National Assessment of Educational Progress

The Nation’s Report Card

INSIDE:

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2005–456

Results From the NAEP 2003 Pilot Study

EXECUTIVE 

SUMMARY 

CHARTER SCHOOL

PILOT STUDY

READING RESULTS

MATHEMATICS 

RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS

TECHNICAL AND 

DATA APPENDIX

1

2

4

7

10

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

America’s 

Charter Schools
The Nation’s Report Card, the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP), is a nationally representative and 

continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can 

do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been 

conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, 

history, geography, and other fields.

 By making objective information on student performance 

available to policymakers at the national, state, and local levels, 

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

academic achievement is collected under this program. NAEP 

guarantees the privacy of individual students, their families, and 

their schools. 

 NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the National 

Center for Education Statistics within the Institute of 

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

Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible, by law, for 

carrying out the NAEP project through competitive awards to 

qualified organizations. 

 In 1988, Congress established the National Assessment 

Governing Board (NAGB) to oversee and set policy for NAEP. 

The Board is responsible for selecting the subject areas to be 

assessed; setting appropriate student achievement levels; developing assessment objectives and test specifications; developing a 

process for the review of the assessment; designing the assessment 

methodology; developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating NAEP results; developing standards and procedures 

for interstate, regional, and national comparisons; determining 

the appropriateness of all assessment items and ensuring the 

assessment items are free from bias and are secular, neutral, and 

non-ideological; taking actions to improve the form, content, 

use, and reporting of results of the National Assessment; and 

planning and executing the initial public release of NAEP reports. 

The National Assessment Governing Board

 What is The Nation's Report Card?

Darvin M. Winick, Chair

President

Winick & Associates, Inc.

Dickinson, Texas 

Sheila M. Ford, Vice Chair 

Principal

Horace Mann Elementary 

School

Washington, DC

Francie Alexander 

Vice President and Chief 

Academic Officer

Scholastic, Inc.

New York, New York 

David J. Alukonis

Chairman

Hudson School Board

Hudson, New Hampshire 

Amanda P. Avallone 

Assistant Principal and 

Eighth-Grade Teacher

Summit Middle School 

Boulder, Colorado 

Honorable Jeb Bush

Governor of Florida

Tallahassee, Florida

Barbara Byrd-Bennett

Chief Executive Officer

Cleveland Municipal School 

District

Cleveland, Ohio

Carl A. Cohn 

Clinical Professor 

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern 

California

Los Angeles, California

Shirley V. Dickson

Educational Consultant 

Laguna Niguel, California 

John Q. Easton

Executive Director

Consortium on Chicago 

School Reform

Chicago, Illinois

Honorable Dwight Evans

State Legislator

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

David W. Gordon 

County Superintendent of 

Schools 

Sacramento County Office of 

Education 

Sacramento, California 

Henry L. Johnson

Superintendent of 

Education

State Department of 

Education

Jackson, Mississippi

Kathi M. King

Twelfth-Grade Teacher

Messalonskee High School

Oakland, Maine

Honorable Keith King 

State Representative

Colorado House of 

Representatives

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Kim Kozbial-Hess

Fourth-Grade Teacher

Fall-Meyer Elementary School

Toledo, Ohio

Luis A. Ramos 

Community Relations 

Manager

PPL Susquehanna

Berwick, Pennsylvania 

Mark D. Reckase

Professor

Measurement and 

Quantitative Methods

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan

John H. Stevens 

Executive Director

Texas Business and 

Education Coalition

Austin, Texas

Mary Frances Taymans

Executive Director

National Catholic 

Educational Association

Washington, DC

Michael E. Ward

Former State 

Superintendent of Public 

Instruction

North Carolina Public 

Schools

Jackson, Mississippi

Eileen L. Weiser

Member, State Board of 

Education 

Michigan Department of 

Education

Lansing, Michigan

Grover (Russ) Whitehurst 

(Ex-officio)

Director 

Institute of Education 

Sciences

U.S. Department of 

Education

Washington, DC

Charles E. Smith

Executive Director, NAGB

Washington, DC

U.S. Department of 

Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Institute of Education 

Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

National Center for 

Education Statistics

Peggy G. Carr

Associate Commissioner

December 2004

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
 Executive Summary

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 

conducted a pilot study of America’s charter schools and 

their students as part of the 2003 NAEP assessments in 

reading and mathematics at the fourth-grade level. NAEP 

also surveyed participating charter schools about their practices, structure, and governance. 

 Charter schools are public schools of choice. A number of 

states have few or no charter schools; many charter schools 

have just recently opened; and some charter schools last 

only a few years. All of these factors make the selection of a 

representative sample challenging. 

For example, the final sample of 150 charter schools was 

obtainable only after multiple sources of information were 

consulted. Information from local school administrators, 

follow-up interviews, and field staff were used to update 

and verify the original school questionnaire data.

 While charter schools are similar to other public schools 

in many respects, they differ in several important ways, 

including the makeup of the student population and their 

location. For example, in comparison to other public 

schools, higher percentages of charter school fourth-grade 

students are Black and attend schools in central cities.

 Thus, when comparing the performance of charter and 

other public school students, it is important to compare 

students who share a common characteristic. For example, 

in mathematics, fourth-grade charter school students as a 

whole did not perform as well as their public school counterparts. However, the mathematics performance of White, 

Black, and Hispanic fourthgraders in charter schools 

was not measurably different 

from the performance of 

fourth-graders with similar 

racial/ethnic backgrounds in 

other public schools. 

