12th-Grade Reading and Mathematics 2005

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007–468
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 fi ndings of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a 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.

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 associated with 

academic achievement and related 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.

FEBRUARY 2007

1 Executive Summary

2 Understanding and

 Reporting the Results

 4 Reading

14 Mathematics

22 Technical Notes

 Contents
In 2005, a representative sample of over 21,000 high 

school seniors from 900 schools across the country 

was assessed in reading and mathematics. This report 

presents the national results from the 1992, 1994, 

1998, 2002, and 2005 reading assessments and from 

the 2005 mathematics assessment. It also includes 

sample questions to illustrate the types of skills and 

knowledge that were assessed in each subject.

Reading performance declines for all 

but top performers

In 2005, the average reading score for high school 

seniors was 286 on a 0–500 scale. This overall 

average was lower than in 1992, although it was not 

signifi cantly different from the score in 2002. With the 

exception of the score for students performing at the 

90th percentile, declines were seen across most of 

the performance distribution in 2005 as compared to 

1992. 

The percentage of students performing at or 

above Basic decreased from 80 percent in 1992 to 

73 percent in 2005, and the percentage of students 

performing at or above the Profi cient level 

decreased from 40 to 35 percent. 

White and Black students were the only racial/ethnic 

groups to show a statistically significant change 

in reading performance, scoring lower in 2005 

than in 1992. 

The score gaps between White and Black students 

and White and Hispanic students were relatively 

unchanged since 1992. 

Executive Summary

Both male and female students’ scores declined 

in comparison to 1992, and the performance gap 

between the genders widened with female students 

outscoring male students.

Less than one-quarter perform at 

or above Profi cient in mathematics

The 2005 mathematics assessment is based on a new 

framework. The assessment includes more questions on 

algebra, data analysis, and probability to refl ect changes 

in high school mathematics standards and coursework. 

Even though many questions were repeated, results 

could not be placed on the old NAEP scale and could not 

be directly compared to previous years. The 12th-grade 

average in 2005 was set at 150 on a 0–300 point scale.

Sixty-one percent of high school seniors performed 

at or above the Basic level, and 23 percent 

performed at or above Profi cient. 

Asian/Pacifi c Islander students scored higher than 

students from other racial/ethnic groups, and White 

students scored higher than their Black and Hispanic 

counterparts. 

Male students scored higher on average than female 

students overall and in the “number properties 

and operations” and “measurement and geometry” 

content areas.

Retrieving information from a highly detailed 

document is an example of the knowledge and 

skills demonstrated by students performing at 

the Basic level. Making a critical judgment 

about a detailed document and explaining their 

reasoning is an example of the knowledge 

and skills associated with students’ 

performance at the Profi cient level. 

Demonstrating the ability to use the Pythagorean 

Theorem to determine the length of a hypotenuse 

is an example of the skills and knowledge 

associated with performance at the Basic level. 

An example of the knowledge and skills 

associated with the Profi cient level is using 

trigonometric ratios to determine length. 

For more information, visit: 

http://nationsreportcard.gov

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 1
The students who are selected to take the NAEP assessment are representative of all 

12th-grade students across the U.S. By participating, they play an important role in helping us 

understand how our nation’s students and schools are performing. These valuable data can 

only be obtained with the cooperation of schools, teachers, and students nationwide. 

NAEP results are reported as percentages of students 

performing at or above three achievement levels: 

Basic, Profi cient, and Advanced. Percentages below 

Basic are also reported. 

The achievement levels for each subject in this report 

were set by the National Assessment Governing Board 

based on a standard-setting process that included input 

from a cross section of policymakers, educators, and 

members of the general public. The process resulted in 

a set of cut scores that defi nes the boundaries between 

Basic, Profi cient, and Advanced performance, as well as 

descriptions of what students should know and be able to 

do in each subject and grade level. Abbreviated descriptions of the NAEP subject-specifi c achievement levels 

for grade 12 can be found in the reading and mathematics sections of this report. More detailed descriptions of 

NAEP achievement levels can be found in the subject 

frameworks on the Governing Board website at http://

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

As provided by law, 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 affi rmed the usefulness 

of these performance standards for understanding trends 

in achievement. NAEP achievement levels have been 

widely used by national and state offi cials.

Understanding and Reporting the Results

The three NAEP achievement levels, 

from lowest to highest, are

BASIC — denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills 

that are fundamental for profi cient work at a given grade.

PROFICIENT — represents solid academic performance. 

Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency 

over challenging subject matter.

ADVANCED — signifi es superior performance.

The results presented in this report are based on 

representative samples of more than 21,000 grade 12

students from 900 schools (including public 

schools, private schools, and Department of Defense 

schools). Results are reported for the nation and by 

region of the country. Results for states are not available 

at grade 12. Over 12,000 students were assessed in reading, and more than 9,000 were assessed in mathematics. 

Students’ performance is reported in two ways: scale 

scores and achievement levels. 

Scale scores

NAEP reading results are reported on a 0–500 scale, 

and mathematics results are reported on a 0–300 scale. 

Because NAEP score scales are developed independently for each subject, scores cannot be used to make 

comparisons across subjects. 

In addition to reporting an overall composite score in 

each subject, scores are reported at different percentiles 

(showing trends in performance for lower-, middle-, and 

higher-performing students) and by subject subscales 

(showing performance in specifi c content areas).

Achievement levels

Achievement levels are performance standards showing what students should know and be able to do. 

2
A more inclusive NAEP

No testing accommodations were provided in the NAEP 

reading assessments prior to 1998, resulting in the 

exclusion of students with disabilities and English 

language learners who could not be meaningfully assessed without accommodations. The transition to a 

more inclusive NAEP began in 1998 when administration procedures were introduced that allowed the use of 

accommodations (e.g., extra time, individual rather than 

group administration) for a subsample of students in the 

reading assessment. 

During this transition period, reading results in 1998 

were reported for two separate samples—one in which 

accommodations were not permitted and one in which 

accommodations were permitted. Beginning in 2002, 

accommodations were permitted for all reading administrations. In 2005, accommodations were available for 

both reading and mathematics assessments.

