The Nation’s Report Card Fourth-GradeReading 2000

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2001-499
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

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

Former Commissioner of Education

State of Kentucky

Frankfort, Kentucky

Daniel A. Domenech

Superintendent of Schools

Fairfax County Public Schools

Fairfax, Virginia

Edward Donley

Former Chairman

Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.

Allentown, Pennsylvania

Thomas H. Fisher

Director

Student Assessment Services

Florida Department of Education

Tallahassee, Florida

Edward H. Haertel

Professor, School of Education

Stanford University

Stanford, California

Juanita Haugen

Local School Board Member

Pleasanton, California

Honorable Nancy Kopp

State Legislator

Annapolis, Maryland

Honorable Ronnie Musgrove

Governor of Mississippi

Jackson, Mississippi

Roy M. Nageak, Sr.

First Vice-Chair

Alaska Board of Education and

Early Development

Barrow, Alaska

Debra Paulson

Eighth-Grade Mathematics Teacher

El Paso, Texas

Honorable Jo Ann Pottorff

State Legislator

Wichita, Kansas

Diane Ravitch

Research Professor

New York University

New York, New York

Sister Lourdes Sheehan, R.S.M.

Secretary for Education

United States Catholic Conference

Washington, DC

John H. Stevens

Executive Director

Texas Business and Education

Coalition

Austin, Texas

Adam Urbanski

President

Rochester Teachers Association

Rochester, New York

Migdania D. Vega

Principal

Coral Way Elementary Bilingual

School

Miami, Florida

Deborah Voltz

Assistant Professor

Department of Special Education

University of Louisville

Louisville, Kentucky

Honorable Michael E. Ward

State Superintendent of Public

Instruction

North Carolina Public Schools

Raleigh, North Carolina

Marilyn A. Whirry

Twelfth-Grade English Teacher

Manhattan Beach, California

Dennie Palmer Wolf

Senior Research Associate

Harvard University

Graduate School of Education

Cambridge, Massachusetts

(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
Patricia L. Donahue

Robert J. Finnegan

Anthony D. Lutkus

Nancy L. Allen

Jay R. Campbell

In collaboration with

Dave Freund Shari Santapau

Steve Isham Spence Swinton

Laura Jerry Lois Worthington

Youn-hee Lim

April 2001

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2001–499

National Center for

Education St atistics

The Nation’s Report Card

Reading 2000 Fourth-Grade
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips

Acting Commissioner

April 2001

SUGGESTED CITATION

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

Statistics. The Nation’s Report Card: Fourth-Grade Reading 2000, NCES 2001–499, by P. L. Donahue, R.J. Finnegan,

A. D. Lutkus, N.L. Allen, and J. R. Campbell. Washington, DC: 2001.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Content contact:

Sheida White

202–502–7473

To obtain single copies of this report, limited number of copies available, 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 also is available on the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard

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.
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D iii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview of the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) . . . . . . . 2

Framework for the 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Reading Assessment Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Description of School and Student Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Reporting the Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Setting of Achievement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Developmental Status of Achievement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Interpreting NAEP Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter 1

Average Scale Score and Achievement Level Results for the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Average Scale Score Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Achievement Level Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Sample Assessment Questions and Student Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Map of Selected Item Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 2

Average Scale Score and Achievement Level Results for

Selected Subgroups of 4th-Grade Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Trends in Scale Score Differences Between Selected Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Region of the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Type of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Type of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

The

Nation’s

Report

Card

Table of Contents
iv T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S • READING REPORT CARD

Chapter 3

School and Home Contexts for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Reading in and for School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Literacy with Family and Friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Chapter 4

Becoming a More Inclusive National Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Two Sets of 2000 NAEP Reading Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Results for the Nation:

Accommodations Not Permitted and Accommodations Permitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Results by Gender:

Accommodations Not Permitted and Accommodations Permitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Results by Race/Ethnicity:

Accommodations Not Permitted and Accommodations Permitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Appendix A

Overview of Procedures Used for the NAEP 2000 Grade 4 Reading Assessment . . . . . . 73

The NAEP 2000 Grade 4 Reading Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

The Assessment Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

National Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Students with Disabilities (SD) and Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students . . . . . 79

Data Collection and Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Data Analysis and IRT Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Item Mapping Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Weighting and Variance Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Drawing Inferences from the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Analyzing Group Differences in Averages and Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Conducting Multiple Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

NAEP Reporting Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Cautions in Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Appendix B

Sample Text and Questions from the NAEP 2000 Reading Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Appendix C

Data Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
TABLE OF CONTENTS • READING REPORT CARD v

Figures and Tables

Figure i.1

Descriptions of the three reading purposes specified in the NAEP framework . . . . . . . 3

Figure i.2

Descriptions of the four reading stances specified in the NAEP framework . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure i.3

Policy definitions of the three achievement levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 1.1

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 1.2

Fourth-grade reading scale score percentiles: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 1.3

Descriptions of reading achievement for the levels at grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 1.4

Percentage of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels

and within each achievement level range: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 1.1

Sample question 1 results (multiple-choice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 1.2

Sample question 2 results (short constructed-response) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 1.3

Sample question 3 results (extended constructed-response) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 1.5

Map of selected item descriptions on the

National Assessment of Educational Progress

reading scale for grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 1.6

Average scale score, percentile scores,

and achievement level results: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 2.1

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores

for male and female students: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 2.2

Percentages of fourth-grade male and female students at or above

reading achievement levels and within each achievement level range:

1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 2.3

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores by race/ethnicity: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 2.4

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels

and within each achievement level range by race/ethnicity: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 2.5

Differences in average fourth-grade reading scale scores

by gender and race/ethnicity: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
vi T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S • READING REPORT CARD

Figure 2.6

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores

by region of the country: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 2.7

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels

and within each achievement level range by region of the country: 1992–2000 . . . . 35

Table 2.1

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores

by school’s type of location: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 2.8

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels

and within each achievement level range by school’s type of location: 2000 . . . . . . . 38

Figure 2.9

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores by student eligibility

for the free/reduced-price lunch program: 1998–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 2.10

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels

and within each achievement level range by student eligibility for the

free/reduced-price lunch program: 1998–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 2.11

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores by type of school: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 2.12

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels

and within each achievement level range by type of school: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 2.13

Summary of scale scores and achievement levels: 1992-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 3.1

Students’ reports on the number of pages read each day

in school and for homework: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 3.2

Student’s reports on the amount of time spent doing

homework each day: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 3.3

Students’ reports on how often they write long answers to

questions on tests or assignments that involved reading: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 3.4

Students’ reports on how often their teachers help them

break words into parts and help them understand new words: 1998–2000 . . . . . . . . 53

Table 3.5

Students’ reports on how often they read for fun

on their own time: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 3.6

Students’ reports on how often they discuss their studies at home

and talk about reading with their family and friends: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
TABLE OF CONTENTS • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D vii

Table 3.7

Students’ reports on the number of different types of reading materials

in the home: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table 3.8

Students’ reports on the amount of time spent watching television

each day: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 4.1

The two sets of NAEP results based on a split-sample design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table 4.1

Average score by type of results: 1998 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Table 4.2

Percentages of students attaining reading achievement levels by type of results:

1998 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure A.1

1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 NAEP framework—

aspects of grade 4 reading literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table A.1

Target and actual percentage distribution of questions by reading purpose,

2000 NAEP grade 4 reading assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table A.2

Target and actual percentage distribution of questions by reading stance,

2000 NAEP grade 4 reading assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table A.3

Grade 4 national student sample sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table A.4

NAEP 2000 school and student participation rates for the nation:

Grade 4 public schools, nonpublic schools, and combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table A.5

Students with disabilities and limited English proficient students in the

NAEP reading assessment: Grade 4 national samples where accommodations

were not permitted: 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table A.6

Students with disabilities and limited English proficient students in the

NAEP reading assessment: Grade 4 national samples where accommodations

were permitted for identified students: 1998 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table A.7

SD and LEP students assessed with accommodations, in the

NAEP reading assessment: Grade 4 national samples where accommodations

were permitted for identified students, public and nonpublic schools combined

by type of accommodation: 1998 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Table A.8

FDR comparisons of average reading scale scores for

race/ethnicity groups: 1994 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure A.2

States included in the four NAEP regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D ix

Executive Summary

The

Nation’s

Report

Card

Reading Scale

Score and

Achievement

Level Results for

the Nation

Results for

Student

Subgroups

School and Home

Contexts for

Learning

Transitioning to a

More Inclusive

NAEP

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

is the nation’s only federally mandated survey of student

achievement in various 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 2000,

NAEP conducted a national reading assessment of

fourth-grade students.

 This report presents the results of the 2000 NAEP fourthgrade reading assessment for the nation. Results in 2000 are

compared to results of previous NAEP reading assessments.

Students’ performance on the assessment is described in

terms of average scores on a 0-500 scale, and in terms of the

percentage of students attaining 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. They are collective judgments of what

students should know and be able to do.

As provided by law, the Commissioner of Education

Statistics, upon review of a congressionally mandated

evaluation of NAEP, determined that the achievement levels

are to be considered developmental and should be

interpreted and used with caution. However, both the

Acting Commissioner and the Board believe these

performance standards are useful for understanding trends in

student achievement. They have been widely used by
x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • READING REPORT CARD

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 in

reading for the nation’s fourth-graders, this

report provides results for subgroups of

fourth-grade students defined by various

background and contextual characteristics.

A summary of major findings from the

2000 NAEP reading assessment is presented on the following pages.

Reading Scale Score and

Achievement Level Results

for the Nation

The reading performance of the nation’s

fourth-graders has remained relatively

stable across assessment years. In 2000, the

national average scale score of 217 was

similar to that in 1992.

Although the national average scale

score has remained relatively stable, significant changes are evident at the upper and

lower ends of the performance distribution.

Higher performing students have made

progress: scores at the 75th and 90th percentiles in 2000 were significantly higher

than 1992. In contrast, the score at the 10th

percentile in 2000 was significantly lower

than 1992.

In 2000, the percentage of fourth-grade

students performing at or above the Basic

level of reading achievement was 63 percent. Performance at or above the Proficient

level—the level identified by NAGB as the

level that all students should reach—was

achieved by 32 percent of fourth-graders.

The highest level of performance, the

Advanced level, was achieved by 8 percent

of fourth-graders.

In 2000, the percentages of fourthgraders performing at or above Proficient

and at Advanced were higher than in 1992.

Results for Student Subgroups

Gender

 In 2000, female fourth-grade students

had a higher average score than their

male peers. The scale-score gap between

males and females widened since 1998.

 The percentage of females at or above

the Proficient level exceeded that of males.

 The percentage of female fourth-graders

at or above the Proficient level in 2000

was higher than in 1992.

Race/Ethnicity

 In 2000, white and Asian/Pacific Islander

students outperformed their black,

Hispanic, and American Indian peers.

 A significant increase was observed in

the average scale score of Asian/Pacific

Islander students, whose 2000 score was

higher than in 1992. The 2000 average

score of black students was significantly

higher in comparison to 1994.

 The percentages of white and Asian/

Pacific Islander students at or above the

Proficient level exceeded that of other

racial/ethnic groups.

 Only among Asian/Pacific Islander

students was an increase observed in

the percentage at or above Proficient

since 1992.

Region

 The 2000 results by region show

fourth-grade students in the Northeast

and Central regions outperforming

their counterparts in the Southeast and

the West.

 Among students in the Northeast, the

average scale score in 2000 was higher

in comparison to 1994.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D xi

 Students in the Northeast and Central

regions had higher percentages of

students at or above the Proficient level

than the Southeast. The Northeast region

had a higher percentage of students at or

above Proficient than the West.

Type of Location

 Fourth-grade students in central city

schools had a lower average score in

2000 than their peers who attended

schools in urban fringe/large town and

rural/small town locations.

 Comparisons of achievement level

results between locations show a lower

percentage of central city students at or

above the Proficient level than their peers

in other types of location.

Eligibility for

Free/Reduced-Price Lunch

 In 2000, students who were eligible for

the free/reduced-price lunch program

had a lower average score than students

who were ineligible for the program.

 Achievement level results also show

lower performance among students

eligible for the program. In 2000,

14 percent of eligible students performed

at or above the Proficient level in

comparison to 41 percent of noneligible

students.

Type of School

 Consistent with past NAEP reading

assessments, the 2000 results indicated

that students attending public schools had

lower average reading scale scores than

their peers attending nonpublic schools.

 A lower percentage of public school

students performed at or above the

Proficient level in comparison to

nonpublic school students.

School and Home Contexts

for Learning

Pages Read in School and

for Homework

 Fourth-graders who reported reading

more pages daily in school and for

homework had higher average scores

than students who reported reading

fewer pages daily.

 The 2000 results indicate that more

fourth-grade students are reading

eleven or more pages in school and for

homework on a daily basis than in 1992

and 1994.

Time Spent Doing Homework

 Fourth-graders who reported spending

a moderate amount of time on

homework—one-half hour or one hour

daily—had higher average scores than

students who reported that they spent

more than an hour or that they either

did not have or did not do homework.

 The percentage of students in 2000

who reported that they do not have

homework was lower in comparison

to 1992 and 1994.

Writing about Reading

 Fourth-graders who reported writing

long answers to questions on tests and

assignments that involved reading on a

weekly or monthly basis had higher

average scores than students who

reported doing so once or twice a year,

or never or hardly ever.

 The 2000 assessment reports by fourthgraders indicate an increase in the

frequency of writing about reading on a

weekly basis in comparison to 1994.
xii E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y • READING REPORT CARD

Teachers’ Help with Words

 Fourth-grade students who reported

that their teachers never or hardly ever

helped them break words into parts

scored higher than their peers who

reported receiving such help daily

or weekly.

 Fourth-graders who reported that their

teachers helped them understand new

words on a weekly or monthly basis

scored higher than those who reported

receiving this help daily or never or

hardly ever.

Reading for Fun

 Students who reported reading for fun

on their own time every day had higher

average scores than students who

reported reading for fun less frequently.

 In 2000, 75 percent of fourth-grade

students reported reading for fun on

their own time at least weekly.

Discussing Studies and Talking about

Reading

 Students who reported discussing their

studies at home daily, weekly, or monthly

had higher average scores than students

who reported never or hardly ever

having such discussions.

 Students who reported talking about

their reading with family and friends on

a weekly basis had a higher average score

than students who reported engaging in

such conversations daily, monthly, or

never or hardly ever.

 In 2000, 61 percent of fourth-grade

students reported talking about their

reading with family or friends at least

weekly.

Reading Materials in the Home

 The average score for students who

reported having all four types of reading

materials (books, magazines, newspapers,

encyclopedia) in their home was higher

than those who reported having fewer

reading materials.

 In 2000, a lower percentage of students

reported having all four types of reading

materials in the home in comparison to

1994.

Time Spent Watching Television

 Students who reported watching three

or fewer hours of television each day

outperformed students who reported

watching more television.

 In 2000, the percentages of students who

reported watching four or more hours of

television daily has decreased since 1994

and the percentages of students reporting

watching three hours or less has increased

since 1994.

Transitioning to a More Inclusive NAEP

 A second set of results from the 2000

NAEP reading assessment represents the

performance of students when testing

accommodations are permitted for

special-needs students.

 A comparison of the two sets of results

show that the average score for the

nation was lower in the results that

included the performance of students

that needed and were provided with

testing accommodations.

 A comparison of the two sets of results

for Hispanic students show that their

average score was lower in the results

that included the performance of

students that needed and were provided

with testing accommodations.
INTRODUCTION • READING REPORT CARD 1

ntroduction

At the start of a new century, the importance of providing

all students with an education that ensures them the means

for personal, social, and economic growth remains as central

to the American enterprise as it has always been. It may be,

however, that the challenge inherent in this enterprise has

never been greater. While the country had long anticipated

technological advances, during the last decade

progress seemed to accelerate and daily reality was

transformed in many ways. One such transformation

involved the way people read.

 Traditional images of reading mainly represented

an individual with a book in hand, but contemporary

images more frequently include the image of an

individual reading from a computer screen. Many of

these individuals are our nation’s students. Growing

up in a time of unprecedented access to information,

these students need the skills to read widely and

critically in order to successfully navigate the variety

of information available to them. Whether the text is

print- or electronic-based, the act of reading in an

increasingly complex world requires acute understanding

and interpretation of all that is read.

The centrality of reading has long been recognized in the

curriculum of our schools for its importance in shaping

both personal selves and participants in a democratic society.

The need to ensure the literate participation of our society’s

future citizens underlies the need to monitor our students’

reading achievement.

I

Introduction

Contents

Overview

Reading

Framework

Reading

Assessment

School and

Student Samples

Reporting

Results

NAEP

Achievement

Levels

Interpreting

NAEP Results

This Report

What is the

NAEP reading

assessment?

How does the

NAEP reading

assessment

measure and

report student

progress?

Focus

Questions
2 INTRODUCTION • READING REPORT CARD

Overview of the

2000 National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP)

In 1969, the National Assessment of

Educational Progress was authorized by

Congress to collect, analyze, and report

reliable and valuable information about

what American students know and can do

in core subject areas. Since that time, in

what has come to be referred to as the

long-term trend assessment, NAEP has

assessed public and nonpublic school

students who are 9, 13, and 17 years old.

Since 1990, the more recently developed

assessments referred to as the main NAEP,

have also assessed public and nonpublic

school students in grades 4, 8, and 12. In

2000, student performance in mathematics

and science was assessed at all three grades,

and student performance in reading was

assessed at grade 4 only.

All NAEP assessments are based on

content frameworks developed through a

national consensus process. The 2000

NAEP reading assessment was the fourth

administration of an assessment based on

The NAEP Reading Framework.1

 In 1992,

1994, and 1998, the NAEP reading

assessment was administered to national

samples of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfthgraders. In 1992 and 1994, the reading

assessment was also administered to samples

of fourth-graders participating in the stateby-state assessment, and in 1998 the stateby-state assessment included samples of

fourth- and eighth-graders. Although the

National Assessment Governing Board

schedule calls for a reading assessment every

four years, with the next full-scale reading

assessment planned for 2002, an assessment

at grade four only was authorized for 2000.

The administration of the reading

assessment in 2000 was in response to

heightened concern that all children learn

to read by the end of third grade. In order

to closely monitor early reading achievement,

the assessment was given to a national

sample of fourth-graders. No state-by-state

reading results were collected in 2000.

This report describes the results of the

2000 NAEP reading assessment at grade 4,

and compares results in 2000 to fourthgrade performance in 1992, 1994, and

1998. The comparisons will focus on 2000

results in relation to earlier results.

Comparisons of 1998 to 1994 and of 1994

to 1992 were made in previous report cards

and therefore are neither highlighted nor

discussed in this report.2

 Comparisons

across assessment years are possible because

the assessments were developed under the

same framework and share a common set

of reading tasks and because the

populations of students were sampled and

assessed using comparable procedures.

Framework for the 1992, 1994,

1998, and 2000 Assessments

The NAEP Reading Framework 3 provided

the operational specifications and

theoretical basis for developing all the NAEP

1 National Assessment Governing Board. Reading framework for the National Assesment of Educational Progress: 1992–

2000. Washington, DC: Author.

2 Donahue, P.L., Voekl, K.E., Campbell, J.R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 reading report card for the nation and the

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

Campbell, J.R., Donahue, P.L., Reese, C.M., & Phillips, G.W. (1996). NAEP 1994 reading report card for the nation

and the states. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

3 National Assessment Governing Board. Reading framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

1992–2000. Washington, DC: Author. [Also available online at http:www.nagb.org/pubs/92-2000read/toc.html]
INTRODUCTION • READING REPORT CARD 3

reading assessments administered since 1992.

The result of a national consensus effort, the

NAEP Reading Framework reflects the ideas

of many individuals involved and interested

in reading education. This consensus effort

was managed by the Council of Chief State

School Officers (CCSSO) under the

direction of the National Assessment

Governing Board (NAGB).

The framework reflects research that

views the act of reading as a dynamic and

interactive process involving the reader, the

text, and the context of the reading

experience. For example, readers may

employ different strategies depending on

the text’s structure and their purpose for

reading it.4

Recognizing that readers vary their

approach according to their purpose for

reading, the framework specifies three

purposes for reading to be assessed: reading

for literary experience, reading to gain

information, and reading to perform a task.

All three purposes are assessed at grades 8

and 12, but reading to perform a task is not

assessed at grade 4. The three purposes for

reading as specified in the framework are

described in figure i.1.

4 Anderson, R.C. & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In

P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–292). New York: Longman.

Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ruddell, R.B. & Unrau, N.J. (1994). Reading as a meaning-construction process: The reader, the text, and the

teacher. In R. B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 864–894).

Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Taylor, B.M. (1992). Text structure, comprehension, and recall. In S.J. Samuels & A.E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research

has to say about reading instruction (pp. 220–235). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Reading for literary experience entails the reading of various literary texts to

enlarge our experience of human events and emotions, and to enhance both our

appreciation of the world and how it is depicted through language. Literary texts

used in the NAEP reading assessment included adventure stories, science fiction,

and folktales.

When reading to gain information, readers are usually focused on a specific topic

or point of reference. They are trying to understand and retain the text information.

Informative texts used in the NAEP reading assessment included science articles,

primary and secondary historical sources, sections of textbook chapters, essays,

and speeches.

Reading to perform a task involves reading various types of materials for the

purpose of applying the information or directions to complete a specific task.

As such, readers must focus on how they will actually use the information.

The materials used to assess this purpose in the NAEP reading assessment

included classified advertisements, directions for completing various projects,

and a tax form.[Not assessed at grade 4.]

Figure i.1

Reading Purposes

Reading for literary

experience

Reading to gain

information

Reading to perform

a task

Descriptions of the three reading purposes specified in the NAEP framework

SOURCE: National Assessment Governing Board. Reading framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress: 1992–2000.
4 INTRODUCTION • READING REPORT CARD

The framework also specifies four types

of reading processes—referred to as

“reading stances”—that characterize ways

readers respond to text. The four stances

are: Initial Understanding, Developing an

Interpretation, Personal Reflection and

Response, and Critical Stance. The reading

stances represent the changing ways

readers position themselves in relation to

a text, with each way contributing to the

comprehension of it.5 The stances are not

intended to be indicative of hierarchical

reading skills, but rather to represent aspects

of reading processes that occur at any

reading ability level. The four reading

stances as specified in the framework are

described in figure i.2.

The Reading Assessment

Instruments

As the only federally mandated ongoing

assessment of student reading achievement

on a national scale, it is imperative that the

NAEP assessment reflects the framework

and expert perspectives and opinions about

reading comprehension and its measurement.

To that end, the assessment development

process involves stages and processes of

review by teachers and teacher educators as

well as by state officials and measurement

experts. All components of the assessment

are evaluated for curricular relevance,

developmental appropriateness, and fairness

concerns.

5 Langer, J.A. (1990). The process of understanding. Reading for literary and informative purposes. Research in the

teaching of English, 24(3), 229–259.

Descriptions of the four reading stances specified in the NAEP framework

preliminary consideration of the text as a whole

Readers are asked to consider the whole text in demonstrating an overall understanding of its meaning and function.

discerning connections and relationships among ideas within the text

Readers are asked to build upon their initial impressions to develop a more

thorough understanding of the text and the interrelationship of its parts.

relating personal knowledge to text ideas

Readers are asked to describe how ideas in the text confirm, contradict, or compare

with prior knowledge and experiences.

standing apart from the text to consider it objectively

Readers are asked to consider how the author conveys information, expresses ideas

or feelings, and communicates a message.

Figure i.2

Reading Stances

Initial

understanding:

Developing an

interpretation:

Personal reflection

and response:

Critical stance:

SOURCE: National Assessment Governing Board. Reading framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress: 1992–2000.
INTRODUCTION • READING REPORT CARD 5

The reading passages used in the NAEP

reading assessment are drawn from the

types of books and magazines that students

might encounter in or out of school. In

striving for authentic reading experiences,

the reading materials are neither abridged

nor written for the assessment. They are

reprinted in test booklets in a format that

replicates as closely as possible their

original publication.

