GIVING EVERY CHILD A FAIR SHOT Ensuring All Students Have Equal Opportunity to Succeed The Executive Office of the President July 2015 1 WHITE HOUSE REPORT: Giving Every Child a Fair Shot America’s educators, students and families have produced historic progress in student outcomes across the nation in recent years, including reaching the highest high school graduation rate and lowest dropout rates in our history, and narrowing achievement and graduation gaps. States and districts that have led the way on school reform – including Tennessee, Kentucky, District of Columbia, and Denver – are seeing meaningful gains in student achievement. At the same time, some students are still denied an equal opportunity to succeed. Information on the performance of schools in each state is attached. Nationally1: • Only four out of ten students attending the lowest-performing under-resourced high schools graduate on time, compared to an 87% graduation rate at all other high schools. • Between students in the nation’s lowest-performing 5% of elementary and middle schools and their peers in all other schools, there is a 31 percentage point gap in reaching grade-level proficiency in reading, and a 36 percentage point gap in math – in these lowest-performing schools, approximately two-thirds of students do not meet grade level standards. • Nationwide, black and Hispanic fourth-graders are only half as likely as white students to be on grade level in math. To accelerate our progress and ensure that it reaches every child, we must replace No Child Left Behind (NCLB) with a strong law that invests in what’s working and improves on what’s not. A new law should empower state and local decision makers – including school leaders, superintendents, and state officials – to develop their own systems for measuring and improving schools. It should push states to reduce testing without sacrificing clear, comprehensive information for parents and educators. And it should guarantee that steps are taken to help struggling students and schools. Progress in Supporting College and Career-Readiness for All Students Across the country, the hard work of America’s students and educators is paying off. Our high school graduation rate is the highest ever reported, at 81%. Reading and math scores for fourthand eighth-graders, across all student subgroups, have also increased, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). More students are earning college degrees than ever before, and college enrollment of black and Hispanic students is up by more than 1 million students since 2008. We are also seeing remarkable progress in states that have embraced bold action to prepare students for college and careers. For example, Kentucky was among the first states to adopt college- and career-ready standards. It was also among the first to receive flexibility from the onerous, one-size-fits-all approach of NCLB in exchange for state-led reforms that raised expectations for every student and targeted resources to better support locally designed interventions in its lowest-performing schools. Kentucky is seeing results. Its graduation rate has 1 Numbers and percentages are taken from the state-by-state tables attached as appendixes to this document. 2 increased in recent years to 87.5% – above the national average. And the percentage of high school graduates demonstrating success on the state’s measures for readiness in college and careers has nearly doubled. By replacing NCLB with a more flexible law, we can continue and spread this kind of progress, while maintaining guardrails and protections for the most vulnerable students and directing federal resources toward what works in helping all children learn. All children should have an equal opportunity, and all schools should have the support, funding, and resources they need to improve student outcomes. Federal policy should also recognize and reward high poverty schools and districts showing improvement based on progress and growth. Much Work Remains to Ensure Equity and Opportunity for All Students Despite the advances