Interpreting results

NAEP uses widely accepted statistical standards in analyzing data. The text of this report discusses only fi ndings that are statistically signifi cant at the .05 level with 

adjustments for multiple comparisons. In the tables and 

charts of this report, the symbol (*) is used to indicate 

that prior scores or percentages are signifi cantly different 

from current scores or percentages. 

Scales have been established for overall achievement 

in reading and mathematics. In addition, subscales have 

been established for three contexts for reading and for 

four content areas in mathematics. (See pages 10 and 19 

for more information about the reading and mathematics frameworks.) Because subscales for each subject 

were developed separately, direct comparisons cannot be 

made from one subscale to another. 

In addition to overall results, performance is presented 

for students categorized by different demographic characteristics (for example, by gender or highest level of 

parents’ education). These simple breakdowns cannot be 

used to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between 

background characteristics and achievement. A complex 

mix of educational and socioeconomic factors may interact to affect student performance. 

Not all of the results discussed in the text are presented in corresponding tables or graphics (e.g., achievement-level data for student groups), but can be found 

on the NAEP website at http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/nde/. 

For additional information, see the Technical Notes on 

page 22 or http://nationsreportcard.gov.

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 3
READING

Overall Performance in Reading 

Declines in Comparison to 1992

Performance of the nation’s 12th-graders in reading has declined in comparison 

to 1992; however, it has shown no signifi cant change from the last assessment in 

2002. This was seen in overall scores and in scores for literary, informational, and 

functional reading contexts.

In 2005, scores for both White students and Black students were lower than in 

1992, and there was no signifi cant change in the performance gap. Female 

students outscored male students by a wider margin than in 1992.

4 READING RESULTS
Scores decline in comparison to 1992 across most of the performance distribution 

Trend in 12th-grade NAEP reading achievement-level results

Figure 3

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from 2005.

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

Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2005 

Reading Assessments.

80* 75 77*

4 4 6* 6 5 5

76* 74

0 Year

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

35

73

’92 ’94 ’98 ’02 ’05

40* 36 40* 40* 36

Accommodations 

not permitted 

Accommodations 

permitted 

% at or above Proficien t

% at Advanced 

% at or above Basic 

Trend in 12th-grade average NAEP reading scores

Figure 1

Year

’92 ’94 ’98 ’02 ’05

287 286

291* 290* 287 292*

0

300

290

280

270

500

Scale score

Accommodations not permitted

Accommodations permitted

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from 2005.

Trend in 12th-grade NAEP reading percentile scores

Figure 2

Accommodations not permitted

Accommodations permitted

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from 2005.

Year

’92 ’94 ’98 ’02 ’05

0

310 

300 

290 

280 

270 

260 

250 

240 

320 

330 

340 

500

332 333 337* 336* 333 332

312 313 317* 317* 313 315*

289 288

293* 293* 290 294*

263 262

268* 267* 264*

271*

237 235

90th 

75th 

50th 

25th 

10th 

240* 242* 239*

249*

Scale score Percentile Proficient Basic

As seen in fi gure 1, students in grade 12 scored lower in 

2005 than in 1992, but their score was not signifi cantly 

different compared to 2002.

Examining the scores at different percentiles on the reading scale (fi gure 2) shows lower scores in 2005 than in 

1992 across most of the performance distribution. Only 

the score at the 90th percentile showed no signifi cant 

change in comparison to 1992. The largest decline was 

seen among the lower-performing students at the 10th 

percentile.

The decline in scores across most of the distribution is 

refl ected in the achievement-level results. As shown in 

fi gure 3, the percentage of students performing at or 

above Basic decreased from 80 percent in 1992 to 

73 percent in 2005, and the percentage of students performing at or above the Profi cient level decreased from 

40 to 35 percent over the same period of time.

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 5
Trend in 12th-grade NAEP reading score gaps for 

White – Black and for White – Hispanic students

Figure 5

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from 2005.

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on 

differences between unrounded average scores. 

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), various years, 1992–

2005 Reading Assessments.

Year

’92 ’94 ’98 ’02 ’05

0

310

300

290

280

270

260

500

292 293 297* 297* 293

297*

267 267 269 271

265

273*

White – Black

Scale score

25 26 Score gap

26 27

29

24

Year

’92 ’94 ’98 ’02 ’05

0

310

300

290

280

270

260

500

292 293 297* 297* 293

297*

273 272 276* 275

270

279

White – Hispanic

Scale score

20 21

21 22

23

19

Score gap

Black

White

Hispanic

Figure 4

Trend in 12th-grade average NAEP reading scores, 

by race/ethnicity

Year

’92 ’94 ’98 ’02 ’05 

0 

300 

290 

280 

270 

260 

500 

292 

286 

273

293 

287 

272 

279 1 

297* 

287 

275

297* 293 

278* 

270

274

288

276*

297*

290 

279 

267 269 267 271 

265

273* 

Scale score 

American Indian/Alaska Native

Black

White

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from 2005.

1 Sample sizes were insuffi cient to permit a 

reliable estimate for American Indian/Alaska 

Native students in 1992, 1998, and 2002. 

NOTE: Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.

Accommodations not permitted

Accommodations permitted

Accommodations not permitted

Accommodations permitted

Gaps between White and minority students unchanged

As shown in fi gure 4, scores for both White and Black 

students declined in comparison to 1992. Apparent 

declines over the same time period for other racial/ethnic 

groups were not statistically signifi cant. 

Although not shown here, the percentages of students 

performing at or above Profi cient were lower in 

2005 than in 1992 for White students but showed no 

signifi cant change for other racial/ethnic student groups. 

There was no signifi cant change in the gaps between 

White students and their Black or Hispanic counterparts 

in comparison to either 1992 or 2002 (fi gure 5).

Full achievement-level and gap information is 

available on the NAEP website at http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/nde/.

6 READING RESULTS
Changing student population

During the 13 years since the fi rst reading assessment 

was administered, there have been signifi cant shifts 

in the student population. As shown in table 1, White 

students made up a smaller proportion of the population 

in 2005 (67 percent) than they did in 1992 (74 percent). 

