Authors

Karen Levesque

Jolene Wun

Caitlin Green

MPR Associates, Inc.

For more information, 

contact Lisa Hudson, 

National Center for 

Education Statistics, (202) 

502-7358, lisa.hudson@

ed.gov

Science Achievement and Occupational 

Career/Technical Education Coursetaking 

in High School: The Class of 2005

Introduction

Since 1990, federal legislation has encouraged states and local programs to improve 

the academic achievement of students who participate in career/technical education 

(CTE).1 This focus on academics is intended, in part, to provide high school students 

with rigorous content needed to prepare for further education and careers in current 

or emerging professions (2006 Perkins Act, Section 3(5)(A)(i)). Since enactment of this 

federal mandate to improve the academic achievement of CTE participants, related 

research has focused on tracking trends in the academic performance of CTE participants 

and analyzing the “value added” of CTE participation to academic achievement 

(Silverberg et al. 2004). Researchers have measured academic performance in two 

main ways, analyzing trends in both the academic coursetaking and tested achievement 

of CTE participants. These analyses have shown that, since 1990 and earlier, both 

the amount and rigor of CTE participants’ academic coursetaking have increased 

and the percentage of public high school graduates combining rigorous academic 

coursework with concentrated CTE coursework has also increased (Tuma and Burns 

1996; Levesque et al. 2000; Levesque 2003b; Silverberg et al. 2004; Levesque et al. 

2008). Other analyses have shown that the academic achievement of CTE participants 

as measured by standardized tests has increased over time, particularly in reading and 

math (Silverberg et al. 2004). Moreover, these studies have shown that gaps in academic 

coursetaking and achievement between CTE participants and their non-participating 

classmates have narrowed. 

In addition to analyzing trends in the academic performance of CTE participants, 

researchers have also examined the “value added” of CTE coursetaking to students’ 

academic achievement. Descriptive analyses typically find that greater CTE 

coursetaking is associated with lower academic achievement at the end of high school 

(McCormick and Tuma 1995; Levesque et al. 1995). While this lower achievement 

may be due, in part, to differences in the amount and types of academic courses 

that CTE participants take, differences in student characteristics also play a role, 

including the historically lower prior academic achievement of CTE participants 

compared with non-participants (Levesque et al. 2000; Agodini, Uhl, and Novak 

2004). Analyses that account for differences in various student characteristics have 

consistently shown a neutral effect of CTE coursework on academic achievement 

(Rasinski 1994; Plank 2001; Agodini et al. 2004; Bae et al. 2007). These latter analyses 

typically group CTE participants into a single category, comparing CTE participants 

overall with their non-participating peers. Other analyses suggest, however, that both 

initial and subsequent academic achievement in high school vary by the type of CTE 

coursework that students take and that CTE students are not a homogeneous group 

1

 See the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-392); the Carl 

D. Perkins Vocational–Technical Education Act Amendments of 1998 (Public Law 105–332); and the Carl D. Perkins 

Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 (Public Law 101-392); referred to as the 1990, 1998, and 

2006 Perkins Acts.

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2010–021

Contents

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

Focus of This Statistics in 

Brief..............................2

Data and Definitions.........2

Approach ..........................3

Findings ............................4

Summary...........................7

Methodology and 

Technical Notes............7

References.......................10

Appendix A: 

Supplemental Table.....12

Appendix B: Standard 

Error Tables................13

May 2010 Statistics

in Brief
2 NCES 2010-021

influence science achievement. This Brief does not examine 

the effects of such factors on student achievement.

Data and Definitions

As mentioned above, CTE at the high school level 

encompasses family and consumer sciences education 

(which is intended to prepare students for roles 

outside the paid labor force), general labor market 

preparation (which teaches general employment skills, 

such as keyboarding, basic computer applications, 

and introductory technology skills), and occupational 

education (which teaches technical skills required in 

specific occupations or occupational clusters). This Brief 

focuses on coursetaking in occupational education, 

encompassing the 13 occupational program areas listed 

in table 1. 

Coursetaking patterns were analyzed using data from 

the National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) High School Transcript Study (HSTS) of 2005. 

Transcripts provide information on the courses that the 

2005 graduates took in grades 9 through 12, and this Brief 

describes graduates’ cumulative coursework during high 

school. HSTS researchers assigned codes to each course on 

with respect to a variety of characteristics that are related 

to academic achievement (Levesque 2003a; Levesque 

2003b; Levesque et al. 2008).

Focus of This Statistics in Brief

The definition of CTE used by the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) includes, at the high school 

level, family and consumer sciences education, general labor 

market preparation, and occupational education (Bradby 

and Hoachlander 1999; Bradby and Hudson 2007). Most 

researchers—including those cited in the introduction to 

this Statistics in Brief—focus on occupational education 

courses (including courses in agriculture, business, and 

health sciences, among other fields) when examining the 

relationship between CTE and key outcomes (Silverberg et 

al. 2004). This emphasis reflects the fact that occupational 

courses represent the majority of CTE coursetaking 

(Levesque 2003b; Levesque et al. 2008; Hudson and 

Laird 2009) and studies suggest this is the part of the 

CTE curriculum most strongly related to employment and 

earnings outcomes, which are the ultimate goals of CTE 

(Boesel et al. 1994; Bishop and Mane 2004). 

This Statistics in Brief also focuses on students who 

participate in occupational education, comparing the 

science coursetaking and achievement of public high 

school graduates of the class of 2005 who concentrated in 

occupational education with graduates who did not. While 

the Brief includes a comparison between occupational 

concentrators overall and nonconcentrators, the primary 

focus here is on comparing concentrators in 13 different 

occupational program areas with nonconcentrators. 

This Brief provides new information on the academic 

achievement of CTE participants by focusing on science 

achievement and describing this achievement for CTE 

concentrators in different occupational programs.2

The Brief also examines the science achievement of CTE 

participants who earned similar numbers of science credits, 

and looks at how the level and types of science courses 

taken differ among participants. These analyses are useful 

because previous studies have found that achievement 

gaps may be linked to the differing levels and types of 

academic coursework that students take (Plank 2001; 

Levesque 2003b; Silverberg et al. 2004), and because 

academic coursetaking is relatively amenable to policy 

action. Although this Brief cannot examine the causal 

impact of coursework on achievement, the analysis shows 

the varying relationships between science coursework and 

achievement for concentrators in different occupational 

programs and suggests areas for further research. The 

reader is cautioned that many additional factors—such 

as students’ prior academic achievement, aptitudes, and 

interests, and varying curricular and teaching quality—can 

2

 See Silverberg et al. (2004), Stone et al. (2006), and Bae et al. (2007) for 

studies that examine the reading and mathematics performance of CTE 

participants overall.

