Trial Urban District assessment of grades 4 and 8

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007-453

Science2005

National Assessment of Educational Progress
For over three decades, NAEP assessments have been 

conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, 

writing, history, geography, and other subjects. By 

making objective information available on student 

performance 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 and relevant variables is 

collected. The privacy of individual students is protected, 

and the identities of participating schools are not 

released. NAEP is a congressionally mandated project 

of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

within the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. 

Department of Education. The Commissioner of 

Education Statistics is responsible for carrying out the 

NAEP project. The National Assessment Governing 

Board oversees and sets policy for NAEP.

What is The Nation’s Report CardTM?

The Nation’s Report CardTM informs the public about the academic achievement 

of elementary and secondary students in the United States. Report cards 

communicate the findings of the National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP), the only continuing and nationally representative measure of 

achievement in various subjects over time. The Nation’s Report CardTM compares 

performance among states, urban districts, public and private schools, and 

student demographic groups.

Contents

NOVEMber 2006

1	 Executive Summary

2	 Trial Urban District Assessment

4	 4th Grade Results

14	 8th Grade Results

24	 A Closer Look at Individual

	 	 Districts

46	 Technical Notes and

	 	 Data Appendix
TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 

About this report

Only public schools participated, so throughout the report scores for the 10 participating districts are compared to public school averages for 

the nation and large central cities. Large central cities (population 250,000 or more) provide a comparison that is more reflective of these 

student populations than the nation as a whole. Because this is the first science TUDA assessment, NAEP cannot compare student performance in 

the districts to prior years to determine whether districts are making progress. 

Executive Summary

In 2005, NAEP conducted its first Trial Urban District 

Assessment (TUDA) in science. The assessment 

included public school students in the following districts: 

Atlanta Cleveland

Austin Houston

Boston Los Angeles

Charlotte New York City

Chicago San Diego

Fourth-Grade Results

In 7 of the 10 districts, fourth-graders scored as well 

as, or better than, students in large central cities across 

the country. 

The percentage of fourth-graders performing at or 

above Basic ranged from 35 to 60 percent in the 

districts, compared to 66 percent for the nation.

The percentage of fourth-graders performing

at or above Proficient ranged from 6 to 26 percent in 

the districts, compared to 27 percent for the nation. 

A fourth-grade student whose score falls in the Basic

achievement-level range would likely be able to identify 

two organs that work together to supply oxygen to the 

body. Relating the relative amount of time a candle burns 

to the amount of air available is an example of the type 

of skill that falls in the Proficient range.

Eighth-Grade Results

In 6 of the 10 districts, eighth-graders scored as well 

as, or better than, students in large central cities across 

the country. 

The percentage of eighth-graders performing at or 

above Basic ranged from 22 to 52 percent in the 

districts, compared to 57 percent for the nation. 

The percentage of eighth-graders performing at or 

above Proficient ranged from 5 to 27 percent in the 

districts, compared to 27 percent for the nation.

An eighth-grade student whose score falls 

within the Basic achievement-level range 

would likely be able to identify changes 

that occur in heart rate before, during, 

and after exercise. Identifying the 

energy conversions that occur in an 

electric fan is the type of skill that 

falls in the Proficient range. 

Comparisons by Race/Ethnicity 

and Income Level

All of the 10 participating districts have a majority 

of students who are not White, and nearly all have 

high proportions of low-income students. Because the 

demographic makeup of these districts differs from that 

of public schools in the nation overall, it is important to 

compare student groups in the districts with their peers 

in large central cities and in the nation. 

In many of the districts, average scores for White, 

Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander students 

were either higher or not significantly different from 

the national average for their peers. 

At both grades 4 and 8, the gap in average scores 

between the nation and the individual districts for all 

students ranged from 2 to 30 points, with the nation’s 

score higher.

When the comparison between nation and district at both 

grades is based only on low-income students, the gaps 

in average scores ranged from almost none to 19 points, 

with the nation’s score higher.
The Trial Urban District Assessment

In 2005, ten urban public school districts participated in a part of the 

NAEP science assessment at grades 4 and 8 called the Trial Urban District 

Assessment (TUDA). The participating districts were Atlanta, Austin, Boston, 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, 

and San Diego. Representative samples of public schools and students from each 

district participated at each grade. The data from these same schools and students 

were also included as a part of the sample for their state and for the nation.

The three NAEP achievement levels, 

from lowest to highest, are

Basic—denotes partial mastery of the 

knowledge and skills that are fundamental 

for proficient work at a given grade.

Proficient—represents solid academic 

performance. Students reaching this level have 

demonstrated competency over challenging 

subject matter.

Advanced—signifies superior performance.

About 1,000 to 2,000 students in each TUDA district 

participated in the science assessment at each grade. The 

results provide estimates of the performance of students 

for each urban district and are compared to the 

performance of their peers attending public schools in 

the nation and large central cities. Large central cities 

have populations of 250,000 or more. The comparison 

with large central cities is made because these schools 

represent a peer group that is similar to these urban 

districts (see tables 1 and 2 on pages 24 and 25). As this 

was the first science TUDA assessment, NAEP cannot 

compare student performance in the districts to prior 

years to determine whether the districts are making 

progress.

Reporting Science Results

In this report, NAEP science results are reported in two 

ways: as average scale scores and as a percentage of 

students performing at or above three performance 

standards called “achievement levels.” NAEP science 

scores are reported on a 0–300 scale for each grade. 

Percentages are presented for three achievement levels: 

Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Percentages below Basic

are also reported. Descriptions of the NAEP science 

achievement levels for each grade can be found in the 

grade sections of this report.

The National Assessment Governing Board sets specific 

achievement levels for each subject area and grade 

assessed, based on recommendations from panels of 

educators and members of the public, to provide a 

context for interpreting student performance on NAEP. 

As provided by law, the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES), upon review of congressionally 

mandated evaluations of NAEP, has determined that 

achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and 

should be interpreted with caution. However, NCES and 

the Governing Board have affirmed the usefulness of 

these performance standards for understanding trends in 

achievement. NAEP achievement levels have been 

widely used by national and state officials.

2 THEE NANATION ION’SS REREPORORT CAR CARD
The Science Framework

Like every NAEP assessment, the science assessment is 

based on a blueprint called a “framework,” which specifies 

what should be assessed. Under the direction of the Governing Board, the framework was developed in a comprehensive and inclusive process, including subject experts, 

scientists, school administrators, policymakers, teachers, 

parents, and others. 

The framework requires assessment in three broad fields 

(Earth science, physical science, and life science) and 

three elements of knowing and doing science (conceptual 

understanding, scientific investigation, and practical 

reasoning). More detail on the assessment content can be 

found on page 10 for grade 4 and page 20 for grade 8.

The current science framework was used to guide the 

national and state 1996, 2000, and 2005 assessments. 

A new framework, approved in 2005, will be used 

to direct future science assessments. For more information on the framework, see http://www.nagb.org/

pubs/pubs.html.

Elements of Knowing and Doing Science 

Conceptual understanding means understanding 

the principles of science used to explain and 

predict observations of the natural world.

Scientific investigation means using scientific 

knowledge and skills to plan investigations and 

acquire new knowledge.

Practical reasoning means using science 

understanding to solve everyday problems.

The Fields of Science

Earth science includes concepts related to 

solid Earth, water, air, and Earth in space.

Physical science (physics and chemistry) 

includes matter and its transformations, 

energy and its transformations, and motion. 

Life science includes the nature and function 

of living things.

Interpreting Results

NAEP uses widely accepted statistical standards in 

analyzing data. The text of this report discusses only 

findings that are statistically significant at the .05 level. 

In the tables and charts of this report, the symbol (*) is 

used to indicate that scores or percentages are significantly 

different from each other. 

In addition to overall results, performance at the district 

level is presented for students categorized by different 

demographic and educational background characteristics 

(for example, by race/ethnicity). Results of more variables 

for the urban districts are available on the NAEP website 

(http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/).

Simple associations between background characteristics 

and achievement cannot be used to establish cause-andeffect relationships. A complex mix of educational and 

socioeconomic factors may interact to affect student 

performance. For additional information, see the Technical 

Notes on page 46 or http://nationsreportcard.gov. 

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 3
Overall, district performance is comparable 

to that of large central cities nationwide

Fourth-grade students in 7 of the 10 participating districts scored at least as 

well, on average, as students attending public schools in large central cities 

nationally. In many cases, the same was true when students from the TUDA 

districts were compared with their peers from the same racial/ethnic groups in 

large central cities nationally. Although the science scores in nearly all the participating districts were lower than the national average, when only the scores 

of students from low-income families were compared, there were fewer score 

differences among districts.

4th

Grade

 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Figure 1.

Average fourth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, 

by jurisdiction

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE 

Nation 149*

Large central city 135**

147*

145*,**

138**

138**

134**

133**

133**

128*,**

126*,**

126*,**

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 300

Austin

Charlotte

Houston

San Diego

New York City

Atlanta

Boston

Cleveland

Chicago

Los Angeles

Similar to or above large central 

cities, but below the nation

In all but three participating districts, average scores 

were higher than, or not significantly different from, 

the average score for large central city schools. When 

compared to public schools nationwide, however, 

fourth-graders in all but one of the 10 districts had 

lower average scores (figure 1). 

All of the districts had students scoring in the 

Proficient achievement level and some students in the 

Advanced achievement level (figure 2)—that is, 

districts with low average scores also had students 

performing at higher levels. 

Compared to public schools nationally, nearly all of the 

participating districts had lower percentages of students 

at or above Basic and at or above Proficient. In one-half 

of these districts, however, the percentages of students 

performing at or above the Basic level were about the 

same as or higher than the percentage 

in large central cities.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

Figure 2.

Percentage of fourth-grade public school students, by NAEP science achievement level and jurisdiction in 2005

BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICIENT AD V ANCED 

Compared to large 

central city, % at 

or above Basic is

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

34 39 25 2

52 32 14 1

64 31 6 #

65 26 8 #

65 26 8 1

Percent

Nation

Large central city

Austin 40 35 22 3

Charlotte 40 37 21 2

Houston 53 33 13 2

San Diego 49 33 17 2

New York City 54 33 12 1

Atlanta 58 29 11 2

Boston 58 33 9 1

Cleveland lower

not significantly 

different 

higher 

Chicago

Los Angeles

# The estimate rounds to zero.

NOTE: The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban 

District Science Assessment.

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 
Read across each district’s row to determine whether the average score of that district was higher than, not significantly different 

from, or lower than the jurisdiction in the column heading. The direction of the arrow indicates whether the jurisdiction in the row is 

higher than (up arrow), lower than (down arrow), or not significantly different from (no arrow) the district in the column heading.

Figure 3.

Cross-district comparisons of average fourth-grade NAEP 

science scores for all public school students in 2005

District had higher average scale score than the 

district listed at the top of the column. 

from the district listed at the top of the column.

District had lower average scale score than the 

district listed at the top of the column. 

No statistically significant difference detected Nation Large central city Austin Charlotte Houston San Diego New York City Boston Atlanta

ClevelandChicagoLos Angeles

Austin (147)

DISTRICT

(Average score)

Charlotte (145)

Houston (138)

San Diego (138)

New York City (134)

Boston (133)

Atlanta (133)

Cleveland (128)

Chicago (126)

Los Angeles (126)

Figure 4.

Cross-district comparisons of average fourth-grade NAEP 

science scores for low-income public school students in 2005

NOTE: The average score for all students in the nation was 149 and was 135 for low-income 

students. The average score for all students in large central cities was 135 and was 127 for 

low-income students. In NAEP, low-income students are students identified as eligible for free 

or reduced-price school lunch.

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

Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban 

District Science Assessment.

