Vocabulary Results From the 

2009 and 2011 NAEP Reading Assessments
�

NAtioNAl ASSESSmENt oF EDUCAtioNAl PRogRESS At gRADES 4, 8, AND 12 

U.S. Department of Education 

NCES 2013–452 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

1 A New Focus on Word Meaning 

2 Introduction 

4 National Results 

8 State Results 

10 NAEP Vocabulary Questions 

19 Technical Notes 

22 Appendix Tables 

What Is The Nation’s Report CardTM? 

The Nation’s Report CardTM informs the public about the academic achievement of elementary and secondary students 

in the United States. Report cards communicate the findings of the National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP), a continuing and nationally representative measure of achievement in various subjects over time. 

Since 1969, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, 

civics, geography, and other subjects. NAEP collects and reports information on student performance at the national and 

state levels, making the assessment an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education. 

Only academic achievement data and related background information are collected. The privacy of individual students 

and their families is protected. 

NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute 

of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible for 

carrying out the NAEP project. The National Assessment Governing Board oversees and sets policy for NAEP. 

Photo Credits: 

© Datacraft/Getty Images #73721702; © Joshua Hodge Photography/iStockphoto #10171200; © Martin Barraud/OJO Images/Getty Images #108359540; 

© Kristian Sekulic/iStockphoto #16968529; © Copyright 2012 Shift and Joshua Distler; Copyright © 2005 Highlights for Children, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. Photo 

credits for “Ducklings”: p. 10: Jonathan Sachs; p. 10 inset: Courtesy of Nancy Schön; Courtesy Culver Pictures Inc.; © By permission of the author, Naomi Shihab 

Nye, 2012; © Mario Tama/Getty Images #51548481; From: BUSINESS @ THE SPEED OF THOUGHT by Bill Gates. Copyright © 1999 by William H. Gates, III. 

By permission of Grand Central Publishing. All rights reserved; © IMAGEMORE Co, Ltd./Getty Images #93907496; © Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock 

#12040249; © Joshua Hodge Photography/iStockphoto #18090704; © Michael Krinke/iStockphoto #14881740 
Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A New Focus on

Word Meaning

Beginning in 2009, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 

integrated a measure of students’ understanding of word meaning with the 

measurement of passage comprehension in the NAEP reading assessment. The 

decision to focus on students’ understanding of word meaning emphasized the 

important role vocabulary plays in the process of reading comprehension. To understand the overall topic or theme, students need to integrate their knowledge of 

individual words—or a sense of these words—with the way the words are used in 

particular passages. For example, a reader may understand the meaning of “acute” 

in the context of mathematics to describe the angles of a triangle, but may not have 

encountered the word used to describe human emotions, as in “acute embarrassment.” Having a sense of words that is sufficiently flexible helps readers extend 

their understanding of the word and understand its use in a new context. 

Understanding word meaning has always been essential to reading comprehension. Whether reading the printed page or a computer screen, a strong sense 

of word meaning provides a basis for greater comprehension in an increasingly 

fast-paced world. 

How did students perform? 

Students who 

scored higher 

on NAEP 

vocabulary 

questions also 

scored higher 

in reading 

comprehension. 

Fourth- and 

eighth-grade 

vocabulary scores 

did not change 

significantly 

from 2009 to 

2011. 

There was no 

significant gender 

gap in vocabulary 

at grade 12. 

NAEP assesses 

vocabulary in a way 

that aims to capture 

students’ ability to 

use their understanding or sense of words 

to acquire meaning 

from the passages 

they read. Unlike 

traditional tests of 

vocabulary that ask 

students to write 

definitions of words in 

isolation, NAEP 

always assesses word 

meaning within the 

context of particular 

passages. Students 

are asked to demonstrate their understanding of words by 

recognizing what 

meaning the word 

contributes to the 

passage in which it 

appears. 

1 
the nation’s rePort card 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

This report presents results for student performance on the systematic 

measure of vocabulary included in the 2009 and 2011 NAEP reading assessments. While previous NAEP assessments had included some vocabulary 

questions, the new framework for the 2009 assessment provided criteria for 

developing vocabulary questions as well as prescribing the number of questions to be included in each comprehension section of the assessment. This 

systematic assessment of vocabulary allows for NAEP to more fully assess the 

impact of vocabulary knowledge on students’ comprehension and makes it 

possible to report on students’ vocabulary performance. Vocabulary questions 

are designed to assess how well students are able to use words to gain meaning from the passages they read. NAEP vocabulary questions assess whether 

readers know a word well enough to use it to comprehend the sentence or 

paragraph in which the word occurs. 

Vocabulary results from the 2009 reading assessment are based on nationally 

representative samples of 116,600 fourth-graders, 103,400 eighth-graders, 

and 44,500 twelfth-graders. Results from the 2011 assessment are based on 

samples of 213,100 students at grade 4 and 168,200 students at grade 8. The 

reading assessment was not administered at grade 12 in 2011. 

The NAEP Reading Framework 

The National Assessment Governing Board oversees the development of NAEP frameworks 

that describe the specific knowledge and skills that should be assessed in each subject. 

The new reading framework, which guided the development of the 2009 and 2011 reading 

assessments, defines reading as an active, complex process that involves understanding text, 

developing and interpreting meaning from text, and using meaning as appropriate to type of 

text, purpose, and situation. The framework, citing the large body of research that supports 

the link between vocabulary and comprehension, recognizes vocabulary as fundamental to the 

active process of reading comprehension across all levels of schooling. As a component of the 

reading assessment, all vocabulary questions measure students’ ability to apply word 

knowledge in order to develop and interpret meaning. 

ExplorE oNlINE 

The complete reading framework that guided the 2011 reading assessment is available at 

http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/reading-2011-framework.pdf. 

2 
The Assessment Design

Vocabulary questions appeared in two different types of sections of the reading assessment: 

comprehension sections and vocabulary sections. The sections differed in the length of the 

reading texts they included and in the number of vocabulary questions. The vocabulary 

questions in the comprehension sections are included within a larger set of questions and 

are based on longer passages. Examples of vocabulary questions from reading comprehension sections are available on the Web at http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2011/ 

voc_sample_quest.asp.

There were a total of 40 vocabulary questions in the 2011 fourth-grade assessment, 56 in 

the eighth-grade assessment, and 47 in the 2009 twelfth-grade assessment. No one student 

responded to all of the vocabulary questions for a particular grade. For more information, see 

the Technical Notes section.

Comprehension

Full-length passages containing up to:

800 words at grade 4

1,000 words at grade 8

1,200 words at grade 12

Approximately 10 multiple-choice and 

constructed-response questions, 2 of 

which were multiple-choice vocabulary 

questions

Vocabulary

Shorter passages containing up to:

400 words at grade 4

500 words at grade 8

600 words at grade 12

Approximately 5 multiple-choice questions, 

all of which were vocabulary questions

Reporting NAEP Vocabulary Results

NAEP vocabulary results are reported as the percentages of students who correctly 

answered vocabulary questions and as average scores on a 0–500 scale for grades 4, 8, 

and 12. While vocabulary results cannot be reported in terms of the NAEP achievement 

levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced), scores are reported to show patterns in results 

for students performing at lower (10th and 25th), middle (50th), and higher (75th and 

90th) percentiles.

The national results presented in this report reflect the performance of students 

attending public schools, private schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and 

Department of Defense schools. Results for states and jurisdictions reflect the 

performance of students in public schools only and are compared to a subset of the 

nation that also includes only public school students.

VOCABULARY QUESTIONS WERE INCLUDED IN TWO TYPES OF SECTIONS

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

2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments.

VOCABULARY RESULTS FROM THE 2009 AND 2011 NAEP READING ASSESSMENTS 3
THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 

National Results
 

How have fourth- and eighth-grade vocabulary scores changed since 2009? 

NAEP vocabulary results are available for 2009 and 2011 at grades 4 and 8. As grade 12 was not assessed in 2011, 

results for twelfth-grade students are available for 2009 only. 

The overall average vocabulary scores for fourth- and eighth-grade students in 2011 were not significantly different 

from 2009, but there were some changes in the scores for students performing at selected percentiles on the vocabulary scale (figure 1). 

At grade 4, scores were lower in 2011 than in 2009 for higher-performing students at the 75th and 90th percentiles. 

At grade 8, lower-performing students at the 10th percentile scored higher in 2011 than in 2009. Eighth-graders at the 

75th and 90th percentiles scored lower in 2011 than in 2009. 

Figure 1. Average scores and percentile scores in NAEP vocabulary at grades 4 and 8: 2009 and 2011 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. 

