Call For Change

ATHE SOCIAL
CALL FOR CHANGE:

AND EDUCATIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING
TO THE OUTCOMES OF BLACK MALES IN URBAN SCHOOLS
Research Conducted by
The Council of the Great City Schools
October 2010
A CALL FOR CHANGE:
THE SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL FACTORS
CONTRIBUTING TO THE OUTCOMES OF BLACK
MALES IN URBAN SCHOOLS
Authors:
Sharon Lewis
Candace Simon
Renata Uzzell
Amanda Horwitz
Michael Casserly
The Council of the Great City Schools i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Council of the Great City Schools thanks our superintendents and school board members for their continued support in
producing this study.
SOURCES
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Reading
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data,
“Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” and “Local Education Agency Universe Survey.”
(All data are labeled preliminary by NCES.)
U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007
Annie E. Casey Foundation. KidsCount
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison inmates at Midyear, Current Population Survey 2009.
COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS
The Council of the Great City Schools is a coalition of 65 of the nation’s largest urban school systems. Its board of directors is
composed of the superintendent of schools and one school board member from each member city. An executive committee of
24 individuals, equally divided in number between superintendents and school board members, provides oversight of the 501
(c)(3) organization in between board meetings. The mission of the Council is to advocate for and assist in the improvement
of public education in the nation’s major cities. To meet that mission, the Council provides services to its members in the
areas of legislation, research, communications, curriculum and instruction, and management. The group convenes two major
conferences each year on promising practices in urban education; conducts studies on urban school conditions and trends;
and operates ongoing networks relating to personnel, communications, curriculum, research, technology, and other areas. The
Council was founded in 1956 and incorporated in 1961 and has its headquarters in Washington, DC.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ACHIEVEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE CHAIRS
CHAIR
Carlos Garcia, Superintendent
Dilafruz Williams, Board Member
San Francisco Unified School District
Portland Public Schools
CHAIR-ELECT
Eileen Cooper Reed, Board Member
Beverly Hall, Superintendent
Cincinnati Public Schools
Atlanta Public Schools
SECRETARY/TREASURER
Carol Comeau, Superintendent
Candy Olson, Board Member
Anchorage Alaska
Hillsborough County School District
IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR
Lydia Lee, Board Member
Carol Johnson, Superintendent
Minneapolis School Board
Boston Public Schools
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Deborah Shanley, Dean, Brooklyn College
Michael Casserly City University of New York
ii A CALL FOR CHANGE: The Social and Educational Factors Contributing to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools
PREFACE
The nation’s young Black males are in a state of crisis. They do not have the same opportunities as their male or female
counterparts across the country. Their infant mortality rates are higher, and their access to health care is more limited. They
are more likely to live in single-parent homes and less likely to participate in early childcare programs. They are less likely to
be raised in a household with a fully employed adult, and they are more likely to live in poverty. As adults, Black males are less
likely than their peers to be employed. At almost every juncture, the odds are stacked against these young men in ways that
result in too much unfulfilled potential and too many fractured lives.
Much of this story has been told before. Still, there has been little work focusing specifically on the academic attainment of
Black males in our schools and how it is contributing to the destructive pattern we see. This report tackles the issues head
on by conducting a first-time analysis of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) on how Black
males are performing academically. We look at ourselves—the large central cities—most critically, because it is in our urban
schools that nearly 30 percent of all Black males in the nation are educated.
In order to get a complete picture of the depth of the issues, we look most closely at the reading and math achievement of
the fourth- and eighth-grade Black males in our large city schools. We track their progress and compare their scores, as a
whole, with the scores of White males in national public schools. In various combinations, we compare the scores of Black and
White males who are and are not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, Black and White males with and without disabilities,
and Black males in urban areas vs. Black males in national public schools among other comparisons. Also, we look at the
disaggregated reading and math achievement levels of Black males in 18 big city school districts.
Finally, we look at dropout figures and school experiences. We examine college entrance examination scores and college
readiness, enrollment, and graduation data. The report concludes with statistics on the postsecondary experiences of Black
males, professional degrees attained, wages, and living conditions. We conclude with profiles of Black males from our Great
City Schools who have thrived despite the odds and who serve as inspirations for all.
This report will not make many people feel good, even though it contains evidence that Black males attending schools in urban
areas have made more progress than those living elsewhere. In fact, this report is likely to make people angry, and it should.
We hope that this is a louder and more jolting wake-up call to the nation than this country is used to hearing. The fact that
previous calls have fallen on so many deaf ears is not encouraging, but we are convinced that we must ring the alarms one
more time and play a larger role in setting this situation right.
The issues that emerge from the statistics we present are both moral and economic. With so many of our citizens lacking
access to the fruits of the richest nation on earth, our aspirations as a truly just nation are called into question. And our ability
to maintain our success and leadership is jeopardized by having so much talent go to waste. This report is a call to action for
America to do better.
I wish to thank Sharon Lewis for her leadership in initiating this report and Candace Simon, who did most of the analysis.
I also thank Renata Uzzell and Amanda Horwitz for their substantial contributions to this effort.
Michael Casserly
Executive Director
Council of the Great City Schools
The Council of the Great City Schools iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................01
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................................................................09
CHAPTER 2. SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL FACTORS ..................................................................................................................................................15
FACTOR 1. READINESS TO LEARN...........................................................................................................................................................................16
FACTOR 2. BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP
FACTOR 2A. READING GRADE 4 ....................................................................................................................................................................22
FACTOR 2B. READING GRADE 8 ....................................................................................................................................................................32
FACTOR 2C. MATHEMATICS GRADE 4 ......................................................................................................................................................42
FACTOR 2D. MATHEMATICS GRADE 8 ......................................................................................................................................................52
FACTOR 3. BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS ..............................62
FACTOR 4. COLLEGE AND CAREER PREPAREDNESS .......................................................................................................................76
FACTOR 5. SCHOOL EXPERIENCE ..........................................................................................................................................................................82
FACTOR 6. POSTSECONDARY EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................................................................88
CHAPTER 3. PROFILES OF EXCELLENCE .............................................................................................................................................................................95
CHAPTER 4. A PLAN OF ACTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................99
APPENDIX: COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS’ DEMOGRAPHICS, 2008-2009...........................................................103
iv A CALL FOR CHANGE: The Social and Educational Factors Contributing to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools
FIGURES
DEMOGRAPHICS
Figure D1. CGCS Demographic Enrollment by Race and Gender, 2009 ............................................................................................................13
Figure D2. Percentage of FRPL and SD Students in CGCS School Districts, 2009 ................................................................................13
Figure D3. Percentage of CGCS Students by Range of Selected Groups, 2009..........................................................................................14
Figure D4. CGCS Student Enrollment as Percentage of Nation by Group, 2009 ........................................................................................14
FACTOR 1: READINESS TO LEARN
Figure 1.1 Infant Mortality Rate by Ethnicity, 2003-2007 ..................................................................................................................................................17
Figure 1.2 Percentage of Children 17 years of Age and Under

Not Covered by Private or Government Health Insurance, 2008 .................................................................................................................................17
Figure 1.3 Percentage of Black Male Children 0-4 Years of Age Without Family ........................................................................................
Health Insurance by Urbanicity and Income, 2006-2008 ..................................................................................................................................................18
Figure 1.4 Percentage of Children Ages 18 and Under Living in Single-Parent Households by Race, 2008 .....................18
Figure 1.5 Percentage of Black Children under Age 18 by Living Arrangements, 2007 ........................................................................19
Figure 1.6 Percentage Distribution of Primary Care Arrangements

of Four-Year-Old Black Children, 2005-2006 .............................................................................................................................................................................19
Figure 1.7 Percentage of Black Children Ages 6 to 18

by Parent’s Highest Level of Educational Attainment, 2008 ............................................................................................................................................20
Figure 1.8 Percentage of Children Ages 18 and Under Living in Families

Where No Parent Has Full-Time, Year-Round Employment, by Race, 2008 .....................................................................................................21
Figure 1.9 Percentage of Children Under Age 18 Living in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, 2007 ...........................................................21
FACTOR 2: BLACK ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP
FACTOR 2A: READING GRADE 4
Figure 2.1 Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores by Ethnicity, 2003-2009 ......................................................................................................24
Figure 2.2. Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males

and Females (LC) and Hispanic Males and Females (LC), 2003-2009 .................................................................................................................25
Figure 2.3 Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males (LC) vs. Black Males (NP), 2003-2009 ...........................26
The Council of the Great City Schools v

FIGURES
Figure 2.4 Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males (LC) vs. White Males (NP), 2003-2009 ..........................26
Figure 2.5 Percentage of Grade 4 Black Males (LC) vs. White Males (NP)
Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading, 2003-2009 ..........................................................................................................................27
Figure 2.6 Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of FRPL and

Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) and FRPL and Non-FRPL White Males (NP), 2003-2009 ...................................................................28
Figure 2.7 Percentage of Grade 4 Non-FRPL Black Males (LC)

vs. FRPL White Males (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading, 2003-2009......................................................29
Figure 2.8 Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of SD and

Non-SD Black Males (LC) and SD and Non-SD White Males (NP), 2003-2009 .........................................................................................30
Figure 2.9 Percentage of Grade 4 Non-SD Black Males (LC) vs.

SD White Males (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading, 2003-2009 ....................................................................31
FACTOR 2B: READING GRADE 8
Figure 2.10 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores by Ethnicity, 2003-2009...................................................................................................34
Figure 2.11 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males

Figure 2.12 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males (LC) vs. Black Males (NP), 2003-2009 ........................36
Figure 2.13 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males (LC) vs. White Males (NP), 2003-2009 ......................36
Figure 2.14 Percentage of Grade 8 Black Males (LC) vs.

White Males (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading, 2003-2009 ............................................................................37
Figure 2.15 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of FRPL and

Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) and FRPL and Non-FRPL White Males (NP), 2003-2009.....................................................................38
Figure 2.16 Percentage of Grade 8 Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) vs.

FRPL White Males (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading, 2003-2009 .............................................................39
Figure 2.17 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of SD and


SD White Males (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading, 2003-2009 ...................................................................41
vi A CALL FOR CHANGE: The Social and Educational Factors Contributing to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools
FACTOR 2C: MATHEMATICS GRADE 4
Figure 2.19 Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores by Ethnicity, 2003-2009 .......................................................................................44
Figure 2.20 Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of Black Males

Figure 2.21 Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of Black Males (LC) vs. Black Males (NP), 2003-2009.............46
Figure 2.22 Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of Black Males (LC) vs. White Males (NP), 2003-2009 ...........46

White Males (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Mathematics, 2003-2009...................................................................47
Figure 2.24 Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of FRPL and

Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) and FRPL and Non-FRPL White Males (NP), 2003-2009.....................................................................48

FRPL White Males (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Mathematics, 2003-2009 .................................................49
Figure 2.26 Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of SD and


SD White Males (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Mathematics, 2003-2009 .........................................................51
FACTOR 2D: MATHEMATICS GRADE 8
Figure 2.28 Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores by Ethnicity, 2003-2009 .......................................................................................54

Figure 2.30 Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores

of Black Males (LC) vs. Black Males (NP), 2003-2009 .....................................................................................................................................................56
Figure 2.31 Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores

of Black Males (LC) vs. White Males (NP), 2003-2009.......................................................................................................................................................56

White Males (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Mathematics, 2003-2009 .................................................................57
Figure 2.33 Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of FRPL

and Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) and FRPL and Non-FRPL White Males (NP), 2003-2009 ..........................................................58
The Council of the Great City Schools vii

FIGURES

FRPL Black Males (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Mathematics, 2003- 2009 .................................................59
Figure 2.35 Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of SD

and Non-SD Black Males (LC) vs. SD and Non-SD White Males (NP), 2003-2009 ................................................................................60

SD White Males (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Mathematics, 2003- 2009........................................................61
FACTOR 3: BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS
Figure 3.1 Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males

in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2003-2009 ...................................................................................................................................................................................64
Figure 3.2 Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2009...................................65
Figure 3.3 Grade 4 Black Males Performing Below Basic and

At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2009 ..............................................................................................66
Figure 3.4 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2003-2009...................67
Figure 3.5 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2009...................................68
Figure 3.6 Percentage of Grade 8 Black Males Performing Below Basic

and At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2009....................................................................................69

in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2003-2009.....................................................................................................................................................................................70

in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2009.....................................................................................................................................................................................................71
Figure 3.9 Grade 4 Black Males Performing Below Basic

and At or Above Proficient in NAEP Mathematics in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2009 ........................................................................72

in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2003-2009.....................................................................................................................................................................................73
Figure 3.11 Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of Black Males in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2009 ....................74
Figure 3.12 Grade 8 Black Males Performing Below Basic and At or

Above Proficient in NAEP Mathematics in TUDA Districts, LC and NP, 2009 .................................................................................................75
viii A CALL FOR CHANGE: The Social and Educational Factors Contributing to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools
FACTOR 4: COLLEGE AND CAREER PREPAREDNESS
Figure 4.1 High School Dropout Rates for Males by Ethnicity, 2005-2008 .......................................................................................................77
Figure 4.2 Average Freshman Graduation Rates for Public High School Students by Ethnicity, 2007 ......................................77
Figure 4.3 Percentage of High School Students Taking Advanced Placement Exams by Ethnicity, 2008 .............................78
Figure 4.4 Average SAT Scores for Males by Race, 2009 ...............................................................................................................................................78
Figure 4.5 Average ACT Scores for Students by Race, 2009 ........................................................................................................................................79
Figure 4.6 Percentage of Students Meeting ACT College Readiness Benchmark Scores by Race, 2009 ............................79
Figure 4.7 Percentage of Black and White Males Enrolled in a Two-Year or Four-Year College After High School
Graduation, 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................80
FACTOR 5: SCHOOL EXPERIENCE
Figure 5.1 Percentage of High School Seniors Participating

in School-Sponsored Extracurricular Activities by Race/Ethnicity, 2004 ..............................................................................................................83
Figure 5.2 Percentage of High School Seniors Participating in

School-Sponsored Extracurricular Activities by Socioeconomic Status, 2004 .................................................................................................83
Figure 5.3 Percentage of Kindergarten through Grade 8 Students

Retained in a Grade During Their School Career, 2007 .......................................................................................................................................................84
Figure 5.4 Percentage of Students Suspended from Public Elementary

and Secondary Schools by Race/Ethnicity, 2006 ....................................................................................................................................................................84
Figure 5.5 Rates of Violent Incidents in Public Schools by Urbanicity, 2008 .....................................................................................................85
Figure 5.6 Rates of Violent Incidents in Public Schools by Minority Enrollment, 2008..............................................................................85
Figure 5.7 Rates of Violent Incidents in Public Schools

by Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Enrollment, 2008 ............................................................................................................................................86
Figure 5.8 Percentage of Public Schools Reporting Gang Activities During School Year, 2008 .....................................................87
The Council of the Great City Schools ix

FIGURES
FACTOR 6: POSTSECONDARY EXPERIENCES
Figure 6.1 College Graduation Rates for First-Time Postsecondary

Students in Full-Time Degree Seeking 4- Year Institutions, 2001...............................................................................................................................89
Figure 6.2 Unemployment Rates for Black and White Males Ages 20 and Over, Second Quarter 2010 .................................89
Figure 6.3 Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred on Black Males by Field of Study, 2008 ....................................................................................90
Figure 6.4 Professional Degrees Conferred on Black Males by Field of Study, 2008 ..............................................................................91
Figure 6.5 Educational Attainment of Male Population 18 Years and Over by Race, 2009 .................................................................91
Figure 6.6 Income by Educational Attainment of Black and White Males Ages 18 and Over, 2006 .............................................92
Figure 6.7 Percentage of Black Males Ages 16 and Over in the Labor Force by Occupation, 2008 .........................................93
Figure 6.8 Percentage Distribution of Black

and White Males Ages 18 and Over in College and Prison Population, 2008 ................................................................................................93
Figure 6.9 Imprisonment Rate per 100,000 Persons

in the U.S. Resident Population of Black and White Males Ages 18 and Over, 2008 ................................................................................94
Figure 6.10 Percentage of Black and White Male Prisoners

Under State and Federal Jurisdiction by Age, 2008 ...............................................................................................................................................................94
x A CALL FOR CHANGE: The Social and Educational Factors Contributing to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“EDUCATION IS A PRECONDITION TO SURVIVAL

