NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

NAEP 1994 READING REPORT CARD FOR THE NATION AND THE STATES

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS AND TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENTS

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T 25TH ANNIVERSARY•1969–1994

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT
Honorable William T. Randall, Chair

Commissioner of Education

State Department of Education

Denver, Colorado

Mary R. Blanton

Attorney

Salisbury, North Carolina

Honorable Evan Bayh

Governor of Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana

Patsy Cavazos

Principal

W.G. Love Elementary School

Houston, Texas

Honorable Naomi K. Cohen

Former Representative

State of Connecticut

Hartford, Connecticut

Charlotte A. Crabtree

Professor of Education

University of California

Los Angeles, California

Catherine L. Davidson

Secondary Education Director

Central Kitsap School District

Silverdale, Washington

James E. Ellingson

Fourth-grade Teacher

Probstfield Elementary School

Moorhead, Minnesota

Chester E. Finn, Jr.

John M. Olin Fellow

Hudson Institute

Washington, DC

Mark D. Musick

President

Southern Regional Education Board

Atlanta, Georgia

Mitsugi Nakashima

Hawaii State Board of Education

Honolulu, Hawaii

Michael T. Nettles

Professor of Education & Public Policy

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Honorable Edgar D. Ross

Attorney

Christiansted, St. Croix

U.S. Virgin Islands

Fannie N. Simmons

Mathematics Specialist

Midlands Improving Math & Science Hub

Columbia, South Carolina

Marilyn A. Whirry

Twelfth-grade English Teacher

Mira Costa High School

Manhattan Beach, California

Sharon P. Robinson (ex-officio)

Assistant Secretary

Office of Educational Research

 and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, DC

Roy Truby

Executive Director, NAGB

Washington, DC

Michael J. Guerra

Executive Director

Secondary School Department

National Catholic Education Association

Washington, DC

William (Jerry) Hume

Chairman

Basic American, Inc.

San Francisco, California

Jan B. Loveless

Educational Consultant

Jan B. Loveless & Associates

Midland, Michigan

Marilyn McConachie

Local School Board Member

Glenbrook High Schools

Glenview, Illinois

Honorable Stephen E. Merrill

Governor of New Hampshire

Concord, New Hampshire

Jason Millman

Prof. of Educational Research Methodology

Cornell University

Ithaca, New York

Honorable Richard P. Mills

Commissioner of Education

New York State Department of Education

Albany, New York

William J. Moloney

Superintendent of Schools

Calvert County Public Schools

Prince Frederick, Maryland

What is The Nation’s Report Card?

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

assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in

reading, mathematics, science, writing, history/geography, and other fields. By making objective information on student performance available to

policymakers at the national, state, and local levels, NAEP is an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education.

Only information related to academic achievement is collected under this program. NAEP guarantees the privacy of individual students and their

families.

NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. Department of Education. The

Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible, by law, for carrying out the NAEP project through competitive awards to qualified organizations. NAEP reports directly to the Commissioner, who is also responsible for providing continuing reviews, including validation studies and

solicitation of public comment, on NAEP’s conduct and usefulness.

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

responsible for selecting the subject areas to be assessed from among those included in the National Education Goals; for setting appropriate student

performance levels; for developing assessment objectives and test specifications through a national consensus approach; for designing the

assessment methodology; for developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating NAEP results; for developing standards and procedures for

interstate, regional, and national comparisons; for determining the appropriateness of test items and ensuring they are free from bias; and for taking

actions to improve the form and use of the National Assessment.

The National Assessment Governing Board
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

NAEP 1994 Reading Report Card

for the Nation and the States

Findings from the

National Assessment of Educational Progress

and Trial State Assessment

Jay R. Campbell

Patricia L. Donahue

Clyde M. Reese

Gary W. Phillips

January 1996

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

Prepared by Educational Testing Service under contract

with the National Center for Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Sharon P. Robinson

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Jeanne E. Griffith

Acting Commissioner

Education Assessment Division

Gary W. Phillips

Associate Commissioner

January 1996

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For ordering information on this report, write:

National Library of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20208-5641

or call 1-800-424-1616 (in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area

call 202-219-1651).

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

National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research

and Improvement, by Educational Testing Service.

Educational Testing Service is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer.

Educational Testing Service, ETS, and the ETS logo are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

CHAPTER 1. NAEP’S 1994 ASSESSMENT IN READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview of the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) . . . . . 1

Framework for the 1992 and 1994 Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Purposes for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Reading Stances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Reading Assessment Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Description of School and Student Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

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

Interpreting NAEP Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Sample Assessment Questions and Student Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CHAPTER 2. READING PROFICIENCY RESULTS FOR THE NATION,

REGIONS AND STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Average Reading Proficiency Results for the Nation and Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Average Reading Proficiency Results for the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Average Reading Proficiency Results for Selected Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Public and Nonpublic School Results for the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

An In-Depth Look at Selected Background Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

CHAPTER 3. ATTAINMENT OF READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Reading Achievement Levels for the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Reading Achievement Levels for the Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Reading Achievement Levels for the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Reading Achievement Levels for Selected Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

CHAPTER 4. CROSS-STATE COMPARISONS OF FOURTH-GRADE

READING PROFICIENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Distribution of Reading Proficiency for the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Comparisons of Average Reading Proficiency Between States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Comparisons of Average Reading Proficiency Across the States for

 Selected Demographic Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

CHAPTER 5. SCHOOL AND HOME CONTEXTS FOR READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Instructional Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Instructional Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Students’ Home Support For Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
i v

CHAPTER 6. WHAT STUDENTS KNOW AND CAN DO IN READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Overview of Students’ Performance on NAEP’s Reading Composite Scale . . . . . . . 81

Profiles of Students’ Literacy Practices and Reading Abilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Average Proficiency in Reading for Different Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Average Proficiency at Various Percentiles by Purposes for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Students’ Abilities in Reading for Different Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

APPENDICES

A. Overview of Procedures Used in NAEP’s 1994 Reading Assessment . . . . . . 97

B. Describing Students’ Reading Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

C. Cross State Proficiency and Achievement Level Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

D. Sample Texts and Questions from the 1994 NAEP Reading Assessment . . . 159
v

TABLES

Table 1.1 Distribution of Questions by Reading Stances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table 1.2 Weighting of the Reading Purpose Subscales

on the Composite Reading Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2.1 Average Reading Proficiency by Percentile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 2.2 Average Reading Proficiency by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 2.3 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

NAEP Trial State Assessments in Reading, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 2.4 Average Reading Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 2.5 Average Reading Proficiency by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 2.6 Average Reading Proficiency by Type of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 2.7 Average Reading Proficiency by Parents’ Highest Education Level . . . . . . . . 31

Table 2.8 Average Reading Proficiency by Title I Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 2.9 Average Reading Proficiency by Type of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 2.10 Average Reading Proficiency, Grade 4, 1994 Trial State Assessment,

Public Schools, Nonpublic Schools, and Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 2.11 Average Reading Proficiency of Male and Female Students

by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 2.12 Average Reading Proficiency of Male and Female Students

in Relation to Parents’ Highest Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 2.13 Average Reading Proficiency of White, Black, and Hispanic Students

in Relation to Parents’ Highest Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 2.14 Average Reading Proficiency of Public and Nonpublic School Students

in Relation to Parents’ Highest Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 3.1 Reading Achievement Levels by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 3.2 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

NAEP Trial State Assessments in Reading, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 3.3 Reading Achievement Levels by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 3.4 Reading Achievement Levels by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 3.5 Reading Achievement Levels by Type of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 3.6 Reading Achievement Levels by Parents’ Highest Education Level . . . . . . . . 51
v i

Table 3.7 Reading Achievement Levels by Title I Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 3.8 Reading Achievement Levels by Type of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 5.1 Teachers’ Reports on Which Type of Material Forms

the Core of Their Reading Program, Grades 4 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Table 5.2a Teachers’ Reports on Workbooks, Worksheets,

and Writing in Response to Reading, Grades 4 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 5.2b Students’ Reports on Workbooks, Worksheets,

and Writing in Response to Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table 5.3 Students’ Reports on Number of Pages Read Each Day

in School and for Homework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 5.4 Students’ Reports on How Frequently their Teachers Ask Them

to Explain Their Understanding and Discuss Various Interpretations

of What They Read in School, Grades 8 and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 5.5 Students’ Reports on Number of Different Types of

Literacy Materials in Their Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Table 5.6 Students’ Reports on the Frequency with Which They Read

for Fun on Their Own Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 5.7 Students’ Reports on the Frequency with Which They Discuss Their

Studies at Home and Talk About Their Reading with Family and Friends . . . 75

Table 5.8 Students’ Reports on Amount of Time Spent

Watching Television Each Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table 6.1 Average Proficiency in Purposes for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Table 6.2 Average Proficiency in Purposes for Reading by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . 88

Table 6.3 Average Proficiency in Purposes for Reading by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 6.4 Average Proficiency in Purposes for Reading by Type of School . . . . . . . . . . 90

Table 6.5 Average Proficiency at Various Percentiles by Purposes for Reading . . . . . . . 91
vii

Table A.1 Target and Actual Percentage Distribution of Questions by

Grade and Reading Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Table A.2 Target and Actual Percentage Distribution of Questions by

Grade and Reading Stance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Table A.3a Questionnaire Response Rates, Grade 4,

1994 Reading Assessment — Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Table A.3b Questionnaire Response Rates, Grade 4,

1994 Reading Assessment — Nonpublic Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Table A.4 Unweighted and Weighted Sample Size by Grade

for the 1994 Reading Assessment, Public and Nonpublic Schools . . . . . . . . 103

Table A.5a School and Student Participation Rates by State

for the 1994 Trial State Assessment, Grade 4, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . 105

Table A.5b School and Student Participation Rates by State

for the 1994 Trial State Assessment, Grade 4, Nonpublic Schools Only . . . . 106

Table A.6 Weighted Percentages of Students Excluded (IEP and LEP)

from Original Sample, Grade 4,

1994 Reading Assessment — Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Table A.7 Weighted Percentages of Students Excluded (IEP and LEP)

from Original Sample, Grade 4,

1994 Reading Assessment — Nonpublic Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Table A.8 Weighted Percentages of Absent, IEP, and LEP Students

Based on Those Invited to Participate in the Assessment,

Grade 4, 1994 Reading Assessment — Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Table A.9 Weighted Percentages of Absent, IEP, and LEP Students

Based on Those Invited to Participate in the Assessment, Grade 4,

1994 Reading Assessment — Nonpublic Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Table A.10 Percentage of Students Who Reported Not Knowing Their

Parents’ Education Level, by Race/Ethnicity, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . 115

Table A.11 Correlations Between Students’ and Parents’ Reports of

Parents’ Education Level, by Race/Ethnicity, Grades 8 and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Table B.1 Responses of Students at Percentile Points

to Selected Background Questions, Grade 4, 1994 Reading Assessment . . . 121

Table B.2 Responses of Students at Percentile Points

to Selected Background Questions, Grade 8, 1994 Reading Assessment . . . 122

Table B.3 Responses of Students at Percentile Points

to Selected Background Questions, Grade 12, 1994 Reading Assessment . . . 124
viii

Table C.1A Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency by Gender

1992 Trial State Assessment in Reading, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Table C.1B Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency by Gender

1994 Trial State Assessment in Reading, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Table C.2A Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity

1992 Trial State Assessment in Reading, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Table C.2B Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity

1994 Trial State Assessment in Reading, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Table C.2C Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity

1994 Trial State Assessment in Reading, Public Schools Only (continued) . . . 130

Table C.3A Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency by Parents’ Education Level

1992 Trial State Assessment in Reading, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Table C.3B Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency by Parents’ Education Level

1994 Trial State Assessment in Reading, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Table C.4A Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency by Type of Location

1992 Trial State Assessment in Reading, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Table C.4B Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency by Type of Location

1994 Trial State Assessment in Reading, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Table C.5A Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels by Gender

1992 and 1994 Trial State Assessments in Reading

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Table C.5B Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels by Gender

1992 and 1994 Trial State Assessments in Reading

Public Schools Only (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Table C.6 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels by Race/Ethnicity

1992 and 1994 Trial State Assessments in Reading

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Table C.7 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels by Parents’ Education Level

1992 and 1994 Trial State Assessments in Reading

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Table C.8 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels by Type of Location

1992 and 1994 Trial State Assessments in Reading

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
i x

FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Reading Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 1.2 Reading Stances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 1.3 Achievement Level Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 2.1 Average Reading Proficiency by Grade and by Region —

NAEP 1992 and 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 2.2 Summary of Average Reading Proficiency Results by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . 28

Figure 2.3 Average Reading Proficiency by Parents’ Highest Education Level . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 2.4 Comparison of Average Reading Proficiency for Public and

Nonpublic Schools Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 3.1 Percentage of Students At or Above the Reading Achievement Levels

by Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 3.2 Percentage of Students At or Above the Reading Achievement Levels

by Grade and by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 4.1 Distribution of Overall Reading Proficiency Organized by

Average Proficiency for the 1992 Trial State Reading Assessment,

Grade 4, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 4.2 Distribution of Overall Reading Proficiency Organized by

Average Proficiency for the 1994 Trial State Reading Assessment,

Grade 4, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 4.3 Comparisons of Average Overall Reading Proficiency for the

1992 Trial State Reading Assessment, Grade 4, Public Schools Only . . . . . . 59

Figure 4.4 Comparisons of Average Overall Reading Proficiency for the

1994 Trial State Reading Assessment, Grade 4, Public Schools Only . . . . . . 60

Figure 4.5 Average Overall Reading Proficiency for Five Performance Bands

(Quintiles) 1992 Trial State Assessment, Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 4.6 Average Overall Reading Proficiency for Five Performance Bands

(Quintiles) 1994 Trial State Assessment, Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 6.1 Profiles of Lower, Middle, and Higher Performing Fourth Graders:

Reading Abilities and Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 6.2 Profiles of Lower, Middle, and Higher Performing Eighth Graders:

Reading Abilities and Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
x

Figure 6.3 Profiles of Lower, Middle, and Higher Performing Twelfth Graders:

Reading Abilities and Literacy Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Figure 6.4 Map of Selected Items on the Reading for Literary Experience Subscale . . . . 93

Figure 6.5 Map of Selected Items on the Reading to Gain Information Subscale . . . . . . 94

Figure 6.6 Map of Selected Items on the Reading to Perform a Task Subscale . . . . . . . 95

Figure A.1 1992 and 1994 NAEP Framework — Aspects of Reading Literacy . . . . . . . . 98

Figure A.2 States Included in the Four Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
x i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For a quarter of a century, the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) has reported to policymakers, educators, and the general public on the

educational achievement of students in the United

States. As the nation’s only ongoing survey of students’

educational progress, NAEP has become an important

resource for obtaining information on what students

know and can do.

The 1994 NAEP reading assessment continues the

mandate to evaluate and report the educational

progress of students at grades 4, 8, and 12. The national

results provided herein describe students’ reading

achievement at each grade and within various

subgroups of the general population. State-level results

are presented for individual states that chose to

participate in the 1994 Trial State Assessment. In

addition, trends in performance since 1992 are

reported for the nation and for jurisdictions that

participated in both the 1992 and 1994 state

assessments.

Students’ reading performance is summarized on

the NAEP reading proficiency scale, which ranges from

0 to 500. In addition, results for each grade are

reported according to three achievement levels: Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced. These achievement levels are

based on collective judgments about what students

should know and be able to do in reading. The Basic

level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge

and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at

each grade. The Proficient level represents solid

academic performance and demonstrated competence

over challenging subject matter. The Advanced level

signifies superior performance.

Major Findings for the Nation,

Regions, and States

© The most striking finding from the 1994 assessment

is that the average reading proficiency of twelfthgrade students declined significantly from 1992 to

1994. This decline was observed across a broad

range of subgroups. Significant changes in average

proficiency were not observed in the national

population of fourth or eighth graders.

© The decline in average proficiency among twelfth

graders between 1992 and 1994 was concentrated

among lower performing students — those scoring

at the 10th, 25th, and 50th percentiles. No

significant declines were observed among twelfth

graders at the 75th or 90th percentiles.

© The percentage of twelfth-grade students who

reached the Proficient level in reading declined from

1992 to 1994. There also was a decrease in the

percentage of twelfth graders at or above the Basic

level.

© In 1994, 30 percent of fourth graders, 30 percent

of eighth graders, and 36 percent of twelfth graders

attained the Proficient level in reading. Across

the three grades, 3 to 7 percent reached the

Advanced level.

© In 1994, twelfth graders in the Northeast, Central,

and West regions displayed lower average reading

proficiencies than their 1992 counterparts.

© The eight states with the highest average reading

proficiencies in 1994 for fourth graders in public

schools were Maine, North Dakota, Wisconsin,

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut,

and Montana.

© Between 1992 and 1994, the average reading

proficiencies of fourth graders declined in eight

jurisdictions: California, Delaware, Louisiana,

New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,

South Carolina, and Virginia.

© The decline in overall reading proficiency at the

twelfth grade was evident in all three assessed

purposes for reading: reading for literary

experience, reading to gain information, and

reading to perform a task.
xii

© In 1994, students who reported having a greater

array of literacy materials in their homes displayed

higher average reading achievement. Among twelfth

graders, there was a decline between 1992 and 1994

in the presence of these materials at home.

© At all three grades, students who more frequently

read for fun on their own time had higher average

proficiencies. Twelfth-grade students in 1994

reported reading for fun less frequently than their

1992 counterparts.

© At all three grades, students who reported more

frequent home discussions about their studies

demonstrated higher reading proficiencies. There

was a decline in the frequency of this activity among

twelfth graders between the 1992 and 1994

assessments.

© In 1994, students who reported watching less than

four hours of television daily displayed higher

average reading proficiencies than their peers who

watched more television.

© At each grade in 1994, students who read five or

fewer pages each day for school and homework had

the lowest average reading proficiencies. Since 1992,

there was an increase in the percentage of twelfth

graders who reported reading five or fewer pages

each day, and a decline in the percentage who

reported reading 11 or more pages.

© Eighth and twelfth graders who reported being

asked by their teachers at least once a week to

explain or support their understanding of what they

read had higher average reading proficiencies than

students who were asked to do so less often. The

reports of twelfth-grade students in 1994 indicated

that they were not asked to do this as frequently as

their counterparts in 1992.

© Eighth and twelfth graders who reported being

asked by their teachers at least once a week to

discuss various interpretations of what they read

displayed higher average reading proficiencies than

students who were asked to do so less often.

According to eighth- and twelfth-grade students’

reports, these discussions were less frequent in

1994 than in 1992.

Major Findings for Student

Subgroups

© Across the nation, there were declines in average

reading proficiency from 1992 to 1994 for Hispanic

students in grade 4 as well as for White, Black, and

Hispanic students in grade 12.

© Consistent with previous NAEP reports, reading

proficiency at all three grades was higher on

average for students whose parents had more

education. Among twelfth graders, the decline in

average reading proficiency since 1992 was evident

for students reporting all levels of parental

education.

© At all three grades, female students had higher

average reading proficiencies than male students.

At twelfth grade, the performance of both male and

female students declined between 1992 and 1994.

© In 1994, fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade

students attending nonpublic schools displayed

higher average reading proficiencies than their

counterparts attending public schools. The

performance of twelfth graders in public and

nonpublic schools declined since 1992.

Contextual Factors Related to

Reading Proficiency

Home and school factors can play important roles in

the development of students’ literacy abilities. Fourth,

eighth, and twelfth graders who participated in the

NAEP reading assessment were asked to complete

questionnaires about their home and school experiences

related to reading achievement and literacy

development. Also, questionnaires about students’

instructional experiences were completed by their

teachers and school administrators. These instruments

provide valuable information about students’ literacyrelated experiences at home and school.
xiii

Chapter 1 presents an overview of the 1994 NAEP

reading assessment — its content framework, design,

and administration. Also included in Chapter 1 are

example questions from the 1994 reading assessment

and sample student responses. Chapter 2 provides

overall average proficiency results for the nation,

regions, subgroups of students, and jurisdictions

participating in the Trial State Assessment. Chapter 3

describes students’ reading performance in terms of the

achievement levels. Chapter 4 focuses on cross-state

comparisons of proficiency results from the state-bystate assessment at grade 4. Chapter 5 describes

contextual factors related to students’ reading

achievement. Finally, Chapter 6 describes specific

abilities demonstrated by students in the NAEP reading

assessment and reports student performance when

reading for different purposes.

About This Report

As the nation’s report card in reading, this report

provides a broad examination of students’ reading

achievement. In addition, specific aspects of students’

reading performance and their experiences at home and

school are reviewed in some depth. As such, this report

provides a portrait of what students know and can do in

reading, as well as the contexts in which they have

developed their reading abilities.
xiv
4 0
1

CHAPTER 1

NAEP’s 1994 Assessment

in Reading

I cannot live without books.

— Thomas Jefferson

The ability to read and understand is essential to each

citizen’s informed and full participation in a democratic

society. That literacy is crucial to the proper working of

a democracy was espoused early on in this country’s

history. In 1821, describing the knowledge to be gained

from books, Thomas Jefferson spoke of “the security

it gives to liberty, by enlightening the minds of

its citizens.”1

Beyond its importance for ensuring an enlightened

citizenry, reading is integral to a broad range of daily

activities. Interpreting the meaning of current events,

learning the skills necessary for workplace success,

evaluating the ideas expressed in various publications,

or finding enjoyment in a book or magazine are

examples of how reading affects what we do and

who we are.

Because we value reading and recognize the major

role it plays in much of what we do, it occupies an

important place in the curriculum of our nation’s

schools. Learning to read is one of the primary goals for

early elementary school students. Beyond early reading

development, students continue to cultivate new and

more effective reading processes and strategies

throughout middle and secondary schools.

The importance of reading as a lifelong activity

underlies the need to monitor the progress of students’

reading achievement. The National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) has fulfilled this need on a

regular basis for more than a quarter of a century. In

doing so, NAEP serves the vital function of reporting to

educators, parents, policy makers, and the general

public how well our students are achieving in the area

of reading proficiency.

Overview of the 1994 National

Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP)

As a project of the National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES), NAEP collects valuable information

about what students know and can do. Since being

initiated by Congress in 1969, NAEP has carried out its

federally supported mandate as the only ongoing

national assessment of student achievement. Both

public and private school students in grades 4, 8, and 12

are regularly sampled and assessed in various subject

areas — reading, history, geography, mathematics, and

others. The assessments are based on content

frameworks that are developed through a national

consensus process involving teachers, curriculum

experts, parents, and members of the general public.

The content of the NAEP assessments attempts to

maintain a balance between current instructional

efforts, curriculum reform, research results, and

desirable levels of achievement.

The 1994 NAEP Reading Assessment was

administered to national samples of fourth-, eighth-,

and twelfth-grade students attending public and

nonpublic schools, and to samples of fourth graders in

the 44 jurisdictions that participated in the 1994 Trial

State Assessment.2

 Nearly 140,000 students were

assessed in the national and jurisdiction samples.

Students’ reading performance is described on a

proficiency scale ranging from 0 to 500, and in relation

to three reading achievement levels: Basic, Proficient,

and Advanced. The assessment results are reported

based on the performance of students at each of the

three grades and within specific subgroups of

the population.

This report describes the results of NAEP’s 1994

Reading Assessment, providing a portrait of reading

achievement among the nation’s fourth, eighth, and

twelfth graders. In addition, this report compares

students’ 1994 achievement with results from the 1992

NAEP Reading Assessment. Making such a comparison

is possible because both reading assessments share a

common set of reading tasks and reflect the same

reading framework.
2

Most of the jurisdictions that participated in the

1994 Trial State Assessment also participated in 1992,

making it possible to report trend results for those

individual jurisdictions. However, the 1994 assessment

included both public and nonpublic school samples,

while only public schools were involved in 1992.

Consequently, trend results for jurisdictions are

reported only for public school students.

Framework for the

1992 and 1994 Assessments

The NAEP Reading Framework3 provided the

operational specifications as well as the theoretical basis

for developing the 1992 and 1994 reading assessments.

The framework was the result of a national consensus

effort in which ideas were sought from hundreds of

individuals involved and interested in reading education

in this country. This effort was managed by the Council

of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) under the

direction of the National Assessment Governing Board

(NAGB).

Grounded in current theories of reading, the

NAEP Reading Framework views reading as a dynamic,

complex interaction between and among the reader,

the text, and the context of the reading experience.

Readers, for example, bring to the reading situation

their prior knowledge and reading experiences, their

familiarity with the topic, their reasons for reading,

their specific skills and strategies, and their knowledge

of text structure.4

The framework specified that the assessment

address three different purposes for reading: reading for

literary experience, reading to gain information, and

reading to perform a task. The latter was not assessed

at grade 4. The framework also delineated four types of

reading processes that characterize the ways in which

readers interact with text and how they gain meaning

from what they read. These processes are referred to as

“reading stances.” The purposes for reading, and the

reading stances, are described in more detail in the

following sections.

Purposes for Reading

Readers typically vary their approach depending on the

type of text they are reading and their purpose for

engaging in the activity.5 The reason one is reading and

the type of experience that is anticipated may influence

the comprehension process, the types of strategies that

are employed, and the aspects of text meaning that are

integrated with personal knowledge.6

 Consequently, the

purpose for reading associated with different types of

texts and reading experiences may influence how and

what a reader understands.

The NAEP reading assessment measured three

purposes for reading as identified in the framework.

Students were given various types of texts to read that

are typically associated with each of the three purposes.

Their abilities to read and understand were evaluated in

terms of a single purpose for each type of text. The

purposes are described in Figure 1.1.

Reading for Literary Experience

Reading for literary experience entails the reading of various literary texts to enlarge our experience of human events and emotions, and to enhance both our appreciation of the world

and how it is depicted through language. Literary texts used in the NAEP reading assessment included adventure stories, poetry, science fiction, and folktales.

Reading to Gain Information

When reading to gain information, readers are usually focused on a specific topic or point of reference. They are trying to understand and retain the text information. Informative texts

used in the NAEP reading assessment included science articles, primary and secondary historical sources, sections of textbook chapters, essays, and a speech.

Reading to Perform a Task

Reading to perform a task involves reading various types of materials for the purpose of applying the information or directions to complete a specific task. As such, readers must focus

on how they will actually use the information. The materials used to assess this purpose in the NAEP reading assessment included classified advertisements, directions for completing

various projects, and a tax form.

Figure 1.1 Reading Purposes
3

Reading Stances

Within each purpose for reading, the NAEP reading

assessment questions asked students to demonstrate

their comprehension through various stances, or

orientations, to the texts. These stances are not

considered to be a hierarchy of reading skills; rather,

they describe reading processes that all readers utilize at

any level of reading development. Furthermore, it is not

intended that the stances represent a sequential routine

of reading abilities. The process of reading typically

involves a variety of changing stances that the reader

takes toward the text, with each stance contributing a

somewhat different dimension to the reader’s

comprehension.7

 The four stances are presented and

described in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 Reading Stances

Initial Understanding

preliminary consideration of the text as a whole

Readers are asked to consider the whole text in demonstrating an overall

understanding of its meaning and function.

Developing an Interpretation

discerning connections and relationships among ideas

within the text

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

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

Personal Reflection and Response

relating personal knowledge to text ideas

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

compare with prior knowledge and experiences.

Critical Stance

standing apart from the text to consider it objectively

Readers are asked to consider how the text conveys information, expresses

ideas or feelings, and communicates a message.

The reading assessment questions were developed

to reflect the four ways in which readers interact with

text. The percentages of questions by stance within each

reading purpose are displayed in Table 1.1.

Reading Stances

Literary Experience 45% 22% 33%

4 Gain Information 52% 27% 20%

Perform a Task * * *

Total Assessment 49% 25% 27%

Literary Experience 41% 26% 34%

8 Gain Information 56% 21% 23%

Perform a Task 53% 11% 36%

Total Assessment 50% 20% 30%

Literary Experience 44% 20% 37%

12 Gain Information 44% 27% 29%

Perform a Task 52% 5% 42%

Total Assessment 46% 19% 35%

* Reading to Perform a Task was not assessed at Grade 4.

Percentages represent proportion of questions within purpose for reading subscale or within total

grade-level assessments.

Distribution of Questions

by Reading Stances

Initial

Understanding &

Developing an

Interpretation

Personal

Response

Critical

Stance

Purpose

Grade for Reading

TABLE 1.1

The Reading Assessment Instruments

The NAEP reading assessment is intended to provide

useful information to a broad range of people.

Therefore, it is imperative that the assessment reflect

the perspectives and opinions about reading

comprehension and its measurement currently held by

educators and researchers. To that end, the assessment

development process included an extensive series of

reviews by reading and measurement experts, state

officials, teachers, and reading researchers. All

components of the assessment were evaluated for

sensitivity concerns, curricular relevance,

developmental appropriateness, and adherence to the

framework and test specifications. In addition, the

grade-level appropriateness of the reading material was

determined through a nationwide review by teachers

with corresponding grade-level experience.
4

Students were given reading materials that had been

drawn from sources commonly available to students in

and out of school. These materials were considered to be

representative of typical reading experiences in that they

were not written or abridged for the assessment. These

were whole, intact stories, articles, and documents.

Although presented to students in assessment booklets,

they were reproduced to replicate as closely as possible

their original format and presentation.

In some cases, students were given more than one

passage at a time. With these reading activities, students

were expected not only to demonstrate understanding of

the individual texts, but also to integrate and synthesize

ideas across the texts.

Each assessed student was asked to complete either

one 50-minute set or two 25-minute sets of reading

passages and questions. The majority of students’

response time was devoted to answering constructedresponse questions about what they had read. With this

type of question, as opposed to multiple-choice formats,

students must write their own answer based on their

considerations of the text. By doing so, students

demonstrate their abilities to produce personal

reactions, generate conclusions, describe

interpretations, or support critical evaluations. 8

Across the three grades assessed — fourth, eighth,

and twelfth — a total of 96 multiple-choice, 144 short

constructed-response (scored using a two- or three-level

scoring rubric), and 33 extended constructed-response

(scored using a four-level scoring rubric) questions

comprised the 1994 reading assessment. Many of these

questions and their corresponding reading materials

were administered at more than one grade to allow for

across-grade comparisons. In terms of the amount of

time students spent responding to these questions, the

greatest emphasis was given to constructed-response

questions. The proportion of response time students

devoted to answering constructed-response questions

was 63 percent at grade 4, 79 percent at grade 8, and 78

percent at grade 12. (The contribution of different

question types to the NAEP reading scale is discussed in

Appendix A.)

Description of School and

Student Samples

As with all NAEP assessments, the schools and students

participating in the 1994 reading assessment were

selected through stratified random sampling

procedures. Approximately 26,000 fourth, eighth, and

twelfth graders in 1,500 public and nonpublic schools

across the country participated in the national

assessment. Separate from the national sample,

representative samples of fourth graders within each of

the 44 participating jurisdictions were selected for the

Trial State Assessment. For a typical jurisdiction, this

involved approximately 2,250 students sampled from

approximately 100 public and nonpublic schools. Thus,

NAEP’s Trial State Assessment Program in reading

involved approximately 120,000 students.

The national, regional, and jurisdictional results

presented in this report are based on representative

samples of students. Each selected school that

participated in the assessment, and each student

assessed, represents a portion of the population of

interest. As a result, after adjusting for student and

school nonresponses, the findings provided in this

report pertain to all fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders

in the nation and regions, and to all fourth graders in

participating jurisdictions that met participation

guidelines.

In carrying out the 1994 Trial State Assessment,

NCES established participation rate standards that

jurisdictions were required to meet in order for their

results to be reported. Two states, Idaho and Michigan,

failed to meet the initial school participation rate of 70

percent. In accordance with NCES guidelines, results

for the fourth-grade public school students from these

two states are not reported in this or any report of the

1994 NAEP Reading Assessment. Another jurisdiction,

Washington, D.C., withdrew from the Trial State

Assessment Program after the data collection phase.

Consequently, neither public nor nonpublic school

student results for Washington, D.C., are presented.
5

Additional standards were established that required

the annotation of published results for jurisdictions

whose sample participation rates were sufficiently low to

raise concerns about the representativeness of their

samples. In tables presenting state-level data, several

jurisdictions are flagged to note the potential for

nonresponse bias that may be associated with their

school participation rates. (For a more detailed

description of the sample and sampling procedures,

see Appendix A.)

Reporting the Reading

Assessment Results

The NAEP reading assessment provides a wealth of

information on the reading abilities of the nation’s

fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students. To

maximize the usefulness of these data to policy makers,

educators, parents, and other interested parties, the

NAEP results are presented as average scores on a

reading proficiency scale and in terms of the proportion

of students attaining NAEP reading achievement levels.

Thus, NAEP results not only provide information about

what students know and can do, but also indicate if

their achievement meets expectations of what students

should know and should be able to do. Furthermore,

the descriptions of skills and abilities expected of

students at each achievement level help make the

reporting of assessment results more meaningful.

Reading Proficiency Scale. Results of the NAEP reading

assessment are summarized on a reading proficiency

scale that ranges from 0 to 500. This scale makes it

possible to report and compare students’ reading

proficiency for the nation and across jurisdictions

participating in the Trial State Assessment Program. In

addition to the composite scale representing overall

reading proficiency, three separate subscales are

reported corresponding to the three reading purposes

described earlier.

Responses to the 1994 NAEP Reading Assessment

questions were analyzed to determine the percentages of

students responding correctly to each multiple-choice

question and the percentages of students responding in

each of the score categories for constructed-response

questions. Item response theory (IRT) methods were

used to produce subscales that summarize results for

each of the three purposes for reading. These subscales,

which range from 0 to 500, are linked to their

corresponding 1992 reading subscales through IRT

equating procedures.

An overall composite scale was developed by

weighting the separate purposes for reading scales based

on the relative importance of each purpose in the NAEP

reading framework. The resulting scale, which is also

linked to the 1992 reading scale, is the reporting metric

used in Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 6 to present results.

(Details of the scaling procedures are presented in the

NAEP 1994 Technical Report and the NAEP 1994 Trial

State Assessment Program Technical Report.)

The relative contribution of each reading purpose

to the overall proficiency score is presented in Table 1.2.

As displayed, the weighting of each reading purpose

subscale changes from grade to grade to reflect the

changing demands made of students as they mature.

TABLE 1.2 Weighting of the Reading Purpose

Subscales on the Composite Reading Scale

4 55% 45% not assessed

8 40% 40% 20%

12 35% 45% 20%

To Gain

Information

To Perform

Grade a Task

Literary

Experience
6

Reading Achievement Levels. In addition to the NAEP

proficiency scale, results are also reported using the

reading achievement levels as authorized by the NAEP

legislation and adopted by NAGB. The achievement

levels are based on collective judgments, gathered from

a broadly representative panel of teachers, education

specialists, and members of the general public, about

what students should know and be able to do relative to

a body of content reflected in the NAEP assessment

framework. For reporting purposes, the achievement

level cut scores for each grade are placed on the NAEP

reading proficiency scale resulting in four ranges:

Basic, Proficient, Advanced, and the range below Basic.

The definitions of the three achievement levels are

presented below.

Basic This level denotes partial mastery of

prerequisite knowledge and skills that are

fundamental for proficient work at each

grade.

Proficient This level represents solid academic

performance for each grade assessed.

Students reaching this level have

demonstrated competency over

challenging subject matter, including

subject-matter knowledge, application of

such knowledge to real world situations,

and analytical skills appropriate to the

subject matter.

Advanced This level signifies superior performance.

It should be noted that the setting of achievement

levels for the national assessment is relatively new and

in transition. Some evaluations have concluded that the

percentages of students at certain levels may be

underestimated.9

 On the other hand, critiques of those

evaluations have found that such conclusions are not

supported by the weight of the empirical evidence.10

The student achievement levels in this report have

been developed carefully and responsibly, and have been

subject to refinements and revisions in procedures as

new technologies have become available. Upon

reviewing the available information, the Commissioner

of NCES has judged that the achievement levels are in a

developmental status. However, the commissioner and

the Governing Board also believe that the achievement

levels are useful and valuable in reporting on the

educational achievement of students in the United

States. Results reported in terms of the reading

achievement levels are presented in Chapter 3 of

this report.

Interpreting NAEP Results

The average proficiencies and percentages presented in

this report are estimates because they are based on

samples rather than the entire population(s). As such,

the results are subject to a measure of uncertainty,

reflected in the standard errors of the estimates. These

standard errors are presented in parentheses along with

the estimated average proficiencies or percentages in

tables throughout this report.

The significant differences discussed in the

following chapters take into account the standard errors

associated with the estimates. The comparisons are

based on statistical tests that consider both the

magnitude of the difference between the group average

proficiencies or percentages and the standard errors of

those statistics. The report presents significant

differences (1) among the estimates for the reporting

subgroups in the 1994 assessment and (2) between 1992

and 1994 results. Throughout this report, differences

are defined as significant when they are significant from

a statistical perspective. This means that observed

differences are unlikely to be due to chance factors

associated with sampling variability. All differences

Figure 1.3 Achievement Level Definitions
7

reported are significant at the .05 level with appropriate

adjustments for multiple comparisons. The term

“significant,” therefore, is not necessarily intended to

imply judgment about the absolute magnitude or

educational relevance of the differences. The term is

intended to identify statistically dependable population

differences as an aid in focusing subsequent dialogue

among policymakers, educators, and the public.

Cautions in Interpretations. The reader is cautioned

against using the NAEP results reported herein to make

simple or causal inferences related to subgroup

membership, effectiveness of public and nonpublic

schools, and state educational systems. For example,

performance differences observed among racial/ethnic

subgroups are almost certainly associated with a broad

range of socioeconomic and educational factors not

discussed in this report and possibly not addressed by

the NAEP assessment program. Similarly, differences

between public and nonpublic schools may be better

understood after accounting for factors such as

composition of the student body, parents’ educational

levels, and parental interest. Finally, differences in

reading performance among states most likely reflect an

interaction between the effectiveness of the educational

programs within the state and the challenges posed by

economic constraints and student demographic

demands.

Sample Assessment Questions and

Student Responses

Sample questions and responses from the 1994 NAEP

Reading Assessment are presented on the following

pages. Three questions were selected for each grade to

exemplify the range of reading abilities demonstrated by

students. Reflecting the types of questions on the

assessment, a combination of multiple-choice, short

constructed-response, and extended constructedresponse questions are included.

For each question, the reading purpose and reading

stance being assessed are indicated. The stories or

articles that were read by students before answering

these questions appear in Appendix D along with

additional sample questions and student responses. The

correct answer is marked on the multiple-choice

questions. For constructed-response questions, a

summary of the scoring criteria used to rate students’

answers is provided. Also, sample student responses

have been reproduced from student assessment booklets

to illustrate the typical answers that demonstrated at

least adequate comprehension. The specific score

assigned to each sample response is indicated.

The tables in this section present two types of

percentages for each sample question: (1) the overall

percentage of students within a grade who answered

successfully, and (2) the conditional percentage

representing the percentage of students within a specific

score range on the NAEP reading composite scale who

answered successfully. The score ranges correspond to

the three achievement level intervals — Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced. Conditional percentages for

students within the Advanced achievement level interval

are not presented, however, because of the small sample

size. (Sample size criteria for reporting results are

described in Appendix A.)
8

Sample Questions

and Student Responses – Grade 4

Story:

Hungry Spider and the Turtle

“Hungry Spider and the Turtle” is a West African folktale that humorously depicts hunger and

hospitality through the actions and conversations of two very distinct characters. The ravenous and

generous Turtle who is tricked out of a meal by the gluttonous and greedy Spider finds a way to turn

the tables and teach the Spider a lesson.

Questions:

Who do you think would make a better friend, Spider or Turtle? Explain why.

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Personal Response

Responses to this question were scored

1) Unacceptable, or 2) Acceptable.

* NAEP Reading composite scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard errors of

the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of

interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Sample Response (score of 2):

Acceptable responses (score of 2) indicated which character would make a better friend and

provided appropriate evidence from the story in support of the selection.

Percentage “Acceptable“ within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Acceptable” 208-237* 238-267* 268 and above*

62 (1.4) 70 (2.7) 80 (2.1) **
9

Why did Spider invite Turtle to share his food?

A. To amuse himself

B. To be kind and helpful

C. To have company at dinner

©D. To appear generous

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Developing an Interpretation

* NAEP Reading composite scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard errors of

the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of

interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage Correct within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 208-237* 238-267* 268 and above*

40 (1.2) 45 (2.4) 73 (3.9) **
1 0

Think about Spider and Turtle in the story. Pick someone you know, have read

about, or have seen in the movies or on television and explain how that person

is like either Spider or Turtle.

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Personal Response

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

1) Unsatisfactory, 2) Partial, 3) Essential, or 4) Extensive.

* NAEP Reading composite scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard errors of

the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of

interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Sample response (score of 3):

Responses scored Essential (score of 3) demonstrated adequate understanding of the character

of Spider or Turtle by providing any story-supported character trait and relating or linking

that trait to a fictional character or real-life person.

Percentage “Essential“ or Better within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

 “Essential” or Better 208-237* 238-267* 268 and above*

29 (1.3) 33 (2.8) 54 (3.0) **
1 1

Sample response (score of 4):

Responses that reached the Extensive level (score of 4) demonstrated a full understanding of

the character of Spider or Turtle. In their comparison to a fictional character or real-life

person, these responses often discussed both characters and the interaction between them.
1 2

Informative Article:

The Lost People of Mesa Verde

“The Lost People of Mesa Verde” refers to the Anasazi, Native Americans who lived peacefully for

eight hundred years in Southwestern Colorado, and then disappeared. This informative article outlines

their history, describes aspects of their ancient culture, and provides archeological and scientific

explanations of their moves and disappearance.

Questions:

Which idea from the text about the Anasazi do the photographs support?

©A. They were able to create many useful projects.

B. Farming was probably their major source of food.

C. Wood seems to have been their primary building material.

D. Their life became much easier when they moved into the cliff dwellings.

Reading Purpose: To Gain Information Reading Stance: Critical Stance

* NAEP Reading composite scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard errors of

the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of

interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Sample Questions

and Student Responses – Grade 8

Percentage Correct within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

 Correct 243-280* 281-322* 323 and above*

70 (1.0) 75 (1.8) 88 (1.6) **
1 3

Imagine that you are living with the people of Mesa Verde during the 1200’s

when they left the mesa. Some of your friends and neighbors do not want to

leave the area. Based on information in the article, what would you tell these

people to convince them to leave?

Reading Purpose: To Gain Information Reading Stance: Developing an Interpretation

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

1) Unsatisfactory, 2) Partial, or 3) Complete.

* NAEP Reading composite scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard errors of

the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of

interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Sample response (score of 3):

Responses rated as Complete (score of 3) used appropriate information from the text to

convincingly argue one or more reasons for leaving the mesa.

Percentage “Complete” within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

 “Complete” 243-280* 281-322* 323 and above*

41 (1.3) 43 (2.4) 59 (3.4) **
1 4

The three moves made by the Anasazi are listed below. Explain the possible

reasons that were suggested in the article for each move.

● 500-1200 A.D. The Anasazi moved from the alcoves to the top of Mesa Verde.

● 1200 A.D. The Anasazi moved back down into the alcoves in the cliffs.

● 1300 A.D. The Anasazi left Mesa Verde.

Reading Purpose: To Gain Information Reading Stance: Developing an Interpretation

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

1) Unsatisfactory, 2) Partial, 3) Essential, or 4) Extensive.

* NAEP Reading composite scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard errors of

the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of

interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage “Essential” or Better within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

 “Essential” or Better 243-280* 281-322* 323 and above*

25 (1.2) 22 (2.2) 49 (4.1) **
1 5

Sample response (score of 3):

 Essential comprehension (score of 3) was demonstrated in responses that identified a reason

for each of the three moves by restating information from the article.
1 6

Sample response (score of 4):

Responses reflecting Extensive comprehension (score of 4) went beyond simply restating

information from the article to interpret that information and express how it related to the

three moves.
1 7

Story:

The Flying Machine

“The Flying Machine” tells the story of a difficult decision made by Emperor Yuan one day in the year

400 A.D. To protect the peace of his dominion from the possibility of future invasion, the Emperor

must sacrifice the momentary beauty provided by an invention. This story considers the nature of

progress and explores the themes of political and personal responsibility.

Questions:

Which group of words best helps you to understand the message of this story?

A. Strength, joy, humor

B. Foolishness, anger, endurance

C. Communication, friendship, honesty

©D. Fear, frustration, bewilderment

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Initial Understanding

* NAEP Reading composite scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard errors of

the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of

interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Sample Questions

and Student Responses – Grade 12

Percentage Correct within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 265-301* 302-345* 346 and above*

62 (1.2) 65 (2.2) 82 (2.4) **
1 8

Some people could believe that “The only circumstance in which we are justified

in taking the life of another person is in self-defense.” Would the Emperor

agree with this statement? Explain why or why not, using the information

contained in the story.

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Personal Response

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

1) Unsatisfactory, 2) Partial, 3) Essential, or 4) Extensive.

* NAEP Reading composite scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard errors of

the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of

interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Sample response (score of 3):

Responses rated Essential (score of 3) made explicit reference to some element of the story

and demonstrated an understanding of the idea of justifiable killing in self-defense and of the

character of the Emperor.

Percentage “Essential” or Better within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Essential” or Better 265-301* 302-345* 346 and above*

38 (1.5) 30 (3.6) 72 (3.1) **
1 9

Sample response (score of 4):

Responses rated as Extensive (score of 4) went beyond the confines of the story to consider the

Emperor’s character and actions within a larger context of ideas such as fear of progress or the

misuse of knowledge.
2 0

What is the major conflict in the story?

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Developing an Interpretation

Responses to this question were scored

1) Unacceptable, or 2) Acceptable.

* NAEP Reading composite scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard errors of

the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of

interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Sample response (score of 2):

Acceptable responses (score of 2) identified a conflict in the story’s action or interpreted the

action to provide a more abstract conflict inherent to the story’s theme.

Percentage “Acceptable” within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Acceptable” 265-301* 302-345* 346 and above*

29 (1.7) 25 (2.4) 44 (3.3) **
2 1

Endnotes

1. Peterson, M. D. (Ed.). (1984). Jefferson. New

York, NY: Literary Classics of the United States.

(p. 476).

2. The term “jurisdictions” refers to the states,

territories, and Department of Defense

Education Activity (DoDEA) Overseas schools

that participated in the Trial State Assessment.

3. National Assessment Governing Board. Reading

framework for the 1992 and 1994 national

assessment of educational progress.

Washington, DC: Author.

4. Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A

schema- theoretic view of basic processes in

reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.),

Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-292).

New York: Longman.

Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal

protocols of reading: The nature of

constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ruddell, R.B. & Unrau, N.J. (1994). Reading as a

meaning-construction process: The reader, the

text, and the teacher. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R.

Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models

and processes of reading (pp. 864-894). Newark,

DE: International Reading Association.

5. Taylor, B.M. (1992). Text structure,

comprehension, and recall. In S.J. Samuels, &

A.E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say

about reading instruction (pp. 220-235).

Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hynd, C.R. & Chase, N.D. (1991). The relation

between text type, tone, and written response.

Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 281-306.

6. Mathewson, G.C. (1994). Model of attitude

influence upon reading and learning to read. In

R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.),

Theoretical models and processes of reading

(pp. 1131-1161). Newark, DE: International

Reading Association.

Rosenblatt L.M. (1994). The transactional theory

of reading and writing. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R.

Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models

and processes of reading (pp. 1057-1092).

Newark DE: International Reading Association.

Langer, J.A. (1993). Approaches toward meaning

in low- and high-rated readers (Report No. 2-20).

National Research Center on Literature Teaching

and Learning. Washington, DC: Office of

Educational Research and Improvement.

7. Langer, J.A. (1990). The processes of

understanding: Reading for literary and

informative purposes. Research in the Teaching of

English, 24 (3), 229-259.

8. Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., & Pearson,

P.D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new:

Research on reading comprehension instruction.

Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.

Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1994). Developing literary

appreciation and literacy skills: A blueprint for

success. The Reading Teacher, 48(1), 76-79.

Spires, H.A., Huntley-Johnson, L., & Huffman,

L.E. (1993). Developing a critical stance toward

text through reading, writing, and speaking.

Journal of Reading, 37(2), 114-122.

9. Education achievement standards, NAGB’s

approach yields misleading interpretations,

United States General Accounting Office Report to

Congressional Requestors (Washington, DC:

United States General Accounting Office, June

1993.) GAO/PEMD-93-12 Educational

Achievement Standards.

Setting achievement levels for the nation, The

second Report of the National Academy of

Education Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP

Trial State Assessment, 1992 Trial State

Assessment (Stanford, CA: National Academy of

Education, 1993.)

10. American College Testing, NAEP Reading

revisited: An evaluation of the 1992 achievement

levels descriptions (Washington, DC: National

Assessment Governing Board, 1995.)

American College Testing, Technical report on

setting achievement levels on the 1992 National

Assessment of Educational Progress in

mathematics, reading, and writing (Washington,

DC: National Assessment Governing Board, 1993.)

Cizek, G., Reactions to national academy of

education report (Washington, DC: National

Assessment Governing Board, 1993.)

Kane, M., Comments on the NAEP evaluation of

the NAGB achievement levels (Washington, DC:

National Assessment Governing Board, 1993.)
2 2
2 3

CHAPTER 2

Reading Proficiency Results

for the Nation, Regions,

and States

Overview

This chapter presents the overall reading proficiencies

of students in grades 4, 8, and 12. Findings from the

1992 and 1994 assessments in reading are presented for

the nation, for regions of the country, and for selected

subgroups of students. Results from the 1992 and 1994

Trial State Assessment Programs at grade 4 are also

presented. The findings are summarized on the 0 to 500

NAEP composite reading proficiency scale.

In addition, the 1994 reading assessment data are

explored in more depth by examining the interactions

among several major reporting variables. Average

reading proficiency is examined for subgroups of

students within various demographic populations. By

doing so, it is possible to determine if general patterns

of reading performance for certain groups of students

are related to additional background characteristics.

The differences reported between subgroups for the

1994 assessment and between the 1992 and 1994

assessments are statistically significant at the .05 level.

In interpreting these results, the reader is reminded of

the cautions described in Chapter 1 regarding simple or

causal inferences.

Average Reading Proficiency Results

for the Nation and Regions

Table 2.1 presents the average reading proficiencies of

fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students across the

nation, including those attending public and nonpublic

schools. Results are presented for both the 1992 and

1994 reading assessments.

Grade 4

1992 217 (0.9) 170 (1.6) 194 (1.0) 219 (1.2) 242 (1.0) 261 (1.4)

1994 214 (1.0) 159 (1.6)< 189 (1.2)< 219 (1.1) 243 (1.1) 263 (1.5)

Grade 8

1992 260 (0.9) 213 (1.1) 237 (1.1) 262 (0.9) 285 (1.0) 305 (1.3)

1994 260 (0.8) 211 (1.4) 236 (1.1) 262 (0.7) 286 (1.1) 305 (1.1)

Grade 12

1992 292 (0.6) 249 (0.8) 271 (0.8) 294 (0.8) 315 (0.6) 333 (0.8)

1994 287 (0.7)< 239 (0.9)< 264 (0.9)< 290 (0.8)< 313 (0.9) 332 (1.3)

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992

at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can

be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole

population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

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

(NAEP), 1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments.

90th

Percentile

75th

Percentile

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


25th

Percentile

10th

Percentile

Average

Proficiency

TABLE 2.1

Average Reading Proficiency

by Percentile

Grades 4, 8, and 12

© In 1994 the average reading proficiency of

students at grade 4 was 214. The bottom 10

percent of the fourth graders scored at or below

159 and the top 10 percent scored at or above 263.

Average performance at grade 4 did not change

significantly between the 1992 and 1994 reading

assessments.

© At grade 8, the average proficiency in 1994 was

260. The bottom 10 percent of the population

scored at or below 211 and the top 10 percent

scored at or above 305. The average reading score

at this grade did not change significantly between

the two assessments.

© In 1994, the average reading proficiency of

students at grade 12 was 287. The bottom 10

percent of the population scored at or below 239

and the top 10 percent scored at or above 332.

Average proficiency at grade 12 decreased

significantly by 5 points between 1992 and 1994.

The decline is concentrated among lower

performing students — those in the 10th, 25th,

and 50th percentiles.

50th

Percentile
2 4

Figure 2.1 Average Reading Proficiency by Grade and by Region — NAEP 1992 and 1994

TABLE 2.2

Nation 217 (0.9) 214 (1.0) 260 (0.9) 260 (0.8) 292 (0.6) 287 (0.7)<

Region

Northeast 21 (1.1) 23 (0.9) 22 (0.7) 20 (0.8) 24 (0.6) 20 (0.5)<

222 (3.6) 215 (2.1) 263 (1.7) 265 (2.3) 294 (1.1) 288 (1.7)<

Southeast 23 (1.0) 23 (1.1) 25 (0.5) 26 (1.0) 23 (0.6) 23 (0.7)

213 (2.3) 210 (2.0) 254 (1.7) 252 (1.7) 285 (1.1) 282 (1.2)

Central 27 (0.5) 25 (0.7)< 25 (0.5) 24 (0.6) 26 (0.6) 27 (0.7)

219 (1.4) 220 (2.4) 264 (2.2) 264 (1.7) 295 (1.1) 291 (1.2)<

West 28 (0.8) 29 (0.8) 28 (0.6) 30 (0.8) 27 (0.8) 29 (0.8)

214 (1.4) 212 (2.0) 259 (1.2) 259 (1.2) 294 (1.5) 288 (1.4)<

Differences between regions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the regions may not total 100 percent.

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

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992

Grade 4

1994

Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage and

Proficiency

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992 1994 1992 1994

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Average Reading Proficiency by Region

Grades 4, 8, and 12

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

263 265

294

288

254 252

285 282 

264 264

295 291 

259 259

294

288 

1992 1994

Northeast

1992 1994

Southeast

1992 1994

Central

1992 1994

West

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

*

* *

500

0

215 213 210 219 220

214 212

222

*Significant decrease between 1992 and 1994

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

 1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments. 
2 5

In addition to examining results for the nation as a

whole, findings are also presented for the four regions of

the country: Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West.

The composition of the regions is described in Appendix

A. Table 2.2 and Figure 2.1 present regional results for

all three grades.

At grade 4, the average reading proficiency of

students attending schools in the Central region was

significantly higher than that of students in the

Southeast region. At grades 8 and 12, students in the

Southeast exhibited significantly lower average reading

proficiencies than their counterparts in the other three

regions of the country. In addition, the average reading

proficiency of eighth-grade students attending schools

in the Central region was significantly higher than that

of students in the West.

© The decline in average reading proficiency

between 1992 and 1994 for twelfth-grade students

was evident in three of the four regions of the

country: the West (six points), the Northeast

(six points), and the Central region (five points).1

In the Southeast, the 1994 average proficiency

was not significantly different from 1992.

© Other regional changes in reading proficiency

between the two assessments for grades 4 and 8

were not statistically significant, including the

seven-point decline for fourth-grade students in

the Northeast.

Average Reading Proficiency Results

for the States

In addition to the national component of the 1992 and

1994 NAEP reading assessments, state-by-state reading

assessments were conducted at grade 4. Table 2.3

presents the average reading proficiencies of fourthgrade public school students for each jurisdiction that

participated in 1992 and 1994 NAEP Trial State

Assessments. Overall, 44 jurisdictions participated in the

1994 state-level assessment. However, two states, Idaho

and Michigan, did not meet minimum school

participation guidelines for public schools; therefore,

their public school results are not presented in this

report. Several other states failed to meet more

stringent participation rate standards; results for these

jurisdictions are included in the report but are properly

noted in the relevant tables and appendices. Results for

Washington, DC, are not contained in this report

because this jurisdiction withdrew from the Trial State

Assessment Program after the data collection phase.

Therefore, Table 2.3 presents results for 41 participating

TABLE 2.3

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Average Grade 4

Reading Proficiency

NAEP Trial State Assessments in Reading

Public Schools Only

1992

Average Proficiency

1994

Average Proficiency

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

215 (1.0) 212 (1.1)

220 (3.9) 212 (2.2)

211 (2.5) 208 (2.0)

218 (1.5) 218 (2.7)

212 (1.6) 212 (2.2)

207 (1.7) 208 (1.5)

209 (1.2) 206 (1.9)

211 (1.2) 209 (1.7)

202 (2.0) 197 (1.8)<

217 (1.1) 213 (1.3)

222 (1.3) 222 (1.6)

213 (0.6) 206 (1.1)<<

208 (1.2) 205 (1.7)

212 (1.5) 207 (2.4)

203 (1.7) 201 (1.7)

221 (1.3) 220 (1.3)

225 (1.1) 223 (1.3)

213 (1.3) 212 (1.6)

204 (1.2) 197 (1.3)<<

227 (1.1) 228 (1.3)

211 (1.6) 210 (1.5)

226 (0.9) 223 (1.3)

221 (1.2) 218 (1.4)

199 (1.3) 202 (1.6)

220 (1.2) 217 (1.5)

— 222 (1.4)

221 (1.1) 220 (1.5)

228 (1.2) 223 (1.5)<

223 (1.4) 219 (1.2)

211 (1.5) 205 (1.7)<

215 (1.4) 212 (1.4)

212 (1.1) 214 (1.5)

226 (1.1) 225 (1.2)

221 (1.3) 215 (1.6)<

217 (1.8) 220 (1.3)

210 (1.3) 203 (1.4)<<

212 (1.4) 213 (1.7)

213 (1.6) 212 (1.9)

220 (1.1) 217 (1.3)

221 (1.4) 213 (1.5)<<

— 213 (1.5)

216 (1.3) 213 (1.1)

224 (1.0) 224 (1.1)

223 (1.1) 221 (1.2)

— 218 (0.9)

182 (1.4) 181 (1.2)

Differences between states may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

<< The value for 1994 was significantly lower than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent certainty level.

These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure based on 38 jurisdictions

participating in both 1994 and 1992. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly

lower than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent certainty level. Statistically significant differences

between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates in 1994 (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates in 1992.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty

that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors

of the estimate for the sample.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment

DoDEA Department of Defense Education Activity Overseas Schools

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

1994 Reading Assessments
2 6

jurisdictions. (Note that two states, Montana and

Washington, and the Department of Defense Education

Activity (DoDEA) Overseas Schools participated in the

1994 assessment but not the 1992 assessment.)

© Most jurisdictions reflected the national results

displaying no change in fourth graders’ reading

proficiency between 1992 and 1994.

Approximately 20 percent of those jurisdictions

that participated in both assessments did show

significant decreases in average reading

proficiency.

The states that exhibited a significant decrease in

average scores are indicated with a < or << notation

next to the 1994 averages in Table 2.3. The difference

between the two notations is explained in the footnote.

(For detailed comparisons among the jurisdictions,

readers should refer to Chapter 4 of this report.)

Average Reading Proficiency Results

for Selected Groups

This section focuses on the national results for

subgroups of students defined by race/ethnicity, gender,

school’s type of location, parents’ education, Title I

participation, and type of school. In addition, nonpublic

school results are presented for jurisdictions that met

minimum participation guidelines. The 1994 Trial State

Assessment Program marked the first time that statelevel data were collected for nonpublic schools (Catholic

and other religious and private schools) as well as for

public schools. State-level results by race/ethnicity,

gender, school’s type of location, parents’ education, and

Title I participation are presented in Appendix C.

Cautions in Interpretations. The reader is cautioned

against using these data to make simple or causal

inferences about subgroup membership or about the

effectiveness of Title I programs or public and nonpublic

schools. Average performance differences between

groups of students may be due in part to socioeconomic

and home background factors. For example, differences

observed among racial/ethnic subgroups are almost

certainly associated with a broad range of

socioeconomic and educational factors. Similarly,

differences between public and nonpublic schools may

be better understood after accounting for factors such

as composition of the student body, parents’ education

levels, and parental involvement. Subgroup performance

is explored in greater depth later in this chapter, but

this report does not provide an exhaustive inquiry into

the many and diverse factors that help to explain the

average reading performance of any given subgroup

of students.

