DOCUMENT RESUME ED 166 019 .SE 025 480 · 2014-02-11 · Page Comparing 13-Year-Old Reporting...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 166 019 .SE 025 480

AUTHOR Ghiselin, Diane "3.; And_ OthersTITLE Connecticut Assessment of Educational Progre'ss:

Mathematics. 1976-77 Results Report.INSTITUTION National Evaluation Systems, Inc., Amherst, Mass.SPONS AGENCY Connecticut State Dept. of Education, Hartford.

Bureau of Research, Planning, andEvaluation.PUB DATE Aug 77NOTE 376p.; For related document, see' SE 025 481; Not

available in hard -copy due to marginal legibility oforiginal document

EDRS PRICE ' mi0-$0.83 Plus Postage. HC Not Available from EDRS.DESCRIPTORS *Achievement; Age Differences; *Comparative Analysi'S;

*Educational Assessment; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Group Norms; *Mathematics Education; RuralUrban Differences; Sex Differences; *Test Results

IDENTIFIERS *Connecticut

ABSTRACTThe design and methodology of the program of

assessment is described and the student achievement data generated bythe assessment are presented. Test results are reported for each goalarea, each objective, and each test'item by all 9-, 13-, and17-year-olds, and by males and females within each age group. Theresults on test items in common with the three age groups arecompared. Comparisons are made between groups of students formed onthe basis of to questionnaires. The results of each agegroup are compared to the performance of students nationally.. Resultsof a student queStionnaire and of a principal questionnaire arereported. Copies 'of instruments are contained in the appendix.(MP)

1.

1

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ** from the original'docuient. 1.(z ************************************************************************

0 Alb

,;5.

171 O..0 .IIO. 4.0

0A.0.40

0 0". ;. *a.

OOoOree . IL

. t M* 111..:" If OOOOOOO 000 ' ere

00 nwill,.,. , . .... ... ., . , .. I.010041.009......, .p: I. .4.0.0ses. se

. .000e.... 05 is

000 .0S .1. *60*.. . ..

l'o111 i -..........--::::::. . e.r

04 l

.0 I.. 00 SOO. .S 0,fl.4. O. 1 0111 140.4Os 00,1

SIC.. 44 l. ...OSS OS O..

.t - 04 4. ......"0 00. Fee....05 :2[MMEMItr . 004 Ou4 a

t_.2

O0Oat 100

.0410

;00lt 1111106

. gel 4,044100 Og O 01.00 ad. OsOled040

. . .1/1 OM. sel "e. 2- *p -.goo ses- se:4o sies 0.0.110' SOse .,.:4;1... .... . 1,DS 51"t.

g eol.. ....... 04'tte

iiies. .4::1:14-.-'77. .0.4141001 sees.4 "Stool. .. .

....404Od 1940 eeseft0 a .

.. 515. 5.. 089.11041.0s, .0.00. OOOOO al'me.. 0045 00111 140.

090I.d. 4. . O..O . .. I

. '.s. .

sv e . .. 04'5 SOO 4010.., OOO 40

.

es.0. 5 5Mg WO ses00.. :::4r. .. a00.00

oe 0 0"..0

.

.41111111._

.

.

4e114 8

/ . ed CO..40

I..- sna"

s'.........1r; ''II10:$

0.og .ierl

' f.0611004.00. 40410 4.eo 60

.0 $401.

es

OOOOOO 511e.:410It

I 0

441e5555Oes

.....es.,

A.. . .6..0

SOS O ip O. n o

.

A,FS

1,0090 se10.11

00005

00ee tgo 00Ogee .4 OOOOOO

g

TITLE:

AUTHORS:

Connecticut Assessment of Educational PrOgressMathematics

1976-77 Results,Report

Diane J. GhiselinPeter SchriberBrian M. Miller

National Eyaluation Systems, Inc.Post Office Box 226Amherst, Massachusetts 01002

Telephone: (413) 549-1011

, FEDERAL 1,D. #: 04-2524119

cr$'

DATE: August, 1977

SPONSOR: Bureau of Research, Planning and EvaluationConnecticut State Department of EducationBox 2219Hartford, Connecticut 06115

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The 1976 -71 Connecticut Assessment of ducational Progress (CAEP)

In Mathematics was a joint effort by the Bur au of Research, Planning and

oEvaluati n and the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education of the

Connecticut State Department. of Education (CSDE),and National Evaluation

Systems, Inc. (NES).

The assessment involved substantial,effort by many people. Dr. James.

p M. Burke, Dr. George D. Kinkade, Miss Elizabeth Glass, and Mr. Douglas

Rindone of CSDE were responsible for the overall direction of .the assess-

ment. Substantial contributions to the development of testing materials

and the interpretation of results were provided by an Advisory Committee

of ConnectiCut educators. We extend sincere appreciation for their effort

and involvement to the committee members: Dr. Lynn Anderson, Dr. Linda

Ball, Dr. Vincent Glennon, Mrs. Katherine Gundersen, Mr. Steven Leinwand,

Mr, Harry Levitin, Mr. Michael Stecyk, and Dr. Robert Washburn. Special

thanks go to Mrs. Katherine Gundersen, special consultant to the project,

whose support, advice, and enthusiasm throughout the program were

0

invaluable.

NES personnel were chiefly responsible for the implementation,of the

assessment. Dr. Sherry Ann Rubinstein, Director of Project Services,

provided general guidance and technical expertise. Ms. Diane J. Ghiselin

served as Project Manager and was assisted by Mr. Brent Campbell, Mr.

James Finley,--an4-1 . Jonathan Pyenson. The authorcof,this report

were Ms. Ghiselin, Dr. Peter Schriber, and Mr. Brian Miller, with direction

and assistance, from Dr. Rubinstein. Dr. Paul Pinsky, with assistance from

Dr. Dorit Sejwacz, was responsible for conducting the data processing and

data analysis for the assessment. Special recognition is 'extended to

William P. Gorth for technical support and guidance in the design and

conduct of the study.

Clerical and secretarial support were essential to the assessment.

Thanks go to Ms. Linda Sundwall of CSDE as well as to Ms. Gay Flannelly,

Ms. Barbara H. Gilmour, and Ms. Wendy Feldman of NES, Ms. Priscilla Ling,

in charge of tes scoring and handligg at NES, was assisted by Mr. Richard

1Kanter and Ms. R byn Wilson.ys

NES wishes to thank the staff, members of the National Assessment of

Educational Progress, especially Mr. Vern A. Achtermann, for-continuing

help and cooperation.

Focus to the ReaderNA,

If you are interesqd in a detailed breakdown of the achievement

of Connecticut stitdents,on each test item --turn to Chapter 2 and

Appendix A.

If you would like to knowhow Connecticut students performed on each

,objective and goal. areaturn to Chapter 2. (

If you want_to study differences in achievement across different age

groups of studeXts within Connecticutturn to Chapter 3.

Lf you want to compare the achievement of selected groups of Connec-

ticut studentsas defined by each region, size of community, and sex

of studentturn to Chapter 4 and Appendix B.

If you want to compare the achievement of selected groups of Connec-

ticut students as defined by responses to questionnaires administered

as part of the programturn to Chapter 4 and Appendix E.

Lf you want to compare Connecticut students' performance with that

of students across the nation and in the Northeast regionturn to

Chapter 5.

If you are interested in Connecticut students' responses to questions

about their home and school life--turn to Chapter 6.

If you would like to know how principals in Connecticut described

aspects of their-schoolsturn to Chapter 7.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pige

ii

FOCUS TO THE READER iv

CHAPTER I: eofsign and Methodology .

1'+iv

Overview1

Outline of This Report. 3

Measurement Instruments 4Sampling Design IA"

0, 13,

. Field Contact 23Test Administration , 25Coding, Scoring, and Data Prgeesing 26Data Analysis Plan 28Data Interpretation 29The Local Option . 0 , _ . . 4 ......... 31

CHAPTER 2: Achievement Results for All Connecticut9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Olds

(8 5

Data Analysis 35Summary Tables for 9-, 13 -, and 17-Year-Olds 37Interpretative 4sues 37Achievement Results for 9-Year-Olds 47AchievementResults for 13-Year-Olds 53Achievement-Results for 17-Year-Olds

. . 61Summary 69

CHAPTER 3: Comparing Age Groups Within Connecticut 76

Introduction 76Achievement Re lts Across Age Groups 76Summary 86

CHAPTER 4: Comparin the Achievement of ConnecticutReporting Groups

Introduction

Comparing -Year-Old Reporting Groups

-v-

88

8890 ,

Page

Comparing 13-Year-Old Reporting Groups l 9'8

Comparing 17-Year-Old Reporting Groups 107Summary 116

0

CHAPTER 5:, Comparing Connecticut with the Nationend the Northeast Region 123

Introduction 123Interpretation of Result

-125

Comparative Results for 9-Year-Olds 126

comparativekftResults for 13-Year-Olds' r3o

Comp4rative(Results for 17-Year-Olds , 136SuMmary 143

CHAPTER 6: R-e-s-u-lts of the Student Questionnaire 150

Introduction 150

Sex of Student 157

Discussion of .Schaal with Parents 158Parental Encouragement 159

Parental'Assistance with Schoolwork , 159TelevisiohaWatching 160

Fooling: About School 162

feelings About Mathematics 163

Usefulness of Mathematics Compared to Other Subjects. . 165

Usefulness of Mathematics Outside of School 166

Years of\ Mathematics 167

Educational Aspirations 167Summary 168

CHAPTER 7: Results of the Principal Questionnaire° 170

InfrodOction 170

Grade Level Organization of Class.rooms 174

Achievement Level Organization of Classrooms 176

Program Organization of Classrooms 178

Math Class Instructional - Format 179

Consultants or Specialists in Mathematics 180

Mathematics Curriculum Development 181

Funds for Mathematics Supplies 182

Audiovisual Materials . . y . . 183

Teacher Preparation Time 185

Page

Class Si2e. ..... . .: . . .,.,, ........... .. . . 186Total School Enrollment '187In=Grade Enrollment , - 190Average Math tlass Size 192Number of Instructional,Aides 193

',Hours of Math Per Class Per Week, 194

APPENDICES-

A: Copies of Test Items for 9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Olds,with Corresponding Percentages of All StudentsSelecting Each Response

8: Percentage of 9-; 13-, and 17-Year-Olds in ConnecticUt'by Sex of Student, in Each Region, and in Each Sizeof Community Answering Correctly Each Test Item

--C: Copies of Student Questionnaire Instruments

,

D: Copies of Principal Questionnaire Instruments

E: Tables of Achievement Results by Reporting Groupson Total Test, Goals, and Objectives

LIST OF'TABLES

Table Page

1.1: Mathematics Objectives (Grade 4/9-Year-Olds) 5



1.4:' Map of Connecticut RegiOnal Edutational Service Centers . . 16

1.5: Schematic piagr4m of Sampling,Strata 17

1.6: Number of Students Tested at Each Age Leveland-in Each Reporting Group 22

2.1: Average Percentage of-Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Goal Area by All 9-Year-Oldsand by Males and Females 38

4

2.2: Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Eac4 Goal Area by 1611 13-Year-Oldsand by Males and Females 39

2.3: Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Cortrectlyin Each Goal Area by All 17-Year-Oldsand by Males and Females 4O

2,4: Average Percentage of Tet Items Answered Correctlyin Each Objective by All 9-Year-Oldsand by Males and Females 41

2.5: Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Objective by All 13-Year-Olds:and by Males and Females 43

2.6: Average Percentage of Test Items Answered: Correctlyin Each Objective by All 17-Year-Oldsand by Males and Females 45

*2.7: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Tes; Item forthe Goal Area of Mathematical Concepts for 9-Year-Olds 49

10

Table Page

2.8: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and'Test'Itemfor the Goal Area of Computation for 9-Year-Olds . 50

2.9: Average Percentage'Correct by Objective and Test Itehfor the Goal Area of Measurement for 9-Year-Olds 51

2.10: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Area of Applicatioas/Problems for 9-Year-Olds 52

2.11: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Area of Charts and Graphs for 9-Year-Olds 53

2.12: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Area of Mathematical Concepts'for 13-Year-Olds . . . 55

2.13: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Computation for 13-Year-Olds . . . 56

2.14: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test. Item,for the Goal Area of MO4urement for 13-Year-Olds 58'

2.15: Average Percentage Correct by ,Objective and Test Item forthe Goal -Area of Charts and Graphs for 13-Year-Olds

2.16: Average Percentage Correct by Objective, and Test Item for. .the Goal Area of Applications/Rroblems'for 13-Year-,Olds . 60

2.17: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Geometry for 13-Year-Olds '61

2:18: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Area of Mathematical toncepts,for 17-Year-Olds . . . 63

2..19: Average Percentage Corrett by, Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area bf Comtation for 17-Year-Olds ......... 64

tt

2.20: Average Percentage Correct..6y-ObjectiVe and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of MeasuAmn for 17-,Year-Olds '66

2.21: Average Percentage Correct by*bfeative arid.Tett Item forthe Goal Area of Charts and.GraWfor'17-Yealdt 67,

2.22: Average Percentage Correct by ObjectiVe anijett Item forthe Goal Area of Applications /Problems fa- 1.-g7Year-Olds . ,68

Table 'Page

2.23: Average Percentage Correct by Objective land Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Geometry for 17-Year.-Olds : 69

2.24: Graph of Achievement-on Goal Areas by Age Group , 70

2.25,i Graph of Achievement'on Objectives: 9-Year-Olds 71

2.26: Graph of Achievement on Objectives: 13-Year-'01ds 72

2.27: Graph of,Achievement on Objectives: 17-Year-Olds .,. 73,.

, .3.1: Comparison of AchievementIstross Age Groups on Shared Itemsfor the Goal Area of Mathematical Concepts ...... . . 78

3.2: Comparison of Achievement across Age Groups on Shared Itemsfor the Goal Area of Computation (.Whole. Numbers). . . , 80

3.3: Comparison of Achievement across Age Groups. on Shared IteMs -for,the Goal Area of Computation (Decimals and fractions) - 81

3.4: Comparison of Achievement across. Age Groups on Shared Items -

for the Goal Area of Measurement-. 83

3.5: Student Performance on the Mr. SimmonsItem Appearing on All Three Tests 84

3.6: Comparison of Achievement across Age Groupson Shared Itemsfor the Goal Area of Problem Solving , 85

3.7: Comparison of Achievement acrossAge Groups on Shared Itemsfor, the Goal, Area of .Charts and Graphs 87

4.1: Graph of Achievement on Total 'Test by Size of Community . . 117

4.2: Graph of Achievement on Total, Test by Region 119

5.1: Comparative ResOts on individual NAEP Items forConnecticut, Natiorlal, and Northeast 9-Year-Olds. . 4 ..... 1L7

5,2: Comparative Results on Individual NAEP Items forConnecticut, National, and Northeast 13-Year-Olds 131

-x-

\

Table, Page

5.3: Comparative Results on Individual NAEP Items forConnecticut, National, andNOrtheast 17-Year-Olds , 137

5,4: Graph of 9-Year-Olds' Performance y Goal Area:, Connecticut, the Nation, and the Northeast 144

5.5: Graph of 13-Year-Olds' Performance by Goal Area:Connecticut, the Nation, and the Northeast 145

5.6: Graph of 17-Year-Olds' Performance by Goal Area:Connecticut, the Nation, and the Northeast 146

5.7: Summary Graphs of Connecticut 9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Olds'Performance Relative to the Nation and the Northeast 147

6.1: Responses of 9-Year-Old Students to Questionnaire Items,Crosstabulated by Region and Size of Community,and Reported in Percentages 151

6.2: Responses of 13-Year-0id Students to Questionnaire Items,Crosstabulated by Region and Size of Community,and Reported in Percentages 153

6.3: Responses of 17-Year-Old Students to Questionnaire Items,Cros'stabulated by Region and Size of Community,and Reported in Percentages 155

7.1: Crosstabulations,of Major Principal Questionnaire Results(9-Year-Old Level) by,Size of Community and Region,Reported in Percentages 171

7.2: Crosstabulations of Major Principal Questionnaire Results(13-Year-Old Level) by Size of Community and Region,Reported in Percentages 172

7.3: Crosstabulations of Major Principal Questionnaire Results(1.7-Year-Old Level) by Size of 'Community and Region,Reported in Percentages 173

7.4: Means for Selected Principal Questionnaire Variablesby Size of Community 188

7.5: Means for Selected Principal Questionnaire Variablesby Region of State 18'9

C H.A PTER 1

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

0.

Vverview

The state of Connecticut conducted the fifth annual Connecticut

Assessment of Educational Progress (CAEP) in 1976-77. Three age levels

(9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds) were assessed in the subject area of mathe-

matics. The Connecticut Assessment of Educational Progress, as mandated

by the Connecticut General Assembly, is a continuing program designed to

"measure objectively the adequacy and efficiency of the educational pro-

grams offered by the public schools." ,

The CAEP program is modeled after the National Assessment of Educa-

tional Progress (NAEP) in its basic goals, design, and instrumentation.

NAEP was founded in 1964 and began actual testing in 1969 with the goal

of providing continuous systematic reporting on the knowledge, skills,

understanding, and attitudes of American children and young adults based

on annual national surveys. Each year one or more subject areas (or

related subject areas) are tested. The NAEP testing program generates

data on national achievement levels against which statewide data can be

compared.

CAEP began in 1971-72 with an assessment of reading' achievement.

In 1973-74 career guidance was assessed, in 1974-75 science, and in

1975-76 reading was assessed again. In coming years, Connecticut plans,

to continue annual assessment in a given subject area or areas in order'

-2-

to continually evaluate the adequacy of the educational system within

the .state.

The 1976 -77 assessment in mathematics was conducted by National

Evaluation Systems, Inc. (NES), Amherst, Massachusetts, under contract

to the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE). The goals of

the mathematics assessment were (1) to collect baseline data for deter

mining student growth in mathematics knowledge'in future years, (2) to

collect information permitting the comparison of the present mathematics

achievement of Connecticut students with the achievement of students

nationally, (3) to provide achievement results useful in decision-making

regarding curricula and instruction at both the state and local levels,

and (4) to encourage school districts to adopt criterion-referenced

assessment procedures for local planning and evaluation.

In response to these purposes, the program included the developmehL

and administration of three criterion-referenced mathematics test, one

for each of the three age levels assessed. These tests were administered

on a statewide basis to a probability sample of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds.

In designing the tests, an advisory panel of Connecticut educators devel-

oped high-priority mathematics learning objectives for the 'state, drawing

heavily on NAEP materials. In conjunction with the statewide assessment,

CSDE provided a valuable opportunity to local school districts by offering

the state's custom-designed materials for use in comprehensive testing of

their own students. This portion of Connecticut's assessment activities,

called "Phase 2: The Local Assessment Option," permitted participating

15

-.3-

di,stricts to use the statewide tests for local planning and evaluation.

Only the methodology of Ph'ase 2 is described in this report. All local

achievement results were reported to the respective districts.

This report does contain; however, a complete desctAiption of Phase 1

of CAEP, the statewide testing program. The report describes in detail the

deSign and methodology of the program, as well as presenting the student

achievement data generated by the assessment. This information can serve

as a valuable resource to CSDE and to others in determining strengths and

weaknesses of Connecticut students in the area of mathematics. Considera-

tions of and action in response to these findings may bring about improve-

ments in the education of Connecticut students.

Outline of This Report

This report consists of several major parts. Chapter 1' describes

the design and methodology of the study, including development of testing

materials, sampling, test administration procedures, data analysis proce-

dures, and a description of the Local Option.

Chapter 2 presents the results of the tests of Connecticut 9-, 13-,

and 17-year-olds on each test item and for each objective and goal area.

Chapter 3 compares results across age groups on items administered

to more than one age group within Connecticut.

Chapter 4 compares test results for selected groups of Connecticut

students, groups defined by responses to questionnaires administered as

part of the program.

-4-

Chapter 5 presents a comparison of the test performance-of Conne.aicut

students with that of students in the nation and in the Northeast region

tested by NAEP. These comparisons are available only for thosa test items

deve.oped by NAEP and administered at the same age level by both CALP and

NAEP:

Chapters 6 and 7 present the complete results of the student and

'principal questionnaires, respectively.

Measurement Instruments

The design of the assessment required extensive developmental activi-

ties aimed at the production of (1) diktomized achievement tests comprised

of exercises referenced to important learning objectives in mathematics,

(2) student questionnaires with which to collect information on individual

student and home variables, and (3) principal questionnaires with which

to collect information on school-related variables. These developmental

activities were the primary responsibility of the Mathematics Advisory

Committee (MAC), composed of educators from across the state involved

in many aspect and levels of mathematics education.

Achieve tests. The first activity of MAC was the development

of appropria nstruments with which to measure student achievement in

mathematics. in order to accomplish this task the committee selected

goal areas and identified high-priority objectives for each of the three

target age groups within Connecticut. Tables 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 list the

1

-5-

TABLE 1.1

Mathematics Objectives (Grade 4/9-Year-t0lds)

Goal Area Objective

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS 1. The student demonstrates ,an understanding ofplace value for whole numbers.

2. The'Student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of whole numbers.,

3.. The student demonstrates an understanding of °

fractional'notation.

.COMPUTATION 4. The student demonstrates the ability to awhole numbers.

5. The student demonstrates the ability'tosubtra'kt whole numbers.

6. The Student demonstrates the ability tomultiply whole numbers.

/

-MEASUREMENT 7. The student demonstrates the ability/toconvert U.S. units of currency to larger orsmaller units.

8. The student demonstrates the ability toidentify and compute time from a clock face.

9. The student demonstrates,a working knowledgeof linear units of measure.

PROBLEM SOLVING 10. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving mathematicalskills.

11. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving real worldsituations.

CHARTS AND GRAPHS 12. The student demonstrates the ability tointerpret data from charts and graphs.

1

--6-

TABLE 1.2

Mathematics Objectives (Grade 8/13-Year-Olds)

Goal Area Objective

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS

COMPUTATION

MEASUREMENT

1,,° The student demonstrates an understanding ofrational numbers in the form of fractionsand decimals.

2. The student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of decimals, fractions, and wholenumbers.

3. The student demonstrates the ability to addand subtract whole numbers.

4. The student d( onstrates the ability tomultiply whole numbers.

5. The student demonstrates the ability todivide whole numbers.

6. The student demonstrates the ability to addand subtract decimals.

7. The student demons (;rates the ability to

multiply decimals.8. The student demonstrates the ability to add

and subtract fi',.actions and mixed numbers.

9. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply fractions and mixed numbers.

10. The student demonstrates a working knowledgeof area and perimeter.'

11. The student demonstrates the ability toconvert a U.S. unit of measure to larger orsmaller units.

12. The student demonstrates knowledge of metricunits of measure.


19

-7-

-TABLE 1.2 (continued)

I-

Goal Area Objective

APPLICATIONS

GEOMETRY

leel. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problemS involving mathematicalskills.


16. The student demonstrates knowledge of basicgeometric concepts.

I

TABLE 1.3

Mathematics Objectives (Grade 11/17-Year-Olds)

Goal Area Objective'fi

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS

COMPUTATION

MEASUREMENT

1. The student demonstrates an understanding ofrational numbers in the form of fractionsand decimals.

2. The student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of decimals, fractions, and whole.numbers.

3. The student demonstrates the ability to addand subtract whole numbers.

4. The student demonstrates the ability to'multiply whole numbers.

5. The student demonstrates the ability todivide whole numbers.-

6. The student demonstrates the ability to addand subtract decimals.

7. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply ,and divide decimals.

8. The student demonstrates the ability to addand subtract fractions and mixed numbers.

9. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply and divide, fractions and mixednumbers.

10. The student demonstrates a working knowledge'of area, perimeter, and'volume.

11. The student demonstrates the ability toconvert a U.S. unit of measure to larger orsmaller units.

12. The student demonstrates knowledge of metricunits of measure.


2i

-9-

TABLE 1.3 continued-)

Goal Area Objective

APPLICATIONS

GEOMETRY

14. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve ward Ablems involving mathematicalskills.


16. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve problems involving basic geometricconcepts.

,a9

-10-

goal areas andilibe objectives within each goal area for 9-, and

1] -year -olds, respectively. The committee then selected appropriate test

/ xercises to match each objective.

The following guidelines directed the development of each of thO\Jhree

tests:

The dcmains assessed should focus on basic mathematics concepts,

computational skills, basic concepts of measurement and geometry,

and practical application of these skills in problem-solving

situations.

All objectives at each age level should meet the criterion of

expressing mastery in relation to content that can be assumed to

be within, the educational experience of all children at that level.

In no way should the oblpctives to be tested attempt to represent

aZZ of the Skills and concepts being taught at each level.

The process of selecting test exercises began with a review of NAEP

Aalerials, with careful attention to Connecticut's priorities. Where NAEP

exercises did not suffice, they were supplemented by materials froM the

NES item bank; the Newington (Connecticut) Evaluation Program; the West

Hartford (Connecticut) Individualized Mathematics Program; and by items

developed by the committee under the supervision of NES staff.

MAC met seven times over a period. of several months to define the

three test instruments and the questiOnnaires. After careful review

and examination of the materials, the committee selected theJollowing

number of items at each age level:

At the 9-year-old level 60 items were,selected.