Table 1. Percentage of public high school graduates and of 

concentrators in each occupational program area in 

high school: 2005

Program area

Percent of all 

graduates

Percent of 

concentrators

 Concentrators, total1 37.6 100.0

Agriculture 4.8 12.9

Business finance 1.4 3.8

Business support and 

management 5.7 15.2

Communications and design 5.5 14.7

Computer and information 

science 3.8 10.2

Construction and architecture 2.1 5.7

Consumer services 2.1 5.7

Culinary arts 1.5 4.0

Engineering technology 2.6 6.8

Health science 3.4 9.2

Manufacturing, repair, and 

transportation 7.2 19.3

Marketing 2.4 6.3

Public services 1.4 3.8

1

 Concentrators earned 2.0 or more credits in the program area 

indicated. The total concentrator row includes graduates who earned 

2.0 or more credits in at least one of the 13 program areas listed. 

NOTE: Details may sum to greater than the total, because some 

graduates concentrated in more than one occupational program area. 

Standard errors can be found in appendix B.

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

Statistics, 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade science 

assessment. 
NCES 2010-021 3

trends (see, e.g., Levesque et al. 2008; Silverberg et al. 

2004; and Levesque 2003b), the reader is cautioned that 

this uniform definition does not reflect the variability that 

exists in state and local CTE practices.

Approach

This Brief begins by comparing public high school 

graduates in terms of their average credits earned in core 

science coursework (biology, chemistry, and physics) and 

their average scores on the NAEP 12th-grade science 

assessment. Core science coursework—rather than total 

science coursework5—is examined, because The Nation’s 

Report Card: Science 2005 focused on core science 

coursetaking for 12th-graders (National Assessment of 

Educational Progress 2006). The brief then examines in 

a crosstabular format the relationship between NAEP 

composite science scores and core science credits earned, 

for concentrators in the 13 occupational program areas 

and for nonconcentrators.

While not the focus of this Brief, it is important to note 

that 2-credit concentrators and nonconcentrators differ 

on a variety of background characteristics. For example, 

a greater percentage of 2-credit concentrators than 

nonconcentrators in grade 12 are White (70 vs. 67 percent), 

male (56 vs. 44 percent), and disabled (10 vs. 8 percent).6

Conversely, a smaller percentage of concentrators than 

nonconcentrators in grade 12 are Hispanic (11 vs. 13 

percent) and limited English proficient (2 vs. 4 percent). 

In terms of high school coursework, a smaller percentage 

of concentrators than nonconcentrators took high-level 

mathematics (geometry, algebra II, or higher) in grade 9 

(29 vs. 35 percent) or compleed 4-year college preparatory 

coursework by the end of high school (41 vs. 53 percent). 

While CTE participants may differ from non-participants 

in a variety of ways, a recent study found that concentrating 

in CTE was related to three main factors—low prior 

academic achievement, low educational aspirations, and 

low socioeconomic backgrounds—and that most other 

differences could be explained by these factors (Agodini, 

Uhl, and Novak 2004). 

Students who concentrate in specific program areas 

also differ from nonconcentrators in their background 

characteristics. For example, a greater percentage of 

agriculture concentrators than nonconcentrators are male 

(67 vs. 44 percent), while a greater percentage of health 

science concentrators than nonconcentrators are female 

(82 vs. 56 percent). Similarly, while there are no measurable 

differences between concentrators in communications and 

5

 Total science coursework includes survey science, earth science, physical 

science, and engineering, in addition to the core subjects of biology, chemistry, 

and physics.

6

 These and other statistics on the background characteristics of concentrators 

and nonconcentrators are tabulated on the NCES CTES website at http://nces.

ed.gov/surveys/ctes.

a transcript according to the Classification of Secondary 

School Courses (CSSC) (U.S. Department of Education 

website). The analysis for this Brief then used the revised 

Secondary School Taxonomy (SST) to classify these codes 

into broader course groupings (Bradby and Hudson 2007). 

In addition to the name of a course, transcripts also provide 

the number of credits a student earned for each course. 

Credits have been standardized across schools, so that 1.0 

credit is equivalent to completing a course that meets one 

period per day for an entire school year, or the equivalent 

instructional time (120 hours of classroom instruction), 

which is also equivalent to a standard Carnegie unit. For 

simplicity’s sake, this Brief refers to credits rather than 

Carnegie units.

Science achievement was analyzed using the 12th-grade 

NAEP science assessment that was linked to the 2005 

HSTS. The 12th-grade NAEP science test covers earth, 

physical, and life sciences with equal emphasis (National 

Assessment of Educational Progress 2006). NAEP science 

results are reported on a 0–300 scale. Public high school 

graduates were included in the analysis if they graduated 

in 2005 with a regular or honors diploma, possessed 

complete transcripts (defined as containing 16 or more 

total credits and a positive number of English credits),3

and had valid NAEP science test scores. 

This Statistics in Brief uses the revised CTE section of the 

Secondary School Taxonomy (Bradby and Hudson 2007) 

to define 13 occupational program areas deemed relevant 

for an analysis of science achievement.4 The study also 

uses a definition of occupational concentrator that first 

appeared in Hudson and Laird (2009), which requires 

that students earn 2.0 or more credits in an occupational 

program area. Studies of CTE participation have used a 

variety of definitions of CTE participants over the years; 

see the Methodology and Technical Notes section for more 

information. This Brief uses the 2-credit concentrator 

definition, because the Technical Review Panel for the 

NCES CTE Statistics program has recommended that 

NCES examine different definitions of occupational 

concentration, including earning 2.0 or more credits in 

an occupational program area, as this definition is in line 

with recent state practice. As of 2004–05, the final year of 

high school for the students described in this Brief, one of 

the most common state definitions of a concentrator for 

federal accountability purposes was earning 2.0 or more 

credits in an occupational program area (U.S. Department 

of Education 2007). Although a uniform definition of 

“occupational concentrator” is typically used for national 

transcript analyses of CTE in order to measure national 

3

 NCES guidelines for conducting transcript analyses can be found in Alt and 

Bradby (1999).

4

 See exhibit 1 in the Methodology and Technical Notes section. While it is 

probable that CTE courses across the nation are heterogeneous, both overall 

and within program areas, other studies have shown that there are significant 

and meaningful differences in means across some program areas with regard 

to the academic relatedness of CTE courses (see, for example, Levesque 

2003b).
4 NCES 2010-021

design and nonconcentrators in the percentage who took 

high-level mathematics in grade 9, a smaller percentage 

of construction and architecture concentrators compared 

with nonconcentrators took such coursework. As a 

descriptive analysis, this Brief does not account for these 

differences in background characteristics.