At the same time, the percentage of Hispanic students 

increased from 7 percent in 1992 to 14 percent in 2005. # The estimate rounds to zero.

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size was insuffi cient to permit a reliable estimate for 

American Indian/Alaska Native students in 2002. 

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from 2005.

NOTE: Percentages for the unclassifi ed race/ethnicity category are not included in this table. 

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), various years, 

1992–2005 Reading Assessments.

1992 1994 1998 2002 2005

 White 74* 75* 72* 71* 67

 Black 15* 13 14 12 13

 Hispanic 7* 7* 10* 10* 14

 Asian/Pacifi c Islander 3* 4* 4* 5 5

 American Indian/Alaska Native #* 1 #* ‡ 1

Percentage of 12th-grade students in the population, 

by race/ethnicity

Table 1

Achievement-level profi les

To help in understanding differences in performance among student groups, this section 

shows the percentage of students in each of several groups who performed at or above the 

Profi cient level. For example, 43 percent of White students performed at or above Profi cient.

The percentage of Black students at or above this level was 16 percent. 

Percentage of students at or above Profi cient

• 43% of White students; 16% of Black students; 20% of 

Hispanic students; 36% of Asian/Pacifi c Islander students; 

26% of American Indian/Alaska Native students

• 17% of students who reported neither parent fi nished high 

school; 47% of students who reported at least one parent 

graduated from college

• 15% of students who reported that they expected to work fulltime after graduating from high school; 48% of students who 

reported that they expected to attend a 4-year college after 

graduating from high school

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 7
Female students outperform male students by a wider margin in 2005 than 

in 1992

Trend in 12th-grade average NAEP reading scores, 

by gender

Figure 6

Average scores in 2005 by region show a higher score 

for students in the Midwest than in the Northeast and 

higher scores for both regions than for students in the 

South and West (fi gure 7). See page 23 for more information on how the regions were defi ned.

Achievement-level results in fi gure 8 show similar patterns. The percentages of students both at or above Basic

and at or above Profi cient in the Midwest and Northeast 

were higher than in the West and South. 

Higher average reading scores in the Midwest

Year

Male 

Female 

Score gap 

’92 ’94 ’98 ’02 ’05 

0 

270 

280 

290 

300 

500 

292 

298* 298* 

294 

297* 

279 279 282* 283* 280 

287* 

295* 

Scale score 

10*

14 16 16 16 13 

Accommodations not permitted

Accommodations permitted

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from 2005.

NOTE: 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), various years, 1992–2005 Reading Assessments.

69

31

78

42

0 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

West Midwest South Northeast

70 75

4

6

4 5

32 38

Percent 

282

293

283

288

DC

West Midwest South Northeast

Twelfth-grade average NAEP reading scores in 2005, 

by region

Figure 7 Twelfth-grade NAEP reading achievement-level results in 

2005, by region

Figure 8

In 2005, female students scored 13 points higher on 

average in reading than male students, as shown in 

fi gure 6. The average reading score for female students 

was lower in 2005 than in either 1992 or 2002. The 

score for male students, while lower than in 1992, was 

unchanged from 2002. The score for female students 

was 5 points lower in 2005 than in 1992, and the score 

for male students was 8 points lower, resulting in a widening of the gap between the two groups.

Though not shown here, female students outperformed 

male students in all three contexts for reading (reading 

for literary experience, for information, and to perform 

a task). Scores for male students showed declines in 

comparison to 1992 in all three contexts, while declines 

for female students were only signifi cant in reading for 

literary experience. See the section on the reading framework on page 10 for more information on the contexts 

for reading.

% at or above Proficien t

% at Advanced 

% at or above Basic 

8 READING RESULTS
Average reading scores decline across 

all parental education levels

The reading results presented in fi gure 9 show that 

higher average reading scores were generally associated 

with higher levels of parental education. Students who 

reported that at least one parent graduated from college 

scored higher than students who reported lower levels of 

parental education. 

Average reading scores were lower in 2005 than in 1992 

regardless of the level of parental education students 

reported.

Percentage of students with parents 

graduating from college increasing

As shown in table 2, the percentage of students who 

reported that high school graduation was their parents’

highest level of education was lower in 2005 than in 

1992, while the percentage reporting that at least one 

parent graduated from college was higher in 2005 than 

in 1992.

1992 1994 1998 2002 2005

Did not fi nish high school 8 7 7 7 8

Graduated from high school 22* 21* 19 18 18

Some education after high school 27* 26 25 24 24

Graduated from college 41* 44* 46 48 47

Table 2

Percentage of 12th-grade students in the population, 

by highest level of parental education

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from 2005.

NOTE: Results are not shown for students who did not know the highest education level for either 

of their parents.

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

for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 

1992–2005 Reading Assessments.

Trend in 12th-grade average NAEP reading scores, 

by highest level of parental education

Figure 9

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from 2005.

Year

’92 ’94 ’98 ’02 ’05

0

310

300

290

280

270

260

500

296

289

278

297

287

274

300*

291*

279*

301*

298

289

277

292*

280*

301*

294*

283*

268 268 268

268

266

275*

Scale score

Accommodations not permitted

Accommodations permitted

Graduated from college

Some education after high school

Did not finish high school

Graduated from high school

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 9
The current NAEP reading framework describes in detail 

how reading should be assessed at grade 12, and has been 

the basis for developing the assessment content since 

1992. It refl ects current defi nitions of literacy by differentiating among three contexts for reading.

The contexts for reading provide guidance for the types 

of texts to be included in the assessment. The framework 

specifi es that 35 percent of the assessment be devoted to 

reading for literary experience, 45 percent to reading for 

information, and 20 percent to reading to perform a task. 

Twelfth-grade students who participated in the NAEP 

reading assessment were asked to read passages and 

answer a series of comprehension questions. At least 

one-half of the questions required written answers. The 

reading passages used in the NAEP assessment were 

drawn from the types of books and publications that 

students might encounter in school, in the library, or at 

home. Selections ranged from 500 to 1,500 words. 