At the 13-year-old level 66 items were selected.

i At the 17-year-old level 64 items )were selected.

A number -of the items on the tests were drawn'from NAEP materials,

some modified minimally or substantially. However, there were 14.itemS

for 9-year-olds, 17 items for 13-year-olds, and 20 items for 17-year-olds

that were identical (unmodified) NAEP itms.

Many of the iteys were administered to more than one age group--that

iS, appeared on, more than one test. Four items were administered to 9- and

13-year-olds only; 38 items to 13- and 17--year-olds only, and six items to

all age groups. Of the tofal 60 items for 9-year-olds, 50 were unique to

that age group; of 66 66 items for 13-year-olds, 18 were unique; and of

the 64 items for 17-year-olds, 20 were unique,

The majority of items were in multiple-choice format, although a num-

ber of open-ended exercises were included n order to retain comparability

with NAEP format. The items were assembled into one test booklet for each

age level. AdministratiOn,time wgs one hour for 9-year-olds and 13 -year-

olds,.. and 50 minutes for 17-year-olds. Copies of the test exercises

appear. in Appendix A of this report.

Appendix A gives. the 'percentage of students selecting each response

for each item on the tests. Appendix B gives the percentage of students

-12-

"responding correctly to each item, referenced bpi region and size of com-

munity (as defined by thekampling plan; see pages 14-20) as well as by

sex of student.

Student and principal questionnaires. FolloWing the development

of the achievement tests, the advisory committee focused on the task of

designing questionnaires which vould be used to collect information on

student, home, and school variables which might be shown to be related

to achievement. The student questionnaires were similar, at-though not

identical, for the three age levels, and were printed at the front of

each test booklet. The principal questionnaire was mailed to principals

of all schools, involved in statewide testing.

1

There were 11 questionnaire items for 9- and 13-year-ol1s, and 13

items for 17-year-olds. Copies of the student questionnaires appear in

,Appendix C of this report. The student q6(tionnaire items dealt with

holt things as the sex of the student, the amount of television watched

by the student, the- degree of parental involvement in and encouragement

of the student's schoolwork, and the student's attitudes toward mathe-

matics and school.a

The principal questionnaires contained 10 identical questions for

the principals of 9- and 13-year-olds, and nine questions for those of

17-year-olds. The questionnaires, administered to principals of all

participating schools, included,questions on the size of the school,

the size. of the mathematics classes, the number of teachers and aides

assigned to mathematics classes, the typo of classroom organization

21)

-13-

'in'the-school,program deVelOpment activities and problems related to

mathematics'education-in the school. Principals' responses to the ques-

tionnaires were matched to the data record of each student in that school

so that the performance of students could be related to factors,in the

school environment. Copies of the principal questionnaires appear in

Appendix D of this report.

Sampling Desi_ga

In order to increase the reliability of the data collected and to

reduce the impact on schools of statewide testing activities, a sampling

approach to assessment was adopted. A two-stage, stratified cluster

design was used to select a separate random sample for each age level.

The sampling plan, which was the same for each of the three age groups,

adhered to the following set of standards:

(1) All public schools enrolling students of the given target age

were included in the student sampling fraMe.

(2) The sampling of schools and students was done on a probability

basis.

(3) The sample of each age level was representative of the entire

target population in terms of the selected stratification

variables (region and size of community).

-14-

(4Y4The size of the sample drawn at each age level was sufficiently

large to allow for precise generalization to.the performance of

all 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds in Connecticut and-to the perfor-,,

-3: mance of selected sub-populations.

Because.CAEP provided a local option, certain constraints ad to be

imposed on the sampling design which affected comparability with national

(NAEP) data. The primary modification was that only those age-eligible

students (as defined by NAEP) enrolled in the target grade for that age

were selected for testing. That is, (1)Ahose in the fourth grade bori

during calendar year 1967 (9-year-olds), (2) those in the eighth grade

born during calendar year 1963 (13-year-olds), and 0) those in the elev-

enth grade born between October 1, 1959 and September 30, 1960, inclusive

(17-year-olds). NAEP samples from all students born in the designated

time periods regardless of current grade, while CAEP sampled only those

age-eligible.students in the target grades. Therefore, the "age" and

"grade" terminologies may both be used appropriately for this assessment

(bearing in mind that no all students of a given age or grade were eli-

gible for testing). The age designation (e.g., 9-year-olds) is used in

connection with statewide testing; the grade designation (e.g., fourth-

graders) is used in connection with the Local Option.

General fr:piework of the sampling plan. Two stratification variables

were selected for the sampling plan: (1) region and (2) size of community.

Categories of the region variable were based on the six Connecticut

27

-15-

Regional Educational Service Centers: ,(1) Regional Educational Services

Concepts (through) Unified Effort (RESCUE), (2) Cooperative Educational

Services, (3) Capital Region Education Council (CREC), (4) Area Cooperative

Educational Services.(ACES), (5) Project Learn, and (6) Northwest Area

Regional Special Educational Services (N.A.R.S.E.S.). Table 1.4 describes

in map form the division of the state into the six regions.

categories of the size of community variable were defined as follows:

(1) "Big Cities"--towns of more than 100,000 population

(2) "Fringe Cities" towns whose borders are contiguous with Big

Cities and whose population exceeds 10,000

(3) "Medium Cities"--towns of more than 25,000 population which

are not Big Cities or Fringe,Cities

(4) "Smaller Places"--all other towns

According to this stratification, schools with similar characteristics

could be grouped together and assigned to one of the 24 stratification

categories which resulted from a crossing of the two variables. From each

grouping (or cell), a proportional number of sItOents could be sampled.

Table 1.5 diagrams the framework of the sampling plan.

Sample size. The size of the sample of students to be tested was

determined on the basis of (1) the level of precision desired in making

generalizations from the performance of the sample to that of the student

population as a whole and to that of the various stratified reporting

groups, and (2) the size of the student population in the state at each

2J

-16-

TABLE 1.4

Map of Connecticut Regional Educational Service Centers

CONNECTICUT REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTERS

2

(1)

(6)

TABLE 1.5

Schematic Diagram of Sampling Strata

ISi ze of Community

Smaller Places Medium Cities Fringe Cities Big Cities

30

-18-

age level and in each stratified reporting'group. Whenever estimates are

to be made about a population based on data collected from a sample, those

estimates are subject to error. Error is the probable differqnce between

the score of the sample and the true score of the population: Sampling

precision refers to the maximum degree of error which will_ be tolerated

in making such generalizations. Toleration of a sampling error of .2

(2 percentage points), for example, would mean the following: if, in a

sample 4f 17-year-olds, an average of 80% of the items are answered cor-

rectly,7the true score of the population probably lies between 78% and

82%..

The 4pve probability statement is malin educational practice at

a 95% confidence level. That is, in 95 out of every 100 samples, if the

sample average score is 80% the true population average is expected to

lie somewhere between 78% and 82%. For 5% of the samples which could be

drawn, the true score will lie outside of this range. level of con-

fidence is generally considered sufficient for the purposes of educational

research.

After consideration of these issues, the sample size for each age

level was set at 2,880 students. This sample size was chosen to provide

sufficient statistical precision for generalizing to the state and the

si

desired reporting group . The proportion of students sampled from each

reporting category was de on the basis of the proportion of students

in the population at the given age level. The formula for determining.

e"*

sample size follows:

A

-19-

No2n-

ND + (32

where: N = number of students in population

A

0 = ±.02 (error)

D =f32

.00014

Sampling weights,ultim'ately computed and 'applied on the basis of

the actual number of students who took the test, ensure that the average

scores for the population and reporting groups are correctly estimated

from the sample scores.

Implementation of the samplinzplan. The implementation o1 the

sampling design involved several steps:

Step 1: A sampling "frame," or list, of all eligible schools was

constructed for each age level. Each school within the

frame was assigned a region status and a community size

status (see Table 1.5).

Step 2: The sampling frame at each age level was divided into

separate frames for each stratified category, or cell,

represented in Table 1.5. Thus, the frame for each age,

level was broken down into 24 separate lists (one for

'each cell).

Step 3: On a random basis, a proportional number of schools was

selected,from each of the 24 lists at each age level. The

outcome of this step was a list of schools selected from

each stratification category within each age level. If a

school was randomly selected only once, only One test ses-

Alion was assigned to it. If the school .was selected more

than 'once, an additional test session was assigned to it

for each additional selection.

Step 4A: (This step represents the second stage of the sampling

procedure7-the selection of students--aS it was'applied

for schools participating'in statewide testing only.)

From rosters of all grade- and age-eligible students

within each selected school, 24 studentS for each test

administration_assiuned'to the school were randomly

selected,

Step. 4B: An alternative method for selecting'students was applied

for schools participating ilfboth the Local Option .and.

statewide testing. In order to avoid; double of

these students;:indiVidual students we sampled

testing by drawing at random test booklets returned by

the districts for ,processing (24 per assigned session).

Only those students who .were age-eligible (as reported

on the student questionnaire) mere eligible for selection.-

33

-21-

(This method was used only where districts census-tested;

where districts used the Local Option for only a sample of

-students, the procedure in Step 4A was used.)

'In the implementation of the school sampling procedure; the number of

students who could be selected from each eligible school was proportional

to the size of the school. Larger schools could be selected more than once

and consequently assigned more than one test administration. A, total of

120 test adminiStrations were assigned across all categories,at each age

level. Each test administration represented the testing of 24 students,

for a total of 2,880 selected students at each age level. This provision

allowed for an attrition of 17%, which was expected on the basis of previ-

ous educational assessments. It was therefore expected that, after attri-

tion, assessment data Would be available from approximately 2,390 students

at each grade level. In fact, attrition was lower than expected at the

9 -'nd 13-year-old levels, and only slightly higher than expected at the

17-year-old level.

Student participation. The number of students actually participating

in testing at each age level and within each reporting category is shown

in Table 1.6. The participation rate was 85% at the 9-year-old level, 95;,',

at the 13-year-Old level, an 82% at the 17-year-old ,level. The major

causes for attrition were student absence on the day of testing, (2)

student withdrawal or transfer from the school, and (3) student failure/

to complete the test due to illness,. etc. The sampling procedure

-22-

TABLE 1.6

Number of Students Tested at Each Age Leveland in Each Reporting Group

Reporting Category*Number of Students

9-Year-Olds 13- ear-Olds 17-Year-Olds

Region 1 31g 323 357.

Region 2 353 306 352

Region 3 562 552 485

Region 4 372 527' 358

Region 5 281 301 329.

_

Region 6 72 67 65 .

*

Big Cities 478 669 416

Fringe Cities 647 697 634

'Medium Cities 638 688 658

Smaller Places 674 691 654

* The number of students participating from each region does not includestudents in "big cities."

35

-23-;4

protected the anonymity of all students, schools, and schoOl districts

participating in the assessment.

Implications for. data analysis. Because it was known, based on

previous Connecticut assessment information, that the scores of students

\I'll "Big Cities" tend to differ from those of students in therest of a

given region, it was decided that all data analyses (e.g., average test

scores) would separate scores of "Big City" students 'from the respective

region results.

Field Contact

Contact with school and district personnel, initiated in May and June

of 1976, was designedlko alert local personnel to the assessment and to-

provide detailed information on both the statewide and local phases of the

. assessment. Related activities included substantial contact with school

'and district personnel, both by mail and by telephone.

After initial contact with local personnel had been made by CSDE, NES

mailed letters to the superintendents of every Connecticut school district I

describing both phases of the assessment, inviting them to participate in

the Local Option, and enclosing sample result reports for the ,focal Option.

NES sent follow-up mailings to those districts which did not respond in

order to ensure that each district had received the information and had

conside,red local participation in Phase 2. Close contact was maintained

throughout the school year with those districts which chose to participate

-24-

in order to provide direction and as.s as needed.

Following is a brief description of subsequent contact by NES staff

at each age level with school and district personnel involved only in the

statewide sample:'

(1) A letter was mailed to superintendents of all school districts,

involved, outlining the schedule of events and listing by name

thoseschools selected in their districts as well as the numter

of test administrations .(consisting of 24 students per session)

needed in each school.

(2) A letter was mailed to principals of all selected schools

describing_the assessment program, outlining.scheduled principal

responsibilities, indicating the number of ipest administrations

assigned, and requesting the submission of a roster of all age-

eligible students.

(3) Telephone calls were, -made to all participating principals to

schedule appointments for testing sessions. The NES staff made

every effort to accommodate the's-cheduling needs of individual

1

schools.

(4) A letter was mailed to all participating principals providing,

the names of selected students for each testing session and

confirming the dates and times of the scheduled testing

appointments.

-25-

(5) A letter enclosing the principal questionnaire and requesting

its completion was mailed to the principals of all schoolsAL4.

containing statewide Sample groups.

(6) A letter expressing thanks for their cooper'ation and participa-

tion was mailed to all superintendents and principals involved'

in the statewide sample.

NES staff made every effort to describe fully the aims and activities

of the program, to describe with Clarity the responsibilities of school

personnel, and to foster cooperation with the program. Throughout the

contact period, 'NES encouraged school personnel to call collect with any

questions or concerns relative to the assessment.

Test Administration

To limit the burdens placed on school personnel, and to standardize

administration procedures for the assessment, 13 persons from Connecticut

with backgrounds in education were hired and trained by NES staff to con-

duct testing in the schools. Two regional test administrators' workshops

were conducted by the NES staff for each age level of testing. At these

workshops, test administrators were thoroughly trained with respect to

(1) the research design of the assessment program, (2) school and student

selection procedures, (3) test administration, (4) administration of the

student questionnaires, (5) classroom procedures (including assembling,

of students, troducing the test, distribution and collection of

-26-

materials, and handling of common and unusual situations), (6) special

responsibilities (including advance telephone calls to principals to verify

appointments; procedures for cancellation, postponement, or rescheduling of

testing sessions; and handling of student rosters), and (7) field editing

procedures.. These procedures were described in detail in a test adminis-

trators' manual.

Tests were administered in October and November 1976 for 13-year-olds,

in February 1977 for 9-year-olds, and in April 1977 for 17-year-olds. The

test administration procedures were similar to those used by NAEP but did

not include paced audionpes accompanying the tests. Testing sessions

began with a brief explanation of the purpose of the test, followed by

the administration of the student. questionnaires read aloud to students.

When all students had completed the questionnaires, the directions for

answering exercises were read aloiid, and the students then proceeded to

answer the test luestions independently.

Following the testing session, test administrators performed a pre-

liminary edit of testing materials and coded each response booklet with

adistrict, school, and student identification number. At the close of

each testing period, all materials were returned to NES for final editing,

coding, and data processing.

Coding, Scoring, and Data Processing_

All test booklets were subjected to all in-house edit at NES, including

) a check on the coding of student, school, and district identification

3E-)

-27-

information; (2) a cheer the completeness of the student questionnaire

. responses; and (3) an edit for stray marks and double responses to the

multiple-choice questions.

Following the coding activities, NES staff hand-scored all responses

to'the open-ended exercises according to scoring guidelines provided by

the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP scoring categories

foreach open-ended item 'appear in Appendix A of this report immediately

following the text of the respective item. The responses ,.for each student

were th6n keypunched and verified at the NES offices, and the cards were

listed on a data tape for each age level.

The data tape for each age level contained one record for each student

completing the test package. This record included: (1) information given

by the student on the student questionnaire; (2) the student's responses,to

each of the exercises; (3) a numerical identification code which permitted

the rematching of each student record to its original testdocunlit Should

that prove necessary; and (4) the responses on.lthelliatching school princi--.

pal questionnaire and stratification information 'for the student's school,

each matched to appropriate student records. -Prior tvdata processing,

the data tape was scanned for invalid entries and updated where ne.cessarY,

All response data on the data tape were entered-in raw Sco0e:form and were

converted to the percentage form as needed. Data reductioni,needswere

determined and files were transformed where appropriate, including proper

weighting of scores to provide estimates of the population from sample

data. All student data (test scores and questionnaire data) were

-28-

weighted; only principal questionnaire data remained unweihte

sampling was based on generalizing to students, not schools.

Data Analysis Plan

Th0 basic elements of the analysis plan were decided upon jointly by

NES, and tSDE. Th major purpose of the data analysis plan was to help to

ensure that the askessment results and reports provided information which4

could be interpreted and utilized by C6nnecticut educators in determiningtr

critical needs and improving the educational system% The outcome of the

analysis plan was a comprehensive description of the mathematics test

performtace of Connecticut 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds. In addition, the

analysis plan called for an in -depth report on the results of the student

and principal questionnaire in terms of both the actual distribution of

responses and the relationship of responses to student .achievement.

The basic data generated for'result reporting are given in percent-

ages. These percentage scores include: (1) the average percentage

items answered correctly within each of the goal areas; (2) the average

percent of the items answered correctly within each of the objectives

matched to those goal areas; (3) the percentage of students scoringCor-

rectly on each of the exercises included on the tests; (4) the percentage

of individuals selecting each choice on each item of the student and the

school principal questionnaires; and (5) the percentage of Students in

the nation and in the Northeast region tested by NAU answeri ng

the NAEP items correctly, provided for comparison purposes.

41.

-29-

All ( the Connecticut results, provided in the form described above,

are provided in this report for each age level and for each reporting group

selected by CSDE and the Advisory Committee. Where comparisons of perfor-

mance are provided (for example, between a given reporting group and the

statewide average), statistical tests were carried out to determine the

significance of the difference.

Data Interpretation

Some of the data analyses conducted for this study involved tests

of statistical significance on. differences between scores of two separate

groups of students. For example, Chapter 4, which compares the achievement

of groups of students within Connecticut, and Chapter 5, which compares the

achevement,of, Connecticut students with that of students across the nation.,

. bot:71 inclgdeYiTiformation on whether or not the difference in scores between

respective groups was statistically significant. The reader must'bear in

mind that assertions of statistical significance are statements based on

probability assumptions.

The percent correct reported for the state as a whole and for the

individual reporting groups are estimates based on probability samples,

and, as such, have standard errors associated with them.. The reported

differences in performance between a given group'and the state average

(effects) are also estimates and have associated standard errors. The

standard error of an effect depends on the size of the two samples, the

percent of each group answering the item correctly, and other

-30-

stratification and clustering effects. Therefore, the magnitudes of the

standard errors vary considerably from comparison to comparison. An effect

that is twice, the size.of its associated standard error is considered to

be significant at the .05 level.

The differences presented in this report are those which were statis-

tically.significant at the '.05 level of confidence. In other words, a

differenceof the given magnitude could be expected to occur in repeated

samplings only five times in 100 if, in fact, there were no differences

between groups. While these results very likely reflect the actual per-

formance differences between groups, they should not be used to infer the

causes of these differences. For example, it may be shown that students

who talk more frequently about schopl with their parents perform above

the state average, but this does not imply that this activity cause()

higher performance.

It should be noted that'some rather large effects are occasionally

not statistically significant, while some rather small effects are in

some instances significant. This is due to the fact that statistical

significance is determined by the ratio of the effect to its standard

error. For this reason, the reader should exercise caution in inter-

preting statistically significant differences. Statistical significance)

should not be equated with practical importance or educational meaning-

fulness.. Just as acceptable levels of performance must be judged on the

.

basis of educational expectations, the magnitude of differences observed

between groups should-similarly be judged not only on the basis of

it)

-31-

statistical significance but also on the basis of educational meaning-

fulness.

The reader should also be careful not to infer causality from the

differences observed between the performance of Connecticut students and

those in the nation and the Northeast region. The fact that Connecticut

students surpaSsed the nation's or the Northeast region's students, or

failed to perform as well, does not necessarily mean that Connecticut

schools are causing the-difference in performance. Community character-

istics, family background, and personal characteristics of Connecticut'

students should be considered as bearing a relationship to performance

results.

The variables used in reporting the results were selected by CSDE

on the basis,of their conceptual importance. That is, it was considered

that these variables, should they prove to bear a lat-onship to student

achievement in the area of mathematics, would contribute important infor-

mation to state and local-level decision-makers in setting policy for

the educational delivery system.

The Local Option

The Local Option phase of the assessment allOwed participating

districts to examine in detail the achievement of their own students in

a single class or throughout the district by contracting directly with

NES. Results permitted participating districts to (1) examine students,

classes, schools, and the district as a whole; and (2) compare local

-32--

,achievement results with those in Connecticut the nation, and the

Northeast region. Materials, as well as regional workshops in test

administration and interpretation, were provided by CSDE through NES.

Distri,cts absorbed the costs of data processing only, on a per cap

basis.

The Local Option testing was _onducted in the same time period

as the statewide sample testing. Overlap of schedules facilitated the

organization and execution of testing for both phases and eliminated

many activities for those statewide sampled schools that elected to

participate in the Local Option (see Step 4B, page 20).

The following services were provided by NES to those districts

participating in the Local Option:

O training of test coordinators or administrators in test admin-

istration procedures at one of two regional workshops

delivery and pick-up of test booklets

editing and scoring of tests and data anal sis

O complete result reports as described below

O assistance with interpretation of results at one of two regional

workshops held after results had been returned to the districts

Two copies of each result report produced by NES were.provided.

The reports are listed below.

45

-33-

For each class:

(1) a Student Objective Achievement Report

(2) a Class Item Analysis Report

(3) a Class Objective Summary Report

(4) a Class Questionnaire Report-

For each school:

(1) a School Item Analysis Report

(2) a School Objective Summary Report

(3). a School Questionnaire Report,

For the district:

(1) a District Item Analysis Report

(2) a District Objective Summary Report

(3) a District Questionnaire Report

7

Fifty-three Connecticut school districts participated in the Local

Option at one or more grade levels. Overall, 8,851 fourth-grade students,

.411*10,385 eighth-grade students, and 7,057 eleventh-grade students were

tested. Each district received the reports listed above,. and all were

invited to attend one of two r6ional workshops on test interpretation.

These workshops proved to be valuable,;not only for interpretative issues

but also as forums for discuSsion of usage of the results, presentations

to local boards of education, and suggestions for improving t4 result

reports. As one result, NES has added a fifth report to CAEP 1977-78's

Local Option reporting, displaying the response each student gave to

An

-34--

each ciyOtion on the test. This report increasesitA diagnostic value

of the testing.

NES made every effort to ensure that the special needs of individual

school districts were net wherever possible. Schools participating in

the Local Option may 'compare their own results With thd results for the

state and the respective groups as given in this report.

-35--

C H,A P T E R 2

ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS FOR ALL

CONNECTICUT 9-, 13-, AND 17-YEAR-OLDS

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the test performance of

Connecticut 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds. The performance' of each age group

is described (1) for the goal areas of mathematics within each grade-level

test, (2) for each of the objectives matched to the goal areas for each

test, and (3) on each of the items matched to the objectives.

Data Analysis

The achievement results for each grade level will be desCribed sepa-

rately. Achievement results are described first for the goal areas and

then by,the objectives and their related test items. Performance within

each goal area is given in terms of the average percentage of the matching

test items that the students answered correctly. If, for example, students

at a given age level show an average of 72% for a particular goal area,

this means that on the average the students correctly answered 72% of the

items assessing that goal area.

The data analysis for each objective parallels that for individual

goal areas. The items for each objective are grouped together, and the

average percentage of items answered correctly is presented.

In addition to results by goal area and objective, the percentage.

of students who answered correctly each item on the test is presented.

Copies of the items appear in Appendix A of this report 'along with the

percentage of students at each age level selecting each response choice.

All of the above results are described in narrative form in the text

of this chapter. It is important to note that these results are by age

level of students in the target grade for that particular age level.

Thus the sampling included 9-year old students in the fourth grade only,

13-year-old students in the eighth grade only, and 17-year-old students

in the eleventh grade only.

All open-ended items were National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) items and Were scored according to NAEP guidelines. The scoring

criteria for open-ended items appear in Appendix A along with the text of

the item and the data on the distributiOn of responSes. The NAEP scoring

guidelines for student responses include one "a*eptable category and a

number of "unacceptable" categories, each with several response possibil-

ities. Appendix A presents the percentage of students who scored in each

of these categorieS. Students who did not respond or whose responses were

incomprehensible are not reported. For purposes of the present chapter,

percentage-correct averages for goals and objectives containing open-ended

items are computed-using the percentage of students scored "acceptable"

on these items.

49

-.37-

Summary_Tables for 9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Olds

Tables 2.1, 2\2, and 2.3 show, for each gUil area, the'average percen-

tage of matching items answered correctly by all 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds,

respectively, and by males and females within each age group. Performance

of males and females which is significantly different (at the .05 levelI

of confidence) from the state average for all students is indicated by.

an asterisk to the right of the percentage value.

Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 show similar data for each objective. Again,

statistically significant differences are indicated by asterisks tax-the

right of the percentage values.

Interpretative Issues

When interpreting results from the tables, the reader should bear in

mind that the scores of the 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds for a given goal area

or objective which they may share in common do not always reflect perfor-

mance on-the same set of items. Students in all three age groups received

-some items in common. However, while all three age groups were assessed

on some of the same goal areas and objectives, each age group may have

ived different numbers of items or some entirely different items for

a given goal area or objestive. Somr goal areas and objectives were not

shared by all three age groups. The reader is referred to Chapter 3,

"Comparing Age Groups, Within Connecticut," for a description comparing

achievement results across age groups.

