The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2003

Cover date: July 2005
Print release: September 15, 2005
Web release: September 15, 2005

Authors: James S. Braswell, Gloria S. Dion, Mary C. Daane, and Ying Jin

Download sections of the report (or the complete report) in a PDF file for viewing and printing.

Executive Summary

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is an ongoing nationally representative sample survey of student achievement in core subject areas. Authorized by Congress and administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education, NAEP regularly reports to the public on the educational progress of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students.

This report presents results of the NAEP 2003 fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics assessments for the nation, for regions of the country, for participating states and other jurisdictions, and for participating urban districts. Assessment results are described in terms of students’ average mathematics score on a 0–500 scale and in terms of the percentage of students attaining each of three achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.

The achievement levels are performance standards adopted by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) as part of its statutory responsibilities. The achievement levels are a collective judgment of what students should know and be able to do for each grade tested.  The law requires that the achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis until the Commissioner of Education Statistics determines “that such levels are reasonable, valid, and informative to the public.”¹ Until that determination is made, the law requires the Commissioner and the Board to state clearly the trial status of the achievement levels in all NAEP reports.  However, both NCES and NAGB believe these performance standards are useful for understanding trends in student achievement. They have been widely used by national and state officials and others as a common yardstick of academic performance.

Approximately 190,000 fourth-graders from 7,500 schools and 153,000 eighth-graders from 6,100 schools were assessed in 2003. The national results reflect the performance of students attending both public and nonpublic schools, while the results for participating states and jurisdictions, and for participating urban districts, reflect the performance of students attending public schools. In addition to providing average scores and achievement-level percentages in mathematics for the nation, states and other jurisdictions, and selected urban districts, this report provides results for subgroups of students defined by various background characteristics.

A summary of major findings from the NAEP 2003 Mathematics Assessment is presented on the following pages. Comparisons are made to results from previous years in which the assessment was administered. In addition to the 2003 results, national results are reported from the 1990, 1992, 1996, and 2000 assessments. Results for states and other jurisdictions are also reported from the 1990 (eighth grade only), 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2003 assessments. Results for participating urban districts are reported for 2003.

The more recent results, from 2000 and 2003, are based on more inclusive samples using administration procedures in which testing accommodations were permitted for students with disabilities and limited-English-proficient students. Accommodations were not permitted in earlier assessments. Comparisons between results from 2003 and those from 2000, in which both types of administration procedures were used, are discussed in this executive summary based on the results when accommodations were permitted.

Changes in student performance across years or differences between groups of students in 2003 are discussed only if they have been determined to be statistically significant at the .05 level based on t-tests adjusted using the False Discovery Rate (FDR) multiple comparison procedure. Beginning with the reading sample in 2002, the NAEP national samples were obtained by aggregating the samples from each state, rather than obtaining an independently selected national sample.  As a result, the size of the national sample increased and smaller differences between years or between subgroups of students were found to be statistically significant than would have been detected in previous assessment years.

Overall Mathematics Results for the Nation, Regions of the Country, and States and other Jurisdictions

Mathematics Results for the Nation

At grade 4

• The average fourth-grade mathematics score was higher in 2003 than in all the previous assessment years.
• Scores at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles were higher in 2003 than in any of the previous assessment years, indicating improvement for lower-, middle-, and higher-performing students. Gains detected between 2000 and 2003 ranged from approximately 5 scale score points for students performing at the 90th percentile to 13 points for students at the 10th percentile.
• In 2003, 32 percent of fourth-graders performed at or above the Proficient level. The percentages of fourth-graders performing at or above Basic, at or above Proficient, and at Advanced increased between 2000 and 2003, and were higher in 2003 than in 1990. The percentage at or above Proficient increased by approximately 19 points between 1990 and 2003.

At grade 8

• The average eighth-grade mathematics score was higher in 2003 than in all previous assessment years.
• Scores at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles were higher in 2003 than in any of the previous assessment years, indicating improvement for lower-, middle-, and higher-performing students. Increases detected between 2000 and 2003 ranged from approximately 3 scale score points at the 90th percentile to 7 points at the 10th percentile.
• In 2003, 29 percent of eighth-graders performed at or above the Proficient level. The percentages of eighth-graders performing at or above Basic and at or above Proficient increased between 2000 and 2003, and were higher in 2003 than in 1990. The percentage at or above Proficient increased by approximately 14 points between 1990 and 2003.

Mathematics Results for Regions of the Country

Prior to 2003, NAEP results were reported for four NAEP-defined regions of the nation: Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West. As of 2003, to align NAEP with other federal data collections, NAEP analysis and reports have used the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of “region.” The four regions defined by the U.S. Census Bureau are Northeast, South, Midwest, and West.

