Science

2009

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT 

ASSESSMENT 

RESULTS AT GRADES 4 AND 8

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2011–452
Photo Credits: 

© Jon Feingersh/Blend Images/Corbis #42-22448731; © Simon Jarratt/Corbis #42-20531123; © STOCK4B/Getty Images #71242305; © LWA/Dann Tardif/Blend Images/Getty Images #71419190; © Arthur Tilley/ 

Creatas/Jupiterimages #76752350; © STOCK4B/Punchstock #90445998; © Media Bakery #IMS0033482; © Chris Scredon/iStockphoto #6512313; © Annabelle Breakey/Photodisc/Getty Images #71419190; 

© Andersen Ross/Blend Images/Getty Images #81861072; © Media Bakery #IMS0078354; © Lew Robertson/Brand X Pictures/Getty Images #78374718; © Media Bakery #BLD0059493; © Media Bakery 

#BLU0001402; © Andreea Manciu/iStockphoto #2453129; © Jon Schulte/iStockphoto #6184858; © Andrea Krause/iStockphoto #7510890; © ooyoo/iStockphoto #5178557; © Frances Twitty/iStockphoto 

# 2151226; © Łukasz Pabian/iStockphoto #10446241; © brandi ediss/Flickr/Getty Images #89246577; © Media Bakery #JUC0003126; © Antenna/Getty Images #93191741; © Media Bakery #DVP0022222; 

© LWA/Dann Tardif/Blend Images/Getty Images #71419193; © Media Bakery #CRB0096445; © Steve Cole/Photodisc/Getty Images #ST001352; © Suzann Julien/iStockphoto#2375032; © Carol Oostman/ 

iStockphoto #5943307; © Inspirestock/Corbis #42-21394230; © Streetfly Stock/Alamy; © Corbis Photography/Veer #CBP1011088; © Joseph Devenney/Photographer’s Choice/Getty Images #97658577; 

© UVimages/amanaimagesRF/Getty Images #96584480; © Thomas Pickard/Flickr/Getty Images #93081094; © TravelPixPro/iStockphoto #398202; © Chris Pritchard/iStockphoto #7911433; © Denis Tangney Jr./ 

iStockphoto #4652878; © Jeremy Edwards/iStockphoto #5489812; © John Keith/iStockphoto #4287557; © Nell Redmond/iStockphoto #3283767; © Henryk Sadura/iStockphoto #9310641; © Jeremy Edwards/ 

iStockphoto #4573110; © Tony Scarfone/Flickr; © John Zellmer/iStockphoto #3522981; © David Liu/iStockphoto #7911433; © David Liu/iStockphoto #396757; © Roberto A Sanchez/iStockphoto #8432707; 

© Henryk Sadura/iStockphoto #4573623; © Diane Diederich/iStockphoto #5411701; © Jill McCorkel/iStockphoto #5699686; © Dan Eckert/iStockphoto #3138591 

 Contents

1 Executive Summary 

4 Introduction 

8 Grade 4 

21 Grade 8 

37 District Profiles
�

72 Technical Notes 

74 Appendix Tables	�

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 periodically in reading, 

mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and other 

subjects. NAEP collects and reports information on student performance at 

the national, 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.

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Executive Summary 

Results from the 2009 NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) make it 

possible to compare the performance of public school students in participating urban 

districts to public school students in the nation and, more specifically, students in 

large cities (i.e., cities with populations of 250,000 or more) across the nation.

Students in most 

participating districts 

score lower than the 

nation in 2009

Science results are based on representative samples of 

fourth- and eighth-grade public school students from the 

17 urban districts that volunteered to participate in the 

2009 assessment. Between 900 and 2,200 students were 

assessed at each grade in each of the participating districts.

At grade 4, the average score in large cities overall and the 

average scores in 14 of the 17 participating districts were 

lower than the average score for the nation. Scores for 

Austin, Charlotte, and Jefferson County were not 

significantly different from the score for the nation.

At grade 8, the average score in large cities overall and the 

average scores in 16 of the 17 districts were lower than the 

average score for the nation. The score for Austin was not 

significantly different from the score for the nation.

Comparison of national and district 

average science scores in 2009

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 

250,000 or more including the participating districts. 

NOTE: The score-point differences appear within each symbol and are based on the 

differences between the unrounded scores for the nation and the district as opposed 

to the rounded scores shown in figures presented in the report. A score-point 

difference preceded by a minus sign (-) indicates that the score for the district was 

numerically lower than the score for the nation.

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

Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.

A New Science Assessment

The NAEP science assessment was updated in 2009 to keep the 

content current with key developments in science, curriculum 

standards, assessments, and research. Because of the recent 

changes to the assessment, the results from 2009 cannot be 

compared to those from previous assessment years; however, 

they provide a current snapshot of what fourth- and eighthgraders in participating urban districts know and can do in 

science that will serve as the basis for comparisons on future 

science assessments.

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2009 1
Four districts score above large cities at 

both grades in 2009 

Among the 17 urban districts that participated in the 2009 science assessment, scores for both fourth- and eighthgraders in 4 districts were higher than the scores for their respective peers attending public schools in large cities 

overall. Scores for both grades in 8 districts were lower than the scores for large cities nationally. 

In comparison to the average scores for large cities in the nation, 

Austin, Charlotte, Jefferson County (Louisville, KY), and Miami-Dade had higher scores at both grades; 

scores in San Diego were higher at grade 4 and not significantly different at grade 8; 

scores in Boston were higher at grade 4 and lower at grade 8; 

scores in Houston were not significantly different at grade 4 and higher at grade 8; 

scores in Atlanta and New York City were not significantly different at grade 4 and lower at grade 8; and 

Baltimore City, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Fresno, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia had lower scores 

at both grades. 

Comparison of district and large city average science scores in 2009 

MD 

MA 

TX 

CA 

WI 

KY 

MI 

NY 

PA 

NC 

GA 

FL 

OH

IL 

Fresno 

Los Angeles 

Austin 

Houston 

Milwaukee 

Chicago 

Detroit 

Cleveland Philadelphia 

New York City 

Boston 

Atlanta 

Charlotte 

Jefferson 

County 

Miami­Dade 

Baltimore City 

San Diego 

2 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
A Closer Look at District Results Compared 

to Large Cities

Differences in overall average scores 

between participating districts and 

large cities were not always consistent across student groups. In 

Boston, for example, the overall 

average science score was lower than 

the score for large cities at grade 8. 

However, the scores for White, 

Black, and Hispanic students in the 

district were not significantly 

different from the score for their 

peers in all large cities.

Among the four districts where 

overall scores were higher than the 

score for large cities at both grades 4 

and 8, Charlotte was the only 

district to have higher scores for 

White, Black, and Hispanic students, and for students eligible 

for school lunch (an indicator of 

lower family income) at grade 4. 

Austin was the only district to have 

higher scores for White, Black, and 

Hispanic students, and for students 

from lower-income families at 

grade 8. 

Among the eight districts where 

average scores at both grades were 

lower than the score for large cities, 

scores were lower for racial/ethnic 

groups with samples large enough 

to report results and for students 

from lower-income families at both 

grades in Baltimore City and 

Philadelphia.

Comparison of district and large city average science scores in 2009

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.

Demographics vary among the nation, large cities, and 

individual urban districts

When comparing the results for urban districts to results for the nation and large cities, it is 

important to consider how the demographics of the jurisdictions are different. Nationally, the 

percentages of White students at both grades 4 and 8 were higher than the combined 

percentages of Black and Hispanic students in 2009, while the opposite was true for large 

cities and for most of the participating urban districts.

Large cities and participating urban districts also differed from the nation in the proportion 

of students eligible for the National School Lunch Program. While the percentages of 

students eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch in the nation were 48 percent at grade 4 

and 43 percent at grade 8, the percentages of eligible students in the districts ranged from 

47 to 100 percent.

More detailed information about the demographic characteristics of fourth- and eighthgraders in the nation, large cities, and participating districts is included in this report.

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2009 3
 

Introduction

A primary goal of the NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) is to measure what 

students in the nation’s large urban school districts know and can do in academic subjects. 

Seventeen urban districts participated in the TUDA in science in 2009. 

The New Science Framework 

The National Assessment Governing Board oversees the 

development of NAEP frameworks that describe the specific 

knowledge and skills that should be assessed in each subject. 

Frameworks incorporate ideas and input from subject-area 

experts, educators, policymakers, parents, and others. The 

NAEP science assessment is a key measure in informing the 

nation on how well the goal of scientific literacy for all students is being met. Thus, the new Science Framework for 

the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress was 

developed to keep the assessment content current with key 

developments in science standards (including the National 

Science Education Standards1 and Benchmarks for Science 

Literacy2

), innovative assessment approaches, and recent 

research in both science and cognition. This 2009 framework 

replaces the framework that was used for earlier NAEP 

science assessments in 1996, 2000, and 2005. Because of 

the recent changes to the assessment content, the results 

from 2009 cannot be compared to those from previous 

assessment years. 

In contrast to the earlier framework, the 2009 science framework employs crosscutting questions, that is, questions 

classified as one content area that also require knowledge of 

one or both of the other content areas. In addition, the framework gives greater emphasis to Earth and space sciences in 

the eighth-grade assessment and life and physical sciences 		

in the twelfth-grade assessment. It defines four science practices that take into account cognitive conceptual complexity 

1 National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Coordinating 

Council for Education, National Committee on Science Education Standards and 

Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 2American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science 

Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. 

and describe how students use their science knowledge. 		

It also recommends the use of new question types and the 

inclusion of questions on technological design. The complete 

science framework for the 2009 assessment, including 

additional information on how it differs from the previous 

framework, is available at http://www.nagb.org/publications/ 

frameworks/science-09.pdf. 

Science content 

The 2009 framework organizes science content into three 

broad content areas, physical science, life science, and 		

Earth and space sciences, reflecting the science curriculum 

students are generally exposed to across the grades K 

through 12. The new framework recommends an approximately equal distribution of questions across the three 

content areas at grade 4. At grade 8, there is a greater 		

emphasis on Earth and space sciences. 

Science Content Areas 

Physical science includes concepts related to properties and 

changes of matter, forms of energy, energy transfer and conservation, position and motion of objects, and forces affecting 

motion. 

Life science includes concepts related to organization and 

development, matter and energy transformations, interdependence, heredity and reproduction, and evolution and diversity. 

Earth and space sciences include concepts related to objects in 

the universe, the history of the Earth, properties of Earth 

materials, tectonics, energy in Earth systems, climate and 

weather, and biogeochemical cycles. 

4 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
 

Science practices 

Four science practices are defined in the framework in 		

addition to the science content areas. These four practices— 

identifying science principles, using science principles, 		

using scientific inquiry, and using technological design— 

describe how students use their scientific knowledge by 

measuring what they are able to do with the science content. 

Sixty percent of the 2009 assessment focused on conceptual 

understanding (i.e., identifying and using science principles), 

30 percent focused on using scientific inquiry, and 10 percent 

focused on using technological design. 

Types of Questions 

The results presented in this report are based on students’ 

responses to both multiple-choice and constructed-response 

(open-ended) questions. Short constructed-response 		

questions required students to write a concise explanation 

for a given situation or result, illustrate with a brief example, 

or describe a quantitative relationship in response to the 

question provided. Extended constructed-response questions 

generally required students to solve a problem by applying 

and integrating science concepts and/or required students to 

analyze a science situation and explain a concept. At both 

grades 4 and 8, students spent approximately one-half of the 

assessment time answering constructed-response questions. 

A separate sample of students also completed hands-on 

performance or interactive computer tasks to further probe 

their abilities to combine their understanding with the investigative skills that reflect science practices as specified in the 

2009 framework. The hands-on and interactive computer 

tasks in the 2009 science assessment were administered as 

part of a NAEP research study. Results for these tasks did not 

contribute to the results in this report and will be reported 

separately. 

Science Practices 

Identifying science principles focuses on students’ ability to 

recognize, recall, define, relate, and represent basic science 

principles in each of the three content areas. 

Using science principles focuses on the importance of science 

knowledge in making accurate predictions about and explaining 

observations of the natural world. 

Using scientific inquiry focuses on designing, critiquing, and 

evaluating scientific investigations; identifying patterns in data; 

and using empirical evidence to validate or criticize conclusions. 

Using technological design focuses on the systematic process 

of applying science knowledge and skills to propose or critique 

solutions to real-world problems, identify trade-offs, and 

anticipate effects of technological design decisions. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 5 
 

Reporting NAEP Results 

The NAEP science results are reported for public school 

students in the following 17 urban districts that volunteered 

to participate in 2009: 

Atlanta Public Schools 

Austin Independent School District 

Baltimore City Public Schools 

Boston Public Schools 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

Chicago Public Schools 

Cleveland Metropolitan School District 

Detroit Public Schools 

Fresno Unified School District 

Houston Independent School District 

Jefferson County Public Schools (Louisville, KY) 

Los Angeles Unified School District 

Miami-Dade County Public Schools 

Milwaukee Public Schools 

New York City Department of Education 

San Diego Unified School District 

School District of Philadelphia 

The District of Columbia public schools that participated in 

the reading and mathematics TUDAs were unable to participate in the 2009 science assessment because the samples 

for the mandatory reading and mathematics assessments 

included most of their fourth- and eighth-grade students. 

Only a few schools in the District of Columbia participated in 

the science assessment at each grade to provide data for the 

national sample in science. 

Representative samples of between 900 and 2,200 fourthgraders and between 900 and 2,100 eighth-graders were 

assessed in each district. Sample sizes are proportionate to 

district enrollment (see appendix table A-1 for the number of 

participating schools and the number of students assessed in 

each district). Charter schools are included in TUDA results if 

they contribute to the district’s Adequate Yearly Progress 

(AYP) results as part of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (see the Technical Notes for more 

information). 

Scale scores 

Proficiency scales were developed for each grade in 2009 to 

facilitate NAEP science reporting and to establish the baseline for future science assessment results. For grades 4 and 8, 

the scales were set ranging from 0 to 300 with a mean of 150 

and a standard deviation of 35. That is, the overall average 

student performance for each grade corresponds to a score 

of 150. Because NAEP scales are developed independently 		

for each subject, scores cannot be compared across subjects. 

Similarly, although the scales are identical, the scale scores 

for grades 4 and 8 were derived independently; therefore, 

scores cannot be compared across grades. 

Average scores for the three subscales based on each of the 

science content areas specified in the framework are also 

available in the NAEP Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/ 

nationsreportcard/naepdata/, and are reported on the 

0–300 scale for each grade. Because subscales are set 

separately for each content area, comparisons cannot be 

made from one area to another. 

Achievement levels 

Based on recommendations from policymakers, educators, 

and members of the general public, the Governing Board sets 

specific achievement levels for each subject area and grade. 

Achievement levels are performance standards showing 		

what students know and can do at the Basic, Proficient, and 

Advanced levels. NAEP results are reported as percentages 

of students performing at or above each level. 

As provided by law, NCES, upon review of congressionally 

mandated evaluations of NAEP, has determined that achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be 

interpreted with caution. The NAEP achievement levels have 

been widely used by national and state officials. 

Additional information about NAEP achievement levels can 

be found at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/ 

analysis/describing_achiev.asp. 

NAEP Achievement Levels 

Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and 

skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. 

Proficient represents solid academic performance. Students 

reaching this level have demonstrated competency over 

challenging subject matter. 

Advanced represents superior performance. 

6 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Interpreting the Results 

The performance of students in each participating urban 

district is compared to the performance of public school 

students in the nation and in large cities (i.e., cities with 

populations of 250,000 or more). The comparison to the 

nation’s large cities is made because students in these cities 

represent a peer group with characteristics that may be more 

similar to the characteristics of students in the 17 TUDA 

districts than the characteristics of students in the nation 

overall. 

NAEP reports results using widely accepted statistical 		

standards; findings are reported based on a statistical significance level set at .05 with appropriate adjustments for 

multiple comparisons, as well as adjustments for the partwhole relationship when individual districts are compared to 

results for their home state, large cities, or the nation (see the 

Technical Notes for more information). The symbol (*) is 

used in tables and figures to indicate that the scores or 

percentages being compared are significantly different. 

Although comparisons are made in students’ performance 

based on demographic characteristics, the results cannot be 

used to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between 

student characteristics and achievement. Many factors may 

influence student achievement, including educational policies 

and practices, available resources, and demographic characteristics of the student body. 

