USVI Public Records

Document text

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 476 792 CS 512 241 AUTHOR Jerry, Laura; Lutkus, Anthony TITLE The Nation's Report Card: State Reading 2002, Report for Virgin Islands. INSTITUTION Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.; National Center for Education Statistics (ED), Washington, DC. REPORT NO NCES-2003-526-VI PUB DATE 2003-06-19 NOTE 35p.; Full set of results available through interactive database at http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard. See CS 512 191-192 for the nation-wide results, and CS 512 193-241 for reports of the states. Contains small print. AVAILABLE FROM ED Pubs, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Tel: 877 -433- 7827 (Toll Free); Web site: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html. For full text: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/ stt2002/2003526.asp. PUB TYPE Numerical/Quantitative Data (110) Reports Research (143) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Comparative Analysis; Elementary Education; Grade 4; Grade 8; Middle Schools; *National Competency Tests; *Reading Achievement; Reading Research; Sex Differences; Standardized Tests; *Student Evaluation; Tables (Data); Test Results IDENTIFIERS *National Assessment of Educational Progress; State Reading Assessments; *Virgin Islands ABSTRACT This report provides selected results from the 2002 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for Virgin Island's public-school students at grades 4 and 8. Since 1992, reading has been assessed in four different years at the state level (at grade 4 in 1992 and 1994, and at both grades 4 and 8 in 1998 and 2002). The Virgin Islands participated in the 1992, 1998, and 2002 assessments at grades 4 and 8 and met the criteria for reporting public-school results for both grades. Key findings for grade 4 are: the average scale score for students in Virgin Islands was 179, which was higher than that of 1992 (171) and did not differ significantly from that of 1998 (174); students' scale scores in Virgin Islands were lower than those in 47 jurisdictions; and the percentage of students in Virgin Islands who performed at or above the "Proficient" level was 6%, which was greater than that in 1992 (3%) and was not found to differ significantly from that in 1998 (7%). Key findings for grade 8 are: the average scale score for students in Virgin Islands was 241, which was higher than that in 1998 (231); students' scale scores in Virgin Islands were higher than that in 1 jurisdiction, lower than those in 43 jurisdictions, and the difference was not found to be significant for 2 jurisdictions; and the percentage of students in Virgin Islands who performed at or above the "Proficient" level was 7%, which was not found to differ significantly from that in 1998 (9%). After an introduction, the report presents overall results, comparisons between states, reading performance by demographic characteristics, and it discusses moving toward a more inclusive NAEP, and where to find more information. (RS) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. "' '°':. " NaS National Center for Education Statistics US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) O This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it O Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences NCES 2003-526 VI The Nation's Report Card D fJIL DXIR 1 ing 200 la% 4 C11 rID <,4 I The National Assessment of Educational Progress U.S. Department of Education Rod Paige Secretary Institute of Education Sciences Grover J. Whitehurst Director National Center for Education Statistics Val Plisko Associate Commissioner June 2003 SUGGESTED CITATION U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. The Nation's Report Card: State Reading 2002, Report for Virgin Islands, NCES 2003-526 VI, by L. Jerry, and A. Lutkus. Washington, DC: 2003. FOR MORE INFORMATION Content contact: Marilyn Binkley 202-502-7492 For ordering information on this report call toll free 1-877-4ED-PUBS (877-433-7827), or write: Education Publications Center (ED Pubs) U.S. Department of Education P0. Box 1398 Jessup, MD 20794-1398 1T11TDD 1-877-576-7734 FAX 301-470-1244 Online ordering via the Internet: http://www.edpubs.org This report also is available on the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard 3 National Center for Education Statistics The Nation's Re ort Card for The Virgin Islands KEY FINDINGS For grade 4: The average scale score for students in the Virgin Islands was 179. This was higher than that of 1992 (171) and was not found to differ significantly from that in 1998 (174). Students' scale scores in the Virgin Islands were lower than those in 47 jurisdictions. The percentage of students in the Virgin Islands who performed at or above the Proficient level was 6 percent. This was greater than that in 1992 (3 percent) and was not found to differ significantly from that in 1998 (7 percent). For grade 8: The average scale score for students in the Virgin Islands was 241. This was higher than that in 1998 (231). Students' scale scores in the Virgin Islands were higher than that in 1 jurisdiction, lower than those in 43 jurisdictions, and the difference was not found to be significant for 2 jurisdictions. The percentage of students in the Virgin Islands who performed at or above the Proficient level was 7 percent. This was not found to differ significantly from that in 1998 (9 percent). NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT This report provides selected results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for the Virgin Islands' public-school students at grades 4 and 8. Since 1992, reading has been assessed in four different years at the state level (at grade 4 in 1992 and 1994, and at both grades 4 and 8 in 1998 and 2002). The Virgin Islands participated in the 1992, 1998, and 2002 assessments at grades 4 and 8 and met the criteria for reporting public-school results for both grades. The Nation 's Report Card: Reading 2002 provides additional results from the assessment. NAEP is a project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Contents Introduction 2 Overall Results 7 Comparisons Between States 11 Reading Performance by Demographic Characteristics 16 Toward a More Inclusive NAEP 27 Where to Find More Information ....30 The full set of results is available in an interactive database on the NAEP web site, http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard. Released test questions, scoring rubrics, and question-level performance data are also available on the web site. NCES 2003-526 VI The Virgin Islands Introduction What Was Assessed? The content for each NAEP assessment is developed through a framework development process directed by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). The development process implemented for reading required the active participation of teachers, curriculum specialists, subject-matter specialists, local school administrators, parents, and members of the general public. The objectives for each NAEP assessment are described in a "framework," a document that delineates the important content and process areas to be measured, as well as the types of questions to be included on the assessment. The reading framework for the 1992 and 1994 reading assessments also guided the 1998, 2000 (national grade 4 only), and the 2002 assessments. This framework was developed under the auspices of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and directed by NAGB. In 2002, the framework was updated to provide more explicit detail regarding the assessment design. In doing so, some of the terms used to describe elements of the reading assessment were altered slightly. It should be noted, however, that this updating does not represent a change in the content or design of the NAEP reading assessment. The framework is available on the NAGB web site (http://www.nagb.org/pubs/read_fw_03.pdf). The framework is founded on a body of research from the field of education that defines reading as an interactive and constructive process involving the reader, the text, and the context of the reading experience. Reading involves the development of an understanding of text, thinking about the text in different ways, and using a variety of text types for different purposes. For example, readers may read stories to enjoy and appreciate the human experience, study science texts to form new hypotheses about 2 knowledge, or use maps to gain information about specific places. Recognizing that readers vary their approach to reading according to the demands of any particular text, the framework specifies the assessment of reading in three contexts: reading for literary experience, reading to gain information, and reading to perform a task. Each context for reading is associated with a range of different types of texts that are included in the NAEP reading assessment. All three contexts for reading are assessed at grades 8 and 12, but reading to perform a task is not assessed at grade 4. As readers attempt to develop understanding of text, they focus on general topics or themes, interpret and integrate ideas, make connections to background knowledge and experiences, and examine the content and structure of the text. The framework accounts for these different approaches to understanding text by specifying four "aspects of reading" that represent the types of comprehension questions asked of students. All four aspects of reading are assessed at all three grades within each context of reading. The reading framework specifies the percentage distribution of questions by grade level for each of the contexts and aspects of reading. The assessment contains reading materials that were drawn from sources commonly available to students both in and out of the school environment. These authentic materials were considered to be representative of the types of reading experiences typically encountered by students. Each student in the state assessment was asked to complete two 25-minute sections, each consisting of a reading passage and associated comprehension questions. A combination of multiple-choice and constructed-response questions was used to assess students' understanding of the passages. Released NAEP reading passages and questions, along with student performance data by state, are available on the NAEP web site (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrls/). 