Writing Writing REPORT CARD FOR

THE NATION AND THE STATES

NAEP 1998

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

September 1999

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 1999-462
What is The Nation’s Report Card?

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is the only 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 and

their families.

NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the National Center for Education Statistics, 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. NAEP reports directly to the Commissioner, who is also responsible

for providing continuing reviews, including validation studies and solicitation of public comment, on NAEP’s conduct

and usefulness.

In 1988, Congress established the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to formulate policy guidelines for

NAEP. The Board is responsible for selecting the subject areas to be assessed from among those included in the National

Education Goals; for setting appropriate student performance levels; for developing assessment objectives and test

specifications through a national consensus approach; for designing the assessment methodology; for developing guidelines

for reporting and disseminating NAEP results; for developing standards and procedures for interstate, regional, and national

comparisons; for determining the appropriateness of test items and ensuring they are free from bias; and for taking actions

to improve the form and use of the National Assessment.

The National Assessment Governing Board

Mark D. Musick, Chair

President

Southern Regional Education Board

Atlanta, Georgia

Michael T. Nettles, Vice Chair

Professor of Education & Public Policy

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Moses Barnes

Secondary School Principal

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Melanie A. Campbell

Fourth-Grade Teacher

Topeka, Kansas

Honorable Wilmer S. Cody

Commissioner of Education

State of Kentucky

Frankfort, Kentucky

Edward Donley

Former Chairman

Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.

Allentown, Pennsylvania

Honorable John M. Engler

Governor of Michigan

Lansing, Michigan

Thomas H. Fisher

Director, Student Assessment Services

Florida Department of Education

Tallahassee, Florida

Michael J. Guerra

Executive Director

Secondary Schools Department

National Catholic Education Association

Washington, DC

Edward H. Haertel

Professor, School of Education

Stanford University

Stanford, California

Juanita Haugen

Local School Board President

Pleasanton, California

Honorable Nancy Kopp

Maryland House of Delegates

Bethesda, Maryland

Honorable William J. Moloney

Commissioner of Education

State of Colorado

Denver, Colorado

Mitsugi Nakashima

President

Hawaii State Board of Education

Honolulu, Hawaii

Debra Paulson

Eighth-Grade Mathematics Teacher

El Paso, Texas

Honorable Norma Paulus

Former Superintendent

of Public Instruction

Oregon State Department of Education

Salem, Oregon

Honorable Jo Ann Pottorff

Kansas House of Representatives

Wichita, Kansas

Diane Ravitch

Senior Research Scholar

New York University

New York, New York

Honorable Roy Romer

Former Governor of Colorado

Denver, Colorado

John H. Stevens

Executive Director

Texas Business and Education Coalition

Austin, Texas

Adam Urbanski

President

Rochester Teachers Association

Rochester, New York

Deborah Voltz

Assistant Professor

Department of Special Education

University of Louisville

Louisville, Kentucky

Marilyn A. Whirry

Twelfth-Grade English Teacher

Manhattan Beach, California

Dennie Palmer Wolf

Senior Research Associate

Harvard Graduate School of Education

Cambridge, Massachusetts

C. Kent McGuire (Ex-Officio)

Assistant Secretary of Education

Office of Educational Research

and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, DC

Roy Truby

Executive Director, NAGB

Washington, DC
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Writing

NAEP 1998

REPORT CARD FOR THE

Writing

NATION AND THE STATES

Elissa A. Greenwald

Hilary R. Persky

Jay R. Campbell

John Mazzeo

In collaboration with

Frank Jenkins

Bruce Kaplan

September 1999

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 1999–462
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips

Acting Commissioner

Assessment Division

Peggy G. Carr

Associate Commissioner

September 1999

SUGGESTED CITATION

U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center for

Education Statistics. The NAEP 1998 Writing Report Card for the Nation and the States, NCES 1999–462,

by E. A. Greenwald, H. R. Persky, J. R. Campbell, and J. Mazzeo. Washington, DC: 1999.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Content contact:

Arnold A. Goldstein

202–219–1741

To obtain single copies of this report, while supplies last, or ordering information on other U.S. Department

of Education products, call toll free 1–877– 4ED PUBS (877–433–7827), or write:

Education Publications Center (ED Pubs)

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794–1398

TTY/TDD 1–877–576–7734

FAX 301–470–1244

Online ordering via the Internet: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html

Copies also are available in alternate formats upon request.

This report is also available on the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard

Due to the confidential nature of NAEP surveys, the photographs throughout this report do not portray

actual students who participated in the NAEP writing assessment. All photographs used are from Comstock

and PhotoDisc stock libraries.

The work upon which this publication is based was performed for the National Center for Education

Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, by Educational Testing Service.
WRITING REPORT CARD • TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview of the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) . . . . . . . . . 1

Framework for the 1998 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Writing Assessment Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Description of School and Student Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Evaluating Students’ Writing on the NAEP Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Reporting the Writing Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

The Setting of Achievement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Developmental Status of Achievement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Interpreting NAEP Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Cautions in Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

CHAPTER 1. Average Scale Score and Achievement Level Results for the Nation . . . . . . . 19

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Explanation of Average Scale Score Results for the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Achievement Level Results for the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Sample Writing Prompts and Student Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Sample Prompts and Exemplar Student Responses - Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Sample Prompts and Exemplar Student Responses - Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Sample Prompts and Exemplar Student Responses - Grade 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

CHAPTER 2. Average Writing Scale Score Results for Selected Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Parents’ Highest Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Region of the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Type of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Type of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
iv WRITING REPORT CARD • TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 3. Writing Achievement Level Results for Selected Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Parents’ Highest Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Region of the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Type of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Type of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

CHAPTER 4. Writing in School, Home Factors, and Writing Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Writing In and For School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Writing as Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Home Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

CHAPTER 5. Average Scale Score and Achievement Level Results for the States . . . . . . 105

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Scale Score Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Achievement Level Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Cross-State Comparisons of Writing Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Average Scale Score and Achievement Level Results for Selected Subgroups . . . . . . . 119

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

CHAPTER 6. Additional Sample Student Responses from the

1998 NAEP Writing Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Overall Ratings on the Writing Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Narrative, Informative, and Persuasive Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Evaluating Student Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Grade 4 Narrative Scoring Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Grade 8 Narrative Scoring Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Grade 12 Narrative Scoring Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Grade 4 Informative Scoring Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Grade 8 Informative Scoring Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Grade 12 Informative Scoring Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Grade 4 Persuasive Scoring Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Grade 8 Persuasive Scoring Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Grade 12 Persuasive Scoring Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Sample Prompt and Student Responses - Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Sample Prompt and Student Responses - Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Sample Prompt and Student Responses - Grade 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Item Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
WRITING REPORT CARD • TABLE OF CONTENTS v

APPENDIX A. Overview of Procedures Used for the NAEP 1998 Writing Assessment . . 183

APPENDIX B. Standard Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

APPENDIX C. State-Level Population Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

APPENDIX D. State-Level Contextual Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

APPENDIX E. Additional State-Level Achievement Results for Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

APPENDIX F. State-Level Results for Nonpublic Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure i.1 Purposes for writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table i.1 Distribution of writing prompts by purpose for writing in the

NAEP 1998 writing assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure i.2 Achievement level policy definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 1.1 Writing scale score percentiles for the nation: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 1.1 Writing achievement levels, grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 1.2 Writing achievement levels, grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 1.3 Writing achievement levels, grade 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 1.2 Percentage of students at or above the writing achievement levels

for the nation: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 1.4 Percentage of students within each writing achievement level range

for the nation: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 1.3 Percentage “Uneven” or better within achievement level ranges, grade 4:

Favorite Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 1.4 Percentage “Sufficient” or better within achievement level ranges,

grade 4: Castle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 1.5 Percentage “Skillful” or better within achievement level ranges,

grade 4: Invisible Friend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 1.6 Percentage “Uneven” or better within achievement level ranges,

grade 8: Space Visitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 1.7 Percentage “Sufficient” or better within achievement level ranges,

grade 8: Designing a TV Show . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 1.8 Percentage “Excellent” within achievement level ranges,

grade 8: Lengthening the School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 1.9 Percentage “Sufficient” or better within achievement level ranges,

grade 12: Writing Mentor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 1.10 Percentage “Skillful” or better within achievement level ranges,

grade 12: Special Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 1.11 Percentage “Excellent” within achievement level ranges,

grade 12: One Vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
vi WRITING REPORT CARD • TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table 2.1 Average writing scale scores by gender: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 2.2 Average writing scale scores by race/ethnicity: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 2.3 Average writing scale scores by parents’ highest level of education: 1998 . . 59

Table 2.4 Average writing scale scores by region: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table 2.5 Average writing scale scores by type of location: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Table 2.6 Average writing scale scores by Free/Reduced-Price

School Lunch Program eligibility: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Table 2.7 Average writing scale scores by type of school: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Table 3.1 Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in

writing by gender: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 3.1 Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by gender: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 3.2 Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in

writing by race/ethnicity: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Figure 3.2 Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by race/ethnicity: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 3.3 Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in

writing by parents’ highest level of education: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 3.3 Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by parents’ highest level of education: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table 3.4 Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in

writing by region: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure 3.4 Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by region: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table 3.5 Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in

writing by type of location: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Figure 3.5 Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by type of location: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Table 3.6 Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in

writing by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program eligibility: 1998 . . . . . 80

Figure 3.6 Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program eligibility: 1998 . . . 81

Table 3.7 Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in

writing by type of school: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure 3.7 Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by type of school: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
WRITING REPORT CARD • TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

Figure 4.1 Students’ reports on the frequency with which their teachers talk

to them about what they are writing: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Figure 4.2 Students’ reports on whether they or their teachers save

their writing work in a folder or portfolio: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Figure 4.3 Students’ reports on the frequency with which they use a computer

to write drafts or final versions of stories or reports: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 4.4 Students’ reports on the frequency with which their teachers ask them

to write more than one draft of a paper: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Figure 4.5 Number of occurrences of planning in test booklets on students’

responses to two 25-minute writing prompts: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 4.6 Students’ reports on the frequency with which their English teachers

ask them to plan their writing: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 4.7 Frequency of student planning on 25-minute prompts in the assessment

by frequency with which their English teachers ask them to plan their

writing, grades 8 and 12: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 4.8 Students’ reports on the frequency with which their English teachers

ask them to define their purpose and audience: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 4.9 Students’ reports on the presence of four types of reading materials

in their home (a newspaper, an encyclopedia, magazines, and

more than 25 books): 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 4.10 Students’ reports on the frequency with which they discuss

their studies at home: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Table 5.1 Average grade 8 scale scores for the states for

public schools only: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Figure 5.1 Summary of jurisdiction performance relative to the nation for grade 8

public schools by scale scores: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Table 5.2 Percentage of grade 8 students at or above achievement levels

for public schools only: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Figure 5.2 Summary of jurisdiction performance relative to the nation for

grade 8 public schools by percentage of students at or above

the Proficient achievement level: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Figure 5.3 Percentage of grade 8 students within each achievement level

range for public schools only: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Figure 5.4 Comparisons of average writing scale scores for grade 8

public schools only: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Figure 5.5 Comparisons of percentages of students at or above Proficient for

grade 8 public schools only: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Table 5.3 Average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of students at or above

the Proficient level by gender for public schools only: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table 5.4 Average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of students at or above 

the Proficient level by race/ethnicity for public schools only: 1998 . . . . . . . 122

Table 5.5 Average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of students at or above

the Proficient level by parents’ highest level of education for

public schools only: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Table 5.6 Average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of students at or above 

the Proficient level by type of location for public schools only: 1998 . . . . . 126

Table 5.7 Average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of students at or above

the Proficient level by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program

eligibility for public schools only: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
viii WRITING REPORT CARD • TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table 6.1 Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the scoring guides

on all 25-minute writing prompts: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Figure 6.1 Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the scoring guide,

grade 4: Castle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Figure 6.2 Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the scoring guide,

grade 8: Designing a TV Show . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Table 6.2 Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the scoring guide

by jurisdiction for Designing a TV Show, grade 8 public schools

only: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Table 6.3 Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the scoring guide

by jurisdiction for Space Visitor, grade 8 public schools only: 1998 . . . . . . 164

Table 6.4 Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the scoring guide

by jurisdiction for Lengthening the School Year, grade 8

public schools only: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Figure 6.3 Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the scoring guide,

grade 12: One Vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Figure 6.4 Item map of selected 25-minute writing prompts by purpose on the

NAEP writing scale for grade 4: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Figure 6.5 Item map of selected 25-minute writing prompts by purpose on the

NAEP writing scale for grade 8: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Figure 6.6 Item map of selected 25-minute writing prompts by purpose on the

NAEP writing scale for grade 12: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
WRITING REPORT CARD • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix 1998 NAEP WRITING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the nation’s only

ongoing survey of what students know and can do in various academic subject

areas. Authorized by Congress and administered by the National Center for

Education Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education, NAEP regularly

reports to the public on the educational progress of students in grades 4, 8, and

12. In 1998 NAEP conducted a national writing assessment of fourth-,

eighth-, and twelfth-grade students and a state-by-state writing assessment of

eighth-grade students.

This report presents the results of the NAEP 1998 writing assessment for

the nation and for participating states and jurisdictions. Students’ performance

on the assessment is described in terms of their average writing score on a 0-to300 scale and in terms of the percentage of students attaining each of three

achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.

The achievement levels are performance standards adopted by the National

Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) as part of its statutory responsibilities.

The achievement levels are collective judgments of what students should know

and be able to do for each grade tested. They are based on recommendations by

broadly representative panels of classroom teachers, education specialists, and

members of the general public.

As provided by law, the Acting Commissioner of Education Statistics, upon

review of a congressionally mandated evaluation of NAEP, has determined that

the achievement levels are to be considered developmental and should be

interpreted and used with caution. However, both the Acting Commissioner

and NAGB believe these performance standards are useful for understanding

student achievement. They have been widely used by national and state officials,

including the National Education Goals Panel, as a common yardstick of

academic performance.

In addition to providing average scores and achievement level performance

for the nation and 39 states and other jurisdictions, this report provides results

for subgroups of students defined by various background and contextual

characteristics. A summary of major findings from the NAEP 1998 writing

assessment is presented on the following pages, preceded by a summary of the

assessment content.
x WRITING REPORT CARD • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Description of the NAEP Writing Assessment

The assessment included a variety of writing “prompts” (topics to which

students responded) to inspire students’ best “first-draft” writing. The Writing

Framework and Specifications for the 1998 National Assessment of Educational

Progress provided the objectives for the writing assessment. This framework,

developed by NAGB, represents the expertise and experience of writing

teachers, researchers and scholars, business leaders, and policymakers. The six

objectives for the assessment, and how they were met, are listed below.

OBJECTIVE 1:

Students should write for a variety of purposes: narrative, informative,

and persuasive.

Students at grades 4, 8, and 12 responded to prompts asking for narrative,

informative, and persuasive writing.

OBJECTIVE 2:

Students should write on a variety of tasks and for many different

audiences.

The 66 prompts on the writing assessment presented students with a variety of

tasks, such as writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper, offering advice to

younger students, reporting to a school committee, and writing a story in the voice

of a character.

OBJECTIVE 3:

Students should write from a variety of stimulus materials, and within

various time constraints.

Some of the prompts included pictures, photographs, poems, or stories to inspire

students’ writing. Some students at grades 8 and 12 received one 50-minute

prompt. All other students received two 25-minute prompts.

OBJECTIVE 4:

Students should generate, draft, revise, and edit ideas and forms of

expression in their writing.

Each student who participated in the assessment was given a brochure to keep that

included suggestions for planning and reviewing writing. Although the assessment

time was limited, a planning page was given for each prompt.
WRITING REPORT CARD • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi

OBJECTIVE 5:

Students should display effective choices in the organization of their

writing. They should include detail to illustrate and elaborate their ideas,

and use appropriate conventions of written English.

The scoring guides used to evaluate students’ writing focus on students’ abilities to

organize their writing, develop their writing with details, and use the conventions

of written English to present first-draft writing that communicates clearly.

OBJECTIVE 6:

Students should value writing as a communicative activity.

The writing assessment included “background” questions, given to all participating

students, which asked students whether they like to write. It also asked students

about their writing practices at school and at home.

Writing Scale Score and Achievement

Level Results

Results for the nation

© Average scores for the nation were set at 150 on a scale of 0 to 300 for all

grades assessed (4, 8, and 12). This average can be used as a basis for

comparison for states and population subgroups.

© At grades 4, 8, and 12, the percentages of students performing at or above

the Basic level of writing achievement were 84, 84, and 78 percent,

respectively; the percentages who performed at or above the Proficient level

were 23, 27, and 22 percent respectively. One percent of students each at

grades 4, 8, and 12 performed at the highest achievement level, Advanced.

Results for the states and other jurisdictions

© Of the 39 states and other jurisdictions that participated in the 1998 stateby-state writing assessment at grade 8 and that met the participation

guidelines, the following had scale scores above the national average:

Colorado, Connecticut, the Department of Defense domestic schools, the

Department of Defense overseas schools, Maine, Massachusetts, Oklahoma,

Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The same group of states, with the

exception of Colorado, Oklahoma, and Virginia, were also above the

national average in terms of percentages of students at or above the

Proficient achievement level.
xii WRITING REPORT CARD • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Writing Results for Student Subgroups

Gender

© At all three grades in 1998, female students had higher average writing scale

scores than their male peers. In addition, the percentage of females at or

above the Basic and Proficient achievement levels, and at the Advanced level,

exceeded that of males.

Race/Ethnicity

© At grade 4, the average writing scale scores for Asian/Pacific Islander

students were higher than those for White, Black, Hispanic, and American

Indian students. Also at grade 4, White students had higher average writing

scale scores than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students. At grades 8

and 12, the average writing scale scores for Asian/Pacific Islander and White

students were similar and were higher than those for Black, Hispanic, and

American Indian students.

Parents’ level of education

© Students in grades 4, 8, and 12 were asked to indicate their parents’ highest

level of education. Consistent with past NAEP assessments, in 1998

students who reported higher levels of parental education tended to have

higher average writing scale scores.

Region of the country

© The 1998 results by region indicated that fourth and eighth graders in the

Northeast and Central regions outperformed their counterparts in the

Southeast and West. Among twelfth graders, students in the Southeast had

lower average writing scale scores than did students in each of the other

three regions.

Type of location

© In 1998, fourth and eighth graders in rural/small town schools and in

urban fringe/large town schools had higher average writing scale scores

than their counterparts in central city schools. Eighth and twelfth graders in

urban fringe/large town schools had higher average writing scale scores

than their counterparts in rural/small town schools. Twelfth graders in

central city schools had average writing scale scores that were similar to

the scores of their counterparts in urban fringe/large town schools and in

rural/small town schools.
WRITING REPORT CARD • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiii

Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program

© The NAEP 1998 writing assessment collected information on student

eligibility for the federally funded Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch

Program, which provides children near or below the poverty line with

nourishing meals. At all three grades, students who were eligible for the

Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program had lower average writing scale

scores than students who were not eligible for the program.

Type of school

© At all three grades, students attending nonpublic schools had higher average

writing scale scores than their counterparts attending public schools. This

result is consistent with the findings of past NAEP assessments.

School and Home Factors Related to

Writing Performance

Teachers talking with students about their writing

© At all three grades, over 80 percent of students reported that their teachers

talked with them about their writing at least sometimes. At all three grades

assessed, students who reported that their teachers either always or

sometimes talked with them about their writing had higher average writing

scale scores than those who reported that their teachers never did so.

Saving student work in a folder or portfolio

© Eighty-one percent of fourth graders, 79 percent of eighth graders, and 75

percent of twelfth graders reported that they or their teachers saved their

written work in a folder or portfolio. Students who reported that they or

their teachers saved their writing in a folder or portfolio had higher average

writing scale scores than those who reported they did not save their work in

a folder or portfolio.
xiv WRITING REPORT CARD • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Computer use

© At all three grades, over one-third of students used computers for writing

drafts or final versions of stories or reports at least once a week. At the

fourth grade, 35 percent of students used computers for writing drafts or

final versions of stories or reports once or twice a month. At grades 8 and

12, 39 and 42 percent of students, respectively, used computers for writing

drafts or final versions of stories or reports once or twice a month.

© Fourth-grade students who reported using computers for writing drafts or

final versions of stories or reports once or twice a month had higher average

writing scale scores than those who reported never or hardly ever using

computers for this purpose and those who used computers for this purpose

at least once a week. At grade 8, students who used computers for this

purpose once or twice a month had higher scores than those who did so at

least once a week. At grades 8 and 12, students who reported using

computers for writing drafts or final versions of stories or reports at least

once a week or once or twice a month had higher average writing scale

scores than those who reported never or hardly ever using computers for

this purpose.

Writing drafts of a paper

© Over 80 percent of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students reported

that their teachers asked them to write more than one draft of a paper at

least sometimes. At grades 8 and 12, students whose teachers always asked

them to write more than one draft of a paper had higher average writing

scale scores than did their peers whose teachers sometimes or never asked

them to do so. At grade 4, there was no relationship between students’

reports of writing more than one draft and student performance.

Planning writing on the assessment and in class

© On the assessment, students were provided a space to plan their writing in

any written form, as well as a brochure with suggestions about how to do

so. Most students in the assessment were given a test booklet with two

25-minute writing prompts. At the fourth grade, 47 percent of students

planned for at least one of the two prompts in their test booklets, as did

66 percent of eighth graders and 67 percent of twelfth graders. At all three

grades, students who did visible planning for both writing prompts had

higher average writing scale scores than students who did visible planning

for one prompt or neither prompt.
WRITING REPORT CARD • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xv

© Students at grades 8 and 12 reported on how often their teachers asked

them to plan their writing. Eighty-six percent of eighth graders and

84 percent of twelfth graders reported that their teachers asked them to plan

their writing at least once or twice a month. At both grades, students who

reported that their teachers asked them to plan their writing at least once a

week, or once or twice a month, had higher average writing scale scores

than students who reported that their teachers never or hardly ever asked

them to plan their writing.

Home Factors

Types of reading materials in the home

© Students were asked about the presence of four types of reading materials in

the home: a newspaper, an encyclopedia, at least 25 books, and magazines.

Thirty-eight percent of fourth graders, 51 percent of eighth graders, and 53

percent of twelfth graders reported having all four types of reading materials

in the home. At all three grades, the more of these four types of reading

materials were reported to be in the home, the higher the average writing

scale scores. This result is consistent with the results of past NAEP

assessments in a variety of subject areas.

Discussing studies at home

© Students at all three grades were asked how often they discuss things they

have studied in school with someone at home. Seventy-six percent of fourth

graders, 69 percent of eighth graders, and 67 percent of twelfth graders

reported discussing what they have studied in school with someone at home

at least once a week. At all three grades, the more frequently students

discussed their studies with someone at home, the better their average

writing scale scores. Again, this result is consistent with those of earlier

NAEP assessments in many subjects.
xvi WRITING REPORT CARD • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Report

This report comprises six chapters, each focusing on different results of the

NAEP 1998 writing assessment. The Introduction frames the results by

describing the objectives of the assessment and the kinds of questions it

contained. Chapter 1 presents national results, including achievement level

definitions and results, and exemplars of student writing from the assessment at

each of the three achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. This is the

first time NAEP has set achievement levels for writing.

Chapters 2 and 3 present results for regions of the country and for

subgroups of students (for example, male and female students), by average scale

scores and achievement levels, respectively. Chapter 4 provides information

about some instructional practices. In that chapter, students’ answers to such

questions as “how often does your teacher talk to you about your writing” are

reported, along with student performance data.

Chapter 5 presents results of the state-by-state assessment done at grade 8,

which was the first NAEP state-by-state assessment in writing. That chapter also

reports results by subgroups of the population in each participating state or

jurisdiction. This information is supplemented by four appendices: Appendix C

presents the percentage of students in each subgroup by state or jurisdiction,

while Appendix D presents other contextual information, such as expenditures

on education, from non-NAEP sources such as the census. Appendix E

provides more detailed achievement level results for subgroups of students,

and Appendix F presents results for students in nonpublic schools.

Chapter 6 explores in greater depth how student writing on the assessment

was evaluated. It shows the scoring guides that were used and reports on

student performance in narrative, informative, and persuasive writing. Chapter 6

also provides additional samples of student writing. The student samples and

scoring guides may prove useful especially to teachers by giving examples of

students’ writing for the NAEP writing assessment and explanations of how that

writing was evaluated.

The remaining appendices are technical ones: Appendix A provides

information about procedures for the administration and evaluation of the

assessment, as well as about how subgroups (such as race/ethnicity) were

defined. Appendix B provides standard errors for tables included in the body of

the report.
WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION 1

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

As technological developments usher in the twenty-first century, writing to

create and to communicate remains essential to our lives in the “information

age.” The ability to write clearly and effectively is particularly valuable in an era

of increasing specialization.

By writing about science, history, and other subjects, as well as about

literature, students deepen their knowledge of those subjects and learn how to

communicate that knowledge effectively. Writing itself is an act of discovery.

Many writing instructors for the past several decades have emphasized that

writing is a recursive process, requiring continual rethinking and revision. In

today’s writing classrooms, one can observe students learning how to plan,

critique, and revise their own writing, as well as learning how to critique that of

others. By reflecting on their writing, students become better writers, able to

express themselves more clearly and to shape their communications to the needs

of specific audiences.

The ability to write is important in a variety of situations. Writing has many

purposes: for example, to inform people about problems or events, to persuade

people to adopt positions on issues, and to entertain, educate, and inspire

people through stories and other narratives. Writing is an effective way for

individuals to express their ideas and opinions to friends, potential employers,

government officials, or other groups of people. The ability to write is crucial

for an active and engaged citizenry.

Overview of the 1998 National Assessment

of Educational Progress (NAEP)

This report is written for a variety of audiences — policymakers, parents,

teachers, and concerned citizens. The results reported here can provide

important information for them to consider in discussing and making decisions

about the progress of our nation’s students in writing.

The NAEP is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment

of what students in the United States know and can do in various subjects.

NAEP is authorized by Congress and directed by the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education. The

National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), an independent, bipartisan

body, provides policy direction for NAEP.
2 WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION

1 National Assessment Governing Board. Writing framework and specifications for the 1998 National

Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author.

2 The term jurisdictions refers to the states, territories, and Department of Defense Education Activity

Domestic (DDESS) and Overseas (DoDDS) schools that participated in the state-by-state assessment.

Since being authorized by Congress in 1969, NAEP’s mission has been to

collect, analyze, and present reliable information about what American students

know and can do. Both public and private school students in grades 4, 8, and

12 are sampled and assessed on a regular basis in a range of academic subject

areas.

All NAEP assessments are based on a content framework developed

through a national consensus process that involves teachers, curriculum experts,

parents, and members of the general public. The NAEP Writing Framework,

adopted by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), provided

objectives and guidelines for the writing assessment.1

The 1998 writing assessment was administered to national samples of

fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders. It was also administered to eighth graders

in jurisdictions2 that participated in the state-by-state assessment. Therefore,

this report provides state-by-state results on the writing achievement of eighth

graders, as well as national results at all three grades. Across all three grades,

nearly 160,000 students were assessed in the national and state samples.

This report describes the results of the NAEP 1998 national and state

assessments in writing. In the NAEP writing assessment, students were

evaluated on their responses to writing topics (“prompts”). Most students in

the assessment were asked to respond to two 25-minute writing prompts. Some

students at grades 8 and 12 in the national sample were asked to respond to

one 50-minute prompt.
WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION 3

Framework for the 1998 Assessment 3

The NAEP Writing Framework guided the development of the NAEP 1998

writing assessment. The framework provides overarching objectives for the

assessment, as well as directions for the kinds of prompts to include on the

assessment. The result of a national consensus effort, the NAEP Writing

Framework represents the ideas of hundreds of individuals involved and

interested in writing education. This consensus effort was managed by the

Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST),

under the direction of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). The

framework’s objectives are the same as those for the 1992 assessment. For

1998, American College Testing (ACT), under contract to NAGB, added

detailed guidelines for the kinds of writing prompts to include in the

assessment. These guidelines called for an increase in the number of NAEP

writing prompts, provided detailed directions for including a wide variety of

prompts, and provided new directions for the scoring guides used to evaluate

student responses. Because almost all of the prompts in the 1998 assessment

were new and because all responses were evaluated using new scoring guides,

student performance on this assessment cannot be compared to student

performance on the 1992 writing assessment.4

The NAEP Writing Framework, informed by current research and theory,

emphasizes that writing addresses a variety of purposes and audiences. For the

assessment, the framework describes three purposes for writing: narrative

(telling a story), informative (informing the reader), and persuasive

(persuading the reader). The selection of these three purposes for writing was

based on their use in instruction.5

 The framework specified the three purposes

for writing to ensure that the NAEP writing assessment covered different kinds

of writing. The three purposes, which were assessed at all three grades (4, 8,

and 12), are described in Figure i.1.

3 National Assessment Governing Board. Writing framework and specifications for the 1998 National

Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author.

4 For information about trends in writing performance based on a different assessment instrument, see

Campbell, J.R., Voelkl, K.E., & Donahue, P.L. (1997). NAEP 1996 trends in academic progress.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

5 On the importance of specifying purpose in writing instruction, see Oliver, E. (1989). Effects of assignment

on writing quality at four grade levels. English Quarterly, 21(4), 224–32.
4 WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION

Figure i.1

Purposes for writing

Narrative Writing Narrative writing encourages writers to incorporate their imagination

and creativity in the production of stories or personal essays. At its

best, narrative writing fosters imagination, creativity, and speculation

by allowing writers to express their thoughts and emotions, and

offers an opportunity for writers to analyze and understand their

actions and those of others.

The narrative prompts included in the NAEP 1998 writing assessment

asked students to write many kinds of stories (most fiction, some

nonfiction). Some of the prompts asked students to write in response

to photographs, drawings, cartoons, poems, or stories (provided

with the assessment).

Informative Writing In informative writing, the writer provides the reader with information.

Informative writing may involve reporting on events or experiences

or analyzing concepts and relationships. When used as a means

of exploration, informative writing helps both the writer and the

reader to learn new ideas and to reexamine old conclusions.

Informative prompts in the NAEP 1998 writing assessment asked

students to write on specified subjects using many kinds of

information, such as newspaper articles, charts, photographs, or

reported dialogues (provided with the assessment), as well as their

own knowledge. Students could write in a variety of formats, such

as reports, newpaper articles, and letters.

Persuasive Writing Persuasive writing seeks to persuade the reader to take action or to

bring about change. This type of writing involves a clear awareness

of what arguments might most affect the audience being addressed.

Writing persuasively also requires the use of such skills as analysis,

inference, synthesis, and evaluation.

Persuasive prompts in the NAEP 1998 writing assessment asked

students to write letters to the editor or to friends, to refute arguments,

or to take sides in a debate.

As the framework notes, these three purposes for writing are not entirely

distinct. For example, persuasive letters may incorporate factual information,

and the writer of an informative essay may tell a story to illustrate a point. The

professional raters who evaluated the student responses were instructed not to

penalize such diverse forms of presentation (which students who received high

ratings sometimes used).
WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION 5

Table i.1 illustrates the percentage of the assessment devoted to each writing

purpose. Those percentages vary by grade level to match both different levels of

development and different emphases in instruction. In the assessment, narrative

writing was emphasized at grade 4; the three purposes for writing received

approximately equal emphasis at grade 8; and the emphasis was on persuasive

writing at grade 12. The table shows the actual distribution of prompts in the

assessment, which matched the target percentages set by the framework.

Distribution of writing prompts by purpose for writing in the

NAEP 1998 writing assessment

Table i.1

Purpose for Percentage of Number

writing prompts of prompts

Grade 4

Narrative 40 8

Informative 35 7

Persuasive 25 5

Grade 8

Narrative 35 7

Informative 35 7

Persuasive 30 6

Grade 12

Narrative 25 5

Informative 35 7

Persuasive 40 8

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP),1998 Writing Assessment.
6 WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION

In addition to specifying the amount of time to be devoted to each writing

purpose on the assessment, the framework specifies that, across the assessment,

students should:

© write on a variety of tasks and for many different audiences;

© write from a variety of stimulus materials; and

© write within different time constraints.

Writers shape their works not only to express their own views and

knowledge, but also to address the intended reader by varying such aspects of

their writing as the formality of the language. Therefore the assessment used

many prompts in which the audience was specified. Some students were asked

to write, for example, a letter to a friend or to a school board. Students also had

the opportunity to write in a variety of forms, such as essays, letters, reports,

and stories.

Research has shown that providing students with a variety of stimuli (visual

or written materials to inspire writing) is useful in writing instruction.6

 Visual

materials may aid those who are particularly inspired by images; others may find

it easiest to write in response to literature or to factual or historical material.

Therefore some prompts in the assessment asked students to write in response

to a photograph, cartoon, or drawing. Other students wrote in response to

prompts that incorporated newspaper articles or dialogues about issues of

interest to students. Still other students were asked to respond to letters they

received as part of writing prompts in the assessment. Finally, some prompts

incorporated literary works such as poems and stories.

To address the guideline that students should write within different time

constraints, some students at grades 8 and 12 were asked to respond to a single

50-minute prompt. The rest of the students were asked to respond to two

different prompts, timed at 25 minutes each. Because the 50-minute prompts

6 Berthoff, A.E. (1990). The sense of learning. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton.

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills; National Conference on Research in Teaching.

See also the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) standards, which emphasize the ability to

interpret visual as well as written texts: National Council of Teachers of English and International Reading

Association. (1996). Standards for the English Language Arts. Urbana, Illinois: Author.
WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION 7

at grades 8 and 12 were not included on the NAEP writing scale, they are not

presented in this report. Information on sample 50-minute prompts is available

on the NAEP Web site (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard) for further research.

The writing framework further specifies that students should:

© generate, draft, evaluate, revise, and edit ideas and forms of expression in

their writing; and

© display effective choices in the organization of their writing. Students

should include detail to illustrate and elaborate their ideas and should use

appropriate conventions of written English.

In the assessment, students had a limited time to write. While the limits of a

timed assessment prevented students from engaging in the kind of drafting and

revision that can be done in a regular classroom environment, each prompt in

the assessment included a page for planning to encourage students to plan their

writing. In addition, every student received a brief brochure with suggestions

for planning and revising their writing. The three different versions of the

brochure for grades 4, 8, and 12 are reprinted in Chapter 6. The elements of

writing valued in the framework — elaboration and detail, organization, and

mastery of the conventions of written English — are central components of the

guides for scoring student responses, which are also presented in Chapter 6.

To further address the framework’s goal that students “generate, draft,

evaluate, revise, and edit” their ideas in writing, NAEP performed a special

study of classroom writing in 1998. In 100 classrooms each at grades 4 and 8,

students submitted their two best pieces of writing, and their teachers described

their approaches to teaching writing in extensive interviews. Results of that

study will be published in a forthcoming report.

Finally, the framework states as an objective that students should:

© value writing as a communicative activity.

Background questions on the assessment asked students about whether they

saw themselves as good writers and what their writing practices were at home

and at school.
8 WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION

The Writing Assessment Instruments

As the discussion of the writing framework above indicates, the NAEP writing

assessment reflects current research and perspectives on writing and its

measurement. To ensure this currency, the development process for the

assessment instruments involved a series of reviews by writing and measurement

experts, state officials, teachers, and writing researchers. All components of the

assessment were evaluated for curricular relevance, developmental

appropriateness, fairness concerns, and adherence to the framework and test

specifications. Over 100 prompts were field tested; from those, the 66 that best

met the criteria above were chosen to be used in the 1998 assessment. Twenty

25-minute prompts were given at each grade. In addition, three 50-minute

prompts (one narrative, one informative, and one persuasive) were given at

both grades 8 and 12.

All students at grade 4, and most students at grades 8 and 12, received test

booklets with two prompts. Students were given 25 minutes to respond to each

of the two prompts. Some students at grades 8 and 12 were given one 50-

minute prompt instead of two 25-minute prompts. The 50-minute prompts

were not given at the state level. All students had a total of 50 minutes to write.

Although a few prompts were given at more than one grade level, the scoring

guidelines were different at each grade level, and so no cross-grade comparisons

are made in this report.

As part of the assessment, students answered general background questions

that asked them to identify their race/ethnicity, parents’ highest level of

education, and other factors such as how often someone at home talked to

them about their studies. They also responded to questions about their writing

practices in school. These background questions were given in separately timed

sections. They are discussed in Chapter 4, in the context of student

achievement on the assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION 9

Description of School and Student Samples

The NAEP 1998 writing assessment was conducted nationally at grades 4, 8,

and 12 and on a state-by-state basis at grade 8. For both the national and stateby-state assessments, representative samples of public and nonpublic school

students who were selected through stratified random sampling procedures

were assessed.

Thus, the national and jurisdictional results presented in this report are

based on representative samples of students. Each selected school that

participated in the assessment and each student assessed represent a portion of

the population of interest. As a result, after adjustment for student and school

nonresponses, the findings presented in this report pertain to all fourth, eighth,

and twelfth graders in the nation and regions and to all eighth graders in

participating jurisdictions that met participation guidelines.

In an effort to expand inclusion in NAEP, the 1998 writing assessment, for

the first time, offered testing accommodations to students with disabilities and

to students with limited proficiency in English. Some of the accommodations

provided were extended time, large-print booklets, or the use of a bilingual

dictionary. A total of 4 percent of fourth-grade students, 3 percent of eighthgrade students, and 1 percent of twelfth-grade students were assessed with

accommodations. For more information on accommodations, see Appendix A,

which also dicusses sample sizes and participation rates for the national and

state-by-state assessments.

Evaluating Students’ Writing on the

NAEP Assessment

All student responses in the NAEP 1998 writing assessment were evaluated

according to criteria set forth in scoring guides that described six levels of

performance. Scoring guides were developed for each grade and each purpose

for writing (narrative, informative, and persuasive). Thus, for example, the same

scoring guide was used for all grade 8 narrative prompts. In addition, specific

notes for raters on how responses to each prompt fit the scoring guide were

developed. Those notes described different ways in which students approached

the prompt, as well as the kinds of responses to that prompt that students

tended to write at different levels on the scoring guide.

The scoring guides (presented in Chapter 6) reflect higher expectations for

students at higher grade levels. Following the framework, the scoring guides

emphasize not only the student’s ability to develop and elaborate ideas, but also

the student’s ability to organize his or her thoughts and to write grammatically

correct prose. The criteria for measuring command of the mechanics of written

English differed by grade, but were the same across the three purposes for
10 WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION

writing (narrative, informative, and persuasive) within each grade. Responses to

the 50-minute writing prompts were rated by using the same scoring guides.

For those prompts, responses tended to be longer for each level in the scoring

guide.

To determine how students plan what they write, NAEP provided a page

for students to engage in planning activities. Students’ written planning was

classified into six categories: rough drafts, outlines, lists, diagrams, pictures, and

multiple forms (which incorporated two or more of the listed categories). Since

the timed assessment context provides limited opportunity to plan and revise

one’s work, however, students’ responses to assessment tasks were viewed as

first-draft writing and evaluated accordingly. The scoring guides required raters

to consider each response’s elaboration of ideas, organization, and control of

mechanics to judge the overall quality of writing in the response. A wide

variety of student approaches to each prompt was accepted.

Reporting the Writing Assessment Results

Because the NAEP assessment selects a representative sample of students in

order to survey the nation, and because the broad field of writing is addressed

through many prompts, each student participating cannot be expected to

respond to all of the prompts in the assessment. That would impose an

unreasonable burden on students and their schools. Thus, each student was

administered a portion of the assessment, and data were combined across

students to report on the achievement of fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders

and on the achievement of subgroups of students (e.g., subgroups defined by

gender or level of parental education).

Student responses to the writing prompts were analyzed to determine the

percentage of students achieving each of the ratings (1 through 6 on a 6-level

scoring guide) for those prompts. The twenty 25-minute prompts in the

writing assessment at each grade were not equally difficult for students, nor

does writing in response to any particular prompt fully reflect writing

performance in general. Item response theory (IRT) methods were used to

measure the general writing skills that underlie performance across all the

prompts, resulting in an overall scale for each of the grades — 4, 8, and 12.

Average scale scores presented in this report are based on this overall scale.

Note that the 50-minute prompts were not included on the scale.

For each grade, the range of the scale was 0 to 300, and the national average

was set at 150. While the scale-score ranges are identical across grades, the scale

was derived independently for each grade. Since, as the framework for the

writing assessment specifies, separate scoring guides were used for each grade,

performance for each grade had to be scaled separately. Therefore, average scale

scores cannot be compared across grades. For example, equal scale scores on the
WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION 11

grade 4 and grade 8 scales do not imply equal levels of writing achievement.

However, this scale does make it possible to compare writing scale scores for

the nation for subgroups of students at a particular grade. It also allows for

comparisons across the jurisdictions participating in the state-by-state

assessment. (Additional details of the scaling procedures can be found in

Appendix A.)

The average scale score provides information on what students know and

can do. In addition to the NAEP writing scale, results are also reported by using

the writing achievement levels as authorized by the NAEP legislation and

adopted by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). The

achievement levels are performance standards based on the collective judgments

of experts about what students should know and be able to do. The levels were

developed by a broadly representative panel that included teachers, education

specialists, and members of the general public. For each grade tested, NAGB

has adopted three achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. For

reporting purposes, the achievement level cut scores for each grade are placed

on the NAEP writing scale, resulting in four ranges: below Basic, Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced.

The Setting of Achievement Levels

The 1988 NAEP legislation that created the National Assessment Governing

Board directed the Board to identify “appropriate achievement goals . . . for

each subject area” that NAEP measures.7

 The 1994 NAEP reauthorization

reaffirmed many of the Board’s statutory responsibilities, including “developing

appropriate student performance standards for each age and grade in each

subject area to be tested under the National Assessment.”8

 In order to follow

this directive and achieve the mandate of the 1988 statute “to improve the form

and use of NAEP results,” the Board undertook the development of student

performance standards (called “achievement levels”). Since 1990, the Board

has adopted achievement levels for mathematics, reading, U.S. history, world

geography, and science, and, for the first time for the 1998 assessment, writing.

It has also developed achievement levels for the 1998 civics assessment.

The Board defined three levels for each grade: Basic, Proficient, and

Advanced. The Basic level denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills

that are fundamental for proficient work at a given grade. The Proficient level

represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level demonstrate

competency over challenging subject matter. The Advanced level signifies

superior performance at a given grade. For each grade, the levels are cumulative;

7 Public Law 100–297. (1988). National Assessment of Educational Progress Improvement Act (20 USC

1221). Washington, DC.

8 Public Law 103–382. (1994). Improving America’s Schools Act (20 USC 9010). Washington, DC.
12 WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION

Figure i.2

Achievement level policy definitions

Basic This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills

that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.

Proficient This level represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed.

Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over

challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application

of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate

to the subject matter.

Advanced This level signifies superior performance.

that is, abilities achieved at the Proficient level presume mastery of abilities

associated with the Basic level, and attainment of the Advanced level presumes

mastery of both the Basic and Proficient levels. Figure i.2 presents the policy

definitions of the achievement levels that apply across grades and subject areas.

(Specific descriptions of writing achievement for the levels at each grade are

presented in Chapter 1.) Adopting three levels of achievement for each grade

signals the importance of looking at more than one standard of performance.

The Board believes, however, that all students should reach the Proficient level;

the Basic level is not the desired goal, but rather represents partial mastery that

is a step toward Proficient.
WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION 13

The achievement levels in this report were adopted by the Board based on a

standard-setting process designed and conducted under a contract with

American College Testing (ACT). To develop these levels, ACT convened a

cross section of educators and interested citizens from across the nation and

asked them to judge what students should know and be able to do relative to

the view of writing reflected in the NAEP assessment framework for writing.

This achievement-level-setting process was reviewed by an array of individuals

including policymakers, representatives of political organizations, teachers,

parents, and other members of the general public. Prior to adopting these levels

of student achievement, NAGB engaged a large number of persons to comment

on the recommended levels and to review the results.

The results of the achievement-level-setting process, after NAGB approval,

are a set of achievement level descriptions and a set of achievement level cut

points on the 300-point NAEP scale for writing, as well as a set of exemplars of

student performance at each achievement level. The cut points are the scores

that define the boundaries between below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and

Advanced performance at grades 4, 8, and 12. For further details of the

achievement-level-setting process, see the NAEP 1998 Technical Report.
14 WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION

The Developmental Status of Achievement Levels

The 1994 NAEP reauthorization law requires that the achievement levels be

used on a developmental basis until the Commissioner of Education Statistics

determines that the achievement levels are “reasonable, valid, and informative

to the public.”9

 Until that determination is made, the law requires the

Commissioner and the Board to make clear the developmental status of the

achievement levels in all NAEP reports.

In 1993, the first of several congressionally mandated evaluations of the

achievement-level-setting process concluded that the procedures used to set the

achievement levels were flawed and that the percentage of students at or above

any particular achievement level cut point may be underestimated.10 Others

have critiqued these evaluations, asserting that the weight of the empirical

evidence does not support such conclusions.11

In response to the evaluations and critiques, NAGB conducted an

additional study of the 1992 achievement levels in reading before deciding to

use those levels for reporting 1994 NAEP results.12 When reviewing the

findings of this study, the National Academy of Education (NAE) Panel

expressed concern about what it saw as a “confirmatory bias” in the study and

about the inability of this study to “address the panel’s perception that the

levels had been set too high.”13

9 The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (20 USC 9010) requires that the Commissioner base

his or her determination on a congressionally mandated evaluation by one or more nationally recognized

evaluation organizations, such as the National Academy of Education (NAE) or the National Academy of

Sciences (NAS).

10 United States General Accounting Office. (1993). Education achievement standards: NAGB’s approach yields

misleading interpretations. U.S. General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requestors.

Washington, DC: Author.

National Academy of Education. (1993). Setting performance standards for achievement: A report of the

National Academy of Education Panel on the evaluations of the NAEP Trial State Assessment: An evaluation

of the 1992 achievement levels. Stanford, CA: Author.

11 Cizek, G. (1993). Reactions to National Academy of Education report. Washington, DC: National

Assessment Governing Board.

Kane, M. (1993). Comments on the NAEP evaluation of the NAGB achievement levels. Washington, DC:

National Assessment Governing Board.

12 American College Testing. (1995) NAEP reading revisited: An evaluation of the 1992 achievement level

descriptions. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

13 National Academy of Education. (1996). Reading achievement levels. In Quality and utility: The 1994 Trial

State Assessment in reading. The fourth report of the National Academy of Education Panel on the evaluation

of the NAEP Trial State Assessment. Stanford, CA: Author.
WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION 15

In 1997, the NAE Panel summarized its concerns with interpreting NAEP

results based on the achievement levels as follows:

First, the potential instability of the levels may interfere with the

accurate portrayal of trends. Second, the perception that few American

students are attaining the higher standards we have set for them may

deflect attention to the wrong aspects of education reform. The public has

indicated its interest in benchmarking against international standards,

yet it is noteworthy that when American students performed very well on

a 1991 international reading assessment, these results were discounted

because they were contradicted by poor performance against the possibly

flawed NAEP reading achievement levels in the following year.14

The NAE Panel report recommended “that the current achievement levels

be abandoned by the end of the century and replaced by new standards . . . .”

The National Center for Education Statistics and the National Assessment

Governing Board have sought and continue to seek new and better ways to set

performance standards on NAEP. For example, NCES and NAGB jointly

sponsored a national conference on standard setting in large-scale assessments,

which explored many issues related to standard setting.15 Although new

directions were presented and discussed, a proven alternative to the current

process has not yet been identified. The Acting Commissioner of Education

Statistics and NAGB continue to call on the research community to assist in

finding ways to improve standard setting for reporting NAEP results.

The most recent congressionally mandated evaluation conducted by the

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) relied on prior studies of achievement

levels, rather than carrying out new evaluations, on the grounds that the

process has not changed substantially since the initial problems were identified.

Instead, the NAS Panel studied the development of the 1996 science

achievement levels. The NAS Panel basically concurred with earlier

congressionally mandated studies. The Panel concluded that “NAEP’s current

achievement-level-setting procedures remain fundamentally flawed. The

judgment tasks are difficult and confusing; raters’ judgments of different item

types are internally inconsistent; appropriate validity evidence for the cut scores

is lacking; and the process has produced unreasonable results.”16

14 National Academy of Education. (1997). Assessment in transition: Monitoring the nation’s educational

progress (p. 99). Mountain View, CA: Author.

15 National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Proceedings of

the Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessments of the National Assessment Governing

Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

16 Pellegrino, J.W., Jones, L.R., and Mitchell, K.J. (Eds.). (1999). Grading the nation’s report card: Evaluating

NAEP and transforming the assessment of educational progress. Committee on the Evaluation of National

Assessments of Educational Progress, Board on Testing and Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and

Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. (p. 182). Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.
16 WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION

The NAS Panel accepted the continuing use of achievement levels in

reporting NAEP results only on a developmental basis, until such time as

better procedures can be developed. Specifically, the NAS Panel concluded

that “. . . tracking changes in the percentages of students performing at or

above those cut scores (or in fact, any selected cut scores) can be of use in

describing changes in student performance over time.”17 In a recent study,

eleven testing experts who provided technical advice for the achievement-levelsetting process provided a critical response to the NAS report.18

The National Assessment Governing Board urges all who are concerned

about student performance levels to recognize that the use of these

achievement levels is a developing process and is subject to various

interpretations. The Board and the Acting Commissioner of Education

Statistics believe that the achievement levels are useful for reporting on trends

in the educational achievement of students in the United States. In fact,

achievement level results have been used in reports by the President of the

United States, the Secretary of Education, state governors, legislators, and

members of Congress. The National Education Goals Panel and government

leaders in the nation and in more than 40 states use these results in their annual

reports.

However, based on the congressionally mandated evaluations so far, the

Acting Commissioner agrees with the recommendation of the National

Academy of Sciences that caution needs to be exercised in the use of the

current achievement levels. Therefore, the Acting Commissioner concludes that

these achievement levels should continue to be considered developmental and

should continue to be interpreted and used with caution.

17 Ibid., page 176.

18 Hambleton, R.K., Brennan, R.L., Brown, W., Dodd, B., Forsyth, R.A., Mehrens, W.A., Nellhaus, J.,

Reckase, M., Rindone, D., van der Linder, W.J., & Zwick, R. (1999). A response to “Setting reasonable and

useful performance standards” in the National Academy of Sciences’ Grading the nation’s report card.

Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts, Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research.
WRITING REPORT CARD • INTRODUCTION 17

Interpreting NAEP Results

The average scores and percentages presented in this report are estimates

because they are based on samples rather than the entire population(s). As such,

the results are subject to a measure of uncertainty, reflected in the standard

errors of the estimates. The standard errors for the estimated scale scores and

percentages provided throughout this report are provided in Appendix B.

The differences between scale scores and between percentages discussed in

the following chapters take into account the standard errors associated with the

estimates. The comparisons are based on statistical tests that consider both the

magnitude of the difference between the group average scores or percentages

and the standard errors of these statistics. Throughout this report, differences

are defined as significant when they are significant from a statistical perspective.

This means that observed differences are unlikely to be due to chance factors

associated with sampling variability. The term “significant” is not intended to

imply a judgment about the absolute magnitude or educational relevance of the

differences. It is intended to identify statistically dependable population

differences in order to help focus subsequent dialogue among policymakers,

educators, and the public. All differences reported are significant at the .05

level, with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons.

Cautions in Interpretation

The reader is cautioned against using the NAEP results in this report to make

simple causal inferences related to subgroup performance, to the effectiveness

of public and nonpublic schools, or to state educational systems. A relationship

that exists between performance and another variable does not reveal the

underlying cause of that relationship, which may be influenced by a number of

other variables. Differences in writing performance may reflect a range of

socioeconomic and educational factors not discussed in this report or addressed

by the NAEP assessment program. Similarly, differences between public and

nonpublic schools may be better understood by considering such factors as

composition of the student body and parental involvement. Finally, differences

in writing performance among states and jurisdictions may reflect not only the

effectiveness of education programs, but also the challenges posed by economic

constraints and student demographic characteristics.

WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 19 RESULTS

NATIONAL

Average Scale Score and

Achievement Level Results

for the Nation

Overview

This chapter presents the results of the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) 1998 writing assessment for the nation. Student performance

is described in terms of average scores on the NAEP writing scale, which ranges

from 0 to 300, and in terms of the percentages of students who attained each

of the three writing achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The

chapter also includes samples of student writing on the assessment that were

selected to exemplify performance within each achievement level range. Three

exemplar papers representing the three achievement levels are presented for

each grade. Additional sample student responses are provided in Chapter 6.

Explanation of Average Scale Score Results

for the Nation

The NAEP writing assessment measured students’ writing with a range of

prompts at each grade. Item Response Theory (IRT) methods were used to

produce a scale for each grade that summarizes the results from those prompts.

The scale at each grade ranges from 0 to 300, with a national average of 150.

Item Response Theory uses a set of statistical models to summarize student

performance across a group of assessment questions requiring similar knowledge

and skills. In the context of the writing assessment, IRT methods were used to

create summary scales that relate students’ performance on the writing prompts

to their general writing skill as measured by the assessment.

The NAEP writing scales can be used to compare the performance of

subgroups of students within a grade (for instance, eighth graders who reported

different levels of parental education). The scales do not allow for comparisons

of performance across grades. For example, comparisons between the average

scale scores of fourth and eighth graders attending nonpublic schools would not

be meaningful. Additional information about the scaling procedures used in the

NAEP 1998 writing assessment can be found in Appendix A of this report and

in the forthcoming NAEP 1998 Technical Report.