Nation

Large central city

Austin

Houston

Boston

New York City

Charlotte

Cleveland

San Diego

Atlanta

Chicago

Los Angeles

Austin (135)

Houston (131)

Boston (130)

New York City (130)

Charlotte (129)

Cleveland (128)

San Diego (127)

Atlanta (124)

Chicago (122)

Los Angeles (121)

DISTRICT 

(Average score)

For low-income students, relative district performance differs from overall 

results

Figure 3 shows comparisons among districts based on all 

public school students. Austin and Charlotte were in the top 

tier, while Chicago and Los Angeles were in the lowest tier. 

The participating districts typically have greater percentages 

of low-income students than public schools nationally. (See 

the demographic profiles in table 1 on page 24.) NAEP uses 

students’ eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch 

as an indicator of socioeconomic status.1 Typically, eligible 

students are from low-income families and have average 

scores that are significantly below those of students from 

higher-income families. 

The highest-scoring districts when all public school 

students are considered have some of the smallest 

percentages of low-income students. The lowestperforming districts, however, have some of the largest 

1 Under the guidelines of the National School Lunch Program, children from 

families with incomes below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for 

free meals. Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the 

poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals. (For the period July 1, 2004 

through June 30, 2005, for a family of four, 130 percent of the poverty level 

was $24,505, and 185 percent was $34,873. See http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/

lunch for more information.)

percentages. This contrast helps in understanding why the 

overall average scores for most districts are below that of 

the nation.

Figure 4 shows the cross-district comparisons for only lowincome students. Here, the ranking among districts differs 

from that for all students. For example, Houston, Boston, 

New York City, and Cleveland move up in the rankings, and 

fewer differences are seen in performance across districts. 

 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Nation – district gaps narrower for low-income students

Figure 5 below shows how the picture of district 

performance in comparison to the nation changes when 

looking at only low-income students. Gaps in average 

scores between the nation and the districts when all 

public school students are included range from 2 to 

24 points (shown by the bars on the left side of the 

figure). 

These gaps in overall scores may be related, in part, to 

the greater percentages of low-performing, low-income 

students in the districts. The right side of the figure 

shows that the gaps between low-income students in the 

nation and in each district range from almost none to 

14 points. 

Using Cleveland (which identifies all of its students 

as low-income) as an example, the district’s average 

score was 21 points lower than the national average. 

Cleveland’s average score for low-income students, 

however, was 6 points lower than the average for 

low-income students nationally. 

Figure 5.

NAEP fourth-grade public school science score gaps between nation and 

districts for all students and for low-income students in 2005, by urban district

# The estimate rounds to zero.

1 The score point difference between Austin and the nation was not statistically significant when comparing all students or 

when comparing low-income students.

NOTE: The average score for all students in the nation was 149 and was 135 for low-income students. In NAEP, low-income 

students are students identified as eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch. Score gaps are calculated based on 

differences between unrounded average scores.

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

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

DISTRICT

(Average score)

DISTRICT

(Average score)

SCORE GAP

Nation minus district

SCORE GAP

Nation minus district

ALL STUDENTS

0 2 10 0 30 40 0 2 10 0 4 30 0

LOW-INCOME STUDENTS

16 11

2 #

5

4 6

24

21

12

6

11 4

24 14

16 5

12 8

Charlotte (145) 

Chicago (126)

Cleveland (128) 

Houston (138) 

Los Angeles (126) 

New York City (134) 

San Diego (138) 

Atlanta (133)

Austin (147) 

Boston (133) 

Charlotte (129) 

Chicago (122) 

Cleveland (128)

Houston (131) 

Los Angeles (121)

New York City (130) 

San Diego (127) 

Atlanta (124)

Austin (135)

16 Boston (130) 

1 1

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 
District percentile rankings vary by demographic groups

Percentile ranks provide a comparative view of student 

performance at higher, middle, and lower levels on the 

NAEP science scale. Figure 6 displays the national 

percentile ranking of the TUDA districts and their 

subgroups, as well as that of the comparable groups in 

the nation and in large central cities. For example, the 

average score for Black students in Austin was at the 

29th percentile. This means that they performed as well 

as or better than 29 percent of all students nationwide, 

including their Black counterparts in large central cities 

whose average score was at the 21st percentile.

a note on Percentiles

 The figure on the next page shows groups of students 

within each participating urban district ranked against 

the NAEP national public school percentiles. The 

average score for the group was used to determine 

its percentile rank compared with public schools 

nationally. A percentile indicates the percentage of 

students whose scores fell at or below a particular 

score. The 10th and 25th percentiles represent lowerscoring students, the 50th percentile represents 

middle-scoring students, and the 75th and 90th 

percentiles represent higher-scoring students. 

8 THe naTion’s rePorT carD
Figure 6.

National percentile rankings for districts based on average scores in NAEP fourth-grade science, by low-income status and 

race/ethnicity: 2005

1 Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate for Hispanic students in Atlanta.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. In NAEP, low-income students are students identified as eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

The 50th percentile represents the middle score in the distribution of scores for public school students nationally. The average score for these students, however, fell below that point at the 47th 

percentile because there was a greater concentration of scores toward the lower end of the scale compared to the higher end.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District 

Science Assessment.

Austin (45)

Large central city (31)

Houston (34)

San Diego (34)

Cleveland (24)

Chicago (22)

Los Angeles (22)

New York City (29)

Boston (29)

Atlanta (29)

Charlotte (42)

Nation (47)

90th

75th

50th

25th

Overall White Black

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic1

National

percentiles Low-income

Austin (80)

Boston (52)

Atlanta (86)

Nation (62)

Large central city (62)

Houston (79)

Cleveland (43)

Los Angeles (56)

Chicago (54)

New York City (53)

San Diego (63)

Charlotte (66)

Austin (32)

Charlotte (31)

Cleveland (26)

Los Angeles (19)

New York City (22)

San Diego (21)

Nation (28)

Large central city (24)

Austin (29)

Houston (26)

Los Angeles (12)

Chicago (16)

Charlotte (25)

Boston (23)

Atlanta (22)

Cleveland (20)

San Diego (21)

Large central city (21)

Chicago (23)

Houston (29)

10th

Nation (24)

New York City (24)

Charlotte (25) Boston (25)

Cleveland (24)

Boston (26)

New York City (26)

Austin (31)

Nation (31)

Houston (27)

Atlanta (20)

Los Angeles (18)

Chicago (19)

San Diego (23)

Large central city (23)

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 
Science Achievement Levels at Grade 4

The science achievement levels at grade 4 represent what 

fourth-graders know and can do in science at each level. 

The following are excerpts of the science achievement-level 

descriptions with the corresponding minimum scores noted 

in parentheses. The full descriptions can be found at http://

www.nagb.org/pubs/pubs.html.

Basic (138): Students performing at the Basic level 

demonstrate some of the knowledge and reasoning required for 

understanding the Earth, physical, and life sciences at 

a level appropriate to grade 4. For example, they can carry 

out simple investigations and read uncomplicated graphs and 

diagrams. Students at this level also show a beginning 

understanding of classification, simple relationships, 

and energy.

Proficient (170): Students performing at the Proficient

level demonstrate the knowledge and reasoning required for 

understanding the Earth, physical, and life sciences at a level 

appropriate to grade 4. For example, they understand concepts 

relating to the Earth’s features, physical properties, structure, 

and function. In addition, students can formulate solutions to 

familiar problems as well as show a beginning awareness of 

issues associated with technology.

Advanced (205): Students performing at the Advanced level 

demonstrate a solid understanding of the Earth, physical, 

and life sciences as well as the ability to apply their 

understanding to practical situations at a level appropriate 

to grade 4. For example, they can perform and critique simple 

investigations, make connections from one or more of the 

sciences to predict or conclude, and apply fundamental 

concepts to practical applications.

10 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

At grade 4, one-third of the assessment was devoted to each 

of three science fields—Earth, physical, and life science. 

The framework specifies that 45 percent of assessment 

time should be devoted to conceptual understanding, 

45 percent to scientific investigation, and 10 percent to 

practical reasoning.

Fourth-graders were presented with two 25-minute 

sections, each containing 9 to 17 multiple-choice 

questions and constructed-response questions, which 

require students to produce their own answers. Onehalf of the students in each school spent an additional 

20 minutes to complete the hands-on portion of the 

assessment. 

An example of one of the hands-on tasks administered in 

1996 asked students to determine whether an unknown 

sample of water was fresh water or salt water after 

observing the levels at which a pencil floated in each 

type of water. Examples of hands-on tasks from the 2005 

assessment have not yet been released. 

Assessment Content at Grade 4

The content of the assessment varies for each grade to reflect what students 

should know and be able to do. The percentage of the assessment dedicated 

to each of the fields of science and the elements of knowing and doing 

science is specified for each grade. To interpret the overall results and the 

student group results presented in this report, it is important to understand 

the content of the assessment.
The surface of the Moon is covered with craters. 

Most of these craters were formed by

A eruptions of active volcanoes

 the impacts of many meteoroids

C shifting rock on the Moon’s surface (“moonquakes”)

D tidal forces caused by the Earth and Sun

overall

Below 

Basic

At 

Basic

At 

Proficient

At 

Advanced

46 22 46 73 92

Percentage correct in nation’s public schools in 2005

Percentage of correct fourth-grade public school student responses on the question above in 2005, by jurisdiction

SOUrCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District 

Science Assessment. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Nation 46

Large central city 38

Atlanta 36

Austin 42

Boston 32

Charlotte 43

Chicago 34

Cleveland 34

Houston 41

Los Angeles 34

New York City 33

San Diego 45

PERCENTAGE OF CORRECT RESPONSES

Percent

Trial Urban DisTricT assessmenT science 2005 11

sample grade 4 multiple-choice 

Question

The multiple-choice question on the right assesses 

conceptual understanding in the fi eld of Earth science.

The percentages below the sample question indicate 

how students performed on the question. In addition to 

the overall percentage of students who answered the 

question correctly, the percentage of the students at each 

achievement level who answered correctly is presented. 

As an example of how to interpret these percentages, 

46 percent of the students overall answered this question 

correctly. When just the students in the Profi cient category 

are considered, 73 percent answered correctly.
As shown in the picture, Christina has two identical cups 

that are fi lled to the same level with water. She also has two 

solid steel balls.

Christina puts ball 1 in cup 1 and ball 2 in cup 2. In which 

cup will the water level rise the most?

Tell why you think so

SOUrCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District 

Science Assessment. 

Nation 62

Large central city 53

Atlanta 53

Austin 54

Boston 56

Charlotte 62

Chicago 55

Cleveland 51

Houston 55

Los Angeles

New York City 54

San Diego 59

46

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES RATED “COMPLETE”

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Percentage of fourth-grade public school student responses rated “complete” on the question above in 2005, by jurisdiction

overall

Below 

Basic

At 

Basic

At 

Proficient

At 

Advanced

62 50 64 73 79

Percentage “complete” in nation’s public schools in 2005

12 THe naTion’s rePorT carD

sample grade 4 constructedresponse Question

The constructed-response question on the right requires 

practical reasoning in the fi eld of physical science. 

Responses were rated using a three-level scoring guide.

Responses that stated that the water level goes up more 

in cup 1 and gave a correct explanation were rated 

“Complete.” Responses that stated that the water level 

goes up more in cup 1, but had an inadequate explanation 

were rated “Partial.” Responses that stated that the water 

level goes up more in cup 2, or that ball 2 pushes the 

water level higher in cup 2 were rated as “Incorrect.” The 

sample student response shown here was “Complete.” 
Diagram 1 shows a frog’s life cycle with two missing stages. 

Diagram 2 shows the two stages that are missing from the 

frog’s life cycle in diagram 1. They are labeled A and B.