At grade 12, the overall average vocabulary 

score in 2009 was 296 and the percentile 

scores ranged from 239 for students at the 10th 

percentile to 350 for those performing at the 

90th percentile (figure 2). 

Figure 2. Average scores and percentile scores in NAEP 

vocabulary at grade 12: 2009 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments. 

4 
VOCABULARY RESULTS FROM THE 2009 AND 2011 NAEP READING ASSESSMENTS 

How does vocabulary performance relate to reading 

comprehension? 

Both the NAEP reading comprehension and vocabulary scores are reported on 0–500 scales, but 

because the two scales were developed independently, the results cannot be directly compared. It is 

possible, however, to look at the vocabulary scores in relation to the performance of students at the 

lower, middle, and upper quartiles in reading comprehension. 

Students who performed well on the vocabulary questions also performed well in reading comprehension (figure 3). For example, fourth-grade students performing above the 75th percentile in reading 

comprehension in 2011 also had the highest average vocabulary score. Lower-performing fourth-graders 

at or below the 25th percentile in reading comprehension had the lowest average vocabulary score. 

Similar differences were found in the results for grade 8 in 2011 and for grade 12 in 2009. 

Figure 3. 	Average scores in NAEP vocabulary at grades 4, 8, and 12, by reading 

comprehension level: 2009 and 2011 

NOTE: The results for grades 4 and 8 are from the 2011 reading assessment, and the results for grade 12 are from the 2009 assessment. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments. 

5 
the nation’s rePort card 

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

2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments. 

 

 

How do lower- and higher-performing students 

differ demographically?
�

Grade 4 

Among fourth-graders who 

scored below the 25th percentile 

on the vocabulary scale (i.e., below 

a score of 193) in 2011 

• 33% were White 

25% were Black 

35% were Hispanic 

• 73% were eligible for free/ 

reduced-price school lunch 

• 24% were English language 

learners 

Among fourth-graders who 

scored above the 75th percentile 

on the vocabulary scale (i.e., above 

a score of 245) in 2011 

• 72% were White 

7% were Black 

10% were Hispanic 

• 24% were eligible for free/ 

reduced-price school lunch 

• 2% were English language 

learners 

Grade 8 

Among eighth-graders who 

scored below the 25th percentile 

on the vocabulary scale (i.e., below 

a score of 241) in 2011 

• 34% were White 

25% were Black 

33% were Hispanic 

• 68% were eligible for free/ 

reduced-price school lunch 

Among eighth-graders who 

scored above the 75th percentile 

on the vocabulary scale (i.e., above 

a score of 291) in 2011 

• 74% were White 

6% were Black 

10% were Hispanic 

• 21% were eligible for free/ 

reduced-price school lunch 

Grade 12 

Among twelfth-graders who 

scored below the 25th percentile 

on the vocabulary scale (i.e., below 

a score of 268) in 2009 

• 40% were White 

26% were Black 

27% were Hispanic 

• 31% reported at least one 

parent graduated from college 

Among twelfth-graders who 

scored above the 75th percentile 

on the vocabulary scale (i.e., above 

a score of 327) in 2009 

• 79% were White 

5% were Black 

7% were Hispanic 

• 70% reported at least one 

parent graduated from college 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments. 

How do student groups differ in vocabulary performance? 

As highlighted in the key findings below, average vocabulary scores for student groups sometimes 

varied by grade. 

race/ 

ethnicity 

For each of the three grades, average vocabulary scores for White and 

Asian/Pacific Islander students were higher than the scores for Black, 

Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students. 

Differences in average vocabulary scores between White and Asian/ 

Pacific Islander students varied by grade: 

— At grade 4, there was no significant difference in vocabulary scores 

between White and Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2011. 

— At grade 8, White students scored higher in vocabulary than 

Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2011. 

— At grade 12, there was no significant difference in vocabulary 

scores between the two groups in 2009. 

The White – Hispanic score gap in vocabulary narrowed from 2009 to 

2011 at grade 8. 

Gender 

Female students scored higher on average than male students in 

NAEP vocabulary at grades 4 and 8 in 2011. At grade 12 in 2009, 

there was no significant difference in vocabulary scores between male 

and female students. 

family 

income 

At both grades 4 and 8, the average vocabulary scores for students 

who were eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch (an indicator 

of low family income) were lower than the scores for students who 

were not eligible in 2011. 

students 

with 

disabilities      

At all three grades, students with disabilities scored lower on average 

in vocabulary than students without disabilities. 

English 

language 

learners   

At all three grades, average vocabulary scores were lower for English 

language learners than for non-English language learners. 

Eighth-grade English language learners scored higher in vocabulary in 

2011 than in 2009. 

NOTE: Prior to 2011, data for Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students were only available for a single combined Asian/Pacific Islander category. Results for the 

separate categories in 2011 are available in appendix tables A-1 and A-2. 

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 7
State Results 

Vocabulary results are available for 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Department of 

Defense schools in 2011 at grades 4 and 8, and for the 11 states that volunteered to participate in 

the 2009 state pilot program at grade 12. Vocabulary scores for both fourth- and eighth-graders 

in 18 states/jurisdictions were higher than the national averages in 2011 (figure 4). See appendix 

tables A-4 through A-6 for additional state results including results from 2009 for grades 4 and 8. 

Figure 4. Comparison of state/jurisdiction and national average scores in NAEP vocabulary at grades 4, 8, and 12: 2009 and 2011 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments. 

1
 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). 

NOTE: The results for grades 4 and 8 are from the 2011 reading assessment, and the results for grade 12 are from the 2009 assessment. 

8 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 

2011 Reading Assessment. 

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 

 

 

 

 

 

How does the performance of female and male students on 

vocabulary questions compare at the state level? 

Of the 52 states and jurisdictions that participated in the 2011 reading assessment, there were 

no significant differences in the average vocabulary scores for female and male students at 

both grades 4 and 8 in 30 states/jurisdictions. In three states (Florida, New Hampshire, and 

North Carolina), female students scored higher on average than male students in 2011 at both 

grades 4 and 8. 

Although not shown here, there were no significant gender gaps in vocabulary scores for any of 

the 11 states that participated in the 2009 twelfth-grade assessment. 

No significant gender gaps at 

both grades 4 and 8 in 2011 

30 states/jurisdictions 

Alabama 

Alaska 

Arizona 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Hawaii 

Iowa 

Kentucky 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Minnesota 

Montana 

Nebraska 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Vermont 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

DoDEA1 

No significant gender gap at 

grade 4, while female students 

scored higher than male students 

at grade 8 in 2011 

9 states/jurisdictions 

Arkansas 

California 

District of Columbia 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Nevada 

Utah 

Washington 

No significant gender gap at 

grade 8 in 2011, while female 

students scored higher than 

male students at grade 4 

10 states 

Colorado 

Georgia 

Indiana 

Kansas 

Louisiana 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

Virginia 

1

Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). 

ExplorE oNlINE 

See how states rank based on their average reading comprehension and vocabulary 

scores at http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2011/voc_state.asp. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAEP Vocabulary 

Questions 

As described in the NAEP reading framework, vocabulary questions are both 

a measure of passage comprehension and a measure of students’ understanding 

of specific words. All vocabulary questions ask about words as they are used in 

the context of passages that students read. Students are not asked to provide 

written definitions of words in isolation because the NAEP assessment measures 

reading comprehension. NAEP vocabulary takes into account that word meaning 

is not fixed, but depends on the context in which the word appears. In addition, 

the framework recognizes that a reader may not be able to provide a written 

definition of a word, but may be able to understand the word’s meaning well 

enough so that passage comprehension is not impeded. On the other hand, 

a reader may be able to associate a word with a definition but not be able to 

apply that definition to building understanding of a particular context that uses 

the word. 

All questions on the NAEP reading assessment measure one of three cognitive 

targets as specified in the framework: locate and recall, integrate and interpret, 

and critique and evaluate. All of the vocabulary questions are classified as integrate and interpret. In responding to a NAEP vocabulary question, students 

use their understanding of the word to interpret a part of the passage. Options 

other than the correct answer may provide another meaning of the word or may 

be an interpretation that correctly reflects passage content but does not reflect 

the meaning of the word. To choose the correct answer, students must recognize how the selected word contributes to the meaning in the passage they are 

reading. It is this intersection of word knowledge and passage comprehension 

that typifies NAEP vocabulary questions. 

10 the nation’s rePort card 
 

 

 

Criteria for selecting vocabulary words 

The reading framework specifies the characteristics of words appropriate for vocabulary questions 

and how those words should relate to the content of the passage. In general, words were 

selected to be characteristic of written language as opposed to words common to everyday 

speech. Another criterion for word selection was that the word could be used across a variety 

of content areas as opposed to technical words used only in specialized content. Words appropriate for vocabulary questions denote concepts, feelings, or actions that students may have 

knowledge about, although the vocabulary word denoting the concept, feeling, or action is likely 

not part of students’ speaking vocabulary. The vocabulary questions measure students’ ability 

to connect an appropriate meaning to the word in order to gain comprehension of the passage. 