CHAPTER 1
20 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Achievement Level Results for the Nation

The results of student performance are reported using not only average scores

on the NAEP writing scale, but also writing achievement levels as authorized by

the NAEP legislation1

 and as adopted by the National Assessment Governing

Board (NAGB). Viewing students’ performance from this perspective provides

some insight into the adequacy of students’ knowledge and skills and the extent

to which they achieved expected levels of performance.

In 1999, NAGB reviewed and adopted the recommended writing

achievement levels, which were derived from the judgments of a broadly

representative panel that included teachers, education specialists, and members

of the general public. For each grade tested, the Board has adopted three

achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. For reporting purposes, the

writing achievement level cut scores for each grade are placed on the NAEP

writing scale, resulting in four ranges: below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and

Advanced. Figures 1.1-1.3 present the specific descriptions of writing

achievement levels at each grade. In the description of each achievement level,

the italicized portion presents a summary of the complete description of that

level. Note also that, in these descriptions, the term “writing task” is equivalent

to “writing prompt.”

1 The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (20 USC 9010) requires that the National Assessment

Governing Board develop “appropriate student performance levels” for reporting NAEP results.

Table 1.1 presents the scale scores attained by students at several percentiles.

It shows the writing scale scores for students at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and

90th percentiles at each grade. These data provide some indication of the range

of student performance, from lower performance (10th percentile) to higher

performance (90th percentile).

Writing scale score percentiles for the nation: 1998

Table 1.1

Grade 4 150 105 126 151 174 195

Grade 8 150 104 127 151 175 194

Grade 12 150 104 126 150 174 195

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Average 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th

scale score percentile percentile percentile percentile percentile
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 21

Writing achievement levels, grade 4

The following statements describe the kinds of things fourth-grade students should be able to do in writing at each level of

achievement. These statements should be interpreted with the constraints of the National Assessment of Educational Progress

in mind. Student performances reported with respect to these descriptions are in response to two age-appropriate writing tasks

completed within 25 minutes each. Students are not advised of the writing tasks in advance nor engaged in pre-writing

instruction and preparation; however, they are given a set of “ideas for planning and reviewing” their writing for the

assessment. Although the Writing NAEP cannot fully assess students’ abilities to produce a polished piece of writing, the

results do provide valuable information about students’ abilities to generate writing in response to a variety of purposes,

tasks, and audiences within a rather limited period of time.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to produce a somewhat organized and

detailed response within the time allowed that shows a general grasp of the writing task they have been assigned.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to produce a somewhat organized response within

the time allowed that shows a general grasp of the writing task they have been assigned. Their writing should include

some supporting details. Its grammar, spelling, and capitalization should be accurate enough to communicate to a

reader, although there may be mistakes that get in the way of meaning.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to produce an organized response within

the time allowed that shows an understanding of the writing task they have been assigned. Their writing should

include details that support and develop their main idea, and it should show that these students are aware of

the audience they are expected to address.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to produce an organized response within the

time allowed that shows an understanding of the writing task they have been assigned. Their writing should include

details that support and develop the main idea of the piece, and its form, content, and language should show that

these students are aware of the audience they are expected to address. The grammar, spelling, and capitalization in

the work should be accurate enough to communicate to a reader; there may be some mistakes, but these should not

get in the way of meaning.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to produce an effective, well developed

response within the time allowed that shows a clear understanding of the writing task they have been assigned

and the audience they are expected to address. Their writing should include details and be clearly organized,

should use precise and varied language, and may show signs of analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to produce an effective, well developed

response within the time allowed that shows a clear understanding of the writing task they have been assigned. Their

writing should be clearly organized, making use of techniques such as consistency in topic or theme, sequencing, and

a clearly marked beginning and ending. It should make use of precise and varied language to speak to the audience

the students are expected to address, and it should include details and elaboration that support and develop the main

idea of the piece. Their writing may also show signs of analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking. The grammar,

spelling, and capitalization in the work should be accurate enough to communicate clearly; mistakes should be so few

and so minor that a reader can easily skim over them.

Figure 1.1

Basic

(115)

Proficient

(176)

Advanced

(225)
22 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Writing achievement levels, grade 8

The following statements describe the kinds of things eighth-grade students should be able to do in writing at each level of

achievement. These statements should be interpreted with the constraints of the National Assessment of Educational Progress

in mind. Student performances reported with respect to these descriptions are in response to two age-appropriate writing tasks

completed within 25 minutes each. Students are not advised of the writing tasks in advance nor engaged in pre-writing

instruction and preparation; however, they are given a set of “ideas for planning and reviewing” their writing for the

assessment. Although the Writing NAEP cannot fully assess students’ abilities to produce a polished piece of writing, the

results do provide valuable information about students’ abilities to generate writing in response to a variety of purposes,

tasks, and audiences within a rather limited period of time.

Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to produce an effective response within the

time allowed that shows a general understanding of the writing task they have been assigned. Their writing

should show that these students are aware of the audience they are expected to address, and it should include

supporting details in an organized way.

Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to produce an effective response within the time

allowed that shows a general understanding of the writing task they have been assigned. Their writing should show

that these students are aware of the audience they are expected to address, and it should include supporting details

in an organized way. The grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization in the work should be accurate enough to

communicate to a reader, although there may be mistakes that get in the way of meaning.

Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to produce a detailed and organized

response within the time allowed that shows an understanding of both the writing task they have been assigned

and the audience they are expected to address. Their writing should include precise language and varied sentence

structure, and it may show analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking.

Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to produce an effective response within the

time allowed that shows an understanding of both the writing task they have been assigned and the audience they

are expected to address. Their writing should be organized, making use of techniques such as sequencing or a clearly

marked beginning and ending, and it should make use of details and some elaboration to support and develop the

main idea of the piece. Their writing should include precise language and some variety in sentence structure, and it

may show analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking. The grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization in the

work should be accurate enough to communicate to a reader; there may be some errors, but these should not get in

the way of meaning.

Eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to produce a fully developed response

within the time allowed that shows a clear understanding of both the writing task they have been assigned and

the audience they are expected to address. Their writing should show some analytical, evaluative, or creative

thinking and may make use of literary strategies to clarify a point. At the same time, the writing should be

clearly organized, demonstrating precise word choice and varied sentence structure.

Eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to produce an effective and fully developed

response within the time allowed that shows a clear understanding of both the writing task they have been assigned

and the audience they are expected to address. Their writing should show some analytical, evaluative, or creative

thinking, and should demonstrate precise word choice and varied sentence structure. Their work should include details

and elaboration that support and develop the main idea of the piece, and it may make use of strategies such as

analogies, illustrations, examples, anecdotes, or figurative language to clarify a point. At the same time, the writing

should show that these students can keep their work clearly and consistently organized. Writing by eighth-grade

students performing at the Advanced level should contain few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization,

and sentence structure. These writers should demonstrate good control of these elements and may use them for

stylistic effect in their work.

Figure 1.2

Basic

(114)

Proficient

(173)

Advanced

(224)
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 23

Writing achievement levels, grade 12

The following statements describe the kinds of things twelfth-grade students should be able to do in writing at each level of

achievement. These statements should be interpreted with the constraints of the National Assessment of Educational Progress

in mind. Student performances reported with respect to these descriptions are in response to two age-appropriate writing tasks

completed within 25 minutes each. Students are not advised of the writing tasks in advance nor engaged in pre-writing

instruction and preparation; however, they are given a set of “ideas for planning and reviewing” their writing for the

assessment. Although the Writing NAEP cannot fully assess students’ abilities to produce a polished piece of writing, the

results do provide valuable information about students’ abilities to generate writing in response to a variety of purposes,

tasks, and audiences within a rather limited period of time.

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to produce a well-organized response

within the time allowed that shows an understanding of both the writing task they have been assigned and the

audience they are expected to address. Their writing should show some analytical, evaluative, or creative

thinking, and it should include details that support and develop the main idea of the piece.

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to produce an effective response within the time

allowed that shows an understanding of both the writing task they have been assigned and the audience they are

expected to address. Their writing should show some analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking. It should include

details that support and develop the central idea of the piece, and it should be clearly organized, making use of

techniques such as consistency in topic or theme, sequencing, and a clear introduction and conclusion. The grammar,

spelling, punctuation, and capitalization in these students’ work should be accurate enough to communicate to a

reader; there may be some errors, but these should not get in the way of meaning.

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to produce an effectively organized

and fully developed response within the time allowed that uses analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking.

Their writing should include details that support and develop the main idea of the piece, and it should show that

these students are able to use precise language and variety in sentence structure to engage the audience they

are expected to address.

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to produce an effective and fully developed

response within the time allowed that uses analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking. Their writing should be organized

effectively, and it should show that these students have a clear understanding of the writing task they have been

assigned. It should be coherent, making use of techniques such as a consistent theme, sequencing, and a clear

introduction and conclusion, and it should include details and elaboration that support and develop the main idea of

the piece. The writing should show that these students are able to use precise language and variety in sentence

structure to engage the audience they are expected to address. Writing by twelfth-grade students performing at the

Proficient level should contain few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure.

These writers should demonstrate a command of these elements and may use them for stylistic effect in their work.

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to produce a mature and sophisticated

response within the time allowed that uses analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking. Their writing should be

detailed and fully developed, and it should show that these students are able to use literary strategies to

develop their ideas. At the same time, the writing should be well crafted and coherent, and it should show that

these students are able to engage the audience they are expected to address through rich and compelling

language, precise word choice, and variety in sentence structure.

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to produce a mature and sophisticated

response within the time allowed that uses analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking. Their writing should be fully

developed, incorporating details and elaboration that support and extend the main idea of the piece. It should show

that these students can use literary strategies – anecdotes and repetition, for example – to develop their ideas. At the

same time, the writing should be well crafted, organized, and coherent, and it should incorporate techniques such as

a consistency in topic or theme, sequencing, and a clear introduction and conclusion. It should show that these writers

can engage the audience they are expected to address through rich and compelling language, precise word choice,

and variety in sentence structure. Writing by twelfth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should contain

few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure. These writers should demonstrate

a sophisticated command of these elements and may use them for stylistic effect in their work.

Figure 1.3

Basic

(122)

Proficient

(178)

Advanced

(230)
24 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

The NAEP legislation requires that achievement levels be “used on a

developmental basis until the Commissioner of Education Statistics

determines . . . that such levels are reasonable, valid, and informative to the

public.”2

 A discussion of the developmental status of achievement levels may be

found in the Introduction.

The percentages of students at grades 4, 8, and 12 who performed at or

above each of the achievement levels are presented in Table 1.2. In reading

Table 1.2, it is necessary to keep in mind that the achievement levels are

cumulative. That is, included among students who are considered to be at or

above Basic are those who also have achieved the Proficient and Advanced levels

of performance, and included among students who are considered to be at or

above Proficient are those who have attained the Advanced level of

performance. For example, Table 1.2 shows that the percentage of fourth-grade

students at or above Basic is 84 percent. The 84 percent includes not only

students at the Basic level, but also those who performed at the Proficient and

Advanced levels.

As shown in Table 1.2, 84 percent of fourth graders, 84 percent of eighth

graders, and 78 percent of twelfth graders were at or above the Basic level in

1998. Performance at or above the Proficient level — the achievement level

identified by NAGB as the level that all students should reach — was achieved

by 23 percent of students at grade 4, 27 percent of students at grade 8, and 22

percent of students at grade 12. The highest level of performance, Advanced,

was attained in 1998 by 1 percent of students at each of the three grades.

2 Public Law 103-382. (1994). Improving America’s Schools Act (20 USC 9010). Washington, DC.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 25

Table 1.2

Percentage of students at or above the writing achievement levels

for the nation: 1998

16 84 23 1

16 84 27 1

22 78 22 1

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Nation

Grade 8

Grade 12

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Grade 4
26 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Figure 1.4 also shows achievement level results, but in terms of the

percentage of students within each achievement level range. At all three grades,

over half of the students were in the Basic achievement level range.

Percentage of students within each writing achievement level

range for the nation: 1998

Figure 1.4

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Percentage of students at each achievement level

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

16 61 22

16 58 25

22 57 21

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

below Basic at Basic at Proficient at Advanced

1

1

1
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 27

Sample Writing Prompts and Student Responses

This section presents the nine prompts released to the public, along with

student responses that exemplify the three achievement levels for each grade.

Commentary on each exemplar response is also provided.

The tables in this section present, for each exemplar response, the

percentages of students within each achievement level range (Basic, Proficient,

and Advanced) who achieved the same rating on the prompt as the exemplar

response or better. The overall percentages presented in these tables include

students who were considered below Basic, as well as students in each of the

achievement level ranges. The achievement level ranges are linked to their

corresponding points on the NAEP scale. Because of the small number of

students who attained the Advanced level, percentages for the scale score ranges

corresponding to Advanced cannot be reliably reported for the three grades and

thus are not presented.

These student responses were chosen by the teachers, other educators,

professional writers, and members of the public who set the achievement levels.

Sample papers were eligible for selection as exemplars if they met a statistical

criterion — among the range of students in the achievement level, the average

proportion achieving the given rating or better had to be at least 50 percent.

The panelists selected from among the statistically eligible student papers those

papers that served as appropriate illustrations of the achievement level

descriptions. The achievement levels apply to the writing scale in general, not to

individual prompts. Because some items are more difficult than others, a rating

of “Uneven” in response to one prompt, for example, may be equivalent to a

rating of “Sufficient” on another. As a result, a response rated “Uneven” may

have been chosen as a Basic exemplar for one prompt, while a response rated

“Sufficient” may have been chosen as a Basic exemplar for another prompt. The

ratings on the six-level scoring guides are reprinted below for reference. The full

scoring guides are presented in Chapter 6.

The achievement levels do not describe performance below the Basic level.

Chapter 6 presents additional information about the evaluation of the full range

of student responses. It includes, for one prompt at each grade, a sample

student response for each of the six ratings on the scoring guide.

Scoring Guide Ratings

6 = Excellent

5 = Skillful

4 = Sufficient

3 = Uneven

2 = Insufficient

1 = Unsatisfactory
28 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Sample Prompts and Exemplar Student Responses - Grade 4

Fourth-Grade Prompt: Favorite Object

We all have favorite objects that we care about and would not

want to give up.

Think of one object that is important or valuable to you. For

example, it could be a book, a piece of clothing, a game, or any

object you care about.

Write about your favorite object. Be sure to describe the object

and explain why it is valuable or important to you.

Writing Purpose: Informative

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 4 informative scoring guide.

In response to the “Favorite Object” prompt (an informative prompt at

grade 4), fourth graders chose a variety of objects, some of which were actually

people or pets or activities such as games rather than objects. All of the above

kinds of responses were accepted. Some students told stories about their favorite

objects, while others described their object’s qualities. A similar prompt that was

given at grade 12 is presented later in this chapter.

The sample that follows was judged to be an exemplar of performance at the

Basic achievement level on this prompt. It is somewhat organized and provides

some details about the student’s dog, “max,” the “black rockwaller.” The

student describes, for example, how Max behaves differently around people who

know him than around those who do not. The student uses some good

description of Max’s response when someone he knows comes home: “as soon

as you open come running out jump all over you and he would play with you.”

The student’s meaning is generally clear, although some problems with

grammar and sentence boundaries leave gaps which the reader has to fill in: “he

is playfull if you know him if you don’t do not go near bark, growl, run you

over . . . .” This essay was rated “Uneven” (3 on the 6-point scoring guide).
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 29

Sample Fourth-Grade Basic Response

Percentage “Uneven” (score of 3) or better within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Uneven” (3) or better 115–175* 176–224* 225 and above*

90 94 100 ***

* NAEP Writing scale range.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table 1.3 Grade 4: Favorite Object
30 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Fourth-Grade Prompt: Castle

One morning a child looks out the window and discovers that a

huge castle has appeared overnight. The child rushes outside to

the castle and hears strange sounds coming from it. Someone is

living in the castle!

The castle door creaks open. The child goes in.

Write a story about who the child meets and what happens

inside the castle.

Writing Purpose: Narrative

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 4 narrative scoring guide.

The sample that follows was chosen as an exemplar of performance at the

Proficient achievement level for this fourth-grade narrative prompt. The

imagination of fourth graders was very much in evidence in responses to this

prompt, “Castle,” which tended to elicit fast-paced stories of fictional events. In

the sample provided, the student provides a clear, organized response. He or

she writes a clearly-constructed story with some illustrative details that make it

more vivid, like that of the “purple, pink, red, blue, orange and yellow

rainbow.” Since raters were instructed not to penalize responses that lacked an

ending, given the time constraints of the assessment, this response was not

penalized for the lack of a conclusion to the plot. The student provides some

good plot development and some suspense: “He looked around and saw that

there must be someone living here.” The student has good control of sentence

boundaries and does not stray from the clear sequence of actions provided. This

essay was rated “Sufficient” (4 on the 6-point scoring guide).
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 31

Sample Fourth-Grade Proficient Response

Percentage “Sufficient” (score of 4) or better within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Sufficient” (4) or better 115–175* 176–224* 225 and above*

55 50 96 ***

* NAEP writing scale range.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table 1.4 Grade 4: Castle
32 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

To My Best Friend,

You are my best and only friend because only you can

see or hear me. To everyone else, I am completely

invisible.

Last night on my tenth birthday I figured out how to

make myself visible. But I'm afraid. I like living in your

imagination. I'm not too sure I'd like living in the real

world. Who will take care of me? What would I do for

fun? Who would be my friend besides you?

Do you think I should become visible? Why do you

think I should? Besides being with you, what is so 

great about being visible?

Sincerely,

Your confused friend

To: My Best Friend

From: Your Invisible

 Friend

K

Grade 4 Writing

Invisible Friend

Fourth-Grade Prompt: Invisible Friend

Open the envelope labeled K and take out the letter.

Pretend this letter is from an imaginary friend that you have had

since kindergarten. Read the letter. Think about what you could

say that would help your friend decide to become visible.

On the lined pages in your test booklet, write a letter to your

imaginary friend. Convince your friend to become visible. In

your letter, use details and examples.

Writing Purpose: Persuasive

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 4 persuasive scoring guide.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 33

The following sample was chosen as an exemplar of performance at the

Advanced achievement level for this fourth-grade persuasive prompt, “Invisible

Friend.” The prompt asked students to respond to a letter from an imaginary

invisible friend, providing reasons why that friend should become visible. This

example contains detailed development of reasons why the invisible friend

should become visible: “If you do come visible you would love my room so

much if you like flowers. I have green walls and flower boarder walls; It is so

pretty!” The student clearly writes to be persuasive and has a good sense of

audience. The details covered here include a variety of activities, examples of

people who would be friends with the invisible friend, and the description of the

student’s room where the invisible friend would stay. The response is wellstructured, with a clear beginning and ending. The student has good control of

sentence boundaries, using a variety of sentence structures, and uses rhetoric

effectively to make points: “Something that is great about being visible is that

all kids I know are so nice. I want you to become visible. Please do!” This

response was rated “Skillful”(5 on the 6-point scoring guide).
34 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Sample Fourth-Grade Advanced Response
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 35

Sample Fourth-Grade Advanced Response (continued)

Percentage “Skillful” (score of 5) or better within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Skillful” (5) or better 115–175* 176–224* 225 and above*

18 10 47 ***

* NAEP Writing scale range.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table 1.5 Grade 4: Invisible Friend
36 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Sample Prompts and Exemplar Student Responses - Grade 8

Eighth-Grade Prompt: Space Visitor

Imagine this situation!

A noise outside awakens you one night. You look out the window

and see a spaceship. The door of the spaceship opens, and out

walks a space creature. What does the creature look like? What

does the creature do? What do you do?

Write a story about what happens next.

Writing Purpose: Narrative

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 8 narrative scoring guide.

The sample below was written in response to the “Space Visitor” prompt,

which elicited a wide variety of creative responses from eighth-grade students.

Some students focused on the appearance of the visitor. Other students

presented the experience as a dream. The sample below was chosen as an

exemplar of Basic performance for eighth-grade writing. In this sample, the

student tells a coherent story, including both a precise description of the

alien — “It was green and was about 3 feet tall” — and some vivid action:

“He went up stairs got his peper spray came back down and sprayed the 3 foot

alean with it he the put it back on his spaceship and it flew up.” Though the

story has some errors in grammar and use of sentence boundaries, it does not

have many errors that interfere with meaning. This response was rated

“Uneven” (3 on the 6-point scoring guide), largely because of problems with

sentence boundaries.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 37

Sample Eighth-Grade Basic Response
38 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Percentage “Uneven” (score of 3) or better within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Uneven” (3) or better 114–172* 173–223* 224 and above*

88 94 100 ***

* NAEP Writing scale range.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table 1.6 Grade 8: Space Visitor
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 39

Eighth-Grade Prompt: Designing a TV Show

A public television network is seeking ideas for a new series of

shows that would be educational for teenagers. The series will

include ten one-hour episodes and will be shown once a week.

Some of the titles under consideration are:

“Great Cities of the World”

“Women in History”

“Nature Walks”

“American Legends”

Choose one of these titles. Write a letter to the network

president describing your ideas for a new educational series. In

your letter, describe what one episode might be like. Use specific

examples of what information you would include in the episode

so the network president will be able to imagine what the series

would be like.

Writing Purpose: Informative

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 8 informative scoring guide.

In addition to prompts that used visual material as stimulus (cartoons,

drawings, etc.), some prompts asked students to use their visual imaginations in

other ways. This eighth-grade prompt, which asked students how they would

design an educational television series about a specific subject, encouraged

students to describe how they would present information in terms of narrators,

settings, dialogue, camera angles, and other aspects of presentation. Students

could choose the topic of the series they would design from the list of four

topics provided in the prompt or could choose a topic of their own. The prompt

asked students to write in the form of a letter to the president of a television

network.
40 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Sample Eighth-Grade Proficient Response

The response below was chosen as an exemplar of Proficient writing at the

eighth-grade level. This response is characterized especially by its clarity and

organized structure. The student provides a clear beginning and ending and a

rationale for the show (“There have been many women heroes, and they should

be recognized”), as well as an example of one episode from it: “An idea for a

show is Anne Frank. You could go to the place where they hid for so long and

do the show right there. Everyone will get the chance to see how Anne lived.”

Though not very lengthy, this response shows a clear understanding of the task,

and provides the necessary information to fulfill it. The language is clear and

readily comprehensible, despite a few errors. This response was rated “Sufficient”

(4 on the 6-point scoring guide).
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 41

Percentage “Sufficient” (score of 4) or better within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Sufficient” (4) or better 114–172* 173–223* 224 and above*

44 36 80 ***

* NAEP writing scale range.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table 1.7 Grade 8: Designing a TV Show
42 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Eighth-Grade Prompt: Lengthening the School Year

Many people think that students are not learning enough in

school. They want to shorten most school vacations and make

students spend more of the year in school. Other people think that

lengthening the school year and shortening vacations is a bad idea

because students use their vacations to learn important things

outside of school.

What is your opinion?

Write a letter to your school board either in favor of or against

lengthening the school year. Give specific reasons to support your

opinion that will convince the school board to agree with you.

Writing Purpose: Persuasive

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 8 persuasive scoring guide.

In response to this persuasive prompt, most students argued against

lengthening the school year, often with reference to the educational value of

vacations and time with family. Others thought lengthening the school year

would be a good idea. In the Advanced exemplar shown, the student writes a

letter that consistently develops reasons into a cohesive argument. The student

points out that there are parts of one’s social and cultural education that occur

outside of school, and that excessive stress can be counterproductive. Each

paragraph is well organized and builds support for the student’s point of view.

Thus, the student provides a convincing analysis. He or she also uses rhetorical

strategies such as irony and refutation of an opposing argument: “Some might

say that kids aren’t learning enough, and since the future of the nation rests on

their shoulders they need to go to school longer and learn more. I say those

who are adults now went to school the same amount, if not shorter, of time that

we do and they haven’t completely ruined the country.” This response was rated

“Excellent,” the top rating (6 on the 6-point scoring guide).
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 43

Sample Eighth-Grade Advanced Response
44 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Sample Eighth-Grade Advanced Response (continued)

Percentage “Excellent” (score of 6) within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Excellent” (6) 114–172* 173–223* 224 and above*

3 0 8 ***

* NAEP Writing scale range.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table 1.8 Grade 8: Lengthening the School Year
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 45

Sample Prompts and Exemplar Student Responses - Grade 12

Twelfth-Grade Prompt: Writing Mentor

Your school has a program in which a twelfth grader acts as a

mentor for a tenth grader at the beginning of each school year. The

mentor’s job is to help the tenth grader have a successful

experience at your school. The tenth grader you are working with

is worried about being able to write well enough for high school

classes.

Write a letter to your tenth grader explaining what kind of writing

is expected in high school classes and what the student can do to

be a successful writer in high school.

As you plan your response, think about your own writing

experiences. How would you describe “good” writing? What advice

about writing has been helpful to you? What writing techniques do

you use?

Writing Purpose: Informative

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 12 informative scoring guide.

The sample shown is an exemplar of Basic performance at the twelfth-grade

level. It was written in response to the “Writing Mentor” prompt, an

informative prompt that asked students to give advice about writing to a

younger student. In their responses, some students described the writing

process, others detailed how good writing is defined, and still others described

personal experiences with writing to illustrate how they learned to write.

In this Basic exemplar, the student provides a clear sequence of information

with some details. The response is relatively brief, but clear and focused. The

student offers some details (“Remember to indent when starting paragraphs and

use proper punctuation”) and provides general organization of his or her points.

The response does not use complicated sentence structures, but does have some

sentence variety and few errors. This response was rated “Sufficient” (4 on the

6-point scoring guide).
46 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Sample Twelfth-Grade Basic Response

Percentage “Sufficient” (score of 4) or better within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Sufficient” (4) or better 122–177* 178–229* 230 and above*

71 78 99 ***

* NAEP Writing scale range.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table 1.9 Grade 12: Writing Mentor
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 47

Twelfth-Grade Prompt: Special Object

Read the following excerpt from a poem by Walt Whitman.

There was a child who went forth every day,

And the first object he look’d upon, that

object he became,

And that object became part of him for

the day or a certain part of the day,

Or for many years or stretching cycles

of years.

Whitman’s poem suggests that certain objects become important

to us and remain important to us even if we no longer have them.

Write a story in which you tell about an object that remains

important to the main character over a period of years. The main

character could be you or someone you know.

In your story, describe the main character’s first encounter with

the object, why the object is so important to the character, and

how, over the years, it remains a part of the character’s life.

Writing Purpose: Narrative

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 12 narrative scoring guide.

The next sample, an exemplar of Proficient performance at grade 12, was

written in response to the “Special Object” prompt. This prompt, like the

“Favorite Object” prompt at grade 4 (shown earlier in this chapter), asked

students to identify an important object. In the twelfth-grade version of the

prompt, students were asked to write about a character to whom an object was

important. Thus, this prompt was classified as narrative, while the fourth-grade

prompt, which asked students to describe an object important to them, was

informative. Many students in twelfth grade wrote interesting and detailed

narratives in response to the prompt. Many alluded to the Whitman poem

provided in the prompt, in which, as a child responds to an object, “that

object became part of him for the day or a certain part of the day,/Or for

many years or stretching cycles of years.”
48 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

The Proficient exemplar shown is notable for its detailed characterization

and description: “I was a young immigrant in an unknown world; everything

seemed so vast and unexplainable. I began working in a nearby factory for what

seemed to be a phenomenal wage.” The student recreates both the moment

when the character met her husband and her fond memories of him years later.

The object of the wedding ring here is clearly used for symbolic purposes. The

transition to memory in the last paragraph conveys the sense, as in Whitman’s

poem, that the things we love are never really lost to us. This response shows

good command of stylistic elements. It does, however, have a gap between the

character’s first meeting with her husband and his death. This response was

rated “Skillful” (5 on the 6-point scoring guide).

Sample Twelfth-Grade Proficient Response
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 49

Sample Twelfth-Grade Proficient Response (continued)

Percentage “Skillful” (score of 5) or better within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Skillful” (5) or better 122–177* 178–229* 230 and above*

44 42 82 ***

* NAEP Writing scale range.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table 1.10 Grade 12: Special Object
50 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Twelfth-Grade Prompt: One Vote

Your school is sponsoring a voter registration drive for 18-year-old

high school students. You and three of your friends are talking

about the project. Your friends say the following.

Friend 1: “ I’m working on the young voters’ registration drive.

Are you going to come to it and register? You’re all

18, so you can do it. We’re trying to help increase

the number of young people who vote and it shouldn’t

be too hard — I read that the percentage of 18- to

20-year-olds who vote increased in recent years. We

want that percentage to keep going up.”

Friend 2: “I’ll be there. People should vote as soon as they turn

18. It’s one of the responsibilities of living in a

democracy.”

Friend 3: “ I don’t know if people should even bother to register.

One vote in an election isn’t going to change

anything.”

Do you agree with friend 2 or 3? Write a response to your friends in

which you explain whether you will or will not register to vote. Be

sure to explain why and support your position with examples from

your reading or experience. Try to convince the friend with whom

you disagree that your position is the right one.

Writing Purpose: Persuasive

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 12 persuasive scoring guide.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 51

This twelfth-grade persuasive prompt, “One Vote,” provided context for a

debate about the importance of voting by presenting a conversation among

three friends about whether or not it is important to register and vote when one

turns 18. Students were asked to participate in the debate by responding to the

friends described in the prompt. Some students responded in letter format.

Some addressed both sides of the debate, discussing both Friend 2’s contention

that “People should vote as soon as they turn 18” and Friend 3’s view that

“One vote in an election isn’t going to change anything.”

The following response was chosen as an exemplar of Advanced

performance at grade 12, and received the top rating of “Excellent” (6 on the

six-point scoring guide). A sophisticated command of rhetoric is evident

throughout. The student notes that the question of whether one vote could

sway an election is not as significant as the issue of the importance of voting

overall. He or she consistently supports points with details or examples, uses

transitions throughout, and exhibits good control of language.
52 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Sample Twelfth-Grade Advanced Response
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1 53

Percentage “Excellent” (score of 6) within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Excellent“ (6) 122–177* 178–229* 230 and above*

3 0 9 ***

* NAEP writing scale range.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table 1.11 Grade 12: One Vote
54 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 1

Summary

© In the 1998 NAEP writing assessment, average scores for the nation were

set at 150 on a scale of 0 to 300 for all grades assessed (4, 8, and 12).

© In 1998, at grade 4, 23 percent of students achieved the Proficient level or

higher on the writing assessment. Eighty-four percent of fourth-grade

students achieved the Basic level or higher, and 1 percent of students

achieved the Advanced level. At grade 8, 27 percent of students achieved

the Proficient level or higher on the writing assessment. Eighty-four percent

of students at grade 8 achieved the Basic level or higher, and 1 percent of

students achieved the Advanced level. At grade 12, 22 percent of students

achieved the Proficient level or higher on the writing assessment. Seventyeight percent of twelfth-grade students achieved the Basic level or higher,

and 1 percent of students achieved the Advanced level.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2 55

SCALE SCORES

CHAPTER 2

Average Writing Scale Score

Results for Selected Subgroups

Overview

This chapter presents average writing scale score results for various subgroups

of students. The findings are summarized on the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) writing scale, which has a range of 0 to 300. An

examination of the score patterns of these subgroups provides insight into how

general patterns of writing performance are related to certain background

characteristics. Results are reported by gender, race/ethnicity, parental

education, region, type of location, eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price

School Lunch Program, and type of school. Achievement level results for the

same subgroups are presented in Chapter 3.

The differences reported between subgroups for the 1998 assessment are

based on statistical tests that consider both the magnitude of the difference

between the subgroups’ average scores or percentages and the standard errors

of the statistics. Throughout the chapter, differences are discussed only if they

were determined to be statistically significant.1

In interpreting subgroup results, the reader is reminded that differences in

writing performance reflect a range of socioeconomic and educational factors

not discussed in this report or addressed by the NAEP assessment program.

A complex array of factors combine to affect students’ achievement and their

performance on measures of writing achievement. Important issues such as

opportunities to learn and sociocultural environmental factors must be

considered in interpreting these differences.2

 Therefore, readers should avoid

making simple or causal inferences based on these data.

1 See Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of statistical significance testing procedures.

2 Stevens, F. (1993). Opportunity to learn: Issues of equity for poor and minority students. Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics.
56 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2

3 Cole, N. (1997). The ETS gender study: How females and males perform in educational settings. Princeton,

NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Gender

Table 2.1 shows the 1998 average writing scale scores for males and females. In

this table and in all the tables in this chapter, the percentage of students in each

subgroup (for example, the percentage of female students who took the NAEP

writing assessment) is presented next to the average scale score.

At all three grades, female students had higher average scale scores than

their male peers. Research has shown that females have achieved higher scale

scores than males on a variety of previous writing assessments.3

 On the NAEP

0-to-300 writing scale, the difference between scores for female and male

students was 16 points at grade 4, 20 points at grade 8, and 19 points at grade 12.

Race/Ethnicity

As part of the background questionnaire administered with the NAEP 1998

writing assessment, students were asked to indicate the racial/ethnic subgroup

that best described them. The mutually exclusive response options were: White,

Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian (including

Alaskan Native).

Average writing scale scores by gender: 1998

Table 2.1

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

Male 51 142

Female 49 158

Grade 8

Male 51 140

Female 49 160

Grade 12

Male 48 140

Female 52 159

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2 57

The 1998 average writing scale scores for students in racial/ethnic

subgroups are presented in Table 2.2. As in previous NAEP assessments in a

variety of academic subjects, differences in writing performance among racial/

ethnic groups were evident at all three grades.

At grade 4, Asian/Pacific Islander students had higher scale scores than all

other groups. Also at grade 4, White students outperformed Black, Hispanic,

and American Indian students, and American Indian students outperformed

their Black peers. At grades 8 and 12, Asian/Pacific Islander and White

students had higher scores than their peers in the other groups.

Average writing scale scores by race/ethnicity: 1998

Table 2.2

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

White 67 157

Black 15 131

Hispanic 13 134

Asian/Pacific Islander 2 164

American Indian 2 138

Grade 8

White 67 158

Black 14 131

Hispanic 14 131

Asian/Pacific Islander 3 159

American Indian 1 132

Grade 12

White 69 156

Black 14 134

Hispanic 12 135

Asian/Pacific Islander 4 152

American Indian 1 129

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
58 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2

Parents’ Highest Level of Education4

Parents have a strong influence on their children’s education, as shown by

previous NAEP assessments and many other studies.5

 Chapter 4 explores the

influence of several home factors on students’ achievement in writing, including

the importance of parents’ talking to their children about their studies.

Many studies have also shown that, generally, the higher the parents’ level

of education, the higher their children’s performance. This was also true for the

NAEP writing assessment. For this analysis, the highest level of education

reported for either parent was used. Generally, at all three grades, the higher

the parents’ level of education, the higher the students’ scale scores. At grade

12, this held true for every level. At grades 4 and 8, the average scores of

students whose parents had some education after high school were similar to

those of students whose parents graduated from high school. In addition,

generally at all three grades, students who did not know their parents’ highest

level of education had lower scale scores than those who did.

These results should be placed in some context. Note that some research

has questioned the accuracy of student-reported data on parental education;

therefore, caution should be used in interpreting the findings.6

 Also, note that

eleven percent of fourth graders, 3 percent of eighth graders, and 1 percent of

twelfth graders reported not knowing their parents’ educational level. Finally,

parental education may be related to higher income, which could affect

educational opportunities.

4 The 1998 NAEP writing assessment used a different set of questions than past NAEP assessments to

determine parents’ highest level of education. Consequently, patterns of relationships between this

background variable and scale scores may differ slightly from past results.

5 See, for example, Donahue, P.L., Voelkl, K.R., Campbell, J.R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999.) The NAEP 1998

reading report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Strong families, strong schools: Building community partnerships for

leadership. Washington, DC: Author.

6 Looker, E.D. (1989). Accuracy of proxy reports of parental status characteristics. Sociology of Education,

62(4), 257–279.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2 59

Average writing scale scores by parents’ highest level of education:

1998

Table 2.3

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

Graduated from college 57 153

Some education after high school 16 149

Graduated from high school 12 150

Did not finish high school 3 136

I don’t know. 11 139

Grade 8

Graduated from college 50 159

Some education after high school 27 145

Graduated from high school 15 145

Did not finish high school 5 130

I don’t know. 3 117

Grade 12

Graduated from college 52 159

Some education after high school 27 145

Graduated from high school 14 142

Did not finish high school 6 128

I don’t know. 1 113

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
60 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2

Region of the Country

Table 2.4 presents results by four regions of the country: Northeast, Southeast,

Central, and West. The composition of the regions is described in Appendix A.

Comparisons of scale scores show differing performance by region. At

grades 4 and 8, students in the Northeast and Central regions had higher

average scale scores than their peers in the Southeast and West. At grade 12,

students in the Southeast had lower scores than those in the three other

regions. It should be noted that many of the differences in performance by

region, though statistically significant, were small.

Average writing scale scores by region: 1998

Table 2.4

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

Northeast 23 154

Southeast 25 146

Central 24 156

West 27 145

Grade 8

Northeast 21 155

Southeast 25 145

Central 25 155

West 29 146

Grade 12

Northeast 22 152

Southeast 23 144

Central 25 153

West 29 151

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2 61

Average writing scale scores by type of location: 1998

Table 2.5

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

Central city 35 145

Urban fringe/large town 36 154

Rural/small town 29 151

Grade 8

Central city 33 145

Urban fringe/large town 40 155

Rural/small town 27 149

Grade 12

Central city 32 150

Urban fringe/large town 39 152

Rural/small town 30 147

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Type of Location

Another way to look at student performance is by the location of their schools.

Again, a complex variety of factors, including socioeconomic factors and

availability of resources in schools, is represented by school location. The

three types of location — central city, urban fringe/large town, and

rural/small town — are based on Census Bureau definitions of metropolitan

statistical areas, population size, and density. These classifications, based solely

on geographic characteristics, are described in Appendix A.

As Table 2.5 shows, fourth- and eighth-grade students in central city

schools had lower average scale scores than their peers in the other locations. At

grades 8 and 12, students in urban fringe/large town schools had higher

average scale scores than those in rural/small town schools. At grade 12, the

average scores of students in central city schools did not differ significantly from

those of their peers attending schools in other locations.
62 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2

Eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price

School Lunch Program

The Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch component of the National School

Lunch Program, offered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is

designed to ensure that children near or below the poverty line receive

nourishing meals.7

 The program is available to public schools, nonprofit private

schools, and residential child-care institutions. Eligibility for free or reducedprice meals is determined through the USDA’s Income Eligibility Guidelines,

which require that family income be at 135 percent of the poverty level or less

for a student to receive free lunches, and at 180 percent of the poverty level or

less for a student to receive reduced-price lunches. As Table 2.6 shows, at least

34 percent of fourth-grade students, 27 percent of eighth-grade students, and

14 percent of twelfth-grade students were eligible for this program.8

Eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program is an

indicator of poverty. Table 2.6 shows the relationship between that indicator

and student performance in writing. The results show that family income has an

association with writing achievement: students eligible for free or reduced-price

lunches because of poverty had lower scores than those who were not eligible at

all three grades (by 24 scale score points at grade 4, 25 points at grade 8, and

19 points at grade 12). At grades 4 and 8, these differences in scale scores were

greater than those between male and female students; at grade 12 they were the

same as the difference in scores between male and female students.

7 U.S. General Services Administration. (1995). Catalog of federal domestic assistance. Washington, DC:

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.

8 Information on eligibility was not provided for 13, 17, and 20 percent of students at grades 4, 8, and 12,

respectively. Some of those students may also have been eligible for free/reduced-price lunches.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2 63

Average writing scale scores by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch

Program eligibility: 1998

Table 2.6

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

Eligible 34 134

Not eligible 54 158

Information not available 13 157

Grade 8

Eligible 27 132

Not eligible 55 157

Information not available 17 157

Grade 12

Eligible 14 133

Not eligible 66 152

Information not available 20 155

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
64 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2

9 Applebee, A., Langer, J.A., Mullis, I.V.S., Latham, A.S., & Gentile, C. (1994). NAEP 1992 writing report

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

Campbell, J.R., Voelkl, K.E., & Donahue, P.L. (1997). NAEP 1996 trends in academic progress.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

10 Coleman, J., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). Cognitive outcomes in public and private schools. Sociology

of Education, 55, 65-76.

11 Alexander, K.L. & Pallas, A.M. (1983). Private schools and public policy: New evidence on cognitive

achievement in public and private schools. Sociology of Education, 56, 170–82.

Type of School

Average writing scale scores by type of school are presented in Table 2.7.

Schools were classified as either public or nonpublic; nonpublic schools were

then further divided into Catholic or other nonpublic schools.

At all three grades, students in both types of nonpublic schools had higher

average scale scores than their peers in public schools. In addition, at grade 12,

students in Catholic schools outperformed students in other nonpublic schools.

Previous NAEP writing assessments and other survey research on

educational achievement have found significant differences in the performance

of students attending public schools and those attending nonpublic schools.9

However, the reader is cautioned against using NAEP results to make simplistic

inferences about the relative effectiveness of public and nonpublic schools.

Average performance differences between the two types of schools may be

related in part to socioeconomic and sociological factors. For example, some

research points to instructional and policy differences between the two types of

schools to explain the higher performance of private school students,10 while

other studies have suggested that student selection and parental involvement

are more significant contributors to performance differences.11
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2 65

Average writing scale scores by type of school: 1998

Table 2.7

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

Public 88* 148

Nonpublic 11* 164

Nonpublic: Catholic 7 163

Other nonpublic 4 165

Grade 8

Public 89 148

Nonpublic 11 167

Nonpublic: Catholic 7 169

Other nonpublic 5 166

Grade 12

Public 88 148

Nonpublic 12 165

Nonpublic: Catholic 8 167

Other nonpublic 3 159

* Percentages of public and nonpublic schools do not add to

100 because the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools were not

counted in either category.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
66 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 2

Summary

For the NAEP 1998 writing assessment, the following patterns of scale score

results across subgroups of students were observed. These differences may be

related in part to sociological and socioeconomic factors.

© Gender: Female students had higher average scale scores than male students

at all three grades.

© Race/ethnicity: At grade 4, Asian/Pacific Islander students had higher

average scale scores than their White peers, who had higher average scale

scores than their Black, Hispanic, and American Indian peers. At grades 8

and 12, Asian/Pacific Islander students and White students had higher

average scale scores than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students.

© Parental education: In general, higher levels of parental education were

associated with higher levels of student performance at all three grade

levels. For example, at all three grades, students who reported that at least

one parent graduated from college had higher average scale scores than

students who reported lower levels of parental education and students who

did not know the level of their parents’ education.

© Region: Students in the Northeast and Central regions had higher average

scale scores than those in the Southeast and West at grades 4 and 8. At

grade 12, students in the Northeast, Central, and West regions

outperformed their peers in the Southeast.

© Type of location: At grades 4 and 8, students from schools in urban fringe/

large town and rural/small town locations had higher average scale scores

than their peers in central city schools. At grade 12, there was no significant

difference between the scores of students in central city schools and those

of their peers in schools in the other locations. At grades 8 and 12, students

from schools in urban fringe/large town locations outperformed their peers

from schools in rural/small town locations.

© Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch eligibility: In 1998, for the first time,

the NAEP writing assessment collected information on this federally funded

program, an indicator of poverty. Results indicated that, at all three grades,

students who were eligible for the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch

component of the National School Lunch Program had lower average scale

scores than students who were not eligible.

© Type of school: At all three grade levels, students attending nonpublic

schools had higher average scale scores than their counterparts attending

public schools. At grade 12, students attending Catholic schools had higher

average scale scores than their peers attending other nonpublic schools.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3 67 LEVELS ACHIEVEMENT

CHAPTER 3

Writing Achievement Level

Results for Selected Subgroups

Overview

The performance of our nation’s students on the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) writing scale can be viewed in relation to

expectations of what students should know and should be able to do. The

percentages of students who attained the three achievement levels established by

the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) provide an indication of

whether student performance meets these expectations.

Three writing achievement levels — Basic, Proficient, and Advanced — are

used to report the NAEP results. NAGB established these writing achievement

levels in 1999 for the content framework that provided the basis for the 1998

assessment. The Basic level denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills

that are fundamental for proficient work at a given grade. The Proficient level

represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level demonstrate

competency over challenging subject matter. The Advanced level signifies

superior performance at a given grade. For each grade, the levels are cumulative;

that is, abilities achieved at the Proficient level presume mastery of abilities

associated with the Basic level, and attainment of the Advanced level presumes

mastery of both the Basic and the Proficient levels. The definitions of these

levels of achievement for writing for each of the three grades in the NAEP

writing assessment are presented in Figures 1.1 through 1.3 in Chapter 1.

The NAEP legislation requires that achievement levels be “used on a

developmental basis until the Commissioner of Education Statistics

determines . . . that such levels are reasonable, valid, and informative to the

public.” A discussion of the developmental status of achievement levels may be

found in the Introduction to this report. Because the overall percentage of

students who attained the Advanced level at each grade was so small, few

differences in performance between subgroups were detected at this level.
68 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3

Gender

The percentages of male and female students attaining the Basic, Proficient, and

Advanced levels are given in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1. Table 3.1 shows the

percentage of students at or above each of the achievement levels. In reading

Table 3.1, it is necessary to keep in mind that the levels are cumulative. That is,

included among students who are considered to be at or above Basic are those

who achieved the Proficient and Advanced levels of performance, and included

among students who are considered to be at or above Proficient are those who

have attained the Advanced level of performance. Figure 3.1 also shows

achievement level results, but in terms of the percentage of students within each

achievement level range. All the tables and figures in this chapter follow that

format.

At all three grades, higher percentages of female than male students were at

or above the Basic and Proficient levels and at the Advanced level.

Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in writing

by gender: 1998

Table 3.1

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Male 21 79 16 1

Female 11 89 30 2

Grade 8

Male 22 78 17 0

Female 9 91 36 2

Grade 12

Male 30 70 14 0

Female 14 86 29 1

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3 69

Percentage of students within each achievement level range in

writing by gender: 1998

Figure 3.1

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Grade 4

Male

Female

Grade 8

Male

Female

Grade 12

Male

Female

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

21 63 16

11 59 28

22 61 17 0

9 55 34

30 56 14 0

14 58 27

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

below Basic at Basic at Proficient at Advanced

1

2

1

2
70 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3

Race/Ethnicity

Achievement level results by racial/ethnic group are presented in Table 3.2 and

Figure 3.2. The percentages of students performing at or above the three

achievement levels are shown in Table 3.2. The percentages of students within

each achievement level range are displayed in Figure 3.2. Differences among

racial/ethnic groups were seen at grades 4, 8, and 12.

At grade 4, there were higher percentages of Asian/Pacific Islander students

at or above the Proficient level than of any other group. Also, White students

outperformed their Black, Hispanic, and American Indian counterparts in terms

of percentages at or above the Proficient achievement level at grade 4. At grades

8 and 12, there were higher percentages of White students and Asian/Pacific

Islander students than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students who were

at or above the Proficient achievement level.

At grade 4, there were higher percentages of Asian/Pacific Islander students

than White students at or above the Basic level. Also at grade 4, higher

percentages of Asian/Pacific Islander students and White students than Black,

Hispanic, and American Indian students were at or above the Basic level. There

were higher percentages of White and Asian/Pacifier Islander students than

Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students at or above the Basic

achievement level at both grades 8 and 12. As Figure 3.2 shows, for all groups

at all three grades, approximately one-half or more of the students were within

the Basic achievement level range.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3 71

Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in writing

by race/ethnicity: 1998

Table 3.2

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

White 10 90 29 2

Black 31 69 8 0

Hispanic 28 72 10 0

Asian/Pacific Islander 7 93 36 4

American Indian 24 76 11 1

Grade 8

White 10 90 34 2

Black 28 72 8 0

Hispanic 31 69 11 0

Asian/Pacific Islander 10 90 35 2

American Indian 27 73 9 0

Grade 12

White 16 84 26 1

Black 36 64 8 0

Hispanic 35 65 10 0

Asian/Pacific Islander 22 78 24 1

American Indian 42 58 9 0

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
72 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3

Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by race/ethnicity: 1998

Figure 3.2

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

below Basic at Basic at Proficient at Advanced

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian

Grade 4

27

4

10 61

0

0

31 61 8

28 62 10

7 57 32

24 65 11

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian

Grade 8

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

10 56 32

0

0

0

28 64 8

31 58 11

10 55 33

27 64 9

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian

Grade 12

0

0

0

16 57 25

35 54 10

22 54 23

36 56 8

42 49 9

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

1

2

1

2

1

2
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3 73

Parents’ Highest Level of Education

Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3 present achievement level results based on students’

reports of their parents’ highest level of education. The percentages of students

performing at or above the three achievement levels are shown in Table 3.3.

The percentages of students within each achievement level range are displayed

in Figure 3.3. As shown in Table 3.3, parental education and student

achievement generally are positively associated.

Chapter 2 showed that student performance tended to be higher with

higher levels of parental education, and the results for achievement levels show a

similar pattern. At all three grades, higher percentages of students whose parents

graduated from college were at the Advanced achievement level than students

whose parents had some education after high school. Higher percentages of

students whose parents graduated from college than students whose parents had

lower levels of education were at or above the Proficient achievement level at all

three grades, and at or above the Basic level at grades 8 and 12.

At all three grades, higher percentages of students whose parents graduated

from high school were at or above Proficient than those whose parents did not

graduate from high school.
74 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3

Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in writing

by parents’ highest level of education: 1998

Table 3.3

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Graduated from college 14 86 27 2

Some education after high school 16 84 21 1

Graduated from high school 15 85 22 1

Did not finish high school 27 73 12 0

I don’t know. 23 77 13 0

Grade 8

Graduated from college 11 89 36 2

Some education after high school 18 82 20 0

Graduated from high school 17 83 19 0

Did not finish high school 30 70 8 0

I don’t know. 44 56 3 0

Grade 12

Graduated from college 15 85 30 1

Some education after high school 24 76 16 0

Graduated from high school 27 73 13 0

Did not finish high school 41 59 5 0

I don’t know. 61 39 3 0

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3 75

Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by parents’ highest level of education: 1998

Figure 3.3

Graduated from college

Some education after high school

Graduated from high school

Did not finish high school

I don’t know.

Grade 4

14 59 25

0

0

16 64 20

15 63 21

27 62 12

23 65 13

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

Graduated from college

Some education after high school

Graduated from high school

Did not finish high school

I don’t know.

Grade 8

11 54 34

0

0

0

0

18 62 19

17 65 18

30 63 7

44 52 3

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

Graduated from college

Some education after high school

Graduated from high school

Did not finish high school

I don’t know.

Grade 12

15 55 28

0

0

0

0

24 60 15

27 60 13

41 53 5

61 36 3

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

below Basic at Basic at Proficient at Advanced

1

2

1

2

1
76 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3

Region of the Country

The percentages of students performing at or above the three achievement levels

by region are shown in Table 3.4. The percentages of students within each

achievement level range by region are displayed in Figure 3.4. (The composition of

the regions is described in Appendix A.)

For grades 4 and 8, higher percentages of students in the Northeast and Central

regions were at or above the Proficient achievement level than their peers in the

Southeast region and the West. At grade 12, fewer students in the Southeast

region were at or above Proficient than their peers in the other three regions.

In terms of performance at or above the Basic level, the Northeast and

Central regions had higher percentages of students than the Southeast and West at

grades 4 and 8. At grade 12, higher percentages of students in the Northeast,

Central, and West regions were at or above the Basic level than students in the

Southeast.

Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in writing

by region: 1998

Table 3.4

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Northeast 13 87 26 2

Southeast 18 82 20 1

Central 11 89 28 2

West 20 80 19 1

Grade 8

Northeast 13 87 33 2

Southeast 18 82 20 1

Central 11 89 31 1

West 19 81 24 1

Grade 12

Northeast 21 79 24 1

Southeast 26 74 16 1

Central 19 81 25 1

West 21 79 22 1

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3 77

Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by region: 1998

Figure 3.4

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

Grade 12

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

21 55 23

26 58 15

19 57 23

21 57 22

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

Grade 8

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

13 54 31

18 61 19

11 58 30

19 57 23

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

Grade 4

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

13 60

18 62

11 60

20 61 18

27

25

19

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

below Basic at Basic at Proficient at Advanced

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1
78 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3

Type of Location

Table 3.5 and Figure 3.5 present achievement level results for all three grades by

type of location: central city, urban fringe/large town, and rural/small town.

The percentages of students performing at or above the three achievement levels

are shown in Table 3.5. Figure 3.5 displays the percentages of students within

each achievement level range. (The type of location classifications are described

in Appendix A.)

At grades 4 and 8, higher percentages of students from schools in urban

fringe/large town locations were at or above the Proficient level than those

from schools in central city locations. At grades 8 and 12, higher percentages of

students from schools in urban fringe/large town locations were at or above the

Proficient level than those from schools in rural/small town locations. At grades

4 and 8, there were higher percentages of students at or above Basic from

schools in urban fringe/large town locations and in rural/small town locations

than from schools in central cities. No differences among the locations in terms

of percentages of students at or above the Basic level were seen at grade 12.

Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in writing

by type of location: 1998

Table 3.5

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Central city 19 81 19 1

Urban fringe/large town 14 86 27 2

Rural/small town 14 86 23 1

Grade 8

Central city 20 80 22 1

Urban fringe/large town 12 88 32 2

Rural/small town 15 85 24 1

Grade 12

Central city 22 78 22 1

Urban fringe/large town 20 80 24 1

Rural/small town 23 77 19 1

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3 79

Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by type of location: 1998

Figure 3.5

Central city

Urban fringe/large town

Rural/small town

Grade 4

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

19 62 18

14 59 25

14 62 22

Central city

Urban fringe/large town

Rural/small town

Grade 8

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

20 58 21

12 56 30

15 61 23

Central city

Urban fringe/large town

Rural/small town

Grade 12

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

22 56 21

20 56 23

23 59 18

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

below Basic at Basic at Proficient at Advanced

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1
80 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3

Eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price

School Lunch Program

Table 3.6 and Figure 3.6 present achievement level results for each grade by

students’ eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch component of

the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), an indicator of poverty.

