Recent Trends in Mean Scores and 

Characteristics of Test-Takers on 

Praxis II Licensure Tests

U . S . D E P A R T M E N T O F E D U C A T I O N

Recent Trends in Mean Scores and Characteristics of 

Test-Takers on Praxis II Licensure Tests

Prepared by:

Drew H. Gitomer 

Yi Qi 

Educational Testing Service (ETS)

Principal Investigator

Drew H. Gitomer, ETS

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

2010
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-08-PO0730 with the Educational Testing Service. Elizabeth Eisner served as contracting officer’s 

representative for this report. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or 

policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of 

Education is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Carmel Martin

Assistant Secretary

 

Policy and Program Studies Service

Alan Ginsburg

Director

April 2010

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Recent Trends in Mean Scores and Characteristics of Test-Takers on Praxis II Licensure Tests. Washington, D.C., 

2010.

This publication is also available at the Department’s Web site at: www.ed.gov/about/offices/

list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#tq.

The United States Department of Education asked the Educational Testing Service (ETS) to conduct 

this study because ETS was in a unique position to conduct these analyses at the lowest cost to the 

government. ETS maintains all of the Praxis II testing data from all states that administer the Praxis II

exams. ETS has permission from the states to conduct analyses on these data as long as the analyses 

involve the aggregation of the test scores from multiple states and do not identify the names of 

individual states. In order for another research firm to obtain the data and conduct a comparable 

analysis, another firm would have had to seek and obtain permission from each state to use that state’s 

Praxis data. Moreover, given the extent of this study, any other research firm would have been required 

to obtain approval for the collection of data from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This 

process of obtaining OMB approval, including the period for public comment on the information 

requests, would take at least 120 days, and involves the additional cost of preparing an extensive OMB 

clearance package.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print or computer 

diskette. For more information, contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 

202-260-0818.
iii

CONTENTS

List of Exhibits .......................................................................................... v

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................... xiii

Executive Summary .................................................................................... xv

I. Introduction .................................................................................... 1

II. Methodology .................................................................................... 7

Selecting States and Years ................................................................. 7

Determining Passing Status ............................................................... 9

Candidate Data .............................................................................. 10

III. Findings .......................................................................................... 13

A. Test 0012—Elementary Education: Pedagogy ................................... 15

B. Test 0014—Elementary Education Content Knowledge ........................ 22

C. Test 0041—English Language, Literature, and Composition:

Content Knowledge ................................................... 30

D. Test 0043—English Language, Literature, and Composition: Pedagogy ..... 37

E. Test 0061—Mathematics: Content Knowledge .................................. 42

F. Test 0065—Mathematics: Pedagogy ............................................... 50

G. Test 0069—Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge ................ 55

H. Test 0431—General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge ...................... 62

I. Test 0571—Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge .................... 67

J. The Relationship of State Passing Standards to Mean Passing Scores

and Passing Rates ......................................................72

IV. Summary ..........................................................................................81

Findings ........................................................................................81

V. Conclusions ....................................................................................... 85

References .................................................................................................. 89

Appendix A—Initial Year of Praxis Test Use by State for Each Assessment ............... 91

Appendix B—Passing Score Established by Each State for Each Assessment by Year .. 101

Appendix C—Praxis Registration Form—Background Information .........................111
iv
v

EXHIBITS

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES.1 Mean Praxis Scores (median) and Standard Deviation by Test by 

Passing Status Across Years ...................................................... xvii

Exhibit ES.2 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status—Mathematics: 

Content Knowledge ............................................................... xviii

Exhibit ES.3 Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Mathematics: Content 

Knowledge .......................................................................... xix

Exhibit ES.4 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching 

Experience—Mathematics: Content Knowledge ............................ xxi

Exhibit ES.5 Study Summary of Trends in Scores for Those Who Pass ................... xxii

II. Methodology

Exhibit 1 Selection of States and Year Ranges ............................................ 9

III. Findings

A. Test 0012—Elementary Education: Pedagogy

Exhibit 2 Test-taker Characteristics by Year—Elementary Education: Pedagogy ..... 15

Exhibit 3 Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—Elementary 

Education: Pedagogy ................................................................. 16

Exhibit 4 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Gender, Passing Status and 

Teaching Experience—Elementary Education: Pedagogy ..................... 17

Exhibit 5 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Race and Ethnicity, Passing Status 

and Teaching Experience—Elementary Education: Pedagogy ................ 18

Exhibit 6 Distribution of Scores in 2005 for Elementary Education: Pedagogy ......... 19

Exhibit 7 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching 

Experience—Elementary Education: Pedagogy ................................ 20

Exhibit 8 Regression Results—Elementary Education: Pedagogy ....................... 21

B. Test 0014—Elementary Education Content Knowledge

Exhibit 9 Test-taker Characteristics by Year—Elementary Education Content

Knowledge .............................................................................. 22
vi

Exhibit 10 Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—Elementary 

Education Content Knowledge ...................................................... 23

Exhibit 11 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Gender, Passing Status and 

Teaching Experience—Elementary Education: Content Knowledge ......... 24

Exhibit 12 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Race, Ethnicity, Passing Status 

and Teaching Experience—Elementary Education: Content Knowledge .... 25

Exhibit 13 Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Elementary Education: Content 

Knowledge .............................................................................. 26

Exhibit 14 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and 

Teaching Experience—Elementary Education: Content Knowledge ......... 28

Exhibit 15 Regression Results—Elementary Education: Content Knowledge ............ 29

C. Test 0041—English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content 

Knowledge

Exhibit 16 Test-taker Characteristics by Year—English Language, Literature, and 

Composition: Content Knowledge ................................................... 30

Exhibit 17 Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—English 

Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge ................... 31

Exhibit 18 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Gender, Passing Status and 

Teaching Experience—English Language, Literature, and Composition: 

Content Knowledge ..................................................................... 32

Exhibit 19 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Race, Ethnicity, Passing 

Status and Teaching Experience—English Language, Literature, and 

Composition: Content Knowledge ................................................... 33

Exhibit 20 Distribution of Scores in 2006 for English Language, Literature, and 

Composition: Content Knowledge ................................................... 34

Exhibit 21 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching 

Experience—English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content

Knowledge .............................................................................. 35

Exhibit 22 Regression Results—English Language, Literature, and Composition: 

Content Knowledge ..................................................................... 36
vii

D. Test 0043—English Language, Literature, and Composition: Pedagogy

Exhibit 23 Test-taker Characteristics by Year—English Language, Literature, 

and Composition: Pedagogy ......................................................... 37

Exhibit 24 Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—English 

Language, Literature, and Composition: Pedagogy .............................. 38

Exhibit 25 Distribution of Scores in 2006 for English Language, Literature, and 

Composition: Pedagogy ............................................................... 39

Exhibit 26 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching 

Experience—English Language, Literature, and Composition:

Pedagogy ................................................................................ 40

Exhibit 27 Regression Results—English Language, Literature, and Composition:

Pedagogy ................................................................................ 41

E. Test 0061—Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit 28 Test-taker Characteristics by Year—Mathematics: Content 

Knowledge .............................................................................. 42

Exhibit 29 Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—Mathematics: 

Content Knowledge .................................................................... 43

Exhibit 30 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Gender, Passing Status and 

Teaching Experience—Mathematics: Content Knowledge ..................... 44

Exhibit 31 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Race, Ethnicity, Passing Status 

and Teaching Experience—Mathematics: Content Knowledge ............... 45

Exhibit 32 Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Mathematics: Content

Knowledge ............................................................................. 46

Exhibit 33 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching 

Experience—Mathematics: Content Knowledge ................................ 47

Exhibit 34 Regression Results for 0061 Mathematics: Content Knowledge ............... 49

F. Test 0065—Mathematics: Pedagogy

Exhibit 35 Test-taker Characteristics by Year—Mathematics: Pedagogy .................. 50

Exhibit 36 Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—

Mathematics: Pedagogy ............................................................... 51
viii

Exhibit 37 Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Mathematics: Pedagogy ..................... 52

Exhibit 38 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching 

Experience—Mathematics: Pedagogy ............................................. 53

Exhibit 39 Regression Results—Mathematics: Pedagogy .................................... 54

G. Test 0069—Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit 40 Test-taker Characteristics by Year—Middle School Mathematics: 

Content Knowledge .................................................................... 55

Exhibit 41 Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—Middle 

School Mathematics: Content Knowledge ......................................... 56

Exhibit 42 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Gender, Passing Status and 

Teaching Experience—Middle School Mathematics: Content 

Knowledge .............................................................................. 57

Exhibit 43 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Race, Ethnicity, Passing 

Status and Teaching Experience—Middle School Mathematics: 

Content Knowledge .................................................................... 58

Exhibit 44 Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Middle School Mathematics: 

Content Knowledge .................................................................... 59

Exhibit 45 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching 

Experience—Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge .............. 60

Exhibit 46 Regression Results—Middle School Mathematics: Content 

Knowledge ............................................................................. 61

H. Test 0431—General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge

Exhibit 47 Test-taker Characteristics by Year—General Science, Part 1: Content 

Knowledge .............................................................................. 62

Exhibit 48 Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—General 

Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge ................................................ 63

Exhibit 49 Distribution of Scores in 2006 for General Science, Part 1: Content 

Knowledge .............................................................................. 64

Exhibit 50 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching 

Experience—General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge .................... 65

Exhibit 51 Regression Results—General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge ........... 66
ix

I. Test 0571—Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge

Exhibit 52 Test-taker Characteristics by Year—Earth and Space Sciences: 

Content Knowledge .................................................................... 67

Exhibit 53 Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—Earth and 

Space Sciences: Content Knowledge ................................................ 68

Exhibit 54 Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Earth and Space Sciences: 

Content Knowledge .................................................................... 69

Exhibit 55 Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching 

Experience—Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge .................. 70

Exhibit 56 Regression Results—Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge ......... 71

J. The Relationship of State Passing Standards to Mean Passing Scores and 

Passing Rates

Exhibit 57 Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Mean Score by State for 

Passers—Elementary Education ................................................... 73

Exhibit 58 Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Passing Rate by State for 

Passers—Elementary Education ................................................... 74

Exhibit 59 Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Mean Score by State for 

Passers—English Language, Literature, and Composition ..................... 75

Exhibit 60 Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Passing Rate by State for 

Passers—English Language, Literature, and Composition ..................... 76

Exhibit 61 Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Mean Score by State for 

Passers—Mathematics ............................................................... 77

Exhibit 62 Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Passing Rate by State for 

Passers—Mathematics ............................................................... 78

Exhibit 63 Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Mean Score by State for 

Passers—Sciences .................................................................... 79

Exhibit 64 Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Passing Rate by State for 

Passers—Sciences .................................................................... 80

SUMMARY

Exhibit 65 Study Summary of Trends in Scores Across Testing Years Analyzed .......... 83

Exhibit 66 Study Summary of Trends by Gender and Experience (Passers) ................ 84
x

APPENDIX A

Exhibit A.1 Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut 

Score—Elementary Education: Content Area Exercises, 

Pedagogy (0012) ....................................................................... 91

Exhibit A.2 Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut 

Score—Elementary Education Content Knowledge (0014) .................... 92

Exhibit A.3 Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut 

Score—English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content 

Knowledge (0041) ..................................................................... 93

Exhibit A.4 Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut 

Score—English Language, Literature, and Composition: 

Pedagogy (0043) ....................................................................... 94

Exhibit A.5 Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut 

Score—Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0061) .............................. 95

Exhibit A.6 Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut 

Score—Mathematics: Pedagogy (0065) .......................................... 96

Exhibit A.7 Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut 

Score—Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0069) ............ 97

Exhibit A.8 Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut 

Score—General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge (0431) .................. 98

Exhibit A.9 Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut 

Score—Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge (0571) ............... 99

APPENDIX B

Exhibit B.1 Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Elementary Education: 

Content Area Exercises, Pedagogy (0012) .......................................... 101

Exhibit B.2 Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Elementary Education 

Content Knowledge (0014) ........................................................... 102

Exhibit B.3 Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—English Language, 

Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge (0041) ....................... 103

Exhibit B.4 Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—English Language, 

Literature, and Composition: Pedagogy (0043) .................................... 104

Exhibit B.5 Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Mathematics: Content 

Knowledge (0061) ..................................................................... 105
xi

Exhibit B.6 Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Mathematics: 

Pedagogy (0065) ....................................................................... 106

Exhibit B.7 Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Middle School Mathematics: 

Content Knowledge (0069) ........................................................... 107

Exhibit B.8 Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—General Science, Part 1: 

Content Knowledge (0431) ........................................................... 108

Exhibit B.9 Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Earth and Space Sciences: 

Content Knowledge (0571) ........................................................... 109

APPENDIX C

Exhibit C.1 Praxis Registration Form—Background Information ........................... 111
xii
xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to a number of colleagues who assisted us with various aspects of the project. 

Elizabeth Eisner, the Department of Education contracting officer, and was a tremendous support 

throughout the course of the project. We also thank the following reviewers for their thoughtful 

comments that helped us clarify our ideas and improve the report—Carmel Martin, assistant 

secretary, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD); Judy Wurtzel, 

deputy assistant secretary, OPEPD; Alan Ginsburg, director, Policy and Program Studies Service 

(PPSS); David Goodwin, former director, Program and Analytic Studies, PPSS; Daphne Kaplan, 

a PPSS team leader; and these reviewers from other ED offices: Betsy Warner (IES); Aaron 

Young (Budget Service/OPEPD); Libby Witt (OESE); Richard Mellman (OGC); and Nettie 

Laster (OII).

We appreciate the support of a number of ETS colleagues. Sailesh Vezzu helped create the 

dataset we used for data analyses. Sharon Temmer supported our requests for detailed 

information about the Praxis assessments. Evelyn Fisch provided outstanding administrative and 

editorial support.

Of course, any errors or limitations of the paper are the authors’ responsibility alone.
xiv
xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For well over a century, there have been significant concerns about the academic quality of those 

who choose teaching as a profession (see Lageman, 2000; National Educational Association 

1895). More recently, a number of federal, state, and local policies instituted during the last 10–

15 years were designed to ensure that teachers have appropriate backgrounds in the content they 

teach. These policies have included increased accountability of teacher preparation programs, 

expansion of teacher licensure testing to ensure that all teachers demonstrate subject matter 

competence, increased requirements for entry into teacher preparation programs, strengthened 

requirements for program accreditation, and increased support for development and expansion of 

alternate route programs.

This study concerns the ‘highly qualified teacher’ provisions of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA, 2002), as reauthorized, and other policies at the federal, state and local 

levels, which have aimed to elevate the content knowledge of teachers. This examination of 

Praxis IIscore trends was not meant to serve as an evaluation of ESEA or of any of the other 

policies instituted at the state or local levels; the study served simply as an effort to examine 

trends in a systemic outcome that all of these policies have aimed to influence—the content 

knowledge of prospective teachers. More specifically, this report answers the following

questions:

1. Have the demographic and/or performance characteristics of individuals who took 

each test changed across the years included? Total sample size, proportions by 

gender and race, percent passing, and experience breakdowns are reported.1

2. Do mean Praxis2 scores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do the 

mean passing scores for those who pass differ substantially from those who do not 

pass as well as from the mean passing scores of all candidates considered together?

3a. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxisscores for those who pass? 

How do these trends compare with the trends of those who do not pass?

3b. Does including the factors of gender, race, and experience variables in the analytic 

model help to explain any observed trends?

This study examines changes in teacher licensure scores from 1999 to 2006. We focus 

specifically on tests in the Praxis IIseries because these tests are the most widely used 

assessments across multiple states for purposes of measuring content knowledge for initial 

teacher licensure. The purpose of this study is to identify trends in Praxisscores on a select 

number of tests across recent years and across as many states as possible. While teachers in 

states using Praxis are not fully representative of the national population of teachers, data from 

 1

 We exclude results that have insufficient sample size as defined by cell sizes under 15. For several models we 

combine the two experience levels (one-to-three years and greater than three years) in order to obtain a sufficient 

sample. Specifics are reported in the text.

2

 ETS and PRAXIS II are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). PRAXIS is a trademark of 

ETS.
xvi

Praxistesting provides the most complete available picture of licensure test performance for the 

population of those entering teaching.

The study includes licensure candidates who took the following tests (including Praxistest code 

number) in multiple states:

 Elementary Education: Pedagogy (0012),

 Elementary Education Content Knowledge (0014),

 English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge (0041),

 English Language, Literature, and Composition: Pedagogy (0043),

 Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0061),

 Mathematics: Pedagogy (0065),

 Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0069),

 General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge (0431), and

 Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge (0571)

The study focuses on trends in mean scores for those who pass the Praxistests, as these are 

individuals who are eligible to enter teaching. Analyses are disaggregated by passing status, 

gender, race, and whether or not the test candidate has prior teaching experience. 

The adoption of tests by states varies widely. States have adopted different tests at different 

times and frequently applied different passing standards. The study attempted to compare test 

results across years by including a stable set of states within each analysis and applying 

appropriate state- and year-specific passing standards for each test. Thus, different combinations 

of states and years are used in each of the analyses. Because states have been transitioning to 

new testing requirements, some analyses only include three years of data, while others include up 

to eight years. Some analyses include six states, while others include 18 states. Trends within

individual states are not included; all analyses aggregate test data across a minimum of six states.

Multiple regression models were used to analyze trends in Praxisscores across years. One set of 

models examined only changes in scores across years. A second set of models also controlled 

for gender, race, and prior teaching experience.

Key Findings:

• For the Praxistests examined in this study, there is little change in mean test scores 

observed over time. While the study identifies many significant trend effects, the 

magnitude of these effects is relatively small. Because the samples include thousands of 

individuals, even small differences can be statistically significant, though substantively 

unimportant.

It is also true that passing rates for many of the tests have decreased over time. Part of 

the trend may be due to the increase in passing scores established by states during the 

course of the study. However, that may not be the only reason and should be explored 

further. There is a need to understand who is taking the tests, including the nature of 

their preparation and academic qualifications. Further work needs to explore the extent 

to which failure rate changes can be explained by the increase in passing scores.
xvii

• Those who pass Praxistests have scores substantially higher than those who do not. 

