Achievement Gaps

How Hispanic and White Students in Public Schools 

Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress

Statistical Analysis Report

NCES 2011-459 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Achievement Gaps

How Hispanic and White Students 

in Public Schools Perform in 

Mathematics and Reading on 

the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress

Statistical Analysis Report

June 2011

F. Cadelle Hemphill

Alan Vanneman

NAEP Education Statistics Services Institute

Taslima Rahman

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2011-459
U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan 

Secretary	

Institute of Education Sciences 

John Q. Easton 

Director	

National Center for Education Statistics 

Jack Buckley 

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to 

education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning 

and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on 

education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, 

the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our 

customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about 

this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to

National Center for Education Statistics 

Institute of Education Sciences 

U.S. Department of Education 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006-5651

June 2011

The NCES Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES Publications and Products address is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-05-R0014 with the American 

Institutes for Research.

Suggested Citation

Hemphill, F.C., and Vanneman, A. (2011). Achievement	Gaps:	How	Hispanic	and	White	Students	in	Public	Schools	Perform	in	Mathematics	

and	Reading	on	the	National	Assessment	of	Educational	Progress (NCES 2011-459). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 

For ordering information on this report, write to

ED Pubs 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 22207 

Alexandria, VA 22304

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.gov.

Content Contact

Taslima Rahman 

(202) 502-7316 

taslima.rahman@ed.gov

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a congressionally mandated project of the U.S. Department of Education, informs the 

public periodically about the academic achievement of elementary and secondary students in reading, mathematics, science, writing and other 

subjects. Only information related to academic achievement and relevant variables is collected under this program from students representing the 

country. By making objective information available on performance of all race/ethnic groups at the national and state levels, NAEP is an integral part 

of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education. While the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute 

of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education conducts the survey, the National Assessment Governing Board oversees and sets 

policies for NAEP.
iii 

Executive Summary

This report provides detailed information on the size 

of the achievement gaps between Hispanic and White 

public school students at the national and state levels 

and describes how those achievement gaps have changed 

over time. Additional information about race/ethnicity 

in NAEP is given in appendix A. Most of the data in this 

report is derived from the results of the 2009 National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) main assessments in mathematics and reading; however the trend 

data provided is derived from results from as early as 

1990. Achievement Gaps: How Hispanic and White Students

in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on

the National Assessment of Educational Progress, follows 

our previous report that provided similar information on 

the achievement gap between Black and White students 

(Vanneman et al. 2009).

Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the United 

States population. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data 

(Guzman 2001), the Hispanic1

 population increased by about 

58 percent, from 22 million in 1990 to 35 million in 2000, 

compared with an increase of about 13 percent for the total 

U.S. population. In 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated 

the number of Hispanics to be about 50.5 million, or about 

16 percent of the U.S. population, up 43 percent from the 

2000 census. The increase of over 15 million Hispanics from 

2000 to 2010 accounted for more than half of the total population increase in the U.S. during that time (Humes, Jones, 

and Ramirez 2011). As these data reflect, the proportion of 

the U.S. population that is Hispanic is increasing over time. 

Additionally, data collected in 2009 by the U.S. Department 

of Education indicate that a substantial proportion of 

Hispanic students in grades 4 (37 percent) and 8 (21 percent) 

are English language learners (table 2). These two facts—the 

growing size of the Hispanic population in the United States 

and the percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade Hispanic 

students that are English language learners—underlie the 

achievement gap between Hispanic and White fourth- and 

1

 According to the U.S. Census, Hispanics or Latinos are those people who classified themselves in one of the specific Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino categories 

listed on the Census 2010 questionnaire. People who identify their origin as 

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race. For further information see 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population, Public Law 94-171 Redistricting 

Data File. Available online: http://factfinder2.census.gov.

eighth-graders. Closing the Hispanic-White achievement 

gap remains a challenge. While Hispanic students’ average 

scores have increased across the assessment years, White 

students had higher scores, on average, on all assessments.

The NAEP 2009 Reading and Mathematics Assessments 

included grade 4 and grade 8 students nationally and for 

all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia and the 

Department of Defense Education Activity (hereinafter 

referred to as states).2

Mathematics

In 2009, NAEP mathematics scores for both Hispanic and 

White students in grades 4 and 8 nationwide were higher 

than in 1990, the first assessment year for both Hispanic and 

2

 Not all states had Hispanic (or White) student populations large enough to provide reliable data, and not all states participated in the earliest NAEP assessments.

Table A. Trends in NAEP mathematics 

at grades 4 and 8 since earliest 

comparison year, by grade and 

student group: 2009

Scores

Gap Hispanic White

4th Grade

National Public

Gender

Male

Female

NSLP1

Eligible

Not Eligible

8th Grade

National Public

Gender

Male

Female

NSLP1

Eligible Narrowed

Not Eligible

 no significant change in score gap.

 increased score.

1 National School Lunch Program

NOTE: Comparison year for National Public and Gender is 1990; NSLP comparisons 

are made to 2003.

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

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

Various years: 1990-2009 Mathematics Assessments.
iv 

White public school students. Mathematics scores increased, 

but the achievement gap between Hispanic and White 

students did not change significantly at either grade 4 or 8 

from 1990 to 2009. From 2007 to 2009, scores for Hispanic 

and White fourth-graders remained unchanged and the gap 

persisted at 21 points. For eighth-graders, scores increased 

for both Hispanic and White students from 2007 to 2009, but 

the gap remained at 26 points, which was not significantly 

different from the gap in 1990 or 2007. At grade 8, the 2009 

mathematics achievement gap for Hispanic and White students eligible for the National School Lunch Program was 

narrower than in 2003 (table A).

n	 In 2009 at grade 4, eleven states had a smaller HispanicWhite gap than the nation, and six states had a gap that 

was larger (table B).

Table B. State gaps in mathematics compared 

to the nation: 2009

National 

Hispanic-White 

gap

States with gaps that are:

Smaller than nation Larger than nation

Grade 4 21 points AK, DoDEA,1 FL, GA, 

KY, LA, MO, MT, 

NY, OK, WY

CA, CT, DC, MA, 

RI, UT

Grade 8 26 points AK, AR, DE, 

DoDEA,1 FL, GA, HI, 

IN, KY, MI, MO, OK, 

TN, VA, WY

CA, CO, CT, NY, 

RI, WA

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

NOTE: Gaps are significantly different (p<.05) from the national gap.

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

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

2009 Mathematics Assessment.

Table C. State trends in mathematics score 

gaps: Various years, 1990–2009

Since first assessment Since 2007

Grade 4

Narrowed CT, DC, DE, DoDEA,1 MA, 

MI, MO, NJ, NY, OR, RI

None

Widened None RI, TX

Grade 8

Narrowed CT, DE, HI, MO, RI AR, DE

Widened MD, UT None

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

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

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

various years, 1990-2009 Mathematics Assessments.

n	 At grade 4, in all 21 states for which 1992 data were 

available, both Hispanic and White students achieved 

higher average scores in mathematics in 2009 than in 

1992. In six of those states (Connecticut, the District of 

Columbia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and 

Rhode Island) the gap narrowed as Hispanic students’ 

scores increased more than White students’ scores. 

In five additional states (Delaware, the Department 

of Defense Education Activity, Michigan, Missouri, 

and Oregon) the gap narrowed between Hispanic and 

White students since the first NAEP assessment year 

for that state or the first year for which Hispanic student 

results are reportable. Since all states did not participate 

in the grade 4 NAEP mathematics assessment in 1992, 

the first NAEP assessment year varies (table C). 

n	 In 2009 at grade 8, fifteen states had a smaller HispanicWhite gap than the nation, and six had a gap that was 

larger (table B).

n	 At grade 8, in 14 of the 15 states for which 1990 data 

were available, the mathematics scores of Hispanic and 

White students were higher in 2009 than in 1990. In 

both Connecticut and Rhode Island, the gap was narrower in 2009 than in 1990. In three additional states, 

Delaware, Hawaii, and Missouri, the gap narrowed 

between Hispanic and White students since the first 

year for which Hispanic student results are reportable.

n	 In Maryland, the gap was wider in 2009 than in 1990, as 

White eighth-graders’ scores increased more than those 

of their Hispanic peers. In Utah, the gap was wider 

in 2009 than in 1992, the first NAEP assessment year 

for that state. Since all states did not participate in the 

grade 8 NAEP mathematics assessment in 1990, the first 

NAEP assessment year varies (table C). 

n	 Hispanic-White mathematics gap data were not available in 2009 for fourth graders in Maine, Mississippi, 

North Dakota, Vermont, or West Virginia, or for eighthgraders in the District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maine, 

Mississippi, North Dakota, Vermont, or West Virginia 

because the size of the NAEP sample of Hispanic or 

White students was too small to provide reliable results.
v 

Reading

At the national level, reading scores increased for both 

groups significantly, but the achievement gap between 

Hispanic and White students did not change for fourth- or 

eighth-graders when comparing 1992 to 2009. From 2007 

to 2009, scores did not change significantly for either group 

at the fourth grade. The 26-point gap for fourth-graders in 

2007 was not significantly different from the 25-point gap 

in 2009. The 25-point gap for eighth-graders in 2007 was 

not significantly different from the 24-point gap in 2009, 

though scores for both Hispanic and White students have 

increased. At grades 4 and 8, the 2009 reading achievement gap for Hispanic and White students eligible for the 

National School Lunch Program was narrower than in 

2003 (table D). 

n	 At grade 4, thirteen states had a smaller HispanicTable D. Trends in NAEP reading at grades 4 

and 8 since earliest comparison year, 

by grade and student group: 2009

Scores

Gap Hispanic White

4th Grade

National Public

Gender

Male

Female

NSLP1

Eligible Narrowed

Not Eligible

8th Grade

National Public

Gender

Male

Female

NSLP1

Eligible Narrowed

Not Eligible

 no significant change in score or score gap.

 increased score.

1 National School Lunch Program

NOTE: Comparison year for National Public and Gender is 1990; NSLP comparisons 

are made to 2003.

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

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

Various years: 1992-2009 Reading Assessments.

White gap than the nation, and six had a gap that was 

larger (table E).

n	 At grade 4, in 11 of the 21 states for which 1992 data were 

available, the reading scores of Hispanic and White students were higher in 2009 than in 1992. Both New Jersey 

and New York had a narrower gap in 2009 than 1992. In 

Colorado, the gap widened when comparing 2009 to 1992. 

In Indiana the gap widened between Hispanic and White 

students when comparing 2009 to 2002, the first NAEP 

assessment year for which Hispanic student results are 

reportable for that state. All states did not participate in the 

first grade 4 state NAEP reading assessment in 1992, so the 

first year for which data were available varies (table F).

n	 At grade 8, seven states had a smaller Hispanic-White 

gap than the nation, and no state had a gap that was 

larger (table E).

Table E. State gaps in reading compared to 

the nation: 2009

National 

Hispanic-White 

gap

States with gaps that are:

Smaller than nation Larger than nation

Grade 4 25 points AK, DE, DoDEA,1 FL, 

HI, IA, KY, LA, MD, 

MO, MT, SD, WY

CA, CO, CT, DC, 

MN, UT

Grade 8 24 points AK, DoDEA,1 FL, KY, 

MO, SC, WY

None

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

NOTE: Gaps are significantly different (p<.05) from the national gap.

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

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

2009 Reading Assessment.

Table F. State trends in reading score gaps: 

Various years, 1992–2009

Since first assessment Since 2007

Grade 4

Narrowed NJ, NY AK

Widened CO, IN None

Grade 8

Narrowed AK RI, SC, WY

Widened None None

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

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

various years, 1992-2009 Reading Assessments.
vi 

n At grade 8 state-level data were available for 22 states 

starting in 1998. When comparing 2009 to 1998, the 

grade 8 reading gap did not change significantly in any 

state. In Wyoming, both Hispanic and White students 

scored higher in 2009 than in 1998. In Alaska, the gap 

narrowed between Hispanic and White students when 

comparing 2009 to 2003, the first NAEP assessment year 

for that state. All states did not participate in the first 

grade 8 state NAEP reading assessment in 1998, so the 

first year for which data were available varies (table F ).

n Hispanic-White reading gap data were not available 

in 2009 for fourth-graders in Maine, North Dakota, 

Vermont, or West Virginia, or for eighth-graders in the 

District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, or 

West Virginia because the size of the NAEP sample of 

Hispanic and White students was too small to provide 

reliable results.

The NAEP reading and mathematics scales make it 

possible to examine relationships between students’ performance and various background factors measured by 

NAEP, such as race. However, a relationship that exists 

between achievement and another variable does not reveal 

its underlying cause, which may be influenced by a number of other variables. Similarly, the assessments do not 

reflect the influence of unmeasured variables. The results 

are most useful when they are considered in combination 

with other information about the student population and 

the education system, such as trends in instruction, changes 

in the school-age population, and societal demands and 

expectations.

All differences discussed in this report are significant at the 

.05 level after controlling for multiple comparisons. The 

technical notes for this report provide information about 

sampling, accommodations, interpreting statistical significance, and other technical features.
vii 
viii 
ix 

Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The distribution of the Hispanic population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Understanding score gaps and the ways gaps can change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Understanding statistical significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Cautions in interpreting the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

How this report is organized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

NAEP Mathematics

National Results for Hispanic and White Fourth- and Eighth-Graders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Mathematics scores and achievement gaps in the nation, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by gender, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Mathematics scores and gaps by family income, 2003–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps by ELL status, 1996–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

State Results for Hispanic and White Fourth- and Eighth-Graders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4, 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8, 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Mathematics Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

National trends in mathematics, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

State achievement gaps in mathematics, compared to the nation, 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

State trends in mathematics, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

NAEP Reading 

National Results for Hispanic and White Fourth- and Eighth-Graders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Reading scores and achievement gaps in the nation, 1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Reading scores and achievement gaps by gender, 1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Reading scores and gaps by family income, 2003–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps by ELL status at grades 4 and 8, 1998–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

State Results for Hispanic and White Fourth- and Eighth-Graders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 4, 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 8, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Reading Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

National trends in reading, 1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

State achievement gaps in reading, compared to the nation, 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

State trends in reading, 1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
x 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Appendix A: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Frameworks, development, administration, scoring, and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Sources of the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

NAEP sampling procedures for public school students in reading and mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

School and student participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Understanding NAEP reporting groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

National School Lunch Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Inclusion and exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Accommodations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Drawing inferences from the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Weighting and variance estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Analyzing group differences in averages and percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Conducting multiple tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Cautions in interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Appendix B: Supplemental Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
xi 

List of Tables

Table Page

A. Trends in NAEP mathematics at grades 4 and 8 since earliest comparison year, by grade and student 

group: 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

B. State gaps in mathematics compared to the nation: 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

C. State trends in mathematics score gaps: Various years, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

D. Trends in NAEP reading at grades 4 and 8 since earliest comparison year, by grade and student group: 2009. . v

E. State gaps in reading compared to the nation: 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

F. State trends in reading score gaps: Various years, 1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

1. Percentage of public school students assessed in NAEP mathematics eligible for the National School 

Lunch Program, by race/ethnicity and grade: Various years, 2003–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. Percentage of public school English language learner students assessed in NAEP mathematics, 

by race/ethnicity and grade: Various years, 1996–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3. Percentage of public school students assessed in NAEP reading eligible for the National School Lunch 

Program, by race/ethnicity and grade: Various years, 2003–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4. Percentage of public school English language learner students assessed in NAEP reading, 

by race/ethnicity and grade: Various years, 1998–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

A-1. School and student participation rates, and target student population, grade 8 reading assessment, public 

school students only, by state or jurisdiction: 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

A-2. National mathematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample, public schools only, 

by grade and race/ethnicity: 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

A-3. Mathematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample, public schools only, by grade, 

race/ethnicity, and jurisdiction: 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

B-1. Administration of NAEP national and state mathematics assessments, by grade: Various years, 1990–2009. . 76

B-2. Average national mathematics scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and 8, by gender and 

eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

B-3. Administration of NAEP national and state reading assessments, by grade: Various years, 1992–2009. . . . . 77

B-4. Average national mathematics scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and 8, by gender and 

eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

B-5. Percentages of public school students in NAEP mathematics and reading classified as English language 

learners, by subject, grade, race/ethnicity, and jurisdiction: 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

B-6. Percentages of public school students in NAEP mathematics and reading classified as eligible for a free or 

reduced-price school lunch, by subject, grade, race/ethnicity, and jurisdiction: 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

 
xii 
xiii 

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. Percentage of Hispanic public school students in the NAEP reading assessment at grade 4, by state: 

2003 and 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Hispanic and English language learner population in NAEP reading in selected states at grade 4: 2009. . . . . . . 3

3. Administration of main NAEP national and state mathematics and reading assessments: Various years, 

1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. Ways gaps can narrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 4: 

Various years, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 8: 

Various years, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

7. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 4, 

by gender: Various years, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 8, 

by gender: Various years, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

9. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 4, 

by eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 2003–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

10. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 8, 

by eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 2003–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

11. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 4, 

by English language learner status: Various years, 1996–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

12. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 8, 

by English language learner status: Various years, 1996–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

13. The Hispanic-White achievement score gap in mathematics for public school students at grade 4, by state: 

2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

14. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 4, 

by state: Various years, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

15. The Hispanic-White achievement score gap in mathematics for public school students at grade 8, 

by state: 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

16. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 8, 

by state: Various years, 1990–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

17. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 4: 

Various years, 1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

18. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 8: 

Various years, 1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

19. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 4, by gender: 

Various years, 1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

20. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 8, by gender: 

Various years, 1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

21. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 4, 

by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: Various years, 2003–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
xiv 

22. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 8, 

by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: Various years, 2003–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

23. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 4, by English 

language learner status: Various years, 1998–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

24. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 8, by English 

language learner status: Various years, 1998–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

25. The Hispanic-White achievement score gap in reading for public school students at grade 4, by state: 2009. . 45

26. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 4, by state: 

Various years, 1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

27. The Hispanic-White achievement score gap in reading for public school students at grade 8, by state: 2009. . 53

28. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at grade 8, by state: 

Various years, 1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure Page
1 

I

When the earliest National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) reading assessment was administered in 

1971, no separate scores were recorded for any racial/ethnic 

groups except White and Black students. Together, these 

two groups included about 98 percent of all U.S. students 

surveyed by NAEP (Campbell, Hombo, and Mazzeo 2000). 

All other students, constituting two percent of the population, were classified as “Other.” In 2009, at the fourth grade, 

56 percent of all U.S. students were White, 16 percent Black, 

21 percent Hispanic, 5 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1 

percent American Indian/Alaska Native, according to 2009 

NAEP Mathematics Assessment data. In less than 40 years, 

Hispanic students have gone from being an almost unobserved racial/ethnic group to the largest, and fastest growing, 

racial/ethnic group in the United States (Humes, Jones, and 

Ramirez 2011). In three states—New Mexico, California 

and Texas—about 50 percent of the fourth-grade population is of Hispanic descent. Figure 1 shows the change in the 

percentage of Hispanic students in grade 4 from 2003 to 2009 

based on NAEP reading data.

As measured by NAEP, the educational performance of 

Hispanic students has generally lagged behind the performance of White students. The gap in scores between White 

and Hispanic students in mathematics in 1990, when the 

current main NAEP mathematics assessment was first 

administered, was not significantly different from the gap in 

scores in 2009, for either grade 4 or grade 8 (National Center 

for Education Statistics 2009). The same is true in reading, 

comparing results in 2009 with the scores for 1992, when the 

current main NAEP reading assessment was first administered (National Center for Education Statistics 2010). At 

the state level, in 2009 gaps between Hispanic and White 

students were statistically significant in almost every state 

for which reliable results were available in both reading and 

mathematics at both grades 4 and 8.

The major questions addressed in this study are:

1) How do score gaps in 2009 mathematics and reading performance compare to the gaps in the initial and most recent 

prior years of the NAEP national and state assessment 

series?

ntroduction

2) How do Hispanic and White scores and gaps in mathematics 

and reading at the state level compare to the national scores 

and gaps in 2009?

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

intended to improve the education achievement of low-performing students in reading and mathematics. Subsequent 

reauthorizations of the act have reaffirmed the importance 

of closing the achievement gaps. This report uses NAEP 

data to examine the progress of the nation and each of the 

states in reducing the gap between Hispanic and White 

students at grades 4 and 8 in both reading and mathematics. Because NAEP is designed to report results for public 

school students at the state level, all of the results that 

appear in the body of this report, including national results, 

are for public school students only. 

Issues relating to the Hispanic-White achievement gap 

have been addressed by a number of recent studies. 

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic 

Groups (KewalRamani, Fox, and Aud 2010), issued by the 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), examined the educational performance and attainment of all 

major racial and ethnic groups in the United States from 

prekindergarten through the postsecondary level, along 

with employment and income data for these groups. The 

report identified a variety of factors that may be associated 

with the achievement gap between Hispanic and White 

students. For example, Hispanic students were more likely 

than White students to come from low-income families 

(as defined by student eligibility for the National School 

Lunch Program), which is associated with lower educational performance. Other reports have also used NAEP 

data, as well as data from other sources, in analyses to 

identify important factors related to the Hispanic-White 

achievement gap. Parsing the Achievement Gap II (Barton 

and Coley 2009) examined educational achievement gaps in 

terms of differences in life experiences among racial/ethnic 

and socioeconomic subgroups that could affect differences 

in academic achievement. The report also reviewed student performance over time to determine if the gaps were 

changing. Latinos and Education: Explaining the Attainment 

Gap (Lopez 2009), a national survey of Latinos, concluded 
2 

that the biggest reason for the relatively 

limited educational attainment of many 

Latinos was due to a decision to discontinue education in order to support a family. Many Latinos also discontinued their 

education because of poor English skills 

or a dislike of school, the study said. How 

Far Behind in Math and Reading are English 

Language Learners? (Fry 2007) examined 

the performance of English language learners, using NAEP data supplemented with 

results from selected state assessments. The 

Family: America’s Smallest School (Barton 

and Coley 2007) examined the effects of 

children’s home life on academic performance of Hispanic and other students in 

terms of such factors as out-of-wedlock 

births, two-parent versus one-parent families, family income, home literacy development, child care, educational resources in 

the home, and the parent-school relationship. In many cases, Hispanic children 

were more likely than White children to 

be raised in circumstances associated with 

below average academic performance—

lack of two parents in the home, for example, or low family income, or access to 

quality day care. Hispanics and the Future of 

America (National Research Council 2006) 

analyzed data from a variety of sources 

to identify differences, if any, between 

Hispanics and other immigrant and 

minority groups. The report also discussed 

the likelihood of social integration of both 

immigrant and native-born Hispanics. 