Race/Ethnicity. As part of the background questionnaire

that was administered with the 1994 NAEP Reading

Assessment, students were asked to indicate the racial/

ethnic subgroup that best describes them. The mutually

exclusive categories were White, Black, Hispanic, Asian,

Pacific Islander, and American Indian (including Alaskan

Native). A similar question was asked of students

participating in the 1992 reading assessment, although

in that questionnaire the Asian and Pacific Islander

categories were combined into a single response option.

Thus, trends can be reported for White, Black, Hispanic,

and American Indian students, but not for students

identifying themselves as Asian or Pacific Islander.

The 1992 and 1994 average reading proficiencies of

students in various racial/ethnic subgroups are

presented in Table 2.4. The 1994 assessment, like

previous assessments, revealed substantial variation in

average reading proficiency among the different racial/

ethnic subgroups. At all three grades, the average

proficiencies of Asian and White students were

significantly higher than those of Black and Hispanic

students; they were also higher than those of American

Indian students at grades 4 and 8. At grade 12, White

students outperformed Asian students.
2 7

© Consistent with the national and regional results,

the average reading proficiencies of White, Black,

and Hispanic students at grade 12 declined

significantly between 1992 and 1994.

© At the other two grades, only fourth-grade

Hispanic students exhibited a significant change

(a 10 point decline) between the two assessments.

The national racial/ethnic subgroup results are

summarized in Figure 2.2. The gaps in the scale

scores are intended to highlight specific points on the

NAEP 0 to 500 scale, but they are not representative

of significant differences among the values. The

subgroups highlighted in blue exhibited a significant

change (in all cases a decline) between 1992 and 1994.

Complete results, including standard errors, are

presented in Table 2.4.

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992

Grade 4

1994

Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage and

Proficiency

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992 1994 1992 1994

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 2.4 Average Reading Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Nation 217 (0.9) 214 (1.0) 260 (0.9) 260 (0.8) 292 (0.6) 287 (0.7)<

White 71 (0.2) 69 (0.2)< 70 (0.2) 70 (0.3) 72 (0.4) 73 (0.3)>

225 (1.2) 224 (1.3) 267 (1.2) 268 (1.0) 298 (0.6) 294 (0.7)<

Black 16 (0.1) 15 (0.2)< 15 (0.2) 15 (0.2) 15 (0.4) 13 (0.3)<

193 (1.6) 187 (1.7) 238 (1.6) 237 (1.7) 273 (1.4) 265 (1.6)<

Hispanic 9 (0.1) 12 (0.2)> 10 (0.2) 11 (0.2) 9 (0.4) 8 (0.3)

201 (2.1) 191 (2.6)< 241 (1.4) 240 (1.4) 278 (2.3) 270 (1.5)<

Asian — 2 (0.2) — 2 (0.2) — 3 (0.3)

— 232 (5.5) — 273 (2.6) — 280 (2.8)

Pacific Islander — 1 (0.1) — 1 (0.4) — 1 (0.3)

— 219 (5.0) — 259 (7.4)! — 280 (3.9)!

American Indian 2 (0.2) 2 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 0 (0.1) 1 (0.4)

207 (4.6) 201 (3.4) 251 (3.7) 251 (4.2) *** 275 (5.3)!

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

— Due to significant changes in wording of the race/ethnicity question between the 1992 and 1994 assessments, the 1992 results for Asian and Pacific Islander students are not comparable to 1994 results.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow for accurate determination of the variability of this value.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

Percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding or, in the case of the race/ethnicity variable, because some students categorized themselves as “other”.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments.
2 8

Grade 12

1992 1994

White 298

294 White

NATION 292

287 NATION

280 Pacific Islander, Asian

Hispanic 278

275 American Indian

Black 273

270 Hispanic

265 Black

§ At grade 4, Asian and White students

outperformed American Indian, Hispanic,

and Black students in 1994.

§ The average proficiency of Hispanic fourthgraders decreased significantly between

1992 and 1994. No other significant changes

were observed among the racial/ethnic

groups at grade 4.

Asian and White eighth graders exhibited ©

significantly higher average reading

proficiencies than American Indian, Hispanic,

and Black students in 1994.

No significant changes were observed ©

between the 1992 and 1994 assessments

for any of the racial/ethnic subgroups at

grade 8.

§ In the 1994 assessment, White students at

grade 12 performed significantly better than

Asian, Black, and Hispanic students. Asian

students exhibited significantly higher

average proficiencies than Hispanic and

Black students.

§ As with the nation, the performance of most

racial/ethnic subgroups at grade 12 declined

significantly between the 1992 and 1994

assessments.

Grade 8

1992 1994

273 Asian

268 White

White 267

NATION 260 NATION,

259 Pacific Islander

American Indian 251 American Indian

Hispanic 241

240 Hispanic

Black 238

237 Black

Grade 4

1992 1994

232 Asian

White 225

224 White

219 Pacific Islander

NATION 217

214 NATION

American Indian 207

Hispanic 201 American Indian

Black 193

191 Hispanic

187 Black

FIGURE 2.2

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Summary of Average Reading Proficiency Results by Race/Ethnicity
2 9

Gender. Table 2.5 presents the average reading

proficiencies of male and female students in grades

4, 8, and 12. At all three grades, female students had

significantly higher average reading proficiencies than

male students. Specifically, the differences in average

proficiency between the two groups were 10 points

at grade 4, 15 points at grade 8, and 14 points at grade

12. (See endnote 1.) Similar gender differences in

reading proficiency were also observed in the 1992

assessment.2

© The overall decline in reading proficiency at

grade 12 between 1992 and 1994 was reflected

in the proficiency estimates of both male and

female students.

© At the two lower grades, neither male or female

students showed a significant change in

performance over the two year period.

Average Reading Proficiency by Gender

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Nation 217 (0.9) 214 (1.0) 260 (0.9) 260 (0.8) 292 (0.6) 287 (0.7)<

Male 51 (0.6) 51 (0.7) 51 (0.7) 50 (0.6) 49 (0.6) 50 (0.8)

213 (1.2) 209 (1.3) 254 (1.1) 252 (1.0) 287 (0.7) 280 (0.8)<

Female 49 (0.6) 49 (0.7) 49 (0.7) 50 (0.6) 51 (0.6) 50 (0.8)

221 (1.0) 220 (1.1) 267 (1.0) 267 (1.0) 297 (0.7) 294 (0.8)<

Differences between the two groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

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

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992

Grade 4

1994

Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage and

Proficiency

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992 1994 1992 1994

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 2.5
3 0

Type of Location. Each participating school in the 1994

reading assessment was classified according to its type

of location. The three categories of location — Central

City, Urban Fringe/Large Town, and Rural/Small Town

— are based on Census Bureau definitions of

metropolitan statistical areas, population size,

and density. These classifications are based solely on

geographic characteristics. (The type of location

classifications are described in Appendix A.) Table 2.6

presents results for all three grades by type of location.

In 1994, differences among the three types of

locations were most evident at grade 4. Students

attending schools in Urban Fringe/Large Town areas

outperformed their counterparts in Central City and

Rural/Small Town schools. Fourth graders in Rural/

Small Town schools exhibited a higher average reading

proficiency than those in Central City schools. At grade

8, students attending schools in Urban Fringe/Large

Town areas outperformed students attending schools in

Central City areas. However, the average reading

proficiency of eighth graders in Rural/Small Town

schools was not significantly different from the average

of students in either Urban Fringe/Large Town or

Central City schools. Finally, at grade 12, no significant

differences in average reading performance were

found among any of the three types of locations in 1994.

© Between 1992 and 1994, the only significant

changes in reading performance observed were at

grade 12. For students attending schools in Urban

Fringe/Large Town and Rural/Small Town areas,

average proficiencies declined significantly. There

was no significant change for students attending

Central City schools.

© At grades 4 and 8, no changes across assessments

by type of location were found to be significant.

Parents’ Level of Education. As part of the student

background questionnaire, students were asked to

report on the education level of their parents or

guardians. The four levels were:

● Did not finish high school

● Graduated from high school

● Some education after high school

● Graduated from college

The parental education variable reported in this section

is the highest level reported by students for either

parent. Students could also respond “I don’t know.”

TABLE 2.6

Nation 217 (0.9) 214 (1.0) 260 (0.9) 260 (0.8) 292 (0.6) 287 (0.7)<

Central City 32 (2.6) 35 (2.0) 33 (2.6) 34 (2.2) 31 (2.3) 31 (2.1)

210 (1.3) 207 (2.1) 253 (1.6) 257 (1.6) 290 (1.5) 288 (1.1)

Urban Fringe/Large Town 42 (3.2) 43 (2.3) 44 (3.3) 40 (2.6) 44 (2.7) 42 (2.6)

221 (1.9) 221 (1.8) 265 (1.3) 262 (1.2) 294 (0.9) 289 (1.1)<

Rural/Small Town 26 (2.3) 21 (2.2) 24 (2.5) 26 (2.0) 25 (1.6) 26 (1.9)

218 (2.4) 214 (1.8) 261 (2.4) 259 (1.7) 291 (1.4) 285 (1.4)<

Differences between types of location may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the subgroup may not total 100 percent.

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

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992

Grade 4

1994

Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage and

Proficiency

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992 1994 1992 1994

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Average Reading Proficiency by Type of Location

Grades 4, 8, and 12
3 1

0

500

350

325

300

275

250

225

200

175

150

Did not 

finish H.S.

Graduated 

H.S.

Some educ. 

after H.S.

Graduated 

college

Grade 12

Grade 8

Grade 4

Figure 2.3 Average Reading Proficiency by

Parents’ Highest Education Level

Grades 4, 8, and 12

1994 Reading Assessment

It should be noted that approximately one-third of

fourth graders and almost one in ten eighth graders

reported not knowing the education level of either

of their parents. Furthermore, some researchers have

questioned the accuracy of student-reported data.3

Despite these limitations, numerous NAEP assessments

have found that increasing levels of parents’ education

are associated with higher average reading proficiencies.

In fact, in 1994 as in the 1992 reading assessment, the

average reading scores of students who reported that at

least one parent had graduated from college were more

than 30 points higher than those of students who

reported that neither parent had graduated from high

school.4

Table 2.7 and Figure 2.3 present the 1994 reading

assessment results by parents’ education level. In

comparing the performance of students at all three

grades who knew their parents’ education level, those

with at least one parent who had graduated from college

or completed some education after high school

displayed higher average reading proficiencies than did

students who reported lower levels of parents’

education. Furthermore, at all three grades, students

who reported that neither parent finished high school

had lower average proficiencies than those with at least

one parent who graduated from high school.

TABLE 2.7

Nation 217 (0.9) 214 (1.0) 260 (0.9) 260 (0.8) 292 (0.6) 287 (0.7)<

Parents' Education Level

Graduated College 39 (1.1) 42 (0.9) 41 (1.2) 43 (1.1) 41 (0.9) 44 (1.0)

225 (1.4) 224 (1.2) 271 (1.0) 270 (0.9) 301 (0.8) 298 (1.0)<

Some Education after High School 9 (0.5) 8 (0.5) 19 (0.5) 20 (0.5) 27 (0.6) 26 (0.7)

223 (2.1) 223 (2.0) 265 (1.1) 266 (1.3) 294 (0.8) 289 (1.0)<

Graduated High School 12 (0.6) 13 (0.5) 24 (0.8) 22 (0.8) 22 (0.5) 21 (0.7)

212 (1.7) 207 (1.8) 251 (1.4) 252 (1.2) 283 (0.8) 277 (1.3)<

Did Not Finish High School 4 (0.4) 4 (0.3) 8 (0.5) 7 (0.4) 8 (0.4) 7 (0.4)

198 (2.6) 188 (3.4) 243 (1.4) 238 (1.9) 275 (1.4) 266 (1.5)<

I Don't Know 36 (1.0) 34 (0.8) 8 (0.4) 9 (0.4) 2 (0.2) 3 (0.2)

210 (1.2) 206 (1.3) 238 (2.0) 238 (1.6) 258 (2.8) 248 (2.7)<

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the subgroup may not total 100 percent.

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

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992

Grade 4

1994

Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage and

Proficiency

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992 1994 1992 1994

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Average Reading Proficiency by Parents’ Highest Education Level

Grades 4, 8, and 12
3 2

Once again, a drop in reading proficiency at grade

12 is evident, to varying degrees, regardless of parents’

education level.

© For all parent education levels (and for students

who reported they did not know either parents’

education level), the average reading proficiency

of twelfth graders declined significantly between

1992 and 1994.

© For grades 4 and 8, the differences between 1992

and 1994 estimates, including the 10-point

decrease found for fourth-grade students who

reported that their parents did not finish high

school, were not statistically significant for any of

the parents’ education levels.

Title I Participation. Staff members at each school that

took part in the 1994 reading assessment were asked to

identify which of the assessed students participated in

Title I programs or received services funded by Title I

grants.5

 The Title I legislation provides funds to state and

local educational agencies to support programs aimed at

assisting disadvantaged students (those who are failing

or at risk of failing) in low income communities. The

1994 NAEP assessment marks the first time this

information was collected at the student

level. In prior assessments, principals or other school

administrators were asked to report the percentage

of students in their schools who received Title I services.

Therefore, no trend results are available.

Table 2.8 presents the reading assessment results for

students who received Title I services and for those who

did not. As stated earlier, differences in performance

between these participants and nonparticipants should

not be viewed as evidence of the success or failure

of Title I programs. Title I services are intended for

students who typically score poorly on assessments.

As can be seen from the 1994 results, the percentage

of students receiving Title I services is greatest in the

elementary grades (14 percent at grade 4) and decreases

as students progress through middle school (6 percent

at grade 8) and high school (2 percent at grade 12). At

all three grades, the average reading proficiency of

students participating in Title I programs was

significantly lower than that of nonparticipating

students. The difference between participating and

nonparticipating students is larger among fourth-grade

students (45 scale points) than among eighth- and

twelfth-grade students (32 scale points).

Average Reading Proficiency

by Title I Participation

Grades 4, 8, and 12

1994 Reading Assessment

Nation 214 (1.0) 260 (0.8) 287 (0.7)

Title I

Participating 14 (1.2) 6 (0.8) 2 (0.7)

175 (2.3) 230 (2.1) 256 (2.6)!

Nonparticipating 86 (1.2) 94 (0.8) 98 (0.7)

220 (1.1) 262 (0.9) 288 (0.7)

Differences between the two groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in

the table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It

can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the

whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does

not allow for accurate determination of the variability of this value.

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

(NAEP),1994 Reading Assessment.

Percentage and

Proficiency

Percentage and

Proficiency

Percentage and

Proficiency

1994

Grade 4

1994

Grade 8

1994

Grade 12

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 2.8
3 3

Type of School. NAEP collects data on students in public

and nonpublic schools, including Catholic, other

religious, and private institutions. Past assessments

have reported significant differences in the performance

of students attending public and nonpublic schools.6

 As

displayed in Table 2.9, students attending nonpublic

schools in 1994 outperformed those in public schools

by 19 points at grade 4, 22 points at grade 8, and 15

points at grade 12.

© The overall decline in twelfth-grade reading

proficiency between 1992 and 1994 was reflected

in the results for both public and nonpublic

school students.

© At grades 4 and 8, no statistically significant

changes in average reading performance from

1992 to 1994 were observed for either school type.

Public and Nonpublic School Results

for the States

The 1994 Trial State Assessment Program marked

the first time that NAEP collected state-level data in

nonpublic schools. To assure that the reporting of these

results met the same high standards as the reporting of

results for public school students, the school and

student participation guidelines set for public schools

were also applied to nonpublic schools. Many states had

difficulty recruiting nonpublic schools due to state

legislation prohibiting contact between state education

officials and nonpublic schools or because of the

decentralized nature of such schools. Therefore, of the

44 jurisdictions that participated in the 1994 Trial State

Assessment Program, only 24 met the school

participation rate guidelines required to report

nonpublic school results.7

Nation 217 (0.9) 214 (1.0) 260 (0.9) 260 (0.8) 292 (0.6) 287 (0.7)<

Type of School

Public Schools 88 (1.3) 90 (0.9) 89 (0.8) 89 (1.0) 87 (1.2) 89 (1.1)

215 (1.0) 212 (1.1) 258 (1.0) 257 (0.8) 290 (0.7) 286 (0.7)<

Nonpublic Schools 11 (1.0) 10 (0.9) 11 (0.8) 11 (1.0) 13 (1.2) 10 (1.0)

232 (1.7) 231 (2.5) 278 (2.0) 279 (1.4) 308 (1.3) 301 (1.9)<

Catholic Schools 8 (0.8) 7 (0.8) 6 (0.6) 7 (0.6) 9 (1.2) 6 (0.9)

229 (2.2) 229 (3.3) 275 (1.9) 279 (1.3) 307 (1.5) 298 (2.4)<

Other Nonpublic Schools 4 (0.7) 4 (0.6) 4 (0.8) 4 (0.7) 4 (0.7) 4 (0.6)

238 (2.9)! 234 (3.7) 283 (3.0) 280 (2.4) 308 (2.9) 307 (2.2)

Differences between the types of schools may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow for accurate determination of the variability of this value.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in public school only and nonpublic school may not total 100 percent and the percentage of students in the two types of nonpublic schools may not total the percentage of nonpublic

schools due to rounding.

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

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992

Grade 4

1994

Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage and

Proficiency

Percentage and

Proficiency

1992 1994 1992 1994

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 2.9

Average Reading Proficiency by Type of School

Grades 4, 8, and 12
3 4

Table 2.10 presents the public and nonpublic school

results for these 24 jurisdictions as well as results for

the public and nonpublic school samples combined.

(Note that for one state, Idaho, the combined public and

nonpublic school results are not presented since the

public school sample for this state failed to meet

minimum participation requirements.) Figure 2.4

compares the reading assessment results for public and

nonpublic schools in the 23 jurisdictions where such

comparisons are possible.

As was the case for the national results at grade 4,

students attending nonpublic schools outperformed

their counterparts in public schools in 16 of the 23

jurisdictions. When comparing the average performance

of public and nonpublic school students, it is important

to note the sample sizes of students in nonpublic

schools are relatively small compared to the public

school samples. As a result, the nonpublic school

average proficiency estimates are subject to increased

uncertainty and larger standard errors. The analyses

presented in Figure 2.4, as well as the differences

discussed above, consider the standard error of the

difference between the two estimates.

The question “How did students attending

nonpublic schools perform in the 1994 reading

assessment in comparison to students attending public

schools in a particular state?” can be answered by

examining the findings presented in Figure 2.4.

Public Schools Nonpublic Schools Public/Nonpublic Schools Combined

Percentage Proficiency Percentage Proficiency Proficiency

Nation 212 (1.1) 231 (2.5) 214 (1.0)

Region

Northeast 212 (2.2) 233 (5.4) 215 (2.1)

Southeast 208 (2.0) 236 (5.8) 210 (2.0)

Central 218 (2.7) 230 (3.0) 220 (2.4)

West 212 (2.2) 223 (6.2) 212 (2.0)

State

Alabama 93 (1.2) 208 (1.5) 6 (1.4) 237 (6.5)! 210 (1.6)

Arkansas 95 (0.9) 209 (1.7) 5 (0.9) 235 (3.2) 210 (1.6)

Colorado‡ 94 (1.5) 213 (1.3) 6 (1.5) 239 (3.7)! 215 (1.3)

Connecticut‡ 89 (1.0) 222 (1.6) 11 (1.0) 228 (3.4) 223 (1.5)

Delaware‡ 82 (1.4) 206 (1.1) 18 (1.4) 233 (3.8) 211 (1.2)

Georgia‡ 93 (0.9) 207 (2.4) 7 (0.9) 234 (5.3) 209 (2.3)

Hawaii‡ 88 (0.9) 201 (1.7) 12 (0.9) 234 (3.8) 205 (1.7)

Idaho 96 (0.4) — 4 (0.4) 218 (9.9) —

Indiana 93 (1.0) 220 (1.3) 7 (1.0) 234 (4.1) 221 (1.3)

Iowa 88 (2.0) 223 (1.3) 12 (2.0) 232 (4.2) 224 (1.3)

Kentucky‡ 90 (1.2) 212 (1.6) 8 (1.4) 237 (3.3) 213 (1.5)

Louisiana‡ 84 (1.0) 197 (1.3) 16 (1.0) 227 (3.6) 202 (1.4)

Maine 97 (0.8) 228 (1.3) 3 (0.8) 238 (5.8)! 229 (1.3)

Massachusetts 90 (0.8) 223 (1.3) 10 (0.8) 238 (4.9) 225 (1.3)

Minnesota 88 (0.8) 218 (1.4) 12 (0.8) 234 (2.6) 220 (1.3)

Missouri 88 (1.2) 217 (1.5) 12 (1.2) 238 (3.6) 219 (1.5)

New Jersey‡ 86 (1.2) 219 (1.2) 14 (1.2) 231 (4.4) 221 (1.3)

New Mexico 91 (2.3) 205 (1.7) 3 (0.8) 228 (6.9)! 203 (2.2)

North Dakota 90 (1.8) 225 (1.2) 6 (0.8) 238 (3.3) 224 (1.4)

Pennsylvania†‡ 83 (1.3) 215 (1.6) 17 (1.3) 228 (4.8) 217 (1.6)

Rhode Island† 88 (1.2) 220 (1.3) 12 (1.2) 229 (3.6) 221 (1.2)

Virginia‡ 94 (1.1) 213 (1.5) 5 (1.2) 240 (7.4)! 215 (1.5)

West Virginia 95 (0.9) 213 (1.1) 5 (0.9) 235 (3.0) 214 (1.0)

Other Jurisdiction

Guam 85 (0.2) 181 (1.2) 15 (0.2) 213 (2.3) 186 (1.0)

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for public school sample participation rates in 1994 (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for nonpublic school sample participation rates in 1994 (see Appendix A).

— Did not meet minimum participation requirements for public schools.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow for accurate determination of the variability of this value.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment.

TABLE 2.10 Average Reading Proficiency

Grade 4

1994 Trial State Assessment in Reading

Public Schools, Nonpublic Schools, and Combined

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

3 5

As an example of how to read Figure 2.4, examine the

average proficiencies of public and nonpublic school

fourth graders in the states of North Dakota and

Pennsylvania. For North Dakota, the confidence

band representing the difference in average reading

proficiencies between students in public and nonpublic

schools is completely on the “Higher for Nonpublic”

side of the dashed line. Thus, it can be said that in North

Dakota fourth-grade students in nonpublic schools

demonstrated higher average reading proficiency than

their public school counterparts. For Pennsylvania,

however, the confidence band crosses the dashed line

(representing no difference). Consequently, the results

indicate that there was no significant difference between

the average proficiencies of Pennsylvania fourth graders

attending public and nonpublic schools.

FIGURE 2.4 Comparison of Average Reading Proficiency

for Public and Nonpublic Schools Grade 4

1994 Trial State Assessment in Reading

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Differences Between Public and Nonpublic Average Reading Proficiencies Higher for Nonpublic Higher for Public

50 40 30 20 10 0 10

Average Proficiency

Public Nonpublic

Nation 212 231

State*

Alabama** 208 237

Arkansas 209 235

Colorado‡** 213 239

Connecticut‡ 222 228

Delaware‡ 206 233

Georgia‡ 207 234

Hawaii‡ 201 234

Indiana 220 234

Iowa 223 232

Kentucky‡ 212 237

Louisiana‡ 197 227

Maine** 228 238

Massachusetts 223 238

Minnesota 218 234

Missouri 217 238

New Jersey‡ 219 231

New Mexico** 205 228

North Dakota 225 238

Pennsylvania†‡ 215 228

Rhode Island† 220 229

Virginia‡** 213 240

West Virginia 213 235

Other Jurisdiction

Guam 181 213

* Only jurisdictions with reportable public and nonpublic results are presented.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for public school sample participation rates in 1994 (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for nonpublic school sample participation rates in 1994 (see Appendix A).

** Interpret the difference between public and nonpublic average proficiencies with caution. The nature of the sample does not allow for accurate determination of the variability of the difference.

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

This figure presents average reading proficiencies for the 23 jurisdictions in which comparisons between students

attending public and nonpublic schools are possible. The graphic to the right of the two averages illustrates confidence

bands that, with 95 percent certainty, capture the true difference in average reading scores between the two types of

schools within the state or jurisdiction. If the confidence band is completely on the “Higher for Nonpublic” or “Higher for

Public” side of the dashed line, the difference between the two averages is significant. Therefore, it is correct to say that

students from one type of school performed better or worse than the other on the NAEP reading assessment. However, if

the confidence band crosses the dashed line (representing no difference), the average proficiencies of public and nonpublic

school fourth graders are not significantly different. In the seven states with blue confidence bands, there was no

significant difference in the performance of students attending public and nonpublic schools.
3 6

As displayed in Figure 2.4, in 16 of the 23

jurisdictions for which comparisons are possible, the

confidence band representing the difference between the

two types of schools is completely on the “Higher for

Nonpublic” side of the dashed line, indicating that

students attending nonpublic schools had significantly

higher average reading proficiency than students

attending the public schools in those states. For seven

states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island — there was no

significant difference between the average proficiency

of nonpublic and public school students.

An In-Depth Look at Selected

Background Characteristics

One way to take a closer look at the performance of

students within selected demographic populations

is to see if the magnitude of the differences between

groups of students varies when other background

characteristics are also taken into account. This section

presents reading proficiency results for subgroups of

students within various demographic populations. Four

specific background characteristics are explored with

these analyses: gender, race/ethnicity, parents’ highest

level of education, and type of school.

The first two student characteristics examined are

gender and race/ethnicity. As reported earlier in this

chapter, female students, on average, consistently

outperformed their male counterparts in all three

grades assessed. Also at all grades, White students

displayed higher average reading proficiency than

Black or Hispanic students. (Asian, Pacific Islander,

and American Indian students are not included in this

analysis because of insufficient sample sizes.) One

question that might be asked, however, is whether or

not female students displayed higher reading proficiency

than male students regardless of race/ethnicity. Further,

was the difference in performance between male and

female students larger in some racial/ethnic subgroups

than in others?

Table 2.11 presents results of analyses carried out to

answer these questions. Average proficiencies of male

and female students and the differences between these

proficiencies are presented separately for three racial/

ethnic subgroups. As displayed in the table, female

students in each grade had higher average proficiencies

than male students across all three racial/ethnic

subgroups examined. A comparison of the magnitude of

the proficiency differences between male and female

Grade 4

Female 229 (1.3) 194 (2.3) 197 (3.4)

Male 220 (1.6) 180 (2.1) 186 (2.8)

Female - Male = 9 (2.0) * 14 (3.1) * 11 (4.4) *

Grade 8

Female 275 (1.1) 243 (2.1) 247 (1.5)

Male 260 (1.1) 230 (2.2) 234 (2.2)

Female - Male = 15 (1.6) * 14 (3.0) * 13 (2.7) *

Grade 12

Female 302 (0.9) 270 (1.8) 276 (2.0)

Male 286 (0.9) 259 (1.8) 263 (1.9)

Female - Male = 16 (1.3) * 11 (2.6) * 13 (2.8) *

* Indicates a significant difference between male and female students for specified

racial/ethnic subgroup. Differences are calculated prior to rounding.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with

95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

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

(NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 2.11 Average Reading Proficiency

of Male and Female Students

by Race/Ethnicity

Grades 4, 8, and 12

1994 Reading Assessment

White Black Hispanic

students yielded little or no evidence that these

differences varied significantly across racial/ethnic

groups of students.

An analysis of gender differences in reading

proficiency in relation to parents’ highest level

of education is presented in Table 2.12. Average

proficiencies of male and female students and the

differences between these proficiencies are presented

separately for the different levels of parental education

reported by students. One question that can be

answered with these data is whether or not the

difference in average reading proficiency between

male and female students was evident for students at

all levels of parental education. Further, were gender

differences larger at some parental education levels than

at others?

The performance of male and female fourth graders

was significantly different for students whose parents

graduated from high school or from college. Among

eighth graders, the gender performance differences were

all significant except for students whose parents did not

graduate from high school. Twelfth-grade females

consistently outperformed their male counterparts

regardless of their parents’ level of education.
3 7

Average Reading Proficiency

of Male and Female Students

in Relation to Parents‘ Highest Education Level

Grades 4, 8, and 12

1994 Reading Assessment

At the fourth grade, the analysis revealed a larger

gender difference in reading proficiency among students

whose parents graduated from high school than among

students whose parents had some education after high

school or graduated from college. At grades 8 and 12,

a comparison of the magnitude of the differences

between male and female students’ reading performance

revealed no significant relationship with parents’

education level: in other words, there was no evidence

that the magnitude of gender differences in reading

proficiency varied across levels of parental education.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 2.12

Less than

High School

Graduated

High School

Some Education

after High School

Graduated

College

Grade 4

Female 194 (4.5) 219 (2.3) 228 (2.3) 229 (1.4)

Male 179 (5.4) 196 (2.6) 219 (2.9) 220 (1.7)

Female - Male = 15 (7.1) 23 (3.5) * 9 (3.7) 9 (2.2) *

Grade 8

Female 242 (2.5) 259 (1.3) 273 (1.5) 278 (1.2)

Male 232 (2.5) 244 (1.6) 257 (1.7) 262 (1.2)

Female - Male = 9 (3.5) 15 (2.0) * 17 (2.3) * 16 (1.7) *

Grade 12

Female 271 (2.2) 284 (1.8) 296 (1.1) 305 (1.3)

Male 259 (2.0) 269 (1.3) 282 (1.4) 291 (1.1)

Female - Male = 12 (2.9) * 15 (2.2) * 14 (1.8) * 14 (1.7) *

* Indicates a significant difference between male and female students for specified level of

parental education. Differences are calculated prior to rounding.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with

95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

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

(NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment.

 In Table 2.13, racial/ethnic differences in twelfth

grade average reading proficiency are presented in

relation to parental education level. The average

proficiencies of White, Black, and Hispanic students and

the differences between those proficiencies are

presented separately for the different levels of parents’

education reported by students. One question that can

be answered with these data is whether or not the

differences in average reading proficiency between

White, Black, and Hispanic students were evident for

students at all levels of parental education. Also, were

the differences between racial/ethnic groups larger at

some parental education levels than at others?

At the twelfth grade, the average proficiency of

White students was significantly higher than that of

Black or Hispanic students across all levels of parental

education. In addition, Hispanic twelfth graders whose

parents had graduated from college outperformed

Black students whose parents had also graduated from

college. (Data for fourth and eighth graders are not

presented in this tabulation because of wide variation

among these groups in the accuracy of reporting

parental education. See discussion in Appendix A under

“Parents’ Education Level” for further details.)

Average Reading Proficiency

of White, Black, and Hispanic Students

in Relation to Parents‘ Highest Education Level

Grade 12

1994 Reading Assessment

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 2.13

Less than

High School

Graduated

High School

Some Education

after High School

Graduated

College

 Grade 12

White 274 (2.8) 283 (1.6) 294 (1.1) 302 (1.0)

Black 258 (2.8) 258 (2.3) 271 (2.5) 272 (2.0)

Hispanic 260 (2.0) 265 (2.3) 279 (3.1) 283 (2.9)

White - Black = 16 (4.0) * 25 (2.8) * 23 (2.7) * 30 (2.3) *

White - Hispanic = 14 (3.4) * 17 (2.8) * 15 (3.3) * 19 (3.0) *

Black - Hispanic = -2 (3.5) -8 (3.2) -8 (3.9) -11 (3.5) *

* Indicates a significant difference between racial/ethnic subgroups for specified level of parental

education. Differences are calculated prior to rounding.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with

95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

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

(NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment.
3 8

Differences between fourth-grade public and

nonpublic school students’ average reading proficiency

were significant among students who reported that at

least one of their parents had some education after high

school or graduated from college. At the eighth and

twelfth grades, differences between students attending

the two types of schools were significant at each level of

parental education for which data were available.

A comparison of the magnitude of the differences

between public and nonpublic school students in

average reading proficiency provided no indication that

these differences varied significantly across levels of

parental education.

For White students, there was a steady increase in

achievement for each additional level of education

attained by their parents. In contrast, for Black students,

only one factor seemed to make a difference: having

some education beyond high school. For Hispanic

students, the pattern was more similar to that of Black

students.

The data in Table 2.13 show that the racial and

ethnic differences in reading proficiency persist across

different levels of parental educational attainment. This

runs somewhat counter to previous findings from other

studies. The National Education Longitudinal Study of

1988, with more complete measures of socioeconomic

status, found substantial reductions in achievement

differences associated with racial/ethnic group

membership after accounting for family resources.8

In addition, the College Board has found that racial

differences on the Scholastic Aptitude Test are

diminished somewhat when family income differences

are taken into account.9

 So, the NAEP findings should be

interpreted carefully in relation to these other results.

In interpreting these findings, it is important to

understand that student achievement is a result of

multiple factors including educational experiences,

resources from the home, and the larger social

environment. These factors may also differ depending

on the students’ racial/ethnic groups and thus

contribute — along with parents’ educational level — to

achievement differences. Such factors might contribute

to reasonable explanations for why parents’ educational

levels might be associated differently with student

achievement for different racial/ethnic groups.

Table 2.14 examines the differences between public

and nonpublic school students’ reading proficiency in

relation to parental education level. The average reading

proficiencies for students attending both types of

schools are presented by parents’ highest level of

education as reported by students. Analysis of these data

address the question of whether nonpublic school

students displayed significantly higher average reading

proficiency than public school students across all levels

of parental education. Also, were these differences larger

at some parental education levels than at others?

Average Reading Proficiency

of Public and Nonpublic School Students

in Relation to Parents‘ Highest Education Level

Grades 4, 8, and 12

1994 Reading Assessment

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Less than

High School

Graduated

High School

Some Education

after High School

Graduated

College

Grade 4

Nonpublic *** 217 (4.8) 240 (3.6) 238 (2.7)

Public 188 (3.5) 206 (1.9) 222 (2.2) 222 (1.4)

Nonpublic - Public = *** 10 (5.2) 18 (4.2) * 16 (3.1) *

Grade 8

Nonpublic *** 271 (3.3) 280 (2.7) 283 (1.2)

Public 237 (1.9) 250 (1.2) 264 (1.3) 267 (1.0)

Nonpublic - Public = *** 20 (3.5) * 16 (3.0) * 16 (1.6) *

Grade 12

Nonpublic *** 294 (2.9) 297 (2.1) 306 (1.9)

Public 265 (1.5) 276 (1.4) 288 (1.0) 297 (1.1)

Nonpublic - Public = *** 18 (3.2) * 9 (2.3) 10 (2.2) *

* Indicates a significant difference between public and nonpublic subgroups for specified level

of parents’ education. Differences are calculated prior to rounding. The standard errors of the

estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for

each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two

standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

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

(NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment.

TABLE 2.14
3 9

5. As a result of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act reauthorized by Congress in 1994,

the federal program formerly referred to as Chapter

One was renamed Title I.

6. Mullis, I.V.S., Campbell, J.R., & Farstrup, A.E.

(1993). NAEP 1992 reading report card for the

nation and the states Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics, Government

Printing Office.

7. All Department of Defense Education Activity

(DoDEA) Overseas Schools are classified as public

schools. Washington, DC, withdrew from the 1994

Trial State Assessment after the data collection

phase of the assessment.

8. Green, P.J., Dugone, B.L., Ingels, S.J., & Camburn,

E. (1995). A profile of the American high school

senior in 1992. Washington, DC: National Center

for Education Statistics, NCES 95-384.

9. College Entrance Examination Board and

Educational Testing Service (1995). College bound

seniors national profile report: SAT program test

takers 1995. Additional unpublished tables.

Endnotes

1. The differences discussed in the text and presented

in the tables are calculated from the unrounded

means or percentages for the two groups being

compared. Therefore, the differences between the

rounded means or percentages presented in the

tables and figures may not match those discussed

in the text. For example, if Group A has a mean of

218.17 (rounded to 218) and Group B has a mean

of 223.55 (rounded to 224), the appropriate

difference between the two groups’ means is 5.38

(rounded to 5).

2. Mullis, I.V.S., Campbell, J.R., & Farstrup, A.E.

(1993). NAEP 1992 reading report card for the

nation and the states. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics, Government

Printing Office.

3. Looker, E.D. (1989). Accuracy of proxy reports of

parental status characteristics. Sociology of

Education, 62(4), 257-276.

4. Mullis, I.V.S., Campbell, J.R., & Farstrup, A.E.

(1993). NAEP 1992 reading report card for the

nation and the states. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics, Government

Printing Office.
4 0
4 1

Attainment of Reading

Achievement Levels

The reading proficiency of our nation’s students can be

explored further by considering the proportion of

students who attained specific achievement levels

established by the National Assessment Governing

Board (NAGB) in 1992 for the current reading

assessment framework. Viewing reading performance

from this perspective provides insight into the adequacy

of students’ reading abilities and the extent to which

they are achieving expected levels of performance.

This chapter presents the reading achievement

levels attained by fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade

students in the 1992 and 1994 NAEP Reading

Assessments. Results are displayed for the nation,

regions of the country, and major reporting subgroups.

In addition, state-level reading achievement results

from the 1992 and 1994 Trial State Assessments are

presented. The differences reported between subgroups

for the 1994 assessment and between the 1992 and 1994

assessments are statistically significant at the .05 level.

The same cautions prescribed in Chapters 1 and 2 are

warranted when interpreting differences among

subgroups and among states.

Three reading achievement levels — Basic,

Proficient and Advanced — are used to report the NAEP

results. Definitions of the three levels of reading

achievement are shown on the following page. For each

grade, the definitions are cumulative from Basic

through Advanced. One level builds on the previous

level; that is, knowledge at the Proficient level presumes

mastery of the Basic level, and knowledge at the

Advanced level presumes mastery of both the Basic and

Proficient levels.

It should be noted that the achievement levels,

though developed for each grade, are not intended

necessarily to reflect current grade-level achievement.

Rather, they are statements of expectations, expressions

of what students should know and be able to do, and

may more accurately reflect performance standards

toward which students should aspire.

CHAPTER 3
4 2

Reading Achievement Levels

GRADE 4

BASIC Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should demonstrate an understanding of the overall

(208) meaning of what they read. When reading text appropriate for fourth graders, they should be able to make

relatively obvious connections between the text and their own experiences, and extend the ideas in the text

by making simple inferences.

PROFICIENT Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to demonstrate an overall

(238) understanding of the text, providing inferential as well as literal information. When reading text

appropriate to fourth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas in the text by making inferences,

drawing conclusions, and making connections to their own experiences. The connection between the text

and what the student infers should be clear.

ADVANCED Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to generalize about topics in the

(268) reading selection and demonstrate an awareness of how authors compose and use literary devices. When

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

thorough answers that indicate careful thought.

GRADE 8

BASIC Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should demonstrate a literal understanding of what

(243) they read and be able to make some interpretations. When reading text appropriate to eighth grade, they

should be able to identify specific aspects of the text that reflect the overall meaning, extend the ideas in

the text by making simple inferences, recognize and relate interpretations and connections among ideas in

the text to personal experience, and draw conclusions based on the text.

PROFICIENT Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to show an overall understanding

(281) of the text, including inferential as well as literal information. When reading text appropriate to eighth

grade, they should be able to extend the ideas in the text by making clear inferences from it, by drawing

conclusions, and by making connections to their own experiences — including other reading experiences.

Proficient eighth graders should be able to identify some of the devices authors use in composing text.

ADVANCED Eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to describe the more abstract

(323) themes and ideas of the overall text. When reading text appropriate to eighth grade, they should be able to

analyze both meaning and form and support their analyses explicitly with examples from the text; they

should be able to extend text information by relating it to their experiences and to world events. At this

level, student responses should be thorough, thoughtful, and extensive.

GRADE 12

BASIC Twelfth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to demonstrate an overall

(265) understanding and make some interpretations of the text. When reading text appropriate to twelfth grade,

they should be able to identify and relate aspects of the text to its overall meaning, extend the ideas in the

text by making simple inferences, recognize interpretations, make connections among and relate ideas in

the text to their personal experiences, and draw conclusions. They should be able to identify elements of

an author’s style.

PROFICIENT Twelfth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to show an overall understanding

(302) of the text which includes inferential as well as literal information. When reading text appropriate to

twelfth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas of the text by making inferences, drawing

conclusions, and making connections to their own personal experiences and other readings. Connections

between inferences and the text should be clear, even when implicit. These students should be able to

analyze the author’s use of literary devices.

ADVANCED Twelfth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to describe more abstract themes

(346) and ideas in the overall text. When reading text appropriate to twelfth grade, they should be able to

analyze both the meaning and the form of the text and explicitly support their analyses with specific

examples from the text. They should be able to extend the information from the text by relating it to their

experiences and to the world. Their responses should be thorough, thoughtful, and extensive.
4 3

Reading Achievement Levels

for the Nation

The percentages of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade

students who performed at or above the three reading

achievement levels in 1992 and 1994 are shown in

Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1. In the 1994 reading

assessment, the percentage of students at or above the

Basic level ranged from 60 percent at grade 4 to 75

percent at grade 12. Performance at or above the

Proficient level — the achievement level identified by

NAGB as the level all students should reach — was

demonstrated by less than one-third (30 percent) of

fourth and eighth graders, and slightly more than

one-third (36 percent) of twelfth graders. Few students

at any grade were at or above the Advanced level:

7 percent at fourth grade, 3 percent at eighth grade,

and 4 percent at twelfth grade.

Consistent with the results presented in Chapter 2,

the achievement level results indicate a decline between

1992 and 1994 in reading performance at grade 12.

© There was a statistically significant decline of 4

percentage points between 1992 and 1994 in the

proportion of twelfth graders at or above the

Proficient level. The percentage of twelfth graders at

or above the Basic level also declined significantly,

by 5 percentage points.

© The fourth- and eighth-grade achievement

level results indicated no statistically significant

change from 1992 to 1994 in the percentage

of students at or above any of the three

achievement levels.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1992 1994

Grade 4

1992 1994

Grade 8

1992 1994

Grade 12

Proficient

Basic

Advanced

29 30

62 60

69

80

75

29

3 3

30

40

36

4 4

70

6 7

*Significant decrease between 1992 and 1994

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

*

*

Figure 3.1 Percentage of Students At or Above the Reading Achievement Levels by Grade — NAEP 1992 and 1994
4 4

Grade 4

Nation 6 (0.6) 29 (1.2) 62 (1.1) 38 (1.1) 7 (0.7) 30 (1.1) 60 (1.0) 40 (1.0)

Region

Northeast 21 (1.1) 9 (2.4) 34 (4.3) 66 (3.6) 34 (3.6) 23 (0.9) 8 (1.4) 31 (2.4) 61 (2.1) 39 (2.1)

Southeast 23 (1.0) 5 (1.0) 24 (2.6) 58 (3.1) 42 (3.1) 23 (1.1) 7 (0.9) 25 (2.1) 55 (2.3) 45 (2.3)

Central 27 (0.5) 6 (1.1) 30 (2.1) 66 (1.7) 34 (1.7) 25 (0.7) 8 (1.1) 34 (2.5) 66 (2.6) 34 (2.6)

West 28 (0.8) 6 (0.7) 27 (1.7) 59 (1.7) 41 (1.7) 29 (0.8) 7 (0.8) 29 (1.8) 59 (2.1) 41 (2.1)

Grade 8

Nation 3 (0.3) 29 (1.1) 69 (1.0) 31 (1.0) 3 (0.3) 30 (0.9) 70 (0.9) 30 (0.9)

Region

Northeast 22 (0.7) 4 (0.6) 33 (2.1) 72 (2.2) 28 (2.2) 20 (0.8) 4 (0.8) 35 (2.7) 74 (2.2) 26 (2.2)

Southeast 25 (0.5) 2 (0.5) 23 (2.5) 64 (1.8) 36 (1.8) 26 (1.0) 2 (0.4) 23 (1.4) 62 (1.9) 38 (1.9)

Central 25 (0.5) 4 (0.7) 32 (2.4) 74 (2.3) 26 (2.3) 24 (0.6) 3 (0.7) 33 (2.2) 75 (1.7) 25 (1.7)

West 28 (0.6) 3 (0.6) 29 (1.5) 69 (1.5) 31 (1.5) 30 (0.8) 3 (0.4) 29 (1.3) 69 (1.3) 31 (1.3)

Grade 12

Nation 4 (0.3) 40 (0.8) 80 (0.6) 20 (0.6) 4 (0.5) 36 (1.0)< 75 (0.7)< 25 (0.7)>

Region

Northeast 24 (0.6) 5 (0.6) 44 (1.7) 81 (1.5) 19 (1.5) 20 (0.5) 5 (1.0) 37 (1.9) 76 (1.7) 24 (1.7)

Southeast 23 (0.6) 2 (0.4) 31 (1.4) 73 (1.4) 27 (1.4) 23 (0.7) 3 (0.6) 30 (2.0) 70 (1.2) 30 (1.2)

Central 26 (0.6) 4 (0.5) 44 (1.7) 84 (1.1) 16 (1.1) 27 (0.7) 5 (0.6) 40 (1.6) 78 (1.5)< 22 (1.5)>

West 27 (0.8) 4 (0.6) 42 (2.5) 81 (1.5) 19 (1.5) 29 (0.8) 4 (1.1) 38 (1.9) 74 (1.3)< 26 (1.3)>

Differences between regions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

The percentages of students in the regions may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

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

Below Basic

At or Above

Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Advanced

Percentage

of Students

1994

Percentage of Students

Percentage

of Students

At or Above

Advanced

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Basic Below Basic

1992

Percentage of Students

TABLE 3.1

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Reading Achievement Levels by Region

Grades 4, 8, and 12
4 5

Reading Achievement Levels

for the Regions

The percentages of students in various regions who

performed at or above each achievement level in the

1992 and 1994 reading assessments are presented in

Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2. Across the three grades, there

were no statistically significant differences among the

regions in the percentages of students who were at or

above the Advanced level in 1994. Some differences,

however, were observed for the Proficient and

Basic levels.

At the fourth grade, no statistically significant

differences among the regions were found in the

percentages of students at or above the Proficient level

in 1994. However, significantly more fourth graders

from the Central region attained at least Basic level

achievement compared to their counterparts from the

Southeast. There were no other significant regional

differences among fourth graders at or above the

Basic level.

Eighth-grade results for 1994 revealed that the

percentage of students at or above the Proficient level

was smaller in the Southeast than in the other three

regions. Also, there were fewer eighth graders in the

Southeast than in the other regions who attained at

least Basic level achievement. The percentage of eighth

graders at or above Basic was smaller in the West than

in the Central region.

At the twelfth grade in 1994, the percentage of

Southeast students who performed at or above the

Proficient level was smaller than the corresponding

percentages for the Central and West regions. The

percentage of Southeast students at or above the Basic

level was also smaller than the percentage for the

Central region.

© The NAEP reading assessments results indicated no

significant change between 1992 and 1994 in the

percentage of fourth-, and eighth-grade students at

each of the three achievement levels for any of the

four regions of the country.

© Statistically significant decreases in the percentage

of students at or above the Basic level at grade 12

were observed in the Central and West regions. The

significant decrease observed nationally for grade 12

students was not reflected by significant changes in

the Northeast and Southeast regions.

Figure 3.2 Percentage of Students At or Above the Reading

Achievement Levels by Grade and by Region —

NAEP 1992 and 1994

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1992 1994

Northeast 1992 1994

Southeast

1992 1994

Central

1992 1994

West

Proficient

Basic

Advanced

44

37

81

76

73

44

40

84

78


*

42 38

81

74


*

31 30

5 4

70

2 5 3 4

*Significant decrease between 1992 and 1994

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 

1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments 

4 5

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1992 1994

Northeast 1992 1994

Southeast

1992 1994

Central

1992 1994

West

Proficient

Basic

Advanced

33 35

72 74

64

32

74 75

29 29

69

23

4 4

62 69

23

33

2 2 3 3 4 3

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1992 1994

Northeast 1992 1994

Southeast

1992 1994

Central

1992 1994

West

Proficient

Basic

Advanced

34 31

66

61 58

24 25

9 8 5 7

55

66 66

30 34

6 8

59 59

27 29

6 7
4 6

Reading Achievement Levels

for the States

Table 3.2 presents achievement level results from the

1992 and 1994 Trial State Assessments in Reading at

grade 4 for 41 jurisdictions. [Note that two states,

Montana and Washington, as well as the Department of

Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Overseas Schools,

participated only in the 1994 assessment; therefore, only

1994 results are presented for these three jurisdictions.]

© Overall, seven states — Arizona, Connecticut,

Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, and

Mississippi — showed a significant increase

between 1992 and 1994 in the percentage of fourthgrade students at or above the Advanced level.

© In Mississippi, a significantly higher percentage

of students attained at least the Proficient level

in 1994 than in 1992.

© Five states had a significant decrease in the

percentage of fourth graders at or above Basic:

Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,

and Virginia.

Reading Achievement Levels

for Selected Groups

This section provides information about the percentages

of students within major reporting subgroups in the

nation who performed at or above the three reading

achievement levels. Data are presented for subgroups

defined by race/ethnicity, gender, school’s type of

location, level of parents’ education, Title I

participation, and type of school.

Race/Ethnicity. Achievement level results for fourth-,

eighth-, and twelfth-grade students in six racial/ethnic

groups are presented in Table 3.3. Consistent with past

assessments, results from the 1994 reading assessment

indicated large racial/ethnic differences in performance.

Significant differences among the racial/ethnic groups

were observed in the percentage of students at or above

each of the three achievement levels — Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced.

Across all three grades in 1994, only a small

percentage of students in each of the racial/ethnic

groups demonstrated the superior performance

requisite to reach the Advanced achievement level. At all

three grades, few significant differences were seen

across the racial/ethnic groups in the percentages of

students reaching the Advanced level. However, the

percentage of White students at or above this level was

significantly higher than the corresponding percentages

of Black or Hispanic students at all three grades. No

other significant differences were observed at the

Advanced level.

The Proficient achievement level represents

competency with challenging reading materials. When

one compares the percentages of students from various

racial/ethnic subgroups reaching or exceeding this level

of solid academic achievement in 1994, one finds

significant differences at all three grades. At grades 4, 8,

and 12, the percentages of Asian and White students

performing at or above the Proficient level were

significantly greater than the percentages of Black or

Hispanic students who did so. Also, at grade 4, the

percentage of Pacific Islander students at or above the

Proficient level was higher than the percentages for

Black or Hispanic students. The percentage of White

fourth graders at this achievement level was higher than

that of their American Indian counterparts. At both the

fourth and eighth grades, the percentage of Asian

students performing at or above this level exceeded that

of American Indian students. And among twelfth

graders, the percentage of White students performing at

or above the Proficient level was significantly greater

than the percentage of Asian students.

The Basic level indicates partial mastery of skills

fundamental to reading achievement. In 1994, 25

percent or more of the students in grades 4, 8, and 12

failed to reach this lowest level of achievement. The

percentages of students at or above the Basic level

differed among racial/ethnic subgroups. At all three

grades, the percentage of White students at or above the

Basic level was significantly higher than the percentages

for Black or Hispanic students. At the two lower grades,

the percentage of Asian students performing at or above

Basic was also larger than that of Black and Hispanic

students. At the twelfth grade, the percentage of Asian

students at or above this level was significantly greater

than that of Black students.
4 7

Below Basic

At or Above

Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Advanced

Average

Proficiency

At or Above

Advanced

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Basic Below Basic

1992 Assessment

Percentage of Students

TABLE 3.2

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


1994 Assessment

Percentage of Students

Average

Proficiency

Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

NAEP Trial State Assessments in Reading

Public Schools Only

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

215 (1.0) 6 (0.6) 27 (1.3) 60 (1.1) 40 (1.1) 212 (1.1) 7 (0.7) 28 (1.2) 59 (1.1) 41 (1.1)

220 (3.9) 9 (2.6) 32 (4.7) 65 (3.9) 35 (3.9) 212 (2.2) 7 (1.5) 28 (2.6) 58 (2.3) 42 (2.3)

211 (2.5) 4 (0.8) 22 (2.6) 55 (3.5) 45 (3.5) 208 (2.0) 6 (0.6) 23 (2.1) 53 (2.4) 47 (2.4)

218 (1.5) 6 (1.2) 29 (2.4) 65 (1.9) 35 (1.9) 218 (2.7) 7 (1.4) 33 (2.8) 65 (3.0) 35 (3.0)

212 (1.6) 5 (0.7) 24 (1.8) 56 (1.9) 44 (1.9) 212 (2.2) 7 (0.8) 28 (2.0) 59 (2.2) 41 (2.2)

207 (1.7) 3 (0.4) 20 (1.5) 51 (2.1) 49 (2.1) 208 (1.5) 5 (0.7) 23 (1.3) 52 (1.6) 48 (1.6)

209 (1.2) 3 (0.4) 21 (1.2) 54 (1.8) 46 (1.8) 206 (1.9) 6 (0.8)> 24 (1.5) 52 (1.9) 48 (1.9)

211 (1.2) 4 (0.6) 23 (1.2) 56 (1.5) 44 (1.5) 209 (1.7) 5 (0.6) 24 (1.4) 54 (1.8) 46 (1.8)

202 (2.0) 4 (0.7) 19 (1.7) 48 (2.2) 52 (2.2) 197 (1.8)< 3 (0.5) 18 (1.3) 44 (2.0) 56 (2.0)

217 (1.1) 4 (0.6) 25 (1.4) 64 (1.6) 36 (1.6) 213 (1.3) 6 (0.7) 28 (1.5) 59 (1.4) 41 (1.4)

222 (1.3) 6 (1.0) 34 (1.4) 69 (1.7) 31 (1.7) 222 (1.6) 11 (1.1)> 38 (1.6) 68 (1.7) 32 (1.7)

213 (0.6) 5 (0.5) 24 (1.1) 57 (1.2) 43 (1.2) 206 (1.1)<< 5 (0.8) 23 (1.1) 52 (1.3)< 48 (1.3)>

208 (1.2) 3 (0.4) 21 (1.1) 53 (1.6) 47 (1.6) 205 (1.7) 5 (0.6)> 23 (1.5) 50 (1.8) 50 (1.8)

212 (1.5) 5 (0.8) 25 (1.5) 57 (1.7) 43 (1.7) 207 (2.4) 7 (1.0) 26 (2.0) 52 (2.3) 48 (2.3)

203 (1.7) 3 (0.5) 17 (1.5) 48 (1.9) 52 (1.9) 201 (1.7) 4 (0.5) 19 (1.4) 46 (1.8) 54 (1.8)

221 (1.3) 6 (0.9) 30 (1.5) 68 (1.6) 32 (1.6) 220 (1.3) 7 (0.8) 33 (1.5) 66 (1.6) 34 (1.6)

225 (1.1) 7 (0.7) 36 (1.6) 73 (1.4) 27 (1.4) 223 (1.3) 8 (1.0) 35 (1.5) 69 (1.6) 31 (1.6)

213 (1.3) 3 (0.5) 23 (1.6) 58 (1.7) 42 (1.7) 212 (1.6) 6 (0.8)> 26 (1.9) 56 (1.6) 44 (1.6)

204 (1.2) 2 (0.4) 15 (1.1) 46 (1.6) 54 (1.6) 197 (1.3)<< 2 (0.5) 15 (1.2) 40 (1.5)< 60 (1.5)>

227 (1.1) 6 (0.8) 36 (1.7) 75 (1.4) 25 (1.4) 228 (1.3) 10 (1.0)> 41 (1.5) 75 (1.6) 25 (1.6)

211 (1.6) 4 (0.6) 24 (1.2) 57 (1.8) 43 (1.8) 210 (1.5) 7 (0.7)> 26 (1.4) 55 (1.6) 45 (1.6)

226 (0.9) 7 (0.8) 36 (1.5) 74 (1.3) 26 (1.3) 223 (1.3) 8 (1.0) 36 (1.7) 69 (1.5)< 31 (1.5)>

221 (1.2) 6 (0.7) 31 (1.5) 68 (1.7) 32 (1.7) 218 (1.4) 7 (0.7) 33 (1.4) 65 (1.5) 35 (1.5)

199 (1.3) 2 (0.4) 14 (0.9) 41 (1.7) 59 (1.7) 202 (1.6) 4 (0.6)> 18 (1.3)> 45 (1.7) 55 (1.7)

220 (1.2) 6 (0.7) 30 (1.5) 67 (1.5) 33 (1.5) 217 (1.5) 7 (0.9) 31 (1.6) 62 (1.8) 38 (1.8)

— — — — — 222 (1.4) 7 (0.7) 35 (1.5) 69 (1.7) 31 (1.7)

221 (1.1) 6 (0.7) 31 (1.5) 68 (1.5) 32 (1.5) 220 (1.5) 8 (0.9) 34 (1.8) 66 (1.6) 34 (1.6)

228 (1.2) 8 (1.1) 38 (1.6) 76 (1.8) 24 (1.8) 223 (1.5)< 9 (1.0) 36 (1.6) 70 (1.9) 30 (1.9)

223 (1.4) 8 (1.0) 35 (1.8) 69 (1.8) 31 (1.8) 219 (1.2) 8 (0.8) 33 (1.6) 65 (1.5) 35 (1.5)

211 (1.5) 4 (0.7) 23 (1.7) 55 (1.7) 45 (1.7) 205 (1.7)< 4 (0.5) 21 (1.5) 49 (1.6) 51 (1.6)

215 (1.4) 5 (0.6) 27 (1.3) 61 (1.4) 39 (1.4) 212 (1.4) 6 (0.8) 27 (1.5) 57 (1.7) 43 (1.7)

212 (1.1) 5 (0.7) 25 (1.3) 56 (1.4) 44 (1.4) 214 (1.5) 8 (0.8) 30 (1.7) 59 (1.5) 41 (1.5)

226 (1.1) 6 (0.8) 35 (1.5) 74 (1.8) 26 (1.8) 225 (1.2) 8 (0.8) 38 (1.5) 73 (1.4) 27 (1.4)

221 (1.3) 6 (0.8) 32 (1.7) 68 (1.7) 32 (1.7) 215 (1.6)< 7 (0.8) 30 (1.3) 61 (1.6)< 39 (1.6)>

217 (1.8) 5 (0.7) 28 (1.7) 63 (2.2) 37 (2.2) 220 (1.3) 8 (1.0) 32 (1.4) 65 (1.6) 35 (1.6)

210 (1.3) 4 (0.7) 22 (1.4) 53 (1.9) 47 (1.9) 203 (1.4)<< 4 (0.6) 20 (1.3) 48 (1.5) 52 (1.5)

212 (1.4) 4 (0.7) 23 (1.5) 57 (1.7) 43 (1.7) 213 (1.7) 6 (0.9) 27 (1.5) 58 (2.1) 42 (2.1)

213 (1.6) 4 (0.7) 24 (1.8) 57 (2.0) 43 (2.0) 212 (1.9) 6 (0.8) 26 (1.8) 58 (2.3) 42 (2.3)

220 (1.1) 5 (0.6) 30 (1.6) 67 (1.6) 33 (1.6) 217 (1.3) 6 (0.8) 30 (1.6) 64 (1.6) 36 (1.6)

221 (1.4) 6 (1.0) 31 (1.6) 67 (1.8) 33 (1.8) 213 (1.5)<< 7 (0.7) 26 (1.7) 57 (1.8)<< 43 (1.8)>>

— — — — — 213 (1.5) 6 (0.7) 27 (1.2) 59 (1.6) 41 (1.6)

216 (1.3) 5 (0.7) 25 (1.4) 61 (1.4) 39 (1.4) 213 (1.1) 6 (0.6) 26 (1.4) 58 (1.4) 42 (1.4)

224 (1.0) 6 (0.6) 33 (1.3) 71 (1.3) 29 (1.3) 224 (1.1) 7 (0.7) 35 (1.6) 71 (1.6) 29 (1.6)

223 (1.1) 5 (0.6) 33 (1.5) 71 (1.6) 29 (1.6) 221 (1.2) 6 (0.6) 32 (1.4) 68 (1.7) 32 (1.7)

— — — — — 218 (0.9) 6 (0.7) 28 (1.1) 63 (1.5) 37 (1.5)

182 (1.4) 1 (0.3) 8 (0.8) 28 (1.2) 72 (1.2) 181 (1.2) 1 (0.3) 8 (0.8) 27 (1.1) 73 (1.1)

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison

procedure based on 38 jurisdictions participating in both 1994 and 1992. If looking at only one state, < indicated the value for 1994 was significantly lower (>higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent

certainty level. Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates in 1994 (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates in 1992.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or

minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

DoDEA Department of Defense Education Activity Overseas Schools

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments
4 8

The percentage of American Indian students

performing at or above the Basic level was greater than

that of Black students at both fourth and eighth grades.

