2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/1

Trial Urban District Assessment

Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Highlights 2003

Results of the First NAEP Trial Urban

District Assessment in Mathematics

0

Average NAEP mathematics scores, grade 8 public schools: By urban district, 2003

240

250

260

270

280

500

276

244

262

279

254 253

243

264

245

266 264 262

0

Average NAEP mathematics scores, grade 4 public schools: By urban district, 2003

200

210

220

230

240

500

234

216

224

220

242

214 215

205

227

216

226 226

Nation

AtlantaBoston

CharlotteChicagoCleveland

District of Columbia

Large central city

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego

Nation

AtlantaBoston

CharlotteChicagoCleveland

District of Columbia

Large central city

Houston

Los Angeles

New York CitySan Diego

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

1 Average Scale Scores

2 Achievement-Level Results

for Urban Districts

3 Percentile Results

4 2003 Assessment Design

4 Subgroup Results

16 Sample Mathematics

Questions

20 NAEP on the Web

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

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics Assessment.

In 2002, five urban school districts participated in

NAEP’s first Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)

in reading and writing. In 2003, nine urban districts

(including the original five) participated in the

TUDA in reading and mathematics at grades 4 and 8:

Atlanta City, Boston School District, CharlotteMecklenburg Schools, City of Chicago School District

299, Cleveland Municipal School District, Houston

Independent School District, Los Angeles Unified,

New York City Public Schools, and San Diego City

Unified. Only public-school students were sampled in

the TUDA. Results for the District of Columbia

public schools, which normally participate in NAEP’s

state assessments, are also reported.

Average mathematics scores are reported on a 0–500

scale. The figure above shows the average scores at

both grades for the districts that participated in 2003.

The average scores for public-school students in the

nation and for public-school students attending

schools located in large central cities are also shown

for comparison. “Urban districts” refers to the ten

districts reported in this trial study. Eight of the ten

urban districts consist entirely of schools in cities with

a population of 250,000 or more (i.e., large central

cities as defined by NCES); two of them (Charlotte

and Los Angeles) consist primarily of schools in large

central cities, but also have from one-quarter to onethird of their fourth- and eighth-grade students

enrolled in surrounding urban fringe or rural areas.

All of the data for both districts were used to compare with data from large central cities and the

nation.

At grade 4, the average score in Charlotte w

than the average scores for the nation, larg

cities, and the other participating districts. A

participating districts at grade 4 except Cha

lower average scores than the average score 

nation. Compared with the average score i

central cities, the average scores in three di

(Houston, New York City, and San Diego) w

found to be significantly different, and the 

scores in the remaining six districts were lo

At grade 8, the average score in Charlotte w

higher than the average scores for the natio

central cities, and the other participating d

while the average scores for all other distric

lower than that for the nation. Students in 

City also scored higher, on average, than st

large central city public schools, while the a

scores for students in Boston, Houston, and 

Diego were not found to be significantly dif

from that in large central cities. The averag

in the remaining five districts were lower th

average score in large central cities.

All estimates have a standard error—a rang

a few points above or below the score—due 

sampling error and measurement error. Sta

tests are used to determine whether the dif

between average scores are significant, afte

ing the standard errors. Therefore, not all 

differences may be found to be statistically 

cant. All the differences discussed in this re

tested for statistical significance at the .05 le

About this Trial

Assessment

In 2001, after discussion

among NCES, the National

Assessment Governing Board

(NAGB), and the Council of

the Great City Schools,

Congress appropriated funds

for a district-level assessment

on a trial basis, similar to the

trial for state assessments that

began in 1990, and NAGB

passed a resolution approving

the selection of urban districts

for participation in the Trial

Urban District Assessment

(TUDA), a special project

within NAEP.

Representatives of the Council

of Great City Schools worked

with the staff of NAGB to

identify districts for the trial

assessment. Districts were

selected that permitted testing

of the feasibility of conducting

NAEP over a range of characteristics, such as district size,

minority concentrations,

federal program participation,

socioeconomic conditions,

and percentages of students

with disabilities (SD) and

limited-English-proficient

(LEP) students.

By undertaking the Trial Urban

District Assessment, NAEP

continues a tradition of

extending its service to

education, while preserving

the rigorous sampling, scoring,

and reporting procedures that

have characterized prior NAEP

assessments at both the

national and state levels.

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences NCES 
2

2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/1

Standards for

Student

Performance

Achievement levels are

performance standards

set by NAGB to provide a

context for interpreting

student performance on

NAEP. These performance standards, based

on recommendations

from broadly representative panels of educators

and members of the

public, are used to

report what students

should know and be able

to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels

of performance in each

subject area and at each

grade assessed.

Detailed descriptions of

the NAEP mathematics

achievement levels can

be found on the NAGB

web site (http://

www.nagb.org/pubs/

pubs.html).

The minimum scale

scores for achievement

levels are as follows:

Grade Grade

4 8

Basic 214 262

Proficient 249 299

Advanced 282 333

As provided by law, NCES,

upon review of a congressionally mandated

evaluation of NAEP, has

determined that achievement levels are to be

used on a trial basis and

should be interpreted

and used with caution.

However, both NCES

and NAGB believe that

these performance

standards are useful for

understanding trends in

student achievement.

NAEP achievement levels

have been widely used by

national and state officials.

The table below shows the

percentages of students in each

participating urban district

performing below Basic, at or

above Basic, at or above Proficient, and at Advanced levels for

grades 4 and 8.

At grade 4, the percentages of

students in Charlotte performing at or above Basic, at or

above Proficient, and at Advanced were higher than the

corresponding percentages in

both large central cities and

the nation. The percentages of

fourth-graders at or above Basic

in Houston and New York City

were higher than the percentage in large central cities.

At grade 8, the percentages of

students in Charlotte at or

above Proficient and at Advanced

were higher than the corresponding percentages in both

large central cities and the

nation. The percentage of

eighth-graders at or above Basic

in Boston, Houston, New York

City, and San Diego was not

found to be different from the

percentage in large central

cities.

NOTE: For Charlotte an

Angeles, statistical com

restricted to just the sc

large central cities, as d

from the whole-district 

sons used here, are ava

from the online Data T

on the NAEP web site

(http://www.nces.ed.g

nationsreportcard/nae

The results of significa

in this report for these 

districts may differ slig

those found by type of 

in the online Data Too

Percentage of students by mathematics achievement level, grades 4 and 8 public sch

By urban district, 2003

Below At or above At or above A

Basic Basic Proficient Adva

Grade 4

Nation (public) 24 76 31 4

Large central city (public) 37 ** 63 ** 21 ** 2 

Atlanta 50 *,

** 50 *,** 13 *,** 2

Boston 41 ** 59 ** 12 *,** 

Charlotte 16 *,

** 84 *,** 41 *,** 

Chicago 50 *,** 50 *,** 10 *,** 

Cleveland 49 *,** 51 *,** 10 *,** # 

District of Columbia 64 *,

** 36 *,** 7 *,** 

Houston 30 *,** 70 *,** 18 ** 

Los Angeles 48 *,** 52 *,** 13 *,** 

New York City 33 *,

** 67 *,** 21 ** 2 

San Diego 34 ** 66 ** 20 ** 2 

Grade 8

Nation (public) 33 67 27 

Large central city (public) 49 ** 51 ** 17 ** 3 

Atlanta 70 *,

** 30 *,** 6 *,** 

Boston 52 ** 48 ** 17 ** 4

Charlotte 33 * 67 * 32 *,

** 

Chicago 58 *,

** 42 *,** 9 *,** 

Cleveland 62 *,** 38 *,** 6 *,** #

District of Columbia 71 *,

** 29 *,** 6 *,** 

Houston 48 ** 52 ** 12 *,

** 2 

Los Angeles 68 *,** 32 *,** 7 *,** 

New York City 46 ** 54 ** 20 *,

** 4

San Diego 47 ** 53 ** 18 ** 2 

# The estimate rounds to zero.

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers.