At grade 4

• The average fourth-grade mathematics score was higher for students in the Northeast and Midwest than for students in the South and West. The average score for students in the South was higher than for students in the West.
• The percentages of fourth-graders performing at or above the Basic and Proficient levels were higher in the Northeast and Midwest than in the South and West. Higher percentages of students performed at or above Basic and Proficient in the South than in the West.

At grade 8

• The average eighth-grade mathematics score was higher for students in the Northeast and Midwest than for students in the South and West. The average score was higher for students in the South than for students in the West.
• Higher percentages of eighth-grade students performed at or above Basic and Proficient in the Northeast and Midwest than in the South and West. A higher percentage of eighth-graders performed at or above Basic in the South than in the West.

Mathematics Results for the States and Other Jurisdictions

Results from the 2003 assessment are reported for fourth- and eighth-grade students attending public schools only in 50 states and 3 other jurisdictions that participated in the assessment. (Throughout this report, the term “jurisdiction” is used to refer to the states, the District of Columbia, and the two Department of Defense system schools that participated in the NAEP mathematics assessment.)

At grade 4

• All 43 jurisdictions that participated in both the 2000 and 2003 fourth-grade assessments showed increases in average scores. Similarly, each of the 42 jurisdictions that participated in the 1992 and 2003 assessments had a higher average score in 2003.
• Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming were among the jurisdictions with the highest average scores. Average fourth-grade scores in Connecticut and Virginia were lower only in comparison with New Hampshire.
• The percentage of fourth-graders performing at or above Proficient was higher in 2003 than in 2000 for all 43 jurisdictions that participated in both years. The percentage of fourth-graders at or above Proficient was higher in 2003 than in 1992 for all 42 jurisdictions that participated in both years.

At grade 8

• Of the 42 jurisdictions that participated in both the 2000 and 2003 eighth-grade mathematics assessments, 28 had a higher average score in 2003. Each of the 38 jurisdictions that participated in both the 1990 and 2003 assessments had a higher average score in 2003.
• In 2003, Minnesota had the highest average mathematics score at grade 8. Eighth-graders in Department of Defense Overseas schools, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont all had higher average scores than the remaining jurisdictions except Minnesota.
• Among the 42 jurisdictions that participated in both the 2000 and 2003 eighth-grade assessments, 18 showed an increase in the percentage of students performing at or above Proficient. The percentage of eighth-graders at or above Proficient was higher in 2003 than in 1990 for all 38 jurisdictions that participated in both years.

Mathematics Results for Student Subgroups in the Nation and in the States and Other Jurisdictions

In addition to overall results, NAEP reports on the performance of various subgroups of students. In interpreting these data, readers are reminded that the relationship between contextual variables and student performance is not necessarily causal. There are many factors that play a role in student achievement in a particular subject area.

National Results

Gender

• At both grades 4 and 8, the average scores for both male students and female students were higher in 2003 than in any of the previous assessment years.
• In 2003, male students outperformed female students by 3 points on average at grade 4 and by 2 points on average at grade 8. The male-female gap in 2003 was not measurably different from the gap in any of the previous assessment years since 1990 for either grade.
• At both grades 4 and 8, the percentages of male students and female students performing at or above Proficient were higher in 2003 than in any previous assessment year.

Race/Ethnicity

Based on information obtained from school records, students who took the NAEP mathematics assessment were identified as belonging to one of five mutually exclusive racial/ethnic subgroups: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Other.

• At both grades 4 and 8, Asian/Pacific Islander students scored higher on average than White students in 2003. Both White students and Asian/Pacific Islander students had higher average scores than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students at both grades. Hispanic students and American Indian/Alaska Native students also scored higher on average than Black students at both grades.
• At grade 4, White, Black, and Hispanic students all had higher average scores in 2003 than in any of the previous assessment years. American Indian/Alaska Native fourth-graders had a higher average score in 2003 than in 2000. The average score for Asian/Pacific Islander fourth-graders was higher in 2003 than in 1990.
• At grade 8, White, Black, and Hispanic students all showed increases in average scores between 2000 and 2003. The average score for Asian/Pacific Islander eighth-graders was higher in 2003 than in 1990.
• At grade 4, the score gap between White students and Black students decreased between 2000 and 2003, and was smaller in 2003 than in 1990. The gap between White fourth-graders and Hispanic fourth-graders also narrowed between 2000 and 2003, but there was no measurable difference between the gap in 2003 and the gap in 1990.
• At grade 8, the score gap between White students and Black students was narrower in 2003 than in 2000, but the gap in 2003 was not measurably different from that in 1990.
• At both grades 4 and 8, the percentage of students performing at or above the Proficient level was higher in 2003 than in any of the previous assessment years for White, Black, and Hispanic students. The percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander students performing at or above Proficient was higher in 2003 than in 1990.

