likelihood. 

LOW INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 

400 Students have some knowledge of whole numbers and decimals, operations, and basic graphs. 
2011 NAEP–TIMSS 17 

SCIENCE 

Average scores for 

51 states reach 

the Intermediate 

benchmark 8states—Maine, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

Montana, New Hampshire, North 

Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin— 

reach the High benchmark 

25education systems reach 

the Intermediate benchmark 5education systems— 

Chinese Taipei-CHN, Finland, Japan, 

the Republic of Korea, and 

Singapore—reach the High 

benchmark 
 

 

18 SCIENCE

How do U.S. states perform in relation to TIMSS 

international benchmarks in science? 

The average scores of students in 51 states were at or 

above the TIMSS Intermediate benchmark cutpoint of 

475 (figure 4). Average scores for eight states—Maine, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, 

North Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin—reached the 

High benchmark cutpoint of 550. The average scores of 

the 45 participating education systems included in the figure 

spanned from just above the Low benchmark to above the 

High benchmark (figure 5). Although not shown, Ghana 

and Morocco scored below the Low benchmark cutpoint 

of 400. Scores in TIMSS science varied more across the 

47 participating education systems than across the 52 states. 

Figure 4. Average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by state: 2011 

1

 Validation state. 


2

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


NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for validation states and the 


United States (U.S.) are based on actual results from the TIMSS science assessment, while the results for the other states are predicted results. The 


results for all states and the United States include public schools only. 


SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of 


Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in 


International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

 

2011 NAEP–TIMSS SCIENCE 19 

Figure 5. Average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by education system: 2011 

1 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. 

NOTE: Results for all education systems include public and private schools. Results are not shown for education systems that 

scored below 400 (Ghana and Morocco). 

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics 

and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

What is the margin of error for the scores? 

Each score has a margin of error associated with it that is expressed in terms of a standard error. The 

size of the standard errors can be influenced by survey design factors and, therefore, vary across states 

and education systems. The lines or “tails” above and below each boxed score in the graphic represent a 

confidence interval, which indicates the range of the boxed score with a 95 percent level of confidence. At 

this level of confidence, a score’s confidence interval equals plus or minus 1.96 times the standard error 

around the score. The standard errors for U.S. state scores in science ranged from 2.8 to 7.3, while the 

standard errors for education system scores ranged from 2.0 to 6.3 (see appendix tables A-7 and A-8). 

Find more information about standard errors in the Linking Study section of this report. 

It should be noted that numerous differences between the NAEP and TIMSS administrations, assessment 

contents, and program policies could contribute to the sources of error around predicted TIMSS scores. 

Therefore, predicted TIMSS scores should not be interpreted as actual TIMSS scores. 
20 SCIENCE

How does student performance in states 

compare internationally in science? 

Average scores for 90 percent of the states and 

40 percent of the participating education systems 

were higher than the TIMSS average (figure 6-A). 

Massachusetts and Vermont scored higher than the 

TIMSS average, the High benchmark, and scores for 

43 participating education systems. Average scores for 

Arizona and California were not significantly different from 

the TIMSS average (figure 6-B). The District of Columbia, 

although the lowest scoring state, scored higher than 14 

education systems (figure 6-C). Singapore was the only 

education system that scored higher than all 52 states. 

TIMSS also reports the percentages of students reaching 

each of the four international benchmarks. All states and 

most participating education systems had some students 

scoring at the High and Advanced benchmarks. At the 

Advanced level in science, students apply knowledge and 

understanding of scientific processes and relationships and 

show some knowledge of the process of scientific inquiry. 

The percentage of students demonstrating these skills in 

Massachusetts (24 percent) was higher than percentages 

in all but three participating education systems—Chinese 

Taipei-CHN, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. In 

states that scored higher than the TIMSS average, the 

percentages of students scoring at or above the High 

benchmark ranged from 31 percent in Hawaii to 61 percent 

in Massachusetts. In the education systems that scored 

higher than the TIMSS average, the percentages of 

students scoring at or above the High benchmark ranged 

from 33 percent in Lithuania and Sweden to 69 percent 

in Singapore. See appendix tables A-11 and A-12 for 

benchmark percentages and standard errors. 

Figure 6-A. Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade science for students with average scores higher than the TIMSS 

average, by jurisdiction: 2011 

See notes at end of figure 6-C. 
2011 NAEP–TIMSS SCIENCE 21 

Figure 6-B. 	Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade science for 

students with average scores not significantly different 

from the TIMSS average, by jurisdiction: 2011 

See notes at end of figure 6-C. 

Figure 6-C. 	Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade science 

for students with average scores lower than the TIMSS 

average, by jurisdiction: 2011 

1 Validation state. 

2

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

3

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. 

NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. 

Average scores appear in parentheses. Jurisdictions are ordered based on unrounded average scores. Results for 

validation states and education systems are based on actual results from the TIMSS science assessment, while the 

results for other U.S. states are predicted results. In addition, the results for all U.S. states and United States (public) 

include public schools only. Results for education systems include public and private schools. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science Assessment; and International Association for the 

Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

How to Read the Graphics 

In Vermont (figure 6-A), 19 percent 

of students scored at the Advanced 

benchmark, and 60 percent of the 

students scored at or above the High 

benchmark. In Mississippi (the first state 

in figure 6-C), 3 percent of students 

scored at the Advanced benchmark, 

and over one-fifth of the students 

scored at or above the High benchmark. 
22 SCIENCE

TIMSS International Benchmarks for Achievement in Science at Grade 8 

Presented below are brief descriptions of what eighthgraders should know and be able to do at the Low, 

Intermediate, High, and Advanced benchmarks in 

science. TIMSS benchmarks are cumulative; therefore, 

student performance at the High benchmark includes the 

competencies associated with the Low and Intermediate 

benchmarks. Find extensive descriptions of what students 

should know and be able to do at each benchmark in the 

TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science report. 

ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 

625 Students apply knowledge and understanding of scientific processes and relationships and show some 

knowledge of the process of scientific inquiry. 

Students communicate their understanding of characteristics and life processes of 

organisms, reproduction and development, ecosystems and organisms’ interactions with 

the environment, and factors relating to human health. They demonstrate understanding 

of properties of light and relationships among physical properties of materials, apply and 

communicate their understanding of electricity and energy in practical contexts, and demonstrate 

an understanding of magnetic and gravitational forces and motion. Students communicate their 

understanding of the solar system and of Earth’s structure, physical characteristics, resources, 

processes, cycles, and history. They have a beginning ability to interpret results in the context of 

a simple experiment, reason and draw conclusions from descriptions and diagrams, and evaluate 

and support an argument. 

HIGH INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 

550 Students apply their knowledge and understanding of the sciences to explain phenomena in everyday and 

abstract contexts. 

Students demonstrate some understanding of plant and animal structure, life processes, life 

cycles, and reproduction. They also demonstrate some understanding of ecosystems and 

organisms’ interactions with their environment, including understanding of human responses 

to outside conditions and activities. Students demonstrate understanding of some properties of 

matter, electricity and energy, and magnetic and gravitational forces and motion. They show some 

knowledge of the solar system, and of Earth’s physical characteristics, processes, and resources. 

Students demonstrate elementary knowledge and skills related to scientific inquiry. They compare, 

contrast, and make simple inferences, and provide brief descriptive responses combining knowledge of science concepts with information from both everyday and abstract contexts. 