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

2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics Assessment.

Achievement Levels

Basic: This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that 

fundamental for proficient work at each grade.

Proficient: This level represents solid academic performance for each grade asses

Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subje

matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real

situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter.

Advanced: This level signifies superior performance.
3 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/1

students at different locations

(high, middle, and low) on the

full student score distribution

gives a more complete picture

than examining the average

score alone. The percentile

indicates the percentage of

students whose scores fell

below a particular score. For

example, to score above the

25th percentile nationally, a

student would have had to

score at least 215 compared to

a fourth-grade public school

student in a large central city

who would have had to score at

least 204.

At both grades 4 and 8, the

scores for all of the districts

except Charlotte were lower

than those of public schools in

pg

4, the score at the 75th percentile for students in large central

cities was lower than the score

for Charlotte; not found to

differ significantly from the

scores for Houston, New York

City, and San Diego; and

higher than the scores in the

remaining districts.

p

large central cities was 

than that for Charlott

found to differ signific

from the scores for Bo

New York City, and

San Diego; and highe

scores in the remainin

districts.

Selected mathematics scale score percentiles, grades 4 and 8 public schools:

By urban district, 2003

25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile

Grade 4

Nation (public) 215 235 254

Large central city (public) 204 ** 224 ** 245 **

Atlanta 195 *,

** 214 *,** 234 *,**

Boston 203 ** 219 *,

** 236 *,**

Charlotte 223 *,

** 242 *,** 261 *,**

Chicago 196 *,

** 214 *,** 232 *,**

Cleveland 197 *,

** 215 *,** 232 *,**

District of Columbia 185 *,

** 204 *,** 224 *,**

Houston 210 *,

** 226 ** 243 **

Los Angeles 196 *,

** 215 *,** 235 *,**

New York City 207 *,

** 226 ** 246 **

San Diego 207 *,

** 226 ** 244 **

Grade 8

Nation (public) 253 278 301

Large central city (public) 238 ** 262 ** 288 **

Atlanta 220 *,

** 244 *,** 267 *,**

Boston 236 ** 260 ** 287 **

Charlotte 252 * 280 * 307 *,

**

Chicago 233 *,** 255 *,** 277 *,**

Cleveland 233 *,

** 252 *,** 272 *,**

District of Columbia 219 *,

** 243 *,** 267 *,**

Houston 244 *,

** 263 ** 283 *,**

Los Angeles 219 *,

** 245 *,** 270 *,**

New York City 241 ** 266 ** 293 **

San Diego 239 ** 265 ** 290 **

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers.

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

2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics Assessment.

Important Indicator of Educational Progress

Since 1969 the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been an ongoing nationally representative indicator of wha

American students know and can do in major academic subjects.

Over the years, NAEP has measured students’ achievement in many subjects, including reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. h

geography, civics, and the arts. In 2003, NAEP conducted national and state assessments in reading and mathematics at grades 4 a

NAEP is a project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S.

Department of Education, and is overseen by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB).
4

2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/1

The NAEP mathematics

framework, which defines the

content for the 2003 assessment, was developed through a

comprehensive national

consultative process and

approved by NAGB.

The mathematics framework

calls for the assessment to

include questions based on five

mathematics content areas: 1)

number sense, properties, and

operations; 2) measurement;

3) geometry and spatial sense;

4) data analysis, statistics, and

probability; and 5) algebra and

functions.

In addition, the framework

specifies that each question

should measure one of three

specified by the framework are:

1) conceptual understanding,

2) procedural knowledge, and

3) problem solving.

The sample questions on pages

16–19 illustrate how the

assessment was developed to

measure the content areas and

mathematical abilities. Each

student was given approximately 45 questions to answer

in 50 minutes.

The complete framework is

available on the NAGB web site

(http://www.nagb.org/pubs/

pubs.html).

Student Samples

Results from the 2003 Trial

Urban District Assessment are

p

students at grades 4 and 8. The

TUDA employed larger-thanusual samples within the

districts, making reliable

district-level data possible. The

samples were also large enough

to provide reliable estimates on

subgroups within the districts,

such as female students or

Hispanic students.

Accommodations

It is NAEP’s intent to assess all

selected students from the

target population. Beginning in

2002, students with disabilities

and limited-English-proficient

students who require accommodations have been permitted to use them in NAEP,

knowledge being teste

example, students ma

calculators for questio

intended for calculato

Because the represent

of samples is ultimatel

validity issue, NCES ha

missioned studies of th

of assessment accomm

on overall scores. One 

that explores the impa

possible scenarios on N

available on the web s

(http://www.nces.ed.g

nationsreportcard/pd

main2002/statmeth.p

How Various Groups of Students

Performed in Mathematics

In addition to reporting the overall performance of assessed

students, NAEP also reports on the performance of various

subgroups of students. The performance of subgroups of

students on the 2003 TUDA in mathematics can be compared

with that of their counterparts in large central city public

schools and the nation. In addition, this assessment serves as

a baseline for future comparisons of students’ performance in

mathematics.

When reading these subgroup results, it is important to keep

in mind that there is no simple, cause-and-effect relationship

between membership in a subgroup and achievement in

NAEP. A complex mix of educational and socioeconomic

factors may interact to affect student performance.
5 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/

female students assessed and

their average mathematics

scores at grades 4 and 8. Male

students scored higher, on

average, than female students

nationally in both grades.

At grade 4, the average scores

for both male and female

students in Charlotte were

higher than those of their

counterparts in the nation

fourth-graders in Houston,

New York City, and San Diego,

and the average scores for

female students in New York

City and San Diego were not

found to differ significantly

from the corresponding

average scores in large central

cities. Male and female fourthgraders in Atlanta, Boston,

Chicago, Cleveland, the District

Average mathematics scale score results, by gender,

grades 4 and 8 public schools: By urban district, 2003

Percentage Average

Grade 4 of students scale score

Male

Nation (public) 51 235

Large central city (public) 50 225 **

Atlanta 50 215 *,

**

Boston 51 221 *,

**

Charlotte 52 242 *,

**

Chicago 50 214 *,

**

Cleveland 49 215 *,

**

District of Columbia 50 204 *,

**

Houston 49 227 **

Los Angeles 51 219 *,

**

New York City 50 228 **

San Diego 48 227 **

Female

Nation (public) 49 233

Large central city (public) 50 223 **

Atlanta 50 216 *,

**

Boston 49 219 *,

**

Charlotte 48 241 *,

**

Chicago 50 214 *,

**

Cleveland 51 215 *,

**

District of Columbia 50 206 *,

**

Houston 51 227 *,

**

Los Angeles 49 213 *,

**

New York City 50 225 **

San Diego 52 225 **

Grade 8

Male

Nation (public) 50 277

Large central city (public) 50 263 **

Atlanta 49 243 *,

**

Boston 48 260 **

Charlotte 51 279 *

Chicago 50 255 *,

**

Cleveland 50 254 *,

**

District of Columbia 47 242 *,**

Houston 49 266 **

Los Angeles 51 245 *,

**

New York City 50 266 **

San Diego 49 267 **

Female

Nation (public) 50 275

Large central city (public) 50 261 **

Atlanta 51 246 *,

**

Boston 52 263 **

Charlotte 49 278 *

Chicago 50 253 *,

**

Cleveland 50 252 *,

**

District of Columbia 53 244 *,**

Houston 51 263 **

Los Angeles 49 245 *,

**

New York City 50 265 **

San Diego 51 262 **

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Significance tests were performed using unrounded

numbers.