5 I)

-38-

TABLE 2.1

Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Goal Area by All -Year-Olds

and by Males and Females

Goal Area

t\ 9-Year-Olds

Al 1 Males Females

1. Mathematical Concepts 74.4 74.8 74.1

2. Computation 78.6 76.7* 80.4*

3. Measurement 81.7 83.5* 80.1*

4. Applications/Problems 54.6 56.0* 53.3*

5. ,Charts and Graphs 78.4 79.8* 77.1*

TOTAL TEST 74.3 74.8 74.0

* RepreSents significant difference from score of all students in theage group. 9

Nt,

--,

TABLE 2.2

Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Goal Area by All 13-Year-Olds


Goal Area

13-Year-Olds,

All Males Females.\

1. Mathematical Concepts 61.2 64.6* 58.4*

2. Computation 80.1 79.9 80.2.

3. Measurement 72.2 77.2* 68.0*.)

4. Charts and Graphs 89.1 89.4 88.9

5. Applications/Problems 66.9 70.4* 64.0*

6. Geometry .78.9 81.4* 76.7*

TOTAL TEST p 74.8 76.7* 73.1*

* Represents significant difference from score of all students in theage group.

10^

L :2

-40-

TABLE 2.3

Ayerage'Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Goal Area'hy All 17-Year-Olds


Goal Area

17- Year. -Olds

All Males Females

1. Mathematical Concepts 68.4 74.4t. 63.8*

2: Computation 82.4 82.7 82.2

3. Measurement 80.4 85.9* 76.2*

4. Charts and Graphs 93.2 93.8* 92.8*

5. Applications/Problems 66.7 71.7* , 63.0*

6. Geometry . 48:7 55.4* 43.7*

TOTAL TEST 76.9 79.9* 74.6*

*,Repretnts,s'ignificant difference from score of all student in the

Ile group.4

5 "

-41-

TABLE 2.4

Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Objective by All 9-Year-Olds


Goal/Objective ,

9-Year-Olds

All Males Females.

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS:

1. The student demonstrates awonderstand-ing of place value for whole numbers.

2. The student demonstrates an under-standing of ordering of whole numbers.

3. The student demonstrates an under-standing of fractional notation.

COMPUTATION:

4. The student demonstrates the ability toadd whole numbers.

5. The student, demonstrates the ability tosubtract whole numbers.

6. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply whole numbers.

79.3 80,3 78.3

77.7 79.1* 76.5*

66,4 65.1 67.5

81.5 80.0* 82.8*

73.5 71.5* 75.3*

81.0 78.6* 83.0*

* Represents significant difference from score of all students in the agegroup.

t

-42-

TABLE 2.4 (continued)

Goal/Objective

9-Year-Olds

All Males Females

MEASUREMENT:

7. The student demonstrates the ability toconvert U.S. 'units of currency to 83.4 85.2* 81.7*larger or smaller units.

8. The student deMonstrates the ability toidentify and compute time from a clock 74.8 77.2* .72.7*face.

9. The student demonstrates a working.

knowledge of linear units of Measure.

APPLICATIONS/PROBLEMS:

10. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involvingmathematical skills.

11. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving realworld situations.

CHARTS AND GRAPHS:0

12. The student demonstrates the ability tointerpret data from charts and graphs.

87.0 88.2* 85.9*

54.4 55.0 54.0

54.7 57.1* 52.6*

78.4 79.8* 77.1*

55

"43-

TABLE 2.5



Goal/Objective13-Year-Olds

All Males Females'


1. The student demonstrates an'Understanding of rational numbers inthe form of fractions and decimals

qts

4 ,

2. The studentidemonstrates anunderstanding of ordering of decimals,fractions, and whole numbers.

COMPUTATION:

3. The student demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract whole numbers.

The student demonstrates the 'ability.toMultiply whole numbers,

5. The student demonstrates the abilil y todivide whole numbers.

6. The student demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract decimals.

7. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply decimals.

8. The student demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract fractions and mixednumbers.

9. The student demonstrates the ability to.

multiply fractions and mied numbers.

61.5 63.1* 60.1*

60.5 65.5* 56.2*

92.8 92.6 93.1

89.9 88.7* 9f.0*

84.8 84.3 85.2

81.0 81.6 80.5

75.3 ' 74.6 76.0

62.7 62.8 62.6

74.1 75.2* 73.3k

* Represents significant difference from score or all students in the age,group

S ft,

-44-


Goal /Objective13-Year-Olds

MEASUREMENT:

10. The student demonstrates a workingknowledge of area and perimeter.

11. The student demonstrates the ability toconvert a U.S unit of measure tolarger or smaller units.

12;. The student dethonstra-tes knowledge ofmetric units of measure.

CHARTS AND GRAPHS:

. 13. lhe student demonstrates the ability tointerpret-data from charts and graphs.

.APPIANIONS/PROBLEMS

14. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving'mathematical skills.

15. The studerrt demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving-. realworld situations.

GEOMETRY:

ma 16: The student' demonstrates knowledge of. basic geometric concepts.

All Males Females

65.7 68.9* 62:9*

77.0 82.5* 72.4*

73.9 80.2* 68.6*

89.1 89.4 88.9

62.6 65.5* 60.2*

71.2 75.2* C7.9*

78.9 81,4* 76.7*

-45-

TABLE 2.6



Goal/Objective17- Year -Olds

All Males Females.


1. The student demonstrates an. understanding of rational numbers in

the form of fractions and decimals.

2. The student demonstrates pnunderstanding of orderipg of decimals,fractions, and whole numbers.

COMPUTATION:

3. The student demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract whole numbers.

4. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply whole numbers.

5. The student demonstrates the ability todivide whole numbers.

6., The student demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract decimals.

7. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply and divide decimals.

8. The 5tudent demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract fractions and mixednumbers.

9. The student demonstrates the ability to_multiply and divide fractions and mixednumbers.

68.5 71.3* 66.4*

67.8 77.2* 60.8*

94.9 94.5 95.2

91.6 90.7* 92.3*

87.6 \s8.1 87.3

88.9 88.5 89°2

72.3 72.0 72.5

69.4 72.2* 67.3*

72.3 73.2 71.6

* Represents significant difference from score of all .stu,dents in the agegroup.

-46-


Goal/Objective17-Year-Olds

All Males FeMale's

IMEASUREMENT:

10. The student demonstrates a workingknowledge of area,, perimeter, andvolume.

11. The student demonstrates the ability toconvert a U.S. unit of measure tolarger or smaller units.

12. The student demonstrates knowledge ofmetric units of measure.

CHARTS AND GRAPHS: I

13. The student demonstrates the ability tointerpret data from charts and graphs.

APPLICATIONS/PROBLEMS:

14. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving-,mathematical skills.

15. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving realworld situations.

GEOMETRY:

'16. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve problems involving basicgeometric concepts.

73.0 79:0* 68.4*

85.9 89.9* 32.8*

82',2 88.8* 77.1*

93.2 93.8* 92.8

70.9 76.3* 66.8*

62.1 66.8* 58./6*

48.7 55.4* 43.7*

4

-47-

When interpreting differences in scores betweemmales and females,

statistical significance should not necessarily be the deciding factor.

Since,;given a large sample size, very smafl differences moy prove to be

statistically significant, the actual magnitude of the differences between

percentages should be considered for purposes of determining educational

meaningfulness.II

Finally, the reader should *ec't caution in making inferences

about'goal-level and Objective-level achievement. The objectives selected

for each goal area are not necessarily representative of all the ,objectives

that could have been selected. The same is true, for the items selected for

each objective. Therefore, inferences should be made conditional upon the

content of the four or five items used to measure each objective. Items

selected represent the collective opinion of the Connecticut Mathematics

Advisory Committee about the appropriateness of the items in terms of their

mh to their respective objectives and about the usefulness of the 'items

aS measures of valuable mathematics skills in their own right.

Achievement Results for 9-Yfar-Olds

Results for each of the three age levels will be described for goal

area, objective within goal area, and item. The test for the 9-year-olds

consisted of 60. test items, measuring six goal areat and a total of 16

objeCtives. Each objective was measured by five test items. Seven of

the 60 test items were openended; the rest were multiple-choice in

Go

formatb. Each of the tables in this section' Presents the results for the

items and objectives by goal area.

I. Mathematical Concepts. There were three objectives for this goal

area, containing a total of 15.test ite:Ms. On the average, 9-year-olds

correctly answered 74,4% of all items VI the goal area. Table 2,7 di Cpla

the results for the three objlftiveS and 15 test,items in the goal area.

II. Computation. There'Were.three objectives and 15 test items for

this goal area. On the average, 9- year -olds correctly answered 78.6% of

all items in the goal area. Table 2.8 contains the results for the three

objectives-and 15 test items.

III. Measurement. There were three objectives and 15 test items

fo this goal, area. On the average; 9-year-olds correctly an veered 81%

of 411 items in the goal area. Table 2.9 contains the re'sults for the

three objectives and 15 items.

IV. Applications /Problems. There were two objectives and 10 test

,items for this goal area. On the average, 9-year-olds correctly answered

54.6 of all itenis in the goal area. Table 2.10 contains' the results for

the- two objectives and 10 items.

Item 12 for Objective 11, which required students to determine how

much fencing was necessary for a garden 9 feet by 5 feet, was answered

correctly by only 8.3 of the 9- year -olds. Forty-three percent added

9 and 5, and 3.1.8 multiplied 9 by 5.

-49-

TABLE 2.7

Avero'ge Percentage. Correct by Objective and Test lt.em forthe Goa Area of MatheMatitaT.COnCepts for 9-Year--Olds

Item.

Positionon Test

Description of ItemAveragePercentageCorrect

Objective 1: The student demonstrates an understanding ofplace value for whole numbers. 79.3

8. ' Identify digit jn tens place 79.114, ' Place values in 762 80.925. Sum of hundreds, tees, ones 78.4'43. Place value ofia in 7000 77.755. Value of 4 in 3654 . 80.1

Objective 2: The student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of whole numbers 77.7

-17.

4. Which Is greatest (4-digit numbers ending in 00) 87.410. Which is greatest (5-digit numbers) 64.715. Which number is least (whole numbers) 83.242. Next number after 98, 99, 100, 94.:.6

58. Number 10 more than 4375 58.8

Objectiye, 3: The student demonstrates an understanding offractional notation.

2. Fractional part of rectangle shaded (1/4) 60.727. Fractional part of circle shaded' (96) 63.236. Fraction of dots lbred in (2/7) 73.441. `Fractional part of circle shaded (2 /s) 71.752. Tractiorial part of rectangle shaded (''/8) 62.9

66.4

-.0

-50-

TABLE 2.8

Average Percentage Correctipy.gbjective and Test Itemfor the-Goal Area of CIDOOtapon fOr 9-Year-;Olds

-/

ItemPositionon Test

Dekription,,of ItemAverage

PercentaCorrect

:Objective 4: The student demonstrates the ability-toadd whole numbers.

20.*22.*

D..

380-:19

$3.06 10.00 + 9.1432. 826 +.786 =53. 634 -1-41 +.5122 =

59. 725 + 203 =

5.10 =

81.5

88.848.486.6 -

90.992.8

Objective 5: The student demonstrates-the ability to 73.5subtract whole numbers.

13.* 1054 - 865 =

21.* 36 - 19 =29. 659 - 20745. 476 - 38 =56. 861 - 583 =

IlkObjective 6: The stud, 6nstratesmultiply , numbers.

the

_ .

3. 4613 x 5 =

11. 402 x 7 =

31. 36 X 3 =34.

.

312 x 4 =

40. AO!':4' 63 x 3 =

* Open-ended item

ability to

50.977.388.476.174.7

81.0

78.367.580.889.289.0

-51-

TABLE 2.9

Average,Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Measurement for 9-Year-Olds

Item

Positionon Test

Description of -ItemAverage

PercentageCorrect

Objective The student demonstrates the 'bility to convertU,S, units 9f currency to 1 ger or smaller units.

5. A quarter equals how many nickels16. A nickel equals how any pennies44. A half-dallar'eqUals how many dimes49. Twenty pennies equalshow,many nickels6O dollar equals how many quarters

83.4

91.9

4064.4 1

78.986.6

Objective 8: The student demonstrates the ability to identify - 74.8and compute time from clock face.

'6. Time shown on clock (7.:55) 68.524. Time shown on clock (10 to 4) 75.647. y. Time shown on clock (6:25) 83.051. Time it was two hours ago , 67.757. Time it will be in one-half hour 89.4

Objective :, The Student demonstrates a working knowledge of 87.0linear units.. of measure.

7. Estimate height of girl in fourth grade 68.426. Best unit to measure between two cities 94.730. Best unit to measure toothbrush 86.933. Length of pencil to nearest inch 92.648. Length of nail to nearest centimeter 92.4

ItemPoSi n

on est

TALE 2.10

4"Xrierag Percentage Correct, by Objective and Test Itemfor the G al Area of Applications/Problems for 9-Year-Olds

Description of Item9

AveragePercentAge

Obje tive la; The student demonstrates the ability td solveWord problems involving mathematical-skills,

1. At rate of 5 minutes per window, how Could.onefigure how many minutes. to wash 10 windowsRocket aimed at target 525 miles south,- landed 39.4624 miles south. Missed target by how manymiles ' .

.

.

23.* At 2 biscuits per day:, bOW long-until dog..'eatS',24 biscuits .

.

46. Amount of change fromp$5 for a $1.40 purchase. : 9.154. Total of 8 apples, 17 .'apples, and 37'apples 81.7

19.)

61.1

50.7

Objective 11: The student demonstrates' the ability to soliword problems involving-real world situations.

9. At $2 per shirt, how much would 7. shirts cost12.*' Feet Of fencing to enclose garden 9 feet long,

ti 5 feet wide28. Figure which has the same area as figure shown

(all rectangles)From 4:25 to 5:00 P.M. is how many minutesTwo nickels, 1 quarter, and 4. pennies equalshow much money

35.

50.

*:.Open-ended item

54.7

85.28.3

53.9

45.081.4

65

(

-53-

V. Charts and Graphs. There was one objective and'five test items

for this goal area. On the average, 9-year-olds correctly answered 78.4%

of all items in the goal area. Table2.11 contains the results for the

objectiVe and items:

TABLE 2.11

Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Charts and "Graphs fpc 9-Year-,Olds

Item vAverage

Position TesCripticin of Item Percentage,on Test Correct:

Objecti 12: The student demonstrates the ability to 78.4interpret data from charts and igraphs.

11. Pictographon which day did most people use 94.8the library (symbol=20 people)

18. Pictographhow many people usedlibrary on 37_6specific day (symbol-20 people)

37. Bar graph--who weighs most . . J 95.538.. Bar graphwho weighs closest to .50 'pounds 69.639, Bar graph who weighs least 94.4

Achievement Results for 13-Year-Olds

The test for the 13-year-olds consisted of 66 test items which meas-

ured seven goal areas with 16 objectives. Fourteen objectives were meas-

ured by four test items each, and two objectives were measured by five

items each. Seventeen of the 66 items were open-ended, and the rest

- 5*4 -

Wet4e multillie-choice items. The results of :the tests are presented. by

goal area, with the results by objectives and items presented in taIlles

by goal area.

1.

7'74d7

:MathOtlatital Concepts. There were two objectives for this goal

ayea, having a total of eight test items. On the average, 11Fyear-olds

e

)1

Correctly answered 61.2% of all items in the goal area. Table 2.12

contains the results for the two objectives and eight items of the goal

area.

II. Computation. There were seven objectives for this goal area,

having a total of 28 test items. On the average, 13-year-olds correctly

,

answered 80.1% of all items in the goal area. T ble 2.13 contains the

results for the'seven objectives and 28 items of the goal area.

III. , Meassurement. There were three objectives and 12 test. items for

thlt*al:area. On the average, 13-year-olds correctly answered 72.2% of

all itemOnfkthegoal *-ea. Table 2.14 contains the results for the three

objectives and 12 items of the goal area':

IV. ChartS_and Graphs .b There was one tfj test items

to--MeaSoure trriS goal area. On the average, 13-year-oids'correctly answered

89.1 Of all items in the goal area. Table 2.15 contains- the results for

the one objective.and four items of the goal irea.

V. Applications/Problems. There were two objectives and 10 test

items for this goal' area. On- the aveage, 13-year-olds correctly answered

-557

Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe GoalN\rea of Mathematical Concepts for 13-Year-Olds

%41

ItemPositionon fiest

Objective

15N._

Description of Item

.

1: The student demonstrates .anan ofrational numbers, in the form of fractions anddecimals.

5. 13:boys and 15 girls in a group; what frattio'halpart is boys

6. .009 is equivalent to what fraction18. Fractional part of circle shaded A25.* 1/5 is equivalent to what'pkreeht

Objective 2:

7.

14.

66.

The student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of decimals, fractions, and wholenumbers..

Which number is least (wholeAumbersFraction that is greatestNumber that is greatest (decimals)Ordering frattions

AveragePercentageCorrect

61.5

32,4

54::5

60.5

97.930.085.531.8

* Open-ended item

-56-

TABLE 2.13

Averafje Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item'for the Goal Area of Computation for 13-Year-Olds

Item

Positionon Test (-\,

Des cri pti on oi)- Item'

AveragePercentageCorrect.

Objective 3: The-student demonstrate's the ability to add and 92.8 .

subtract whole numbers.

3.* :38 + 19 = 95.68. 826 + 786 = 96.89.* '36 - 19 = 83.1

12.* 1054.- 865 = 86.8

.*.

Objective 4: The student demonstrates the ability to multiply 89.9whole numbers.

1.* 38 x 9 =16. 46 x 5020. 74 x 3832. 609 x 73 -

Objective 5: The student demonstrates thewhole numbers. .

714- 7 =

$8.96 : 4 =125 : 5 =

339 22 =

. ,

we/6: The student dem'onstrates the :ability to add andsubtract decimals.

86.794.788.991.3

divide 84.8

Open-ended item;

0.6 + 8 + .24 -$3.06 + 10.00 + 9.14 5.10 =If 23.8 is subtracted from' 62.1-$10.00 - 1.93 =

.:1

73.6

90.993.583.5

81.0

82.788.1

72.385.1'

Item'Positionon Test.

Objective 7:

29..

36.

42.

43.

Objective. 8:

22.

35.

59.

Objective 9:

34.

38.

47.

56.

4

-57-


Description of ItemAverage

PercOntageCorrect

The student demonstrates the ability to multiplyJletimals.

4.2 x 0.3 =425 x 0.33 -

nl

75.1 .

70.386.0

. 498 x 4 = 92.2$1.29 x 0.06 = 56.9

The student.:clemonstrates the ability to add andsubtract fractions and mixed numbers.

1/2+ 1/3

62.7

59.6

41/2 21/,

5/6

80.4

53.4

27'41 + 37/, = 63.8

The student demonstrates the to multiplyfractions and mixed numbers.

1/2 )1P.1/{

74.1

79.5

2/3 x 78.8

41/. x 3 68.3

3/R x 2 73.0

.\,

-58-

TABLE 2.14

Average Percent4ge-Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the toal'Area of Measurement for 13-Year-Olds

I

..,4-,.

Position ,,X2,- .:,..,,4,- Description Of Iton Test _-,if'

,..

Average,PerceAageCorrect

,... ---4. _I'

'',-:; ..- .r ...,.- , .

Objectivel0e. T4e student demonstrates a porking knowledge of',1,.-i-,A7,. . -.7 area.4nd perimeter.' ,

..--,.-,..v,

-:--'.3 ..k. Feet of fencing. to enclose gayden 9 feet longand 5 feet-wide

33. Area of rectangle shown (6 inches by 2 inches)55. Perimeter of triangle shown (17 cm by 24' cm by

32 cm)

57. figure which has same area as figure shown (allrectanglds).

Objec-Cive 11: The student demonstrates the ability to converta U.S. unit of meas'ure to larger or smaller Uni_tS.

2. ,.. 30 inches = feet : inches40. -. 2 'hours 20 mfnutes = minutes49.* : , P.,-, POOH' -

.

ounces62. 8 quar-t gallons

Objective 12: The student demonstrates knowledge of metricunits of measure. . - --: . ,

.

,ii-

., ,.,

31. MeAric unit used te, mea:sqre d-istance betjeen twocities

37. Met Unit used to measure,page of test44. Small. t metric unit of reasurement58. Gram, s. used th. weasure,(weight)

65.7

44.8

55.781.7

84.1

77.0_

86.392.557.576.2

73.9

72.9

70.968.185.0 '''

* Open-ended item

-5y-

TARLE 2.15

Average Fercentage (,,,ect by djective and Test Itemfor 'the Goal Area of Charts and Graphs for 137Year-Olds

Item

Positionon Test

^ Description of Item

,

Ayeragq,4.'Oercentage

Correct

Objective 13:. The student demonstrates the ability tointerpret,dat:t from charts and graphs.-

89.1

41. ReadAg a circle graph 87.446. Reading a table of sock sizes 88.1.5q. Reading a -2h-ct: with sygibol for kind of unit. 9'2.5,65.* Reading a bus graph 91..6

* Open-ended item

t4-.., t

-60-

66.91/, ofJill items in the goal area. Table 2.15 contains the-results for

the t44 objectives and 10 items of the goal area.

TABLE 2.16

Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Alec of Application/Problem for 13-Year:0lds

Item

Position Test

Description of Item

Objective It: The student demonstrates the ability to solveword problems involving mathematical skills.

10.* Several people received votes; what* percentageof total vote did one of the people receive.

26.* Person left for work at 7:45 A.M. , returned home 79.

10 hours later at that time42.* Mary took four tests and received four different

numbers of items correct; how many items wereincorrect

51.* Three people earned money; what was-avera(geamount earned

52.* Rocket aime.d at target missed target by Ogr , 81.3many miles

Averag:PercentageCorrect

76.4

55.7

Objective 15: The student demonstrates the ability to solve 71.42

word problems involving real world situations.

11. * At' 10-1 and 15-1 discounts, what is the difference 60.9in prices for TV set regularly priced at 5100

22. Distance on map is 3 inches; at scale of 1 inch 95.1= 45 miles, what is actual distance between cities

30. Sales tax of 3 cents on a dollar, what is tax on 94.5a $10 purchuar

54. At aVeraw speed of 50 f'il'l!, how many hours to 50.6trave'r275 miles

64. Sales'bx of 5..1, what is tax on $200 TV set: 59.5

* Open-endeci item

-61-

VI. Geometry.- There was one objective and four test4vi terns for this

goal area. On the avera'ge, 13-year-olds .torrectly answered 78.K of all

items in the goal area. Table. 2.17 contains the results for -the one

objective and four items of the goal area.

2.17

Average Percentage Correctj2 Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of A !tr± for 13-Year-Olds

Item

Positionon Test


PercentageCorrect ,

Objective 16: The student demonstrates knowledge of basicgeometric concepts.

78.9

'4. Picture of pa ral 1 el lines 04.213. Lihe se4r.krlt in a circle which is The diameter -73.539. Kind of angle found .in a square 70.545,- Shape most like an orange (sphere) 82.5

Achievement Results for 17-Year-Olds

The test forthe 17-year-olds consisted of 64 test items which meas-

urea six goal areas wlkh 16 objectives: All objectives were measured.4

^.

fol;

;,:iSms °oath Nineteen of the 64 i tems were open-ended; the rest were,,,

mu4i pl ethol ce i te The 'results of the tests 'are presented by goal

area ,,wi* resul ts bY4bjeeti ves and i tems presented in tables by goal

area .(see Tables 2.18 thrOUgli'.2.23)._,

7 1;

k.i -62-

I. Mothematical Concepts. There were tw, objectiv for this goal

area, havinga.tOtal of eight test items. On the 1 je, 17-year-olds

correctly answered 68,X.of all test items-in the goal area.- Table 2.18

contains the results'TOr the two objectives and eight items of the goal

area.

II. Computation. There were seven objectives for this goal area,

having a total of 28 test items. On he- average, 17-year-olds correctly

answered 82.4 of all items in the goal area. Table 2.19 contains the

results for the seven objectives and 28 items of the goal area.

III. Measurement. There were three objectives for this goal area,

having a total of 12 test items. On the average, 17vear-olds correctly

answered 80.4M. of all item-, in the goal area. Table 2.20 contains the

results for the three objectives and 12 items of the goal area.

IV. Charts and Graphs. There was one objective for this pal area,

having a total of four test items. On the average, 17-year-olds correctly

answered 93.2'f of all items in the goal area. Tabft,2.21 contains the

rtsults for the objective and four test items of the goal area.

V. Applications/Problells. There were two objectiveS and eight test

itevs for this goal area. On tiw average, 17-year-olds correctly answered

66.7. of all items in the goal area, Table 2.2? contains the results for

the two objectives and-CiAt items of the goal area.

Item

Positionon Test

TABLE 2.18

Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Area of Mathematical Concepts for 17-Year-0lds

Description of Item

Objqotive 1: The student demonstrates an understanding ofrational numbers in the form of fractions.anddecimals.