~M
IN AMERICA TODAY.
W E
” ARIAN RIGHT DELMAN
The purpose of this study is to bring much-needed attention Moreover, in each area we only highlight a few indicators.
to the comprehensive challenges of Black males in the United We recognize that many more indicators could have been
States. Black males continue to perform lower than their addressed, but we are convinced that we have more than
peers throughout the country on almost every indicator. And made the case for action in this report.
while much work over the years has gone into addressing
the challenge of the Black–White achievement gap, there The reader should keep a number of things in mind as he or
has been no concerted national effort focused on the she goes through the report. First, all data reported here are
education and social outcomes of Black males specifically. from secondary sources unless otherwise indicated.
There is no specified office within the U.S. Department of
Education; no primary federal source to collect and maintain Second, the years on which data are reported vary from
data on Black males; no legislative projects within local, indicator to indicator depending on the source, but all are
state, or national budgets; no attention on the collection of the most recently available.
information on this set of issues outside of a few dedicated
Third, data are disaggregated, when available by gender
organizations; no national policy that would drive resources
within race, so that comparisons can be made between
or attention to the issue; and no federal education program
Black males and White males. But data are not always
on the educational status of Black males. While there are
available to do that. In far too many instances, data were
educators, researchers, policymakers, governmental leaders,
only available for race and not for gender within race. We
faith-based leaders, civil rights leaders, and others intent on
believe that critical data should be made available by gender
improving the quality of life for Black males, their efforts are
within race if we are going to truly understand the extent
often too disconnected and too uncoordinated to match
and nature of the challenges confronted by Black males.
the comprehensive nature of the problem. This is a national
catastrophe, and it deserves coordinated national attention. Fourth, the Council analyzed National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) data on the achievement of
The Council of the Great City Schools pays special tribute
Black males at both the national public (NP) and large city
and gives thanks to the organizations that have brought
(LC) levels and on 18 big city school districts using data
attention to these issues—the Schott Foundation, National
from the Trial Urban District Assessments (TUDA). The large
Urban League, and Children’s Defense Fund. We thank
cities in the nation are those with populations of 250,000 or
them, too, for their continued efforts. Also, we recognize the
more. In this paper, large city means the combined public
work of Jawanza Kunjufu, John Ogbu, Ronald Ferguson,
school student enrollments in the nation’s large city public
Pedro Noguera, Michael Nettles, and other researchers and
schools. All of the NAEP analyses were conducted using the
scholars who have continued to keep this issue front and
NAEP Data Explorer http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
center in their work.
naepdata/report.aspx.
This study attempts to pull together much of the disparate
We believe that the analyses conducted, which disaggregated
work on Black male achievement. Still, the work is limited
results by gender within race, represents the first time these
in that it examines only six areas in the lives of America’s
data have been used in this way. Wherever possible, we also
Black males:
analyzed the differences in the NAEP data to determine
1. Readiness to learn whether or not they were statistically significant.
2. Black male achievement on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP)
3. Black male achievement on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) in selected big city school
districts
4. College and career preparedness
5. School experience
6. Postsecondary experience
2 A CALL FOR CHANGE: The Social and Educational Factors Contributing to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools
FINDINGS most recent year of NAEP testing. In fact, large city (LC)
Black males not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch had
A summary of the key findings in each of the six areas
reading and mathematics scores similar to or lower than
follows:
those of White males in national public schools (NP) who
were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Furthermore,
FACTOR 1: READINESS TO LEARN large city (LC) Black males without disabilities had reading
and mathematics scores, on average, lower than those of
Large numbers of Black children continue to live in White males in national public schools (NP) with disabilities.
deplorable conditions. Significant numbers live in poverty,
their families are in peril, their parents lack postsecondary
education, and they are not participating in structured early READING GRADES 4 AND 8
child-care programs at the same rate as their White peers.
s )N AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORES OF LARGE
s Between 2003 and 2007, Black mothers had infant city (LC) Black students in grade 4 and 8 were not
mortality rates at least twice as high as White significantly different from Hispanic students in large
mothers. cities (LC). Both, however, were lower than White
students in national public schools (NP).
s In 2008, Black children ages 17 and under were
nearly 50 percent more likely to be without private or s )N THE AVERAGE SCALE SCORE OF "LACK MALES IN
government health insurance than White children. large cities (LC) were significantly lower than Black
females and Hispanic females in large cities (LC) at
s In 2008, Black children ages 18 and under were grades 4 and 8. However, the average scale score
three times more likely to live in single-parent of Black males in large cities was not significantly
households than White children. Nearly two-thirds of different from Hispanic males in large cities at both
all Black children lived in a single–parent household. grades.
s In 2008, Black children were twice as likely as White s "ETWEEN AND THE AVERAGE READING
children to live in a household where no parent had scale scores of Black males in large cities (LC) and
full-time or year-round employment. in national public schools increased significantly in
grade 4. In grade 8, the average reading scale score
s In 2008, one-third of Black children had a parent of Black males in national public schools (NP) also
with a high school diploma, 24 percent had a parent increased significantly between 2003 and 2009.
with at least some college experience, and less
than 15 percent had a parent who held a bachelor’s s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY
degree. (LC) Black males was not significantly different from
that of Black males in national public schools (NP) at
s In 2007, one out of every three Black children lived grade 4 but significantly different at grade 8.
in poverty compared with one out of every ten White
children. s "ETWEEN AND THE AVERAGE READING SCALE
score of large city (LC) Black males was lower than
FACTOR 2: BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT the average score of White males in national public
ON THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF schools (NP) by at least 28 points at grade 4 and 29
EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS (NAEP) points at grade 8.
Achievement levels of Black males continue to be lower

than those of White males. The achievement gaps between
Black males attending large city (LC) schools (public
schools in the set of U.S. cities with populations exceeding
250,000) and White males in national public schools (NP)
were wide in 2003 and continued to be wide in 2009, the
The Council of the Great City Schools 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE
(LC) Black males who were not eligible for free or of large city (LC) Black males without disabilities
reduced-price lunch (Non-FRPL) was one point lower (Non-SD) was nine points lower in grade 4 and two
at grade 4 and seven points lower at grade 8 than points lower at grade 8 than the score of White males
the score of White males in national public schools nationwide (NP) with disabilities (SD).
(NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
(FRPL). FACTOR 3: BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT
ON THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE
EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS (NAEP) IN
city (LC) Black males without disabilities (Non-SD)
SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS
was only two points higher at grade 4 and five points
higher at grade 8 than the score of White males
nationwide (NP) with disabilities (SD). With few exceptions, reading and mathematics scale scores
on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) among Black males in TUDA districts were lower
than Black males in national public schools (NP) at grades
MATHEMATICS GRADES 4 AND 8
4 and 8. In fact, at least 50 percent of fourth- and eighth-
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF grade Black males in most Trial Urban District Assessment
large city (LC) Black students in grade 4 and 8 was (TUDA) districts and nationwide scored below Basic levels.
significantly lower than Hispanic students in large
cities (LC). Both were lower than White students in READING GRADES 4 AND 8
national public schools (NP).
s "ETWEEN AND AVERAGE READING SCALE
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF scores of fourth- and eighth-grade Black males
Black males in large cities (LC) was not significantly increased significantly in Atlanta and New York
different from Black females in large cities (LC) in City. Fourth-graders in Boston, Charlotte, District of
grades 4 and 8. However, the average scale scores Columbia (DCPS) and New York City also increased
of Black males in large cities (LC) were significantly during that same period.
lower than Hispanic males and Hispanic females in
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORES FOR FOURTH
large cities (LC) at grades 4 and 8.
grade Black males in Boston and New York City were
s "ETWEEN AND THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS significantly higher than scale scores for Black males
scale scores of Black males in large cities (LC) and in in national public schools (NP). In addition, fourth-
national public schools (NP) increased significantly in grade Black males in Boston, Charlotte, Houston, and
both grades 4 and 8. New York City scored significantly higher in reading
than Black males in large cities generally (LC).
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF
large city (LC) Black males was significantly lower s )N ALL 45$! DISTRICTS HAD APPROXIMATELY
than the average scores of Black males in national percent or more of their fourth-grade Black males
public schools (NP) in both grades 4 and 8. performing below Basic levels in reading. The
percentage of Black males at or above Proficient
s "ETWEEN AND THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS levels in fourth-grade reading ranged from a low of
scale score of large city (LC) Black males remained at 3 percent in Cleveland and Detroit to a high of 16
least 30 points lower at grade 4 and 38 points lower percent in Charlotte. Twelve percent of Black males
at grade 8 than the score of White males in national in national public schools (NP) were at or above
public schools (NP). Proficient levels.
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF s )N AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORES OF EIGHTH
large city (LC) Black males who were not eligible for grade Black males in Cleveland, Detroit, District of
free or reduced-price lunch (Non-FRPL) was eight Columbia, Fresno, and Milwaukee were significantly
points lower at grade 4 and 12 points lower at grade lower than scale scores among Black males in
8 than the score of White males nationwide (NP) who national public schools (NP). None of the average
were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL). reading scale scores for Black males in any TUDA
district were significantly higher than scores for Black FACTOR 4: COLLEGE AND CAREER
males in national public schools (NP) or in the large PREPAREDNESS
cities (LC).
Black males were more likely, compared with White males,
s )N AT LEAST PERCENT OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK to drop out of high school and not graduate. Fewer Black
males in all but four TUDA districts performed below males take Advanced Placement exams or enroll in two-
Basic levels in reading. The percentage of Black or four-year colleges after graduation. Furthermore, the
males at or above Proficient levels ranged from a low average SAT and ACT scores of Black males were lower
of 3 percent in Milwaukee to a high of 13 percent in than those of White males.
Austin. Nine percent of Black males in national public
schools (NP) were at or above Proficient levels. s )N "LACK MALES WERE NEARLY TWICE AS LIKELY TO
drop out of high school as White males. Nine percent
MATHEMATICS GRADES 4 AND 8 of Black males dropped out of high school compared
s "ETWEEN AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS with 5 percent of White males.
scale scores of fourth and eighth grade Black males
increased significantly in Atlanta and Boston. Scores s )N !DVANCED 0LACEMENT TEST TAKERS WERE MORE
of fourth-graders in District of Columbia, and New likely to be White students than Black students.
York City as well as eighth-graders in Charlotte and Approximately 60 percent of AP test takers were
Chicago also increased during that same period. White, 15 percent Hispanic, 10 percent Asian and 8
percent Black.
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF
fourth-grade Black males in Boston, Charlotte, and s )N THE AVERAGE 3!4 SCORES OF "LACK MALES WERE
New York City were significantly higher than the scale lower than those of White males in critical reading,
scores of Black males in national public schools (NP). mathematics, and writing. The gap between White
Black males in Boston, Charlotte, Houston, and New and Black students taking the SAT was 104 points
York City scored significantly higher, on average, than in critical reading, 120 points in mathematics, and 99
Black males in large cities generally (LC). points in writing.
s )N AT LEAST PERCENT OF FOURTH GRADE "LACK s 4HE AVERAGE !#4 SCORES OF "LACK STUDENTS WERE LOWER
males in most TUDA districts performed below Basic than those for White students in English, mathematics,
levels in mathematics; and in eight of the 18 districts, and reading. In 2009, the gap between White and
at least 50 percent of fourth-graders performed below Black students was six points in English, five points in
Basic levels. The percentage of fourth-grade Black mathematics, and six points in reading.
males at or above Proficient levels ranged from 2
s )N "LACK MALES WERE LESS LIKELY THAN 7HITE
percent in Detroit to 25 percent in Charlotte. Fifteen
males to enroll in a two-year or four-year college after
percent of Black males in national public schools were
high school graduation. Three out of 10 Black males
at or above Proficient levels.
enrolled in a four-year institution, compared with four
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF out of 10 White males.
eighth-grade Black males in Austin, Boston, and
Charlotte were significantly higher than Black males
in national public schools (NP). Black males in Austin,
Boston, Charlotte, and Houston scored, on average,
higher than Black males in other large cities (LC).
s )N AT LEAST PERCENT OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK

males in TUDA districts performed below Basic levels
in mathematics. The percentage of Black males at
or above Proficient levels ranged from 2 percent in
Milwaukee to 19 percent in Austin. Twelve percent of
Black Males in national public schools (NP) were at or
above Proficient levels.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FACTOR 5: SCHOOL EXPERIENCE FACTOR 6: POSTSECONDARY EXPERIENCE
Black students were less likely than their White peers to Black males had significantly different postsecondary
participate in academic clubs, more likely to be suspended experiences than White males. Their graduation rates
from school, and more likely to be retained in grade. Students were lower, unemployment rates higher, they were more
attending public schools with more than 50 percent minority likely to earn a lower income than White males with similar
students were more likely to report incidents of violent educational backgrounds, and they were more likely to be
crimes than their peers at other schools with smaller minority incarcerated.
enrollments.
s )N GRADUATION RATES FOR 7HITE MALES WERE
s "LACK HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS WERE LESS LIKELY TO consistently higher than national averages. The
participate in academic clubs than other classmates graduation rates were at least 50 percent higher for
in 2004. Some 45 percent of Black students Whites males than for Black males. Approximately 15
participated in sports activities, 17 percent in percent of Black males graduated in four years and
academic clubs, and 24 percent in extracurricular about one-third graduated in five years compared with
music activities. 33 percent of White males graduating in four years
and one-half graduating in five years.
s "LACK OR POOR STUDENTS ATTENDING PUBLIC SCHOOL WERE
more likely to be retained during their K-8 school s )N THE SECOND QUARTER OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT
career than their classmates. In 2007, at least 23 rate for Black males ages 20 and over was twice
percent of students who were retained were poor, and as high as the unemployment rate for White males
16 percent were Black, compared with 5 percent of of the same age. Black males had a double-digit
non-poor and 8 percent of White students. unemployment rate (17.3 percent), while the
unemployment rate for White males was in the single
s )N "LACK STUDENTS WERE THREE TIMES MORE digits (8.6 percent) and below the national average
likely than White students, two times more likely (9.6 percent).
than Hispanic and American Indian students, and
five times more likely than Asian American students s )N "LACK MALES WHO GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE
to be suspended from school. Some 15 percent of were more likely to earn bachelor’s degrees in
Black students and 5 percent of White students were business than any other field. Approximately 30
suspended from public elementary and secondary percent earned a degree in business, 10 percent in
schools. social sciences and history, and fewer than 10 percent
earned degrees in all other reported areas.
s 0UBLIC SCHOOLS WITH MORE THAN PERCENT MINORITY
student enrollments reported a higher rate of crime s )N APPROXIMATELY PERCENT OF "LACK MALES
than schools with fewer minority students in 2008. age 18 or over had either attained some college or
had a college degree. Ten percent of Black males had
s )N GANG ACTIVITIES WERE MORE LIKELY TO BE earned bachelor’s degrees, compared with 18 percent
reported by public schools in cities; public schools of White males. Four percent of Black males had
with a high percentage of minority students; and earned master’s degrees, compared with 6 percent of
public schools with a high percentage of FRPL White males.
students than other types of public schools.
s "LACK MALES AGE AND OVER WERE MORE LIKELY TO
have a lower income than White males with similar
educational backgrounds. In 2006, the wage
gap between Black and White males who did not
graduate from high school was approximately $5,000,
compared with a gap of over $20,000 for those with a
master’s degree.
s )N "LACK MALES AGES AND OVER REPRESENTED

only 5 percent of the total college student population
but 36 percent of the total prison population.
s )N "LACK MALES AGES AND OVER WERE In particular, the Council will move to--
imprisoned at a rate six and a half times higher than
White males. s #ONVENE A PANEL OF TO ESTEEMED SCHOOL
district, state, national, and university leaders, as well
PROFILES OF EXCELLENCE as civic and faith-based leaders and governmental
Despite the discouraging data on the social and educational officials, who are concerned about the education
influences on Black males, there is hope. There are a of Black males. This panel of leaders would serve
considerable number of Black males who “beat the odds” as a governing board and would provide advice
and succeed in their chosen fields. In this section of the and guidance to the Council on the formulation of
report, we highlight young Black men from urban school strategies for improvement. The panel would identify
districts who stood out among their peers. Their profiles critical academic and nonacademic challenges and
show that, with appropriate support, a school that promotes barriers to educating Black males. And it would
excellence, and adults who nourish their growth, success is provide guidance on the direction and development of
possible. a national strategy.
s )DENTIFY ONE OR MORE SCHOLARS TO WRITE PAPERS THAT

FUTURE RESEARCH
would not only describe the challenges but also offer
Improving the quality of education for Black males in recommendations and solutions.
America is a national imperative. The current state of affairs,
if left unaddressed, not only threatens to devastate more s (AVE URBAN SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS SUPERINTENDENTS
lives but to affect the ability of Black males to care for their and other senior staff and teachers from Council
current and future families. member districts review each paper.
To begin addressing these issues more effectively, the s !SK REVIEWERS TO COMMENT ON THE PROMISE AND
Council of the Great City Schools is launching a renewed feasibility of the recommendations, and have scholars
research effort that the organization hopes will yield more revise or extend their proposals accordingly.
effective strategies than have been used in the past.
Typically, the Council would review existing data, identify s #ONVENE A MAJOR CONFERENCE TO PUBLICLY DISCUSS THE
districts making more progress than others, and study how recommendations and direction.
these more successful districts were producing their gains.
s #OMPILE ALL RECOMMENDATIONS STRATEGIES AND
But the data we examined, particularly NAEP data, suggest
proposals into a final report.
that few major city school districts are realizing outsized
results with their Black male students, so the Council is s 5RGE THE #OUNCILS BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHO CONSIST
going to take a different approach than is normally the case. of the superintendent and one school board member
from each Council district) to move forward on the
The Council will continue to analyze new and secondary data
recommendations.
on the quality of education for Black males attending schools
in the nation’s largest urban districts, but the organization s -ARSHAL ORGANIZATIONS INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES IN
will also work to assemble the best thinking from around support of a “Call to Action” to improve the attainment
the country on what needs to be done (a) to improve the of the nation’s Black males.
life circumstances of Black males, (b) to promote these
strategies among the nation’s major city school districts, (c)
and to marshal the energy and commitment of like-minded
individuals and groups to ensure progress.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
7. Encourage local, state, and national educators/
1. Convene a White House conference on the status of researchers to disaggregate academic and
Black males and develop an overall call to action and nonacademic data by gender and race/ethnicity so
strategic direction for improvement. that valid comparisons can be made between Black
males and their peers.
2. Encourage Congress, as it reauthorizes the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 8. Ensure that Black male students are taking the
to establish an explicit program with financial aid requisite courses at the appropriate level of rigor
that would help public schools close achievement beginning in late elementary school, at least, to ensure
gaps. The program should include both educational that they are on track academically for high school
strategies and social supports for Black males. graduation.
3. Marshal the energies and commitment of national and 9. Work with the higher education community to ensure
local organizations with an interest and stake in seeing appropriate academic and social supports for Black
improvement to coordinate their efforts on behalf of male students in higher education.
Black male youth. Such groups might include the
Boys and Girls Clubs, 100 Black Men, the National 10. Encourage school district leaders, especially in the big
Urban League, the NBA, the music industry, and cities, to better target their instructional programming,
others. interventions, and afterschool initiatives to address
the specific academic and social needs of Black male
4. Build a nationwide network of support, particularly students. School boards and superintendents should
in the nation’s major cities, to mentor and support be asking for regular updates on the status and
individual Black male young people and their families. progress of their initiatives for these students.
5. Establish an ongoing network of mentoring, internship, 11. Create a cadre of individuals to work in Black
and career experiences for adolescent Black males communities to address issues of violence and
with the private sector in the nation’s major cities. disruption both on the streets and in school.
6. Expand the number of Black male counselors in the
nation’s urban schools in order to provide social,
psychological, and college/career guidance and
direction to Black male students.
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Many individuals and organizations—education, civic, Wherever possible, differences in the NAEP data were
business, faith-based, and others—have been working analyzed to determine whether or not they were statistically
tirelessly to close the achievement gap between racial and significant. Tests of significance could only be conducted
ethnic groups for some time. But only modest progress has with variables within the same jurisdictions (districts,
been made and the achievement gaps remain wide. The large cities, or national public schools) or between
Council of the Great City Schools is stepping forward on years. Tests of significance could not be conducted
this issue because so many of the nation’s Black males are with variables across different jurisdictions. These
enrolled in our schools. analyses were conducted using the NAEP Data Explorer.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.
In 2009, approximately 29 percent of all Black male aspx. The large cities in the nation are those with populations
students in the nation were enrolled in the organization’s of 250,000 or more. In this paper, large city schools are the
65 urban school districts out of approximately 15,000 combined public school student populations of the nation’s
school districts nationwide. In addition, 20 percent of the large cities as defined by the United States Census Bureau.
nation’s students eligible for FRPL and 15 percent of those
identified as students with disabilities were enrolled in a Where possible, we compare NAEP results among Black
Great City School district. In contrast, only five percent of males attending schools in large cities against White males
the nation’s White male students were enrolled in a major attending national public schools (NP).2 This is the first
urban school district. such analysis to examine NAEP results by gender within
race. Finally, we also report on results for students with
The purpose of this report is to focus in on a critical element disabilities (SD), students eligible for a free or reduced-price
of the nation’s achievement gap—Black males. The academic lunch (FRPL), and students comprising the broader national
performance of Black males continues to fall behind their sample (NP).
peers on every major assessment in the nation– ACT, SAT,
and the National Assessment of Educational Progress This report begins with an examination of student
(NAEP). And the goal of this report is to help galvanize the demographics in big city school districts and across the
energies and resources of a nation that has, for too long, nation. We follow that with data on six areas – readiness
chosen to ignore the issue. to learn, achievement at the national level, Black male
achievement for districts in the Trial Urban District
This report also aims to place the challenges that Black Assessment (TUDA),3 college and career preparedness,
males face in a broader social context while emphasizing school experiences, and postsecondary experiences. We
the critical educational dimensions of the issues. The examine a number of indicators in each area.
data in this report are drawn from the U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Common Core These sections are followed by a series of “Profiles
of Data, Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe of Excellence”, which highlight some of the individual
Survey, 2009-10; Centers for Disease Control and successes of Black males from the Great City Schools.
Prevention; National Center for Health Statistics; ACT; SAT; Finally, the study concludes with a plan of action designed
and other national databases. Not all data in the subsequent to improve the academic performance of Black males.
sections are reported by both race and gender, because the
information in that format is not always available.
Particular attention is given to data from the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), districts
participating in the Trial Urban District Assessment of NAEP,
and schools that comprise the large city (LC)1 variable of
NAEP. Because NAEP scales are developed independently
for each subject, scores cannot be compared across
subjects or across grades.
1
“Large city” is the subset of those public schools located in the urbanized areas of cities with populations of 250,000 or more. Large city is not synonymous with “inner city.” Schools in participat¬ing
TUDA districts are also included in the large city results, even though some districts (Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, Cleveland, Fresno, Houston, Jefferson County, Los Angeles, and Miami-Dade) include
some schools not classified as large city schools. IES, The Nation’s Report Card, Trial Urban District Assessment, Reading, 2009.
2
NP includes students attending public schools across the nation.
3
Representative samples of between 900 and 2,400 fourth-grade and between 800 and 2,100 eighth-grade public school students from 18 urban districts participated in the TUDA project in 2009.
Eleven of the districts participated in 2007 and 2005, ten in 2003, and 6 in 2002.

