U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2011-462

AMERICA’S 

High School Graduates 

results of the 2009

naep high school

transcript study
What is the High School 

Transcript Study?

The High School Transcript Study (HSTS) 

collects and analyzes transcripts from a 

representative sample of America’s public 

and private high school graduates. The study 

is designed to inform the public about the 

types of courses that graduates take during 

high school, how many credits they earn, and 

their grade point averages (GPAs). The HSTS 

also explores the relationship between course‐

taking patterns and student achievement, 

as measured by the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP). High school 

transcript studies have been conducted 

periodically for nearly two decades, permitting 

the reporting of trends in coursetaking and 

GPA as well as providing information about 

recent high school graduates. In addition 

to collecting transcripts, the HSTS collects 

student information such as gender, 

graduation status, and race/ethnicity and 

information about the schools studied.

What is The Nation’s 

Report Cardtm?

The Nation’s Report CardTM informs the public about the 

academic achievement of elementary and secondary students 

in the United States. Report cards communicate the findings 

of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 

a continuing and nationally representative measure of 

achievement in various subjects over time. 

Since 1969, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodi‐

cally in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, 

civics, geography, and other subjects. NAEP collects and 

reports information on student performance at the national, 

state, and local levels, making the assessment an integral 

part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress 

of education. Only academic achievement data and related 

background information are collected. The privacy of individual 

students and their families is protected.

NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of 

Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. 

The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible for 

carrying out the NAEP project. The National Assessment 

Governing Board oversees and sets policy for NAEP.
CONTENTS

Executive Summary1

Understanding the Results3

Coursetaking5

NAEP 15

Gender 23

Race/Ethnicity 31

A Closer Look 43

Technical Notes 56

References 58

Executive Summary

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

graduates in the class of 2009 took during high school, how many credits they 

earned, and the grades they received. Information on the relationships between 

high school coursetaking records and performance in mathematics and science 

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

Transcripts were collected from about 610 public schools and 130 private 

schools for the 2009 High School Transcript Study (HSTS). These transcripts 

constituted a nationally representative sample of 37,700 high school graduates, 

representing approximately 3 million 2009 high school graduates. The 2009 

results are compared to the results of earlier transcript studies dating back to 

1990, and differences among graduates by race/ethnicity, gender, and parent 

education are examined. Because the study is restricted to high school graduates, 

it contains no information about dropouts, who may differ from graduates. 

Graduates who receive a special education diploma or certificate of completion 

are also excluded from analyses in this report unless noted otherwise.

Graduates earn more credits and complete higher curriculum levels

n In 2009, graduates earned over three credits more than their 1990 counterparts, or about 420 additional hours of instruction during their high 

school careers.

n A greater percentage of 2009 graduates completed more challenging 

curriculum levels than 1990 or 2005 graduates. 

n Nearly two-thirds of graduates who attained a rigorous curriculum took 

algebra I before high school.

Defining curriculum levels

Curriculum levels in this report are defined by the number of course credits earned by graduates in specified types 

of courses during high school, as follows: 

Standard: At least four credits of 

English and three each in social 

studies, mathematics, and science. 

Midlevel: In addition to standard 

requirements, geometry and algebra I 

or II; at least two courses in biology, 

chemistry, and physics; and at least 

one credit of a foreign language.

Rigorous: In addition to midlevel 

requirements, an additional credit 

in mathematics including pre-calculus 

or higher; biology, chemistry, and 

physics; and at least three foreign 

language credits.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 1
Graduates with stronger academic records earn higher NAEP scores

n Graduates who completed an Advanced Placement (AP) or International 

Baccalaureate (IB) mathematics or science course, a higher level 

mathematics or science course in ninth grade, or a rigorous curriculum 

had average NAEP scores at the Proficient level in both mathematics 

and science.

n Graduates who completed a midlevel or a standard curriculum had 

average NAEP scores at the Basic level.

Comparisons by gender

n 

n 

n 

Since 2005, male graduates have narrowed the gap with female graduates 

in credits earned in mathematics and science.

A larger percentage of female graduates compared to male graduates 

completed a midlevel or rigorous curriculum in 2009.

In 2009, male graduates generally had higher NAEP mathematics and 

science scores than female graduates completing the same curriculum level.

Comparisons by race/ethnicity

n 

n 

Since 1990 more graduates from each racial/ethnic group completed a 

rigorous curriculum. The percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander graduates 

completing a rigorous curriculum in 2009, 29 percent, was greater than 

that of White, Black, or Hispanic graduates (14 percent, 6 percent, and 

8 percent respectively).

All four racial/ethnic groups on average earned more credits and higher 

grade point averages (GPAs) in 2009 than they did in 1990. The GPAs 

of White and Asian/Pacific Islander graduates increased between 2005 

and 2009.

Other Topics

This report also takes a closer look at:

n 

n 

n 

Finding time to earn more credits, through summer learning, classes 

taken for high school credits in middle school, and online learning;

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

coursetaking; and

Credits earned, GPAs, and curriculum levels of students with 

disabilities and English language learners.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Understanding The Results

Overview of the High School 

Transcript Study

This report presents information 

about the types of courses that 

graduates took during their years 

in high school, how many credits 

they earned, and the grades they 

received. Information on the relationships between high school 

records and performance in mathematics and science on the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) is also included. Transcripts 

were collected from approximately 

610 public schools and 130 private 

schools for the 2009 High School 

Transcript Study (HSTS). These 

transcripts constituted a nationally 

representative sample of 37,700 

public and private high school 

graduates, representing approximately 

3 million 2009 high school graduates. 

The 2009 results are compared to 

the results of the 1990, 1994, 1998, 

2000, and 2005 NAEP high school 

transcript studies, and differences 

among graduates by gender, race/

ethnicity, and parent education are 

examined. However, the sample size 

was insufficient to permit reliable 

estimates for American Indian/

Alaska Native graduates in 2009.

Standardizing transcript 

information

Not all high schools have the same 

standards for course titles, assigning 

credits, and grade scales. To allow 

comparisons, HSTS standardizes the 

transcript information. To control for 

the variation in course titles, a coding 

system called the Classification of 

Secondary School Courses (CSSC) 

is used for classifying courses on the 

basis of information available in 

school catalogs and other information 

sources. (For more information, see 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hst/

courses.asp.)

Course credits are converted to 

standardized Carnegie units of 

credit (or Carnegie credits), in which 

a single unit is equal to 120 hours of 

classroom time over the course of a 

year. Schools provided information 

on how many course credits represent 

a Carnegie credit at their school. 

The course credits recorded on the 

transcript were then converted 

(standardized) into Carnegie credits 

for the data analysis for this report.

Points are assigned to each letter 

grade as shown in the table to the 

left. The points are adjusted by the 

number of Carnegie credits earned, 

so that a course with 60 hours of 

instruction counts half as much as one 

with 120 hours. The average of the 

points earned for all the courses taken 

is the grade point average (GPA). 

Courses in which a graduate did not 

receive a grade, such as pass/fail and 

audited courses, do not factor into 

the GPA calculation. GPAs were not 

adjusted for Advanced Placement, 

International Baccalaureate, or 

other honors classes. This process 

does not standardize for differences 

in grading practices among schools 

and teachers.

Grade Point Average

in a standard 

four point scale...

A 4 points

B 3 points

C 2 points

D 1 point

F 0 points

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 3
The NAEP connection

Approximately 30,100 of the 

graduates included in the transcript 

study also participated in the NAEP 

twelfth-grade mathematics or 

science assessments in 2009. Thus, 

findings of the HSTS can be linked 

with NAEP results, allowing a 

comparison of coursetaking patterns 

and educational achievement as 

measured by NAEP.

This report presents information on 

the 2005 and 2009 NAEP mathematics scores and on the 2009 

NAEP science scores.

Each NAEP assessment is built 

around an organizing framework, 

which is the blueprint that guides 

the development of the assessment 

instrument and determines the 

content to be assessed. The National 

Assessment Governing Board 

develops the NAEP frameworks 

(http://nces.ed.gov/nations 

reportcard/frameworks.asp).

For 2005, the Governing Board 

adopted a new mathematics 

framework for grade 12 to reflect 

changes in high school standards and 

coursework. This framework, which 

was also used in 2009, allows 

comparisons of 2005 and 2009 

mathematics scores.

The 2005 and 2009 NAEP science 

scores cannot be compared because 

of the implementation of a new 

science framework in 2009.

Caution in interpreting results

The results presented in this report 

describe information from the 

collected transcripts. In reading the 

report, readers may find themselves 

asking questions about the causes 

for changes, whether increases or 

decreases, in the results. However, the 

HSTS cannot be used to determine 

the reasons behind these findings.”

The National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) uses widely 

accepted statistical standards in 

analyzing data. Unless otherwise 

noted, the text of this report discusses 

only findings that are significant at 

the .05 level. In the tables and charts 

of this report, the symbol (*) is used 

to indicate findings that are significantly different from one another. 

When statements about differences 

are made in the text, the differences 

are based on unrounded numbers 

and not the rounded numbers 

presented in the figures and tables. 

The results in this report are estimates 

based on samples of students and 

schools and are therefore subject to 

sampling and measurement errors.

4 UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS
COURSETAKING

The high school graduates of 2009 earned more 

credits and completed more challenging curriculum 

levels than earlier graduates. Even with these 

gains, one-quarter of 2009 graduates did not 

attain at least a standard curriculum level. After 

rising for more than a decade, overall GPAs for 

graduates did not change from 2005 to 2009.
Credits Earned Continue to Rise

Average credits earned by high 

school graduates increased from 

26.8 credits in 2005 to 27.2 credits 

in 2009 (figure 1). Over the last 

19 years, average credits earned by 

graduates increased by more than three 

credits, from 23.6 credits in 1990 to 

27.2 in 2009. Each Carnegie credit 

represents 120 hours of classroom 

instruction. Thus, 2009 graduates 

received over 400 hours more of 

instructional time during their high 

school years compared to 1990 

graduates. This increase in credits 

over time is consistent with earlier 

NCES transcript studies.

FIGURE 1. Trend in average credits earned: 1990–2009

1990

1994

1998 25.3*

2000

2005

2009

0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0

High School Graduation Year

Total Course Credits

24.3*

23.6*

26.2*

26.8*

27.2

//

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

various years, 1990–2009.

6 COURSETAKING
Defining Curriculum Levels 

In this report, three curriculum levels 

are discussed: standard, midlevel, 

and rigorous. Information is also 

shown for students who do not attain 

at least a standard curriculum level 

(below standard). The curriculum 

levels were developed for the NAEP 

HSTS studies and are based on the 

number of credits and types of 

courses graduates complete.

As shown in table 1, to attain a 

standard curriculum, a high school 

graduate must earn four credits in 

English, and three credits each in 

social studies, mathematics, and 

science. Graduates who do not meet 

these requirements complete a 

below standard curriculum.