 At grade 4, all test booklets contain two

25-minute sections, each containing a

reading passage and a set of approximately

10 comprehension questions. The questions

are presented in both multiple-choice and

constructed-response formats. At least half

of the questions are constructed-response,

which allow students to write out their

own answers and explain and support their

ideas. Constructed-response questions were

of two types: short, requiring a one or two

sentence answer, and extended, requiring a

paragraph or full-page response.

The 2000 reading assessment at fourth

grade used 8 different reading passages and

comprised a total of 81 questions: 35

multiple-choice, 38 short constructedresponse (scored according to a two- or

three-level scoring rubric), and 8 extended

constructed-response (scored according to

a four-level rubric). The greater proportion

of student response time was spent answering

the constructed-response questions.

Description of School and

Student Samples

The NAEP 2000 reading assessment was

administered to fourth-graders at the

national level. There was no state-by-state

reading assessment in 2000. The findings in

this report pertain to all fourth-graders in

the nation, both those who do not need

accommodations as well as those who are

provided accommodations for their

disability or limited English proficiency.

The national results presented in the first

three chapters of this report are based on a

nationally representative sample of fourthgraders who can be meaningfully assessed

without accommodations. Chapter 4

presents national results for a representative

sample that includes the performance of

students who needed and were provided

with accommodations.

Each selected school that participated in

the assessment and each student assessed

represent a portion of the population of

interest. For information on sample sizes and

participation rates, see appendix A.

Reporting the Assessment Results

The results of student performance on the

NAEP reading assessment are presented in

two ways: as average scores on the NAEP

composite reading scale, and in terms of

the percentage of students attaining NAEP

reading achievement levels. The average

scale scores represent students’ performance

on the assessment. The achievement levels

represent how that performance measured

up against set expectations for achievement.

The average scale scores represent what

students know and can do. The achievement

level results indicate the degree to which

student performance meets expectations of

what they should know and be able to do.

Average scale score results are presented

on the NAEP reading composite scale,

which ranges from 0-500. Students’

responses on the NAEP 2000 reading

assessment were analyzed to determine the

percentages of students responding

correctly to each multiple-choice question

and the percentages of students responding

at each score level for the constructedresponse questions. The analysis entails
6 INTRODUCTION • READING REPORT CARD

summarizing the results on separate

subscales for each reading purpose, then

combining the separate scales to form a

single composite reading scale. The relative

contribution of each reading purpose at

grade 4, as specified in the reading

framework, is 55 percent for reading for

literary experience and 45 percent for

reading to gain information. (A full

description of NAEP scales and scaling

procedures can be found in the

forthcoming NAEP 2000 Technical Report.)

Achievement level results are presented

in terms of reading achievement levels as

authorized by the NAEP legislation and

adopted by the National Assessment

Governing Board. For each grade tested,

NAGB has adopted three achievement

levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. For

reporting purposes, the achievement level

cut scores are placed on the reading 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.6 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.”7

 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 in

mathematics, reading, U.S. history, world

geography, science, writing, and civics.

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; 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.3

presents the policy definitions of the

achievement levels that apply across grades

and subject areas. (Specific descriptions of

reading achievement for the levels at grade

4 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.

The achievement levels in this report

were adopted by the Board based on a

6 Public Law 100–297. (1988). National Assessment of Educational Progress Improvement Act (20 USC 1221).

Washington, DC.

7 Public Law 103–382. (1994). Improving America’s Schools Act (20 USC 9010). Washington, DC.
INTRODUCTION • READING REPORT CARD 7

standard-setting process designed and

conducted under a contract with 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 a body of content

reflected in the NAEP assessment

framework for reading. This achievement

level setting process was reviewed by an

array of individuals including policymakers,

representatives of professional 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,

became a set of achievement level

descriptions and a set of achievement level

cut points on the 0-500 NAEP reading

scale. The cut points are the scores that

define the boundaries between below Basic,

Basic, Proficient, and Advanced performance

at grades 4, 8, and 12. The Board established

these reading achievement levels in 1992

based upon the reading content framework;

these levels were used for the 1992, 1994,

1998, and 2000 reading assessments.

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.”8 Until that determination is

made, the law requires the Commissioner

and the Board to state clearly 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

This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are

fundamental for proficient work at each grade.

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.

This level signifies superior performance.

Figure i.3

Achievement Levels

Basic

Proficient

Advanced

Policy definitions of the three achievement levels

8 The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (20 USC 9010) requires that the Commissioner base his determination on a congressionally mandated evaluation by one or more nationally recognized evaluation organizations,

such as the National Academy of Education or the National Academy of Science.

SOURCE: National Assessment Governing Board.
8 INTRODUCTION • READING REPORT CARD

may be underestimated.9 Others have

critiqued these evaluations, asserting that

the weight of the empirical evidence does

not support such conclusions.10

In response to the evaluations and

critiques, NAGB conducted an additional

study of the 1992 reading achievement

levels before deciding to use the 1992

reading achievement levels for reporting

1994 NAEP results.11 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.” 12 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.13

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. 14 For example, NCES

and NAGB jointly sponsored a national

conference on standard setting in largescale 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 Commissioner of Education Statistics

and the Board continue to call on the

9 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.

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

Board.

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

Assessment Governing Board.

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

Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

12 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.

13 National Academy of Education. (1997). Assessment in transition: Monitoring the nation’s educational progress (p. 99).

Mountain View, CA: Author.

14 Reckase, Mark, D. (2000). The evolution of the NAEP achievement levels setting process: A summary of the research and

development efforts conducted by ACT. Iowa City, IA: ACT. Inc.

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.
INTRODUCTION • READING REPORT CARD 9

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

The NAS Panel accepted the continuing

use of achievement levels in reporting

NAEP results 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

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 believe that the

achievement levels are useful for reporting

trends in the educational achievement of

students in the United States.18 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

Commissioner agrees with the National

Academy’s recommendation that caution

needs to be exercised in the use of the

current achievement levels. Therefore, the

Commissioner concludes that these

achievement levels should continue to be

considered developmental and should

continue to be interpreted and used with

caution.

16 Pellegrino, J.W., Jones, L.R., & Mitchell, K.J. (Eds.). (1998). 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.

17 Ibid., page 176.

18 Forsyth, Robert A. (2000). A description of the standard-setting procedures used by three standardized test

publishers. In Student performance standards on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Affirmations and

improvements. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

Nellhaus, Jeffrey M. (2000). States with NAEP-like performance standards. In Student performance standards on the

National Assessment of Educational Progress: Affirmations and improvements. Washington, DC: National Assessment

Governing Board.
10 I N T R O D U C T I O N • READING REPORT CARD

Interpreting NAEP Results

The average scores and percentages

presented in this report are estimates

because they are based on representative

samples of students rather than on each

individual student in the population(s). As

such, the results are subject to a measure of

uncertainty, reflected in the standard error

of the estimates. The standard errors for the

estimated scale scores and percentages in

this report are provided in appendix C.

The differences between scale scores and

between percentages discussed in the

following chapters take into account the

standard errors associated with the

estimates. 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 those statistics.

Throughout this report, differences

between scores or between percentages are

pointed out only when they are significant

from a statistical perspective. All differences

reported are significant at the .05 level with

appropriate adjustments for multiple

comparisons. The term significant is not

intended to imply a judgment about the

absolute magnitude of the educational

relevance of the differences. It is intended

to identify statistically dependable

population differences to help inform

dialogue among policymakers, educators,

and the public.

Readers are cautioned against

interpreting NAEP results in a causal sense.

Inferences related to subgroup performance

or to the effectiveness of public and

nonpublic schools, for example, should take

into consideration the many

socioeconomic and educational factors that

may also impact reading performance.

This Report

This report describes fourth-grade students’

performance on the NAEP 2000 reading

assessment and compares the performance

to previous NAEP assessment results.

Chapter 1 presents overall scale score and

achievement level results and also provides

a more delineated view by showing scores

at percentiles across the performance

distribution. Chapter 2 examines

assessment results for subgroups of students

by gender, race/ethnicity, region of the

country, type of location, type of school,

and by eligibility for the free/reducedprice lunch program. In chapter 3, students’

home and school experiences as portrayed

by their responses to NAEP background

questions provide the context for

examining student assessment scores.

Chapter 4 focuses on a second set of results

from the 2000 reading assessment that

includes the performance of special needs

students who were permitted

accommodations in the test administration.

The chapter presents these results for the

nation and selected subgroups of students,

and compares them to the results presented

in chapters 1 and 2.
CHAPTER 1 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 11

Average Scale Score and

Achievement Level Results for the Nation

This chapter presents the national results of the NAEP 2000

reading assessment at grade 4. Student performance is

described by average scale scores on the NAEP reading

composite scale and in terms of percentages of students who

attained each of the three reading achievement levels: Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced. Results of the NAEP 2000 reading

assessment are compared with fourth-grade results from

three previous assessments: 1992, 1994, and 1998. This

comparison is possible because the assessments share a

common set of reading tasks based on the current

reading framework and because the populations of

students were sampled and assessed using comparable

procedures.

To illustrate the reading abilities demonstrated

on the NAEP assessment, sample questions and actual

student responses from the 2000 assessment are

included in this chapter. Three sample questions are

provided to show the kind of tasks students were

asked to do and how they responded.

 The concluding section of this chapter presents

a map of selected item descriptions. The item map

provides a more comprehensive portrait of student

performance by placing item descriptions on the NAEP

scale where the question was likely to be answered

successfully by students. By mapping item descriptions in

this way, the reading skills and abilities associated with

different points on the scale are visually represented.

1

Chapter

Contents

Scale Score

Results for the

Nation

Achievement

Level Results for

the Nation

Sample

Assessment

Questions and

Student

Responses

Item Map

Are the nation’s

fourth-graders

making progress

in reading?

What reading

abilities do they

have?

Chapter

Focus
12 C H A P T E R 1 • READING REPORT CARD

Average Scale Score Results

The results of the NAEP 2000 reading

assessment at grade 4 show overall stability

in student performance across the assessment years: the average reading scale score

for 2000 was not significantly different

from 1992, 1994, and 1998 results. Figure

1.1 presents the average reading scale scores

of fourth-grade students attending both

public and nonpublic schools for the four

assessments between 1992 and 2000.

Another way to view students’ reading

ability is by looking at the scale scores

attained by students across the performance

distribution. The advantage of looking at

the data this way is that it shows how

fourth-graders with lower or higher reading ability performed in relation to the

national average. In addition, the percentile

data show whether trends in the national

average score are reflected in scores across

the performance distribution. Figure 1.2

presents the reading scale scores for fourthgrade students at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th,

and 90th percentiles for the NAEP reading

assessments from 1992–2000.

While the 2000 national average score

of 217 was not significantly higher or lower

in comparison to fourth-graders’ average

score in previous assessment years, stability

across years is not reflected at all the

percentiles. In fact, only at the 50th

percentile—among students performing

around the national average—have scores

remained stable across assessments.

In 2000 the scores at both the 10th and

25th percentiles are higher in relation to

1994; however, at the 10th percentile the

score in 2000 is lower than it was in 1992.

A different trend is evident among higherperforming fourth-graders. At the 75th and

90th percentiles, scores have increased

0

175

200

225

250

500

Nation

1992 1994 1998 2000

217 214 217 217

Figure 1.1

Scale Score Results

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores: 1992–2000

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.
CHAPTER 1 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 13

★ Significantly different from 2000.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Figure 1.2

Performance

Distribution

Fourth-grade reading scale score percentiles: 1992–2000

across assessment years, resulting in a 2000

score that is higher in relation to 1992.

These data indicate that the lowestperforming students in 2000 were not

performing as well as their counterparts in

1992; however, the results for the highestperforming students indicate an increase in

performance between 1992 and 2000.

Achievement Level Results

The results of student performance are not

only reported using scores on the NAEP

reading scale, but also using reading

achievement levels as authorized by the

NAEP legislation and as adopted by the

National Assessment Governing Board.1

The achievement levels are performance

standards adopted by the Board, based on

the collective judgements of experts about

what students should be expected to know

and be able to do in terms of the NAEP

reading framework. 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.

The Board reviewed and adopted the

recommended achievement levels in 1992,

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

assessed, the Board has adopted three

achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and

Advanced. For reporting purposes, the

achievement level cut scores are placed

0

175

200

225

250

500 1992 1994 1998 2000

150

219 219 220 221

261 263 263 264 90th

75th

50th

25th

10th

242 243 244 245

194 189 193 193

170

159

167 163











Percentiles

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.
14 C H A P T E R 1 • READING REPORT CARD

on the NAEP reading scale resulting in

four ranges: the range below Basic, Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced. Figure 1.3 presents

specific descriptions of reading achievement for the levels at grade four.

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.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should demonstrate an

understanding of the overall meaning of what they read. When reading text

appropriate for fourth-graders, they should be able to make relatively obvious

connections between the text and their own experiences and extend the ideas

in the text by making simple inferences.

For example, when reading literary text, students should be able to tell what the

story is generally about—providing details to support their understanding—and

be able to connect aspects of the stories to their own experiences.

When reading informational text, Basic-level fourth-graders should be able to

tell what the selection is generally about or identify the purpose for reading it,

provide details to support their understanding, and connect ideas from the text

to their background knowledge and experiences.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to

demonstrate an overall understanding of the text, providing inferential as well as

literal information. When reading text appropriate to fourth grade, they should

be able to extend the ideas in the text by making inferences, drawing

conclusions, and making connections to their own experiences. The connection

between the text and what the student infers should be clear.

For example, when reading literary text, Proficient-level fourth-graders should be

able to summarize the story, draw conclusions about the characters or plot, and

recognize relationships such as cause and effect.

When reading informational text, Proficient-level students should be able to

summarize the information and identify the author’s intent or purpose. They

should be able to draw reasonable conclusions from the text, recognize

relationships such as cause and effect or similarities and differences, and

identify the meaning of the selection’s key concepts.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to

generalize about topics in the reading selection and demonstrate an awareness

of how authors compose and use literary devices. When reading text appropriate

to fourth grade, they should be able to judge text critically and, in general, give

thorough answers that indicate careful thought.

For example, when reading literary text, Advanced-level students should be able

to make generalizations about the point of the story and extend its meaning by

integrating personal experiences and other readings with the ideas suggested by

the text. They should be able to identify literary devices such as figurative

language.

When reading informational text, Advanced-level fourth-graders should be able

to explain the author’s intent by using supporting material from the text. They

should be able to make critical judgments of the form and content of the text

and explain their judgments clearly.

Figure 1.3

Reading

Achievement Levels

Basic

(208)

Proficient

(238)

Advanced

(268)

Descriptions of reading achievement for the levels at grade 4
CHAPTER 1 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 15

Achievement level results for the nation’s

fourth-grade students are presented in

figure 1.4. Results are shown in two ways:

the percentage of students within each

achievement level interval, and the percentage of students at or above the Basic

and at or above the Proficient achievement

levels. In reading figure 1.4, it is necessary

to keep in mind that the levels in the upper

bars are cumulative; included among

students who are considered to be at or

above the Basic level are those who 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 have attained

the Advanced level of performance.

As shown in figure 1.4, performance at

★ Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Figure 1.4

Achievement Level

Results

Percentage of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range: 1992–2000

37%

2000

31%

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

24% 8%

38%

1998

32%

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

24% 7%

40%

1994

31%

62% at or above Basic

29% at or above Proficient

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

22% 7%

38%

1992

34%

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

22% 6%

60% at or above Basic

30% at or above Proficient

62% at or above Basic

31% at or above Proficient

63% at or above Basic

32% at or above Proficient

16 C H A P T E R 1 • READING REPORT CARD

or above the Proficient level—the achievement level identified by NAGB as the level

that all students should reach—was

achieved by 32 percent of students in 2000,

while the highest level of performance,

Advanced, was achieved by 8 percent of

fourth-graders in 2000.

Viewing achievement level results across

assessment years shows that in 2000 a

higher percentage of students were at or

above the Proficient level and at the Advanced

level in comparison to 1992.

Corresponding to the increase at or above

the Proficient level, figure 1.4 shows that a

lower percentage of students fell within the

Basic level in 2000 than in 1992.

Sample Assessment Questions

and Student Responses

The following pages present sample questions and student responses that portray

student performance on the 2000 NAEP

reading assessment. Three questions, which

were asked about an informative article,

were selected to exemplify the range of

reading abilities demonstrated by students.

The full text of the informative article, as

well as additional sample questions, can be

found in appendix B.

The three questions to follow include a

multiple-choice, a short constructedresponse, and an extended constructedresponse question. The correct oval is filled

in for the multiple-choice question. For

constructed-response questions, a summary

of the scoring criteria used to rate students’

responses is provided. Actual student

responses have been reproduced from

assessment test booklets to illustrate representative answers. The rating assigned to

each sample response is indicated.

The tables in this section present two

types of percentages for each sample

question: the overall percentage of students

who answered successfully, and the

percentage of students who answered

successfully within a specific score range on

the NAEP reading composite scale. The

score ranges correspond to the three

achievement level intervals—Basic, Proficient,

and Advanced. It should be noted that the

overall percentage of students shown in

these tables includes students in the range

below Basic, as well as students whose

performance fell within the three

achievement level ranges.
CHAPTER 1 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 17

Informative Article:

A Brick to Cuddle Up To is an informational passage

describing what colonists did to keep warm during the

winter months. The author includes descriptions of

how colonial homes were heated, how colonists kept

warm at night, how they heated water for baths, as well

as providing details that depicted differences between

contemporary and colonial American life. (See

appendix B for full text of passage.)

In writing this article, the author mostly made use of

A broad ideas

specific details

C important questions

D interesting characters

Reading Purpose:

To Gain Information

Reading Stance:

Critical Stance

Sample Question 1:

Overall percentage correct and percentages correct within each achievement level range: 2000

Table 1.1: Sample question 1 results (multiple-choice)

†Includes fourth-grade students who were below the Basic level.

*NAEP Reading composite scale range.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.

Percentage correct within

achievement level intervals

Overall percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

correct † 208–237* 238–267* 268 and above*

66 72 79 84
18 C H A P T E R 1 • READING REPORT CARD

Responses scored “Complete” demonstrated understanding of how the title relates to the

central theme by indicating that the article described methods of keeping warm during winter

in colonial times.

Sample “Complete” Response:

Do you think “A Brick to Cuddle Up To” is a good title for this article?

Using information from the article, tell why or why not.

Reading Purpose:

To Gain Information

Reading Stance:

Developing an

Interpretation

Sample Question 2:

Do you think “A Brick to Cuddle Up To” is a good

title for this article? Using information from the

article, tell why or why not.

Responses to this question were scored according to a three-level rubric as

Unsatisfactory, Partial, or Complete

Percentage “Complete” within

achievement level intervals

Overall percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Complete”† 208–237* 238–267* 268 and above*

37 38 57 76

Overall percentage “Complete” and percentages “Complete” within each achievement level range: 2000

Table 1.2: Sample question 2 results (short constructed-response)

†Includes fourth-grade students who were below the Basic level.

*NAEP Reading composite scale range.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.
CHAPTER 1 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 19

Responses scored “Essential” demonstrated comprehension of colonial life as portrayed in

the article by providing three activities, some of which are related to the need to stay warm.

Sample “Essential” Response:

Pretend that you are an early American colonist. Describe at least three

activities you might do during a cold winter evening. Be specific. Use

details from the article to help you write your description.

Reading Purpose:

To Gain Information

Reading Stance:

Developing an

Interpretation

Sample Question 3:

Pretend that you are an early American colonist.

Describe at least three activities you might do

during a cold winter evening. Be specific. Use details

from the article to help you write your description.

Responses to this question were scored according to a four-level rubric as

Unsatisfactory, Partial, Essential, or Extensive

Percentage “Essential” or better within

achievement level intervals

Overall percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Essential” or better† 208–237* 238–267* 268 and above*

18 15 29 40

Overall percentage “Essential” or better and percentages “Essential” or better within each

achievement level range: 2000

Table 1.3: Sample question 3 results (extended constructed-response)

†Includes fourth-grade students who were below the Basic level.

*NAEP Reading composite scale range.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.
20 C H A P T E R 1 • READING REPORT CARD

Responses scored “Extensive” demonstrated comprehension of the central theme of the article.

Of the activities provided, at least three focus on the need to stay warm.

Sample “Extensive” Response:

Pretend that you are an early American colonist. Describe at least three

activities you might do during a cold winter evening. Be specific. Use

details from the article to help you write your description.
CHAPTER 1 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 21

2 Details on the procedures used to develop item maps will be provided in the forthcoming NAEP 2000 Technical

Report.

3 The probability convention is set higher, at 74 percent, for multiple-choice questions to correct for the possibility

of answering correctly by guessing.

4 Campbell, J.R. & Donahue, P.L. (1997). Students selecting stories: The effects of choice in reading assessment. Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Map of Selected

Item Descriptions

The reading performance of fourth-graders

and aspects of reading comprehension can

be illustrated by a map that positions item

descriptions along the NAEP reading

composite scale where items are likely to be

answered successfully by students.2 The

descriptions used on the map focus on the

reading skill or ability needed to answer the

question. For multiple-choice questions,

the description indicates the comprehension

demonstrated by selection of the correct

response option; for constructed-response

questions, the description takes into account

the degree of comprehension demonstrated

as specified by the different levels of scoring

criteria for that question. An examination of

the descriptions provides some insight into

the range of comprehension processes

demonstrated by fourth-grade students at

different score points on the NAEP scale.

For each question indicated on the map,

students who scored above the scale point

had a higher probability of successfully

answering the question, and students who

scored below the scale point had a lower

probability of successfully answering the

question. The map identifies where individual comprehension questions were

answered successfully by at least 65 percent

of the students for constructed-response

questions, or by at least 74 percent of the

students for multiple-choice questions.3

For example, a multiple-choice question

that asks students to identify the major

topic of an article maps at 224 on the scale.

This means that fourth-grade students with

an average scale score of 224 or more have

at least a 74 percent chance of answering

this question correctly. In other words, at

least 74 out of every 100 students who

score at or above 224 answered this question correctly. Although students scoring

above the scale point had a higher probability of successfully answering the question, it does not mean that every student at

or above 224 always answers this question

correctly, nor does it mean that students

below 224 always answered the question

incorrectly. The item maps are a useful

indicator of higher or lower probability of

successfully answering the question depending on students’ overall ability as

measured by the NAEP scale.

In considering the information provided

by the item maps, it is important to

recognize that these descriptions are based

on comprehension questions that were

answered about specific passages. It is

possible that questions intended to assess

the same aspect of comprehension, when

asked about different passages, would map

at different points on the scale. In fact, one

NAEP study found that even identically

worded questions function differently (i.e.,

easier or harder) when associated with

different passages, suggesting that the

difficulty of a question resides not only

in the question itself, but also in the

interaction of the question with a

particular passage.4
22 C H A P T E R 1 • READING REPORT CARD NAEP Reading Scale

NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice question.

Each grade 4 reading question was mapped onto the NAEP 0–500 reading scale. The position of the question on the scale represents the scale score attained by students who

had a 65 percent probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question or a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a four-option, multiple-choice question.

Only selected questions are presented. Scale score ranges for reading achievement levels are referenced on the map.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.

324 Use text ideas to elaborate a hypothetical situation – Sample Question 3

312 Use metaphor to compare story characters

311 Contrast historical information to present day – Sample Question 7

300 Provide and explain an alternative ending

299 Interpret story action to provide lesson characters learned

299 Describe character’s changing feelings and explain cause

291 Use character trait to connect with prior knowledge

287 Extract relevant examples to support statement – Sample Question 5

286 Compare story characters using text details

280 Use text description and prior knowledge to support opinion

274 Explain purpose of direct quotations

273 Identify author’s illustration of theme through story action

264 Use text evidence to evaluate title – Sample Question 2

263 Use different parts of text to provide supporting examples

259 Explain author’s statement with text information

257 Infer character motivation from story setting

255 Evaluate author’s presentation of information – Sample Question 6

246 Identify main theme of story

240 Explain character’s motivation

240 Identify author’s use of specific details – Sample Question 1

231 Use prior knowledge to make text-related comparison

230 Compare text ideas using specific information

225 Recognize meaning of specialized vocabulary from context

224 Identify main topic of article

218 Locate and provide explicitly stated information

212 Recognize a description of character’s motivation

210 Recognize accurate description of character’s feelings

206 Identify defining character trait

200 Recognize explicitly stated information

192 Provide a personal reaction with minimal supporting explanation

188 Recognize genre of story

184 Identify main reason for reading article – Sample Question 4

170 Identify character’s main dilemma

166 Provide plot-level lesson characters learned

330

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

This map describes

the skill or ability

associated with

answering individual

comprehension

questions. The map

identifies the score

point at which

students had a 65

percent probability

of successfully

answering constructed-response

questions and a 74

percent probability

of successfully

answering multiplechoice questions.