Across the three grades, higher performance was observed for students who

were eligible for the program, except at the Advanced level at grade 12, where

there were too few students to make the comparison. For example, as seen in

both Table 3.6 and Figure 3.6, among fourth graders who were eligible for the

program because of poverty, 28 percent were below the Basic level and 0

percent were at the Advanced level, compared to 10 percent and 2 percent,

respectively, for those not eligible for the program.

Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in writing

by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program eligibility: 1998

Table 3.6

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Eligible 28 72 9 0

Not eligible 10 90 30 2

Information not available 12 88 30 2

Grade 8

Eligible 29 71 10 0

Not eligible 10 90 33 1

Information not available 12 88 34 2

Grade 12

Eligible 36 64 8 0

Not eligible 19 81 23 1

Information not available 18 82 26 1

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3 81

Percentage of students within each achievement level range in writing

by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program eligibility: 1998

Figure 3.6

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

below Basic at Basic at Proficient at Advanced

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Eligible

Not eligible

Information not available

Grade 12

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

36 56 8 0

19 57 23

18 57 24

Eligible

Not eligible

Information not available

Grade 8

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

29 61 10 0

10 57 31

12 54 32

Eligible

Not eligible

Information not available

Grade 4

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

28 63 9 0

10 60 28

12 59 28

1

2

1

2

1

2
82 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3

Type of School

The percentages of public and nonpublic school students at all three grades who

were at or above each of the achievement levels are shown in Table 3.7. Shown

in Figure 3.7 are the percentages of students within each achievement level

range by type of school.

At all three grades, there were higher percentages of students attending

nonpublic schools at or above Basic, at or above Proficient, and at Advanced

than there were public school students. There were no significant differences at

any grade between students in Catholic schools and those in other nonpublic

schools in terms of percentages at or above Basic and Proficient and at the

Advanced achievement level.

Percentage of students at or above achievement levels in writing

by type of school: 1998

Table 3.7

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Public 17 83 22 1

Nonpublic 7 93 35 2

Nonpublic: Catholic 6 94 34 2

Other nonpublic 7 93 38 3

Grade 8

Public 17 83 24 1

Nonpublic 4 96 44 3

Nonpublic: Catholic 3 97 46 2

Other nonpublic 5 95 42 3

Grade 12

Public 23 77 20 1

Nonpublic 10 90 35 2

Nonpublic: Catholic 9 91 37 2

Other nonpublic 14 86 30 2

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3 83

Percentage of students within each achievement level range

in writing by type of school: 1998

Figure 3.7

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Public

Nonpublic

Nonpublic: Catholic

Other nonpublic

Grade 4

17 61 20

7 58 33

6 60 33

7 55 35

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

Public

Nonpublic

Nonpublic: Catholic

Other nonpublic

Grade 8

17 59 23

4 52 41

3 51 43

5 53 39

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

Public

Nonpublic

Nonpublic: Catholic

Other nonpublic

Grade 12

23 57 19

10 55 33

9 54 35

14 56 29

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

below Basic at Basic at Proficient at Advanced

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

2

2

2

3

2
84 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 3

Summary

This chapter presented achievement level results for selected subgroups of

fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders in the 1998 writing assessment. The major

findings reported in this chapter are summarized below.

© Gender: At all three grade levels, higher percentages of female students than

male students were at or above the Basic and Proficient achievement levels

and at the Advanced level.

© Race/ethnicity: At all three grades, higher percentages of White students

and Asian/Pacific Islander students were at or above the Basic and Proficient

achievement levels than Black students and Hispanic students. At grade 4,

there were higher percentages of Asian/Pacific Islander students than White

students at or above the Basic level and at or above Proficient.

© Parental education: Higher percentages of fourth, eighth, and twelfth

graders who reported that at least one parent had graduated from college

were at or above the Proficient achievement level than those who reported

lower levels of parental education or who reported that they did not know

their parents’ educational level.

© Region: In terms of percentages at or above the Proficient achievement

level, fourth- and eighth-grade students in the Northeast and Central

regions outperformed their peers in the Southeast and the West, and

students in the three other regions outperformed those in the Southeast

region at grade 12.

© Type of location: At grades 4 and 8, but not at grade 12, higher percentages

of students in urban fringe/large town locations were at or above the Basic

and Proficient achievement levels than their peers in central cities. At grades

8 and 12, higher percentages of students from schools in urban fringe/large

town locations were at or above the Proficient level than students from

schools in rural/small town locations.

© Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch eligibility: Students who were not

eligible for the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch component of the

National School Lunch Program had higher levels of achievement than

students who, because of poverty, were eligible for that program.

© Type of School: At all three grades, there were higher percentages of

students attending nonpublic schools at or above the Basic and Proficient

achievement levels and at the Advanced level than their peers attending

public schools.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4 85 HOME FACTORS SCHOOL &

CHAPTER 4

Writing in School,

Home Factors, and

Writing Performance

Overview

By learning to write well, students can become better thinkers, learners, and

communicators. Given the power of writing as a tool for learning and

communication, it is important to examine practices in school and conditions in

the home in relation to student writing achievement. This chapter explores

writing activities in school, home factors such as the presence of reading

materials in the home, and their association with student writing performance.

Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

1998 writing assessment are presented in relation to students’ reports about the

writing instruction they received in school and about certain home factors. For

each of these contextual variables, the percentages of students providing

different responses to each question (for example, writing more than one draft

of a paper always, sometimes, or never) and the corresponding average scale

scores and achievement level results are presented. This chapter also addresses

the frequency of students’ planning on the NAEP writing assessment. Results

reported in this chapter are for public and nonpublic school students.

Writing In and For School

What sorts of writing activities do students perform in and for school? This

section examines a series of student-reported variables: the frequency with which

teachers talk with students about their writing, whether students save their

writing work in folders or portfolios, and how frequently students write on

computers, write drafts, plan their writing, and define the purpose and audience

for their writing. This information is based on students’ responses to

background questions provided as part of the assessment. Some questions were

posed only to eighth- and twelfth-grade students, so results for only those two

grades are presented in some figures in this chapter.
86 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4

Some of these variables, as well as additional variables, such as the emphasis

teachers place on different aspects of writing in grading student writing, will be

treated in greater depth in a forthcoming instructional and policy report. That

report will also feature additional teacher- and school-reported information

relevant to the teaching of writing and to schools’ use of resources.

Frequency with Which Teachers Talk to Students About Student Writing. One

means of engaging students with the challenge of communicating their ideas in

writing is to discuss their writing with them.1 Students who participated in the

1998 NAEP writing assessment were asked how often their teachers talk to

them about what they are writing. The results are presented in Figure 4.1.

As shown in the figure, the majority of students reported having teachers

who spoke with them about their writing. At the fourth grade, 24 percent of

students reported that their teachers always spoke with them about their

writing, 65 percent reported that their teachers sometimes spoke with them,

and 11 percent reported that their teachers never spoke with them about their

writing. At both grades 8 and 12, about half of the students reported that their

teachers always spoke with them about what they were writing, and more than

40 percent reported that their teachers sometimes spoke with them about what

they were writing.

Student writing performance generally was positively associated with

teachers talking with their students about their writing. At all three grades,

students whose teachers always or sometimes talked to them about their writing

had higher scale scores than their peers whose teachers never talked to them

about their writing. Additionally, at grades 8 and 12, students whose teachers

always talked to them about their writing had higher scale scores than those

whose teachers sometimes talked to them about their writing.

1 Anson, C.M. (Ed.). (1989). Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research. Urbana, IL: National

Council of Teachers of English.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1987). On the structure of the writing process. Topics in language disorders

7(4), 19–30.

Freedman, S. (1981). Evaluation in the writing conference: An interactive process. In M. Hairston &

C. Selfe (Eds.), Selected papers from the 1981 Texas writing research conference (pp. 65–96). Austin, TX:

The University of Texas at Austin.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4 87

Figure 4.1

Students’ reports on the frequency with which their teachers talk

to them about what they are writing: 1998

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

7

Percentage of students

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Always 153 29

Sometimes 148 25

Never 139 18

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Always 149 23

Sometimes 151 24

Never 146 20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Always 153 24

Sometimes 150 21

Never 137 13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

51

42

7

50

43

8

24

65

11

Percentage of students

Percentage of students
88 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4

Saving Students’ Writing Work in Folders or Portfolios. Numerous studies have

suggested that saving student writing in portfolios can be a useful means of

helping students track their own writing progress over time.2

 Students who took

the NAEP 1998 writing assessment were asked whether they or their teachers

saved student writing in folders or portfolios. As shown in Figure 4.2, the

majority of students at each grade either saved their own written work or had it

saved by their teachers in folders or portfolios: 81 percent at fourth grade, 79

percent at eighth grade, and 75 percent at twelfth grade.

Figure 4.2 also indicates a positive relationship between saving work in

folders or portfolios and student performance. At all three grades, students who

saved, or whose teachers saved, their writing work in folders or portfolios had

higher average scale scores than students whose work was not saved.

2 Camp, R. (1993). The place of portfolios in our changing views of writing assessment. In R.E. Bennett &

W.C. Ward (Eds.), Construction vs. choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response, performance

testing, and portfolio assessment (pp. 183–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wolf, D. P. (1989). Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work. Educational Leadership 46(7), 35–39.

Yancey, K.B. (Ed.). (1992). Portfolios in the writing classroom: An introduction. Urbana, IL: National

Council of Teachers of English.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4 89

Figure 4.2

Students’ reports on whether they or their teachers save

their writing work in a folder or portfolio: 1998

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Percentage of students

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Yes 152 25

No 150 23

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

81

19

Yes 153 29

No 149 24

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

79

21

Yes 154 24

No 146 18

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

75

25

Percentage of students

Percentage of students
90 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4

3 Boone, R. (Ed.). (1989). Teaching process writing with computers. Eugene, OR: International Council for

Computers in Education.

Bradley, V. (1982). Improving student writing with microcomputers. Language Arts 59(7), 732–38.

Shaw, E.L., Jr., Nauman, A.K., & Burson, D. (1994). Comparisons of spontaneous and word processed

compositions in elementary classrooms: A three-year study. Journal of Computing in Childhood

Education 5(3/4), 319–27.

Frequency of Computer Use for Writing. There is currently much debate about

the value of students using computers to write. While some educators believe

computer use can encourage students to revise their writing, others argue that

the effectiveness of computer use in writing depends on the age of the students,

the training of their teachers, and the particular ways in which computers are

used.3 Information from students’ reports about the frequency of computer use

for writing drafts or final versions of stories or reports is presented in Figure 4.3.

How often do students use computers for writing drafts or final versions of

stories or reports? According to the figure, at all three grades, more than onethird of students use computers for this purpose at least once a week. Nearly

three-fourths of students use computers for this purpose at least once or twice

a month — 71 percent at fourth grade, 74 percent at eighth grade, and

77 percent at twelfth grade.

Figure 4.3 also indicates that fourth graders who reported using computers

to write drafts or final versions of stories or reports once or twice a month

outperformed those students who never or hardly ever used computers for this

purpose and those students who used computers for this purpose at least once a

week. At grade 4, also, students who never or hardly ever used computers for

writing drafts or final versions of stories or reports outperformed students who

used computers for this purpose at least once a week. At grade 8, students who

used computers to write drafts or final versions of stories or reports once or

twice a month outperformed students who used computers for this purpose at

least once a week. Finally, at grades 8 and 12, students who used computers for

writing drafts or final versions of stories or reports at least once a week or once

or twice a month had higher scores than their peers who reported never or

hardly ever using computers for this purpose.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4 91

Figure 4.3

Students’ reports on the frequency with which they use a computer

to write drafts or final versions of stories or reports: 1998

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Percentage of students

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

At least once a week 146 19

Once/twice a month 158 30

Never/hardly ever 153 26

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

36

35

28

At least once a week 151 28

Once/twice a month 158 33

Never/hardly ever 146 21

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

26

At least once a week 155 28

Once/twice a month 155 25

Never/hardly ever 138 10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

35

39

35

42

23

Percentage of students

Percentage of students
92 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4

4 Applebee, A. (1981). Writing in the secondary school: English and the content areas. Urbana, IL: National

Council of Teachers of English.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Conference on Research in English.

Onore, C. (1989). The student, the teacher, and the text. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory,

practice, and research. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

For practitioners who provide ways to teach writing process, see: Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New

understandings about writing, reading, and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.

Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Lane, B. (1993). After the end: Teaching and learning creative revision. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Writing as Process

Research indicates that writing is a recursive process; the mature writer rethinks

ideas and ways of expressing those ideas throughout the process of creating a

final written piece.4

 Based on this model of writing, many classroom teachers

employ a variety of strategies to encourage students to take time to think about

their ideas, to plan ways they might express those ideas in writing, and to revise

their writing to refine and better express their ideas. The variables examined

below provide a context for looking at student writing performance in light of

some of these strategies.

Frequency of Writing Drafts. Giving students the opportunity to revisit their

written work by asking them to produce more than one draft of a paper can be

an effective means of teaching writing as a recursive process. Figure 4.4 presents

information about how often students at grades 4, 8, and 12 who took the

NAEP 1998 writing assessment were asked to produce more than one draft of a

paper.

As shown in the figure, the majority of students reported that their teachers

asked them to write more than one draft of a paper at least sometimes. Eightyone percent of fourth graders, 90 percent of eighth graders, and 89 percent of

twelfth graders were asked to write more than one draft of a paper at least

sometimes.

Writing more than one draft of a paper was positively associated with

student writing achievement at grades 8 and 12. Students at both grades who

were always asked to write more than one draft of a paper had higher average

scale scores than did their peers who were sometimes or never asked to do so.

There was no relationship between student reports of writing more than one

draft and student performance at grade 4.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4 93

Figure 4.4

Students’ reports on the frequency with which their teachers ask them

to write more than one draft of a paper: 1998

Grade 4

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Always 151 26

Sometimes 150 22

Never 151 24

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 8

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Always 156 32

Sometimes 146 22

Never 143 20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 12

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Always 153 23

Sometimes 148 21

Never 146 20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

19

62

19

47

43

10

50

39

12

Percentage of students

Percentage of students

Percentage of students
94 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4

5 Pope, C. & Prater, D.L. (1990). Writing proficiency and student use of prewriting/invention strategies.

Reading Research and Instruction, 29(4), 64–70.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Conference on Research in English.

Frequency of Planning Writing and of Defining Purpose and Audience. Current

notions of writing as process suggest that if students are given the opportunity

to think through what it is they want to express and how to express it in their

writing, they may become more engaged with the task of writing and better able

to express their ideas clearly. Planning includes consideration of the demands of

the form to use for writing (essay, letter, or story, for example) and the specific

topic or theme the writer wishes to address. At its best, such planning ought to

include attention to the purpose and audience for writing; if students are taught

that different purposes and audiences for writing require variation in tone and

content, they will be in a better position to use writing as a means of exploration

and communication.5

To reflect good writing practice, students at each grade who took the NAEP

1998 writing assessment received with their test booklets a brochure that

provided suggestions for planning and revision. (The brochures for grades 4, 8,

and 12 are reprinted in Chapter 6.) They were also given space in their test

booklets for planning their writing. During scoring of the NAEP 1998 writing

assessment, trained raters noted whether students used the available space for

planning for none, one, or two of the 25-minute writing prompts included in

their test booklets. Students used a variety of strategies, which raters recorded,

including rough drafts, outlines, lists, diagrams (including webs and other

graphic organizers), pictures, and multiple forms (which incorporated two or

more of the listed categories). The percentages of students who engaged in

planning activities on none, one, or two of the prompts on the assessment and

the corresponding scale scores are featured in Figure 4.5.

As shown in the figure, at the fourth grade, 47 percent of students planned

for at least one of the two prompts in their test booklets. Approximately twothirds of eighth and twelfth graders did planning for at least one of the two

prompts in their test booklets. At all three grades, students who engaged in

planning in the available space for both writing prompts had higher average

scale scores than students who planned for only one or none. In addition,

students who planned for one writing prompt on the assessment had higher

average scale scores than those who planned for none.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4 95

Figure 4.5

Number of occurrences of planning in test booklets* on students’

responses to two 25-minute writing prompts: 1998

Grade 4

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

*Refers to writing that was visible on the page provided for planning in test booklets.

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Grade 8

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Grade 12

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Percentage of students

No planning for either prompt 145 18

Planning for one prompt 152 24

Planning for both prompts 159 32

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

53

20

27

No planning for either prompt 136 14

Planning for one prompt 149 24

Planning for both prompts 161 37

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

34

20

No planning for either prompt 138 13

Planning for one prompt 151 22

Planning for both prompts 159 28

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

33

26

41

46

Percentage of students

Percentage of students
96 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4

Figure 4.6

Students’ reports on the frequency with which their English teachers

ask them to plan their writing: 1998

Grade 8

Grade 12

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

At least once a week 151 27

Once/twice a month 157 33

Never/hardly ever 139 17

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

14

At least once a week 151 22

Once/twice a month 154 24

Never/hardly ever 144 19

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

59

26

54

30

16

Percentage of students

Percentage of students

What about planning for writing in the classroom? Students at grades 8 and

12 who took the writing assessment were asked how frequently their English

teachers ask them to plan their writing. A summary of their responses is

presented in Figure 4.6. The majority of students at both grades 8 and 12 were

asked to plan their writing at least once a week. At the eighth grade, 59 percent

of students were asked by their English teachers to plan their writing at least

once a week, and 26 percent were asked to do so once or twice a month. At the

twelfth grade, 54 percent of students were asked to plan their writing at least

once a week, and 30 percent were asked to do so once or twice a month.

At both grades, students whose teachers asked them to plan writing at least

once a week or once or twice a month had higher average scale scores than

students whose teachers never or hardly ever asked them to plan their writing.

In addition, at both grades 8 and 12, students whose teachers asked them to

plan their writing once or twice a month outperformed those whose teachers

asked them to plan their writing at least once a week.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4 97

Did students accustomed to planning for classroom assignments also do

planning on the assessment? The answer is “yes,” as shown in Figure 4.7, for

students at both grades 8 and 12. At grade 8, for example, 49 percent of

students who planned their writing at least once a week or once or twice a

month showed visible planning for both prompts on the assessment, while only

34 percent of students who never or hardly ever planned their writing did so on

both prompts in the assessment.
98 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4

Figure 4.7

Frequency of student planning on 25-minute prompts in the assessment*

by frequency with which their English teachers ask them to plan their

writing, grades 8 and 12: 1998

*Refers to writing that was visible on the page provided for planning in test booklets.

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Grade 8 Percentage

Scale at or above

At least once a week score Proficient

No planning for either prompt 137 15

Planning for one prompt 149 24

Planning for both prompts 161 36

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

31

20

49

Percentage of students

Percentage

Scale at or above

Once/twice a month score Proficient

No planning for either prompt 144 18

Planning for one prompt 155 30

Planning for both prompts 166 43

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

30

21

49

Percentage of students

Percentage

Scale at or above

Never/hardly ever score Proficient

No planning for either prompt 129 10

Planning for one prompt 141 17

Planning for both prompts 152 27

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

45

21

34

Percentage of students

Grade 12 Percentage

Scale at or above

At least once a week score Proficient

No planning for either prompt 140 14

Planning for one prompt 151 22

Planning for both prompts 158 27

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

29

26

45

Percentage of students

Percentage

Scale at or above

Once/twice a month score Proficient

No planning for either prompt 142 14

Planning for one prompt 155 25

Planning for both prompts 163 31

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

31

27

42

Percentage of students

Percentage

Scale at or above

Never/hardly ever score Proficient

No planning for either prompt 133 11

Planning for one prompt 147 19

Planning for both prompts 156 28

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

42

27

32

Percentage of students
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4 99

As shown in Figure 4.8, students at grades 8 and 12 reported being asked

to define the purpose and audience of their writing somewhat less frequently

than they were asked to plan their writing. Research indicates that it may be

difficult for students to envision an audience other than the teacher in a

classroom setting.6

 At both eighth and twelfth grades, 42 percent of students

were asked to define their purpose and audience for writing at least once a week.

Twenty-eight percent of eighth graders and 30 percent of twelfth graders were

asked to do so once or twice a month.

At grade 8, students whose English teachers asked them to define purpose

and audience once or twice a month outperformed their peers whose teachers

never or hardly ever asked them to do so and those whose teachers asked them

to do so at least once a week. There was no relationship between frequency of

being asked to define purpose and audience and student performance at grade 12.

6 Kroll, B.M. (1985). Rewriting a complex story for a young reader: The development of audience-adapted

writing skills. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(2), 120–139.

Oliver, E. (1995). The writing quality of seventh, ninth, and eleventh graders, and college freshmen:

Does rhetorical specification in writing prompts make a difference? Research in the Teaching of English, 29(4),

422–450.

Strange, R. (1988). Audience awareness: When and how does it develop? Bloomington, IN: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.

Figure 4.8

Students’ reports on the frequency with which their English teachers

ask them to define their purpose and audience: 1998

Grade 8

Grade 12

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

At least once a week 150 26

Once/twice a month 155 31

Never/hardly ever 150 26

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

30

At least once a week 151 23

Once/twice a month 152 22

Never/hardly ever 150 22

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

42

28

42

30

28

Percentage of students

Percentage of students
100 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4

Home Factors

Previous NAEP assessments in a variety of subjects and recent research have

consistently shown that certain home factors are related to student

achievement.7

 This section explores two of those variables: number and types of

reading materials in the home and frequency with which students discuss their

studies with someone at home.

Types of Reading Materials in the Home. Because a relationship has been

established between students’ reading and writing abilities,8

 the number and

types of reading materials found in the home are of particular relevance to

students’ writing achievement.

Students at all three grades were asked a series of questions about reading

materials in the home: Does the family get a newspaper regularly? Is there an

encyclopedia at home? About how many books are in the home? Does the

family get any magazines regularly? Figure 4.9 presents the percentages of

students reporting that their families have all four types of reading materials,

three types, or two or fewer types of these materials. Students were counted as

having books in the home if they reported more than 25 books in the home.

As indicated in the figure, 38 percent of fourth graders, 51 percent of eighth

graders, and 53 percent of twelfth graders reported having all four types of

reading materials in the home. At all three grades, the more types of reading

materials reported in the home, the higher the average writing scores.

7 Campbell, J.R., Voelkl, K.E., & Donahue, P.L. (1997). NAEP 1996 trends in academic progress. Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Henderson, A.T. & Berla, N. (Eds.). (1994). The family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC:

Center for Law and Education.

8 Shanahan, T. (Ed.). (1990). Reading and writing together: new perspectives for the classroom. Norwood, MA:

Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

Donahue, P.L., Voelkl, K.E., Campbell, J.R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). The NAEP 1998 reading report card for

the nation and the states. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4 101

Figure 4.9

Students’ reports on the presence of four types of reading materials

in their home (a newspaper, an encyclopedia, magazines, and

more than 25 books): 1998

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Percentage of students

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Two or fewer 136 12

Three 151 23

Four 161 33

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Two or fewer 131 10

Three 147 22

Four 161 37

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Two or fewer 135 10

Three 147 18

Four 158 29

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

30

32

38

21

28

51

20

27

53

Percentage of students

Percentage of students
102 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4

Frequency of Discussing Studies at Home. Research studies have demonstrated

the positive relationship between students’ discussing their schoolwork with

someone at home and achievement.9

 Figure 4.10 shows that most students do

discuss their studies at home: 76 percent of fourth graders, 69 percent of eighth

graders, and 67 percent of twelfth graders reported discussing their studies with

someone at home at least once a week. At all three grades, the more frequently

students discussed their studies with someone at home, the better their writing

scores.

9 U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Strong families, strong schools: Building community partnerships for

leadership. Washington, DC: Author.

Figure 4.10

Students’ reports on the frequency with which they discuss

their studies at home: 1998

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Percentage of students

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

Percentage

Scale at or above

score Proficient

At least once a week 153 26

Once/twice a month 149 21

Never/hardly ever 137 12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

76

7

18

At least once a week 157 33

Once/twice a month 149 24

Never/hardly ever 137 13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

20

At least once a week 156 26

Once/twice a month 146 17

Never/hardly ever 137 12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

69

11

67

13

21

Percentage of students

Percentage of students
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4 103

Summary

The relationship between student responses to NAEP background questions

about writing and other literacy-related activities and average scores observed in

this chapter cannot be interpreted in a causal sense. Many factors beyond those

covered in this chapter may exert an influence on students’ writing performance.

Furthermore, since the students who participate in the NAEP writing

assessment are at different stages of their writing development, it is unlikely that

all the contextual factors considered here would exhibit an identical relation to

student performance at each of the three grades assessed. As shown by the

results of the NAEP 1998 writing assessment, certain instructional practices

prove more directly related to writing scores at one grade than at another. The

following frequencies of activities and patterns of student writing performance

were observed.

© At all three grades assessed, a majority of students reported that their

teachers spoke with them about what they were writing at least sometimes.

A positive relationship was evident between teachers talking with students

about what students were writing and students’ writing scores. This was

more evident at grades 8 and 12 than at grade 4; at grades 8 and 12,

students whose teachers always spoke with them about their writing

outperformed their peers whose teachers sometimes spoke with them about

their writing.

© At all three grades, most students reported saving their writing work or

having their writing work saved by their teachers in a folder or portfolio.

There was a positive relationship at all three grades between student writing

scores and students saving or having their work saved in folders or

portfolios.

© Over one-third of students at all three grades reported using computers

for writing drafts or final versions of stories or reports at least once or

twice a week. Although the relationship between writing on computers and

writing scale scores was mixed, at grades 8 and 12 students who reported

doing so once or twice a month had higher average scores than students

who reported never or hardly ever doing so.

© A majority of students at all three grades reported at least sometimes being

asked to write more than one draft of a paper. While there were no

relationships with student scores at grade 4, students at grades 8 and 12

who reported being asked to write more than one draft at least sometimes

had higher average scale scores than their peers who were not asked to do so.
104 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 4

© Most students at grades 8 and 12 reported being asked to plan their writing

at least once or twice a week. Those students who were asked to plan their

writing at least once a week or once or twice a month outperformed their

peers who were never or hardly ever asked to do so.

© At all three grades, students who did planning for the prompts on the

assessment outperformed those who did not, and those who planned for

both prompts they received outperformed those who did so for only one

prompt.

© Over two-thirds of students at grades 8 and 12 reported being asked to

define a purpose and audience for their writing at least once a week or once

or twice a month. At grade 8, students who defined purpose and audience

once or twice a month outperformed those who never or hardly ever did so

and those who did so at least once a week. There was no relationship

between frequency of being asked to define purpose and audience and

student performance at grade 12.

© Consistent with the results of past NAEP assessments in a range of subject

areas, the more types of reading materials reported to be in the home, the

higher the average writing scores at grades 4, 8, and 12. Thirty-eight

percent of fourth graders, 51 percent of eighth graders, and 53 percent

of twelfth graders reported having all four types of reading materials

(a newspaper, an encyclopedia, magazines, and more than 25 books) in

the home.

© Also consistent with past NAEP assessments, the more frequently students

discussed their studies with someone at home, the better their writing

scores. More than two-thirds of students at each grade reported doing so at

least once a week.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 105STATE RESULTS

CHAPTER 5

Average Scale Score and

Achievement Level Results

for the States

Overview

In addition to the national component of the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) 1998 assessment in writing, state-by-state

assessments were administered at grade 8 in participating states and

jurisdictions.1

 This chapter presents average scale scores and achievement level

results for public school students in grade 8. The NAEP legislation requires that

achievement levels be “used on a developmental basis until the Commissioner of

Education Statistics determines . . . that such levels are reasonable, valid, and

informative to the public.” A discussion of the developmental status of

achievement levels may be found in the Introduction.

In addition to presenting overall performance results for students within

states, this chapter presents results for selected subgroups of students and also

provides cross-state comparisons of average scale scores and the percentages of

students within each of the achievement level ranges: below Basic, Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced. Only the highlights of major findings are discussed in

this chapter. Information that provides context for these results is presented in

two appendices. Appendix C provides state-by-state information on the

percentages of students in each subgroup who participated in the NAEP 1998

writing assessment. Appendix D presents additional contextual state information

from non-NAEP sources, including student-teacher ratios and expenditures on

education. More performance results for public school students are shown in

Appendix E, which provides additional achievement level results for subgroups

by state.

For jurisdictions where there were a sufficient number of nonpublic schools

that met participation guidelines, results are available for nonpublic school

students. These results can be found in the individual reports published

separately for each participating jurisdiction and in Appendix F of this report.2

State sampling procedures and participation rates for both public and nonpublic

schools can be found in Appendix A.

1 Throughout this chapter, the term jurisdiction is used to refer to the states, territories, and Department of

Defense Education Activity schools that participated in the 1998 NAEP state-by-state assessment.

2 NAEP writing state reports are published on the World Wide Web at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard
106 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

Scale Score Results

Table 5.1 shows average scale scores for grade 8 public school students in

jurisdictions that participated in the 1998 NAEP writing assessment. Overall, 40

jurisdictions participated in the eighth-grade state-by-state writing assessment.

Although Illinois participated, it did not meet minimum school participation

guidelines for public schools, so Illinois public school results are not included in

this report. Five other jurisdictions, while meeting the minimum school

participation guidelines, did not meet more stringent participation rate

standards; results for these jurisdictions are included in this report but are noted

in the relevant tables and appendices. (Standards for sample participation are

described in Appendix A.) Thus, results for eighth-grade public school students

are presented for 39 jurisdictions. It should be noted that the average scale

scores for the nation, indicated in the tables throughout this chapter, are based

on the national sample (not on aggregated state samples) and represent the

performance of public school students only. As shown in Table 5.1, average

scores for eighth-grade public school students who participated in the state-bystate assessment ranged from 124 to 165.

Differences in writing performance among states and jurisdictions most

likely reflect an interaction between the effectiveness of the educational

programs within the state or jurisdiction and the challenges posed by economic

constraints and student demographic characteristics.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 107

Average grade 8 scale scores for the states for public schools only:

1998

Table 5.1

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples.

Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Average

scale score

Nation 148

States

Alabama 144

Arizona 143

Arkansas 137

California † 141

Colorado 151

Connecticut 165

Delaware 144

Florida 142

Georgia 146

Hawaii 135

Kentucky 146

Louisiana 136

Maine 155

Maryland 147

Massachusetts 155

Minnesota † 148

Mississippi 134

Missouri 142

Montana † 150

Nevada 140

New Mexico 141

New York † 146

North Carolina 150

Oklahoma 152

Oregon 149

Rhode Island 148

South Carolina 140

Tennessee 148

Texas 154

Utah 143

Virginia 153

Washington 148

West Virginia 144

Wisconsin † 153

Wyoming 146

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 126

DDESS 160

DoDDS 156

Virgin Islands 124
108 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.1 lists the 39 states or jurisdictions that participated in the state

writing assessment at grade 8 and met minimum school participation guidelines

for public schools. The figure shows the states and jurisdictions divided into

three groups: those whose average scores were above the national average, at or

around the national average, and below the national average. Note that the

national average is for public schools only and is based on the national sample,

not on aggregated state samples. Within each group, the states and jurisdictions

are presented in alphabetical order.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 109

Figure 5.1

Summary of jurisdiction performance relative to the nation

for grade 8 public schools by scale scores: 1998

Higher than

the national average

Colorado*

Connecticut

DDESS

DoDDS

Maine

Massachusetts

Oklahoma

Texas

Virginia

Wisconsin†

At or around

the national average

Georgia

Kentucky

Maryland

Minnesota†

Montana†

New York†

North Carolina

Oregon

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Washington

Wyoming

Lower than

the national average

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California†

Delaware**

District of Columbia

Florida

Hawaii

Louisiana

Mississippi

Missouri

Nevada

New Mexico

South Carolina

Utah

Virgin Islands

West Virginia

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

* If using a multiple comparison procedure based on 39 jurisdictions, this jurisdiction performed not higher than the

national average, but at or around the national average.

**If using a multiple comparison procedure based on 39 jurisdictions, this jurisdiction performed not lower than the

national average, but at or around the national average.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: Comparisons of participating jurisdictions to the nation are based on the comparison of each state separately to

the nation as a whole. National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples. Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not

included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing

Assessment.
110 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

Achievement Level Results

Achievement level results for jurisdictions are presented in two ways: in terms of

students at or above each achievement level and in terms of students within each

achievement level range. Table 5.2 shows the percentages of eighth-grade

students at or above the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced achievement levels as

well as the percentage of students below the Basic level. Note that the levels are

cumulative. Included among students who are considered to be at or above

Basic are those who may have also achieved the Proficient and Advanced levels

of performance, and included among students who are considered to be at or

above Proficient are those who may have attained the Advanced level of

performance. For example, Table 5.2 shows that, for public schools in the

nation, 83 percent of eighth-grade students performed at or above the Basic

level, 24 percent at or above the Proficient level, and 1 percent at the

Advanced level. Seventeen percent of eighth-grade students performed below

the Basic level.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 111

Percentage of grade 8 students at or above achievement levels

for public schools only: 1998

Table 5.2

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples.

Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Nation 17 83 24 1

States

Alabama 17 83 17 0

Arizona 20 80 21 1

Arkansas 23 77 13 0

California † 24 76 20 1

Colorado 14 86 27 1

Connecticut 9 91 44 5

Delaware 20 80 22 1

Florida 22 78 19 1

Georgia 17 83 23 1

Hawaii 28 72 15 1

Kentucky 16 84 21 1

Louisiana 25 75 12 0

Maine 13 87 32 2

Maryland 17 83 23 1

Massachusetts 13 87 31 2

Minnesota † 17 83 25 1

Mississippi 26 74 11 0

Missouri 20 80 17 0

Montana † 14 86 25 1

Nevada 23 77 17 0

New Mexico 21 79 18 1

New York † 16 84 21 0

North Carolina 15 85 27 1

Oklahoma 12 88 25 1

Oregon 17 83 27 1

Rhode Island 17 83 25 1

South Carolina 21 79 15 0

Tennessee 16 84 24 1

Texas 12 88 31 1

Utah 22 78 21 1

Virginia 11 89 27 1

Washington 17 83 25 1

West Virginia 18 82 18 0

Wisconsin † 12 88 28 1

Wyoming 19 81 23 1

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 37 63 11 1

DDESS 13 87 38 6

DoDDS 11 89 31 1

Virgin Islands 39 61 9 1
112 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.2 lists the 39 states or jurisdictions that participated in the state

writing assessment at grade 8 and met minimum school participation guidelines

for public schools. In this figure, states and jurisdictions are divided into three

groups according to their percentage of students at or above the Proficient

achievement level: those whose percentages were higher than the national

percentage, at or around the national percentage, and lower than the national

percentage. Note that the national percentage is for public schools only and is

based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples. Within each

group, the states and jurisdictions are presented in alphabetical order.

Figure 5.2

Summary of jurisdiction performance relative to the nation

for grade 8 public schools by percentage of students at or

above the Proficient achievement level: 1998

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

* If using a multiple comparison procedure based on 39 jurisdictions, this jurisdiction’s percentage of students at or

above Proficient was not higher than, but at or around the national percentage.

**If using a multiple comparison procedure based on 39 jurisdictions, this jurisdiction’s percentage of students at or

above Proficient was not lower than, but at or around the national percentage.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: Comparisons of participating jurisdictions to the nation are based on the comparison of each state separately

to the nation as a whole. National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples. Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not

included in this table. Placement of a state in a category was determined by size of standard errors as well as

percentage at or above Proficient.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Higher than the

the national percentage

Connecticut

DDESS

DoDDS

Maine

Massachusetts

Texas

Wisconsin†*

At or around

the national percentage

Arizona

Colorado

Delaware

Georgia

Kentucky

Maryland

Minnesota†

Montana†

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Virginia

Washington

Wyoming

Lower than

the national percentage

Alabama

Arkansas

California†

District of Columbia

Florida

Hawaii

Louisiana

Mississippi

Missouri

Nevada

New Mexico

New York†**

South Carolina

Utah**

Virgin Islands

West Virginia
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 113

Figure 5.3 presents the percentages of public school students within each of

the achievement level ranges — below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced —

in each state or jurisdiction in the 1998 state-by-state writing assessment. The

shaded bars in this figure represent achievement level results. Inside the shaded

bars, the numbers indicate the percentages of students who attained the

specified levels of performance. The sections to the left of the center vertical line

represent the proportion of students who were at Basic or below Basic. The

sections of the bars to the right of the vertical line represent the proportion of

students who reached the Proficient and Advanced levels of performance. As an

example of how to read this figure, the top bar shows that, for eighth-grade

public school students in the nation as a whole, 59 percent were at the Basic

achievement level, 23 percent at the Proficient achievement level, and 1 percent

at the Advanced achievement level. Seventeen percent performed below the

Basic achievement level.

The percentages of students at the Advanced level ranged from 0 percent to

6 percent. At the Proficient level, the percentages ranged from 8 percent to 40

percent. The percentages of students at the Basic achievement level ranged from

47 percent to 66 percent. Finally, the percentages of students below the Basic

level ranged from 9 to 39 percent.
114 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

39 53 8

11 58 30

13 49 32

37 52 11

19 58 22

12 57 30

12 60 27

18 64 18 0

17 58 23

11 61 27

22 56 21

16 60 23

21 64 15 0

17 58 24

17 57 25

12 63 24

15 57 26

16 63 20 0

21 61 17

23 61 16 0

14 61 24

20 62 17 0

26 63 11 0

17 58 24

13 56 29

17 60 22

13 54 30

25 64 11 0

16 63 20

28 58 14

17 66 17 0

17 60 22

22 59 19

20 58 21

9 47 40 5

14 59 26

24 56

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

23 63 13 0

20 59 20

17 59 23

Percentage of grade 8 students within each achievement level range

for public schools only: 1998

ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL RESULTS

Percentage of Students at Each Achievement Level

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools; DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas).

NOTE: Numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding. In addition, summing the percentages between two or more categories may not result in the exact

cumulative percentage due to rounding. National results are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples.

Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Figure 5.3

NATION NATION

STATES STATES

Alabama Alabama

Arizona Arizona

Arkansas Arkansas

California† California

Colorado Colorado

Connecticut Connecticut

Delaware Delaware

Florida Florida

Georgia Georgia

Hawaii Hawaii

Kentucky Kentucky

Louisiana Louisiana

Maine Maine

Maryland Maryland

Massachusetts Massachusetts

Minnesota† Minnesota

Mississippi Mississippi

Missouri Missouri

Montana† Montana

Nevada Nevada

New Mexico New Mexico

New York† New York

North Carolina North Carolina

Oklahoma Oklahoma

Oregon Oregon

Rhode Island Rhode Island

South Carolina South Carolina

Tennessee Tennessee

Texas Texas

Utah Utah

Virginia Virginia

Washington Washington

West Virginia West Virginia

Wisconsin† Wisconsin

Wyoming Wyoming

OTHER JURISDICTIONS

District of Columbia District of Columbia

DDESS DDESS

DoDDS DoDDS

Virgin Islands Virgin Islands

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

50

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

6

19
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 115

Cross-State Comparisons of Writing Performance

Figures 5.4 and 5.5 indicate whether differences between pairs of participating

jurisdictions are statistically significant.3

 Figure 5.4 shows comparisons across

states of average scale scores for eighth-grade students. Corresponding

comparisons of achievement level results are shown in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.4 presents comparisons of average scale scores for participating

states and other jurisdictions at grade 8. For example, Connecticut is the top

row. The second row is the Department of Defense domestic schools (DDESS).

The solid dot at the beginning of the second row indicates that DDESS did

not differ significantly from Connecticut; these were the two jurisdictions

with the highest average scores. The jurisdictions in the next group of rows —

the Department of Defense overseas schools (DoDDS), Maine, Massachusetts,

and Texas — all had average scale scores lower than Connecticut’s, but not

significantly different from the average scale score for the Department of

Defense domestic schools.

3 The significance tests used in these figures are based on the False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure for

multiple comparisons. This procedure takes into account all possible combinations between states in

declaring the differences between any two states to be statistically significant. (For further details on the

FDR procedure, see Appendix A.)
116 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

Connecticut

DoDEA/DDESS

DoDEA/DoDDS

Maine

Massachusetts

Texas

Virginia

Wisconsin †

Oklahoma

Colorado

Montana †

North Carolina

Oregon

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Washington

Minnesota †

Maryland

Georgia

New York †

Kentucky

Wyoming

Delaware

Alabama

West Virginia

Arizona

Utah

Missouri

Florida

New Mexico

California †

Nevada

South Carolina

Arkansas

Louisiana

Hawaii

Mississippi

District of Columbia

Virgin Islands

Figure 5.4

Comparisons of average writing scale scores for grade 8

public schools only: 1998

Instructions: Read across the row for a jurisdiction to compare performance with the jurisdictions listed in the heading of the chart. The symbols indicate

whether the average writing scale score of the jurisdiction in each row is higher than, the same as, or lower than the average writing scale score of the

jurisdiction listed in the heading. As an example, look at the row beginning with Connecticut. Connecticut’s score was about the same as that of the

Department of Defense domestic schools, and higher than that of all other jurisdictions listed across the row.

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

Jurisdiction has statistically significantly higher average scale score than

the jurisdiction listed at the top of the chart.

No statistically significant difference from the jurisdiction listed at the

top of the chart.

Jurisdiction has statistically significantly lower average scale score than

the jurisdiction listed at the top of the chart.

† Indicates that the jurisdiction did not satisfy one or more of the guidelines for

school participation rates.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and

Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: The between-jurisdiction comparisons take into account sampling and

measurement error and that each jurisdiction is being compared with every

other jurisdiction. Significance is determined by the application of a multiple

comparison procedure (see Appendix A). Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment

of Educational Progress (NAEP),1998 Writing Assessment.

▲

●

▼

●

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

ConnecticutDoDEA/DDESSDoDEA/DoDDSMaineMassachusettsTexasVirginiaWisconsin †OklahomaColoradoMontana †North CarolinaOregonRhode IslandTennesseeWashingtonMinnesota †MarylandGeorgiaNew York †KentuckyWyomingDelawareAlabamaWest VirginiaArizonaUtahMissouriFloridaNew MexicoCalifornia †NevadaSouth CarolinaArkansasLouisianaHawaiiMississippiDistrict of ColumbiaVirgin Islands
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 117

Figure 5.5 presents comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade students at

or above the Proficient level in writing for all participating jurisdictions. The

two top-performing jurisdictions (the top two rows) were Connecticut and the

Department of Defense domestic schools, which did not differ significantly

from each other. The jurisdictions in the next group of rows — Maine, the

Department of Defense overseas schools, and Massachusetts — had lower

percentages of students at or above Proficient than Connecticut, but did not

differ significantly from the Department of Defense domestic schools.
118 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.5

Comparisons of percentages of students at or above Proficient for

grade 8 public schools only: 1998

Connecticut

DoDEA/DDESS

Maine

DoDEA/DoDDS

Massachusetts

Texas

Wisconsin †

Virginia

North Carolina

Colorado

Oregon

Montana †

Rhode Island

Oklahoma

Minnesota †

Washington

Tennessee

Wyoming

Maryland

Georgia

Delaware

Utah

Kentucky

Arizona

New York †

California †

Florida

West Virginia

New Mexico

Missouri

Alabama

Nevada

South Carolina

Hawaii

Arkansas

Louisiana

District of Columbia

Mississippi

Virgin Islands

ConnecticutDoDEA/DDESSMaineDoDEA/DoDDSMassachusettsTexasWisconsin†VirginiaNorth CarolinaColoradoOregonMontana †Rhode IslandOklahomaMinnesota †WashingtonTennesseeWyomingMarylandGeorgiaDelawareUtahKentuckyArizonaNew York †California †FloridaWest VirginiaNew MexicoMissouriAlabamaNevadaSouth CarolinaHawaiiArkansasLouisianaDistrict of ColumbiaMississippiVirgin Islands

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

▼

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

Instructions: Read across the row for a jurisdiction to compare performance with the jurisdictions listed in the heading of the chart. The symbols indicate

whether the percentage at or above Proficient in the jurisdiction in each row is higher than, the same as, or lower than the percentage in the jurisdiction

listed in the heading. As an example, look at the row beginning with Connecticut. Connecticut’s percentage was about the same as that of the Department

of Defense domestic schools, and higher than that of all other jurisdictions listed across the row.

Jurisdiction has statistically significantly higher percentage than the

jurisdiction listed at the top of the chart.

No statistically significant difference from the jurisdiction listed at the

top of the chart.

Jurisdiction has statistically significantly lower percentage than the

jurisdiction listed at the top of the chart.

† Indicates that the jurisdiction did not satisfy one or more of the guidelines for

school participation rates.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and

Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: The between-jurisdiction comparisons take into account sampling and

measurement error and that each jurisdiction is being compared with every

other jurisdiction. Significance is determined by the application of a multiple

comparison procedure (see Appendix A). Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment

of Educational Progress (NAEP),1998 Writing Assessment.

▲

●

▼
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 119

Average Scale Score and Achievement Level

Results for Selected Subgroups

The following tables present average scale score and achievement level results

for the states by gender, race/ethnicity, parents’ highest level of education, type

of location, and eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program.

For each subgroup, the percentages of students that participated in the NAEP

1998 writing assessment by jurisdiction are presented in Appendix C.

Average scale scores and the percentages of students reaching the Proficient

level or higher by gender are given in Table 5.3. For grade 8 students in all

participating jurisdictions, the average scale scores of female students were

higher than those of male students. The percentage of eighth-grade female

students at or above the Proficient level of writing achievement was also higher

than the percentage of males at or above that achievement level in all of the

participating jurisdictions.
120 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

Table 5.3

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples. Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained

by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of students at or above

the Proficient level by gender for public schools only: 1998

Nation 138 15 158 34

States

Alabama 134 9 153 25

Arizona 134 13 153 29

Arkansas 125 6 148 21

California † 133 15 148 25

Colorado 141 16 161 38

Connecticut 156 33 175 55

Delaware 134 13 156 32

Florida 130 11 152 28

Georgia 138 15 156 31

Hawaii 124 7 148 23

Kentucky 135 11 157 30

Louisiana 126 5 144 17

Maine 142 20 168 44

Maryland 136 13 157 33

Massachusetts 144 20 166 44

Minnesota † 134 11 162 39

Mississippi 125 6 143 16

Missouri 130 9 153 27

Montana † 138 14 162 37

Nevada 130 10 149 24

New Mexico 131 10 153 27

New York † 139 13 154 28

North Carolina 140 18 161 37

Oklahoma 142 14 162 36

Oregon 138 15 161 38

Rhode Island 139 17 157 34

South Carolina 130 7 150 24

Tennessee 138 15 157 32

Texas 144 19 165 43

Utah 130 12 155 31

Virginia 144 17 164 39

Washington 136 15 159 34

West Virginia 133 10 155 27

Wisconsin † 141 14 166 43

Wyoming 133 12 160 35

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 115 5 136 17

DDESS 152 31 168 45

DoDDS 147 21 165 41

Virgin Islands 114 5 131 11

Male Female

Average Percentage Average Percentage

scale at or above scale at or above

score Proficient score Proficient
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 121

Average scale scores and the percentages of students at or above the

Proficient level by racial/ethnic group are shown in Table 5.4. The following

discussion pertains to scale scores where sample sizes allow comparisons. Across

all participating jurisdictions, White eighth graders had higher average scale

scores than their Hispanic peers. White eighth graders had higher average scale

scores than their Black peers in all jurisdictions except West Virginia, where the

difference was not statistically significant. Also, White students had higher

average scale scores than their American Indian peers in all jurisdictions except

Nevada and North Carolina, where the differences were not significant.

There were no statistically significant differences between the performance

of White and Asian/Pacific Islander students in any jurisdiction except in

Minnesota, where White students had higher average scale scores than their

Asian/Pacific Islander peers.
122 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

Average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of students at or above 

the Proficient level by race/ethnicity for public schools only: 1998

Table 5.4

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between

states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Isl. American Indian

Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage

scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above

score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient

Nation 156 31 130 7 129 10 157 33 131 8

States

Alabama 151 23 130 6 125 8 *** *** *** ***

Arizona 154 29 122 6 130 10 154 36 128 9

Arkansas 143 17 121 4 116 7 *** *** *** ***

California † 156 32 133 11 124 7 160 38 *** ***

Colorado 157 32 132 9 132 11 161 37 *** ***

Connecticut 173 53 139 15 139 16 *** *** *** ***

Delaware 152 29 130 9 132 14 *** *** *** ***

Florida 151 27 126 7 135 14 158 36 *** ***

Georgia 157 31 132 9 125 10 152 28 *** ***

Hawaii 140 19 123 7 120 5 138 17 *** ***

Kentucky 149 23 129 7 124 10 *** *** *** ***

Louisiana 146 17 123 4 120 5 *** *** *** ***

Maine 156 33 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Maryland 157 32 131 7 127 8 164 40 *** ***

Massachusetts 161 36 135 9 125 7 160 37 *** ***

Minnesota † 152 28 123 9 119 5 135 16 *** ***

Mississippi 146 18 124 4 108 1 *** *** *** ***

Missouri 146 20 123 4 116 4 *** *** *** ***

Montana † 153 27 *** *** 133 10 *** *** 134 15

Nevada 147 22 132 9 123 7 148 19 133 12

New Mexico 153 29 133 12 134 12 *** *** 133 11

New York † 158 30 132 7 127 6 149 26 *** ***

North Carolina 159 35 134 11 136 21 *** *** 140 17

Oklahoma 156 30 134 7 134 8 *** *** 143 15

Oregon 152 29 *** *** 133 13 157 34 134 14

Rhode Island 154 30 134 12 124 7 142 17 *** ***

South Carolina 150 22 128 5 121 5 *** *** *** ***

Tennessee 154 28 132 10 122 13 *** *** *** ***

Texas 164 41 146 20 144 20 163 41 *** ***

Utah 146 24 *** *** 120 7 135 15 119 6

Virginia 159 33 140 12 146 17 163 41 *** ***

Washington 153 29 131 11 123 9 151 26 127 5

West Virginia 145 19 140 14 117 3 *** *** *** ***

Wisconsin † 156 31 141 15 136 12 *** *** *** ***

Wyoming 149 25 *** *** 131 12 *** *** 124 11

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 156 43 125 10 120 8 *** *** *** ***

DDESS 167 46 150 26 153 32 *** *** *** ***

DoDDS 161 37 148 22 153 27 158 34 *** ***

Virgin Islands *** *** 124 8 118 7 *** *** *** ***
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 123

Table 5.5 shows average scale scores and the percentages of students at or

above the Proficient achievement level by parents’ highest level of education.

The following discussion covers all participating jurisdictions where sample size

allows comparison. Students who had at least one parent who graduated from

college had higher average scale scores than students whose parents did not

graduate from high school, except in one case. The exception was the

District of Columbia, where the difference was not statistically significant.

In most participating jurisdictions where sample size allows comparisons,

students whose parent or parents graduated from college had higher average

scale scores than students whose parent or parents graduated from high school.

The exceptions were Alabama, Louisiana, the District of Columbia, the

Department of Defense overseas schools, and the Virgin Islands.

Finally, in most jurisdictions, students whose parents graduated from high

school had higher average scale scores than students whose parents did not.

The exceptions were Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi,

New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Wyoming, and the

District of Columbia.
124 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

Average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of students at or above the

Proficient level by parents’ highest level of education for public schools only: 1998

Table 5.5

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between

states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Graduated from Some education Graduated from Did not finish

college after high school high school high school I don’t know.

Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage

scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above

score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient

Nation 156 33 143 19 144 18 128 6 117 3

States

Alabama 149 23 140 12 145 15 127 7 *** ***

Arizona 155 32 138 14 141 15 119 4 117 2

Arkansas 143 19 135 12 131 9 127 6 120 4

California † 155 32 136 14 134 11 118 5 117 6

Colorado 159 34 147 22 145 18 119 5 116 5

Connecticut 176 57 153 29 159 33 134 11 135 16

Delaware 151 30 141 18 142 19 128 10 114 4

Florida 148 25 138 15 140 19 128 6 124 9

Georgia 155 31 140 15 140 16 129 7 *** ***

Hawaii 142 20 131 11 132 12 122 7 122 6

Kentucky 156 31 142 15 143 17 131 12 125 8

Louisiana 141 16 132 8 136 11 129 7 *** ***

Maine 162 40 150 25 150 26 *** *** *** ***

Maryland 155 31 141 15 139 13 *** *** *** ***

Massachusetts 165 42 144 19 145 22 129 7 *** ***

Minnesota † 155 32 143 18 141 16 *** *** *** ***

Mississippi 139 15 129 7 133 7 129 5 *** ***

Missouri 151 25 136 12 138 14 125 6 114 4

Montana † 156 31 147 21 141 16 *** *** *** ***

Nevada 148 23 139 15 134 10 123 9 114 5

New Mexico 150 26 140 15 136 13 126 5 118 5

New York † 153 28 143 16 142 14 125 8 131 7

North Carolina 159 36 144 20 141 17 128 7 *** ***

Oklahoma 159 33 148 20 145 17 134 8 *** ***

Oregon 158 36 146 22 138 15 126 11 123 4

Rhode Island 157 33 145 21 141 16 123 6 131 12

South Carolina 145 20 135 10 138 12 133 8 *** ***

Tennessee 155 33 144 19 144 17 135 11 *** ***

Texas 162 39 151 28 152 27 140 13 127 6

Utah 149 27 139 17 134 13 *** *** *** ***

Virginia 162 39 146 18 145 15 135 9 *** ***

Washington 157 33 142 17 144 20 117 7 112 1

West Virginia 153 27 140 14 138 12 125 6 128 10

Wisconsin † 158 34 151 25 149 22 *** *** *** ***

Wyoming 152 29 142 19 138 16 128 11 *** ***

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 132 16 125 9 129 10 131 9 *** ***

DDESS 163 39 158 37 *** *** *** *** *** ***

DoDDS 160 35 154 29 150 23 *** *** *** ***

Virgin Islands 124 8 124 8 124 8 *** *** *** ***
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 125

Table 5.6 shows state writing assessment results by type of location. The

three categories of location — central city, urban fringe/large town, and rural/

small town — are based on Census Bureau definitions of metropolitan statistical

areas, population size, and density. These classifications are based solely on

geographic characteristics and are described in Appendix A.