Reading Framework

Contexts for reading

Reading for literary experience involves the reader in 

exploring themes, events, characters, settings, and the 

language of literary works. Various types of texts are 

associated with reading for literary experience, including 

short stories, poems, legends, myths, folktales, and 

biographies.

Reading for information engages the reader with aspects of 

the real world. Reading for information is most commonly 

associated with textbooks, primary and secondary sources, 

newspaper and magazine articles, 

essays, and speeches.

Reading to perform a task involves 

reading to accomplish something. 

Practical texts may include charts, bus or 

train schedules, directions for games or 

repairs, classroom or library procedures, tax or 

insurance forms, recipes, voter registration materials, 

maps, referenda, or consumer warranties.

Declines evident in all reading contexts 

Scores declined from 1992 to 2005 in each of the three 

reading contexts. There was a 2-point decrease in reading 

for information, a 6-point decrease in reading to perform 

a task, and a 12-point decrease in reading for literary 

experience over the same time period. (Note that these 

score point differences are calculated based on the 

difference between unrounded average scores rather than 

on the rounded scores shown in the fi gure.)

* Signifi cantly different (p < .05) from 2005.

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

Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2005 

Reading Assessments.

Year

’92 ’94 ’98 ’02 ’05

0

280

290

300

500

291 293* 293* 290 293* 291

Reading for information

Scale score

Figure 10

Trend in 12th-grade average NAEP reading scores, 

by context for reading

Year

’92 ’94 ’98 ’02 ’05

0

280

290

300

500

279

287* 288* 286* 290*

281

Reading for literary experience

Scale score

Year

’92 ’94 ’98 ’02 ’05

0

280

290

300

500

287 290 289 285*

293*

289

Reading to perform a task

Scale score

Accommodations not permitted

Accommodations permitted

10 READING RESULTS
Reading achievement levels at grade 12

The reading achievement levels represent what 12th-graders should know and be able to do in reading at each level. The 

following are excerpts of the reading achievement-level descriptions with the corresponding minimum cut scores noted in 

parentheses. The full descriptions can be found at http://www.nagb.org/pubs/pubs.html.

Basic (265): Twelfth-grade students performing at the Basic

level should be able to demonstrate an overall understanding 

and make some interpretations of the text. When reading text 

appropriate to twelfth grade, they should be able to identify 

and relate aspects of the text to its overall meaning, extend 

the ideas in the text by making simple inferences, recognize 

interpretations, make connections among and relate ideas in 

the text to their personal experiences, and draw conclusions. 

They should be able to identify elements of an author’s style.

Profi cient (302): Twelfth-grade students performing at 

the Profi cient level should be able to show an overall 

understanding of the text, which includes inferential as well 

as literal information. When reading text appropriate to 

twelfth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas of the 

text by making inferences, drawing conclusions, and making 

connections to their own personal experiences and other 

readings. Connections between inferences and the text 

should be clear, even when implicit. These students should 

be able to analyze the author’s use of literary devices.

Advanced (346): Twelfth-grade students performing at the 

Advanced level should be able to describe more abstract 

themes and ideas in the overall text. When reading text 

appropriate to twelfth grade, they should be able to analyze 

both the meaning and the form of the text and explicitly 

support their analyses with specifi c examples from the text. 

They should be able to extend the information from the text 

by relating it to their experiences and to the world. Their 

responses should be thorough, thoughtful, and extensive.

Sample Multiple-Choice Reading Question

According to the guide, at which of the following times 

of day would the reduced Metrorail fare be in effect?

 A 5:30 a.m. C 3:00 p.m.

 B 6:00 a.m. 7:30 p.m.

Percentage correct overall and at achievement levels in 2005

Overall Below Basic At Basic At Profi cient At Advanced

77 48 81 93 98

Percentage of correct 12th-grade student responses in 2005, 

by region

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

for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Reading 

Assessment.

78%

84%

71%

75%

DC

As part of the 2005 reading assessment, 12th-graders were 

presented with a Metro Guide to a city’s transit system. 

The multiple-choice question presented below required students to make a simple inference based on explicit information in the Metro Guide.

In addition to the overall percentage of students who 

answered the question correctly, the percentage of students at 

each achievement level who answered correctly is presented.

Full information, including reading passages, is available for 

NAEP reading questions of various types and diffi culty levels 

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

West Midwest South Northeast

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 11
Sample Short Constructed-Response Reading 

Question

Choose one of the locations listed in the guide 

where Metro passes can be purchased. Describe 

one convenience and one inconvenience of buying 

passes at that location.

57%

69%

55%

63%

DC

Percentage rated as “Evidence of full comprehension” overall 

and at achievement levels in 2005

Overall Below Basic At Basic At Profi cient At Advanced

60 24 62 84 92

Percentage of 12th-grade student responses rated “Evidence of 

full comprehension” in 2005, by region

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

for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Reading 

Assessment.

West Midwest South Northeast

The following is a short constructed-response question 

which asked students to interpret document information in 

relation to a real-life situation. Responses to this task were 

rated according to a three-level scoring guide: 

“Evidence of full comprehension” for responses that selected 

a place where Metro passes could be purchased and 

described both a convenience and an inconvenience of 

buying passes at that location.

“Evidence of partial comprehension” for responses that 

selected a place where Metro passes could be purchased 

but described only a convenience or only an inconvenience 

of buying passes at that location.

“Evidence of little or no comprehension” for responses that 

selected a place where Metro passes could be purchased 

but described neither a convenience nor an inconvenience 

of buying passes at that location.

The sample student response below was rated as “Evidence 

of full comprehension.” Examples of partial responses to 

this question and other information about NAEP questions 

can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrls.

12 READING RESULTS
1 Page numbers refer to the location in the report where the question 

described is presented.

NOTE: The position of a question on the scale represents the average 

scale score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of 

correctly answering a constructed-response question, or a 74 percent 

probability of correctly answering a four-option multiple-choice 

question. For constructed-response questions, the question description 

represents students’ performance rated as completely correct. Regular 

type denotes a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a 

multiple-choice question.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment 

of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Reading Assessment.

Range of Reading 

Performance

The item map is a useful tool for better 

understanding what it means to perform 

at different levels on the reading scale. 