5 NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands Who Was Assessed? For the NAEP state assessments, a target for each jurisdiction is a sample of 100 schools and 3,000 students, except in small or sparsely populated jurisdictions. The sample of schools and students is chosen in a two-stage sampling process. First, the sample of schools is selected by probability sampling methods. Then, within the participating schools, random samples of students are chosen (only public schools are reported in the state reports). These methods are described in The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002. The national and state results in 2002 derive from common samples. The national results include the results from the states, weighted appropriately to represent the U.S. student population. The overall participation rates for schools and students must meet guidelines established by NCES and NAGB in order for assessment results to be reported publicly. Data are not reported to the public for a state or jurisdiction that participates but does not meet minimum participation rate guidelines. For more information about participation guidelines, see the procedural appendix in The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002. How Is Student Performance Reported? The results of student performance on the NAEP assessments are reported for various groups of students (e.g., fourth-grade female students or students who took the assessment in different years). No individual student scores are reported by NAEP. The differences in performance between groups of students that are discussed in this report are based on statistical tests that consider both the magnitude of the differences between averages or percentages and the standard error of those statistics. It should be noted that the averages and percentages in this report have a standard errora range of a few points plus or minus the scorewhich accounts for potential score fluctuation due to sampling error and measurement error. Statistical tests that factor in these standard errors are used to determine whether the differences between average scores are significant. Estimates based on small subgroups are likely to have relatively large standard errors. Consequently, some seemingly large differences may NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT not be statistically significant. The reader is cautioned to rely on the reported differences in the text and tables, which are statistically significant, rather than on the apparent magnitude of any difference. Statistically significant differences between 2002 and prior assessments are marked with a notation (*) in the tables. Differences among groups within a year are discussed in the text, but are not marked within the tables. Student reading performance is described in two ways: 1) average scale scores and 2) achievement levels. Scale Scores: Student performance is reported as an average score based on the NAEP reading scale that ranges from 0 to 500 and is linked to the corresponding scales in 1992, 1994, and 1998. The average scale score reflects the overall reading performance of a particular group of students. The overall composite scale was developed by weighting each of the three reading subscales (one for each of the three above-mentioned purposes for reading) based on its relative importance in the NAEP reading framework. This composite scale is the metric used to present the average scale scores and selected percentiles used in NAEP reports. More information on NAEP scales is available in the procedural appendix of The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002. Achievement Levels: Student reading performance is also reported in terms of three achievement levelsBasic, Proficient, and Advanced. Results based on achievement levels are expressed in terms of the percentage of students who attained each level. The three achievement levels are defined as follows: Basic: This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. Proficient: This level 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: This level signifies superior performance. 6 3 The Virgin Islands The achievement levels are performance standards adopted by NAGB as part of its statutory responsibilities. The levels represent collective judgments of what students should know and be able to do for each grade tested. They are based on recommendations made by broadly representative panels of classroom teachers, education specialists, and members of the general public. As provided by law, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), upon review of congressionally mandated evaluations of NAEP, has determined that the achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis until it is determined that the achievement levels are "reasonable, valid, and informative to the public" (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001)). However, both NCES and NAGB believe these performance standards are useful for understanding trends in student achievement. They have been widely used by national and state officials as a common yardstick for academic performance. The reading achievement level descriptions are summarized for grades 4 and 8 in figure 1. The results displayed in The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002 are based on representative samples that include students with disabilities (SD) and limited English proficient students (LEP). In assessments prior to 1998, no testing accommodations or adaptations were made available to the special-needs students in these samples. However, subsequent research carried 4 out by NAEP revealed that the results for such accommodated students could be combined with the results for nonaccommodated students without compromising the validity of the NAEP scales in trend comparisons (see page 30). Therefore, the special-needs students who typically received accommodations in their classroom testing also received them in the NAEP assessment, where appropriate. In the tables that follow, the results for the assessment years where accommodations were not permitted (1992 and 1998) are reported in the same tables as the results where accommodations were permitted (1998 and 2002). In 1998, NAEP used a split sample of schoolsone sample in which accommodations were permitted for special-needs students who normally received them and another sample in which accommodations were not permitted. Therefore, there are two different sets of results dispayed for 1998. The results labeled Accommodations not permitted are the same as previously reported data. The results labeled Accommodations permitted for 1998 are new. In the text that follows, statistical comparisons are made between the results across years, regardless of accommodation conditions, because NAEP's statistical studies showed that these comparisons could be made and the results remain valid. Note that the comparisons made in the text between 2002 and 1998 pertain to the sample in which accommodations were permitted. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands Veixp R9 cktiocii0g3 MG[70D)4 sgoK1 400D g34c-no no0000E1GCOG Descriptions of NAEP reading achievement levels, grades 4 and 8 Grade 4 Basic level (208) Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should demonstrate an understanding of the overall meaning of what they read. When reading text appropriate for fourth graders, they should be able to make relatively obvious connections between the text and their own experiences, and extend the ideas in the text by making simple inferences. For example, when reading literary text, Basic-level fourth graders should be able to tell what the story is generally aboutproviding details to support their understandingand be able to connect aspects of the stones to their own experiences. When reading informational text, they should be able to tell what the selection is generally about or identify the purpose for reading it, provide details to support their understanding, and connect ideas from the text to their background knowledge and experiences. Proficient level (238) Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to demonstrate an overall understanding of the text, providing inferential as well as literal information. When reading text appropriate to fourth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas in the text by making inferences, drawing conclusions, and making connections to their own experiences. The connections between the text and what the student infers should be clear. For example, when reading literary text, Proficient-level fourth graders should be able to summarize the story, draw conclusions about the characters or plot, and recognize relationships such as cause and effect. When reading informational text, Proficient-level students should be able to summarize the information and identify the author's intent or purpose. They should be able to draw reasonable conclusions from the text, recognize relationships such as cause and effect or similarities and differences, and identify the meaning of the selection's key concepts. Advanced level (268) Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to generalize about topics in the reading selection and demonstrate an awareness of how authors compose and use literary devices. When reading text appropriate to fourth grade, they should be able to judge texts critically and, in general, give thorough answers that indicate careful thought. For example, when reading literary text, Advanced-level students should be able to make generalizations about the point of the story and extend its meaning by integrating personal experiences and other readings with ideas suggested by the text. They should be able to identify literary devices such as figurative language. When reading informational text, Advanced-level fourth graders should be able to explain the author's intent by using supporting material from the text. They should be able to make critical judgments of the form and content of the text and explain their judgments clearly. