Skip Navigation
Illustration/Logo View Quarterly by  This Issue  |  Volume and Issue  |  Topics
Education Statistics Quarterly
Vol 5, Issue 2, Topic: Elementary and Secondary Education
The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002
By: Wendy S. Grigg, Mary C. Daane, Ying Jin, and Jay R. Campbell
 
This article was excerpted from The Nation's Report Card: Reading Highlights 2002, a tabloid-style publication that summarizes the complete report. The sample survey data are from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, and 2002 Reading Assessments.
 
 

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

This report presents the results of the NAEP 2002 Reading Assessment for the nation at grades 4, 8, and 12 and for participating states and other jurisdictions at grades 4 and 8. The national results reflect the performance of students attending both public and nonpublic schools, while the state/jurisdiction results reflect only the performance of students attending public schools.

Comparisons are made to results from previous years. In addition to the 2002 results, national results are reported from the 1992, 1994, 1998, and 2000 (fourth-grade only) assessments. State/jurisdiction results are also reported from the 1992, 1994, and 1998 assessments at grade 4 and from the 1998 assessment at grade 8.

Accommodations and comparisons

The results presented in the figures and tables throughout the report distinguish between two different reporting samples that reflect a change in administration procedures. The more recent results are based on administration procedures in which testing accommodations were permitted for students with disabilities and limited-English-proficient students. Prior to 1996, accommodations were not permitted in NAEP assessments. Beginning with the 2002 assessment, NAEP has been using only one set of administration procedures—permitting accommodations. Comparisons between results from 2002 and those from assessment years in which both types of administration procedures were used (in 1998 at all three grades and again in 2000 at the fourth grade only) are discussed based on the results when accommodations were permitted, even though significant differences in results when accommodations were not permitted may be noted in the figures and tables. Additional information about the change in administration procedures can be found in the full report, The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002.

NAEP reading framework

The NAEP reading framework, which defines the content for the 2002 assessment, was developed through a comprehensive national process and adopted by NAGB. The reading framework is organized along two dimensions, the context for reading and the aspect of reading. The context dimension is divided into three areas that characterize the purposes for reading: reading for literary experience, reading for information, and reading to perform a task. All three contexts are assessed at grades 8 and 12, but reading to perform a task is not assessed at grade 4. The aspects of reading, which define the types of comprehension questions used in the assessments, include forming a general understanding, developing interpretation, making reader/text connections, and examining content and structure. The complete framework is available on the NAGB web site at http://www.nagb.org.

Scale scores and achievement levels

Assessment results are described in terms of students' average reading score on a 0–500 scale and in terms of the percentage of students attaining each of three achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.

  • Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.
  • Proficient represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter.
  • Advanced signifies superior performance.

Achievement levels are performance standards set by NAGB that provide a context for interpreting student performance on NAEP. These performance standards, based on recommendations from broadly representative panels of educators and members of the public, are used to report what students should know and be able to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels of performance in each subject area and at each grade assessed.

As provided by law, NCES, upon review of a congressionally mandated evaluation of NAEP, has determined that the achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted and used with caution. However, both NCES and NAGB believe that these performance standards are useful for understanding trends in student achievement. NAEP achievement levels have been widely used by national and state officials. Detailed descriptions of the NAEP reading achievement levels can be found on the NAGB web site at http://www.nagb.org/pubs/readingbook.pdf.

In addition to providing average scores and achievement-level performance in reading for the nation and for states and other jurisdictions, the report provides results for subgroups of students defined by various background characteristics. Following is a summary of major findings.


National results are for students attending both public and nonpublic schools.

2002 average score trends differ by grade

The fourth-grade average score in 2002 was higher than in 1994, 1998, and 2000 (figure A), but was not found to be significantly different from 1992. Among eighth-graders, the average score in 2002 was higher than in 1992 or 1994. The twelfth-grade average score in 2002 was lower than in 1992 and 1998.