Individuals who pass these tests have mean and median scores that are approximately two 

standard deviations higher than those who fail. Standard deviations are based on all testtakers from the respective samples. This pattern is consistent across all tests examined in 

this study (see Exhibit ES.1). This finding has two practical implications. First, licensure 

tests are filtering out individuals who attain very low scores on tests of content 

knowledge. Second, it is unlikely that many of these low scoring individuals will achieve 

a passing score simply through taking the test multiple times without learning more of the 

content that is measured on the test. The magnitude of these differences far exceeds any 

score variations that might be attributed to measurement error. The mean score 

differences between those who pass and those who fail has remained stable across year as 

illustrated in the example from the Mathematics: Content Knowledge from 1999–2006 

(see Exhibit ES.2).

Exhibit ES.1

Mean Praxis Scores (median) and Standard Deviation by Test 

by Passing Status Across Years

Test Passing Mean

(Median)

Failing Mean 

(Median)

Standard 

Deviation

Elementary Education: 

Pedagogy

158 (157) 135 (136) 10.0

Elementary Education: 

Content

166 (165) 132 (133) 16.8

English Language, 

Literature, and 

Composition: Content 

Knowledge

180 (180) 151 (152) 14.7

English Language, 

Literature, and 

Composition: 

Pedagogy

158 (155) 135 (135) 13.7

Mathematics: Content 

Knowledge

153 (151) 117 (117) 20.9

Mathematics: 

Pedagogy

152 (150) 116 (115) 20.7

Middle School 

Mathematics: Content 

Knowledge

169 (167) 140 (140) 17.7

General Science, Part 

1: Content Knowledge

169 (168) 139 (140) 15.5

Earth and Space 

Sciences: Content 

Knowledge

169 (169) 136 (138) 17.5

Exhibit Reads: The mean and median scores for individuals who pass the Praxistests are 

substantially higher than scores for those who fail the Praxistests.
xviii

Exhibit ES.2

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status—Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Mean scores for those who pass the Mathematics: Content Knowledge 

test are substantially higher than for those who do not.

This very large disparity in scores between those who pass and those who do not means 

that there are not large numbers of candidates hovering near a passing standard such that 

if people simply took a test one or two more times their status might change without their 

actually learning more of the content that is tested. The large number of individuals who 

fall substantially below the passing standards are evident from examining the distribution 

in the example below, taken from the Mathematics: Content Knowledge test (see Exhibit 

ES.3). In fact 75 percent of all those who do not pass the test have scores at least one 

standard error of measurement below the median passing score across states. 
xix

Exhibit ES.3

Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Mathematics: Content Knowledge 

Exhibit Reads: Many test-takers have scores substantially below state passing standards.

• It is critical to separate those who pass from those who do not in order to make 

sense of trends. The study clarifies why it is so important to distinguish the sample of

passers from the population of all test-takers. Different inferences are made about trends 

depending on which sample is used. We contend that looking at passers is the most 

policy relevant focus, for these are the individuals who are actually meeting the teaching 

qualifications established by states. For two reasons, the legitimate policy focus is on the 

qualifications of prospective teachers, not prospective test-takers. 

First, there is no prerequisite for taking a Praxistest. Any interested individual can take a 

Praxistest, regardless of academic or preparation history. Second, many states have 

increased passing standards so that the same candidates with lower scores would no 

longer satisfy state requirements. Increasing the passing standard not only elevates the 

mean score for those who pass, it also has the consequence of increasing failure rates if 

the same hypothetical population of individuals with the same qualifications were to take 

the test across years. This tradeoff is an explicit policy decision by states to improve the 

academic quality of the teaching force. By looking separately at those who pass and those 

who do not, changes in average scores can be better understood, particularly for those 

who qualify to enter the teaching profession. 
xx

Indeed, when looking at only those who pass the test, trends are either positive or stable 

over time for the majority of tests. Interestingly, trends are also often positive for those 

who do not pass. Yet, if all candidates are included, the majority of tests show a decline. 

At first blush, it appears counterintuitive that those who pass and those who fail show a 

positive trend, yet when combined there is a negative trend.

In fact, this curious finding is an instance of a well-known statistical phenomenon known 

as Simpson’s Paradox, in which subgroups can each show the same pattern, yet when 

combined, a different pattern is observed because the relative proportion of individuals in 

each subgroup changes. For certain tests, the proportion of those taking the tests who 

failed increased relative to those who passed. Thus, the increasing proportion of 

candidates who fail the test can result in the overall means decreasing at the same time 

that the mean scores for both those who pass and those who fail either increase or remain 

stable.

One example of this phenomenon was observed for the Mathematics Content test in 

considering candidates new to teaching and those with prior experience (see Exhibit 

ES.4). The top two lines in the figure show that scores for those who passed increased 

slightly across years, as did scores for those who failed (the bottom two lines). However, 

when all test-takers are included (the middle two lines) there is an observed decrease, 

particularly for those test-takers with prior experience. This is a result of the substantial 

increases in failure rates, displayed at the bottom of the figure. In the full report, we 

further disaggregate the experience factor by presenting separately results of those with 

one-to-three years of experience and those with more than three years’ experience.
xxi

Exhibit ES.4

Mean Praxisscores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Candidates who pass have much higher scores than those who fail. Failure 

rates increase substantially across testing years.

• Score trends are inconsistent across tests. Trends vary across the nine tests included in 

this study. For those who pass, three tests show positive performance trends, two show 

declines, and the remaining four do not have a trend in any particular direction (see 

Exhibit ES.5).
xxii

Exhibit ES.5

Study Summary of Trends in Scores for Those Who Pass 

Test Number

Years

Direction of 

Trend Across 

Years

0012 Elementary Education: Pedagogy 6 Negative

0014 Elementary Education: Content 

Knowledge

3 No Trend

0041 English Language, Literature, and 

Composition: Content Knowledge

8 No Trend

0043 English Language, Literature, and 

Composition: Pedagogy

8 No Trend

0061 Mathematics: Content Knowledge 8 Positive

0065 Mathematics: Pedagogy 8 Positive

0069 Middle School Mathematics: 

Content Knowledge

3 No Trend

0431 General Science, Part 1: Content 

Knowledge

8 Positive

0571 Earth and Space Sciences: Content 

Knowledge

5 Negative

Exhibit Reads: Tests vary in the number of years included in the analysis and in trends 

over years. 

• There has been an increase in the number of individuals taking the Praxis IItests

and the increase is seen both among individuals with teaching experience and 

without teaching experience. For many of the tests included in the analyses, the size of 

the sample of test-takers nearly doubled over the different range of years included. At the 

same time that a substantial increase in test-takers was occurring, there was very little 

movement in scores. There is no clear rationale for why this pattern of data exists. It 

appears that the increase in candidates has not materially affected the overall preparation 

of individuals to succeed on the respective tests.

• Race and ethnicity differences are consistent across tests. Across all tests, white 

candidates who pass have higher mean scores than African-American candidates.

• Race and ethnicity differences are not disaggregated by gender because of small 

sample sizes in some of the cells. 

• Gender differences vary by test. Female candidates who pass have higher mean scores 

than male candidates on two of the three pedagogy tests included in the analysis. Male 
xxiii

candidates who pass have higher mean scores on the six content knowledge tests 

analyzed. Gender differences tend to be relatively small.

• For most of the states examined in this study, passing standards are related to mean 

passing scores and passing rates in predictable ways.  Given relatively sparse data, 

there does appear to be a general pattern that states with higher passing standards have 

candidates who have higher mean scores. Passing rates are typically lower as well, 

though there are notable exceptions. 

• Experience effects vary across tests. Test-takers who pass and have prior teaching 

experience have slightly higher scores than those without experience for five tests. Those 

without experience have higher scores for both mathematics content tests. Experience 

differences tend to be relatively small.

• Experience factors are relatively small except for the Middle School Mathematics 

test. For this test, those new to the field of teaching score substantially higher than more 

experienced test-takers. This finding is consistent with that of Gitomer (2007), which 

showed that the middle school test was being taken by a large number of elementary 

trained teachers who were teaching in middle school and needed to be subject matter 

certified under the Highly Qualified Teacher provision of ESEA. It is very possible that 

this group of teachers was not as well prepared in mathematics as newly prepared math 

teachers who are targeting middle school for a career path.

• The large, positive trends in SAT scores by Praxis II candidates observed in prior 

research are not echoed here in similarly large positive trends in Praxis IIscores. 

This may be due to the more limited number of years included in this study as well as 

several other factors. Gitomer (2007), primarily on the basis of SAT scores, concluded 

that the academic quality of teachers had improved a substantial amount over recent years. 

This begs the question of whether there are reasons to explain the current study’s more 

modest findings compared with the prior study. We believe there are a number of critical 

differences between these studies that might account for the somewhat different findings.

Perhaps the most important distinction concerns the cohorts that were sampled. Gitomer

(2007) compared Praxis candidates from 1994–97 to those from 2002–05, which actually 

contains data that vary by 11 years (1994–2005). For the present study, no data are 

included prior to 1999. It was during the late 1990s that concerted efforts were made to

include testing as part of policies to address teacher quality issues. As examples, the 

Higher Education Act was reauthorized and included requirements for teacher education

institutions to report their students’ licensure test performance. The National Council for 

the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) developed new standards for 

accreditation that focused much more on student performance in teacher education 

programs. Other state and institutional efforts also were being put in place at this time. 

Thus, if these policies had an effect, it is possible that they were more visible using a lens 

that begins in 1994. It is plausible that any changes brought about by this confluence of 

policies were in place by 1999. Indeed, if we look at just the five tests in this study for 

which there are eight years of data, we obtain a more positive view than one which looks 

at all nine tests, including those using a briefer lens. Of the five tests with data going 

back to 1999, three show positive trends and two show no trend. 
xxiv

It is possible that more substantial changes would be evident if we could include the 

years 1994–98. Unfortunately, this is just speculative and there is no way of examining 

this hypothesis. However, given when the policy activity occurred, changing the window 

of examination may explain the variation in findings.

Of course, the SAT and Praxistests are designed to measure different things and though 

correlated, are independent measures. Thus, there is no reason to believe that scores on 

the two measures would show trends in lockstep. Further, these measures may be more 

or less sensitive to policy changes and instructional interventions. On the one hand, if 

greater emphasis is placed on entrance into teacher education, then we might expect an 

increase in college admissions scores, particularly if those scores are part of the 

admissions equation. If Praxisscores reflect an undergraduate curriculum that has stayed 

fairly consistent across years, we might expect less change in those scores. Again, this is 

speculative, but it creates hypotheses that might be worth further study. 

Finally, we do not understand how the increased presence of alternate route candidates 

influences trends in test scores. It is possible that many of these test-takers bring in 

relatively strong academic skills as measured by SAT scores. However, they may have a 

wide range of course work as background which may or may not prepare them well for 

the Praxistests. The current system of data collection does not capture the nature of 

teacher preparation routes, so this issue would need to be studied separately.

Taken together, for a limited set of Praxistests across a number of recent years, we see 

little or no change in scores. Policies that gave significant attention to teacher licensure 

test performance, if they did have an impact as suggested by Gitomer (2007), may have 

already had their effect prior to the years studied in this analysis.
1

I. INTRODUCTION

For well over a century there have been significant concerns about the academic quality of those 

who choose teaching as a profession (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986; 

Coleman, et al., 1966; Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine, 1966; Kerr, 1983; Koerner, 1963; 

Lagemann, 2000; National Educational Association, 1895). These concerns have focused on 

both general verbal and mathematical abilities as well as specific content knowledge. 

A number of policies have been instituted during the last 10–15 years designed to ensure that 

teachers have an appropriate background in the content they teach. These policies, reviewed in 

Gitomer (2007) have included:

 Increased accountability of teacher education programs through the 1998 reauthorization 

of the Higher Education Act (and Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

1998) that required programs to report on licensure test results of their program 

completers.

 An expansion of teacher licensure testing to ensure that all teachers demonstrated 

competence to teach particular subject matter as specified in the Highly Qualified 

Teacher provisions of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 2002), 

as reauthorized.

 Increased requirements for entry into teacher education programs by setting minimum 

grade-point averages (GPAs) and other admissions criteria (e.g., state of Pennsylvania, 

2007). 

 Strengthened requirements for program accreditation by the professional accrediting 

bodies, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2006) and the 

Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC, n.d.).

 The rapid development and expansion of alternate route programs, many of which were 

designed to lure academically strong candidates who were not attracted to teaching if it 

required entry into a formal teacher education program (Feistritzer, 2007).

In view of this range of initiatives intended to improve the academic quality of teachers, Gitomer

(2007) compared the academic profile of prospective teachers during the years 2002–05 with 

similar individuals from the years 1994–97 (see Gitomer, Latham, and Ziomek, 1999, for the 

original study). Specifically, we compared SAT scores for individuals who took a teacher 

licensure test (Praxis II) across these two cohorts. SAT scores were considered to be a common, 

broad proxy of academic quality. In fact, both SAT math and verbal scores were significantly 

higher for the more recent cohort. 

The present study is designed to shine a different lens on changes in the academic quality of 

prospective teachers. Specifically, this study examines changes in teacher licensure scores 

themselves over time. We focus specifically on tests in the Praxis IIseries. These tests are 
2

developed and administered by Educational Testing Service (ETS)3 and are used by a majority of 

states as a critical part of the teacher certification process. 

Of course, not all states use the Praxis assessments for licensure. A number of states, including 

those with the largest population of teachers (e.g., Calif., N.Y., Texas, Mich., and Fla.), have 

state-specific licensure tests. Because these tests are unique to particular states, it is not possible 

to compare performance across these states. Thus, while the sample used in the current study 

cannot be said to be fully representative of all teacher candidates, it is by far, the most complete 

sample of teacher candidates available to compare teacher candidates across states.

This study concerns the Highly Qualified Teacher provisions of the ESEA, and other policies at 

the federal, state and local levels, which have aimed to elevate the content knowledge of 

teachers. This examination of the Praxis IIscore trends was not meant to serve as an evaluation 

of ESEA or of any of the other policies instituted at the state or local levels; the study served 

simply as an effort to examine trends in a systemic outcome that all of these policies have aimed 

to influence—the content knowledge of prospective teachers. More specifically, this report 

answers the following questions:

1. Have the demographics or characteristics of individuals who took each test changed 

across the years included? Total sample size, proportions by gender and race, percent 

passing, and experience breakdowns are reported.4

2. Do mean Praxisscores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do the 

mean passing scores for those who pass differ substantially from those who do not 

pass as well as from all candidates considered together?

3a. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxisscores for those who pass? 

How do these trends compare with those who do not pass?

3b. Does including the factors of gender, race, and experience variables in the analytic 

model help to explain any observed trends?

The purpose of this study is to identify trends in Praxisscores on a select number of tests across 

recent years across as many states as possible. While teachers in states using Praxis are not fully 

representative of the national population of teachers, Praxisscores provide the most complete 

available picture of the population of those entering teaching.

While the Praxis II tests are used across states, every state creates its own teacher certification 

testing program. States select the particular Praxis II tests they will use from more than 100 test 

titles that are part of the Praxis program. In addition, states set unique passing scores for each 

test after conducting standard-setting studies and state adoption procedures. Thus, a score that 

might be considered passing in one state may not be in other states. 

 3

 The authors of this study are employed by ETS. However, the findings contained in this report do not represent 

the views of ETS and no organizational endorsement is implied. 

4

 We exclude results that have insufficient sample size as defined by cell sizes under 15. For several models we 

combine the two experience levels (one-to-three years and greater than three years) in order to obtain a sufficient 

sample. Specifics are reported in the text.
3

Our earlier studies (Gitomer, 2007; Gitomer, Latham, and Ziomek, 1999) highlighted a number 

of critical issues that have implications for the design of the proposed study. These issues have 

import for:

 The number of states and years to be included in the analysis.

 Whether to examine those who pass the tests separately from those who do not.

 Whether to examine those who have teaching experience from those who do not.

1. States have adopted new licensure tests during the last decade. The Praxisseries

replaced the National Teacher Examination (NTE) system that was introduced in the 1930s. 

The NTE tests focused almost exclusively on content and were relatively disconnected 

from modern theories of teaching and learning. They were based primarily on surveys of 

teacher education curricula. When the Praxissystem was instituted in 1993, states began to 

adopt Praxis tests to replace the older NTE tests. ETS, the developer of both Praxis and 

NTE, moved all of the NTE tests under the Praxis umbrella during the transition phase. 

However, the complete transition took longer than expected, so that even in 1997, many 

states still were using NTE tests. 

The Praxisseries introduced the concept of tests of content-specific pedagogy in addition 

to direct measures of content knowledge. These tests include questions about how to teach 

content, difficulties students might have, and ways to assess students effectively. Many 

states adopted both content and pedagogy tests as part of licensure requirements. Both 

types of tests are included in this study.

In addition to this transition, other states have newly adopted Praxis as their certification 

testing program during recent years as well. The fact that the Praxistests for given 

certification areas have been adopted over a number of years by various states means that 

there is no single set of years we can use as a window for comparing trends. This is 

because the general trend is that with each advancing year from 1997 forward, an 

increasing number of states are likely to have adopted a particular Praxistest. Therefore, 

for each test examined, there is a tradeoff between number of years available to examine 

and number of states that can be included. We describe the process we used to optimize 

these two competing constraints.

2. The academic profile of those who pass the Praxistests and those who do not varies 

substantially. Those who pass have higher SAT scores, higher grades, and are more likely 

to have stronger content course work (e.g., Gitomer, 2007; Gitomer, Latham, and Ziomek, 

1999). This forces the critical question of how to focus the analysis of score trends. We 

argue that it makes sense to distinguish those who pass from those who do not. There are 

two important reasons for doing this.