Language criteria Passage criteria 

 Characteristic of written language as 

opposed to conversational oral language 

 Plays an important content-bearing role 

in all or part of the passage
�

 Used across content areas, as opposed to 

technical terms specific to one content area 

 May be related to central idea, but does 

not name the central idea of the passage 

 Represent familiar concepts, even if the 

word itself may not be known
�

 Meaning is not defined by the context
�

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade 4
� The following sample questions are from a vocabulary section that was part 

of the 2011 fourth-grade reading assessment. This section included a short 

passage entitled, “Ducklings Come Home to Boston,” about how the sculptor 

Nancy Schön came to create statues of ducklings for the Boston Public Garden. The section included five vocabulary questions about the passage, two of 

which are presented here. 

Ducklings Come 

Home to Boston

by Pamela Waterman

What has eighteen legs, shines in the sun, and loves children? A set of eight bronze duckling 

statues with their mother, that’s what! They are made for hugging, climbing on, and 

“feeding.” They were created by the sculptor Nancy Schön (pronounced “shern”). She based 

them on the ducklings in the famous children’s book Make Way for Ducklings.

The ducklings in the book hatched from the drawing pencil of author Robert McCloskey back 

in 1941. In the story, the ducklings followed their proud mother around the Public Garden in 

Boston, Massachusetts. They learned to “walk in a line, to come when they were called, and to 

keep a safe distance from bikes and scooters and other things with wheels.” But the duckling 

statues started in a very different way almost fifty years later. 

Ms. Schön, who had been making sculptures of people for years, noticed that children love to 

play with animal statues. At the same time, the six-year-old twin boys of an English friend of 

hers visited the Public Garden. They had read Make Way for Ducklings, and they were 

puzzled. “Mummy, where are the ducks?” they asked. 

Ms. Schön’s friend suggested that she bring the famous little birds to life. Mr. McCloskey 

himself was delighted with the idea. He encouraged the sculptor to start by copying his own 

drawings. 

“Just to be different, I chose eight of the poses of the ducks that I liked best,” explains Ms. 

Schön. She then lined them up behind Mrs. Mallard. She wanted to remind people how the 

ducklings in the book waddled from the Charles River, across busy Beacon Street, and right 

into the Public Garden. 

Deciding how big the ducks should be was an important question. Mr. McCloskey himself 

came to the art studio to help. To get a better look, they dragged the clay models outside on a 

snowy February day. Just then a group of children at the preschool next door came out and 

stopped short in surprise.

Page 1

On page 1, the passage says that the duckling 

statues “were created by the sculptor 

Nancy Schön.” This means that Ms. Schön 

a made the duckling statues 

b wrote a book about duckling statues 

C liked the duckling statues 

d lined the duckling statues in a row 

76% of fourth-grade 

students used their 

knowledge of the word 

“created” to select the 

correct interpretation. 

Incorrect selections 

 option b, chosen by 12 percent of fourth-graders, is a misinterpretation of the context 

in which the word occurs. 

 option C, chosen by 5 percent of fourth-graders, is also a misinterpretation. 

 option d, chosen by 7 percent of fourth-graders, presents correct information from 

the passage, but is not the meaning of the word “created.” 

12 the nation’s rePort card 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Sachs

“Come along, children. Follow me,” says Mrs. Mallard.

Ms. Schön laughs as she remembers. “The children came running and screaming and started 

to pat and hug them. It was so exciting!” There was no doubt now—the ducklings were 

perfect. The bronze statues were ready to be made. 

In October 1987, two large and sixteen small webbed feet lined up and came to stay in the 

Boston Public Garden. Mrs. Mallard stands more than three feet tall, and her children—

“Jack, then Kack, and then Lack, followed by Mack and Nack and Ouack and Pack and 

Quack”—trail proudly behind her, waddling on old rounded Boston cobblestones. Their 

bright eyes sparkle, inviting children of all ages to touch, hug, and play with them, just as Ms. 

Schön wanted.

Copyright © 2005 by Highlights for Children, Inc., Columbus, Ohio.

Page 2

51% of fourth-grade 

students used their 

knowledge of the word 

“puzzled” to select the 

correct interpretation. 

On page 1, the passage says that some boys 

were puzzled when they visited the Public 

Garden. This means the boys were 

a trying to follow the ducks 

b hoping to play games with the ducks 

C surprised that there were so many ducks 

d confused that there were no ducks 

Incorrect selections 

 option a, chosen by 10 percent of fourth-graders, is a misinterpretation of the context 

in which the word occurs. 

 option b, chosen by 6 percent of fourth-graders, presents correct information from the 

passage, but is not the meaning of the word “puzzled.” 

 option C, chosen by 32 percent of fourth-graders, presents a misinterpretation of the 

part of the passage where the word appears. 

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade 8
� The following sample questions are from a vocabulary section that was part of 

the 2011 eighth-grade reading assessment. This section included a short passage 

entitled, “Mint Snowball,” a first-person narrative expressing nostalgia for less 

modern times. The section included six vocabulary questions about the passage, 

two of which are presented here. 

Mint 

Snowball

by Naomi Shihab Nye

Culver Pictures, Inc. (Eva Tucholka)

 

My great-grandfather on my mother’s side ran a drugstore in a small town in 

central Illinois. He sold pills and rubbing alcohol from behind the big cash 

register and creamy ice cream from the soda fountain. My mother remembers the counter’s long polished sweep, its shining face. She twirled on the 

stools. Dreamy fans. Wide summer afternoons. Clink of nickels in anybody’s 

hand. He sold milkshakes, cherry cokes, old fashioned sandwiches. What did 

an old fashioned sandwich look like? Dark wooden shelves. Silver spigots on 

chocolate dispensers. 

My great-grandfather had one specialty: a Mint Snowball which he invented. 

Some people drove all the way in from Decatur just to taste it. First he stirred 

fresh mint leaves with sugar and secret ingredients in a small pot on the stove 

for a very long time. He concocted a flamboyant elixir of mint. Its scent clung 

to his fingers even after he washed his hands. Then he shaved ice into tiny 

particles and served it mounted in a glass dish. Permeated with mint syrup. 

Scoops of rich vanilla ice cream to each side. My mother took a bite of minty 

ice and ice cream mixed together. The Mint Snowball tasted like winter. She 

closed her eyes to see the Swiss village my great-grandfather’s parents came 

from. Snow frosting the roofs. Glistening, dangling spokes of ice.

Page 1

On page 1, the author says that mint syrup 

permeated the shaved ice. This means that the 

mint syrup 

a caused the shaved ice to melt slightly
�

b formed the shaved ice into clumps
�

C spread all the way through the shaved ice 

d made the shaved ice taste better 

51% of eighth-graders 

used their knowledge of 

the word “permeated”
�

to select the correct 

interpretation.
�

Incorrect selections 

 option a, chosen by 18 percent of eighth-graders, is a misinterpretation of the 

context in which the word occurs. 

 option b, chosen by 6 percent of eighth-graders, is also a misinterpretation. 

 option d, chosen by 24 percent of eighth-graders, presents correct information 

from the passage, but is not the meaning of the word. 

14 the nation’s rePort card 
 

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before my great-grandfather died, he sold the recipe for the mint syrup to 

someone in town for one hundred dollars. This hurt my grandfather’s 

feelings. My grandfather thought he should have inherited it to carry on the 

tradition. As far as the family knew, the person who bought the recipe never 

used it. At least not in public. My mother had watched my great-grandfather 

make the syrup so often she thought she could replicate it. But what did he 

have in those little unmarked bottles? She experimented. Once she came 

close. She wrote down what she did. Now she has lost the paper. 

Perhaps the clue to my entire personality connects to the lost Mint Snowball. 

I have always felt out-of-step with my environment, disjointed in the modern 

world. The crisp flush of cities makes me weep. Strip centers, poodle grooming, and take-out Thai. I am angry over lost department stores, wistful for 

something I have never tasted or seen. 

Although I know how to do everything one needs to know—change 

airplanes, find my exit off the interstate, charge gas, send a fax—there is 

something missing. Perhaps the stoop of my great-grandfather over the pan, 

the slow patient swish of his spoon. The spin of my mother on the high stool 

with her whole life in front of her, something fine and fragrant still to 

happen. When I breathe a handful of mint, even pathetic sprigs from my 

sunbaked Texas earth, I close my eyes. Little chips of ice on the tongue, their 

cool slide down. Can we follow the long river of the word “refreshment” 

back to its spring? Is there another land for me? Can I find any lasting 

solace in the color green?

