Student-Teacher Ratio vs NAEP Scores by State 2026: Chart Analysis
Statewide pupil/teacher ratios and 2024 NAEP scale scores show a weak negative association across grade 4 and grade 8 reading and mathematics. Using staffing data from the school year in which the 2024 assessment was administered, Pearson correlations range from about −0.18 to −0.23.
The 2026 title identifies the analysis edition rather than a 2026 NAEP state assessment. The matched source periods are school year 2023–24 for NCES staffing and the 2024 NAEP assessment for achievement.
Matched State Data Summary
NCES pupil/teacher ratios are paired with the four 2024 NAEP state scale-score measures used in the comparison.
Student-Teacher Ratio and 2024 NAEP Score Relationship
Each point represents one state or the District of Columbia. The x-axis uses the NCES pupil/teacher ratio; the y-axis can switch among four NAEP measures.
State Scatter Plot With Fitted Line
The default view is Grade 8 Mathematics. National reference lines use a 15.2 pupil/teacher ratio and the selected National Public NAEP score.
The fitted line is shallow and the state points remain widely dispersed around it. Lower ratios are associated with somewhat higher scores in the matched state data, but the one-variable relationship is weak.
Data analysis
- All four Pearson coefficients are negative, ranging from −0.178 for Grade 4 Mathematics to −0.232 for Grade 8 Reading.
- Colorado and Oklahoma have similar ratios, 16.1 and 16.3, while their Grade 8 Mathematics scores are 278 and 264.
- Pennsylvania and West Virginia are separated by only 0.1 pupil per teacher, yet their Grade 8 Mathematics scores differ by 15 points, 276 versus 261.
State Pupil/Teacher Ratios and 2024 NAEP Scores
Pupil/teacher ratios are from NCES school year 2023–24. NAEP values are the published 2024 average scale scores rounded to whole points.
| State | P/T Ratio | Vs. U.S. | G4 Read | G4 Math | G8 Read | G8 Math |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 17.5 | +2.3 | 213 | 236 | 250 | 262 |
| Alaska | 18.2 | +3.0 | 202 | 226 | 246 | 264 |
| Arizona | 22.7 | +7.5 | 208 | 232 | 254 | 270 |
| Arkansas | 12.5 | −2.7 | 210 | 230 | 255 | 266 |
| California | 21.8 | +6.6 | 212 | 233 | 254 | 269 |
| Colorado | 16.1 | +0.9 | 221 | 239 | 265 | 278 |
| Connecticut | 11.9 | −3.3 | 219 | 239 | 263 | 277 |
| Delaware | 14.3 | −0.9 | 210 | 233 | 249 | 263 |
| District of Columbia | 11.1 | −4.1 | 209 | 231 | 251 | 262 |
| Florida | 18.4 | +3.2 | 218 | 243 | 253 | 267 |
| Georgia | 14.2 | −1.0 | 214 | 236 | 259 | 269 |
| Hawaii | 14.0 | −1.2 | 216 | 239 | 257 | 270 |
| Idaho | 17.6 | +2.4 | 216 | 238 | 261 | 278 |
| Illinois | 13.5 | −1.7 | 214 | 236 | 262 | 277 |
| Indiana | 15.3 | +0.1 | 220 | 240 | 262 | 278 |
| Iowa | 14.1 | −1.1 | 215 | 237 | 261 | 275 |
| Kansas | 13.0 | −2.2 | 213 | 237 | 255 | 274 |
| Kentucky | 15.3 | +0.1 | 218 | 238 | 258 | 271 |
| Louisiana | 14.5 | −0.7 | 216 | 235 | 257 | 267 |
| Maine | 11.3 | −3.9 | 210 | 233 | 255 | 273 |
| Maryland | 14.2 | −1.0 | 216 | 234 | 258 | 268 |
| Massachusetts | 11.8 | −3.4 | 225 | 246 | 268 | 283 |
| Michigan | 16.6 | +1.4 | 209 | 235 | 255 | 270 |
| Minnesota | 14.7 | −0.5 | 214 | 241 | 260 | 282 |