First and foremost, it is important to know the academic standards that have been met for 

those who are eligible to teach, not simply for anyone who takes the test. The fact is that 

those who score low are not eligible to teach and it is also true that there are no prerequisite 

requirements for taking any Praxis exam. For example, there is likely some subset of 

individuals who, toward the end of their college career, decide that it might be worth a 

small investment to take the Praxis exam, viewing teaching as a possible career option. The 

critical point is that we want to understand the trajectory in academic achievement of those 
4

who are prospective teachers, defined by their passing certification requirements. It is not 

clear what the policy implications are of simply looking at those who just take the test.

Second, a number of states have increased requirements by raising the passing score 

requirements. For example, from 1994 to 2006, seven states raised passing scores for 

English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge (0041), and five states 

raised passing scores for Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0061). During this period, 

eight states raised requirements for more than one of the tests included in this study. Thus, 

precisely because they have raised the bar, any increase in average scores of those who 

pass may be reflective of explicit changes in policy. And even if some individuals need to 

take the test multiple times, it is only when they pass (and have higher scores) that they 

would be considered a prospective teacher. So, the policy changes may, in fact, result in 

some types of behavior (e.g., additional study) that actually raise the academic quality of 

the pool.

While the most germane policy question is to examine trends for those who pass Praxis, in 

order to understand the full picture of performance we also report analyses of candidates 

who fail as well as of all test-takers (combining those who pass with those who do not). 

3. Since the 2002 reauthorization of ESEA, there has been a very large increase in the 

number of teachers taking Praxis II who report having had prior teaching experience.

There have always been Praxis test-takers who have had prior teaching experience. Some 

might have been teaching on emergency certification, while others might want an 

additional certification, and others may have moved from non-Praxisstates to a state that 

required Praxis. However, likely due to ESEA and HQT, the proportion of Praxis testtakers who were experienced nearly doubled between 1994–97 and 2002–05 (Gitomer, 

2007). This increase is probably due to the large number of teachers who did not meet 

HQT qualifications and needed to be deemed highly qualified in particular subject areas or 

needed to stop teaching under emergency certification provisions. Gitomer (2007) also 

reported that the experienced teachers taking Praxis had, on average, weaker academic 

profiles than those newly entering into teaching.

Thus, it is important to disaggregate our analyses by experience level. If the policy 

question is whether the profile of new teachers is changing, our analysis must disentangle 

results by experience level of teachers, particularly within these years of HQT 

implementation, in which the certification of already practicing teachers is likely to skew 

the data. 

It is important to recognize that, going forward, there should be a decrease in the number of 

experienced teachers taking licensure tests. Under ESEA, all current teachers should have 

satisfied the HQT requirements. Thus, the disaggregation by experience level is a 

necessary step in examining this particular cohort of teachers, during a time when the HQT 

provisions were having an impact on the highly qualified status of experienced teachers.

This study of Praxisscore trends focus on nine tests as requested by the Department of 

Education. Detail descriptions of each of the tests can be found on the ets.org Web site: 

http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.1488512ecfd5b8849a77b13bc3921509/?vgnextoid=

23932d3631df4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=89a25ee3d74f4010VgnV

CM10000022f95190RCRD. 
5

The study includes licensure candidates who took the following tests (including Praxistest code 

number) in multiple states:

 Elementary Education: Pedagogy (0012),

 Elementary Education Content Knowledge (0014),

 English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge (0041),

 English Language, Literature, and Composition: Pedagogy (0043),

 Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0061), 

 Mathematics: Pedagogy (0065),

 Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0069),

 General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge (0431), and

 Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge (0571).
6
7

II. METHODOLOGY

SELECTING STATES AND YEARS

The initial step in this study required a decision as to which states and years to include in the 

analysis. Our goal was to be able to make valid comparisons by selecting the states that have a 

stable number of test-takers throughout the years. We began by determining the number of testtakers by state and year for each of the tests of interest. In Appendix A we identify the year in 

which the state established a passing standard as well as the first year in which the number of 

test-takers is relatively stable going forward.

The adoption of tests by states varies widely. States have adopted different tests at different 

times and frequently applied different passing standards. The study attempted to compare test 

results across years by including a stable set of states within each analysis and applying 

appropriate state- and year-specific passing standards for each test. Thus, different combinations 

of states and years are used in each of the analyses. Because states have been transitioning to 

new testing requirements, some analyses only include three years of data, while others include up 

to eight years. Some analyses include six states, while others include 18 states. Trends within 

individual states are not included; all analyses aggregate test data across a minimum of six states. 

A number of states, including those with the largest population of teachers (e.g., Calif., N.Y., 

Texas, Mich., and Fla.), have state-specific licensure tests. Because these tests are unique to 

particular states, it is not possible to compare performance across these states. Thus, while the 

sample used in the current study cannot be said to be fully representative of all teacher 

candidates, it is by far, the most complete sample of teacher candidates available to compare 

teacher candidates across states.

The sample for each analysis thus includes all individuals who took the particular Praxis II

assessment in one of the included states during the time period considered. (See Exhibit 1.) 

For example, the analysis of the Elementary Education: Pedagogy assessment (0012) includes

the scores for all individuals who took this test between 2000 and 2005 in the states of 

Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, and South Carolina 

(seven states).

We selected states and years for the study based on the principle of maximizing both number of 

states and years included. So, for example in 2000, only three states had adopted the Elementary 

Education Content Knowledge Test (0014). By 2007, 26 states and localities (including D.C. and 

Virgin Islands) had adopted the test. Including more years of data decreases the number of states 

who had participated throughout and thus makes it difficult to make fair comparisons. Therefore, 

we examined the history of each state’s use of Praxistests that appears in Appendix A and 

arrived at a set of selection decisions (see Exhibit 1). By examining Appendix A, we can use the 

example of Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0061) to understand the decision process and its 

implications. If the time period of “2001–06” is selected, two more states, Indiana and South 

Carolina, could be included. However, because a relatively large number of states are already 

available for the years 1999–2006, we felt it was advantageous to include the additional two 

years of data and forego the inclusion of these two states.
8

The outcome is that different year ranges are used for different tests, and different states are 

included as well. Within each test though, comparisons are valid in that the same states are 

involved. 

The outcome of this process is that the earliest test year included was 1999. Prior to that year, 

very few states had made the transition to the Praxistests now in use. This means that the time 

period explored in this study does not extend as far back as Gitomer (2007) which compared the 

academic profile of teacher licensure candidates dating back to 1994. 

During this time period, testing volumes increased substantially. Further, states did not increase 

at the same rates. Across states, there were different population shifts, demands for teachers, and 

outputs of institutions preparing teachers. There is a legitimate question as to how to treat 

different increases across states in relation to overall trends for Praxistests.

Another legitimate question is how to address different shifts in the population across states. 

Imagine that State X doubles its output of teacher candidates while State Y has a constant output 

over a certain number of years. Further, assume that State X candidates have average higher 

scores than those in State Y. An overall upward trend across states in mean scores might be 

observed not because the average scores in State X or State Y increased, but because more 

teacher candidates were being produced out of State X.

One way to approach this issue is to simply ignore these different increases. If a greater number 

of highly qualified individuals are entering the national teacher pool, it could be argued that it 

does not matter if these individuals come from different states—the point is that teachers can 

find employment across state lines and it would be desirable if more candidates came from states 

that produced more qualified candidates and less desirable if the reverse occurred.

A counterargument would be that licensure is essentially a local process and therefore, we need 

to understand whether findings are a function of consistent changes across states, or perhaps an 

artifact of changes in the relative size of states’ contributions to the overall sample. In this case, 

a weighting process would be in order.

In this paper, we examine characteristics of the test-taking population, but also conduct analyses 

to understand the extent to which there is variation in the proportion of this group coming from 

particular states over time. Specifically, for each test and range of years, we determine the 

proportion of our sample that comes from each included state. We then examine the change in 

the proportion from the first year to the last. For the most part, the relative proportions are stable. 

Approximately three-quarters of all states included in the analyses do not vary by more than 2

percent in their contribution to the overall sample. Very rarely is the change more than 5 percent. 

Given these results and the aforementioned argument, we report only data aggregated and 

unweighted by state.
9

Exhibit 1

Selection of States and Year Ranges

Praxis Test Years Selected States

0012 Elementary Education: 

Pedagogy

2000–05 CT, DC, GA, HI, MD, NV, SC (7 states)

0014 Elementary Education 

Content Knowledge

2004–06 AK, AL, CO, ID, KY, LA, MD, MN, MS, NJ, 

OH, RI, TN, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI (18 states)

0041 English Language, 

Literature, and Composition: 

Content Knowledge

1999–2006 AR, CT, DC, GA, HI, IN, KY, LA, MD, MO, 

NH, NJ, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, VA, WV (19 

states)

0043 English Language, 

Literature, and Composition: 

Pedagogy

1999–2006 AR, DC, HI, LA, MD, NV, TN (7 states) 

0061 Mathematics: Content 

Knowledge

1999–2006 AR, CT, DC, GA, HI, KY, MD, MO, MS, NH, 

NJ, OH, OR, PA, TN, VA, WV (17 states)

0065 Mathematics: Pedagogy 1999–2006 AR, DC, HI, MD, NV, TN (6 states)

0069 Middle School 

Mathematics: Content 

Knowledge

2004–06 AK, AL, CT, DE, GA, IN, KY, LA, MD, MO, 

MN, MS, NC, NH, NJ, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, 

VA WA, WV (23 states)

0431 General Science, Part 1: 

Content Knowledge

1999–2006 DC, HI, NJ, NV, OR, TN (6 states)

0571 Earth and Space 

Sciences: Content Knowledge

2002–06 AR, CT, IN, MD, MO, NH, NJ, OH, PA, TN, 

VA, VT (12 states)

Exhibit Reads: The number of states and years included in each analysis vary by test.

DETERMINING PASSING STATUS

Passing scores that define the Pass-Fail status of an individual on a test are established by the 

individual states through a formal standard-setting process. In this study, we consider passing 

status only on the basis of individual tests, although recognizing that in many cases, candidates

need to pass multiple tests in order to meet state certification requirements. 

Appendix B presents the passing scores in effect for each state by year. In a number of cases, 

states have changed the required passing score, most frequently increasing the score needed to be 

considered passing. Bolded cells indicate cases in which a state raised the passing score of a test 

and italicized cells indicate cases when a state lowered the passing score of a test.

All tests are scaled on a 100–200 point scale. However, there is no way to make any sensible 

comparison of scores across test titles because the content of the tests and the characteristics of 

the test-taking samples are different.
10

Of course, we do not know for certain which state passing standard should be applied to any 

candidate. An individual may be testing for a license in any number of states. Therefore, we 

chose to apply the same rules we applied in Gitomer (2007) and Gitomer, Latham, and Ziomek 

(1999). We made the assumption that the best estimate of where a candidate was seeking 

licensure was the state in which the most recent test was taken. The rationale for this strategy is 

based on the finding that teachers are highly likely to wind up teaching very close to where they 

grew up and went to college. We applied the passing score in effect to create a Pass-Fail status 

for each test-taker. If the candidate took the test multiple times, the most recent test score value 

was used, regardless of passing status. 

CANDIDATE DATA

Data were taken from ETS Praxis data files from 1994–2006. In addition to the test results, data 

were collected from the Background Information Questionnaire (Appendix C) that the Praxis

candidates complete as part of the test registration process. We also describe any additional 

collapsing of data fields that we executed in order to make comparisons that included sufficient 

sample sizes. 

Specific variables of interest include:

 Gender.

 Race and Ethnicity—While the questionnaire includes ten categories, the only groups 

that had a sufficient number of candidates to analyze year to year differences were 

African-American and white candidates. This was true even after collapsing subgroups 

together (e.g., the three groups whose native language is Spanish). Even for AfricanAmericans, there were a number of tests for which there were insufficient numbers on an 

annual basis to include in the analysis.

 Test date—This field indicates the date on which subjects take their Praxis II tests. We 

defined “academic year” as beginning in Aug. 1 and ending July 31. In this analysis, 

year reflects the twelve months beginning Aug. 1 (e.g., Jan. 2003 is considered part of the 

2002 year).

 Test Score—This field indicates the scores the subjects received on the test. For this 

study, we are including all Praxistest-takers who had reportable scores.

 Passing Status—Test scores were coded as pass or fail based on the passing score 

established by a state at the time the test was taken.

 Test Code—This field indicates the test codes assigned to the Praxis II tests. 

 State—This field indicates the state in which a Praxis II test was taken, which we 

believe to be the best estimate of the state for which the test-taker is seeking licensure.

 Teaching experience—This field indicates the test-takers’ teaching experience. In the 

BIQ, test-takers are asked to identify their teaching status as one of the following:

1. Planning to enroll or currently enrolled in a teacher education program

2. Recently graduated and expect to begin teaching in the near future
11

3. One-to-three years teaching experience

4. More than three years teaching experience

5. Not planning to teach at this time

We collapsed the five teaching experience statuses into three categories. The following 

responses were collapsed into the No Experience Category:

o Not planning to teach at this time

o Planning to enroll or enrolled in teacher education program

o Recent grad and will begin teaching in near future 

Separate categories were established for amount of experience so that we could 

differentiate those who were fairly new to teaching (one-to-three years) to those who 

were more experienced. Thus the categories were:

o One-to-three years teaching experience

o More than three years teaching experience 

While we report experience levels in some analyses, the regression models only consider 

two discrete conditions—some experience vs. no experience. Sample sizes were often 

insufficient to include finer distinctions in the model.
12
13

III. FINDINGS

Analyses are organized by test. We conducted analyses to answer the following questions:

1. Have the demographic or performance characteristics of individuals who took 

each test changed across the years included? Total sample size, proportions by 

gender and race, percent passing, and experience breakdowns are reported.5

2. Do mean Praxisscores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do

the mean passing scores differ from those who do not pass as well or from all 

candidates considered together?

3a. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxisscores for those who pass? 

How do these trends compare with those who do not pass? How do these trends 

compare with those who do not pass?

A key question of the study is whether there are statistically significant non-zero 

changes in test scores across years. To do this we conducted a series of regression 

analyses using different models. 

The most basic model is a simple linear model in which mean test scores are 

regressed on Year. This model is simply:

y = ß0 + ßx + ε

where y is mean test score and x is testing year. 

3b. Does including the factors of gender, race, and experience variables in the 

analytic model help to explain any observed trends?

More complex regression models include the variables of race, gender, and 

experience. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether any potential 

changes in the proportion of individuals in these categories may be accounting for 

any trends in test scores. These models take the general form of 

y = ß0 + ß1x1 + ß2x2 + ß3x3 + ß4x4 + ε

where x1, x2, x3, and x4 represent year, gender, race, and experience level, respectively. 

All results marked with a * are significant at the p < .01 level. In cases where the significance 

level is .01 > p < .05, the value is marked with a + and the exact p level is reported.

 5

 We exclude results that have insufficient sample size as defined by cell sizes under 15. For several models we 

combine the two experience levels (one-to-three years and greater than three years) in order to obtain a sufficient 

sample. Specifics are reported in the text.
14

Simpson’s Paradox

For a number of tests, we present what at first blush appears as a set of conflicting and nonintuitive findings. Specifically, there are a number of cases in which we see positive or neutral 

trends for individuals who pass the test and similar patterns for those who fail. However, when 

all candidates are considered together, we find a negative trend. In fact, this curious finding is an 

instance of a well-known statistical phenomenon known as Simpson’s Paradox (Blyth, 1972) in 

which subgroups can each show the same pattern, yet when combined, a different pattern is 

observed because the relative proportion of individuals in each subgroup changes.

For certain tests, the proportion of those taking the tests and failing increased relative to those 

who passed. Thus, the increasing proportion of candidates who fail the test can result in the 

overall means decreasing at the same time that the means for both those who pass and those who 

fail either increase or remain stable. What we see for a number of tests is that even though scores 

are stable for both those who pass and those who do not, the proportion of candidates who fail 

increases across years. That proportional increase leads to a decrease for all candidates even 

when there is no decrease in subgroups. 
15

A. TEST 0012—ELEMENTARY EDUCATION: PEDAGOGY

Background Information on the Test:

This test consists of four constructed-response prompts around different teaching situations that 

ask candidates to demonstrate their understanding of curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

1. Have the demographic or performance characteristics of individuals who took each test 

changed across the years included? 

The analysis included tests from 2000 through 2005. Over the six years, gender and race 

distributions across test-takers are relatively consistent, even as the number of candidates almost 

doubled. Passing rates for this test are extremely high and consistent across years as well (see 

Exhibit 2). We do not include 2006 because Georgia discontinued the use of the test after 2005. 

Because relatively few states use this test, and because a fairly large number of candidates were 

from Georgia, we opted to include only those years in which Georgia continued to use this test.

Exhibit 2

Test-taker Characteristics by Year—Elementary Education: Pedagogy

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Sample Size 7,732 8,231 8,459 10,600 10,564 13,105

Percent Male 10.0% 9.9% 10.6% 9.7% 10.1% 9.5%

Percent AfricanAmerican12.9% 14.0% 13.1% 11.6% 12.2% 13.8%

Percent White 78.9% 77.0% 76.7% 78.5% 78.7% 77.2%

Percent Passed 95.8% 95.2% 95.8% 96.2% 95.1% 97.2%

Percent No 

Experience

57.0% 54.3% 56.9% 58.6% 59.1% 53.9%

Percent 1–3 Years of 

Experience

23.1% 25.1% 24.2% 23.4% 20.7% 20.2%

Percent More than 3

Years of Experience

19.8% 20.7% 19.0% 18.0% 20.3% 26.0%

Exhibit Reads: While the number of test-takers increased, demographic characteristics are 

relatively stable across years while passing rates are very high.

2. Do mean Praxisscores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do the 

mean passing scores differ from those who do not pass as well or from all candidates 

considered together?