CHAPTER 1
DEMOGRAPHICS
The Council of the Great City Schools represents 65 of the largest urban school districts in the
country. These Great City School districts are either the largest school district in their states or
have enrollments of at least 35,000 students in cities that typically have more than 250,000
residents. Most of these students, as the subsequent data will show, are eligible for the free or
reduced-price lunch program and are students of color.
This study begins with a summary of the composition of the nation’s Great City Schools and the
portion of their enrollments that are Black males.
s )N OVER SEVEN MILLION STUDENTS WERE ENROLLED IN THE 'REAT #ITY 3CHOOLS OR ABOUT
percent of all public school elementary and secondary education students in the country.
s 3OME PERCENT OF THE STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THE 'REAT #ITY 3CHOOL DISTRICTS WERE "LACK
36 percent were Hispanic, 20 percent White and approximately six percent were Asian or
American Indian/Alaska in 2009. (Figure D1)
s !BOUT PERCENT OF 'REAT #ITY 3CHOOL DISTRICT STUDENTS WERE "LACK MALES TEN PERCENT WERE
White males, and 18 percent were Hispanic males in 2009. (Figure D1)
s !PPROXIMATELY PERCENT OF 'REAT #ITY 3CHOOL STUDENTS WERE eligible for a free or reduced-
price lunch and fourteen percent were identified as students with disabilities. (Figure D2)
s 4HE PERCENTAGE OF "LACK MALES ENROLLED IN 'REAT #ITY 3CHOOL DISTRICTS RANGED FROM A LOW OF
2.1 percent in Albuquerque (NW) to a high of 49 percent in Jackson (MS). The percentage
of White males enrolled in Great City School districts ranged from a low of 0.5 percent in
Birmingham (AL) to a high of 30 percent in Des Moines (IA). (Figure D3)
s !PPROXIMATELY PERCENT OF THE NATIONS "LACK MALE STUDENTS lVE PERCENT OF ALL 7HITE MALE
students; 20 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 15 percent
identified as students with disabilities were enrolled in the Great City School districts in 2009.
(Figure D4)
CHAPTER 1
FIGURE D1. CGCS DEMOGRAPHIC ENROLLMENT BY RACE AND GENDER, 2009
Amer.
Amer. Indian/Alaskan Asian Male
Indian/Alaskan Male Female 3%
0.30% 0.30%
Other Asian Female In 2009, 17 percent of students in the
4% 3% Great City Schools were Black males,
10 percent were White males and 18
White percent were Hispanic males.
Female
10%
Hispanic Male
White Male
18%
10%
Black Female Hispanic Female

17% 18%
Black Male
17%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Common Core of Data, Public Elementary/Secondary School
Universe Survey, 2009-10
FIGURE D2. PERCENTAGE OF FRPL AND SD STUDENTS IN CGCS SCHOOL DISTRICTS, 2009
100%
80%
In 2009, 64 percent of all Great City
Percent of Students
64% School students were eligible for free

60% or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and
14 percent identified as students with
disabilities (SD).
40%
20% 14%
0%
FRPL SD

CHAPTER 1
DEMOGRAPHICS
FIGURE D3. PERCENTAGE OF CGCS STUDENTS BY RANGE OF SELECTED GROUPS, 2009
2.1% 49%
In 2009, the percentage of Black males
Black Male enrolled in Great City School districts
Enrollment
ranged from a low of 2.1 percent to a
high of 49 percent. The percentage of
.5% 30%
White males enrolled ranged a low of 0.5
percent to a high of 30 percent.
White Male 33%
Enrollment
100%
FRPL
7% 25%
SD
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent CGCS Enrollment

FIGURE D4. CGCS STUDENT ENROLLMENT AS PERCENTAGE OF NATION BY GROUP, 2009
White In 2009, approximately 29 percent of

5%
Male all Black male students in the nation
were enrolled in the Great City Schools,
Black and 20 percent of the nation’s students
29%
Male eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
Student Group
(FRPL) attended a Great City School.
FRPL 20%
SD 15%
Total CGCS
14%
Enrollment
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Percent of Students
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2
HIGHLIGHTS
s "LACK MOTHERS HAD INFANT MORTALITY RATES AT LEAST TWICE AS HIGH AS 7HITE MOTHERS BETWEEN
2003 and 2007. (Figure 1.1)
s "LACK CHILDREN YEARS OLD AND YOUNGER WERE PERCENT MORE LIKELY TO BE WITHOUT PRIVATE OR
government health insurance than White children in 2008. (Figure 1.2)
s "ETWEEN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF "LACK MALES YEARS OF AGE IN FAMILIES WITHOUT
health insurance was higher among those who were classified as near-poor than those living
in households identified as poor or non-poor. However, there was little difference between
Black males living in metropolitan areas and all Black males at various income levels (poor,
near-poor, or non-poor). (Figure 1.3)
s )N "LACK CHILDREN AGES AND UNDER WERE NEARLY THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO LIVE IN
single-parent households than White children. Nearly two-thirds of all Black children lived in
single-parent households. (Figure 1.4)
s )N THE MAJORITY OF "LACK CHILDREN UNDER LIVED IN SINGLE MOTHER HOUSEHOLDS
Approximately six out of 10 Black children lived with a female parent, no spouse present;
compared with three out of 10 Black children living with married parents. (Figure 1.5)
s )N THREE OUT OF FOUR "LACK CHILDREN AT AGE WERE LIKELY TO BE ENROLLED IN A NON
Head Start child care program. At least one-third of Black children participated in home-based
care or had no regular nonparent arrangement. (Figure 1.6)
s )N THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED BY PARENTS OF "LACK CHILDREN AGES WAS
similar among mothers and fathers. At least one-third of these children had a parent with a
high school diploma, 24 percent had a parent with some college, and less than 15 percent had
a parent with a bachelor’s degree. (Figure 1.7)
s "LACK CHILDREN AGES AND UNDER WERE TWICE AS LIKELY AS 7HITE CHILDREN TO LIVE IN HOUSEHOLDS
where no parent had full-time or year-round employment in 2008. Four out of 10 Black
children lived in households where no parent had full-time or year-round employment,
compared with two out of 10 White children. (Figure 1.8)
s /NE THIRD OF "LACK CHILDREN UNDER AGE LIVED IN POVERTY COMPARED WITH PERCENT OF 7HITE
children and 27 percent of Hispanic children in 2007. (Figure 1.9)
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 1.1. INFANT MORTALITY RATE BY ETHNICITY, 2003-2007
Infant Mortality Rate per 1,000 Live Births
14 14 14 13 13
Between 2003 and 2007,
infant mortality rates for
Black mothers were more
than twice as high than for
White mothers.
6 6 6 6 6
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Years
Black Mother White Mother
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
FIGURE 1.2. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN 17 YEARS OF AGE AND UNDER NOT COVERED BY
PRIVATE OR GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE, 2008
30%
Black children, 17 years
old and younger, were
Health Insurance
Percent Without
50 percent more likely

20% to be without private
or government health
insurance than White
10.7%
children of the same age
10% 6.7% in 2008.
0%
White children Black children
Race/Ethnicity of Children
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007

CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 1.3. PERCENTAGE OF BLACK MALE CHILDREN 0-4 YEARS OF AGE WITHOUT
FAMILY HEALTH INSURANCE BY URBANICITY AND INCOME, 2006-2008

8% 8% Black male children 0-4 years
Percent of Black Male Children
of age in near-poor households

were more likely to be without
health insurance than Black
5% 4% 4% 5% male children in poor or non-
poor households.
Poor Near poor Nonpoor

Household Income
All Metropolitan
Note: Poor families are defined as those with incomes below the poverty threshold. Near-poor families are those with incomes between
100 and 200 percent of the poverty threshold. Non-poor families are those with incomes 200 percent or greater than the poverty
threshold.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
FIGURE 1.4. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN AGES 18 AND UNDER LIVING

IN SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS BY RACE, 2008
In 2008, Black children ages

Percent of Children
65% 18 and under were nearly

three times more likely to live
50% in single-parent households
than White children of the
38% same age.
23%
16%
White Black American Indian Asian Hispanic

Source: KIDSCOUNT; Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community
Survey.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 1.5. PERCENTAGE OF BLACK CHILDREN UNDER AGE 18
BY LIVING ARRANGEMENTS, 2007
Male parent, no Other

spouse present 2.8%
7.6%
In 2007, 56 percent of Black children

under 18 lived with a female parent with
Married Parents no spouse present.
33.6%
Female parent, no
spouse present
56.0%
FIGURE 1.6. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PRIMARY CARE ARRANGEMENTS

OF FOUR-YEAR-OLD BLACK CHILDREN, 2005-2006
Mul!ple
Arrangements No Regular
3% Nonparental
Arrangement
16%
In 2005-06, one-third of all four-year-old

Black children participated in home-
based care programs or had no regular
nonparent care; one quarter participated
Center-Based Care in Head Start programs.
Home-Based Care
37%
18%
Head Start
26%

CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 1.7. PERCENTAGE OF BLACK CHILDREN AGES 6 TO 18 BY PARENT’S HIGHEST

LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, 2008
13%
Less than high school
11%
36%
High school
35%
Type of Cer!ficate/Degree Earned by Parent
24%
Some college
21%
11%
Associates degree
12%
13% In 2008, one-third of Black children had

Bachelor's degree a parent with a high school diploma,
14% 24 percent had a parent with at least
some college experience, and less than
15 percent had a parent who held a
bachelor’s degree.
4%
Master's degree
5%
Doctorate or 1%
professional degree
2%
Percent of Black Children

Mother Father
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 1.8. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN AGES 18 AND UNDER LIVING IN FAMILIES
WHERE NO PARENT HAS FULL-TIME, YEAR-ROUND EMPLOYMENT BY RACE, 2008
43% 44%
33%
Percent of Children
In 2008, Black children were

twice as likely as White children
to live in households where no
21% 20% parent had full-time or year-round
employment.
White Black American Indian Asian Hispanic

Source: KIDSCOUNT; Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey.
FIGURE 1.9. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN UNDER AGE 18 LIVING IN POVERTY

BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2007
34% In 2007, one-third of Black

27% children under age 18 lived
in poverty, compared with 10
Percent of Children
percent of White children and 27

percent of Hispanic children.
10% 11%
White Black Hispanic Asian

White Black Hispanic Asian
Source: KIDSCOUNT; Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey.

CHAPTER 2
FACTOR 2A: BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP –

READING GRADE 4
HIGHLIGHTS
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading results for grade 4 are reported
as average scores on a 0–500 scale. The results are reported as achievement levels (Basic, Proficient
and Advanced4) that show what students should know and be able to do.
Reading Grade 4
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK STUDENTS INCREASED
significantly from 193 in 2003 to 201 (+8 points) in 2009; the average reading scale score of
large city (LC) fourth-grade Hispanic students increased significantly from 197 in 2003 to 202 (+5
points) in 2009; and the average reading scale score of fourth-grade White students in national
public schools (NP) increased significantly from 227 in 2003 to 229 (+2 points) in 2009. (Figure
2.1)
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK STUDENTS WAS
not significantly different from Hispanic students (202) in large cities (LC). However, Black and
Hispanic scores in large cities (LC) were lower than White students (229) in national public schools
(NP) (tests of significance could not be conducted). (Figure 2.1)
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES INCREASED SIGNIlCANTLY
from 188 in 2003 to 198 (+10 points) in 2009, while the average reading scale score of large
city (LC) Hispanic males increased significantly from 194 to 199 (+5 points) over the same period.
(Figure 2.2)
s )N THE AVERAGE SCALE SCORE OF FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES ,# WAS NOT
statistically different from fourth-grade Hispanic males (199) in large cities (LC). However, the
average scale score of large city (LC) fourth-grade Black males (198) was significantly lower than
Black females (-7points) and Hispanic females (-7points) in large cities (LC). (Figure 2.2)
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES INCREASED SIGNIlCANTLY
from 188 in 2003 to 198 (+10 points) in 2009, while the average reading scale score of Black
male fourth-graders in national public schools (NP) increased significantly from 192 to 199 (+7
points) over the same period. (Figure 2.3)
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES WAS NOT
significantly different from Black males (199) in national public schools (NP). (Figure 2.3)
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF FOURTH GRADE 7HITE MALES IN NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS .0
increased significantly from 223 in 2003 to 226 (+3 points) in 2009, while the average reading
scale score of large city (LC) Black males increased significantly from 188 to 198 (+10 points) over
the same period. The gap between White males in national public schools (NP) and large city (LC)
Black males narrowed from 35 points in 2003 to 28 points in 2009. (Figure 2.4)
4
The cut score indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is: Basic (208), Proficient (238) and Advanced (268).
CHAPTER 2
s "ETWEEN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES PERFORMING
at or above Proficient in reading improved from 8 to 11 percentage points, but remained at least 27
percentage points lower than the percentage of White males in national public schools (NP) scoring
at or above Proficient levels. (Figure 2.5)
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch (FRPL) increased significantly from 186 in 2003 to 195 (+9 points) in 2009,
while the average reading scale score of White male fourth-graders in national public schools (NP)
who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) increased significantly from 208 to 212
(+4 points) over the same period. (Figure 2.6)
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES ,# WHO
were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) was 17 points lower than fourth-grade White
males in national public schools (NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL). The
average reading scale score of fourth-grade Black males in large cities (LC) who were not eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch (Non-FRPL) was 1 point lower than White males in national public
schools (NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) in 2009. (Figure 2.6)
s )N AT GRADE THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# "LACK MALES PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE Proficient
levels in reading who were not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (Non-FRPL) was the same
as the percentage of White males in national public schools (NP) who were eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and performing at or above Proficient levels. (Figure 2.7)
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES with disabilities (SD)
scale scores of White male fourth-graders in national public schools (NP) with disabilities ( SD)
increased significantly from 193 to 200 (+7 points) over the same period. (Figure 2.8)
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES ,# with
disabilities (SD) was 30 points lower than fourth-grade White males in national public schools (NP)
with disabilities (SD). The average reading scale score for fourth-grade Black males in large cities
(LC) without disabilities (Non-SD) was 2 points higher than White males in national public schools
(NP) with disabilities (SD) in 2009. (Figure 2.8)
s "ETWEEN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES without
disabilities (Non-SD) who were performing at or above Proficient levels in reading improved from
nine percent to 13 percent, but remained at least four percentage points lower than the percentage
White males nationwide (NP) with disabilities (SD) who were performing at or above Proficient
levels. (Figure 2.9)

CHAPTER 2

READING GRADE 4
FIGURE 2.1. GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES BY ETHNICITY, 2003-2009
In 2009, the average reading

scale score of large city (LC)
240 230 229 fourth-grade Black students
227*** 228
was not significantly different
230
from Hispanic students in
220 large cities (LC). Average
Scale Scores
reading scale scores of large

210 199 202 city (LC) Black and Hispanic
197*** 198 students and national public
200 (NP) White students increased
190 199 201 significantly from 2003 to
196 2009.
193 ***
180
170
2003 2005 2007 2009
Year
White (NP) Black (LC) Hispanic (LC)
Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating
TUDA districts.
*Significantly different from Black students in large cities at p <.05
***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.2. GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES
AND FEMALES (LC) AND HISPANIC MALES AND FEMALES (LC), 2003-2009
Hispanic Female (LC) 205*

In 2009, the average scale
Black Female (LC) 205*
2009 score of fourth-grade Black
Hispanic Male(LC) 199 males in large cities (LC) was
Black Male(LC) 198 not statistically different from
fourth-grade Hispanic males
in large cities (LC). However,
average scale score of large
Hispanic Female (LC) 203
city (LC) fourth-grade Black
Black Female (LC) 203 males was significantly lower
2007
Hispanic Male(LC) 196 than Black females and
Hispanic females in large
Black Male(LC) 195 cities (LC).
Year

Black Female (LC) 201
2005
Hispanic Male(LC) 195
Black Male(LC) 191
Hispanic Female (LC) 201***

Black Female (LC) 198***
2003
Hispanic Male(LC) 194***
Black Male(LC) 188***
Average Scale Score
Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating
TUDA districts.
* Significantly different from Black males in large cities at p <.05
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

CHAPTER 2

READING GRADE 4
FIGURE 2.3. GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES

OF BLACK MALES (LC ) VS. BLACK MALES (NP), 2003-2009
220
The average reading scale

Average Scale Score
210 score of large city (LC) fourth-

grade Black males increased
199 199 significantly (+10 points)
200 from 2003 to 2009, while the
194
192*** average reading scale score
198
of Black male fourth-graders
190 195
in national public schools (NP)
191 also increased significantly
188***
(+7 points) over the same
180 period.
2003 2005 2007 2009
Year
Black Males (LC) Black Males (NP)
Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA
districts.
*** Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.
FIGURE 2.4. GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES (LC)
VS. WHITE MALES (NP), 2003-2009
240
225 227 226
230 223*** Between 2003 and 2009,
Average Scale Score
fourth-grade reading scale

220 scores of large city (LC) Black
males increased significantly
210 32
28
(+10 points) and the gap
34
35 between Black males (LC) and
200 White males (NP) narrowed
from 35 to 28 points.
190 198
195
188*** 191
180
2003 2005 2007 2009
Year
Black Males (LC) White Males (NP)
districts.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.5. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 BLACK MALES (LC) VS. WHITE MALES
(NP) PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP READING, 2003-2009
38%
2009
11% Between 2003 and 2009,
the percentage of large city
38%
2007 (LC) fourth-grade Black
10% males performing at or
Year
above Proficient in reading

36% improved from 8 to 11 points,
2005
8% but remained at least 27
percentage points lower than
35% the percentage of White males
2003
8% in national public schools (NP)
scoring at or above Proficient
0 10 20 30 40 50 levels.
Percent Performing At or Above Proficient
White Males (NP) Black Males (LC)
districts.
NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading
Assessments.