INTERMEDIATE INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 

475 Students have basic knowledge and understanding of practical situations in the sciences. 

Students recognize some basic information related to characteristics of living things, their 

reproduction and life cycles, and their interactions with the environment, and show some 

understanding of human biology and health. They also show some knowledge of properties of 

matter and light, electricity and energy, and forces and motion. Students know some basic facts 

about the solar system and show an initial understanding of Earth’s physical characteristics and 

resources. They demonstrate ability to interpret information in pictorial diagrams and apply factual 

knowledge to practical situations. 

LOW INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 

400 Students show some elementary knowledge of life, physical, and earth sciences. 

Students demonstrate knowledge of some simple facts related to human health, ecosystems, and 

the behavioral and physical characteristics of animals. They also demonstrate some basic knowledge 

of energy and the physical properties of matter. Students interpret simple diagrams, complete simple 

tables, and provide short written responses to questions requiring factual information. 
2011 NAEP TIMSS – 23 

NAEP-TIMSS 

Linking Study 
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

24 

The 2011 NAEP-TIMSS linking study allowed NCES 

to evaluate multiple linking methodologies. This 

publication reports predicted scores that are based on 

the statistical moderation approach for the 43 states 

that did not participate in TIMSS at the state level. 

The following sections provide a brief description of 

the linking study samples and methodologies. Details 

on the design employed in the study and the analyses 

conducted to evaluate the various methodologies will 

be available in the forthcoming NAEP-TIMSS Linking 

Study: Technical Report (NCES 2014–461). 

Assessment Samples 

To evaluate various linking methodologies, multiple 

samples of students were assessed during the NAEP 

testing window (January–March) as well as the TIMSS 

testing window (April–June). 

•	 Students assessed in NAEP mathematics or

science during the 2011 NAEP testing window 

(2011 NAEP national sample). 

•	 Students assessed during the 2011 NAEP

testing window with NAEP-like braided booklets containing both NAEP and TIMSS test 

questions (braided booklet samples in 

2011 NAEP testing window). 

•	 Students in the United States assessed in

TIMSS mathematics and science during the 

2011 TIMSS testing window (2011 TIMSS 

U.S. national sample). 

•	 Students in the United States assessed during

the 2011 TIMSS testing window with TIMSSlike braided booklets containing both NAEP 

and TIMSS test questions (braided booklet 

sample in 2011 TIMSS testing window). 

All NAEP and TIMSS 2011 mathematics and science 

test questions at grade 8 were included in the NAEPlike and TIMSS-like braided booklets. 

Samples assessed during NAEP testing 

In 2011, eighth-grade public school students from all 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and the Department 

of Defense schools were sampled and participated in 

the NAEP mathematics and science assessments. The 

NAEP national samples were then composed of all the 

state samples of public school students, as well as a 

national sample of private school students. A nationally 

representative sample of 175,200 eighth-graders from 

7,610 schools participated in the NAEP mathematics 

assessment, and 122,000 eighth-graders from 7,290 

schools participated in the NAEP science assessment. 

Braided booklets—a set of special booklets containing 

one block of NAEP and one block of TIMSS test 

questions—were administered to an additional 

national public schools sample of randomly selected 

students, about 5,700 students from 3,710 schools for 

mathematics and 6,000 students from 3,760 schools 

for science. 

Samples assessed during TIMSS testing 

A total of 10,500 eighth-graders selected from 

randomly sampled classrooms in 500 U.S. public and 

private schools participated in the TIMSS assessment. 

The TIMSS U.S. sample did not have a state 

component similar to NAEP. 

In addition to the TIMSS U.S. national sample, 

nine U.S. states—Alabama, California, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, and North Carolina—participated in 2011 

TIMSS at the state level. These states were given the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

25 

opportunity to compare the mathematics and science 

achievement of their students directly against the 

TIMSS education systems by receiving actual TIMSS 

scores. In the linking study, the nine states served as 

“validation states” where their actual TIMSS scores 

were used to check the accuracy of their predicted 

results. About 1,700 to 2,600 public school students 

from each of the nine validation states—approximately 

19,600 in total—were selected to participate in the 

TIMSS assessment. 

Furthermore, another set of braided booklets was 

administered to an additional nationally representative 

sample of 10,400 U.S. students from 510 public and 

private schools. These braided booklets contained 

either one block of NAEP mathematics with two 

blocks of TIMSS mathematics and one block of 

TIMSS science, or one block of NAEP science with 

two blocks of TIMSS science and one block of 

TIMSS mathematics. More details on the design of 

braided booklets will be available in the forthcoming 

technical report. 

Accommodations and 

Exclusions 

Accommodations and exclusions in NAEP 

NAEP allows accommodations (e.g., extra testing 

time or individual rather than group administration) 

so that more students with disabilities (SD) and 

English language learners (ELL) can participate in 

the assessment. This additional participation helps 

ensure that NAEP results accurately reflect the 

educational performance of all students in the target 

population. For the U.S. states that participated in the 

2011 eighth-grade NAEP assessments, the exclusion 

rates ranged from 1 to 10 percent in mathematics 

and from 1 to 3 percent in science. For the nine states 

that also participated in 2011 TIMSS, the exclusion 

rates for NAEP participation ranged from 1 to 4 

percent in mathematics and from 1 to 3 percent in 

science. Exclusions in NAEP could occur at the school 

level, with entire schools being excluded. The NAEP 

sampling frame excluded ungraded schools, specialeducation-only schools, and hospital schools, as well 

as schools serving prisons and juvenile correctional 

institutions. See appendix table A-1 for NAEP exclusion 

rates by subject and state. 

Exclusions in TIMSS 

Unlike NAEP, TIMSS does not provide testing 

accommodations for SD and ELL students. The 

International Association for the Evaluation of 

Educational Achievement (IEA), however, requires 

that the student exclusion rate not exceed more than 

5 percent of the national desired target population 

(Foy, Joncas, and Zuhlke 2009).2 

2

 Foy, P., Joncas, M., and Zuhlke, O. (2009). TIMSS 2011 School Sampling Manual. Unpublished manuscript, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. 

Exclusions in TIMSS could occur at the school level, 

with entire schools being excluded, or within schools 

with specific students or entire classrooms excluded. 

Schools could be excluded that 

•	 are geographically inaccessible;

•	 are of extremely small size;

•	 offer a curriculum or school structure radically

different from the mainstream educational

system; or

•	 provide instruction only to students in the

excluded categories as defined under “withinschool exclusions,” such as schools for the blind. 

Within the schools that are selected to participate, 

students may be excluded because of intellectual or 

functional disability, or the inability to read or speak 

the language(s) of the test (e.g., ELL students in the 

United States). 

Seven percent of eighth-graders were excluded in the 

U.S. national sample of 2011 TIMSS. Therefore, the 

U.S. results at grade 8 carry a coverage annotation 

for not meeting the IEA standard inclusion rate of 95 

percent. Among the nine validation states, only three 

states—Alabama, Colorado, and Minnesota—met 

the IEA inclusion rate standard. Appendix table A-2 

summarizes information on the TIMSS exclusion rates

in the nine U.S. states and the education systems that 

participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment. It should 

be noted that there is one exclusion rate for each state 

or education system in TIMSS because the same 

sampled students were assessed in both mathematics 

and science. 