Averag,ePercentagecorrect

68.5

7.* 1/5 is equivalent of what percent 63.09. Fraction describing shaded portion of figure 86.0

35; .009 is equivalent to what fraction 73.562. 13 boys and 15 girls in a group; what fractional 51.5

part is boys

Objective 2: The student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of decimals and fractions.

22. Ordering fractions49. Number that is greatest (decimals)53. -Number that is smallest (decimals)59. Fraction that is greatest

pen-tnded item

7 3

67.8

56.592.676.

45.4

ItemPos.tionon est

-64-

TABLE 2.19

Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Computation for 17-Year-Olds


PercentageCorrect

Objective 3: The" stiMt demonstrates the ability to add and 94.9subtract whole numbers.

6.* 38 + 19 = 97,014.*, 3,6- 19 =26.1rs. 1054 865 -28. 826 + 786 = 95.2

Obje,ive 4: The student demonstrates. the ability to multiplywhole numbers.

4.* 38 x 9 =20. 609 x 73 =52. 74 x 38 =55. 46 ?( 50 =

88.095.088.595.0

Objective 5: The student demonstrates the ability to divides 87.6whole numbers.

1. 714 : 7 =

10. 339 22

17.* 125 5 =

36. $74.46 17

77.2

90.994.787.7

Objective 6: The student demonstrates the ability to add and 88.9

subtract decimals.

3. M 4 8.+ .24 = 87.015.* 53.05 + 10.00 + 9.14.+ 5.10 - 94.024.* If 23.8 is suhtracL.ed from 62.1 84.437. $10.00 - 1.98 = 90.2

* Open-ended item

-65-

TABLE 2.19 (continued

ItemPositionon Test

Descriptiqn of ItemAverage

PercentageCorrect

Objective The, student demon_ rates the ability to multiply 72.3and divide decimals.

38. $1.29 x 0.06 = 71.145. 425 x 0.33 = 87.747. 1.96 : 0.4 - 70.551. 17 : 0.25 = 59.8

Objective 8: The student demonstrates the ability to add and 69.4subtract fractions and mixed numbers

2. 41/4 216 = 63.5

46.54, 1/3 ' 66.1

56. 23/8 + 31k3 = 76.4

61. 16 + VI = 71.7"

Objective 9: The student demonstrates the ability to multiply 72.3and divide fractions and mixed numbers.

32.

34.

54.

63.

41/2 x 3 =

16 X , 1/11

3/8 2=3 : 3/3 =

80.4

84.7

65.6

58.4

4

r

-66-

TABLE 2.20'

Average Percentace Correct by, Objective and Test itemfor the Goa Arec of Measurement for 17-Year-01 ds

ItemPositionon Test

Description of , I tem


Objective 10: The student',demonstrates a wo rk i ng knowledgeof area, perimeter, and vo 1 ume.

73.0

.

12. One gallon of paint covers 250 square feet; howmany gal Tons :z0heeded to cover a wa 1 1 48 feet

70.4

, by 10 .feet 'i

25.* Feet of fencing to enclose garden,' 9 feet'clongand 5 f6et wide

58.8

29. Given: formula fOr area of triangle, find areaof triangl e wi th- b ,- 4 and h - 10

87.9

44. Find volume of box 74.7

Objecti ve 11: Tfip student .demops trates the ahi 1 i ty to convert a 85.

''U.,S. unit of measure to larger or smaller units.

18. 8 quarts = .gal 1 ons 83.733. 30 inches - . feet inches 92.040.* 11 pounds - ounces 74.264. 2 hours 20 'minutesnutes - minutes 93.7

Objective 12:

. .,,; -.,

The student demonstrates knowledge of metricunits of 'measure

i

82.2

.19. Metric unit used to Measure distance between two 765:cities

31. Gram is used to measure (wei qht) a-.)48.. Metric( uni L used to p*,,as ure capaci ty of gasoline

tank ...t;-':

85.7

57: Smal lest metri c unitof measurement 73.1

* Open- ended i tent

e

79

ItemPositionon Test

Objective 13: The 'Audent demonstrates the ability to.interpret data from charts-and'graphs.

TABLE 2.21

. .

Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor. the Goal Area of Charts and Gra0s4or 17- Year -Olds

Description of Item,

4

* Open-ended item

j

Reading a table of sock sizesReading a bar graphReading a circle graphReading a line graph

3

..41. JAI

AveragePercentageCorrect.

TABLE 2.22

Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item fortheGOal Area of Applications/Problems for 17-Year-Olds.

ItemPositionon Test

DesCription of ItemAverage

PercentageCorrc:t

Objective 14! The studek demonstrates the ability to solveword problems involving matheMatical skills.

8.* Several people received votes; what percentageof total vote did one of the people receive

16..* Three people earned money; what was the averageamount earned

27.* If 300 calories in 9 ounces of food, how manycalories in 2 .,ounces of.the food

43.* Person,leftrfdt work at 7:45 A.M., returned.home 10 hours later at what time

Objective 15: The student, demonstrates the ability to solveword pro61ems involving real world situations

30. Sales tax of what is tax on $200 TV set39.* How much more Would -a person pay to buy a -

certain car on credit than by paying cash41.* Parking lot charges 35C first hour, 25e'each

additional hour or fraction; what is the costto park from 10:45 A.M. to 3:05 'P.M.

58. At average speed of 50 MPH, hoW many'hours,totravel 275 miles

* Open-ehded item

70.9

45.7

72.1

79.1

86.5

62.1

79.756.9

54.3

57.5

-65

VI. Geomottry There was one oh Jctiye for the goal area, having a

total of four test items. On the average, 17-yelr-olds correOtly answered

48.7Y, of all items in the goal area. iaLle 2.23 contains the results for

the objective and four items of the goal area.

'Atern

Positionon Test

Objective

42.*60.

TAUT: ?,23

Average Pe'reentapc Correct Objecti,:e and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of GeoHetry for 17-Year-Olds


Description of Ite4

16: The student (1,1r,Tint'ilt,... the ability to solve 48.7problems -involving tialf. geometric concepts.

Degroesof angle [unwed by hands of clock at 71.73 o'clock.

He-Nat of' tent pole (w.e of right triangle) 39.0Dngries of third angle ot a triangle . 51.S,Est.i.mate circumference of circle given thediameter

32.3

* Ape'-ended item

:Table 2.24 displays in graphic form EI summary of achievement on each

goal area by each age level. Tables through ay2.27 display sumries

of achievent on each objective for,c,icii age level, respeCtively.

8 A."

,

:*g Graph of Achievement on Goal Areas by Age Croup

-70-

TABLE 2.24

Math Concepts

, Computation

Measurement

Charts, and Graphs

Problem SOlving

13-YEAR-OLDS

,Math Concepts

Computation

Measurement

Charts'and Graphs

Problem Solving

Geornetrt,

, .61.2 .°

I 72.2

80.1

89.1

17- YEAR -OLDS -

Math Concepts

CONelltati on

. -

66.9 ,

1 78.9

4.,

025 50 75 , A 100

1 82.4

Meastirement 81.7

Chat ts and.Gr 93.2

Problem SolvinciAL.

47;0

50

66.7

,AVEBAGE PERCENTAGE,OF QUESTIONS ANSWERED POlirlECTLY

.1. Place Value

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF TEST QUESTIONS' ANSWERED CORRECTLY..

NA

oNW

C.1

1c.:. o

cn

4=.

(7)

a)a)

1C

OC

OC

O(.

00

OC

711

0C

-17

0C

770

C.7

70

C.7

70

070

'

1

-

11

11

11

,I

'-

1

.9;

,(ie

t,

5.

I.Vh-

.11:

i\::n

11)!

rs (

)

7, Uney

/a

9. Linear Measure

JO. Math Problems

11. Zeal

Problems

lb

Alt

.@

,

CO

i

th

CD

CD

Ci13.

r-s- 0

ca

I

Om

CT

rsa

12.

pre

tr7(

,-1Charts

CrGr.`aphs

O

AV

ER

A4

PE

RC

F44

E O

F Q

UE

ST

ION

S A

NS

WE

RE

D C

OR

RE

CT

LY ..

r..)

r...t

_.co

to.a

-De

01tti

,.0.

)c>

;xi

o01

oc.

n\-.

0C

r.0

01o

CJ1

-.0

'-n

11

.

1I

1\ I

Ii

'I

I

'`1

.R

atio

nal N

um;b

ers

2. O

rd,n

-ing

3. W

hole

Num

bers

(+

,7-)

.5.

c;,.'

hole

Num

bers

( -

)

1'23

41

Gt

-.4

-:4,

.,.0

Crl

I,.

r00 0 i

-

:.it*

isi;.

.'.to

: ,tib

-'.9

*O

S.:-

4I'A

T3

--1

6. D

e 4)

als(

+,)

(

r.

7: D

ecim

als

(x)

tie(

+, )

9.F

t act

ions

(x)

10. P

erim

eter

& A

rea

.'

C-5

01

11..

U.S

. Cci

nver

sipn

o.

12. -

Met

ric U

nits

13. I

nter

pret

ing

Cha

rts

& G

raph

s .

14, M

ath

Pro

blem

s

15. R

eal V

i,lor

ld P

robl

ems

16. G

eope

try

Con

Cep

ts/

Ct)

N.)

t'

1.R

atio

n'! N

umbe

rs,

4. 4

AV

ER

AG

E P

ER

CE

NT

AG

E O

f QU

ES

TIO

N A

NS

WE

RE

EV

CO

RR

EC

TLY

3N

.)N

..)cz

.r..

- C

O8

Cf

Cs

c..3

1p

c(r

O,'

o.

001

I.,

I.1

I-

II

1-I

I1

I1,

TT

2. b

rdt:r

ing

3. V

:hol

k2-N

urnl

iNs

(+,)

drV

.

4. lA

lhoI

e N

umT

w:s

(x)

.

Cl

co

5. t'

ince

N'u

rphe

rs,(

÷1

l'pz

ri.;`

,.c..4

;l'os

(÷

,)

<I

7.D

LY.tr

iiJI5

(x,

÷).

"*--

8. E

rdct

K3n

s (+

)m

-

.9.

It a

ctic

ins

iG.)

Per

;rne

tei A

a &

Vol

ume

rN L.

4

11. U

.S. a

onvo

r'sio

n

Met

ri U

nits

*

A--

--T

3. p

t pro

ting

eKirr

s &

Grip

lis1

14. M

ath

Prc

.)b

°,15

. Rea

rW

oric

ttrob

lem

s

G. G

iJom

etry

t pc,

-(,.p

ts

co _N

'..t

Goal area achievement. Ilin ear-olds scored. quite' highly on four)

of the:five goal areas, ansttierin Orreftly Al 'average of over 74% of theN. ,_..

matchirig:test items in the goal theeatital.-Concepts; Computation,

c.

Measurement. and Charts-and Graphs-- esteperformance..by 9-year-oldS' was

in the goal aka of Problem Sofving cove,c0.4

PerfoOmance of 13-year-oTds,,was More variable across-the objectives.A

Their achievement ranged from a high of et,1% correct on Charts and Graphs

to a low of 61,Z% on'MatheMftical Concepts.

The widest 'range in achieilement across goal areas was tisplayed.by

17-year-olds, Wno scored above 90(it on one goal are(Charts and Graphs),

just above 80% on two goal areas (Comput*tidkapd Measurement), 66-68% on -14V,areas

.

.,1 ,.4} .two other goal areas (Mathematical ConieptS and Problem Solving),

, *

low -as 4S on Geometry.'

-. 4vAchlaementAin objectives._ Nine-year-olds.scored an-average of over

441SWCoieect on fourAfthe'12 objectives assessedtoat their, level (Addg

c 0

Whole Nutbers, jlultiplYing Whole Nu 'r':, loney,Ind Linear Measure).,

Lowest perfolaue was on Math ProL, aXAJO Wejrld Problems (both 54;.;.,,

, k

w correct) afd Fractions (66%)., On all other oW,t . .

ain'the 73-79range.

/6

Thirteen7yearlops scored."rage of arounlOg correct1 4b.r., ' ,

'N ) .,' 10 .

of the 16 obje -ssed at that ag level (Multiplyilipholkumburs

Adding a Su t cting Whole um6eS, Itite*retArig Charts and.Graphs).?.- . .

On f,' othe tives, perforMance4

NumbsTNering, 0 g -anrub

0.0

scored-year-olds cored

"\ -,,

was in -(4 60-65%,rangerlona,. .4.,

ing Fractions, PO'imeter an Aa,

1

0

and Math Problems). On the remaining eight' objectives, 13-year-olds scored

in the 71 -85% range.

Seventeen-year-olds performed most highly on the same three objectives

On which 13-year-old performanCe was highest: Adding and Subtracting Whole

NuMbers (951', Mul4plying Whole Numbers (91%), and Interpreting Charts and41

,Graphs (931.'-' By Contrast, however, the performance of 17-year-olds was..-:

-,.56t.-,*

. lowestOOke Geometry Concepts objectiVeI0 t 49%). The items for-this

objecti'ipwever, were more complex at t'li-617-year-old level. These stu-li

41Vdents. scored in the 82-897, range o four other objectives (Dividing Whole

Numbers, Adding and Subtracting DeimalS, U.S. C6hVersion and Metric

exercises). They scored in the G2-73% range on the remaining eight

v411.',.,

. ,

,4. ett: .

Th:.e 17-year-ofids performed-better than the 13-year-olds,.and the .

......, ,. . ,

dar;..old.44 erfOrmed better than the'Dtar-olleson items' which were

dehti.cal for each pair of.aee groups. Generally, thedifferenCe.beten

ie performance of 9- and 13-year-olds was greater th 4anfi the differel:i,,

betwIkthe performinpe of 1,- and 17-year-olds.

,

f.

41

IntroduCtion

C.The purpose of this chapter is to compare the perf nce Connee_:

-76-

CHAPTER.

. COMPARING AGE GROUPS WITHIN CONNECTICUT

ticut students on test iteW(516 which 9-, 1314...and/or 174:year-old students

were tested, in common. When theAdentieal test item was used on two or

all th'reQ tests,' this ,chapter presliptS the comparison results.

, 16The use of the same item'for mare than one age leVel permits a com

pari son to, determine tne extent .to which stLidents of di fferent'age levels

diffef- i n achievement: Irt such comparisons it 9s hOFied that achievement

inerbas,gs as the Veve increases . a A,

docrease .achievement provi des

rmation useful for r p1 Toll'nkh since it is one incli.ction

that a- mathematics skill or knowledge judged impor ant by. Connectidue4pii7

cators is not uniformly retained or reinforced a oss he school years.

Roschtlevement ulA.

ross Age Groups

44 - .tone tthan summarized by itemThefitems appearing On more an onesare suarzey

'rwsition orY the tests Tables 3.1 throzh 3.8. Each able covers one

,goal area. ,61:iAtives to which the itefilsare referenced are nat included;-

4

. 41, .

because, in some ances an item was referenced to one objective:on one

test add Ao anOther objeCtive-:Onano4

14aart3onal pert '6f4t)le ft.gure.

nAte For .example, the 'item:.

-'t shaded ?" was. referenced4

A

for 9- year- ,olds to Objective 3: "The student demonstrates -aliwtrn-de.rstandtg g

of fractional notation," whit: pi 13-year-olds it was referenced to

tive4:ve 4: "The student demonstrates ),) understanding of rational numbers."

Since the intent of the test developers was to focus on individual items

for compa'ri-Son parpose, across tests, cOmparison by objective will not be

mad

Goal area: "Mathernatial Concepts. Table 3.1 contains description

of the.ikrns,Aich appeare.d on tests -tvw 4 all three age groups for

99 a) -;',1,X'e-a, of .11,a the rila -ii al Co n'a ltis Pt . ,,

-1-413.

s. expected, 13-yea void' students fterfc4rmed better than 97year-., ,

tts' on two AI ch the tests -had in common. Seventeen--..,

,..

year-old. student

to the .reader is t 'e,rnaqinitude 6 e difference in performance and the

o performed better thar0 13-yearrol.ds..Of interest

nature''' f the 1 tern- Di f, e ces° betw the 9--v and 13 -year -olds

4sfere d amatic. i The difference b' eer*- 13- and 17: r-olds ap ared-k 7 .

I.. 4.1

..t be lessdramatic. This result is also to .be4expected, since nip., t ofr,

the Lteirs..content. would have been taught either during or after fourth

grade and,Ahus, some of the content Auld be nevi' for many ourth- raders;.',

.

however, all. of the content supposedly woul d,be 'review worl*No b' 137, and/ V

17-year-olds -and, thu1,1 the .expeoyfation tinht be that those' two age grO___... . twould tend to perform somewhat sirlicla'rly on elem4ntarjshool.5athem6 icts

,,

.

Gontent-.110 tk- 4/- ,;,.Theread9rSlroy/td note that for the three it referencing ff.actiorN, .

, / . - ....7z-' -' ,.

. ..

.4

`

only ,.which both 13- and 17-year-old's 'tad-in covhon, ,onlY.,about.:a thirdip

/

' t iib

.49

0,78'2

TABLE .3.1

JY

s

Comparison of Achi6ement across A coups oneSharejd Itemsfor the gal Area of Mathem ical Concept j.

Item Number

13

Percentage of StudentsScoring CorreLtly

41 18 Fractional part of figure shade-d(ircle)

25

I"

62, 13 boy and 15 girls irf a group,ftactignal part of group

71.7 93.1

1/5 enalt.to whatpercen

.009 is eciOrivale whatfrac n?

19 .49 Wlich,0 tuber is reatelit?

59 W ?ch factiOn is neatest?

54.5

69.,7. 73.5`'

14,

'15 7 Mich number is 144? (whol e

.nuMbers)/'

63.0

85. 6

30.0 45.4

3.2 93 .'134

66 22 Ordering- fra 31.8 -56.

'

,<..)'AV'',

-79-

(30.0% t0 "32.4 %) of the 13-year-olds and about half (45.4% to 56.5%) of

the 17-year-olds answered the item correctly.

Goal area: Computation. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 contains descriptions of

the items which were shared by tests of two or al 1 three-age groups for the

goal, area of Computation.

As was expeCted, 13- and 17-year-old students performed better thanat'qty, .

9-year-olds on 'i tems assessing computation with whole numbers (see Tab,14

3.2). The range in percentages of students scoring cdrrectly for 9 -year-

olds on the four items i m cyrnmon was 50.9% to 88,,8%, whereas the range was

sma.ile'r for the other two age gro s on their, 71 common items (73.6% to

^. A.8% for 13-year-olds and 77.2'Z, t097.0% fer 17-year-olds) .

On the 11. items in common for the 13- and 17-year-olds on computation

-wi;th who e num -)rs7.i. both age groups- performed .veri,similarly; 17-year-olods,-4, lit

on. theta eragc, performed only slightly better than th 13-year-bids. In

summitry, both the 13- and 17-year-O=lds achieved high percentages corre,ct

on these 11 items.,

Table 3.3 displays performance on compytation items fbr decimals and- % ';'''..:'' ..,,

fracti ons . Only one- i tem on compUtatiOn. wi,,th' decimals and fract Ap i se

.#, )"Table= 3.3) wias shared by .all three age, groups. ,required stude-n., t1 ,..

,fpur. eCi.mal*. Only 48.4-,41 of ther9-4ear-o1115 correctly answered. the i e.

. . . ,..

whereas 3.-,,it' of the 13-year-bla* and 9 0% of the 17-year:olds .co4ryanswered -,"4". i--;,' answe.red i t . On 'Alp si x itottems`4_ * - to':... A 4..i.., , ,4.

'$4-^-,A. . ,-:,...k '1)u t a i O-n Of. : dt?.cim- . ,...

-aretby e 13- nd 17-year-Olds (dom-gr

fohlied better than 13-year-Oleds

t* pein 1 tett twi th ,4-t.'"hge of 't-wo,4

-80-

TABLE 3.2

Comparison of-Achievement across Age Groups on Shared ',terns'

for 'the Goal Area:, of Computation (Whole Numbers)

IteM Number

9 13 17

Percentage of StudentsScoring Correctly,,,;

20

21 14

32 8 28

13 --12

1

-16 531,

,20 52_

32 20

27 17

15- 1

60 10'

38 + 19=

36 - 19 =

+ 786 .=

865 -=

88,.8

.

86.6

50.9

46 x 50 =

4 74 x 38 =

609 x 73 =

125 5 =.

714 7

339 22 =

.44

95.6 97.0

93.1 95.0

96.8 '95.2

86.8 92.3

86.74 88t

94..9 . 95.0

£18.9 88.5

91.3 65.0

93.5 94.7,;1

73.6 77.a

83.5 90.9

a

6 )

TABLE 3.3

Comparison of Achiev'ement across Age Groups . on Shared Itemsfor the Goal Area of Computation 1DecimalS and Fractions)

Item Number.

.17

Percentage of (StudentsScor4 ng Correctly

13 17'13 )17

22 24 15

61 37

17, 3

50 24

. 36 45.

V, 38

tts

$3.06, + 10.00 + 9.14 + 5.10

$10.00 - 1.98 =

.0.6 -744"8' + .24 =

If 23.8 is, subtracted from'62.1

,/4)5 x 0.33

ZIt?.$1.29 x 0.06 =

1

1/2 13

23/8 A;

44 88.1 1141(o

85.1 90.2

87.0

84.4

3/3 =

x3

87.7 ,

56.9 71.1

59.6 71.7

638 76%4

4 :64.1

80.'468..2

79, 5 '&&.7

-82-

14 percentage- points).

The difference in performance between the 13- and 17-year-ol ds' on the

five items for computation of fractions was very marked. The 17- year -olds

performed better by an average of nearly 11 percentage ;:pints per item

(with a range of five to 13 'perhntage nts ).

Goal area: Measurement. Table 3.4 contains a de5.;,,-..ripti on of the

items which appeared on Tests for two or all three age c.soups for the

goal area of Measurement.

As has 6eeli the case, with all of the goal areas far, each sue-

ceeding age group performed better than the .onepqfOr:e i3t. Of ,special' #

interest is -the first test item descrypep, in TablL3.4-' This was an

dp6n-ended i tem' that read :i..5

,,-.,

Mr. Simmons putta 'wire fence 411' the way around h4i.-, rectpgpi argarden. The garden is 9. feet long and 5, feet wide.. How Owfeet of fencing did he use? / .(r-,..

k..Students who-an wered the item incorrect4 ,pneral ly-iiiper multi pile

9 by 5° or added 9 and 5. Table 3.5 shows the resul AtIle three

groups for the item.

From Table. 3.5, the reader should note that there =.1're large di

ences beteen age tiro ps in term of the percentage of ,f:tulients correctly.La

\

answering the i tem and i n terms of noe-adding 9 and 5 t.7. get an incorrect

response.. However, the was a consistent ;rend for, a three ag groups11

to multiply-9 by 5, arriving. at an ilcorrect' response,(

?-the .reader can readily se;.: that my twoReturning to Table ;3,4,

0

4. 1

-83-

TABLE 3.4

Comparison of_Achievement across Age Groups on ShSred Itemsfor the Goal Area of Measurement

a

Item Number.

Description of Item

4..Percentage of StudentsScoring Correctly

9 13 . 17

A 40

54'; 18

40 644

2 33

, 31' 19

.reet.of fencing neede,pprectAngular garden

9 feet long-A-nd.5:feet wide*4;

Which figure has same,,areaas, figure shown:above-(a1.I

rectangles)'

11/2 pounds = ounces,

8 qUarts = gallons

2 hours 20 minutes =

minutes. ,

30 inches = feet' inches

Unit of measure, for distancebetween two.cities (metric)

,

S (metric)

GraMlmeasuiV (weight)

.

m listed yn44.rgoal

8,3 44.8 58.8

53. . 841

area of prob

57 .19

76.2

74.2

92.5 93.7

86.3 Y2.0

72:9 76.5

68.1 1173.]

85.0 93./

em solving for 9-year-olds.

-84-:

TABLE 3.5

Student Performance on the Mr:. Simmons-Item Appearing-on All Three Tests

Response

Correct Answer:

45 (9 x 5)

14 (9 +

28

Percentage Giving Response

9-Year-Olds 13-Y6ar-Olds. 17-Year-Olds3

8.3

31.8-

43.0

44.8

26.9

16.2

58.8

25.3

7.3

.measurement items were administered to both the 9- and 13-year-olds, am!

13-year-olds performed Much better on both items. On the eight items in

common for both 13- and 17 -year -olds, the 17-year-olds performed better

on each itenLand did so by an average of nearly eight percentage points

per item.

Goal area: Problem Solving. Table 3.6 contains a description of the

items that were administered tici more than one age group in the goal area

of Problem,Solving. The 17-year-olds clearly performed better than the

13-year-olds on the five items common to these age groups, with an average

of nearly 14 percentage points between the groups. The 13-year-olds aver-\

aged only 51.6: correct, compared to the 17-year-olds, who. averaged 6.3:

correct. The smallest difference was 7 and the largest 20:. On the one

item shared by and 13-year-olds, 13-year-olds performed better than

9-year-olds, with more than twice as many versus'39.4.1 correctly

-85-

4 t,

TABLE 3.6_2

7'comparison of Achievement Across Age Groups onShared Items For the Goal Area of Problem Solving

AP'

Item Number

9 13 17

51 16

10 8

26 43

54 58

64 30

19 52

4i

. DescriRtion of Item.