Complete the frog’s life cycle in Diagram 1 by writing A in 

the empty circle where stage A belongs and B in the empty 

circle where stage B belongs.

Explain why you placed the letters A and B where you did.

Nation 11

Large central city 7

Atlanta 3

Austin 11

Boston 8

Charlotte 11

Chicago 8

Cleveland 7

Houston 8

Los Angeles

New York City 7

San Diego 11

5

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES RATED “COMPLETE”

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Percentage of fourth-grade public school student responses rated “Complete” on the question above in 2005, by jurisdiction

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District 

Science Assessment. 

Percentage “Complete” in nation’s public schools in 2005

Overall

Below

Basic

At

Basic

At

Proficient

At

Advanced

11 3 10 19 34

The following constructed-response question assesses 

conceptual understanding in the field of life science. A 

student response was judged “Complete” if both stages 

A and B were placed correctly, and a valid explanation of 

the placement of both diagrams was provided. 

A response was judged “Partial” if the student provided 

an acceptable explanation for stage A or B, OR a 

partially acceptable explanation for one stage or both 

stages. (Stages A and B may be placed correctly or 

incorrectly or left blank.) Responses were judged 

“Unsatisfactory/Incorrect” when a student did not 

provide a valid explanation for either placement. The 

sample student response below was “Complete.”

Sample Grade 4 ConstructedResponse Question

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 13
8th

grade

14 THe naTion’s rePorT carD

Many districts’ overall performance 

similar to large central cities’ performance; 

some do better

Students in more than one-half of the districts scored at least as well, on 

average, as public school students in large central cities. However, all districts 

scored below the average score for the nation. In most cases, White, Black, and 

Hispanic students across the districts performed as well as, or better than, their 

peers in large central cities. Gaps between each district’s overall average score 

and the national average ranged from 3 to 30 points. When only students from 

low-income families were compared, the score gaps between the districts and 

the nation ranged from 4 to 19 points. 
Figure 7.

Average eighth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, 

by jurisdiction

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

147*

132**

144*,**

142*,**

136*,**

131**

130**

128**

124*,**

122*,**

121*,**

117*,**

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 300

Austin

Charlotte

San Diego

Boston

Houston

New York City

Chicago

Cleveland

Los Angeles

Atlanta

Nation

Large central city

# The estimate rounds to zero.

NOTE: The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban 

District Science Assessment.

Figure 8.

Percentage of eighth-grade public school students, by NAEP science achievement level and jurisdiction in 2005

BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICIENT ADVANCED

Nation 43 30 24 3

Large central city 61 24 14 2

Austin 48 25 23 4

Charlotte 50 27 21 3

San Diego 57 25 17 1

Boston 62 24 13 1

Houston 65 23 11 1

New York City 64 22 12 2

Chicago 72 19 8 1

Cleveland 74 21 5 #

Los Angeles 72 20 8 1

Atlanta 78 16 6 1

or above Basic is

central city, % at 

Compared to large

lower

not significantly 

different

higher

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools). from nation (public schools).

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 15

Performance comparable to large 

central cities, but below nation

Eighth-grade students in 6 of the 10 participating 

districts scored at least as well, on average, as public 

school students in large central cities. Students in three 

of those districts—Austin, Charlotte, and San Diego—

scored higher (figure 7). However, the average scores 

in all districts were below the average for public school 

students nationwide.

All districts had students performing at the Proficient

achievement level and some students in the Advanced

achievement level (figure 8). The pattern for achievement 

levels is similar to the average score results: the same 

three districts with higher average scores had higher 

percentages of students at or above Basic than in large 

central cities. 

When compared to public schools nationally, all the 

participating districts had lower percentages of students 

performing at or above Basic. Only Austin did not 

have lower percentages at or above Proficient. The 

percentages of students at or above Basic in five districts, 

however, were about the same as or higher than the 

percentage in large central cities.
16 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

For low-income students, fewer performance differences among districts

The highest-scoring districts when all students are 

considered have some of the smallest percentages of 

low-income students. The lowest-performing districts, 

however, have some of the largest percentages. This 

contrast helps in understanding why the overall average 

scores for most districts are below that of the nation.

Figure 10 shows the cross-district comparisons for only 

low-income students. Here, similar to the pattern in 

grade 4, the ranking among districts differs from that for 

all students. For example, Boston, New York City, and 

Houston move up in the rankings, and fewer differences 

are seen in performance across districts. 

Read across each district’s row to determine whether the average score of that district was higher than, not significantly different 

from, or lower than the jurisdiction in the column heading. The direction of the arrow indicates whether the jurisdiction in the row is 

higher than (up arrow), lower than (down arrow), or not significantly different from (no arrow) the district in the column heading. 

Figure 9.

Cross-district comparisons of average eighth-grade NAEP 

science scores for all public school students in 2005

District had higher average scale score than the 

district listed at the top of the column.

from the district listed at the top of the column.

District had lower average scale score than the 

district listed at the top of the column.

No statistically significant difference detected

NOTE: The average score for all students in the nation was 147 and was 130 for low-income 

students. The average score for all students in large central cities was 132 and was 122 for 

low-income students. In NAEP, low-income students are students identified as eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunch.

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

Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban 

District Science Assessment. Nation 

Large central city 

Austin (125)

Charlotte (121)

Houston (123)

San Diego (122)

New York City (125)

Boston (126)

Atlanta (111)

Cleveland (122)

Chicago (119)

Los Angeles (117)

AustinNew YHoustonSan DiegoCharlotte

ork City

BostonClevelandChicagoLos AngelesAtlanta

DISTRICT 

(Average score)

Austin (144)

Charlotte (142)

San Diego (136)

Boston (131)

Houston (130)

New York City (128)

Chicago (124)

Cleveland (122)

Los Angeles (121)

Atlanta (117)

Nation

Large central cit

AustinCharlotteSan DiegoBostonHoustonNew York CityChicagoClevelandLos AngelesAtlanta

y

DISTRICT 

(Average score)

Figure 10.

Cross-district comparisons of average eighth-grade NAEP 

science scores for low-income public school students in 2005

Figure 9 shows comparisons among districts based on all 

students. As in grade 4, Austin and Charlotte were in the 

top tier at grade 8, while eighth-graders in Atlanta were 

in the bottom tier. 

The participating districts typically have greater 

percentages of low-income students than public schools 

nationally. (See the demographic profiles in table 2

on page 25.) NAEP uses students’ eligibility for 

free or reduced-price school lunch as an indicator of 

socioeconomic status. Eligible students (see definitional 

note on page 6) are typically from low-income families 

and have average scores that are significantly below 

those of students from higher-income families. 
Trial Urban DisTricT assessmenT science 2005 1

Gaps in average scores between the 

nation and the districts range from 

3 to 30 points for all students 

(shown by the bars on the left side 

of fi gure 11). These gaps in overall 

scores may be related, in part, to 

the greater percentages of lowperforming, low-income students 

in the districts. The right side of the 

fi gure shows that the gaps between 

low-income students in the nation 

and in each district range from 

4 to 19 points. 

Using Cleveland (which identifi es all 

of its students as low-income) as an 

example, the district’s average score 

was 25 points lower than the national 

average. Cleveland’s average score for 

low-income students, however, was 

8 points lower than the average for 

low-income students nationally. 

NOTE: The average score for all students in the nation was 147 and was 130 for low-income students. In NAEP, low-income 

students are students identifi ed as eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch. Score gaps are calculated based on 

differences between unrounded average scores.

SOUrCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

DISTRICT

(Average score)

DISTRICT

(Average score)

SCORE GAP

Nation minus district

SCORE GAP

Nation minus district

ALL STUDENTS

0 2 10 0 30 40 0 2 10 0 4 30 0

LOW-INCOME STUDENTS

30 19

3 5

4

5 9

24

25

11

8

17 7

26 14

19 5

12 8

Charlotte (142) 

Chicago (124) 

Cleveland (122) 

Houston (130) 

Los Angeles (121) 

New York City (128) 

San Diego (136) 

Atlanta (117) 

Austin (144) 

Boston (131) 

Charlotte (121) 

Chicago (119) 

Cleveland (122) 

Houston (123) 

Los Angeles (117) 

New York City (125) 

San Diego (122) 

Atlanta (111) 

Austin (125) 

16 Boston (126) 

Figure 11.

naeP eighth-grade public school science score gaps between nation and districts 

for all students and for low-income students in 2005, by urban district

nation – district gaps narrower when comparing low-income students
a note on Percentiles

 The table on the next page shows groups of students 

within each participating urban district ranked against 

the NAEP national public school percentiles. The 

average score for the group was used to determine 

its percentile rank compared with public schools 

nationally. A percentile indicates the percentage of 

students whose scores fell at or below a particular 

score. The 10th and 25th percentiles represent lowerscoring students, the 50th percentile represents 

middle-scoring students, and the 75th and 90th 

percentiles represent higher-scoring students. 

18 THe naTion’s rePorT carD

 District percentile rankings vary by demographic groups

Percentile ranks provide a comparative view of student 

performance at higher, middle, and lower levels on the 

NAEP science scale. Figure 12 displays the national 

percentile ranking of TUDA districts and their subgroups, 

as well as that of the comparable groups in the nation and 

in large central cities. For example, the average score for 

Hispanic students in Cleveland was at the 30th percentile. 

This means that they performed as well as or better than 

30 percent of all students nationwide, including their 

Hispanic counterparts in large central cities whose average 

score was at the 24th percentile. 
Trial Urban DisTricT assessmenT science 2005 19

Figure 12.

national percentile rankings for districts based on average scores in naeP eighth-grade science, by low-income status and 

race/ethnicity: 2005

1 Sample sizes are insuffi cient to permit reliable estimates for White and Hispanic students in Atlanta.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. In NAEP, low-income students are students identifi ed as eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch. race categories exclude Hispanic origin. 

The 50th percentile represents the middle score in the distribution of scores for public school students nationally. The average score for these students, however, fell below that point at the 47th 

percentile because there was a greater concentration of scores toward the lower end of the scale compared to the higher end.

SOUrCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District 

Science Assessment.

90th

75th

50th

25th

White1 Overall Black

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic1

National

percentiles Low-income

Austin (29)

Cleveland (30)

New York City (23)

San Diego (22)

Los Angeles (19)

Large central city (24) Houston (22)

Los Angeles (19)

Chicago (17)

New York City (20)

Cleveland (20)

San Diego (26)

Large central city (21)

Boston (25)

Chicago (25)

Houston (27)

10th

Boston (24)

Austin (24)

Nation (24)

Charlotte (24)

Boston (58) Large central city (59)

Nation (61)

Houston (69)

Cleveland (37)

Los Angeles (55)

Chicago (53)

New York City (48)

San Diego (62)

Charlotte (68)

Houston (24)

Cleveland (24)

Boston (27)

Austin (26)

New York City (26)

Nation (30)

Atlanta (16)

Los Angeles (19)

Chicago (21)

San Diego (23) Large central city (23)

Charlotte (23)

Atlanta (18)

Charlotte (28)

Nation (28)

Austin (75)

Austin (44)

Large central city (31)

San Diego (35)

Boston (31)

Houston (30)

New York City (28)

Chicago (24)

Cleveland (24)

Charlotte (42)

Nation (47)

Atlanta (20)

Los Angeles (23)
Science Achievement Levels at Grade 8

The science achievement levels at grade 8 represent what 

eighth-graders know and can do in science at each level. 

The following are excerpts of the science achievement-level 

descriptions with the corresponding minimum scores noted 

in parentheses. The full descriptions can be found at http://

www.nagb.org/pubs/pubs.html.

Basic (143): Students performing at the Basic level 

demonstrate some of the knowledge and reasoning required 

for understanding the Earth, physical, and life sciences at a 

level appropriate to grade 8. For example, they can carry out 

investigations and obtain information from graphs, diagrams, 

and tables. In addition, they demonstrate some understanding 

of concepts relating to the solar system and relative motion. 