 In reading, there was no 

measurable difference in 

performance between charter 

school students in the fourth 

grade and their public school 

counterparts as a whole. This 

was true even though, on average, charter schools have higher 

proportions of students from groups that typically perform 

lower on NAEP than other public schools have. In reading, 

as in mathematics, the 

performance of fourthgrade students with 

similar racial/ethnic 

backgrounds in charter schools and other 

public schools was not 

measurably different.

 There are also instances where the performance of students 

with shared characteristics differed. For example, among students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, fourth-graders 

in charter schools did not score as high in reading or mathematics, on average, as fourth-graders in other public schools.

 When considering these data, it should be noted that the 

charter school population is rapidly changing and growing. 

Future NAEP assessments may reveal different patterns of 

performance. Further, NAEP does not collect information 

about students’ prior educational experience, which contributes to present performance. Nonetheless, the data in this 

report do provide a snapshot of charter school students’ current performance.

...lower overall charter 

school mathematics 

performance, but no 

measurable differences 

among students with 

similar racial/ethnic 

backgrounds

...no measurable 

difference in overall 

reading performance

1

AMERICA’S CHARTER SCHOOLS
9

9

0 100 10 30 70 20 40 50 60 80 90

Percent

Limited-Englishproficient students

8*

11

Students with

disabilities

50*

50*

29

71

Central city

Type of location

20

19 Hispanic

31*

17 Black

45*

58 White

Race/Ethnicity

52*

49 Female

48*

51 Male

Gender

Non-central-city

42

44

Eligible for free/

reduced-price

school lunch

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools

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

Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Charter School Pilot Study.

Charter schools are public schools 

of choice. They serve as alternatives 

to the regular public schools to 

which students are assigned. While 

there are many similarities between 

charter and other public schools, 

they do differ in some important 

ways—including the makeup of 

the student population and their 

location, as shown in the graphic.

 Who Attends Charter Schools?

Grade 4: 2003

 Charter School Pilot Study

As the charter school movement has grown, interest in how charter schools function 

and how their students perform academically has increased. Motivated by this interest, 

the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), which sets policy for the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), asked the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) to conduct a pilot study of charter schools. This pilot study was conducted as part of NAEP’s 2003 national assessment of fourth-graders in reading and 

mathematics.

 NAEP, as the nation’s report card, has a responsibility to gauge student progress in 

America’s schools. As a new kind of public school, charter schools are an appropriate subject of study. The varied and changing nature of the charter school movement, however, 

makes such a study a challenge. 

 This report first describes the pilot study’s design and methodology, within the context 

of a few lessons learned. Some key results are then presented separately for reading and 

mathematics in the body of the report, while other data are found in the appendix. As 

indicated in the appendix tables, some of the data presented in the appendix should be 

interpreted with caution due to the uncertainty of the estimates. Further explanation is 

provided in the Technical and Data Appendix at the end of this report.

✓ LESSONS LEARNED

! Until America’s charter 

schools become a more 

stable entity among educational institutions, multiple 

sources of information and 

verification are necessary to 

accurately identify a representative sample of charter 

schools.

! The unique characteristics 

of charter schools require 

additional information to be 

collected, beyond the information obtained from the 

regular NAEP questionnaires.

! Since far more charter 

schools than other public 

schools are located in 

central cities, and there are 

striking differences in their 

demographic makeup, it 

is more fair to compare the 

performance of students 

that share a common 

characteristic.

! Performance results vary for 

charter schools with different 

characteristics. There are 

wide variations in how charter schools are structured, 

the degree of oversight exerted by external agencies, and 

the length of time chartered.

Charter school students

Other public school students

2

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
 Charter school students took the NAEP reading and mathematics assessments at the 

same time as students in all other schools. After the analyses for the main assessment were 

completed, different and sometimes conflicting sources of information were examined 

to confirm which sampled schools were, in fact, charter schools. Achievement results for 

students in charter schools were produced in the same manner as results for students in 

other public schools. 

 Additional procedures were followed to make sure the sample of charter school 

students was large enough to conduct the necessary analyses. First, charter schools 

were selected within their state or jurisdiction proportional to their representation in the 

total population of charter schools. Second, charter schools were oversampled in three 

states—California, Michigan, and Texas—that together accounted for almost half of all 

charter school students nationally. 

 There were a number of sources used to construct the final sample of charter schools. 

Initially, the 2000–2001 Common Core of Data,1 updated by state departments of 

education, was used to sample charter schools. Then, the NAEP state coordinators independently verified the charter status of these schools. Additional charter schools were 

identified from the NAEP school questionnaire. Finally, in telephone interviews, a few 

schools were found not to be charter schools or not to have fourth-grade students eligible 

for the survey. A total of 150 schools were ultimately identified as charter schools, including 12 additional schools not originally identified on the NAEP website at the time of the 

2003 NAEP data release. These schools, most of which did not return a school questionnaire, were discovered through the multiple sources of information just described. The 

results based on the full sample as well as results based on responses to the NAEP school 

questionnaire may be accessed on the NAEP data tool through the report's Web home 

page (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/charter/).