To attain a midlevel curriculum, 

a high school graduate with a 

standard curriculum must meet 

three additional requirements. 

Mathematics credits earned must 

include algebra and geometry, 

science courses completed must 

cover two subjects among biology, 

chemistry, and physics, and one 

credit must be earned in foreign 

language courses.

To attain a rigorous curriculum, 

a high school graduate with a 

midlevel curriculum must meet 

three additional requirements. Four 

credits in mathematics must be 

earned, of which one course must 

be pre-calculus or a higher level. 

Science courses completed must 

cover all three subjects of biology, 

chemistry, and physics, and three 

credits must be earned in foreign 

language courses. 

TABLE 1. Course credit requirements to attain specified curriculum levels

Standard Midlevel Rigorous

English 4 4 4

Social Studies 3 3 3

Mathematics 3 3 

(including geometry 

and algebra I or II)

4 

(including pre-calculus 

or higher)

Science 3 3 

(including at least two 

of biology, chemistry, 

and physics)

3 

(including biology, 

chemistry, and 

physics)

Foreign Language 0 1 3

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

Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study (HSTS), 2005.

NOTE: This is a modified version of

curriculum levels used by Laura

Horn and Lawrence K. Kojaku (2001).

The standard curriculum level is

equivalent to what Horn and Kojaku

refer to as a core curriculum; the

nomenclature used in this report

is different to avoid confusion with

core credits also discussed in this

report. One difference between

this report and the classification

by Horn and Kojaku is that to be

considered as having completed

a rigorous curriculum, this report

does not require graduates to have

taken an AP or honors course. This

modification was made to ensure

that HSTS data for earlier years are

consistent with data for 2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 7
More Graduates Complete Challenging 

Curriculum Levels

The rigor of graduates’ curriculum 

levels is associated with graduates’ 

entry and success in postsecondary 

education (Horn and Nuñez 2000; 

Horn and Kojaku 2001). Compared to 

1990 graduates, a greater percentage 

of 2009 graduates completed midlevel 

or rigorous curriculum levels (figure 2). 

The percentage of graduates completing a midlevel curriculum increased 

from 26 percent in 1990 to 46 

percent in 2009. The percentage 

completing a rigorous curriculum 

increased from 5 percent in 1990 

to 13 percent in 2009.

During this same period, the percentage of graduates completing a below 

standard curriculum declined from 60 

percent in 1990 to 25 percent in 2009.

FIGURE 2. Trend in percentage of graduates completing each 

curriculum level: 1990–2009

’00 ’05

High School Graduation Year

Percent Below Standard

’90 ’94 ’98

100

100

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

’09

Percent At or Above Standard

PERCENT AT OR

ABOVE STANDARD

9*

60*

26*

5*

12*

49*

33*

6*

13

41*

36*

10*

13

44*

34*

9*

17

32*

41*

10*

16

25

46

13

40* 51* 59*56* 68* 75 Rigorous 

Midlevel 

Standard

Below Standard 

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

NOTE: Details may not sum to

total because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

various years, 1990–2009.

8 COURSETAKING
Some Graduates Do Not Reach at Least 

a Standard Curriculum Level

Even with the overall increase 

in curriculum levels completed, a 

quarter of 2009 graduates completed 

a curriculum level that is below 

standard (table 2).

Thirty-four percent of graduates 

with a parent who did not finish 

high school completed a below 

standard curriculum compared to 

20 percent of graduates with a parent 

who graduated from college.

Sixty-three percent of English 

language learners (ELL) and 45 

percent of students with disabilities 

(SD) completed a below standard 

curriculum compared with approximately 25 percent of non-ELL 

and non-SD graduates.

TABLE 2. Percentage of graduates at each curriculum level, 

by selected characteristics: 2009

Curriculum level

Below 

standard Standard Midlevel Rigorous

Selected characteristics Percent

All graduates 25 16 46 13

Parental education 

 Did not finish high school 34* 17* 43* 6*

 Graduated high school 28* 19* 45* 7*

 Some education after high school 25* 17* 50 9*

 Graduated college 20 12 48 20

Students with disabilities (SD)

 Yes 45* 30* 21* 3*

 No 24 14 48 14

English language learners (ELL) 

 Yes 63* 12 21* 4*

 No 25 16 47 13

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from contrast group (at least

one parent graduated college,

non-SD graduate, non-ELL

graduates) within the same

column.

NOTE: Details may not sum to

total because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics,

High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 9
Science Courses Key to Achieving Standard 

and Midlevel Curriculum Levels

Based on the HSTS 2009 results, 

many graduates lacked only the 

required science courses to reach 

the next highest curriculum level. 

For those graduates who did not 

complete a standard curriculum (25 

percent), 39 percent lacked only the 

required three credits in science to 

attain a standard curriculum level 

(figure 3). Similarly, of the 16 percent 

of graduates who completed a 

standard curriculum, 35 percent 

lacked only the science coursework 

in two of the three major science 

subjects (biology, chemistry, and 

physics) required to attain a midlevel curriculum level (figure 4).

Other graduates were missing only 

the four credits in English required 

to reach a standard curriculum level 

(figure 3). One quarter of graduates 

who did not attain a standard 

curriculum level were missing 

multiple requirements.

Many graduates who completed a 

standard curriculum level did not meet 

the course requirements in a single 

subject area needed to earn a midlevel 

curriculum. In addition to the 35 

percent who lacked only the science 

requirements, 19 percent lacked only 

the required mathematics coursework, 

and 17 percent were only missing 

the required one credit in foreign 

language courses (figure 4).

FIGURE 3. Percentage of graduates who did not attain a standard 

curriculum, by missing requirement: 2009

8

23

39

5

25

0 20 40 60 80 100

Missing Requirement

Percent

Mathematics only

English only

Social Studies only

More than one

Science only

NOTE: For definitions of

curriculum levels, see table 1.

Details may not sum to total

because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education

Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009.

10 COURSETAKING
A majority of graduates who 

completed a midlevel curriculum 

lacked two or more requirements 

to earn a rigorous curriculum. 

Approximately 36 percent lacked 

requirements in two of the three 

subject areas (science, mathematics, 

and foreign language), while 31 

percent lacked requirements in 

all three subjects (figure 5). Onethird of graduates who completed 

a midlevel curriculum lacked the 

requirements in just one of three 

subjects (science, mathematics, and 

foreign language) needed to complete 

a rigorous curriculum.

FIGURE 4. Percentage of graduates who attained a standard curriculum 

but not a midlevel curriculum, by missing requirement: 2009

35

19

17

29

0 20 40 60 80 100

Missing Requirement

Percent

Science only

Mathematics only

Foreign Languages only

More than one

FIGURE 5. Percentage of graduates who attained a midlevel curriculum but 

not a rigorous curriculum, by missing requirement: 2009

9

12

12

36

31

0 20 40 60 80 100

Missing Requirement

Percent

Mathematics only

Foreign Languages only

Two

All Three

Science only

NOTE: For definitions of

curriculum levels, see table 1.

Details may not sum to total

because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics,

High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 11
Graduates Earn More Credits in Academic Courses

Credits earned in core academic 

courses (English, mathematics, 

science, and social studies) and 

other academic courses (fine arts, 

foreign languages, and computerrelated studies) have increased since 

1990. In 1990, graduates earned 

13.7 credits in core academic 

courses and 3.6 credits in other 

academic courses (figure 6). In 

2009, graduates earned 16.0 credits 

in core academic courses and 5.3 

credits in other academic courses. 

Credits earned in other courses 

decreased from 6.4 credits in 1990 

to 6.0 credits in 2009.

Since 1990, graduates have increased 

average credits earned in each of the 

four core academic courses (figure 7). 

From 1990 to 2009, average credits 

earned in social studies, mathematics, 

and science increased more than 

average credits in English. Average 

credits earned in these three core 

academic courses increased by 

approximately 0.7 credits each from 

1990 to 2009 compared with 

approximately 0.2 credits for English. 

Still, 2009 graduates earned almost 

a full credit more in English than 

they earned in science and a half 

credit more than in mathematics.

FIGURE 6. Trend in average credits earned, by course type: 1990–2009

16.0

13.7*

14.3*

14.6*

15.0*

15.6*

3.6*

4.0*

4.5*

4.8*

5.1*

5.3

6.4*

6.0

6.2

6.3*

6.2

6.0

TOTAL

23.6*

24.3*

25.3*

27.2

26.8*

26.2*

High School Graduation Year

1990

1994

1998

2000

2005

2009

0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Total Course Credits

* Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

NOTE: Numbers at end of

bars represent total credits.

Core academic courses are

English, mathematics,

science, and social studies.

Other academic courses are

fine arts, foreign languages,

and computer-related

studies. Other courses

include courses such as

vocational education, personal

health, and physical education.

Details may not sum to total

because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics,

High School Transcript

Study (HSTS), various years,

1990–2009.

Core Academic 

Other Academic 

Other 

12 COURSETAKING
English 

Mathematics 

Science 

Social Studies 

FIGURE 7. Trend in average credits earned in core academic courses: 

1990–2009

’00 ’05

High School Graduation Year

Course Credits

’90 ’94 ’98

0

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

//

’09

2.8*

3.2*

3.5*

4.1*

3.1*

3.4*

3.6*

4.2*

3.1*

3.5*

3.8*

4.1*

3.2*

3.7*

3.9*

4.3*

3.4*

3.8*

4.1*

4.3

3.5

3.9

4.2

4.4 * Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

various years, 1990–2009.

TABLE 3. 

Grade Point Average

in a standard 

four point scale...

A 4 points

B 3 points

C 2 points

D 1 point

F 0 points

Graduates’ Overall GPAs Unchanged From 

2005 to 2009

Overall GPAs increased from 2.68 

in 1990 to 3.00 in 2009 but did not 

increase from 2005 to 2009 (figure 8). 

Similarly, GPAs by course type were 

higher for core academic and other 

academic courses in 2009 than in 

1990, but did not change significantly 

from 2005 to 2009. There was an 

increase in GPA for other courses 

from 2005 to 2009. On average, 

graduates earned the lowest overall 

GPAs in core academic courses and 

higher overall GPAs in both other 

academic and other courses.