The percentage of Pacific Islander fourth graders at or

above Basic was also greater than that of Black or

Hispanic students. Also, at grade 4, the percentage of

White and Asian students at the Basic level or above was

greater than that of American Indian students. Finally,

among twelfth graders, the percentage of White

students at or above the Basic achievement level was

significantly higher than the corresponding percentage

of Asian students.

The sample sizes of Pacific Islander students at

grades 8 and 12, and of American Indian students at

grade 12 do not allow accurate determination of the

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 3.3

Below Basic

At or Above

Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Advanced

Percentage

of Students

1994

Percentage of Students

Percentage

of Students

At or Above

Advanced

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Basic Below Basic

1992

Percentage of Students

Grade 4

Nation 6 (0.6) 29 (1.2) 62 (1.1) 38 (1.1) 7 (0.7) 30 (1.1) 60 (1.0) 40 (1.0)

Race/Ethnicity

White 71 (0.2) 8 (0.9) 35 (1.7) 71 (1.3) 29 (1.3) 69 (0.2) 9 (0.9) 37 (1.4) 71 (1.2) 29 (1.2)

Black 16 (0.1) 1 (0.4) 8 (1.4) 33 (2.3) 67 (2.3) 15 (0.2) 1 (0.4) 9 (1.0) 31 (2.5) 69 (2.5)

Hispanic 9 (0.1) 3 (0.8) 16 (1.8) 44 (2.2) 56 (2.2) 12 (0.2) 2 (0.6) 13 (1.6) 36 (2.6) 64 (2.6)

Asian — — — — — 2 (0.2) 16 (5.7) 48 (7.1) 78 (5.1) 22 (5.1)

Pacific Islander — — — — — 1 (0.1) 8 (3.6) 35 (4.6) 67 (6.9) 33 (6.9)

American Indian 2 (0.2) 3 (2.1) 18 (4.5) 53 (6.6) 47 (6.6) 2 (0.2) 3 (2.1) 18 (3.8) 48 (4.4) 52 (4.4)

Grade 8

Nation 3 (0.3) 29 (1.1) 69 (1.0) 31 (1.0) 3 (0.3) 30 (0.9) 70 (0.9) 30 (0.9)

Race/Ethnicity

White 70 (0.2) 4 (0.5) 36 (1.5) 78 (1.1) 22 (1.1) 70 (0.3) 4 (0.4) 36 (1.3) 78 (1.1) 22 (1.1)

Black 15 (0.2) 0 (0.2) 9 (1.1) 45 (1.8) 55 (1.8) 15 (0.2) 0 (0.3) 9 (1.2) 44 (1.9) 56 (1.9)

Hispanic 10 (0.2) 1 (0.3) 14 (1.3) 49 (2.2) 51 (2.2) 11 (0.2) 1 (0.3) 14 (1.5) 49 (1.6) 51 (1.6)

Asian — — — — — 2 (0.2) 6 (1.8) 44 (3.7) 81 (2.9) 19 (2.9)

Pacific Islander — — — — — 1 (0.4) 3 (3.1)! 26 (8.1)! 68 (9.9)! 32 (9.9)!

American Indian 1 (0.2) 1 (0.9) 20 (7.3) 61 (5.0) 39 (5.0) 1 (0.2) 1 (1.1) 20 (5.6) 63 (5.6) 37 (5.6)

Grade 12

Nation 4 (0.3) 40 (0.8) 80 (0.6) 20 (0.6) 4 (0.5) 36 (1.0)< 75 (0.7)< 25 (0.7)>

Race/Ethnicity

White 72 (0.4) 5 (0.4) 47 (1.0) 86 (0.7) 14 (0.7) 73 (0.3) 5 (0.7) 43 (1.1) 81 (0.7)< 19 (0.7)>

Black 15 (0.4) 1 (0.3) 18 (1.5) 61 (2.3) 39 (2.3) 13 (0.3) 1 (0.2) 13 (1.5) 52 (2.2) 48 (2.2)

Hispanic 9 (0.4) 2 (0.7) 24 (3.2) 66 (2.5) 34 (2.5) 8 (0.3) 1 (0.5) 20 (1.8) 58 (2.4) 42 (2.4)

Asian — — — — — 3 (0.3) 3 (1.6) 33 (3.0) 67 (3.1) 33 (3.1)

Pacific Islander — — — — — 1 (0.3) 3 (1.5)! 27 (5.0)! 71 (4.3)! 29 (4.3)!

American Indian 0 (0.1) *** *** *** *** 1 (0.4) 2 (2.8)! 20 (6.7)! 61 (6.5)! 39 (6.5)!

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

<The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

—Due to significant changes in the wording of the race/ethnicity question between the 1992 and 1994 assessments, the 1992 results for Asian and Pacific Islander students are not comparable to 1994

results. Therefore, 1992 results are not presented.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

The percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 percent due to rounding or in the case of race/ethnicity variable, because some students categorized themselves as “other.“

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

Reading Achievement Levels by Race/Ethnicity

Grades 4, 8, and 12
4 9

variability of the percentages. For this reason,

comparisons among these samples and with other

racial/ethnic subgroups are not discussed. Trends could

not be estimated for Asian and Pacific Islander students

because their race/ethnicity data were collected as a

single category for the 1992 assessment.

© Between 1992 and 1994 there appeared to be

decreases in reading performance for White, Black,

and Hispanic twelfth-grade students, but only the

difference among White students was statistically

significant. Significantly fewer White twelfth graders

in 1994 than in 1992 achieved at least the Basic

level of reading performance.

© No significant changes between 1992 and 1994

were observed in the percentages of fourth

and eighth graders in any racial/ethnic subgroup

who performed at or above each of the achievement

levels.

Gender. Achievement level results for male and female

students are presented in Table 3.4. Consistent with

results from the 1992 reading assessment, females

outperformed males in the 1994 assessment. In all three

grades, a significantly higher percentage of female

students than male students were at or above each of

the three achievement levels.

© A significant decrease was reported between 1992

and 1994 in the percentage of twelfth-grade males at

or above the Proficient and Basic levels and in the

percentage of twelfth-grade females at or above the

Basic level. No significant change was seen in the

percentages of either male or female students at or

above the Advanced level.

© At grades 4 and 8, there were no significant

differences between 1992 and 1994 in the

percentages of male and female students at or

above any of the achievement levels.

Grade 4

Nation 6 (0.6) 29 (1.2) 62 (1.1) 38 (1.1) 7 (0.7) 30 (1.1) 60 (1.0) 40 (1.0)

Gender

Male 51 (0.6) 5 (0.7) 25 (1.4) 58 (1.6) 42 (1.6) 51 (0.7) 6 (0.8) 26 (1.3) 55 (1.4) 45 (1.4)

Female 49 (0.6) 8 (0.8) 32 (1.4) 67 (1.3) 33 (1.3) 49 (0.7) 9 (0.9) 34 (1.5) 66 (1.2) 34 (1.2)

Grade 8

Nation 3 (0.3) 29 (1.1) 69 (1.0) 31 (1.0) 3 (0.3) 30 (0.9) 70 (0.9) 30 (0.9)

Gender

Male 51 (0.7) 2 (0.2) 23 (1.2) 64 (1.3) 36 (1.3) 50 (0.6) 2 (0.3) 23 (1.1) 62 (1.1) 38 (1.1)

Female 49 (0.7) 4 (0.6) 35 (1.4) 76 (1.1) 24 (1.1) 50 (0.6) 4 (0.5) 36 (1.3) 77 (1.1) 23 (1.1)

Grade 12

Nation 4 (0.3) 40 (0.8) 80 (0.6) 20 (0.6) 4 (0.5) 36 (1.0)< 75 (0.7)< 25 (0.7)>

Gender

Male 49 (0.6) 2 (0.4) 34 (1.1) 75 (1.0) 25 (1.0) 50 (0.8) 2 (0.3) 29 (1.1)< 69 (1.1)< 31 (1.1)>

Female 51 (0.6) 5 (0.4) 46 (1.3) 84 (0.7) 16 (0.7) 50 (0.8) 6 (0.9) 43 (1.1) 80 (1.0)< 20 (1.0)>

Differences between two groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

<The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

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

Below Basic

At or Above

Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Advanced

Percentage

of Students

1994

Percentage of Students

Percentage

of Students

At or Above

Advanced

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Basic Below Basic

1992

Percentage of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 3.4

Reading Achievement Levels by Gender

Grades 4, 8, and 12
5 0

Type of Location. Achievement level results are

presented in Table 3.5 for students attending schools in

three types of location: Central City, Urban Fringe/Large

Town, and Rural/Small Town. These classifications are

based solely on geographic characteristics. (The type of

location classifications are described in Appendix A.)

At grade 4, a greater percentage of students from

Urban Fringe/Large Town schools were at or above the

Proficient and Basic levels of achievement in 1994,

compared to their counterparts from Central City and

Rural/Small Town schools. Among eighth graders, the

1994 results also showed significantly higher

percentages of students from schools in Urban Fringe/

Large Town areas than students from Central City

schools reaching at least the Basic level. There were no

significant differences by school location in the

percentages of twelfth graders reaching any of the three

achievement levels.

© Corresponding with the decline in average

proficiency at twelfth grade between 1992 and 1994,

there was a statistically significant drop over the

two-year period in the percentage of twelfth graders

attending Urban Fringe/Large Town and Rural/Small

Town schools who performed at or above the Basic

achievement level.

© No other significant changes between the two assessments were observed at any grade in the percentages

of students from different types of school locations

attaining the three achievement levels.

Grade 4

Nation 6 (0.6) 29 (1.2) 62 (1.1) 38 (1.1) 7 (0.7) 30 (1.1) 60 (1.0) 40 (1.0)

Type of Location

Central City 33 (2.6) 5 (0.6) 23 (1.2) 54 (1.8) 46 (1.8) 35 (2.0) 6 (1.0) 25 (1.8) 53 (2.5) 47 (2.5)

Urban Fringe/Lg. Town 42 (3.2) 8 (1.1) 33 (2.4) 67 (2.2) 33 (2.2) 43 (2.3) 9 (1.1) 35 (1.9) 67 (1.6) 33 (1.6)

Rural/Small Town 26 (2.3) 6 (1.6) 29 (2.7) 65 (2.5) 35 (2.5) 21 (2.2) 6 (0.7) 28 (1.9) 60 (2.5) 40 (2.5)

Grade 8

Nation 3 (0.3) 29 (1.1) 69 (1.0) 31 (1.0) 3 (0.3) 30 (0.9) 70 (0.9) 30 (0.9)

Type of Location

Central City 32 (2.6) 2 (0.4) 23 (1.6) 62 (1.8) 38 (1.8) 34 (2.2) 3 (0.6) 27 (1.4) 66 (1.6) 34 (1.6)

Urban Fringe/Lg. Town 43 (3.3) 4 (0.5) 34 (1.5) 74 (1.5) 26 (1.5) 40 (2.6) 3 (0.3) 32 (1.4) 73 (1.4) 27 (1.4)

Rural/Small Town 24 (2.5) 2 (0.7) 29 (2.7) 71 (2.6) 29 (2.6) 26 (2.0) 3 (0.6) 29 (2.1) 69 (1.8) 31 (1.8)

Grade 12

Nation 4 (0.3) 40 (0.8) 80 (0.6) 20 (0.6) 4 (0.5) 36 (1.0)< 75 (0.7)< 25 (0.7)>

Type of Location

Central City 31 (2.3) 4 (0.5) 38 (2.3) 77 (1.4) 23 (1.4) 32 (2.1) 4 (0.7) 37 (1.5) 75 (1.2) 25 (1.2)

Urban Fringe/Lg. Town 43 (2.6) 4 (0.5) 43 (1.4) 81 (1.0) 19 (1.0) 42 (2.6) 5 (0.8) 38 (1.4) 76 (1.2)< 24 (1.2)>

Rural/Small Town 25 (1.6) 3 (0.6) 38 (2.0) 79 (1.4) 21 (1.4) 26 (1.9) 4 (0.5) 33 (1.8) 72 (1.4)< 28 (1.4)>

Differences between location types may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

The percentages of students in the types of location may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

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

Below Basic

At or Above

Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Advanced

Percentage

of Students

1994

Percentage of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Percentage

of Students

At or Above

Advanced

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Basic Below Basic

1992

Percentage of Students

TABLE 3.5

Reading Achievement Levels by Type of Location

Grades 4, 8, and 12
5 1

Parents’ Education Level. As shown in Table 3.6, there is

a positive relationship between levels of parents’

education and the percentage of students at or above the

three achievement levels. In general, the higher the

level of education reported, the higher the percentage of

students at each achievement level. This finding is

consistent with prior assessments and with the

proficiency results discussed in the previous chapter. At

the fourth grade, however, it should be noted that a

considerable number of students did not know their

parents’ education level.

At all three grades, the percentage at or above the

Advanced level was higher among students who

reported that at least one of their parents graduated

from college than among students with at least one

parent who had graduated from high school and among

students whose parents had not graduated from high

school. Also, at all three grades, the percentage at or

above the Advanced level was higher for students who

reported that at least one parent received some

education after high school than for students who

reported that neither parent graduated from high school.

1994

Percentage of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


At or Above

Advanced

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Basic

Percentage

of Students

1992

Percentage of Students

TABLE 3.6

Below Basic

At or Above

Basic Below Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Advanced

Percentage

of Students

Reading Achievement Levels by Parents’ Highest Education Level

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4

Nation 6 (0.6) 29 (1.2) 62 (1.1) 38 (1.1) 7 (0.7) 30 (1.1) 60 (1.0) 40 (1.0)

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 39 (1.1) 10 (1.1) 39 (1.8) 71 (1.6) 29 (1.6) 42 (0.9) 11 (1.2) 39 (1.7) 70 (1.3) 30 (1.3)

Some Education after H.S. 9 (0.5) 8 (1.9) 33 (3.4) 69 (3.0) 31 (3.0) 8 (0.5) 9 (1.8) 37 (2.6) 70 (2.9) 30 (2.9)

Graduated High School 12 (0.6) 3 (1.1) 22 (2.2) 58 (2.2) 42 (2.2) 13 (0.5) 4 (1.3) 22 (2.6) 54 (2.1) 46 (2.1)

Did Not Finish High School 4 (0.4) 1 (1.4) 12 (2.2) 39 (3.8) 61 (3.8) 4 (0.3) 1 (1.3) 9 (2.3) 32 (3.9) 68 (3.9)

I Don’t Know 36 (1.0) 3 (0.8) 21(1.4) 55 (1.6) 45 (1.6) 34 (0.8) 4 (0.6) 22 (1.6) 52 (1.3) 48 (1.3)

Grade 8

Nation 3 (0.3) 29 (1.1) 69 (1.0) 31 (1.0) 3 (0.3) 30 (0.9) 70 (0.9) 30 (0.9)

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 41 (1.2) 5 (0.7) 40 (1.4) 80 (1.0) 20 (1.0) 43 (1.1) 5 (0.5) 40 (1.2) 79 (1.0) 21 (1.0)

Some Education after H.S. 19 (0.5) 3 (0.7) 32 (1.4) 76 (1.5) 24 (1.5) 20 (0.5) 3 (0.6) 33 (1.5) 77 (1.5) 23 (1.5)

Graduated High School 24 (0.8) 1 (0.3) 19 (1.5) 61 (1.8) 39 (1.8) 21 (0.8) 1 (0.4) 20 (1.6) 62 (1.7) 38 (1.7)

Did Not Finish High School 8 (0.5) 1 (0.3) 13 (1.9) 51 (2.2) 49 (2.2) 7 (0.4) 0 (0.3) 10 (1.8) 46 (3.0) 54 (3.0)

I Don’t Know 8 (0.4) 0 (0.4) 12 (2.0) 45 (2.6) 55 (2.6) 9 (0.4) 0 (0.3) 12 (1.3) 48 (2.5) 52 (2.5)

Grade 12

Nation 4 (0.3) 40 (0.8) 80 (0.6) 20 (0.6) 4 (0.5) 36 (1.0)< 75 (0.7)< 25 (0.7)>

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 41 (0.9) 6 (0.6) 52 (1.3) 87 (0.7) 13 (0.7) 43 (1.0) 7 (1.1) 48 (1.4) 84 (0.7)< 16 (0.7)>

Some Education after H.S. 27 (0.6) 3 (0.5) 41 (1.4) 83 (1.0) 17 (1.0) 25 (0.7) 3 (0.5) 36 (1.4) 78 (1.3)< 22 (1.3)>

Graduated High School 22 (0.5) 2 (0.3) 28 (1.4) 72 (1.2) 28 (1.2) 21 (0.7) 2 (0.5) 24 (1.7) 66 (1.7)< 34 (1.7)>

Did Not Finish High School 8 (0.4) 0 (0.3) 21 (2.1) 63 (2.2) 37 (2.2) 7 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 15 (1.5) 53 (2.5)< 47 (2.5)>

I Don’t Know 2 (0.2) 0 (0.7) 10 (2.0) 44 (4.9) 56 (4.9) 3 (0.2) 0 (0.7) 6 (2.3) 32 (3.3) 68 (3.3)

Differences between levels may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

<The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

The percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments
5 2

Among groups of 1994 students that reported

knowing their parents’ education levels, the percentage

at or above the Proficient level was lowest for students

who said their parents did not finish high school. This

result was evident at each of the three grade levels. In

addition, across all three grades, significantly higher

percentages of students were at or above the Proficient

level among students reporting at least one of their

parents graduated from college or received some

education after high school than among those who

reported having parents who only graduated from high

school. At the two higher grades, the percentage of

students attaining at least the Proficient level was

greater among students who reported at least one

parent graduated from college than among students

who reported that at least one parent had some

education after high school.

Of those students who reported that neither of their

parents graduated from high school, a significantly

smaller percentage was at or above Basic when

compared to students reporting higher levels of parents’

education. Students who reported that at least one

parent graduated from high school had a lower

percentage at or above Basic compared to students

reporting that at least one of their parents continued

their education after high school. Also, the percentage

attaining the Basic level or above among students who

reported high school graduation as the highest parental

education level was lower than among students with at

least one parent who had graduated from college. These

results were observed for all three grades. Finally, for

grade 12, the group of students who reported that at

least one parent had some education after high school

had a smaller percentage at or above Basic than did

students who reported at least one parent graduated

from college.

© Reflecting the overall decline at twelfth grade

observed for the nation, there was a significant

decrease between 1992 and 1994 in the percentage

of twelfth-grade students at or above Basic for each

level of parental education.

© No other significant differences between the 1992

and 1994 assessments were found for any reported

level of parents’ education in the percentages of

fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students at or

above the Advanced and Proficient levels.
5 3

Title I Participation. Achievement level results by Title I

participation status are provided in Table 3.7 for only

the 1994 assessment; information about participation in

Title I programs was not collected in the same manner

during the 1992 assessment.

Compared to their counterparts who did not

participate in Title I programs, significantly

fewer fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade Title I

participants performed at or above each of the reading

achievement levels, except at grade 8 where the

difference between participating and nonparticipating

students reaching the Advanced level was not

statistically significant.

Correspondingly, at all three grades, the percentage

of Title I program participants performing below Basic

was higher than that of their peers who were not Title I

participants. The percentages of Title I students who

performed below Basic ranged from 59 percent at

twelfth grade to 80 percent at fourth grade. Conversely,

only about one-third or fewer of students across the

three grades who were not Title I participants performed

below the Basic level.

TABLE 3.7

Percentage of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Grade 4

Nation 7 (0.7) 30 (1.1) 60 (1.0) 40 (1.0)

Title 1

Participating 14 (1.2) 0 (0.2) 3 (0.9) 20 (2.2) 80 (2.2)

Nonparticipating 86 (1.2) 9 (0.8) 34 (1.2) 67 (1.1) 33 (1.1)

Grade 8

Nation 3 (0.3) 30 (0.9) 70 (0.9) 30 (0.9)

Title 1

Participating 6 (0.8) 0 (0.0) 5 (1.6) 35 (2.6) 65 (2.6)

Nonparticipating 94 (0.8) 3 (0.3) 31 (1.0) 72 (1.0) 28 (1.0)

Grade 12

Nation 4 (0.5) 36 (1.0)< 75 (0.7)< 25 (0.7)>

Title 1

Participating 2 (0.7) 0 (0.2)! 10 (2.1)! 41 (4.3)! 59 (4.3)!

Nonparticipating 98 (0.7) 4 (0.5) 37 (1.0) 75 (0.7) 25 (0.7)

Percentage

of Students

At or Above

Advanced

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Basic Below Basic

Reading Achievement Levels by Title I Participation

 Grades 4, 8, and 12

1994 Reading Assessment

Differences between the two groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population

is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow for accurate determination of the variability of this value.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment
5 4

Below Basic

At or Above

Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Advanced

Percentage

of Students

1994

Percentage of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Percentage

of Students

At or Above

Advanced

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above

Basic Below Basic

1992

Percentage of Students

TABLE 3.8

Type of School. The percentages of fourth-, eighth-, and

twelfth-grade students at or above the three reading

achievement levels are presented by type of school in

Table 3.8. At each grade, the percentages of nonpublic

school students who performed at or above each level in

1994 were significantly higher than the percentages of

public school students who did so.

© Between 1992 and 1994, there were no significant

differences in the percentages of public or nonpublic

school students performing at or above the

Advanced or Proficient levels at any of the grades.

© At grade 12, however, the percentage of students

performing at or above the Basic level decreased

over the two-year period for both types of schools.

Grade 4

Nation 6 (0.6) 29 (1.2) 62 (1.1) 38 (1.1) 7 (0.7) 30 (1.1) 60 (1.0) 40 (1.0)

Type of School

Public Schools Only 88 (1.3) 6 (0.6) 27 (1.3) 60 (1.1) 40 (1.1) 90 (0.9) 7 (0.7) 28 (1.2) 59 (1.1) 41 (1.1)

Nonpublic Schools Only 11 (1.0) 12 (1.3) 45 (2.4) 79 (1.9) 21 (1.9) 10 (0.9) 13 (1.8) 43 (3.0) 77 (2.4) 23 (2.4)

Catholic Schools 8 (0.8) 10 (1.5) 41 (2.7) 76 (2.7) 24 (2.7) 7 (0.8) 12 (2.2) 42 (3.9) 76 (3.2) 24 (3.2)

Other Nonpublic Schools 4 (0.7) 15 (2.9)! 53 (4.4)! 84 (2.7)! 16 (2.7)! 4 (0.6) 14 (2.9) 46 (4.0) 80 (4.2) 20 (4.2)

Grade 8

Nation 3 (0.3) 29 (1.1) 69 (1.0) 31 (1.0) 3 (0.3) 30 (0.9) 70 (0.9) 30 (0.9)

Type of School

Public Schools Only 89 (0.8) 2 (0.3) 27 (1.1) 67 (1.1) 33 (1.1) 89 (1.0) 2 (0.3) 27 (0.9) 67 (0.9) 33 (0.9)

Nonpublic Schools Only 11 (0.8) 7 (1.3) 48 (3.2) 87 (1.5) 13 (1.5) 11 (1.0) 6 (0.8) 49 (2.3) 89 (1.3) 11 (1.3)

Catholic Schools 6 (0.6) 6 (1.0) 45 (2.8) 84 (1.6) 16 (1.6) 7 (0.6) 6 (1.1) 49 (2.1) 88 (1.3) 12 (1.3)

Other Nonpublic Schools 4 (0.8) 10 (2.6) 54 (4.4) 90 (2.5) 10 (2.5) 4 (0.7) 7 (1.4) 50 (3.9) 89 (2.1) 11 (2.1)

Grade 12

Nation 4 (0.3) 40 (0.8) 80 (0.6) 20 (0.6) 4 (0.5) 36 (1.0)< 75 (0.7)< 25 (0.7)>

Type of School

Public Schools Only 87 (1.2) 3 (0.3) 37 (0.9) 78 (0.7) 22 (0.7) 89 (1.1) 4 (0.5) 35 (1.0) 73 (0.7)< 27 (0.7)>

Nonpublic Schools Only 13 (1.2) 9 (0.7) 60 (2.2) 92 (0.8) 8 (0.8) 10 (1.0) 8 (0.9) 52 (2.7) 87 (1.7)< 13 (1.7)>

Catholic Schools 9 (1.2) 8 (0.7) 59 (2.6) 93 (0.9) 7 (0.9) 6 (0.9) 6 (1.1) 47 (3.7) 85 (2.2)< 15 (2.2)>

Other Nonpublic Schools 4 (0.7) 12 (1.8) 61 (3.8) 89 (2.2) 11 (2.2) 4 (0.6) 11 (1.5) 59 (3.1) 89 (2.0) 11 (2.0)

Nonpublic schools includes Catholic and other types of nonpublic schools.

Differences between school types may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

<The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

Percentages of students in public school only and nonpublic school only may not total 100 percent and the percentages of students in the two types of nonpublic schools may not total the percentage of

nonpublic schools due to rounding.

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

Reading Achievement Levels by Type of School

Grades 4, 8, and 12
5 5

CHAPTER 4 Cross-State Comparisons

of Fourth-Grade

Reading Proficiency

Average reading proficiency results for fourth graders

from jurisdictions participating in the 1992 and 1994

Trial State Assessments were presented in Chapter 2.

This chapter focuses on comparisons between those

jurisdictions. When the average proficiencies for

jurisdictions are compared, it is essential to take the

standard error into account, rather than to rely solely

on observed similarities or differences.1

 In addition to

comparing the average proficiencies of all fourth

graders, considering how the proficiencies of subgroups

of students within a particular state compare to those of

similar subgroups from other states provides yet

another perspective on state-level results.

This chapter addresses these considerations by

presenting results of statistical analyses comparing the

reading performance of students in various states, and

comparing the performance of subgroups of students

across states. The goal of these analyses is to make state

comparisons more informative and meaningful.

Distribution of Reading Proficiency

for the States

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 provide a visual representation of

the distribution of reading proficiency results for each

participating jurisdiction. Figure 4.1 presents 1992

results and, for comparison, Figure 4.2 gives results

from the 1994 assessment. In the figures, the black box

at the midpoint of the performance distribution for each

state shows the 95 percent confidence interval around

the average proficiency. This represents the range of

scores within which the states’ average reading

proficiency score falls with 95 percent certainty. (A more

detailed explanation of confidence intervals is provided

in Appendix A).

The shaded boxes indicate the ranges between

selected percentiles — 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th — of

each jurisdiction’s performance distribution. In general,

the variation within states tended to exceed the

variation in average performance across states, leading

to considerable overlap in performance across states.
5 6

Figure 4.1 Distribution of Overall Reading Proficiency Organized by Average Proficiency for the

1992 Trial State Reading Assessment, Grade 4, Public Schools Only CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994 

Reading Assessment

1992 

100 300 208

Basic

238

Proficient

268

Advanced

New Hampshire* 228 (1.2)

Maine* 227 (1.1)

Massachusetts 226 (0.9)

North Dakota 226 (1.1)

Iowa 225 (1.1)

Wisconsin 224 (1.0)

Wyoming 223 (1.1)

New Jersey* 223 (1.4)

Connecticut 222 (1.3)

Nebraska* 221 (1.1)

Indiana 221 (1.3)

Minnesota 221 (1.2)

Virginia 221 (1.4)

Pennsylvania 221 (1.3)

Utah 220 (1.1)

Oklahoma 220 (0.9)

Missouri 220 (1.2)

Idaho 219 (0.9)

Ohio 217 (1.3)

Rhode Island 217 (1.8)

Colorado 217 (1.1)

Michigan 216 (1.5)

West Virginia 216 (1.3)

New York* 215 (1.4)

Delaware* 213 (0.6)

Kentucky 213 (1.3)

Texas 213 (1.6)

Georgia 212 (1.5)

Tennessee 212 (1.4)

North Carolina 212 (1.1)

Maryland 211 (1.6)

Arkansas 211 (1.2)

New Mexico 211 (1.5)

South Carolina 210 (1.3)

Arizona 209 (1.2)

Florida 208 (1.2)

Alabama 207 (1.7)

Louisiana 204 (1.2)

Hawaii 203 (1.7)

California 202 (2.0)

Mississippi 199 (1.3)

District of Columbia 188 (0.8)

Guam 182 (1.4)

100 150 200 250 300

NH NH

ME ME

MA MA

ND ND

IA IA

WI WI

WY WY

NJ NJ

CT CT

NE NE

IN IN

MN MN

VA VA

PA PA

UT UT

OK OK

MO MO

ID ID

OH OH

RI RI

CO CO

MI MI

WV WV

NY NY

DE DE

KY KY

TX TX

GA GA

TN TN

NC NC

MD MD

AR AR

NM NM

SC SC

AZ AZ

FL FL

AL AL

LA LA

HI HI

CA CA

MS MS

DC DC

GU GU

Percentiles of Performance

10th 25th 75th 90th

Mean

and confidence interval

The center darkest box indicates a simultaneous confidence interval

around the average reading proficiency for the state based on the

Bonferroni procedure for multiple comparisons. The darker shaded

boxes indicate the ranges between the 25th and 75th percentiles of the

reading proficiency distribution, and the lighter shaded boxes the

ranges between the 10th to 25th percentiles and the 75th to 90th

percentiles of the distribution.

*Did not satisfy one or more of the guidelines for sample participation

rates (see Appendix for details).
5 7

Figure 4.2 Distribution of Overall Reading Proficiency Organized by Average Proficiency for the

1994 Trial State Reading Assessment, Grade 4, Public Schools Only CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994 

Reading Assessment

1992 

100 300 208

Basic

238

Proficient

268

Advanced

Maine 228 (1.3)

North Dakota 225 (1.2)

Wisconsin* 224 (1.1)

New Hampshire* 223 (1.5)

Massachusetts 223 (1.3)

Iowa 223 (1.3)

Connecticut 222 (1.6)

Montana* 222 (1.4)

Wyoming 221 (1.2)

Nebraska* 220 (1.5)

Rhode Island* 220 (1.3)

Indiana 220 (1.3)

New Jersey 219 (1.2)

Minnesota 218 (1.4)

DoDEA Overseas 218 (0.9)

Utah 217 (1.3)

Missouri 217 (1.5)

Pennsylvania* 215 (1.6)

North Carolina 214 (1.5)

Colorado 213 (1.3)

Virginia 213 (1.5)

West Virginia 213 (1.1)

Washington 213 (1.5)

Tennessee* 213 (1.7)

Texas 212 (1.9)

New York 212 (1.4)

Kentucky 212 (1.6)

Maryland 210 (1.5)

Arkansas 209 (1.7)

Alabama 208 (1.5)

Georgia 207 (2.4)

Delaware 206 (1.1)

Arizona 206 (1.9)

Florida 205 (1.7)

New Mexico 205 (1.7)

South Carolina 203 (1.4)

Mississippi 202 (1.6)

Hawaii 201 (1.7)

California 197 (1.8)

Louisiana 197 (1.3)

Guam 181 (1.2)

100 150 200 250 300

ME ME

ND ND

WI WI

NH NH

MA MA

IA IA

CT CT

MT MT

WY WY

NE NE

RI RI

IN IN

NJ NJ

MN MN

DD DD

UT UT

MO MO

PA PA

NC NC

CO CO

VA VA

WV WV

WA WA

TN TN

TX TX

NY NY

KY KY

MD MD

AR AR

AL AL

GA GA

DE DE

AZ AZ

FL FL

NM NM

SC SC

MS MS

HI HI

CA CA

LA LA

GU GU

Percentiles of Performance

10th 25th 75th 90th

Mean

and confidence interval

The center darkest box indicates a simultaneous confidence interval

around the average reading proficiency for the state based on the

Bonferroni procedure for multiple comparisons. The darker shaded

boxes indicate the ranges between the 25th and 75th percentiles of the

reading proficiency distribution, and the lighter shaded boxes the

ranges between the 10th to 25th percentiles and the 75th to 90th

percentiles of the distribution.

*Did not satisfy one or more of the guidelines for sample participation

rates (see Appendix for details).
5 8

As another example, compare the 1994 average

reading proficiency for the state of Virginia to that for

each of the other 38 participating states, the DoDEA

Overseas Schools, and Guam. Reading vertically down

the column labeled “Virginia,” one sees that, on average,

fourth graders in Virginia scored lower than students in

the states listed from Maine through Wyoming (shaded

dark gray), about the same as students listed from

Nebraska through New Mexico (white or unshaded), and

higher than students in the jurisdictions listed from

South Carolina through Guam (light gray shading).

From Figure 4.4, we also see that the cluster of

highest performing states in 1994 consisted of eight

states. The states whose fourth graders had the highest

average reading proficiencies were Maine, North Dakota,

Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa,

Connecticut, and Montana. For comparison, the cluster

of highest performing states in 1992 (displayed in

Figure 4.3) consisted of 13 states: New Hampshire,

Maine, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin,

Wyoming, New Jersey, Connecticut, Indiana, Minnesota,

Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

Comparisons of Average Reading

Proficiency Between States

Figures 4.3 and 4.4 present another way to make valid

performance comparisons across states. Figure 4.3

shows comparisons for the 1992 Trial State Assessment

and Figure 4.4 shows the corresponding 1994

comparisons. The computations underlying these

figures take into account the confidence intervals, or

degree of sampling error, associated with the average

proficiency estimates. The computations were based on

unrounded data. These figures indicate whether or not

differences between pairs of participating jurisdictions

are statistically significant.2 For example, Figure 4.4

shows that although average fourth-grade reading

proficiencies in 1994 appear to be different between

Maine (228) and Montana (222), the difference is not

statistically significant and may be due to chance factors

such as sampling and/or measurement error.
5 9

Figure 4.3 Comparisons of Average Overall Reading Proficiency for the

1992 Trial State Reading Assessment, Grade 4, Public Schools Only

Read down the column directly under a state name listed in the heading at the top of the chart. Match the shading intensity surrounding a state postal abbreviation to the key

below to determine whether the average reading performance of this state is higher than, the same as, or lower than the state in the column heading. Instructions:

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994 

Reading Assessment

1992 

New Hampshire (NH)*Maine (ME)*Massachusetts (MA) North Dakota (ND) Iowa (IA) Wisconsin (WI) Wyoming (WY) New Jersey (NJ)*Connecticut (CT) Nebraska (NE)*Indiana (IN) Minnesota (MN) Virginia (VA) Pennsylvania (PA) Utah (UT) Oklahoma (OK) Missouri (MO) Idaho (ID) Ohio (OH) Rhode Island (RI) Michigan (MI) West Virginia (WV) New York (NY)*Delaware (DE)*Kentucky (KY) Texas (TX) Georgia (GA) Tennessee (TN) North Carolina (NC) Maryland (MD) Arkansas (AR) New Mexico (NM) South Carolina (SC) Arizona (AZ) Florida (FL) Alabama (AL) Louisiana (LA) Hawaii (HI) California (CA) Mississippi (MS) District of Columbia (DC) Guam (GU) 

NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH

ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA

WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI

WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY

NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ

CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT

NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN

MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN

VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA

PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA

UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT

OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK

MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO

ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID

OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH

RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI

MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI

WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV

NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY

DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE

KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY

TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX

GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA

TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN

NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD

AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR

NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC

AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ

FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL

AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI

CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA

MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC

GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU

State has statistically significantly higher average

proficiency than the state listed at the top of the chart.

No statistically significant difference from the state

listed at the top of the chart.

State has statistically significantly lower average

proficiency than the state listed at the top of the chart.

The between state comparisons take into account sampling and

measurement error and that each state is being compared with

every other state. Significance is determined by an application

of the Bonferroni procedure.

*Did not statisfy one or more of the guidelines for sample

participation rates (see Appendix for details).
6 0

Figure 4.4 Comparisons of Average Overall Reading Proficiency for the

1994 Trial State Reading Assessment, Grade 4, Public Schools Only

Read down the column directly under a state name listed in the heading at the top of the chart. Match the shading intensity surrounding a state postal abbreviation to the key

below to determine whether the average reading performance of this state is higher than, the same as, or lower than the state in the column heading. Instructions:

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994 

Reading Assessment

1992 

Maine (ME) North Dakota (ND) Wisconsin (WI)*New Hampshire (NH)*Massachusetts (MA) Iowa (IA) Connecticut (CT) Montana (MT)*Wyoming (WY) Nebraska (NE)*Rhode Island (RI)*Indiana (IN) New Jersey (NJ) Minnesota (MN) DoDEA Overseas (DD) Utah (UT) Missouri (MO) Pennsylvania (PA)*North Carolina (NC) Colorado (CO) Virginia (VA) West Virginia (WV) Washington (WA) Tennessee (TN)*Texas (TX) New York (NY) Kentucky (KY) Maryland (MD) Arkansas (AR) Georgia (GA) Delaware (DE) Arizona (AZ) Florida (FL) New Mexico (NM) South Carolina (SC) Mississippi (MS) Hawaii (HI) California (CA) Louisiana (LA) Guam (GU) 

ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI

NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH

MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA

IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA

CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT

MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT

WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY

NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI

IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN

NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ

MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN

DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD

UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT

MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO

PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA

NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA

WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV

WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA

TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN

TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX

NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY

KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY

MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD

AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR

GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA

DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE

AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ

FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL

NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC

MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI HI

CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU GU

State has statistically significantly higher average

proficiency than the state listed at the top of the chart.

No statistically significant difference from the state

listed at the top of the chart.

State has statistically significantly lower average

proficiency than the state listed at the top of the chart.

The between state comparisons take into account sampling and

measurement error and that each state is being compared with

every other state. Significance is determined by an application

of the Bonferroni procedure.

*Did not statisfy one or more of the guidelines for sample

participation rates (see Appendix for details).
6 1

The data in Figures 4.5 and 4.6 cannot be used to

compare average reading proficiencies across subgroups

within a state. Information about the average

performance of subgroups within states is presented in

Appendix C.

When examining the information presented in

Figures 4.5 and 4.6, it is essential to keep in mind the

proximity of average scale scores for states in different

quintile bands. The range of average scale scores for

each state’s subgroup is in parentheses at the top of

each band. In some cases, the average score associated

with a state near a quintile cutoff differs little from that

of another state appearing in an adjacent quintile band.

Consequently, it is possible that two states may fall in

different quintiles, yet be relatively close in average

proficiency. For example, among White students from

all participating jurisdictions, White students in

Montana, with an average proficiency of 226.3 (rounded

to 226), appear in the top quintile. However, White

students in New York, with an average proficiency of

225.9 (also rounded to 226), appear in the fourth, or

next to the highest, quintile.

The division of states into quintile bands for each

demographic subgroup is based solely on their ranking

in the performance distribution of states. The breaks

between quintiles should not be interpreted as

indicating statistically significant differences between

states. Also, it is important to keep in mind that the

ranking of jurisdictions, and the subsequent grouping

into quintiles, are based on unrounded averages.

Throughout this report, average proficiencies are

reported to the nearest whole number.

Comparisons of Average

Reading Proficiency

Across the States for Selected

Demographic Subgroups

Figures 4.5 and 4.6 present another way to compare the

performance of students across participating

jurisdictions in the 1992 and 1994 reading assessments.

For each demographic characteristic identified at the

top of the columns, the states are ranked from highest

to lowest in terms of average reading proficiencies and

are grouped in performance bands established according

to quintiles, or bands that represent approximately 20

percent of the performance distribution.

Grouped within the highest, or fifth, quintile for

each of the demographic subgroups are the states in

which the average reading proficiency for that subgroup

was in the top 20 percent across all participating

jurisdictions. Conversely, located within the lowest, or

first, quintile for each subgroup of students are the

states in which the average reading proficiency for those

students was in the lowest 20 percent across

jurisdictions. The second, third, and fourth quintiles can

be interpreted in a similar manner. The list of states

within each quintile is arranged in alphabetical order.

This information is useful for making cross-state

comparisons of students who share a particular

demographic characteristic. For example, the 1994

average reading proficiency of White students in the

state of Washington was in the lowest quintile for

White students across all participating jurisdictions

(Figure 4.6). However, the average proficiency for

Washington’s Black students was in the highest quintile.
6 2

Average Overall Reading Proficiency

for Five Performance Bands (Quintiles)

1992 Assessment Grade 4

FIGURE 4.5

White


Black

Hispanic

College
Graduate

Some Ed.
After H.S.


High School
Graduate


Less than 
High School

RACE/ETHNICITY PARENTS' EDUCATION

(202-209)


CO


IA


MA


NM


NY*


VA


WV


(197-200)


AZ


IN


NE*


NJ*


TX


WI


(194-197)


CT


DE*


GA


KY


MO


NC


SC


(190-193)


AR


HI


LA


MD


MN


TN


(166-190)


AL


CA


FL


GU


MS


PA


RI


ND


ME*


NH*


UT


WY

(231-235)


CT


IA


MA


ME*


ND


NH*


NJ*


WI


(227-230)


IN


MO


NE*


PA


UT


VA


WY


(221-227)


CO


GA


MN


NM


NY*


RI


TX


WV


(218-220)


AZ


DE*


KY


MD


NC


SC


TN


(183-217)


AL


AR


CA


FL


GU


HI


LA


MS

(230-235)


IA


MA


ME*


NE*


NH*


PA


WI


WY


(228-230)


CT


IN


MN


ND


NJ*


RI


UT


(221-227)


AR


CO


DE*


KY


MO


TN


VA


WV


(218-221)


GA


MD


NC


NM


NY*


SC


TX


(192-217)


AL


AZ


CA


FL


GU


HI


LA


MS


(218-224)


IA


IN


MA


ME*


MN


ND


NH*


WI


(215-218)


MO


NE*


NJ*


PA


UT


VA


WY


(209-214)


AR


CO


CT


KY


NM


RI


TN


WV


(206-209)


AL


FL


GA


MD


NC


NY*


TX


(182-205)


AZ


CA


DE*


GU


HI


LA


MS


SC

(209-213)


IN


ME*


MO


NH*


PA


WI


WY


(203-208)


IA


MA


NJ*


RI


UT


VA


WV


(200-202)


AR


CO


CT


GA


KY


TN


TX


(196-200)


AL


DE*


FL


HI


LA


NY*


SC


(175-196)


AZ


CA


GU


MD


MS


NC


NM


ND


NE*


MN

(227-232)


CT


MA


ME*


NH*


NJ*


PA


VA


WI


(225-227)


IA


IN


MO


ND


NE*


NY*


WY


(222-224)


CO


DE*


GA


MN


NM


RI


TX


UT


(219-221)


AR


AZ


FL


MD


NC


SC


TN


(195-218)


AL


CA


GU


HI


KY


LA


MS


WV


(205-221)


IA


IN


ME*


ND


NE*


NH*


WI


WY


(201-204)


CO


FL


MA


MN


MO


UT


VA


(196-201)


AZ


MD


NJ*


NM


PA


TN


TX


WV


(191-195)


CT


GA


HI


KY


NC


RI


SC


(165-190)


AL


AR


CA


DE*


GU


LA


MS


NY*


Higher Performing


Fifth


Quintile


Fourth


Quintile


Third


Quintile

Second


Quintile

First 


Quintile

Lower Performing


States with sample


sizes too small


for reporting


* Did not satisfy one or more of the guidelines for sample participation rates (See Appendix A).

Montana, Washington, and the Department of Defense Education Activity Overseas Schools

did not participate in the 1992 Trial State Assessment
6 3

Average Overall Reading Proficiency

for Five Performance Bands (Quintiles)

1992 Assessment Grade 4 (continued)

FIGURE 4.5

Male


Female

Central City

Urban Fringe/
Large Town

Rural/
Small Town

Small Town


Rural

GENDER TYPE OF LOCATION

(226-231)


IA


MA


ME*


ND


NH*


NJ*


WI


WY


(223-225)


CT


IN


MN


NE*


PA


UT


VA


(216-223)


CO


DE*


KY


MO


NY*


RI


TX


WV


(213-215)


AR


AZ


GA


MD


NC


SC


TN


(190-213)


AL


CA


FL


GU


HI


LA


MS


NM


(227-232)


CT


IA


MA


ME*


NH*


NJ*


VA


(223-226)


IN


MN


MO


ND


NY*


PA


WI


(218-222)


CO


GA


NE*


RI


SC


TX


UT


WV


(212-218)


AL


AR


DE*


KY


MD


NC


TN


(199-212)


AZ


CA


FL


HI


LA


MS


NM


GU


WY


(225-231)


CT


MA


ME*


NH*


NY*


PA


RI


(222-224)


IA


IN


MO


ND


UT


WI


WY


(212-221)


CO


DE*


MN


NE*


TN


VA


WV


(208-211)


AR


FL


GA


KY


NC


NM


TX


(182-205)


AL


AZ


GU


HI


LA


MS


SC


CA


MD


NJ*


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX

(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX

(220-225)


IA


MA


ME*


ND


NH*


NJ*


WI


WY


(217-219)


CT


IN


MN


MO


NE*


PA


VA


(209-217)


CO


GA


KY


NY*


RI


TN


UT


WV


(206-209)


AR


DE*


MD


NC


NM


SC


TX


(175-206)


AL


AZ


CA


FL


GU


HI


LA


MS


(219-229)


IA


ND


NE*


NH*


UT


WI


WY


(213-217)


DE*


IN


KY


NC


NM


VA


WV


(209-213)


AZ


CO


HI


MA


MN


MO


SC


TX


(203-209)


AL


AR


CT


GA


PA


RI


TN


(194-202)


CA


FL


LA


MD


MS


NJ*


NY*


GU


ME*


Higher Performing


Fifth


Quintile


Fourth


Quintile


Third


Quintile

Second


Quintile

First 


Quintile

Lower Performing


CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T
6 4

Average Overall Reading Proficiency

for Five Performance Bands (Quintiles)

1994 Assessment Grade 4

* Did not satisfy one or more of the guidelines for sample participation rates (See Appendix A). White
 Black Hispanic College
 Graduate

Some Ed.
After H.S.


High School
Graduate


Less than 
High School

RACE/ETHNICITY PARENTS' EDUCATION

(196-205)


DD


MA


NM


RI*


WA


WI*


WV


(191-193)


CO


IN


MO


NC


NJ


TX


VA


(188-191)


CT


DE


HI


KY


NE*


NY


TN*


(183-188)


AL


FL


GA


IA


MD


MS


SC


(171-183)


AR


AZ


CA


GU


LA


MN


PA*


ME


MT*


NH*


ND


UT


WY

(230-236)


CT


MA


ME


MT*


ND


NE*


NH*


WI*


(225-230)


IA


IN


MN


MO


NJ


RI*


UT


WY


(220-224)


CO


DD


NC


NY


PA*


TX


VA


WA


WV


(215-219)


AL


AR


AZ


GA


KY


MD


NM


TN*


(185-214)


CA


DE


FL


GU


HI


LA


MS


SC

(230-237)


CT


IA


ME


ND


NE*


NH*


RI*


WY


(226-230)


DD


IN


MA


MO


MT*


NC


WI*


WV


(220-225)


AR


CO


KY


NJ


NY


PA*


TN*


TX


UT


(217-220)


AL


AZ


DE


FL


GA


MN


NM


VA


(189-216)


CA


GU


HI


LA


MD


MS


SC


WA


(216-225)


IA


IN


ME


MT*


ND


NH*


RI*


WI*


(212-216)


CO


MA


MN


MO


NE*


TN*


WV


WY


(207-212)


CT


DD


KY


NJ


NY


PA*


TX


UT


WA


(200-207)


AL


AR


AZ


DE


MD


NC


NM


VA


(176-199)


CA


FL


GA


GU


HI


LA


MS


SC

(204-214)


CT


IA


MA


ME


MT*


NH*


WI*


(197-203)


AL


IN


MO


RI*


TN*


WA


WY


(195-196)


AR


KY


MD


NC


NY


TX


VA


WV


(188-193)


AZ


CO


HI


LA


MS


NJ


SC


(164-188)


CA


DE


FL


GA


GU


NM


PA*


DD 


MN 


NE*


ND 


UT

(226-234)


CT


MA


ME


MT*


ND


NJ


TX


WI*


(224-226)


DD


IA


IN


NC


NH*


NY


PA*


RI*


(221-224)


CO


GA


MD


MN


MO


NE*


UT


VA


WY


(218-220)


AL


AZ


FL


HI


MS


NM


SC


TN*


(192-218)


AR


CA


DE


GU


KY


LA


WA


WV

(205-218)


DD


ME


MT*


ND


NE*


NH*


VA


WY


(198-204)


IA


IN


MN


MO


NJ


TX


UT


WI*


(192-197)


CO


KY


MA


MD


NM


NY


RI*


TN*


WV


(187-192)


AR


AZ


CT


DE


FL


NC


PA*


WA


(171-185)


AL


CA


GA


GU


HI


LA


MS


SC

Higher Performing


Fifth


Quintile


Fourth


Quintile


Third


Quintile

Second


Quintile

First 


Quintile

Lower Performing


States with sample


sizes too small


for reporting


FIGURE 4.6
6 5

Average Overall Reading Proficiency

for Five Performance Bands (Quintiles)

1994 Assessment Grade 4 (continued)

FIGURE 4.6

Male


Female

Central City

Urban Fringe/
Large Town

Rural/
Small Town

Small Town


Rural

GENDER TYPE OF LOCATION

(226-231)


CT


IA


MA


ME


MT*


ND


NH*


WI*


(222-225)


DD


IN


MN


NE*


NJ


RI*


UT


WY


(217-221)


CO


KY


MO


NC


PA*


TN*


VA


WA


WV


(211-216)


AL


AR


AZ


DE


GA


MD


NY


TX


(190-210)


CA


FL


GU


HI


LA


MS


NM


SC

(226-231)


CT


IN


MA


ME


ND


NH*


WI*


(221-225)


IA


MN


MO


MT*


NJ


NY


PA*


RI*


(216-221)


AL


CO


KY


TN*


TX


UT


VA


(211-216)


AR


GA


MD


MS


NC


SC


WA


WV


(198-210)


AZ


CA


DE


FL


HI


LA


NM


DD


GU


NE*


WY


(225-238)


CT


MA


ME


ND


NY


RI*


WI*


(220-225)


IA


IN


MT*


NE*


NH*


PA*


WY


(211-217)


CO


MN


MO


NC


TN*


TX


UT


WV


(206-210)


AL


AR


DE


GA


KY


VA


WA


(196-202)


AZ


FL


HI


LA


MS


NM


SC


DD


CA


GU


MD 


NJ


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX

(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


(xxx-xxx)


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX


XX

(218-225)


CT


IA


MA


ME


ND


NH*


WI*


WY


(213-218)


IN


MN


MO


MT*


NE*


NJ


RI*


UT


(208-213)


CO


DD


NC


PA*


TN*


TX


VA


WA


WV


(201-207)


AL


AR


AZ


GA


KY


MD


NM


NY


(172-200)


CA


DE


FL


GU


HI


LA


MS


SC


(218-224)


IA


MT*


NC


ND


NE*


NH*


WI*


WY


(210-215)


HI


IN


KY


MO


RI*


UT


WV


(207-210)


AR


CO


DE


SC


TN*


TX


VA


WA


(201-207)


AL


AZ


CT


MA


MN


MS


NM


(190-200)


CA


FL


GA


LA


MD


NJ


NY


PA*


DD


GU


ME

Higher Performing


Fifth


Quintile


Fourth


Quintile


Third


Quintile

Second


Quintile

First 


Quintile

Lower Performing


CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T
6 6

Endnote

1. Because the average proficiencies are based on

samples — rather than on the entire populations of

fourth graders in the jurisdictions — the numbers

reported are necessarily estimates. As such, they are

subject to a measure of uncertainty, reflected in the

standard error of the estimate.

2. The significance tests used in these figures are based

on a Bonferroni procedure for multiple comparisons.

This procedure takes into account all possible

comparisons between states in declaring the

differences between any two states to be statistically

significant. The Bonferroni procedure holds across all

possible comparisons to 5 percent the probability of

erroneously declaring the averages for any two states

to be different when they are not.
6 7

CHAPTER 5

School and Home Contexts

for Reading

The two most important contexts in which students’

literacy abilities can be nurtured and guided are school

and home. Students’ exposure to various instructional

activities and materials at school has a significant

impact on their opportunities for achievement.1 Family

support for students’ efforts and the modeling of

literacy habits at home can also play a critical role in

students’ growth as readers.2 Furthermore, it is

possible that the influences of home and school on

students’ literacy development are not completely

independent. For example, school factors such as the

amount of reading assigned by teachers or the degree of

parental involvement sought by administrators may be

important contributors to the literacy environment in

students’ homes.

Given the importance of these contexts for literacy

development, a complete picture of students’

achievement in reading is not possible without also

considering information about their school and home

environments. Such consideration brings into focus the

relationship between reading proficiency and students’

background and instructional experiences.

This chapter contains contextual information

related to instructional activities and home support for

reading. In 1994, information regarding students’

instructional experiences was collected from their

reading teachers at grades 4 and 8, and from the

students themselves at grades 4, 8, and 12. The 1992

assessment did not include a survey of eighth-grade

students’ teachers; consequently, only 1994 results are

presented for the teachers of eighth graders. Reading is

not typically taught as a separate subject in high school;

therefore, information from teachers was not collected

at the twelfth grade. Information concerning home

support for reading was collected from students at all

three grades.

Changes between 1992 and 1994 are reported only

for students’ reports about their instructional and home

experiences. No trend analyses are presented in this

chapter for results based on the reports of fourth

graders’ teachers because the reading teacher

questionnaire was reformatted between the 1992 and

1994 assessments. In 1992, teachers were asked to

describe the specific approaches they used for up to five

different reading classes. In 1994, teachers reported on

the typical approaches they used across all of their

reading classes. Because of this reformatting, teacher

reported data are presented for both assessments, but

trend analyses were not conducted.

Instructional Materials

The type of materials that students are asked to read

during instruction is one important factor in their

reading development. Students’ perceptions of literacy

as a lifelong pursuit, rather than just a school activity,

can be affected by their early exposure to different types

of materials and reading experiences.3

 Two major types

of reading material — basal readers and trade books —

have been predominant in classrooms for some time.

For the last several decades, basal readers have been

the major component of instruction in elementary and

junior high school reading programs.4

 These

publications are developed for the specific purpose of

teaching students how to read, and typically they

include passages and exercises that are designed to be

grade-appropriate in topic and difficulty. Some critics of

basal readers argue that reading experiences may be

contrived and fragmented when students are taught

with these types of materials.5 Other educators suggest

that basals can be effective tools in reading instruction

when used wisely and selectively by knowledgeable

teachers.6

 As many basal programs have made

substantial changes in their materials, such as

developing a more literature-based focus, they may now

provide teachers with a wider range of literacy-rich

activities.7

Trade books, as primary sources of instructional

material, have received increased attention in recent

years. It has been suggested that using trade books, or

books that are not published specifically for reading

instruction, may provide students with more genuine

and more diverse literacy experiences.8

 As a result,

students may develop reading abilities that are adaptable

to “real-world” situations and applicable to a broader

scope of reading materials.9
6 8

Teachers of fourth- and eighth-grade students in the

NAEP reading assessment were asked about the type of

materials that form the core of their reading program.

Table 5.1 presents the 1992 and 1994 results for fourth

graders, and the 1994 results for eighth graders. Average

reading proficiency at either grade was not significantly

related to teachers’ reported use of basals, trade books,

or a combination of the two.

In 1994, 21 percent of fourth-grade students and 14

percent of eighth graders were being taught primarily

with basal readers. More than one-half (57 percent) of

fourth graders and almost half (46 percent) of eighth

graders were being taught by teachers who reported

using both basals and trade books as the core of their

reading program.

Instructional Activities

Teachers may implement a wide array of activities in

their classrooms to give students the practice and

experiences they need to develop as readers. These

activities range from isolated skill exercises that ask

students to demonstrate a particular ability out of

context to more purposeful and integrative reading and

writing activities.10

The appropriateness of individual activities may

depend on the unique characteristics of the learner and

the nature of the learning goal. Nevertheless, most

educators today recognize the desirability of having

students integrate various language processes in the

development of literacy skills, and of providing students

with purposeful, or goal-oriented, activities.11

Primarily Basal 36 (2.4) 21 (2.2) 14 (1.6)

216 (1.9) 212 (2.1) 261 (2.3)

Primarily Trade Books 12 (2.1) 19 (2.5) 18 (2.1)

223 (4.3) 219 (2.9) 261 (2.3)

Both Basal and Trade Books 49 (3.4) 57 (2.6) 46 (2.0)

218 (1.4) 215 (1.6) 261 (1.3)

Other 3 (1.0) 3 (0.7) 22 (2.1)

208 (6.3) 202 (5.0) 260 (2.2)

The question associated with this variable was reformatted in 1994. No trend comparison tests were conducted. Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or

minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 percent.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 5.1

Teachers’ Reports on Which Type of Material

Forms the Core of Their Reading Program

Grades 4 and 8

Grade 4 Grade 8

1992 1994 1994

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency
6 9

Workbooks, Worksheets, and Writing in Response to

Reading. Workbooks and worksheets play a prominent

role in the reading curriculum of our nation’s schools.12

They are often used as supplementary material in

published instructional programs. In the past, many of

the activities associated with workbooks and worksheets

focused on specific skills or subskills, with little

attention to integrating reading, writing, and thinking

in a meaningful manner.13 More recently, however, some

publishers have produced materials that support the

development of strategic, integrative, and thoughtful

reading abilities.14

In part, this change has been in response to a

growing recognition among educators and researchers

that reading development is supported and enhanced

through integrative reading and writing activities.

Increasingly, district and state curricular initiatives

reflect an awareness that reading development does not

Ask students to work in a reading

workbook or on a worksheet*

Almost Every Day 33 (2.6) 27 (2.3) 10 (1.4)

215 (1.7) 210 (2.1) 252 (3.5)

Once or Twice a Week 48 (3.2) 48 (2.2) 36 (2.4)

218 (1.6) 216 (1.2) 256 (1.5)

Less Than Weekly 20 (2.5) 25 (2.6) 54 (2.4)

221 (3.3) 218 (1.9) 265 (1.1)

Ask students to write about

something they have read*

Almost Every Day 23 (1.8) 29 (2.2) 18 (1.9)

220 (2.6) 214 (2.4) 262 (2.2)

Once or Twice a Week 49 (2.5) 56 (2.2) 62 (2.3)

217 (1.8) 215 (1.4) 261 (1.1)

Less Than Weekly 27 (2.4) 15 (1.9) 20 (2.2)

216 (2.1) 219 (2.3) 259 (1.9)

*The question associated with this variable was reformatted in 1994. No trend comparison tests were conducted.

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or

minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 percent.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


take place in isolation from other developing language

abilities. Students develop simultaneously as readers,

listeners, speakers, and writers, as they learn to interact

with and participate in the literacy community.15

Table 5.2a presents teachers’ reports on the

frequency with which they use workbook and worksheet

activities, and ask their students to provide written

responses to reading. At both the fourth and eighth

grades, less frequent use of workbooks and worksheets

was associated with higher average proficiencies.

According to their teachers, fourth graders in 1994

were asked to write in response to reading at least as

frequently as they were completing workbooks or

worksheets. Eighth graders, on the other hand, were

asked to write in response to reading more frequently

than they were asked to complete workbooks or

worksheets.

TABLE 5.2a

Teachers’ Reports on Workbooks, Worksheets,

and Writing in Response to Reading

Grades 4 and 8

Grade 4 Grade 8

1992 1994 1994

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency
7 0

Table 5.2b presents students’ reports on the same

instructional activities. It is evident from these data that

fourth- and eighth-grade students’ perceptions of the

frequency of certain instructional activities differ

somewhat from the perceptions of their teachers. It is

also important to keep in mind that, in 1994, teachers

were asked to describe the typical approaches they used

for all of their reading classes, whereas the reports of

students represent their individual experiences in

reading instruction.

Fourth graders’ reports on workbook and worksheet

usage displayed a different relationship with average

reading proficiency than did the reports of their

teachers. More frequent use of these materials was

reported by higher performing students. At grade 12,

however, the pattern was reversed — higher performing

students reported less frequent use of workbooks and

worksheets.

