2010458

8/9/2019 2010458

1/72

Reading2009NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS AT GRADES 4 AND 8

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2010458

I n s t i t u t e o f E d u c a t i o n S c i e n c e s

8/9/2019 2010458

2/72

What is Te Nations Report Card?

Te Nations Report Card informs the public about the academic achieve-ment of elementary and secondary students in the United States. Reportcards communicate the ndings of the National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP), a continuing and nationally representative measure ofachievement in various subjects over time.

Since 1969, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading,

mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and othersubjects. NAEP collects and reports information on student performance atthe national and state levels, making the assessment an integral part of ournations evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only academicachievement data and related background information are collected. Teprivacy of individual students and their families is protected.

NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the National Center forEducation Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences of theU.S. Department of Education. Te Commissioner of Education Statistics isresponsible for carrying out the NAEP project. Te National AssessmentGoverning Board oversees and sets policy for NAEP.

Contents

1 Executive Summary

4 Introduction

7 Grade 4

24 Grade 8

42 Technical Notes

44 Appendix Tables

Photo Credits:

AndersenRoss/Photodisc/GettyImages;TetraImages/Corbis;FancyPhotography/Veer;TetraImages/GettyImages;BlendImages/PunchStock;iStockphoto;ImageSource/Jupiterimages;

AlloyPhotography/Veer;AlanBailey/Rubberball/Jupiterimages;AlanCraword/iStockphoto;ChrisScredon/iStockphoto;JamieGrill/TetraImages/Jupiterimages;RalHettler/iStockphoto;

Stockbyte/PunchStock;TetraImages/PunchStock;Comstock/PunchStock;ImageSource/GettyImages;Kablonk/SuperStock;MartinChild/Photodisc/GettyImages;Corbis/PunchStock;

Jean-PaulNacivet/GettyImages;FotografaBasica/iStockphoto;DigitalVision/PunchStock;ChristineSchneider/BrigitteSporrer/GettyImages;JonLe-Bon/iStockphoto;Corbis/PunchStock;

Palto/iStockphoto;MartinLlad/iStockphoto;JoseLuisPelaezInc./BlendImages/GettyImages;Somos/Veer/GettyImages;WealanPollard/OJOImages/GettyImages;Photodisc/PunchStock;

DigitalVision/PunchStock;imagenavi/PunchStock;JamieGrill/PhotographersChoice/GettyImages;StretchPhotography/BlendImages/GettyImages;RachelFrank/Corbis;Valueline/PunchStock;

JoseLuisPelaezInc/BlendImages/GettyImages;CarlosDavila/PhotographersChoice/GettyImages;JamieGrill/GettyImages;ImageSourcePhotography/Veery;DavidSanger/Photodisk/GettyImages;

Valueline/PunchStock;TimPannell/Corbis;ComstockImages/GettyImages;Purestock/GettyImages;Corbis;ImageSource/GettyImages;MonasheeFrantz/OJOImages/GettyImages;

ArielSkelly/BlendImages;DebenportPhoto/iStockphoto;Comstock/PunchStock;CorbisPhotography/Veer;FancyPhotography/Veer;StopPhotography/Veer

8/9/2019 2010458

3/72

Figure A. Trend in fourth- and eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores

* Signicantly dierent (p< .05) from 2009.

Accommodations not permitted Accommodations permitted

0

230

220

210

200

218* 219*219*

213*

221 221217*

215*

214*217*

Year92 94 98 0200 03 05 07 09

270

260

250

500

Scale score

263 262*264 263* 264264

263

260*260*

240

Grade 8

Grade 4

Executive SummaryReading scores up since 2007 at grade 8and unchanged at grade 4Nationally representative samples of more than178,000 fourth-graders and 160,000 eighth-gradersparticipated in the 2009 National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) in reading. At each grade,students responded to questions designed to measuretheir knowledge of reading comprehension across two

types of texts: literary and informational.

At grade 4, the average reading score in 2009 wasunchanged from the score in 2007 but was higher thanthe scores in other earlier assessment years from 1992to 2005 (gure A). About two-thirds (67 percent) offourth-graders performed at or above theBasic level in2009, and one-third (33 percent) performed at or aboveProfcient. Both percentages were unchanged from 2007but were higher than previous assessment years. Eightpercent of fourth-graders performed at theAdvancedlevel, which was the same as in 2007 but higher than in

1992.

At grade 8, the average reading score in 2009 was onepoint higher than in 2007 and four points higher thanin 1992 but was not consistently higher than in all theassessment years in between. Gains since 2007 wereseen for lower- and middle-performing students at the10th, 25th, and 50th percentiles, while scores for

higher-performing students at the 75th and 90thpercentiles showed no signicant change. In 2009,about three-quarters (75 percent) of eighth-gradersperformed at or above theBasic level, and one-third(32 percent) performed at or above Profcient. Bothpercentages were higher in 2009 than in 2007 and1992. Tree percent of eighth-graders performed at the

Advancedlevel in 2009, which was the same as thepercentages in 2007 and 1992.

READING2009

8/9/2019 2010458

4/72

Characteristic

GRADE 4 GRADE 8

Since 1992 Since 2007 Since 1992 Since 2007

Overall p t p p

Race/ethnicity

White p t p p

Black p t p p

Hispanic p t p p

Asian/PacifcIslander p t t p

AmericanIndian/AlaskaNative t p

Gender

Male p t p p

Female p t t t

Type of school

Public p t p p

Private t t t t

Gaps

WhiteBlack Narrowed t t t

WhiteHispanic t t t t

FemaleMale t t Narrowed tPrivatePublic t t t t

pIndicates the score was higher in 2009.

tIndicates no signicant change in the score or the gap in 2009. Reporting standards not met. Sample size insucient to permit a reliable estimate.

Gains for some student groups but gapspersist

Fourth-gradersatthe

Procientlevelwerelikely

tobeableto

recognizetheauthorstechnique

indevelopingacharacter,or

useinormationromanarticleto

provideandsupportanopinion.

rends in scores for student groups weregenerally similar to those for studentsoverall.At grade 4, there were nosignicant changes in the averagereading scores from 2007 to 2009 forstudent groups by race/ethnicity, gender,or type of school. Scores for most of thestudent groups were, however, higher in2009 than in 1992.

At grade 8, average scores were higher

in 2009 than in both 2007 and 1992 formost racial/ethnic groups, male stu-dents, and public school students. Terewere no signicant changes compared toeither 2007 or 1992 for female studentsor private school students, and nosignicant change for Asian/PacicIslander students compared to 1992.

Even with gains for most student groupsfrom 1992 to 2009 at both grades, andsince 2007 at grade 8, score gaps have

changed little. Compared to 2007, therehave been no signicant changes in theracial/ethnic gaps, gender gaps, or gapsby type of school at either grade. Com-pared to 1992, only the White Blackgap at grade 4 and the female male gapat grade 8 have narrowed.

THE NATIONS REPORT CARD

8/9/2019 2010458

5/72

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

Compared to 2007, average reading scoresfor public school students in 2009

increased at both grades in Kentucky;

increased at grade 4 only in theDistrict of Columbia and Rhode Island;

decreased at grade 4 only in Alaska,Iowa, and Wyoming;

increased at grade 8 only in Alabama,Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Missouri,Pennsylvania, and Utah;

decreased at grade 4 but increased atgrade 8 in New Mexico; and

showed no signifcant change at eithergrade in 38 states and jurisdictions.

FL

AL

WY

NM

UT

MO

PA

KY

HI

DC

RICT

DoDEA1

IA

AK

Scores increase in three states/jurisdictionsat grade 4 and nine states at grade 8

Eighth-gradersatthe

Procientlevelwerelikely

tobeableto

recognizeaninterpretationothe

authorspointinapersuasive

essay,or

interpretlinesoapoemto

explainthespeakersperspective.

READING2009

8/9/2019 2010458

6/72

8/9/2019 2010458

7/72

NAEP Achievement Levels

Basicdenotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and

skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.

Proficientrepresents solid academic performance. Students

reaching this level have demonstrated competency overchallenging subject matter.

Advanced represents superior performance.

Reporting NAEP ResultsTheassessmentresultsarebasedonnationallyrepresenta-

tivesampleso178,800ourth-gradersrom9,530schools

and160,900eighth-gradersrom7,030schools.Becausethe

elementaryschoolsparticipatinginNAEParegiventhe

optiontoincludeallotheirourth-gradestudentsinthe

sample,andourth-graderesponseratesaretypicallygreaterthenumberostudentsassessedatgrade4areotenhigher

thanthenumberostudentsatgrade8.Resultsorthenation

reecttheperormanceostudentsattendingpublicschools,

privateschools,BureauoIndianEducationschools,and

DepartmentoDeenseschools.Resultsorstatesandjuris-

dictionsreecttheperormanceostudentsinpublicschools

onlyandarereportedalongwiththeresultsorpublicschool

studentsinthenation.

Scale scores

NAEPreadingresultsorgrades4and8arereportedas

averagescoresona0500scale.BecauseNAEPscalesaredevelopedindependentlyoreachsubject,scorescannotbe

comparedacrosssubjects.