Among the individual core academic 

courses, the only significant increase 

in graduates’ GPAs from 2005 to 

2009 was in English, which increased 

from an average of 2.82 in 2005 to 

2.85 in 2009 (figure 9). On average, 

graduates earned lower GPAs in 

mathematics and science than in 

English and social studies.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 13
FIGURE 8. Trend in average GPA, overall and by course type: 1990–2009

’00 ’05

High School Graduation Year

Grade Point Average

’90 ’94 ’98

0

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

4.0

’09

//

//

2.47*

2.68*

2.83*

3.03*

2.57*

2.79*

2.94*

3.16*

2.69*

2.90*

3.03*

3.26*

2.73*

2.94*

3.09*

3.31*

2.77

2.98

3.12

3.36*

2.79

3.00

3.14

3.39

FIGURE 9. Trend in average GPAs for core academic courses: 1990–2009

’00 ’05

High School Graduation Year

Grade Point Average

’90 ’94 ’98

0

4.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

’09

//

//

2.34*

2.39*

2.52*

2.56*

2.44*

2.50*

2.63*

2.67*

2.56*

2.62*

2.74*

2.79*

2.60*

2.67

2.77*

2.83*

2.63

2.69

2.82*

2.88

2.65

2.70

2.85

2.89

Other 

Other Academic 

Overall

Core Academic

* Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

various years, 1990–2009.

Social Studies 

English 

Science

Mathematics

14 COURSETAKING
NAEP

Average NAEP scores are highest for those 

graduates completing a rigorous curriculum and 

higher level mathematics and science courses. 

The average score for graduates who completed 

a rigorous curriculum was at the Proficient level. 

Graduates completing a midlevel or a standard 

curriculum scored, on average, at the Basic level.
Understanding NAEP Scores

National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) achievement levels 

are performance standards showing 

what students should know and be 

able to do. Results are reported as 

scale scores and percentages of 

students performing at or above 

three achievement levels:

Basic

Denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental 

for proficient work at a given grade.

Proficient

Represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level 

have demonstrated competency over 

challenging subject matter.

Advanced

Signifies superior achievement.

The National Assessment Governing 

Board sets specific achievement 

levels for each subject area and grade, 

based on recommendations from 

panels of educators and members 

of the public, to provide a context for 

interpreting student performance on 

NAEP. As provided by law, NCES, 

upon review of congressionally 

mandated evaluations of NAEP, has 

determined that achievement levels 

are to be used on a trial basis and 

should be interpreted with caution. 

Even though they are still considered 

trial, the NAEP achievement levels 

have been widely used by national 

and state officials. Additional 

information about NAEP achievement levels can be found at http://

www.nagb.org/publications/

achievement.htm.

In 2009, twelfth-grade students 

participating in NAEP were given 

assessments in mathematics and 

science. The NAEP twelfth-grade 

mathematics and science results are 

reported on a 0–300 scale. The 

ranges of scores that fall within each 

of the achievement levels are shown 

in table 4. Because NAEP scales are 

developed independently for each 

subject, scores cannot be used to 

make comparisons across subjects.

16 NAEP
TABLE 4. Grade 12 NAEP achievement levels

Mathematics Science

Advanced 216 or higher 222 or higher

Proficient 176–215 179–221

Basic 141–175 142–178

SOURCE: http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/mathematics/

achieveall.asp; and

http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/science/

achieveall.asp.

Cautions in Interpreting Results

There can be many explanations 

for an association between NAEP 

scores and other variables (e.g., 

curriculum level, average GPA, and 

highest course taken). HSTS data 

do not support conclusions about 

cause and effect between variables. 

For example, graduates who completed a rigorous curriculum, on 

average, earned higher scores on 

NAEP assessments. This could be 

because taking a rigorous curriculum 

provided them with the information 

they needed to do well on NAEP, 

or it could be that the best prepared 

and most motivated students performed better on NAEP and chose 

to take more challenging curricula, 

or it could be a mixture of these and 

other influences.

Graduates Completing Higher Curriculum Levels 

Have Higher Average Grade 12 NAEP Scores

Graduates completing a rigorous 

curriculum earned the highest NAEP 

mathematics and science scores 

(figures 10 and 11). Graduates 

completing rigorous and midlevel 

curricula outperformed graduates who 

completed less challenging curricula. 

However, there were no significant 

differences in scores between 

graduates completing standard and 

below standard curricula.

The 2009 NAEP mathematics 

scores by curriculum level were not 

significantly higher than the 2005 

scores. However, the average NAEP 

score for graduates completing a 

below standard curriculum moved 

from below the Basic achievement 

level in 2005 to Basic in 2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 17
FIGURE 10. Average NAEP mathematics scores, by curriculum level: 2005 and 2009

Basic Proficient Advanced

139

142

141*

143*

156*

158*

188

188

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Curriculum Level

Average NAEP Mathematics Score

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

FIGURE 11. Average NAEP science scores, by curriculum level: 2009

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Curriculum Level

Average NAEP Science Score

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

141

142*

153*

182

 2005 

 2009

* Significantly different (p<.05)

from next highest curriculum

level.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript

Study (HSTS), 2005 and

2009; National Assessment

of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 2005 and 2009

Mathematics Assessments

and 2009 Science Assessment.

Higher Grade 12 NAEP Scores Associated with 

More Advanced Ninth-Grade Coursework

Average NAEP scores are higher 

for graduates who completed more 

advanced mathematics and science 

courses in the ninth grade (figures 

12 and 13). For example, graduates 

whose first high school mathematics course was geometry scored 55 

points higher on the NAEP mathematics assessment than graduates 

who took a class below algebra I. 

18 NAEP
Graduates who completed chemistry 

in ninth grade scored 27 points higher 

on NAEP science than graduates 

who took earth science. Graduates 

who completed geometry or algebra 

II as ninth graders earned an 

average NAEP mathematics score 

at the Proficient level.

FIGURE 12. Average NAEP mathematics scores, by highest level mathematics 

course completed in ninth grade: 2009

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Mathematics Course

Average NAEP Mathematics Score

Below Algebra I

Algebra I

Geometry

Algebra II

124*

148*

179*

187

FIGURE 13. Average NAEP science scores, by highest level science course 

completed in ninth grade: 2009

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Science Course

Average NAEP Science Score

Earth Science

Biology

Chemistry

149*

159*

176

* Significantly different (p<.05)

from next highest level course.

NOTE: The mathematics and

science courses listed in figures

12 and 13 are not exhaustive.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

2009; National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP),

2009 Mathematics and Science

Assessments.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 19
Graduates with Higher GPAs Earn Higher NAEP Scores

Graduates earning higher GPAs in 

mathematics (2005 and 2009) and 

science (2009) attained higher average 

NAEP scores (figures 14 and 15). 

Graduates in the top, second-to-top, 

and second-to-bottom GPA quarters 

earned higher average scores than 

graduates in the lowest GPA 

quarters in both mathematics and 

science. Graduates in the top math 

quarter earned an average NAEP 

mathematics score at the Proficient 

achievement level, while those in 

the top science quarter performed 

at the Basic level.

From 2005 to 2009, NAEP mathematics scores increased for graduates 

in the bottom, second-to-top, and 

in the top quarters.

FIGURE 14. Average NAEP mathematics scores, by GPA quarter: 

2005 and 2009

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Mathematics GPA Quarter

Average NAEP Mathematics Score

Top

(3.23–4.00)

Second-to-top

(2.63–3.22)

Second-to-bottom

(2.01–2.62)

Bottom

(0.00–2.00)

129*

132*

144*

145*

155*

161*

178

182

FIGURE 15. Average NAEP science scores, by GPA quarter: 2009

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Science GPA Quarter

Average NAEP Science Score

Top

(3.26–4.00)

Second-to-top

(2.68–3.25)

Second-to-bottom

(2.14–2.67)

Bottom

(0.00–2.13) 131*

142*

157*

178

Basic Proficient Advanced

 2005 

 2009

* Significantly different (p<.05)

from next highest quarter.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript

Study (HSTS), 2005 and 2009;

National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP),

2005 and 2009 Mathematics

Assessments and 2009

Science Assessment.

20 NAEP
Average Grade 12 NAEP Performance

Average NAEP scores for graduates 

with different academic characteristics 

are presented in table 5. For example, 

the average NAEP mathematics 

score for graduates with a 4.0 GPA 

in calculus is 201, which is in the 

Proficient range. No scores are shown 

in the Advanced achievement ranges 

for mathematics or science because, 

on average, graduates did not score 

in these ranges, though individual 

students did.

TABLE 5. Average mathematics and science NAEP scores, by academic characteristics: 2009

Mathematics Science

 Advanced

 216-300

 Advanced

 222-300

 Proficient

 176-215

201 GPA in calculus is 4.0

194 Took AP/IB mathematics course

193 Calculus: highest mathematics course

188 Rigorous curriculum completed

182 Top mathematics GPA quarter (3.23–4.00)

 Proficient

 179-221

193 GPA in advanced science is 4.0

187 Took AP/IB science course

182 Rigorous curriculum completed

182 Advanced science: highest science course

 Basic

 141-175

164 Advanced mathematics: highest 

mathematics course completed

161 Second-to-top mathematics GPA quarter (2.63–3.22)

158 Midlevel curriculum completed

149 Did not take AP/IB mathematics course

145 Second-to-bottom mathematics GPA quarter

 (2.01–2.62)

143 Standard curriculum completed 

142 Algebra II: highest mathematics course 

142 Below standard curriculum completed

 Basic

 142-178

178 Top science GPA quarter (3.26–4.00)

157 Physics: highest science course

157 Second-to-top science GPA quarter (2.68–3.25) 

153 Midlevel curriculum completed

147 Did not take AP/IB science course

144 Chemistry: highest science course

142 Second-to-bottom science GPA quarter 

(2.14–2.67)

142 Standard curriculum completed

Below Basic

0-140

132 Bottom mathematics GPA quarter (0.00–2.00)

127 Geometry: highest mathematics course

114 Algebra I or below: highest mathematics 

course

Below Basic

0-141

141 Below standard curriculum completed

131 Biology: highest science course

131 Bottom science GPA quarter (0.00–2.13)

128 General or earth science: highest science 

course

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study (HSTS), 2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 21
GENDER

Males and females differ in their academic records. 

While females complete more challenging curricula 

and earn higher GPAs, they do not perform as well 

on NAEP as males with similar academic records. 

Both male and female graduates continue to earn 

more credits.

Both Males and Females Earn More Credits

Both male and female graduates 

earned more credits in 2009 than in 

2005. This continues the trend from 

1990 (figure 16). The male-female 

gap in credits earned in 2009 is not 

significantly different from the gap in 

1990. In 2009, females earned 27.3 

credits compared to 27.0 credits earned 

by males. In 1990, females earned 23.8 

credits and males earned 23.4 credits.

Both males and females also earned 

more mathematics and science credits 

in 2009 than in earlier graduation 

years (figure 17). The size of the 

male-female gaps in mathematics 

and science has varied over time. In 

1990, male graduates earned more 

mathematics and science credits than 

female graduates; however, from 

1998 to 2005, females earned more 

credits in these subjects than males. 

In 2009, males narrowed the gap from 

2005 in credits earned for mathematics 

and science, with both males and 

females completing 7.4 credits.