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

Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics

Assessment.

their counterparts in large

central cities and in the

nation.

At grade 8, the average scores

for both male and female

students in Charlotte were

higher than the corresponding

average score for large central

cities. The average scores for

both male and female eighthgraders in Boston, Houston,

significantly from the 

sponding average scor

large central cities. Bo

and female eighth-gra

Atlanta, Chicago, Clev

the District of Columb

Los Angeles had lower 

scores than their coun

in large central cities a

the nation.

Average Score Gaps Between Male and

Female Students in Mathematics

In 2003, male public-school students in the nation sc

higher, on average, than female students by 3 points 

grade 4 and by 2 points at grade 8. At grade 4, the s

gap between male and female students in the Distric

Columbia was the reverse of the gap in the nation an

large central cities (i.e., female students outscored

males). The score gap between male and female stud

for Los Angeles was wider than that in the nation. At

grade 8, there was also a reversal of the score differe

for male and female students in Atlanta, Boston, and 

District of Columbia (i.e., female students outscored 

students).

# The estimate rounds to zero.

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scale 

Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers.

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

Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial Urban District 

Assessment.

Score gaps

-10 0 10 20 30

3

2

-1

2

1

#

3

#

3

6**

-2*

,

**

1

Male average score minus female average score: 2003

Nation (public)

Large central city (public)

Atlanta

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago

Cleveland

District of Columbia

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego

Score gaps

-10 0 10 20 30

2

2

3

#

1

1

2

5

2

-3*

,

**

-3*

,

**

-3*

,

**

Grade 8

Grade 4

Nation (public)

Large central city (public)

Atlanta

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago

Cleveland

District of Columbia

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego
6 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/1

below Basic, at or above Basic,

at or above Proficient, and at

Advanced are presented below.

At grade 4, the percentages of

male and female students

Percentage of students at or above each achievement level in mathematics, by gender,

grades 4 and 8 public schools: By urban district, 2003

Below At or above At or above At

Grade 4 Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Male

Nation (public) 23 77 34 5

Large central city (public) 36 ** 64 ** 22 ** 3 **

Atlanta 51 *,

** 49 *,** 13 *,** 3

Boston 40 ** 60 ** 14 *,** 1 *,**

Charlotte 16 *,

** 84 *,** 42 *,** 7 *

Chicago 49 *,** 51 *,** 11 *,** 1 *,**

Cleveland 49 *,** 51 *,** 11 *,** # *,**

District of Columbia 64 *,

** 36 *,** 8 *,** 1 *,**

Houston 30 ** 70 ** 19 ** 2 **

Los Angeles 43 *,

** 57 *,** 15 *,** 1 *,**

New York City 31 *,

** 69 *,** 23 ** 3

San Diego 33 ** 67 ** 21 ** 3

Female

Nation (public) 25 75 29 3

Large central city (public) 38 ** 62 ** 19 ** 2 **

Atlanta 49 *,

** 51 *,** 13 *,** 2

Boston 42 ** 58 ** 11 *,** 1 **

Charlotte 15 *,

** 85 *,** 40 *,** 5 *

Chicago 50 *,** 50 *,** 9 *,** 1 *,**

Cleveland 49 *,** 51 *,** 8 *,** #

District of Columbia 63 *,

** 37 *,** 7 *,** 1 *,**

Houston 31 *,** 69 *,** 17 ** 1 **

Los Angeles 53 *,** 47 *,** 11 *,** 1 *,**

New York City 35 ** 65 ** 19 ** 2

San Diego 34 ** 66 ** 19 ** 1 **

Grade 8

Male

Nation (public) 33 67 29 6

Large central city (public) 48 ** 52 ** 18 ** 3 **

Atlanta 71 *,

** 29 *,** 6 *,** 1 *,**

Boston 52 *,** 48 *,** 17 ** 4

Charlotte 32 * 68 * 33 *,

** 8 *,**

Chicago 57 *,

** 43 *,** 10 *,** 1 *,**

Cleveland 61 *,** 39 *,** 7 *,** #

District of Columbia 71 *,

** 29 *,** 7 *,** 1 *,**

Houston 46 ** 54 ** 14 *,

** 2 **

Los Angeles 67 *,** 33 *,** 8 *,** 1 *,**

New York City 46 ** 54 ** 20 ** 4

San Diego 45 ** 55 ** 21 ** 2 **

Female

Nation (public) 34 66 26 4

Large central city (public) 51 ** 49 ** 15 ** 2 **

Atlanta 69 *,

** 31 *,** 5 *,** 1 *,**

Boston 52 ** 48 ** 18 ** 4

Charlotte 33 * 67 * 30 * 6 *

Chicago 60 *,

** 40 *,** 8 *,** 1 *,**

Cleveland 64 *,** 36 *,** 5 *,** #

District of Columbia 71 *,

** 29 *,** 5 *,** 1 *,**

Houston 50 ** 50 ** 10 *,

** 1 *,**

Los Angeles 68 *,** 32 *,** 7 *,** 1 *,**

New York City 46 ** 54 ** 20 *,

** 4

San Diego 50 ** 50 ** 16 ** 2 **

# The estimate rounds to zero.

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers.

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

2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics Assessment.

ally were higher than the

percentages for all districts

except Charlotte, where the

percentages at or above

Proficient were higher than

female students in large central

city public schools, higher

percentages of both male and

of female fourth-grade students

in Charlotte performed at or

female students perfo

or above Proficient in H

New York City, and Sa

were not found to diff

significantly from the 

sponding percentages 

above Proficient in large 

cities.

At grade 8, greater pe

of male students in Ch

performed at or above 

than in public schools 

ally and in large centr

Greater percentages o

eighth-grade students 

Charlotte and New Yo

performed at or above 

than those in large ce

public schools. The pe

ages of eighth-grade m

female students in Bo

San Diego and eighth

male students in New 

were not found to diff

significantly from the 

age at or above Proficie

large central cities. Lo

percentages of male a

female students in the 

TUDA districts perfor

or above Proficient than 

percentages of their c

parts in large central c

schools.
7 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/

who participated in the NAEP

mathematics assessment were

identified as belonging to one

of the racial/ethnic subgroups

listed in the table on this page

or as American Indian/Alaska

Native. In each of the urban

districts assessed, Black

students and/or Hispanic

students constituted the majority or the largest racial/ethnic

subgroup in both grades 4 and

8. This distribution differs

from that for the 2003 national

assessment, in which White

grade sample and 62 percent of

the eighth-grade sample.

Statistically significant differences between the average

scores of racial/ethnic subgroups in the districts and their

counterparts in the nation and

in large central cities are marked

with asterisks in the table.

At grade 4, the average scale

scores for White students in

Charlotte, the District of

Columbia, and Houston; Black

students in Boston, Charlotte,

Houston, and New York City;

higher than the corresponding

scores in large central cities.

The average scores for fourthgrade White students in

Boston, Chicago, and

Cleveland; Black students in

Chicago and the District of

Columbia; and Hispanic

students in Boston, the District

of Columbia, Los Angeles, and

San Diego were lower than the

corresponding scores in large

central cities.

At grade 8, the average scale

scores were higher for White

in Charlotte, Houston

New York City; and Hi

students in Houston t

corresponding score i

central cities. The ave

scores for eighth-grad

students in Cleveland; 

students in Atlanta, th

of Columbia, and Los 

and Hispanic students 

District of Columbia,

Los Angeles, and San 

were lower than the co

sponding score in larg

cities.