Introduction

Figure 1. Percentage of Hispanic public school students 

in the NAEP reading assessment at grade 4, by 

state: 2003 and 2009

2003

AL

1%

AK

4%

AZ

36%

AR

4%

CA

47%

CO

23%

FL 

21%

GA

6%

HI

3%

ID

13%

IL

16%

IN

5%

IA

5%

KS

8% KY

1%

LA

1%

ME

1%

MA

11%

MI

5%

MN

4%

MS

1%

MO

3%

MT

2%

NE

9% NV

28%

NH

2%

NM

51%

NY

21%

NC

6%

ND

2%

OH

2%

OK

7%

OR

14%

PA

4%

SC

3%

SD

2%

TN

2%

TX

42%

UT

11%

VT

1%

VA

5%

WA

12%

WV

#

WI

WY 6%

8%

National Public

18%

2009

0–5% Hispanic 6–10% Hispanic 11–15% Hispanic 16–25% Hispanic 26+% Hispanic

National Public

21%

CT

14%

MD

5%

NJ

16%

DE

8%

RI

18%

DC

9%

DoDEA

14%

AL

4%

AK

7%

AZ

45%

AR

8%

CA

51%

CO

29%

FL 

24%

GA

10%

HI

3%

ID

13%

IL

21%

IN

6%

IA

7%

KS

14% KY

3%

LA

3%

ME

1%

MA

17%

MI

5%

MN

7%

MS

2%

MO

4%

MT

3%

NE

15% NV

39%

NH

3%

NM

56%

NY

19%

NC

10%

ND

2%

OH

3%

OK

9%

OR

16%

PA

8%

SC

5%

SD

3%

TN

5%

TX

49%

UT

15%

VT

1%

VA

8%

WA

18%

WV

1%

WI

WY 9%

10% CT

16%

MD

10%

NJ

19%

DE

12%

RI

18%

DC

11%

DoDEA

16%

# Rounds to zero.

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

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 and 2009 Reading Assessments.
3 

The distribution of the Hispanic 

population

Hispanics are the second largest racial/ethnic group in the 

United States, comprising 16 percent of the nation’s population in 2010. This was an increase of 43 percent compared 

to 2000, when Hispanics constituted 12.5 percent of the 

population (Humes, Jones, and Ramirez 2011).

The concentration of the Hispanic population varies 

by region. In 2010, the West had a higher percentage 

of its population who were Hispanic—29 percent. In 

contrast, in the Midwest the population was 7 percent 

Hispanic. In the South the percentage was 16 percent; 

in the Northeast, 13 percent. New Mexico was the state 

with the largest percentage of its population who were 

Hispanic (46 percent). Other states with large percentages included California and Texas (both 38 percent). 

California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas are 

the five states with the largest number of Hispanics (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2010).

A large percentage of the Hispanic population is foreign 

born—44 percent in 2007, as compared to 14 percent for 

the entire U.S. population. In addition, 11 percent of the 

Hispanic population under 18 was foreign born in 2007. 

Approximately 65 percent of those who were under 18 and 

foreign born were Mexican, while about 9 percent were 

South American, 8 percent were Puerto Rican, 4 percent 

were Dominican, 3 percent were Salvadoran, 6 percent 

were Other Central American, and about 3 percent each 

were Cuban and Other Hispanic/Latino (KewalRamani, 

Fox, and Aud 2010).

Mexican American students, whether foreign born or 

native to the United States, made up about two thirds 

of Hispanic eighth-graders in public schools nationally 

in 2009, according to data collected by the 2009 NAEP 

Reading Assessment. They also constituted about 80 percent of Hispanic eighth-graders in California, Illinois, and 

Texas. In Florida, about 18 percent of the Hispanic population were Mexican American, and in New York about 11 

percent. About 23 percent of Hispanic students in Florida 

were Cuban American.

Figure 2. Hispanic and English language learner population in NAEP reading in selected states at 

grade 4: 2009

0

20

40

60

Percent

51

29

24

6

21

7

19

7

49

17

Hispanic ELL Hispanic ELL Hispanic ELL Hispanic ELL Hispanic ELL

California

Florida

Illinois

New York

Texas

NOTE: Other states may have higher Hispanic population density. ELL includes Hispanic and non-Hispanic students.

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

Assessment.
4 

Thirty-five percent of all Hispanic fourth-graders and 

20 percent of all Hispanic eighth-graders were identified 

as English language learners (ELL) in the 2009 NAEP 

Reading Assessment, compared to 9 percent and 5 percent, 

respectively, for all students (including Hispanics) at the 

two grades. Figure 2 shows the percentage of Hispanic and 

ELL students at grade 4 in the five states with the largest 

Hispanic population. 

In 1998, the first year for which the NAEP Reading 

Assessment has separate data for ELL Hispanic students, 

22 percent of Hispanic students were ELL at grade 4. 

Fifteen percent at grade 8 were ELL. In 2009, the percentages for ELL Hispanic students were 35 percent at grade 

4 and 20 percent at grade 8. The differences between the 

percentages for 1998 and 2009 are only statistically significant at grade 4.

In this report, the performances of ELL and non-ELL 

Hispanic students are compared to each other, and the 

performance of non-ELL Hispanic students is compared to that of White students, using national NAEP 

data (1996–2009 in mathematics, 1998–2009 in reading). 

Because the percentage of ELL White students is so small 

(one percent or less), all references to White students will 

include both ELL and non-ELL White students unless 

otherwise noted. 

The data

This report compares national public school student performance for Hispanic and White students in mathematics and reading for 2009 to their performance in all prior 

NAEP assessments. NAEP state-level assessments were 

introduced in different years during the 1990s. Therefore, 

state-level comparisons go back to 1990 for grade 8 mathematics, to 1992 for grade 4 reading and mathematics, and 

to 1998 for grade 8 reading (figure 3). 

NAEP assessments allow the examination of trends in the 

Hispanic and White performance gap in every state, plus 

the District of Columbia and the Department of Defense 

Education Activity (DoDEA) schools. Discussion of NAEP 

grade 12 assessments is omitted in this report because these 

assessments were conducted at the national level only prior 

to 2009. Additional information on the national and state 

assessments is given in appendix A.

All data presented in this report are for public school students only. NAEP provides national results for both public 

and private school students, but NAEP state results are 

for public school students only. To maintain consistency of 

data for comparison purposes, this report uses only public 

school data at the national level as well.

Hispanic-White achievement gaps results for NAEP have 

been available to users in two ways: 1) online, using the NAEP 

Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

naepdata/, and 2) in print, in the report cards for a given 

assessment. Achievement Gaps: How Hispanic and White 

Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and 

Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

is the first NCES publication to present the Hispanic and 

White NAEP achievement gaps across time for all the 

states and the nation, including results for every assessment 

year since state assessments began.

NAEP does not have Hispanic-White gap data for all 

states going back to the 1990 mathematics and 1992 

reading assessments. The 2001 reauthorization of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act required each 

state to participate in the NAEP mathematics and reading 

assessments if they were to receive Title I education funding (Public Law 107-110 Title I Part A, Sec. 1111), effective 

in 2003. Prior to the passage of the Act, participation was 

voluntary and about 40 states participated in each assessment. (In this report, “state” and “jurisdiction” will be 

used interchangeably to refer to the 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the DoDEA schools.) Beginning in 2003, 

all 52 states have participated in all NAEP reading and 

mathematics assessments.

In addition, in many states NAEP did not obtain samples 

for Hispanic students large enough to permit the reporting 

Introduction
5 

Figure 3. Administration of main NAEP national and state mathematics and reading assessments: 

Various years, 1990–2009

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

Mathematics

4th Grade

National U U U U U U U U

State U U U U U U U

8th Grade

National U U U U U U U U

State U U U U U U U U

Reading

4th Grade

National U U U U U U U U U

State U U U U U U U U

8th Grade

National U U U U U U U U

State U U U U U U

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

1990–2009 Assessments.

of reliable results for the early assessments. For example, at 

grade 4 in mathematics, results for Hispanic students were 

not reported for 21 states in the state’s first assessment. In 

the most recent NAEP mathematics assessment in 2009, 

there were only five states without results for Hispanic 

students.

Since 1996 (1998 at the state level), students receiving 

accommodations on their state assessment received the 

same accommodations on NAEP, except where an accommodation would change the nature of what is being tested 

(see appendix A for details). The 2009 mathematics assessment results are based on nationally representative samples 

of 168,800 fourth-graders and 161,700 eighth-graders. The 

reading assessment results are based on nationally representative samples of 178,800 fourth-graders and 160,900 

eighth-graders. The main NAEP samples are large because 

they include representative samples for the 52 states. These 

samples are weighted to compensate for undersampling of 

the states with large populations and oversampling of the 

states with small populations, as well as oversampling of 

schools with high concentrations of students from certain 

racial/ethnic groups and the lower sampling rates of students who attend very small schools.

NAEP assessments are conducted in a six-week window 

starting in January of each assessment year. Scores for reading and mathematics cannot be compared because the two 

assessments are scaled independently. In addition, comparisons cannot be made across grades in a single subject, 

because the fourth- and eighth-grade assessments contain 

different questions and thus students in the two grades are 

not taking the same assessment. See appendix A for more 

details.

Understanding score gaps and the 

ways gaps can change

The achievement gap between Hispanic and White 

students is defined as the difference between the average score for White students and the average score for 

Hispanic students. Comparisons are made for main 
6 

NAEP between the most recent assessment year (2009) 

and all previous assessment years. Only differences 

between 2009 and the earliest assessment year, and 

between 2009 and 2007, are discussed in the text, unless 

a score for 2009 is different from all previous assessment 

years. The figures indicate all previous assessment scores 

that differ from 2009.

Changes in the size of the achievement gap depend on 

changes in the average scores for Hispanic and White 

students. Generally, increasing scores and narrowing gaps 

are seen as desirable, while decreasing scores and widening gaps are seen as undesirable. However, it is possible 

for the Hispanic-White gap to widen when scores for both 

Hispanic students and White students increase, if scores 

for White students increase more than scores for Hispanic 

students. And it is also possible for the gap to narrow 

when scores for both Hispanic and White students decline, 

if scores for White students decline more than scores for 

Introduction

Figure 4. Ways gaps can narrow

The average scores of both groups increase, 

while the score of the lower performing group 

increases even more. 

The average score of the higher performing 

group does not change, while the score of the 

lower performing group increases.

The average score of the higher performing 

group declines, while the score of the lower 

performing group increases.

The average score of the higher performing 

group declines, while the score of the lower 

performing group does not change.

The average scores of both groups decline, 

but the score of the higher performing group 

declines even more. 

The average scores of both groups do not 

change significantly, but the combined effect 

causes a significant narrowing of the gap.

Hispanic students. Figure 4 illustrates the various ways 

that gaps can narrow.

It is important to note that although NAEP data can identify gaps and changes in gaps, these data cannot explain 

why gaps exist or why they change. NAEP assessments are 

designed to measure student performance and identify factors associated with it, not to identify or explain the causes 

of differences in student performance.

Understanding statistical significance

NAEP data are based on samples of students, and the results 

are subject to sampling and measurement error. Statistical 

tests are used to determine whether the differences 

between average scores are statistically significant, that is, 

whether they exceed the margin of error. It is possible for 

the size of the achievement gap to increase or decrease even 

though the average scores of neither Hispanic nor White 

students changed significantly during the same period.

In several states in 2009, the difference in scores for 

Hispanic and White students was not statistically significant—that is, the score difference was not greater than 

zero—meaning that there was no achievement gap. In 

some cases, an apparently large difference in one state 

may not be statistically significant, while an apparently 

smaller difference in another state may be statistically 

significant. This is because findings of statistically significant differences are a function of both the differences 

in scores and the standard errors associated with those 

scores. An apparently large score difference may prove 

not to be statistically significant if the standard errors 

involved are large as well. The size of the standard error 

associated with a NAEP scale score is a function, among 

other things, of the size of the sample and the degree of 

variability of performance in the sample, as measured by 

the standard deviation, i.e. the square root of the variance, which is the average of the squared deviations of 

performances from the mean or average score. The size 

of the standard errors may also be influenced by other 

factors, such as how representative the assessed students 
7 

are of the entire population. For all these reasons, a score 

difference that is found to be significant in one state may 

not be found to be significant in another.

The term “significant” is not intended to imply a judgment about the absolute magnitude or the educational 

relevance of the differences. It is intended to identify 

statistically reliable population differences to help inform 

discussion among policymakers, educators, researchers, 

and the public.

Beginning in 2002, the main NAEP national sample was 

obtained by aggregating the samples from each state, 

rather than by using an independently selected national 

sample. As a result, the national samples in mathematics 

and reading were larger in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 than 

in previous assessment years. In addition, the percentage of 

Hispanic students both nationally and in many states has 

been increasing since the first assessments in 1990 and 1992, 

tending to increase the size of the sample for Hispanic 

students in recent years. Thus, smaller score differences 

between years or between student groups were found to be 

statistically significant than would have been detected in 

previous assessments. All differences discussed in the text 

are significant at the .05 level with appropriate adjustments 

for part-to-whole and multiple comparisons. See appendix 

A for more details.

Statistical comparisons of NAEP scores from different 

assessment years are “pairwise” comparisons, with appropriate multiple comparison adjustments. In figures 13, 

15, 25, and 27, comparisons of the size of the HispanicWhite achievement gap for each state to the national gap 

are made using pairwise comparisons with part-to-whole 

adjustments, where each state is compared to the nation 

one at a time.

Cautions in interpreting the data

All results given here are in terms of average scores, 

which reflect a wide range of student performance. Many 

Hispanic students score above the average for White students and many White students score below the average 

for Hispanic students. For detailed information on variations in performance, including standard deviations, consult the NAEP Data Explorer online at http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/naepdata/.

The analysis of NAEP data contained in this report 

should not be seen to imply causal relations. Simple crosstabulations of a variable with measures of educational 

achievement, like the ones presented here, cannot be considered as evidence that differences in the variable cause 

differences in educational achievement. As noted earlier, 

NAEP surveys are not designed to identify causal relationships. There are many possible reasons why the performance of one group of students will differ from that of 

another. Inferences related to student group performance 

should take into consideration the many socioeconomic 

and educational factors that may also be associated with 

performance.

All statistical tests are performed using unrounded scale 

scores. The Hispanic-White achievement gap is calculated 

by subtracting the average scale score for Hispanic students 

from the average scale score for White students. Because 

all results are presented as rounded numbers, occasionally 

the lower scale score plus the gap will not equal the higher 

scale score shown in this report’s graphics.

How this report is organized

The remainder of this report presents first mathematics and then reading results. The mathematics section is color-coded with green page margins while the 

reading section is color-coded with blue margins. In 

each section, national results appear first. Information 

on scores and score gaps over time is presented at the 

national level for fourth- and eighth-grade Hispanic 

and White public school students. Similar comparisons 

are included for White and non-ELL Hispanic students 

and for non-ELL and ELL Hispanic students. National 

data also include information on scores and score gaps 
8 

Introduction

over time for Hispanic and White students by gender 

and by family income as measured by eligibility for the 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP). 

State-level data include scores and score gaps over time 

for fourth- and eighth-grade Hispanic and White public 

school students for each state, limited by non-participation 

of some states in the early NAEP assessments and by the 

fact that NAEP did not always obtain samples of Hispanic 

or White students large enough to allow the reporting 

of reliable results. Because Hispanic populations have 

changed significantly over time, percentages of White 

and Hispanic students are given for each state for the 

first assessment in which the state participated and for 

the most recent assessment in 2009. In addition, the size 

of the gap in 2009 for each state is compared against the 

Hispanic-White gap nationally and the scores of Hispanic 

and White students in each state are compared against the 

national averages for Hispanic and White students.
9 
10 

National Results for Hispanic and White Fourthand Eighth-Graders

Mathematics scores and achievement gaps in the nation, 

1990–2009

Average fourth-grade mathematics scores for the nation Average mathematics scores were higher in 2009 than in 

were higher in 2009 than in 1990 for both Hispanic and 1990 for both Hispanic and White eighth-graders (figure 

White public school students (figure 5). The 21-point 6). The 26-point gap in 2009 was not significantly different 

gap in 2009 was not significantly different from the from the 24-point gap in 1990. The gap also did not change 

19-point gap in 1990. From 2007 to 2009, scores remained from 2007 to 2009. Scores for both groups rose by 2 points, 

unchanged for both Hispanic and White students and the leaving the gap at 26 points.

gap remained at 21 points.
Mathematics

11 

Figure 5. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 4: Various years, 1990–2009

Scale score

0

175

225

275

500

1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

219* 227* 231* 233*

243* 246* 248 248

199* 201* 207* 207*

221* 225* 227 227

Gap

White

19 26* Hispanic 24

21 26*

21 21 21

National 

average

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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, 

1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments.

Figure 6. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 8: Various years, 1990–2009

1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

Scale score

0

200

250

300

500

269* 276* 279* 283* 287* 288* 290* 292

245* 247* 249* 252* 258* 261* 264* 266

White

Hispanic

Gap

24 29 30 31* 28* 26 26 26

National 

average

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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, 

1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments.
ional 

1

n Grad Nat

990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 19

I

9

I

I

I

I I I I I I I

e 4 & 8

12 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 19 

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Mathematics scores and achievement gaps by gender, 

1990–2009

Average mathematics scores were higher in 2009 than in In addition to the 1990-2009 gain, eighth-grade mathemat1990 for the nation’s Hispanic and White students at both ics scores were higher in 2009 than in 2007 for Hispanic 

fourth and eighth grades, regardless of gender (figures 7 and White male students and for White female students. 

and 8). However, the Hispanic-White mathematics gap did Neither gender demonstrated a significant change in the 

not change significantly for either male or female students Hispanic-White mathematics gap from 2007 to 2009, at 

at either grade when comparing 2009 to 1990. either the fourth or eighth grade.
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Mathematics

13 

Figure 7. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 4, by gender: Various years, 1990–2009

Scale score

0

175

225

275

500

1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

247* 249249 244* 236* 232* 228* 219*

227* 228228 223*

207* 207* 199*199*

244* 246246 241*

230* 231* 225* 218*

226226 220* 223*

206* 208* 203* 200*

White

Hispanic

Gap

Male Female

20 22 21

29* 21

25 20 29*

20 21 21 21

24 23 18 22

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009. 

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, 

1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments.

Figure 8. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 8, by gender: Various years, 1990–2009

Scale score

0

225

275

325

500

1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

289* 291 286* 287* 279* 282* 276* 268*

292* 293 287* 288* 284* 280* 275* 270*

264264 257* 260* 251* 246* 247* 243*

265* 267 260* 262*

251* 252* 246* 248*

White

Hispanic

Gap

Male Female

26 27 26 28 29 32* 24 27 27 25 26 29* 32 31 31 25

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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, 

1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

14 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Mathematics scores and gaps by family income, 2003–2009

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 

uses student eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch 

as an indicator of family income. At grade 4, mathematics 

scores were higher in 2009 than in 2003 for all Hispanic and 

White public school students, regardless of school-lunch 

eligibility (figure 9). When comparing 2009 to 2003, the 

gaps between the scores of Hispanic and White students in 

2009 were not significantly different from 2003, regardless 

of eligibility. The gaps in 2009 were also not significantly 

different from 2007, regardless of eligibility. Additionally, 

scores in 2009 for both White and Hispanic students were 

not significantly different from 2007, regardless of eligibility.

At grade 8, scores in 2009 were higher than in 2003 for 

Hispanic and White students regardless of eligibility, and 

higher than in 2007 for not eligible White students (figure 

10). For eligible students only, the gap narrowed from 2003 

to 2009, declining by 4 points. From 2007 to 2009, there 

were no significant changes in the gaps.

At grade 4 in 2009, the 11-point achievement gap for 

eligible students was smaller than the 16-point gap for 

not eligible students, and both gaps were smaller than 

the 21-point gap for all grade 4 students (figure 5). The 

achievement gap is affected by the comparative proportions 

National n Grade 4 & 8

Table 1. Percentage of public school students 

assessed in NAEP mathematics 

eligible for the National School 

Lunch Program, by race/ethnicity and 

grade: Various years, 2003–2009

 Hispanic White

Grade 4

 2009 77 29

 2007 75 27*

 2005 77 27*

 2003 74* 26*

Grade 8

 2009 72 25

 2007 69* 23*

 2005 69* 23*

 2003 67* 20*

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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

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

various years, 2003–2009 Mathematics Assessments.

of Hispanic and White students who are from low-income 

families. The achievement gap is larger when all students 

are considered because most Hispanic students (about 77 

percent in 2009) come from low-income families—that is, 

are eligible for free or reduced price lunches—while most 

White students (70 percent in 2009) come from families 

with higher incomes and are not eligible (table 1). On 

average, students from higher income families have higher 

scores than those from low-income families and the size of 

the Hispanic-White gap reflects the greater percentage of 

White students coming from higher-income families.

The same pattern is seen at grade 8. The 13-point gap for 

eligible students was smaller than the 23-point gap for not 

eligible students, and both were smaller than the 26-point 

gap for all grade 8 students. At grade 8, about 72 percent 

of Hispanic students came from low-income families in 

2009, while 74 percent of White students came from higher 

income families.

NAEP collects data on students’ eligibility for the National 

School Lunch Program (NSLP)—sometimes referred to as 

the free or reduced-price school lunch program—as an 

indicator of family economic status. Eligibility for free or 

reduced-price lunch is based on students’ family income 

in relation to the federally established poverty levels. 

Not eligible: Students who are not eligible for the program because their family’s income is above 185 percent 

of the poverty level.

Eligible: Students who are eligible for either reducedprice lunch because their family’s income is between 

130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level, or for 

free lunch, because their family’s income is below 130 

percent of the poverty level.

As a result of improvements in the quality of the data on 

students’ eligibility for NSLP, the percentage of students 

for whom information was not available has decreased 

in comparison to the percentages reported prior to the 

2003 assessment. Therefore, trend comparisons are only 

made back to 2003 in this report.

Eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

M

athematics

15 

It is also possible to compare the performance of eligible and gap between White eligible and White not eligible students. 

not eligible students by race/ethnicity and then compare the At grade 8, White not eligible students had an average score size of the gaps. For example, in 2009 at grade 4, White not of 297 (figure 10, left side of graph), while White eligible stu- eligible students had an average score of 253 (figure 9, left 

dents had a score of 276 (figure 10 right side of graph), result- side of graph), while White eligible students had a score of 

ing in a gap of 21 points. Hispanic not eligible students had 236 (figure 9, right side of graph), resulting in a gap of 17 

points. Hispanic not eligible students had an average score an average score of 275, while Hispanic eligible students had 

of 237, while Hispanic eligible students had a score of 225, a score of 263, resulting in a gap of 12 points, smaller than the 

resulting in a gap of 12 points, smaller than the 17-point 21-point gap for White eligible-not eligible students.

Figure 9. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 4, by eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 2003–2009

Scale score

0 

175

225

275

500 

2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009

234* 236 236 231*

250* 252 253 247*

222* 224 225 218*

235 235 237 232*

White

Gap

Hispanic

Not eligible Eligible 

17

12 12 12 11 15 15 16

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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, 

2003–2009 Mathematics Assessments.

Figure 10. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 8, by eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 2003–2009

Scale score

0

225

275

325

500

2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009

275 276 271* 273*

295* 297 291* 292*

261 263 254* 257*

273 275 269* 271*

White

Gap

Hispanic

17* 15* 14 13 22 21 22 23

Not eligible Eligible

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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, 

2003–2009 Mathematics Assessments.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

16 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Trends in mathematics scores and achievement gaps by ELL 

status, 1996–2009

At grade 4, the gap between White students (both ELL 

and non-ELL White students) and non-ELL Hispanic 

students was smaller in 2009, at 14 points, than in the first 

year, 1996, when it was 20 points (figure 11). From 2007 to 

2009, there was no significant change in the scores of either 

group or in the gap. (For percentages of ELL students in 

fourth and eighth grade, see table 2.)

Table 2. Percentage of public school English 

language learner students assessed in 

NAEP mathematics, by race/ethnicity 

and grade: Various years, 1996–2009

 Hispanic White

Grade 4

 2009 

 2007 

 2005 

 2003 

 2000 

 1996 

37 

40 

39 

40 

35 

31 

1

1

1

1

#

#

Grade 8

 2009 

 2007 

 2005 

 2003 

 2000 

 1996 

21 

25 

25 

25 

19 

20 

#

1

1

1

#

#

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Data shown are the percentages of Hispanic students who were ELLs and the 

percentages of White students who were ELLs. 

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

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

various years, 1996–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 

National n Grade 4 & 8

Within the Hispanic student population, the 19-point gap 

between ELL Hispanic and non-ELL Hispanic fourthgraders in 2009 was not significantly different from either 

comparison year, 1996 or 2007 (figure 11).

At grade 4 in 2009, the 21-point gap between all Hispanic 

and White students (figure 5) was larger than both the 

14-point gap between White and non-ELL Hispanic students and the 19-point gap between non-ELL Hispanic 

and ELL Hispanic students (figure 11).

At grade 8, the gap between White students and non-ELL 

Hispanic students was smaller in 2009, at 19 points, than in 

1996 when it was 24 points (figure 12). From 2007 to 2009, 

there was no significant change in the gap.
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Mathematics

17 

Within the Hispanic eighth-grade student population, 

the 34-point gap between ELL and non-ELL Hispanic 

students in 2009 was not significantly different from either 

comparison year.

At grade 8 in 2009, the 34-point gap between ELL and 

non-ELL Hispanic students was larger than either the 

26-point gap for all White and Hispanic students (figure 6)

or the 19-point gap for White and non-ELL Hispanic students. This 19-point gap was the smallest of the three gaps.

Figure 11. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 4, by English language learner status: Various years, 1996–2009

Scale score

0

175

225

275

500

1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

231* 233* 243* 246* 248 248

211* 213*

228* 232* 235 234 211* 213*

228* 232* 235 234

198* 196*

211* 214 214 216

White

Gap

Non-ELL 

Hispanic

20* 20* 14 13 13 14

Gap

ELL 

Hispanic

Non-ELL 

Hispanic

13 17 17 18 20 19

White–Non-ELL Hispanic Non-ELL Hispanic–ELL Hispanic

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. White includes ELL and non-ELL White students.

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

1996–2009 Mathematics Assessments. 

Figure 12. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 8, by English language learner status: Various years, 1996–2009

1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

Scale score

0

200

250

300

500

279* 283* 287* 288* 290* 292

256* 257* 265* 269* 272 273 256* 257* 265* 269* 272 273

223* 229* 237* 238 241 239

White–Non-ELL Hispanic Non-ELL Hispanic–ELL Hispanic

White

Gap

Non-ELL 

Hispanic

24* 26* 21* 19 18 19

Gap

ELL 

Hispanic

Non-ELL 

Hispanic

33 28 29* 30* 31 34

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. White includes ELL and non-ELL White students.

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

1996–2009 Mathematics Assessments.
18 

State Results for Hispanic and White 

Fourth- and Eighth-Graders

State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4, 

2009

The NAEP state mathematics assessments were administered to public school eighth-graders only in 1990, and 

to public school fourth- and eighth-graders in 1992, 1996, 

2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. Before 2003, states were 

not required to participate in NAEP to qualify for Title 

I education funds. Typically, 40 or more states participated in each prior assessment. Since 2003, all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and the DoDEA participated.

State results are presented in two ways. Comparisons of 

fourth-grade mathematics gaps in 2009 between each state 

and the nation are presented in figure 13.

Comparisons of the mathematics gaps within a state over 

time are presented in a series of small graphs in figure 14. 

At the top left of each two-page spread, the mathematics 

scores and gaps for the nation are presented for reference. 

Each state figure, as well as the national figure, also contains a dashed gray line representing the national average 

for public school students. The data for the national averages are located in the appendix in table B-2.

Eleven states had a smaller Hispanic-White gap than the 

nation’s 21-point gap in 2009 (Arkansas, DoDEA, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, New 

York, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) and six had a gap that 

was larger (California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Utah). In 30 states, the 

gap was not significantly different from the nation’s gap 

(figure 13). Asterisks indicate a significant difference from 

the national average score or the national average gap.

The fourth-grade mathematics gap in 2009 was statistically 

significant in 46 of the 47 states for which data could be 

reported. In Missouri, the 8-point difference between the 

average scores for Hispanic and White students was not 

statistically significant, so in that state there was no measureable gap.

For 7 of the 11 states with gaps smaller than the national 

average (Arkansas, DoDEA, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, 

Montana, and New York), Hispanic students had an average score that was higher than the national average for 
Mathematics

19 

Hispanic students. In Florida, the average score for White students was higher 

than the national average for White students as well. In Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Oklahoma, and Wyoming, the average 

score for Hispanic students was not measurably different from the national average 

for Hispanic students, while the average 

score for White students was below the 

national average for these students.

Among the six states where the HispanicWhite gap was larger than the national 

average, in Massachusetts scores for both 

Hispanic and White students were higher than the national averages for these 

groups, while in Utah scores for both 

groups were lower. In California and 

Rhode Island, scores for Hispanic students were below the national average, 

while scores for White students were not 

measurably different from the national 

average. In Connecticut and the District 

of Columbia, scores for Hispanic students 

were not measurably different from the 

national average, while scores for White 

students were above it.

Figure 13. The Hispanic-White achievement score gap in 

mathematics for public school students at grade 

4, by state: 2009

Jurisdictions

0 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 500

Scale score

Wyoming

Washington

Virginia

Utah

Texas

Tennessee

South Dakota

South Carolina

Rhode Island

Pennsylvania

Oregon

Oklahoma

Ohio

North Carolina

New York

New Mexico

New Jersey

New Hampshire

Nevada

Nebraska

Montana

Missouri

Minnesota

Michigan

Massachusetts

Maryland

Louisiana

Kentucky

Kansas

Iowa

Indiana

Illinois

Idaho

Hawaii

Georgia

Florida

DoDEA1

District of Columbia

Delaware

Connecticut

Colorado

California

Arkansas

Arizona

Alaska

Alabama

National Public 248

 249

 243*

 245*

 247

 252*

 253*

 249

 270*

 245*

 250*

 247

 247

 244*

 249

 247

 245*

 251*

 241*

 241*

 255*

 258*

 243*

 255*

 245*

 247

 245*

 245*

 252*

 255*

 245*

 248

 254*

 249

 241*

 243*

 249

 247

 245*

 247*

 239*

 254*

 246*

 251*

 247

 244*

Wisconsin 250*

227

220*

232*

220*

233*

219*

228

227

231*

227

235*

238*

231*

230

225

227

230

223

233*

 227

230

238*

232*

227

232

237*

241*

224*

227

234*

232*

224*

231*

236*

233

229

221*

227

219*

232

233

225

233*

219*

234*

227

231

 237*

228

Hispanic Gap White

17

 17

 23

 12*

 28*

 23

 26*

 18

43*

 10*

 12*

 15*

 17

 19

 21

 16

 22

 18

 14*

 10*

17

26*

 16

 23

 8*

6*

 21

 19

 18

 24

 21

 17*

18

 16

 12*

 21

 22

 28*

 13

 13

 14

 20

 27*

 17

 20

 22

 13*

 21

* Significantly different (p<.05) from the nation (public) when comparing one state to the nation at a time.

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

NOTE: Reporting standards not met for Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia because their 

Hispanic student population size was insufficient for comparison. They are not included in the figure. 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), 2009 Mathematics Assessment.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

20 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 4

The Hispanic-White mathematics gap among the nation’s 

public school fourth-graders was narrower in 2009 than in 

1992, as Hispanic students’ scores showed a greater gain 

than White students’ scores (figure 14, national results).

From 2007 to 2009, scores of Hispanic and White fourthgraders in the nation did not change significantly. 

Additionally, there was no significant change in the gap.

In all 21 states for which 1992 data were available, both 

Hispanic students and White students achieved higher average scores in mathematics in 2009 than in 1992. Six of these 

state —Connecticut, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, 

New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island—also narrowed 

the achievement gap as Hispanic students’ scores increased 

more than White students’ scores.

In five states—Delaware, DoDEA, Michigan, Missouri, 

and Oregon—the achievement gap was narrower in 2009 

than in the first year for which reportable results were available for both groups of students: Delaware (1996); DoDEA 

(1996); Michigan (1996); Missouri (2003); Oregon (1996).

From 2007 to 2009, scores for both White and Hispanic 

students rose in the District of Columbia. However, the 

Hispanic-White mathematics gap at grade 4 did not 

decrease significantly in the District of Columbia or any 

state when comparing 2009 to 2007.

In both Rhode Island and Texas, the Hispanic-White 

mathematics gap widened between 2007 and 2009. In 

Rhode Island, scores for White students increased while 

scores for Hispanic students did not change significantly. 

State n Grade 4

Changing of the Gap

In the following 11 states, the gap was narrower in 

2009 than in the first assessment year for which reliable results for both groups were available as Hispanic 

Narrowing

students’ average scores increased more than those 

for White students.

Connecticut Missouri

District of Columbia New Jersey

Delaware New York

DoDEA Oregon

Massachusetts Rhode Island

Michigan

In Rhode Island, the gap widened between 2007 and 

2009 as scores for White students increased, while 

idening

scores for Hispanic students did not change significantly. 

W

In Texas, the gap widened between 2007 and 2009 as 

scores for Hispanic students decreased, while scores 

for White students did not change significantly.

In Texas, scores for Hispanic students decreased, while 

scores for White students did not change significantly.

Figure 14 displays population percentages for Hispanic 

and White fourth-graders in each state for 2009 and the 

first year of the state’s participation in the assessment.

Hispanic-White mathematics gap data are not available 

for Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota, Vermont, or West 

Virginia.
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Mathematics

21 

Figure 14. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 4, by state: Various years, 1990–2009

Scale score

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009

219*

199*

227* 230* 233* 243* 246* 248 248

201* 204* 207*

221* 225* 227 227

218* 221* 227* 232* 235 238 237

218 220

232*

242* 244* 247 249

228 227 232 232

225* 228* 230*

241 243 246 243

203* 202* 204*

217 218 220 220

217* 223* 225*

237* 242 245 245

221* 229 230 233

221* 223* 228*

243* 245 247 247

190* 196* 201*

216* 219 218 219

227* 232*

243* 247* 249 252

204* 208* 217* 223* 224 228

235* 240* 242* 250* 250* 252 253

200* 201* 210* 

223 223 223 227

226* 225*

244* 249 249 249

193*

226* 229 234 231

251* 248* 254* 262* 266 262* 270

195* 196* 190*

205* 215* 220* 227

224* 227*

243* 247 250 250

208* 208*

232* 233* 238 238

231* 233* 242* 245 246 245

214* 219*

234 235 233 235

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

Alaska

(2009: Hispanic 7%, White 50%)

(1996: Hispanic 3%, White 66%)

Arizona

(2009: Hispanic 45%, White 40%)

(1992: Hispanic 23%, White 62%)

Arkansas

(2009: Hispanic 8%, White 66%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 75%)

California

(2009: Hispanic 51%, White 28%)

(1992: Hispanic 30%, White 50%)

Colorado

(2009: Hispanic 29%, White 61%)

(1992: Hispanic 17%, White 73%)

Connecticut

(2009: Hispanic 17%, White 66%)

(1992: Hispanic 10%, White 76%)

Delaware

(2009: Hispanic 12%, White 51%)

(1992: Hispanic 2%, White 70%)

District of Columbia

(2009: Hispanic 11%, White 7%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 5%)

DoDEA3

(2009: Hispanic 16%, White 49%)

(1996: Hispanic 9%, White 49%)

Alabama

(2009: Hispanic 4%, White 61%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 65%)

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 22%, White 54%)

(1992: Hispanic 7%, White 72%)2

17 15 17 14

23 26 22

24

26

13 15 16 12 27 23 25 29 28 27

27 27 31

25 25 26 23

23 23

27 27 29 26

32 34* 39*

20 19 16 18

31*

16 19

42 43 11 14 1213 57* 51

56* 51 64*

20 17 21 21 21 21

26 26* 26* 19

Florida

(2009: Hispanic 25%, White 46%)

(1992: Hispanic 12%, White 63%)

7 10 13 10

14 17*

See notes at end of figure.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

22 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Figure 14. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 4, by state: Various years, 1990–2009—Continued

Scale score

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

238*

235* 244* 245* 248 249

211* 218* 219* 223 227

224* 232* 235* 242* 245 249 247

226 230 233 230

231* 230* 233* 241* 242* 245 245

222 222 230 223

237* 246* 249 252 251

213*

230 234 234 233 217* 222* 223* 231* 234* 238* 241

221 227

218* 221* 230*

242 241 240 241

234 230

228* 234* 236* 244* 250* 251 255

207* 216* 216*

227* 232 233 238

232* 232* 230*

241* 243 245

222* 226* 227*

238* 241* 244 247

206* 210* 219 219 224 230

223* 227*

238* 245 245

224

244

199* 207* 217* 226 225

228* 224* 230*

241* 243 246 247

205*

217* 219* 229 229 231

219*

199*

227* 230* 233* 243* 246* 248 248

201* 204* 207*

221* 225* 227 227

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 22%, White 54%)

(1992: Hispanic 7%, White 72%)2

21 21 21 21

26 26* 26* 19

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

19 21 19 21 20 24

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Georgia

(2009: Hispanic 11%, White 47%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 60%)

Hawaii

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 14%)

(1992: Hispanic 2%, White 23%)

Idaho

(2009: Hispanic 14%, White 81%)

(1992: Hispanic 6%, White 92%)

Illinois

(2009: Hispanic 22%, White 51%)

(2000: Hispanic 20%, White 56%)

Indiana

(2009: Hispanic 7%, White 76%)

(1992: Hispanic 2%, White 87%)

Iowa

(2009: Hispanic 8%, White 84%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 95%)

Kansas

(2009: Hispanic 15%, White 69%)

(2000: Hispanic 9%, White 79%)

Kentucky

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 83%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 90%)

Louisiana

(2009: Hispanic 4%, White 47%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 53%)

Maine

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 94%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 98%)

14 17 15 22 13 19

20 17 23

16 16 18

25 21 26 24 27 15 16 16 16

20 15 18 18 16 18

24 16 16 14

6 10

22

Maryland

(2009: Hispanic 11%, White 48%)

(1992: Hispanic 2%, White 62%)

17 18 18 17

17 20 21

Gap data not available

See notes at end of figure.

State n Grade 4
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Mathematics

23 

Figure 14. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 4, by state: Various years, 1990–2009—Continued

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 2003 2005 2007 2009

231* 232* 239* 247* 252* 257 258

197* 206* 203*

222* 225* 231 232

232* 227*

237* 244 245 244 243

205*

223 224 230 227

 231* 235* 238* 246* 251* 252 255

220* 223* 229 232

219* 221* 222*

236* 238 239 241

227* 230* 233* 240* 240* 245 245

220* 221*

234 237

231* 231* 238* 243* 247 247

236 234 241 241

228* 231* 230*

241* 244 244 245

203* 198* 205* 213* 219* 220 224

224* 226* 236* 240* 243 245

204* 207* 216* 219* 221 227

230*

244* 246* 250 252

225* 226 232 234

236* 239* 248* 251* 255 255

204* 206*

224* 230 234 232

224* 227* 227* 237* 238* 242 245

203* 204* 207* 217* 218* 222 224

233* 238* 246 247 251* 248

201*

228*

197* 207*

221* 226* 230 231

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

21 22 14 16

28*

28 23 26 23

11 8 9 6 6 2 20*19*

26 24 21

33

29*

25 25

21 20 21

20 21 20

21

21

23 20

20

19 18 19 20 17

21

21 24 21

33*

23

32*

21 21 17 25* 30* 32* 33*

26 26 27

36

25

27 34*

New York

(2009: Hispanic 20%, White 52%)

(1992: Hispanic 17%, White 63%)

Massachusetts

(2009: Hispanic 17%, White 68%)

(1992: Hispanic 4%, White 83%)

Michigan

(2009: Hispanic 5%, White 71%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 79%)

Minnesota

(2009: Hispanic 7%, White 76%)

(1992: Hispanic 2%, White 91%)

Mississippi

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 45%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 42%)

Missouri

(2009: Hispanic 4%, White 76%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 83%)

Montana

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 83%)

(1996: Hispanic 2%, White 85%)

Nebraska

(2009: Hispanic 16%, White 73%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 90%)

Nevada

(2009: Hispanic 39%, White 42%)

(1996: Hispanic 16%, White 66%)

New Hampshire

(2009: Hispanic 4%, White 91%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 96%)

New Jersey

(2009: Hispanic 21%, White 55%)

(1992: Hispanic 11%, White 69%)

New Mexico

(2009: Hispanic 58%, White 28%)

(1992: Hispanic 45%, White 45%)

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Gap data not available

See notes at end of figure.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

24 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Figure 14. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 4, by state: Various years, 1990–2009—Continued

Scale score

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

219*

199*

227* 230* 233* 243* 246* 248 248

201* 204* 207*

221* 225* 227 227

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 22%, White 54%)

(1992: Hispanic 7%, White 72%)2

21 21 21 21

26 26* 26* 19

223*

233* 238*

251 250* 251 254

220*

235 234 235 236

230* 232* 232* 240* 245* 248 248

222*

235* 243* 248 250 249

225 231 231 233

224* 229* 235* 240 242 241

207* 211* 220* 226 227 229

226* 227*

240* 243 241 243

197* 202*

218 218 217 221

230* 231*

243* 247 249 249

201* 202*

216* 220 229 227

221* 225* 232* 239* 241* 242* 247

186* 191* 197*

207* 211* 220 219

225* 224* 233*

246 250* 248 245

232 236 227 232

241* 245 245 247

223* 228 233 217* 226* 227* 235* 238 240 239

218

229 222 225

230*

240* 241* 248* 254 253 254

208* 216* 223* 230* 235 236* 233

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

17 16 16 18

18

13 15

18 15

17

12 25 24 21

29*

22

25

27 27 19 22

29 29

29 22* 32 35* 34

28

35*

18 18 13

17 9 18 14

13 14 20 13

19 18 18 17*20

24 22

North Carolina

(2009: Hispanic 11%, White 54%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 65%)

North Dakota

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 86%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 95%)

Ohio

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 72%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 86%)

Oklahoma

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 58%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 77%)

Oregon

(2009: Hispanic 17%, White 69%)

(1996: Hispanic 6%, White 85%)

Pennsylvania

(2009: Hispanic 9%, White 71%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 81%)

Rhode Island

(2009: Hispanic 18%, White 68%)

(1992: Hispanic 7%, White 82%)

South Carolina

(2009: Hispanic 6%, White 55%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 58%)

South Dakota

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 80%)

(2003: Hispanic 2%, White 84%)

Tennessee

(2009: Hispanic 5%, White 69%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 73%)

Texas

(2009: Hispanic 51%, White 31%)

(1992: Hispanic 34%, White 49%)

18 18 18 16

Gap data not available

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

State n Grade 4

See notes at end of figure.
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Mathematics

25 

Figure 14. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 4, by state: Various years, 1990–2009—Continued

Scale score

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

0

175

225

275

500

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

225* 228* 230* 238* 242* 244 246

206* 204* 205*

216 220 220 219

228* 230* 237* 246* 247* 251 251

214 224* 230 230 235 234

229*

242* 246 248 247

204*

223 224 225 227

225* 232*

242* 244* 247 248

216* 224* 224* 231* 231* 237* 233 233* 236* 243* 247* 250 250

208* 211* 221 224 229 228

227* 225* 231*

243 245 246* 244

216* 207* 214*

229 234 229 231

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

15 17 17 16 13 15

23 21 22 25

22

25

Virginia

(2009: Hispanic 8%, White 56%)

(1992: Hispanic 2%, White 71%)

23 20

22 24 27 22

20 24 25

14 11 17 13

17 18 11

19 22

25

Utah

(2009: Hispanic 16%, White 77%)

(1992: Hispanic 4%, White 93%)

Vermont

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 94%)

(1996: Hispanic #, White 97%)

Washington

(2009: Hispanic 18%, White 62%)

(1996: Hispanic 6%, White 79%)

West Virginia

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 92%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 96%)

Wisconsin

(2009: Hispanic 9%, White 75%)

(1992: Hispanic 2%, White 87%)

Wyoming

(2009: Hispanic 11%, White 84%)

(1992: Hispanic 6%, White 90%)

Gap data not available

Gap data not available

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

# Rounds to zero.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

1 National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.

2 Hispanic and White percentages are based on students tested in the first assessment year for the state and in 2009.

3 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data presented 

here were recalculated for comparability.