 Within each of the 150 participating charter schools, a random sample of students participated in either the reading or mathematics assessment—about half participated in reading 

and about half participated in mathematics. Table 1 displays the numbers of charter school students sampled for the pilot study

as well as the numbers of other public school students sampled for the regular reading and mathematics assessments.

1 The Common Core of Data (CCD) is a program of the National Center for Education Statistics that annually compiles information about the nation’s public schools and school districts, 

and makes this information available through a public database. For more information, see http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.

Table 1. Student sample size, by type of public school and subject assessed, grade 4: 2003

Student sample size

Subject In charter schools In other public schools

Reading 3,296 188,148

Mathematics 3,238 188,201

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

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Reading and Mathematics Charter School Pilot Study.

For More Info...

More information 

about the NAEP 

Charter School Pilot 

Study can be found at 

http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/

studies/charter/ . 

The NAEP website 

(http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/) 

provides an array of 

information and results 

from both the main 

2003 assessments and 

the charter school pilot 

study, including PDF 

versions of all NAEP 

reports, a data tool for 

exploring the summary 

results, and a tool for 

examining released 

questions from the 

assessment.

!

3

AMERICA’S CHARTER SCHOOLS
 Reading Results

The average reading scores are reported 

on a 0–500 scale and are presented 

in figure 1 for fourth-grade students 

in charter schools and other public 

schools. In addition to the results for 

all students, results are presented by 

gender, race/ethnicity, eligibility for 

free/reduced-price school lunch, and 

type of school location. Note that 

results are not presented for students 

from race/ethnicity groups other than 

White, Black, and Hispanic, or for 

students for whom no information is 

available regarding their eligibility for 

free or reduced-price school lunch. 

Figure 1. Average scale score in reading for charter and other public school students overall, and by student and school characteristics, grade 4: 2003

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Reading Charter 

School Pilot Study.

205 208

220 220 Central city

Non-central-city

Race/ethnicity Type of location

212

217

White

All students

227 227

Black

195 197

Hispanic

201 199

Gender Eligibility for free/reduced-price

school lunch

Male

210 213

Female

215*

220

Eligible

195*

201

Not eligible

226 229 230

200

0

500

210

220

240

Scale score

190

250

Charter school students Other public school students

 It is important to note that simple 

cross-tabulations of a variable with 

measures of educational achievement, 

like the ones presented in this report, 

cannot constitute proof that a difference in the variable causes differences 

in educational achievement. There are 

many reasons why the performance 

of one group of students differs from 

another.

 There was no measurable difference 

between the reading scores of charter 

school students and other public school 

students overall, although there were 

some differences in results for certain 

groups of students. Female students 

in charter schools scored lower, on 

average, than female students in other 

public schools. Also, charter school 

students eligible for free/reduced-price 

school lunch scored lower than eligible 

students in other public schools.

 On the other hand, the reading 

scores for White, Black, and Hispanic 

students in charter schools were not 

measurably different from those for 

students with the same racial/ethnic 

background in other public schools. 

There were also no measurable differences between average reading scores 

 What are NAEP Achievement Levels?

Achievement levels are performance standards set by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to 

help interpret student performance on NAEP. The three NAEP achievement levels, from lowest to highest, are

Basic—denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are 

fundamental for proficient work at a given grade.

Proficient—represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have 

demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter.

Advanced—signifies superior performance.

4

THE NATION ’ S REPORT CARD
 Detailed descriptions of the NAEP reading and mathematics achievement levels can be found on 

the NAGB website (http://www.nagb.org/pubs/pubs.html).

 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 and 

used with caution. Additional information about the trial status of achievement levels is available on 

the NAEP website (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/achlevdev.asp).

Table 2. Percentage of students at or above Basic and Profi cient in reading for charter and other 

public school students overall, and by student and school characteristics, grade 4: 2003

Percent at or above 

Basic

Percent at or above 

Profi cient

Characteristic

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

All students 58 62 27 30

Gender

Male 55 58 24 26

Female 60 65 29 33

Race/ethnicity

White 73 74 39 39

Black 37 39 12 12

Hispanic 45 43 17 14

Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch

Eligible 39 45 12 15

Not eligible 72 76 38 41

Type of location

Central city 50 51 21 22

Non-central-city 66 66 33 33

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

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Reading Charter School Pilot Study.

of fourth-grade students in charter 

schools and other public schools in 

central cities or in non-central-city 

locations. 

 As shown in table 2, the percentages of charter school students 

performing at or above Basic and at 

or above Proficient in reading were 

not measurably different from the 

percentages of other public school 

students when comparing students 

overall.

 The score differences seen between 

some groups of fourth-grade students in charter schools and other 

public schools were not evident in 

the achievement-level results. The 

observed differences in percentages at 

or above Basic and Proficient achievement levels were not significant for 

any groups defined by gender, race/

ethnicity, eligibility for free/reducedprice lunch, or type of school 

location.

5

AMERICA ’ S CHARTER SCHOOLS

READING DATA
Table 4. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in reading, 

by type of charter school governance, grade 4: 2003

Type of governance

Percent of 

students 

assessed

Average scale 

score

Percent at or 

above 

Basic

Percent at or 

above 

Profi cient

Other public schools 100 217 62 30

Charter schools

Part of a public school district 55 218 64 31

Charter school district by itself 45 208* 52* 23*

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

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

Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Reading Charter School Pilot Study.