we’ve made, much work remains to ensure that every child in America has the opportunity that he or she needs and deserves. While many low-performing schools – including those eligible for federal Title I funds to support students in poverty – are improving, and disadvantaged students in all schools are making progress, achievement data underscore how important it is that we continue to focus attention and resources on further helping these schools and students. Crisis in the Lowest-Performing Schools: Even with the progress we’ve made, comparing the percentage of students nationwide performing at grade level (“proficient”) on state assessments in the lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools to all other public schools reveals vast gaps. For example, in our lowest performing 5% of elementary and middle schools, only 36% of students have reached grade level proficiency in reading compared to 67% in all other schools, a gap of 31 percentage points. The average gap in math proficiency is 36 percentage points. In other words, across the bottom 5% of Title I schools, about two-third of students do not meet grade level standards, but in all other schools, the reverse is true: two-thirds of students reach proficiency. In half of the states, the gap in math proficiency between the lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools and all other schools is more than 35 percentage points. These low-performing schools, approximately 3,000 elementary and middle schools serving more than a million students across the nation, are in crisis. Students who attend low performing high schools– Title I-eligible schools that are among the lowest-performing 5% of high schools or have graduation rates of less than 60% – graduate on time at an unacceptably low rate: 40%. Students in all other high schools graduate on time at a rate of 87%, an average rate nearly 50 percentage points higher than what we see in our lowest performing schools. And in over a dozen states, the graduation rate gap is even larger between the most challenged schools and all other high schools. Disadvantaged Students in Other Schools: While the crisis in low-performing schools contributes to significant achievement gaps in all states, we also know that disadvantaged students often fall behind in higher-performing schools. This includes low-income, black, and Hispanic students as well as students with disabilities or with limited English proficiency. Often disadvantaged students in these schools are denied access to rigorous coursework, or are not held 3 to the same high standards as other students. While 37% of high school students are black or Hispanic, they represent only 27% of students enrolled in at least one Advanced Placement (AP) course, and a mere 18% of students receiving a qualifying score of 3 or above on an AP exam. That is why it is critical that we identify schools that are failing any group of students and expect tailored actions in those schools to improve student outcomes. The most recent results of the NAEP show extremely large gaps in student achievement across categories of race, income, disability status, and English learner status in every state. For instance, the percentage of fourth grade students scoring at or above proficient in math is well over 50% for white students. But for black students and Hispanic students, it is 18% and 26%, respectively. Some states have achievement gaps that exceed 40 percentage points. Federal policy must ensure that we provide support to narrow these gaps and improve low subgroup performance wherever it exists, even in our highest-performing schools. Leading States and Districts Show the Potential for Progress While we have much work to do, we know it is possible for even the most challenged schools to change course and dramatically improve student achievement. Educators, local and state leaders, and other stakeholders are joining together to achieve success with results-driven, commonsense reforms to help ensure that every child in this country has the opportunity for a high-quality