CHAPTER 2

READING GRADE 4
FIGURE 2.6. GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES OF FRPL AND NON-FRPL
BLACK MALES (LC) AND FRPL AND NON-FRPL WHITE MALES (NP), 2003-2009
Non-FRPL White Males (NP) 232 In 2009, the average reading

FRPL White Males (NP) 212 fourth-grade Black males who
2009
Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) 211 were not eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch (Non-
FRPL Black Males (LC) 195 FRPL) increased significantly
(+11 points) since 2003,
but was one point lower than
Non-FRPL White Males (NP) 232 the score of White males in
national public schools (NP)
FRPL White Males (NP) 211 who were eligible for free or
2007
Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) 209 reduced-price lunch (FRPL).
FRPL Black Males (LC) 192

Year
Non-FRPL White Males (NP) 230

FRPL White Males (NP) 211
2005
Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) 205
Non-FRPL White Males (NP) 229***

FRPL White Males (NP) 208***
2003
Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) 200***
FRPL Black Males (LC) 186***
Average Scale Score
districts.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.7. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 NON-FRPL BLACK MALES (LC) VS. FRPL WHITE
MALES (NP) PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP READING, 2003-2009
21%
2009 In 2009, the percentage of
21%
large city (LC) fourth-grade
Black males performing at or
21%
2007 above Proficient in reading
18% who were not eligible for
Year
free or reduced-price lunch

21% (Non-FRPL) was similar to the
2005
15% percentage of White males
in national public schools
20% (NP) who were performing
2003 at or above Proficient levels
17% and were eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch (FRPL).
0 10 20 30 40 50
FRPL White Male (NP) Non-FRPL Black Males (LC)
districts.

CHAPTER 2

READING GRADE 4
FIGURE 2.8. GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES OF SD AND NON-SD BLACK
MALES (LC) AND SD AND NON-SD WHITE MALES (NP), 2003-2009
Non-SD White Males (NP) 230 The average reading scale

score of large city (LC)
SD White Males (NP) 200 fourth-grade Black males with
2009
Non-SD Black Males (LC) 202 disabilities (SD) increased
significantly from 2003 to
SD Black Males (LC) 170 2009 (+10 points), and the
average reading scale score
of White male fourth-graders
Non-SD White Males (NP) 231 in national public schools (NP)
with disabilities (SD) increased
SD White Males (NP) 200 significantly (+7 points) over
2007
Non-SD Black Males (LC) 199 the same period.
SD Black Males (LC) 168

Year
Non-SD White Males (NP) 229

SD White Males (NP) 199
2005
Non-SD Black Males (LC) 195
Non-SD White Males (NP) 228***

SD White Males (NP) 193***
2003
Non-SD Black Males (LC) 193***
SD Black Males (LC) 160***
Average Scale Score
districts.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.9. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 NON-SD BLACK MALES (LC) VS. SD WHITE
17%
2009
13% Between 2003 and 2009,
17% (LC) fourth-grade Black males
2007
11% without disabilities (Non-SD)
Year
who were performing at or

14% above Proficient levels in
2005
9% reading improved from nine
to 13 points, but remained at
12% least four percentage points
2003 lower than the percentage of
9%
White males in national public
schools (NP) with disabilities
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(SD) who were performing at
Percent Performing At or Above Proficient or above Proficient levels.
SD White Male (NP) Non-SD Black Male (LC)
districts.

CHAPTER 2
FACTOR 2B: BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP –

READING GRADE 8
HIGHLIGHTS
Reading Grade 8
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK STUDENTS INCREASED
significantly from 241 in 2003 to 243 (+2 points) in 2009; the average reading scale score of
large city (LC) eighth-grade Hispanic students increased significantly from 241 in 2003 to 245 (+4
points) in 2009; and the average reading scale score of eighth-grade White students in national
public schools (NP) increased significantly from 270 in 2003 to 271 (+1 point) in 2009. (Figure
2.10)
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK STUDENTS WAS
not significantly different from Hispanic students (245) in large cities (LC). However, Black and
Hispanic students’ scale scores in large cities (LC) were lower than White students in national public
schools (NP) (271). (Tests of significance could not be conducted). (Figure 2.10)
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES DID NOT CHANGE
significantly between 2003 (235) and 2009 (238), and the average reading scale score of large
city (LC) Hispanic males did not change significantly between 2003 (237) and 2009 (240). (Figure
2.11)
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES ,#
was significantly lower than large city (LC) eighth-grade Black females (-10 points) and significantly
lower than large city (LC) Hispanic females (-12 points), but was not significantly different from
large city (LC) Hispanic males (240). (Figure 2.11)
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES DID NOT CHANGE
significantly between 2003 (235) and 2009 (238) (+3 points) in 2009, while the average reading
scale scores of Black male eighth-graders in national public schools (NP) increased significantly
from 238 to 240 (+2 points) over the same period. (Figure 2.12)
s )N IN GRADE THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# "LACK MALES WAS
significantly different from Black males (240) in national public schools (NP). (Figure 2.12)
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF EIGHTH GRADE 7HITE MALES IN NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS .0
scale score of large city (LC) Black males was not significantly different from 2003 (235) to 2009
(238). The gap between White males in national public schools (NP) and large city (LC) Black males
narrowed slightly from 30 points in 2003 to 29 points in 2009. (Figure 2.13)
s "ETWEEN THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES PERFORMING AT OR
above Proficient in reading remained at least 24 percentage points lower than the percentage of
White males in national public schools (NP) performing at or above Proficient levels. (Figure 2.14)
5
The cut score indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is: Basic (243), Proficient (281), and Advanced (323).
CHAPTER 2
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES WHO WERE eligible for
free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) was not significantly different from 2003 (233) to 2009 (236),
and the average reading scale score of White male eighth-graders in national public schools (NP)
who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) increased significantly from 251 to 253
(+2 points) over the same period. (Figure 2.15)
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES ,# WHO
were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) was 17 points lower than eighth-grade White
males in national public schools (NP) eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL). The average
reading scale score of eighth-grade Black males in large cities (LC) who were not eligible for free
or reduced-price lunch (Non-FRPL) was 7 points lower than White males in national public schools
(NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) in 2009. (Figure 2.15)
s "ETWEEN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES WHO WERE
not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (Non-FRPL) and were performing at or above Proficient
levels in reading was at least six percentage points lower than the percentage of White males
nationwide (NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and performing at or
above Proficient levels. (Figure 2.16)
s 4HE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES with disabilities (SD)
was not significantly different from 2003 (203) to 2009 (208), while the average reading scale
score of White male eighth-graders in national public schools (NP) with disabilities (SD) increased
significantly from 232 to 238 (+6 points) over the same period. (Figure 2.17)
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES ,# with
disabilities (SD) was 30 points lower than eighth-grade White males in national public schools (NP)
with disabilities (SD). The average reading scale score of eighth-grade Black males in large cities
(LC) without disabilities (Non-SD) was 5 points higher than White males in national public schools
(NP) with disabilities (SD) in 2009. (Figure 2.17)
s )N THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# "LACK MALES without disabilities (Non-SD) performing at
or above Proficient levels in reading was at least two percentage points lower at grade 8 than White
males nationwide (NP) with disabilities (SD) who were performing at or above Proficient levels.
(Figure 2.18)

CHAPTER 2
FACTOR 2B: BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT

ON NAEP – READING GRADE 8
FIGURE 2.10. GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES BY ETHNICITY, 2003-2009
280 In 2009, the average

270*** 269 270 271 reading scale score of
large city (LC) eighth-
270 grade Black students was
Average Scale Score
not significantly different

260 from Hispanic students in
large cities (LC). Average
250 243 245 reading scale scores
241*** 243 of large city (LC) Black
and Hispanic students
240 increased significantly from
243
241*** 240 240 2003 to 2009.
230
220
2003 2005 2007 2009
Year
districts.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.11. GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES AND
FEMALES (LC) AND HISPANIC MALES AND FEMALES (LC), 2003-2009

Black Female (LC) 248* scale score of eighth-grade
2009
Hispanic Male(LC) 240 Black males in large cities
(LC) was significantly lower
Black Male(LC) 238
(10 points) than large city (LC)
eighth-grade Black females
and significantly lower (12
Hispanic Female (LC) 247 points) than large city (LC)
Black Female (LC) 246 Hispanic females while not
2007 significantly different from
Hispanic males.
Black Male(LC) 234
Year

2005
Black Male(LC) 233

2003
Black Male(LC) 235
Average Scale Score
districts.

CHAPTER 2

VS. BLACK MALES (NP), 2003-2009
260
The average reading scale scores
Average Scale Score
250 of large city (LC) eighth-grade

Black males did not change
significantly between 2003 and
240 2009, while the average reading
scale scores of Black male eighth-
graders in national public schools
230 (NP) increased significantly (+2
points) over the same period. The
220 average reading scale score of
Black males in large cities (LC) was
2003 2005 2007 2009 significantly different from Black
Year males nationwide (NP).
districts.
* Significant from Black males in large cities at p<.05.
270
The average reading scale
260 score of eighth-grade White
Average Scale Score
males in national public

250 schools (NP) increased
significantly from 2003 to
240
2009, while the average
230 reading scale score of large
city (LC) Black males did not
220 change significantly between
2003 and 2009.
210
2003 2005 2007 2009
Year
districts.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.14. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 BLACK MALES (LC) VS. WHITE MALES
Between 2003-2009, the

33% percentage of large city (LC)
2009
8% eighth-grade Black males
performing at or above
32%
2007 Proficient in reading remained
6%
at least 24 percentage points
Year
31% lower than the percentage of

2005 White males in national public
7%
schools (NP) performing at or
32% above Proficient levels.
2003
7%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
districts.

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 2.15. GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES OF FRPL AND NON-FRPL
Non-FRPL White Males (NP) 271 Between 2003 and 2009,

average reading scale scores
FRPL White Males (NP) 253 of large city (LC) eighth-grade
2009 Black males who were not
Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) 246 eligible for free or reduced-
price lunch (Non-FRPL) were
FRPL Black Males (LC) 236 at least seven points lower
than the average scale scores
of White males in national
Non-FRPL White Males (NP) 269 public schools (NP) who were
eligible for free or reduced-
FRPL White Males (NP) 253 price lunch (FRPL).
2007
Year

2005

2003
Average Scale Score
districts.
CHAPTER 2
19%
2009 Between 2003 and 2009,
13%
(LC) eighth-grade Black
18% males who were not eligible
2007
10% for free or reduced-price
lunch (Non-FRPL) and who
Year
were performing at or above

18%
2005 Proficient levels in reading was
11% at least six percentage points
lower than the percentage of
18% White males in national public
2003 schools (NP) who were eligible
10% for free or reduced-price lunch
and were performing at or
0 10 20 30 above Proficient levels.
FRPL White Male (NP) Non-FRPL Black Male (LC)
districts.

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 2.17. GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES OF SD AND NON-SD BLACK
MALES (LC) VS. SD AND NON-SD WHITE MALES (NP), 2003-2009

SD White Males (NP) 238 the average reading scale
2009
Non-SD Black Males (LC) 243 scores of large city (LC)
eighth-grade Black males
SD Black Males (LC) 208 without disabilities (Non-SD)
increased significantly, but
continued to fall between four
Non-SD White Males (NP) 269 to eight points higher than
the scores of White males in
2007 national public schools (NP)
Non-SD Black Males (LC) 240 with disabilities (SD).
Year

2005

2003
Average Scale Score
districts.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.18. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 NON-SD BLACK MALES (LC) VS. SD WHITE MALES
11%
2009 In 2009, the percentage of
9%
large city (LC) Black males
without disabilities (Non-
9% SD) performing at or above
2007
7% Proficient levels in reading
Year
was at least two percentage

8% points lower at grade 8 than
2005 White males nationwide (NP)
8% with disabilities (SD) who
7% Proficient levels.
2003
8%
0 10 20 30
Percent At or Above Proficient
SD White Male (NP) Non-SD Black Male (LC)
districts.

CHAPTER 2
FACTOR 2C: BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP –

MATHEMATICS GRADE 4
HIGHLIGHTS
Mathematics Grade 4
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK STUDENTS INCREASED
significantly from 212 in 2003 to 219 (+7 points) in 2009; the average mathematics scale score of
large city (LC) fourth-grade Hispanic students increased significantly from 219 to 226 (+7 points)
in 2009; and the average mathematics scale score of fourth-grade White students in national public
schools (NP) increased significantly from 243 in 2003 to 248 (+5 points) in 2009. (Figure 2.19)
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK STUDENTS
was significantly lower than the average mathematics scale score of Hispanic students (226) in
large cities (LC). Black and Hispanic students in large cities, however, scored lower than White
students (248) in national public schools (NP). (Tests of significance could not be conducted.)
(Figure 2.19)
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES INCREASED
significantly from 212 in 2003 to 219 (+7 points) in 2009, while the average mathematics scale
score of large city (LC) Hispanic males increased significantly from 221 to 226 (+5 points) during
the same period. (Figure 2.20)
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES ,#
was not significantly different from fourth-grade large city (LC) Black females (-1 point). However,
the average scale score of large city (LC) fourth-grade Black males (219) was significantly lower
than large city (LC) Hispanic females (-7 points) and Hispanic males (-7 points). (Figure 2.20)
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES INCREASED
significantly from 212 in 2003 to 219 (+7 points ) in 2009, while the average mathematics scale
scores of Black male fourth-graders in national public schools (NP) increased significantly from 216
to 221 (+5 points) over the same period. (Figure 2.21)
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# "LACK MALES WAS SIGNIlCANTLY
lower than Black males (221) in national public schools (NP). (Figure 2.21)
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF FOURTH GRADE 7HITE MALES IN NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
(NP) increased significantly from 244 in 2003 to 249 (+5 points) in 2009, while the average
mathematics scale scores of large city (LC) Black males increased significantly (+7 points) over the
same period. The gap between White males (NP) and Black males (LC) narrowed slightly from 32
points in 2003 to 30 points in 2009. (Figure 2.22)
6
The cut score indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is Basic (214), Proficient (249), and Advanced (282).
CHAPTER 2
s "ETWEEN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES PERFORMING
at or above Proficient levels in mathematics increased 6 percentage points while the percentage of
fourth-grade White males in national public schools (NP) performing at or above Proficient levels
increased 8 percentage points. (Figure 2.23)
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES WHO WERE eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) was significantly different from 2003 (210) to 2009 (217),
while the average mathematics scale score of White male fourth-graders in national public schools
(NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) increased significantly from 232 to
237 (+5 points) over the same period. (Figure 2.24)
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES ,# WHO
were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) was 20 points lower than fourth-grade White
males in national public schools (NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and
8 points lower than Black males in large cities (LC) who were not eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch (Non-FRPL) in 2009. (Figure 2.24)
s )N THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# "LACK MALES WHO WERE not eligible for free or reduced-
price lunch (Non-FRPL) and were performing at or above Proficient levels in mathematics was 11
percentage points lower than the percentage of White males in national public schools (NP) who
were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and were performing at or above Proficient
levels. (Figure 2.25)
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES with disabilities
(SD) increased significantly from 194 in 2003 to 199 (+5 points) in 2009, while the average
mathematics scale score of White male fourth-graders in national public schools (NP) with
disabilities (SD) increased significantly from 225 to 232 (+7 points) over the same period. (Figure
2.26)
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES ,# with
disabilities (SD) was 33 points lower than fourth-grade White males in national public schools (NP)
with disabilities (SD). The average mathematics scale score of fourth-grade Black males in large
cities (LC) without disabilities (Non-SD) was 9 points lower than White males with disabilities (SD)
in 2009. (Figure 2.26)
s "ETWEEN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES without
disabilities (Non-SD) performing at or above Proficient in mathematics was at least 11 percentage
points lower than the percentage of White males in national public schools (NP) with disabilities and
who were performing at or above Proficient levels. (Figure 2.27)

CHAPTER 2

MATHEMATICS GRADE 4
FIGURE 2.19. GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES BY ETHNICITY, 2003-2009
260
In 2009, the average
250
mathematics scale score
of large city (LC) fourth-
240
Average Scale Score
grade Black students was

significantly lower than the
230 average mathematics scale
220 Hispanic students. Average
scale scores of Black and
Hispanic students increased
210 significantly from 2003-2009.
200
190
2003 2005 2007 2009
Year
districts.
Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.20. GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES AND

2009
Hispanic Male(LC) 226* In 2009, the average
mathematics scale score of
Black Male(LC) 219 fourth-grade Black males
in large cities (LC) was not
significantly different (1 point)
Hispanic Female (LC) 223 from fourth-grade large city
(LC) Black females. However,
Black Female (LC) 219 the average scale score of
2007 large city fourth-grade Black
males was significantly lower
Black Male(LC) 218 than large city (LC) Hispanic
females (7 points) and
Year
Hispanic males (7 points).