By permission of the author, Naomi Shihab Nye, 2006.

Page 2

On page 2, the author says that her mother 

“thought she could replicate” the great 

grandfather’s mint syrup. This means the 

author’s mother thought she could 

a buy back the mint syrup recipe 

b make mint syrup that tasted like his 

C remember how the mint syrup tasted 

d make a better mint syrup than his 

89% of eighth-grade 

students used their 

knowledge of the 

word “replicate” 

to select the correct 

interpretation. 

Incorrect selections
�

 option a, chosen by 2 percent of eighth-graders, is a misinterpretation of the context 

in which the word occurs. 

 option C, chosen by 7 percent of eighth-graders, presents correct information related 

to the theme of the passage, but is not the meaning of the word. 

 option d, chosen by 2 percent of eighth-graders, presents a misinterpretation of the 

part of the passage where the word appears. 

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 15 
Grade 12 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following sample questions are from a vocabulary section that was part 

of the 2009 twelfth-grade reading assessment. This section included a short 

passage entitled, “Capitalizing on the Cognitive Niche,” in which Bill Gates argues 

that humans must embrace the digital age. The section included five vocabulary 

questions about the passage, two of which are presented here. 

Capitalizing 

on the 

“Cognitive 

Niche” 

by Bill Gates 

© MARIO TAMA/AFP/Getty Images 

A DNA plate used for sequencing and mapping the human genome, 

Rockville, Maryland, 2000. 

College dropout and computer whiz kid, corporate executive and philanthropist, 

William H. Gates (1955– ) was born and raised in Seattle, Washington. His interest in 

computers, which began at the age of thirteen, led Gates to realize the potential of a 

standard operating platform for the computer era, and through the success of his 

company Microsoft, he became one of the world’s richest men. Criticized for its 

monopolistic practices, Microsoft was sued by the United States government in the 

1990’s. In 2000, Gates established the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has 

become the world’s largest philanthropy dedicated to improving health and education 

worldwide. The following essay was published in 1999. 

Human beings are not the biggest animals. We’re not the strongest or fastest. We’re not the 

sharpest in sight or smell. It’s amazing how we survived against the many fierce creatures 

of nature. We survived and prospered because of our brains. We evolved to fill the cognitive 

niche. We learned how to use tools, to build shelter, to invent agriculture, to domesticate 

livestock, to develop civilization and culture, to cure and prevent disease. Our tools and 

technologies have helped us to shape the environment around us. 

I’m an optimist. I believe in progress. I’d much rather be alive today than at any time in 

history—and not just because in an earlier age my skill set wouldn’t have been as valuable 

and I’d have been a prime candidate for some beast’s dinner. The tools of the Industrial Age 

extended the capabilities of our muscles. The tools of the digital age extend the capabilities 

of our minds. I’m even happier for my children, who will come of age in this new world.

By embracing the digital age, we can accelerate the positive effects and mitigate the challenges, 

such as privacy and have-vs.-have-not. If we sit back and wait for the digital age to come to us

Page 1

On page 1, the author says that we can mitigate the 

challenges of the digital age. He is suggesting that we can 

a expand research studies of technological problems 

b look forward to many technological advances 

C lessen the problems caused by technology 

d increase public awareness of technology 

50% of twelfth-grade 

students used their 

knowledge of the word 

“mitigate” to select 

the correct interpretation. 

Incorrect selections 

 option a, chosen by 22 percent of twelfth-graders, presents a misinterpretation 

of information from the essay. 

 option b, chosen by 22 percent of twelfth-graders, presents correct information 

from the essay that is not the meaning of the word. 

 option d, chosen by 6 percent of twelfth-graders, presents correct information 

from the essay that is not the meaning of the word. 

16 the nation’s rePort card 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on terms defined by others, we won’t be able to do either. The Web lifestyle can increase citizen 

involvement in government. Many of the decisions to be made are political and social, not 

technical. These include how we ensure access for everyone and how we protect children. 

Citizens in every culture must engage on the social and political impact of digital technology 

to ensure that the new digital age reflects the society they want to create. 

If we are reactive and let change overwhelm us or pass us by, we will perceive change 

negatively. If we are proactive, seek to understand the future now, and embrace change, the 

idea of the unexpected can be positive and uplifting. Astronomer Carl Sagan in his last book, 

Billions and Billions, said: “The prediction I can make with the highest confidence is that the 

most amazing discoveries will be the ones we are not today wise enough to foresee.” 

As tough and uncertain as the digital world makes it for business—it’s evolve rapidly or 

die—we will all benefit. We’re going to get improved products and services, more responsiveness to complaints, lower costs, and more choices. We’re going to get better government and 

social services at substantially less expense. 

This world is coming. A big part of it comes through businesses using a digital nervous system 

to radically improve their processes.

A digital nervous system can help business redefine itself and its role in the future, but energy or 

paralysis, success or failure, depends on business leaders. Only you can prepare your organization 

and make the investments necessary to capitalize on the rapidly dawning digital age. 

Digital tools magnify the abilities that make us unique in the world: the ability to think, the 

ability to articulate our thoughts, the ability to work together to act on those thoughts. I 

strongly believe that if companies empower their employees to solve problems and give them 

potent tools to do this with, they will always be amazed at how much creativity and initiative 

will blossom forth.

From BUSINESS @ THE SPEED OF THOUGHT 

by William Gates. Copyright © 1999 by William H. 

Gates, III. Used by permission of Grand Central Publishing.

Page 2

79% of twelfth-grade 

students used their 

knowledge of the word 

“capitalize” to select 

the correct interpretation. 

On page 2, the author talks about making the 

investments necessary to capitalize on the 

digital age. He is referring to 

a locating new businesses in big cities 

b spending more money on technology than on people 

C gaining advantages by using technology 

d hiring strong leaders to improve the company 

Incorrect selections 

 option a, chosen by 5 percent of twelfth-graders, refers to the idea of a capital city. 

 option b, chosen by 9 percent of twelfth-graders, presents an idea that reflects 

information in the essay but is not the meaning of the word. 

 option d, chosen by 7 percent of twelfth-graders, presents a misinterpretation 

of the context in which the word appears. 

ExplorE oNlINE 

More examples of NAEP 

vocabulary questions from 

both the comprehension and 

vocabulary sections of the 

2009 and 2011 reading 

assessments can be found 

in the NAEP Questions 

Tool at http://nces.ed.gov/ 

nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/. 

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results show students are able to understand a variety 

of words in context 

The chart below shows only words from released comprehension and vocabulary sections and 

the proportion of students at each grade who understood how the words were used to convey 

meaning. As the assessment was administered at grade 12 in 2009 only, there are fewer words 

than at grades 4 and 8 for which results from two assessment years are available. Italicized words 

are from a section administered at both grades 8 and 12. Bolded words are those from sample questions presented in this report. The other words are from assessment passages and questions 

available at http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2011/voc_summary.asp. 

2009 and 2011 2009 

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12 

75% or more 

of students 

recognized the 

meaning of 

these words 

created 

spread 

underestimate 

anecdotes

edible 

enticing 

grimace 

icons 

motivate 

replicate 

specialty 

anecdotes

capitalize 

prospective 

prospered 

reimburse 

between 50% 

and 74% 

of students 

recognized the 

meaning of 

these words 

breakthrough 

cleared 

clenched 

gaze 

models 

outraged 

poses 

puzzled 

sparkle 

staggering 

striking 

suggested 

concocted 

embedded 

laden 

permeated 

pressed 

responsible 

solace 

tolerate 

vast 

wistful 

articulate 

mitigate 

proactive 

self-possessed 

49% or less of 

students 

recognized the 

meaning of 

these words 

barren 

detected 

eerie 

flourish 

prestigious 

urbane delusion 

urbane

NOTE: Fewer words are listed for grade 12 than for grades 4 and 8 because the grade 12 assessment was conducted in one year only. 

18 the nation’s rePort card 

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

2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Notes
� Assessment Design 

Vocabulary questions were administered as part of the 2009 and 2011 reading assessments to 

nationally representative samples of students. In 2009, a total of twenty-eight comprehension 

sections and ten vocabulary sections were administered at grades 4, 8, and 12. In 2011, nineteen 

comprehension sections and eight vocabulary sections were administered at grades 4 and 8. A 

proportion of the comprehension sections and vocabulary sections are developed to be administered 

across two grades. For example, the assessment design at grade 8 includes four comprehension 

sections administered at both grades 4 and 8, five sections administered at grade 8 only, and four 

sections administered at both grades 8 and 12. The assessment design for vocabulary sections 

includes two grade-specific sets and two cross-grade sets at each of the three grades. The NAEP 

reading assessment is administered every two years at grades 4 and 8, and every four years at 

grade 12. In 2011, when grade 12 was not assessed, the sections common to grades 8 and 12 were 

administered only at grade 8. The chart below presents the number of comprehension sections 

and vocabulary sections that were administered in 2009 and 2011. 