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Where data are not present, the jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. Comparative performance results may be affected by changes in exclusion rates for students with disabilities and English language learners in the NAEP samples.

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

1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

26 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

State n Grade 8

State and national mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8, 

2009

Fifteen states had a smaller gap than the nation’s 26-point students was not statistically significant, and thus there was 

Hispanic-White gap in 2009 (Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, no measurable Hispanic-White gap for grade 8 mathematDoDEA, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, ics in those states in 2009. Among the remaining states, the 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and Hispanic-White gap ranged from 10 points in Kentucky to 

Wyoming) and six had a gap that was larger (California, 34 points in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, and Among the 15 states with a gap smaller than the national Washington). In 24 states, the gap was not significantly dif- gap of 26 points, in one state, Delaware, scores for both ferent from the nation’s gap (figure 15). Asterisks indicate Hispanic and White students were higher than the nation- a significant difference from the national average score or al averages for those students. In eight of these states— the national average gap. Alaska, DoDEA, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana 

The eighth-grade mathematics gap in 2009 was statisti- Missouri, and Virginia—the average score for Hispanic 

cally significant in 43 of the 45 states for which data could students was above the national average for those students.

be reported. In Hawaii and Missouri, the 6-point differ- Among the six states where the gap was larger than ence between the average scores for Hispanic and White the national gap, scores for Hispanic students were not 
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Mathematics

27 

measurably different from the national 

average, while scores for White students 

were higher in three states—Colorado, 

Connecticut, and Washington. In New 

York, scores for Hispanic students were 

not measurably different from the national 

average for Hispanic students and scores 

for White students were not measurably 

different from the national average for 

White students. In California, scores for 

Hispanic students were below the national 

average for Hispanic students and scores 

for White students were not measurably 

different from the national average for 

White students. In Rhode Island, scores 

for both groups of students were below the 

national average.

Figure 15. The Hispanic-White achievement score gap in 

mathematics for public school students at grade 

8, by state: 2009

Jurisdictions

0 500

Scale score

240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320

Hispanic Gap White

Wyoming

Wisconsin

Washington

Virginia

Utah

Texas

Tennessee

South Dakota

South Carolina

Rhode Island

Pennsylvania

Oregon

Oklahoma

Ohio

North Carolina

New York

New Mexico

New Jersey

New Hampshire

Nevada

Nebraska

Montana

Missouri

Minnesota

Michigan

Massachusetts

Maryland

Kentucky

Kansas

Iowa

Indiana

Illinois

Idaho

Hawaii

Georgia

Florida

DoDEA1

Delaware

Connecticut

Colorado

California

Arkansas

Arizona

Alaska

Alabama

National Public 266

260

275*

265

269

256*

267

263

278*

281*

274*

270*

276*

264

269

273*

266

274*

272

275*

271

269

269

284*

278*

262

262*

270

272

262*

262

274*

267

263

264

266

255*

269

268

270

277*

259*

274*

264

268

269

 292

 280*

 293

 292

 284*

 289

 299*

 298*

 294*

 294

 289*

 289

 282*

 292

 294

 291

 287*

 294

 282*

 303*

 305*

 286*

 300*

 290*

 296*

 291

 287*

 293

 302*

 288*

 294

 297*

 291

 282*

 290

 294

 286*

 293

 295*

 282*

 301*

 289*

 294

 295*

 294*

 289*

20

 18*

 26

 15*

 33*

 32*

 34*

16*

13*

 15*

 19*

 6*

 28

 25

 18*

 21

 20

 10*

28

34

 17*

 31

6*

17

 29

 25

 23

30

 26

 32*

23

 24

 19*

 26

 28

 31*

 23

 27

 12*

24

 30

 19*

 32*

 26

 20*

26

* Significantly different (p<.05) from the nation (public) when comparing one state to the nation at a time.

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

NOTE: Reporting standards not met for District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota, Vermont 

and West Virginia because their Hispanic or White student population size was insufficient for comparison. They 

are not included in the figure. 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), 2009 Mathematics Assessment.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

28 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Trends in state mathematics achievement gaps at grade 8

The national Hispanic-White achievement gap was not 

significantly narrower when comparing 2009 to 1990 

despite higher average scores for both Hispanic and White 

students in 2009 (figure 16, national results). Average scores 

were also higher for both Hispanic and White students in 

2009 than in 2007, although again the gap did not narrow.

In 14 of the 15 states for which 1990 data were available, mathematics scores of both Hispanic and White 

eighth-graders were higher in 2009 than in 1990. In 

Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Missouri, and Rhode 

Island, the Hispanic-White gap was narrower in 2009 

than in the first assessment year for which reportable 

results for both groups were available: Connecticut (1990); 

Delaware (2003); Hawaii (1996); Missouri (2007); Rhode 

Island (1990).

Maryland’s gap was wider in 2009 than in 1990, as 

White students’ scores increased more than those of their 

Hispanic peers. In Utah, the gap was wider in 2009 than 

in 1992, the state’s first assessment year, as scores for White 

students increased while scores for Hispanic students did 

not change significantly.

Between 2007 and 2009, gaps narrowed in Arkansas and 

Delaware as scores for Hispanic eighth-graders increased 

while scores of White students did not change significantly. 

State n Grade 8

Changing of the Gap

In Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Missouri, and

Rhode Island, the gap was narrower in 2009 than in 

wing

the first assessment year for which reliable results for 

both groups were available as scores for Hispanic stuNarro

dents increased more than scores for White students. 

In Arkansas and Delaware the gap narrowed between 

2007 and 2009 as Hispanic students’ average scores 

increased while those for White students did not.

ng

In Maryland and Utah the gap was wider in 2009 than 

ni

in the first assessment year for each state as White 

ide

students’ scores increased more than those of their 

W

Hispanic peers.

In Connecticut and Nevada, scores increased for both 

Hispanic and White eighth-grade students between 2007 

and 2009, though the gaps did not narrow significantly.

Figure 16 displays population percentages for Hispanic 

and White eighth-graders in each state for 2009 and the 

first year of the state’s participation in the assessment.

Hispanic-White mathematics gap data are not available for Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota, 

Vermont, or West Virginia.
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Mathematics

29 

Figure 16. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 8, by state: Various years, 1990–2009

Scale score

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009

269* 276* 280* 283* 287* 288* 290* 292

245* 247* 250* 252* 258* 261* 264* 266

262* 264* 270* 275* 274* 276* 278 280

249

260

285* 290* 288* 294 293

263* 272 274 275

270* 274* 277* 281* 284* 288 289 292

241* 247* 248* 248* 258* 260* 262 265

264* 264* 269* 268* 275* 281 282 284

248*

266 256*

269

270* 275* 277* 277* 283* 284* 287 289

236* 239* 245* 242* 250* 254 256 256

273* 278* 282* 292* 292* 296 299

247* 252* 255* 259* 260* 264 267

277* 283* 287* 291* 293* 293* 293* 298

235* 239*

251* 249* 259 254* 254* 263

268* 272* 275*

287* 291* 294 294

257*

268* 267*

278

300

317

250*

226*

236* 246* 252* 251*

265

282* 286* 293 292 291 294

267* 267*

278 280 282 281 265* 272* 277* 286 286 289 289

246* 246* 254* 264* 265* 270 274

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 21%, White 56%)

(1990: Hispanic 7%, White 73%)2

29 20

Alabama

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 60%)

(1990: Hispanic #, White 67%)

17 20 18 27

Alaska

(2009: Hispanic 6%, White 53%)

(1996: Hispanic 2%, White 72%)

26 28 29 33 29

28 27 26

Arizona

(2009: Hispanic 42%, White 44%)

(1990: Hispanic 26%, White 62%)

27 25* 15 15

Arkansas

(2009: Hispanic 8%, White 69%)

(1990: Hispanic 1%, White 75%)

34 36 32 35 31 33 33 29

California

(2009: Hispanic 51%, White 28%)

(1990: Hispanic 30%, White 49%)

26 27

32 32 33 31 27

Colorado

(2009: Hispanic 28%, White 61%)

(1990: Hispanic 15%, White 77%)

42* 44* 36 42 34 39 39 34

Connecticut

(2009: Hispanic 15%, White 70%)

(1990: Hispanic 8%, White 79%)

27*16

30*23*

Delaware

(2009: Hispanic 9%, White 54%)

(1990: Hispanic 2%, White 70%)

District of Columbia

(2009: Hispanic 9%, White 3%)

(1992: Hispanic 4%, White 3%)

65 64

DoDEA3

(2009: Hispanic 16%, White 46%)

(1996: Hispanic 10%, White 46%)

24 29 30 31* 26 26 28*26

Florida

(2009: Hispanic 26%, White 46%)

(1990: Hispanic 12%, White 64%)

19 26* 23* 22 21*18 15 16 19 15 12 10 13

White

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

Gap

Hispanic

See notes at end of figure.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

30 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Figure 16. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 8, by state: Various years, 1990–2009—Continued

Scale score

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 1990 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 n1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 1990 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

270* 270* 276* 279* 284* 284* 288 289

262* 258* 266 270

273* 277* 280* 284* 284* 287* 292

250* 255* 250* 251* 261 264 264

270*

285* 289* 289* 291 294

238*

258* 259* 265 265 269

270* 273* 280* 285* 286* 286* 290 291

261* 261* 267 273

279* 284 285 287 286 288 287

255 264 261 266

287* 290* 289* 295 294

263* 263* 266* 269 274 259* 264* 269* 272* 277* 276* 282 282

272

259* 263* 266* 275* 281 281 283 283 279* 284 281* 282* 281* 287 287

272* 278* 284* 286* 289* 292* 300 303

254* 263 262* 262* 272 275

259* 263*

276* 274* 273* 277* 278 282

253*

263 257* 264

276

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 21%, White 56%)

(1990: Hispanic 7%, White 73%)2

24 29 30 31* 26 26 28*26

23 22 30 23 24 28 33

21 22 19 27

33

27 30 26 25 24 23 18 26 25

15 6

23* 9 20

32 22 28 21 24 26 20 27 24 10

18*

23 27 30 28 28

White

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

Gap

Hispanic

Georgia

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 47%)

(1990: Hispanic 1%, White 62%)

Idaho

(2009: Hispanic 14%, White 81%)

(1990: Hispanic 4%, White 93%)

Illinois

(2009: Hispanic 18%, White 58%)

(1990: Hispanic 8%, White 70%)

Iowa

(2009: Hispanic 6%, White 86%)

(1990: Hispanic 1%, White 95%)

Kansas

(2009: Hispanic 14%, White 73%)

(2000: Hispanic 5%, White 84%)

Louisiana

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 52%)

(1990: Hispanic 1%, White 57%)

Maine

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 94%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 97%)

Hawaii

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 14%)

(1990: Hispanic 2%, White 20%)

Gap data not available Gap data not available

Indiana

(2009: Hispanic 7%, White 76%)

(1990: Hispanic 2%, White 87%)

Kentucky

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 85%)

(1990: Hispanic #, White 90%)

Maryland

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 49%)

(1990: Hispanic 2%, White 62%)

269* 276* 280* 283* 287* 288* 290* 292

245* 247* 250* 252* 258* 261* 264* 266

See notes at end of figure.

State n Grade 8
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Mathematics

31 

Figure 16. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 8, by state: Various years, 1990–2009—Continued

Scale score

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n

1992n 2003 2005 2007 2009

277* 283* 284* 292* 297* 305 305

239* 239* 246* 255* 265 270 271

270* 276* 284 285 286 285 285 286

252

267 265 259 269

277* 284* 287* 290* 295* 296* 297 300

262 263 269 269

262* 265* 268* 275* 279 279 279 275* 278* 277* 284* 284* 288 290

270*

284

282* 286* 288* 289* 290* 291* 296

278

279* 281* 285* 285* 287* 289 291 291

256 260

242*

255 261 261 262

273* 278* 280* 282* 287

249* 250* 256* 257* 262

279* 283* 292* 295* 298 302

242* 245*

262* 264* 271 272

271* 272* 277* 274* 282* 279* 285 288

247* 248* 252* 251* 254* 255* 260 262

273* 278* 287* 286* 289* 293

264 270

273* 280* 283* 284* 293 290 290 294

238* 241* 244* 251*

262 262 264 262

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

19 25 20 26 17 28 31 33 34

17* 6

25 33 28 29 29 43 26 24 29 25 25 24

27 30 30 30

37 37 28 24 25 26

24 24 25 22

38 44 37

35 34 32 37

35 39 39

31 28 34 26

23

32

17

24

Massachusetts

(2009: Hispanic 11%, White 73%)

(1992: Hispanic 7%, White 85%)

Michigan

(2009: Hispanic 4%, White 74%)

(1990: Hispanic 2%, White 82%)

Minnesota

(2009: Hispanic 5%, White 79%)

(1990: Hispanic #, White 93%)

Mississippi

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 48%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 51%)

Missouri

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 80%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 85%)

Montana

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 85%)

(1990: Hispanic 1%, White 91%)

Nebraska

(2009: Hispanic 12%, White 77%)

(1990: Hispanic 2%, White 92%)

Nevada

(2009: Hispanic 35%, White 44%)

(2000: Hispanic 21%, White 60%)

New Hampshire

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 92%)

(1990: Hispanic 1%, White 98%)

New Jersey

(2009: Hispanic 17%, White 59%)

(1990: Hispanic 9%, White 69%)

New Mexico

(2009: Hispanic 58%, White 29%)

(1990: Hispanic 42%, White 42%)

New York

(2009: Hispanic 20%, White 54%)

(1990: Hispanic 13%, White 61%)

Gap data not available

White

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

Gap

Hispanic

See notes at end of figure.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

32 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Figure 16. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 8, by state: Various years, 1990–2009—Continued

Scale score

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

1990n1992n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 2003 2005 2007 2009

2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1996n 1990 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 n

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 1996n 1992 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

261* 266*

277* 287* 294 292* 295 297

263* 265* 273 274

284* 284* 286* 285* 290* 290* 295 296

268* 274*

285* 287* 289 291 291

270

259

276 267

268* 272* 274* 278* 278* 280 282

260 258 257 259 263

273* 278* 284* 284* 287* 289 290

256 257 248* 258 257* 261 264

272* 276* 285* 287* 293 294

253*

267 264 266

273* 273* 277*

291 294 293 293

269 272 269

288* 291* 292* 295

269 268

266* 270* 269* 277* 278* 282 282

264 270

272* 278* 284* 286* 290* 295* 300 301

245* 249* 255* 262* 267* 271* 277 277

265* 271* 275* 275* 280* 281* 284 286

227* 227*

238* 240* 245* 244* 251 255

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 21%, White 56%)

(1990: Hispanic 7%, White 73%)2

24 29 30 31* 26 26 28*26 22 30 23 26

17 30 15 24

14 21 21 19 21 28 26 3621 26 30 16

32 29 28

23 27

20

38* 43* 36 35 36 33 31 37*

25 21 23

18 12

28 29 29 23 24 24

23 24

North Carolina

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 55%)

(1990: Hispanic 1%, White 63%)

North Dakota

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 88%)

(1990: Hispanic 1%, White 93%)

Ohio

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 78%)

(1990: Hispanic 1%, White 84%)

Oklahoma

(2009: Hispanic 11%, White 58%)

(1990: Hispanic 2%, White 77%)

Oregon

(2009: Hispanic 16%, White 72%)

(1990: Hispanic 3%, White 91%)

Pennsylvania

(2009: Hispanic 6%, White 77%)

(1990: Hispanic 2%, White 82%)

Rhode Island

(2009: Hispanic 17%, White 71%)

(1990: Hispanic 5%, White 86%)

South Carolina

(2009: Hispanic 5%, White 54%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 60%)

South Dakota

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 84%)

(2003: Hispanic 1%, White 89%)

Tennessee

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 70%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 77%)

Texas

(2009: Hispanic 46%, White 37%)

(1990: Hispanic 33%, White 50%)

Gap data not available

White

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

Gap

Hispanic

269* 276* 280* 283* 287* 288* 290* 292

245* 247* 250* 252* 258* 261* 264* 266

See notes at end of figure.

State n Grade 8
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Mathematics

33 

Figure 16. Mathematics achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students 

at grade 8, by state: Various years, 1990–2009—Continued

Scale score

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

0

225

275

325

500

1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

1990n1992n 1996n 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 1990n1992n 1996n 2003 2005 2007 2009

276* 278* 277* 285* 283* 286* 289

253 257

244* 249* 255 256 259

280* 281* 286* 288* 292 293

271* 275* 279* 283* 290 293 296 294

263* 268 270 275 274

281* 285* 289* 291* 295

248*

263 262 263 264

256* 260* 265* 267* 271 270 271 271 279* 282* 288* 290* 291 292 294

262 265 268 268

274* 277* 277* 278* 286* 284* 290 289

257* 262 256* 257* 265 265 274 269

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

Utah

(2009: Hispanic 14%, White 80%)

(1992: Hispanic 4%, White 93%)

22* 21 33 31 30 36 28

16 15 20 21

16 20 20 20

23 21 19

20 22

24 26 28 26

Virginia

(2009: Hispanic 8%, White 59%)

(1990: Hispanic 2%, White 70%)

Wisconsin

(2009: Hispanic 7%, White 79%)

(1990: Hispanic 1%, White 88%)

White

White

Gap

Hispanic

Gap

Hispanic

33 22*27 27 32

Vermont

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 94%)

(1996: Hispanic 1%, White 96%)

Washington

(2009: Hispanic 15%, White 68%)

(1996: Hispanic 6%, White 81%)

West Virginia

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 93%)

(1990: Hispanic #, White 96%)

Wyoming

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 84%)

(1990: Hispanic 6%, White 86%)

Gap data not available

Gap data not available

White

Gap

Hispanic

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

# Rounds to zero.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

1 National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.

2 Hispanic and White percentages are based on students tested in the first assessment year for the state and in 2009.

3 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data presented 

here were recalculated for comparability.

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Where data are not present, the jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. Comparative performance results may be affected by changes in exclusion rates for students with disabilities and English language learners in the NAEP samples.

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

1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments.
34 

Mathematics Summary

National trends in mathematics, 1990–2009

n The mathematics achievement gap between Hispanic 

and White students in 2009 was 21 points at grade 4 and 

26 points at grade 8. There was no significant difference 

when comparing these gaps to the comparable gaps in 

2007 or 1990 (figures 5 and 6). 

n Neither males nor females demonstrated a significant 

change in the Hispanic-White gap when comparing 

2009 to 2007 or to 1990 (figures 7 and 8).

n Among eighth-grade students who were eligible for 

free or reduced-price school lunch through the National 

School Lunch Program, the Hispanic-White achievement gap was narrower in 2009 than in 2003. The corresponding gap for fourth-grade students did not change 

significantly over the same period (figure 9 and 10).

n The gap between White and non-ELL Hispanic students at both grades was narrower in 2009 than in 1996, 

the first year for which data was available (figures 11 

and 12).

State achievement gaps in mathematics, compared to the nation, 

2009

n At grade 4, eleven states had a smaller Hispanic-White 

gap than the nation, and six had a gap that was larger 

(figure 13).

n At grade 8, fifteen states had a smaller Hispanic-White 

gap than the nation, and six a gap that was larger 

(figure 15).

State trends in mathematics, 1990–2009

n At grade 4, of the 21 states for which 1992 data was 

available, six states had a narrower Hispanic-White 

achievement gap in 2009 than in 1992. Two states had a 

wider Hispanic-White achievement gap in 2009 than in 

2007 (figure 14).

n At grade 8, of the 15 states for which 1990 data was available, two states had a narrower gap in 2009 than in 1990, 

and one state had a gap that was wider. Additionally, 

three states had a narrower gap in 2009 than in 2007 

(figure 16).
Mathematics

35 
36

National Results for Hispanic and White Fourthand Eighth-Graders

Reading scores and achievement gaps in the nation, 1992–2009

Average fourth-grade reading scores for the nation were 

higher in 2009 than in 1992 for both Hispanic and White 

public school students (figure 17). The 25-point gap in 

2009 was not significantly different from the 28-point gap 

in 1992. From 2007 to 2009, scores did not change significantly for either group. The 26-point gap in 2007 was not 

significantly different from the 25-point gap in 2009.

Average reading scores for both Hispanic and White 

eighth-graders were higher in 2009 than in 1992 and in 

2007 (figure 18). The 24-point gap in 2009 was not significantly different from either the 27-point gap in 1992 or the 

25-point gap in 2007.
Reading

37 

Figure 17. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 4: Various years, 1992–2009

1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

Scale score

0

160

210

260

500

227*227* 228* 230 229 223* 222* 223* 223*

204 204 199*199* 201*

188* 192* 186* 194*

Gap

White

Hispanic

28 36* 31 35* 28 28* 26 26 25 

National 

average

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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, 

1992–2009 Reading Assessments.

Figure 18. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 8: Various years, 1992–2009

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

Scale score

0

200

250

300

500

265* 265* 268* 271 270* 269* 270* 271

238* 239* 241* 245 244* 245* 246* 248

Gap

White

Hispanic

27 25 27 26 27* 24 24 25

National 

average

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

NOTE: Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000. 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, 

1992–2009 Reading Assessments.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I

9

National n Grade 4 & 8

38

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 19 

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Reading scores and achievement gaps by gender, 1992-2009

Average reading scores were higher in 2009 than in 1992 From 2007 to 2009, scores did not change for any of these 

for the nation’s Hispanic and White students at both the student groups at grade 4. At grade 8, scores increased 

fourth and eighth grades, regardless of gender (figures 19 for Hispanic and White students, regardless of gender. 

and 20). The Hispanic-White reading gap did not change There were no significant changes in the size of the gaps 

significantly for either male or female students at either at either grade.

grade when comparing 2009 to 1992.
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Reading

39 

Figure 19. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 4, by gender: Various years, 1992–2009

Scale score

0 

160

210

260

500 

1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

231*231*231* 233 232 227 226 227*227* 227* 228* 224* 223* 225* 219* 217* 219* 218*

204* 207207 202* 203*

191* 193* 194* 199* 201201 199* 197* 196*

182* 191* 181* 190*

White

Gap

Hispanic

27 27* 26 26 25 29 36* 29 36*

28* 27 26 34* 34* 28 25 28 36*

Male Female

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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, 

1992–2009 Reading Assessments.