Accommodations and exclusions in NAEP 

It is important to assess all selected students from the target 

population, including students with disabilities (SD) and 

English language learners (ELL). To accomplish this goal, 

many of the same testing accommodations allowed on state 

and district assessments (e.g., extra testing time or individual 

rather than group administration) are provided for SD and 

ELL students participating in NAEP. Even with the availability 

of accommodations, some students may still be excluded. 

Variations in exclusion and accommodation rates, due to 

differences in policies and practices for identifying and including SD and ELL students, should be considered when 

comparing students’ performance across districts. Districts 

also vary in their proportion of special-needs students, 

particularly ELL students. While the effect of exclusion is not 

precisely known, comparisons of performance results could 

be affected if exclusion rates are markedly different among 

districts. See appendix tables A-2 and A-3 for the percentages of students accommodated and excluded in each 

district. 

More information about NAEP’s policy on the inclusion of 

special-needs students is available at http://nces.ed.gov/ 

nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 7 
 

Grade4 

Most participating districts perform

below the national average; six 

districts score higher than large 

cities overall 

In 2009, science scores for fourth-graders in large cities overall and in 14 of the 

17 participating urban districts were lower than the score for the nation. Scores 

for the remaining 3 districts were not significantly different from the score for 

the nation. Even though the overall scores were lower for most participating 

districts than the score for the nation, districts sometimes showed higher 

scores for some student groups when compared to their peers nationally. 

When district scores were compared to the overall score for students in large 

cities, six were higher, three were not significantly different, and eight were 

lower. 

8 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Six districts score higher 

than large cities 

When compared to the average score 

for large cities nationally in 2009, scores 

were higher in Austin, Boston, Charlotte, 

Jefferson County, Miami-Dade, and 		

San Diego (figure 1). Average scores for 

Atlanta, Houston, and New York City 

were not significantly different, and 

scores for the remaining eight districts 

were lower. 

The average science score for fourthgraders attending public schools in large 

cities was 14 points lower than the score 

for public school students in the nation. 

Scores in most of the participating urban 

districts were also lower than the 

national average with the exceptions of 

Austin, Charlotte, and Jefferson County 

where scores were not significantly 

different from the national average. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 9 

4 

Grade 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

 

Figure 1. Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-grade public school students, 

by jurisdiction: 2009 

0 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 300 170 

Scale score 

149* 

135** 

134** 

147* 

117*,** 

139*,** 

150* 

125*,** 

114*,** 

111*,** 

121*,** 

Nation

Large city1

Atlanta 

Austin 

Baltimore City 

Boston 

Charlotte 

Chicago 

Cleveland 

Detroit 

Fresno 

Houston 

Jefferson County (KY) 

135** 

150* 

124*,** 

144*,** 

126*,** 

Los Angeles 

Miami­Dade 

Milwaukee 

135** 

121*,** 

144*,** 

New York City 

Philadelphia 

San Diego 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large city.
�

** Significantly different (p < .05) from the nation.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.
�

Explore Additional Results 

Additional Results for the 17 districts that participated in the 2009 science assessment 

can be found in the NAEP Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ 

naepdata/. 
Districts show range of knowledge and skills

3

 Percentages are based on the sum of unrounded percentages as opposed to the 

rounded percentages shown in the figure.

Among the 17 districts that participated in the 2009 science 

assessment, the percentages of students performing at or 

above the Basic level ranged from 26 percent in Detroit to 

70 percent in Charlotte and Jefferson County (figure 2).3

 All 

the districts had some students performing at or above the 

Proficient level.

The same six districts with scores higher than the overall score 

for large cities (Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Jefferson County, 

Miami-Dade, and San Diego) also had higher percentages of 

students performing at or above Basic. The eight districts 

with scores lower than large cities (Baltimore City, Chicago, 

Cleveland, Detroit, Fresno, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and 

Philadelphia) also had lower percentages of students performing at or above Basic, as did Atlanta. The percentages of 

students at or above Basic in Houston and New York City were 

not significantly different from the percentage in large cities.

Figure 2. Achievement-levelresultsinNAEPscienceforfourth-gradepublicschoolstudents,byjurisdiction:2009

10 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 

4

GRADE

Nation

Large city1

Chicago

Cleveland

Baltimore City

Detroit

Milwaukee

not significantly different

lower Fresno

Philadelphia

Austin

Charlotte

Jefferson County (KY)

Miami-Dade higher

Compared to large city, the

% at or above Basic is

34

Houston 39 #

New York City 38 #

32 #

32 #

26

30 #

#

23 #

39

42 #

38

37

Los Angeles 34 #

Atlanta 33 1

26 #

31 #

36

San Diego 37

Boston 44 #

Basic Advanced

1

#

1

100 7080 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percent

100

1

1

1

# Rounds to zero. 

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
4 

 

Grade 

Districts vary in demographic makeup 

When comparing the results for urban districts to results 		

for the nation and large cities, it is important to consider the 

differences in their demographic makeup. In 2009, the percentage of White fourth-graders in the nation was higher than 		

the combined percentage of Black and Hispanic fourthgraders (table 1). The opposite was true for large cities and 

for 16 districts where the combined percentages of Black and 

Hispanic students were higher than the percentage of White 

students. Jefferson County was the only district where the 

percentage of White students was higher. 

Large cities and districts also differed from the nation in the 

proportion of students eligible for the National School Lunch 

Program (see the Technical Notes for eligibility criteria). 

Forty-eight percent of fourth-graders were eligible for 		

free/reduced-price school lunch nationally compared to 		

71 percent in large cities. Charlotte was the only participating 

district with a percentage of eligible students comparable to 		

the nation. The percentages of eligible students in the other 

districts were all higher than the nation—ranging from 		

60 percent in Jefferson County and San Diego to 100 percent 		

in Cleveland, where all students were categorized as eligible. 

Large cities in general, and some of the participating districts, 

also often had higher percentages of English language learners 

(ELL). The percentage of identified ELL students in large cities 

was 20 percent compared to 10 percent in the nation overall. 

The percentages of ELL students in Austin, Fresno, Houston, 

Los Angeles, and San Diego were higher than the percentages 

in both the nation and large cities. 

Table 1. Selected characteristics of fourth-grade public school students in NAEP science, by jurisdiction: 2009 

Jurisdiction 

Number of 

fourthgraders 

Number of 

students 

assessed 

Weighted percentage of students assessed 

White Black Hispanic 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

Eligible for free/ 

reduced-price 

school lunch 

Students with 

disabilities 

English 

language 

learners 

Nation 3,485,000 151,500 54 16 22 5 48 12 10 

Large city1 572,000 34,500 20 29 42 8 71 12 20 

Atlanta 4,000 1,200 13 79 5 1 74 10 2 

Austin 6,000 1,500 25 12 60 3 65 13 31 

Baltimore City 6,000 1,200 8 88 2 1 85 15 1 

Boston 4,000 1,100 15 40 37 7 79 19 16 

Charlotte 10,000 1,600 36 39 16 4 47 11 7 

Chicago 29,000 1,900 9 45 42 3 87 13 10 

Cleveland 3,000 900 16 68 12 # 1002 12 5 

Detroit 6,000 900 3 85 11 1 81 13 6 

Fresno 5,000 1,400 14 10 64 12 89 8 30 

Houston 15,000 2,200 7 26 64 3 83 6 37 

Jefferson County (KY) 7,000 1,400 53 36 5 3 60 14 3 

Los Angeles 48,000 2,100 9 7 77 7 84 10 40 

Miami-Dade 24,000 2,200 10 25 62 1 68 12 8 

Milwaukee 6,000 1,300 12 57 22 4 78 15 12 

New York City 71,000 2,200 15 29 40 16 87 18 15 

Philadelphia 13,000 1,300 12 61 19 6 87 13 7 

San Diego 9,000 1,300 27 12 42 18 60 11 35 

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.
� 2

 In Cleveland, all students were categorized as eligible for the National School Lunch Program.
�

NOTE: The number of fourth-graders is rounded to the nearest 1,000. The number of students assessed is rounded to the nearest 100. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. 

Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. The race/ethnicity categories listed may not sum to 100 percent because the percentages for American Indian/Alaska Native and unclassified students are not shown.
�

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 11 
A Closer Look at District Results Compared to the Nation

Overall average scores for participating districts provide an 

overview of how those districts are performing in comparison 

to the national average. Additional information can be obtained 

by comparing the average scores for student demographic 

groups within each district to the average scores for those 

groups in the nation. Of the 14 districts that scored lower than 

the nation overall, Baltimore City, Cleveland, Fresno, and 

Philadelphia had consistently lower scores than the nation for 

groups with samples large enough to report results by students’ 

race/ethnicity and eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch 

(figure 3). Among the remaining 10 districts, Atlanta, Boston, 

Houston, Miami-Dade, and San Diego had at least one student 

group that scored higher than their peers in the nation. For 

example, Hispanic students in Miami-Dade (62 percent of the 

district’s fourth-grade public school students) scored higher on 

average than Hispanic fourth-graders in the nation even though 

the district’s overall score was lower than the score for the nation.

Among the three districts in which overall scores did not differ 

significantly from the national average, scores for White students 

in Austin and for White and Black students in Charlotte were 

higher than the scores for those students in the nation. In Austin 

and Jefferson County, the average scores for students who were 

not eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch were higher than 

the average score for noneligible students in the nation even 

though the districts’ overall scores were not significantly different 

from the national average.

Figure 3. Comparison of district and national average scores in NAEP science for fourth-grade public school students, by selected student groups: 

2009

12 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 

4

GRADE

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
A Closer Look at District Results Compared to Large Cities

Comparing district overall average scores to the average score 

for large cities provides further insight into district performance, 

especially when performance across student demographic 

groups is examined. Among the eight districts that scored 

lower than large cities overall, Baltimore City, Cleveland, and 

Philadelphia also had lower scores for groups with samples 

large enough to report results by students’ race/ethnicity and 

eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch (figure 4). In four 

of the remaining five districts (Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, 

and Milwaukee), the score for at least one racial/ethnic group 

was not significantly different from the large city score for that 

group.

In each of the six districts where overall average scores were 

higher than the score for large cities, the score for at least one 

racial/ethnic group was not significantly different from the 

large city score for that group. For example, the score for White 

students in Jefferson County (53 percent of the district’s 

fourth-grade public school students) was not significantly 

different from the score for White students in large cities even 

though the district’s overall score was higher than the large city 

score. Five of the six districts with higher overall scores than 

large cities also had higher scores for students eligible for free/

reduced-price school lunch; the average score for eligible 

students in San Diego was not significantly different from the 

score for eligible students in large cities.

Although the overall average scores in Atlanta and Houston 

were not significantly different from the score for large cities, 

average scores for at least two racial/ethnic groups were higher 

than the large city scores for those groups. In Houston and 

New York City, the average score for students eligible for free/

reduced-price school lunch was higher than the score for 

eligible students in large cities even though the overall score 

was not significantly different.

Figure 4. Comparison of district and large city average scores in NAEP science for fourth-grade public school students, by selected student groups: 

2009

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2009 13

4

GRADE

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
 

Assessment Content at Grade 4 

The proportion of the science assessment devoted to each of the three broad 

content areas specified in the 2009 science framework varies by grade to 

reflect differences in curricular emphasis. 

33 1 

3 % Physical Science 

These questions focus on students’ understanding 

of physical science principles, including physical 

properties of common substances, changes of 

state of substances, examples of different forms 

of energy, electrical circuits, descriptions of the 

position and motion of objects, and changes in the 

motion of objects from applied or gravitational 

forces. 

33 1 

3 % Life Science 

These questions focus on students’ understanding 

of life science principles, including the basic needs 

of organisms for survival and growth, interdependence of organisms, life cycles, and differences 

and adaptations of organisms. 

33 1 

3 % Earth and Space 

Sciences 

These questions focus on students’ understanding 

of patterns of objects in the sky, evidence of Earth 

changes, natural and human-made materials, role 

of the Sun, weather changes, and uses of Earth’s 

resources. 

Because NAEP assessments cover a breadth of content in each subject area and include more questions than any 

one student could reasonably answer, each student takes just a portion of the assessment. The 143 questions 

included in the fourth-grade science assessment were divided into nine sections, each containing between 15 and 

17 questions depending on the balance between multiple-choice and constructed-response questions. Each 

student responded to two 25-minute sections. 

14 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
 

NAEP Science Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 4 

The specific descriptions of what fourth-graders should know and be able to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced science achievement levels are presented below. (Note: Shaded text is a short, general summary to describe performance at each achievement level.) 

NAEP achievement levels are cumulative; therefore, student performance at the Proficient level includes the competencies associated 

with the Basic level, and the Advanced level also includes the skills and knowledge associated with both the Basic and the Proficient 

levels. The cut score indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is noted in parentheses. 

Basic (131) 

Students performing at the Basic level should be able to describe, 

measure, and classify familiar objects in the world around them, 

as well as explain and make predictions about familiar processes. 

These processes include changes of states of matter, movements 

of objects, basic needs and life cycles of plants and animals, 

changes in shadows during the day, and changes in weather. 

They should be able to critique simple observational studies, 

communicating observations and basic measurements of familiar systems and processes, and look for patterns in their observations. With regard to scientific constraints, they should also be 

able to propose and critique alternative solutions to problems 

involving familiar systems and processes. 

Science Practices: Students performing at the Basic level should 

be able to describe, measure, and classify familiar objects in the 

world around them, as well as explain and make predictions 

about familiar processes, using evidence to support their observations and conclusions. They should be able to critique simple 

observational studies, communicate observations and basic 

measurements of familiar systems and processes, and look for 

patterns in their observations. They should also be able to 

propose and recognize alternative solutions to problems involving familiar systems and processes. 

In the physical sciences, students performing at the Basic level 

should be able to describe the properties of the states of matter, 

describe how to change matter from one state to another, 

describe different forms of energy, predict the electrical energy 

transfers that will take place in a simple circuit, critique alternative explanations for changes in a moving object’s position, and 

design an investigation to show how exerting a force on an object 

changes the object’s motion. 

In the life sciences, students performing at the Basic level should 

be able to identify the stages in the life cycles of familiar organisms; describe how familiar animals meet their basic needs for 

food, air, water, and shelter; observe and describe the changes in 

plants and animals during their life cycles; and describe how 

environments meet the survival needs of familiar plants and 

animals. 

In the Earth and space sciences, students performing at the 

Basic level should be able to predict changes in the length and 

position of shadows cast by the sun, describe how slow Earth 

processes (e.g., erosion) and fast Earth processes (e.g., volcanic 

eruption) can change Earth’s surface, distinguish between 

natural and manmade materials, choose and use a tool to monitor how weather conditions change, and identify Earth resources 

that are limited. 

Proficient (167) 

Students performing at the Proficient level should be able to 

demonstrate relationships among closely related science concepts, as well as analyze alternative explanations or predictions. 

They should be able to explain how changes in temperature 

cause changes of state, how forces can change motion, how 

adaptations help plants and animals meet their basic needs, how 

environmental changes can affect their growth and survival, how 

land formations can result from Earth processes, and how recycling can help conserve limited resources. They should be able to 

identify patterns in data and/or explain these patterns. They 

should also be able to identify and critique alternative responses 

to design problems. 

Science Practices: Students performing at the Proficient level 

should be able to demonstrate relationships among closely 

related science concepts and familiar phenomena around them, 

as well as analyze alternative explanations or predictions, using 

evidence to support their explanations and predictions; critique 

observational studies and simple investigations; identify patterns 

in data and/or explain those patterns in data; and apply scientific 

ideas to identify and critique alternative designs to problems that 

personally affect them. 

In the physical sciences, students performing at the Proficient 

level should be able to demonstrate the relationship between 

temperature change and changes in the physical properties of 

matter, explain how energy in one form can be changed into 

another form, design an investigation that measures how temperature changes when energy is added to a substance, propose 

a design for a container that will maintain the temperature of an 

object that is above or below room temperature, and measure 

changes in position of an object in motion as different forces are 

applied. 

In the life sciences, students performing at the Proficient level 

should be able to describe needs of familiar plants and animals at 

different stages of their life cycles, explain adaptations of familiar 

plants and animals to their environments, predict effects of 

environmental changes on plant or animal growth and survival, 

and apply information about an animal’s basic needs to propose 

a supportive environment. 

In the Earth and space sciences, students performing at the 

Proficient level should be able to explain how the Sun’s changing 

position in the sky during the day affects shadows; interpret land 

formations as resulting from either slow (e.g., erosion) or rapid 

(e.g., volcanic eruption) Earth processes; explain how natural 

materials can help sustain the lives of familiar plants and animals; identify how patterns of weather conditions change from 

season to season; and explain how the practices of recycling, 

reusing, and reducing help to conserve limited resources. 