Eligibility for Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch

NAEP collects data on students’ eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch as an indicator of family economic status. Eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch is determined by students’ family income in relation to the federally established poverty level. The mathematics results since 1996 are reported for students classified by their eligibility.

• In 2003, the average mathematics scores for fourth- and eighth-graders who were eligible for free/reduced-price lunch were lower than that for students who were not eligible.
• For students who were eligible and those who were not eligible, the average mathematics scores for fourth-grade and eighth-grade students increased between 2000 and 2003 and were higher in 2003 than in 1996.
• At both grades 4 and 8, the percentage of students at or above Proficient was higher in 2003 than in 2000 and 1996 for both students who were eligible and those who were not eligible.

Parents’ Level of Education

Eighth-grade students who participated in the NAEP mathematics assessment were asked to indicate the highest level of education completed by each parent. Information about parental education was not collected at grade 4. Results are reported based on the highest level of education reported for either parent.

• Overall, in 2003, there was a positive relationship between student-reported parental education and student achievement: the higher the parental education level, the higher the average mathematics score.
• Average scores for eighth-grade students increased from 2000 to 2003 and were higher in 2003 than in 1990 for each level of parental education reported.
• The percentage of eighth-graders performing at or above Proficient was higher in 2003 than in 1990 regardless of the level of parental education students reported.

Type of School

The schools that participate in the NAEP assessment are classified as either public or nonpublic. A further distinction is then made between nonpublic schools that are Catholic schools and those that are some other type of nonpublic school.

• In 2003, fourth- and eighth-grade students in nonpublic schools had higher average scores than students in public schools. Eighth-grade students in Catholic schools had lower average scores than eighth-graders in other nonpublic schools.
• At both grades 4 and 8, the average mathematics scores for students in public and nonpublic schools (including Catholic and other nonpublic schools) increased from 2000 to 2003 and were higher in 2003 than in 1990.
• The percentages of fourth- and eighth-graders performing at or above Proficient were higher in 2003 than in 1990 for students in public schools, Catholic schools, and other nonpublic schools.

Type of Location

The schools from which NAEP draws its samples of students are classified according to their type of location (central city, rural/small town, or urban fringe/large town). The methods used to identify the type of school location in 2000 and 2003 were different from those used for prior assessment years; therefore, only the data from the 2000 and 2003 assessments are reported.

• In 2003, fourth- and eighth-grade students in schools located in urban fringe/large town and rural/small town locations had higher average mathematics scores than those in central city locations, and students in urban fringe/large town locations scored higher on average than students in rural/small town locations.
• The average mathematics scores in all three location types were higher in 2003 than in 2000 for both grades 4 and 8.
• The percentage of students at or above Proficient increased between 2000 and 2003 in all three types of locations at grade 4.

State and Other Jurisdiction Results

Gender

• In 2003, male fourth-graders scored higher on average than female fourth-graders in 24 jurisdictions. At grade 8, the average score for male students was higher than for female students in Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Department of Defense Overseas schools.
• The average scores increased between 1992 and 2003 for both male and female fourth-graders in all 42 of the jurisdictions that participated in both assessments. For the 38 jurisdictions that participated in both the 1990 and 2003 eighth-grade assessments, 36 showed increases for both male and female students and Montana and North Dakota showed increases only for female students.

Race/Ethnicity

• At grade 4, average scores were higher in 2003 than in 1992 for White students in 42 jurisdictions, for Black students in 35 jurisdictions, for Hispanic students in 20 jurisdictions, for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 11 jurisdictions, and for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 3 jurisdictions.
• At grade 8, average scores were higher in 2003 than in 1990 for White students in 37 jurisdictions, for Black students in 25 jurisdictions, for Hispanic students in 12 jurisdictions, for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 7 jurisdictions, and for American Indian/Alaska Native students in 5 jurisdictions.

Eligibility for Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch

• In 2003, students who were eligible for free/reduced-price lunch scored lower on average than students who were not eligible in all 52 jurisdictions for which data are available at grade 4 and in 51 of the 52 jurisdictions for which data are available at grade 8.
• The average fourth-grade mathematics score increased between 1996 and 2003 both for students who were eligible and students who were not eligible for free/reduced-price lunch in 44 jurisdictions and for students who were not eligible in North Dakota. The average eighth-grade mathematics scores increased between 1996 and 2003 for both students who were eligible and students who were not eligible in 22 jurisdictions, for eligible students in Montana, and for students who were not eligible in 10 jurisdictions.

Urban District Results

The 2003 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) included nine urban public-school districts (Atlanta City School District, Boston Public School District, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, City of Chicago School District 299, Cleveland Municipal School District, Houston Independent School District, Los Angeles Unified School District, New York City Public Schools, and San Diego City Unified School District) plus the District of Columbia. Results for the urban districts are compared with results for public schools in the nation and public schools in large central cities.