The relationship between reading proficiency and

students’ reports of being asked by their teachers to

write in response to reading varied across the three

grades. Contrary to some research, at fourth grade more

frequent writing was associated with lower average

proficiency. At eighth grade, students who were asked to

write about reading with moderate frequency (at least

once a week) had the highest average proficiency. And at

grade 12, the pattern observed in the fourth grade was

reversed — higher average proficiency was associated

with more frequent writing about reading.

© Significantly fewer fourth graders in 1994 than in

1992 reported using workbooks or worksheets once

or twice a week. However, the percentage of fourth

graders reporting daily use of these materials

remained at 51 percent.

© Less frequent use of workbooks or worksheets was

reported by twelfth graders in 1994 than in 1992.

A significantly greater percentage in 1994 reported

using them less than weekly, while fewer students

reported weekly use.

© There were no significant changes between 1992

and 1994 in eighth graders’ reports on the frequency

of workbook and worksheet use.

© There were no significant changes between 1992

and 1994 at any grade in students’ reports on the

frequency with which they were asked to write about

something they read.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 5.2b

Ask you to work in a reading

workbook or on a worksheet

Almost Every Day 51 (1.5) 51 (1.2) 27 (0.7) 26 (0.9) 16 (0.4) 15 (0.5)

219 (1.0) 220 (1.1) 259 (1.3) 259 (1.5) 288 (1.1) 282 (1.5) <

Once or Twice a Week 29 (0.9) 25 (0.8) < 35 (0.8) 33 (0.7) 33 (0.7) 30 (0.7) <

220 (1.6) 216 (1.2) 263 (0.9) 263 (1.1) 291 (0.7) 286 (1.0) <

Less Than Weekly 20 (1.0) 24 (1.0) 38 (0.8) 41 (1.1) 51 (0.8) 55 (0.9) >

211 (1.6) 205 (1.8) < 259 (1.2) 259 (1.1) 295 (0.7) 291 (0.9)<

Ask you to write about

something you have read

Almost Every Day 22 (0.8) 23 (0.9) 18 (0.5) 19 (0.8) 20 (0.7) 20 (0.7)

212 (1.5) 209 (1.7) 259 (1.4) 259 (1.5) 295 (1.0) 291 (1.3)

Once or Twice a Week 34 (0.8) 33 (0.6) 38 (0.7) 39 (0.8) 46 (0.6) 44 (0.7)

219 (1.2) 217 (1.2) 263 (1.2) 265 (1.0) 295 (0.7) 292 (1.0) <

Less Than Weekly 43 (1.0) 44 (0.9) 45 (0.9) 42 (1.1) 35 (0.7) 36 (0.8)

219 (1.1) 218 (1.2) 259 (1.1) 257 (1.2) 287 (0.8) 281 (1.2) <

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or

minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 percent.

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

Students‘ Reports on Workbooks, Worksheets,

and Writing in Response to Reading

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency
7 1

Pages Read Each Day In School and for Homework.

Most students are required to read on a daily basis for

school and for homework. Developing into capable

readers may, in fact, require daily practice.16 The

amount of reading that is appropriate for any given

student, however, varies according to the nature of the

text being read, the goals for reading the material, and

the student’s current ability level.

As displayed in Table 5.3, many students at each

grade reported reading five or fewer pages each day for

school and homework combined. Moreover, there was

evidence of a decline from 1992 to 1994 in the number

of pages read each day in school and for homework by

twelfth graders. These findings, along with other aspects

of students’ instructional and home experiences

discussed later in this chapter, may provide an

important context in which to view the decline in

average reading proficiency among twelfth graders

discussed in Chapter 2.

A consistent relationship between reading

proficiency and the amount of reading done for school

and homework was apparent across the grades. At each

grade in 1994, students who read no more than five

pages each day had the lowest average reading

proficiency.

© Between 1992 and 1994, a significant decline was

observed in the percentage of twelfth-grade students

who reported reading 11 or more pages each day.

This was accompanied by a significant increase in

the percentage of twelfth graders who reported

reading five or fewer pages.

© At grades 4 and 8, there were no significant changes

from 1992 to 1994 in students’ reports on the

number of pages read each day.

TABLE 5.3

11 or More Pages 56 (1.2) 54 (1.1) 22 (0.6) 21 (0.8) 45 (0.9) 39 (1.1) <

222 (1.1) 220 (1.3) 268 (1.5) 266 (1.7) 302 (0.8) 298 (1.0) <

6 to 10 Pages 23 (0.7) 23 (0.7) 16 (0.4) 16 (0.5) 24 (0.4) 24 (0.6)

217 (1.3) 214 (1.3) 266 (1.3) 269 (1.6) 290 (0.9) 288 (1.1)

5 or Fewer Pages 21 (1.0) 23 (0.8) 62 (0.7) 63 (1.0) 31 (0.7) 36 (0.8) >

203 (1.4) 201 (1.2) 256 (1.0) 256 (0.9) 281 (0.8) 276 (0.9) <

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or

minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 percent.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Students’ Reports on Number of Pages Read Each Day

in School and for Homework

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency
7 2

Explaining and Discussing Reading in School. Having

students explain or support their understanding of what

they read can help them become more thoughtful

readers.17 For example, students might be asked how

they came to a particular conclusion or what additional

information would have increased their understanding

of the text’s topic. Also, by discussing various

interpretations of what they read, students can be

encouraged to think critically about what they are

reading or to consider different points of view.

In 1992 and 1994, eighth- and twelfth-grade

students were asked how frequently their teachers

have them explain or support their understanding

and discuss various interpretations of what they read.

A summary of students’ responses is presented in

Table 5.4.

Both types of instructional activities showed a

relationship to students’ reading proficiency. At both

grades, students who reported engaging in either type of

activity less than weekly had the lowest average reading

proficiency.

© Between 1992 and 1994, there was a significant

decline in the percentage of twelfth graders who

reported being asked on a weekly basis to explain

their understanding of what they read, and a

significant increase in the percentage of students

who said their teachers ask them to do this less than

weekly.

© At the eighth grade, a significant decline in the

percentage of students who reported being asked to

explain their understanding on a weekly basis was

observed. It was not clear, however, whether the

trend was toward more or less frequent use of this

activity at this grade.

© According to the reports of both eighth and twelfth

graders, there was a significant decline from 1992

to 1994 in the percentage of students who were

asked to discuss various interpretations on a weekly

basis. At both grades, this was accompanied by a

significant increase in the percentage of students

who were reportedly asked to do this less

than weekly.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 5.4

Explain Your Understanding

of What You Have Read

Almost Every Day 20 (0.5) 21 (0.7 ) 29 (0.8) 28 (0.9)

262 (1.3) 263 (1.3) 302 (1.0) 298 (1.2)

Once or Twice a Week 37 (0.7) 35 (0.7)< 40 (0.6) 37 (0.6)<

264 (1.3) 264 (1.0) 294 (0.6) 289 (1.0)<

Less Than Weekly 43 (0.7) 45 (1.0 ) 31 (0.7) 35 (0.8)>

257 (1.2) 257 (1.1) 282 (0.9) 279 (1.1)<

Discuss Various Interpretations

of What You Have Read

Almost Every Day 16 (0.5) 16 (0.7) 27 (0.8) 27 (0.9)

261 (1.5) 264 (1.6) 302 (0.9) 299 (1.4)

Once or Twice a Week 33 (0.6) 30 (0.7)< 36 (0.6) 34 (0.5)<

263 (1.0) 262 (1.0) 294 (0.8) 289 (0.9)<

Less Than Weekly 51 (0.7) 54 (0.9)> 36 (0.9) 39 (0.9)>

259 (1.2) 259 (0.9) 284 (0.9) 280 (0.9)<

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or

about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said

with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within

plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 percent.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992

and 1994 Reading Assessments.

Students’ Reports on How Frequently Their Teachers

Ask Them to Explain Their Understanding and

Discuss Various Interpretations of What They Read in School

Grades 8 and 12

Grade 8 Grade 12

1992 1994 1992 1994

Percentage and Percentage and

Proficiency Proficiency
7 3

Students’ Home Support for Literacy

The support for literacy development that students

experience at home may be at least as important as their

instructional experiences in school. Having access to

assorted literacy materials, experiencing family support

for literacy as a priority, and being encouraged to pursue

reading as a leisure activity are all ways in which

students’ home environment can influence their

development as readers.18 Some educators and

researchers propose that failing to attend to the home

environment in addressing students’ literacy needs may

weaken efforts that schools make to help children

become better readers.19

Literacy Materials in the Home. Access to literacy

materials, both in and out of school, is essential for

students’ reading development. Numerous studies have

demonstrated the benefits of increasing students’

exposure to literacy materials in their homes, especially

for lower-achieving students.20 A relationship between

students’ access to home literacy materials and their

reading achievement is supported by findings from the

NAEP 1994 reading assessment.

Students were asked about the presence of four

different types of literacy materials in their homes:

magazines, newspapers, encyclopedias, and at least 25

books. The percentages and average proficiencies of

students reporting all four types, only three types, or

two or fewer types of literacy materials are presented in

Table 5.5. On average, students who reported having

more types of literacy materials in their homes also had

higher reading proficiencies.

© A significantly smaller proportion of twelfth graders

in 1994 than in 1992 reported having all four types

of literacy materials in their homes. There was a

corresponding significant increase in the percentage

of twelfth-grade students who reported having two

or fewer types of literacy materials at home.

© No significant changes in students’ reports about

home literacy materials were found at the fourth or

eighth grades.

TABLE 5.5

Four 37 (0.9) 38 (0.8) 51 (0.8) 50 (0.8) 60 (0.7) 55 (0.7)<

226 (1.3) 227 (1.1) 268 (0.9) 270 (0.9) 298 (0.6) 295 (0.9)<

Three 32 (0.7) 34 (0.7) 29 (0.5) 29 (0.5) 26 (0.6) 28 (0.6)

219 (1.3) 216 (1.2) 259 (1.3) 258 (1.1) 290 (0.9) 286 (1.1)<

Two or Fewer 31 (0.8) 29 (0.9) 20 (0.7) 21 (0.6) 14 (0.4) 17 (0.5)>

204 (0.9) 197 (1.4) < 241 (1.2) 239 (1.3) 274 (1.1) 269 (1.1)<

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or

minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 percent.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Students’ Reports on Number of Different Types

of Literacy Materials in Their Homes

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency
7 4

Reading for Fun. The connection between leisure

reading activities and reading achievement has been

established by numerous studies.21 Part of the reason for

this connection may be that students who read

frequently for fun not only gain practice in the process

of reading, but also are likely to be exposed to a broad

scope of topics and situations in their reading that can

provide an experiential base from which future reading

experiences are enriched and made more meaningful.

In both the 1992 and 1994 reading assessments,

students at all three grades were asked how often they

read for fun on their own time. Their responses are

summarized in Table 5.6. A clear connection between

frequent reading for fun and higher average reading

proficiency is suggested by the NAEP results. At all three

grades in 1994, more frequent leisure reading was

associated with higher average proficiences. Given this

connection, it may be of some concern that more than

one-fourth of eighth and twelfth graders in 1994

reported never or hardly ever reading for fun on their

own time.

© Compared to their counterparts in 1992, a

significantly smaller portion of twelfth-grade

students in 1994 reported reading for fun once or

twice a week. There was a significant increase

between the two assessments in the percentage of

twelfth graders who reported never or hardly ever

reading for fun on their own time.

© No significant changes in fourth or eighth graders’

reports on reading for fun were observed.

Literacy Discussions with Family and Friends. One

indication that reading and schoolwork are a priority

for students and their families is the extent to which

they discuss these topics at home and with friends.

When students discuss their schoolwork at home, they

establish an important link between home and school.

Several recent studies have documented the increased

achievement of students whose parents have become

more involved in their schooling.22 Such a link has

become the objective of many recent education reform

efforts, including Goals 2000, which seeks to increase

cooperation between parents and schools.23

Students in the 1992 and 1994 NAEP reading

assessments were asked how frequently they discuss

their studies with people at home and how frequently

they talk about their reading with family or friends.

Their responses are summarized in Table 5.7. These data

suggest that a substantial portion of students across the

three grades were not engaged in literacy discussions on

a regular basis.

Almost Every Day 44 (0.9) 45 (0.7) 22 (0.5) 21 (0.7) 23 (0.6) 24 (0.5)

223 (1.2) 223 (1.2) 277 (1.1) 277 (1.4) 304 (0.9) 302 (1.1)

Once or Twice a Week 32 (0.8) 32 (0.7) 28 (0.6) 26 (0.5) 28 (0.7) 24 (0.6) <

218 (1.2) 213 (1.1)< 263 (1.0) 264 (1.1) 296 (0.7) 294 (1.0)

Once or Twice a Month 12 (0.4) 12 (0.5) 25 (0.5) 25 (0.5) 26 (0.5) 24 (0.5)

210 (1.6) 208 (2.1) 258 (1.2) 257 (0.8) 290 (0.9) 285 (1.0) <

Never or Hardly Ever 13 (0.5) 12 (0.4) 25 (0.7) 27 (0.7) 24 (0.6) 27 (0.6) >

199 (1.8) 197 (1.9) 246 (1.4) 246 (1.1) 279 (1.0) 273 (1.1) <

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or

minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 percent.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 5.6

Students’ Reports on the Frequency with Which They Read

for Fun on Their Own Time

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency
7 5

At grades 8 and 12, at least one-third of students

reported having discussions at home about their studies

no more than about once or twice a month. This was

true for slightly less than a quarter of fourth graders.

Talking about reading with family or friends was

reported by students even less frequently. One-half or

more of eighth and twelfth graders, and more than onethird of fourth graders, said they talk to family or

friends about their reading no more than once or twice

a month.

As might be expected, students at all three grades

who reported more frequent home discussions about

their studies displayed higher reading proficiency. A

similar pattern was seen in the data on talking about

reading with family or friends. With the exception of

having daily discussions of this type, more frequently

talking about reading was associated with higher

average reading proficiency.

© Twelfth graders’ reports on home discussions about

studies indicated a decline in the frequency of this

activity between the 1992 and 1994 assessments.

There was a significant decline in the percentage of

twelfth-grade students who reported discussing

studies at home once or twice a month. Also, a

significantly higher proportion of twelfth graders in

1994 than in 1992 reported never or hardly ever

having these discussions.

© A significantly smaller percentage of twelfth-grade

students in 1994 than in 1992 reported talking

about reading with family or friends once or twice a

week. At the same time, a significantly greater

percentage of these students in 1994 than in 1992

reported that they never or hardly ever talked about

what they read.

© There were no significant changes at the fourth or

eighth grade in students’ reports on discussing

studies or talking about reading.

Discuss Studies at Home

Almost Every Day 54 (0.8) 55 (0.8) 37 (0.7) 38 (0.8) 30 (0.5) 30 (0.6)

221 (1.0) 219 (1.0) 269 (1.0) 269 (0.9) 298 (0.9) 296 (1.0)

Once or Twice a Week 22 (0.7) 22 (0.5) 30 (0.4) 29 (0.6) 34 (0.5) 33 (0.6)

220 (1.5) 215 (1.7) 263 (1.0) 264 (0.9) 295 (0.7) 292 (1.1)

Once or Twice a Month 6 (0.3) 6 (0.4) 11 (0.4) 12 (0.5) 16 (0.4) 14 (0.4) <

215 (1.8) 208 (2.3) 257 (2.0) 257 (2.2) 292 (1.0) 287 (1.0) <

Never or Hardly Ever 17 (0.6) 17 (0.5) 21 (0.6) 21 (0.6) 20 (0.5) 23 (0.6) >

202 (1.5) 199 (1.7) 247 (1.4) 250 (1.2) 280 (1.1) 274 (1.1) <

Talk About Reading with

Family or Friends

Almost Every Day 26 (0.6) 28 (0.6) 13 (0.6) 12 (0.4) 17 (0.5) 16 (0.4)

215 (1.4) 213 (1.3) 263 (1.3) 262 (1.6) 298 (1.1) 296 (1.3)

Once or Twice a Week 36 (0.9) 36 (0.6) 28 (0.5) 28 (0.6) 37 (0.5) 34 (0.6) <

224 (1.1) 223 (1.2) 269 (1.1) 269 (1.0) 299 (0.7) 296 (1.0)

Once or Twice a Month 15 (0.6) 15 (0.5) 26 (0.4) 26 (0.6) 27 (0.5) 28 (0.6)

219 (1.6) 214 (2.1) 263 (1.2) 264 (1.2) 291 (0.8) 288 (0.8)

Never or Hardly Ever 23 (0.8) 21 (0.6) 32 (0.7) 34 (0.6) 19 (0.4) 22 (0.6) >

209 (1.4) 207 (1.6) 249 (1.2) 249 (0.9) 278 (1.0) 270 (1.1) <

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or

minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 percent.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Students’ Reports on the Frequency with Which They Discuss Their Studies

at Home and Talk About Their Reading with Family or Friends

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency

TABLE 5.7
7 6

Television Viewing Habits. While recent advances in

technology and the increasing availability of

technological tools have made it necessary to broaden

our perspective of what constitutes literacy activities,24

there continues to be concern for the amount of time

students spend watching television. Many past studies,

including NAEP reports, have indicated a negative

relationship between television viewing and reading

achievement.25 One major concern has been that time

spent watching television may be displacing time that

students could spend on literacy-related activities.26

Students’ reports of their television viewing habits

are presented in Table 5.8. Clearly, a large amount of

students’ daily time continues to be devoted to watching

television. In 1994, the percentages of students who

reported watching four or more hours of television each

day were 43 percent at the fourth grade, 41 percent at

the eighth grade, and 25 percent at the twelfth grade.

At grades 8 and 12 in 1994, more frequent television

viewing was associated with lower reading proficiencies.

Among fourth graders, there was no significant

difference in the average reading proficiency of students

who reported watching up to three hours of television

each day. However, fourth graders watching four to five

hours had lower average proficiency than those who

reported two to three hours of viewing; and students

watching six hours or more had the lowest average

reading proficiency.

© There were no significant changes between 1992

and 1994 in students’ reports on the amount of time

they spent watching television each day.

Six Hours or More 20 (0.7) 21 (0.7) 14 (0.5) 14 (0.5) 6 (0.3) 7 (0.3)

199 (1.5) 194 (1.4) 241 (1.6) 239 (1.4) 271 (1.7) 264 (1.7) <

Four to Five Hours 22 (0.8) 22 (0.7) 27 (0.5) 27 (0.6) 20 (0.4) 18 (0.6)

216 (1.3) 216 (1.7) 258 (1.2) 257 (1.0) 284 (0.9) 280 (1.1) <

Two to Three Hours 40 (0.8) 38 (0.7) 46 (0.5) 45 (0.8) 47 (0.6) 46 (0.6)

224 (1.0) 222 (1.1) 265 (1.1) 265 (1.0) 293 (0.7) 289 (0.7) <

One Hour or Less 19 (0.8) 19 (0.7) 13 (0.5) 14 (0.4) 27 (0.8) 29 (0.5)

221 (1.6) 220 (1.9) 270 (1.5) 270 (1.7) 301 (1.0) 297 (1.0) <

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or

minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Due to rounding, the percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 percent.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE 5.8

Students’ Reports on Amount of Time Spent

Watching Television Each Day

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency
7 7

The observed decline in twelfth-grade reading

performance between the 1992 and 1994 assessments

might be partly explained by changes in their literacy

related activities. Compared with their counterparts in

1992, twelfth-grade students in 1994 reported reading

fewer pages on a daily basis at home and at school. A

significantly lower percentage reported reading for fun

once or twice a week, and a significantly higher

proportion reported never or hardly ever reading for fun

on their own time.

Twelfth graders in 1994 reported having fewer

literacy materials available to them: the percentage who

reported having four types of materials in their homes

was significantly lower than in 1992, and the percentage

of students who reported having two or fewer types of

materials was higher. More twelfth graders in 1994 than

in 1992 reported never discussing their studies or

reading experiences with other people.

At grades four and eight, where reading proficiency

showed no significant decline between assessments, few

changes in literacy related activities were observed. No

single contextual variable or combination thereof can

fully account for reading proficiency. Still, as

contributing factors, they can help teachers and parents

to more fully understand the contexts in which students

become readers.

Summary

Although it is not possible to establish causal links

between reading proficiency and contextual variables

using NAEP background and instructional data alone, it

is possible to gain insight into certain patterns of

students’ home and school experiences. When reviewed

in light of current research, these findings can

contribute to understanding and interpreting reading

performance results. In 1994, at all three grades

assessed, a positive relationship was evident between

certain contextual variables and reading proficiency.

Students who reported reading only five or fewer

pages each day for school and homework combined had

lower average reading proficiency than those who read

more. Similarly, at all three grades in 1994, students

who reported that they read for fun almost every day

demonstrated the highest average reading proficiency.

Several home contextual factors showed a

significant relation to reading proficiency. Fourth,

eighth, and twelfth graders who reported having four

types of literacy materials in their homes had the

highest average reading proficiency. As the number of

home literacy materials declined, so did demonstrated

reading ability. Students who reported never or rarely

having discussions at home about school studies

displayed the lowest average proficiency. And, at all

three grades, students who reported watching the most

television per day had the lowest average reading

proficiency.
7 8

Endnotes

1. Sweet, A.P. (1993). Transforming ideas for teaching

and learning. Office of Educational Research and

Improvement. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

Samuels, S.J., & Farstrup, A.E. (1992). What

research has to say about reading instruction.

Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

2. Morrow, L.M. (Ed.) (1995). Family literacy:

Connections in schools and communities. Newark,

DE: International Reading Association.

Snow, C.E., Barnes, W.S., Chandler, J., Goodman,

I.F., & Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations:

Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

3. Hiebert, E.H. (1994). Becoming literate through

authentic tasks: Evidence and adaption. In R.R.

Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.),

Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp.

391-413). Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Marlow, E. (1994). Meaning in the reading

curriculum. Reading Improvement, 31(1), 49-51.

Harris, V.J. (1993). Literature-based approaches to

reading instruction. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.),

Review of research in education (pp. 269-297).

Huck, C.S. (1992). Developing lifetime readers.

Journal of Youth Services in Libraries, 5(4), 371-

382.

4. Chall, J.S., & Squire, J.R. (1991). The publishing

industry and textbooks. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B.

Mosenthall, & P. David Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of

reading research: Volume II (pp. 120-146). New

York: Longman.

5. Travers, R.R. (1993). Baiting the book hook.

Principal, 72(4), 40-41, 43.

Miller, S.D. (1993). Characteristics of tasks used for

skill instruction in two basal readers. Elementary

School Journal, 94(1), 33-47.

Goodman, K.S. (1992). Whole language research:

Foundations and development. In S.J. Samuels &

A.E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say

about reading instruction (pp. 46-69). Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

6. Wiggins, R.A. (1994). Large group/small group

follow-up: Flexible grouping in a basal reading

program. Reading Teacher, 47(6), 450-460.

Payne, B.D., & Manning, B.H. (1992). Basal reader

instruction: Effects of comprehension monitoring

training on reading comprehension, strategy use

and attitude. Reading Research and Instruction,

32(1), 29-38.

7. Barron, B.G., Henderson, M., & Edwards, L. (1992,

Summer). An analysis of changes in a selected basal

reading series. Education, 112, 606-608.

Goodman, K.S., Shannon, P., Freeman, Y.S., &

Murphy, S. (1988). Report card on basal readers.

Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.

8. Thames, D.G., & Reeves, C.K. (1994). Poor readers’

attitudes: Effects of using interests and trade books

in an integrated language arts approach. Reading

Research and Instruction, 33(4), 293-308.

Mayer, K.V. (1989). Primary teachers: Complement

your basals. Ohio Reading Teacher, 24(1), 16-21.

9. Lipka, C., & Gaskill, P. (1992, Fall/Winter).

Literature-based reading instruction: Research and

recommendations. Michigan Reading Journal, 25,

20-31.

10. Barnett, J.E., & Irwin, L. (1994). The effects of

classroom activities on elementary students’ reading

attitudes. Reading Improvement, 31(2), 113-121.

Blanton, W.E., & Moorman, G.B. (1990). The

presentation of reading lessons. Reading Research

and Instruction, 29(1), 69-93.

11. Block, C.C. (1993). Strategy instruction in a

literature-based reading program. Elementary

School Journal, 94(2), 139-151.

Pearson, P.D., Roehler, L.R., Dole, J.A., & Duffy, G.G.

(1992). Developing expertise in reading

comprehension. In S.J. Samuels & A.E. Farstrup

(Eds.), What research has to say about reading

instruction (pp. 145-199). Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

12. Campbell, J.R., Kapinus, B.A., & Beatty, A.S. (1995).

Interviewing children about their literacy

experiences. National Center for Education

Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office.

Sosniak, L.A., & Stodolsky, S.S. (1993). Teachers and

textbooks: Materials use in four fourth-grade

classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 93(3),

249-275.
7 9

Koskinen, P.S., Blum, I.H., Tennant, N., Parker,

E.M., Straub, M.W., & Curry, C. (1995). Have you

heard any good books lately?: Encouraging shared

reading at home with books and audiotapes. In

Morrow, L.M. (Ed.), Family literacy: Connections in

schools and communities (pp. 87-103). Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

21. Watkins, M.W., & Ewards, V.A. (1992).

Extracurricular reading and reading achievement:

The rich stay rich and the poor don’t read. Reading

Improvement, 29(4), 236-242.

Mullis, I.V.S., Campbell, J.R., & Farstrup, A.E.

(1993). NAEP 1992 reading report card for the

nation and the states. National Center for Education

Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office.

22. Heller, L.R., & Fantuzzo, J.W. (1993). Reciprocal

peer tutoring and parent partnership: Does parent

involvement make a difference? School Psychology

Review, 22(3), 517-34.

Christenson, S.L. (1992). Family factors and student

achievement: An avenue to increase students’

success. School Psychology Quarterly, 7(3), 178-

206.

23. The National Education Goals Report: Building a

Nation of Learners. (Report of the National

Education Goals Panel: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1994).

24. Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1995). Next generation

literacy instruction: Broadening the lens. Paper

presented at the 40th annual meeting of the

International Reading Association, Anaheim, CA.

25. Mullis, I.V.S., Campbell, J.R., & Farstrup, A.E.

(1993). NAEP 1992 reading report card for the

nation and the states. National Center for Education

Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office.

Beentjes, J.W.J., & Van der Voort, T.H.A. (1988).

Television’s impact on children’s reading skills: A

review of the research. Reading Research Quarterly,

23, 389-413.

26. Macias, A.H. (1993). Hide your TV and seek other

interests. PTA Today, 18(7), 10-11.

Trelease, J. (1993). Turn on books and turn off

television! Dimensions of Early Childhood, 21(3),

17-20.

13. Ford, M.P. (1991). Worksheets anonymous: On the

road to recovery. Language Arts, 68(7), 563-566.

Sharp, B. (1989). Why aren’t you using the phonics

workbook? (When the principal asks). Reading

Teacher, 42(4), 326-327.

14. Hoffman, J.V., McCarthey, S.J., Abbott, J., Christian,

C., Corman, L., Curry, C., Dressman, E.B.,

Matherne, D., & Stahle, D. (1994). So what’s new in

the new basals? A focus on first grade. Journal of

Reading Behavior, 26(1), 47-73.

15. Farough, D. (1994). Launching ships. Reading

Teacher, 47(8), 626-630.

Miller, T. (1994). Improving the schoolwide

language arts program: A priority for all middle

school teachers. Middle School Journal, 25(4), 26-

29.

16. Fielding, L.G., & Pearson, P.D. (1994). Reading

comprehension: What works. Educational

Leadership, 51(5), 62-68.

Guice, S., & Allington, R. (1994). It’s more than

reading real books! Ten ways to enhance the

implementation of literature-based instruction.

National Research Center on Literature Teaching

and Learning. Washington, DC: Office of

Educational Research and Improvement.

17. Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., & Heck, M.J. (1993,

January). Using small groups for response to and

thinking about literature. English Journal, 82, 14-

32.

Durrant, C., Goodwin, L., & Watson, K. (1990,

December). Encouraging young readers to reflect on

their processes of response: Can it be done, is it

worth doing? English Education, 22, 211-219.

18. Hildebrand, V.L., & Bader, L.A. (1992). An

exploratory study of parents’ involvement in their

child’s emerging literacy skills. Reading

Improvement, 29(3), 163-170.

DeTemple, J.M., & Beals, D.E. (1991). Family talk:

Sources of support for the development of

decontextualized language skills. Journal of

Research in Childhood Education, 6(1), 11-19.

19. Morrow, L.M., & Neuman, S.B. (Eds.). (1995).

Family literacy [Themed issue]. Reading Teacher,

48(7).

20. Goldenbery, C., Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (1992).

Effects of literacy materials from school on Latino

children’s home experiences and early reading

achievement. American Journal of Education (100)

497-536.
8 0
8 1

CHAPTER 6

What Students Know

and Can Do in Reading

This chapter sharpens the focus on what students know

and can do in reading. First, the reading abilities of

students performing at various points on the composite

reading scale are described. The literary practices of

lower, middle, and higher performing students are then

profiled. Average proficiency results are presented for

the nation and for selected subgroups of students based

on the subscales that correspond to the three reading

purposes. Finally, item maps are presented to indicate

the types of assessment questions likely to be answered

successfully by students scoring at various levels on the

reading purpose subscales.

Overview of Students’ Performance

on NAEP’s Reading Composite Scale

In Chapters 2 and 4 of this report, the NAEP composite

reading scale provided a numerical summary of fourth-,

eighth-, and twelfth-grade students’ overall reading

proficiencies. A more descriptive summary is possible by

examining the specific reading abilities demonstrated by

students in their answers to the assessment questions.

The types of questions that students could answer

correctly and the nature of their answers to

constructed-response questions provide important

information about their reading abilities, thus

illuminating our understanding of what fourth, eighth,

and twelfth graders know and can do in reading.

The following descriptions of students’ abilities

are based on sets of questions that were answered

successfully by students performing at three points on

the composite reading scale. These points represent

lower, middle, and higher performance based on the

percentile distribution. The sets of questions identified

were analyzed by reading education experts to

characterize the nature of students’ reading abilities at

each of the three points on the scale. (The procedures

used to generate these performance descriptions are

described further in Appendix B.)

Fourth-Grade Reading Abilities. Fourth-grade students

who performed between approximately the 20th and

30th percentiles (scale range 187-200) demonstrated

that they could comprehend at least surface meaning

in stories and in story-like informative passages. The

students within this scale range had the most success

with realistic fictions about familiar topics and

informative articles about animals. These students were

able to identify character traits and could recognize

the central problem facing a character. In response

to informative articles, they could locate specific facts

and make a comparison. With both types of texts,

their understanding was mostly of explicitly stated

ideas and information.

Fourth graders between approximately the 45th

and 55th percentiles (scale range 214-224) could

comprehend a variety of texts. They worked equally well

with realistic fiction and fable, and were beginning to

demonstrate competence with expository material.

These students were able to connect some ideas across

texts to make generalizations about character traits not

explicitly stated in the narrative or to make a simple

inference from information. They could describe the

motivation of a character in a story and the feelings of

an historical figure from an informative account. Most

of the students within this range were able to support

their interpretations and personal responses with a

single text-based example.

Fourth-grade students within approximately the 85th

to 95th percentiles (scale range 253-272) were able to

comprehend a wider range of materials that used more

difficult vocabulary. In addition to realistic fiction and

fable, these students could respond to a culturally

diverse folktale and an historical narrative composed

of many episodes. These students were able to identify

character motivation and perspective implicit in the

narratives and to identify cause-effect relationships

in plot and character development. Students in

this percentile range were able to make connective

inferences in order to determine causal relations

in an historical narrative. They could recognize a

device such as specific details used by an author to

convey information.
8 2

Eighth-Grade Reading Abilities. Eighth-grade students

who performed between approximately the 20th and

30th percentiles (scale range 230-243) were most

successful when responding to informative materials.

They could specify and identify explicitly stated

information in a highly detailed and illustrated article

about an animal. When reading historical accounts, they

could recognize the main topic and use text information

to make a simple inference. These students were able

to provide a general explanation for their personal

response to an historical situation. Students within this

scale range could follow straightforward directions to

compose a formal letter and could express a personal

opinion about writing the letter in a real-life situation.

Eighth graders between approximately the 45th and

55th percentiles (scale range 258-267) were able to

respond to fiction and poetry, a variety of informative

texts, and diverse procedural documents. They could

infer a character’s perspective and explain character

motivation. These students could infer an author’s

attitude toward a poet’s work and showed some ability

to critique an author’s presentation of information.

Responding to a scientific article, students within this

scale range were successful at using text information

and prior knowledge to make comparisons. These

students could read a timetable to solve a simple

problem and infer from written directions to explain the

importance of performing a task in a specified manner.

Eighth-grade students within approximately the

85th and 95th percentiles (scale range 297-316) moved

beyond merely literal interpretations of fiction and

poetry. They were able to recognize a more abstract trait

implicit in a character’s motivation and to infer and

identify an abstract theme from concrete poetic images.

They were able to identify implicit traits of an historical

group and infer and explain a causal relation between an

historical situation and an individual’s action. These

students could interpret and use a variety of procedural

documents and were able to suggest a general

improvement or alternative organizational pattern.

Twelfth-Grade Reading Abilities. Twelfth-grade students

who performed between approximately the 20th and

30th percentiles (scale range 264-275) responded

successfully to literary materials that included a

folktale and a narrative poem. They were able to use

their understanding of human nature to express a

generalization about characters and make connections

between story elements and relevant prior experiences.

In response to a biographical account of an historical

situation, they could describe the connections between

important events. When reading conflicting editorials

on the same topic, they were able to identify the major

argument of each. These students could follow

directions to write a formal letter. In reading documents

that included tables, graphs, and text, they were able

to locate embedded information and use tabular

information to solve a simple problem.

Twelfth graders between approximately the 45th and

55th percentiles (scale range 289-298) were able to infer

connections between ideas across different parts of

literary texts in order to explain characters’ motives and

actions. Their use of prior knowledge went beyond

simply making connections between text ideas to

constructing interpretations and explaining the

significance of story elements. Students within this

scale range were able to develop interpretations and

draw conclusions from diverse informational texts

including biographical accounts, historical sources, and

a scientific article. They demonstrated an understanding

of how different types of texts contribute different

types of information on a given topic, and they could

use information from different texts to compose

a brief summary of an historical event. These

students successfully related symbols and meanings

from different parts of a document to verify

information. They also used specific instructions

for an advertisement form and a tax schedule to

complete multi-step tasks.
8 3

Twelfth-grade students within approximately

the 85th and 95th percentiles (scale range 325-343)

demonstrated reflective understanding of literary

texts that included a narrative poem and stories with

unfamiliar language and settings. They were able to

extend the meaning of these texts by integrating various

elements such as dialogue and theme to construct

interpretive responses and could use textual evidence

to support and explain their interpretations. Twelfth

graders within this scale range were capable of using

more than one informational text to examine an issue or

event. They compared texts to determine commonalities

or distinctions in content, perspective, and purpose.

These students could explain these comparisons and

provide complete summaries of a biographical account,

a speech, and an editorial. Students within this

percentile range were able to manage different types

of document organization. In completing a tax form,

these students could locate relevant information across

several different forms and could successfully integrate

written directions with visual cues.

Profiles of Students’ Literacy

Practices and Reading Abilities

The following three figures (6.1, 6.2, and 6.3) represent

profiles of the lower, middle, and higher performing

students whose reading performance was described in

the previous section. The profiles link the reading

abilities of these students with their self-reported

literacy practices. The reading abilities presented in

these figures summarize the performance descriptions

from the previous section. The literacy practices

presented in the figures are based on students’ selfreports about three literacy-related activities: reading

for fun, discussing studies at home, and reading for

school and homework. As discussed in Chapter 5, all

three of these practices were significantly related to

reading achievement in the 1994 NAEP Reading

Assessment.

By examining all three profiles, a common pattern

becomes apparent at each grade: students with higher

levels of reading proficiency were more likely to read for

fun daily (or almost daily), discuss studies at home daily

(or almost daily), and read more than 10 pages each day

for school and homework. It is also evident that the

degree of involvement in these activities varies across

the three grades. For example, at grade 4 (Figure 6.1)

nearly two-thirds of the higher performing students

reported reading for fun daily or almost daily. Their

counterparts at grades 8 and 12 (Figures 6.2 and 6.3)

differed considerably in their reports on this activity.

Only 38 percent of the higher performing students in

both grades reported reading for fun on a daily basis.
8 4

Figure 6.1 Profiles of Lower, Middle, and Higher Performing Fourth Graders: Reading Abilities and Literacy Practices

Literacy practices of fourth graders who were

approximately between the 20th and 30th

percentiles:

© 36 percent read for fun daily or almost daily

© 50 percent discussed studies at home daily or

almost daily

© 52 percent read more than 10 pages each day

for school or homework

Fourth-grade students who were

approximately between the 20th and 30th

percentiles could:

© comprehend at least surface meaning in stories

and story-like informative passages

© understand explicitly stated ideas and

information

© read literary texts on familiar topics

Literacy practices of fourth graders who were

approximately between the 85th and 95th

percentiles:

© 60 percent read for fun daily or almost daily

© 66 percent discussed studies at home daily or

almost daily

© 63 percent read more than 10 pages each day

for school or homework

Fourth-grade students who were

approximately between the 85th and 95th

percentiles could:

© understand a wider range of materials

containing more difficult vocabulary and

about less familiar topics

© identify textual elements such as characters’

perspectives and causal relationships

© understand the author’s use of specific devices

Literacy practices of fourth graders who were

approximately between the 45th and 55th

percentiles:

© 41 percent read for fun daily or almost daily

© 54 percent discussed studies at home daily or

almost daily

© 54 percent read more than 10 pages each day

for school or homework

Fourth-grade students who were

approximately between the 45th and 55th

percentiles could:

© connect some ideas across the text to make

generalizations and simple inferences about

story events or about information in

expository texts

© describe story characters or historical figures

presented in text

© provide some support for their ideas about

what they read with single text-based

examples

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1994 Reading Assessment

50th Percentile

25th Percentile

90th Percentile
8 5

Figure 6.2 Profiles of Lower, Middle, and Higher Performing Eighth Graders: Reading Abilities and Literacy Practices

Literacy practices of eighth graders who were

approximately between the 20th and 30th

percentiles:

© 12 percent read for fun daily or almost daily

© 32 percent discussed studies at home daily or

almost daily

© 31 percent read more than 10 pages each day

for school or homework

Eighth-grade students who were

approximately between the 20th and 30th

percentiles could:

© identify explicitly stated information, recognize

main topics, and make simple inferences

© express a personal reaction to a text and

provide a general explanation

© use uncomplicated directions to perform a

straightforward task

Literacy practices of eighth graders who were

approximately between the 45th and 55th

percentiles:

© 19 percent read for fun daily or almost daily

© 37 percent discussed studies at home daily or

almost daily

© 36 percent read more than 10 pages each day

for school or homework

Eighth-grade students who were

approximately between the 45th and 55th

percentiles could:

© infer and explain aspects of characters in

stories and critique an author

© integrate informative text with prior

knowledge to make a comparison

© use document information to solve simple

problems or explain a task

Eighth-grade students who were

approximately between the 85th and 95th

percentiles could:

© understand abstract themes and character

traits implicit in texts

© infer and explain a causal relation between

events

© think critically about an author’s use of

language and about organizational patterns

in documents

Literacy practices of eighth graders who were

approximately between the 85th and 95th

percentiles:

© 38 percent read for fun daily or almost daily

© 47 percent discussed studies at home daily or

almost daily

© 47 percent read more than 10 pages each day

for school or homework

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1994 Reading Assessment

50th Percentile

25th Percentile

90th Percentile
8 6

Figure 6.3 Profiles of Lower, Middle, and Higher Performing Twelfth Graders: Reading Abilities and Literacy Practices

Literacy practices of twelfth graders who

were approximately between the 20th and

30th percentiles:

© 18 percent read for fun daily or almost daily

© 27 percent discussed studies at home daily or

almost daily

© 30 percent read more than 10 pages each day

for school or homework

Twelfth-grade students who were

approximately between the 20th and 30th

percentiles could:

© use prior knowledge to make inferences,

connections, and generalizations

© identify specific facts and main points in

informative text

© use written directions and tabular information

to complete straightforward tasks and solve

problems

Literacy practices of twelfth graders who

were approximately between the 85th and

95th percentiles:

© 38 percent read for fun daily or almost daily

© 39 percent discussed studies at home daily or

almost daily

© 58 percent read more than 10 pages each day

for school or homework

Twelfth-grade students who were

approximately between the 85th and 95th

percentiles could:

© integrate story elements to explain and

support literary interpretations

© summarize single or multiple texts and

compare and evaluate informative texts

© use information from multiple sources to

complete highly detailed tasks

Literacy practices of twelfth graders who

were approximately between the 45th and

55th percentiles:

© 24 percent read for fun daily or almost daily

© 32 percent discussed studies at home daily or

almost daily

© 39 percent read more than 10 pages each day

for school or homework

Twelfth-grade students who were

approximately between the 45th and 55th

percentiles could:

© infer and explain connections between ideas in

a text and integrate ideas from multiple texts

© develop interpretations and draw conclusions

from informative materials

© use documents and written directions to

complete multi-step tasks

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1994 Reading Assessment

50th Percentile

25th Percentile

90th Percentile
8 7

Average Proficiency in Reading

for Different Purposes

As expressed in the NAEP 1992 and 1994 Reading

Framework, “because reading is not considered to be

a simple unidimensional skill, reading achievement

cannot be represented adequately by a single score.”1

Accordingly, the 1992 and 1994 NAEP Reading

Assessments looked at students’ abilities with three

different types of texts corresponding to different

purposes for reading. The three purposes for reading

assessed in the 1992 and 1994 NAEP Reading

Assessments were:

● Reading for Literary Experience

● Reading to Gain Information

● Reading to Perform a Task

At grades 8 and 12, all three purposes for reading

were assessed. At grade 4, only literary and informative

purposes were examined.

Different types of texts are typically associated with

specific purposes for reading. For example, a fictional

short story is usually associated with reading for literary

experience, while the reading of a newspaper article may

be geared toward gaining information. Across the

different text types and reading purposes, readers may

vary their strategies for gaining meaning or may focus

on different types of information in the text.2

 Thus, it is

important to look at students’ performance in reading

various types of texts for different purposes in order to

gain a more complete understanding of what they can

do in reading. This section presents the 1992 and 1994

average proficiency results in the three purposes for

reading assessed.

Performance in Reading Purposes for the Nation. Table

6.1 presents the 1992 and 1994 average proficiencies by

reading purpose for students at grades 4, 8, and 12, and

for comparison, their overall average proficiencies on

the composite scale.

© Corresponding to the decline between 1992 and

1994 in overall average proficiency at the twelfth

grade, the subscale results for these students

revealed a significant decline in reading

performance for each of the three purposes for

reading.

© At the eighth grade, no significant changes occurred

between 1992 and 1994 in students’ average

proficiency by purposes for reading.

© Subscale results for fourth-grade students revealed

no significant change between 1992 and 1994 in

reading for different purposes.

TABLE 6.1

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994

Average Proficiency (Composite Scale) 217 (0.9) 214 (1.0) 260 (0.9) 260 (0.8) 292 (0.6) 287 (0.7)<

Reading for Literary Experience 219 (0.9) 216 (1.1) 259 (1.0) 259 (1.0) 290 (0.7) 286 (0.9)<

Reading to Gain Information 214 (1.2) 212 (1.0) 261 (0.9) 260 (0.8) 293 (0.6) 290 (0.7)<

Reading to Perform a Task ** ** 261 (1.0) 261 (0.9) 293 (0.8) 285 (1.0)<

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

** Reading to Perform a Task was not assessed at grade 4.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Average Proficiency in Purposes for Reading

Grades 4, 8, and 12
8 8

Performance in Reading Purposes by Race/Ethnicity.

Table 6.2 displays the reading purposes subscale results

as well as the overall average proficiency for racial/

ethnic groups. Racial/ethnic classifications are based on

self-reported information provided by students.

The significant decline between 1992 and 1994 in

overall average reading proficiency that was observed

across racial/ethnic groups at grade 12 was also evident,

to varying degrees, in the three purposes for reading

subscales.

© The performance of White twelfth-grade students

declined significantly on all three reading purpose

subscales.

© Black twelfth-grade students exhibited a significant

decline on the reading for literary experience and

reading to perform a task subscales but not on the

reading to gain information subscale.

© Hispanic twelfth-grade students’ average

proficiencies declined significantly on the reading

to gain information and reading to perform a task

subscales but not on the reading for literary

experience subscale.

As with the overall average reading proficiencies for

grades 4 and 8, there were few significant subscale

differences among racial/ethnic groups between the

1992 and 1994 assessments.

© At grade 8, there were no significant declines between

the two assessment years in any of the purposes for

reading for any of the racial/ethnic groups.

© The only changes in performance between 1992

and 1994 at the fourth grade were among Hispanic

students who demonstrated significantly lower

performance on the reading for literary experience

subscale, and among Black students who declined

significantly on the reading to gain information

subscale.

TABLE 6.2

Average Proficiency Reading for Literary Experience Reading to Gain Information Reading to Perform a Task

1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994

Grade 4

White 225 (1.2) 224 (1.3) 226 (1.1) 226 (1.3) 222 (1.4) 222 (1.3)  

Black 193 (1.6) 187 (1.7) 195 (1.6) 191 (2.0) 189 (1.9) 183 (1.6)< **  **

Hispanic 201 (2.1) 191 (2.6)< 206 (2.4) 193 (2.6)< 195 (2.1) 188 (2.6)  

Asian — 232 (5.5) — 231 (4.8) — 234 (6.8) **  **

Pacific Islander — 219 (5.0) — 223 (5.0) — 215 (6.6)  

American Indian 207 (4.6) 201 (3.4) 210 (4.6) 203 (3.3) 203 (4.9) 199 (4.1) **  **

Grade 8

White 267 (1.2) 268 (1.0) 265 (1.3) 266 (1.2) 268 (1.2) 268 (1.0) 270 (1.2) 271 (1.0)

Black 238 (1.6) 237 (1.7) 238 (1.6) 238 (2.0) 239 (1.5) 237 (1.8) 235 (1.8) 232 (2.0)

Hispanic 241 (1.4) 240 (1.4) 241 (1.4) 243 (1.5) 242 (1.3) 239 (2.0) 240 (2.1) 238 (1.8)

Asian — 273 (2.6) — 276 (2.6) — 272 (3.4) — 272 (2.8)

Pacific Islander — 259 (7.4)! — 253 (10.5)! — 265 (4.7)! — 260 (8.0)!

American Indian 251 (3.7) 251 (4.2) 249 (3.2) 251 (4.9) 253 (4.1) 251 (4.3) 252 (5.3) 251 (4.5)

Grade 12

White 298 (0.6) 294 (0.7)< 297 (0.8) 294 (0.8)< 298 (0.6) 295 (0.7)< 299 (0.9) 292 (1.1)<

Black 273 (1.4) 265 (1.6)< 268 (1.7) 258 (2.5)< 276 (1.4) 272 (1.6) 275 (1.5) 261 (1.6)<

Hispanic 278 (2.3) 270 (1.5)< 275 (3.3) 266 (2.0) 281 (1.9) 275 (1.4)< 277 (2.7) 264 (1.8)<

Asian — 280 (2.8) — 276 (4.5) — 284 (2.4) — 279 (3.2)

Pacific Islander — 280 (3.9)! — 279 (5.2)! — 285 (3.8)! — 272 (5.3)!

American Indian *** 275 (5.3)! *** 271 (10.0)! *** 278 (4.4)! *** 273 (4.7)!

Differences between racial/ethnic groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

** Reading to Perform a Task was not assessed at grade 4.

— Due to significant changes in wording of the race/ethnicity question between the 1992 and 1994 assessments, the 1992 results for Asian and Pacific Islander students are not comparable to 1994 results.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow for accurate determination of the variability of this value.

*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Average Proficiency in Purposes for Reading by Race/Ethnicity

Grades 4, 8, and 12
8 9

Performance in Reading Purposes by Gender. Male and

female students’ performance in reading for different

purposes is presented in Table 6.3.

© Similar to their overall decline in reading

proficiency, male and female twelfth-grade students

showed a decline between 1992 and 1994 on the

reading for literary experience and reading to

perform a task subscales. However, only male

twelfth graders declined significantly on the reading

to gain information subscale.

© No significant changes in reading proficiency were

observed at the eighth grade for either male or

female students across the three purposes.

© At grade 4, although males did not decline in overall

average proficiency between the two assessments,

they did demonstrate a significant decline on the

reading for literary experience subscale.

TABLE 6.3

Average Proficiency Reading for Literary Experience Reading to Gain Information Reading to Perform a Task

1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994

Grade 4

Male 213 (1.2) 209 (1.3) 215 (1.3) 210 (1.3)< 211 (1.4) 208 (1.4)  

Female 221 (1.0) 220 (1.1) 224 (1.0) 223 (1.2) 217 (1.2) 216 (1.2) **  **

Grade 8

Male 254 (1.1) 252 (1.0) 252 (1.3) 251 (1.2) 255 (1.2) 254 (1.1) 254 (1.1) 252 (1.2)

Female 267 (1.0) 267 (1.0) 265 (1.2) 267 (1.1) 267 (1.0) 266 (1.1) 269 (1.3) 270 (1.2)

Grade 12

Male 287 (0.7) 280 (0.8)< 284 (0.9) 279 (1.1)< 289 (0.8) 284 (0.9)< 288 (0.9) 276 (1.4)<

Female 297 (0.7) 294 (0.8)< 297 (0.8) 293 (1.1)< 297 (0.8) 296 (0.8) 298 (1.0) 293 (1.1)<

Differences between the two groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

** Reading to Perform a Task was not assessed at grade 4.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Average Proficiency in Purposes for Reading by Gender

Grades 4, 8, and 12
9 0

Performance in Reading Purposes by Type of School.

The performance of students attending public and

nonpublic schools in reading purposes is presented in

Table 6.4.

At grade 12, both public and nonpublic

school students had lower overall reading proficiencies

in 1994 than in 1992. When examining performance on

the three purposes for reading subscales, however, the

pattern was not as uniform.

© On the reading to perform a task subscale, the

average proficiencies of both public and nonpublic

school twelfth-grade students declined significantly

from 1992 to 1994.

© On the reading for literary experience subscale, only

public school twelfth-graders showed a significant

decline in performance.

© On the reading to gain information subscale, only

the average proficiencies of nonpublic school twelfthgrade students declined significantly over the twoyear period.

© At grades 4 and 8, no significant differences in

average subscale performance were found for either

type of school.

Average Proficiency at Various

Percentiles by Purposes for Reading

This section describes the national performance

distribution for each reading purpose subscale in 1992

and 1994. Proficiency scores of students at the 10th,

25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile points are

provided to illustrate the range of performance on the

different subscales at each grade.

TABLE 6.4

Average Proficiency Reading for Literary Experience Reading to Gain Information Reading to Perform a Task

1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994

Grade 4

Public 215 (1.0) 212 (1.1) 217 (1.0) 215 (1.2) 212 (1.2) 210 (1.2)  

Nonpublic 232 (1.7) 231 (2.5) 233 (1.7) 233 (2.5) 230 (2.0) 229 (2.6) **  **

Grade 8

Public 258 (1.0) 257 (0.8) 256 (1.0) 257 (1.0) 259 (1.0) 257 (0.9) 259 (1.1) 258 (1.0)

Nonpublic 278 (2.0) 279 (1.4) 276 (1.9) 279 (1.8) 279 (2.1) 280 (1.6) 281 (2.6) 281 (1.4)

Grade 12

Public 290 (0.7) 286 (0.7)< 288 (0.8) 284 (0.8)< 291 (0.7) 288 (0.8) 291 (0.9) 283 (1.1)<

Nonpublic 308 (1.3) 301 (1.9)< 306 (1.8) 302 (2.9) 309 (1.2) 304 (1.7)< 308 (1.3) 296 (2.1)<

Differences between the two groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

** Reading to Perform a Task was not assessed at grade 4.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within

plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Average Proficiency in Purposes for Reading by Type of School

Grades 4, 8, and 12
9 1

Table 6.5 presents the average proficiences of

fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students at various

percentiles by purposes for reading.

© At grade 4, there was a significant decline between

1992 and 1994 on the reading for literary

experience subscale among the lower performing

students (those at the 10th and 25th percentiles).

© A significant decline between 1992 and 1994 was

observed on the reading to gain information

subscale among the lowest performing fourth

graders (those at the 10th percentile).

© At grade 8, there was a significant decline between

1992 and 1994 on the reading to gain information

subscale among the lowest performing students

(those at the 10th percentile).

© Corresponding to the average subscale declines,

twelfth graders at the 10th, 25th, and 50th

percentiles displayed a significant decline

in proficiency on each purpose for reading subscale.

© On the reading to perform a task subscale, the

average scores of twelfth-grade students at the 75th

percentile also declined significantly between 1992

and 1994.

TABLE 6.5

Average Proficiency at Various Percentiles by Purposes for Reading

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Reading for Literary Experience Reading to Gain Information Reading to Perform a Task

1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994

Grade 4

Average Subscale Proficiency 219 (0.9) 216 (1.1) 214 (1.2) 212 (1.0)  

90th Percentile 264 (1.2) 265 (1.2) 261 (2.0) 263 (1.4) **  **

75th Percentile 244 (1.1) 245 (1.4) 240 (1.4) 242 (1.0)  

50th Percentile 221 (1.2) 221 (1.2) 216 (1.2) 216 (1.0) **  **

25th Percentile 196 (1.2) 191 (1.2)< 190 (1.5) 185 (1.8)  

10th Percentile 171 (1.7) 160 (1.6)< 164 (1.8) 154 (2.3)< **  **

Grade 8

Average Subscale Proficiency 259 (1.0) 259 (1.0) 261 (0.9) 260 (0.8) 261 (1.0) 261 (0.9)

90th Percentile 305 (1.1) 307 (1.3) 305 (1.0) 306 (1.0) 312 (1.2) 312 (0.9)

75th Percentile 284 (1.3) 286 (1.1) 286 (1.1) 286 (1.1) 290 (1.4) 290 (1.5)

50th Percentile 260 (1.3) 261 (1.0) 263 (1.0) 263 (0.8) 263 (1.1) 264 (1.0)

25th Percentile 234 (1.4) 234 (1.2) 238 (1.4) 236 (0.9) 235 (1.4) 234 (1.4)

10th Percentile 209 (1.2) 209 (1.5) 213 (1.0) 209 (1.2)< 208 (1.5) 205 (1.9)

Grade 12

Average Subscale Proficiency 290 (0.7) 286 (0.9)< 293 (0.6) 290 (0.7)< 293 (0.8) 285 (1.0)<

90th Percentile 342 (1.0) 343 (1.4) 330 (0.8) 330 (1.0) 337 (1.0) 334 (1.1)

75th Percentile 320 (1.0) 318 (0.9) 314 (0.7) 312 (0.8) 318 (0.9) 312 (1.1)<

50th Percentile 292 (0.8) 288 (1.1)< 295 (0.7) 292 (0.7)< 294 (1.0) 287 (1.3)<

25th Percentile 263 (1.0) 256 (1.3)< 274 (0.7) 269 (1.0)< 270 (0.9) 260 (1.1)<

10th Percentile 235 (1.3) 225 (1.6)< 254 (1.1) 246 (1.1)< 248 (0.8) 232 (1.6)<

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

** Reading to Perform a Task was not assessed at Grade 4.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

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

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

9 2

Students’ Abilities in Reading

for Different Purposes

A more in-depth understanding of students’

performance with respect to the three purposes for

reading can be gained by examining reading abilities

associated with specific score levels on the NAEP

reading subscales. Each question in the reading

assessment was written to assess a particular aspect of

reading comprehension. The questions also ranged in

difficulty. Questions that could be answered by students

with lower scores were relatively easy, while other

questions proved to be more difficult and were likely to

be answered successfully only by students with higher

scale scores. In looking at the questions that were

answered by students performing at various points

along the reading subscales, it is possible to determine

what students with different subscale proficiencies could

do as they read for different purposes.

Figures 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 highlight some of the

reading abilities associated with students’ answers to

specific questions in the assessment. The figures can

be thought of as maps that identify where, on each

subscale, individual comprehension questions were

answered successfully by at least 65 percent of the

students (74 percent for multiple-choice questions).3

For each question, students who scored above the

designated scale value had a higher probability of

successfully answering the question. Likewise, students

with lower scale scores had a lower probability of

success in answering the question.

For example, looking at the literary item map

(Figure 6.4), 65 percent of fourth graders with a score

of 241 on the reading for literary experience subscale

were able to identify a character’s perspective on a

story event. Fourth graders higher on this subscale

were even more likely to demonstrate this ability,

while students lower on the subscale were less likely

to do so. In interpreting the item map information,

it should be kept in mind that students at different

grades demonstrated these reading abilities with

grade-appropriate reading materials. (Selection and

review of assessment reading materials is described

in Chapter 1.)
9 3

(241) Identify character’s perspective

on story event

(237) Understand cause and effect in

character’s action

(234) Explain character’s motivation

(225) Interpret character by providing

possible dialogue

NOTE: In this graphic illustration, the locations of scale points are

necessarily approximate for questions clustered closely together.

500

350

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

(222) Explain personal reaction to

story character

(216) Explain personal reaction to

story event

(213) Explain personal opinion of story

(212) Identify appropriate description

of character’s feelings

(210) Recognize a character’s feelings

(204) Identify appropriate description

of major character trait

(191) Provide personal reaction to

story event

(260) Identify application of story theme

(258) Connect text ideas to describe

character motivation

(255) Identify character’s main dilemma

(250) Infer reason for character’s perspective

(314) Explain symbolism of story element

(309) Make intertextual connection to

interpret character

(306) Recognize implicit aspect of character

(304) Explain character’s perspective

(329) Explain thematic difference between

poems

(262) Explain personal opinion

about character’s action

(256) Explain personal reaction to

character’s statement

(252) Identify character’s perspective

(291) Understand character’s motivation

(285) Compare seemingly disparate

text elements

(277) Identify character’s motivation

(303) Explain character’s motivation

(384) Interpret metaphoric statement and

relate to theme

(363) Explain symbolic significance

of setting

NAEP

Scale

GRADE 4 GRADE 8 GRADE 12

(288) Use metaphor to interpret character

(270) Identify/Infer character trait from

story event

(315) Explain character’s perspective

(315) Identify text feature defining

relationship between characters

(323) Relate problematic issue to story

event or character trait

(342) Identify underlying dilemma

confronted by character

(336) Infer from context underlying meaning

of character’s statement

(333) Infer and explain thematic significance

of character’s action

(351) Specify language that depicts

character’s emotional state

Figure 6.4 Map of Selected Items on the Reading for Literary Experience Subscale for Grades 4, 8, and 12

Each reading question was mapped onto the NAEP literary subscale based on students’ performance. The point on the subscale at which a question is positioned on the map

represents the subscale score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of successfully answering the question. Thus, it can be said for each question and its

corresponding subscale score – students with proficiency scores above that point on the subscale have a greater than 65 percent chance of successfully answering the question,

while those below that point on the subscale have a less than 65 percent chance. (The probability was set at 74 percent for multiple-choice questions.) In interpreting the item

map information it should be kept in mind that students at different grades demonstrated these reading abilities with grade-appropriate reading materials.

(277) Provide textual support for a story

level theme

(277) Interpret and relate a metaphor to

story character

(266) Relate another person to story

character

(265) Make a judgment by relating

text to prior knowledge

(245) Recognize cause of character’s

feelings

(243) Use narrative context to define a

specific phrase

(240) Identify character’s perspective

on story event

(235) Recognize reason for character’s

feelings

(226) Identify explicitly stated cause

of action

(306) Provide and explain an alternative

ending

(303) Describe important lesson learned

by characters

Source: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments.
9 4

(304) Summarize major information

(296) Compare article information to

present day

(247) Describe the major ideas in an

informative article

(244) Use specific text details to explain

personal reaction

(238) Recognize a text element used by

author to convey information

(237) Infer and identify a connection

between text ideas

(227) Select specific text information to

make a comparison

(273) Explain importance of supporting

idea to main topic

(265) Identify causal relation between

historical events

(262) Provide specific text information

to support a generalization

(261) Explain author’s purpose for

using direct quotations

(260) Explain reason for major event

(252) Recognize text element that

contributes to its credibility

(246) Recognize information included by

author to persuade reader

(244) Describe explicitly stated supporting

ideas about one topic

(244) Recognize significance of article’s

central idea

(240) Use text and/or illustration to define

a specific term

(230) Use explicitly stated text information

to provide a description

NOTE: In this graphic illustration, the locations of scale points are

necessarily approximate for questions clustered closely together.