Inadditiontoreportinganoverallreadingscoreoreach

grade,scalescoresarereportedatfvepercentilestoshow

trendsinresultsorstudentsperormingatlower(10thand

25thpercentiles),middle(50thpercentile),andhigher(75th

and90thpercentiles)levels.

Achievement levels

Basedonrecommendationsrompolicymakers,educators,

andmembersothegeneralpublic,theGoverningBoardsetsspecifcachievementlevelsoreachsubjectareaandgrade.

Achievementlevelsareperormancestandardsshowingwha

studentsshouldknowandbeabletodo.NAEPresultsare

reportedaspercentagesostudentsperormingatorabove

theBasicandProficientlevelsandattheAdvancedlevel.

Asprovidedbylaw,NCES,uponreviewocongressionally

mandatedevaluationsoNAEP,hasdeterminedthatachieve

mentlevelsaretobeusedonatrialbasisandshouldbe

interpretedwithcaution.TheNAEPachievementlevelshave

beenwidelyusedbynationalandstateocials.

Therameworkspecifesthreereadingbehaviors,orcognitive

targets:locate/recall,integrate/interpret,andcritique/

evaluate.Thetermcognitive targetreerstothemental

processesorkindsothinkingthatunderliereading

comprehension.Readingquestionsaredevelopedtomeasure

thesecognitivetargetsorbothliteraryandinormational

texts.

Inaddition,therameworkcallsorasystematicassessment

omeaning vocabulary.Meaningvocabularyquestionsmea-

surereadersknowledgeospecifcwordmeaningasusedin

thepassagebytheauthorandalsomeasurepassage

comprehension.

Reading Cognitive Targets

Locate and Recall: When locating or recalling information fromwhat they have read, students may identify explicitly stated mainideas or may focus on specific elements of a story.

Integrate and Interpret: When integrating and interpreting whatthey have read, students may make comparisons, explain

character motivation, or examine relations of ideas across thetext.

Critique and Evaluate: When critiquing or evaluating what theyhave read, students view the text critically by examining it from

numerous perspectives or may evaluate overall text quality or theeffectiveness of particular aspects of the text.

READING 2009

8/9/2019 2010458

8/72

Explore Additional Results

Not all of the data for results discussed in this report are

presented in corresponding tables or figures. These andother results can be found in the NAEP Data Explorer at

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

Interpreting the Results

Changes in performance over time

Nationalresultsromthe2009readingassessmentare

comparedtoeightpreviousassessmentyearsatgrade4and

sevenpreviousyearsatgrade8(the2000readingassess-mentwasadministeredatgrade4only).Stateresultsor

2009arecomparedtosevenpreviousassessmentyearsat

grade4andfvepreviousyearsatgrade8.Changesinstu-

dentsperormanceovertimearesummarizedbycomparing

theresultsin2009to2007andthefrstassessmentyear,

exceptwhenpointingoutconsistentpatternsacross

assessments.

NAEPreportsresultsusingwidelyacceptedstatisticalstan-

dards;fndingsarereportedbasedonastatisticalsignifcance

levelsetat.05withappropriateadjustmentsormultiple

comparisons(seetheTechnicalNotesormoreinormation).

Thesymbol(*)isusedintablesandfgurestoindicatethat

anearlieryearsscoreorpercentageissignifcantlydierent

romthe2009results.Onlythosedierencesthatareound

tobestatisticallysignifcantarediscussedashigherorlower.

Thesamestandardapplieswhencomparingtheperormance

oonestudentgrouptoanother.

Whenscoressignifcantlyincreaseordecreaseromone

assessmentyeartothenext,weareconfdentthatstudent

perormancehaschanged.However,NAEPisnotdesigned

toidentiythecausesothesechanges.Further,themany

actorsthatmayinuenceaveragestudentachievement

scoresalsochangeovertime.Theseincludeeducationalpoliciesandpractices,thequalityoteachers,available

resources,andthedemographiccharacteristicsothe

studentbody.

Accommodations and exclusions in NAEP

Itisimportanttoassessallselectedstudentsromthetarget

population,includingstudentswithdisabilities(SD)and

Englishlanguagelearners(ELL).Toaccomplishthisgoal,manyothesametestingaccommodationsallowedonstate

assessments(e.g.,extratestingtimeorindividualratherthan

groupadministration)areprovidedorSDandELLstudents

participatinginNAEP.Accommodationswerefrstmade

availableornationalandstatesamplesinreadingin1998.

Priorto1998,noaccommodationswereprovidedinthe

NAEPreadingassessment.

Becauseprovidingaccommodationsrepresentedachangein

testingconditionsthatcouldpotentiallyaectthemeasure-

mentochangesovertime,splitnationalandstatesamples

ostudentswereassessedin1998onesamplepermitted

accommodations,andtheotherdidnot.Althoughtheresults

orbothsamplesarepresentedinthetablesandfgures,the

comparisonsto1998inthetextarebasedonjusttheaccom-

modatedsamples.

Evenwiththeavailabilityoaccommodations,somestudents

maystillbeexcluded.Variationsinexclusionandaccommo-

dationrates,duetodierencesinstatepoliciesandpractices

oridentiyingandincludingSDandELLstudents,shouldbe

consideredwhencomparingstudentsperormanceovertime

andacrossstates.Statesandjurisdictionsalsovaryintheir

proportionospecial-needsstudents(especiallyELLstu-

dents).Whiletheeectoexclusionisnotpreciselyknown,comparisonsoperormanceresultscouldbeaectedi

exclusionratesaremarkedlydierentamongstatesorvary

widelyovertime.SeeappendixtablesA-1throughA-8or

thepercentagesostudentsaccommodatedandexcludedat

thenationalandstatelevels.MoreinormationaboutNAEPs

policyontheinclusionospecial-needsstudentsisavailable

athttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asphttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asphttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/

8/9/2019 2010458

9/72

GRADE4Fourth-graders performanceunchanged from 2007Tere has been no signicant change in the performance of the nationsfourth-graders in reading from 2007 to 2009. State results, however, show

increases in average scores from 2007 to 2009 for three states and

jurisdictions and decreases for four states.

READING 2009

8/9/2019 2010458

10/72

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 19922009 Reading Assessments.

Figure 2. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading percentile scores



0

180

190

200

220

230

240

250

210

170

160

150

260

270

90th

10th

25th

50th

75th

159*

171*167*

163*

159*

170*174 175

189*

196*193*

191*

189*

194*

218*221*220*

217*

219*219*

243* 244*244

242*

243242*246 245

170*

196*

221*

244*

263*

169*

195*

221*

244*

264262 263

199 199

224 223

263

262

263261

264 264

500

Scale score Percentile

Year92 94 98 0200 03 05 07 09


Figure 1. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores


0

230

220

210

200

500

Scale score

218* 219*219*

213*

221 221217*

215*

214*217*

Year92 94 98 0200 03 05 07 09

Figure 3. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading achievement-level performance


% at Advanced

% at or above Proficien

% at or above Basic

Accommodations

permitted

Accommodations

not permitted

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percent

03

63*

8

05

64*

8

67

8

07 0902

64*

7*

00

59*

7

98

60*62*

77

94

60*

7

92

29*

62*

6*

33

67

8

Year

30* 31* 29* 29* 31* 31* 31*33

No signicant changein reading score since2007Theaveragereadingscoreorthe

nationsourth-graderswasunchanged

rom2007to2009(gure 1).Thescorein2009was,however,higher

thanthescoresintheotherassessment

yearsrom1992to2005.

Asshowningure 2,therewereno

signifcantchangesinscoresrom2007

to2009orlower-perormingstudents

(atthe10thand25thpercentiles),

middle-perormingstudents(atthe

50thpercentile),orhigher-perorming

students(atthe75thand90thpercen-

tiles).Thescoresin2009orstudents

atthe10th,25th,50th,and75thper-

centileswerehigherthanin1992,but

thescoreorstudentsatthe90th

percentilewasnotsignifcantly

dierent.

One-third of fourth-graders perform at orabove the ProfcientlevelThepercentagesostudentsperorm-

ingatorabovethethreeachievement

levelswerethesamein2009asin

2007:67percentatoraboveBasic,

33percentatoraboveProficient,and

8percentatAdvanced(gure 3).

Whilethepercentagesostudents

atoraboveBasicandatorabove

Proficientwerehigherin2009thanin

theotherassessmentyearsrom1992

to2005,thepercentageostudentsat

Advancedwasnotconsistentlyhigherthantheotherassessmentyears,

althoughitwashigherthanin1992.


4RADE

8/9/2019 2010458

11/72

Figure 4. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores, by race/ethnicity


NOTE: Sample sizes were insucient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native

students in 1992 and 1998. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacic Islander

includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.