| Mississippi | 13.0 | −2.2 | 219 | 239 | 253 | 269 |
| Missouri | 12.8 | −2.4 | 212 | 235 | 255 | 270 |
| Montana | 13.8 | −1.4 | 217 | 238 | 261 | 279 |
| Nebraska | 13.7 | −1.5 | 212 | 238 | 256 | 280 |
| Nevada | 21.3 | +6.1 | 213 | 233 | 253 | 265 |
| New Hampshire | 11.5 | −3.7 | 221 | 242 | 264 | 280 |
| New Jersey | 11.8 | −3.4 | 222 | 240 | 266 | 282 |
| New Mexico | 14.4 | −0.8 | 201 | 224 | 245 | 256 |
| New York | 11.6 | −3.6 | 215 | 234 | 257 | 271 |
| North Carolina | 15.3 | +0.1 | 213 | 239 | 255 | 276 |
| North Dakota | 12.3 | −2.9 | 216 | 241 | 257 | 280 |
| Ohio | 16.6 | +1.4 | 216 | 239 | 260 | 279 |
| Oklahoma | 16.3 | +1.1 | 207 | 233 | 249 | 264 |
| Oregon | 17.6 | +2.4 | 207 | 229 | 255 | 268 |
| Pennsylvania | 13.1 | −2.1 | 216 | 238 | 259 | 276 |
| Rhode Island | 12.7 | −2.5 | 216 | 237 | 258 | 270 |
| South Carolina | 13.9 | −1.3 | 215 | 238 | 254 | 268 |
| South Dakota | 13.7 | −1.5 | 214 | 240 | 260 | 281 |
| Tennessee | 15.1 | −0.1 | 215 | 240 | 259 | 276 |
| Texas | 14.7 | −0.5 | 212 | 241 | 252 | 269 |
| Utah | 20.6 | +5.4 | 219 | 242 | 261 | 282 |
| Vermont | 10.4 | −4.8 | 213 | 235 | 257 | 276 |
| Virginia | 13.4 | −1.8 | 214 | 238 | 256 | 275 |
| Washington | 17.5 | +2.3 | 216 | 238 | 259 | 274 |
| West Virginia | 13.2 | −2.0 | 206 | 232 | 247 | 261 |
| Wisconsin | 13.7 | −1.5 | 215 | 239 | 260 | 283 |
| Wyoming | 12.2 | −3.0 | 222 | 243 | 260 | 278 |
Data analysis
- Alabama and Washington both report a 17.5 pupil/teacher ratio, while their Grade 8 Mathematics scores are 262 and 274.
- Minnesota and Texas both report a 14.7 ratio, while their Grade 8 Mathematics scores are 282 and 269.
The Association Stays Weak Across Grade and Subject
Pearson correlation measures the linear relationship. Spearman correlation tests whether the state ordering follows a similar monotonic pattern. R² is from a one-predictor ordinary least-squares fit.
Pearson Correlation by NAEP Measure
Values closer to zero indicate a weaker linear relationship between the statewide pupil/teacher ratio and the selected score.
The direction is consistent across all four measures, but none of the correlations is strong. The largest R² is about 5.4%.
Data analysis
- Grade 8 Reading has the largest absolute Pearson coefficient, but the four coefficients occupy a narrow range and do not produce a different overall relationship by grade or subject.
- The Spearman coefficients also remain weak, so replacing raw scores with state ranks does not materially tighten the relationship.
NAEP Averages Across Staffing-Ratio Bands
States and DC are grouped by their 2023–24 pupil/teacher ratio. Score values are unweighted means of the jurisdictions inside each band.
| Ratio band | Jurisdictions | Avg. ratio | G4 Read | G4 Math | G8 Read | G8 Math |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Below 12.0 | 8 | 11.4 | 216.8 | 237.5 | 260.1 | 275.5 |
| 12.0–13.9 | 16 | 13.2 | 214.4 | 237.4 | 256.8 | 274.2 |
| 14.0–15.9 | 13 | 14.6 | 213.8 | 236.7 | 256.3 | 270.8 |
| 16.0–17.9 | 8 | 17.0 | 213.1 | 235.9 | 256.8 | 271.6 |
| 18.0+ | 6 | 20.5 | 212.0 | 234.8 | 253.5 | 269.5 |
Data analysis
- The 18.0+ band has the lowest average score in all four measures, but the middle bands do not form a smooth step-by-step pattern.