Students at this level also have a beginning understanding of 

cause-and-effect relationships.

Proficient (170): Students performing at the Proficient

level demonstrate much of the knowledge and many of the 

reasoning abilities essential for understanding the Earth, 

physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to grade 8.

For example, students can interpret graphic information, 

design simple investigations, and explain such scientific 

concepts as energy transfer. Students at this level also show 

an awareness of environmental issues, especially those 

addressing energy and pollution.

Advanced (208): Students performing at the Advanced level 

demonstrate a solid understanding of the Earth, physical, and 

life sciences as well as the abilities required to apply their 

understanding to practical situations at a level appropriate 

to grade 8. For example, students can perform and critique 

the design of investigations, relate scientific concepts to 

each other, explain their reasoning, and discuss the impact of 

human activities on the environment.

Assessment Content at Grade 8

While the assessment at each grade focuses on the Earth, physical, and life 

sciences, the emphasis on the fields of science and ways of knowing and 

doing science shifts from grade 4 to grade 8. The content of the grade 8 

assessment reflects the targets established by the Governing Board in the 

assessment framework for that grade.

As compared to grade 4, a larger proportion of the 

eighth-grade assessment focused on life science

(40 percent). Thirty percent was devoted to Earth 

science and 30 percent to physical science. The 

framework specifies that 45 percent of the assessment 

should be devoted to conceptual understanding, 

30 percent to scientific investigation, and 25 percent 

to practical reasoning. 

Eighth-graders were presented with two 25-minute 

sections, each containing 10 to 19 multiple-choice and 

constructed-response questions. One-half of the eighthgraders assessed spent an additional 30 minutes on a 

hands-on activity. 

An example of one of the hands-on tasks administered 

in 1996 asked students to estimate the unknown 

concentration of salt in a solution after plotting the data 

obtained by observing the levels at which a pencil floats 

in distilled water and in the same amount of a 25 percent 

salt solution. Examples of hands-on tasks from the 2005 

assessment have not yet been released.

20 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
SOUrCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District 

Science Assessment. 

Percentage of correct eighth-grade public school student responses on the question above in 2005, by jurisdiction

In the picture of a cell, which label indicates the 

part of the cell that contains most of the cell's 

genetic material?

 1

B 2

C 3

D 4

sample grade 8 multiple-choice 

Question

The multiple-choice question to the right assesses 

conceptual understanding in the fi eld of life science.

The percentages below the sample question indicate 

how students performed on the question. In addition to 

the overall percentage of students who answered the 

question correctly, the percentage of the students at each 

achievement level who answered the question correctly 

is presented. 

As an example of how to interpret these percentages, 

52 percent of the students overall answered this question 

correctly. When only the students in the Profi cient

category are considered, 68 percent answered correctly.

overall

Below 

Basic

At 

Basic

At 

Proficient

At

Advanced

52 40 53 68 85

Percentage correct in nation’s public schools in 2005

Trial Urban DisTricT assessmenT science 2005 21

Nation

Large central city

Atlanta

Austin

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago

Cleveland

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego

52

44

40

54

37

40

36

41

40

52

42

53

PERCENTAGE OF CORRECT RESPONSES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent
Percentage of eighth-grade public school student responses rated “complete” on the question above in 2005, by jurisdiction

SOUrCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District 

Science Assessment. 

Maria has one glass of pure water and one 

glass of salt water, which look exactly alike. 

Explain what Maria could do, without tasting 

the water, to find out which glass contains the 

salt water.

sample grade 8 constructedresponse Question

The following constructed-response question assesses 

scientifi c investigation in physical science. Responses 

were rated using a three-level scoring guide. 

Responses that showed an understanding of how to 

distinguish fresh water from salt water by describing 

both a method for determining the difference and a 

result were rated “Complete.” Responses that showed 

some understanding of the difference between fresh 

and salt water but provided no practical method for 

distinguishing them, or gave a correct method but no 

result, were rated “Partial.” Responses that showed no 

understanding of how to distinguish between fresh and 

salt water were rated “Incorrect.” The sample student 

response below was “Complete.”

overall

Below 

Basic

At 

Basic

At 

Proficient

At 

Advanced

22 7 22 41 68

Percentage “complete” in nation’s public schools in 2005

overall

Below 

Basic

At 

Basic

At 

Proficient

At 

Advanced

22 7 22 41 68

Percentage “complete” in nation’s public schools in 2005

22 THe naTion’s rePorT carD

22

16

4

20

8

14

9

13

13

Atlanta

Austin

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago

Cleveland

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego

26

22

23

Nation

Large central city

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES RATED “COMPLETE”

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent
Overall

Below 

Basic

At 

Basic

At 

Proficient

At

Advanced

80 65 88 94 98

Percentage “Partial” and “Complete”

in nation’s public schools in 2005

80

73

52

83

67

70

65

68

69

Atlanta

Austin

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago

Cleveland

Houston

Los Angeles

New York City

San Diego

74

65

74

Nation

Large central city

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES RATED “PARTIAL” AND “COMPLETE”

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

There are many different kinds of human-made satellites orbiting the Earth. 

List three things that these satellites are used for.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District 

Science Assessment. 

Percentage of eighth-grade public school student responses rated “Partial” and “Complete” on the question above in 2005, 

by jurisdiction

Sample Grade 8 Constructed-Response Question

The following constructed-response question assesses conceptual understanding in the fi eld of Earth science. A 

response was rated as “Complete” when the student listed three correct ways that satellites are used. A response was 

rated as “Partial” when one or two ways were listed. A response was judged unsatisfactory/incorrect when a student 

did not list any correct ways that satellites are used. The student response below was judged “Complete.” In the scaling 

process for this question, the “partial” and “complete” responses were added to produce the percentages in the chart.

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 23
Table 1. Characteristics of fourth-grade public school students in 2005, by jurisdiction

Student characteristicsNationLarge central cityAtlantaAustinBostonCharlotteChicagoClevelandHoustonLos AngelesNew York CitySan Diego

Number of fourth-graders 3,745,000 563,000 6,000 7,000 5,000 9,000 36,000 7,000 18,000 63,000 81,000 12,000

Number of students assessed 142,700 26,900 1,200 1,300 1,200 1,400 2,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,400

Percent White students 57 21 11 27 12 40 9 18 10 9 13 23

Percent Black students 17 32 83 15 47 40 47 70 28 11 35 14

Percent Hispanic students 20 38 4 56 30 13 42 10 59 74 39 45

Percent Asian/Pacific Islander students 4 6 1 2 9 4 3 # 3 6 12 18

Percent eligible for free/reduced-price lunch 45 69 75 63 83 46 85 100 79 85 86 61

Percent students with disabilities 14 13 9 17 22 13 13 16 12 10 14 12

Percent English language learners 10 21 1 27 15 9 18 5 36 55 12 35

# The estimate rounds to zero.

NOTE: The number of fourth-graders is rounded to the nearest 1,000. The number of students assessed is rounded to the nearest 100. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science 

Assessment. 

In order to set the context for a closer look at individual 

districts, the demographic characteristics of participating 

districts are shown in tables 1 and 2. The percentage of 

minority (not White) students ranges from about 

60 percent to more than 90 percent in the participating 

districts, compared to about 40 percent nationally in 

public schools at both grades 4 and 8. The percentage 

of low-income students (those eligible for free or 

reduced-price school lunch) ranges from 43 percent to 

100 percent in the 

districts, compared 

with 45 and 39 percent 

nationally in public schools at 

grades 4 and 8, respectively. Most 

of the districts also have numerically 

higher percentages of students identified 

as English language learners than do public 

schools nationally.

A Closer Look at Individual Districts

24 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD
Table 2. Characteristics of eighth-grade public school students in 2005, by jurisdiction

Student characteristicsNationalLarge central cityAtlantaAustinBostonCharlotteChicagoClevelandHoustonLos AngelesNew York CitySan Diego

Number of eighth-graders 3,662,000 543,000 4,000 6,000 5,000 8,000 35,000 5,000 14,000 50,000 70,000 10,000

Number of students assessed 139,000 24,700 1,000 1,200 1,100 1,400 2,000 900 1,800 1,900 1,800 1,400

Percent White students 60 23 4 33 15 41 13 18 10 9 16 25

Percent Black students 17 33 92 12 47 45 47 71 30 13 34 14

Percent Hispanic students 17 35 3 52 28 9 37 9 56 71 35 43

Percent Asian/Pacific Islander students 4 8 # 3 9 4 3 # 3 7 14 17

Percent eligible for free/reduced-price lunch 39 62 75 51 76 43 81 100 72 78 84 52

Percent students with disabilities 13 13 11 13 19 12 17 19 13 12 10 11

Percent English language learners 6 14 2 14 9 7 7 3 14 33 10 21

More Information on the 2005 

Trial Urban District Assessment in 

Science

For general information and results 

http://nationsreportcard.gov.

For an interactive database including student, 

teacher, and school variables for all participating 

districts, the nation, and large central city 

schools, see the NAEP Data Explorer at 

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

All released NAEP sample test questions with 

associated performance results by nation,

state, and district are available at 

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

# The estimate rounds to zero.

NOTE: The number of eighth-graders is rounded to the nearest 1,000. The number of students assessed is rounded to the nearest 100. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science 

Assessment. 

2

 In the table at the bottom of the following district profile pages for each grade, the “score location” of a test question on the scale represents the average scale score 

attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question, or a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a 

four-option multiple-choice question. The scale score ranges for the science achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced) are also displayed in the table. For 

constructed-response questions, the data shown is the percentage of students’ responses rated as completely correct.

In the next section, profiles of selected NAEP results 

from the 2005 Trial Urban District Assessment in 

science are presented for each participating district. 

The profiles present a closer look at some key findings 

for each district’s student groups by race/ethnicity and 

by income level (eligibility for free or reduced-price 

school lunch). In addition, results for a few, selected test 

questions are provided to give the reader a more concrete 

sense of how the district’s students performed.2 The data 

for the achievement-level results presented in the profiles 

can be found in figures 2 and 8.

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 25
Nation 128*

Large central city 124**

Atlanta 126

Nation 161

Large central city 161

Atlanta 183*,**

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 149*

Large central city 135**

Atlanta 133**

White Black

Overall

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Nation 162*

Large central city 156**

Atlanta 161

Nation 135*

Large central city 127**

124*, Atlanta **

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

NATIONLARGE CENTRAL CITYATLANTASCORE LOCATIONQUESTION DESCRIPTION

30 26 32 219 Interpret readings from rain gauges

33 27 22 208 Interpret data to conclude conditions needed for seed germination

36 29 30 203 Explain what can be learned from fossils

44 32 27 185 Relate air (oxygen) supply to burning time

65 62 64 174 Interpret melting point data to determine which item melts first

66 57 53 165 Use data table to determine which day has the most daylight

62 53 53 159 Predict and explain water displacement by two objects

76 71 69 139 Identify function of a human structure

75 68 62 136 Identify process fish use to obtain oxygen

87 78 77 103 Compare weather data to tell which city has warmer temperatures ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

205

170

138

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of fourth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

Average fourth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups

For Atlanta Fourth-Graders,

...the overall score was not significantly different from 

that in large central cities, but lower than it was in 

the nation.

...the percentage at or above Basic was lower than it was 

in large central cities, but the percentage at or above 

Proficient was not significantly different from that in 

large central cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White students scored higher than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Black students had an average score that was not 

significantly different from those in large central 

cities and the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 57 points—which was 

wider than the gaps in large central cities and the 

nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 38 points—

which was not significantly different from the gap 

in large central cities, but wider than the gap in the 

nation.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. 

Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences 

between unrounded average scores. Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district 

comparisons, such as those in the single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

26 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Atlanta, Grade 4
Nation 123*

Large central city 119**

114*, Atlanta **

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 147*

Large central city 132**

Atlanta 117*,**

Black

Overall

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Nation 158*

Large central city 150**

Atlanta 137*,**

Nation 130*

Large central city 122**

111*, Atlanta **

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

NATIONLARGE CENTRAL CITYATLANTASCORE LOCATIONQUESTION DESCRIPTION

22 16 4 230 Explain how to find out if a glass contains salt water

16 9 2 218 Describe means by which plants prevent erosion

52 44 40 198 Identify location of cell’s genetic material

51 42 47 188 Identify zone on a map with a temperate climate

43 32 26 178 Describe experiment to measure the volume of an object

53 43 28 162 Explain relative motion of two vehicles

54 44 27 160 Describe effect of pollutant on food web

72 64 52 147 Identify an action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

77 71 60 136 Identify relationship between rainfall and seed production

80 73 52 111 List three uses for human-made satellites1 ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

208

170

143

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of eighth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

Average eighth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups

For Atlanta Eighth-Graders,

...the overall score was lower than it was in large central 

cities and the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were lower than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...Black students scored lower than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

The score gap between...

...higher- and lower-income students was 26 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

1 Percentages for this question combine “Partial” and “Complete” responses to locate its position on the score scale.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was White, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or “unclassified” because of small sample 

sizes. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on 

differences between unrounded average scores. Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using 

single-district comparisons, such as those in the single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 27

Atlanta, Grade 8
Nation 132*

Large central city 128**

Austin 136*

Nation 128*

Large central city 124**

Austin 133*

Nation 161

Large central city 161

Austin 176*,**

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 149*

Large central city 135**

Austin 147*

White Black Hispanic

Overall

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Nation 162*

Large central city 156**

Austin 169*,**

Nation 135*

Large central city 127**

Austin 135*

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

naTionlarge cenTral ciTYaUsTinscore locaTionQUesTion DescriPTion

30 26 30 219 Interpret readings from rain gauges

33 27 36 208 Interpret data to conclude conditions needed for seed germination

36 29 33 203 Explain what can be learned from fossils

44 32 46 185 Relate air (oxygen) supply to burning time

65 62 74 14 Interpret melting point data to determine which item melts fi rst

66 57 62 165 Use data table to determine which day has the most daylight

62 53 54 159 Predict and explain water displacement by two objects

76 71 74 139 Identify function of a human structure

75 68 75 136 Identify process fi sh use to obtain oxygen

87 78 87 103 Compare weather data to tell which city has warmer temperatures ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

205

170

138

0

acHieVemenTleVel

Percentage of fourth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“complete” on selected naeP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

for austin fourth-graders,

...the overall score was higher than it was in large central 

cities, but not signifi cantly different from that in the 

nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Profi cient were higher than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White students scored higher than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Black and Hispanic students had average scores that 

were higher than those in large central cities, but not 

signifi cantly different from those in the nation.

 The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 43 points—which was 

not signifi cantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 40 points—which 

was not signifi cantly different from the gap in large 

central cities, but wider than the gap in the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 34 points—

which was not signifi cantly different from the gap 

in large central cities, but wider than the gap in the 

nation.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was Asian/Pacifi c Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or “unclassifi ed” because of small sample sizes. race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between 

unrounded average scores. Cross-jurisdiction signifi cance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. results may vary from those obtained using single-district 

comparisons, such as those in the single-district snapshot reports.

SOUrCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

28 THe naTion’s rePorT carD

austin, grade 4

average fourth-grade naeP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups
Nation 127*

Large central city 123**

Austin 129*

Nation 123*

Large central city 119**

Austin 123

Nation 159

Large central city 158

172*, Austin **

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 147*

Large central city 132**

144*, Austin **

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

White Black Hispanic

Overall

Nation 158*

Large central city 150**

Austin 166*,**

Nation 130*

Large central city 122**

Austin 125**

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

naTionlarge cenTral ciTYaUsTinscore locaTionQUesTion DescriPTion

22 16 26 230 Explain how to fi nd out if a glass contains salt water

16 9 11 218 Describe means by which plants prevent erosion

52 44 54 198 Identify location of cell’s genetic material

51 42 37 188 Identify zone on a map with a temperate climate

43 32 50 18 Describe experiment to measure the volume of an object

53 43 54 162 Explain relative motion of two vehicles

54 44 50 160 Describe effect of pollutant on food web

72 64 69 14 Identify an action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

77 71 77 136 Identify relationship between rainfall and seed production

80 73 74 111 List three uses for human-made satellites1 ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

208

170

143

0

acHieVemenTleVel

Percentage of eighth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“complete” on selected naeP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

for austin eighth-graders,

...the overall score was higher than it was in large central 

cities, but lower than it was in the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Profi cient were higher than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White students scored higher than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Black students had an average score that was not 

signifi cantly different from the scores in large 

central cities and the nation.

...Hispanic students had an average score that was 

higher than the score in large central cities, but not 

signifi cantly different from the score in the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 49 points—which was 

wider than the gaps in large central cities and the 

nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 43 points—which 

was wider than the gaps in large central cities and the 

nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 41 points—

which was wider than the gaps in large central cities 

and the nation.

1 Percentages for this question combine “Partial” and “Complete” responses to locate its position on the score scale. 

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was Asian/Pacifi c Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or “unclassifi ed” because of small sample sizes. race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between 

unrounded average scores. Cross-jurisdiction signifi cance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. results may vary from those obtained using single-district 

comparisons, such as those in the single-district snapshot reports.

SOUrCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

Trial Urban DisTricT assessmenT science 2005 29

austin, grade 8

average eighth-grade naeP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups
Nation 156*

Large central city 151**

Boston 157

Nation 132*

Large central city 128**

Boston 129

Nation 128*

Large central city 124**

Boston 126

Nation 161

Large central city 161

153*, Boston **

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 149*

Large central city 135**

Boston 133**

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Overall

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Nation 162*

Large central city 156**

Boston 152**

Nation 135*

Large central city 127**

Boston 130**

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

NATIONLARGE CENTRAL CITYBOSTONSCORE LOCATIONQUESTION DESCRIPTION

30 26 25 219 Interpret readings from rain gauges

33 27 31 208 Interpret data to conclude conditions needed for seed germination

36 29 21 203 Explain what can be learned from fossils

44 32 29 185 Relate air (oxygen) supply to burning time

65 62 64 174 Interpret melting point data to determine which item melts first

66 57 61 165 Use data table to determine which day has the most daylight

62 53 56 159 Predict and explain water displacement by two objects

76 71 75 139 Identify function of a human structure

75 68 71 136 Identify process fish use to obtain oxygen

87 78 81 103 Compare weather data to tell which city has warmer temperatures ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

205

170

138

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of fourth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For Boston Fourth-Graders,

...the overall score was not significantly different from 

that in large central cities, but lower than it was in 

the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were lower than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White students scored lower than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander students 

had average scores that were not significantly 

different from those in large central cities and the 

nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 27 points—which was 

narrower than the gap in large central cities, but not 

significantly different from the gap in the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 25 points—which 

was not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 22 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was American Indian/Alaska Native or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. 

Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district comparisons, such as those in the 

single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

30 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Boston, Grade 4

Average fourth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups
Nation 155*

Large central city 147**

Boston 154

Nation 127*

Large central city 123**

Boston 124

Nation 123*

Large central city 119**

Boston 123

Nation 159

Large central city 158

Boston 157

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 147*

Large central city 132**

Boston 131**

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Overall

Nation 158*

Large central city 150**

Boston 149**

Nation 130*

Large central city 122**

126*, Boston **

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

NATIONLARGE CENTRAL CITYBOSTONSCORE LOCATIONQUESTION DESCRIPTION

22 16 22 230 Explain how to find out if a glass contains salt water

16 9 3 218 Describe means by which plants prevent erosion

52 44 37 198 Identify location of cell’s genetic material

51 42 39 188 Identify zone on a map with a temperate climate

43 32 20 178 Describe experiment to measure the volume of an object

53 43 39 162 Explain relative motion of two vehicles

54 44 49 160 Describe effect of pollutant on food web

72 64 69 147 Identify an action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

77 71 74 136 Identify relationship between rainfall and seed production

80 73 65 111 List three uses for human-made satellites1 ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

208

170

143

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of eighth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For Boston Eighth-Graders,

...the overall score was not significantly different from 

that in large central cities, but lower than it was in 

the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were not significantly different than they 

were in large central cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander 

students had average scores that were not 

significantly different from those in large central 

cities and the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 33 points—which was 

not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 32 points—which 

was not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 23 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

1 Percentages for this question combine “Partial” and “Complete” responses to locate its position on the score scale. 

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was American Indian/Alaska Native or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. 

Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district comparisons, such as those in the 

single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 31

Boston, Grade 8

Average eighth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups
Nation 156*

Large central city 151**

Charlotte 153

Nation 132*

Large central city 128**

Charlotte 135

Nation 128*

Large central city 124**

Charlotte 129

Nation 161

Large central city 161

Charlotte 164

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 149*

Large central city 135**

145*, Charlotte **

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Overall

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Nation 162*

Large central city 156**

Charlotte 159

Nation 135*

Large central city 127**

Charlotte 129**

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

average fourth-grade naeP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups naTion large cenTral ciTY cHarloTTe score locaTion

QUesTion DescriPTion

30 26 32 219 Interpret readings from rain gauges

33 27 36 208 Interpret data to conclude conditions needed for seed germination

36 29 38 203 Explain what can be learned from fossils

44 32 45 185 Relate air (oxygen) supply to burning time

65 62 68 14 Interpret melting point data to determine which item melts fi rst

66 57 66 165 Use data table to determine which day has the most daylight

62 53 62 159 Predict and explain water displacement by two objects

76 71 77 139 Identify function of a human structure

75 68 73 136 Identify process fi sh use to obtain oxygen

87 78 87 103 Compare weather data to tell which city has warmer temperatures ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

205

170

138

0

acHieVemenTleVel

Percentage of fourth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“complete” on selected naeP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

for charlotte fourth-graders,

...the overall score was higher than that in large central 

cities, but lower than it was in the nation.

...the percentages of students at or above Basic and at or 

above Profi cient were higher than they were in large 

central cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacifi c Islander 

students had average scores that were not 

signifi cantly different from those in large central 

cities and the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 35 points—which was 

not signifi cantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 29 points—which 

was not signifi cantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 30 points—

which was not signifi cantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was American Indian/Alaska Native or “unclassifi ed” because of small sample sizes. race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. 

Cross-jurisdiction signifi cance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. results may vary from those obtained using single-district comparisons, such as those in the 

single-district snapshot reports.

SOUrCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

32 THe naTion’s rePorT carD

charlotte, grade 4
Nation 127*

Large central city 123**

Charlotte 128

Nation 123*

Large central city 119**

Charlotte 122

Nation 159

Large central city 158

165*, Charlotte **

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 147*

Large central city 132**

142*, Charlotte **

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

White Black Hispanic

Overall

Nation 158*

Large central city 150**

Charlotte 159*

Nation 130*

Large central city 122**

Charlotte 121**

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

average eighth-grade naeP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups naTion large cenTral ciTY cHarloTTe score locaTion

QUesTion DescriPTion

22 16 20 230 Explain how to fi nd out if a glass contains salt water

16 9 18 218 Describe means by which plants prevent erosion

52 44 40 198 Identify location of cell’s genetic material

51 42 52 188 Identify zone on a map with a temperate climate

43 32 28 18 Describe experiment to measure the volume of an object

53 43 54 162 Explain relative motion of two vehicles

54 44 53 160 Describe effect of pollutant on food web

72 64 66 14 Identify an action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

77 71 74 136 Identify relationship between rainfall and seed production

80 73 83 111 List three uses for human-made satellites1 ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

208

170

143

0

acHieVemenTleVel

Percentage of eighth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“complete” on selected naeP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

for charlotte eighth-graders,

...the overall score was higher than that in large central 

cities, but lower than it was in the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Profi cient were higher than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White students scored higher than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Black and Hispanic students had average scores that 

were not signifi cantly different from those in large 

central cities and the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 43 points—which was 

not signifi cantly different from the gap in large 

central cities, but wider than the gap in the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 37 points—which 

was not signifi cantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 37 points—

which was wider than the gaps in large central cities 

and the nation.