FIGURE 16. Trend in average overall credits earned and credit gaps, 

by gender: 1990–2009

Total Course Credits

0

26.0

25.5

25.0

24.5

27.5

27.0

26.5

24.0

23.5

23.0

// CREDIT GAP

’00 ’05

High School Graduation Year

’90 ’94 ’98 ’09

23.4*

23.8*

24.2*

24.4*

25.1*

25.4* 26.0*

26.3*

26.6*

27.1*

27.0

27.3

0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3

Male

Female 

* Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

NOTE: Credit gaps are calculated based on differences

between unrounded average

credits. Male-female credit

gaps were found to be statistically significant in all years.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

various years, 1990–2009.

24 GENDER
FIGURE 17. Trend in average credits earned in mathematics and science 

and credit gaps, by gender: 1990–2009

Course Credits

0

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

//

’00 ’05

High School Graduation Year

’90 ’94 ’98 ’09

6.0*

6.1*

6.4*

6.5*

6.6*

6.7*

6.8*

6.9*

7.1*

7.3*

7.4

7.4

-0.1* 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2* 0.1

CREDIT GAP

Male

Female 

* Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

NOTE: Credit gaps are calculated based

on differences between unrounded

average credits. Male-female credit gaps

were found to be statistically significant

in 1990, 1998, 2000, 2005, and 2009.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education,

Institute of Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS), various

years, 1990–2009.

Males and Females Both Complete More 

Challenging Curricula

Although both male and female 

graduates completed more challenging curricula in 2009 than in 1990, 

a greater percentage of females than 

males completed a midlevel curriculum (figure 18). From 1990 to 2009, 

the percentage of females who 

completed a midlevel curriculum 

increased 22 percentage points, 

from 27 to 49 percent, while the 

percentage of males increased 19 

percentage points, from 25 to 43 

percent. The percentage of females 

who completed below a standard 

curriculum decreased 37 percentage 

points, from 61 percent in 1990 to 23 

percent in 2009. The percentage of 

males who completed below a 

standard curriculum decreased 32 

percentage points, from 60 percent 

in 1990 to 28 percent in 2009. 

(Differences in percentages are 

calculated based on unrounded 

numbers.)

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 25
FIGURE 18. Trend in percentage of graduates completing each curriculum 

level, by gender: 1990, 2005, 2009

’05

High School Graduation Year

Percent Below Standard Percent At or Above Standard

’90

100

100

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

’09

MALE FEMALE

MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

10

60

25

5

9*

61

27*

4*

16

29*

44*

11*

17

36

37

10

17

28

43

12

15*

23*

49*

14

Rigorous 

 Midlevel 

Standard

Below Standard 

* Significantly different (p<.05)

from males.

NOTE: Details may not sum to

total because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

1990, 2005, 2009.

More Females are Missing Science Requirements 

to Complete Midlevel or Rigorous Curricula

Among graduates who did not attain 

a standard curriculum, 9 percent of 

females compared to 7 percent of 

males were missing only the mathematics requirement (figure 19). 

There were no measureable differences 

between males and females in the 

percentage who lacked requirements 

in only science, English, or social 

studies, or who lacked more than 

one requirement. The requirement 

that both males and females most 

often lacked was science (39 percent 

of males and 40 percent of females). 

Among graduates who completed 

a standard or midlevel curriculum, 

a greater percentage of females 

compared to males were missing 

only the science requirement to 

reach the next higher curriculum 

level. Forty-one percent of females, 

compared to 30 percent of males, 

completing a standard curriculum did 

not have the required science courses 

to attain a midlevel curriculum 

(figure 20). Fifteen percent of 

females, compared to 9 percent of 

males, completing a midlevel 

26 GENDER
curriculum were missing only the 

required science courses to attain a 

rigorous curriculum (figure 21).

For graduates completing a standard 

or midlevel curriculum, a greater 

percentage of males compared 

to females were missing only the 

foreign language requirement to 

reach the next higher curriculum 

level. Twenty percent of males 

completing a standard curriculum, 

FIGURE 19. Percentage of graduates who did not attain a standard 

curriculum, by missing requirement and gender: 2009

7

9*

23

22

39

40

5

5

26

24

0 20 40 60 80 100

Missing Requirement

Percent

Mathematics only

English only

Social Studies only

More than one

Science only

FIGURE 20. Percentage of graduates who attained a standard curriculum 

but did not attain a midlevel curriculum, by missing requirement and gender: 2009

30

41*

18

20

20

14*

32

25*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Missing Requirement

Percent

Science only

Mathematics only

Foreign Languages only

More than one

 Male 

 Female

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from males.

NOTE: For definitions of curriculum levels, see table 1.

Details may not sum to total

because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics,

High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 27
compared to 14 percent of females, 

were missing only the foreign 

language credit needed to attain a 

midlevel curriculum (figure 20). 

Fourteen percent of males 

completing a rigorous curriculum, 

compared to 10 percent of females, 

were missing only the required 

foreign language credits to complete 

a rigorous curriculum (figure 21).

FIGURE 21. Percentage of graduates who attained a midlevel curriculum 

but did not attain a rigorous curriculum, by missing requirement 

and gender: 2009

9

9

14

10*

9

15*

36

37

32

30

0 20 40 60 80 100

Missing Requirement

Percent

Mathematics only

Foreign Languages only

Two

All Three

Science only

 Male 

 Female

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from males.

NOTE: For definitions of

curriculum levels, see

table 1. Details may not sum

to total because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics,

High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009.

Female Graduates Continue to Have Higher 

Grade Point Averages

Female graduates continue to earn 

higher GPAs than male graduates. 

In 2009, female graduates had a 

GPA of 3.10 compared to 2.90 for 

male graduates (figure 22). 

The gap between female and male 

GPAs was significantly smaller in 

2009 than in 2005. The 2009 gap 

did not differ significantly from the 

gaps in earlier graduation years.

28 GENDER
FIGURE 22. Trend in average grade point average and GPA gaps, 

by gender: 1990–2009

‘00 ‘05

High School Graduation Year

Grade Point Average

‘90 ‘94 ‘98

0

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

4.0

‘09

//

//

0.18 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.23* 0.20

GPA GAP

2.59*

2.77*

2.68*

2.90*

2.79*

3.00*

2.83*

3.05*

2.86*

3.09

2.90

3.10

Male

Female 

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

NOTE: GPA gaps are calculated

based on differences between

unrounded GPAs. Male-female

GPA gaps were found to be statistically significant in all years.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

various years, 1990–2009.

Males Generally Earn Higher Average NAEP 

Mathematics and Science Scores than Females 

Completing the Same Curriculum Level

Male graduates completing rigorous, midlevel, or below standard 

curricula earned higher average 

2009 NAEP mathematics scores 

than females (figure 23). There 

were no significant differences in 

NAEP mathematics scores between 

males and females completing a 

standard curriculum. 

Males completing rigorous, midlevel, 

or standard curricula earned higher 

average 2009 NAEP science 

scores than females. There were no 

measureable differences in NAEP 

science scores between males 

and females completing a below 

standard curriculum.

Male and female graduates completing 

a rigorous curriculum earned an 

average NAEP mathematics score 

at the Proficient achievement level, 

while males and females in midlevel, 

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 29
standard, and below standard 

curricula earned average scores at 

the Basic level. 

At all curriculum levels, male 

graduates earned average scores at 

or above the Basic science 

achievement level, with the average 

score for males who completed a 

rigorous curriculum reaching the 

Proficient level. Female graduates 

completing rigorous or midlevel 

curricula earned average science 

scores at the Basic level.

FIGURE 23. Average NAEP mathematics and science scores, by curriculum 

level and gender: 2009

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Curriculum Level

Average NAEP Mathematics Score

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

144

141*

145

142

161

155*

192

185*

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Curriculum Level

Average NAEP Science Score

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

143

139

147

136*

156

151*

186

177*

Male 

Female

* Significantly different (p<.05)

from males.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics,

High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009; National

Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), 2009

Mathematics and Science

Assessments.

30 GENDER
RACE/ETHNICITY

White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander 

graduates are completing higher curricula and earning 

more credits and higher GPAs than in 1990. From 2005 

to 2009, White and Black graduates increased the credits 

they earned. White and Asian/Pacific Islander graduates 

earned higher GPAs. 
 Credits Increase for All Racial/Ethnic Groups

From 1990 to 2009, credits earned 

by graduates have increased across 

all racial/ethnic groups (figure 24). 

In 2009, Black graduates earned 3.9 

more credits than in 1990. White 

graduates completed 3.7 credits 

more in 2009 than in 1990, Asian/

Pacific Islander graduates completed 

2.9 more credits, and Hispanic 

graduates earned 2.6 credits more. 

(Differences in credits are calculated 

based on unrounded numbers.)

FIGURE 24. Trend in average course credits earned by graduates, 

by race/ethnicity: 1990, 2005, 2009

’05

High School Graduation Year

’90 ’09

Total Course Credits

0

26.5

26.0

25.5

25.0

27.5

27.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

//

23.5*

24.0*

23.7*

24.2*

26.9*

26.3

27.0*

26.6

27.3

27.0

27.4

26.5

Black 

White

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

1990, 2005, 2009.

Graduates of Each Racial/Ethnic Group Complete 

More Challenging Curricula

All racial/ethnic groups completed 

more challenging curriculum levels 

in 2009 than in 1990 (figure 25). 

The percentage of Black graduates 

who completed a below standard 

curriculum decreased from 60 

32 RACE/ETHNICITY
FIGURE 25. Trend in percentage of graduates completing each curriculum level, 

by race/ethnicity: 1990, 2005, 2009

’05

High School Graduation Year

’90

100

100

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

’09

Percent Below Standard Percent At or Above Standard

9*

59*

27*

5*

17

31*

11*

40*

16

25

45

14

’05

High School Graduation Year

’90

100

100

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

’09

Percent Below Standard Percent At or Above Standard

14*

60*

24*

2*

21

27*

47*

21

21

51

6 6

WHITE

BLACK

Rigorous 

Midlevel 

Standard

Below Standard 

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

NOTE: Details may not sum to

total because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics,

High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), various years, 1990,

2005, 2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 33
FIGURE 25. Trend in percentage of graduates completing each curriculum level, 

by race/ethnicity: 1990, 2005, 2009 (continued)

’05

High School Graduation Year

Percent Below Standard Percent At or Above Standard

’90

100

100

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

’09

8*

69*

20*

2*

10

46*

37*

8

12

33

47

8

6*

50*

31

13*

10

27

41

22*

10

23

38

29

’05

High School Graduation Year

’90

100

100

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

’09

Percent Below Standard Percent At or Above Standard

HISPANIC

ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER

Rigorous 

Midlevel 

Standard

Below Standard 

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

NOTE: Details may not sum to

total because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

1990, 2005, 2009.