92 224*

98226*

225*

94 224*

00 224*

02 229*

03 229*

09

05 229*

07 231

230

92 192*

98193*

193*

94 185*

00 190*

02 199*

03 198*

09

05 200*

07 203

205

92 197*

98195*

193*

94 188*

00 190*

02 201*

03 200*

09

05 203*

07 205

205

92 216*

98221*

215*

94 220*

00 225

02 224*

03 226*

09

05 229*

07 232

235

94 211

00 214

02 207

07

03 202

05 204

203

09 204

Year

0 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 500Scale score


HISPANIC

BLACK

ASIAN/

PACIFIC ISLANDER

WHITE

AMERICAN INDIAN/

ALASKA NATIVE

Performance of racial/ethnic groups not signicantly changed since 2007Aswasseenintheresultsorourth-

gradersoverall,therewerenosignifcant

changesinscoresbetween2007and

2009oranyothefveracial/ethnic

groups(gure 4).ScoresorWhite,

Black,andHispanicstudentsin2009did,however,remainhigherthanthe

assessmentyearspriorto2007.While

thescoreorAsian/PacifcIslander

studentsin2009wasalsohigherthan

mostotheearlierassessmentyears

rom1992to2005,theapparentdier-

enceincomparisonto2000wasnot

statisticallysignifcant.Theapparent

decreaseinthescoreorAmerican

Indian/AlaskaNativestudentsincom-

parisonto1994wasnotoundtobe

statisticallysignifcant.

In2009,bothWhiteandAsian/

PacifcIslanderstudentsscoredhigher

onaveragethanBlack,Hispanic,and

AmericanIndian/AlaskaNativestudents.

WhileWhitestudentsscoredhigher

onaveragethanAsian/PacifcIslander

studentsin1992,thescoreorAsian/

PacifcIslanderstudentswashigherthan

thescoreorWhitestudentsin2009.

READING 2009
http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/

8/9/2019 2010458

12/72

ThepercentageoWhite

ourth-gradersdecreased

rom73percentin1992to

56percentin2009,and

thepercentageoHispanic

studentsincreasedrom

7to20percentoverthe

sameperiod(table1).ThepercentageoAsian/Pacifc

Islanderstudentswasalso

higherin2009thanin

1992.Thepercentageo

Blackstudentsin2009was

notsignifcantlydierent

rom2007or1992.


Table 1. Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP reading, by race/ethnicity: Variousyears, 19922009

Race/ethnicity 19921 19941 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

White 73* 72* 66* 63* 61* 60* 59* 58* 56

Black 17 17 15 17 17* 17 16 16 16

Hispanic 7* 7* 14* 14* 16* 17* 18* 19* 20

Asian/Pacifc Islander 2* 3* 4 4 4* 4* 5 5 5

American Indian/Alaska Native 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

* Signicantly dierent (p< .05) from 2009.1 Accommodations were not permitted in this assessment year.

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacic Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Detail

may not sum to totals because results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassied.

Figure 5. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores and score gaps, by selectedracial/ethnic groups

* Signicantly dierent (p< .05) from 2009.NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.

Score gaps are calculated based on dierences between unrounded average scores.


SCORE GAP

0

210

220

230

500

240

200

190

180

92 94 98 0300 02 05 07 09

199*

190*

198*200*

203205

193*193*

185*

192*

224*

229*231

225*

Year

Scale score

229* 229*

224* 224* 226*

32*38*

33* 32*30*

34*

29*31*27 26

230

224*

229*231

225*229* 229*

224* 224* 226*

230

SCORE GAP

0

210

220

230

500

240

200

190

180

92 94 98 030200 05 07 09

190*195*

188*

197*

Year

Scale score

193*

2735*

31* 32 35*

28 28* 2626 25

205 205201*

203*200*

WHITE

BLACK

WHITE

HISPANIC

Racial/ethnic gaps persisThe26-pointscoregapinreadingbetwee

WhiteandBlackstudentsin2009wasno

signifcantlydierentromthegapin200

butwasnarrowerthaninallotherearlier

assessmentyears(gure 5).The25-poin

scoregapbetweenWhiteandHispanicstudentsin2009wasnotoundtobe

signifcantlydierentromthegapsin

either2007or1992.

0 THE NATIONS REPORT CARD

4RADE

8/9/2019 2010458

13/72


Private schoolstudents outperformpublic school studentsIn2009,theaveragereadingscore

orourth-gradersattendingpublic

schoolswas15pointslowerthantheoverallscoreorstudentsattending

privateschools,and16pointslower

thanstudentsinCatholicschools

specifcally(gure 6).

Therewerenosignifcantchanges

intheaveragescoresorstudents

attendingpublicschools,private

schools,orCatholicschoolsrom

2007to2009.The15-pointscore

gapbetweenprivateandpublic

schoolstudentsin2009wasnot

signifcantlydierentromthegaps

in2007or1992.

Itisimportanttonotethattheremay

bemanyreasonswhyprivateschool

studentsperormdierently,on

average,rompublicschoolstudents.

Dierencesindemographiccomposi-

tion,admissionspolicies,availability

oresources,parentalinvolvement,

andotheractorsnotmeasuredin

NAEPcaninuenceaveragestudent

achievementscores.

Figure 6. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores, by type of school


NOTE: Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian private schools. Results are not shown for

private schools in 2005 because the participation rates fell below the required standard for reporting.


92 94 98 0200 03 05 07 09

200

0

240

230

220

210

250

232 231233

215* 213*212*

231

217*

235 234

217*220220

236

500

Scale score

232

215*211*

216*

234

PRIVATE

CATHOLIC

PUBLIC229* 232

233234

232

235234

229*

235

229

Year

Table 2. Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEP reading, by type ofschool: Various years, 19922009

Type o school 19921 19941 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

Public 89* 90 90 90 90* 90* 90* 90 91

Private 11* 10 10 10 10* 10* 10 10 9

Catholic 8* 7* 6 6* 6* 5* 5* 5 4


NOTE: Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian private schools. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Ninety-onepercentoourth-

gradersattendedpublicschoolsin

2009,and9percentattended

privateschools,including4percentinCatholicschools(table 2).The

percentageostudentsattending

publicschoolsin2009washigher

thanthepercentagein1992,andthe

percentageostudentsattending

privateschoolswaslowerthanin1992.

READING 2009

8/9/2019 2010458

14/72


Eligibility status 2003 2005 2007 2009

Eligible or ree lunch 32* 34* 35* 38

Eligible or reduced-price lunch 8* 7* 6 6

Not eligible 50 50 52* 50

Inormation not available 10* 8* 7 7

Table 3. Percentage of students assessed in fourth-grade NAEPreading, by eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch:Various years, 200309


NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Somechangeswereseensince2007inthe

proportionoourth-graderseligibleorthe

NationalSchoolLunchProgram.Thepercentage

oourth-graderseligibleorreelunchincreased

rom35percentin2007to38percentin2009,whilethepercentageostudentswhowere

noteligibledecreasedrom52to50percent

(table 3).Therewasnochangeinthepercent-

ageostudentseligibleorreduced-pricelunch

rom2007to2009.

Results by family incomelevel show no signicantchange since 2007NAEPusesstudentseligibilityorthe

NationalSchoolLunchProgramasan

indicatorolowincome.Studentsrom

lower-incomeamiliesareeligibleoreither

reeorreduced-priceschoollunches,while

studentsromhigher-incomeamiliesare

not(seetheTechnicalNotesoreligibility

criteria).

Studentswhowerenoteligiblehave

typicallyscoredhigheronaveragethan

thoseeligibleorreduced-pricelunch,who

inturnscoredhigherthanthoseeligibleor

reelunch(gure 8).Thescoresorallthreegroupsshowednosignifcantchange

rom2007to2009butremainedhigher

thanin2003.

Female students scorehigher than malestudentsFemalestudentsscored7pointshigher

onaveragethanmalestudentsin2009,

whichwasnotsignifcantlydierentromthescoregapsineither2007or1992

(gure 7).Averagereadingscoresor

maleandemalestudentsin2009

remainedunchangedrom2007.

Figure 8. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores, byeligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch

Year03 05 07 09

190

0

230

220

210

200

240

211* 212*215

199*201*

203

229*232

230*

216

204

232

500

Scale score

ELIGIBLE FOR REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH

ELIGIBLE FOR FREE LUNCH

NOT ELIGIBLE

* Signicantly dierent (p < .05) from 2009.

8 56 11* 76 6 7 710*

0

210

220

230

500

240

200

190

180

Scale score

92 94 98 030200 05 07

208*

215* 215* 216*212*214*

209*213*

219*222* 222* 222*

217*220*220*221*

09

218

224

MALE

FEMALE

218

224

SCORE GAP

Year

Figure 7. Trend in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores and score gaps, by gender


NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on dierences between unrounded average scores.



4RADE

8/9/2019 2010458

15/72

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 and 2009 Reading Assessments.

1 Department of Defense Education Activity

(overseas and domestic schools).

Figure 9. Changes in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores between 2007 and 2009

Score increased

No signicant change

Score decreased

WY

IA

NM

KY

HI

AK

DC

DoDEA1

RI

State Performance at Grade 4NAEP state results make it possible to examine the progress of public school

students in each participating state over time. All 50 states, the District of

Columbia, and Department of Defense schools participated in the 2009 reading

assessment. Tese 52 states and jurisdictions are all referred to as states in the

following summary of results. State results are also available for seven earlier

assessments at grade 4. While all states participated in the assessments since 2003,

not all participated or met the criteria for reporting in earlier assessment years.

