U.S. States in a Global Context Results From the 2011 NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study Image of the National Assessment of Educational Progress logo. Image of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study: USA logo. U.S. Department of Education NCES 2013–460 Image of the National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences logo. Contents 1 How Do U.S. Students Compare Internationally? 4 NAEP and TIMSS: A Closer Look 11 Mathematics 17 Science 23 NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study 28 Appendix Photo Credits: © DNY59/iStockphoto #1966820; © Hans Peter Merten/ Getty Images, Inc. #BB3597-004; © Thomas Northcut/ Jupiterimages #sb10067958gp-001; © Don Bayley/Getty Images, Inc. #165774250; © PhotoAlto/Michele Constantini/ Getty Images, Inc. #103057941; © Datacraft Co., Ltd./Getty Images, Inc. #122688704; © 13fotos/Ocean/Corbis #42-25363701; © Chris Schmidt/Getty Images, Inc. #109725571; © Brand X Pictures/Getty Images, Inc. #78366206; © DNY59/iStockphoto #2463459 What Is NAEP? The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is an assessment program conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to inform the public of what elementary and secondary students in the United States know and can do in various subject areas, including mathematics and science. Since 1969, NAEP, also known as The Nation’s Report Cardtrade mark. , has been administered periodically to students at grades 4, 8, and 12 in order to report results for the nation, participating states, and selected large urban school districts. The National Assessment Governing Board oversees and sets policy for the NAEP program. Additional information about NAEP is available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/. What Is TIMSS? The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is an international comparative study of student achievement developed and implemented by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Since 1995, TIMSS has assessed the mathematics and science knowledge and skills of fourth- and eighth grade students. In addition to the United States, more than 50 countries and many subnational entities participate in TIMSS. More information on TIMSS is available at http://nces.ed.gov/timss/. What Is the NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study? NCES initiated this special study in an effort to link the NAEP scale to the TIMSS scale so that states could compare the performance of their students with that of students in other countries. The study was conducted in 2011 with eighth grade students in all 52 states/jurisdictions that participated in the NAEP mathematics and science assessments. This highlights report presents results of the linking study. 2011 NAEP–TIMSS How do U.S. students compare internationally? Educators and policymakers throughout the United States continue to debate the international competitiveness of their students. The ability of the United States to thrive in the growing global economy is influenced by how well our students compete internationally. Results from 2011 TIMSS(Footnote 1) Foy, P., Martin, M.O., and Mullis, I.V.S. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics and TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. (Foy, Martin, and Mullis 2012) indicate how the performance of eighth-grade students in the United States as a whole compares with that of students in the other countries and subnational education systems that participated in the TIMSS assessment; it does not, however, provide results for individual U.S. states. NCES conducted the NAEP-TIMSS linking study to provide each state with a way to examine how their students compare academically with their peers around the world in mathematics and science. NCES coordinated efforts across the NAEP and TIMSS assessment programs to conduct the 2011 NAEP-TIMSS linking study. The National Assessment Governing Board and NCES modified the NAEP assessment schedule so that eighth-graders in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense schools (hereafter referred to as “states” or U.S. states) could be assessed in mathematics and science in 2011. The NAEP-TIMSS linking study used states’ NAEP scores to predict performance on TIMSS. Nine states participated in 2011 TIMSS at the state level. In the linking study, their actual TIMSS scores were used to validate their predicted results. The 38 countries and 9 subnational education systems from various countries that assessed eighth-graders in 2011 TIMSS are all referred to as “education systems” in this report. In tables and figures, seven of the subnational education systems are further identified by their nation’s three-letter international abbreviation (e.g., Alberta-CAN and Dubai-UAE). Results in mathematics and science are reported as average scores on the TIMSS scale (0–1,000, with an average of 500). Linking Study Results Mathematics • Average scores for public school students in 36 states were higher than the TIMSS average of 500. • Scores ranged from 466 for Alabama to 561 for Massachusetts. • Massachusetts scored higher than 42 of the 47 participating education systems. • Alabama scored higher than 19 education systems. Science • Average scores for public school students in 47 states were higher than the TIMSS average of 500. • Scores ranged from 453 for the District of Columbia to 567 for Massachusetts. • Massachusetts and Vermont scored higher than 43 participating education systems. • The District of Columbia scored higher than 14 education systems. It should be noted that numerous differences between the NAEP and TIMSS administrations, assessment contents, and program policies could contribute to the sources of error around predicted TIMSS scores. Therefore, predicted TIMSS scores should not be interpreted as actual TIMSS scores. MATHEMATICS Compared to the TIMSS average of 500, average scores for 36 states were higher 10 states were not significantly different 6 states were lower Image of a map of the United States of America showing the comparison eighth-grade mathematics average scores for the TIMMS average against the state average scores. 36 states were higher (Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the Department of Defense Education overseas and domestic schools), 10 states not significantly different (Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, and South Carolina), and 6 states were lower (Alabama, District of Columbia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia). Validation states: MA, CT, NC, FL, AL, IN, MN, CA NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for validation states are based on actual results from the TIMSS mathematics assessment, while results for the other states are predicted results. The results for all states include public schools only. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Find 2011 state NAEP mathematics results at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/. Compare your state to participating education systems at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/ naep_timss/. SCIENCE Compared to the TIMSS average of 500, average scores for 47 states were higher 2 states were not significantly different 3 states were lower Image of a map of the United States of America showing the comparison eighth-grade science average scores for the TIMMS average against the state average scores. 47 states were higher (Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and and the Department of Defense Education overseas and domestic schools), 2 states not significantly different (California and Arizona), and 3 states were lower (Alabama, District of Columbia, and Mississippi). Validation states: MA, CT, FL, AL, MN, CO, CA NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for validation states are based on actual results from the TIMSS science assessment, while results for the other states are predicted results. The results for all states include public schools only. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Find 2011 state NAEP science results at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/. Compare your state to participating education systems at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/ naep_timss/. NAEP AND TIMSS: A CLOSER LOOK The NAEP and TIMSS assessments in mathematics and science both measure student achievement. The programs, however, differ in several important respects. The chart below contrasts selected features of the NAEP and TIMSS programs. For instance, NAEP assesses students in late winter, while TIMSS assesses students at different times of the year in different parts of the world. The testing populations of the two programs also vary. For instance, NAEP includes students who are tested with accommodations, while TIMSS does not. (See appendix tables A-1 and A-2 for exclusion rates for states and education systems.) In addition, results reported for the 52 states by NAEP are based on students in public schools only, whereas most education systems in TIMSS assess students in public and private schools. The NAEP and TIMSS frameworks and assessments are discussed later in this section under Assessment Design. In the United States, educational policies and resources vary across the states, as they do across the 47 education systems that participated in TIMSS 2011. Thus, individual state results are better indicators of the condition of education in the United States than the nation’s overall average TIMSS score. Comparison of the NAEP and TIMSS programs Program features NAEP TIMSS Where administered 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Department of Defense schools Over 50 countries and many subnational entities (The 47 education systems that participated in TIMSS at grade 8 in 2011 are shown on the map.) Testing window January through March October through December in the Southern Hemisphere April through June in the Northern Hemisphere Results reported as Average scores on separate scales for each subject . 0–500 for mathematics . 0–300 for science Percentages of students reaching the three achievement levels . Basic . Proficient . Advanced Average scores on separate scales for each subject . 0–1,000 for mathematics . 0–1,000 for science Percentages of students reaching the four international benchmarks . Low . Intermediate . High . Advanced Accommodations for students with disabilities and English language learners Accommodations similar to most of those available for state assessments are provided, such as extra testing time or individual rather than group administration. No accommodations are provided by TIMSS. However, school accommodations are permitted, such as magnifying glasses, dictionaries for translation of terms, and sitting near natural light. Image of an international map showing the 47 education systems that participated in the TIMMS at grade 8 in 2011. The countries are Republic of Korea, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong-SAR, Japan, Russian Federation, Quebec-Canada, Israel, Finland, Ontario-Canada, United States, England, Alberta-Canada, Hungary, Australia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Italy, New Zealand, Kazakhstan, Sweden, Ukraine, Dubai-UAE, Norway, Armenia, Romania, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Lebanon, Abu Dhabi-UAE, Malaysia, Georgia, Thailand, Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Chile, Islamic Republic of Iran, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Palestinian National Authority, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syrian Arab Republic, Morocco, Oman, and Ghana. Reporting Results The NAEP 2011 mathematics results for eighth-graders in each state are based on representative samples of about 3,200 students from 50 to 230 schools. The NAEP 2011 science results for each state are based on representative samples of about 2,300 students from 50 to 220 schools. Results for the 52 NAEP state samples used in the linking study reflect the performance of students in public schools only. The 2011 TIMSS results for each of the participating education systems are based on a representative sample of no fewer than 4,000 eighth-grade students from at least 150 public and private schools. Because Botswana, Honduras, and South Africa assessed ninth- graders, their results are not included in this report. In the United States, over 10,000 eighth-graders from about 500 public and private schools participated in the 2011 TIMSS. Find 2011 TIMSS mathematics and science reports at http://timss.bc.edu/isc/publications.html. Predicting TIMSS scores The linking study design consisted of the following samples, in addition to the national samples of NAEP and TIMSS described previously. Separate samples of U.S. public school students were administered braided booklets containing NAEP and TIMSS test questions, one for mathematics and one for science, during the NAEP testing window. Similarly, a sample of U.S. students was administered braided booklets during the TIMSS testing window. Three linking methods—statistical moderation, calibration, and statistical projection—were applied in linking the NAEP and TIMSS scales. All three linking methods produced similar results. The statistical moderation linking method was selected to predict the average TIMSS scores reported for the 43 U.S. states that participated only in NAEP. The accuracy of the predicted scores was evaluated by comparing the actual TIMSS scores with predicted TIMSS scores for the nine validation states—Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and North Carolina. Find more information about the linking study design and methods used in the study beginning on page 24. As with NAEP, the TIMSS mathematics and science scores cannot be compared to each other because the scales are developed independently. The performance of students in the states is compared to the TIMSS average for each subject. Findings are reported based on a statistical significance level set at .05, with no statistical adjustments to account for multiple comparisons. Only those differences found to be statistically significant are discussed as higher or lower. More information about the 2011 TIMSS assessment can be found in the Highlights from TIMSS 2011 report (NCES 2013–009). TIMSS benchmarks In addition to reporting average scores, TIMSS reports on the performance of students at four international benchmarks for each subject and grade—Advanced (625), High (550), Intermediate (475), and Low (400). The cutpoint at the lower end of the range for each of the benchmarks is noted in parentheses. These benchmarks provide a way to interpret the average scores and understand how students’ proficiency in mathematics and science varies along the TIMSS scale. They are based on the kinds of skills and knowledge that students reaching each score cutpoint would need to answer the mathematics and science questions successfully. For example, at the Advanced level in mathematics at grade 8, students can reason with information, draw conclusions, make generalizations, and solve linear equations. At the High level, students can apply their understanding and knowledge in a variety of relatively complex situations. At the Intermediate level in mathematics, students can apply basic mathematical knowledge in a variety of situations, and at the Low level, students have some knowledge of whole numbers and decimals, operations, and basic graphs. At the Advanced level in science at grade 8, students apply knowledge and understanding of scientific processes and relationships and show some knowledge of the process of scientific inquiry. At the High level, students apply their knowledge and understanding of the sciences to explain phenomena in everyday and abstract contexts. At the Intermediate level in science, students have basic knowledge and understanding of practical situations in the sciences. At the Low level , students show some elementary knowledge of life, physical, and earth sciences. For more information on the TIMSS international benchmarks, see page 16 for mathematics and page 22 for science. Extensive descriptions of each benchmark are available in the TIMSS 2011 international reports in mathematics and science. Results are reported as the percentages of students reaching each of the benchmarks. Context for Performance The variation in student performance across the United States and around the world can be attributed to a variety of factors, including educational policies and practices, available resources, and the demographic characteristics of the student body. To provide context for the results, tables 1 and 2 (see pages 9 and 10) present selected demographic, economic, and educational variables for the U.S. states and the 47 participating education systems. Assessment Design The NAEP and TIMSS frameworks for mathematics and science describe the types of questions that should be included in the assessments and how they should be scored. The following charts on mathematics and science compare some features of the NAEP and TIMSS assessments that are more fully described in the frameworks. As shown in the charts, the content areas and their coverage in the assessments are somewhat different between NAEP and TIMSS. In addition, there are differences between the NAEP and TIMSS assessments in testing time and the testing aids allowed. The testing time is different because NAEP assesses the subjects separately, and NAEP allows more accommodations to have broader coverage of the population. A comprehensive comparison of the NAEP and TIMSS assessment frameworks and a comparison of TIMSS assessment items against NAEP frameworks show that NAEP and TIMSS differ somewhat in what is assessed. Results of these comparisons are available at http:// nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/naep_timss/. Mathematics Assessment features NAEP TIMSS Content areas (with percentage of assessment time in parentheses) Number properties and operations (18%) Measurement (16%) Geometry (17%) Data analysis, statistics, and probability (16%) Algebra (33%) Number (30%) Geometry (20%) Data and chance (20%) Algebra (30%) Question types Multiple-choice and constructedresponse Multiple-choice and constructed- response Student testing time Two 25-minute sections, each containing from 14 to 17 mathematics questions Two 45-minute sections, each containing two blocks of approximately 12 to 18 questions. One section contains two mathematics blocks, and the other section contains two science blocks. Testing aids allowed Regular or scientific calculator permitted for some questions Ruler/protractor and geometric shapes or other manipulatives provided for some questions Regular calculator permitted throughout the assessment for mathematics questions only The complete 2011 NAEP mathematics framework is available at http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/math-2011-framework.pdf, and the complete 2011 TIMSS framework with sections on both mathematics and science is available at http://timss.