Mean Praxisscores for those who pass are disaggregated by gender, race, ethnicity and 

experience. When analyzing mean scores by gender, passing status, and experience, the two 

levels of experience are combined due to small sample sizes in particular cells. 
16

Female candidates and white candidates who pass have higher scores than male candidates and 

African-American candidates, respectively. Individuals without experience appear to have 

slightly higher scores than those individuals with experience (see Exhibits 3, 4 and 5).

Those who pass have substantially higher scores than those who do not, on the order of 

approximately two standard deviations difference. The mean (and median) scores for those who 

pass and those who fail are 158 (157) and 135 (136), respectively (sd = 10.0). Further, the

proportion passing is very high and the mean score for those who pass is substantially higher 

than the median passing score across states (see Appendix B and Exhibit 6). 

Exhibit 3

Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—Elementary Education: Pedagogy

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

All 160.10 

(10.0)

158.72 

(9.53)

158.09 

(8.80)

157.08 

(8.68)

155.99 

(8.39)

157.43

(8.00)

Female 160.41 

(10.03)

159.03 

(9.54)

158.37 

(8.83)

157.39 

(8.69)

156.24 

(8.41)

157.69

(8.00)

Male 157.21 

(9.20)

155.64 

(8.79)

155.64 

(8.09)

154.12 

(7.90)

153.79

(7.86)

154.74 

(7.52)

African-American 154.28 

(9.09)

153.65 

(9.04)

153.39 

(8.26)

153.33 

(7.99)

152.85 

(7.45)

153.96 

(7.51)

White 161.09 

(9.82)

159.74 

(9.25)

159.02 

(8.59)

157.81 

(8.63)

156.58 

(8.39)

158.08 

(7.87)

No Experience 160.81 

(9.61)

159.55 

(9.22)

159.00 

(8.40)

157.52 

(8.58)

156.22 

(8.34)

157.89 

(7.82)

1–3 Years of Experience 159.34 

(10.33)

158.08 

(9.75)

156.97 

(9.02)

156.69 

(8.68)

155.74 

(8.31)

157.14 

(7.98)

More than 3 Years of Experience 158.97 

(10.51)

157.15 

(9.72)

156.85 

(9.43)

156.03 

(8.84)

155.48 

(8.55)

156.51 

(8.22)

Exhibit Reads: There is a decline in mean scores across years as well as consistent gender,

race and ethnicity differences
17

Exhibit 4

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Gender, Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

Elementary Education: Pedagogy 

Exhibit Reads: For those who pass, scores for female candidate are higher than for male 

candidates. Mean scores for those who pass are much higher than for those who do not.
18

Exhibit 5

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Race and Ethnicity, Passing Status and 

Teaching Experience—Elementary Education: Pedagogy 

Exhibit Reads: Scores for white candidates are higher than for African-American 

candidates. Mean scores for those who pass are much higher than for those who do not.
19

Exhibit 6

Distribution of Scores in 2005 for Elementary Education: Pedagogy 

Exhibit Reads: The majority of candidates pass the test with scores well above the median 

passing score across states.

Mean passing scores for all test-takers are disaggregated by experience. This analysis reinforces 

the large difference in scores between those who pass and those who fail. Additionally, there 

appears to be a small decrease in scores across years as well as a generally higher mean score for 

those with no experience. The fact that the trends for all candidates are only slightly lower than 

for passers is due to the very high passing rate for this test (see Exhibit 7).
20

Exhibit 7

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

Elementary Education: Pedagogy 

Exhibit Reads: Candidates who pass have much higher scores than those who fail. 

Candidates with no teaching experience score higher than those with experience.

3. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxisscores for those who pass? How 

do these trends compare with those who do not pass?

Trends are analyzed using two regression models. The simple model examines mean score

changes over year. The comprehensive model includes gender, race, and experience variables. 

In the comprehensive model we consider only two levels of experience—experience vs. no 

experience. For each of these models, we first consider only candidates who pass and then all 

candidates.

The analysis confirms that there was a small, but significant decline in scores between 2000 and 

2005 for the seven states included in the analysis. Additionally, there were statistically 

significant race, gender, and experience differences (see Exhibit 8). The pattern across years is 

stable across simple and more comprehensive models.
21

As can be seen in the simple model, the proportion of variance accounted for by testing year is 

very small. Statistical significance is achieved due to the very large sample of candidates. 

Exhibit 8

Regression Results—Elementary Education: Pedagogy

Variable Std Wts.—

Simple Model

Passers

Std Wts.—

Simple Model

All

Std Wts.—

Comprehensive 

Model

Passers

Std Wts.—

Comprehensive Model

All

Test Year -.112* -.084* -.118* -.093*

Gender .087* .101*

Race and 

Ethnicity

.179* .244*

Experience -.04* -.042*

Adjusted R 

Squared

.013* .007* .058* .085*

Exhibit Reads: There is a small decline in scores across testing years for those who pass as 

well as for all candidates.
22

B. TEST 0014—ELEMENTARY EDUCATION CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Background Information on the Test:

This test consists of 120 multiple-choice items, evenly distributed around understanding of 

content important for elementary education in reading and language arts, mathematics, social 

studies, and science.

1. Have the demographic or performance characteristics of individuals who took each test 

changed across the years included? 

Data from 18 states are included. However, because the adoption of this test was relatively 

recent, only three years of data are analyzed (see Exhibit 9). Across the three years, there are no 

obvious demographic trends and passing rates hover around 90 percent while there is also an 

increase in the absolute number of test-takers. There appears to be a small increase in the 

proportion of African-Americans taking the tests, but additional years of data would be needed to 

determine if this is a stable trend.

Exhibit 9

Test-taker Characteristics—Elementary Education Content Knowledge

2004 2005 2006

Sample Size 28,199 34,395 33,979

Percent Male 11.3% 11.2% 11.1%

Percent African-American 9.7% 9.9% 11.3%

Percent White 81.6% 81.5% 79.3%

Percent Passed 91.3% 92.3% 89.6%

Percent No Experience 73.0% 73.7% 75.3%

Percent 1–3 Years of Experience 16.4% 15.4% 13.8%

Percent More than 3 Years of Experience 10.5% 11.0% 11.0%

Exhibit Reads: Demographic characteristics are relatively stable while passing rates are 

high, although it is difficult to detect trends with only three years of data.

2. Do mean Praxisscores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do the 

mean passing scores differ from those who do not pass as well or from all candidates 

considered together?

Mean Praxisscores for those who pass are disaggregated by gender, race, ethnicity and 

experience. Male candidates who pass 0014 appear to have somewhat higher passing scores than 

female candidates who pass. There are no apparent or consistent patterns associated with 

experience. White candidates appear to have higher passing scores than African-American 

candidates (see exhibits 10, 11 and 12). 
23

Again, the variation in mean scores between those who pass and those who do not is very large, 

approximately two standard deviations. The mean (and median) scores for those who pass and 

those who fail are 166 (165) and 132 (133), respectively (sd = 16.8). Even though the proportion 

of those passing is very high, it appears that many who do not pass have markedly less content 

knowledge as measured by the test and would be unlikely to pass the test on another attempt 

simply by chance. The standard error of measurement (SEM) for this test is 5.9.6 More than 

three-quarters of candidates (76 percent) who do not pass the assessment score at least one SEM

(a score of 138) below the median passing score. Thus, their scores are well below the state

standards that have been established (see Exhibit 13). Differences of this magnitude exceed 

those that might be attributed to measurement error. 

Exhibit 10

Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—

Elementary Education Content Knowledge

2004 2005 2006

All 165.76 

(13.82)

165.74 

(13.97)

165.59 

(14.15)

Female 165.08 

(13.60)

165.04 

(13.71)

164.86 

(13.88)

Male 170.35 

(14.49)

170.55 

(14.74)

170.64 

(14.94)

African-American 156.56 

(10.99)

155.69 

(11.30)

154.64 

(11.57)

White 166.51 

(13.68)

166.82 

(13.73)

166.88 

(13.87)

No Experience 165.69 

(13.61)

165.71 

(13.70)

165.61 

(13.93)

1–3 Years of Experience 165.43 

(14.04)

165.43 

(14.16)

165.16 

(14.47)

More than 3 Years of Experience 165.81 

(14.76)

166.61 

(15.19)

166.15 

(15.29)

Exhibit Reads: Scores appear to be stable across testing years. There are consistent 

gender, race and ethnicity differences

 6

 All reported Standard Errors of Measurement (SEM) data are based on data from 2005. These measures are very 

stable across years, so we chose to base the analysis on a single year’s estimate.
24

Exhibit 11

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Gender, Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

Elementary Education: Content Knowledge 

Exhibit Reads: For those who pass, scores for male candidate are higher than for female 

candidates. 
25

Exhibit 12

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Race, Ethnicity, Passing Status and 

Teaching Experience—Elementary Education: Content Knowledge 

Exhibit Reads: Scores for white candidates are higher than for African-American 

candidates

Mean passing scores for all test-takers are disaggregated by experience. The analysis reinforces 

the large difference in scores between those who pass and those who fail, with scores for those 

who pass well above the median passing standards for states. For those who fail, scores are well 

below the median passing standards for states (see Appendix B). Interestingly, while scores for 

those who pass, regardless of experience, seem to be very stable, there does seem to be a slight 

downward trend when all candidates are included. For passers, those who have the most 

experience appear to have slightly higher mean scores. For those who fail, those with the most 

experience also appear to have the lowest scores (see Exhibit 14).
26

Exhibit 13

Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Elementary Education: Content Knowledge 

Exhibit Reads: Of the small proportion of test-takers who do not pass, many have scores 

substantially below state passing standards.

3. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxisscore for those who pass? How 

do these trends compare with those who do not pass? Does including the factors of 

gender, race, and experience variables in the analytic model help to explain any 

observed trends?

In the regression analyses, mean scores do not vary much across years for those who pass. 

However, there is a very slight decline when all candidates are considered. Though the trend is 

discernible, it is extremely small and explains a very small portion of the score variation. 

The comprehensive analysis confirms that male candidates who pass have slightly higher scores 

than females and white candidates who pass score higher than African-American candidates. 

There is also a main effect of experience with those having the most experience also having the 

highest scores. 
27

A slightly different picture emerges when all candidates are considered. Race and ethnicity 

effects are larger and the experience effect is reversed due to the fact that, for those who fail, 

candidates with the most experience have the lowest scores (see Exhibit 15). The trend effect 

remains non-significant.
28

Exhibit 14

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

Elementary Education: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Candidates who pass have much higher scores than those who fail. 

Experience differences vary by passing status.
29

Exhibit 15

Regression Results—Elementary Education: Content Knowledge

Variable Std Wts.—

Simple Model

Passers

Std Wts.—

Simple Model

All

Std Wts.—

Comprehensive 

Model

Passers

Std Wts.—

Comprehensive 

Model

All

Test Year -.005 ns -.02* .006 ns -.006 ns

Gender -.130* -.117*

Race and Ethnicity .224* .374*

Experience .022* -.013*

Adjusted R Squared .000 ns .000* .065* .152*

Exhibit Reads: There is no change in scores across testing years for those who pass. There 

is a slight decline in scores for the simple model when all candidates are included

For the simple model, the finding of different trend lines for passers as compared to all 

candidates, albeit very small, has import for a number of analyses of other tests that will follow. 

There are two possible reasons that there these trends are different. One reason would be that 

there is a decline for those who fail so that, on average, there is a mean decline over time. 

However, as supported in a separate analysis of just those who fail, such is not the case (see also 

Exhibit 14). Those who fail also have scores that remain consistent across the years.

In fact, this curious finding is an instance of a well-known statistical phenomenon known as 

Simpson’s Paradox. What we see for the Elementary Education: Content Knowledge test is that 

even though scores are stable for both those who pass and those who do not, the proportion of 

candidates who fail increases across years. That proportional increase leads to a decrease for all 

candidates while there is no decrease in subgroups. 
30

C. TEST 0041—ENGLISH LANGUAGE, LITERATURE, AND COMPOSITION: 

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Background Information on the Test:

This test consists of 120 multiple-choice items, with the heaviest emphasis on literature and 

understanding text. Other major areas are composition and rhetoric and language and linguistics. 

1. Have the demographic or performance characteristics of individuals who took each test 

changed across the years included? 

Data from 19 states are included. Across the eight years included in the analyses, the proportion 

of African-American candidates increases a small amount and the percent passing declines about 

4 percentage points (see Exhibit 16). The number of test-takers almost doubles during this time 

period.

Exhibit 16

Test-taker Characteristics—English Language, Literature, and Composition: 

Content Knowledge

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Sample Size 5,109 5,673 6,807 7,776 8,360 8,961 9,278 9,179

Percent Male 24.2% 24.8% 25.1% 24.8% 23.0% 23.7% 23.5% 24.0%

Percent AfricanAmerican 8.2% 8.3% 8.5% 9.3% 8.5% 9.5% 9.3% 9.9%

Percent White 85.8% 85.0% 84.4% 83.0% 84.5% 82.9% 83.5% 82.1%

Percent Passed 90.6% 89.4% 91.1% 90.7% 88.6% 87.9% 86.6% 86.1%

Percent No 

Experience

68.7% 68.6% 66.3% 65.2% 66.2% 63.8% 64.4% 67.4%

Percent 1–3 Years of 

Experience

16.2% 17.0% 18.7% 19.3% 19.1% 19.2% 19.0% 18.1%

Percent More than 3 

Years of Experience

15.1% 14.5% 15.0% 15.5% 14.7% 17.0% 16.6% 14.5%

Exhibit Reads: Demographic characteristics are relatively stable across years while 

passing rates show a decline. There appears to be a modest increase in the proportion of 

African-American test-takers.

2. Do mean Praxisscores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do the 

mean passing scores differ from those who do not pass as well or from all candidates 

considered together?
31

Mean Praxisscores for those who pass are disaggregated by gender, race, ethnicity and 

experience. Male candidates who pass 0041 appear to have somewhat higher passing scores than 

female candidates who pass. White candidates have higher passing scores than AfricanAmerican candidates (see Exhibits 17, 18 and 19). 

Those who pass have substantially higher scores than those who do not, on the order of 

approximately two standard deviations difference. The mean (and median) scores for those who 

pass and those who fail are 180 (180) and 151 (152), respectively (sd = 14.7). The standard error 

of measurement (SEM) for this test is 5. Almost two-thirds of candidates (64 percent) who do 

not pass the assessment score at least one SEM below (a score of 155) the median passing score. 

Thus, their scores are well below the state standards that have been established (see Exhibit 20). 

Differences of this magnitude exceed those that might be attributed to measurement error. 

Exhibit 17

Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—English Language, Literature, and 

Composition: Content Knowledge

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

All 179.53 

(11.60)

179.63 

(11.67)

180.44 

(11.49)

180.33 

(11.66)

180.40 

(11.09)

180.41 

(11.13)

179.82 

(10.90)

179.95 

(11.31)

Female 179.13 

(11.58)

179.35 

(11.66)

180.05 

(11.41)

179.93 

(11.63)

180.03 

(11.10)

179.87 

(11.04)

179.32 

(10.82)

179.41 

(11.25)

Male 180.63 

(11.54)

180.50 

(11.69)

181.57 

(11.62)

181.54 

(11.64)

181.63 

(10.98))

181.87 

(11.25)

181.03 

(11.01)

181.42 

(11.37)

AfricanAmerican171.21 

(9.70)

171.63 

(10.69)

172.43 

(10.32)

170.90 

(9.74)

173.04 

(9.45)

171.82 

(8.99)

171.90 

(9.08)

171.14 

(9.21)

White 179.99 

(11.54)

180.03 

(11.52)

180.96 

(11.32)

181.00 

(11.50)

180.86 

(11.07)

180.86 

(11.02)

180.15 

(10.83)

180.59 

(11.19)

No 

Experience

178.95 

(11.37)

178.95 

(11.21)

180.16 

(11.29)

179.82 

(11.47)

180.29 

(10.90)

180.25 

(10.95)

179.47 

(10.79)

180.09 

(11.10)

1–3 Years of 

Experience

178.82 

(11.55)

179.35 

(12.07)

179.55 

(11.34)

180.26 

(11.68)

179.65 

(11.07)

179.47 

(11.13)

178.93 

(10.82)

178.89 

(11.66)

More than 3 

Years of 

Experience

182.26 

(12.24)

182.62 

(12.56)

182.50 

(12.28)

182.16 

(12.33)

181.61 

(12.03)

181.14 

(11.92)

180.67 

(11.51)

179.79 

(12.11)

Exhibit Reads: Scores appear to be stable across testing years, but there are consistent 

gender, race and ethnicity differences
32

Exhibit 18

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Gender, Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge 

Exhibit Reads: For those who pass, scores for male candidates are higher than for female 

candidates. 
33

Exhibit 19

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Race, Ethnicity, Passing Status and Teaching 

Experience—English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge 

Exhibit Reads: Scores for white candidates are higher than for African-American 

candidates
34

Exhibit 20

Distribution of Scores in 2006 for English Language, Literature, and Composition: 

Content Knowledge 

Exhibit Reads: Of the test-takers who do not pass, many have scores substantially below 

state passing standards.

Mean passing scores for all test-takers are disaggregated by experience. The analysis reinforces 

the large difference in scores between those who pass and those who fail. As with test 0014, 

while scores for those who pass, regardless of experience, seem to be very stable, there does 

seem to be a slight downward trend when all candidates are included. For passers, those who 

have the most experience appear to have slightly higher mean scores. For those who fail, those 

with the most experience also appear to have the lowest scores (see Exhibit 21).
35

Exhibit 21

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Candidates who pass have much higher scores than those who fail. 

Experience differences vary by passing status. There is a declining trend across testing 

years for all candidates.

3. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxis scores for those who pass? How 

do these trends compare with those who do not pass? Does including the factors of 

gender, race, and experience variables in the analytic model help to explain any 

observed trends?

In the regression analyses mean scores do not vary across years for those who pass. However, 

there is a slight decline when all candidates are considered. However, though the trend is 

discernible, it is extremely small and explains a very small portion of the score variation. 

