Report

NIES 2011 Report.pdf

Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery

Report

OMB: 1880-0542

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1880-0542 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

U.S. Department of Education
NCES 2012–466

National Indian
Education Study 2011
The Educational Experiences of American Indian and
Alaska Native Students at Grades 4 and 8

Contents
1 Executive Summary
6 Introduction
12 Reading Results
26 Mathematics Results
40 Survey Results
48 Technical Notes
61 Acknowledgments

The National Indian Education Study (NIES) is designed to
describe the condition of education for American Indian and
Alaska Native students in the United States. NIES is
authorized under Executive Order 13592, Improving American
Indian and Alaska Native Educational Opportunities and
Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities, which was
issued in 2011 to improve education efforts for American
Indian and Alaska Native students nationwide. NIES is
conducted under the direction of the National Center for
Education Statistics on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Education’s Office of Indian Education.
NIES is conducted through the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) and provides information on the
academic performance of fourth- and eighth-grade American
Indian/Alaska Native students in reading and mathematics,
and on their educational experiences.

NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the
National Center for Education Statistics within the Institute
of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education.
The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible for
carrying out the NAEP project. The National Assessment
Governing Board oversees and sets policy for NAEP.
NAEP is an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the
condition and progress of education. Only information related
to academic achievement and relevant variables is collected.
The privacy of individual students and their families is
protected, and the identities of participating schools are
not released.

Photo Credits:
© Maria Mishina/iStockphoto #17994706; © Jeff Schultz/AlaskaStock.com #352CH AA0026D004; © John Lund/Sam Diephuis/Blend Images/Getty Images
#72541685; © Image Source/Jupiterimages #56181347; © Chris Corrie; © Fernando Delvalle/iStockphoto #11750086; © Jaren Wicklund/Photos.com #144282424;
© Karl Kehm/iStockphoto #17313521; © Comstock/Getty Images/Jupiterimages #86525409; Copyright © 2006 Highlights for Children, Inc., Columbus, Ohio;
© Jupiterimages/Brand X Pictures/Getty Images #78376831; From THE NEW YORK TIMES UPFRONT magazine September 5, 2005 issue. Copyright © 2005 by
Scholastic Inc. and The New York Times Company. Reprinted by permission of Scholastic Inc.; © Ventura69/iStockphoto #17838756; © Studio-Annika/Photos.
com #139886208; © Stephen H. Begleitter; © Maciej Toporowicz, NYC/Flickr Open/Getty Images #127987621; © Alexander Makarov/iStockphoto #17913449;
© Erik Isakson/Tetra Images/Jupiterimages #103923547; © Jeff Shultz/AlaskaStock.com #352GR AA0028D001; © Clark James Mishler/AlaskaStock.com
#353ED AN0001D001; © American Images Inc/Digital Vision/Getty Images #72724182; © Jeff Schultz/AlaskaStock.com #352CH AA0026D004;
© Jeff Schultz/AlaskaStock.com #352CH AA0047D001

Executive Summary

The National Indian Education Study (NIES) is administered as part of
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to allow more
in-depth reporting on the achievement and experiences of American Indian/
Alaska Native (AI/AN) students in grades 4 and 8. The results presented in
this report highlight some of the findings on the educational experiences of
fourth- and eighth-grade AI/AN students based on responses to the NIES
student, teacher, and school questionnaires, and on the performance of
AI/AN students in the NAEP reading and mathematics assessments.

NIES

No significant change in average
reading scores for AI/AN students
compared to 2009 or 2005

AI/AN students’ performance in
reading differs by some student
characteristics

Nationally representative samples of 5,500 AI/AN
fourth-graders and 4,100 AI/AN eighth-graders
participated in the 2011 NAEP reading assessment.
At each grade, students responded to questions
designed to measure their reading comprehension
across literary and informational texts.

In 2011, average reading scores for AI/AN students were

At both grades 4 and 8, average reading scores
for AI/AN students in 2011 were not significantly
different from the scores in 2009 or 2005 (figure A).
AI/AN students scored 19 points lower on average in
reading than non-AI/AN students in 2011 at grade 4,
and 13 points lower at grade 8.
Forty-seven percent of AI/AN students at grade 4 and
63 percent at grade 8 performed at or above the Basic
level in reading in 2011, demonstrating at least partial
mastery of reading comprehension skills. At both
grades 4 and 8, the percentages of AI/AN students
performing at Basic, at Proficient, and at Advanced in
2011 were not significantly different from the percentages in previous assessment years.

• higher for female students than for male students
at both grades 4 and 8;
• lower for students eligible for the National School
Lunch Program (an indicator of lower family
income) than for those who were not eligible at
both grades 4 and 8;
• higher for students attending schools in suburban
locations than for those in rural locations at both
grades 4 and 8; and
• higher for students attending public schools than
for those attending Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)
schools at both grades 4 and 8.
In comparison to 2009, average reading scores were
higher in 2011 for AI/AN eighth-graders who attended
schools in city locations and for those in BIE schools.

Figure A. Trend in NAEP reading average scores and score gaps for fourth- and eighth-grade AI/AN and
non-AI/AN students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years,
2005–11 Reading Assessments.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

No significant change in reading scores
from 2009 for 12 reported states
Average reading scores for AI/AN fourth- and
eighth-graders did not change significantly from
2009 to 2011 in any of the 12 states with samples
large enough to report results for AI/AN students in
both years. Among the seven states with samples
large enough to report results in both 2005 and 2011,
the average reading score for AI/AN eighth-graders in
Montana was higher in 2011.

Figure B. Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores
and score gaps for fourth- and eighth-grade
AI/AN and non-AI/AN students

Mathematics score gap between
non-AI/AN and AI/AN students larger
than in 2005
Nationally representative samples of 5,400 AI/AN
fourth-graders and 4,200 AI/AN eighth-graders
participated in the 2011 NAEP mathematics assessment designed to measure what they know and can
do across five mathematics content areas: number
properties and operations; measurement; geometry;
data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra.
In 2011, AI/AN students scored 16 points lower on
average in mathematics than non-AI/AN students at
grade 4, and 19 points lower at grade 8 (figure B).
The score gaps for both grades in 2011 were not
significantly different from the gaps in 2009, but were
larger than the gaps in 2005. In comparison to 2009
and 2005, average scores for fourth- and eighthgrade AI/AN students did not change significantly in
2011 and scores for non-AI/AN students were higher
in 2011.
In 2011, sixty-six percent of AI/AN students at grade
4 and 55 percent at grade 8 performed at or above
the Basic level in mathematics. The percentages of
AI/AN fourth- and eighth-graders performing at
Basic and at Proficient in 2011 were not significantly
different from the percentages in previous assessment years. At grade 8, the percentage of students
at Advanced increased from 2 percent in 2005 to
3 percent in 2011.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scores.

NIES

AI/AN students’ performance in
mathematics differs by some
student characteristics

Mathematics scores lower than in
2009 in one state at grade 4 and
in two states at grade 8

In 2011, average mathematics scores for AI/AN
students were

Among the 12 states with samples large enough to
report results for AI/AN students in both 2009 and
2011, average mathematics scores were lower in 2011
in Montana at grade 4 and in Minnesota and Utah at
grade 8. Among the seven states with samples large
enough to report results in both 2005 and 2011,
average mathematics scores were lower in 2011 in
Alaska at grades 4 and 8, and higher in 2011 in
Oklahoma at grades 4 and 8 and in South Dakota at
grade 8.

• lower for students eligible for the National School
Lunch Program than for those who were not
eligible at both grades 4 and 8;
• higher for students attending schools in suburban
locations than for those in towns and rural
locations at grade 4; and
• higher for students attending public schools than
for those attending BIE schools at both grades 4
and 8.
In comparison to 2009, the average mathematics
score for AI/AN fourth-graders in BIE schools was
higher in 2011.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Results from the NIES survey describe
AI/AN students, their teachers and
schools, and the integration of AI/AN
culture in their education
About 10,200 AI/AN students at grade 4 and 10,300
AI/AN students at grade 8 participated in the 2011
NIES survey. Also responding to the survey were
about 3,000 teachers and 1,900 school administrators at grade 4, and about 4,600 teachers and 2,000
school administrators at grade 8. Data collected from
the NIES student, teacher, and school questionnaires
provide information about the students themselves,
their communities, teachers’ background and
instructional practices, and how schools address the
needs of AI/AN students.

Selected survey topics
Students report knowing some or a lot about their AI/AN history

Overall survey results reported for the nation include
AI/AN students attending public, private, BIES and
and Department of Defense schools. Results are
also reported separately for three mutually
exclusive categories based on the type of school
and proportion of AI/AN students: low density
public schools where less than 25 percent of
the student body is AI/AN; high density public
schools where 25 percent or more of the students
are AI/AN; and BIE schools that serve AI/AN
students almost exclusively. In summarizing the
NIES survey results by school type/density, data for
response categories were sometimes collapsed to
better illustrate how response patterns differed for
students attending different schools.

Percentage of students
Grade 4 Grade 8

Overall

Low density public schools

High density public schools

BIE schools

Students’ teachers report acquiring information about their AI/AN students to at least
a small extent from living and working in an AI/AN community
Overall

Low density public schools

High density public schools

BIE schools

Students attend school where administrators report members of the AI/AN community
visit to discuss education issues one or more times a year
Overall

Low density public schools

High density public schools

BIE schools

NOTE: Results are not shown separately for Department of Defense and private schools.

Higher percentages of AI/AN students in
BIE schools than in low density public
schools reported having some or a lot of
knowledge about their AI/AN history.
Higher percentages of students in
BIE schools than in high or low density
public schools had teachers who learned
about AI/AN students to at least a small
extent from living and working in an
AI/AN community.
Higher percentages of students in BIE
and high density public schools than in
low density public schools had members
of the AI/AN community visit the school
to discuss education issues at least one
time during the year.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 National Indian Education Study.

NIES

Introduction

Since 2005, the National Indian Education Study (NIES) has provided
educators, policymakers, and the public with information about the
background and academic performance of fourth- and eighth-grade
American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students in the United States.
NIES was administered in 2005, 2007, 2009, and
2011 as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which was expanded to allow
for more in-depth reporting on the achievement and
experiences of AI/AN students. It fulfills a mandate of
Executive Order 13592 issued in 2011 to improve
educational outcomes for all AI/AN students. NIES
reports present findings that are relevant to research
and collaborative provisions of the Executive Order.1
1

This report presents results on the performance of
fourth- and eighth-grade AI/AN students in the NAEP
reading and mathematics assessments, followed by
information on their educational experiences based on
responses to the NIES student, teacher, and school
questionnaires. This represents a change from earlier
studies in 2005, 2007, and 2009 when performance
and survey results were presented in separate reports.

Section 4. Study. In carrying out this order, the Secretaries of Education and the Interior shall study and collect information on the education of AI/AN students.

INTRODUCTION

Participation in NIES
AI/AN students make up about 1 percent of the
students at grades 4 and 8 nationally. Fourth- and
eighth-grade students were identified as AI/AN based
on school records and were sampled along with other
students participating in the NAEP subject-area
assessments. All the AI/AN students who responded
to the NIES survey also participated in the 2011 NAEP
assessment in one of three subjects (reading,
mathematics, or science).
To obtain large enough samples of AI/AN students to
report reliable results, schools in selected states with
higher proportions of AI/AN students were oversampled (i.e., they were selected at a higher rate than
they would be otherwise for NAEP assessments). All
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools were also
selected. To compensate for oversampling, the results
for AI/AN students were weighted to reflect their
actual contribution to the total population of students
in grades 4 and 8 nationwide.
About 10,200 AI/AN students from approximately
1,900 schools at grade 4 and about 10,300 AI/AN
students from approximately 2,000 schools at
grade 8 participated in the 2011 NIES survey. Also
responding to the survey were about 3,000 teachers
and 1,900 school administrators at grade 4 and
about 4,600 teachers and 2,000 school administrators at grade 8. (See the Technical Notes for more
information on NIES samples, response rates, and
questionnaires.) Some school administrators responded for both grade 4 and grade 8. About 10,800
AI/AN fourth-graders and 8,200 eighth-graders were
assessed in either reading or mathematics in 2011.
(Note that some of the AI/AN students who took the
NAEP reading or mathematics assessments may have
chosen not to participate in the NIES survey, and
AI/AN eighth-graders who took the science assessment were also given the opportunity to participate in
the NIES survey.)
The overall national results presented in this report
are based on samples of students in public schools,
BIE schools, Department of Defense schools, and
private schools. Because state-level results are based
on public and BIE school students only, the national
sample is modified to include only public and BIE
school students whenever the national results are
being compared to results for the states.

Samples of AI/AN students were large enough to
report results for students in 12 states.

The combined AI/AN student enrollment in these
states represents about 63 percent of the AI/AN
enrollment in the nation. (See table TN-1 in the
Technical Notes.)

NIES

Reporting Results
The results presented in this report based on
responses to survey questions are reported as
percentages of students. Because the NAEP samples
were not designed to be representative of teachers
or school administrators, the unit of analysis is
always the student. Even when results from the
teacher and school questionnaires are presented,
they are reported as the percentages of students
whose teachers or school administrators provided
a given response. Since the same survey questions
were administered in 2009, comparisons can be
made in responses over time.
Because AI/AN students’ experiences may vary
depending on the types of schools they attend, results
are also reported for three mutually exclusive categories: low density public schools (where less than
25 percent of students were AI/AN), high density
public schools (where 25 percent or more students
were AI/AN), and BIE schools. In summarizing the
NIES survey results by school type/density, data for
response categories were sometimes collapsed to
better illustrate how response patterns differed for
students attending different schools. Data for all the
individual survey question responses by type of
school are available in the NIES Data Explorer at
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/niesdata/.
Results on students’ performance in reading and
mathematics are available for 2011, 2009, 2007, and
2005, and are reported as average scale scores and
as the percentages of students performing at or
above three achievement levels. Average scores are
reported on separate 0–500 scales for each subject.
Based on recommendations from policymakers,
educators, and members of the general public, the

National Assessment Governing Board sets specific
achievement levels for each subject area and grade.
Achievement levels are performance standards
showing what students should know and be able to
do. NAEP results are reported as percentages of
students performing at the Basic, Proficient, and
Advanced levels.

Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite
knowledge and skills that are fundamental for
proficient work at each grade.
Proficient represents solid academic performance.
Students reaching this level have demonstrated
competency over challenging subject matter.
Advanced represents superior performance.
Subject-specific descriptions of what students
should know and be able to do at each of the three
levels are provided in the Reading Framework for the
2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress and
the Mathematics Framework for the 2011 National
Assessment of Educational Progress. Both frameworks
are available at http://www.nagb.org/publications/
frameworks.htm.
NAEP achievement levels are cumulative; therefore,
student performance at the Proficient level includes
the competencies associated with the Basic level,
and the Advanced level also includes skills and
knowledge associated with the Basic and Proficient
levels. As provided by law, the National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES), upon review of
congressionally mandated evaluations of NAEP, has
determined that achievement levels are to be used
on a trial basis and should be interpreted with
caution. The NAEP achievement levels have been
widely used by national and state officials.

Explore Additional Results
This report presents some of the results from the 2011 NIES survey and NAEP
reading and mathematics assessments. Additional results for AI/AN students
at the national, regional, and state level are available on the NAEP website at
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nies/ and in the NIES Data Explorer at
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/niesdata/. While not included in this
report, results from the 2011 eighth-grade science assessment are available for
AI/AN students along with the results for other racial/ethnic groups in the NAEP
Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.

INTRODUCTION

Interpreting Results
AI/AN students’ performance in reading and
mathematics is reported for 2011 and three previous
assessment years. Changes in students’ performance over time are summarized in the text by
comparing the results in 2011 to results from the
last assessment in 2009 and the first assessment
in 2005, except when pointing out consistent
patterns across assessment years. Although NIES
questionnaires were administered in all four years,
the results from the 2011 survey can only be
compared to those from 2009 because of changes
in the wording of the survey questions between
2005 and 2009 (see the Technical Notes for
more information).
When making comparisons across years or between
groups, NAEP reports results using widely accepted
statistical standards; findings are reported based on
a statistical significance level set at .05 with
appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons
(see the Technical Notes for more information).
Only those differences that are found to be statistically significant are discussed as higher or lower.

Cautions in Interpretation
NIES survey results are based on information
collected from questionnaires completed by AI/AN
students, their teachers, and their school administrators. Although those administering the study
were available to assist students, the results may
still be limited if respondents did not understand or
have the information to answer the questions, or
were not willing to share the information they had.
Although comparisons are made among the results
for AI/AN students in high and low density public
schools and BIE schools, these should not be

interpreted as evidence that the density of the
AI/AN school population or the school type are
the causes of any significant differences in other
student, teacher, and school characteristics.
NAEP is not designed to identify the causes of
changes or differences in student achievement or
characteristics. Further, the many factors that may
influence average student achievement scores also
change across time and vary according to geographic
location. These include, for example, educational
policies and practices, available resources, and the
demographic characteristics of the student body.
Because NAEP scales are developed independently
for reading and mathematics, scores cannot be
compared across subjects. Although reading and
mathematics results are reported on a 0–500
cross-grade scale for each subject, the results from
assessments in 2005 through 2011 were analyzed
separately for each grade, and comparisons of
scores across grades are not as strongly supported
by the data, so they are therefore discouraged.
When comparing the performance of AI/AN
students from different states, it is important to
consider how these states differ in school and
student characteristics. For example, states vary
in the percentages of AI/AN students attending
different types of schools and schools in different
locations. States also vary in the percentages of
AI/AN students eligible for the National School
Lunch Program (NSLP) and in the percentages of
students with disabilities and English language learners.
Additional information on how the states with large
proportions of AI/AN students differ in these areas
is available on the Web at http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/nies/nies_2011/
statereg_sum.asp.

NIES

Characteristics of AI/AN Students
Information about how student characteristics differ
across groups helps to provide some context for
interpreting results. Data collected from the NAEP
questionnaires show differences between AI/AN
students and non-AI/AN students, and between
AI/AN students attending different types of schools.
In 2011, larger percentages of AI/AN students than
non-AI/AN students overall (including Black, Hispanic,
White, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander,
and students of two or more races) attended schools
in rural locations and were eligible for the NSLP
(an indicator of low family income) at both grades
4 and 8 (table 1). Smaller percentages of AI/AN
students than non-AI/AN students had more
than 25 books at home or had a computer in the
home.

When compared to other selected racial/ethnic
groups, the percentages of fourth- and eighth-grade
AI/AN students eligible for the NSLP were
higher than the percentages of White and
Asian students, but lower than the percentage
of Hispanic students. The percentage of
AI/AN students who reported having more than
25 books in the home was higher than the percentage of Hispanic students and lower than the percentages of White and Asian students at both
grades. The percentage of eighth-grade AI/AN
students reporting that at least one parent had some
education beyond high school was smaller than the
percentages of Black, White, and Asian students but
larger than the percentage of Hispanic students.

Table 1. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade students, by race/ethnicity and selected student
characteristics: 2011

Other racial/ethnic groups
Characteristic

AI/AN

Non-AI/AN

Black

Hispanic

White

Asian

Grade 4
Attend rural schools

21*

13*

10*

30*

12*

English language learners

38*

19*

Students with disabilities

11*

10*

11*

Eligible for National School Lunch Program

48*

78*

30*

More than 25 books in home

66*

44*

79*

72*

Computer in home

90*

87*

83*

93*

96*

No days absent from school

50*

49*

50*

65*

22*

14*

11*

29*

English language learners

20*

11*

Students with disabilities

10*

Eligible for National School Lunch Program

44*

70*

73*

27*

35*

Parental education beyond high school

65*

39*

75*

71*

More than 25 books in home

63*

40*

74*

71*

Computer in home

93*

91*

88*

96*

98*

No days absent from school

46*

43*

45*

66*

Grade 8
Attend rural schools

# Rounds to zero.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from AI/AN students.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown separately for students whose
race/ethnicity was Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or two or more races but are included in the results for non-AI/AN students. Information on parental education was not collected at grade 4.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

INTRODUCTION

AI/AN students differ in terms of the types of
schools they attend. In 2011, most AI/AN students
attended public schools (89 percent at grade 4 and
92 percent at grade 8). The percentages of AI/AN
students attending federally supported BIE schools
were 7 percent at grade 4 and 6 percent at grade 8.
The remaining students (4 percent at grade 4 and
2 percent at grade 8) attended other types of
schools, including private schools.
The proportion of AI/AN students in the schools
they attended also differed. Fifty percent of AI/AN
fourth-graders and 44 percent of eighth-graders
attended high density schools where 25 percent or
more of the students were AI/AN, including those in

BIE schools. The remaining AI/AN students
(50 percent at grade 4 and 56 percent at grade 8)
attended low density schools where less than
25 percent of the students were AI/AN.
At both grades 4 and 8, higher percentages of
AI/AN students in BIE schools and high density
public schools than in low density public schools
attended schools in rural locations, were identified
as English language learners, and were eligible for
the NSLP (table 2). Lower percentages of
students in BIE and high density public schools
than in low density public schools reported
having more than 25 books or a computer in
the home.

Table 2. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade AI/AN students, by school type/density and selected
student characteristics: 2011

School type/density
Low density
public schools

High density
public schools

68a

English language learners

13a

40a, b

Students with disabilities

Characteristic

BIE schools

Grade 4
Attend rural schools

91a, b

87a

Eligible for National School Lunch Program

More than 25 books in home

44a

Computer in home

74a

68a, b

No days absent from school

71a

91a, b

English language learners

25a, b

Students with disabilities

10a

16b

Eligible for National School Lunch Program

78a

Parental education beyond high school

Grade 8
Attend rural schools

37a, b

90a, b
44a, b

35a

More than 25 books in home

Computer in home

77a

67a, b

No days absent from school

a Significantly different (p < .05) from low density public schools.
b Significantly different (p < .05) from high density public schools.

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. BIE = Bureau of Indian Education. School density indicates the proportion of AI/AN students enrolled. Low density schools have less than
25 percent AI/AN students. High density schools have 25 percent or more. Results are not shown for Department of Defense and private schools. Information on parental education was not
collected at grade 4.

NIES

Reading Results
The NAEP reading assessment measures students’ reading comprehension
by asking them to read selected grade-appropriate materials and answer
questions based on what they have read.
The National Assessment Governing Board
oversees the development of NAEP frameworks
that describe the specific knowledge and skills to
be assessed in each subject. Frameworks incorporate
ideas and input from subject area experts, school
administrators, policymakers, teachers, parents, and
others. The Reading Framework for the 2011 National
Assessment of Educational Progress describes the
types of texts and questions to be included in the
assessment, as well as how the questions should
be designed and scored.
The 2011 reading framework carries forward changes
that were made in 2009 to include more emphasis on
literary and informational texts, a redefinition of
reading cognitive processes, a systematic assessment
of vocabulary knowledge, and the addition of poetry
to grade 4. Results from special analyses conducted

in 2009 determined that, even with these changes
to the assessment, results could continue to be
compared to those from earlier assessment years.
The complete reading framework for the 2011
assessment is available at http://www.nagb.org/
publications/frameworks/reading-2011-framework
.pdf and contains detailed information on the content
and design of the 2011 reading assessment.
The development of the NAEP reading framework
was guided by scientifically based reading research
that defines reading as a dynamic cognitive process
that involves
• understanding written text;
• developing and interpreting meaning; and
• using meaning as appropriate to the type of text,
purpose, and situation.

READING RESULTS

Types of Text

Meaning Vocabulary

Drawing on an extensive research base, the NAEP
reading framework specifies the use of literary and
informational texts in the assessment.

The framework also calls for a systematic assessment
of meaning vocabulary. Vocabulary assessment occurs
in the context of a particular passage; that is, questions measure students’ understanding of word
meaning as intended by the author, as well as
passage comprehension.

Literary texts include fiction, literary nonfiction,
and poetry.
Informational texts include exposition,
argumentation and persuasive texts, and
procedural texts and documents.

Assessment Design

Reading Cognitive Targets
The term cognitive target refers to the mental
processes or kinds of thinking that underlie reading
comprehension. The framework specifies that the
assessment questions measure three cognitive
targets for both literary and informational texts.
Locate and Recall. When locating or recalling
information from what they have read, students
may identify explicitly stated main ideas or may
focus on specific elements of a story.
Integrate and Interpret. When integrating and
interpreting what they have read, students may
make comparisons, explain character motivation,
or examine relations of ideas across the text.
Critique and Evaluate. When critiquing or evaluating
what they have read, students view the text critically
by examining it from numerous perspectives or may
evaluate overall text quality or the effectiveness of
particular aspects of the text.
The proportion of the assessment questions devoted
to each of the three cognitive targets varies by grade
to reflect the developmental differences of students
(table 3).

The NAEP 2011 reading assessment included a variety
of texts. Each text was part of a section that included
a mix of approximately 10 multiple-choice and
constructed-response questions. At grade 4, the
assessment was distributed across 10 sections; at
grade 8, it was distributed across 13 sections. Each
student read passages and responded to questions
in two 25-minute sections.
The distribution of literary and informational
texts for each grade reflects the kinds of texts
that students read across the curriculum. About
50 percent of the texts used in the grade 4
assessment were literary, and 50 percent were
informational. At grade 8, literary texts made up
about 45 percent of the assessment, and informational texts made up 55 percent. Examples of
questions that accompanied one passage from
each grade are presented in this report. The
complete passage associated with the selected
questions, along with additional reading passages
and questions from the 2011 assessment, can be
viewed on the Web at http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/.

Table 3. Target percentage distribution of NAEP
reading questions, by grade and cognitive
target: 2011
Cognitive target

Grade 4

Grade 8

Locate and recall

Integrate and interpret

Critique and evaluate

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board, Reading Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2010.

NIES

GRADE 4

No significant change in AI/AN students’ reading performance at grade 4
The average reading score for AI/AN fourth-graders
in 2011 was not significantly different from the scores
in previous assessment years (figure 1). In 2011,
AI/AN students scored 19 points lower on average
than non-AI/AN students, which did not differ
significantly from the score gap in earlier years.

Figure 1. Trend in NAEP reading average scores
and score gaps for fourth-grade AI/AN
and non-AI/AN students

Just under one-half (47 percent) of AI/AN fourthgraders performed at or above the Basic level in
reading in 2011 (figure 2). Twenty-nine percent
performed at the Basic level, 14 percent at the
Proficient level, and 4 percent at the Advanced level.
The percentages of AI/AN students performing at
Basic, Proficient, and Advanced in 2011 were not
significantly different from the percentages in earlier
assessment years.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scores.

Figure 2. Trend in NAEP reading achievement-level results for fourth-grade AI/AN students

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Examples of Reading Comprehension Demonstrated by Fourth-Graders
Performing at Each Achievement Level:
Basic

Advanced

• Interpret a character’s statement to provide
a character trait.
• Recognize explicitly stated dialogue from
a story.

• Use story events to support an opinion about
the type of story.
• Infer the reason why a story event is
challenging for a character.

Proficient
• Locate and recognize relevant information
in a highly detailed expository text.
• Use information from an article to provide and
support an opinion.

READING RESULTS

GRADE 8

No significant change in non-AI/AN – AI/AN score gap at grade 8
Eighth-grade AI/AN students scored lower on
average in reading than non-AI/AN students in 2011
(figure 3). The 13-point score gap in 2011 did not differ
significantly from the gap in previous assessment
years. In comparison to the results from both 2005
and 2009, the average score for non-AI/AN students
was higher in 2011 and the average score for AI/AN
students did not change significantly in 2011.

Figure 3. Trend in NAEP reading average scores and
score gaps for eighth-grade AI/AN and nonAI/AN students

Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of AI/AN eighthgraders performed at or above the Basic level in 2011
(figure 4). Forty-one percent performed at the
Basic level, 20 percent at the Proficient level, and
2 percent at the Advanced level. The percentages of
AI/AN students performing at Basic, Proficient, and
Advanced in 2011 were not significantly different from
the percentages in earlier assessment years.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scores.

Figure 4. Trend in NAEP reading achievement-level results for eighth-grade AI/AN students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Examples of Reading Comprehension Demonstrated by Eighth-Graders
Performing at Each Achievement Level:
Basic

Advanced

• Recognize the motivation of the narrator
in a literary essay.
• Recognize the main purpose of an
informative article.

• Form an opinion about a central issue in a
persuasive text and support with references.
• Synthesize information across a story to
identify the theme and support with
relevant text.

Proficient
• Locate and recognize a relevant fact in a
highly detailed informative article.
• Evaluate how a subheading relates to the
passage and provide text support.

