NAEP Part 3

Back to part 2

figure 11

Figure 11

figure 12

Figure 12

  • The figures (figs. 11 & 12) on the opposite page are similar to the figures on page 14 (figs. 9 & 10) , except that they compare scores for the 1992 eighth-grade mathematics test.
  • As with fourth graders, scores for California's disadvantaged Urban students are generally worse than similar students in comparison states. (California has higher scores than New York.) Again, the gaps are not as great as with the fourth graders.
  • Scores for California's suburban/rural students are about the same as students from suburban/rural areas in the comparison states.
  • Scores for California's advantaged urban students (not shown) are about the same as in two of the comparison states. Compared to Arizona and Florida, however, students who live in California's advantaged urban areas do much better.

figure 13

Figure 13

  • This figure (fig. 13) displays the 1992 scores for high- and low-performing students in California by type of community.
  • In fourth grade, there is a large gap between disadvantaged urban scores and advantaged urban scores for low-performing students- 55 points, or more than three grade levels. The gap is smaller for higher-performing students. Suburban/rural areas show the same trend, but with a much smaller gap.
  • Eighth grade scores show the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged urban students at about 50 points at all levels of achievement.

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