 Table 3 shows the percentage of students assessed, average reading score, 

and achievement-level results for charter school students and other public 

school students who were taught by 

teachers who differed in type of teaching certificate and years of experience. 

Proportionally more fourth-graders in 

charter schools were taught by teachers 

without regular certification (e.g., with 

probationary, provisional, temporary, or 

Table 3. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in reading, by type of public school and teacher 

characteristics, grade 4: 2003

Percent of students 

assessed Average scale score

Percent at or above 

Basic

Percent at or above 

Profi cient

Characteristic

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

Type of teaching certifi cate

Regular 69* 90 215 218 60 63 28 31

Other1 22* 10 207 209 51 53 23 24

Years of teaching experience

0 to 4 years 42* 23 205* 213 48* 57 20 26

5 to 9 years 29* 22 213 215 58 61 26 29

10 years or more 29* 55 221 219 68 65 35 32

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

1"Other" includes the following types of teaching certifi cate: probationary, provisional, temporary, and emergency. Results are not shown for students whose teachers reported not 

having a certifi cate of any kind.

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

2003 Reading Charter School Pilot Study.

emergency certification) and by teachers 

with four years of teaching experience 

or less. One limitation is that teachers 

were not asked whether they had alternative teacher certification, a route now 

available in many states and districts 

for teachers in charter and other public 

schools.

 There was no measurable difference 

in the performance of charter school 

and other public school fourth-grade 

students taught by teachers with regular 

or other forms of certification.

 Among fourth-graders with less 

experienced teachers, charter school students had a lower average reading score 

than other public school students. The 

observed differences in reading performance between students in charter 

schools and other public schools who 

had more experienced teachers were not 

statistically significant.

 Table 4 shows that 55 percent of 

charter school students in the fourth 

grade attended a school that was a 

part of a school district with other 

public schools. The remaining students attended a charter school that 

was a school district by itself.

 The average reading score for 

students in charter schools that 

were a part of a larger public school 

district was higher than the score 

for students in charter schools that 

were their own district, but was not 

measurably different from that of 

students in other public schools.

6

THE NATION ’ S REPORT CARD
The average mathematics scores are 

reported on a 0–500 scale, but because 

different dimensions define the frameworks for each subject, the mathematics 

results cannot be compared to those in 

reading. 

 Figure 2 shows the average mathematics scores for fourth-grade students 

in charter schools and other public 

schools overall, as well as by gender, 

race/ethnicity, eligibility for free/

reduced-price school lunch, and type of 

school location. Recall that results are 

not presented for students from some 

race/ethnicity groups or for students 

for whom no information is available 

 Mathematics Results

regarding their eligibility for free or 

reduced-price school lunch.

 The national results showed a lower 

average mathematics score overall 

for fourth-grade students in charter 

schools. This was true for both male 

and female students. However, there 

were no measurable differences when 

comparisons were made for fourthgraders with similar racial/ethnic 

backgrounds. 

 The average score for fourth-grade 

charter school students who were eligible for free or reduced-price school 

lunch was lower than that of their 

peers in other public schools. In 

contrast, there was no measurable 

difference in the scores for students who were not eligible.

 Fourth-grade students who 

attended charter schools in central cities scored lower on average 

than fourth-grade students who 

attended other public schools in 

similar locations. There was no 

measurable difference, however, 

in the average mathematics score 

between charter school and other 

public school students in noncentral-city locations.

Figure 2. Average scale score in mathematics for charter and other public school students overall, and by student and school characteristics, 

grade 4: 2003

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics 

Charter School Pilot Study.

221*

227

236 237

228*

234 Central city

Non-central-city

Eligibility for free/reduced-price Type of location

school lunch

Race/ethnicity

White

All students Gender

Black

Hispanic

242 243

214 216 219 221

230

200

0

500

210

220

240

Scale score

190

250 Male

229*

235

Female

228*

233 Eligible

216*

222

Not eligible

238

244

Charter school students Other public school students

7

AMERICA ’ S CHARTER SCHOOLS

MATHEMATICS 

DATA
 The mathematics achievement-level 

results presented in table 5 reflect the 

same general pattern observed in average mathematics scores for students 

attending charter and other public 

schools. The percentages of fourthgrade students at or above Basic and at 

or above Proficient were lower in charter 

schools than in other public schools for 

students overall. 

 When achievement-level results are 

examined by student groups, some are 

significantly different and some are not. 

For example, the percentages of male 

and female fourth-graders in charter 

schools at or above Basic are lower than 

those for other public schools, but the 

percentages at or above Proficient are 

not measurably different.

 There were no measurable differences 

in results by achievement levels when 

comparisons were made for fourthgrade students in charter schools and 

other public schools with similar racial/

ethnic backgrounds.

 The percentages of charter school 

fourth-graders who are and are not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch at 

or above the Basic level are lower than 

those for other public schools, but the 

percentages at or above Proficient are 

not measurably different.

 For schools in central cities, the 

percentages of charter school fourthgraders performing at or above the Basic

and Proficient levels were lower than 

the percentages of other public school 

fourth-graders.