Themapshownbelowhighlightschangesinstates

averagereadingscoresrom2007to2009atgrade4

(gure 9).Whiletherewasnosignifcantchangeinthe

overallaveragescoreorourth-gradepublicschool

studentsinthenationrom2007to2009,scores

increasedinthreestates(DistrictoColumbia,Kentucky,

andRhodeIsland)anddecreasedinourstates(Alaska,

Iowa,NewMexico,andWyoming).Incomparisontothe

resultsin1992,scoreswerehigherin2009or25othe

42statesthatparticipatedinbothyearsandlowerin

4states.

Scores increase since 2007 in three states and decrease in four states

READING 2009

8/9/2019 2010458

16/72


Changesinstatesoverallaveragereadingscoresdonot

alwaysreectcomparablechangesinscoresorallstudent

groups.Amongthesevenstateslistedingure10that

showedeitheranincreaseordecreaseintheoverallaverage

score,noneshowedsignifcantchangesacrossallstudent

groups.

Amongthethreestateswhereoverallaveragereadingscores

increasedsince2007,resultsorracial/ethnicgroupsshowed

increasesorBlackstudentsintheDistrictoColumbiaand

orbothWhiteandBlackstudentsinRhodeIsland.Inthe

ourstateswherescoresdecreasedsince2007,average

scoresormalestudentsdecreasedinIowa,NewMexico,

andWyoming,whilescoresoremalestudentsshowedno

signifcantchange.

Althoughnotshownhere,amongthe45stateswherethere

werenosignifcantchangesinoverallaveragereadingscores

since2007,scoresincreasedorAsian/PacifcIslander

A Closer Look at State Results

studentsinPennsylvaniaandorstudentseligibleorree/

reduced-priceschoollunchinConnecticut,Florida,andNew

York.ScoresdecreasedormalestudentsinIdaho,Maine,and

Wisconsin,andorstudentseligibleorree/reduced-price

lunchinHawaii.

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

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacic Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Only states/jurisdictions that showed a signicant change in overall scores between 2007

and 2009 are shown.

p Score increased q Score decreased t No signicant chang

Race/ethnicity GenderEligibility for free/reduced-

price school lunch

State/jurisdiction Overall White Black HispanicAsian/Pacic

Islander Male Female Eligible Not eligible

Nation (public) t t t t t t t t t

Alaska q t t t t t t t t

District of Columbia p t p t t p p p

Iowa q t t t t q t t t

Kentucky p t t t t p t

New Mexico q t t t q t t t

Rhode Island p p p t t t p t p

Wyoming q q t q t t q

Figure 10. Change in fourth-grade NAEP reading average scores between 2007 and 2009, by selected student groups and state/jurisdiction

Additional State Results

Additional state results for grade 4 are provided in figure11,table4, and appendix tablesA-9 through A-16.

Web-generated profiles of state results and a one-page printsnapshot report that presents key findings are available for

each participating state and jurisdiction at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ .


4RADE
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

8/9/2019 2010458

17/72

Figure 11. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for fourth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009

AdvancedProficientBasicBelow Basic


NOTE: The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers. 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.

READING 2009

8/9/2019 2010458

18/72

Table 4. Average scores in NAEP reading for fourth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 19922009


State/jurisdiction 1992 1994 1998 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

Nation (public) 215* 212* 215* 213* 217* 216* 217* 220 220Alabama 207* 208* 211* 211* 207* 207* 208* 216 216

Alaska 212 211 214* 211

Arizona 209 206 207 206 205* 209 207 210 210

Arkansas 211* 209* 209* 209* 213 214 217 217 216California 202* 197* 202* 202* 206 206* 207 209 210

Colorado 217* 213* 222* 220* 224 224 224 226

Connecticut 222* 222* 232 230 229 228 226* 227 229

Delaware 213* 206* 212* 207* 224 224 226 225 226

Florida 208* 205* 207* 206* 214* 218* 219* 224 226

Georgia 212* 207* 210* 209* 215* 214* 214* 219 218

Hawaii 203* 201* 200* 200* 208* 208 210 213 211

Idaho 219 220 218* 222 223 221

Illinois 216 216 219 219

Indiana 221 220 222 220 218* 222 223

Iowa 225* 223 223 220 223 223 221 225* 221

Kansas 222 221 222 220* 220 225 224

Kentucky 213* 212* 218* 218* 219* 219* 220* 222* 226

Louisiana 204* 197* 204 200* 207 205 209 207 207

Maine 227* 228* 225 225 225 224 225 226 224Maryland 211* 210* 215* 212* 217* 219* 220* 225 226

Massachusetts 226* 223* 225* 223* 234 228* 231 236 234

Michigan 216 217 216 219 219 218 220 218

Minnesota 221 218* 222 219 225 223 225 225 223

Mississippi 199* 202* 204* 203* 203* 205* 204* 208 211

Missouri 220* 217* 216* 216* 220* 222 221 221 224

Montana 222 226 225 224 223 225 227 225

Nebraska 221 220 222 221 221 223 223

Nevada 208* 206* 209 207* 207* 211 211

New Hampshire 228 223* 226* 226 228 227 229 229

New Jersey 223* 219* 225* 223* 231 229

New Mexico 211 205 206 205 208 203* 207 212* 208

New York 215* 212* 216* 215* 222 222 223 224 224

North Carolina 212* 214* 217 213* 222 221 217 218 219

North Dakota 226 225 224 222* 225 226 226

Ohio 217* 222 222 223 226 225Oklahoma 220* 220 219 213* 214* 214* 217 217

Oregon 214 212* 220 218 217 215 218

Pennsylvania 221 215* 221 219* 223 226 224

Rhode Island 217* 220 218* 218* 220 216* 216* 219* 223

South Carolina 210* 203* 210* 209* 214 215 213 214 216

South Dakota 222 222 223 222

Tennessee 212* 213* 212* 212* 214 212* 214 216 217

Texas 213* 212* 217 214* 217 215* 219 220 219

Utah 220 217 215* 216 222 219 221 221 219

Vermont 227 226* 227 228 229

Virginia 221* 213* 218* 217* 225 223 226 227 227

Washington 213* 217* 218 224 221 223 224 221

West Virginia 216 213 216 216 219* 219* 215 215 215

Wisconsin 224* 224* 224* 222 221 221 223 220

Wyoming 223 221 219* 218* 221 222 223 225* 223Other jurisdictions

District of Columbia 188* 179* 182* 179* 191* 188* 191* 197* 202

DoDEA1 222* 220* 224* 224* 226* 229 228

Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.

* Signicantly dierent (p< .05) from 2009 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).



4RADE

8/9/2019 2010458

19/72

20%Critique and EvaluateThesequestionsaskstudentstoconsider

allorpartothetextromacriticalper-spectiveandtomakejudgmentsaboutthe

waymeaningisconveyed.

50% Integrate and InterpretThesequestionsmovebeyondaocuson

discreteinormationandrequirereadersto

makeconnectionsacrosslargerportionso

textortoexplainwhattheythinkaboutthe

textasawhole.

30% Locate and RecallThesequestionsocusonspecifcinorma-

tioncontainedinrelativelysmallamountso

textandaskstudentstorecognizewhat

theyhaveread.

Assessment Content at Grade 4o reect developmental dierences expected of students at varyinggrade levels, the proportion of the reading assessment devoted to eachof the three cognitive targets varies at each grade assessed.

Becausetheassessmentcoveredarangeotextsandincludedmorequestionsthananyonestudentcould

answer,eachstudenttookjustaportionotheassessment.The199questionsthatmadeuptheentireourth-gradeassessmentweredistributedacross20setsopassagesanditems.Eachsettypicallycom-

prised10questions,amixomultiplechoiceandconstructedresponse.Eachstudentreadandrespondedto

questionsinjusttwo25-minutesets.

READING2009

8/9/2019 2010458

20/72

Reading Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 4NAEPreadingachievement-leveldescriptionspresentexpectationsostudentperormanceinrelationtoarangeotexttypes

andtextdicultyandinresponsetoavarietyoassessmentquestionsintendedtoelicitdierentcognitiveprocessesand

readingbehaviors.Thespecifcprocessesandreadingbehaviorsmentionedintheachievement-leveldescriptionsareillustrativ

othosejudgedascentraltostudentssuccessulcomprehensionotexts.Theseprocessesandreadingbehaviorsinvolve

dierentandincreasingcognitivedemandsromonegradeandperormanceleveltothenextastheyareappliedwithinmore

challengingcontextsandwithmorecomplexinormation.Whilesimilarreadingbehaviorsareincludedatthedierentperormancelevelsandgrades,itshouldbeunderstoodthattheseskillsarebeingdescribedinrelationtotextsandassessment

questionsovaryingdiculty.