education. Through these efforts, states and local communities are: • • • • • • Raising standards for teaching and learning to align with real expectations for success in college and careers; Providing resources to adapt curriculum and instruction and to support great teaching; Focusing on improving student outcomes, especially for those students who are furthest behind, by rejecting labels of failure based on a single snapshot and instead identifying schools that are showing improvement and closing achievement gaps, recognizing progress and growth over time, and responding accordingly; Supporting dramatic change to accelerate student achievement, close gaps, and turnaround persistently low-performing schools that aren’t providing students with the education they need to succeed in college and a career. Creating comprehensive systems to support great teaching and school leadership that integrate pre-service preparation, recruitment, induction, multi-measure evaluation systems, personalized development and feedback, and career advancement for all educators; and Identifying innovative approaches to teaching and learning, based on evidence of what works and what can work better for their schools. In states and school districts across the country, we are seeing remarkable progress. For example: • Closing Achievement Gaps in New Mexico: New Mexico has used flexibility from NCLB mandates to move from a pass/fail accountability system to a letter grade system that provides educators and parents with clear information about their schools’ performance, identifies students that are struggling, and targets greater supports toward those students. These reforms continue to emphasize accountability for student performance, including an 4 enhanced focus on subgroup performance, while also encouraging schools to promote student success on indicators of college and career readiness. Last year the state saw an 8% increase in the number of AP exams taken, and a 5% increase in students scoring a 3 or better. Additionally, between 2009 and 2013, the achievement gaps between white and Hispanic students on the NAEP math assessment decreased by 4%. • Tennessee Achievement Rising for Students: Tennessee's “First to the Top” legislation created conditions for significant improvement in the state's public schools, setting clear educational priorities that helped it become the fastest improving state in the nation on the NAEP in 2013. These reforms were incentivized and supported by Tennessee’s $500 million Race to the Top grant, awarded in 2010. With the opportunity to invest in meaningful changes for kids, Tennessee raised expectations with higher standards and assessments, enhanced data systems to improve instruction, supported teachers and leaders with strategies to increase teacher effectiveness, and created a leading-edge local turnaround effort in the Achievement School District. For example, Tennessee fourth graders scored seven points higher in both subjects between the 2011 and 2013 NAEP, propelling the state from below average scores to a level of performance on par with national results. Results from the 2013 NAEP also showed progress among nearly all student demographic groups compared to 2009 data. • Higher Performance in Washington, DC: Bolstered by $75 million in Race to the Top funds, DC Public Schools, the Office of the State Superintendent for Education for the District, and 29 public charter organizations came together to support the implementation of college- and career-ready standards, build a stronger pipeline for effective teachers and leaders, and create conditions to support and attract those educators to DC’s persistently lowachieving schools. Results from the 2013 NAEP for DC Public Schools showed significant progress since 2011 in reading and math in both 4th and 8th grades – the most significant of all 21 districts that participated in the urban district NAEP. When viewed over a longer period of time, DC’s progress is even more pronounced. Since 2003, fourth grade scores have increased by 24 points on the NAEP math