The following discussion pertains to jurisdictions where sample sizes

permitted comparisons. In eight states — Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia — students

from schools in urban fringe/large town locations had higher average scale

scores than those from schools located in central cities. In addition, in six of

those eight states (excepting Georgia and Virginia), students from schools in

rural/small town locations had higher average scale scores than their

counterparts from schools in central city locations. Students from urban

fringe/large town schools had higher average scale scores than their

counterparts in rural/small town schools in Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina,

and Virginia. Students from schools in central cities had higher average scale

scores than their counterparts from schools in rural/small town locations in

New Mexico, South Carolina, and West Virginia.
126 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

Average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of students at or above 

the Proficient level by type of location for public schools only: 1998

Table 5.6

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples.

Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998

Writing Assessment.

Urban fringe/ Rural/

Central city large town small town

Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage

scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above

score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient

Nation 141 19 153 29 148 23

States

Alabama 145 19 147 19 142 16

Arizona 142 20 149 26 137 13

Arkansas 138 15 142 17 135 12

California † 139 20 142 21 *** ***

Colorado 146 24 154 29 151 27

Connecticut 142 20 169 47 176 56

Delaware 144 23 144 22 144 22

Florida 141 19 143 20 136 15

Georgia 141 18 152 27 141 18

Hawaii 141 19 133 13 133 13

Kentucky 148 23 144 19 146 21

Louisiana 132 11 135 10 139 13

Maine 155 33 152 31 155 32

Maryland 130 11 150 25 151 25

Massachusetts 140 18 160 37 160 35

Minnesota † 128 13 153 29 148 24

Mississippi 135 13 138 15 132 9

Missouri 137 15 145 19 141 18

Montana † 146 19 146 21 152 28

Nevada 139 16 141 18 139 15

New Mexico 147 24 142 18 137 14

New York † 134 11 156 30 153 24

North Carolina 155 33 150 26 147 24

Oklahoma 148 23 150 24 154 27

Oregon 149 29 152 29 146 23

Rhode Island 136 14 154 30 154 30

South Carolina 145 19 144 18 133 10

Tennessee 144 22 152 28 149 23

Texas 152 29 159 36 153 29

Utah 139 19 145 23 141 20

Virginia 148 21 161 36 149 23

Washington 145 22 151 28 145 22

West Virginia 149 24 149 24 141 16

Wisconsin † 150 25 155 30 154 29

Wyoming 149 25 *** *** 144 22

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 126 11 *** *** *** ***

DDESS 158 37 167 44 161 39

DoDDS *** *** *** *** *** ***

Virgin Islands *** *** *** *** 124 9
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 127

Table 5.7 shows state writing assessment results by eligibility for the Free/

Reduced-Price School Lunch Program. For all jurisdictions where sample sizes

permitted comparison, except in two cases, students who were not eligible for

the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program had higher average scale scores

than those who were eligible. The exceptions were the Department of Defense

overseas schools and Department of Defense domestic schools.
128 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

Average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of students at or above

the Proficient level by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program

eligibility for public schools only: 1998

Table 5.7

Eligible Not eligible

Average Percentage Average Percentage

scale at or above scale at or above

score Proficient score Proficient

Nation 131 10 156 32

States

Alabama 131 6 153 25

Arizona 129 9 152 28

Arkansas 122 5 145 18

California † 121 6 155 30

Colorado 132 11 158 32

Connecticut 139 15 172 51

Delaware 127 10 152 28

Florida 129 9 152 27

Georgia 130 8 155 29

Hawaii 123 8 142 19

Kentucky 133 11 155 28

Louisiana 127 5 146 18

Maine 139 15 160 38

Maryland 127 6 155 30

Massachusetts 131 8 162 39

Minnesota † 127 10 154 29

Mississippi 124 4 144 18

Missouri 127 7 148 22

Montana † 138 15 155 30

Nevada 124 7 146 21

New Mexico 130 9 150 26

New York † 131 8 156 29

North Carolina 132 11 160 36

Oklahoma 142 15 158 31

Oregon 133 13 155 32

Rhode Island 131 10 155 31

South Carolina 126 5 149 22

Tennessee 135 12 154 30

Texas 141 17 163 40

Utah 130 13 146 23

Virginia 136 9 159 33

Washington 128 10 154 29

West Virginia 132 9 152 25

Wisconsin † 141 16 157 33

Wyoming 136 16 149 26

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 120 7 141 22

DDESS 157 35 162 40

DoDDS 156 32 155 30

Virgin Islands 123 9 *** ***

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples. Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained

by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5 129

Summary

This chapter presented the scale score and achievement level results for eighthgrade public school students in the jurisdictions that participated in, and met

participation guidelines for, the NAEP 1998 writing state-by-state assessment.

In addition to presenting the average scale scores and the percentage of students

at or above the Proficient level for each participating jurisdiction, comparisons

across jurisdictions were presented for these results. The chapter concluded with

a consideration of the performance of five selected subgroups of students: by

gender, race/ethnicity, parents’ highest level of education, type of location, and

eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program.

Results are presented for 39 jurisdictions. Those results include the following:

© The jurisdictions with the highest average scale scores, as well as the highest

percentages of students at or above the Proficient level, were Connecticut

and the Department of Defense Domestic Schools. The next-highest scores

were observed in a cluster of jurisdictions that included the Department of

Defense overseas schools, Maine, Massachusetts, and Texas. These

jurisdictions, with the exception of Texas, also comprised the cluster of

states with the next-highest percentage of students at or above the Proficient

achievement level. Readers are reminded that differences among states and

jurisdictions may be explained by a wide variety of factors, including

socioeconomic variables.

© Females had higher average scale scores than males in every jurisdiction.

There were also higher percentages of females than males at or above

Proficient in every jurisdiction.

© There were no statistically significant differences between the performance

of White students and Asian/Pacific Islander students in jurisdictions where

sample sizes permitted comparison, except in Minnesota, where White

students had higher average scale scores than their Asian/Pacific Islander

peers. White students had higher average scale scores than Hispanic students

in every jurisdiction where sample size permitted comparison. White

students had higher average scale scores than Black students in every

jurisdiction where sample size permitted comparison, except West Virginia,

where the difference was not statistically significant.
130 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 5

© Students who reported that at least one parent graduated from college had

higher average scale scores than students who reported that their parents did

not graduate from high school in every participating jurisdiction where

sample size permitted comparison except the District of Columbia, where

that difference was not significant. Students with at least one parent who

graduated from high school had higher average scale scores than students

whose parents did not graduate from high school in 19 participating

jurisdictions where sample sizes permitted comparison.

© In eight participating jurisdictions, students from schools in urban fringe/

large town locations had higher average scale scores than their counterparts

from schools in central cities; in six of those eight jurisdictions, students

from schools in rural/small town locations also had higher average scale

scores than their counterparts from schools in central cities. Students from

schools in central cities had higher average scale scores than their peers from

schools in rural/small town locations in New Mexico, South Carolina, and

West Virginia.

© In every jurisdiction where sample size permitted comparison, except the

Department of Defense domestic schools and the Department of Defense

overseas schools, students who were not eligible for the Free/Reduced-Price

School Lunch Program had higher average scale scores than those who were

eligible for that program.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 131

CHAPTER 6

Additional Sample Student

Responses from the 1998 NAEP

Writing Assessment

Overview

The nine 1998 NAEP writing assessment prompts that have been released for

publication are presented in Chapter 1 of this report. That chapter used

exemplar student responses to illustrate the three achievement levels, Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced. This chapter is designed to provide more information

about the evaluation of student responses.

The chapter begins with information about the performance of students at

the three grades assessed (4, 8, and 12) on narrative, informative, and persuasive

writing. The writing brochures for grades 4, 8, and 12 are reprinted in this

chapter, following the presentation of student responses. It then shows the

scoring guides that were used to evaluate student responses. The chapter then

presents samples of student responses rated at each of the six levels on the

scoring guides, to illustrate the full range of student responses. Those responses

are given for a fourth-grade narrative prompt, an eighth-grade informative

prompt, and a twelfth-grade persuasive prompt.

All students who took the assessment were given brochures which provided

suggestions for planning and reviewing their writing. The writing brochures for

grades 4, 8, and 12 are reprinted in this chapter, following the presentation of

student responses. This chapter concludes with item maps that show where

different levels of performance on the nine released writing prompts fall on the

NAEP writing scale.

RESPONSESMORE STUDENT
132 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Overall Ratings on the Writing Assessment

In addition to examining how student writing was scored, it may be useful to

see, for all the 25-minute prompts in the assessment, the percentage of students’

responses rated at each of the six levels on the scoring guide. As Table 6.1

shows, 53 percent of fourth-grade responses, 57 percent of eighth-grade

responses, and 69 percent of twelfth-grade responses received ratings in the

upper half of the scoring guide (“Sufficient” or better).

As shown in Table 6.1, in the overall ratings of student responses at each grade,

3 to 4 percent were rated “Excellent,” the highest rating on the 6-point scoring

guide. As reported in Chapter 1, only 1 percent of students in each grade attained

the Advanced achievement level in writing. It is worth noting that in order to reach

the Advanced level, students would have needed to demonstrate Advanced

performance on both of the 25-minute writing prompts they were assigned.

Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the scoring

guides on all 25-minute writing prompts: 1998

Table 6.1

Grade 4

Overall 4 11 33 38 12 3

Narrative 2 10 29 38 16 4

Informative 3 10 38 37 9 2

Persuasive 4 9 30 44 10 2

Grade 8

Overall 3 11 29 41 13 3

Narrative 2 11 26 39 17 5

Informative 3 9 29 45 11 3

Persuasive 4 10 32 40 12 2

Grade 12

Overall 3 8 20 42 23 4

Narrative 2 4 17 45 29 2

Informative 3 6 17 43 26 5

Persuasive 3 11 24 41 17 5

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Unsatisfactory Insufficient Uneven Sufficient Skillful Excellent

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 133

Narrative, Informative, and Persuasive Writing

Telling a story, writing an informative essay, or writing a persuasive letter have

certain things in common: for all, the writer must develop and organize ideas,

use language effectively, and be aware of the audience. The writer’s task differs

for the three kinds of writing, however. By focusing on responses at the

“Uneven” (3) level and better, this section describes what students were able to

do in each of those kinds of writing for each grade assessed in NAEP.

Narrative Writing: Weaving a Story

How do writers tell a story? The storyteller weaves plot, character, language,

and detail into a whole to create the illusion of reality. Prompts like “Castle”

(released in this report) presented fourth-grade students with a fairy-tale-like

situation. In response, students wrote stories in which the hero or heroine had

adventures such as meeting princesses and giants. Other prompts used cartoons,

photographs, or drawings to stimulate fourth graders’ creativity. In responses

rated “Skillful” or “Excellent,” fourth graders produced clear stories by writing

effective dialogue, creating characters, and creating suspense. Stories rated

“Sufficient” provided a clear sequence of events, but sometimes made abrupt

shifts in time or place. Such shifts tended to impede the story’s progress in

students’ responses rated “Uneven,” even though those writers still attempted a

complete story.

Eighth-grade prompts asked students to write many kinds of stories

(including first- and third-person narratives), and sometimes to interpret visual

or written materials in writing their stories. In general, eighth-grade students

provided more developed characters and plots than fourth graders did. In

“Skillful” or “Excellent” responses, they used narrative techniques to interweave

event and characterization. Precise language made their responses vivid. Eighthgrade narratives rated “Sufficient” were somewhat developed but lacked details.

Those rated “Uneven” had the outlines of a story but had repetition that

weakened the story line or problems in controlling sentence boundaries (run-on

or incomplete sentences).

Twelfth graders were typically asked, for their narratives, to assume the voice

of a character or to write in a particular genre. In responses rated “Skillful” or

“Excellent,” some students used retrospective storytelling, in which a character

revealed the past from the point of view of experience (see the student response

on pages 48 and 49 of Chapter 1). Others enlivened their tales with humor. The

ability to manipulate narrative voice and tone distinguished twelfth-grade

writing at the highest levels. In “Sufficient” responses, students told clear stories

enlivened with some details; responses rated “Uneven” were clear stories that

lacked details or tight organization.
134 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Informative Writing: Describing, Designing, Explaining

To inform a reader, the writer must understand the subject to be conveyed,

organize it, and present it clearly. Informative writing prompts varied among the

grades, asking students to present different kinds of information in a variety of

ways.

In most fourth-grade prompts, students were asked to write about familiar

subjects (such as the “Favorite Object” prompt), while others provided

photographs to interpret or letters to answer. Fourth graders who wrote

“Skillful” and “Excellent” responses developed ideas with specific details and

organized them clearly, through comparison and contrast, for example. In

responses rated “Sufficient,” students presented a clear sequence of information,

but with ideas that were only generally related. And fourth-grade responses

rated “Uneven” presented some ideas, but not in a clear sequence or with only

partial development.

At eighth grade, students were given more new information to assimilate

and present (in charts, pictures, or letters) and a greater variety of audiences

(such as a school board, friend, or educational television network president).

Some were asked to design something new (as in the “Designing a TV Show”

prompt reprinted in this report) or to draw on background knowledge. That

could involve choosing a particular experience to illustrate a point, or describing

an object, place, or something read. In responses rated “Skillful” or “Excellent,”

eighth-grade students developed information fully with details and organized it

well, using transitions or other devices to link sections. Some took a more

personal tone, others a more impersonal tone. The form of responses also

varied; some students provided clearly-marked introductions and conclusions.

Others incorporated narrative strategies (for example, by describing a sample

episode of an educational television show for the “Designing a TV Show”

prompt). “Sufficient” responses were organized but did not connect sections

clearly, while “Uneven” responses provided general information or were

somewhat repetitive.

At twelfth grade, students had to present information to both formal and

informal audiences, in forms that ranged from letters to essays to reports. For

the “Writing Mentor” prompt, for example, twelfth graders were asked to write

a letter to a tenth grader about how to write in high school. This task required

the ability to condense knowledge clearly for a younger reader. Other prompts

asked twelfth graders to draw on knowledge of something read or studied, to

consider the pros and cons of a recent social development, or to interpret an

experience in light of a particular theme. In responses that drew on background

knowledge, twelfth graders typically gave more detailed accounts of things read

or studied or of experiences than eighth graders.

In responses rated “Skillful” or “Excellent,” twelfth-grade students did not
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 135

simply provide information but organized it to guide the reader through it

smoothly. Students who wrote “Sufficient” responses organized information but

did not elaborate on details or provide a structure to guide the reader through

the information. Responses rated “Uneven” had some details, but had parts that

were unclear or undeveloped.

Persuasive Writing: Convincing the Reader

Persuasion in writing can be a gentle or more forceful art. Often, the most

persuasive writing does not simply refute opponents’ arguments but uses more

subtle approaches, including rhetorical strategies such as rhetorical questions or

illustrative stories. Most fourth-grade persuasive prompts drew on students’ own

knowledge or experience. Students were asked to enter into debates or to write

letters to teachers or friends convincing them to take action (as in the “Invisible

Friend” prompt, in which students had to convince an imaginary friend to

become visible). Fourth graders used persuasive strategies such as classifying

advantages and disadvantages of a situation. In responses rated “Skillful” or

“Excellent,” fourth graders took clear positions, developing support through

specific details or examples. In responses rated “Sufficient,” fourth graders

provided support for a position; students whose responses were rated “Uneven”

provided a clear position but showed some difficulties supporting it.

Most eighth-grade persuasive prompts had a wider context, asking students

to address issues relevant to their schools. For “Lengthening the School Year,”

for example, eighth graders responded to the proposition that students should

go to school in the summer. Students who wrote “Skillful” and “Excellent”

responses used direct appeals to their audience, like the student who pleaded

against lengthening the school year by noting that the adults running the

country now did not go to school any longer than today’s students! At eighth

grade, by contrast to fourth grade, in “Skillful” and “Excellent” responses,

students went beyond providing evidence for a position to developing a

complete argument with appropriate reasons. In responses rated “Sufficient,”

students provided clear reasons for a position, but did not clearly connect

sections of their responses. In “Uneven” responses, students provided reasons

but had uneven organization.

Most twelfth-grade persuasive prompts broadened the writing context

beyond the school orientation of the eighth-grade prompts, asking for writing

that ranged from letters to an editor to debates on the merits of particular social

changes. The “One Vote” prompt, which asked students to consider the

importance of voting, became a way for students to analyze the importance of

participating in a democracy. In twelfth-grade writing rated “Skillful” and

“Excellent,” students constructed coherent arguments throughout their

responses. Some students carefully weighed both sides of an issue before

choosing one. Others used rhetorical strategies such as humor, repetition or
136 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

rhetorical questions to appeal to an audience. Students who earned the

“Sufficient” rating constructed arguments with reasons, but did not link reasons

to each other throughout. In “Uneven” responses, students took a position, but

provided some support that was undeveloped or irrelevant.

Evaluating Student Responses

Both the prompts and scoring guides were designed to be appropriate to

each grade (4, 8, and 12). This section presents the scoring guides used in the

assessment, one sample prompt at each grade, and student responses at each

rating on the scoring guide. The prompts illustrate the kinds of writing most

frequent at each grade level: narrative at grade 4, informative at grade 8 (for

which there was the same number of prompts as for narrative), and persuasive at

grade 12. The frequency of the three kinds of writing at each grade is based on

the emphases they receive in instruction, to be appropriate to the grade level.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 137

Grade 4 Narrative Scoring Guide

6 Excellent Response

• Tells a well-developed story with relevant descriptive details across the response.

• Events are well connected and tie the story together with transitions across the response.

• Sustains varied sentence structure and exhibits specific word choices.

• Exhibits control over sentence boundaries; errors in grammar, spelling, and mechanics do not

interfere with understanding.

5 Skillful Response

• Tells a clear story with some development, including some relevant descriptive details.

• Events are connected in much of the response; may lack some transitions.

• Exhibits some variety in sentence structure and exhibits some specific word choices.

• Generally exhibits control over sentence boundaries; errors in grammar, spelling, and mechanics

do not interfere with understanding.

4 Sufficient Response

• Tells a clear story with little development; has few details.

• Events are generally related; may contain brief digressions or inconsistencies.

• Generally has simple sentences and simple word choice; may exhibit uneven control over sentence

boundaries.

• Has sentences that consist mostly of complete, clear, distinct thoughts; errors in grammar, spelling,

and mechanics generally do not interfere with understanding.

3 Uneven Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Attempts to tell a story, but tells only part of a story, gives a plan for a story, or is list-like.

• Lacks a clear progression of events; elements may not fit together or be in sequence.

• Exhibits uneven control over sentence boundaries and may have some inaccurate word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and mechanics sometimes interfere with understanding.

2 Insufficient Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Attempts a response, but is no more than a fragment or the beginning of a story OR is very

repetitive.

• Is very disorganized OR too brief to detect organization.

• Exhibits little control over sentence boundaries and sentence formation; word choice is inaccurate in

much of the response.

• Characterized by misspellings, missing words, incorrect word order; errors in grammar, spelling,

and mechanics are severe enough to make understanding very difficult in much of the response.

1 Unsatisfactory Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Attempts a response, but may only paraphrase the prompt or be extremely brief.

• Exhibits no control over organization.

• Exhibits no control over sentence formation; word choice is inaccurate across the response.

• Characterized by misspellings, missing words, incorrect word order; errors in grammar, spelling,

and mechanics severely impede understanding across the response.
138 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Grade 8 Narrative Scoring Guide

6 Excellent Response

• Tells a clear story that is well developed and shaped with well-chosen details across the response.

• Is well organized with strong transitions.

• Sustains variety in sentence structure and exhibits good word choice.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation are few and do not interfere with understanding.

5 Skillful Response

• Tells a clear story that is developed and shaped with details in parts of the response.

• Is clearly organized, but may lack some transitions and/or have occasional lapses in continuity.

• Exhibits some variety in sentence structure and some good word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

4 Sufficient Response

• Tells a clear story that is developed with some details.

• The parts of the story are generally related, but there are few or no transitions.

• Exhibits control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure, but sentences and word choice

may be simple and unvaried.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

3 Uneven Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Attempts to tell a story, but parts of the story are unclear, undeveloped, list-like, or repetitive OR

offers no more than a well-written beginning.

• Is unevenly organized; parts of the story may be unrelated to one another.

• Exhibits uneven control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; may have some inaccurate

word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation sometimes interfere with understanding.

2 Insufficient Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Attempts to tell a story, but the attempt may be a fragment and/or very undeveloped.

• Is very disorganized throughout the response OR too brief to detect organization.

• Minimal control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may often be

inaccurate.

• Errors in grammar or usage (such as missing words or incorrect word use or word order), spelling,

and punctuation interfere with understanding in much of the response.

1 Unsatisfactory Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Responds to prompt, but provides little or no coherent content OR merely paraphrases the prompt.

• Has no apparent organization OR consists of a single statement.

• Minimal or no control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may be

inaccurate in much or all of the response.

• A multiplicity of errors in grammar or usage (such as missing words or incorrect word use or word

order), spelling, and punctuation severely impedes understanding across the response.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 139

Grade 12 Narrative Scoring Guide

6 Excellent Response

• Tells a clear story that is consistently well developed and detailed; details enhance story being told.

• Is well organized; integrates narrative events into a smooth telling; effective transitions move the

story forward.

• Consistently exhibits variety in sentence structure and precision in word choice.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation are few and do not interfere with understanding.

5 Skillful Response

• Tells a clear story that is well developed and elaborated with details in much of the response.

• Is well organized with story elements that are connected across most of the response; may have

occasional lapses in transitions.

• Exhibits some variety in sentence structure and uses good word choice; occasionally, words may be

used inaccurately.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

4 Sufficient Response

• Tells a clear story that is developed with some pertinent details.

• Is generally organized, but transitions among parts of the story may be lacking.

• Sentence structure may be simple and unvaried; word choice is mostly accurate.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

3 Uneven Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Tells a story that may be clear and developed in parts; other parts are unfocused, repetitive, or

minimally developed OR response is no more than a well-written beginning.

• Is organized in parts of the response; other parts are disjointed and/or lack transitions.

• Exhibits uneven control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; may exhibit some

inaccurate word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation sometimes interfere with understanding.

2 Insufficient Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Attempts to tell a story, but is very undeveloped, list-like, or fragmentary.

• Is disorganized or unfocused in much of the response OR the response is too brief to detect

organization.

• Minimal control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may often be

inaccurate.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation interfere with understanding in much of the response.

1 Unsatisfactory Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Responds to prompt but provides little or no coherent content OR merely paraphrases the prompt.

• Has little or no apparent organization.

• Minimal or no control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may be

inaccurate in much or all of the response.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation severely impede understanding across the response.
140 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Grade 4 Informative Scoring Guide

6 Excellent Response

• Develops ideas well and uses specific, relevant details across the response.

• Is well organized with clear transitions.

• Sustains varied sentence structure and exhibits specific word choices.

• Exhibits control over sentence boundaries; errors in grammar, spelling, and mechanics do not

interfere with understanding.

5 Skillful Response

• Develops ideas with some specific, relevant details.

• Is clearly organized; information is presented in an orderly way, but response may lack transitions.

• Exhibits some variety in sentence structure and exhibits some specific word choices.

• Generally exhibits control over sentence boundaries; errors in grammar, spelling, and mechanics do

not interfere with understanding.

4 Sufficient Response

• Clear but sparsely developed; may have few details.

• Provides a clear sequence of information; provides pieces of information that are generally related to

each other.

• Generally has simple sentences and simple word choice; may exhibit uneven control over sentence

boundaries.

• Has sentences that consist mostly of complete, clear, distinct thoughts; errors in grammar, spelling,

and mechanics generally do not interfere with understanding.

3 Uneven Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Provides limited or incomplete information; may be list-like or have the quality of an outline.

• Is disorganized or provides a disjointed sequence of information.

• Exhibits uneven control over sentence boundaries and may have some inaccurate word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and mechanics sometimes interfere with understanding.

2 Insufficient Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Provides little information and makes little attempt at development.

• Is very disorganized OR too brief to detect organization.

• Exhibits little control over sentence boundaries and sentence formation; word choice is inaccurate in

much of the response.

• Characterized by misspellings, missing words, incorrect word order; errors in grammar, spelling,

and mechanics are severe enough to make understanding very difficult in much of the response.

1 Unsatisfactory Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Attempts a response, but may only paraphrase the prompt or be extremely brief.

• Exhibits no control over organization.

• Exhibits no control over sentence formation; word choice is inaccurate across the response.

• Characterized by misspellings, missing words, incorrect word order; errors in grammar, spelling,

and mechanics severely impede understanding across the response.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 141

Grade 8 Informative Scoring Guide

6 Excellent Response

• Develops and shapes information with well-chosen details across the response.

• Is well organized with strong transitions.

• Sustains variety in sentence structure and exhibits good word choice.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation are few and do not interfere with understanding.

5 Skillful Response

• Develops and shapes information with details in parts of the response.

• Is clearly organized, but may lack some transitions and/or have occasional lapses in continuity.

• Exhibits some variety in sentence structure and some good word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

4 Sufficient Response

• Develops information with some details.

• Organized with ideas that are generally related, but has few or no transitions.

• Exhibits control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure, but sentences and word choice

may be simple and unvaried.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

3 Uneven Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Presents some clear information, but is list-like, undeveloped, or repetitive OR offers no more than a

well-written beginning.

• Is unevenly organized; the response may be disjointed.

• Exhibits uneven control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; may have some inaccurate

word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation sometimes interfere with understanding.

2 Insufficient Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Presents fragmented information OR may be very repetitive OR may be very undeveloped.

• Is very disorganized; thoughts are tenuously connected OR the response is too brief to detect

organization.

• Minimal control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may often be

inaccurate.

• Errors in grammar or usage (such as missing words or incorrect word use or word order), spelling,

and punctuation interfere with understanding in much of the response.

1 Unsatisfactory Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Attempts to respond to prompt, but provides little or no coherent information; may only paraphrase

the prompt.

• Has no apparent organization OR consists of a single statement.

• Minimal or no control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may be

inaccurate in much or all of the response.

• A multiplicity of errors in grammar or usage (such as missing words or incorrect word use or word

order), spelling, and punctuation severely impedes understanding across the response.
142 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Grade 12 Informative Scoring Guide

6 Excellent Response

• Information is presented effectively and consistently supported with well-chosen details.

• Is focused and well organized, with a sustained controlling idea and effective use of transitions.

• Consistently exhibits variety in sentence structure and precision in word choice.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation are few and do not interfere with understanding.

5 Skillful Response

• Information is presented clearly and supported with pertinent details in much of the response.

• Is well organized, but may lack some transitions.

• Exhibits some variety in sentence structure and uses good word choice; occasionally, words may be

used inaccurately.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

4 Sufficient Response

• Information is presented clearly and supported with some pertinent details.

• Is generally organized, but has few or no transitions among parts.

• Sentence structure may be simple and unvaried; word choice is mostly accurate.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

3 Uneven Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Information is presented clearly in parts; other parts are undeveloped or repetitive OR response

is no more than a well-written beginning.

• Is organized in parts of the response; other parts are disjointed and/or lack transitions.

• Exhibits uneven control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; may exhibit some

inaccurate word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation sometimes interfere with understanding.

2 Insufficient Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Provides information that is very undeveloped or list-like.

• Is disorganized or unfocused in much of the response OR the response is too brief to detect

organization.

• Minimal control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may often be

inaccurate.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation interfere with understanding in much of the response.

1 Unsatisfactory Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Responds to prompt, but may be incoherent OR provides very minimal information OR merely

paraphrases the prompt.

• Exhibits little or no apparent organization.

• Minimal or no control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may be

inaccurate in much or all of the response.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation severely impede understanding across the response.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 143

Grade 4 Persuasive Scoring Guide

6 Excellent Response

• Takes a clear position and develops support with well-chosen details, reasons, or examples across

the response.

• Is well organized; maintains focus.

• Sustains varied sentence structure and exhibits specific word choices.

• Exhibits control over sentence boundaries; errors in grammar, spelling, and mechanics do not

interfere with understanding.

5 Skillful Response

• Takes a clear position and develops support with some specific details, reasons, or examples.

• Provides some organization of ideas by, for example, using contrast or building to a point.

• Exhibits some variety in sentence structure and exhibits some specific word choices.

• Generally exhibits control over sentence boundaries; errors in grammar, spelling, and mechanics do

not interfere with understanding.

4 Sufficient Response

• Takes a clear position with support that is clear and generally related to the issue.

• Is generally organized.

• Generally has simple sentences and simple word choice; may exhibit uneven control over sentence

boundaries.

• Has sentences that consist mostly of complete, clear, distinct thoughts; errors in grammar, spelling,

and mechanics generally do not interfere with understanding.

3 Uneven Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Takes a position and offers limited or incomplete support; some reasons may not be clear or related

to the issue.

• Is disorganized OR provides a disjointed sequence of information.

• Exhibits uneven control over sentence boundaries and may have some inaccurate word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and mechanics sometimes interfere with understanding.

2 Insufficient Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Takes a position, but provides only minimal support (generalizations or a specific reason or

example); OR attempts to take a position but the position is unclear.

• Is very disorganized or too brief to detect organization.

• May exhibit little control over sentence boundaries and sentence formation; word choice is

inaccurate in much of the response.

• Characterized by misspellings, missing words, incorrect word order; errors in grammar, spelling,

and mechanics may be severe enough to make understanding very difficult in much of the response.

1 Unsatisfactory Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Takes a position, but provides no support OR attempts to take a position (is on topic), but position is

very unclear; may only paraphrase the prompt.

• Exhibits no control over organization.

• Exhibits no control over sentence formation; word choice is inaccurate across the response.

• Characterized by misspellings, missing words, incorrect word order; errors in grammar, spelling,

and mechanics severely impede understanding across the response.
144 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Grade 8 Persuasive Scoring Guide

6 Excellent Response

• Takes a clear position and develops it consistently with well-chosen reasons and/or examples across

the response.

• Is well organized with strong transitions.

• Sustains variety in sentence structure and exhibits good word choice.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation are few and do not interfere with understanding.

5 Skillful Response

• Takes a clear position and develops it with reasons and/or examples in parts of the response.

• Is clearly organized, but may lack some transitions and/or have occasional lapses in continuity.

• Exhibits some variety in sentence structure and some good word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

4 Sufficient Response

• Takes a clear position and supports it with some reasons and/or examples.

• Is organized with ideas that are generally related, but there are few or no transitions.

• Exhibits control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure, but sentences and word choice

may be simple and unvaried.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

3 Uneven Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Takes a position and offers support, but may be unclear, repetitive, list-like, or undeveloped.

• Is unevenly organized; the response may be disjointed.

• Exhibits uneven control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; may have some inaccurate

word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation sometimes interfere with understanding.

2 Insufficient Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Takes a position, but response may be very unclear, very undeveloped, or very repetitive.

• Is very disorganized; thoughts are tenuously connected OR the response is too brief to detect

organization.

• Minimal control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may often be

inaccurate.

• Errors in grammar or usage (such as missing words or incorrect word use or word order), spelling,

and punctuation interfere with understanding in much of the response.

1 Unsatisfactory Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Attempts to take a position (addresses topic) but response is incoherent OR takes a position but

provides no support; may only paraphrase the prompt.

• Has no apparent organization OR consists of a single statement.

• Minimal or no control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may be

inaccurate in much or all of the response.

• A multiplicity of errors in grammar or usage (such as missing words or incorrect word use or word

order), spelling, and punctuation severely impedes understanding across the response.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 145

Grade 12 Persuasive Scoring Guide

6 Excellent Response

• Takes a clear position and supports it consistently with well-chosen reasons and/or examples;

may use persuasive strategy to convey an argument.

• Is focused and well organized, with effective use of transitions.

• Consistently exhibits variety in sentence structure and precision in word choice.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation are few and do not interfere with understanding.

5 Skillful Response

• Takes a clear position and supports it with pertinent reasons and/or examples through much of

the response.

• Is well organized, but may lack some transitions.

• Exhibits some variety in sentence structure and uses good word choice; occasionally, words may

be used inaccurately.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

4 Sufficient Response

• Takes a clear position and supports it with some pertinent reasons and/or examples; there is some

development.

• Is generally organized, but has few or no transitions among parts.

• Sentence structure may be simple and unvaried; word choice is mostly accurate.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not interfere with understanding.

3 Uneven Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Takes a position and provides uneven support; may lack development in parts or be repetitive

OR response is no more than a well-written beginning.

• Is organized in parts of the response; other parts are disjointed and/or lack transitions.

• Exhibits uneven control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; may exhibit some

inaccurate word choices.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation sometimes interfere with understanding.

2 Insufficient Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Takes a position but response is very undeveloped.

• Is disorganized or unfocused in much of the response OR clear but very brief.

• Minimal control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may often be

inaccurate.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation interfere with understanding in much of the response.

1 Unsatisfactory Response (may be characterized by one or more of the following:)

• Attempts to take a position (addresses topic), but position is very unclear OR takes a position, but

provides minimal or no support; may only paraphrase the prompt.

• Exhibits little or no apparent organization.

• Minimal or no control over sentence boundaries and sentence structure; word choice may be

inaccurate in much or all of the response.

• Errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation severely impede understanding across the response.
146 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Sample Prompt and Student Responses - Grade 4

Prompt: Castle

One morning a child looks out the window and discovers that a

huge castle has appeared overnight. The child rushes outside to

the castle and hears strange sounds coming from it. Someone is

living in the castle!

The castle door creaks open. The child goes in.

Write a story about who the child meets and what happens

inside the castle.

Writing Purpose: Narrative

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 4 narrative scoring guide.

In the imaginative stories written for this prompt, “Castle,” characters

sometimes appear and disappear rather suddenly. Students who received ratings

in the upper half of the six levels on the scoring guide (“Sufficient” or better)

were able to weave coherent stories, making effective use of suspense and

surprise. Figure 6.1 shows the percentage of student responses to this prompt

rated at each of the six levels on the scoring guide (from “Unsatisfactory”

through “Excellent”). A sample response for each score level is presented on the

following pages.

Figure 6.1 Percentage of responses rated at different levels

on the scoring guide, grade 4: Castle

Unsatisfactory 2

Insufficient 12

Uneven 3

Sufficient 38

Skillful 14

Excellent 3

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

0 10 20 30 40 50 100
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 147

Sample "Unsatisfactory" Response

The “Unsatisfactory” rating was given to 2 percent of the responses to this

prompt. Responses at this level tended either to be so brief that they did not

develop a story at all, or to be hard to understand throughout. In the response

shown, the student only paraphrases the prompt: “The child meet a castle and

go in the castle.”

The “Insufficient” rating was given to 12 percent of the responses to this

prompt. In “Insufficient” responses, students produced only the beginning of a

story, wrote very disorganized stories, or wrote responses that were

understandable only in part. In the response shown, the student begins to tell a

story, introducing a new character, the “giant,” but does not progress beyond

that point.

Sample "Insufficient" Response
148 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

The “Uneven” rating was given to 31 percent of the responses to this

prompt. In such responses, students attempted to tell an entire story, but the

attempt was incomplete or disorganized. In the “Uneven” response shown,

there is some dramatic action (“then he herd something a bat fly and turn in to

a vampire”). That action, however, is repetitive, as the events are not connected

to form a coherent story: “And then the vampire turned in to a bat again. And

it gos on on on on on on and on on on again.”

Sample "Uneven" Response
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 149

Sample "Sufficient" Response

The “Sufficient” rating was given to 38 percent of the responses to this

prompt. In such responses, students told complete stories that were organized

and clear, but lacking in detail. In the sample below, the student provides a clear

but bare plot. He or she includes the vivid detail of the colors of the rainbow in

the first sentence, but uses detail sparingly beyond that. Though the story does

not conclude, enough action occurs that most of the development is clear. The

simple, but essentially clear and correct, sentence structure and vocabulary are

typical of responses at this level.
150 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Sample "Skillful" Response

The “Skillful” rating was given to 14 percent of the responses to this

prompt. In such responses, students used details to develop their stories in parts

of the response. They provided a good structure to their stories, though with

occasional lack of transitions. In the sample “Skillful” response, the plot

occasionally shifts abruptly, as when the boy “sees a woman” who looks like him

and they suddenly start to “walk through the castle.” Though the ending is

concise, the student ties up the story with the revelation “Then the girl realizes

the boy in the picture is her long Lost Brother.”
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 151

The “Excellent” rating was given to 3 percent of the responses to this

prompt. Such responses may have excelled through good development of plot,

characters, or dialogue. In the response shown, the student uses dialogue

effectively, develops characters, and provides a coherent plot. The student

shows good control of language for a fourth grader and includes vivid details

about appearance — “He was dressed in royalty with a purple cape and a

crown of jewels.”
152 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Sample "Excellent" Response
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 153

Sample Prompt and Student Responses - Grade 8

Prompt: Designing a TV Show

A public television network is seeking ideas for a new series of

shows that would be educational for teenagers. The series will

include ten one-hour episodes and will be shown once a week.

Some of the titles under consideration are:

“Great Cities of the World”

“Women in History”

“Nature Walks”

“American Legends”

Choose one of these titles. Write a letter to the network

president describing your ideas for a new educational series. In

your letter, describe what one episode might be like. Use specific

examples of what information you would include in the episode

so the network president will be able to imagine what the series

would be like.

Writing Purpose: Informative

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 8 informative scoring guide.

In responding to this prompt, students at the upper score levels

(“Sufficient” or better) provided organized responses with illustrative details.

Some students provided descriptions of an entire episode, down to the dialogue

and camera angles.
154 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Figure 6.2 shows the percentage of student responses rated at each of the six

levels on the scoring guide (from “Unsatisfactory” through “Excellent”) for the

“Designing a TV Show” prompt.

Unsatisfactory 3

Insufficient 13

Uneven 40

Sufficient 34

Skillful 8

Excellent 2

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

0 10 20 30 40 50 100

Figure 6.2 Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the

scoring guide, grade 8: Designing a TV Show

Table 6.2 shows, for students in each jurisdiction that participated in the

grade 8 state NAEP writing assessment, the percentage of student responses

receiving ratings at each of the six levels on the scoring guide. The information

in that table is for public schools only, for both the nation and the states.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 155

Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the scoring guide

by jurisdiction for Designing a TV Show, grade 8 public schools

only: 1998

Table 6.2

Unsatisfactory Insufficient Uneven Sufficient Skillful Excellent

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences

between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Nation 3 14 42 32 8 2

States

Alabama 2 17 49 27 5 0

Arizona 1 14 47 32 4 1

Arkansas 3 18 45 29 4 0

California † 7 17 48 22 6 1

Colorado 2 10 43 39 4 2

Connecticut 1 8 38 37 11 4

Delaware 1 16 44 31 8 1

Florida 3 18 45 27 6 1

Georgia 4 15 40 36 5 1

Hawaii 5 16 49 24 6 0

Kentucky 2 12 47 34 4 2

Louisiana 4 21 49 22 4 0

Maine 2 9 38 36 11 4

Maryland 1 10 43 35 8 3

Massachusetts 1 10 38 33 13 5

Minnesota † 2 13 43 34 6 2

Mississippi 4 22 49 19 5 0

Missouri 6 14 43 30 6 1

Montana † 0 7 48 38 7 1

Nevada 4 16 45 33 2 0

New Mexico 5 16 41 32 5 2

New York † 4 9 37 39 8 2

North Carolina 1 10 45 36 5 2

Oklahoma 1 6 47 37 7 3

Oregon 1 11 47 36 4 1

Rhode Island 1 13 43 33 8 2

South Carolina 5 15 46 30 4 0

Tennessee 4 17 47 26 5 1

Texas 2 11 47 35 4 1

Utah 6 15 42 31 6 0

Virginia 0 7 46 39 7 1

Washington 1 14 51 27 7 0

West Virginia 2 15 47 31 5 1

Wisconsin † 1 11 50 28 9 1

Wyoming 3 12 47 30 5 3

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 8 15 42 31 4 0

DDESS *** *** *** *** *** ***

DoDDS 1 7 47 38 8 0

Virgin Islands 8 23 48 21 0 0
156 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Sample "Unsatisfactory" Response

The “Unsatisfactory” rating was given to 3 percent of the responses to this

prompt. Such responses were very undeveloped or very poorly written. In the

“Unsatisfactory” response shown, the student chooses one of the series titles

provided in the prompt and asks what to include, without presenting his or her

ideas about what to show on the television series.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 157

Sample "Insufficient" Response

The “Insufficient” rating was given to 13 percent of the responses to this

prompt. Such responses supplied only minimal information about the student’s

choice of an educational television series. In the example presented here, the

student provides a justification for the series: “You would get to learn about all

the cities instead of just one city.” However, the student does not develop that

justification by describing the substance of the show.
158 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Sample "Uneven" Response

The “Uneven” rating was given to 40 percent of the responses to this

prompt. In many of these responses, students mentioned a few specific elements

to be presented on the television series, but listed rather than developed them.

In the “Uneven” paper shown, the student enumerates various “American

Legends” to be presented, along with an identifying detail or two about George

Washington, John F. Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln, for example: “You could

also tell how John F. Kennedy was assasianated or how Abraham Lincon helped

in the Cival War.” The student, however, does not develop points, and his or

her command of the mechanics of writing is uneven.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 159

Sample "Sufficient" Response

The “Sufficient” rating was given to 34 percent of the responses to this

prompt. Such responses were organized and provided some details. This sample

was also presented as an exemplar of Proficient achievement in Chapter 1. In the

response shown, the student’s writing is clear, accurate, and organized.
160 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

The “Skillful” rating was given to 8 percent of the responses to this prompt.

In such responses, students used detail and elaboration in parts of the response,

with transitions to connect ideas. In the response shown, the student specifies

who will be the narrators of the show and the order in which information will

be presented: “The show is about four teenagers, around the ages of fourteen to

seventeen who travel around the world. In each show they travel to two cities.

When they arrive in the city they will first talk about the cities history and what

it is like now in the present.” The student also uses the example of Paris as the

subject for one show. The student uses complex sentences and transitions (such

as “When they arrive in the city . . . . ,” “For example . . . .”) to tie points

together and lead the reader through the essay.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 161

Sample "Skillful" Response
162 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Sample "Excellent" Response

The “Excellent” rating was given to 2 percent of the responses to this

prompt, in which students used detail and development across the response. The

“Excellent” response shown describes an entire episode of a television series in

detail. The student includes such details as how the camera would move: “One

place could be the Sears Tower in which a camera could show people going up

in an elevator and then seeing the view of downtown Chicago.” He or she

describes a wide variety of sights in Chicago with suggestions for how to present

them. Points such as “I think the camera should look at the city as if it was the

viewer’s eyes” enable the reader to visualize the show. This student shows good

control of language; occasional minor errors do not interfere with meaning.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 163

Tables 6.3 and 6.4 present state-by-state results for the other two eighthgrade prompts, “Space Visitor” and “Lengthening the School Year,” which were

presented in Chapter 1.
164 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the scoring guide

by jurisdiction for Space Visitor, grade 8 public schools only: 1998

Table 6.3

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences

between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Nation 1 12 22 46 14 5

States

Alabama 1 12 18 51 13 5

Arizona 1 12 16 55 14 2

Arkansas 1 15 22 50 9 3

California † 1 16 19 45 14 5

Colorado 1 10 20 50 13 5

Connecticut 0 6 16 47 18 13

Delaware 2 10 19 50 11 7

Florida 2 11 22 54 7 4

Georgia 2 6 25 48 17 2

Hawaii 2 15 23 42 15 3

Kentucky 1 11 26 44 13 6

Louisiana 0 13 25 53 7 1

Maine 1 8 19 43 21 9

Maryland 1 11 23 52 11 3

Massachusetts 1 7 23 44 20 6

Minnesota † 2 10 17 51 16 3

Mississippi 1 17 24 50 7 1

Missouri 1 11 18 52 15 2

Montana † 1 7 22 52 11 5

Nevada 1 10 25 47 14 3

New Mexico 1 14 18 54 12 1

New York † 1 10 20 55 10 4

North Carolina 0 9 24 42 19 6

Oklahoma 1 7 17 54 17 5

Oregon 0 11 25 44 17 3

Rhode Island 1 9 20 48 16 6

South Carolina 1 10 26 51 10 3

Tennessee 1 8 21 52 15 4

Texas 0 7 18 52 19 4

Utah 1 18 20 42 14 5

Virginia 1 6 16 55 18 3

Washington 2 11 19 46 16 5

West Virginia 0 11 23 53 11 3

Wisconsin † 1 8 19 46 22 4

Wyoming 2 11 17 55 12 3

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 1 26 26 43 3 1

DDESS 0 3 22 54 19 3

DoDDS 0 6 13 48 24 9

Virgin Islands *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unsatisfactory Insufficient Uneven Sufficient Skillful Excellent

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 165

Percentage of responses rated at different levels on the scoring guide

by jurisdiction for Lengthening the School Year, grade 8 public schools

only: 1998

Table 6.4

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences

between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Nation 4 10 35 35 14 3

States

Alabama 3 12 46 28 9 1

Arizona 4 13 39 30 10 4

Arkansas 4 17 41 34 3 1

California † 4 12 40 28 12 3

Colorado 0 10 31 40 13 6

Connecticut 0 3 22 31 31 12

Delaware 4 18 40 29 9 1

Florida 5 16 32 33 11 3

Georgia 2 12 37 34 12 3

Hawaii 8 16 44 24 6 2

Kentucky 1 10 37 40 9 2

Louisiana 3 16 35 37 6 3

Maine 2 8 30 36 19 4

Maryland 1 11 40 30 17 1

Massachusetts 0 9 32 37 17 4

Minnesota † 2 12 36 35 12 4

Mississippi 5 17 38 35 4 1

Missouri 3 11 36 35 12 3

Montana † 1 12 35 42 8 3

Nevada 4 17 38 31 9 2

New Mexico 4 12 41 31 9 3

New York † 3 10 42 33 10 3

North Carolina 3 10 37 32 14 4

Oklahoma 2 9 42 37 8 3

Oregon 6 13 33 30 16 2

Rhode Island 4 10 34 37 12 3

South Carolina 2 12 40 39 6 1

Tennessee 2 10 37 37 13 1

Texas 2 6 28 34 24 6

Utah 4 18 32 36 8 2

Virginia 1 8 32 38 16 5

Washington 2 10 38 35 10 5

West Virginia 3 13 41 32 10 1

Wisconsin † 0 7 37 42 11 2

Wyoming 3 9 39 39 9 1

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 4 23 43 22 5 3

DDESS *** *** *** *** *** ***

DoDDS 1 9 33 43 12 3

Virgin Islands 5 17 57 20 2 0

Unsatisfactory Insufficient Uneven Sufficient Skillful Excellent

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
166 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Sample Prompt and Student Responses - Grade 12

Prompt: One Vote

Your school is sponsoring a voter registration drive for 18-year-old

high school students. You and three of your friends are talking

about the project. Your friends say the following.

Friend 1: “ I’m working on the young voters’ registration drive.

Are you going to come to it and register? You’re all

18, so you can do it. We’re trying to help increase

the number of young people who vote and it shouldn’t

be too hard — I read that the percentage of 18- to

20-year-olds who vote increased in recent years. We

want that percentage to keep going up.”

Friend 2: “I’ll be there. People should vote as soon as they turn

18. It’s one of the responsibilities of living in a

democracy.”

Friend 3: “ I don’t know if people should even bother to register.

One vote in an election isn’t going to change

anything.”

Do you agree with friend 2 or 3? Write a response to your friends in

which you explain whether you will or will not register to vote. Be

sure to explain why and support your position with examples from

your reading or experience. Try to convince the friend with whom

you disagree that your position is the right one.

Writing Purpose: Persuasive

Responses to this prompt were rated according to

the grade 12 persuasive scoring guide.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 167

Sample "Unsatisfactory" Response

Figure 6.3 shows the percentage of responses to the “One Vote” prompt

rated at each of the six levels on the scoring guide (from “Unsatisfactory”

through “Excellent”).

Unsatisfactory 4

Insufficient 21

Uneven 30

Sufficient 32

Skillful 10

Excellent 3

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

0 10 20 30 40 50 100

Figure 6.3 Percentage of responses rated at different levels

on the scoring guide, grade 12: One Vote

The “Unsatisfactory” rating was given to 4 percent of the responses to this

prompt. Such responses were sometimes so unclear that the reader could not

tell what position the student was taking. Other responses rated “Unsatisfactory”

were extremely undeveloped. For example, in the response shown, the student

only states that he or she agrees with one of the three friends in the reported

conversation and goes no further.
168 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Sample "Insufficient" Response

The “Insufficient” rating was given to 21 percent of the responses to this

prompt. Such responses were lacking either in organization or development

(support of a position with reasons). In the “Insufficient” response included

below, the student does not justify his or her position beyond saying that it

matters who gets elected.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 169

The “Uneven” rating was given to 30 percent of the responses to this

prompt. In such responses, students attempted to provide an argument

supported with reasons, but faltered through lack of organization, problems

with grammar that interfered with understanding, or incomplete development.

In the response shown, the student provides a somewhat undeveloped

argument, despite the example at the end to illustrate how one vote can make a

difference. The student jumps from the point that “everyone should vote to

support what they feel is nessecary” to the statement that “1 vote can defenatly

make a diffrence” without developing either point.

Sample "Uneven" Response
170 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Sample "Sufficient" Response

The “Sufficient” rating was given to 32 percent of the responses to this

prompt. In the “Sufficient” response presented here, the student organizes

reasons into a complete, clear argument. Though the reasons are not developed

with many details, the paper is organized and unified. The student connects

points to build an argument: “many people who don’t even vote complain

about government leaders. But I say how can you complain if you didn’t voice

your opinion on who you think has the capability and skills to be a good

leader.” The control of language is noticeably better than in responses that

received ratings below “Sufficient.” Some problems with mechanics, especially

in the last sentence of the essay, do not impede the overall clarity and unity of

the paper.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 171

Sample "Skillful" Response

The “Skillful” rating was given to 10 percent of the responses to this

prompt. In these responses, students elaborated reasons with details or examples

in some, but not all, of the response and used transitions to connect ideas. In

the “Skillful” response shown, the student introduces the theme in the first

paragraph: “Voting isn’t a responsibility, it’s an opportunity.” The student then

points out why it is important to vote: to make the “beliefs of the general

public” clear (second paragraph) and “to get an accurate representation of what

all citizens want” (third paragraph).
172 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 173

The “Excellent” rating was given to 3 percent of the responses to this

prompt. Students who wrote “Excellent” responses consistently elaborated

reasons with details or examples, used transitions throughout, and often showed

greater control over language (fewer errors and greater variety of sentence

structure) than papers at the “Skillful” level. In the response shown, the student

provides a consistent, elaborated argument and demonstrates a command of

rhetoric unusual even for an “Excellent” response to this prompt. This response

was also presented in Chapter 1 as an exemplar of Advanced performance at

grade 12.
174 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Sample "Excellent" Response
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 175

Grade 4 brochure

Being

Complete

Did I say what I

wanted to say

about the topic?

Using Details

Do I need to add

or take out details?

Putting Parts

in Order

Do the parts fit

together?

Being Clear

Did I use complete

sentences?

Did I use correct

punctuation?

Will people

understand what

I wrote?

After you write, you

could think about:

To plan your writing, you could:

Brainstorm

List lots of ideas;

then choose the

ones you want

to use.

OR

Draw

Draw a picture

that will give you

ideas to use in

your writing.

OR

Make a Web

Connect your

ideas with lines.

OR

Make an

Outline

List your ideas

in order.

Ideas for Planning Your Writing Ideas for Reviewing Your Writing
176 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Purpose

Have I said what I

want to say?

Development

Do I need to add

more details?

Do I need to take

out some details?

Organization

Are the parts in

the right order?

Do the parts fit

together?

Clarity

Will my audience

understand?

Is my writing easy

to read?

Correctness

Grammar?

Punctuation?

Spelling?

Capitalization?

After writing, think about

the following:

To plan your writing, you could

do one or more of the following:

Brainstorm

List lots of ideas;

choose which

ones to use.

Imagine

Imagine talking

about your topic

with someone.

Draw

Draw a picture

or a diagram of

your topic.

Web

Draw lines

between ideas

to connect them.

Outline

Organize ideas

into main points

and subpoints.

Ideas for Planning Your Writing Ideas for Reviewing Your Writing

Grade 8 brochure
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 177

Grade 12 brochure

Purpose

Have I said what I

want to say about

the topic?

Development

Do I need to

develop my ideas

by adding details

or do I need to take

out some details?

Organization

Are the sections of

my writing clearly

connected and in

the right order?

Clarity

Will my audience

understand what I

wrote?

Correctness

Have I checked for

correctness in

- grammar?

- punctuation?

- spelling?