Table 5. Percentage of students at or above Basic and Profi cient in mathematics for charter and other 

public school students overall, and by student and school characteristics, grade 4: 2003

Percent at or above 

Basic

Percent at or above 

Profi cient

Characteristic

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

All students 69* 76 25* 31

Gender

Male 69* 77 27 34

Female 68* 75 24 29

Race/ethnicity

White 84 87 42 42

Black 51 54 9 10

Hispanic 58 62 12 15

Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch

Eligible 53* 62 12 15

Not eligible 81* 88 37 45

Type of location

Central city 58* 67 16* 23

Non-central-city 79 80 34 35

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

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

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Charter School Pilot Study.

Explanations of how 

school and student 

variables are collected 

and analyzed are 

available on the NAEP 

website (http://nces.

ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/

results2003/interpretresults.asp#RepGroups).

! For More Info...

8

THE NATION ’ S REPORT CARD
Table 6. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in mathematics, by type of public school and 

teacher characteristics, grade 4: 2003

Percent of students 

assessed Average scale score

Percent at or above 

Basic

Percent at or above 

Profi cient

Characteristic

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other public 

schools

Type of teaching certifi cate

Regular 66* 90 230 235 71 78 28 32

Other1 22* 10 227 228 67 68 22 26

Years of teaching experience

0 to 4 years 43* 23 223* 231 61* 73 19* 28

5 to 9 years 29* 22 230 233 72 75 28 31

10 years or more 27* 54 233 236 74 79 31 34

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

1"Other" includes the following types of teaching certifi cate: probationary, provisional, temporary, and emergency. Results are not shown for students whose teachers reported not 

having a certifi cate of any kind.

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), 

2003 Mathematics Charter School Pilot Study.

Table 7. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in mathematics, 

by type of charter school governance, grade 4: 2003

Type of governance

Percent 

of students 

assessed

Average scale 

score

Percent at or 

above 

Basic

Percent at or 

above 

Profi cient

Other public schools 100 234 76 31

Charter schools

Part of a public school district 52 234 75 32

Charter school district by itself 48 225* 66* 20*

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

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

Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Mathematics Charter School Pilot Study.

 Table 6 shows the percentage of students assessed, average mathematics 

scores, and achievement-level results 

for charter and other public school 

students who had teachers who differed in type of teaching certification 

and years of teaching experience. As 

seen in reading, higher percentages of 

fourth-graders in charter schools were 

taught by teachers without regular 

certification (e.g., with probationary, 

provisional, temporary, or emergency 

certification) and by teachers with four 

years of teaching experience or less.

Among fourth-graders whose teachers 

had taught for four years or less, charter 

school students scored lower on average in mathematics than other public 

school students. There was no measurable difference in the performance of 

fourth-grade students in charter schools 

and fourth-grade students in other 

public schools when taught by teachers 

with five or more years of experience, 

with a regular teaching certificate, or 

with another type of certificate.

 Table 7 shows that about half 

the fourth-grade students in charter schools attended a school that 

was part of a larger public school 

district and about half attended a 

school that was a district by itself. 

As in reading, the average mathematics score for fourth-grade 

students in charter schools that 

were part of a public school district was higher than the score for 

students in charter schools that 

were their own district, and was 

not measurably different from the 

score for students in other public 

schools. 

9

AMERICA ’ S CHARTER SCHOOLS

MATHEMATICS 

DATA
10

The nature of the NAEP survey design allows for only a 

snapshot of America’s charter schools. And, given the considerable variation in student and school characteristics, that 

picture is not so easily discerned. For example, for students 

from the same racial/ethnic backgrounds, reading and mathematics performance in charter schools did not differ from 

that in other public schools. However, this study found lower 

overall mathematics performance in charter schools than in 

other public schools. 

 On the other hand, in reading there was no measurable 

difference between the overall performance of charter school 

fourth-grade students as a whole and their counterparts in 

other public schools. This is true even though, on average, 

charter schools have higher proportions of students from 

groups that typically perform lower on NAEP than other 

public schools, such as minority students and students in central cities. Such patterns illustrate how important it is to look 

beyond simple comparisons of the two school types. 

 NCES will continue its analyses of the 2003 pilot charter 

school data, using more advanced statistical analysis methods 

to portray complex relationships related to student performance in charter and other public schools. 

 This study has provided important lessons for assessing 

charter schools. As a result, NAEP has improved its procedures for identifying charter schools.

 In 2005, NAEP will assess three subjects—reading, 

mathematics, and science—in fourth and eighth grades at the 

state level, and will assess more students than ever before. A 

side benefit of the large assessment is that the NAEP sample 

will include a representative sample of charter schools without oversampling. NAEP will continue to identify charter 

schools as a separate category in the data placed on the NAEP 

website (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard) at the time of 

the initial release of each assessment, providing educators, 

researchers, policymakers, and the public with data 

with which to measure the educational progress of America’s 

students. 

 Conclusions

THE NATION ’ S REPORT CARD
Assessed Students

Every effort is made to ensure that all sampled students 

who are capable of participating in the assessment are 

assessed. A sampled student who is identified by the school 

as a student with a disability or as a limited-Englishproficient student may be tested with accommodations 

allowed by NAEP; students so identified may be excluded 

from the assessment if they do not meet criteria for inclusion 

established by NAEP. The numbers of students assessed in 

each subject varied somewhat because more students tend to 

be excluded from reading assessments than mathematics 

assessments. In 2003, the exclusion rates for reading were 

4 percent in charter schools and 6 percent in other public 

schools, and the rates for mathematics were 2 percent and 

4 percent, respectively.