assessment, and eighth grade performance has increased by 17 points. • Ten Years of Growth in Denver: Over the last decade, Denver Public Schools has increased its on-time graduation rate for black and Hispanic students by 60%, increased college enrollment by 25%, and transformed from the district with the lowest rate of academic growth among major districts in Colorado to the highest for three years running. Denver accomplished these feats by raising expectations for students, overhauling its system for supporting educators, creating robust public school choice options for all families through a portfolio of traditional, charter, and innovation schools, introducing a student-based budget that leveled the funding playing field between schools, adopting a multi-measure school performance system, and investing in extensive community engagement and school climate initiatives. 5 President Obama’s Vision to Strengthen Our Schools The President stands ready to work with Congress to advance a strong, bipartisan reauthorization of NCLB that helps to prepare all students for a globally competitive economy by: • • • • • • • • Holding all students to high expectations that set them on a path to graduate from high school ready for success in college and a career. Helping states ensure that all students succeed by targeting additional supports to schools that are not preparing groups of students for success and ensuring that they take action to improve, with the boldest action expected in the lowest-performing 5% of schools. Working with states to reduce unnecessary testing to make sure teachers and students have maximum time for learning and to place sensible limits on testing, following the lead of states like New York, which limits the amount of time spent on state-mandated testing to no greater than 2% of total classroom time. This also means helping states and localities rigorously review their tests and eliminate those which are outdated, repetitive, low-quality, or unnecessary. Encouraging states to allow for greater creativity in the classroom and more time for a balanced curriculum that includes arts, history, foreign languages, financial literacy, music, physical education and after school enrichment. Investing in the expansion of high-quality preschool so that all children arrive in kindergarten ready to learn. Making sure that all students have an equitable opportunity to succeed, including access to excellent teachers and principals, rigorous coursework, and a continuum of community services and supports to meet the needs of the whole child. Supporting teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals with better information, preparation, development, support and recognition, including additional resources, and opportunities to advance in their roles. We should also ensure that the best teachers are serving the students who need them most. Providing significant incentives and support for states, school districts and nonprofit organizations to innovate with new ideas and then identify and expand what’s working. Conclusion Our nation’s elementary and secondary schools are improving, with students learning more and with more students graduating. But, there is still much more that must be done to ensure that every child receives a quality education. That’s why the President wants to replace NCLB with a new law that addresses the overuse of standardized tests, raises expectations for all students and schools, and gives every kid a fair shot at success. Federal resources must be directed toward what works and toward those communities and students that need them most. We cannot afford to ignore our lowest-performing 5% of schools, our schools where subgroups of students are not making progress year after year, and our high schools where far too many students do not earn a diploma. 