NIES

GRADE 4

Female AI/AN fourth-graders
score higher than male
AI/AN students

Figure 5. Trend in NAEP reading average scores
and score gaps for fourth-grade AI/AN
students, by gender

Female AI/AN students scored higher on average in
reading than male AI/AN students in 2011 at grade 4
(figure 5). The 12-point score gap between the two
groups in 2011 was not significantly different from the
gap in earlier assessment years.

Percentage of AI/AN students
eligible for school lunch
increases at grade 4
Students’ eligibility for the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP) is used in NAEP as an indicator of
family income. Students from lower-income families
are eligible for either free or reduced-price school
lunches, while students from higher-income families
are not. Seventy-two percent of AI/AN fourth-graders
participating in the 2011 reading assessment were
eligible for NSLP, which was higher than the
66 percent eligible in 2009 and the 65 percent
eligible in 2005 (see the Technical Notes for
more information).

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scores.

Figure 6. Trend in NAEP reading average scores and
score gaps for fourth-grade AI/AN students, by
eligibility for National School Lunch Program

In 2011, AI/AN students who were eligible for NSLP
scored 23 points lower on average than students
who were not eligible (figure 6). In comparison to
previous assessment years, reading scores in 2011
did not change significantly for students who were
eligible for NSLP or for students who were not eligible.

41% of AI/AN
fourth-graders
reported reading for
fun on their own time
almost every day.

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scores.

READING RESULTS

GRADE 8

No significant change in AI/AN
gender gap at grade 8

Figure 7. Trend in NAEP reading average scores
and score gaps for eighth-grade AI/AN
students, by gender

In 2011, female AI/AN eighth-graders scored 9 points
higher on average than male AI/AN students, which
was not significantly different from the gender score
gap in any of the earlier assessment years (figure 7).
Neither male nor female students had a significant
change in the average scores in comparison to 2009
or 2005.

AI/AN eighth-graders from
higher-income families score
higher than in 2005
The average reading score in 2011 for AI/AN eighthgraders who were not eligible for NSLP was not
significantly different from the score in 2009, but
was higher than the score in 2005 (figure 8). The
score in 2011 for students who were eligible for NSLP
was not significantly different from the score in either
2009 or 2005.
In 2011, AI/AN students who were eligible for NSLP
scored 20 points lower on average than students
who were not eligible. The score gap in 2011 was not
significantly different from the score gaps in earlier
assessment years.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scores.

Figure 8. Trend in NAEP reading average scores and
score gaps for eighth-grade AI/AN students, by
eligibility for National School Lunch Program

Although not shown here, 66 percent of AI/AN
eighth-graders participating in the 2011 reading
assessment were eligible for NSLP, which was
higher than the percentages in 2009 (62 percent)
and 2005 (60 percent).

23% of AI/AN
eighth-graders
reported reading for
fun on their own time
almost every day.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scores.

NIES

GRADE 4

Fourth-grade AI/AN students
attending schools in suburban
and town locations score higher
than those in rural areas
NAEP results are reported for four mutually
exclusive categories of school location: city, suburb,
town, and rural. Because of changes in location
classifications in 2007, the results by location from
the 2005 assessment are not comparable and are
therefore not presented here (see the Technical
Notes for more information).
In 2011, average reading scores for AI/AN fourthgraders attending schools in suburban and town
locations were higher than for those in rural locations,
but did not differ significantly from the score for
students in cities (figure 9). Scores did not change
significantly from previous assessment years for
students in any of the four locations.

AI/AN fourth-graders in public
schools score higher than those
in BIE schools
At grade 4, AI/AN students attending public schools
scored 22 points higher on average than students
attending BIE schools (figure 10). The average reading
score for students who attended low density public
schools (where less than 25 percent of the students
were AI/AN) was higher than the score for students
in high density public schools (where 25 percent or
more of the students were AI/AN).
In comparison to previous assessment years, there
were no significant changes in average scores in 2011
based on the type of school students attended.
Figure 10. Trend in NAEP reading average scores
for fourth-grade AI/AN students, by
school type/density

Figure 9. Trend in NAEP reading average scores
for fourth-grade AI/AN students, by
school location

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native.

88% of AI/AN fourth-graders had
teachers who reported relying a lot
on state content standards in planning
reading/language arts lessons.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years,
2005–11 National Indian Education Studies.

READING RESULTS

GRADE 8

Eighth-grade AI/AN students
attending schools in city locations
score higher than in 2009
The average reading score for AI/AN eighth-graders
attending schools in city locations was 10 points
higher in 2011 than in 2009 (figure 11). There were
no significant changes from 2009 to 2011 in
the scores for students in suburban, town, or
rural locations.
In 2011, the average scores did not differ significantly
for AI/AN eighth-graders attending schools in city
and suburban locations, and both groups scored
higher than students in rural locations. The average
score for students attending schools in towns was
also lower than the score for students in cities.
Figure 11. Trend in NAEP reading average scores
for eighth-grade AI/AN students, by
school location

AI/AN eighth-graders in BIE
schools score higher than in 2009
The average reading score for AI/AN eighth-graders
attending BIE schools in 2011 was higher than the
score in 2009, but was not significantly different
from the score in 2005 (figure 12). Average scores
in 2011 did not change significantly in comparison
to 2009 or 2005 for students attending public
schools overall or for those in low and high density
public schools.
In 2011, students attending public schools scored
19 points higher on average than those in BIE schools.
The average score for students attending low density
public schools was higher than the score for those in
high density schools in 2011.
Figure 12. Trend in NAEP reading average scores
for eighth-grade AI/AN students, by
school type/density

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. BIE = Bureau of Indian Education. School density
indicates the proportion of AI/AN students enrolled. Low density schools have less than 25 percent
AI/AN students. High density schools have 25 percent or more.

33% of AI/AN eighth-graders had reading
teachers who reported integrating AI/AN
culture and history into reading/language
arts instruction at least once a month.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years,
2005–11 National Indian Education Studies.

NIES

GRADE 4

AI/AN fourth-graders in 1 of 12 reported states score higher
than national average
Table 4. Average scores in NAEP reading for fourthgrade AI/AN students, by jurisdiction:
Various years, 2005–11

Among the 12 states with samples large enough to report
results in 2011, Oklahoma was the only state in which the
average reading score for AI/AN fourth-graders was
higher than the score for AI/AN students in the nation
(table 4). Scores in six states (Alaska, Arizona, New
Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah) were
lower than the national average in 2011, and scores in the
remaining five states did not differ significantly from the
score for the nation.

Jurisdiction

A higher proportion of AI/AN students attended BIE
and high density schools in the 12 reported states
(59 percent) than in the rest of the nation (31 percent).
Since these students have average scores lower than
students at low density schools, their relatively high
proportion in the reported states could partially account for
the relatively low performance compared to the nation.

2007

2009

2011

203

204

202

Alaska

183

188*

179

175

Arizona

184

188

183

Minnesota

—

205

199

195

Montana

201

204

206

199

New Mexico

186

193

188

190

North Carolina

—

202

192

North Dakota

198

201

202

205

Oklahoma

211

213

215

212

—

206

210

213

Oregon

There were no significant changes in the scores for any of
the 12 states from 2009 to 2011, or in comparison to the
scores in 2005 for the 7 states that participated in both
assessment years.

South Dakota

Among the 12 selected states, the percentages of
AI/AN fourth-graders performing at or above the Basic
level in reading in 2011 ranged from 26 percent in Alaska
to 61 percent2 in Oregon (figure 13).
In comparison to the nation, the percentages of AI/AN
students at or above Basic were higher in Oklahoma and
lower in Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, and
Utah. All 12 states had some students performing at or
above the Proficient level in 2011.

2005

Nation

194

192

190

191

Utah

—

194

185

Washington

—

204

212

201

— Not available.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. The national and state results reported here
include only public and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools.

Although not shown here, there were no significant
changes in the percentages of AI/AN students performing at Basic, Proficient, or Advanced in comparison to
earlier assessment years for any of the selected states.
2

The percentage is based on the sum of the unrounded percentages as
opposed to the rounded percentages shown in the figure.

Figure 13. Percentage of fourth-grade AI/AN students in NAEP reading, by achievement level and jurisdiction: 2011

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may
not sum to totals because of rounding. The national and
state results reported here include only public and Bureau
of Indian Education (BIE) schools.

READING RESULTS

GRADE 8

No significant change from 2009 in scores for AI/AN eighth-graders
in reported states
There were no significant changes in average reading
scores from 2009 to 2011 for AI/AN eighth-graders in
any of the 12 states participating in both years (table 5).
In comparison to 2005, the average score for AI/AN
students in Montana was higher in 2011.
In 2011, only the average score for AI/AN students in
Oklahoma was higher than the score for AI/AN students
in the nation. Scores were lower than the national average
in five states (Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota,
and South Dakota), and scores in the remaining six states
did not differ significantly from the score for the nation.
Among the 12 selected states, the percentages of
AI/AN eighth-graders performing at or above the Basic
level in 2011 ranged from 44 percent3 in Alaska to
69 percent in Oklahoma (figure 14). In comparison to
the nation, the percentages of AI/AN students at or
above Basic were higher in Oklahoma and lower in Alaska,
Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
All 12 states had some students performing at or above
the Proficient level in 2011.
Although not shown here, there were no significant
changes in the percentages of AI/AN students performing at Basic, Proficient, or Advanced in comparison to 2009
for any of the selected states. However, the percentage of
students at the Proficient level in New Mexico did increase
from 5 percent in 2005 to 13 percent in 2011.
3

Table 5. Average scores in NAEP reading for eighthgrade AI/AN students, by jurisdiction:
Various years, 2005–11
Jurisdiction

2009

2011

Nation

2005
249

2007
247*

251

252

Alaska

240

236

239

234

Arizona

238

232

241

240

Minnesota

—

246

257

258

Montana

247*

249

253

256

New Mexico

236

233*

236

240

North Carolina

—

236

235

245

North Dakota

248

246

242

244

Oklahoma

254

256

258

256

Oregon

—

260

259

256

238

241

242

240

Utah

—

235

244

Washington

—

251

253

South Dakota

The percentage is based on the sum of the unrounded percentages as
opposed to the rounded percentages shown in the figure.

Figure 14. Percentage of eighth-grade AI/AN students in NAEP reading, by achievement level and jurisdiction: 2011

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may
not sum to totals because of rounding. The national and
state results reported here include only public and Bureau
of Indian Education (BIE) schools.

NIES

GRADE 4

Examples of how AI/AN fourth-graders performed on selected
reading questions
The fourth-grade NAEP reading assessment included
a literary passage, “Tough as Daisy,” about a young
girl who moves to a new school and must prove that
she is a good enough wrestler to be on the wrestling

team. The complete passage and all the related
questions are available in the NAEP Questions Tool at
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/.
Results for two of the questions are presented here.

The multiple-choice question presented below
measures fourth-graders’ ability to critique and
evaluate what they have read. Students needed to
recognize the main technique the author of the story
used to portray the main character. Forty-five percent

of all fourth-graders nationally and 34 percent of AI/AN
fourth-graders were able to correctly recognize the
author’s primary technique in portraying the character
(Choice C).

What is the main way the author shows us how Daisy feels?
A
B
C
D

He uses pictures to tell her story.
He tells what other people say about her.
He tells what she is thinking.
He describes the way she wrestles.

Percentage distribution of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Student group

All students
AI/AN students

Choice A

Choice B

Choice C

Choice D

Omitted

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Reading Assessment.

READING RESULTS

Unacceptable responses may have provided story
information that is not a character trait suggested by
the quoted phrase, or responses may have provided
other irrelevant story details.

This short constructed-response question measures
students’ ability to integrate and interpret what they
have read. Students needed to interpret a specific part
of the text to explain what it revealed about the main
character. Responses to this question were rated
using two scoring levels.

The student response shown here was rated “Acceptable” and correctly infers that the phrase indicates
that Daisy is confident and strong. Sixty-four percent
of all fourth-graders nationally and 45 percent of
AI/AN fourth-graders provided responses to this
question that received a rating of “Acceptable.”

Acceptable responses provided a character trait that
is suggested by the quoted phrase.

At the beginning of the story, when some of the boys point and laugh at Daisy, she thinks,
“We’ll see about that.” What does this tell you about Daisy?
ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE:

Percentage distribution of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Student group

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Omitted

All students

AI/AN students

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because the percentage of responses rated as “Off-task” is not shown.
Off-task responses are those that do not provide any information related to the assessment task.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Reading Assessment.

NIES

GRADE 8

Examples of how AI/AN eighth-graders performed on selected
reading questions
The eighth-grade NAEP reading assessment included
an informational article, “1920: Women Get the
Vote,” which provides a historical overview of the
suffragists’ campaign for women’s right to vote and
the subsequent passing of the 19th amendment.
The complete article and all the related questions
are available in the NAEP Questions Tool at
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/.
Results for two of the questions are presented here.

This multiple-choice question measures eighth-grade
students’ performance in locating specific information in
the article about an aspect of the campaign for women’s
rights. Correct responses demonstrated a capacity to
navigate information in a highly detailed paragraph.
Fifty-nine percent of all eighth-grade students nationally
and 59 percent of AI/AN eighth-graders were able to
identify the correct response (Choice B).

According to the article, what was most surprising about the “Womanifesto”?
A
B
C
D

It was written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
It called for equal voting rights for men and women.
It was based on the Declaration of Independence.
It had such a large number of resolutions.

Percentage distribution of eighth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Student group

Choice A

Choice B

Choice C

Choice D

Omitted

All students

AI/AN students

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Reading Assessment.

READING RESULTS

This extended constructed-response question
measures eighth-graders’ ability to evaluate the
author’s choice of words in describing the women’s
suffrage movement and to support their evaluations
with references from the article. Successful responses
demonstrated an understanding of the appropriateness of the language in relation to the content of the
article. Responses to this question were rated using
four scoring levels.

The student response shown below supported an
opinion about the effectiveness of the language in
describing the suffrage movement by explaining
the relation of the words “battle” and “militant”
to the article, and was rated as “Extensive.”
Thirteen percent of all eighth-graders nationally
and 6 percent of AI/AN eighth-graders provided
responses to this question that were rated
as “Extensive.” Twenty-three percent of all students
in the nation and 19 percent of AI/AN students
provided responses that were rated as “Essential.”

Extensive responses supported an evaluation of the
language with two references from the article.

Examples of student responses for each of the four
ratings are available in the NAEP Questions Tool at
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/.

Essential responses supported an evaluation of the
language with one reference from the article.
Partial responses either provided a text-based general
opinion or explained what the language meant.
Unsatisfactory responses provided incorrect information or irrelevant details.