Definitions of Variables

Student race/ethnicity is presented for White, Black, 

Hispanic, or “Other” racial/ethnic groups based on school 

records. The “Other” group includes Asian/Pacific Islander 

students, American Indian/Alaska Native students, and 

students categorized in school records as another race or ethnicity. The results for the “Other” group are not presented in 

the body of the report because sample sizes are small but are 

included in the appendix. School location is categorized as 

“central city” or “non-central-city” based on information from 

the U.S. Census Bureau. The term “central city” does not 

refer to “inner city,” but to the central part of a metropolitan 

statistical area. Non-central-city locations include urban fringes of metropolitan statistical areas, large towns, small towns, 

and rural areas. 

NAEP Sampling Procedures

The schools and students participating in NAEP assessments 

are chosen to be nationally representative. Samples of schools 

and students are drawn from each state and from certain 

other participating jurisdictions (for example, the District of 

Columbia). The results from the assessed students are combined and weighted to provide accurate estimates of overall 

national performance as well as of the performance of individual states and other jurisdictions. The weighting procedure 

is used to take into account the fact that states, and schools 

within states, represent different proportions of the overall 

national population. Since samples in most states are roughly 

the same (to allow for stable state estimates and administrative efficiencies), the results for students in less populous 

states are assigned smaller sampling weights than the results 

for students in more populous states. The sampling weights 

are also used in estimating percentages of students in various 

subgroups.

School and Student Participation Rates

The school participation rate for charter schools was 100 

percent for both the reading and mathematics assessments 

(which were conducted in the same schools). The school participation rates for other public schools in both assessments 

were 100 percent (6,764 schools participating). The weighted 

student participation rate was 92 percent for charter schools 

in both the reading and mathematics assessments. For other 

public schools the weighted student participation rate was 

94 percent in both assessments. These rates were well within 

the NCES standards for ensuring unbiased samples and 

reporting data. 

 Technical and Data Appendix

11

AMERICA ’ S CHARTER SCHOOLS

TECHNICAL 

INFORMATION
Interpreting Statistical Significance

The differences between statistics—such as students’ average 

scale scores and percentages of students—that are discussed in 

this report are determined by using statistical measures known 

as standard errors. Standard errors for the NAEP scores and 

percentages presented in this report are available on the 

NAEP web site (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/). Comparisons are based on statistical tests that consider 

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

two statistics being compared. Estimates based on smaller 

subgroups are likely to have relatively large standard errors. As 

a consequence, a numerical difference that seems large may 

not be statistically significant. When this is the case, the term 

“no measurable difference” is used in the report. Furthermore, 

differences of the same magnitude may or may not be statistically significant depending upon the size of the standard 

errors of the statistics. For example, a 5-point difference 

between male and female students may be statistically significant, while a 5-point difference between White and Black 

students may not be. The differences described in this report 

have been determined to be statistically significant at the .05 

level with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons. 

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

to indicate that a charter school score or percentage is significantly different from the comparable measure for other public 

schools. The symbol (!) is used to indicate that the nature of 

the sample—its size or its variance—does not allow accurate 

determination of the variability of the statistics and that any 

significance tests involving these statistics should be interpreted cautiously. 

 Statistically significant differences among groups of charter 

school students—for example, between White students and 

Black students—are not identified in the table and charts, 

but they were tested in the same way. Any difference between 

scores or percentages that is identified as higher, lower, larger, 

or smaller in this report, including within-group differences 

not marked in tables and charts, meets the requirements for 

statistical significance.

12

THE NATION ’ S REPORT CARD
READING DATA

Table A-1. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in reading, by type of public school and 

student characteristics, grade 4: 2003

Percent of students 

assessed Average scale score

Percent at or above 

Basic

Percent at or above 

Profi cient

Characteristic

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Gender

Male 51 51 210 213 55 58 24 26

Female 49 49 215* 220 60 65 29 33

Race/ethnicity

White 49 59 227 227 73 74 39 39

Black 29* 17 195 197 37 39 12 12

Hispanic 18 18 201 199 45 43 17 14

Other1 4* 6 219 219 68 64 33 32

Eligibility for free/reduced-price 

school lunch

Eligible 41 44 195* 201 39 45 12 15

Not eligible 50 52 226 229 72 76 38 41

Information not available 9 4 218! 219 63! 65 32! 33

Students with disabilities

Yes 7 10 180 184 26 29 7 9

No 93 90 215* 220 60 65 28 32

Limited-English-profi cient students

Yes 8 8 183 186 26 28 4 7

No 92 92 215 219 60 65 29 32

!Interpret data with caution. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

1"Other" includes Asian/Pacifi c Islander students, American Indian/Alaska Native students, and students categorized in school records as another race or ethnicity. 

NOTE: The results for students with disabilities and limited-English-profi cient students are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population 

of such students, which also includes students who could not be assessed based on defi ned exclusion criteria.