6 Achievement Gaps in Our Lowest Performing Schools Average Math Proficiency (%) State Name NATION ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE D.C. FLORIDA GEORGIA HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA Low Performing 29 47 51 28 45 26 27 41 28 18 24 56 38 61 23 52 50 41 17 36 36 40 19 8 17 35 15 18 28 26 46 34 15 3 13 37 All Other Schools 65 83 77 64 78 62 67 85 72 56 59 86 64 83 61 84 78 81 44 72 63 81 60 44 64 68 56 69 73 62 73 77 45 34 44 80 Gap 36 36 27 37 33 36 39 44 44 38 34 30 26 22 38 32 28 40 27 36 28 41 42 36 47 33 41 51 45 35 28 44 30 30 31 43 Average Reading and Language Arts Proficiency (%) Low Performing 36 65 53 49 52 26 35 38 39 17 26 79 49 71 25 51 44 49 22 41 44 55 22 29 16 31 17 41 43 35 52 24 22 5 15 31 7 All Other Schools 67 88 83 79 81 58 72 82 75 52 60 95 75 90 61 81 73 87 51 73 72 86 67 69 59 60 54 86 80 64 80 69 52 34 45 76 Average Graduation Rates (%) Low Performing Gap 31 23 30 29 29 32 38 43 36 35 34 16 26 18 35 30 29 38 29 32 28 31 46 40 43 29 37 45 37 29 27 45 30 28 30 45 40 52 37 30 — 44 30 53 45 46 19 47 — — 47 45 45 37 75 52 70 45 38 35 29 54 45 54 73 59 — 46 40 44 50 56 All Other Schools 87 83 83 85 87 89 86 89 83 82 83 79 83 — 85 89 92 89 91 80 87 87 89 89 90 78 90 85 90 79 88 89 75 85 86 91 Gap 47 31 46 54 — 45 56 36 38 35 64 32 — — 39 44 46 52 16 28 16 42 51 54 61 23 45 31 18 20 — 43 35 42 35 35 Average Math Proficiency (%) State Name OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING Low Performing 26 32 32 31 26 40 18 16 44 50 39 38 30 26 12 48 All Other Schools 78 71 64 77 65 74 76 53 77 80 67 72 63 47 51 80 Gap 52 39 32 46 38 34 58 37 32 30 27 34 33 21 40 32 Average Reading and Language Arts Proficiency (%) Low Performing 42 34 43 28 37 49 29 14 54 56 47 42 41 26 6 48 All Other Schools 85 70 72 71 75 78 76 52 80 83 74 74 72 49 37 76 Average Graduation Rates (%) Low Performing Gap 42 36 28 44 38 29 47 38 26 27 26 32 31 23 31 28 31 37 All Other Schools 91 87 34 46 48 32 37 49 39 31 64 51 23 26 6 48 78 89 83 80 89 88 91 87 87 85 84 49 37 76 Gap 59 50 44 44 35 48 52 40 52 56 24 35 62 23 31 28 Math and Reading/Language Arts Proficiency Data Methodology: This analysis was conducted by (1) identifying the 5 percent of schools with the lowest school-wide math proficiency rates among all elementary/middle schools in the state, (2) identifying the Title I participating (Title I eligible for New York) schools with at least 30 valid scores among the bottom 5% of schools, (3) calculating the average proficiency rate among those schools, and (4) comparing that rate to the average rate among the schools with at least 30 valid scores not in the bottom 5%. The gap is defined as the average proficiency rate for the all students group among the other 95% of elementary/middle schools in the state minus the average proficiency rate for the all students group among Title I schools that are in the bottom 5% of all elementary/middle schools in the state. Gap calculations are based on unrounded numbers. Source: 2012–13 Common Core of Data (Title I status, student membership) and 2012–13 EDFacts State Assessment Data Graduation Rate Data Notes: — Calculation not possible. The following states had no schools with ACGR data in the bottom 5 %, or with graduation rates below 60% that were eligible for Title I and had at least 30 students in the cohort: Arkansas and West Virginia. Idaho is not included because the state did not report ACGR data in 2012–13. Data for Hawaii and New Hampshire are suppressed to protect privacy. Methodology: This analysis was conducted by (1) identifying the 5% of schools with the lowest school-wide adjusted cohort graduation rates among all schools with graduation rate data in the state or the schools with graduation rates lower than 60%, (2) identifying the Title I schools with at least 30 students in the cohort among those schools, (3) calculating the average graduation rate among those schools, and (4) comparing that rate to the average rate among the schools with at least 30 students in the cohort not in the bottom 5% and with graduation rates above 60%. The gap is defined as the average graduation rate for the all students group among the other high schools in the state minus the average graduation rate for the all students group among Title I high schools that are either in