Average mathematics scale score results, by race/ethnicity, grades 4 and 8 public schools: By urban district, 2003

Grade 4

White

Nation (public) 58 243

Large central city (public) 22 243

Atlanta 10 258

Boston 12 234 *,

**

Charlotte 41 257 *,

**

Chicago 11 235 *,

**

Cleveland 16 233 *,

**

District of Columbia 4 262 *,

**

Houston 7 254 *,

**

Los Angeles 11 241

New York City 15 244

San Diego 23 243

Black

Nation (public) 17 216

Large central city (public) 34 212 **

Atlanta 87 211 **

Boston 46 216 *

Charlotte 46 229 *,

**

Chicago 52 207 *,

**

Cleveland 76 210 **

District of Columbia 87 202 *,

**

Houston 35 221 *,

**

Los Angeles 10 208 **

New York City 35 219 *

San Diego 17 216

Hispanic

Nation (public) 19 221

Large central city (public) 35 220 **

Atlanta 2 ‡

Boston 33 215 *,

**

Charlotte 7 233 *,

**

Chicago 34 217 **

Cleveland 6 220

District of Columbia 8 205 *,

**

Houston 56 226 *,

**

Los Angeles 73 211 *,**

New York City 37 220

San Diego 42 216 *,

**

Asian/Pacific Islander

Nation (public) 4 246

Large central city (public) 7 246

Atlanta # ‡

Boston 8 243

Charlotte 4 252

Chicago 3 ‡

Cleveland 1 ‡

District of Columbia 1 ‡

Houston 2 ‡

Los Angeles 6 241

New York City 12 247

San Diego 18 238 **

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Percentage Ave

of students scale 

Grade 8

White

Nation (public) 62 28

Large central city (public) 24 28

Atlanta 5 29

Boston 16 28

Charlotte 42 30

Chicago 10 27

Cleveland 15 26

District of Columbia 3 

Houston 8 29

Los Angeles 10 27

New York City 16 28

San Diego 27 28

Black

Nation (public) 17 25

Large central city (public) 35 24

Atlanta 93 24

Boston 46 25

Charlotte 46 25

Chicago 51 24

Cleveland 72 24

District of Columbia 87 24

Houston 33 25

Los Angeles 12 23

New York City 36 25

San Diego 16 25

Hispanic

Nation (public) 15 25

Large central city (public) 32 25

Atlanta 1 

Boston 28 25

Charlotte 6 26

Chicago 36 25

Cleveland 11 24

District of Columbia 9 24

Houston 55 26

Los Angeles 71 24

New York City 34 26

San Diego 38 24

Asian/Pacific Islander

Nation (public) 4 28

Large central city (public) 8 28

Atlanta # 

Boston 9 30

Charlotte 5 29

Chicago 4 28

Cleveland 1 

District of Columbia 1 

Houston 3 

Los Angeles 7 27

New York City 14 28

San Diego 19 27

# The estimate rounds to zero.

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers. American Indian/Alaska Native data are not shown because of insufficient sample sizes at both grades 4 and 8.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics Asses
8 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/1

p

are presented in the figures shown below. District gaps

marked with asterisks indicate statistical differences from the

gaps in large central cities and in the nation. The differences marked can represent either narrower or wider gaps

than those in the comparison groups. At grade 4, the gaps

between White students and Black students in Boston and

New York City were narrower than those in large central

cities; the gaps in Atlanta and the District of Columbia were

wider than the gaps between White students and Black

students in large central cities. The gap between White

students and Hispanic students was wider in the District of

Columbia than the gap in large central cities.

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scale

scores. Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers.

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

for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial

Urban District Mathematics Assessment.

White average score minus Black average score: 2003

Nation (public)

Large central city (public)

Atlanta

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago

Cleveland

District of Columbia

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego

Score gaps

0 10 20 30 70 40 50 60

Grade 4

27

31**

33

33

29

27

25*

24

60*

,

**

28

47*

,

**

19*

,

**

Nation (public)

Large central city (public)

Atlanta

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago

Cleveland

District of Columbia

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego

Score gaps

0 10 20 30 70 40 50 60

Grade 8

35

38**

39

34

43

31

33

36

57*

,

**

*

, 43 **

20*

,

**

‡

White average score minus Hispanic average score: 2003

Nation (public)

Large central city (public)

Atlanta

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago

Cleveland

District of Columbia

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego

Score gaps

0 10 20 30 70 40 50 60

Grade 4

21

23

20

28**

30

19

27**

24

14

57*

,

**

24

Nation (public)

Large central city (public)

Atlanta

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago

Cleveland

District of Columbia

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego

Score gaps

0 10 20 30 70 40 50 60

Grade 8

28

29

32

37

29

20

17*

,

**

36*

,

**

37*

,

**

40**

‡

‡

‡

gp 

central cities and the gaps in Atlanta and Charlotte we

wider than the gaps between White students and Blac

students in large central cities. The gap between Whi

students and Hispanic students for eighth-graders was 

in Boston and San Diego than in large central cities an

wider in Charlette than in the nation. In Chicago, the 

between White students and Hispanic students was na

than that in large central cities and the nation.
9 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/

Below At or above At or above A

Grade 4 Basic Basic Proficient Advan

White

Nation (public) 13 87 42 

Large central city (public) 15 85 42 

Atlanta 11 89 70 *,

** 20 

Boston 23 ** 77 ** 32 *,

** 

Charlotte 4 *,** 96 *,** 66 *,** 12 

Chicago 18 82 31 *,

** 2 

Cleveland 20 80 27 *,

** 2 

District of Columbia 3 *,** 97 *,** 71 *,** 2

Houston 4 *,

** 96 *,** 63 *,** 

Los Angeles 17 83 44 4

New York City 12 88 42 

San Diego 13 87 41 

Black

Nation (public) 46 54 10 #

Large central city (public) 53 ** 47 ** 8 ** #

Atlanta 55 ** 45 ** 7 ** #

Boston 45 * 55 * 6 ** #

Charlotte 27 *,

** 73 *,** 20 *,** 

Chicago 61 *,

** 39 *,** 4 *,** #

Cleveland 56 ** 44 ** 5 *,

** #

District of Columbia 67 *,** 33 *,** 4 *,** #

Houston 38 *,

** 62 *,** 12 #

Los Angeles 58 42 6 #

New York City 42 * 58 * 12 * #

San Diego 46 54 8 #

Hispanic

Nation (public) 38 62 15 

Large central city (public) 40 60 13 ** # 

Atlanta ‡‡ ‡

Boston 49 *,

** 51 *,** 7 *,** #

Charlotte 20 *,** 80 *,** 26 * 

Chicago 45 55 10 ** 

Cleveland 42 58 14 #

District of Columbia 61 *,

** 39 *,** 7 *,** #

Houston 30 *,

** 70 *,** 15 

Los Angeles 54 *,

** 46 *,** 7 *,** # 

New York City 40 60 13 #

San Diego 47 *,** 53 *,** 9 *,** #

Asian/Pacific Islander

Nation (public) 13 87 48 10

Large central city (public) 14 86 48 10

Atlanta ‡‡ ‡

Boston 13 87 43 4

Charlotte 10 90 60 9

Chicago ‡‡ ‡

Cleveland ‡‡ ‡

District of Columbia ‡‡ ‡

Houston ‡‡ ‡

Los Angeles 14 86 38 4 

New York City 11 89 47 9

San Diego 16 84 32 ** 4 

# The estimate rounds to zero.

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers. American Indian/Alaska Native d

shown because of insufficient sample sizes.