2002 achievement levels show gains and losses

As shown in table A, the percentage of fourth-graders at or above Basic was higher in 2002 than in 1994, 1998, and 2000 but was not found to be significantly different from 1992. The percentage of fourth-graders at or above Proficient—the achievement level identified by NAGB as the standard all students should reach—was higher in 2002 than in 1992 and 1998. The percentage of eighth-graders at or above Basic was higher in 2002 than in all previous assessment years. The percentage of eighth-graders at or above Proficient was higher in 2002 than in 1992 and 1994. The percentages of twelfth-graders at or above Basic and Proficient fell below levels seen in 1992 and 1998.

Trends in percentiles differ by grade level

Looking at changes in scores for students at higher, middle, and lower performance levels gives a more complete picture of student progress. An examination of scores at different percentiles on the 0–500 reading scale at each grade indicates whether or not the changes seen in the national average score results are reflected in the performance of lower-, middle-, and higher-performing students. The percentile indicates the percentage of students whose scores fell below a particular score.

At grade 4, scores at the 10th, 25th, and 50th percentiles were higher in 2002 than in 1998 and 2000 but were not found to be significantly different from 1992 (figure B). The score at the 75th percentile was higher than in 1992.

At grade 8, scores were higher in 2002 than in 1992 at all but the 90th percentile. However, only scores for lower-performing students at the 10th and 25th percentiles were higher in 2002 than in 1998.

At grade 12, the decline in performance since 1992 was evident across most of the score distribution (at the 10th, 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles). Performance declined between 1998 and 2002 at the 90th percentile.

Figure A. Average reading scale scores, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1992–2002
Figure A. Average reading scale scores, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1992-2002

*Significantly different from 2002.

Dashed line Accommodations not permitted.

Solid line Accommodations permitted.

NOTE: In addition to allowing for accommodations, the accommodations-permitted results at grade 4 (1998–2002) differ slightly from previous years' results, and from previously reported results for 1998 and 2000, due to changes in sample weighting procedures. For more details, see appendix A of the full report, The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, and 2002 Reading Assessments. (Previously published on p. 1 of The Nation's Report Card: Reading Highlights 2002 .)

Figure B. Reading scale-score percentiles, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1992–2002
Figure B. Reading scale-score percentiles, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1992-2002

*Significantly different from 2002.

Dashed line Accommodations not permitted.

Solid line Accommodations permitted.

NOTE: In addition to allowing for accommodations, the accommodations-permitted results at grade 4 (1998–2002) differ slightly from previous years' results, and from previously reported results for 1998 and 2000, due to changes in sample weighting procedures. See appendix A of the full report, The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002, for more details.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, and 2002 Reading Assessments. (Previously published on p. 3 of The Nation's Report Card: Reading Highlights 2002.)


Table A. Percentage of students, by reading achievement level, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1992–2002

  Below Basic At Basic At Proficient At Advanced
At or above Basic
At or above Proficient
Grade 4
Accommodations not permitted 1992 38 34 22* 6 62 29*
1994 40* 31* 22* 7 60* 30
1998 38 32 24 7 62 31
2000 37 31 24 8 63 32
Accommodations permitted 1998 40* 30* 22* 7 60* 29*
2000 41* 30* 23 7 59* 29
2002 36 32 24 7 64 31
Grade 8
Accommodations not permitted 1992 31* 40* 26* 3 69* 29*
1994 30* 40* 27* 3 70* 30*
1998 26 41* 31 3 74 33
Accommodations permitted 1998 27* 41 30 3 73* 32
2002 25 43 30 3 75 33
Grade 12
Accommodations not permitted 1992 20* 39 36* 4 80* 40*
1994 25 38 32 4 75 36
1998 23* 37 35* 6* 77* 40*
Accommodations permitted 1998 24* 36 35* 6* 76* 40*
2002 26 38 31 5 74 36

*Significantly different from 2002.

NOTE: Percentages within each reading achievement-level range may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, because of rounding. In addition to allowing for accommodations, the accommodations-permitted results at grade 4 (1998–2002) differ slightly from previous years' results, and from previously reported results for 1998 and 2000, due to changes in sample weighting procedures. See appendix A of the full report, The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002, for more details.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, and 2002 Reading Assessments. (Previously published on p. 2 of the complete report from which this article is excerpted.)