34 RACE/ETHNICITY
percent in 1990 to 21 percent in 

2009. White graduates completing a 

below standard curriculum decreased 

from 59 percent in 1990 to 25 

percent in 2009. In 2009, a smaller 

percentage of Black graduates than 

White graduates completed a below 

standard curriculum.

From 1990 to 2009, the percentage 

of Black and Hispanic graduates 

attaining a rigorous curriculum level 

increased 4 percentage points and 

6 percentage points, respectively. 

Asian/Pacific Islander graduates 

increased 16 percentage points 

and White graduates increased 

9 percentage points at the rigorous 

curriculum level, widening the 

difference between Asian/Pacific 

Islander and White graduates from 

8 percentage points in 1990 to 15 

percentage points in 2009.

In 2009, there was not a significant 

difference between the percentage of 

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

while there was a 6 percentage point 

gap in 1990 (figure 26).

FIGURE 26. Trend in percentage of graduates completing at or above 

a midlevel curriculum and percent gaps, by selected 

racial/ethnic groups: 1990–2009

’00 ’05

High School Graduation Year

Percent

’90 ’94 ’98

0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

’09

26*

32*

30*

41*

38*

45*

46*

47*

51*

52

57

60

6 11* 7 1 -1 2

PERCENT GAP

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

NOTE: Percent point gaps are

calculated based on differences

between unrounded numbers.

White-Black gaps were found to be

significant in 1990, 1994, and 1998.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education

Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, High School

Transcript Study (HSTS), various

years, 1990–2009.

White 

Black

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 35
Science Key to Attaining Standard and Midlevel 

Curricula for Black and Hispanic Graduates

Over 40 percent of White, Black, 

and Hispanic graduates and about 

one-third of Asian/Pacific Islander 

graduates completed either a below 

standard or a standard curriculum. 

In 2009, about half of Black graduates 

(52 percent) and 50 percent of 

Hispanic graduates who completed 

a below standard curriculum were 

missing only the science requirements 

needed to achieve a standard curriculum (figure 27). Among graduates 

completing a standard but not a 

midlevel curriculum, 39 percent of 

Black graduates and 46 percent of 

Hispanic graduates lacked only the 

science requirements needed to attain 

a midlevel curriculum (figure 28).

Thirty-four percent of White graduates completing a below standard 

but not a standard curriculum and 

33 percent completing a standard 

but not a midlevel curriculum lacked 

only the science requirements 

necessary to achieve a standard 

curriculum. Among Asian/Pacific 

Islanders, 31 percent of those 

FIGURE 27. Percentage of graduates who did not attain a standard 

curriculum, by missing requirement and race/ethnicity: 2009

8

8

8

8

13*

26

39*

13*

4

5

3

3*

22*

27

19*

25

52*

34

31

50*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Missing Requirement

Percent

Mathematics only

English only

Social Studies only

More than one

Science only

 White 

 Black

 Hispanic 

 Asian/Pacific Islander

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from White graduates.

NOTE: For definitions of

curriculum levels, see table 1.

Details may not sum to total

because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics,

High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009.

36 RACE/ETHNICITY
completing a below standard 

curriculum lacked only the science 

requirement needed to attain a 

standard curriculum and 27 percent 

completing a standard curriculum 

lacked only the science courses needed 

to attain a midlevel curriculum.

Many graduates were missing 

multiple requirements to attain 

either a standard or a midlevel 

curriculum. Among graduates 

completing a below standard 

curriculum, between 19 percent 

and 27 percent lacked more 

than one requirement to attain 

a standard curriculum. Among 

those completing a standard but 

not a midlevel curriculum, between 

8 and 35 percent lacked multiple 

requirements needed to achieve 

a midlevel curriculum.

FIGURE 28. Percentage of graduates who attained a standard curriculum 

but did not attain a midlevel curriculum, by missing requirement 

and race/ethnicity: 2009

39*

33

27

46*

11*

19

56*

19

15

19

10*

12*

35

29

8*

23*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Missing Requirement

Percent

Science only

Mathematics only

Foreign Languages only

More than one

 White 

 Black

 Hispanic 

 Asian/Pacific Islander

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from White graduates.

NOTE: For definitions of

curriculum levels, see table 1.

Details may not sum to total

because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education

Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, High School

Transcript Study (HSTS), 2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 37
About two-thirds of White graduates 

and about three-quarters of Black 

and Hispanic graduates who had 

completed a midlevel curriculum 

needed to meet additional requirements in two or three subject areas 

to attain a rigorous curriculum 

(figure 29). However, among Asian/

Pacific Islander graduates who had 

completed a midlevel curriculum, 

more than half (55 percent) needed 

only one additional requirement to 

reach a rigorous curriculum.

FIGURE 29. Percentage of graduates who attained a midlevel curriculum but 

did not attain a rigorous curriculum, by missing requirement and 

race/ethnicity: 2009

7

9

14

8

8*

12

24

9*

39*

35

33

39*

38*

29

12*

35*

7*

14

16

9*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Missing Requirement

Percent

Mathematics only

Foreign Languages only

Two

All Three

Science only

 White 

 Black

 Hispanic 

 Asian/Pacific Islander

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from White graduates.

NOTE: For definitions of

curriculum levels, see table 1.

Details may not sum to total

because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education

Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, High School

Transcript Study (HSTS), 2009.

38 RACE/ETHNICITY
White and Asian/Pacific Islander Graduates 

Earn Higher GPAs

Although the average GPA has 

increased for all racial/ethnic groups 

from 1990 to 2009, for Black and 

Hispanic graduates there was no 

significant change from 2005 to 

2009 (figure 30). The average GPAs 

of Asian/Pacific Islander and White 

graduates increased from 2005 

to 2009. 

FIGURE 30. Trend in average GPAs, by race/ethnicity: 1990–2009

’00 ’05

High School Graduation Year

Grade Point Average

’90 ’94 ’98

0

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

4.0

’09

//

//

2.42*

2.61*

2.73*

2.88*

2.47*

2.71*

2.84*

3.00*

2.61*

2.75

2.96*

3.04*

2.63*

2.80

3.01*

3.20

2.69

2.82

3.05*

3.16*

2.69

2.84

3.09

3.26

 White 

 Black

 Hispanic 

 Asian/Pacific Islander

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

various years, 1990–2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 39
In All Racial/Ethnic Groups, Graduates Completing 

a Rigorous Curriculum Earn the Highest NAEP Scores

Average NAEP mathematics scores 

for racial/ethnic groups at each 

curriculum level were generally 

unchanged from 2005 to 2009 

(figure 31). However, for Hispanic 

graduates completing a below 

standard curriculum or a standard 

curriculum, scores increased by 8 

points and 12 points, respectively. 

For Asian/Pacific Islander graduates 

completing a midlevel curriculum, 

scores increased by 15 points.

White-Black and White-Hispanic 

gaps in NAEP mathematics scores 

continued from 2005 to 2009. In 

2009, the magnitude of the WhiteHispanic gap for graduates who 

FIGURE 31. Average NAEP mathematics scores, by curriculum level 

and race/ethnicity: 2005 and 2009

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

WHITE

Curriculum Level

Average NAEP Mathematics Score

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

146

148

147

149

163

164

190

191

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Average NAEP Mathematics Score

BLACK

Curriculum Level

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

119

124

118

121

134

138

168

167

 2005 

 2009

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript

Study (HSTS), 2005 and 2009;

National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP),

2005 and 2009 Mathematics

Assessments.

40 RACE/ETHNICITY
completed a standard curriculum 

decreased by 10 points (figure 31). 

In 2005, there were no statistically 

significant differences between the 

measureable White and Asian/

Pacific Islander average NAEP 

mathematics scores. However, in 

2009 there were White-Asian/

Pacific Islander gaps within each 

curriculum level. In 2009, across 

racial/ethnic groups, graduates 

completing a rigorous curriculum 

earned the highest average NAEP 

scores (figure 32). For example, 

Hispanic graduates completing a 

rigorous curriculum had an average 

NAEP mathematics score 27 points 

higher than Hispanic graduates 

completing a midlevel curriculum. 

The difference in the science scores 

of Hispanic graduates who completed 

a rigorous curriculum versus a 

midlevel curriculum was 19 points.

Graduates of all racial/ethnic groups 

completing a rigorous curriculum 

FIGURE 31. Average NAEP mathematics scores, by curriculum level 

and race/ethnicity: 2005 and 2009 (continued)

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Average NAEP Mathematics Score

HISPANIC

Curriculum Level

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

122*

130

123*

135

143

146

173

172

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Average NAEP Mathematics Score

ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER

Curriculum Level

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

149

161

‡

176

159*

174

193

198

 2005 

 2009

‡	Reporting standard not met.

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript

Study (HSTS), 2005 and 2009;

National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP),

2005 and 2009 Mathematics

Assessments.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 41
earned average NAEP mathematics 

and science scores at the Basic or 

Proficient achievement levels. Asian/ 

Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and White 

graduates completing a midlevel 

curriculum earned average 

mathematics and science scores 

at the Basic level. Asian/Pacific 

Islander and White graduates 

reached the Basic level regardless of 

curriculum level completed.

FIGURE 32. Average NAEP mathematics and science scores, by curriculum 

level and race/ethnicity: 2009

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Curriculum Level

Average NAEP Mathematics Score

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

124*

148

161*

130*

121*

149

176*

135*

138*

164

174*

146*

167*

191

198*

172*

Basic Proficient Advanced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Curriculum Level

Average NAEP Science Score

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

120*

148

148

128*

119*

150

‡

133*

131*

160

168

145*

159*

186

186

164*

 White 

 Black

 Hispanic 

 Asian/Pacific Islander

‡	Reporting standard not met.

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from White graduates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript

Study (HSTS), 2009; National

Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), 2009

Mathematics and Science

Assessments.

42 RACE/ETHNICITY
A CLOSER LOOK

This section presents information about how graduates 

may be earning more credits; science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) coursetaking by 

2009 high school graduates; and credits earned, GPAs, 

and curriculum levels of students with disabilities (SD) 

and English language learners (ELL). 
A Closer Look at How Graduates Find Time 

to Earn More Credits

Credits earned by graduating seniors 

have risen from 23.6 credits in 1990 

to 27.2 credits in 2009 (see figure 

1).The number of days in the school 

term and the length of the school 

day, however, have remained stable 

during this same period (Council of 

Chief State School Officers 1990, 

2009). Educators may wonder where 

students are finding the time to earn 

the higher number of credits. 

Potential explanations that can be 

explored using HSTS data include 

earning additional credits during 

the summer, receiving high school 

credit for classes taken in middle 

school, and taking online courses.