Figure 1.5

Map of selected item

descriptions on the

National Assessment

of Educational

Progress reading

scale for grade 4

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa 268

Advanced

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 238

Proficient

208 aaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Basic
CHAPTER 1 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 23

Summary

This chapter presented overall results from

the NAEP reading assessment for fourthgrade students. Results examined included

the national average score, the percentile

scores across the performance distribution,

and attainment of the reading achievement

levels.

The following figure displays the major

findings presented in this chapter. In each

line of the display, the average reading

score, the percentile score, or the percentage

of students at or above achievement levels

is compared to that in the first assessment

year under the current reading framework.

An arrow pointing upward () indicates a

significant increase, a horizontal arrow ()

indicates no significant change, and an

arrow pointing downward () indicates a

significant decrease. For example, the first

section of the display shows that the

national average for fourth-grade students

has not changed significantly since 1992,

whereas the first line in the next section

indicates that the score at the 90th

percentile has increased since 1992.

Average scale score, percentile scores, and achievement level results:

2000 compared to 1992

National Average

Scale score since 1992

Percentile Scores

90th percentile score since 1992

75th percentile score since 1992

50th percentile score since 1992

25th percentile score since 1992

 10th percentile score since 1992

Achievement Level Results

Percentage at Advanced since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Percentage at or above Basic since 1992

Figure 1.6

Chapter Summary

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

CHAPTER 2 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 25

Average Scale Score and

Achievement Level Results for

Selected Subgroups of 4th-Grade Students

Implicit in the call for high standards is the goal that all

children regardless of background or where they attend

school should be held to the same expectations and given

the same opportunity for achievement. Within this larger

context of reform, the performance results in this chapter

may prove useful as one indicator of progress toward the

nation’s educational goals. Presented in this chapter

are results for six subgroups of students with different

demographic characteristics. Results are reported by:

gender, race/ethnicity, region of the country, school’s

type of location, eligibility for the free/reduced-price

lunch program, and type of school. For all subgroups

except type of location and free/reduced-price lunch

eligibility, results of the 2000 assessment can be

compared to the results of previous assessments under

the current framework, 1992, 1994, and 1998.

 Results are presented both in terms of students’

scores on the NAEP reading composite scale and in

terms of the percentages of students attaining

achievement levels. Scale score results represent students’

actual performance on the assessment, and the achievement

level results view that performance in relation to set

expectations of what students should know and be able to do.

2

Gender

Race/Ethnicity

Trends in

Scale Score

Differences

Region of the

Country

Type of Location

Eligibility

for the Free/

Reduced-Price

Lunch Program

Type of School

Chapter

Contents

Are selected

subgroups of

students making

progress in

reading?

Chapter

Focus
26 C H A P T E R 2 • READING REPORT CARD

The reading achievement levels—Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced—used to report

NAEP results were established by the

National Assessment Governing Board

(NAGB) in 1992 for the content framework that provides the basis for the reading

assessments. Descriptions of abilities associated with the three levels are presented in

figure 1.3 in chapter 1 of this report.

The NAEP legislation (The Improving

America’s Schools Act of 1994) 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 the achievement levels is included in the introduction

to this report.

Differences reported in this chapter

between demographic subgroups for the

2000 assessment and between previous

assessments 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

those statistics. Differences between groups

and between assessment years are discussed

only if they have been determined to be

statistically significant.

Gender

Figure 2.1 presents average reading scale

scores for male and female students across

assessment years. In the 2000 assessment, no

significant increase or decrease was observed for either male or female fourthgrade students. The increase achieved by

male students between 1994 and 1998 did

not continue or lead to a higher score in

2000. The average score for female fourthgraders has remained relatively consistent

across assessment years. In 2000, results

show female students continuing to outperform their male counterparts.

0

175

200

225

250

500

Male

1992 1994 1998 2000

213 209 214 212

0

175

200

225

250

500

Female

1992 1994 1998 2000

221 220 220 222

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

1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Figure 2.1

Scale Score Results

by Gender

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores for male and female students: 1992–2000
CHAPTER 2 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 27

The percentages of male and female

students at or above the reading achievement levels and within each achievement

level range are presented in figure 2.2.

Among male students, apparent changes in

the percentages at or above any of the

achievement levels across assessment years

were not statistically significant. In 2000,

however, the percentage of females at or

above the Proficient level (36 percent) was

higher in comparison to 1992 (32 percent).

The achievement level results are consistent

with the scale score results, in that they also

show female students outperforming male

students. Comparison of male and female

performance in 2000 shows higher percentages of female fourth-graders at or

above Basic, at or above Proficient, and at the

Advanced level.

Figure 2.2

Achievement Level

Results by Gender

Percentages of fourth-grade male and female students at or above reading

achievement levels and within each achievement level range: 1992–2000

Male

Below Basic

42%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

41%

Below Basic

45%

Below Basic

42%

31%

Basic

31%

Basic

30%

Basic

32%

Basic

21% 

22% 

20% 

20% 

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

5%

6%

6% 

6%

Advanced

Advanced

Advanced

Advanced

58% At or above Basic

25% At or above Proficient 

55% At or above Basic

26% At or above Proficient 

59% At or above Basic

28% At or above Proficient 

58% At or above Basic

27% At or above Proficient 

Figure continues on the next page.
28 C H A P T E R 2 • READING REPORT CARD

Race/Ethnicity

The background questionnaire administered

with the 2000 NAEP reading assessment

asked students to indicate the racial/ethnic

subgroup that best described them. In the

1992, 1998, and 2000 reading assessments

the mutually exclusive subgroup categories

were: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific

Islander, and American Indian (including

Alaskan native). In 1994, a similar background question was asked, the only

difference being that Asian and Pacific

Islander were two separate response categories. To analyze changes in performance

across assessment years, the separate response

categories used in 1994 were combined

into a single category, Asian/Pacific Islander,

as used in the other assessment years.

Across assessment years, some changes

are evident in the population of fourthgraders sampled by NAEP. The population

of Hispanic fourth-grade students in the

NAEP sample has increased from 9 percent

in 1992 to 15 percent in 2000, while the

population of white fourth-grade students

has decreased from 71 percent in 1992 to

66 percent in 2000. The across-year percentages for all racial/ethnic subgroups can

be found in table C.9 in appendix C.

The average reading scale scores for

students by racial/ethnic subgroup across

Figure 2.2

Achievement Level

Results by Gender

(continued)

Percentages of fourth-grade male and female students at or above reading

achievement levels and within each achievement level range: 1992–2000

Female

Below Basic

33%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

35%

Below Basic

34%

Below Basic

33%

31%

Basic

32%

Basic

32%

Basic

35%

Basic

Proficient

26% 

Proficient

25% 

Proficient

25% 

Proficient

24% 

Advanced

10%

Advanced

8%

Advanced

9%

Advanced

8%

Significantly different from 2000.



NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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), 

1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

67% At or above Basic

32% At or above Proficient 

66% At or above Basic

34% At or above Proficient 

65% At or above Basic

33% At or above Proficient 

67% At or above Basic

36% At or above Proficient 
CHAPTER 2 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 29

assessment years are presented in figure 2.3.

Of the five racial/ethnic subgroups, only

Asian/Pacific Islander students showed

overall gains since 1992. The 2000 average

score of students in each of the other

subgroups was similar to or did not differ

significantly from the 1992 average score.

Although black and Hispanic students’

average scores had declined in 1994, slight

rebounds since that time are evident for

both groups. For black students only,

however, this resulted in a 2000 average

score that was significantly higher than that

in 1994. Any apparent differences between

0

175

200

225

250

500 1992 1994 1998 2000

American

Indian 

207 201 202 196

0

175

200

225

250

500

Asian/Pacific

Islander 

1992 1994 1998 2000

214

229 225

232

0

175

200

225

250

500

Black 

1992 1994 1998 2000

193 187

 194 193

0

175

200

225

250

500

Hispanic 

1992 1994 1998 2000

201

191 196 197

0

175

200

225

250

500

White

1992 1994 1998 2000

225 224 227 226

Significantly different from 2000.





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

1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Figure 2.3

Scale Score Results

by Race/Ethnicity

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores by race/ethnicity: 1992–2000
30 C H A P T E R 2 • READING REPORT CARD

years in the average scores of white or

American Indian students were not statistically significant. Comparisons of subgroup

performance in 2000 show white and Asian/

Pacific Islander students outperforming their

black, Hispanic, and American Indian peers.

Achievement level results for racial/

ethnic subgroups are presented in figure 2.4.

Consistent with scale score results,

achievement level results show that the

only group of students with significant

gains was Asian/Pacific Islander students. A

higher percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander

students were at or above the Proficient level

in 2000 than in 1992. For other racial/

ethnic subgroups, any apparent differences

from past assessments observed in the

percentages of students at or above the

Basic and Proficient achievement levels were

not statistically significant. Comparisons

of achievement level results between

subgroups in 2000 show higher attainment

for white and Asian/Pacific Islander

students. The percentages of white and

Asian/Pacific Islander students at or above

Proficient and at or above Basic were higher

than the percentages for all other racial/

ethnic groups.

White

Below Basic

27%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

27%

Below Basic

29%

Below Basic

29%

33%

Basic

34%

Basic

34%

Basic

36%

Basic

Proficient

29% 

Proficient

29% 

Proficient

27% 

Proficient

27% 

Advanced

11%

Advanced

10%

Advanced

9%

Advanced

8%

71% At or above Basic

35% At or above Proficient 

71% At or above Basic

37% At or above Proficient 

73% At or above Basic

39% At or above Proficient 

73% At or above Basic

40% At or above Proficient 

Figure 2.4

Achievement Level

Results by Race/

Ethnicity

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by race/ethnicity: 1992–2000
CHAPTER 2 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 31

Figure 2.4

Achievement Level

Results by Race/

Ethnicity (continued)

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by race/ethnicity: 1992–2000

Black

Below Basic

63%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

64%

Below Basic

69%

Below Basic

67%

25%

Basic

26%

Basic

22%

Basic

25%

Basic

10% 

9% 

8% 

8% 

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

1% Advanced

1% Advanced

1% Advanced

2% Advanced

33% At or above Basic

8% At or above Proficient 

31% At or above Basic

9% At or above Proficient 

36% At or above Basic

10% At or above Proficient 

37% At or above Basic

12% At or above Proficient 

Hispanic

Below Basic

58%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

60%

Below Basic

64%

Below Basic

56%

26%

Basic

26%

Basic

22%

Basic

28%

Basic

13% 

11% 

11% 

13% 

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

3% Advanced

2% Advanced

2% Advanced

3% Advanced

44% At or above Basic

16% At or above Proficient 

36% At or above Basic

13% At or above Proficient 

40% At or above Basic

13% At or above Proficient 

42% At or above Basic

16% At or above Proficient 

Figure continues on the next page.
32 C H A P T E R 2 • READING REPORT CARD

Figure 2.4

Achievement Level

Results by Race/

Ethnicity (continued)

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by race/ethnicity: 1992–2000

Asian/Pacific Islander

Below Basic

22%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

31%

Below Basic

25%

Below Basic

41%

32%

Basic

32%

Basic

31%

Basic

34%

Basic

29% 

25% 

31% 

21% 

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

4%

13%

12%

17%

59% At or above Basic

25% At or above Proficient 

75% At or above Basic

44% At or above Proficient 

69% At or above Basic

37% At or above Proficient 

78% At or above Basic

46% At or above Proficient 

American Indian

Below Basic

57%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

53%

Below Basic

52%

Below Basic

47%

26%

Basic

33%

Basic

30%

Basic

35%

Basic

16% 

12% 

15% 

15% 

Proficient Advanced

Advanced

Advanced

Advanced

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

3% 

3%

2%

2%

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding.

Significantly different from 2000.

53% At or above Basic

18% At or above Proficient 

48% At or above Basic

18% At or above Proficient 

47% At or above Basic

14% At or above Proficient 

43% At or above Basic

17% At or above Proficient 
CHAPTER 2 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 33

Trends in Scale Score

Differences Between Selected

Subgroups

As with previous NAEP reading assessments, results from the 2000 NAEP continue to show performance differences

between racial/ethnic subgroups and

between male and female students. Such

differences between the average assessment

scores of student groups should be interpreted cautiously. The average score of a

selected group does not represent the

entire range of performance within that

group. Furthermore, differences between

groups of students can not be attributed

solely to group identification. A complex

array of educational and social factors

interacts to affect average student

performance.

Scale score differences between selected

subgroups of students from 1992 to 2000

are displayed in figure 2.5. In the 2000

assessment, white students outperformed

their black and Hispanic peers by 33 and

29 scale points, respectively. Female

students outperformed male students by

10 scale points.

Little change is seen since 1992 in the

magnitude of the gap between these

groups of students. The gap between white

and black, and between white and Hispanic

students, has varied somewhat across the

assessment years, but none of the changes

were statistically significant. The gap between male and female students has also

fluctuated slightly; however, the 4-point

increase in score differences between males

and females between 1998 and 2000

represents a statistically significant widening

of the gender gap.

Figure 2.5

Scale Score

Differences Between

Selected Subgroups

Differences in average fourth-grade reading scale scores by gender and

race/ethnicity: 1992–2000

White-Black

SCORE DIFFERENCES

33

37

32

33

0 10 20 30 40

2000

1998

1994

1992

White-Hispanic

SCORE DIFFERENCES

29

33

23

31

0 10 20 30 40

2000

1998

1994

1992

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

★Significantly different from 2000.

Female-Male

SCORE DIFFERENCES

10

10

8

6★

0 10 20 30 40

2000

1998

1994

1992
34 C H A P T E R 2 • READING REPORT CARD

0

175

200

225

250

500

Northeast 

1992 1994 1998 2000

222 215

226 222

0

175

200

225

250

500

Southeast 

1992 1994 1998 2000

213 210 211 211

0

175

200

225

250

500

Central 

1992 1994 1998 2000

219 220 222 220

0

175

200

225

250

500

West 

1992 1994 1998 2000

214 212 212 214

Significantly different from 2000.



Figure 2.6

Scale Score Results

by Region

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores by region of the country: 1992–2000

Region of the Country

This section examines results for four

regions of the country: Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West. A listing of the

states that are within these regions is

provided in appendix A.

Figure 2.6 presents scale score results by

region. Most of the gains made between

1994 and 1998 by fourth-graders in the

Northeast were maintained; their average

score in 2000 was higher than in 1994, but

not significantly different from 1992. For

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.
CHAPTER 2 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 35

the other regions, student performance in

2000 varied only slightly from previous

assessment years, and none of the apparent

variations were statistically significant.

Comparisons between the regions in the

2000 assessment show fourth-graders in the

Northeast and Central regions outperforming their peers in the Southeast and the West.

As shown in figure 2.7, achievement

level results were stable for all the regions.

No increases or decreases were observed in

the percentages of students at or above any

of the achievement levels. While the

percentage of students in the Northeast

who were at or above the Basic level had

increased between 1994 and 1998, the

percentage at or above Basic in 2000 was not

significantly higher than in past assessments.

Comparisons of achievement level

results between the regions show higher

attainment by fourth-grade students in the

Northeast and Central regions. The Northeast region had a higher percentage of

students at the Proficient level and at the

Advanced level than the Southeast. The

percentages of Northeast students at or

above Proficient and at or above the Basic

level were higher than both the Southeast

and the West. The Central region had

higher percentages of students at Proficient,

as well as at or above Proficient and at or

above Basic than the Southeast.

Northeast

Below Basic

33%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

30%

Below Basic

39%

Below Basic

34%

30%

Basic

32%

Basic

30%

Basic

32%

Basic

26% 

28% 

23% 

24% 

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient Advanced

Advanced

Advanced

Advanced

9%

8%

10%

11%

66% At or above Basic

34% At or above Proficient 

61% At or above Basic

31% At or above Proficient 

70% At or above Basic

38% At or above Proficient 

67% At or above Basic

37% At or above Proficient 

Figure 2.7

Achievement Level

Results by Region

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by region of the country: 1992–2000

Figure continues on the next page.
36 C H A P T E R 2 • READING REPORT CARD

Figure 2.7

Achievement Level

Results by Region

(continued)

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by region of the country: 1992–2000

Southeast

Below Basic

43%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

44%

Below Basic

45%

Below Basic

42%

31%

Basic

31%

Basic

30%

Basic

34%

Basic

20% 

20% 

19% 

19% 

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient Advanced

Advanced

Advanced

Advanced

5%

7%

5%

6%

58% At or above Basic

24% At or above Proficient 

55% At or above Basic

25% At or above Proficient 

56% At or above Basic

25% At or above Proficient 

57% At or above Basic

26% At or above Proficient 

Central

Below Basic

34%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

32%

Below Basic

34%

Below Basic

34%

31%

Basic

34%

Basic

33%

Basic

36%

Basic

26% 

26% 

26% 

24% 

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

6%

8%

8%

8%

66% At or above Basic

30% At or above Proficient 

66% At or above Basic

34% At or above Proficient 

68% At or above Basic

35% At or above Proficient 

66% At or above Basic

35% At or above Proficient 
CHAPTER 2 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 37

Figure 2.7

Achievement Level

Results by Region

(continued)

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by region of the country: 1992–2000

West

Below Basic

39%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

43%

Below Basic

41% 

Below Basic

41%

30%

Basic

30%

Basic

30%

Basic

32%

Basic

23% 

21% 

22% 

21% 

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

6%

7%

6%

8%

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above 

achievement levels, due to rounding.

59% At or above Basic

27% At or above Proficient 

59% At or above Basic

29% At or above Proficient 

57% At or above Basic

27% At or above Proficient 

61% At or above Basic

30% At or above Proficient 

Type of Location

The schools of students who participate in

the NAEP assessments are classified according to type of location. Based on Census

Bureau definitions of metropolitan statistical areas, population size, and density, the

three mutually exclusive categories are:

central city, urban fringe/large town, and

rural/small town. Due to a change in how

locations were identified in 2000, comparisons to previous assessment years based on

type of location are not possible. An explanation of this change can be found in

appendix A.

Central city Urban fringe/large town Rural/small town

2000 209 222 218

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.

Table 2.1

Scale Score Results

by Type of Location

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores by school’s type of location: 2000
38 C H A P T E R 2 • READING REPORT CARD

Consistent with past performance

patterns when comparing location types,

students in central city schools had a lower

average reading score than their peers who

attend schools in other types of location.

Figure 2.8 presents achievement level

results by type of location. Comparisons of

achievement level results between locations

show lower percentages of central city

students at or above the Proficient level and

at or above the Basic level of performance

than their peers in urban/fringe and rural

locations. The slight differences between

locations in the percentage of students

who attained the Advanced level were not

statistically significant.

Figure 2.8

Achievement Level

Results by Type of

Location

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by school’s type of location: 2000

Urban Fringe/Large Town

Rural/Small Town

Central City

Below Basic

47% 27%

Basic

20% 

Proficient

6%

Below Basic

32% 32%

Basic Proficient

26% 

Advanced

Advanced

10%

Below Basic

35% 33%

Basic Proficient

25% 

Advanced

8%

53% At or above Basic

26% At or above Proficient 

68% At or above Basic

36% At or above Proficient 

65% At or above Basic

32% At or above Proficient 

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above 

achievement levels, due to rounding.
CHAPTER 2 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 39

Eligibility for the Free/ReducedPrice Lunch Program

Funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of the National

School Lunch Program (NSLP), the free/

reduced-price lunch program is available to

public schools, nonprofit private schools,

and residential childcare institutions. Eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch is

determined through the USDA Income

Eligibility Guidelines whereby students

from families near or below the poverty

line can be assured of having a wholesome

meal at school.1

While NAEP first collected information

on student eligibility for the federally

funded NSLP in 1996, it was not until

1998 that this indicator of poverty was

reported for students participating in the

NAEP reading assessment. Thus comparisons can only be made between the two

most recent assessments. As shown in figure

2.9, there was no change in average scores

between the two assessment years for noneligible students and the apparent decrease

for eligible students was not statistically

significant. In 2000 the score for eligible

students remained significantly lower than

that for students not eligible to receive a

free or reduced-price lunch.

Figure 2.9

Scale Score Results

by Free/ReducedPrice Lunch Eligibility

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores by student eligibility for the

free/reduced-price lunch program: 1998–2000

1 U.S. General Services Administration. (1999). Catalogue of federal domestic assistance. Washington, DC: Executive

Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.

0

175

200

225

250

500

Not eligible

1992 1994 1998 2000

0

175

200

225

250

500

Eligibility status

not available

1992 1994 1998 2000

0

175

200

225

250

500

Eligible

1992 1994 1998 2000

 198 196

 227 227 227 228

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2000 Reading Assessments.
40 C H A P T E R 2 • READING REPORT CARD

As shown in figure 2.10, no change was

observed since 1998 in the percentages of

eligible and noneligible students attaining

specific achievement levels. As with average

scale score results, achievement level results

also show lower performance among

students eligible for the program. Fourteen

percent of eligible students performed at

or above the Proficient achievement level

in comparison to 41 percent of

noneligible students. Among fourthgraders who were eligible for the

program, 60 percent were below the

Basic level.

Figure 2.10

Achievement Level

Results by Free/ReducedPrice Lunch Eligibility

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by student eligibility for the free/reduced-price

lunch program: 1998–2000

Eligible

Below Basic

60%

1998

2000

Below Basic

58%

26%

Basic

29%

Basic

12% 

11% 

Proficient

Proficient

2%

2%

Advanced

Advanced

42% At or above Basic

13% At or above Proficient 

40% At or above Basic

14% At or above Proficient 

Not Eligible

Below Basic

26%

1998

2000

Below Basic

27%

34%

Basic

33%

Basic

Proficient

30% 

Proficient

30% 

Advanced

11%

Advanced

10%

73% At or above Basic

40% At or above Proficient 

74% At or above Basic

41% At or above Proficient 
CHAPTER 2 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 41

Type of School

The schools of students who take the

NAEP reading assessment are first classified

overall as either public or nonpublic. A

further distinction is then made within the

nonpublic classification between schools

that are Catholic and other nonpublic

schools. Differences in performance between public and nonpublic schools surveyed and reported by the NAEP reading

assessment have consistently shown that

students attending the various types of

nonpublic schools outperform their public

school peers. Despite this consistent pattern

in performance results, readers are cautioned against making assumptions about

the comparative quality of instruction in

public and nonpublic schools. Socioeconomic and sociological factors that may

affect student performance should be

considered when interpreting these results.

Average reading scale scores by type of

school are presented in figure 2.11. In

2000, the average scores of students attending any of the types of school did not

differ significantly from 1998 or from past

assessment years.

Comparison of scale score results between the types of schools in 2000 show

nonpublic school students outperforming

public school students. Students at Catholic

and other nonpublic schools also had

higher average scores than fourth-graders

attending public schools.

Eligibility Status Not Available

Below Basic

26%

1998

2000

Below Basic

27%

32%

Basic

33%

Basic

Proficient

30% 

Proficient

29% 

Advanced

12%

Advanced

11%

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

1998 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above 

achievement levels, due to rounding.

73% At or above Basic

40% At or above Proficient 

74% At or above Basic

42% At or above Proficient 

Figure 2.10

Achievement Level

Results by Free/ReducedPrice Lunch Eligibility

(continued)

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by student eligibility for the free/reduced-price

lunch program: 1998–2000
42 C H A P T E R 2 • READING REPORT CARD

0

175

200

225

250

500

Public 

1992 1994 1998 2000

215 212 215 215

0

175

200

225

250

500

Nonpublic 

1992 1994 1998 2000

232 231 233 234

0

175

200

225

250

500

Nonpublic:

Catholic 

1992 1994 1998 2000

229 229 233 231

0

175

200

225

250

500

Other

Nonpublic

1992 1994 1998 2000

238 234 232

237

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

1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Figure 2.11

Scale Score Results

by Type of School

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores by type of school: 1992–2000
CHAPTER 2 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 43

Achievement level results by type of

school are presented in figure 2.12. As with

scale score results, achievement level results

in 2000 show no significant increases or

decreases in the percentages of students at

or above the Basic or Proficient achievement

levels as compared to past assessment years.