In describing the women’s suffrage movement, the author uses such words as
“battle,” “militant,” and “showdown.” Do you think this is an effective way to
describe the women’s suffrage movement? Support your answer with two references
to the article.
EXTENSIVE RESPONSE:

Percentage distribution of eighth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Student group

All students
AI/AN students

Extensive

Essential

Partial

Unsatisfactory

Omitted

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because the percentage of responses rated as “Off-task” is not shown. Off-task responses are those that do not provide any
information related to the assessment task.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Reading Assessment.

NIES

Mathematics
Results

The NAEP mathematics assessment measures students’ knowledge and
skills in five mathematical content areas and students’ ability to apply
their knowledge in problem-solving situations.

Mathematics Content Areas
To ensure an appropriate balance of content and
allow for a variety of ways of knowing and doing
mathematics, the Mathematics Framework for the 2011
National Assessment of Educational Progress specifies
that each question in the assessment measure one of
five mathematical content areas. Although the names
of the content areas, as well as some of the topics in
those areas, have changed over the years, there has
been a consistent focus across frameworks on
collecting information on students’ performance in
the following five areas:
Number properties and operations measures
students’ understanding of ways to represent,
calculate, and estimate with numbers. At grade 4,
number properties and operations questions focus
on computation with or understanding of whole
numbers and common fractions and decimals. At
grade 8, questions measure computation with rational
and common irrational numbers as well as students’
ability to solve problems using proportional reasoning
and apply properties of select number systems.
Measurement assesses students’ knowledge of units
of measurement for such attributes as capacity, length,
area, volume, time, angles, and rates. At grade 4,
measurement questions focus on customary units
such as inch, quart, pound, and hour, and common
metric units such as centimeter, liter, and gram, as
well as the geometric attribute of length. At grade 8,
questions concentrate on the use of square units for
measuring area and surface area, cubic units for
measuring volume, degrees for measuring angles,
and constructed units for rates.

Geometry measures students’ knowledge and
understanding of shapes in two and three dimensions,
and relationships between shapes such as symmetry
and transformations. At grade 4, geometry questions
focus on simple figures and their attributes, including
plane figures such as triangles and circles and solid
figures such as cubes and spheres. At grade 8,
questions address the properties of plane figures,
especially parallel and perpendicular lines, angle
relationships in polygons, cross sections of solids,
and the Pythagorean theorem.
Data analysis, statistics, and probability measures
students’ understanding of data representation,
characteristics of datasets, experiments and samples,
and probability. At grade 4, data analysis, statistics,
and probability questions focus on students’ understanding of how data are collected and organized,
how to read and interpret various representations of
data, and basic concepts of probability. At grade 8,
questions address organizing and summarizing data
(including tables, charts, and graphs), analyzing
statistical claims, and probability.
Algebra measures students’ understanding of
patterns, using variables, algebraic representation,
and functions. At grade 4, algebra questions measure
students’ understanding of algebraic representation,
patterns, and rules; graphing points on a line or a grid;
and using symbols to represent unknown quantities.
At grade 8, questions measure students’ understanding of patterns and functions; algebraic expressions,
equations, and inequalities; and algebraic representations, including graphs.

MATHEMATICS RESULTS

Levels of Mathematical
Complexity
The framework describes three levels of
mathematical complexity that reflect the cognitive
demands that questions make on students’ thinking.
Low complexity questions typically specify what a
student is to do, which is often to carry out a routine
mathematical procedure.
Moderate complexity questions involve more
flexibility of thinking and often require a response
with multiple steps.
High complexity questions make heavier demands
on students’ thinking and often require abstract
reasoning or analysis in a novel situation.
Mathematical complexity involves what a question
asks students to do and not how they might undertake it. The complexity of a question is not directly
related to its format, and therefore it is possible for
some multiple-choice questions to assess complex
mathematics and for some constructed-response
questions to assess routine mathematics.

Assessment Design
The 158 questions that made up the entire fourthgrade assessment were divided into 10 sections,
each containing between 15 and 19 questions,
depending on the balance between multiple-choice
and constructed-response questions. The eighthgrade assessment contained 155 questions that
were divided into 10 sections of between 14 and
17 questions. At both grades, each student responded
to questions in two 25-minute sections.

Some questions incorporated the use of rulers (at
grade 4) or ruler/protractors (at grade 8), and some
questions incorporated the use of geometric shapes
or other manipulatives that were provided for
students. Twenty percent of the fourth-grade assessment allowed for the use of a four-function calculator
that was provided to students. Thirty percent of the
eighth-grade assessment allowed for the use of a
scientific or graphing calculator; students could either
use their own calculator or one provided by NAEP.
The proportion of assessment questions devoted to
each of the five content areas varied by grade to
reflect the differences in emphasis in each area
specified in the framework (table 6). The largest
portion of the fourth-grade assessment focused on
number properties and operations (40 percent), and
the largest portion of the eighth-grade assessment
focused on algebra (30 percent). The complete
mathematics framework for the 2011 assessment is
available at http://www.nagb.org/publications/
frameworks/math-2011-framework.pdf and contains
detailed information on the content and design of the
2011 mathematics assessment.
Table 6. Target percentage distribution of NAEP
mathematics questions, by grade and
content area: 2011
Content area

Grade 4

Grade 8

Number properties and operations

Measurement

Geometry

Data analysis, statistics, and probability

Algebra

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board, Mathematics Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2010.

NIES

GRADE 4

Score gap between non-AI/AN and AI/AN fourth-graders larger
than in 2005
In 2011, AI/AN students scored lower on average
in mathematics than the non-AI/AN students at
grade 4. The 16-point score gap in 2011 was not
significantly different from the score gap in 2009
and larger than the gap in 2005 (figure 15). The
average score for AI/AN students in 2011 was not
significantly different from the score in 2009 or
2005, while the average score for non-AI/AN
students was higher in 2011 than in both 2009
and 2005.
Two-thirds of AI/AN fourth-graders performed
at or above the Basic level in mathematics in 2011
(figure 16). Forty-four percent performed at the
Basic level, 20 percent at the Proficient level, and
2 percent at the Advanced level. The percentages of
AI/AN students performing at Basic, Proficient, and
Advanced in 2011 were not significantly different
from the percentages in earlier assessment years.

Figure 15. Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores
and score gaps for fourth-grade AI/AN and
non-AI/AN students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scores.

Figure 16. Trend in NAEP mathematics achievement-level results for fourth-grade AI/AN students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Examples of Knowledge and Skills Demonstrated by Fourth-Graders
Performing at Each Achievement Level:
Basic

Advanced

• Compute the difference between two
4-digit numbers.
• Describe a real-world object in terms of
a geometric solid.

• Solve a story problem involving time.
• Compare two sets of data using graphs.

Proficient
• Draw a line segment of a given length.
• Order fractions with unlike denominators.

MATHEMATICS RESULTS

GRADE 8

Non-AI/AN – AI/AN score gap larger than in 2005 at grade 8
Eighth-grade AI/AN students scored 19 points lower
on average in mathematics than non-AI/AN students
in 2011, which was not significantly different from
the score gap in 2009 but was larger than the gap
in 2005 (figure 17). The average score for AI/AN
students in 2011 did not change significantly in
comparison to earlier assessment years, while the
score for non-AI/AN students was higher in 2011
than in earlier years.
Fifty-five percent of AI/AN eighth-graders performed
at or above the Basic level in 2011 (figure 18). Thirtyeight percent performed at the Basic level, 14 percent
at the Proficient level, and 3 percent at the Advanced
level. The percentages of AI/AN students performing
at the Basic and Proficient levels in 2011 were not
significantly different from the percentages in earlier
assessment years. The percentage of students at
Advanced in 2011 was not significantly different from
the percentage in 2009 but was higher than the
percentage in 2005.

Figure 17. Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores
and score gaps for eighth-grade AI/AN and
non-AI/AN students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scores.

Figure 18. Trend in NAEP mathematics achievement-level results for eighth-grade AI/AN students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Examples of Knowledge and Skills Demonstrated by Eighth-Graders
Performing at Each Achievement Level:
Basic

Advanced

• Identify congruent angles in a figure.
• Identify a graph that shows how
speed changed.

• Recognize a unit of volume.
• Make a prediction using a line of best fit.

Proficient
• Use an algebraic model to estimate height.
• Solve a problem involving unit conversions.

NIES

GRADE 4

No difference in performance
of male and female AI/AN
fourth-graders in 2011

Figure 19. Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores for
fourth-grade AI/AN students, by gender

There was no significant difference between the
average mathematics scores in 2011 for male and
female AI/AN students at grade 4 (figure 19). In
comparison to previous assessment years, neither
the score for male students nor the score for female
students changed significantly in 2011.

No significant change in score
gap between lower- and higherincome AI/AN students at
grade 4
Students’ eligibility for the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP) is used in NAEP as an indicator of
family income. Students from lower-income families
are eligible for either free or reduced-price school
lunches while students from higher-income families
are not (see the Technical Notes for eligibility criteria).
Seventy-two percent of AI/AN fourth-graders
participating in the 2011 mathematics assessment
were eligible for NSLP in 2011, which was higher than
the 64 percent eligible in 2005.

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native.

Figure 20. Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores
and score gaps for fourth-grade AI/AN
students, by eligibility for National School
Lunch Program

In 2011, AI/AN fourth-graders who were eligible for
NSLP scored 17 points lower on average than students
who were not eligible (figure 20). In comparison to
previous assessment years, there were no significant
changes in the scores in 2011 for students who were
either eligible or not eligible for NSLP.

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scores.

76% of AI/AN fourth-graders had teachers
who reported never having them study
traditional AI/AN mathematics
(e.g., systems of counting, estimating, and recording quantities).

MATHEMATICS RESULTS

GRADE 8

No AI/AN gender gap in
mathematics at grade 8

Figure 21. Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores
for eighth-grade AI/AN students, by gender

In 2011, the average mathematics score for female
AI/AN eighth-graders did not differ significantly from
the score for male AI/AN students (figure 21). In
comparison to previous assessment years, neither
the average score for male AI/AN students nor the
score for female AI/AN students changed significantly in 2011.

No significant change in scores
for lower- or higher-income
AI/AN eighth-graders
In comparison to previous assessment years, average
mathematics scores did not change significantly in
2011 for either AI/AN eighth-graders from lowerincome families who were eligible for NSLP or for
those from higher-income families who were not
eligible (figure 22).

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native.

Figure 22. Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores
and score gaps for eighth-grade AI/AN
students, by eligibility for National School
Lunch Program

In 2011, AI/AN students who were eligible for NSLP
scored 20 points lower on average than students who
were not eligible. The score gap between the two
groups of students in 2011 was not significantly
different from the gap in previous assessment years.
Although not shown here, 66 percent of AI/AN
eighth-graders participating in the 2011 mathematics
assessment were eligible for NSLP, which was higher
than the percentage in 2009 (59 percent), and not
significantly different from the percentage in 2005
(64 percent).

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Score gaps are calculated based on differences
between unrounded average scores.

7% of AI/AN eighth-graders reported knowing a
lot about AI/AN systems of counting.

NIES

GRADE 4

Fourth-grade AI/AN students
attending schools in suburban
locations score higher than
those in towns or rural areas
NAEP results are reported for four mutually exclusive
categories of school location: city, suburb, town, and
rural. Because of changes in location classifications
in 2007, the results by location from the 2005
assessment are not comparable and are therefore
not presented here (see the Technical Notes for
more information).
In 2011, the average mathematics score for AI/AN
fourth-graders attending schools in suburban
locations did not differ significantly from the score for
students in cities and was higher than the scores for
those in towns and rural locations (figure 23). There
were no significant differences in scores for students
attending schools in towns, cities, or rural areas.
In comparison to earlier assessment years, scores in
2011 did not change significantly for students in any of
the four locations.

AI/AN fourth-graders in
BIE schools score higher
than in 2009
The average mathematics score for AI/AN fourthgraders attending BIE schools in 2011 was 6 points
higher than in 2009 but not significantly different
from the score in 2005 (figure 24). Scores in 2011
for students attending low density public schools
(where less than 25 percent of the students were
AI/AN) and high density public schools (where
25 percent or more of the students were AI/AN)
did not change significantly in comparison to
previous assessment years.
In 2011, AI/AN students attending public schools
scored 14 points higher on average than students
attending BIE schools. The average score for students
who attended low density public schools was
10 points higher than the score for students in
high density public schools.
Figure 24. Trend in NAEP mathematics average
scores for fourth-grade AI/AN students,
by school type/density

Figure 23. Trend in NAEP mathematics average
scores for fourth-grade AI/AN students,
by school location

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. BIE = Bureau of Indian Education. School density
indicates the proportion of AI/AN students enrolled. Low density schools have less than 25 percent
AI/AN students. High density schools have 25 percent or more.

2% of AI/AN fourth-graders had teachers
who reported relying a lot on AI/AN content
or cultural standards when planning
mathematics lessons.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years,
2005–11 National Indian Education Studies.

MATHEMATICS RESULTS

GRADE 8

No significant difference in
scores for eighth-grade AI/AN
students attending schools in
different locations
In 2011, the average mathematics scores for AI/AN
eighth-graders attending schools in city, suburban,
town, and rural locations did not differ significantly
(figure 25). Scores did not change significantly in
comparison to previous assessment years for AI/AN
students in any of the four locations.
Figure 25. Trend in NAEP mathematics average
scores for eighth-grade AI/AN students,
by school location

AI/AN eighth-graders in public
schools score higher than those
in BIE schools
In 2011, AI/AN eighth-graders attending public
schools scored 17 points higher on average than
those in BIE schools (figure 26). The average score
for students attending low density public schools
was 12 points higher than the score for those in high
density schools in 2011.
Average scores in 2011 for students attending
BIE schools and public schools were not significantly
different from the scores in 2005 or 2009.
Figure 26. Trend in NAEP mathematics average
scores for eighth-grade AI/AN students,
by school type/density

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native.

60% of AI/AN eighth-graders had teachers
who reported never having them solve
mathematics problems that reflect situations
in the AI/AN community.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years,
2005–11 National Indian Education Studies.