One in five graduates attended 

summer school

Twenty-one percent of 2009 graduates were enrolled in summer school 

at some point during high school 

(table 6). A greater percentage of 

graduates who did not attain a 

standard curriculum (30 percent) took 

summer school classes, compared to 

graduates who completed a standard 

TABLE 6. Percentage of graduates taking summer school, by selected 

student characteristics: 2009

Student characteristics Percent

All graduates 21

Student gender

 Male 22

 Female 21*

Student race/ethnicity

 White 14 

 Black 26*

 Hispanic 39*

 Asian/Pacific Islander 36*

Curriculum level

 Below standard 30

 Standard 18*

 Midlevel 19*

 Rigorous 16*

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from base groups (Male,

White, Below Standard).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009.

44 A CLOSER LOOK
(18 percent), midlevel (19 percent), 

or rigorous curriculum (16 percent). 

Students who fail courses may be 

using summer school to make up 

credits rather than to earn additional 

credits. However, 19 percent of 

graduates completing a midlevel 

curriculum and 16 percent of 

graduates completing a rigorous 

curriculum also took summer school 

classes during high school.

High school graduates who took 

summer school classes earned fewer 

credits (26.2 credits) and a lower 

overall grade point average (2.82) 

than their peers who did not take 

summer school classes (27.4 credits 

and a 3.05 grade point average). 

These differences were evident across 

the four major racial/ethnic groups 

and all curriculum level subgroups 

(data not shown). Students who 

took summer school classes also 

earned lower NAEP mathematics 

and science scores (figure 33) than 

graduates who did not take summer 

school classes. Graduates who took 

summer classes in mathematics or 

science scored lower on the NAEP 

twelfth-grade mathematics and 

science assessments than graduates 

who did not take summer classes 

in these subjects (figure 34). 

FIGURE 33. Average NAEP twelfth-grade mathematics and science 

scores of graduates, by summer school status: 2009

149

148

158*

154*

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Status

Average NAEP Score

Summer School

No Summer School

Mathematics 

Science

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from graduates who took a

summer school class.

FIGURE 34. Average NAEP twelfth-grade mathematics and science 

scores of graduates, by whether graduates took a mathematics 

or science summer school class: 2009

140

137

157*

153*

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Class

Average NAEP Score

Mathematics/Science

Summer Class

No Mathematics/

Science Summer Class

Mathematics 

Science

*	Significantly different (p<.05) from

graduates who took a mathematics/

science summer school class.

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

National Center for Education

Statistics, High School Transcript

Study (HSTS), 2009: National

Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 2009 Mathematics and

Science Assessments.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 45
Some graduates earn high 

school credits in middle school

Another way to increase credits is to 

receive credits for courses taken before 

high school. Middle school courses 

that might receive high school credit 

include algebra I, geometry, Spanish 

I, and biology. Middle school courses 

taken for high school credit are not 

consistently identified on high 

school transcripts, so it can be 

challenging to identify them.

Algebra I, a common high school 

class in the past, is increasingly being 

taken in middle school. Described 

as the “gateway” mathematics course 

for high school students (Loveless 

2008), school systems differ on 

whether students should be taking it 

in middle or high school. Table 7 

shows the academic profiles of high 

school graduates who took algebra I 

before high school in 2005 

and 2009.

TABLE 7. Academic profiles of graduates who took first-year algebra 

before high school: 2005 and 2009

2005 2009

20* percent of all graduates 26 percent of all graduates

20* percent of male graduates

20* percent of female graduates

25 percent of male graduates

27 percent of female graduates

23* percent of White graduates

8* percent of Black graduates

10* percent of Hispanic graduates

30* percent of Asian/Pacific Islander 

graduates

29 percent of White graduates

12 percent of Black graduates

17 percent of Hispanic graduates

48 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander 

graduates

11* percent of below standard 

curriculum graduates

14 percent of standard curriculum 

graduates

20* percent of midlevel curriculum 

graduates

56* percent of rigorous curriculum 

graduates

14 percent of below standard 

curriculum graduates

14 percent of standard curriculum 

graduates

26 percent of midlevel curriculum 

graduates

64 percent of rigorous curriculum 

graduates

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, NAEP

High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2005 and 2009.

46 A CLOSER LOOK
From 2005 to 2009, there was an 

increase in the percentage of high 

school graduates who took algebra I 

before entering high school. In 

2005, approximately one in five 

graduates took algebra I before high 

school; by 2009, it was about one in 

four graduates. The increase can be 

seen among both male and female 

graduates, as well as across all four 

major racial/ethnic groups. 

There was no significant difference 

between males and females in 2005 

in the percentage who took algebra 

I before high school. In 2009, 

however, a higher percentage of 

females than males took first-year 

algebra before high school (27 

percent versus 25 percent).

Approximately 48 percent of 2009 

Asian/Pacific Islander high school 

graduates took algebra I before high 

school, more than any other major 

racial/ethnic group. A greater 

percentage of White graduates (29 

percent) took algebra I before high 

school than either Black (12 

percent) or Hispanic (17 percent) 

graduates. However, the WhiteBlack and White-Hispanic gaps in 

algebra I coursetaking before high 

school did not significantly change 

from 2005 to 2009.

Nearly two-thirds of graduates who 

attained a rigorous curriculum in 

2009 took first-year algebra before 

high school, an 8 percentage point 

increase over 2005. Graduates 

completing a midlevel curriculum 

also showed an increase, from 20 

percent in 2005 to 26 percent in 2009.

Some graduates earn credits 

through online courses

There are growing trends among 

schools offering and students taking 

online courses. As of 2005, around 57 

percent of public secondary schools 

“provided access to students for online 

learning” (Wells and Lewis 2006). 

Online courses serve two major 

purposes. First, they can help 

students graduate high school by 

offering credit recovery for courses 

they failed during the school year 

(Trotter 2008). Second, online courses 

can provide coursework that was not 

otherwise available to students, like 

Advanced Placement courses, 

foreign language courses, or other 

courses that schools with limited 

resources could not readily provide.

Transcripts indicate that approximately 5 percent of high school 

graduates in 2009 took an online 

course. However, this percentage is 

lower than the percentage of high 

school students who report taking 

online courses in the NAEP 2009 

twelfth-grade assessments. Approximately 12 percent of students from 

the NAEP 2009 twelfth-grade 

reading assessment reported taking 

an online English / language arts 

course. Around 7 percent of students who participated in the 

twelfth-grade science assessment 

reported taking an online science 

course, and around 6 percent of 

students taking the twelfth-grade 

mathematics assessment reported 

taking an online mathematics course. 

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 47
FIGURE 35. Average NAEP twelfth-grade mathematics and science 

assessment scores of graduates, by online mathematics 

or science course: 2009

141

156*

147

152

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Course 

Average NAEP Score

Online Mathematics

Online Science

Took course 

Did not take course

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from graduates who took online

mathematics or science courses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education

Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, NAEP

High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009; National

Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), 2009

Mathematics and Science

Assessments.

Although many HSTS sampled 

schools’ catalogs offered online 

courses, fewer schools actually 

identified what courses were taken 

online on their student transcripts.

Figure 35 displays the NAEP 

mathematics and science assess­ment scores earned by high school 

graduates based on whether they 

took an online mathematics or science 

course according to their transcripts.

High school graduates who took 

online mathematics courses did not 

perform as well on the NAEP 2009 

twelfth-grade mathematics assessment as those graduates who did 

not take online mathematics 

courses. Graduates who took online 

mathematics courses had an average 

score of 141, or 15points lower than 

the 156 average score earned by 

graduates who did not take online 

mathematics courses. 

Those high school graduates who 

took an online science course 

earned an average score of 147 on 

the NAEP twelfth-grade science 

assessment, compared to the 152 

average score of graduates who did 

not take an online science course. 

Despite the apparent difference in 

scores, there was no statistically 

significant difference in the science 

assessment performance between 

the two student groups.

48 A CLOSER LOOK
A Closer Look at STEM: Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics 

To compete globally and keep up with 

expanding scientific and technical 

expertise, educators and policymakers 

have called for increasing emphasis 

on science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics (STEM) coursetaking in our schools (President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology 2010). 

The percentage of high school 

graduates who earned credits in 

advanced mathematics courses 

was greater in 2009 than in 2005, 

continuing the upward trend from 

1990 (table 8). Seventy-six percent 

of graduates took algebra II in 2009 

compared to 53 percent in 1990. 

The percentage of graduates who 

TABLE 8. Percentage of graduates earning credits in STEM courses, 

selected years: 1990–2009

Year of graduation

1990 2000 2005 2009

STEM course Percent

Advanced mathematics 57* 74* 78* 84

 Algebra II 53* 67* 70* 76

 Other advanced mathematics 16* 20* 24* 30

 Pre-calculus/analysis 14* 27* 30* 35

 Calculus 7* 13* 14* 17

Advanced science and engineering 61* 76* 77* 86

 Advanced biology 28* 40* 40* 45

 Chemistry 45* 57* 56* 70

 Advanced environmental/earth science 5* 5* 6* 11

 Physics 24* 34* 36* 39

 Engineering #* 1* 1* 3

STEM-related technical 29 37* 32 31

 Engineering/science technologies 2* 6 7 6

 Health science/technology 3* 10 9 9

 Computer science 25* 25* 20 19

# Rounds to zero.

* Significantly different (p<.05)

from 2009.

NOTE: “Other advanced

mathematics”includes primarily

trigonometry and statistics/

probability courses. “Advanced

biology” courses include AP/IB

biology, physiology, anatomy,

and genetics. “Advanced environmental and earth sciences”

courses include AP/IB environmental science, college

preparatory earth science,

and various geology courses.

“Engineering/science

technologies”courses focus on

instrumentation, equipment

maintenance, and other

technical tasks conducted

in engineering and sciencerelated occupations.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study (HSTS),

various years, 1990–2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 49
took pre-calculus/analysis in 2009 

was 35 percent compared to 14 

percent in 1990. Seventeen percent 

of graduates took calculus in 2009 

compared to 7 percent in 1990. The 

percentage of graduates who earned 

credits in advanced science and 

engineering courses was also higher 

in 2009 than in 1990, with significant increases in each subject from 

2005 to 2009.

The percentage of graduates who 

earned credits in the engineering/

science technologies and health 

science/technology courses was larger 

in 2009 than in 1990 but has not 

significantly changed since 2000. 

For the same time period, there was 

a decrease in the percentage of 

graduates who earned credits 

in computer science.

Differences in STEM credits 

for males and females

In 2009, differences between the 

percentage of male and female 

graduates earning credits in advanced 

science and engineering courses varied 

across the specific subject areas. As 

shown in figure 36, a larger percentage 

of males than females earned credits 

in physics (41 percent compared to 

36 percent) and engineering (6 

percent compared to 1 percent). 

However, more females than males 

earned credits in chemistry (72 

percent compared to 67 percent) 

and advanced biology (50 percent 

compared to 39 percent).