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26 

Linking Methodologies 

The process by which NAEP results are reported on 

the TIMSS scale is referred to as statistical linking. 

Mislevy (1992)3

3

 Mislevy, R.J. (1992). Linking educational assessments: Concepts, Issues, Methods, and Prospects. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, 

Educational Testing Service. 

 and Linn (1993)4

4 Linn, R.L. (1993). Linking results of distinct assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 83-102. 

 proposed a type of 

taxonomy in categorizing the linking methodologies

into four forms—equating, calibration, projection, and 

moderation. Linking NAEP and TIMSS is an effort to

link assessments based on different frameworks. It

is clear that equating is not a feasible approach (see 

Kolen and Brennan [2004]5

5

 Kolen, M.J., and Brennan, R.L. (2004). Test Equating, Scaling, and Linking. New York, NY: Springer. 

 for the assumptions 

required for equating). The other three linking 

methods—moderation, projection, and calibration— 

can be applied in linking NAEP and TIMSS. 

Statistical moderation aligns score distributions such 

that scores on one assessment are adjusted to match 

certain characteristics of the score distribution on the 

other assessment. In this study, moderation linking 

was accomplished by adjusting NAEP scores so that 

the adjusted score distribution for the nation’s public 

school students who participated in 2011 NAEP had 

the same mean and variance as the score distribution 

for the public school students in the 2011 TIMSS U.S. 

national sample. This allowed NAEP results to be 

reported on the TIMSS scale. 

Neither NAEP nor TIMSS provides student-level 

scores. Rather, both assessments provide five plausible 

values for individual students, each resulting in 

unbiased estimates of the mean and the standard 

deviation of the proficiency distribution overall and of 

the student groups. For this reason, moderation linking 

function parameters were estimated five times by 

pairing each set of estimates of the NAEP mean and 

standard deviation with one set of estimates of the 

TIMSS mean and standard deviation. The final values 

of the moderation linking function parameter estimates 

were the average of the five values. To predict the 

mean TIMSS scores and the percentages of students 

reaching each TIMSS benchmark (Advanced, High, 

Intermediate, and Low) for each state, the moderation 

linking function was applied to individual state NAEP 

score distributions. The moderation method did not 

assume that the two assessments measured exactly 

the same construct. However, the linking results were 

dependent upon having two samples—one from each 

assessment—to align the score distributions. Thus, 

the more NAEP and TIMSS vary in content, format, or 

context, the more likely the moderation-based linking 

results would differ markedly if statistical moderation

was carried out with different samples of students.

Statistical projection involves developing a function to 

project performance on one assessment based on the 

performance on the other assessment. In this study, 

the braided booklet samples were used to determine 

the projection function. Two separate projection 

functions were developed for each subject—one using 

the braided booklet samples collected during the NAEP 

testing window and one using the braided booklet 

sample collected during the TIMSS testing window. 

The projection function from the NAEP window 

braided booklet samples was used to compare results 

among the three linking methods examined in the 

study. Similar to the statistical moderation method, the 

statistical projection method did not assume that the 

two assessments to be linked measured exactly the 

same construct. More information on the projection 

functions and the adjustment applied to the overall 

projected TIMSS score distribution will be in the 

forthcoming technical report. 

Calibration linking, as discussed in Kolen and Brennan 

(2004, page 430), is a type of linking used when the 

two assessments are based on 

1.	the same framework, but different test 

specifications and different statistical 

characteristics, or 

2.	different frameworks and different test

specifications, but the frameworks are viewed 

as sharing common features and/or uses. 

In this study, calibration was accomplished by applying 

the item-response theory method to calibrate NAEP 

items directly onto the TIMSS score scale that was 

established using students’ responses to TIMSS items. 

Data collected from the 2011 NAEP sample, the 2011 

TIMSS sample, and the two braided booklet samples 

were all used in the calibration linking. With NAEP 

items calibrated onto the TIMSS scale, it was possible 

to predict TIMSS scores for students who took only 

NAEP items. 

The three linking methods discussed above were all 

applied to predict likely TIMSS scores for each of the 

states based on their NAEP results. For each linking 
 	 	 	 	 	 	

27 

method, the accuracy of the predicted TIMSS scores 

was evaluated by comparing predicted TIMSS results 

to the actual results for the nine 2011 validation states 

and results for national student groups (gender and 

race/ethnicity) as well. All three linking methods 

yielded comparable predicted state TIMSS results 

and national TIMSS results by student groups. The 

difference between predicted and actual TIMSS

results was not statistically significant for any of the 

national gender or racial/ethnic groups across all linking 

methods. Details regarding those comparisons will be 

provided in the forthcoming technical report. 

Once it was determined that all three methods of 

linking yielded essentially the same results, it was 

decided that one method should be chosen to provide 

estimates for this report. Statistical moderation was 

selected by NCES because it was the simplest method 

requiring the estimation of the fewest parameters (i.e., 

the means and standard deviations of the U.S. national 

public school samples for NAEP and TIMSS). The 

method could also be applied to the extant national 

samples of NAEP and TIMSS and did not require the 

use of the separate braided booklet samples that were 

required for the calibration and projection methods of 

linking. This means NCES has the option of conducting 

future NAEP-TIMSS linking studies using statistical 

moderation without the time and expense of braided 

booklet samples. 

However, for the validation states, some differences

were observed between their linkage-based predicted 

TIMSS scores and their actual TIMSS scores. To reduce 

the observed differences, a two-stage adjustment

procedure was applied in addition to the statistical 

moderation linking procedures. 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

The first stage of the procedure was intended to adjust 

the predicted TIMSS means for all states to account for 

differences in population coverage between the NAEP

and TIMSS state samples that resulted from the two 

programs’ different exclusion and accommodations

policies. Each state’s NAEP accommodation rate was 

used to adjust the predicted state TIMSS mean closer 

to what might have been observed if the NAEP target 

population was more similar to that of TIMSS. The 

adjustment function was a linear regression function 

derived from the nine validation states that participated 

in both NAEP and TIMSS at the state level. The same 

adjustment function was then applied to those states 

where the NAEP accommodation rate was available. 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

In the second stage, a function was derived to model 

the relationship between the actual TIMSS scores for 

the nine validation states and their predicted TIMSS 

scores after the adjustment for NAEP accommodation 

rates. This function was used as the second adjustment factor that was applied to all states’ predicted 

TIMSS means. 

The predicted state TIMSS results presented in this 

report are, therefore, estimated from the statistical 

moderation linking that incorporated the two-stage 

adjustment procedure. More information on the 

linking methodologies and the additional adjustment 

procedures will be provided in the study’s forthcoming 

technical report. 

Appendix tables A-3 and A-4 present both actual and 

predicted TIMSS means and benchmark percentages 

for the nine validation states. 