To review what you have

written, you could think

about the following:

To plan and organize your writing,

you could do one or more of

the following:

Brainstorm

List lots of ideas

related to your

topic; then choose

which ones you

want to use.

Imagine

Imagine talking

about your topic

with someone to sort

out your ideas.

Draw

Draw a picture or a

diagram of your

topic or your ideas.

Web

Organize your

thoughts by drawing

lines between ideas

to connect them.

Outline

Organize your ideas

into main points

and subpoints.

Ideas for Planning Your Writing Ideas for Reviewing Your Writing
178 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Item Maps

The NAEP writing scale summarizes student performance at grades 4, 8, and 12

on the 25-minute writing prompts that compose each scale. Some prompts are

more difficult than others, and some performances in response to the prompts

are more skilled than others. One way to interpret the meaning of the 0-to-300

writing scale is to show, for various score points, what level of performance on

different writing prompts can be expected of students. This description of score

points in terms of item performance is an item map. For a particular prompt,

the item map shows the point on a scale at which students are likely to attain a

particular rating on the six-level scoring guides.

An example of how the item maps present information on the relative

difficulty of prompts within a grade level may be helpful. Figure 6.4 shows the

item map for three fourth-grade prompts. For the narrative prompt “Castle,”

those with writing scores at or above 200 on the scale are expected to be able to

write responses that were rated “Skillful” or better. For the informative prompt

“Favorite Object,” those with writing scores at or above 215 on the scale are

expected to be able to write responses that were rated “Skillful” or better. In

other words, the “item maps” created by this process are visual representations,

at each grade, of the writing performance expected of students at different score

levels along the NAEP writing scale.1

 The technical procedure for creating item

maps is explained in Appendix A.

The item maps shown on the following pages address the nine prompts

released for this report (one for each purpose for writing at each grade). Figures

6.4 through 6.6 present item maps for grades 4, 8, and 12, respectively. All nine

prompts are presented in Chapter 1.

The item maps provide for each purpose for writing (narrative, informative,

or persuasive) a selection of prompts, along with a brief description of each

prompt, mapped at the point at which students are considered to have the

skill to write a response of the indicated quality.

1 Those with scores below this mapping point should not necessarily be considered unable to write “Skillful”

responses to these prompts. The prompts are not mapped at the point that provides equal confidence that

those above that point can do what the prompt requires while those below cannot. Details on the procedures

used to develop item maps will be provided in the forthcoming NAEP 1998 Technical Report.
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 179

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

0

NOTE: Each grade 4 writing prompt was mapped onto the NAEP 0-to-300 writing scale. The map shows, for each level on the scoring guide from 2

(“Insufficient”) through 6 (“Excellent”), the scale score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of attaining that level on the scoring guide or

higher. Only selected prompts are presented.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

NARRATIVE INFORMATIVE PERSUASIVE

Item map of selected 25-minute writing prompts by purpose on the

NAEP writing scale for grade 4: 1998

Figure 6.4

— 237 Castle

write a story about a castle

“Excellent”

— 251 Favorite Object

describe a favorite object

“Excellent”

— 200 Castle

write a story about a castle

“Skillful” or better

— 156 Castle

 write a story about a castle

“Sufficient” or better

— 120 Castle

write a story about a castle

“Uneven” or better

— 81 Castle

write a story about a castle

“Insufficient” or better

— 215 Favorite Object

describe a favorite object

“Skillful” or better

— 162 Favorite Object

describe a favorite object

“Sufficient” or better

— 112 Favorite Object

describe a favorite object

“Uneven” or better

— 78 Favorite Object

describe a favorite object

“Insufficient” or better

— 251 Invisible Friend

convince imaginary friend to

become visible

“Excellent”

— 206 Invisible Friend

convince imaginary friend to

become visible

“Skillful” or better

— 146 Invisible Friend

convince imaginary friend to

become visible

“Sufficient” or better

— 108 Invisible Friend

convince imaginary friend to

become visible

“Uneven” or better

— 73 Invisible Friend

convince imaginary friend to

become visible

“Insufficient” or better
180 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

0

NARRATIVE INFORMATIVE PERSUASIVE

Item map of selected 25-minute writing prompts by purpose on the

NAEP writing scale for grade 8: 1998

Figure 6.5

NOTE: Each grade 8 writing prompt was mapped onto the NAEP 0-to-300 writing scale. The map shows, for each level on the scoring guide from 2

(“Insufficient”) through 6 (“Excellent”), the scale score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of attaining that level on the scoring guide or

higher. Only selected prompts are presented.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

— 222 Space Visitor

write a story about a visitor from space

“Excellent”

— 258 Designing a TV Show

design an educational TV show

“Excellent”

— 193 Space Visitor

write a story about a visitor from space

“Skillful” or better

— 142 Space Visitor

write a story about a visitor from space

“Sufficient” or better

— 114 Space Visitor

write a story about a visitor from space

“Uneven” or better

— 68 Space Visitor

write a story about a visitor from space

“Insufficient” or better

— 221 Designing a TV Show

design an educational TV show

“Skillful” or better

— 173 Designing a TV Show

design an educational TV show

“Sufficient” or better

— 118 Designing a TV Show

design an educational TV show

“Uneven” or better

— 78 Designing a TV Show

design an educational TV show

“Insufficient” or better

— 229 Lengthening the School Year

debate lengthening the school year

“Excellent”

— 196 Lengthening the School Year

debate lengthening the school year

“Skillful” or better

— 158 Lengthening the School Year

debate lengthening the school year

“Sufficient” or better

— 90 Lengthening the School Year

debate lengthening the school year

“Insufficient” or better

— 116 Lengthening the School Year

debate lengthening the school year

“Uneven” or better
WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6 181

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

0

NOTE: Each grade 12 writing prompt was mapped onto the NAEP 0-to-300 writing scale. The map shows, for each level on the scoring guide from 2

(“Insufficient”) through 6 (“Excellent”), the scale score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of attaining that level on the scoring guide or

higher. Only selected prompts are presented.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Item map of selected 25-minute writing prompts by purpose on the

NAEP writing scale for grade 12: 1998

Figure 6.6

NARRATIVE INFORMATIVE PERSUASIVE

— 292 Special Object

write a story about a special object

“Excellent”

— 172 Special Object

write a story about a special object

“Skillful” or better

— 122 Special Object

write a story about a special object

“Sufficient” or better

— 90 Special Object

write a story about a special object

“Uneven” or better

— 60 Special Object

write a story about a special object

“Insufficient” or better

— 240 One Vote

debate importance of voting

“Excellent”

— 206 One Vote

debate importance of voting

“Skillful” or better

— 165 One Vote

debate importance of voting

“Sufficient” or better

— 133 One Vote

debate importance of voting

“Uneven” or better

— 89 One Vote

debate importance of voting

“Insufficient” or better

— 230 Writing Mentor

give writing advice to a younger student

“Excellent”

— 181 Writing Mentor

give writing advice to a younger student

“Skillful” or better

— 137 Writing Mentor

give writing advice to a younger student

“Sufficient” or better

— 102 Writing Mentor

give writing advice to a younger student

“Uneven” or better

— 87 Writing Mentor

give writing advice to a younger student

“Insufficient” or better
182 WRITING REPORT CARD • CHAPTER 6

Summary

© Across all 25-minute prompts in the assessment, about 53 percent of fourthgrade student responses, 57 percent of eighth-grade responses, and 69

percent of twelfth-grade responses received ratings of “Sufficient” or better

(in the upper half of the six-point scoring guides). These ratings should not

be confused with achievement level results. It should be noted that

achievement levels were set based on students’ responses to both of the two

25-minute prompts they received.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 183PROCEDURES

APPENDIX A

Overview of Procedures

Used for the NAEP 1998

Writing Assessment

Introduction

Conducting a large-scale assessment such as the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) entails the successful coordination of numerous

projects, committees, procedures, and tasks. This appendix provides an overview

of the NAEP 1998 writing assessment’s primary components — framework,

development, administration, scoring, and analysis. A more extensive review of

the procedures and methods used in the writing assessment will be included in

the forthcoming NAEP 1998 Technical Report.

The NAEP 1998 Writing Assessment

The writing framework underlying the NAEP 1998 writing assessment grew out

of a consensus among educators and researchers about the nature of

writing performance.

The framework’s purpose was to provide a definition of writing on which to

base the NAEP assessment. Developing this framework and the specifications

that guided development of the assessment involved the critical input of many

people, including educators, administrators, state and local government

representatives, and members of the business community, the press, and the

general public. The framework used in the 1992 writing assessment was forged

by a consensus process managed by the Center for Research on Evaluation,

Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) for the National Assessment

Governing Board. For the 1998 writing assessment, the Governing Board

contracted with American College Testing (ACT) to augment the 1992

framework with a set of writing assessment and exercise specifications that led to

the development of new writing prompts and scoring guides. As a result, the

NAEP 1998 writing assessment is not comparable to the 1992 NAEP writing

assessment, and it is not possible to track trends in writing performance back

to 1992.
184 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

The framework sets forth a broad definition of writing for three major

purposes: narrative, informative, and persuasive. While other types of writing

could have been included, the developers of the framework believed that, for the

purpose of monitoring student achievement (as opposed to creating individual

diagnostic assessments), three broad types of writing were appropriate. The

framework emphasizes the importance of being able to produce a variety of

written works to suit different purposes and audiences. The framework views

writing as a dynamic process through which the writer constructs meaning.

The assessment framework not only specified that three purposes for writing

be measured, but also specified the percentage of the writing prompts in the

assessment that should be devoted to each. The actual percentage distributions

of writing prompts in the assessment are listed in Table i.1 on page 5 of the

Introduction. That table also shows the number of prompts at each grade level

for each purpose. Each prompt received equal weight in the composition of the

NAEP scale for each grade. These target percentages vary by grade level

according to what was deemed developmentally appropriate for each grade. The

table refers only to the 25-minute prompts.

The grade 4 assessment consisted of twenty 25-minute prompts. Each

fourth-grade student responded to two prompts. At grade 4, there were a total

of 8 narrative, 7 informative, and 5 persuasive prompts. At each of grades 8 and

12, there were twenty 25-minute prompts and three 50-minute prompts (one

for each purpose for writing: narrative, informative, and persuasive), for a total

of 23 prompts at grade 8 and 23 prompts at grade 12. At grade 8, the 25-

minute prompts were distributed as follows: 7 narrative, 7 informative, and 6

persuasive prompts. At grade 12, the distribution of 25-minute prompts was 5

narrative, 7 informative, and 8 persuasive prompts.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 185

The Assessment Design

The same test booklets were used for the national and state assessments.

Students received test booklets containing either two 25-minute writing

prompts or a single 50-minute writing prompt. For the state assessments, only

booklets with 25-minute prompts were used. At grade 4, there were only 25-

minute prompts. All of the student responses to the writing prompts were rated

according to a six-level scoring guide. In addition, the test booklets contained

general background questions and writing-specific background questions.

The assessment design allowed for maximum coverage of the writing

domain at each grade, while minimizing the time burden for any one student.

This was accomplished through the use of matrix sampling of prompts, in which

each student is given only 2 of the 20 or more prompts at each grade level.

Representative samples of students respond to each prompt, so that the

aggregate results across the entire assessment allow for broad reporting of

writing abilities for the targeted population.

In addition to matrix sampling, the assessment design utilized a procedure

for distributing booklets that controlled for position and context effects.

Students received different prompts in their booklets according to a procedure

called “partially balanced incomplete block (pBIB) spiraling.” This procedure

assigned prompts in a manner that balanced the positioning of prompts across

booklets. The test booklets were also constructed to minimize overlap in themes

between two prompts in a booklet. The “spiraling” designation means that,

when distributed to students, the test booklets are ordered in such a way that

typically only a few students in any assessment session receive the same booklet.

In addition to the student assessment booklets, three other instruments

provided data relating to the assessment: a teacher questionnaire, a school

questionnaire, and a Students with Disabilities/Limited English Proficiency

(SD/LEP) questionnaire. The SD/LEP student questionnaire was completed

by a school staff member knowledgeable about those students who were

selected to participate in the assessment and who were identified as 1) having an

Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or equivalent plan (for reasons other than

being gifted or talented); or 2) being limited English proficient (LEP).

An SD/LEP student questionnaire was completed for each identified

student, regardless of whether the student participated in the assessment. Each

SD/LEP questionnaire took approximately three minutes to complete and

asked about the student and the special programs in which he or she participated.
186 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

National and State Samples

The national and regional results presented in this report are based on nationally

representative probability samples of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade

students. The samples were selected by use of a complex multistage design that

involved sampling students from selected schools within selected geographic

areas across the country. The sample design had the following stages:

1. selection of geographic areas (a county, group of counties, or

metropolitan statistical area);

2. selection of schools (public and nonpublic) within the selected areas; and

3. selection of students within selected schools.

Each selected school that participated in the assessment and each student

assessed represent a portion of the population of interest. Sampling weights are

needed to make valid inferences between the student samples and the respective

populations from which they were drawn. Sampling weights account for

disproportionate representation due to the oversampling of students who attend

schools with high concentrations of Black and/or Hispanic students and of

students who attend nonpublic schools. Among other uses, sampling weights

also account for lower sampling rates for very small schools.

Table A.1 provides a summary of the national school and student

participation rates for the NAEP 1998 writing assessment. For those students

who received 25-minute prompts, participation rates are presented for both

public and nonpublic schools, individually and combined. At grade 8, the

number of students who received 50-minute prompts was 4,941 public school

and 1,068 nonpublic school students, for a total of 6,009 students. At grade 12,

4,821 public school and 983 nonpublic school students received

50-minute prompts, for a total of 5,804 students. The 50-minute prompts

were given only to students in the national sample, not to students in the

state-by-state sample.

The overall response rate (the product of the weighted school participation

rate before substitution and the weighted student participation rate) for

grade 12 fell below the NCES reporting target of 70 percent. As a result, the

background characteristics of both responding schools and all schools were

compared to determine whether there was bias evident. The similarities in the

distribution lend support to the conclusion that the data are not seriously biased

by these low response rates.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 187

Grade 4

Public 80 89 457 95 16,330

Nonpublic 79 86 221 95 3,486

Combined 80 89 678 95 19,816

Grade 8

Public 76 84 419 92 17,005

Nonpublic 82 88 283 96 3,581

Combined 77 85 702 92 20,586

Grade 12

Public 70 79 440 79 16,221

Nonpublic 68 73 130 91 3,284

Combined 70 78 570 80 19,505

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table A.1

Percentage

after

substitutes

Total

number of

schools

participating

Weighted

percentage

student

participation

rate

Total

number of

students

assessed

Weighted school participation

Percentage

before

substitutes

NAEP 1998 school and student participation rates for 25-minute

writing prompts for the nation: Grades 4, 8, and 12 public schools,

nonpublic schools, and combined
188 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

The results of the 1998 state assessment in writing provided in this report

are based on state-level samples of eighth-grade students. The samples of both

public and nonpublic school eighth-grade students were selected based on a

two-stage sample design that entailed selecting schools within participating

jurisdictions and then selecting students within schools. The first-stage samples

of schools were selected with probability proportional to the eighth-grade

enrollment in those schools. Special procedures were used for jurisdictions that

have many small schools and for jurisdictions that have a small number of

schools.

As with the national samples, the jurisdiction samples were weighted to

allow for valid inferences about the populations of interest. Tables A.2a and

A.2b contain the unweighted number of participating schools and students as

well as weighted school and student participation rates. Two weighted school

participation rates are provided for each jurisdiction. The first rate is the

weighted percentage of schools participating in the assessment before

substitution. This rate is based only on the number of schools that were initially

selected for the assessment. The numerator of this rate is the sum of the number

of students represented by each initially selected school that participated in the

assessment. The denominator is the sum of the number of students represented

by each of the initially selected schools that had eligible students enrolled. This

rate included both participating and nonparticipating schools.

The second school participation rate is the weighted participation rate after

substitution. The numerator of this rate is the sum of the number of students

represented by each of the participating schools, whether originally selected or

substituted. The denominator is the same as that for the weighted participation

rate for the initial sample. This statement means that for a given jurisdiction, the

weighted participation rate after substitution is at least as great as the weighted

participation rate before substitution.

Also presented in Tables A.2a and A.2b are the weighted percentages of

students who participated after makeup sessions were completed. In these

tables, the rate reflects the percentage of the eligible student population from

participating schools within the jurisdiction, and that percentage represents the

students who participated in the assessment in either an initial session or a

makeup session. The numerator of this rate is the sum, across all assessed

students, of the number of students that each selected student who was eligible

to participate represents, including students who did not participate.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 189

Percentage

after

substitutes

Total

number of

schools

participating

Weighted

percentage

student

participation

rate

Total

number of

students

assessed

Weighted school participation

Percentage

before

substitutes

Nation 76 84 419 92 17,005

States

Alabama 77 90 101 92 2,449

Arizona 97 98 104 89 2,499

Arkansas 93 97 105 92 2,462

California 2 72 83 88 92 2,157

Colorado 97 97 106 91 2,697

Connecticut 99 99 104 90 2,592

Delaware 100 100 30 91 2,119

Florida 100 100 104 89 2,574

Georgia 97 100 104 90 2,605

Hawaii 100 100 49 92 2,647

Illinois 1 65 80 88 92 2,145

Kentucky 87 87 89 93 2,341

Louisiana 92 100 112 91 2,653

Maine 97 97 98 91 2,508

Maryland 85 86 89 89 2,263

Massachusetts 89 89 92 92 2,399

Minnesota 2 74 74 80 90 1,980

Mississippi 92 92 92 92 2,401

Missouri 93 97 108 92 2,621

Montana 2 75 78 62 93 2,024

Nevada 99 99 55 89 2,553

New Mexico 96 96 89 89 2,426

New York 2 71 77 81 87 1,981

North Carolina 100 100 104 93 2,669

Oklahoma 100 100 101 92 2,258

Oregon 85 88 96 89 2,323

Rhode Island 100 100 50 89 2,516

South Carolina 94 94 99 91 2,469

Tennessee 87 89 95 91 2,275

Texas 96 96 100 93 2,530

Utah 100 100 94 90 2,588

Virginia 100 100 103 91 2,605

Washington 87 87 92 89 2,286

West Virginia 100 100 106 91 2,611

Wisconsin 2 71 73 80 92 2,006

Wyoming 100 100 65 92 2,726

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 100 100 31 85 1,592

DDESS 100 100 12 95 650

DoDDS 100 100 55 93 2,182

Virgin Islands 100 100 6 87 614

1The jurisdiction’s weighted public school participation rate for the initial sample was less than 70%.

2The jurisdiction’s weighted public school participation rate for the initial sample of schools was below 85%,

AND the weighted school participation rate after substitution was below 90%.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

NAEP 1998 school and student participation rates for the nation

and the states: Grade 8 public schools

Table A.2a
190 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

Percentage

after

substitutes

Total

number of

schools

participating

Weighted

percentage

student

participation

rate

Total

number of

students

assessed

Weighted school participation

Percentage

before

substitutes

Nation 82 88 283 96 3,581

States

Arizona 1 67 76 7 96 130

Arkansas 2 73 83 9 96 140

California 2 84 84 9 98 224

Colorado 1 61 78 8 93 137

Connecticut 2 70 70 13 93 240

Florida 2 75 85 11 94 213

Georgia 88 88 9 94 144

Illinois 1 59 59 14 96 314

Louisiana 90 90 27 97 580

Maine 1 58 58 5 96 95

Maryland 2 75 79 16 96 350

Massachusetts 2 70 70 15 92 263

Missouri 1 60 69 16 96 303

Montana 91 100 13 96 206

Nebraska 92 92 21 97 354

Nevada 95 95 7 92 108

New Mexico 2 74 80 11 96 204

New York 2 80 80 19 96 380

North Carolina 2 78 78 8 95 248

Rhode Island 2 82 82 20 96 434

Washington 87 92 8 94 155

West Virginia 85 85 7 98 117

Wyoming 3 77 77 6 95 61

Other Jurisdictions

Virgin Islands 2 82 82 10 98 193

1The jurisdiction’s nonpublic school weighted participation rate for the initial sample was less than 70%.

2The jurisdiction’s nonpublic school weighted participation rate for the initial sample of schools was below 85%, AND

the weighted school participation rate after substitution was below 90%.

3The jurisdiction’s total number of assessed students did not meet the minimum requirement of at least 62.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

NAEP 1998 school and student participation rates for the nation

and the states: Grade 8 nonpublic schools

Table A.2b
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 191

Standards for Sample Participation

In carrying out the 1998 state assessment program, the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) established participation rate standards that

jurisdictions were required to meet in order for their results to be reported (see

notations in Tables A.3a and A.3b). NCES also established additional standards

that required the notation of published results for jurisdictions whose sample

participation rates were low enough to raise concerns about their

representativeness.

One jurisdiction, Illinois, failed to meet the initial public school

participation rate of 70 percent. For this state, results for eighth-grade public

school students are not reported in this or any report of NAEP 1998 state

writing assessment findings. Several other jurisdictions whose results were

published received a notation to indicate possible nonresponse bias.

The following five jurisdictions failed to meet the initial nonpublic school

participation rate of 70 percent: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, and

Missouri. For nonpublic school participation, Wyoming failed to meet the

requirement of a sample size of 62 students. For these jurisdictions, results for

eighth-grade nonpublic school students are not reported in this or any report of

NAEP 1998 state writing assessment findings. As with public schools, several

other jurisdictions whose nonpublic school results were published received a

notation to indicate nonresponse bias.

To help ensure adequate sample representation for each jurisdiction

participating in the 1998 state assessment program, NAEP provided substitutes

for nonparticipating public and nonpublic schools. (When possible, a substitute

school was provided for each initially selected school that declined

participation.) For jurisdictions that used substitute schools, the assessment

results were based on the student data from all schools participating from both

the original sample and the substitute schools (unless an initial school and its

substitute eventually participated, in which case only the data from the initial

school were used). For jurisdictions that did not use substitute schools, the

participation rates were based on participating schools from the original sample.

 NCES standards require weighted school participation rates before

substitution of at least 85 percent to guard against potential bias due to school

nonresponse. The NCES standards do not explicitly address the use of

substitute schools to replace initially selected schools that declined to participate

in the assessment. However, considerable technical consideration has been given

to this issue. Even though the characteristics of the substitute schools were

matched as closely as possible to the characteristics of the initially selected

schools, substitution does not entirely eliminate the possibility of bias because of
192 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

the nonparticipation of initially selected schools. Thus, for the weighted school

participation rates that included substitute schools, the guideline was set at 90

percent. This consideration is expressed in the following guideline:

A jurisdiction will receive a notation if its weighted participation rate for

the initial sample of schools was below 85 percent AND the weighted school

participation rate after substitution was below 90 percent.

Five jurisdictions did not meet this guideline for public schools: California,

Minnesota, Montana, New York, and Wisconsin. Eleven jurisdictions did not

meet this guideline for nonpublic schools: Arkansas, California, Connecticut,

Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,

Rhode Island, and Virgin Islands.

The NCES standards further specify that attention should be given to the

representativeness of the sample coverage. Thus, inadequate representation of an

important segment of a jurisdiction’s population is of concern, regardless of the

overall participation rate. This consideration is expressed in the following

guideline:

A jurisdiction that is not already receiving a notation for problematic

overall school or student participation rates will receive a notation if the

sampled students within participating schools included a class of students

with similar characteristics that had a weighted student response rate of

below 80 percent, and from which the nonresponding students together

accounted for more than 5 percent of the jurisdiction’s weighted assessable

student sample. Student groups from which a jurisdiction needed

minimum levels of participation were determined by the age of the

students, whether or not the student was classified as a student with a

disability (SD) or of limited English proficiency (LEP), and the type of

assessment session (monitored or unmonitored). In addition, for public

schools, classes of schools were determined by school level of urbanization,

minority enrollment, and median household income of the area in which

the school is located. For nonpublic schools, classes of schools were determined

by type and location of schools.

In the 1998 NAEP writing assessment, there were no states that failed to

meet this guideline.

The NCES guidelines used to report results in the state assessments, and the

guidelines for notation when there is some risk of nonresponse bias in the

reported results, are presented in the tables of the following section.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 193

1 Minimum sample size requirements for reporting nonpublic school data consist of two components:

(1) a school sample size of six or more participating schools and (2) an assessed student sample size

of at least 62.

Guidelines for Notations 1, 2, and 3:

The publication of NAEP results

The conditions that will result in the publication of a

jurisdiction’s results are presented below.

Guideline 1 — Publication of Public School Results:

A jurisdiction will have its public school results published in the NAEP 1998 Writing

Report Card (or in other reports that include all state-level results) if and only if its

weighted participation rate for the initial sample of public schools is greater than or equal to

70 percent. Similarly, a jurisdiction will receive a separate NAEP State Report if and only if

its weighted participation rate for the initial sample of public schools is greater than or

equal to 70 percent.

Guideline 2 — Publication of Nonpublic School Results:

A jurisdiction will have its nonpublic school results published in the NAEP 1998 Writing

Report Card (or in other reports that include all state-level results) if and only if its weighted

participation rate for the initial sample of nonpublic schools is greater than or equal to 70

percent and meets minimum sample size requirements.1

 A jurisdiction eligible to receive a

separate NAEP State Report under Guideline 1 will have its nonpublic school results

included in that report if and only if that jurisdiction’s weighted participation rate for the

initial sample of nonpublic schools is greater than or equal to 70 percent and meets minimum

sample size requirements. If a jurisdiction meets Guideline 2 but fails to meet Guideline 1,

a separate State Report will be produced containing only nonpublic school results.

Guideline 3 — Publication of Combined Public and Nonpublic School Results:

A jurisdiction will have its combined results published in the NAEP 1998 Writing Report

Card (or in other reports that include all state-level results) if and only if both Guidelines 1

and 2 are satisfied. Similarly, a jurisdiction eligible to receive a separate NAEP State Report

under Guideline 1 will have its combined results included in that report if and only if

Guideline 2 is also met.

Discussion: If a jurisdiction’s public or nonpublic school participation rate for the initial

sample of schools is below 70 percent, there is a substantial possibility that bias will be

introduced into the assessment results. This possibility remains even after making statistical

adjustments to compensate for school nonparticipation. There remains the likelihood that,

in aggregate, the substitute schools are sufficiently dissimilar from the originals that they

are replacing and represent too great a proportion of the population to discount such a

difference. Similarly, the assumptions underlying the use of statistical adjustments to

compensate for nonparticipation are likely to be significantly violated if the initial response

rate falls below the 70 percent level. Guidelines 1, 2, and 3 take this into consideration.

These guidelines are congruent with current NAGB policy, which requires that data for

jurisdictions that do not have a 70 percent before-substitution participation rate be

reported “in a different format,” and with the Education Information Advisory Committee

(EIAC) resolution, which calls for data from such jurisdictions not to be published.
194 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

Guidelines for Notations 4 and 5:

Reporting school and student participation rates with

possible bias due to school nonresponse

Guideline 4 — Notation for Overall Public School Participation Rate:

A jurisdiction that meets Guideline 1 will receive a notation if its weighted participation

rate for the initial sample of public schools was below 85 percent and the weighted public

school participation rate after substitution was below 90 percent.

Guideline 5 — Notation for Overall Nonpublic School Participation Rate:

A jurisdiction that meets Guideline 2 will receive a notation if its weighted participation

rate for the initial sample of nonpublic schools was below 85 percent and the weighted

nonpublic school participation rate after substitution was below 90 percent.

Discussion: For jurisdictions that did not use substitute schools, the participation rates

are based on participating schools from the original sample. In these situations, the NCES

standards specify weighted school participation rates of at least 85 percent to guard against

potential bias due to school nonresponse. Thus the first part of these guidelines, referring

to the weighted school participation rate for the initial sample of schools, is in direct

accordance with NCES standards.

To help ensure adequate sample representation for each jurisdiction participating in the

NAEP 1998 state assessments, NAEP provided substitutes for nonparticipating public and

nonpublic schools. For jurisdictions that used substitute schools, the assessment results will

be based on the student data from all schools participating from both the original sample

and the list of substitutes (unless both an initial school and its substitute eventually

participated, in which case only the data from the initial school will be used).

The NCES standards do not explicitly address the use of substitute schools to replace

initially selected schools that decide not to participate in the assessment. However,

considerable technical consideration was given to this issue. Even though the

characteristics of the substitute schools were matched as closely as possible to the

characteristics of the initially selected schools, substitution does not entirely eliminate bias

due to the nonparticipation of initially selected schools. Thus, for the weighted school

participation rates including substitute schools, the guidelines were set at 90 percent.

If a jurisdiction meets either standard (i.e., 85 percent or higher prior to substitution or

90 percent or higher after substitution), there will be no notation for the relevant overall

school participation rate.

The following guidelines concerning school and student participation rates

in the NAEP state assessment program were established to address four

significant ways in which nonresponse bias could be introduced into the

jurisdiction sample estimates. Presented below are the conditions that will result

in a jurisdiction’s receiving a notation in the 1998 reports. Note that in order

for a jurisdiction’s results to be published with no notations, that jurisdiction

must satisfy all guidelines.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 195

Guidelines for Notations 6 and 7:

Important segments of the jurisdiction’s student population that

must be adequately represented to avoid possible nonresponse bias

Guideline 6 — Notation for Strata-Specific Public School Participation Rates:

A jurisdiction that is not already receiving a notation under Guideline 4 will receive a

notation if the sample of public schools included a class of schools with similar

characteristics that had a weighted participation rate (after substitution) of below 80

percent, and from which the nonparticipating schools together accounted for more than 5

percent of the jurisdiction’s total weighted sample of public schools. The classes of schools

from each of which a jurisdiction needed minimum school participation levels were

determined by degree of urbanization, minority enrollment, and median household

income of the area in which the school is located.

Guideline 7 — Notation for Strata-Specific Nonpublic School Participation Rates:

A jurisdiction that is not already receiving a notation under Guideline 5 will receive a

notation if the sample of nonpublic schools included a class of schools with similar

characteristics that had a weighted participation rate (after substitution) of below 80

percent, and from which the nonparticipating schools together accounted for more than 5

percent of the jurisdiction’s total weighted sample of nonpublic schools. The classes of

schools from each of which a jurisdiction needed minimum school participation levels were

determined by type of nonpublic school (Catholic versus non-Catholic) and location

(metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan).

Discussion: The NCES standards specify that attention should be given to the

representativeness of the sample coverage. Thus, if some important segment of the

jurisdiction’s population is not adequately represented, it is of concern, regardless of the

overall participation rate.

If nonparticipating schools are concentrated within a particular class of schools, the

potential for substantial bias remains, even if the overall level of school participation

appears to be satisfactory. Nonresponse adjustment cells for public schools have been

formed within each jurisdiction, and the schools within each cell are similar with respect to

minority enrollment, degree of urbanization, and/or median household income, as

appropriate for each jurisdiction. For nonpublic schools, nonresponse adjustment cells are

determined by type and location of school.

If the weighted response rate, after substitution, for a single adjustment cell falls below

80 percent, and more than 5 percent (weighted) of the sampled schools are

nonparticipants from such a cell, the potential for nonresponse bias is too great. These

guidelines are based on the NCES standard for stratum-specific school response rates.
196 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

Guidelines for Notations 8 and 9:

Possible student nonresponse bias

Guideline 8 — Notation for Overall Student Participation Rate in Public

Schools:

A jurisdiction that meets Guideline 1 will receive a notation if the weighted student

response rate within participating public schools was below 85 percent.

Guideline 9 — Notation for Overall Student Participation Rate in

Nonpublic Schools:

A jurisdiction that meets Guideline 2 will receive a notation if the weighted student

response rate within participating nonpublic schools was below 85 percent.

Discussion: These guidelines follow the NCES standard of 85 percent for overall student

participation rates. The weighted student participation rate is based on all eligible students

from initially selected or substitute schools who participated in the assessment in either an

initial session or a make-up session. If the rate falls below 85 percent, the potential for bias

due to students’ nonresponse is too great.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 197

Guidelines for Notations 10 and 11:

Possible nonresponse bias from inadequately represented strata

Guideline 10 — Notation for Strata-Specific Student Participation Rates in

Public Schools:

A jurisdiction that is not already receiving a notation under Guideline 8 will receive a

notation if the sampled students within participating public schools included a class of

students with similar characteristics that had a weighted student response rate of below 80

percent, and from which the nonresponding students together accounted for more than 5

percent of the jurisdiction’s weighted assessable public school student sample. Student

groups from which a jurisdiction needed minimum levels of participation were determined

by the age of the student, whether or not the student was classified as a student with a

disability (SD) or of limited English proficiency (LEP), and the type of assessment session

(monitored or unmonitored), as well as school level of urbanization, minority enrollment,

and median household income of the area in which the school is located.

Guideline 11 — Notation for Strata-Specific Student Participation Rates in

Nonpublic Schools:

A jurisdiction that is not already receiving a notation under Guideline 9 will receive a

notation if the sampled students within participating nonpublic schools included a class of

students with similar characteristics that had a weighted student response rate of below 80

percent, and from which the nonresponding students together accounted for more than 5

percent of the jurisdiction’s weighted assessable nonpublic school student sample. Student

groups from which a jurisdiction needed minimum levels of participation were determined

by the age of the student, whether or not the student was classified as a student with a

disability (SD) or of limited English proficiency (LEP), and the type of assessment session

(monitored or unmonitored), as well as type and location of school.

Discussion: These guidelines address the fact that if nonparticipating students are

concentrated within a particular class of students, the potential for substantial bias remains,

even if the overall student participation level appears to be satisfactory. Student

nonresponse adjustment cells have been formed using the school-level nonresponse

adjustment cells, together with the student’s age and the nature of the assessment session

(unmonitored or monitored).

If the weighted response rate for a single adjustment cell falls below 80 percent, and

more than 5 percent (weighted) of the invited students who do not participate in the

assessment are from such a cell, the potential for nonresponse bias is too great. These

guidelines are based on the NCES standard for stratum-specific student response rates.
198 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

Students with Disabilities (SD) and

Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students

It is NAEP’s intent to assess all selected students from the target population.

Therefore, every effort is made to ensure that all selected students who are

capable of participating in the assessment are assessed. Some students sampled

for participation in NAEP can be excluded from the sample according to

carefully defined criteria. These criteria were revised in 1996 to more clearly

communicate a presumption of inclusion except under special circumstances.

According to these criteria, students with Individualized Education Programs

(IEPs) were to be included in the NAEP assessment except in the following cases:

1. The school’s IEP team determined that the student could not participate,

OR,

2. The student’s cognitive functioning was so severely impaired that she or

he could not participate.

In cases where a student’s IEP required that the student be tested with an

accommodation or adaptation and stated that the student could not

demonstrate his or her knowledge without that accommodation, the student

was provided with the appropriate accommodation.

All LEP students receiving academic instruction in English for three years or

more were to be included in the assessment. Those LEP students receiving

instruction in English for less than three years were to be included unless school

staff judged them as being incapable of participating in the assessment in

English.

The reporting samples in the 1998 writing assessment used these criteria

with provisions made for accommodations. Students with disabilities or with

limited proficiency in English were included in the sample in the following way.

At each grade one test booklet with two prompts was designated as the one to

be administered to students requiring accommodations (it was also given to

students not requiring accommodations). For each grade, those two prompts

were chosen because they would not present any special problems for students

with disabilities (for example, the prompts chosen did not include visual

materials, given that visually impaired students would likely participate in the

assessment). Students were given accommodations that matched as closely as

possible those provided them in other testing situations by their schools or

instructors (most frequently, extended time for responding). Those students

who did not typically need accommodations for testing were not provided with

them.

All the scale score and achievement level information in this report, then, is

based on a student sample that includes students who were provided with

accommodations. The responses of students assessed with accommodations were
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 199

evaluated according to the same criteria as those of students assessed without

accommodations. Data on individual prompts are presented without including

data on the performance of accommodated students, however. This exception

was made because only a few prompts were presented to students given

accommodations, and comparing those prompts to other prompts given without

accommodations would not be appropriate.

Table A.3 shows the number and percentage of students with disabilities and

students with limited English proficiency included in the national sample for the

NAEP 1998 writing assessment.

Participation rates for the students with disabilities and LEP samples are

presented in Tables A.4a through A.6b. Tables A.4a and A.4b show the

participation rates for SD and LEP students combined in public and nonpublic

schools, respectively. These tables include as the denominator the total number

of all students who were identified for the assessment, including assessed and

excluded students. The columns then show the percentages of SD and LEP

students who were identified for the assessment, with that percentage broken

out by those excluded and those assessed. The percentage of SD and LEP

students assessed is then further broken out into those assessed without

accommodations and those assessed with accommodations. Tables A.5a and

A.5b and A.6a and A.6b present the same information for SD students only and

LEP students only, respectively.

Students with disabilities and limited English proficient students

in NAEP writing assessment, national sample (public and nonpublic

schools combined): 1998

Table A.3

Grade 4 3,621 15 1,450 5 2,171 10 1,425 6 746 4

Grade 8 2,935 13 877 4 2,058 9 1,380 6 678 3

Grade 12 1,975 8 658 2 1,317 6 991 5 326 1

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Assessed under Assessed with

Identified Excluded Assessed standard conditions accommodations

Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted

percentage of percentage of percentage of percentage of percentage of

students students students students students

Number sampled Number sampled Number sampled Number sampled Number sampled
200 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

SD = Students with Disabilities (the term previously used was IEP)

LEP = Limited English Proficient students

— Indicates there were no students in this category.

* Includes identified SD/LEP students and all other students assessed under standard conditions.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: To be excluded, a student was supposed to be classified as SD or as LEP and judged incapable of participating

in the assessment. A student reported as belonging to both SD and LEP classifications is counted once.

Numbers are rounded separately by column. Sums of columns may not equal exact percentages due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

NAEP 1998 percentage of students by SD/LEP status and by

assessment administration conditions for the nation and the states:

Grade 8 public schools

Table A.4a

Nation 14 4 10 7 3 93

States

Alabama 12 6 6 5 1 93

Arizona 17 5 12 10 2 93

Arkansas 13 6 7 5 1 92

California 23 6 17 15 2 92

Colorado 13 4 9 6 3 93

Connecticut 15 7 8 5 3 90

Delaware 14 3 11 8 3 94

Florida 16 5 11 9 2 93

Georgia 11 5 7 4 2 93

Hawaii 15 4 11 8 3 93

Illinois 12 4 8 6 2 94

Kentucky 10 2 7 3 4 93

Louisiana 13 5 8 3 5 90

Maine 14 5 8 5 3 91

Maryland 13 2 11 4 7 91

Massachusetts 17 5 12 7 5 90

Minnesota 14 3 11 8 3 94

Mississippi 9 5 5 4 1 95

Missouri 13 3 10 6 4 93

Montana 11 2 9 6 2 95

Nevada 16 6 10 8 3 92

New Mexico 23 6 17 14 3 91

New York 15 5 9 3 6 88

North Carolina 14 4 10 4 6 90

Oklahoma 13 9 5 4 1 91

Oregon 15 3 12 9 3 94

Rhode Island 17 4 13 10 3 93

South Carolina 12 5 7 5 2 93

Tennessee 13 4 9 8 1 95

Texas 19 6 13 10 2 91

Utah 10 4 6 5 1 95

Virginia 14 4 9 6 3 92

Washington 13 4 9 7 3 94

West Virginia 14 5 9 5 3 91

Wisconsin 11 4 7 4 3 93

Wyoming 9 2 7 5 2 96

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 13 6 7 6 1 93

DDESS 10 3 7 4 3 94

DoDDs 7 1 6 4 2 97

Virgin Islands 8 8 0 0 — 92

Identified SD/LEP Assessed SD/LEP

All students

Assessed Assessed assessed under

Identified under standard with standard

SD/LEP Excluded Assessed conditions accommodations conditions*
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 201

SD = Students with Disabilities (the term previously used was IEP)

LEP = Limited English Proficient students

— Indicates there were no students in this category.

* Includes identified SD/LEP students and all other students assessed under standard conditions.

Numbers are rounded separately by column. Sums of columns may not equal exact percentages due to rounding.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: To be excluded, a student was supposed to be classified as SD or as LEP and judged incapable of participating

in the assessment. A student reported as belonging to both SD and LEP classifications is counted once.

Numbers are rounded separately by column. Sums of columns may not equal exact percentages due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Table A.4b

Nation 2 0 2 1 1 99

States

Arizona 15 9 6 5 1 90

Arkansas 1 1 — — — 99

California 0 — 0 0 — 100

Colorado 14 — 14 14 — 100

Connecticut 5 1 5 — 5 95

Florida 5 0 4 3 1 98

Georgia 1 1 — — — 99

Illinois 1 — 1 1 0 100

Louisiana 4 — 4 2 2 98

Maine — — — — — 100

Maryland 1 — 1 1 1 100

Massachusetts 5 0 4 — 4 95

Missouri 2 — 2 1 1 99

Montana 3 1 2 1 2 98

Nebraska 2 — 2 0 2 98

Nevada 2 — 2 2 — 100

New Mexico 16 1 16 13 3 97

New York 9 2 7 6 0 97

North Carolina 2 1 2 1 1 99

Rhode Island 1 — 1 1 — 100

Washington 4 — 4 3 1 99

West Virginia 2 — 2 2 — 100

Wyoming 9 — 9 3 6 94

Other Jurisdictions

Virgin Islands — — — — — 100

NAEP 1998 percentage of students by SD/LEP status and by

assessment administration conditions for the nation and the states:

Grade 8 nonpublic schools

Identified SD/LEP Assessed SD/LEP

All students

Assessed Assessed assessed under

Identified under standard with standard

SD/LEP Excluded Assessed conditions accommodations conditions*
202 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

SD = Students with Disabilities (the term previously used was IEP)

— Indicates there were no students in this category.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: To be excluded, a student was supposed to be classified as SD or as LEP and judged incapable of participating

in the assessment.

Numbers are rounded separately by column. Sums of columns may not equal exact percentages due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

NAEP 1998 percentage of SD students for the nation and the states:

Grade 8 public schools

Table A.5a

Nation 11 4 8 5 3

States

Alabama 12 6 6 5 1

Arizona 9 3 6 4 2

Arkansas 12 5 7 5 1

California 7 3 5 3 2

Colorado 9 3 6 4 2

Connecticut 14 6 8 5 3

Delaware 13 3 10 7 3

Florida 12 4 9 7 2

Georgia 10 4 6 4 2

Hawaii 10 3 7 5 2

Illinois 10 3 6 4 2

Kentucky 9 2 7 2 4

Louisiana 13 5 8 3 5

Maine 13 5 8 5 3

Maryland 12 2 10 4 7

Massachusetts 15 3 12 6 5

Minnesota 11 2 8 6 2

Mississippi 9 5 5 4 1

Missouri 12 2 10 6 4

Montana 11 2 8 6 2

Nevada 11 4 7 4 2

New Mexico 15 4 11 7 3

New York 9 2 8 2 6

North Carolina 12 3 9 3 6

Oklahoma 12 8 4 3 1

Oregon 12 2 10 7 3

Rhode Island 14 3 10 8 2

South Carolina 12 5 7 5 2

Tennessee 12 4 8 7 1

Texas 14 5 9 7 2

Utah 8 3 5 4 1

Virginia 12 4 9 5 3

Washington 10 2 7 5 2

West Virginia 14 5 9 5 3

Wisconsin 10 4 6 4 3

Wyoming 9 2 7 5 2

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 10 5 5 4 1

DDESS 8 2 6 4 2

DoDDs 5 1 4 3 2

Virgin Islands 5 5 0 0 —

Identified SD Assessed SD

Assessed Assessed

under standard with

Identified Excluded Assessed conditions accommodations

Identified Excluded Assessed accommodations accommodations
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 203

SD = Students with Disabilities (the term previously used was IEP)

— Indicates there were no students in this category.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: To be excluded, a student was supposed to be classified as SD or as LEP and judged incapable of participating

in the assessment.

Numbers are rounded separately by column. Sums of columns may not equal exact percentages due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

NAEP 1998 percentage of SD students for the nation and the states:

Grade 8 nonpublic schools

Table A.5b

Nation 2 0 21 1

States

Arizona 6 1 5 4 1

Arkansas 1 1 — — —

California 0 — 0 0 —

Colorado 14 — 14 14 —

Connecticut 5 1 5 — 5

Florida 5 0 4 3 1

Georgia — — — — —

Illinois 1 — 1 1 0

Louisiana 4 — 4 2 2

Maine — — — — —

Maryland 1 — 1 0 1

Massachusetts 5 0 4 — 4

Missouri 2 — 2 1 1

Montana 3 1 2 1 2

Nebraska 2 — 2 0 2

Nevada 2 — 2 2 —

New Mexico 10 1 9 6 3

New York 0 — 0 — 0

North Carolina 2 1 2 1 1

Rhode Island 1 — 1 1 —

Washington 4 — 4 3 1

West Virginia 2 — 2 2 —

Wyoming 9 — 9 3 6

Other Jurisdictions

Virgin Islands — — — — —

Identified SD Assessed SD

Assessed Assessed

under standard with

Identified Excluded Assessed conditions accommodations
204 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

LEP = Limited English Proficient students

— Indicates there were no students in this category.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: To be excluded, a student was supposed to be classified as SD or as LEP and judged incapable of participating

in the assessment.

Numbers are rounded separately by column. Sums of columns may not equal exact percentages due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Table A.6a

Nation 3 1 22 0

States

Alabama 1 0 0 0 0

Arizona 10 3 7 6 1

Arkansas 1 1 0 0 0

California 18 4 13 13 0

Colorado 4 2 3 2 1

Connecticut 2 2 0 0 —

Delaware 1 0 1 1 0

Florida 4 1 3 2 0

Georgia 2 1 1 1 0

Hawaii 6 2 4 3 1

Illinois 3 1 2 2 0

Kentucky 1 0 0 0 —

Louisiana 1 0 0 0 0

Maine 1 0 0 0 —

Maryland 1 0 1 0 0

Massachusetts 2 2 1 0 0

Minnesota 4 1 3 2 1

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 —

Missouri 1 0 0 0 0

Montana 0 0 0 0 0

Nevada 7 3 4 3 1

New Mexico 11 3 7 7 1

New York 5 3 2 1 0

North Carolina 2 1 1 1 0

Oklahoma 1 1 1 1 —

Oregon 3 1 2 1 0

Rhode Island 4 1 2 2 1

South Carolina 0 0 0 0 —

Tennessee 1 0 1 1 —

Texas 7 2 4 4 0

Utah 2 1 1 1 0

Virginia 2 1 1 1 0

Washington 4 1 2 2 1

West Virginia 0 0 — — —

Wisconsin 2 1 1 1 0

Wyoming 0 0 0 — 0

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 4 2 2 2 0

DDESS 2 1 1 — 1

DoDDs 2 1 1 1 0

Virgin Islands 3 3 — — —

NAEP 1998 percentage of LEP students for the nation and the states:

Grade 8 public schools

Identified LEP Assessed LEP

Assessed Assessed

under standard with

Identified Excluded Assessed conditions accommodations
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 205

LEP = Limited English Proficient students

— Indicates there were no students in this category.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: To be excluded, a student was supposed to be classified as SD or as LEP and judged incapable of participating

in the assessment.

Numbers are rounded separately by column. Sums of columns may not equal exact percentages due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Table A.6b

Nation 0 0 00 0

States

Arizona 10 9 1 1 —

Arkansas — — — — —

California — — — — —

Colorado 1 — 1 1 —

Connecticut — — — — —

Florida — — — — —

Georgia 1 1 — — —

Illinois — — — — —

Louisiana — — — — —

Maine — — — — —

Maryland 0 — 0 0 —

Massachusetts 1 — 1 — 1

Missouri 0 — 0 — 0

Montana — — — — —

Nebraska 1 — 1 — 1

Nevada — — — — —

New Mexico 9 — 9 7 2

New York 8 2 6 6 —

North Carolina — — — — —

Rhode Island — — — — —

Washington — — — — —

West Virginia — — — — —

Wyoming — — — — —

Other Jurisdictions

Virgin Islands — — — — —

NAEP 1998 percentage of LEP students for the nation and the states:

Grade 8 nonpublic schools

Table A.7 shows, for students with disabilities and for limited English

proficient students who took the assessment, the numbers and percentages of

students who were assessed with and without accommodations. The table

further shows, for those students who were assessed with accommodations, the

types of accommodations they received.

Identified LEP Assessed LEP

Assessed Assessed

under standard with

Identified Excluded Assessed conditions accommodations
206 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

It should be noted that students assessed with accommodations typically

received some combination of accommodations. For example, students assessed

in small groups (as compared to standard NAEP sessions of about 30 students)

usually received extended time and had directions and/or assessment questions

read aloud as needed. In one-on-one administrations, students often received

assistance in recording answers, had directions and questions read aloud, and

were afforded extra time. Extended time was considered the primary

accommodation only when it was the only accommodation provided.

Tables A.7a and A.7b present similar information to that in Table A.7.

Those tables, however, show accommodations separately for students with

disabilities and Limited English Proficient students.

SD and LEP students assessed with and without accommodations,

1998 NAEP writing assessment: National sample, public and

nonpublic schools combined

Table A.7

Total number of assessed

SD/LEP students 2,171 100 2,058 100 1,317 100

Assessed without accommodations 1,425 61 1,380 69 991 77

Assessed with accommodations 746 39 678 31 326 23

Primary accommodation:

Large print 3 0 5 0 5 0

Extended time 181 8 211 9 120 8

Read aloud 42 3 24 1 6 1

Bilingual dictionary 5 0 14 0 8 0

Small group 449 24 379 18 152 11

One-on-one 32 2 29 1 14 1

Scribe or computer 27 2 10 1 9 1

Other 7 0 6 0 12 1

SD = Students with Disabilities (the term previously used was IEP)

LEP = Limited English Proficient students

NOTE: Percentages are based on total combined SD and LEP students assessed.

The sum of percentages of students by primary accommodation may not total the overall

percentage assessed with accommodations due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Weighted Weighted Weighted

percentage of percentage of percentage of

assessed assessed assessed

Number of SD/LEP Number of SD/LEP Number of SD/LEP

students students students students students students
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 207

SD students assessed with and without accommodations,

1998 NAEP writing assessment: National sample, public and

nonpublic schools combined

Table A.7a

Total number of assessed

SD students 1,386 100 1,467 100 809 100

Assessed without accommodations 744 53 863 64 536 72

Assessed with accommodations 642 47 604 36 273 28

Primary accommodation:

Large print 3 0 5 0 5 0

Extended time 140 9 173 10 88 8

Read aloud 35 3 18 1 5 1

Bilingual dictionary 0 0 0 0 0 0

Small group 401 29 366 22 141 15

One-on-one 31 3 27 2 14 2

Scribe or computer 27 2 9 1 9 1

Other 5 0 6 0 11 1

SD = Students with Disabilities (the term previously used was IEP)

NOTE: Percentages are based on total SD students assessed.

The sum of percentages of students by primary accommodation may not total the overall

percentage assessed with accommodations due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Weighted Weighted Weighted

percentage of percentage of percentage of

assessed assessed assessed

Number of SD Number of SD Number of SD

students students students students students students
208 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

LEP students assessed with and without accommodations,

1998 NAEP writing assessment: National sample, public and

nonpublic schools combined

Table A.7b

Total number of assessed

LEP students 829 100 651 100 532 100

Assessed without accommodations 709 85 561 88 474 91

Assessed with accommodations 120 15 90 12 58 9

Primary accommodation:

Large print 0 0 0 0 0 0

Extended time 45 5 41 5 32 5

Read aloud 10 2 10 1 1 0

Bilingual dictionary 5 1 14 2 8 1

Small group 56 7 22 3 15 2

One-on-one 2 0 2 0 0 0

Scribe or computer 0 0 1 0 1 0

Other 2 0 0 0 1 0

LEP = Limited English Proficient students

NOTE: Percentages are based on total LEP students assessed.

The sum of percentages of students by primary accommodation may not total the overall

percentage assessed with accommodations due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Weighted Weighted Weighted

percentage of percentage of percentage of

assessed assessed assessed

Number of LEP Number of LEP Number of LEP

students students students students students students
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 209

Data Collection

The 1998 writing assessment was conducted from January through March

1998, with some makeup sessions in early April. As with all NAEP assessments,

data collection for the 1998 assessment was conducted by trained field staff. For

the national assessment, this was accomplished by Westat, Inc., staff. In keeping

with the legislative requirements of the state assessment program, personnel

from each of the participating states conducted the state writing assessments.

NAEP’s responsibilities included selecting the sample of schools and students

for each participating state, developing the administration procedures and

manuals, training the personnel who would conduct the assessment, and

conducting an extensive quality assurance program.

Each participating jurisdiction was asked to appoint a state coordinator to be

the liaison between NAEP and participating schools. The state coordinator was

asked to gain the cooperation of selected schools, assist in scheduling, provide

information necessary for sampling, and notify personnel about training. At the

local school level, the administrators — usually school or district staff — were

responsible for attending training, identifying excluded students, distributing

school and teacher questionnaires, notifying sampled students and their

teachers, administering the assessment session, completing the necessary

paperwork, and preparing the materials for shipment.

Westat staff trained assessment administrators within the states in three-andone-half hour sessions that included videotaped and practice exercises to provide

uniformity in procedures.

To provide quality control across states, a randomly selected 25 percent of

the state assessment sessions were overseen by quality control monitors who

were trained Westat staff. For nonpublic schools and for states that had not

participated in the previous assessment, 50 percent of the sessions were

monitored. The identity of the schools to be monitored was not revealed to

state, district, or school personnel until shortly before the assessment was to

commence. The analysis of the results for the unmonitored schools as compared

to the monitored schools yielded no systematic differences that would suggest

different procedures were used. See the forthcoming 1998 NAEP Technical

Report for details and results of this analysis.