FIGURE 36. Percentage of graduates who earned credits in STEM advanced 

science and engineering courses, by gender: 2009

67

72*

41

36*

39

50*

11

11

6

1*

0 20 40 60 80 100

STEM Course

Percent

Chemistry

Physics

Adv. Environmental/

Earth Science

Engineering

Advanced Biology

 Male 

 Female

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from males.

NOTE: “Advanced biology”

courses include AP/IB biology,

physiology, anatomy, and

genetics. “Advanced environmental/earth science” courses

include AP/IB environmental

science, college preparatory

earth science, and various

geology courses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education

Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, High School

Transcript Study (HSTS), 2009.

50 A CLOSER LOOK
As shown in figure 37, a larger 

percentage of males than females 

earned credits in the engineering/

science technologies (10 percent 

compared to 2 percent) and in computer science (24 percent compared 

to 14 percent). In health science/

technology, however, more females 

than males earned credits (13 

percent compared to 6 percent). 

In advanced mathematics, as shown 

in figure 38, a greater percentage of 

females than males took algebra II 

(78 percent compared to 73 percent) 

and pre-calculus (37 percent compared 

to 34 percent). However, there were 

no measurable differences in the 

percentages of male and female 

graduates who took calculus or 

other advanced mathematics.

FIGURE 37. Percentage of graduates who earned credits in STEM-related

technical courses, by gender: 2009

10

2*

6

13*

24

14*

0 20 40 60 80 100

STEM Course

Percent

Engineering/Science

Technologies

Health Science/

Technology

Computer Science

 Male 

Female

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from males.

NOTE: “Engineering/science

technologies” courses focus on

instrumentation, equipment

maintenance, and other

technical tasks conducted in

engineering and sciencerelated occupations.

FIGURE 38. Percentage of graduates who earned credits in STEM advanced 

mathematics courses, by gender: 2009

73

78*

29

30

34

37*

17

17

0 20 40 60 80 100

STEM Course

Percent

Algebra II

Other Advanced

Mathematics

Pre-calculus/

Analysis

Calculus

 Male 

Female

*	Significantly different (p<.05)

from males.

NOTE: “Other advanced

mathematics”includes primarily

trigonometry and statistics/

probability courses. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 51
A Closer Look at Students with Disabilities 

and English Language Learners 

This section presents information on 

credits earned, GPAs, and curriculum 

levels of students with disabilities 

and English language learners who 

received a standard or honors diploma.

Students with disabilities 

In the HSTS, students with disabilities 

(SD) are defined as (1) students with 

an Individualized Education Program 

(IEP) for reasons other than being 

gifted and talented, or (2) students 

with 504 plans. Students with 

disabilities represented 8 percent of 

all graduates in 2009. Compared with 

students without disabilities, students 

with disabilities earned fewer credits 

overall (26.8 credits versus 27.2 

credits), fewer credits in core academic 

courses (15.0 credits versus 16.0 

credits), and fewer credits in other 

academic courses (3.7 credits versus 

5.4 credits) (table 9). In other courses, 

students with disabilities earned 

more credits than students without 

disabilities (8.0 credits compared to 

5.8 credits). Additionally, students 

with disabilities earned lower GPAs 

than students without disabilities 

(2.65 compared to 3.03).

TABLE 9. Average credits earned and average GPAs, by student disability 

status and course type: 2009

Students with disabilities Students without disabilities

Course type Credits GPA Credits GPA

 Overall 26.8* 2.65* 27.2 3.03

 Core academic 15.0* 2.43* 16.0 2.82

 Other academic 3.7* 2.74* 5.4 3.18

 Other 8.0* 3.02* 5.8 3.43

*	Significantly different

(p<.05) from students

without disabilities.

NOTE: Core academic courses

are English, mathematics,

science, and social studies.

Other academic courses are

fine arts, foreign languages,

and computer-related studies.

Other courses include courses

such as vocational education,

personal health, and physical

education. Details may not sum

to total because of rounding.

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

Study (HSTS), 2009.

As shown in figure 39, over half of 

students with disabilities completed 

at least a standard curriculum level in 

2009, with nearly a quarter completing 

at least a midlevel curriculum level. 

However, 45 percent of students with 

disabilities completed a below 

standard curriculum. About threequarters of students without 

disabilities completed at least a 

standard curriculum level, with 

more than half completing at least 

a midlevel curriculum level. 

52 A CLOSER LOOK
FIGURE 39. Percentage of graduates completing each curriculum level, 

by student disability status: 2009

45*

24

30*

14

21*

48

3*

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

Curriculum Level

Percent

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

 Students with disabilities 

Students without disabilities

*	Significantly different

(p<.05) from students

without disabilities.

NOTE: Details may not sum

to total because of rounding.

Of the 45 percent of students with 

disabilities who did not complete 

at least a standard curriculum, 45 

percent lacked only the science 

requirements needed to attain a 

standard curriculum compared 

with 38 percent of students without 

disabilities (figure 40). Ten percent 

of students with disabilities lacked 

only the English requirement 

needed to attain a standard curriculum compared with 25 percent of 

students without disabilities. Over 

a third of students with disabilities 

(37 percent) were missing more 

than one requirement for a standard 

curriculum compared to 23 percent 

for students without disabilities.

FIGURE 40. Percentage of graduates who did not attain a standard curriculum, 

by missing requirement and student disability status: 2009

5*

8

10*

25

45*

38

3*

5

37*

23

0 20 40 60 80 100

Missing Requirement

Percent

Mathematics only

English only

Social Studies only

More than one

Science only

 Students with disabilities 

Students without disabilities

*	Significantly different

(p<.05) from students

without disabilities.

NOTE: For definitions of 

curriculum levels, see table 1.

Details may not sum to total

because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, High

School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 53
English Language Learners

English language learners (ELL) 

represented 2 percent of all graduates 

in 2009. ELL graduates earned 

fewer credits overall, fewer credits 

in core academic courses, and lower 

GPAs than non-ELL graduates 

(table 10). In other academic courses, 

such as fine arts, foreign languages, 

and computer-related studies, ELL 

graduates earned more credits 

compared to non-ELL graduates.

TABLE 10. Average credits earned and GPAs, English language learner 

status and course type: 2009

English language learners Non-English language learners

Course type Credits GPA Credits GPA

 Overall 26.3* 2.75* 27.2 3.00

 Core academic 14.4* 2.52* 16.0 2.79

 Other academic 6.1* 2.91* 5.2 3.15

 Other 5.8 3.10* 6.0 3.40

*	Significantly different

(p<.05) from non-English

language learners.

NOTE: Core academic courses

are English,mathematics,

science, and social studies.

Other academic courses are

fine arts, foreign languages,

and computer-related studies.

Other courses include courses

such as vocational education,

personal health, and physical

education. Details may not

sum to total because of

rounding.

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

Study (HSTS), 2009.

Sixty-three percent of ELL graduates 

completed a below standard curriculum compared to one-quarter of 

non-ELL graduates (figure 41). To 

meet the requirements of a standard 

level curriculum as defined in HSTS, 

a graduate must earn four credits in 

English. ELL graduates earned, on 

average, 3.8 credits in English and 

2.0 credits in English as a Second 

Language (ESL) (data not shown). 

As defined in the HSTS, ESL 

courses are counted as foreign 

language courses and not English. 

ELL and non-ELL graduates 

who completed a below standard 

curriculum level differed in the 

requirements they lacked to attain a 

standard curriculum level. Nearly a 

third of ELL graduates (32 percent) 

were missing only the required 

number of English credits to reach 

a standard curriculum (figure 42). 

Another 29 percent of ELL graduates 

lacked only the science requirements 

necessary to reach a standard 

curriculum. Among non-ELL 

graduates, 40 percent lacked only 

54 A CLOSER LOOK
the science requirements needed to 

reach a standard curriculum level, and 

22 percent lacked only the English 

requirement. Over a third of ELL 

graduates (35 percent) were missing 

more than one requirement for a 

standard curriculum compared with 

25 percent of non-ELL graduates.

FIGURE 41. Percentage of graduates completing each curriculum level, 

by English language learner status: 2009

63*

25

12

16

21*

47

4*

13

0 20 40 60 80 100

Curriculum Level

Percent

Below Standard

Standard

Midlevel

Rigorous

FIGURE 42. Percentage of graduates who did not attain a standard 

curriculum, by missing requirement and English language 

learner status: 2009

4*

8

32*

22

29*

40

‡

5

35*

25

0 20 40 60 80 100

Missing Requirement

Percent

Mathematics only

English only

Social Studies only

More than one

Science only

 English language learners

Non-English language 

learners

‡	Reporting standard not met.

*	Significantly different

(p<.05) from non-English

language learners.

NOTE: For definitions of 

curriculum levels, see table 1.

Details may not sum to total

because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics,

High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 2009.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 55
Technical Notes

Sampling and weighting

The sample design for the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) 2009 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) was 

designed to achieve a nationally representative sample of public 

and private high school graduates from the “Class of 2009.” For 

public schools, the HSTS sample was a subset of the NAEP 2009 

twelfth-grade public school sample for the 2009 NAEP mathematics 

and science assessments. The HSTS sample eliminated the NAEP 

oversample of public school students. There was no oversample 

of the private school students.

For NAEP-participating schools, only schools that assessed stu‐

dents in the main NAEP study mathematics or science tests were 

eligible for HSTS. Not all students in the HSTS sample participated 

in the NAEP assessment due to absence or exclusion though they 

still participated in HSTS. Over 80 percent of the participating HSTS 

students also participated in NAEP. Not all of the students selected 

for the HSTS sample participated in HSTS. Students were excluded 

if they did not graduate in 2009 or if the school did not provide a 

complete eligible transcript of the graduate. More information on 

sampling can be found at http://nationsreportcard.gov/hsts_2009.

All estimates were weighted using sampling weights to provide 

unbiased estimates of the national population. Two types of HSTS 

weights, NAEP-linked weights and HSTS sample weights were used 

in the analysis of these data. NAEP-linked weights were designed 

for analyses involving NAEP assessment scores or NAEP-based data 

such as student questionnaire data. These analyses only included 

transcripts from graduates who participated in a mathematics or 

science assessment. HSTS sample weights were designed for all 

aggregations that did not rely on NAEP-based data, and they 

encompassed all of the transcripts in the study.

School and student participation rates

To ensure unbiased samples, the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) established participation rate standards for 

national studies that must be met in order for the results to be 

reported without a nonresponse bias analysis. Participation rates 

for the original sample needed to be at least 85 percent for schools 

and graduates. The NAEP HSTS study exceeded this requirement. 

The weighted graduate within-school response rate was about 

99.3 percent while the school response rate was 94.8 percent. 

However, the private school response rate was 81.2 percent. 