Interpreting Statistical 

Significance 

Comparisons between predicted state results from 

the 2011 NAEP-TIMSS linking study and education 

systems (that have actual TIMSS scores) consider 

both the size of the differences and the standard

errors of the two statistics being compared. The size

of the standard errors is influenced by many factors, 

such as the degree of uncertainty associated with 

statistics estimated from a sample, and the degree of 

uncertainty related to the linking function. There were 

other sources of error associated with the predicted 

TIMSS scores that were not taken into account. These 

include the uncertainty associated with the adjustment 

function derived in the first stage of the two-stage 

adjustment procedure to account for the differences in

exclusion and accommodation policies between NAEP 

and TIMSS. 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

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. Only statistically significant differences

(at a level of .05) are discussed as higher or lower in 

this report. No statistical adjustments to account for 

multiple comparisons were used. 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 
28

APPENDIX

Table A-1. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students identified as students with disabilities and/or English language 

learners excluded and assessed in NAEP mathematics and science, as a percentage of all students, by state: 2011

State

Mathematics Science

Identified Excluded

Assessed

Identified Excluded

Assessed

Total

Without 

accommodations

With 

accommodations Total

Without 

accommodations

With 

accommodations

United States (public) 18 3 15 5 10 18 2 16 5 11

Alabama 12 1 11 7 4 12 1 11 7 4

Alaska 21 3 18 4 14 21 1 20 4 16

Arizona 12 1 11 2 9 12 1 11 2 9

Arkansas 16 1 14 3 12 16 1 15 3 12

California 23 1 22 15 7 23 2 22 14 8

Colorado 16 1 15 5 10 16 1 15 5 10

Connecticut 16 1 15 2 12 16 1 15 2 13

Delaware 16 3 13 2 11 16 2 14 2 12

District of Columbia 21 4 17 2 15 21 1 20 2 18

DoDEA1 14 3 11 3 8 14 1 13 3 10

Florida 19 2 17 1 16 19 1 17 1 16

Georgia 12 3 9 2 7 12 2 10 2 8

Hawaii 20 2 18 7 11 20 2 18 7 11

Idaho 12 1 10 3 7 12 1 10 4 7

Illinois 17 2 15 3 12 17 1 16 3 12

Indiana 17 3 14 2 12 17 1 16 3 13

Iowa 17 1 16 2 14 17 1 16 2 14

Kansas 18 1 16 7 9 18 1 16 7 9

Kentucky 13 3 10 2 8 13 3 10 2 8

Louisiana 15 1 14 1 13 15 1 14 1 13

Maine 20 2 18 4 14 20 2 18 4 14

Maryland 14 6 8 1 7 14 2 12 1 11

Massachusetts 22 4 18 3 15 22 3 19 3 16

Michigan 14 4 11 3 8 14 3 12 3 8

Minnesota 17 2 15 6 9 17 2 15 7 8

Mississippi 8 1 7 1 6 8 1 7 1 6

Missouri 14 1 12 2 10 14 1 13 3 10

Montana 13 2 12 2 9 13 2 12 3 9

Nebraska 16 4 13 4 9 16 1 15 3 12

Nevada 18 3 15 6 9 18 1 17 6 11

New Hampshire 20 2 18 4 14 20 2 18 5 13

New Jersey 19 4 15 1 14 19 1 18 1 17

New Mexico 22 2 20 10 10 22 2 20 10 10

New York 20 1 19 # 18 20 1 19 # 18

North Carolina 18 2 16 3 12 18 2 16 4 12

North Dakota 16 4 11 3 9 16 3 13 2 10

Ohio 16 5 11 1 10 16 2 14 2 12

Oklahoma 18 10 8 4 4 18 3 15 5 10

Oregon 18 1 16 6 11 18 2 16 6 10

Pennsylvania 17 2 15 2 13 17 1 16 2 15

Rhode Island 19 1 18 4 13 19 1 19 4 14

South Carolina 15 4 11 4 8 15 1 14 5 9

South Dakota 13 2 11 4 7 13 1 11 3 8

Tennessee 13 4 9 1 8 13 1 12 1 10

Texas 18 5 13 8 5 18 2 16 8 8

Utah 14 3 11 3 8 14 2 12 3 9

Vermont 20 1 18 4 15 20 1 18 4 14

Virginia 18 3 15 6 9 18 3 15 5 10

Washington 16 2 14 4 10 16 2 14 5 10

West Virginia 14 2 12 3 9 14 2 12 3 9

Wisconsin 18 2 16 2 14 18 2 16 3 14

Wyoming 14 1 13 2 11 14 1 13 2 11

# Rounds to zero.

1

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

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics and Science Assessments.
Table A-2. Exclusion rates in TIMSS assessments at grade 8, by education system/validation state: 2011

Education system/validation state Exclusion rate

Abu Dhabi-UAE 2

Alabama-USA1 5

Alberta-CAN 7

Armenia 2

Australia 3

Bahrain 2

California-USA1 6

Chile 3

Chinese Taipei-CHN 1

Colorado-USA1 4

Connecticut-USA1 9

Dubai-UAE 4

England-GBR 2

Finland 3

Florida-USA1 7

Georgia 5

Ghana 1

Hong Kong SAR2 5

Hungary 4

Indiana-USA1 6

Indonesia 3

Iran, Islamic Republic of 2

Israel 23

Italy 5

Japan 3

Jordan #

Kazakhstan 5

Korea, Republic of 2

Lebanon 1

Lithuania 5

Macedonia, Republic of 3

Malaysia #

Massachusetts-USA1 8

Minnesota-USA1 4

Morocco #

New Zealand 3

North Carolina-USA1 11

Norway 2

Oman 1

Ontario-CAN 6

Palestinian National Authority 2

Qatar 5

Quebec-CAN 5

Romania 1

Russian Federation 6

Saudi Arabia 1

Singapore 6

Slovenia 2

Sweden 5

Syrian Arab Republic 2

Thailand 2

Tunisia #

Turkey 2

Ukraine 3

United Arab Emirates 3

United States 7

# Rounds to zero.

1

 Validation state.

2

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.

NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. The results for validation states include public schools only.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011.

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 29
Table A-3. Average scores, TIMSS benchmark results, and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, 

by validation state and type of result: 2011

Validation 

state and 

type of result

Average 

score

Standard 

error

Percentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarks

At 

Advanced

Standard 

error

At or above 

High 

Standard 

error

At or above 

Intermediate

Standard 

error

At or above

Low 

Standard 

error

Alabama

Actual 466 5.9 2 0.8 15 2.5 46 3.1 79 2.2

Predicted 469 3.8 2 0.8 15 2.3 48 2.7 82 1.8

California

Actual 493 4.9 5 0.9 24 2.5 59 2.8 87 1.7

Predicted 486 3.5 5 1.0 23 2.2 56 2.2 85 1.5

Colorado

Actual 518 4.9 8 1.1 35 2.7 71 2.5 93 1.1

Predicted 530* 3.4 11 1.8 41 2.8 75 2.0 94 0.8

Connecticut

Actual 518 4.8 10 1.3 37 2.9 69 2.5 91 1.4

Predicted 526 3.3 10 1.5 39 2.7 74 2.1 94* 0.9

Florida

Actual 513 6.4 8 1.6 31 3.2 68 3.3 94 1.3

Predicted 518 3.0 8 1.3 34 2.7 71 2.2 93 0.9

Indiana

Actual 522 5.1 7 1.2 35 3.3 74 2.3 95 1.0

Predicted 522 3.2 7 0.9 36 2.2 74 2.1 95 1.1

Massachusetts

Actual 561 5.3 19 3.0 57 3.2 88 1.4 98 0.3

Predicted 556 3.1 19 2.0 56 2.7 85 1.7 97 0.5

Minnesota

Actual 545 4.6 13 2.3 49 2.8 83 1.9 97 0.7

Predicted 533* 3.2 12 1.9 43 2.8 77* 1.8 95* 0.7

North Carolina

Actual 537 6.8 14 2.6 44 3.6 78 2.5 95 1.3

Predicted 525 3.2 10 1.4 39 2.5 73 2.0 94 0.9

* Significantly different (p < .05) from actual results.

NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. The results for validation states include public schools only.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment; and 

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

30
Table A-4. Average scores, TIMSS benchmark results, and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by validation state 

and type of result: 2011

Validation 

state and 

type of result

Average 

score

Standard 

error

Percentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarks

At 

Advanced

Standard 

error

At or above 

High 

Standard 

error

At or above 

Intermediate

Standard 

error

At or above 

Low

Standard 

error

Alabama

Actual 485 6.2 5 1.0 24 2.7 56 3.5 83 1.9

Predicted 488 4.1 4 1.5 23 2.7 58 2.5 85 1.5

California

Actual 499 4.6 6 0.7 28 1.9 62 2.5 88 1.6

Predicted 496 3.9 7 1.5 28 2.5 61 2.2 86 1.5

Colorado

Actual 542 4.4 14 1.6 48 2.6 80 2.0 96 0.7

Predicted 547 3.8 16 2.5 51 3.2 81 1.9 96 0.6

Connecticut

Actual 532 4.6 14 1.5 45 2.5 74 2.0 92 1.3

Predicted 539 3.6 15 2.0 47 2.8 78 1.9 95 0.8

Florida

Actual 530 7.3 13 2.0 42 3.5 74 3.6 93 1.5

Predicted 533 3.6 13 1.8 44 2.7 75 1.9 94 0.7

Indiana

Actual 533 4.8 10 1.4 43 2.9 78 2.1 95 0.9

Predicted 536 3.2 12 1.7 45 2.7 78 2.1 95 1.0

Massachusetts

Actual 567 5.1 24 2.6 61 2.8 87 1.5 96 0.7

Predicted 561 3.6 23 2.4 59 2.8 84 1.7 96 0.6

Minnesota

Actual 553 4.6 16 1.9 54 2.6 85 2.0 98 0.7

Predicted 544 3.4 15 2.3 49 2.9 81 1.7 96* 0.5

North Carolina

Actual 532 6.3 12 2.2 42 3.2 75 3.0 94 1.4

Predicted 522 3.5 10 1.6 38 2.6 72 2.1 93 1.0

* Significantly different (p < .05) from actual results.

NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. The results for validation states include public schools only.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science Assessment; and 

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 31
Table A-5. Average scores and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by state: 2011

State Average score Standard error

United States (public) 507 2.6

Alabama1 466 5.9

Alaska 524 3.0

Arizona 502 3.5

Arkansas 509 3.2

California1 493 4.9

Colorado1 518 4.9

Connecticut1 518 4.8

Delaware 515 2.9

District of Columbia 481 3.1

DoDEA2 517 3.0

Florida1 513 6.4

Georgia 497 3.3

Hawaii 504 2.9

Idaho 513 3.0

Illinois 517 3.3

Indiana1 522 5.1

Iowa 527 3.1

Kansas 524 3.1

Kentucky 505 3.1

Louisiana 500 3.5

Maine 535 3.0

Maryland 514 3.5

Massachusetts1 561 5.3

Michigan 502 3.8

Minnesota1 545 4.6

Mississippi 476 3.8

Missouri 512 3.4

Montana 531 2.9

Nebraska 511 3.0

Nevada 500 3.1

New Hampshire 541 2.9

New Jersey 545 3.5

New Mexico 496 3.1

New York 529 3.1

North Carolina1 537 6.8

North Dakota 528 2.8

Ohio 523 3.3

Oklahoma 491 3.3

Oregon 513 3.3

Pennsylvania 527 3.4

Rhode Island 521 2.7

South Carolina 504 3.3

South Dakota 521 2.8

Tennessee 490 3.5

Texas 515 3.2

Utah 510 3.0

Vermont 547 3.0

Virginia 523 3.4

Washington 523 3.2

West Virginia 492 3.0

Wisconsin 535 3.2

Wyoming 524 2.8 1

 Validation state.

2

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

NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for the United States and the validation states are based on actual results from the TIMSS 

mathematics assessment, while results for all other states are predicted results. The results for all states and the United States include public schools only.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment; and 

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

32
Table A-6. Average scores and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by education system: 2011

Education system Average score Standard error

Abu Dhabi-UAE 449 3.7

Alberta-CAN 505 2.6

Armenia 467 2.7

Australia 505 5.1

Bahrain 409 2.0

Chile 416 2.6

Chinese Taipei-CHN 609 3.2

Dubai-UAE 478 2.1

England-GBR 507 5.5

Finland 514 2.5

Georgia 431 3.8

Ghana 331 4.3

Hong Kong SAR1 586 3.8

Hungary 505 3.5

Indonesia 386 4.3

Iran, Islamic Republic of 415 4.3

Israel 516 4.1

Italy 498 2.4

Japan 570 2.6

Jordan 406 3.7

Kazakhstan 487 4.0

Korea, Republic of 613 2.9

Lebanon 449 3.7

Lithuania 502 2.5

Macedonia, Republic of 426 5.2

Malaysia 440 5.4

Morocco 371 2.0

New Zealand 488 5.5

Norway 475 2.4

Oman 366 2.8

Ontario-CAN 512 2.5

Palestinian National Authority 404 3.5

Qatar 410 3.1

Quebec-CAN 532 2.3

Romania 458 4.0

Russian Federation 539 3.6

Saudi Arabia 394 4.6

Singapore 611 3.8

Slovenia 505 2.2

Sweden 484 1.9

Syrian Arab Republic 380 4.5

Thailand 427 4.3

Tunisia 425 2.8

Turkey 452 3.9

Ukraine 479 3.9

United Arab Emirates 456 2.1

United States 509 2.6 1

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.

NOTE: Results for the education systems include public and private schools.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 33
Table A-7. Average scores and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by state: 2011

State Average score Standard error

United States (public) 522 2.5

Alabama1 485 6.2

Alaska 544 3.0

Arizona 507 3.8

Arkansas 521 3.5

California1 499 4.6

Colorado1 542 4.4

Connecticut1 532 4.6

Delaware 528 2.9

District of Columbia 453 4.1

DoDEA2 546 3.2

Florida1 530 7.3

Georgia 521 4.0

Hawaii 507 3.0

Idaho 536 3.0

Illinois 522 3.4

Indiana1 533 4.8

Iowa 549 3.1

Kansas 534 3.1

Kentucky 534 3.1

Louisiana 514 4.5

Maine 554 2.8

Maryland 528 3.6

Massachusetts1 567 5.1

Michigan 535 3.3

Minnesota1 553 4.6

Mississippi 486 4.0

Missouri 537 3.6

Montana 551 3.1

Nebraska 541 3.0

Nevada 513 3.1

New Hampshire 557 3.0

New Jersey 549 3.7

New Mexico 512 3.1

New York 538 3.4

North Carolina1 532 6.3

North Dakota 555 3.1

Ohio 547 3.3

Oklahoma 519 3.5

Oregon 536 3.3

Pennsylvania 536 3.9

Rhode Island 530 2.9

South Carolina 519 3.3

South Dakota 546 2.8

Tennessee 524 3.4

Texas 524 3.4

Utah 547 3.1

Vermont 561 3.2

Virginia 544 3.4

Washington 536 3.3

West Virginia 520 3.3

Wisconsin 551 3.5

Wyoming 549 2.8 1

 Validation state.