Comparison of 2000 achievement level

results between types of schools show

fourth-grade students in nonpublic schools

outperforming their peers in public schools.

All classifications of nonpublic schools had

higher percentages of students at or above

Basic, at Proficient, and at or above Proficient

than did public schools. Among schools

classified as “nonpublic” a higher percentage of students attained the Advanced level

of achievement than did their public school

peers. Within the types of nonpublic

schools, only those classified as “other

nonpublic” had a higher percentage of

students at the Advanced level than did

public schools. The apparent difference

between the percentages of students at

the Advanced level in public and Catholic

schools was not statistically significant.

Public

Below Basic

40%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

39%

Below Basic

41%

Below Basic

40%

31%

Basic

31%

Basic

30%

Basic

33%

Basic

22% 

23% 

21% 

21% 

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

Proficient Advanced

6%

7%

6%

7%

60% At or above Basic

27% At or above Proficient 

59% At or above Basic

28% At or above Proficient 

61% At or above Basic

29% At or above Proficient 

60% At or above Basic

30% At or above Proficient 

Figure continues on the next page.

Figure 2.12

Achievement Level

Results by Type of

School

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by type of school: 1992–2000
44 C H A P T E R 2 • READING REPORT CARD

Figure 2.12

Achievement Level

Results by Type of

School (continued)

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by type of school: 1992–2000

Nonpublic

Below Basic

20%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

22%

Below Basic

23%

Below Basic

21%

32%

Basic

32%

Basic

34%

Basic

34%

Basic

Proficient

34% 

Proficient

32% 

Proficient

31% 

Proficient

33% 

Advanced

14%

Advanced

14%

Advanced

13%

Advanced

12%

79% At or above Basic

45% At or above Proficient 

77% At or above Basic

43% At or above Proficient 

78% At or above Basic

46% At or above Proficient 

80% At or above Basic

47% At or above Proficient 

Nonpublic: Catholic

Below Basic

22%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

21%

Below Basic

24%

Below Basic

24%

33%

Basic

33%

Basic

34%

Basic

35%

Basic

Proficient

33% 

Proficient

32% 

Proficient

30% 

Proficient

30% 

Advanced

11%

Advanced

13%

Advanced

12%

Advanced

10%

76% At or above Basic

41% At or above Proficient 

76% At or above Basic

42% At or above Proficient 

79% At or above Basic

46% At or above Proficient 

78% At or above Basic

44% At or above Proficient 
CHAPTER 2 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 45

Figure 2.12

Achievement Level

Results by Type of

School (continued)

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range by type of school: 1992–2000

Other Nonpublic

Below Basic

18%

1992

1994

1998

2000

Below Basic

24%

Below Basic

20%

Below Basic

16%

31%

Basic

30%

Basic

34%

Basic

31%

Basic

Proficient

35% 

Proficient

31% 

Proficient

32% 

Proficient

38% 

Advanced

16%

Advanced

16%

Advanced

14%

Advanced

15%

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

1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above 

achievement levels, due to rounding.

84% At or above Basic

53% At or above Proficient 

80% At or above Basic

46% At or above Proficient 

76% At or above Basic

46% At or above Proficient 

82% At or above Basic

51% At or above Proficient 

Summary

This chapter presented results from the

NAEP reading assessment for fourth-grade

students in different subgroups. The

subgroups examined were gender, race/

ethnicity, region of the country, type of

location, eligibility for the free/reducedprice lunch program, and type of school.

The following figure displays the major

findings presented in this chapter. In each

line of the display, the 2000 average reading

score of a particular group or the

percentage of students at or above the

Proficient achievement level for a particular

group is compared to that in the first

assessment year under the current reading

framework or to the first year that data was

available. Arrows pointing upward ()

indicate significant increases, horizontal

arrows () indicate no significant change,

and arrows pointing downward ()

indicate significant decreases. For example,

the first section under gender indicates that

that there has been no significant increase

since 1992 in the average score for either

male or female fourth-graders, but there

has been an increase since 1992 in the

percentage of females at or above the

Proficient achievement level.
46 C H A P T E R 2 • READING REPORT CARD

NOTE: Years are shown in boldface when the comparison year is different from the initial assessment year because earlier data are not available.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Figure 2.13 Summary of scale scores and achievement levels: 1992–2000

Gender

Female

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Male

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Race/Ethnicity

White

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Black

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Hispanic

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Asian/Pacific Islander

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

American Indian

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Region

Northeast

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Southeast

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Central

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

West

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Eligibility for the Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Not Eligible

Scale score since 1998

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1998

Type of School

Public

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Nonpublic

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Nonpublic: Catholic

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Other Nonpublic

Scale score since 1992

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1992

Eligible

Scale score since 1998

Percentage at or above Proficient since 1998
CHAPTER 3 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 47

School and Home Contexts for Learning

This chapter presents information on the two contexts that

largely form a child’s world and contribute most to learning:

school and home. Aspects of both school and home are

considered because what students do at school and at home

contribute, in different ways, to reading development. What

students learn and do while at school may be reinforced in

the home when literacy-related activities are interwoven

into daily life. Both classrooms and homes can be print-rich

environments that can accommodate talking about books or

reading aloud from them. Quiet time to read on

one’s own or to write down thoughts about what has

been read ideally occurs not only at school, but also

at home. Such connections between the worlds of

school and home communicate the value of learning

and encourage students’ reading development.1

 The information in this chapter is based on

students’ responses to background questions

administered as part of the NAEP 2000 reading

assessment. Results from the 2000 assessment are

compared to 1992, 1994, and 1998 results. The

percentage of students who selected each response

option and the average scale scores are presented for

each contextual variable reported. Thus, it is possible to

examine the relationship between students’ school and home

experiences and their performance on the NAEP

assessment. Readers of this report are reminded that the

relationship between a contextual variable and reading

performance is not necessarily causal.

1 Baker, L. (1999). Opportunities at home and in the community that foster reading

engagement. In J. Guthrie and D. Alvermann (Eds.), Engaged reading: Processes, practices,

and policy implications (pp. 105-133), New York: Teachers College.

3

Chapter

Contents

Students’

Reports on Their

Reading in and

for School

Students’

Reports on

Literacy with

Family and

Friends

How do certain

school and home

factors relate to

reading progress?

Have school and

home factors

related to

learning changed

since 1992?

Chapter

Focus
48 C H A P T E R 3 • READING REPORT CARD

Reading in and for School

As with the acquisition of many skills,

practice is important to reading development. Fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension may improve in relation to the

amount of reading accomplished. While

guided oral reading has been shown to

effectively enhance a variety of reading

skills, that increased silent reading leads to

higher reading achievement has not been

confirmed by research studies. Yet, it is

generally agreed that practice in reading

develops better readers.2

Pages Read in School and for Homework.

Students’ reports in 2000 indicate a consistent relationship between the daily amount

of reading done in school and for homework and reading performance.

As shown in table 3.1, 80 percent of the

students reported reading at least 6 pages

daily and 60 percent reported reading 11

or more pages each day. Higher numbers of

pages read daily are associated with higher

average reading scale scores. Fourth-graders

who reported reading 11 or more pages

daily had the highest average score, outperforming their peers who reported reading

fewer pages.

Looking across assessment years indicates

that fourth-graders currently are reading

2 National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based

assessement of the scientific research on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups

(pp. 3-15–3-38). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, National Institutes

of Health.

Grade 4

Table 3.1

Students’ reports on the number of pages

read each day in school and for homework:

1992–2000

11 or more pages

Percentage of Students 56 * 54 * 57 60

Average Scale Score 222 220 221 222

6 to 10 pages

Percentage of Students 23 * 23 * 22 20

Average Scale Score 217 214 217 215

5 or fewer pages

Percentage of Students 21 23 * 21 19

Average Scale Score 203 201 207 202

Pages Read in

School and for

Homework

More students read

11 or more pages

each day than in

1992 and 1994.

Students who read

most scored highest.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1992 1994 1998 2000
CHAPTER 3 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 49

more pages on a daily basis. The percentage

of fourth-graders who reported reading the

most pages—11 or more daily—was higher

in 2000 than the percentages had been in

both 1992 and 1994.

Time Spent Doing Homework. While 2000

results showed students who reported more

daily reading in school or for homework

outperforming their peers, students’ reports

on the amount of time spent each day on

homework do not necessarily indicate that

more time is better.

As shown in table 3.2, 72 percent of

fourth-grade students reported spending

one-half to one hour a day on homework.

These students outperformed their peers

who reported spending more than one

hour on homework each day and those

who reported either not doing or not

having homework. Students who reported

not having any homework or spending

more than one hour on homework had

similar scores.

Grade 4

Table 3.2

Students’ reports on the amount of

time spent doing homework each day:

1992–2000

More than one hour

Percentage of Students 15 15 16 16

Average Scale Score 208 208 213 212

One hour

Percentage of Students 28 30 31 29

Average Scale Score 221 218 221 222

One-half hour

Percentage of Students 39 * 39 * 43 43

Average Scale Score 217 216 219 219

Do not do homework

Percentage of Students 2 3 * 2 2

Average Scale Score 196 183 188 172

Do not have homework

Percentage of Students 16 * 13 * 8 10

Average Scale Score 220 216 213 212

Time Spent Daily

Doing Homework

The 72% of students

who said they spent

one-half to one hour

on homework each

day scored highest.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1992 1994 1998 2000
50 C H A P T E R 3 • READING REPORT CARD

Some variation can be observed in

students’ reports about time spent daily on

homework since previous NAEP assessments. In 2000, the percentage of fourthgraders who reported spending one-half

hour on homework each day was higher in

comparison to both 1992 and 1994. While

the percentages of students who reported

not having homework have been relatively

small across assessments, in 2000 this

percentage of students was significantly

lower than in 1992 and 1994.

Writing About Reading. Writing about

reading has become a valued part of instruction that provides learners with ways

of thinking about their ideas and exploring

content domains.3 As the framework that

underlies the NAEP assessment views

reading as an active process, many of the

assessment questions ask students to write

out their own answers rather than to select

a multiple-choice option. How prepared

are fourth-graders to write out their own

answer about reading by having been asked

to do so in school?

Fourth-graders who took the NAEP

reading assessment were asked how

frequently during the school year they had

been asked to write long answers to

questions on tests and assignments that

involved reading. As shown in table 3.3,

81 percent of fourth-grade students

reported writing long answers about

reading at least once or twice a month.

Students who reported being asked to

produce such answers on a monthly basis

had a higher average score than fourthgraders asked to do so weekly and those

asked to do so less frequently. While 2000

results show highest performance among

students who are asked to engage in this

activity once or twice monthly, students

asked to write out long answers weekly

outperformed their peers who reported

doing so yearly or never or hardly ever.

Lowest reading performance was associated

with never or hardly ever writing long

answers about reading.

Increase in the frequency of this activity

at grade 4 observed in 1998 was maintained by the most recent student reports.

In 2000, the percentage of students who

reported being asked to write long answers

to questions that involved reading at least

weekly was again higher in comparison to

1994. A decrease since 1994 was observed

in the small percentage of students reporting never being asked to write long answers to questions about reading.

3 McGinley, W. & Tierney, R.J. (1989). Traversing the topical landscape. Written Communications 6 (3), 243–269.
CHAPTER 3 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 51

Table 3.3

Students’ reports on how often they write

long answers to questions on tests or

assignments that involved reading: 1992–2000

At least once a week

Percentage of Students 51 48 * 53 53

Average Scale Score 220 217 218 217

Once or twice a month

Percentage of Students 28 31 * 30 28

Average Scale Score 221 221 223 225

Once or twice a year

Percentage of Students 13 12 10 11

Average Scale Score 209 209 212 210

Never or hardly ever

Percentage of Students 9 9 * 8 8

Average Scale Score 202 198 199 199

Writing About

Reading

The 81% of students

who said they write

about reading at

least monthly scored

highest.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1992 1994 1998 2000

Grade 4
52 C H A P T E R 3 • READING REPORT CARD

Teachers’ Help with Words. The last school

factors examined in this chapter look at the

frequency of two distinctly different types

of word-level activity and their relationship

to fourth-grade reading performance. In

1998 and 2000, students who took the

NAEP assessment were asked to report

how often their teacher helped them to

break words into parts and how often their

teacher helped them to understand new

words. Results indicate that these two

activities had a different relationship to

performance.

Help with breaking words into parts had

a consistent negative relation to fourthgrade reading performance as demonstrated

on the NAEP assessment. As shown in table

3.4, the more frequently students received

this help the lower their average score;

whereas fourth graders who reported that

their teachers never helped them break

words into parts had the highest average

score. These results are consistent with

research findings that have shown this type

of word-level reading instruction most

effective in kindergarten and the 1st grade

before children have learned to read

independently and also effective in helping

older struggling readers.4 The 53 percent

of fourth-graders who reported never or

rarely needing this type of help demonstrated the highest comprehension skills,

outperforming those fourth-graders who

were still focusing more on recognizing

individual words rather than on comprehending the meaning of the text as a whole.

If by the fourth grade students still require

daily or weekly help breaking words into

parts, it may likely be that these students

are having difficulty learning to read.

While breaking words into parts is useful

in the early stages of learning to read,

learning new words is a part of reading at

all stages of development. By fourth grade,

students are beginning to explore content

areas and may encounter vocabulary that is

specific to that content. Vocabulary instruction, either by explaining new words prior

to reading or by explaining them in the

context of the reading experience, can

facilitate fourth-graders’ comprehension of

new content material. 5

 Broadly stated,

help breaking words into parts is associated

with learning to read and help with new

words is more closely linked with reading

to learn. As shown in table 3.4, students

who reported receiving a moderate

amount of help with new words—weekly

or monthly—had higher average scores

than fourth-grade students who reported

receiving this help either every day or

never/hardly ever. It may be that the

fourth-graders who required help weekly

or monthly are reading independently and

encountering texts that challenge them

with some new words.

4 National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based

assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups

(pp. 2-81–2-130). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, National

Institutes of Health.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., Fletcher, J., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to

read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.

5 National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based

assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups

(pp. 4-15–4-25). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, National Institutes

of Health.

Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and explanations of

target words. Elementary School Journal, 96 (4), 415-422.
CHAPTER 3 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 53

Table 3.4

Students’ reports on how often their teachers

help them break words into parts and help

them understand new words: 1998–2000

How often their teachers help them break words into parts

Every day

Percentage of Students 25 25

Average Scale Score 210 209

Once or twice a week

Percentage of Students 23 22

Average Scale Score 217 217

Never or hardly ever

Percentage of Students 52 53

Average Scale Score 226 226

How often their teachers help them understand new words

Every day

Percentage of Students 49 48

Average Scale Score 217 217

Once or twice a week

Percentage of Students 24 23

Average Scale Score 224 224

Once or twice a month

Percentage of Students 14 14

Average Scale Score 223 224

Never or hardly ever

Percentage of Students 12 * 14

Average Scale Score 219 216

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1998 2000

Teachers’ Help

with Words

Students who said

they never or rarely

received help

breaking words into

parts scored

highest.

Students who said

their teacher

helped them with

new words weekly

or monthly scored

highest.

1998 2000

Grade 4
54 C H A P T E R 3 • READING REPORT CARD

6 Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies. London: Falmer.

7 Wolf, S.A. & Heath, S.B. (1992). The braid of literature: Children’s world of reading. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Literacy with Family and Friends

Learning is not limited to the classroom

but is a process that continues in, and is

shaped by, home environments and social

interactions. Families use print for various

activities on a daily basis, and different

cultural groups have unique ways of

integrating oral and written language

with daily social life.6 Occasions for

learning and for enhancing reading skills

ideally coincide with the behaviors of

everyday life. This section of the chapter

looks at literacy-related activities that occur

outside of school and their relationship to

student performance on the 2000 NAEP

reading assessment.

Reading for Fun. As noted earlier, the

amount of reading students do in and for

school on a daily basis had a positive

relationship to performance on the NAEP

reading assessment. If students, however,

regard reading only as a school-related

activity, as a duty rather than a pleasure,

their future prospects for reading to understand themselves and the world are limited.

For reading on one’s own not only extends

comprehension skills, but also enhances the

understanding of what happens in life.

While reading stories, for instance, children

use literature to make connections and

comparisons, providing them with a perspective that may exceed the boundaries of

their immediate experience.7

 When the act

of reading extends beyond the schoolroom

and becomes part of daily life, ongoing

literacy is on its way to becoming a reality.

As shown in table 3.5, 75 percent of

fourth-grade students reported reading for

fun at least once or twice a week. More

frequent reading for fun showed a positive

relationship to scores. Students who reported reading for fun daily had higher

average scores than students who reported

reading for fun less frequently.

While students’ reports indicate relatively

stable percentages of students engaged in

reading on their own across assessment

years, the percentage of students in 2000

who reported never reading for fun on

their own was significantly higher than in

1994. This contrasts with students’ reports

on school-related reading, noted earlier in

this chapter, which showed higher percentages of students reading more pages daily

in school and for homework than in 1992

and 1994.
CHAPTER 3 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 55

Table 3.5

Students’ reports on how often they read

for fun on their own time: 1992–2000 Grade 4

Every day

Percentage of Students 44 45 43 43

Average Scale Score 223 223 222 223

Once or twice a week

Percentage of Students 32 32 32 32

Average Scale Score 218 213 219 218

Once or twice a month

Percentage of Students 12 12 12 12

Average Scale Score 210 208 216 216

Never or hardly ever

Percentage of Students 13 12 * 13 14

Average Scale Score 199 197 203 202

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1992 1994 1998 2000

Reading for Fun

Students who read

for fun every day

scored highest.

Three quarters of

the students said

they read for fun at

least weekly.
56 C H A P T E R 3 • READING REPORT CARD

8 Guthrie, J., Shafer, W.D., Yang, Y.Y., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Relationships of instruction on reading: An exploration

of social, cognitive and instructional connections. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 8–25.

Discussing Studies and Talking About Reading.

Reading, whether for school or for fun, is

only one aspect of literacy development.

Equally important is the social dimension

that brings books off the shelves and out of

bookbags into the dynamics of daily life.

Social interactions that provide students

with the opportunity to talk with others

about their reading enhance literacy skills

and encourage further reading activity.8

Fourth-grade students in the NAEP

assessment were asked to indicate how

frequently they discussed their studies at

home or talked about reading with family

and friends. As shown in table 3.6, students’

reports suggest a distinction between the

two types of discourse. Students who

discussed their studies at home, however

frequently, had higher average reading

scores than students who reported never

discussing their studies at home. There was

no significant difference between the scores

of those who did so daily, weekly, or

monthly.

Somewhat more frequent talk with

family and friends about their reading

showed a positive relation to student

performance. Fourth-graders who

responded that they engaged in

conversation about their reading with

family or friends on a weekly basis had a

higher average score than students who

reported engaging in such talk daily,

monthly, or never. Students who reported

never or rarely doing so had the lowest

average score.

The percentages of students reporting

various frequencies of talking about studies

or their reading outside of school have

remained relatively stable across assessment

years. No significant change was observed

in student reports of how often they

discuss studies at home. An increase since

1994 was observed, however, in the

percentage of students who reported never

or hardly ever talking about their reading

with family or friends. Considering the

positive relationship this activity has with

reading achievement, it is disappointing to

note that nearly one-quarter of students

reported never or hardly ever doing so.
CHAPTER 3 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 57

Table 3.6

Students’ reports on how often they discuss

their studies at home and talk about reading

with their family and friends: 1992–2000

Discuss studies at home

Almost every day

Percentage of Students 54 55 54 54

Average Scale Score 221 219 220 221

Once or twice a week

Percentage of Students 22 22 23 23

Average Scale Score 220 215 222 219

Once or twice a month

Percentage of Students 6 6 6 6

Average Scale Score 215 208 213 217

Never or hardly ever

Percentage of Students 17 17 18 17

Average Scale Score 202 199 205 201

Talk about reading with family or friends

Almost every day

Percentage of Students 26 28 27 27

Average Scale Score 215 213 211 213

Once or twice a week

Percentage of Students 36 36 35 34

Average Scale Score 224 223 223 227

Once or twice a month

Percentage of Students 15 15 15 15

Average Scale Score 219 214 222 220

Never or hardly ever

Percentage of Students 23 21 * 23 24

Average Scale Score 209 207 214 209

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1992 1994 1998 2000

Discussing Studies

and Talking About

Reading

The 83% of students

who said they

discussed their

studies at home

however frequently

outperformed

students who never

or rarely do so.

75% of students

said they talked

about reading with

family and friends at

least monthly.

Students who said

they did so weekly

scored highest.

Grade 4

1992 1994 1998 2000
58 C H A P T E R 3 • READING REPORT CARD

9 Donahue, P.D., Voekl, K.R., Campbell, J.R. & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP’s 1998 reading report card for the nation and

the states. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Campbell, J.R., Donahue, P.D., Reese, C.M. & Phillips, G.W. (1996). NAEP’s 1994 reading report card for the nation

and the states. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Reading Materials in the Home. One indication that a household values literacy as an

inherent part of everyday life is the presence of a variety of reading materials.

Students who participated in the NAEP

reading assessment were asked to indicate if

their family regularly received a newspaper

or magazines, if there was an encyclopedia

at home, and to approximate how many

books were in the home. Students were

classified as having books in the home if

they reported having more than 25 books.

Reports on these four different types of

reading materials are presented in table 3.7.

Results of the 2000 NAEP reading

assessment are consistent with the findings

of previous assessments that showed higher

average scores among students who reported having more types of reading

materials at home.9 Students who reported

having all four types of materials in their

home had higher average scores than

students who reported having three types

of materials; those who indicated the

presence of three types had in turn a

higher average score than students indicating the presence of two or fewer types of

reading materials.

Perhaps the availability of newspapers,

magazines, and encyclopedias in electronic

form has influenced the number of different types of reading materials in the home

reported by students. Although there was

no significant change since 1998, a lower

percentage of students in 2000 reported

having all four types of reading materials at

home in comparison to 1994 reports.
CHAPTER 3 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 59

Reading Materials

in the Home

Two-thirds of

students said they

had three or four

types of reading

materials in their

homes. Students

who had all four

types scored

highest.

Four

Percentage of Students 37 38 * 37 34

Average Scale Score 226 227 228 229

Three

Percentage of Students 32 34 33 34

Average Scale Score 219 216 220 219

Two or fewer

Percentage of Students 31 29 * 30 32

Average Scale Score 204 197 204 203

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1992 1994 1998 2000

Grade 4

Table 3.7

Students’ reports on the number of different

types of reading materials in the home:

1992–2000
60 C H A P T E R 3 • READING REPORT CARD

Time Spent Watching Television. The last

home variable to be considered in this

chapter is the amount of time students

reported watching television daily. While

the availability of technologies including

television and computers have been associated with reading engagement,10 and

although many educationally oriented

programs are aired, concern remains that

television watching interferes with the time

students spend on more active literacy

pursuits.

Students’ reports on the amount of time

they spend watching television are presented in table 3.8. Results from the NAEP

2000 reading assessment once again show

that watching many hours of television

daily has a negative relationship to reading

performance. Students who reported

watching the most television, six hours or

more, had the lowest average reading score,

and those who reported watching four

to five had the next lowest score. Fourthgrade students who reported watching less

television, either two or three hours or an

hour or less daily, had higher and similar

scores.

A clear trend in whether students are

watching more or less television is not

evident. Although a significantly higher

percentage of fourth-grade students in

2000 than in 1998 reported watching six

or more hours of television daily, this

percentage is lower than it was in 1994.

However, results also show increases in

the percentages of students watching three

or fewer hours of television daily. The

percentage of students in 2000 who

reported watching two or three

hours was higher than in 1994, and the

percentage who reported watching one

hour or less was higher in comparison to

both 1992 and 1994.