2005
Black Male(LC) 216

2003
Average Scale Score
districts.

CHAPTER 2

MATHEMATICS GRADE 4
FIGURE 2.21. GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES (LC)
VS. BLACK MALES (NP), 2003-2009
240
In 2009, the average
230 221 221* mathematics scale score of
Average Scale Score
219
220 216*** large city (LC) fourth-grade
Black males was significantly
210 218 219 higher than in 2003, but was
216
212*** significantly lower than fourth-
200 grade Black males in national
public schools (NP).
190
180
2003 2005 2007 2009
Year
districts.
FIGURE 2.22. GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES (LC)
260 249 249

244*** 247
250 The average mathematics
Average Scale Score
240 scale score of fourth-grade

31 30
230 32 31 schools (NP) increased
significantly (+5 points)
220
between 2003 and 2009,
210 216 218 219 while the average mathematics
212*** scale score of large city
200 (LC) Black males increased
190 significantly (+7 points) over
the same period. The gap
2003 2005 2007 2009 narrowed by two points.
Year

districts.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.23. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 BLACK MALES (LC) VS. WHITE MALES (NP)
PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP MATHEMATICS, 2003-2009
53%
2009 Between 2003 and 2009,
14%
53% (LC) fourth-grade Black
2007 males performing at or
14%
Year
above Proficient levels in

49% mathematics improved from
2005 8 to 14 percent, but was at
11%
least 39 percentage points
45% lower than the percentage
2003
8% of fourth-grade White males
in national public schools
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (NP) performing at or above
Proficient levels.
districts.

CHAPTER 2

MATHEMATICS GRADE 4
FIGURE 2.24. GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF FRPL AND NON-FRPL
Non-FRPL White Males (NP) 254 The average mathematics

FRPL White Males (NP) 237 fourth-grade Black males
2009
Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) 229 who were eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch (FRPL)
FRPL Black Males (LC) 217 increased significantly (+7
points) from 2003 to 2009,
while the average mathematics
scale scores of White male
Non-FRPL White Males (NP) 254 fourth-graders in national
FRPL White Males (NP) public schools (NP) who were
238
2007 eligible for free or reduced-
Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) 227 price lunch (FRPL) also
increased significantly (+5
FRPL Black Males (LC) 216 points) over the same period.
Year

2005

2003
Average Scale Score
districts.
CHAPTER 2
MALES (NP) PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP MATHEMATICS, 2003-2009
33%
2009
22% Between 2003 and 2009, the
percentage of large city (LC)
fourth-grade Black males who
34% were not eligible for free or
2007
23% reduced-price lunch (Non-
FRPL) and were performing
Year
at or above Proficient in
31% mathematics was at least 10
2005
21% percentage points lower than
the percentage of White males
26% who were eligible for free or
2003
17% reduced-price lunch (FRPL)
and were performing at or
above Proficient levels.
0 10 20 30 40 50
FRPL White Males (NP) Non-FRPL Black Males (LC)
districts.

CHAPTER 2

MATHEMATICS GRADE 4
FIGURE 2.26. GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF SD AND NON-SD

BLACK MALES (LC) AND SD AND NON-SD WHITE MALES (NP), 2003-2009
Non-SD White Males (NP) 253 Between 2003 and 2009,

average mathematics scale
SD White Males (NP) 232 scores of large city (LC)
2009 fourth-grade Black males
Non-SD Black Males (LC) 223 without disabilities (Non-SD)
improved significantly (+8
SD Black Males (LC) 199 points), but was at least 9
points lower than the score of
Non-SD White Males (NP) 253 schools (NP) with disabilities
(SD).
2007
Year

2005

2003
Average Scale Score
districts.
CHAPTER 2
(NP) PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP MATHEMATICS, 2003-2009
29% Between 2003 and 2009,

2009 the percentages of large city
16%
(LC) fourth-grade Black males
29% without disabilities (Non-
2007
15% SD) performing at or above
Year
Proficient in mathematics
24% improved from nine to 16
2005
13% points, but was least 13
20% the percentage of White males
2003
9% in national public schools (NP)
with disabilities (SD) who
0 10 20 30 40 50 were performing at or above
Percent At or Above Proficient Proficient levels.
SD White Males (NP) Non-SD Black Males (LC)
districts.

CHAPTER 2
FACTOR 2D: BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP –

MATHEMATICS GRADE 8
HIGHLIGHTS
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics results for grade 8 are
reported as average scores on a 0–500 scale. The results are reported as achievement levels (Basic,
Proficient and Advanced7) that show what students should know and be able to do.
Mathematics Grade 8
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK STUDENTS INCREASED
significantly from 247 in 2003 to 256 (+9 points) in 2009; the average mathematics scale score
of large city (LC) eighth-grade Hispanic students increased significantly from 256 in 203 to 264
(+8 points) in 2009; and the average mathematics scale score of eighth-grade White students in
national public schools (NP) increased significantly from 287 in 2003 to 292 (+5 points) in 2009.
(Figure 2.28)
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK STUDENTS
(256) was significantly lower than the average mathematics scale score of large city (LC) Hispanic
students (264). Black and Hispanic students in large cities, however, scored lower than White
students in national public schools (NP) (292). (Tests of significance could not be conducted.)
(Figure 2.28)
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES INCREASED
scores of large city (LC) Hispanic males increased significantly from 257 to 266 (+9 points) during
the same period. (Figure 2.29)
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES
(LC) was not significantly different from large city (LC) eighth-grade Black females (257) but was
significantly lower than large city (LC) Hispanic males (-11 points) and Hispanic females (-7 points).
(Figure 2.29)
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES INCREASED
score of Black male fourth-graders in national public schools (NP) increased significantly from 251
to 259 (+8 points) over the same period. (Figure 2.30)
s )N THE AVERAGE SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# "LACK MALES WAS SIGNIlCANTLY DIFFERENT
from Black males (259) in national public schools (NP). (Figure 2.30)
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF EIGHTH GRADE 7HITE MALES IN NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS .0
increased significantly from 287 in 2003 to 293 (+6 points) in 2009, while the mathematics scores
of large city (LC) Black males increased significantly 247 to 255 (+8 points) over the same period.
The gap between White males (NP) and Black males (LC) narrowed by two points. (Figure 2.31)
7
The cut score indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is Basic (214), Proficient (249), and Advanced (282).
CHAPTER 2
s "ETWEEN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES PERFORMING
at or above Proficient levels in mathematics increased from 6 percent to 10 percent, while the
percentage of eighth-grade White males in national public schools (NP) performing at or above
Proficient in mathematics was 38 percent in 2003 and 44 percent in 2009. (Figure 2.32)
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES WHO WERE
eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) increased significantly from 243 in 2003 to 253
(+10 points) in 2009, while the average mathematics scale score of White male eighth-graders in
national public schools (NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) increased
significantly from 257 to 265 (+8 points) over the same period. (Figure 2.33)
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES ,# WHO
were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) was 12 points lower than eighth-grade White
males in national public schools (NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL). The
average mathematics scale score of eighth-grade Black males in large cities (LC) who were not
eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (Non-FRPL) was only 12 points higher than White males
who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) in 2009. (Figure 2.33)
s "ETWEEN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES WHO WERE
eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and were performing at or above Proficient in
mathematics was at least 8 percentage points lower than the percentage of eight-grade White
males in national public schools (NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and
were performing at or above Proficient levels. (Figure 2.34)
s 4HE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES with disabilities
(SD) increased significantly from 215 in 2003 to 226 (+11 points) in 2009, while the average
mathematics scale scores of White male eighth-graders in national public schools (NP) with
disabilities (SD) increased from 256 to 263 (+7 points) over the same period. (Figure 2.35)
s )N THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORE OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN LARGE CITIES ,#
with disabilities (SD) was 37 points lower than eighth-grade White males in national public schools
(NP) with disabilities (SD). The average scale score of eighth-grade Black males without disabilities
(Non-SD) was 2 points lower than White males in national public schools (NP) with disabilities (SD)
in 2009. (Figure 2.35)
s "ETWEEN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LARGE CITY ,# EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES without
disabilities (Non-SD) and who were performing at or above Proficient in mathematics was at least
3 percentage points lower than the percentage of White males with disabilities (SD) and were
performing at or above Proficient levels. (Figure 2.36)

CHAPTER 2

MATHEMATICS GRADE 8
FIGURE 2.28. GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES BY ETHNICITY, 2003-2009
300 290 292

287*** 288 In 2009, the average
290 mathematics scale score
Average Scale Score
280 of large city (LC) eighth-

grade Black students was
270 261 264*
258 significantly lower than the
256*** average mathematics scale
260
250 256 Hispanic males.
254
240 247*** 250
230
220
2003 2005 2007 2009
Year
districts.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.29. GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES AND
Hispanic Female (LC) 262* In 2009, the average

Black Female (LC) 257 eighth-grade Black males
2009 in large cities (LC) was not
Hispanic Male(LC) 266*
significantly different (2 points
Black Male(LC) 255 lower) than large city (LC)
eighth-grade Black females,
but was significantly lower
than large city (LC) Hispanic
Hispanic Female (LC) 260 males (11 points lower) and
Hispanic females (7 points
Black Female (LC) 255 lower).
2007
Black Male(LC) 253
Year

2005
Black Male(LC) 249

2003
Average Scale Score
districts.

CHAPTER 2

MATHEMATICS GRADE 8
FIGURE 2.30. GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES (LC) VS.
BLACK MALES (NP), 2003-2009
280
270 In 2009, the average eighth-

Average Scale Scores
grade mathematics scale

260 score of large city (LC) Black
males increased significantly
250 (+8 points), from 2003 to
2009 and the mathematics
240
scores of Black males in
230 national public schools (NP)
220 points) over the same period.
2003 2005 2007 2009 The average scale score of
Year was significantly lower than
Black males nationwide (NP).
districts.
FIGURE 2.31. GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES (LC) VS.
WHITE MALES (NP), 2003-2009
300
The average mathematics
290
Average Scale Score
score of eighth-grade White

280 males in national public
270 schools (NP) increased
260 significantly (+6 points)
250 from 2003 to 2009, while
the mathematics scores of
240
230 increased significantly (+8
220 points) over the same period.
2003 2005 2007 2009
Year
districts.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.32. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 BLACK MALES (LC) VS. WHITE MALES (NP)
PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP MATHEMATICS, 2003-2009
44%
2009 Between 2003 and 2009,
10%
43% (LC) eighth-grade Black
2007 males performing at or above
9%
Proficient in mathematics
Year
grew from six to 10, but was

39%
2005 at least 34 percentage points
7%
lower than the percentage
of eighth-grade White males
38%
2003 in national public schools
6% (NP) performing at or above
Proficient levels.
0 10 20 30 40 50

districts.

CHAPTER 2

MATHEMATICS GRADE 8
FIGURE 2.33. GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF FRPL AND NON-FRPL
Non-FRPL White Males (NP) 298 The average mathematics

FRPL White Males (NP) 265 eighth-grade Black males
2009
Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) 277 who were eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch (FRPL)
FRPL Black Males (LC) 253 increased significantly from
2003 to 2009 (+10 points),
while the average mathematics
scale scores of White male
Non-FRPL White Males (NP) 296 eighth-graders in national
FRPL White Males (NP) 261 public schools (NP) who were
2007 eligible for free or reduced-
Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) 277 price lunch (FRPL) also
FRPL Black Males (LC) 251 points) over the same period.
Year

2005

2003
Average Scale Score
districts.
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.34. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 NON-FRPL BLACK MALES (LC) VS. FRPL BLACK
MALES (NP) PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP MATHEMATICS, 2003- 2009
Between 2003 and 2009, the

25%
2009 percentage of large city (LC)
17%
eighth-grade Black males who
25% were not eligible for free or
2007 reduced-price lunch (Non-
14%
Year
FRPL) and were performing

22% at or above Proficient in
2005 mathematics was at least eight
13%
20% the percentage of eighth-
2003
12% grade White males in national
public schools (NP) who were
0 10 20 30 eligible for free or reduced-
price lunch (FRPL) and
FRPL White Males (NP) Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) Proficient levels.
Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including
the participating TUDA districts.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

CHAPTER 2

MATHEMATICS GRADE 8
FIGURE 2.35. GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF SD AND NON-SD BLACK
MALES (LC) VS. SD AND NON-SD WHITE MALES (NP), 2003-2009
Non-SD White Males (NP) 298 In 2009, the average scale

score in mathematics of large
2009 city (LC) eighth-grade Black
Non-SD Black Males (LC) 261 males without disabilities
(Non-SD) was two points lower
SD Black Males (LC) 226 than the average scale score
of eighth-grade White males
with disabilities (SD).
2007

Year

2005

2003
Average Scale Score
districts.
CHAPTER 2
(NP) PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP MATHEMATICS, 2003- 2009

15% the percentage of large city
2009 (LC) Black males without
12% disabilities (Non-SD) who
13% Proficient in eighth-grade
2007 mathematics was at least
10% three percentage points
Year
lower than the percentage of

eighth-grade White males in
11% national public schools (NP)
2005
8% with disabilities (SD) who
Proficient level.
10%
2003
6%
0 10 20 30
SD White Males (NP) Non-SD Black Male (LC)
districts.

CHAPTER 2
FACTOR 3: BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP

IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS
HIGHLIGHTS
s "ETWEEN AND THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORES OF FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES INCREASED
significantly in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, District of Columbia and New York City. Furthermore,
average scores increased significantly from 2005 to 2009 for fourth-graders in Atlanta, Austin, and
District of Columbia. (Figure 3.1)
s )N AVERAGE .!%0 READING SCALE SCORES FOR FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN "OSTON AND .EW 9ORK
City were significantly higher than scale scores for Black males in national public schools (NP).
Black male fourth-graders in Boston, Charlotte, Houston and New York City scored significantly
higher than Black males in large cities (LC). (Figure 3.2)
s )N ALL 45$! DISTRICTS EXCEPT #HARLOTTE HAD AT LEAST PERCENT OF THEIR FOURTH GRADE "LACK
males performing below Basic levels in reading. The percentage of Black males at or above
Proficient levels in fourth-grade reading ranged from a low of 3 percent in Cleveland and Detroit to
a high of 16 percent in Charlotte. (Figure 3.3)
s "ETWEEN AND THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORE OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES INCREASED
significantly in Atlanta and New York City. Furthermore, the average scores increased significantly
from 2005 to 2009 for eighth-grade students Atlanta. (Figure 3.4)
s )N THE AVERAGE READING SCALE SCORES OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN #LEVELAND $ETROIT $ISTRICT
of Columbia, Fresno, and Milwaukee were significantly lower than scale scores among Black males
in national public schools (NP). None of the average reading scale scores for Black males in any
TUDA district were significantly higher than score for Black males in national public schools (NP) or
in the large cities (LC). (Figure 3.5)
s )N AT LEAST PERCENT OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN MOST 45$! DISTRICTS PERFORMED BELOW
Basic levels in reading. The percentage of Black males at or above Proficient levels ranged from a
low of 3 percent in Milwaukee to a high of 13 percent in Austin. (Figure 3.6)
s "ETWEEN AND THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES
increased significantly in Atlanta, Boston, District of Columbia, and New York City. Furthermore,
the average score increased significantly from 2005 to 2009 for fourth-grade students in Boston.
(Figure 3.7)
s )N AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN "OSTON #HARLOTTE
and New York City were significantly higher than scale scores of fourth-grade Black males in
national public schools (NP). Black males in Boston, Charlotte, Houston, and New York City scored
significantly higher, on average, than large city (LC) Black males. (Figure 3.8)
CHAPTER 2
s )N AT LEAST PERCENT OF FOURTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN MOST 45$! DISTRICTS PERFORMED BELOW
Basic levels in mathematics; and in eight of the 18 districts, at least 50 percent of fourth-graders
performed below Basic levels. The percentage of fourth-grade Black males at or above Proficient
levels ranged from 2 percent in Detroit to 25 percent in Charlotte. (Figure 3.9)
s "ETWEEN AND THE AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES
increased significantly in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, and Chicago. Furthermore, average scores
increased significantly from 2005 to 2009 for eighth-grade students in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte,
Chicago and Cleveland. (Figure 3.10)
s )N AVERAGE MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN !USTIN "OSTON
and Charlotte were significantly higher than the scores of eighth-grade Black males in national
public schools (NP). Black males in Austin, Boston, Charlotte, and Houston scored, on average,
significantly higher than the scores of eighth-grade Black males in large cities (LC). (Figure 3.11)
s )N AT LEAST PERCENT OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK MALES IN MOST 45$! DISTRICTS PERFORMED BELOW
Basic levels in mathematics. The percentage of eighth-grade Black males who performed at or
above Proficient levels ranged from 2 percent in Milwaukee to 19 percent in Austin. (Figure 3.12)