Findings

Thirty-eight percent of public high school graduates from 

the class of 2005 concentrated (earned 2.0 or more credits) 

in at least one of the 13 occupational program areas shown 

in table 1. These occupational concentrators earned, on 

average, fewer credits in core science subjects (biology, 

chemistry, and physics) than their nonconcentrating 

classmates (2.2 vs. 2.6 credits) (table 2). As shown in table 

2, occupational concentrators overall also scored lower 

than nonconcentrators on the 12th-grade NAEP science 

assessment (a score of 143 vs. 150). These overall patterns 

are consistent with previous descriptive studies of the 

academic achievement of CTE participants (McCormick 

and Tuma 1995; Levesque et al. 1995; Tuma and Burns 

1996; Levesque et al. 2000; Levesque 2003b; Silverberg 

et al. 2004; Levesque et al. 2008). However, these overall 

patterns varied across occupational program areas.

Science Credits and Test Scores by Area of 

Concentration

Compared with nonconcentrators, there was no 

measurable difference in the number of core science credits 

earned by concentrators in the areas of business finance, 

computer and information science, and engineering 

technology (2.6 vs. 2.4–2.6 credits) (table 2). These 

three concentrator groups also scored higher than or not 

measurably different from nonconcentrators on the NAEP 

science assessment. Specifically, compared with their 

nonconcentrating classmates, there was no measurable 

difference in the science scores earned by concentrators in 

the areas of business finance and engineering technology, 

while computer and information science concentrators 

scored higher than nonconcentrators (a score of 155 

vs. 150). Two other groups of concentrators—those in 

agriculture and in communications and design—also had 

science scores that were not measurably different from the 

scores of nonconcentrators. These five areas included 45 

percent of all occupational concentrators in 2005.7

7

 Data are not shown in tables. This percentage differs from what would be 

obtained by summing the relevant program areas in table 1, because graduates 

can concentrate in more than one program area.

Table 2. For public high school graduates, average credits earned in core science courses, average 12th-grade NAEP science 

scale score, and average 12th-grade NAEP science scale score of graduates who were within each range of core science 

credits, by occupational concentrator status and program area: 2005

Concentrator status and program area

Credits 

earned 

in core 

science 

courses

NAEP 

science 

score, 

overall

NAEP science score, by core science credit range

0.00 to

1.00 credit

1.01 to 

2.00 credits

2.01 to 

3.00 credits

More than 

3.00 credits

Total, all graduates 2.4 148 126 140 155 171

Concentrator status1

Nonconcentrators 2.6 150 123 141 157 173

Concentrators, total 2.2* 143* 129* 140 152* 165*

Agriculture 1.9* 148 136* 147* 160 176

Business finance 2.5 147 ‡ 143 150 ‡ 

Business support and management 2.2* 138* 130* 134* 143* 154*

Communications and design 2.4* 149 128 145 158 164*

Computer and information science 2.6 155* 142* 146 154 176

Construction and architecture 1.6* 139* 131 138 158 ‡ 

Consumer services 1.9* 131* 121 127* 149 ‡ 

Culinary arts 1.7* 126* 107* 137 ‡ ‡ 

Engineering technology 2.4 154 138* 146 162 172

Health science 2.4* 141* 119 138 147* 162*

Manufacturing, repair, and 

transportation 1.8* 138* 130* 139 148* 161

Marketing 2.1* 141* 129 140 146* ‡ 

Public services 2.1* 140* 122 142 147 ‡ 

* Concentrators were measurably different from nonconcentrators in the same column (using unrounded estimates), p < .05. 

‡ Reporting standards not met. 1

 Concentrators earned 2.0 or more credits in the program area indicated. The total concentrator row includes graduates who earned 2.0 or more credits in 

any of the 13 program areas listed; the nonconcentrator row includes graduates who did not concentrate in any program area. 

NOTE: Core science includes biology, chemistry, and physics. NAEP science scores range from 1 to 300. The average science score for all graduates in this 

analysis (148) has a standard deviation of 32 scale points. Standard errors can be found in appendix B. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade Science Assessment.
NCES 2010-021 5

Test Scores by Science Credits Earned

As noted earlier, the lower academic achievement of CTE 

participants has been shown to be related to differences 

in the amount and types of academic courses that CTE 

participants take (Plank 2001; Levesque 2003b; Silverberg 

et al. 2004). To examine how the science achievement 

of occupational concentrators compares with that of 

nonconcentrators who take similar amounts of science, the 

Brief attempts to control for the number of science courses 

students took.8

 The right-hand side of table 2 shows the 

NAEP science scores for graduates earning 0.00–1.00 credit, 

1.01–2.00 credits, 2.01–3.00 credits, and more than 3.00 

credits in core science coursework during high school. For 

both concentrators and nonconcentrators, science test 

scores increased as the range of core science credits earned 

increased. For example, concentrators earning 1.01–2.00 

core science credits scored 11 points higher on the NAEP 

science assessment than concentrators earning 0.00–1.00 

core science credit (a score of 140 vs. 129). Similarly, 

nonconcentrators earning 1.01–2.00 core science credits 

scored 18 points higher on the NAEP science assessment 

than nonconcentrators earning 0.00–1.00 core science 

credit (a score of 141 vs. 123). 

How well concentrators performed on the NAEP science 

test compared with nonconcentrators varied in relation 

to the number of core science credits that graduates 

earned. Among graduates earning the fewest core science 

credits (0.00–1.00 credit), concentrators overall scored 

higher than nonconcentrators (a score of 129 vs. 123), 

while among graduates earning 1.01–2.00 core science 

credits, there was no measurable difference in the science 

scores of concentrators and nonconcentrators (scores of 

140–141) (table 2). In contrast, among graduates earning 

2.01–3.00 core science credits and more than 3.00 core 

science credits, concentrators overall scored lower than 

nonconcentrators (scores of 152 vs. 157 and 165 vs. 173, 

respectively).9

 

The pattern of concentrators scoring higher than or not 

measurably different from nonconcentrators at lower core 

science credit levels (0.00–1.00 and 1.01–2.00 credits)—

and scoring lower than or not measurably different at 

higher core science credit levels (2.01–3.00 and more than 

3.00 credits)—was observed across most occupational 

program areas. For example, among graduates earning 

0.00–1.00 core science credit, concentrators in five 

occupational program areas (agriculture; business support 

and management; computer and information science; 

8

 Although this analysis attempts to compare concentrators and nonconcentrators 

who earned a similar number of core science credits, appendix table S1 shows 

that concentrators and nonconcentrators who fell in the same range of credits 

sometimes differed in the average number of credits they earned. For example, 

concentrators overall who earned more than 3.00 core science credits earned 

an average of 4.0 such credits, while nonconcentrators within this same credit 

range earned an average of 4.2 credits.