Scoring

Materials from the NAEP 1998 writing assessment were shipped to National

Computer Systems, where trained staff evaluated the responses to the writing

prompts using scoring rubrics or guides prepared by Educational Testing

Service (ETS). All the writing prompts were evaluated according to six-level

scoring guides. At each grade, scoring guides were developed for each of the
210 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

three types of prompts: narrative, informative, and persuasive. Those guides are

presented in Chapter 6.

Specialists in writing who are highly experienced in teaching and/or

assessing writing trained the professional raters who evaluated the student

responses. The trainers received intensive training together, including reading a

manual that explained how to use the scoring guides and the processes for

training and checking raters. For each prompt, the trainer, in consultation with

other trainers or assessment specialists, chose numerous sample responses to

present to raters and prepared notes on how the scoring guide applied to the

particular prompt. The sample responses helped raters become accustomed to

the variety of responses the prompt elicited before they began rating the student

responses. Raters had to pass a qualifying test before they could evaluate student

responses: they had to agree with at least 70 percent of the ratings given

beforehand by their trainer to a set of ten student responses.

In order to determine interrater reliability of scoring, a specified percentage

of responses was read twice: for the 25-minute prompts, 25 percent of responses

at grades 4 and 12, and 10 percent of the responses at grade 8 (the only grade

at which the state-by-state assessment was given) were read by two raters. In

addition, 25 percent of responses to the 50-minute prompts were read by a

second rater.

For the national and state writing assessments, approximately 370,000

responses to writing prompts were scored. This number includes rescoring to

monitor interrater reliability. The overall within-year percentages of exact

agreement of ratings on the six-level scoring guides for the 1998 reliability

samples were 77 percent at grade 4, 71 percent at grade 8, and 74 percent at

grade 12. Adjacent agreement (no more than one point apart) was 99 percent at

grades 4 and 8 and 98 percent at grade 12.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 211

2 These procedures are described more fully in the section “Weighting and Variance Estimation,” beginning

on page 227 of the report. For additional information about the use of weighting procedures in NAEP, see

Johnson, E.G. (1989, December). Considerations and techniques for analysis of NAEP data. Journal of

Education Statistics, 14(4), 303–334.

Data Analysis and IRT Scaling

Subsequent to the professional scoring, all information was transcribed to the

NAEP database at ETS. Each processing activity was conducted with rigorous

quality control. After the assessment information had been compiled in the

database, the data were weighted according to the population structure. The

weighting for the national and state samples reflected the probability of selection

for each student as a result of the sampling design, adjusted for nonresponse.

Through post-stratification, the weighting assured that the representation of

certain subpopulations corresponded to figures from the U.S. Census and the

Current Population Survey.2

Analyses were then conducted to determine the percentages of students who

wrote responses to each writing prompt at each level on the scoring guide and

who provided various responses to each background question. In calculating

response percentages for each prompt, only students classified as having been

presented the question were included in the denominator of the statistic.

Students whose papers were blank or whose responses were judged off topic

were similarly excluded from the calculation of the scale.

Item response theory (IRT) was used to estimate average writing scale

scores for the nation, for various subgroups of interest within the nation, and for

the states and territories. IRT models the probability of answering a question in

a certain way as a mathematical function of proficiency. The main purpose of

IRT analysis is to provide a common scale on which performance can be

compared across groups such as those defined by characteristics including

gender and race/ethnicity.

The results for 1998 are presented on the NAEP writing scales. In 1998, a

scale ranging from 0 to 300 was created to report performance at each grade

level. The scale summarizes student performance across all three purposes for

writing (narrative, informative, and persuasive) in the assessment. The 50-

minute prompts were not included in the scale, because they were not

considered comparable to the 25-minute prompts. In addition, since each

student who received a 50-minute prompt received only one prompt, those

prompts did not provide sufficient information about those students’ writing to

be put on the scale.
212 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

3 Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied

Psychological Measurement, 16(2), 159-176.

4 For theoretical and empirical justification of the procedures employed, see Mislevy, R.J. (1988).

Randomization-based inferences about latent variables from complex samples. Psychometrika, 56(2),

177–196.

For computational details, see National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1990). Focusing the new

design: NAEP 1988 technical report, and the NAEP 1990 technical report. Princeton, NJ: Educational

Testing Service.

In producing the writing scale, an IRT model was used. The writing

prompts (all rated according to six-level scoring guides) were scaled by use of a

generalized partial-credit (GPC) model.3 Developed by ETS and first used in

1992, the GPC model permits the scaling of questions scored according to

multipoint rating schemes. The model takes full advantage of the information

available from each of the student response categories that are used for more

complex constructed-response questions such as writing prompts.

Because of the pBIB-spiraling design used by NAEP, students do not receive

enough writing prompts to provide reliable information about individual

performance. Traditional test scores for individual students, even those based on

IRT, would lead to misleading estimates of population characteristics, such as

subgroup means and percentages of students at or above a certain scale score

level. Consequently, NAEP constructs sets of plausible values designed to

represent the distribution of performance in the population. A plausible value

for an individual is not a scale score for that individual but may be regarded as a

representative value from the distribution of potential scale scores for all

students in the population with similar characteristics and identical patterns of

item response. Statistics describing performance on the NAEP writing scale are

based on the plausible values. Under the assumptions of the scaling models,

these population estimates will be consistent, in the sense that the estimates

approach the model-based population values as the sample size increases, which

would not be the case for population estimates obtained by aggregating optimal

estimates of individual performance.4
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 213

Item Mapping Procedures

Item mapping is a procedure by which a rating on a writing prompt (such as

“Sufficient” or better) is associated with a certain point on the 0-to-300 writing

scale. The item maps for writing are presented at the end of Chapter 6. For

example, the “Sufficient” rating for a given writing prompt will map onto the

scale at 150 if students with an average scale score of at least 150 have a good

chance of earning a rating of “Sufficient” or better. It is not clear-cut how to

define “a good chance” in terms of the probability, expressed as a percentage,

that a given student will respond to an item at the score level designated. A

response-probability convention has to be adopted that will divide those

students who have a higher probability of success from those who have a lower

probability. Which response-probability convention is adopted largely

determines where ratings on writing prompts will map onto the writing scale. A

lower-boundary convention maps the ratings on writing prompts to lower

points on the scale, and a higher-boundary convention maps the same ratings on

prompts to higher points on the scale. The underlying distribution of writing

skills in the population does not change, but the choice of a responseprobability convention does have an impact on the proportion of the student

population that is reported as “able to do” the prompts on the writing scale.

There is no obvious choice of a point along the probability scale that is

clearly superior to any other point. On one hand, if the convention were set

with a boundary at 50 percent, those above the boundary would be more likely

to score at a particular rating (or higher) on the prompt than not, while those

below the boundary would be more likely to receive a lower rating. Although

this convention has some intuitive appeal, it was rejected on the grounds that

having a 50/50 chance of getting a particular rating shows an insufficient

degree of mastery. On the other hand, if the convention were set with a

boundary at 80 percent, students above the criterion would have a high

probability of receiving a given rating or higher. However, many students below

this criterion may possess substantial writing ability that would be ignored by

such a stringent criterion. In particular, those in the range between 50 and 80

percent likely to receive a particular rating or higher would be more likely to

receive that rating than not, yet would not be in the group described as “able to

achieve” that level of performance on the prompt.

In a compromise between the 50 percent and the 80 percent conventions,

NAEP has adopted a response-probability convention of 65 percent for

constructed-response questions such as writing prompts. This probability

convention was established, in part, based on an intuitive judgment that it

would provide the best picture of students’ writing ability.
214 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

5 Huynh, H. (1998). On score locations of binary and partial credit items and their application to item

mapping and criterion-referenced interpretation. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,

23(1), 35–56.

6 Bock, R.D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or

more latent categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–51.

Some additional support for this convention was provided by Huynh.5 He

examined the IRT information provided by test items, according to the IRT

model used in scaling NAEP questions. (“Information” is used here in a

technical sense. See the forthcoming NAEP 1998 Technical Report for details.)

Following Bock,6

 Huynh decomposed the item information into that provided

by a correct response [P(θ)*I(θ)] and that provided by an incorrect response

[(1- P(θ)) *I(θ)]. Huynh showed that the item information provided by a

correct response to a constructed-response item is maximized at the point along

the writing scale at which the probability of a correct response is two-thirds. It

should be noted, however, that maximizing the item information I(θ), rather

than the information provided by a correct response [P(θ)*I(θ)], would imply

an item mapping criterion closer to 50 percent.

Weighting and Variance Estimation

A complex sample design was used to select the students who were assessed.

The properties of a sample selected through a complex design could be very

different from those of a simple random sample, in which every student in the

target population has an equal chance of selection and in which the observations

from different sampled students can be considered to be statistically

independent of one another. Therefore, the properties of the sample for the

complex data collection design were taken into account during the analysis of

the assessment data.

One way that the properties of the sample design were addressed was by

using sampling weights to account for the fact that the probabilities of selection

were not identical for all students. All population and subpopulation

characteristics based on the assessment data used sampling weights in their

estimation. These weights included adjustments for school and student

nonresponse.

Not only must appropriate estimates of population characteristics be

derived, but appropriate measures of the degree of uncertainty must be obtained

for those statistics. Two components of uncertainty are accounted for in the

variability of statistics based on student ability: (1) the uncertainty due to

sampling only a relatively small number of students, and (2) the uncertainty due

to sampling only a relatively small number of cognitive questions (in this case,

writing prompts). The first component accounts for the variability associated

with the estimated percentages of students who had certain background

characteristics or who had a certain rating for their responses to a prompt.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 215

Because NAEP uses complex sampling procedures, conventional formulas

for estimating sampling variability that assume simple random sampling are

inappropriate. NAEP uses a jackknife replication procedure to estimate standard

errors. The jackknife standard error provides a reasonable measure of

uncertainty for any student information that can be observed without error.

However, because each student typically responds to only two writing prompts,

the scale score for any single student would be imprecise. In this case, plausible

values methodology can be used to describe the performance of groups and

subgroups of students, but the underlying imprecision involved in this step adds

another component of variability to statistics based on NAEP scale scores.7

(Appendix B provides the standard errors for the results presented in this

report.)

Typically, when the standard error is based on a small number of students

or when the group of students is enrolled in a small number of schools, the

amount of uncertainty associated with the standard errors may be quite large.

Throughout this report, estimates of standard errors subject to a large degree

of uncertainty are followed by the “!” symbol. In such cases, the standard

errors — and any confidence intervals or significance tests involving these

standard errors — should be interpreted cautiously. Additional details

concerning procedures for identifying such standard errors are discussed in the

forthcoming NAEP 1998 Technical Report.

The reader is reminded that, like findings from all surveys, NAEP results are

subject to other kinds of error, including the effects of imperfect adjustment for

student and school nonresponse and unknowable effects associated with the

particular instrumentation and data collection methods. Nonsampling errors can

be attributed to a number of sources — inability to obtain complete information

about all selected schools in the sample (some students or schools refused to

participate, or students participated but answered only certain questions);

ambiguous definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or

unwillingness to give correct information; mistakes in recording, coding, or

scoring data; and other errors in collecting, processing, sampling, and

estimating missing data. The extent of nonsampling error is difficult to estimate

and, because of their nature, the impact of such errors cannot be reflected in the

data-based estimates of uncertainty provided in NAEP reports.

7 For further details, see Johnson, E.G., & Rust, K.F. (1992). Population inferences and variance estimation

for NAEP data. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17(2), 175–190.
216 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

Drawing Inferences from the Results

Because the percentages of students in these subpopulations and their average

scale scores are based on samples rather than on the entire population of fourth,

eighth, or twelfth graders in the nation or a jurisdiction, the numbers reported

are estimates. As such, they are subject to a measure of uncertainty, reflected in

the standard error of the estimate. When the percentages or average scale scores

of certain groups are compared, the standard error should be taken into

account, and observed similarities or differences should not be relied on solely.

Therefore, the comparisons discussed in this report are based on statistical tests

that consider the standard errors of those statistics and the magnitude of the

difference among the averages or percentages.

Using confidence intervals based on the standard errors provides a way to

take into account the uncertainty associated with sample estimates and to make

inferences about the population averages and percentages in a manner that

reflects that uncertainty. An estimated sample average scale score plus or minus

two standard errors approximates a 95 percent confidence interval for the

corresponding population quantity. This statement means that one can conclude

with approximately a 95 percent level of confidence that the average

performance of the entire population of interest (e.g., all eighth-grade students

in public schools in a jurisdiction) is within plus or minus two standard errors of

the sample average.

As an example, suppose that the average writing scale score of the students

in a particular group was 162, with a standard error of 1.2. A 95 percent

confidence interval for the population quantity would be as follows:

Average 6 2 standard errors

162 6 2 3 1.2

162 6 2.4

(159.6, 164.4)

Thus, one can conclude with a 95 percent level of confidence that the

average scale score for the entire population of students in that group is between

159.6 and 164.4.

Similar confidence intervals can be constructed for percentages, if the

percentages are not extremely large or extremely small. Extreme percentages

should be interpreted with caution. Adding or subtracting the standard errors

associated with extreme percentages could cause the confidence interval to

exceed 100 percent or go below 0 percent, resulting in numbers that are not

meaningful. (The forthcoming NAEP 1998 Technical Report contains a more

complete discussion of extreme percentages.)
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 217

Analyzing Group Differences in Averages

and Percentages

The statistical tests determine whether the evidence, based on the data from the

groups in the sample, is strong enough to conclude that the averages or

percentages are actually different for those groups in the population. If the

evidence is strong (i.e., the difference is statistically significant), the report

describes the group averages or percentages as being different (e.g., one group

performed higher than or lower than another group), regardless of whether the

sample averages or percentages appear to be approximately the same.

The reader is cautioned to rely on the results of the statistical tests rather

than on the apparent magnitude of the difference between sample averages or

percentages when determining whether the sample differences are likely to

represent actual differences among the groups in the population.

To determine whether a real difference exists between the average scale

scores (or percentages of a certain attribute) for two groups in the population,

one needs to obtain an estimate of the degree of uncertainty associated with the

difference between the averages (or percentages) of these groups for the sample.

This estimate of the degree of uncertainty, called the standard error of the

difference between the groups, is obtained by taking the square of each group’s

standard error, summing the squared standard errors, and taking the square root

of that sum.

Standard Error of the Difference = SEA-B = =(SEA

2 1 SEB2)

Similar confidence intervals can be constructed for percentages, provided

that the percentages are not extremely large or extremely small. For

percentages, significance tests work best when sample sizes are large, and the

percentages being tested have magnitude relatively close to 50 percent.

Statements about group differences should be interpreted with caution if at least

one of the groups being compared is small in size and/or if “extreme”

percentages are being compared. Percentages, P, were treated as “extreme” if:

200 P(100 – P) P<Plim = , where the effective sample size is NEFF = , and SEjk NEFF+2 (SEjk)

2

is the jackknife standard error of P.

This “rule of thumb” cutoff leads to flagging a large proportion of statistical

tests that would otherwise be significant. Similarly, at the other end of the

0 – 100 scale, a percentage is deemed extreme if 100 – P < Plim. When a

percentage is flagged as extreme, the percentage is reported but no standard

error is estimated and no significance test is conducted.
218 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

Group Average scale score Standard error

A 137 0.9

B 135 1.1

In this case, the value of P was reported, but no standard error was estimated

and hence no tests were conducted.

As an example of comparing groups, consider the problem of determining

whether the average writing scale score of Group A is higher that that of Group

B. Suppose that the sample estimates of the average scale scores and standard

errors were as follows:

8 As was discussed in the section “Weighting and Variance Estimation,” estimates of standard errors subject

to a large degree of uncertainty are designated by the symbol “!”. In such cases, the standard error — and

any confidence intervals or significance tests among these standard errors — should be interpreted with

caution.

The difference between the estimates of the average scale scores of Groups

A and B is two points (137 2 135). The standard error of this difference is

=(0.92 1 1.12

) 5 1.4.

Thus, an approximate 95 percent confidence interval for this difference is

plus or minus two standard errors of the difference

2 6 2 3 1.4

2 6 2.8

(20.8, 4.8).

The value zero is within the confidence interval; therefore, there is

insufficient evidence to claim that Group A outperformed Group B.

In some cases, the differences between groups were not discussed in this

report. This happened for one of two reasons: (a) if the comparison involved an

extreme percentage (as defined above); or (b) if the standard error for either

group was subject to a large degree of uncertainty (i.e., the coefficient of

variation is greater than 20 percent, denoted by “!” in the tables).8

 In either

case, the results of any statistical test involving that group needs to be interpreted

with caution, and so the results of such tests are not discussed in this report.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 219

9 Johnson, E. & Rust, K. (1992).“Effective Degrees of Freedom for Variance Estimates from a Complex

Sample Survey,” Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association,

863–866.

10 Satterthwaite, F. E. (1941). “Synthesis of Variance,” Psychometrika 16, 5, 309-316.

Estimating Degrees of Freedom

for Significance Tests

Among the major findings reported for NAEP assessments are mean differences

between groups — for example, comparisons of public and private school

students. Such comparisons are assessed for statistical significance by a t-test of

the form:

Where:

mi

 and mj are the means for groups i and j, and S2

mi and S2mj are the jackknife

estimates of sampling variance for groups i and j. For a two-tailed test, this

statistic is assessed at a nominal alpha level of .05/2c, where c>1 for multiple

comparisons.

The degrees of freedom of this t-test are estimated by an approximation

given by Johnson and Rust9

 as follows:

where the summation is over the two groups being compared. The item, dfk, is

the degree of freedom estimate for the variance of the mean mk

 and is defined

by Satterthwaite10 with a correction term suggested by Johnson and Rust. It is

derived by matching estimates of the first two moments of the variance to those

of a chi-square random variable.

Here, j stands for jackknife replicate j, and the summations are overall replicates,

usually 62 in NAEP. The mjk term is the mean of subgroup k for the jth

jackknife replicate. The term mk

 is the overall mean for subgroup k, using the

overall weights and the first plausible value.
220 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

The number of degrees of freedom for the variance equals the number of

independent pieces of information used to generate the variance. In the case of

data from NAEP, the pieces of information are the 62 squared differences

(mjk-mk

)2, each supplying, at most, one degree of freedom (regardless of how

many individuals were sampled within PSUs). If some of the squared differences

(mjk-mk

)2 are much larger than others, the variance estimate of mk is

predominantly estimating the sum of these larger components, which dominate

the remaining terms. The effective degrees of freedom of S2

mk in this case will be

nearer to the number of dominant terms. The estimate, dfk

, reflects these

relationships.

The two formulae above show that when dfk

 is small, the degrees of freedom

for the t-test, df, will also be small. This will tend to be the case when only a few

PSU pairs have information about subgroup differences relevant to a t-test. It

will also be the case when a few PSU pairs have subgroup differences much

larger than other PSU pairs.

Conducting Multiple Tests

The procedures described in this section and the certainty ascribed to intervals

(e.g., a 95 percent confidence interval) are based on statistical theory that

assumes that only one confidence interval or test of statistical significance is

being performed. However, in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of this report, many

different groups are being compared (i.e., multiple sets of confidence intervals

are being analyzed). In sets of confidence intervals, statistical theory indicates

that the certainty associated with the entire set of intervals is less than that

attributable to each individual comparison from the set. To hold the significance

level for the set of comparisons at a particular level (e.g., .05), adjustments

(called “multiple comparison procedures”11) must be made to the methods

described in the previous section. One such procedure, the False Discovery Rate

(FDR) procedure,12 was used to control the certainty level.

11 Miller, R.G. (1966). Simultaneous statistical inference. New York: Wiley.

12 Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful

approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, No. 1, pp. 298–300.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 221

13 Williams, V.S.L., Jones, L.V., & Tukey, J.W. (1994, December). Controlling error in multiple comparisons

with special attention to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Research Triangle Park, NC:

National Institute of Statistical Sciences.

Unlike the other multiple comparison procedures (e.g., the Bonferroni

procedure) that control the familywise error rate (i.e., the probability of making

even one false rejection in the set of comparisons), the FDR procedure controls

the expected proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses. Furthermore, familywise

procedures are considered conservative for large families of comparisons.13

Therefore, the FDR procedure is more suitable for multiple comparisons in

NAEP than other procedures. A detailed description of the FDR procedure

appears in the forthcoming NAEP 1998 Technical Report.

The 1998 assessment is the first time NAEP has used the BenjaminiHochberg procedure to maintain FDR for all multiple comparisons. Prior to the

1996 assessment, the Bonferroni procedure was used for multiple comparisons.

NAEP Reporting Groups

In this report, results are provided for groups of students defined by shared

characteristics — region of the country, gender, race or ethnicity, parental

education, school’s type of location, eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price

School Lunch program, and type of school. Based on participation rate criteria,

results are reported for subpopulations only when sufficient numbers of students

and adequate school representation are present. For public school students, the

minimum requirement is at least 62 students in a particular subgroup from at

least 5 primary sampling units (PSUs).13 For nonpublic school students, the

minimum requirement is 62 students from at least 6 different schools for the

state assessment program or from at least 5 PSUs for the national assessment.

However, the data for all students, regardless of whether their subgroup was

reported separately, were included in computing overall results. Definitions of

the subpopulations referred to in this report are presented below.
222 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

Region

Results are reported for four regions of the nation: Northeast, Southeast,

Central, and West. Figure A.1 shows how states are divided among these

regions. All 50 states and the District of Columbia are listed. Territories and the

two Department of Defense Educational Activities jurisdictions are not assigned

to any region.

Regional results are based on national assessment samples, not on

aggregated state assessment program samples. Thus, the regional results are based

on a sample that is different and separate from that used to report the state results.

States included in the four NAEP regions

Figure A.1

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

*Virginia

Alabama

Arkansas

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

Louisiana

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina

Tennessee

*Virginia

West Virginia

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

North Dakota

Ohio

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Hawaii

Idaho

Montana

Nevada

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

* The part of Virginia that is included in the Washington, DC metropolitan area is included in the Northeast region;

the remainder of the state is included in the Southeast region.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Northeast Southeast Central West
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 223

Gender

Results are reported separately for males and females.

Race/Ethnicity

The race/ethnicity variable is derived from two questions asked of students and

from school records, and it is used for race/ethnicity subgroup comparisons.

Two questions from the set of general student background questions were used

to determine race/ethnicity:

If you are Hispanic, what is your Hispanic background?

❏ I am not Hispanic.

❏ Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano

❏ Puerto Rican

❏ Cuban

❏ Other Spanish or Hispanic background

Students who responded to this question by filling in the second, third,

fourth, or fifth oval were considered Hispanic. For students who filled in the

first oval, did not respond to the question, or provided information that was

illegible or could not be classified, responses to the following question were

examined to determine their race/ethnicity.

Which best describes you?

❏ White (not Hispanic)

❏ Black (not Hispanic)

❏ Hispanic (“Hispanic” means someone who is Mexican, Mexican

American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or from some other Spanish

or Hispanic background.)

❏ Asian or Pacific Islander (“Asian or Pacific Islander” means someone

who is Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Vietnamese, Asian American,

or from some other Asian or Pacific Island background.)

❏ American Indian or Alaskan Native (“American Indian or Alaskan

Native” means someone who is from one of the American Indian tribes,

or one of the original people of Alaska.)

❏ Other (specify) ________________________________
224 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

Students’ race/ethnicity was then assigned on the basis of their responses.

For students who filled in the sixth oval (“Other”), provided illegible

information or information that could not be classified, or did not respond at

all, race/ethnicity was assigned as determined by school records.

An exception in this definition of race/ethnicity was made for Hawaii (i.e.,

students in Hawaii in the state assessment). Students from Hawaii who specified

Asian or Pacific Islander in response to the question “Which best describes

you?” were categorized in the Asian or Pacific Islander race/ethnicity

classification, no matter what response they gave to the question, “If you are

Hispanic, what is your Hispanic background?”

Race/ethnicity could not be determined for students who did not respond

to either of the demographic questions and whose schools did not provide

information about race/ethnicity.

Details of how race/ethnicity classifications were derived are presented so

that readers can determine how useful the results are for their particular

purposes. Also, some students indicated that they were from a Hispanic

background (e.g., Puerto Rican or Cuban) and that a racial/ethnic category

other than Hispanic best described them. These students were classified as

Hispanic based on the rules described above. Furthermore, information from

the schools did not always correspond to how students described themselves.

Therefore, the racial/ethnic results presented in this report attempt to provide a

clear picture based on several sources of information.

In the NAEP 1998 writing assessment, the mutually exclusive racial/ethnic

categories were: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American

Indian (including Alaskan Native).
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 225

Parents’ Highest Level of Education

For students at all three grades, the variable representing the level of parental

education is derived from responses to six questions from the set of general

student background questions. Students were asked to indicate the extent of

their mother’s education with the following three questions.

Did your mother graduate from high school? (“Mother” can be a mother,

stepmother, or female guardian.)

❏ Yes

❏ No

❏ I don’t know.

Did your mother have some education after high school? (“Mother” can be a

mother, stepmother, or female guardian.)

❏ Yes

❏ No

❏ I don’t know.

Did your mother graduate from college? (“Mother” can be a mother,

stepmother, or female guardian.)

❏ Yes

❏ No

❏ I don’t know.

Students were asked the same three questions about their father’s education

level, as shown below.

Did your father graduate from high school? (“Father” can be a father,

stepfather, or male guardian.)

❏ Yes

❏ No

❏ I don’t know.
226 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

Did your father have some education after high school? (“Father” can be a

father, stepfather, or male guardian.)

❏ Yes

❏ No

❏ I don’t know.

Did your father graduate from college? (“Father” can be a father, stepfather, or

male guardian.)

❏ Yes

❏ No

❏ I don’t know.

The information was combined into one parental education reporting

variable determined through the following process. If a student indicated the

extent of education for only one parent, that level was included in the data. If a

student indicated the extent of education for both parents, the higher of the two

levels was included in the data. If a student did not know the level of education

for both parents, or did not know the level for one parent and did not respond

for the other, the parental education level was classified as “I don’t know.” If

the student did not respond for either parent, the student was recorded as

having provided no response. Nationally, 11 percent of fourth graders, 3 percent

of eighth graders, and 1 percent of twelfth graders reported that they did not

know the education level of either of their parents. Because these parental

education questions were revised for 1998, the relation between self-reported

levels of parental education and performance on the NAEP 1998 writing

assessment may differ from that seen in past NAEP assessments in writing and

other subjects.
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 227

Type of Location

Results are reported for students attending schools in three mutually exclusive

location types: central city, urban fringe/large town, and rural/small town.

Central City: This category includes central cities of all Standard Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (SMSA) as defined by the Office of Management and Budget.

Central City is a geographical term and is not synonymous with “inner city.”

Urban Fringe/Large Town: The urban fringe category includes all densely

settled places and areas within SMSA’s that are classified as urban by the Bureau

of the Census, but which do not qualify as Central City. A Large Town is

defined as a place outside a SMSA with a population greater than or equal to

25,000.

Rural/Small Town: Rural includes all places and areas with populations of less

than 2,500 that are classified as rural by the Bureau of the Census. A Small

Town is defined as a place outside a SMSA with a population of less than

25,000, but greater than or equal to 2,500.

Eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program

Based on available school records, students were classified as either currently

eligible for the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch component of the

Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch Program or not eligible.

Students whose family income is at or below 130 percent of the poverty level

are eligible for free lunches. Students whose family income is up to 185 percent

of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price lunches. The classification

applies only to the school year when the assessment was administered (i.e., the

1997-98 school year) and is not based on eligibility in previous years. If school

records were not available, the student was classified as “Information not

available.” If the school did not participate in the program, all students in that

school were classified as “Information not available.”

Type of School

Results are reported by the type of school that the student attends — public or

nonpublic. Nonpublic schools include Catholic and other private schools.

Although Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools and Department of Defense

Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS) are not

included in either the public or nonpublic categories, they are included in the

overall national results. (A separate sample for DDESS was included as a

jurisdiction in the state assessment.)
228 1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A

Cautions in Interpretations

As described earlier, the NAEP writing scale makes it possible to examine

relationships between students’ performance and various background factors

measured by NAEP. However, the fact that a relation exists between

achievement and a particular background factor does not mean that the factor

caused the higher or lower achievement. Many other factors may be influencing

the achievement. Similarly, the assessments do not capture the influence of

unmeasured variables. The results are most useful when they are considered in

combination with other knowledge about the student population and the

educational system, such as trends in instruction, changes in the school-age

population, and societal demands and expectations.

Grade 12 Participation Rates and Motivation

NAEP has been described as a “low-stakes” assessment. That is, students receive

no individual scores, and their NAEP performance has no effect on their grades,

promotions, or graduation. There has been continued concern that this lack of

consequences affects participation rates of students and schools, as well as the

motivation of students to perform well on NAEP. Of particular concern has

been the performance of twelfth graders, who typically have lower student

participation rates than fourth and eighth graders and who are more likely to

omit responses compared to the younger cohorts.

Participation Rates

In NAEP, there has been a consistent pattern of lower participation rates for

older students. Here we are making a comparison to participation rates in

NAEP in 1992 (the last time the NAEP writing assessment was administered),

when students were classified by both grade and age level. In the 1992 NAEP

assessments, for example, the student participation rates were 93 percent and 89

percent at grades 4 (age 9) and 8 (age 13), respectively. At the twelfth grade

(age 17), however, the participation rate was 81 percent. School participation

rates (the percentage of sampled schools that participated in the assessment)

have also typically decreased with increasing grade level. Again citing the 1992

assessments, the school participation rate was 86 percent for the fourth grade

(age 9), 85 percent for the eighth grade (age 13), and 82 percent for the twelfth

grade (age 17).

The effect of participation rates on student performance, however, is

unclear. Students may choose not to participate in NAEP for many reasons, such

as a desire to attend regular classes so as not to miss important instruction or

fear of not doing well on NAEP. Similarly, there are a variety of reasons for
1998 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX A 229

which various schools do not participate. The sampling weights and

nonresponse adjustments, described earlier in this appendix, provide an

approximate statistical adjustment for nonparticipation. However, the effect

of some school and student nonparticipation may have some undetermined

effect on results.

Motivation

To the extent that students in the NAEP sample are not trying their hardest,

NAEP results may underestimate student performance. The concern increases as

students get older and is particularly pronounced for twelfth graders. The

students themselves furnish some evidence about their motivation. As part of

the background questions, students were asked how important it was to do well

on the NAEP writing assessment. They were asked to indicate whether it was

very important, important, somewhat important, or not very important to

them. The percentage of students indicating they thought it was either

important or very important to do well was 90 percent for fourth graders, 61

percent for eighth graders, and 37 percent for twelfth graders.

Several factors may contribute to this pattern. NAEP was administered in

the late winter, when high school seniors often have other things on their

minds. Another factor that may have contributed to lack of motivation is the

fact that the writing assessment consists of constructed-response questions (in

this case, writing prompts), which tend to be more time-consuming than

multiple-choice questions. As with participation rates, however, the combined

effect of these and other factors is unknown.

It is also interesting to note that students who indicated it was very

important for them to do well on NAEP did not have the highest average

scores. In fact, at grade 12, students who reported it was not very important to

do well had higher average scores than those who reported it was very

important to do well. These data further cloud the relationship between

motivation and performance on NAEP.

Need for Future Research

More research is needed to delineate the factors that contribute to

nonparticipation and lack of motivation. To that end, NCES plans to

commission a study of high school transcripts to learn more about the academic

performance of twelfth-grade students who do not participate in the assessment.

In addition, NCES is currently investigating how various types of incentives can

be effectively used to increase participation in NAEP.

WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 231 ERRORS STANDARD

APPENDIX B

Standard Errors

The comparisons presented in this report are based on statistical tests that

consider the magnitude of the difference between group averages or percentages

and the standard errors of those statistics. This appendix contains the standard

errors for the estimated averages and percentages in all the tables and figures

throughout this report. Because NAEP scores and percentages are based on

samples rather than the entire population(s), the results are subject to a measure

of uncertainty reflected in the standard errors of the estimates. It can be said

with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the

whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for

the sample.

Standard errors for writing scale score percentiles for the nation: 1998

Table B1.1

Grade 4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8

Grade 8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9

Grade 12 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Average 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th

scale score percentile percentile percentile percentile percentile
232 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Table B1.2

Standard errors for percentage of students at or above the writing

achievement levels for the nation: 1998

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Nation

Grade 4

0.4 0.4 0.8 0.2

Grade 8

0.5 0.5 0.7 0.1

Grade 12

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1

Standard errors for percentage of students within each writing

achievement level range for the nation: 1998

Figure B1.4

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Nation

Below At At At

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

0.4 0.6 0.7 0.2

Grade 8

0.5 0.5 0.7 0.1

Grade 12

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 233

Standard errors for percentage “Skillful” (score of 5) or better

within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Skillful” (5) or better 115–175* 176–224* 225 and above*

1.3 1.1 3.7 - - -

* NAEP Writing scale range.

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table B1.5 Grade 4: Invisible Friend

Table B1.4 Grade 4: Castle

Standard errors for percentage “Sufficient” (score of 4) or better

within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Sufficient” (4) or better 115–175* 176–224* 225 and above*

1.2 2.0 1.4 - - -

* NAEP writing scale range.

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table B1.3 Grade 4: Favorite Object

Standard errors for percentage “Uneven” (score of 3) or better

within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Uneven” (3) or better 115–175* 176–224* 225 and above*

0.7 1.0 - - - - - -

* NAEP writing scale range.

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.
234 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Standard errors for percentage “Sufficient” (score of 4) or better

within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Sufficient” (4) or better 114–172* 173–223* 224 and above*

1.9 2.2 3.4 - - -

* NAEP writing scale range.

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table B1.7 Grade 8: Designing a TV Show

Standard errors for percentage “Uneven” (score of 3) or better

within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Uneven” (3) or better 114–172* 173–223* 224 and above*

0.9 1.4 - - - - - -

* NAEP Writing scale range.

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table B1.6 Grade 8: Space Visitor

Standard errors for percentage “Excellent” (score of 6)

within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Excellent” (6) 114–172* 173–223* 224 and above*

0.5 - - - 1.7 - - -

* NAEP Writing scale range.

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table B1.8 Grade 8: Lengthening the School Year
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 235

Standard errors for percentage “Sufficient” (score of 4) or better

within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Sufficient” (4) or better 122–177* 178–229* 230 and above*

1.4 1.9 - - - - - -

* NAEP Writing scale range.

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table B1.9 Grade 12: Writing Mentor

Standard errors for percentage “Skillful” (score of 5) or better

within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Skillful” (5) or better 122–177* 178–229* 230 and above*

1.4 2.0 2.6 - - -

* NAEP Writing scale range.

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table B1.10 Grade 12: Special Object

Standard errors for percentage “Excellent” (score of 6)

within achievement level ranges

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Excellent” (6) 122–177* 178–229* 230 and above*

0.4 - - - 2.2 - - -

* NAEP writing scale range.

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Table B1.11 Grade 12: One Vote
236 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Standard errors for average writing scale scores by gender: 1998

Table B2.1

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Standard errors for average writing scale scores by race/ethnicity: 1998

Table B2.2

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

White 0.2 0.8

Black 0.1 0.9

Hispanic 0.2 1.2

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.1 2.2

American Indian 0.1 1.8

Grade 8

White 0.1 0.7

Black 0.1 1.0

Hispanic 0.1 1.3

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.2 3.5

American Indian 0.2 3.0

Grade 12

White 0.3 0.7

Black 0.2 1.3

Hispanic 0.2 1.2

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.1 3.1

American Indian 0.2 3.7

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Grade 4

Male 0.5 0.8

Female 0.5 0.7

Grade 8

Male 0.4 0.8

Female 0.4 0.6

Grade 12

Male 0.5 0.7

Female 0.5 0.7

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 237

Standard errors for average writing scale scores by parents’ highest level of

education: 1998

Table B2.3

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

Graduated from college 0.7 0.7

Some education after high school 0.4 1.0

Graduated from high school 0.3 1.0

Did not finish high school 0.3 3.6

I don’t know. 0.4 0.9

Grade 8

Graduated from college 0.8 0.8

Some education after high school 0.5 0.8

Graduated from high school 0.4 0.8

Did not finish high school 0.4 2.1

I don’t know. 0.1 1.7

Grade 12

Graduated from college 0.9 0.7

Some education after high school 0.6 0.8

Graduated from high school 0.3 0.9

Did not finish high school 0.3 1.6

I don’t know. 0.1 3.2

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Standard errors for average writing scale scores by region: 1998

Table B2.4

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

Northeast 0.6 1.3

Southeast 0.9 1.2

Central 0.2 1.1

West 0.9 1.6

Grade 8

Northeast 0.7 1.6

Southeast 1.0 1.4

Central 0.3 1.4

West 1.1 1.2

Grade 12

Northeast 1.0 1.7

Southeast 1.0 1.3

Central 0.4 1.4

West 1.0 1.0

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
238 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Standard errors for average writing scale scores by Free/Reduced-Price

School Lunch Program eligibility: 1998

Table B2.6

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

Eligible 1.1 0.9

Not eligible 1.4 0.8

Information not available 1.6 1.6

Grade 8

Eligible 0.9 0.7

Not eligible 1.6 0.8

Information not available 1.9 1.7

Grade 12

Eligible 0.7 0.9

Not eligible 1.9 0.9

Information not available 2.1 1.6

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Standard errors for average writing scale scores by type of location: 1998

Table B2.5

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

Central city 1.2 1.1

Urban fringe/large town 1.8 1.1

Rural/small town 1.5 1.3

Grade 8

Central city 1.4 1.3

Urban fringe/large town 1.9 1.4

Rural/small town 1.4 1.1

Grade 12

Central city 1.6 1.4

Urban fringe/large town 1.8 1.3

Rural/small town 1.4 0.9

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 239

Standard errors for average writing scale scores by type of school: 1998

Table B2.7

Percentage Average

of students scale score

Grade 4

Public 0.7 0.8

Nonpublic 0.7 1.2

Nonpublic: Catholic 0.6 1.3

Other nonpublic 0.5 2.4

Grade 8

Public 1.1 0.6

Nonpublic 1.1 1.2

Nonpublic: Catholic 0.9 1.2

Other nonpublic 0.6 2.3

Grade 12

Public 1.0 0.7

Nonpublic 1.0 1.4

Nonpublic: Catholic 0.9 1.9

Other nonpublic 0.4 3.0

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
240 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Standard errors for percentage of students at or above achievement levels

in writing by gender: 1998

Table B3.1

Grade 4

Male 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.2

Female 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.3

Grade 8

Male 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.1

Female 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.2

Grade 12

Male 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.1

Female 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.2

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Standard errors for percentage of students within each achievement level

range in writing by gender: 1998

Figure B3.1

Below At At At

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Male 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2

Female 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.3

Grade 8

Male 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.1

Female 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.2

Grade 12

Male 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.1

Female 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 241

Standard errors for percentage of students at or above achievement levels

in writing by race/ethnicity: 1998

Table B3.2

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

White 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.2

Black 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.1

Hispanic 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.1

Asian/Pacific Islander 1.5 1.5 2.8 1.6

American Indian 2.3 2.3 1.6 0.4

Grade 8

White 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.1

Black 1.4 1.4 0.7 - - -

Hispanic 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.1

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.3 2.3 3.8 1.1

American Indian 4.5 4.5 2.6 - - -

Grade 12

White 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.2

Black 1.7 1.7 1.0 - - -

Hispanic 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.1

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.9 2.9 3.6 0.6

American Indian 3.9 3.9 4.4 - - -

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Standard errors for percentage of students within each achievement level

range in writing by race/ethnicity: 1998

Figure B3.2

Below At At At

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

White 0.4 0.8 1.0 0.2

Black 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.1

Hispanic 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.1

Asian/Pacific Islander 1.5 2.2 3.3 1.6

American Indian 2.3 2.5 1.7 0.4

Grade 8

White 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.1

Black 1.4 1.3 0.7 - - -

Hispanic 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.1

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.3 2.3 3.2 1.1

American Indian 4.5 4.8 2.6 - - -

Grade 12

White 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.2

Black 1.7 1.3 1.0 - - -

Hispanic 1.5 1.7 1.0 0.1

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.9 2.4 3.3 0.6

American Indian 3.9 4.3 4.3 - - -

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
242 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Standard errors for percentage of students within each achievement level

range in writing by parents’ highest level of education: 1998

Figure B3.3

Below At At At

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Graduated from college 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.2

Some education after high school 1.0 1.3 1.2 0.3

Graduated from high school 1.0 1.8 1.3 0.3

Did not finish high school 3.5 2.5 3.2 - - -

I don’t know. 1.1 1.5 1.1 0.1

Grade 8

Graduated from college 0.5 0.9 1.1 0.2

Some education after high school 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.1

Graduated from high school 1.2 1.4 1.1 0.2

Did not finish high school 2.2 2.8 2.7 - - -

I don’t know. 2.8 3.0 1.1 - - -

Grade 12

Graduated from college 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.2

Some education after high school 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.1

Graduated from high school 1.2 1.5 1.0 - - -

Did not finish high school 2.3 2.4 0.8 - - -

I don’t know. 6.2 6.0 1.4 - - -

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Standard errors for percentage of students at or above achievement levels

in writing by parents’ highest level of education: 1998

Table B3.3

Grade 4

Graduated from college 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.2

Some education after high school 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.3

Graduated from high school 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.3

Did not finish high school 3.5 3.5 3.1 - - -

I don’t know. 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.1

Grade 8

Graduated from college 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.2

Some education after high school 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.1

Graduated from high school 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.2

Did not finish high school 2.2 2.2 2.6 - - -

I don’t know. 2.8 2.8 1.1 - - -

Grade 12

Graduated from college 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.2

Some education after high school 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.1

Graduated from high school 1.2 1.2 1.1 - - -

Did not finish high school 2.3 2.3 0.9 - - -

I don’t know. 6.2 6.2 1.4 - - -

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 243

Standard errors for percentage of students within each achievement level

range in writing by region: 1998

Figure B3.4

Grade 4

Northeast 0.8 1.3 1.4 0.4

Southeast 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.2

Central 0.7 1.6 1.6 0.4

West 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.3

Grade 8

Northeast 1.0 1.5 1.8 0.3

Southeast 1.0 1.6 1.9 0.2

Central 1.2 1.1 1.4 0.2

West 1.1 0.6 1.2 0.2

Grade 12

Northeast 1.8 1.3 1.5 0.2

Southeast 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.2

Central 1.5 1.4 1.4 0.2

West 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.3

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Below At At At

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Standard errors for percentage of students at or above achievement levels

in writing by region: 1998

Table B3.4

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

 Grade 4

Northeast 0.8 0.8 1.6 0.4

Southeast 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.2

Central 0.7 0.7 1.6 0.4

West 1.2 1.2 1.6 0.3

Grade 8 Grade 8

Northeast 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.3

Southeast 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.2

Central 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.2

West 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.2

Grade 12 Grade 12

Northeast 1.8 1.8 1.6 0.2

Southeast 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.2

Central 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.2

West 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.3

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
244 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Standard errors for percentage of students at or above achievement levels

in writing by type of location: 1998

Table B3.5

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Central city 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.2

Urban fringe/large town 0.9 0.9 1.3 0.3

Rural/small town 0.9 0.9 1.7 0.2

Grade 8

Central city 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.2

Urban fringe/large town 1.0 1.0 1.7 0.2

Rural/small town 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.2

Grade 12

Central city 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.2

Urban fringe/large town 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.2

Rural/small town 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.2

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Standard errors for percentage of students within each achievement level

range in writing by type of location: 1998

Figure B3.5

Below At At At

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Central city 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.2

Urban fringe/large town 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.3

Rural/small town 0.9 1.5 1.8 0.2

Grade 8

Central city 1.2 0.9 1.3 0.2

Urban fringe/large town 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.2

Rural/small town 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.2

Grade 12

Central city 1.2 0.9 1.4 0.2

Urban fringe/large town 1.3 1.0 1.2 0.2

Rural/small town 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.2

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 245

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Standard errors for percentage of students at or above achievement levels

in writing by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program eligibility: 1998

Table B3.6

Grade 4

Eligible 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.1

Not eligible 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.3

Information not available 1.4 1.4 1.8 0.5

Grade 8

Eligible 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.1

Not eligible 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.1

Information not available 1.2 1.2 2.1 0.4

Grade 12

Eligible 1.3 1.3 0.7 - - -

Not eligible 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.2

Information not available 1.3 1.3 1.6 0.3

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Standard errors for percentage of students within each achievement

level range in writing by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program

eligibility: 1998

Figure B3.6

Below At At At

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Eligible 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.1

Not eligible 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.3

Information not available 1.4 1.6 1.9 0.5

Grade 8

Eligible 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.1

Not eligible 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1

Information not available 1.2 1.5 1.9 0.4

Grade 12

Eligible 1.3 1.5 0.6 - - -

Not eligible 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.2

Information not available 1.3 1.2 1.5 0.3

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
246 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Standard errors for percentage of students within each achievement level

range in writing by type of school: 1998

Figure B3.7

Below At At At

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Public 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.2

Nonpublic 0.7 1.5 1.5 0.3

Nonpublic: Catholic 0.8 1.7 1.5 0.3

Other nonpublic 1.5 2.4 2.5 0.8

Grade 8

Public 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.1

Nonpublic 0.8 1.5 1.5 0.5

Nonpublic: Catholic 0.6 1.7 1.7 0.6

Other nonpublic 1.6 2.5 2.6 0.7

Grade 12

Public 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1

Nonpublic 1.2 1.8 1.7 0.4

Nonpublic: Catholic 1.5 2.4 2.5 0.4

Other nonpublic 2.5 3.4 3.8 0.8

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Standard errors for percentage of students at or above achievement levels

in writing by type of school: 1998

Table B3.7

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 4

Public 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.2

Nonpublic 0.7 0.7 1.6 0.3

Nonpublic: Catholic 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.3

Other nonpublic 1.5 1.5 2.7 0.8

Grade 8

Public 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.1

Nonpublic 0.8 0.8 1.6 0.5

Nonpublic: Catholic 0.6 0.6 1.9 0.6

Other nonpublic 1.6 1.6 2.8 0.7

Grade 12

Public 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.1

Nonpublic 1.2 1.2 1.9 0.4

Nonpublic: Catholic 1.5 1.5 2.7 0.4

Other nonpublic 2.5 2.5 3.9 0.8

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 247

Figure B4.1

Standard errors for students’ reports on the frequency with which

their teachers talk to them about what they are writing: 1998

Percentage

at or above

Percentage Scale Score Proficient

Grade 4

Always 0.5 1.1 1.3

Sometimes 0.5 0.7 0.8

Never 0.4 1.1 1.1

Grade 8

Always 0.7 0.6 0.8

Sometimes 0.5 0.8 1.0

Never 0.4 1.4 1.5

Grade 12

Always 0.4 0.7 0.8

Sometimes 0.4 0.8 0.8

Never 0.2 1.5 1.5

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Figure B4.2

Standard errors for students’ reports on whether they or their teachers

save their writing work in a folder or portfolio: 1998

Percentage

at or above

Percentage Scale Score Proficient

Grade 4

Yes 0.7 0.7 0.8

No 0.7 1.1 1.3

Grade 8

Yes 0.9 0.6 0.8

No 0.9 1.0 1.2

Grade 12

Yes 0.9 0.6 0.8

No 0.9 1.0 0.9

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
248 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Figure B4.3

Standard errors for students’ reports on the frequency with which they

use a computer to write drafts or final versions of stories or reports: 1998

Percentage

at or above

Percentage Scale Score Proficient

Grade 4

At least once a week 0.6 0.9 1.0

Once/twice a month 0.5 0.9 1.2

Never/hardly ever 0.5 1.0 1.2

Grade 8

At least once a week 0.6 1.0 1.4

Once/twice a month 0.8 0.8 1.3

Never/hardly ever 0.8 0.9 1.2

Grade 12

At least once a week 0.7 0.9 1.1

Once/twice a month 0.4 0.7 1.1

Never/hardly ever 0.6 1.0 0.8

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Figure B4.4

Standard errors for students’ reports on the frequency with which their

teachers ask them to write more than one draft of a paper: 1998

Percentage

at or above

Percentage Scale Score Proficient

Grade 4

Always 0.5 1.1 1.5

Sometimes 0.6 0.7 0.8

Never 0.5 0.9 1.0

Grade 8

Always 0.9 0.7 0.9

Sometimes 0.6 0.8 0.9

Never 0.5 1.5 1.6

Grade 12

Always 0.8 0.7 0.8

Sometimes 0.5 0.9 1.0

Never 0.4 1.4 1.4

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 249

Figure B4.5

Standard errors for number of occurrences of planning in test

booklets* on students’ responses to two 25-minute writing prompts: 1998

Percentage

at or above

Percentage Scale Score Proficient

Grade 4

No planning for either prompt 1.1 0.7 0.6

Planning for one prompt 0.4 0.9 1.3

Planning for both prompts 1.0 1.0 1.4

Grade 8

No planning for either prompt 0.9 0.7 0.6

Planning for one prompt 0.4 0.9 1.1

Planning for both prompts 0.9 0.6 0.9

Grade 12

No planning for either prompt 0.8 0.8 0.8

Planning for one prompt 0.4 0.8 1.0

Planning for both prompts 0.8 0.7 0.9

* Refers to writing that was visible on the page

provided for planning in test booklets.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Figure B4.6

Standard errors for students’ reports on the frequency with which

their English teachers ask them to plan their writing: 1998

Percentage

at or above

Percentage Scale Score Proficient

Grade 8

At least once a week 0.9 0.7 0.9

Once/twice a month 0.5 0.9 1.2

Never/hardly ever 0.7 0.9 1.3

Grade 12

At least once a week 0.8 0.8 0.9

Once/twice a month 0.6 0.9 1.2

Never/hardly ever 0.6 1.2 1.3

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
250 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Standard errors for frequency of student planning on 25-minute

prompts in the assessment* by frequency with which their English

teachers ask them to plan their writing, grades 8 and 12: 1998

* Refers to writing that was visible on the page

provided for planning in test booklets.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Figure B4.7

Percentage

at or above

Percentage Scale Score Proficient

Grade 8

At least once a week

No planning for either prompt 0.9 1.0 0.9

Planning for one prompt 0.4 1.1 1.3

Planning for both prompts 0.9 0.7 1.2

Once/twice a month

No planning for either prompt 1.1 1.2 1.5

Planning for one prompt 0.7 1.6 2.3

Planning for both prompts 1.3 1.0 1.4

Never/hardly ever

No planning for either prompt 1.6 1.2 1.3

Planning for one prompt 1.0 1.7 1.9

Planning for both prompts 1.7 1.6 2.4

Grade 12

At least once a week

No planning for either prompt 0.8 0.9 1.1

Planning for one prompt 0.5 0.9 1.2

Planning for both prompts 0.8 0.8 1.1

Once/twice a month

No planning for either prompt 1.0 1.1 1.8

Planning for one prompt 0.8 1.1 1.4

Planning for both prompts 1.1 1.2 1.7

Never/hardly ever

No planning for either prompt 1.4 1.6 1.5

Planning for one prompt 1.0 1.8 2.0

Planning for both prompts 1.1 1.9 2.3
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 251

Figure B4.9

Standard errors for students’ reports on the presence of four types of

reading materials in their home (a newspaper, an encyclopedia, magazines,

and more than 25 books): 1998

Figure B4.8

Standard errors for students’ reports on the frequency with which

their English teachers ask them to define their purpose and audience: 1998

Percentage

at or above

Percentage Scale Score Proficient

Grade 8

At least once a week 0.8 0.9 1.1

Once/twice a month 0.5 0.8 1.0

Never/hardly ever 0.8 0.7 1.1

Grade 12

At least once a week 0.6 0.8 0.8

Once/twice a month 0.4 0.7 1.0

Never/hardly ever 0.6 0.9 1.2

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Percentage

at or above

Percentage Scale Score Proficient

Grade 4

Two or fewer 0.6 0.8 0.7

Three 0.4 0.8 1.0

Four 0.6 0.8 1.3

Grade 8

Two or fewer 0.4 0.9 0.7

Three 0.4 0.8 0.9

Four 0.5 0.7 1.1

Grade 12

Two or fewer 0.4 1.1 0.7

Three 0.5 0.9 0.9

Four 0.6 0.8 1.1

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
252 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Figure B4.10

Standard errors for students’ reports on the frequency with which

they discuss their studies at home: 1998

Percentage

at or above

Percentage Scale Score Proficient

Grade 4

At least once a week 0.4 0.7 0.8

Once/twice a month 0.2 1.3 2.3

Never/hardly ever 0.4 0.8 0.9

Grade 8

At least once a week 0.6 0.6 0.9

Once/twice a month 0.3 1.2 1.7

Never/hardly ever 0.5 0.8 0.8

Grade 12

At least once a week 0.5 0.7 0.8

Once/twice a month 0.3 1.3 1.4

Never/hardly ever 0.4 1.0 0.8

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 253

Standard errors for average grade 8 scale scores for the states

for public schools only: 1998

Table B5.1

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated

state assessment samples. Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially

explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Average

scale score

Nation 0.6

States

Alabama 1.4

Arizona 1.5

Arkansas 1.2

California † 1.8

Colorado 1.3

Connecticut 1.4

Delaware 1.4

Florida 1.2

Georgia 1.3

Hawaii 1.0

Kentucky 1.5

Louisiana 1.4

Maine 1.5

Maryland 1.5

Massachusetts 1.7

Minnesota † 1.9

Mississippi 1.3

Missouri 1.4

Montana † 1.5

Nevada 0.9

New Mexico 0.8

New York † 1.5

North Carolina 1.5

Oklahoma 1.3

Oregon 1.5

Rhode Island 0.7

South Carolina 1.1

Tennessee 1.8

Texas 1.5

Utah 1.2

Virginia 1.2

Washington 1.5

West Virginia 1.6

Wisconsin † 1.3

 Wyoming 1.4

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 1.2

DDESS 2.6

DoDDS 1.2

Virgin Islands 3.8
254 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation (see Appendix A).