T earned ,$205, C earned $62,D earned $400. What is theaverage? .

J received 120 votes, Mreceived 50, G received 30.What percent of total votesdid J receive?

Arrived at job at 7:45 A.M.returned hone 10 hours later.What time did person arriveTome?

At 50 MPH, how many hours togo 0 miles?

Sales tax rate is 6 Whatis tax on $200 televisionset.?

A rocket was directed at atarget. 525 miles south of thelaunching point. It landed624 miles south of the launch-ing point. By how many mil (2sdid it miss its :target? )

Percentage of StudentsScoring Correctly

9 13 17

55.7 72.3

27.2 45.7

79.6 86.5

50.5 57.5

59.9 79.7

39.4 81.3

answering the item (a difference of 42 percehtage points).

One item was. incluckd in the goal area of Problem Solving for 97year-/

olds, but matched to the goal, area of MeasureMent for 13- and 17-year-olds.

Results across age levels are displayed separately in Table 3.5, along with

an indication of the percentage of students selecting incorrect responses.

&much larger percentage of 13- and 17-year-olds could compute the perimeter

of Mr. Simmons' garden (45 and 59, respectively) than could- 9iyear-olds

-,_ (81. The pattern of incorrect response choice varied in that the most

common wrong answer giyen by 9-year-olds was 14 (9 + 5), while the most

common incorrect response by 13- and. 17-year-olds was 45 (9 x 5).

Goal area: Charts.and Graphs. Table 3.7 contains a description of

the items which were.shared by tests of the 13- and 17-:year-old age groups

for the goal area of Charts.and Graphs. No items assessing this skill for

9-year-olds were used on tests for the 13- and 17-year-olds.

Both 13- and 17-Year-olds showed high achievement on the three items,

with 13-year-olds_perfoming slightly better than the 17-year-olds on one

of the three items.,

Summary

The 17-year-olds performed better than the 13-year-.olds, and the

13-year-olds performed better than the 9-year-olds on items which were

identical for each pair of age groups. Generally, the difference between

the performance of 9 and 13-year-olds was greater than the difference

between the. performance of 13- and 17-year-olds.

TABLE 3.7

Compfarison of Achievement AcrOss Age GroupsShared Items for the Goal Area of ,Charts and Graphs

Item Number

17

65 73

46 11

41 21

Description of Item

Percentage of StudentsScoring Correctly'

9 13 17

Bar graph shpwing number oftrees planted for five-dayperiod. Question: How manytrees planted on certain day?

Table of sock sizes forparticular shoe sizes.Question: If wear particularshoe size, what is sock size?

Reading a circle graph forsmallest portion

91.6 90.8

88.1 93.7

87.4 95.5

(

IntroduCfion

-88-

CHAPTER- 4

COMPARING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CONNECTICUT

REPORTING GROUPS

4

) The purpose of this chapter is to describe and com,Jare the mathematics

achievement of selected groups of students within Connecticut. Each of the

selected groups is defined on the basis of responses to the principal and

student ques ionnaires. A total of 12 questions from t i student question-

naire and seven from the principal questionnaire were selected' to define

reporting groups, although some of these questions are trot applicablie to

all three age groups assessed.

In the case of student question4re items, studen s were separated

into'groups based on their responses to the questions, .nd the., average for

achievement was computed for each group. For principal questionna

items, students were grouped in terms of the responses ivet(by their A

.

respective principals, andthe-average Achievment was computed-for the

student group. In each case, the average for the reporting group is com-

pared to that for all students at that age level within Connecticut (the

state average)'. The purpose of these analyses was to 1.:entity ,those

Characteristics A students and their schools that bear a relationship, to

student achievement.

Achievement is defined in most cases as performanc on the total test,

that is the average percentage of all items on the test answered correctly

1 0 '7

-89-

by students in,a given group. However, for three of the variables (sex

of student, size of community, and region of the state) difference's in

achievement are also described'on the basis of goal area and objective

scores. These more detailed analyses were performed on only these three

variables. The latter two variables were obtained not from the 'question-

naires but from the sampling stratification of the schools. It should be

noted that all results.by region of the state are gi'ven exclusive_ of big

cities (seep. 20):

The results for Connecticut- reporting groups are described in nitra-

tive form. The discussion highlights all of the major differences between

groups. The reader is referred tp Appendix G for a display of all data- for

all reporting groups in tabular form.

The results described in this chapter are organized by age'level.

Results are presented first for all reporting groups at the 9-year-old

level, then for 13-year-olds, and, lastly, for 17-year-olds. A concludT

ing summary provides an overview of results for all age groups on each

variable.

The differences between groups described in the chapter are those that

were statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence. The reader

is referred to the section on "data interpretation" in Chapter 1 for

cautionary statements regardiig inferences drawn from these....cesults. Sw11

differences between groups may be c',Iip,zi.ra4t;,however, they

may be too small to be educationally meaningful. The reader is directed to

consider the magnitude of the differences in scores between groups to

determine educational meaningfulnes.

-90-

Comparing 9-Yea.r-Old Reporting Groups

Sex of student.. At the 9-year-old level, there was no significant

difference from the state on total test score for either male or female

students.

On goal area;S4 res, males scored significantly above and females

-scored significantly below the state on three goal a.,yeasGoal Area'3

(Measurement), Goal Area 4 (Problem Solving), and Coal Area 5 (Charts and

.

Graphs). Females scored significantly above and males scored significantly

below the state in Goal Area 2 (Computation), and no significant difference

from the state, was found .for either group in-Goal Area 1 Wathematical Con-:

cepts). The largest difference above the state across goal areas acid

reporting groups/was found in Goal Area 3 (Measurement), with males scoring

1.8 above th state. The largest difference below,the state was found in

Goal Area 2 (Computation), with males scoring below the .State.

No significant differences from the state for either males or females.

were found on Objective 1 (Understanding of Place Value for Whole NuMbers),

Objective 3 (Understanding.of Fractional Notation), and Objective 10(Math

Skills Word Problems). Females performed significantly above the state and

males performed significant` below the state on Objective 4 (Ability to

Add Whole Numbers), Objectiv 5 .(Abilityto Subtract Whole Numbers), and

Objective 6 (Ability to Mu l t ply Whole Numbers) . Males perfonfled signifi-

cantly above and females performed significantly below the state on the

other six ohicctives. The largest difference above the state across objec-

tives and reporting groups was found on Objective ll (Real World Word

103

-91-

4

Problems), with males 2:4% above the state. -The largest difference below

the state across objectives and reporting groups was found on Objective 6

(Ability to Multiply Whole Numbers), with males scoring 2.3% blow the

state.

1

Sizeofcommunity: V-Terst scores,were grouped aLcording to the size of

the student's community: big city, fringe city, medium city, or smallrr

community. Significant difrences from the state on total test score were

found for each reporting group except the medium cities. Big cities scored

12.2% below the state, fringe cities seored,L6 above the state, and

smaller communities scored 4.0% above the state.

In every goal area, the big cities scored'significantly below the

state, with the largest difference (14'.7% below the state) occurring in

Goal Area 1 (Mathematical Concepts) and the smallest difference (10.E

below the state) occurring in Goal Area 2 (Computation). The medium cities

)44rwere not significantly different from the state in any goal area. The

fringe cities were significantly above the state in every goal'area except

Goal Area.5 (Charts and Graphs) \, e io significant d4ffeinee was found.

The smaller comunities scored significantly above. the state in every goal

area, with the largest difference (4.91c above the state) occurring in Goal

Area 5 and the smallest difference (3.4% above the state) occurring in Goal

Area 2 (Computation). The magnitude of the difference between the small

Communities and the state exceeded the magnitude of the difference between

the fringe cities and the stele in every goal area.

The bio scored significantly bolo..; stag in all twAve

objectives, with the largest difference (17.3: 1-)e he state) occurrini,

A

-92-

on Objective. 1 (Understanding.of Place Value for Whole Numbers) and the

smallc;st difference (7.9:, below the state) occurring dn. Objective 6 (Abil-

ity to Multiply Whole Numbers). The medium cities showed no signlfic.ant

difference irOm the state. on any objective except Objective 7 (Ability to

Convent U.S. Units of Currency)Aere they Were 2.n above,the state. The

fringe cities were significantly abbve the state on eight of the objectives

but showed no significant differences from the state, on Objective 3 (Under-.11

standing of Tractional Notation), Objective 4 (Ability to Add Whole

Withes), Objective 8 (Ability to Compute Time), and Objective 12 (Ability

to Interpret Cilarts and; Graphs). Of the objectives for which significant

,,diffetrisces were found, the greatest magnitude, for the'fringe cities (4.1.

above the state) was observed on Objectiv6 6 (Ability to Multiple Whole

Numbers), and the smallest significant difference above the state)

was sound on Objective 9 ,(knowledge of Linear Units. of Measure) . Smaller

communities were significantly above the state on all objectives, with the

largest difference (5.3:', above the state) occurring on Objective 8 (Ability

to Compute Time) and Objective 10 (Math Skills Word Problems) and the

smallest difference (2.1 above the state) occurring on Objective 11 (Real

World Word Problems).

Region'nf state. lest scores were grouped according to region of the

,state: Region 1 RESCUE, Region 2Cooperative educational Services, ;ogiw

3CRLC, Region 4ACES, Region 5Project Learn, and Region 6--41A.R.$.E.S:

The "big cities," however, were from'their respective regions.

Significant differences frnm the state on total test score were found in

-93-

Region 2 (5.1% above thistateigion 5 (4.0% above the state), and

Region 3 (2.8% above the tote). No significant. 'd'ifferences from the state

on total test score were observed in the remaining three regions.

Region 2 scored significantly above the state in ail -goal areas, with

the largest difference (6.6% a[sove thei'state) occurring in Goal Area 4

(Problem solving) and the smallest difference (2.9% above the state) occur-

ring in Goal Area 5 (Charts and Graphs) . Region 5 scored above the state

in every .goal area except Goal Area 1 (Mathematical Concepts), with the

largest significant difference (5.0% above the state) occurring in Goal

. Area 5 (Charts and Graphs) and the smallest significant difference (3.6%

above the state) occurring in Goal Area 4. Region 3 scored significantly'

above the state in every 9nol area except Goal Area 2 (Computation), with

the largest difference (4.0% above the state) found in Goal Area 1 (Mathe-

maf,ical Concepts) and the smallest significant difference (2.8% above tine

state) found in Goal Area 4. Region.1 scored significantly above the state

(2.7%) only on Goal Area .(Charts and Graphs) and showed 6o significant

differences from the state in any other goal area. Region 4 and Region 6

showed no significant differences from the state in any goal area.

Region 2 scored significantly abOve the state on all 12 objectives,

with the largest difference (10.0% above the state) found on Objective 3

(Understanding of Fraction:1 Notiotion) and the smal4;''st difference (2.9Y.4

above the state) found on ObjeCtive 12 (Ability to Interpret Charts and

Graphs). Region 3 scored significantly above.the state .on every objective

except Objective 3, Objective 6 (Ability to Multiply Whole Numbers), and

-94-

Objective 9 (Knowledge of Linear Units of (lew.,ure). Among those objeCtives .

for which significant differences were found, the largest difference for

Region 3 (5.441 above the state) was found on' Objective' 1 (Understanding of

Place Value for Whole Numtwes), and the smallest significant difference

(1.9Z above the state) was found on'Objective 11 (Real World Word Problems).

Region 5 scored significantly above the staite on every objective except

Objective 2 (Understanding of Ordering of Whole Numbers), Objectiv0,3,

Objective 5 (Ability to Subtract Whole Numbers): and Objective 11. Among

the objectives for which significant differences were ,found,- the largest

difference for Region 5 (7.2 above the state) was found on Objective 6,

and the smallest significant difference .(3.77, above the state) was found on

Objective 9 (*knowledge of Linear Units of Measure). Region 1 scored signi-

ficantly above the state on Objectives 1, 2, 5, and 12, with the largest'

difference (4 2.; above the state) occurring on Objeictive 5 and the smallest

significant difference (2,'U above the state) occurring.on Objective 12.

Region 1 was not significantly different from the state on the other eight

.(

objectives. Region 4 scoreq significantly above the state on Objective 2

(2. 1 above) and Objective 9'(2.5 above) and shoeckno significant differ-/

ences from the state on any other objective. Region 6 scored significantly

below the state on Objective 6 (11<.8> bklo0.) and showed no significant

differences-from the state on any other o4 active.

Socioeconomic status. Total test scores:Are grouped aticO:Ning to

three levels of socioeconomic status high, medium,.and l'ew,17-f3ased on af

ratio of people to rooms in thel'home obtained from student questionnaires.

1 ii

-95-

Significant differences from the.state.on total test score were found for

epch reporting group, with performance improving as socioeconomic status

.improved. Specifically, the low socioeconomic status group was 5.6% below. .

the state, the mediuM socioeconomic- stratus group was 2.3 above the state,

and the high ,socioeconomic-stoLus,group wa's above the 'state.-.-.

Parental discussion_ of sehool.. Students were asked whether they

talked to their parents about school "dai ly," "weekly," "monthly," or

"hardly ever.", Significant differences from .the state on total test score

were observed in the "hardly ever" group, which' was 5.2% below the state,

and in he "weekly" group, which was 3.3 above th. .stote-. No significant

differences from the state were Found in the other two reporting groups.

. Parental assistance with schoolwork.. Students were asked -Whether or

not their parents helped thew-with the schoolwork. SignifiLant differences

from the state on total test score were observed for both reporting groups,o

with students reporting parental assistance scoring 1.1% i)(27,0;,) the state

and students reporting no assistance scoring 2.9%o'd.:2 the state.

Television watching. Students were asked how many hourS.of televison.

they watched each day. Responses were "less than one hour," 'between one

and two hours," "between two and three hours," "between three and four

hours," and "more than four huurs. Significant differences from the.stte

ron total test score were found for every reporting group. Performance

relative to the state improved as television watching increased up to th,,

two to three hour limit and then declined with Furl incruHints of

10

-96/

spent watching:' Specifically, those who viatChed less t.-?.'n one hour daily

scored t..1% below the state, the "one to two, hour" grot, s(:.ored 2.2 above ,

the state, thte "two to three hour" group scored 4..4 at...T.-, the state, the

"thl'ee,to four hour" group scored 2.1 at)eve the state, .d the ",more than

foLr hours" group scored 2.7c/:,/ below the state.

Attitude toward school Students viere asked how P.'s. h they liked

schOol. ke.spOnses werp'PIllate it," "I don't like it, "Tt's O.K.," "I4

like it," and 1'4 it a lot." Significant differed" from the state

4_,on total test s.core/were observed in the "I hate it," like it," and

like it a lot" gra6s.. Performance relative to the stat.i improved as

`attiWde toward school became more positive up,to the positive

response, where performance relative to the state dec ...: Specifically,

those who rate school scored 4.4 below the state, the, who. like i L

scored 4.9 above the state, but those who like dt "a '7.JH:" scored 2.1:

bc7c) the state.

Attitude toward mathematics. Students were asked hether they liked,

mathematics "very much," "somewhat," or "not at all." F.F:Inificant

ences from the state on total test score were observe:- r, every reporting

. group except those repcirting that they like r...athematic." 'very much." Those

who reported that they did not like mathelhatics at al cored 4.8 belw

the-state, whereas those who like mathematics "somewir.- scored 1.4... above

the state.

Perceived utility of mathematics con'' rcJ to othY. _Hbiects. Stndonts

were asked whether, in compdrison to other suhjects studied lu scheol,

11

-97-

..'

tlfey found m;_ltheatics "very useful," "sunewhat useful," or "not very

useful." Signific;nit differcnc0 from the st6te on tttal test score more

found for every repor.titil gi:oup except those idin reported that they found

mathematics "very useful." Those who find mothtics "not very useful"

scored /.: bol ow tic o stote, wheied6 those who rind wilthematics "SOWeYhOt

use H. " ,Th'',-. . 7 cibuvc the si.,.

OiiitV of sonul'f..ants- or sTecialists. Scores were grouped

according IN) l7tI0 OH 0 princiN1 repoctA thol. con;ultrits or

specios worked with wthe:uatics teaaprs in the schools. Significant

differences flew the state on LO H] test score tere ohserved or both

reporting grew with studeilL, whose principdL reported that consultants

or s) -h-llist',; - avollahle scoring 3.1 :, 2, i..., the F.toi: rind students

ahle scorinl 1.5 .4,:,.,:. the stte. This sceminfjly anom,ilous result m.,y he

p-incipr.-, reprtH ly.hdL cow,Hltonts or spLciolit!:, were avail-

explained by the Hot th,it Lo:-,I1 tiInts or 4eciolists tend\ cd to he more

av-ailahle in the hig ciLie':, (see Chapter 7: Remlts of the\PrinclHH

Quc--,tionwtive) ond thot the "hig city" 9-year-olds scored considolmbly

below the SLILE2 en Lola! Lest score (see ahove).

Achievrit level orn,-.Iniz.ation of clo,ssroorIL Scores were grouped

according Lo whetHr a student's principal reported that the prodoiJin(Ite

form of classrom organization in the school ww.-, according to achievoH(.111

. level or irreHpective of adliev(:-.Tni, level. No differences

the s Li to HI observed for either reporting grot.lp.

1

-93--

-Type of mathematics instruction. Scores were grouped according to

whether a student's principal reported that the typical mathematics class-

room utilized traditional teacher-centered activities or individualized

instruction. No significant differences from the state on total test score

were found for the teacher-centered group, whereas the individualized

instruction group scored 2.7 below the state. Again, this particular

group effect may be clue to the fact that individualized instruction -ended

to prevail in the "big cities" rather than in other areas.

Curriculum or program development. Scores were grouped according to

whether or not a student's principal reported that major curriculum or pro-

gram development in mathematics had taken place in the school in the last

five years. No significant differences from the state on total test score

were found for eith-r r<Trting group.

Class Size. Scores v!ere grouped according to whether or not a stu-

dent's principal reported that mathematics *eachers in the school felt that

class sizes were too large. Significant differences from the state were

observed for both reporting groups, with stR1,1nts from schools with report-

edly over -sized classes scoring 5.3: below the state and students from

schools with reportedly non-over-sized classes scoring 1.8 above the

state.

Comparing 13-Year-Old Reporting Groups

Sex o TN tudent. At the 13-year-old level, results on total test score

for both males and females v.ere stotistie6ily significant..in comparison to

-09

the state. The averaye for males was 1. 9.1 Love the state, and the average

rifor females was 1.7: below the state.

The trend across goal areas paralleled the results on total test score

in tour of the six goal areas. The greatest significantgliffernces con-

sistcnt with the trend on total test score were found in Goal Area 3

(Mea!--urement), with rcHles scoring 5 Olf above the state and females scoring

4.3,', below the state. The smallest significant differences consistent with

the total test score trend were found in Goal Area 6 (Geometry), with males

2. 5.. above the state and females 2.:L below the state. The exceptions to

the total test score trend were found in Goal Area 2 (Computation) and Goal

Area 4 (Charts and Graphs), for which there were no significant differences

from the state averge for' either males or females for either goal.

Ti=, results on objective scores parallelcLa.A.,he_resnits on total test

score for nine of the 16 ohjeetives. The largest differences consistent

with the tot1 Lest trend were found on Objective 12 (Knowledge of Metric.

Uniis of Measure), with eel es 6.3:' above the state and feholes 5.4Y. below

the state. The smallest significant differences consistent with the toti.,1

test trend were found on Ohjoetive 9 (Ability to Multiply and Divide Frue-

tions and riiyA2d Numbers), with moles 1.0. above the state and femdles 0.

below the state. On obJeotivo 4 (Ability to Multiply Whole Numbers), th,

trend reversed, with females scoring tiignificantly higher (1.0: above thr

state) and mules scoring significantly lower (1.21 below the state). On

six ohjective':, no u -i(111-ifietit dilferen:es from the state were observed or

either males or feed os: Objective 6 (Ability to Add and Subtract Dec i-

::,11:;), ObjeLLive. N (Ability to /1,'Id and Subtract 1-1"-i0W;), 0,1,0qAiVe 13

-100-

(Ability to Interpret Charts and Graphs) , Objective 3 (Ability to 'Add and '

Subtract Whole'Numbers), Objective S (Ability to'Divide Whoie Numbers), and

- a

Objective 7 (Ability to Multiply Decimals).,

ISize of coununitv. Test results wgre reported according to the size

of community. There were four reporting groups for this variable: big

city students, fringe city students, medium city students, end smaller cowl-

munity students. Significant differences from the state, average on total

test score were"-6und in commnities of all sizes with the ,exception of the

medium cities. The big city students scored 12.4 below the state, whereas

fringe city students scored 3.0 above the state, and smaller cominunity

students scored 3.F above the state.

In five of the six goal areas, the trend exactly parelleled the trend

on total test score. That is, the big:cities reported scores significantly

below the state, the medium cities reported scores not significantly dif-

ferent from the state, and the fringe cities and smeller communities

reported scores significantly above the state, with the sMaller communities

showing slightly higher scores than the fringe communities. The one excep-

tion as Goal Area 5 (Problem Solving)(, in which the only difference from

the total test trend was that the fringe cities showed a slightly higher

score than the smaller communities. The largest differenceswere observed

in Goal Area 3 (i ieasurement), with big cities 16.2.: below the state and

small communities 4.Pt above the state. The smallest signifiCant differ-

ences w(e oberved in Goal Area 4 (Charts and Graphs), with the big c4.ties

9.6t below the state and the small cc nunities 2.7Y, above the state.

sr-

-101-

L____)',the Leend across object:Hes also closely r,3sebled the trend on tot

test score, although on four objectives the fringe cities slightly out-

Scored the sm-ill (:!,, Linities, rather than vice versa (Objective l': Ability

to F,ultiply Decimals, Objeetive 12: Knowledge of Mitric Units of Measure,

Objectiv th probl alud Objective 15: Real World

Word Problops In 60,dition, fringe city scores on Objective 5 (Ability

to Divide Umbers) were not significantly'different from the statP.

The largest difi'erences were found on Objective 8 (Ability to Add and

Subtr,_,LL Fraclions), with the big cities 19.9: below the state and small

CUI uniti s `>.St above the staLe, and on Objectl'ie 12 (Rnowledge of Metric

Units of mc_:(-1Hic0, with the big cities 20.0': below and the fringe cities

6.5 above the state. significant' differences were found m,

Objective 3 (,'M-ility to Add Subtract Whol,e Hullibers) , with the big

cities :3.6 belo.the state aid gnitjes 1.3_ above the state.

Region of Test r-esults were reported according to the s ix

region; of the state: Region 1--RLSCUE, Region 2Cooperative Educations I

Services, Region 3--CRU, Region 4--UES, Region --Project. Learn, and

SiTlificanL.differences fro the stateton total

test score w(Te found in R(L'ioll 2 (1.9' above the state), Region 3 (2.J (

above the state) ani Pejien 4 .2,. above the state). 'Region 1, Region

and Region 6 scores were not sigHficani:ly different from the state.

Differem:es by regton across go 1 areas were somewhat, similar to those

found on total test score. bugion 2 was sip] icantly above the(state in

all (10,-11 ar'C':1!--, Go it four 2 (Ccr;Tut,,tion:, where there ws no

-102-

significant difference. Region 4 was significantly above the state in all

goal areas except Goal Area 1 ('hthematical Concepts), where there was no

significant difference. Region 1 was significantly above the state in Goal

Area 4 (Charts and Graphs) and Goal Area 6 (Geometry), and showed no signi-

ficant differences in the pther goal areas. Region 6 was not significantly

different from the state in five goal areas but was significantly below in

Goal Area 6.

There was somewhat more variability in the results by region across

objectives. Region 3 was significantly above the state on Objective 1

(Underst-dnding of Rational (lumbers), Objective 2 (Understanding of Ordering

of Numbers), Objective 6 (Ability to Add and Subtract Decimals), Objective

10 (Knowledge of Area and Perimeter), Objective 11 (Ability to Convert U.S.

Units of Measure), Objective 12 (Knowledge o, Metric Units of Measure),

Objective 13 ([,h ii to Interpret Charts and Graphs), Objective 14 (Math

Skills Word Problems), Objective 15 (Real World Word Problems), and Objec--

tive 16 (Knowledgc of Geometric Concepts ).

Region 2 was significantly above the state on Objective 2, Objective 4

(Ability LoAltiply Whole Numbers), Objective 5 (Ability to Divide Whole

Numbers), Objective 6, Objective 7 (Ability to Multiply Decimals), Objective

8 (Ability to Add and Subtract Fractions), Objective 9 (Ability to Multiply

Fractions and Mixed-Numbers), Objective 10, Lhjective 11, Objective 12,

Objective 13, Objective 14, and Objective 16.

Region 1 was significantly above the state on Objective 3 (Ability to

Add and Subtract Whole Numbers), Objective 6, Objective 7, Objective 12,

Objective 13, and Objective 16.

irJ

-103-

PC(jOrl 4 was :,:glilicuntiy above thetate on Objective 3, (fljecti vu 4,

Objective' 7, Objective 11, Objec\tive 12, Objective 13, and Objective 16.

Region 6 sighltieuu-tiy below Lhc Situ onObjealves 2, 14, and lb.