10 Baker, L. (1999). Opportunities at home and in the community that foster reading engagement. In J. Guthrie & D.

Alvermann (Eds.) Engaged reading: Processes, practices and policy implications. (pp. 105–33), New York: Teachers

College.
CHAPTER 3 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 61

Grade 4

Table 3.8

Students’ reports on the amount of

time spent watching television each day:

1992–2000

Six hours or more

Percentage of Students 20 21 * 16 * 18

Average Scale Score 199 194 198 196

Four or five hours

Percentage of Students 22 * 22 * 19 * 17

Average Scale Score 216 216 216 213

Two or three hours

Percentage of Students 40 38 * 41 40

Average Scale Score 224 222 223 224

One hour or less

Percentage of Students 19 * 19 * 24 25

Average Scale Score 221 220 222 224

Time Spent Daily

Watching Television

Since 1992, fewer

students said they

are watching four or

five hours of

television each day.

Students who said

they watch less

television each day

scored highest.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1992 1994 1998 2000
62 C H A P T E R 3 • READING REPORT CARD

Summary

While no causal relationship can be made

between student reports on school and

home experiences and their reading performance, results presented in this chapter

do suggest that active engagement with

words and meanings may be an essential

factor for literacy development.

Students who reported reading more

pages daily in school and for homework

and students who reported being asked to

write about their reading were higher

achievers. Activities outside of school, such

as reading for fun, discussing studies at

home, or talking about reading with family

and friends also showed a positive influence

on fourth-grade reading achievement as

measured by the NAEP assessment.

Considering that students’ reports

indicating more involvement with language

at school and at home were positively

related to scale scores, it is not surprising

that having access to more types of literacy

materials in the home—materials that

might stimulate reading activity—were also

reported by higher-achieving students. The

inverse of active engagement in literacyrelated activities is reflected in students’

reports on television viewing. Students

who reported watching the most television

daily were the lowest achievers.

Some of the factors that had a positive

relationship with students’ scores on the

NAEP reading assessment have shown

encouraging change across assessment years.

In comparison to 1992 and 1994, higher

percentages of students in 2000 reported

reading more pages in school and for

homework on a daily basis; also, in comparison to 1994, higher percentages of

students reported being asked to write

about their reading weekly or monthly.

While these school-related factors

indicate students’ increased involvement

with language activity, some home factors

related to literacy development do not

reflect a positive trend. In comparison to

1994, small increases can be observed in

the percentages of students who reported

never or hardly ever reading for fun on

their own time or talking about their

reading with family and friends. Although

two-thirds of students reported having

three or four types of reading materials in

their homes, more students than in 1994

reported having two or fewer types. No

clear pattern over time was observed in

students reports on how much television

they watch daily; however, it is encouraging

that in comparison to 1992 and 1994 a

higher percentage of fourth-graders

reported watching one hour or less of

television each day.

Overall, it may be said from the results in

this chapter that high percentages of

fourth-grade students are engaged in

literacy-related activities on a fairly regular

basis. For example, three-quarters of

fourth-graders reported reading for fun

weekly and talking about reading with

family and friends at least monthly; and

over three-quarters of the students reported

discussing their studies at home. Students’

reports on school activities show 60 percent

of fourth-graders reading eleven or more

pages daily in school or for homework and

72 percent spending one-half to one hour

daily on homework.
CHAPTER 4 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 63

1 Goals 2000, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Improving America’s

Schools Act (IASA), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). See also: Title

VI of the Civil Rights Act, Equal Educational Opportunities Act, Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act.

4

Chapter

Contents

Two sets of 2000

NAEP Reading

Results

Results for the

Nation

Results by

Gender

Results by Race/

Ethnicity

Becoming a More Inclusive

National Assessment

Legislation at the federal level now mandates the inclusion

of all students in large-scale academic assessments.1 As a

consequence, the majority of states have assessment

programs that must make provisions to include special-needs

students—provisions that include the allowance of testing

accommodations when appropriate. Assessing as

representative a sample of the nation’s students as

possible is particularly important for NAEP’s mission

to serve as a key indicator of the academic

achievement of the nation’s students. This mission

can be satisfactorily accomplished only if the

assessment results include data gathered from all

groups of students, including those classified as

having special needs.

 Although the intent of NAEP has consistently

been to include special-needs students in its

assessments to the fullest degree possible, the

implementation of the assessment has always resulted

in some exclusion of students with disabilities and

students with limited English proficiency who could

not be assessed meaningfully without accommodations.

Participating schools have been permitted to exclude certain

students who have been classified as having a disability under

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, based upon

How would the

NAEP results

differ if

accommodations

were permitted

for special needs

students?

Chapter

Focus
64 C H A P T E R 4 • READING REPORT CARD

2 Olson, J.F. and Goldstein, A. A. (1997). The inclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficient

students in large-scale assessments: A summary of recent progress. (NCES Publication No. 97–482). Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics.

Mazzeo, J., Carlson, J.E., Voelkl, K.E., & Lutkus, A. D. (1999). Increasing the participation of special needs students

in NAEP: A report on 1996 research activities. (NCES Publication No. 2000–473). Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

their Individualized Education Programs

(IEP) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Similarly, schools have

been permitted to exclude some students

they identify as being limited English

proficient. Exclusion decisions are made in

accordance with explicit criteria provided

by the NAEP program.

In order to move the NAEP assessments

toward more inclusive samples, the NAEP

program began to explore the use of

accommodations with special-needs

students during the 1996 and 1998

assessments. An additional impetus for this

change was to keep NAEP consistent with

state and district testing policies that

increasingly offered accommodations so

that more special-needs students could be

assessed. In both 1996 and 1998, the

national NAEP sample was split so that

part of the schools sampled were permitted

to provide accommodations to specialneeds students and the other part was not.

This sample design made it possible to

study the effects on NAEP results of

including special-needs students in the

assessments under alternate testing

conditions. Technical research papers have

been published with the results of these

comparisons.2

 Based on the outcomes of

these technical analyses, the 1998 results of

those NAEP assessments that used new test

frameworks (writing and civics), and hence

also began new trend lines, were reported

with the inclusion of data from

accommodated special-needs students.

The results presented in the 1998 reading report card included the performance

of students with disabilities (SD) and those

with limited English proficiency (LEP)

who were assessed without the possibility

of accommodations. The results did not

include the performance of students for

whom accommodations were permitted

because of the need to preserve comparability with the results from 1992 and 1994.

Students in those earlier assessments had

not had accommodations available to them.

However, in both the 1998 and 2000

reading assessments, the NAEP program

used the split-sample design, so that trends

in students’ reading achievement could be

reported across all the assessment years and,

at the same time, the program could

continue to examine the effects of including students tested with accommodations.

Two Sets of 2000 NAEP

Reading Results

This report card is the first to display two

different sets of NAEP results based on the

split-sample design: (1) those that reflect

the performance of regular and specialneeds students when accommodations

were not permitted, and (2) those that

reflect the performance of regular and

special-needs students—both those who

were accommodated and those who could

test without accommodations—when

accommodations were permitted. It should

be noted that accommodated students

make up a small proportion (about 3

percent) of the total weighted number of

students assessed (see table A.6 in appendix A

for details). Making accommodations
CHAPTER 4 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 65

available may change the overall assessment

results in subtle and different ways. For

example, when accommodations are

permitted, there may be some occurrences

of students being accommodated who may

have taken the test under standard conditions if accommodations were not permitted. This could lead to an overall increase

in the average assessment results, if it can be

assumed that accommodations increase

special-needs students’ performance. Conversely, when accommodations are permitted, special-needs students who could not

have been tested without accommodations

could be included in the sample. Assuming

that these are generally lower-performing

students, their inclusion in the sample—

even with accommodations—may result in

an overall lower average score. The findings in the NAEP research reports cited

previously suggest that these two opposite

influences on the total assessment results

may balance out to result in little change in

the overall assessment averages.

The first three chapters of this report are

based on the first set of results (no accommodations offered). This final chapter

presents an overview of the second set of

results—results that include students who

were provided accommodations during the

test administration. By including these

results, the NAEP program begins a phased

transition toward a more inclusive reporting sample. Future assessment results will

be based solely on a student and school

sample in which accommodations are

permitted.

The two sets of results presented in this

chapter were obtained by administering the

assessment to a nationally representative

sample of students and schools. In half of

the schools sampled, no accommodations

were permitted; all students were tested

under the same conditions that were the

basis for reporting results from the 1992,

1994, and 1998 NAEP reading assessments.

In the other half of the schools sampled,

accommodations were permitted for

students with disabilities and limited

English proficient students who normally

receive accommodations in their district or

state testing programs. Most accommodations that schools routinely provide for

their own testing programs were permitted.

The permitted accommodations included,

but were not limited to:

 one-on-one testing,

 small-group testing,

 extended time,

 oral reading of directions,

 signing of directions,

 use of magnifying equipment, and,

 use of an aide for transcribing responses.

The program did not allow some of the

accommodations that are permitted in

certain states. In particular, some states

allow questions and, in some instances,

reading passages to be read aloud to the

students. Such “read-aloud accommodations” were viewed by the program as

changing the nature of the construct being

measured and, hence, were not permitted.

Because the NAEP program considers the

domain of its reading assessment as “reading

in English,” no attempt was made to provide

an alternate-language version of the instrument and the use of bilingual dictionaries

was not allowed. (See appendix A, table

A.7 for greater detail on numbers and

percentages of students accommodated by

accommodation type in the 1998 and 2000

assessments.) The “read-aloud” accommodation is permitted, however, in NAEP

subjects other than reading.
66 C H A P T E R 4 • READING REPORT CARD

Figure 4.1 provides a visual representation of how the two sets of results were

based on the two half-samples in 1998 and

2000. Included in both sets of results

(accommodations not permitted and

accommodations permitted) are those

students from both half-samples of schools

who were not identified as having a disability (SD) or limited English proficiency

(LEP). In addition, the first set of results

(accommodations not permitted) includes

SD and LEP students from the half-sample

of schools where accommodations were

not permitted (see middle portion of

Figure 4.1). This is the set of results that

allows for trend comparisons back to 1992

and are reported in the first three chapters

of this report.

The second set of results, accommodations permitted (see bottom portion of

Figure 4.1), includes SD and LEP students

from the half-sample of schools where

accommodations were permitted. This is

the set of results that form the new, more

inclusive baseline for future reporting of

trend comparisons for the NAEP reading

assessment.

In the NAEP 2000 samples where

accommodations were not permitted, 15

percent of the students were identified by

their schools as having special needs (i.e.,

either as students with disabilities or limited English proficient students). In the

other half-sample where accommodations

were offered, 17 percent of the students

were identified as having special needs. In

the sample where accommodations were

not permitted, 48 percent of the specialneeds students (7 percent of all students, see

appendix A, table A.5) were excluded from

NAEP testing by their schools. In the

sample where accommodations were

offered, only 35 percent of the specialneeds students were excluded from testing

(6 percent of the total sample). Thus, as

seen with other NAEP subjects, offering

accommodations leads to greater inclusion

of special-needs students.
CHAPTER 4 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 67

The two sets of NAEP results based on a split-sample design

Figure 4.1

Split-sample design

The national sample was split. In half of the

schools, accommodations were not permitted

for students with disabilities (SD) and

students with limited English proficiency

(LEP). In the other half of the schools,

accommodations were permitted for SD and

LEP students who routinely received them in

their school assessments.

Accommodations-not-permitted results

The accommodations-not-permitted results

include the performance of students from both

half-samples who were not classified as SD or

LEP and the performance of SD and LEP

students from the half-sample in which no

accommodations were permitted.

Accommodations-permitted results

The accommodations-permitted results also

include the performance of students from both

half-samples who were not classified as SD or

LEP; however, the SD and LEP students whose

performance is included in this set of results

were from the half-sample in which

accommodations were permitted. Since

students who required testing accommodations

could be assessed and represented in the

overall results, it was anticipated that these

results would include more special-needs

students and reflect a more inclusive sample.

Half-sample with no Half-sample with

accommodations permitted accommodations permitted

Non-SD/LEP Non-SD/LEP

students students

SD/LEP SD/LEP

students students

Half-sample with no Half-sample with

accommodations permitted accommodations permitted

Non-SD/LEP Non-SD/LEP

students students

SD/LEP SD/LEP

students students

Half-sample with no Half-sample with

accommodations permitted accommodations permitted

Non-SD/LEP Non-SD/LEP

students students

SD/LEP SD/LEP

students students
68 C H A P T E R 4 • READING REPORT CARD

3 Mazzeo, J., Carlson, J.E., Voelkl, K.E., & Lutkus, A. D. (1999). Increasing the participation of special needs students in

NAEP: A report on 1996 research activities. (NCES Publication No. 2000–473). Washington, DC: National Center

for Education Statistics.

Average score by type of results: 1998 and 2000

Accommodations Accommodations

not permitted permitted

1998 217 216

2000 217 215*

Table 4.1

*Significantly different from the sample where accommodations were not permitted.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

The focus of this chapter is a comparison of data from the two sets of results: (1)

when accommodations were not permitted, and (2) when accommodations were

permitted. Because the split-sample design

was used in both 1998 and 2000 for the

NAEP reading assessment, both sets of

results are presented for both years. Overall

results are provided for the nation, as well

as for student subgroups by gender and by

race/ethnicity. These results are discussed in

terms of statistically significant differences

between the two sets of results in each year,

changes between assessment years, and

differences between subgroups of students

within each set of results. Throughout this

chapter, the assessment results that include

SD and LEP students for whom accommodations were not permitted will be referred

to as the “accommodations-not-permitted”

average score. The set of results that includes SD and LEP students for whom

accommodations were permitted will be

referred to as the “accommodationspermitted” average score.

Results for the Nation:

Accommodations Not Permitted and

Accommodations Permitted

Table 4.1 displays the average reading scale

scores for the nation in 1998 and 2000 for

the two sets of results: (1) accommodations

not permitted, and (2) accommodations

permitted. In the 1998 reading assessment

at grade 4, there was no statistically significant difference between the two average

scores. However, in 2000 the accommodations-permitted average score was two

points lower than the accommodationsnot-permitted average score. An important

comparative context for this finding is that

NAEP’s previous research in the science

and mathematics subjects in the 1996

assessments found no significant differences

in the average scores of the two sets of

results at grades 4, 8, or 12.3
CHAPTER 4 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 69

Table 4.2

Percentages of students attaining reading achievement levels by type of results

(Accommodations Not Permitted and Accommodations Permitted): 1998 and 2000

At or above At or above

Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced Basic Proficient

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1998

Not permitted 38 32 24 7 62 31

Permitted 39 31 23 8 61 31

2000

Not permitted 37 31 24 8 63 32

Permitted 39 30 23 7 61 31

As noted in the introduction to this chapter, NAEP has always sought to include

special-needs students proportional to their

representation in the U.S. population.

Offering accommodations tends to reduce

exclusion rates for special-needs students

and therefore allows NAEP to offer a fairer

and more accurate picture of the status of

American education. Because special-needs

students are typically “classified” as eligible

for special educational services after having

shown some difficulty in the regular

learning environment, it may be assumed

that the academic achievement of specialneeds students will be lower than that of

students without such needs. This assumption appears to have been justified in the

observed difference between the two sets

of fourth-grade reading results in 2000,

where the accommodations-permitted

results, which included slightly more

special-needs students because of the

availability of accommodations, were lower

than the accommodations-not-permitted

results. It is important to examine the

percentages of students attaining the NAEP

achievement levels to see if the percentages

in the lower performance categories (i.e.,

below Basic and Basic) were higher in the

set of results where accommodations were

offered.

Table 4.2 shows the percentages of

students attaining each of the achievement

levels. The percentages are similar across the

two sets of 2000 results; the differences

between the accommodations-notpermitted and the accommodationspermitted results were not significantly

different. Similarly, the achievement level

distributions for the two sets of results in

the 1998 reading assessment showed no

significant differences.
70 C H A P T E R 4 • READING REPORT CARD

4 Mullis, I. V. S., Campbell, J. R., & Farstrup, A. E., (1993). NAEP 1992 reading report card for the nation and the states.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Campbell, J. R., Donahue, P. D., Reese, C. M., & Phillips, G. W. (1996) NAEP 1994 reading report card for the nation

and the states. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

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.

Results by Gender:

Accommodations Not Permitted and

Accommodations Permitted

In past NAEP assessments of reading,

female students outperformed male students.4

 The average reading scale scores by

gender for both sets of results in 1998 and

2000 are provided in table C.30 in appendix C. The small differences within gender

groups between the accommodations-notpermitted and accommodations-permitted

average scores were not significant for

either 1998 or 2000.

Female students outperformed male

students by 10 points in 2000, regardless of

whether accommodations were permitted.

In addition, the gap in average scores

between males and females was larger in

2000 than in 1998 in both sets of results.

For male students, the accommodationspermitted average score declined from 214

to 210 between 1998 and 2000. However,

the small decline between 1998 and 2000

in the accommodations-not-permitted

average score was not statistically significant. For female students, no significant

score difference between 1998 and 2000 is

evident in either set of results.

The percentages of male and female

students attaining the Basic, Proficient, and

Advanced levels are provided in table C.31

in appendix C. Comparing the two sets of

results both in 1998 and 2000, no significant differences were found in the percentages of students attaining each of the

achievement levels. Neither set of results

shows significant change between 1998 and

2000 for either males or females.

Results by Race/Ethnicity:

Accommodations Not Permitted and

Accommodations Permitted

NAEP assessments across academic subjects

have typically reported large score differences according to race and ethnic group

membership. To the extent that students

with disabilities or limited English proficient students may be overrepresented in a

particular racial or ethnic group, that

group’s assessment scores may decrease.

Table C.32 in appendix C provides the

average reading scale scores for each of the

race/ethnicity categories for the two sets of

results in 1998 and 2000. Of the race/

ethnicity categories, “Hispanic” was the

only one in which a significant difference

was observed between the accommodations-not-permitted and accommodationspermitted average scores. In the 2000

assessment, the results for Hispanic students

that included those who received accommodations had an average scale score that

was seven points lower than the results for

Hispanic students that did not include

those who received accommodations. In

1998, however, the difference between

these two sets of results for Hispanic

students was smaller and was not statistically significant.
CHAPTER 4 • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 71

As noted in chapter 2, a pattern of

performance differences by race/ethnicity

can be seen in the accommodations-notpermitted results in 2000. Both white and

Asian/Pacific Islander students scored

higher than black, Hispanic, or American

Indian students. The same pattern can be

observed in the accommodations-permitted results. The only difference noted in the

performance by ethnicity pattern between

the two sets of results was that in the

accommodations-permitted results, American Indian students scored higher than

Hispanic students. This was not the case in

the accommodations-not-permitted results.

The percentages of students in each race/

ethnicity category who attained the Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced levels are provided

in table C.33 in appendix C. No significant

differences were found between the accommodations-not-permitted results and

the accommodations-permitted results for

the percentages of students attaining each

of the achievement levels in 1998 or 2000.

While, as noted above, there was a scale

score difference for Hispanic students

between the two sets of results in the 2000

assessment, a similar statistically significant

difference was not observed for Hispanic

students in terms of the achievement levels.
72 C H A P T E R 4 • READING REPORT CARD

Summary

This chapter compared the reading performance of the nation’s fourth-graders when

accommodations were not permitted and

when accommodations were permitted for

special-needs students in the 1998 and

2000 NAEP assessments. Both samples

being compared in this chapter included

non-special-needs students and specialneeds students who were tested without

accommodations. In the sample with

accommodations permitted, those students

who customarily receive accommodations

in their school’s testing received them in

the NAEP testing. While NAEP’s previous

research in the 1996 science and mathematics assessments found no significant

differences between the two types of results

at grades 4, 8, or 12, in the 2000 reading

assessment the accommodations-permitted

average score at grade 4 was lower than the

accommodations-not-permitted average

score.5

Within the accommodations-permitted

results, the average score for male students

declined between 1998 and 2000. For

Hispanic students, the accommodationspermitted average score was lower than the

accommodations-not-permitted average

score in 2000. The comparable difference

between the two sets of results for Hispanic

students in 1998 was not statistically significant. No significant difference between the

two sets of results was evident for any other

racial/ethnic subgroup of students in 1998

or 2000.

5 Mazzeo, J., Carlson, J.E., Voelkl, K.E., & Lutkus, A.D. (1999). Increasing the participation of special needs students in

NAEP: A report on 1996 research activities. (NCES Publication No. 2000–473), Washington, DC: National Center

for Education Statistics.
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 73

Appendix A

Overview of Procedures Used for the

NAEP 2000 Grade 4 Reading Assessment

This appendix provides an overview of the NAEP 2000

grade 4 reading assessment’s primary components—

framework, development, administration, scoring, and

analysis. A more extensive review of the procedures and

methods used in the reading assessment will be included in

the forthcoming NAEP 2000 Technical Report.

The NAEP 2000 Grade 4 Reading Assessment

The reading framework underlying the NAEP 2000

assessment originated from a consensus among an

array of individuals interested in education about the

nature of reading comprehension. This framework

was also used in the 1992, 1994, and 1998 reading

assessments, permitting analyses of trends in reading

performance.

 The framework’s purpose was to provide a

definition of reading 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 representatives of national education

organizations, teachers, parents, policymakers, business

leaders, and members of the general public. This consensus

process was managed by the Council of Chief State School

Officers for the National Assessment Governing Board.

A

Appendix

Contents

The Assessment

The Sample

Data Collection

Data Analysis

NAEP Reporting

Groups

Cautions in

Interpretations

Technical Aspects

of the NAEP

2000 Reading

Assessment.

Appendix

Focus
74 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

The framework sets forth a broad definition of “reading literacy” that entails not

only being able to read, but also knowing

when to read, how to read, and how to

reflect on what has been read. In addition,

the framework views reading as an interactive process in which the reader’s abilities,

interests, and prior knowledge interact with

the text and the context of the reading

situation as meaning construction occurs.

The aspects of grade 4 reading literacy

described by the reading framework,

including purposes for reading and reading

stances, are presented in figure A.1. This

figure also provides examples of the types

of questions that were used to assess the

different purposes for reading via the four

reading stances.

Requires the reader

to provide an initial

impression or

unreflected understanding of what

was read.

Initial

understanding

Developing an

interpretation

Personal reflection

and response

Demonstrating a

critical stance

Constructing, extending, and examining meaning

Requires the reader

to go beyond the

initial impression

to develop a more

complete understanding of what

was read.

Requires the reader

to connect knowledge

from the text with

his/her own personal

background knowledge. The focus here

is on how the text

relates to personal

knowledge.

Requires the reader

to stand apart

from the text and

consider it.

What is the story/

plot about?

How did the plot

develop?

How did this

character change

your idea of

_________?

Rewrite this story

with __________ as a

setting or _________

as a character.

How would you

describe the main

character?

Is this story similar to

or different from your

own experience?

How does this

author’s use of

_________ (irony,

personification,

humor) contribute to

________?

Reading for

literary

experience

What does this article

tell you about

________?

What current event

does this remind you

of?

How useful would

this article be for

________?

Explain.

What does the

author think about

this topic?

Does this description

fit what you know

about _______?

Why?

What could be added

to improve the

author’s argument?

Reading

to gain

information

How did this

character change

from the beginning to

the end of the story?

What caused this

event?

In what ways are

these ideas important

to the topic or theme?

1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 NAEP framework—aspects of grade 4 reading literacy

Figure A.1

SOURCE: National Assessment Governing Board. Reading framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress: 1992–2000.
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 75

The assessment framework specified not

only the particular aspects of reading literacy

to be measured, but also the percentage of

the assessment questions that should be

devoted to each. The target percentage

distributions of reading purposes and

reading stances as specified in the framework, along with the actual percentage

distributions in the assessment, are presented in tables A.1 and A.2. The actual

content of the assessment has varied from

the targeted distribution, with Personal

Response and Critical Stance Questions

falling below the target proportions in the

framework. The reading instrument development panel overseeing the development

of the assessment recognized this variance,

but felt strongly that assessment questions

must be sensitive to the unique elements of

the authentic reading materials being used.

Thus, the distribution of question classifications will vary across reading passages and

reading purposes.