2009 2011 

Grade 4 

Grades 

4 and 8 Grade 8 

Grades 

8 and 12 Grade 12 Grade 4 

Grades 

4 and 8 Grade 8 

Grades 

8 and 12 

Comprehension 

sections 6 4 5 4 9 6 4 5 4 

Vocabulary 

sections 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

When the assessment of meaning vocabulary along with other changes to the reading 

framework were first implemented as part of the 2009 assessment, special trend analyses 

were conducted to evaluate the impact of those changes on the comparability of scores from 

earlier assessment years. A summary of these special analyses and an overview of the differences between the previous framework and the 2009 framework are available on the Web at 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/trend_study.asp. Students participating in the 

2009 reading assessment were randomly assigned to take the old (2007) assessment, the 

new (2009) assessment, or a specially designed mixed assessment that contained material 

from both the old and new assessments. Participation rates for the 2009 and 2011 reading 

assessments are available at http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/participation.asp 

and http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2011/participation.asp. 

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

2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments. 

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 19 

Number of reading comprehension sections and vocabulary sections administered 
 

In 2009 at grades 4 and 8, approximately 

• 33 percent of students took the reading assessment based on the old framework and 

did not respond to any vocabulary questions;
�

• 33 percent responded to two vocabulary questions from a new comprehension section; 

• 30 percent responded to four vocabulary questions from two new comprehension 

sections; and
�

• 3 percent responded to 10–12 vocabulary questions from one new comprehension section 

and a section containing two new vocabulary sections. 

Because state results were reported for the first time in 2009 at grade 12, the comparability 

of state results from previous years was not an issue so more students were assessed with 

the assessment developed under the new framework. 

In 2009 at grade 12, approximately 

• 15 percent of students took the reading assessment based on the old framework and did 

not respond to any vocabulary questions; 

• 13 percent responded to two vocabulary questions from a new comprehension section; 

• 62 percent responded to four vocabulary questions from two new comprehension 

sections; and
�

• 10 percent responded to 10–12 vocabulary questions from one new comprehension section 

and a section containing two new vocabulary sections. 

In 2011, at grades 4 and 8, approximately 90 percent of students responded to four vocabulary 

questions (from two comprehension sections); and approximately 10 percent responded to 

10–12 questions (from one comprehension section and one section containing two vocabulary 

sections). 

Reporting Results 

NAEP reports results using widely accepted statistical standards; findings are reported based 

on a statistical significance level set at .05 with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons. Only those differences that are found to be statistically significant are discussed as higher 

or lower. 

Comparisons over time or between groups are based on statistical tests that consider both the 

size of the difference and the standard errors of the two statistics being compared. Standard 

errors are margins of error, and estimates based on smaller groups are likely to have larger 

margins of error. The size of the standard errors may also be influenced by other factors such as 

how representative the assessed students are of the entire population. When an estimate has a 

large standard error, a numerical difference that seems large may not be statistically significant. 

Standard errors for the estimates presented in this report are available at http://nces.ed.gov/ 

nationsreportcard/naepdata/. 

A score that is significantly higher or lower in comparison to an earlier assessment year is 

reliable evidence that student performance has changed. However, NAEP is not designed to 

identify the causes of these changes. Although comparisons are made in students’ performance 

based on demographic characteristics, the results cannot be used to establish a cause-andeffect relationship between student characteristics and achievement. Many factors may 

influence student achievement, including educational policies and practices, available 

resources, and the demographic characteristics of the student body. Such factors may 

change over time and vary among student groups. 

20 the nation’s rePort card 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Race/Ethnicity 

Prior to 2011, student race/ethnicity was obtained from school records and reported for the 

following six mutually exclusive categories. Students identified with more than one racial/ 

ethnic group were classified as “other” and were included as part of the “unclassified” category, 

along with students who had a background other than the ones listed or whose race/ethnicity 

could not be determined. 

raCIal/EthNIC CatEGorIEs prIor to 2011 

• White

• Black 

• Hispanic

 • Asian/Pacific Islander 

 • American Indian/Alaska Native 

 • Other or unclassified 

In compliance with standards from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for collecting 

and reporting data on race/ethnicity, additional information was collected in 2011. This allows 

results to be reported separately for Asian students, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 

students, and students identifying with two or more races. Beginning in 2011, all of the students 

participating in NAEP were identified as belonging in one of the following seven racial/ethnic 

categories. 

raCIal/EthNIC CatEGorIEs bEGINNING IN 2011 

• White

• Black

• Hispanic

• Asian 

 • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 

 • American Indian/Alaska Native 

 • Two or more races 

As in earlier years, students identified as Hispanic were classified as Hispanic in 2011 even if 

they were also identified with another racial/ethnic group. Students identified with two or more 

of the other racial/ethnic groups (e.g., White and Black) would have been classified as “other” 

and reported as part of the “unclassified” category prior to 2011, and were classified as “two or 

more races” in 2011. 

When comparing the 2011 results for racial/ethnic groups with results from 2009, the 2011 

data for Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students were combined into a 

single Asian/Pacific Islander category. 

National School Lunch Program 

NAEP collects data on student eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) as 

an indicator of low family income. Under the guidelines of NSLP, children from families with 

incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those from 

families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for 

reduced-price meals. (For the period July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012, for a family of four, 

130 percent of the poverty level was $29,055, and 185 percent was $41,348.) Some schools 

provide free meals to all students regardless of individual eligibility, using their own funds to 

cover the costs of non-eligible students. Under special provisions of the National School 

Lunch Act intended to reduce the administrative burden of determining student eligibility 

every year, schools can be reimbursed based on eligibility data for a single base year. 

Because students’ eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch may be underreported 

at grade 12, the results are not included in this report but are available in the NAEP Data 

Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/. For more information on NSLP, 

visit http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/. 

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 21 
Appendix Tables 

Table A-1. Average scores and percentile scores in NAEP vocabulary at grade 4, by selected characteristics: 2009 and 2011 

Characteristic 

Overall 

average score 

Percentile scores 

10th percentile 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile 90th percentile 

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 

          All students 219 218 166 167 193 193 221 220 247* 245 269* 266 

Race/ethnicity 

 White 230 229 182 183 206 207 231 231 255 254 275* 273 

 Black 202 201 153 153 177 177 203 202 229 226 250* 247 

 Hispanic 199 201 147 151 173 176 200 202 227 227 249 249 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 230 231 179 181 206 207 231 233 256 257 278 278 

 Asian — 232 — 183 — 209 — 234 — 258 — 279 

 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander — 210 — 159 — 187 — 212 — 236 — 258 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 207 202 154 151 179 176 208 203 235 229 259 251 

 Two or more races 225 224 174 175 200 200 228 226 252 250 273 270 

Gender 

 Male 218 217 164 164 192 192 220 220 246* 245 269* 266 

 Female 219 219 167 169 194 195 221 221 247 246 269 267 

Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch 

 Eligible 202 202 151 153 177 178 204 204 229 228 251* 249 

 Not eligible 232* 233 185* 188 208* 211 233* 235 256 257 276 276 

Type of school 

 Public 217 217 164 165 191 192 219 219 245* 244 267* 265 

 Private 232 233 185 188 209 212 234 235 257 257 277 276 

 Catholic 234 234 188 189 211 212 235 235 258 257 278 276 

Status as students with disabilities (SD) 

 SD 187 185 132 131 157 155 186 184 217 214 243 240 

 Not SD 222 222 172 174 197 198 224 224 249* 248 270* 268 

Status as English language learners (ELL) 

 ELL 178 182 131 135 153 158 179 182 204 206 226 226 

 Not ELL 223 222 172 174 198 199 224 224 249* 248 270* 268 

Score gaps1 

White – Black 27 29 29 31 29 31 28 29 26 28 25 26 

 White – Hispanic 30 29 35 33 34 32 31 29 27 26 25 24 

 Female – Male 1 2 3 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 # 1 

 Not eligible – Eligible 29 31 33 35 32 33 29 30 27 28 26 27 

— Not available. Prior to 2011, data for Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students were only available for a single combined Asian/Pacific Islander category.
�

# Rounds to zero.
�

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
� 1

 The score gaps for each category are calculated based on the differences between the unrounded scores for the first student group minus the unrounded scores for the second student group.