Back to Top


In addition to national results for students' reading performance, the 2002 assessment collected performance data for fourth- and eighth-graders who attended public schools in states and other jurisdictions that volunteered to participate. In 2002, 45 states and 5 other jurisdictions participated at grade 4, and 44 states and 6 other jurisdictions participated at grade 8. Two states at grade 4 and three states at grade 8 participated but did not meet minimum school participation guidelines for reporting their results in 2002.

While the national results presented in the previous sections reflect the performance of students in both public and nonpublic schools combined, results for jurisdictions are based on the performance of students attending public schools only. For purposes of comparison, the national performance results presented here are for public school students only.

Average score results

Among the 40 jurisdictions that participated in both the 1998 and 2002 fourth-grade reading assessments, 19 showed score increases in 2002 and only 1 showed a decline. Among the 40 jurisdictions that participated in both 1992 and 2002, average reading scores in 2002 were higher in 15 jurisdictions and lower in 2 jurisdictions. At grade 8, 10 of the 37 jurisdictions that participated in both assessment years showed gains in 2002, and 5 showed declines.

Figures C and D show how the performance of students in participating jurisdictions compares to the performance of students in the national public-school sample. Of the 48 jurisdictions that had their results reported in 2002 at grade 4, 26 had scores that were higher than the national average score, 7 had scores that were not found to be statistically different from the national average, and 15 had scores that were lower than the national average. Of the 47 jurisdictions that had results reported in 2002 at grade 8, 20 had scores that were higher than the national average score, 12 had scores that were not found to differ significantly from the national average, and 15 had scores that were lower than the national average.

Students performing at or above Proficient in reading

At grade 4, 19 jurisdictions had higher percentages of students at or above Proficient than the nation, 14 had percentages that were not found to be statistically different from the nation, and 15 had percentages that were lower than the nation. At grade 8, 16 jurisdictions had higher percentages of students at or above Proficient than the nation, 15 had percentages that were not found to be significantly different from the nation, and 16 had percentages that were lower than the nation.

The percentage of fourth-graders at or above Proficient increased from 1998 to 2002 in 11 jurisdictions and decreased in 1 jurisdiction. Since 1992, the percentage of fourth-graders at or above Proficient has increased in 17 jurisdictions. The percentage of eighth-graders at or above Proficient has increased since 1998 in 5 jurisdictions and declined in 1 jurisdiction.

Back to Top


Figure C. Comparison of state and national public school average reading scores, grade 4: 2002
Figure C. Comparison of state and national public school average reading scores, grade 4: 2002

1
Department of Defense domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools.

2Department of Defense dependents schools (overseas).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002 Reading Assessment. (Previously published as figure A on p. 6 of The Nation's Report Card: Reading Highlights 2002.)


Figure D. Comparison of state and national public school average reading scores, grade 8: 2002
Figure D. Comparison of state and national public school average reading scores, grade 8: 2002

1 Department of Defense domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools.

2 Department of Defense dependents schools (overseas).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002 Reading Assessment. (Previously published as figure B on p. 6 of The Nation's Report Card: Reading Highlights 2002.)

Back to Top


In addition to reporting information on all students' performance on its assessments, NAEP also studies the performance of various subgroups of students. The reading performance of subgroups of students in 2002 indicates whether they have progressed since earlier assessments and allows for comparisons with the performance of other subgroups in 2002. This article includes subgroup results at the national level; for subgroup results at the state/jurisdiction level, see the full report, The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002.

When reading the subgroup results, it is important to keep in mind that there is no simple, cause-and-effect relationship between membership in a subgroup and achievement in NAEP. A complex mix of educational and socioeconomic factors may interact to affect student performance.

Average reading scores by gender

The average scores for male and female fourth-graders were higher in 2002 than in 1998 but were not found to be sig-nificantly different from the scores in 1992.

The average reading scores for both male and female eighth-graders were higher in 2002 than in 1992 and 1994. While the reading score for eighth-grade males increased between 1998 and 2002, the average score for females in 2002 was not found to be significantly different from that in 1998.