The Assessment Design

Students participating in the assessment

received a booklet containing a set of

general background questions, reading

materials and comprehension questions,

reading-specific background questions, and

questions about their motivation and

familiarity with the assessment tasks.

Reading materials that served as stimuli

and their corresponding questions were

assembled into sets or “blocks.” Students

were given two 25-minute blocks of

reading passages and questions.

The grade 4 assessment consisted of

eight 25-minute blocks: four blocks of

literary materials and questions, and four

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.

Target and actual percentage distribution of questions by reading purpose, 2000 NAEP grade 4

reading assessment

Reading Purpose

Literary experience Gain information

Grade 4 Target 55% 45%

Actual 50% 50%

Table A.1

Target and actual percentage distribution of questions by reading stance, 2000 NAEP grade 4

reading assessment

Initial understanding/

developing an Personal Critical

interpretation response stance

Grade 4 Target 33% 33% 33%

Actual 59% 16% 25%

Table A.2

Actual percentages are based on the classifications agreed upon by NAEP’s Instrument Development Panel. It is recognized that making discrete classifications

for these categories is difficult and that independent efforts to classify NAEP questions have led to different results.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.
76 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

blocks of informative materials and questions. Each block contained one passage

corresponding to one of the reading

purposes and 9 to 12 questions in both

multiple-choice and constructed-response

formats. In each block, one of the

constructed-response questions required an

extended response. As a whole, the fourthgrade assessment consisted of 35 multiplechoice questions, 38 short constructedresponse questions, and 8 extended

constructed-response questions.

The assessment design allowed for

maximum coverage of reading abilities at

grade 4, while minimizing the time burden

for any one student. This was accomplished

through the use of matrix sampling of

items, in which representative samples of

students took various portions of the entire

pool of assessment questions. Individual

students were required to take only a small

portion of the assessment, but the aggregate

results across the entire assessment allowed

for broad reporting of reading 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 blocks of passages and

comprehension questions in their booklets

according to a procedure called “partially

balanced incomplete block (PBIB) spiraling.”

This procedure assigned blocks of questions

so that every block appears in the first and

second position within a booklet an equal

number of times. Every block of questions

was paired with every other block with the

same reading purpose, and every block was

paired with some block having the other

reading purpose. The spiraling aspect of this

procedure cycles the booklets for administration, so 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.

National Sample

The results presented in this report are

based on a nationally representative probability sample of fourth-grade students. The

sample was selected using 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.
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 77

Each selected school that participated in

the assessment and each student assessed

represents 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 students who attend

nonpublic schools. Among other uses,

sampling weights also account for lower

sampling rates for very small schools.

A special feature of the 1998 and 2000

national assessments of reading was the

collection of data from samples of

students where accommodations were

not permitted and samples of students

where accommodations were permitted.

The inclusion rules were applied, and

accommodations were offered only when a

student had an Individualized Education

Plan (IEP) for reasons other than being

gifted and talented or was identified as

limited English proficient (LEP); all other

students were asked to participate in the

assessment.

Table A.3 shows the number of students

included in the national samples for the

NAEP reading assessments. For the 1998

and 2000 assessments, the table includes the

number of students in the sample where

accommodations were not permitted and

the number of students in the sample

where accommodations were permitted.

The table shows that the same nonSD/LEP students were included in both

samples. Only the SD/LEP students

differed between the two samples.

Grade 4 national student sample sizes

Table A.3

1992 1994 1998 2000

Accommodations Accommodations Accommodations Accommodations Accommodations Accommodations

not permitted not permitted not permitted permitted not permitted permitted

sample sample sample sample sample sample

Non-SD/LEP 6,051 6,783 7,232 7,484

students assessed

SD/LEP students

assessed without 263 599 440 413 430 476

accommodations

SD/LEP students

assessed who

required and NA NA NA 167 NA 114

received

accommodations

Total sample

assessed 6,314 7,382 7,672 7,812 7,914 8,074

NA = Not applicable. No accommodations were permitted in this sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.
78 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

Table A.4 provides a summary of the

national school and student participation

rates for the reading assessment samples

where accommodations were not permitted and where accommodations were

permitted. Participation rates are presented

for public and nonpublic schools, individually and combined. 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.

The initially selected schools include those

that participated and those that did not.

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. The denominator for this

participation rate, as well as for the rate

before substitution of schools, is the number of eligible students from all schools

with eligible students within the nation.

Because of the common denominators, the

weighted participation rate after substitution is as least as great as the weighted

participation rate before substitution.

Also presented in table A.4 are weighted

student participation rates. The numerator

of this rate is the sum across all students

assessed (in either an initial session or a

makeup session) of the number of students

that each represents. The denominator of

this rate is the sum across all eligible

sampled students in participating schools of

the number of students that each represents. The overall participation rates take

into account the weighted percentage

school participation before or after substitution and the weighted percentage student

participation after makeup sessions.

NAEP 2000 school and student participation rates for the nation: Grade 4 public schools,

nonpublic schools, and combined

Table A.4

Weighted school

participation

Grade 4

Public 84 87 325 96 5,945 80 83 96 6,095 81 83

Nonpublic 86 89 108 96 1,969 83 86 97 1,979 83 86

Combined 84 87 433 96 7,914 81 84 96 8,074 81 84

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.

Samples where accommodations

were permitted

Samples where accommodations

were not permitted

Overall participation rate Overall participation rate Percentage

after

substitutes

Total

number of

schools

Weighted

percentage

student

participation

Total

number of

students

assessed

Percentage

before

substitutes

Weighted

percentage

student

participation

Total

number of

students

assessed

Before

substitution

After

substitution

Before

substitution

After

substitution
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 79

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, OR,

3. The student’s IEP required that the

student had to be tested with an accommodation or adaptation and that the

student could not demonstrate his or her

knowledge without that 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.

For the 1998 and 2000 national assessments in reading, for one type of sample,

the assessment was conducted using these

criteria with no provisions made for

accommodations. The results for this

sample are presented in chapters 1, 2, and 3.

For another type of sample, the assessment

was conducted using these criteria, with

provisions made for accommodations for

identified students. These results are presented in chapter 4. The accommodations

provided by NAEP were meant to match

those specified in the student’s IEP or those

ordinarily provided in the classroom for

testing situations.

Currently, NAEP is in the process of

changing the way that assessments are

conducted to better reflect the purpose of

the 1997 Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA).1

 Permitting

accommodations for identified students in

the 1998 and 2000 samples laid the

groundwork for future NAEP reading

assessments in which the provision of

accommodations will be standard program

practice. Also, the NAEP 1998 and 2000

reading assessments included samples where

no accommodations were permitted. These

samples were comparable to samples from

previous assessments so that trend results

could be reported.

1 Office of Special Education Programs. (1997). Nineteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the

individuals with disabilities education act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
80 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

Participation rates for students with

disabilities and LEP student samples are

presented in table A.5 for samples where

accommodations were not permitted and

in table A.6 for samples where accommodations were permitted for identified

students. As can be seen from the data in

table A.6, three percent of the students

sampled for the 1998 and 2000 reading

assessments were provided with accommodations. Ninety-seven percent of the

sampled students (including SD/LEP and

non-SD/LEP students), took the assessment under standard conditions.

Students with disabilities and limited English proficient students in the NAEP reading

assessment: Grade 4 national samples where accommodations were not permitted: 1992–2000

Table A.5

1992 1994 1998 2000

Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted

percentage percentage percentage percentage

Number of of students Number of of students Number of of students Number of of students

students sampled students sampled students sampled students sampled

• SD and LEP

students

Identified 2,013 10 1,624 13 985 16 823 15

Excluded 1,750 6 1,025 5 545 9 393 7

Assessed 263 4 599 8 440 7 430 8

• SD students

only

Identified 1,149 7 1,039 10 490 11 524 11

Excluded 990 4 685 4 247 6 295 6

Assessed 159 3 354 6 243 5 229 5

• LEP students

only

Identified 945 3 623 4 527 6 356 5

Excluded 835 2 368 1 323 3 141 2

Assessed 110 1 255 2 204 2 215 3

SD = Students with Disabilities (the term previously used was IEP)

LEP = Limited English Proficient students

NOTE: The combined SD/LEP portion of the table is not a sum of the separate SD and LEP portions because some students were identified as both SD and LEP.

Such students would be counted separately in the bottom portions but counted only once in the top portion. Within each portion of the table, percentages may

not sum properly due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 81

Students with disabilities and limited English proficient students in the NAEP reading

assessment: Grade 4 national samples where accommodations were permitted for identified

students: 1998 and 2000

Table A.6

1998 2000

Weighted Weighted

percentage percentage

Number of of students Number of of students

students sampled students sampled

• SD and LEP students

Identified 973 15 906 17

Excluded 393 6 316 6

Assessed 580 9 590 11

Assessed without

accommodations 413 6 476 9

Assessed with

accommodations 167 3 114 3

• SD students only

Identified 558 11 510 12

Excluded 246 5 193 4

Assessed 312 6 317 7

Assessed without

accommodations 179 4 209 5

Assessed with

accommodations 133 3 108 2

• LEP students only

Identified 446 5 446 6

Excluded 167 2 159 2

Assessed 279 3 287 4

Assessed without

accommodations 238 3 273 4

Assessed with

accommodations 41 1 14 

 Percentage is between 0.0 and 0.5.

SD = Students with Disabilities (the term previously used was IEP)

LEP = Limited English Proficient students

NOTE: The combined SD/LEP portion of the table is not a sum of the separate SD and LEP portions because some students were identified as both SD and LEP.

Such students would be counted separately in the bottom portions but counted only once in the top portion. Within each portion of the table, percentages may

not sum properly due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Table A.7 displays the number and the

percentages of SD and LEP students

assessed with the variety of available

accommodations. 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. In

one-on-one administrations, students often

received assistance in recording answers and
82 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

were afforded extra time. Extended time

was considered the primary accommodation only when it was the sole accommodation provided. The assessment did not,

however, allow some accommodations that

were permitted in certain states in past

assessments. Some states have allowed

questions and, in some cases, reading

passages to be read aloud to the students.

In designing the 2000 reading assessment,

reading aloud as an accommodation was

viewed as changing the nature of the

construct being measured and, hence, was

not permitted. Because NAEP considers

the domain of its reading assessment to be

reading in English, no attempt was made to

provide an alternate language version of

the assessment, and the use of bilingual

dictionaries was not permitted.

SD and LEP students assessed with accommodations, in the NAEP reading assessment:

Grade 4 national samples where accommodations were permitted for identified students, public

and nonpublic schools combined by type of accommodation: 1998 and 2000

Table A.7

1998 2000

Weighted Weighted

percentage percentage

Number of of students Number of of students

students sampled students sampled

• SD and LEP students

Large print 0 0 1 0.06

Extended time 63 1.07 41 0.86

Small group 90 1.94 61 1.48

One-on-one 9 0.23 9 0.27

Scribe or computer 1 0.05 1 0.03

Other 4 0.09 1 0.01

• SD students only

Large print 0 0 1 0.06

Extended time 43 0.78 41 0.86

Small group 76 1.70 55 1.36

One-on-one 9 0.23 9 0.27

Scribe or computer 1 0.05 1 0.03

Other 4 0.09 1 0.01

• LEP students only

Large print 0 0 0 0

Extended time 22 0.31 1 0.01

Small group 19 0.32 11 0.20

One-on-one 0 0 1 0.01

Scribe or computer 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 1 0.01

SD = Students with Disabilities (the term previously used was IEP)

LEP = Limited English Proficient students

NOTE: The combined SD/LEP portion of the table is not a sum of the separate SD and LEP portions because some students were identified as both SD and LEP.

Such students would be counted separately in the bottom portions but counted only once in each line of the top portion. Within each portion of the table,

percentages may not sum properly due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2000 Reading Assessments.
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 83

Data Collection and Scoring

The 2000 reading assessment was conducted from January through March 2000,

with some makeup sessions in early April.

As with all NAEP assessments, data collection for the 2000 assessment was conducted

by a trained field staff. For the national

assessment, this was accomplished by

Westat, Inc. staff.

Materials from the 2000 assessment were

shipped to National Computer Systems,

where trained staff evaluated the responses

to the constructed-response questions using

scoring rubrics or guides prepared by the

Educational Testing Service. Each constructed-response question had a unique

scoring rubric that defined the criteria

used to evaluate students’ responses. The

extended constructed-response questions

were evaluated with four-level rubrics, and

many of the short constructed-response

questions were rated according to threelevel rubrics that permitted partial credit.

Other short constructed-response questions

were scored as either acceptable or unacceptable.

For the 2000 reading assessment, approximately 123,075 constructed responses were

scored. This number includes rescoring to

monitor inter-rater reliability and trend

reliability. In other words, scoring reliability

was calculated within year (2000) and

across years (1994, 1998, and 2000). The

within-year average percentage of agreement for the 2000 national grade 4 reliability sample was 88 percent. The percentages

of agreement across the assessment years for

the national inter-year (1994 to 2000)

reliability sample was 89 percent.

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

sample 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 gave

various responses to each cognitive and

background question. In determining these

percentages for the cognitive questions, a

distinction was made between missing

responses at the end of a block (i.e., missing

responses subsequent to the last question

the student answered) and missing responses prior to the last observed response.

Missing responses before the last observed

response were considered intentional

omissions. Missing responses at the end of

the block were considered “not reached”

and treated as if the questions had not been

presented to the student. In calculating

response percentages for each question,

only students classified as having been

presented the question were included in

the denominator of the statistic.

2 These procedures are described more fully in the section “Weighting and Variance Estimation.” For additional

information about the use of weighting procedures in NAEP, see Johnson, E.G. (1989, December). Considerations

and techniques for the analysis of NAEP data. Journal of Education Statistics, 14(4), 303–334.
84 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

It is standard ETS practice to treat all

nonrespondents to the last question in a

block as if they had not reached the question. For multiple-choice and short constructed-response questions, this practice

produces a reasonable pattern of results in

that the proportion reaching the last

question is not dramatically smaller than

the proportion reaching the next-to-last

question. However, for blocks that ended

with extended constructed-response

questions, the standard ETS practice would

result in extremely large drops in the

proportion of students attempting the final

question. Therefore, for blocks ending with

an extended constructed-response question,

students who answered the next-to-last

question but did not respond to the extended constructed-response question were

classified as having intentionally omitted

the last question.

Item response theory (IRT) was used to

estimate average reading scale scores for the

nation and for various subgroups of interest

within the nation. IRT models the probability of answering a question in a certain

way as a mathematical function of proficiency or skill. 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 1992, 1994, 1998, and

2000 are presented on the grade 4 NAEP

reading scale. In 1992, a scale ranging from

0 to 500 was created to report performance

for the literary and information reading

purposes at grade 4.3

 The scales summarize

student performance across all three types

of questions in the assessment (multiplechoice, short constructed-response, and

extended constructed-response). Results

from subsequent reading assessments (1994,

1998, and 2000) are reported on these

scales.

Each reading scale was initially based on

the distribution of student performance

across all three grades in the 1992 national

assessment (grades 4, 8, and 12). In that

year, the scales had an average of 250 and a

standard deviation of 50. In addition, a

composite scale was created as an overall

measure of students’ reading performance.

At grade 4, this composite scale is a

weighted average of the two separate scales

for the two reading purposes assessed. The

weight for each reading purpose is proportional to the relative importance assigned

to the reading purpose by the specifications

developed through the consensus planning

process and given in the framework. (See

target percentages in table A.1)

In producing the reading scales, three

distinct IRT models were used. Multiplechoice questions were scaled using the

three-parameter logistic (3PL) model; short

constructed-response questions rated as

acceptable or unacceptable were scaled

using the two-parameter logistic (2PL)

model; and short constructed-response

questions rated according to a three-level

rubric, as well as extended constructedresponse questions rated on a four-level

rubric, were scaled using a generalized

partial-credit (GPC) model.4

 Developed by

ETS and first used in 1992, the GPC model

permits the scaling of questions scored

according to multipoint rating schemes. The

3 A third purpose, reading to perform a task, was not assessed at grade 4.

4 Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological

Measurement, 16(2), 159–176.
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 85

model takes full advantage of the information available from each of the student

response categories used for these more

complex constructed-response questions.

One natural question about the reading

scales concerns the amount of information

contributed by each type of question.

Unfortunately, this question has no simple

answer for the NAEP reading assessment,

due to the complex procedures used to

form the composite reading scale. The

information provided by a given question

is determined by the IRT model used to

scale the question. It is a function of the

item parameters and varies by level of

reading proficiency.5 Thus, the answer to

the query “How much information do the

different types of questions provide?” will

differ for each level of reading performance. When considering the composite

reading scale, the answer is even more

complicated. The reading data are scaled

separately by the purposes of reading

(reading for literary experience, reading to

gain information, and reading to perform a

task).6 The composite scale is a weighted

combination of these subscales. IRT information functions are only strictly comparable when they are derived from the same

calibration. Because the composite scale is

based on two separate calibrations, there is

no direct way to compare the information

provided by the questions on the composite scale.

Because of the PBIB-spiraling design

used by NAEP, students do not receive

enough questions about a specific topic 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 reading 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 modelbased population values as the sample size

increases, which would not be the case for

population estimates obtained by

aggregating optimal estimates of individual

performance.7

5 Donoghue, J.R. (1994). An empirical examination of the IRT information of polytomously scored reading items

under the generalized partial credit model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(4), 295–311.

6 Only two purposes, literary and informtion, were used in the 2000 grade 4 reading assessment. These are

described in the introduction of this report.

7 For theoretical and empirical justification of the procedures employed, see Mislevy, R.J. (1988). Randomizationbased inferences about latent variables from complex samples. Psychometrika, 56(2), 177–196.

For computational details, see the forthcoming NAEP 2000 technical report. National Assessment of Educational

Progress. (2000). NAEP 2000 technical report. [forthcoming] Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
86 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

Item Mapping Procedures

To map items to particular points on the

reading proficiency scale, a response probability convention had to be adopted that

would divide those who had a higher

probability of success from those who had

a lower probability. Establishing a response

probability convention has an impact on

the mapping of the test items onto the

reading scale. A lower boundary convention

maps the reading items at lower points

along the scale, and a higher boundary

convention maps the same items at higher

points on the scale. The underlying distribution of reading skills in the population

does not change, but the choice of a

response probability convention does have

an impact on the proportion of the student

population that is reported as “able to do”

the items on the reading scales.

There is no obvious choice of a point

along the probability scale that is clearly

superior to any other point. If the convention were set with a boundary at 50 percent, those above the boundary would be

more likely to get an item right than get it

wrong, while those below the boundary

would be more likely to get the item

wrong than right. Although this convention

has some intuitive appeal, it was rejected on

the grounds that having a 50/50 chance of

getting the item right shows an insufficient

degree of mastery. If the convention were

set with a boundary at 80 percent, students

above the criterion would have a high

probability of success with an item. However, many students below this criterion

show some level of reading ability that

would be ignored by such a stringent

criterion. In particular, those in the range

between 50 and 80 percent correct would

be more likely to get the item right than

wrong, yet would not be in the group

described as “able to do” the item.

In a compromise between the 50 percent and the 80 percent conventions,

NAEP has adopted two related response

probability conventions: 74 percent for

multiple-choice questions (to correct for

the possibility of answering correctly by

guessing) and 65 percent for constructedresponse questions (where guessing is not a

factor). These probability conventions were

established, in part, based on an intuitive

judgment that they would provide the best

picture of students’ reading skills.

Some additional support for the dual

conventions adopted by NAEP was provided by Huynh.8 He examined the IRT

information provided by items, according

to the IRT model used in scaling NAEP

questions. (“Information” is used here in a

technical sense. See the forthcoming

NAEP 2000 Technical Report for details.)

Following Bock,9 Huynh decomposed the

item information into that provided by a

correct response [P(q) I(q)] and that provided by an incorrect response [(1- P(q))

I(q)]. Huynh showed that the item information provided by a correct response to a

constructed-response item is maximized at

the point along the reading scale at which

the probability of a correct response is two

thirds (for multiple-choice items, the

information provided by a correct response

is maximized at the point at which the

probability of getting the item correct is

.74). It should be noted, however, that

8 Huynh, H. (1994, October). Some technical aspects of standard setting. Paper presented at the Joint Conference on

Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessment, Washington, DC.

9 Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more latent

categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–51.
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 87

maximizing the item information I(q),

rather than the information provided by a

correct response [P(q) I(q)], would imply

an item mapping criterion closer to 50

percent.

The results in this report are presented in

terms of the composite reading scale.

However, the reading assessment was scaled

separately for the two purposes for reading

at grade 4. The composite scale is a

weighted combination of the two subscales

for purposes for reading. To obtain item

map information presented in this report, a

procedure by Donoghue was used. 10 This

method models the relationship between

the item response function for the subscale

and the subscale structure to derive the

relationship between the item score and

the composite scale (i.e., an item response

function for the composite scale). This item

response function is then used to derive the

probability used in the mapping.

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.

The first component accounts for the

variability associated with the estimated

percentages of students who had certain

background characteristics or who answered

a certain cognitive question correctly.

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 a few questions

within any purpose for reading, the scale

score for any single student would be

imprecise. In this case, plausible values

10 Donoghue, J. R. (1997, March). Item mapping to a weighted composite scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
88 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

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.11 (Appendix C 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 2000 Technical Report.

The reader is reminded that, as with

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.

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 fourthgraders in the nation, 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

11 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.
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 89

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 fourth-grade students in public

and nonpublic schools) is within plus or

minus two standard errors of the sample

average.

As an example, suppose that the average

reading scale score of the students in a

particular group was 256 with a standard

error of 1.2. A 95 percent confidence

interval for the population quantity would

be as follows:

Average  2 standard errors

256  2 1.2

256  2.4

(253.6, 258.4)

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 253.6

and 258.4.

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 2000 Technical Report will

contain a more complete discussion of

extreme percentages.)

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.

Occasionally, if an apparent difference is

quite large but not statistically significant,

this report will point out that fact.

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.
90 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

Standard Error of the Difference =

SEA-B = √(SEA

2

 + SEB

2

)

Similar to how the standard error for an

individual group average or percentage is

used, the standard error of the difference

can be used to help determine whether

differences among groups in the population

are real. The difference between the averages or percentages of the two groups plus

or minus two standard errors of the difference represents an approximate 95 percent

confidence interval. If the resulting interval

includes zero, there is insufficient evidence

to claim a real difference between the

groups in the population. If the interval

does not contain zero, the difference

between the groups is statistically significant (different) at the 0.05 level.

As an example of comparing groups,

consider the problem of determining

whether the average reading scale score of

group A is higher than that of group B.

Suppose that the sample estimates of the

average scale scores and standard errors

were as follows:

12 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.

Average

Group Scale Score Standard Error

A 218 0.9

B 216 1.1

The difference between the estimates of

the average scale scores of groups A and B

is two points (218  216). The standard

error of this difference is

√(0.92  1.12)  1.4

Thus, an approximate 95 percent confidence interval for this difference is plus or

minus two standard errors of the difference

2  2 1.4

2  2.8

(0.8, 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).12 In

either case, the results of any statistical test

involving that group need to be interpreted

with caution; and so, the results of such

tests are not discussed in this report.
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 91

13 Miller, R.G. (1966). Simultaneous statistical inference. New York: Wiley.

14 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.

15 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.

Conducting Multiple Tests

The procedures in the previous 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 chapters 2

and 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.,

0.05), adjustments (called “multiple

comparison procedures”13 ) must be made

to the methods described in the previous

section. One such procedure, the False

Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure14 was

used to control the certainty level.

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.15 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 2000 Technical Report.

To illustrate how the FDR procedure is

used, consider the comparisons of 2000 and

1994 grade 4 average reading scale scores

for all five of the race/ethnicity groups

presented in table A.8. Note that the

FDR comparisons of average reading scale scores for race/ethnicity groups: 1994 and 2000

Table A.8

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.

1994 2000

Standard

Average Standard Average Standard Difference error of Test Percent

scale score error scale score error in averages difference statistic confidence

White 224 1.3 226 1.0 2.08 1.62 1.29 20

Black 187 1.7 193 1.7 6.31 2.36 2.68 1

Hispanic 191 2.6 197 1.7 6.63 3.08 2.15 4

Asian/Pacific Islander 229 4.4 232 4.6 3.24 6.35 .51 62

American Indian 201 3.4 196 4.7 -5.51 5.81 -.95 35
92 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

difference in average scale scores and the

standard error of the difference are calculated in a way comparable with that of the

example in the previous section. The test

statistic shown is the difference in average

scale scores divided by the standard error of

the difference.