9

 Only in the highest category (more than 3.00 credits) did nonconcentrators 

earn more average core science credits than concentrators (4.2 vs. 4.0 average 

credits). There was no measurable difference in the average core science 

credits earned by concentrators and nonconcentrators in the first three core 

science credit ranges (appendix table S1).

engineering technology; and manufacturing, repair, and 

transportation) scored higher on the NAEP science test 

than nonconcentrators (scores of 130–142 vs. 123), and the 

scores of concentrators in six areas (communications and 

design; construction and architecture; consumer services; 

health science; marketing; and public services) were not 

measurably different from the scores of nonconcentrators 

(scores of 119–131) (table 2). In only one case (culinary 

arts) did concentrators earning 0.00–1.00 core science 

credit score lower than nonconcentrators earning the same 

range of core science credits (a score of 107 vs. 123).10 

Looking further along the credit distribution, among graduates earning 2.01–3.00 core science credits, concentrators 

in four occupational program areas (business support and 

management; health science; manufacturing, repair, and 

transportation; and marketing) scored lower on the NAEP 

science assessment than nonconcentrators (scores of 

143–148 vs. 157), and the scores of concentrators in eight 

areas (agriculture; business finance; communications and 

design; computer and information science; construction 

10 Too few business finance concentrators earned 0.00–1.00 core science 

credits to permit a comparison of these concentrators with nonconcentrators.

Table 3. Average credits earned by public high school graduates in each core science course, by occupational 

concentrator status and program area: 2005

Concentrator status and 

program area Biology Chemistry Physics

Total, all graduates 1.3 0.8 0.4

Concentrator status1

Nonconcentrators 1.4 0.8 0.4

Concentrators, total 1.2* 0.6* 0.3*

Agriculture 1.1* 0.6* 0.2*

Business finance 1.3 0.8 0.4

Business support and 

management 1.3 0.7* 0.3*

Communications and 

design 1.3 0.7* 0.3

Computer and 

information science 1.2* 0.9 0.5*

Construction and 

architecture 1.0* 0.4* 0.2*

Consumer services 1.2* 0.5* 0.2*

Culinary arts 1.1* 0.5* 0.2*

Engineering technology 1.2* 0.7* 0.5*

Health science 1.5 0.7* 0.3*

Manufacturing, repair, 

and transportation 1.1* 0.4* 0.2*

Marketing 1.2* 0.7* 0.3*

Public services 1.2 0.7* 0.3

* Concentrators earned a measurably different number of credits than 

nonconcentrators in the same column (using unrounded numbers), p < .05. 1

 Concentrators earned 2.0 or more credits in the program area indicated. 

The total concentrator row includes graduates who earned 2.0 or more 

credits in any of the 13 program areas listed; the nonconcentrator row 

includes graduates who did not concentrate in any program area. 

Standard errors can be found in appendix B.

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

Statistics, 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and National Assessment 

of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade Science Assessment. 
6 NCES 2010-021

and architecture; consumer services; engineering technology; and public services) were not measurably different 

from the scores of nonconcentrators (scores of 147–162) 

(table 2).11

Types and Levels of Science Coursework

The analysis presented above describes the NAEP science 

scores for students who earned similar numbers of core 

science credits. However, the observed relationships 

between science coursetaking and science achievement 

may be related to the type, level, and quality, not just 

the amount, of core science coursework taken by 

concentrators (Plank 2001; Levesque 2003b; Silverberg 

et al. 2004). Tables 3 and 4 show how the types and 

levels of courses taken differ for concentrators and 

nonconcentrators. This section examines these differences 

for selected groups of concentrators to illustrate different 

patterns in the relationship between science coursetaking 

and achievement among concentrators in different 

program areas compared with nonconcentrators. 

The types of coursework examined in table 3 include 

biology, chemistry, and physics. In each of these subjects, 

the following levels of coursework are possible, as 

summarized in table 4: “Basic” includes remedial or 

below-grade level courses in biology, chemistry, and 

11 Too few culinary arts concentrators earned 2.01–3.00 core science credits 

to permit a comparison of these concentrators with nonconcentrators.

physics. “Advanced or AP” level courses include locally 

defined honors courses, as well as the College Board’s 

Advanced Placement (AP) courses and International 

Baccalaureate (IB) courses in the relevant subjects. 

“Regular” courses are non-basic, non-advanced, gradelevel courses. Specialized courses include biochemistry, 

anatomy and physiology, organic chemistry, and 

astronomy, among others.12

As seen in table 2, engineering technology concentrators 

scored higher than or not measurably different from 

nonconcentrators on the NAEP science test, when taking 

into account the amount of core science coursework 

completed. Table 3 shows they also took different core 

science courses. Engineering technology concentrators 

on average earned more credits in physics than 

nonconcentrators (0.5 vs. 0.4 credits), but earned fewer 

credits in biology (1.2 vs. 1.4 credits) and chemistry (0.7 

vs. 0.8 credits) than nonconcentrators. 

In contrast, health science concentrators generally scored 

lower than or not measurably different from nonconcentrators who earned similar numbers of core science 

credits (table 2). Although there was no measurable 

12 Course-level classifications—basic, regular, advanced or AP, and 

specialized—were made when students’ transcripts were coded into 

the HSTS data file. See Bradby and Hoachlander (1999) for a detailed 

description of the courses included in the categories in tables 3 and 4.

Table 4. Average credits earned by public high school graduates in core science courses at each level of coursework, by 

occupational concentrator status and program area: 2005

Concentrator status and program area

Level of coursework

Advanced or AP Regular Basic Specialized

Total, all graduates 0.4 1.5 0.3 0.3

Concentrator status1

Nonconcentrators 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.3

Concentrators, total 0.3* 1.3* 0.3 0.2*

Agriculture 0.3* 1.1* 0.3 0.2*

Business finance 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.2

Business support and management 0.3* 1.4* 0.3 0.3

Communications and design 0.4 1.5 0.3 0.2

Computer and information science 0.6 1.6 0.3 0.2*

Construction and architecture 0.1* 1.1* 0.3 0.1*

Consumer services 0.2* 1.2* 0.3 0.2

Culinary arts 0.2* 1.0* 0.4 0.2

Engineering technology 0.4 1.5 0.3 0.2

Health science 0.5 1.3* 0.3 0.4*

Manufacturing, repair, and transportation 0.1* 1.1* 0.3 0.2*

Marketing 0.2* 1.4 0.3 0.2

Public services 0.3* 1.4 0.3 0.2

* Concentrators earned a measurably different number of credits than nonconcentrators in the same column (using unrounded estimates), p < .05. 1

 Concentrators earned 2.0 or more credits in the program area indicated. The total concentrator row includes graduates who earned 2.0 or more credits

in any of the 13 program areas listed; the nonconcentrator row includes graduates who did not concentrate in any program area.