Region 5 sh6wA no iiunifiLant diffcrences on any objective.

Scieeconc.'ic -;LJIhus. ionl Lcst,scores worn Yeported accord in to

three level of socionconei,ric u1iigi, Hedinh, and low. Significant1

differelves liHjli Mn sM on total le'A scm-u were observed in all thri..e

r000 flog grot:p:: with the lciw .>(:)c iper.();owc st:ans group 6.0 , below the

st6t(:,, the 1,iedioH socioecoHuiiiic status group 1.4. above the ',Uite, and the

Iii gh socioecovic ,,taLns croup 4.9. above the state.

Parente; di.,cur::.iun or S Lode: Lu were asked whether they L.alLed

to their pareHL,..; 61JoHt. "(Lily," "wo(=kIY," "r1oothlY," or "hardlY

ever.' riL,,nt fm:: the '...tate on total test score were

oberved for every uruup C:::,Lpt the group that ruported spearng to parcrts

weekly. Thre was u (cinsi'_,Lcat trend for student', dici,tssing school more

frepently to have higher scores relative to the state. Specifically, the

group that reported "Ift.rdly ever" 'tiavinu .c_uich discussions scored 4.Ot. below

the state, the grout' thi,t reported monthly discw,,lon scored 2.7: below the

stalerand the graup that cpurted daily discussions scored 0.8: above the

state.

Parental enC(Mr: 7,ehoolwOrl.. Students were whether

- they received "a lot," "quite a bit," only a little," or "hardly any"

encoge:::Pnt fro] their prcnts about schoolwork. Sicjnificant diCfreo(:is

-104-

from, the state on total test wore ve.e observed only the 6roups

reporting "only a little" tncourgement (2.8:: below trp. 1:,tats) and "a

"iot" of encouragement (1.1"/, above the state).

Tel watching. Students were asked whether -oh day they

watched television "less than ore hour," "be'ween one , ' two hours,"

"between two and three hours," "between three and fouc or "more

than four hours." Significant differences ff'om the sta._ on total test

score were observed in every croup ecept that reportiH, between three

and four hours of televisicn watching daily. There we a a consistent

trend for scores to increase re-La-Live to the state as television watching

c.,oecifieally, the "more than four hours" p",--'d'ay group scored

4.4: below the state, the "two to thethrccc hour" group s'ad 1.V. above

the s1,1 thL "one to LvT, hour' groiJo scored 2.4 V12 state, and

une "les than one hour" group scored ".-1.) above the

Attitudo 1rd sch-ool. Students were 'asked ho'., eh they liked

school. P, sponses were "I hate it;" "I don't like it., "It's 0. K.," "I

like it," and "I like it a lot." Significant differ:. from the state

on total test score wore found for every response cjrc?,. except that

reporting ;Le school a lot, with p-rfomance rela 'e to the stir to

generally increasing consistently as ,-Attitude toward became Is )re

positive. Speolfluilly, the "hate sckuor group scm. 3.1 below the

state, the "don't like school" groupse red below the state, the

"school's O. K." group scored 1.3: below the state, me h.; the "like school'.

group spored 2. above the sLIte.

-105-

Stunt!:, botch ''r1-4;tk,c

"vory HIlt " " s u i i ( 2 , 1 ; H t , " Or That o t oil . " S i i l lricoq.t. it 1 r-i'Qr-010 110: ti 01, 7.hoid tot61 st !corc nra ohervcd In thrLn

with vriu0hHni:i2 st.Ac. LH.rovin# os attitud,,.2

on to iH' LTh,q2. Hy:c.i Li ii ly, those- who (*it

(IL all scured who 11 h-2 ro L on rds(Jred 0.1 [I to 1.11, rod tilo 0 o 11 jr thcticn, "vry

scorch sLite,

Pin crif 1 ; Lo,.:.;-_tred 10) otkec St;Adnts

'.11 teur, in son to othnr sul).wcts they felt

Li dt "very " or,,iti I 5 " or not vary u octul ."

Significdnt Li no: sL:r2 on tot1 Loot vjorQ w(l.re found in

'kH 1 Pr'f 1 rico rcH,..:ti, yr to LiH Ho to -L,provi tH Er,

Hoc. foul that :ctiio::oticc 10.

"not v(Tii Hrhn thosr! 0110 tol Hot it In

scor H 1 tO hub.; thQ ILOLO, 0l tho':7,6 fool it is"vry 14erul" !;corrd ).6 love the sthte.

or lotA1 test scores 1.11 0

ei)or LC'd 0O oh 1. to oh thur or nu 1. 'student' s nc Hot (,;(41--

sult-mt-, or --,pc( id is to w,)I.Lcd wi Lt) Leacher!--: in tho 0011001. No

S -rui!, Up:2 S LOLa (2(,-.1-ve(i for cithur reporti nc;

Hvel i on 0 C a`f,c.1(:)('M. TOL1,1 ter=,t .00105 1.011

I-Vt)Or ;Jr..LULtri , [-)C 1;1( Lid 1rHt tin'

-106-

predominate form of classrsie organization in the school was according tp

achievement 1 vel or irrespective of achievement level. No significant

differknce from the state were observed for either reporting group.

car

Type nf indwwdtics insLruction. Total test scores were reported

according to whether a student's principal stated that the typical 'Lan-

ccmatics classroom for 13-year-olds ,utilized traditional teacher-centered

activities or individualized instruction. No significandifferences from

the state were found for eitirza reporting group.

Curriculum or program development. Total test scores were rWorted

according to whether o: not a student's principal stated that there had

been major curriculum or program development in mathematics in the school

dun in i-ive years. No signitiLant differences Frcii the state were

found for either reporting group.

Class size. Total test scores were reported according to whether or

not a studett's _principal stated that mathematics teachers in the school

felt that class sizes were too large. A significant difference from the

state v.s, observed in the group of students whose principals reported that

mathematics teachers felt that classes were not too large, with this group

scoring 0.9, above the state. No significant difference from the ste.te was

found in they other' reporting group.

-101-

I! Yr-OH

Sex ii ile»t. T:-.)tai.istica 11y HyiHi ic,-.1rit di if Prencer.i; Iroti the H

O ti A,(-0 Le!;L. score \Tre ohL-,erved Hr Loth !1:,iles (3.0 ahove thQ stote) and

! (2.3 lie 1 e H. H i e ) .

nAle ,udenLsy7r(A end fi'mialec., scored

HiOlti Lan t.1:: mice the s tote in every goii I ere c>mept GeH Arc,a 2,taten), where HO differences from the sttc werc, 1w)served.

difierenr.les w,,.!re found in'G')H Arcd 6 (.'IceHtry),

ahove [Hai os 5.0, [How the state. The

sifibliest differcrics were found in [Oil Area 4

(Cho r Gr,.!pir,.), 0.6 aheve.. the st,:te and LtiiIe `, 11.4 be (u!

the S Cato.

On in o HI-, (H 1 1 can 1. ly :-Cuovu the H Li

1,)elow the .,Late. The ldrycr.J.

di f tetete tutu foi;!-;.,1 nit CHit LIcic (tincic:i,tmiritpl 0.i0et-ing et

wi obey e and f H.i,e1 es / 0. 1)nlew the state. The (.--ddal 1

List ei ly Lensi the tre.w.1 Ofl tcHoi test

!,core ;1,1.10 ;+y! emt1 ire 0,-..,1(s; the stake) were found on

Live 13 (ALi 1 -i ty IC) interp! tt. (thirt-,,; att,d Graphs), wiTh illTile-,, 0. 6'. shove i.: id1

.i . I

frets let; 0.4 hel nw ti;,,_ '.;-Lat.Q. The trend ,found on total test core wF,

re,v(2)'5 nd tin OH nc Li Vu 4 (Alvi hty to tlul Ci ply Colt , wi-th 1 eilia inS

11 can t (O. V) and Ina sinni Hcontly kJ ow O.() ) the

No H I ('2 1 -Ica MI d i I I ertnce t.Fi H Lt L. Mre -;-eilnd for ei tiler si 1 ie or

1,1.1 in OH,;((. L (Ahi 1 ty Co Hy H Uirole ), Ohim' I ive L

(Ability to Add and Subtract Decimals), Objective 7 (AL I ity to Multi ply

and.. Di vide Decimal s ) , and Objective 9 (Ability to Multi ply and Divide

Fractions) .

Size of commurvi ty. Test scores were repot' Led acco..H 'Inc] to the s i ze of

the s L.,dentl ommuni ty big city, fringe meditiH city, or small com-

'muni ty. On total test score, significant i I fere.nces the state were

found in each reporting group. The big d ti es were 1 low the state,

the ti es were 1. 5;1, above the state, meth um di t: were 2.2:: hove

the sta to, all-! smal 1 cemeni Lies vere 2.4'5 above the s

s goal areas, the big cities were signi fi cant 1., below the state

in every goal area. The largest difference for this found in

dual Area 3 (Me,r-wrement.), with big cities 17.9... below !. Ilo state. Smaller

CflLIMWIi tics Si i i tly above the Stetu in (!el,',. teal a=rea. The

6iffrence was observed in CoJ Arua 6 (Gem;-

, wi tin s t i l l cow-

LInni ti scot- i 1.91 6Hve OI(' s tat P. The L!,:,di um c I scored s (Jni f l

eantly dhove .Qe state i n al 1 hut two goal areas (Go,, roe 1 : flathcHat c: 1

C:(Jn cep t.!, and Carl Geometry), where no slglll If erenc s were

It)unc. The fr1i trio c I Li es scored s i gn i [-loan l 1.v alAovc.' sLaI. in Only tv,:o

heel arca a ((,, 1 Area I : P bane Li c Concvp L'-, and P,r(t 4: Charia

and Gr(ios ) , ond show( d HO V i q h j f i C H I d i iThsynces Cr. the Late I n the

Other 10Hr g0,; dre,L11.

s o ye, the hig CILIA'. sco.1 .v be low the to e

on al I °Hod rn(!,,, di 1 lercn cc he oc. curri nct o

Objec ve 10 ( ('doe of /001 and I ecime L('r ), where 5 1 (:I1 i es scored

OH

20. ..j!D: 61-id H d hniuoo o 3OIUO H:(:?

La Le occ.,HIT-ilim, ru Ohju.L ivo3 HUH I H H Py:Li oH ouoL fItinlu NtmLy:Hrs),

hi orurc 1 H hu iou flu Lu. ho wiL c,Lorrx1

0(901 f .i(HHtly 00 1 01),J (2C (1: li:li1CTS11011CH 11(') ol

nq (H. 0 '.1.1-1,j of i\l.) I 1 *i ty to

0-i V U 1 201111 13' H) fill Lip1",' 0.H Di ul:H Frj.C.1-,i011F,,i_11:(1 13:

rly ,11111 1Ar;vd31 , cmd oh id ro ol gni ricant di Frey-,.

on (oly (I 01.00 HydiuH c Li cu 's.cored uf;ove

hilio ubtsc-J-Hv(s LO t y iolu 6:

i\hi 1 i 10) Rd(i.HH /11.ri LiLy 'L.() c

-h out jul11,. 10: V.n.,,r;i1(!d,...;:. of e\r-L,: id Nr-iiiictrr, 11: ,Nyi liLy Lu Couv.o L

1",»0r,,H1ilo Hut 3: 13:

i..,1,; ify H 111f Cat , 11: NHLh ffilh ', lord.

1 b:

f

(:!( ho otir:r 00001d

LIP ',1o; ()II 11 ujuiLivoo (2, 5, (3, 7. 0, 10, '11, 12, 17i,

?,-i(! liltOlUli (.1 i thu

n'LLHrliwl liv(! 01)HcLivc. imP 91'c0..(:t dirfl.cmc.;! dhnvc: thr,:

Iroup' ro';.', di 1 iou' round on Of cinc-

L t.hL, of Li.

-_11to rnportod ric,udi ncj to the

re,ri on'-, lilt- 1-- Pr(j iii ",,)---Coornrr:i ducAl 0;w:1

P,! .Y--Lh U, Ho on 4 Peri-kJ 'i---Prk4juct, I ruru, :1111

i (1;1 i i froH I ;HP (11.,-1-1

12'

-110-

test score were fou "yin Region 2.13.6% above the state), Region 3 (3.2%

above the state), and Region 1 (2.3% above the state). No significant

differences from the state on total test scone were found in other regions.4Ft

Across goal areas, Region 2 and Region 3 scored significantly above

the state in all six goal areas. Region 1 scored significantly above the

state in all areas except Goal Area 1. (Mathematical, Concepts) and Goal Area

4 (Charts and Graphs), where performance was not'significantly different

from the state. Region.6 scored significantly ,above the state in Goal Area

3 (Measurement), Goal Area 4 (Charts and Graphs), and Gbal Area 5 (Problem

Solving) but was not significantly different from the state in the other

three goal areas. Region 5 scores were not significantly different from the

state in any gbal area. Region 4 scored significantly below the state in

Goal ,Area 6 (Geometry) but was not signifikantly different from the state in

the other five goal areas. The greatest significant difference above the

state across all goal areas for all regions was observed in Goal Area 5

(Problem Solving), where Region 6 scored 6.2;:, above the state and (in Goal

Area 6 (Geometry), where Region 2 scored 6.r above the state. The greatest

significant difference below the state across all goal areas for all regions

was found in Goal Area 6 (Geometry),_ where Region 4 scored 4.7.below the

-state

Across objectives, Region 3, Stored -significantly above the state on all

objectives excerpt Objective 3 (Ability to Add and Subtract Whole Numbers

Objective 7 (Ability to Multiply and Divide Decimals), and Objective 9

(Ability to Multiply and Divide Fractions), in 'each of which no significant

differences from state were found. Region 2 scored significantly

above the state on alJ objectives except Objective 4 (Ability to Multiply

Whole-Numbers), Objective 7 (Ability to Multiply and Divide Decimals),

Objective 9 (Ability to Multiply)and'DAide .Fractions), Objective 11

(Ability to Convert U.S. Units-of Measure), and Objective 15 Meal World

Word Problems),'in each or which no significant differences from the staLa

were observed. Region 1 scored significantly above the state on half of

the objectives: Objective 6 (Ability to Add and Subtract Decimals),

Objective l (Ability Co Add and Subtract Fraction, Objective 9 (Ability

to Multiply and Divide Fractions), Objective 10 (Knowledge of Area and

Perimeter), Objective 11 (Ability to Cohypiit U.S. Units. of MeJsure),44,

Objective 12 (Lnowid of Hetric Units of-Measure), Objective 15 (Real

World Word Prolat'ems), and Okjective 16 (Knowledge Of basic Geometric.

Colicepts). Region 6 scored signifftantly above the stage on four objec-

r-tives: Objective 10, Objective 11, Objective 13 (Ability to Interpret

_Chants and Graphs), end Objective 14 (1lath'Skills Word Proh}ems). Region

5 scored significantly above the state on three objectives. Objective 4,

Objective 5 (Ability to Divide 1JX1e Numbers), and Objective 11. Region 4

scored significantly below the state on two objK:tives: Objective 6 and

Objective 16. The> largest diP+erence above the state across all objectives

for all regions was observed on Objective 10, where Region 6 scored 9.7:

above the state. The lar_gest difference below the state across all objec-

tive:, for all regions was observed on-Ol3jective 16, where Region 4 scored

4.7_ below the state.

1 21;

-112-

Socioeconomic status. Total test scores were reported according to

three levels of socioeconomic status high, medium, and low. Significant

differences from the state on total, test score were found in all three

reporting groups, with low socioeconomic-status students 5.2% below the

state, medium socioeconomic - status students 1.6% above the state, and 'high

socioeconomic status students 3.6%, above the state.

Parental encouralenient of schoolwork. Students were asked whether

they received "a lot," "quite a bit," 'only a little," or "hardly any"

encouragement from their parents about schoolwork. A significant differ-

ence from the state on total test score was.observed only for the group

reporting "hardly any" parental encourapuent. This group scored 3.6%

below the state.

Television watchin. Studedts were asked whether each day they

watched television "less than one hour," "between one and two hours,"

"between two and three hours," "betvieen three and four hours," or "more.

than four hours." Performance relative to the state improved consistently4

as amount of daily television watching declined, with all reporting groups

except' that watching television between two and three hours daily showing

significant differeIrces'from the state. Specifically, the "more than fou

hours" per day ,gro4 scored 9.5 below the state, the "three to four hours"

group scored 2.9:, below the state, the "one to two hours" group scored

above the state, and the "less than one hour" group scored 4.4r above the

state.

-113-

Attitude toward sc.klpol. Students were asked how much they liked

school. Response option mro "I hate it," "I don't like it," "It's O.K.,"

"I like it," "I like it a lot."- Significant differences from the state on

total test score were found for every reporting group, and performance

improved iairly consistently as attitude toward school became more posi-

tive. Specifically, the group hating school scored 5.1'/, below the state,

the group not liking school scored 2.1r: below the state, the group thinking

school is "O. K." shored 1.4;Y below the state, the group liking school "a

lot" scored 2..2 above the state, and the group liking school scored 2.9'/

above the state.

School aspirations. Students were asked to state the highest level of

schooling they would like to attain. The response options were "not finish

high school"; "graduate from njgh school"; "graduate from a vocational,

technical, or fiusiness school after high school"; "go to a two-year coll(ge";

0 "go to a four year college"; and "go to graduate or professional11

school

after collCge." Significant differenCes.from the state on total test score

were found for all reporting groups except that not wanting to complete

high school. Performance relative to the state consistently improved as

educational ambitions increased. Specifically, those wanting only to fin-

I

ish high -school scored 11.9 )elow the state, those wanfing to attend .a

vocational or technical school scored 6.5': below the state, those wantilr

to attend a two-year collage scored 3.2s below the state, those wanting to

'attend a four-year college sc--)red 4.9:: above tlr: state, and those wantin

to attend graduate or professional school su-el 10.6": above the state.

-114-

Attitude toward mathematics. Students were asked whether they liked

Nathematics 'very much," "somewhat," or "not at all." Significant differ-

-fences from the state on total test score were observed for every reporting

.group xccpt those liking mathematics "somewhat." Performance relative to

the state improved as attitude toward mathematics became more positive,

with those not liking it at all scoring 6.2% below the state and those

liking it "very much" scoring 6.6% above the state.

Perceived utility of mathematics compared to other subjects. Students

were asked whether, in comparison to other subjects they studied, they felt

that mathematics was "very useful," "somewhat useful," or ."not very use-

ful.' Significant differences from the state on total test score were

observed for all reportig groups, with performance consistently improving

as perceived usefulness increased. Specifically, those who felt mathematics..

was "not very useful" in comparison to other subjects scored 5.5% below the

state, those who felt it was "somewhat useful" scored 1.2% below the state,

and those who felt it was "very useful" scored 3.3% above the State.-

Perceived utility of mathematics outside of school. Students were

asked whether, in their lives outside of school, they found mathematics

"very useful," "somehwat useful," or "not very useful." Significant dif-

ferences from the state on total test sco re were found for every reporting-

group except those stating that they found mathematics "not very useful."

In contrast to the results obtained on perceived utility of mathematics in

1, .

comparison to other subjects studied, on this variable studefitI;:who found

12 7

-115-

. 4

A

mathematics "very useful" scored significantly Iric; the state (2.7%

below), whereas those who found mathematics "somewhat useful" scored icdni-

ficantly above the state (0.9% above). This apparent anomaly may be

explained by the facts that a higher percentage of "big city studnts

reported that they found mathematics "very useful" (See Chapter 6: Results

of the Student Questionnaire) and that "big city" studenOscored somewhat

below the state'on total test score (see this chapter, above)!.

Years of rothematics. Seventeen-year-olds were asked how many years

of mathew,tics instruction they had in grades nine, 10, and 11 ("none, "

"1 year," "2 years," or "3 years "). Significant differences from the state

on total test score were found for all reporting grroUps, with performance

consistently improving as number of years of matheqatics instruction

increased. Specifically, those with no mathema*s instruction in thes,e

three grades scored 22.7% below the state, those with one year scored 17.2%

below the state, those with two years scored 8.37 below the state, and

those with three years- scored 4.6% above thg. state.

Availability of consultants or specialists. Total test scores. clere

reported according to whether or not a student's principal reported that

consultants or specialists worked with. mathematics-teachers in the school.

No significant differences from the state were found for either reportiinc

group.

Achieyement level Organization. of cl.assroos. Total' test scores were

grouped accordteg to whether 'a student's' principal reported that the

1 ",

predominate farm of classroom organiption in the school was by achievement

level or irrespective of aehievement level. No significant differences

from the state were found for either reporting group.

Curriculum or program development. Total test scores were grouped

according to whether or not a student sl)rincipal reported that major cur-

riculum or program develtelent in ma ematics had occurred in the school

during the last five years. No significant differences-from the state were

observed for either reporting group.

Class size. Total test scores were grouped according to whether or

not a student's principal reported that mathematics teachers in the sch'ito1

felt that class Sizes were too large:. No signifiCant differences from-the

state were found for either. reporting,

Summarya

Nine-year-old males and females performed.the same as the state, whereas

'13 and 17-year-old males performed above and.13- and 17-year -old females

performed below the state, with the magnitude of the differences increas4.

ing at the upper age level.

Big city students at each age level performed well below the state.

Medium city 9- and 13-year-olds performed the same as the state, although

their 17-year-olds performed above the state. Fringe city and smaller.

commulity students at each age level exceeded fhe:state, with smaller'

communities above fringe cities at each age level.(See Table 4.1).

.1.P

-117-

TABLE 4.1-

Graph of Achievement on Total Test by Size of Community

9-YEAR-OLDS Lill student)

Oig

Fringe Cities

PI;ick-s;

13-YEAR-OLDS Lill stu&nts)

ftg

Frirlq2 Citi()s

ri,!dium

17-YEAR.OLDS (z;11 stucIP.nts)

Bkje,

Fringe Gine;

Mc:dium Cit

Sn)tIler,

0' 1 74

62

r

7E)

73

-

...

r

.1 78

79

79

20 40 60 80 l:.)0

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF ITUIS Ohr-:OTAL TEST ANSVVERED CORR::C-!' LY

130

-118-

Regions 2 and 3 students of all age levels performed above the state,

with Region 3 below Region 2 at each age level. In addition, Region 5

9- year -olds, Region 4 13-year-olds, and Region Z 17-yer.-olds performed

above the state (see Table 4.2).

There was a consistent trend at each age level for performance relative

the state to improve as socioeconomic status improvA, with low socio-

economic status students somewhat below, medium socioeconomic status

students slightly above, and high socioeconomic status. students somewhat

above the state.

There was a tendency for performance of 9- and.13-year olds relative to

the state to improve as frequency of discussion of scftaol with parents

increased., This trend was slightly more pronounced far 9-year-olds.

(This variable was not assessed for 17-year-olds.)

O Nine-year-olds whose parer as helped them with'schoolwc.rk scored slightly

below the state, whereas those whose parents did not help scored slightly

above the ,state. (This variable was not assessed for 13- and 17-year-

olds.)

e There was some tendency for the performance of 13- any! 17-year-olds rela-

tive to the state to improve as parental, encouragement of schoolwork

increased, with this trend more pronounced for 13-yearOlds. (This

variable was not assessed for 9-year-olds.)

o At the 9-yearold level, performr e relative to the .1-fate im roved, then

declined; as time watching television increased. In i.(,:ontrast, at the

131

-119-

TABLE 4.2

Graph of Achievewent on''Total Te'st by Region*

9-YEAR-OLDS (:111;170-!pts)

Region 1

flrgioio 2

Ri.Tion

Region 3

11,-.gi,.)i] 0

r74

13- YEAR -OLDS (an 1.tlidurw,)

Po.:gion

2

Region :i

sIkAirill

fi,:,p()11 5

Rogion

17-YEAR-OLDS (n11 students)

11,,:gion 1

lift)on 2

Ficgir:m

Rf,gioo 4

Region

RE:gion S

79

..I 80

J

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS ON TOTAL TEST ANSWERED CORRECTLY

-A-; ,, f r.- 0v1:- :: i '; n.lt i -,1,,r, Ly r 1";i;`,r; 1, c_l''..' ,'..:Ir',.',, r' (. ty ,,,i,

!

t;':,ri .,) ,Ji ';',. I- , c; f rt,.., : In ')",i," ;'-,:':(. t i '1;i' r-,r;a (... : co' !!. 1 r rf to in,,,rr 11.-;, fry;.._, -..r._.., ri., ,--v,--,i'.-.-D,. ..1,1.., in L011.,-t. , Li

-120-

13- and 17-year-old levels, performance steadily declined as time watch-

ing television increased, with this trend somewhat more pronounced at the

17-year-old level.

There was a general trend at each age level for performance relative to

the state to improve as the student's attitude toward schOol became more

positive.

There was a general trend at each age level for performance relativeo

the state to improve as the student's attitude toward mathematic became

more positive with this trend most pronounced at the 17-year-old level.

There was a fairly strong tendency at each level for performance to

improve as the student's perception of the utility of mathematics com-

pared to other subjects studied became more positive.

0 Seventeen-year-olds who find mathematics "very useful" outside of school

scored somewhat bacv the state, those who find it "somewhat useful"

scored slightly czow the state, and those who find it "not very useful"

scored the same as the state. (This variable was not assessed at the 9-

and 13-year-old levels.)