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples.

Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Standard errors for percentage of grade 8 students at or above

achievement levels for public schools only: 1998

Table B5.2

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Grade 8

Nation 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.1

States

Alabama 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.2

Arizona 1.6 1.6 1.7 0.2

Arkansas 1.5 1.5 1.1 0.2

California † 1.6 1.6 1.7 0.3

Colorado 1.1 1.1 1.5 0.3

Connecticut 1.1 1.1 1.4 0.5

Delaware 1.2 1.2 1.6 0.5

Florida 1.1 1.1 1.8 0.2

Georgia 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.2

Hawaii 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.3

Kentucky 1.0 1.0 1.8 0.5

Louisiana 1.8 1.8 1.0 0.1

Maine 1.5 1.5 1.7 0.5

Maryland 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.3

Massachusetts 1.2 1.2 2.0 0.6

Minnesota † 1.4 1.4 2.1 0.3

Mississippi 1.6 1.6 0.9 - - -

Missouri 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.1

Montana † 1.3 1.3 1.9 0.2

Nevada 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.2

New Mexico 1.1 1.1 1.4 0.2

New York † 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.2

North Carolina 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.4

Oklahoma 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.2

Oregon 1.4 1.4 1.5 0.3

Rhode Island 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.4

South Carolina 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.1

Tennessee 1.6 1.6 1.9 0.3

Texas 1.3 1.3 1.7 0.3

Utah 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.2

Virginia 0.9 0.9 1.4 0.2

Washington 1.4 1.4 1.9 0.4

West Virginia 1.5 1.5 1.7 0.2

Wisconsin † 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.3

Wyoming 1.5 1.5 1.7 0.4

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 1.9 1.9 1.1 0.3

DDESS 1.2 1.2 2.7 1.6

DoDDS 1.1 1.1 1.9 0.5

Virgin Islands 3.9 3.9 2.1 - - -
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 255

Standard errors for percentage of grade 8 students within each

achievement level range for public schools only: 1998

Figure B5.3

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation (see Appendix A).

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples.

Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Nation 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.1

States

Alabama 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.2

Arizona 1.6 1.7 1.6 0.2

Arkansas 1.5 1.7 1.1 0.2

California † 1.6 1.6 1.7 0.3

Colorado 1.1 1.4 1.3 0.3

Connecticut 1.1 1.1 1.4 0.5

Delaware 1.2 1.6 1.5 0.5

Florida 1.1 1.9 1.6 0.2

Georgia 1.2 1.6 1.6 0.2

Hawaii 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.3

Kentucky 1.0 1.6 1.5 0.5

Louisiana 1.8 1.7 0.9 0.1

Maine 1.5 1.8 1.7 0.5

Maryland 1.6 1.7 1.6 0.3

Massachusetts 1.2 1.9 1.8 0.6

Minnesota † 1.4 1.7 2.0 0.3

Mississippi 1.6 1.8 0.9 - - -

Missouri 1.5 1.6 1.4 0.1

Montana † 1.3 1.7 1.8 0.2

Nevada 1.2 1.6 1.0 0.2

New Mexico 1.1 2.1 1.4 0.2

New York † 1.5 1.7 1.5 0.2

North Carolina 1.2 1.8 1.5 0.4

Oklahoma 1.2 1.8 1.6 0.2

Oregon 1.4 1.5 1.4 0.3

Rhode Island 1.4 2.4 1.1 0.4

South Carolina 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.1

Tennessee 1.6 1.6 1.7 0.3

Texas 1.3 1.5 1.7 0.3

Utah 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.2

Virginia 0.9 1.3 1.4 0.2

Washington 1.4 2.0 2.0 0.4

West Virginia 1.5 1.6 1.6 0.2

Wisconsin † 1.1 1.3 1.6 0.3

Wyoming 1.5 2.0 1.4 0.4

Other Jurisdictions

District or Columbia 1.9 1.9 0.9 0.3

DDESS 1.2 2.6 2.3 1.6

DoDDS 1.1 2.2 1.7 0.5

Virgin Islands 3.9 3.0 2.0 - - -

Grade 8

Below At At At

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
256 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Table B5.3

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples. Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained

by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Standard errors for average grade 8 scale scores and percentage

of students at or above the Proficient level by gender for

public schools only: 1998

Male Female

Average Percentage Average Percentage

scale at or above scale at or above

score Proficient score Proficient

Nation 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.9

States

Alabama 1.5 0.9 1.6 2.1

Arizona 1.9 1.4 1.9 2.4

Arkansas 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.7

California † 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.2

Colorado 1.4 1.0 1.8 2.5

Connecticut 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.9

Delaware 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.8

Florida 1.5 1.6 1.5 2.2

Georgia 1.6 1.8 1.5 2.1

Hawaii 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.2

Kentucky 1.8 1.7 1.5 2.1

Louisiana 1.7 1.0 1.6 1.6

Maine 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.8

Maryland 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.5

Massachusetts 2.0 2.0 1.8 2.6

Minnesota † 1.9 1.6 2.2 3.0

Mississippi 1.7 0.9 1.6 1.4

Missouri 1.5 1.4 1.7 2.2

Montana † 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.8

Nevada 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.6

New Mexico 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.4

New York † 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.2

North Carolina 1.8 1.9 1.4 2.0

Oklahoma 1.5 1.7 1.5 2.3

Oregon 1.9 1.6 1.7 2.3

Rhode Island 1.1 1.2 1.4 2.3

South Carolina 1.3 1.0 1.4 1.6

Tennessee 2.0 1.6 1.9 2.5

Texas 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.5

Utah 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.5

Virginia 1.4 1.6 1.3 2.0

Washington 1.6 1.8 18 2.4

West Virginia 2.1 1.7 1.6 2.0

Wisconsin † 1.6 2.1 1.5 2.2

Wyoming 2.2 1.5 2.7 3.6

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 2.5 1.3 2.0 1.7

DDESS 3.7 4.5 4.6 4.9

DoDDS 1.3 1.7 1.6 2.9

Virgin Islands 4.7 1.7 4.0 3.0
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 257

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between

states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Standard errors for average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of

students at or above the Proficient level by race/ethnicity for public

schools only: 1998

Table B5.4

White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Isl. American Indian

Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage

scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above

score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient

Nation 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.5 1.0 3.8 3.7 3.3 2.7

States

Alabama 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.6 5.6 5.6 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Arizona 1.6 2.3 3.2 4.2 2.2 1.4 5.3 8.2 6.3 5.7

Arkansas 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.2 5.0 3.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

California † 2.3 2.9 4.1 3.7 1.8 1.2 3.4 5.5 - - - - - -

Colorado 1.4 1.9 4.9 4.6 2.2 1.4 4.9 6.3 - - - - - -

Connecticut 1.4 1.6 3.1 2.9 3.9 3.7 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Delaware 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.1 5.2 4.4 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Florida 1.4 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.5 2.9 4.4 6.0 - - - - - -

Georgia 1.6 2.3 1.9 1.4 4.8 3.4 6.3 6.9 - - - - - -

Hawaii 3.2 2.9 4.6 4.5 2.7 1.9 1.3 1.4 - - - - - -

Kentucky 1.5 1.8 3.6 2.4 5.8 4.8 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Louisiana 1.4 1.4 2.3 1.0 3.8 2.9 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Maine 1.4 1.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Maryland 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.4 4.3 3.0 5.0 7.4 - - - - - -

Massachusetts 1.6 2.1 3.4 3.6 3.6 1.8 4.3 7.2 - - - - - -

Minnesota † 1.8 2.3 7.8 3.9 4.6 3.5 5.4 5.5 - - - - - -

Mississippi 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.0 5.9 1.6 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Missouri 1.6 1.7 2.9 1.9 4.4 2.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Montana † 1.5 2.0 - - - - - - 6.8 5.5 - - - - - - 4.5 4.5

Nevada 1.3 1.3 3.9 3.8 2.2 1.7 4.7 6.3 5.4 3.5

New Mexico 1.6 2.4 5.2 6.0 1.0 1.4 - - - - - - 2.7 2.2

New York † 1.5 2.2 3.4 2.2 2.0 1.4 4.7 7.8 - - - - - -

North Carolina 1.9 2.2 1.7 1.6 4.9 5.6 - - - - - - 8.1 5.8

Oklahoma 1.2 1.6 3.5 4.1 3.1 3.3 - - - - - - 2.5 3.4

Oregon 1.5 1.7 - - - - - - 3.9 3.7 5.0 5.7 4.5 4.9

Rhode Island 0.8 1.6 3.7 3.6 2.9 1.8 6.0 4.9 - - - - - -

South Carolina 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.4 3.4 3.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tennessee 1.9 2.2 3.3 2.4 7.5 5.3 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Texas 1.5 2.2 4.2 4.0 1.9 2.0 5.4 7.7 - - - - - -

Utah 1.3 1.3 - - - - - - 3.4 2.5 4.9 5.2 6.5 4.3

Virginia 1.3 1.8 1.5 1.7 3.0 3.2 3.0 6.8 - - - - - -

Washington 1.7 2.1 3.9 4.5 3.2 2.1 3.4 5.1 3.6 3.1

West Virginia 1.7 1.7 4.0 5.0 7.6 3.5 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wisconsin † 1.3 1.7 4.6 3.7 4.1 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wyoming 1.5 2.0 - - - - - - 3.8 3.4 - - - - - - 7.5 6.0

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 7.7 9.0 1.2 1.4 5.5 3.9 - - - - - - - - - - - -

DDESS 3.6 4.2 5.2 4.8 3.9 5.3 - - - - - - - - - - - -

DoDDS 2.2 2.8 2.9 3.4 2.8 3.6 4.4 6.9 - - - - - -

Virgin Islands - - - - - - 3.7 2.3 8.5 2.9 - - - - - - - - - - - -
258 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Standard errors for average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of students at or above 

the Proficient level by parents’ highest level of education for public schools only: 1998

Table B5.5

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between

states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Graduated from Some education Graduated from Did not finish

college after high school high school high school I don’t know.

Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage

scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above

score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient

Nation 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.1

States

Alabama 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.2 2.3 - - - - - -

Arizona 1.6 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.3 3.7 2.8 3.3 1.3

Arkansas 1.9 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.8 4.1 3.1 5.0 2.9

California † 2.2 2.6 1.8 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.5 1.9 4.4 3.8

Colorado 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.5 2.3 3.5 2.9 3.0 4.6 4.2

Connecticut 1.6 1.7 2.6 2.8 2.6 3.6 6.2 4.9 5.1 4.3

Delaware 1.8 2.6 1.8 1.8 3.1 4.7 6.2 6.2 5.9 2.8

Florida 1.7 2.4 1.6 2.3 1.9 2.5 3.6 3.6 5.3 4.3

Georgia 1.8 2.2 1.5 1.8 2.7 3.2 3.3 2.4 - - - - - -

Hawaii 1.9 1.4 1.4 2.4 3.0 2.7 5.9 4.8 5.3 2.6

Kentucky 2.6 3.5 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.2 4.4

Louisiana 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.1 1.7 1.8 4.0 3.1 - - - - - -

Maine 1.5 1.9 2.2 3.0 2.3 3.5 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Maryland 1.8 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Massachusetts 1.7 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.8 - - - - - -

Minnesota † 2.0 2.9 2.2 2.0 2.6 2.4 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mississippi 1.5 1.4 1.9 1.5 1.9 1.6 3.9 2.7 - - - - - -

Missouri 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 5.4 3.9 6.2 2.7

Montana † 1.9 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.5 3.2 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nevada 1.7 2.1 1.2 1.5 2.3 1.9 3.0 2.8 4.1 2.9

New Mexico 1.9 2.5 1.8 2.3 2.4 2.4 4.3 2.9 6.1 3.6

New York † 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.2 3.3 5.5 4.3 4.0 5.6

North Carolina 1.8 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.5 4.1 3.4 - - - - - -

Oklahoma 1.7 2.3 1.5 1.9 2.5 3.1 4.0 3.4 - - - - - -

Oregon 1.9 2.4 1.9 3.1 2.6 2.3 4.4 3.3 6.1 3.3

Rhode Island 1.8 3.2 2.7 3.0 3.2 2.8 5.6 3.4 4.0 4.0

South Carolina 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.7 2.9 2.9 3.1 - - - - - -

Tennessee 2.3 3.3 2.1 2.6 2.0 2.4 3.4 3.7 - - - - - -

Texas 1.6 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.4 3.3 3.0 2.7 4.4 4.0

Utah 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.2 2.7 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Virginia 1.7 2.3 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.3 5.3 3.9 - - - - - -

Washington 1.7 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.9 3.6 5.5 3.8 4.5 1.7

West Virginia 2.1 3.4 1.9 1.9 3.1 2.7 3.9 3.0 5.0 4.3

Wisconsin † 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.8 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wyoming 1.4 2.1 2.0 2.2 4.5 3.8 6.5 5.0 - - - - - -

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 2.5 1.8 1.5 1.6 3.0 2.4 10.1 5.0 - - - - - -

DDESS 3.8 3.3 3.5 4.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DoDDS 2.0 2.9 2.8 3.5 5.5 8.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Virgin Islands 6.1 4.1 5.9 3.0 4.8 2.8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 259

Standard errors for average grade 8 scale scores and percentage

of students at or above the Proficient level by type of location for

public schools only: 1998

Table B5.6

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples.

Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998

Writing Assessment.

Urban fringe/ Rural/

Central city large town small town

Average Percentage Average Percentage Average Percentage

scale at or above scale at or above scale at or above

score Proficient score Proficient score Proficient

Nation 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.2 1.4

States

Alabama 2.9 2.8 3.3 3.1 2.0 1.7

Arizona 2.1 2.1 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.1

Arkansas 2.6 2.2 2.7 3.9 1.6 1.4

California † 3.0 2.8 2.3 2.3 - - - - - -

Colorado 2.3 2.1 1.8 2.4 3.2 4.2

Connecticut 3.6 2.8 1.8 2.4 2.6 2.8

Delaware 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.2

Florida 1.8 2.1 1.8 2.6 3.9 4.1

Georgia 2.8 2.9 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.7

Hawaii 2.1 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7

Kentucky 5.0 5.9 2.0 2.4 1.7 2.3

Louisiana 3.0 2.3 2.2 1.5 1.8 1.8

Maine 3.8 3.9 2.8 3.9 1.7 1.9

Maryland 4.5 3.2 1.8 2.0 3.1 4.0

Massachusetts 3.5 3.8 2.6 3.6 2.2 2.9

Minnesota † 4.7 3.0 2.4 3.1 2.1 3.1

Mississippi 3.0 2.4 2.9 2.8 1.7 1.2

Missouri 3.6 3.3 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.0

Montana † 2.5 3.2 4.0 2.5 1.8 2.1

Nevada 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.3 2.7 1.5

New Mexico 2.0 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.5 2.2

New York † 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.9 3.0 3.5

North Carolina 2.9 3.5 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.7

Oklahoma 2.5 3.7 2.2 2.8 1.7 2.2

Oregon 3.6 3.7 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3

Rhode Island 2.4 2.4 1.1 2.0 1.9 3.0

South Carolina 2.0 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.4

Tennessee 3.8 3.8 2.7 3.6 1.8 2.4

Texas 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.6 2.2 2.6

Utah 2.1 2.4 1.5 1.6 3.3 3.3

Virginia 1.8 2.3 1.6 2.3 2.4 2.3

Washington 2.3 2.5 2.6 3.2 2.7 3.1

West Virginia 2.2 2.9 3.2 4.4 1.7 1.6

Wisconsin † 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.4 2.0 2.7

Wyoming 3.1 3.5 - - - - - - 1.3 1.3

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 1.2 1.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

DDESS 3.4 4.3 7.8 8.3 6.3 9.4

DoDDS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Virgin Islands - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.8 2.1
260 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Standard errors for average grade 8 scale scores and percentage of

students at or above the Proficient level by Free/Reduced-Price School

Lunch Program eligibility for public schools only: 1998

Table B5.7

Eligible Not eligible

Average Percentage Average Percentage

scale at or above scale at or above

score Proficient score Proficient

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples. Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained

by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Nation 0.8 0.5 0.8 1.0

States

Alabama 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.7

Arizona 1.9 1.5 1.9 2.6

Arkansas 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.8

California † 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.9

Colorado 2.4 2.3 1.5 1.9

Connecticut 2.9 2.3 1.6 1.8

Delaware 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.9

Florida 1.4 1.5 1.5 2.4

Georgia 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.9

Hawaii 1.9 1.6 1.1 1.5

Kentucky 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.5

Louisiana 1.7 0.8 1.5 1.8

Maine 2.8 2.8 1.3 1.9

Maryland 2.3 1.5 1.5 2.0

Massachusetts 2.5 1.9 1.5 2.0

Minnesota † 2.6 1.7 1.8 2.4

Mississippi 1.8 1.0 1.5 1.6

Missouri 2.1 1.3 1.5 1.8

Montana † 2.9 3.6 1.5 1.9

Nevada 2.1 1.5 1.3 1.4

New Mexico 1.2 1.3 1.3 2.0

New York † 2.4 1.5 1.9 2.6

North Carolina 2.0 1.4 1.6 2.3

Oklahoma 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.4

Oregon 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.9

Rhode Island 2.0 1.4 0.7 1.7

South Carolina 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.6

Tennessee 2.7 2.1 2.0 2.5

Texas 2.1 2.0 1.4 1.9

Utah 2.2 2.4 1.5 1.5

Virginia 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.8

Washington 2.1 1.6 1.6 2.3

West Virginia 2.1 1.2 1.6 2.6

Wisconsin † 2.7 2.5 1.4 1.9

Wyoming 2.7 1.6 1.8 2.2

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 1.6 1.2 2.7 2.1

DDESS 3.5 4.2 3.7 3.4

DoDDS 5.3 8.6 4.1 5.7

Virgin Islands 5.1 2.9 - - - - - -
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 261

Unsatisfactory Insufficient Uneven Sufficient Skillful Excellent

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

0.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.4

Figure B6.1 Standard errors for percentage of responses rated at

different levels on the scoring guide, grade 4:

Castle

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Figure B6.2 Standard errors for percentage of responses rated at

different levels on the scoring guide, grade 8:

Designing a TV Show

Unsatisfactory Insufficient Uneven Sufficient Skillful Excellent

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

0.4 1.0 1.5 1.4 0.8 0.5

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Standard errors for percentage of responses rated at different levels

on the scoring guides on all 25-minute writing prompts: 1998

Table B6.1

Grade 4

Overall 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2

Narrative 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3

Informative 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.1

Persuasive 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.2

Grade 8

Overall 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1

Narrative 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3

Informative 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2

Persuasive 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.2

Grade 12

Overall 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2

Narrative 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.2

Informative 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3

Persuasive 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

 (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Unsatisfactory Insufficient Uneven Sufficient Skillful Excellent Mean

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) score
262 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Standard errors for percentage of responses rated at different levels

on the scoring guide by jurisdiction for Designing a TV Show, grade 8

public schools only: 1998

Table B6.2

Unsatisfactory Insufficient Uneven Sufficient Skillful Excellent

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples. Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by

other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Nation 0.4 1.1 1.5 1.5 0.9 0.5

States

Alabama 0.9 2.5 3.0 3.2 1.4 - - -

Arizona 0.6 2.3 3.2 3.4 1.6 0.4

Arkansas 1.2 2.8 3.6 3.4 1.3 - - -

California † 1.9 2.3 3.6 2.7 1.8 0.6

Colorado 1.0 2.2 3.0 3.3 1.0 0.8

Connecticut 0.7 1.7 3.2 2.9 2.1 1.2

Delaware 0.5 2.9 3.8 2.4 2.0 0.5

Florida 1.1 2.3 3.0 2.9 1.7 0.8

Georgia 1.3 1.9 3.2 3.4 1.4 - - -

Hawaii 1.2 2.4 3.1 2.8 1.8 - - -

Kentucky 0.8 2.2 3.7 3.3 1.3 0.9

Louisiana 1.4 2.8 3.4 2.9 1.7 - - -

Maine 0.7 1.8 3.3 3.7 2.2 1.2

Maryland - - - 2.2 4.0 3.2 2.1 1.1

Massachusetts 0.8 2.4 3.6 2.9 1.8 1.8

Minnesota † 1.0 2.7 3.9 3.5 1.8 1.1

Mississippi 1.4 3.4 3.5 2.8 1.3 - - -

Missouri 1.7 2.5 2.8 2.9 1.5 0.5

Montana † - - - 2.0 3.7 3.7 2.5 0.8

Nevada 1.3 2.4 3.5 3.2 0.8 - - -

New Mexico 1.3 2.1 2.9 2.7 1.4 0.8

New York † 1.4 1.9 4.3 4.3 1.9 1.1

North Carolina 0.8 1.9 3.5 3.2 1.3 0.9

Oklahoma 0.5 1.3 3.5 3.8 1.7 1.1

Oregon 0.6 1.9 3.4 3.3 1.0 - - -

Rhode Island 0.7 2.6 3.4 2.9 1.5 0.6

South Carolina 2.0 2.3 3.3 3.3 1.2 - - -

Tennessee 1.4 2.8 3.5 3.0 1.5 - - -

Texas 0.8 2.3 3.2 2.9 1.1 0.7

Utah 1.7 2.2 3.0 2.9 1.6 - - -

Virginia - - - 1.8 3.6 3.6 1.4 - - -

Washington 0.6 2.8 3.8 2.7 2.1 - - -

West Virginia 0.8 2.6 3.5 3.3 1.4 - - -

Wisconsin † - - - 2.6 4.0 3.8 1.8 - - -

Wyoming 1.3 2.2 3.5 3.2 1.3 1.1

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 2.4 3.2 4.1 3.9 1.3 - - -

DDESS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DoDDS - - - 1.9 3.5 3.2 1.7 - - -

Virgin Islands 3.4 4.7 6.8 4.2 - - - - - -
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 263

Standard errors for percentage of responses rated at different levels

on the scoring guide by jurisdiction for Space Visitor, grade 8 public

schools only: 1998

Table B6.3

Unsatisfactory Insufficient Uneven Sufficient Skillful Excellent

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples. Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by

other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Nation 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.1 0.8

States

Alabama 0.6 2.2 2.5 3.8 2.3 2.0

Arizona 0.7 2.2 2.7 3.1 2.0 1.0

Arkansas - - - 2.1 2.6 3.6 2.1 1.0

California † - - - 2.6 2.6 3.4 2.8 1.5

Colorado 0.7 1.7 2.6 3.0 2.5 1.3

Connecticut - - - 1.5 2.3 3.7 2.8 2.1

Delaware 1.1 2.4 2.5 3.3 2.2 1.9

Florida 1.1 2.0 3.2 3.7 1.8 1.3

Georgia 0.8 1.7 3.0 3.3 2.9 1.0

Hawaii 0.6 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.0 1.0

Kentucky - - - 2.2 2.8 3.6 2.0 1.6

Louisiana - - - 1.9 2.7 3.1 1.6 0.8

Maine - - - 1.5 2.3 3.6 2.7 2.0

Maryland 0.5 1.9 2.9 3.6 2.5 1.2

Massachusetts 0.6 1.8 3.0 3.6 2.8 1.5

Minnesota † 1.0 2.3 2.9 3.4 2.7 1.4

Mississippi - - - 2.8 2.5 3.4 1.7 0.7

Missouri 0.9 2.0 2.4 3.4 2.4 0.9

Montana † 1.0 2.0 3.6 3.7 2.5 1.6

Nevada 0.7 1.9 2.9 3.3 2.5 1.0

New Mexico 0.6 2.4 2.7 3.3 2.2 0.7

New York † - - - 2.1 2.9 3.9 2.3 1.4

North Carolina - - - 1.7 2.8 3.2 2.6 1.6

Oklahoma - - - 1.5 2.4 4.0 3.0 1.4

Oregon - - - 2.2 3.5 3.5 3.0 1.2

Rhode Island - - - 1.9 2.6 4.0 2.3 1.6

South Carolina - - - 2.1 3.2 3.5 2.0 0.8

Tennessee - - - 1.8 3.0 4.0 2.7 1.2

Texas - - - 1.6 2.9 3.4 2.0 1.2

Utah 0.7 2.5 2.6 3.2 2.1 1.2

Virginia - - - 1.3 2.5 3.3 2.4 1.0

Washington 1.1 2.6 2.3 3.0 2.7 1.5

West Virginia - - - 1.5 2.7 3.0 1.9 1.0

Wisconsin † 0.8 2.2 2.9 3.5 3.2 1.2

Wyoming 0.8 1.7 2.3 3.1 2.1 0.8

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia - - - 3.5 3.6 4.7 1.5 - - -

DDESS - - - 2.1 5.0 6.7 4.8 2.2

DoDDS - - - 1.9 2.0 3.4 2.9 1.8

Virgin Islands - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
264 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B

Standard errors for percentage of responses rated at different levels

on the scoring guide by jurisdiction for Lengthening the School Year,

grade 8 public schools only: 1998

Table B6.4

Unsatisfactory Insufficient Uneven Sufficient Skillful Excellent

- - - Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples. Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by

other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Nation 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.5

States

Alabama 1.2 2.1 3.5 3.3 1.8 - - -

Arizona 1.3 2.2 2.9 3.3 1.9 1.5

Arkansas 1.4 2.4 3.6 3.7 1.3 0.7

California † 1.4 2.5 3.2 3.0 2.2 1.2

Colorado - - - 1.7 3.2 3.4 2.1 1.5

Connecticut - - - 1.2 2.4 2.8 3.6 2.1

Delaware 0.9 3.0 3.1 3.3 2.7 0.8

Florida 1.5 2.2 3.3 3.2 2.1 0.9

Georgia 1.1 2.2 3.4 2.8 2.2 1.0

Hawaii 1.8 2.3 3.4 2.6 1.5 1.0

Kentucky 0.9 2.0 3.0 3.4 2.2 1.0

Louisiana 1.2 2.9 3.5 3.6 1.6 1.3

Maine 1.1 1.8 3.1 3.5 3.1 1.4

Maryland - - - 2.5 2.8 3.7 3.1 0.8

Massachusetts - - - 2.3 2.9 2.8 2.2 1.2

Minnesota † 1.0 2.5 3.1 4.0 2.5 1.6

Mississippi 1.2 2.5 2.9 3.4 1.1 0.8

Missouri 0.8 1.7 3.1 3.0 2.0 1.0

Montana † - - - 2.2 2.6 3.6 2.1 1.1

Nevada 1.1 2.8 3.3 3.2 1.8 0.8

New Mexico 1.3 2.0 3.6 3.4 2.0 1.1

New York † 1.3 2.1 4.6 3.9 2.6 1.5

North Carolina 1.2 2.0 3.5 2.9 2.5 1.3

Oklahoma 1.0 1.5 3.4 2.9 1.7 1.2

Oregon 1.7 2.0 3.3 2.9 3.0 0.9

Rhode Island 1.2 1.5 2.9 3.4 2.3 1.1

South Carolina 1.0 2.6 3.4 4.1 1.4 0.8

Tennessee 1.1 2.3 3.8 3.6 2.2 0.8

Texas 1.0 1.5 3.4 3.4 3.0 1.8

Utah 0.9 2.4 3.0 3.2 1.8 1.1

Virginia 0.7 1.8 2.8 2.9 2.2 1.4

Washington 1.0 1.8 2.9 3.0 1.7 1.5

West Virginia 1.2 2.1 3.3 2.7 2.2 0.6

Wisconsin † - - - 2.0 3.7 3.9 1.7 0.9

Wyoming 1.1 1.7 3.2 2.9 2.1 0.7

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 1.4 3.6 3.8 2.8 1.6 1.2

DDESS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DoDDS - - - 1.9 2.5 3.2 2.0 1.1

Virgin Islands 2.7 5.3 6.3 5.4 - - - - - -
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX B 265

Figure B6.3 Standard errors for percentage of responses rated at

different levels on the scoring guide, grade 12: One Vote

Unsatisfactory Insufficient Uneven Sufficient Skillful Excellent

0.6 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.4

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX C 267 DATA POPULATION

APPENDIX C

State-Level Population Data

This appendix consists of tables showing the percentages of students within

each subgroup for participating states and jurisdictions. Data are from 1998.
268 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX C

Table C.1

Male Female

Percentages of grade 8 students by gender for public schools only:

1998

Nation 51 (0.4) 49 (0.4)

States

Alabama 49 (1.3) 51 (1.3)

Arizona 51 (0.9) 49 (0.9)

Arkansas 50 (0.7) 50 (0.7)

California † 48 (1.1) 52 (1.1)

Colorado 51 (1.0) 49 (1.0)

Connecticut 50 (1.0) 50 (1.0)

Delaware 51 (1.3) 49 (1.3)

Florida 49 (1.1) 51 (1.1)

Georgia 52 (1.1) 48 (1.1)

Hawaii 53 (0.8) 47 (0.8)

Kentucky 50 (1.2) 50 (1.2)

Louisiana 47 (1.2) 53 (1.2)

Maine 49 (1.0) 51 (1.0)

Maryland 50 (1.0) 50 (1.0)

Massachusetts 51 (1.1) 49 (1.1)

Minnesota † 51 (0.9) 49 (0.9)

Mississippi 49 (1.0) 51 (1.0)

Missouri 51 (1.0) 49 (1.0)

Montana † 50 (1.1) 50 (1.1)

Nevada 50 (1.1) 50 (1.1)

New Mexico 52 (1.0) 48 (1.0)

New York † 51 (1.2) 49 (1.2)

North Carolina 51 (1.0) 49 (1.0)

Oklahoma 52 (1.2) 48 (1.2)

Oregon 51 (1.1) 49 (1.1)

Rhode Island 51 (0.9) 49 (0.9)

South Carolina 51 (1.1) 49 (1.1)

Tennessee 48 (0.9) 52 (0.9)

Texas 49 (0.9) 51 (0.9)

Utah 49 (0.9) 51 (0.9)

Virginia 52 (0.9) 48 (0.9)

Washington 49 (1.2) 51 (1.2)

West Virginia 52 (0.9) 48 (0.9)

Wisconsin † 51 (1.1) 49 (1.1)

Wyoming 52 (0.8) 48 (0.8)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 48 (1.1) 52 (1.1)

DDESS 51 (1.9) 49 (1.9)

DoDDS 49 (1.2) 51 (1.2)

Virgin Islands 44 (2.1) 56 (2.1)

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school

participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and

Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National percentages are based on the national assessment sample,

not on aggregated state assessment samples.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX C 269

Table C.2

White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Isl. American Indian

Percentages of grade 8 students by race/ethnicity for

public schools only: 1998

Nation 65 (0.4) 15 (0.2) 14 (0.2) 3 (0.2) 1 (0.2)

States

Alabama 64 (1.9) 29 (1.7) 4 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.2)

Arizona 55 (1.9) 4 (0.6) 31 (1.6) 3 (0.4) 7 (1.0)

Arkansas 71 (1.4) 21 (1.4) 5 (0.5) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2)

California † 37 (1.8) 7 (1.2) 43 (1.9) 11 (1.0) 2 (0.2)

Colorado 69 (1.4) 4 (0.4) 21 (1.4) 4 (0.5) 2 (0.2)

Connecticut 74 (1.5) 11 (1.1) 12 (0.9) 2 (0.3) 1 (0.1)

Delaware 63 (0.9) 24 (0.9) 8 (0.7) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3)

Florida 51 (1.6) 26 (1.8) 19 (1.8) 3 (0.3) 1 (0.3)

Georgia 58 (1.7) 34 (1.7) 5 (0.6) 3 (0.4) 1 (0.2)

Hawaii 15 (0.8) 3 (0.5) 12 (0.7) 66 (1.2) 2 (0.2)

Kentucky 85 (1.1) 9 (0.8) 3 (0.4) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2)

Louisiana 55 (1.4) 38 (1.4) 5 (0.5) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.2)

Maine 92 (0.8) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3)

Maryland 56 (1.9) 32 (2.0) 6 (0.7) 4 (0.7) 2 (0.3)

Massachusetts 78 (1.5) 6 (0.9) 11 (1.5) 5 (0.7) 1 (0.2)

Minnesota † 82 (1.5) 5 (1.0) 6 (0.7) 5 (0.7) 3 (0.5)

Mississippi 49 (2.3) 44 (2.1) 5 (0.5) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.2)

Missouri 80 (1.5) 13 (1.2) 4 (0.5) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.3)

Montana † 86 (1.0) 1 (0.3) 6 (0.5) 1 (0.2) 6 (1.0)

Nevada 59 (1.0) 8 (0.6) 24 (0.9) 5 (0.3) 3 (0.5)

New Mexico 36 (1.3) 3 (0.3) 51 (1.2) 1 (0.3) 9 (1.1)

New York † 55 (2.5) 17 (2.0) 21 (1.8) 5 (1.0) 2 (0.3)

North Carolina 62 (1.4) 27 (1.4) 5 (0.5) 2 (0.3) 4 (0.4)

Oklahoma 73 (1.5) 7 (1.1) 8 (0.6) 2 (0.3) 10 (1.0)

Oregon 80 (1.1) 2 (0.6) 10 (0.7) 4 (0.5) 4 (0.5)

Rhode Island 75 (0.8) 7 (0.5) 12 (0.6) 4 (0.3) 1 (0.2)

South Carolina 54 (1.5) 36 (1.4) 5 (0.5) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3)

Tennessee 73 (1.7) 21 (1.5) 4 (0.5) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2)

Texas 48 (1.7) 12 (1.8) 36 (2.2) 3 (0.4) 1 (0.2)

Utah 84 (0.9) 1 (0.2) 9 (0.6) 3 (0.4) 2 (0.5)

Virginia 65 (1.6) 24 (1.4) 6 (0.5) 4 (0.5) 1 (0.2)

Washington 74 (1.5) 4 (0.4) 12 (1.1) 7 (0.9) 3 (0.4)

West Virginia 90 (0.9) 4 (0.5) 3 (0.4) 1 (0.2) 2 (0.3)

Wisconsin † 81 (1.7) 8 (1.3) 7 (1.0) 3 (0.5) 2 (0.4)

Wyoming 83 (0.8) 1 (0.3) 11 (0.6) 1 (0.2) 4 (0.6)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 4 (0.5) 83 (0.8) 10 (0.9) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3)

DDESS 41 (1.8) 26 (1.7) 27 (1.5) 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)

DoDDS 46 (0.9) 18 (0.7) 17 (0.7) 14 (0.7) 2 (0.3)

Virgin Islands 1 (0.4) 76 (1.9) 20 (1.7) 0 (- - -) 1 (0.3)

(- - -) Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National percentages are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
270 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX C

Table C.3

Percentages of grade 8 students by parents’ highest education level

for public schools only: 1998

Graduated Some education Graduated

Did not graduate high school after high school college I don’t know.

Nation 5 (0.3) 16 (0.4) 28 (0.6) 48 (0.9) 3 (0.1)

States

Alabama 6 (0.6) 16 (0.8) 29 (1.0) 46 (1.5) 2 (0.3)

Arizona 7 (0.6) 14 (0.8) 32 (1.0) 43 (1.5) 4 (0.4)

Arkansas 5 (0.4) 18 (0.7) 31 (1.0) 42 (1.1) 4 (0.4)

California † 9 (0.9) 13 (0.8) 28 (1.0) 43 (1.7) 6 (0.6)

Colorado 4 (0.5) 14 (0.8) 25 (1.1) 55 (1.6) 3 (0.3)

Connecticut 3 (0.4) 14 (0.9) 25 (1.0) 56 (1.3) 3 (0.3)

Delaware 3 (0.3) 18 (1.0) 32 (1.0) 44 (1.3) 3 (0.4)

Florida 4 (0.5) 15 (0.8) 33 (1.2) 45 (1.6) 3 (0.3)

Georgia 4 (0.5) 15 (0.7) 30 (1.3) 48 (1.6) 2 (0.3)

Hawaii 3 (0.3) 20 (0.9) 29 (0.9) 44 (1.1) 4 (0.4)

Kentucky 7 (0.5) 19 (1.0) 34 (1.2) 38 (1.4) 3 (0.3)

Louisiana 5 (0.4) 18 (0.9) 37 (1.0) 39 (1.2) 2 (0.3)

Maine 2 (0.3) 17 (1.0) 27 (0.9) 52 (1.3) 2 (0.3)

Maryland 2 (0.3) 15 (0.8) 27 (1.2) 53 (1.7) 3 (0.3)

Massachusetts 4 (0.5) 16 (0.9) 24 (1.0) 54 (1.6) 3 (0.2)

Minnesota † 3 (0.4) 15 (0.9) 25 (1.1) 55 (1.7) 2 (0.4)

Mississippi 5 (0.5) 15 (0.7) 30 (1.1) 47 (1.3) 2 (0.3)

Missouri 4 (0.5) 18 (0.8) 32 (1.0) 44 (1.3) 3 (0.4)

Montana † 3 (0.5) 14 (0.8) 25 (1.2) 56 (1.5) 2 (0.3)

Nevada 7 (0.5) 16 (0.7) 32 (1.1) 42 (0.9) 4 (0.3)

New Mexico 7 (0.7) 16 (0.9) 30 (0.9) 43 (1.3) 4 (0.4)

New York † 4 (0.6) 15 (1.0) 26 (1.1) 51 (1.8) 4 (0.5)

North Carolina 4 (0.5) 14 (0.9) 28 (1.0) 53 (1.4) 2 (0.3)

Oklahoma 4 (0.5) 15 (0.7) 31 (1.1) 48 (1.5) 2 (0.3)

Oregon 4 (0.4) 14 (0.9) 28 (1.0) 50 (1.4) 3 (0.4)

Rhode Island 6 (0.5) 13 (0.7) 26 (1.0) 50 (0.9) 5 (0.5)

South Carolina 4 (0.4) 18 (0.9) 28 (1.0) 47 (1.4) 2 (0.3)

Tennessee 6 (0.6) 18 (0.9) 30 (1.0) 44 (1.7) 2 (0.4)

Texas 9 (0.9) 14 (0.9) 29 (1.1) 45 (1.9) 3 (0.4)

Utah 2 (0.3) 13 (0.7) 25 (0.9) 58 (1.1) 2 (0.3)

Virginia 3 (0.4) 16 (0.9) 28 (1.1) 51 (1.5) 2 (0.3)

Washington 4 (0.7) 13 (0.8) 26 (0.9) 53 (1.6) 3 (0.4)

West Virginia 6 (0.6) 22 (0.9) 30 (0.9) 39 (1.1) 3 (0.4)

Wisconsin † 3 (0.6) 21 (1.0) 27 (1.1) 47 (1.3) 2 (0.3)

Wyoming 3 (0.3) 15 (0.8) 28 (0.9) 52 (0.9) 2 (0.3)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 4 (0.6) 16 (1.1) 40 (1.3) 37 (1.0) 3 (0.5)

DDESS 1 (0.4) 8 (0.9) 33 (2.0) 57 (2.2) 2 (0.5)

DoDDS 1 (0.2) 9 (0.7) 31 (0.9) 57 (1.1) 2 (0.2)

Virgin Islands 7 (1.1) 20 (1.8) 39 (2.0) 28 (1.8) 6 (1.0)

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National percentages are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX C 271

Table C.4

Urban fringe/ Rural/

Central city large town small town

Percentages of grade 8 students by type of location for

public schools only: 1998

Nation 31 (1.6) 39 (2.0) 29 (1.5)

States

Alabama 28 (2.4) 23 (0.7) 49 (2.5)

Arizona 58 (1.9) 27 (2.5) 15 (2.2)

Arkansas 25 (1.5) 14 (1.6) 62 (2.2)

California † 40 (1.7) 56 (2.1) 4 (1.2)

Colorado 33 (1.6) 42 (1.9) 24 (1.5)

Connecticut 21 (1.1) 50 (1.9) 30 (1.6)

Delaware 40 (0.2) 30 (0.2) 30 (0.2)

Florida 45 (1.4) 45 (1.8) 9 (1.8)

Georgia 13 (0.9) 48 (1.8) 39 (2.0)

Hawaii 27 (0.3) 42 (0.3) 30 (0.2)

Kentucky 23 (1.0) 25 (2.5) 52 (2.7)

Louisiana 33 (1.9) 31 (2.4) 36 (3.8)

Maine 10 (1.6) 11 (1.6) 79 (1.6)

Maryland 17 (1.2) 65 (2.1) 18 (1.8)

Massachusetts 27 (1.1) 42 (1.8) 31 (1.6)

Minnesota † 14 (1.3) 48 (2.6) 38 (2.4)

Mississippi 12 (1.1) 25 (2.9) 63 (2.6)

Missouri 22 (1.4) 40 (1.8) 38 (1.8)

Montana † 19 (0.8) 10 (1.0) 70 (1.1)

Nevada 54 (1.2) 29 (1.3) 16 (1.5)

New Mexico 31 (1.2) 28 (1.0) 41 (0.8)

New York † 42 (2.4) 37 (2.5) 21 (2.5)

North Carolina 33 (1.4) 25 (1.6) 43 (1.3)

Oklahoma 18 (0.8) 38 (2.1) 44 (2.3)

Oregon 28 (0.9) 37 (1.2) 35 (1.0)

Rhode Island 33 (0.2) 46 (0.2) 21 (0.2)

South Carolina 27 (1.4) 32 (1.7) 42 (1.5)

Tennessee 39 (1.4) 25 (1.4) 37 (1.8)

Texas 49 (1.0) 28 (1.4) 23 (1.4)

Utah 29 (1.0) 50 (1.8) 21 (1.7)

Virginia 29 (1.1) 39 (1.7) 32 (1.4)

Washington 32 (0.9) 41 (1.2) 27 (1.3)

West Virginia 13 (0.3) 20 (1.7) 67 (1.7)

Wisconsin † 31 (1.4) 28 (2.0) 41 (1.9)

Wyoming 26 (0.3) 4 (0.2) 70 (0.4)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 100 (- - -) 0 (- - -) 0 (- - -)

DDESS 51 (0.8) 31 (0.6) 18 (0.5)

DoDDS *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

Virgin Islands 0 (- - -) 0 (- - -) 100 (- - -)

***(***) Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

(- - -) Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National percentages are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
272 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX C

Table C.5

Information

Eligible Not eligible not available

Percentages of grade 8 students by Free/Reduced-Price School

Lunch Program eligibility for public schools only: 1998

(- - -) Standard error estimate cannot be accurately determined.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National percentages are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state

assessment samples.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.

Nation 30 (1.0) 58 (1.7) 12 (2.0)

States

Alabama 39 (1.8) 59 (2.1) 2 (1.2)

Arizona 33 (2.2) 52 (2.8) 15 (2.6)

Arkansas 35 (1.8) 60 (1.9) 5 (1.5)

California † 39 (3.1) 45 (3.2) 17 (3.5)

Colorado 24 (1.5) 65 (2.7) 11 (2.8)

Connecticut 18 (1.4) 68 (3.1) 13 (3.2)

Delaware 27 (1.1) 63 (1.1) 11 (0.3)

Florida 40 (1.7) 50 (2.8) 10 (2.4)

Georgia 35 (1.6) 53 (3.2) 12 (3.1)

Hawaii 37 (0.8) 59 (0.9) 4 (0.4)

Kentucky 39 (1.6) 57 (1.7) 4 (1.6)

Louisiana 48 (2.0) 43 (2.3) 9 (2.6)

Maine 26 (1.1) 66 (1.7) 7 (1.6)

Maryland 28 (1.5) 69 (2.0) 3 (1.7)

Massachusetts 23 (1.6) 73 (1.9) 5 (1.8)

Minnesota † 23 (1.7) 70 (3.0) 7 (2.7)

Mississippi 51 (2.3) 42 (2.3) 7 (2.3)

Missouri 28 (1.8) 69 (1.9) 3 (1.5)

Montana † 24 (1.5) 67 (2.3) 9 (2.5)

Nevada 26 (1.0) 65 (1.1) 9 (1.0)

New Mexico 43 (1.8) 42 (1.8) 15 (2.0)

New York † 37 (2.5) 46 (3.7) 17 (4.2)

North Carolina 32 (1.3) 61 (2.4) 7 (2.3)

Oklahoma 34 (2.1) 57 (2.9) 9 (2.5)

Oregon 26 (1.7) 69 (2.2) 5 (1.9)

Rhode Island 27 (0.7) 71 (0.7) 1 (0.1)

South Carolina 41 (1.6) 55 (2.4) 4 (2.2)

Tennessee 33 (1.8) 65 (2.0) 2 (1.3)

Texas 38 (2.0) 59 (2.2) 3 (1.3)

Utah 22 (1.1) 67 (1.7) 11 (1.6)

Virginia 23 (1.3) 70 (2.2) 7 (2.1)

Washington 23 (1.4) 67 (2.9) 10 (2.8)

West Virginia 39 (1.4) 57 (1.5) 3 (1.2)

Wisconsin † 21 (2.2) 71 (3.2) 8 (3.0)

Wyoming 24 (1.0) 74 (1.0) 2 (0.2)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 61 (1.0) 21 (0.8) 17 (0.5)

DDESS 33 (1.5) 65 (1.6) 2 (0.2)

DoDDS 5 (0.4) 22 (0.7) 73 (0.7)

Virgin Islands 80 (0.7) 0 (- - -) 20 (0.7)
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX D 273 VARIABLES

CONTEXTUAL

State-Level Contextual Variables

To help better place results from the NAEP 1998 state assessment program into

context, this appendix presents selected state-level data from sources other than

NAEP. These data are taken from the Digest of Education Statistics 1997.

APPENDIX D
274 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX D

School system characteristics from non-NAEP sources

Table D.1a

Estimated total and school-age resident Enrollment in public elementary and

population: 1997 (estimates as of July 1)1 secondary schools: Fall 19962

Total, all ages

(in thousands) Total

Kindergarten

through grade 8

5- to 17-year-olds

(in thousands) Grades 9 to 12

1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports, Series P–25, No. 1095 at the national level,

CPH–L–74 (1990 data) and forthcoming state-level P–25 Reports. (Data prepared October 1998.) 2 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data surveys. (Data prepared May 1998.)

Nation 267,636 50,378 45,592,213 32,758,548 12,833,665

States

Alabama 4,319 779 748,156 540,176 207,980

Alaska 609 139 129,919 94,362 35,557

Arizona 4,555 904 799,250 588,409 210,841

Arkansas 2,523 486 457,349 324,448 132,901

California 32,268 6,291 5,687,901 4,131,084 1,556,817

Colorado 3,893 742 673,438 487,304 186,134

Connecticut 3,270 575 527,129 389,374 137,755

Delaware 732 128 110,549 77,981 32,568

District of Columbia 529 74 78,648 61,138 17,510

Florida 14,654 2,520 2,242,212 1,653,162 589,050

Georgia 7,486 1,430 1,346,761 990,850 355,911

Hawaii 1,187 214 187,653 136,184 51,469

Idaho 1,210 260 245,252 169,419 75,833

Illinois 11,896 2,271 1,973,040 1,412,176 560,864

Indiana 5,864 1,090 983,415 689,578 293,837

Iowa 2,852 542 502,941 341,630 161,311

Kansas 2,595 509 466,293 328,023 138,270

Kentucky 3,908 704 656,089 466,177 189,912

Louisiana 4,352 877 793,296 575,318 217,978

Maine 1,242 228 213,593 155,611 57,982

Maryland 5,094 922 818,583 596,643 221,940

Massachusetts 6,118 1,052 933,898 687,693 246,205

Michigan 9,774 1,852 1,684,386 1,221,755 462,631

Minnesota 4,686 935 847,204 588,752 258,452

Mississippi 2,731 551 503,967 363,864 140,103

Missouri 5,402 1,040 900,942 643,053 256,989

Montana 879 175 164,627 114,672 49,955

Nebraska 1,657 330 291,967 202,846 89,121

Nevada 1,677 313 282,131 207,724 74,407

New Hampshire 1,173 222 198,308 143,880 54,428

New Jersey 8,053 1,430 1,208,179 884,389 323,790

New Mexico 1,730 365 332,632 230,012 102,620

New York 18,137 3,246 2,843,131 2,000,001 843,130

North Carolina 7,425 1,355 1,210,108 886,153 323,955

North Dakota 641 125 120,123 82,171 37,952

Ohio 11,186 2,090 1,844,389 1,298,719 545,670

Oklahoma 3,317 652 620,695 445,496 175,199

Oregon 3,243 598 537,854 380,239 157,615

Pennsylvania 12,020 2,126 1,804,256 1,263,576 540,680

Rhode Island 987 171 151,324 110,476 40,848

South Carolina 3,760 702 653,011 467,885 185,126

South Dakota 738 148 143,331 99,160 44,171

Tennessee 5,368 963 905,089 657,541 247,548

Texas 19,439 3,969 3,828,975 2,800,017 1,028,958

Utah 2,059 492 481,812 327,981 153,831

Vermont 589 111 106,341 76,076 30,265

Virginia 6,734 1,192 1,096,093 796,302 299,791

Washington 5,610 1,068 974,504 687,445 287,059

West Virginia 1,816 308 304,052 208,970 95,082

Wisconsin 5,170 1,011 879,259 605,322 273,937

Wyoming 480 101 99,058 67,331 31,727
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX D 275

School system characteristics from non-NAEP sources

Table D.1b

Number of children (birth to age 21) served

under state-operated Individuals With Disabilities

Education Act and Chapter 1 of the Education

Consolidation and Improvement Act Programs2

Number in poverty

(in thousands) 1996–97 school year

Percent change:

Percent in poverty 1990–91 to 1996–97

Poverty status of

5- to 17-year-olds: 19961

1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census, Minority Economic Profiles, unpublished data; and Current Population

Reports, Series P–60, “Poverty in the United States,” “Money Income of Households, Families, and Persons in the United States,” and “Income,

Poverty, and Valuation of Noncash Benefits,” various years, and “Money Income in the U.S.: 1996,” P60–193. (Data prepared June 1998.) 2 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of The

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, various years, and unpublished tabulations. (Data prepared March 1998.)

Nation 9,590 18.9 5,919,767 24.3

Alabama 170 20.7 99,302 4.6

Alaska 17 9.8 18,061 22.5

Arizona 292 29.6 81,099 41.7

Arkansas 105 19.5 57,475 20.2

California 1,474 23.5 604,075 28.7

Colorado 88 11.2 73,992 29.6

Connecticut 159 23.5 84,412 30.7

Delaware 17 12.4 16,421 14.9

District Columbia 31 38.1 7,059 12.2

Florida 458 19.8 334,707 41.8

Georgia 278 19.6 144,512 41.7

Hawaii 32 15.7 20,350 54.5

Idaho 40 16.3 26,128 18.7

Illinois 388 16.5 275,198 15.1

Indiana 79 7.9 142,667 24.4

Iowa 71 11.8 69,060 13.8

Kansas 56 10.7 56,845 25.7

Kentucky 203 27.0 87,137 9.7

Louisiana 235 27.7 94,727 28.6

Maine 26 14.0 33,678 20.3

Maryland 137 14.9 108,453 18.0

Massachusetts 144 13.1 168,082 8.7

Michigan 286 15.7 198,772 19.1

Minnesota 130 13.0 103,929 28.5

Mississippi 163 26.0 66,161 8.6

Missouri 120 11.4 127,864 25.4

Montana 46 24.9 19,119 11.1

Nebraska 41 12.0 40,578 23.9

Nevada 24 8.3 30,913 67.6

New Hampshire 13 6.8 27,592 40.4

New Jersey 181 13.9 206,252 13.8

New Mexico 136 32.2 51,280 42.3

New York 868 25.0 427,907 39.2

North Carolina 222 17.5 158,272 28.5

North Dakota 13 10.2 12,991 3.9

Ohio 367 16.7 243,312 18.4

Oklahoma 173 24.2 75,601 15.2

Oregon 112 18.4 65,543 18.8

Pennsylvania 349 15.8 222,494 1.4

Rhode Island 18 12.4 27,354 29.8

South Carolina 154 21.1 92,787 19.3

South Dakota 16 11.6 15,485 3.3

Tennessee 231 20.6 128,672 22.7

Texas 858 22.5 472,661 34.8

Utah 39 8.6 55,848 17.0

Vermont 19 16.3 12,076 -1.5

Virginia 183 17.9 146,840 28.8

Washington 158 15.5 109,227 27.9

West Virginia 56 22.4 49,092 13.8

Wisconsin 105 10.4 114,407 31.6

Wyoming 9 9.2 13,298 18.7
276 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX D

School system characteristics from non-NAEP sources

Table D.1c

NEA: 1997–983 AFT: 1997–984

Elementary and secondary

education expenditures

per capita:

1994–951

Pupil-teacher ratios in

public elementary and

secondary schools:

Fall 19962

1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, unpublished data. (Data prepared February 1999.)

2 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data surveys. (Data prepared May 1998.)

3 National Education Association, Estimates of School Statistics; and unpublished data. (Latest edition 1997-98. Copyright © 1998 by the National

Education Association. All rights reserved.) (Data prepared October 1998.)