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

2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics Assessment.

ethnic sub-groups are

presented in the tables that

are adjacent and on the

following page. Statistically

significant differences in

results among racial/ethnic

subgroups in the urban

districts and their counterparts in the nation and in

large central cities are

marked with asterisks in the

tables. Note that the differences marked can represent

either higher percentages or

lower percentages.

At grade 4, the percentages

of students at or above the

Proficient level were higher

for White students in

Atlanta, Charlotte, the

District of Columbia, and

Houston; Black students in

Charlotte and New York

City; and Hispanic students

in Charlotte than the

corresponding percentage

in large central cities. The

percentages of fourth-grade

students at or above Proficient for White students in

Boston, Chicago, and

Cleveland; Black students in

Chicago, Cleveland, and the

District of Columbia; and

Hispanic students in Boston,

the District of Columbia,

Los Angeles, and San Diego

were lower than corresponding percentage in large

central cities.

At grade 8, the percentages

of students at or above the

Proficient level were higher

for White students in

Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte,

and Houston and for Black

students in Charlotte and

New York City than that of

their counterparts in large

central cities. The percentages of eighth-grade students at or above the

Proficient level for White

students in Cleveland; Black

students in Atlanta, the

District of Columbia, and

Los Angeles; and Hispanic

students in Boston, the

District of Columbia,

Los Angeles, and San Diego

were lower than the corresponding percentage in

large central cities.
10 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/1

Below At or above At or above At

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Grade 8

White

Nation (public) 21 79 36 7

Large central city (public) 23 ** 77 ** 36 7

Atlanta 17 83 54 *,

** 15

Boston 23 77 48 *,

** 11

Charlotte 9 *,

** 91 *,** 55 *,** 15 *,**

Chicago 32 ** 68 ** 25 5

Cleveland 37 *,

** 63 *,** 14 *,** 1

District of Columbia ‡‡ ‡‡

Houston 20 80 47 *,** 11

Los Angeles 33 ** 67 ** 29 7

New York City 21 79 40 9

San Diego 24 76 35 5

Black

Nation (public) 61 39 7 #

Large central city (public) 66 ** 34 ** 5 ** #

Atlanta 74 *,

** 26 *,** 3 *,** #

Boston 64 36 6 #

Charlotte 53 *,

** 47 *,** 11 *,** 1

Chicago 71 ** 29 ** 4 #

Cleveland 68 ** 32 ** 5 ** #

District of Columbia 74 *,

** 26 *,** 3 *,** #

Houston 53 *,** 47 *,** 7 1

Los Angeles 79 *,

** 21 *,** 2 *,** #

New York City 60 * 40 * 9 * 1

San Diego 61 39 7 #

Hispanic

Nation (public) 53 47 11 1

Large central city (public) 56 44 10 1

Atlanta ‡‡ ‡‡

Boston 62 ** 38 ** 7 *,

** #

Charlotte 54 46 18 1

Chicago 52 48 8 # *,**

Cleveland 65 35 2 #

District of Columbia 67 *,

** 33 *,** 3 *,** #

Houston 51 49 9 ** # *,**

Los Angeles 74 *,

** 26 *,** 3 *,** #

New York City 52 48 15 2

San Diego 66 *,** 34 *,** 6 *,** #

Asian/Pacific Islander

Nation (public) 23 77 42 12

Large central city (public) 29 ** 71 ** 33 ** 6 **

Atlanta ‡‡ ‡‡

Boston 13 *,

** 87 *,** 57 *,** 18 *

Charlotte 19 81 43 14

Chicago 22 78 36 8

Cleveland ‡‡ ‡‡

District of Columbia ‡‡ ‡‡

Houston ‡‡ ‡‡

Los Angeles 36 ** 64 ** 25 ** 3 **

New York City 26 74 38 10

San Diego 31 ** 69 ** 28 ** 3 **

# The estimate rounds to zero.

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers. American Indian/Alaska Native data are not

shown because of insufficient sample sizes.

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

2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics Assessment.
11 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/

price lunch as an indicator of

economic status. In 2003,

approximately 7 percent of

fourth-graders and 6 percent of

eighth-graders nationally

attended schools that did not

participate in the National

School Lunch Program. The

adjacent table displays both the

average scale scores and

achievement-level percentages

for public-school students in

the nation, large central cities,

and the participating urban

districts by free/reduced-price

eligibility status. Note that

Cleveland chose to define all of

its students as eligible for free

or reduced-price lunch.

Information regarding students’ eligibility in 2003 was

not available for

4 percent of fourth-graders

nationally and 6 percent of

eighth-graders. For information

on the National School Lunch

Program, see http://

www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/iegs/iegs.htm.

At grade 4, the average scores

for students eligible for free/

reduced-price lunch in

Charlotte, Houston, and

New York City were higher than

the average score for large

central cities nationally. The

average scores for eligible

fourth-graders in Boston,

Cleveland, and San Diego were

not found to differ significantly

from the average score for

large central cities; the average

scores for eligible students in

Atlanta, Chicago, the District of

Columbia, and Los Angeles

were lower than the average

score for eligible students in

large central cities.

Average mathematics scale score and achievement-level results, by eligibility for free

reduced-price school lunch, grades 4 and 8 public schools: By urban district, 2003

Percentage of students

Percentage Average Below At or above At or above 

Grade 4 of students scale score Basic Basic Proficient Ad

Eligible

Nation (public) 44 222 38 62 15 

Large central city (public) 69 217 ** 45 ** 55 ** 12 ** 

Atlanta 81 209 *,** 57 *,** 43 *,** 5 *,** 

Boston 83 218 ** 43 ** 57 ** 10 ** 

Charlotte 45 229 *,** 26 *,** 74 *,** 19 * 

Chicago 85 212 *,** 53 *,** 47 *,** 8 *,** 

Cleveland 100 215 ** 49 ** 51 ** 10 ** 

District of Columbia 71 200 *,** 71 *,** 29 *,** 3 *,** 

Houston 76 223 * 34 * 66 * 13 

Los Angeles 83 212 *,** 53 *,** 47 *,** 8 *,** 

New York City 88 224 * 36 * 64 * 18 * 

San Diego 58 217 ** 44 ** 56 ** 10 ** 

Not eligible

Nation (public) 52 244 12 88 45 

Large central city (public) 28 240 ** 19 ** 81 ** 40 

Atlanta 18 244 21 79 50 

Boston 8 233 ** 24 ** 76 ** 31 ** 

Charlotte 55 252 *,** 8 *,** 92 *,** 59 *,** 

Chicago 7 230 *,** 28 ** 72 ** 24 *,** 

Cleveland 0 † † †† 

District of Columbia 24 221 *,** 43 *,** 57 *,** 20 *,** 

Houston 21 239 18 82 37 

Los Angeles 5 229 *,** 30 *,** 70 *,** 25 *,** 

New York City 10 248 * 11 * 89 * 49 

San Diego 36 239 ** 18 82 35 ** 

Grade 8

Eligible

Nation (public) 36 258 53 47 11 

Large central city (public) 60 253 ** 60 ** 40 ** 9 ** 

Atlanta 78 239 *,** 76 *,** 24 *,** 2 *,** 

Boston 71 256 * 57 ** 43 ** 11 * 

Charlotte 36 256 56 44 10 

Chicago 88 252 ** 61 ** 39 ** 7 ** 

Cleveland 100 253 ** 62 ** 38 ** 6 *,** 

District of Columbia 57 235 *,** 79 *,** 21 *,** 2 *,** 

Houston 69 259 * 54 * 46 * 7 ** 

Los Angeles 65 240 *,** 72 *,** 28 *,** 4 *,** 

New York City 83 261 * 51 * 49 * 15 *,** 

San Diego 52 252 ** 61 ** 39 ** 9 

Not eligible

Nation (public) 58 287 22 78 37 

Large central city (public) 33 279 ** 31 ** 69 ** 31 ** 

Atlanta 15 265 *,** 48 *,** 52 *,** 19 *,** 

Boston 10 282 32 ** 68 ** 35 

Charlotte 63 292 *,** 19 * 81 * 44 *,** 

Chicago 6 279 30 70 30 

Cleveland 0 † † †† 

District of Columbia 31 254 *,** 60 *,** 40 *,** 12 *,** 

Houston 31 276 ** 35 ** 65 ** 25 *,** 

Los Angeles 6 245 *,** 67 *,** 33 *,** 7 *,** 

New York City 14 295 * 18 * 82 * 49 * 

San Diego 44 278 ** 31 ** 69 ** 29 ** 

# The estimate rounds to zero.

† Not applicable.