500

350

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

(306) Discuss author’s presentation of

information with supporting examples

(302) Restate text information as persuasive

argument

(290) Use text and prior knowledge to

describe personal reaction to

historical events

NAEP

Scale

GRADE 4 GRADE 8 GRADE 12

Figure 6.5 Map of Selected Items on the Reading to Gain Information Subscale for Grades 4, 8, and 12

Each reading question was mapped onto the NAEP informational subscale based on students’ performance. The point on the subscale at which a question is positioned on the

map represents the subscale score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of successfully answering the question. Thus, it can be said for each question and its

corresponding subscale score – students with proficiency scores above that point on the subscale have a greater than 65 percent chance of successfully answering the question,

while those below that point on the subscale have a less than 65 percent chance. (The probability was set at 74 percent for multiple-choice questions.) In interpreting the item

map information it should be kept in mind that students at different grades demonstrated these reading abilities with grade-appropriate reading materials.

(222) Identify major topic of article

(214) Use text information to make a

description

(209) Retrieve relevant information stated

in article

(200) Recognize information explicitly

stated in text

(188) Identify main reason for reading an

article

(209) Explain major idea in article

(173) Retrieve two explicitly stated facts

from article

(206) Use text information to provide

personal reaction

(275) Make a causal inference based on

text ideas

(274) Provide text information to support

a generalization

(266) Explain the purpose of specific text

elements

(261) Explain causal relationship between

major (historical) events

(259) Identify supporting idea of editorial’s

argument

(341) Interpret author’s belief and provide

appropriate supporting example

(340) Explain relevance of major issue in a

speech to present day

(327) Interpret text of a speech to infer and

describe the character of its author

(322) Describe different perspectives in

varying accounts of an event

(317) Use highly-detailed text information

and prior knowledge to describe a

similarity and a difference

(306) Provide example of difference between

two editorials

(303) Contrast content of two varying

accounts of an event

(297) Interpret historical text to make causal

inference

(291) Describe topic common to different

passages

(290) Describe purpose for reading multiple

sources

(281) Explain usefulness of two specific

sources

(278) Identify generalization that best

describes major topic

Source: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments.
9 5

(290) Recognize author’s device to

convey information

(287) Relate text information to hypothetical

situation

(279) Describe difficulty of a task in a

different context

(269) Extract embedded tabular information

from a schedule

(268) Use task direction and prior knowledge

to make a comparison

(259) Infer and explain reason for structural

feature of a document

(255) Recognize key information about how

to complete a task

(313) Suggest improvements to a

document’s form

(312) Interpret embedded information

to provide explanation

(311) Summarize information to describe

a task

(306) Suggest organizing mode/principle

and explain

(304) Use information in article to write

a formal letter

(248) Recognize usefulness of document’s

key feature

(237) Explain major purpose for performing

a task

Figure 6.6 Map of Selected Items on the Reading to Perform a Task Subscale for Grades 8 and 12

Each reading question was mapped onto the NAEP task subscale based on students’ performance. The point on the subscale at which a question is positioned on the map

represents the subscale score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of successfully answering the question. Thus, it can be said for each question and its

corresponding subscale score – students with proficiency scores above that point on the subscale have a greater than 65 percent chance of successfully answering the question,

while those below that point on the subscale have a less than 65 percent chance. (The probability was set at 74 percent for multiple-choice questions.) In interpreting the item

map information it should be kept in mind that students at different grades demonstrated these reading abilities with grade-appropriate reading materials.

NOTE: In this graphic illustration, the locations of scale points are

necessarily approximate for questions clustered closely together.

500

350

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

(270) Recognize organizational structure

of document

(263) Extract embedded tabular information

from a schedule

(260) Use task directions and prior

knowledge to make a comparison

(276) Follow directions to completely fill out

a form

(351) Interpret schedule to explain

discrepancy

(336) Explain reason for document

organization

(324) Summarize information to describe

a task

(316) Intepret context for use of a specific

form

(312) Locate qualifying information in a

highly-detailed document

(306) Suggest improvements to a

document’s form

(305) Follow form and content directions to

compose a letter

(298) Recognize author’s device to convey

information

(285) Relate text information to hypothetical

situation

NAEP

Scale

GRADE 4 GRADE 8 GRADE 12

(Reading to Perform a Task

was not assessed at grade 4.)

(220) Explain personal reaction to performing

a task

(239) Recognize usefulness of document’s

key feature

(227) Explain personal reaction to

performing a task

(220) Extract information from a schedule

Source: National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments.
9 6

Endnotes

1. Reading Framework for the 1992 and 1994 National

Assessment of Educational Progress. National

Assessment Governing Board. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office. (p. 6)

2. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The transactional theory of

reading and writing. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, &

H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of

reading (pp. 1057-1092). Newark DE: International

Reading Association.

Langer, J. A. (1990). The processes of understanding:

Reading for literary and informative purposes.

Research in the Teaching of English, 24(3), 229-259.

3. The 65 percent criteria (74 percent for multiplechoice questions) was selected because of

its potential for yielding the most appropriate

information about students’ reading abilities.

See Appendix B for further details.
9 7

The framework’s purpose was to provide a definition

of reading on which to base the NAEP assessment.

Developing this framework and the specifications that

guided development of the assessment involved the

critical input of hundreds of individuals across the

country, including representatives of national education

organizations, teachers, parents, policy makers,

business leaders, and the interested general public. This

consensus process was managed by the Council of Chief

State School Officers for the National Assessment

Governing Board.

The framework sets forth a broad definition of

“reading literacy” that entails not only being able to

read but also knowing when to read, how to read, and

how to reflect on what has been read. In addition, the

framework views reading as an interactive process in

which the reader’s abilities, interests, and prior

knowledge interact with the text and the context of the

reading situation as meaning construction occurs.

The aspects of reading literacy described by the

reading framework, including purposes for reading and

reading stances, are presented in Figure A.1. This figure

also provides examples of questions that were used to

assess the different purposes for reading via the four

reading stances.

APPENDIX A

Overview of Procedures

Used in NAEP’s 1994

Reading Assessment

Introduction

The conduct of a large-scale assessment of educational

progress entails the successful coordination of a

multitude of projects, committees, procedures, and

tasks. This appendix provides an overview of the 1994

reading assessment’s primary components —

framework, development, administration, scoring, and

analysis. A more extensive review of procedures and

methods utilized in the reading assessment will be

included in two subsequent technical reports: The NAEP

1994 Technical Report and Technical Report of the

NAEP 1994 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading.

NAEP’s Reading Assessment

Framework

The reading framework underlying NAEP’s 1994

assessment embodies a view of reading that reflects

current consensus among educators and researchers

about the nature of reading comprehension. This

framework was the same as that used in the 1992 NAEP

reading assessment, permitting analyses of trends in

reading performance.
9 8

Constructing, Extending, and Examining Meaning

Initial

Understanding

Requires the reader to provide an

initial impression or unreflected

understanding of what was read.

Personal Reflection

and Response

Requires the reader to connect

knowledge from the text with his/

her own personal background

knowledge. The focus here is on

how the text relates to personal

knowledge.

Demonstrating a

Critical Stance

Requires the reader to stand apart

from the text and consider it.

Developing an

Interpretation

Requires the reader to go beyond

the initial impression to develop a

more complete understanding of

what was read.

How did the plot develop?

How did this character change

from the beginning to the end of the

story?

How did this character change your

idea of ?

Is this story similar to or different

from your own experiences?

Rewrite this story with

 as a setting or

 as a character.

How does this author’s use

of (irony,

personification, humor)

contribute to ?

What is the story/plot about?

How would you describe the

main character?

What caused this event?

In what ways are these ideas

important to the topic or theme?

What current event does this remind

you of?

Does this description fit what you

know about ? Why?

How useful would this article be for

?

Explain.

What could be added to improve

the author’s argument?

What does this article

tell you about ?

What does the author think about

this topic?

What will be the result of this step in

the directions?

What must you do before this step?

In order to , what

information would you need to find

that you don’t know right now?

Describe a situation where you could

leave out step X.

Why is this information needed?

What would happen if you omitted

this?

What is this supposed to help

you do?

What time can you get a non-stop

flight to X?

Figure A.1 1992 and 1994 NAEP Framework — Aspects of Reading Literacy

Reading for

Literary

Experience

Reading to Gain

Information

Reading to

Perform a Task
9 9

The assessment framework specified not only the

particular aspects of reading literacy to be measured,

but also the percentage of the assessment questions that

should be devoted to each. The target percentage

distributions of reading purposes and reading stances as

specified in the framework, along with the actual

percentage distributions in the assessment are

presented in Tables A.1 and A.2. The actual content of

the assessment was highly consistent with the targeted

distribution with one exception: the proportion of

Personal Response questions fell below the target

proportion in the framework. The Reading Instrument

Development Panel overseeing the development of the

assessment recognized this difference, but felt strongly

that the questions developed for the assessment must be

sensitive to the unique elements of each piece of

authentic reading material being used. Thus, the

distribution of question classifications will vary across

reading passages, reading purposes, and grades.

The Assessment Design

Students participating in the assessment received

booklets containing general background questions,

reading materials and comprehension questions,

reading-specific background questions, and questions

about their motivation and familiarity with the

assessment tasks. The same booklets were used for the

national and state assessments. Reading materials that

served as stimuli and their corresponding questions

were assembled into sets or “blocks”. Students were

given either two 25-minute blocks or one 50-minute

block of reading passages and questions. At the fourth

grade, only 25-minute blocks were used.

The grade 4 assessment consisted of eight 25-

minute blocks: four blocks of literary materials and

questions and four blocks of informative materials and

questions. Each block contained at least one passage

corresponding to one of the reading purposes and 9 to

12 multiple-choice and constructed-response questions.

In each block, one of the constructed-response

questions required an extended response. As a whole,

the fourth-grade assessment consisted of 39 multiplechoice questions, 37 short constructed-response

questions, and 8 extended response questions.

The grade 8 assessment consisted of nine 25-minute

blocks (three literary, three informative, and three task)

and two 50-minute blocks (one literary and one

informative). As with the fourth-grade blocks, each

contained at least one passage corresponding to one of

the reading purposes and 8 to 13 multiple-choice and

constructed-response questions. Each block contained

at least one extended-response question. As a whole, the

eighth-grade assessment consisted of 41 multiple-choice

questions, 65 short constructed-response questions, and

16 extended response questions.

The grade 12 assessment consisted of nine 25-

minute blocks (three literary, three informative, and

three task) and three 50-minute blocks (one literary and

two informative). The blocks contained at least one

Reading Purpose

Grade 4

Target 55 45 **

Actual 50 50 **

Grade 8

Target 40 40 20

Actual 36 36 28

Grade 12

Target 35 45 20

Actual 33 42 25

** Reading to Perform a Task was not assessed at grade 4.

Literary

Experience

Gain

Information

Perform

Task

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Target and Actual Percentage

Distribution of Questions by

Grade and Reading Purpose

TABLE A.1

Reading Stance

Grade 4

Target 33 33 33

Actual 49 25 27

Grade 8

Target 33 33 33

Actual 50 20 30

Grade 12

Target 33 33 33

Actual 46 19 35

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

recognized that making discrete classifications for these categories is difficult and that independent efforts to

classify NAEP questions have led to different results.

Inital

Understanding/

Developing an

Interpretation

Personal

Response

Critical

Stance

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Target and Actual Percentage

Distribution of Questions by

Grade and Reading Stance

TABLE A.2
100

passage and 8 to 16 multiple-choice and constructedresponse questions. Similar to the eighth grade

assessment, each block contained at least one extended

response question. As a whole, the twelfth-grade

assessment contained 44 multiple-choice questions, 72

short constructed-response questions, and 16 extended

response questions.

The 50-minute literary blocks at grades 8 and 12

were part of a special study called The NAEP Reader, in

which students were given a compendium of seven short

stories and allowed to select one to read for the

assessment. The design of this study made it possible to

examine the effects of choice on an assessment of

reading comprehension. The results from this special

study are not included as part of the 1994 NAEP reading

scaling. However, a subsequent report is planned that

will present the study findings.

The assessment design allowed for maximum

coverage of reading abilities at each grade, while

minimizing the time burden for any one student. This

was accomplished through the use of matrix sampling,

in which representative samples of students take various

portions of the entire pool of assessment questions.

Individual students are required to take only a small

part, but the aggregate results across the entire

assessment allow for broad reporting of reading abilities

for the targeted population.

In addition to matrix sampling, the assessment

design utilized a procedure for distributing booklets

that controlled for position and balance effects. Students

received different blocks of passages and comprehension

questions in their booklets according to a procedure

called “partially balanced incomplete block (BIB)

spiraling.” This procedure assigned blocks of questions

in a manner that balanced the positioning of blocks

across booklets and balanced the pairing of blocks

within booklets according to reading purposes. Blocks

were balanced within each reading purpose and were

partially balanced across reading purposes. The spiraling

aspect of this procedure cycles the booklets for

administration, so that typically only a few students in

any assessment session receive the same booklet.

Teacher and School Questionnaires

One of the most important parts of NAEP’s efforts to

document the nature of students’ achievement is the

collection of contextual information regarding students’

school experiences. As a part of the 1994 reading

assessment, NAEP administered a questionnaire to

teachers responsible for teaching reading to students

who participated in the fourth- or eighth-grade reading

assessments. In addition, the principals or other

administrators of sampled schools at all grades were

asked to complete a school questionnaire. These

questionnaires were developed under the oversight of an

expert panel. These instruments focused on five areas:

instructional content, instructional practices and

experiences, teacher characteristics, school conditions

and contexts, and conditions outside the school (i.e.,

home support, out-of-school activities, and attitudes).

The fourth- and eighth-grade reading teacher

questionnaires were composed of two sections each.

One section contained questions about teachers’

background, education, and resources. Another section

posed questions to teachers about their recent exposure

to training in various areas of reading, the structure and

nature of their classroom instruction, and the types of

materials and approaches they use in teaching reading.

Because the sampling of teachers for the teacher

questionnaires was based on participating students, the

teachers’ questionnaire responses do not necessarily

represent all fourth- and eighth-grade teachers in the

nation, or in a region, or in a participating jurisdiction

for the Trial State Assessment. Rather, they represent

teachers of the representative sample of students in the

assessment. Consequently, these findings portray the

nature of students’ instructional experiences and the

background of their teachers.

It is important to note that in this report, as in all

NAEP reports, the student is the unit of analysis —

even when information from teacher or school

questionnaires is being reported. Using the student as

the unit of analysis makes it possible to link students’

performance with their instructional and background

experiences, thus providing a rich source of relevant

information for educators and researchers. Although

this approach may provide a different perspective from

other studies that simply report information about

teachers or schools, it is consistent with NAEP’s goal of

providing information about the educational context

and performance of students.

Some students selected for the assessment were

judged by school authorities to be incapable of

participating in the assessment because they had limited

English language proficiency, were mildly mentally

retarded (educable), or were functionally disabled. (See

Limited English Proficient and Individualized Education

Plan section in this Appendix.) For each student

excluded from the assessment, schools were required to

complete a questionnaire about the characteristics of

that student and the reason for exclusion.

Tables A.3a and A.3b present the questionnaire

response rates for each participating jurisdiction.
101

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Questionnaire Response Rates, Grade 4,

1994 Reading Assessment – Public Schools

TABLE A.3a

Weighted Percentage Percentage of Weighted Percentage Percentage of Percentage of

of Students Matched Reading Teacher of Students Matched School Characteristics/ Excluded Student

Public to Reading Teacher Questionnaires to School Characteristics/ Policies Questionnaires Questionnaires

Schools Questionnaires Returned Policies Questionnaire Returned Returned

Nation 94.7 95.0 94.5 95.1 93.3

Northeast 94.5 93.5 91.2 91.7 92.8

Southeast 96.2 96.3 97.7 96.7 95.4

Central 94.7 96.6 100.0 100.0 95.1

West 93.5 93.8 90.1 92.4 91.6

States

Alabama 99.0 99.0 100.0 100.0 98.4

Arizona 98.8 98.7 99.2 99.0 99.7

Arkansas 99.3 99.4 99.0 99.0 99.1

California 96.8 96.2 99.0 99.0 97.3

Colorado 96.7 98.1 97.8 98.0 97.6

Connecticut 98.0 98.7 98.1 97.9 99.4

Delaware 98.3 98.2 100.0 100.0 98.4

Florida 94.0 98.4 99.4 99.4 99.5

Georgia 98.0 99.8 100.0 100.0 98.2

Hawaii 98.2 99.2 97.9 97.9 99.4

Idaho 97.7 98.5 100.0 100.0 99.4

Indiana 97.8 99.7 100.0 100.0 98.8

Iowa 96.5 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0

Kentucky 97.1 98.6 100.0 100.0 99.2

Louisiana 98.9 99.5 100.0 100.0 99.7

Maine 98.7 99.5 100.0 100.0 99.6

Maryland 97.6 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Massachusetts 98.7 98.4 100.0 100.0 99.8

Michigan 96.0 98.1 97.9 97.7 100.0

Minnesota 95.5 97.3 100.0 100.0 95.0

Mississippi 98.4 99.4 100.0 100.0 98.8

Missouri 98.7 99.8 99.2 99.3 100.0

Montana 99.2 99.1 100.0 100.0 95.3

Nebraska 97.7 100.0 99.2 99.4 99.8

New Hampshire 99.3 98.5 100.0 100.0 99.7

New Jersey 97.9 98.7 100.0 100.0 98.8

New Mexico 96.4 98.3 98.8 99.0 100.0

New York 99.8 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0

North Carolina 95.7 99.5 98.9 98.8 99.8

North Dakota 99.0 99.6 100.0 100.0 98.9

Pennsylvania 97.2 99.4 100.0 100.0 99.6

Rhode Island 98.1 99.4 97.9 97.6 99.7

South Carolina 96.7 99.4 100.0 100.0 99.7

Tennessee 99.2 99.4 98.9 98.5 100.0

Texas 98.0 99.0 100.0 100.0 98.3

Utah 99.4 98.7 98.2 98.5 99.4

Virginia 98.6 99.1 100.0 100.0 97.4

Washington 94.4 99.3 100.0 100.0 98.8

West Virginia 95.2 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Wisconsin 97.1 96.9 100.0 100.0 99.7

Wyoming 96.2 99.7 97.9 96.2 99.4

Other Jurisdictions

Guam 76.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.2

DoDEA Overseas 96.8 99.1 96.5 96.1 99.2

Note: For the nation and regions, the percentage of excluded student questionnaires returned is based on students sampled for all subjects assessed in 1994 (reading, U.S. history, and world geography). However, based on the sampling

design, these rates also are the best estimates of the comparable rates for the reading assessment.

DoDEA — Department of Defense Education Activity Overseas Schools

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment.
102

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Questionnaire Response Rates, Grade 4,

1994 Reading Assessment – Nonpublic Schools

Weighted Percentage Percentage of Weighted Percentage Percentage of Percentage of

of Students Matched Reading Teacher of Students Matched School Characteristics/ Excluded Student

Nonpublic to Reading Teacher Questionnaires to School Characteristics/ Policies Questionnaires Questionnaires

Schools Questionnaires Returned Policies Questionnaire Returned Returned

Nation 95.9 97.7 100.0 100.0 95.1

Northeast 100.0 97.2 100.0 100.0 91.9

Southeast 92.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 85.7

Central 96.8 97.2 100.0 100.0 99.1

West 91.5 96.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

States

Alabama 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Arizona * 100.0 * 100.0 100.0

Arkansas 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

California 99.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 —

Colorado 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 —

Connecticut 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Delaware 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Florida 92.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Georgia 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Hawaii 94.4 97.1 94.3 92.1 100.0

Idaho 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Indiana 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Iowa 94.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Kentucky 97.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Louisiana 100.0 97.1 100.0 100.0 100.0

Maine 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Maryland 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Massachusetts 93.4 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Michigan * — * — —

Minnesota 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mississippi 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Missouri 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Montana 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nebraska 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

New Hampshire * 100.0 * 100.0 100.0

New Jersey 95.3 95.7 100.0 100.0 100.0

New Mexico 83.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

New York 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

North Carolina * 100.0 * 100.0 —

North Dakota 99.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Pennsylvania 97.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Rhode Island 87.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

South Carolina 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 —

Tennessee * 100.0 * 100.0 —

Texas * 100.0 * 100.0 —

Utah * 100.0 * 100.0 —

Virginia 99.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Washington * — * — —

West Virginia 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Wisconsin 100.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

Wyoming * — * — —

Other Jurisdictions

Guam 67.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 —

Note: For the nation and regions, the percentage of excluded student questionnaires returned is based on students sampled for all subjects assessed in 1994 (reading, U.S. history, and world geography). However, based on the sampling

design, these rates also are the best estimates of the comparable rates for the reading assessment. *Due to the small number of schools comprising the state’s nonpublic school sample, weighted student participation rates are not

calculated. For DoDEA (Department of Defense Education Activity Overseas Schools), all non-domestic schools are considered public schools.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment.

TABLE A.3b
103

National and State Sampling

The national and regional results presented in this

report are based on nationally representative probability

samples of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students.

The samples were selected using a complex multistage

sampling design involving the sampling of students from

selected schools within selected geographic areas across

the country. The sample design had the following stages:

1) selection of geographic areas (counties or groups of

counties);

2) selection of schools (both public and nonpublic)

within the selected areas; and

3) selection of students within selected schools.

Each selected school that participated in the

assessment, and each student assessed, represents a

portion of the population of interest. To make valid

inferences from the student samples to the respective

populations from which they were drawn, sampling

weights are needed. Sampling weights account for

disproportionate representation due to oversampling of

students attending schools with a high concentration of

Black and/or Hispanic students, and from nonpublic

schools. Lower sampling rates for very small schools

must also be accounted for with the sampling weights.

Table A.4 provides a summary of the weighted and

unweighted student sample sizes for the national

reading assessment. The numbers reported include both

public and nonpublic school students.

The results of the 1994 Trial State Assessment

Program provided in this report are based on state-level

samples of fourth graders. The samples of both public

and nonpublic school fourth-grade students were

selected based on a two-stage sample design that

entailed selecting schools within participating states

and selecting students within schools. The first-stage

samples of schools were selected with probability

proportional to the fourth-grade enrollment in the

schools. Special procedures were used for states with

many small schools and for jurisdictions with a small

number of schools.

As with the national samples, the state samples

were weighted to allow for valid inferences about

the populations of interest. Table A.5 contains the

unweighted number of participating schools and

students as well as weighted school and student

participation rates. Two weighted school participation

rates are provided for each jurisdiction. The first is the

weighted percentage of schools participating in the

assessment before substitution. This rate is based only

on those schools that were initially selected for the

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Unweighted and Weighted Sample Size by Grade for the

1994 Reading Assessment, Public and Nonpublic Schools

Unweighted Sample Size (and Percent of Total)

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Nation 7,382 (100.0%) 10,135 (100.0%) 9,935 (100.0%)

Region

Northeast 1,816 ( 24.6%) 1,918 ( 18.9%) 2,289 ( 23.0%)

Southeast 1,888 ( 25.6%) 3,132 ( 30.9%) 2,777 ( 28.0%)

Central 1,571 ( 21.3%) 2,149 ( 21.2%) 2,005 ( 20.2%)

West 2,107 ( 28.6%) 2,936 ( 29.0%) 2,864 ( 28.8%)

Weighted Sample Size (and Percent of Total)

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Nation 3,527,410 (100.0%) 2,245,276 (100.0%) 1,811,014 (100.0%)

Region

Northeast 800,903 ( 22.7%) 459,134 ( 20.5%) 366,999 ( 20.3%)

Southeast 826,167 ( 23.4%) 581,039 ( 25.9%) 423,235 ( 23.4%)

Central 870,268 ( 24.7%) 542,615 ( 24.2%) 488,863 ( 27.0%)

West 1,030,072 ( 29.2%) 662,489 ( 29.5%) 531,917 ( 29.4%)

Percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

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

TABLE A.4
104

assessment. The numerator of this rate is the sum of

the number of students represented by each initially

selected school that participated in the assessment. The

denominator is the sum of the number of students

represented by each of the initially selected schools

found to have eligible students enrolled. This included

both participating and nonparticipating schools.

The second school participation rate is the weighted

participation rate after substitution. The numerator

of this rate is the sum of the number of students

represented by each of the participating schools,

whether originally selected or substituted. The

denominator is the same as that for the weighted

participation rate for the initial sample. This means

that, for a given jurisdiction, the weighted participation

rate after substitution is always at least as great as the

weighted participation rate before substitutions.

Also presented in Tables A.5a and A.5b are the

weighted percentages of students participating after

make-up sessions. This rate reflects the percentage of

the eligible student population from participating

schools within the jurisdiction that are represented

by the students who participated in the assessment

(in either an initial session or a make-up session). The

numerator of this rate is the sum, across all assessed

students, of the number of students represented by each

assessed student. The denominator is the sum of the

number of students represented by each selected

student who was invited and eligible to participate,

including students who did not participate.

In carrying out the 1994 Trial State Assessment, the

National Center for Education Statistics established

participation rate standards that jurisdictions were

required to meet in order for their results to be reported.

(See footnoted jurisdictions in Table A.5.) Additional

standards were also established that required the

annotation of published results for jurisdictions whose

sample participation rates were low enough to raise

concerns about their representativeness.

Two states, Idaho and Michigan, failed to meet the

initial public school participation rate of 70 percent.

For these two states, results for fourth-grade public

school students are not reported in this or any report

of 1994 NAEP findings. Several other jurisdictions for

which results are published are flagged to note the

potential for non-response bias associated with schoollevel non-response.

The following eighteen states failed to meet the

initial nonpublic school participation rate of 70 percent:

Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York,

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,

Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. For these states,

results for fourth-grade nonpublic school students

are not reported in this or any report of 1994 NAEP

findings. As with public schools, several other

jurisdictions for which nonpublic school results are

published are flagged to note the potential for nonresponse bias associated with school-level non-response.

NCES standards specify weighted school participation rates of at least 85 percent to guard against

potential bias due to school non-response.

A jurisdiction will receive a notation if its weighted

participation rate for the initial sample of schools

was below 85 percent AND the weighted school

participation rate after substitution was below

90 percent.

Six states did not meet this guideline for public

schools: Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Nine states did

not meet this guideline for nonpublic schools: Colorado,

Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

For jurisdictions that did not use substitute schools,

the participation rates were based on participating

schools from the original sample. The first part of this

guideline, referring to the weighted school participation

rate for the initial sample of schools, is in direct

accordance with NCES standards. To help ensure

adequate sample representation for each jurisdiction

participating in the 1994 Trial State Assessment Program,

NAEP provided substitutes for nonparticipating public

and nonpublic schools. When possible, a substitute

school was provided for each initially selected school that

declined participation before November 15, 1993. For

jurisdictions that used substitute schools, the assessment

results were based on the student data from all schools

participating from both the original sample and the

list of substitutes (unless both an initial school and its

substitute eventually participated, in which case only the

data from the initial school were used).

The NCES standards do not explicitly address the

use of substitute schools to replace initially selected

schools that decide not to participate in the assessment.

However, considerable technical consideration was given

to this issue. Even though the characteristics of the

substitute schools were matched as closely as possible to

the characteristics of the initially selected schools,

substitution does not entirely eliminate bias due to the

nonparticipation of initially selected schools. Thus, for

the weighted school participation rates including

substitute schools, the guideline was set at 90 percent.
105

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


School and Student Participation Rates by State for the 1994

Trial State Assessment, Grade 4, Public Schools Only

Weighted Percentage Weighted Percentage Total Number of Weighted Percentage

Public School Participation School Participation Schools That Student Participation Total Number of

Schools Before Substitution After Substitution Participated After Make-ups Students Assessed

Nation 86 87 227 95 6,030

Region

Northeast 93 93 49 94 1,367

Southeast 91 93 61 95 1,649

Central 85 87 52 95 1,184

West 77 77 65 95 1,830

States

Alabama 87 93 99 96 2,646

Arizona 99 99 104 94 2,651

Arkansas 86 94 97 96 2,535

California 80 91 97 94 2,252

Colorado 100 100 108 94 2,730

Connecticut 96 96 101 96 2,577

Delaware 100 100 51 96 2,239

Florida 100 100 107 94 2,666

Georgia 99 99 105 95 2,766

Hawaii 99 99 104 95 2,732

Idaho1 69 91 98 96 2,598

Indiana 83 92 100 96 2,655

Iowa 85 99 107 96 2,759

Kentucky 88 96 101 97 2,758

Louisiana 100 100 103 96 2,713

Maine 94 97 104 94 2,436

Maryland 94 96 100 95 2,555

Massachusetts 97 97 99 95 2,517

Michigan1 63 80 83 95 2,142

Minnesota 86 95 100 95 2,655

Mississippi 95 99 103 97 2,762

Missouri 96 98 105 95 2,670

Montana3 85 89 111 96 2,501

Nebraska2 71 77 109 95 2,395

New Hampshire2 71 79 86 96 2,197

New Jersey 85 91 96 95 2,509

New Mexico 100 100 105 95 2,635

New York 75 91 96 95 2,495

North Carolina 99 99 105 96 2,832

North Dakota 80 91 117 97 2,544

Pennsylvania2 80 84 89 94 2,290

Rhode Island2 80 86 92 95 2,341

South Carolina 95 97 102 96 2,707

Tennessee2 72 74 76 96 1,998

Texas 91 93 98 96 2,454

Utah 100 100 105 95 2,733

Virginia 98 99 105 95 2,719

Washington 100 100 104 94 2,737

West Virginia 99 100 111 96 2,757

Wisconsin2 79 86 91 96 2,331

Wyoming 98 98 112 96 2,699

Other Jurisdictions

Guam 100 100 21 96 2,203

DoDEA 99 99 81 95 2,413

1

 State’s public school weighted participation rate for the initial sample was less than 70 percent. NCES reporting guidelines prohibit the reporting of results for these two states. 2

 The state’s public school weighted participation rate for the initial sample of schools was below 85 percent AND the weighted school participation rate after substitution was below 90 percent. 3

 The nonparticipating public schools included a class of schools with similar characteristics, which together account for more than 5 percent of the state’s total fourth-grade weighted sample of public schools.

DoDEA — Department of Defense Education Activity Overseas Schools

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

TABLE A.5a
106

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


School and Student Participation Rates by State for the 1994

Trial State Assessment, Grade 4, Nonpublic Schools Only

Weighted Percentage Weighted Percentage Total Number of Weighted Percentage

Nonpublic School Participation School Participation Schools That Student Participation Total Number of

Schools Before Substitution After Substitution Participated After Make-ups Students Assessed

Nation 87 87 89 97 1,352

Region

Northeast 82 82 26 98 449

Southeast 90 90 17 94 239

Central 97 97 27 97 387

West 80 80 19 98 277

States

Alabama 92 96 9 95 199

Arizona1 35 35 3 * 69

Arkansas 81 94 7 95 154

California1 42 51 6 97 149

Colorado2 71 85 8 94 130

Connecticut2 73 82 13 95 290

Delaware2 73 73 22 98 544

Florida1 52 73 11 98 267

Georgia2 74 84 9 97 217

Hawaii2 80 88 19 96 415

Idaho 89 89 7 96 94

Indiana 85 85 10 95 219

Iowa 100 100 16 99 327

Kentucky2 70 85 12 97 278

Louisiana3 82 91 19 97 457

Maine 79 100 8 95 85

Maryland1 63 70 11 97 275

Massachusetts 95 100 15 96 302

Michigan1 0 0 0 * 0

Minnesota 91 99 20 96 390

Mississippi1 64 64 7 96 156

Missouri 90 90 19 95 372

Montana1 65 65 7 94 148

Nebraska1 48 48 11 97 211

New Hampshire1 54 54 5 * 116

New Jersey2 76 76 17 96 379

New Mexico 100 100 9 92 191

New York1 40 62 15 96 369

North Carolina1 32 32 2 * 49

North Dakota 77 91 14 93 253

Pennsylvania2 72 72 17 94 427

Rhode Island 93 93 17 96 354

South Carolina1 69 86 7 98 156

Tennessee1 41 41 4 * 83

Texas1 24 39 3 * 79

Utah1 23 23 1 * 32

Virginia2 81 81 8 96 151

Washington1 0 0 0 * 0

West Virginia 86 86 7 97 130

Wisconsin1 66 66 20 95 388

Wyoming1 0 0 0 * 0

Other Jurisdictions

Guam 96 96 9 98 372

1

 State’s nonpublic school weighted participation rate for the initial sample was less than 70 percent. NCES reporting guidelines prohibit the reporting of results for these eighteen states. 2

 The state’s nonpublic school weighted participation rate for the initial sample of schools was below 85 percent AND the weighted school participation rate after substitution was below 90 percent.

3

 The nonparticipating nonpublic schools included a class of schools with similar characteristics, which together account for more than 5 percent of the state’s total fourth-grade weighted sample of nonpublic schools.

*Due to the small number of schools comprising the state’s nonpublic school sample, weighted student participation rates are not calculated. For DoDEA (Department of Defense Education Activity Overseas Schools), all non-domestic

schools are considered public schools.

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

TABLE A.5b
107

The NCES standards specify that attention should be

given to the representativeness of the sample coverage.

Thus, if some important segment of the jurisdiction’s

population was not adequately represented, this was of

concern, regardless of the overall participation rate.

Montana (for public schools) and Louisiana (for

nonpublic schools) failed to meet the following NCES

guideline concerning strata-specific participation rates.

A jurisdiction with otherwise adequate weighted

school participation will receive a notation if the

nonparticipating schools included a class of

schools with similar characteristics, which

together accounted for more than five percent of

the jurisdiction’s total fourth-grade weighted sample

of schools. The classes of schools from each of

which a jurisdiction needed minimum school

participation levels were by degree of urbanization,

minority enrollment, and median household

income of the area in which the school is located.

This guideline addresses the concern that, if

nonparticipating schools were concentrated within a

particular class of schools, the potential for substantial

bias remained, even if the overall level of school

participation appeared to be satisfactory. Nonresponse

adjustment cells for schools were formed within each

jurisdiction, and the schools within each cell were

similar with respect to minority enrollment, degree of

urbanization, and/or median household income, as

appropriate for each jurisdiction. If more than 5 percent

(weighted) of the sample schools (after substitution)

were nonparticipants from a single adjustment cell,

then the potential for nonresponse bias was too great.

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

and Individualized Education Plan

(IEP) Students

It is NAEP’s intent to assess all selected students.

Therefore, every effort is made to ensure that all

selected students who are capable of participating in the

assessment are assessed. Some students sampled for

participation in NAEP can be excused from the sample

according to carefully defined criteria, however.

Specifically, some students identified as having Limited

English Proficiency (LEP) or having an Individualized

Education Plan (IEP) may be incapable of participating

meaningfully in the assessment. These students are

identified as follows:

LEP students may be excluded from the assessment if

© the student is a native speaker of a language other

than English; AND

© the student has been enrolled in an Englishspeaking school less than two years; AND

© the student is judged to be incapable of taking part

in the assessment.

IEP students may be excluded if

© the student is mainstreamed less than 50 percent of

the time in academic subjects and is judged to be

incapable of taking part in the assessment, OR

© the IEP team has determined that the student is

incapable of taking part meaningfully in the

assessment.

When there is doubt, the student is included in the

assessment.

For each student excused from the assessment,

including those in the 1994 Trial State Assessment,

school personnel complete a questionnaire about the

characteristics of that student and the reason for

exclusion. Tables A.6 to A.9 present percentages of

public school and nonpublic school students excluded

(IEP and LEP) based on the original sample and based

on those invited to participate in the assessment.

Data Collection

The 1994 reading assessment was conducted from

January through March 1994, with some make-up

sessions in early April. As with all NAEP assessments,

data collection for the 1994 assessment was conducted

by a trained field staff. For the national assessment, this

was accomplished by Westat, Inc., staff. In keeping with

the legislative requirements of the Trial State

Assessment Program, the state reading assessments

were conducted by personnel from each of the

participating states. NAEP’s responsibilities included

selecting the sample of schools and students for each

participating state, developing the administration

procedures and manuals, training the personnel who

would conduct the assessments, and conducting an

extensive quality assurance program.

Each participating state and territory was asked to

appoint a state coordinator to be the liaison between

NAEP and participating schools. The state coordinator

was asked to gain the cooperation of selected schools,

assist in scheduling, provide information necessary for

sampling, and notify personnel about training. At the

local school level, the administrators — usually school

or district staff — were responsible for attending

training, identifying excluded students, distributing

school and teacher questionnaires, notifying sampled

students and their teachers, administering the

assessment session, completing the necessary

paperwork, and preparing the materials for shipment.
108

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Weighted Percentages of Students Excluded (IEP and LEP) from Original Sample, Grade 4

1994 Reading Assessment – Public Schools

Total Percentage

Students Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

Public Identified IEP Total Percentage Students Students Students Students

Schools and LEP Students Excluded Identified IEP Excluded IEP Identified LEP Excluded LEP

Nation 17 9 12 6 6 3

Northeast 14 8 13 7 1 1

Southeast 14 8 14 8 1 0

Central 14 8 12 7 2 1

West 25 11 10 5 15 7

States

Alabama 11 5 11 5 0 0

Arizona 21 7 11 5 11 3

Arkansas 12 6 12 6 0 0

California 31 12 10 5 23 9

Colorado 15 7 12 6 4 2

Connecticut 17 8 13 6 4 3

Delaware 15 6 14 6 1 1

Florida 22 10 18 9 5 2

Georgia 11 5 10 5 2 1

Hawaii 12 58451

Idaho 13 5 10 4 3 1

Indiana 11 5 11 5 0 0

Iowa 11 5 11 4 1 0

Kentucky 848400

Louisiana 11 6 11 6 1 0

Maine 17 10 16 9 1 1

Maryland 15 7 14 7 1 1

Massachusetts 18 8 15 5 5 3

Michigan 10 69610

Minnesota 12 4 10 4 2 1

Mississippi 969600

Missouri 12 5 12 5 0 0

Montana 11 4 11 3 1 0

Nebraska 16 4 15 4 1 1

New Hampshire 15 6 15 6 0 0

New Jersey 12 69432

New Mexico 18 8 14 6 4 2

New York 15 89563

North Carolina 15 5 14 5 1 1

North Dakota 10 29210

Pennsylvania 11 6 10 5 1 1

Rhode Island 15 5 12 4 3 1

South Carolina 13 7 13 7 0 0

Tennessee 13 6 13 6 0 0

Texas 24 11 13 7 13 5

Utah 12 5 11 5 2 1

Virginia 13 7 12 6 2 1

Washington 14 5 11 4 4 1

West Virginia 12 7 12 7 0 0

Wisconsin 13 7 11 7 2 1

Wyoming 11 4 11 4 1 0

Other Jurisdictions

Guam 12 95574

DoDEA Overseas 10 58421

IEP = Individual Education Plan and LEP = Limited English Proficiency. To be excluded, a student was supposed to be IEP or LEP and judged incapable of participating in the assessment. A student reported as both IEP and LEP is counted

once in the overall rate (first column), once in the overall excluded rate (second column), and separately in the remaining columns. Note: Weighted percentages for the nation and region are based on students sampled for all subject

areas assessed in 1994 (reading, U.S. history, and world geography). However, based on the national sampling design, the rates shown also are the best estimates for the reading assessment.

DoDEA — Department of Defense Education Activity Overseas Schools

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment.

TABLE A.6
109

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Weighted Percentages of Students Excluded (IEP and LEP) from Original Sample, Grade 4

1994 Reading Assessment – Nonpublic Schools

Total Percentage

Students Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

Nonpublic Identified IEP Total Percentage Students Students Students Students

Schools and LEP Students Excluded Identified IEP Excluded IEP Identified LEP Excluded LEP

Nation 212100

Northeast 212100

Southeast 615100

Central 000000

West 2 1 1 1 1 0

States

Alabama 212100

Arizona ******

Arkansas 513110

California 000000

Colorado 101000

Connecticut 724131

Delaware 202000

Florida 413110

Georgia 303000

Hawaii 211010

Idaho 14 0 14 0 0 0

Indiana 312110

Iowa 515100

Kentucky 101000

Louisiana 101000

Maine 202000

Maryland 212100

Massachusetts 525200

Michigan ******

Minnesota 424200

Mississippi 636300

Missouri 404000

Montana 101000

Nebraska 202000

New Hampshire ******

New Jersey 615010

New Mexico 22 13 14 11 11 3

New York 221111

North Carolina ******

North Dakota 17 4 11 3 9 1

Pennsylvania 301020

Rhode Island 502020

South Carolina 000000

Tennessee ******

Texas ******

Utah ******

Virginia 111110

Washington ******

West Virginia 212111

Wisconsin 202000

Wyoming ******

Other Jurisdictions

Guam 000000

IEP = Individual Education Plan and LEP = Limited English Proficiency. To be excluded, a student was supposed to be IEP or LEP and judged incapable of participating in the assessment. A student reported as both IEP and LEP is counted

once in the overall rate (first column), once in the overall excluded rate (second column), and separately in the remaining columns. Note: Weighted percentages for the nation and region are based on students sampled for all subject

areas assessed in 1994 (reading, U.S. history, and world geography). However, based on the national sampling design, the rates shown also are the best estimates for the reading assessment. *Due to the small number of schools

comprising the state’s nonpublic school sample, weighted student participation rates are not calculated. For DoDEA (Department of Defense Education Activity Overseas Schools), all non-domestic schools are considered public schools.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment.

TABLE A.7
110

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Weighted Percentages of Absent, IEP, and LEP Students Based on Those Invited to

Participate in the Assessment, Grade 4, 1994 Reading Assessment – Public Schools

Weighted

 Percentage Student Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted

Public Participation After Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

Schools Make-up Absent Assessed IEP Absent IEP Assessed LEP Absent LEP

Nation 95 5 92 8 92 8

Northeast 94 6 91 9 87 13

Southeast 95 5 93 7 100 0

Central 95 5 96 4 100 0

West 95 5 91 9 92 8

States

Alabama 96 4 94 6 67 33

Arizona 94 6 94 6 96 4

Arkansas 96 4 94 6 100 0

California 94 6 82 18 95 5

Colorado 94 6 93 7 95 5

Connecticut 96 4 95 5 97 3

Delaware 96 4 95 5 100 0

Florida 94 6 93 7 93 7

Georgia 95 5 98 2 88 12

Hawaii 95 5 91 9 99 1

Idaho 96 4 94 6 93 7

Indiana 96 4 96 4 86 14

Iowa 96 4 92 8 100 0

Kentucky 97 3 95 5 100 0

Louisiana 96 4 94 6 100 0

Maine 94 6 94 6 100 0

Maryland 95 5 96 4 100 0

Massachusetts 95 5 93 7 95 5

Michigan 95 5 96 4 84 16

Minnesota 95 5 98 2 97 3

Mississippi 97 3 99 1 100 0

Missouri 95 5 93 7 100 0

Montana 96 4 93 7 97 3

Nebraska 95 5 95 5 92 8

New Hampshire 96 4 95 5 100 0

New Jersey 95 5 93 7 98 2

New Mexico 95 5 93 7 97 3

New York 95 5 96 4 93 7

North Carolina 96 4 93 7 93 7

North Dakota 97 3 96 4 100 0

Pennsylvania 94 6 94 6 97 3

Rhode Island 95 5 93 7 97 3

South Carolina 96 4 95 5 100 0

Tennessee 96 4 88 12 100 0

Texas 96 4 97 3 98 2

Utah 95 5 92 8 97 3

Virginia 95 5 93 7 97 3

Washington 94 6 94 6 97 3

West Virginia 96 4 96 4 100 0

Wisconsin 96 4 94 6 100 0

Wyoming 96 4 96 4 88 12

Other Jurisdictions

Guam 96 4 100 0 91 9

DoDEA Overseas 95 5 88 12 95 5

IEP = Individual Education Plan and LEP = Limited English Proficiency. Note: Weighted percentages for the nation and region are based on students sampled for all subject areas assessed in 1994 (reading, U.S. history, and world

geography). However, based on the national sampling design, the rates shown also are the best estimates for the reading assessment.

DoDEA — Department of Defense Education Activity Overseas Schools

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment.

TABLE A.8
111

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Weighted Percentages of Absent, IEP, and LEP Students Based on Those Invited to

Participate in the Assessment, Grade 4, 1994 Reading Assessment – Nonpublic Schools

Weighted

 Percentage Student Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted

Nonpublic Participation After Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

Schools Make-up Absent Assessed IEP Absent IEP Assessed LEP Absent LEP

Nation 97 3 69 31 100 0

Northeast 98 2 82 18 100 0

Southeast 94 6 63 37 — —

Central 97 3 100 0 — —

West 98 2 50 50 100 0

States

Alabama 95 5 100 0 — —

Arizona * * ————

Arkansas 95 5 80 20 100 0

California 97 3 _———

Colorado 94 6 100 0 — —

Connecticut 95 5 100 0 100 0

Delaware 98 2 87 13 — —

Florida 98 2 67 33 100 0

Georgia 97 3 86 14 — —

Hawaii 96 4 100 0 100 0

Idaho 96 4 89 11 — —

Indiana 95 5 100 0 63 37

Iowa 99 1 94 6 — —

Kentucky 97 3 100 0 — —

Louisiana 97 3 100 0 100 0

Maine 95 5 100 0 — —

Maryland 97 3 100 0 — —

Massachusetts 96 4 100 0 — —

Michigan * * ————

Minnesota 96 4 100 0 — —

Mississippi 96 4 63 37 — —

Missouri 96 4 100 0 100 0

Montana 94 6 100 0 — —

Nebraska 97 3 100 0 — —

New Hampshire * * ————

New Jersey 96 4 83 17 100 0

New Mexico 92 8 89 11 92 8

New York 96 4 100 0 — —

North Carolina * * ————

North Dakota 93 7 86 14 94 6

Pennsylvania 94 6 100 0 90 10

Rhode Island 96 4 100 0 100 0

South Carolina 98 2 ————

Tennessee * * ————

Texas * * ————

Utah * * ————

Virginia 96 4 — — 100 0

Washington * * ————

West Virginia 97 3 100 0 — —

Wisconsin 95 5 75 25 — —

Wyoming * * ————

Other Jurisdictions

Guam 98 2 ————

IEP = Individual Education Plan and LEP = Limited English Proficiency. Note: Weighted percentages for the nation and region are based on students sampled for all subject areas assessed in 1994 (reading, U.S. history, and world

geography). However, based on the national sampling design, the rates shown also are the best estimates for the reading assessment. *Due to the small number of schools comprising the state’s nonpublic school sample, weighted

student participation rates are not calculated. For DoDEA (Department of Defense Education Activity Overseas Schools), all non-domestic schools are considered public schools.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment.

TABLE A.9
112

Westat staff trained assessment administrators

within the states in three and one-half hour sessions

that included videotape and practice exercises to provide

uniformity in procedures.

To provide quality control across states, a randomly

selected 25 percent of the state assessment sessions were

overseen by quality control monitors who were trained

Westat staff. For nonpublic schools and for states that had

not participated in the previous assessment, the percent

of monitored sessions was 50 percent. The identity of the

schools to be monitored was not revealed to state,

district, or school personnel until shortly before the

assessment was to commence. The analysis of the results

for the unmonitored schools as compared to the

monitored schools yielded no systematic differences that

would suggest different procedures were used. See the

Technical Report of the NAEP 1994 Trial State Assessment

in Reading for details and results of this analysis.

Scoring

Materials from the 1994 assessment, including the Trial

State Assessment Program, were shipped to National

Computer Systems in Iowa City for processing. Receipt

and quality control were managed through a

sophisticated bar-coding and tracking system. After all

appropriate materials were received from a school, they

were forwarded to the professional scoring area where

the responses to the constructed-response question

were evaluated by trained staff using guidelines

prepared by NAEP. Each constructed-response question

had a unique scoring guide that defined the criteria to

be used in evaluating students’ responses. The extended

response questions were evaluated with four-level

rubrics, and many of the short response questions were

rated according to three-level rubrics that permit partial

credit to be given. Other short response questions were

scored as either acceptable or unacceptable.

For the national reading assessment and the Trial

State Assessment Program, approximately 2 million

student responses were scored. This figure includes a

25 percent rescore to monitor interrater reliability, and

a rescore of approximately 500 responses per question to

monitor trend reliability. In other words, scoring

reliability was calculated both within year (1994) and

across years (1992 and 1994). The overall within-year

percentages of agreement between scorers for the 1994

national reliability samples were 90 percent at grade 4,

90 percent at grade 8, and 89 percent at grade 12. For

the 1994 Trial State Assessment at grade 4, the withinyear percentage of agreement between scorers was 90

percent. The percentages of agreement between the two

assessment years (1992 and 1994) for the national interyear reliability sample were 90 percent at grade 4, 82

percent at grade 8, and 76 percent at grade 12. The

percentage of agreement between the two assessment

years for the Trial State Assessment at grade 4 was 89

percent.

Data Analysis and IRT Scaling

Subsequent to the professional scoring, all information

was transcribed to the NAEP database at ETS. Each

processing activity was conducted with rigorous quality

control. After the assessment information had been

compiled in the database, the data were weighted

according to the population structure. The weighting

for the national and state samples reflected the

probability of selection for each student as a result of

the sampling design, adjusted for nonresponse. Through

stratification, the weighting assured that the

representation of certain subpopulations corresponded

to figures from the U.S. Census and the Current

Population Survey.2

Analyses were then conducted to determine the

percentages of students who gave various responses to

each cognitive and background question. In

determining these percentages for the cognitive

questions, a distinction was made between missing

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

subsequent to the last question the student answered)

and missing responses prior to the last observed

response. Missing responses before the last observed

response were considered intentional omissions.

Missing responses at the end of the block were

considered “not reached” and treated as if the questions

had not been presented to the student. In calculating

response percentages for each question, only students

classified as having been presented the question were

included in the denominator of the statistic.

It is standard ETS practice to treat all

nonrespondents to the last question in a block as if they

had not reached the question. For multiple-choice and

short response questions, this practice produces a

reasonable pattern of results in that the proportion

reaching the last question is not dramatically smaller

than the proportion reaching the next-to-last question.

However, for blocks that ended with extended-response

questions, the standard ETS practice would result in

extremely large drops in the proportion of students

attempting the final question. A drop of such magnitude

seemed somewhat implausible. Therefore, for blocks

ending with an extended-response question, students

who answered the next-to-last question but did not
113

respond to the extended-response question were

classified as having intentionally omitted the last

question.

Item response theory (IRT) was used to estimate

average scale-score reading proficiencies for the nation,

for various subgroups of interest within the nation, and

for the states and territories. IRT models the probability

of answering a question in a certain way as a

mathematical function of proficiency or skill. The main

purpose of IRT analysis is to provide a common scale on

which performance can be compared across groups such

as those defined by grades and characteristics, including

race/ethnicity and gender.

Because of the BIB-spiraling design used by NAEP,

students do not receive enough questions about a

specific topic to provide reliable information about

individual performance. Traditional test scores for

individual students, even those based on IRT, would lead

to misleading estimates of population characteristics,

such as subgroup means and percentages of students at

or above a certain proficiency level. Consequently, NAEP

constructs sets of plausible values designed to represent

the distribution of proficiency in the population. A

plausible value for an individual is not a scale score for

that individual but may be regarded as a representative

value from the distribution of potential scale scores for

all students in the population with similar

characteristics and identical patterns of item response.

Statistics describing performance on the NAEP

proficiency scale are based on the plausible values. They

estimate values that would have been obtained had

individual proficiencies been observed — that is, had

each student responded to a sufficient number of

cognitive questions so that proficiency could be

precisely estimated.3

For the 1992 and 1994 assessments, a scale ranging

from 0 to 500 was created to report performance for

each reading purpose — literary and informational at

grade 4, and literary, informational, and task at grades 8

and 12. The scales summarize student performance

across all three question types in the assessment

(multiple choice, short response, and extended response).

Each reading scale is based on the distribution of

student performance across all three grades in the

national assessment (grades 4, 8, and 12). The scales

have a mean of 250 and a standard deviation of 50. In

addition, a composite scale was created as an overall

measure of students’ reading proficiency. This

composite scale is a weighted average of the separate

scales for the reading purposes. The weight for each

reading purpose is proportional to the relative

importance assigned to the reading purpose by the

specifications developed through the consensus

planning process.

In producing the reading scales, three distinct IRT

models were used. Multiple-choice items were scaled

using the three-parameter logistic (3PL) model; short

response questions rated as acceptable or unacceptable

were scaled using the two-parameter logistic (2PL)

model; and short response questions rated according to

a three-level rubric, as well as extended-response

questions rated on a four-level rubric, were scaled using

a generalized partial-credit (GPC) model.4

 Developed by

ETS and first used in 1992, the GPC model permits the

scaling of questions scored according to multipoint

rating schemes. The model takes full advantage of the

information available from each of the student response

categories used for these more complex constructedresponse questions.

The reading scale is composed of three types of

questions: multiple-choice, constructed-response

(scored dichotomously as correct or incorrect) and

constructed-response (scored according to a partialcredit model). One natural question about the scale

concerns the amount of information contributed by

each type of question. Unfortunately, this question has

no simple answer for the NAEP reading assessment, due

to the complex procedures used to form the composite

reading scale.

The information provided by a given question is

determined by the IRT model used to scale the question

and is a function of its item parameters.5

 Thus, the

answer to the query “How much information do the

different types of questions provide?” will differ for each

level of reading proficiency. When considering the

composite reading scale, the answer is even more

complicated. The reading data are scaled separately by

the purposes of reading (Reading for Literary

Experience, Reading to Gain Information, and Reading

to Perform a Task). The composite scale is a weighted

combination of these subscales. IRT information

functions are only strictly comparable when they are

derived from the same calibration. Because the

composite scale is based on three separate calibrations,

there is no direct way to compare the information

provided by the questions on the composite scale.

NAEP Reporting Groups

Findings from the 1994 NAEP reading assessment are

presented for groups of students defined by shared

characteristics. Data are reported for subpopulations

only where sufficient numbers of students and adequate
114

school representation are present. For public school

students, there must be at least 62 students in a

particular subgroup from at least 10 different schools;

for nonpublic school students, the minimum

requirement is 62 students representing at least six

different schools. Data for all students, regardless of

whether their subgroup was reported separately, were

included in computing overall national and regional

results.

The reporting subgroups presented in this report

include: region, race/ethnicity, gender, parents’

education level, type of school, and school’s type of

location. Definitions of these subgroups are provided

below.

Region. Results are reported for four regions of the

nation: Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West. States

included in each region are shown in the Figure A.2. All

50 states and the District of Columbia are listed. Guam

and the Department of Defense Education Activity

(DoDEA) Overseas Schools were not assigned to a region.

States that participated in the 1994 Trial State

Assessment appear in boldface type. Note that the part

of Virginia that is included in the Washington, DC,

metropolitan area is included in the Northeast region;

the remainder of the state is included in the Southeast

region. The regional results are based on a separate

sample from that used to report the state results. Regional

results are based on national assessment samples, not

on aggregated Trial State Assessment samples.

Race/Ethnicity. Results are presented for students in

different racial/ethnic groups based on the students’

self-identification of their race/ethnicity according to

the following mutually exclusive categories: White,

Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, and American

Indian (including Alaskan Native). For the 1992

assessment, it was not possible to report separate results

for Asian and Pacific Islander students. Consequently,

1992 data and trend results for the separate categories

are not presented in this report.

Gender. Results are reported separately for males and

females.

Parents’ Education Level. Results are presented by

students’ report of the highest level of schooling

attained by each of their parents: did not finish high

school, graduated from high school, some education

after high school, graduated from college, or did not

know. The response indicating the higher level of

education was selected for reporting. It should be noted

that approximately one-third of fourth graders and

almost one-tenth of eighth graders reported not

knowing the education level of either of their parents.

The percentages of students who reported not knowing

their parents’ education level were larger for fourthgrade Hispanic students and for eighth-grade Black and

Hispanic students compared to their White counterparts.

(See Table A.10.)

In addition, evidence from other NCES surveys that

gather data from both students and parents indicates

larger discrepancies between students’ and parents’

reports for Black and Hispanic students compared to

White students. These differences between racial/ethnic

groups are most evident at grade 8. As shown in Table

A.11, the correlations between students’ and parents’

reports of parental education were lower for Black and

Hispanic students than for White students at both

grades 8 and 12, although all correlations were higher

in twelfth grade.

NORTHEAST

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

Virginia

SOUTHEAST

Alabama

Arkansas

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

Louisiana

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina

Tennessee

Virginia

West Virginia

Figure A.2 States Included in the Four Regions

CENTRAL

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

North Dakota

Ohio

South Dakota

Wisconsin

WEST

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Hawaii

Idaho

Montana

Nevada

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Washington

Wyoming
115

Percentage of Students Who

Reported Not Knowing

Their Parents’ Education Level,

by Race/Ethnicity

Grades 4, 8, and 12

1994 Reading Assessment

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE A.10

Total White Black Hispanic

Grade 4 34 (0.8) 32 (1.0) 31 (1.4) 43 (2.4)

Grade 8 9 (0.4) 6 (0.4) 11 (1.0) 20 (1.3)

Grade 12 3 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 4 (0.6) 9 (0.9)

The standard errors of the percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for

each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of

the estimate for the sample.

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

1994 Reading Assessment.

TABLE A.11

Correlations Between Students’ and

Parents’ Reports of Parents’ Education Level,

 by Race/Ethnicity

Grades 8 and 12

White Black Hispanic

Grade 8

Father’s Education 0.84 0.67 0.75

Mother’s Education 0.79 0.62 0.65

Grade 12

Father’s Education 0.90 0.80 0.85

Mother’s Education 0.87 0.78 0.74

SOURCE: For grade 8 – P. Kaufman and R.A. Rasinski, Quality of Responses of Eighth-Grade Students in

NELS: 88, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 91-487; For grade 12 – W. F. Fetters,

P.S. Stowe, and J.A. Owings, Quality of Responses of High School Students to Questionnaire Items, Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 84-342.

Type of School. Results are reported by the type of

school that the student attends: public or nonpublic.

Nonpublic schools include Catholic and other nonpublic

schools. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools and

domestic Department of Defense (DoD) schools are not

included in either the public or nonpublic categories,

but are included in the overall national results.

Type of Location. Results are reported for students

attending schools in three mutually exclusive location

types: central city, urban fringe/large town, and rural/

small town:

Central City: This category includes central cities of

all Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(SMSA’s).6

 Central City is a geographic term and is

not synonymous with “inner city.”

Urban Fringe/Large Town: The urban fringe

category includes all densely settled places and areas

within SMSA’s that are classified as urban by the

Bureau of the Census. A Large Town is defined as a

place outside a SMSA with a population greater than

or equal to 25,000.

Rural/Small Town: Rural includes all places and

areas with populations of less than 2,500 that are

classified as rural by the Bureau of the Census. A

Small Town is defined as a place outside a SMSA

with a population of less than 25,000 but greater

than or equal to 2,500.

As described earlier, the NAEP proficiency scales

make it possible to examine relationships between

students’ performance and a variety of background

factors measured by NAEP. However, the fact that a

relationship exists between achievement and another

variable does not reveal the underlying cause of the

relationship, which may be influenced by a number of

other variables. Similarly, the assessments do not

capture the influence of unmeasured variables. The

results are most useful when they are considered in

combination with other knowledge about the student

population and the educational system, such as trends

in instruction, changes in the school-age population,

and societal demands and expectations.