Figure 20. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 8, by gender: Various years, 1992–2009

Scale score

0 

200

250

300

500 

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

276 276276 275*275* 276 272*272* 266 265* 264* 265* 267 261* 258* 257*

250* 252 248 249 248* 249* 243 243* 245* 241 240* 241*241* 234*234* 235*

White

Gap

Hispanic

25 25 23 24 23 24 23 26

27 27 28* 26 25 24 29 27

Male Female

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

NOTE: Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000. 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, 

1992–2009 Reading Assessments.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

40

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Reading scores and gaps by family income, 2003–2009 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) uses student eligibility for free or reduced-price 

school lunch as an indicator of family income. Eligible 

students come from families with an income no more 

than 185 percent of the federal poverty level. As table 3 

indicates, in 2009, 76 percent of fourth-grade and 72 percent of eighth-grade Hispanic public school students were 

eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch. For White 

public school students, 29 percent of fourth-graders and 24 

percent of eighth-graders were eligible. Trends in school 

lunch eligibility for the NAEP reading assessment are 

reported from 2003.

At grade 4, reading scores were higher in 2009 than in 2003 

for both not eligible and eligible Hispanic and White public school students (figure 21). Additionally, the HispanicWhite gap did not change significantly for not eligible 

students, but did narrow for eligible students, falling from 

17 points to 15 points. From 2007 to 2009, there were no 

significant changes in scores or gaps for White or Hispanic 

students at grade 4, regardless of eligibility.

At grade 8, scores in 2009 were higher than in 2003 for 

White students not eligible for free or reduced-price school 

National n Grade 4 & 8

Table 3. Percentage of public school students 

assessed in NAEP reading eligible for 

the National School Lunch Program, 

by race/ethnicity and grade: Various 

years, 2003–2009

 Hispanic White

Grade 4

 2009 76 29

 2007 74 26*

 2005 76 26*

 2003 74 25*

Grade 8

 2009 72 24

 2007 70 24

 2005 68* 23*

 2003 67* 20*

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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

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

various years, 2003–2009 Reading Assessments.

lunch and for eligible Hispanic students (figure 22). The 

not eligible gap did not change significantly, but the eligible gap narrowed from 18 points to 14 points since eligible 

Hispanic students’ scores increased, while eligible White 

students’ scores did not.

From 2007 to 2009, scores increased for not eligible White 

eighth-graders; the gap did not change significantly. Scores 

for eligible Hispanic students also increased, while scores 

for eligible White students did not, and the gap narrowed 

from 16 points to 14 points (figure 22).

In 2009, the reading performance gap for Hispanic eligible 

and not eligible students was smaller than the gap for White 

eligible and not eligible students, at both grades. At grade 

4, White not eligible students had an average score of 235 

(figure 21 left side of graph), while White eligible students 

had a score of 215 (figure 21 right side of graph), resulting 

NAEP collects data on students’ eligibility for the National 

School Lunch Program (NSLP)—sometimes referred to as 

the free or reduced-price school lunch program—as an 

indicator of family economic status. Eligibility for free or 

reduced-price lunches is based on students’ family income 

in relation to the federally established poverty level.

Not eligible: Students who are not eligible for the program 

because their family’s income is above 185 percent of the 

poverty level.

Eligible: Students who are eligible for either reduced-price 

lunch because their family’s income is between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level, or for free lunch, 

because their family’s income is below 130 percent of the 

poverty level.

As a result of improvements in the quality of the data on 

students’ eligibility for NSLP, the percentage of students 

for whom information was not available has decreased in 

comparison to the percentages reported prior to the 2003 

assessment. Therefore, trend comparisons are only made 

back to 2003 in this report.

Eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Reading

41 

in a gap of 20 points. Hispanic not eligible students had an 

average score of 217, while Hispanic eligible students had a 

score of 200, resulting in a gap of 16 points (using unrounded 

numbers), smaller than the gap between White students.

At grade 8, White not eligible students had an average 

score of 276 (figure 21 left side of graph), while White 

eligible students had a score of 258 (figure 22 right side of 

graph), resulting in a gap of 18 points. Hispanic not eligible students had an average score of 259, while Hispanic 

eligible students had a score of 244, resulting in a gap of 

15 points, which was also smaller than the gap for White 

students.

Figure 21. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 4, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: Various years, 2003–2009

Scale score

0

160

210

260

500

2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009

214 215 215 212*

232* 233* 235 235

197* 199 200 195*

217 217 217 213*

White

Gap

Hispanic

Not eligible Eligible 

16*

17* 17* 16 15

20 18 18

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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, 

2003–2009 Reading Assessments.

Figure 22. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 8, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: Various years, 2003–2009

Scale score

0

200

250

300

500

2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009

257 257 258 258

274* 276 274* 273*

241* 242* 244 239*

259 256 255* 256

White

Gap

Hispanic

Not eligible Eligible 

18

18* 16 16* 14

18 18 17

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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, 

2003–2009 Reading Assessments.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

42

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Trends in reading scores and achievement gaps by ELL status at 

grades 4 and 8, 1998-2009

The 15-point gap between grade 4 White students (both 

ELL and non-ELL White students) and non-ELL 

Hispanic students in 2009 was narrower than the 24-point 

gap in 1998, the first year for which data are available 

(figure 23). Scores rose for both groups, but the increase 

for non-ELL Hispanic students was larger. From 2007 to 

2009, there was no significant change in the scores of either 

group or in the gap. (For percentages of ELL students in 

fourth and eighth grade, see table 4.)

Table 4. Percentage of public school English 

language learner students assessed in 

NAEP reading, by race/ethnicity and 

grade: Various years, 1998–2009

 Hispanic White

Grade 4

 2009 

 2007 

 2005 

 2003 

 2002 

 2000 

1998 

35 

37 

37 

37 

34 

33 

22 

1

1

1

1

1

#

1

Grade 8

 2009 

2007 

 2005 

 2003 

 2002 

 1998 

20 

24 

24 

24 

22 

15 

#

1

1

1

1

#

# Rounds to zero.

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

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

various years, 1998–2009 Reading Assessments.

National n Grade 4 & 8

Within the Hispanic student population, the 29-point gap 

between ELL and non-ELL Hispanic students in 2009 was 

not significantly different from either 1998 or 2007. Scores 

for both groups were higher in 2009 than in 1998 but not 

significantly different from 2007.

At grade 4 in 2009, the 29-point gap between non-ELL 

Hispanic students and ELL Hispanic students was larger 

than both the 15-point gap between White and non-ELL 

Hispanic students (figure 23) and the 25-point gap between 

all Hispanic and White students (figure 17).

At grade 8, average reading scores for White students and 

non-ELL Hispanic students were higher in 2009 than in 

1998, the first year for which data are available (figure 24). 

They were also higher in 2009 than in 2007. The 15-point 

gap in 2009 was narrower than the 22-point gap in 1998, 

but was not measurably different from the 16-point gap 

in 2007.
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Reading

43 

Within the Hispanic eighth-grade student population, the 

39-point gap between ELL and non-ELL Hispanic students in 2009 was wider than the gap in either 1998 or 2007. 

The average score for non-ELL Hispanic students in 2009 

was higher than in either comparison year, while the 2009 

score for ELL Hispanic students was not significantly different from their scores in either 1998 or 2007 (figure 24).

Figure 23. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 4, by English language learner status: Various years, 1998–2009

1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2002

Scale score

0

160

210

260

500

227*227* 228* 230 229 223* 223*

215 214 210* 209* 211*

199* 199*

211* 215 214 210* 209* 199* 199*

183 184 184 185 179

166* 166*

White

Gap

Non-ELL 

Hispanic

24* 23* 18* 18* 16* 14 15

Gap

ELL 

Hispanic

Non-ELL 

Hispanic

33 30 34

25* 27 31 29

White–Non-ELL Hispanic Non-ELL Hispanic–ELL Hispanic

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. White includes ELL and non-ELL White students.

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

1998–2009 Reading Assessments.

Figure 24. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 8, by English language learner status: Various years, 1998–2009

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

Scale score

0

200

250

300

500

268* 271 270* 269* 270* 271

246* 252* 252* 253* 254* 256

246* 252* 252* 253* 254* 256

215 222* 218 220* 219 217

White

Gap

Non-ELL 

Hispanic

22* 19*19* 17* 16 15

Gap

ELL 

Hispanic

Non-ELL 

Hispanic

32* 31* 34* 32* 35* 39

White–Non-ELL Hispanic Non-ELL Hispanic–ELL Hispanic

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

NOTE: Data were not collected at grade 8 in 2000. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. White includes ELL and non-ELL White students.

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

1998–2009 Reading Assessments.
44

State Results for Hispanic and White Fourth- and 

Eighth-Graders

State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 4, 2009

The NAEP state reading assessments were administered larger. In 29 states, the gap was not significantly different 

to public school students in fourth grade only in 1992 from the nation’s gap (figure 25). Asterisks indicate a sigand 1994, and in fourth and eighth grade in 1998, 2002, nificant difference from the national average score or the 

2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. Before 2003, states were not national average gap.

required to participate in NAEP in order to qualify for In two states, Mississippi and Ohio, the difference in scores Title I education funds. Typically, 40 or more states par- between Hispanic and White students was not statistically ticipated in each assessment prior to 2003. In 2003, 2005, significant, and thus there was no measurable gap in those 2007, and 2009, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two states. The difference was 12 points in Mississippi and the DoDEA schools participated. 15 points in Ohio. The fourth-grade reading gap in 2009 

State results are presented in two ways. Comparisons of was statistically significant in the other 46 states for which 

fourth-grade reading gaps in 2009 between each state and data could be reported.

the nation are presented in figure 25. In 4 of the 13 states where the gap was smaller than 

Comparisons of the reading gaps within a state over time the national average—Delaware, DoDEA, Florida, and 

are presented in a series of small graphs in figure 26. At Maryland—scores for both Hispanic and White stuthe top left of each two-page spread, the reading scores dents were above the national average for those stuand gaps for the nation are presented for reference. Each dents. In four states—Hawaii, Kentucky, Missouri, and 

state figure, as well as the national figure, also contains a Montana—scores for Hispanic students were higher than 

dashed gray line representing the national average for pub- they were nationally while scores for White students were 

lic school students. The data for the national averages are comparable. In three states—Alaska, South Dakota, and 

located in appendix B in table B-4. Wyoming—scores for Hispanic students were higher 

than the national score while scores for White students Thirteen states had a smaller Hispanic-White gap than the were lower. nation’s 25-point gap in 2009 and six had a gap that was 
Reading

45 

Among states where the gap was larger 

than the national average, in Utah scores 

for both Hispanic and White students were 

below the national averages for those students. In California and Minnesota, the 

scores for Hispanic students were below 

the national average while the scores for 

White students were not measurably different from it. In Colorado, Connecticut, 

and the District of Columbia, the score for 

Hispanic students was not measurably different from the national average while the 

score for White students was higher than 

the national average.

In Mississippi the score for Hispanic students was not measurably different from 

the national average while the score for 

White students was below it. In Ohio the 

scores for both Hispanic and White students were not measurably different from 

the national averages for those students.

Figure 25. The Hispanic-White achievement score gap in 

reading for public school students at grade 4, by 

state: 2009

0 500

Scale score

180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260

Wyoming

Wisconsin

Washington

Virginia

Utah

Texas

Tennessee

South Dakota

South Carolina

Rhode Island

Pennsylvania

Oregon

Oklahoma

Ohio

North Carolina

New York

New Mexico

New Jersey

New Hampshire

Nevada

Nebraska

Montana

Missouri

Mississippi

Minnesota

Michigan

Massachusetts

Maryland

Louisiana

Kentucky

Kansas

Iowa

Indiana

Illinois

Idaho

Hawaii

Georgia

Florida

DoDEA

District of Columbia

Delaware

Connecticut

Colorado

California

Arkansas

Arizona

Alaska

Alabama

National Public 204

200

215*

198*

202

196*

204

205

216*

207

223*

223*

208

215*

201

203

203

207

210

215*

206

221*

211*

206

194*

212

216*

219*

207

199*

217*

213*

201

210*

204

215

207

196*

199

200

205

216*

202

210*

194*

214*

201

202

212*

 229

 225*

 226*

 225*

 224*

 227

 236*

 238*

 235*

 256*

 234*

 233*

 229

 226

 225*

 231

 227*

 224*

 229

 228

 219*

 237*

 241*

 225*

 230

 225*

 228

 228

 228

 222*

 230

 237*

 224*

 233*

 230

 230

 223*

 223*

 230

 231

 226

 227*

 224*

 232

 225*

 234*

 229

 227*

 224*

Jurisdictions Hispanic White

 25 

 11*

 27

 22

 31*

 32*

 33*

 18*

49*

11*

10*

 21

 12*

 24

 28

 24

 16*

 19

 13*

 13*

15*

30

 19

 36*

 12

 12*

 9*

 21

 23

 13

 24

 22

 22

 26

 15

 16

 31

 31

 22

 11*

 22

 22

 20

 28

 25

 13*

Gap

 25

31*

27

* Significantly different (p<.05) from the nation (public) when comparing one state to the nation at a time.

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

NOTE: States whose Hispanic student population size was insufficient for comparison are omitted. Reporting standards not met for Maine, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia. 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), 2009 Reading Assessment.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

46

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 4

The Hispanic-White reading gap among the nation’s 

public school fourth-graders did not change significantly, 

comparing 2009 to 1992, though both Hispanic and White 

students showed significant score increases (figure 26, 

national results).

From 2007 to 2009, scores of Hispanic and White fourthgraders in the nation did not change significantly, and 

there was also no significant change in the gap.

In 11 of the 21 states for which 1992 data were available, 

both Hispanic and White students achieved higher average 

scores in reading in 2009 than in 1992. Both New Jersey 

and New York narrowed the achievement gap when comparing 2009 to 1992, as Hispanic students’ scores increased 

more than White students’ scores. 

In Colorado, the gap was wider in 2009 than in 1992, as 

White students’ scores increased and Hispanic students’ 

scores showed no significant change. In Indiana, the gap 

was wider in 2009 than in 2002, the first assessment year for 

which reportable results for both groups are available, as 

Hispanic students’ scores decreased while White students’ 

scores did not change significantly.

From 2007 to 2009, scores increased for White students 

only in Rhode Island, and for Hispanic students only in 

Florida and Maryland. The gap did not change significantly in any of these states. In Kentucky, scores for White students increased from 2007 to 2009. Prior to 2009, Kentucky 

did not have reportable results for Hispanic students.

State n Grade 4

Changing of the Gap

In New Jersey and New York, the gap was narrower in 

Narrowing

2009 than in the first assessment year as scores for 

Hispanic students increased more than the scores for 

White students.

In Alaska, the gap was narrower in 2009 than in 

2007, though neither Hispanic nor White students’ 

scores showed significant change.

In Colorado, the gap was wider in 2009 than in the 

first assessment year as scores for White students 

increased while scores for Hispanic students did not 

idening

change.

In Indiana, the gap was wider in 2009 than in the 

first assessment year for which reliable results for W

both groups were available as Hispanic students’ 

scores decreased while White students’ scores did not 

change significantly.

In Alaska, the Hispanic-White reading gap narrowed 

between 2007 and 2009, even though scores for neither 

group changed significantly.

Figure 26 displays population percentages for Hispanic 

and White fourth-graders in each state for 2009 and the 

first year of the state’s participation in the assessment.

Hispanic-White reading gap data are not available for 

Maine, North Dakota, Vermont, or West Virginia. 
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Reading

47 

Figure 26. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 4, by state: Various years, 1992–2009

Scale score

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1994n 1998 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998

1992n 1994n

2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

227*227* 228* 230 229 223* 222* 223*223*

204204 199*199* 201*

188* 192* 186* 194*

227 225 217* 219* 222 218* 219* 220*

200 197

226 225 228 226

215 209209 206

223 224224 225 220* 219* 219* 220*

197 198 195 192* 188* 188* 188* 197

222 223 225 226 224 218* 217* 216*

202202 212 204204

225 227227 223 224 217* 212* 217*

193 195 196 192191* 181*

171* 180*

234 236 232*232* 226* 221* 220*

201 205 206 204204

191*

202

258 256 254 252 246* 248 247* 248

206 207

193* 187* 193*

173* 183* 189*

232 235 234 230*230* 227*

223223 222 218* 219 212*

232 233 226*229*228* 218* 217* 217*

223 218* 215* 211* 207* 198* 192*

203*

238238 234* 237 237 238 233* 230*

204 206 203203 205 196

183* 187*

233233 235 233 235

215* 218* 221*

216 218 216 212 209

176*

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

Alaska

(2009: Hispanic 7%, White 50%)

(2003: Hispanic 4%, White 54%)

Arizona

(2009: Hispanic 45%, White 41%)

(1992: Hispanic 23%, White 61%)

Arkansas

(2009: Hispanic 8%, White 66%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 75%)

California

(2009: Hispanic 51%, White 28%)

(1992: Hispanic 28%, White 51%)

Colorado

(2009: Hispanic 29%, White 61%)

(1992: Hispanic 17%, White 74%)

Connecticut

(2009: Hispanic 16%, White 67%)

(1992: Hispanic 10%, White 76%)

Delaware

(2009: Hispanic 12%, White 51%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 68%)

District of Columbia

(2009: Hispanic 11%, White 7%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 5%)

DoDEA3

(2009: Hispanic 16%, White 49%)

(1998: Hispanic 8%, White 48%)

Alabama

(2009: Hispanic 4%, White 61%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 65%)

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 21%, White 54%)

(1992: Hispanic 7%, White 72%)2

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

17 15 23* 11

31 27 32 28 31 27 31 23 24 18 19 13 33 33 32 31 35 31 22

37 40*

27 26 30 32 26 29 20* 41 33 33 31 35 33 43 51*

24 21 18 18 15

42

15 24* 20 19* 18* 13 59 52 49 14 10 55 67*

64* 74* 57

30 28 28* 26 26 25 25 28 36* 31 35*

Florida

(2009: Hispanic 24%, White 47%)

(1992: Hispanic 11%, White 63%)

13 12 11 8 12 15

See notes at end of figure.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

48

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

State n Grade 4

Figure 26. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 4, by state: Various years, 1992–2009—Continued

Scale score

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

230 229 226226226 223* 221* 221*

208 212

200 201 203

224 227 226 219 221 212* 214* 214*

215 205 211 203 204 197* 189* 193*

224 222* 226 227 225 221*

201 204 198 197 199199

228 230230 231

205 203 197 199

226 227 224*224 225 224 223*

203 208 207 212 216*

226 224 222 225 226 224 227 224

208 207 200 203 205

229229 227 226 225225

209 210 203 205 207 201

228 222*225* 220* 222*221* 214*214*

215

220 219 221 223*223* 218 215 213*

206 213

225 225 224 225 226 225 227 229* 236 237 230*231* 232 222* 224* 220*

221 213* 207* 208*209* 210*

197*

227*227* 228* 230 229 223* 222* 223*223*

204204 199*199* 201*

188* 192* 186* 194*

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 21%, White 54%)

(1992: Hispanic 7%, White 72%)2

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

28 28* 26 26 25 28 36* 31 35*

27 23 27 23 24 23

Georgia

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 47%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 60%)

Hawaii

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 14%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 23%)

Idaho

(2009: Hispanic 13%, White 82%)

(1992: Hispanic 6%, White 92%)

Illinois

(2009: Hispanic 21%, White 52%)

(2003: Hispanic 16%, White 60%)

Indiana

(2009: Hispanic 6%, White 77%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 87%)

Iowa

(2009: Hispanic 7%, White 84%)

(1992: Hispanic 2%, White 93%)

Kansas

(2009: Hispanic 14%, White 70%)

(1998: Hispanic 7%, White 79%)

Kentucky

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 84%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 90%)

Louisiana

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 47%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 54%)

Maine

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 94%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 98%)

23 18 21 26 25 19

13 22 12 16 18 25 17

31 24 28 31 9* 12* 16 18 24

21 24 22 19 16 20 19 25 21 18 22 13

7 13

Maryland

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 49%)

(1992: Hispanic 2%, White 63%)

23 23 15 22 18 21 24

Gap data not available

See notes at end of figure.
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Reading

49 

Figure 26. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 4, by state: Various years, 1992–2009—Continued

Scale score

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1994n 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1994n 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

241241 237* 234* 239 230*230* 228*

209 211 202* 203* 207

194*

182*

196*

223 226 228* 226 227 225 222

206 208 210 205205 201

229229 231231 230 224* 223* 221*

194 200 204 195 202

225 221 220* 222 218* 215* 217* 218*

212

226 227 226226 228 221* 221* 225*

213 216 210 218

225 227 226 227 228 230 228

220 219 226

228 230 228 224* 223* 226 225*

207 203 202202 203 199 205

224 222 218 217* 213*

196 199

219

194 192* 195 189*

229 228 230230 224* 228

217 209 206

238 237 232* 235 233* 231*

214 213 206* 212

195* 193*

224 228 222 223 222 225 223 220

199 204 201 197 202 197 195* 199

235235 232 234 233 226*226* 228*

210 204 208208 206

189* 188* 184*

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

Massachusetts

(2009: Hispanic 17%, White 69%)

(1992: Hispanic 4%, White 84%)

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

32 32 30 32 35 34 47* 34

Michigan

(2009: Hispanic 5%, White 71%)

(1992: Hispanic 2%, White 80%)

Minnesota

(2009: Hispanic 7%, White 76%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 92%)

Mississippi

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 45%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 42%)

Missouri

(2009: Hispanic 4%, White 77%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 83%)

Montana

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 83%)

(1994: Hispanic 1%, White 88%)

Nebraska

(2009: Hispanic 15%, White 73%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 89%)

Nevada

(2009: Hispanic 39%, White 42%)

(1998: Hispanic 17%, White 65%)

New Hampshire

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 91%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 97%)

New Jersey

(2009: Hispanic 19%, White 55%)

(1992: Hispanic 11%, White 69%)

New Mexico

(2009: Hispanic 56%, White 29%)

(1992: Hispanic 44%, White 47%)

22 21 24 19 17 19 31 36 26 34 26

12 9 16 14 12 1 10 9

26 27 21 19 24 23 23 24 27 23 25 22 25

23 20 13

24 24 24 26 38*37*

New York

(2009: Hispanic 19%, White 52%)