NIES

GRADE 4

AI/AN fourth-graders score lower than in 2009 in 1 of 12 reported states
Among the 12 states with samples large enough to
report results, average mathematics scores for AI/AN
fourth-graders were lower in 2011 than in 2009 in
Montana and did not change significantly in the other
11 participating states (table 7). For the seven states
with samples large enough to report results in both
2005 and 2011, scores were higher in Oklahoma, lower
in Alaska, and not significantly different in the other
five states.
In 2011, the average score for AI/AN fourth-graders
in Oklahoma was higher than the score for AI/AN
students in the nation. Scores for AI/AN students in
six states (Alaska, Arizona, Montana, New Mexico,
North Dakota, and South Dakota) were lower than the
national average in 2011, and scores in the remaining
five states did not differ significantly from the score
for the nation.
Among the 12 selected states, the percentages of
AI/AN fourth-graders performing at or above the
Basic level in 2011 ranged from 50 percent in Alaska to
78 percent4 in Oklahoma (figure 27). In comparison
to the nation, the percentages of AI/AN students at or
above Basic were higher in Oklahoma and lower in
Alaska, Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, and South
Dakota. All 12 states had some students performing
at or above the Proficient level in 2011.
4

The percentage is based on the sum of the unrounded percentages as
opposed to the rounded percentages shown in the figure.

Although not shown here, the percentage of students at
Proficient in New Mexico was higher in 2011 (13 percent)
than in 2005 (7 percent). There were no other significant
changes in the percentages of students performing at
Basic, Proficient, or Advanced in comparison to earlier
assessment years for any of the other participating states.
Table 7. Average scores in NAEP mathematics
for fourth-grade AI/AN students, by
jurisdiction: Various years, 2005–11
Jurisdiction

2005

2007

2009

2011

Nation

226

228

225

226

Alaska

220*

218

216

213

Arizona

215

213

215

—

234

232

Minnesota
Montana

223

222

227*

220

New Mexico

215

217

214

218

—

229

232

225

North Carolina
North Dakota

221

223

220

Oklahoma

229*

234

—

220

223

220

217

215

217

218

Oregon
South Dakota
Utah

—

218

214

Washington

—

226

225

222

— Not available.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. The national and state results reported here include
only public and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools.

Figure 27. Percentage of fourth-grade AI/AN students in NAEP mathematics, by achievement level and jurisdiction: 2011

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail
may not sum to totals because of rounding. The national
and state results reported here include only public and
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools.

MATHEMATICS RESULTS

GRADE 8

Most state scores for AI/AN eighth-graders not significantly
different from 2009
Average scores were lower in 2011 than in 2009 for
AI/AN eighth-graders in Minnesota and Utah, and
did not change significantly in any of the other
10 participating states (table 8). In comparison to
2005, scores were higher in 2011 in Oklahoma and
South Dakota, and lower in Alaska.
In 2011, the average score for AI/AN students in
Oklahoma was higher than the score for AI/AN
students in the nation. Scores were lower than
the national average in 2011 in Alaska, Arizona,
New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah. Scores in
the remaining six states did not differ significantly
from the score for the nation.
Among the 12 selected states, the percentages of
AI/AN eighth-graders performing at or above the
Basic level in 2011 ranged from 27 percent in Utah to
64 percent in Oklahoma (figure 28). In comparison to
the nation, the percentages of AI/AN students at or
above Basic were higher in Oklahoma and lower in
Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah. All
12 states had some students performing at or above
the Proficient level in 2011.
Although not shown here, there were no significant
changes in the percentages of students performing at
Basic, Proficient, or Advanced in comparison to 2009 or
2005 for any of the selected states.

Table 8. Average scores in NAEP mathematics
for eighth-grade AI/AN students, by
jurisdiction: Various years, 2005–11
Jurisdiction

2005

2007

2009

2011

Nation

264

266

265

Alaska

264*

260

262

258

Arizona

256

255

254

253

Minnesota

—

266

275*

263

Montana

259

260

263

New Mexico

251

250

252

256

North Carolina

—

261

256

265

North Dakota

260

262

Oklahoma

267*

269

272

Oregon

—

264

273

260

250*

254

260

257

Utah

—

263*

244

Washington

—

264

268

256

South Dakota

— Not available.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. The national and state results reported here include
only public and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools.

Figure 28. Percentage of eighth-grade AI/AN students in NAEP mathematics, by achievement level and jurisdiction: 2011

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. The national and state results reported here include only public
and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools.

NIES

GRADE 4

Examples of how AI/AN fourth-graders performed on selected
mathematics questions
The number properties and operations question
presented to the right asks students to answer a
subtraction problem involving two 4-digit numbers.
The problem requires students to regroup twice to
obtain the correct answer of 1,247 (Choice B).
Students were not permitted to use a calculator to
answer this question.

Subtract:

6,090
– 4,843
A

Seventy-four percent of all fourth-graders nationally
and 68 percent of AI/AN fourth-graders answered
this question correctly in 2011. The most common
incorrect answer (Choice D) resulted from not doing
any regrouping and just subtracting the smaller
number from the corresponding larger number at
each place value. Choices A and C, while selected less
frequently, represent different regrouping errors.

B
C
D

1,147
1,247
2,257
2,853

Percentage distribution of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Student group

All students
AI/AN students

Choice A

Choice B

Choice C

Choice D

Omitted

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS RESULTS

This short constructed-response question from the
measurement content area assesses fourth-graders’
ability to perform computations using units of time.
The first step requires students to determine the
length of the movie from the starting and ending
times of the early show. The second step requires that
they add that length of time to the starting time of the
late show. Students were permitted to use a calculator to solve this question.

MOVIE TIMES
Early Show

3:15

Late Show

7:30

Responses were rated using three scoring levels.
Correct responses gave an answer of 8:42 for the
ending time of the late show and provided supporting
work, which included either showing a computation
for determining the length of the movie from the
times of the early show (4:27 – 3:15 = 1:12, “1 hour and
12 minutes”), or showing the addition of 1:12 to 7:30.
Partial responses did one of the following:
• Gave an answer of 8:42 with no work or
incorrect work;

The early show and the late show for a
movie last the same amount of time.
The early show begins at 3:15 P.M. and
ends at 4:27 P.M. The late show begins
at 7:30 P.M. At what time does the late
show end?
Show your work.
CORRECT RESPONSE:

• Determined the length of the movie (1 hour and
12 minutes) but did not answer 8:42; or
• Incorrectly determined the length of the movie, but
correctly used that time to determine the ending
time of the late show.
Incorrect responses gave an incorrect end time for the
late show.
The student response shown to the right was rated
as “Correct” because it provided the correct answer
with supporting work. Thirty-one percent of all
fourth-graders nationally and 17 percent of
AI/AN fourth-graders provided responses to
this question that received a rating of “Correct.”
Examples of student responses for each of the three
ratings are available in the NAEP Questions Tool at
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/.

Percentage distribution of fourth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Student group

Correct

Partial

Incorrect

Omitted

All students

AI/AN students

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because the percentage of responses rated as “Off-task” is not shown. Off-task
responses are those that do not provide any information related to the assessment task.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

NIES

GRADE 8

Examples of how AI/AN eighth-graders performed on selected
mathematics questions
The algebra question presented below asks students
to identify an equation of a line that satisfies two
conditions: the graph of the line passes through a
given point, and it has a negative slope. The given

point is the y-intercept of the graph of the line, and all
answer choices were presented in slope-intercept
form. Students were not permitted to use a calculator
to answer this question.

Which of the following is an equation of a line that passes through
the point (0, 5) and has a negative slope?
A
B
C
D
E

y = 5x
y = 5x – 5
y = 5x + 5
y = – 5x – 5
y = – 5x + 5

The correct answer (Choice E) was chosen by
31 percent of all eighth-grade students nationally
and 20 percent of AI/AN eighth-graders. Students
who correctly answered this question were able to
recognize properties of a line written in slopeintercept form.

• Choice B is an equation of a line having a positive
slope and y-intercept at (0, -5),
• Choice C is an equation of a line with the correct
y-intercept at (0, 5), but the slope is positive, and
• Choice D is an equation of a line having a negative
slope, but an incorrect y-intercept at (0, -5).

The equations in the incorrect answer choices had the
following properties:

The most commonly selected incorrect answer
(Choice B) may have been the result of reversing the
signs of the values in the equation that represents the
slope and the y-intercept.

• Choice A is an equation of a line having a positive
slope and y-intercept at (0, 0),

Percentage distribution of eighth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Student group

Choice A

Choice B

Choice C

Choice D

Choice E

Omitted

All students

AI/AN students

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

MATHEMATICS RESULTS

This short constructed-response question from
the data analysis, statistics, and probability content
area asks students to label (either yellow or blue)
the sectors of a spinner that has been divided into
6 congruent sectors to match a given probability.
To answer this question correctly, students must
determine how many of the sectors need to be
labeled yellow and how many sectors need to be
labeled blue, so that the probability of spinning the
arrow one time and landing on a sector labeled yellow
is 31 . Students who correctly answered this question
recognized that the given probability, 31 , needed to
be converted to sixths to correspond to the 6 sectors
2
on the spinner. Since 31 is equivalent to 6 , a total
of 2 sectors need to be labeled yellow, and the
remaining 4 sectors need to be labeled blue.
Students were permitted to use a calculator to
solve this question.

The circular spinner shown below is
divided into 6 congruent sectors.
The sectors are yellow or blue.

Label each of the sectors either
yellow (Y) or blue (B) so that the
probability of spinning the arrow
once and landing on yellow is 31 .

Responses were rated using two scoring levels.
Correct responses labeled the spinner so that
2 sectors were labeled yellow and 4 sectors were
labeled blue. (Part of the requirement for a rating
of “Correct” was to label each sector of the spinner,
including the correct number of blue sectors.)

CORRECT RESPONSE:

Incorrect responses did not have the correct number
of sectors labeled yellow or blue.
The student response shown to the right was rated
as “Correct” because 2 sectors are labeled “Y” for
yellow and 4 sectors are labeled “B” for blue.
Fifty-two percent of all eighth-graders nationally
and 33 percent of AI/AN eighth-graders provided
responses to this question that received a rating
of “Correct.”
Percentage distribution of eighth-grade students in each
response category: 2011
Student group

Correct

Incorrect

Omitted

All students

AI/AN students

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because the
percentage of responses rated as “Off-task” is not shown. Off-task responses are those that do not
provide any information related to the assessment task.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment.

NIES

Survey Results
NIES background questionnaires were completed by AI/AN students at
grades 4 and 8, their reading/language arts and mathematics teachers,
and their school administrators. The survey questions were designed to
address issues, such as those related to identifying practices and methods
that raise the academic achievement of AI/AN students, and assessing the
role of native language and culture in fostering that improvement. Complete
copies of the NIES student, teacher, and school questionnaires are available
online at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nies/questionnaire.asp.

Fifty-six percent of AI/AN fourth-graders have at least some
knowledge about their tribe or group
AI/AN students’ responses to questions regarding
how much they know about their AI/AN history and
traditions provide some insight into their acculturation
and self-identity. In 2011, a total of 56 percent5 of
AI/AN fourth-graders reported knowing some or a
lot about their tribe or group’s history, traditions, or
crafts, and 44 percent reported knowing a little or
nothing (table 9). Among the four responses
students were able to choose from, the smallest
percentage of students (15 percent) reported
knowing nothing at all. In comparison to 2009, a
higher percentage of students reported having some
knowledge about their tribe or group in 2011.
5

Table 9. Percentage distribution of fourth-grade
AI/AN students, by their responses to a
question about their AI/AN heritage:
2009 and 2011
How much do you know
about your American Indian
tribe or Alaska Native
group (history, traditions,
or arts and crafts)?
Nothing A little
2009
15
30
2011
15
29

Some A lot
30*
25
33
24

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

The percentage is based on the sum of the unrounded percentages as
opposed to the rounded percentages shown in the table.

Figure 29. Percentage of fourth-grade AI/AN students
who reported that they have some or a lot of
knowledge about their AI/AN heritage, by
school type/density: 2011

In 2011, a higher percentage of AI/AN students
attending BIE schools than low density public schools
reported having some or a lot of knowledge about
AI/AN history and traditions (figure 29).

Significantly different (p < .05) from low density public schools.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. BIE = Bureau of Indian Education. School
density indicates the proportion of AI/AN students enrolled. Low density schools have less than
25 percent AI/AN students. High density schools have 25 percent or more. Results are not
shown separately for Department of Defense and private schools.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
2009 and 2011 National Indian Education Studies.

SURVEY RESULTS

A smaller percentage of AI/AN eighth-graders than in 2009 report
knowing a lot about AI/AN issues
In addition to questions about their knowledge of
AI/AN history and traditions, AI/AN eighth-graders
were also asked how much they knew about issues
important to AI/AN people. A total of 43 percent
of students reported having at least some knowledge
about current AI/AN issues in 2011, and 57 percent
reported knowing a little or nothing (table 10). In
comparison to 2009, the percentage of students
who reported knowing nothing about such issues
was higher in 2011, and the percentage who reported
knowing a lot was lower.

Table 10. Percentage distribution of eighth-grade
AI/AN students, by their responses to a
question about their AI/AN heritage:
2009 and 2011
How much do you know
about each of the
following?
Nothing A little
Your AI/AN history
2009
9
25
2011
10
26
Your AI/AN traditions
and culture (way of life,
customs)
2009
18
28
2011
19
27
Issues today that are
important to AI/AN
people
2009
23*
30
2011
26
31

In 2011, the percentages of AI/AN eighth-graders
who reported having some knowledge of their
AI/AN history (39 percent) and some knowledge
of AI/AN traditions and cultures (32 percent) were
higher than the percentages of students who
reported knowing nothing, a little, or a lot. There
were no significant changes from 2009 to 2011 in
the percentages of students selecting any of the four
responses to either of these two questions.

Figure 30. Percentage of eighth-grade AI/AN students
who reported that they have some or a lot
of knowledge about their AI/AN heritage,
by school type/density: 2011

Some

A lot

41
39

25
25

32
32

22
22

31
29

16*
14

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

For each of the three questions about their AI/AN
knowledge, higher percentages of students in BIE
schools than in high or low density public schools
reported knowing some or a lot in 2011, and higher
percentages of students in high density public
schools than in low density schools reported
knowing some or a lot (figure 30).

Significantly different (p < .05) from low density public schools.
Significantly different (p < .05) from high density public schools.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. BIE = Bureau of Indian Education. School
density indicates the proportion of AI/AN students enrolled. Low density schools have less than
25 percent AI/AN students. High density schools have 25 percent or more. Results are not shown
separately for Department of Defense and private schools.

NIES

Forty-six percent of AI/AN fourth-graders get daily help with
schoolwork from their family
AI/AN students were asked how often a family
member, a teacher, another student, or someone
else from the community helped them with their
schoolwork, including helping to study for a test,
helping with a school project, or going over
homework. Fourth-graders’ responses provide
information on the extent to which young AI/AN
students are getting one-on-one attention.