NOTE: Core science includes biology, chemistry, and physics. “Basic” includes remedial or below-grade level courses in biology, chemistry, and physics. 

“Advanced or AP” level courses include locally defined honors courses, as well as the College Board’s Advanced Placement (AP) courses and International 

Baccalaureate (IB) courses in the relevant subjects. “Regular” courses are non-basic, non-advanced, grade-level courses. Specialized core science courses 

include biochemistry, anatomy and physiology, organic chemistry, and astronomy, among others. Standard errors can be found in appendix B.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade Science Assessment. 
NCES 2010-021 7

Three examples illustrate different patterns in the 

relationship between science coursetaking and 

achievement for concentrators in different program areas 

compared with nonconcentrators. In the first example, 

engineering technology concentrators scored higher than 

or not measurably different from nonconcentrators on the 

NAEP science test, when taking into account the amount 

of core science coursework completed, and they earned 

more physics credits and fewer biology and chemistry 

credits than nonconcentrators. In the second example, 

health science concentrators generally scored lower than 

or not measurably different from nonconcentrators who 

earned similar numbers of core science credits, and they 

earned fewer chemistry and physics credits, fewer credits 

in regular core science courses, and more credits in 

specialized core science courses than nonconcentrators. 

In the final example, agriculture concentrators 

scored higher than or not measurably different from 

nonconcentrators who earned similar numbers of core 

science credits, and they earned fewer credits in each core 

science subject and in advanced or AP level core science 

courses, regular core science courses, and specialized 

core science courses than nonconcentrators. 

While differences in the types and levels of core science 

coursework taken may contribute to the observed 

achievement patterns, they may not fully explain 

those patterns. Self-selection on the part of students 

with different abilities, interests, and aptitudes into 

different types of coursework—both academic and CTE 

coursework—may also be a factor, as may the science 

content of some CTE courses.13

Methodology and Technical Notes

The 2005 HSTS was used in this Brief to examine 

occupational and academic coursetaking. The HSTS 

periodically collects information about courses 

completed and credits and grades earned during high 

school by 12th-graders, including those sampled for the 

NAEP tests. The 2005 HSTS sample was designed to 

yield a nationally representative sample of all students in 

public and private schools in the United States who were 

enrolled in 12th grade in 2004–05 and who graduated 

in 2005. NAEP is a nationally representative periodic 

assessment of what students know and can do in various 

subjects. The 2005 NAEP included mathematics and 

science assessments that were administered in schools 

from January to March 2005. Further information 

about the NAEP science assessment is available at 

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

13 Previous studies have addressed the issue of selection bias as related 

to participation in CTE and subsequent outcomes (Agodini et al. 2004; 

Agodini, Uhl, and Novak 2004; Bishop and Mane 2004).

difference in the average number of biology credits 

that health science concentrators and nonconcentrators earned, health science concentrators earned fewer 

chemistry and physics credits than nonconcentrators (0.7 

vs. 0.8 credits and 0.3 vs. 0.4 credits, respectively) (table 

3). Moreover, while there was no measurable difference 

between health science concentrators and nonconcentrators in the average number of core science credits they 

earned at the advanced or AP level (0.5 credits each) 

and at the basic level (0.3 credits each), health science 

concentrators earned fewer credits in regular core 

science courses (1.3 vs. 1.5 credits) and more credits in 

specialized core science courses (0.4 vs. 0.3 credits) than 

nonconcentrators (table 4). 

As seen in table 2, agriculture concentrators scored higher 

than or not measurably different from nonconcentrators, 

when taking into account the number of core science 

credits earned. However, agriculture concentrators earned 

fewer credits than nonconcentrators in each core science 

subject (table 3), and in advanced or AP level core science 

courses (0.3 vs. 0.5 credits), regular core science courses 

(1.1 vs. 1.5 credits), and specialized core science courses 

(0.2 vs. 0.3 credits) (table 4). In addition, there was no 

measurable difference in the core science credits earned 

by agriculture concentrators and nonconcentrators at the 

basic level (0.3 credits each) (table 4).

Summary

Among the public high school graduating class of 2005, 

occupational concentrators overall earned, on average, 

fewer credits in core science subjects (biology, chemistry, 

and physics) and scored lower on the 12th-grade NAEP 

science test than nonconcentrators. Patterns varied across 

occupational program areas, however, with graduates 

who concentrated in agriculture, business finance, 

communications and design, computer and information 

science, and engineering technology scoring higher than 

or not measurably different from nonconcentrators. 

When comparing students who earned similar numbers 

of core science credits, occupational concentrators 

generally scored higher than or not measurably different 

from nonconcentrators at lower credit levels (2.00 

core science credits or fewer, in 22 out of 25 possible 

comparisons), and generally scored lower than or 

not measurably different from nonconcentrators at 

higher credit levels (more than 2.00 credits, in 19 out 

of 19 possible comparisons). In addition to differences 

in the number of science courses taken, occupational 

concentrators sometimes differed from nonconcentrators 

in terms of the types and levels of core science courses 

they took. 
8 NCES 2010-021

Further details on the methodology for the HSTS 2005 

is available in Shettle et al. (2008), Shettle et al. (2007) 

and at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/hsts/. 

Target Population, Sampling, and Analysis Sample

The target population for this Brief is public school 

graduates of the class of 2005. Public school graduates 

are targeted because CTE is more prevalent in public 

than in private high schools (Levesque et al. 2008), and 

because the federal interest in CTE is focused on public 

schools. For public schools, the HSTS sample was the 

12th-grade public school sample for the 2005 NAEP 

mathematics and science assessments; that is, the HSTS 

sample included every eligible sampled NAEP 2005 

12th-grade public school that was contacted, whether or 

not the school participated in the NAEP assessments. 

