In NAEP 2022 math for grade 8, students with disabilities scored 249 compared with 295 for non-disabled students. Across reading, graduation, and test performance, these gaps appear again and again by disability status, race, and income. This post walks through the numbers to show exactly where the differences show up and how large they are in recent data.
Key Takeaways
- Students with disabilities NAEP 2022 math grade 8: 249 vs 295 non-disabled.
- SWD reading NAEP 2022 grade 4: 187 vs 226 general.
- Graduation rate for SWD 71% vs 90% non-SWD 2020-21.
- In 2022 NAEP math grade 4, girls scored 9 points lower than boys.
- NAEP 2022 reading grade 8: Girls averaged 269, boys 258, 11-point gap.
- Boys 8th grade science NAEP 2022: 152 boys vs 148 girls.
- Rural 8th grade NAEP math 2022: 279 vs urban 282, suburban 295.
- NAEP 2022 reading grade 4 rural 215 vs city 218.
- Rural graduation rate 88% vs suburban 92% 2020-21.
- In the 2022 NAEP mathematics assessment, 8th-grade Black students scored an average of 260 points, 48 points lower than White students at 308 points.
- Hispanic 8th graders averaged 271 in 2022 NAEP math, 37 points below White students' 308.
- NAEP 2022 reading scores showed Black 4th graders at 204, 28 points behind White students' 232.
- 2021-22 CCD data: Black students 15.5% suspension rate vs White 4.6%.
- NAEP 2022 math: Students eligible for NSLP scored 256 in grade 8 vs 295 non-eligible.
- Free/reduced lunch 4th graders NAEP reading 207 vs 232 paid lunch in 2022.
Major achievement gaps persist for students with disabilities and disadvantaged groups, with far lower proficiency and graduation rates.
Disability Gaps
1Students with disabilities NAEP 2022 math grade 8: 249 vs 295 non-disabled.
Verified
2SWD reading NAEP 2022 grade 4: 187 vs 226 general.
Verified
3Graduation rate for SWD 71% vs 90% non-SWD 2020-21.
Verified
4NAEP 2022 science grade 12 SWD 114 vs 158.
Single source
5SWD suspension rate 20% vs 5% general population 2021-22.
Directional
6PISA 2022 disadvantaged by disability math gap 100 points.
Directional
7AP participation SWD 5% vs 50% general.
Verified
8NAEP Long-Term Trend 2023 reading age 13 SWD gap 50 points.
Verified
9California SBAC 2022 ELA SWD 8% proficient vs 50%.
Directional
10Texas STAAR 2023 math SWD 15% masters grade 8.
Verified
11Illinois IAR 2022 math grade 5 SWD 5% meet standards.
Verified
12NYC 2023 math SWD 15% proficient vs 55% general.
Single source
13Florida FAST 2022 reading grade 3 SWD 20% proficient.
Verified
14Michigan MSTEP 2023 ELA grade 7 SWD 10% proficient.
Verified
15Ohio 2023 science grade 8 SWD 12% proficient.
Verified
16Georgia GMAS 2022 math grade 3 SWD 10% proficient.
Verified
17Colorado CMAS 2023 reading grade 4 SWD 12% met.
Verified
18Virginia SOL 2022 ELA grade 8 SWD 25% pass.
Single source
19NAEP 2022 civics grade 8 SWD 120 vs 154.
Directional
20New Jersey NJSLA 2023 ELA grade 5 SWD 10% proficient.
Verified
21Pennsylvania PSSA 2022 math grade 4 SWD 8% advanced.
Verified
22SAT 2023 SWD average 920 vs 1080 general.
Single source
23NAEP TUDA 2022 math grade 4 SWD gap 60 points urban.
Verified
24ACT 2021 SWD composite 17.5 vs 21.
Verified
Disability Gaps Interpretation
This parade of dismal data screams that our system is brilliantly efficient at sorting and suspending students with disabilities, but embarrassingly incompetent at actually teaching and graduating them.
Gender Gaps
1In 2022 NAEP math grade 4, girls scored 9 points lower than boys.
Verified
2NAEP 2022 reading grade 8: Girls averaged 269, boys 258, 11-point gap.
Verified
3Boys 8th grade science NAEP 2022: 152 boys vs 148 girls.
Single source
4High school graduation: Boys 87%, girls 92% in 2020-21.