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

2003 Reading Charter School Pilot Study.

 Reading Data

13

AMERICA ’ S CHARTER SCHOOLS
Table A-2. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in reading, by type of public school and 

school characteristics, grade 4: 2003

Percent of students 

assessed Average scale score

Percent at or above 

Basic

Percent at or above 

Profi cient

Characteristic

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Region of the country

Northeast 8* 18 ‡ 223 ‡ 69 ‡ 36

Midwest 24 22 205* 220 49* 66 21* 33

South 33 36 215! 215 61! 60 29! 28

West 35* 24 214 210 59 55 29 25

Type of location

Central city 51* 29 205 208 50 51 21 22

Non-central-city1 49* 71 220 220 66 66 33 33

!Interpret data with caution. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

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

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

1Non-central-city includes students attending schools in urban fringe/large town and rural/small town locations.

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

2003 Reading Charter School Pilot Study.

Table A-3. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in reading, by type of public school and 

teacher characteristics, grade 4: 2003

Percent of students 

assessed Average scale score

Percent at or above 

Basic

Percent at or above 

Profi cient

Characteristic

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Type of teaching certifi cate

Regular 69* 90 215 218 60 63 28 31

Other1 22* 10 207 209 51 53 23 24

None 9* # 200! ‡ 44! ‡ 17! ‡

Years of teaching experience

0 to 4 years 42* 23 205* 213 48* 57 20 26

5 to 9 years 29* 22 213 215 58 61 26 29

10 years or more 29* 55 221 219 68 65 35 32

#The estimate rounds to zero.

!Interpret data with caution. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

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

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

1“Other” includes the following types of teaching certifi cate: probationary, provisional, temporary and emergency.

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

2003 Reading Charter School Pilot Study.

14

THE NATION ’ S REPORT CARD
READING DATA

Table A-4. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in reading, by charter school characteristics, 

grade 4: 2003

Characteristic

Percent of students 

assessed

Average 

scale score

Percent 

at or above

Basic

Percent 

at or above 

Profi cient

Other public schools 100 217 62 30

Charter schools

Newly created charter school or pre-existing school 

Newly created school 70 213 58 27

Pre-existing school 30 211 56 25

Charter-granting agency 

School district 49 218 65 32

State board of education 27! 208!* 52! 23!

Postsecondary institution 15 203* 45* 19*

State charter-granting agency 6! 214! 60! 29!

Other 1! 197!* 42!* 14!*

Years since the school’s charter was granted

0 to 1 year 7! 223! 70! 34!

2 to 3 years 31 208 53 23

4 to 5 years 29 212 57 26

6 years or more 33! 215! 60! 29!

Years providing instruction as a charter school

0 to 1 year 8! 225!* 72!* 34!

2 to 3 years 32! 214! 60! 28!

4 to 5 years 37 212 56 26

6 years or more 23 210 54 25

Type of student population served

General student population 92 214 60 28

Special student target population1 8 194!* 36!* 14!*

Type of governance

Part of a public school district 55 218 64 31

Charter school district by itself 45 208* 52* 23*

!Interpret data with caution. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

1The special student target population includes at-risk students, students with disabilities, gifted/talented students, and other students. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or because the "don't know" category was excluded from the table.

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

2003 Reading Charter School Pilot Study.

15

AMERICA ’ S CHARTER SCHOOLS
Table A-5. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in reading, by waivers or exemptions from state 

or district policies, grade 4: 2003

Waivers

Percent of students 

assessed

Average 

scale score

Percent 

at or above 

Basic

Percent 

at or above 

Profi cient

Other public schools 100 217 62 30

Charter schools

Teacher certifi cation requirements

Yes 23! 214! 59! 30!

No 77 212 57 26

Teacher/staff hiring/fi ring policies

Yes 30 214 59 29

No 68 211 56 26

Curriculum requirements

Yes 37 223* 70* 36

No 60 205* 49* 21*

Control of fi nances/budget

Yes 33! 221! 67! 33!

No 63 209* 53* 24*

Incentives, rewards, or sanctions due to school 

performance

Yes 17! 221! 67! 36!

No 81 211 56 25

!Interpret data with caution. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or because the "don't know" category was excluded from the table.

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

2003 Reading Charter School Pilot Study.

16

THE NATION ’ S REPORT CARD
MATHEMATICS 

DATA

Table A-6. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in mathematics, by type of public school and 

student characteristics, grade 4: 2003

Percent of students 

assessed Average scale score

Percent at or above

Basic

Percent at or above 

Profi cient

Characteristic

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Gender

Male 48* 51 229* 235 69* 77 27 34

Female 52* 49 228* 233 68* 75 24 29

Race/ethnicity

White 45* 58 242 243 84 87 42 42

Black 31* 17 214 216 51 54 9 10

Hispanic 20 19 219 221 58 62 12 15

Other1 4* 6 235 241 76 82 33 41

Eligibility for free/reduced-price 

school lunch

Eligible 42 44 216* 222 53* 62 12 15

Not eligible 48 52 238 244 81* 88 37 45

Information not available 10 4 232! 236 74! 77 28! 34

Students with disabilities

Yes 8* 11 209 214 42 50 8 13

No 92* 89 230* 237 71* 80 27 34

Limited-English-profi cient students

Yes 9 9 211 214 45 49 5 9

No 91 91 230* 236 71* 79 27 34

!Interpret data with caution. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

1"Other" includes Asian/Pacifi c Islander students, American Indian/Alaska Native students, and students categorized in school records as another race or ethnicity. 