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 8 See footnote at end of figure. BESTCOPYAVAIIBLE 5 The Virgin Islands MOG C:9040000°0 C2GG)04 (gCMY6 0004 g30000 adOGOOCiDGM0 Descriptions of NAEP reading achievement levels, grades 4 and 8Continued Grade 8 Basic level (243) Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should demonstrate a literal understanding of what they read and be able to make some interpretations. When reading text appropriate to eighth grade, they should be able to identify specific aspects of the text that reflect the overall meaning, extend the ideas in the text by making simple inferences, recognize and relate interpretations and connections among ideas in the text to personal experience, and draw conclusions based on the text. For example, when reading literary text, Basic-level eighth graders should be able to identify themes and make inferences and logical predictions about aspects such as plot and characters. When reading informational text, they should be able to identify the main idea and the author's purpose. They should make inferences and draw conclusions supported by information in the text. They should recognize the relationships among the facts, ideas, events, and concepts of the text (e.g., cause and effect, order). When reading practical text, they should be able to identify the main purpose and make predictions about the relatively obvious outcomes of procedures in the text. Proficient level (381) Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to show an overall understanding of the text, including inferential as well as literal information. When reading text appropriate to eighth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas in the text by making clear inferences from it, by drawing conclusions, and by making connections to their own experiencesincluding other reading experiences. Proficient eighth graders should be able to identify some of the devices authors use in composing text. For example, when reading literary text, students at the Proficient level should be able to give details and examples to support themes that they identify. They should be able to use implied as well as explicit information in articulating themes; to interpret the actions, behaviors, and motives of characters; and to identify the use of literary devices such as personification and foreshadowing. When reading informational text, they should be able to summarize the text using explicit and implied information and support conclusions with inferences based on the text. When reading practical text, Proficient-level students should be able to describe its purpose and support their views with examples and details. They should be able to judge the importance of certain steps and procedures. Advanced level (323) Eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to describe the more abstract themes and ideas of the overall text. When reading text appropriate to eighth grade, they should be able to analyze both meaning and form and support their analyses explicitly with examples from the text, and they should be able to extend text information by relating it to their experiences and to world events. At this level, student responses should be thorough, thoughtful, and extensive. For example, when reading literary text, Advanced-level eighth graders should be able to make complex, abstract summaries and theme statements. They should be able to describe the interactions of various literary elements (i.e., setting, plot, characters, and theme) and explain how the use of literary devices affects both the meaning of the text and their response to the author's style. They should be able to critically analyze and evaluate the composition of the text. When reading Informational text, they should be able to analyze the author's purpose and point of view. They should be able to use cultural and historical background information to develop perspectives on the text and be able to apply text information to broad issues and world situations. When reading practical text, Advanced-level students should be able to synthesize information that will guide their performance, apply text information to new situations, and critique the usefulness of the form and content. SOURCE: National Assessment Governing Board. (2002). Reading Framework for the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author. 6 BESTCOPYAVAOUBLE NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands NAEP 2002 Reading Overall Scale Score and Achievement Level Results for Public-School Students Overall Scale Score Results Table 1A shows the overall performance of public-school students in the Virgin Islands and the nation for the 1992, 1998, and 2002 assessments at grade 4. The first column of results presents the average score on the NAEP reading scale. The subsequent columns show the average score at selected percentiles. For each percentile, that percentage of scores falls below the score at that percentile. Table 1B shows results for grade 8 for the 1998 and 2002 assessments. Grade 4 Scale Score Results In 2002, the average scale score for students in the Virgin Islands was 179. This was lower than that of students across the nation (217). In the Virgin Islands, the average scale score of students in 2002 was higher than that of 1992 (171). In the Virgin Islands, the average scale score of students in 2002 was not found to differ significantly from that in 1998 (174). However, the average scale score for students across the nation in 2002 was higher than that in 1998 (213). NOG MOO8ODJ°E3 1lcapcw0 igou6 .21®®23 00040 nOOGOE3CMGCO4 Average reading scale scores and selected percentiles, grade 4 public schools: 1992, 1998, and 2002 Average scale score Scale score distribution 10th percentile 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile 90th percentile Accommodations not permitted 1992 Virgin Islands 171* ( 1.7) 123 ( 3.3) 147 ( 2.3) 171* ( 1.8) 197. ( 2.9) 219 ( 2.3) Nation 215 ( 1.0) 168 ( 2.1) 192 ( 0.9) 217 ( 1.7) 240 ( 1.5) 259 ( 2.4) 1998 Virgin Islands 178 ( 1.9) 119. ( 4.1) 149 ( 2.7) 180 ( 1.7) 209 ( 2.4) 233 ( 4.9) Nation 215 ( 0.8) 165 ( 2.1) 192 ( 1.0) 218 ( 0.8) 242 ( 1.0) 261 ( 1.3) Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands 174 ( 2.2) 110 ( 6.0) 144* ( 3.7) 178 ( 2.2) 207 ( 3.4) 231 ( 3.1) Nation 213* ( 1.2) 161* ( 2.9) 189. ( 1.7) 215* ( 1.5) 241 ( 1.0) 260 ( 0.9) 2002 Virgin Islands 179 ( 1.9) 126 ( 5.9) 153 ( 2.2) 181 ( 2.8) 208 ( 2.1) 228 ( 4.4) Nation 217 ( 0.5) 169 ( 0.8) 194 ( 0.6) 219 ( 0.4) 242 ( 0.5) 261 ( 0.5) If this notation appears, it sign. fies that the value is significantly different from the value for 2002. Comparisons between the accommodations-not-permitted and accommodations-permitted results should be interpreted with caution. NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1998, and 2002 Reading Assessments. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 10 BEST COPY AV DIABLE The Virgin Islands Grade 8 Scale Score Results In 2002, the average scale score for students in the Virgin Islands was 241. This was lower than that of students across the nation (263). In the Virgin Islands, the average scale score of students in 2002 was higher than that in 1998 (231). Similarly, the average scale score for students across the nation in 2002 was higher than that in 1998 (261). 403G GkMoogo Cappeog ,goc,6 300 @thoOG noocaeouoca4 Average reading scale scores and selected percentiles, grade 8 public schools: 1998 and 2002 Average scale score Scale score distribution 10th percentile 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile 90th percentile Accommodations not permitted 1998 Virgin Islands 233* ( 2.9) 186 (10.5) 210* ( 3.4) 234 ( 5.8) 258 ( 4.4) 280 ( 5.4) Nation 261 ( 0.8) 215* ( 1.5) 240 ( 1.3) 264 ( 1.3) 286 ( 0.8) 304 ( 1.3) Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands 231' ( 2.1) 184' ( 4.7) 207' ( 2.2) 234* ( 1.9) 258 ( 2.3) 278 ( 4.2) Nation 261* ( 0.8) 214' ( 2.0) 238' ( 1.0) 264 ( 1.0) 285 ( 1.2) 303 ( 1.0) 2002 Virgin Islands 241 ( 1.3) 206 ( 2.4) 225 ( 1.4) 242 ( 1.1) 260 ( 1.5) 275 ( 1.9) Nation 263 ( 0.5) 219 ( 0.9) 242 ( 0.5) 265 ( 0.6) 286 ( 0.5) 303 ( 0.3) * If this notation appears, it signifies that the value is significantly different from the value for 2002. Comparisons between the accommodations-not-permitted and accommodations-permitted results should be interpreted with caution. NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear iri parentheses. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2002 Reading Assessments. 8 11 BEST COPY AVAUBLE NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands Overall Achievement Level Results Table IC presents the percentages of students at grade 4 who performed below Basic, at or above Basic, at or above Proficient, and at the Advanced level. Because the percentages are cumulative from Basic to Proficient to Advanced, they sum to more than 100 percent. Only the percentage of students at or above Basic (which includes the students at Proficient and Advanced) plus the students below Basic will always sum to 100 percent (except for rounding). Table 1D shows the achievement level results for grade 8. Grade 4 Achievement Level Results In 2002, the percentage of the Virgin Islands' students who performed at or above the Proficient level was 6 percent. This was smaller than the percentage of the nation's public-school students who performed at the same level (30 percent). In the Virgin Islands, the percentage of students who performed at or above the Proficient level in 2002 was greater than that in 1992 (3 percent). In the Virgin Islands, the percentage of students who performed at or above the Proficient level in 2002 was not found to differ significantly from that in 1998 (7 percent). VCRD Ca:3060Go°0 1:20pec?0 @c3gd fl004 2,4000 nd,c3GOOUGODO Percentage of students at or above each reading achievement level, grade 4 public schools: 1992, 1998, and 2002 Below Basic At or above Basic At or above Proficient At Advanced Accommodations not permitted 1992 Virgin Islands Nation 1998 Virgin Islands Nation Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation 2002 Virgin Islands Nation 83* ( 1.5) 40 ( 1.1) 74 ( 1.8) 39 ( 1.0) 76 ( 2.0) 42' ( 1.3) 75 ( 1.7) 38 ( 0.5) 17' ( 1.5) 60 ( 1.1) 26 ( 1.8) 61 ( 1.0) 24 ( 2.0) 58' ( 1.3) 25 ( 1.7) 62 ( 0.5) 3' ( 0.7) 27* ( 1.3) 8 ( 1.3) 29 ( 0.9) 7 ( 1.1) 28 ( 1.0) 6 ( 0.9) 30 ( 0.5) 0 ("") 6 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.4) 6 ( 0.5) 2 ( 0.6) 6 ( 0.5) 0 (-1 6 ( 0.2) If this notation appears, it signifies hat the value is significantly different from the value for 2002. Comparisons between the accommodations-not-permitted and accommodations-permitted results should be interpreted with caution. NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. The achievement levels correspond to the following points on the NAEP reading scale at grade 4: Basic, 208-237; Proficient, 238-267; and Advanced, 268 and above. Percentages below and at or above Basic may not add to 100, due to rounding. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. ( ***) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1998, and 2002 Reading Assessments. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 12 BEST' COPY AVAILABLE 9 The Virgin Islands Grade 8 Achievement Level Results In 2002, the percentage of the Virgin Islands' students who performed at or above the Proficient level was 7 percent. This was smaller than the percentage of the nation's public-school students who performed at or above Proficient (31 percent). In the Virgin Islands, the percentage of students who performed at or above the Proficient level in 2002 was not found to differ significantly from that in 1998 (9 percent). MoOfiecea MopooT @oecl 2300 g0000 no0G000E00600 Percentage of students at or above each reading achievement level, grade 8 public schools: 1998 and 2002 Below Basic At or above Basic At or above Proficient At Advanced Accommodations not permitted 1998 Virgin islands Nation Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation 2002 Virgin Islands Nation 60* ( 3.7) 40* ( 3.7) 28* ( 0.9) 72* ( 0.9) 61* ( 2.2) 29* ( 0.8) 51 ( 2.3) 26 ( 0.5) 39* ( 2.2) 71* ( 0.8) 49 ( 2.3) 74 ( 0.5) 10 ( 2.5) 1 (****) 31 ( 0.9) 2 ( 0.4) 9 ( 1.9) 30 ( 1.1) 7 ( 1.5) 31 ( 0.6) 0 (****) 2 ( 0.3) 0 (****) 2 ( 0.2) If this notation appears, it signifies hat the value is significantly different from the value for 2002. Comparisons between the accommodations-not-permitted and accommodations-permitted results should be interpreted with caution. NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. The achievement levels correspond to the following points on the NAEP reading scale at grade 8: Basic, 243-280; Proficient, 281-322; and Advanced, 323 and above. Percentages below and at or above Basic may not add to 100, due to rounding. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. (****) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2002 Reading Assessments. 10 13 BESTC PYAVAOLABLE NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands Comparisons Between the Virgin Islands and Other Participating States and Jurisdictions In 2002, 51 states and other jurisdictions participated in the reading assessment. The maps in figures 2A and 2B show the participating states and jurisdictions and indicate their membership in four U.S. geographic regions. Note that the U.S. territories and the domestic and overseas Department of Defense Education Activity schools (DoDEA/DDESS and DoDEA/DoDDS) were not placed into any of these regions. Comparisons by Average Scale Scores Figures 2A and 2B compare the Virgin Islands' overall 2002 grades 4 and 8 reading scale scores with those of all other participating states and jurisdictions. The different shadings are determined by whether the Virgin Islands' average scale score was found to be significantly different from that of each of the other participants in the 2002 NAEP reading assessment. Note that states that did not participate in 2002, or that did not meet reporting guidelines, are also represented in the maps. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT Comparisons by Achievement Levels Figures 3A and 3B permit comparisons of all participants in the NAEP 2002 reading assessment in terms of percentages of students performing at or above the Proficient level. The participating states and jurisdictions are grouped into categories reflecting student performance compared to that in the Virgin Islands. The jurisdictions are grouped by whether the percentage of their students with scores at or above the Proficient level (including Advanced) was found to be higher than, not significantly different from, or lower than the percentage in the Virgin Islands. Note that the arrangement of the states and the other jurisdictions within each category is alphabetical; statistical comparisons among jurisdictions in each of the three categories are not included in this report. 14 The Virgin Islands I© A VCDG Me48ca°3 LIGGDoat? @auci 40023 c30C340 ng30®00033GR4 The Virgin Islands' average reading scale score compared with scores for other participating jurisdictions, grade 4 public schools: 2002 0 Guam 0. 'TN) 0 Samoa Target State. Jurisdiction has higher average scale score than target state. Jurisdiction was not found to be significantly different from target state In average scale score. Jurisdiction has lower average scale score than target state. Jurisdiction did not meet minimum participation rate guidelines. Jurisdiction did not participate in the NAEP 2002 Reading State Assessment. DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools. DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002 Reading Assessment. BESTCOPYAVAllUkBLE 12 NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands 0 0 D D McviMoceo C3GpoTO (gaud 210021 g3De4® neoGOE3CiDGMG The Virgin Islands' average reading scale score compared with scores for other participating jurisdictions, grade 8 public schools: 2002 Guam HI Samoa Target State. Jurisdiction has higher average scale score than target state. Jurisdiction was not found to be significantly different from target state In average scale score. Jurisdiction has lower average scale score than target state. Jurisdiction did not meet minimum participation rate guidelines. Jurisdiction did not participate In the NAEP 2002 Reading State Assessment. DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools. DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002 Reading Assessment. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 16 BEST COPY AVAELABLE 13 The Virgin Islands M000C)(300 (20p0Og @CI1P6 4004 @OCJOG ne3oGegGIGGDO Percentage of students within each reading achievement level range, and the Virgin Islands' percentage at or above Proficient compared with other participating jurisdictions, grade 4 public schools: By state, 2002 Alabama Arizona Arkansas California $ Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia DDESS DoDDS Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Iowa $ Kansas $ Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota $ Mississippi Missouri Montana $ Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York $ North Carolina North Dakota $ Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee $ Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington $ West Virginia Wyoming Guam VIRGIN ISLANDS Legend: Beak Advanced Percentage at or above Proficient Is higher than Virgin Islands tea 1 30 18 14 L.__ 29 17 14 33 21 I s 29 1714 32 31L.. 1 12 as 22 a 12 Lai1. 39 27 6 IEa1. 39 25 6 I 5ra 1 33 22 I5 31 99 I 6 31 17= 4 IsaJ as ii= 7 I301I 34 26 , J 7 IiEI 30 28 I 7 L501 I 34 26 1 7 t ara 1 as. 23_____I 6 id I 30 ___18 14 IRJ 37 28 1 7 32 22 1 7 L___NA .1 33 ____._....34_____J 13 1---FA.-1____-38 24 ,,= 1 8 00? I.__ ": 36 I'llit I I 7 IgiI 30 13_12 IFLI 34 25 1 7 EA1 35 28 1 8 1A1 34 26 I 8 33 18 13 L__01I 30 18 i 4 1c1/4i__1 31 26 1 9 IA. 35 25 7 1 rA______I as __L....28' I 6 Iia..-1 35 27 1 7 L68) _I 34 72 14 1RS1 34 25 : 8 32 26 1 9 I5RI 33 25 1 8 l_601I 33 ___20 I 5 21 ......i 5 I373 1 34 22°- 1 8 1ZI 38 26 1 6 L9-42J 34 30 ._..] 9 LSAI 34 28 1 9 1 019 CR I 33 35 37 37 Percentage at or above Proficient Is not significantly different from Virgin Islands 22 WI _7_1 19 8 0 27 8 aa i5 28 I s I I 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 .20 10 0 ill III 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent below Basic and Bask Percent Proficient and Advanced Alabama Arizona Arkansas California $ Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia DDESS DoDDS Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Iowa t Kansas $ Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota $ Mississippi Missouri Montana $ Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York $ North Carolina North Dakota $ Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee $ Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington $ West Virginia Wyoming Guam VIRGIN ISLANDS # Percentage rounds to zero. t Indicates that the jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation in 2002. DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools. DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas). NOTE: The bars above contain percentages of students in each NAEP reading achievement range. Each population of students is aligned at the point where the Proficient category begins, so that they may be compared at Proficient and above. Percentages within each reading achievement level range may not add to 100 or to the exact percentages at or above Achievement levels, due to rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002 Reading Assessment 14 NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 17 BESTCOPYAVAOUBLE The Virgin Islands Alabama Arizona Arkansas California * Connecticut Delaware DDESS DoDDS Florida Georgia Hawaii IdahO Indiana Kansas * Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi Missouri Montana * Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York * North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon * Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee * Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming District of Columbia Guam VIRGIN ISLANDS American Samoa 4G3G C&:34(iGGD°@ 1:3GpOO @OG',C1 2®(:)23 g004G nef3006(11)0(DO Percentage of students within each reading achievement level range, and the Virgin Islands' percentage at or above Proficient compared with other participating jurisdictions, grade 8 public schools: By state, 2002 Legend: C( ozagy Basic Proficient Advanced Percentage at or above Proficient Is higher than Virgin Islands I Xfa I 43 20_1 Iffi.1 4s 29 11 1..._.-77L-1 L 45 _..;,26 -42 1 A____I 41 18 i Lm1 .... 39 i 4 1110__I 46 31 12 LI 49 .38 ;1 Lim.1 49 38 1 IEnJ 43 27 12 I 'A 1 44 44 24 2 lI 19 '1 PR___..... 48 31 J2 LAlI 45 __ID 12 1SAI 42 35______J 3 1AI 46 30 12 1skL1 46 21__111 1__mI 44 35 13 1ER____1 40 29 4 L__5'P__1 42 38 13 EIiiI 45 30 'II, 12 Ivi I 47 19_1 1TI_J 49 31 I Xi 1 48 35 2 47 34 2 I31)_._1 43 18 1 LPA___I 45 19_71 1._..P4LI 44 30 -2 l___Pa1 45 29 ' 12 1TII 47 32 12 1 071 I 46 33 13 Cit1 48 26, 71 LRDI 43 33 °- 14 I41J 42 32 i2 Lr17 ___1 43 28 2 lMI 44 23 '1 1 m 1 43 ; 28 74 L_ifiJ 43 28 12 1711L. 43 30 ,2 L_m___1 42 36 14 1___,,qi'LL_', 1 43 34 13 LDI 41 33. 