Arizona 
United StatesAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowa
Percent of public school 8th graders Proficient on the NAEP in reading
The President's 2020 College Attainment Goal
25- to 34-year-olds who completed an associate's or higher degreeEarly Learning through High School
3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool4th graders Proficient on the NAEP in reading4th graders Proficient on the NAEP in mathematics8th graders Proficient on the NAEP in reading8th graders Proficient on the NAEP in mathematicsFreshmen graduating from high school within 4 yearsPublic school graduates who took at least one Advanced Placement test in high schoolPostsecondary Education and Training
18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in colleges and universitiesStudents completing a bachelor's degree within 6 yearsStudents completing an associate's degree within 3 yearsBachelor's degrees conferred in science, technology, engineering, and mathematicsTeachers and Leaders
School districts using teacher evaluation systemsSchool districts using principal evaluation systemsPublic high school teachers with a major in their main assignment areaAn Excellent Education for All
Difference in current expenditures between high- and low-poverty districts| Total | White | Black | Hispanic | Asian/ Pacific Islander | American Indian/ Alaska Native | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent of 8th graders who scored at or above Proficient | ||||||
| 2007 | 24 | 37 | 19 | 11 | 48 | 9 |
| 2009 | 27 | 39 | 21 | 15 | 56 | 13 |
| Is change significant? |  |
|
|
 |
|
|
| Gap between White and | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | White | Black | Hispanic | Asian/ Pacific Islander | American Indian/ Alaska Native | Black | Hispanic | Asian/ Pacific Islander | American Indian/ Alaska Native | |
| Average score | ||||||||||
| 2007 | 255 | 269 | 248 | 241 | 277 | 233 | 21 | 28 | -8 | 36 |
| 2009 | 258 | 270 | 249 | 246 | 280 | 244 | 21 | 24 | -10 | 26 |
| Trends in reading scores | 1992 | 1994 | 1998 | 2002 | 2003 | 2005 | 2007 | 2009 | Change from 2007 to 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All students | — | — | 260 | 257 | 255 | 255 | 255 | 258 | |
| 25th percentile | — | — | 240 | 235 | 233 | 232 | 232 | 235 | |
| 75th percentile | — | — | 283 | 279 | 281 | 279 | 280 | 283 | |
| Student characteristics | |||||||||
| Eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch | — | — | — | — | 241 | 242 | 241 | 244 | |
| Not eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch | — | — | — | — | 265 | 265 | 265 | 269 | |
| English language learners | — | — | — | — | 219 | 225 | 214 | 204 | |
| Not English language learners | — | — | — | — | 261 | 259 | 259 | 261 | |
| Students with disabilities | — | — | — | — | 214 | 217 | 218 | 217 | |
| Students without disabilities | — | — | — | — | 259 | 258 | 258 | 262 | |
| Percentage of assessed students | 1992 | 1994 | 1998 | 2002 | 2003 | 2005 | 2007 | 2009 | Change from 2007 to 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Who are eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch | — | — | — | — | 38 | 41 | 44 | 47 | |
| Who are English language learners | — | — | — | — | 14 | 12 | 9 | 6 |  |
| With disabilities | — | — | — | — | 8 | 8 | 7 | 9 | |
| Percentage of all students who were excluded in NAEP | 1992 | 1994 | 1998 | 2002 | 2003 | 2005 | 2007 | 2009 | Change from 2007 to 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identified as students who are English language learners | — | — | — | — | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
| Identified as students with disabilities | — | — | — | — | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | |
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessments, various years, retrieved from the NAEP Data Explorer (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/).
Download Scale Scores as Excel
Download Proficiency Levels as Excel↑ Significant increase.
↓ Significant decrease.
↔ No significant change.
— Not available.
† Not applicable.
‡ Reporting standards not met.
# Rounds to zero.
! Interpret data with caution.