Within schools, only those 12th-graders who had 

graduated by early fall of 2005 had their transcript data 

included in the HSTS. Students excluded from the study 

included ineligibles, non-graduates, and students having 

incomplete transcripts (Shettle et al. 2007). For each 

graduate, transcript information was collected for the 

9th through the 12th grade. Transcripts were collected 

from over 25,000 students in about 640 public schools, 

representing approximately 2.5 million 2005 high school 

graduates. 

For this analysis, the sample was restricted to public 

high school graduates who earned regular or honors 

diplomas,14 earned 16 or more total credits in high 

school, and earned more than zero credits in English. See 

Alt and Bradby (1999) for more information on these 

transcript criteria. After applying these selection criteria, 

the HSTS analysis sample included about 24,000 public 

high school graduates of the class of 2005. This sample 

was further restricted based on NAEP 12th-grade science 

score availability, which reduced the analytic sample to 

about 9,000 public high school graduates. There was no 

measurable difference in the proportion of occupational 

concentrators in the overall HSTS sample and in the 

NAEP-restricted analytic sample.

Over the years, studies of outcomes associated with CTE 

participation have used a variety of definitions of CTE 

participants. These include CTE “specialists” earning 4.0 

or more credits in occupational fields with 2.0 or more of 

these credits at the advanced occupational level (Boesel et 

al. 1994; McCormick and Tuma 1995; Levesque 1995); 

various definitions of CTE “concentrators” earning 3.0 

or more credits in any of 7 to 18 occupational fields 

(Tuma and Burns 1996; Plank 2001; Levesque et al. 2000; 

Levesque 2003b; Agodini, Uhl, and Novak 2004; Bae et 

14 Alternative completers, dropouts, and students who earned a GED were 

excluded from the analysis.

al. 2007; Levesque et al. 2008); the proportion of credits 

earned in CTE and the ratio of CTE to academic credits 

earned (Rumberger and Daymont 1982; Plank 2001); 

among other coursetaking measures (Levesque 2003b; 

Bishop and Mane 2004). This Brief uses an occupational 

concentrator definition that first appeared in Hudson 

and Laird (2009), which requires that students earn 2.0 

or more credits in an occupational program area.

Response Rates

For this analysis, which required information from 

both the transcript study and the NAEP assessment for 

each student, the weighted within-school response rate 

for public school graduates was 69.9 percent and the 

weighted public school level response rate was 81.8 

percent. The combined response rate was 57.2 percent 

(Shettle et al. 2008). 

To ensure unbiased samples, NCES has established 

participation rate standards for national studies that must 

be met in order for the results to be reported without 

a nonresponse bias analysis. Participation rates for the 

original HSTS sample needed to be at least 85 percent for 

both schools and graduates. Because the overall public 

and private response rate in the total HSTS sample fell 

below the NCES standard of 85 percent, a nonresponse 

bias analysis was conducted as part of the HSTS to 

determine whether the school characteristics from 

nonresponding schools showed significant differences 

from the responding schools. Among public schools, the 

characteristics analyzed included region, school location, 

grade enrollment, school minority status (high/low), and 

percent minority for different race groups. Significant 

differences were found in region, school location, and 

percent minority. In the NAEP science assessment, grade 

12 public school student response rates fell below 85 

percent. A nonresponse bias analysis showed significant 

differences between responding and nonresponding 

students in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, age, and 

English language learner status. For both the HSTS and 

NAEP samples, nonresponse weighting adjustments 

were used to correct for differences between respondents 

and nonrespondents; however, these adjustments may 

not completely account for the differences.

Weighting

All estimates were weighted using sample weights to 

provide unbiased estimates of the national population. 

The HSTS includes two weights: a NAEP-linked weight 

and an HSTS sample weight. The NAEP-linked weight, 

FINLNKWT, was used in this analysis, as it is designed 

for analyses that include NAEP assessment scores.
NCES 2010-021 9

Occupational Program Areas

The transcripts collected for the HSTS were coded using 

the Classification of Secondary School Courses (Bradby 

and Hoachlander 1999). The coded courses were then 

aggregated using the 2007 revision to the Secondary 

School Taxonomy (Bradby and Hudson 2007), which 

includes 21 occupational program areas. As shown in 

exhibit 1, these 21 occupational program areas were 

further aggregated into 13 areas that were deemed 

relevant for an analysis of science achievement.

Statistical Procedures

Comparisons of means and proportions were tested in 

this Brief using Student’s t statistic. Differences between 

estimates were tested against the probability of a Type 

I error15 or significance level. The statistical significance 

of each comparison was determined by calculating the 

Student’s t values for the differences between each pair 

of means or proportions and comparing these with 

published tables of significance levels for two-tailed 

hypothesis testing.

Student’s t values were computed to test the difference 

between independent estimates with the following 

formula:

where E1 and E2

 are the estimates to be compared and se1 

and se2 are their corresponding standard errors. 

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for 

each comparison. First, comparisons based on large 

t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This 

can be misleading since the magnitude of the t statistic 

is related not only to the observed differences in means 

or percentages but also to the number of respondents 

in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, 

15 A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in 

a sample reflects a true difference in the population from which the sample 

was drawn, when no such difference is present.

a small difference compared across a large number of 

respondents would produce a large (and thus possibly 

statistically significant) t statistic.

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests is the 

possibility that one can report a “false positive” or Type 

I error. In the case of a t statistic, this false positive would 

result when a difference measured with a particular sample 

showed a statistically significant difference when there 

is no difference in the underlying population. Statistical 

tests are designed to control this type of error, denoted by 

alpha. The alpha level of .05 selected for findings in this 

Brief indicates that a difference of a certain magnitude 

or larger would be produced no more than 1 time out 

of 20 when there was no actual difference between the 

quantities in the underlying population.16 When analysts 

test hypotheses that show alpha values at the .05 level 

or smaller, they treat this finding as rejecting the null 

hypothesis that there is no difference between the two 

quantities. Failing to detect a difference, however, does 

not necessarily imply the values are the same or equivalent. 

Standard Deviation of Test Scores. The NAEP science test 

scores range from 1 to 300. The mean science score for 

the sample used in this analysis was 148 with a standard 

deviation of 32 scale points. The standard deviation of 

the mean provides a measure of the dispersion of actual 

test score values around the mean value. In contrast, the 

standard error of the mean provides a measure of the 

precision of the estimated mean and depends on both 

sample design and size. Because of NAEP’s complex 

sampling design, the standard deviation cannot be 

directly converted using standard formulas into the 

standard error for statistical testing or confidence 

intervals. Standard errors are provided in separate 

tables. All differences reported are significant at the 

0.05 level. 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.