Estimating Variability

Because the statistics presented in this report are

estimates of group and subgroup performance based on

samples of students, rather than the values that could be

calculated if every student in the nation answered every

question, it is important to account for the degree of

uncertainty associated with the estimates. Two

components of uncertainty are accounted for in the

variability of statistics based on proficiency: 1) the

uncertainty due to sampling only a relatively small

number of students, and 2) the uncertainty due to

sampling only a relatively small number of reading

comprehension questions. The variability associated

with the estimated percentages of students with certain

background characteristics or who answered a certain

cognitive question correctly is accounted for by the first

component alone.

In addition to providing estimates of percentages of

students and their average proficiencies, this report

provides information about the uncertainty of each

statistic. Because NAEP uses complex sampling

procedures, conventional formulas for estimating

sampling variability that assume simple random
116

sampling are inappropriate. NAEP uses a jackknife

replication procedure to estimate standard errors. The

jackknife standard error provides a reasonable measure

of uncertainty for any information about students that

can be observed without error. However, each student

typically responds to so few questions within any

content area that the proficiency measurement for any

single student would be imprecise. In this case, using

plausible values technology makes it possible to describe

the performance of groups and subgroups of students,

but the underlying imprecision that makes this step

necessary adds an additional component of variability to

statistics based on NAEP proficiencies.7

The reader is reminded that, like findings from all

surveys, NAEP results are also subject to other kinds of

error including the effects of imperfect adjustment for

student and school nonresponse, and other unknowable

effects associated with the particular instrumentation

and data collection methods. Nonsampling errors can be

attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain

complete information about all selected schools in the

sample (some students or schools refused to participate,

or students participated but answered only certain

questions); ambiguous definitions; differences in

interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give

correct information; mistakes in recording, coding, or

scoring data; and other errors of collecting, processing,

sampling, and estimating missing data. The extent of

nonsampling error is difficult to estimate. By their

nature, the impact of such errors cannot be reflected in

the data-based estimates of uncertainty provided in

NAEP reports.

Drawing Inferences from the Results

The use of confidence intervals, based on the standard

errors, provides a way to make inferences about the

population means and percentages in a manner that

reflects the uncertainty associated with the sample

estimates.

An estimated sample mean proficiency ± 2 standard

errors represents a 95 percent confidence interval for

the corresponding population quantity. This means that

with approximately 95 percent certainty, the average

performance of the entire population of interest is

within ± 2 standard errors of the sample mean.

As an example, suppose that the average reading

proficiency of students in a particular group was 256,

with a standard error of 1.2. A 95 percent confidence

interval for the population quantity would be as follows:

Mean ± 2 standard errors

256 ± 2 3 1.2

256 ± 2.4

253.6, 258.4

Thus, one can conclude with 95 percent certainty

that the average proficiency for the entire population of

students in that group is between 253.6 and 258.4.

Similar confidence intervals can be constructed for

percentages, provided that the percentages are not

extremely large (greater than 90) or extremely small

(less than 10). For extreme percentages, confidence

intervals constructed in the above manner may not be

appropriate. However, procedures for obtaining accurate

confidence intervals are quite complicated. Thus,

comparisons involving extreme percentages should be

interpreted with this in mind.

To determine whether there is a real difference

between the mean proficiency (or percentage of a

certain attribute) for two groups in the population, one

needs to obtain an estimate of the degree of uncertainty

associated with the difference between the proficiency

means or percentages of these groups for the sample.

This estimate of the degree of uncertainty — called the

standard error of the difference between the groups —

is obtained by taking the square of each group’s

standard error, summing these squared standard errors,

and then taking the square root of this sum.

SE SE SE AB A B = + 2 2 

Similar to the manner in which the standard error

for an individual group mean or percentage is used, the

standard error of the difference can be used to help

determine whether differences between groups in the

population are real. The difference between the mean

proficiency or percentage of the two groups ± 2 standard

errors of the difference represents an approximate 95

percent confidence interval. If the resulting interval

includes zero, there is insufficient evidence to claim a

real difference between groups in the population. If the

interval does not contain zero, the difference between

groups is statistically significant (different) at the .05

level.

The procedures described in this section, and the

certainty ascribed to intervals (e.g., a 95 percent

confidence interval) are based on statistical theory that

assumes that only one confidence interval or test of
117

statistical significance is being performed. When one

considers sets of confidence intervals, like those for the

average proficiency of all participating states and

territories, statistical theory indicates that the certainty

associated with the entire set of intervals is less than

that attributable to each individual comparison from the

set. If one wants to hold the certainty level for a specific

set of comparisons at a particular level (e.g., 95),

adjustments (called multiple-comparisons procedures)

need to be made.

The standard errors for means and percentages

reported by NAEP are statistics and subject to a certain

degree of uncertainty. In certain cases, typically when

the standard error is based on a small number of

students (or when the group of students is enrolled in a

small number of schools), the amount of uncertainty

associated with the standard errors may be quite large.

Throughout this report, estimates of standard errors

subject to a large degree of uncertainty are designated

by the symbol “!”. In such cases, the standard errors —

and any confidence intervals or significance tests

involving these standard errors — should be interpreted

cautiously.

Revisions to the 1992

and 1994 Findings

In April 1995, results from the 1994 National and Trial

State Assessment of reading were released as part of the

report NAEP 1994 Reading: A First Look. Subsequently,

ETS/NAEP discovered an error in the documentation for

the ETS program used to compute NAEP scale score

results. The error affected how omitted responses were

treated in the IRT scaling of the extended constructedresponse questions that received partial-credit scoring.

The error affected only those questions; omitted

multiple-choice and omitted short constructed

responses were treated appropriately.

The conventional treatment in NAEP subjects has

been to treat omitted responses (blank responses to a

question that are followed by valid responses to

questions that appear later in the block) as the lowest

possible score category in the production of NAEP scale

scores. In contrast, not-reached responses (blank

responses that are not followed by any further student

responses) are treated as missing data. As a result of the

documentation error, for a number of the polytomous

constructed-response questions and across several

subject areas, all blank responses (both omitted and

not-reached responses) to affected questions were

treated as missing — an acceptable treatment but not

the conventional option of choice for NAEP.

The error affected a number of the NAEP scales

constructed since 1992. Specifically, the 1992 and 1994

national and state reading results were affected by the

error. Results from these two assessments have been

released to the public in a number of NAEP

publications. The 1992 data are also available to the

public through NCES’s secondary-use data files.

It should be noted that this processing error also

impacted the location of the National Assessment

Governing Board (NAGB) achievement levels in reading,

which were set on the 1992 scales.

NCES and ETS felt that the most technically correct

plan of action would be to recalculate all affected NAEP

scales, no matter how slight the change, and to issue

revised results. ETS was therefore instructed by NCES

to recalculate all affected scales and to work with

American College Testing (ACT) in the recomputation of

the achievement level cutpoints.

In recomputing the cutpoints, an additional error

was discovered in the procedures used by ACT in 1992 to

“map” the achievement level cutpoints onto the NAEP

scale. The procedures contained an incorrectly derived

formula. ACT used revised procedures with the correct

formula to map the achievement level cutpoints for the

1994 history and geography scales. However, the error

in the earlier procedures did affect achievement level

cutpoints for reading, which were established during the

1992 assessment. The 1992 national and state reading

achievement level results were further impacted by this

additional error.

A new version of the NAEP 1994 Reading: A First

Look report, containing the revised reading results, was

issued by NCES in the fall of 1995. The main release of

NAEP reading results, including the Reading Report

Card, Cross-state Data Compendium, individual state

reports, almanacs, technical report, and data files,

originally scheduled for the end of September, took

place instead in late fall.

While some small changes in scale score results

were found, the revised numbers for reading are quite

similar to the results released in 1992 and to those

published in the NCES April release of the reading First

Look report. More specifically, the revised reading

results are substantively equivalent to the originally

published 1992 results and to the results released in the

First Look. Regarding the 1992 and 1994 national

assessment data, fourth-grade results are about 1 point

lower than originally reported, while twelfth-grade

results are about 1 point higher. These changes are
118

small and not substantively meaningful. The eighthgrade numbers are essentially unchanged. The revised

numbers indicate the same relative distances between

reporting subgroups (i.e., race/ethnicity subgroups,

male, females, etc.). The significant national score

decline at grade 12 is totally unaffected by the revision,

as is the absence of significant changes at grades 4

and 8.

With regard to the state assessment data, all

jurisdictions were affected to roughly the same degree.

Thus, the revised rank ordering of state performance in

both 1992 and 1994 is essentially identical to that

originally published. Original and revised trend results

(i.e., the change in scores between 1992 and 1994) are

extremely close for all the jurisdictions. However, in

four instances (for Massachusetts, New Jersey, Utah, and

California), the small changes engendered by the

revision are sufficient to affect the statistical

significance of the change. For Massachusetts, New

Jersey, and Utah, the revised decline in scores is between

0.3 and 0.5 points smaller than the originally released

results — a magnitude of change that was typical across

all participants. When rounded to an integer, the

original and revised declines for Massachusetts and New

Jersey are of identical size and the decline for Utah went

from 4 points to 3 points. Despite this similarity, the

revised results for these states are no longer statistically

significant since the original results were right on the

margin of statistical significance. In California, the

revised decline in scores is 0.4 points larger than the

originally released results and is now statistically

significant.

In the results for state assessment achievement

levels, there is little difference in the revised and

original numbers from an interpretive standpoint. As

expected, correction of the ACT error generally results

in lower achievement level cutpoints and, hence,

slightly higher percentages above the various cutpoints.

The revised achievement level results in this report and

in the technical report reflect the change in the formula

used in setting the achievement levels. There is one

notable aspect of the revised state assessment

achievement level results. Prior to the revision, only one

state, Arizona, had shown a statistically significant

increase from 1992 to 1994 in the percentage of

students at the Advanced level. Based on the revised

results, six more states — Connecticut, Florida,

Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, and Maryland — also

showed a statistically significant increase at that level.

Endnotes

1. National Center for Education Statistics. (1992).

NCES Statistical Standards, NCES 92-021.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

2. For additional information about the use of weighting

procedures in NAEP, see Johnson, E. G. (1989,

December). Considerations and techniques for the

analysis of NAEP data. Journal of Educational

Statistics, 14(4), 303-334.

3. For theoretical and empirical justification of the

procedures employed, see Mislevy, R. J. (1988).

Randomization-based inferences about latent

variables from complex samples. Pyschometrika,

56(2), 177-196.

For computational details, see National Assessment of

Educational Progress. (1990). Focusing the new

design: NAEP 1988 technical report, and the 1990

NAEP technical report. Princeton, NJ: Educational

Testing Service.

4. Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model:

Application of an EM algorithm. Applied

Psychological Measurement, 16(2), 159-176.

5. Donoghue, J. R. (1994). An empirical examination of

the IRT information of polytomously scored reading

items under the generalized partial credit model.

Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(4), 295-311.

Muraki, E. (1993). Information functions of the

generalized partial credit model. Applied

Psychological Measurement, 17(4), 351-363.

6. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) as

defined by the Office of Management and Budget.

7. For further details, see Johnson, E.G., & Rust, K. F.

(1992). Population inferences and variance

estimation for NAEP data. Journal of Educational

Statistics, 17(2), 175-190.
119

APPENDIX B

Describing Students’

Reading Performance

This appendix contains detailed information about

the procedures used for describing students’ reading

performance and profiling students’ literacy practices.

The results of these procedures are presented in

Chapter 6 of this report.

Performance Descriptions Based on

the Reading Composite Scale

A procedure known as scale anchoring was used to

develop descriptions of student performance at selected

points on the NAEP reading composite scale. The scale

points that were selected for anchoring reflect three

levels of reading proficiency corresponding to lower-,

middle-, and higher-performing students. These levels

correspond to the 25th, 50th, and 90th percentile

points on the composite scale as established by the

performance of students in 1992 — the first assessment

administered under NAEP’s current reading framework.

Around each percentile point, a band was built to

define a range of scale scores. Students described as

being at a particular level were within a five percentile

point range on either side of the specified scale point.

For example, the 50th percentile was defined as the

region between the 45th and 55th percentile points

on the scale. A question was identified as anchoring

at a percentile point on the scale if it was answered

successfully by at least 65 percent of the students within

that percentile band. (The criterion was set at 74

percent for multiple-choice questions to correct for the

possibility of answering correctly by guessing.)

After defining the bands of the scale to be anchored,

the next step in the process was to identify those

questions that were (1) answered correctly for

dichotomously scored questions, or (2) answered at a

particular score level for partial credit constructedresponse questions. Because the extended constructedresponse questions were scored according to four levels

of performance, each extended constructed-response

question was treated as three distinct questions

corresponding to scores of Partial or better, Essential or

better, and Extensive. These distinct score levels were

then analyzed in the same manner as questions scored

dichotomously, as either correct or incorrect. Thus, for

example, an extended constructed-response question

might anchor at the 50th percentile for Partial or better

responses and at the 90th percentile for Essential or

better responses.

A committee of reading education experts, including

teachers for the grades involved, college professors,

state curriculum supervisors, and researchers, was

assembled to review the sets of questions identified for

each percentile band. The committee was divided into

three groups, one for each grade. Each group examined

and analyzed questions that anchored at the 25th, 50th,

and 90th percentiles to determine the specific reading

abilities associated with each question.

Committee members were also provided with the

sets of questions at each grade that “did not anchor” to

inform their decisions about what students could do by

seeing examples of what they could not do. Drawing on

their knowledge of reading, committee members were

asked to summarize student performance, by describing

the knowledge, skills and abilities demonstrated by

students in each of the score bands.

The performance descriptions are cumulative, that

is, the abilities described for the lower performing

students are considered to be among the abilities of

students performing at higher points on the scale.

Therefore, the full description of students’ reading

abilities in the middle scale band would include those

abilities described at the lower band. Similarly, the

abilities of students performing at the higher scale band

include the reading abilities described for students at

the middle and lower bands.

Profiling Students’ Literacy Practices

Using the scale bands defined for the anchoring process

described above, the profiling of students’ literacy

practices was accomplished by examining the responses

of students within those bands to selected background

questions. A complete presentation of students’

responses to the three background variables highlighted

in Chapter 6 are presented in Tables B.1 to B.3. The

percentages that appear in the tables are conditional on

the anchor scale point. That is, they are percentages of

students who scored within a five percentile point range

on either side of the specified scale point.
120

Item Mapping Procedures

In order to map items to particular points on the

reading proficiency subscales, a response probability

convention had to be adopted that would divide those

who had a higher probability of success from those

who had a lower probability. Establishing a response

probability convention has an impact on the mapping of

test items onto the reading scales. A lower boundary

convention maps the reading items at lower points

along the reading scales, and a higher boundary

convention maps the same items at higher points along

the scales. The underlying distribution of reading skills

in the population does not change, but the choice of a

response probability convention does have an impact on

the proportion of the student population that is reported

as “able to do” the items on the reading scales.

There is no obvious choice of a point along the

probability scale that is clearly superior to any other

point. If the convention were set with a boundary at 50

percent, those above the boundary would be more likely

to get an item right than get it wrong, while those below

that boundary would be more likely to get the item

wrong than right. While this convention has some

intuitive appeal, it was rejected on the grounds that

having a 50/50 chance of getting the item right shows

an insufficient degree of mastery. If the convention were

set with a boundary at 80 percent, students above the

criterion would have a high probability of success with

an item. However, many of the students below this

criterion show some level of reading ability that would

be ignored by such a stringent criterion. In particular,

those in the range between 50 and 80 percent correct

would be more likely to get the item right than wrong,

yet would not be in the group described as “able to do”

the item.

In a compromise between the 50 percent and the 80

percent conventions, NAEP has adopted two related

response probability conventions: 74 percent for

multiple-choice questions (to correct for the possibility

of answering correctly by guessing) and 65 percent for

constructed response questions (where guessing is not a

factor). These probability conventions were established,

in part, based on an intuitive judgment that they would

provide the best picture of students’ reading skills.

Some additional support for the dual conventions

adopted by NAEP was provided by Huynh.1 He examined

the IRT information provided by items, according

to the IRT model used in scaling NAEP questions.

(“Information” is used here in a technical sense. See

The NAEP 1994 Technical Report for details.) Following

Bock,2

 Huynh decomposed the item information into

that provided by a correct response [P (u) *I (u)] and

that provided by an incorrect response [(1-P (u)) *I (u)].

Huynh showed that the item information provided by a

correct response to a constructed-response item is

maximized at the point along the reading scale at which

two-thirds of the students get the question correct (for

multiple-choice questions, information is maximized at

the point at which 74 percent get the question correct).

It should be noted, however, that maximizing the item

information I (u), rather than the information provided

by a correct response [P (u) *I (u)], would imply an item

mapping criterion closer to 50 percent.

Endnotes

1. Huynh, H. (1994, October). Some technical aspects

of standard setting. Paper presented at the Joint

Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale

Assessment, Washington, DC.

2. Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and

latent ability when responses are scored in two or

more latent categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
121

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Responses of Students at Percentile Points

to Selected Background Questions

Grade 4

1994 Reading Assessment

25th Percentile* 50th Percentile* 90th Percentile*

Scale Range 187-200 Scale Range 214-224 Scale Range 253-272

Reading For Fun on Own Time

Daily/Almost Daily 36 (2.9) 41 (2.7) 60 (4.3)

Once/Twice a Week 33 (2.7) 35 (2.9) 27 (3.1)

Once/Twice a Month 13 (2.2) 14 (1.9) 9 (1.9)

Never/Hardly Ever 18 (2.0) 11 (2.1) 4 (1.2)

Discuss Studies at Home

Daily/Almost Daily 50 (3.4) 54 (3.3) 66 (2.6)

Once/Twice a Week 21 (2.3) 22 (2.1) 22 (1.8)

Once/Twice a Month 6 (1.4) 7 (1.5) 4 (1.1)

Never/Hardly Ever 22 (2.6) 17 (2.3) 8 (1.4)

Pages Read Each Day for School

and Homework

More Than 20 23 (2.1) 24 (3.2) 27 (2.8)

16 to 20 15 (1.6) 15 (2.7) 15 (2.9)

11 to 15 14 (2.3) 15 (1.9) 21 (2.1)

6 to 10 23 (2.5) 25 (2.8) 23 (2.6)

5 or Fewer 25 (2.4) 21 (2.8) 15 (1.9)

Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

* Percentile points on the composite scale as established by the performance of students in 1992.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

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

TABLE B.1
122

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


25th Percentile* 50th Percentile* 90th Percentile*

Scale Range 230-243 Scale Range 258-267 Scale Range 297-316

Reading For Fun on Own Time

Daily/Almost Daily 12 (1.5) 19 (1.9) 38 (2.1)

Once/Twice a Week 24 (2.1) 27 (2.0) 30 (2.7)

Once/Twice a Month 28 (2.0) 27 (2.0) 21 (2.4)

Never/Hardly Ever 36 (2.3) 27 (2.0) 12 (1.6)

Discuss Studies at Home

Daily/Almost Daily 32 (2.0) 37 (2.6) 47 (2.9)

Once/Twice a Week 28 (2.1) 30 (3.4) 30 (2.7)

Once/Twice a Month 12 (1.9) 12 (1.5) 10 (1.4)

Never/Hardly Ever 27 (1.9) 21 (2.9) 12 (1.9)

Pages Read Each Day for School

and Homework

More Than 20 9 (1.0) 12 (1.5) 15 (2.5)

16 to 20 8 (1.4) 9 (1.4) 11 (1.3)

11 to 15 13 (1.3) 15 (1.9) 21 (2.1)

6 to 10 29 (2.1) 29 (2.0) 29 (1.7)

5 or Fewer 40 (2.3) 35 (2.9) 24 (2.7)

Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

* Percentile points on the composite scale as established by the performance of students in 1992.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

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

TABLE B.2 Responses of Students at Percentile Points

to Selected Background Questions

Grade 8

1994 Reading Assessment
123

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


25th Percentile* 50th Percentile* 90th Percentile*

Scale Range 264-275 Scale Range 289-298 Scale Range 325-343

Reading For Fun on Own Time

Daily/Almost Daily 18 (1.6) 24 (2.7) 38 (2.1)

Once/Twice a Week 20 (1.9) 25 (2.5) 30 (2.7)

Once/Twice a Month 27 (2.3) 25 (2.7) 21 (3.1)

Never/Hardly Ever 35 (2.4) 27 (2.1) 12 (2.3)

Discuss Studies at Home

Daily/Almost Daily 27 (2.7) 32 (2.1) 39 (2.5)

Once/Twice a Week 30 (2.6) 35 (2.1) 36 (2.2)

Once/Twice a Month 15 (1.4) 13 (1.3) 13 (2.2)

Never/Hardly Ever 28 (2.2) 20 (2.4) 12 (1.6)

Pages Read Each Day for School

and Homework

More Than 20 9 (1.7) 14 (2.1) 27 (2.3)

16 to 20 9 (1.3) 11 (1.5) 14 (1.5)

11 to 15 11 (1.1) 14 (1.8) 17 (1.5)

6 to 10 26 (2.1) 26 (2.3) 22 (3.5)

5 or Fewer 44 (2.7) 35 (3.2) 20 (2.6)

Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Differences between groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

* Percentile points on the composite scale as established by the performance of students in 1992.

The standard errors of the estimated proficiencies appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

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

Responses of Students at Percentile Points

to Selected Background Questions

Grade 12

1994 Reading Assessment

TABLE B.3
124
125

APPENDIX C

Cross State Proficiency and

Achievement Level Results
126

Male Female

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

1992 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

by Gender

Public Schools Only

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE C.1A

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska‡

New Hampshire‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

51 (0.7) 211 (1.3) 49 (0.7) 219 (1.1)

50 (2.0) 217 (4.6) 50 (2.0) 223 (3.6)

49 (1.3) 205 (2.9) 51 (1.3) 216 (2.5)

54 (1.1) 216 (1.6) 46 (1.1) 220 (2.4)

52 (1.4) 207 (2.6) 48 (1.4) 216 (1.3)

52 (1.1) 204 (1.7) 48 (1.1) 211 (2.0)

48 (1.0) 206 (1.5) 52 (1.0) 213 (1.4)

50 (1.0) 208 (1.5) 50 (1.0) 214 (1.4)

49 (1.1) 198 (2.3) 51 (1.1) 207 (2.1)

51 (1.0) 214 (1.3) 49 (1.0) 219 (1.4)

51 (1.3) 219 (1.5) 49 (1.3) 224 (1.6)

50 (1.1) 209 (1.2) 50 (1.1) 217 (1.0)

51 (0.9) 205 (1.5) 49 (0.9) 211 (1.4)

51 (1.1) 210 (1.7) 49 (1.1) 215 (1.7)

51 (0.9) 198 (2.0) 49 (0.9) 209 (1.7)

50 (1.2) 219 (1.4) 50 (1.2) 224 (1.5)

50 (0.8) 222 (1.3) 50 (0.8) 229 (1.1)

53 (1.0) 209 (1.6) 47 (1.0) 216 (1.4)

50 (0.9) 200 (1.5) 50 (0.9) 207 (1.3)

48 (1.4) 225 (1.1) 52 (1.4) 229 (1.4)

49 (1.0) 207 (1.8) 51 (1.0) 215 (1.8)

50 (0.9) 225 (1.2) 50 (0.9) 227 (1.1)

51 (1.3) 217 (1.5) 49 (1.3) 225 (1.3)

52 (1.0) 196 (1.8) 48 (1.0) 202 (1.3)

50 (0.9) 217 (1.4) 50 (0.9) 223 (1.5)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

52 (1.3) 218 (1.4) 48 (1.3) 225 (1.3)

51 (1.0) 224 (1.4) 49 (1.0) 231 (1.2)

50 (1.1) 220 (1.7) 50 (1.1) 226 (1.7)

50 (0.8) 209 (1.5) 50 (0.8) 213 (1.8)

52 (1.1) 212 (1.9) 48 (1.1) 218 (1.7)

51 (0.9) 209 (1.4) 49 (0.9) 214 (1.3)

51 (1.2) 224 (1.4) 49 (1.2) 227 (1.4)

48 (1.2) 218 (1.5) 52 (1.2) 223 (1.4)

51 (1.3) 215 (2.1) 49 (1.3) 218 (2.0)

48 (0.9) 206 (1.5) 52 (0.9) 213 (1.5)

50 (1.1) 209 (1.6) 50 (1.1) 215 (1.6)

52 (1.2) 209 (1.7) 48 (1.2) 216 (1.8)

48 (1.0) 217 (1.5) 52 (1.0) 224 (1.2)

51 (0.9) 217 (1.8) 49 (0.9) 225 (1.4)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

51 (0.8) 211 (1.4) 49 (0.8) 220 (1.6)

50 (0.9) 221 (1.2) 50 (0.9) 226 (1.2)

51 (0.9) 220 (1.5) 49 (0.9) 226 (1.0)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

52 (1.2) 175 (1.9) 48 (1.2) 190 (1.5)
127

Male Female

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure

based on 38 jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment

1994 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

by Gender

Public Schools Only

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


TABLE C.1B

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†

New Hampshire†

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

51 (0.7) 207 (1.3) 49 (0.7) 218 (1.2)

50 (1.1) 207 (3.0) 50 (1.1) 216 (2.2)

52 (1.8) 202 (2.5) 48 (1.8) 215 (2.2)

53 (1.4) 212 (2.6) 47 (1.4) 225 (3.0)

51 (1.5) 207 (2.5) 49 (1.5) 217 (2.5)

51 (0.8) 203 (1.9) 49 (0.8) 213 (1.6)

50 (1.0) 201 (2.2) 50 (1.0) 211 (2.1)

50 (1.3) 204 (1.9) 50 (1.3) 213 (1.8)

51 (1.2) 194 (1.9) 49 (1.2) 200 (2.2)<

50 (0.9) 209 (1.8) 50 (0.9) 218 (1.5)

50 (1.1) 218 (1.8) 50 (1.1) 226 (2.0)

49 (1.2) 200 (2.1)<< 51 (1.2) 212 (1.5)<

49 (1.1) 199 (2.1)< 51 (1.1) 210 (1.8)

48 (1.0) 201 (3.0)< 52 (1.0) 212 (2.2)

51 (1.0) 194 (2.1) 49 (1.0) 208 (1.7)

49 (0.8) 216 (1.5) 51 (0.8) 223 (1.5)

51 (1.0) 219 (1.6) 49 (1.0) 227 (1.5)

51 (1.1) 206 (1.8) 49 (1.1) 217 (2.0)

49 (1.0) 193 (1.6)< 51 (1.0) 200 (1.7)<

50 (1.3) 225 (1.6) 50 (1.3) 231 (1.6)

52 (1.0) 205 (1.8) 48 (1.0) 214 (1.8)

50 (0.9) 221 (1.5) 50 (0.9) 226 (1.5)

51 (0.9) 214 (1.5) 49 (0.9) 223 (1.9)

49 (0.8)< 196 (1.6) 51 (0.8)> 207 (1.9)

51 (1.2) 213 (1.9) 49 (1.2) 221 (1.8)

51 (1.0) 218 (1.6) 49 (1.0) 227 (1.7)

51 (1.3) 216 (1.5) 49 (1.3) 224 (1.9)

50 (1.6) 218 (1.6)< 50 (1.6) 229 (1.8)

49 (1.0) 216 (1.5) 51 (1.0) 222 (1.3)

48 (0.9) 201 (2.1)< 52 (0.9) 208 (1.8)

50 (1.0) 207 (1.8) 50 (1.0) 216 (1.6)

51 (1.1) 209 (1.7) 49 (1.1) 220 (1.8)>

50 (0.8) 221 (1.5) 50 (0.8) 230 (1.5)

50 (0.9) 211 (1.8)< 50 (0.9) 220 (1.9)

49 (1.5) 215 (1.5) 51 (1.5) 225 (1.5)>

51 (0.9)> 199 (1.7)< 49 (0.9)< 208 (1.6)<

49 (1.0) 208 (2.1) 51 (1.0) 217 (1.9)

50 (1.2) 210 (2.0) 50 (1.2) 214 (2.1)

50 (1.1) 213 (1.7) 50 (1.1) 222 (1.3)

50 (1.0) 208 (1.8)<< 50 (1.0) 219 (1.5)<

52 (0.8) 209 (1.8) 48 (0.8) 217 (1.7)

51 (1.1) 208 (1.4) 49 (1.1) 218 (1.4)

49 (1.1) 221 (1.2) 51 (1.1) 227 (1.5)

51 (1.1) 218 (1.3) 49 (1.1) 224 (1.6)

50 (0.9) 213 (1.3) 50 (0.9) 223 (1.0)

51 (1.2) 172 (1.4) 49 (1.2) 190 (1.7)
128

Average

Proficiency

1992 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

by Race/Ethnicity

Public Schools Only

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska‡

New Hampshire‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

White Black Hispanic American Indian

TABLE C.2A

69 (0.5) 223 (1.3) 17 (0.4) 192 (1.6) 10 (0.3) 199 (2.2) 2 (0.3) 205 (4.9)

68 (3.4) 229 (3.9) 20 (3.2) 197 (3.8) 9 (1.3) 200 (4.9) 1 (0.4) *** (***)

63 (2.7) 220 (3.4) 29 (2.6) 194 (2.4) 5 (1.1) 194 (5.0)! 1 (0.4) *** (***)

79 (1.5) 224 (1.8) 11 (1.3) 187 (3.3) 7 (1.0) 209 (4.7) 2 (0.4) *** (***)

65 (2.1) 220 (1.7) 11 (1.6) 185 (4.4) 16 (1.9) 196 (2.7) 2 (0.6) *** (***)

61 (2.4) 218 (1.5) 31 (2.2) 188 (2.2) 5 (0.7) 190 (3.7) 2 (0.7) *** (***)

56 (1.9) 220 (1.1) 4 (0.6) 200 (4.3) 29 (1.6) 198 (2.0) 10 (1.8) 185 (3.1)

70 (1.8) 219 (1.1) 21 (1.5) 190 (1.7) 7 (0.7) 188 (3.8) 2 (0.3) 206 (4.8)

46 (1.9) 218 (2.0) 7 (0.8) 184 (3.2) 35 (1.6) 183 (2.7) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

70 (1.3) 222 (1.1) 4 (0.9) 202 (3.4)! 21 (0.9) 202 (1.9) 2 (0.3) 203 (4.7)

73 (1.7) 230 (1.0) 11 (1.3) 196 (3.1) 13 (1.1) 193 (3.4) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

64 (1.1) 222 (0.8) 25 (1.0) 195 (1.6) 8 (0.5) 188 (3.2) 2 (0.4) *** (***)

57 (1.9) 219 (1.1) 21 (2.0) 186 (2.7) 18 (1.4) 201 (2.7) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

57 (1.9) 224 (1.4) 34 (1.8) 196 (2.2) 5 (0.5) 192 (4.8) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

20 (1.5) 215 (2.7) 5 (0.6) 192 (4.6) 11 (0.9) 193 (2.8) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

82 (1.4) 225 (1.2) 11 (1.4) 200 (2.3) 5 (0.6) 211 (3.7) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

88 (0.9) 227 (1.0) 3 (0.6) 209 (3.1) 6 (0.5) 211 (3.1) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

86 (1.1) 215 (1.2) 9 (1.0) 197 (3.3) 3 (0.4) 195 (5.1) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

51 (1.9) 216 (1.2) 41 (1.9) 191 (1.5) 5 (0.5) 188 (4.4) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

92 (0.6) 228 (1.1) 0 (0.1) *** (***) 4 (0.7) 209 (3.2) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

60 (1.7) 221 (1.5) 29 (1.3) 193 (2.6) 6 (0.6) 197 (3.0) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

81 (1.2) 231 (0.9) 7 (0.6) 205 (2.7) 7 (0.6) 201 (2.2) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

87 (1.2) 224 (1.1) 3 (0.5) 191 (5.9) 6 (0.6) 203 (3.5) 2 (0.2) *** (***)

41 (2.0) 217 (1.4) 52 (2.2) 186 (1.6) 5 (1.0) 185 (3.7) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

77 (1.7) 226 (1.1) 14 (1.7) 196 (3.1) 5 (0.7) 202 (3.2) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

83 (1.2) 225 (1.2) 6 (0.6) 197 (3.2) 8 (1.1) 205 (2.9) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

90 (1.0) 229 (1.2) 1 (0.2) *** (***) 5 (0.6) 215 (3.1) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

67 (2.2) 232 (1.4) 14 (1.6) 200 (2.7) 13 (1.4) 199 (2.8) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

45 (2.0) 223 (1.8) 3 (0.4) 202 (5.6) 46 (1.7) 200 (1.5) 5 (1.2) 200 (3.8)!

61 (2.0) 226 (1.1) 14 (1.8) 202 (2.7) 20 (1.8) 187 (4.0) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

63 (2.0) 221 (1.3) 28 (1.6) 194 (2.2) 5 (0.6) 192 (3.5) 3 (1.2) 204 (6.2)!

93 (1.1) 226 (1.1) 0 (0.1) *** (***) 3 (0.5) 221 (4.8) 3 (0.8) 211 (4.7)!

79 (1.7) 227 (1.2) 11 (1.6) 190 (2.4) 8 (1.0) 200 (3.8) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

76 (2.2) 224 (1.3) 6 (1.0) 187 (3.7) 12 (1.3) 191 (4.3) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

55 (1.9) 221 (1.4) 38 (2.0) 195 (1.6) 5 (0.7) 195 (2.4) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

71 (1.8) 219 (1.3) 21 (1.6) 193 (2.2) 5 (0.7) 196 (4.4) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

49 (2.1) 224 (2.1) 14 (1.7) 200 (2.5) 34 (2.3) 201 (1.8) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

86 (1.1) 223 (1.0) 1 (0.1) *** (***) 10 (0.9) 204 (2.3) 2 (0.5) *** (***)

67 (1.6) 228 (1.5) 24 (1.3) 203 (2.1) 5 (0.5) 202 (4.3) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

91 (0.7) 217 (1.2) 2 (0.4) 204 (6.4) 4 (0.5) 196 (6.9) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

83 (1.4) 227 (1.0) 6 (0.8) 200 (2.4) 8 (0.9) 210 (3.3) 2 (0.8) 206 (5.0)!

83 (1.3) 226 (1.1) 1 (0.1) *** (***) 12 (0.9) 209 (2.5) 4 (0.9) 211 (4.6)!

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

12 (0.8) 195 (3.1) 4 (0.4) 166 (5.5) 18 (0.8) 165 (2.9) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

The percentage for race/ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because a small percentage of students categorized themselves as "other."

Due to significant changes in the wording of the race/ethnicity question between the 1992 and 1994 assessments, the 1992 results for Asian and Pacific Islander students are not comparable to 1994 results. Therefore, 1992 results for these two groups

are not presented.

*** Sample size in the 1992 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. — Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 Reading Assessment
129

The percentage for race/ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because a small percentage of students categorized themselves as "other."

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure based on 38 jurisdictions

participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. Statistically significant differences between 1994 and

1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

*** Sample size in the 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment

Average

Proficiency

1994 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

by Race/Ethnicity

Public Schools Only

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†

New Hampshire†

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

White Black Hispanic American Indian

TABLE C.2B

68 (0.5) 223 (1.3) 16 (0.4) 186 (1.7) 12 (0.3) 188 (2.7) 2 (0.1) 200 (3.6)

62 (2.4) 224 (2.5) 22 (2.5) 184 (2.1) 10 (1.4) 191 (4.2) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

63 (3.6) 219 (2.4) 26 (2.9) 188 (2.5) 8 (1.2) 184 (4.1) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

80 (2.2) 225 (2.8) 11 (1.6) 182 (6.4) 6 (0.8) 199 (6.7) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

66 (2.0) 222 (2.0) 7 (1.4) 186 (4.8)! 20 (1.5) 186 (4.4) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

62 (1.7) 220 (1.5) 29 (1.6) 188 (1.9) 6 (0.6) 178 (4.3) 2 (0.4) *** (***)

58 (1.9) 220 (1.6) 4 (0.4) 183 (5.7) 29 (1.6) 188 (2.6)< 8 (1.4) 181 (5.1)

70 (1.7) 218 (1.7) 21 (1.6) 183 (2.3)< 6 (0.7) 192 (4.2) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

44 (2.3) 211 (2.0) 7 (1.0) 182 (4.9) 33 (1.9) 174 (2.4)< 2 (0.4) *** (***)

67 (1.4) 222 (1.3) 5 (0.7) 191 (4.7) 21 (1.1) 193 (2.1)< 4 (0.4) 204 (5.2)

70 (1.4) 234 (1.3) 12 (1.1) 190 (4.8) 14 (1.1) 190 (3.9) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

63 (1.1) 215 (1.3)<< 23 (1.0) 188 (2.4)< 9 (0.6) 190 (3.1) 3 (0.4) *** (***)

57 (1.8) 218 (1.6) 21 (1.8) 183 (2.4) 19 (1.6) 189 (3.1)< 2 (0.2) *** (***)

56 (2.6) 222 (1.9) 32 (2.2) 185 (3.2)< 9 (0.8)> 184 (5.7) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

17 (1.1) 219 (2.1) 3 (0.5) 189 (4.5) 11 (0.8) 185 (4.0) 2 (0.2) *** (***)

81 (1.1) 225 (1.4) 10 (0.8) 193 (2.5) 7 (0.7) 201 (3.5) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

88 (1.1) 225 (1.2) 3 (0.6) 186 (7.0)! 6 (0.7) 204 (4.1) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

83 (1.2) 215 (1.6) 10 (1.0) 190 (3.4) 5 (0.6) 196 (4.1) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

51 (1.8) 213 (1.4) 38 (1.9) 180 (1.6)<< 8 (0.9)> 175 (5.0) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

92 (0.6) 229 (1.3) 1 (0.2) *** (***) 5 (0.4) 218 (4.6) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

57 (1.8) 223 (1.5) 32 (1.8) 185 (2.3) 6 (0.7) 197 (3.5) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

77 (1.6) 231 (1.2) 7 (1.0) 199 (3.1) 11 (0.8)>> 194 (2.8) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

84 (1.1) 222 (1.1) 3 (0.5) 173 (8.0) 8 (0.6)> 202 (4.4) 3 (0.5) 196 (6.7)

46 (1.7) 220 (2.0) 45 (1.8)< 187 (2.1) 7 (0.8) 181 (3.9) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

75 (2.1) 223 (1.3) 14 (1.7) 192 (4.1) 7 (0.7) 200 (3.9) 2 (0.3) 212 (4.9)

79 (1.8) 226 (1.3) 1 (0.2) *** (***) 10 (0.8) 208 (3.2) 9 (1.3) 203 (2.8)

82 (1.8) 224 (1.4) 4 (1.1) 190 (5.5)! 10 (1.4) 205 (3.9) 3 (0.4) 202 (6.2)

91 (1.1) 224 (1.5) 1 (0.2) *** (***) 5 (0.7) 213 (4.8) 2 (0.6) *** (***)

60 (1.9) 231 (1.2) 16 (1.9) 193 (3.4) 17 (1.5) 200 (2.5) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

41 (1.8) 219 (1.7) 3 (0.5) 196 (7.0) 44 (1.4) 196 (2.2) 10 (1.6)> 185 (5.3)

54 (2.2) 226 (1.7) 21 (1.7)> 191 (1.9)< 19 (1.5) 193 (2.6) 2 (0.3) *** (***)

65 (2.1) 225 (1.6) 26 (1.6) 193 (1.9) 4 (0.5) 189 (4.4) 3 (1.2) 201 (4.1)!

88 (1.4)< 228 (1.2) 1 (0.2)> *** (***) 6 (0.6)> 212 (2.9) 4 (1.1) 197 (6.2)!

76 (1.9) 224 (1.3) 14 (1.9) 180 (3.8) 7 (0.7) 187 (3.9) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

80 (1.1) 226 (1.4) 6 (0.6) 197 (2.4) 9 (0.8) 195 (2.8) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

53 (1.8) 219 (1.4) 37 (1.5) 184 (1.7)<< 8 (0.7) 182 (3.3)< 2 (0.3) *** (***)

74 (1.8) 220 (1.8) 19 (1.7) 188 (3.0) 4 (0.6) 196 (6.7) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

50 (2.0) 227 (1.7) 12 (1.9) 191 (4.4) 34 (2.3) 198 (1.9) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

82 (1.2) 221 (1.3) 1 (0.1) *** (***) 12 (0.9) 199 (2.5) 3 (0.4) 195 (5.3)

59 (2.0)< 224 (1.6) 29 (1.7) 192 (1.9)<< 7 (0.8)> 206 (3.4) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

73 (1.7) 217 (1.5) 5 (0.8) 198 (3.1) 11 (1.1) 190 (3.6) 4 (0.4) 207 (4.2)

90 (0.8) 215 (1.0) 3 (0.5) 202 (4.2) 4 (0.5) 192 (4.8) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

84 (1.4) 228 (1.1) 5 (0.9) 197 (3.5) 7 (0.8) 203 (4.3) 2 (0.4) *** (***)

82 (1.6) 224 (1.2) 1 (0.2) *** (***) 13 (1.0) 209 (3.1) 4 (1.0) 210 (3.3)!

47 (1.1) 224 (1.2) 19 (0.7) 205 (1.9) 18 (0.9) 211 (1.7) 3 (0.4) 210 (4.2)

9 (0.6)< 192 (4.2) 4 (0.4) 171 (8.0) 18 (0.9) 171 (2.3) 1 (0.2) *** (***)
130

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†

New Hampshire†

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

Asian Pacific Islander

1994 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

by Race/Ethnicity

Public Schools Only (continued)

TABLE C.2C

The percentage for race/ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because a small percentage of students categorized themselves as "other."

Due to significant changes in the wording of the race/ethnicity question between the 1992 and 1994 assessments, the 1992 results for Asian and Pacific Islander students are not comparable to 1994 results. Therefore, 1992 results for these two groups

are not presented.

*** Sample size in the 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment

2 (0.2) 231 (6.1) 1 (0.1) 216 (5.9)

2 (0.6) *** (***) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.3) *** (***) 0 (0.2) *** (***)

3 (0.6) 226 (7.0)! 1 (0.3) *** (***)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

8 (1.1) 211 (6.0) 5 (1.0) 213 (4.5)!

2 (0.3) *** (***) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

2 (0.3) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.3) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

2 (0.3) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

19 (1.3) 219 (2.6) 46 (1.6) 191 (2.0)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.1) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.7) *** (***) 0 (0.0) *** (***)

1 (0.1) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

3 (0.4) 232 (4.1) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

2 (0.6) 201 (9.2)! 0 (0.1) *** (***)

2 (0.4) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

0 (0.2) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.3) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.1) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 1 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

4 (0.6) 237 (4.0) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

1 (0.3) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

3 (0.5) 230 (6.3) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

1 (0.3) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.4) *** (***) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

3 (0.4) 203 (5.8) 0 (0.2) *** (***)

0 (0.1) *** (***) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

2 (0.4) *** (***) 0 (0.2) *** (***)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 1 (0.3) *** (***)

2 (0.4) *** (***) 1 (0.2) *** (***)

4 (0.7) 220 (5.7) 2 (0.4) 208 (6.2)

1 (0.2) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

2 (0.5) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

1 (0.1) *** (***) 0 (0.1) *** (***)

5 (0.5) 222 (3.6) 5 (0.6) 215 (3.8)

3 (0.4) 180 (6.0) 64 (0.9) 183 (1.3)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

131

1992 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only

Graduated College Some Education After High School Graduated High School

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska‡

New Hampshire‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

TABLE C.3A

37 (1.1) 223 (1.6) 9 (0.6) 221 (2.4) 13 (0.6) 211 (1.8)

40 (3.3) 232 (5.2) 7 (0.8) 221 (9.2) 12 (1.8) 212 (3.4)

36 (2.2) 218 (2.8) 8 (0.9) 216 (4.7) 16 (1.2) 207 (4.3)

38 (2.1) 223 (2.6) 13 (1.5) 224 (4.0) 13 (1.0) 214 (3.7)

35 (2.0) 219 (2.8) 7 (1.0) 223 (3.6) 10 (1.1) 210 (4.1)

36 (1.4) 215 (2.2) 8 (0.7) 217 (2.9) 20 (1.0) 207 (2.3)

34 (1.4) 218 (1.5) 8 (0.6) 216 (2.8) 9 (0.6) 204 (2.4)

32 (1.3) 217 (1.9) 10 (0.7) 223 (2.1) 20 (0.9) 211 (1.9)

37 (1.5) 216 (2.5) 7 (0.6) 206 (4.1) 8 (0.7) 198 (4.2)

40 (1.1) 225 (1.2) 11 (0.6) 224 (2.2) 12 (0.7) 210 (2.3)

43 (1.2) 233 (1.5) 9 (0.7) 230 (2.9) 11 (0.6) 213 (2.7)

38 (0.7) 220 (1.4) 7 (0.6) 221 (2.3) 14 (0.7) 205 (2.1)

36 (1.3) 213 (1.5) 9 (0.6) 215 (2.7) 13 (0.7) 206 (2.6)

38 (1.3) 221 (2.2) 8 (0.5) 219 (3.1) 17 (0.8) 206 (2.1)

38 (1.3) 209 (2.0) 7 (0.5) 208 (3.7) 13 (0.8) 195 (2.5)

35 (1.4) 227 (1.7) 10 (0.7) 229 (2.4) 16 (1.0) 218 (1.9)

41 (1.5) 234 (1.3) 10 (0.5) 231 (1.8) 15 (0.8) 222 (1.7)

30 (1.7) 220 (2.0) 10 (0.7) 222 (2.4) 20 (0.9) 214 (1.8)

33 (1.3) 206 (2.1) 9 (0.6) 215 (2.3) 18 (0.9) 201 (1.8)

41 (1.7) 234 (1.4) 9 (0.8) 235 (2.2) 17 (1.2) 223 (1.8)

44 (1.4) 218 (1.9) 8 (0.6) 218 (2.3) 12 (0.7) 207 (2.7)

46 (1.5) 235 (1.0) 8 (0.5) 232 (2.2) 11 (0.6) 222 (2.4)

40 (1.5) 227 (1.7) 9 (0.7) 230 (2.7) 13 (0.9) 218 (2.2)

34 (1.5) 204 (1.7) 7 (0.5) 209 (2.8) 16 (1.0) 197 (2.3)

36 (1.3) 228 (1.8) 10 (0.7) 227 (2.5) 17 (0.9) 215 (2.0)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

44 (1.2) 228 (1.5) 10 (0.8) 230 (3.2) 12 (0.7) 217 (2.3)

43 (1.7) 234 (1.5) 9 (0.7) 234 (2.5) 14 (1.0) 221 (2.4)

45 (1.8) 232 (1.8) 8 (0.7) 230 (2.7) 10 (0.7) 216 (2.6)

31 (1.8) 222 (1.9) 10 (0.9) 218 (2.8) 16 (1.1) 210 (2.1)

39 (1.5) 226 (1.4) 8 (0.8) 221 (2.3) 13 (0.7) 209 (2.3)

39 (1.3) 220 (1.6) 8 (0.6) 218 (2.5) 16 (0.8) 206 (2.2)

47 (1.5) 233 (1.2) 9 (0.7) 229 (2.7) 11 (0.8) 224 (2.2)

38 (1.7) 229 (1.7) 8 (0.6) 231 (2.2) 15 (0.8) 216 (1.8)

36 (1.8) 226 (2.4) 8 (0.7) 228 (2.6) 11 (0.8) 209 (2.5)

37 (1.5) 218 (1.6) 8 (0.6) 221 (3.0) 19 (1.0) 200 (2.0)

34 (1.8) 220 (2.2) 9 (0.5) 222 (3.8) 19 (1.1) 210 (2.4)

34 (1.6) 222 (2.2) 9 (0.8) 219 (2.7) 14 (0.9) 208 (2.1)

40 (1.4) 227 (1.4) 9 (0.6) 228 (2.5) 10 (0.6) 215 (1.9)

42 (1.8) 229 (2.0) 9 (0.7) 225 (2.7) 14 (0.7) 215 (1.7)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

33 (1.4) 225 (1.5) 10 (0.6) 224 (2.1) 20 (0.8) 212 (1.9)

35 (1.2) 231 (1.6) 11 (0.6) 232 (1.9) 16 (1.0) 219 (1.4)

39 (1.2) 230 (1.3) 11 (0.7) 231 (2.3) 13 (0.7) 218 (2.4)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

32 (1.2) 183 (2.1) 6 (0.5) 192 (4.9) 14 (0.8) 182 (3.2)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

132

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska‡

New Hampshire‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only (continued)

Did Not Finish High School I Don’t Know

*** Sample size in the 1992 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

TABLE C.3A

4 (0.4) 197 (2.7) 37 (1.1) 209 (1.3)

3 (0.5) *** (***) 37 (2.8) 212 (3.6)

5 (0.7) 197 (3.6) 35 (2.0) 205 (2.5)

3 (0.7) *** (***) 34 (2.1) 213 (2.1)

6 (1.0) 195 (5.4) 41 (1.8) 207 (1.6)

9 (0.7) 197 (2.6) 27 (1.2) 199 (2.1)

5 (0.4) 195 (3.6) 43 (1.5) 204 (1.6)

9 (0.6) 202 (2.6) 30 (1.0) 203 (1.6)

5 (0.5) 178 (4.2) 43 (1.2) 193 (2.4)

4 (0.3) 202 (3.2) 34 (1.2) 209 (1.6)

3 (0.3) 201 (3.6) 34 (1.3) 210 (1.6)

4 (0.4) 198 (4.5) 37 (0.8) 209 (1.7)

5 (0.5) 200 (3.4) 36 (1.4) 204 (1.6)

6 (0.5) 201 (3.2) 31 (1.2) 206 (1.4)

3 (0.3) 198 (4.4) 38 (1.2) 200 (2.0)

6 (0.6) 211 (3.7) 33 (1.4) 216 (1.6)

3 (0.4) 206 (3.4) 32 (1.1) 217 (1.3)

10 (0.7) 200 (2.2) 31 (1.3) 206 (1.5)

8 (0.6) 196 (2.2) 33 (1.4) 201 (1.2)

3 (0.4) 213 (3.9) 30 (1.4) 218 (1.6)

4 (0.4) 196 (4.9) 32 (1.2) 204 (2.0)

3 (0.4) 205 (3.5) 33 (1.4) 215 (1.9)

2 (0.3) *** (***) 36 (1.3) 214 (1.6)

8 (0.7) 189 (2.6) 35 (1.4) 195 (1.9)

6 (0.5) 211 (2.6) 32 (1.2) 213 (1.3)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

3 (0.4) *** (***) 31 (1.3) 211 (1.5)

4 (0.4) 212 (3.5) 30 (1.2) 222 (1.8)

4 (0.4) 205 (4.2) 33 (1.6) 212 (1.8)

6 (0.7) 193 (3.2) 37 (1.7) 203 (2.2)

4 (0.5) 197 (3.7) 36 (1.5) 208 (1.7)

7 (0.5) 196 (2.6) 29 (0.9) 206 (1.5)

3 (0.4) *** (***) 30 (1.3) 215 (1.4)

4 (0.4) 209 (2.8) 34 (1.1) 213 (1.6)

5 (0.5) 203 (4.8) 40 (1.6) 209 (2.2)

5 (0.6) 198 (2.8) 31 (1.2) 205 (1.7)

8 (0.6) 202 (2.6) 30 (1.3) 204 (1.4)

7 (0.8) 200 (2.8) 35 (1.4) 207 (1.6)

3 (0.4) 208 (4.5) 39 (1.3) 214 (1.5)

6 (0.6) 207 (2.8) 29 (1.1) 213 (1.5)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

8 (0.6) 203 (2.7) 29 (1.0) 207 (1.8)

3 (0.3) 212 (3.8) 36 (1.2) 217 (1.5)

4 (0.3) 210 (4.2) 33 (1.1) 216 (1.5)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

5 (0.4) 175 (5.4) 44 (1.2) 182 (2.0)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

133

1994 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only

Graduated College Some Education After High School Graduated High School

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†

New Hampshire†

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

TABLE C.3B

41 (1.0) 222 (1.4) 8 (0.5) 222 (2.2) 13 (0.5) 206 (1.9)

43 (1.8) 221 (3.1) 6 (0.5) 222 (4.4) 14 (1.3) 202 (3.3)

35 (2.0) 216 (3.0) 9 (1.1) 222 (3.0) 17 (1.0) 207 (3.9)

45 (1.6) 226 (3.0) 8 (1.6) 221 (5.1) 12 (1.1) 215 (4.0)

40 (2.1) 223 (2.4) 7 (0.8) 221 (5.1) 10 (0.5) 201 (3.9)

37 (1.5) 217 (1.9) 9 (0.8) 217 (3.2) 18 (1.0) 201 (2.6)

34 (1.5) 218 (2.3) 9 (0.8) 219 (3.5) 10 (0.7) 200 (3.3)

33 (1.6) 215 (2.0) 10 (0.8) 221 (3.1) 19 (1.1) 203 (2.6)

39 (1.9) 207 (2.1) 8 (0.7) 207 (3.4) 9 (0.7) 191 (4.2)

44 (1.5) 222 (1.4) 8 (0.6)< 220 (2.7) 10 (0.7) 213 (3.0)

49 (1.4)> 231 (1.7) 8 (0.6) 234 (2.9) 9 (0.6) 209 (3.6)

40 (1.0) 214 (1.4)< 8 (0.4) 217 (3.3) 12 (0.7) 202 (3.2)

40 (1.3) 212 (2.3) 8 (0.7) 219 (3.3) 12 (0.8) 195 (3.2)<

40 (1.7) 217 (2.9) 8 (0.8) 219 (3.2) 15 (1.1) 199 (3.4)

38 (1.3) 208 (1.9) 7 (0.5) 215 (5.0) 13 (0.8) 194 (2.7)

37 (1.6) 229 (1.5) 10 (0.7) 230 (2.8) 18 (1.0) 216 (2.6)

43 (1.7) 229 (1.6) 8 (0.6) 232 (2.9) 13 (0.9) 219 (2.1)

30 (1.2) 218 (2.1) 11 (0.7) 222 (2.9) 19 (0.9) 212 (2.0)

34 (1.5) 200 (2.2) 8 (0.7) 209 (2.6) 18 (0.9) 196 (2.1)

44 (1.2) 236 (1.5) 9 (0.5) 237 (2.4) 14 (0.8) 225 (2.5)

48 (1.6) 217 (2.2) 7 (0.6) 215 (3.3) 11 (0.7) 202 (4.1)

49 (1.7) 232 (1.6) 9 (0.7) 230 (2.3) 10 (0.7) 212 (3.1)

42 (1.5) 229 (1.6) 8 (0.6) 220 (2.8)< 11 (0.7) 212 (3.2)

37 (1.3) 207 (2.1) 7 (0.6) 213 (3.8) 17 (0.9) 199 (2.8)

37 (1.6) 225 (2.0) 9 (0.6) 227 (3.3) 17 (1.2) 216 (2.4)

39 (1.3) 230 (1.8) 10 (0.6) 227 (2.8) 13 (0.9) 219 (2.2)

43 (1.8) 231 (1.5) 7 (0.7) 232 (2.9) 13 (0.8) 215 (2.5)

41 (1.7) 231 (2.0) 9 (0.6) 236 (2.7) 11 (1.0) 220 (2.6)

46 (1.5) 230 (1.4) 10 (0.8) 225 (2.8) 11 (0.8) 209 (3.1)

34 (1.3) 215 (1.9) 9 (0.7) 220 (2.9) 14 (0.8) 200 (3.2)<

42 (1.8) 220 (2.0) 7 (0.7) 224 (3.3) 11 (0.6) 208 (2.7)

44 (1.4)> 223 (2.0) 8 (0.6) 226 (2.6) 13 (0.8)< 204 (2.2)

46 (1.4) 233 (1.3) 8 (0.6) 232 (2.9) 11 (0.7) 217 (2.5)

37 (2.0) 224 (2.3) 12 (0.9)>> 221 (2.9)< 18 (1.2) 210 (2.2)

40 (1.3) 228 (1.6) 11 (0.8) 230 (2.6) 10 (0.7) 217 (2.5)

40 (1.6) 213 (2.0) 7 (0.6) 216 (4.1) 17 (1.0) 193 (2.5)

36 (1.8) 219 (2.7) 9 (0.7) 225 (3.9) 18 (1.0) 213 (3.3)

37 (1.8) 222 (3.0) 9 (0.6) 224 (2.7) 13 (1.1) 207 (3.1)

42 (1.3) 226 (1.5) 9 (0.8) 225 (2.5) 10 (0.7) 211 (2.6)

41 (1.7) 221 (1.9)< 8 (0.6) 220 (3.1) 13 (0.9) 207 (2.6)

40 (1.4) 223 (1.7) 8 (0.6) 216 (2.4) 10 (0.5) 209 (2.7)

33 (1.3) 221 (1.5) 9 (0.7) 226 (2.9) 21 (0.9) 213 (2.2)

37 (1.4) 233 (1.6) 9 (0.7) 228 (2.5) 14 (0.8) 223 (2.5)

39 (1.3) 228 (1.5) 9 (0.7) 230 (2.1) 13 (0.7) 215 (2.1)

42 (1.1) 223 (1.4) 11 (0.8) 226 (2.3) 9 (0.7) 209 (2.3)

36 (1.1) 185 (1.8) 6 (0.5) 189 (4.3) 13 (0.7) 176 (2.6)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure

based on 38 jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment
134

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†

New Hampshire†

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1994 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only (continued)

Did Not Finish High School I Don’t Know

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure

based on 38 jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

*** Sample size in the 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 Reading Assessment

TABLE C.3B

4 (0.4) 188 (3.5) 34 (0.9) 204 (1.3)

3 (0.8) *** (***) 34 (1.7) 205 (1.9)

6 (0.9) 186 (4.8) 34 (1.6) 200 (2.8)

4 (0.6) *** (***) 31 (1.9) 210 (3.2)

5 (0.6) 188 (6.6) 38 (1.8) 203 (2.4)

8 (0.7) 197 (3.0) 28 (1.0) 201 (2.2)

5 (0.6) 189 (3.5) 42 (1.4) 198 (2.3)

6 (0.6)< 196 (3.8) 31 (1.2) 204 (2.6)

4 (0.5) 166 (4.3) 39 (1.6) 189 (2.6)

3 (0.4) 192 (5.9) 35 (1.3) 204 (1.7)

3 (0.5) 204 (6.9) 30 (1.2) 212 (2.1)

3 (0.4) 185 (4.6) 37 (1.0) 199 (1.8)<<

4 (0.4) 187 (4.8) 37 (1.3) 200 (2.1)

6 (0.7) 185 (5.4) 31 (1.2) 199 (2.5)

3 (0.4) 192 (5.3) 39 (1.1) 195 (2.2)

4 (0.5) 198 (4.6) 31 (1.4) 210 (1.4)<

3 (0.3) 211 (4.5) 33 (1.2) 215 (1.7)

8 (0.6) 195 (3.2) 33 (1.4) 206 (2.1)

8 (0.7) 188 (2.4) 33 (1.3) 194 (2.0)<

4 (0.3) 214 (3.3) 29 (1.1) 218 (1.6)

3 (0.4) 195 (5.1) 31 (1.3) 203 (2.0)

3 (0.4) 206 (3.4) 29 (1.4) 212 (1.8)

2 (0.3) *** (***) 37 (1.1) 210 (2.0)

8 (0.6) 192 (3.2) 32 (1.3) 197 (2.1)

5 (0.6) 199 (3.7)< 32 (1.1) 208 (1.7)

3 (0.4) 211 (4.2) 35 (1.2) 215 (1.9)

2 (0.4) *** (***) 34 (1.6) 208 (1.6)

4 (0.5) 207 (5.6) 35 (1.2)> 215 (1.8)<

3 (0.4) 193 (5.9) 30 (1.3) 209 (1.6)

6 (0.6) 188 (4.8) 36 (1.3) 196 (2.1)

4 (0.4) 196 (4.2) 36 (1.3) 202 (2.1)

5 (0.5)< 195 (2.9) 30 (1.1) 206 (1.6)

2 (0.3) *** (***) 33 (1.5) 217 (2.0)

4 (0.5) 187 (5.7)< 28 (1.5)< 208 (2.3)

4 (0.4) 203 (4.9) 35 (1.1) 211 (1.7)

6 (0.5) 189 (3.0) 30 (1.3) 198 (1.4)<

7 (0.6) 200 (3.7) 30 (1.4) 204 (2.2)

6 (0.7) 195 (3.2) 35 (1.6) 205 (1.9)

2 (0.3) *** (***) 37 (1.1) 209 (1.4)

5 (0.5) 196 (4.3) 32 (1.2) 208 (1.9)

2 (0.3) 197 (4.6) 38 (1.1) 203 (1.8)

7 (0.5) 196 (3.1) 31 (1.2) 205 (1.4)

4 (0.4) 212 (4.1) 37 (1.3) 217 (1.5)

4 (0.4) 203 (4.1) 35 (1.1) 216 (1.4)

2 (0.3) *** (***) 36 (1.0) 212 (1.3)

5 (0.5) 164 (4.8) 41 (0.9) 181 (1.6)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

135

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Nation*

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska‡

New Hampshire‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions**

Central City Urban Fringe/Large Town Rural/Small Town

1992 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

by Type of Location

Public Schools Only

TABLE C.4A

32 (2.8) 207 (1.5) 41 (3.5) 219 (2.2) 27 (2.6) 217 (2.5)

34 (2.9) 206 (3.4) 26 (4.2) 213 (3.2) 39 (3.7) 204 (2.4)

57 (2.5) 213 (1.1) 25 (3.4) 210 (3.1) 19 (2.1) 199 (4.5)

23 (3.1) 209 (4.0) 15 (4.1) 215 (2.3)! 63 (3.2) 211 (1.5)

47 (4.0) 200 (2.8) 47 (4.1) 203 (3.5) 7 (2.4) *** (***)

33 (3.1) 211 (2.0) 47 (3.8) 220 (1.7) 20 (2.3) 218 (2.7)

30 (3.1) 204 (3.8) 46 (4.6) 229 (1.8) 24 (4.1) 230 (1.9)

46 (0.2) 213 (0.9) 30 (0.1) 213 (1.1) 24 (0.1) 212 (1.3)

33 (4.4) 202 (3.5) 56 (4.9) 212 (1.6) 11 (2.3) 209 (2.2)!