At the 17 1year-old level, there was a very strong tendency for perfor-

mance to improve as years of mathematics instruction increased. (This

variable: was not assessed at the 9- and 13-year-old levels)

There was a strong tendency for performance to improve as educational

aspirations increased. Those students who aspired to a two- -year college

-121-

scoring 3.8'1, -b,:14,,14 the state. Those wanting to attend a four-year

collegebr grodUate school scoring abo-oc the state by 4,97, and 10.V,,

respectively.

Nine- year -olds in schools with mathematics specialists or consultants

scored below the state, whereas those in schools without specialists or,

consultants scored above the state. No .differences were cibservud at lid

13- and 11-year-old levels.

O NO differences from the state at any age level were found according to

whether or not students attended schools that generally assigned stu-

dents to classes on the hasis of achievement level.

o No differences from the state at any age level were found according to

.Aiji-Wer.or-not-students attended sch9o1s that have,.b44major mathematics

curriculum or prprodoveloptooa. in the .last five years.

o No differences fromjhu st4ite at the 13-year:old level were found

according to whether ,Ladents attended schools that generally employed

traditional te,:icher-eelt,r2rod activities or generally employed indivi-

dualized instruction in 1.1 therm tics, although at the 9- year -old level

students attending schools generally utilizing indiVidualized instruc-

tion scored below tie state. (This variable was not assessed at the

17-year-old level.)

Nine-year-olds who attended schools whose principals reported that

mathematics teachers Wt that classes were too large scored -somewhat.

1

-122-

below the state, whereas 9-, and 13-year-olds who attended schools whose

principals reported that mathematics teachers felt that classes were not

too larL( scored slightly above the state. No.other differences from the

state wc'e observed.

-123-

CHAPTER 5

COMPARING CONNECTICUT WITH THE

NATION AND THE NORTHEAST REGION

Introduction

lhis chapter compares the performance of Connecticut 9-, 13-, and

17-year-old vtudents to the performance of students in the nation and the

Northeast region of the United States on selected items in the goal area

ofqlathematics. Results for studentS nationwide and in the Northeast were

collected by the Notional Asse;smentopf Educational Progress (NAEP) and

include data only for students ho were currently enrolled in school.

A.sr;,-all number of the NAEP items used in the Connecticut Assessment of4

Educational Progress in MathematiCs were drawn from HAEP's goal area of

Uri.)er and Occupational Development (numerical skills useful in the world

of work).

Comparative results are available only for thoseitems on the/tests

that were- developed by NAEP and administered ';iti(2rZ Con-

necticut at the same age levels at which MEP administered thee. While

a number of items on the CAEP tests were dram from NALP rkaterials and

modified by -the'Advisory-Comvoittee (e.g., changes in distractois, conV'et-

sion from open-ended to multiple-choice format), appropriate comparative

data are not available for these iteMs. lhe results presented in this

chapter are limited to a description of-the 14 items for 9-year-olds,

-121-

the 20 i tetras for 13-yea r-ol ds , and tht 23 i teim-> for 17-year-ol ds that

were i c? n Li cal tiAEP i ter:. .

Conv iri son groups . At each grade l eve] , resul is far Connec ti cut

students are cnmpared to resul ts for theYcorresponding groups of students

assessed by urp nati oncii de and . i n rc ilortheai:t , yi ci di ng the fol 1 owl ng

comparis ons :

(1) al l students

Conpecti cu t students versus Uni ted States students

Connect i cu t s Ludents versus- NortHeas t s. Lucien is

(2) comHrisons hy sex

Coanicti cu 1. males verso:; Uni ted States mal es

Connecticut .1cmal versl.!s States `trona] es

Hits anal fol i is ar r, presented as the percentage

of s tident: cho ansv,ered each o f the selected i ten-is correctly. These

percentages are cji ven at each ape 1-e-vel .-for (1) al 1 national students , (2)

national males, (3) nat-i °nal reinal , (1) al I iiorthcasL students, (b) al I

Connecticut: stu,:en , (6) Conn, cti cut tildes, cnd (7) Connecticut femal es .

Tab les J. , 5.2, and U.?, present comi)ar,t-i ve results for 9-, 13- , and

17- year -olds re. per Lively. In the , the HA it I [ems ore 1 is tcd by0,-*N

tem number (questi oar posi Lion) on tir, Lest. ,ind (lisp] ayed un*(1,,:is the god- r.

area wi thin IWhich the i He Ic ici ridt. An atank!; he!->si do.

a value in the I e i (ate', p,.r m,rh,,ince of the «wp,Iris.on

Tf'

25-

group wits signilic,-.9iLly diff,erent from that ol ConnecLieul, ':_;-Ludo L':. A or

hfvond th.e 95: level

Interprotlii00 01

cohlid,nce.

y

There 000 &rtin dif-Hrences betyfeen CALF testing and NUJ' test;iiiq

thn her on iiw inHrpri Htion of resij t.s Firt, no pacJA au0(ii_pcs

were u',,ed for Hs L ion: in Conrki-cti cut ; ri\i'..1) uses p,-Iccid c,udi o-

tupus for te's:t toot for every Lost item. Second, Connncticnt

't.es tr'd ape-1 crinl (...n )u'ps of in the only. thnr;,

tested hy CACP wt.:re ,!± oceording to NNIP

9-yr-ol(k wep drawn from tFio fourth grade 13-year-

01d `. einhlh

from LI elovnth ci H BALI sctHpi 0(1

nd 1/yo,i-old::, in (5 iii

S Ii HIS solLly on the ie is

of Lile' prod in which th LrjdenLs H000

enrol led. Iti reildc,should when drawing,infer,:nces

frow the coi.r;'llive 12ilt',, Haring 111 mind 'these difternew, in the

Cat and ilfdP

The nexi. thr(J. !,-cl.O-)w; of thl!., chapHr descrihe comparative resulis

for 9-, 13-, ohd respectively. Lich Loins u

tdble diploving individ 'I Ii ;es,nits for all coTH.rion

Olapier con( a !.m;m.,ry oi thew cktia ih harrntivc., and grohic

form.

138

-126-,

Convdrative Peul is f or 9-Year.-01 dr;

Tablc/5.1 contains a comparison between CAEP and NAEP results for

the 14 NAEP items appearing CA the test fOr 9-year-olds.

Mathematical ,Cencepts. Ther'e were two NAEP items measuring M&the-

m(ltical Concepts for 9-r-ear-olds. On both N, P itecs the total group of

Connecticut 9- ,year -old s performed significantly better than 9-Year-olds

natiohally and equally as well as Northeast 9-year-olds. On both items,

Connecticut 9-year-old males performed equally as well as 9-year-old males

nationally. Connecticut 9- -year -old females performed significantly better

than 9-year-old fonialo;) nationally on one item and equally a> well on the

other'.`

Com,-11 Hun. On ail fair 4ACPoptem measuring Comput,t-ion, the

Connecticut 9-year-olds significantly outperformed the,IT national counter-

par,. However, with respect; to Northeast s-Atudents, Connecticut 9-year-

olds performed sicinificantly. better on two of the four items and equally

as well on the other hie item. ,Nine near old Cohnecticut. males performed

significantly bettwr than male 9-year-olds nationally on all four items.

Connecticut 9-.Lar-old, females perfoi i e l sienificantly boti-,ir than female

9-year-olds halionrilly on three or the four i tone 1iiid eibly on the

fourth item.

h old tin On furry of I lir five P i Lem:, on .,:1(.111 So I v-H,J!,

''-yy,ir-o Ilia, it (;cull]) lwrioL!Hcl i i 1 ( Iwt.ter t 11,1n

T45LE 5.1

Crparative Results on Vivithial EP Items

for Connecti cut, Nationl, Ofl "Ilortheast 9-Yev-0lds

PCnrintice,I

orLI I I

All 9-Y.ur-0ids Males

Connecticut .

N;Jtional

FFales

EEP

NortheastConnecticut

Ht in 79.1 75.2* 31.4

tr.s place

14. Ma:: Val2S in iDL 83,9 74,3* 79,9

105.4

(open-en)

4 19

(cHn-cnded)

i9

1 11,00 -I-

NationalP

hatConnecticut .1 ,

!oral

79.8 75.5 73.5 74.9

cl

76,.5 80,2 72,0*

25.3* 53.1 28.5*50.9 27.2* 33.8* 48,4

0,0

77.3

48,4

1

79.0*

55.0'

39.9'

87.3 /0-le 4,

90.2 81.2'

73,3

49.1

frr HP at cr,byonc!. the .F level of confidence.

TABLE,5,1 (continued)

Lr)scription of

Males Females

AEP HAEPConnecticut ,

wAlonal lortheast

NAEPConnecticut

", JAEP

Connecticut'National

rate of 5 rinutes

cc,1",

1u

.2sh I)

12. r1)(-Tiri.

fet,

(opn-ended)

ID,

Lu, nre

ar2.6 the

42

0

39./1.

61.1 50.4* 55.6

6.9 7.5

21.5* 26,3*

ssed

50.7 36,7* 41.7*

53.9 38.2' 41,2*

10 8.6

40.0 22,6*

55.0 40,4*

57,3 37.5*

5.9 5.2

38.9 20.4*

47,0

50,9 38,8*

143

- _

LE 5,1 (continued)

:cTtlon of Itc

11'

,, 7),

(maim

.c171

!nds?

14,

A11 9-_o1ds

1.11',77!

Uanil

)5,5

69.6

ales Fepales

Nati.c)n.J ", rth eastConnecticut

NAFPuonnem cut

"nrr,

Natioral

CO q*.0

60.6* 65.6 7.0

95.2 07 11* L.U.),*;

94.9

93,7

88.5'

f 1.4:)

-130-

9-year-olds nationally, and the same was true of Connecticut males and

females, respectively. Nine-year-olds as a grOup significantly outper-

.t formed their Northeast counterparts on three of the five items. Connec-

ticut. 9-year-olds performed comparably with the nation and the Northet

on the remaining cases.

Charts and Graphs. Connecticut 9-year-old students as a group, male

9-year-olds, anctfemale 9-year-olds performed significantly better than

their respective national counterparts on all three NAEP item in the

Charts and Graphs goal area. The comparison with the Northeast region

Shows that Connecticut students performed significantly better on one of

the three items and comparably on the other two.

Comparative Results for 13-Year-Olds

Table 5.2 contains a comparison between CAEP and NAEP results for the

20;' NADI items'appearingon the test for 13-year-olds.

MathernaticJ Concepts. There were three NAEP items for this goal area

. and, as a group, Connecticut 13-year-olds performed significantly better

than 13.-y r-olds natiCally on trio, of the three NAEP items and equally as

well on the third. Compared to 13-year-olds in the Northeast, Connecticut

-4

13-year-olds performed equally as well on 1 three items. However, Con7,

necticut 13-year-old males performed significantly better on all three

items than did 13-year-old males nationally, whereas females performed

141i

L.\

'!),(icri-,,,tio of Iten

TABLE 5,2

Cowative Results on Individual NAEP Ltms

for Crnecti cut, National, and 'Ortheast 13-Year-Olds

All 13- ear-0,(A, ales Females

r,

1ED

Tr,EPConnocticdL Anneotar: 0onc.ctjcutr'tortjc.)...st rational Naticnal

1r7

1. A ',J11

-

tgi

26,2* 23.4 39.5 31.4* 22.0 21.1

54.5 40,9' 60,4

nr(2,),/ 82.6* 85.7

943* 95,5

J92.1

90,5 87.3* 81.4

59.9

85,2

95.1

42.4'

tu7o n.:) *

50.0

09.0

93.0' 96.0

92.6 86 1* 93.4

n( 7

39,5*

0'6.0

95.5

91,5

frt.:" v'Hnvlq inn :05 of confid:ce,

iar,?.er aid Occ4ational Dsveler?'nnt 1923-74,

H"

14,)


Ds"cription of Item

0TUTATIO (cone d)

125 : 5

(opm-ended)

2')j, is

frorl

61.1 (vn-corded),

Yr-lc!hni!nr"

1

CgRTS Gr.),UHS

46. 8ccdinq ti)hieI I

01 7:1, SlLY"

All 13-Year-Olds Males Females

CcrlecticutN

NAEP

tional Northeast

NAEConnecticut. -NationP

al

ConnecticutatNiAFPonal

85.8 80.0* 83.4 86,2 78,1* 86.9. 82.0*

88.1 84,3* 88.6 8.1 81.7* 89.0 87.1

93.5 88,5* 91.8 93:3' 87.1* 93.5 89.8*

72.3 . 63.5* 71,3 72,3 57,7* 72,4 63.3*

57.5 67,9* 68,5* 66.4 69,9 50.1' 65.8*

88.1 , 66.6* 69,5* 88.1 61,6,

4

4

88,1 71.1*


.1:

.Bescription of Iteki

13-YeF,r-Olds

NA E P Of PConnecticut

Nati oral Northc.,.\st,

Males Foal es

ConnecticuNAEP

t

National0Alecticut

National

P )CilAUS G,APH d

65. P.eading a bar Tr'ap'n 91,6 91,6* 95.5 91,4 93.5-r 91.7 95.8*(.,oen-endLli a

10, Several pen', e

received votes ; what

of total

did one of the,

(Ef,).P'fld)

id and

ejsco,,ts, vil;,,t are

.oc1ei.

f',n' s:,:t 11T.1"1:Inly

i)ricd (It SIM

11,

emrCO,

1

12:(:) 51 IC' j.,1)

I , ,

retuilDi har,e 10

r gat ,.That

)

151

4

'27.2 17,4* 24.8

60.9ri 0 *

32,5 20.7* 22.3

0J,r

m

.

I

49.0* 57.1

9,7 62.6* 70,7* 82.2 64.71*

(

a

14.3 ,

4u. *

77.5 60.3*

'

.4


De5cription of Item


ConnecticutfJAFP NAEP

National NortheastConnecticut

NAEP

NationalConnecticut

NAEP

National

.PMEN'SOLVMG (c6nt'd)

48. 'Mary took four tests

and received four

.difiereht wAers

of item correct.

Mow many items were

'incorrect? Nen-

endod)

51. Three pcoole earned

mq(2y. via

tn2-,avoraje a'rount:

earned? (open- ended)

52 ,Ret aired at

targot, E25 riles

so f}; 1failaea 62V

miles south.

tar(!g.t by how .'any

miles? (open - ended)

GLKTRY

13. Li ne'secjmentsiit'a 1:21.

circle.; \rl'hith is

.

76.4 60.0* 69.5

55.7 38.4* , 46,0*

81.3 38.4* 46.0*

Cl-

73.5 68.0*, 69.0

71.0 59,7*

58.8 37.5*

58.8 437.9*

77:.6 71.8*

75.9 60:3*

53.0

53.0 38.9* ,

70.0 64.1*

significantly better on one of the three items and equal] y as well on

the other two compared to 13-yffr-old females nationally.

Computation. On all seven of the NAEP items for this. goal area,

Connecticut 13-year-olds as a group performed significantly better than

13-year-olds nationally. By contrast, Connecticut 13-year-olds as a gro4

performed eq.uolly as well as Northeast 13-year-olds on all seven items.

Connecticut 13-year-old males performed significantly better than 13-year-

old 'males nationally on all seven items,..while Connecticut 13-year-old

females perford significantly better on three of the items and equally

as well on the other four item compared to 13-year-Old,females nationally.

Measureif:ent.. On the one NAEP item for this goal , Connecticut 13-year-.

of s performed'significantly less well than 13-year-olds nationally and in

the Northeast. Connecticut 13-year-old females'also performed significantly

less well than 13-year-old females nationally, while Connecticut males per

formed about the same as their nati-oral counterparts.

Charts rend Graphs. Thera were two items from NAEP for this goa-1 area.

On one item Connecticut 13-year-olds uniformly outperformed all na,ional

and Northeast co..T1paison group ;. On the second item, 13- year -old females

in ConnLcticut performed-significantly less well than13-year-old-femles

nation:ally, s: did the total group of 13-year-olds relative to their

naJonal cennterodrts. On coarisons for Connecticut moles with narionat

ales and for all Connecticut 1 3-var-olds with Northeast 13-year-old:.,

perf,orance wa.,,,about the s

if

w -136-

Problem SolviiN.' On all six NAEP items for this goal, Connecticut

13-year-olds as a igoup performed, signifiCantly better than 13-/ yearcol#

nationally, Compari ns with Northeast 13-year-olck show that COhnecticut

13-year.-olds r4rforted significantly better on only ,,three of the six items

and equally as well. as\Northeast 13-year-olds on the other three. Both

Connecticut 13-year-olci\males and females PerfOrmed significantly Ater.

than their national counterparts, on all si, x.items.

4

Geowtry., On the one NAEP item for this goal, Connecticut 13-yay-

olds as a-group perfOrmed better. than 13,_-year-olds nationally and equally

as well as Northeast 13-year-olds. -The-comparisons for 13-year-old male

and female groups show that Connecticut students performed significantly

better than their national counterparts.

Comparative Results for 17-Year-Olds

Table- contains a compariSon between CAEP and NAEP results for

the 23 MEP items appearing on the test Tor 17-year-olds,

Mathematical Conceyts. In results for all comparisons on the four

NAEP items for this goal, Connccticut students' performance was equivAlent

to that of their national and Northeast counterparts, with two exceptions:

on one item, the total gkoup of Connecticut students performed significantly

less well than their Northeast counterparts; and,on another if6 Connecticut

males performiYisi(jnificantly less-well than idles nationally.

15-

TABLE 5;3

Comparative Results pn,Individual NAEP Items

for Connecticut, Nhtionai, and Northeast 17-1'ear-Olds

Description of Item

All 17-Year-Q1 d5 Hales Females

NAEPConnecticut

National

MITHEXATICAL CONCEPTS

7. is eauiu.lent

to what percent?

'(Open-endA)

.;'..1.Jber that is

gratest.(dec'imals)

53. Nufter that is

(dociHis)

Frction. that is

(

63.0 64,7

NAEP

Nort:heas

NArPConnecticut

National,onn"t1c.utc,

rati ona

68,8

92,6' 92. 3 92.4

76.9' 75:3 75.1

45.4 49 Z 54.9*

0') 1 07 ;l!O.J Ur.v 82.2

a.

,

68.3 53.9 61,7

95.0 94.2

82.8 77.7*

60.6 59.5

90.9 91.3

72.5 72.9'

33.8 38.7

86.0 87.9 88,91 87.1

97.0 96.8 94.6 96.7 97.6 97.3 96.1

* Sic,H:Tkitly different frog C4EP at or beyond the .05 level of confidence.

r an4 Oc.cutional Devenent 1973-74.

TABLE 5.3 .,continued

All 17-Year-Olds

rJescription of Item

)

IConnecticutNAEP PREP

National northeast

71PaT10.1 (cont 'd)

14,,'136 - 19

(open-rended).

nr

33:06 + 10.00'

+ 9.14 + '5.10

(Open-ended)

FiLJ J

(open-cled)

I, 23, is

sObtracto,d from

62.1 (o0en- enc;rd)

-uJ,

hpen-uld)

1 pounds 7,

uncos

Ha(

, 04 .0),t

Males Females

Connecticutr\AEP

Natid alConnecticu

NAEP

National

91.6* 93.4

92.5 93.9

94.7 , 93 2 95.0

84.4 78.0* 80.0*

92.3 88.8* 90.3

94.8 89.7* -95.2 93.2

93.1 89.7* 4'17 Ot

94.4 92.2 94,9 94.0

dP1

82.4 1 76.9* 86.0 79.2*

91.4 87.0* 93,1 90.5*

V


4

DescHptIon. of Item


ConnecticutNAEP NAEP

National NortheastConnecticut

NAEP

NationalConnecticut

NAEP

National

CHARTS GRAPHS

11. Reading a table of

sock sizesa

13, Reading a bar graph

(open-ended) a

PROBLEM SOLVING

8 Several peop ,e

received vote what

percentage of total

vote did one i if the

People receive?

'(open.-ended)

4 .4.

16 Three people earned

,What was

the avivage amount

d(-t6

earned?,

/

pen-ended)

27. ',If 30 alories in

,9 ounces of a flood,

how many calories in

3 ounces?

(open-ended)

A

93.7' 85,9*, 86,4*

J90,8 97.4* 97.2*

(),7 4415 47.9

72.3 66,0* 16.6*

79,1 70.0*'

93,1 83.7*

97.8*

58,8 53,4

76 4 67.4*

81.5 74,2*

94,1 88,1*

88,8 97.0*

36,4 36.0

69.2 64,6

77.4 66,4*

I,H

Description of Item

PR,OBLEM.SOLVICCont',d)

,.

39. How much qorelwould

a person day to buy

paying\ sh?

a certai car on

credit t an byes

, (open-ended)

11. Park* ldt cfrai'ges

35 first hour, Hit

each additional'hour

or fraction. What

,........i.s..Ahe cost to park

from 10:45 A.M. to

3:05 P.M.? ,

(open-ended), ,

43. Person left for work

at 7:45 A.M. and

,returped,home

,114dater,it what

tinIMOPOde0)


All 17-Year-Olds Males \ Females

ConnecticutNAEP NAEP

(7 National NortheastConnecticut

NAEP

Nationol

56.9 55.8 61.8

54.3 46,7* 53,1

86.5 82.4* 87.1

54.5 56.1

51 :8 44.1* t:40

84.4 80.4*

163

y. °li r

I

i

164

Y

r

{.4,1.1i1 01 (,O ;L1

r)

5,3/(cont1nurd)

, 11 0 7

f'

t011 rl L C1.,: L !,1 e T1 C

lw%

Femles.

connecticut

32e 1

4tA

u

44

Computo tl en. The total grou0 or Connocti cut 17-yea r-ol ds performedic .

.

gni fi c anti y Letter than 17-year-ol nati onal ly on three of the seven 4

NAEr Comp unt i on i t i2:r6 , and signi fi eanOty Letter than the Northeast ol-,t onet. ,

of th,ese 111 Compari sons by sex show tn-at Conriecti cut r- o 1 r.f 'tjyt 1 es

perf ned siTil ,-'t i can Lly, better than r17-yea-ol d ma] e naS ti onal 4 c foar.

. ...; .1, .. . . . .

the seven hi P i terns , ,Atil r - ConngtWit 'i'ema 1 c!!'; perf -med Oc_ ,, than

,,f,4,1:-..... .

. ,:!.'-., . ;.:',"),.;7y:`":-17'

femdlLc.'; netLi onai 1 y wfrtwo of trife .:.even i In ..-_-, . Al 1 other comparisons show

that CoRneeti--cUtt fri:,y..,a-t-ol ds pe rfo rrne 6 equal 1 y as- wel 1 as the NALP groups ..., o -

., ---,._..., i.v R, .

..

MaasurQs.lent. ..0,1-f:the one NALP i tem for this goat , al t Connecti cut

, f-kt- , .,.

repel fi.g groups' scored s i gni fi cantly l owe r than their national and thenr

:,ftrtheast counterparts.

Charts and GrcipLs. There were 1.1c) N,Tp i ttms for this go 1 area.

Ur, one u tlissn i Lei , a i I compari sans show that Connecti cut reporti ng

groupsperlefmed si(Hificantly (wtter than 1,1feir natieuaf and Northea5t-

coini LerparLs. Honvn, on the other- NUJ' tem ( T tem 1.3---= an open-ended

Orem requiling stunts LO reaa graph), Connecticut 17-yea r-ol ds

perrormed siunificJatly less well than nitional and Northeast 17-year-

olds in all comparisons.

ProhlrH Thc-,,Aital (ewn) COnnecf. 1 cut 17/-year-ol d stçidatn

per I mined s i ( a i l I i c Hi [Hy he t Ler'othan 1 7 o r-ol ds nati onal ! 7 OH four of tHe,.

.

si x Pret.A.em ()1 vi u j tem.. , and Si OH ii i rsi.(1,1y he I. Le th,i; No its 17-ye::1

on mi.., or H it,;,- Pb (.11 1N.F! inilnj i ims' v:itil one excep Li on ,

t.11,,' ,11 np 0 r Cow 1,L ( 114, ;;;11 I ; ;

-1

-113-

thuir HAL.' OHn 0OJ The exception Ites 16'; on ',dr.' (1 thu

COrinr.C. ]/' 50-,ed siqni ficnntiy 1 o. thdrt di d HortirLd.17-year-01 ds. ...e.r's sine that Conner-t d males

yrrirericed r)a than ftH ui one corrnferitrt..,-). Oil four

ol thu si x iuis, aid Connec -Females di d so on three of

the six i

ry, bur r,. FUV,I" i Lure for this (2oal area. On one

'0 Ftiusu i LL.Lill 5.) '0'11 Conift-2c-1,-; cut reporting groups did not sc.or'e. . .

siH fi ran Lly di r fercn iy ,from their od onal and lortheast counter-pa

Oft thu u nj tin treis. the only siciii fi Cant iUrencis uere on .1-te.ro

23, \ I Li rwoup O ConneciA oittper formed thei r"

Hi I us e di d tot wales , and on T t.cricl 42, Id

Lhu Lot.:".1 IH!; H Ceunet i perLor-mr-id luss vii] then 17-year.-

oid in ion.

ry

I ,.1 Lem,. for 9---ye.7r-old!,, 20 for 1ear-olds

and _;; iriC id-ntici on both the rind C.:\,;12

dl (I 5.6 ',he..., the avcr%aerr Lri 01' cc usHr. . -

in an':,k,fered corref..1" yor-LI i II C.onnec!ti etL ,therri ,

nu 00. do I ry Prot-LH:15i: eit tHe Lb rue 1 Pr Li vu 1,elic15. r).

of t hoc, u ftfdt 1 Lu on ab 1 rh ii 1)

OIL

Ir

-144-

TABLE 5.4

Graph of 9 -Year -Olds' Performance by GoalConnetticut, the Nation, and the NortheasL

9-YEAR-OLDS

,

MATH CONICE 't S Joon

Ci:lint!cocilt

(2 it,w(s)

CO:, ;.)TAT;ON(4 it:21ps)

PRO$1.alSOLVI;-:

U.)