2

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

NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for the United States and the validation states are based on actual results from 

the TIMSS science assessment, while results for all other states are predicted results. The results for all states and the United States include public schools only.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science Assessment; and 

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

34
Table A-8. Average scores and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by education system: 2011

Education system Average score Standard error

Abu Dhabi-UAE 461 4.0

Alberta-CAN 546 2.4

Armenia 437 3.1

Australia 519 4.8

Bahrain 452 2.0

Chile 461 2.5

Chinese Taipei-CHN 564 2.3

Dubai-UAE 485 2.5

England-GBR 533 4.9

Finland 552 2.5

Georgia 420 3.0

Ghana 306 5.2

Hong Kong SAR1 535 3.4

Hungary 522 3.1

Indonesia 406 4.5

Iran, Islamic Republic of 474 4.0

Israel 516 4.0

Italy 501 2.5

Japan 558 2.4

Jordan 449 4.0

Kazakhstan 490 4.3

Korea, Republic of 560 2.0

Lebanon 406 4.9

Lithuania 514 2.6

Macedonia, Republic of 407 5.4

Malaysia 426 6.3

Morocco 376 2.2

New Zealand 512 4.6

Norway 494 2.6

Oman 420 3.2

Ontario-CAN 521 2.5

Palestinian National Authority 420 3.2

Qatar 419 3.4

Quebec-CAN 520 2.5

Romania 465 3.5

Russian Federation 542 3.2

Saudi Arabia 436 3.9

Singapore 590 4.3

Slovenia 543 2.7

Sweden 509 2.5

Syrian Arab Republic 426 3.9

Thailand 451 3.9

Tunisia 439 2.5

Turkey 483 3.4

Ukraine 501 3.4

United Arab Emirates 465 2.4

United States 525 2.6 1

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.

NOTE: Results for the education systems include public and private schools.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011.

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 35
Table A-9. TIMSS benchmark results and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by state: 2011

State

Percentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarks

At 

Advanced

Standard 

error

At or above 

High 

Standard 

error

At or above 

Intermediate

Standard 

error

At or above 

Low 

Standard 

error

United States (public) 6 0.7 29 1.5 67 1.3 92 0.7

Alabama1 2 0.8 15 2.5 46 3.1 79 2.2

Alaska 11 1.3 39 2.4 72 2.0 93 1.1

Arizona 7 1.3 29 2.4 63 2.2 89 1.3

Arkansas 6 1.0 29 2.4 67 2.3 92 1.2

California1 5 0.9 24 2.5 59 2.8 87 1.7

Colorado1 8 1.1 35 2.7 71 2.5 93 1.1

Connecticut1 10 1.3 37 2.9 69 2.5 91 1.4

Delaware 7 1.1 32 2.4 70 2.1 93 1.0

District of Columbia 5 0.7 21 1.6 54 2.0 83 1.8

DoDEA2 5 1.3 31 2.9 73 2.2 95 0.7

Florida1 8 1.6 31 3.2 68 3.3 94 1.3

Georgia 4 1.0 24 2.4 61 2.2 90 1.2

Hawaii 7 1.1 29 2.1 64 2.0 90 1.2

Idaho 7 1.3 31 2.5 69 2.0 93 0.8

Illinois 8 1.3 34 2.5 70 2.2 93 1.0

Indiana1 7 1.2 35 3.3 74 2.3 95 1.0

Iowa 9 1.3 39 2.5 75 2.1 95 0.9

Kansas 7 1.4 36 2.7 74 2.0 95 0.7

Kentucky 5 1.1 27 2.4 65 2.2 92 1.0

Louisiana 4 0.8 24 2.3 63 2.6 91 1.5

Maine 12 1.5 44 2.5 78 1.9 95 0.8

Maryland 9 1.7 34 2.6 68 2.1 91 1.0

Massachusetts1 19 3.0 57 3.2 88 1.4 98 0.3

Michigan 5 1.3 26 2.8 63 2.6 91 1.3

Minnesota1 13 2.3 49 2.8 83 1.9 97 0.7

Mississippi 2 0.7 15 2.3 51 2.8 85 1.8

Missouri 6 1.3 31 2.6 68 2.3 92 1.1

Montana 11 1.7 41 2.6 76 1.8 95 0.7

Nebraska 6 1.2 30 2.5 68 2.1 93 1.0

Nevada 5 1.0 26 2.2 62 2.1 90 1.2

New Hampshire 13 1.6 47 2.6 80 1.8 96 0.7

New Jersey 16 2.0 50 2.8 80 2.0 96 0.8

New Mexico 3 0.8 22 2.1 61 2.3 90 1.3

New York 10 1.1 40 2.3 75 2.1 95 1.1

North Carolina1 14 2.6 44 3.6 78 2.5 95 1.3

North Dakota 7 1.5 38 2.8 77 1.9 96 0.6

Ohio 8 1.5 36 2.8 74 2.1 95 0.8

Oklahoma 3 1.0 20 2.5 59 2.4 90 1.1

Oregon 7 1.3 32 2.5 69 2.2 92 1.1

Pennsylvania 11 1.5 40 2.6 73 2.1 93 1.0

Rhode Island 9 1.2 37 2.3 72 1.9 93 1.0

South Carolina 6 1.2 27 2.5 64 2.2 91 1.1

South Dakota 7 1.4 35 2.6 74 1.9 95 0.6

Tennessee 4 0.9 21 2.3 58 2.4 88 1.4

Texas 6 1.5 31 2.8 71 2.0 94 0.7

Utah 6 1.2 30 2.4 67 2.0 92 1.0

Vermont 16 1.8 51 2.7 81 1.8 96 0.7

Virginia 10 1.7 38 2.8 73 2.1 94 0.9

Washington 11 1.6 38 2.5 72 1.9 93 0.9

West Virginia 3 0.7 21 2.1 59 2.3 89 1.3

Wisconsin 12 1.5 43 2.6 77 2.0 95 0.8

Wyoming 7 1.3 36 2.7 75 2.1 95 0.7 1

 Validation state.

2

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

NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for the United States and the validation states are based on actual results from the TIMSS 

mathematics assessment, while results for all other states are predicted results. The results for all states and the United States include public schools only.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment; and 