The comprehensive analysis confirms that male candidates who pass have slightly higher scores 

than females and white candidates who pass score higher than African-American candidates. 

Those having the most experience also had generally higher scores. 
36

A slightly different picture emerges when all candidates are considered in the comprehensive 

analysis. Again, there is a small, but significant decline across years. Gender, race and ethnicity

effects are larger and the experience effect disappears due to the fact that for those who fail, 

candidates with the most experience have the lowest scores (see Exhibit 22).

As with Elementary Education: Content Knowledge, a different interpretation is suggested

depending on whether the analysis includes all candidates or just those who pass. While there is 

no discernible trend for those who pass, the decline for all candidates seems to again be an 

instance of Simpson’s paradox. The decrease for all candidates is caused by the increased 

proportion of students who fail.

Exhibit 22

Regression Results—English Language, Literature, and Composition: 

Content Knowledge

Variable Std Wts. –Simple 

Model

Passers

Std Wts. –Simple 

Model

All

Std Wts. –

Comprehensive 

Model

Passers

Std Wts. –

Comprehensive 

Model

All

Test Year .004 ns -.027* .004 ns -.024*

Gender -.054* -.042*

Race and Ethnicity .189* .355*

Experience .044* -.005 ns

Adjusted R Squared .000 ns .001* .040* .130*

Exhibit Reads: There is no change in scores across testing years for those who pass. There 

is a decline when all candidates are included.
37

D. TEST 0043—ENGLISH LANGUAGE, LITERATURE, AND COMPOSITION: 

PEDAGOGY

Background Information on the Test:

This test consists of two constructed response questions, one focused on teaching literature and 

the other responding to student writing.

1. Have the demographic or performance characteristics of individuals who took each test 

changed across the years included? 

Across eight years, data from seven states are included. Compared with the English test of 

content (0041), far fewer candidates take this test, although the number of test-takers increases 

substantially over this time period. No obvious trends in the demographics of test-takers are 

apparent (see Exhibit 23) other than a small increase in the proportion of males taking the test.

Exhibit 23

Test-taker Characteristics by Year—English Language, Literature, and

Composition: Pedagogy

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Sample 

Size

836 982 1,064 1,283 1,310 1,480 1,399 1,453

Percent 

Male

19.5% 22.8% 19.0% 19.5% 20.2% 22.3% 21.9% 23.2%

Percent 

AfricanAmerican

15.2% 14.5% 12.3% 14.7% 13.2% 15.1% 13.1% 14.4%

Percent 

White

75.9% 77.5% 78.6% 75.8% 76.0% 75.7% 77.3% 75.3%

Percent 

Passed

89.7% 88.2% 87.0% 88.4% 92.5% 90.7% 89.9% 87.1%

Percent No 

Experience

55.0% 54.9% 54.3% 55.0% 56.8% 54.7% 54.5% 53.6%

Percent 1–

3 Years of 

Experience

25.5% 28.7% 25.2% 26.6% 26.0% 26.8% 26.1% 30.6%

Percent 

More than 

3 Years of 

Experience

19.5% 16.4% 20.6% 18.4% 17.2% 18.6% 19.4% 15.8%

Exhibit Reads: Demographic characteristics are relatively stable across years, although 

there appears to be a modest increase in the proportion of male test-takers.

Mean Praxisscores for those who pass are disaggregated by gender, race, ethnicity and 

experience. Because of the small number of individuals in particular cells if data are 
38

disaggregated by experience, gender, race and ethnicity, more detailed figures by gender, race

and ethnicity are not presented. 

2. Do mean Praxisscores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do the 

mean passing scores differ from those who do not pass as well or from all candidates 

considered together?

Once again, there are large difference in scores between those who pass and those who fail. 

Those who pass have substantially higher scores than those who do not, on the order of 

approximately two standard deviations difference. The mean (and median) scores for those who 

pass and those who fail are 158 (155) and 135 (135), respectively (sd = 13.7). Scores for those 

who pass are well above the median passing standards for states. For those who fail, scores are 

well below the median passing standards for states (see Appendix B and Exhibit 25). 

Mean passing scores for all test-takers are disaggregated by experience. Plots are shown for 

those who pass, those who fail, and all candidates, regardless of passing status. The percent of 

those who fail is presented at the bottom of the exhibit, increasing across test years. There is 

more year-to-year variation in scores, likely attributable to the smaller sample size, but there is 

no obvious trend for those who pass. On the other hand, scores for those who fail seem to 

improve across years. Of note, and in contrast to several of the tests already presented, there is 

no clear trend in passing rates across testing years (see Exhibit 26). 

Exhibit 24

Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—English Language, Literature, and 

Composition: Pedagogy

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

All 158.15 

(12.75)

156.86 

(11.64)

157.08 

(12.24)

156.88 

(12.77)

157.82 

(11.74)

158.42 

(11.51)

156.88 

(11.14)

157.64 

(11.13)

Female 157.97 

(12.94)

156.54 

(11.70)

157.24 

(12.33)

157.26 

(12.93)

158.20 

(11.79)

158.49 

(11.63)

157.06 

(11.31)

157.65 

(11.15)

Male 158.90 

(11.89)

158.09 

(11.41)

156.39 

(11.84)

155.25 

(11.97)

156.24 

(11.43)

157.88 

(11.07)

155.74 

(10.40)

157.85 

(11.33)

AfricanAmerican153.76 

(12.64)

152.55 

(10.98)

153.14 

(12.62)

152.34 

(13.36)

153.63 

(10.49)

154.17 

(11.80)

153.22 

(12.29)

154.44 

(12.03)

White 158.41 

(12.46)

157.36 

(11.66)

157.57 

(12.11)

157.81 

(12.41)

158.42 

(11.84)

159.03 

(11.41)

157.52 

(11.00)

158.12 

(11.01)

No 

Experience

157.73 

(12.66)

156.52 

(11.29)

156.63 

(12.07)

156.71 

(12.98)

158.43 

(11.62)

158.82 

(11.62)

156.79 

(11.18)

156.72 

(11.01)

1–3 Years of 

Experience

159.12 

(12.77)

156.95 

(12.50)

158.98 

(12.76)

157.57 

(12.41)

156.35 

(11.37)

158.30 

(10.95)

157.14 

(11.14)

159.01 

(11.21)

More than 3 

Years of 

Experience

157.17 

(12.71)

157.63 

(11.29)

156.44 

(12.04)

155.75 

(12.38)

157.97 

(12.56)

157.37 

(12.00)

157.21 

(11.28)

158.10 

(11.26)

Exhibit Reads: Scores appear to be stable across testing years. There are consistent race 

and ethnicity differences.
39

Exhibit 25

Distribution of Scores in 2006 for English Language, Literature, and Composition: 

Pedagogy

Exhibit Reads: Of the test-takers who do not pass, many have scores substantially below 

state passing standards.
40

Exhibit 26

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

English Language, Literature, and Composition: Pedagogy

Exhibit Reads: Candidates who pass have much higher scores than those who fail. Scores 

for those who fail increase across testing years.

3. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxisscore for those who pass? How 

do these trends compare with those who do not pass? Does including the factors of 

gender, race, and experience variables in the analytic model help to explain any 

observed trends?

The regression analysis provides more detail about these trends. There is no relationship 

between testing years and test scores using the simple model. This holds for both passers and all 

test-takers (see Exhibit 27). 

The comprehensive model for passers also does not show any trend in score changes across 

selected years. However female candidates perform slightly better than male candidates and 

white candidates score higher than African-American candidates. Those with experience have 

slightly higher scores as well. 
41

In the comprehensive model for all candidates, there is an overall small positive trend in scores, 

likely due to the increase in scores for those who fail. Gender, race and ethnicity effects are 

larger in this model. The effect of experience is no longer significant.

The comprehensive analysis confirms that male candidates who pass have slightly higher scores 

than females, and white candidates who pass score higher than African-American candidates. 

There is also a main effect of experience with those having the most experience also having the 

highest scores. 

Exhibit 27

Regression Results—English Language, Literature, and Composition: Pedagogy

Variable Std Wts. –

Simple Model

Passers

Std Wts. –

Simple Model

All

Std Wts. –

Comprehensive 

Model

Passers

Std Wts. –

Comprehensive 

Model

All

Test Year .006 ns .019 ns .013 ns .026+

Gender .031* .062*

Race and Ethnicity .141* .212*

Experience .036* -.006 ns

Adjusted R Squared .000 ns .000 ns .020* .048*

+ p=.013

Exhibit Reads: There is no change in scores across testing years for those who pass as well 

as for all candidates in the simple model. There is a slight increase over years when all 

candidates are included in the comprehensive model.
42

E. TEST 0061—MATHEMATICS: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Background Information on the Test:

This test consists of 50 multiple-choice items that focus on knowledge and reasoning in topics 

relevant to teaching secondary mathematics: algebra and number theory, measurement, 

geometry, trigonometry, functions, calculus, data analysis and statistics, probability, matrix 

algebra and discrete mathematics. 

1. Have the demographic or performance characteristics of individuals who took each test 

changed across the years included? 

Data from 17 states are included. Across the eight years included in the analyses, the proportion 

of African-American candidates increases substantially and the number of candidates more than 

doubles. Passing rates decline a large amount as well. The proportion of teachers with no 

experience shows a small but relatively consistent decline (see Exhibit 28).

Exhibit 28

Test-taker Characteristics—Mathematics: Content Knowledge

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Sample 

Size

2,552 2,721 3,880 4,877 5,569 5,469 5,748 5,785

Percent 

Male

43.1% 40.9% 43.6% 47.2% 46.3% 44.1% 43.4% 43.7%

Percent 

AfricanAmerican

 7.5% 8.6% 10.6% 10.0% 11.0% 11.5% 11.5% 12.1%

Percent 

White

84.4% 82.1% 78.9% 78.1% 77.1% 77.8% 77.2% 77.3%

Percent 

Passed

82.2% 81.7% 78.8% 79.4% 74.5% 75.5% 74.9% 70.9%

Percent No 

Experience

65.5% 64.6% 63.3% 63.6% 63.4% 62.1% 61.9% 62.7%

Percent 1–

Years of 

Experience

17.4% 17.3% 19.2% 19.2% 19.9% 21.4% 21.4% 20.3%

Percent 

More than 

3 Years of 

Experience

17.1% 18.1% 17.5% 17.3% 16.7% 16.5% 16.7% 17.0%

Exhibit Reads: The proportion of African-American candidates has increased. Passing 

rates show a decline.

2. Do mean Praxisscores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do the 

mean passing scores differ from those who do not pass as well or from all candidates 

considered together?
43

Mean Praxisscores for those who pass are disaggregated by gender, race, ethnicity and 

experience. Male candidates who pass the Mathematics: Content Knowledge test appear to have 

somewhat higher passing scores than female candidates who pass. White candidates have higher 

passing scores than African-American candidates (see Exhibits 29, 30 and 31). 

As with other tests, there are large difference in scores between those who pass and those who 

fail. Those who pass have substantially higher scores than those who do not, on the order of 

approximately two standard deviations difference. The mean (and median) scores for those who 

pass and those who fail are 153 (151) and 117 (117), respectively (sd = 20.9). Scores for those 

who pass are well above the median passing standards for states. The standard error of 

measurement (SEM) for this test is 8.6. Three quarters of candidates (74.7 percent) who do not 

pass the assessment score at least one SEM below (a score of 127) the median passing score. 

Thus, their scores are well below the state standards that have been established (see Exhibit 32). 

Differences of this magnitude exceed those that might be attributed to measurement error. 

Exhibit 29

Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—Mathematics: Content Knowledge

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

All 153.08 

(15.07)

153.75 

(15.56)

152.19 

(15.45)

152.83 

(14.86)

153.08 

(14.91)

152.97 

(14.32)

154.24 

(15.00)

154.49 

(14.92)

Female 150.89 

(14.10)

152.09 

(14.82)

150.32 

(14.20)

151.11 

(13.42)

151.03 

(13.89)

150.68 

(12.88)

152.17 

(13.68)

152.03 

(13.63)

Male 155.91 

(15.81)

156.14 

(16.30)

154.52 

(16.57)

154.66 

(16.06)

155.26 

(15.64)

155.36 

(15.33)

156.37 

(15.97)

157.14 

(15.83)

AfricanAmerican144.51 

(13.82)

147.35 

(13.75)

145.11 

(13.27)

144.86 

(11.92)

145.64 

(11.24)

146.21 

(11.97)

146.11 

(10.79)

147.43 

(11.80)

White 153.46 

(15.02)

154.20 

(15.54)

152.69 

(15.40)

153.57 

(14.83)

153.32 

(15.01)

153.06 

(14.20)

154.46 

(14.92)

154.74 

(14.94)

No 

Experience

152.69 

(14.29)

153.76 

(15.14)

152.21 

(15.23)

153.18 

(14.67)

153.19 

(14.51)

152.69 

(13.81)

154.55 

(14.89)

155.07 

(14.81)

1–3 Years of 

Experience

152.29 

(15.54)

151.16 

(14.42)

150.44 

(14.55)

151.77 

(15.29)

152.09 

(14.77)

151.86 

(14.52)

152.88 

(14.57)

152.43 

(15.00)

More than 3 

Years of 

Experience

155.43 

(17.53)

155.50 

(17.26)

153.87 

(16.86)

151.98 

(14.74)

153.43 

(16.83)

153.78 

(15.56)

152.30 

(15.51)

153.36 

(15.00)

Exhibit Reads: Scores appear to be relatively stable across testing years. There are 

consistent gender, race and ethnicity differences.
44

Exhibit 30

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Gender, Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Mean scores for those who pass are substantially higher than for those 

who do not.
45

Exhibit 31

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Race, Ethnicity, Passing Status and 

Teaching Experience—Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Scores for white candidates are higher than for African-American 

candidates
46

Exhibit 32

Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Of the test-takers who do not pass, many have scores substantially below 

state passing standards.

Mean passing scores for all test-takers are disaggregated by experience. What is quite noticeable 

is the relatively large downward trend for all candidates, particularly teachers with experience. 

Such trends are not apparent for either those who pass or those who fail. However, the failure 

rates rise substantially over time, suggesting that the different pattern for all candidates compared 

with each of the subgroups (those who pass and those who fail) again is an instance of Simpson’s 

paradox (see Exhibit 33).
47

Exhibit 33

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Candidates who pass have much higher scores than those who fail. Failure 

rates increase substantially across testing years.

3. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxisscore for those who pass? How 

do these trends compare with those who do not pass? Does including the factors of 

gender, race, and experience variables in the analytic model help to explain any 

observed trends?

In the regression analyses, there is a small increase in scores for those who pass in the simple 

model. That trend is reversed if all candidates are considered (see Exhibit 34). 

Using the comprehensive model, there are again divergent results. Scores increase for those who 

pass. When taking into account all candidates, the overall trend is negative. In all cases, the 

magnitude of these differences is small.
48

Males score higher than females and these results are relatively consistent regardless of the 

sample. The race and ethnicity difference is larger when all candidates are considered as 

African-Americans who fail also score lower than whites who fail. Experience differences are 

larger when all candidates are considered due to the inclusion of candidates who do not pass. 
49

Exhibit 34

Regression Results for 0061 Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Variable Std Wts. –

Simple Model

Passers

Std Wts. –

Simple Model

All

Std Wts. –

Comprehensive 

Model

Passers

Std Wts. –

Comprehensive 

Model

All

Test Year .032* -.032* .020* -.033*

Gender -.149* -.128*

Race and ethnicity .132* .300*

Experience -.013+ -.087*

Adjusted R Squared .001* .001* .040* .124*

+ p = .039

Exhibit Reads: Scores increase across testing years for those who pass Praxis. Scores 

decrease when all candidates are included in the models.
50

F. TEST 0065—MATHEMATICS: PEDAGOGY

Background Information on the Test:

This test consists of three constructed-response essay questions, focused on planning, 

implementing and assessing instruction in mathematics, respectively

1. Have the demographic or performance characteristics of individuals who took each test 

changed across the years included? 

Across eight years, data from six states are included. Compared with the mathematics test of 

content (0061), far fewer candidates take this test, although the number of test-takers more than 

doubles. There appears to be a general increase in the proportion of African-Americans who 

take the test. No other obvious trends in the demographics of test-takers are apparent although 

there is much more fluctuation than for tests with larger samples of test-takers (see Exhibit 35).

Exhibit 35

Test-taker Characteristics—Mathematics: Pedagogy

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Sample Size 341 412 478 555 595 774 731 797

Percent Male 42.2% 38.8% 40.2% 40.9% 41.0% 42.0% 42.5% 43.7%

Percent African-American 11.7% 9.7% 11.3% 12.8% 12.9% 12.1% 15.5% 14.9%

Percent White 75.0% 79.1% 76.4% 73.4% 75.1% 74.4% 71.6% 67.1%

Percent Passed 81.8% 82.3% 76.2% 77.5% 79.7% 85.5% 86.2% 82.1%

Percent No Experience 46.7% 48.4% 50.3% 48.1% 49.9% 43.9% 40.2% 39.3%

Percent 1–3 Years of Experience27.6% 28.3% 30.3% 25.8% 28.4% 32.6% 36.4% 36.0%

Percent More than 3 Years of 

Experience 25.8% 23.3% 19.4% 26.2% 21.7% 23.6% 23.4% 24.7%

Exhibit Reads: The proportion of African-American candidates has increased slightly 

across testing years. The proportion of those with no prior teaching experience decreases 

across testing years. Passing rates are stable. The relatively small number of candidates 

leads to more year to year fluctuation than for other tests.

Mean Praxisscores for those who pass are disaggregated by gender, race, ethnicity and 

experience. Because of the small number of individuals in particular cells when data are 

disaggregated by experience, gender, race and ethnicity, more detailed figures by gender, race 

and ethnicity are not presented. 