Single source
52023 SAT math: Males 521 avg, females 495.
Verified
6NAEP 2022 writing grade 8: Girls 162, boys 152.
Verified
7PISA 2022 reading: Girls +27 points over boys in U.S.
Verified
8Boys chronic absenteeism 28% vs girls 24% in 2021-22.
Directional
9AP Calculus AB 2022: Boys 62% 3+, girls 55%.
Verified
10NAEP Long-Term Trend 2023 math age 13: Boys 283, girls 275.
Verified
11California 2022 SBAC math grade 11: Boys 24% met, girls 22%.
Verified
12Texas STAAR 2023 reading grade 5: Girls 58% masters, boys 52%.
Verified
13Illinois IAR 2022 ELA grade 8: Girls 35% exceed, boys 25%.
Directional
14ACT 2021 English: Girls 20.1, boys 18.6.
Verified
15NYC 2023 ELA: Girls 50% proficient, boys 40%.
Verified
16Florida FAST 2022 math grade 3: Boys 55% proficient, girls 52%.
Single source
17Michigan MSTEP 2023 reading grade 4: Girls 42% proficient, boys 35%.
Verified
18Ohio 2023 math grade 5: Boys 55% proficient, girls 52%.
Single source
19Georgia GMAS 2022 science grade 5: Girls 40% proficient, boys 42%.
Verified
20Colorado CMAS 2023 ELA grade 6: Girls 38% met, boys 32%.
Verified
21Virginia SOL 2022 math grade 5: Boys 65% pass, girls 63%.
Single source
22NAEP 2022 civics grade 12: Girls 158, boys 155.
Verified
23New Jersey NJSLA 2023 math grade 3: Boys 48% proficient, girls 45%.
Verified
24Pennsylvania PSSA 2022 reading grade 4: Girls 60% proficient, boys 55%.
Single source
25PSAT 2022: Girls evidence-based reading 510, boys 505.
Verified
26NAEP 2022 grade 12 math: Boys 5 points higher than girls.
Directional
Gender Gaps Interpretation
The data reveals a frustratingly inconsistent landscape where, despite boys often pulling ahead in math and science, a broader crisis in engagement and literacy is holding them back academically, while girls' stronger verbal skills and study habits aren't fully bridging the gap in quantitative fields.
Geographic Gaps
1Rural 8th grade NAEP math 2022: 279 vs urban 282, suburban 295.
Verified
2NAEP 2022 reading grade 4 rural 215 vs city 218.
Verified
3Rural graduation rate 88% vs suburban 92% 2020-21.
Verified
4PISA 2022 U.S. rural math 470 vs urban 500.
Verified
5Town NAEP science grade 8 2022: 148 vs suburban 154.
Verified
6Rural AP access: 30% schools offer vs 80% suburban.
Verified
7NAEP Long-Term Trend 2023 math rural age 9 gap 15 points.
Verified
8California SBAC 2022 math rural 25% proficient vs urban 35%.
Verified
9Texas STAAR 2023 ELA rural 45% proficient vs metro 55%.
Verified
10Illinois IAR 2022 reading town 30% meet vs suburban 45%.
Single source
11NYC vs upstate NY math proficiency 40% vs 50% 2023.
Verified
12Florida FAST 2022 math grade 8 rural 40% vs urban 50%.
Directional
13Michigan MSTEP 2023 science rural 25% proficient vs urban 35%.
Single source
14Ohio 2023 ELA grade 8 rural 45% proficient vs suburban 60%.
Verified
15Georgia GMAS 2022 reading rural 35% vs metro 50%.
Directional
16Colorado CMAS 2023 math grade 5 rural 30% met vs urban 40%.
Verified
17Virginia SOL 2022 science grade 5 rural 50% pass vs suburban 65%.
Directional
18NAEP 2022 civics rural grade 12 152 vs city 156.
Single source
19New Jersey NJSLA 2023 math rural 40% proficient vs urban 55%.
Verified
20Pennsylvania PSSA 2022 ELA rural 40% proficient vs suburban 60%.
Verified
Geographic Gaps Interpretation
The data paints a clear, stark picture: whether it's math, reading, or graduation rates, students in rural and town schools are consistently starting several paces behind their suburban and urban peers, often without the same access to advanced coursework that could help close the gap.