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/TIMSS2011_Frameworks.pdf. Science Assessment features NAEP TIMSS Content areas (with percentage of assessment time in parentheses) Physical science (30%) Life science (30%) Earth and space sciences (40%) Physics (25%) Biology (35%) Chemistry (20%) Earth science (20%) Question types Multiple-choice and constructed- response questions Multiple-choice and constructed- response questions Student testing time Two 25-minute sections, each containing from 14 to 18 science questions Two 45-minute sections, each containing two blocks of approximately 12 to 18 questions. One section contains two mathematics blocks, and the other section contains two science blocks. Testing aids allowed None permitted None permitted for science questions The complete 2011 NAEP science framework is available at http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/science-2011.pdf, and the complete 2011 TIMSS framework with sections on both science and mathematics is available at http://timss.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/TIMSS2011_Frameworks.pdf. Table 1. Selected characteristics of states in NAEP-TIMSS linking study: 2009, 2010, and 2011 State Total population Public elementary school enrollment Real GDP per capita (in U.S. dollars) Public spending on education as a percentage of GDP Public elementary school student- teacher ratio Alabama (Footnote 1) 4,802,740 534,000 $31,301 4 21 Alaska 722,718 92,000 61,853 5 17 Arizona 6,482,505 752,000 35,032 4 21 Arkansas 2,937,979 346,000 31,142 5 20 California (Footnote 1) 37,691,912 4,294,000 46,041 4 25 Colorado (Footnote 1) 5,116,796 601,000 45,792 4 22 Connecticut (Footnote 1) 3,580,709 387,000 56,242 4 13 Delaware 907,135 90,000 63,159 3 20 District of Columbia 617,996 54,000 148,291 1 15 DoDEA (Footnote 2) — — — — — Florida (Footnote 1) 19,057,542 1,858,000 34,689 4 25 Georgia 9,815,210 1,202,000 37,270 4 17 Hawaii 1,374,810 128,000 42,171 3 21 Idaho 1,584,985 194,000 32,469 4 25 Illinois 12,869,257 1,455,000 45,231 4 14 Indiana (Footnote 1) 6,516,922 729,000 36,970 4 22 Iowa 3,062,309 348,000 41,993 4 14 Kansas 2,871,238 343,000 39,484 5 20 Kentucky 4,369,356 480,000 32,331 4 21 Louisiana 4,574,836 512,000 45,002 3 14 Maine 1,328,188 129,000 33,746 5 11 Maryland 5,828,289 588,000 45,360 4 16 Massachusetts (Footnote 1) 6,587,536 666,000 52,915 4 14 Michigan 9,876,187 1,076,000 34,166 5 30 Minnesota (Footnote 1) 5,344,861 570,000 45,822 4 21 Mississippi 2,978,512 351,000 28,293 5 23 Missouri 6,010,688 643,000 35,952 4 19 Montana 998,199 98,000 32,041 4 14 Nebraska 1,842,641 210,000 43,356 4 14 Nevada 2,723,322 307,000 41,311 3 28 New Hampshire 1,318,194 132,000 42,916 4 12 New Jersey 8,821,155 981,000 48,380 5 15 New Mexico 2,082,224 239,000 33,857 5 25 New York 19,465,197 1,869,000 52,214 5 19 North Carolina (Footnote 1) 9,656,401 1,058,000 39,879 3 21 North Dakota 683,932 66,000 50,096 3 12 Ohio 11,544,951 1,223,000 36,283 5 23 Oklahoma 3,791,508 483,000 35,381 4 21 Oregon 3,871,859 393,000 48,098 3 19 Pennsylvania 12,742,886 1,210,000 39,272 5 19 Rhode Island 1,051,302 98,000 41,532 4 18 South Carolina 4,679,230 516,000 30,620 5 15 South Dakota 824,082 88,000 41,795 3 14 Tennessee 6,403,353 702,000 36,543 3 15 Texas 25,674,681 3,587,000 44,788 4 21 Utah 2,817,222 425,000 38,452 4 32 Vermont 626,431 68,000 36,665 6 18 Virginia 8,096,604 871,000 46,408 4 27 Washington 6,830,038 714,000 45,520 3 25 West Virginia 1,855,364 201,000 30,056 6 21 Wisconsin 5,711,767 598,000 38,822 4 21 Wyoming 568,158 63,000 55,516 5 16 em dash = not available (Footnote 1) Validation state. (Footnote 2) Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: GDP = Gross domestic product. Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. The number of students enrolled is rounded to the nearest thousand. SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary,” 2010–11; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance: 2009–10; and 2010 Annual Survey of Local Government Finances - School Systems. Table 2. Selected characteristics of education systems in TIMSS assessment at grade 8: 2010 and 2011 Education system Population size (in millions) Primary school enrollment Gross national income per capita (in U.S. dollars) Public spending on education as a percentage of GDP Primary school pupil-teacher ratio Abu Dhabi-UAE 2 — — — 11 Alberta-CAN 4 — $70,826 4 — Armenia 3 117,140 3,100 3 19 Australia 22 2,015,017 43,770 5 — Bahrain 1 90,993 25,420 — — Chile 17 1,546,543 9,470 4 25 Chinese Taipei-CHN 23 — 16,471 4 16 Dubai-UAE — — — — — England-GBR 52 — 41,370 5 23 Finland 5 347,060 45,940 6 14 Georgia 4 289,137 2,530 3 9 Ghana 24 — 1,190 6 33 Hong Kong SAR(Footnote 1) 7 348,549 31,570 5 16 Hungary 10 387,969 12,980 5 10 Indonesia 230 30,341,821 2,050 3 17 Iran, Islamic Republic of 73 5,629,585 4,530 5 20 Israel 7 807,424 25,790 6 13 Italy 60 2,822,146 35,110 4 10 Japan 128 7,098,862 38,080 4 18 Jordan 6 819,601 3,980 4 17 Kazakhstan 16 957,919 6,920 3 16 Korea, Republic of 49 3,306,192 19,830 4 24 Lebanon 4 461,719 8,060 2 14 Lithuania 3 122,458 11,410 5 13 Macedonia, Republic of 2 110,759 4,400 — 17 Malaysia 27 2,947,534 7,350 4 15 Morocco 32 3,945,201 2,770 6 27 New Zealand 4 348,492 28,810 6 15 Norway 5 424,052 84,640 7 11 Oman 3 — 17,890 4 12 Ontario-CAN 13 — 46,304 6 — Palestinian National Authority 4 402,866 1,749 — — Qatar 1 88,723 71,008 — 11 Quebec-CAN 8 — 40,395 7 — Romania 21 842,238 8,330 4 16 Russian Federation 142 — 9,340 4 17 Saudi Arabia 25 3,321,066 17,210 6 11 Singapore 5 — 37,220 3 19 Slovenia 2 106,883 23,520 6 17 Sweden 9 576,110 48,840 7 10 Syrian Arab Republic 21 2,429,450 2,410 5 18 Thailand 68 — 3,760 4 16 Tunisia 10 1,030,109 3,720 7 17 Turkey 75 6,635,156 8,720 4 22 Ukraine 46 1,540,282 2,800 5 16 United Arab Emirates United States 5 307 326,588 24,393,002 54,738 46,360 1 6 16 14 em dash = Not available. Footnote 1 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. NOTE: GDP = Gross domestic product. SOURCE: TIMSS 2011 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science (Volume 1); and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics, 2010. MATHEMATICS Average scores for 51states reach the Intermediate benchmark 1state (Massachusetts) reaches the High benchmark 24education systems reach the Intermediate benchmark 5education systems—Chinese Taipei-CHN, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore—reach the High benchmark How do U.S. states perform in relation to TIMSS international benchmarks in mathematics? The average scores of students in 51 states were at or above the TIMSS Intermediate benchmark cutpoint of 475 (figure 1). TIMSS scores for 41 education systems ranged from below the Intermediate benchmark to above the High benchmark cutpoint of 550 (figure 2). Although not shown in the figure, six education systems scored below the Low benchmark cutpoint of 400. Mathematics performance varied more across the participating education systems than across the states. This variation in the performance of students across the U.S. states and around the world could be attributed to a range of factors such as educational policies and practices, available resources, and the demographic characteristics of the student body. Figure 1. Average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by state: 2011 Image of a graphic that shows the average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics by state in 2011. The y axis shows the scale score with a range of 0 to 1000, plotted on this range are indicators for the low-benchmark level, the intermediate-benchmark level, and the high-benchmark levels. Also shown is the TIMMS average. The x axis has the states, each with a mean average score as well as a confidence interval indicated as a range between the low point and the high point scores. The Low benchmark is 400; Alabama (validation state) had a low point of 454, a middle-point mean of 466, and a high-point of 478; The Intermediate benchmark is 475; Mississippi had a low point of 469, a middle-point mean of 476, and a high-point of 484; District of Columbia had a low point of 475, a middle-point mean of 481, and a high-point of 488; Tennessee had a low point of 483, a middle-point mean of 490, and a high-point of 497; Oklahoma had a low point of 484, a middle-point mean of 491, and a high-point of 497; West Virginia had a low point of 486, a middle-point mean of 492, and a high-point of 497; California had a low point of (validation state) 483, a middle-point mean of 493, and a high-point of 502; New Mexico had a low point of 490, a middle-point mean of 496, and a high-point of 501; Georgia had a low point of 491, a middle-point mean of 497, and a high-point of 504; The TIMMS average was 500; Louisiana had a low point of 493, a middle-point mean of 500, and a high-point of 506; Nevada had a low point of 494, a middle-point mean of 500, and a high-point of 506; Michigan had a low point of 494, a middle-point mean of 502, and a high-point of 509; Arizona had a low point of 495, a middle-point mean of 502, and a high-point of 509; South Carolina had a low point of 497, a middle-point mean of 504, and a high-point of 510; Hawaii had a low point of 499, a middle-point mean of 504, and a high-point of 510; Kentucky had a low point of 499, a middle-point mean of 505, and a high-point of 511; United States had a low point of 502, a middle-point mean of 507, and a high-point of 512; Arizona had a low point of 503, a middle-point mean of 509, and a high-point of 515; Utah had a low point of 504, a middle-point mean of 510, and a high-point of 515; Nebraska had a low point of 505, a middle-point mean of 511, and a high-point of 517; Missouri had a low point of 505, a middle-point mean of 512, and a high-point of 518; Idaho had a low point of 507, a middle-point mean of 513, and a high-point of 519; Oregon had a low point of 507, a middle-point mean of 513, and a high-point of 520; Florida (validation state) had a low point of 501, a middle-point mean of 513, and a high-point of 526; Maryland had a low point of 507, a middle-point mean of 514, and a high-point of 521; Delaware had a low point of 509, a middle-point mean of 515, and a high-point of 520; Texas had a low point of 509, a middle-point mean of 515, and a high-point of 521; Illinois had a low point of 511, a middle-point mean of 517, and a high-point of 524; Department of Defense Education overseas and domestic schools had a low point of 512, a middle-point mean of 517, and a high-point of 523; Connecticut (validation state) had a low point of 508, a middle-point mean of 518, and a high-point of 527; Colorado (validation state) had a low point of 508, a middle-point mean of 518, and a high-point of 527; South Dakota had a low point of 516, a middle-point mean of 521, and a high-point of 527; Rhode Island had a low point of 516, a middle-point mean of 521, and a high-point of 527; Indiana (validation state) had a low point of 511, a middle-point mean of 522, and a high-point of 532; Ohio had a low point of 517, a middle-point mean of 523, and a high-point of 530; Washington had a low point of 517, a middle-point mean of 523, and a high-point of 530; Virginia had a low point of 517, a middle-point mean of 523, and a high-point of 530; Kansas had a low point of 518, a middle-point mean of 524, and a high-point of 530; Wyoming had a low point of 519, a middle-point mean of 524, and a high-point of 530; Alaska had a low point of 519, a middle-point mean of 524, and a high-point of 530; Iowa had a low point of 521, a middle-point mean of 527, and a high-point of 533; Pennsylvania had a low point of 520, a middle-point mean of 527, and a high-point of 534; North Dakota had a low point of 523, a middle-point mean of 528, and a high-point of 534; New York had a low point of 523, a middle-point mean of 529, and a high-point of 535; Montana had a low point of 525, a middle-point mean of 531, and a high-point of 537; Wisconsin had a low point of 528, a middle-point mean of 535, and a high-point of 541; Maine had a low point of 530, a middle-point mean of 535, and a high-point of 541; North Carolina (validation state) had a low point of 524, a middle-point mean of 537, and a high-point of 550; New Hampshire had a low point of 535, a middle-point mean of 541, and a high-point of 547; New Jersey had a low point of 538, a middle-point mean of 545, and a high-point of 552; Minnesota (validation state) had a low point of 536, a middle-point mean of 545, and a high-point of 554; Vermont had a low point of 541, a middle-point mean of 547, and a high-point of 552; The High benchmark is 550; Massachusetts (validation state) had a low point of 550, a middle-point mean of 561, and a high-point of 571; and The Advanced benchmark is 625. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Figure 2. Average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by education system: 2011 Image of a graphic that shows the average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics by education system in 2011. The y axis shows the scale score with a range of 0 to 1000, plotted on this range are indicators for the low-benchmark level, the intermediate-benchmark level, and the high-benchmark levels. Also shown is the TIMMS average. The x axis has the states, each with a mean average score as well as a confidence interval indicated as a range between the low point and the high point scores. The Low benchmark is 400; Results are not shown for educational systems that scored below 400 (Ghana, Oman, Morocco, Syrian Arab Republic, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia). Palestinian National Authority had a low point of 397, a middle-point mean of 404, and a high-point of 411; Jordan had a low point of 399, a middle-point mean of 406, and a high-point of 413; Bahrain had a low point of 405, a middle-point mean of 409, and a high-point of 413; Qatar had a low point of 404, a middle-point mean of 410, and a high-point of 416; Islamic Republic of Iran had a low point of 407, a middle-point mean of 415, and a high-point of 423; Chile had a low point of 411, a middle-point mean of 416, and a high-point of 421; Tunisia had a low point of 419, a middle-point mean of 425, and a high-point of 430; Republic of Macedonia had a low point of 416, a middle-point mean of 426, and a high-point of 436; Thailand had a low point of 419, a middle-point mean of 427, and a high-point of 436; Georgia had a low point of 424, a middle-point mean of 431, and a high-point of 439; Malaysia had a low point of 429, a middle-point mean of 440, and a high-point of 450; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates had a low point of 441, a middle-point mean of 449, and a high-point of 456; Lebanon had a low point of 442, a middle-point mean of 449, and a high-point of 457; Turkey had a low point of 445, a middle-point mean of 452, and a high-point of 460; United Arab Emirates had a low point of 452, a middle-point mean of 456, and a high-point of 460; Romania had a low point of 450, a middle-point mean of 458, and a high-point of 466; Armenia had a low point of 461, a middle-point mean of 467, and a high-point of 472; Norway had a low point of 470, a middle-point mean of 475, and a high-point of 479; The Intermediate benchmark is 475; Dubai, United Arab Emirates had a low point of 473, a middle-point mean of 478, and a high-point of 482; Ukraine had a low point of 472, a middle-point mean of 479, and a high-point of 487; Sweden had a low point of 481, a middle-point mean of 484, and a high-point of 488; Kazakhstan had a low point of 479, a middle-point mean of 487, and a high-point of 495; New Zealand had a low point of 477, a middle-point mean of 488, and a high-point of 499; Italy had a low point of 494, a middle-point mean of 498, and a high-point of 503; The TIMMS average was 500; Lithuania had a low point of 497, a middle-point mean of 502, and a high-point of 507; Slovenia had a low point of 501, a middle-point mean of 505, and a high-point of 509; Australia had a low point of 495, a middle-point mean of 505, and a high-point of 515; Hungary had a low point of 498, a middle-point mean of 505, and a high-point of 512; Alberta, Canada had a low point of 500, a middle-point mean of 505, and a high-point of 510; England had a low point of 496, a middle-point mean of 507, and a high-point of 518; United States had a low point of 504, a middle-point mean of 509, and a high-point of 515; Ontario, Canada had a low point of 507, a middle-point mean of 512, and a high-point of 517; Finland had a low point of 509, a middle-point mean of 514, and a high-point of 519; Israel had a low point of 508, a middle-point mean of 516, and a high-point of 524; Quebec, Canada had a low point of 527, a middle-point mean of 532, and a high-point of 536; Russian Federation had a low point of 532, a middle-point mean of 539, and a high-point of 546; The high benchmark is 550; Japan had a low point of 565, a middle-point mean of 570, and a high-point of 575; Hong Kong SAR had a low point of 578, a middle-point mean of 586, and a high-point of 593; Chinese Taipei had a low point of 603, a middle-point mean of 609, and a high-point of 616; Singapore had a low point of 604, a middle-point mean of 611, and a high-point of 618; Republic of Korea had a low point of 607, a middle-point mean of 613, and a high-point of 619; and The Advanced benchmark is 625. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. What is the margin of error for the scores? Each score has a margin of error associated with it that is expressed in terms of a standard error. The size of the standard errors can be influenced by survey design factors, and, therefore, vary across states and education systems. The lines or “tails” above and below each boxed score in the graphic represent a confidence interval, which indicates the range of the boxed score with a 95 percent level of confidence. At this level of confidence, a score’s confidence interval equals plus or minus 1.96 times the standard error around the score. The standard errors for U.S. state scores in mathematics ranged from 2.7 to 6.8, while the standard errors for education system scores ranged from 1.9 to 5.5 (see appendix tables A-5 and A-6). Find more information about standard errors in the Linking Study section of this report. It should be noted that numerous differences between the NAEP and TIMSS administrations, assessment contents, and program policies could contribute to the sources of error around predicted TIMSS scores. Therefore, predicted TIMSS scores should not be interpreted as actual TIMSS scores. How does student performance in states compare internationally in mathematics? Average scores for over two-thirds of the U.S. states and one-quarter of the 47 education systems were higher than the TIMSS average (figure 3-A). Massachusetts scored higher than the TIMSS average and 42 of the 47 participating education systems. Average scores for 10 states were not significantly different from the TIMSS average (figure 3-B). Alabama, although the lowest scoring state, scored higher than 19 education systems (figure 3-C). Only four education systems—Chinese Taipei-CHN, Hong Kong SAR, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore—had TIMSS scores that were higher than the scores for all 52 states. In addition to average scores, TIMSS reports the percentages of students scoring at or above four international benchmark levels. Differences in the proportions of students reaching each benchmark reflect differences in the mathematics knowledge and skills demonstrated by students in the states and education systems. All states and most participating education systems had some students performing at the High and Advanced benchmarks. How to Read the Graphics In New Jersey (figure 3-A), 16 percent of students scored at the Advanced benchmark, and 50 percent scored at or above the High benchmark. Figure 3-A. Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics for students with average scores higher than the TIMSS average, by jurisdiction: 2011 Image of a graphic that shows the average scores higher than the TIMMS average in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics by jurisdiction in 2011. The graphic shows the scale score with a range of 0 to 1000, plotted on this range are scores for at or above the 400-benchmark level, at or above the 475-benchmark level, at or above the 550-benchmark level, and at or above the 625-benchmark levels. Republic of Korea; average score = 613, at or above 400 = 99, at or above 475 = 93, at or above 550 = 77, and at or above 625 = 47; Singapore; average score = 611, at or above 400 = 99, at or above 475 = 92, at or above 550 = 78, and at or above 625 = 48; Chinese Taipei; average score = 609, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 88, at or above 550 = 73, and at or above 625 = 49; Hong Kong SAR; average score = 586, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 89, at or above 550 = 71, and at or above 625 = 34; Japan; average score = 570, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 87, at or above 550 = 61, and at or above 625 = 27; Massachusetts; average score = 561, at or above 400 = 98, at or above 475 = 88, at or above 550 = 57, and at or above 625 = 19; Vermont; average score = 547, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 81, at or above 550 = 51, and at or above 625 = 16; Minnesota; average score = 545, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 83, at or above 550 = 49, and at or above 625 = 13; New Jersey; average score = 545, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 80, at or above 550 = 50, and at or above 625 = 16; New Hampshire; average score = 541, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 80, at or above 550 = 47, and at or above 625 = 13; Russian Federation; average score = 539, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 78, at or above 550 = 47, and at or above 625 = 14; North Carolina; average score = 537, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 78, at or above 550 = 44, and at or above 625 = 14; Maine; average score = 535, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 78, at or above 550 = 44, and at or above 625 = 12; Wisconsin; average score = 535, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 77, at or above 550 = 43, and at or above 625 = 12; Quebec, Canada; average score = 532, at or above 400 = 98, at or above 475 = 82, at or above 550 = 40, and at or above 625 = 6; Montana; average score = 531, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 76, at or above 550 = 41, and at or above 625 = 11; New York; average score = 529, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 75, at or above 550 = 40, and at or above 625 = 10; North Dakota; average score = 528, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 77, at or above 550 = 38, and at or above 625 = 7; Pennsylvania; average score = 527, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 73, at or above 550 = 40, and at or above 625 = 11; Iowa; average score = 527, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 75, at or above 550 = 39, and at or above 625 = 9; Alaska; average score = 524, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 72, at or above 550 = 39, and at or above 625 = 11; Wyoming; average score = 524, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 75, at or above 550 = 36, and at or above 625 = 7; Kansas; average score = 524, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 74, at or above 550 = 36, and at or above 625 = 7; Virginia; average score = 523, at or above 400 = 94, at or above 475 = 73, at or above 550 = 38, and at or above 625 = 10; Washington; average score = 523, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 72, at or above 550 = 38, and at or above 625 = 11; Ohio; average score = 523, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 74, at or above 550 = 36, and at or above 625 = 8; Indiana; average score = 522, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 74, at or above 550 = 35, and at or above 625 = 7; Rhode Island; average score = 521, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 72, at or above 550 = 37, and at or above 625 = 9; South Dakota; average score = 521, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 74, at or above 550 = 35, and at or above 625 = 7; Colorado; average score = 518, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 71, at or above 550 = 35, and at or above 625 = 8; Connecticut; average score = 518, at or above 400 = 91, at or above 475 = 69, at or above 550 = 37, and at or above 625 = 10; Department of Defense Education Activity schools; average score = 517, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 73, at or above 550 = 31, and at or above 625 = 5; Illinois; average score = 517, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 70, at or above 550 = 34, and at or above 625 = 8; Israel; average score = 516, at or above 400 = 87, at or above 475 = 68, at or above 550 = 40, and at or above 625 = 12; Texas; average score = 515, at or above 400 = 94, at or above 475 = 71, at or above 550 = 31, and at or above 625 = 6; Delaware; average score = 515, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 70, at or above 550 = 32, and at or above 625 = 7; Maryland; average score = 514, at or above 400 = 91, at or above 475 = 68, at or above 550 = 34, and at or above 625 = 9; Finland; average score = 514, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 73, at or above 550 = 30, and at or above 625 = 4; Florida; average score = 513, at or above 400 = 94, at or above 475 = 68, at or above 550 = 31, and at or above 625 = 8; Oregon; average score = 513, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 69, at or above 550 = 32, and at or above 625 = 7; Idaho; average score = 513, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 69, at or above 550 = 31, and at or above 625 = 7; Ontario, Canada; average score = 512, at or above 400 = 94, at or above 475 = 71, at or above 550 = 31, and at or above 625 = 4; Missouri; average score = 512, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 68, at or above 550 = 31, and at or above 625 = 6; Nebraska; average score = 511, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 68, at or above 550 = 30, and at or above 625 = 6; Utah; average score = 510, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 67, at or above 550 = 30, and at or above 625 = 6; United States; average score = 509, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 68, at or above 550 = 30, and at or above 625 = 7; Arkansas; average score = 509, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 67, at or above 550 = 29, and at or above 625 = 6; United States (public); average score = 507, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 67, at or above 550 = 29, and at or above 625 = 6; and Slovenia; average score = 505, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 67, at or above 550 = 27, and at or above 625 = 4. See notes at end of figure 3-C. At the Advanced benchmark in mathematics, eighth-graders can reason with data from several sources or unfamiliar representations to solve multi-step problems. The percentage of students in Massachusetts demonstrating these skills was higher than the percentages in 41 of the participating education systems. Nineteen percent of eighth-graders in Massachusetts reached the Advanced level, compared to about 50 percent of students in Chinese Taipei-CHN, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. In the states with average scores higher than the TIMSS average, the percentages of students scoring at or above the High benchmark ranged from 29 percent in Arkansas to 57 percent in Massachusetts. In the education systems that scored higher than the TIMSS average, the percentages of students scoring at or above High ranged from 27 percent in Slovenia to 78 percent in Singapore. See appendix tables A-9 and A-10 for benchmark percentages and standard errors. Figure 3-B. Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics for students with average scores not significantly different from the TIMSS average, by jurisdiction: 2011 Image of a graphic that shows the average scores not significantly different from the TIMMS average in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics by jurisdiction in 2011. The graphic shows the scale score with a range of 0 to 1000, plotted on this range are scores for at or above the 400-benchmark level, at or above the 475-benchmark level, at or above the 550-benchmark level, and at or above the 625-benchmark levels. England; average score = 507, at or above 400 = 88, at or above 475 = 65, at or above 550 = 32, and at or above 625 = 8; Alberta, Canada; average score = 505, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 69, at or above 550 = 24, and at or above 625 = 3; Kentucky; average score = 505, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 65, at or above 550 = 27, and at or above 625 = 5; Hungary; average score = 505, at or above 400 = 88, at or above 475 = 65, at or above 550 = 32, and at or above 625 = 8; Australia; average score = 505, at or above 400 = 89, at or above 475 = 63, at or above 550 = 29, and at or above 625 = 9; Hawaii; average score = 504, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 64, at or above 550 = 29, and at or above 625 = 7; South Carolina; average score = 504, at or above 400 = 91, at or above 475 = 64, at or above 550 = 27, and at or above 625 = 6; Lithuania; average score = 502, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 64, at or above 550 = 29, and at or above 625 = 5; Arizona; average score = 502, at or above 400 = 89, at or above 475 = 63, at or above 550 = 29, and at or above 625 = 7; Michigan; average score = 502, at or above 400 = 91, at or above 475 = 63, at or above 550 = 26, and at or above 625 = 5; Nevada; average score = 500, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 62, at or above 550 = 26, and at or above 625 = 5; Louisiana; average score = 500, at or above 400 = 91, at or above 475 = 63, at or above 550 = 24, and at or above 625 = 4; Italy; average score = 498, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 64, at or above 550 = 24, and at or above 625 = 3; Georgia; average score = 497, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 61, at or above 550 = 24, and at or above 625 = 4; New Mexico; average score = 496, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 61, at or above 550 = 22, and at or above 625 = 3; and California; average score = 493, at or above 400 = 87, at or above 475 = 59, at or above 550 = 24, and at or above 625 = 5. See notes at end of figure 3-C. In South Carolina (figure 3-B), 6 percent of the students reached the Advanced benchmark, while over one-quarter of the students scored at or above the High benchmark. Figure 3-C. Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics for students with average scores lower than the TIMSS average, by jurisdiction: 2011 Image of a graphic that shows the average scores lower than the TIMMS average in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics by jurisdiction in 2011. The graphic shows the scale score with a range of 0 to 1000, plotted on this range are scores for at or above the 400-benchmark level, at or above the 475-benchmark level, at or above the 550-benchmark level, and at or above the 625-benchmark levels. West Virginia; average score = 492, at or above 400 = 89, at or above 475 = 59, at or above 550 = 21, and at or above 625 = 3; Oklahoma; average score = 491, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 59, at or above 550 = 20, and at or above 625 = 3; Tennessee; average score = 490, at or above 400 = 88, at or above 475 = 58, at or above 550 = 21, and at or above 625 = 4; New Zealand; average score = 488, at or above 400 = 84, at or above 475 = 57, at or above 550 = 24, and at or above 625 = 5; Kazakhstan; average score = 487, at or above 400 = 85, at or above 475 = 57, at or above 550 = 23, and at or above 625 = 3; Sweden; average score = 484, at or above 400 = 89, at or above 475 = 57, at or above 550 = 16, and at or above 625 = 1; District of Columbia; average score = 481, at or above 400 = 83, at or above 475 = 54, at or above 550 = 21, and at or above 625 = 5; Ukraine; average score = 479, at or above 400 = 81, at or above 475 = 53, at or above 550 = 22, and at or above 625 = 5; Dubai, UAE; average score = 478, at or above 400 = 79, at or above 475 = 53, at or above 550 = 23, and at or above 625 = 5; Mississippi; average score = 476, at or above 400 = 85, at or above 475 = 51, at or above 550 = 15, and at or above 625 = 2; Norway; average score = 475, at or above 400 = 87, at or above 475 = 51, at or above 550 = 12, and at or above 625 = 1; Armenia; average score = 467, at or above 400 = 76, at or above 475 = 49, at or above 550 = 18, and at or above 625 = 3; Alabama; average score = 466, at or above 400 = 79, at or above 475 = 46, at or above 550 = 15, and at or above 625 = 2; Romania; average score = 458, at or above 400 = 71, at or above 475 = 44, at or above 550 = 19, and at or above 625 = 5; United Arab Emirates; average score = 456, at or above 400 = 73, at or above 475 = 42, at or above 550 = 14, and at or above 625 = 2; Turkey; average score = 452, at or above 400 = 67, at or above 475 = 40, at or above 550 = 20, and at or above 625 = 7; Lebanon; average score = 449, at or above 400 = 73, at or above 475 = 38, at or above 550 = 9, and at or above 625 = 1; Abu Dhabi, UAE; average score = 449, at or above 400 = 71, at or above 475 = 39, at or above 550 = 12, and at or above 625 = 2; Malaysia; average score = 440, at or above 400 = 65, at or above 475 = 36, at or above 550 = 12, and at or above 625 = 2; Georgia; average score = 431, at or above 400 = 62, at or above 475 = 36, at or above 550 = 13, and at or above 625 = 3; Thailand; average score = 427, at or above 400 = 62, at or above 475 = 28, at or above 550 = 8, and at or above 625 = 2; Republic of Macedonia; average score = 426, at or above 400 = 61, at or above 475 = 35, at or above 550 = 12, and at or above 625 = 3; Tunisia; average score = 425, at or above 400 = 61, at or above 475 = 25, at or above 550 = 5, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero; Chile; average score = 416, at or above 400 = 57, at or above 475 = 23, at or above 550 = 5, and at or above 625 = 1; Islamic Republic of Iran; average score = 415, at or above 400 = 55, at or above 475 = 26, at or above 550 = 8, and at or above 625 = 2; Qatar; average score = 410, at or above 400 = 54, at or above 475 = 29, at or above 550 = 10, and at or above 625 = 2; Bahrain; average score = 409, at or above 400 = 53, at or above 475 = 26, at or above 550 = 8, and at or above 625 = 1; Jordan; average score = 406, at or above 400 = 55, at or above 475 = 26, at or above 550 = 6, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero; Palestinian National Authority; average score = 404, at or above 400 = 52, at or above 475 = 25, at or above 550 = 7, and at or above 625 = 1; Saudi Arabia; average score = 394, at or above 400 = 47, at or above 475 = 20, at or above 550 = 5, and at or above 625 = 1; Indonesia; average score = 386, at or above 400 = 43, at or above 475 = 15, at or above 550 = 2, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero; Syrian Arab Republic; average score = 380, at or above 400 = 43, at or above 475 = 17, at or above 550 = 3, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero; Morocco; average score = 371, at or above 400 = 36, at or above 475 = 12, at or above 550 = 2, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero; Oman; average score = 366, at or above 400 = 39, at or above 475 = 16, at or above 550 = 4, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero; and Ghana; average score = 331, at or above 400 = 21, at or above 475 = 5, at or above 550 = 1, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero. Footnote 1. Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. Footnote 2. Validation state. Footnote 3. Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Average scores appear in parentheses. Jurisdictions are ordered based on unrounded average scores. Results for validation states and education systems are based on actual results from the TIMSS mathematics assessment, while the results for other U.S. states are predicted results. In addition, the results for all U.S. states and United States (public) include public schools only. Results for education systems include public and private schools. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. TIMSS International Benchmarks for Achievement in Mathematics at Grade 8 Presented below are brief descriptions of what eighth- graders should know and be able to do at the Low, Intermediate, High, and Advanced benchmarks in mathematics. TIMSS benchmarks are cumulative; therefore, student performance at the High benchmark includes the competencies associated with the Low and Intermediate benchmarks. Extensive descriptions of what students should know and be able to do at each benchmark can be found in the TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics report. ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 625 Students can reason with information, draw conclusions, make generalizations, and solve linear equations. Students can solve a variety of fraction, proportion, and percent problems and justify their conclusions. Students can express generalizations algebraically and model situations. They can solve a variety of problems involving equations, formulas, and functions. Students can reason with geometric figures to solve problems. Students can reason with data from several sources or unfamiliar representations to solve multi-step problems. HIGH INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 550 Students can apply their understanding and knowledge in a variety of relatively complex situations. Students can use information from several sources to solve problems involving different types of numbers and operations. Students can relate fractions, decimals, and percents to each other. Students at this level show basic procedural knowledge related to algebraic expressions. They can use properties of lines, angles, triangles, rectangles, and rectangular prisms to solve problems. They can analyze data in a variety of graphs. INTERMEDIATE INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 475 Students can apply basic mathematical knowledge in a variety of situations. Students can solve problems involving decimals, fractions, proportions, and percentages. They understand simple algebraic relationships. Students can relate a two-dimensional drawing to a three-dimensional object. They can read, interpret, and construct graphs and tables. They recognize basic notions of likelihood. LOW INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 400 Students have some knowledge of whole numbers and decimals, operations, and basic graphs. SCIENCE Average scores for 51states reach the Intermediate benchmark 8states—Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin— reach the High benchmark 25education systems reach the Intermediate benchmark 5education systems— Chinese Taipei-CHN, Finland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore—reach the High benchmark How do U.S. states perform in relation to TIMSS international benchmarks in science? The average scores of students in 51 states were at or above the TIMSS Intermediate benchmark cutpoint of 475 (figure 4). Average scores for eight states—Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin—reached the High benchmark cutpoint of 550. The average scores of the 45 participating education systems included in the figure spanned from just above the Low benchmark to above the High benchmark (figure 5). Although not shown, Ghana and Morocco scored below the Low benchmark cutpoint of 400. Scores in TIMSS science varied more across the 47 participating education systems than across the 52 states. Figure 4. Average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by state: 2011 Image of a graphic that shows the average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade science by state in 2011. The y axis shows the scale score with a range of 0 to 1000, plotted on this range are indicators for the low-benchmark level, the intermediate-benchmark level, and the high-benchmark levels. Also shown is the TIMMS average. The x axis has the states, each with a mean average score as well as a confidence interval indicated as a range between the low point and the high point scores. The Low benchmark is 400; District of Columbia had a low point of had a low point of 445, a middle-point mean of 453, and a high-point of 461; The Intermediate benchmark is 475; Alabama (validation state) had a low point of had a low point of 473, a middle-point mean of 485, and a high-point of 498; Missouri had a low point of had a low point of 478, a middle-point mean of 486, and a high-point of 494; California (validation state) had a low point of 490, a middle-point mean of 499, and a high-point of 507; The TIMMS average was 500; Hawaii had a low point of 501, a middle-point mean of 507, and a high-point of 513; Arizona had a low point of 500, a middle-point mean of 507, and a high-point of 515; New Mexico had a low point of 506, a middle-point mean of 512, and a high-point of 518; Nevada had a low point of 507, a middle-point mean of 513, and a high-point of 519; Louisiana had a low point of 505, a middle-point mean of 514, and a high-point of 523; South Carolina had a low point of 513, a middle-point mean of 519, and a high-point of 526; Oklahoma had a low point of 512, a middle-point mean of 519, and a high-point of 526; West Virginia had a low point of 513, a middle-point mean of 520, and a high-point of 526; Georgia had a low point of 513, a middle-point mean of 521, and a high-point of 529; Arkansas had a low point of 514, a middle-point mean of 521, and a high-point of 528; Illinois had a low point of 515, a middle-point mean of 522, and a high-point of 528; United States had a low point of 517, a middle-point mean of 522, and a high-point of 527; Tennessee had a low point of 517, a middle-point mean of 524, and a high-point of 530; Texas had a low point of 518, a middle-point mean of 524, and a high-point of 531; Delaware had a low point of 522, a middle-point mean of 528, and a high-point of 533; Maryland had a low point of 521, a middle-point mean of 528, and a high-point of 535; Rhode Island had a low point of 524, a middle-point mean of 530, and a high-point of 536; Florida (validation state) had a low point of 516, a middle-point mean of 530, and a high-point of 544; North Carolina (validation state) had a low point of 519, a middle-point mean of 532, and a high-point of 544; Connecticut (validation state) had a low point of 523, a middle-point mean of 532, and a high-point of 541; Indiana (validation state) had a low point of 523, a middle-point mean of 533, and a high-point of 542; Kansas had a low point of 528, a middle-point mean of 534, and a high-point of 540; Kentucky had a low point of 528, a middle-point mean of 534, and a high-point of 541; Michigan had a low point of 529, a middle-point mean of 535, and a high-point of 542; Oregon had a low point of 529, a middle-point mean of 536, and a high-point of 542; Idaho had a low point of 530, a middle-point mean of 536, and a high-point of 542; Pennsylvania had a low point of 529, a middle-point mean of 536, and a high-point of 544; Washington had a low point of 530, a middle-point mean of 536, and a high-point of 543; Missouri had a low point of 530, a middle-point mean of 537, and a high-point of 544; New York had a low point of 531, a middle-point mean of 538, and a high-point of 544; Nebraska had a low point of 536, a middle-point mean of 541, and a high-point of 547; Colorado (validation state) had a low point of 533, a middle-point mean of 542, and a high-point of 551; Virginia had a low point of 538, a middle-point mean of 544, and a high-point of 551; Alaska had a low point of 538, a middle-point mean of 544, and a high-point of 550; South Dakota had a low point of 540, a middle-point mean of 546, and a high-point of 551; Department of Defense Education Activity schools had a low point of 540, a middle-point mean of 546, and a high-point of 552; Ohio had a low point of 540, a middle-point mean of 547, and a high-point of 553; Utah had a low point of 541, a middle-point mean of 547, and a high-point of 554; Iowa had a low point of 543, a middle-point mean of 549, and a high-point of 555; Wyoming had a low point of 543, a middle-point mean of 549, and a high-point of 554; New Jersey had a low point of 542, a middle-point mean of 549, and a high-point of 556; The High benchmark is 550; Wisconsin had a low point of 544, a middle-point mean of 551, and a high-point of 558; Montana had a low point of 545, a middle-point mean of 551, and a high-point of 557; Minnesota (validation state) had a low point of 544, a middle-point mean of 553, and a high-point of 562; Maine had a low point of 548, a middle-point mean of 554, and a high-point of 560; North Dakota had a low point of 549, a middle-point mean of 555, and a high-point of 561; New Hampshire had a low point of 551, a middle-point mean of 557, and a high-point of 563; Vermont had a low point of 555, a middle-point mean of 561, and a high-point of 567; Massachusetts (validation state) had a low point of 557, a middle-point mean of 567, and a high-point of 577; and The Advanced benchmark is 625. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Figure 5. Average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by education system: 2011 Image of a graphic that shows the average scores and confidence intervals in TIMSS eighth-grade science by jurisdiction in 2011. The y axis shows the scale score with a range of 0 to 1000, plotted on this range are indicators for the low-benchmark level, the intermediate-benchmark level, and the high-benchmark levels. Also shown is the TIMMS average. The x axis has the states, each with a mean average score as well as a confidence interval indicated as a range between the low point and the high point scores. Ghana had a low point of had a low point of 296, a middle-point mean of 306, and a high-point of 316; Morocco had a low point of had a low point of 372, a middle-point mean of 376, and a high-point of 380; The Low benchmark is 400; Indonesia had a low point of had a low point of 397, a middle-point mean of 406, and a high-point of 414; Lebanon had a low point of had a low point of 396, a middle-point mean of 406, and a high-point of 416; Republic of Macedonia had a low point of had a low point of 397, a middle-point mean of 407, and a high-point of 418; Qatar had a low point of had a low point of 412, a middle-point mean of 419, and a high-point of 425; Oman had a low point of had a low point of 413, a middle-point mean of 420, and a high-point of 426; Georgia had a low point of had a low point of 414, a middle-point mean of 420, and a high-point of 426; Palestinian National Authority had a low point of had a low point of 414, a middle-point mean of 420, and a high-point of 427; Syrian Arab Republic had a low point of had a low point of 419, a middle-point mean of 426, and a high-point of 434; Malaysia had a low point of had a low point of 414, a middle-point mean of 426, and a high-point of 439; Saudi Arabia had a low point of had a low point of 429, a middle-point mean of 436, and a high-point of 444; Armenia had a low point of had a low point of 431, a middle-point mean of 437, and a high-point of 443; Tunisia had a low point of had a low point of 434, a middle-point mean of 439, and a high-point of 443; Jordan had a low point of had a low point of 441, a middle-point mean of 449, and a high-point of 457; Thailand had a low point of had a low point of 443, a middle-point mean of 451, and a high-point of 459; Bahrain had a low point of had a low point of 449, a middle-point mean of 452, and a high-point of 456; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates had a low point of had a low point of 453, a middle-point mean of 461, and a high-point of 469; Chile had a low point of had a low point of 457, a middle-point mean of 461, and a high-point of 466; United Arab Emirates had a low point of had a low point of 460, a middle-point mean of 465, and a high-point of 469; Romania had a low point of had a low point of 458, a middle-point mean of 465, and a high-point of 472; Islamic Republic of Iran had a low point of had a low point of 467, a middle-point mean of 474, and a high-point of 482; The Intermediate benchmark is 475; Turkey had a low point of had a low point of 476, a middle-point mean of 483, and a high-point of 490; Kazakhstan had a low point of had a low point of 482, a middle-point mean of 490, and a high-point of 498; Dubai, United Arab Emirates had a low point of had a low point of 480, a middle-point mean of 485, and a high-point of 490; Norway had a low point of had a low point of 489, a middle-point mean of 494, and a high-point of 500; The TIMMS average was 500; Ukraine had a low point of had a low point of 494, a middle-point mean of 501, and a high-point of 508; Italy had a low point of had a low point of 496, a middle-point mean of 501, and a high-point of 506; Sweden had a low point of had a low point of 505, a middle-point mean of 509, and a high-point of 514; New Zealand had a low point of had a low point of 503, a middle-point mean of 512, and a high-point of 521; Lithuania had a low point of had a low point of 509, a middle-point mean of 514, and a high-point of 519; Israel had a low point of had a low point of 508, a middle-point mean of 516, and a high-point of 524; Australia had a low point of had a low point of 510, a middle-point mean of 519, and a high-point of 529; Quebec, Canada had a low point of had a low point of 515, a middle-point mean of 520, and a high-point of 525; Ontario, Canada had a low point of had a low point of 516, a middle-point mean of 521, and a high-point of 526; Hungary had a low point of had a low point of 516, a middle-point mean of 522, and a high-point of 528; United States had a low point of had a low point of 520, a middle-point mean of 525, and a high-point of 530; England had a low point of had a low point of 523, a middle-point mean of 533, and a high-point of 543; Hong Kong SAR had a low point of had a low point of 528, a middle-point mean of 535, and a high-point of 542; Russian Federation had a low point of had a low point of 536, a middle-point mean of 542, and a high-point of 549; Slovenia had a low point of had a low point of 537, a middle-point mean of 543, and a high-point of 548; Alberta, Canada had a low point of had a low point of 541, a middle-point mean of 546, and a high-point of 550; The High benchmark is 550; Finland had a low point of had a low point of 548, a middle-point mean of 552, and a high-point of 557; Japan had a low point of had a low point of 553, a middle-point mean of 558, and a high-point of 563; Republic of Korea had a low point of had a low point of 556, a middle-point mean of 560, and a high-point of 564; Chinese Taipei had a low point of had a low point of 559, a middle-point mean of 564, and a high-point of 568; Singapore had a low point of had a low point of 581, a middle-point mean of 590, and a high-point of 599; and The Advanced benchmark is 625. 1 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. NOTE: Results for all education systems include public and private schools. Results are not shown for education systems that scored below 400 (Ghana and Morocco). SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. What is the margin of error for the scores? Each score has a margin of error associated with it that is expressed in terms of a standard error. The size of the standard errors can be influenced by survey design factors and, therefore, vary across states and education systems. The lines or “tails” above and below each boxed score in the graphic represent a confidence interval, which indicates the range of the boxed score with a 95 percent level of confidence. At this level of confidence, a score’s confidence interval equals plus or minus 1.96 times the standard error around the score. The standard errors for U.S. state scores in science ranged from 2.8 to 7.3, while the standard errors for education system scores ranged from 2.0 to 6.3 (see appendix tables A-7 and A-8). Find more information about standard errors in the Linking Study section of this report. It should be noted that numerous differences between the NAEP and TIMSS administrations, assessment contents, and program policies could contribute to the sources of error around predicted TIMSS scores. Therefore, predicted TIMSS scores should not be interpreted as actual TIMSS scores. How does student performance in states compare internationally in science? Average scores for 90 percent of the states and 40 percent of the participating education systems were higher than the TIMSS average (figure 6-A). Massachusetts and Vermont scored higher than the TIMSS average, the High benchmark, and scores for 43 participating education systems. Average scores for Arizona and California were not significantly different from the TIMSS average (figure 6-B). The District of Columbia, although the lowest scoring state, scored higher than 14 education systems (figure 6-C). Singapore was the only education system that scored higher than all 52 states. TIMSS also reports the percentages of students reaching each of the four international benchmarks. All states and most participating education systems had some students scoring at the High and Advanced benchmarks. At the Advanced level in science, students apply knowledge and understanding of scientific processes and relationships and show some knowledge of the process of scientific inquiry. The percentage of students demonstrating these skills in Massachusetts (24 percent) was higher than percentages in all but three participating education systems—Chinese Taipei-CHN, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. In states that scored higher than the TIMSS average, the percentages of students scoring at or above the High benchmark ranged from 31 percent in Hawaii to 61 percent in Massachusetts. In the education systems that scored higher than the TIMSS average, the percentages of students scoring at or above the High benchmark ranged from 33 percent in Lithuania and Sweden to 69 percent in Singapore. See appendix tables A-11 and A-12 for benchmark percentages and standard errors. Figure 6-A. Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade science for students with average scores higher than the TIMSS average, by jurisdiction: 2011 Image of a graphic that shows the average scores higher than the TIMMS average in TIMSS eighth-grade science by jurisdiction in 2011. The graphic shows the scale score with a range of 0 to 1000, plotted on this range are scores for at or above the 400-benchmark level, at or above the 475-benchmark level, at or above the 550-benchmark level, and at or above the 625-benchmark levels. Singapore; average score = 590, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 87, at or above 550 = 69, and at or above 625 = 40; Massachusetts; average score = 567, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 87, at or above 550 = 61, and at or above 625 = 24; Chinese Taipei; average score = 564, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 85, at or above 550 = 60, and at or above 625 = 24; Vermont; average score = 561, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 87, at or above 550 = 60, and at or above 625 = 19; Republic of Korea; average score = 560, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 86, at or above 550 = 57, and at or above 625 = 20; Japan; average score = 558, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 86, at or above 550 = 57, and at or above 625 = 18; New Hampshire; average score = 557, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 87, at or above 550 = 57, and at or above 625 = 17; North Dakota; average score = 555, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 88, at or above 550 = 56, and at or above 625 = 13; Maine; average score = 554, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 88, at or above 550 = 55, and at or above 625 = 13; Minnesota; average score = 553, at or above 400 = 98, at or above 475 = 85, at or above 550 = 54, and at or above 625 = 16; Finland; average score = 552, at or above 400 = 99, at or above 475 = 88, at or above 550 = 53, and at or above 625 = 13; Montana; average score = 551, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 85, at or above 550 = 53, and at or above 625 = 14; Wisconsin; average score = 551, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 83, at or above 550 = 53, and at or above 625 = 17; New Jersey; average score = 549, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 81, at or above 550 = 52, and at or above 625 = 18; Wyoming; average score = 549, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 85, at or above 550 = 52, and at or above 625 = 12; Iowa; average score = 549, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 84, at or above 550 = 52, and at or above 625 = 14; Utah; average score = 547, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 83, at or above 550 = 51, and at or above 625 = 15; Ohio; average score = 547, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 82, at or above 550 = 51, and at or above 625 = 15; Department of Defense Education Activity schools; average score = 546, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 84, at or above 550 = 50, and at or above 625 = 11; South Dakota; average score = 546, at or above 400 = 97, at or above 475 = 84, at or above 550 = 50, and at or above 625 = 12; Alberta, Canada; average score = 546, at or above 400 = 98, at or above 475 = 85, at or above 550 = 48, and at or above 625 = 12; Alaska; average score = 544, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 80, at or above 550 = 50, and at or above 625 = 16; Virginia; average score = 544, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 81, at or above 550 = 49, and at or above 625 = 15; Slovenia; average score = 543, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 82, at or above 550 = 48, and at or above 625 = 13; Russian Federation; average score = 542, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 81, at or above 550 = 48, and at or above 625 = 14; Colorado; average score = 542, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 80, at or above 550 = 48, and at or above 625 = 14; Nebraska; average score = 541, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 80, at or above 550 = 48, and at or above 625 = 14; New York; average score = 538, at or above 400 = 94, at or above 475 = 77, at or above 550 = 46, and at or above 625 = 16; Missouri; average score = 537, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 79, at or above 550 = 45, and at or above 625 = 12; Washington; average score = 536, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 78, at or above 550 = 45, and at or above 625 = 12; Pennsylvania; average score = 536, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 76, at or above 550 = 46, and at or above 625 = 16; Idaho; average score = 536, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 79, at or above 550 = 44, and at or above 625 = 11; Oregon; average score = 536, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 77, at or above 550 = 45, and at or above 625 = 13; Michigan; average score = 535, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 77, at or above 550 = 45, and at or above 625 = 13; Hong Kong SAR; average score = 535, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 80, at or above 550 = 47, and at or above 625 = 9; Kentucky; average score = 534, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 79, at or above 550 = 43, and at or above 625 = 9; Kansas; average score = 534, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 78, at or above 550 = 43, and at or above 625 = 11; England; average score = 533, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 76, at or above 550 = 44, and at or above 625 = 14; Indiana; average score = 533, at or above 400 = 95, at or above 475 = 78, at or above 550 = 43, and at or above 625 = 10; Connecticut; average score = 532, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 74, at or above 550 = 45, and at or above 625 = 14; North Carolina; average score = 532, at or above 400 = 94, at or above 475 = 75, at or above 550 = 42, and at or above 625 = 12; Florida; average score = 530, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 74, at or above 550 = 42, and at or above 625 = 13; Rhode Island; average score = 530, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 73, at or above 550 = 43, and at or above 625 = 14; Maryland; average score = 528, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 73, at or above 550 = 42, and at or above 625 = 13; Delaware; average score = 528, at or above 400 = 94, at or above 475 = 75, at or above 550 = 40, and at or above 625 = 10; United States; average score = 525, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 73, at or above 550 = 40, and at or above 625 = 10; Texas; average score = 524, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 73, at or above 550 = 39, and at or above 625 = 10; Tennessee; average score = 524, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 73, at or above 550 = 39, and at or above 625 = 10; Hungary; average score = 522, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 75, at or above 550 = 39, and at or above 625 = 9; United States (public); average score = 522, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 73, at or above 550 = 39, and at or above 625 = 9; Illinois; average score = 522, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 72, at or above 550 = 37, and at or above 625 = 9; Ontario, Canada; average score = 521, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 76, at or above 550 = 35, and at or above 625 = 6; Arkansas; average score = 521, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 72, at or above 550 = 37, and at or above 625 = 9; Georgia; average score = 521, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 71, at or above 550 = 38, and at or above 625 = 10; Quebec, Canada; average score = 520, at or above 400 = 96, at or above 475 = 76, at or above 550 = 34, and at or above 625 = 5; West Virginia; average score = 520, at or above 400 = 94, at or above 475 = 73, at or above 550 = 34, and at or above 625 = 6; Australia; average score = 519, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 70, at or above 550 = 35, and at or above 625 = 11; Oklahoma; average score = 519, at or above 400 = 93, at or above 475 = 72, at or above 550 = 35, and at or above 625 = 8; South Carolina; average score = 519, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 71, at or above 550 = 36, and at or above 625 = 9; Israel; average score = 516, at or above 400 = 88, at or above 475 = 69, at or above 550 = 39, and at or above 625 = 11; Lithuania; average score = 514, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 71, at or above 550 = 33, and at or above 625 = 6; Louisiana; average score = 514, at or above 400 = 91, at or above 475 = 69, at or above 550 = 34, and at or above 625 = 8; Nevada; average score = 513, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 69, at or above 550 = 33, and at or above 625 = 7; New Zealand; average score = 512, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 67, at or above 550 = 34, and at or above 625 = 9; New Mexico; average score = 512, at or above 400 = 92, at or above 475 = 68, at or above 550 = 32, and at or above 625 = 6; Sweden; average score = 509, at or above 400 = 91, at or above 475 = 68, at or above 550 = 33, and at or above 625 = 6; Hawaii; average score = 507, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 65, at or above 550 = 31, and at or above 625 = 7 See notes at end of figure 6-C. Figure 6-B. Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade science for students with average scores not significantly different from the TIMSS average, by jurisdiction: 2011 Image of a graphic that shows the average scores not significantly different from the TIMMS average in TIMSS eighth-grade science by jurisdiction in 2011. The graphic shows the scale score with a range of 0 to 1000, plotted on this range are scores for at or above the 400-benchmark level, at or above the 475-benchmark level, at or above the 550-benchmark level, and at or above the 625-benchmark levels. Arizona; average score = 507, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 66, at or above 550 = 31, and at or above 625 = 7; Italy; average score = 501, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 65, at or above 550 = 27, and at or above 625 = 4; Ukraine; average score = 501, at or above 400 = 88, at or above 475 = 64, at or above 550 = 29, and at or above 625 = 6; California; average score = 499, at or above 400 = 88, at or above 475 = 62, at or above 550 = 28, and at or above 625 = 6 See notes at end of figure 6-C. Figure 6-C. Benchmark-level results in TIMSS eighth-grade science for students with average scores lower than the TIMSS average, by jurisdiction: 2011 Image of a graphic that shows the average scores lower than the TIMMS average in TIMSS eighth-grade science by jurisdiction in 2011. The graphic shows the scale score with a range of 0 to 1000, plotted on this range are scores for at or above the 400-benchmark level, at or above the 475-benchmark level, at or above the 550-benchmark level, and at or above the 625-benchmark levels. Norway; average score = 494, at or above 400 = 90, at or above 475 = 62, at or above 550 = 22, and at or above 625 = 3; Kazakhstan; average score = 490, at or above 400 = 86, at or above 475 = 58, at or above 550 = 23, and at or above 625 = 4; Mississippi; average score = 486, at or above 400 = 86, at or above 475 = 57, at or above 550 = 22, and at or above 625 = 3; Alabama; average score = 485, at or above 400 = 83, at or above 475 = 56, at or above 550 = 24, and at or above 625 = 5; Dubai, UAE; average score = 485, at or above 400 = 79, at or above 475 = 57, at or above 550 = 28, and at or above 625 = 7; Turkey; average score = 483, at or above 400 = 79, at or above 475 = 54, at or above 550 = 26, and at or above 625 = 8; Islamic Republic of Iran; average score = 474, at or above 400 = 79, at or above 475 = 50, at or above 550 = 21, and at or above 625 = 5; Romania; average score = 465, at or above 400 = 78, at or above 475 = 47, at or above 550 = 16, and at or above 625 = 3; United Arab Emirates; average score = 465, at or above 400 = 75, at or above 475 = 47, at or above 550 = 19, and at or above 625 = 4; Chile; average score = 461, at or above 400 = 79, at or above 475 = 43, at or above 550 = 12, and at or above 625 = 1; Abu Dhabi, UAE; average score = 461, at or above 400 = 74, at or above 475 = 45, at or above 550 = 17, and at or above 625 = 4; District of Columbia; average score = 453, at or above 400 = 73, at or above 475 = 45, at or above 550 = 17, and at or above 625 = 3; Bahrain; average score = 452, at or above 400 = 70, at or above 475 = 44, at or above 550 = 17, and at or above 625 = 3; Thailand; average score = 451, at or above 400 = 74, at or above 475 = 39, at or above 550 = 10, and at or above 625 = 1; Jordan; average score = 449, at or above 400 = 72, at or above 475 = 45, at or above 550 = 15, and at or above 625 = 2; Tunisia; average score = 439, at or above 400 = 72, at or above 475 = 30, at or above 550 = 5, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero; Armenia; average score = 437, at or above 400 = 66, at or above 475 = 37, at or above 550 = 12, and at or above 625 = 1; Saudi Arabia; average score = 436, at or above 400 = 68, at or above 475 = 33, at or above 550 = 8, and at or above 625 = 1; Malaysia; average score = 426, at or above 400 = 62, at or above 475 = 34, at or above 550 = 11, and at or above 625 = 1; Syrian Arab Republic; average score = 426, at or above 400 = 63, at or above 475 = 29, at or above 550 = 6, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero; Palestinian National Authority; average score = 420, at or above 400 = 59, at or above 475 = 33, at or above 550 = 10, and at or above 625 = 1; Georgia; average score = 420, at or above 400 = 62, at or above 475 = 28, at or above 550 = 6, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero; Oman; average score = 420, at or above 400 = 59, at or above 475 = 34, at or above 550 = 11, and at or above 625 = 2; Qatar; average score = 419, at or above 400 = 58, at or above 475 = 34, at or above 550 = 14, and at or above 625 = 3; Republic of Macedonia; average score = 407, at or above 400 = 53, at or above 475 = 30, at or above 550 = 10, and at or above 625 = 2; Lebanon; average score = 406, at or above 400 = 54, at or above 475 = 25, at or above 550 = 7, and at or above 625 = 1; Indonesia; average score = 406, at or above 400 = 54, at or above 475 = 19, at or above 550 = 3, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero; Morocco; average score = 376, at or above 400 = 39, at or above 475 = 13, at or above 550 = 2, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero; and Ghana; average score = 306, at or above 400 = 22, at or above 475 = 6, at or above 550 = 1, and at or above 625 = rounds to zero. Footnote 1. Validation state. Footnote 2. Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). Footnote 3. Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Average scores appear in parentheses. Jurisdictions are ordered based on unrounded average scores. Results for validation states and education systems are based on actual results from the TIMSS science assessment, while the results for other U.S. states are predicted results. In addition, the results for all U.S. states and United States (public) include public schools only. Results for education systems include public and private schools. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. How to Read the Graphics In Vermont (figure 6-A), 19 percent of students scored at the Advanced benchmark, and 60 percent of the students scored at or above the High benchmark. In Mississippi (the first state in figure 6-C), 3 percent of students scored at the Advanced benchmark, and over one-fifth of the students scored at or above the High benchmark. TIMSS International Benchmarks for Achievement in Science at Grade 8 Presented below are brief descriptions of what eighth- graders should know and be able to do at the Low, Intermediate, High, and Advanced benchmarks in science. TIMSS benchmarks are cumulative; therefore, student performance at the High benchmark includes the competencies associated with the Low and Intermediate benchmarks. Find extensive descriptions of what students should know and be able to do at each benchmark in the TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science report. ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 625 Students apply knowledge and understanding of scientific processes and relationships and show some knowledge of the process of scientific inquiry. Students communicate their understanding of characteristics and life processes of organisms, reproduction and development, ecosystems and organisms’ interactions with the environment, and factors relating to human health. They demonstrate understanding of properties of light and relationships among physical properties of materials, apply and communicate their understanding of electricity and energy in practical contexts, and demonstrate an understanding of magnetic and gravitational forces and motion. Students communicate their understanding of the solar system and of Earth’s structure, physical characteristics, resources, processes, cycles, and history. They have a beginning ability to interpret results in the context of a simple experiment, reason and draw conclusions from descriptions and diagrams, and evaluate and support an argument. HIGH INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 550 Students apply their knowledge and understanding of the sciences to explain phenomena in everyday and abstract contexts. Students demonstrate some understanding of plant and animal structure, life processes, life cycles, and reproduction. They also demonstrate some understanding of ecosystems and organisms’ interactions with their environment, including understanding of human responses to outside conditions and activities. Students demonstrate understanding of some properties of matter, electricity and energy, and magnetic and gravitational forces and motion. They show some knowledge of the solar system, and of Earth’s physical characteristics, processes, and resources. Students demonstrate elementary knowledge and skills related to scientific inquiry. They compare, contrast, and make simple inferences, and provide brief descriptive responses combining knowledge of science concepts with information from both everyday and abstract contexts. INTERMEDIATE INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 475 Students have basic knowledge and understanding of practical situations in the sciences. Students recognize some basic information related to characteristics of living things, their reproduction and life cycles, and their interactions with the environment, and show some understanding of human biology and health. They also show some knowledge of properties of matter and light, electricity and energy, and forces and motion. Students know some basic facts about the solar system and show an initial understanding of Earth’s physical characteristics and resources. They demonstrate ability to interpret information in pictorial diagrams and apply factual knowledge to practical situations. LOW INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK 400 Students show some elementary knowledge of life, physical, and earth sciences. Students demonstrate knowledge of some simple facts related to human health, ecosystems, and the behavioral and physical characteristics of animals. They also demonstrate some basic knowledge of energy and the physical properties of matter. Students interpret simple diagrams, complete simple tables, and provide short written responses to questions requiring factual information. NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study The 2011 NAEP-TIMSS linking study allowed NCES to evaluate multiple linking methodologies. This publication reports predicted scores that are based on the statistical moderation approach for the 43 states that did not participate in TIMSS at the state level. The following sections provide a brief description of the linking study samples and methodologies. Details on the design employed in the study and the analyses conducted to evaluate the various methodologies will be available in the forthcoming NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study: Technical Report (NCES 2014–461). Assessment Samples To evaluate various linking methodologies, multiple samples of students were assessed during the NAEP testing window (January–March) as well as the TIMSS testing window (April–June). • Students assessed in NAEP mathematics or science during the 2011 NAEP testing window (2011 NAEP national sample). • Students assessed during the 2011 NAEP testing window with NAEP-like braided booklets containing both NAEP and TIMSS test questions (braided booklet samples in 2011 NAEP testing window). • Students in the United States assessed in TIMSS mathematics and science during the 2011 TIMSS testing window (2011 TIMSS U.S. national sample). • Students in the United States assessed during the 2011 TIMSS testing window with TIMSS- like braided booklets containing both NAEP and TIMSS test questions (braided booklet sample in 2011 TIMSS testing window). All NAEP and TIMSS 2011 mathematics and science test questions at grade 8 were included in the NAEP- like and TIMSS-like braided booklets. Samples assessed during NAEP testing In 2011, eighth-grade public school students from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense schools were sampled and participated in the NAEP mathematics and science assessments. The NAEP national samples were then composed of all the state samples of public school students, as well as a national sample of private school students. A nationally representative sample of 175,200 eighth-graders from 7,610 schools participated in the NAEP mathematics assessment, and 122,000 eighth-graders from 7,290 schools participated in the NAEP science assessment. Braided booklets—a set of special booklets containing one block of NAEP and one block of TIMSS test questions—were administered to an additional national public schools sample of randomly selected students, about 5,700 students from 3,710 schools for mathematics and 6,000 students from 3,760 schools for science. Samples assessed during TIMSS testing A total of 10,500 eighth-graders selected from randomly sampled classrooms in 500 U.S. public and private schools participated in the TIMSS assessment. The TIMSS U.S. sample did not have a state component similar to NAEP. In addition to the TIMSS U.S. national sample, nine U.S. states—Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and North Carolina—participated in 2011 TIMSS at the state level. These states were given the opportunity to compare the mathematics and science achievement of their students directly against the TIMSS education systems by receiving actual TIMSS scores. In the linking study, the nine states served as “validation states” where their actual TIMSS scores were used to check the accuracy of their predicted results. About 1,700 to 2,600 public school students from each of the nine validation states—approximately 19,600 in total—were selected to participate in the TIMSS assessment. Furthermore, another set of braided booklets was administered to an additional nationally representative sample of 10,400 U.S. students from 510 public and private schools. These braided booklets contained either one block of NAEP mathematics with two blocks of TIMSS mathematics and one block of TIMSS science, or one block of NAEP science with two blocks of TIMSS science and one block of TIMSS mathematics. More details on the design of braided booklets will be available in the forthcoming technical report. Accommodations and Exclusions Accommodations and exclusions in NAEP NAEP allows accommodations (e.g., extra testing time or individual rather than group administration) so that more students with disabilities (SD) and English language learners (ELL) can participate in the assessment. This additional participation helps ensure that NAEP results accurately reflect the educational performance of all students in the target population. For the U.S. states that participated in the 2011 eighth-grade NAEP assessments, the exclusion rates ranged from 1 to 10 percent in mathematics and from 1 to 3 percent in science. For the nine states that also participated in 2011 TIMSS, the exclusion rates for NAEP participation ranged from 1 to 4 percent in mathematics and from 1 to 3 percent in science. Exclusions in NAEP could occur at the school level, with entire schools being excluded. The NAEP sampling frame excluded ungraded schools, special- education-only schools, and hospital schools, as well as schools serving prisons and juvenile correctional institutions. See appendix table A-1 for NAEP exclusion rates by subject and state. Exclusions in TIMSS Unlike NAEP, TIMSS does not provide testing accommodations for SD and ELL students. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), however, requires that the student exclusion rate not exceed more than 5 percent of the national desired target population (Foy, Joncas, and Zuhlke 2009).(Footnote 2) Foy, P., Joncas, M., and Zuhlke, O. (2009). TIMSS 2011 School Sampling Manual. Unpublished manuscript, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. Exclusions in TIMSS could occur at the school level, with entire schools being excluded, or within schools with specific students or entire classrooms excluded. Schools could be excluded that • are geographically inaccessible; • are of extremely small size; • offer a curriculum or school structure radically different from the mainstream educational system; or • provide instruction only to students in the excluded categories as defined under “within- school exclusions,” such as schools for the blind. Within the schools that are selected to participate, students may be excluded because of intellectual or functional disability, or the inability to read or speak the language(s) of the test (e.g., ELL students in the United States). Seven percent of eighth-graders were excluded in the U.S. national sample of 2011 TIMSS. Therefore, the U.S. results at grade 8 carry a coverage annotation for not meeting the IEA standard inclusion rate of 95 percent. Among the nine validation states, only three states—Alabama, Colorado, and Minnesota—met the IEA inclusion rate standard. Appendix table A-2 summarizes information on the TIMSS exclusion rates in the nine U.S. states and the education systems that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment. It should be noted that there is one exclusion rate for each state or education system in TIMSS because the same sampled students were assessed in both mathematics and science. Linking Methodologies The process by which NAEP results are reported on the TIMSS scale is referred to as statistical linking. Mislevy (1992)(Footnote 3) Mislevy, R.J. (1992). Linking educational assessments: Concepts, Issues, Methods, and Prospects. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service. and Linn (1993)(Footnote 4) Linn, R.L. (1993). Linking results of distinct assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 83-102. proposed a type of taxonomy in categorizing the linking methodologies into four forms—equating, calibration, projection, and moderation. Linking NAEP and TIMSS is an effort to link assessments based on different frameworks. It is clear that equating is not a feasible approach (see Kolen and Brennan [2004](Footnote 5) Kolen, M.J., and Brennan, R.L. (2004). Test Equating, Scaling, and Linking. New York, NY: Springer. for the assumptions required for equating). The other three linking methods—moderation, projection, and calibration— can be applied in linking NAEP and TIMSS. Statistical moderation aligns score distributions such that scores on one assessment are adjusted to match certain characteristics of the score distribution on the other assessment. In this study, moderation linking was accomplished by adjusting NAEP scores so that the adjusted score distribution for the nation’s public school students who participated in 2011 NAEP had the same mean and variance as the score distribution for the public school students in the 2011 TIMSS U.S. national sample. This allowed NAEP results to be reported on the TIMSS scale. Neither NAEP nor TIMSS provides student-level scores. Rather, both assessments provide five plausible values for individual students, each resulting in unbiased estimates of the mean and the standard deviation of the proficiency distribution overall and of the student groups. For this reason, moderation linking function parameters were estimated five times by pairing each set of estimates of the NAEP mean and standard deviation with one set of estimates of the TIMSS mean and standard deviation. The final values of the moderation linking function parameter estimates were the average of the five values. To predict the mean TIMSS scores and the percentages of students reaching each TIMSS benchmark (Advanced, High, Intermediate, and Low) for each state, the moderation linking function was applied to individual state NAEP score distributions. The moderation method did not assume that the two assessments measured exactly the same construct. However, the linking results were dependent upon having two samples—one from each assessment—to align the score distributions. Thus, the more NAEP and TIMSS vary in content, format, or context, the more likely the moderation-based linking results would differ markedly if statistical moderation was carried out with different samples of students. Statistical projection involves developing a function to project performance on one assessment based on the performance on the other assessment. In this study, the braided booklet samples were used to determine the projection function. Two separate projection functions were developed for each subject—one using the braided booklet samples collected during the NAEP testing window and one using the braided booklet sample collected during the TIMSS testing window. The projection function from the NAEP window braided booklet samples was used to compare results among the three linking methods examined in the study. Similar to the statistical moderation method, the statistical projection method did not assume that the two assessments to be linked measured exactly the same construct. More information on the projection functions and the adjustment applied to the overall projected TIMSS score distribution will be in the forthcoming technical report. Calibration linking, as discussed in Kolen and Brennan (2004, page 430), is a type of linking used when the two assessments are based on 1. the same framework, but different test specifications and different statistical characteristics, or 2. different frameworks and different test specifications, but the frameworks are viewed as sharing common features and/or uses. In this study, calibration was accomplished by applying the item-response theory method to calibrate NAEP items directly onto the TIMSS score scale that was established using students’ responses to TIMSS items. Data collected from the 2011 NAEP sample, the 2011 TIMSS sample, and the two braided booklet samples were all used in the calibration linking. With NAEP items calibrated onto the TIMSS scale, it was possible to predict TIMSS scores for students who took only NAEP items. The three linking methods discussed above were all applied to predict likely TIMSS scores for each of the states based on their NAEP results. For each linking method, the accuracy of the predicted TIMSS scores was evaluated by comparing predicted TIMSS results to the actual results for the nine 2011 validation states and results for national student groups (gender and race/ethnicity) as well. All three linking methods yielded comparable predicted state TIMSS results and national TIMSS results by student groups. The difference between predicted and actual TIMSS results was not statistically significant for any of the national gender or racial/ethnic groups across all linking methods. Details regarding those comparisons will be provided in the forthcoming technical report. Once it was determined that all three methods of linking yielded essentially the same results, it was decided that one method should be chosen to provide estimates for this report. Statistical moderation was selected by NCES because it was the simplest method requiring the estimation of the fewest parameters (i.e., the means and standard deviations of the U.S. national public school samples for NAEP and TIMSS). The method could also be applied to the extant national samples of NAEP and TIMSS and did not require the use of the separate braided booklet samples that were required for the calibration and projection methods of linking. This means NCES has the option of conducting future NAEP-TIMSS linking studies using statistical moderation without the time and expense of braided booklet samples. However, for the validation states, some differences were observed between their linkage-based predicted TIMSS scores and their actual TIMSS scores. To reduce the observed differences, a two-stage adjustment procedure was applied in addition to the statistical moderation linking procedures. The first stage of the procedure was intended to adjust the predicted TIMSS means for all states to account for differences in population coverage between the NAEP and TIMSS state samples that resulted from the two programs’ different exclusion and accommodations policies. Each state’s NAEP accommodation rate was used to adjust the predicted state TIMSS mean closer to what might have been observed if the NAEP target population was more similar to that of TIMSS. The adjustment function was a linear regression function derived from the nine validation states that participated in both NAEP and TIMSS at the state level. The same adjustment function was then applied to those states where the NAEP accommodation rate was available. In the second stage, a function was derived to model the relationship between the actual TIMSS scores for the nine validation states and their predicted TIMSS scores after the adjustment for NAEP accommodation rates. This function was used as the second adjust- ment factor that was applied to all states’ predicted TIMSS means. The predicted state TIMSS results presented in this report are, therefore, estimated from the statistical moderation linking that incorporated the two-stage adjustment procedure. More information on the linking methodologies and the additional adjustment procedures will be provided in the study’s forthcoming technical report. Appendix tables A-3 and A-4 present both actual and predicted TIMSS means and benchmark percentages for the nine validation states. Interpreting Statistical Significance Comparisons between predicted state results from the 2011 NAEP-TIMSS linking study and education systems (that have actual TIMSS scores) consider both the size of the differences and the standard errors of the two statistics being compared. The size of the standard errors is influenced by many factors, such as the degree of uncertainty associated with statistics estimated from a sample, and the degree of uncertainty related to the linking function. There were other sources of error associated with the predicted TIMSS scores that were not taken into account. These include the uncertainty associated with the adjustment function derived in the first stage of the two-stage adjustment procedure to account for the differences in exclusion and accommodation policies between NAEP and TIMSS. When an estimate has a large standard error, a numerical difference that seems large may not be statistically significant. Differences of the same magnitude may or may not be statistically significant depending upon the size of the standard errors of the estimates. Only statistically significant differences (at a level of .05) are discussed as higher or lower in this report. No statistical adjustments to account for multiple comparisons were used. APPENDIX Table A-1. Percentage of eighth-grade public school students identified as students with disabilities and/or English language learners excluded and assessed in NAEP mathematics and science, as a percentage of all students, by state: 2011 StateMathematicsScienceIdentifiedExcludedAssessedIdentifiedExcludedAssessedTotalWithout accommodations With accommodations TotalWithout accommodations With accommodations United States (public)1831551018216511Alabama12111741211174Alaska2131841421120416Arizona12111291211129Arkansas1611431216115312California231221572322248Colorado1611551016115510Connecticut1611521216115213Delaware1631321116214212District of Columbia2141721521120218DoDEA(Footnote 1) 143113814113310Florida1921711619117116Georgia1239271221028Hawaii2021871120218711Idaho12110371211047Illinois 1721531217116312Indiana1731421217116313Iowa 1711621417116214Kansas 18116791811679Kentucky13310281331028Louisiana1511411315114113Maine2021841420218414Maryland14681714212111Massachusetts224183152219316Michigan14411381431238Minnesota17215691721578Mississippi8171681716Missouri1411221014113310Montana 13212291321239Nebraska164134916115312Nevada183156918117611New Hampshire2021841420218513New Jersey1941511419118117New Mexico222201010222201010New York 20119#1820119#18North Carolina1821631218216412North Dakota 164113916313210Ohio1651111016214212Oklahoma181084418315510Oregon1811661118216610Pennsylvania1721521317116215Rhode Island1911841319119414South Carolina15411481511459South Dakota13211471311138Tennessee 13491813112110Texas18513851821688Utah14311381421239Vermont2011841520118414Virginia183156918315510Washington 1621441016214510West Virginia14212391421239Wisconsin 1821621418216314Wyoming1411321114113211 # = Rounds to zero. Footnote 1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: 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 and Science Assessments. Table A-2. Exclusion rates in TIMSS assessments at grade 8, by education system/validation state: 2011 Education system/validation stateExclusion rateAbu Dhabi-UAE2Alabama-USA(Footnote 1) 5Alberta-CAN7Armenia2Australia3Bahrain2California-USA(Footnote 1) 6Chile3Chinese Taipei-CHN1Colorado-USA(Footnote 1) 4Connecticut-USA(Footnote 1) 9Dubai-UAE4England-GBR2Finland3Florida-USA(Footnote 1) 7Georgia 5Ghana1Hong Kong SAR(Footnote 2) 5Hungary4Indiana-USA(Footnote 1) 6Indonesia3Iran, Islamic Republic of 2Israel23Italy5Japan3Jordan# Kazakhstan5Korea, Republic of 2Lebanon1Lithuania 5Macedonia, Republic of 3Malaysia# Massachusetts-USA(Footnote 1) 8Minnesota-USA(Footnote 1) 4Morocco# New Zealand3North Carolina-USA(Footnote 1) 11Norway2Oman1Ontario-CAN6Palestinian National Authority2Qatar5Quebec-CAN5Romania1Russian Federation6Saudi Arabia1Singapore6Slovenia2Sweden5Syrian Arab Republic2Thailand 2Tunisia# Turkey2Ukraine3United Arab Emirates3United States7 # = Rounds to zero. Footnote 1 Validation state. Footnote 2 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. The results for validation states include public schools only. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Table A-3. Average scores, TIMSS benchmark results, and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by validation state and type of result: 2011 Validation state and type of resultAverage scoreStandard errorPercentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarksAt AdvancedStandard errorAt or above High Standard errorAt or above IntermediateStandard errorAt or above Low Standard errorAlabamaActual4665.920.8152.5463.1792.2Predicted4693.820.8152.3482.7821.8CaliforniaActual4934.950.9242.5592.8871.7Predicted863.551.0232.2562.2851.5ColoradoActual5184.981.1352.7712.5931.1Predicted530*3.4111.8412.8752.0940.8ConnecticutActual5184.8101.3372.9692.5911.4Predicted5263.3101.5392.7742.194*0.9FloridaActual5136.481.6313.2683.3941.3Predicted5183.081.3342.7712.2930.9IndianaActual5225.171.2353.3742.3951.0Predicted5223.70.9362.2742.1951.1MassachusettsActual5615.3193.0573.2881.4980.3Predicted5563.1192.0562.7851.7970.5MinnesotaActual5454.6132.349.8831.9970.7Predicted533*3.2121.9432.877*1.895*0.7North CarolinaActual5376.8142.6443.6782.5951.3Predicted5253.2101.4392.5732.0940.9 * = Significantly different (p < .05) from actual results. NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. The results for validation states include public schools only. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Table A-4. Average scores, TIMSS benchmark results, and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by validation state and type of result: 2011 Validation state and type of resultAverage scoreStandard errorPercentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarksAt AdvancedStandard errorAt or above High Standard errorAt or above IntermediateStandard errorAt or above LowStandard errorAlabamaActual4856.251.0242.7563.5831.9Predicted4884.141.5232.7582.5851.5CaliforniaActual4994.660.7281.9622.5881.6Predicted963.971.5282.5612.2861.5ColoradoActual5424.4141.6482.6802.0960.7Predicted5473.8162.5513.2811.9960.6ConnecticutActual5324.6141.552.5742.0921.3Predicted5393.6152.0472.8781.9950.8FloridaActual5307.3132.0423.5743.6931.5Predicted5333.6131.8442.7751.9940.7IndinaActual5334.8101.4432.9782.1950.9Predicted5363.2121.7452.7782.1951.0MassachusettsActual5675.1242.6612.8871.5960.7Predicted56136232.4592.8841.7960.6MinnesotaActual5534.6161.9542.6852.0980.7Predicted5443.4152.3492.9811.796*0.5North CarolinaActual5326.3122.2423.2753.0941.4Predicted5223.5101.6382.6722.1931.0 * = Significantly different (p < .05) from actual results. NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. The results for validation states include public schools only. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Table A-5. Average scores and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by state: 2011 StateAverage scoreStandard errorUnited States (public)5072.6Alabama(Footnote 1) 4665.9Alaska5243.0Arizona5023.5Arkansas5093.2California(Footnote 1) 4934.9Colorado(Footnote 1) 5184.9Connecticut(Footnote 1) 5184.8Delaware5152.9District of Columbia4813.1DoDEA(Footnote 2) 5173.0Florida(Footnote 1) 5136.4Georgia4973.3Hawaii5042.9Idaho5133.0Illinois5173.3Indiana(Footnote 1) 5225.1Iowa5273.1Kansas5243.1Kentucky5053.1Louisiana5003.5Maine5353.0Maryland5143.5Massachusetts(Footnote 1) 5615.3Michigan5023.8Minnesota(Footnote 1) 5454.6Mississippi4763.8Missouri5123.4Montana5312.9Nebraska5113.0Nevada5003.1New Hampshire5412.9New Jersey5453.5New Mexico4963.1New York5293.1North Carolina(Footnote 1) 5376.8North Dakota5282.8Ohio5233.3Oklahoma4913.3Oregon5133.3Pennsylvania5273.4Rhode Island5212.7South Carolina5043.3South Dakota5212.8Tennessee4903.5Texas5153.2Utah5103.0Vermont5473.0Virginia5233.4Washington5233.2West Virginia4923.0Wisconsin5353.2Wyoming5242.8 Footnote 1 Validation state. Footnote 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for the United States and the validation states are based on actual results from the TIMSS mathematics assessment, while results for all other states are predicted results. The results for all states and the United States include public schools only. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Table A-6. Average scores and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by education system: 2011 Education systemAverage scoreStandard errorAbu Dhabi-UAE4493.7Alberta-CAN5052.6Armenia4672.7Australia5055.1Bahrain4092.0Chile4162.6Chinese Taipei-CHN6093.2Dubai-UAE4782.1England-GBR5075.5Finland5142.5Georgia 4313.8Ghana3314.3Hong Kong SAR(Footnote 1) 5863.8Hungary5053.5Indonesia3864.3Iran, Islamic Republic of 4154.3Israel5164.1Italy4982.4Japan5702.6Jordan4063.7Kazakhstan4874.0Korea, Republic of 6132.9Lebanon4493.7Lithuania 5022.5Macedonia, Republic of 4265.2Malaysia4405.4Morocco3712.0New Zealand4885.5Norway4752.4Oman3662.8Ontario-CAN5122.5Palestinian National Authority4043.5Qatar4103.1Quebec-CAN5322.3Romania4584.0Russian Federation5393.6Saudi Arabia3944.6Singapore6113.8Slovenia5052.2Sweden4841.9Syrian Arab Republic3804.5Thailand 4274.3Tunisia4252.8Turkey4523.9Ukraine4793.9United Arab Emirates4562.1United States5092.6 Footnote 1 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. NOTE: Results for the education systems include public and private schools. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Table A-7. Average scores and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by state: 2011 StateAverage scoreStandard errorUnited States (public)5222.5Alabama(Footnote 1) 4856.2Alaska5443.0Arizona5073.8Arkansas5213.5California(Footnote 1) 4994.6Colorado(Footnote 1) 5424.4Connecticut(Footnote 1) 5324.6Delaware5282.9District of Columbia4534.1DoDEA(Footnote 2) 5463.2Florida(Footnote 1) 5307.3Georgia5214.0Hawaii5073.0Idaho5363.0Illinois5223.4Indiana(Footnote 1) 5334.8Iowa5493.1Kansas5343.1Kentucky5343.1Louisiana5144.5Maine5542.8Maryland5283.6Massachusetts(Footnote 1) 5675.1Michigan5353.3Minnesota(Footnote 1) 5534.6Mississippi4864.0Missouri5373.6Montana5513.1Nebraska5413.0Nevada5133.1New Hampshire5573.0New Jersey5493.7New Mexico5123.1New York5383.4North Carolina(Footnote 1) 5326.3North Dakota5553.1Ohio5473.3Oklahoma5193.5Oregon5363.3Pennsylvania5363.9Rhode Island5302.9South Carolina5193.3South Dakota5462.8Tennessee5243.4Texas5243.4Utah5473.1Vermont5613.2Virginia5443.4Washington5363.3West Virginia5203.3Wisconsin5513.5Wyoming5492.8 Footnote 1 Validation state. Footnote 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for the United States and the validation states are based on actual results from the TIMSS science assessment, while results for all other states are predicted results. The results for all states and the United States include public schools only. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Table A-8. Average scores and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by education system: 2011 Education systemAverage scoreStandard errorAbu Dhabi-UAE4614.0Alberta-CAN5462.4Armenia4373.1Australia5194.8Bahrain4522.0Chile4612.5Chinese Taipei-CHN5642.3Dubai-UAE4852.5England-GBR5334.9Finland5522.5Georgia 4203.0Ghana3065.2Hong Kong SAR(Footnote 1) 5353.4Hungary5223.1Indonesia4064.5Iran, Islamic Republic of 4744.0Israel5164.0Italy5012.5Japan5582.4Jordan4494.0Kazakhstan4904.3Korea, Republic of 5602.0Lebanon4064.9Lithuania 5142.6Macedonia, Republic of 4075.4Malaysia4266.3Morocco3762.2New Zealand5124.6Norway4942.6Oman4203.2Ontario-CAN5212.5Palestinian National Authority4203.2Qatar4193.4Quebec-CAN5202.5Romania4653.5Russian Federation5423.2Saudi Arabia4363.9Singapore5904.3Slovenia5432.7Sweden5092.5Syrian Arab Republic4263.9Thailand 4513.9Tunisia4392.5Turkey4833.4Ukraine5013.4United Arab Emirates4652.4United States5252.6 Footnote 1 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. NOTE: Results for the education systems include public and private schools. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Table A-9. TIMSS benchmark results and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by state: 2011 StatePercentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarksAt AdvancedStandard errorAt or above High Standard errorAt or above IntermediateStandard errorAt or above Low Standard errorUnited States (public)60.7291.5671.3920.7Alabama(Footnote 1) 20.8152.5463.1792.2Alaska111.3392.4722.0931.1Arizona71.3292.4632.2891.3Arkansas61.0292.4672.3921.2California(Footnote 1) 50.9242.5592.8871.7Colorado(Footnote 1) 81.1352.7712.5931.1Connecticut(Footnote 1) 101.3372.9692.5911.4Delaware71.1322.4702.1931.0District of Columbia50.7211.6542.0831.8DoDEA(Footnote 2) 51.3312.9732.2950.7Florida(Footnote 1) 81.6313.2683.3941.3Georgia41.0242.4612.2901.2Hawaii71.1292.1642.0901.2Idaho71.3312.5692.0930.8Illinois81.3342.5702.2931.0Indian(Footnote 1) 71.2353.3742.3951.0Iowa91.3392.5752.1950.9Kansas71.4362.7742.0950.7Kentucky51.1272.4652.2921.0Louisiana40.8242.3632.6911.5Maine21.5442.5781.9950.8Maryland91.7342.6682.1911.0Massachusetts(Footnote 1) 193.0573.2881.4980.3Michigan51.3262.8632.6911.3Minnesota(Footnote 1) 132.3492.8831.9970.7Mississippi20.7152.3512.8851.8Missouri61.3312.6682.3921.1Montana111.7412.6761.8950.7Nebraska61.2302.5682.191.0Nevada51.0262.2622.1901.2New Hampshire131.6472.6801.8960.7New Jersey162.0502.8802.0960.8New Mexico30.8222.1612.3901.3New York101.1402.3752.1951.1North Carolina(Footnote 1) 142.6443.6782.5951.3North Dakota71.5382.8771.9960.6Ohio81.5362.8742.1950.8Oklahoma31.0202.5592.4901.1Oregon71.3322.5692.2921.1Pennsylvania111.5402.6732.131.0Rhode Island91.2372.3721.9931.0South Carolina61.2272.5642.2911.1South Dakota71.4352.6741.9950.6Tennessee40.9212.3582.4881.4Texas61.5312.8712.0940.7Utah61.2302.4672.0921.0Vermont161.8512.7811.8960.7irginia101.7382.8732.1940.9Washington111.6382.5721.9930.9West Virginia30.7212.1592.3891.3Wisconsin121.5432.6772.0950.8Wyoming71.3362.7752.1950.7 Footnote 1 Validation state. Footnote 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for the United States and the validation states are based on actual results from the TIMSS mathematics assessment, while results for all other states are predicted results. The results for all states and the United States include public schools only. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Table A-10. TIMSS benchmark results and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade mathematics, by education system: 2011 Education systemPercentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarksAt AdvancedStandard errorAt or above High Standard errorAt or above IntermediateStandard errorAt or above Low Standard errorAbu Dhabi-UAE20.5121.2391.8711.5Alberta-CAN30.5241.3691.6950.7Armenia30.4180.9491.4761.2Australia91.7292.6632.4891.1Bahrain10.280.7260.7530.8Chile10.250.6231.1571.6Chiese Taipei-CHN491.5731.0880.7960.4Dubai-UAE50.7231.2531.0790.8England-GBR81.4322.9652.7881.6Finland40.5301.5731.5960.6Georgia 30.3131.0361.5621.6Ghana#double dagger 10.250.8211.8Hong Kong SAR(Footnote 1) 342.0711.7891.4970.8Hungary80.7321.4651.6881.2Indonesia#double dagger 20.5151.2432.1Iran, Islamic Republic of 20.581.1261.6551.8Israel121.2401.7681.8871.2Italy30.5241.1641.4901.1Japan271.3611.3870.7970.3Jordan#double dagger 60.5261.2551.7Kazakhstan30.7231.8572.1851.3Korea, Republic of 471.6770.9930.6990.2Lebanon10.291.0382.2731.9Lithuania 50.6291.3641.4900.7Macedonia, Republic of 30.6121.3351.9611.9Malaysia20.4121.5362.4652.5Morocco#double dagger 20.2120.5361.0New Zealand50.8242.6572.8841.6Norway10.2120.9511.6871.3Oman#double dagger 40.3160.6391.1Ontario-CAN40.6311.4711.4940.7Palestinian National Authority10.370.7251.3521.5Qatar20.3100.8291.2541.4Quebec-CAN60.6401.8821.3980.4Romania50.8191.3441.7711.5Russian Federation141.2472.0781.4950.7Saudi Arabia10.250.8201.7472.0Singapore482.0781.8921.1990.3Slovenia40.4271.2671.4930.7Sweden10.3160.9571.1890.7Syrian Arab Republic#double dagger 30.5171.4431.9Thailand 20.481.3281.9622.1Tunisia#†50.9251.4611.3Turkey70.9201.2401.5671.3Ukraine50.6221.6532.0811.4United Arab Emirates20.2140.7421.1730.9United States70.8301.4681.3920.7 double dagger = Not applicable. Standard error of the estimate cannot be accurately determined. # = Rounds to zero. Footnote 1 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. NOTE: Results for the education systems include public and private schools. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Table A-11. TIMSS benchmark results and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by state: 2011 StatePercentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarksAt AdvancedStandard errorAt or above High Standard errorAt or above IntermediateStandard errorAt or above Low Standard errorUnited States (public)90.7391.4731.1930.6Alabama(Footnote 1) 51.0242.7563.5831.9Alaska161.8502.6801.8950.7Arizona71.5312.7662.3901.3Arkansas91.6372.7722.1931.0California(Footnote 1) 60.7281.9622.5881.6Colorado(Footnote 1) 141.6482.6802.0960.7Connecticut(Footnote 1) 141.5452.5742.0921.3Delaware101.5402.5751.9940.8District of Columbia30.6171.4451.9732.0DoDEA(Footnote 2) 112.2503.3841.7970.4Florida(Footnote 1) 132.0423.5743.6931.5Georgia102.0383.0712.3921.1Hawaii71.3312.2652.0901.2Idaho112.0442.8791.6960.5Illinois91.5372.6722.0931.0Indana(Footnote 1) 101.4432.9782.1950.9Iowa141.9522.9841.7970.5Kansas111.9432.8781.8950.6Kentucky91.8432.9791.7960.5Louisiana81.7343.2692.8911.5Mane131.9553.1881.5970.3Maryland131.9422.7732.0931.0Massachusetts(Footnote 1) 242.6612.8871.5960.7Michigan132.1452.8771.8950.7Minnesota(Footnote 1) 161.9542.6852.0980.7Mississippi31.2222.6572.5861.6Missouri122.1453.1792.0950.7Montana142.3533.0851.5970.3Nebraska141.9482.7801.950.6Nevada71.3332.4692.0921.1New Hampshire172.2573.0871.5970.3New Jersey182.1522.9812.0950.8New Mexico61.3322.4682.0921.0New York161.6462.4771.9941.0North Carolina(Footnote 1) 122.2423.2753.0941.4North Dakota132.3563.2881.4970.2Ohio152.1512.9821.8960.6Oklahoma81.6352.8722.2931.0Oregon131.9452.7771.8950.7Pennsylvania162.0462.876.1931.0Rhode Island141.6432.3731.8921.0South Carolina91.6362.6712.0921.0South Dakota122.1502.9841.4970.3Tennessee101.7392.7732.0930.9Texas101.9392.7731.9930.8Utah152.2512.8831.6960.4Vermont192.4603.0871.690.4Virginia152.2492.9811.7960.6Washington122.0452.8781.8950.6West Virginia61.5342.8732.1940.8Wisconsin172.2532.9831.8960.6Wyoming122.0523.0851.6970.3 Footnote 1 Validation state. Footnote 2 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools). NOTE: Validation states are those U.S. states that participated in the 2011 TIMSS assessment at the state level. Results for the United States and the validation states are based on actual results from the TIMSS science assessment, while results for all other states are predicted results. The results for all states and the United States include public schools only. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Science Assessment; and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. Table A-12. TIMSS benchmark results and standard errors in TIMSS eighth-grade science, by education system: 2011 Education systemPercentage of students reaching TIMSS benchmarksAt AdvancedStandard errorAt or above High Standard errorAt or above IntermediateStandard errorAt or above Low Standard errorAbu Dhabi-UAE40.7171.5451.9741.5Alberta-CAN120.9481.5851.1980.4Armenia10.2120.8371.5661.3Australia111.6352.5702.0920.8Bahrain30.3170.7441.0700.7Chile10.2120.9431.4791. Chinese Taipei-CHN241.4601.2850.8960.4Dubai-UAE70.7281.0571.3791.0England-GBR141.5442.6762.3931.2Finland131.2531.7881.0990.3Georgia #double dagger 60.6281.5621.5Ghana#double dagger 10.260.8221.7Hong Kong SAR(Footnote 1) 91.1471.8801.7951.0Hungary90.8391.5751.4920.8Indonesia#double dagger 30.4191.4542.3Iran, Islamic Republic of 50.7211.3502.0791.5Israel111.1391.7691.7881.1Italy40.5271.4651.4901.1Japan181.1571.3860.9970.4Jordan20.3151.0451.5721.5Kazakhstn40.6231.9582.5861.2Korea, Republic of 200.9571.1860.7970.4Lebanon10.270.8252.0542.3Lithuania 60.7331.4711.3920.6Macedonia, Republic of 20.4101.0301.7532.0Malaysia10.4111.4342.4622.6Morocco#double dagger 20.2130.7391.0New Zealand91.0342.2672.2901.2Norway30.4221.2621.4901.1Oman20.2110.5341.0591.3Ontario-CAN60.7351.5761.3960.6Palestinian National Authority10.2100.8331.3591.3Qatar30.5141.1341.4581.2Quebec-CAN50.6341.6761.4960.7Romania30.5161.3471.5781.5Russian Federation141.1481.8811.2960.7Saudi Arabia10.280.8332.0681.8Singapore401.7692.0871.6960.7Slovenia130.8481.4821.2960.5Sweden60.5331.3681.4910.7Syrian Arab Republic#double dagger 60.8291.8631.9Thailand 10.5101.3392.1741.7Tunisia#double dagger 50.7301.4721.3Turkey80.9261.4541.4791.0Ukraine60.8291.7641.6881.1United Arab Emirates40.4190.8471.1750.9United States100.7401.3731.1930.7 double dagger = Not applicable. Standard error of the estimate cannot be accurately determined. # = Rounds to zero. Footnote 1 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. NOTE: Results for the education systems include public and private schools. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. U.S. States in a Global Context: Results From the 2011 NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study OCTOBER 2013 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, within the Institute of Education Sciences, administers NAEP. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible by law for carrying out the NAEP project. Arne DuncanSecretaryU.S. Department of Education John Q. EastonDirectorInstitute of Education Sciences Jack BuckleyCommissionerNational Center for Education Statistics Peggy G. CarrAssociate Commissioner for AssessmentNational Center for Education Statistics The National Assessment Governing Board In 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board to set policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as The Nation’s Report CardTM. The Governing Board is an independent, bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives, and members of the general public. Honorable David P. Driscoll, ChairFormer Commissioner of EducationMelrose, Massachusetts Susan Pimentel, Vice ChairEducational ConsultantHanover, New Hampshire Andrés AlonsoProfessor of PracticeHarvard Graduate School of EducationHarvard UniversityCambridge, Massachusetts Lucille E. DavyPresident and CEOTransformative Education Solutions, LLCPennington, New Jersey Louis M. FabrizioData, Research and Federal Policy DirectorNorth Carolina Department of Public InstructionRaleigh, North Carolina Honorable Anitere FloresSenatorFlorida State SenateMiami, Florida Rebecca GagnonSchool Board MemberMinneapolis Public SchoolsMinneapolis, Minnesota Shannon GarrisonFourth-Grade TeacherSolano Avenue Elementary SchoolLos Angeles, California Doris R. HicksPrincipal and Chief Executive OfficerDr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School for Science and TechnologyNew Orleans, Louisiana Andrew Dean HoAssistant ProfessorHarvard Graduate School of EducationHarvard UniversityCambridge, Massachusetts Honorable Terry HollidayCommissioner of EducationKentucky Department of EducationLexington, Kentucky Richard Brent HoustonAssistant SuperintendentShawnee Public SchoolsShawnee, Oklahoma Hector IbarraEighth-Grade TeacherBelin-Blank International Center and Talent DevelopmentIowa City, Iowa Honorable Tom LunaIdaho Superintendent of Public InstructionBoise, Idaho Terry MazanyPresident and CEOThe Chicago Community TrustChicago, Illinois Tonya MilesGeneral Public RepresentativeMitchellville, Maryland Dale NowlinTwelfth-Grade TeacherColumbus North High SchoolColumbus, Indiana Joseph M. O’Keefe, S.J. ProfessorLynch School of EducationBoston CollegeChestnut Hill, Massachusetts W. James PophamProfessor Emeritus University of California, Los AngelesWilsonville, Oregon B. Fielding RolstonChairmanTennessee State Board of EducationKingsport, Tennessee Cary SneiderAssociate Research ProfessorPortland State UniversityPortland, Oregon Honorable Leticia Van de PutteSenatorTexas State SenateSan Antonio, Texas John Q. Easton (Ex officio) Director Institute of Education SciencesU.S. Department of EducationWashington, D.C. Cornelia S. OrrExecutive Director National Assessment Governing BoardWashington, D.C. MORE INFORMATION The report release site is http://nationsreportcard.gov. 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. SUGGESTED CITATION National Center for Education Statistics (2013). U.S. States in a Global Context: Results From the 2011 NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study (NCES 2013–460). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. CONTENT CONTACT Taslima Rahman 202-502-7316 taslima.rahman@ed.gov Department of Education, United States of America logo. “ The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” www.ed.gov