1 Percentages for this question combine “Partial” and “Complete” responses to locate its position on the score scale. 

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was Asian/Pacifi c Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or “unclassifi ed” because of small sample sizes. race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between 

unrounded average scores. Cross-jurisdiction signifi cance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. results may vary from those obtained using single-district 

comparisons, such as those in the single-district snapshot reports.

SOUrCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

Trial Urban DisTricT assessmenT science 2005 33

charlotte, grade 8
Nation 156*

Large central city 151**

Chicago 155

Nation 132*

Large central city 128**

Chicago 127**

Nation 128*

Large central city 124**

117*, Chicago **

Nation 161

Large central city 161

Chicago 155

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 149*

Large central city 135**

126*, Chicago **

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Overall

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Nation 162*

Large central city 156**

144*, Chicago **

Nation 135*

Large central city 127**

122*, Chicago **

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

Average fourth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY

CHICAGOSCORE LOCATIONQUESTION DESCRIPTION

30 26 27 219 Interpret readings from rain gauges

33 27 18 208 Interpret data to conclude conditions needed for seed germination

36 29 24 203 Explain what can be learned from fossils

44 32 24 185 Relate air (oxygen) supply to burning time

65 62 56 174 Interpret melting point data to determine which item melts first

66 57 50 165 Use data table to determine which day has the most daylight

62 53 55 159 Predict and explain water displacement by two objects

76 71 71 139 Identify function of a human structure

75 68 67 136 Identify process fish use to obtain oxygen

87 78 86 103 Compare weather data to tell which city has warmer temperatures ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

205

170

138

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of fourth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For Chicago Fourth-Graders,

...the overall score was lower than it was in large central 

cities and in the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were lower than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White and Asian/Pacific Islander students had average 

scores that were not significantly different from 

those in large central cities and the nation.

...Black students scored lower than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Hispanic students had an average score that was not 

significantly different from the score in large central 

cities, but was lower than the score in the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 38 points—which was 

not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 28 points—which 

was not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 21 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was American Indian/Alaska Native or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. 

Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district comparisons, such as those in the 

single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

34 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Chicago, Grade 4
Nation 127*

Large central city 123**

Chicago 124

Nation 123*

Large central city 119**

Chicago 113*,**

Nation 159

Large central city 158

Chicago 153

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 147*

Large central city 132**

124*, Chicago **

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

White Black Hispanic

Overall

Nation 158*

Large central city 150**

Chicago 144**

Nation 130*

Large central city 122**

Chicago 119**

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

Average eighth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY

CHICAGOSCORE LOCATIONQUESTION DESCRIPTION

22 16 8 230 Explain how to find out if a glass contains salt water

16 9 4 218 Describe means by which plants prevent erosion

52 44 42 198 Identify location of cell’s genetic material

51 42 35 188 Identify zone on a map with a temperate climate

43 32 19 178 Describe experiment to measure the volume of an object

53 43 35 162 Explain relative motion of two vehicles

54 44 38 160 Describe effect of pollutant on food web

72 64 60 147 Identify an action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

77 71 69 136 Identify relationship between rainfall and seed production

80 73 67 111 List three uses for human-made satellites1 ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

208

170

143

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of eighth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For Chicago Eighth-Graders,

...the overall score was lower than it was in large central 

cities and in the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were lower than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White and Hispanic students had average scores that 

were not significantly different from those in large 

central cities and the nation.

...Black students scored lower than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 40 points—which was 

not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 29 points—which 

was not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 25 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

1 Percentages for this question combine “Partial” and “Complete” responses to locate its position on the score scale. 

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between 

unrounded average scores. Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district 

comparisons, such as those in the single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 35

Chicago, Grade 8
Nation 132*

Large central city 128**

Cleveland 130

Nation 128*

Large central city 124**

Cleveland 123

Nation 161

Large central city 161

Cleveland 146*,**

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 149*

Large central city 135**

128*, Cleveland **

White Black Hispanic

Overall

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Nation 162*

Large central city 156**

Cleveland

Nation 135*

Large central city 127**

Cleveland 128**

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

†

Average fourth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY CLEVELAND SCORE LOCATION

QUESTION DESCRIPTION

30 26 26 219 Interpret readings from rain gauges

33 27 22 208 Interpret data to conclude conditions needed for seed germination

36 29 26 203 Explain what can be learned from fossils

44 32 19 185 Relate air (oxygen) supply to burning time

65 62 59 174 Interpret melting point data to determine which item melts first

66 57 47 165 Use data table to determine which day has the most daylight

62 53 51 159 Predict and explain water displacement by two objects

76 71 73 139 Identify function of a human structure

75 68 69 136 Identify process fish use to obtain oxygen

87 78 83 103 Compare weather data to tell which city has warmer temperatures ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

205

170

138

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of fourth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For Cleveland Fourth-Graders,

...the overall score was lower than it was in large central 

cities and the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were lower than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White students scored lower than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Black and Hispanic students had average scores that 

were not significantly different from those in large 

central cities and the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 23 points—which was 

narrower than the gap in large central cities, but not 

significantly different from the gap in the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 16 points—which 

was narrower than the gaps in large central cities and 

the nation.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between 

unrounded average scores. Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district 

comparisons, such as those in the single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

† Not applicable. In Cleveland, all students were categorized as eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

36 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Cleveland, Grade 4
Nation 127*

Large central city 123**

Cleveland 130

Nation 123*

Large central city 119**

Cleveland 117**

Nation 159

Large central city 158

138*, Cleveland **

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 147*

Large central city 132**

122*, Cleveland **

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

White Black Hispanic

Overall

Nation 158*

Large central city 150**

Cleveland †

Nation 130*

Large central city 122**

Cleveland 122**

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

Average eighth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY CLEVELAND SCORE LOCATION

QUESTION DESCRIPTION

22 16 9 230 Explain how to find out if a glass contains salt water

16 9 4 218 Describe means by which plants prevent erosion

52 44 36 198 Identify location of cell’s genetic material

51 42 41 188 Identify zone on a map with a temperate climate

43 32 11 178 Describe experiment to measure the volume of an object

53 43 39 162 Explain relative motion of two vehicles

54 44 46 160 Describe effect of pollutant on food web

72 64 56 147 Identify an action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

77 71 61 136 Identify relationship between rainfall and seed production

80 73 65 111 List three uses for human-made satellites1 ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

208

170

143

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of eighth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For Cleveland Eighth-Graders,

...the overall score was lower than it was in large central 

cities and the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were lower than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White students scored lower than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Black students had an average score that was not 

significantly different from the score in large central 

cities, but was lower than the score in the nation.

...Hispanic students’ average score was not significantly 

different from the scores in large central cities and 

the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 21 points—which was 

narrower than the gaps in large central cities and the 

nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 8 points—which was 

narrower than the gaps in large central cities and the 

nation.

1 Percentages for this question combine “Partial” and “Complete” responses to locate its position on the score scale. 

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between 

unrounded average scores. Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district 

comparisons, such as those in the single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

† Not applicable. In Cleveland, all students were categorized as eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 37

Cleveland, Grade 8
Nation 132*

Large central city 128**

Houston 134*

Nation 128*

Large central city 124**

Houston 130*

Nation 161

Large central city 161

Houston 175*,**

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 149*

Large central city 135**

Houston 138**

White Black Hispanic

Overall

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Nation 162*

Large central city 156**

Houston 163*

Nation 135*

Large central city 127**

131*, Houston **

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

Average fourth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY

HOUSTONSCORE LOCATIONQUESTION DESCRIPTION

30 26 26 219 Interpret readings from rain gauges

33 27 25 208 Interpret data to conclude conditions needed for seed germination

36 29 33 203 Explain what can be learned from fossils

44 32 30 185 Relate air (oxygen) supply to burning time

65 62 68 174 Interpret melting point data to determine which item melts first

66 57 59 165 Use data table to determine which day has the most daylight

62 53 55 159 Predict and explain water displacement by two objects

76 71 67 139 Identify function of a human structure

75 68 73 136 Identify process fish use to obtain oxygen

87 78 75 103 Compare weather data to tell which city has warmer temperatures ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

205

170

138

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of fourth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For Houston Fourth-Graders,

...the overall score was not significantly different from 

that in large central cities, but lower than it was in 

the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were not significantly different than they 

were in large central cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White students scored higher than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Black and Hispanic students had average scores that 

were higher than those in large central cities, but not 

significantly different from those in the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 45 points—which was 

wider than the gaps in large central cities and the 

nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 42 points—which 

was wider than the gaps in large central cities and the 

nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 32 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between 

unrounded average scores. Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district 

comparisons, such as those in the single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

38 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Houston, Grade 4
Nation 127*

Large central city 123**

Houston 127

Nation 123*

Large central city 119**

Houston 121

Nation 159

Large central city 158

166*, Houston **

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 147*

Large central city 132**

Houston 130**

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

White Black Hispanic

Overall

Nation 158*

Large central city 150**

Houston 147**

Nation 130*

Large central city 122**

Houston 123**

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

Average eighth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY

HOUSTONSCORE LOCATIONQUESTION DESCRIPTION

22 16 14 230 Explain how to find out if a glass contains salt water

16 9 8 218 Describe means by which plants prevent erosion

52 44 41 198 Identify location of cell’s genetic material

51 42 34 188 Identify zone on a map with a temperate climate

43 32 34 178 Describe experiment to measure the volume of an object

53 43 39 162 Explain relative motion of two vehicles

54 44 41 160 Describe effect of pollutant on food web

72 64 61 147 Identify an action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

77 71 70 136 Identify relationship between rainfall and seed production

80 73 70 111 List three uses for human-made satellites1 ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

208

170

143

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of eighth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For Houston Eighth-Graders,

...the overall science score was not significantly different 

from that in large central cities, but lower than it was 

in the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were lower than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White students scored higher than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Black and Hispanic students had average scores that 

were not significantly different from those in large 

central cities and the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 46 points—which was 

not significantly different from the gap in large 

central cities, but wider than the gap in the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 39 points—which 

was not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 24 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

1 Percentages for this question combine “Partial” and “Complete” responses to locate its position on the score scale. 

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between 

unrounded average scores. Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district 

comparisons, such as those in the single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 39

Houston, Grade 8
Nation 156*

Large central city 151**

Los Angeles 155

Nation 132*

Large central city 128**

Los Angeles 122*,**

Nation 128*

Large central city 124**

111*, Los Angeles **

Nation 161

Large central city 161

Los Angeles 156

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 149*

Large central city 135**

126*, Los Angeles **

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Overall

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Nation 162*

Large central city 156**

Los Angeles 153**

Nation 135*

Large central city 127**

121*, Los Angeles **

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

Average fourth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY LOS ANGELES SCORE LOCATION

QUESTION DESCRIPTION

30 26 30 219 Interpret readings from rain gauges

33 27 22 208 Interpret data to conclude conditions needed for seed germination

36 29 28 203 Explain what can be learned from fossils

44 32 24 185 Relate air (oxygen) supply to burning time

65 62 63 174 Interpret melting point data to determine which item melts first

66 57 53 165 Use data table to determine which day has the most daylight

62 53 46 159 Predict and explain water displacement by two objects

76 71 64 139 Identify function of a human structure

75 68 67 136 Identify process fish use to obtain oxygen

87 78 61 103 Compare weather data to tell which city has warmer temperatures ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

205

170

138

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of fourth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For Los Angeles Fourth-Graders,

...the overall score was lower than it was in large central 

cities and the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were lower than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White and Asian/Pacific Islander students had average 

scores that were not significantly different from 

those in large central cities and the nation.