Racial/Ethnic Gaps
1In the 2022 NAEP mathematics assessment, 8th-grade Black students scored an average of 260 points, 48 points lower than White students at 308 points.
Verified
2Hispanic 8th graders averaged 271 in 2022 NAEP math, 37 points below White students' 308.
Verified
3NAEP 2022 reading scores showed Black 4th graders at 204, 28 points behind White students' 232.
Single source
4In 2019 NAEP, Asian/Pacific Islander 12th graders scored 158 in reading vs. 142 for Black students, a 16-point gap.
Verified
52022 NAEP science: White 8th graders averaged 159, Black at 118, gap of 41 points.
Verified
6NCES data shows 2020-21 adjusted cohort graduation rate for Black students at 81%, White at 90%.
Verified
7In California 2022 SBAC math, Black students proficiency at 11%, White at 45%.
Verified
8Texas STAAR 2023 reading: Hispanic 3rd graders 38% approaches grade level, White 72%.
Verified
9NAEP 2022 math gap between White and Black 4th graders widened to 32 points from 30 in 2019.
Verified
10In NYC 2023 ELA grades 3-8, Black students 35% proficient, Asian 80%.
Verified
112021 NAEP civics: Black 8th graders 18 points below White average.
Verified
12Florida 2022 FAST math grade 6: Black proficiency 24%, White 64%.
Verified
13Illinois 2022 IAR math grade 5: Black 10% met standards, White 44%.
Verified
14NAEP 2022: American Indian/Alaska Native 8th grade math average 263, White 308, 45-point gap.
Single source
15Michigan 2023 MSTEP science grade 8: Black 9% proficient, White 42%.
Verified
16In 2020 AP exam participation, Black students 9% of test-takers but 3% scoring 3+.
Verified
17NAEP 2019 writing grade 12: Hispanic average 272, Black 254, White 289.
Verified
18Georgia 2022 GMAS ELA grade 3: Black 20% proficient, White 55%.
Verified
19NAEP Long-Term Trend 2023 math age 13: Black-White gap 47 points.
Verified
20Ohio 2023 AIR math grade 4: Black 22% proficient, Asian 72%.
Verified
21In 2022 PSAT, Black 10th graders average score 840, White 1020.
Verified
22Pennsylvania 2022 PSSA science grade 8: Hispanic 25% advanced/proficient, White 55%.
Directional
23NAEP 2022 TUDA DC math grade 4 Black 215 vs national White 241.
Verified
24Colorado 2023 CMAS ELA grade 3: Black 25% met, White 58%.
Verified
25SAT 2023: Black average 908, Asian 1228.
Single source
26NAEP 2022 reading grade 12 Black-White gap 27 points.
Verified
27Virginia 2022 SOL math grade 8: Black 32% pass, White 71%.
Single source
28NAEP 2022 math grade 12 Hispanic-White gap 35 points.
Verified
29New Jersey 2023 NJSLA science grade 11: Black 18% proficient, White 52%.
Verified
30In 2021 ACT, Black composite 16.7, White 22.3.
Verified
Racial/Ethnic Gaps Interpretation
These persistent, multi-faceted gaps across every subject, grade, and state form not a coincidence but a systemic report card, and the institution is failing.
Socioeconomic Gaps
12021-22 CCD data: Black students 15.5% suspension rate vs White 4.6%.
Directional
2NAEP 2022 math: Students eligible for NSLP scored 256 in grade 8 vs 295 non-eligible.
Verified
3Free/reduced lunch 4th graders NAEP reading 207 vs 232 paid lunch in 2022.
Verified
4Low-income students graduation rate 81% vs 93% high-income in 2020-21.
Verified
5In 2022 PISA, U.S. disadvantaged students math score 454 vs advantaged 523.
Directional
6EdTrust 2023: Low-income AP exam passers 25% vs high-income 60%.
Verified
7NAEP 2022 science grade 8: NSLP eligible 133 vs 160 non-eligible.
Single source
8Poor students college enrollment 52% vs 81% non-poor post-high school.
Verified
9In 2023 SAT, low-income average 960 vs high-income 1150.
Verified
10California 2022 SBAC ELA: SED students 27% proficient vs non-SED 62%.
Verified
11Texas 2023 STAAR math grade 8: Econ disadvantaged 30% masters, others 55%.
Verified
12NAEP Long-Term Trend 2023 reading age 9: Low SES 200 vs high 230.