Continued on next page 

Science 2009 15 

4 

Grade 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment 
Advanced (224)

Students performing at the Advanced level should be able to 

demonstrate relationships among different representations of 

science principles, as well as propose alternative explanations or 

predictions of phenomena. They should be able to use numbers, 

drawings, and graphs to describe and explain motions of objects; 

analyze how environmental conditions affect growth and survival 

of plants and animals; describe changes in the Sun’s path 

through the sky at different times of year; and describe how 

human uses of Earth materials affect the environment. They 

should be able to design studies that use sampling strategies to 

obtain evidence. They should also be able to propose and 

critique alternative individual and local community responses to 

design problems. 

16 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 

4 

Grade 

Science Practices: Students performing at the Advanced level 

should be able to demonstrate relationships among different 

representations of principles, as well as propose alternative 

explanations or predictions of familiar phenomena, using 

evidence to support their explanations and predictions; design 

observational studies or simple investigations to validate or 

criticize explanations or predictions and use sampling strategies 

to obtain evidence; and propose and critique alternative individual and local community responses to design problems. 

In the physical sciences, students at the Advanced level should 

be able to demonstrate the relationship between the quantity of 

energy needed to change the state of a sample of a substance 

and the weight of the sample, demonstrate how different 

representations (i.e., verbal, numerical, graphical) can be used to 

show the motion of an object, suggest an example of how the 

motion of an object can be changed without touching it, and 

design an investigation that demonstrates how long it takes 

different forms of energy to change the temperature of matter. 

In the life sciences, students at the Advanced level should be 

able to evaluate relationships between changing environmental 

conditions and organisms’ growth, survival, and reproduction; 

analyze environments for how they may have different effects on 

the growth and survival of plants or animals of the same kind; 

and investigate the relationship between light and plant growth. 

In the Earth and space sciences, students at the Advanced level 

should be able to relate changes in the Sun’s daily path through 

the sky to different times of year, suggest examples of Earth 

materials that can be modified to meet human needs, explain 

how erosion is caused by daily/seasonal weather events, propose 

methods of reducing the amount of erosion, describe how 

humans can change environments that can be either detrimental 

or beneficial for themselves and other organisms, and describe 

how the use of Earth materials by humans impacts the 		

environment. 
 

4 

Grade 

What Fourth-Graders Know and Can Do in Science
�

The item map below is useful for understanding performance 

at different levels on the NAEP scale. The scale scores on the 

left represent the scores for students who were likely to get the 

items correct or complete. The cut score at the lower end of 

the range for each achievement level is boxed. The descriptions 

of selected assessment questions indicating what students 

need to do to answer the question correctly are listed on the 

right, along with the corresponding science content areas. 

For example, the map on this page shows that fourth-graders 

performing in the middle of the Basic range (students with a 

score of 153) were likely to be able to predict the impact of 

habitat loss. Students performing near the middle of the 

Proficient range (with a score of 190) were likely to be able to 

relate the calendar to the amount of daylight. 

Grade 4 NaeP SCIeNCe ITeM MaP 

Scale score Content area Question description 

300 

// 

Advanced Proficient Basic

293 Physical science Investigate the speed of a runner 

285 Life science Design an investigation to compare types of bird food 

278 earth and space sciences Predict the shape of the Moon
�

264 Physical science Determine the source of sound during an investigation about the pitch of sounds
�

264 Life science Explain differences between related individuals (shown on page 20) 

253 Life science Identify what an organism needs to live 

233 earth and space sciences Draw a conclusion about differences in air temperatures based on data 

224

222 Life science Describe the different stages of the life cycle of an organism 

220 earth and space sciences Recognize the cycle of Moon phases 

212 earth and space sciences Critique a prediction about the amount of soil runoff 

210 Physical science Design an investigation to determine the volume of a container (shown on page 18) 

205 earth and space sciences Recognize human-made versus natural materials 

204 Physical science Use evidence to critique a conclusion about the transparency of a material 

194 Physical science Recognize that gravitational force constantly affects an object 

190 earth and space sciences Relate the calendar to amount of daylight 

186 earth and space sciences Interpret a temperature graph 

175 Physical science Predict the motion of an object when different forces act on it 

173 Life science Predict an environmental effect of the use of a chemical 

169 Physical science Explain an example of heat (thermal energy) transfer 

167

165 Physical science Predict the relative motion of an object based on a diagram 

164 Life science Investigate the range of bird population 

161 earth and space sciences Explain the choice of material based on protection of the environment (shown on page 19) 

157 Life science Identify an essential characteristic of a plant 

153 Life science Predict the impact of habitat loss 

146 Life science Explain the benefit of an adaptation for an organism 

143 earth and space sciences Recognize how the Sun affects the Earth’s surface 

138 Physical science Recognize an example of a change of state 

133 earth and space sciences Modify a landscape to help prevent a natural disaster 

131

128 Life science Identify the organism with a change in habitat from young to adult 

118 Physical science Identify the data on a motion chart 

113 earth and space sciences Recognize a renewable source of energy 

106 earth and space sciences Identify the best tool to measure rainfall 

94 Life science Place stages of a life cycle in correct order 

77 Physical science Identify the source of energy used by a home appliance 

56 Life science Recognize a related individual based on physical characteristics 

//

0

NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice question. The position of a question on the scale represents the scale score attained by students who had a 65 percent 

probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question, or a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a four-option multiple-choice question. For constructed-response questions, the question description 

represents students’ performance at the highest scoring level. Scale score ranges for science achievement levels are referenced on the map.
�

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
�

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 17 
Sample Question: Physical Science 

This sample question from the 2009 fourth-grade assessment measures students’ performance in the physical 		

science content area. The question asks students to 		

design an investigation to determine the volume of a 

container. 

Thirty-five percent of fourth-grade public school students in 

the nation answered correctly (Choice C). The percentage 		

of correct responses in each of the districts ranged from 		

18 percent in Baltimore City to 43 percent in Austin. 

Percentage correct for fourth-grade public school students, by jurisdiction: 

2009 

Jefferson County (KY) 

Nation 35

Large city1 34

Atlanta 25

Austin 

Baltimore City 18

Boston 25

Charlotte 34

Chicago 29

Cleveland 22

Detroit 19

Fresno 29

Houston 33

33

Los Angeles 33

Miami­Dade 34

Milwaukee 22

New York City 34

Philadelphia 23

San Diego 32

43

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 100 

Percent 

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the 

participating districts. 

18 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 

4 

Grade 

A student wants to know whether two cups 

hold the same volume of water. The two cups 

have different weights (masses). 

Cup 1 Cup 2

The student completely fills Cup 1 with water. 

The student wants to measure if Cup 2 holds the 

same volume of water. 

What should the student do next to complete the 

measurements? 

A Completely fill Cup 2 with water and then 

look at the cups side by side 

B Pour half of the water from Cup 1 into 

Cup 2, weigh each cup and then compare 

their weights 

C Pour all of the water from Cup 1 into Cup 2 

to see if the water completely fills Cup 2 

without spilling over 

D Completely fill Cup 2 with water, weigh each 

filled cup, and then compare the weights 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 
Sample Question: Earth and Space Sciences 

This sample of a short constructed-response question 		

measures fourth-graders’ performance in the Earth and space 

sciences content area. It requires students to choose a type 

of material and to explain how using this material can help 

protect the environment. Student responses to this question 

were rated using two scoring levels. 

Complete responses either 

• indicated one type of grocery bag and correctly 		

explained why using this type of bag helps protect 		

the environment by indicating reusing, recycling, or 		

biodegradation of the bags, as appropriate, or 

• indicated one type of grocery bag and correctly 		

explained why not using bags made of one of the 		

other materials helps protect the environment. 

Unsatisfactory/Incorrect responses were inadequate or 

incorrect. 

The sample student responses shown above were rated as 

“Complete” because they correctly answered all parts of the 

question. Fifty-four percent of fourth-grade public school 

students’ responses to this question received a “Complete” 

rating. The percentages of student responses rated as 

“Complete” are presented on the right for the nation, large 		

cities, and participating districts. 

Percentage of answers rated as “Complete” for fourth-grade public school 

students, by jurisdiction: 2009 

Nation 

Large city1 

Atlanta 

Austin 

Baltimore City 

Boston 

Charlotte 

Chicago 

Cleveland 

Detroit 

Fresno 

Houston 

Jefferson County (KY) 

Los Angeles 

Miami­Dade 

Milwaukee 

New York City 

Philadelphia 

San Diego 

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 100 

Percent 

30

22

41

36

50

57

45

52

61

39

38

46

56

21

30

56

37

47

54

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the 

participating districts. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Ass

When people buy groceries, they may have their groceries packed in plastic bags, paper bags, or cloth bags they 

bring with them. 

Complete response #1: 

Which type of grocery bag is best to use to help 

protect the environment? 

A Plastic 

B Paper 

C Cloth 

Explain why your choice helps protect the 

environment. 

Complete response #2: 

Which type of grocery bag is best to use to help 

protect the environment? 

A Plastic 

B Paper 

C Cloth 

Explain why your choice helps protect the 

environment. 

 Science 2009 19 

4 

Grade 

essment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment 
Sample Question: Life Science
�

This sample of a short constructed-response question 		

measures fourth-graders’ performance in the life science 

content area. It requires students to explain differences 

between related individuals. Student responses to this question were rated using three scoring levels. 

Complete responses correctly indicated that people or 

animals that are related can look different, and provided a 

comparison of a specific characteristic of individuals. 

Partial responses correctly indicated that people or animals 

that are related can look different, but did not provide a 

comparison of a specific characteristic of individuals. 

Unsatisfactory/Incorrect responses were inadequate or 

incorrect. 

The sample student responses shown above were rated as 

“Complete” because both correctly explain that people or 

animals that are related can look different and provide a 

specific characteristic of individuals. Seven percent of fourthgrade public school students’ responses to this question 

received a “Complete” rating. The percentages of student 

responses rated as “Complete” are presented on the right for 

the nation, large cities, and participating districts. 

Percentage of answers rated as “Complete” for fourth-grade public school 

students, by jurisdiction: 2009 

2

1

4

3

6

9

7

11

7

4

3

4

4

2

3

7

6

5

7

San Diego 

Philadelphia 

New York City 

Milwaukee 

Miami­Dade 

Los Angeles 

Jefferson County (KY) 

Houston 

Fresno 

Detroit 

Cleveland 

Chicago 

Charlotte 

Boston 

Baltimore City 

Austin 

Atlanta 

Large city1

Nation

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 100 

Percent 

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the 

participating districts. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

Jaime and Manuel visit the zoo. They see two male 

tigers who are brothers. Jaime points out that the 

fur of one of the tigers has stripes that are a darker 

brown than the other tiger’s stripes. 

Manuel says the tigers cannot be brothers. 

How can Jaime explain to Manuel that tigers with 

different-colored stripes can be brothers? In your 

answer, use a specific example of what you have 

observed about similarities and differences between 

people who are related. 

Complete response #1: 

Complete response #2: 

20 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 

4 

Grade 
 

Grade8 

Sixteen participating districts 

score lower than the national 

average; 5 districts score higher 

than large cities overall 

In 2009, science scores for eighth-graders in large cities overall and in 16 of 

the 17 participating urban districts were lower than the average score for the 

nation. The score for the remaining district was not significantly different 

from the score for the nation. Districts sometimes showed higher scores for 

student groups when compared to their peers nationally even though the 

overall scores for almost all participating districts were lower than the score 

for the nation. 

When compared to the overall score for students in large cities, the scores of 

5 districts were higher, 1 was not significantly different, and the remaining 

11 were lower. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 21 
Five districts score higher than 

large cities 

When compared to the average score for large 

cities nationally in 2009, scores were higher in 

Austin, Charlotte, Houston, Jefferson County, 		

and Miami-Dade (figure 5). The average score 

for San Diego was not significantly different, and 

scores for the remaining 11 districts were lower. 

The average science score for eighth-graders 

attending public schools in large cities was 		

15 points lower than the score for public school 

students in the nation. With the exception of 

Austin, where the score was not significantly 

different from the nation, the remaining participating districts had average scores that were 

lower than the national average. 

Figure 5. Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-grade public school students, 

by jurisdiction: 2009 

0 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 300 170 

Scale score 

149* 

134** 

127*,** 

149* 

113*,** 

130*,** 

141*,** 

121*,** 

121*,** 

113*,** 

124*,** 

Nation

Large city1

Atlanta 

Austin 

Baltimore City 

Boston 

Charlotte 

Chicago 

Cleveland 

Detroit 

Fresno 

Houston 

Jefferson County (KY) 

138*,** 

145*,** 

123*,** 

137*,** 

122*,** 

Los Angeles 

Miami­Dade 

Milwaukee 

129*,** 

119*,** 

138** 

New York City 

Philadelphia 

San Diego 

22 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large city. 

** Significantly different (p < .05) from the nation. 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts. 

8 

Grade 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 
Districts show range of knowledge and skills

Among the 17 districts that participated in the 2009 science 

assessment, the percentages of eighth-graders performing 

at or above the Basic level ranged from 20 percent in 

Baltimore City and Detroit to 61 percent in Austin (figure 6). 

All the districts had some students performing at or above the 

Proficient level. In Austin, the percentage of students performing at or above Proficient was higher than the percentages for 

large cities and for the nation (see appendix table A-5).

The same 5 districts with higher overall average scores than 

the overall average score for large cities (Austin, Charlotte, 

Houston, Jefferson County, and Miami-Dade) also had higher 

percentages of students performing at or above Basic. The 

11 districts with scores lower than the score for large cities 

(Atlanta, Baltimore City, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, 

Fresno, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York City, and 

Philadelphia) also had lower percentages of students performing at or above Basic. The percentage of students at or 

above Basic in San Diego was not significantly different from 

the percentage for large cities.

Figure 6. Achievement-levelresultsinNAEPscienceforeighth-gradepublicschoolstudents,byjurisdiction:2009

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2009 23

8

GRADE

Nation

Large city1

Miami-Dade

New York City

not significantly different

lower

Houston

Austin

Jefferson County (KY)

Charlotte higher

Compared to large city, the

% at or above Basic is

Atlanta 67 23 10 #

51 32 17 1

62 24 13 #

San Diego 51 29 19 1

Boston 61 24 14 #

Los Angeles 67 23 9 #

Chicago 71 22 7 #

Cleveland 74 21 6 #

Philadelphia 75 19 6 #

Detroit 80 17 3 #

38 33 28 1

56 16 1

48 30 21 1

51 31 17 1

39 28 30 3

43 32 23 1

Fresno 66 25 9 #

Baltimore City 80 16 4 #

Milwaukee 72 23 5 #

27

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

100 7080 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percent

100

# Rounds to zero.

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts. 

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
Districts vary in demographic makeup

When comparing the results for urban districts to results for 

the nation and large cities, it is important to consider the 

differences in their demographic makeup. In 2009, the 

percentage of White eighth-graders in the nation was higher 

than the combined percentage of Black and Hispanic eighthgraders (table 2). The opposite was true for large cities and 

for 16 districts where the combined percentages of Black and 

Hispanic students were higher than the percentage of White 

students. Jefferson County was the only district in which the 

percentage of White students was higher.

Large cities and districts also differed from the nation in the 

proportion of students eligible for the National School Lunch 

Program. Forty-three percent of eighth-graders were eligible 

for free/reduced-price school lunch nationally compared to 

66 percent in large cities. The percentages of eligible students in the participating districts were all higher than the 

nation—ranging from 47 percent in Charlotte to 100 percent 

in Cleveland, where all students were categorized as eligible.

Large cities in general, and some of the participating districts, 

also often had higher percentages of English language 

learners (ELL). The percentage of ELL students in large cities 

was 11 percent compared to 5 percent in the nation overall. 

The percentages of ELL students in Austin, Fresno, and Los 

Angeles were higher than the percentages in both the nation 

and large cities.

Table 2.  Selected characteristics of eighth-grade public school students in NAEP science, by jurisdiction: 2009

24 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 

8

GRADE

# Rounds to zero.

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.

2

 In Cleveland, all students were categorized as eligible for the National School Lunch Program.

NOTE: The number of eighth-graders is rounded to the nearest 1,000. The number of students assessed is rounded to the nearest 100. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. 

Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. The race/ethnicity categories listed may not sum to 100 percent because the percentages for American Indian/Alaska Native and unclassified students are not shown.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
A Closer Look at District Results Compared to the Nation

Overall average scores for participating districts provide an 

overview of how those districts are performing in comparison 

to the national average. Additional information can be obtained 

by comparing the average scores for student demographic 

groups within each district to the average scores for those 

groups in the nation. Of the 16 districts that scored lower than 

the nation overall, Charlotte, Houston, and Miami-Dade had at 

least one racial/ethnic group that scored higher than their peers 

in the nation (figure 7). For example, Hispanic students in 

Houston (60 percent of the district’s eighth-grade public school 

students) scored higher on average than Hispanic eighthgraders in the nation even though the district’s overall score 

was lower than the nation. Of the remaining 13 districts that 

scored lower than the nation, Baltimore City, Chicago, Cleveland, 

and Philadelphia had consistently lower scores for groups with 

samples large enough to report results by students’ race/

ethnicity and eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch.

In Austin, where the overall score for the district was not 

significantly different from the national average, White, Black, 

and Hispanic students scored higher than their peers in the 

nation, as did students who were not eligible for free/reducedprice school lunch.

Figure 7.  Comparison of district and national average scores in NAEP science for eighth-grade public school students, by selected student groups: 

2009

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2009 25

8

GRADE

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
A Closer Look at District Results Compared to Large Cities

Comparing district overall average scores to the average score 

for large cities provides further insight into district performance, 

especially when performance across student demographic 

groups is examined. In 10 of the 11 districts that scored lower 

than large cities overall, the score for at least one racial/ethnic 

group was not significantly different from the large city score 

for that group (figure 8). Only Baltimore City had lower scores 

than large cities for all student demographic groups with 

samples large enough to report scores by students’ race/

ethnicity and eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch.

Among the five districts where overall average scores were 

higher than the score for large cities, only Austin also had 

higher scores for all student demographic groups with samples 

large enough to report scores by students’ race/ethnicity and 

eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch.

Figure 8.  Comparison of district and large city average scores in NAEP science for eighth-grade public school students, by selected student groups: 

2009

26 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 

8

GRADE

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
 

Assessment Content at Grade 8 

The distribution of items among the three content areas reflects the relative 

emphasis in each area specified in the 2009 science framework for each grade. 

30% Physical Science 

These questions focus on students’ understanding of physical 

science principles, including the chemical properties of 

substances and particulate nature of matter, the organization 

of the Periodic Table of Elements, changes of matter and 

conservation of mass, kinetic energy and potential energy, 

energy transfer and conservation of energy, speed as a quantitative description of motion, characteristics of forces, and 

the net force on an object and its relationship to the object’s 

motion. 

30% Life Science 

These questions focus on students’ understanding of life 		

science principles, including the levels of organization of 		

living systems, the role of carbon compounds in growth and 		

metabolism, specific types of interdependence, reproduction and the influence of heredity and the environment on 		

an offspring’s characteristics, and preferential survival and 

relatedness of organisms. 

40% Earth and Space Sciences 

These questions focus on students’ understanding of a model 

of the solar system, estimating the timing and sequence of 

geologic events, soil analysis and layers of the atmosphere, 

the basics of tectonic theory and Earth’s magnetism, the 

Sun’s observable effects, global weather patterns, and natural 

and human-induced changes in Earth’s materials and 

systems. 

Because NAEP assessments cover a breadth of content in each subject area and include more questions than any 

one student could reasonably answer, each student takes just a portion of the assessment. The 162 questions 

included in the eighth-grade science assessment were divided into 10 sections, each containing between 14 and 		

18 questions depending on the balance between multiple-choice and constructed-response questions. Each 

student responded to two 25-minute sections. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 27 
NAEP Science Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 8 

The specific descriptions of what eighth-graders should know and be able to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced science achievement 

levels are presented below.(Note: Shaded text is a short, general summary to describe performance at each achievement level.) NAEP 

achievement levels are cumulative; therefore, student performance at the Proficient level includes the competencies associated with the 

Basic level, and the Advanced level also includes the skills and knowledge associated with both the Basic and the Proficient levels. The cut 

score indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is noted in parentheses. 

Basic (141) 

Students performing at the Basic level should be able to state or recognize correct science principles. They should be able to explain and 

predict observations of natural phenomena at multiple scales, from 

microscopic to global. They should be able to describe properties and 

common physical and chemical changes in materials; describe changes 

in potential and kinetic energy of moving objects; describe levels of 

organization of living systems—cells, multicellular organisms, and 

ecosystems; identify related organisms based on hereditary traits; 

describe a model of the solar system; and describe the processes of the 

water cycle. They should be able to design observational and experimental investigations employing appropriate tools for measuring 

variables. They should be able to propose and critique the scientific 

validity of alternative individual and local community responses to 

design problems. 

Science Practices: Students performing at the Basic level should be able 

to state or recognize correct science principles; explain and predict 

observations of natural phenomena at multiple scales, from microscopic 

to global, using evidence to support their explanations and predictions; 

design investigations employing appropriate tools for measuring 

variables; and propose and critique the scientific validity of alternative 

individual and local community responses to design problems. 

In the physical sciences, students at the Basic level should be able to 

recognize a class of chemical compounds by its properties; design an 

investigation to show changes in properties of reactants and products in 

a chemical process such as burning or rusting; describe the changes in 

kinetic and potential energy of an object such as a swinging pendulum; 

describe and compare the motions of two objects moving at different 

speeds from a table of their position and time data; describe the direction of all forces acting on an object; and suggest an example of a 

system in which forces are acting on an object but the motion of the 

object does not change. 

In the life sciences, students at the Basic level should be able to identify 

levels of organization within cells, multicellular organisms, and ecosystems; describe how changes in an environment relate to an organism’s 

survival; describe types of interdependence in ecosystems; identify 

related organisms based on hereditary traits; discuss the needs of 

animals and plants to support growth and metabolism; and analyze and 

display data showing simple patterns in population growth. 

In the Earth and space sciences, students at the Basic level should be 

able to describe a Sun-centered model of the solar system that illustrates how gravity keeps the objects in regular motion; describe how 

fossils and rock formations can be used as evidence to infer events in 

Earth’s history; relate major geologic events, such as earthquakes, 

volcanoes, and mountain building to the movement of lithospheric 

plates; use weather data to identify major weather events; and describe 

the processes of the water cycle including changes in the physical state 

of water. 

Proficient (170) 

Students performing at the Proficient level should be able to demonstrate 

relationships among closely related science principles. They should be 

able to identify evidence of chemical changes; explain and predict 

motions of objects using position-time graphs; explain metabolism, 

growth, and reproduction in cells, organisms, and ecosystems; use 

observations of the Sun, Earth, and Moon to explain visible motions in 

the sky; and predict surface and groundwater movements in different 

regions of the world. They should be able to explain and predict 

observations of phenomena at multiple scales, from microscopic to 

macroscopic and local to global, and to suggest examples of observations that illustrate a science principle. They should be able to use 

evidence from investigations in arguments that accept, revise, or reject 

scientific models. They should be able to use scientific criteria to 

propose and critique alternative individual and local community 

responses to design problems. 

Science Practices: Students performing at the Proficient level should be 

able to demonstrate relationships among closely related science 

principles; explain and predict observations of phenomena at multiple 

scales, from microscopic to macroscopic and local to global, and to 

suggest examples of observations that illustrate a science principle; 

design investigations requiring control of variables to test a simple 

model, employing appropriate sampling techniques and data quality 

review processes, and use the evidence to communicate an argument 

that accepts, revises, or rejects the model; and propose and critique 

solutions and predict the scientific validity of alternative individual and 

local community responses to design problems. 

In the physical sciences, students at the Proficient level should be able to 

demonstrate the relationship between the properties of chemical 

elements and their position on the periodic table; use empirical evidence 

to demonstrate that a chemical change has occurred; demonstrate the 

relationship of the motion of an object that experiences multiple forces 

with the representation of the motion on a position-time graph; predict 

the position of a moving object based on the position-time data 

presented in a table; and suggest examples of systems in which 

potential energy is converted into other forms of energy. 

In the life sciences, students at the Proficient level should be able to 

explain metabolism, growth, and reproduction at multiple levels of living 

systems: cells, multicellular organisms, and ecosystems; predict the 

effects of heredity and environment on an organism’s characteristics 

and survival; use sampling strategies to estimate population sizes in 

ecosystems; and suggest examples of sustainable systems for multiple 

organisms. 

In the Earth and space sciences, students at the Proficient level should 

be able to explain how gravity accounts for the visible patterns of motion 

of the Earth, Sun, and Moon; explain how fossils and rock formations are 

used for relative dating; use models of Earth’s interior to explain 

lithospheric plate movement; explain the formation of Earth materials 

using the properties of rocks and soils; identify recurring patterns of 

weather phenomena; and predict surface and groundwater movement in 

different regions of the world. 

28 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 

8 

Grade 
Advanced (215) 

Students performing at the Advanced level should be able to develop 

alternative representations of science principles and explanations of 

observations. They should be able to use information from the periodic 

table to compare families of elements; explain changes of state in terms 

of energy flow; trace matter and energy through living systems at 

multiple scales; predict changes in populations through natural selection 

and reproduction; use lithospheric plate movement to explain geological 

phenomena; and identify relationships among regional weather and 

atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns. They should be able to 

design and critique investigations involving sampling processes, data 

quality review processes, and control of variables. They should be able 

to propose and critique alternative solutions that reflect science-based 

trade-offs for addressing local and regional problems. 

Science Practices: Students performing at the Advanced level should 

be able to demonstrate relationships among different representations 		

of science principles. They should be able to explain and predict 		

observations of phenomena at multiple scales, from microscopic to 

macroscopic and local to global, and develop alternative explanations 		

of observations, using evidence to support their thinking. They should be 

able to design control of variable investigations employing appropriate 

sampling techniques and data quality review processes that strengthen 

the evidence used to argue for one alternate model over another. They 

should be able to propose and critique alternative solutions that reflect 

science-based trade-offs for addressing local and regional problems. 

In the physical sciences, students at the Advanced level should be able 

to interpret diagrams, graphs, and data to demonstrate the relationship 

between the particulate nature of matter and state changes (for instance, melting and freezing); demonstrate relationships between 

position on the periodic table and the characteristics of families of the 

chemical elements; explain changes of state in terms of energy flow in 

and out of a system; identify possible scientific trade-offs in making 

decisions on the design of an electrical energy power plant; suggest 

examples of systems in which objects are undergoing transitional, 

vibrational, and rotational motion; and suggest examples of systems in 

which forces are acting both through contact and at a distance. 

In the life sciences, students at the Advanced level should be able to 

explain movement and transformations of matter and energy in living 

systems at cellular, organismal, and ecosystem levels; predict changes in 

populations through natural selection and reproduction; and describe an 

ecosystem’s populations and propose an analysis for changes based on 

energy flow through the system. 

In the Earth and space sciences, students at the Advanced level should 

be able to explain the seasons, Moon phases, and lunar and solar 

eclipses; illustrate how fossils and rock formations can provide evidence 

of changes in environmental conditions over time; use lithospheric plate 

movement to explain geological phenomena; identify relationships 

among regional weather and atmospheric and ocean circulation 		

patterns; and use the water cycle to propose and critique ways for 

obtaining drinkable water. 

 Science 2009 29 

8 

Grade 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment 
 

What Eighth-Graders Know and Can Do in Science 

The item map below illustrates the range of science skills 

demonstrated by eighth-graders. The scale scores on the left 

represent the scores for students who were likely to get the 

items correct or complete. The cut score at the lower end of 

the range for each achievement level is boxed. The description

of selected assessment questions indicating what students 

need to do to answer the question correctly are listed on the 

right, along with the corresponding science content areas. 

For example, students performing in the middle of the Basic 

range (with a score of 157) were likely to be able to draw a 

conclusion based on fossil evidence. Students performing in 

the middle of the Proficient range (with a score of 188) were 

likely to be able to predict the long-term pattern in the volcanic 

activity of a region. 

Grade 8 NaeP SCIeNCe ITeM MaP Proficient Advanced Basic

Scale score Content area Question description 

300

//

286 earth and space sciences Explain and critique two plans to prevent erosion (shown on pages 34 and 35) 

266 Physical science Describe the evidence for chemical change 

254 earth and space sciences Explain the formation of a rock based on its features 

246 Life science Form a conclusion based on data about behavior of an organism 

228 Physical science Recognize the direction of force of friction 

223 earth and space sciences Predict the Sun’s position in the sky 

215 earth and space sciences Predict lunar phenomena 

212 earth and space sciences Explain effects of human land use on wildlife 

202 Physical science Select and explain the useful properties of a material used in an industrial proces

201 earth and space sciences List soils in order of permeability (shown on page 36) 

200 earth and space sciences Relate characteristics of air masses to global regions 

199 Life science Identify the main source of energy for certain organisms 

194 Physical science Determine a controlled variable of a chemistry investigation 

188 earth and space sciences Predict the long-term pattern in the volcanic activity of a region 

186 Life science Recognize that plants produce their own food 

183 Physical science Recognize an effect of electrical forces 

174 Life science Identify a function of a human organ system 

172 earth and space sciences Investigate the magnetic properties of some common objects 

s 

169 Life science Describe the competition between two species 

165 Physical science Describe the energy transfer between two systems 

163 Life science Recognize the role of decomposers (shown on page 31) 

163 Physical science Read a motion graph 

160 earth and space sciences Relate oxygen level to atmospheric conditions at higher elevations 

157 earth and space sciences Draw a conclusion based on fossil evidence 

152 Physical science Critique and improve an investigation about forces (shown on pages 32 and 33) 

149 Life science Recognize a factor that affects the success of a species 

148 earth and space sciences Identify the mechanism of a weather pattern 

145 earth and space sciences Identify how some lunar surface features are formed 

140 earth and space sciences Identify sequence of formation of Earth features 

138 Physical science Identify an example of kinetic energy 

130 Life science Predict the effect of an environmental change on an organism 

127 Life science Explain an experimental setup to study populations of organisms 

127 Life science Predict changes in populations based on a food web 

119 Physical science Describe part of a valid experiment to compare heating rates of different materials 

//

0

215

170

141

s 

NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice question. The position of a question on the scale represents the scale score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of successfully 

answering a constructed-response question, or a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a four-option multiple-choice question. For constructed-response questions, the question description represents students’ performance at the highest 

scoring level used in the analysis (with the exception of the description at a score of 119 which represents the performance of students receiving partial credit on their response). Scale score ranges for science achievement levels are referenced on 

the map. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

30 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 

8 

Grade 
Sample Question: Life Science 

This sample question from the 2009 eighth-grade 		

assessment measures students’ performance in the life 

science content area. This question (as part of a two-question 

set) asks students to identify the role a decomposer plays in a 

food web. 

Approximately two-thirds (64 percent) of eighth-grade public 

school students in the nation answered correctly (Choice D). 

The percentage of correct answers in each of the districts 

ranged from 43 percent in Baltimore City to 73 percent in 

Austin. 

Percentage correct for eighth-grade public school students, by jurisdiction: 

2009 

43

64

67

64

57

67

55

73

57

48

48

50

60

47

48

60

56

59

64

San Diego 

Philadelphia 

New York City 

Milwaukee 

Miami­Dade 

Los Angeles 

Jefferson County (KY) 

Houston 

Fresno 

Detroit 

Cleveland 

Chicago 

Charlotte 

Boston 

Baltimore City 

Austin 

Atlanta 

Large city1

Nation

0 30 40 50 60 70 80 100 

Percent 

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the 

participating districts. 

The diagram below shows a food web. The arrows 

show the direction of energy flow. Each arrow points 

from the organism that is consumed to the organism 

that consumes it. Use the information in the food 

web to answer the question that follows. 

FOOD WEB

Decomposers

Pine

Borer

Kinglet

Salamander

Fox Hawk

Squirrel

Oak

Acorns

Pine

Which statement best explains why decomposers are 

an important part of this food web? 

A They use sunlight to make their own food.

B They give off oxygen for animals to breathe. 

C They provide camouflage for small animals. 

D They make nutrients available to plants. 

 Science 2009 31 

8 

Grade 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment 
32 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 

8 

Grade 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sample Question: Physical Science 

Meg designs an experiment to see which of three types of 

sneakers provides the most friction. 

She uses the equipment listed below. 

Sneaker 1 

Sneaker 2 

Sneaker 3 

Spring scale 

She uses the setup shown below and pulls the spring scale to 

the left. 

02468

101214161820

N Spring Scale

Gym Floor Sneaker 1

Upward

Downward

To the Left

To the Right

Complete response #1: 

Meg tests one type of sneaker on a gym floor, a 

second type of sneaker on a grass field, and a third 

type of sneaker on a cement sidewalk. Her teacher is 

not satisfied with the way Meg designed her experiment. Describe one error in Meg’s experiment. 