...Black and Hispanic students scored lower than those in 

large central cities and the nation.

The gap between...

...White and Black students was 45 points—which was 

not significantly different from the gap in large 

central cities, but wider than the gap in the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 35 points—which 

was not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 32 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was American Indian/Alaska Native or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. 

Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district comparisons, such as those in the 

single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

40 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Los Angeles, Grade 4
Nation 155*

Large central city 147**

Los Angeles 148

Nation 127*

Large central city 123**

Los Angeles 116*,**

Nation 123*

Large central city 119**

Los Angeles 116

Nation 159

Large central city 158

Los Angeles 154

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 147*

Large central city 132**

121*, Los Angeles **

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Overall

Nation 158*

Large central city 150**

Los Angeles 139*,**

Nation 130*

Large central city 122**

117*, Los Angeles **

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

Average eighth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY LOS ANGELES SCORE LOCATION

QUESTION DESCRIPTION

22 16 13 230 Explain how to find out if a glass contains salt water

16 9 3 218 Describe means by which plants prevent erosion

52 44 52 198 Identify location of cell’s genetic material

51 42 31 188 Identify zone on a map with a temperate climate

43 32 28 178 Describe experiment to measure the volume of an object

53 43 40 162 Explain relative motion of two vehicles

54 44 34 160 Describe effect of pollutant on food web

72 64 59 147 Identify an action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

77 71 63 136 Identify relationship between rainfall and seed production

80 73 68 111 List three uses for human-made satellites1 ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

208

170

143

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of eighth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For Los Angeles Eighth-Graders,

...the overall score was lower than it was in large central 

cities and the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were lower than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White, Black, and Asian/Pacific Islander students had 

average scores that were not significantly different 

from those in large central cities and the nation.

...Hispanic students scored lower than those in large 

central cities and the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 38 points—which was 

not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 38 points—which 

was not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 22 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

1 Percentages for this question combine “Partial” and “Complete” responses to locate its position on the score scale. 

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was American Indian/Alaska Native or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. 

Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district comparisons, such as those in the 

single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 41

Los Angeles, Grade 8
Nation 156*

Large central city 151**

New York City 154

Nation 132*

Large central city 128**

New York City 126**

Nation 128*

Large central city 124**

New York City 128

Nation 161

Large central city 161

New York City 154*,**

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 149*

Large central city 135**

New York City 134**

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Overall

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Nation 162*

Large central city 156**

New York City 157

Nation 135*

Large central city 127**

130*, New York City **

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

Average fourth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY NEW YORK CITY SCORE LOCATION

QUESTION DESCRIPTION

30 26 17 219 Interpret readings from rain gauges

33 27 22 208 Interpret data to conclude conditions needed for seed germination

36 29 27 203 Explain what can be learned from fossils

44 32 28 185 Relate air (oxygen) supply to burning time

65 62 58 174 Interpret melting point data to determine which item melts first

66 57 55 165 Use data table to determine which day has the most daylight

62 53 54 159 Predict and explain water displacement by two objects

76 71 71 139 Identify function of a human structure

75 68 68 136 Identify process fish use to obtain oxygen

87 78 84 103 Compare weather data to tell which city has warmer temperatures ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

205

170

138

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of fourth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For New York City Fourth-Graders,

...the overall score was not significantly different from 

that in large central cities, but lower than it was in 

the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were not significantly different than they 

were in large central cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White students scored lower than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Black and Asian/Pacific Islander students had average 

scores that were not significantly different from 

those in large central cities and the nation.

...Hispanic students had an average score that was not 

significantly different from the score in large central 

cities, but was lower than the score in the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 26 points—which was 

narrower than the gap in large central cities, but not 

significantly different from the gap in the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 28 points—which 

was not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 27 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was American Indian/Alaska Native or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. 

Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district comparisons, such as those in the 

single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

42 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

New York City, Grade 4
Nation 155*

Large central city 147**

New York City 148

Nation 127*

Large central city 123**

New York City 122

Nation 123*

Large central city 119**

New York City 118

Nation 159

Large central city 158

148*, New York City **

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 147*

Large central city 132**

New York City 128**

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Overall

Nation 158*

Large central city 150**

New York City 153

Nation 130*

Large central city 122**

New York City 125**

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

Average eighth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY NEW YORK CITY SCORE LOCATION

QUESTION DESCRIPTION

22 16 13 230 Explain how to find out if a glass contains salt water

16 9 8 218 Describe means by which plants prevent erosion

52 44 40 198 Identify location of cell’s genetic material

51 42 50 188 Identify zone on a map with a temperate climate

43 32 35 178 Describe experiment to measure the volume of an object

53 43 42 162 Explain relative motion of two vehicles

54 44 45 160 Describe effect of pollutant on food web

72 64 62 147 Identify an action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

77 71 75 136 Identify relationship between rainfall and seed production

80 73 69 111 List three uses for human-made satellites1 ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

208

170

143

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of eighth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For New York City Eighth-Graders,

...the overall score was not significantly different from 

that in large central cities, but lower than it was in 

the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were not significantly different than they 

were in large central cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White students scored lower than those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander students 

had average scores that were not significantly 

different from those in large central cities and the 

nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 31 points—which was 

not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 27 points—which 

was not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 28 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

1 Percentages for this question combine “Partial” and “Complete” responses to locate its position on the score scale. 

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was American Indian/Alaska Native or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. 

Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district comparisons, such as those in the 

single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 43

New York City, Grade 8
Nation 156*

Large central city 151**

San Diego 149

Nation 132*

Large central city 128**

San Diego 125**

Nation 128*

Large central city 124**

San Diego 125

Nation 161

Large central city 161

San Diego 162

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 149*

Large central city 135**

San Diego 138**

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Overall

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Nation 162*

Large central city 156**

San Diego 154**

Nation 135*

Large central city 127**

San Diego 127**

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

Average fourth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY SAN DIEGO SCORE LOCATION

QUESTION DESCRIPTION

30 26 33 219 Interpret readings from rain gauges

33 27 29 208 Interpret data to conclude conditions needed for seed germination

36 29 35 203 Explain what can be learned from fossils

44 32 34 185 Relate air (oxygen) supply to burning time

65 62 63 174 Interpret melting point data to determine which item melts first

66 57 57 165 Use data table to determine which day has the most daylight

62 53 59 159 Predict and explain water displacement by two objects

76 71 75 139 Identify function of a human structure

75 68 81 136 Identify process fish use to obtain oxygen

87 78 72 103 Compare weather data to tell which city has warmer temperatures ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

205

170

138

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of fourth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For San Diego Fourth-Graders,

...the overall score was not significantly different from 

that in large central cities, but lower than it was in 

the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were not significantly different than they 

were in large central cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White, Black, and Asian/Pacific Islander students had 

average scores that were not significantly different 

from those in large central cities and the nation.

...Hispanic students had an average score that was not 

significantly different than the score in large central 

cities, but was lower than the score in the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 37 points—which was 

not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 37 points—which 

was not significantly different from the gap in large 

central cities, but wider than the gap in the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 27 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was American Indian/Alaska Native or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. 

Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district comparisons, such as those in the 

single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

44 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

San Diego, Grade 4
Nation 155*

Large central city 147**

San Diego 145**

Nation 127*

Large central city 123**

San Diego 120**

Nation 123*

Large central city 119**

San Diego 125

Nation 159

Large central city 158

San Diego 160

AVERAGE SCALE SCORE

Nation 147*

Large central city 132**

136*, San Diego **

0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Overall

Nation 158*

Large central city 150**

San Diego 150**

Nation 130*

Large central city 122**

San Diego 122**

Eligible

Free/reduced-price

school lunch Race/ethnicity

Not eligible

Average eighth-grade NAEP science scores in 2005, by 

jurisdiction and selected student groups NATION LARGE CENTRAL CITY SAN DIEGO SCORE LOCATION

QUESTION DESCRIPTION

22 16 23 230 Explain how to find out if a glass contains salt water

16 9 13 218 Describe means by which plants prevent erosion

52 44 53 198 Identify location of cell’s genetic material

51 42 36 188 Identify zone on a map with a temperate climate

43 32 25 178 Describe experiment to measure the volume of an object

53 43 43 162 Explain relative motion of two vehicles

54 44 47 160 Describe effect of pollutant on food web

72 64 63 147 Identify an action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

77 71 72 136 Identify relationship between rainfall and seed production

80 73 74 111 List three uses for human-made satellites1 ADVANCED PROFICIENT BASIC

300

208

170

143

0

ACHIEVEMENTLEVEL

Percentage of eighth-grade student responses rated correct or 

“Complete” on selected NAEP science questions in 2005, by 

jurisdiction

For San Diego Eighth-Graders,

...the overall score was higher than that in large central 

cities, but lower than it was in the nation.

...the percentages at or above Basic and at or above 

Proficient were higher than they were in large central 

cities.

Compared with their peers...

...White and Black students had average scores that were 

not significantly different from those in large central 

cities and the nation.

...Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander students had 

average scores that were not significantly different 

from those in large central cities, but were lower than 

those in the nation.

The score gap between...

...White and Black students was 35 points—which was 

not significantly different from the gaps in large 

central cities and the nation.

...White and Hispanic students was 40 points—which 

was not significantly different from the gap in large 

central cities, but wider than the gap in the nation.

...higher- and lower-income students was 28 points—

which was not significantly different from the gaps 

in large central cities and the nation.

1 Percentages for this question combine “Partial” and “Complete” responses to locate its position on the score scale. 

NOTE: Groups not shown are included in overall. Results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was American Indian/Alaska Native or “unclassified” because of small sample sizes. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin. “Score location” is described in the footnote on page 25. Multiple-choice questions are shown in italic type. Score gaps mentioned in the report are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. 

Cross-jurisdiction significance results are calculated using a multiple-comparison procedure based on all participating districts. Results may vary from those obtained using single-district comparisons, such as those in the 

single-district snapshot reports.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from large central city public schools.

** Significantly different (p < .05) from nation (public schools).

TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 45

San Diego, Grade 8
46 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Participating Districts

In 2005, ten urban public school districts participated in the 

Trial Urban District Assessment in science at grades 4 and 8.

The school district names, as listed in the NCES Common 

Core of Data, are

 Atlanta City School District

 Austin Independent School District

 Boston School District

 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

 City of Chicago School District 299

 Cleveland Municipal School District

 Houston Independent School District

	Los Angeles Unified School District

 New York City Public Schools

	San Diego Unified School District

The results for these districts are for public school students 

only. The District of Columbia, which participated in the 

reading and mathematics TUDAs, was unable to participate 

in the 2005 science assessment because the samples for the 

mandatory reading and mathematics assessments took up 

most of their student population. Only a few schools in the 

District of Columbia participated in the science assessment 

at each grade in order to provide data for the national 

sample in science. 

NAEP Sampling and Weighting Procedures

The sample of students in the participating TUDA school 

districts represents an augmentation of the sample of 

students who would usually be selected by NAEP as part of 

state and national samples. These augmented samples allow 

reliable reporting of student groups within these districts. 

Students in the TUDA samples are also included in state 

and national samples. For example, data from students 

tested in the Los Angeles sample were used to report results 

for Los Angeles, for California, and for the nation.