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and 

nonsectarian private schools. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments.
�

22 the nation’s rePort card 
Table A-2. Average scores and percentile scores in NAEP vocabulary at grade 8, by selected characteristics: 2009 and 2011 

Characteristic 

Overall 

average score 

Percentile scores 

10th percentile 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile 90th percentile 

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 

        All students 265 265 214* 216 241 241 267 267 292* 291 314* 311 

Race/ethnicity 

 White 276 276 231 232 254 255 278 278 300 299 320* 318 

 Black 247 247 199 203 223 225 248 248 272 270 292 289 

 Hispanic 246 249 194* 201 221* 226 249 250 273 273 294 293 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 272 271 221 222 247 249 274 274 298 297 319 318 

 Asian — 273 — 224 — 250 — 275 — 299 — 319 

 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander — 250 — 203 — 226 — 253 — 275 — 296 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 249 252 202 206 225 230 250 253 275 276 294 295 

 Two or more races 266 273 220 228 243 250 268 274 292 297 312 317 

Gender 

 Male 263 264 211* 214 238 240 265 265 290 290 311 310 

 Female 268 267 217 219 243 243 270 268 294* 292 316* 313 

Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch 

 Eligible 248 249 198* 203 224* 227 250 251 274 273 295 293 

 Not eligible 275* 277 230* 233 253* 256 277 279 300 300 319 319 

Type of school 

 Public 263 263 212* 215 238 240 265 265 290 289 311* 310 

 Private 286 285 244 243 264 264 287 286 309 307 328 325 

 Catholic 282 285 241 243 261 264 283 286 304 306 323 325 

Status as students with disabilities (SD) 

 SD 230 231 178* 182 202 205 230 231 258 256 281 279 

 Not SD 269 269 221* 223 245 246 270 270 294 293 315* 313 

Status as English language learners (ELL) 

 ELL 213* 219 166 175 188* 196 213* 219 239 241 260 260 

Not ELL 268 268 219* 221 244 245 269 269 294 292 315* 312 

Score gaps1 

 White – Black 30 29 31 29 31 30 30 29 29 29 28 29 

 White – Hispanic 30* 28 37* 31 33* 29 29 27 27 26 26 25 

 Female – Male 5 3 6 5 5 3 5 3 4 2 4 3 

 Not eligible – Eligible 28 28 32 30 30 29 27 28 26 27 25 26 

— Not available. Prior to 2011, data for Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students were only available for a single combined Asian/Pacific Islander category. 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
� 1

The score gaps for each category are calculated based on the differences between the unrounded scores for the first student group minus the unrounded scores for the second student group.
�

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and 

nonsectarian private schools. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments.
�

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 23 
Table A-3. Average scores and percentile scores in NAEP vocabulary at grade 12, by selected characteristics: 2009 

Characteristic 

Overall 

average score 

Percentile scores 

10th percentile 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile 90th percentile 

            All students 296 239 268 298 327 350 

Race/ethnicity 

 White 307 254 281 309 335 357 

 Black 272 220 246 273 300 322 

 Hispanic 276 223 249 277 304 327 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 304 246 275 307 334 357 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 281 230 259 284 307 328 

 Twoormore races 310 260 282 309 340 361 

Gender 

 Male 296 236 266 298 327 351 

 Female 297 242 269 298 326 350 

Highest level of parental education 

 Didnot finish high school 274 222 248 274 302 325 

 Graduated from high school 280 226 252 281 309 333 

 Someeducation after high school 294 242 268 295 321 343 

 Graduated from college 309 255 283 311 338 360 

Status as students with disabilities (SD) 

 SD 262 201 230 263 295 322 

 NotSD 299 244 271 300 328 352 

Status as English language learners (ELL) 

 ELL 240 193 217 243 266 286 

 NotELL 298 242 269 299 327 351 

Score gaps1 

 White–Black 35 34 35 36 36 35 

 White–Hispanic 31 31 32 32 31 30 

 Female – Male 1 5 2 # -1 -2 

# Rounds to zero.

1

 The score gaps for each category are calculated based on the differences between the unrounded scores for the first student group minus the unrounded scores for the second student group.

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian 

private schools. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Reading Assessment.
�

24 the nation’s rePort card 
Table A-4. Average scores in NAEP vocabulary for public school students at grade 4, by selected characteristics and 

state/jurisdiction: 2009 and 2011 

State/jurisdiction 

All students 

Race/ethnicity 

White Black Hispanic 

Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

American Indian/ 

Alaska Native 

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 

      Nation (public) 217 217 229 228 202 200 198 200 229 230 209 203 

Alabama 216 217 225 227 200 200 194 199 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Alaska 210 207 223 221 203 203 208 208 200 197 188 180 

Arizona 209 211 225 226 207 203 195 198 ‡ 226 196 188 

Arkansas 217* 213 227 222 195 192 193 195 ‡ 213 ‡ ‡ 

California 205 208 227 228 200 207 189 193 227 232 ‡ ‡ 

Colorado 225 222 238 236 215 206 198 197 238 231 ‡ ‡ 

Connecticut 225 223 235 235 208 198 195 198 234 236 ‡ ‡ 

Delaware 226 221 236 231 214 209 211 209 ‡ 236 ‡ ‡ 

Florida 223 221 232 235 207 204 216 213 238 234 ‡ ‡ 

Georgia 217 218 229 230 204 203 200 211 ‡ 233 ‡ ‡ 

Hawaii 205 208 217 221 ‡ 207 205 205 204 206 ‡ ‡ 

Idaho 220 221 225 226 ‡ ‡ 196 201 ‡ 224 ‡ ‡ 

Illinois 215 215 231 230 192 190 191 195 246 230 ‡ ‡ 

Indiana 222* 217 227 223 210* 195 190 198 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Iowa 223* 219 228 224 198 193 196 196 ‡ 224 ‡ ‡ 

Kansas 226 224 232 230 209 203 209 206 ‡ 227 ‡ ‡ 

Kentucky 222 222 224 224 204 207 204 214 ‡ 242 ‡ ‡ 

Louisiana 205 206 220 220 192 190 ‡ 201 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Maine 220 219 221 220 ‡ 189 ‡ ‡ ‡ 209 ‡ ‡ 

Maryland 223 226 235 239 208 207 206 217 240 246 ‡ ‡ 

Massachusetts 232 233 239 240 214 205 207 209 238 239 ‡ ‡ 

Michigan 214 215 222 222 187 186 197 198 226 232 ‡ ‡ 

Minnesota 221 221 229 230 192 193 189 196 213 216 197 196 

Mississippi 212 208 227 221 199 194 ‡ 199 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Missouri 222 219 227 225 202 197 208 204 ‡ 228 ‡ ‡ 

Montana 225 223 228 227 ‡ ‡ ‡ 214 ‡ ‡ 204 197 

Nebraska 220 222 226 229 200 197 199 202 ‡ 230 ‡ ‡ 

Nevada 208 210 219 224 198 201 196 197 215 219 ‡ ‡ 

New Hampshire 227 227 228 228 ‡ ‡ 214 211 ‡ 230 ‡ ‡ 

New Jersey 224 224 233 234 206 209 202 204 245 240 ‡ ‡ 

New Mexico 205 202 224 222 ‡ 200 197 194 ‡ 219 188 185 

New York 219 216 230 227 204 202 202 199 227 226 ‡ ‡ 

North Carolina 220 217 231 230 206 200 198 198 236 231 205 196 

North Dakota 228 227 230 230 ‡ 214 ‡ 212 ‡ ‡ 211 207 

Ohio 222 221 228 227 201 198 207 198 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Oklahoma 219 218 224 223 200 201 203 206 ‡ 228 219 218 

Oregon 220 218 226 226 ‡ 203 196 194 225 232 213 215 

Pennsylvania 220* 225 226* 232 194 199 204 199 234 237 ‡ ‡ 

Rhode Island 219 217 228 225 206 200 196 198 216 226 ‡ ‡ 

South Carolina 212 211 225 224 194 194 193 201 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

South Dakota 225 218 229 223 ‡ 199 ‡ 202 ‡ ‡ 204 193 

Tennessee 217 214 226 221 193 196 195 192 ‡ 232 ‡ ‡ 

Texas 220 216 235 233 216 208 209 206 248 246 ‡ ‡ 

Utah 218 220 225 226 ‡ ‡ 187 193 212 216 ‡ 187 

Vermont 224 223 225 224 ‡ 201 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Virginia 228 225 237 237 209 205 217* 203 238 228 ‡ ‡ 

Washington 218 217 227 227 202 203 196 191 214 218 210 202 

West Virginia 215 215 216 217 200 196 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Wisconsin 217 219 225 226 185 195 195 194 214 216 ‡ ‡ 

Wyoming 220 219 222 222 ‡ ‡ 203 205 ‡ ‡ ‡ 191 

Other jurisdictions 

District of Columbia 198 194 248 244 194 188 192 192 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

DoDEA1 229 229 236 234 218 219 219 224 229 229 ‡ ‡ 

See notes at end of table. 

