NAEP Part 2

Back to part 1

fig 07

Figure 7

fig 08

Figure 8

  • The figures (figs. 7 & 8) on the opposite page are similar to the figures on page 10, except that they show scores for the 1992 eighth grade mathematics test.
  • As with fourth graders, low-performing students in California do worse than low performing students in the comparison states-up to one grade level worse. The gaps, however, are not as wide as with the fourth graders.
  • As with the fourth graders, high-performing students in California score about as well as similar students in other states.

fig 09

Figure 9

fig 10

Figure 10

  • The figures (figs. 9 & 10) on the opposite page show the differences between California's scores and comparison-state scores. by type of community, on the fourth grade mathematics test.
  • Scores for California's disadvantaged urban students (top chart [fig. 9]) are considerably worse than similar students in the comparison states- well over one grade level lower than some states.
  • Scores for California's suburban/rural students (bottom chart [fig. 10]) are slightly lower than in the comparison states, except for New York, which exceeds California's score by ten points.
  • Scores for California's advantaged urban students (not shown) are about the same as scores for similar students in the comparison states, except for Texas, which does better than California.

Content Contact:
Candy Friedly
Office Manager
Institute for Education Reform
California State University, Sacramento
6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6018
tel 916.278.4600
fax 916.278.5014
Technical Contact:

Last Updated: February, 1994

  IER Home