2. Do mean Praxisscores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do the 

mean passing scores differ from those who do not pass as well or from all candidates 

considered together?
51

Exhibit 36

Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—Mathematics: Pedagogy

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

All 147.33 

(12.49)

149.35 

(13.52)

146.44 

(14.52)

151.06 

(15.84)

151.47 

(15.51)

153.74 

(16.75)

152.48 

(15.94)

155.05 

(17.67)

Female 148.40 

(12.21)

149.58 

(13.46)

147.28 

(14.69)

151.43 

(16.12)

151.37 

(15.88)

154.01 

(16.92)

153.04 

(15.61)

155.37 

(17.43)

Male 145.92 

(12.75)

148.94 

(13.66)

145.17 

(14.23)

150.48 

(15.42)

151.62 

(14.95)

153.38 

(16.55)

151.28 

(15.97)

154.73 

(17.90)

AfricanAmerican142.38 

(15.22)

140.65 

(10.69)

147.00 

(15.12)

145.00 

(13.01)

145.23 

(13.85)

152.02 

(15.32)

147.67 

(14.79)

153.28 

(14.89)

White 148.13 

(11.97)

149.65 

(13.54)

146.62 

(15.10)

152.00 

(16.21)

151.82 

(15.41)

154.14 

(17.17)

153.25 

(16.51)

155.67 

(18.44)

No 

Experience

147.20 

(12.63)

148.39 

(13.27)

145.88 

(13.59)

149.86 

(15.26)

151.59 

(15.17)

152.99 

(15.75)

151.50 

(15.50)

156.38 

(17.87)

1-3 Years 

of 

Experience

144.58 

(11.34)

148.71 

(13.45)

147.87 

(16.32)

152.74 

(16.91)

151.96 

(15.71)

155.59 

(18.38)

154.01 

(17.18)

155.21 

(17.57)

More than 

3 Years of 

Experience

150.00 

(12.69)

151.62 

(13.78)

144.93 

(13.95)

151.29 

(15.72)

149.57 

(16.62)

152.75 

(16.08)

151.76 

(15.04)

153.08 

(17.35)

Exhibit Reads: Scores appear to increase across testing years. There are consistent gender,

race, and ethnicity differences.

Mean passing scores for all test-takers are disaggregated by experience. There are large 

differences in scores between those who pass and those who fail. Those who pass have 

substantially higher scores than those who do not, on the order of approximately two standard 

deviations difference. The mean (and median) scores for those who pass and those who fail are 

152 (150) and 116 (115), respectively. Scores for those who pass are well above the median 

passing standards for states. Scores for those who fail are well below the median passing

standards for states (see Appendix B and Exhibit 37). 

There is more year-to-year variation in scores, likely attributable to the smaller sample size, and 

scores appear to increase for those who pass (see Exhibits 36 and 38). Plots are shown for those 

who pass, those who fail, and all candidates, regardless of passing status. Although failure rates 

fluctuate considerably, there appears to be a relatively consistent increase in scores for those who 

pass as well as for all candidates (see Exhibit 38).
52

Exhibit 37

Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Mathematics: Pedagogy

Exhibit Reads: Of the test-takers who do not pass, many have scores substantially below

state passing standards.
53

Exhibit 38

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

Mathematics: Pedagogy

Exhibit Reads: Candidates who pass have much higher scores than those who fail. Test 

scores increase substantially across testing years.

3. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxisscore for those who pass? How 

do these trends compare with those who do not pass? Does including the factors of gender, 

race, and experience variables in the analytic model help to explain any observed trends?

The regression analysis provides more detail about these trends. For all models there is a 

positive trend in scores over time (see Exhibit 39). 

In the comprehensive model of passers there are relatively small race, ethnicity and experience 

effects, with those having more experience having slightly higher mean scores. For all 

candidates, female candidates score slightly higher, the race and ethnicity difference is greater 

and experience is no longer significantly related to test performance. 
54

Exhibit 39

Regression Results—Mathematics: Pedagogy

Variable Std Wts.—

Simple Model

Passers

Std Wts.—

Simple Model

All

Std Wts.—

Comprehensive 

Model

Passers

Std Wts.—

Comprehensive 

Model

All

Test Year .151* .119* .156* .140*

Gender .029 ns .037+

Race and Ethnicity .097* .240*

Experience .052* .021 ns

Adjusted R Squared .023* .014* .033* .072*

+ p=.016

Exhibit Reads: Scores increase substantially across testing years. Gender effects are nonsignificant for those who pass the test.
55

G. TEST 0069—MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Background Information on the Test:

This test consists of 40 multiple-choice and three constructed-response items. The multiplechoice questions focus on arithmetic and basic algebra, geometry and measurement, functions 

and their graphs, and data, probability, statistical concepts and discrete mathematics. The 

constructed-response items require candidates to complete problem solving tasks in mathematics.

1. Have the demographic or performance characteristics of individuals who took each test 

changed across the years included? 

Data from 23 states are included. However, because the adoption of this test was relatively 

recent, only three years of data are analyzed, as shown in Exhibit 40. Across the three years, the 

proportion of passers appears to decline as does the percent of candidates with three or more 

years of experience. Conversely, those with no prior teaching experience make up a larger 

portion of the pool over these three years.

Exhibit 40

Test-taker Characteristics—Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge

2004 2005 2006

Sample Size 9,904 10,009 9,532

Percent Male 28.4% 27.3% 27.7%

Percent African-American 10.7% 11.8% 10.6%

Percent White 82.7% 80.2% 81.5%

Percent Passed 82.9% 80.2% 76.7%

Percent No Experience 44.0% 47.6% 48.0%

Percent 1–3 Years of Experience 22.8% 23.4% 23.6%

Percent More than 3 Years of Experience 33.2% 29.0% 28.4%

Exhibit Reads: Demographic characteristics are relatively stable across years while the 

passing rate has decreased, although it is difficult to detect trends with only three years of 

data. 

2. Do mean Praxisscores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do the 

mean passing scores differ from those who do not pass as well or from all candidates 

considered together?

Mean Praxisscores for those who pass are disaggregated by gender, race, ethnicity and 

experience. Male candidates who pass this test appear to have somewhat higher passing scores 

than female candidates who pass. Those who pass without prior teaching experience have scores 

several points higher than those with experience. White candidates have higher passing scores 

than African-American candidates (see Exhibits 41, 42, and 43).

The analysis reinforces the large difference in scores between those who pass and those who fail. 

Those who pass have substantially higher scores than those who do not, on the order of 
56

approximately two standard deviations difference. The mean (and median) scores for those who 

pass and those who fail are 169 (167) and 140 (140), respectively (sd = 17.7). Scores for those 

who pass are well above the median passing standards for states. The standard error of 

measurement (SEM) for this test is 6.6. Three-fifths of candidates (60.2 percent) who do not 

pass the assessment score at least one SEM below (a score of 142) the median passing score. 

Thus, their scores are well below the state standards that have been established (see Exhibit 44). 

Differences of this magnitude exceed those that might be attributed to measurement error. 

Exhibit 41

Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—Middle School Mathematics: 

Content Knowledge

2004 2005 2006

All 169.30 

(14.11)

168.54 

(14.15)

168.99 

(14.04)

Female 168.51 

(13.84)

167.69 

(13.80)

168.09 

(13.70)

Male 171.07 

(14.57)

170.36 

(14.78)

170.90 

(14.59)

African-American 159.61 

(11.43)

157.83 

(10.94)

158.58 

(11.14)

White 170.10 

(13.98)

169.53 

(13.97)

169.86 

(13.85)

No Experience 170.64 

(14.18)

169.51 

(14.22)

170.34 

(13.83)

1–3 Years of Experience 168.50 

(13.83)

167.77 

(14.04)

167.41 

(13.90)

More than 3 Years of Experience 167.56 

(13.91)

167.18 

(13.86)

167.71 

(14.37)

Exhibit Reads: Scores appear to be stable across testing years. There are consistent 

gender, race, ethnicity, and experience differences.
57

Exhibit 42

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Gender, Passing Status and Teaching Experience —

Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: For those who pass, scores for male candidate are higher than for female 

candidates. 
58

Exhibit 43

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Race, Ethnicity, Passing Status and 

Teaching Experience—Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Scores for white candidates are higher than for African-American 

candidates.
59

Exhibit 44

Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Of the test-takers who do not pass, many have scores substantially below 

state passing standards.

Mean passing scores for all test-takers are disaggregated by experience. Plots are shown for 

those who pass, those who fail, and all candidates, regardless of passing status. The percent of 

those who fail is presented at the bottom of the exhibit. Interestingly, while scores for those who 

pass, regardless of experience, seem to be very stable, there does seem to be a slight downward 

trend when all candidates are included. For passers, those who have no prior teaching 

experience appear to have slightly higher mean scores (see Exhibit 45). 
60

Exhibit 45

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Candidates who pass have much higher scores than those who fail. 

Candidates with no teaching experience have higher scores than experienced teachers.

3. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxisscore for those who pass? How 

do these trends compare with those who do not pass? Does including the factors of 

gender, race, and experience variables in the analytic model help to explain any 

observed trends?

In the regression analyses, for those who pass, mean scores do not vary across years. However, 

there is a very slight decline when all candidates are considered. However, though the trend is 

discernible, it is extremely small and explains a very small portion of the score variation (see 

Exhibit 46). 

The comprehensive analysis confirms that male candidates who pass have slightly higher scores 

than female candidates and white candidates who pass score higher than African-American 
61

candidates. There is also a main effect of experience with those having no teaching experience 

also having the highest scores. 

A slightly different picture emerges when all candidates are considered. There is a small, but 

significant, decline across selected years. Effects for race, ethnicity and experience are larger 

when all candidates are considered together. 

Though scores are stable for those who pass and actually increase over the three years for those 

who fail, the observed decrease for all candidates is attributable to the larger proportion of 

candidates who fail the test over time. 

Exhibit 46

Regression Results—Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge

Variable Std Wts.—

Simple Model

Passers

Std Wts.—

Simple Model

All

Std Wts.—

Comprehensive 

Model

Passers

Std Wts.—

Comprehensive 

Model

All

Test Year -.010 ns -.041* -.013 ns -.042*

Gender -.096* -.098*

Race and 

Ethnicity

.216* .305*

Experience -.079* -.123*

Adjusted R 

Squared

.000 ns .002* .063* .123*

Exhibit Reads: There is no change in scores across testing years for those who pass. There 

is a declining trend when all candidates are included. 
62

H. TEST 0431—GENERAL SCIENCE, PART 1: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Background Information on the Test:

This test consists of 60 multiple choice questions focused on basic principles of science, life 

science, earth and space science, technology and society, and methodology, measurement and 

safety. 

1. Have the demographic or performance characteristics of individuals who took each test 

changed across the years included? 

Across eight years, data from six states are included. Sample sizes are relatively small, causing 

greater year to year fluctuation in demographic characteristics, though no strong trends are 

evident. The number of candidates taking this test does not increase in the same way as for other 

tests during this time period. There appears to be a general decline in passing rates (see Exhibit 

47). 

Exhibit 47

Test-taker Characteristics—General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Sample Size 773 801 994 1,057 1,198 1,091 968 952

Percent Male 43.2% 45.8% 42.9% 50.0% 44.3% 43.6% 46.6% 42.3%

Percent African-American 6.4% 4.3% 5.3% 5.6% 6.4% 6.9% 5.7% 5.7%

Percent White 82.2% 81.8% 77.3% 77.0% 76.3% 74.2% 75.9% 76.3%

Percent Passed 92.1% 89.9% 90.6% 91.0% 85.3% 86.2% 86.9% 84.7%

Percent No Experience 59.7% 63.1% 62.3% 63.7% 59.7% 60.8% 58.9% 62.6%

Percent 1–3 Years of 

Experience

20.4% 18.3% 18.8% 19.4% 22.0% 20.3% 23.6% 21.0%

Percent More than 3 Years of 

Experience

19.9% 18.6% 18.9% 16.9% 18.3% 19.0% 17.5% 16.4%

Exhibit Reads: Demographic characteristics are relatively stable across years while the 

passing rate has decreased. The relatively small number of candidates leads to more year 

to year fluctuation than for other tests.

The mean Praxisscores for those who pass are disaggregated by gender, race, ethnicity and 

experience. Because of the small number of individuals in particular cells if data are 

disaggregated by experience, gender, race and ethnicity, more detailed figures by gender, race 

and ethnicity are not presented. 

2. Do mean Praxisscores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do the 

mean passing scores differ from those who do not pass as well or from all candidates 

considered together?

Male candidates appear to outperform female candidates and mean scores for white candidates 

are higher than for African-American candidates (see Exhibit 48). There are large differences in 
63

scores between those who pass and those who fail. Those who pass have substantially higher 

scores than those who do not, on the order of approximately two standard deviations difference. 

The mean (and median) scores for those who pass and those who fail are 169 (168) and 139

(140), respectively (sd = 15.50). Scores for those who pass are well above the median passing 

standards for states. For those who fail, scores are well below the median passing standards for 

states (see Appendix B and Exhibit 49). The standard error of measurement (SEM) for this test is 

7. One half of the candidates (51.2 percent) who do not pass the assessment score at least one 

SEM below (a score of 141) the median passing score. Thus, their scores are well below the 

state standards that have been established. Differences of this magnitude exceed those that might 

be attributed to measurement error. 

Exhibit 48

Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—General Science, Part 1: 

Content Knowledge

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

All 167.58 

(12.09)

169.09 

(12.58)

167.94 

(12.61)

169.29 

(13.08)

169.89 

(12.31)

169.76 

(11.67)

169.93 

(11.90)

168.41 

(11.77)

Female 165.78 

(11.31)

167.08 

(12.17)

164.89 

(11.58)

166.09 

(12.18)

167.41 

(11.44)

166.97 

(10.94)

166.71 

(10.87)

165.96 

(11.08)

Male 169.87 

(12.66)

171.39 

(12.68)

171.72 

(12.84)

172.25 

(13.20)

172.71 

(12.65)

172.94 

(11.77)

172.84 

(12.11)

171.21 

(11.98)

AfricanAmerican156.61 

(8.26)

157.88 

(9.17)

158.13 

(10.03)

159.70 

(12.07)

161.18 

(9.74)

160.73 

(8.16)

159.21 

(9.34)

157.00 

(6.41)

White 168.13 

(11.96)

169.53 

(12.24)

169.04 

(12.61)

170.47 

(12.84)

170.74 

(12.35)

170.59 

(11.58)

170.22 

(11.50)

169.81 

(11.87)

No 

Experience

166.84 

(11.86)

169.12 

(12.67)

168.36 

(12.26)

169.60 

(13.05)

169.81 

(12.15)

169.63 

(10.97)

169.86 

(11.52)

168.17 

(11.35)

1–3 Years of 

Experience

167.53 

(11.45)

166.65 

(11.59)

166.40 

(13.17)

168.17 

(13.08)

169.90 

(12.27)

168.94 

(12.56)

169.05 

(11.53)

168.43 

(12.41)

More than 3 

Years of 

Experience

168.76 

(12.86)

171.22 

(12.95)

167.92 

(13.00)

168.72 

(13.42)

168.80 

(13.24)

170.36 

(12.96)

169.17 

(13.62)

170.35 

(12.85)

Exhibit Reads: Scores appear to be stable across testing years. There are consistent

gender, race and ethnicity differences.

Mean passing scores for all test-takers are disaggregated by experience. Plots are shown for 

those who pass, those who fail, and all candidates, regardless of passing status. Although failure 

rates fluctuate considerably, there appears to be a relatively consistent increase in scores for 

those who pass as well as for all candidates. There is more year-to-year variation in scores, 

likely attributable to the smaller sample size (see Exhibit 50).
64

Exhibit 49

Distribution of Scores in 2006 for General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Of the test-takers who do not pass, many have scores substantially below 

state passing standards.
65

Exhibit 50

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge 

Exhibit Reads: Candidates who pass have much higher scores than those who fail. 

3. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxisscore for those who pass? How 

do these trends compare with those who do not pass? Does including the factors of 

gender, race, and experience variables in the analytic model help to explain any 

observed trends?

The regression analysis provides more detail about these trends. There is a small positive trend 

over time for those who pass the test in both the simple and comprehensive models. For all 

candidates, there is no trend effect (see Exhibit 51).

In the comprehensive models, findings for passers and all candidates are similar for variables 

other than the test year trend. Male candidate score higher than females, white candidates score 

higher than African-American candidates, and those with experience have slightly higher scores 

than those without experience. 
66

Exhibit 51

Regression Results—General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge

Variable Std Wts.—

Simple Model

Passers

Std Wts.—

Simple Model

All

Std Wts.—

Comprehensive 

Model

Passers

Std Wts.—

Comprehensive 

Model

All

Test Year .035* -.016 ns .041* -.001 ns

Gender -.218* -.218*

Race and 

Ethnicity

.194* .288*

Experience .041* .032*

Adjusted R 

Squared

.001* .000 ns .087* .130*

Exhibit Reads: Scores increase across testing years for those who pass. There is no 

discernible trend when all candidates are included.
67

I. TEST 0571—EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCES: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Background Information on the Test:

This test consists of 100 multiple-choice questions, focused on basic scientific principles of earth 

and space sciences, tectonics and internal earth processes, earth materials and surface processes, 

history of the earth and its life-forms, earth’s atmosphere and hydrosphere and astronomy.

1. Have the demographic or performance characteristics of individuals who took each test 

changed across the years included? 

Across five years, data from 12 states are included. The sample for this test is relatively small 

and does not increase a great deal, and there are very few African-American test-takers. Thus, 

there are several points in this analysis in which data on race and ethnicity are not reported due to 

insufficient sample size in particular cells (see Exhibit 52). 

Exhibit 52

Test-taker Characteristics—Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Sample Size 631 874 809 796 829

Percent Male 50.9% 49.7% 47.7% 48.6% 48.7%

Percent African-American 3.4% 3.5% 2.7% 2.9% 2.1%

Percent White 86.8% 88.8% 92.2% 90.2% 93.1%

Percent Passed 86.8% 83.9% 82.8% 87.3% 80.2%

Percent No Experience 54.1% 56.1% 52.1% 56.4% 58.7%

Percent 1-3 Years of Experience 26.3% 26.2% 28.5% 26.9% 23.6%

Percent More than 3 Years of 

Experience

19.6% 17.7% 19.4% 16.7% 17.7%

Exhibit Reads: Demographic characteristics are relatively stable across years while the 

passing rate has decreased. The relatively small number of candidates leads to more yearto-year fluctuation than for other tests.