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 25 
 

Table A-4. Average scores in NAEP vocabulary for public school students at grade 4, by selected characteristics and 

state/jurisdiction: 2009 and 2011—Continued 

State/jurisdiction 

Gender Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch 

Male Female Eligible Not eligible 

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 

      Nation (public) 217 216 218 218 202 202 232 233 

Alabama 214 216 217 218 203 206 230 232 

Alaska 208 206 212 209 194 191 224 222 

Arizona 208 209 210 212 195 198 225 228 

Arkansas 215 212 219 214 203 202 237 231 

California 207 208 204 208 189 193 225 228 

Colorado 224 219 226 224 201 202 240 239 

Connecticut 224 221 226 225 202 201 235 236 

Delaware 224 220 227 222 213 209 235 233 

Florida 222 219 225 223 212 210 236 239 

Georgia 216 214 217 221 205 205 232 233 

Hawaii 203 205 207 211 193 196 215 220 

Idaho 220 220 220 222 205 209 232 233 

Illinois 213 214 218 216 194 196 234 233 

Indiana 221* 215 224 220 209 205 232 230 

Iowa 221 218 226 221 207 203 233 231 

Kansas 225 222 227 226 213 209 239 239 

Kentucky 222 223 222 221 211 211 233 236 

Louisiana 202 203 209 209 197 197 226 226 

Maine 218 217 223 220 209 207 228 229 

Maryland 222 224 224 227 205 208 234 238 

Massachusetts 230 232 234 234 211 211 242 244 

Michigan 213 214 215 215 199 199 226 227 

Minnesota 222 220 221 222 199 202 232 233 

Mississippi 210 206 215 211 204 200 231 230 

Missouri 220 216 225 222 208 205 233 233 

Montana 224 221 226 225 213 212 234 232 

Nebraska 219 220 220 223 204 205 230 234 

Nevada 207 209 208 210 197 197 215* 226 

New Hampshire 227 224 228 230 210 212 232 232 

New Jersey 224 224 223 224 202 205 233 235 

New Mexico 203 202 206 201 194 193 225 223 

New York 218 215 221 217 207 204 232 230 

North Carolina 218 215 222 220 204 203 234 234 

North Dakota 227 226 229 228 218 216 232 233 

Ohio 222 220 222 221 204 207 233 233 

Oklahoma 217 216 221 219 207 209 232 231 

Oregon 219 217 221 220 203 204 234 235 

Pennsylvania 220 222 220* 228 203 207 230* 237 

Rhode Island 217 214 222 220 203 202 231 229 

South Carolina 215 210 210 213 198 199 230 228 

South Dakota 224 216 226 219 211 205 233 227 

Tennessee 214 213 219 215 204 202 229 231 

Texas 219 217 221 216 209 205 236 235 

Utah 219 220 217 220 201 205 227 229 

Vermont 222 221 226 224 212 209 230 231 

Virginia 227 223 229 228 209 203 237 237 

Washington 217 215 220 218 203 199 231 232 

West Virginia 214 215 216 216 204 203 229 229 

Wisconsin 218 219 217 220 197 202 230 231 

Wyoming 218 217 221 220 208 208 226 226 

Other jurisdictions 

District of Columbia 198 191 198 198 190 185 219 221 

DoDEA1 228 227 230 231 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
� 1

 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown separately for students 

whose race/ethnicity was two or more races and for students whose eligibility status for free/reduced-price school lunch was not available. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 and 2011 Reading 

Assessments.

26 the nation’s rePort card 
Table A-5. Average scores in NAEP vocabulary for public school students at grade 8, by selected characteristics and 

state/jurisdiction: 2009 and 2011 

State/jurisdiction 

All students 

Race/ethnicity 

White Black Hispanic 

Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

American Indian/ 

Alaska Native 

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 

        Nation (public) 263 263 275 274 246 246 245 247 270 271 251 252 

Alabama 258 260 268 270 241 244 ‡ 244 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Alaska 263 263 274 276 ‡ 250 265 259 257 256 239 238 

Arizona 257 259 275 274 251 246 241 246 ‡ 268 241 242 

Arkansas 256 257 266 267 231 231 239 245 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

California 253 254 272 272 243 245 240 242 265 269 ‡ ‡ 

Colorado 267 270 279 281 253 256 244 248 270 278 ‡ ‡ 

Connecticut 275 275 284 287 245 250 248 244 ‡ 284 ‡ ‡ 

Delaware 261 264 270 273 249 251 250 252 ‡ 279 ‡ ‡ 

Florida 265 264 274 275 250 248 259 257 277 266 ‡ ‡ 

Georgia 262 264 272 275 249 252 254 255 ‡ 277 ‡ ‡ 

Hawaii 251 253 263 270 ‡ 253 242 245 249 250 ‡ ‡ 

Idaho 268 270 273 274 ‡ ‡ 238* 251 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Illinois 265 264 277 275 241 243 250 251 285 278 ‡ ‡ 

Indiana 265 265 269 272 248 244 249 244 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Iowa 266 266 270 270 238 243 243 245 ‡ 264 ‡ ‡ 

Kansas 268 269 275 276 245 248 245 250 ‡ 264 ‡ ‡ 

Kentucky 264 267 267 270 241 246 254 253 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Louisiana 255 251 269 262 237 237 ‡ 241 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Maine 266 270 267 271 ‡ 243 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Maryland 266 269 278 282 249 252 254 257 282 286 ‡ ‡ 

Massachusetts 272 276 279 283 248 257 243 245 280 284 ‡ ‡ 

Michigan 262 265 269 271 240 242 236 251 ‡ 272 ‡ ‡ 

Minnesota 269 271 274 276 245 245 242 252 251 260 252 258 

Mississippi 253 253 272 269 235 238 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Missouri 267 266 272 270 240 243 ‡ 252 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Montana 276 274 279 277 ‡ ‡ ‡ 260 ‡ ‡ 247 254 

Nebraska 268 270 274 275 244 249 245 249 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Nevada 254 257 267 272 241 250 241 242 263 262 ‡ ‡ 

New Hampshire 278* 271 279* 272 ‡ ‡ ‡ 250 ‡ 269 ‡ ‡ 

New Jersey 274 272 284 283 248 252 256 252 291 283 ‡ ‡ 

New Mexico 254 255 279 273 ‡ 247 244 248 ‡ 268 235 243 

New York 264 261 279 274 244 245 241 242 270 267 ‡ ‡ 

North Carolina 262 265 274 277 244 244 249 253 264 275 235 247 

North Dakota 275 273 278 276 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 247 249 

Ohio 271 267 276 274 246 242 252 248 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Oklahoma 264 261 268 268 249 247 245 249 ‡ ‡ 268 * 254 

Oregon 271 267 277 273 ‡ 246 246 247 281 262 ‡ 254 

Pennsylvania 271* 266 276 274 251 240 248 248 281 275 ‡ ‡ 

Rhode Island 260 259 268 267 238 241 241 241 ‡ 255 ‡ ‡ 

South Carolina 260 262 270 273 245 244 250 251 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

South Dakota 273 272 277 276 ‡ 253 ‡ 256 ‡ ‡ 247 247 

Tennessee 265 262 275* 269 240 240 ‡ 252 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Texas 262 263 282 281 257 252 246* 252 282 284 ‡ ‡ 

Utah 269 272 273 278 ‡ ‡ 247 246 ‡ 260 ‡ 249 

Vermont 274 272 274 273 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Virginia 268 268 277 276 253 254 250 253 263 275 ‡ ‡ 

Washington 267 267 275 274 247 251 241 244 270 271 245 255 

West Virginia 257 257 258 258 246 247 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Wisconsin 266 269 272 276 240 238 246 244 253 264 ‡ ‡ 

Wyoming 272 266 275 269 ‡ ‡ 254 251 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Other jurisdictions 

District of Columbia 240 240 ‡ 287 238 237 237 233 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

DoDEA1 275 275 281 281 262 263 272 267 274 271 ‡ ‡ 

See notes at end of table. 