Describe how Meg could improve the experiment to 

find out which of the three types of sneakers provides 

the most friction. 

Complete response #2: 

Meg tests one type of sneaker on a gym floor, a 

second type of sneaker on a grass field, and a third 

type of sneaker on a cement sidewalk. Her teacher is 

not satisfied with the way Meg designed her experiment. Describe one error in Meg’s experiment. 

Describe how Meg could improve the experiment to 

find out which of the three types of sneakers provides 

the most friction. 
This sample of a short constructed-response question (show

on the previous page) measures eighth-graders’ performance 

in the physical science content area. It requires students to 

critique an investigation on friction and identify a way to 

improve the investigation. Student responses to this question 

were rated using three scoring levels. 

Complete responses indicated that the experiment did not 

control all variables except for the variable being tested, and 

indicated a valid way to redesign the experiment. 

Partial responses either 

n 

• indicated that the experiment did not control all variables 

except for the variable being tested, or 

• indicated a valid way to redesign the experiment. 

Unsatisfactory/Incorrect responses were inadequate or 

incorrect. 

The sample student responses shown on the previous page 

were rated as “Complete” because they correctly answered 		

the question. Sixty percent of eighth-grade public school 

students’ responses to this question received a “Complete” or 

“Partial” rating. The combined percentages of student responses rated as “Complete” or “Partial” are presented on the right 

for the nation, large cities, and participating districts. 

Percentage of answers rated as “Complete” or “Partial” for eighth-grade 

public school students, by jurisdiction: 2009 

35

46

51

47

48

53

48

66

55

44

42

39

52

30

42

59

32

50

60

San Diego 

Philadelphia 

New York City 

Milwaukee 

Miami­Dade 

Los Angeles 

Jefferson County (KY) 

Houston 

Fresno 

Detroit 

Cleveland 

Chicago 

Charlotte 

Boston 

Baltimore City 

Austin 

Atlanta 

Large city1

Nation

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 100 

Percent 

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the 

participating districts. 

 Science 2009 33 

8 

Grade 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment 
Sample Question: Earth and Space Sciences 

Some homes were built near the shoreline of the ocean. Sand dunes lie between the homes and the water. 

Each year a portion of the sand dunes is eroded by the ocean. To prevent erosion, some citizens suggest planting grasses on the sand dunes, and others suggest building a seawall, a solid barrier along the shoreline. 

34 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 

8 

Grade 

 

Complete response #1: 

Explain how each plan would prevent erosion 

of the dunes. 

Give an environmental advantage and disadvantage of each plan. 

Environmental advantage of planting grasses: 

Environmental disadvantage of planting grasses: 

Environmental advantage of building a seawall: 

Environmental disadvantage of building a seawall: 

Complete response #2: 

Explain how each plan would prevent erosion 

of the dunes. 

Give an environmental advantage and disadvantage of each plan. 

Environmental advantage of planting grasses: 

Environmental disadvantage of planting grasses:

Environmental advantage of building a seawall: 

Environmental disadvantage of building a seawall: 
This sample of an extended constructed-response question 

(shown on the previous page) measures eighth-graders’ 		

performance in the Earth and space sciences content area. 		

It requires students to evaluate two proposed plans for 		

preventing sand erosion. Student responses to this question 

were rated in three parts with three scoring levels for each 

part. 

Part A: Explanation of both plans 

Complete responses correctly explained how planting grasses 

and building a seawall would prevent erosion. 

Partial responses correctly explained either how planting 

grasses or building a seawall would prevent erosion. 

Unsatisfactory/Incorrect responses were inadequate or 

incorrect. 

Part B: Planting grasses 

Complete responses provided a plausible advantage and 

disadvantage of planting grasses. 

Partial responses provided a plausible advantage or a 

plausible disadvantage of planting grasses. 

Unsatisfactory/Incorrect responses were inadequate or 

incorrect. 

Part C: Building a seawall 

Complete responses provided a plausible advantage and 

disadvantage of building a seawall. 

Partial responses provided a plausible advantage or a 

plausible disadvantage of building a seawall. 

Unsatisfactory/Incorrect responses were inadequate or 

incorrect. 

The sample student responses shown on the previous page 

were rated as “Complete” because they correctly answered 		

all parts of the question. 

Students received an overall combined rating of “Complete” 

for providing a complete response for each part. Students 

received an overall combined rating of “Satisfactory” for 

providing a complete response for two parts and a partial 

response for the third part. The percentages of student 		

responses that received an overall rating of “Satisfactory” 		

or better are presented below for the nation, large cities, 		

and participating districts. 

More information about this sample question is available 		

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

.aspx?subject=science. 

Percentage of answers rated as “Satisfactory” or better for eighth-grade 

public school students, by jurisdiction: 2009 

San Diego 

Philadelphia 

New York City 

Milwaukee 

Miami­Dade 

Los Angeles 

Jefferson County (KY) 

Houston 

Fresno 

Detroit 

Cleveland 

Chicago 

Charlotte 

Boston 

Baltimore City 

Austin 

Atlanta 

Large city1

Nation

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

Percent 

1

#

2

#

#

2

#

3

1

#

#

#

#

1

2

#

1

2

#

100 

# Rounds to zero. 

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the 

participating districts. 

 Science 2009 35 

8 

Grade 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment 
Sample Question: Earth and Space Sciences 

This sample question from the 2009 eighth-grade 		

assessment measures students’ performance in the Earth 		

and space sciences content area. The question asks students 

to order soils according to the rate that water flowed through 

them. Forty-five percent of eighth-grade public school students answered the question correctly (Choice B). The most 

common incorrect answer (Choice C) was selected by 		

33 percent of the students and represents a conceptual 

misunderstanding that the smaller the (soil) particles are, 		

the faster water flows through them. The percentages of 

students who selected the correct answer are presented 

below for the nation, large cities, and participating districts. 

Percentage correct for eighth-grade public school students, by jurisdiction: 

2009 

37

42

51

30

42

42

37

60

44

32

37

34

34

29

34

39

30

41

45

San Diego 

Philadelphia 

New York City 

Milwaukee 

Miami­Dade 

Los Angeles 

Jefferson County (KY) 

Houston 

Fresno 

Detroit 

Cleveland 

Chicago 

Charlotte 

Boston 

Baltimore City 

Austin 

Atlanta 

Large city1

Nation

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 100 

Percent 

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the 

participating districts. 

Three funnels were filled with equal volumes of 

pebbles, fine sand, and coarse sand, as shown in 

the diagram below. The same amount of water 

was poured into each funnel. 

Which correctly lists the order in which the water 

passed through the funnels, from fastest to slowest? 

A Pebbles, fine sand, coarse sand 

B Pebbles, coarse sand, fine sand 

C Fine sand, coarse sand, pebbles 

D Coarse sand, pebbles, fine sand 

36 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 

8 

Grade 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 
 

District Profiles
�

Individual district profiles provide a closer look at some key findings for each district, 

including how districts’ scores compare with percentiles for public school students in the 

nation, and with scores in their home states; how the performance of lower-income 

students in the districts compares to similar students in the nation; and how scores for 

White students compare to scores for Black and Hispanic students in districts where 

samples are large enough to report results for those groups. Web-generated profiles or 

“snapshots” of district results are available for each participating district at http://nces.ed 

.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/dst2009/2011454.asp. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 37 
Atlanta, Grade 4
�

For Atlanta fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 134. 

the average score of 134 was at the 32nd percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was not significantly different from the 

average score for large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for Georgia. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 56 points.4 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

no significant difference in the percentage at or above 

Proficient compared to large cities. 

4 The score gap is based on the difference between the unrounded scores 

		as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Atlanta: 2009 

Large city1

Nation

Atlanta 33 18 1

44 36 19 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

48

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Atlanta and Georgia: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

134

144

Atlanta Georgia

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Atlanta and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

123

134

Atlanta Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

 

4 

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Atlanta, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

190

181

180

170

160

150

140

130 126

120

110

0

White Black

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

38 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Atlanta, Grade 8 

For Atlanta eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 127. 

the average score of 127 was at the 25th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower overall score than for Georgia. 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

an average score of 123 for Black students. 

insufficient sample sizes to report results for racial/ethnic 

groups other than Black. 

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Atlanta: 2009 

Large city1

Nation

Atlanta 23 10 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

67

38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Atlanta and Georgia: 2009
�

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

127

147

Atlanta Georgia

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Atlanta and the nation: 2009
�

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 

120

133

Atlanta Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Atlanta, by race/ethnicity: 2009
�

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

123

120

110

0

Black

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American and excludes Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 39 

123

0

110

140

130
Austin, Grade 4
�

For Austin fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 147. 

the average score of 147 was at the 44th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was higher than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

no significant difference from the overall score for Texas. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

no significant difference in the average score compared 

to lower-income students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 54 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 49 points.5 

Achievement-level results showed 

a higher percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a higher percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

5The score gap is based on the difference between the unrounded scores 

		as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Austin: 2009 

Austin 34 30 1

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

35

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

 

4 

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Austin and Texas: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

147 148

Austin Texas

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Austin and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

130

134

Austin Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Austin, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

129

183

133

White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

40 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Austin, Grade 8 

For Austin eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 149. 

the average score of 149 was at the 47th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was higher than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

no significant difference from the overall score for Texas. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

no significant difference in the average score compared 

to lower-income students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 40 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 43 points.6 

Achievement-level results showed 

a higher percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a higher percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

6The score gap is based on the difference between the unrounded scores 

		as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Austin: 2009 

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

Austin 28 30 3

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

39

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Austin and Texas: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

149 150

Austin Texas

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Austin and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

130 133

Austin Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program.
�

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Austin, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

138

178

134

White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin.
�

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 41 
Baltimore City, Grade 4 

For Baltimore City fourth-graders in 2009, 

• the overall average score was 117. 

the average score of 117 was at the 18th percentile for 		

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

• 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for Maryland. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 		

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

Achievement-level results showed 

a White – Black score gap of 29 points.7 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

7The score gap is based on the difference between the unrounded scores 

		as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Baltimore City: 2009 

Baltimore City 26 5 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

69

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Baltimore City and Maryland: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 Baltimore City Maryland

117

150

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Baltimore City and the nation: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 Baltimore City Nation

114

134

 

Grade 

4 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program.
�

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Baltimore City, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 White Black

115

143

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

42 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Baltimore City, Grade 8 

For Baltimore City eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 113. 

the average score of 113 was at the 16th percentile for 		

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for Maryland. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 		

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

an average score of 110 for Black students. 

insufficient sample sizes to report results for racial/ethnic 

groups other than Black. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Baltimore City: 2009 

Baltimore City 16 4 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advance

80

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Baltimore City and Maryland: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

Baltimore City Maryland

113

148

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Baltimore City and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

Baltimore City Nation

110

133

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Grade 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Baltimore City, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

Black

110

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American and excludes Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 43 
Boston, Grade 4
�

For Boston fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 139. 

the average score of 139 was at the 36th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was higher than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for Massachusetts. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

no significant difference in the average score compared 

to lower-income students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 28 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 26 points.8 

Achievement-level results showed 

a higher percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

no significant difference in the percentage at or above 

Proficient compared to large cities. 

8The score gap is based on the difference between the unrounded scores 

		as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Boston: 2009 

Boston 44 17 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

38

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

 

4 

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Boston and Massachusetts: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

139

160

Boston Massachusetts

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Boston and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

134 134

Boston Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Boston, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

133

161

134

154

White Black Hispanic Asian/

Pacific Islander

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

•

•

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

44 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Boston, Grade 8 

For Boston eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 130. 

the average score of 130 was at the 28th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a lower overall score than for Massachusetts. 

a White – Black score gap of 40 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 37 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

no significant difference in the percentage at or above 

Proficient compared to large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Boston: 2009 

# Rounds to zero.

Boston 24 14 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

61

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced


� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Boston and Massachusetts: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

130

160

Boston Massachusetts

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

•

•

• 

• 

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Boston and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

123

133

Boston Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Boston, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160 160 157

150

140

130

123 120 120

110

0

White Black Hispanic Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 45 
Charlotte, Grade 4
�

For Charlotte fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 150. 

the average score of 150 was at the 48th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was higher than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

no significant difference from the overall score for 		

North Carolina. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

no significant difference in the average score compared 

to lower-income students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 43 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 38 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a higher percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a higher percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Charlotte: 2009 

Charlotte 38 32 1

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

30

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Charlotte and North Carolina: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

Charlotte North Carolina

150 148

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Charlotte and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

Charlotte Nation

132 134

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Charlotte, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

White Black Hispanic Asian/

Pacific Islander

131

174

136

163

 

4 

Grade 

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

•

•

•

•

• 

•

•

• 

• 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

46 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Charlotte, Grade 8 

For Charlotte eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 141. 

the average score of 141 was at the 38th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was higher than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

no significant difference from the overall score for 		

North Carolina. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 41 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 36 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a higher percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a higher percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Charlotte: 2009 

Charlotte 30 21 1

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

48

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Charlotte and North Carolina: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

141 144

Charlotte North Carolina

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

• 

• 

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Charlotte and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

126

133

Charlotte Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Charlotte, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

126

167

131

White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 47 
Chicago, Grade 4 

For Chicago fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 125. 

the average score of 125 was at the 23rd percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a lower overall score than for Illinois. 

a White – Black score gap of 41 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 26 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Chicago: 2009 

Chicago 32 11 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

56

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Chicago and Illinois: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 Chicago Illinois

125

148

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Chicago and the nation: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 Chicago Nation

120

134

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Chicago, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 White Black Hispanic Asian/

Pacific Islander

113

154

128

159

 

Grade 

4 

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

•

•

• 

• 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

48 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Chicago, Grade 8 

For Chicago eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 121. 

the average score of 121 was at the 21st percentile for 		

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower overall score than for Illinois. 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 40 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 25 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Chicago: 2009 

Chicago 22 7 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

71

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Chicago and Illinois: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

Chicago Illinois

121

148

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Chicago and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

Chicago Nation

118

133

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Chicago, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

White Black Hispanic

110

150

125

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

Grade 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 49 
Cleveland, Grade 4 

For Cleveland fourth-graders in 2009, 

• the overall average score was 114. 

• the average score of 114 was at the 16th percentile for 		

the nation. 

• the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for Ohio. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 27 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 23 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Cleveland: 2009 

Cleveland 26 4 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

70

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

 

4 

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Cleveland and Ohio: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

0

114

157

Cleveland Ohio

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Cleveland and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

150

140

130

120

110

100

0

114

134

Cleveland Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. In Cleveland, 100 percent of the students were 

identified as eligible, so the results for all students and lower-income students 

are the same. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Cleveland, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

150

140

130

120

110

100

0

109

136

113

White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

50 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Cleveland, Grade 8 

For Cleveland eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 121. 

the average score of 121 was at the 21st percentile for 		

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for Ohio. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 27 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 22 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Cleveland: 2009 

Cleveland 21 6 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

74

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Cleveland and Ohio: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

0

121

158

Cleveland Ohio

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Cleveland and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

150

140

133

130

121

120

110

100

0

Cleveland Nation

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

Grade 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. In Cleveland, 100 percent of the students were 

identified as eligible, so the results for all students and lower-income students 

are the same. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Cleveland, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

150

140

130

120

110

100

0

117

144

122

White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 51 
Detroit, Grade 4 

For Detroit fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 111. 

the average score of 111 was at the 14th percentile for 		

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

an average score of 109 for Black students. 

an average score of 122 for Hispanic students. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

a lower overall score than for Michigan. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Detroit: 2009 

 

Grade 

4 

Detroit 23 4 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

74

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Detroit and Michigan: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

100 

0 Detroit Michigan

111

150

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Detroit and the nation: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

100 

0 Detroit Nation

108

134

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Detroit, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

100 

0 Black Hispanic

109

122

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

52 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Detroit, Grade 8 

For Detroit eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 113. 

the average score of 113 was at the 16th percentile for 		

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for Michigan. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

an average score of 113 for Black students. 

an average score of 117 for Hispanic students. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Detroit: 2009 

Detroit 17 3 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advance

80

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Detroit and Michigan: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

0

Detroit Michigan

113

153

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Detroit and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

150

140

130

120

110

100

0

Detroit Nation

110

133

 

8 

•

•

•

• 

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

Grade 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Detroit, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

500

150

140

130

120 117

113

110

100

0

Black Hispanic

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 53 
Fresno, Grade 4 

For Fresno fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 121. 

the average score of 121 was at the 21st percentile for 		

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for California. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 34 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 26 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to lar

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

ge 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Fresno: 2009 

Fresno 31 8 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

62

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Fresno and California: 2009 

Scale score

Fresno California

0

110

140

130

160

150

120

300

121

136

 

4 

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Fresno and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

Fresno Nation

118

134

0

110

140

130

160

150

120

300

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Fresno, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

110

144

123

0

110

140

130

160

150

120

300

118

White Black Hispanic Asian/

Pacific Islander

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

• 

• 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

54 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Fresno, Grade 8 

For Fresno eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 124. 

the average score of 124 was at the 23rd percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for California. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 34 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 32 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Fresno: 2009 

Fresno 25 9 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

66

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Fresno and California: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

124

137

Fresno California

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Fresno and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

119

133

Fresno Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Fresno, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

117

151

125

119

White Black Hispanic Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 55 
Houston, Grade 4 

For Houston fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 135. 

the average score of 135 was at the 33rd percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was not significantly different from the 

average score for large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 46 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 41 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

no significant difference in the percentage at or above 

Basic compared to large cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

a lower overall score than for Texas. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Houston: 2009 

Houston 39 16 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

45

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Houston and Texas: 2009 

Scale score

Houston Texas

135

148

110

140

130

160

150

120

300

0

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Houston and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

Houston Nation

130

134

0

110

140

130

160

150

120

300

 

4 

Grade 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Houston, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

128

174

160

133

120

110

130

160

150

180

170

140

300

0

White Black Hispanic Asian/

Pacific Islander

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

• 

• 

•

•

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

56 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Houston, Grade 8 

For Houston eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 138. 

the average score of 138 was at the 35th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was higher than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for Texas. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

no significant difference in the average score compared 		

to lower-income students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 43 points.9 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 35 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a higher percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

no significant difference in the percentage at or above 

Proficient compared to large cities. 