4 American Federation of Teachers, Survey and Analysis of Salary Trends, 1998.

Nation $1,006 17.1 $39,385 $39,347

Alabama 709 16.6 32,818 32,799

Alaska 1,888 17.5 51,738 48,275

Arizona 885 19.7 33,850 34,071

Arkansas 757 17.1 30,578 32,119

California 898 22.9 43,725 44,585

Colorado 981 18.5 37,502 37,240

Connecticut 1,208 14.4 50,730 51,727

Delaware 1,056 16.6 42,439 42,439

District of Columbia 1,113 14.9 46,350 44,746

Florida 931 18.6 34,475 34,473

Georgia 981 17.0 37,378 37,412

Hawaii 813 17.7 38,377 36,598

Idaho 936 18.8 32,775 32,834

Illinois 953 17.0 43,873 43,707

Indiana 973 17.3 39,682 39,752

Iowa 943 15.4 34,040 34,084

Kansas 996 15.1 36,811 33,800

Kentucky 782 16.7 34,525 34,453

Louisiana 848 16.6 29,650 30,090

Maine 989 13.7 34,349 34,349

Maryland 1,026 17.1 41,739 41,404

Massachusetts 1,006 14.5 43,930 44,285

Michigan 1,149 19.1 49,227 48,361

Minnesota 1,284 17.6 39,106 39,104

Mississippi 814 17.2 29,547 28,691

Missouri 904 15.1 33,975 34,001

Montana 1,092 16.0 30,617 30,617

Nebraska 1,123 14.5 32,668 32,668

Nevada 848 19.1 37,093 40,572

New Hampshire 987 15.6 36,640 36,663

New Jersey 1,388 13.6 50,442 50,284

New Mexico 885 16.7 30,152 30,309

New York 1,433 15.4 49,034 48,712

North Carolina 849 16.1 33,315 33,123

North Dakota 879 15.2 28,230 28,231

Ohio 982 17.0 38,977 39,099

Oklahoma 942 15.7 30,606 30,940

Oregon 1,038 20.1 42,150 42,301

Pennsylvania 941 17.0 47,650 47,542

Rhode Island 1,049 14.2 44,300 44,506

South Carolina 877 15.7 33,608 33,608

South Dakota 922 14.9 27,341 27,839

Tennessee 758 16.5 35,340 34,584

Texas 975 15.5 33,648 33,537

Utah 1,010 24.4 32,950 32,981

Vermont 1,061 13.7 36,299 36,299

Virginia 958 14.7 36,654 37,024

Washington 1,118 20.2 38,788 38,755

West Virginia 977 14.6 33,398 33,396

Wisconsin 1,139 16.1 39,899 38,179

Wyoming 1,307 14.7 32,022 32,022

Estimated annual salaries of teachers in

public elementary and secondary schools

(current dollars)
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX E 277 RESULTS STATE-LEVEL

Additional State-Level

Achievement Results for

Subgroups

This chapter shows more complete state-by-state achievement level results for

selected student subgroups to supplement the information in Chapter 5. It

shows percentages below the Basic achievement level, at or above Basic, at or

above Proficient, and at Advanced for those subgroups. This information is for

public schools only. Appendix F presents overall state-by-state results for

nonpublic schools.

APPENDIX E
278 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX E

Percentage of grade 8 students at or above achievement levels

by gender for public schools only: 1998

Table E.1

Male

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Female

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

The standard errors of percentages appear in parentheses.

- - - Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between states and

jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.

Nation 24(0.9) 76(0.9) 15(0.8) 0(0.1) 10(0.4) 90(0.4) 34(0.9) 2(0.2)

States

Alabama 25(1.9) 75(1.9) 9(0.9) 0(- - -) 9(1.2) 91(1.2) 25(2.1) 1(0.3)

Arizona 28(2.6) 72(2.6) 13(1.4) 0(- - -) 12(1.7) 88(1.7) 29(2.4) 1(0.3)

Arkansas 34(2.1) 66(2.1) 6(1.0) 0(- - -) 13(1.2) 87(1.2) 21(1.7) 0(0.3)

California † 30(2.1) 70(2.1) 15(1.9) 1(0.3) 18(1.7) 82(1.7) 25(2.2) 2(0.4)

Colorado 20(1.7) 80(1.7) 16(1.0) 0(0.1) 8(1.0) 92(1.0) 38(2.5) 2(0.6)

Connecticut 13(1.4) 87(1.4) 33(1.6) 2(0.4) 5(1.3) 95(1.3) 55(1.9) 7(0.9)

Delaware 28(1.7) 72(1.7) 13(1.8) 0(- - -) 12(1.3) 88(1.3) 32(2.8) 2(0.9)

Florida 31(1.9) 69(1.9) 11(1.6) 0(- - -) 13(1.3) 87(1.3) 28(2.2) 1(0.4)

Georgia 24(1.7) 76(1.7) 15(1.8) 0(0.2) 10(1.1) 90(1.1) 31(2.1) 1(0.4)

Hawaii 38(1.9) 62(1.9) 7(1.4) 0(- - -) 16(1.0) 84(1.0) 23(2.2) 1(0.5)

Kentucky 25(1.8) 75(1.8) 11(1.7) 0(- - -) 8(1.0) 92(1.0) 30(2.1) 1(0.8)

Louisiana 34(2.9) 66(2.9) 5(1.0) 0(- - -) 17(1.4) 83(1.4) 17(1.6) 0(- - -)

Maine 22(2.0) 78(2.0) 20(1.8) 1(0.4) 5(1.3) 95(1.3) 44(2.8) 3(0.9)

Maryland 24(2.1) 76(2.1) 13(1.8) 0(- - -) 10(1.5) 90(1.5) 33(2.5) 1(0.6)

Massachusetts 19(1.9) 81(1.9) 20(2.0) 1(0.3) 7(1.1) 93(1.1) 44(2.6) 4(1.1)

Minnesota † 26(2.0) 74(2.0) 11(1.6) 0(- - -) 8(1.2) 92(1.2) 39(3.0) 1(0.5)

Mississippi 36(2.4) 64(2.4) 6(0.9) 0(- - -) 16(1.8) 84(1.8) 16(1.4) 0(- - -)

Missouri 30(2.1) 70(2.1) 9(1.4) 0(- - -) 11(1.5) 89(1.5) 27(2.2) 1(0.2)

Montana † 22(1.8) 78(1.8) 14(1.6) 0(- - -) 6(1.4) 94(1.4) 37(2.8) 2(0.5)

Nevada 30(2.2) 70(2.2) 10(1.3) 0(- - -) 15(1.6) 85(1.6) 24(1.6) 1(0.3)

New Mexico 29(2.1) 71(2.1) 10(1.5) 0(- - -) 12(1.2) 88(1.2) 27(2.4) 1(0.4)

New York † 22(2.5) 78(2.5) 13(1.8) 0(- - -) 11(1.3) 89(1.3) 28(2.2) 0(- - -)

North Carolina 23(1.8) 77(1.8) 18(1.9) 1(0.2) 8(1.1) 92(1.1) 37(2.0) 2(0.7)

Oklahoma 17(1.7) 83(1.7) 14(1.7) 0(0.2) 6(1.0) 94(1.0) 36(2.3) 1(0.3)

Oregon 24(1.9) 76(1.9) 15(1.6) 0(- - -) 9(1.4) 91(1.4) 38(2.3) 2(0.5)

Rhode Island 23(2.1) 77(2.1) 17(1.2) 1(0.3) 10(1.4) 90(1.4) 34(2.3) 2(0.6)

South Carolina 30(1.7) 70(1.7) 7(1.0) 0(- - -) 12(1.9) 88(1.9) 24(1.6) 0(0.2)

Tennessee 22(2.1) 78(2.1) 15(1.6) 0(0.2) 10(1.4) 90(1.4) 32(2.5) 1(0.5)

Texas 18(2.1) 82(2.1) 19(1.8) 0(0.2) 7(1.1) 93(1.1) 43(2.5) 2(0.6)

Utah 32(2.2) 68(2.2) 12(1.8) 0(0.2) 12(1.3) 88(1.3) 31(1.5) 1(0.4)

Virginia 16(1.5) 84(1.5) 17(1.6) 0(- - -) 5(0.8) 95(0.8) 39(2.0) 2(0.5)

Washington 26(2.1) 74(2.1) 15(1.8) 1(0.4) 9(1.2) 91(1.2) 34(2.4) 2(0.6)

West Virginia 26(2.4) 74(2.4) 10(1.7) 0(- - -) 8(1.3) 92(1.3) 27(2.0) 1(0.3)

Wisconsin † 18(1.7) 82(1.7) 14(2.1) 0(- - -) 5(1.1) 95(1.1) 43(2.2) 1(0.5)

Wyoming 29(2.2) 71(2.2) 12(1.5) 0(0.2) 8(1.0) 92(1.0) 35(3.6) 2(0.8)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 47(3.6) 53(3.6) 5(1.3) 0(- - -) 27(2.2) 73(2.2) 17(1.7) 1(0.5)

DoDEA/DDESS 18(2.6) 82(2.6) 31(4.5) 3(1.8) 8(2.0) 92(2.0) 45(4.9) 8(2.4)

DoDEA/DoDDS 15(1.7) 85(1.7) 21(1.7) 1(0.3) 6(1.2) 94(1.2) 41(2.9) 2(0.7)

Virgin Islands 50(5.3) 50(5.3) 5(1.7) 1(- - -) 30(5.6) 70(5.6) 11(3.0) 1(- - -)
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX E 279

White

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Hispanic

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Black

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Table E.2a

Percentage of grade 8 students at or above achievement levels

by race/ethnicity for public schools only: 1998

Nation 11(0.5) 89(0.5) 31(1.0) 1(0.2) 29(1.5) 71(1.5) 7(0.7) 0(- - -) 32(1.4) 68(1.4) 10(1.0) 0(0.1)

States

Alabama 10(1.1) 90(1.1) 23(1.5) 0(0.2) 28(2.8) 72(2.8) 6(1.6) 0(- - -) 36(6.5) 64(6.5) 8(5.6) 0(- - -)

Arizona 11(1.5) 89(1.5) 29(2.3) 1(0.4) 41(6.5) 59(6.5) 6(4.2) 0(- - -) 32(2.5) 68(2.5) 10(1.4) 0(- - -)

Arkansas 17(1.5) 83(1.5) 17(1.5) 0(0.2) 40(2.1) 60(2.1) 4(1.2) 0(- - -) 45(6.6) 55(6.6) 7(3.1) 0(- - -)

California † 11(1.5) 89(1.5) 32(2.9) 2(0.5) 27(5.0) 73(5.0) 11(3.7) 0(- - -) 38(2.5) 62(2.5) 7(1.2) 0(- - -)

Colorado 9(0.9) 91(0.9) 32(1.9) 1(0.5) 27(5.9) 73(5.9) 9(4.6) 0(- - -) 30(3.0) 70(3.0) 11(1.4) 0(- - -)

Connecticut 5(0.6) 95(0.6) 53(1.6) 6(0.7) 23(3.6) 77(3.6) 15(2.9) 1(- - -) 24(4.1) 76(4.1) 16(3.7) 1(0.8)

Delaware 15(1.4) 85(1.4) 29(2.4) 2(0.8) 30(3.6) 70(3.6) 9(2.1) 0(- - -) 29(6.0) 71(6.0) 14(4.4) 0(- - -)

Florida 15(1.3) 85(1.3) 27(2.2) 1(0.4) 34(2.6) 66(2.6) 7(1.7) 0(- - -) 26(2.3) 74(2.3) 14(2.9) 0(- - -)

Georgia 9(1.2) 91(1.2) 31(2.3) 1(0.4) 28(2.3) 72(2.3) 9(1.4) 0(- - -) 38(5.9) 62(5.9) 10(3.4) 0(- - -)

Hawaii 23(3.5) 77(3.5) 19(2.9) 0(- - -) 39(10.2) 61(10.2) 7(4.5) 0(- - -) 42(4.3) 58(4.3) 5(1.9) 0(- - -)

Kentucky 14(1.0) 86(1.0) 23(1.8) 1(0.4) 28(4.1) 72(4.1) 7(2.4) 0(- - -) 41(6.2) 59(6.2) 10(4.8) 1(- - -)

Louisiana 14(1.7) 86(1.7) 17(1.4) 0(0.2) 38(3.5) 62(3.5) 4(1.0) 0(- - -) 45(4.7) 55(4.7) 5(2.9) 0(- - -)

Maine 13(1.3) 87(1.3) 33(1.8) 2(0.5) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Maryland 10(1.3) 90(1.3) 32(2.0) 1(0.4) 27(2.9) 73(2.9) 7(2.4) 0(- - -) 32(5.5) 68(5.5) 8(3.0) 0(- - -)

Massachusetts 9(1.1) 91(1.1) 36(2.1) 3(0.7) 23(4.5) 77(4.5) 9(3.6) 0(- - -) 37(4.8) 63(4.8) 7(1.8) 0(- - -)

Minnesota † 13(1.1) 87(1.1) 28(2.3) 1(0.3) 40(13.0) 60(13.0) 9(3.9) 0(- - -) 45(5.8) 55(5.8) 5(3.5) 0(- - -)

Mississippi 14(1.9) 86(1.9) 18(1.4) 0(- - -) 35(2.3) 65(2.3) 4(1.0) 0(- - -) 57(10.8) 43(10.8) 1(- - -) 0(- - -)

Missouri 17(1.5) 83(1.5) 20(1.7) 0(0.1) 36(4.1) 64(4.1) 4(1.9) 0(- - -) 45(7.0) 55(7.0) 4(2.0) 0(- - -)

Montana † 12(1.2) 88(1.2) 27(2.0) 1(0.3) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 27(8.6) 73(8.6) 10(5.5) 0(- - -)

Nevada 16(1.0) 84(1.0) 22(1.3) 1(0.3) 27(4.9) 73(4.9) 9(3.8) 0(- - -) 40(3.3) 60(3.3) 7(1.7) 0(- - -)

New Mexico 12(1.4) 88(1.4) 29(2.4) 2(0.6) 30(7.5) 70(7.5) 12(6.0) 0(- - -) 26(1.6) 74(1.6) 12(1.4) 0(- - -)

New York † 7(1.0) 93(1.0) 30(2.2) 0(0.2) 27(4.3) 73(4.3) 7(2.2) 0(- - -) 31(3.2) 69(3.2) 6(1.4) 0(- - -)

North Carolina 10(1.3) 90(1.3) 35(2.2) 2(0.6) 24(2.3) 76(2.3) 11(1.6) 0(- - -) 30(4.6) 70(4.6) 21(5.6) 1(- - -)

Oklahoma 8(1.2) 92(1.2) 30(1.6) 1(0.2) 25(5.3) 75(5.3) 7(4.1) 0(- - -) 25(6.0) 75(6.0) 8(3.3) 0(- - -)

Oregon 15(1.2) 85(1.2) 29(1.7) 1(0.4) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 28(3.7) 72(3.7) 13(3.7) 0(- - -)

Rhode Island 12(1.4) 88(1.4) 30(1.6) 2(0.6) 29(5.1) 71(5.1) 12(3.6) 0(- - -) 36(3.4) 64(3.4) 7(1.8) 0(- - -)

South Carolina 11(1.2) 89(1.2) 22(1.6) 0(0.2) 32(3.1) 68(3.1) 5(1.4) 0(- - -) 45(4.8) 55(4.8) 5(3.0) 1(- - -)

Tennessee 11(1.5) 89(1.5) 28(2.2) 1(0.4) 27(4.6) 73(4.6) 10(2.4) 0(- - -) 38(6.9) 62(6.9) 13(5.3) 0(- - -)

Texas 7(0.9) 93(0.9) 41(2.2) 2(0.6) 17(4.1) 83(4.1) 20(4.0) 0(- - -) 18(2.5) 82(2.5) 20(2.0) 0(0.3)

Utah 18(1.3) 82(1.3) 24(1.3) 1(0.3) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 44(4.0) 56(4.0) 7(2.5) 0(- - -)

Virginia 8(0.9) 92(0.9) 33(1.8) 1(0.3) 18(1.9) 82(1.9) 12(1.7) 0(- - -) 12(3.1) 88(3.1) 17(3.2) 0(- - -)

Washington 13(1.6) 87(1.6) 29(2.1) 2(0.5) 31(4.2) 69(4.2) 11(4.5) 0(- - -) 40(5.6) 60(5.6) 9(2.1) 0(- - -)

West Virginia 16(1.5) 84(1.5) 19(1.7) 0(0.2) 21(6.6) 79(6.6) 14(5.0) 0(- - -) 46(10.8) 54(10.8) 3 (- - -) 0(- - -)

Wisconsin † 10(1.0) 90(1.0) 31(1.7) 1(0.4) 21(4.8) 79(4.8) 15(3.7) 0(- - -) 23(5.8) 77(5.8) 12(4.5) 0(- - -)

Wyoming 17(1.3) 83(1.3) 25(2.0) 1(0.5) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 30(3.6) 70(3.6) 12(3.4) 1(0.3)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 20(8.4) 80(8.4) 43(9.0) 4 (- - -) 37(1.8) 63(1.8) 10(1.4) 0(- - -) 43(6.8) 57(6.8) 8(3.9) 1(- - -)

DoDEA/DDESS 10(2.3) 90(2.3) 46(4.2) 8(2.8) 17(4.2) 83(4.2) 26(4.8) 3(1.9) 15(3.6) 85(3.6) 32(5.3) 4(1.8)

DoDEA/DoDDS 9(1.0) 91(1.0) 37(2.8) 2(0.8) 14(2.9) 86(2.9) 22(3.4) 1(- - -) 13(3.6) 87(3.6) 27(3.6) 1(0.8)

Virgin Islands ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 38(3.9) 62(3.9) 8(2.3) 0(- - -) 44(9.9) 56(9.9) 7(2.9) 0(- - -)

The standard errors of percentages appear in parentheses.

***(***) Insufficient sample size. - - - Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between states and

jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.
280 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX E

Table E.2b

Asian/Pacific Islander

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

American Indian

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Percentage of grade 8 students at or above achievement levels

by race/ethnicity for public schools only: 1998

Nation 11(2.6) 89(2.6) 33(3.7) 2(1.2) 29(4.9) 71(4.9) 8(2.7) 0(- - -)

States

Alabama ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Arizona 16(5.0) 84(5.0) 36(8.2) 1(- - -) 34(7.1) 66(7.1) 9(5.7) 0(- - -)

Arkansas ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

California † 11(2.5) 89(2.5) 38(5.5) 3(1.5) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Colorado 7(3.3) 93(3.3) 37(6.3) 2 (- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Connecticut ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Delaware ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Florida 11(4.5) 89(4.5) 36(6.0) 2 (- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Georgia 15(6.0) 85(6.0) 28(6.9) 2 (- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Hawaii 25(1.3) 75(1.3) 17(1.4) 1(0.5) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Kentucky ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Louisiana ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Maine ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Maryland 5(2.7) 95(2.7) 40(7.4) 4 (- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Massachusetts 8(3.2) 92(3.2) 37(7.2) 1(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Minnesota † 27(5.9) 73(5.9) 16(5.5) 1(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Mississippi ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Missouri ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Montana † ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 28(6.0) 72(6.0) 15(4.5) 0(- - -)

Nevada 13(4.1) 87(4.1) 19(6.3) 0(- - -) 28(9.5) 72(9.5) 12(3.5) 0(- - -)

New Mexico ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 28(3.8) 72(3.8) 11(2.2) 0(- - -)

New York † 18(4.7) 82(4.7) 26(7.8) 1(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

North Carolina ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 23(9.2) 77(9.2) 17(5.8) 0(- - -)

Oklahoma ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 16(2.9) 84(2.9) 15(3.4) 0(- - -)

Oregon 13(4.3) 87(4.3) 34(5.7) 4(2.8) 31(7.9) 69(7.9) 14(4.9) 0(- - -)

Rhode Island 16(8.7) 84(8.7) 17(4.9) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

South Carolina ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Tennessee ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Texas 8(4.3) 92(4.3) 41(7.7) 2 (- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Utah 28(5.9) 72(5.9) 15(5.2) 1(- - -) 44(9.3) 56(9.3) 6 (- - -) 0(- - -)

Virginia 6(2.7) 94(2.7) 41(6.8) 2 (- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Washington 15(2.4) 85(2.4) 26(5.1) 1(- - -) 30(6.7) 70(6.7) 5(3.1) 0(- - -)

West Virginia ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Wisconsin † ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Wyoming ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 40(7.3) 60(7.3) 11(6.0) 0(- - -)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

DoDEA/DDESS ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

DoDEA/DoDDS 8(2.5) 92(2.5) 34(6.9) 1(1.0) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Virgin Islands ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

The standard errors of percentages appear in parentheses.

***(***) Insufficient sample size. - - - Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences

between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX E 281

Graduated from college

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Graduated from high school

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Some education after high school

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Table E.3a

Nation 12(0.6) 88(0.6) 33(1.2) 2(0.2) 19(0.9) 81(0.9) 19(0.9) 0(0.1) 17(1.3) 83(1.3) 18(1.2) 0(0.2)

States

Alabama 14(1.6) 86(1.6) 23(1.6) 0(0.3) 18(2.0) 82(2.0) 12(1.9) 0(- - -) 13(2.6) 87(2.6) 15(2.8) 0(0.3)

Arizona 13(2.2) 87(2.2) 32(2.2) 1(0.4) 23(2.6) 77(2.6) 14(2.7) 0(- - -) 19(2.6) 81(2.6) 15(2.3) 0(- - -)

Arkansas 18(2.2) 82(2.2) 19(2.1) 0(0.3) 25(2.2) 75(2.2) 12(1.9) 0(- - -) 27(2.5) 73(2.5) 9(1.8) 0(- - -)

California † 13(1.6) 87(1.6) 32(2.6) 2(0.6) 26(2.9) 74(2.9) 14(1.9) 0(- - -) 27(3.0) 73(3.0) 11(2.3) 0(- - -)

Colorado 9(0.9) 91(0.9) 34(1.6) 1(0.3) 16(2.3) 84(2.3) 22(2.5) 1(- - -) 15(2.0) 85(2.0) 18(3.5) 1(- - -)

Connecticut 5(0.8) 95(0.8) 57(1.7) 7(1.0) 13(2.9) 87(2.9) 29(2.8) 1(0.5) 9(2.2) 91(2.2) 33(3.6) 1(1.0)

Delaware 16(2.0) 84(2.0) 30(2.6) 2(0.9) 21(2.0) 79(2.0) 18(1.8) 1(- - -) 20(2.4) 80(2.4) 19(4.7) 1(- - -)

Florida 17(1.7) 83(1.7) 25(2.4) 1(0.4) 24(2.0) 76(2.0) 15(2.3) 0(0.2) 21(2.4) 79(2.4) 19(2.5) 0(- - -)

Georgia 12(1.5) 88(1.5) 31(2.2) 1(0.5) 21(1.7) 79(1.7) 15(1.8) 0(- - -) 21(2.9) 79(2.9) 16(3.2) 0(- - -)

Hawaii 22(1.9) 78(1.9) 20(1.4) 1(0.8) 31(2.2) 69(2.2) 11(2.4) 0(- - -) 29(4.1) 71(4.1) 12(2.7) 0(- - -)

Kentucky 9(1.2) 91(1.2) 31(3.5) 2 (- - -) 17(1.5) 83(1.5) 15(1.7) 0(- - -) 17(2.2) 83(2.2) 17(2.1) 0(- - -)

Louisiana 20(2.3) 80(2.3) 16(2.1) 0(0.3) 27(1.9) 73(1.9) 8(1.1) 0(- - -) 25(2.5) 75(2.5) 11(1.8) 0(- - -)

Maine 10(1.2) 90(1.2) 40(1.9) 3(0.9) 15(2.4) 85(2.4) 25(3.0) 1(0.5) 15(3.1) 85(3.1) 26(3.5) 1(0.7)

Maryland 12(1.8) 88(1.8) 31(2.2) 1(0.5) 20(2.5) 80(2.5) 15(2.3) 0(0.2) 19(2.9) 81(2.9) 13(2.1) 0(- - -)

Massachusetts 8(1.1) 92(1.1) 42(2.4) 4(1.0) 16(2.0) 84(2.0) 19(2.3) 0(- - -) 19(2.8) 81(2.8) 22(3.0) 0(- - -)

Minnesota † 12(1.3) 88(1.3) 32(2.9) 1(0.4) 20(2.6) 80(2.6) 18(2.0) 1(- - -) 21(3.5) 79(3.5) 16(2.4) 0(- - -)

Mississippi 22(1.8) 78(1.8) 15(1.4) 0(- - -) 30(3.1) 70(3.1) 7(1.5) 0(- - -) 25(3.0) 75(3.0) 7(1.6) 0(- - -)

Missouri 13(1.6) 87(1.6) 25(1.7) 1(0.2) 24(2.2) 76(2.2) 12(1.9) 0(- - -) 22(2.3) 78(2.3) 14(2.5) 0(- - -)

Montana † 11(1.5) 89(1.5) 31(2.8) 2(0.3) 15(1.8) 85(1.8) 21(2.6) 0(- - -) 20(2.6) 80(2.6) 16(3.2) 0(- - -)

Nevada 16(1.4) 84(1.4) 23(2.1) 1(0.4) 21(1.9) 79(1.9) 15(1.5) 0(- - -) 26(3.1) 74(3.1) 10(1.9) 0(- - -)

New Mexico 15(1.9) 85(1.9) 26(2.5) 1(0.6) 21(2.0) 79(2.0) 15(2.3) 0(- - -) 25(3.2) 75(3.2) 13(2.4) 0(- - -)

New York † 12(1.6) 88(1.6) 28(1.8) 0(0.3) 18(2.9) 82(2.9) 16(1.8) 0(- - -) 18(2.6) 82(2.6) 14(3.3) 0(- - -)

North Carolina 11(1.3) 89(1.3) 36(2.4) 2(0.7) 18(2.3) 82(2.3) 20(2.0) 0(- - -) 21(2.3) 79(2.3) 17(2.5) 0(- - -)

Oklahoma 7(1.4) 93(1.4) 33(2.3) 1(0.3) 13(2.1) 87(2.1) 20(1.9) 0(- - -) 16(3.8) 84(3.8) 17(3.1) 0(- - -)

Oregon 12(1.5) 88(1.5) 36(2.4) 2(0.7) 17(2.4) 83(2.4) 22(3.1) 1(0.4) 23(3.9) 77(3.9) 15(2.3) 0(- - -)

Rhode Island 12(1.2) 88(1.2) 33(3.2) 2(0.9) 18(2.3) 82(2.3) 21(3.0) 1(- - -) 18(4.6) 82(4.6) 16(2.8) 0(- - -)

South Carolina 18(1.7) 82(1.7) 20(1.6) 1(0.2) 24(2.7) 76(2.7) 10(1.3) 0(- - -) 21(2.9) 79(2.9) 12(2.9) 0(- - -)

Tennessee 12(1.7) 88(1.7) 33(3.3) 2(0.6) 16(2.3) 84(2.3) 19(2.6) 0(- - -) 17(2.3) 83(2.3) 17(2.4) 0(- - -)

Texas 8(1.1) 92(1.1) 39(2.0) 2(0.5) 14(2.0) 86(2.0) 28(2.6) 1(- - -) 12(2.3) 88(2.3) 27(3.3) 1(- - -)

Utah 18(1.4) 82(1.4) 27(1.8) 1(0.4) 22(2.0) 78(2.0) 17(1.8) 0(- - -) 28(4.0) 72(4.0) 13(2.7) 0(- - -)

Virginia 7(0.9) 93(0.9) 39(2.3) 2(0.5) 15(1.9) 85(1.9) 18(1.5) 0(- - -) 13(2.2) 87(2.2) 15(2.3) 0(- - -)

Washington 11(1.2) 89(1.2) 33(2.2) 2(0.7) 19(2.4) 81(2.4) 17(2.4) 1(0.4) 19(3.7) 81(3.7) 20(3.6) 0(- - -)

West Virginia 11(1.4) 89(1.4) 27(3.4) 1(0.4) 19(2.5) 81(2.5) 14(1.9) 0(- - -) 20(2.7) 80(2.7) 12(2.7) 0(- - -)

Wisconsin † 9(1.5) 91(1.5) 34(2.0) 1(0.4) 12(2.3) 88(2.3) 25(2.7) 0(- - -) 13(2.4) 87(2.4) 22(2.8) 0(- - -)

Wyoming 15(1.2) 85(1.2) 29(2.1) 1(0.7) 21(2.2) 79(2.2) 19(2.2) 1(- - -) 24(4.9) 76(4.9) 16(3.8) 0(- - -)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 32(3.1) 68(3.1) 16(1.8) 1(- - -) 38(2.3) 62(2.3) 9(1.6) 0(0.1) 33(4.4) 67(4.4) 10(2.4) 1(- - -)

DoDEA/DDESS 11(1.9) 89(1.9) 39(3.3) 6(2.3) 14(3.0) 86(3.0) 37(4.7) 5(2.0) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

DoDEA/DoDDS 8(1.5) 92(1.5) 35(2.9) 2(0.6) 11(2.1) 89(2.1) 29(3.5) 1(- - -) 13(3.6) 87(3.6) 23(8.0) 1(- - -)

Virgin Islands 39(10.4) 61(10.4) 8(4.1) 0(- - -) 37(5.8) 63(5.8) 8(3.0) 0(- - -) 39(8.0) 61(8.0) 8(2.8) 0(- - -)

Percentage of grade 8 students at or above achievement levels

by parents’ highest level of education for public schools only: 1998

The standard errors of percentages appear in parentheses.

***(***) Insufficient sample size. - - - Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between states and

jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.
282 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX E

Table E.3b

Did not finish high school

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

I don’t know.

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Nation 31(2.4) 69(2.4) 6(1.8) 0(- - -) 45(3.0) 55(3.0) 3(1.1) 0(- - -)

States

Alabama 33(4.5) 67(4.5) 7(2.3) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Arizona 42(5.2) 58(5.2) 4(2.8) 0(- - -) 46(6.5) 54(6.5) 2 (- - -) 0(- - -)

Arkansas 29(6.1) 71(6.1) 6(3.1) 0(- - -) 42(8.2) 58(8.2) 4(2.9) 0(- - -)

California† 45(3.1) 55(3.1) 5(1.9) 0(- - -) 46(5.9) 54(5.9) 6(3.8) 0(- - -)

Colorado 45(4.9) 55(4.9) 5(3.0) 0(- - -) 48(4.5) 52(4.5) 5 (- - -) 1(- - -)

Connecticut 26(7.7) 74(7.7) 11(4.9) 0(- - -) 32(8.8) 68(8.8) 16(4.3) 1(- - -)

Delaware 33(9.4) 67(9.4) 10(6.2) 0(- - -) 50(6.5) 50(6.5) 4 (- - -) 0(- - -)

Florida 31(4.8) 69(4.8) 6(3.6) 0(- - -) 38(6.8) 62(6.8) 9(4.3) 0(- - -)

Georgia 27(4.7) 73(4.7) 7(2.4) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Hawaii 41(8.4) 59(8.4) 7(4.8) 0(- - -) 41(8.2) 59(8.2) 6(2.6) 0(- - -)

Kentucky 31(4.9) 69(4.9) 12(5.1) 0(- - -) 38(6.6) 62(6.6) 8(4.4) 0(- - -)

Louisiana 30(5.9) 70(5.9) 7(3.1) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Maine ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Maryland ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Massachusetts 32(5.0) 68(5.0) 7(2.8) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Minnesota† ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Mississippi 29(6.4) 71(6.4) 5(2.7) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Missouri 36(6.0) 64(6.0) 6(3.9) 0(- - -) 49(8.7) 51(8.7) 4(2.7) 0(- - -)

Montana† ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Nevada 42(5.3) 58(5.3) 9(2.8) 0(- - -) 54(5.8) 46(5.8) 5(2.9) 0(- - -)

New Mexico 36(7.8) 64(7.8) 5(2.9) 0(- - -) 45(8.5) 55(8.5) 5(3.6) 0(- - -)

New York† 36(6.7) 64(6.7) 8(4.3) 0(- - -) 26(7.2) 74(7.2) 7 (- - -) 0(- - -)

North Carolina 32(6.1) 68(6.1) 7(3.4) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Oklahoma 27(8.2) 73(8.2) 8(3.4) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Oregon 38(6.4) 62(6.4) 11(3.3) 1(- - -) 36(8.7) 64(8.7) 4 (- - -) 0(- - -)

Rhode Island 38(9.3) 62(9.3) 6(3.4) 0(- - -) 30(4.6) 70(4.6) 12(4.0) 0(- - -)

South Carolina 23(4.7) 77(4.7) 8(3.1) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Tennessee 26(4.3) 74(4.3) 11(3.7) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Texas 18(4.0) 82(4.0) 13(2.7) 0(- - -) 30(6.3) 70(6.3) 6(4.0) 0(- - -)

Utah ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Virginia 24(6.9) 76(6.9) 9(3.9) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Washington 45(6.6) 55(6.6) 7(3.8) 0(- - -) 51(8.5) 49(8.5) 1(- - -) 0(- - -)

West Virginia 37(5.7) 63(5.7) 6(3.0) 0(- - -) 34(8.6) 66(8.6) 10(4.3) 0(- - -)

Wisconsin† ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Wyoming 35(9.5) 65(9.5) 11(5.0) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 27(9.9) 73(9.9) 9(5.0) 0(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

DoDEA/DDESS ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

DoDEA/DoDDS ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Virgin Islands ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Percentage of grade 8 students at or above achievement levels

by parents’ highest level of education for public schools only: 1998

The standard errors of percentages appear in parentheses.

***(***) Insufficient sample size. - - - Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between states and

jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX E 283

Central city

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Rural/small town

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Urban fringe/large town

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Nation 22(1.3) 78(1.3) 19(1.4) 1(0.2) 14(1.1) 86(1.1) 29(1.7) 1(0.2) 16(1.0) 84(1.0) 23(1.4) 1(0.2)

States

Alabama 17(2.6) 83(2.6) 19(2.8) 1(0.4) 14(2.9) 86(2.9) 19(3.1) 0(- - -) 18(2.1) 82(2.1) 16(1.7) 0(- - -)

Arizona 21(2.0) 79(2.0) 20(2.1) 1(0.2) 15(2.9) 85(2.9) 26(3.1) 1(0.6) 25(3.6) 75(3.6) 13(3.1) 0(- - -)

Arkansas 23(3.3) 77(3.3) 15(2.2) 1(- - -) 20(3.7) 80(3.7) 17(3.9) 0(- - -) 24(1.8) 76(1.8) 12(1.4) 0(- - -)

California † 26(2.9) 74(2.9) 20(2.8) 1(0.3) 22(2.0) 78(2.0) 21(2.3) 1(0.5) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Colorado 18(2.0) 82(2.0) 24(2.1) 1(0.4) 11(1.4) 89(1.4) 29(2.4) 1(0.5) 14(2.1) 86(2.1) 27(4.2) 1(0.5)

Connecticut 22(3.7) 78(3.7) 20(2.8) 1(0.4) 6(0.8) 94(0.8) 47(2.4) 4(0.7) 5(1.5) 95(1.5) 56(2.8) 7(1.4)

Delaware 21(1.8) 79(1.8) 23(1.8) 2(0.8) 19(2.2) 81(2.2) 22(2.2) 1(- - -) 19(2.2) 81(2.2) 22(2.2) 1(0.5)

Florida 22(1.5) 78(1.5) 19(2.1) 1(0.2) 20(1.8) 80(1.8) 20(2.6) 1(0.5) 26(3.1) 74(3.1) 15(4.1) 0(- - -)

Georgia 22(3.5) 78(3.5) 18(2.9) 1(- - -) 13(1.6) 87(1.6) 27(2.6) 1(0.4) 22(2.2) 78(2.2) 18(2.7) 0(- - -)

Hawaii 24(2.4) 76(2.4) 19(1.7) 1(0.9) 29(2.1) 71(2.1) 13(1.9) 0(- - -) 29(2.5) 71(2.5) 13(1.7) 0(- - -)

Kentucky 18(3.5) 82(3.5) 23(5.9) 2 (- - -) 16(1.7) 84(1.7) 19(2.4) 0(- - -) 16(1.2) 84(1.2) 21(2.3) 0(- - -)

Louisiana 31(3.4) 69(3.4) 11(2.3) 0(- - -) 24(2.9) 76(2.9) 10(1.5) 0(- - -) 20(2.4) 80(2.4) 13(1.8) 0(- - -)

Maine 15(3.3) 85(3.3) 33(3.9) 3(1.7) 16(3.2) 84(3.2) 31(3.9) 2(0.8) 13(1.8) 87(1.8) 32(1.9) 2(0.6)

Maryland 32(5.3) 68(5.3) 11(3.2) 0(- - -) 15(1.5) 85(1.5) 25(2.0) 1(0.4) 12(3.8) 88(3.8) 25(4.0) 0(- - -)

Massachusetts 22(2.5) 78(2.5) 18(3.8) 1(0.6) 10(1.9) 90(1.9) 37(3.6) 2(1.2) 9(1.5) 91(1.5) 35(2.9) 2(1.0)

Minnesota † 36(4.7) 64(4.7) 13(3.0) 1(- - -) 13(1.9) 87(1.9) 29(3.1) 1(0.4) 16(1.9) 84(1.9) 24(3.1) 1(- - -)

Mississippi 26(5.2) 74(5.2) 13(2.4) 0(- - -) 24(3.3) 76(3.3) 15(2.8) 0(- - -) 27(1.9) 73(1.9) 9(1.2) 0(- - -)

Missouri 25(4.0) 75(4.0) 15(3.3) 0(- - -) 17(2.1) 83(2.1) 19(2.2) 0(- - -) 21(2.3) 79(2.3) 18(2.0) 0(- - -)

Montana † 15(2.3) 85(2.3) 19(3.2) 0(- - -) 18(5.7) 82(5.7) 21(2.5) 1(- - -) 13(1.3) 87(1.3) 28(2.1) 1(0.4)

Nevada 23(1.3) 77(1.3) 16(1.3) 1(0.2) 21(2.3) 79(2.3) 18(1.3) 0(- - -) 23(3.1) 77(3.1) 15(1.5) 0(- - -)

New Mexico 19(2.6) 81(2.6) 24(2.7) 2(0.6) 20(1.6) 80(1.6) 18(2.7) 1(0.4) 23(1.5) 77(1.5) 14(2.2) 0(- - -)

New York † 27(2.8) 73(2.8) 11(2.0) 0(- - -) 8(1.5) 92(1.5) 30(2.9) 1(0.4) 10(2.5) 90(2.5) 24(3.5) 0(- - -)

North Carolina 14(2.1) 86(2.1) 33(3.5) 2(0.7) 16(2.4) 84(2.4) 26(2.0) 1(- - -) 16(2.1) 84(2.1) 24(2.7) 1(0.5)

Oklahoma 16(2.1) 84(2.1) 23(3.7) 0(- - -) 12(1.8) 88(1.8) 24(2.8) 1(0.2) 9(1.7) 91(1.7) 27(2.2) 1(0.3)

Oregon 18(2.7) 82(2.7) 29(3.7) 1(0.6) 16(2.1) 84(2.1) 29(2.3) 2(0.7) 17(2.1) 83(2.1) 23(2.3) 1(0.4)

Rhode Island 25(3.0) 75(3.0) 14(2.4) 0(- - -) 14(1.7) 86(1.7) 30(2.0) 2(0.8) 11(1.8) 89(1.8) 30(3.0) 1(0.7)

South Carolina 17(2.2) 83(2.2) 19(2.5) 0(0.3) 16(1.9) 84(1.9) 18(1.9) 0(- - -) 28(2.3) 72(2.3) 10(1.4) 0(- - -)

Tennessee 19(3.4) 81(3.4) 22(3.8) 1(0.5) 14(2.1) 86(2.1) 28(3.6) 1(0.8) 13(2.0) 87(2.0) 23(2.4) 1(0.3)

Texas 14(2.0) 86(2.0) 29(2.6) 1(0.4) 10(2.6) 90(2.6) 36(3.6) 1(0.5) 12(1.4) 88(1.4) 29(2.6) 1(- - -)

Utah 26(1.9) 74(1.9) 19(2.4) 1(0.4) 20(1.5) 80(1.5) 23(1.6) 1(0.4) 23(4.0) 77(4.0) 20(3.3) 1(- - -)

Virginia 13(1.8) 87(1.8) 21(2.3) 0(- - -) 8(1.0) 92(1.0) 36(2.3) 2(0.6) 13(2.0) 87(2.0) 23(2.3) 0(- - -)

Washington 19(2.1) 81(2.1) 22(2.5) 1(0.7) 15(2.0) 85(2.0) 28(3.2) 1(0.7) 18(2.9) 82(2.9) 22(3.1) 1(0.6)

West Virginia 14(2.5) 86(2.5) 24(2.9) 0(- - -) 14(2.2) 86(2.2) 24(4.4) 1(- - -) 19(1.8) 81(1.8) 16(1.6) 0(0.1)

Wisconsin † 14(2.4) 86(2.4) 25(3.1) 1(- - -) 10(1.6) 90(1.6) 30(3.4) 1(0.4) 11(1.9) 89(1.9) 29(2.7) 1(- - -)

Wyoming 16(2.2) 84(2.2) 25(3.5) 1(0.6) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 20(1.6) 80(1.6) 22(1.3) 1(0.5)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 37(1.9) 63(1.9) 11(1.1) 1(0.3) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

DoDEA/DDESS ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

DoDEA/DoDDS ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Virgin Islands ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) 39(3.9) 61(3.9) 9(2.1) 1(- - -)

Table E.4

Percentage of grade 8 students at or above achievement levels

by type of location for public schools only: 1998

The standard errors of percentages appear in parentheses.

***(***) Insufficient sample size. - - - Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between states and

jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.
284 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX E

Eligible

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Not eligible

At or At or

Below above above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Nation 29(1.0) 71(1.0) 10(0.5) 0(0.1) 11(0.7) 89(0.7) 32(1.0) 1(0.2)

States

Alabama 27(2.3) 73(2.3) 6(1.1) 0(- - -) 10(1.0) 90(1.0) 25(1.7) 0(0.2)

Arizona 33(2.6) 67(2.6) 9(1.5) 0(- - -) 13(2.0) 87(2.0) 28(2.6) 1(0.3)

Arkansas 38(2.3) 62(2.3) 5(1.0) 0(- - -) 15(1.4) 85(1.4) 18(1.8) 0(0.3)

California † 40(2.7) 60(2.7) 6(1.9) 0(- - -) 12(1.5) 88(1.5) 30(2.9) 2(0.6)

Colorado 29(2.6) 71(2.6) 11(2.3) 0(- - -) 9(1.2) 91(1.2) 32(1.9) 1(0.5)

Connecticut 22(3.9) 78(3.9) 15(2.3) 0(- - -) 6(0.8) 94(0.8) 51(1.8) 6(0.8)

Delaware 34(2.3) 66(2.3) 10(1.6) 0(- - -) 14(1.3) 86(1.3) 28(1.9) 1(0.7)

Florida 32(1.7) 68(1.7) 9(1.5) 0(0.1) 13(1.5) 87(1.5) 27(2.4) 1(0.4)

Georgia 31(2.5) 69(2.5) 8(1.3) 0(- - -) 10(1.2) 90(1.2) 29(1.9) 1(0.4)

Hawaii 40(2.0) 60(2.0) 8(1.6) 0(- - -) 21(1.2) 79(1.2) 19(1.5) 1(0.5)

Kentucky 26(1.9) 74(1.9) 11(1.8) 0(- - -) 9(1.1) 91(1.1) 28(2.5) 1(- - -)

Louisiana 33(2.4) 67(2.4) 5(0.8) 0(- - -) 15(1.7) 85(1.7) 18(1.8) 0(0.2)

Maine 22(3.3) 78(3.3) 15(2.8) 0(- - -) 11(1.2) 89(1.2) 38(1.9) 3(0.7)

Maryland 32(3.7) 68(3.7) 6(1.5) 0(- - -) 11(1.3) 89(1.3) 30(2.0) 1(0.4)

Massachusetts 28(2.3) 72(2.3) 8(1.9) 0(- - -) 8(1.0) 92(1.0) 39(2.0) 3(0.7)

Minnesota † 35(3.1) 65(3.1) 10(1.7) 0(- - -) 12(1.1) 88(1.1) 29(2.4) 1(0.3)

Mississippi 35(2.2) 65(2.2) 4(1.0) 0(- - -) 16(1.6) 84(1.6) 18(1.6) 0(- - -)

Missouri 33(2.6) 67(2.6) 7(1.3) 0(- - -) 15(1.4) 85(1.4) 22(1.8) 0(0.1)

Montana † 23(2.8) 77(2.8) 15(3.6) 1(0.4) 10(1.5) 90(1.5) 30(1.9) 1(0.4)

Nevada 37(2.9) 63(2.9) 7(1.5) 0(- - -) 17(1.5) 83(1.5) 21(1.4) 1(0.2)

New Mexico 30(1.5) 70(1.5) 9(1.3) 0(- - -) 14(1.4) 86(1.4) 26(2.0) 1(0.4)

New York † 29(3.4) 71(3.4) 8(1.5) 0(- - -) 8(1.2) 92(1.2) 29(2.6) 1(0.3)

North Carolina 29(2.3) 71(2.3) 11(1.4) 0(- - -) 8(1.2) 92(1.2) 36(2.3) 2(0.6)

Oklahoma 18(2.4) 82(2.4) 15(1.7) 0(- - -) 8(1.3) 92(1.3) 31(2.4) 1(0.3)

Oregon 29(2.6) 71(2.6) 13(1.6) 0(- - -) 12(1.3) 88(1.3) 32(1.9) 2(0.4)

Rhode Island 29(3.1) 71(3.1) 10(1.4) 0(- - -) 12(1.3) 88(1.3) 31(1.7) 2(0.6)

South Carolina 34(2.9) 66(2.9) 5(1.2) 0(- - -) 12(1.3) 88(1.3) 22(1.6) 0(0.2)

Tennessee 25(3.0) 75(3.0) 12(2.1) 0(- - -) 11(1.5) 89(1.5) 30(2.5) 1(0.4)

Texas 20(2.7) 80(2.7) 17(2.0) 0(- - -) 7(0.9) 93(0.9) 40(1.9) 2(0.4)

Utah 34(2.7) 66(2.7) 13(2.4) 0(0.1) 19(1.4) 81(1.4) 23(1.5) 1(0.3)

Virginia 22(2.2) 78(2.2) 9(1.4) 0(- - -) 8(0.8) 92(0.8) 33(1.8) 1(0.3)

Washington 33(3.1) 67(3.1) 10(1.6) 0(- - -) 13(1.2) 87(1.2) 29(2.3) 2(0.6)

West Virginia 27(2.5) 73(2.5) 9(1.2) 0(- - -) 11(1.1) 89(1.1) 25(2.6) 0(0.2)

Wisconsin † 20(3.0) 80(3.0) 16(2.5) 0(- - -) 9(1.0) 91(1.0) 33(1.9) 1(0.4)

Wyoming 26(3.1) 74(3.1) 16(1.6) 1(0.3) 17(1.5) 83(1.5) 26(2.2) 1(0.5)

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 42(3.0) 58(3.0) 7(1.2) 0(- - -) 24(2.2) 76(2.2) 22(2.1) 2(1.1)

DoDEA/DDESS 13(3.0) 87(3.0) 35(4.2) 5(2.0) 12(1.6) 88(1.6) 40(3.4) 7(2.3)

DoDEA/DoDDS 11(4.0) 89(4.0) 32(8.6) 1(- - -) 11(2.5) 89(2.5) 30(5.7) 2 (- - -)

Virgin Islands 40(4.1) 60(4.1) 9(2.9) 1(- - -) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***) ***(***)

Percentage of grade 8 students at or above achievement levels by

Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Program eligibility

for public schools only: 1998

Table E.5

The standard errors of percentages appear in parentheses.

***(***) Insufficient sample size. - - - Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between states and

jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX F 285 SCHOOLS NONPUBLIC

APPENDIX F

State-Level Results for

Nonpublic Schools

This appendix presents state-by-state results for students in nonpublic schools. It

includes both scale score and achievement level data. Nonpublic school results

are reported only for those states with sufficient numbers of participating

nonpublic schools.
286 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX F

Table F.1

Average grade 8 scale scores for the states for

nonpublic schools only: 1998

Average

scale score

Nation 167 (1.2)

States

Arkansas † 164 (5.7)

California † 178 (4.3)

Connecticut † 169 (9.6)

Florida † 159 (4.8)

Georgia 166 (10.8)

Louisiana 158 (3.6)

Maryland † 167 (4.9)

Massachusetts † 172 (7.3)

Montana 150 (10.1)

Nebraska 165 (4.7)

Nevada 162 (8.0)

New Mexico † 181 (9.8)

New York † 155 (6.7)

North Carolina † 175 (5.1)

Rhode Island † 167 (3.8)

Washington 179 (5.2)

West Virginia 179 (7.6)

Other Jurisdictions

Virgin Islands † 156 (5.3)

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), 1998 Writing Assessment.
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX F 287

Table F.2

Percentage of nonpublic school students at or above

writing achievement levels: 1998

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Nation 4 (0.8) 96 (0.8) 44 (1.6) 3 (0.5)

States

Arkansas † 6 (3.4) 94 (3.4) 37 (8.8) 1 (***)

California † 1 (***) 99 (***) 56 (6.6) 6 (1.9)

Connecticut † 8 (5.3) 92 (5.3) 49 (10.6) 5 (***)

Florida † 7 (3.9) 93 (3.9) 33 (5.0) 1 (***)

Georgia 7 (***) 93 (***) 44 (12.5) 3 (***)

Louisiana 7 (2.0) 93 (2.0) 31 (5.2) 1 (0.4)

Maryland † 3 (1.7) 97 (1.7) 41 (6.5) 1 (***)

Massachusetts † 4 (1.8) 96 (1.8) 47 (9.5) 8 (3.9)

Montana 17 (7.5) 83 (7.5) 29 (10.5) 1 (***)

Nebraska 8 (3.0) 92 (3.0) 43 (5.8) 4 (2.2)

Nevada 3 (***) 97 (***) 36 (12.6) 1 (***)

New Mexico † 3 (***) 97 (***) 60 (11.8) 11 (4.8)

New York † 14 (5.5) 86 (5.5) 34 (6.8) 1 (0.7)

North Carolina † 2 (1.2) 98 (1.2) 55 (9.5) 3 (***)

Rhode Island † 5 (2.9) 95 (2.9) 44 (5.2) 3 (0.9)

Washington 2 (***) 98 (***) 61 (8.6) 6 (2.9)

West Virginia 2 (***) 98 (***) 60 (11.1) 6 (4.2)

Other Jurisdictions

Virgin Islands † 13 (4.2) 87 (4.2) 33 (5.5) 4 (***)

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the

guidelines for school participation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1998 Writing Assessment.
288 WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX F
WRITING REPORT CARD • APPENDIX F 289

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is a product of the many individuals who contributed their considerable

knowledge, experience, and creativity to the NAEP 1998 writing assessment. The

NAEP writing assessment was a collaborative effort among staff from the National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the U.S. Department of Education, the

National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), Educational Testing Service (ETS),

Westat, and National Computer Systems (NCS).

In addition, the program benefited from the contributions of hundreds of individuals

at the state and local levels — governors, chief state school officers, state and district test

directors, state coordinators, and district administrators — who tirelessly provided their

wisdom, experience, and hard work. Most importantly, NAEP is grateful to the

thousands of students and hundreds of teachers and administrators who made the

assessment possible.

The NAEP 1998 writing assessment was funded through NCES, in the Office of

Educational Research and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. The

Commissioner of Education Statistics, Pascal D. Forgione, the Acting Commissioner,

Gary W. Phillips, and the NCES staff — Peggy Carr, Arnold Goldstein, Andy Kolstad,

Marilyn McMillen, Suzanne Triplett, Maureen Treacy, and Sheida White — worked

closely and collegially with the authors to produce this report. The authors were also

provided invaluable advice and guidance by the members of the NAGB staff.

The NAEP project at ETS is directed by Stephen Lazer and John Mazzeo. Sampling and

data collection activities were conducted by Westat under the direction of Rene Slobasky,

Nancy Caldwell, Keith Rust, and Dianne Walsh. Printing, distribution, scoring, and

processing activities were conducted by NCS under the direction of Brad Thayer, Patrick

Bourgeacq, Charles Brungardt, Mathilde Kennel, Linda Reynolds, and Connie Smith.

The complex statistical and psychometric activities necessary to report results for

the NAEP 1998 writing assessment were directed by Nancy Allen, John Barone, James

Carlson, and Frank Jenkins. The analyses presented in this report were led by Bruce

Kaplan with assistance from Dave Freund, Gerry Kokolis, Venus Leung, Youn-Hee

Lim, Ting Lu, and Kate Pashley.

The design and production of the report were overseen by Loretta Casalaina and Rod

Rudder. Kelly Gibson designed the cover. Loretta Casalaina led the considerable

production efforts with assistance from Barbette Tardugno, Kelly Gibson, Tracey Creely,

and Sharon Davis-Johnson. Data checking was done by Tracey Creely, Alice Kass, Katonya

Davis, and Barbette Tardugno. Editorial assistance was provided by Karlene Farquharson,

Eleanor Werenfels, Christine Liddie, Shari Santapau, and Nancy Horkay, under the

leadership of Shari Santapau. Karen McQuillen provided research assistance.

Many thanks are due to the numerous reviewers, both internal and external to

NCES and ETS, who reviewed this publication. The comments and critical feedback of the

following reviewers are reflected in the final version of this report: Arthur Applebee, Mary

Lyn Bourque, Suzanne Clewell, Lawrence Feinberg, Arnold Goldstein, Kerry Gruber,

Alyce Hunter, Andy Kolstad, Marilyn McMillen, and Shi-Chang Wu.
United States

Department of Education

Washington, DC 20208-5653

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Postage and Fees Paid

U.S. Department of Education

Permit No. G-17

Standard Mail (B)