24 (2.7) 203 (3.9) 38 (3.7) 219 (2.3) 38 (2.8) 211 (1.8)

26 (1.7) 209 (3.2) 41 (3.6) 199 (2.8) 32 (3.1) 204 (2.1)

37 (2.7) 217 (2.9) 31 (3.5) 225 (1.8) 33 (2.7) 222 (1.9)

27 (2.3) 224 (2.2) 17 (3.1) 231 (2.1) 56 (3.0) 224 (1.3)

18 (2.3) 215 (3.4) 25 (3.2) 217 (3.5) 57 (2.9) 210 (1.3)

34 (2.2) 200 (2.8) 34 (3.6) 207 (1.9) 32 (3.6) 204 (1.9)

9 (2.4) *** (***) 13 (3.6) 228 (2.5)! 77 (4.0) 227 (1.4)

27 (2.8) 200 (4.4) 66 (3.2) 216 (1.7) 7 (1.8) *** (***)

27 (2.4) 210 (2.2) 59 (3.2) 232 (1.1) 14 (2.8) 229 (2.6)!

16 (3.0) 212 (4.0) 52 (3.9) 224 (1.6) 33 (2.7) 220 (1.8)

12 (1.7) 198 (3.5) 19 (3.7) 208 (3.5) 68 (3.6) 197 (1.8)

19 (2.7) 209 (4.0) 40 (3.7) 223 (2.1) 41 (2.8) 222 (1.2)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

34 (2.5) 222 (1.7) 9 (2.6) 222 (3.7)! 56 (2.6) 221 (1.6)

19 (3.3) 229 (2.1) 44 (5.0) 229 (2.1) 37 (4.2) 225 (2.0)

15 (2.7) 194 (3.9) 82 (2.9) 228 (1.6) 3 (1.7) *** (***)

34 (2.9) 214 (2.1) 29 (4.2) 210 (3.1) 37 (4.9) 208 (2.1)

41 (2.2) 199 (3.0) 47 (3.4) 225 (1.5) 12 (3.1) 225 (2.4)!

35 (2.9) 214 (3.0) 25 (3.9) 212 (2.4) 40 (3.9) 209 (1.7)

25 (2.4) 228 (2.3) 14 (2.0) 226 (2.4) 62 (3.0) 224 (1.5)

28 (3.8) 207 (4.0) 49 (4.7) 226 (1.6) 22 (4.1) 225 (1.6)

35 (3.1) 208 (2.6) 47 (3.7) 218 (3.1) 18 (3.6) 231 (2.6)!

29 (3.3) 209 (2.8) 26 (3.3) 218 (2.2) 45 (3.2) 205 (1.9)

39 (3.0) 208 (2.7) 28 (3.9) 218 (2.7) 32 (3.1) 213 (1.9)

47 (4.1) 209 (2.5) 35 (4.2) 219 (2.7) 19 (3.8) 209 (4.6)!

25 (3.4) 219 (2.5) 52 (4.0) 220 (1.5) 23 (2.4) 222 (1.6)

34 (2.9) 217 (2.3) 41 (4.0) 227 (2.3) 24 (3.0) 214 (2.0)

— (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

13 (1.4) 216 (4.3) 28 (3.9) 218 (2.2) 59 (3.5) 214 (1.8)

31 (2.4) 222 (2.1) 28 (3.3) 225 (1.6) 40 (3.0) 224 (1.8)

24 (2.1) 221 (3.0) 5 (1.2) *** (***) 72 (1.9) 224 (1.1)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Type of location results are not reported for the four regions of the country, DoDEA schools, or Guam.

*** Sample size in the 1992 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

* School sample size is insufficient to permit reliable regional results for type of location.

** Results for type of location are not available for the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Overseas Schools and Guam.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 Reading Assessment
136

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Percentage

of Students

Average

Proficiency

Nation*

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†

New Hampshire†

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions**

Central City Urban Fringe/Large Town Rural/Small Town

1994 Average Grade 4 Reading Proficiency

by Type of Location

Public Schools Only

TABLE C.4B

34 (2.1) 203 (2.4) 43 (2.5) 219 (1.9) 23 (2.3) 213 (1.8)

34 (2.3) 205 (3.0) 24 (3.6) 216 (3.0) 43 (3.2) 206 (1.7)

59 (2.5) 207 (2.3) 29 (3.2) 207 (3.4) 12 (2.2) 199 (5.6)

28 (3.3) 207 (3.8) 18 (4.0) 212 (4.1)! 54 (3.5) 208 (1.8)

39 (3.1) 190 (3.6)< 56 (4.0) 202 (2.3) 5 (2.5) *** (***)

35 (2.5) 209 (2.5) 45 (2.6) 216 (2.3) 20 (2.4) 217 (2.5)

34 (3.7) 204 (4.3) 41 (4.9) 228 (1.6) 25 (4.8) 238 (2.5)>

48 (0.2)>> 207 (1.2)<< 28 (0.2)<< 206 (2.3)< 24 (0.1)<< 206 (2.5)

33 (4.2) 199 (3.3) 56 (4.8) 210 (2.5) 10 (2.3) 198 (4.3)!

19 (2.1) 195 (5.7) 43 (4.1) 213 (4.8) 38 (3.5) 206 (2.6)

27 (1.3) 210 (3.9) 39 (2.3) 198 (2.0) 34 (2.2) 197 (2.5)

36 (3.2) 210 (2.6) 29 (4.7) 228 (2.6) 35 (3.6) 223 (2.2)

24 (1.8) 218 (3.8) 15 (2.8) 222 (4.0) 62 (2.7) 225 (1.3)

21 (3.3) 214 (4.9) 25 (3.8) 216 (4.3) 54 (3.2) 209 (1.7)

34 (2.4) 190 (2.7)< 33 (3.8) 203 (3.1) 33 (3.6) 197 (2.7)

9 (1.5) *** (***) 19 (3.6) 228 (3.5) 72 (3.7) 229 (1.4)

29 (4.1) 200 (3.8) 63 (4.5) 216 (1.8) 7 (2.4) *** (***)

25 (2.5) 201 (3.3)< 59 (4.2) 231 (1.5) 16 (3.8) 230 (2.7)!

16 (2.6) 207 (6.6) 48 (3.6) 224 (1.6) 36 (3.2) 215 (2.0)

13 (2.2) 204 (3.7) 20 (3.6) 213 (4.2) 67 (2.9) 198 (2.0)

26 (3.2) 212 (4.4) 35 (3.2) 221 (2.2) 38 (2.6) 217 (1.6)<

21 (1.3) 218 (3.1) 13 (2.0) 224 (4.2) 66 (2.1) 223 (1.7)

29 (3.0) 218 (2.9) 7 (2.6) *** (***) 65 (3.8) 222 (1.7)

17 (2.5) 220 (2.9)< 47 (4.7) 226 (2.3) 36 (4.1) 222 (2.4)

16 (3.1) 190 (5.6) 79 (3.6) 225 (1.6) 5 (2.3) *** (***)

34 (2.7) 205 (3.3) 28 (3.9) 206 (3.1) 38 (3.3) 202 (3.1)

43 (2.2) 194 (2.7) 48 (3.3) 224 (1.7) 10 (2.4) 227 (4.1)!

38 (3.0) 218 (2.9) 22 (3.2) 213 (2.9) 40 (3.7) 211 (2.2)

32 (2.7) 224 (2.1) 14 (2.0) 229 (2.6) 55 (2.5) 225 (1.7)

29 (3.6) 197 (3.5) 56 (4.3) 224 (1.9) 15 (2.7) 220 (2.9)

38 (3.2) 211 (1.7) 43 (3.8) 223 (1.8) 20 (4.0) 229 (3.1)!

27 (3.0) 208 (2.9) 29 (3.8) 211 (2.7) 44 (3.7) 196 (2.8)<

37 (3.5) 207 (4.0) 30 (5.1) 218 (2.2) 33 (4.2) 213 (2.3)

49 (3.3) 208 (3.1) 33 (4.5) 219 (3.6) 19 (3.4) 211 (3.4)

28 (2.4) 215 (3.5) 51 (3.3) 219 (1.5) 21 (2.4) 217 (2.8)

34 (2.7) 208 (2.2)< 44 (4.1) 221 (2.4) 23 (2.9) 208 (2.4)

30 (3.6) 210 (3.4) 52 (4.1) 215 (1.9) 17 (2.4) 210 (3.7)

15 (1.7) 213 (2.8) 23 (2.8) 214 (2.3) 62 (2.7) 213 (1.3)

34 (1.8) 221 (2.4) 29 (3.4) 226 (1.7) 37 (3.5) 226 (1.5)

26 (2.0) 221 (2.7) 6 (1.4) *** (***) 68 (1.7) 222 (1.4)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Type of location results are not reported for the four regions of the country, DoDEA schools, or Guam

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure

based on 38 jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

*** Sample size in the 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

* School sample size is insufficient to permit reliable regional results for type of location.

** Results for type of location are not available for the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Overseas Schools and Guam.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1994 Reading Assessment
137

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure based on

38 jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. Statistically

significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Gender

Public Schools Only

At or Above Proficient

Male Female

At or Above Advanced

Male Female

TABLE C.5A

5 (0.7) 6 (0.8) 7 (0.9) 8 (0.9) 24 (1.5) 24 (1.3) 30 (1.5) 32 (1.6)

8 (3.0) 7 (2.1) 10 (3.0) 7 (1.8) 30 (5.7) 25 (3.4) 35 (4.6) 31 (2.6)

3 (0.8) 4 (0.9) 5 (1.2) 7 (1.0) 18 (2.4) 20 (2.3) 25 (3.2) 27 (3.1)

5 (1.4) 6 (1.7) 7 (1.7) 9 (1.9) 27 (2.8) 27 (2.9) 30 (2.6) 39 (4.2)

3 (0.9) 6 (1.1) 6 (1.7) 9 (1.2) 21 (2.3) 25 (1.9) 29 (2.3) 32 (2.8)

2 (0.6) 4 (0.7) 4 (0.6) 6 (1.1) 17 (1.6) 20 (1.6) 23 (2.0) 26 (1.9)

2 (0.5) 4 (0.9) 4 (0.7) 8 (1.0)> 17 (1.4) 20 (2.0) 24 (1.6) 28 (2.0)

3 (0.6) 3 (0.7) 4 (0.8) 6 (0.7) 20 (1.3) 21 (1.6) 25 (1.8) 27 (1.7)

2 (0.6) 3 (0.6) 5 (1.2) 4 (0.9) 16 (2.0) 15 (1.6) 22 (1.9) 20 (2.1)

3 (0.6) 5 (0.8) 5 (0.7) 7 (1.0) 22 (1.6) 25 (2.0) 29 (1.9) 31 (2.0)

5 (0.8) 8 (1.1)> 8 (1.6) 14 (1.7) 30 (1.9) 34 (1.9) 37 (1.8) 43 (2.3)

3 (0.7) 4 (0.8) 6 (1.0) 6 (1.4) 21 (1.6) 19 (1.9) 27 (1.3) 27 (1.3)

3 (0.7) 4 (0.9) 3 (0.6) 7 (0.9)> 20 (1.4) 19 (1.7) 23 (1.3) 26 (1.8)

4 (0.7) 6 (1.3) 6 (1.1) 7 (1.1) 23 (1.5) 23 (2.2) 27 (1.9) 28 (2.4)

2 (0.6) 3 (0.7) 3 (0.7) 5 (0.7) 14 (1.4) 16 (1.4) 20 (1.8) 22 (2.0)

5 (0.7) 6 (0.9) 6 (1.4) 8 (1.0) 28 (1.6) 29 (1.6) 32 (2.0) 36 (1.8)

5 (0.7) 6 (1.0) 9 (1.2) 10 (1.4) 32 (2.0) 30 (1.9) 40 (1.9) 40 (1.9)

3 (0.8) 4 (0.9) 4 (0.7) 8 (1.2)> 21 (1.9) 22 (1.8) 25 (1.9) 29 (2.6)

2 (0.6) 2 (0.8) 2 (0.5) 3 (0.6) 14 (1.5) 13 (1.2) 17 (1.4) 16 (1.4)

5 (0.8) 8 (1.0) 8 (1.4) 12 (1.7) 34 (1.8) 38 (2.1) 38 (2.3) 44 (2.1)

3 (0.8) 5 (0.7) 5 (0.9) 8 (0.9) 20 (1.5) 23 (1.8) 28 (1.9) 30 (1.7)

5 (0.7) 7 (1.4) 8 (1.2) 9 (1.5) 34 (2.3) 33 (2.1) 38 (1.6) 39 (2.1)

4 (0.7) 5 (0.9) 8 (0.9) 10 (1.3) 27 (1.5) 28 (1.9) 36 (2.4) 37 (2.1)

1 (0.4) 3 (0.5) 2 (0.5) 5 (0.8)> 12 (1.1) 14 (1.4) 15 (1.2) 21 (1.7)>

4 (0.7) 6 (1.3) 7 (1.0) 9 (1.1) 27 (1.9) 28 (2.2) 33 (2.0) 34 (2.3)

— (—) 6 (0.8) — (—) 9 (1.0) — (—) 30 (2.0) — (—) 40 (2.0)

4 (1.0) 6 (0.7) 7 (1.0) 11 (1.7) 27 (1.5) 30 (2.0) 34 (2.5) 39 (2.2)

7 (1.1) 6 (0.8) 9 (1.4) 12 (1.6) 34 (1.9) 30 (1.7) 42 (1.7) 42 (2.4)

6 (1.1) 7 (1.4) 9 (1.6) 10 (1.0) 31 (2.1) 29 (1.6) 38 (2.5) 37 (2.2)

4 (0.8) 3 (0.7) 4 (0.9) 6 (0.8) 21 (1.8) 17 (1.7) 24 (2.3) 24 (1.9)

4 (0.8) 5 (1.0) 5 (0.7) 8 (1.1) 24 (1.8) 24 (1.9) 29 (1.6) 31 (1.9)

5 (0.8) 5 (0.8) 6 (0.9) 10 (1.3)> 23 (1.4) 26 (1.8) 26 (1.7) 34 (2.1)>

5 (1.2) 6 (1.3) 7 (1.1) 10 (1.1) 33 (2.2) 33 (2.5) 37 (2.1) 42 (2.2)

5 (0.8) 5 (1.1) 7 (1.1) 9 (1.1) 29 (2.4) 25 (1.9) 34 (1.7) 35 (2.0)

5 (0.7) 5 (1.0) 6 (1.0) 10 (1.5) 26 (1.8) 27 (1.8) 30 (2.3) 37 (1.9)

3 (0.7) 3 (0.6) 5 (1.0) 5 (1.0) 19 (1.4) 17 (1.4) 24 (1.9) 23 (1.8)

3 (0.9) 5 (0.8) 5 (0.8) 7 (1.4) 21 (1.9) 23 (1.7) 26 (1.9) 30 (2.2)

3 (1.0) 5 (1.1) 5 (0.8) 7 (0.9) 20 (1.9) 24 (2.1) 27 (2.4) 28 (2.4)

4 (0.5) 5 (0.8) 6 (1.0) 8 (1.1) 27 (2.0) 26 (1.8) 33 (1.9) 34 (2.3)

5 (0.9) 6 (0.9) 7 (1.2) 9 (1.1) 28 (1.9) 21 (2.1) 35 (1.9) 32 (1.8)

— (—) 5 (0.7) — (—) 7 (1.1) — (—) 24 (1.7) — (—) 29 (1.5)

3 (0.7) 4 (0.7) 6 (1.2) 7 (1.0) 21 (1.6) 22 (1.7) 30 (1.9) 30 (1.8)

5 (1.0) 5 (0.8) 7 (0.8) 9 (1.3) 30 (1.7) 31 (2.0) 37 (1.8) 39 (2.3)

5 (0.7) 4 (0.7) 6 (0.8) 7 (0.9) 30 (2.2) 28 (1.5) 35 (1.5) 36 (2.0)

— (—) 4 (0.7) — (—) 8 (1.1) — (—) 22 (1.5) — (—) 34 (1.6)

0 (0.2) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.5) 2 (0.5) 5 (1.0) 5 (0.9) 11 (1.6) 11 (1.2)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

138

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Gender

Public Schools Only (continued)

Below Basic

Male Female

At or Above Basic

Male Female

TABLE C.5B

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure

based on 38 jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

56 (1.7) 53 (1.5) 65 (1.5) 64 (1.3) 44 (1.7) 47 (1.5) 35 (1.5) 36 (1.3)

61 (5.0) 53 (2.9) 68 (4.2) 63 (3.0) 39 (5.0) 47 (2.9) 32 (4.2) 37 (3.0)

48 (4.0) 46 (2.8) 62 (3.8) 59 (3.0) 52 (4.0) 54 (2.8) 38 (3.8) 41 (3.0)

62 (2.7) 59 (3.1) 67 (3.6) 71 (3.6) 38 (2.7) 41 (3.1) 33 (3.6) 29 (3.6)

51 (2.8) 54 (3.0) 62 (2.0) 64 (2.6) 49 (2.8) 46 (3.0) 38 (2.0) 36 (2.6)

48 (2.1) 48 (2.0) 55 (2.5) 57 (2.0) 52 (2.1) 52 (2.0) 45 (2.5) 43 (2.0)

50 (2.2) 47 (2.6) 58 (2.0) 56 (1.9) 50 (2.2) 53 (2.6) 42 (2.0) 44 (1.9)

52 (2.1) 49 (1.8) 59 (1.9) 58 (2.0) 48 (2.1) 51 (1.8) 41 (1.9) 42 (2.0)

43 (2.4) 41 (2.2) 52 (2.6) 48 (2.4) 57 (2.4) 59 (2.2) 48 (2.6) 52 (2.4)

61 (2.1) 55 (2.1) 67 (2.1) 64 (1.8) 39 (2.1) 45 (2.1) 33 (2.1) 36 (1.8)

66 (2.2) 65 (2.2) 71 (2.2) 71 (2.1) 34 (2.2) 35 (2.2) 29 (2.2) 29 (2.1)

53 (1.6) 46 (2.5) 62 (1.9) 59 (1.6) 47 (1.6) 54 (2.5) 38 (1.9) 41 (1.6)

49 (2.0) 45 (2.6) 56 (1.9) 55 (1.9) 51 (2.0) 55 (2.6) 44 (1.9) 45 (1.9)

54 (2.2) 47 (2.7) 60 (2.1) 57 (2.5) 46 (2.2) 53 (2.7) 40 (2.1) 43 (2.5)

43 (2.2) 41 (2.1) 53 (2.2) 52 (2.1) 57 (2.2) 59 (2.1) 47 (2.2) 48 (2.1)

64 (2.0) 63 (1.9) 71 (2.1) 69 (2.0) 36 (2.0) 37 (1.9) 29 (2.1) 31 (2.0)

69 (1.9) 66 (2.2) 77 (1.4) 73 (1.6) 31 (1.9) 34 (2.2) 23 (1.4) 27 (1.6)

54 (2.0) 51 (1.9) 62 (2.0) 62 (2.3) 46 (2.0) 49 (1.9) 38 (2.0) 38 (2.3)

42 (2.2) 38 (1.8) 50 (1.9) 43 (2.1) 58 (2.2) 62 (1.8) 50 (1.9) 57 (2.1)

73 (2.3) 72 (2.1) 78 (1.9) 78 (1.8) 27 (2.3) 28 (2.1) 22 (1.9) 22 (1.8)

51 (2.1) 51 (1.9) 62 (2.5) 60 (2.1) 49 (2.1) 49 (1.9) 38 (2.5) 40 (2.1)

73 (1.4) 67 (1.8)< 75 (1.8) 72 (1.8) 27 (1.4) 33 (1.8)> 25 (1.8) 28 (1.8)

65 (2.0) 61 (1.8) 71 (1.8) 69 (2.2) 35 (2.0) 39 (1.8) 29 (1.8) 31 (2.2)

39 (2.2) 40 (1.8) 44 (2.2) 50 (2.2) 61 (2.2) 60 (1.8) 56 (2.2) 50 (2.2)

64 (2.0) 58 (2.3) 70 (2.0) 66 (2.1) 36 (2.0) 42 (2.3) 30 (2.0) 34 (2.1)

— (—) 64 (2.0) — (—) 74 (2.2) — (—) 36 (2.0) — (—) 26 (2.2)

64 (2.0) 63 (1.9) 73 (1.7) 69 (2.4) 36 (2.0) 37 (1.9) 27 (1.7) 31 (2.4)

72 (2.2) 65 (2.3) 80 (1.9) 76 (2.2) 28 (2.2) 35 (2.3) 20 (1.9) 24 (2.2)

66 (2.2) 63 (1.9) 72 (2.3) 67 (1.7) 34 (2.2) 37 (1.9) 28 (2.3) 33 (1.7)

52 (2.1) 46 (2.3) 57 (2.0) 52 (1.9) 48 (2.1) 54 (2.3) 43 (2.0) 48 (1.9)

59 (2.0) 53 (2.4) 64 (2.2) 62 (1.8) 41 (2.0) 47 (2.4) 36 (2.2) 38 (1.8)

53 (1.8) 54 (1.9) 59 (1.9) 64 (1.8) 47 (1.8) 46 (1.9) 41 (1.9) 36 (1.8)

72 (2.4) 69 (1.8) 76 (2.2) 76 (1.6) 28 (2.4) 31 (1.8) 24 (2.2) 24 (1.6)

64 (2.1) 57 (2.0) 71 (1.9) 65 (2.0) 36 (2.1) 43 (2.0) 29 (1.9) 35 (2.0)

61 (2.9) 61 (2.0) 65 (2.3) 69 (2.1) 39 (2.9) 39 (2.0) 35 (2.3) 31 (2.1)

49 (2.2) 44 (1.9) 57 (2.3) 52 (1.8) 51 (2.2) 56 (1.9) 43 (2.3) 48 (1.8)

53 (1.9) 53 (2.4) 60 (2.0) 62 (2.4) 47 (1.9) 47 (2.4) 40 (2.0) 38 (2.4)

53 (2.4) 56 (2.6) 60 (2.4) 59 (2.5) 47 (2.4) 44 (2.6) 40 (2.4) 41 (2.5)

63 (2.1) 59 (2.4) 71 (1.9) 69 (1.9) 37 (2.1) 41 (2.4) 29 (1.9) 31 (1.9)

62 (2.5) 52 (2.3)< 72 (1.8) 63 (2.0)< 38 (2.5) 48 (2.3)> 28 (1.8) 37 (2.0)>

— (—) 55 (1.9) — (—) 62 (2.1) — (—) 45 (1.9) — (—) 38 (2.1)

57 (1.6) 53 (1.9) 65 (1.8) 63 (1.8) 43 (1.6) 47 (1.9) 35 (1.8) 37 (1.8)

68 (1.6) 67 (2.1) 73 (1.8) 75 (1.9) 32 (1.6) 33 (2.1) 27 (1.8) 25 (1.9)

67 (2.2) 66 (2.1) 75 (1.6) 71 (2.0) 33 (2.2) 34 (2.1) 25 (1.6) 29 (2.0)

— (—) 57 (2.4) — (—) 68 (1.3) — (—) 43 (2.4) — (—) 32 (1.3)

22 (1.4) 20 (1.0) 33 (1.8) 35 (2.0) 78 (1.4) 80 (1.0) 67 (1.8) 65 (2.0)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

139

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Race/Ethnicity

Public Schools Only

At or Above Advanced

White Black Hispanic

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

TABLE C.6A

8 (1.0) 9 (0.9) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 2 (1.0) 2 (0.7)

12 (3.4) 9 (1.8) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.8) 1 (1.6) 2 (1.9)

6 (1.1) 8 (0.8) 1 (0.9) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6)! 1 (1.6)

7 (1.5) 9 (1.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.4) 6 (3.8) 3 (1.5)

7 (1.0) 9 (1.1) 0 (0.2) 1 (1.3)! 2 (1.1) 2 (1.1)

5 (0.6) 7 (1.2) 0 (0.1) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.9) 0 (***)

5 (0.7) 9 (1.1) 2 (1.6) 2 (3.9) 1 (0.5) 3 (0.8)

5 (0.8) 6 (0.9) 0 (0.5) 0 (0.3) 0 (0.3) 3 (1.7)

6 (1.0) 5 (0.8) 1 (1.1) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.6)

5 (0.8) 8 (1.0) 1 (0.9)! 2 (1.8) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.6)

8 (1.2) 14 (1.4)> 1 (1.0) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.8) 2 (0.8)

7 (0.6) 7 (1.2) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.6) 0 (0.3) 1 (0.7)

5 (0.7) 7 (0.8) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 2 (1.1) 3 (1.1)

8 (1.2) 10 (1.5) 1 (0.6) 2 (0.5) 2 (1.8) 2 (1.3)

4 (1.3) 7 (1.7) 1 (2.0) 1 (1.4) 2 (1.1) 2 (1.0)

6 (1.0) 9 (0.9) 1 (1.0) 1 (0.6) 3 (2.5) 1 (1.8)

7 (0.7) 8 (1.1) 1 (1.8) 0 (***) 3 (1.3) 5 (2.3)

4 (0.6) 6 (0.9) 0 (0.7) 1 (0.7) 3 (1.8) 2 (1.6)

3 (0.7) 4 (0.9) 0 (0.2) 0 (0.5) 0 (0.9) 0 (0.5)

7 (0.9) 10 (1.0)> *** (***) *** (***) 0 (1.1) 5 (3.4)

6 (0.9) 10 (1.2) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.9) 1 (1.2)

8 (0.9) 10 (1.3) 1 (0.7) 2 (1.7) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.6)

6 (0.8) 8 (0.8) 0 (1.3) 2 (1.1) 2 (1.6) 4 (2.7)

4 (0.8) 7 (1.2) 0 (0.2) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.8) 1 (0.6)

7 (0.8) 9 (1.0) 1 (0.8) 3 (1.6) 1 (1.1) 2 (1.7)

— (—) 9 (0.9) — (—) *** (***) — (—) 2 (1.2)

6 (0.9) 9 (1.0) 0 (0.5) 1 (1.1)! 2 (1.2) 4 (2.2)

8 (1.1) 9 (1.1) *** (***) *** (***) 3 (1.8) 4 (2.8)

10 (1.4) 11 (0.9) 1 (1.1) 2 (1.2) 2 (1.1) 4 (1.0)

7 (1.3) 7 (1.1) 1 (2.4) 1 (1.6) 1 (0.5) 3 (0.6)

7 (1.1) 9 (1.2) 2 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 3 (1.0)

7 (0.9) 11 (1.1) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.6) 2 (2.1)

6 (0.9) 9 (1.0) *** (***) *** (***) 6 (3.8) 4 (2.2)

7 (0.9) 8 (1.0) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 2 (1.1) 1 (1.6)

6 (0.8) 9 (1.2) 1 (1.1) 3 (1.3) 1 (0.6) 2 (1.3)

6 (1.0) 7 (1.0) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.3) 1 (1.2) 1 (0.9)

5 (0.9) 8 (1.1) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.6) 2 (1.9) 2 (2.4)

7 (1.2) 10 (1.2) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.5) 2 (0.7)

5 (0.7) 7 (0.9) *** (***) *** (***) 2 (1.1) 2 (1.1)

9 (1.3) 10 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.6) 1 (1.3) 4 (1.8)

— (—) 7 (0.8) — (—) 1 (1.1) — (—) 1 (0.7)

5 (0.8) 6 (0.6) 3 (2.3) 2 (1.7) 2 (2.5) 1 (1.5)

7 (0.7) 8 (0.7) 1 (0.8) 0 (0.7) 2 (1.1) 1 (1.6)

6 (0.7) 6 (0.8) *** (***) *** (***) 2 (1.1) 3 (1.4)

— (—) 8 (1.2) — (—) 1 (0.6) — (—) 3 (1.0)

2 (0.9) 2 (1.7) 1 (1.4) 0 (0.6) 0 (0.4) 1 (0.5)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


The percentage for race/ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because a small percentage of students categorized themselves as "other."

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure based on 38

jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. Statistically significant differences

between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

No significant differences between the two assessments observed at this achievement level.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. — Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments
140

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Race/Ethnicity

Public Schools Only (continued)

At or Above Advanced

Asian Pacific Islander American Indian

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

TABLE C.6B

The percentage for race/ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because a small percentage of students categorized themselves as "other."

Due to significant changes in the wording of the race/ethnicity question between the 1992 and 1994 assessments, the 1992 results for Asian and Pacific Islander students are not comparable to 1994 results. Therefore, 1992 results for

these two groups are not presented.

No significant differences between the two assessments observed at this achievement level.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. — Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

*** (***) 15 (6.5) *** (***) 6 (4.6) 3 (1.9) 3 (2.5)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 12 (5.0)! *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.7)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 1 (1.5) *** (***)

*** (***) 9 (3.2) *** (***) 2 (1.9)! *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 3 (2.2) 5 (3.0)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 9 (1.6) *** (***) 1 (0.6) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 13 (6.5) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 4 (3.9)! *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 3 (3.3)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 4 (4.9)

— (—) *** (***) — (—) *** (***) — (—) 2 (1.0)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 3 (3.2)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 17 (6.6) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 0 (***) 2 (0.8)

*** (***) 13 (6.5) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 4 (3.8)! 0 (1.0)!

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 2 (1.7)! 1 (1.4)!

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 4 (5.1) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 0 (0.6)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

— (—) 9 (4.1) — (—) 6 (4.3) — (—) 4 (2.0)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 1 (2.2)! *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 3 (2.2)! 2 (1.7)!

— (—) 10 (4.2) — (—) 5 (2.1) — (—) 2 (2.5)

*** (***) 2 (2.0) *** (***) 1 (0.4) *** (***) *** (***)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

141

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Race/Ethnicity

Public Schools Only (continued)

At or Above Proficient

White Black Hispanic

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

TABLE C.6C

33 (1.9) 35 (1.5) 8 (1.4) 8 (0.9) 14 (1.8) 12 (1.6)

41 (5.4) 37 (3.3) 11 (3.1) 7 (1.7) 15 (5.5) 12 (3.6)

29 (3.9) 31 (2.9) 9 (2.2) 9 (1.7) 12 (2.9)! 8 (2.5)

33 (2.9) 37 (3.2) 4 (2.0) 7 (2.0) 23 (5.6) 23 (7.8)

32 (2.7) 36 (2.5) 6 (2.2) 9 (3.8)! 11 (1.5) 10 (2.1)

28 (1.9) 32 (1.5) 5 (1.3) 8 (1.1) 7 (3.1) 4 (3.1)

29 (1.7) 32 (1.9) 16 (4.2) 10 (3.4) 10 (1.5) 13 (1.6)

29 (1.5) 30 (1.7) 6 (1.1) 6 (1.2) 8 (2.9) 14 (3.3)

30 (2.4) 25 (1.9) 8 (2.7) 8 (3.7) 6 (1.4) 6 (1.5)

30 (1.6) 35 (1.6) 12 (3.0)! 11 (5.7) 13 (1.7) 12 (1.8)

42 (1.7) 48 (1.8) 9 (2.0) 9 (2.5) 8 (1.6) 14 (3.0)

32 (1.4) 30 (1.5) 9 (1.9) 10 (2.1) 7 (2.9) 10 (2.4)

29 (1.6) 31 (2.0) 7 (1.6) 7 (1.7) 14 (2.1) 13 (1.8)

34 (1.9) 36 (2.4) 9 (1.3) 10 (2.0) 15 (3.6) 13 (2.9)

26 (3.4) 34 (2.5) 10 (3.7) 10 (4.0) 11 (2.6) 13 (2.8)

33 (1.7) 37 (1.8) 11 (2.7) 8 (2.6) 22 (5.4) 14 (3.5)

38 (1.6) 37 (1.4) 17 (4.8) 7 (4.1)! 17 (4.0) 16 (3.1)

25 (1.7) 28 (1.9) 8 (3.2) 12 (3.5) 13 (4.9) 11 (5.0)

23 (1.6) 25 (1.8) 6 (1.0) 4 (0.8) 7 (2.7) 6 (2.4)

37 (1.7) 42 (1.5) *** (***) *** (***) 14 (4.7) 25 (6.2)

32 (1.7) 37 (2.0) 9 (1.3) 8 (1.3) 12 (2.8) 12 (4.3)

41 (1.7) 42 (1.9) 10 (3.2) 13 (2.3) 11 (2.5) 10 (2.1)

34 (1.5) 35 (1.6) 5 (2.8) 9 (3.8) 14 (4.4) 21 (4.1)

26 (1.9) 31 (2.3) 5 (0.6) 7 (1.2) 3 (2.2) 6 (2.1)

35 (1.5) 35 (1.6) 9 (2.1) 12 (3.1) 12 (2.9) 17 (3.9)

— (—) 39 (1.5) — (—) *** (***) — (—) 20 (2.8)

34 (1.8) 37 (1.8) 10 (3.1) 9 (4.7)! 16 (3.0) 21 (3.9)

39 (1.6) 37 (1.5) *** (***) *** (***) 25 (5.0) 21 (6.6)

44 (2.2) 42 (2.2) 10 (2.1) 12 (2.3) 14 (2.5) 17 (1.9)

35 (2.8) 30 (2.3) 12 (7.8) 11 (5.4) 13 (1.1) 15 (1.5)

36 (1.8) 39 (2.2) 12 (2.6) 9 (1.5) 9 (1.7) 13 (1.8)

33 (1.8) 39 (2.0) 9 (1.8) 11 (1.5) 14 (3.8) 11 (3.1)

36 (1.5) 40 (1.5) *** (***) *** (***) 29 (5.8) 22 (4.5)

37 (1.8) 36 (1.4) 7 (1.4) 7 (2.2) 14 (3.4) 11 (4.7)

33 (1.9) 37 (1.6) 7 (2.5) 11 (2.7) 9 (1.9) 12 (2.9)

32 (1.7) 31 (1.8) 7 (1.2) 6 (1.1) 11 (3.5) 8 (2.4)

29 (1.7) 32 (1.7) 8 (1.2) 9 (2.7) 14 (4.3) 12 (5.4)

35 (2.4) 38 (2.2) 8 (1.6) 10 (2.6) 12 (1.9) 13 (1.4)

32 (1.7) 33 (1.7) *** (***) *** (***) 14 (3.1) 15 (2.7)

40 (2.0) 35 (2.1) 12 (2.0) 8 (1.4) 12 (3.3) 20 (3.2)

— (—) 31 (1.5) — (—) 11 (3.6) — (—) 9 (2.2)

26 (1.4) 28 (1.4) 12 (5.5) 13 (2.9) 16 (5.3) 11 (3.9)

37 (1.5) 39 (1.7) 10 (2.5) 9 (2.5) 17 (2.7) 14 (3.5)

36 (1.7) 35 (1.4) *** (***) *** (***) 17 (2.3) 20 (2.6)

— (—) 36 (1.7) — (—) 14 (2.1) — (—) 22 (2.5)

15 (2.1) 15 (3.4) 5 (2.7) 5 (3.1) 4 (1.3) 6 (1.1)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


The percentage for race/ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because a small percentage of students categorized themselves as "other."

No significant differences between the two assessments observed at this achievement level.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. — Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments
142

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Race/Ethnicity

Public Schools Only (continued)

At or Above Proficient

Asian Pacific Islander American Indian

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

TABLE C.6D

The percentage for race/ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because a small percentage of students categorized themselves as "other."

Due to significant changes in the wording of the race/ethnicity question between the 1992 and 1994 assessments, the 1992 results for Asian and Pacific Islander students are not comparable to 1994 results. Therefore, 1992 results for

these two groups are not presented.

No significant differences between the two assessments observed at this achievement level.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. — Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

*** (***) 45 (7.7) *** (***) 33 (5.2) 16 (4.5) 18 (4.2)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 40 (7.9)! *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 6 (1.8) 10 (2.8)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 16 (5.5) *** (***)

*** (***) 32 (5.0) *** (***) 24 (6.3)! *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 16 (5.6) 22 (5.0)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 33 (2.8) *** (***) 11 (1.5) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 49 (7.6) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 16 (6.2)! *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 15 (5.5)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 22 (5.9)

— (—) *** (***) — (—) *** (***) — (—) 17 (3.7)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 17 (6.8)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 52 (5.8) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 9 (4.9)! 8 (2.9)

*** (***) 46 (8.7) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 19 (5.6)! 11 (5.9)!

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 17 (5.5)! 15 (5.1)!

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 19 (6.6) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 9 (4.3)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

— (—) 33 (7.7) — (—) 19 (6.8) — (—) 20 (5.0)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 16 (6.4)! *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 17 (5.0)! 20 (5.0)!

— (—) 34 (5.0) — (—) 23 (4.8) — (—) 17 (4.8)

*** (***) 9 (4.3) *** (***) 8 (0.9) *** (***) *** (***)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

143

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Race/Ethnicity

Public Schools Only (continued)

At or Above Basic

White Black Hispanic

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

The percentage for race/ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because a small percentage of students categorized themselves as "other."

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure based on 38 jurisdictions participating in

both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison

samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. — Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

TABLE C.6E

70 (1.5) 69 (1.3) 32 (2.1) 30 (2.5) 42 (2.1) 33 (2.6)

75 (3.6) 72 (3.3) 37 (4.7) 27 (2.7) 43 (5.8) 37 (4.9)

67 (4.8) 65 (2.2) 34 (3.9) 32 (4.3) 39 (4.9)! 26 (4.3)

71 (1.8) 71 (3.0) 28 (4.5) 28 (8.6) 54 (7.4) 42 (10.1)

66 (2.3) 69 (2.1) 26 (4.2) 31 (4.1)! 37 (2.7) 32 (3.8)

64 (2.2) 65 (1.9) 28 (2.5) 29 (1.8) 33 (5.1) 21 (5.1)

67 (1.7) 65 (2.1) 43 (6.2) 31 (6.0) 41 (2.5) 34 (2.3)

66 (1.5) 64 (1.8) 29 (2.0) 25 (2.1) 31 (5.2) 36 (5.7)

65 (2.7) 59 (2.9) 29 (4.6) 31 (5.7) 26 (2.8) 22 (2.5)

70 (1.6) 69 (1.6) 48 (6.2)! 36 (7.2) 46 (2.9) 37 (2.7)

80 (1.3) 80 (1.6) 34 (5.2) 33 (4.6) 37 (4.1) 38 (3.6)

69 (1.5) 62 (1.9) 35 (2.5) 33 (2.2) 31 (3.9) 34 (4.1)

65 (1.6) 64 (1.7) 27 (3.0) 28 (2.3) 43 (3.2) 35 (2.7)

71 (1.6) 67 (2.0) 36 (2.7) 30 (3.2) 34 (5.8) 36 (4.8)

62 (3.6) 67 (2.6) 33 (4.6) 35 (5.2) 34 (3.8) 33 (3.0)

73 (1.5) 71 (1.8) 41 (3.5) 34 (3.4) 54 (5.1) 46 (4.6)

75 (1.4) 72 (1.5) 54 (7.0) 26 (5.8)! 58 (4.7) 49 (6.0)

61 (1.7) 59 (1.5) 38 (4.7) 37 (4.7) 34 (7.1) 36 (4.8)

62 (1.9) 58 (1.9) 28 (1.8) 21 (1.9)< 32 (6.1) 22 (4.5)

77 (1.5) 76 (1.7) *** (***) *** (***) 52 (6.0) 65 (5.6)

68 (1.9) 69 (2.0) 35 (3.1) 31 (2.5) 39 (3.9) 39 (4.5)

80 (1.1) 78 (1.3) 48 (4.4) 39 (4.0) 42 (4.3) 37 (4.0)

71 (1.6) 69 (1.3) 29 (6.0) 27 (6.1) 45 (5.9) 49 (4.1)

64 (2.3) 65 (2.6) 25 (1.7) 28 (2.1) 23 (5.0) 27 (4.0)

74 (1.5) 68 (1.6) 38 (3.5) 36 (4.9) 42 (4.6) 43 (5.1)

— (—) 73 (1.6) — (—) *** (***) — (—) 55 (5.1)

73 (1.6) 70 (1.5) 35 (3.9) 34 (5.1)! 49 (4.5) 50 (5.8)

77 (1.9) 71 (2.1) *** (***) *** (***) 62 (4.9) 59 (6.8)

81 (1.5) 78 (1.5) 40 (4.0) 35 (3.6) 39 (4.3) 44 (3.1)

70 (2.1) 63 (2.0) 41 (7.0) 39 (8.4) 42 (2.2) 41 (2.0)

74 (1.6) 73 (1.9) 44 (3.4) 33 (2.6) 32 (3.2) 39 (3.3)

67 (1.6) 71 (1.7) 36 (3.1) 35 (2.1) 37 (4.2) 34 (5.3)

75 (1.8) 75 (1.3) *** (***) *** (***) 71 (7.5) 58 (5.1)

76 (1.6) 70 (1.4)< 29 (3.3) 26 (4.1) 41 (4.7) 35 (5.4)

72 (1.7) 72 (1.6) 27 (3.5) 39 (4.0) 32 (5.4) 38 (3.5)

68 (2.3) 66 (1.7) 34 (2.3) 25 (1.9)< 32 (5.3) 27 (4.0)

65 (1.7) 66 (2.3) 33 (2.9) 30 (2.8) 39 (5.8) 40 (8.6)

71 (2.5) 73 (2.4) 40 (3.8) 38 (4.7) 41 (2.4) 41 (2.6)

70 (1.5) 68 (1.8) *** (***) *** (***) 45 (4.2) 47 (3.4)

76 (1.9) 70 (1.9) 44 (3.7) 31 (2.3)< 45 (5.1) 49 (4.7)

— (—) 64 (1.7) — (—) 41 (4.7) — (—) 36 (3.9)

63 (1.3) 59 (1.3) 42 (7.6) 44 (8.9) 39 (6.2) 39 (6.5)

75 (1.3) 76 (1.4) 41 (4.4) 39 (6.5) 56 (4.8) 46 (6.3)

75 (1.8) 71 (1.6) *** (***) *** (***) 53 (3.8) 53 (5.0)

— (—) 70 (1.8) — (—) 49 (3.1) — (—) 57 (3.2)

41 (3.8) 39 (3.9) 19 (5.5) 21 (5.8) 17 (2.2) 20 (2.1)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

144

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Race/Ethnicity

Public Schools Only (continued)

At or Above Basic

Asian Pacific Islander American Indian

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

The percentage for race/ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because a small percentage of students categorized themselves as "other."

Due to significant changes in the wording of the race/ethnicity question between the 1992 and 1994 assessments, the 1992 results for Asian and Pacific Islander students are not comparable to 1994 results. Therefore, 1992 results for these two groups are not presented.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. — Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

TABLE C.6F

*** (***) 77 (5.7) *** (***) 63 (8.4) 52 (6.7) 47 (4.7)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 73 (9.8)! *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 25 (4.6) 27 (3.9)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 51 (6.9) *** (***)

*** (***) 55 (5.8) *** (***) 58 (7.0)! *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 47 (7.1) 49 (6.0)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 65 (2.8) *** (***) 35 (2.4) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 79 (4.9) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 42 (9.5)! *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 38 (7.3)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 58 (7.3)

— (—) *** (***) — (—) *** (***) — (—) 47 (5.4)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 42 (7.0)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 83 (5.1) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 42 (7.2)! 30 (4.2)

*** (***) 75 (5.9) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 43 (8.8)! 45 (5.8)!

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 56 (7.7)! 40 (7.7)!

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 45 (7.5) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 39 (10.6)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

— (—) 65 (5.7) — (—) 51 (9.2) — (—) 51 (6.0)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 49 (9.3)! *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 54 (6.4)! 55 (5.8)!

— (—) 64 (5.9) — (—) 57 (6.7) — (—) 52 (8.0)

*** (***) 28 (7.5) *** (***) 28 (1.4) *** (***) *** (***)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

145

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Race/Ethnicity

Public Schools Only (continued)

Below Basic

White Black Hispanic

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

The percentage for race/ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because a small percentage of students categorized themselves as "other."

Due to significant changes in the wording of the race/ethnicity question between the 1992 and 1994 assessments, the 1992 results for Asian and Pacific Islander students are not comparable to 1994 results. Therefore, 1992 results for these two groups are not presented.

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure based on 38 jurisdictions participating in

both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison

samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. — Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

TABLE C.6G

30 (1.5) 31 (1.3) 68 (2.1) 70 (2.5) 58 (2.1) 67 (2.6)

25 (3.6) 28 (3.3) 63 (4.7) 73 (2.7) 57 (5.8) 63 (4.9)

33 (4.8) 35 (2.2) 66 (3.9) 68 (4.3) 61 (4.9)! 74 (4.3)

29 (1.8) 29 (3.0) 72 (4.5) 72 (8.6) 46 (7.4) 58 (10.1)

34 (2.3) 31 (2.1) 74 (4.2) 69 (4.1)! 63 (2.7) 68 (3.8)

36 (2.2) 35 (1.9) 72 (2.5) 71 (1.8) 67 (5.1) 79 (5.1)

33 (1.7) 35 (2.1) 57 (6.2) 69 (6.0) 59 (2.5) 66 (2.3)

34 (1.5) 36 (1.8) 71 (2.0) 75 (2.1) 69 (5.2) 64 (5.7)

35 (2.7) 41 (2.9) 71 (4.6) 69 (5.7) 74 (2.8) 78 (2.5)

30 (1.6) 31 (1.6) 52 (6.2)! 64 (7.2) 54 (2.9) 63 (2.7)

20 (1.3) 20 (1.6) 66 (5.2) 67 (4.6) 63 (4.1) 62 (3.6)

31 (1.5) 38 (1.9) 65 (2.5) 67 (2.2) 69 (3.9) 66 (4.1)

35 (1.6) 36 (1.7) 73 (3.0) 72 (2.3) 57 (3.2) 65 (2.7)

29 (1.6) 33 (2.0) 64 (2.7) 70 (3.2) 66 (5.8) 64 (4.8)

38 (3.6) 33 (2.6) 67 (4.6) 65 (5.2) 66 (3.8) 67 (3.0)

27 (1.5) 29 (1.8) 59 (3.5) 66 (3.4) 46 (5.1) 54 (4.6)

25 (1.4) 28 (1.5) 46 (7.0) 74 (5.8)! 42 (4.7) 51 (6.0)

39 (1.7) 41 (1.5) 62 (4.7) 63 (4.7) 66 (7.1) 64 (4.8)

38 (1.9) 42 (1.9) 72 (1.8) 79 (1.9)> 68 (6.1) 78 (4.5)

23 (1.5) 24 (1.7) *** (***) *** (***) 48 (6.0) 35 (5.6)

32 (1.9) 31 (2.0) 65 (3.1) 69 (2.5) 61 (3.9) 61 (4.5)

20 (1.1) 22 (1.3) 52 (4.4) 61 (4.0) 58 (4.3) 63 (4.0)

29 (1.6) 31 (1.3) 71 (6.0) 73 (6.1) 55 (5.9) 51 (4.1)

36 (2.3) 35 (2.6) 75 (1.7) 72 (2.1) 77 (5.0) 73 (4.0)

26 (1.5) 32 (1.6) 62 (3.5) 64 (4.9) 58 (4.6) 57 (5.1)

— (—) 27 (1.6) — (—) *** (***) — (—) 45 (5.1)

27 (1.6) 30 (1.5) 65 (3.9) 66 (5.1)! 51 (4.5) 50 (5.8)

23 (1.9) 29 (2.1) *** (***) *** (***) 38 (4.9) 41 (6.8)

19 (1.5) 22 (1.5) 60 (4.0) 65 (3.6) 61 (4.3) 56 (3.1)

30 (2.1) 37 (2.0) 59 (7.0) 61 (8.4) 58 (2.2) 59 (2.0)

26 (1.6) 27 (1.9) 56 (3.4) 67 (2.6) 68 (3.2) 61 (3.3)

33 (1.6) 29 (1.7) 64 (3.1) 65 (2.1) 63 (4.2) 66 (5.3)

25 (1.8) 25 (1.3) *** (***) *** (***) 29 (7.5) 42 (5.1)

24 (1.6) 30 (1.4)> 71 (3.3) 74 (4.1) 59 (4.7) 65 (5.4)

28 (1.7) 28 (1.6) 73 (3.5) 61 (4.0) 68 (5.4) 62 (3.5)

32 (2.3) 34 (1.7) 66 (2.3) 75 (1.9)> 68 (5.3) 73 (4.0)

35 (1.7) 34 (2.3) 67 (2.9) 70 (2.8) 61 (5.8) 60 (8.6)

29 (2.5) 27 (2.4) 60 (3.8) 62 (4.7) 59 (2.4) 59 (2.6)

30 (1.5) 32 (1.8) *** (***) *** (***) 55 (4.2) 53 (3.4)

24 (1.9) 30 (1.9) 56 (3.7) 69 (2.3)> 55 (5.1) 51 (4.7)

— (—) 36 (1.7) — (—) 59 (4.7) — (—) 64 (3.9)

37 (1.3) 41 (1.3) 58 (7.6) 56 (8.9) 61 (6.2) 61 (6.5)

25 (1.3) 24 (1.4) 59 (4.4) 61 (6.5) 44 (4.8) 54 (6.3)

25 (1.8) 29 (1.6) *** (***) *** (***) 47 (3.8) 47 (5.0)

— (—) 30 (1.8) — (—) 51 (3.1) — (—) 43 (3.2)

59 (3.8) 61 (3.9) 81 (5.5) 79 (5.8) 83 (2.2) 80 (2.1)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

146

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Race/Ethnicity

Public Schools Only (continued)

Below Basic

Asian Pacific Islander American Indian

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

TABLE C.6H

The percentage for race/ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because a small percentage of students categorized themselves as "other."

Due to significant changes in the wording of the race/ethnicity question between the 1992 and 1994 assessments, the 1992 results for Asian and Pacific Islander students are not comparable to 1994 results. Therefore, 1992 results for these two groups are not presented.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. — Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

! Interpret with caution any comparison involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

*** (***) 23 (5.7) *** (***) 37 (8.4) 48 (6.7) 53 (4.7)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 27 (9.8)! *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 75 (4.6) 73 (3.9)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 49 (6.9) *** (***)

*** (***) 45 (5.8) *** (***) 42 (7.0)! *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 53 (7.1) 51 (6.0)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 35 (2.8) *** (***) 65 (2.4) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 21 (4.9) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 58 (9.5)! *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 62 (7.3)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 42 (7.3)

— (—) *** (***) — (—) *** (***) — (—) 53 (5.4)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 58 (7.0)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 17 (5.1) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 58 (7.2)! 70 (4.2)

*** (***) 25 (5.9) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 57 (8.8)! 55 (5.8)!

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 44 (7.7)! 60 (7.7)!