Table 11. Percentage distribution of fourth-grade
AI/AN students, by their responses to a
question about getting help with their
schoolwork: 2009 and 2011
How often do any of
the following people
help you with your
schoolwork?
Parent or someone
else from your family
2009
2011
Teacher or another
adult from your
school
2009
2011
Another student
from your school
2009
2011
Someone else from
your community or a
friend of your family
2009
2011

In 2011, a total of 73 percent6 of AI/AN fourthgraders reported getting help with their schoolwork
from a parent or family member once a week or
more, and a total of 62 percent6 reported getting
help from a teacher at least once a week (table 11).
The percentages of students who reported getting
help from a family member or teacher on a daily
basis were higher than the percentages of students
who reported getting their help weekly, monthly,
or never. Higher percentages of students reported
never or hardly ever getting help from another
student (42 percent) or someone else in the
community (44 percent) than getting their help
on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis.
In comparison to the results from 2009, only the
percentage of students who reported getting help
from another student once or twice a week was
higher in 2011.
6

Never or
hardly
ever

Once or
twice a
month

Once or Every day
twice a or almost
week every day

13
13

13
14

27
26

47
46

23
22

16
16

27
29

34
34

44
42

20
20

22*
25

14
14

44
44

18
19

21
21

17
15

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

The percentage is based on the sum of the unrounded percentages as
opposed to the rounded percentages shown in the table.

Figure 31. Percentage of fourth-grade AI/AN students
who reported that they receive help with their
schoolwork from various individuals once a week
or more, by school type/density: 2011

In 2011, a higher percentage of students in low
density public schools than in BIE schools reported a
parent or family member helped them with schoolwork once a week or more (figure 31). Higher
percentages of students in BIE schools than in high
or low density public schools reported getting help
once a week or more from a teacher, another
student, or someone else from the community.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center
for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
2009 and 2011 National Indian Education Studies.

SURVEY RESULTS

Almost two-thirds of AI/AN eighth-graders report never talking to a
school counselor about classes for high school or future plans
Eighth-grade students were asked how often they
talked to a family member, teacher, school counselor,
another student, or someone outside their family or
school about what classes to take in high school or
about what they wanted to do after high school.
Students’ responses to this question provide some
insight into the extent to which AI/AN students are
receiving encouragement and guidance regarding
their expectations and career goals (table 12).

Table 12. Percentage distribution of eighth-grade
AI/AN students, by their responses to a
question about discussing their class
choices and their futures with various
people: 2009 and 2011
During 8th grade, how many
times have you talked to each
of the following people about
the classes you should take in
high school or about what you
want to do after high school?
A family member
2009
2011
A teacher
2009
2011
A school counselor
2009
2011
Another student
2009
2011
Someone outside of your
family or school
2009
2011

In 2011, higher percentages of students reported
talking to a family member or another student more
frequently (two or three times, or four or more
times) than less frequently (never or one time).
Sixty-three percent of students reported never
talking to a school counselor, which was higher than
the percentages of students who reported talking to
a counselor one time, two or three times, or four or
more times.
In comparison to 2009, only the percentage of
students who reported talking to another student
one time was lower in 2011.

Two or Four or
three more
times times

Never

One
time

10
10

18
18

34
33

39
39

36
34

31
33

23
24

10
9

63
63

20
20

11
12

6
5

17
19

22*
20

29
30

31
31

44
47

21
19

17
17

18
17

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Figure 32. Percentage of eighth-grade AI/AN students
who reported that they discussed their class
choices and their futures with various people
two or more times during eighth grade, by
school type/density: 2011

In 2011, higher percentages of students in low
density public schools than in high density public
schools or BIE schools reported talking to a family
member or another student about their future plans
two or more times (figure 32). A higher percentage
of students in BIE schools than in high or low density
public schools reported talking to someone outside
of their family or school about their future plans two
or more times.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center
for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
2009 and 2011 National Indian Education Studies.

NIES

About one-quarter of AI/AN fourth-graders have teachers who learn
about teaching AI/AN students largely from living and working in an
AI/AN community
Table 13. Percentage distribution of fourth-grade
AI/AN students, by teachers’ responses
to a question about various sources of
learning used for teaching AI/AN students:
2009 and 2011

Teachers of AI/AN students were asked questions
about their background and the classroom experiences of their AI/AN students. Both fourth- and
eighth-grade teachers were asked about the extent
to which they acquired information specific to
teaching AI/AN students from various sources.

To what extent have you
acquired knowledge, skills,
and information specific to
teaching AI/AN students
from each of the following
Not at Small Moderate Large
sources?
all extent
extent extent
Independent reading and
study
2009
23
38
25
13
2011
21
42
25
12
Your own personal or family
background and experiences
2009
35
28
19
18
2011
31
28
23
18
Locally sponsored AI/AN
cultural orientation program
2009
54*
23*
17
7
2011
44
32
17
7
Living and working in an
AI/AN community
2009
45
15
13
27
2011
40
16
17
27

In 2011, at least 56 percent of AI/AN fourth-graders
had teachers who reported acquiring knowledge
about AI/AN students to a small extent or more from
the different sources listed in table 13. Eighteen
percent of students had teachers who reported
acquiring knowledge to a large extent from their own
personal experiences, and 27 percent had teachers
who acquired knowledge to a large extent from living
and working in an AI/AN community.
The percentage of students whose teachers did not
acquire information from a local orientation program
at all was smaller in 2011 than in 2009, and the
percentage of students whose teachers reported
doing so to a small extent was larger in 2011.

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Figure 33. Percentage of fourth-grade AI/AN students
whose teachers reported that they use
various sources of learning for teaching
AI/AN students to a small extent or more,
by school type/density: 2011

In 2011, higher percentages of students in BIE
schools than in high or low density public schools
had teachers who reported learning about AI/AN
students to a small extent or more through independent study, their personal experiences, or living and
working in an AI/AN community (figure 33). Higher
percentages of students attending BIE and high
density public schools than in low density public
schools had teachers who reported acquiring
knowledge to a small extent or more from locally
sponsored AI/AN cultural orientation programs.

SURVEY RESULTS

A smaller percentage of AI/AN eighth-graders than in 2009 have
teachers who report learning about teaching AI/AN students
largely from independent reading and study
Table 14. Percentage distribution of eighth-grade
AI/AN students, by teachers’ responses to
a question about various sources of learning
used for teaching AI/AN students: 2009
and 2011

In 2011, between 46 and 74 percent7 of AI/AN
eighth-graders had teachers who reported acquiring
knowledge about their AI/AN students to a small
extent or more from one of the four sources presented
in table 14. Twelve percent of students in 2011 had
teachers who reported acquiring information to a
large extent from independent reading and study,
which was smaller than the percentage in 2009.
7

To what extent have you
acquired knowledge, skills,
and information specific to
teaching AI/AN students
from each of the following
sources?
Independent reading and
study
2009
2011
Your own personal or family
background and experiences
2009
2011
Locally sponsored AI/AN
cultural orientation program
2009
2011
Living and working in an
AI/AN community
2009
2011

The percentage is based on the sum of the unrounded percentages as
opposed to the rounded percentages shown in the table.

Not at Small Moderate Large
all extent
extent extent

22
26

35
36

26
26

17*
12

31
32

29
31

20
19

20
18

55
54

25
25

13
15

6
5

46
46

13
12

13
15

29
28

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Figure 34. Percentage of eighth-grade AI/AN students
whose teachers reported that they use various
sources of learning for teaching AI/AN students
to a small extent or more, by school type/
density: 2011

In 2011, higher percentages of students in BIE
schools than in high or low density public schools
had teachers who reported learning about AI/AN
students to a small extent or more through independent study, their personal experiences, or living and
working in the AI/AN community (figure 34). Higher
percentages of students attending BIE and high
density public schools than in low density public
schools had teachers who reported acquiring
knowledge to a small extent or more from locally
sponsored AI/AN cultural orientation programs.

Significantly different (p < .05) from low density public schools.
Significantly different (p < .05) from high density public schools.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. BIE = Bureau of Indian Education. School
density indicates the proportion of AI/AN students enrolled. Low density schools have less
than 25 percent AI/AN students. High density schools have 25 percent or more. Results are
not shown separately for Department of Defense and private schools.

NIES

Lower percentages of AI/AN fourth-graders in low density public
schools than in other types of schools have AI/AN community
members visit the school once a year or more
Results from the NIES school questionnaire provide
insight into the ways schools respond to the
distinctive needs of their AI/AN students such as
taking advantage of AI/AN resources that exist
outside the school by providing opportunities for
members of the community to become involved in
school-related activities.

Table 15. Percentage of fourth-grade AI/AN students,
by school administrators’ responses to a
question about the involvement of AI/AN
community members in various schoolrelated activities: 2009 and 2011
In a typical school year, how many
times has a member of the AI/AN
community done the following?
Visited the school to discuss
education issues with students and
staff, other than a conference
regarding an individual student
2009
2011
Visited the school to share AI/AN
traditions and culture with
students and staff
2009
2011
Participated in Indian Education
Parent Groups
2009
2011

In 2011, between 24 and 34 percent of AI/AN
fourth-graders attended schools in which members
of the AI/AN community visited three or more times
during the school year to discuss education issues,
share AI/AN traditions and culture, or participate in
Indian Education Parent Groups (table 15). There
were no significant changes from 2009 to 2011 in the
percentages of students attending schools in which
members of the AI/AN community did or did not
visit during the school year.

Never

1-2
times

3 or
more
times

36
32

32
29

26
34

29
29

38
36

27
30

46
44

20
19

19
24

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because results
are not shown for the “I don’t know” response choice.

Figure 35. Percentage of fourth-grade AI/AN students
whose school administrators reported that
AI/AN community members are involved in
various school-related activities one or more
times during a typical school year, by school
type/density: 2011

In 2011, the percentages of students attending
schools where members of the AI/AN community
visited one or more times during the year were higher
for students in BIE and high density public schools
than in low density public schools (figure 35). A
higher percentage of students in high density public
schools than in BIE schools had someone from the
AI/AN community visit the school at least one time
during the year to discuss education issues.

SURVEY RESULTS

A higher percentage of AI/AN eighth-graders in BIE schools than in
other types of schools have AI/AN community members share
traditions and culture
In 2011, between 22 and 28 percent of AI/AN
eighth-graders attended schools in which members
of the AI/AN community visited three or more times
during the school year to participate in Indian
Education Parent Groups, discuss education issues,
or share AI/AN traditions and culture (table 16).
There were no significant changes from 2009 to
2011 in the percentages of students attending
schools in which members of the AI/AN community
did or did not visit during the school year.

Table 16. Percentage of eighth-grade AI/AN students,
by school administrators’ responses to a
question about the involvement of AI/AN
community members in various schoolrelated activities: 2009 and 2011
In a typical school year, how many
times has a member of the AI/AN
community done the following?
Visited the school to discuss
education issues with students and
staff, other than a conference
regarding an individual student
2009
2011
Visited the school to share AI/AN
traditions and culture with
students and staff
2009
2011
Participated in Indian Education
Parent Groups
2009
2011

Never

1-2
times

3 or
more
times

34
34

26
29

33
28

33
36

37
31

23
24

49
45

16
19

20
22

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because results are
not shown for the “I don’t know” response choice.

Figure 36. Percentage of eighth-grade AI/AN students
whose school administrators reported that
AI/AN community members are involved in
various school-related activities one or more
times during a typical school year, by school
type/density: 2011

In 2011, higher percentages of students in BIE and
high density public schools than in low density public
schools had members of the AI/AN community visit
one or more times during the year (figure 36). A
higher percentage of students in BIE schools than
in both high and low density public schools had
someone from the community visit the school at
least one time during the year to share AI/AN
traditions and culture.

NIES

Technical Notes
Sampling and Weighting

Sampling procedures for the National Indian
Education Study (NIES) were designed to produce
information representative of the target population
of all fourth- and eighth-grade American Indian/
Alaska Native (AI/AN) students in the United States
attending public, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE),
Department of Defense, and private schools. The
sample selection for NIES took place in conjunction
with the sampling activities for the 2011 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
assessments at grades 4 and 8.

In 2005, seven states had sufficient samples of
AI/AN students to report state-level data. In 2007, a
total of 11 states had sufficiently large samples, with
Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington
being added to the original 7 selected states from
2005. In 2009, results were also reported for Utah,
resulting in state-level reporting for a total of
12 states. In 2011, results are reported for the same
12 states (table TN-1). While 6 of the 12 states had
sufficient AI/AN students without oversampling,
schools in 6 states were oversampled in 2011:
Arizona, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah,
and Washington.

The samples of AI/AN students participating in the
2011 NAEP reading and mathematics assessments,
upon which the student performance results are
based, represent augmentations of the sample of
AI/AN students who would usually be selected to
participate in NAEP. This allows more detailed
reporting of performance for this group.

To maximize student sample sizes, all fourth- and
eighth-grade AI/AN students in the sampled schools
were selected for participation in the NIES survey.
This means that, in addition to the fourth- and
eighth-grade AI/AN students who were assessed
in reading or mathematics, eighth-grade AI/AN
students in the sampled schools who participated

Table TN-1. Total enrollment, AI/AN enrollment, and AI/AN students as a percentage of total enrollment in
public elementary and secondary schools, and number of AI/AN students assessed at grades 4
and 8 in NAEP reading or mathematics, by jurisdiction: 2009–10 and 2011

Jurisdiction
Nation
Total for selected states
Alaska
Arizona
Minnesota
Montana
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Dakota
Utah
Washington

Total enrollment
(all students)
49,360,982
7,069,528
131,661
1,077,831
837,053
141,807
334,419
1,483,397
95,073
654,802
582,839
123,713
571,586
1,035,347

AI/AN
enrollment
597,094
374,023
30,312
58,777
18,375
16,724
34,907
20,965
8,929
126,078
10,850
14,814
8,180
25,112

Number of AI/AN students assessed in
NAEP reading or mathematics
AI/AN as
percent of total
Grade 4
Grade 8
1.2
10,800
8,200
5.3
8,900
6,700
23.0
1,100
900
5.5
1,500
1,000
2.2
400
200
11.8
700
500
10.4
1,200
900
1.4
400
300
9.4
600
500
19.3
1,000
1,000
1.9
300
200
12.0
1,100
900
1.4
200
200
2.4
400
300

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. The numbers of students assessed in NAEP reading or mathematics assessments are rounded to the nearest hundred and include public, private, Bureau
of Indian Education (BIE), and Department of Defense schools for the nation, and public and BIE schools for the states.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary
Education,” 2009–10; National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Reading and Mathematics Assessments.