(1992: Hispanic 16%, White 63%)

30 27 24 27 22

42*37* 40* 21 25 25 23 22 23 23 27

See notes at end of figure.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

50

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

State n Grade 4

Figure 26. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 4, by state: Various years, 1992–2009—Continued

Scale score

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1994n 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

227*227* 228* 230 229 223* 222* 223*223*

204204 199*199* 201*

188* 192* 186* 194*

228 230 227 232232

220* 224* 223*

204 205 204 213*212

228 229 228 226 227 226 224*

230 231 230 229226* 220*

214 215 211 207

223223 220220 219 223 225

207 198 204 197 200 207 204

223 222 223 222 223 217*

196 190 194 200 199

178*

229 233 230 227 224* 228 227

200 199 203 197 195 191

231 225* 226* 227* 224*224* 227* 223*

198 200 192* 195 196

177*

193 183*

225 226 225 224 226 221* 218* 221*

205205 215 205

227 226 228 227

216 209

222 224224 218* 219* 218* 220220

202 208 199 206

192

232232232 227* 230 232 223* 226*

210 212 210 205* 208 200* 198* 200*

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 21%, White 54%)

(1992: Hispanic 7%, White 72%)2

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

28 28* 26 26 25

19 17 15 19

28 36* 31 35*

North Carolina

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 54%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 66%)

North Dakota

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 86%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 96%)

Ohio

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 72%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 85%)

Oklahoma

(2009: Hispanic 9%, White 58%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 78%)

Oregon

(2009: Hispanic 16%, White 70%)

(1998: Hispanic 9%, White 81%)

Pennsylvania

(2009: Hispanic 8%, White 72%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 82%)

Rhode Island

(2009: Hispanic 18%, White 69%)

(1992: Hispanic 7%, White 82%)

South Carolina

(2009: Hispanic 5%, White 56%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 57%)

South Dakota

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 81%)

(2003: Hispanic 2%, White 84%)

Tennessee

(2009: Hispanic 5%, White 70%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 75%)

19 20 23 23 26

21 15 25 16 23 16 21 24 23 29 32 27 39

35 31 32 27 33 31 29 31 32 28 32

14 22 16 22 28

32 40 48*

21 9* 19 22

19 11

Texas

(2009: Hispanic 49%, White 32%)

(1992: Hispanic 33%, White 50%)

22 21 22 28 30* 24 22 23

Gap data not available

See notes at end of figure.
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Reading

51 

Figure 26. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 4, by state: Various years, 1992–2009—Continued

Scale score

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

0

160

210

260

500

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1992n 1994n 1998 2003 2005 2007 2009

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

224 223 226226 225 222* 219* 220*

194 199 201 194 201 192 190 200

227* 229229 227 226* 233 231 233233 234 227* 224* 225*

216 214 218 210

224*

207 211

228 229229 227 226 221* 216*

201 206 200 204 201 202

185*

215 216 215 220*220* 216 214 216

227227 228 225 227 229 227

202 209 208208 203 201 209

224 227 228* 224224 223 220* 225

210 212 204

214 206 208 205 207

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

Utah

(2009: Hispanic 15%, White 78%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 93%)

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

23* 29 27 26 31 27 29

25 26 23 22 23 28

32

21

Vermont

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 94%)

(2002: Hispanic 1%, White 95%)

Virginia

(2009: Hispanic 8%, White 57%)

(1992: Hispanic 1%, White 71%)

Washington

(2009: Hispanic 18%, White 62%)

(1994: Hispanic 6%, White 79%)

West Virginia

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 92%)

(1992: Hispanic #, White 96%)

Wisconsin

(2009: Hispanic 9%, White 75%)

(1992: Hispanic 3%, White 87%)

Wyoming

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 84%)

(1992: Hispanic 6%, White 90%)

13 9* 21 15 17 20 18

18 21 18 24 27 16* 25

11 23 18 13 19 15 15 17

Gap data not available

Gap data not available

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

# Rounds to zero.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

1 National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.

2 Hispanic and White percentages are based on students tested in 2009.

3 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data presented 

here were recalculated for comparability.

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Where data are not present, the jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. State-level data were not collected in 2000. Comparative performance results may be affected by changes in exclusion rates for students with disabilities and 

English language learners in the NAEP samples.

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

1992–2009 Reading Assessments.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

52

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 199

I

I

I

I I I I I I I I 

State n Grade 8

State and national reading achievement gaps at grade 8, 2009

At grade 8, seven states had a smaller gap than the nation’s 

24-point Hispanic-White gap in 2009 and none had a gap 

that was larger. In 36 states, the gap was not significantly 

different from the nation’s gap (figure 27). Asterisks indicate a significant difference from the national average score 

or the national average gap.

The eighth-grade reading gap in 2009 was statistically 

significant in 42 of the 43 states for which data could be 

reported. In Kentucky, the apparent 3-point difference 

between the average scores for Hispanic and White students was not statistically significant, and thus there was 

no measurable gap.

In all seven of the states where the gap was smaller than the 

national gap, scores for Hispanic students were higher than 

the national average for those students. In DoDEA, scores 

for White students were also higher than the national aver-
99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I I I I I I I I I I

Reading

53 

age for White students, while in Alaska, 

Florida, Missouri, and Wyoming, scores for 

White students were not measurably different from the national average for those 

students. In Kentucky and South Carolina, 

scores for White students were lower than 

they were nationally.

Figure 27. The Hispanic-White achievement score gap in 

reading for public school students at grade 8, by 

state: 2009

0 500

Scale score

230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310

Wyoming

Jurisdictions Hispanic White

Wisconsin

Washington

Virginia

Utah

Texas

Tennessee

South Carolina

Rhode Island

Pennsylvania

Oregon

Oklahoma

Ohio

North Carolina

New York

New Mexico

New Jersey

New Hampshire

Nevada

Nebraska

Missouri

Minnesota

Michigan

Massachusetts

Maryland

Kentucky

Kansas

Iowa

Indiana

Illinois

Idaho

Hawaii

Georgia

Florida

DoDEA1

Delaware

Connecticut

Colorado

California

Arkansas

Arizona

Alaska

Alabama

National Public 248

245

260*

246

249

241*

250

252

256*

269*

260*

254

252

241*

252*

251

249

250

265*

258*

250

253

247

260*

253*

 242*

257

256*

248

247

249

251

246

247

247

241*

259*

252

251*

246

256*

248

250

259*

 271

 264*

 269

 270

 266*

 269

 274*

 279*

 273

 278*

 272

 268*

 267*

 269*

 274

 269

 267*

 272

 269*

 279*

 279*

 268*

 275*

 270

 272

 264*

 271

 281*

 271

 275*

 270

 273

 264*

 269*

 276*

 267*

 267*

 267*

 273

 270

 272

 273

 271

 269

Gap

 19

 9*

 24

 17

 28

 24

 27

 16

9*

 11*

 14

 15

 28

 21

 18

 18

 22

 3*

20

 28

 15

 28

 10*

 19

 22

 14

25

 24

 27

 22

 22

 18

 22

 28

 26

 8*

 16

 22

 24

 16

 24

 21

 11*

 24

* Significantly different (p<.05) from the nation (public) when comparing one state to the nation at a time.

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

NOTE: States whose Hispanic or White student population size was insufficient for comparison are omitted. Reporting 

standards not met for District of Columbia, Lousiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Vermont, and West Virginia. 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), 2009 Reading Assessment.
54State n Grade 8

Trends in state reading achievement gaps at grade 8

The Hispanic-White reading gap among the nation’s 

public school eighth-graders did not change significantly, 

comparing 2009 to 1998, though both Hispanic and White 

students showed significant score increases (figure 28, 

national results).

From 2007 to 2009, scores of both Hispanic and White 

eighth-graders in the nation increased significantly. 

However, there was no significant change in the gap during this time period.

State-level data are available starting in 1998 for 22 states. 

In one state, Wyoming, both Hispanic and White students 

achieved higher average scores in reading in 2009 than in 

1998. From 1998 to 2009, the Hispanic-White reading gap 

did not change significantly in any state (figure 28).

Scores increased for White students only in New Mexico 

and Utah, but the gap did not change significantly in either 

state. Scores increased for White students in Kentucky 

from 2007 to 2009; prior to 2009, Kentucky did not have 

reliable results for Hispanic students.

In Alaska, the gap narrowed in 2009 compared to 2003, the 

state’s first assessment year, as Hispanic students’ average 

scores increased while scores for White students showed no 

significant change.

Changing of the Gap

In Alaska, the gap was narrower in 2009 than in the 

first assessment year as Hispanic students’ average 

scores increased while scores for White students 

Narrowing

showed no significant change.

In the following three states, the gap narrowed 

between 2007 and 2009 as Hispanic students’ average scores increased while those of their White peers 

showed no change.

Rhode Island Wyoming

South Carolina

From 2007 to 2009, scores increased for Hispanic students 

only in Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wyoming, and 

the gap narrowed in these three states during this period.

Figure 28 displays population percentages for Hispanic 

and White eighth-graders in each state for 2009 and the 

first year of the state’s participation in the assessment.

Hispanic-White reading gap data are not available for 

Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Vermont, or West Virginia.
Reading

55 

Figure 28. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 8, by state: Various years, 1992–2009

Scale score

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1998 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

265* 265* 268* 271 270* 269* 270* 271

238* 239* 241* 245 244* 245* 246* 248

265 264 262 263 261 264

250 245

268 268 270 269

246* 254 257 260

269 267 268 267 269 270

244 242 240* 242 241 246

263* 267 266 266 266 266

257 250 249 249

268 265 265 264* 266 269

238 238 237* 239* 239 241

270* 275 273 275 274

244 247 247 249 250

277 277275*272* 276* 279

247 239*244*245 243* 252

263*

275 273 274 274 273

248 250246* 253 257 256

301

246 240* 240* 247 249 249

276 278 278 276 278 278

269 270 268 268 273 269

264* 269 268 265* 268 272

247 252*251*252* 256 260

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 20%, White 57%)

(1992: Hispanic 8%, White 71%)2

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

26 27* 24 25 24 27

25 25 28 25 28 24

27 25

Alabama

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 60%)

(1998: Hispanic 1%, White 63%)

Alaska

(2009: Hispanic 6%, White 53%)

(2003: Hispanic 4%, White 58%)

Arizona

(2009: Hispanic 42%, White 45%)

(1998: Hispanic 26%, White 62%)

Arkansas

(2009: Hispanic 7%, White 69%)

(1998: Hispanic 2%, White 75%)

California

(2009: Hispanic 51%, White 28%)

(1998: Hispanic 37%, White 40%)

Colorado

(2009: Hispanic 28%, White 61%)

(1998: Hispanic 19%, White 73%)

Connecticut

(2009: Hispanic 14%, White 71%)

(1998: Hispanic 8%, White 77%)

Delaware

(2009: Hispanic 9%, White 54%)

(1998: Hispanic 3%, White 64%)

District of Columbia

(2009: Hispanic 9%, White 3%)

(1998: Hispanic 6%, White 3%)

DoDEA3

(2009: Hispanic 16%, White 46%)

(1998: Hispanic 10%, White 47%)

12 19 14 13 9 21*

9 16 18 17 30 2927 25 26 28

27 26 25 24 26 33 27 30 38* 31 28

7 8 9 9 5 9

21 17 25* 27* 15 16

53

Florida

(2009: Hispanic 25%, White 46%)

(1998: Hispanic 13%, White 57%)

13 12 11 17 17 17

See notes at end of figure.
56State n Grade 8

Figure 28. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 8, by state: Various years, 1992–2009—Continued

Scale score

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

265* 265* 268* 271 270* 269* 270* 271

238* 239* 241* 245 244* 245* 246* 248

Gap data not available Gap data not available

268 268 268 268 271 268

242 245 247 250 254

262 263 259* 261 262 267

246249 242 249 252

269267 267 268 269

247242 246 243 241

276 272 271 274

250 253 250 252

267 269 265* 268 269

247 247 255 251

269 269 270 267

244

256 250 249

272 273271 271 272 272

241

253245 249 248 250

264* 267 269 266 264* 269

265

262 268* 267 264 264 263 272* 270 269 270 270 268 272* 274271*272* 276 279

261 253 251 256 258 258

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

Georgia

(2009: Hispanic 9%, White 47%)

(1998: Hispanic 2%, White 58%)

Hawaii

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 14%)

(1998: Hispanic 2%, White 19%)

Idaho

(2009: Hispanic 14%, White 82%)

(2002: Hispanic 8%, White 89%)

Illinois

(2009: Hispanic 18%, White 58%)

(2003: Hispanic 14%, White 63%)

Indiana

(2009: Hispanic 6%, White 76%)

(2002: Hispanic 2%, White 86%)

Iowa

(2009: Hispanic 6%, White 86%)

(2003: Hispanic 4%, White 91%)

Kansas

(2009: Hispanic 13%, White 73%)

(1998: Hispanic 6%, White 83%)

Kentucky

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 85%)

(1998: Hispanic #, White 89%)

Louisiana

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 52%)

(1998: Hispanic 1%, White 58%)

Maine

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 94%)

(1998: Hispanic #, White 97%)

21 14 25 2024 13 15 17 10 20

26 19 21 21 13 22 18 18

25 13 19 18 22 24 22 26 20 31 3

Maryland

(2009: Hispanic 8%, White 49%)

(1998: Hispanic 3%, White 59%)

16 18 20 21 20 11

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 20%, White 57%)

(1992: Hispanic 8%, White 71%)2

26 27* 24 25 24

21 25 20* 25 28

27 27 25

See notes at end of figure.
Reading

57 

Figure 28. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 8, by state: Various years, 1992–2009—Continued

Scale score

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2003 2005 2007 2009

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009

2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

274* 278 278 279 278 279

242 246 246 246 251 250

270 272*268 267 268

257 250 241

253

269* 273 273 273 275

240 244 245 247

264 268 267 264 264 264 265* 271 272 270 270 270

258 248

260

273 273 273 272 274 273

273 271 271 271 272

251

241* 245* 255 253

264 259* 262 261 263 264

242 237*237*241 238 242

272 270 270 271

252 257

277* 278 278 281

248* 251 257 256

270 266 268 264* 265* 271

250 247 243* 245 246 248

275 274 277 276 274 275

247 251 250 250 246 247

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

Michigan

(2009: Hispanic 4%, White 74%)

(2002: Hispanic 2%, White 77%)

Minnesota

(2009: Hispanic 5%, White 79%)

(1998: Hispanic 2%, White 85%)

Mississippi

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 47%)

(1998: Hispanic #, White 51%)

Missouri

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 80%)

(1998: Hispanic 1%, White 85%)

Montana

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 85%)

(1998: Hispanic 2%, White 90%)

Nebraska

(2009: Hispanic 12%, White 77%)

(2002: Hispanic 6%, White 86%)

Nevada

(2009: Hispanic 35%, White 45%)

(1998: Hispanic 18%, White 68%)

New Hampshire

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 92%)

(2003: Hispanic 2%, White 94%)

New Jersey

(2009: Hispanic 16%, White 60%)

(2003: Hispanic 14%, White 60%)

New Mexico

(2009: Hispanic 57%, White 30%)

(1998: Hispanic 44%, White 42%)

26 16 18 15 29 28 28 32

22 12 10

26* 16 19 30* 22 19 24 22 22 22 25

20 24 20 25 19 20

18 14

22 25 28 26

New York

(2009: Hispanic 19%, White 55%)

(1998: Hispanic 15%, White 60%)

28 23 28 26 29 27

Massachusetts

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 74%)

(1998: Hispanic 9%, White 79%)

31 32 27 28 32 32

Gap data not available Gap data not available

See notes at end of figure.
58State n Grade 8

Figure 28. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 8, by state: Various years, 1992–2009—Continued

Scale score

1992n 1994n 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

265* 265* 268* 271 270* 269* 270* 271

238* 239* 241* 245 244* 245* 246* 248

270 274 271 267 270 270

252 244 248 246 249

269* 272 272 270 271

273271 272 274 273

268*

245

260 251

268* 268* 267 265 266 264

254 251 250 247 241 246

269 270 267 267 270 269

237

249 249 245 243 247

271* 268* 273 272 276

241

257

246 244 247

268 268267 268 267 267

239 240238 237 233* 241

265 268269 267 268 267

244*

259

273 272 272 273 264 265265 265 267 267

252 252

271 276272 270 275 273

250 250247 248 251 251

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

North Carolina

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 55%)

(1998: Hispanic 1%, White 64%)

North Dakota

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 88%)

(2002: Hispanic 1%, White 94%)

Ohio

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 79%)

(2002: Hispanic 2%, White 81%)

Oklahoma

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 59%)

(1998: Hispanic 4%, White 72%)

Oregon

(2009: Hispanic 16%, White 72%)

(1998: Hispanic 6%, White 86%)

Pennsylvania

(2009: Hispanic 6%, White 77%)

(2002: Hispanic 3%, White 81%)

Rhode Island

(2009: Hispanic 17%, White 71%)

(1998: Hispanic 7%, White 82%)

South Carolina

(2009: Hispanic 4%, White 55%)

(1998: Hispanic 1%, White 58%)

South Dakota

(2009: Hispanic 2%, White 84%)

(2003: Hispanic 1%, White 88%)

Tennessee

(2009: Hispanic 3%, White 70%)

(1998: Hispanic 1%, White 76%)

22 27 20 24 22

17 16 19 25 18 3 27 14 22 14 22 17 23 26 22 32

11* 27 28 28 31 34* 26

15 16

29 28 30 31 24* 8

Texas

(2009: Hispanic 46%, White 37%)

(1998: Hispanic 33%, White 50%)

22 26 24 22 24 22

NATIONAL1

(2009: Hispanic 20%, White 57%)

(1992: Hispanic 8%, White 71%)2

26 27* 24 25 24 27 27 25

Gap data not available

Gap data not available

See notes at end of figure.
Reading

59 

Figure 28. Reading achievement score gaps between Hispanic and White public school students at 

grade 8, by state: Various years, 1992–2009—Continued

Scale score

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 1998 2003 2005 2007 2009

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

0

200

250

300

500

266* 267 268 265* 266* 270

244 238* 241 243 242 246

272 271 269* 273 272 273 275 275 275 273 272

265 261 266 259 258 256

267* 271 268* 268* 270 273

240 247 246 245 247 248

262* 264*260*256 256 255

269 271 271 270 271

256

244 247 247 250

265* 267 269 270 269 269

250* 249* 255 256 248*

259

National 

average

National 

average

National 

average

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

White

Gap

Hispanic

Vermont

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 94%)

(2002: Hispanic #, White 96%)

Virginia

(2009: Hispanic 7%, White 59%)

(1998: Hispanic 3%, White 66%)

Washington

(2009: Hispanic 15%, White 68%)

(1998: Hispanic 7%, White 79%)

West Virginia

(2009: Hispanic 1%, White 93%)

(1998: Hispanic #, White 95%)

Wisconsin

(2009: Hispanic 6%, White 79%)

(1998: Hispanic 3%, White 85%)

Wyoming

(2009: Hispanic 10%, White 84%)

(1998: Hispanic 6%, White 89%)

16 14 16 8 14 9

13 28 24 22 21

14 21* 14 11 15 18*

Utah

(2009: Hispanic 13%, White 81%)

(1998: Hispanic 5%, White 90%)

30 22 24 24 21 27

24 22 23 23 24 27

Gap data not available

Gap data not available

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

# Rounds to zero.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

1 National results for assessments prior to 2002 are based on the national sample, not on aggregated state samples.

2 Hispanic and White percentages are based on students tested in 2009.

3 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Before 2005, DoDEA overseas and domestic schools were separate jurisdictions in NAEP. Pre-2005 data presented 

here were recalculated for comparability.

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Where data are not present, the jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting. State-level data were not collected in 1992, 1994, or 2000. Comparative performance results may be affected by changes in exclusion rates for students with 

disabilities and English language learners in the NAEP samples.

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

1992–2009 Reading Assessments.
60 

Reading Summary

National trends in reading, 1992–2009

n	 The reading achievement gap between Hispanic and 

White students in 2009 was 25 points at grade 4 and 24 

points at grade 8. There was no significant difference 

when comparing these gaps to the comparable gaps in 

2007 or 1992 (figures 17 and 18). 

n	 Neither males nor females demonstrated a significant 

change in the Hispanic-White gap when comparing 

2009 to 2007 or to 1992 (figures 19 and 20).

n	 At both the fourth and eighth grades, students who were 

eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch through 

the National School Lunch Program had a narrower 

Hispanic-White achievement gap in 2009 than in 2003 

(figures 21 and 22).

n	 The gap between White and non-ELL Hispanic students at both grades was narrower in 2009 than in 

1998, the first year for which data were available. The 

eighth-grade gap between Non-ELL Hispanic and 

ELL Hispanic students was wider in 2009 than in 2007 

and 1998 (figures 23 and 24).

State achievement gaps in reading, compared to the nation, 

2009

n	 At grade 4, thirteen states had a smaller Hispanic-White 

gap than the nation, and six had a gap that was larger 

(figure 25).

n	 At grade 8, seven states had a smaller Hispanic-White 

gap than the nation, and no state had a gap that was 

larger (figure 27). 

State trends in reading, 1992–2009

n	 At grade 4, of the 21 states for which 1992 data were 

available, two states had a narrower Hispanic-White 

achievement gap in 2009 than in 1992, and one had a 

gap that was wider. One state had a narrower HispanicWhite achievement gap in 2009 than in 2007 (figure 26).

n	 At grade 8, three states had a narrower gap in 2009 than 

in 2007 (figure 28).
Reading

61 
62 

References

Barton, P., and Coley, R. (2007). The Family: America’s 

Smallest School. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing 

Service.

Barton, P., and Coley, R. (2009). Parsing the Achievement 

Gap II. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Campbell, J.R., Hombo, C.M., and Mazzeo, J. (2000). 

NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress: Three 

Decades of Student Performance (NCES 2000-469). 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research 

and Improvement. Washington, DC.

Child Nutrition Program—Income Eligibility Guidelines. 

73 Fed. Reg. 69 (April 9, 2008), pp. 19186-19187

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, P.L. 

89-10, 79 Stat. 27.

Fry, R. (2007). How Far Behind in Math and Reading are 

English Language Learners? Washington, DC: Pew 

Hispanic Center.