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers.

Results not shown for students whose eligibility status was not available.

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

2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics Assessment.

for free/reduced-price lunch in

Boston, Houston, and

New York City were higher than

the average score for large

Diego, the average scores for

eligible eighth-graders were not

found to differ from that in

large central cities. The

the District of Columb

Los Angeles were lowe

the average score in la

central cities.
12 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/1

Not eligible average score minus eligible average score: 2003

Nation (public)

Large central city (public)

Atlanta

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago

Cleveland

District of Columbia

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego

Score gaps

0 10 20 30 40

Grade 4

23

23

34

15**

17

19

21

Nation (public)

Large central city (public)

Atlanta

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago

Cleveland

District of Columbia

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego

Score gaps

0 10 20 30 40

Grade 8

28

26

27

25

34

27

24

26

18*

,

**

18*

,

**

21

23

36*

,

**

15**

5*

,

**

†

†

† Not Applicable

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scale

scores. Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers.

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

Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial Urban

District Mathematics Assessment.

In 2003, public-school students in the nation who

were not eligible for free/reduced price lunch

scored higher, on average, than eligible students

by 23 points at grade 4 and by 28 points at grade

8. The differences marked in the figure can

represent either narrower or wider gaps than the

comparison groups. At grade 4, the gaps in

Boston and Houston were narrower than the

nation’s. At grade 8, the District of Columbia,

Houston, and Los Angeles had narrower score

gaps than large central cities and the nation,

while Charlotte had a wider gap in the average

score than the gap found in large central cities

and in the nation.
13 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/

gg

participated in the NAEP

2003 mathematics assessments, including those in

the Trial Urban District

Assessment, were asked to

indicate, from among five

options, the highest level of

education completed by

each parent. The question

was not posed to fourthgraders. The table to the

right displays the percentage

of eighth-graders who chose

each category as the highest

level of education for either

parent, as well as the average

score and the percentage at

or above each achievement

level for students in each

category.

As in previous tables,

asterisks mark statistically

significant differences

between scores for any

urban district and the

corresponding scores in

large central cities or the

nation. For example, the

average score for students

who indicated that a parent

graduated from college was

lower in Atlanta, Chicago,

Cleveland, the District of

Columbia, and Los Angeles

than the average score for

students in the same parental education category in

public schools in large

central cities. The average

score for students who

reported that a parent

graduated from college was

higher in Charlotte and

San Diego than for comparable students in large

central cities across the

nation. Students in Boston,

Houston, and New York City

who reported that a parent

graduated from college had

an average score that was

not found to differ statistically from that of their

counterparts in large central

cities.

Average mathematics scale score and achievementlevel results, by studentreported 

highest level of education, grade 8 public schools: By urban district, 2003

Percentage of students

Percentage Average Below At or above At or above 

of students scale score Basic Basic Proficient Ad

Grade 8

Less than high school

Nation (public) 7 256 56 44 9 

Large central city (public) 11 253 ** 59 ** 41 ** 7 

Atlanta 6 240 *,** 74 *,** 26 *,** 3 

Boston 10 253 63 37 13 

Charlotte 4 ‡ ‡ ‡‡ 

Chicago 11 256 57 43 10 

Cleveland 11 255 58 42 5 

District of Columbia 7 236 *,** 75 *,** 25 *,** 2 

Houston 20 259 * 54 46 7 

Los Angeles 19 242 *,** 72 *,** 28 *,** 5 ** 

New York City 9 260 51 49 14 

San Diego 12 250 ** 64 36 6 

Graduated high school

Nation (public) 18 267 42 58 16 

Large central city (public) 18 255 ** 59 ** 41 ** 10 ** 

Atlanta 24 238 *,** 80 *,** 20 *,** 2 *,** 

Boston 18 256 ** 61 ** 39 ** 11 ** 

Charlotte 15 255 ** 59 ** 41 ** 11 

Chicago 20 250 *,** 63 ** 37 ** 6 *,** 

Cleveland 23 252 ** 63 ** 37 ** 4 *,** 

District of Columbia 23 235 *,** 81 *,** 19 *,** 1 *,** 

Houston 17 257 ** 56 ** 44 ** 7 ** 

Los Angeles 15 240 *,** 73 *,** 27 *,** 4 *,** 

New York City 17 260 ** 52 ** 48 ** 16 

San Diego 14 256 ** 57 ** 43 ** 9 ** 

Some education

after high school

Nation (public) 18 280 27 73 28 

Large central city (public) 17 268 ** 42 ** 58 ** 19 ** 

Atlanta 19 253 *,** 60 *,** 40 *,** 6 *,** 

Boston 19 268 ** 43 ** 57 ** 19 ** 

Charlotte 17 281 * 28 * 72 * 29 * 

Chicago 20 262 *,** 50 ** 50 ** 11 *,** 

Cleveland 20 260 *,** 52 *,** 48 *,** 10 *,** 

District of Columbia 18 252 *,** 63 *,** 37 *,** 6 *,** 

Houston 14 270 ** 41 ** 59 ** 13 ** 

Los Angeles 15 253 *,** 58 *,** 42 *,** 10 *,** 

New York City 13 272 ** 36 ** 64 ** 23 

San Diego 16 270 ** 39 ** 61 ** 18 ** 

Graduated college

Nation (public) 45 287 23 77 39 

Large central city (public) 38 272 ** 39 ** 61 ** 26 ** 

Atlanta 40 250 *,

** 65 *,** 35 *,** 10 *,** 

Boston 36 273 ** 41 ** 59 ** 26 ** 

Charlotte 55 289 * 24 * 76 * 43 * 

Chicago 30 257 *,

** 57 *,** 43 *,** 12 *,** 

Cleveland 32 251 *,

** 67 *,** 33 *,** 6 *,** 

District of Columbia 37 250 *,

** 64 *,** 36 *,** 11 *,** 

Houston 28 274 ** 38 ** 62 ** 23 ** 

Los Angeles 24 257 *,** 54 *,** 46 *,** 15 *,** 

New York City 43 275 ** 38 ** 62 ** 27 ** 

San Diego 38 278 *,** 33 *,** 67 *,** 32 *,** 

Unknown

Nation (public) 11 258 53 47 12 

Large central city (public) 17 252 ** 61 ** 39 ** 9 ** 

Atlanta 11 231 *,

** 81 *,** 19 *,** 2 *,** 

Boston 18 251 ** 63 ** 37 ** 10 

Charlotte 10 266 *,

** 41 *,** 59 *,** 19 * 

Chicago 19 249 ** 63 ** 37 ** 6 ** 

Cleveland 14 248 ** 69 ** 31 ** 5 ** 

District of Columbia 15 239 *,

** 75 *,** 25 *,** 3 *,** 

Houston 21 259 * 53 * 47 * 7 ** 

Los Angeles 27 238 *,** 77 *,** 23 *,** 3 *,** 

New York City 19 253 ** 59 ** 41 ** 11 

San Diego 21 249 ** 62 ** 38 ** 7 ** 

# The estimate rounds to zero.

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

* Significantly different from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different from nation (public schools).