the bottom 5% of all high schools in the state or have graduation rates below 60%. Gap calculations are based on unrounded numbers. Source: 2012–13 Common Core of Data (Title I status, student membership) and 2012–13 EDFacts Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate data 8 NAEP – Percentage of 4th Grade Students At or Above Proficient in Math All Students White Black Hispanic English Learners Students with Disabilities NATION 41 54 18 26 14 18 ALABAMA 30 40 9 23 7 10 ALASKA 37 52 22 33 8 14 ARIZONA 40 55 24 28 4 14 ARKANSAS 39 47 17 31 27 18 CALIFORNIA 33 53 18 19 8 11 COLORADO 50 62 22 30 14 17 CONNECTICUT 45 58 14 19 7 20 DELAWARE 42 57 21 27 8 17 FLORIDA 41 54 20 36 11 22 GEORGIA 39 53 20 33 11 16 HAWAII 46 60 34 43 8 7 IDAHO 40 44 ‡ 20 6 15 ILLINOIS 39 51 16 25 7 16 INDIANA 52 58 21 39 30 21 IOWA 48 52 16 30 20 15 KANSAS 48 53 22 31 28 19 KENTUCKY 41 45 19 30 19 17 LOUISIANA 26 40 13 29 14 10 MAINE 47 49 25 ‡ 13 20 MARYLAND 47 67 22 33 14 19 MASSACHUSETTS 58 68 26 32 19 29 MICHIGAN 37 45 10 22 13 16 MINNESOTA 59 67 32 34 17 31 MISSISSIPPI 26 42 11 27 ‡ 14 MISSOURI 39 46 13 29 ‡ 17 MONTANA 45 50 ‡ 34 8 15 NEBRASKA 45 54 12 20 9 20 NEVADA 34 46 17 24 14 16 NEW HAMPSHIRE 59 60 ‡ 34 20 26 9 All Students White Black Hispanic English Learners Students with Disabilities NEW JERSEY 49 61 24 30 12 22 NEW MEXICO 31 48 24 26 9 11 NEW YORK 40 50 17 24 10 15 NORTH CAROLINA 45 60 22 35 15 21 NORTH DAKOTA 48 52 35 27 ‡ 22 OHIO 48 56 16 36 30 22 OKLAHOMA 36 45 14 21 15 15 OREGON 40 46 16 20 10 19 PENNSYLVANIA 44 52 19 24 11 21 RHODE ISLAND 42 53 19 23 7 10 SOUTH CAROLINA 35 49 15 25 27 12 SOUTH DAKOTA 40 48 14 16 10 15 TENNESSEE 40 50 15 22 9 15 TEXAS 41 61 24 30 23 16 UTAH 44 51 ‡ 16 2 18 VERMONT 52 53 ‡ ‡ ‡ 18 VIRGINIA 47 56 22 32 14 23 WASHINGTON 48 56 29 24 9 24 WEST VIRGINIA 35 36 25 ‡ ‡ 18 WISCONSIN 47 57 12 23 19 21 48 52 ‡ 29 8 22 WYOMING ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. NOTE: The national and state/jurisdiction results include public school students only. Data for DoDEA schools are not in the national results. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The results for English language learners and students with disabilities are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2013 Mathematics Assessment. 10 NAEP – Percentage of 4th Grade Students At or Above Proficient in Reading All Students White Black Hispanic Students with Disabilities English Learners NATION 34 45 17 19 11 7 ALABAMA 31 40 15 15 9 ‡ ALASKA 27 41 18 26 6 1 ARIZONA 28 42 19 17 7 1 ARKANSAS 32 38 15 24 9 17 CALIFORNIA 27 46 13 16 11 5 COLORADO 41 52 19 23 7 8 CONNECTICUT 43 53 15 20 15 4 DELAWARE 38 49 23 25 13 4 FLORIDA 39 49 20 36 20 10 GEORGIA 34 45 20 24 16 8 HAWAII 30 46 37 26 4 3 IDAHO 33 38 ‡ 13 7 3 ILLINOIS 34 46 14 18 10 3 INDIANA 38 42 17 24 9 13 IOWA 38 41 15 23 5 11 KANSAS 38 44 17 20 13 17 KENTUCKY 36 39 15 29 11 11 LOUISIANA 23 35 11 20 6 10 MAINE 37 38 11 ‡ 9 9 MARYLAND 45 60 22 35 28 18 MASSACHUSETTS 47 57 21 20 17 12 MICHIGAN 31 37 12 21 7 9 MINNESOTA 41 47 21 23 16 8 MISSISSIPPI 21 33 11 16 8 ‡ MISSOURI 35 41 13 30 12 6 MONTANA 35 39 ‡ 23 9 2 NEBRASKA 37 43 16 22 10 7 NEVADA 27 39 14 16 6 6 NEW HAMPSHIRE 45 46 27 18 12 10 11 All Students White Black Hispanic Students with Disabilities English Learners NEW JERSEY 42 52 22 21 14 9 NEW MEXICO 21 38 24 17 4 3 NEW YORK 37 47 21 21 9 4 NORTH CAROLINA 35 47 20 23 9 4 NORTH DAKOTA 34 37 23 29 11 ‡ OHIO 37 44 11 25 11 19 OKLAHOMA 30 36 14 17 8 6 OREGON 33 38 11 16 9 6 PENNSYLVANIA 40 47 20 19 13 5 RHODE ISLAND 38 48 18 17 5 4 SOUTH CAROLINA 28 39 13 21 7 18 SOUTH DAKOTA 32 38 17 19 11 5 TENNESSEE 34 40 15 21 9 2 TEXAS 28 46 18 17 9 9 UTAH 37 43 ‡ 14 12 2 VERMONT 42 43 ‡ ‡ 6 ‡ VIRGINIA 43 51 23 25 12 5 WASHINGTON 40 46 25 19 11 3 WEST VIRGINIA 27 28 14 ‡ 9 ‡ WISCONSIN 35 41 11 17 9 9 37 41 ‡ 24 10 9 WYOMING ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. NOTE: The national and state/jurisdiction results include public school students only. Data for DoDEA schools are not in the national results. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The results for English language learners and students with disabilities are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2013 Reading Assessment. 12 NAEP – Percentage of 8th Grade Students At or Above Proficient in Math All Students White Black Hispanic Students with Disabilities English Learners NATION 34 44 14 21 8 5 ALABAMA 20 28 6 6 3 ‡ ALASKA 33 46 20 24 7 2 ARIZONA 31 45 19 19 4 ‡ ARKANSAS 28 34 9 20 6 12 CALIFORNIA 28 42 11 15 5 3 COLORADO 42 53 15 23 8 5 CONNECTICUT 37 48 13 12 13 1 DELAWARE 33 45 14 25 9 ‡ FLORIDA 31 40 14 24 10 5 GEORGIA 29 42 12 24 6 4 HAWAII 32 41 ‡ 28 4 7 IDAHO 36 41 ‡ 15 8 1 ILLINOIS 36 48 12 22 10 3 INDIANA 38 44 15 24 12 ‡ IOWA 36 40 10 13 4 5 KANSAS 40 47 18 24 5 11 KENTUCKY 30 33 11 17 7 1 LOUISIANA 21 31 9 25 3 ‡ MAINE 40 40 14 ‡ 11 ‡ MARYLAND 37 51 18 30 10 6 MASSACHUSETTS 55 63 28 28 17 8 MICHIGAN 30 36 7 14 6 2 MINNESOTA 47 54 15 20 13 9 MISSISSIPPI 21 33 8 24 4 ‡ MISSOURI 33 38 12 23 8 ‡ MONTANA 40 44 ‡ 28 9 ‡ NEBRASKA 36 42 8 17 8 5 NEVADA 28 40 12 17 5 2 13 All Students White Black Hispanic Students with Disabilities English Learners NEW HAMPSHIRE 47 48 ‡ 20 14 ‡ NEW JERSEY 49 58 24 34 13 ‡ NEW MEXICO 23 40 12 17 4 3 NEW YORK 32 44 12 14 7 4 NORTH CAROLINA 36 48 17 27 7 6 NORTH DAKOTA 41 44 25 ‡ 8 ‡ OHIO 40 45 16 27 10 8 OKLAHOMA 25 29 9 15 5 6 OREGON 34 40 ‡ 16 10 # PENNSYLVANIA 42 49 13 16 12 5 RHODE ISLAND 36 45 15 15 6 2 SOUTH CAROLINA 31 43 13 23 5 23 SOUTH DAKOTA 38 45 10 27 5 2 TENNESSEE 28 33 10 21 5 ‡ TEXAS 38 53 21 29 10 7 UTAH 36 42 ‡ 13 6 1 VERMONT 47 48 18 ‡ 12 ‡ VIRGINIA 38 47 15 25 9 7 WASHINGTON 42 48 23 23 10 5 WEST VIRGINIA 24 24 13 ‡ 2 ‡ WISCONSIN 40 47 8 19 9 8 38 40 ‡ 26 9 ‡ WYOMING ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. NOTE: The national and state/jurisdiction results include public school students only. Data for DoDEA schools are not in the national results. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The results for English language learners and students with disabilities are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2013 Mathematics Assessment 14 NAEP – Percentage of 8th Grade Students At or Above Proficient in Reading All Students White Black Hispanic Students with Disabilities English Learners NATION 34 44 16 21 8 3 ALABAMA 25 34 9 19 2 ‡ ALASKA 31 44 16 31 5 1 ARIZONA 28 42 16 17 4 ‡ ARKANSAS 30 37 12 21 7 12 CALIFORNIA 29 44 15 18 5 2 COLORADO 40 50 13 23 10 3 CONNECTICUT 45 54 22 24 13 1 DELAWARE 33 42 19 27 12 ‡ FLORIDA 33 42 19 27 13 3 GEORGIA 32 42 17 26 6 4 HAWAII 28 45 27 25 3 3 IDAHO 38 42 ‡ 19 7 2 ILLINOIS 36 47 14 24 7 1 INDIANA 35 39 11 23 9 6 IOWA 37 39 15 21 5 2 KANSAS 36 42 13 20 5 13 KENTUCKY 38 41 15 30 9 5 LOUISIANA 24 35 12 26 5 ‡ MAINE 38 39 ‡ ‡ 11 ‡ MARYLAND 42 53 25 30 16 ‡ MASSACHUSETTS 48 57 24 20 15 4 MICHIGAN 33 37 12 22 7 8 MINNESOTA 41 46 16 20 10 6 MISSISSIPPI 20 31 8 18 6 ‡ MISSOURI 36 41 13 32 8 ‡ MONTANA 40 45 ‡ 28 9 ‡ NEBRASKA 37 43 16 19 6 ‡ NEVADA 30 43 18 19 6 2 NEW HAMPSHIRE 44 45 ‡ 18 12 ‡ 15 All Students White Black Hispanic Students with Disabilities English Learners NEW JERSEY 46 55 26 31 15 ‡ NEW MEXICO 22 40 15 17 5 2 NEW YORK 35 46 18 19 8 1 NORTH CAROLINA 33 43 16 23 6 7 NORTH DAKOTA 34 37 23 ‡ 5 ‡ OHIO 39 43 16 34 6 20 OKLAHOMA 29 35 14 18 6 6 OREGON 37 43 ‡ 18 9 1 PENNSYLVANIA 42 49 17 17 12 3 RHODE ISLAND 36 44 18 18 10 3 SOUTH CAROLINA 29 39 14 24 5 10 SOUTH DAKOTA 36 40 ‡ 22 5 ‡ TENNESSEE 33 38 16 28 8 ‡ TEXAS 31 49 17 20 8 2 UTAH 39 44 ‡ 22 7 3 VERMONT 45 45 25 ‡ 10 ‡ VIRGINIA 36 45 17 26 9 7 WASHINGTON 42 50 22 21 9 3 WEST VIRGINIA 25 25 23 ‡ 2 ‡ WISCONSIN 36 42 9 23 6 9 38 40 ‡ 25 7 ‡ WYOMING ‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. NOTE: The national and state/jurisdiction results include public school students only. Data for DoDEA schools are not in the national results. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. SD includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The results for English language learners and students with disabilities are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2013 Reading Assessment. 16