9The score gap is based on the difference between the unrounded scores 

		as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Houston: 2009 

Houston 32 17 1

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

51

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Houston and Texas: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150 150

140 138

130

120

110

0

Houston Texas

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Houston and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

133 133

Houston Nation

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

• 

•

•

Grade 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Houston, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

128

172

166

137

White Black Hispanic Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 57 
Jefferson County (KY), 

Grade 4 

For Jefferson County (KY) fourth-graders in 2009, 

a lower overall score than for Kentucky. 

the overall average score was 150. 

the average score of 150 was at the 48th percentile for 		

the nation. 

the average score was higher than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

no significant difference in the average score compared 

to lower-income students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 34 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 25 points. 

a higher percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a higher percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results showed 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Jefferson County (KY): 2009 

Jefferson County (KY) 37 32 1

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

30

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Jefferson County (KY) and Kentucky: 2009 

   

Scale score

300

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

150

161

Jefferson County (KY) Kentucky

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Jefferson County (KY) and the 

nation: 2009 

   

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

136 134

Jefferson County (KY) Nation

 

4 

Grade 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Jefferson County (KY), by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

129

163

138

White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

•

•

•

•

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

58 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Jefferson County (KY), 

Grade 8 

For Jefferson County (KY) eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 145. 

the average score of 145 was at the 43rd percentile for 		

the nation. 

the average score was higher than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for Kentucky. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 29 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

no significant difference in the average score compared 

to lower-income students in the nation. 

a higher percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a higher percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Jefferson County (KY): 2009 

Jefferson County (KY) 23 1

38

32

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

43

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Jefferson County (KY) and Kentucky: 2009 

   

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

145

156

Jefferson County (KY) Kentucky

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Jefferson County (KY) and the 

nation: 2009 

   

Scale score

300

160

150

140

133 133

130

120

110

0

Jefferson County (KY) Nation

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

•

•

Grade 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Jefferson County (KY), by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

128

157

White Black

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 59 
Los Angeles, Grade 4 

For Los Angeles fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 124. 

the average score of 124 was at the 23rd percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 35 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 33 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower overall score than for California. 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Los Angeles: 2009 

Los Angeles 34 11 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

55

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Los Angeles and California: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 

124

136

Los Angeles California

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Los Angeles and the nation: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 

120

134

Los Angeles Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Los Angeles, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 

117

152 151

119

White Black Hispanic Asian/

Pacific Islander

 

Grade 

4 

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

•

•

•

•

• 

• 

• 

•

•

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

60 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Los Angeles, Grade 8 

For Los Angeles eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 123. 

the average score of 123 was at the 22nd percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for California. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 39 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 34 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Los Angeles: 2009 

Los Angeles 23 9 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

67

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Los Angeles and California: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

123

137

Los Angeles California

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Los Angeles and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

119

133

Los Angeles Nation

 

8 

•

•

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Grade 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Los Angeles, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

113

152

156

118

White Black Hispanic Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 61 
Miami-Dade, Grade 4 

For Miami-Dade fourth-graders in 2009, 

a lower overall score than for Florida. 

the overall average score was 144. 

the average score of 144 was at the 41st percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was higher than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

no significant difference in the average score compared 

to lower-income students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 44 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 23 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a higher percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a higher percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Miami-Dade: 2009 

Miami-Dade 42 24 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

34

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Miami-Dade and Florida: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

Miami­Dade Florida

144

151

 

Grade 

4 

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Miami-Dade and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

Miami­Dade Nation

135 134

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Miami-Dade, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

170 169

160

150 146

140

130 125

120

110

0

White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

•

•

• 

• 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

62 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Miami-Dade, Grade 8 

For Miami-Dade eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 137. 

the average score of 137 was at the 35th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was higher than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

no significant difference in the average score compared 

to lower-income students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 36 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 21 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a higher percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

no significant difference in the percentage at or above 

Proficient compared to large cities. 

a lower overall score than for Florida. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Miami-Dade: 2009 

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

Miami-Dade 31 17 1

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

51

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Miami-Dade and Florida: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

137

146

Miami­Dade Florida

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Miami-Dade and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

130 133

Miami­Dade Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Miami-Dade, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

123

159

138

White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 63 
Milwaukee, 

Grade 4
�

For Milwaukee fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 126. 

the average score of 126 was at the 25th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for Wisconsin. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 42 points.10 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 25 points.10 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

10 The score gap is based on the difference between the unrounded scores 

			as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Milwaukee: 2009 

 

4 

Grade 

Milwaukee 32 12 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

56

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Milwaukee and Wisconsin: 2009 

Scale score

0

110

140

130

160

150

120

300

126

157

Milwaukee Wisconsin

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Milwaukee and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

Milwaukee Nation

120

134

0

110

140

130

160

150

120

300

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Milwaukee, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

115

158

0

110

140

130

160

150

120

300

132

White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

Photo com 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

64 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Milwaukee, Grade 8 

For Milwaukee eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 122. 

the average score of 122 was at the 22nd percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 28 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 15 points.11 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

11The score gap is based on the difference between the unrounded scores 

as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure. 

 

8 

ming soon 

• 

• 

• 

• a lower overall score than for Wisconsin. 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Milwaukee: 2009 

Milwaukee 23 5 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

72

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Milwaukee and Wisconsin: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

122

157

Milwaukee Wisconsin

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Milwaukee and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

118

133

Milwaukee Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Milwaukee, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

115

143

127

White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 65 
New York City, Grade 4 

For New York City fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 135. 

the average score of 135 was at the 33rd percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was not significantly different from the 

average score for large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for New York. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

no significant difference in the average score compared 

to lower-income students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 34 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 31 points.12 

Achievement-level results showed 

no significant difference in the percentage at or above Basic 

compared to large cities. 

no significant difference in the percentage at or above 

Proficient compared to large cities. 

12The score gap is based on the difference between the unrounded scores 

as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in New York City: 2009 

New York City 38 18 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

44

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in New York City and New York: 2009 

   

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 

135

148

New York City New York

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in New York City and the nation: 2009 

   

Scale score 

300 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

0 

132 134

New York City Nation

 

Grade 

4 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program.
�

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in New York City, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score 

300 

159 160

153

150 

140 

130 127 125

120 

110 

0 White Black Hispanic Asian/

Pacific Islander

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

66 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
New York City, Grade 8 

For New York City eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 129. 

the average score of 129 was at the 27th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower overall score than for New York. 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 32 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 31 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in New York City: 2009 

New York City 24 13 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

62

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in New York City and New York: 2009 

   

Scale score

300

160

149 150

140

129 130

120

110

0

New York City New York

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in New York City and the nation: 2009 

   

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

125

133

New York City Nation

 

8 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

Grade 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in New York City, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

119

151

156

120

White Black Hispanic Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 67 
Philadelphia, Grade 4 

For Philadelphia fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 121. 

the average score of 121 was at the 21st percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

a lower overall score than for Pennsylvania. 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 26 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 21 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Philadelphia: 2009 

Philadelphia 30 8 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

62

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

Philadelphia Pennsylvania

121

154

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in Philadelphia and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140 134

130

120 119

110

0

Philadelphia Nation

 

Grade 

4 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in Philadelphia, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

White Black Hispanic Asian/

Pacific Islander

141 141

120

115

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

68 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Philadelphia, Grade 8 

For Philadelphia eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 119. 

the average score of 119 was at the 19th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was lower than the average score for 

large cities (134). 

a lower overall score than for Pennsylvania. 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 27 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 23 points.13 

a lower percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a lower percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results showed 

13The score gap is based on the difference between the unrounded scores 

as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Philadelphia: 2009 

Philadelphia 19 6 #

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

75

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

119

154

Philadelphia Pennsylvania

 

8 

•

•

•

•

• 

•

•

•

•

Grade 

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in Philadelphia and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

115

133

Philadelphia Nation

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in Philadelphia, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

139 139

115 112

White Black Hispanic Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 69 
San Diego, Grade 4 

For San Diego fourth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 144. 

the average score of 144 was at the 41st percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was higher than the average score for 

large cities (135). 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a higher overall score than for California. 

a White – Black score gap of 45 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 40 points.14 

Achievement-level results showed 

a higher percentage at or above Basic compared to large 

cities. 

a higher percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

14 The score gap is based on the difference between the unrounded scores 

as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in San Diego: 2009 

San Diego 37 28 1

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

35

Large city1

Nation

44 36 19 #

29 39 32 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

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

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in San Diego and California: 2009 

Scale score

San Diego California

0

110

140

130

160

150

120

300

144

136

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

fourth-graders in San Diego and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

San Diego Nation

128

134

0

110

140

130

160

150

120

300

 

4 

Grade 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for fourth-graders 

in San Diego, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

124

169

157

128

0

120

150

140

170

160

130

110

300

White Black Hispanic Asian/

Pacific Islander

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

•

•

• 

• 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

70 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
San Diego, Grade 8 

For San Diego eighth-graders in 2009, 

the overall average score was 138. 

the average score of 138 was at the 35th percentile for 

the nation. 

the average score was not significantly different from the 

average score for large cities (134). 

no significant difference from the overall score for 

California. 

a lower average score compared to lower-income 

students in the nation. 

The district-to-state comparison showed 

Results for lower-income students showed 

Results for racial/ethnic groups showed 

a White – Black score gap of 33 points. 

a White – Hispanic score gap of 35 points. 

Achievement-level results showed 

no significant difference in the percentage at or above 

Basic compared to large cities. 

a higher percentage at or above Proficient compared to 

large cities. 

Achievement-level results in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in San Diego: 2009 

San Diego 29 19 1

Percent below Basic Percent at Basic, Proficient, and Advanced

51

Large city1

Nation 38 33 28 1

56 27 16 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more 

including the participating districts. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in San Diego and California: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140 138 137

130

120

110

0

San Diego California

Average scores in NAEP science for lower-income 

eighth-graders in San Diego and the nation: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

125

133

San Diego Nation

 

8 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Grade 

NOTE: In NAEP, lower-income students are students identified as eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Average scores in NAEP science for eighth-graders 

in San Diego, by race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score

300

160

150

140

130

120

110

0

125

158

148

123

White Black Hispanic Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

NOTE: Results are not shown for all race/ethnicity categories because of insufficient 

sample sizes. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific 

Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 71 
 

Technical Notes
� Sampling and Weighting 

The sample of students in the participating TUDA school 

districts is an extension of the sample of students who would 

usually be selected by NAEP as part of state and national 

samples. These extended samples allow reliable reporting of 

student groups within these districts. Results for students in 

the TUDA samples are also included in state and national 

samples with appropriate weighting. 

In the same way that schools and students participating in 

NAEP assessments are chosen to be nationally representative, the schools and students participating in TUDA assessments are selected to be representative of their districts. The 

results from the assessed students are combined to provide 

accurate estimates of overall district performance. Results 		

are weighted to take into account the fact that schools and 

students represent different proportions of the overall district 

population. 

Some charter schools that operate within the geographic 

boundaries of a school district are independent of the district 

and are not included in the district’s Adequate Yearly Progress 

(AYP) report to the U.S. Department of Education under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Charter schools 		

are included in TUDA results if they contribute to the district’s 

AYP results as part of the Elementary and Secondary 		

Education Act. 

Results are reported for groups of students defined by shared 

characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, and eligibility 

for free/reduced-price school lunch only when sufficient 

numbers of students and adequate school representation are 

present. The minimum requirement is at least 62 students in 

a particular student group from at least five primary geographic sampling units. However, the data for all students, 

regardless of whether their student group was reported 

separately, were included in computing overall results. 

School and Student Participation 

To ensure that reported results are based on a sample that 		

is representative of the target population, NAEP statistical 

standards require that school participation rates for the 

original district samples be at least 85 percent for results 		

to be reported. In the 2009 science assessment, all participating urban districts met school participation rate standards 

at both grades 4 and 8 (see appendix table A-1). 

Accommodations and Exclusions 

in NAEP 

It is important to assess all selected students from the target 

population, including students with disabilities (SD) and 

English language learners (ELL). To accomplish this goal, 

students who receive accommodations in their state’s 

assessments, such as extra testing time or individual rather 

than group administration, are offered most of the same 

accommodations in NAEP. 

Some students identified as SD or ELL who are sampled for 

NAEP participation may be excluded from the assessment 		

if NAEP does not offer the accommodations given on the 

student’s state assessment. School personnel, guided by the 

student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) as well as by 

Section 504 eligibility, decide whether to exclude students 

with disabilities from the assessment. Based on NAEP’s guidelines, they also decide whether to exclude students identified 

as ELL. The percentages of students excluded from NAEP may 

vary considerably across districts. Comparisons of achievement results across districts should be interpreted with 

caution if the exclusion rates vary widely. See appendix 		

tables A-2 and A-3 for the exclusion rates in the urban 

districts. 

72 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
 

Interpreting Statistical Significance

Comparisons between groups are based on statistical tests 

that consider both the size of the differences and the standard 

errors of the two statistics being compared. Standard errors 

are margins of error, and estimates based on smaller groups 

are likely to have larger margins of error. The size of the 

standard errors may also be influenced by other factors such 

as how representative the assessed students are of the entire 

population. 

When an estimate has a large standard error, a numerical 

difference that seems large may not be statistically significant. Differences of the same magnitude may or may not 		

be statistically significant depending upon the size of the 

standard errors of the estimates. For instance, the 4-point 

difference between scores for eighth-graders in Houston and 

large cities was statistically significant, while the 4-point 

difference between San Diego and large cities was not. 

Standard errors for the estimates presented in this report are 

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

To ensure that significant differences in NAEP data reflect 

actual differences and not mere chance, error rates need to be 

controlled when making multiple simultaneous comparisons. 

The more comparisons that are made (e.g., comparing the 

performance of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, 

and American Indian/Alaska Native students), the higher the 

probability of finding significant differences by chance. In 

NAEP, the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) 

procedure is used to control the expected proportion of falsely 

rejected hypotheses relative to the number of comparisons 

that are conducted. A detailed explanation of this procedure 

can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/ 

analysis/infer.asp. 

A part-whole relationship exists between the district samples 

and the state and national samples because each district is 

part of its home state and the national public school samples. 

Therefore, when individual district results are compared to 

results for a state or the nation, the significance tests appropriately reflect this dependency. 

When estimates of percentages are close to 0 or 100, 		

reliable standard errors cannot be estimated. As a result, 

significance tests are not conducted when the comparison 

involves an extreme percentage. Refer to http://nces.ed.gov/ 

nationsreportcard/tdw/analysis/infer_guidelines_extreme 

.asp for more information about how extreme percentages 

are defined in NAEP. 