The left side of the map shows the 

scores that defi ne the lower boundaries 

of the Basic, Profi cient, and Advanced

achievement levels. The right side 

lists descriptions of some selected 

assessment questions that fall at various 

levels on the 0–500 scale. Retrieving 

information from a highly detailed 

document (286 on the scale) is an 

example of the knowledge and skills 

associated with performance at the Basic

achievement level. Making a critical 

judgment about a detailed document 

and explaining their reasoning (336) is 

an example of the skills and knowledge 

demonstrated by students performing at 

the Profi cient level. Note that several 

examples of performance below the 

Basic level are included. For example, 

students who perform below Basic are 

likely to be able to identify explicitly 

stated information from a highly detailed 

document (251) and to describe the 

main action of a story (257).

391 Explain symbolic significance of setting

380 Make intertextual connection based on common message

369 Interpret and explain distinction between text ideas

367 Use theme to provide explanation of character’s motivation

367 Recognize author’s use of dialogue to reveal character

358 Identify how author attempts to appeal to readers

356 Interpret author’s belief and provide supporting examples

346 Use multiple parts of document text to provide inferences

344 Specify language that depicts character’s emotional state

336 Make and explain critical judgment of document

323 Provide example of difference between two editorials

313 Provide text-based reason or opinion with no support 

307 Identify character’s reaction to story events

304 Recognize reason for narrator’s description

300 Recognize how author substantiates information

297 Recognize sequence of plot elements

290 Use detailed document and prior knowledge to make a judgment (page 12)1

286 Retrieve information from a highly detailed document

277 Connect document information to real-life context

276 Infer character’s action from plot outcome

274 Make simple inference from explicit details in a document (page 11)1

272 Relate text information to a hypothetical situation

260 Provide major event from historical narrative

257 Use task directions and prior knowledge to make a comparison

257 Describe main action of story 

256 Identify explicitly stated reason for article event

251 Identify explicitly stated information from highly detailed document

243 Identify explicitly stated description from text

Advanced Proficient Basic

346

302

265

500

390

380

370

360

350

340

330

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

 O

NAEP Reading Item Map

327 Understand multiple purposes for document

330 Identify text feature defining relation between characters

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 13
MATHEMATICS

New Mathematics Assessment

Sixty-one percent of students nationwide performed at or above the Basic achievement 

level in 2005, and 23 percent performed at or above Profi cient on the new 12th-grade 

mathematics assessment. Asian/Pacifi c Islander students outperformed those in all 

other racial/ethnic groups. The average for White students was 31 points higher than 

for Black students and 24 points higher than for Hispanic students. Overall, male 

students scored higher on average than female students, but in two of the four content 

areas measured, there was no signifi cant difference by gender in average scores.

Because of changes in assessment content and administration, the results for 2005 

could not be directly compared to those from previous years. 

14 MATHEMATICS RESULTS
Changes to the NAEP mathematics assessment in 2005

For 2005, the National Assessment Governing Board adopted a new mathematics framework for grade 12 to refl ect changes in 

high school standards and coursework. In addition, changes were made in booklet design and calculator-use policy for the onethird of the assessment in which calculators were allowed. Major differences from previous assessments are highlighted in the 

While the overall average mathematics score in 2005 

was set at 150, students in grade 12 exhibited a wide 

range of performance as shown in fi gure 11. Scores 

ranged from 105 for lower-performing students at 

the 10th percentile, to 194 for higher-performing 

students at the 90th percentile. Sixty-one percent of 

12th-graders performed at or above the Basic level 

in 2005, and 23 percent performed at or above the 

Profi cient level (fi gure 12).

Less than one-quarter of 12th-graders perform at the Profi cient level or higher

Average 12th-grade NAEP mathematics score and percentile 

scores in 2005

Figure 11

Overall 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th

average score Percentile score

0 

170 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

100 

180 

190 

200 

210 

220 

300 

Scale score

194 

174 

151 

127 

105 

150 

Proficient Basic

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

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

Assessment.

Twelfth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level results 

in 2005

Figure 12

2 

0

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

61 

23 

Percent 

% at or above Proficien t

% at Advanced 

% at or above Basic 

table. As a result of these changes, the 

2005 results could not be placed on the 

previous NAEP scale and are not 

compared to results from previous years 

in this report. There were, however, some 

questions from the 2000 assessment 

that fi t the requirements in the new 

framework and were used again in 2005. 

A special analysis was done to see how 

students’ performance on this set of 

items differed between the two years. 

More information about this analysis can 

be found at http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/mathematics/

interpret-results.asp.

20% Number sense, properties, & operations 

15%; 20% Measurement; geometry & spatial sense

20% Data analysis, statistics, & probability

25% Algebra & functions

0–500 cross-grade scale

Students provided with standard model 

scientific calculator

2005 mathematics assessment

Content areas

Four content areas, with measurement and 

geometry combined into one because the 

majority of 12th-grade measurement topics 

are geometric in nature

Distribution of questions across content areas

10% Number properties & operations 

30% Measurement & geometry

25% Data analysis & probability

35% Algebra

Reporting scale

0–300 single-grade scale

Calculators

Students given the option to bring their own 

graphing or scientific calculator, or are 

provided with a scientific calculator

Booklet design

Two 25-minute blocks Three 15-minute blocks

Previous mathematics assessments

Five content areas, with measurement and geometry

represented as separate areas

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 15
Higher scores associated with advanced mathematics courses

In 2005, male students scored higher on average 

than female students as shown in fi gure 13. When 

the results were examined by each of the four content areas, the scores for male students were only higher 

than the scores for female students in two content areas:

the number properties and operations and the measurement and geometry content areas (table 3). Apparent differences in the other content areas were not statistically 

signifi cant.

Male students score higher than female students overall, but not in every 

content area

Average 12th-grade NAEP mathematics scores in 2005, 

by gender

Figure 13

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 300

Scale score

0

151

149

Male

Female

Content area Male Female

Number properties and operations 152 148

Measurement and geometry 152 148

Data analysis and probability 151 149

Algebra 151 150

Average 12th-grade NAEP mathematics scores in 2005, 

by gender and content area

Table 3

Figure 14 shows the percentages of students and 

their average scores by the highest level mathematics course they reported having taken. The fi ve categories, from highest to lowest level, were calculus, 

pre-calculus, algebra II/trigonometry, geometry, and 

algebra I or lower. The results show that taking higher 

level mathematics courses was associated with higher 

mathematics scores. 