16 Adjustments were not made for multiple comparisons.

√

t = 

E1

 - E2

2 2 se1

 + se2
10 NCES 2010-021

References

Agodini, R., Deke, J., Novak, T., and Uhl, S. (2004). 

Vocational Education and Postsecondary Outcomes: 

Eight Years After High School. Princeton, NJ: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Agodini, R., Uhl, S., and Novak, T. (2004). Factors 

That Influence Participation in Secondary Vocational 

Education. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc.

Alt, M.N., and Bradby, D. (1999). Procedures Guide 

for Transcript Studies. (NCES 1999-05). National 

Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC.

Bae, S.H., Gray, K., and Yeager, G. (2007). A Retrospective 

Cohort Comparison of Career and Technical 

Education Participants and Non-Participants on a 

State-Mandated Proficiency Test. Career and Technical 

Education Research, 32(1): 9–22. 

Bishop, J.H., and Mane, F. (2004). The Impacts of 

Career-Technical Education on High School Labor 

Market Success. Economics of Education Review, 

23(4): 381–402.

Boesel, D., Hudson, L., Deich, S., and Masten, C. (1994). 

National Assessment of Vocational Education, Final 

Report to Congress. Volume II: Participation in and 

Quality of Vocational Education. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational 

Research and Improvement.

Bradby, D., and Hoachlander, G. (1999). The 1998 

Revision of the Secondary School Taxonomy (NCES 

Working Paper No. 1999-06). National Center for 

Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC.

Bradby, D., and Hudson, L. (2007). The 2007 Revision 

of the Career/Technical Education Portion of the 

Secondary School Taxonomy (NCES 2008-030). 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC.

Hudson, L., and Laird, J. (2009). New Indicators of High 

School Career/Technical Education Coursetaking: 

Class of 2005 (NCES 2009-038). National Center for 

Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Levesque, K., Premo, M., Vergun, R., Emanuel, D., 

Klein, S., Henke, R., and Kagehiro, S. (1995). 

Vocational Education in the United States: The Early 

1990s (NCES 95-024). National Center for Education 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 

DC.

Levesque, K., Lauen, D., Teitelbaum, P., Alt, M., 

and Librera, S. (2000). Vocational Education in 

the United States: Toward the Year 2000 (NCES 

2000-029). National Center for Education Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Levesque, K. (2003a). Public High School Graduates 

Who Participated in Vocational/Technical Education: 

1982–1998 (NCES 2003-024). National Center for 

Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Levesque, K. (2003b). Trends in High School Vocational/ 

Technical Coursetaking: 1982–1998 (NCES 

2003-025). National Center for Education Statistics, 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC. 

Levesque, K., Laird, J., Hensley, E., Choy, S.P., Cataldi, 

E.F., and Hudson, L. (2008). Career/Technical 

Education in the United States: 1990 to 2005 (NCES 

2008-035). National Center for Education Statistics, 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC.

McCormick, A.C., and Tuma, J. (1995). Vocational 

Course Taking and Achievement: An Analysis of 

High School Transcripts and 1990 NAEP Assessment 

Scores (NCES 95-006). National Center for Education 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 

DC.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2006). 

The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2005 (NCES 

2006-466). National Center for Education Statistics, 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC.

Plank, S. (2001). Career and Technical Education in 

the Balance: An Analysis of High School Persistence, 

Academic Achievement, and Postsecondary 

Destinations. Columbus, OH: National Dissemination 

Center for Career and Technical Education, Ohio 

State University.

Rasinski, K.A., and Pedlow, S. (1994). Using Transcripts 

to Study the Effectiveness of Vocational Education.

Journal of Vocational Education Research, 19(3): 

23–43.
NCES 2010-021 11

Rumberger, R.W., and Daymont, T.N. (1982). The 

Impact of High School Curriculum on the Earnings 

and Employability of Youth. In R.E. Taylor, H. Rosen, 

and F.C. Pratzner (Eds.), Job Training for Youth. 

Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in 

Vocational Education, Ohio State University.

Shettle, C., Roey, S., Mordica, J., Perkins, R., Nord, 

C., Teodorovic, J., Lyons, M., Averett, C., Kastberg, 

D., and Brown, J. (2007). America’s High School 

Graduates: Results From the 2005 NAEP High 

School Transcript Study (NCES 2007-467). National 

Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education 

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

DC. 

Shettle, C., Cubell, M., Hoover, K., Kastberg, D., Legum, 

S., Lyons, M., Perkins, R., Rizzo, L., Roey, S., and 

Sickles, D. (2008). The 2005 High School Transcript 

Study User’s Guide and Technical Report (NCES 

2009-480). National Center for Education Statistics, 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC.

Silverberg, M., Warner, E., Fong, M., and Goodwin, 

D. (2004). National Assessment of Vocational 

Education: Final Report to Congress. Office of the 

Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Stone, J.R., Alfeld, C., Pearson, D., Lewis, M.V., and 

Jensen, S. (2006). Building Academic Skills in Context: 

Testing the Value of Enhanced Math Learning in 

CTE. Columbus, OH: National Dissemination Center 

for Career and Technical Education, Ohio State 

University.

Tuma, J., and Burns, S. (1996). Trends in Participation in 

Secondary Vocational Education: 1982–1992 (NCES 

96-004). National Center for Education Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

 U.S. Department of Education (2007). Carl D. Perkins 

Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998, 

Report to Congress on State Performance, Program 

Year 2004–05. Office of Vocational and Adult 

Education, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics. High School Transcript Studies 

(HSTS), CSSC Courses/Course Codes. Retrieved 

January 21, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/

hst/courses.asp.