14 1A___I 48 28 ...3 I WI 1 47 horn Virgin Islands 29 2 Percentage at or above Proficient Is not significantly different 38 ___11_1# I ..git 1 40 10_1 ....7...1 8 1 42 Percentage at or above Proficient is lower than Virgin Islands I Ili? I 12 f a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent below Basic and Basic Percent Proficient and Advanced Alabama Arizona Arkansas California * Connecticut Delaware DDESS DoDDS Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Kansas * Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi Missouri Montana * Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York * North Carolina North Dakota $ Ohio Oklahoma Oregon * Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee* Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington * West Virginia Wyoming District of Columbia Guam VIRGIN ISLANDS American Samoa # Percentage rounds to zero. # Indicates that the jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation in 2002. DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools. DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas). NOTE: The bars above contain percentages of students in each NAEP reading achievement range. Each population of students is aligned at the point where the Proficient category begins, so that they may be compared at Proficient and above. Percentages within each reading achievement level range may not add to 100 or to the exact percentages at or above Achievement levels, due to rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002 Reading Assessment. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 15 18 re. ;P. ESTCOPYAVAILABLE The Virgin Islands Reading Performance by Demographic Characteristics This section of the report presents trend results by major demographic variables for fourth- and eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands and the nation. Results are presented for the 1992, 1998, and 2002 assessments where data for the demographic variable are available. In these tables, scale score results and achievement level performance are presented in the same table. Student performance data for the following demographic variables are reported: gender; race/ethnicity; and eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch. 16 Each of the variables is reported in tables that present the percentage of students belonging to each subgroup (in the first column) and the average scale score (in the second column). The columns to the right show the percentage of students at or above each achievement level. The reader is cautioned against making causal inferences about the performance of these groups relative to these variables. Many factors other than those discussed here may affect student performance. NAEP collects information on many additional variables, including school and home factors related to achievement. All of this information is available in an interactive database on the NAEP web site and can be used to create additional reports of interest to a particular state. 19 NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands Gender Tables 2A and 2B show scale scores and achievement level data for public-school students at grades 4 and 8 in the Virgin Islands and across the nation by gender. The indicators of significant differences that appear in the tables come from a comparison of performance by males or females from the indicated year compared with 2002. Differences in performance between males and females are indicated in the text below, but are not indicated by notations of significance in the tables. Grade 4 Scale Score Results by Gender In the Virgin Islands, male students' average scale score was 175 in 2002. This was lower than that of female students (184). In 2002, male students in the Virgin Islands had an average scale score in reading (175) that was lower than that of male students across the nation (214). Female students in the Virgin Islands had an average score (184) that was lower than that of female students nationwide (220). In the Virgin Islands, the average scale score of males was higher in 2002 than in 1992; however, that of females was not found to differ significantly in 2002 from that in 1992. In the Virgin Islands, the average scale score of males was higher in 2002 than in 1998; however, that of females was not found to differ significantly in 2002 from that in 1998. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT Grade 4 Achievement Level Results by Gender In 2002, 5 percent of males and 7 percent of females performed at or above the Proficient level in the Virgin Islands. The difference between these percentages was not found to be statistically significant. The percentage of males in the Virgin Islands' public schools who were at or above the Proficient level in 2002 (5 percent) was smaller than that of males in the nation (26 percent). The percentage of females in the Virgin Islands at or above the Proficient level in 2002 (7 percent) was smaller than that of the nation's females (33 percent). In the Virgin Islands, the percentages of both males and females performing at or above the Proficient level were not found to differ significantly in 2002 from those in 1992. 20 In the Virgin Islands, the percentages of both males and females performing at or above the Proficient level were not found to differ significantly in 2002 from those in 1998. 17 The Virgin Islands sm.. 'Z'd NAEP S0 (3c. V COG Mo Odow°0 G2opoP4 @ciPci 23(302 g0040 neoGootRoGDO Average reading scale scores and percentage of students at or above each achievement level, by gender, grade 4 public schools: 1992, 1998, and 2002 -,, Percentage of students Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above Proficient At Advanced Male Accommodations not permitted 1992 Virgin Islands Nation 1998 Virgin Islands Nation Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation 2002 Virgin Islands Nation Female Accommodations not permitted 1992 Virgin Islands Nation 1998 Virgin Islands Nation Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation 2002 Virgin Islands Nation 52 ( 1.7) 51 ( 0.7) ar( 1.3) 50 ( 0.7) 47* ( 1.2) 50 ( 0.7) 53 ( 1.9) 51 ( 0.3) 48 ( 1.7) 49 ( 0.7) 53* ( 1.3) 50 ( 0.7) 53* ( 1.2) 50 ( 0.7) 47 ( 1.9) 49 ( 0.3) 164* ( 1.9) 211 ( 1.3) 169 ( 5.0) 212 ( 1.2) 166* ( 3.5) 210* ( 1.4) 175 ( 2.2) 214 ( 0.5) 179 ( 2.1) 219 ( 1.1) 186 ( 2.1) 218 ( 0.8) 182 ( 2.3) 215* ( 1.4) 184 ( 2.8) 220 ( 0.5) 87* ( 1.7) 13* ( 1.7) 2 ( 0.6) 0 (****) 44 ( 1.7) 56 ( 1.7) 24 ( 1.5) 5 ( 0.7) 80 ( 3.6) 20 ( 3.6) 6 ( 1.7) 1 ( 0.5) 43 ( 1.5) 57 ( 1.5) 27 ( 1.3) 6 ( 0.7) 80 ( 2.6) 20 ( 2.6) 5 ( 1.6) 1 ( 0.6) 45* ( 1.3) 55* ( 1.3) 25 ( 1.2) 5 ( 0.7) 77 ( 2.0) 23 ( 2.0) 5 ( 1.3) 0 (****) 41 ( 0.6) 59 ( 0.6) 26 ( 0.5) 5 ( 0.2) 80 ( 2.1) 20 ( 2.1) 5 ( 1.2) 0 (****) 35 ( 1.5) 65 ( 1.5) 30 ( 1.5) 7 ( 0.9) 69 ( 3.0) 31 ( 3.0) 10 ( 1.6) 2 ( 0.7) 36 ( 1.1) 64 ( 1.1) 31 ( 1.1) 7 ( 0.6) 71 ( 2.5) 29 ( 2.5) 9 ( 1.3) 2 ( 0.6) 40*.( 1.6) 60* ( 1.6) 30 ( 1.4) 7 ( 0.7) 73 ( 3.1) 27 ( 3.1) 7 ( 1.5) 0 (****) 35 ( 0.6) 65 ( 0.6) 33 ( 0.6) 8 ( 0.3) * If this notation appears, it signifies that the value is significantly different from the value for 2002. Comparisons between the accommodations-not-permitted and accommodations-permitted results should be interpreted with caution. NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. The achievement levels correspond to the following points on the NAEP reading scale at grade 4: Basic, 208-237; Proficient, 238-267; and Advanced, 268 and above. Percentages below and at or above Basic may not add to 100, due to rounding. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. (****) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992,1998, and 2002 Reading Assessments. BESTCOPYAVAOLABLE 18 NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 21 The Virgin Islands Grade 8 Scale Score Results by Gender In the Virgin Islands, male students' average scale score was 234 in 2002. This was lower than that of female students (247). In 2002, male students in the Virgin Islands had an average scale score in reading (234) that was lower than that of male students across the nation (258). Female students in the Virgin Islands had an average score (247) that was lower than that of female students nationwide (267). In the Virgin Islands, the average scale score of males was not found to differ significantly in 2002 from that in 1998,; however, that of females was higher in 2002 than in 1998. Grade 8 Achievement Level Results by Gender In 2002, 4 percent of males and 9 percent of females performed at or above the Proficient level in the Virgin Islands. The difference between these percentages was not found to be statistically significant. The percentage of males in the Virgin Islands' public schools who were at or above the Proficient level in 2002 (4 percent) was smaller than that of males in the nation (26 percent). The percentage of females in the Virgin Islands at or above the Proficient level in 2002 (9 percent) was smaller than that of the nation's females (36 percent). In the Virgin Islands, the percentages of both males and females performing at or above the Proficient level were not found to differ significantly in 2002 from those in 1998. ED D NI: 8 cr, D . 4t0 alCOOODJ°0 G3@1 ®0 @C3PC1 4CX31fl 04040 ndE3030(EDGMG Average reading scale scores and percentage of students at or above each achievement level, by gender, grade 8 public schools: 1998 and 2002 Percentage of students Average scale score Below Basic At or above Basic At or above Proficient [At Advanced Male Accommodations not permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation 2002 Virgin Islands Nation Female Accommodations not permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation 2002 Virgin Islands Nation 48 ( 1.9) 51 ( 0.5) 48 ( 1.9) 51 ( 0.6) 45 ( 1.8) 50 ( 0.3) 52 ( 1.9) 49 ( 0.5) 52 ( 1.9) 49 ( 0.6) /55 ( 1.8) 50 ( 0.3) 229 ( 3.2) 255* ( 1.0) 227 ( 3.4) 253* ( 1.0) 234 ( 2.5) 258 ( 0.5) 236* ( 3.4) 268 ( 1.0) 235* ( 2.8) 268 ( 0.9) 247 ( 1.9) 267 ( 0.5) 63 ( 4.2) 37 ( 4.2) 8 ( 2.8) 1 ( 0.5) 35* ( 1.2) 65* ( 1.2) 24 ( 1.0) 1 ( 0.3) . 64 ( 3.0) 36 ( 3.0) 6 ( 1.9) 0 (****) 36* ( 1.3) 64* ( 1.3) 23* ( 1.1) 1 ( 0.2) 61 ( 4.2) 39 ( 4.2) 4 ( 1.5) 0 (****) 30 ( 0.6) 70 ( 0.6) 26 ( 0.6) 2 ( 0.2) 57* ( 4.5) 43* ( 4.5) 11 ( 2.9) 0 (****) 21 ( 0.9) 79 ( 0.9) 37 ( 1.3) 3 ( 0.6) 58* ( 3.1) 42* ( 3.1) 11 ( 2.5) 1 (****) 21 ( 0.9) 79 ( 0.9) 37 ( 1.4) 3 ( 0.6) 43 ( 2.9) 57 ( 2.9) 9 ( 2.4) 0 (****) 21 ( 0.6) 79 ( 0.6) 36 ( 0.6) 3 ( 0.3) * If this notation appears, it signifies that the value is significantly different from the value for 2002. Comparisons between the accommodations-not-permitted and accommodations-permitted results should be interpreted with caution. NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. The achievement levels correspond to the following points on the NAEP reading scale at grade 8: Basic, 243-280; Proficient, 281-322; and Advanced, 323 and above. Percentages below and at or above Basic may not add to 100, due to rounding. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. (****) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2002 Reading Assessments. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 22 BEST COPS BLUE 19 The Virgin Islands Race/Ethnicity As part of the student roster developed for the NAEP assessment, the school reported data used to identify the racial/ethnic subgroup that best described the student. The six mutually exclusive categories were White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Other. This information was the primary contributor to the classifications appearing below. For details of the derivation of this variable, see The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002. Tables 3A and 3B show scale scores and achievement data by racial and ethnic group membership for public-school students at grades 4 and 8. Only the race/ethnicity categories with sufficient membership to meet reporting requirements in the Virgin Islands are reported below. Grade 4 Scale Score Results by Race/Ethnicity In 2002, Black students in the Virgin Islands had an average scale score that was higher than that of Hispanic students. 20 The average scale score of Black students in the Virgin Islands was higher in 2002 than in 1992. The difference in average scale score of Hispanic students in the Virgin Islands between 2002 and 1992 was not found to be significant. The average scale score of Black students in the Virgin Islands was higher in 2002 than in 1998. The difference in average scale score of Hispanic students in the Virgin Islands between 2002 and 1998 was not found to be significant. Grade 4 Achievement Level Results by Race/Ethnicity The percentage of Black students in the Virgin Islands performing at or above the Proficient level was greater in 2002 than in 1992. The difference in the percentage of Black students in the Virgin Islands performing at or above the Proficient level between 2002 and 1998 was not found to be significant. 1,1 NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands 411G GfleOtiem'a C3evM1' @oraci KHC) DOG nOeGE3E35T0004 Average reading scale scores and percentage of students at or above each achievement level, by race/ethnicity, grade 4 public schools: 1992, 1998, and 2002 Percentage of students Average scale score Below Basic At or above At or above Basic Proficient At Advanced Black Accommodations not permitted 1992 Virgin Islands 87 ( 1.2) 173* ( 1.7) 83* ( 1.7) 17' ( 1.7) 3* ( 0.6) 0 (****) Nation 18 ( 0.5) 191* ( 1.7) 69* ( 2.1) 31* ( 2.1) 8' ( 1.4) 1 ( 0.4) 1998 Virgin Islands 84 ( 1.4) 179 ( 1.5) 74 ( 1.9) 26 ( 1.9) 8 ( 1.3) 1 ( 0.4) Nation 17 ( 0.5) 192' ( 1.7) 66* ( 1.8) 34' ( 1.8) 9 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.5) Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands 84 ( 1.2) 175' ( 1.6) 75 ( 2.0) 25 ( 2.0) 7 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.5) Nation 16 ( 1.3) 192* ( 2.1) 66* ( 1.9) 34' ( 1.9) 10 ( 1.0) 1 ( 0.5) 2002 Virgin Islands 84 ( 1.1) 183 ( 1.9) 73 ( 2.1) 27 ( 2.1) 6 ( 1.1) 0 (****) Nation 18 ( 0.4) 198 ( 0.6) 61 ( 0.7) 39 ( 0.7) 12 ( 0.5) 1 ( 0.2) Hispanic Accommodations not permitted 1992 Virgin Islands 11 ( 1.1) 155 ( 5.1) 90 ( 3.8) 10 ( 3.8) 2 (****) 0 (****) Nation 7* ( 0.8) 194 ( 2.7) 63 ( 2.7) 37 ( 2.7) 10* ( 1.7) 1 (-1 1998 Virgin Islands 13 ( 1.4) 166 ( 5.7) 81 ( 5.5) 19 ( 5.5) 5 ( 2.1) 1 (**'*) Nation 10* ( 0.7) 194' ( 2.1) 62 ( 2.5) 38 ( 2.5) 12 ( 1.6) 2 ( 0.6) Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands 13 ( 1.2) 161 ( 9.0) 82 ( 3.1) 18 ( 3.1) 5 ( 2.2) 1 (****) Nation 14 ( 1.4) 192' ( 3.2) 64 ( 3.3) 36 ( 3.3) 12 ( 1.7) 2 ( 0.5) 2002 Virgin Islands 13 ( 1.2) 158 ( 4.9) 90 ( 4.5) 10 ( 4.5) 1 (****) 0 (****) Nation 17 ( 0.5) 199 ( 1.4) 57 ( 1.4) 43 ( 1.4) 14 ( 0.8) 2 ( 0.3) * If this notation appears, it sign'fies that the value is significantly different from the value for 2002. Comparisons between the accommodations-not-permitted and accommodations-permitted results should be interpreted with caution. NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. The achievement levels correspond to the following points on the NAEP reading scale at grade 4: Basic, 208-237; Proficient, 238-267; and Advanced, 268 and above. Percentages below and at or above Basic may not add to 100, due to rounding. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. (****) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992,1998, and 2002 Reading Assessments. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 24 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE 21 The Virgin Islands Grade 8 Scale Score Results by Race/Ethnicity In 2002, Black students in the Virgin Islands had an average scale score that was not found to differ significantly from that of Hispanic students. The average scale score of Black students in the Virgin Islands was higher in 2002 than in 1998. Grade 8 Achievement Level Results by Race/Ethnicity In the Virgin Islands in 2002, the percentage of Black students performing at or above the Proficient level was not found to differ significantly from that of Hispanic students. The difference in the percentage of Black students in the Virgin Islands performing at or above the Proficient level between 2002 and 1998 was not found to be significant. C dff S ."..." = c3 c= D D VIG MeOboceo McapoPO @Go6 3,0,0, 2,0000 n00000520G0DO Average reading scale scores and percentage of students at or above each achievement level, by race/ethnicity, grade 8 public schools: 1998 and 2002 Percentage of students Average scale score Ballo At or above Basic At or above Proficient I At Advanced Black Accommodations not permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation 2002 Virgin Islands Nation Hispanic Accommodations not permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation 2002 Virgin Islands Nation 90* ( 0.9) 15 ( 0.4) 90* ( 0.9) 16 ( 0.4) 83 ( 1.5) 15 ( 0.4) 9 ( 1.0) 12* ( 0.5) 9 ( 1.0) 12' ( 0.5) 12 ( 1.2) 15 ( 0.4) 233' ( 3.4) 241 ( 1.7) 231* ( 2.2) 242 ( 1.2) 241 ( 1.4) 244 ( 0.8) ( 243 ( 2.6) () 241 ( 1.7) 236 ( 4.3) 245 ( 0.8) 60 ( 4.2) 40' ( 4.2) 9 ( 2.9) 1 (--) 51 ( 2.5) 49 ( 2.5) 11 ( 1.3) 0 (" ") . 61* ( 2.6) 39' ( 2.6) 8 ( 1.9) 0 (-) 50 ( 1.8) 50 ( 1.8) 11 ( 1.6) 0 (* **) 51 ( 2.6) 49 ( 2.6) 7 ( 1.4) 0 (****) 46 ( 1.0) 54 ( 1.0) 13 ( 0.7) 0 ( 0.2) ( ) (.,) - (....) - ( ) 47 ( 3.3) 53 ( 3.3) 14 ( 1.5) 0 ( 0.2) *** (**.') ** (''') * ( **) ( ) 48 ( 2.5) 52 ( 2.5) 13 ( 1.0) 0 ( 0.3) 62 ( 7.4) 38 ( 7.4) 4 ( 2.8) 0 (****) 44 ( 1.3) 56 ( 1.3) 14 ( 0.8) 0 ( 0.2) If this notation appears, it signlies that the value is significantly different from the value for 2002. Comparisons between the accommodations-not-permitted and accommodations-permitted results should be interpreted with caution. NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. The achievement levels correspond to the following points on the NAEP reading scale at grade 8: Basic, 243-280; Proficient, 281-322; and Advanced, 323 and above. Percentages below and at or above Basic may not add to 100, due to rounding. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. () Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2002 Reading Assessments. 22 BESTCOPYAVA0 BLE NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Eligibility NAEP collects data on eligibility for the federal program providing free/reduced-price school lunches. The free/reduced-price school lunch component of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), offered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is designed to ensure that children near or below the poverty line receive nourishing meals. This program is available to public schools, nonprofit private schools, and residential child-care institutions. Eligibility is determined through the USDA's Income Eligibility Guidelines, and results for this category of students are included as an indicator of poverty. Tables 4A and 4B present results for fourth- and eighth-graders. NAEP first collected information on student participation in this program in 1996; consequently, no data are available for 1992. Grade 4 Scale Score Results by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Eligibility Students in the Virgin Islands eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch had an average reading scale score of 180. In the Virgin Islands, students eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch had an average reading scale score in 2002 (180) that was not found to differ significantly from that of eligible students in 1998 (175). Students in the Virgin Islands eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch had an average scale score (180) that was lower than that of similar students in the nation (202). Grade 4 Achievement Level Results by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Eligibility In the Virgin Islands, 6 percent of students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch performed at or above the Proficient level. In the Virgin Islands, the percentage of students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch who performed at or above the Proficient level (6 percent) was not found to be significantly different from the corresponding percentage for 1998 (8 percent). For students in the Virgin Islands who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch, the percentage at or above the Proficient level (6 percent) was lower than the corresponding percentage for their counterparts around the nation (16 percent). NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT f13 6 23 The Virgin Islands MeGdoco°s Gkapoo'D @egcl 400 3 e,4CDOG .i.\000000:0®COG Average reading scale scores and percentage of students at or above each achievement level, by eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch, grade 4 public schools: 1998 and 2002 Percentage of students Average scale score Below Basic At or above At or above Basic Proficient At Advanced Eligible Accommodations not permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands Nation 2002 Virgin Islands Nation 95* ( 0.4) 179 ( 2.1) 73 ( 2.1) 27 ( 2.1) 8 ( 1.5) 2 ( 0.5) 38* ( 1.3) 198' ( 1.2) 58* ( 1.5) 42' ( 1.5) 13' ( 1.2) 1 ( 0.4) 95" ( 0.3) 175 ( 2.5) 75 ( 2.2) 25 ( 2.2) 8 ( 1.1) 2 ( 0.6) 41 ( 1.8) 195* ( 1.7) 61' ( 1.9) 39* ( 1.9) 12* ( 1.0) 1' ( 0.3) 100 ( 0.0) 180 ( 1.9) 75 ( 1.8) 25 ( 1.8) 6 ( 0.9) 0 * ***) 43 ( 0.9) 202 ( 0.7) 54 ( 0.8) 46 ( 0.8) 16 ( 0.5) 2 ( 0.2) If this notation appears, it signifies that the value is significantly different from the value for 2002. Comparisons between the accommodations-not-permitted and accommodations-permitted results should be interpreted with caution. NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. The achievement levels correspond to the following points on the NAEP reading scale at grade 4: Basic, 208-237; Proficient, 238-267; and Advanced, 268 and above. Percentages below and at or above Basic may not add to 100, due to rounding. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. (*) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2002 Reading Assessments. 