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers.

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

2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics Assessment.
14 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/1

randomized sampling

process, including students

with disabilities (SD) and

students who are classified

by their schools as limited

English proficient (LEP).

Some students who are

sampled for participation,

however, can be excluded

from the sample according

to carefully defined criteria.

School personnel, guided by

the student’s Individualized

Education Program (IEP), as

well as by eligibility for

Section 504 services, make

decisions regarding inclusion in the assessment of

students with disabilities.

Based on NAEP’s guidelines,

they also make the decision

regarding inclusion of LEP

students. The process

includes evaluating the

student’s capability to

participate in the assessment

in English, as well as taking

into consideration the

number of years the student

has been receiving instruction in English. The percentage of students excluded

from NAEP may vary

considerably across states or

districts. Comparisons of

achievement results across

districts should be interpreted with caution if the

exclusion rates vary widely.

The rates of identification,

exclusion, and assessment

with and without accommodations for SD and LEP

students are presented in

the table to the right for

the Trial Urban District

Assessment.

schools: By urban district, 2003

Assessed with

Identified Excluded accommodations Grade 4

SD 1 and/or LEP 2 students

Nation (public) 22 4 8

Large central city (public) 30 5 9

Atlanta 9 1 4

Boston 33 5 17

Charlotte 21 4 12

Chicago 31 8 7

Cleveland 15 7 5

District of Columbia 18 4 10

Houston 45 8 18

Los Angeles 60 3 8

New York City 22 6 12

San Diego 41 2 4

SD students only

Nation (public) 14 3 7

Large central city (public) 13 3 6

Atlanta 8 1 4

Boston 20 3 12

Charlotte 17 3 10

Chicago 15 5 6

Cleveland 12 5 5

District of Columbia 13 4 7

Houston 18 7 3

Los Angeles 11 2 4

New York City 12 1 10

San Diego 11 1 3

LEP students only

Nation (public) 11 1 2

Large central city (public) 21 3 4

Atlanta 2 # #

Boston 18 3 7

Charlotte 8 2 4

Chicago 20 5 2

Cleveland 4 1 1

District of Columbia 7 1 3

Houston 35 4 17

Los Angeles 56 2 6

New York City 13 6 4

San Diego 34 2 2

Grade 8

SD 1 and/or LEP 2 students

Nation (public) 19 4 7

Large central city (public) 24 5 7

Atlanta 11 2 5

Boston 31 7 15

Charlotte 18 3 9

Chicago 22 7 7

Cleveland 21 9 9

District of Columbia 20 6 9

Houston 26 8 3

Los Angeles 37 2 6

New York City 24 5 14

San Diego 29 4 4

SD students only

Nation (public) 14 3 6

Large central city (public) 14 4 5

Atlanta 10 1 5

Boston 24 4 13

Charlotte 14 3 8

Chicago 17 5 7

Cleveland 17 9 6

District of Columbia 16 5 8

Houston 16 7 #

Los Angeles 12 2 5

New York City 15 2 10

San Diego 11 1 3

LEP students only

Nation (public) 6 1 1

Large central city (public) 13 2 3

Atlanta 2 1 #

Boston 13 5 4

Charlotte 7 1 3

Chicago 8 3 2

Cleveland 5 1 3

District of Columbia 5 1 2

Houston 16 5 2

Los Angeles 33 2 4

New York City 13 4 6

San Diego 23 3 2

# The estimate rounds to zero.

1 Students with disabilities.

2 Limited-English-proficient students.

NOTE: Within each grade level, the combined SD/LEP portion of the table is not a sum of the separate SD and LEP portions because some students were 

both SD and LEP.

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

2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics Assessment.
15 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/

Average mathematics scale score and achievement-level results, of students with disabilities

and of limited-English-proficient students, grades 4 and 8 in public schools: By urban district, 2003

Percentage of students

Average Below At or above At or above At

scale score Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Students with disabilities

Nation (public) 214 50 50 12 1

Large central city (public) 204 63 37 7 1

Atlanta 200 67 33 8 #

Boston 201 71 29 3 #

Charlotte 225 36 64 16 2

Chicago 194 74 26 4 1

Cleveland 195 78 22 1 #

District of Columbia 177 91 9 2 #

Houston 216 47 53 10 #

Los Angeles 198 73 27 4 #

New York City 203 65 35 4 #

San Diego 210 58 42 8 1

Limited-English-proficient students

Nation (public) 214 51 49 9 #

Large central city (public) 212 54 46 7 #

Atlanta ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡

Boston 209 59 41 5 #

Charlotte 226 33 67 17 2

Chicago 204 67 33 3 #

Cleveland ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡

District of Columbia 200 72 28 3 #

Houston 221 39 61 10 #

Los Angeles 207 61 39 4 #

New York City 203 66 34 7 #

San Diego 211 55 45 5 #

Grade 8

Students with disabilities

Nation (public) 242 71 29 6 1

Large central city (public) 229 81 19 4 #

Atlanta 210 95 5 # #

Boston 227 89 11 2 #

Charlotte 253 58 42 16 3

Chicago 217 92 8 1 #

Cleveland 223 90 10 2 #

District of Columbia 204 96 4 1 #

Houston 241 77 23 4 #

Los Angeles 215 91 9 2 #

New York City 223 89 11 # #

San Diego 228 86 14 2 #

Limited-English-proficient students

Nation (public) 241 74 26 5 1

Large central city (public) 238 76 24 4 #

Atlanta ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡

Boston 229 88 12 2 #

Charlotte 258 59 41 19 4

Chicago 228 82 18 2 #

Cleveland ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡

District of Columbia 231 79 21 3 1

Houston 240 79 21 2 #

Los Angeles 223 90 10 2 #

New York City 238 78 22 4 1

San Diego 235 82 18 2 #

# The estimate rounds to zero.

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. The results for students with disabilities and limited-English-proficient students are based on students who were

assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students.

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

2003 Trial Urban District Mathematics Assessment.
16 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/1

sample questions from the

NAEP 2003 Mathematics

Assessment. Students answered

a combination of multiplechoice and constructedresponse questions. Some

constructed-response questions

required students to provide

answers to computation

problems or to describe

solutions in one or two sentences. Extended constructedresponse questions required

written answers, in order to

measure students’ ability to

reason, communicate, and

make connections between

concepts and skills, either

across the mathematics content

areas or from mathematics to

other curricular areas.

The tables presented here with

each sample question show the

percentage of students who

answered a multiple-choice

responses to a constructedresponse question were rated at

or above a particular score

level, first as the overall percentage and then as the

percentage of students at each

achievement level who answered successfully. For the

multiple-choice questions

shown, the oval corresponding

to the correct response is filled

in. For the constructed

student responses are 

sented. In addition, th

mathematics content 

mathematics ability as

each question are iden

Additional sample ma

questions from the 20

previous assessments a

available on the NAEP 

(http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/itm

Grade 4 Sample Questions and Responses

Mathematics Content Area: Mathematics Ability:

Number Sense, Properties, and Operations Procedural Knowledge

Percentage correct

Overall percentage Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced

correct 213 or below1 214–2481 249–2811 282 or above1

89 79 91 95 97

Fourth-Grade Multiple-Choice Question

1

NAEP mathematics composite scale range.