Mean Praxisscores for those who pass are disaggregated by gender, race, ethnicity and 

experience. Because of the small number of individuals in particular cells if data are 

disaggregated by experience, gender, race and ethnicity, more detailed figures by gender, race 

and ethnicity are not presented (see Exhibit 53). 

2. Do mean Praxisscores differ by gender, race, and experience? Additionally, do the 

mean passing scores differ from those who do not pass as well or from all candidates 

considered together?

There are large difference in scores between those who pass and those who fail. Those who pass 

have substantially higher scores than those who do not, on the order of approximately two

standard deviations difference. The mean (and median) scores for those who pass and those who 

fail are 169 (169) and 136 (138), respectively (sd = 17.5). Scores for those who pass are well 
68

above the median passing standards for states. For those who fail, scores are well below the 

median passing standards for states (see Appendix B and Exhibit 54). The standard error of 

measurement (SEM) for this test is 5.3. More than three quarters of candidates (78.2 percent) 

who do not pass the assessment score at least one SEM below (a score of 145) the median 

passing score. Thus, their scores are well below the state standards that have been established 

(see Exhibit 56). Differences of this magnitude exceed those that might be attributed to 

measurement error. 

Exhibit 53

Mean Praxis Scores (SD) of Those Who Pass by Year—Earth and Space Sciences: 

Content Knowledge

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

All 170.42 

(14.12)

169.99 

(12.68)

169.05 

(12.59)

168.85 

(12.51)

167.45 

(12.74)

Female 167.61 

(14.50)

167.45 

(12.00)

166.53 

(12.39)

166.01 

(12.39)

165.52 

(12.01)

Male 172.86 

(13.34)

172.39 

(12.84)

171.41 

(12.47)

171.49 

(11.98)

169.31 

(13.20)

African-American NR* NR NR NR NR

White 171.43 

(13.75)

170.12 

(12.62)

169.25 

(12.51)

168.85 

(12.29)

167.57 

(12.67)

No Experience 170.54 

(13.68)

169.85 

(12.84)

170.19 

(12.03)

169.30 

(11.74)

167.74 

(12.33)

1–3 Years of Experience 168.99 

(14.33)

169.16 

(11.84)

165.87 

(12.78)

166.58 

(13.50)

165.71 

(13.00)

More than 3 Years of 

Experience

172.26 

(14.78)

171.71 

(13.33)

169.97 

(13.25)

168.95 

(13.20)

167.92 

(13.50)

NR* - Data are not reported because of insufficient cell size in some cases (n<15).

Exhibit Reads: Scores appear to decline across testing years. There are consistent gender 

differences.
69

Exhibit 54

Distribution of Scores in 2006 for Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Of the test-takers who do not pass, many have scores substantially below 

state passing standards.

Mean passing scores for all test-takers are disaggregated by experience. Plots are shown for 

those who pass, those who fail, and all candidates, regardless of passing status. Although failure 

rates fluctuate considerably, there appears to be a relatively consistent decrease in scores for 

those who pass as well as for all candidates (see Exhibit 55). There is more year-to-year 

variation in scores, likely attributable to the smaller sample size, and scores appear to decline 

over time for those who pass, as well as for all candidates (see Exhibit 55).
70

Exhibit 55

Mean Praxis Scores of Test-takers by Passing Status and Teaching Experience—

Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge

Exhibit Reads: Candidates who pass have much higher scores than those who fail. There 

is a decline in scores across testing years.

3. Across years, is there any evidence of a trend in Praxisscore for those who pass? How 

do these trends compare with those who do not pass? Does including the factors of 

gender, race, and experience variables in the analytic model help to explain any 

observed trends?

The regression analysis provides more detail about these trends. For all models there is a 

declining trend in scores over time (see Exhibit 56). 

In the comprehensive model for passers there are gender, race and ethnicity effects as male 

candidate score higher than female candidates and white candidates score higher than AfricanAmerican candidates, with those having more experience having slightly higher mean scores. 

For all candidates, females score slightly higher, the race and ethnicity difference is greater and 

experience is no longer significantly related to test performance.
71

Exhibit 56

Regression Results—Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge

Variable Std Wts. –Simple 

Model

Passers

Std Wts. –Simple 

Model

All

Std Wts. –

Comprehensive 

Model

Passers

Std Wts. –

Comprehensive 

Model

All

Test Year -.076* -.065* -.097* -.088*

Gender -.196* -.196*

Race and 

Ethnicity

.113* .261*

Experience -.027 ns -.026 ns

Adjusted R 

Square

.005* .004* .060* .113*

+ p=.016

Exhibit Reads: Scores decline across testing years for those who pass as well as for all 

candidates
72

J. THE RELATIONSHIP OF STATE PASSING STANDARDS TO MEAN PASSING 

SCORES AND PASSING RATES 

States set passing scores for particular tests in light of a number of considerations. Initially, 

states conduct a standard-setting process in which committees make judgments of expected skill 

levels for beginning teachers. These judgments lead to a recommended passing score, which 

relevant state authorities take into account along with other considerations, including supply and 

demand for particular certifications in the state, potential impact on teacher diversity, and 

political interests in setting passing standards at particular levels. After considering all of this 

information, the state then endorses a particular passing standard for candidates applying for 

licensure.

This process results in states setting different passing standards, which are displayed in Appendix

B. In this section, we simply describe the relationship of state passing standards to the mean 

score of passers and to passing rates. While it might be intuitive to assume that higher passing 

standards would be associated with higher passing scores and lower passing rates, because these 

passing standards are defined in particular states, they may be drawing on differentially qualified 

pools of candidates. For example, if State X has a population of teacher candidates who 

routinely score higher on a particular test than candidates from State Y, then setting a higher 

passing standard in State X might not result in a lower passing rate than for State Y. Similarly, if 

candidates from State X score well above existing passing scores, then higher passing scores for 

that state might not have a substantial impact on the average score of passers—these individuals 

would have passed regardless of the passing score. However, if the performance of candidates 

from the two states is relatively similar, then we would expect that states with higher passing 

scores would have higher overall scores for those who pass and lower passing rates. In this 

section, we test the relationship between passing standards to average scores and passing rates. 

For this set of analyses, we determine mean passing scores and passing rates for each passing 

standard set by a state over the course of the years included for each analysis. Thus, if a 

particular state changed its passing score during the included years, two data points from that 

state are included in the analysis.

We organize the analyses by general subject areas: elementary education, English, mathematics 

and science. For each subject, we first present charts describing the relationship of passing 

standards to mean scores for those who pass followed by charts describing the relationship of 

passing standards to passing rates. Specific state results are not identified. 

An important caveat is that the regression lines presented are based on a relatively small number 

of data points. Therefore, the size of any particular correlation coefficient can be dramatically 

affected by a single point. Thus, the graphs, taken together, begin to provide a sense of these 

relationships, but the size of the coefficients and what they might mean should be interpreted 

with caution.

For the Elementary Education: Content Knowledge test, there is a nonsignificant relationship 

between state passing standard and mean score for passers (see Exhibit 57). The relationship is 

very strong for the few states included for the Elementary Education: Pedagogy test. For both 

tests, passing rates are lower for states with higher passing standards (see Exhibit 58). 
73

Exhibit 57

Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Mean Score by State for Passers—

Elementary Education

Exhibit Reads: The relationship between passing standards and mean scores for passers is 

not significant for the Elementary Education: Content Knowledge test.
74

Exhibit 58

Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Passing Rate by State for Passers—

Elementary Education

Exhibit Reads: The proportion of candidates who pass is lower in states with higher 

passing standards.
75

For the two English language tests (English Language, Literature and Composition: Content 

Knowledge and English Language, Literature and Composition: Pedagogy), there is a strong,

positive relationship between state passing standards and mean score for passers (see Exhibit 59). 

For both tests, passing rates are lower for states with higher passing standards (see Exhibit 60). 

Exhibit 59

Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Mean Score by State for Passers—

English Language, Literature, and Composition

Exhibit Reads: Mean scores for passers are higher in states with higher passing standards.
76

Exhibit 60

Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Passing Rate by State for Passers—

English Language, Literature, and Composition

Exhibit Reads: The proportion of candidates who pass is lower in states with higher 

passing standards.
77

For the three mathematics tests (Math: Content Knowledge, Math: Pedagogy and Middle School 

Math: Content Knowledge), there is a strong positive relationship between state passing 

standards and mean score for passers (see Exhibit 61). Passing rates are lower with increased 

passing standards for the middle school test but no such trend is apparent for the Math: Content 

test (see Exhibit 62). 

Exhibit 61

Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Mean Score by State for Passers—Mathematics

Exhibit Reads: Mean scores for passers are higher in states with higher passing standards.
78

Exhibit 62

Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Passing Rate by State for Passers—Mathematics

Exhibit Reads: Passing rates are lower for states with higher standards for the Middle 

School Mathematics test but no such relationship is observed for the Math: Content 

Knowledge test.
79

For the two science tests (Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge and General Science, 

Part 1: Content Knowledge), there is strong positive relationship only for Earth and Space 

Science (see Exhibit 63). Passing rates are lower for states with higher passing standards for 

General Science only (see Exhibit 64). 

Exhibit 63

Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Mean Score by State for Passers—Sciences

Exhibit Reads: Mean scores for passers are higher in states with higher passing standards 

for Earth and Space Sciences.
80

Exhibit 64

Scatter Plots of Passing Standards vs. Passing Rate by State for Passers—Sciences

Exhibit Reads: Passing rates are lower in states with higher passing standards for General 

Science only.

Summary. For seven of the nine tests reviewed, individuals who pass the tests in states with 

higher passing scores have, on average, higher scores than for individuals in states with lower 

passing scores. For six of the nine tests included in the analysis, passing rates are lower when 

passing standards are higher. The tests that do not show such a pattern are in mathematics and 

science, tests that tend to have the lowest passing rates in general.
81

IV. SUMMARY

This study analyzed changes in teacher licensure scores during recent years. Nine Praxistests 

were analyzed. Six of the tests focused on content knowledge and the others focused on 

pedagogy. The primary question was whether or not there were discernible trends in scores 

during the recent past, a period in which there has been a policy emphasis on improving the 

quality of the teaching force. Praxistests selected for study included:

1. Elementary Education: Pedagogy (0012)

2. Elementary Education: Content Knowledge (0014)

3. English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge (0041)

4. English Language, Literature, and Composition: Pedagogy (0043)

5. Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0061)

6. Mathematics: Pedagogy (0065)

7. Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0069)

8. General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge (0431)

9. Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge (0571)

The study appropriately focuses on individuals who pass the Praxistests, for it is these 

individuals who will be allowed to teach in the public school system. However, we also 

examined the performance of all candidates, regardless of passing status, in order to provide a 

broader view of trends for all individuals who took Praxis.

FINDINGS

The adoption of tests by states varies widely. States adopt different tests at different times and

apply quite different passing standards. This study attempted to make fair trend comparisons 

across years by including a stable set of states within each analysis and applying appropriate 

state- and year-specific passing standards for each test. Thus, different combinations of states

and years are used in each of the analyses. Because states have been transitioning to new testing 

requirements, some analyses include only three years of data, while others include up to eight 

years.

Changes in mean test scores over years are extremely small. While the study identifies many 

significant trend effects, the magnitude of these effects is very low. Of course, because the 

samples include thousands of teachers, even small differences can be statistically significant. 

However, the practical import of any observed trends on student outcomes is likely to be 

minimal. 

Those who pass have Praxisscores substantially higher than those who do not. This has two 

practical implications. First, licensure tests are filtering out individuals who attain very low 

scores on tests of content knowledge. Second, it is unlikely that many of these low-scoring 

individuals will achieve a passing score simply through taking the test multiple times without 

learning more of the content that is measured on the test. The difference between the mean 

passing score and state standards far exceeds any score variations that might be attributed to 

measurement error.
82

Interpretations based on those who pass differ from interpretations based on all candidates. 

When looking at just those who pass, there is either no trend or an increase for the majority of 

tests. However, when all candidates are included, the majority of tests show a decline (see 

Exhibit 65). This is due to the fact that, for many tests, the proportion of individuals who fail has 

increased over time. Because there is no prerequisite for taking a Praxistest and also because 

increasing standards in many states (see Appendix B) are increasing failure rates, the critical 

policy question should focus on the characteristics of those who pass the tests.

Trend patterns vary across tests. Trends vary across the nine tests included in this study. For 

those who pass, three show positive trends, two show declines, and the remaining four do not 

trend in any particular direction (see Exhibit 65). By subject area findings are:

Elementary Education—No trend for content, Negative trend for pedagogy.

English Language, Literature and Composition—No trend for content, No trend for 

pedagogy.

Mathematics—Positive trend for content, Positive for pedagogy, No trend for middle 

school mathematics.

Science—Positive for general science content, Negative for earth and space sciences 

content.
83

Exhibit 65

Study Summary of Trends in Scores Across Testing Years Analyzed

Praxis Test Number

Years

Simple

Passers

Simple

All

Comp

Passers

Comp

All

0012 Elementary Education: Pedagogy 6 Negative Negative Negative Negative

0014 Elementary Education: Content 

Knowledge

3 No Trend Negative No Trend No Trend

0041 English Language, Literature, and 

Composition: Content Knowledge

8 No Trend Negative No Trend Negative

0043 English Language, Literature, and 

Composition: Pedagogy

8 No Trend No Trend No Trend Positive

0061 Mathematics: Content Knowledge 8 Positive Negative Positive Negative

0065 Mathematics: Pedagogy 8 Positive Positive Positive Positive

0069 Middle School Mathematics: 

Content Knowledge

3 No Trend Negative No Trend Negative

0431 General Science, Part 1: Content 

Knowledge

8 Positive No Trend Positive Positive

0571 Earth and Space Sciences: Content 

Knowledge

5 Negative Negative Negative Negative

NOTE: The simple model examines mean score changes over year. The comprehensive model 

includes gender, race, and experience variables.

Exhibit Reads: Tests vary in the number of years included in the analysis and in trends 

over years. Conclusions based on passers are substantially different than if all candidates 

are included.
84

Exhibit 66

Study Summary of Trends by Gender and Experience (Passers)

Test Gender Experience

0012 Elementary Education: Pedagogy F I

0014 Elementary Education: Content Knowledge M E

0041 English Language, Literature, and Composition: 

Content Knowledge

M E

0043 English Language, Literature, and Composition: 

Pedagogy

F E

0061 Mathematics: Content Knowledge M I

0065 Mathematics: Pedagogy 0 E

0069 Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge M I

0431 General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge M E

0571 Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge M 0

(F=females score higher; M=males score higher; E=experienced score higher, I=inexperienced 

score higher)

Exhibit Reads: Gender and experience differences vary across the different tests studied. 

Differences tend to be relatively small.

There has been an increase in the number of individuals taking the Praxis IItests. For 

many of the tests included in the analyses, the size of the sample of test-takers nearly doubled 

over the different range of years included. At the same time that a substantial increase in testtakers was occurring, there was very little movement in scores. There is no clear reason for why 

this pattern of data exists. It appears that the increase in candidates has not materially affected 

the overall preparation of individuals to succeed on the respective tests.

Race and ethnicity differences are consistent across tests. Across all tests, white candidates 

who pass have higher mean scores than African-American candidates.

Gender differences vary by test. Female candidates who pass have higher mean scores than 

male candidates on two of the three pedagogy tests included in the analysis. Male candidates 

who pass have higher mean scores on the six content knowledge tests analyzed (see Exhibit 66). 

Gender differences tend to be relatively small.

Experience effects vary across tests. Test-takers who pass and have prior teaching experience 

have slightly higher scores than those without experience for five tests. Those without 

experience have higher scores for both mathematics content tests (see Exhibit 66). Experience 

differences tend to be relatively small.

Passing standards are related to mean passing scores and passing rates in predictable ways. 

Given relatively sparse data, there does appear to be a general pattern that states with higher 

passing standards have candidates who have higher mean scores. Passing rates are typically 

lower as well, though there are notable exceptions in mathematics and science.
85

V. CONCLUSIONS

This study posed the question of whether teacher licensure scores have changed across recent 

years. The fact that Praxistests are administered across multiple states allowed us to explore this 

issue in a relatively thorough fashion. The overarching conclusion is that scores during the

periods analyzed have not moved substantially in either direction. There are a number of 

findings and study limitations worth further discussion.

Perhaps the most striking finding in this study is the very large disparity in scores between those 

who pass and those who do not. This is not the case of having a large number of candidates 

hovering near a passing standard such that if people simply took a test one or two more times, 

their status could change to pass. Instead the Praxistests appear to serve the function of filtering 

out individuals with extremely poor test performance. 

Aside from this score disparity, it is also true that passing rates for many of the tests have 

decreased over time. This might be due to increases in passing scores established by some states

during the course of the study. However, that may not be the only reason and should be explored 

further. There is a need to understand who is taking the tests, including the nature of their 

preparation and academic qualifications. Further work needs to explore the extent to which 

failure rate changes can be explained by the increase in passing scores. 

Certainly, there has been a systematic increase in the number of individuals taking these tests 

over the time periods studied, for experienced and inexperienced individuals alike. If this were 

simply a matter of more unqualified individuals taking the tests, we would have expected to see 

consistent decreases in scores for test-takers. This is no evidence to support any systematic 

decreases for candidates regardless of experience level. Thus, it might be useful to begin to gain 

a better understanding, over time, of who is taking teacher licensure tests, why they are taking 

them, and the extent to which they enter the teaching force.