National School Lunch Program 

NAEP collects data on student eligibility for the National 

School Lunch Program (NSLP) as an indicator of low income. 

Under the guidelines of NSLP, children from families with 

incomes below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible 		

for free meals. Those from families with incomes between 		

130 and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for 

reduced-price meals. (For the period July 1, 2008, through 

June 30, 2009, for a family of four, 130 percent of the poverty 

level was $27,560, and 185 percent was $39,220.) 

Some schools provide free meals to all students irrespective 

of individual eligibility, using their own funds to cover the 

costs of non-eligible students. Under special provisions of 		

the National School Lunch Act intended to reduce the administrative burden of determining student eligibility every year, 

schools can be reimbursed based on eligibility data for a 

single base year. Based on these provisions, participating 

schools with high percentages of eligible students can report 

all students as eligible for free lunch. This procedure was 

followed in Cleveland in 2009. For more information on NSLP, 

visit http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/. 

Large City 

Just as the national public sample is used as a benchmark for 

comparing results for states, results for urban districts are 

compared to results from large cities nationwide. Referred to 

as “large central cities” in previous TUDA reports, results for 

large cities are for public schools located in the urbanized 

areas of cities with populations of 250,000 or more. Large 

city is not synonymous with “inner city.” Schools in participating TUDA districts are also included in the results for large 

cities, even though some districts (Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, 

Cleveland, Fresno, Houston, Jefferson County, Los Angeles, 

and Miami-Dade) include some schools not classified as large 

city schools. 

Further comparisons of urban district data with large city data 

are available from the online Data Explorer on the NAEP 

website (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/). 

By selecting “Large city” as a jurisdiction in the NAEP Data 

Explorer, users will be able to replicate the results in this 

report and explore additional comparisons. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 73 
74 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 

Appendix Tables 

Table A-1.	�Public school and student participation rates for Trial Urban District Assessment in 

science, by grade and district: 2009 

Grade and district 

School participation Student participation 

Student-weighted 

percent 

Number of 

schools 

participating 

Student-weighted 

percent 

Number of 

students 

assessed 

Grade 4 

Atlanta 100 60 97 1,200 

Austin 100 70 95 1,500 

Baltimore City 100 80 94 1,200 

Boston 100 80 94 1,100 

Charlotte 100 60 96 1,600 

Chicago 100 110 95 1,900 

Cleveland 100 80 90 900 

Detroit 100 60 91 900 

Fresno 100 50 95 1,400 

Houston 100 90 96 2,200 

Jefferson County (KY) 100 70 95 1,400 

Los Angeles 100 80 95 2,100 

Miami-Dade 100 90 96 2,200 

Milwaukee 100 90 94 1,300 

New York City 100 90 93 2,200 

Philadelphia 100 70 91 1,300 

San Diego 100 60 95 1,300 

Grade 8 

Atlanta 100 20 91 900 

Austin 100 20 88 1,400 

Baltimore City 100 40 90 900 

Boston 100 30 91 1,100 

Charlotte 100 30 91 1,400 

Chicago 100 110 94 1,900 

Cleveland 100 80 89 900 

Detroit 100 50 84 1,000 

Fresno 100 20 92 1,300 

Houston 100 40 92 2,000 

Jefferson County (KY) 100 30 91 1,400 

Los Angeles 100 70 91 2,000 

Miami-Dade 100 60 93 2,000 

Milwaukee 100 60 87 1,000 

New York City 100 90 88 2,100 

Philadelphia 100 60 92 1,200 

San Diego 100 30 93 1,000 

NOTE: The number of schools is rounded to the nearest ten. The number of students is rounded to the nearest hundred. 

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

Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
�
Table A-2. Percentage of public school students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and assessed in 

NAEP science, as a percentage of all students, by grade and jurisdiction: 2009 

Grade and jurisdiction 

SD and/or ELL SD ELL 

Identified Excluded 

Assessed 

without 

accommodations 

Assessed 

with 

accommodations Identified Excluded 

Assessed 

without 

accommodations 

Assessed 

with 

accommodations Identified Excluded 

Assessed 

without 

accommodations 

Assessed 

with 

accommodations 

Grade 4 

Nation 23 2 9 12 13 2 3 9 10 1 6 4 

Large city1 31 3 14 14 13 2 2 9 21 1 12 7 

Atlanta 12 1 4 7 10 1 4 6 2 # 1 2 

Austin 44 5 20 19 16 3 2 10 32 2 18 11 

Baltimore City 19 3 1 14 18 3 1 14 1 # # 1 

Boston 35 5 12 18 22 4 3 15 18 3 10 5 

Charlotte 19 2 6 11 12 2 3 8 8 1 3 4 

Chicago 24 3 8 13 14 2 4 9 12 2 4 6 

Cleveland 25 9 1 15 20 8 1 10 6 1 # 5 

Detroit 20 2 9 10 15 2 4 9 7 1 5 2 

Fresno 38 3 30 5 11 3 3 5 30 1 28 2 

Houston 43 3 22 18 7 2 1 4 38 2 20 15 

Jefferson County (KY) 19 3 5 11 15 2 5 9 4 1 1 2 

Los Angeles 46 2 36 8 10 1 2 7 41 1 35 5 

Miami-Dade 21 3 2 16 13 2 1 10 9 2 1 7 

Milwaukee 30 6 2 22 19 5 1 13 13 2 1 10 

New York City 31 2 1 28 19 1 1 17 16 1 # 14 

Philadelphia 22 3 3 16 15 3 2 10 8 1 1 6 

San Diego 43 3 33 7 13 2 5 6 35 2 30 4 

Grade 8 

Nation 18 2 5 10 13 2 2 9 6 1 3 2 

Large city1 23 3 9 11 13 2 2 9 12 1 7 4 

Atlanta 12 1 2 9 10 1 1 8 2 # # 1 

Austin 29 5 15 10 17 4 5 8 16 2 10 3 

Baltimore City 19 3 2 14 18 3 2 13 1 # # 1 

Boston 30 7 4 19 22 5 2 15 11 3 2 5 

Charlotte 17 3 4 10 11 2 1 7 7 1 3 3 

Chicago 21 3 4 15 16 2 2 13 6 1 2 3 

Cleveland 28 9 2 17 23 9 # 14 6 1 1 4 

Detroit 23 4 7 12 17 4 3 11 7 # 5 1 

Fresno 29 2 20 7 11 2 2 6 22 1 19 2 

Houston 22 4 9 8 12 4 3 6 12 1 7 4 

Jefferson County (KY) 15 3 3 9 12 2 2 8 3 1 1 1 

Los Angeles 29 2 20 7 11 2 3 6 23 2 18 4 

Miami-Dade 20 3 1 16 12 2 # 10 8 1 # 7 

Milwaukee 26 5 2 19 21 4 1 15 7 1 1 4 

New York City 23 2 1 20 15 1 # 14 10 2 1 8 

Philadelphia 22 3 2 18 17 2 1 13 7 # 1 5 

San Diego 25 3 16 6 12 3 3 6 16 1 13 2 

 

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.
�

NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
�

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
�

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 75 
76 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 

Table A-3. Percentage of public school students identified as students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) excluded and 

assessed in NAEP science, as a percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students, by grade and jurisdiction: 2009 

Grade and jurisdiction 

Percentage of identified SD and/or ELL students 

SD and/or ELL SD ELL 

Excluded Assessed 

Assessed 

without 

accommodations 

Assessed 

with 

accommodations Excluded Assessed 

Assessed 

without 

accommodations 

Assessed 

with 

accommodations Excluded Assessed 

Assessed 

without 

accommodations 

Assessed 

with 

accommodations 

Grade 4 

Nation 9 91 39 52 13 87 23 64 7 93 57 37 

Large city1 9 91 45 46 15 85 18 67 6 94 59 35 

Atlanta 6 94 36 58 6 94 37 57 3 97 28 68 

Austin 10 90 46 44 22 78 13 65 8 92 57 35 

Baltimore City 17 83 7 75 18 82 6 76 14 86 25 61 

Boston 15 85 34 51 17 83 13 70 15 85 55 30 

Charlotte 12 88 30 58 13 87 25 62 11 89 34 55 

Chicago 14 86 32 54 15 85 26 59 15 85 34 51 

Cleveland 36 64 4 59 43 57 4 53 23 77 5 73 

Detroit 9 91 43 47 12 88 30 58 8 92 68 24 

Fresno 7 93 80 13 24 76 31 45 2 98 92 6 

Houston 7 93 51 43 24 76 20 56 5 95 54 41 

Jefferson County (KY) 14 86 28 58 11 89 29 60 34 66 24 41 

Los Angeles 3 97 79 18 8 92 24 68 3 97 85 12 

Miami-Dade 14 86 9 76 12 88 11 77 19 81 6 75 

Milwaukee 19 81 8 73 25 75 7 68 15 85 8 77 

New York City 6 94 4 90 5 95 4 91 7 93 3 90 

Philadelphia 14 86 12 73 17 83 13 70 7 93 10 83 

San Diego 7 93 77 16 17 83 37 45 4 96 85 11 

Grade 8 

Nation 11 89 30 58 14 86 17 70 9 91 56 35 

Large city1 12 88 38 49 16 84 15 69 10 90 59 32 

Atlanta 6 94 13 80 6 94 13 82 11 89 24 65 

Austin 16 84 50 34 24 76 27 48 14 86 65 21 

Baltimore City 16 84 10 74 16 84 10 74 31 69 # 69 

Boston 23 77 12 65 24 76 7 69 30 70 20 50 

Charlotte 17 83 26 56 20 80 13 67 17 83 43 40 

Chicago 13 87 18 69 11 89 12 78 23 77 30 48 

Cleveland 32 68 6 62 38 62 1 61 20 80 20 60 

Detroit 18 82 31 51 23 77 15 63 2 98 78 19 

Fresno 8 92 70 22 21 79 18 60 3 97 86 11 

Houston 19 81 42 39 29 71 21 50 10 90 60 30 

Jefferson County (KY) 18 82 23 59 17 83 20 63 29 71 32 39 

Los Angeles 8 92 68 24 15 85 30 56 7 93 77 16 

Miami-Dade 13 87 4 83 13 87 3 84 16 84 5 79 

Milwaukee 19 81 9 72 19 81 7 74 20 80 15 64 

New York City 9 91 4 86 6 94 2 92 16 84 7 77 

Philadelphia 11 89 9 80 15 85 5 80 7 93 16 77 

San Diego 13 87 64 23 28 72 26 46 6 94 82 12 

 

# Rounds to zero.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.
�

NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
�

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 
trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 77 

Table A-4. Selected percentile scores in NAEP science for public school students, by grade and jurisdiction: 2009 

Grade and jurisdiction 

10th 

percentile 

25th 

percentile 

50th 

percentile 

75th 

percentile 

90th 

percentile 

Grade 4 

Nation 102* 126* 152* 174* 192* 

Large city1 88** 111** 136** 161** 182** 

Atlanta 88** 109** 133** 158** 182** 

Austin 98* 120*,** 146*,** 174* 197* 

Baltimore City 79*,** 97*,** 117*,** 136*,** 156*,** 

Boston 101* 119*,** 139*,** 159** 177*,** 

Charlotte 105* 126* 150* 175* 194* 

Chicago 78*,** 101*,** 125*,** 150*,** 170*,** 

Cleveland 77*,** 94*,** 114*,** 135*,** 152*,** 

Detroit 71*,** 90*,** 111*,** 132*,** 151*,** 

Fresno 80** 100*,** 122*,** 143*,** 163*,** 

Houston 94*,** 114** 135** 157** 177** 

Jefferson County (KY) 103* 125* 151* 175* 194* 

Los Angeles 76*,** 101*,** 126*,** 149*,** 168*,** 

Miami-Dade 101* 123* 145*,** 167*,** 185** 

Milwaukee 81** 103*,** 126*,** 150*,** 171*,** 

New York City 90** 112** 137** 160** 179** 

Philadelphia 78*,** 99*,** 121*,** 143*,** 164*,** 

San Diego 94** 119*,** 146*,** 171* 191 

Grade 8 

Nation 102* 127* 152* 174* 191* 

Large city1 85** 109** 135** 160** 180** 

Atlanta 84** 104** 126*,** 149*,** 170*,** 

Austin 96*,** 123* 152* 178*,** 199*,** 

Baltimore City 71*,** 91*,** 114*,** 136*,** 154*,** 

Boston 83** 106** 131** 156*,** 178** 

Charlotte 92** 117*,** 143*,** 167*,** 186*,** 

Chicago 77*,** 99*,** 122*,** 145*,** 165*,** 

Cleveland 82** 102*,** 122*,** 142*,** 161*,** 

Detroit 71*,** 92*,** 114*,** 136*,** 154*,** 

Fresno 79** 101*,** 125*,** 149*,** 168*,** 

Houston 93** 116*,** 141*,** 162** 180** 

Jefferson County (KY) 102* 123* 147*,** 169*,** 187*,** 

Los Angeles 75*,** 100*,** 125*,** 149*,** 169*,** 

Miami-Dade 91** 115*,** 140*,** 162** 181** 

Milwaukee 82** 101*,** 123*,** 144*,** 162*,** 

New York City 83** 106** 130*,** 153*,** 176*,** 

Philadelphia 76** 97*,** 119*,** 141*,** 162*,** 

San Diego 89 114** 140*,** 164*,** 184*,** 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large city.
�

** Significantly different (p < .05) from the nation.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.
�

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
�
Table A-5. Achievement-level results in NAEP science for fourth- and eighth-grade public school students, by jurisdiction: 2009 

Grade 4 Grade 8 

Percentage of students Percentage of students 

Jurisdiction 

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

At 

Advanced

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

At 

Advanced

Nation 71* 32* 1 62* 29* 1* 

Large city1 56** 20** # 44** 17** 1** 

Atlanta 52*,** 19** 1 33*,** 10*,** # 

Austin 65*,** 31* 1 61* 33*,** 3*,** 

Baltimore City 31*,** 6*,** #** 20*,** 4*,** #** 

Boston 62*,** 18** # 39*,** 15** #** 

Charlotte 70* 33* 1 52*,** 22*,** 1 

Chicago 44*,** 12*,** # 29*,** 7*,** # 

Cleveland 30*,** 4*,** # 26*,** 6*,** # 

Detroit 26*,** 4*,** # 20*,** 3*,** # 

Fresno 38*,** 8*,** # 34*,** 9*,** # 

Houston 55** 16*,** # 49*,** 17** 1 

Jefferson County (KY) 70* 33* 1 57*,** 24*,** 1 

Los Angeles 45*,** 11*,** # 33*,** 10*,** #** 

Miami-Dade 66*,** 25*,** # 49*,** 18** 1** 

Milwaukee 44*,** 12*,** # 28*,** 6*,** # 

New York City 56** 18** #** 38*,** 13*,** #** 

Philadelphia 38*,** 8*,** #** 25*,

** 6*,** # 

San Diego 65*,** 29* 1 49** 20*,** 1 

# Rounds to zero. 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large city.
�

** Significantly different (p < .05) from the nation.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.
�

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
�

78 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
 

Table A-6. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP science for public school students, by selected race/ethnicity categories, grade, 

and jurisdiction: 2009 

White Black 

Percentage of students Percentage of students 

Grade and jurisdiction 

Average 

scale score 

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

Average 

scale score 

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

Grade 4 

Nation 162 86 46 127* 46* 10* 

Large city1 163 85 48 122** 41** 8** 

Atlanta 181*,** 96*,** 75*,** 126* 44 9 

Austin 183*,** 96*,** 77*,** 129 46 10 

Baltimore City 143*,** 60*,** 26*,** 115*,** 28*,** 3*,** 

Boston 161 85 43 133*,** 54*,** 10 

Charlotte 174*,** 94*,** 62*,** 131*,** 50* 10 

Chicago 154 78 38 113*,** 29*,** 5** 

Cleveland 136*,** 61*,** 15*,** 109*,** 22*,** 2*,** 

Detroit ‡ ‡ ‡ 109*,** 24*,** 3*,** 

Fresno 144*,** 66*,** 25*,** 110*,** 25*,** 4** 

Houston 174*,** 91 64** 128* 48* 8 

Jefferson County (KY) 163 85 48 129* 48* 11 

Los Angeles 152*,** 76 36 117** 36** 6 

Miami-Dade 169*,** 92* 57** 125 44 7 

Milwaukee 158 81 39 115*,** 31*,** 5** 

New York City 159 83 41 125 43 9 

Philadelphia 141*,** 61*,

** 25*,** 115*,** 30*,** 3*,** 

San Diego 169** 89 56** 124 43 10 

Grade 8 

Nation 161 77* 41 125* 32* 8* 

Large city1 159 73** 40 120** 27** 6** 

Atlanta ‡ ‡ ‡ 123 28** 6 

Austin 178*,** 90*,** 65*,** 138*,** 47*,** 16*,** 

Baltimore City ‡ ‡ ‡ 110*,** 17*,** 2*,** 

Boston 160 74 44 120** 26** 6 

Charlotte 167*,

** 83*,** 49*,** 126* 34* 7 

Chicago 150*,** 67** 28*,** 110*,** 17*,** 3*,** 

Cleveland 144*,** 56*,** 18*,** 117** 20*,** 3** 

Detroit ‡ ‡ ‡ 113*,** 19** 3** 

Fresno 151*,** 66** 27*,** 117 28 4 

Houston 172*,** 86*,** 57*,** 128* 38* 9 

Jefferson County (KY) 157** 71** 35** 128* 35 8 

Los Angeles 152*,** 64*,** 30** 113*,** 20** 4 

Miami-Dade 159 73 38 123 30 6 

Milwaukee 143*,** 53*,** 19*,** 115*,** 19*,** 2*,** 

New York City 151*,** 63*,** 29*,** 119** 24** 5** 

Philadelphia 139*,** 49*,

** 18*,** 112*,** 17*,** 3** 

San Diego 158 74 36 125 30 8 

See notes at end of table. 