Guzman, B. (2001). The Hispanic Population: Census 2000 

Brief. (C2KBR/01-3), U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, 

DC.

Hill, H.C., Rowan, B., and Ball, D.L. (2005). Effects of 

Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on 

Student Achievement. American Educational Research 

Journal, 42(2): 371-406.

Humes, K.R., Jones, N.A., and Ramirez, R.R. (2011). 

Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010 

(C2010BR-02). Retrieved 29 March 2011, from U.S. 

Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/prod/

cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

Johnson, E.G., and Rust, K.F. (1992). Population Inferences 

and Variance Estimation for NAEP Data. Journal of 

Educational Statistics, 17(2): 175-190.

KewalRamani, A., Fox, M., and Aud, S. (2010). Status and 

Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups

(NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute 

of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office.

Lopez, M. (2009). Latinos and Education: Explaining the 

Attainment Gap. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic 

Center.

Miller, R.G. (1981). Simultaneous Statistical Inference (2nd 

ed.). New York: Springer-Verlang.

National Center for Education Statistics (2009). The 

Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2009 (NCES 2010-

451). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department 

of Education, Washington, D.C.

National Center for Education Statistics (2010). The 

Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2009 (NCES 2010-458). 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council (2006). Hispanics and the 

Future of America. M. Tienda and F. Mitchell (Eds.), 

Committee on Population, Division of Behavioral and 

Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census. (2010). Race, Hispanic or 

Latino, Age, and Housing Occupancy: 2010. 2010 Census 

Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 

Tables P1, P2, P3, P4, H1. Retrieved 29 March 2011, 

from U.S. Census Bureau website: http://factfinder2.

census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.

xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_QTPL&prodType=table 

Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., and 

Rahman, T. (2009). Achievement Gaps: How Black and 

White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics 

and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NCES 2009-455). U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC.

Williams, V.S.L., Jones, L.V., and Tukey, J.W. (1994). 

Controlling Error in Multiple Comparisons with Special 

Attention to the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress. Research Triangle Park, NC: National 

Institute of Statistical Sciences.
63 
64 

Appendix A: Technical Notes

This report presents data for public school students from 

the main National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP). Main NAEP assessments are conducted in a range 

of subjects at grades 4, 8, and 12 across the country, including the District of Columbia and Department of Defense 

Education Activity (DoDEA), and are used to report at the 

national, state, and district levels. Main NAEP assessments 

began in 1990 for mathematics and 1992 for reading at 

grades 4 and 8. Discussion of main NAEP grade 12 assessments is omitted in this report because these assessments 

are conducted at the national level only. 

Frameworks, development, 

administration, scoring, and analysis

For overviews of these topics, and for more extensive information about other topics for the 2009 main NAEP reading 

and mathematics assessments, consult the information available online at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/

and http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/. 

Sources of the data

This report presents national data from the 1990, 1992, 

1996, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 main NAEP mathematics assessments and the 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2003, 

2005, 2007, and 2009 main NAEP reading assessments for 

White and Hispanic public school students in the fourth 

and eighth grades. In 2000, the reading assessment was 

administered at the fourth grade only (see tables B-1 and 

B-3 in appendix B). 

This report presents state data from the 1992, 1996, 2000, 

2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 grade 4 NAEP mathematics 

assessments and from the 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, 

2005, 2007, and 2009 grade 8 NAEP mathematics assessments, for public school students only. It presents state data 

from the 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 

grade 4 reading assessments and from the 1998, 2002, 2003, 

2005, 2007, and 2009 grade 8 reading assessments.

Nationally in 2009, White students constituted 54 percent of 

the public school fourth-grade population while Hispanic 

students constituted 22 percent, using data from the 2009 

mathematics assessment. Results for the eighth-grade were 

similar: 56 percent and 21 percent, respectively. However, 

percentages vary widely across states. For example, Hispanic 

students constituted a majority of the fourth-grade population in three states, California (51 percent), Texas (51 percent), and New Mexico (58 percent), according to the 2009 

mathematics assessment. In contrast, Hispanic students 

constituted 1 percent of the fourth-grade public school population in Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia. Eighth-grade 

data show a similar pattern. In some states, the NAEP sample for the Hispanic or White population was insufficient to 

permit a reliable estimate. 

NAEP sampling procedures for public 

school students in reading and 

mathematics

The schools and students participating in NAEP assessments are chosen to be representative of the nation and 

states. Samples of public schools and students are selected 

from each state and from the District of Columbia and 

DoDEA schools. The results from the assessed students are 

combined to provide accurate estimates of overall national 

performance and of the performance of individual states. 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has 

changed the main NAEP sampling methods over the 

years. From 1990 through 2000, the national public sample 

was collected separately from the state samples. The 2002 

national sample was the sum of all the state samples of the 

participating states, plus small samples from the few states 

that did not participate. In 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009, all 

states participated and the national sample was the aggregate 

of the samples from all states and the District of Columbia. 

(As discussed below, DoDEA schools are not considered 

public schools, although for comparison purposes DoDEA 

is treated as a state.) The main NAEP national samples 

in reading and mathematics since 2002 have been larger 

than in previous assessment years. Thus, smaller score differences between years or between types of student groups 

were found to be statistically significant than would have 

been detected in previous assessments. From 1990 through 

2001, NCES oversampled schools with high minority populations (Black and Hispanic) in the national public sample. 

Beginning in 2002, this practice was discontinued because 
65 

the state samples were large enough to ensure adequate 

coverage for these populations. Prior to 2002, NAEP results 

were weighted to compensate for the oversampling. 

In 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009, results were weighted 

to take into account the fact that states, and schools within 

states, represent different proportions of the overall national public population. For example, since the number of students assessed in most states is roughly the same (to allow 

for stable state estimates and administrative efficiencies), 

the results for students in less populous states are assigned 

smaller weights than the results for students in more populous states. Sampling weights are also used to account for 

lower sampling rates for very small schools and are used to 

adjust for school and student nonresponse. NAEP samples 

for reading and mathematics assessments administered 

from 1990 through 2009 are discussed in more detail below. 

The NAEP 2009 mathematics and reading assessments were 

administered to fourth- and eighth-graders in all states. This 

report includes data for public school students for both the 

nation and all states. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

and the DoDEA schools met the minimum guidelines for 

reporting their results in 2009 for both assessments. 

In order to obtain a representative sample for reporting 

national and state public school results in 2009, NCES 

sampled and assessed approximately 168,800 fourthgraders from 9,510 schools and 161,700 eighth-graders 

from 7,030 schools for the mathematics assessment and 

approximately 178,800 fourth-graders from 9,530 schools 

and 160,900 eighth-graders from 7,030 schools for the 

reading assessment. 

Each student assessed represented a portion of the population. The students selected represented the total population of approximately 3.5 million fourth-grade and 3.5 

million eighth-grade public school students. These totals 

include the public schools in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia. 

Schools in the DoDEA school system are classified as 

“nonpublic” by NCES and their results are not included 

in the determination of NAEP national public average 

scale scores. These schools are not “private” because they 

are operated by the federal government and they are not 

“public” because only children of U.S. military personnel 

can attend them. For comparison purposes, the system is 

treated as a state and results are compared with the scores 

of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

School and student participation

Table A-1 provides a summary of the 2009 national and 

state school and student participation rates for the reading 

grade 8 assessment sample. Rates for reading grades 4 and 

8 and mathematics grade 4 in 2009 were similar, as were 

the rates for the 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007 assessments. 

Readers who want more detail should consult the 2009, 

2007, 2005, 2003 and 2002 report cards, available online at 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/.

Participation rates in table A-1 are presented for public 

schools and public school students in grade 8 reading. 

The school participation rate is a weighted percentage of 

schools participating in the assessment. This rate is based 

only on the schools that were initially selected for the 

assessment, before substitution. The numerator of this 

rate is the estimated number of schools represented by the 

initially selected schools that participated in the assessment. 

The denominator is the estimated number of schools represented by the initially selected schools that had eligible 

students enrolled. 

Also presented in table A-1 are weighted student participation rates. The numerator of this rate is the estimated 

number of students who are represented by the students 

assessed (in either an initial session or a makeup session). 

The denominator of this rate is the estimated number of 

students represented by the eligible sampled students in 

participating schools. 

The term “eligible students” used in the two preceding 

paragraphs refers to students who can meaningfully participate in NAEP. Students excluded from NAEP assessments 

on the grounds that they cannot meaningfully participate 

are not part of the population of interest. Initially selected 

schools that had no eligible students enrolled are excluded 

from the denominator of the school participation rate 

because they contained no students who were part of the 

population of interest. For similar reasons, the denominator 
66 

Table A-1. School and student participation rates, and target student population, grade 8 reading 

assessment, public school students only, by state or jurisdiction: 2009

School participation Student participation

Jurisdiction

School-weighted 

percentage

Number of schools 

participating

Student-weighted 

percentage

Number of students 

assessed Target population

National Public 100 6,510 92 155,400 3,504,000

Alabama 100 110 93 2,700 53,000

Alaska 88 100 91 2,500 9,000

Arizona 100 130 92 2,800 73,000

Arkansas 100 120 93 2,700 33,000

California 100 230 92 7,200 469,000

Colorado 100 120 93 2,800 54,000

Connecticut 100 110 92 2,800 42,000

Delaware 100 50 92 2,800 9,000

District of Columbia 100 60 89 1,600 4,000

DoDEA1 97 60 93 1,600 5,000

Florida 100 160 91 4,200 180,000

Georgia 100 120 93 3,500 109,000

Hawaii 100 70 92 2,900 13,000

Idaho 100 110 94 3,000 20,000

Illinois 100 200 94 4,100 154,000

Indiana 100 110 93 2,700 77,000

Iowa 100 130 94 2,600 33,000

Kansas 99 120 95 2,700 33,000

Kentucky 100 130 94 3,500 47,000

Louisiana 100 120 93 2,600 45,000

Maine 100 140 93 2,700 14,000

Maryland 100 130 92 3,200 58,000

Massachusetts 100 140 92 3,600 72,000

Michigan 100 150 92 3,300 117,000

Minnesota 100 140 92 2,900 60,000

Mississippi 100 120 94 2,800 37,000

Missouri 100 130 94 2,700 64,000

Montana 98 170 91 2,600 11,000

Nebraska 100 120 95 2,600 20,000

Nevada 100 90 92 2,900 32,000

New Hampshire 96 90 90 2,500 15,000

New Jersey 100 110 93 2,700 100,000

New Mexico 100 100 90 2,500 23,000

New York 98 150 90 3,700 198,000

North Carolina 100 150 92 4,500 112,000

North Dakota 100 180 95 2,100 7,000

Ohio 100 190 93 3,400 129,000

Oklahoma 100 150 93 2,700 44,000

Oregon 100 130 92 2,900 42,000

Pennsylvania 100 150 92 3,500 127,000

Rhode Island 100 60 92 2,700 11,000

South Carolina 100 110 93 2,700 50,000

South Dakota 100 220 95 2,800 9,000

Tennessee 100 120 93 2,800 75,000

Texas 100 170 92 5,700 322,000

Utah 100 110 91 2,800 38,000

Vermont 100 120 93 2,900 7,000

Virginia 100 110 93 2,800 91,000

Washington 100 130 91 2,800 75,000

West Virginia 100 120 92 2,900 23,000

Wisconsin 99 170 93 3,400 61,000

Wyoming 100 90 91 1,900 6,000

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

NOTE: The numbers of schools are rounded to the nearest ten, the numbers of students are rounded to the nearest hundred, and the target population is rounded to the nearest thousand. 

Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

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

Assessment.

Appendix A: Technical Notes
67 

of the weighted student participation rate consists only of 

eligible sampled students. 

The fourth column gives the number of public school students who were assessed in each of the jurisdictions. The 

final column of table A-1 gives the target populations for 

each jurisdiction, that is, the eighth-grade population for 

that jurisdiction. 

The national target student population per grade for all 

main NAEP assessments 1990–2009 ranged from about 

3.25 million to about 3.75 million. In the 1990–1996 assessments, the number of schools sampled per assessment and 

grade for the national sample ranged from approximately 

120 to 230, while the number of students assessed ranged 

from approximately 5,200 to 9,900. In the 1998–2000 assessments, the number of schools sampled per assessment and 

grade ranged from approximately 330 to 390, while the 

number of students assessed ranged from approximately 

6,100 to 9,000. (Data are drawn from NAEP mathematics 

assessments, 1990–2009.)

The state target student populations for all main NAEP 

assessments 1990–2009 ranged from approximately 5,000 

in the District of Columbia and 9,000 in sparsely populated 

states like Wyoming and Alaska to approximately 450,000 

in California, followed by approximately 325,000 in Texas. 

In the 1990–2000 state assessments, the number of schools 

sampled per assessment and grade ranged from approximately 30 to 150, while the number of students assessed 

ranged from approximately 1,000 to 5,900. In the 2002– 

2009 state assessments, the number of schools sampled per 

assessment and grade ranged from approximately 40 to 

250, while the number of students assessed ranged from 

approximately 1,700 to 10,700. (Data are drawn from 

NAEP mathematics assessments, 1990–2009.)

In all NAEP assessment years prior to 2003, NCES preselected substitute schools that could be added to the 

original sample in case a large number of schools from the 

sample failed to participate. School and student participation rates were given both before and after substitution. 

Because the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires 

states to participate in the main NAEP reading and 

mathematics assessments at the fourth and eighth grades 

in order to qualify for full Title I education funding, participation rates are very high and NCES no longer selects 

substitute schools for these assessments. 

NCES and the National Assessment Governing Board, 

which establishes policy for NAEP, set minimums for the 

school participation rate before substitution of replacement schools for any sample. Results are not reported for 

states with a participation rate below the minimum. From 

1990 through 2002, the standard for the state assessments 

required that the weighted school participation rate before 

substitution of replacement schools be 70 percent or higher. 

Beginning in 2003, the standard was raised to 85 percent. 

All data presented in this report are based on samples 

meeting the standards in effect at the time of the assessment. Since 2003, no state has had a rate below 85 percent.

Since 1990, the national weighted public school participation rate before substitution for the grade 4 and 8 reading 

and mathematics assessments has ranged from 76 percent 

to 100 percent. Prior to 2003, a few states did not meet 

the 70 percent standard. From 1990 through 2002, the 

weighted public school participation rate before substitution for states whose results are reported here ranged 

from 70 percent to 100 percent. For more information 

on all the NAEP assessments referenced in this report, 

consult the individual reports devoted to them, available 

from the NCES website at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

getpubcats.asp?sid=031.

Understanding NAEP reporting 

groups

NAEP results are provided for groups of students defined 

by shared characteristics—race/ethnicity, eligibility for free 

or reduced-price school lunch, and gender, for example. 

Based on participation rate criteria, results are reported 

for groups only when sufficient numbers of students and 

adequate school representation are present. The minimum 

requirement is a total of at least 62 students in a particular 

group, assessed in at least five different locations. However, 

the data for all students, regardless of whether their group is 

reported separately, are included in computing overall student results. Definitions of the student groups discussed in 
68 

this report follow. For more information on understanding 

NAEP reporting, see http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

mathematics/interpret-results.asp.

Race/ethnicity

In all main NAEP assessments, data about student race/ 

ethnicity are collected from two sources: school records 

and student self-reports. In this report, the race/ethnicity 

variable is based on the race reported by the school for all 

assessment years. In the rare cases when school-recorded 

information is missing, student-reported data are used to 

determine race/ethnicity. 

Schools sampled for NAEP are asked to provide lists of 

all students in the target grade(s) along with basic demographic information, including race/ethnicity. Students 

are categorized into one of five mutually exclusive racial/ 

ethnic categories plus “other.” Administration schedules—

also referred to as student rosters—are created that include 

the list of sampled students along with their basic demographic information. These data are checked and updated 

during data collection. These race/ethnicity data were collected for all sampled students: those that participated and 

those that were absent or excluded. See http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/bgquest.asp for more information. 

The mutually exclusive racial/ethnic categories are White 

(non-Hispanic), Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian/ 

Pacific Islander, American Indian (including Alaska 

Native), and Unclassified. Unclassified students are those 

whose school-reported race was “other” or “unavailable,” 

or was missing, or whose race could not be determined 

using self-reported data (i.e., “multi-racial” or missing). 

Hispanic students may be of any race. Only results for 

White (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic students are contained 

in this report. Information based on student self-reported 

race/ethnicity is available on the NAEP Data Explorer 

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

National School Lunch Program

NAEP first began collecting data in 1996 on student eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) as 

an indicator of low income. Under the guidelines of NSLP, 

children from families with incomes below 130 percent of 

the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those from 

families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of the 

poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals. (For the 

period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009, for a family of 

four, 130 percent of the poverty level was $27,560, and 185 

percent was $39,220 [Child Nutrition Program 2008].)

Some schools provide free meals to all students irrespective of individual eligibility, using their own funds to cover 

the costs of non-eligible students. Under special provisions 

of the National School Lunch Act intended to reduce the 

administrative burden of determining student eligibility 

every year, schools can be reimbursed based on eligibility 

data for a single base year. Participating schools might have 

high percentages of eligible students and report all students 

as eligible for free lunch. For more information on NSLP, 

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

Because of the improved quality of the data on students’ 

eligibility for NSLP, the percentage of students for whom 

information was not available has decreased compared 

to the percentages reported prior to the 2003 assessment. 

Therefore, NSLP trend comparisons are only made back 

to 2003 in this report. 

Gender 

NAEP assessments identify students as male or female 

based on school records. 

Inclusion and exclusion 

The NAEP program has always endeavored to assess all 

students selected as a part of its sampling process. In all 

NAEP schools, accommodations are provided as necessary 

for students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learner (ELL) or limited English proficient (LEP) 

students. (ELL is the term used since the NAEP 2005 

reports; LEP was used before 2005.) The accommodations 

are available to students whose Individualized Education 

Program (IEP) specifically requires them. Because some 

ELL students do not have an IEP, decisions about accommodations for these students are typically made by knowledgeable school staff. 

Appendix A: Technical Notes
69 

The NAEP program has established procedures to include 

as many SD and ELL students as possible in the assessments. School staff make the decisions about whether to 

include such a student in a NAEP assessment, and which 

testing accommodations, if any, they should receive. The 

NAEP program furnishes tools to assist school personnel 

in making those decisions. 

A sampling procedure is used to select students at each 

grade being tested. Students are selected on a random basis, 

without regard to SD or ELL status. Once the students are 

selected, the schools identify which have SD or ELL status. 

School staff who are familiar with these students are asked 

a series of questions to help them decide whether each student should participate in the assessment and whether the 

student needs accommodations. 

Inclusion in NAEP of an SD or ELL student is encouraged if: 

(a) that student participated in the regular state academic 

assessment in the subject being tested, and 

(b) that student can participate in NAEP with the accommodations NAEP allows. 

Even if the student did not participate in the regular state 

assessment, or if he/she needs accommodations NAEP 

does not allow, school staff are asked whether that student 

could participate in NAEP with the allowable accommodations. For more information on inclusion, exclusion, 

and accommodations in NAEP, visit http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp.

History of NAEP Inclusion Policy

Although NAEP has always endeavored to assess as high 

a proportion of sampled students as is possible, prior to 

1996 NAEP did not allow accommodations for SD or ELL 

students. This resulted in exclusion of some students who 

could not meaningfully participate in the assessment without accommodations. 

The passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA), as amended in 1997, led states and districts 

to identify increasing numbers of students as requiring 

accommodations in assessments in order to fairly and 

accurately show their abilities. It was important for NAEP 

to be as consistent as possible with testing practices in 

most states and districts while maintaining the ability to 

compare more recent NAEP results to those from 1990, 

1992, and 1994, when accommodations were not allowed. 

(Accommodations were not allowed in NAEP state assessments until 1996.) Before the 2005 assessment (when the 

selection process was detailed in a series of questions), 

guidelines were specified by NAEP. Beginning in 2005, 

a student identified on the Administration Schedule as 

having a disability (SD), that is, a student with an IEP or 

equivalent classification, should be included in the NAEP 

assessment unless: 

n The IEP team or equivalent group had determined that 

the student could not participate in assessments such as 

NAEP, 

n The student’s cognitive functioning was so severely 

impaired that he or she could not participate, or 

n The student’s IEP required that the student be tested 

with an accommodation that NAEP did not permit, and 

the student could not demonstrate his or her knowledge 

of the subject without that accommodation. 

A student who was identified as LEP or ELL and who was 

a native speaker of a language other than English should be 

included in the NAEP assessment unless: 

n The student had received reading or mathematics 

instruction primarily in English for less than 3 school 

years including the current year, and 

n The student could not demonstrate his or her knowledge of the subject in English even with an accommodation permitted by NAEP. 

The phrase “less than 3 school years including the current 

year” meant 0, 1, or 2 school years. Therefore, the guidelines below were used: 

n Include without any accommodation all LEP or ELL 

students who had received instruction in the subject 

primarily in English for 3 years or more and those who 

were in their third year; 
70 

n Include without any accommodation all other such 

students who could demonstrate their knowledge of the 

subject without an accommodation; 

n Include and provide accommodations permitted by 

NAEP to other such students who can demonstrate 

their knowledge of the subject only with those accommodations; and 

n Exclude LEP or ELL students only if they could not 

demonstrate their knowledge of the subject even with 

an accommodation permitted by NAEP. 

The percentages of students excluded from NAEP may 

vary from one state to another, as well as across years. 

National exclusion rates for Hispanic and White SD 

and/ or ELL students in 2009 may be found in table A-2. 

The “total” rates include all students, not just those who 

are Hispanic or White. For information on state exclusion rates, see table A-3. For more information on Main 

NAEP inclusion and exclusion, go to http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp

Accommodations 

From 1990 through 1994 for the nation—and through 

1996 for the states—main NAEP assessments did not allow 

accommodations for either SD or ELL students. Since 

then, accommodations have been permitted for those SD 

and/or ELL students who need accommodations in order 

to participate, unless the accommodation would change the 

nature of what is being tested. 

To accomplish this goal, students who receive accommodations in their state’s assessments are offered the same 

accommodations on NAEP. For example, passages and 

questions in the NAEP reading test are not permitted to 

be read aloud to the student, because that accommodation 

would make it a test of listening instead of a test of reading. Similarly, reading passages and questions cannot be 

presented in a language other than English. It should be 

noted that students assessed with accommodations typically received some combination of accommodations. For 

example, students assessed in small groups (as compared 

with standard NAEP sessions of about 30 students) usually 

received extended time. In one-on-one administrations, 

students often received assistance in recording answers 

(e.g., use of a scribe or computer) and extra time.