Percentages of 12th-grade students and average NAEP 

mathematics scores in 2005, by highest reported 

mathematics course

Figure 14

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

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

Assessment.

8 117

18 182

12 126

21 165

41 143

Percentage

of students

Calculus

Pre-calculus

Algebra II/

 Trigonometry

Geometry

Algebra I 

 or lower

Course

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 300

Scale score

0

16 MATHEMATICS RESULTS
Asian/Pacifi c Islander students 

outperform students in other 

racial/ethnic groups

As shown in fi gure 15, Asian/Pacifi c Islander students 

scored higher on average in 2005 than the other four 

racial/ethnic groups. The average score for White students was higher than the scores for Black, Hispanic, 

and American Indian/Alaska Native students. Hispanic students scored higher on average than Black 

students. 

Generally, the comparisons between groups were 

similar in each of the four content areas (table 4). 

Scores for Asian/Pacifi c Islander students and White 

students were not signifi cantly different in the number 

properties and operations and the data analysis and 

probability content areas. While there was no signifi cant difference in scores for Black and American 

Indian/Alaska Native students overall, American Indian/Alaska Native students scored higher on average 

than Black students in measurement and geometry.

Average 12th-grade NAEP mathematics scores in 2005, 

by race/ethnicity

Figure 15

Average 12th-grade NAEP mathematics scores in 2005, by race/ethnicity and content area

Table 4

Content area White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacifi c 

Islander

American Indian/

Alaska Native

Number properties and operations 158 126 132 160 132

Measurement and geometry 158 124 134 163 141

Data analysis and probability 158 126 132 157 134

Algebra 157 130 134 167 129

NOTE: 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 Mathematics Assessment.

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 300

Scale score

0

157

127

133

163

134

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian/Alaska Native

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 17

Achievement-level profi les

To help in understanding differences in performance among 

student groups, this section shows the percentage of 

students in each of several groups who performed at or 

above the Profi cient level. For example, 29 percent 

of White students performed at or above Profi cient. 

The percentage of Black students at or above this level was 

6 percent. 

Percentage of students at or above Profi cient

• 29% of White students; 6% of Black students; 

8% of Hispanic students; 36% of Asian/Pacifi c Islander 

students; 6% of American Indian/Alaska Native students

• 7% of students who reported neither parent fi nished 

high school; 34% of students who reported at least 

one parent graduated from college

• 15% of students who reported never taking a 

mathematics Advanced Placement course; 55% of 

students who reported taking a mathematics Advanced 

Placement course
Mathematics achievement levels at grade 12

The following mathematics achievement levels describe what 12th-graders should know and be able to do in mathematics at 

each level. The cut score indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is noted in parentheses.

Basic (141): Twelfth-grade students performing at the 

Basic level should be able to solve mathematical problems 

that require the direct application of concepts and 

procedures in familiar situations. For example, they should 

be able to perform computations with real numbers and 

estimate the results of numerical calculations. These 

students should also be able to estimate, calculate, and 

compare measures and identify and compare properties of 

two- and three-dimensional fi gures, and solve simple 

problems using two-dimensional coordinate geometry. At 

this level, students should be able to identify the source of 

bias in a sample and make inferences from sample results, 

calculate, interpret, and use measures of central tendency 

and compute simple probabilities. They should understand 

the use of variables, expressions, and equations to 

represent unknown quantities and relationships among 

unknown quantities. They should be able to solve problems 

involving linear relations using tables, graphs, or symbols; 

and solve linear equations involving one variable.

Profi cient (176): Students in the twelfth grade performing at the Profi cient level should be able to select strategies 

to solve problems and integrate concepts and procedures. 

These students should be able to interpret an argument, 

justify a mathematical process, and make comparisons 

dealing with a wide variety of mathematical tasks. They 

should also be able to perform calculations involving 

similar fi gures including right triangle trigonometry. They 

should understand and apply properties of geometric 

fi gures and relationships between fi gures in two and three 

dimensions. Students at this level should select and use 

appropriate units of measure as they apply formulas to 

solve problems. Students performing at this level should be 

able to use measures of central tendency and variability of 

distributions to make decisions and predictions; calculate 

combinations and permutations to solve problems, and 

understand the use of the normal distribution to describe 

real-world situations. Students performing at the Profi cient

level should be able to identify, manipulate, graph, and 

apply linear, quadratic, exponential, and inverse proportionality (y = k/x) functions; solve routine and non-routine 

problems involving functions expressed in algebraic, 

verbal, tabular, and graphical forms; and solve quadratic 

and rational equations in one variable and solve systems of 

linear equations.

Advanced (216): Twelfth-grade students performing at the 

Advanced level should demonstrate in-depth knowledge of 

the mathematical concepts and procedures represented in 

the framework. They can integrate knowledge to solve 

complex problems and justify and explain their thinking. 

These students should be able to analyze, make and justify 

mathematical arguments, and communicate their ideas 

clearly. Advanced level students should be able to describe 

the intersections of geometric fi gures in two and three 

dimensions, and use vectors to represent velocity and 

direction. They should also be able to describe the impact of 

linear transformations and outliers on measures of central 

tendency and variability; analyze predictions based on 

multiple data sets; and apply probability and statistical 

reasoning in more complex problems. Students performing 

at the Advanced level should be able to solve or interpret 

systems of inequalities; and formulate a model for a complex 

situation (e.g., exponential growth and decay) and make 

inferences or predictions using the mathematical model.

18 MATHEMATICS RESULTS
Mathematics Framework

 In the fi gure above, Elm Street is to be constructed 

 parallel to Main Street. What is the value of x ?

 A 70 C 120 E 140

 110 D 130

The following multiple-choice question comes from the 

measurement and geometry content area. The question 

required students to determine an angle formed by a 

cross street between two parallel streets.