Thespecifcdescriptionsowhatourth-gradersshouldknowandbeabletodoattheBasic,Procient,andAdvancedreading

achievementlevelsarepresentedbelow.(Note:Shadedtextisashort,generalsummarytodescribeperormanceateach

achievementlevel.)NAEPachievementlevelsarecumulative;thereore,studentperormanceattheProcientlevelincludesthe

competenciesassociatedwiththeBasiclevel,andtheAdvancedlevelalsoincludestheskillsandknowledgeassociatedwith

boththeBasicandtheProcientlevels.Thecutscoreindicatingthelowerendothescorerangeoreachlevelisnotedin

parentheses.

Basic (208)

Fourth-gradestudentsperormingattheBasiclevelshouldbeabletolocate

relevantinormation,makesimple

inerences,andusetheirunderstand-

ingothetexttoidentiydetailsthat

supportagiveninterpretationor

conclusion.Studentsshouldbeableto

interpretthemeaningoawordasitis

usedinthetext.

Whenreadingliterarytextssuchas

fction,poetry,andliterarynonfction,

ourth-gradestudentsperormingat

theBasiclevelshouldbeabletomakesimpleinerencesaboutcharacters,

events,plot,andsetting.Theyshould

beabletoidentiyaprobleminastory

andrelevantinormationthatsupports

aninterpretationoatext.

Whenreadinginformationaltexts

suchasarticlesandexcerptsrom

books,ourth-gradestudentsperorm-

ingattheBasiclevelshouldbeableto

identiythemainpurposeandan

explicitlystatedmainidea,aswellasgatherinormationromvariousparts

oatexttoprovidesupporting

inormation

Profcient (238)

Fourth-gradestudentsperormingattheProcientlevelshouldbeableto

integrateandinterprettextsandapply

theirunderstandingothetexttodraw

conclusionsandmakeevaluations.




theProcientlevelshouldbeableto

identiyimplicitmainideasandrecog-

nizerelevantinormationthatsupports

them.Studentsshouldbeabletojudge

elementsoanauthorscratandprovidesomesupportortheirjudg-

ment.Theyshouldbeabletoanalyze

characterroles,actions,eelings,and

motivations.


suchasarticlesandexcerptsrom

books,ourth-gradestudentsperorm-

ingattheProcientlevelshouldbeable

tolocaterelevantinormation,inte-

grateinormationacrosstexts,and

evaluatethewayanauthorpresentsinormation.Studentperormanceat

thislevelshoulddemonstratean

understandingothepurposeortext

eaturesandanabilitytointegrate

inormationromheadings,textboxes,

andgraphicsandtheircaptions.They

shouldbeabletoexplainasimple

cause-and-eectrelationshipand

drawconclusions.

Advanced (268)

Fourth-gradestudentsperormingattheAdvancedlevelshouldbeableto

makecomplexinerencesandcon-

structandsupporttheirinerential

understandingothetext.Students

shouldbeabletoapplytheirunder-

standingoatexttomakeandsupport

ajudgment.




theAdvancedlevelshouldbeableto

identiythethemeinstoriesandpoemandmakecomplexinerencesabout

characterstraits,eelings,motivations

andactions.Theyshouldbeableto

recognizecharactersperspectivesand

evaluatecharactersmotivations.

Studentsshouldbeabletointerpret

characteristicsopoemsandevaluate

aspectsotextorganization.

Whenreadinginformationaltextssuch

asarticlesandexcerptsrombooks,

ourth-gradestudentsperormingattheAdvancedlevelshouldbeableto

makecomplexinerencesaboutmain

ideasandsupportingideas.They

shouldbeabletoexpressajudgment

aboutthetextandabouttexteatures

andsupportthejudgmentswithevi-

dence.Theyshouldbeabletoidentiy

themostlikelycausegivenaneect,

explainanauthorspointoview,and

compareideasacrosstwotexts.


4RADE

8/9/2019 2010458

21/72

What Fourth-Graders Know and Can Do in ReadingTheitemmapbelowisuseulorunderstandingperormance

atdierentlevelsontheNAEPscale.Thescalescoresonthe

letrepresenttheaveragescoresorstudentswhowerelikely

togettheitemscorrectorcomplete.Thecutscoreatthelower

endotherangeoreachachievementlevelisboxed.The

descriptionsoselectedassessmentquestionsindicatingwhatstudentsneedtodotoanswerthequestioncorrectlyarelisted

ontheright,alongwiththecorrespondingcognitivetargets.

Forexample,themaponthispageshowsthatourth-graders

perormingnearthetopotheBasicrange(studentswithan

averagescoreo229)werelikelytobeabletorecognizethe

mainproblemacedbyahistoricalfgure.Studentsperorming

nearthetopotheProcientrange(withanaveragescoreo

260)werelikelytobeabletoinerandprovidetherelationshipbetweenthemainsubjectandahistoricalmovement.

READING 2009

Scale score Cognitive target Question description

500

//

332 Critique/evaluate Makeandsupportjudgmentaboutauthorscratandsupportwithinormationromtext

326 Integrate/interpret Useinormationtoexplaincausalrelationsinaprocess(shown on page 23)

309 Integrate/interpret Usespecifcinormationtodescribeandexplainaprocess

301 Critique/evaluate Evaluatesubheadingandinormationaltextanduseinormationtosupportevaluation

299 Critique/evaluate Makecomplexinerencesabouthistoricalpersonsmotivationandsupportwithcentralidea

292 Integrate/interpret Useinormationacrossparagraphstomakecomplexinerenceaboutstoryevent

279 Integrate/interpret Providecomparisonocharactertraitsacrosstwotextsodierentgenres

273 Integrate/interpret Recognize meaning of a word used to describe a story setting

268 Integrate/interpret Describemainstorycharacterusingtextsupport

264 Critique/evaluate Recognize technique author uses to develop character

260 Integrate/interpret Inerandproviderelationshipbetweenmainsubjectandhistoricalmovement

258 Integrate/interpret Recognize meaning of a word that describes a characters actions

255 Critique/evaluate Useinormationromanarticletoprovideandsupportanopinion

251 Integrate/interpret Providecross-textcomparisonotwocharacterseelings

249 Integrate/interpret Providetext-basedcomparisonochangeinmaincharacterseelings

244 Locate/recall Recognize explicitly stated information that explains a characters behavior

239 Locate/recall Recognize specic detail of supporting information(shown on page 22)

234 Critique/evaluate Useanexampletosupportopinionaboutapoem

229 Integrate/interpret Recognize main problem faced by historical gure

221 Integrate/interpret Interpretcharactersstatementtoprovidecharactertrait

220 Locate/recall Recognize reason for action by a historical gure

220 Integrate/interpret Use information across text to infer and recognize character trait

219 Integrate/interpret Recognize main idea not explicitly stated in article

216 Critique/evaluate Providearelevantactromanarticle

211 Integrate/interpret Recognize main purpose of informational science text

205 Integrate/interpret Recognize meaning of word as used by character in a story

201 Integrate/interpret Providegeneralcomparisonotwocharactersbasedonstorydetails

190 Integrate/interpret Retrieverelevantdetailthatsupportsmainidea

187 Locate/recall Make a simple inference to recognize description of characters feeling

177 Locate/recall Recognize details about character in a story

//

0

Profcient

Adva

nced

Basic

GRADE 4 NAEP READING ITEM MAP

238

208

268

NOTE: Regular type denotes a constructed-response question. Italictype denotes a multiple-choice question. The position of a question on the scale represents the average scale score attained by students who had a 65 percent

probability of successfully answering a constructed-response question, or a 74 percent probability of correctly answering a four-option multiple-choice question. For constructed-response questions, the question description

represents students performance at the highest scoring level. Scale score ranges for reading achievement levels are referenced on the map.


8/9/2019 2010458

22/72

Whats the Buzz?by Margery Facklam

What do bees do? Ask most people and they will

say, Bees make honey and they sting. They may even

tell you that bees are fuzzy, black-and-yellow insects

that live in hives. But there are lots of kinds of bees,

and theyre not all the same. Some y at night. Some

cant sting. Some live only a few months, and others

live several years. Every species of bee has its own

story. A species is one of the groups used by scientists

to classify, or group, living things. Animals of the same

species can mate with each other. And they give birth

to young that can mate and give birth, or reproduce.

Scientists have named about 20,000 species of bees.

But they think there may be as many as 40,000 species.

Why so many?

Over millions of years, environments change. Animals

slowly evolve, or change, too. These changes help the

animals survive, or live, so that they can reproduce. And

its reproducing that matters, not how long an animal lives.

To survive, some bee species developed new ways to

live together. Some found new ways to talk to eachother, or communicate. Others developed other new

skills and new behaviors. Scientists call these kinds of

changes adaptations. Over a long time, a group of bees

can change so much it becomes a new species.

Bees come in different sizes. There are fat bumblebees

and bees not much bigger than the tip of a pencil. There

are bees of many colors, from dull black to glittering

green. Some species of tropical bees are such bright reds

and blues that they sparkle in the sun like little jewels.

Most bees play an important role in plant reproduction.

Bees collect pollen, a powderlike material that owersmake. By carrying pollen from one ower to another,

Grade 4 Sample Reading Passage

Page 3


8/9/2019 2010458

23/72

Reprinted by permission of author Margery Facklam.