NOTE: The results for students with disabilities and limited-English-profi cient students are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of 

such students, which also includes students who could not be assessed based on defi ned exclusion criteria.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 

Mathematics Charter School Pilot Study.

 Mathematics Data

17

AMERICA ’ S CHARTER SCHOOLS
Table A-7. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in mathematics, by type of public school and 

school characteristics, grade 4: 2003

Percent of students 

assessed Average scale score

Percent at or above

Basic

Percent at or above 

Profi cient

Characteristic

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Region of the country

Northeast 10* 17 ‡ 238 ‡ 80 ‡ 36

Midwest 23 22 221* 237 59* 79 17* 35

South 30 36 231! 233 72! 76 30! 29

West 37* 24 230 230 71 71 28 27

Type of location

Central city 50* 29 221* 227 58* 67 16* 23

Non-central-city1 50* 71 236 237 79 80 34 35

!Interpret data with caution. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

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

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

1Non-central-city includes students attending schools in urban fringe/large town and rural/small town locations.

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), 

2003 Mathematics Charter School Pilot Study.

Table A-8. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in mathematics, by type of public school 

and teacher characteristics, grade 4: 2003

Percent of students 

assessed Average scale score

Percent at or above

Basic

Percent at or above 

Profi cient

Characteristic

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Charter 

schools

Other 

public 

schools

Type of teaching certifi cate

 Regular 66* 90 230 235 71 78 28 32

Other1 22* 10 227 228 67 68 22 26

None 12* # 218 ‡ 57 ‡ 15 ‡

Years of teaching experience

0 to 4 years 43* 23 223* 231 61* 73 19* 28

5 to 9 years 29* 22 230 233 72 75 28 31

10 years or more 27* 54 233 236 74 79 31 34

#The estimate rounds to zero.

!Interpret data with caution. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

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

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

1“Other” includes the following types of teaching certifi cate: probationary, provisional, temporary and emergency.

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), 2003 

Mathematics Charter School Pilot Study.

18

THE NATION ’ S REPORT CARD
MATHEMATICS 

DATA

Table A-9. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in mathematics, by charter school 

characteristics, grade 4: 2003

Characteristic

Percent 

of students 

assessed

Average 

scale score

Percent 

at or above 

Basic

Percent 

at or above 

Profi cient

Other public schools 100 234 76 31

Charter schools

Newly created charter school or pre-existing school

Newly created school 68 229 69* 26

Pre-existing school 32 228!* 68!* 24!*

Charter-granting agency

School district 45 235 77 33

State board of education 30 222!* 61!* 18!*

Postsecondary institution 15 222* 60* 17*

State charter-granting agency 6 225! 65! 24!

Other 2 224! 65! 23!

Years since the school’s charter was granted

0 to 1 year 8 234! 76! 30!

2 to 3 years 28 224 63 20

4 to 5 years 33 226 66 22

6 years or more 31 233! 74! 31!

Years providing instruction as a charter school

0 to 1 year 10 235! 80! 28!

2 to 3 years 27 232! 72! 32!

4 to 5 years 40 227 67 23

6 years or more 24 228* 69* 23*

Type of student population served

General student population 91 230 70* 27

Special student target population1 9 219!* 57!* 12!*

Type of governance

Part of a public school district 52 234 75 32

Charter school district by itself 48 225* 66* 20*

!Interpret data with caution. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

1The special student target population includes at-risk students, students with disabilities, gifted/talented students, and other students. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or because the "don't know" category was excluded from the table.

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

2003 Mathematics Charter School Pilot Study.

19

AMERICA ’ S CHARTER SCHOOLS
Table A-10. Percentage of students assessed, average scale score, and achievement-level results in mathematics, by waivers or exemptions 

from state or district policies, grade 4: 2003

Waivers

Percent 

of students 

assessed

Average 

scale score

Percent 

at or above 

Basic

Percent 

at or above 

Profi cient

Other public schools 100 234 76 31

Charter schools

Teacher certifi cation requirements

Yes 21 229 69 27

No 79 228 69* 25

Teacher/staff hiring/fi ring policies

Yes 28 231 73 28

No 70 227 67 24

Curriculum requirements

Yes 35 238 79 37

No 64 223* 63* 19*

Control of fi nances/budget

Yes 30 236! 78! 34!

No 67 225* 65* 22*

Incentives, rewards, or sanctions due to school 

performance

Yes 16 237! 79! 35!

No 81 227 67* 23

!Interpret data with caution. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

*Signifi cantly different from other public schools.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or because the "don't know" category was excluded from the table.

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

2003 Mathematics Charter School Pilot Study.

20

THE NATION ’ S REPORT CARD
Postage and Fees Paid

U.S. Department of Education

Permit No. G-17

United States 

Department of Education

ED Pubs

8242-B Sandy Court

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

Offi cial Business Only

Penalty for Private Use, $300

National Assessment of 

Educational Progress

The Nation’s Report Card

America’s Charter Schools

Results from the

NAEP 2003 Pilot Study

 MORE INFORMATION:

The NCES World Wide Web 

Home Page is: http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES World Wide Web 

Electronic Catalog is: 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

For ordering information on this 

report, write:

U.S. Department of Education 

ED Pubs 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-PUBS; or 

order online at http://www.edpubs.org.

CONTENT CONTACT 

Arnold Goldstein 

202-502-7344 

Arnold.Goldstein@ed.gov