The difference in average scale scores

and its standard error can be used to find

an approximate 95 percent confidence

interval as in the example in the previous

section or they can be used to identify a

confidence percentage. In the example in

the previous section, because an approximate 95 percent confidence interval was

desired, the number 2 was used to multiply

the standard error of the difference to

create the approximate confidence interval.

In the current example, the test statistic is

treated like the number 2 and the matching

percent confidence for the related confidence interval is identified from statistical

tables. Instead of checking to see if zero is

within the 95 percent confidence interval,

the percent confidence from the statistical

tables can be directly compared to 100-95

= 5 percent.

If the comparison of average scale scores

across two years were made for only one of

the race/ethnicity groups, there would be a

significant difference between the average

scale scores for the two years if the percent

confidence were less than 5 percent. However, because we are interested in the

difference in average scale scores across the

two years for all five of the race/ethnicity

groups, comparing each of the percents of

confidence to 5 percent is not adequate. In

this report, comparisons of average scale

score differences across years for all race/

ethnicity groups are discussed together.

Groups of students defined by shared

characteristics, such as race/ethnicity

groups, are treated as sets or families when

making comparisons. However, comparisons of average scale scores for each pair of

years were treated separately. So the steps

described in this example were replicated

for the comparison of 2000 and 1998

average scale scores and the comparison of

2000 and 1992 average scale scores.

To use the FDR procedure to take into

account that all five race/ethnicity comparisons are of interest to us, the percents

of confidence in the example are ordered

from largest to smallest: 62, 35, 20, 4, and 1.

In the FDR procedure, 62 percent confidence for the Asian/Pacific Islander comparison would be compared to 5 percent,

35 percent for the American Indian comparison would be compared to 5*(5-1)/5

= 4 percent, 20 percent for the White

comparison would be compared to 5*(5-

2)/5 = 3 percent, 4 percent for the Hispanic comparison would be compared to

5*(5-3)/5 = 2 percent, and 1 (actually

slightly smaller than 1 prior to rounding)

percent for the black comparison would be

compared to 5*(5-4)/5 = 1 percent. The

last of these comparisons is the only one

for which the percent confidence is smaller

than the FDR procedure value. The difference in 2000 and 1994 average scale scores

for the black students is significant; for all

of the other race/ethnicity groups, average

scale scores for 2000 and 1994 are not

significantly different from one another.
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 93

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, school’s type of

location, eligibility for the Free/ReducedPrice School Lunch program, and type of

school. Based on participation rate criteria,

results are reported for subpopulations only

when sufficient numbers of students and

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

* NOTE: 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.

Northeast Southeast Central West

States included in the four NAEP regions

Figure A.2

16 For the national assessment, a PSU is a selected geographic region (a county, group of counties, or metropolitan

statistical area). For the state assessment program, a PSU is most often a single school. Further details about the

procedure for determining minimum sample size appear in the 1998 NAEP Technical Report.

adequate school representation are present.

The minimum requirement is at least 62

students in a particular subgroup from at

least five primary sampling units (PSUs).16

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.
94 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

Region

Results in NAEP are reported for four

regions of the nation: Northeast, Southeast,

Central, and West. Figure A.2 shows how

states are subdivided into these NAEP

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.

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 other

Spanish or Hispanic background)

❏ Asian or Pacific Islander (“Asian or

Pacific Islander” means someone who is

from a Chinese, Japanese, Korean,

Filipino, Vietnamese, Asian American or

from some other Asian or Pacific

Islander 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) ____________________

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.

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
APPENDIX A • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 95

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 1992, 1998 and 2000 NAEP

reading assessments the mutually exclusive

racial/ethnic categories were: white, black,

Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and

American Indian (including Alaskan native).

In the 1994 NAEP reading assessment, the

Asian Pacific/Islander category was divided

into separate Asian and Pacific Islander

categories. To make comparisons of performance across all three assessments, the

separate Asian and Pacific Islander categories used in 1994 have been collapsed into

a single category to report results.

Type of Location

Results from the 2000 assessment 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.

In this report, results for each type of

location are not compared across years. This

was due to new methods used by NCES to

identify the type of location assigned to

each school in the Common Core of Data

(CCD). The new methods were put into

place by NCES in order to improve the

quality of the assignments and they take

into account more information about the

exact physical location of the school.

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 lunch component of the Department of Agriculture’s

National School Lunch Program or not

eligible. The classification applies only to

the school year when the assessment was

administered (i.e., the 1999–2000 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.”
96 A P P E N D I X A • READING REPORT CARD

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.

Cautions in Interpretations

As described earlier, the NAEP reading

scale makes it possible to examine relationships between students’ performance and

various background factors measured by

NAEP. However, a relationship that exists

between achievement and another variable

does not reveal its underlying cause, which

may be influenced by a number of other

variables. 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 schoolage population, and societal demands and

expectations.
APPENDIX B • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 97

Appendix B

Sample Text and Questions from the

NAEP 2000 Reading Assessment

This appendix contains the reading passage released from the

NAEP 2000 reading assessment. In addition, sample

questions are presented to supplement those in chapter 1.

The tables accompanying each question present two types of

percentages: the overall percentage of students who answered

successfully, and the percentage of students who answered

successfully within the achievement level score

ranges. For each question, the reading purpose and

reading stance is indicated. For multiple-choice

questions, the correct answer is marked. For

constructed-response questions, the rating assigned to

a response and a summary of the scoring criteria

used to rate responses is provided. Sample student

responses have been reproduced from actual test

booklets to illustrate answers that demonstrated at

least adequate comprehension. To review additional

passages and questions from previous NAEP

assessments, please visit NAEP on the internet at

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard.

B

Appendix

Contents

Sample Text

Sample

Questions

Student

Responses

Released

materials

from the

2000 reading

assessment.

Appendix

Focus
98 A P P E N D I X B • READING REPORT CARD

I

magine shivering on a cold winter’s night.

The tip of your nose tingles in the frost air.

Finally, you climb into bed and find the

toasty treat you have been waiting for — your

very own hot brick.

If you had lived in colonial days, that would

not sound as strange as it does today. Winters

were hard in this New World, and the colonists

had to think of clever ways to fight the cold. At

bedtime, they heated soapstones, or bricks, in

the fireplaces. They wrapped the bricks in

cloths and tucked them into their beds. The

brick kept them warm at night, at least for as

long as its heat lasted.

Before the colonists slipped into bed, they

rubbed their icy sheets with a bed warmer.

This was a metal pan with a long wooden

handle. The pan held hot embers from the

fireplace. It warmed the bedding so well that

sleepy bodies had to wait until the sheets

cooled before climbing in.

Staying warm wasn’t just a bedtime problem.

On winter rides, colonial travelers covered

themselves with animal skins and warm

blankets. Tucked under the blankets, near their

feet, were small tin boxes called foot stoves. A

foot stove held burning coals. Hot smoke

puffed from small holes in the stove’s lid,

soothing freezing feet and legs. When the

colonists went to Sunday services, their foot

stoves, furs, and blankets went with them. The

meeting houses had no heat of their own until

the 1800s.

At home, colonist families huddled close

to the fireplace, or hearth. The fireplace

was wide and high enough to hold a

large fire, but its chimney was large, too. That

caused a problem: Gusts of cold air blew into

the house. The area near the fire was warm, but

in the rest of the room it might still be cold

enough to see your breath.

Reading or needlework was done by candlelight, or by the light of the fire. During the

winter, animal skins sealed the drafty windows

of some cabins and blocked out the daylight.

The living area inside was gloomy, except in

the circle of light at the hearth.

Early Americans did not bathe as often as we

do. When they did, their “bathroom” was the

kitchen, in that toasty space by the hearth.

They partially filled a tub of cold water, then

warmed it up with water heated in the fireplace. A blanket draped from chairs for privacy

also let the fire’s warmth surrounded the bather.

By Barbara Cole
APPENDIX B • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 99

The household cooks spent hours at the

hearth. They stirred the kettle of corn pudding

or checked the baking bread while the rest of

the family carried on their own fireside

activities. So you can see why the fireplace was

the center of a colonial home.

The only time the fire was allowed to die

down was at bedtime. Ashes would be piled

over the fire, reducing it to embers that might

glow until morning.

By sunrise, the hot brick had become a cold

stone once more. An early riser might get

dressed under the covers, then hurry to the

hearth to warm up.

Maybe you’d enjoy hearing someone who

kept warm in these ways tell you what it was

like. You wouldn’t need to look for someone

who has been living for two hundred years. In

many parts of the country the modern ways

didn’t take over from the old ones until

recently. Your own grandparents or other older

people might remember the warmth of a

hearthside and the joy of having a brick to

cuddle up to.

You would probably read this article if you wanted

to know how the colonists

A cooked their food

B traveled in the winter

C washed their clothes

kept warm in cold weather

Reading Purpose:

To Gain Information

Reading Stance:

Initial

Understanding

Sample Question 4:

Used by permission of Highlights for Children, Inc., Columbus, OH

Copyright © 1991. Illustrations by Katherine Dodge.

Overall percentage correct and percentages correct within each achievement level range: 2000

Table B1: Sample Question 4 Results (Multiple-Choice)

Percentage correct within

achievement level intervals

Overall percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

correct † 208–237* 238–267* 268 and above*

85 (0.8) 91 (2.0) 97 (1.1) 100 (****)

†

Includes fourth-grade students who were below the Basic level.

*NAEP Reading composite scale range.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

(****) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.
100 A P P E N D I X B • READING REPORT CARD

Responses scored “Complete” demonstrated understanding of a major aspect of the article by

providing two reasons for the hearth being the center of the colonial home.

Sample “Complete” Response:

Give two reasons stated in the article why the hearth was the center of the home in

colonial times.

Reading Purpose:

To Gain Information

Reading Stance:

Developing an

Interpretation

Sample Question 5:

Give two reasons stated in the article why the

hearth was the center of the home in colonial times.

Responses to this question were scored according to a three-level rubric as

Unsatisfactory, Partial, or Complete

Overall percentage “Complete” and percentages “Complete” within each achievement level range: 2000

Table B2: Sample Question 5 Results (Short Constructed-Response)

Percentage “Complete” within

achievement level intervals

Overall percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Complete” † 208–237* 238–267* 268 and above*

20 (1.2) 16 (1.8) 37 (3.2) 58 (4.9)

†

Includes fourth-grade students who were below the Basic level.

*NAEP Reading composite scale range.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

(****) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.
APPENDIX B • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 101

Responses scored “Complete” provided an opinion of the author’s presentation of information

and an example from the text to illustrate that opinion.

Sample “Complete” Response:

Does the author help you understand what colonial life was like? Use examples

from the article to explain why or why not.

Reading Purpose:

To Gain Information

Reading Stance:

Critical Stance

Sample Question 6:

Does the author help you understand what colonial

life was like? Use examples from the article to

explain why or why not.

Responses to this question were scored according to a three-level rubric as

Unsatisfactory, Partial, or Complete

Overall percentage “Complete” and percentages “Complete” within each achievement level range: 2000

Table B3: Sample Question 6 Results (Short Constructed-Response)

Percentage “Complete” within

achievement level intervals

Overall percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Complete” † 208–237* 238–267* 268 and above*

20 (1.4) 19 (3.1) 29 (3.6) 35 (6.2)

†

Includes fourth-grade students who were below the Basic level.

*NAEP Reading composite scale range.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

(****) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.
102 A P P E N D I X B • READING REPORT CARD

Responses scored “Complete” connected text descriptions to prior knowledge by comparing

two ways colonists kept warm during winter to the ways people keep warm today.

Sample “Complete” Response:

Some of the ways that colonists kept warm during the winter were

different from the ways that people keep warm today. Tell about two

of these differences.

Reading Purpose:

To Gain Information

Reading Stance:

Personal Reflection

and Response

Sample Question 7:

Some of the ways that colonists kept warm

during the winter were different from the ways

that people keep warm today. Tell about two of

these differences.

Responses to this question were scored according to a three-level rubric as

Unsatisfactory, Partial, or Complete

Percentage “Complete” within

achievement level intervals

Overall percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Complete” † 208–237* 238–267* 268 and above*

17 (1.1) 15 (2.4) 27 (3.7) 46 (6.5)

Overall percentage “Complete” and percentages “Complete” within each achievement level range: 2000

Table B4: Sample Question 7 Results (Short Constructed-Response)

†

Includes fourth-grade students who were below the Basic level.

*NAEP Reading composite scale range.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

(****) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 103

Appendix

Contents

Appendix C

Data Appendix

This appendix contains complete data for all the tables and

figures presented in this report, including average scores,

achievement level results, and percentages of students. In

addition, standard errors appear in parentheses next to each

scale score and percentage. 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.

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. As with the

figures and tables in the chapters, significant

differences between results of previous assessments

and the 2000 assessment are highlighted.

Average Scores

Achievement

Level Results

Percentages of

Students

Standard Errors

C

Complete data

for all tables

and figures.

Appendix

Focus
104 A P P E N D I X C • READING REPORT CARD

Fourth-grade reading scale score percentiles: 1992–2000

Table C.2: Data for Figure 1.2 Performance Distribution

Standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Mean 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th

1992 217 ( 0.9) 170 ( 1.9)* 194 ( 1.1) 219 ( 1.3) 242 ( 1.1) * 261 ( 1.4)*

1994 214 ( 1.0) 159 ( 1.5) * 189 ( 1.0) * 219 ( 1.2) 243 ( 1.3) 263 ( 1.6)

1998 217 ( 0.8) 167 ( 1.5) 193 ( 0.9) 220 ( 1.3) 244 ( 0.9) 263 ( 0.9)

2000 217 ( 0.8) 163 ( 1.9) 193 ( 0.9) 221 ( 1.1) 245 ( 0.8) 264 ( 0.9)

Average fourth-grade reading scale scores: 1992–2000

Table C.1: Data for Figure 1.1 Scale Score Results

Standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1992 217 (0.9)

1994 214 (1.0)

1998 217 (0.8)

2000 217 (0.8)
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 105

Table C.3: Data for Figure 1.4 Achievement Level Results

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and within each

achievement level range: 1992–2000

At or above At or above

Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced Basic Proficient

1992 38 ( 1.1) 34 ( 0.9) * 22 ( 0.9) 6 ( 0.6) * 62 ( 1.1) 29 ( 1.2) *

1994 40 ( 1.0) 31 ( 0.7) 22 ( 0.8) 7 ( 0.7) 60 ( 1.0) 30 ( 1.1)

1998 38 ( 0.9) 32 ( 0.7) 24 ( 0.7) 7 ( 0.5) 62 ( 0.9) 31 ( 0.9)

2000 37 ( 0.8) 31 ( 0.9) 24 ( 0.8) 8 ( 0.5) 63 ( 0.8) 32 ( 0.9)

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.
106 A P P E N D I X C • READING REPORT CARD

Overall Basic Proficient Advanced

2000 37 (1.6) 38 (3.6) 57 (3.9) 76 (4.1)

Overall percentage “Complete” and percentages “Complete” within each achievement level range: 2000

Table C.5: Data for Table 1.2 Sample Question 2 Results (Short Constructed-Response)

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.

Overall percentage correct and percentages correct within each achievement level range: 2000

Overall Basic Proficient Advanced

2000 66 (1.6) 72 (3.5) 79 (3.3) 84 (5.1)

Table C.4: Data for Table 1.1 Sample Question 1 Results (Multiple-Choice)

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.

Overall percentage “Essential” or better and percentages “Essential” or better within each

achievement level range: 2000

Overall Basic Proficient Advanced

2000 18 (1.0) 15 (1.9) 29 (3.2) 40 (4.9)

Table C.6: Data for Table 1.3 Sample Question 3 Results (Extended Constructed-Response)

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 107

Percentage of students and average fourth-grade reading scale scores for male and female students:

1992–2000

Male Female

1992 51 ( 0.6) 49 ( 0.6)

213 ( 1.2) 221 ( 1.0)

1994 51 ( 0.7) 49 ( 0.7)

209 ( 1.3) 220 ( 1.1)

1998 50 ( 0.6) 50 ( 0.6)

214 ( 1.1) 220 ( 0.7)

2000 50 ( 0.7) 50 ( 0.7)

212 ( 1.1) 222 ( 0.9)

Table C.7: Data for Figure 2.1 Scale Score Results by Gender

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Table C.8: Data for Figure 2.2 Achievement Level Results by Gender

Percentages of fourth-grade male and female students at or above reading achievement levels and

within each achievement level range: 1992–2000

At or above At or above

Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced Basic Proficient

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Male 1992 42 (1.6) 32 (1.3) 20 (1.1) 5 (0.7) 58 (1.6) 25 (1.4)

1994 45 (1.4) 30 (1.1) 20 (0.9) 6 (0.8) 55 (1.4) 26 (1.3)

1998 41 (1.4) 31 (1.0) 22 (0.9) 6 (0.6) 59 (1.4) 28 (1.2)

2000 42 (1.2) 31 (1.1) 21 (1.2) 6 (0.5) 58 (1.2) 27 (1.1)

Female 1992 33 (1.3) 35 (1.4) 24 (1.2) 8 (0.8) 67 (1.3) 32 (1.4) *

1994 34 (1.2) 32 (1.1) 25 (1.5) 9 (0.9) 66 (1.2) 34 (1.5)

1998 35 (1.0) 32 (1.1) 25 (0.9) 8 (0.6) 65 (1.0) 33 (1.0)

2000 33 (1.2) 31 (1.5) 26 (1.0) 10 (0.8) 67 (1.2) 36 (1.2)
108 A P P E N D I X C • READING REPORT CARD

Percentage of students and average fourth-grade reading scale scores by race/ethnicity: 1992–2000

Asian/ American

White Black Hispanic Pacific Islander Indian

1992 71 ( 0.2) 16 ( 0.1) 9 ( 0.1) 2 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.2)

225 ( 1.2) 193 ( 1.6) 201 ( 2.1) 214 ( 3.3) * 207 ( 4.6)

1994 69 ( 0.2) 15 ( 0.2) 12 ( 0.2) 3 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.2)

224 ( 1.3) 187 ( 1.7) * 191 ( 2.6) 229 ( 4.4) 201 ( 3.4)

1998 67 ( 0.5) 16 ( 0.2) 13 ( 0.5) 2 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.2)

227 ( 0.8) 194 ( 1.7) 196 ( 1.8) 225 ( 2.7) 202 ( 3.1)

2000 66 ( 0.4) 14 ( 0.2) 15 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.2)

226 ( 1.0) 193 ( 1.7) 197 ( 1.7) 232 ( 4.6) 196 ( 4.7)

Table C.9: Data for Figure 2.3 Scale Score Results by Race/Ethnicity

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 109

Table C.10: Data for Figure 2.4 Achievement Level Results by Race/Ethnicity

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and within each

achievement level range by race/ethnicity: 1992–2000

At or above At or above

Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced Basic Proficient

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

(****) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

White 1992 29 (1.3) 36 (1.4) 27 (1.3) 8 (0.9) 71 (1.3) 35 (1.7)

1994 29 (1.2) 34 (0.8) 27 (1.1) 9 (0.9) 71 (1.2) 37 (1.4)

1998 27 (1.1) 34 (0.8) 29 (0.9) 10 (0.7) 73 (1.1) 39 (1.1)

2000 27 (1.1) 33 (1.3) 29 (1.0) 11 (0.7) 73 (1.1) 40 (1.2)

Black 1992 67 (2.3) 25 (2.8) 8 (1.3) 1 (0.4) 33 (2.3) 8 (1.4)

1994 69 (2.5) 22 (2.2) 8 (0.9) 1 (0.4) 31 (2.5) 9 (1.0)

1998 64 (1.7) 26 (1.6) 9 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 36 (1.7) 10 (1.0)

2000 63 (1.6) 25 (1.5) 10 (1.2) 2 (0.6) 37 (1.6) 12 (1.3)

Hispanic 1992 56 (2.2) 28 (2.0) 13 (1.6) 3 (0.8) 44 (2.2) 16 (1.8)

1994 64 (2.6) 22 (2.1) 11 (1.5) 2 (0.6) 36 (2.6) 13 (1.6)

1998 60 (1.9) 26 (1.5) 11 (1.2) 2 (0.4) 40 (1.9) 13 (1.2)

2000 58 (1.8) 26 (1.6) 13 (1.4) 3 (0.6) 42 (1.8) 16 (1.3)

Asian/Pacific Islander 1992 41 (4.8) 34 (4.2) 21 (4.7) 4 (1.8) 59 (4.8) 25 (4.7) *

1994 25 (3.9) 31 (4.0) 31 (3.5) 13 (4.9) 75 (3.9) 44 (5.5)

1998 31 (4.2) 32 (4.7) 25 (3.4) 12 (2.9) 69 (4.2) 37 (3.9)

2000 22 (5.0) 32 (3.9) 29 (3.8) 17 (4.6) 78 (5.0) 46 (4.4)

American Indian 1992 47 (6.6) 35 (6.5) 15 (4.5) 3 (2.1) 53 (6.6) 18 (4.5)

1994 52 (4.4) 30 (4.2) 15 (3.8) 3 (2.1) 48 (4.4) 18 (3.8)

1998 53 (5.5) 33 (5.2) 12 (4.5) 2 (1.2) 47 (5.5) 14 (3.8)

2000 57 (4.2) 26 (6.1) 16 (4.6) 2 (****) 43 (4.2) 17 (4.8)
110 A P P E N D I X C • READING REPORT CARD

Percentage of students and average fourth-grade reading scale scores by regions of the country:

1992–2000

Northeast Southeast Central West

1992 21 (1.1) 23 (1.0) 27 (0.5) 28 (0.8)

222 (3.6) 213 (2.3) 219 (1.4) 214 (1.4)

1994 23 (0.9) 23 (1.1) 25 (0.7) 29 (0.8)

215 (2.1) * 210 (2.0) 220 (2.4) 212 (2.0)

1998 22 (1.0) 26 (1.1) 24 (0.6) 28 (1.3)

226 (1.4) 211 (1.3) 222 (2.0) 212 (1.9)

2000 22 (0.7) 22 (1.5) 25 (0.5) 31 (1.5)

222 (1.7) 211 (1.9) 220 (1.8) 214 (1.6)

Table C.12: Data for Figure 2.6 Scale Score Results by Region

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Differences in average fourth-grade reading scale scores by gender and race/ethnicity: 1992–2000

Female/male White/black White/Hispanic

1992 8 ( 1.6) 32 ( 2.0) 23 ( 2.4)

1994 10 ( 1.7) 37 ( 2.1) 33 ( 2.9)

1998 6 ( 1.3) * 33 ( 1.9) 31 ( 2.0)

2000 10 ( 1.4) 33 ( 2.0) 29 ( 2.0)

Table C.11: Data for Figure 2.5 Scale Score Differences Between Selected Subgroups

Standard errors of the estimated difference in scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 111

Table C.13: Data for Figure 2.7 Achievement Level Results by Region

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and within each

achievement level range by regions of the country: 1992–2000

At or above At or above

Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced Basic Proficient

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Northeast 1992 34 (3.6) 32 (2.2) 24 (2.6) 9 (2.4) 66 (3.6) 34 (4.3)

1994 39 (2.1) 30 (1.7) 23 (1.7) 8 (1.4) 61 (2.1) 31 (2.4)

1998 30 (1.7) 32 (1.3) 28 (1.3) 10 (1.2) 70 (1.7) 38 (1.7)

2000 33 (2.0) 30 (2.0) 26 (1.6) 11 (1.1) 67 (2.0) 37 (1.8)

Southeast 1992 42 (3.1) 34 (2.3) 19 (2.0) 5 (1.0) 58 (3.1) 24 (2.6)

1994 45 (2.3) 30 (1.7) 19 (1.7) 7 (0.9) 55 (2.3) 25 (2.1)

1998 44 (1.6) 31 (1.2) 20 (1.0) 5 (0.7) 56 (1.6) 25 (1.4)

2000 43 (1.8) 31 (1.7) 20 (1.3) 6 (0.7) 57 (1.8) 26 (1.8)

Central 1992 34 (1.7) 36 (1.7) 24 (1.6) 6 (1.1) 66 (1.7) 30 (2.1)

1994 34 (2.6) 33 (1.5) 26 (2.0) 8 (1.1) 66 (2.6) 34 (2.5)

1998 32 (2.2) 34 (1.1) 26 (1.5) 8 (0.9) 68 (2.2) 35 (1.9)

2000 34 (2.2) 31 (1.8) 26 (1.9) 8 (1.2) 66 (2.2) 35 (2.4)

West 1992 41 (1.7) 32 (1.5) 21 (1.7) 6 (0.7) 59 (1.7) 27 (1.7)

1994 41 (2.1) 30 (1.5) 22 (1.5) 7 (0.8) 59 (2.1) 29 (1.8)

1998 43 (2.3) 30 (1.9) 21 (1.5) 6 (0.8) 57 (2.3) 27 (2.0)

2000 39 (1.3) 30 (1.3) 23 (1.3) 8 (0.9) 61 (1.3) 30 (1.3)
112 A P P E N D I X C • READING REPORT CARD

Percentage of students and average reading scale scores by school’s type of location: 2000

Central city Urban fringe/large town Rural/small town

2000 32 (1.7) 45 (2.4) 23 (2.1)

209 ( 1.6) 222 ( 1.8) 218 (1.8)

Table C.14: Data for Table 2.1 Scale Score Results by Type of Location

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.