For more information on the National Assessment of Educational Progress High School Transcript Studies (HSTS), visit http://nces.

ed.gov/nationsreportcard/hsts. To order additional copies of this Statistics in Brief or other NCES publications, call 1-877-4ED-PUBS 

or visit http://www.edpubs.org. NCES publications are also available on the Internet at http://nces.ed.gov.
12 NCES 2010-021

Appendix A. Supplemental Table

Table S1. Average credits earned in core science courses among public high school graduates who were within each range of 

core science credits, by occupational concentrator status and program area: 2005

Concentrator status and program area

Average core science credits earned, by credit range

Up to

1.00 credit

1.01 to 

2.00 credits

2.01 to 

3.00 credits

More than 

3.00 credits

Concentrator status1

Nonconcentrators 0.8 1.9 2.9 4.2

Concentrators, total 0.8 1.9 2.9 4.0*

Agriculture 0.8 2.0 2.9 4.1*

Business finance 0.9 1.9 2.9 3.9*

Business support and management 0.9 2.0 2.9* 4.0*

Communications and design 0.9 2.0* 2.9 4.0*

Computer and information science 0.9 2.0 2.9* 4.2

Construction and architecture 0.7* 1.9* 2.8 3.8

Consumer services 0.8 1.9 2.9 3.8*

Culinary arts 0.8 1.9 2.9 4.1

Engineering technology 0.9* 1.9 3.0* 4.1

Health science 0.9 2.0* 2.9* 4.2

Manufacturing, repair, and transportation 0.8 1.9 2.8* 3.8*

Marketing 0.8 2.0 2.9 4.0*

Public services 0.7 2.0 3.0 4.1

* Concentrators earned a measurably different number of credits than nonconcentrators in the same column (using unrounded estimates), p < .05. 1

 Concentrators earned 2.0 or more credits in the program area indicated. The total concentrator row includes graduates who earned 2.0 or more credits 

in any of the 13 program areas listed; the nonconcentrator row includes graduates who did not concentrate in any program area. 

NOTE: Core science includes biology, chemistry, and physics. Standard errors can be found in table B-S1.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade Science Assessment. 
NCES 2010-021 13

Appendix B. Standard Error Tables

Table B-1. Standard errors for Table 1: Percentage of public 

high school graduates and of concentrators in 

each occupational program area in 

high school: 2005

Program area

Percent of all 

graduates

Percent of 

concentrators

 Concentrators, total 0.87 †

Agriculture 0.37 0.95

Business finance 0.19 0.47

Business support and 

management 0.43 1.11

Communications and design 0.34 0.82

Computer and information 

science 0.33 0.86

Construction and architecture 0.17 0.43

Consumer services 0.21 0.53

Culinary arts 0.20 0.51

Engineering technology 0.23 0.58

Health science 0.24 0.58

Manufacturing, repair, and 

transportation 0.38 0.93

Marketing 0.25 0.62

Public services 0.26 0.70

† Not applicable.

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

Statistics, 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade science 

assessment. 

Table B-2. Standard errors for Table 2: For public high school graduates, average credits earned in core science courses, 

average 12th-grade NAEP science scale score, and average 12th-grade NAEP science scale score of graduates 

who were within each range of core science credits, by occupational concentrator status and program area: 2005

Concentrator status and program area

Credits 

earned 

in core 

science 

courses

NAEP 

science 

score, 

overall

NAEP science score, by core science credit range

0.00 to

1.00 credit

1.01 to 

2.00 credits

2.01 to 

3.00 credits

More than 

3.00 credits

Total, all graduates 0.03 0.7 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.2

Concentrator status

Nonconcentrators 0.03 0.9 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.2

Concentrators, total 0.03 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.4 2.1*

Agriculture 0.06 1.9 2.5 2.5 3.6 6.1

Business finance 0.14 3.4 ‡ 5.1 5.3 ‡ 

Business support and management 0.06 1.7 3.0 2.7 3.3 5.4*

Communications and design 0.06 1.6 3.6 2.2 2.4 4.0*

Computer and information science 0.12 1.9 4.4 3.1 3.3 4.9

Construction and architecture 0.09 2.7 3.8 4.1 5.8 ‡ 

Consumer services 0.08 2.7 3.5 3.6 6.0 ‡ 

Culinary arts 0.09 4.0 5.5 3.3 ‡ ‡ 

Engineering technology 0.09 2.6 5.2 4.6 3.8 5.1

Health science 0.07 2.1 3.5 3.3 2.8 3.6*

Manufacturing, repair, and 

transportation 0.06 1.7 2.3 2.5 3.8 6.9

Marketing 0.06 2.5 5.2 3.8 4.2 ‡ 

Public services 0.20 2.7 5.4 3.8 5.7 ‡ 

‡ Reporting standards not met. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade Science Assessment. 
14 NCES 2010-021

Table B-3. Standard errors for Table 3: Average credits 

earned by public high school graduates in 

each core science course, by occupational 

concentrator status and program area: 2005

Concentrator status and 

program area Biology Chemistry Physics

Total, all graduates 0.02 0.01 0.01

Concentrator status

Nonconcentrators 0.02 0.02 0.02

Concentrators, total 0.02 0.02 0.02

Agriculture 0.04 0.04 0.03

Business finance 0.08 0.06 0.06

Business support and 

management 0.04 0.04 0.03

Communications and 

design 0.04 0.03 0.03

Computer and 

information science 0.04 0.06 0.06

Construction and 

architecture 0.05 0.04 0.03

Consumer services 0.05 0.04 0.03

Culinary arts 0.07 0.05 0.06

Engineering technology 0.04 0.05 0.05

Health science 0.05 0.04 0.03

Manufacturing, repair, 

and transportation 0.03 0.03 0.02

Marketing 0.04 0.04 0.03

Public services 0.09 0.09 0.10

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

Statistics, 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade Science 

Assessment.

Table B-4. Standard errors for Table 4: Average credits earned by public high school graduates in core science courses at each 

level of coursework, by occupational concentrator status and program area: 2005

Concentrator status and program area

Level of coursework

Advanced or AP Regular Basic Specialized

Total, all graduates 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01

Concentrator status

Nonconcentrators 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01

Concentrators, total 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01

Agriculture 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.03

Business finance 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.05

Business support and management 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03

Communications and design 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.03

Computer and information science 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.03

Construction and architecture 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.03

Consumer services 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.04

Culinary arts 0.04 0.10 0.09 0.05

Engineering technology 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.04

Health science 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.04

Manufacturing, repair, and 

transportation 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02

Marketing 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.03

Public services 0.06 0.21 0.07 0.06

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade Science Assessment. 
NCES 2010-021 15

Table B-S1. Standard errors for Table S1: Average credits earned in core science courses among public high school graduates 

who were within each range of core science credits, by occupational concentrator status and program area: 2005

Concentrator status and program area

Average core science credits earned, by credit range

Up to

1.00 credit

1.01 to 

2.00 credits

2.01 to 

3.00 credits

More than 

3.00 credits

Concentrator status

Nonconcentrators 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03

Concentrators, total 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04

Agriculture 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.05

Business finance 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.12

Business support and management 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.10

Communications and design 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.06

Computer and information science 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.15

Construction and architecture 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.23

Consumer services 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.16

Culinary arts 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.12

Engineering technology 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.13

Health science 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.13

Manufacturing, repair, and transportation 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05

Marketing 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.09

Public services 0.16 0.02 0.04 0.10

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade Science Assessment. 
www.ed.gov ies.ed.gov