Illustrations by Patricia J. Wynne.

Page 4

bees help plants reproduce. Bees are among the worlds

most important insects. Without them, many plants

might not survive. And for most animals, life would be

impossible without plants.

READING2009

8/9/2019 2010458

24/72


According to the article, what can animalsof the same species do?

A Travel in groups over long distances

B Live together in homes such as hives

C Mate with each other and give birth

D Find food for their young

SAMPLEQUESTION:Sample Question: Locate and RecallThissamplequestionromthe2009ourth-gradereading

assessmentmeasuresstudentsperormanceinrecognizing

aspecifcdetailromthearticlethatsupportsthediscus-

sionobees.Sixty-threepercentoourth-graderswere

abletoidentiythecorrectresponse.

Percentage of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2009

Choice A Choice B Choice C Choice D Omitted

10 19 63 7 1


Thetablebelowshowsthepercentageoourth-graders

withineachachievementlevelwhoansweredthisquestion

correctly.Forexample,64percentoourth-gradersatthe

Basiclevelselectedthecorrectanswerchoice.

Percentage correct for fourth-grade students at each achievementlevel: 2009

Overall Below Basic At Basic At Profcient At Advanced

63 38 64 82 93

Te following sample questions assessed fourth-grade students comprehension of

informational text in the article titled Whats the Buzz?, which describes dierent

species of bees and the important role some bees play in plant reproduction.


4RADE

8/9/2019 2010458

25/72


Thissampleconstructed-responsequestionmeasures

ourth-gradersperormanceinintegratingandinterpreting

theinormationtheyhavereadaboutbeesandpollination.

Successulresponsesdemonstratedunderstandingoa

causalrelationshipbetweenbeeshelpingplantstorepro-

duceandplantseedinganimals.Studentresponsestothis

questionwereratedusingourscoringlevels.

Extensive responsesprovidedatext-basedexplanation

owhybeesareimportanttobothplantsandanimals.

Essential responsesprovidedatext-basedexplanation

owhybeesareimportanttoeitherplantsoranimals.

Partial responsesprovidedrelevantinormationrom

thearticlewithoutusingittoexplainwhybeesare

importanttoplantsoranimals.

Unsatisfactory responsesprovidedincorrectinorma-

tionorirrelevantdetails.

Thesamplestudentresponsesshownontherightwere

ratedasExtensiveandEssential.Theresponserated

Extensiveconnectstheinormationaboutwhatbees

doinpollinationtoplantgrowthandtothoseplants

providingoodoranimals.Twentypercentoourth-

gradersresponsestothisquestionreceivedanExtensive

rating.TheresponseratedEssentialdemonstratesunder-

standingthatbeesareimportanttoplantsbecausethey

helpthemtogrow,buttheresponsedoesnotexplainwhy

helpingplantsgrowisimportanttoanimals.Theresponse

doesnotexplainthatplantsareimportanttothesurvivaloanimals.

Percentage of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2009

Extensive Essential Partial Unsatisfactory Omitted

20 39 23 16 2

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because the percentage of responses rated as O-task is not shown. O-task

responses are those that do not provide any information related to the assessment task.

Thetablebelowshowsthepercentageoourth-graders

withineachachievement-levelintervalwhoseresponse

tothisquestionwasratedasExtensive.Forexample,

amongthestudentsassessedwhoansweredthisquestion,

17percentoourth-gradersattheBasiclevelprovideda

responseratedasExtensive.

Percentage of answers rated as Extensive for fourth-gradestudents at each achievement level: 2009

Overall Below Basic At Basic At Profcient At Advanced

20 5 17 31 51

Sample Question: Integrate and Interpret

SAMPLEQUESTION:

Extensiveresponse:

Essentialresponse:

Explain why bees are important to both plantsand animals. Use information from the article tosupport your answer.

READING 2009

8/9/2019 2010458

26/72

GRADE8Eighth-graders performanceimproves since 2007Average reading scores increased from 2007 to 2009 for eighth-gradersin the nation and in nine states, and no states showed a decline.


8/9/2019 2010458

27/72


Figure 13. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading percentile scores



0

220

230

240

260

270

280

290

250

210

200

190

300

310

90th

10th

25th

50th

75th

216*217

216211*

213*217*

219

240*242

241*236*237*

265*267

266

262*262*

286*288

288

286285*287 288

220

244

267

288

305

217*

242*

266

288

306 305

242* 243

265*267

306

305

305305 305 305

500

Scale score Percentile

Year92 94 98 02 03 05 07 09

Figure 12. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores



0

270

260

250

240

500

Scale score

263 262*264 263* 264264

263

260*260*

Year92 94 98 02 03 05 07 09

% at Advanced

% at or above Proficient

% at or above Basic

Accommodations

permitted

Accommodations

not permitted

Gains for lower- andmiddle-performingstudents

Theaveragereadingscoreorthenations

eighth-graderswas1pointhigherin2009

thanin2007and4pointshigherthanin1992,butwasnotalwayssignifcantly

dierentromthescoresinalltheassess-

mentyearsinbetween(gure 12).

Asshowningure 13,percentilescores

werehigherin2009thanin2007or

lower-perormingstudents(thoseatthe

10thand25thpercentiles)andmiddle-

perormingstudents(thoseatthe50thper

centile).Therewerenosignifcantchanges

since2007orhigher-perormingstudents

(thoseatthe75thandthe90thpercentiles

Incomparisonto1992,scoreswerehigher

in2009orallbutthehighest-perorming

studentsatthe90thpercentile,where

therewasnosignifcantchange.

Someimprovementwasalsoseenin

achievement-levelresults.Thepercentages

ostudentsperormingatoraboveBasic

andatoraboveProcienteachincreased

1percentagepointrom2007to2009,and

werehigherin2009thanin1992(gure 14

Thepercentageostudentsperormingat

Advanceddidnotchangeromeither2007or1992.

Figure 14. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading achievement-level performance


NOTE: The percentage at Advancedwas higher in 2003 (3.16) than in 2009 (2.79).

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percent

03

74*

3*

05

73*

3

74*

3

07 0902

75

3

98

73*74

33

94

70*

3

92

29*

69*

3

32

75

3

Year

30* 33 32 33 32 31* 31*

READING 2009

8/9/2019 2010458

28/72


Figure 15. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores, by race/ethnicity


NOTE: Sample sizes were insucient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native

students in 1992 and 1998. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacic Islander

includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.

92 267*

98271

270*

94 267*

02 272

03 272

09

05 271*

07 272*

273

92 237*

98243

244

94 236*

02 245

03 244*

09

05 243*

07 245*

246

92 241*

98245

243*

94 243*

02 247

03 245*

09

05 246*

07 247*

249

92 268

98267

264

94 265*

02 267*

03 270*

09

05 271*

07 271*

274

94 248

02 250

07

03 246

05 249

247*

09 251

Year

0 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 500Scale score


HISPANIC

BLACK

ASIAN/

PACIFIC ISLANDER

WHITE

AMERICAN INDIAN/

ALASKA NATIVE

All racial/ethnic groups make gains since 2007

Averagereadingscoreswerehigherin

2009thanin2007orallracial/ethnic

groups(gure 15).Scoreswerehigherin

2009thanin1992orWhite,Black,and

Hispanicstudents.However,evenwith

recentgains,apparentincreasesincomparisonto1992orAsian/Pacifc

Islanderstudentsandto1994or

AmericanIndian/AlaskaNativestudents

werenotstatisticallysignifcant.

In2009,bothWhiteandAsian/Pacifc

Islanderstudentsscoredhigheron

averagethanBlack,Hispanic,and

AmericanIndian/AlaskaNativestudents.

Thescorein2009orAmericanIndian/

AlaskaNativestudentswas5points

higherthanorBlackstudents,andthescoreorHispanicstudentswas3points

higherthanorBlackstudents.


8RADE

8/9/2019 2010458

29/72

Figure 16. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores and score gaps, by selectedracial/ethnic groups


NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.Score gaps are calculated based on dierences between unrounded average scores.


ThepercentageoWhitestudents

decreasedrom72percentin1992

to58percentin2009,andthe

percentageoHispanicstudents

increasedrom8to20percent

(table5).ThepercentageoAsian/

PacifcIslanderstudentswas

higherin2009thanin1992,but

thepercentageoBlackstudentswaslower.


SCORE GAP

0

250

260

270

500

280

240

230

220

92 94 98 0302 05 07 09

245 244* 243*245* 246

243

236*237*

272 272*270*

Year

Scale score

244

272 271*267* 267*

271

30 3028 26 27 28*28 27

26

273

272 272*

270*

272 271*267* 267* 271

273

SCORE GAP

0

250

260

270

500

280

240

230

220

92 94 98 0302 05 07 09

245243*241*

Year

Scale score

243*

26 2426 27

26 27* 25 2524

247* 249247 246*245*

WHITE

BLACK

WHITE

HISPANIC

Table 5. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP reading, byrace/ethnicity: Various years, 19922009

# Rounds to zero.


NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacic Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Detail

may not sum to totals because results are not shown for students whose race/ethnicity was unclassied.