The average reading scores for both male and female twelfth-graders decreased between 1998 and 2002, resulting in average scores that were lower than in 1992 for both groups.

Average reading score gaps between males and females

In 2002, the difference in average reading scale scores favoring females over males was 6 score points at grade 4, 9 points at grade 8, and 16 points at grade 12 (figure E). While this represents a narrowing of the gap since 2000 at grade 4, the gap in 2002 was not found to be significantly different from 1992. The gap in 2002 at grade 8 was smaller than in all prior assessment years. The scale-score gap between male and female twelfth-graders was larger in 2002 than in 1992.

Achievement-level results by gender

At grade 4, the percentages of males at or above the Basic and Proficient levels were higher in 2002 than in 2000 but were not found to differ significantly from 1992. The percentages of female fourth-graders at or above Basic and Proficient were higher in 2002 than in 1998, but were not found to differ significantly from 1992.

At grade 8, the percentage of males at or above Basic was higher in 2002 than in any of the previous reading assessment years. The percentage of males at or above Proficient in 2002 was higher than that in 1992 and 1994. The percentage of eighth-grade females at or above Basic in 2002 was higher than in 1992 and 1994, while no significant change was detected in the percentage at or above Proficient.

At grade 12, the percentages of males and females at or above Basic were lower in 2002 than in 1992. The percentage of males at or above Proficient was lower in 2002 than in 1992, while there was no significant change detected since 1992 for females.

Average reading scores by race/ethnicity

Based on information obtained from school records, students who took the NAEP reading assessment were identified as belonging to one of the following racial/ethnic subgroups: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native. The results presented here for 1992 through 2000 differ from those presented in earlier reading reports, in which results were reported for the same five racial/ethnic subgroups based on student self-identification.

At grade 4, both White students and Black students had higher average reading scores in 2002 than in any of the previous assessment years. The average score for Hispanic fourth-graders in 2002 was higher than in 1994, 1998, and 2000 but was not found to be significantly different from 1992. The average score in 2002 was higher than that in 1992 for Asian/Pacific Islander fourth-graders. At grade 8, average reading scores in 2002 were higher than those in 1992 and 1994 for White, Black, and Hispanic students. At grade 12, the average scores for White students and Black students in 2002 were lower than in 1992.

In 2002, White students and Asian/Pacific Islander students had higher average scores than Black and Hispanic students, and White students outperformed Asian/Pacific Islander students at all three grades. In addition, White and Asian/Pacific Islander students scored higher, on average, than American Indian/Alaska Native students at grades 4 and 8.

Average reading score gaps between selected racial/ethnic subgroups

Average score gaps across assessment years between White students and Black students and between White students and Hispanic students are presented in figure F. The score gap between White and Black fourth-graders was smaller in 2002 than in 1994, and the gap between White and Hispanic fourth-graders narrowed between 2000 and 2002, but neither gap was found to differ significantly from 1992. At grades 8 and 12, no significant change in either gap was seen across the assessment years.

Achievement-level results by race/ethnicity

At grade 4, the percentages of White and Black students at or above Basic were higher in 2002 than in any of the previous assessment years, and the percentages at or above Proficient were higher in 2002 than in 1992 and 1994 for both groups. The percentage of Hispanic students at or above Basic in 2002 was higher than in 1994 but was not found to differ significantly from 1992. The percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander students at or above Proficient was higher in 2002 compared to 1992.

At grade 8, the percentages of White students and Black students at or above the Basic and Proficient levels were higher in 2002 than in 1992 and 1994. The percentage of White students at or above Basic was also higher in 2002 than in 1998. A higher percentage of Hispanic students were at or above Basic in 2002 than in 1992 and 1994.

At grade 12, the percentages of White students at or above the Basic and Proficient levels were lower in 2002 than in 1992 and 1998.

Figure E. Average score differences by gender, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1992–2002
Figure E. Average score differences by gender, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1992-2002

*Significantly different from 2002.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, and 2002 Reading Assessments. (Previously published on p. 11 of The Nation's Report Card: Reading Highlights 2002.)