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) 55 (7.5) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 61 (10.6)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

— (—) 35 (5.7) — (—) 49 (9.2) — (—) 49 (6.0)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 51 (9.3)! *** (***)

*** (***) *** (***) *** (***) *** (***) 46 (6.4)! 45 (5.8)!

— (—) 36 (5.9) — (—) 43 (6.7) — (—) 48 (8.0)

*** (***) 72 (7.5) *** (***) 72 (1.4) *** (***) *** (***)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

147

At or Above Advanced

College Graduate Some Education After High School Graduated High School

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only

TABLE C.7A

No significant differences between the two assessments observed at this achievement level.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

10 (1.2) 11 (1.3) 8 (2.3) 9 (2.1) 3 (1.1) 4 (1.3)

15 (4.4) 11 (3.1) 10 (8.5) 8 (3.5) 3 (2.8) 4 (2.8)

8 (1.2) 9 (1.3) 6 (3.3) 11 (3.1) 2 (1.6) 4 (1.5)

8 (1.9) 11 (2.4) 7 (4.3) 7 (3.7) 3 (1.7) 6 (3.4)

8 (2.2) 11 (1.7) 9 (3.2) 9 (2.6) 3 (2.4) 2 (1.4)

5 (0.9) 8 (1.3) 5 (2.1) 8 (2.4) 3 (0.9) 2 (0.9)

5 (1.2) 9 (1.6) 3 (1.6) 11 (3.0) 2 (1.3) 3 (2.0)

6 (1.2) 7 (1.3) 6 (2.4) 8 (2.4) 3 (0.7) 3 (1.2)

7 (1.4) 6 (0.9) 3 (1.8) 4 (2.6) 2 (1.7) 2 (0.9)

6 (1.0) 8 (1.3) 5 (1.7) 7 (2.2) 2 (1.0) 5 (2.1)

11 (2.0) 15 (2.0) 8 (2.0) 14 (3.2) 2 (0.8) 5 (2.0)

7 (1.0) 8 (1.4) 7 (2.6) 8 (3.8) 2 (0.8) 3 (1.3)

5 (0.8) 7 (1.3) 5 (2.2) 7 (2.9) 3 (0.9) 4 (1.3)

8 (1.6) 11 (1.8) 8 (3.0) 9 (2.9) 3 (1.4) 4 (1.4)

3 (0.8) 5 (0.9) 3 (1.7) 9 (2.4) 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0)

9 (1.3) 11 (1.6) 8 (2.3) 11 (2.3) 4 (1.7) 6 (1.6)

10 (1.0) 11 (1.6) 8 (2.2) 12 (2.7) 6 (1.9) 5 (2.0)

5 (1.5) 8 (1.6) 6 (2.1) 9 (2.7) 3 (1.0) 6 (1.4)

3 (1.0) 4 (1.0) 4 (2.2) 5 (2.1) 1 (0.5) 2 (0.8)

11 (1.5) 14 (1.8) 6 (3.1) 13 (2.6) 3 (1.3) 7 (1.7)

7 (1.2) 9 (1.2) 4 (2.3) 7 (2.6) 3 (1.2) 5 (1.9)

10 (1.2) 11 (1.6) 7 (3.0) 10 (2.8) 3 (1.7) 3 (2.1)

8 (1.1) 11 (1.3) 9 (2.8) 6 (1.6) 4 (1.2) 7 (1.8)

2 (0.6) 6 (1.1) 4 (2.2) 7 (3.7) 1 (0.4) 2 (0.8)

9 (1.4) 11 (1.6) 8 (2.0) 11 (2.6) 3 (0.9) 7 (1.9)

— (—) 11 (1.6) — (—) 8 (2.7) — (—) 5 (1.7)

8 (1.1) 12 (1.8) 10 (3.8) 12 (3.0) 3 (1.4) 6 (1.7)

11 (1.8) 11 (1.7) 10 (2.7) 15 (3.0) 5 (1.6) 8 (2.6)

12 (1.9) 12 (1.3) 9 (3.3) 10 (2.4) 4 (1.6) 4 (1.6)

7 (1.3) 8 (1.2) 5 (2.0) 7 (1.9) 2 (1.1) 2 (0.8)

9 (1.3) 9 (1.3) 4 (1.8) 9 (4.5) 2 (1.2) 4 (2.2)

8 (1.6) 12 (1.3) 5 (1.8) 12 (3.2) 3 (1.0) 3 (1.1)

9 (1.2) 12 (1.5) 7 (2.2) 10 (2.7) 5 (1.8) 3 (2.0)

10 (1.4) 11 (1.6) 10 (3.0) 8 (2.2) 3 (1.5) 3 (0.9)

9 (1.5) 12 (2.0) 7 (2.7) 8 (2.6) 2 (1.5) 5 (1.9)

6 (1.3) 7 (1.0) 6 (2.3) 6 (2.1) 2 (0.9) 2 (1.0)

7 (1.7) 8 (1.6) 7 (1.9) 11 (3.8) 2 (0.9) 5 (1.6)

8 (1.4) 10 (1.7) 3 (1.7) 7 (1.7) 2 (0.8) 4 (1.6)

7 (1.2) 9 (1.3) 8 (2.9) 8 (2.3) 2 (1.2) 4 (1.4)

10 (1.7) 10 (1.3) 7 (2.6) 9 (2.7) 3 (1.2) 4 (1.5)

— (—) 9 (1.3) — (—) 5 (2.0) — (—) 4 (1.3)

8 (1.5) 8 (1.4) 7 (1.9) 10 (2.2) 3 (0.7) 5 (1.4)

10 (1.2) 11 (1.4) 9 (1.6) 8 (2.9) 3 (1.3) 6 (1.8)

8 (1.2) 8 (1.1) 8 (1.9) 7 (2.1) 2 (1.1) 3 (1.2)

— (—) 8 (1.3) — (—) 7 (1.6) — (—) 2 (1.7)

1 (0.5) 2 (0.6) 2 (1.4) 3 (1.8) 1 (0.6) 0 (0.5)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

148

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

At or Above Advanced

Did Not Finish High School I Don’t Know

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only (continued)

No significant differences between the two assessments observed at this achievement level.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

TABLE C.7B

1 (1.4) 1 (1.3) 3 (0.8) 4 (0.7)

*** (***) *** (***) 4 (1.7) 3 (1.0)

0 (0.6) 1 (1.7) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.2)

*** (***) *** (***) 4 (1.4) 4 (1.5)

2 (1.8) 1 (2.0) 3 (1.5) 5 (1.3)

1 (0.6) 2 (1.3) 1 (0.5) 3 (0.9)

2 (1.6) 2 (1.7) 2 (0.5) 4 (0.7)

1 (1.1) 1 (1.7) 2 (0.8) 3 (1.0)

0 (0.7) 0 (***) 1 (0.7) 2 (0.8)

1 (1.7) 2 (1.8) 2 (0.7) 3 (0.8)

0 (***) 7 (3.8) 2 (0.7) 6 (1.1)

0 (0.4) 1 (0.9) 3 (0.8) 3 (1.0)

1 (2.0) 1 (1.4) 2 (0.5) 4 (0.8)

2 (1.1) 1 (1.0) 3 (0.9) 3 (0.9)

1 (1.3) 2 (2.7) 2 (0.8) 3 (1.0)

1 (1.3) 1 (0.9) 3 (1.1) 3 (0.9)

3 (1.9) 2 (2.3) 4 (1.3) 5 (1.1)

1 (0.8) 3 (1.3) 2 (0.8) 3 (1.3)

1 (1.2) 0 (0.5) 2 (0.5) 1 (0.8)

0 (0.7) 3 (3.0) 3 (0.7) 5 (0.8)

1 (0.9) 2 (2.5) 2 (0.6) 4 (0.9)

1 (2.0) 2 (2.8) 2 (0.8) 4 (1.2)

*** (***) *** (***) 3 (0.8) 4 (0.8)

1 (0.6) 2 (1.0) 2 (0.6) 2 (0.8)

3 (1.7) 1 (0.6) 3 (0.7) 4 (0.9)

— (—) 1 (1.3) — (—) 4 (0.9)

*** (***) *** (***) 2 (0.9) 4 (1.0)

1 (1.5) 5 (3.2) 4 (1.3) 4 (1.3)

3 (2.3) 3 (3.0) 4 (0.9) 4 (0.9)

0 (***) 2 (1.3) 2 (1.0) 2 (0.6)

1 (1.1) 2 (1.6) 2 (0.5) 4 (0.6)

2 (1.0) 1 (1.0) 3 (0.7) 4 (1.1)

*** (***) *** (***) 3 (1.0) 4 (0.8)

1 (1.9) 1 (0.7) 2 (0.6) 3 (0.8)

1 (1.1) 6 (3.3) 3 (1.0) 4 (1.1)

1 (1.0) 1 (1.2) 2 (0.6) 2 (0.6)

1 (0.8) 1 (1.1) 1 (0.5) 3 (0.9)

1 (1.4) 0 (0.7) 3 (0.8) 3 (0.6)

1 (0.8) *** (***) 3 (0.5) 3 (0.8)

1 (0.9) 2 (1.9) 2 (0.7) 5 (1.3)

— (—) 2 (2.5) — (—) 3 (0.9)

1 (1.4) 2 (1.7) 3 (0.7) 3 (0.7)

1 (1.1) 4 (2.7) 3 (0.6) 3 (1.4)

2 (2.7) 1 (1.1) 3 (0.7) 4 (0.8)

— (—) *** (***) — (—) 3 (0.9)

1 (1.1) 0 (***) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.3)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

149

At or Above Proficient

College Graduate Some Education After High School Graduated High School

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only (continued)

No significant differences between the two assessments observed at this achievement level.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

TABLE C.7C

36 (2.0) 37 (1.9) 32 (3.6) 36 (2.9) 21 (2.3) 22 (2.7)

47 (6.1) 37 (5.0) 34 (9.5) 38 (7.5) 19 (4.9) 21 (4.8)

31 (3.8) 31 (2.8) 28 (5.0) 36 (3.7) 18 (4.2) 19 (4.2)

35 (3.6) 40 (3.9) 32 (7.4) 36 (6.8) 22 (4.1) 30 (4.4)

32 (3.4) 39 (2.8) 33 (4.4) 34 (6.6) 24 (6.5) 20 (5.2)

27 (2.3) 32 (2.4) 27 (3.2) 30 (4.1) 17 (2.4) 16 (2.2)

29 (1.9) 34 (2.2) 27 (4.2) 34 (4.3) 16 (3.2) 18 (3.4)

29 (2.6) 31 (2.5) 34 (4.3) 35 (3.4) 22 (2.2) 20 (2.0)

30 (2.8) 24 (1.9) 23 (4.9) 23 (4.0) 15 (5.1) 11 (3.7)

33 (1.9) 36 (1.7) 33 (4.0) 33 (4.5) 18 (2.7) 25 (4.2)

47 (2.3) 47 (2.2) 42 (4.8) 49 (3.3) 21 (3.6) 22 (3.6)

33 (1.8) 30 (1.8) 28 (4.4) 32 (5.3) 16 (3.5) 20 (2.9)

26 (1.9) 28 (2.1) 26 (3.5) 34 (3.4) 20 (2.6) 17 (2.5)

34 (2.4) 35 (3.1) 33 (3.1) 34 (3.9) 18 (2.9) 19 (2.5)

21 (1.8) 24 (2.0) 22 (4.2) 33 (4.9) 12 (2.2) 13 (2.7)

38 (2.3) 44 (2.0) 40 (4.8) 42 (4.1) 27 (2.9) 29 (2.7)

47 (2.2) 41 (1.9) 42 (3.8) 46 (3.8) 29 (2.3) 28 (3.0)

30 (3.1) 31 (2.4) 33 (3.8) 38 (3.5) 22 (2.2) 24 (2.0)

18 (1.9) 18 (2.0) 26 (2.6) 24 (3.3) 12 (1.7) 14 (2.3)

46 (2.8) 50 (2.1) 47 (5.5) 49 (5.1) 30 (3.2) 34 (3.9)

31 (1.6) 33 (2.4) 29 (4.5) 27 (4.1) 19 (3.5) 20 (4.5)

48 (2.0) 45 (2.2) 41 (3.7) 40 (4.1) 28 (4.5) 24 (3.5)

38 (2.5) 43 (2.1) 45 (4.8) 33 (4.1) 27 (3.0) 29 (4.7)

17 (1.7) 22 (1.8) 23 (4.2) 28 (4.4) 12 (2.1) 16 (2.4)

40 (2.5) 40 (2.8) 38 (3.8) 40 (3.7) 24 (2.5) 29 (2.7)

— (—) 44 (2.5) — (—) 41 (3.9) — (—) 32 (3.0)

39 (2.3) 45 (2.1) 43 (6.3) 47 (5.6) 21 (3.0) 28 (3.6)

46 (2.5) 43 (2.3) 46 (5.4) 50 (5.2) 29 (2.9) 32 (4.1)

46 (2.5) 44 (2.4) 44 (4.4) 38 (4.3) 25 (4.0) 22 (4.4)

33 (2.3) 29 (2.3) 29 (3.2) 32 (3.6) 18 (2.8) 15 (2.3)

38 (2.4) 34 (2.7) 32 (4.6) 40 (4.0) 21 (3.1) 25 (3.5)

34 (2.2) 39 (2.3) 30 (3.5) 40 (3.6) 18 (2.2) 19 (2.5)

44 (2.2) 47 (2.1) 41 (3.7) 43 (4.7) 31 (4.2) 27 (2.7)

43 (2.0) 40 (2.9) 44 (4.1) 36 (4.0) 25 (3.2) 22 (2.4)

37 (3.2) 42 (2.5) 39 (4.6) 41 (3.5) 19 (3.3) 26 (3.2)

30 (2.0) 28 (2.2) 31 (5.0) 32 (5.0) 13 (2.1) 11 (1.6)

32 (3.0) 33 (3.1) 36 (5.9) 38 (5.3) 19 (2.6) 25 (4.1)

35 (3.4) 36 (3.5) 29 (3.5) 36 (4.9) 17 (3.0) 20 (3.8)

39 (2.4) 39 (2.3) 40 (3.8) 36 (4.1) 21 (4.0) 24 (3.5)

42 (2.5) 35 (2.6) 35 (3.4) 29 (3.9) 23 (2.5) 18 (3.4)

— (—) 37 (1.9) — (—) 25 (3.0) — (—) 24 (3.4)

36 (2.4) 35 (2.6) 33 (3.4) 37 (3.7) 21 (2.3) 25 (2.8)

43 (2.6) 47 (2.5) 42 (4.0) 39 (5.2) 27 (2.1) 32 (3.5)

42 (2.2) 39 (2.2) 41 (3.8) 43 (3.5) 25 (3.4) 25 (3.0)

— (—) 34 (1.8) — (—) 34 (3.2) — (—) 19 (3.9)

9 (1.4) 10 (1.4) 11 (3.9) 14 (3.2) 9 (2.0) 7 (1.7)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

150

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

At or Above Proficient

Did Not Finish High School I Don’t Know

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only (continued)

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

No significant differences between the two assessments observed at this achievement level.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

TABLE C.7D

11 (2.4) 9 (2.4) 20 (1.6) 21 (1.7)

*** (***) *** (***) 23 (4.6) 21 (1.8)

9 (4.4) 7 (2.9) 15 (2.9) 16 (2.3)

*** (***) *** (***) 24 (3.1) 25 (4.0)

14 (4.0) 11 (6.6) 18 (1.8) 21 (2.2)

10 (2.2) 11 (2.3) 13 (1.9) 19 (2.1)

11 (3.5) 13 (3.2) 15 (1.3) 17 (1.7)

14 (2.9) 11 (3.0) 15 (1.5) 18 (1.6)

5 (3.0) 3 (2.1) 12 (1.7) 13 (1.8)

14 (2.8) 13 (5.0) 17 (1.7) 19 (2.0)

10 (4.2) 26 (6.3) 20 (1.7) 27 (2.1)

9 (3.8) 8 (4.5) 19 (1.7) 16 (1.5)

14 (4.2) 11 (3.3) 17 (1.4) 18 (1.7)

13 (3.1) 8 (2.3) 18 (1.7) 18 (2.2)

14 (4.6) 12 (4.2) 14 (1.9) 15 (1.5)

17 (4.1) 15 (4.7) 24 (2.2) 21 (2.1)

13 (3.8) 19 (7.0) 25 (2.0) 27 (2.0)

11 (2.4) 11 (2.9) 17 (1.8) 21 (2.9)

9 (2.1) 8 (3.2) 12 (1.5) 11 (1.3)

17 (6.7) 27 (5.7) 24 (2.1) 29 (2.0)

12 (3.8) 11 (5.8) 16 (1.9) 19 (1.8)

14 (4.0) 17 (5.1) 22 (2.5) 25 (2.1)

*** (***) *** (***) 23 (2.0) 22 (2.2)

7 (1.8) 9 (2.5) 10 (1.2) 14 (2.2)

17 (4.2) 12 (4.7) 21 (1.8) 21 (1.8)

— (—) 20 (7.8) — (—) 26 (1.8)

*** (***) *** (***) 19 (2.0) 21 (2.6)

17 (4.7) 22 (6.2) 31 (2.6) 27 (2.2)

14 (6.0) 13 (6.4) 23 (2.0) 22 (2.2)

8 (3.0) 12 (3.5) 17 (1.8) 13 (1.4)

12 (3.7) 14 (4.1) 18 (1.7) 19 (1.9)

9 (2.6) 12 (3.5) 19 (2.0) 20 (1.8)

*** (***) *** (***) 22 (1.9) 28 (2.2)

18 (3.4) 8 (2.9) 22 (1.6) 22 (1.8)

14 (3.2) 19 (6.1) 21 (1.9) 22 (2.3)

9 (2.7) 10 (3.7) 16 (1.4) 13 (1.7)

12 (2.7) 15 (3.6) 14 (1.7) 19 (2.3)

12 (2.7) 9 (3.2) 17 (1.9) 18 (1.6)

19 (5.9) *** (***) 22 (1.9) 21 (1.7)

16 (3.8) 10 (4.3) 22 (1.9) 21 (1.8)

— (—) 13 (4.7) — (—) 18 (1.5)

13 (2.9) 13 (3.4) 16 (2.1) 18 (1.8)

14 (5.5) 22 (6.4) 25 (2.1) 25 (2.3)

17 (4.6) 13 (3.7) 24 (2.2) 25 (2.0)

— (—) *** (***) — (—) 22 (1.9)

6 (2.8) 2 (1.6) 6 (1.2) 6 (1.1)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

151

At or Above Basic

College Graduate Some Education After High School Graduated High School

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only

TABLE C.7E

68 (1.9) 68 (1.5) 68 (3.3) 68 (3.2) 56 (2.3) 54 (2.2)

77 (4.8) 67 (3.6) 65 (9.5) 68 (6.1) 57 (5.0) 51 (4.3)

63 (3.4) 60 (3.7) 61 (7.1) 68 (5.5) 53 (4.5) 52 (4.9)

71 (3.7) 72 (3.9) 72 (4.4) 71 (5.8) 62 (4.9) 61 (4.5)

64 (3.3) 71 (2.2) 70 (6.7) 66 (7.4) 52 (4.8) 52 (5.0)

59 (2.8) 61 (2.1) 63 (4.3) 62 (4.9) 51 (3.5) 46 (2.8)

64 (2.4) 63 (2.3) 64 (4.7) 63 (3.9) 49 (3.6) 46 (3.2)

62 (2.6) 60 (2.5) 68 (2.6) 68 (4.2) 57 (2.9) 48 (2.4)

61 (2.9) 54 (2.4) 53 (5.9) 54 (4.4) 45 (5.1) 37 (5.4)

74 (1.8) 68 (1.5) 73 (3.3) 65 (3.9) 56 (3.4) 60 (3.4)

80 (1.9) 77 (1.7) 79 (3.3) 79 (3.4) 59 (4.1) 53 (4.8)

65 (2.3) 59 (2.4) 68 (4.1) 64 (3.7) 49 (3.5) 49 (3.6)

58 (2.1) 57 (2.4) 61 (3.5) 65 (4.1) 50 (4.0) 41 (2.9)

67 (2.4) 61 (3.0) 61 (4.0) 62 (4.5) 53 (3.3) 44 (3.1)

54 (2.6) 54 (2.1) 56 (4.8) 63 (4.8) 37 (3.1) 40 (4.0)

74 (1.9) 75 (2.2) 78 (3.1) 78 (3.8) 64 (3.0) 63 (3.4)

82 (1.5) 75 (2.0) 81 (3.0) 80 (3.7) 69 (2.7) 66 (2.5)

66 (2.6) 62 (2.6) 70 (3.2) 68 (3.4) 61 (3.0) 56 (2.5)

50 (2.8) 44 (2.7) 59 (3.4) 55 (2.9) 43 (2.6) 41 (2.6)

83 (2.1) 82 (1.8) 86 (3.6) 83 (4.1) 74 (3.3) 73 (4.4)

63 (2.1) 62 (2.2) 65 (3.5) 60 (5.4) 51 (3.4) 50 (3.9)

84 (1.4) 79 (1.6) 85 (3.4) 77 (4.0) 72 (3.5) 59 (4.2)

74 (2.4) 75 (1.9) 79 (3.0) 68 (3.7) 67 (3.2) 61 (4.2)

47 (2.4) 50 (2.4) 52 (3.8) 60 (5.4) 42 (3.2) 44 (3.0)

75 (2.1) 70 (2.1) 75 (3.9) 72 (4.0) 62 (3.4) 63 (2.7)

— (—) 78 (2.2) — (—) 75 (4.0) — (—) 67 (2.9)

76 (1.9) 76 (1.6) 79 (3.7) 78 (4.4) 64 (3.5) 62 (3.5)

83 (2.1) 78 (3.0) 83 (3.4) 83 (3.9) 69 (3.5) 66 (3.4)

80 (1.9) 76 (1.8) 80 (3.2) 73 (3.8) 62 (3.5) 54 (4.2)

67 (2.5) 59 (2.0) 64 (3.7) 66 (3.3) 55 (3.1) 45 (3.5)

74 (2.5) 66 (2.3) 69 (4.0) 69 (4.2) 56 (4.1) 53 (3.7)

65 (1.9) 68 (1.8) 63 (3.8) 72 (3.4) 50 (3.1) 49 (2.6)

82 (1.9) 80 (1.3) 80 (3.9) 81 (4.0) 73 (4.2) 65 (3.5)

76 (2.1) 69 (2.2) 78 (3.2) 68 (3.1) 63 (3.2) 56 (3.2)

73 (2.7) 73 (2.3) 76 (3.6) 79 (3.7) 54 (3.9) 62 (4.4)

61 (2.3) 57 (2.9) 70 (3.9) 61 (4.7) 43 (3.1) 35 (4.0)

65 (2.7) 63 (3.5) 70 (4.3) 71 (4.1) 56 (3.3) 59 (3.5)

67 (2.5) 67 (4.2) 67 (4.3) 72 (3.2) 52 (3.3) 54 (4.5)

75 (2.0) 73 (1.8) 76 (3.3) 73 (3.8) 62 (3.6) 56 (3.5)

75 (2.3) 65 (2.4)< 74 (3.9) 65 (4.0) 61 (3.3) 52 (3.7)

— (—) 69 (1.9) — (—) 64 (3.6) — (—) 58 (3.9)

72 (1.9) 67 (1.6) 71 (3.0) 70 (3.9) 58 (2.7) 59 (2.9)

78 (2.1) 79 (2.1) 82 (2.9) 75 (3.4) 67 (2.5) 69 (3.8)

80 (1.7) 76 (2.0) 80 (3.4) 78 (3.0) 66 (4.2) 62 (3.4)

— (—) 68 (1.8) — (—) 75 (4.2) — (—) 52 (3.7)

28 (2.2) 30 (1.8) 38 (6.5) 37 (4.9) 28 (2.6) 24 (3.2)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure

based on 38 jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments
152

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

At or Above Basic

Did Not Finish High School I Don’t Know

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only (continued)

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

No significant differences between the two assessments observed at this achievement level.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

TABLE C.7F

38 (3.9) 32 (4.1) 54 (1.7) 51 (1.4)

*** (***) *** (***) 56 (4.5) 51 (2.4)

39 (8.6) 28 (5.3) 50 (4.9) 45 (3.6)

*** (***) *** (***) 59 (2.3) 57 (3.6)

36 (5.1) 37 (6.1) 52 (1.9) 49 (2.7)

39 (3.8) 40 (4.6) 43 (3.0) 45 (2.5)

37 (5.3) 35 (4.4) 48 (2.3) 44 (2.3)

43 (3.6) 41 (4.4) 48 (2.2) 48 (3.3)

25 (5.2) 16 (5.6) 38 (2.5) 37 (2.9)

45 (4.9) 37 (5.5) 54 (2.4) 49 (2.2)

47 (6.3) 48 (7.7) 57 (2.4) 58 (2.7)

38 (6.9) 29 (5.9) 53 (2.7) 46 (2.2)

41 (5.0) 31 (5.6) 47 (2.3) 45 (2.6)

43 (5.5) 34 (4.6) 49 (1.9) 46 (2.8)

44 (6.7) 34 (7.0) 43 (2.3) 39 (2.4)

57 (6.2) 45 (6.1) 62 (2.6) 55 (2.1)

46 (7.2) 59 (6.4) 64 (2.4) 60 (2.6)

43 (3.5) 37 (5.1) 49 (2.3) 51 (2.6)

34 (5.0) 28 (4.0) 42 (2.0) 36 (2.7)

58 (8.6) 60 (6.9) 65 (3.1) 65 (2.7)

38 (6.2) 40 (7.0) 49 (2.6) 48 (2.4)

45 (7.0) 48 (6.4) 61 (2.7) 56 (2.4)

*** (***) *** (***) 60 (2.2) 55 (2.3)

28 (4.2) 34 (5.1) 37 (2.3) 40 (2.5)

56 (5.5) 43 (3.7) 59 (2.3) 53 (2.8)

— (—) 60 (8.3) — (—) 60 (2.6)

*** (***) *** (***) 56 (2.3) 54 (2.2)

58 (7.8) 50 (8.5) 70 (2.9) 62 (2.5)

49 (6.2) 34 (6.3) 57 (2.6) 53 (2.1)

31 (6.0) 35 (4.3) 45 (1.9) 40 (2.2)

39 (6.9) 41 (5.4) 53 (2.2) 47 (2.3)

39 (3.9) 36 (5.3) 50 (2.1) 51 (2.3)

*** (***) *** (***) 62 (2.3) 64 (2.4)

55 (4.8) 35 (7.1) 59 (2.4) 54 (2.6)

48 (6.7) 47 (5.6) 54 (3.1) 55 (2.3)

39 (5.0) 34 (4.4) 48 (3.1) 41 (2.2)

44 (4.8) 42 (6.5) 47 (2.2) 50 (2.7)

42 (4.2) 40 (5.3) 50 (2.5) 49 (2.2)

50 (6.7) *** (***) 60 (2.8) 56 (2.1)

50 (4.7) 38 (5.9) 59 (2.9) 51 (2.7)

— (—) 44 (7.5) — (—) 48 (2.0)

47 (4.1) 38 (4.3) 51 (2.3) 48 (2.1)

61 (7.3) 57 (7.4) 63 (2.0) 64 (2.4)

52 (6.6) 50 (7.3) 62 (2.4) 62 (2.6)

— (—) *** (***) — (—) 56 (2.3)

20 (5.4) 13 (4.2) 27 (2.1) 26 (1.7)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

153

Below Basic

College Graduate Some Education After High School Graduated High School

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only (continued)

TABLE C.7G

32 (1.9) 32 (1.5) 32 (3.3) 32 (3.2) 44 (2.3) 46 (2.2)

23 (4.8) 33 (3.6) 35 (9.5) 32 (6.1) 43 (5.0) 49 (4.3)

37 (3.4) 40 (3.7) 39 (7.1) 32 (5.5) 47 (4.5) 48 (4.9)

29 (3.7) 28 (3.9) 28 (4.4) 29 (5.8) 38 (4.9) 39 (4.5)

36 (3.3) 29 (2.2) 30 (6.7) 34 (7.4) 48 (4.8) 48 (5.0)

41 (2.8) 39 (2.1) 37 (4.3) 38 (4.9) 49 (3.5) 54 (2.8)

36 (2.4) 37 (2.3) 36 (4.7) 37 (3.9) 51 (3.6) 54 (3.2)

38 (2.6) 40 (2.5) 32 (2.6) 32 (4.2) 43 (2.9) 52 (2.4)

39 (2.9) 46 (2.4) 47 (5.9) 46 (4.4) 55 (5.1) 63 (5.4)

26 (1.8) 32 (1.5) 27 (3.3) 35 (3.9) 44 (3.4) 40 (3.4)

20 (1.9) 23 (1.7) 21 (3.3) 21 (3.4) 41 (4.1) 47 (4.8)

35 (2.3) 41 (2.4) 32 (4.1) 36 (3.7) 51 (3.5) 51 (3.6)

42 (2.1) 43 (2.4) 39 (3.5) 35 (4.1) 50 (4.0) 59 (2.9)

33 (2.4) 39 (3.0) 39 (4.0) 38 (4.5) 47 (3.3) 56 (3.1)

46 (2.6) 46 (2.1) 44 (4.8) 37 (4.8) 63 (3.1) 60 (4.0)

26 (1.9) 25 (2.2) 22 (3.1) 22 (3.8) 36 (3.0) 37 (3.4)

18 (1.5) 25 (2.0) 19 (3.0) 20 (3.7) 31 (2.7) 34 (2.5)

34 (2.6) 38 (2.6) 30 (3.2) 32 (3.4) 39 (3.0) 44 (2.5)

50 (2.8) 56 (2.7) 41 (3.4) 45 (2.9) 57 (2.6) 59 (2.6)

17 (2.1) 18 (1.8) 14 (3.6) 17 (4.1) 26 (3.3) 27 (4.4)

37 (2.1) 38 (2.2) 35 (3.5) 40 (5.4) 49 (3.4) 50 (3.9)

16 (1.4) 21 (1.6) 15 (3.4) 23 (4.0) 28 (3.5) 41 (4.2)

26 (2.4) 25 (1.9) 21 (3.0) 32 (3.7) 33 (3.2) 39 (4.2)

53 (2.4) 50 (2.4) 48 (3.8) 40 (5.4) 58 (3.2) 56 (3.0)

25 (2.1) 30 (2.1) 25 (3.9) 28 (4.0) 38 (3.4) 37 (2.7)

— (—) 22 (2.2) — (—) 25 (4.0) — (—) 33 (2.9)

24 (1.9) 24 (1.6) 21 (3.7) 22 (4.4) 36 (3.5) 38 (3.5)

17 (2.1) 22 (3.0) 17 (3.4) 17 (3.9) 31 (3.5) 34 (3.4)

20 (1.9) 24 (1.8) 20 (3.2) 27 (3.8) 38 (3.5) 46 (4.2)

33 (2.5) 41 (2.0) 36 (3.7) 34 (3.3) 45 (3.1) 55 (3.5)

26 (2.5) 34 (2.3) 31 (4.0) 31 (4.2) 44 (4.1) 47 (3.7)

35 (1.9) 32 (1.8) 37 (3.8) 28 (3.4) 50 (3.1) 51 (2.6)

18 (1.9) 20 (1.3) 20 (3.9) 19 (4.0) 27 (4.2) 35 (3.5)

24 (2.1) 31 (2.2) 22 (3.2) 32 (3.1) 37 (3.2) 44 (3.2)

27 (2.7) 27 (2.3) 24 (3.6) 21 (3.7) 46 (3.9) 38 (4.4)

39 (2.3) 43 (2.9) 30 (3.9) 39 (4.7) 57 (3.1) 65 (4.0)

35 (2.7) 37 (3.5) 30 (4.3) 29 (4.1) 44 (3.3) 41 (3.5)

33 (2.5) 33 (4.2) 33 (4.3) 28 (3.2) 48 (3.3) 46 (4.5)

25 (2.0) 27 (1.8) 24 (3.3) 27 (3.8) 38 (3.6) 44 (3.5)

25 (2.3) 35 (2.4)> 26 (3.9) 35 (4.0) 39 (3.3) 48 (3.7)

— (—) 31 (1.9) — (—) 36 (3.6) — (—) 42 (3.9)

28 (1.9) 33 (1.6) 29 (3.0) 30 (3.9) 42 (2.7) 41 (2.9)

22 (2.1) 21 (2.1) 18 (2.9) 25 (3.4) 33 (2.5) 31 (3.8)

20 (1.7) 24 (2.0) 20 (3.4) 22 (3.0) 34 (4.2) 38 (3.4)

— (—) 32 (1.8) — (—) 25 (4.2) — (—) 48 (3.7)

72 (2.2) 70 (1.8) 62 (6.5) 63 (4.9) 72 (2.6) 76 (3.2)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure

based on 38 jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments
154

Nation

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions

DoDEA

Guam

Below Basic

Did Not Finish High School I Don’t Know

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Parents’ Education Level

Public Schools Only (continued)

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

No significant differences between the two assessments observed at this achievement level.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

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

TABLE C.7H

62 (3.9) 68 (4.1) 46 (1.7) 49 (1.4)

*** (***) *** (***) 44 (4.5) 49 (2.4)

61 (8.6) 72 (5.3) 50 (4.9) 55 (3.6)

*** (***) *** (***) 41 (2.3) 43 (3.6)

64 (5.1) 63 (6.1) 48 (1.9) 51 (2.7)

61 (3.8) 60 (4.6) 57 (3.0) 55 (2.5)

63 (5.3) 65 (4.4) 52 (2.3) 56 (2.3)

57 (3.6) 59 (4.4) 52 (2.2) 52 (3.3)

75 (5.2) 84 (5.6) 62 (2.5) 63 (2.9)

55 (4.9) 63 (5.5) 46 (2.4) 51 (2.2)

53 (6.3) 52 (7.7) 43 (2.4) 42 (2.7)

62 (6.9) 71 (5.9) 47 (2.7) 54 (2.2)

59 (5.0) 69 (5.6) 53 (2.3) 55 (2.6)

57 (5.5) 66 (4.6) 51 (1.9) 54 (2.8)

56 (6.7) 66 (7.0) 57 (2.3) 61 (2.4)

43 (6.2) 55 (6.1) 38 (2.6) 45 (2.1)

54 (7.2) 41 (6.4) 36 (2.4) 40 (2.6)

57 (3.5) 63 (5.1) 51 (2.3) 49 (2.6)

66 (5.0) 72 (4.0) 58 (2.0) 64 (2.7)

42 (8.6) 40 (6.9) 35 (3.1) 35 (2.7)

62 (6.2) 60 (7.0) 51 (2.6) 52 (2.4)

55 (7.0) 52 (6.4) 39 (2.7) 44 (2.4)

*** (***) *** (***) 40 (2.2) 45 (2.3)

72 (4.2) 66 (5.1) 63 (2.3) 60 (2.5)

44 (5.5) 57 (3.7) 41 (2.3) 47 (2.8)

— (—) 40 (8.3) — (—) 40 (2.6)

*** (***) *** (***) 44 (2.3) 46 (2.2)

42 (7.8) 50 (8.5) 30 (2.9) 38 (2.5)

51 (6.2) 66 (6.3) 43 (2.6) 47 (2.1)

69 (6.0) 65 (4.3) 55 (1.9) 60 (2.2)

61 (6.9) 59 (5.4) 47 (2.2) 53 (2.3)

61 (3.9) 64 (5.3) 50 (2.1) 49 (2.3)

*** (***) *** (***) 38 (2.3) 36 (2.4)

45 (4.8) 65 (7.1) 41 (2.4) 46 (2.6)

52 (6.7) 53 (5.6) 46 (3.1) 45 (2.3)

61 (5.0) 66 (4.4) 52 (3.1) 59 (2.2)

56 (4.8) 58 (6.5) 53 (2.2) 50 (2.7)

58 (4.2) 60 (5.3) 50 (2.5) 51 (2.2)

50 (6.7) *** (***) 40 (2.8) 44 (2.1)

50 (4.7) 62 (5.9) 41 (2.9) 49 (2.7)

— (—) 56 (7.5) — (—) 52 (2.0)

53 (4.1) 62 (4.3) 49 (2.3) 52 (2.1)

39 (7.3) 43 (7.4) 37 (2.0) 36 (2.4)

48 (6.6) 50 (7.3) 38 (2.4) 38 (2.6)

— (—) *** (***) — (—) 44 (2.3)

80 (5.4) 87 (4.2) 73 (2.1) 74 (1.7)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

155

At or Above Advanced

Central City Urban Fringe/Large Town Rural/Small Town

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Type of Location

Public Schools Only

TABLE C.8A

Type of location results are not reported for the four regions of the country, DoDEA schools, or Guam

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure

based on 38 jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment.

† Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

* School sample size is insufficient to permit reliable regional results for type of location.

** Results for type of location are not available for the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Overseas Schools and Guam.

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

Nation*

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions**

4 (0.7) 5 (0.9) 7 (1.2) 8 (1.1) 5 (1.5) 6 (0.7)

3 (0.7) 5 (1.3) 5 (1.1) 7 (1.5) 2 (0.9) 4 (1.0)

3 (0.5) 7 (1.1) 3 (1.0) 6 (1.4) 3 (1.5) 4 (1.4)

4 (1.7) 4 (1.0) 5 (0.9)! 6 (1.7)! 3 (0.6) 5 (1.0)

3 (1.1) 2 (0.7) 4 (0.8) 5 (0.8) *** (***) *** (***)

2 (0.7) 5 (1.0) 5 (1.1) 6 (1.3) 4 (1.2) 7 (1.8)

2 (0.7) 6 (1.4) 8 (1.6) 10 (1.5) 7 (1.5) 18 (2.6)>

5 (0.8) 6 (1.4) 5 (0.8) 5 (1.2) 4 (0.8) 3 (0.8)

2 (0.5) 4 (0.8) 4 (0.7) 6 (0.9) 3 (1.3)! 2 (0.9)!

4 (1.5) 6 (1.8) 6 (1.3) 9 (1.8) 5 (0.9) 4 (1.0)

4 (1.0) 6 (1.2) 2 (0.5) 3 (0.7) 2 (0.8) 4 (0.8)

5 (1.0) 5 (1.0) 6 (1.2) 10 (1.8) 5 (1.2) 8 (1.3)

7 (1.6) 7 (2.4) 8 (1.2) 7 (1.7) 7 (1.0) 9 (1.3)

5 (1.7) 8 (2.1) 4 (1.7) 8 (2.8) 3 (0.6) 4 (0.7)

3 (0.8) 3 (0.8) 2 (0.6) 3 (1.1) 2 (0.7) 2 (0.6)

*** (***) *** (***) 7 (2.0)! 11 (2.5) 6 (1.0) 10 (1.1)>

2 (0.7) 4 (1.5) 6 (0.9) 8 (0.9) *** (***) *** (***)

3 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 8 (1.0) 10 (1.5) 6 (2.4)! 11 (1.9)!

5 (1.6) 8 (1.8) 6 (0.9) 9 (1.1) 5 (1.2) 5 (1.0)

1 (1.3) 5 (1.8) 3 (0.7) 7 (1.7) 2 (0.5) 3 (0.5)

5 (1.2) 7 (2.6) 6 (1.4) 8 (1.4) 5 (0.9) 7 (1.0)

— (—) 5 (0.9) — (—) 8 (2.9) — (—) 8 (0.9)

6 (1.2) 9 (1.7) 5 (1.6)! *** (***) 5 (1.0) 8 (0.9)

7 (2.5) 6 (1.3) 9 (1.7) 9 (1.8) 7 (1.6) 9 (1.5)

1 (0.7) 2 (0.7) 9 (1.2) 10 (1.0) *** (***) *** (***)

5 (1.0) 6 (1.2) 4 (1.6) 5 (1.4) 2 (0.6) 3 (0.9)

2 (0.6) 3 (1.0) 7 (1.0) 9 (1.3) 5 (2.0)! 8 (3.0)!

6 (1.4) 10 (1.9) 6 (0.9) 6 (1.3) 4 (0.7) 6 (1.2)

7 (1.9) 8 (1.1) 7 (2.6) 9 (2.4) 6 (0.9) 8 (1.2)

4 (1.0) 4 (1.2) 7 (1.1) 9 (1.3) 6 (1.9) 6 (1.6)

3 (0.7) 4 (0.7) 6 (1.2) 9 (1.8) 8 (2.4)! 11 (2.4)!

3 (1.3) 5 (1.5) 6 (1.6) 5 (1.0) 3 (0.8) 3 (0.8)

4 (1.2) 7 (1.9) 5 (1.4) 7 (1.2) 3 (1.0) 5 (1.0)

3 (1.0) 5 (1.4) 6 (1.3) 8 (1.5) 3 (1.2)! 4 (1.7)

5 (1.1) 7 (1.5) 5 (0.7) 6 (1.1) 5 (1.7) 5 (1.7)

5 (1.5) 6 (1.6) 8 (1.8) 9 (1.2) 4 (1.4) 4 (1.0)

— (—) 5 (1.2) — (—) 6 (1.0) — (—) 6 (1.9)

4 (2.0) 7 (1.7) 7 (1.5) 6 (1.2) 4 (0.7) 5 (0.6)

8 (1.5) 7 (1.4) 5 (1.2) 7 (1.5) 5 (1.0) 8 (1.1)

6 (1.9) 5 (1.3) *** (***) *** (***) 5 (0.6) 6 (0.7)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

156

At or Above Proficient

Central City Urban Fringe/Large Town Rural/Small Town

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Type of Location

Public Schools Only

TABLE C.8B

Nation*

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions**

20 (1.4) 22 (2.0) 31 (2.6) 33 (2.0) 27 (2.7) 27 (2.0)

20 (2.4) 23 (2.5) 24 (2.9) 30 (2.9) 17 (2.3) 20 (1.5)

23 (1.6) 25 (1.8) 19 (2.2) 24 (3.1) 15 (3.0) 21 (3.5)

22 (4.3) 23 (2.8) 27 (2.7)! 28 (3.8)! 22 (1.3) 23 (1.7)

19 (2.5) 14 (2.2) 20 (2.8) 21 (1.8) *** (***) *** (***)

19 (1.9) 26 (2.4) 29 (2.2) 29 (2.5) 26 (3.2) 29 (2.9)

19 (3.1) 25 (3.3) 40 (2.4) 40 (1.9) 40 (3.1) 53 (3.7)

25 (1.4) 24 (1.5) 24 (2.3) 23 (1.8) 22 (1.3) 20 (1.4)

18 (2.4) 18 (2.2) 24 (1.6) 27 (2.2) 20 (3.1)! 17 (3.9)!

17 (3.4) 19 (4.3) 31 (2.8) 31 (3.5) 23 (2.0) 22 (2.9)

21 (2.8) 25 (3.2) 14 (2.3) 17 (1.4) 17 (1.7) 17 (1.9)

27 (3.0) 24 (2.6) 36 (2.4) 40 (3.3) 29 (2.7) 35 (2.8)

34 (3.3) 30 (3.9) 43 (3.8) 34 (4.5) 35 (1.8) 36 (1.5)

27 (3.8) 31 (4.7) 28 (4.9) 29 (4.9) 19 (1.4) 22 (1.4)

15 (2.4) 13 (1.9) 16 (2.0) 18 (2.3) 15 (1.7) 13 (2.0)

*** (***) *** (***) 36 (4.8)! 39 (3.5) 36 (2.2) 41 (1.5)

14 (2.4) 20 (3.9) 29 (1.5) 30 (1.9) *** (***) *** (***)

19 (2.7) 16 (2.5) 43 (2.0) 43 (2.0) 37 (4.3)! 41 (4.8)!

25 (4.2) 28 (4.2) 34 (2.1) 37 (2.4) 29 (2.3) 29 (1.8)

11 (2.1) 18 (3.4) 19 (3.4) 27 (4.3) 12 (1.1) 15 (1.4)

24 (3.9) 30 (4.4) 32 (3.0) 32 (2.8) 31 (1.8) 30 (2.1)

— (—) 29 (2.5) — (—) 34 (6.5) — (—) 37 (1.9)

33 (2.5) 35 (3.3) 34 (4.6)! *** (***) 29 (2.0) 35 (2.3)

39 (3.2) 32 (3.6) 40 (2.7) 38 (2.6) 35 (2.9) 35 (2.8)

9 (2.8) 12 (4.2) 39 (2.1) 38 (1.9) *** (***) *** (***)

26 (2.6) 23 (2.5) 24 (3.1) 21 (3.3) 19 (2.5) 18 (2.4)

16 (2.2) 15 (1.9) 35 (2.1) 37 (2.0) 32 (3.4)! 37 (6.3)!

27 (3.0) 34 (2.8) 26 (2.5) 28 (3.1) 22 (1.8) 27 (2.3)

38 (3.5) 35 (2.7) 34 (2.9) 41 (3.3) 33 (1.8) 38 (1.8)

22 (3.6) 18 (2.5) 37 (2.3) 36 (1.9) 33 (2.8) 32 (3.9)

21 (2.5) 24 (2.1) 27 (3.0) 36 (2.3) 41 (3.9)! 39 (2.9)!

21 (2.9) 23 (2.9) 29 (2.5) 24 (2.3) 18 (2.0) 15 (2.0)

21 (2.8) 25 (3.4) 28 (3.3) 29 (2.6) 21 (1.8) 26 (2.0)

20 (2.9) 23 (3.0) 29 (3.1) 32 (3.6) 22 (4.7)! 24 (3.7)

29 (3.3) 31 (3.0) 30 (2.0) 30 (2.1) 31 (3.0) 29 (3.4)

28 (2.7) 22 (2.4) 39 (2.9) 33 (2.7) 23 (2.0) 21 (2.0)

— (—) 25 (2.6) — (—) 28 (1.8) — (—) 26 (3.5)

25 (5.2) 28 (3.2) 28 (2.7) 28 (2.8) 24 (1.8) 25 (1.5)

32 (2.8) 33 (2.9) 35 (2.6) 37 (3.1) 34 (2.3) 36 (2.3)

30 (3.8) 31 (2.9) *** (***) *** (***) 34 (1.5) 32 (1.5)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Type of location results are not reported for the four regions of the country, DoDEA schools, or Guam.

No significant differences between the two assessments observed at this achievement level.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment. † Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

* School sample size is insufficient to permit reliable regional results for type of location.

** Results for type of location are not available for the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Overseas Schools and Guam.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments
157

At or Above Basic

Central City Urban Fringe/Large Town Rural/Small Town

Nation*

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions**

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Type of Location

Public Schools Only

TABLE C.8C

51 (2.0) 50 (2.7) 65 (2.5) 65 (1.8) 64 (2.5) 59 (2.6)

50 (3.9) 51 (3.1) 58 (4.1) 60 (4.0) 48 (3.4) 49 (2.3)

58 (1.5) 53 (2.3) 55 (4.1) 53 (3.4) 43 (5.9) 45 (6.0)

52 (4.8) 53 (3.9) 60 (2.9)! 57 (4.8)! 56 (2.2) 53 (2.0)

46 (2.9) 39 (3.9) 48 (3.7) 49 (2.4) *** (***) *** (***)

56 (2.6) 55 (2.8) 68 (2.1) 61 (2.2) 66 (3.7) 62 (2.9)

48 (5.0) 49 (4.1) 77 (2.4) 75 (1.8) 79 (2.6) 83 (3.0)

57 (1.5) 53 (1.9) 57 (1.9) 52 (2.2) 56 (2.4) 52 (3.4)

46 (4.4) 45 (3.2) 57 (2.0) 55 (2.6) 51 (2.4)! 42 (6.1)!

45 (4.6) 41 (5.7) 65 (2.6) 59 (4.3) 56 (2.1) 50 (3.0)

53 (3.7) 56 (4.2) 44 (3.2) 44 (2.3) 48 (2.6) 42 (2.7)

62 (3.6) 55 (3.2) 74 (2.2) 74 (3.0) 70 (2.2) 70 (2.5)

72 (2.5) 63 (3.8) 81 (2.4) 68 (4.5) 72 (1.8) 72 (1.8)

61 (5.0) 59 (4.9) 64 (4.1) 60 (4.1) 54 (1.9) 53 (1.8)

42 (3.3) 34 (2.5) 50 (3.0) 47 (3.3) 45 (2.7) 40 (3.4)

*** (***) *** (***) 76 (3.6)! 75 (3.6) 76 (1.8) 75 (1.8)

45 (4.4) 46 (3.9) 62 (2.1) 61 (2.1) *** (***) *** (***)

54 (3.2) 43 (4.1) 82 (1.4) 78 (1.8) 79 (4.2)! 76 (2.6)!

56 (5.4) 54 (6.0) 72 (2.3) 71 (2.0) 68 (2.4) 62 (2.4)

39 (4.9) 46 (3.4) 50 (4.5) 57 (4.6) 39 (2.2) 42 (2.2)

54 (4.9) 55 (4.4) 71 (2.2) 67 (2.5) 69 (2.0) 62 (2.4)

— (—) 65 (3.8) — (—) 72 (3.9) — (—) 70 (2.1)

68 (2.3) 62 (3.0) 69 (5.3)! *** (***) 69 (2.3) 69 (2.0)

78 (3.1) 66 (3.7) 77 (2.7) 73 (2.6) 74 (2.7) 68 (2.6)

34 (5.5) 34 (6.2) 75 (1.9) 71 (1.8) *** (***) *** (***)

58 (2.7) 51 (2.8) 53 (3.1) 50 (2.9) 52 (2.8) 48 (3.5)

45 (2.7) 39 (2.9) 73 (2.2) 70 (2.4) 75 (2.3)! 73 (4.5)!

58 (3.3) 63 (2.4) 56 (3.0) 58 (3.7) 54 (2.2) 56 (2.6)

77 (3.1) 70 (2.0) 74 (2.9) 78 (3.3) 73 (2.4) 72 (2.1)

52 (5.5) 43 (3.6) 74 (2.1) 69 (2.0) 73 (2.7) 66 (3.3)

52 (3.5) 57 (2.4) 64 (3.7) 68 (2.4) 81 (3.4)! 76 (3.8)!

52 (3.6) 52 (3.1) 63 (3.6) 56 (2.9) 48 (2.8) 39 (2.9)

51 (3.4) 51 (4.3) 64 (3.1) 64 (2.7) 58 (2.6) 59 (3.1)

52 (3.4) 53 (3.6) 64 (3.9) 66 (4.3) 53 (6.4)! 56 (4.2)

65 (3.8) 62 (3.7) 67 (2.1) 65 (1.8) 70 (2.2) 64 (4.3)

62 (2.9) 50 (2.7)< 74 (3.0) 66 (2.6) 58 (2.8) 52 (3.5)

— (—) 55 (3.7) — (—) 62 (2.0) — (—) 56 (3.6)

63 (4.6) 58 (3.1) 64 (2.5) 60 (3.1) 59 (2.2) 57 (1.7)

67 (2.8) 67 (3.2) 73 (2.3) 73 (2.3) 72 (2.5) 73 (2.4)

68 (3.8) 68 (3.9) *** (***) *** (***) 72 (1.7) 69 (1.9)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992


Type of location results are not reported for the four regions of the country, DoDEA schools, or Guam.

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure

based on 38 jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment. † Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

* School sample size is insufficient to permit reliable regional results for type of location.

** Results for type of location are not available for the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Overseas Schools and Guam.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 1994 Reading Assessments
158

Below Basic

Central City Urban Fringe/Large Town Rural/Small Town

Nation*

State

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware‡

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine‡

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana†

Nebraska†‡

New Hampshire†‡

New Jersey‡

New Mexico

New York‡

North Carolina

North Dakota

Pennsylvania†

Rhode Island†

South Carolina

Tennessee†

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin†

Wyoming

Other Jurisdictions**

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992

Percentage

1994

Percentage

1992 and 1994 Grade 4 Reading Achievement Levels

by Type of Location

Public Schools Only

TABLE C.8D

Type of location results are not reported for the four regions of the country, DoDEA schools, or Guam

<< The value for the 1994 assessment was significantly lower (>> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level. These notations indicate statistical significance from a multiple comparison procedure

based on 38 jurisdictions participating in both 1992 and 1994. If looking at only one state, < indicates the value for 1994 was significantly lower (> higher) than the value for 1992 at or about the 95 percent confidence level.

Statistically significant differences between 1994 and 1992 for the state comparison samples for the nation and regions are not indicated.

*** Sample size in the 1992 or 1994 assessment is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this value.

— Jurisdiction did not participate in 1992 Trial State Assessment. † Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1994 Trial State Assessment (see Appendix A).

‡ Did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participation rates for the 1992 Trial State Assessment (see Technical Report of the NAEP 1992 Trial State Assessment Program in Reading).

* School sample size is insufficient to permit reliable regional results for type of location.

** Results for type of location are not available for the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Overseas Schools and Guam.

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

49 (2.0) 50 (2.7) 35 (2.5) 35 (1.8) 36 (2.5) 41 (2.6)

50 (3.9) 49 (3.1) 42 (4.1) 40 (4.0) 52 (3.4) 51 (2.3)

42 (1.5) 47 (2.3) 45 (4.1) 47 (3.4) 57 (5.9) 55 (6.0)

48 (4.8) 47 (3.9) 40 (2.9)! 43 (4.8)! 44 (2.2) 47 (2.0)

54 (2.9) 61 (3.9) 52 (3.7) 51 (2.4) *** (***) *** (***)

44 (2.6) 45 (2.8) 32 (2.1) 39 (2.2) 34 (3.7) 38 (2.9)

52 (5.0) 51 (4.1) 23 (2.4) 25 (1.8) 21 (2.6) 17 (3.0)

43 (1.5) 47 (1.9) 43 (1.9) 48 (2.2) 44 (2.4) 48 (3.4)

54 (4.4) 55 (3.2) 43 (2.0) 45 (2.6) 49 (2.4)! 58 (6.1)!

55 (4.6) 59 (5.7) 35 (2.6) 41 (4.3) 44 (2.1) 50 (3.0)

47 (3.7) 44 (4.2) 56 (3.2) 56 (2.3) 52 (2.6) 58 (2.7)

38 (3.6) 45 (3.2) 26 (2.2) 26 (3.0) 30 (2.2) 30 (2.5)

28 (2.5) 37 (3.8) 19 (2.4) 32 (4.5) 28 (1.8) 28 (1.8)

39 (5.0) 41 (4.9) 36 (4.1) 40 (4.1) 46 (1.9) 47 (1.8)

58 (3.3) 66 (2.5) 50 (3.0) 53 (3.3) 55 (2.7) 60 (3.4)

*** (***) *** (***) 24 (3.6)! 25 (3.6) 24 (1.8) 25 (1.8)

55 (4.4) 54 (3.9) 38 (2.1) 39 (2.1) *** (***) *** (***)

46 (3.2) 57 (4.1) 18 (1.4) 22 (1.8) 21 (4.2)! 24 (2.6)!

44 (5.4) 46 (6.0) 28 (2.3) 29 (2.0) 32 (2.4) 38 (2.4)

61 (4.9) 54 (3.4) 50 (4.5) 43 (4.6) 61 (2.2) 58 (2.2)

46 (4.9) 45 (4.4) 29 (2.2) 33 (2.5) 31 (2.0) 38 (2.4)

— (—) 35 (3.8) — (—) 28 (3.9) — (—) 30 (2.1)

32 (2.3) 38 (3.0) 31 (5.3)! *** (***) 31 (2.3) 31 (2.0)

22 (3.1) 34 (3.7) 23 (2.7) 27 (2.6) 26 (2.7) 32 (2.6)

66 (5.5) 66 (6.2) 25 (1.9) 29 (1.8) *** (***) *** (***)

42 (2.7) 49 (2.8) 47 (3.1) 50 (2.9) 48 (2.8) 52 (3.5)

55 (2.7) 61 (2.9) 27 (2.2) 30 (2.4) 25 (2.3)! 27 (4.5)!

42 (3.3) 37 (2.4) 44 (3.0) 42 (3.7) 46 (2.2) 44 (2.6)

23 (3.1) 30 (2.0) 26 (2.9) 22 (3.3) 27 (2.4) 28 (2.1)

48 (5.5) 57 (3.6) 26 (2.1) 31 (2.0) 27 (2.7) 34 (3.3)

48 (3.5) 43 (2.4) 36 (3.7) 32 (2.4) 19 (3.4)! 24 (3.8)!

48 (3.6) 48 (3.1) 37 (3.6) 44 (2.9) 52 (2.8) 61 (2.9)

49 (3.4) 49 (4.3) 36 (3.1) 36 (2.7) 42 (2.6) 41 (3.1)

48 (3.4) 47 (3.6) 36 (3.9) 34 (4.3) 47 (6.4)! 44 (4.2)

35 (3.8) 38 (3.7) 33 (2.1) 35 (1.8) 30 (2.2) 36 (4.3)

38 (2.9) 50 (2.7)> 26 (3.0) 34 (2.6) 42 (2.8) 48 (3.5)

— (—) 45 (3.7) — (—) 38 (2.0) — (—) 44 (3.6)

37 (4.6) 42 (3.1) 36 (2.5) 40 (3.1) 41 (2.2) 43 (1.7)

33 (2.8) 33 (3.2) 27 (2.3) 27 (2.3) 28 (2.5) 27 (2.4)

32 (3.8) 32 (3.9) *** (***) *** (***) 28 (1.7) 31 (1.9)

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


Reading Assessment

1992

159

APPENDIX D

Sample Texts and Questions

from the 1994 NAEP

Reading Assessment

This appendix presents the stories and articles from the

1994 NAEP Reading Assessment that have been released

for publication in this report. Also included here are

additional sample questions and student responses

selected for each grade by the National Assessment

Governing Board (NAGB) to exemplify the range of

reading abilities demonstrated by students in the 1994

assessment. (A different set of sample questions and

student responses are presented in Chapter 1.) For each

question, the reading purpose and reading stance being

addressed is indicated. For multiple-choice questions,

the correct answer is marked. For constructed-response

questions, an abbreviated scoring rubic is provided. The

sample student responses have been reproduced from

assessment booklets and represent typical student

performance.

The table accompanying each sample question

presents two types of percentages: (1) the overall

percentage of students within a grade who answered

the question successfully, and (2) the conditional

percentages representing the percentages of students

within specific score ranges on the NAEP reading

composite scale who answered the question successfully.

The score ranges correspond to the three achievement

level intervals — Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.

Conditional percentages for students within the

Advanced achievement level interval are not presented,

however, because of the small sample size. (Sample size

criteria for reporting results are described in Appendix A.)
160

Sample Text – Grade 4
161
162
163

Sample Questions and

Student Responses – Grade 4

Story:

Hungry Spider and the Turtle

Questions:

When Turtle remains quiet about his mistreatment by Spider, the author

wants you to

A. believe Turtle is afraid

©B. have sympathy for Turtle

C. feel dislike for Turtle

D. think Turtle deserved no dinner

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Critical Stance

Percentage Correct within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 208-237* 238-267* 268 and above*

60 (1.5) 69 (2.7) 84 (2.1) **

* Achievement Level scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard

errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty

that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two

standard errors of the estimate for the sample.
164

There is a saying, “Don’t get mad, get even.” How does this apply to the story?

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Critical Stance

Responses to this question were scored

1) Unacceptable, or 2) Acceptable

Sample response (score of 2):

Acceptable responses (score of 2) indicated that Turtle got back at Spider for not sharing

his food.

Percentage “Acceptable” within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Acceptable” 208-237* 238-267* 268 and above*

55 (1.5) 71 (2.9) 92 (2.0) **

* Achievement Level scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard

errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty

that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two

standard errors of the estimate for the sample.
165

Spider’s behavior during the first part of the story is most like that of

A. mothers protecting their children

B. thieves robbing banks

C. runners losing races

©D. people not sharing their wealth

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Personal Response

Percentage Correct within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 208-237* 238-267* 268 and above*

73 (1.1) 83 (1.8) 87 (2.0) **

* Achievement Level scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard

errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty

that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two

standard errors of the estimate for the sample.
166

What do Turtle’s actions at Spider’s house tell you about Turtle?

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Developing an Interpretation

Responses to this question were scored

1) Unacceptable, or 2) Acceptable

Sample response (score of 2):

Acceptable responses (score of 2) provided a description of Turtle that was consistent with the

traits portrayed by the character in a specific part of the story.

Percentage “Acceptable” within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Acceptable” 212-242* 243-274* 275 and above*

41 (1.4) 48 (3.3) 66 (3.5) **

* Achievement Level scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard

errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty

that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two

standard errors of the estimate for the sample.
167

Sample Text – Grade 8
168
169
170

Informative Article:

The Lost People of Mesa Verde

Questions:

After reading this article, what do you think is the most important information

about the Anasazi?

Reading Purpose: To Gain Information Reading Stance: Initial Understanding

Responses to this question were scored

1) Unacceptable, or 2) Acceptable

Sample response (score of 2):

Acceptable responses (score of 2) provided either a specific aspect or a general impression of

the history of the Anasazi as portrayed in the article.

Sample Questions and

Student Responses – Grade 8

Percentage “Acceptable” within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Acceptable” 243-280* 281-322* 323 and above*

60 (1.4) 60 (2.7) 74 (2.9) **

* Achievement Level scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard

errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty

that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two

standard errors of the estimate for the sample.
171

The Anasazi’s life before 1200 A.D. was portrayed by the author as being

A. dangerous and warlike

B. busy and exciting

C. difficult and dreary

©D. productive and peaceful

Reading Purpose: To Gain Information Reading Stance: Developing an Interpretation

Percentage Correct within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 243-280* 281-322* 323 and above*

59 (1.5) 59 (2.4) 82 (2.9) **

* Achievement Level scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The

standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent

certainty that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or

minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.
172

Some people say that the Anasazi’s success as a civilization may have actually

caused their own decline. Using information in the article, explain why you

agree or disagree with this statement.

Reading Purpose: To Gain Information Reading Stance: Personal Response

Responses to this question were scored

1) Unsatisfactory, 2) Partial, 3) Essential, or 4) Extensive

Percentage “Essential” or Better within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Essential” or Better 243-280* 281-322* 323 and above*

28 (1.1) 26 (2.5) 50 (3.4) **

* Achievement Level scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard

errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty

that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two

standard errors of the estimate for the sample.
173

Sample response (score of 3):

Responses scored Essential (score of 3) agreed or disagreed with the statement and

demonstrated understanding by providing an explanation based on information in the article.

Sample response (score of 4):

Responses scored Extensive (score of 4) agreed or disagreed with the statement and

demonstrated an explicit understanding of causal relationships between events and outcomes

by connecting ideas from the article.
174

If you had lived with the Anasazi at Mesa Verde, would you have preferred living

on the top of the mesa or in the cliff houses built into the alcoves? Explain your

preference by using information from the article.

Reading Purpose: To Gain Information Reading Stance: Personal Response

Responses to this question were scored

1) Unsatisfactory, 2) Partial, or 3) Complete

Sample response (score of 3):

Responses demonstrating Full comprehension (score of 3) stated a preference and used

appropriate information from the article to logically support their preference.

Percentage “Complete” within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Complete” 243-280* 281-322* 323 and above*

29 (1.3) 29 (2.0) 46 (3.0) **

* Achievement Level scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard

errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty

that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two

standard errors of the estimate for the sample.
175

Sample Text – Grade 12
176
177
178

Sample Questions and

Student Responses – Grade 12

Story:

The Flying Machine

Questions:

Who does the Emperor believe should be responsible for an invention?

Why does he think this?

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Critical Stance

Responses to this question were scored

1) Unacceptable, or 2) Acceptable

Sample response (score of 2):

Acceptable responses (score of 2) evaluated story events to determine who the Emperor believed

should be responsible and explained why he thought that way.

Percentage “Acceptable” within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

“Acceptable” 265-301* 302-345* 346 and above*

55 (1.6) 56 (3.2) 70 (2.6) **

* Achievement Level scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard

errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty

that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two

standard errors of the estimate for the sample.
179

The Emperor suggests that creative talents should be used to

A. build airplanes

©B. make elaborate toys

C. tear down walls

D. discipline servants

Reading Purpose: Literary Experience Reading Stance: Developing an Interpretation

Percentage Correct within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 265-301* 302-345* 346 and above*

50 (1.4) 46 (3.5) 77 (3.6) **

* Achievement Level scale range. ** Sample size insufficient to permit reliable estimate. The standard

errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty

that for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two

standard errors of the estimate for the sample.
180
??

NAEP’S 1994 Reading Assessment, including the Trial

State Assessment Program, was a collaborative effort

among staff from the National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES), the National Assessment Governing

Board (NAGB), Educational Testing Service (ETS),

Westat, and National Computer Systems (NCS).

The program benefited from the contributions of

hundreds of individuals at the state and local levels —

governors, chief state school officers, state and

district test directors, state coordinators, and district

administrators — who tirelessly provided their wisdom,

experience, and hard work. Most importantly, NAEP

is grateful to students and school staff who made the

assessment possible.

The assessment was funded through NCES, in the

Office of Educational Research and Improvement of

the U.S. Department of Education. The NCES staff –

particularly Jeanne Griffith, Gary Phillips, Steve

Gorman, Susan Ahmed, Peggy Carr, Sharif Shakrani,

Sheida White and Maureen Treacy – worked closely and

collegially with ETS, Westat, and NCS staff and played a

crucial role in all aspects of the program. The 1994

NAEP assessments and reports also benefitted from the

consistent support and guidance of Emerson Elliott,

past Commissioner of NCES. The members of the

National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the

NAGB staff provided invaluable advice and guidance

throughout. NAEP also owes a debt of gratitude to the

numerous panelists and consultants who provided their

expertise and worked so conscientiously on developing

the assessment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The NAEP project at ETS is directed by Paul

Williams and resides in the Center for the Assessment of

Educational Progress (CAEP) managed by Archie

Lapointe and Paul Williams. Steve Lazer managed test

development activities, and Jay Campbell worked with

the Reading Item Development committee to develop

the assessment instruments. Jules Goodison managed

the operational aspects together with John Olson, and

sampling and data collection activities were carried out

by Westat under the direction of Rene Slobasky, Nancy

Caldwell, and Keith Rust. Printing, distribution,

scoring, and processing activities were conducted by

NCS, under the supervision of Judy Moyer, Brad Thayer,

Mathilde Kennel, Linda Reynolds, and Barbara Price.

Statistical and psychometric activities for the

national and state assessments were led by Nancy Allen

and John Donoghue under the direction of Eugene

Johnson, John Mazzeo, and Jim Carlson. Major

contributions were made by Hua Hua Chang, Spencer

Swinton, and Eddie Ip. Steve Isham, Dave Freund,

Jennifer Nelson, Kate Pashley, and Lois Worthington

performed the reading analyses.

Karen Miller, and Steve Lazer contributed

substantially to report design activities. Doug Rhodes

and Mary Michaels directed the report production

aspects, with coordination assistance from Sharon

Davis-Johnson. Roderick Rudder, Carol Errickson, Sheri

Barnes, Joe Kolodey, Jim Rura, Diane Guthrie, and in

particular, Loretta Casalaina provided report design

and composition assistance. Beverly Cisney provided

the excellent desktop publishing skills essential to the

report. Many thanks are provided to the numerous

reviewers, internal to ETS and NCES as well as external,

especially Lynn Jenkins who suggested improvements to

successive drafts. The comments and critical feedback

provided by the following reviewers are reflected in the

final version of this report: Marilyn Binkley, Marylyn

Bourque, Adrienne Chute, Peter Dewitz, Larry Feinberg,

Steven Ferrar, Larry Gabbert, Andrew Kolstad, and

Mary Naifeh.
UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20208-5653

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300