Race/ethnicity 19921 19941 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

White 72* 72* 70* 65* 63* 61* 60* 58

Black 16* 16 15 15 16* 16* 16* 15

Hispanic 8* 8* 11* 14* 15* 16* 17* 20

Asian/Pacifc Islander 3* 3* 3* 4* 4* 4* 5 5

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

Racial/ethnic gapspersist

Signifcantscoregapspersistedbetween

WhitestudentsandtheirBlackand

Hispanicpeersin2009.Becauseall

threeracial/ethnicgroupshavemadeprogress,neithertheWhiteBlacknor

theWhiteHispanicscoregapin2009

wassignifcantlydierentromits

correspondinggapin2007or1992

(gure 16).

READING 2009
http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/

8/9/2019 2010458

30/72


Figure 17. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores, by type of school


NOTE: Private schools include Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian private schools. Results are not shown for

private schools in 2005 because the participation rates fell below the required standards for reporting.


Figure 18. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores and score gaps, by gender


NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on dierences between unrounded average scores.


0

250

260

270

500

280

240

230

220

Scale score

92 94 98 0302 05 07

260258* 257*256*257*

252*254*

269 269267*

270270267267

09

258*

268

MALE

FEMALE

259

269

SCORE GAP

Year

13* 14*13* 11*9 10* 10 915*

92 94 98 02 03 05 07 09

240

0

280

270

260

250

290

278 279281

258*261261

257*

263

282

260* 262261*

282

500

Scale score

282

261*

281PRIVATE

CATHOLIC

PUBLIC

275*

281281 280 280 281281 281279

Year

282

Public school studentsmake gains since 2007

In2009,theaveragereadingscoreor

eighth-gradersattendingpublicschools

was19points1lowerthantheoverall

scoreorstudentsattendingprivateschools(gure 17).Theaveragereading

scoreoreighth-gradersattendingpublic

schoolswas1pointhigherin2009than

in2007.Therewasnosignifcantchange

rom2007to2009intheaveragescore

orstudentsattendingprivateschools

overall,ororthesubsetostudents

attendingCatholicschools.

The19-pointgapbetweenpublicand

privateschoolsin2009wasnotsignif-

cantlydierentromthegapinanyo

thepreviousassessmentyearswithreportableresultsorbothgroups.

Ninety-onepercentoeighth-graders

attendedpublicschoolsin2009,and

9percentattendedprivateschools,

including5percentinCatholicschools.

Theproportionsostudentsattending

publicandprivateschoolshavenot

changedsignifcantlyincomparisonto

either2007or1992.

Gender gap smaller thanin 1992

Theaveragereadingscoreormale

studentswashigherin2009thanin

both2007and1992,whilethescoreor

emalestudentswasnotsignifcantly

dierentromeitheryear(gure 18).

The9-pointscoregapbetweenmale

andemalestudentsin2009wasnot

signifcantlydierentromthegapin

2007butwassmallerthanthegapin1992.

1Thescore-pointdierenceisbasedonthedierencebetweentheunroundedscoresasopposedtotheroundedscoresshowninthefgure.


8RADE

8/9/2019 2010458

31/72


Thirty-ninepercentoeighth-graders

wereeligibleorreeorreduced-price

schoollunchin2009(table 6).The

percentageostudentswhowere

eligibleorreelunchincreasedrom31percentin2007to33percentin

2009.

Table 6. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-grade NAEP reading, byeligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch: Various years, 200309



Eligibility status 2003 2005 2007 2009

Eligible or ree lunch 26* 29* 31* 33

Eligible or reduced-price lunch 7* 7* 6 6

Not eligible 55 56* 55 54

Inormation not available 11* 8* 7 7

Year03 05 07 09

230

0

270

260

250

240

280

258255 255

244* 245*246*

271* 271*270*

256

247

273

500

Scale score

ELIGIBLE FOR REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH

ELIGIBLE FOR FREE LUNCH

NOT ELIGIBLE

Figure 19. Trend in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores, byeligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch


Some gains for lower-income studentsChangesinreadingperormancesince

2007variedbyamilyincome,as

indicatedbystudentseligibilityorree

orreduced-priceschoollunch.Average

scoreswerehigherin2009thanin2007

and2003bothorstudentswhowereeligibleorreeschoollunchandstu-

dentswhowerenoteligible,whilethe

scorein2009orstudentseligibleor

reduced-pricelunchwasnotsignifcantly

dierentromeither2007or2003

(gure 19).

Aswasseenintheresultsorgrade4,

eighth-graderswhowerenoteligibleor

reeorreduced-priceschoollunch

scoredhigheronaveragethanthosewho

wereeligible,andstudentseligibleor

reduced-pricelunchscoredhigherthan

thoseeligibleorreelunch.

READING 2009

8/9/2019 2010458

32/72


In2009,ahigherproportionoeighth-graders

attendedschoolsinsuburbanlocationsthanin

otherlocations(table 7).Theproportiono

studentsineachtypeolocationremainedstable

between2007and2009,withnosignifcant

changesinthepercentagesostudentsattending

schoolsinanyotheourcategories.

Table 7. Percentage of students assessed in eighth-gradeNAEP reading, by school location: 2007 and 2009


School location 2007 2009

City 29 29

Suburb 37 37

Town 13 13

Rural 21 22

Score increases for students in city schoolsStudentsperormanceonthereading

assessmentdieredbasedonthe

locationotheschooltheyattended.

In2009,studentsattendingschoolsinsuburbanlocationsscoredthehigheston

average(gure 20).Thoseinrural

schoolsscoredhigheronaveragethan

studentsattendingschoolsincitiesand

towns.SeetheTechnicalNotesor

moreinormationonhowtheseschool

locationcategoriesweredefned.

Scoregainssince2007variedbyschool

location.Averagescoreswerehigherin

2009thanin2007orstudentsattend-

ingschoolsincitylocationsbutshowed

nosignifcantchangeorstudentswhose

schoolswerelocatedinrurallocations,

suburbs,ortowns.

Figure 20. Average scores in eighth-grade NAEP reading, byschool location: 2007 and 2009


0 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 500

Town

07

26109

262

Suburb

07

26809

267

Rural

07

26509

264

07

09 259

257*

City

Year

Scale score


8RADE

8/9/2019 2010458

33/72


Figure 21. Changes in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores between 2007 and 2009

1 Department of Defense Education Activity

(overseas and domestic schools).

Score increased

No signicant change

DC

NM

KY

MO

PA

HI

AK

DoDEA1

FL

AL

CT

UT

Scores increase since 2007 in nine states, and no states show a decline

Themapshownbelowhighlightschangesinstatesaveragereadingscoresrom2007to2009atgrade8

(gure 21).Whiletheoverallaveragescoreoreighth-

gradepublicschoolstudentsinthenationwashigher

in2009thanin2007,increaseswereseeninlessthan

20percentothestates.Scoreswerehigherin2009

thanin2007or9states.Nostatesshowedadeclinesince2007.Incomparisontotheresultsin

1998,scoreswerehigherin2009or11othe38

statesthatparticipatedinbothyears,andlowerin

6states.

State Performance at Grade 8All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Department of Defense schools

participated in the 2009 reading assessment. Tese 52 states and jurisdictions are

all referred to as states in the following summary of results. State results are also

available for ve earlier assessments at grade 8. While all states participated in the

assessments since 2003, not all have participated or met the criteria for reporting

in earlier assessment years.


READING 2009

8/9/2019 2010458

34/72


Reporting standards not met. Sample size i nsucient to permit a reliable estimate.

NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacic Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Only states/jurisdictions that showed a signicant change in overall scores between 200

and 2009 are shown.

p Score increased t No signicant change

Race/ethnicity GenderEligibility for free/reduced-

price school lunch

State/jurisdiction Overall White Black HispanicAsian/Pacic

Islander Male Female Eligible Not eligible

Nation (public) p p p p p p p p p

Alabama p t t t t p t t

Connecticut p p t p p t p t p

Florida p t t t t p t p p

Hawaii p t t t t p p p p

Kentucky p p t p p p p

Missouri p t t t t p t t

New Mexico p p t t p t p p

Pennsylvania p t t t t t p t p

Utah p p t t t p t p

Figure 22. Change in eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores between 2007 and 2009, by selected student groups and state/jurisdiction

Additional State Results

Additional state results for grade 8 are provided in figure23,table8, and appendix tablesA-17 through A-24.

Web-generated profiles of state results and a one-page printsnapshot report that presents key findings are available for

each participating state and jurisdiction at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ .

A Closer Look at State Results

Notallstudentgroupsmadegainsinthe9statesshownin

gure 22whereoveralleighth-gradereadingscoresincreased

rom2007to2009.Resultsbyrace/ethnicityshowedincreas-

esorWhite,Hispanic,andAsian/PacifcIslanderstudentsin

Connecticut,andorWhitestudentsonlyinKentucky,New

Mexico,andUtah.Resultsbystudentseligibilityorree/

reduced-priceschoollunchshowedhigherscoresin2009than

in2007bothorstudentswhowereeligibleandorthosewho

werenoteligibleinFlorida,Hawaii,Kentucky,andNewMexico,

andjustorstudentswhowerenoteligibleinConnecticut,

Pennsylvania,andUtah.Althoughnotshownhere,amongthe

43stateswherereadingscoresshowednosignifcantchange

since2007,scoresincreasedorHispanicstudentsinRhode

Island,SouthCarolina,andWyoming;oremalestudentsin

RhodeIsland;andormalestudentsinWyoming.Theaverage

scoredecreasedrom2007to2009orstudentsnoteligible

ortheschoollunchprograminIowa.


8RADE
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

8/9/2019 2010458

35/72


NOTE: The shaded bars are graphed using unrounded numbers. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.


Figure 23. Average scores and achievement-level results in NAEP reading for eighth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: 2009

AdvancedProficientBasicBelow Basic

READING 2009

8/9/2019 2010458

36/72

Table 8. Average scores in NAEP reading for eighth-grade public school students, by state/jurisdiction: Various years, 19982009

Accommodations notpermitted Accommodations permitted

State/jurisdiction 1998 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

Nation (public) 261 261 263 261* 260* 261* 262Alabama 255 255 253 253 252 252* 255

Alaska 256* 259 259 259Arizona 261 260 257 255 255 255 258

Arkansas 256 256 260 258 258 258 258

California 253 252 250 251 250 251 253

Colorado 264 264 268 265 266 266

Connecticut 272 270 267* 267* 264* 267* 272

Delaware 256* 254* 267* 265 266 265 265

Florida 253* 255* 261 257* 256* 260* 264

Georgia 257 257 258 258 257* 259 260

Hawaii 250* 249* 252* 251* 249* 251* 255

Idaho 266 264 264 265 265

Illinois 266 264 263 265

Indiana 265 265 261* 264 266

Iowa 268* 267 267 265

Kansas 268 268 269 266 267 267 267

Kentucky 262* 262* 265 266 264* 262* 267

Louisiana 252 252 256 253 253 253 253

Maine 273* 271* 270 268 270 270 268

Maryland 262* 261* 263 262* 261* 265 267

Massachusetts 269* 269* 271 273 274 273 274

Michigan 265 264 261 260 262

Minnesota 267 265* 268 268 268 270

Mississippi 251 251 255* 255* 251 250 251

Missouri 263* 262* 268 267 265 263* 267

Montana 270 271 270 270 269 271 270

Nebraska 270* 266 267 267 267

Nevada 257* 258* 251* 252 253 252 254

New Hampshire 271 270 270 271

New Jersey 268* 269 270 273

New Mexico 258 258* 254 252 251 251* 254

New York 266 265 264 265 265 264 264

North Carolina 264* 262 265* 262 258 259 260North Dakota 268 270 270 268 269

Ohio 268 267 267 268 269

Oklahoma 265* 265* 262* 262 260 260 259

Oregon 266 266 268 264 263 266 265

Pennsylvania 265* 264* 267* 268* 271

Rhode Island 262* 264* 262 261 261 258 260

South Carolina 255 255 258 258 257 257 257

South Dakota 270 269 270 270

Tennessee 259 258 260 258 259 259 261

Texas 262 261 262 259 258 261 260

Utah 265 263 263 264 262* 262* 266

Vermont 272 271 269* 273 272

Virginia 266 266 269* 268 268 267 266

Washington 265 264 268 264 265 265 267

West Virginia 262* 262* 264* 260* 255 255 255Wisconsin 266 265 266 266 264 266

Wyoming 262* 263* 265* 267 268 266 268

Other jurisdictions

District of Columbia 236* 236* 240* 239* 238* 241 242

DoDEA1 269* 269* 273 272 271 273 272

Not available. The state/jurisdiction did not participate or did not meet the minimum participation guidelines for reporting.

* Signicantly dierent (p< .05) from 2009 when only one state/jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).



8RADE

8/9/2019 2010458

37/72

30% Critique and EvaluateThesequestionsaskstudentstoconsider

allorpartothetextromacriticalper-

spectiveandtomakejudgmentsaboutthewaymeaningisconveyed.

50% Integrate and InterpretThesequestionsmovebeyondaocuson

discreteinormationandrequirereadersto

makeconnectionsacrosslargerportionso

textortoexplainwhattheythinkaboutthe

textasawhole.

20% Locate and RecallThesequestionsocusonspecifcinorma-

tioncontainedinrelativelysmallamountso

textandaskstudentstorecognizewhat

theyhaveread.

Becausetheassessmentcoveredarangeotextsandincludedmorequestionsthananyonestudentcould

answer,eachstudenttookjustaportionotheassessment.The257questionsthatmadeuptheentireeighth-gradeassessmentweredistributedacross25setsopassagesanditems.Eachsettypicallycom-

prised10questions,amixomultiplechoiceandconstructedresponse.Eachstudentreadandrespondedto

questionsinjusttwo25-minutesets.

Assessment Content at Grade 8Te distribution of items among the three cognitive targets reects thedierent developmental emphases across grade levels as specied in the

reading framework.

READING2009

8/9/2019 2010458

38/72

Reading Achievement-Level Descriptions for Grade 8NAEPreadingachievement-leveldescriptionspresentexpectationsostudentperormanceinrelationtoarangeotexttypes

andtextdicultyandinresponsetoavarietyoassessmentquestionsintendedtoelicitdierentcognitiveprocessesand

readingbehaviors.Thespecifcprocessesandreadingbehaviorsmentionedintheachievement-leveldescriptionsareillustrativ

othosejudgedascentraltostudentssuccessulcomprehensionotexts.Theseprocessesandreadingbehaviorsinvolve

dierentandincreasingcognitivedemandsromonegradeandperormanceleveltothenextastheyareappliedwithinmore

challengingcontextsandwithmorecomplexinormation.Whilesimilarreadingbehaviorsareincludedatthedierentperormancelevelsandgrades,itshouldbeunderstoodthattheseskillsarebeingdescribedinrelationtotextsandassessment

questionsovaryingdiculty.

Thespecifcdescriptionsowhateighth-gradersshouldknowandbeabletodoattheBasic,Procient,andAdvancedreading

achievementlevelsarepresentedbelow.(Note:Shadedtextisashort,generalsummarytodescribeperormanceateach

achievementlevel.)NAEPachievementlevelsarecumulative;thereore,studentperormanceatthe Procientlevelincludesthe

competenciesassociatedwiththeBasiclevel,andtheAdvancedlevelalsoincludestheskillsandknowledgeassociatedwithboth

theBasicandtheProcientlevels.Thecutscoreindicatingthelowerendothescorerangeoreachlevelisnotedinparentheses.

Basic (243)

Eighth-gradestudentsperormingat

theBasiclevelshouldbeabletolocateinormation;identiystatementso

mainidea,theme,orauthorspurpose;

andmakesimpleinerencesromtexts.

Theyshouldbeabletointerpretthe

meaningoawordasitisusedinthe

text.Studentsperormingatthislevel

shouldalsobeabletostatejudgments

andgivesomesupportaboutcontent

andpresentationocontent.



eighth-gradestudentsperormingattheBasiclevelshouldrecognizemajor

themesandbeabletoidentiy,de-

scribe,andmakesimpleinerences

aboutsettingandaboutcharacter

motivations,traits,andexperiences.

Theyshouldbeabletostateand

providesomesupportorjudgments

aboutthewayanauthorpresents

contentandaboutcharacter

motivation.

Whenreadinginformationaltextssuchasexpositionandargumentation,

eighth-gradestudentsperormingat

theBasiclevelshouldbeabletorecog-

nizeinerencesbasedonmainideas

andsupportingdetails.Theyshouldbe

abletolocateandproviderelevant

actstoconstructgeneralstatements

aboutinormationromthetext.

Studentsshouldbeabletoprovide

somesupportorjudgmentsaboutthe

wayinormationispresented.

Profcient (281)

Eighth-gradestudentsperormingat

theProcientlevelshouldbeabletoproviderelevantinormationand

summarizemainideasandthemes.

Theyshouldbeabletomakeand

supportinerencesaboutatext,con-

nectpartsoatext,andanalyzetext

eatures.Studentsperormingatthis

levelshouldalsobeabletoullysub-

stantiatejudgmentsaboutcontentand

presentationocontent.



eighth-gradestudentsperormingattheProcientlevelshouldbeableto

makeandsupportaconnectionbe-

tweencharactersromtwopartsoa

text.Theyshouldbeabletorecognize

characteractionsandinerandsup-

portcharactereelings.Students

perormingatthislevelshouldbeable

toprovideandsupportjudgments

aboutcharactersmotivationsacross

texts.Theyshouldbeabletoidentiy

howfgurativelanguageisused.


suchasexpositionandargumentation,

eighth-gradestudentsperormingat

theProcientlevelshouldbeableto

locateandprovideactsandrelevant

inormationthatsupportamainidea

orpurpose,i

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	gothamschoolsorg
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

2010458

Documents