24 27 BEST COPY AVAA L NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands Grade 8 Scale Score Results by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Eligibility Students in the Virgin Islands eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch had an average reading scale score of 241. In the Virgin Islands, students eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch had an average scale score in 2002 (241) that was higher than that of eligible students in 1998 (231). Students in the Virgin Islands eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch had an average reading score (241) that was lower than that of eligible students across the nation (249). NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 28 Grade 8 Achievement Level Results by Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch Eligibility In the Virgin Islands, 7 percent of students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch performed at or above the Proficient level. In the Virgin Islands, the percentage of students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch who performed at or above the Proficient level (7 percent) was not found to be significantly different from the corresponding percentage for 1998 (8 percent). For students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch in the Virgin Islands, the percentage at or above the Proficient level (7 percent) was lower than the corresponding percentage of eligible students nationwide (17 percent). 25 The Virgin Islands VGD® KleOtiocee L3apou4 @c3p6 22®®23 c30e0c; nE30000a0110 Average reading scale scores and percentage of students at or above each achievement level, by eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch, grade 8 public schools: 1998 and 2002 Percentage of students Average scale score. Below Basic At or above At or above r Basic Proficient At Advanced Eligible Accommodations not permitted 1998 Virgin Islands 74* ( 1.0) 233 ( 3.8) 60 ( 4.3) 40 ( 4.3) 10 ( 2.8) 1 (***") Nation 30* ( 0.8) 246' ( 1.3) 44* ( 1.6) 56* ( 1.6) 15 ( 1.0) 0 (****) Accommodations permitted 1998 Virgin Islands 74* ( 1.0) 231* ( 2.9) 61* ( 2.8) 39* ( 2.8) 8 ( 2.3) 0 (****) Nation 30* ( 0.9) 245* ( 1.0) 45* ( 1.3) 55* ( 1.3) 14* ( 1.0) 0* ( 0.1) 2002 Virgin Islands 99 ( 0.2) 241 ( 1.4) 52 ( 2.3) 48 ( 2.3) 7 ( 1.5) 0 (****) Nation 34 ( 0.7) 249 ( 0.5) 40 ( 0.7) 60 ( 0.7) 17 ( 0.5) 1 ( 0.1) * If this notation appears, it signifies that the value is significantly different from the value for 2002. Comparisons between the accommodations-not-permitted and accommodations-permitted results should be interpreted with caution. NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. The achievement levels correspond to the following points on the NAEP reading scale at grade 8: Basic, 243-280; Proficient, 281-322; and Advanced, 323 and above. Percentages below and at or above Basic may not add to 100, due to rounding. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. (****) Standard error estimates cannot be accurately determined. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2002 Reading Assessments. 26 2 BEST COPY AVAII BLUE NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands Toward a More Inclusive NAEP NAEP endeavors to assess all students selected in the randomized sampling process, including students with disabilities (SD) as well as students who are classified by their schools as limited English proficient (LEP). The percentages of students classified as SD or LEP in all participating states and jurisdictions are available in an interactive database at the NAEP web site at http://nces.ed.govinationsreportcard/naepdata/. It is important to note that school personnel, guided by the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP), as well as eligibility for Section 504 services, make decisions regarding inclusion in the assessment of students with disabilities. They also make the decision regarding inclusion of LEP students, based on NAEP's guidelines. This includes evaluating the student's capability of participating in the assessment in English, as well as taking into consideration the number of years the student has been receiving instruction in English. Percentages of students excluded from NAEP may vary considerably across states (see table 6A) and, within a state, across years. Comparisons of achievement results across states and within a state across years should be interpreted with caution if the exclusion rates vary widely. The results displayed here and in The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2002 are based on representative samples that include SD and LEP students who were assessed either with or without accommodations, as guided by NAEP's inclusion guidelines. In past NAEP state reading assessments, however, no testing accommodations or adaptations were made available to the special-needs students in the samples that served as the basis for reported results. In the 1998 national and state assessments and the 2000 national (grade 4 only) assessments, NAEP drew a second representative national sample of schools. For students in this sample, accommodations were made available. The program has used this split-sample design to study the effects of allowing accommodations for special-needs students in the assessments. A series of technical research papers covering various NAEP subject areas has been published with the results of these comparisons (see "Publications on the inclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students" on page 30). It should be noted that accommodated special-needs students typically make up a small proportion of the total weighted number of students assessedabout 3 to 4 percent of the national total. Table 5A displays the percentages of special-needs students identified, excluded, and accommodated at grade 4. Table 5B displays the percentages for grade 8. Table 6A presents the total number of students assessed, the percentage of students sampled that were excluded, and average scale scores for all participating states and other jurisdictions at grades 4 and 8 in the NAEP 2002 Reading State Assessment. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 27 30 The Virgin Islands 41® Ga:3086teo Glopcio9 Good 23®®211- 00006 nee36060:66(Do Percentage of SD and LEP students in reading assessments identified, excluded, and assessed, grade 4 public schools: 1992, 1998, and 2002 SD and/or LEP SD LEP Virgin Islands Nation Virgin Islands Nation Virgin Islands Nation Accommodations not permitted 1992 Identified 6 ( 0.5) 11 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.4) 8 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.4) Excluded 3 ( 0.3) 6 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.3) 1 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.2) Assessed under standard conditions 3 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.5) 1 ( 0.2) 3 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.5) 1 ( 0.3) 1998 Identified 8 ( 2.1) 17 ( 1.1) 4 ( 1.1) 12 ( 0.8) 5 ( 1.9) 6 ( 0.9) Excluded 6 ( 1.7) 10 ( 1.0) 3 ( 1.1) 7 ( 0.6) 3 ( 1.0) 4 ( 0.8) Assessed under standard conditions 2 ( 1.1) 7 ( 0.6) 0 ( 0.3) 5 ( 0.5) 1 ( 1.2) 2 ( 0.3) Accommodations permitted 1998 Identified 8 ( 2.1) 18 ( 1.0) 4 ( 2.3) 11 ( 0.7) 4 ( 2.6) 7 ( 0.9) Excluded 5 ( 1.7) 7 ( 0.7) 3 ( 2.1) 5 ( 0.6) 2 ( 1.5) 3 ( 0.4) Assessed under standard conditions 2 ( 1.1) 7 ( 0.6) 1 ( 0.7) 4 ( 0.5) 1 ( 1.1) 4 ( 0.5) Assessed with accommodations 1 ( 0.9) 3 ( 0.6) 0 ( 0.0) 3 ( 0.4) 1 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.3) 2002 Identified 7 ( 0.7) 21 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.5) 13 ( 0.2) 5 ( 0.5) 9 ( 0.5) Excluded 3 ( 0.4) 7 ( 0.2) 1 ( 0.3) 5 ( 0.1) 2 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.1) Assessed under standard conditions 4 ( 0.6) 10 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.5) 4 ( 0.1) 3 ( 0.4) 6 ( 0.4) Assessed with accommodations 1 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.1) 0 ( 0.2) 4 ( 0.1) 1 ( 0.3) 1 ( 0.1) SD: Students with Disabilities. LEP: Limited English Proficient students. NOTE: Some students were identified as both SD and LEP. Such students would be included in both the SD and LEP portions of the table. The percentages excluded and assessed may not sum to the exact percentage identified, due to rounding. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1998, and 2002 Reading Assessments. TUG Gf1c3ofioceo Glopou4 ,000,6 fl0023 @Goo° aos000rRoGo Percentage of SD and LEP students in reading assessments identified, excluded, and assessed, grade 8 public schools: 1998 and 2002 SD and/or LEP SD LEP Virgin Islands Nation Virgin Islands Nation Virgin Islands Nation Accommodations not permitted 1998 Identified 7 ( 3.0) 14 ( 1.0) 3 ( 2.9) 11 ( 0.8) 4 ( 4.4) 3 ( 0.5) Excluded 7 ( 3.0) 6 ( 0.6) 3 ( 2.9) s ( 0.6) 4 ( 4.4) 1 ( 0.1) Assessed under standard conditions 0 ( 0.0) 7 ( 0.8) 0 ( 0.0) 5 ( 0.5) 0 ( 0.0) 2 ( 0.4) Accommodations permitted 1998 Identified 7 ( 3.0) 14 ( 1.0) 5 ( 1.9) 11 ( 0.9) 2 ( 1.2) 3 ( 0.4) Excluded 7 ( 3.0) 4 ( 0.4) 5 ( 1.9) 3 ( 0.4) 2 ( 1.2) 1 ( 0.2) Assessed under standard conditions 0 ( 0.0) 7 ( 0.7) 0 ( 0.0) 5 ( 0.6) 0 ( 0.0) 2 ( 0.3) Assessed with accommodations 0 ( 0.0) 3 ( 0.4) 0 ( 0.0) 2 ( 0.4) 0 ( 0.0) 0 ( 0.1) 2002 Identified 11 ( 0.6) 18 ( 0.3) 8 ( 0.6) 13 ( 0.2) 3 ( 0.3) 6 ( 0.3) Excluded 8 ( 0.6) 6 ( 0.3) 6 ( 0.5) 5 ( 0.2) 3 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.2) Assessed under standard conditions 3 ( 0.5) 8 ( 0.2) 2 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.1) 1 ( 0.4) 4 ( 0.2) Assessed with accommodations 0 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.2) 0 ( 0.3) 4 ( 0.2) 0 ( 0.0) 1 ( 0.1) SD: Students with Disabilities. LEP: Limited English Proficient students. NOTE: Some students were identified as both SD and LEP. Such students would be included in both the SD and LEP portions of the table. The percentages excluded and assessed may not sum to the exact percentage identified, due to rounding. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2002 Reading Assessments. 28 31 BEST COPY AVALABLE NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT The Virgin Islands 0 c9 - 0 ..-..= (3 () A . VIG MOO IJOGO°@ GIcapop0 @eg,6 2319.