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 79 
Table A-6. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP science for public school students, by selected race/ethnicity categories, 

grade, and jurisdiction: 2009—Continued 

 

Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander 

Percentage of students Percentage of students 

Grade and jurisdiction 

Average 

scale score 

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

Average 

scale score 

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

Grade 4 

Nation 130* 52* 13 160* 80* 45* 

Large city1 127** 48** 12 152** 76** 35** 

Atlanta ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Austin 133* 54 15 ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Baltimore City ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Boston 134* 58* 12 154 80 34 

Charlotte 136* 58 15 163 86 49 

Chicago 128 48 11 159 80 40 

Cleveland 113*,** 26*,** 4*,** ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Detroit 122 38 8 ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Fresno 118*,** 34*,** 5*,** 123*,** 38*,** 8*,** 

Houston 133* 53 12 160 80 47 

Jefferson County (KY) 138 58 21 ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Los Angeles 119*,** 39*,** 7*,** 151 74 31** 

Miami-Dade 146*,** 70*,** 25*,** ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Milwaukee 132 52 13 ‡ ‡ ‡ 

New York City 127 47 10 153 78 34** 

Philadelphia 120*,** 40** 10 141*,

** 63 23** 

San Diego 128 50 12 157 80 39 

Grade 8 

Nation 131* 41* 12* 159* 72* 40* 

Large city1 127** 37** 10** 152** 66** 32** 

Atlanta ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Austin 134*,** 46* 16*,** ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Baltimore City ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Boston 123** 31** 8 157 74 35 

Charlotte 131 40 11 ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Chicago 125** 32** 6 ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Cleveland 122** 24*,** 4*,** ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Detroit 117 27** 6 ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Fresno 119*,** 27*,** 6*,** 125*,** 34*,** 7*,** 

Houston 137*,** 48*,** 14* 166 76 51 

Jefferson County (KY) ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Los Angeles 118*,** 27*,** 6*,** 156 71 35 

Miami-Dade 138*,** 50*,

** 18*,** ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Milwaukee 127 36 7 ‡ ‡ ‡ 

New York City 120*,** 26*,** 6*,** 156 71 36 

Philadelphia 115*,** 21*,** 3*,

** 139** 48*,** 18*,** 

San Diego 123** 32** 8 148** 61** 26** 

‡ Reporting standards not met. 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large city.
�

** Significantly different (p < .05) from the nation.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.
�

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.
�

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
�

80 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
 

Table A-7. Average score gaps in NAEP science for fourth- and eighth-grade public school students, by selected racial/ethnic comparison 

groups and jurisdiction: 2009 

Jurisdiction 

Grade 4 Grade 8 

White – Black White – Hispanic White – Black White – Hispanic 

Nation 35* 32 36 30 

Large city1 40** 36 39 33 

Atlanta 56*,** ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Austin 54*,** 49*,** 40 43*,** 

Baltimore City 29 ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Boston 28*,** 26* 40 37 

Charlotte 43** 38 41 36 

Chicago 41 26 40 25 

Cleveland 27* 23* 27 22 

Detroit ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Fresno 34 26 34 32 

Houston 46 41 43 35 

Jefferson County (KY) 34 25 29*,** ‡ 

Los Angeles 35 33 39 34 

Miami-Dade 44** 23*,** 36 21*,** 

Milwaukee 42 25 28 15* 

New York City 34 31 32 31 

Philadelphia 26* 21* 27 23 

San Diego 45 40 33 35 

‡ Reporting standards not met. 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large city.
�

** Significantly different (p < .05) from the nation.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.
�

NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores.
�

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
�

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 81 
 

Table A-8. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP science for public school students, by eligibility for National School Lunch 

Program, grade, and jurisdiction: 2009 

Eligible Not eligible 

Percentage of students Percentage of students 

Grade and jurisdiction 

Average 

scale score 

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

Average 

scale score 

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

Grade 4 

Nation 134* 56* 16* 163* 86* 48* 

Large city1 126** 47** 11** 157** 78** 42** 

Atlanta 123*,** 40*,** 7*,** 166* 86* 54* 

Austin 130* 50** 12** 176*,** 92*,** 67*,** 

Baltimore City 114*,** 27*,** 3*,** 136*,** 54*,** 20*,** 

Boston 134* 57* 12** 156** 79 37** 

Charlotte 132* 52* 12** 166* 87* 52* 

Chicago 120*,** 38*,** 8*,** 154** 79 36** 

Cleveland 114*,** 30*,** 4*,** † † † 

Detroit 108*,** 23*,** 3*,** 122*,** 39*,** 6*,** 

Fresno 118*,** 34*,** 5*,** 151** 76 32** 

Houston 130*,** 50** 11** 159 81 43 

Jefferson County (KY) 136* 57* 17* 171*,** 91*,** 58*,** 

Los Angeles 120*,** 40*,** 8*,** 146*,** 69** 30*,** 

Miami-Dade 135* 58* 14* 161 84* 46 

Milwaukee 120*,** 37*,** 7*,** 148*,** 71** 31*,** 

New York City 132* 53* 15* 158 80 41 

Philadelphia 119*,** 35*,

** 6*,** 137*,** 56*,** 21*,** 

San Diego 128** 49** 13 167* 89* 53* 

Grade 8 

Nation 133* 43* 14* 161* 76* 41* 

Large city1 125** 34** 9** 152** 65** 33** 

Atlanta 120*,** 25*,** 5*,** 151** 63** 31** 

Austin 130* 41* 11 173*,** 86*,** 59*,** 

Baltimore City 110*,** 17*,** 2*,** 128*,** 35*,** 13*,** 

Boston 123** 31** 9** 148** 59** 31** 

Charlotte 126** 34** 7** 155** 69** 35** 

Chicago 118*,** 25*,** 5*,** 142*,** 53*,** 20*,** 

Cleveland 121** 26*,** 6*,** † † † 

Detroit 110*,** 16*,** 2*,** 121*,** 31*,** 7*,** 

Fresno 119*,** 28*,** 5*,** 155** 69 30** 

Houston 133* 44* 12* 157 70 36 

Jefferson County (KY) 133* 40* 12 161* 77* 40 

Los Angeles 119*,** 28*,** 6*,** 143*,** 56** 24*,** 

Miami-Dade 130* 40* 11 150** 63** 29** 

Milwaukee 118*,** 22*,** 3*,** 139*,** 50*,** 15*,** 

New York City 125** 33** 10** 146** 56** 28** 

Philadelphia 115*,** 20*,

** 4*,** 143** 52** 19** 

San Diego 125** 33** 8** 154 68 35** 

† Not applicable. In Cleveland, all students were categorized as eligible for the National School Lunch Program. 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large city.
�

** Significantly different (p < .05) from the nation.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.
�

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
�

82 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
Table A-9. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP science for public school students, by status as students with disabilities 

(SD), grade, and jurisdiction: 2009 

 

SD Not SD 

Percentage of students Percentage of students 

Grade and jurisdiction 

Average 

scale score 

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

Average 

scale score 

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

Grade 4 

Nation 129* 50* 16* 151* 74* 35* 

Large city1 112** 33** 9** 138** 59** 21** 

Atlanta 110** 30** 11 137** 54*,** 20** 

Austin 130* 49* 17 149* 67*,** 33* 

Baltimore City 111** 23** 4** 119*,** 33*,** 6*,** 

Boston 121*,** 37** 6** 143*,** 68*,** 20** 

Charlotte 130* 48* 18* 152* 73* 34* 

Chicago 102*,** 20*,** 6** 128*,** 47*,** 12*,** 

Cleveland 93*,** 12*,** # 117*,** 32*,** 5*,** 

Detroit 88*,** 7*,** 1*,** 114*,** 29*,** 4*,** 

Fresno 98*,** 20*,** 3 124*,** 40*,** 8*,** 

Houston 109** 24** 6** 137** 57** 17*,** 

Jefferson County (KY) 126* 43 15 154* 75* 36* 

Los Angeles 89*,** 15*,** 3** 128*,** 48*,** 11*,** 

Miami-Dade 118** 36** 6** 147*,** 70* 27*,** 

Milwaukee 102*,** 19*,** 4*,** 130*,** 49*,** 14*,** 

New York City 117** 35** 8** 140** 61** 21** 

Philadelphia 94*,** 11*,** 1 125*,

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

San Diego 115** 35** 14 148* 69*,** 31* 

Grade 8 

Nation 122* 33* 11* 152* 66* 31* 

Large city1 103** 17** 4** 138** 48** 18** 

Atlanta 98** 12** 3 130*,** 35*,** 11*,** 

Austin 124* 34* 16* 153* 65* 36*,** 

Baltimore City 90*,** 6** 1 118*,** 23*,** 5*,** 

Boston 99** 8*,** 1*,** 137** 46** 18** 

Charlotte 112** 21** 6 144*,** 55*,** 23*,** 

Chicago 96*,** 11*,** 3** 126*,** 33*,** 8*,** 

Cleveland 97** 8** 1 126*,** 30*,** 6*,** 

Detroit 83*,** 5*,** # 118*,** 23*,** 4*,** 

Fresno 91*,** 9** 3** 127*,** 36*,** 9*,** 

Houston 97** 10** 2** 142*,** 53*,** 19** 

Jefferson County (KY) 120* 27 6 148*,** 60*,** 26*,** 

Los Angeles 88*,** 10*,** 2** 127*,** 36*,** 10*,** 

Miami-Dade 112*,** 17** 3** 141*,** 53*,** 19** 

Milwaukee 99** 12** 3** 127*,** 32*,** 6*,** 

New York City 105** 12** 2** 133*,** 42*,** 15*,** 

Philadelphia 92*,** 6*,** # 124*,

** 29*,** 8*,** 

San Diego 109** 19** 7 141** 52** 21** 

# Rounds to zero. 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large city.
�

** Significantly different (p < .05) from the nation.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.
�

NOTE: The results for students with disabilities are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment.
�

trial urban diStrict aSSeSSment Science 2009 83 
 

Table A-10. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP science for public school students, by status as English language learners 

(ELL), grade, and jurisdiction: 2009 

ELL Not ELL 

Percentage of students Percentage of students 

Grade and jurisdiction 

Average 

scale score 

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

Average 

scale score 

At or above 

Basic

At or above 

Proficient

Grade 4 

Nation 114* 33* 5 153* 75* 35* 

Large city1 111** 29** 4 141** 62** 24** 

Atlanta ‡ ‡ ‡ 135*,** 52*,** 19*,** 

Austin 120*,** 37* 5 159*,** 77* 43*,** 

Baltimore City ‡ ‡ ‡ 117*,** 31*,** 6*,** 

Boston 119* 38 3 143** 66** 20*,** 

Charlotte 127*,** 43 9 152* 72* 34* 

Chicago 102*,** 19** 2 127*,** 46*,** 13*,** 

Cleveland ‡ ‡ ‡ 115*,** 31*,** 4*,** 

Detroit ‡ ‡ ‡ 111*,** 26*,** 4*,** 

Fresno 105** 19** 1** 128*,** 47*,** 11*,** 

Houston 124*,** 41*,** 6 142** 64** 22** 

Jefferson County (KY) ‡ ‡ ‡ 150* 71*,** 34* 

Los Angeles 104*,** 21*,** 2** 138*,** 61** 17*,** 

Miami-Dade 113 32 4 146*,** 69*,** 26** 

Milwaukee 127*,** 47*,** 7 126*,** 44*,** 13*,** 

New York City 110 25** 4 140** 62** 21** 

Philadelphia 98*,** 13*,

** 1 123*,** 40*,** 9*,** 

San Diego 117* 36* 5 158*,** 81*,** 42*,** 

Grade 8 

Nation 103* 14* 2 151* 65* 31* 

Large city1 97** 10** 1 138** 48** 19** 

Atlanta ‡ ‡ ‡ 127*,** 33*,** 10*,** 

Austin 104 16 2 157*,** 68*,** 38*,** 

Baltimore City ‡ ‡ ‡ 113*,** 21*,** 4*,** 

Boston 88** 6** # 134*,** 42*,** 16** 

Charlotte 111* 23 4 143*,** 54*,** 23*,** 

Chicago 99 10 2 123*,** 30*,** 7*,** 

Cleveland ‡ ‡ ‡ 122*,** 27*,** 6*,** 

Detroit 112 20 4 113*,** 20*,** 3*,** 

Fresno 93** 4** # 133*,** 42*,** 11*,** 

Houston 104 12 1 142*,** 54*,** 19** 

Jefferson County (KY) ‡ ‡ ‡ 147*,** 58*,** 25*,** 

Los Angeles 88*,** 4** #** 133*,** 41*,** 12*,** 

Miami-Dade 92** 8 1 141** 52** 19** 

Milwaukee ‡ ‡ ‡ 123*,** 29*,** 6*,** 

New York City 95 7** # 132*,** 41*,** 14*,** 

Philadelphia 97 5** 1 121*,

** 27*,** 7*,** 

San Diego 93** 5** # 146*,** 57*,** 23*,** 

# Rounds to zero. 

‡ Reporting standards not met. 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large city.
�

** Significantly different (p < .05) from the nation.
� 1

 Large city includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating districts.
�

NOTE: The results for English language learners are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. 

84 tHe natiOn’S rePOrt card 
tHe natiOn’S 

rePOrt card 

trial urban diStrict 

aSSeSSment 

Science
�

2009 

FEBRUARY 2011 

M o r E I n f o r M A t I o n 

The report release site is 

http://nationsreportcard.gov. 

The NCES Publications and Products 

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

pubsearch. 

For ordering information, write to 

ED Pubs 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 22207 

Alexandria, VA 22304 

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

or order online at 

http://www.edpubs.gov. 

S U g g E S t E d C I t A t I o n 

National Center for Education
�

Statistics (2011).
�

The Nation’s Report Card: 

Trial Urban District Assessment 

Science 2009
�

(NCES 2011–452). 

Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education, 

Washington, D.C.
�

C o n t E n t C o n t A C t 

Emmanuel Sikali 

202-502-7419 

emmanuel.sikali@ed.gov 

This report was prepared for the National 

Center for Education Statistics under Contract 

No. ED-07-CO-0107 with Educational Testing 

Service. Mention of trade names, commercial 

products, or organizations does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

U.S. Department of Education 

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

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

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

arne duncan 

Secretary 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

John Q. easton 

director 

Institute of 

Education Sciences 

Jack Buckley 

Commissioner 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 

The National Assessment Governing Board

In 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board to set policy for the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress, commonly known as The Nation's Report CardTM. The Governing Board is an independent, 

bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, 

business representatives, and members of the general public. 

Honorable david P. driscoll, Chair doris r. Hicks 

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 

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 

former Commissioner of Education 

Melrose, Massachusetts 

Mary Frances Taymans, 

Vice Chair 

Sisters of notre dame 

National Education 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 

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 

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 L. 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. 

“ Th e de p a r tm e nt of edu c at ion ’s m iss ion is to pro m ote st uden t 

ach ievem e nt an d prepa ra ti o n fo r gl o ba l co mpeti ti ve nes s by 

fos teri ng e d uca ti o nal excel len ce a nd e ns u r in g equ a l a cce ss.” 

w ww.e d .gov