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 27 
 

 

the nation’s rePort card 

Table A-5. Average scores in NAEP vocabulary for public school students at grade 8, by selected characteristics and 

state/jurisdiction: 2009 and 2011—Continued 

State/jurisdiction 

Gender Eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch 

Male Female Eligible Not eligible 

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 

      Nation (public) 261 262 266 265 248 249 275 277 

Alabama 254 258 262 261 245 249 271 272 

Alaska 261 260 265 266 248 246 272 275 

Arizona 257 257 258 261 240 246 273 274 

Arkansas 255 254 258 260 245 246 270 272 

California 250 251 255 258 240 242 267 269 

Colorado 265 270 270 271 249 250 277* 283 

Connecticut 271 274 279 276 251 251 283 287 

Delaware 259 261 264 266 248 253 269 272 

Florida 262 261 267 267 253 253 276 277 

Georgia 258 262 266 266 250 254 273 278 

Hawaii 247 250 255 256 241 241 257 263 

Idaho 263 267 272 272 254 259 275 279 

Illinois 262 261 269 266 247 248 277 278 

Indiana 265 264 266 267 253 252 272 276 

Iowa 264 265 269 267 253 251 273 275 

Kansas 268 267 268 271 251 254 280 281 

Kentucky 263 268 265 266 254 256 273 279 

Louisiana 252 250 256 252 244 243 272 264 

Maine 262 268 271 273 256 258 272 278 

Maryland 265 268 267 269 250 250 273 278 

Massachusetts 271 274 274 278 251 255 281 285 

Michigan 258 263 267 267 247 252 272 275 

Minnesota 266 270 271 272 249 253 276 279 

Mississippi 252 251 254 255 239 244 279 273 

Missouri 265 264 269 267 251 253 276 275 

Montana 273 272 278 277 264 264 281 281 

Nebraska 264 268 271 271 251 254 277 280 

Nevada 251 254 258 260 244 245 260* 268 

New Hampshire 274* 268 282* 273 264* 255 282* 275 

New Jersey 272 271 277 274 253 251 281 281 

New Mexico 254 253 255 256 241 246 277 270 

New York 263 260 266 262 248 248 279 274 

North Carolina 257 261 267 269 248 250 273* 280 

North Dakota 273 270 277 276 263 260 280 279 

Ohio 270 265 272 269 256 252 279 279 

Oklahoma 264 260 264 262 255 253 272 271 

Oregon 266 265 276 268 254 252 283 281 

Pennsylvania 270* 265 272* 267 254 249 280 277 

Rhode Island 257 257 263 262 244 244 269 270 

South Carolina 257 259 263 264 249 249 271 275 

South Dakota 271 270 276 274 260 259 279 278 

Tennessee 262 261 268 264 250 250 277 275 

Texas 261 264 264 261 247 250 279 280 

Utah 267 268 271 275 253 255 274 281 

Vermont 269 269 278 276 260 258 279 280 

Virginia 264 267 271 269 250 249 275 277 

Washington 265 265 269 269 251 252 277 277 

West Virginia 254 254 260 260 249 248 266 265 

Wisconsin 264 267 269 271 249 249 274 279 

Wyoming 270 264 274 269 260 255 277 272 

Other jurisdictions 

District of Columbia 239 236 241 243 235 233 252 256 

DoDEA1 273 274 277 277 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. 

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. 1

 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). 

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown separately for students whose 

race/ethnicity was two or more races and for students whose eligibility status for free/reduced-price school lunch was not available. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments. 

28 
Table A-6. Average scores in NAEP vocabulary for public school students at grade 12, by selected characteristics 

and state/jurisdiction: 2009 

State/jurisdiction All students 

Race/ethnicity Gender 

White Black Hispanic 

Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Male Female 

Nation (public) 294 305 271 275 304 280 294 295 

Arkansas 283 294 251 263 ‡ ‡ 282 284 

Connecticut 300 310 271 274 303 ‡ 298 302 

Florida 290 299 273 281 305 ‡ 289 291 

Idaho 300 304 ‡ 273 ‡ ‡ 298 303 

Illinois 297 307 272 275 318 ‡ 298 297 

Iowa 296 298 270 273 ‡ ‡ 296 297 

Massachusetts 306 312 282 270 314 ‡ 306 306 

New Hampshire 307 307 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 301 312 

New Jersey 296 309 266 275 315 ‡ 296 297 

South Dakota 303 306 ‡ ‡ ‡ 280 301 305 

West Virginia 291 291 276 ‡ ‡ ‡ 288 294 

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. � 

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown separately 

for students whose race/ethnicity was two or more races. Eleven states participated in the assessment at the state level and met the reporting criteria. � 

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

2009 Reading Assessment. � 

Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 naeP reading assessments 29 
U.S. Department of Education 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a congressionally authorized project sponsored by the 

U.S. Department of Education. The National Center for Education Statistics, within the Institute of Education Sciences, 

administers NAEP. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible by law for carrying out the NAEP project. 

Arne Duncan 

Secretary 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

John Q. Easton 

director 

Institute of 

Education Sciences 

Jack Buckley 

Commissioner 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 

Peggy G. Carr 

associate Commissioner 

for assessment 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 

The National Assessment Governing Board 

In 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board to set policy for the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress, commonly known as The Nation’s Report CardTM. The Governing Board is an independent, 

bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, 

business representatives, and members of the general public. 

Honorable David P. Driscoll, Chair	�

former Commissioner of education

Melrose, Massachusetts

	�

Susan Pimentel, Vice Chair 

educational Consultant 

Hanover, New Hampshire	�

Andrés Alonso 

Chief executive officer 

Baltimore City Public Schools 

Baltimore, Maryland 

Louis M. Fabrizio 

data, research and federal Policy director 

North Carolina Department of Public 

Instruction 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

Honorable Anitere Flores 

Senator 

Florida State Senate 

Miami, Florida 

Alan J. Friedman 

Consultant 

Museum Development and Science 

Communication 

New York, New York 

Rebecca Gagnon 

School Board Member 

Minneapolis Public Schools 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Shannon Garrison 

fourth-grade teacher 

Solano Avenue Elementary School 

Los Angeles, California 

Doris R. Hicks 

Principal and Chief executive officer 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School 

for Science and Technology 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

Andrew Dean Ho 

assistant Professor 

Harvard Graduate School of Education 

Harvard University 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 

Honorable Terry Holliday 

Commissioner of education

Kentucky Department of Education

Lexington, Kentucky

	�

	�

Richard Brent Houston 

Principal

Shawnee Middle School

Shawnee, Oklahoma	�

	�

	�

Hector Ibarra 

eighth-grade teacher 

Belin-Blank International Center 

and Talent Development 

Iowa City, Iowa 

Honorable Tom Luna 

idaho Superintendent of Public 

instruction

Boise, Idaho 

	�

Terry Mazany 

President and Ceo 

The Chicago Community Trust 

Chicago, Illinois 

Tonya Miles 

general Public representative 

Mitchellville, Maryland	�

Dale Nowlin 

twelfth-grade teacher 

Columbus North High School 

Columbus, Indiana 

Joseph M. O’Keefe, S.J. 

Professor 

Lynch School of Education 

Boston College 

Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 

W. James Popham 

Professor emeritus 

University of California, Los Angeles 

Wilsonville, Oregon 

B. Fielding Rolston 

Chairman 

Tennessee State Board of Education 

Kingsport, Tennessee 

Cary Sneider 

associate research Professor 

Portland State University 

Portland, Oregon 

Blair Taylor 

Chief Community officer 

Starbucks Coffee Company 

Seattle, Washington 

Honorable Leticia Van de Putte 

Senator 

Texas State Senate 

San Antonio, Texas 

John Q. Easton (Ex officio) 

director 

Institute of Education Sciences 

U.S. Department of Education 

Washington, D.C. 

Cornelia S. Orr 

executive director 

National Assessment Governing Board 

Washington, D.C. 

“The Depar tment 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 

M o r e i n f o r M a t i o n 

The report release site is 

http://nationsreportcard.gov. 

The NCES Publications and Products 

address is http://nces.ed.gov/ 

pubsearch. 

For ordering information, write to 

ED Pubs 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 22207 

Alexandria, VA 22304 

or call toll free 1-877-4-ED-Pubs 

or order online at 

http://www.edpubs.gov. 

the nation’s 

rePort card 

Vocabulary Results 

From the 2009 and 

2011 NAEP Reading 

Assessments 

DECEMBER 2012 

S u g g e S t e d C i t a t i o n 


�

National Center for Education
�

Statistics (2012).

The Nation s Report Card: 

Vocabulary ResultsFromthe2009 and 2011 

NAEP Reading Assessments
�

(NCES 2013 452). 

Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education, 

Washington, D.C. 

C o n t e n t C o n t a C t 

Angela Glymph 

202 219 7127 

angela.glymph@ed.gov 

This report was prepared for the National 

Center for Education Statistics under Contract 

No. ED 07 CO 0107 with Educational Testing 

Service. Mention of trade names, commercial 

products, or organizations does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

 

’ 

 

 

– 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - 

- - -