® g,gogc; no3GoouGGoo Total number of students assessed, percentage of students sampled that were excluded, and average reading scale scores, grade 4 and 8 public schools: By state, 2002 Grade 4 students Grade 8 students Number assessed Percentage excluded Average scale score Number assessed Percentage excluded Average scale score Alabama 3684 3 ( 0.4) 207 ( 1.4) 2602 2 ( 0.5) 253 ( 1.3) Arizona 3105 8 ( 0.8) 205 ( 1.5) 2451 5 ( 0.6) 257 ( 1.3) Arkansas 2779 5 ( 0.5) 213 ( 1.4) 2454 5 ( 0.9) 260 ( 1.1) Californiat 4016 5 ( 0.7) 206 ( 2.5) 3124 4 ( 0.5) 250 ( 1.8) Connecticut 3266 5 ( 0.6) 229 ( 1.1) 2682 4 ( 0.6) 267 ( 1.2) Delaware 3895 8 ( 0.4) 224 ( 0.6) 3850 6 ( 0.3) 267 ( 0.5) Florida 3226 7 ( 0.8) 214 ( 1.4) 2633 6 ( 0.9) 261 ( 1.6) Georgia 4919 4 ( 0.4) 215 ( 1.0) 3756 4 ( 0.4) 258 ( 1.0) Hawaii 3603 6 ( 0.4) 208 ( 0.9) 2656 5 ( 0.4) 252 ( 0.9) Idaho 2710 4 ( 0.7) 220 ( 1.1) 2390 4 ( 0.5) 266 ( 1.1) Indiana 3469 5 ( 0.5) 222 ( 1.4) 2535 4 ( 0.5) 265 ( 1.3) lowaS 1930 8 ( 0.8) 223 ( 1.1) - - (-) - (-) Kansas$ 1938 5 ( 0.6) 222 ( 1.4) 1827 5 ( 0.9) 269 ( 1.3) Kentucky 3262 8 ( 0.6) , , 219 ( 1.1) 2461 7 ( 0.6) 265 ( 1.0) Louisiana 3116 10 ( 1.0) 207 ( 1.7) 2252 10 ( 0.8) 256 ( 1.5) Maine 1964 6 ( 0.9) 225 ( 1.1) 2522 4 ( 0.5) 270 ( 0.9) Maryland 2844 7 ( 0.8) 217 ( 1.5) 2451 4 ( 0.7) 263 ( 1.7) Massachusetts 3236 6 ( 0.6) 234 ( 1.1) 2576 6 ( 0.8) 271 ( 1.3) Michigan 2974 7 ( 0.6) 219 ( 1.1) 2383 7 ( 0.7) 265 ( 1.6) Minnesota* 2598 5 ( 0.8) 225 ( 1.1) - (-) - (-) Mississippi 3091 4 ( 0.4) 203 ( 1.3) 2415 5 ( 0.5) 255 ( 0.9) Missouri 2973 9 ( 0.8) 220 ( 1.3) 2481 8 ( 0.7) 268 ( 1.0) Montana 1342 6 ( 1.1) 224 ( 1.8) 1849 4 ( 0.5) 270 ( 1.0) Nebraska 1540 5 ( 0.9) 222 ( 1.5) 2139 7 ( 0.8) 270 ( 0.9) Nevada 3447 10 ( 1.0) 209 ( 1.2) 2536 6 ( 0.4) 251 ( 0.8) New Mexico 2316 10 ( 1.1) 208 ( 1.6) 2265 8 ( 0.9) 254 ( 1.0) New York .9) ''''' ' 222 ( 1.5) 1867 9 ( 1.4) 264 ( 1.5) North Carolina 3276 12 ( 0.9) 222 ( 1.0) , 2540 9 ( 0.7) 265 ( 1.1) North Dakotas 2422 5 ( 0.7) 224 ( 1.0) 1949 4 ( 0.5) 268 ( 0.8) Ohio 2722 8 ( 0.8) 222 ( 1.3) 2319 7 ( 0.8) 268 ( 1.6) Oklahoma 3352 5 ( 0.7) 213 ( 1.2) 2493 4 ( 0.5) 262 ( 0.8) Oregon* 2675 8 ( 0.8) 220 ( 1.4) 1918 5 ( 0.7) 268 ( 1.3) Pennsylvania 3383 5 ( 0.6) 221 ( 1.2) 2720 3 ( 0.4) 265 ( 1.0) Rhode Island 3551 6 ( 0.6) 220 ( 1.2) 2552 5 ( 0.4) 262 ( 0.8) South Carolina 2473 5 ( 0.6) 214 ( 1.3) 2189 5 ( 0.5) 258 ( 1.1) Tennessee 3022 3 ( 0.6) 214 ( 1.2) 2047 3 ( 0.7) 260 ( 1.4) Texas 3637 11 ( 1.1) 217 ( 1.7) 3258 8 ( 0.9) 262 ( 1.4) Utah 3652 6 ( 0.7) 222 ( 1.0) 2683 4 ( 0.4) 263 ( 1.1) Vermont 1690 5 ( 0.6) 227 ( 1.1) 2378 5 ( 0.6) 272 ( 0.9) Virginia 3029 10 ( 0.8) 225 ( 1.3) 2546 8 ( 0.7) 269 ( 1.0) Washington 2444 5 ( 0.4) 224 ( 1.2) 1897 4 ( 0.8) 268 ( 1.2) West Virginia 2348 10 ( 0.8) 219 ( 1.2) 2166 10 ( 0.8) 264 ( 1.0) Wyoming 2786 3 ( 0.3) 221 ( 1.0) 2579 3 ( 0.3) 265 ( 0.7) American Samoa - - (-) - (-) 460 8 ( 1.0) 198 ( 1.7) District of Columbia 2554 8 ( 0.4) 191 ( 0.9) 1638 7 ( 0.6) 240 ( 0.9) DDESS 1351 4 ( 0.5) 225 ( 0.7) 701 3 ( 0.6) 272 ( 1.0) DoDDS 2924 3 ( 0.3) 224 ( 0.5) 2090 2 ( 0.3) 273 ( 0.6) Guam 1216 7 ( 0.5) 185 ( 1.3) 1011 2 ( 0.4) 240 ( 1.2) Virgin Islands 738 3 ( 0.4) 179 ( 1.9) 567 8 ( 0.6) 241 ( 1.3) - Iowa did not participate at grade 8. American Samoa did not participate at grade 4. Minnesota did not meet minimum participation guidelines to report results at grade 8. Indicates that the jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation in 2002. Oregon met the guidelines at grade 4,but not grade 8. NOTE: The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the statistics in the table appear in parentheses. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002 Reading Assessment. NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 32 BEST COPY AVALABLE 29 The Virgin Islands Where to Find More Information The NAEP Reading Assessment The latest news about the NAEP 2002 reading assessment and the national results can be found on the NAEP web site at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/results/. The individual reports for each participating state and other jurisdictions are also available in the state results section of the web site at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/. The Reading Framework for the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress, on which this assessment is based, is available at the Internet address http://www.nagb.org/pubs/read_fw_03.pdf. Additional Results from the Reading Assessment For more findings from the 2002 reading assessments, refer to the NAEP 2002 results at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/. The interactive database at this site includes student and school variables for all participating states and other jurisdictions, the nation, and the four NAEP geographic regions. Data tables are also available for each jurisdiction, with all background questions cross-tabulated with the major demographic variables. Technical Documentation For explanations of NAEP survey procedures see Allen, N. L., Donoghue, J. R., and Schoeps, T. L. (2001). The NAEP 1998 Technical Report (NCES 2001-509). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Publications on the inclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students Olson, J. F., and Goldstein, A. A. (1997). The Inclusion of Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students in Large-Scale Assessments: A Summary of Recent Progress (NCES 97-482). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Mazzeo, J., Carlson, J. E., Voelkl, K. E., and Lutkus, A. D. (2000). Increasing the Participation of Special-Needs Students in NAEP: A Report on 1998 Research Activities (NCES 2000-473). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Lutkus, A. D., and Mazzeo, J. (2003). Including Special-Needs Students in the NAEP 1998 Reading Assessment, Part I: Comparison of Overall Results With and Without Accommodations (NCES 2003-467). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Lutkus, A. D. (forthcoming). Including Special-Needs Students in the NAEP 1998 Reading Assessment, Part II: Results for Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students (NCES 2003-468). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. To Order Publications Recent NAEP publications related to reading are listed on the reading page of the NAEP web site and are available electronically. Publications can also be ordered from: Education Publications Center (ED Pubs) U.S. Department of Education P.O. Box 1398 Jessup, MD 20794-1398 Call toll free: 1-877-4ED PUBS (1-877-433-7827) TTY/TDD: 1-877-576-7734 FAX: 1-301-470-1244 The 2002 Reading State Reports in this series were prepared by Laura Jerry and Anthony Lutkus of Educational Testing Service. 30 NAEP STATE READING 2002 REPORT 33 What is The Nation's Report Card? THE NATION'S REPORT CARD, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, history, geography, and other fields. By making objective information on student performance available to policymakers at the national, state, and local levels, NAEP is an integral part of our nation's evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only information related to academic achievement is collected under this program. NAEP guarantees the privacy of indi- vidual students and their families. NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible, by law, for carrying out the NAEP project through competitive awards to qualified organizations. NAEP reports directly to the Commissioner, who is also respon- sible for providing continuing reviews, including validation studies and solicitation of public comment, on NAEP's conduct and usefulness. In 1988, Congress established the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to formulate policy guidelines for NAEP. The Board is responsible for selecting the subject areas to be assessed from among those included in the National Education Coals; for setting appropriate student performance levels; for developing assessment objectives and test specifications through a national consensus approach; for designing the assessment methodology; for developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating NAEP results; for developing standards and procedures for interstate, regional, and national comparisons; for determining the appropriateness of test items and ensuring they are free from bias; and for taking actions to improve the form and use of the National Assessment. The National Assessment Governing Board Darvin M. Winick, Chair President Winick & Associates Dickinson, Texas Amanda P. Avallone Assistant Principal and Eighth-Grade Teacher Summit Middle School Boulder, Colorado Daniel A. Domenech Superintendent of Schools Fairfax County Public Schools Fairfax, Virginia Edward Donley Former Chairman Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. Allentown, Pennsylvania Honorable Dwight Evans State Legislator Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thomas H. Fisher Director (Retired) Student Assessment Services Florida Department of Education Tallahassee, Florida Sheila M. Ford Principal Horace Mann Elementary School Washington, DC Edward H. Haertel Professor, School of Education Stanford University Stanford, California Catherine Harvey Principal Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School Bethesda, Maryland Juanita Haugen Local School Board Member Pleasanton, California Honorable Dirk Kempthorne Governor of Idaho Boise, Idaho Kim Kozbial-Hess Fourth-Grade Teacher Fall-Meyer Elementary School Toledo, Ohio Honorable Ronnie Musgrove Governor of Mississippi Jackson, Mississippi Mark D. Musick President Southern Regional Education Board Atlanta, Georgia Honorable Jo Ann Pottorff State Legislator Wichita, Kansas Diane Ravitch Senior Research Scholar New York University New York, New York Sister Lourdes Sheehan, R.S.M. Associate General Secretary United States Catholic Conference Washington, DC Honorable Raymond Simon Director Arkansas Department of Education Little Rock, Arkansas John H. Stevens Executive Director Texas Business and Education Coalition Austin, Texas Deborah Voltz Associate Professor Department of Special Education University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky Honorable Michael E. Ward State Superintendent of Public Instruction Public Schools of North Carolina Raleigh, North Carolina Marilyn A. Whirry Twelfth-Grade English Teacher Manhattan Beach, California Dennie Palmer Wolf Director of Opportunity and Accountability Annenberg Institute for School Reform Brown University Providence, Rhode Island Grover (Russ) Whitehurst (Ex-Officio) Director Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education Washington, DC Charles E. Smith Executive Director, NAGB Washington, DC 35 U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) NOTICE Reproduction Basis E qc- Eductliamal Banns lalormallon Centa This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release form. This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket"). EFF-089 (1/2003)