TECHNICAL NOTES

in the NAEP science assessment (which was administered only at grade 8 in 2011) were also selected to
participate in the NIES survey. Including the students
assessed in science increased the NIES survey sample
by roughly 2,600 AI/AN eighth-graders without
having to sample additional schools. Nonetheless, the
NIES questionnaires were designed to collect information about AI/AN students’ experiences in reading/
language arts and mathematics, not science. Therefore, all students participating in the NIES survey
completed the same questionnaire regardless of the
NAEP subject area in which they were assessed.
Furthermore, questionnaires were administered to
participating students’ reading/language arts and
mathematics teachers to collect information specific
to instructional practices in those subject areas.
There was no separate questionnaire administered
to science teachers.
All of the AI/AN students who completed a NIES
survey also took a NAEP assessment in reading,
mathematics, or science (at grade 8). However, not
all of the AI/AN students who took one of the three
NAEP assessments also took a NIES survey. The
number of schools and AI/AN students participating
in the 2011 NIES survey and NAEP reading and
mathematics assessments are presented in table TN-2.

Samples were obtained to not only be representative
of all AI/AN students in the United States at grades 4
and 8, but also to allow comparisons between AI/AN
students attending BIE schools and high density and
low density public schools, where density is defined
by the proportion of AI/AN students enrolled (high
density schools have 25 percent or more AI/AN
students; low density schools have fewer than
25 percent). The sample included 400 high density
public schools for fourth grade, 400 high density
public schools for eighth grade, 1,600 low density
public schools for fourth grade, and 1,700 low density
public schools for eighth grade. As in previous years,
the 2011 sample design allows the results from the
NIES survey to be linked to students’ performance in
reading and mathematics via the NAEP Data Explorer
at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
The oversampling of schools with high proportions of
AI/AN students was accounted for by the sampling
weights. The general purpose of weighting is to adjust
for the unequal probabilities of selection of schools
and students, and to adjust for the effects of
nonresponse by schools and students selected
to participate.

Table TN–2. Number of participating schools with AI/AN students and number of participating AI/AN students,
by grade and type of school: 2011
Grade 4

Grade 8

Students
Type of school
Overall
Public
BIE
Private
DoDEA

Schools in
NIES survey
1,900
1,700
100
20
40

NIES survey
10,200
8,100
2,000
‡
‡

Reading
assessment
5,500
4,400
1,000
‡
‡

Students
Mathematics Schools in
assessment NIES survey
5,400
2,000
4,300
1,900
1,000
100
‡
20
‡
20

NIES survey
10,300
8,500
1,700
‡
‡

Reading
assessment
4,100
3,200
800
‡
‡

Mathematics
assessment
4,200
3,300
900
‡
‡

‡ Reporting standards not met.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. BIE = Bureau of Indian Education. DoDEA = Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). For public and BIE schools, the
number of schools and the number of students are rounded to the nearest hundred. The number of private and Department of Defense schools are rounded to the nearest ten. Detail may not sum to totals
because of rounding.

NIES

The complex sample design of the NIES survey (with
the added complexity of NAEP) resulted in a wide
variability of student sample weights from the overall
average weight. Sampling weights improve the validity
of inferences to be drawn between the student
samples and their respective populations by helping
to ensure that the results of the survey are fully
representative of the target population. For NIES, as
for NAEP, weights are computed for both schools and
students. The school weights are one component in
calculating the student weights. The student weights
are the weights used in analysis.

Response Rates
NAEP READING AND MATHEMATICS

In both reading and mathematics, the national
school response rates based on initial weights were
97 percent for grade 4 and 98 percent for grade 8;
the student response rates were 95 percent for
grade 4 and 93 percent for grade 8. Student response
rates for AI/AN students were 93 percent for grade 4
in reading and mathematics, 92 percent in grade 8
reading, and 90 percent in grade 8 mathematics.
Based on initial weights, the school response rates
for BIE schools were 83 percent for grades 4 and 8
in both reading and mathematics. Student response
rates for BIE schools were 91 percent for reading
and 92 percent for mathematics at grade 4, and
90 percent for reading and 91 percent for
mathematics at grade 8.
To ensure that reported findings are based on samples
that are representative of the target population, The
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) established a response rate standard of 85 percent. Because

response rates for BIE schools at both grades 4 and 8 fell below
85 percent, a non-response bias analysis was conducted. At
both grades, the BIE school sample was a census sample,
meaning that all schools were sampled. The responding schools’
weights were adjusted to mitigate nonresponse, but
results of the nonresponse bias analysis showed that
the adjustments did not fully account for potential
nonresponse bias in the BIE school samples. For
instance, compared to the original school sample, BIE
schools at grade 4 in the Midwest were somewhat
underrepresented in the responding sample, whereas
schools in the Northeast, South, and West were
slightly overrepresented. The responding grade 4
sample also contained an overrepresentation of BIE
schools in nonrural and distant rural locations relative
to the original sample, with schools in fringe rural
and remote rural locations being underrepresented
(additional information on specific location categories
is available at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp).
At grade 8, small schools were somewhat underrepresented and medium-sized schools overrepresented in the responding sample of BIE schools.
Although there is some existence of potential nonresponse bias in the reading and mathematics
performance estimates for BIE students, the effect
on those estimates seems likely to be very slight
since the characteristics of the final sample with
that of the original sample do not appear to be
strongly related to student achievement.
NIES SURVEY

Weighted and unweighted survey response rates for
schools and students overall and by school type are
presented in table TN-3. Private school results were
not reported for either grade 4 or grade 8 due to
insufficient sample size.

Table TN-3. Weighted and unweighted school and AI/AN student NIES survey response rates,
by grade and type of school: 2011
Grade 4
Schools
Type of school
Overall
Public
BIE

Unweighted
92
94
83

Grade 8
Students

Weighted
97
100
83

Unweighted
83
82
88

Schools
Weighted
86
87
88

Unweighted
88
91
81

Students
Weighted
98
100
83

Unweighted
80
79
86

Weighted
84
84
86

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. BIE = Bureau of Indian Education. Response rates are not shown separately for Department of Defense and private schools.

TECHNICAL NOTES

Because the weighted student response rate for
grade 8 was below 85 percent, a student nonresponse
bias analysis was conducted. The analysis showed
that the responding grade 8 sample was different
from the original sample with respect to geographical
distribution across regions, states, and types of
location; gender; relative age; school density; and
proportions of students with disabilities (SD) and
English language learners (ELL). Both SD and ELL
students were underrepresented in the responding
sample. After weighting adjustments were made to
account for differences in the response rates by
student groups, the only evidence of remaining bias
was the slight underrepresentation of AI/AN students
with disabilities and students from low density
schools (population less than 25 percent AI/AN).
The final responding sample consisted of 14.2 percent
SD students, compared to 14.6 percent in the original
sample, and of 57.4 percent students in low density
schools, compared to 57.8 percent in the original
sample. Although these statistically significant
indications of potential nonresponse bias are present
in the final data, the effect on survey estimates seems

likely to be very slight, since the distribution of the
final student sample matches closely with that of
the original sample.
No separate samples were drawn for teachers
or school administrators. However, a weighted
response rate, or match rate, was calculated for
teachers and school administrators based on completed questionnaires using student weights since
the student was the unit of analysis. These rates are
shown in table TN-4. Because the student is the
unit of analysis for NIES, teacher surveys or school
administrator surveys that could not be linked to
specific students were not used in the analysis.
Table TN-4. Percentage of AI/AN students with
completed questionnaires, by grade
and type of questionnaire: 2011
Type of questionnaire
School
Teacher, reading/language arts
Teacher, mathematics

Grade 4
94
89
90

Grade 8
91
79
84

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native.

NIES

NIES Survey Questionnaires
NIES questionnaires were developed for students
at grades 4 and 8, their reading/language arts
and mathematics teachers, and their school administrators. The Office of Indian Education identified
the following five categories of questions related
to practices and methods associated with raising
academic achievement of AI/AN students and
assessing the role of native language and culture
in fostering that improvement:
1. The extent to which AI/AN culture and

language are part of the curriculum;

2. Availability of school resources for

improving AI/AN student achievement;

3. How assessment information is used by

schools with AI/AN student populations;

4. Involvement of AI/AN tribes, groups,

or villages with the schools; and

5. How AI/AN students, teachers, and

schools feel about education.

Most of the survey questions were multiple choice,
but the questionnaires did include a space at the
end for respondents to write in any comments. A
Technical Review Panel, assembled to advise NIES,
oversaw the development of the questionnaires.
Although the NIES background questionnaires
were administered successfully in 2005 and 2007,
anecdotal evidence from the field staff, as well as
comments from the NIES Technical Review Panel and
members of AI/AN communities, indicated that there
could still be problems with the interpretation of some

questions for some respondents. In response to these
concerns, questions were revised and in-depth,
think-aloud interviews with respondents were
conducted, which led to further revisions to the
questions for the 2009 study. Because the wording of
many questions changed in 2009, results from prior
years are not directly comparable to 2009 and 2011.
The number of questions in each questionnaire is
shown in table TN-5. Many questions have multiple
parts. A few of the questions serve to direct respondents to skip questions that do not apply to them.
For example, grade 8 teachers who taught both
reading/language arts and mathematics answered
all 27 questions; teachers who taught only one of
these subjects answered only the questions
applicable to that subject.
Table TN–5. Number of NIES survey questions, by
type of questionnaire: 2011
Type of questionnaire
Student, grade 4
Student, grade 8
Teacher, grade 4
Teacher, grade 8
School, grades 4 and 8

Number of questions
25
25
23
27
25

Student questionnaires required approximately
10–15 minutes to complete, while teacher and school
questionnaires could be completed in approximately
20–25 minutes. Complete copies of the questionnaires can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/nies/questionnaire.asp.

TECHNICAL NOTES

Demographic Variables
IDENTIFICATION OF AI/AN STUDENTS

In 2011, schools were asked to report each student’s
race/ethnicity in one of seven categories: White, Black,
Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or two or
more races. Although the separate reporting of results
for Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and
students of two or more races reflects a change from
how results for racial/ethnic groups were reported
in previous assessment years (see the NAEP website
for more information at http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/about/nathowreport
.asp#report_groups), the proportion of AI/AN
students has remained about 1 percent for both
grades 4 and 8. Students categorized as two or more
races were not included in reporting results for AI/AN
students or in any comparisons to students in other
individual race/ethnicity groups. Two percent of
students at both grades 4 and 8 were classified as
having more than one race in 2011.
Although information about their race/ethnicity group
was also provided by the students, it was not used in
summarizing the results in this report. Twenty-five
percent of fourth-graders and 19 percent of eighthgraders did not identify themselves as AI/AN in 2011,
but were classified as AI/AN by their schools.
In schools sampled for NAEP, all students who were
reported to be AI/AN were selected for participation
in the NIES study. During data collection, some cases
arose in which schools determined that students had
been incorrectly classified as AI/AN. In those cases,
the students were reclassified at the schools’ direction, and they were not included in the NIES study.
Consequently, all students in the NIES study were
identified as AI/AN by school records.
SCHOOL TYPE/DENSITY

Throughout the report, results are reported separately
for students attending low density public schools,
high density public schools, and BIE schools. This
variable represents a cross between school type and
school density. NAEP school type categories include
public, BIE, Department of Defense, and private
schools. To provide more detail in comparisons
between BIE and public schools in the NIES report,
the public school category was further divided based

on the proportion of AI/AN students attending those
schools. As defined by the Office of Indian Education,
low density schools are those in which less than
25 percent of the students are AI/AN, and high
density schools are those in which 25 percent or
more of the students are AI/AN. These categories
divide AI/AN students into two groups of roughly
equal size. The number of students sampled from
Department of Defense and private schools was too
small to allow reporting their results as a separate
category. Therefore, results by school type/density
do not include these other students.
There are 183 BIE schools and dormitories located
on or near 64 reservations that serve approximately
41,000 students in 23 states. Schools funded by the
BIE are either operated by the BIE or by tribes under
contracts or grants. BIE-operated schools are under
the direct auspices of the BIE, and tribally operated
schools are managed by individual federally recognized tribes with grants or contracts from the BIE. The
BIE, formerly the Office of Indian Education Programs,
in the Department of the Interior, oversees the BIE
elementary and secondary school programs.
SCHOOL LOCATION

NAEP results are reported for four mutually exclusive
categories of school location: city, suburb, town, and
rural. The categories are based on standard definitions established by the Federal Office of Management and Budget using population and geographic
information from the U.S. Census Bureau. Schools are
assigned to these categories in the NCES Common
Core of Data (CCD) “locale codes” based on their
physical address.
The classification system was revised for 2007;
therefore, trend comparisons to 2005 are not
available. The new categories (locale codes) are
based on a school’s proximity to an urbanized area
(a densely settled core with densely settled surrounding areas). This is a change from the original
system based on metropolitan statistical areas.
To distinguish the two systems, the new system is
referred to as “urban-centric locale codes.” More
detail on the locale codes is available at http://
nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp.

NIES

NIES GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS

Each of the five geographic regions based on U.S.
Census Bureau divisions or aggregations of Census
divisions presented in figure TN-1 contains some proportion of the AI/AN student population. About one-half
of AI/AN students attend schools in the South Central
and Mountain regions (table TN-6). At least one
state in each of these regions (12 states total) had

samples of AI/AN students large enough to report
results separately for the state. Although they are not
presented in this report, results for AI/AN students by
region of the country are available on the NAEP
website at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nies/
and in the NIES Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/niesdata/.

Figure TN-1. NIES geographic regions

Atlantic

Mountain

North Central

Pacific

South Central

Table TN–6. Percentage distribution of fourth- and
eighth-grade AI/AN students, by region:
2011
Region
Atlantic
North Central
South Central
Mountain
Pacific

Grade 4
12
20
26
28
15

Grade 8
9
17
28
25
22

NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 National Indian Education Study.