Table C.15: Data for Figure 2.8 Achievement Level Results by Type of Location

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and within each

achievement level range by school’s type of location: 2000

At or above At or above

Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced Basic Proficient

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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), 2000 Reading Assessment.

Central city 47 (1.9) 27 (1.6) 20 (1.1) 6 (0.9) 53 (1.9) 26 (1.7)

Urban fringe/large town 32 (1.6) 32 (1.7) 26 (1.2) 10 (1.1) 68 (1.6) 36 (1.8)

Rural/small town 35 (1.7) 33 (1.9) 25 (1.9) 8 (0.8) 65 (1.7) 32 (2.3)
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 113

Percentage of students and average fourth-grade reading scale scores by student eligibility for the

free/reduced-price lunch program: 1998–2000

Eligible Not eligible Information not available

1998 35 (1.2) 54 (1.8) 12 (1.9)

198 (1.2) 227 (0.9) 227 (2.8)

2000 34 (1.2) 51 (1.9) 15 (2.2)

196 (1.2) 227 (1.2) 228 (1.9)

Table C.16: Data for Figure 2.9 Scale Score Results by Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Table C.17: Data for Figure 2.10 Achievement Level Results by Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and within each

achievement level range by student eligibility for the free/reduced-price lunch program:

1998–2000

At or above At or above

Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced Basic Proficient

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Eligible 1998 58 (1.4) 29 (1.4) 11 (1.1) 2 (0.4) 42 (1.4) 13 (1.2)

2000 60 (1.3) 26 (1.2) 12 (0.9) 2 (0.3) 40 (1.3) 14 (0.9)

Not Eligible 1998 27 (1.2) 33 (1.2) 30 (1.0) 10 (0.9) 73 (1.2) 40 (1.3)

2000 26 (1.2) 34 (1.4) 30 (1.0) 11 (0.8) 74 (1.2) 41 (1.3)

Information not available 1998 27 (2.7) 33 (2.4) 29 (3.1) 11 (1.6) 73 (2.7) 40 (3.8)

2000 26 (2.0) 32 (1.9) 30 (2.1) 12 (1.3) 74 (2.0) 42 (2.1)
114 A P P E N D I X C • READING REPORT CARD

Percentage of students and average fourth-grade reading scale scores by type of school: 1992–2000

Public Nonpublic Nonpublic: Catholic Other Nonpublic

1992 89 (1.0) 11 (1.0) 8 (0.8) 4 (0.7)

215 (1.0) 232 (1.7) 229 (2.2) 238 (2.9) !

1994 90 (0.9) 10 (0.9) 7 (0.8) 4 (0.6)

212 (1.1) 231 (2.5) 229 (3.3) 234 (3.7)

1998 89 (1.2) 11 (1.2) 7 (1.0) 4 (0.6)

215 (0.8) 233 (2.3) 233 (2.5) 232 (4.5)

2000 89 (0.7) 11 (0.7) 6 (0.5) 5 (0.5)

215 (0.9) 234 (1.7) 231 (2.6) 237 (2.1)

Table C.18: Data for Figure 2.11 Scale Score Results by Type of School

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

! The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 115

Table C.19: Data for Figure 2.12 Achievement Level Results by Type of School

Percentages of fourth-grade students at or above reading achievement levels and within each

achievement level range by type of school: 1992–2000

At or above At or above

Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced Basic Proficient

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

! The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of the statistic.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Public 1992 40 (1.1) 33 (1.0) 21 (1.0) 6 (0.6) 60 (1.1) 27 (1.3)

1994 41 (1.1) 30 (0.8) 21 (1.0) 7 (0.7) 59 (1.1) 28 (1.2)

1998 39 (1.0) 31 (0.8) 23 (0.8) 6 (0.5) 61 (1.0) 29 (0.9)

2000 40 (0.9) 31 (1.0) 22 (0.8) 7 (0.6) 60 (0.9) 30 (1.0)

Nonpublic 1992 21 (1.9) 34 (2.2) 33 (2.2) 12 (1.3) 79 (1.9) 45 (2.4)

1994 23 (2.4) 34 (2.2) 31 (2.0) 13 (1.8) 77 (2.4) 43 (3.0)

1998 22 (2.6) 32 (2.1) 32 (2.1) 14 (1.5) 78 (2.6) 46 (2.9)

2000 20 (1.8) 32 (1.8) 34 (1.8) 14 (1.4) 80 (1.8) 47 (2.4)

Nonpublic: Catholic 1992 24 (2.7) 35 (2.2) 30 (2.0) 10 (1.5) 76 (2.7) 41 (2.7)

1994 24 (3.2) 34 (2.9) 30 (2.8) 12 (2.2) 76 (3.2) 42 (3.9)

1998 21 (2.9) 33 (2.5) 32 (2.5) 13 (1.7) 79 (2.9) 46 (3.3)

2000 22 (2.9) 33 (2.2) 33 (2.3) 11 (1.9) 78 (2.9) 44 (3.1)

Other Nonpublic 1992 16 (2.7) ! 31 (4.1) ! 38 (4.5) ! 15 (2.9) ! 84 (2.7) ! 53 (4.4) !

1994 20 (4.2) 34 (3.0) 32 (2.6) 14 (2.9) 80 (4.2) 46 (4.0)

1998 24 (4.6) 30 (3.0) 31 (3.6) 16 (2.9) 76 (4.6) 46 (5.0)

2000 18 (2.1) 31 (2.7) 35 (2.3) 16 (1.8) 82 (2.1) 51 (2.9)
116 A P P E N D I X C • READING REPORT CARD

Students’ reports on the number of pages read each day in school and for homework: 1992–2000

1992 1994 1998 2000

11 or more pages 56 (1.2) * 54 (1.1) * 57 (1.1) 60 (1.2)

222 (1.1) 220 (1.3) 221 (0.8) 222 (0.9)

6 to 10 pages 23 (0.7) * 23 (0.7) * 22 (0.6) 20 (0.8)

217 (1.3) 214 (1.3) 217 (1.3) 215 (1.5)

5 or fewer pages 21 (1.0) 23 (0.8) * 21 (0.8) 19 (0.8)

203 (1.4) 201 (1.2) 207 (1.3) 202 (2.1)

Table C.20: Data for Table 3.1 Pages Read in School and For Homework

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Students’ reports on the amount of time spent doing homework each day: 1992–2000

1992 1994 1998 2000

More than one hour 15 (0.6) 15 (0.6) 16 (0.6) 16 (0.7)

208 (1.9) 208 (2.1) 213 (1.7) 212 (1.7)

One hour 28 (0.9) 30 (0.7) 31 (0.8) 29 (0.6)

221 (1.1) 218 (1.4) 221 (1.2) 222 (1.2)

One-half hour 39 (1.2) * 39 (1.0) * 43 (1.0) 43 (0.9)

217 (1.3) 216 (1.3) 219 (1.1) 219 (1.1)

Do not do homework 2 (0.2) 3 (0.3) * 2 (0.2) 2 (0.2)

196 (3.7) 183 (3.0) 188 (3.4) 172 (4.1)

Do not have homework 16 (1.6) * 13 (0.9) * 8 (0.8) 10 (0.9)

220 (1.6) 216 (2.2) 213 (2.7) 212 (3.0)

Table C.21: Data for Table 3.2 Time Spent Doing Homework

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 117

Students’ reports on how often they write long answers to questions on tests or assignments that

involved reading: 1992–2000

1992 1994 1998 2000

At least once a week 51 (1.0) 48 (0.8) * 53 (0.8) 53 (1.1)

220 (1.1) 217 (1.0) 218 (0.8) 217 (1.0)

Once or twice a month 28 (0.8) 31 (0.7) * 30 (0.6) 28 (0.9)

221 (1.2) 221 (1.4) 223 (1.0) 225 (1.2)

Once or twice a year 13 (0.5) 12 (0.5) 10 (0.5) 11 (0.4)

209 (2.2) 209 (2.2) 212 (1.8) 210 (2.5)

Never or hardly ever 9 (0.5) 9 (0.4) * 8 (0.4) 8 (0.4)

202 (2.1) 198 (2.8) 199 (2.1) 199 (2.6)

Table C.22: Data for Table 3.3 Writing About Reading

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.
118 A P P E N D I X C • READING REPORT CARD

Students’ reports on how often their teachers help them break words into parts and help them

understand new words: 1998–2000

1998 2000

How often their teachers help them break words into parts

Every day 25 (0.7) 25 (0.9)

210 (1.2) 209 (1.3)

Once or twice a week 23 (0.6) 22 (0.7)

217 (1.3) 217 (1.2)

Never or hardly ever 52 (0.8) 53 (0.9)

226 (1.0) 226 (1.1)

How often their teachers help them understand new words

Every day 49 (0.9) 48 (0.9)

217 (0.9) 217 (1.1)

Once or twice a week 24 (0.7) 23 (0.6)

224 (1.2) 224 (1.1)

Once or twice a month 14 (0.5) 14 (0.5)

223 (1.9) 224 (1.9)

Never or hardly ever 12 (0.5) * 14 (0.5)

219 (1.8) 216 (2.1)

Table C.23: Data for Table 3.4 Teachers’ Help with Words

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2000 Reading Assessments.
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 119

Students’ reports on how often they read for fun on their own time: 1992–2000

1992 1994 1998 2000

Every day 44 (0.9) 45 (0.7) 43 (0.7) 43 (0.9)

223 (1.2) 223 (1.2) 222 (1.1) 223 (1.1)

Once or twice a week 32 (0.8) 32 (0.7) 32 (0.6) 32 (0.7)

218 (1.2) 213 (1.1) 219 (1.0) 218 (0.9)

Once or twice a month 12 (0.4) 12 (0.5) 12 (0.6) 12 (0.5)

210 (1.6) 208 (2.1) 216 (1.7) 216 (1.6)

Never or hardly ever 13 (0.5) 12 (0.4) * 13 (0.5) 14 (0.5)

199 (1.8) 197 (1.9) 203 (1.4) 202 (2.8)

Table C.24: Data for Table 3.5 Reading for Fun

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.
120 A P P E N D I X C • READING REPORT CARD

Students’ reports on how often they discuss their studies at home and talk about reading with their

family and friends: 1992–2000

Table C.25: Data for Table 3.6 Discussing Studies and Talking About Reading

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1992 1994 1998 2000

Discuss studies at home

Almost every day 54 (0.8) 55 (0.8) 54 (0.6) 54 (0.7)

221 (1.0) 219 (1.0) 220 (0.8) 221 (1.1)

Once or twice a week 22 (0.7) 22 (0.5) 23 (0.6) 23 (0.6)

220 (1.5) 215 (1.7) 222 (1.3) 219 (1.2)

Once or twice a month 6 (0.3) 6 (0.4) 6 (0.3) 6 (0.3)

215 (1.8) 208 (2.3) 213 (2.2) 217 (3.5)

Never or hardly ever 17 (0.6) 17 (0.5) 18 (0.5) 17 (0.5)

202 (1.5) 199 (1.7) 205 (1.3) 201 (1.7)

Talk about reading with family or friends

Almost every day 26 (0.6) 28 (0.6) 27 (0.5) 27 (0.6)

215 (1.4) 213 (1.3) 211 (1.2) 213 (1.6)

Once or twice a week 36 (0.9) 36 (0.6) 35 (0.7) 34 (0.7)

224 (1.1) 223 (1.2) 223 (1.0) 227 (1.0)

Once or twice a month 15 (0.6) 15 (0.5) 15 (0.5) 15 (0.5)

219 (1.6) 214 (2.1) 222 (1.5) 220 (1.8)

Never or hardly ever 23 (0.8) 21 (0.6) * 23 (0.7) 24 (0.6)

209 (1.4) 207 (1.6) 214 (1.3) 209 (1.1)
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 121

Students’ reports on the number of different types of reading materials in the home: 1992–2000

1992 1994 1998 2000

Four 37 (0.9) 38 (0.8) * 37 (1.0) 34 (0.8)

226 (1.3) 227 (1.1) 228 (1.1) 229 (1.3)

Three 32 (0.7) 34 (0.7) 33 (0.7) 34 (0.8)

219 (1.3) 216 (1.2) 220 (1.1) 219 (1.0)

Two or fewer 31 (0.8) 29 (0.9) * 30 (0.8) 32 (1.0)

204 (0.9) 197 (1.4) 204 (1.1) 203 (1.3)

Table C.26: Data for Table 3.7 Reading Materials in the Home

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Students’ reports on the amount of time spent watching television each day: 1992–2000

1992 1994 1998 2000

Six hours or more 20 (0.7) 21 (0.7) * 16 (0.6) * 18 (0.6)

199 (1.5) 194 (1.4) 198 (1.5) 196 (1.7)

Four or five hours 22 (0.8) * 22 (0.7) * 19 (0.7) * 17 (0.6)

216 (1.3) 216 (1.7) 216 (1.4) 213 (2.2)

Two or three hours 40 (0.8) 38 (0.7) * 41 (0.9) 40 (0.7)

224 (1.0) 222 (1.1) 223 (0.9) 224 (1.0)

One hour or less 19 (0.8) * 19 (0.7) * 24 (0.7) 25 (0.8)

221 (1.6) 220 (1.9) 222 (1.3) 224 (1.4)

Table C.27: Data for Table 3.8 Time Spent Watching Television

The percentage of students is listed first with the corresponding average scale score presented below.

Standard errors of the estimated percentages and scale scores appear in parentheses.

* Significantly different from 2000.

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 Reading Assessments.
122 A P P E N D I X C • READING REPORT CARD

Average score by type of results: 1998–2000

Accommodations Accommodations

not permitted permitted

1998 217 (0.8) 216 (0.9)

2000 217 (0.8) 215 (1.0) †

Table C.28: Data for Table 4.1

Standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses.

†Significantly different from the sample where accommodations were not permitted.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Table C.29: Data for Table 4.2

Percentages of students attaining reading achievement levels by type of results: 1998–2000

At or above At or above

Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced Basic Proficient

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

1998

Accommodations were

not permitted 38 (0.9) 32 (0.7) 24 (0.7) 7 (0.5) 62 (0.9) 31 (0.9)

permitted 39 (1.0) 31 (0.8) 23 (0.8) 8 (0.5) 61 (1.0) 31 (0.9)

2000

Accommodations were

not permitted 37 (0.8) 31 (0.9) 24 (0.8) 8 (0.5) 63 (0.8) 32 (0.9)

permitted 39 (1.1) 30 (0.9) 23 (0.9) 7 (0.6) 61 (1.1) 31 (0.9)

Average scores by gender and type of results (Accommodations Not Permitted and

Accommodations Permitted): 1998–2000

Table C.30

Standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses.

*Significantly different from 2000.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Male Female

Not permitted Permitted Not Permitted Permitted

1998 214 (1.1) 214 (1.2)* 220 (0.7) 219 (1.1)

2000 212 (1.1) 210 (1.0) 222 (0.9) 220 (1.2)
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 123

Table C.31

Percentages of students attaining reading achievement levels by gender and by type of results:

1998–2000

At or above At or above

Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced Basic Proficient

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

Male

1998: Accommodations were

not permitted 41 ( 1.4) 31 ( 1.0) 22 ( 0.9) 6 ( 0.6) 59 ( 1.4) 28 ( 1.2)

permitted 41 ( 1.2) 30 ( 1.0) 22 ( 1.0) 6 ( 0.7) 59 ( 1.2) 28 ( 1.1)

2000: Accommodations were

not permitted 42 ( 1.2) 31 ( 1.1) 21 ( 1.2) 6 ( 0.5) 58 ( 1.2) 27 ( 1.1)

permitted 44 ( 1.2) 30 ( 1.4) 20 ( 1.0) 6 ( 0.6) 56 ( 1.2) 26 ( 1.1)

Female

1998: Accommodations were

not permitted 35 ( 1.0) 32 ( 1.1) 25 ( 0.9) 8 ( 0.6) 65 ( 1.0) 33 ( 1.0)

permitted 36 ( 1.2) 31 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1.1) 9 ( 0.8) 64 ( 1.2) 33 ( 1.1)

2000: Accommodations were

not permitted 33 ( 1.2) 31 ( 1.5) 26 ( 1.0) 10 ( 0.8) 67 ( 1.2) 36 ( 1.2)

permitted 34 ( 1.3) 30 ( 1.0) 26 ( 1.2) 9 ( 1.0) 66 ( 1.3) 35 ( 1.2)

Average scores by race/ethnicity and type of results (Accommodations Not Permitted and

Accommodations Permitted): 1998–2000

Table C.32

Asian American

White Black Hispanic Pacific Islander Indian

Not Not Not Not Not

permitted Permitted permitted Permitted permitted Permitted permitted Permitted permitted Permitted

1998 227 (0.8) 226 (1.0) 194 (1.7) 194 (1.8) 196 (1.8) 193 (2.6) 225 (2.7) 220 (3.8) 202 (3.1) 199 (3.0)

2000 226 (1.0) 225 (1.0) 193 (1.7) 193 (1.4) 197 (1.7) 190 (2.5) † 232 (4.6) 229 (4.3) 196 (4.7) 201 (4.3)

Standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses.

†Significantly different from the sample where accommodations were not permitted.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2000 Reading Assessments.
124 A P P E N D I X C • READING REPORT CARD

Table C.33

Percentages of students attaining reading achievement levels by race/ethnicity and by type of

results: 1998–2000

At or above At or above

Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced Basic Proficient

Standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses.

(****) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement level range 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 and 2000 Reading Assessments.

White

1998: Accommodations were

not permitted 27 (1.1) 34 (0.8) 29 (0.9) 10 (0.7) 73 (1.1) 39 (1.1)

permitted 28 (1.3) 33 (1.1) 29 (1.2) 10 (0.8) 72 (1.3) 39 (1.2)

2000: Accommodations were

not permitted 27 (1.1) 33 (1.3) 29 (1.0) 11 (0.7) 73 (1.1) 40 (1.2)

permitted 29 (1.3) 33 (1.2) 29 (1.2) 10 (0.8) 71 (1.3) 39 (1.2)

Black

1998: Accommodations were

not permitted 64 (1.7) 26 (1.6) 9 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 36 (1.7) 10 (1.0)

permitted 63 (2.1) 26 (2.0) 9 (1.2) 1 (0.4) 37 (2.1) 10 (1.1)

2000: Accommodations were

not permitted 63 (1.6) 25 (1.5) 10 (1.2) 2 (0.6) 37 (1.6) 12 (1.3)

permitted 63 (1.7) 26 (1.4) 9 (1.1) 1 (0.6) 37 (1.7) 11 (1.1)

Hispanic

1998: Accommodations were

not permitted 60 (1.9) 26 (1.5) 11 (1.2) 2 (0.4) 40 (1.9) 13 (1.2)

permitted 63 (2.5) 25 (1.8) 11 (1.2) 2 (0.4) 37 (2.5) 13 (1.3)

2000: Accommodations were

not permitted 58 (1.8) 26 (1.6) 13 (1.4) 3 (0.6) 42 (1.8) 16 (1.3)

permitted 62 (2.3) 24 (2.4) 12 (1.3) 2 (0.5) 38 (2.3) 14 (1.4)

Asian/Pacific Islander

1998: Accommodations were

not permitted 31 (4.2) 32 (4.7) 25 (3.4) 12 (2.9) 69 (4.2) 37 (3.9)

permitted 37 (5.0) 29 (4.4) 23 (3.4) 11 (2.8) 63 (5.0) 34 (3.7)

2000: Accommodations were

not permitted 22 (5.0) 32 (3.9) 29 (3.8) 17 (4.6) 78 (5.0) 46 (4.4)

permitted 26 (4.4) 30 (4.8) 28 (4.0) 16 (3.0) 74 (4.4) 44 (5.0)

American Indian

1998: Accommodations were

not permitted 53 (5.5) 33 (5.2) 12 (4.5) 2 (1.2) 47 (5.5) 14 (3.8)

permitted 58 (5.4) 29 (4.3) 12 (3.5) 1 (0.6) 42 (5.4) 13 (3.2)

2000: Accommodations were

not permitted 57 (4.2) 26 (6.1) 16 (4.6) 2 ( ) 43 (4.2) 17 (4.8)

permitted 51 (5.1) 29 (6.9) 18 (4.6) 2 (** **) 49 (5.1) 20 (4.8)
APPENDIX C • R E A D I N G R E P O R T C A R D 125

Acknowledgments

This report is the culmination of the effort of many individuals who contributed

their considerable knowledge, experience, and creativity to the NAEP 2000 reading

assessment. The assessment was a collaborative effort among staff from the National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the National Assessment Governing Board

(NAGB), Educational Testing Service (ETS), Westat, and National Computer Systems

(NCS). Most importantly, NAEP is grateful to the students and school staff who

made the assessment possible.

The 2000 NAEP reading assessment was funded through NCES, in the Office of

Educational Research and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. The

acting Commissioner of Education Statistics, Gary W. Phillips, and the NCES staff—

Peggy Carr, Patricia Dabbs, Arnold Goldstein, Carol Johnson, Andrew Kolstad, Holly

Spurlock, and Sheida White—worked closely and collegially with the authors to

produce this report.

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, William Buckles, Mathilde Kennel,

Linda Reynolds, and Connie Smith.

The complex statistical and psychometric activities necessary to report results for

the NAEP 2000 reading assessment were directed by Nancy Allen with assistance

from Spence Swinton. The numerous computer programs associated with these

activities were carried out by Steve Isham and Lois Worthington. The analyses

presented in this report were produced by Dave Freund, Steve Isham, Laura Jerry,

Youn-hee Lim, and Lois Worthington.

The design and production of this report was overseen by Loretta Casalaina.

Joseph Kolodey and Carol Erickson contributed invaluable design and production

expertise to the effort. Assistance in the production of the reports was also provided

by Barbette Tardugno. Wendy Grigg coordinated the documentation and data

checking procedures with assistance from Alice Kass. Shari Santapau coordinated

the editorial and proofreading procedures. The web version of this report was

coordinated by Pat O’Reilly with assistance from Rick Hasney. These activities, as

well as statistical and psychometric activities, were conducted at ETS.

Many thanks are due to the numerous reviewers, both internal and external to

NCES and ETS. The comments and critical feedback of the following reviewers are

reflected in the final version of this report: Peter Afflerbach, Mary Crovo, Patricia

Dabbs, Lawrence Feinberg, Steve Gorman, David Grissmer, Carol Johnson, Janet

Johnson, Andrew Kolstad, Marilyn McMillen, Holly Spurlock, Alan Vanneman, and

Sheida White.
United States

Department of Education

ED Pubs

8242-B Sandy Court

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

Official Business Only

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Postage and Fees Paid

U.S. Department of Education

Permit No. G-17

Standard Mail (B)