Figure F. Average score differences by race/ethnicity, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1992–2002
Figure F. Average score differences by race/ethnicity, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1992-2002

*Significantly different from 2002.

NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scale scores. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, and 2002 Reading Assessments. (Previously published on p. 13 of The Nation's Report Card: Reading Highlights 2002.)

Back to Top


A better understanding of students' performance on the NAEP 2002 Reading Assessment can be gained by examining sample test questions and students' responses to them. The questions shown here were used in the 2002 reading assessment. The tables that accompany these sample questions show two types of percentages: the overall percentage of students answering the question successfully and the percentage of students at each achievement level answering successfully. For the multiple-choice questions shown, the oval corresponding to the correct multiple-choice response is filled in; for the constructed-response questions, sample student responses are presented. In addition, the reading context and reading aspect are identified for each sample question. Additional sample questions can be viewed on the NAEP web site.

Grade 4 sample questions and responses

The fourth-grade reading comprehension questions presented here were based on the short story "The Box in the Barn," by Barbara Eckfield Connor. Jason, the story's main character, learns a lesson about the risks of snooping when he accidentally lets loose a puppy he believes to be his sister's birthday present. After a day of worry and guilt, Jason is relieved and excited to learn that his father has rescued the puppy, which turns out to be a surprise gift for the boy.

The following multiple-choice question asked students to choose an answer to explain the character's motivation.

Multiple-choice question which asked students to choose an answer to explain the character's motivation

The following multiple-choice question asked students to identify dialogue that illustrates a character's feelings within the story.

Multiple-choice question which asked students to identify dialogue that illustrates a character's feelings within the story

Back to Top


Grade 8 sample questions and responses

The eighth-grade reading comprehension questions presented here were based on "The Sharebots," by Carl Zimmer. This article explains the work of a Brandeis University computer scientist, Maya Mataric, who programmed her "Nerd Herd," a squad of 14 small robots, to socialize and cooperate for efficient task management.

The following multiple-choice question is a vocabulary item asking students to use contextual clues to determine the meaning of a word.

Multiple-choice question which is a vocabulary item asking students to use contextual clues to determine the meaning of a word

The following short constructed-response question measured students' ability to judge the appropriateness of the article's title and to provide information from the text to support their reasoning. Answers to this question were scored on three levels: evidence of "Full Comprehension," evidence of "Partial or Surface Comprehension," or evidence of "Little or No Comprehension."

Short constructed-response question which measured students' ability to judge the appropriateness of the article's title and to provide information from the text to support their reasoning

Grade 12 sample questions and responses

The twelfth-grade reading comprehension questions presented here were based on "Address to the Broadcasting Industry," by Newton Minow . This selection is the text of Minow's 1961 speech to the National Association of Broadcasters, in which he describes American television programming as "a vast wasteland."

In the following multiple-choice question, students were asked to choose the answer that best describes the kind of support that Minow used to defend his position.

Multiple choice question in which students were asked to choose the answer that best describes the kind of support that Minow used to defend his position

The following short constructed-response question measured students' ability to link information from across the text in order to explain Minow's meaning of "a vast wasteland." Answers to this question were scored on three levels: evidence of "Full Comprehension," evidence of "Partial or Surface Comprehension," or evidence of "Little or No Comprehension."

Short constructed-response question which measured students' ability to link information from across the text

Back to Top

Data source: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, and 2002 Reading Assessments.

For technical information, see the complete report:

Grigg, W.S., Daane, M.C., Jin, Y., and Campbell, J.R. (2003). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002 (NCES 2003–521).

Author affiliations: W.S. Grigg, M.C. Daane, Y. Jin, and J.R. Campbell, Educational Testing Service.

For questions about content, contact Arnold Goldstein (arnold.goldstein@ed.gov).

To obtain the complete report (NCES 2003–521), call the toll-free ED Pubs number (877–433–7827), visit the NCES Electronic Catalog (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch), or contact GPO (202–512–1800).

To obtain the Highlights publication from which this article is excerpted (NCES 2003–524), call the toll-free ED Pubs number (877–433–7827), visit the NCES Electronic Catalog (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch), or contact GPO (202–512–1800).


back to top