TECHNICAL NOTES

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

NAEP collects data on student eligibility for the
National School Lunch Program (NSLP) as an indicator of family income. Under the guidelines of NSLP,
children from families with incomes below 130
percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals.
Those from families with incomes between 130 and
185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for
reduced-price meals. (For the period July 1, 2011
through June 30, 2012 for a family of four, 130 percent
of the poverty level was $29,055, and 185 percent was
$41,348.) The percentages of students eligible for
NSLP are presented in table TN-7 for all students in

the nation and for AI/AN students participating in the
NAEP reading and mathematics assessments.
Some schools provide free meals to all students
irrespective of individual eligibility, using their own
funds to cover the costs of noneligible students.
Under special provisions of the National School Lunch
Act, intended to reduce the administrative burden of
determining student eligibility every year, schools can
be reimbursed based on eligibility data for a single
base year. Participating schools might have high
percentages of eligible students and report all
students as eligible for free lunch. For more
information on NSLP, visit http://www.fns.usda
.gov/cnd/lunch/.

Table TN-7. Percentage of students eligible for National School Lunch Program, by grade and subject: 2005–11
Grade 4
Subject
Reading
All students
AI/AN
Mathematics
All students
AI/AN

2005

2007

Grade 8
2009

2011

2005

2007

2009

2011

41*
65*

41*
66*

44*
66*

48
72

36*
60*

37*
63

39*
62*

44
66

42*
64*

42*
66*

45*
67

49
72

36*
64

37*
61

39*
59*

44
66

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native.

NIES

Drawing Inferences
From the Results
The reported statistics are estimates of population
proportions based on samples of students and are
therefore subject to a measure of uncertainty. The
magnitude of this uncertainty is reflected in the
standard error of each of the estimates. Thus, when
the average scores or percentages of certain groups
are compared, the estimated standard errors should
be taken into account.
The comparisons in this report are based on
statistical tests that consider both the size of the
differences between the average scores or percentages and the estimated standard errors of the
statistics being compared. Any difference between
scores or percentages that is identified as higher,
lower, larger, or smaller in this report, including
within-group differences not marked in tables and
figures, meets the requirements for statistical
significance at the .05 level.
Estimates based on smaller groups are likely to have
relatively large standard errors. As a consequence, a
numerical difference that seems large may not be
statistically significant. Furthermore, differences of
the same magnitude may or may not be statistically
significant, depending on the size of the standard
errors. The results presented in table TN-8, for
example, show that a 3-point difference between the
average reading scores for AI/AN students in 2005

and 2011 was not statistically significant, while a
3-point difference for non-AI/AN students for the
same years was significant. Standard errors for all
estimates in this report are available at http://nces
.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
Table TN-8. Average scores in NAEP reading for
eighth-grade AI/AN and non-AI/AN
students: 2005 and 2011
Student group
AI/AN
Non-AI/AN

2005
248.95 (1.442)
262.33 (0.182)*

2011
251.95 (1.210)
265.34 (0.223)

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Standard errors of the estimates appear
in parentheses.

Analyzing Group Differences in
Averages and Percentages
Statistical tests determine whether, based on the
data from the groups in the sample, there is strong
enough evidence to conclude that the averages or
percentages are actually different for those groups
in the population. If the evidence is strong (i.e., the
difference is statistically significant), the report
describes the group averages or percentages as
being different (e.g., one group performed higher
or lower than another group), regardless of whether
the sample averages or percentages appear to be
approximately the same. The reader is cautioned to

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005 and 2011 Reading Assessments.

TECHNICAL NOTES

rely on the results of the statistical tests rather than
on the apparent magnitude of the difference between
sample averages or percentages when determining
whether the sample differences are likely to
represent actual differences among the groups
in the population.
All BIE schools serving fourth- and/or eighth-grade
students were sampled for this study. Nonresponse
among these schools was mitigated with adjustments
to responding schools’ weights. Hence, these samples
are census samples, which means the percentage
estimates of student population distributions (e.g.,
the percentage of students living in a rural area) are
the actual population values. For statistical testing,
the implication is that for any numerical difference
between groups within these samples, singlepopulation t-tests are conducted, reflecting the
fact that only one of the estimates is subject
to uncertainty.
As the number of comparisons that are conducted
at the same significance level increases, it becomes
more likely that at least one of the estimated differences will be significant merely by chance; that is, it
will be erroneously identified as significantly different
from zero. Even when there is no statistical difference
at the .05 level between the percentages being
compared, there is a 5 percent chance of getting a
significant t value from sampling variability alone. As
the number of comparisons increases, the chance of
making this type of error increases. To control the
significance level for the set of comparisons at a
particular level (e.g., .05), appropriate adjustments for
multiple comparisons have been made in this report.
The false discovery rate (FDR) procedure (Benjamini
and Hochberg 1995) was used to control the rate of
false discoveries.
Unlike some other multiple comparison procedures
that control the familywise error rate (i.e., the
probability of making even one false rejection in the
set of comparisons), the FDR procedure controls the
expected proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses.
A detailed explanation of this procedure can be found
at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/
analysis/2000_2001/infer_multiplecompare_fdr.asp.
NAEP employs a number of rules to determine the
number of comparisons conducted, which in most
cases is simply the number of possible statistical
tests. However, when comparing multiple years, the
number of years do not count toward the number of
comparisons. In this report, the FDR was applied for
comparisons of performance results for AI/AN
students nationwide in 2011 to results for AI/AN

students in previous years; these comparisons
consider all six NAEP race/ethnicity categories
simultaneously in order to ensure consistency with
performance results for AI/AN students presented
in other 2011 NAEP reports. In all other comparisons
of AI/AN student performance in this report, other
race/ethnicity categories did not contribute to the
total number of comparisons unless they were
specifically identified as the comparison group.

Comparisons to
Non-AI/AN Students
Students who were selected for the 2011 NAEP
assessments at grades 4 and 8 and subsequently
identified by their schools as AI/AN were included
in the NIES sample. Consequently, in addition to
completing the NIES student questionnaire, NIES
participants also completed the section of student
background questions included in each NAEP
assessment booklet. Responses to a common set
of NAEP student background questions were
collected for all NAEP participants. From these
NAEP background questions, the responses of
students in the NIES sample can be compared to
the responses of non-AI/AN students who participated in NAEP. Findings in this report that compare
AI/AN and non-AI/AN students (e.g., table 1 in the
Introduction) are based on 2011 NAEP mathematics
assessment data.

Accommodations and
Exclusions in NAEP
It is important to assess all selected students from
the population, including students with disabilities
(SD) and English language learners (ELL). To accomplish this goal, many of the same accommodations
that students use on other tests (e.g., extra testing
time or individual rather than group administration)
are provided for SD and ELL students participating in
NAEP. Due to differences between state and NAEP
policies, accommodations allowed can vary between
NAEP and state assessments. For example, NAEP
does not allow read-aloud of any part of the NAEP
reading test except the instructions because decoding
words is part of what the NAEP reading assessment
is measuring.
Even with the availability of accommodations, some
students may still be excluded. Differences in student
populations and in state policies and practices for
identifying and including SD and ELL students
should be considered when comparing variations

NIES

in exclusion and accommodation rates. States
and jurisdictions also vary in their proportions of
special-needs students (especially ELL students).
While the effect of exclusion is not precisely known,
comparisons of performance results could be affected
if exclusion rates are markedly different among states
or vary widely over time. More information about
NAEP’s policy on inclusion of students with special

educational needs is available at http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp.
Tables TN-9 through TN-12 show the percentages
of AI/AN students identified as SD or ELL,
excluded, and assessed with and without
accommodations in reading and
mathematics.

Table TN-9. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade AI/AN students with disabilities and English language
learners identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP reading, as a percentage of all AI/AN students,
by type of school: 2011
Students with disabilities

English language learners

Assessed

Type of school
Grade 4
Overall
Public
BIE
Grade 8
Overall
Public
BIE

Assessed

Identified

Excluded

With
accommodations

Without
accommodations

Identified

Excluded

With
accommodations

Without
accommodations

16
17
15

4
4
2

9
9
10

4
4
3

9
7
40

#
#
1

4
4
10

5
3
30

16
16
17

3
3
2

10
11
11

3
3
4

6
5
25

1
1
1

2
2
6

3
2
19

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. BIE = Bureau of Indian Education. Results are not shown separately for Department of Defense and private schools. Detail may not sum to totals
because of rounding.

Table TN-10. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade AI/AN students with disabilities and English language

learners identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all
AI/AN students, by type of school: 2011
Students with disabilities

English language learners

Assessed

Type of school
Grade 4
Overall
Public
BIE
Grade 8
Overall
Public
BIE

Assessed

Identified

Excluded

With
accommodations

Without
accommodations

Identified

Excluded

With
accommodations

Without
accommodations

17
17
15

4
4
1

10
10
11

3
3
3

9
8
40

#
#
1

5
4
10

5
3
29

16
16
17

4
4
2

10
10
11

2
2
5

6
5
25

#
#
1

2
2
5

3
2
19

TECHNICAL NOTES

Table TN-11. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade AI/AN students with disabilities and English language
learners identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP reading, as a percentage of all AI/AN students,
by jurisdiction: 2011
Students with disabilities

English language learners

Assessed

Jurisdiction
Grade 4
Nation
Alaska
Arizona
Minnesota
Montana
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Dakota
Utah
Washington
Grade 8
Nation
Alaska
Arizona
Minnesota
Montana
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Dakota
Utah
Washington

Assessed

Identified

Excluded

With
accommodations

Without
accommodations

Identified

Excluded

With
accommodations

Without
accommodations

17
20
13
25
16
15
18
21
15
17
19
15
25

4
2
2
3
5
4
1
12
3
2
3
1
4

9
15
10
15
7
8
15
5
7
7
8
11
12

4
2
1
6
4
3
3
3
5
7
8
3
9

9
32
16
1
14
37
1
16
3
12
10
26
4

#
1
#
#
1
2
#
4
#
1
1
#
1

4
23
8
#
3
12
#
2
1
4
1
21
1

5
8
8
1
10
22
1
10
2
7
8
6
2

16
16
13
15
18
13
16
23
19
22
17
19
14

3
2
1
8
7
2
#
12
3
6
3
7
2

11
13
11
5
8
7
14
8
12
16
10
7
12

3
1
1
3
3
4
1
3
4
#
4
5
#

6
26
6
#
12
28
2
13
1
9
5
13
4

1
#
#
#
3
1
#
3
#
#
1
5
#

2
19
4
#
4
5
2
3
#
6
#
#
#

3
7
2
#
5
23
#
7
#
2
5
9
4

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. The national and state results reported here include only public and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools. Detail may not sum to totals
because of rounding.

NIES

Table TN-12. Percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade AI/AN students with disabilities and English language

learners identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP mathematics, as a percentage of all
AI/AN students, by jurisdiction: 2011
Students with disabilities

English language learners

Assessed

Identified

Excluded

With
accommodations

Without
accommodations

Identified

Excluded

With
accommodations

Without
accommodations

17
20
14
16
16
17
24
21
18
23
18
18
12

4
2
1
4
2
3
7
7
9
5
2
2
#

11
16
11
8
11
11
14
10
5
10
10
13
8

3
2
1
4
3
3
3
4
4
8
7
3
4

10
32
18
#
16
34
#
18
3
9
9
27
4

#
1
#
#
1
1
#
1
#
#
#
#
#

5
21
9
#
4
16
#
5
#
2
2
22
3

5
10
9
#
11
17
#
12
2
6
7
5
#

16
20
13
19
17
14
11
20
18
17
15
16
26

4
3
1
4
1
1
#
7
12
1
2
#
3

10
16
12
13
14
12
10
9
3
14
9
13
22

2
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
1
4
2
1

6
26
7
#
12
29
2
13
1
8
3
10
4

#
1
#
#
1
1
#
2
1
#
#
#
#

3
17
5
#
6
6
2
6
#
1
#
4
2

3
8
2
#
5
22
#
5
#
7
3
6
2

Acknowledgments
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducted the National Indian Education Study (NIES) for
the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education (OIE). The study was designed in consultation with
a Technical Review Panel composed of American Indian and Alaska Native educators and researchers from
across the country.
NIES is directed by NCES and carried out by Educational Testing Service (ETS), Pearson Educational Measurement,
American Institutes for Research, Westat, and Fulcrum IT. Additional support in the development of this report was
provided by Levine & Associates.
Many thanks are due to the numerous people who reviewed this report at various stages, including those from OIE,
Kauffman & Associates, Inc., and members of the NIES Technical Review Panel.
The report would not have been possible without the participation of thousands of students, teachers, and
principals across the country, and the support of various education agencies, communities, and parents.

National Indian Education Study Technical Review Panel 2011
Henry Braun

Susan C. Faircloth

Larry Ludlow

Robert B. Cook

Rebecca Izzo-Manymules

Debora Norris

Steven Culpepper

Valeria Littlecreek

Tarajean Yazzie-Mintz

Boston College

Teach for America

University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign

The Pennsylvania State University
University of New Mexico

Oklahoma State Department of Education

FPO

Boston College

Arizona Department of Education
American Indian College Fund

U.S. Department of Education
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a congressionally authorized project sponsored by the
U.S. Department of Education. The National Center for Education Statistics, a department within the Institute of Education
Sciences, administers NAEP. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible by law for carrying out the NAEP project.
Arne Duncan
Secretary
U.S. Department
of Education

John Q. Easton
Director
Institute of
Education Sciences

Jack Buckley

Commissioner
National Center for
Education Statistics

Peggy G. Carr

Associate Commissioner
for Assessment
National Center for
Education Statistics

National Indian
Education Study 2011
July 2012

MO RE INFO RM AT I O N
The report release site is
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nies.
The NCES Publications and Products
address is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
For ordering information, write to
ED Pubs
U.S. Department of Education
P.O. Box 22207
Alexandria, VA 22304
or call toll free 1-877-4-ED-Pubs
or order online at
http://www.edpubs.gov.

FPO

S UGGE ST E D C I TAT I O N
National Center for Education
Statistics (2012).
National Indian Education Study 2011
(NCES 2012–466).
Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, D.C.

CO NT E NT CON TAC T
Grady Wilburn
202-502-7408
[email protected]
This report was prepared for the National
Center for Education Statistics under Contract
No. ED-07-CO-0107 with Educational Testing
Service. Mention of trade names, commercial
products, or organizations does not imply
endorsement by the U.S. Government.

“ The De p a r t m e nt o f Ed uc a t i on’s mi ssi on i s to promote st ude nt a c hi eve me nt a nd preparation
fo r g l o b a l co m p e t i t i ve n e ss by foste ri ng e duc a t i ona l exce l l e nce a nd e nsuri ng equal access.”

w w w.e d .gov

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	National Indian Education Study 2011
Subject	NAEP, mathematics, readings, NIES, national indian education study, student achievement
Author	National Center for Education Statistics
File Modified	2015-04-15
File Created	2012-06-04