Sample Multiple-Choice Mathematics Question

Assessment design

Each student received a booklet containing two 

25-minute sections of 17 to 21 mathematics questions. 

Multiple-choice questions required students to select an 

answer from fi ve options, while constructed-response 

questions required students to write either short or 

extended answers. 

Calculators could be used for approximately one-third 

of the assessment. Students were permitted to bring 

whatever calculator they were accustomed to using in 

the classroom (including a graphing calculator) or were 

provided with scientifi c calculators. Graphing calculators were not needed to complete any question on the 

assessment.

70%

79%

71%

75%

DC

Percentage of correct 12th-grade student responses in 2005, 

by region

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

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

Mathematics Assessment.

West Midwest South Northeast

The framework calls for the assessment of mathematics within four content areas and at different levels of 

complexity. The framework specifi es that 10 percent 

of assessment questions should be devoted to number 

properties and operations, 30 percent to measurement 

and geometry, 25 percent to data analysis and probability, and 35 percent to algebra. 

The level of complexity of a question is determined 

by the demands it places on students. According to 

the framework, the ideal balance for the assessment is 

that one-half of the score is based on items of moderate complexity, with the remainder of the score based 

equally on items of low and high complexity. 

Percentage correct overall and at achievement levels in 2005

Overall Below Basic At Basic At Profi cient At Advanced

73 49 83 96 ‡

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size was insuffi cient to permit a reliable estimate.

In addition to the overall percentage of students who 

answered the question correctly, the percentage of students 

at each achievement level who answered correctly is 

presented.

Full information is available for NAEP mathematics 

questions of various types and diffi culty levels at 

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

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 19
20%

24%

24%

24%

DC

Percentage of “Correct” 12th-grade student responses in 2005, 

by region

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

for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Mathematics 

Assessment.

West Midwest South Northeast

Sample Short 

Constructed-Response 

Mathematics Question

The following is a short constructed-response question from 

the algebra content area. The question asked students to 

determine the composition f g of a quadratic function f

and a linear function g. Responses were rated as “Correct,” 

“Partial,” or “Incorrect.” The sample student response below 

was rated “Correct.”

 If ƒ(x) = x2 + x and g(x) = 2x + 7, what is an 

 expression for ƒ(g(x)) ?

Percentage “Correct” overall and at achievement levels in 2005

Overall Below Basic At Basic At Profi cient At Advanced

23 1 16 60 ‡

‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size was insuffi cient to permit a reliable estimate.

20 MATHEMATICS RESULTS
 Calculator available

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 21

1 Page numbers refer to the location in the report where the question 

described is presented.

NOTE: The position of a question on the scale represents the average 

scale score attained by students who had a 65 percent probability of 

correctly answering a constructed-response question, or a 72 percent 

probability of correctly answering a fi ve-option multiple-choice question. 

For constructed-response questions, the question description represents 

students’ performance rated as completely correct. Regular type denotes 

a constructed-response question. Italic type denotes a multiple-choice 

question.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment 

of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 Mathematics Assessment.

Range of Mathematics 

Performance

The item map is a useful tool for better 

understanding what it means to perform 

at different levels on the mathematics 

scale. The left side of the map shows the 

scores that defi ne the lower boundaries 

of the Basic, Profi cient, and Advanced

achievement levels. The right side lists 

descriptions of some selected assessment questions that fall at various levels 

on the 0–300 scale. Using the Pythagorean Theorem to determine the length of 

a hypotenuse (160 on the scale) is an 

example of the knowledge and skills 

demonstrated by students performing 

at the Basic achievement level. An 

example of the knowledge and skills 

demonstrated by students performing at 

the Profi cient level is using trigonometric 

ratios to determine length (205). Note 

that several examples of performance 

below the Basic level are included. For 

example, students who perform below 

Basic are likely to be able to identify a 

graph representing data given in a table 

(100) and to determine which spinner 

probably produced given results (133).

234 Calculate a weighted average for two groups

222 Use survey results to make an inference

221 Identify graph of solution for absolute value inequality

215 Determine which triangle is not a 30-60-90 right triangle

210 Solve a multi-step problem with a rectangle and sphere 

205 Use trigonometric ratios to determine length 

204 Use a spinner to generate data and answer question

202 Determine the initial number of bacteria in a sample 

199 Read and interpret a boxplot

199 Determine proportional enlargement of a photograph 

196 Identify algebraic expressions to represent a situation

195 Determine composition of two functions (page 20)1

184 Find fourth term in numerical sequence 

177 Determine the type of graph to best represent a situation

172 Compute with values from step-function graph

172 Identify effect of changing certain digits on a number’s value

170 Divide numbers given in scientific notation

165 Find the length of the sides of a square

163 Given the graph of f(x), identify the graph of -f(x)

163 Identify the 3-D figure resulting from folding paper

160 Use Pythagorean Theorem to determine length of hypotenuse 

153 Convert a decimal to a fraction

144 Identify solution to graphical system of equations

142 Find the measure of an angle between streets (page 19)1

133 Determine which spinner probably produced given results

118 Identify figure with incorrect line of symmetry shown

100 Identify graph representing data given in a table

Advanced Proficient Basic

216

176

141

300

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

 O

NAEP Mathematics Item Map
Technical Notes

Sampling and weighting

The schools and students participating in NAEP 

assessments are chosen to be nationally representative.

The sample was chosen using a two-stage design that 

involved sampling students from selected schools (public 

and nonpublic) across the country. More information 

on sampling can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/about/nathow.asp. 

Each school that participated in the assessment, and each 

student assessed, represents a portion of the population 

of interest. Results are weighted to make valid inferences 

between the student samples and the respective 

populations from which they are drawn. Sampling 

weights account for disproportionate representation due 

to the oversampling of students who attend schools with 

high concentrations of minority students and students 

who attend nonpublic schools, and also account for 

lower sampling rates for very small schools.