The study makes clear why it is so important to clarify whether the sample is comprised only of 

passers or of all candidates. Different inferences will be made about trends depending on which 

sample is used. We contend that looking at passers is the most policy-relevant focus, because 

these are the individuals who are actually meeting the teaching qualifications established by 

states. The legitimate policy concern has to do with the qualifications of prospective teachers, 

not prospective test-takers.

The different inferences made as a function of the sample included in the analyses appear to be 

explained by Simpson’s paradox. For a number of tests, we observe more positive trends for 

passers than for the whole sample. Yet, for most of these tests, we also see more positive trends 

for those who fail. This apparent contradiction is a classic example of Simpson’s paradox. The 

increasing proportion of candidates who fail the test can mean that the overall means can 

decrease at the same time that the means for both those who pass and those who fail either 

increase or remain stable.

Experience factors are relatively small except for the Middle School Mathematics test. For this 

test, those new to the field of teaching score substantially higher than more experienced testtakers. This finding is consistent with that of Gitomer (2007), which showed that the middle 

school test was being taken by a large number of elementary trained teachers who were teaching 

in middle school and needed to be subject matter certified under the Highly Qualified Teacher 
86

provision of ESEA. It is very possible that this group of teachers was not as well prepared in 

mathematics as newly prepared math teachers who are targeting middle school for a career path.

Gitomer (2007), primarily on the basis of SAT scores, concluded that the academic quality of 

teachers had improved a substantial amount over recent years. This begs the question of whether 

there are reasons to explain these more modest findings compared with the prior study. We 

believe there are a number of critical differences between the studies that might account for the 

somewhat different findings.

Perhaps the most important distinction concerns the cohorts being sampled. Gitomer (2007) 

compared Praxis candidates from 1994–97 to those from 2002–05, which actually contains data 

that vary by 11 years (1994 to 2005). In the present study, no data are included prior to 1999. It 

was during the late 1990s that concerted efforts were made to include testing as part of policies 

to address teacher quality issues. As examples, the Higher Education Act was reauthorized and 

included requirements for teacher education institutions to report their students’ licensure test 

performance. The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) 

developed new standards for accreditation that focused much more on student performance in 

teacher education programs. Other state and institutional efforts also were being put in place at 

this time. 

Thus, if these policies had an effect, it is possible that they were more visible using a lens that 

begins in 1994. It is plausible that any changes brought about by this confluence of policies were 

well in place by 1999. Indeed, if we look at just the five tests in this study for which there are 

eight years of data, we obtain a more positive view than one which looks at all nine tests, 

including those using a briefer lens. Of the five tests with data going back to 1999, three show 

positive trends and two show no trend. 

In preliminary analyses, we also observe that, when positive trends are observed, they are largely 

due to score increases in states that had increased their passing scores at some point during the 

time period studied. Higher passing scores are unambiguous indicators of more rigorous 

requirements being applied within a state. Less certain is whether moving to the new Praxistests 

also reflects more rigorous requirements, although that was the clear intention when the new 

tests were designed. The improvement in SAT scores reported by Gitomer may be accounted for 

by the increased standards brought about by the adoption of Praxis. However, there is no 

empirical way to validate this speculation.

It is possible that more substantial changes would be evident if we could include the years 1994–

98. Unfortunately, this is just speculative and there is no way of examining this hypothesis. 

However, given when the policy activity occurred, changing the window of examination may 

explain the variation in findings.

Of course, the measures themselves may be more or less sensitive to policy changes and 

instructional interventions. On the one hand, if greater emphasis is placed on entrance into 

teacher education, then we might expect an increase in college admissions scores, particularly if 

those scores are part of the admissions equation. If Praxisscores reflect an undergraduate 

curriculum that has stayed fairly consistent across years, we might expect less change in those 

scores. Again, this is speculative but creates hypotheses that might be worth further study. 
87

Finally, we do not understand how the increased presence of alternate route candidates 

influences trends in test scores. It is possible that many of these students bring in relatively 

strong academic skills as measured by SAT scores. However, they may have a wide range 

course work as background which may or may not prepare them well for the Praxistests. The 

current system of data collection does not capture the nature of teacher preparation routes, so this 

issue would need to be studied separately.

Taken together, for a limited set of Praxistests across a number of recent years, we see little or 

no change in scores. Policies that gave significant attention to teacher licensure test performance, 

if they did have an impact as suggested by Gitomer (2007), may have already had their effect 

prior to the years studied in this analysis.
88
89

REFERENCES

Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 105-244, §. 112 Stat 1581 (1998).

Blyth, C. R. (1972). On Simpson's Paradox and the sure-thing principle. Journal of the American 

Statistical Association, 67(338), pp. 364–366.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 

21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., et 

al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (NCES. No. OE-38001). Washington, 

D.C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, §. 115 Stat 1425 (2002).

Feistritzer, C. E. (2007). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis 2007.

Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Information. 

Gitomer, D. H. (2007). Teacher quality in a changing policy landscape: Improvements in the 

teacher pool. (ETS Policy Information Report). Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing 

Service. 

Gitomer, D. H., Latham, A. S., and Ziomek, R. (1999). The academic quality of prospective 

teachers: The impact of admissions and licensure testing (ETS Teaching and Learning 

Report Series, ETS RR-03-25). Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., and Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student 

achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361–396.

Kerr, D. H. (1983). Teaching competence and teacher education in the United States. In L. S. 

Shulman and G. Sykes (eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 126–149). New 

York: Longman.

Koerner, J. D. (1963). The miseducation of American teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research (1st 

ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2006). Professional standards for the 

accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Retrieved Sept. 29, 

2008, from 

http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/NCATE%20Standards%202008.pdf.

National Educational Association (1895). Report of the Committee of Fifteen on elementary 

education: With the reports of the sub-committees; on the training of teachers; on the 

correlation of studies in elementary education; on the organization of city school systems. 

New York: American Book Company.

State of Pennsylvania. (2007). 22 Pa. Code § 354.

Teacher Education Accreditation Council. (n.d.). TEAC accreditation process overview. 

Retrieved Sept. 29, 2008, from http://teac.org/accreditation/index.asp.
90
91

APPENDIX A

INITIAL YEAR OF PRAXIS TEST USE BY STATE FOR EACH ASSESSMENT

Exhibit A.1

Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut Score—

Elementary Education: Content Area Exercises, Pedagogy (0012)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

CT X

DC X

GA X

HI X

MD X

NV X

RI X

SC X

Total 

(Cumulative) 1 2 2 4 4 6 7 7 7 7 8 8
92

Exhibit A.2 

Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut Score—

Elementary Education Content Knowledge (0014)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK X

AL X

CO X

DC X

DE X

ID X

KY X

LA X

MD X

ME X

MN X

MS X

NH X

NJ X

OH X

RI X

SD X

TN X

TX X

UT X

VA X

VT X

WA X

WY X

Total 

(Cumulative) 3 6 8 11 18 23 24
93

Exhibit A.3

Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut Score—

English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge (0041)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK X

AL X

AR X

CO X

CT X

DC X

DE X

GA X

HI X

ID X

IN X

KS X

KY X

LA X

MD X

ME X

MN X

MO X

MS X

ND X

NH X

NJ X

NV X

OH X

OR X

PA X

SC X

SD X

TN X

UT X

VA X

VT X

WA X

WI X

WV X

Total 

(Cumulative) 3 6 8 9 11 19 21 22 24 26 30 34 35
94

Exhibit A.4

Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut Score—

English Language, Literature, and Composition: Pedagogy (0043)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AR X

DC X

HI X

LA X

MD X

NV X

TN X

Total 

(Cumulative) 1 2 2 2 2 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
95

Exhibit A.5

Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut Score—

Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0061)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK X

AL X

AR X

CO X

CT X

DC X

DE X

GA X

HI X

ID X

IN X

KS X

KY X

LA X

MD X

ME X

MN X

MO X

MS X

ND X

NH X

NJ X

OH X

OR X

PA X

SC X

SD X

TN X

UT X

VA X

VT X

WA X

WI X

WV X

Total 

(Cumulative) 1 4 5 9 11 17 18 21 22 25 29 33 34
96

Exhibit A.6

Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut Score—

Mathematics: Pedagogy (0065)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AR X

DC X

HI X

MD X

NV X

TN X

Total 

(Cumulative) 1 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
97

Exhibit A.7

Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut Score—

Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0069)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK X

AL X

CT X

DE X

GA X

HI X

ID X

IN X

KS X

KY X

LA X

MD X

ME X

MN X

MO X

MS X

NC X

ND X

NH X

NJ X

NV X

OH X

OR X

PA X

RI X

SC X

SD X

TN X

VA X

WA X

WV X

Total 

(Cumulative) 1 5 8 9 10 14 23 26 31
98

Exhibit A.8 

Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut Score—

General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge (0431)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK X

DC X

HI X

NJ X

NV X

OR X

TN X

Total 

(Cumulative) 1 4 4 4 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
99

Exhibit A.9

Initial Year of Test-taking Sample Stability With Established Cut Score—

Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge (0571)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK X

AL X

AR X

CT X

DE X

ID X

IN X

KS X

KY X

MD X

MN X

MO X

NC X

ND X

NH X

NJ X

OH X

PA X

SD X

TN X

UT X

VA X

VT X

WA X

Total 

(Cumulative) 1 4 8 9 11 12 14 20 22 24
100
101

APPENDIX B

PASSING SCORE ESTABLISHED BY EACH STATE FOR EACH ASSESSMENT BY 

YEAR

Exhibit B.1

Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Elementary Education: 

Content Area Exercises, Pedagogy (0012)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

CT 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148

DC 148 148 148 148 148 148 148

GA 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137

HI 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

LA 137 137 137 137 137

MD 150 150 150 150 150 150

NV 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

RI 148 148

SC 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

TN 138

UT 150

NOTE: For this exhibit Bolded* cells indicate cases in which a state raised the passing score of a 

test and italicized* cells indicate cases when a state lowered the passing score of a test.
102

Exhibit B.2

Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Elementary Education Content Knowledge (0014)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK 143 143 143

AL 137 137 137

CO 147 147 147 147

DC 145 145

DE 151

ID 143 143 143

KY 148 148 148

LA 147 147 147 150* 150 150

MD 136 142* 142 142 142 142 142

ME 145 145

MN 140 140 140 145* 145

MS 153 153 153 153 153 153

NH 148 148

NJ 133 133 133 133 141* 141 141

OH 143 143 143

PA 142

RI 145 145 145

SD 137 137

TN 140 140 140 140

TX 151 151 151 151 151 151 151

UT 150 150

VA 143 143 143 143 143

VT 148 148 148 148 148 148

WA 141 141 141 141

WI 147 147 147
103

Exhibit B.3

Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—English Language, Literature, and Composition: 

Content Knowledge (0041)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK 158 158 158 158 158 158 158

AL 151 151 151

AR 159 159 159 159 159 159 159 159

CO 162 162 162 162

CT 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172

DC 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142

DE 159 159 163*

FL 165 165 165 165 165 165

GA 163 163 163 168* 168 168 168 168 168 168

HI 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164

ID 158 158 158

IN 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153

KS 165 165

KY 138 138 138 138 160* 160 160 160 160 160 160

LA 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

MD 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164

ME 160 160

MN 148 148 148 157* 157

MO 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158

MS 157 157 157 157 157 157 157

ND 151

NH 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164

NJ 155 155 155 155 155 155 162* 162 162

NV 150 150 150 150 150

OH 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167

OR 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 159* 159 159 159

PA 153 153 153 153 153 160* 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

SC 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162

SD 154 154

TN 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157

UT 168 168

VA 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172

VT 172 172 172 172 172 172

WA 158 158 158 158

WI 160 160 160

WV 151 151 155* 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
104

Exhibit B.4

Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—English Language, Literature, and Composition: 

Pedagogy (0043)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AR 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

DC 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

HI 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

LA 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130

MD 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155

NV 155 155 155 155 155 150* 150 150 140* 140 140 140 140

TN 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145
105

Exhibit B.5

Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Mathematics: Content Knowledge (0061)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK 146 146 146 146 146 146 146

AL 118 118 118

AR 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116

CO 156 156 156 156

CT 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137

DC 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141

DE 121 121 141*

GA 124 124 124 136* 136 136 136 136 136 136

HI 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136

ID 119 119 119

IN 136 136 136 136 136 136

KS 137 137

KY 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125

LA 125 125 125 125

MD 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141

ME 126 126

MN 124 124 124 125* 125

MO 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137

MS 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123

ND 139

NH 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127

NJ 130 130 130 130 130 130 137* 137 137

OH 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139

OR 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 138* 138 138 138

PA 127 127 136* 136 136 136 136 136 136 136

SC 131 131 131 131 131 131

SD 124 124

TN 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136

UT 138 138

VA 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147

VT 141 141 141 141 141 141

WA 134 134 134 134

WI 135 135 135

WV 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133
106

Exhibit B.6

Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Mathematics: Pedagogy (0065)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AR 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

DC 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

HI 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

MD 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

NV 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

OR 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140

TN 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
107

Exhibit B.7

Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Middle School Mathematics: Content Knowledge 

(0069)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK 145 145 145

AL 139 139 142*

CT 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158

DE 148 148 148

GA 139 139 139 145* 145 145

HI 143

ID 145

IN 156 156 156

KS 158 158

KY 143 143 143 143 143 148* 148

LA 148 148 148

MD 152 152 152 152

ME 148 148

MN 152 152 152

MO 158 158 158 158 158 158 158

MS 140 140 140

NC 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141

ND 148

NH 151 151 151 151 151 151 151

NJ 152 152 152

NV 139

OH 143 143 143 143 143

OR 163 163 163 163 156* 156 156 156

PA 151 151 151 151

RI 158

SC 149 149 149

SD 139 139

TN 143 143 143 143

VA 163 163 163 163 163

WA 152 152 152 152

WV 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148
108

Exhibit B.8

Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—General Science, Part 1: Content Knowledge (0431)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK 155 155 155 155 155 155 155

DC 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136

HI 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 150*

NJ 148 148 148 148 148 148 152* 152 152

NV 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

OH 155 155 155 155 155

OR 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 145* 145 145 145

TN 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 145* 145
109

Exhibit B.9

Praxis Passing Score by Test by Year—Earth and Space Sciences: 

Content Knowledge (0571)

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AK 144 144 144

AL 148 148 148

AR 145 145 145 145 145

CT 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157

DE 150 150 150

ID 144 144 144

IN 150 150 150 150 150 150

KS 150 150

KY 145 145 145 145

MD 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152

MN 149 149 149

MO 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147

NC 136 136 136 136

ND 149

NH 148 148 148 148 148 148 148

NJ 134 134 134 134 134 134 145* 145 145

OH 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151

PA 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157

SD 150 150

TN 144 144 144 144 146* 146 146 146 146

UT 153

VA 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156

VT 158 158 158 158 158 158

WA 150 150 150
110
111

APPENDIX C

PRAXIS REGISTRATION FORM—BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Exhibit C.1

Praxis Registration Form—Background Information

(Select one answer for each question below)

a. How do you describe yourself?

1. _ African-American or Black 

2. _ Asian American/Asian (Ex.: Japanese, Chinese, Korean) 

3. _ Southeast Asian American/Southeast Asian (Ex.: Cambodian, Hmong, Khmer, Laotian, 

Vietnamese) 

4. _ Pacific Island American/Pacific Islander 

5. _ Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano

6. _ Puerto Rican

7. _ Other Hispanic, Latino, or Latin American

8. _ Native American, American Indian, or Alaskan Native

9. _ White

10. _ Other

b. What is your best language of communication?

1. _ English 

2. _ Another language

c. What language(s) did you first learn as a child?

1. _ English only 

2. _ English and another language 

3. _ Another language only

d. What is the highest education level you have attained?

1. _ Freshman (first year) 

2. _ Sophomore (second year) 

3. _ Junior (third year)

4. _ Senior (fourth or final year)

5. _ Earned bachelor’s degree

6. _ Earned bachelor’s degree plus additional credits

7. _ Earned master’s degree

8. _ Earned master’s degree plus additional credits

9. _ Earned doctoral degree

e. How many years has it been since you attended college or graduate school?

1. _ Currently attending college or graduate school 

2. _ Less than 1 year 

3. _ 1–3 years 

4. _ 4–6 years

5. _ 7–10 years
112

6. _ More than 10 years

f. What is your cumulative undergraduate grade point average to date (based on a system 

where 4.0 = A)?

1. _ 3.5–4.0 

2. _ 3.0–3.49 

3. _ 2.5–2.99 

4. _ 2.0–2.49

5. _ 1.5–1.99

6. _ Below 1.5

g. Indicate the highest level of education completed by your father or male guardian.

1. _ Some high school or less 

2. _ High school diploma 

3. _ Some postsecondary education 

4. _ Associate degree 

5. _ Bachelor’s degree

6. _ Some graduate or professional school

7. _ Graduate or professional degree

8. _ Unknown

h. Indicate the highest level of education completed by your mother or female guardian.

1. _ Some high school or less 

2. _ High school diploma 

3. _ Some postsecondary education 

4. _ Associate degree 

5. _ Bachelor’s degree

6. _ Some graduate or professional school

7. _ Graduate or professional degree

8. _ Unknown

i. Is either of your parents in the education profession?

1. _ Yes 

2. _ No

j. What was your most recent full-time occupation?

1. _ Student 

2. _ Food service 

3. _ Maintenance 

4. _ Truck driver 

5. _ Technician 

6. _ Clerical/administrative support 

7. _ Sales/retail 

8. _ Managerial

9. _ Self-employed

10. _ School aide

11. _ Teacher

12. _ Professional/executive

13. _ Other
113

14. _ None

k. Are you or have you ever been enrolled in a teacher education program?

1. _ Currently

2. _ Formerly 

3. _ Never

l. Your teaching status is:

1. _ Planning to enroll or currently enrolled in a teacher education program

2. _ Recently graduated and expect to begin teaching in the near future

3. _ 1 to 3 years teaching experience

4. _ More than 3 years teaching experience

5. _ Not planning to teach at this time
114
The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access

www.ed.gov