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 3.1. GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES IN TUDA
DISTRICTS, LC AND NP, 2003-2009
2003 192***
Na!onal 2005 194***
Public 2007 199 Between 2003 and 2009,
2009 199
average reading scale scores
2003 188*** of fourth-grade Black males
Large
2005 191***
2007 195 increased significantly in
City
2009 198 Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte,
2003 186*** District of Columbia (DCPS)
2005 189*** and New York City.
Atlanta 2007 195
2009 197
*Did not par!cipate in 2003
2005 190***
Aus!n 2007 196
2009 204
2003 196***
2005 200
Boston 2007 200
2009 207
2003 197***
2005 203
TUDA Districts
Charlo"e 2007 199

2009 206
2003 189
2005 183
Chicago 2007 190
2009 190
2003 186
2005 188
Cleveland 2007 189
2009 184
2003 178***
District of 2005 183***
Columbia 2007 189
(DCPS) 2009 190
2003 198
2005 202
Houston 2007 199
2009 205
2003 182
2005 180
Los Angeles 2007 190
2009 183
2003 195***
New York 2005 201
City 2007 202
2009 205
2003 193
2005 188
San Diego 2007 193
2009 201
Average Scale Score

CHAPTER 2
IN TUDA DISTRICTS, LC AND NP, 2009

scale scores of fourth-grade
Na!onal Public 199 Black males in Boston
Large City 198 and New York City were
significantly higher than the
Atlanta 197 average score for fourth-grade
Black males in national public
Aus!n 204 schools (NP).
Bal!more City 196
Boston 207*,**
TUDA Districts
Charlo"e 206*
Chicago 190*,**
Cleveland 184*,**
Detroit 179*,**
District of Columbia (DCPS) 190*,**
Fresno 187
Houston 205*
Jefferson County (KY) 199
Los Angeles 183*,**
Miami-Dade 199
Milwaukee 183*,**
New York City 205*,**
Philadelphia 188*,**
San Diego 201
Average Scale Score
* Significantly different from large city at p <.05

** Significantly different from nation at p <.05

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 3.3. GRADE 4 BLACK MALES PERFORMING BELOW BASIC AND AT OR ABOVE
PROFICIENT IN NAEP READING IN TUDA DISTRICTS, LC AND NP, 2009
Below Basic At or Above Proficient
Na!onal Public 58 12
In 2009, nationwide (NP) and
Large City 60 11 in all TUDA districts, except
Atlanta 63 9 Charlotte, 50 percent or more
of fourth-grade Black males
Aus!n 56 12
performed below Basic levels
Bal!more City 65 7 in reading.
Boston 50 14
Charlo"e 49 16
Chicago 69 8
TUDA Districts
Cleveland 78 3
Detroit 80 3
District of Columbia (DCPS) 67 10
Fresno 69 9
Houston 52 11
Jefferson County (KY) 58 10
Los Angeles 78 6
Miami-Dade 59 10
Milwaukee 76 5
New York City 52 15
Philadelphia 68 6
San Diego 55 13
Percent Below Basic and At or Above Proficient
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 3.4. GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES IN TUDA
2003 238***
Na!onal 2005 236***
Public 2007 238*** Between 2003 and 2009,
2009 240 average reading scale scores
2003 235*** of eighth-grade Black males
Large 2005 233*** increased significantly in
City 2007 234*** Atlanta and New York City.
2009 238
2003 230***
Atlanta 2005 230***
2007 237
2009 241
Aus!n *Too few cases for a reliable es!mate in 2005
2007 231
2009 245
2003 238
Boston 2005 237
2007 242
2009 243
2003 243
Charlo"e 2005 236
TUDA Districts
2007 241
2009 240
2003 239
Chicago 2005 234
2007 232
2009 239
2003 231
Cleveland 2005 228
2007 238
2009 234
2003 228
District of 2005 227
Columbia 2007 232
(DCPS) 2009 227
2003 236
Houston 2005 235
2007 242
2009 237
2003 224
Los Angeles 2005 228
2007 222
2009 230
2003 240***
New York 2005 234
City 2007 235
2009 242
2003 229
San Diego 2005 240
2007 235
*Too few cases for a reliable es!mate in 2009
Average Scale Score


CHAPTER 2


Na!onal Public 240

Large City 238 scale scores for eighth-grade
Atlanta 241 Black males in Cleveland,
Detroit, District of Columbia,
Aus!n 245 Fresno, and Milwaukee were
significantly lower than the
Bal!more City 240 scale scores of eighth-grade
Boston 243
schools (NP).
Charlo"e 240
Chicago 239
Cleveland 234**
TUDA Districts
Detroit 223*,**
Fresno 226**
Houston 237
Jefferson County (KY) 240
Los Angeles 230
Miami-Dade 242
Milwaukee 227*,**
New York City 242
Philadelphia 235
San Diego Too few cases for a reliable es!mate ‡
Average Scale Score

CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 3.6. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 BLACK MALES PERFORMING BELOW BASIC AND
AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP READING IN TUDA DISTRICTS, LC AND NP, 2009

Na!onal Public 51 9
Large City 53 8
Atlanta 50 7 In 2009, nationwide (NP) and

in most TUDA districts, at least
Aus!n 43 13
50 percent of eighth-grade
Bal!more City 53 8 Black males performed below
Basic levels in reading.
Boston 49 11
Charlo"e 50 10
Chicago 53 9
Cleveland
TUDA Districts
61 5
Detroit 70 4
Fresno 72 7
Houston 51 10
Los Angeles 61 7
Miami-Dade 47 11
Milwaukee 66 3
New York City 49 10
Philadelphia 58 6
San Diego Too few cases for a reliable es!mate ‡

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 3.7. GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES IN TUDA
2003 216***
Na!onal 2005 219***
Public 2007 221 Between 2003 and 2009,
2009 221 mathematics scale scores
2003 212*** of fourth-grade Black males
Large 2005 216*** increased significantly in
City 2007 218 Atlanta, Boston, District of
2009 219
Columbia (DCPS) and New
2003 209*** York City.
Atlanta
2005 216
2007 217
2009 216
Aus!n
2005 228
2007 222
2009 224
2003 215***
Boston
2005 222***
2007 225***
2009 231
2003 228
TUDA Districts
Charlo"e
2005 228
2007 228
2009 229
2003 206
Chicago
2005 208
2007 212
2009 208
2003 209
Cleveland
2005 215***
2007 211
2009 208
2003 201***
District of 2005 208
Columbia 2007 208
(DCPS) 2009 211
2003 222
Houston
2005 225
2007 224
2009 225
2003 211
Los Angeles
2005 207
2007 213
2009 210
2003 219***
New York 2005 222
City 2007 227
2009 227
2003 214
San Diego
2005 220
2007 223
2009 221
Average Scale Score

CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 3.8. GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCALE SCORES OF BLACK MALES
Na!onal Public 221*

Large City 219** In 2009, average
mathematics scale scores
Atlanta 216** of fourth-grade Black
Aus!n males in Boston, Charlotte,
224
and New York City were
Bal!more City 221 higher than scale scores of
fourth-grade Black males
Boston 231*,** in national public schools
Charlo"e 229*,** (NP).
Chicago 208*,**
Cleveland 208*,**
TUDA Districts
Detroit 197*,**
Fresno 213
Houston 225*
Jefferson County (KY) 213**
Los Angeles 210**
Miami-Dade 220
Milwaukee 211*,**
New York City 227*,**
Philadelphia 215**
San Diego 221
Average Scale Score


CHAPTER 2

PROFICIENT IN NAEP MATHEMATICS IN TUDA DISTRICTS, LC AND NP, 2009

Na!onal Public 38 15 In 2009, at least 30 percent
Large City 42 14 in most TUDA districts and
Atlanta 46 9 nationwide (NP) performed
below Basic levels in
Aus!n 33 14 mathematics; and in eight
districts, at least 50 percent
Bal!more City 36 11
Boston 23 24 performed below Basic levels.
Charlo"e 29 25
Chicago 57 8
Cleveland 57 5
TUDA Districts
Detroit 73 2
Fresno 57 12
Houston 31 16
Los Angeles 57 11
Miami-Dade 37 11
Milwaukee 54 7
New York City 32 22
Philadelphia 46 10
San Diego 38 15
CHAPTER 2
2003 251***
Na!onal 2005 254***
Public 2007 258 Between 2003 and 2009, the
2009 259 average mathematics scale
2003 247*** score of eighth-grade Black
Large 2005 249*** males increased significantly
City 2007 253 in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte
2009 255
and Chicago.
2003 238***
Atlanta 2005 240***
2007 251
2009 255
*Did not par!cpate in 2003
Aus!n 2005 264
2007 263
2009 272
2003 248***
Boston 2005 256***
2007 263***
2009 270
2003 258***
Charlo"e 2005 260***
2007 265
TUDA Districts
2009 268
2003 245***
Chicago
2005 243***
2007 246
2009 252
2003 251
Cleveland
2005 243***
2007 253
2009 253
District of
2003 238
Columbia
2005 240
(DCPS) 2007 245***
2009 239
2003 261
Houston
2005 258
2007 265
2009 263
2003 236
Los Angeles
2005 234
2007 244
2009 247
2003 254
New York 2005 254
City 2007 256
2009 258
2003 254
San Diego
2005 251
2007 258
2009 262
Average Scale Score


CHAPTER 2

DISTRICTS, LC AND NP, 2009
Na!onal Public 259*

Large City 255** In 2009, the average
Atlanta 255 eighth-grade Black males in
Aus!n Austin, Boston, and Charlotte
272*,**
were significantly higher
Bal!more City 255** than scores of eighth-grade
Boston 270*,** schools (NP).
Charlo"e 268*,**
Chicago 252**
TUDA Districts
Cleveland 253**
Detroit 237*,**
Fresno 252
Houston 263*
Jefferson County (KY) 250*,**
Los Angeles 247**
Miami-Dade 257
Milwaukee 242*,**
New York City 258
Philadelphia 254**
San Diego 262
Average Scale Score

CHAPTER 2
PROFICIENT IN NAEP MATHEMATICS IN TUDA DISTRICTS, LC AND NP, 2009

Na!onal Public 52 12
Large City 57 10
Atlanta 58 7 In 2009, at least 50 percent
of eighth-grade Black males
Aus!n 43 19 in most TUDA districts and
Bal!more City 60 8 nationwide (NP) performed
below Basic levels in
Boston 40 18
mathematics.
Charlo"e 43 17
Chicago 61 7
TUDA Districts
Cleveland 61 5
Detroit 78 4
Fresno 63 9
Houston 45 11
Los Angeles 64 7
Miami-Dade 54 10
Milwaukee 74 2
New York City 53 11
Philadelphia 60 8
San Diego 53 14

CHAPTER 2
HIGHLIGHTS
s )N "LACK MALES WERE NEARLY TWICE AS LIKELY AS 7HITE MALES TO DROP OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL
percent of Black males, compared with 5 percent of White males. (Figure 4.1)
s )N "LACK STUDENTS WERE LESS LIKELY TO GRADUATE ON TIME FROM PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETING
grades 9 through 12 in four years) than White students. Eight out of 10 White students graduated
from public high schools in four years, compared with six out of 10 Black students. (Figure 4.2)
s )N !DVANCED 0LACEMENT TEST TAKERS WERE MORE LIKELY TO BE 7HITE STUDENTS THAN "LACK
students. Approximately 60 percent of AP test takers were White, 15 percent Hispanic, 10 percent
Asian and 8 percent Black. (Figure 4.3)
s )N THE AVERAGE 3!4 SCORES OF "LACK MALES WERE LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE SCORES OF 7HITE
males in critical reading, mathematics, and writing. The gap between White and Black students
taking the SAT was 104 points in critical reading, 120 points in mathematics, and 99 points in
writing. (Figure 4.4)
s )N THE AVERAGE !#4 SCORE FOR "LACK STUDENTS WERE BELOW THE AVERAGE SCORE FOR 7HITE
students in English, mathematics, and reading. The gap between White and Black students was six
points in English, five points in mathematics, and six points in reading. (Figure 4.5)
s )N FEW "LACK STUDENTS MET THE !#4 COLLEGE READINESS BENCHMARK IN READING MATHEMATICS OR
English. At least three times as many White students as Black students met the college readiness
standards for reading; four times as many for mathematics; and twice as many for English. (Figure
4.6)
s )N "LACK MALES WERE LESS LIKELY THAN 7HITE MALES TO ENROLL IN A TWO YEAR OR FOUR YEAR COLLEGE
after high school graduation. Three out of 10 Black males enrolled in a four-year institution,
compared with four out of 10 White males. (Figure 4.7)
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 4.1. HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES FOR MALES BY ETHNICITY, 2005-2008
9%
2008
5%
In 2008, Black males were

8% nearly twice as likely to drop
2007 out of high school as White
6% males.
Year
10%
2006
6%
12%
2005
7%
Black Male White Male
Dropout Rate
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 1967 through October 2008.
FIGURE 4.2. AVERAGE FRESHMAN GRADUATION RATES FOR PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS BY ETHNICITY, 2007
100
80% Average for Na!onal Public Schools 74%

80
In 2007, Black students were
60% less likely than White students
Gradua!on Rate
60 to graduate high school on

time (completing grades 9
through 12 in four years).
40
20
0
White Black
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public
Elementary/Secondary Education,” 1986-87 through 2007-08

CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 4.3. PERCENTAGE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS TAKING ADVANCED PLACEMENT

EXAMS BY ETHNICITY, 2008
White 61%
American Indian 1% In 2008, Black students were

more than seven times less
Race/Ethnicity
likely to take an Advanced

Placement exam than White
Hispanic 15% students.
Asian 10%
Black 8%
Percent of High School Test Takers
Source: The College Board, The 5th Annual Advanced Placement Report to the Nation, 2009 www.collegeboard.com
Note: Because some AP Exam takers identify their ethnicity as “Other” or do not provide ethnicity data, this figure only represents 94.4 percent
of the AP population
FIGURE 4.4. AVERAGE SAT SCORES FOR MALES BY RACE, 2009
555
530 509
501 515 493
426 435
410
Average SAT Score
In 2009, average SAT scores

for Black males were below
the national averages and
below scores for White males
in critical reading, mathematics
and writing.
Cri!cal Reading Mathema!cs Wri!ng

Subjects Tested
Black Males White Male Na!onal Average

Source: The College Board, Total Group Profile Report, 2009 www.collegeboard.com
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 4.5. AVERAGE ACT SCORES FOR STUDENTS BY RACE, 2009
25 23
22 22
21 21 21
20
17 17
Average ACT Scores
16
15 In 2009, average ACT scores
for Black students were below
national averages and below
10
scores for White students
in English, mathematics and
5 reading.
0
English Mathema!cs Reading
Subjects Tested
Black White Na!onal Average

Source: ACT Profile Report—National: Graduating Class 2010, www.act.org
FIGURE 4.6. PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS MEETING ACT COLLEGE READINESS

BENCHMARK SCORES BY RACE, 2009
62%
Reading (21 benchmark)
20%
In 2009, few Black students
met the ACT college readiness
Subjects Tested
50% benchmarks in reading,

Mathema!cs (22 benchmark) mathematics or English.
12%
77%
English (18 Benchmark)
35%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Students
White Black
Source: ACT Profile Report—National: Graduating Class 2010, www.act.org

CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 4.7. PERCENTAGE OF BLACK AND WHITE MALES ENROLLED IN A TWO-YEAR OR

FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE AFTER HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION, 2009
50%
41%
40%
Percent Enrolled
31%
30% In 2009, Black males were
23% less likely than White males
to enroll in a two-year or four-
20% year college after high school
12% graduation.
10%
0%
2-year college 4-year college
Type of College
Black Male White Male
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October, 1967 through 2008
CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2
HIGHLIGHTS
s )N "LACK HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS WERE LESS LIKELY TO PARTICIPATE IN ACADEMIC CLUBS THAN THEIR
classmates. About 45 percent of Black students participated in sports activities, 17 percent in
academic clubs and 24 percent participated in extracurricular music activities. (Figure 5.1)
s )N STUDENTS WITH A LOW SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS WERE LESS LIKELY TO PARTICIPATE IN ACADEMIC
clubs, sports, and extracurricular music activities than their classmates. Sixteen percent of students
in low socioeconomic status, 20 percent in middle socioeconomic status, and 28 percent in high
socioeconomic status participated in academic clubs. (Figure 5.2)
s )N "LACK STUDENTS AND POOR STUDENTS WERE MORE LIKELY TO BE RETAINED DURING THEIR + SCHOOL
careers than their classmates. At least 23 percent of students who were retained were poor, and 16
percent were Black, compared with 5 percent who were not poor and 8 percent who were White.
(Figure 5.3)
s )N "LACK STUDENTS WERE THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY THAN 7HITE STUDENTS TWO TIMES MORE LIKELY
than Hispanic and American Indian students, and five times more likely than Asian students to be
suspended from school. About 15 percent of Black students and 5 percent of White students were
suspended. (Figure 5.4)
s )N PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN CITIES REPORTED HIGHER RATES OF VIOLENT AND SERIOUSLY VIOLENT CRIMES THAN DID
public schools in the suburbs, towns, and rural areas in 2008. (Figure 5.5)
s )N PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH MORE THAN PERCENT MINORITY ENROLLMENTS REPORTED HIGHER RATES OF
crime than did schools with fewer minority enrollments in 2008. (Figure 5.6)
s 4HE HIGHER THE RATE OF VIOLENT INCIDENTS REPORTED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS THE HIGHER THE PERCENTAGE OF
FRPL students attending those schools. In 2008, public schools with over 75 percent of their
students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch reported three times more violent or serious violent
crime than did schools with 0-25 percent of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
(Figure 5.7)
s )N GANG ACTIVITIES WERE MORE LIKELY TO BE REPORTED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN CITIES PUBLIC SCHOOLS
with a high percentage of minority students; and public schools with a high percentage of FRPL
students than other types of public schools. (Figure 5.8)
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 5.1. PERCENTAGE OF HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS PARTICIPATING IN SCHOOL-
SPONSORED EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2004
50 47% 45% 46%

41%
Percent of High School Seniors
40 35% 35%
In 2004, Black
30 high school seniors
23% 24%
22% were less likely than
18% 19% 20%
20 17%
14% 16% their classmates to
participate in academic
10 clubs and more likely
to participate in
0 extracurricular music
White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific American activities.
Islander Indian/Alaska
Race/Ethnicity
Na!ve
Academic Clubs Any Sport Music
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002/2004
FIGURE 5.2. PERCENTAGE OF HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS PARTICIPATING IN SCHOOL-