Accommodations

Prior to 1998, no testing accommodations were provided 

in the reading assessment to students with disabilities 

and English language learners. In 1998, administration 

procedures were introduced that allowed the use of 

accommodations, such as extra testing time or individual 

rather than group administration, for a subsample 

of students in the reading assessment. In 1998, two 

samples of students were assessed in reading: one in 

which accommodations were permitted and one in 

which they were not permitted. This made it possible to 

report trends in students’ reading achievement across all 

the assessment years and, at the same time, examine how 

including students assessed with accommodations 

affected overall assessment results. Based on analysis of 

the results, it was decided that, beginning with the 2002 

reading assessment, NAEP would permit the use 

of accommodations for all assessments. In this 

report, the 1998 reading results are presented for both 

samples. For subsequent years, only results from the 

accommodated sample are shown. 

The results for the 2005 mathematics assessment 

are based on administration procedures that allowed 

accommodations. Some accommodations allowed in the 

mathematics assessment were not allowed for reading, 

including read aloud and bilingual booklets. 

Introducing accommodations in the NAEP program 

appears to have had little impact on the percentage of 

students excluded in the reading assessment at grade 12. 

The exclusion rate for reading was 5 percent in 1992 and 

4 percent in 2005. The exclusion rate for mathematics 

was 3 percent in 2005. The results presented in this 

report refl ect the performance of students who could 

be assessed. No attempt was made to infer or include 

performance estimates for students who could not be 

assessed due to a disability or because they were still 

learning English. Additional information on exclusion 

can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/

reading_math_2005/s0093.asp?printver=. 

22 TECHNICAL NOTES
School and student participation rates

To ensure unbiased samples, school participation rates 

need to be at least 85 percent before substitute schools 

are added to meet reporting requirements established by 

NCES and the Governing Board. While participation 

standards were met for public schools at grade 12, they 

were not met for private schools. 

At the student level, response rates at grade 12 fell 

below 85 percent for students in both public and private 

schools. A nonresponse bias analysis showed signifi cant 

differences between responding and nonresponding 

public school students in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, 

age, and English language learner identifi cation. 

Although the differences are quite small, it is unlikely 

that nonresponse weighting adjustments completely 

accounted for these differences.

Results by region of the country

NAEP analyses and reports use the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s defi nition of “region.” The four regions 

defi ned by the U.S. Census Bureau are West, Midwest, 

South, and Northeast. The table to the right shows how 

the 50 states and District of Columbia are subdivided 

into these Census regions. 

The percentages of 12th-graders vary by region. For 

example, of the 12th-graders assessed in 2005 in 

reading and mathematics, 34 percent were in the South, 

23 percent in the Midwest, 23 percent in the West, and 

20 percent in the Northeast.

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD 12TH-GRADE READING AND MATHEMATICS 2005 23

Northeast

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

South

Alabama

Arkansas

Delaware

District of 

 Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Mississippi

North Carolina

Oklahoma

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Virginia

West Virginia

Midwest

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

North Dakota

Ohio

South Dakota

Wisconsin

West

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Hawaii

Idaho

Montana

Nevada

New Mexico

Oregon

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census 

Bureau.
Interpreting statistical signifi cance

Comparisons over time or between groups 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 margins of 

error, and estimates based on smaller groups are likely 

to have larger margins of error. The size of the standard errors may also be infl uenced by other factors 

such as how representative the students assessed 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 signifi cant. Differences of the same magnitude 

may or may not be statistically signifi cant depending 

upon the size of the standard errors of the statistics. 

For example, a 3-point difference between male and 

female students may be statistically signifi cant, while 

a 3-point difference between White and Hispanic 

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, the symbol (*) is used to indicate that a 

score or percentage in a previous assessment year is 

signifi cantly different from the comparable measure 

in 2005. Statistically signifi cant differences between 

groups of students—for example, between White 

students and Black students—are not identifi ed in the 

tables and charts, but they were tested in the same 

way. Any difference between scores or percentages 

that is identifi ed as higher, lower, larger, or smaller in 

this report has been determined to be statistically signifi cant at the .05 level with appropriate adjustments 

for multiple comparisons. See the NAEP website for 

more information about multiple comparison procedures (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/help/

qs/Multiple_Comparison_Procedures.asp).

24 TECHNICAL NOTES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
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. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 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.

T H E N A T I O N ’ S 

REPORT CARD

12th GRADE READING AND 

MATHEMATICS 2005

February 2007

MORE INFORMATION

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 U G G E S T E D 

CITATION

Grigg, W., Donahue, P., 

and Dion, G. (2007).

The Nationís Report Card: 

12th-Grade Reading and 

Mathematics 2005

(NCES 2007ñ468). U.S. 

Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Government Printing Office.

CONTENT CONTACT

Emmanuel Sikali

202-502-7419

emmanuel.sikali@ed.gov

“ O U R M I S S I O N I S T O E N S U R E E Q U A L A C C E S S T O E D U C A T I O N A N D T O 

PROMOTE EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE THROUGHOUT THE NATION.”

THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD

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

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

Report Card TM. 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 and 

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 

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

University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois

Alan J. Friedman 

Consultant

Museum Development and Science 

Communications

New York, New York 

David W. Gordon 

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 

Denver, Colorado

Kim Kozbial-Hess 

Fourth-Grade Teacher

Hawkins Elementary School

Toledo, Ohio

James S. Lanich 

President 

California Business for Educational 

Excellence

Sacramento, California 

Honorable Cynthia Nava 

Senator 

New Mexico State Senate 

Las Cruces, New Mexico 

Andrew C. Porter 

Director, Learning Sciences Institute 

Vanderbilt University, 

Peabody College 

Nashville, Tennessee 

Luis A. Ramos 

Community Relations Manager

PPL Susquehanna

Berwick, Pennsylvania 

Mary Frances Taymans, SND

Executive Director

National Catholic Education 

Association 

Washington, D.C.

Oscar A. Troncoso

Principal

Socorro High School

El Paso, Texas

Honorable Michael E. Ward 

Associate Professor of 

Educational Leadership

Department of Educational 

Leadership and Research

The University of Southern 

Mississippi

Hattiesburg, Mississippi

Eileen L. Weiser 

Member, State Board of 

Education 

Michigan Department of 

Education

Ann Arbor, 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.