In the same way that schools and students participating in 

national NAEP assessments are chosen to be nationally 

representative, samples of schools and students in the urban 

districts were selected to be representative of their districts. 

The results from the assessed students are combined to 

provide accurate estimates of overall district performance. 

Results are weighted to take into account the fact that 

schools within districts represent different proportions 

of the overall district population. Table A-1 displays the 

Table A-1.

School and student participation rates in science for public 

school students at grades 4 and 8, by urban district in 2005

School participation

District

Percentage

of schools

Number 

of schools

Student 

participation 

rate

Grade 4

Atlanta 100 60 94

Austin 100 60 93

Boston 99 80 93

Charlotte 100 60 93

Chicago 100 100 95

Cleveland 100 70 87

Houston 100 90 94

Los Angeles 100 80 93

New York City 100 80 90

San Diego 100 60 93

Grade 8

Atlanta 100 20 89

Austin 100 20 91

Boston 99 30 90

Charlotte 100 30 89

Chicago 100 100 92

Cleveland 100 40 76

Houston 100 40 88

Los Angeles 99 70 89

New York City 100 80 83

San Diego 100 30 90

NOTE: The number of schools is rounded to the nearest 10.

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

Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Trial Urban District Science 

Assessment.

Technical Notes and Data Appendix

school and student participation information for the urban 

districts for the 2005 science assessment.

Accommodations

It is important to assess all selected students from the 

target population, including students with disabilities 

(SD) and students classified by their schools as English

language learners (ELL). To accomplish this goal, 

students who receive accommodations in their state’s 

assessments, such as extra testing time or individual 

rather than group administration, are offered most of the 

same accommodations in NAEP. A table that includes 

accommodation rates by type and district is available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/acctype.asp.
TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT SCIENCE 2005 47

Exclusion Rates

Some students identified as SD or ELL who are sampled for

NAEP participation may be excluded from the assessment 

according to carefully defined criteria. School personnel,

guided by the student’s Individualized Education Program 

(IEP), as well as by section 504 eligibility, make decisions 

regarding inclusion in the assessment of students with 

disabilities. Based on NAEP’s guidelines, they also make 

the decision whether to exclude students identified as ELL.

The process includes evaluating the student’s capability to 

participate in the assessment in English, as well as taking 

into consideration the number of years the student has 

been receiving instruction in English. The percentages 

of students excluded from NAEP may vary considerably 

across districts. Comparisons of achievement results across 

districts should be interpreted with caution if the exclusion 

rates vary widely. See table A-2 for the science assessment 

exclusion rates for the urban districts in 2005. 

School Participation Rates

In order to ensure reportable samples, NCES and the 

Governing Board established participation rate standards 

that states and jurisdictions are required to meet in order 

for their results to be reported. The same standards were 

applied to the urban districts. Participation rates for the 

original sample needed to be at least 85 percent for schools 

in each subject and grade. Results are not reported in any 

instances in which participation rates did not meet the 

established standards for jurisdictions. In the 2005 science 

assessment, all states, jurisdictions, and participating urban 

districts met NAEP participation rate standards at both 

grades 4 and 8. See table A-1 for participation rates for the 

urban districts.

Interpreting Statistical Significance

Comparisons between groups in this report are based on 

statistical tests that consider both the size of the differences 

and the standard errors of the two statistics being compared. 

Standard errors are measures of the margin of error in 

samples. Estimates based on smaller samples are likely 

to have larger margins of error than estimates based on 

large samples. The size of the standard errors may also be 

influenced by other factors, such as how representative the

assessed students are of the population as a whole. When 

an estimate, such as an average score, has a large standard 

error, a numerical difference that seems large may not be 

statistically significant. Differences of the same magnitude

may or may not be statistically significant, depending upon

the size of the standard errors of the statistics. For example, 

a 5-point difference between male and female students 

may be statistically significant, while a 6-point difference

between White and Asian/Pacific Islander students may not

be. Standard errors for the NAEP scores and percentages 

presented in this report are available on the NAEP website 

(http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/). 

In the tables and charts of this report, asterisks (*) are 

used to indicate that a score or percentage is significantly

different from the comparable measure in national or 

large central city results. Any difference between scores 

or percentages that is identified in the text as higher,

lower, larger, or smaller in this report but not marked in 

tables and charts, meets the requirements for statistical 

significance. The differences described in this report have

been determined to be statistically significant at the .05

level (two-tailed) with appropriate adjustments for multiple 

comparisons, as well as adjustments for the part-whole 

relationship when individual districts are compared to 

results for large central cities.

“Large central city” in this report includes public schools 

located in large central cities (population of 250,000 or 

more) throughout the United States within metropolitan 

statistical areas as defined by the federal Office of

Management and Budget. It is not synonymous with “inner 

city.” Some districts (Austin, Charlotte, Cleveland, Houston, 

and Los Angeles) encompass a small percentage of schools 

not classified as large central city. In these cases, data from

the entire district were used in statistical comparisons to 

large central city schools. Further comparisons of urban 

district student group data with large central city data 

are available from the online data explorer on the NAEP 

website (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/). 

Selecting the variable “Large central city for urban district 

comparisons” when making statistical comparisons with 

selected urban districts will allow comparisons to the 

appropriate large central city data and will permit the 

software user to replicate results in this report and to explore 

additional comparisons. The “Large central city for urban 

district comparisons” variable includes the data from the 

small number of schools in the participating TUDA districts 

in 2005 (and prior years for the reading and mathematics 

assessments) that fell outside of large central cities.
48 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Table A-2.

Fourth- and eighth-grade public school students identified as students with disabilities 

and/or English language learners, excluded, and assessed with accommodations in science, 

as a percentage of all students, by jurisdiction in 2005

Grade 4 Grade 8

Jurisdiction Identified Excluded

Assessed with 

accommodations Identified Excluded

Assessed with 

accommodations

SD and/or ELL

Nation 22 3 10 18 3 9

Large central city 32 5 11 24 4 8

Atlanta 10 2 5 13 2 8

Austin 40 9 17 25 9 5

Boston 33 7 16 26 6 10

Charlotte 21 3 12 18 3 10

Chicago 28 5 9 23 3 12

Cleveland 20 6 11 21 7 12

Houston 45 7 19 24 6 5

Los Angeles 59 6 6 39 3 5

New York City 24 5 16 18 2 14

San Diego 42 5 7 28 4 8

SD

Nation 14 3 7 13 3 7

Large central city 13 3 7 13 3 6

Atlanta 9 2 5 11 2 7

Austin 17 6 8 13 6 2

Boston 22 5 14 19 5 10

Charlotte 13 2 8 12 2 8

Chicago 13 3 6 17 2 11

Cleveland 16 6 9 19 6 10

Houston 12 5 3 13 4 3

Los Angeles 10 3 5 12 2 4

New York City 14 3 10 10 1 8

San Diego 12 3 5 11 3 4

ELL

Nation 10 1 3 6 1 1

Large central city 21 3 4 14 2 3

Atlanta 1 # # 2 # 1

Austin 27 4 11 14 5 4

Boston 15 4 3 9 3 1

Charlotte 9 1 4 7 1 2

Chicago 18 2 4 7 2 2

Cleveland 5 2 2 3 1 2

Houston 36 4 16 14 3 2

Los Angeles 55 5 4 33 2 3

New York City 12 3 8 10 2 7

San Diego 35 4 3 21 2 5

# The estimate rounds to zero.

NOTE: SD = students with disabilities. ELL = English language learners. Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or 

ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories.

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

2005 Trial Urban District Science Assessment.
Margaret Spellings

Secretary

U.S. Department 

of Education

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

Institute of 

Education Sciences

Mark Schneider

Commissioner

National Center for 

Education Statistics

Peggy Carr

Associate Commissioner

National Center for 

Education Statistics

www.ed.gov

u . s . D e p a r tm e nt o f Educati o n

The National Assessment of Educational Progress is a congressionally mandated project sponsored by the 

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

of Education Sciences, administers NAEP. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible by law for 

carrying out the NAEP project.

th e nati o n ’ s

r e p o r t ca r d

Trial Urban District Assessment

S ci e nc e 2 0 0 5

November 2006

M o r e in f o r mati o n

The report release site is 

http://nationsreportcard.gov.

The NCES web electronic 

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

pubsearch/.

For ordering information, 

write to

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

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

or order online at http://www.

edpubs.org

S ugg e st e d

C itati o n

Lutkus, A.D., Lauko, M., and

Brockway, D. (2006).

The Nation’s Report Card: Trial 

Urban District Assessment

Science 2005

(NCES 2007-453). U.S. 

Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Government Printing Office.

C o nt e nt C o ntact

William Tirre

202-502-7361

william.tirre@ed.gov

“ Ou r missi o n is t o e nsu r e e q ual acc e ss t o e ducati o n and t o 

p r o m o t e e ducati o nal e x c e ll e nc e th r o ugh o ut th e nati o n . ”

T h e N ati o nal A ss e ssm e nt G o v e r ning B o a r d

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

the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as The Nation's 

Report CardTM. The Board is an independent, bipartisan group whose members include 

governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business 

representatives, and members of the general public.

Darvin M. Winick, Chair

President

Winick & Associates

Austin, Texas

Amanda P. Avallone, Vice Chair

Assistant Principal & 

Eighth-Grade Teacher

Summit Middle School

Boulder, Colorado

Francie Alexander

Chief Academic Officer, 

Scholastic, Inc.

Senior Vice President, 

Scholastic Education

New York, New York

David J. Alukonis

Chairman

Hudson School Board

Hudson, New Hampshire

Honorable Jeb Bush

Governor of Florida

Tallahassee, Florida

Barbara Byrd-Bennett

Executive Superintendent-inResidence

Cleveland State University

Cleveland, Ohio

Shirley V. Dickson

Educational Consultant

Aliso Viejo, California

Honorable David P. Driscoll

Commissioner of Education

Massachusetts Department of 

Education

Malden, Massachusetts

John Q. Easton

Executive Director

Consortium on Chicago 

School Research

Chicago, Illinois

Alan J. Friedman 

Director and CEO

New York Hall of Science 

Queens, New York

David W. Gordon

Sacramento County 

Superintendent of Schools

Sacramento County 

Office of Education

Sacramento, California

Robin C. Hall 

Principal 

Beecher Hills Elementary School 

Atlanta, Georgia

Kathi M. King

Twelfth-Grade Teacher

Messalonskee High School

Oakland, Maine

Honorable Keith King

Member

Colorado House of Representatives

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Kim Kozbial-Hess

Fourth-Grade Teacher

Hawkins Elementary School

Toledo, Ohio

James S. Lanich 

Executive Director 

California Business for Education 

Excellence 

Sacramento, California

Honorable Cynthia Nava 

Chair, Education Committee 

New Mexico State Senate 

Las Cruces, New Mexico

Andrew C. Porter

Director

Learning Sciences Institute

Peabody College

Vanderbilt University

Nashville, Tennessee

Luis A. Ramos

Community Relations Manager

PPL Susquehanna

Berwick, Pennsylvania

Mary Frances Taymans, SND

Executive Director

Secondary Schools Division 

National Catholic Educational 

Association

Washington, D.C.

Oscar A. Troncoso

Principal

Socorro High School

El Paso, Texas

Honorable Thomas J. Vilsack

Governor of Iowa

Des Moines, Iowa

Honorable Michael E. Ward

Former State Superintendent 

of Public Instruction

North Carolina Public Schools

Jackson, Mississippi

Eileen L. Weiser

Member, State Board of 

Education

Michigan Department of 

Education

Lansing, Michigan

Grover J. Whitehurst 

(Ex officio)

Director

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, D.C.

Charles E. Smith

Executive Director

National Assessment Governing 

Board

Washington, D.C.