- Grade 8 Reading averages are 256.3 in the 14.0–15.9 band and 256.8 in the 16.0–17.9 band, showing overlap between adjacent staffing groups.
Grade 8 Math States Furthest From the Fitted Line
Residuals compare each observed Grade 8 Mathematics score with the score produced by the single-variable fitted line. Positive values sit above the line; negative values sit below it.
Largest Grade 8 Math Residuals
The fitted equation using the displayed state values is approximately: score = 279.56 − 0.475 × pupil/teacher ratio.
Residuals identify unusual positions relative to this one-variable line only. They are not adjusted state performance ratings.
Data analysis
- Utah has the largest positive Grade 8 Mathematics residual at about +12.2 points despite a 20.6 pupil/teacher ratio.
- New Mexico has the largest negative residual at about −16.7 points with a 14.4 ratio.
What the State-Level Comparison Does Not Capture
The two indicators describe different parts of a state education system and operate at a much broader level than an individual classroom.
Pupil/Teacher Ratio Is Not Average Class Size
NCES calculates the ratio from student membership and teacher full-time-equivalent counts. A statewide ratio therefore does not describe the number of students sitting in a typical classroom or the staffing pattern of a specific school.
NAEP Scales Stay Separate
Reading and mathematics, and grades 4 and 8, use separate NAEP score scales. Correlations can be compared across the four measures, but a Grade 8 Mathematics score should not be treated as directly higher or lower than a Grade 4 Reading score because the numeric values differ.
State Averages Hide Local Variation
A single statewide ratio combines districts and schools with different enrollment sizes, staffing patterns, locales, student populations, and program structures. The state scatter therefore cannot describe within-state classroom conditions.
Source Years, Measures, and Calculation Rules
National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education, school year 2023–24, Final Version 1a.
National Assessment of Educational Progress 2024 state results for Grade 4 Reading, Grade 4 Mathematics, Grade 8 Reading, and Grade 8 Mathematics.
NAEP reading and mathematics were administered from January through March 2024. School year 2023–24 staffing is used so the staffing measure comes from the same school year as the assessment.
The calculation includes the 50 states and District of Columbia. DoDEA, Puerto Rico, territories, and TUDA districts are excluded from the state/DC comparison.
Pupil/teacher ratio is student membership divided by teacher FTE in the NCES table. NAEP values are average scale scores on 0–500 scales developed and reported separately by subject and grade.
NAEP state results are sample-based estimates rather than census scores. The 2024 reading assessment included about 117,400 fourth-graders and 114,600 eighth-graders nationally; mathematics included about 117,900 fourth-graders and 115,200 eighth-graders.
Pearson r, Spearman rank correlation, ordinary least-squares R², band means, and Grade 8 Mathematics residuals are unweighted across the 51 jurisdictions. Calculations use the whole-point NAEP values displayed in the state comparison table and one-decimal NCES ratios.
The newer 2024–25 CCD staffing table is not substituted into the matched analysis because it describes the school year after the January–March 2024 NAEP administration. That newer table also does not report a Tennessee teacher FTE or a U.S. pupil/teacher ratio. Official sources: NCES CCD 2023–24 staffing table, NCES CCD 2024–25 staffing table, 2024 NAEP Reading, 2024 NAEP Mathematics, and NAEP State Profiles.
The scatter plots, correlations, fitted line, and residuals describe cross-state association only. They do not estimate the effect of changing teacher staffing. The model does not control for student demographics, economic disadvantage, English learner share, disability status, attendance, teacher experience, school funding, district structure, locale, or other conditions associated with NAEP outcomes. Small differences between rounded NAEP scores also should not be treated as evidence of a tested difference between jurisdictions.