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

36
Table A-10. TIMSS benchmark results and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by education system: 2011

Education system

Percentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarks

At 

Advanced

Standard 

error

At or above 

High 

Standard 

error

At or above 

Intermediate

Standard 

error

At or above 

Low 

Standard 

error

Abu Dhabi-UAE 2 0.5 12 1.2 39 1.8 71 1.5

Alberta-CAN 3 0.5 24 1.3 69 1.6 95 0.7

Armenia 3 0.4 18 0.9 49 1.4 76 1.2

Australia 9 1.7 29 2.6 63 2.4 89 1.1

Bahrain 1 0.2 8 0.7 26 0.7 53 0.8

Chile 1 0.2 5 0.6 23 1.1 57 1.6

Chinese Taipei-CHN 49 1.5 73 1.0 88 0.7 96 0.4

Dubai-UAE 5 0.7 23 1.2 53 1.0 79 0.8

England-GBR 8 1.4 32 2.9 65 2.7 88 1.6

Finland 4 0.5 30 1.5 73 1.5 96 0.6

Georgia 3 0.3 13 1.0 36 1.5 62 1.6

Ghana # † 1 0.2 5 0.8 21 1.8

Hong Kong SAR1 34 2.0 71 1.7 89 1.4 97 0.8

Hungary 8 0.7 32 1.4 65 1.6 88 1.2

Indonesia # † 2 0.5 15 1.2 43 2.1

Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 0.5 8 1.1 26 1.6 55 1.8

Israel 12 1.2 40 1.7 68 1.8 87 1.2

Italy 3 0.5 24 1.1 64 1.4 90 1.1

Japan 27 1.3 61 1.3 87 0.7 97 0.3

Jordan # † 6 0.5 26 1.2 55 1.7

Kazakhstan 3 0.7 23 1.8 57 2.1 85 1.3

Korea, Republic of 47 1.6 77 0.9 93 0.6 99 0.2

Lebanon 1 0.2 9 1.0 38 2.2 73 1.9

Lithuania 5 0.6 29 1.3 64 1.4 90 0.7

Macedonia, Republic of 3 0.6 12 1.3 35 1.9 61 1.9

Malaysia 2 0.4 12 1.5 36 2.4 65 2.5

Morocco # † 2 0.2 12 0.5 36 1.0

New Zealand 5 0.8 24 2.6 57 2.8 84 1.6

Norway 1 0.2 12 0.9 51 1.6 87 1.3

Oman # † 4 0.3 16 0.6 39 1.1

Ontario-CAN 4 0.6 31 1.4 71 1.4 94 0.7

Palestinian National Authority 1 0.3 7 0.7 25 1.3 52 1.5

Qatar 2 0.3 10 0.8 29 1.2 54 1.4

Quebec-CAN 6 0.6 40 1.8 82 1.3 98 0.4

Romania 5 0.8 19 1.3 44 1.7 71 1.5

Russian Federation 14 1.2 47 2.0 78 1.4 95 0.7

Saudi Arabia 1 0.2 5 0.8 20 1.7 47 2.0

Singapore 48 2.0 78 1.8 92 1.1 99 0.3

Slovenia 4 0.4 27 1.2 67 1.4 93 0.7

Sweden 1 0.3 16 0.9 57 1.1 89 0.7

Syrian Arab Republic # † 3 0.5 17 1.4 43 1.9

Thailand 2 0.4 8 1.3 28 1.9 62 2.1

Tunisia # † 5 0.9 25 1.4 61 1.3

Turkey 7 0.9 20 1.2 40 1.5 67 1.3

Ukraine 5 0.6 22 1.6 53 2.0 81 1.4

United Arab Emirates 2 0.2 14 0.7 42 1.1 73 0.9

United States 7 0.8 30 1.4 68 1.3 92 0.7

† Not applicable. Standard error of the estimate cannot be accurately determined.

# Rounds to zero.

1

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.

NOTE: Results for the education systems include public and private schools.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011.

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 37
Table A-11. TIMSS benchmark results and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by state: 2011

State

Percentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarks

At 

Advanced

Standard 

error

At or above 

High 

Standard 

error

At or above 

Intermediate

Standard 

error

At or above 

Low 

Standard 

error

United States (public) 9 0.7 39 1.4 73 1.1 93 0.6

Alabama1 5 1.0 24 2.7 56 3.5 83 1.9

Alaska 16 1.8 50 2.6 80 1.8 95 0.7

Arizona 7 1.5 31 2.7 66 2.3 90 1.3

Arkansas 9 1.6 37 2.7 72 2.1 93 1.0

California1 6 0.7 28 1.9 62 2.5 88 1.6

Colorado1 14 1.6 48 2.6 80 2.0 96 0.7

Connecticut1 14 1.5 45 2.5 74 2.0 92 1.3

Delaware 10 1.5 40 2.5 75 1.9 94 0.8

District of Columbia 3 0.6 17 1.4 45 1.9 73 2.0

DoDEA2 11 2.2 50 3.3 84 1.7 97 0.4

Florida1 13 2.0 42 3.5 74 3.6 93 1.5

Georgia 10 2.0 38 3.0 71 2.3 92 1.1

Hawaii 7 1.3 31 2.2 65 2.0 90 1.2

Idaho 11 2.0 44 2.8 79 1.6 96 0.5

Illinois 9 1.5 37 2.6 72 2.0 93 1.0

Indiana1 10 1.4 43 2.9 78 2.1 95 0.9

Iowa 14 1.9 52 2.9 84 1.7 97 0.5

Kansas 11 1.9 43 2.8 78 1.8 95 0.6

Kentucky 9 1.8 43 2.9 79 1.7 96 0.5

Louisiana 8 1.7 34 3.2 69 2.8 91 1.5

Maine 13 1.9 55 3.1 88 1.5 97 0.3

Maryland 13 1.9 42 2.7 73 2.0 93 1.0

Massachusetts1 24 2.6 61 2.8 87 1.5 96 0.7

Michigan 13 2.1 45 2.8 77 1.8 95 0.7

Minnesota1 16 1.9 54 2.6 85 2.0 98 0.7

Mississippi 3 1.2 22 2.6 57 2.5 86 1.6

Missouri 12 2.1 45 3.1 79 2.0 95 0.7

Montana 14 2.3 53 3.0 85 1.5 97 0.3

Nebraska 14 1.9 48 2.7 80 1.7 95 0.6

Nevada 7 1.3 33 2.4 69 2.0 92 1.1

New Hampshire 17 2.2 57 3.0 87 1.5 97 0.3

New Jersey 18 2.1 52 2.9 81 2.0 95 0.8

New Mexico 6 1.3 32 2.4 68 2.0 92 1.0

New York 16 1.6 46 2.4 77 1.9 94 1.0

North Carolina1 12 2.2 42 3.2 75 3.0 94 1.4

North Dakota 13 2.3 56 3.2 88 1.4 97 0.2

Ohio 15 2.1 51 2.9 82 1.8 96 0.6

Oklahoma 8 1.6 35 2.8 72 2.2 93 1.0

Oregon 13 1.9 45 2.7 77 1.8 95 0.7

Pennsylvania 16 2.0 46 2.8 76 2.1 93 1.0

Rhode Island 14 1.6 43 2.3 73 1.8 92 1.0

South Carolina 9 1.6 36 2.6 71 2.0 92 1.0

South Dakota 12 2.1 50 2.9 84 1.4 97 0.3

Tennessee 10 1.7 39 2.7 73 2.0 93 0.9

Texas 10 1.9 39 2.7 73 1.9 93 0.8

Utah 15 2.2 51 2.8 83 1.6 96 0.4

Vermont 19 2.4 60 3.0 87 1.6 97 0.4

Virginia 15 2.2 49 2.9 81 1.7 96 0.6

Washington 12 2.0 45 2.8 78 1.8 95 0.6

West Virginia 6 1.5 34 2.8 73 2.1 94 0.8

Wisconsin 17 2.2 53 2.9 83 1.8 96 0.6

Wyoming 12 2.0 52 3.0 85 1.6 97 0.3 1

 Validation state.

2

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

NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for the United States and the validation states are based on actual results from the TIMSS 

science assessment, while results for all other states are predicted results. The results for all states and the United States include public schools only.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science Assessment; and International 

Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. 