Overall Mathematics Results for the Urban Districts

At grade 4

• Fourth-graders in all the participating districts except Charlotte scored lower on average than fourth-graders in the nation. Fourth-graders in Charlotte had a higher average score than public school students in the nation, large central cities, and the other participating districts.
• With the exception of Charlotte, fourth-grade scores at the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles were lower in each of the districts than in the nation.  Scores at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles were higher in Charlotte than in the nation and in large central cities.
• The percentage of fourth-graders in Charlotte performing at or above Proficient was higher than the corresponding percentages in both large central cities and the nation.

At grade 8

• Eighth-graders in all the participating districts except Charlotte scored lower on average than eighth-graders in the nation. Eighth-graders in Charlotte had a higher average score than public school students in the nation, large central cities, and the other participating districts.
• Scores at the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles in all the districts except Charlotte were lower than in the nation. In Charlotte, eighth-grade scores at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles were higher than the scores in large central cities, and the scores at the 75th and 90th percentiles were higher than the corresponding national scores.
• The percentage of eighth-graders in Charlotte at or above Proficient was higher than the corresponding percentages in both large central cities and in the nation.

Results for Student Subgroups in Urban Districts

Gender

• At grade 4, the average scores for both male and female students in Charlotte were higher than those for their counterparts in the nation and in large central cities. Male and female fourth-graders in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, the District of Columbia, and Los Angeles had lower average scores than their counterparts in large central cities and in the nation.
• At grade 8, the average scores for both male and female students in Charlotte were higher than the corresponding average scores for male and female students in large central cities. Both male and female eighth-graders in Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, the District of Columbia, and Los Angeles had lower average scores than their counterparts in large central cities and in the nation.

Race/Ethnicity

• At grade 4, the average scores for White students in Charlotte, the District of Columbia, and Houston; Black students in Boston, Charlotte, Houston, and New York City; and Hispanic students in Charlotte and Houston were higher than the corresponding scores in large central cities. The average scores for fourth-grade White students in Boston, Chicago, and Cleveland; Black students in Chicago and the District of Columbia; and Hispanic students in Boston, the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, and San Diego were lower than the corresponding scores in large central cities.
• At grade 8, the average scores for White students in Atlanta, Charlotte, and Houston; Black students in Charlotte, Houston, and New York City; and Hispanic students in Houston were higher than the corresponding scores in large central cities. The average scores for eighth-grade White students in Cleveland; Black students in Atlanta, the District of Columbia, and Los Angeles; and Hispanic students in the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, and San Diego were lower than the corresponding scores in large central cities.

Eligibility for Free/Reduced-Price Lunch

• At grade 4, the average scores for students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch in Charlotte, Houston, and New York City were higher than the average score in large central cities. The average scores for eligible students in Atlanta, Chicago, the District of Columbia, and Los Angeles were lower than the average score for eligible students in large central cities.
• At grade 8, the average scores for students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch in Boston, Houston, and New York City were higher than the average score in large central cities. The average scores for eligible students in Atlanta, the District of Columbia, and Los Angeles were lower than the average score in large central cities.

Parents’ Level of Education

• In 2003, the average score for eighth-graders who indicated that at least one parent graduated from college was lower in Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, the District of Columbia, and Los Angeles than the average score for students in the same parental education category in public schools in large central cities and in the nation.  The average score for eighth-graders who reported at least one parent graduated from college was higher in Charlotte and San Diego than for students in large central cities.

¹ No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P. L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Download sections of the report (or the complete report) in a PDF file for viewing and printing:

•  PDF 1 of 4 contains:
  Table of Contents
  Executive Summary
  Chapter 1: Introduction
  -also includes front matter
  (315K PDF)
  
  
•  PDF 2 of 4 contains:
  Chapter 2: Average Mathematics Scale Score and Achievement-Level Results for the Nation
     and States
  (837K PDF)
  
  
•  PDF 3 of 4 contains:
  Chapter 3: Subgroup Results for the Nation and States
  Chapter 4: Average Mathematics Scale Scores and Achievement-Level Results for Districts 
     Participating in the Trial Urban District Assessment
  Chapter 5: Sample Assessment Questions and Student Responses
  (645K PDF)
  
  
•  PDF 4 of 4 contains:
  Appendix A: Overview of Procedures Used for the NAEP 2003 Mathematics Assessment
  Appendix B: Subgroup Percentage Appendix
  Appendix C: State and Urban District Subgroup Appendix
  Appendix D: State- and District-Level Contextual Variables
  Appendix E: Members of the NAEP Mathematics Standing Committee
  (672K PDF)
  
  
•  The complete The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2003 PDF (2297K PDF)

NCES 2005-451 Ordering information

Suggested Citation
Braswell, J.S., Dion, G.S., Daane, M.C., and Jin, Y. (2005). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2003
(NCES 2005–451). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.