Therefore, a nonresponse bias analysis was conducted on private 

schools to determine whether the school characteristics from 

nonresponding schools showed significant differences from the 

responding schools. The analysis of private schools included school 

type (i.e., Catholic, conservative Christian, Lutheran, nonreligious 

private, other private). Among private schools, significant differences 

were found in school type. Nonresponse weighting adjustments 

were used to correct for these differences. Although the differences 

found between respondents and nonrespondents for private schools 

are small, it is unlikely that nonresponse weighting adjustments 

completely accounted for the differences (Nord et al. 2011).

Target population

The target population for the 2009 national assessments included 

all students in public and private schools in the United States who 

were enrolled in twelfth-grade in 2008–09. The source of informa‐

tion in this report is the 2009 NAEP High School Transcript Study 

(HSTS) which collected a nationally representative sample of 

around 38,000 transcripts (from over 41,000 students in the 

sample), representing approximately 3 million of the 2009 high 

school graduates. 

Analytical sample

To be consistent with previously published analyses of the NAEP 

HSTS data, all of the analyses presented in this report only included 

graduates with regular or honors diplomas. Graduates who received 

a special education diploma or certificate of completion (or attendance) 

were not included in this report. Students who did not graduate or 

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

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

were established to ensure that the transcripts were complete and 

valid. The analyses were also restricted to those high school 

graduates with 16 or more earned Carnegie credits and a nonzero 

number of English Carnegie credits. All of the inclusion/exclusion 

criteria for analyses are consistent with previous reports. Some of 

the analyses in the report focused on NAEP and high school 

achievement. These analyses were conducted on subsets of the 

sample. They were limited to eligible graduates of HSTS who had 

also participated in the NAEP assessments (approximately 30,000 

of the graduates in the HSTS sample). Curriculum-level analyses 

and analyses of the highest mathematics and science courses 

taken in the freshman year were limited to graduates with 

transcript data in all 4 years.

56 TECHNICAL NOTES
Variance estimation

Graduate estimates based on HSTS were subject to sampling error 

because they were derived from a sample, rather than from the whole 

population. Sampling error was measured by the sampling variance, 

which indicates how much the population estimate for a given 

statistic was likely to change if it had been based on another 

equivalent sample of individuals drawn in exactly the same manner 

as the actual sample. Since HSTS uses a complex sample design with 

two-stage sampling and unequal selection probabilities along with 

complex weighting procedures, standard textbook formulas could not 

be used for estimating variances. Instead, variances were estimated 

using jackknife replication methods (Krewski and Rao 1981). This 

estimation involved constructing a number of subsamples (replicates) 

from the full sample and computing the statistic of interest for 

each replicate. Measuring the variability among the replicates 

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

Interpreting statistical significance

In conducting the statistical significance tests used in this report, 

no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. Comparisons 

over time or between groups are based on statistical tests that 

consider both the estimated size of the difference and the standard 

error of that estimated difference. When a difference, such as the 

difference between the average scores of two groups, has a large 

standard error, a numerical difference that seems large may not be 

statistically significant (i.e., a null hypothesis of no difference cannot 

be rejected with sufficient confidence). Differences of the same 

estimated size may be statistically significant in some cases but 

not others, depending on the sizes of the standard errors involved.

In the tables and charts of this report, the symbol (*) is used to 

indicate that a score or percentage in a previous assessment year is 

significantly different from the comparable measure in 2009 or to 

indicate that within the current year differences between groups (such 

as scores of White and Black graduates) are significantly different. 

Any differences between scores or percentages discussed in this 

report are statistically significant at the .05 level.

Nonsampling error

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

nonsampling errors as well as sampling errors. Nonsampling errors 

include, for example, errors due to electronic transcript transmission, 

incorrect completion of the School Information Form, and human 

error during catalog and transcript coding. Quality control procedures 

and processes are conducted during data collection and coding to 

minimize nonsampling error.

AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2009 57
References

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (1990). State 

Education Indicators 1990 for the School Year 1989–1990; Prepared 

by Cadelle Hemphill, Council of Chief State School Officers 1990 

Policies and Practices Survey. Washington, DC: CCSSO.

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2009). Key State 

Education Policies on PK-12 Education: 2008; Prepared by Lauren 

Stillman and Rolf K. Blank. Washington, DC: CCSSO.

Horn, L., and Kojaku, L. (2001). High School Academic Curriculum 

and the Persistence Path Through College (NCES 2001-163). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

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

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

First-Generation Students’ Math Track, Planning Strategies, and 

Context of Support (NCES 2000–153). U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office.

Krewski, D., and Rao, J. (1981). Inference From Stratified Samples: 

Properties of Linearization, Jackknife and Balanced Repeated 

Replication. Annals of Statistics, 9, 1010-1019.

Loveless, T. (2008). The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in EighthGrade Algebra. Special Release, the 2008 Brown Center Report 

on American Education. Brown Center on Education Policy, 

The Brookings Institute. Washington, DC.

Nord, C., Hicks, L., Hoover, K., Jones, M., Lin, A., Lyons, M., Perkins, R., 

Roey, S., Rust, K., and Sickles, D. (forthcoming). The 2009 High School 

Transcript Study Technical Report. U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). 

Prepare and Inspire: K–12 Education in Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future. Executive Office 

of the President. Washington, DC: Author.

Trotter, A. (2008, October 20). Credit Recovery. Education Week, p.33.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics. (2006). The Condition of Education 2006 (NCES 2006071). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 

National Center for Education Statistics, High School and Beyond

(HS&B), 1982, High School Transcript Study (HSTS), various years; 

National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), 1992.

Wells, J., and Lewis, L. (2006). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and 

Classrooms: 1994–2005 (NCES 2007-020). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

58 REFERENCES
photo credits

© Comstock/Getty Images/Comstock Images 78489216; © Comstock/Getty Images/Comstock Images 78489216; © Andresr/shutterstock® images 21373198; © Laurence Gough/

shutterstock® images 45693649; © Huntstock.com/shutterstock® images 35709502; © qingqing/shutterstock® images 46626520; © Andresr/shutterstock® images 5122804; 

© Christopher Futcher/shutterstock® images 48010204; © Shenie/shutterstock® images 5252116; © Hasan Shaheed/shutterstock® images 42138193; © PhotoAlto Photography/Veer.com 

PHP3040130; © Creatas Images/Thinkstockphotos.com 76763039; © Andresr/shutterstock®images 47606569; © Laurence Gough/shutterstock® images 41336749; © Dean Mitchell/

shutterstock® images 57315238; © Brand X Photos/Thinkstockphotos.com 78321364; © Creatas Images/Thinkstockphotos.com 76763248; © Brand X Photos/Thinkstockphotos.com 

86520598; © Photodisc/Thinkstockphotos.com 200309964-001; © Laurence Gough/shutterstock® images 3331744; © Lifesize/Thinkstockphotos.com 83119234; © Yuri Arcurs/

shutterstock® images 7587328; © Comstock/Thinkstockphotos.com 86516075; © Laurence Gough/shutterstock® images 1458377; © Huntstock.com/shutterstock® images 35709496; 

© Hill Street Studios/Blend Images/Corbis corbis® images 42-25460204; © Creatas Images/Thinkstockphotos.com 76763050; © Monkey Business Images/shutterstock® images 15566440; 

© Hemera Technologies/Getty Images/Thinkstockphotos.com 87727786; © Photodisc/Thinkstockphotos.com 200309793-001; © Brand X Pictures/Thinkstockphotos.com 86520583; 

© Dean Mitchell/shutterstock® images 23739910; © Yuri Arcurs /shutterstock®images 7587328
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The National Assessment of Educational Progress is a congressionally 

mandated project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. The 

National Center for Education Statistics, a department within the Institute 

of Education Sciences, administers NAEP. The Commissioner of Education 

Statistics is responsible by law for carrying out the NAEP project.

Arne Duncan

Secretary

U.S. Department 

of Education

John Q. Easton

Director

Institute of 

Education Sciences

Jack Buckley

Commissioner

National Center for 

Education Statistics

This report was prepared in part under Contract No. ED-07-CO-0079 with 

Westat. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

SUGGESTED CITATION

Nord, C., Roey, S., Perkins, R., Lyons, M., Lemanski, N., Brown, J., 

and Schuknecht, J. (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: America’s 

High School Graduates (NCES 2011-462). U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

CONTENT CONTACT

Janis Brown, 202-502-7482, Janis.Brown@ed.gov

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 Card.TM 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

Mary Frances Taymans, Vice Chair

Sisters of Notre Dame

National Educational Office

Bethesda, Maryland

David J. Alukonis

Former Chairman

Hudson School Board

Hudson, New Hampshire

Louis M. Fabrizio

Director, Accountability Policy and Communications

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Raleigh, North Carolina

Honorable Anitere Flores

Senator

Florida State Senate

Miami, Florida

Alan J. Friedman

Consultant

Museum Development and Science Communication

New York, New York

Shannon Garrison

Fourth-Grade Teacher

Solano Avenue Elementary School

Los Angeles, California

David W. Gordon

County Superintendent of Schools

Sacramento County Office of Education

Sacramento, California

Doris R. Hicks

Principal and Chief Executive Officer

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter 

 School for Science and Technology

New Orleans, Louisiana

Brent Houston

Principal

Shawnee Middle School

Shawnee, Oklahoma

Hector Ibarra

Middle School Science Teacher

Belin-Blank International Center 

 and Talent Development

Iowa City, Iowa

Kathi M. King

Twelfth-Grade Teacher

Messalonskee High School

Oakland, Maine

Henry Kranendonk

Mathematics Consultant

Milwaukee Public Schools

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Tom Luna

Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction

Boise, Idaho

Honorable Jack Markell

Governor of Delaware

Wilmington, Delaware

Tonya Miles

General Public Representative

Mitchellville, Maryland

Honorable Steven L. Paine

Former State Superintendent of Schools

West Virginia Department of Education

Charleston, West Virginia

Honorable Sonny Perdue

Former Governor of Georgia

Atlanta, Georgia

Susan Pimentel

Educational Consultant

Hanover, New Hampshire

W. James Popham

Professor Emeritus

Graduate School of Education 

 and Information Studies

University of California, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, California

Andrew C. Porter

Dean

Graduate School of Education

University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Warren T. Smith Sr.

Vice President

Washington State Board of Education

Olympia, Washington

Blair Taylor

President and CEO

Los Angeles Urban League

Los Angeles, California

Honorable Leticia Van de Putte

Senator

Texas State Senate

San Antonio, Texas

Eileen Weiser

General Public Representative

Ann Arbor, Michigan

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.

“Our mission is to ensure 

equal access to education 

and to promote educational 

excellence throughout 

the nation.”

MORE INFORMATION

The report release site is 

http://nationsreportcard.gov.

The NCES web electronic 

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

pubsearch.

For ordering information, write to

ED Pubs

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 22207

Alexandria, VA 22304

or call toll free 

1-877-4ED-Pubs

or order online at 

http://www.EDPubs.org.

29731.0411.8533440940