SPONSORED EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, 2004
Percent of High School Seniors
60 55%
50 44% In 2004, the higher
the socioeconomic
40 33% status of a high school
28% 25%
30 20% 21% senior the more likely
16% 17% the student was to
20
10 participate in academic
clubs, sports, and
0 extracurricular music
Low Middle High activities.
Socioeconomic Status
Academic Clubs Any Sport Music
Note: Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by a composite score on parental education and occupations, and family income. Low=
bottom quartile; high= top quartile
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002/2004

CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 5.3. PERCENTAGE OF KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE 8 STUDENTS RETAINED

IN A GRADE DURING THEIR SCHOOL CAREER, 2007
50
40
Percent of Students
30
Na!onal Public School Average 10% 23% In 2007, poor, Black students
were more likely than their
20 16%
classmates to be retained
10% 11% 11%
8% 9% during their K-8 school
10 7% 5% careers.
0
Public Private White Black Hispanic Other Poor Near-poor Non-poor
School Type Race/Ethnicity Poverty Status
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent Survey, Before- and After-School Programs Survey, and
Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey of the 1996–2007 NHES
FIGURE 5.4. PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS SUSPENDED FROM PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND

SECONDARY SCHOOLS BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2006
50
40
Percent of Students
In 2006, Black students were

three times more likely than
30 Na!onal Public School Average 7% White students, two times
20 15% more likely than Hispanic and
American Indian students
7% 8%
10 5% and five times more likely
3%
than Asian students to be
0 suspended from school.
White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Indian/
Islander Alaska Na!ve
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection: 2006
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 5.5. RATES OF VIOLENT INCIDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY URBANICITY, 2008
40 36
35
Rate per 1,000 Students
30 26 26
25 23
In 2008, public schools in
20 cities reported higher rates of
15 violent and seriously violent
crimes than public schools in
10 the suburbs, towns and rural
5 2 1 1 1 areas.
0
City Suburb Town Rural
School Loca!on
Violent Incidents Serious Violent Incidents
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008
FIGURE 5.6. RATES OF VIOLENT INCIDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

BY MINORITY ENROLLMENT, 2008
40 37
35
In 2008, public schools with
30 27 more than 50 percent minority

enrollments reported higher
25 22 rates of violent crimes than
19 did public schools with fewer
20
minority students.
15
10
5 2
1 1 1
0
Less than 5% 5% to 20% 20% to 50% Greater than 50%
Minority Minority Minority Minority
Rate of Violent Incidents

CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 5.7. RATES OF VIOLENT INCIDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY FREE OR

REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH (FRPL) ENROLLMENT, 2008
50 45
45
40
36
35 In 2008, the higher the rates
of violent incidents reported in
30 25 public schools, the higher the
25 percentage of free or reduced-
20 price lunch (FRPL) students
15 attending those schools.
15
10
5 1 3
1 1
0
0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
FRPL FRPL FRPL FRPL
Rate of Violent Incidents
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 5.8. PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS REPORTING GANG ACTIVITIES DURING
SCHOOL YEAR, 2008
76-100% 35%
Percent FRPL
In 2008, gang activities

51-75% 20% were more likely to
be reported by public
26-50% 18% schools in cities; public
0-25% schools with a high
10%
percentage of minority
Percent Minority
Greater than 50% 34% students; and public

schools with a high
20% to 50% 21% percentage of FRPL
students than other types
5% to 20% 10% of public schools.
Less than 5% 4%
Rural 11%
Urbanicity
Town 17%
Suburb 19%
City 34%
0 10 20 30 40
Percent of Public Schools

CHAPTER 2
HIGHLIGHTS
s )N GRADUATION RATES FOR 7HITE MALES WERE CONSISTENTLY HIGHER THAN NATIONAL AVERAGES
The graduation rates were at least 50 percent higher for Whites males than for Black males.
Approximately 15 percent of Black males graduated in four years and about one-third graduated
in five years, compared with 33 percent of White males who graduated in four years and half who
graduated in five years. (Figure 6.1)
s )N THE SECOND QUARTER OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR "LACK MALES AGES AND OVER WAS TWICE
as high as the unemployment rate for White males of the same age. Black males had a double-digit
unemployment rate (17.3 percent), while the unemployment rate for White males was in the single
digits (8.6 percent) and below the national average (9.6 percent). (Figure 6.2)
s )N "LACK MALES WHO GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE WERE MORE LIKELY TO EARN BACHELORS DEGREES IN
business than in any other field of study. Approximately 30 percent earned a degree in business,
10 percent in social sciences and history, and fewer than 10 percent earned degrees in all other
reported areas. (Figure 6.3)
s )N NEARLY PERCENT OF "LACK MALES RECEIVING A PROFESSIONAL DEGREE STUDIED LAW WHILE
percent studied medicine and 4 percent studied dentistry. (Figure 6.4)
s )N APPROXIMATELY PERCENT OF "LACK MALES AGE OR OVER HAD EITHER ATTAINED SOME COLLEGE
or had a college degree. Ten percent of Black males had earned bachelor’s degrees, compared with
18 percent of White males. Four percent of Black males had earned master’s degrees, compared
with 6 percent of White males. (Figure 6.5)
s )N "LACK MALES AGES AND OVER WERE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A LOWER INCOME THAN 7HITE MALES
with similar educational backgrounds. The wage gap between Black and White males not graduating
from high school was approximately $5,000, compared with a gap of over $20,000 among those
with a master’s degree. (Figure 6.6)
s )N "LACK MALES AGES AND OVER IN THE LABOR FORCE WERE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE AN OCCUPATION IN
the production, transportation and the material-moving fields (26 percent) than in the management
and professional fields (about 23 percent). Some 13 percent worked in natural resources,
construction, and maintenance. (Figure 6.7)
s )N "LACK MALES AGES AND OVER ACCOUNTED FOR PERCENT OF THE TOTAL COLLEGE STUDENT
population and 36 percent of the total prison population. (Figure 6.8)
s )N "LACK MALES AGES AND OVER WERE IMPRISONED AT A RATE SIX AND A HALF TIMES HIGHER THAN
White males. (Figure 6.9)
s )N "LACK MALES ACCOUNTED FOR AT LEAST PERCENT OF THE PRISON POPULATION AGES THROUGH
34; White males accounted for approximately 27 percent of the inmates in that age range. (Figure
6.10)
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 6.1. COLLEGE GRADUATION RATES FOR FIRST-TIME POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS
IN FULL-TIME DEGREE SEEKING 4-YEAR INSTITUTIONS, 2001
100
90
80 In 2001, 15 percent of
70 Black males graduated
Percent of Students
college within four years,

60 57%
52% compared with 33 percent
54% of White males. Some 36
50 49%
percent of Black males
40 33% 36% graduated in six years,
29% compared with 57 percent
30 31%
of White males.
20 15%
10
0
Comple!ng Within 4 Years Comple!ng Within 5 Years Comple!ng Within 6 Years
(2005) (2006) (2007)
Number of Years Comple!ng 4-year Ins!tuions
White Males Black Males Na!onal Average
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-2008
FIGURE 6.2. UNEMPLOYMENT RATES FOR BLACK AND WHITE MALES

AGES 20 AND OVER, SECOND QUARTER 2010
20
17.3%
15 In the second quarter of

Unemployment Rate
2010, the unemployment

rate of Black males ages 20
9.6%
10 8.6% and over was twice as high
as the unemployment rate of
White males.
5
0
Total White Males Black Males
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 6.3. BACHELOR’S DEGREES CONFERRED ON BLACK MALES

BY FIELD OF STUDY, 2008
Business 28%
Communica!ons, Journalism, and Related Programs 5%

Biological and Biomedical Sciences 3% more likely to receive a
Bachelor’s degree in business
Computer and Informa!on Sciences 6% than any other field of study.
Educa!on 3%
Engineering 4%
Health Professions and Related Clinical Sciences 3%

Fields of Study
Liberal Arts 4%
Public Administra!on and Social Service 2%
Security and Protec!ve Services 5%
Social Sciences and History 11%
Parks, Recrea!on, Leisure and Fitness Studies 3%
Psychology 4%
Theology and Religious Voca!ons 1%
Visual and Performing Arts 4%
Percent Earning Degree
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-2008
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 6.4. PROFESSIONAL DEGREES CONFERRED ON BLACK MALES
BY FIELD OF STUDY, 2008
Den!stry 4%
In 2008, nearly 50 percent
of Black males receiving a
Medicine 17% professional degree studied
Type of Profession
law and 21 percent received

a degree in medicine or
Pharmacy 10% dentistry.
Law 46%
Theology 18%
Percent Receiving Professional Degrees
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009
FIGURE 6.5. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF MALE POPULATION

18 YEARS AND OVER BY RACE, 2009
39% In 2009, approximately 14

Percent Earning Cer!ficate/Degree
percent of Black males ages

18 and over had a bachelor’s,
31%
or master’s degree, compared
31%
with 24 percent of White
males.
21%
19% 18%
19% 18%
10%
3% 4% 6% 4%
4% 4%
5% 5% 7%
High School Graduate Some College, Associates Degree, Associates Degree, Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree
No Degree Occupa!onal Academic
Type of Cer!ficate/Degree
White Male Black Male Total Male
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009

CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 6.6. INCOME BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF BLACK AND WHITE MALES AGES
18 AND OVER, 2006
$88,427
Master's Degree In 2006, Black males ages 18
$64,456 or over earned, on average,
lower incomes than White
males with similar educational
backgrounds at every income
$69,611
Bachelor's Degree level. The salary gap was
$50,992 approximately $5,000 for
Black and White males without
a high school diploma and
approximately $20,000 for
$47,288
Associates Degree those with a Master’s degree.
Type of Degree
$37,452
$39,888
Some College or No Degree
$31,455
$35,307
High School Graduate, Including GED
$25,418
$22,019
Not a High School Graduate
$17,093
Average Salary Earned
White Males Black Males
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October, 1967 through 2008
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 6.7. PERCENTAGE OF BLACK MALES AGES 16 AND OVER IN THE LABOR FORCE
BY OCCUPATION, 2008

more likely to have an
occupation in the production,
Produc"on, transportation, and material-
Transporta"on moving fields than in
Management and
and Material management and professional
moving Professional fields.
26% 23%
Natural Service
Resources, 20%
Construc!on, and
Maintenance Sales and Office
13% 18%
Source: Current Population survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Department of Commerce, Census
Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October, 1967 through 2008
FIGURE 6.8. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK AND WHITE MALES AGES 18 AND
OVER IN COLLEGE AND PRISON POPULATION, 2008
50%
In 2008, Black males ages

40% 36% 18 and over accounted for
Percent of Popula!on
30% 31% 5 percent of the college

30% population but 36 percent of
the prison population.
20%
10%
5%
0%
College Popula!on Prison Popula!on
White Male Black Male
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear, Current Population Survey 2009

CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 6.9. IMPRISONMENT RATE PER 100,000 PERSONS IN THE U.S. RESIDENT
POPULATION OF BLACK AND WHITE MALES AGES 18 AND OVER, 2008
3,600
3,161
3,100 In 2008, Black males ages 18
Rate per 100,000 persons
or over were six and half times

2,600 more likely to be imprisoned
2,100 than White males.
1,600
1,100
487
600
100
White Male Black Male
FIGURE 6.10. PERCENTAGE OF BLACK AND WHITE MALE PRISONERS UNDER STATE
AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION BY AGE, 2008
41%
30-34 In 2008, Black males
29% accounted for 41 percent of
the male prison population
ages 18 to 34.
42%
25-29
27%
41%
20-24
28%
43%
18-19
27%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Black Males White Males
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 3
PROFILES OF EXCELLENCE
“TO ACCOMPLISH GREAT THINGS, WE MUST NOT ONLY ACT, BUT ALSO
DREAM; NOT ONLY PLAN, BUT ALSO BELIEVE.
~A F
” NATOLE RANCE
Despite the discouraging data on the social and educational conditions and outcomes of Black males there is hope. In this
section, we highlight young Black men from Council districts who stood out among their peers. Their brief profiles show that,
with the appropriate support, a school that promotes excellence, and adults that nourish their growth, success is possible.
LEANGELO HALL, MIAMI-DADE (FLORIDA) PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

CORAL REEF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Recently, the Council named winners of the Bernard Harris Math and Science Scholarship. The scholarship is awarded
to four seniors in high school (a Black male, a Black female, a Hispanic male, and a Hispanic female). One of this year’s
recipients was proof that, with high standards and determination, anyone can achieve their goal. Leangelo Hall, of Miami-
Dade County Public Schools’ Coral Reef Senior High, was raised by a single mother and is one of five children. For him, his
family background and past were not excuses to fail. Leangelo’s drive led him to excel in each of his classes. Aside from his
academic achievement, he was heavily involved in community service, from a tutoring program he founded in 2008 for K-8
students to organizing events to assist refugees in Darfur. Leangelo showed that there was always time to help those who
need it. His good deeds and hard work did not go unnoticed; Leangelo was accepted by four Ivy-League institutions—Harvard,
Yale, Cornell, and Princeton—as well as Stanford. Leangelo is currently attending Princeton University.
KELVIN LEWIS FREEMAN II, COLUMBUS (OHIO) CITY SCHOOLS,

FORT HAYES HIGH SCHOOL
Another applicant for the Bernard Harris scholarship left an impression on the judges. Kelvin Lewis Freeman II of Columbus
City Schools’ Fort Hayes High School demonstrated that potential could take you a long way. Kelvin’s enthusiasm towards
education and his compassion towards people led to his growth in high school. Aside from being a leader in his school, Kelvin
was also an athlete, a singer, and a volunteer. His ability to manage his time and academics showed his commitment to
excellence. In one of his recommendations, his high school counselor commented that he “works with purpose and intensity,
viewing that time not as drudgery but as an opportunity for improvement.” Kelvin was accepted by his top college choices:
University of Dayton, Ohio State University, Case Western University, University of Cincinnati, and Miami University. He is
currently attending the University of Dayton.
JAMIE BUTLER, ORANGE COUNTY (FLORIDA) PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

JONES HIGH SCHOOL
At Orange County Public Schools’ Jones High School, Jamie Butler viewed education as the only key to success. He faced
many obstacles, watching his family struggle financially and then ultimately enduring the death of his father when he was
13 years old. However, those obstacles did not stop Jamie. In his senior year, he was the Jones Class of 2010 student
government association’s president as well as the president of SECME (the pre-engineering club). According to a recent
press release from Orange County, Jamie recalls being told by naysayers that he would become another “Black statistic—
dropout.” Proving them wrong, he was accepted by six universities—Florida Institute of Technology, Florida Memorial, University
of Central Florida, Florida A&M University, Morehouse College, Georgia Tech, and University of Rochester. Currently, Jamie is
attending the University of Central Florida pursuing a degree in electrical engineering. He also aspires to become Governor
of the State of Florida.
CHAPTER 3
JORDAN SMILEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
ANACOSTIA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
In the nation’s capital, Jordan Smiley from Anacostia Senior High School was the first in his immediate family to graduate
high school and go on to college. He was a member of the National Honor Society and the Achiever’s Society and served
as the student government president. Not only was Jordan a scholar and school leader but he was also an all-star captain of
his football team. With a 3.3 grade point average and a rank of third in his class, Jordan definitely defied the stereotypes of
young Black men growing up in the D.C. area. Jordan was clearly a role model in his school. Aware of his influence, he took
on a project his senior year to register students for the ACT test in an effort to get more of his African-American classmates
into college. For his achievements, Jordan was accepted by Tuskegee University, Hampton University, Morehouse College,
and Clark Atlanta University. He is currently attending Hampton University.
DEVIN GUILLORY, EAST BATON ROUGE (LOUISIANA) PARISH,

MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL
Devin Guillory was one of only two African-American high school seniors from East Baton Rouge to be chosen as a National
Achievement Scholarship winner. Devin has been described as talented with “both brawn and brains.” Aside from making
stellar grades, he was an impressive athlete at his school, playing both football and running track. However, his love for math
superseded his love for athletics. At McKinley, he quickly fulfilled all of his math requirements and began taking classes at
Louisiana State University. In addition to his course requirements at LSU, Devin agreed to tutor both LSU and McKinley
students. Clearly Devin was not afraid of a challenge. Even as a fourth-grader, Devin dreamed of attending Stanford University,
one of the nation’s top colleges. In fact, he desired it so much that he placed a photo of the school on his refrigerator. That
dream carried him through: Not only is he currently attending Stanford, but he also received a full scholarship. He was also
accepted by Harvard College, Cornell University, Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech, Florida A&M, and University of Oklahoma.
CHANCELLOR SMITH, OMAHA (NEBRASKA) PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

OMAHA NORTH MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL
Chancellor Smith, from Omaha Public Schools, credits the Boys and Girls Club of Omaha for making him the person he is
today. Growing up, Chancellor had very little contact with his abusive father and was raised by his mother and grandmother.
This forced him to become the man of the house at an early age. Chancellor confidently took on this role, but when his
grandmother passed away and his younger brother was seriously injured in an accident, life became more difficult. He states,
“Growing up in a neighborhood where sexually transmitted diseases and poverty were the norm I knew I had to make a
change in my life.” Chancellor needed guidance, so he sought out the Boys and Girls Club, where he became a part of a male
mentoring program that provided him with positive male role models. The program taught him how to make smart choices and
most importantly, how to be a man. Today, Chancellor encourages youth at Boys and Girls Clubs to make better choices. The
first member of his family to attend college, Chancellor is a student at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
DEONTE BRIDGES, ATLANTA (GEORGIA) PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

BOOKER T. WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
At an Atlanta Public Schools’ high-school graduation, Deonte Bridges became an instant inspiration for Black youth across
the nation as the first Black male valedictorian in a decade from Booker T. Washington High School. Like many, he faced
struggles in his life, from coping with his older brother’s sudden death to being held at gunpoint to dealing with his mother’s
leukemia diagnosis. In his speech, he said that “life for [him] has been no crystal stair.” With each of these challenges, Deonte
never gave up. His unshakable attitude and his thirst for excellence helped earn him his college acceptance letters and
receive enough funding to pay for any undergraduate and graduate university of his choice. Deonte received a number of
prestigious scholarships, including the Gates Millennium Scholarship. He attends Emory University.

CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 4
A PLAN OF ACTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Improving the quality of education for Black males in In particular, the Council will move to--
America is a national imperative. The current state of affairs,
if left unaddressed, not only threatens to devastate more s #ONVENE A PANEL OF TO ESTEEMED SCHOOL
lives but affects the ability of Black males to care for their district, state, national, and university leaders, as well
current and future families. as civic and faith-based leaders and governmental
officials, who are concerned about the education
To begin addressing these issues more effectively, the of Black males. This panel of leaders would serve
Council of the Great City Schools is launching a renewed as a governing board and would provide advice
research effort that the organization hopes will yield more and guidance to the Council on the formulation of
effective strategies than have been used in the past. strategies for improvement. The panel would identify
Typically, the Council would review existing data, identify critical academic and nonacademic challenges and
districts making more progress than others, and study how barriers to educating Black males. And it would
these more successful districts were producing their gains. provide guidance on the direction and development of
But the data we examined, particularly NAEP data, suggest a national strategy.
that few major city school districts are realizing outsized
results with their Black male students, so the Council is s )DENTIFY ONE OR MORE SCHOLARS TO WRITE PAPERS THAT
going to take a different approach than is normally the case. would not only describe the challenges but also offer
recommendations and solutions.
The Council will continue to analyze new and secondary data
on the quality of education for Black males attending schools s (AVE URBAN SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS SUPERINTENDENTS
in the nation’s largest urban districts, but the organization and other senior staff and teachers from Council
will also work to assemble the best thinking from around member districts review each paper.
the country on what needs to be done (a) to improve the
life circumstances of Black males, (b) to promote these s !SK REVIEWERS TO COMMENT ON THE PROMISE AND
strategies among the nation’s major city school districts, (c) feasibility of the recommendations, and have scholars
and to marshal the energy and commitment of like-minded revise or extend their proposals accordingly.
individuals and groups to ensure progress.
s #ONVENE A MAJOR CONFERENCE TO PUBLICLY DISCUSS THE
recommendations and direction.
s #OMPILE ALL RECOMMENDATIONS STRATEGIES AND

proposals into a final report.
s 5RGE THE #OUNCILS BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHO CONSIST

of the superintendent and one school board member
from each Council district) to move forward on the
recommendations.
s -ARSHAL ORGANIZATIONS INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES IN

support of a “Call to Action” to improve the attainment
of the nation’s Black males.
CHAPTER 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Convene a White House conference on the status of 7. Encourage local, state, and national educators/
Black males and develop an overall call to action and researchers to disaggregate academic and
strategic direction for improvement. nonacademic data by gender and race/ethnicity so
that valid comparisons can be made between Black
2. Encourage Congress, as it reauthorizes the
males and their peers.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),
to establish an explicit program with financial aid 8. Ensure that Black male students are taking the
that would help public schools close achievement requisite courses at the appropriate level of rigor
gaps. The program should include both educational beginning in late elementary school, at least, to ensure
strategies and social supports for Black males. that they are on track academically for high school
graduation.
3. Marshal the energies and commitment of national and
local organizations with an interest and stake in seeing 9. Work with the higher education community to ensure
improvement to coordinate their efforts on behalf of appropriate academic and social supports for Black
Black male youth. Such groups might include the male students in higher education.
Boys and Girls Clubs, 100 Black Men, the National
Urban League, the NBA, the music industry, and 10. Encourage school district leaders, especially in the big
others. cities, to better target their instructional programming,
interventions, and afterschool initiatives to address
4. Build a nationwide network of support, particularly the specific academic and social needs of Black male
in the nation’s major cities, to mentor and support students. School boards and superintendents should
individual Black male young people and their families. be asking for regular updates on the status and
progress of their initiatives for these students.
5. Establish an ongoing network of mentoring, internship,
and career experiences for adolescent Black males 11. Create a cadre of individuals to work in Black
with the private sector in the nation’s major cities. communities to address issues of violence and
disruption both on the streets and in school.
6. Expand the number of Black male counselors in the
nation’s urban schools in order to provide social,
psychological, and college/career guidance and
direction to Black male students.

APPENDIX
APPENDIX
TOTAL # of Amer. Indian/

School District Black White Hispanic Asian Alaskan
Students FRPL SD
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
NATION 49,708,595 8.4% 8.2% 27.6% 26.1% 11.3% 10.8% 2.4% 2.3% 0.6% 0.6% 44% 13%
Albuquerque Public Schools 95,026 2.1% 1.9% 16.1% 14.9% 29.0% 28.2% 1.2% 1.2% 2.7% 2.7% 52% 14%
Anchorage School District 48,837 3.2% 2.9% 25.6% 23.6% 5.2% 4.9% 4.7% 4.6% 4.5% 4.2% 33% 14%
Atlanta Public Schools 49,032 40.9% 41.9% 5.2% 5.1% 2.4% 2.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 76% 9%
Austin ISD 83,319 6.0% 5.7% 13.4% 12.4% 30.1% 28.7% 1.7% 1.7% 0.1% 0.1% 63% 9%
Baltimore City Public Schools 82,266 44.3% 44.1% 4.0% 3.8% 1.4% 1.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 73% 17%
Birmingham City 27,438 48.6% 47.9% 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% 1.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 82% 13%
Boston Public Schools 55,923 19.8% 18.1% 6.9% 6.4% 19.7% 18.4% 4.4% 4.1% 0.2% 0.2% 74% 21%
Broward County Public Schools 256,351 19.3% 18.6% 15.4% 14.0% 13.4% 12.6% 1.8% 1.7% 0.1% 0.1% 48% 12%
Buffalo City School District 34,538 28.3% 28.7% 12.3% 11.6% 7.3% 7.5% 1.3% 1.4% 0.6% 0.8% 82% 25%
Caddo Parish School District 42,610 32.4% 32.0% 16.6% 16.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 63% 11%
Charleston County School
42,303 24.9% 25.0% 21.9% 20.4% 2.9% 2.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.1% 50% 11%
District
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
134,060 22.6% 22.9% 17.0% 16.7% 7.8% 7.7% 2.3% 2.3% 0.3% 0.3% 46% 11%
Schools
Cincinnati Public Schools 35,344 35.1% 33.9% 11.5% 12.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 57% 21%
Chicago Public Schools 421,430 23.3% 23.2% 4.3% 4.6% 20.2% 20.7% 1.7% 1.8% 0.1% 0.1% 73% 12%
Clark County School District 312,761 7.4% 7.0% 18.3% 17.1% 20.6% 19.5% 4.9% 4.5% 0.4% 0.4% 40% 10%
Cleveland Metropolitan School
49,148 35.2% 34.3% 7.7% 7.4% 6.2% 5.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 100% 20%
District
Columbus City Schools 53,536 30.8% 30.0% 14.2% 13.3% 3.0% 2.9% 1.0% 0.9% 0.1% 0.1% 70% 16%
Dallas ISD 157,332 13.9% 13.8% 2.3% 2.3% 33.8% 32.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 86% 7%
Dayton Public Schools 15,566 35.0% 33.6% 12.9% 11.5% 1.6% 1.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 72% 20%
Denver Public Schools 74,176 8.5% 8.7% 11.6% 11.1% 28.3% 27.2% 1.6% 1.8% 0.5% 0.6% 66% 12%
Des Moines Independent
30,810 9.8% 9.2% 30.0% 27.8% 8.9% 8.3% 2.6% 2.7% 0.3% 0.3% 56% 18%
Community School District
Detroit Public Schools 94,497 44.4% 44.0% 1.3% 1.2% 4.1% 3.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 77% 16%
District Of Columbia Public
44,331 38.5% 38.7% 4.0% 3.8% 6.1% 6.0% 1.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 69% 19%
Schools
Duval County Public Schools 122,606 22.2% 21.9% 20.5% 19.7% 3.5% 3.4% 2.1% 2.0% 0.1% 0.1% 46% 14%
East Baton Rouge Parish 43,869 41.5% 41.5% 6.0% 5.7% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 82% 11%
Fort Worth ISD 79,285 12.8% 12.3% 7.0% 6.5% 30.1% 29.4% 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 72% 8%
Fresno Unified School District 76,617 5.3% 5.4% 7.1% 6.8% 30.5% 29.6% 7.1% 6.8% 0.4% 0.3% 79% 10%
Guilford County Schools 71,525 23.2% 22.6% 20.4% 19.1% 4.5% 4.4% 2.7% 2.6% 0.3% 0.2% 46% 15%
Hillsborough County School
192,007 11.2% 10.7% 21.2% 20.0% 14.3% 13.6% 1.5% 1.6% 0.1% 0.1% 52% 15%
District
Houston ISD 200,252 14.1% 13.7% 4.0% 3.8% 31.2% 29.9% 1.7% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 63% 8%
Indianapolis Public Schools 34,050 29.0% 27.7% 12.0% 11.0% 7.9% 7.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 83% 20%
Jackson Public Schools 30,587 49.0% 48.6% 0.9% 0.7% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 86% 11%
Jefferson County Public
98,774 18.3% 17.7% 26.6% 25.4% 2.6% 2.4% 1.3% 1.2% 0.1% 0.1% 56% 14%
Schools
Kansas City School District 19,788 32.2% 33.0% 4.4% 4.2% 12.3% 11.4% 1.0% 1.2% 0.1% 0.1% 71% 11%
Little Rock School District 26,146 33.9% 34.6% 10.8% 10.9% 4.1% 3.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.1% 0.2% 65% 10%
Long Beach Unified 87,311 8.5% 8.6% 8.3% 7.8% 26.3% 25.4% 6.1% 5.8% 0.1% 0.1% 68% 9%
APPENDIX
TOTAL # of Amer. Indian/
School District Black White Hispanic Asian Alaskan
Students FRPL SD
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Los Angeles Unified 684,143 5.3% 5.2% 4.6% 4.1% 37.4% 36.0% 3.1% 2.9% 0.2% 0.1% 75% 12%
Memphis City School District 111,954 43.2% 42.6% 3.7% 3.3% 3.1% 2.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 69% 12%
Metropolitan Nashville Public
74,312 24.0% 24.0% 17.2% 16.1% 7.7% 7.4% 1.8% 1.7% 0.1% 0.1% 65% 11%
Schools
Miami-Dade County Public
345,525 13.1% 12.6% 4.7% 4.4% 32.2% 30.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 63% 11%
Schools
Milwaukee Public Schools 85,381 28.9% 28.0% 7.8% 7.3% 11.6% 10.9% 2.3% 2.3% 0.4% 0.4% 77% 18%
Minneapolis Public Schools 34,448 19.6% 18.9% 15.7% 14.5% 9.3% 8.7% 4.3% 4.4% 2.3% 2.4% 63% 18%
New Orleans Parish 10,109 34.5% 42.0% 7.9% 7.2% 1.3% 1.3% 2.8% 2.9% 0.0% 0.1% 69% 7%
New York City Department of
1,038,741 14.1% 14.2% 6.9% 6.4% 18.7% 18.2% 7.1% 6.5% 0.2% 0.2% 67% 16%
Education
Newark Public Schools 39,991 29.3% 27.7% 3.8% 3.8% 17.8% 16.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 82% 15%
Norfolk City Public Schools 34,431 32.0% 31.4% 12.2% 11.2% 2.0% 2.0% 1.3% 1.2% 0.1% 0.1% 58% 14%
Oakland Unified School District 46,516 17.8% 17.0% 3.3% 3.2% 19.3% 18.0% 7.4% 6.8% 0.2% 0.2% 68% 10%
Oklahoma City Public Schools 41,089 15.5% 15.0% 11.3% 10.3% 20.1% 19.6% 1.6% 1.4% 2.6% 2.5% 85% 13%
Omaha Public Schools 48,014 16.0% 15.5% 20.5% 19.2% 13.1% 12.2% 1.1% 1.1% 0.7% 0.7% 62% 16%
Orange County Public Schools 172,257 13.8% 13.5% 17.3% 16.3% 16.0% 15.2% 2.2% 2.1% 0.2% 0.2% 49% 14%
Palm Beach County Public
170,757 14.6% 14.2% 20.3% 18.8% 12.4% 11.7% 1.4% 1.3% 0.2% 0.2% 44% 16%
Schools
The School District of
159,867 31.2% 30.2% 7.1% 6.3% 8.7% 8.2% 3.2% 3.1% 0.1% 0.1% 73% 16%
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh Public Schools 27,945 28.7% 28.4% 17.8% 17.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.1% 0.1% 60% 23%
Portland Public Schools 43,064 7.3% 7.3% 27.9% 27.3% 6.9% 6.5% 5.2% 5.4% 0.7% 0.8% 44% 16%
Providence Public Schools 23,450 11.4% 10.9% 6.1% 5.7% 30.5% 29.2% 3.1% 2.6% 0.3% 0.3% 87% 20%
Richmond Public Schools 23,177 43.2% 43.2% 4.0% 3.8% 2.4% 2.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 66% 20%
Rochester City School District 32,973 32.9% 31.7% 5.6% 5.2% 10.8% 10.9% 1.3% 1.0% 0.1% 0.2% 82% 20%
Sacramento City Unified 47,784 10.2% 10.7% 10.8% 10.3% 16.6% 16.4% 11.1% 10.4% 0.6% 0.6% 65% 11%
San Diego Unified 131,890 6.8% 6.4% 13.0% 12.3% 22.7% 21.7% 8.0% 7.5% 0.3% 0.3% 63% 12%
San Francisco Unified 55,183 6.2% 6.1% 5.7% 5.1% 12.3% 10.9% 24.1% 23.0% 0.3% 0.3% 56% 11%
Seattle Public Schools 45,968 10.5% 10.6% 22.5% 20.9% 6.1% 5.6% 11.1% 10.9% 1.0% 0.9% 39% 13%
St. Louis City Public Schools 27,421 41.1% 39.7% 7.5% 6.3% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 0.1% 0.1% 64% 18%
St. Paul Public Schools 38,255 15.4% 14.4% 13.1% 11.9% 7.1% 6.6% 15.5% 14.2% 0.9% 0.8% 70% 18%
Toledo Public Schools 26,516 23.7% 21.9% 21.4% 19.5% 4.5% 4.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 63% 18%
Wichita Public Schools 47,260 9.9% 9.7% 19.4% 18.7% 12.3% 11.7% 2.8% 2.7% 1.2% 1.3% 70% 14%
CGCS as Percent
14% 29.0% 29.5% 22.9% 23.1% 5.2% 5.2% 19.1% 18.9% 6.2% 6.2% 20% 15%
Of Nation
Average 17% 17% 10% 10% 18% 18% 3% 3% 0.3% 0.3% 64% 14%

THE COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 702
Washington, DC 20004
202-393-2427
202-393-2400 (fax)
www.cgcs.org

Call For Change

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Call For Change

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ATHE SOCIAL

CALL FOR CHANGE:

The Council of the Great City Schools i

COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ACHIEVEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE CHAIRS

The Council of the Great City Schools iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................01

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................................................................09

CHAPTER 2. SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL FACTORS ..................................................................................................................................................15

FACTOR 1. READINESS TO LEARN...........................................................................................................................................................................16

FACTOR 2. BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP

FACTOR 2A. READING GRADE 4 ....................................................................................................................................................................22

FACTOR 2B. READING GRADE 8 ....................................................................................................................................................................32

FACTOR 2C. MATHEMATICS GRADE 4 ......................................................................................................................................................42

FACTOR 2D. MATHEMATICS GRADE 8 ......................................................................................................................................................52

FACTOR 4. COLLEGE AND CAREER PREPAREDNESS .......................................................................................................................76

FACTOR 5. SCHOOL EXPERIENCE ..........................................................................................................................................................................82

FACTOR 6. POSTSECONDARY EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................................................................88

CHAPTER 3. PROFILES OF EXCELLENCE .............................................................................................................................................................................95

CHAPTER 4. A PLAN OF ACTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................99

APPENDIX: COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS’ DEMOGRAPHICS, 2008-2009...........................................................103

Figure D3. Percentage of CGCS Students by Range of Selected Groups, 2009..........................................................................................14

FACTOR 1: READINESS TO LEARN

Figure 1.1 Infant Mortality Rate by Ethnicity, 2003-2007 ..................................................................................................................................................17

Figure 1.2 Percentage of Children 17 years of Age and Under

Figure 1.6 Percentage Distribution of Primary Care Arrangements

Figure 1.7 Percentage of Black Children Ages 6 to 18

Figure 1.8 Percentage of Children Ages 18 and Under Living in Families

FACTOR 2: BLACK ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP

FACTOR 2A: READING GRADE 4

Figure 2.2. Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males

The Council of the Great City Schools v

Figure 2.6 Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of FRPL and

Figure 2.7 Percentage of Grade 4 Non-FRPL Black Males (LC)

Figure 2.8 Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of SD and

Figure 2.9 Percentage of Grade 4 Non-SD Black Males (LC) vs.

FACTOR 2B: READING GRADE 8

Figure 2.10 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores by Ethnicity, 2003-2009...................................................................................................34

Figure 2.11 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males

Figure 2.14 Percentage of Grade 8 Black Males (LC) vs.

Figure 2.15 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of FRPL and

Figure 2.16 Percentage of Grade 8 Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) vs.

Figure 2.17 Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of SD and

Figure 2.18 Percentage of Grade 8 Non-SD Black Males (LC) vs.

Figure 2.20 Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of Black Males

Figure 2.23 Percentage of Grade 4 Black Males (LC) vs.

Figure 2.24 Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of FRPL and

Figure 2.25 Percentage of Grade 4 Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) vs.

Figure 2.26 Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of SD and

Figure 2.27 Percentage of Grade 4 Non-SD Black Males (LC) vs.

FACTOR 2D: MATHEMATICS GRADE 8

Figure 2.29 Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of Black Males

Figure 2.30 Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores

Figure 2.31 Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores

Figure 2.32 Percentage of Grade 8 Black Males (LC) vs.

Figure 2.33 Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of FRPL

The Council of the Great City Schools vii

Figure 2.34 Percentage of Grade 8 Non-FRPL Black Males (LC) vs.

Figure 2.35 Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores of SD

Figure 2.36 Percentage of Grade 8 Non-SD Black Males (LC) vs.

FACTOR 3: BLACK MALE ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS

Figure 3.1 Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scale Scores of Black Males

s )N AT LEAST PERCENT OF EIGHTH GRADE "LACK

s )N "LACK MALES AGES AND OVER REPRESENTED