The most common accommodations for the NAEP 2009 

reading and mathematics assessments were small-group 

administration, extended time, breaks, and read-aloud 

(mathematics only). See http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

tdw/instruments/accomm.asp for more details on NAEP 

accommodations. For state accommodation rates for SD 

and ELL students in 2009 see the Technical Notes sections of The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2009 at 

http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/ and The Nation’s 

Report Card: Reading 2009 at http://nationsreportcard.gov/

reading_2009/. 

Drawing inferences from the results 

The reported statistics for NAEP are estimates and therefore subject to a measure of uncertainty. There are two 

sources of such uncertainty. First, NAEP uses a sample of 

students rather than testing all students. Second, all assessments have some amount of uncertainty related to the fact 

that they cannot ask all questions that might be asked in a 

content area. The magnitude of this uncertainty is reflected 

in the standard error of each of the estimates. When the 

percentages or average scale scores of certain groups are 

compared, the estimated standard error should be taken 

Table A-2. National mathematics and 

reading exclusion rates as 

percentages of the total sample, 

public schools only, by grade and 

race/ethnicity: 2009

Math Reading

Grade 4

Total 2 5

White 2 3

Hispanic 3 8

Grade 8

Total 3 4

White 3 3

Hispanic 3 5

NOTE: “Total” exclusion percentages are for all public school students, not just 

Hispanic and White.

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

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

2007 Mathematics and Reading Assessments.

Appendix A: Technical Notes
71 

Table A-3. Mathematics and reading exclusion rates as percentages of the total sample, public 

schools only, by grade, race/ethnicity, and jurisdiction: 2009

Mathematics Reading

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 4 Grade 8

Jurisdiction Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White

National Public 3 2 3 3 8 3 5 3

Alabama 2 1 6 1 5 1 9 1

Alaska 3 1 4 3 3 2 2 1

Arizona 1 1 2 2 5 3 3 2

Arkansas 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1

California 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 1

Colorado 1 2 3 1 4 3 4 3

Connecticut 5 2 4 2 12 3 11 2

Delaware 3 3 5 2 8 7 11 3

District of Columbia 9 1 13 4 15 6 19 6

DoDEA1 4 2 5 1 8 5 6 3

Florida 3 2 3 2 10 2 8 2

Georgia 1 1 3 2 12 4 9 3

Hawaii 3 1 2 2 4 1 4 3

Idaho 2 1 1 1 6 3 5 2

Illinois 5 2 4 3 8 2 6 3

Indiana 1 2 5 4 10 4 11 4

Iowa 2 2 6 2 9 4 8 4

Kansas 6 2 4 2 12 4 12 3

Kentucky 5 3 7 4 20 7 16 7

Louisiana 1 1 ‡ 1 5 2 ‡ 2

Maine ‡ 2 ‡ 2 ‡ 4 ‡ 3

Maryland 8 3 11 4 23 8 27 5

Massachusetts 9 4 6 5 11 3 15 4

Michigan 4 3 3 3 6 3 4 4

Minnesota 4 2 4 2 6 2 6 3

Mississippi ‡ 1 ‡ 1 5 1 ‡ 1

Missouri 5 3 8 3 8 3 7 3

Montana 0 1 9 3 4 3 ‡ 3

Nebraska 3 2 5 3 9 4 11 5

Nevada 3 2 3 2 6 3 5 2

New Hampshire 2 2 6 3 11 3 2 4

New Jersey 6 2 3 2 18 7 15 5

New Mexico 2 3 3 2 10 4 7 3

New York 1 1 2 2 8 3 10 5

North Carolina 2 2 3 1 6 1 6 1

North Dakota ‡ 4 ‡ 5 ‡ 7 ‡ 7

Ohio 10 2 16 4 17 5 11 6

Oklahoma 3 3 4 7 11 6 9 4

Oregon 4 2 4 2 7 3 4 2

Pennsylvania 5 2 7 2 9 2 6 2

Rhode Island 3 1 5 2 7 3 7 2

South Carolina 4 1 4 3 16 4 22 4

South Dakota 3 2 1 2 11 5 ‡ 3

Tennessee 3 3 10 4 14 8 15 6

Texas 3 2 4 5 13 5 5 4

Utah 4 2 3 3 14 5 9 3

Vermont ‡ 2 ‡ 2 ‡ 3 ‡ 3

Virginia 2 2 6 3 9 3 13 3

Washington 2 1 2 2 5 3 3 3

West Virginia ‡ 2 ‡ 2 ‡ 2 ‡ 2

Wisconsin 5 1 4 2 7 3 11 3

Wyoming 2 1 5 1 6 2 5 3

‡ Reporting standards not met.

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

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

and Reading Assessments.
72 

into account. Therefore, the comparisons are based on 

statistical tests that consider the estimated standard errors 

of the statistics being compared and the magnitude of the 

difference between the averages or percentages. Estimates 

based on smaller groups are likely to have relatively large 

standard errors. As a consequence, a numerical difference 

that seems large may not be statistically significant. 

Furthermore, 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 3-point change in the gap between Hispanic and White 

fourth-graders nationwide may be significant, while a 

3- point change in the gap between Hispanic and White 

fourth-graders in Kansas may not be. The differences 

described in this report have been determined to be statistically significant at the .05 level with appropriate adjustments for part-to-whole and multiple comparisons. 

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

used to indicate that a score or percentage is significantly 

different from another. In addition, any difference between 

scores or percentages that is identified as higher, lower, 

larger, smaller, narrower, or wider in this report, including 

within-group differences not marked in tables and figures, 

meets the requirements for statistical significance.

Standard errors for the NAEP scores and percentages presented in this report for both assessments are available on 

the NAEP website (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

naepdata). 

Weighting and variance estimation 

NAEP uses a complex sample design to select the students 

who were assessed. The properties of a sample selected 

through such a design could be very different from those 

of a simple random sample, in which every student in the 

target population has an equal chance of selection and in 

which the observations from different sampled students 

can be considered to be statistically independent of one 

another. Therefore, the properties of the sample for the 

data collection design were taken into account during the 

analysis of the assessment data. 

One way that the properties of the sample design were 

addressed was by using sampling weights to account for 

the fact that the probabilities of selection were not identical for all students. All population and subpopulation 

characteristics based on the assessment data were estimated using sampling weights. These weights included 

adjustments for school and student nonresponse. 

Not only must appropriate estimates of population characteristics be derived, but appropriate measures of the degree 

of uncertainty must be obtained for those statistics. Two 

components of uncertainty are accounted for in the variability of statistics based on student ability: (1) the uncertainty due to sampling only a relatively small number of 

students, and (2) the uncertainty due to sampling only a 

relatively small number of cognitive questions

Because NAEP uses complex sampling procedures, conventional formulas for estimating sampling variability 

that assume simple random sampling are inappropriate. 

NAEP uses a jackknife replication procedure to estimate 

standard errors. The jackknife standard error provides a 

reasonable measure of uncertainty for any student information that can be observed without error. However, 

because each student typically responds to only a few 

questions within a content area, the scale score for any 

single student would be imprecise. In this case, NAEP’s 

marginal estimation methodology can be used to describe 

the performance of groups and subgroups of students. 

The estimate of the variance of the students’ posterior 

scale score distributions (which reflect the imprecision 

due to lack of measurement accuracy) is computed. This 

component of variability is then included in the standard 

errors of NAEP scale scores.1

Analyzing group differences in 

averages and percentages 

NAEP uses statistical tests to determine whether, based 

on the data from the groups in the sample, there is strong 

enough evidence to conclude that the averages or per1 For further detail, see Johnson, E.G., and Rust, K.F. (1992). Population 

Inferences and Variance Estimation for NAEP Data. Journal of Educational 

Statistics, (17)2, 175–190.

Appendix A: Technical Notes
73 

centages are actually different for those groups in the 

population. If the evidence is strong (i.e., the difference 

is statistically significant), the report describes the group 

averages or percentages as being different (e.g., one group 

performed higher or lower than another group), regardless 

of whether the sample averages or percentages appear to be 

approximately the same. The reader is cautioned to rely on 

the results of the statistical tests rather than on the apparent 

magnitude of the difference between sample averages or 

percentages when determining whether the sample differences are likely to represent actual differences among the 

groups in the population. 

To determine whether a real difference exists between the 

average scale scores (or percentages of a certain attribute) 

for two groups in the population, one needs to obtain an 

estimate of the degree of uncertainty associated with the 

difference between the averages (or percentages) of these 

groups for the sample. This estimate of the degree of 

uncertainty, called the “standard error of the difference” 

between the groups, is obtained by taking the square of 

each group’s standard error, summing the squared standard errors, and taking the square root of that sum. 

The standard error of the difference can be used, just like 

the standard error for an individual group average or 

percentage, to help determine whether differences among 

groups in the population are real. The difference between 

the averages or percentages of the two groups plus or 

minus 1.96 standard errors of the difference represents an 

approximately 95 percent confidence interval for a twotailed test. If the resulting interval includes zero, there is 

insufficient evidence to claim a real difference between the 

groups in the population. If the interval does not contain 

zero, the difference between the groups is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

The following example of comparing groups addresses the 

problem of determining whether the average mathematics 

scale score of group A is higher than that of group B. The 

sample estimates of the average scale scores and estimated 

standard errors are as follows: 

Group Average scale score Standard error 

A 218 0.9 

B 216 1.1 

The difference between the estimates of the average scale 

scores of groups A and B is 2 points (218 – 216). The standard error of this difference is 

Thus, an approximately 95 percent confidence interval for 

this difference is plus or minus 1.96 standard errors of the 

difference: 

The value zero is within the confidence interval; therefore, 

there is insufficient evidence to conclude that group A’s 

performance is statistically different from group B. 

The procedure above is appropriate to use when it is reasonable to assume that the groups being compared have 

been independently sampled for the assessment. 

Such an assumption is clearly warranted when comparing 

results for one state with another. This is the approach 

used for NAEP reports when comparisons involving 

independent groups are made. The assumption of independence is violated to some degree when comparing 

group results for the nation or a particular state (e.g., 

comparing national 2009 results for male and female students), since these samples of students have been drawn 

from the same schools. 

When the groups being compared do not share students 

(as is the case, for example, of comparing Hispanic and 

White students), the impact of this violation of the independence assumption on the outcome of the statistical tests 

is assumed to be small, and NAEP, by convention, has, for 

computational convenience, routinely applied the procedures described above to those cases as well. 

When making comparisons of results for groups that share 

a considerable proportion of students in common, it is not 

appropriate to ignore such dependencies. In such cases, 
74 

NAEP has used procedures appropriate to comparing 

dependent groups. When the dependence in group results 

is due to the overlap in samples (e.g., when a subgroup is 

being compared to a total group), a simple modification of 

the usual standard error of the difference formula can be 

used. The formula for such cases is 

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in 

the subgroup. This formula was used for this report when 

a state was compared to the aggregate for the nation. 

Conducting multiple tests 

The procedures used to determine whether group differences in the NAEP samples represent actual differences among the groups in the population and the certainty 

ascribed to intervals (e.g., a 95 percent confidence interval) 

are based on statistical theory that assumes that only one 

confidence interval or test of statistical significance is being 

performed. However, there are times when many different 

groups are being compared (i.e., multiple sets of confidence 

intervals are being analyzed). 

For multiple comparisons, statistical theory indicates that 

the certainty associated with the entire set of comparisons is less than that attributable to each individual comparison from the set. To hold the significance level for 

the set of comparisons at a particular level (e.g., .05), the 

standard methods must be adjusted by multiple comparison procedures (Miller 1981). In NAEP, the BenjaminiHochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure is used 

to control the expected proportion of falsely rejected 

hypotheses relative to the number of comparisons that 

are conducted. A detailed explanation of this procedure 

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

analysis/2000_2001/infer_multiplecompare_fdr.asp. 

Unlike other multiple comparison procedures that control 

the family-wise error rate (i.e., the probability of making 

even one false rejection in the set of comparisons), the 

FDR procedure controls the expected proportion of falsely 

rejected hypotheses. Furthermore, the FDR procedure 

used in NAEP is considered appropriately less conservative than family-wise procedures for large families of comparisons (Williams, Jones, and Tukey 1994). Therefore, the 

FDR procedure is more suitable for multiple comparisons 

in NAEP than are other procedures. 

NAEP employs a number of rules to determine the number of comparisons conducted, which in most cases is simply the number of possible statistical tests. However, there 

are two exceptions where the FDR is not applied: when 

comparing multiple years and when comparing multiple 

jurisdictions to the nation, neither the number of years nor 

the number of jurisdictions counts toward the number of 

comparisons. 

Cautions in interpretation 

It is possible to examine NAEP performance results for 

groups of students defined by various background factors measured by NAEP. However, a relationship that 

exists between achievement and another variable does 

not reveal its underlying cause, which may be influenced 

by a number of other variables. The results are most useful when they are considered in combination with other 

knowledge about the student population and the educational system, such as trends in instruction, changes in the 

school-age population, and societal demands and expectations, among others. 

Appendix A: Technical Notes
75 
76 

Appendix B: Supplemental Tables

Table B-1. Administration of NAEP national and state mathematics assessments, by grade: Various 

years, 1990–2009

1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State

4th grade U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

8th grade U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Various years, 1990–2009 

Mathematics Assessments.

Table B-2. Average national mathematics scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and 8, 

by gender and eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 1990–2009

1990n 1992n 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

All Students

Grade 4 212* 219* 222* 224* 234* 237* 239 239

Grade 8 262* 267* 269* 272* 276* 278* 280* 282

Student Gender

Grade 4

Male 212* 220* 222* 225* 235* 238* 240 240

Female 211* 218* 222* 223* 233* 236* 238 238

Grade 8

Male 262* 266* 270* 273* 277* 278* 281* 283

Female 261* 267* 268* 271* 275* 277* 279* 281

Student Eligibility for National 

School Lunch Program

Grade 4

Not Eligible — — 232* 235* 244* 248* 249* 250

Eligible — — 207* 208* 222* 225* 227 228

Grade 8

Not Eligible — — 277* 283* 287* 288* 291* 293

Eligible — — 250* 253* 258* 261* 265* 266

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

— Not available. Data were not collected prior to 1996.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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

1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments.
77 

Table B-3. Administration of NAEP national and state reading assessments, by grade: Various years, 

1992–2009

1992 1994 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

 Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State Nat’l State

4th grade U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

8th grade U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Various years, 1992–2009 

Reading Assessments.

Table B-4. Average national mathematics scale scores for all public school students at grades 4 and 8, 

by gender and eligibility for the National School Lunch Program: Various years, 1990–2009

1992n 1994n 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

All Students

Grade 4 215* 212* 213* 211* 217* 216* 217* 220 220

Grade 8 258* 257* 261 — 263 261* 260* 261* 262

Student Gender

Grade 4

Male 211* 207* 210* 206* 214* 213* 214* 216 216

Female 219* 218* 215* 217* 220* 220* 220* 223 223

Grade 8

Male 251* 250* 253* — 258 256* 255* 256* 258

Female 264 265* 268 — 267 267 266* 266* 267

Student Eligibility for National 

School Lunch Program

Grade 4

Not Eligible — — 226* 226* 229* 229* 230* 232 232

Eligible — — 195* 192* 202* 201* 203* 205* 206

Grade 8

Not Eligible — — 268* — 271* 271* 270* 271* 273

Eligible — — 245* — 249 246* 247* 247* 249

n

 Accommodations were not permitted for this assessment.

— Not available. Data were not collected prior to 1996 or at grade 8 in 2000.

* Significantly different (p<.05) from 2009.

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

1992–2009 Reading Assessments.
78 

Table B-5. Percentages of public school students in NAEP mathematics and reading classified as 

English language learners, by subject, grade, race/ethnicity, and jurisdiction: 2009

Mathematics Reading

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 4 Grade 8

Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White

National Public 37 2 21 # 35 1 20 #

Alabama 46 # 41 # 44 # 35 #

Alaska 18 2 19 1 14 1 19 1

Arizona 29 1 12 # 29 # 12 #

Arkansas 59 # 45 # 62 # 42 #

California 49 4 32 1 49 4 32 1

Colorado 32 # 21 1 33 1 19 #

Connecticut 23 1 16 1 18 1 10 #

Delaware 23 # 13 # 24 # 11 #

District of Columbia 48 5 21 ‡ 43 3 28 ‡

DoDEA1 13 2 10 2 9 2 — —

Florida 24 1 13 # 17 1 10 #

Georgia 30 # 14 # 25 # 14 #

Hawaii 12 # 6 # 13 1 6 1

Idaho 28 1 21 # 29 # 23 #

Illinois 26 1 10 1 26 1 11 #

Indiana 45 # 31 1 47 # 29 #

Iowa 41 # 20 # 41 1 24 #

Kansas 53 # 35 # 49 # 33 #

Kentucky 33 # 23 # 34 # 10 #

Louisiana 42 # ‡ # 47 # ‡ #

Maine ‡ # ‡ # ‡ # ‡ #

Maryland 32 # 16 # 23 1 5 #

Massachusetts 25 1 10 # 25 1 10 #

Michigan 19 2 25 1 24 2 22 1

Minnesota 42 1 24 # 44 # 32 #

Mississippi ‡ # ‡ # 28 # ‡ #

Missouri 25 # 10 # 25 # 6 #

Montana 2 1 3 # 4 1 ‡ #

Nebraska 34 1 18 # 31 1 15 #

Nevada 47 1 19 # 45 1 17 #

New Hampshire 29 1 17 # 25 1 6 #

New Jersey 11 # 8 # 5 # 3 #

New Mexico 23 1 14 # 17 1 12 #

New York 27 1 17 1 24 1 11 #

North Carolina 43 # 40 # 43 # 39 #

North Dakota ‡ # ‡ # ‡ # ‡ 1

Ohio 29 # 18 # 35 # 13 #

Oklahoma 35 # 25 # 33 # 21 #

Oregon 51 1 30 1 51 1 27 1

Pennsylvania 19 # 16 # 19 # 15 #

Rhode Island 23 1 10 # 21 # 8 #

South Carolina 66 1 49 # 61 1 49 #

South Dakota 18 1 7 # 11 1 ‡ 1

Tennessee 36 # 14 # 39 # 15 #

Texas 37 1 12 # 31 1 13 #

Utah 41 # 26 # 37 # 22 #

Vermont ‡ 1 ‡ 1 ‡ 1 ‡ #

Virginia 49 1 21 # 50 1 27 #

Washington 37 2 14 1 35 1 14 #

West Virginia ‡ # ‡ # ‡ # ‡ #

Wisconsin 46 1 30 # 44 # 23 #

Wyoming 14 # 11 # 17 # 7 #

— Not available. 

# Rounds to zero.

‡ Reporting standards not met. 

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

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

and Reading Assessments.
79 

Table B-6. Percentages of public school students in NAEP mathematics and reading classified as 

eligible for a free or reduced-price school lunch, by subject, grade, race/ethnicity, and 

jurisdiction: 2009

Mathematics Reading

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 4 Grade 8

Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White

National Public 77 29 72 25 74 29 72 24

Alabama 84 39 70 33 85 39 85 33

Alaska 59 28 45 21 48 28 50 21

Arizona 75 28 71 22 75 29 71 21

Arkansas 91 46 84 41 85 46 85 40

California 75 23 73 22 74 24 73 20

Colorado 70 21 68 18 72 20 68 16

Connecticut 73 13 70 11 72 12 67 12

Delaware 74 25 69 22 74 24 72 20

District of Columbia 75 7 80 ‡ 79 5 81 ‡

DoDEA1 # # # # # # — —

Florida 72 35 68 27 70 36 65 27

Georgia 90 33 79 29 82 33 75 28

Hawaii 45 31 43 28 41 32 47 25

Idaho 76 37 73 29 75 36 74 29

Illinois 79 22 71 17 78 23 71 17

Indiana 78 37 75 28 79 36 75 28

Iowa 81 30 73 27 78 30 76 27

Kansas 85 37 84 31 84 36 83 31

Kentucky 81 47 8 43 77 46 82 44

Louisiana 74 49 ‡ 42 77 50 ‡ 43

Maine ‡ 39 ‡ 33 # 38 ‡ 33

Maryland 67 18 60 14 65 19 57 12

Massachusetts 83 18 73 16 80 16 77 17

Michigan 73 33 53 29 70 34 69 28

Minnesota 62 21 64 17 69 21 68 16

Mississippi ‡ 48 ‡ 43 86 46 ‡ 43

Missouri 68 36 52 30 75 35 66 30

Montana 50 34 48 28 62 34 ‡ 29

Nebraska 80 30 78 27 77 31 80 25

Nevada 58 23 53 19 59 24 51 20

New Hampshire 61 20 56 19 58 20 57 18

New Jersey 72 10 63 10 70 11 61 10

New Mexico 81 40 77 33 79 38 77 32

New York 83 26 75 22 83 25 75 20

North Carolina 82 28 78 24 83 28 75 25

North Dakota ‡ 27 ‡ 23 ‡ 27 ‡ 22

Ohio 73 29 58 26 63 29 65 26

Oklahoma 77 45 78 37 78 42 78 38

Oregon 85 35 81 31 85 36 79 31

Pennsylvania 79 25 81 23 78 25 78 23

Rhode Island 84 24 80 22 83 24 80 22

South Carolina 76 36 68 32 84 36 77 29

South Dakota 67 27 63 24 68 26 ‡ 23

Tennessee 72 40 70 32 80 40 68 32

Texas 81 23 75 21 78 26 75 22

Utah 75 25 68 18 78 24 71 18

Vermont ‡ 34 ‡ 28 ‡ 34 ‡ 28

Virginia 64 19 61 19 58 19 56 18

Washington 83 33 77 27 52 32 76 26

West Virginia ‡ 56 ‡ 51 ‡ 56 ‡ 50

Wisconsin 73 27 67 21 78 27 69 20

Wyoming 64 29 55 24 59 30 54 24

— Not available. 

# Rounds to zero.

‡ Reporting standards not met. 

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

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

and Reading Assessments.
80 

This report was prepared by the NAEP Education 

Statistics Services Institute (NAEP ESSI) of the American 

Institutes for Research (AIR) under contract with the 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), part of 

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

of Education.

The authors are grateful to everyone who contributed to the 

design, development, review, and production of this report. 

Acknowledgments