4th Grade Math Proficiency
This map compares states by 4th grade math proficiency; click on the map to view the data and rank for each state. For an in-depth analysis of this map and the data behind it, please see below.
|
|
|
4th grade math proficiency varies by region. On average, 4th graders in the Northeast and the Midwest perform better on NAEP math tests than 4th graders in the South and the West. In the Northeastern states, approximately 41% of 4th graders are reading at the proficient level, while in the Western states, only 31% are reading at the proficient level. The 12 lowest-performing states in the country are all located in the South or the West, while 10 of the 12 highest-performing states are located in the Northeast or Midwest. [1]
Massachusetts ranks first in the country with 49% of its 4th graders testing as proficient in math. Compare this to low-performing, similar-sized (and also much poorer) Tennessee, where only 28% of 4th graders are proficient in math. This means that Massachusetts has approximately 215,000 more 4th graders proficient in math than Tennessee—around 22% of each state’s student population.
4th grade math proficiency is roughly correlated with student poverty and statewide per-pupil expenditure levels. In general, states that perform better in 4th grade math proficiency have lower student poverty rates. Research by the RAND Corporation has found that NAEP performance is linked to student background and family characteristics. [2] In the states that rank in the bottom 11 in 4th grade math proficiency, 19% of students are living in poverty, in comparison to the states that rank in the top 11, where 12% of students are living in poverty.The five lowest-performing states in 4th grade math proficiency—Mississippi, New Mexico, Alabama, Louisiana, and West Virginia—rank 50th, 48th, 47th, 49th, and 45th in student poverty respectively. The correlation on the high-performing end is not quite as strong, but still predictive: the top five states—Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Kansas, and New Jersey—rank 17th, 1st, 4th, 19th and 5th in student poverty respectively.
In addition, there is a relationship between 4th grade math proficiency and statewide per-pupil expenditure. While this correlation is not as strong as the correlation with student poverty, states that have more math-proficient 4th graders generally spend more on education. This relationship could also be a reflection of student demographics and relative state poverty. The states that rank in the bottom 11 in 4th grade math proficiency spend, on average, $7,083 per-pupil, while the states that rank in the top 11 spend $9,623 per-pupil.
4th grade math proficiency levels are a strong predictor of 8th grade math proficiency levels. In all states, math proficiency in 4th grade is higher than math proficiency in 8th grade, by six to seven percentage points on average. 4th grade reading and math proficiency are also strongly linked, with math performance in 4th grade remaining higher than reading performance in most states by an average of four to five percentage points.
4th grade math proficiency has been on the rise in the past decade and continues to show improvement. Between 1992 and 2005, 4th grade math proficiency on NAEP tests increased 18 percentage points, from 18% to 36%. There was also a significant increase in 4th grade math proficiency between 2003 (32%) and 2005 (36%), in contrast to flat reading proficiency rates. Only two states did not increase 4th grade math proficiency between 2003 and 2005—Illinois remained at 33%, and North Carolina experienced the only decline, from 41% to 40%.
The achievement gap among 4th graders in math has been closing since 1992, but remains significant. Math proficiency has increased by 11 percentage points, or more than 500%, for 4th grade black students (2% to 13%). Hispanic students are also performing much better on 4th grade math tests—their proficiency increased 13 percentage points, or more than 200% (6% to 19% proficient). White students’ proficiency increased as well (22% to 47% proficient) but at a slower rate of around 100%, and the scale score gap between white and minority students is in decline.
Overall achievement has remained level while all of the sub-groups have improved because of demographic changes in the student population. This phenomenon, known as Simpson’ paradox, is the result of the lower-performing sub-groups—black and Hispanic students—becoming a larger proportion of the testing population.
[1] Based on Census Bureau-designated regions. Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont. Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin. South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia. West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming
[2] David W. Grissmer, Ann Flanagan, Jennifer H. Kawata, & Stephanie Williamson, RAND Corporation, Improving Student Achievement: What State NAEP Test Scores Tell Us
Per-Pupil Expenditure. Statewide per-pupil expenditure equals the total amount of revenue paid out by school systems in the state divided by total school enrollment. It includes funds from federal, state, and local sources and funds spent on day to day operating expenses, such as teacher salaries, and capital expenses, such as school construction.
School Finance Inequity. School finance equity figures presented reflect a definition contained in Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act. That definition examines the differences in per-pupil spending among school districts across a given state. The per-pupil expenditure for every school district is compared to the average per-pupil expenditure for the state and weighted according to size and poverty level.
Indirect Aid. Indirect aid is support provided for school districts through the federal tax code. For example, a community can use local property taxes to finance local schools, and it costs taxpayers less because local property taxes are deductible on federal income tax returns.
Direct Aid. Direct aid is education funding that comes from the federal government and is distributed directly to states and then given to individual school districts. The two largest direct aid funding streams are the federal Title I program for disadvantaged students and the IDEA special education program for children with disabilities.
Title I. Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act authorizes direct aid from the federal government to states and school districts to support the additional education needs of children from low-income families.
IDEA. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes direct aid from the federal government to states and school districts to support the additional education needs of children with disabilities.
Student Poverty Rate. The student poverty rate reflects the number of children in a state ages 5 to 17 living beneath the Census Bureau's poverty line. In 2004, the poverty income threshold for a family of four was $19,157.
Achievement. State-defined proficiency standards of what students should know and be able to do in each grade are developed separately by each state. States use these standards to test and assess whether students are performing adequately, as required under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Nationally-defined proficiency standards of what students should know and be able to do are developed by the National Assessment Governing Board. The Board administers a national test to a representative sample of students-the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)-that measures whether students are performing at grade level.
Percentage figures presented reflect the proportion of students learning at grade level according to state NCLB and national NAEP standards, respectively.
Post new comment