38
Table A-12. TIMSS benchmark results and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by education system: 2011

Education system

Percentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarks

At 

Advanced

Standard 

error

At or above 

High 

Standard 

error

At or above 

Intermediate

Standard 

error

At or above 

Low 

Standard 

error

Abu Dhabi-UAE 4 0.7 17 1.5 45 1.9 74 1.5

Alberta-CAN 12 0.9 48 1.5 85 1.1 98 0.4

Armenia 1 0.2 12 0.8 37 1.5 66 1.3

Australia 11 1.6 35 2.5 70 2.0 92 0.8

Bahrain 3 0.3 17 0.7 44 1.0 70 0.7

Chile 1 0.2 12 0.9 43 1.4 79 1.5

Chinese Taipei-CHN 24 1.4 60 1.2 85 0.8 96 0.4

Dubai-UAE 7 0.7 28 1.0 57 1.3 79 1.0

England-GBR 14 1.5 44 2.6 76 2.3 93 1.2

Finland 13 1.2 53 1.7 88 1.0 99 0.3

Georgia # † 6 0.6 28 1.5 62 1.5

Ghana # † 1 0.2 6 0.8 22 1.7

Hong Kong SAR1 9 1.1 47 1.8 80 1.7 95 1.0

Hungary 9 0.8 39 1.5 75 1.4 92 0.8

Indonesia # † 3 0.4 19 1.4 54 2.3

Iran, Islamic Republic of 5 0.7 21 1.3 50 2.0 79 1.5

Israel 11 1.1 39 1.7 69 1.7 88 1.1

Italy 4 0.5 27 1.4 65 1.4 90 1.1

Japan 18 1.1 57 1.3 86 0.9 97 0.4

Jordan 2 0.3 15 1.0 45 1.5 72 1.5

Kazakhstan 4 0.6 23 1.9 58 2.5 86 1.2

Korea, Republic of 20 0.9 57 1.1 86 0.7 97 0.4

Lebanon 1 0.2 7 0.8 25 2.0 54 2.3

Lithuania 6 0.7 33 1.4 71 1.3 92 0.6

Macedonia, Republic of 2 0.4 10 1.0 30 1.7 53 2.0

Malaysia 1 0.4 11 1.4 34 2.4 62 2.6

Morocco # † 2 0.2 13 0.7 39 1.0

New Zealand 9 1.0 34 2.2 67 2.2 90 1.2

Norway 3 0.4 22 1.2 62 1.4 90 1.1

Oman 2 0.2 11 0.5 34 1.0 59 1.3

Ontario-CAN 6 0.7 35 1.5 76 1.3 96 0.6

Palestinian National Authority 1 0.2 10 0.8 33 1.3 59 1.3

Qatar 3 0.5 14 1.1 34 1.4 58 1.2

Quebec-CAN 5 0.6 34 1.6 76 1.4 96 0.7

Romania 3 0.5 16 1.3 47 1.5 78 1.5

Russian Federation 14 1.1 48 1.8 81 1.2 96 0.7

Saudi Arabia 1 0.2 8 0.8 33 2.0 68 1.8

Singapore 40 1.7 69 2.0 87 1.6 96 0.7

Slovenia 13 0.8 48 1.4 82 1.2 96 0.5

Sweden 6 0.5 33 1.3 68 1.4 91 0.7

Syrian Arab Republic # † 6 0.8 29 1.8 63 1.9

Thailand 1 0.5 10 1.3 39 2.1 74 1.7

Tunisia # † 5 0.7 30 1.4 72 1.3

Turkey 8 0.9 26 1.4 54 1.4 79 1.0

Ukraine 6 0.8 29 1.7 64 1.6 88 1.1

United Arab Emirates 4 0.4 19 0.8 47 1.1 75 0.9

United States 10 0.7 40 1.3 73 1.1 93 0.7

† Not applicable. Standard error of the estimate cannot be accurately determined.

# Rounds to zero.

1

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.

NOTE: Results for the education systems include public and private schools.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011.

2011 NAEP–TIMSS 39
U.S. States 

in a Global 

Context:

Results From the 

2011 NAEP-TIMSS 

Linking Study 

OCTOBER 2013

U.S. Department of Education

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a congressionally authorized project sponsored by the 

U.S. Department of Education. The National Center for Education Statistics, within the Institute of Education Sciences, 

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

Arne Duncan

Secretary

U.S. Department 

of Education

John Q. Easton

Director

Institute of 

Education Sciences

Jack Buckley

Commissioner

National Center for 

Education Statistics

Peggy G. Carr

Associate Commissioner 

for Assessment

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

Former Commissioner of Education

Melrose, Massachusetts

Susan Pimentel, Vice Chair

Educational Consultant

Hanover, New Hampshire

Andrés Alonso

Professor of Practice

Harvard Graduate School of Education

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Lucille E. Davy

President and CEO

Transformative Education Solutions, LLC

Pennington, New Jersey

Louis M. Fabrizio

Data, Research and Federal Policy Director

North Carolina Department of Public 

Instruction

Raleigh, North Carolina

Honorable Anitere Flores

Senator

Florida State Senate

Miami, Florida

Rebecca Gagnon

School Board Member

Minneapolis Public Schools

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Shannon Garrison

Fourth-Grade Teacher

Solano Avenue Elementary School

Los Angeles, California

Doris R. Hicks

Principal and Chief Executive Officer

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School 

for Science and Technology

New Orleans, Louisiana

Andrew Dean Ho

Assistant Professor

Harvard Graduate School of Education

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts 

Honorable Terry Holliday

Commissioner of Education

Kentucky Department of Education

Lexington, Kentucky

Richard Brent Houston

Assistant Superintendent

Shawnee Public Schools

Shawnee, Oklahoma

Hector Ibarra

Eighth-Grade Teacher

Belin-Blank International Center

and Talent Development

Iowa City, Iowa

Honorable Tom Luna

Idaho Superintendent of Public 

Instruction

Boise, Idaho

Terry Mazany

President and CEO

The Chicago Community Trust

Chicago, Illinois

Tonya Miles

General Public Representative

Mitchellville, Maryland

Dale Nowlin

Twelfth-Grade Teacher

Columbus North High School

Columbus, Indiana

Joseph M. O’Keefe, S.J.

Professor

Lynch School of Education

Boston College

Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

W. James Popham

Professor Emeritus 

University of California, Los Angeles

Wilsonville, Oregon

B. Fielding Rolston

Chairman

Tennessee State Board of Education

Kingsport, Tennessee

Cary Sneider

Associate Research Professor

Portland State University

Portland, Oregon

Honorable Leticia Van de Putte

Senator

Texas State Senate

San Antonio, Texas

John Q. Easton (Ex officio)

Director 

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, D.C.

Cornelia S. Orr

Executive Director 

National Assessment Governing Board

Washington, D.C.

MORE INFORMATION

The report release site is 

http://nationsreportcard.gov. 

The NCES Publications and Products 

address is http://nces.ed.gov/

pubsearch.

For ordering information, write to

ED Pubs 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 22207 

Alexandria, VA 22304

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

or order online at 

http://www.edpubs.gov.

SUGGESTED CITATION

National Center for Education

Statistics (2013).

U.S. States in a Global Context: Results 

From the 2011 NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study 

(NCES 2013–460). 

Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education, 

Washington, D.C.

CONTENT CONTACT

Taslima Rahman

202-502-7316

taslima.rahman@ed.gov “ The Depar tment of Education’s mission is to promote student 

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by 

fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.”

www.ed.gov