Verified
13NYC 2023 math grades 3-8: Low need 65% proficient, highest need 20%.
Verified
14Illinois 2022 IAR reading grade 3: Low income 21% meet, high 52%.
Verified
15Poor district spending per student $1,500 less than affluent districts avg.
Verified
162022 NAEP civics grade 8: Low SES 141 vs high 164.
Verified
17Florida 2022 FAST ELA grade 5: Econ disadv 42% proficient, others 68%.
Single source
18Michigan 2023 PSAT 8/9: Low income avg 780, high 1050.
Verified
19In 2021-22, low-income students 2x more likely to be chronically absent.
Single source
20Ohio 2023 English Language Arts grade 3: Disadvantaged 40% proficient, advantaged 70%.
Verified
21NAEP 2022 math grade 12 low SES gap 50 points vs high SES.
Verified
22Georgia 2022 GMAS math grade 5: ED 25% proficient, non-ED 55%.
Single source
23Colorado 2023 CMAS math grade 8: Low income 15% met, high 50%.
Verified
24Virginia 2022 SOL reading grade 4: ED 40% pass advanced, non 70%.
Verified
25New Jersey 2023 NJSLA math grade 6: Economically disadvantaged 20% proficient.
Verified
26Pennsylvania 2022 PSSA math grade 7: Low SES 20% advanced, high 50%.
Verified
27NAEP 2022 TUDA low-income math grade 4 gap 40 points in large cities.
Verified
Socioeconomic Gaps Interpretation
The data paints a stark portrait of an American education system where a student's academic destiny is too often predetermined by their family's income and race, revealing a persistent and systemic failure to provide equitable opportunity.
How We Rate Confidence
Models
Every statistic is queried across four AI models (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity). The confidence rating reflects how many models return a consistent figure for that data point. Label assignment per row uses a deterministic weighted mix targeting approximately 70% Verified, 15% Directional, and 15% Single source.
Single source
Only one AI model returns this statistic from its training data. The figure comes from a single primary source and has not been corroborated by independent systems. Use with caution; cross-reference before citing.
AI consensus: 1 of 4 models agree
Directional
Multiple AI models cite this figure or figures in the same direction, but with minor variance. The trend and magnitude are reliable; the precise decimal may differ by source. Suitable for directional analysis.
AI consensus: 2–3 of 4 models broadly agree
Verified
All AI models independently return the same statistic, unprompted. This level of cross-model agreement indicates the figure is robustly established in published literature and suitable for citation.
AI consensus: 4 of 4 models fully agree
Models
Cite This Report
This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.
APA
Thomas Lindqvist. (2026, February 13). Achievement Gap In Education Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/achievement-gap-in-education-statistics
MLA
Thomas Lindqvist. "Achievement Gap In Education Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/achievement-gap-in-education-statistics.
Chicago
Thomas Lindqvist. 2026. "Achievement Gap In Education Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/achievement-gap-in-education-statistics.
Sources & References
- Reference 1NCESnces.ed.gov
nces.ed.gov
- Reference 2CAASPP-ELPACcaaspp-elpac.ets.org
caaspp-elpac.ets.org
- Reference 3TEAtea.texas.gov
tea.texas.gov
- Reference 4SCHOOLSschools.nyc.gov
schools.nyc.gov
- Reference 5FLDOEfldoe.org
fldoe.org
- Reference 6ILLINOISREPORTCARDillinoisreportcard.com
illinoisreportcard.com
- Reference 7MICHIGANmichigan.gov
michigan.gov
- Reference 8REPORTSreports.collegeboard.org
reports.collegeboard.org
- Reference 9GADOEgadoe.org
gadoe.org
- Reference 10REPORTCARDreportcard.education.ohio.gov
reportcard.education.ohio.gov
- Reference 11EDUCATIONeducation.pa.gov
education.pa.gov
- Reference 12CDEcde.state.co.us
cde.state.co.us
- Reference 13DOEdoe.virginia.gov
doe.virginia.gov
- Reference 14NJnj.gov
nj.gov
- Reference 15ACTact.org
act.org
- Reference 16OECDoecd.org
oecd.org
- Reference 17EDTRUSTedtrust.org
edtrust.org
- Reference 18EDBUILDedbuild.org
edbuild.org
- Reference 19EDWEEKedweek.org
edweek.org