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

of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Assessment.

Students are expected to be

able to compute with

numbers at each grade level

assessed by NAEP. Some

questions, such as this one,

are administered in a

section that does not permit

calculator use. For this

question, students are

instructed to add; for other

questions, presented in the

context of a story problem,

students must decide

whether to add, subtract,

multiply, or divide.

Add: 238

+ 462

A 600

B 690

C 700

D 790

Overall percentage Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced

correct 213 or below1 214–2481 249–2811 282 or above1

47 19 40 75 92 Fourth-graders have been

taught properties of

common geometric figures,

including how to find the

perimeter. To solve this

problem, the student needs

to know that a square has 4

sides of equal length. In

order for the perimeter to

be 36 inches, each side

must be 364, or 9 inches

long.

Fourth-Grade Multiple-Choice Question Percentage correct

1

NAEP mathematics composite scale range.

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

of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Assessment.

Mathematics Content Area: Mathematics Ability:

Measurement Problem Solving

The perimeter of a square is 36 inches. What is the length of one

side of the square?

A 4 inches

B 6 inches

C 9 inches

D 18 inches
17 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/

gp 

standing of fractions by

relating them to various

models. This NAEP extended

constructed-response

question was designed to

assess fourth-grade

students’ understanding of

equivalent fractions. The

question uses a shaded

region model in which three

rectangular regions of equal

length are divided into 6

equal parts, 2 equal parts,

and 10 equal parts, respectively. Students are told that

the first strip shows 3/6

and are asked what fraction

the other strips show. The

expected answers are 1/2

and 5/10. By asking, “What

do the fractions shown in A,

B, and C have in common?”

the question assesses

students’ understanding of

equivalent fractions.

Students are also asked to

shade two other strips to

represent different fractions

that are equivalent to the

ones shown.

Answers to this question

were scored on five levels:

“Incorrect,” “Minimal,”

“Partial,” “Satisfactory,” or

“Extended.”

The first sample response

was rated only “Satisfactory” because the shaded

fraction strip for 2/4 was

not accurate.

1

NAEP mathematics composite scale range.

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

of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Assessment.

Mathematics Content Area: Mathematics Ability:

Number Sense, Properties, and Operations Problem Solving

Percentage “Extended”

Overall percentage Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced

“Extended” 213 or below1 214–2481 249–811 282 or above1

19 1 9 40 77

Sample “Satisfactory” Response

Sample “Extended” Response

1

NAEP mathematics composite scale range.

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

of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Assessment.
18 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/1

Mathematics Content Area: Mathematics Ability:

Geometry and Spatial Sense Problem Solving

Mathematics Content Area: Mathematics Ability:

Algebra and Functions Procedural Knowledge

Students are expected to be

able to compute with numbers

at each grade level assessed

by NAEP. By eighth grade,

students are expected to be

able to carry out long division.

This sample question is

presented in a constructedresponse format because, if

it were a multiple-choice

question, students could use

the choices and work backwards by multiplying to find

the answer. This question was

in a section that did not permit

calculator use.

Answers to this question were

scored as “Unsatisfactory” or

“Satisfactory.”

Eighth-Grade Multiple-Choice Question Percentage correct

Overall percentage Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced

correct 261 or below1 262–2981 299–3321 333 or above1

33 19 29 49 77

1NAEP mathematics composite scale range.

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

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Assessment.

This multiple-choice geometry

question requires students to

use information given in a

figure to find the degree

measure of ∠ABC. The question requires students to use

what they know about angles

related to a triangle to find a

missing angle measure. The

expected solution involves

finding the measure of ∠ACB.

This angle measure is 180o –

135o, or 45o. Because the

sum of the degree measures of

all angles in a triangle is 180o,

the measure of ∠ABC is 180o

– 25o – 45o, or 110o.

pg

“Satisfactory” 261 or below1 262–2981 299–3321 333 or above1

73 52 78 89 94

1

NAEP mathematics composite scale range.

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

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Assessment.

Eighth-Grade Multiple-Choice Question Percentage correct

Overall percentage Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced

correct 261 or below1 262–2981 299–3321 333 or above1

77 52 84 95 99

1

NAEP mathematics composite scale range.

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

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Assessment.

Algebraic concepts are

included in the mathematics

curriculum before eighth

grade. This sample question

uses the variable x in the

expression x + 2. The student

is asked to identify a value of

x that would make x + 2 less

than 12. Of the choices listed,

only 8 is a value that satisfies

this condition.

Mathematics Content Area: Mathematics Ability:

Number Sense, Properties, and Operations Procedural Knowledge

In the triangle, what is the degree measure of 

A 45

B 100

C 110

D 135

E 160

If the value of the expression x + 2 is less than 12, which of the following could be a value o

A 16

B 14

C 12

D 10

E 8

Divide:

Answer: _________________________
19 2003 Math TUDA Highlights - 10/

g

calculated directly, but the

figure can be partitioned

into simpler figures whose

areas can be easily determined. This extended

constructed-response

question requires students

to identify different ways of

finding the area of a

hallway. One way to partition the hallway is shown.

The corresponding area is

50 + 35 = 85. Students are

asked to show three other

ways the hallway can be

divided and for each of

them to show how the area

can be calculated.

Answers to this question

were scored on five levels:

“Incorrect,” “Minimal,”

“Partial,” “Satisfactory,” or

“Extended.”

The first sample response

was only rated “Satisfactory” because the computation given to calculate the

area for the first figure

should have been

5 x 5 + 12 x 5.

#The estimate rounds to zero.

1

NAEP mathematics composite scale range.

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

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Assessment.

Mathematics Content Area: Mathematics Ability:

Measurement Problem Solving

Sample “Extended” Response

10

12

5

5

10

10

12

I

II

5 5

5

5

7 7

Question with Sample “Satisfactory” Response

Ted wants to purchase floor covering for the hallway shown above. He knows th

many ways to find the area of the hallway. One way is to divide the hallway i

sections shown below and then add together the area of each section.

Area of Hallway = Area of Region I + Area of Region II

Area = (5 10) + (7 5)

Use the figures below to show 3 other ways that Ted can divide the hallway to 

area. Below each figure explain what numbers and operations Ted could use to ca

the area.

Percentage “Extended”

Overall percentage Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced

“Extended” 261 or below1 262–2981 299–3321 333 or above1

6 # 1 12 41

# The estimate rounds to zero.

1NAEP mathematics composite scale range.

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

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Assessment.
United States

Department of Education

ED Pubs

8242-B Sandy Court

Jessup, MD 20794–1398

Official Business Only

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Postage and Fees 

U.S. Department 

Education

Permit No. G-1

NAEP

on the Web

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard

The NAEP web site offers a wealth of assessment information, publication

and analysis tools, including

 access to free NAEP publications and assessment data

 national and state report cards on student achievement in core subjec

areas such as reading, mathematics, and science

 sample questions, student answers, and scoring guides

 interactive data analysis tool and student performance results from pa

NAEP assessments

More Information

Additional results and

detailed information

about the NAEP 2003 Trial

Urban District Assessment

of mathematics can be found

on the NAEP web site.

Additional NAEP publications

can be ordered from

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794–1398

877–4ED–PUBS

877–433–7827

Additional information

about the NAEP mathematics framework can be found

on the National Assessment

Governing Board web site

(http://www.nagb.org/

pubs/pubs.htm).

gg

2003

National Center for

Education Statistics