ANL) {(3 r

tit

tlww,t

(Coni1;,..ticHt

I\LttiQn

Nc,:tlieit

,t)

112.6

...

/0.0

'e,!.(1

AVCI70:; A61. 0; I : (.(n1i;D II

IA 5--

1,r\lq.1.:.

o1 OS PC:C) .y I /r11"'ct(:00)(' t:, f;ti :ind

57.0

1,U\ c,0

CU; ".i'f) :t j.

It-ms)

''',.'..c.x.104.1 . t ,,.,,,',, t

P

LAT!! CONCLP1L;(4 itk!rus)

COiVH'UTATION( / nerns)

I.SUL3UMFNT(I itoni)

CLICT.ISAND 01iAPIr,

Pro Lr.1SO LA/

(6 iteii)s)

n;;;10

-146-

TABLE 5.6

(Caph of 17-Vt.:or-GI cls Per fort.cance 1.)S, Goal Arei,k,..,.,Conheeticut, the Nation, and t1L_, Nor thea s

1j-YEAR OLDS

Connecticut

Ncitiori

Nor 110,1A

COE l'ItCliCU

Nor thnitit

Connecticut

N.,umo

North.ii.t

CurlInClit:Llt

ri(Ji

)

inst

Inc; ti'r

1\101:1,7

r

I 69.5

; , - r ?.. 7 0

I.3

N3 I)

2)) i0

6E,

6.8

72.8

74.2

. ; (,;;0.7-

3 81.o

AV1_11.1. 0.! ICI r\(11 0! I i; (;.--)1;lii I.

91.8

T1=',L;(.11 5.7

CuilH , 13- ; and 17- Your-01(1,,--,Per r,Jt-Hi (-ind N

() 1 !)',,

I.:13;F It

1:

nri tir

-148-

group scored higher, lower, and not significantly different than the

nation and the Northeast.' The Northeast region is defined by NAEP as

including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut,

Rhode Island, New.York, New Jersey, Washington, D.C:, Pennsylvania, and

Maryland.

,Comparisons with the nation. on no-Ile of these test.items did Con-

necticut 9-year-olds score,signifidntly lower than their national coun-

terparts. Both Connecticut 13- and 17-year-olds performed-significantly

lower on only two items relative to students nationally.

Connecticut 9- and 13- year -olds scored significantly above the nation

on almost all items, while Connecticut 17-year-olds achieVed more highly

than the nation On 39% of the items administered to them.

In terms of the average percentage of test items answered correctly,

Connecticut 9-year-olds -substantially outscored their national counterparts

in all goal areas. For this .Connecticut age group, the largest differ?

from the national average was in Computation (16%) and the smallest di fl

ference was in Mathematical Concepts, (5.51.

Connecticut 13 -year olds also outscored their nationdl.counterparts

(by 5-13q in all goal areos,:with one exception. In Measurement, Con=..--

necticut,13-year-olds scored lower than the nation by .approximately 10 %.

By contrast, Connecticut 17-year-olids scored above the nation on only

four of the six goal areas, and then only by a small margin.

Comparins with Northeast. Connecticut 9-year-olds scored

loer teen the Liorthr.,,-. on on the tee I Ieee, 'hi le ]

01 d,-; ,.:;corcH 1 0./t-/ air N (eon. of Ole I c I 1.7-yea r- old.;

cier err 22. ( tee of the tee ;. i rtlu.-taciL.. count,:Dr't:s

Of the Co the best oar

, thm that e ;,rt.hoc_yyL counterp,-IrLs cni

of 1par-o'l dc, ecHoed h-i(j'rit,..r than the tiort.h.v7,1-.

on 20. H. i[nd Conb.,-ict cut, i7--year--aide (in 131 (a total

d L'uf.:1, en I ol COrlrieC CH. students wdc,

thee tto;t --of tHH on thrni.2 or the 1000 (J,ial

as No t .s.tnc_Lrits, an fiHoet

co.1 LH:1;*(AHLHL abov:-: the

on jiL, LH OH Cul,..iLjtiom end

be-Hut. .,!) (;%,

L s iii. ,Lc!) -and

and on GccJp}-1,. , and

Probl.1b

OVI'L.VH.7. qt.M.:! -; O \''T! cicrH[nce of the Corti

no Hon no tiHn- HHt p1 the cotfl

Ikmuver, tine Corn 0CC of Li cot ala r;roups \tor, 1W-A ter

in be Lhc: tic--1 (011000 to It!:: t..

1

CHAPTER 6

RESULTS OF THE STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Introduction

the vurpose of this chapter is to summarize :the responses of 9-, 13-,

and 147-year-old Connecticut student's to each item On the student question-

naires. One questionnaire was developed for each age group, with several

questions duplicated across questionnaiyes. The purpose of administering

these questionnaires. was to identify factors about students and their home

and school lives that might be related tb achievement. Results on the

relationthips that were observed are presented in Chapter 4.

These summaries of questionnaire responses are provided for all stu=

dents within each grade'and for students in each region and in each size

of community. The data reported are the percentages of students in each

group selecting -each response to each questionnaire item.

The data summaries are presented in.Table 6.1 for 9-year-olds, in..

Table 6.2 for 13-year-Olds, and in Table 6.3 for 17-year-olds. The narra:

tive that accompanies the tables 11.0i-flights these results. The narrative

is orgAnized by questionnaire item and presents for each one a summary of

all students at a given age level as well as highlights of the differences

between regions and communities of differentsizes. For each questionnaire

item, the discussion focuses first on 9- year - olds, and subsequently on 13-

and 17-year-olds respectively:

'

frfa 6 1

g.

Respons2s of 9-Year. -Cjo*Studo4 tosQuestionnaire It Crossta ulat4;io

.

by ,Renand Size of Cox:Jnityt,'and Reported in Percentes

4.

'

- ,

17J°

\.'1

0

Total

Or

'TABLE 6.1 (contipued

J

slzo of Co runny

Big Frinne STaller

R;,,gthn

3 5

J1 2.1 9.6 10.1 7.9 9.3 10.8 10.6 11.9 8.6 10.1 1.0 . '11.1

Sr, , It 3).0 30.0 31.5 46.6 42.3 39.8 37.2 42 .

61.4 59.9 . 49.1 59'2 42.5 .40,9 46.2 , 51,6., 52.8 5 .8 37.5'

5.0 3.9 3,8 3,3 4,6 3.7 6.2 3.6 2.8 4,2

2),4 19.6 31.6 25,2 36.0 25,9 26.0 X3.3 29.5 36.8 42,3

72,8 64.5 70,9 0.2 695 '70,3 60.5 66.9 60.4 . 53,5

4

. r

'!

4

RY.F.onKs of 13-Year-01d Students to Qostonnare Items, CrostAultedby P,,r;iiryl anc,1 Sin of o mi i n' P,enrtod in Percentces

.71' i

6

2

.1

0

ii

A.

o, '

IR

;V '4' 't4,

1,

TABLE 6. (continued)

4

r

4

.,Size of Commuqi,ty

Gig Frile Medium Smaller

Cities, . Cities Cities Places

Lid

iQz.,! mer ' 1

it 4'

ri,ch A'

Lira it a 10

LIKE V.417

!.at is all

;Lry

,

C 42,:u OTO 3:JECTS?

err;

4,8N,

)" 4.8 . 5.2 -5.5:

8,5 C.1 6,0 9.4 9,9

46.5 45.6 49.3 42.6 / 46.9

29.0 26.9 29.2 30.2 29.0

11.2 13,6 10,4 14.4 8.6

13.1

:p

23.7

49.0 15.4 14.9. 11,4",

54,5 4 59.5 59.6', 574

35.5 24.1 25.5 ,

: 3,4 3,4 4,5. Y 3.8

4L1 35.0 45.7 47:9 , 42.5

52,1 57,5 50,9 ''47.5 .53.6,

Region

3 4 6

I ti

P

-

2.2 3:6 4° 4;1 5.3 : 6.0 1

8,0 . 7,4 10.4 7.8 3.1 7,5

47.7 36.3 50.7 43.8 45.3 49,3

'30.5 35,9 A 27.7 25.7 .01.7 023.9

11.6 16,8- t'1 `7.1 12.5. 9.1 7.5

;)

r

12,4 '15,5 15.3 13.9 5.3 . 14.9

56.0 63.1 56.1 E0,0 57,2 61.2

29.6 20.4 28.6 26.1 34,5 23.9

0

2,0 5.5 3.6 3.1 4:4 .6.0

44.6 49.2 45.3 44.8 42,5 35,8

63.4 45,4 , 51.1 52.2 , 53.1 53:2

e )

4

Responses of 17-Year-Old St4ents to Questionnaire Items, CrosStabUlated

by Region and Size of Community, and.Reported in Percentages

TABLE 6.3

' Total !.

4CltleS

Frin'qe

.tCi;leS

S:f

s.",11A

ulc.!

, .

43.5

50.5

43.5 44,1

551

SCY,,,\NO7,0

4t all (- 4.5 6.3 4.1

Ny ,11.,s,t:.li! -i., 21.5 1!",9' 21.6

10.1 44.9.;,1- .. ''

,

r),17.y !":,7:4y4 1..t.

22.0 35.7 29.4

Cl* 3,7

thr, 1 hr. ,!15.5 25,4

22.S i9.2 22,1

13.5, .17.7

yy.5.3

11.3/

13.3'114.1)

423 4.2.!')1

l!,31.0

444.2

.

21,.1 29,3

E7,1-

17.2.

4444441444.444.-

A I.1':;

I

,

is Srral ler

3

44.0 42,0 42,6

.55,0 50.4 57,4

4.2

21,6 I

r4E.7

26,0

In

42,6

33.4

10.7

23.3

6),2

,

4,1

0

2.4

43.7

56,3

3.4

15.5

20.3

4,7.1, 1

.4.1

4? .1

24.1

22.7 23.7 ',...'.i, 0 25,7. .

34.7 'KJ , ./.').3 31,3

21.1 22.2 1,3

4 . 5 4

.,, 7.

.41 ,

,:

i 1 ...

44 4 ...

8!5 11.7 ,.).6 .,.,

,

.,

6.2

1..6

9.5

6.1

ii:34,9

34.c!

12.6

4 5 6

43.2, :44f,

53.2 56.9,

3,4r.,.4 4 6.2

21f! 21.5, 26.2

43,5

17.1)

31,4 23.1

0.! 1

--St11'6 ,

E. 0 4.6

.!;1! '

qt ..!.

..

OF

23,7 1J.2 r,,',' 2.3 "i..'..2!

L El: '56.5 ' 56.3, 55.7

2' , 1'';,2!' k "--.20.4 21,0

ril

,

90

C.1,,10111

21.:

.0

It c,),

TABLE 6.3; continued)

0V.

,,

CrUnity '

MOM11417,

JIKMedium Smaller

Cities Places

Region

5

!',;TH a1,

SEFdL

:5114,1) TO OMR SUUECTS7

'Lot very useful

krc.,'r,at useful'fiery :useful

PATi USEFUL

;C:i:OL?

i6t v.ry usc.,%1

L,sefu

;try sef..J1

lEAS OF MAN?

9.0

55,9.35.1

a sx 12.7 , 7.9 7.4

50.4 5t.5 54.8 59.3

41.7 ' 31.8 37.3 33.3

'it30.0 35.1 28'.9 . 29.4ji,p, 47..5,

P47,7 52.3 53.9

9.0, '28,2 17,1' '18.8 16.8

ire 0,3

year 6.g

y ars . 23.7

69.2 4",

1V; ilal. I PATIONS7

: 4 D:

e 2

I I

15t f., sh high schgol 0.2 '0.1 0,2 0.2 0.2 0 0.6 0.3 0 te 0

Ar 2d j !: hir,h scaol I? 13.4 14,5 9.8 1. 14,0 15,4 4 6,8 12,5 17.$' . 14.7 25.15catior,a1 svool , 18.8 ' 23,4 19.2 18,4 19.9 16,7 18,4 23.7 '' 21.7 10.3 ,.

!year ccllege * 12,7 13.5 11.5 13.3 12.9 14,9 i, 7.8 '14.0' , 11.2 , 15.2 16.9lyear olle-je 33,0. 31 1 40.9 39.1 36.4 45.4 40.7 34.1 35.2 24.6'Ire.,..;te sm,s1 .15.8 i .11. 18,3 14.9 15.3 22.7 . 14).1 13.5 .. 13.4 21.5

.;.5 r

;.t 5,1

. 30.6 . 22,0

61.7 72 :9

8.5 11.1 9.1 10.2 5.8 e 4.659,2 52.6 59.0 , 56.4 56.4 56.,232.3 35.7 32.0 33.4 37.8 38.$

,/37.1 37.,t 1B.9 g9.1 28.4 16.9;47.3 48.4 55.0 484 51,3 . 63415.5' .# 13.9 16.1 21.1 ' 20.3 10,0

I9 0.4 ' 0.1 0.2 ,0.2. 0 0

5.4 ,V 9.0 6.2 2.5 9.C: 6.2 .5.2 10.8)9,,5 23.2 ,113:7 11.4 24.14 25.3 ,s '21.4 16.971,1 61.7 69.6 .79.4 65.3 68.3 72.4 72.3

(1.

'

-157-.

4 13

,When interpreting- the 'k:rtoricci between reg,ion, the r'easider is

.,;!cautiort.ed to-bear in mind tha the,"big cities." have b44en extracted fromj..,,. 1.. 'A.-4-

t ,

'4.11-iel r respecLi ve regions .' , That i s.;. th6 ,responseS of students from "big._ .

cities: within Region 3, for exaMple, :arse not -included in the sumftnries-,,,,.

'.' for that .regton, Responses ,o,f Student's from "big cities" are, t'rea.teel ep-lit

:-(

.. size,

..

arate4ly in that categoro of size of 4mmunity. ''. The reader is. directed Ito.

, ,.. ,.., Chapter 1 for definitions of the region .9~ is.zw- community scategoti es ..

,,--,

4.404,'ve-,,kfi

* . ' ''''' ''''. o Ve i' ''4-of Student

ASlightly highen percentage ci' females than Trials ilit each, of t,u . ...

:three age I ,2vel-s partioililted' in t-h% assess.raefie (.approximately 547, verus.

461 , with the Vsi.r enta9e of 'al es incr sing slightly as 1.1* age level..

d indreases. ro,-.....t.-

At the 9-year-old level the distributions by commun size and region

were similar to those foy the age level as a whole, pith the exception of

Region 6.; where the patterQ Was revers_e-eout 54% males and 216%,females

'`At the13-year-old level, the distributions by community size4and1111region were similar to the distribution found for all 13.r -olds, again

with the exception of Region -6, where approximately 617-of the students

\\..4 assessed were female.

At the 17-year-old level the distrib,ut ons by communi t ize 'and.

region were sirriil ar-ro the distribution foi- all ,17-year -olds with the

exception .of, lig cities," where approximately"' 59'", of thestudentst'assessed were female,

40'

1

1,

Discussion of School with Parents-\Nine- and 13year-o14 were asked whe

anc1 experiences with adults ih their homes:el&

or "hardly ever or never."

Sumrrry424yageLle211. More, than half of theistudents at each age

level discuss schoolwork daily with.a slightly higiftr percentage of

year-olds (59.5%) than 13-year-olds (54.9%) this category. -Less than

a

A ,disaussed schoolwork.

ekly'" nmonthly046,

18% at either age level have only monthlyl'O'r 1 es frequent discussions

of school with adults at home.I .%

, . .

Differences by re9iorrafid community titze. At?, ths,-. -year-old level',', ,...

120e distributions' of responses,- by commtInity. size fibre similar to the 8is-,,p ., .,tiVibution-found far the age level as a whole, The big ,c-ities, display the7

0_ ± .

most striking' contrasts "r porting the highest percentage of ,9-yearzolds

rarely 'or net^ dl,soussing schoolwork '(14.7%) and the largest percentage

of 9- year -olds di,,COssing schoolwork daily (63 7%) The diTkributions of

responseS by region wertNalso quite similar tc fiie Al di,sqribution.

for 9-yeiar-olds, with, /the exception of'Regvion 6, whjch/est percentage of 9- year }olds Who rarely or Aver discus's

andOe "owest percentage of daily' di scussants---(-111.7%)

At 'the ,13-year-,old 1 'distributions 6 responses acct'

jar o the di'stribto region.and size o c °ntnity, were ess

ti on for all r-3-y every region and in every i?ize commu ity

s 1 i °Wry more than half of the 13-yea ds have daily di s cuss i arm about

school and 25-3V have week ly di s cuss' i on"s

Pa r:entril Encouraoerrent

Thi rteQn- and 17-yeah, -ol dswere ;as ked whether the'i r parents gave the,

encour-newen t in .thet schoolwork "a 1 ot , " "#lui te a ,bil-.4"Vonly a lit Ll , "

or "0 a rdl y --*at- al 1

(Sulky: by_ (:i_ge Level . Approxi ma tely 46;:. at 64ch age 1 evel recei ve

qui tc 4 bi t" of encouragement from -paren is vever - a hi gher percentage

of 17 :,yQ0r--01A .than 13.- year -olds1 ds recei ve "only a little" or 'hardly any"

encpur,*c .1111Wrs us 18.3Z) ; less -00: 5$!t thertitie level get,

.. ..:, ,

"hardly an ouragement :

>/. Di ffereh s by regi.,n and' cemmuni ty size. At tl* 1 1 .anOi7-yea N 01 4.

4- , AL, . ,

1 eve'l s the atirl huti ons of rewonSes by region were quite si mi ler, to the

di strihu

Pa re n

i on ?meg in the respective age 1 evel 4. as a whole.

1 Assistance with Schoolwork(

)

t'ilft-year-01 d students were asked, whether_ their parents usually(' 1 pj

1111h them tivi thchoOTWork.

a \Approximate ly ,72(: of al 1 rr-

I

,

i h / o 5 t ri bOt %h'?- of re s 01) s ,by .Comb4 ; -

5 sai d "that their parents

1'

' .

usually

size reveal that a4,

I"

-160-

. . . -slightly highr/ percentage'..,-of students in medium-sizecrbities (76.8%)

and a slightly loWer, percentage of studdnts in smaller,,communities (69.5 %)

obtain parental assistance as compared with 9-year-olds overall.0

The distributions of responses b region reveal that'.'Regjon 2 has' a

somewhat lower perCentage of sttVents. reCeiving help from parents 4.4%)

and Region 4 has a sOr.:what higher percentage receiving help (82.3 -than..

.9- year -odds across the state in general

Tel evision-Watching

lAtudents, at all three age leVels were asked how many hours they watch

televfsion daily.u

Summary' by ,Age! 1 evel .h gene 'la tel evisi onjWaichi ng docl i ries at

the higOer ag Thus, whereas about 40% oe 7-year-olds watch*

more than fouk hours of TV a-day, o'n1.) about 25% of-the 13-ye r-olds, and."

10% of the 17-year-blds watch television this much. Conver ly, a little

O-Nielhtkl f the 17-year-ulds.watch two hours or less ea day, whereas.

yonly .0ou-t-24Of the 13-year 'and 20% of the 2-year-ol ds restrict

their vi ewi rig -to this -extent

,N .

Differencesby region and comMunity stze. At the 9-year-ol d jevel ,

i -the b'sic pattern of restontes across students in di;,,,fferent corrmunity sizes

. 46"...

same, witliiktlie larg'est,group in each size of community watchingwas t

teltelevises more tha9 fouiihours daily,, -I-fowever VIA bi4 Citips had the

40-4A2-..444.: /, '17Vargest percentage dn'fudents in. -dategor %) and the small

°

-161:

t.:.s

cowinnities had the smallest percentage (35.4Z). Ho :.never, her is con-ALL.

siderably lesS variation between different -.rnmuni,ties in terns of

the percentages of Studer is Whowatch o)- )ours of television

daily (ranging from:5.4: in src(laCler in big cities)., The.

distributions of rest w: ,es by region were quite similar to the6overall p'at-

As

tern among.9-ypar-olds,although Region 1 h' ft somewhat similar percentage

1. more, than .four hou'rsAail'y (31.51 than in A.Ae totalof students watc

sample.

At the 13-yeal'-(410,,j*kel, the distributions 7k7r05pOliSS by community.,

.s4e_wer.e.-Si 1 tiOtfiat'foryear- lds-statwide, with4the exception ,4,..

-.., \ .. ..411 _

,,\0

pf:t,-,,..

W-city students hp ytch wore thanAfcruir hours- L4'.r ..: '

id rsAtZ5.44;',.ir totac amiN) The'distributions.of,

rx, spaises- ,region'fai-r1S, -c si tently resembledthe di'strib tian for ,

. / ' . ,,

13-year-bids State:41,de: HOwev4,'-14q,:ar-pld Region's 1 nd 2 watchw

.5.,, i .. , ,...

,.levision slightly lew.6fteri thanitWsIuA . -_ .

.3141 ther)egions.

At th 17 l7year-oldjgve, studthts in bi7citJ sVA

atch tel'<,7. .

. .,

-.so4..ewhat more often thin Students statewide,The distrIbutikons of 17-

r

year-dids: respoises in cou,muh'ities of ot41-95izes were similar to the

statewide ctistribution. The distributions of respollses-'by rebion remove:

\-

that a considerabTy hi.gher percentage of 17-yn6r-olds jn'Region 6 watc6-°. 14 , - .

three or more hoUrs lo_televis'ion,daily than ngthe otiper ciOns,. wikr'&'-\._'

, 1 ,. .,, -

the distributions were bentraliy similar to the statewide,dist40n.)

. ,

-

eelings.About School

rY

-162-.

41kil r

Students in all three age groups were askeittb select

of t eir feelings about school. Descriptors ranged from "I

"I like it a lot."

a description

hate it" to

Summary by?fe level. 'In general, the pattern of responses selected

by 9-year-olds differed from the pattern'.founil.at the 13- and 17-year:-old

levels,Calthough in all three age g .ro about 5% of the studentS

"hate" schbol.' However,---d" considerably lower p tentage of 13- and 17-

year.-olds than 9-year-olds like school "a lot" (about 10% versus aboUt

35%), and a skewhat higher percentage of 13- and ,17-year-olds than 9-

year -olds 1 i key school "pretty MUC 30% versus about 18%).

Di fferVcd 'by region'and.comMun size At the 9-year-il d I evel ,

there were geneffally 'few differences i n respons terns of students i n

communities of different sizes. 'Rela4vely few tudents, in'any type of0,

community "don't like" or "hate" OfroOl. Howev sonewhat higher per-

centages of tud ts in big citie and medium-stz dscities like school

"pretty nln" or "a lot" (abou 7% in each case)T in fringe..

cities

and smaller areas 01.2% d. 47.2%, respeCtAel :the di stri buti onsf by ,

r'egidn reveal thct a h her percentage of Regio 9Lyekr-ol ds "don ' t

like" or "-hatel schoo 5.6%) than in other' regions;'where aboUt.-10r '4ki, '''.. ,

.

fall into these ca4egorieS. .A little oZr half ., egion-1,,11.,,I and!,.

s___, Nk

du , . ,

-r---'- tudents like school "pretty much" or I-1-d 1ctf ,;! ,r7";-t,q et* uVer ha ,, -,0.4 , . '724. ,, ,

ion 4:students fall i n 'these categories , and .a4boilt 40.%3T R4giA .

) - 1", , 1, .1A. °

4

IP

-163-

and 6. s6dents fall into these categories.

At the 13-year-old level, all of the distributions of responses by

size of community are essentially similar to the statewide pattern. The

di stributions by region, 'however, reveal that a somewhat larger, percentage.

of Region 2 13-year-olds positive feelings bout school than students

in other regions, and a somewhat larger percentage of Region 6 students

have negative feelings about school than students in other ,regions.

At the 17-year-old level , all of the distributions of i'esporises by

size of community and region are essentially similar to, the pattern foUnd

i n thetate , as a. who] e.(

lt

g 4e:

, ,

Feel frig*, Abut Mathematics

, ..

tt.1 ttdents at. al three a64 levels were asked whether they.'.. ,* r., ,

1GS 6very much;"- "somewhat," or,

"not at al,,l."-,

ary by age- . In general , the appeal of mathematics ,declines

as age.; increases, although the pattern of respons0 lelected by 11- and,

17-yOr-olAikres6mbled one another more than 61061.-'resembYed the pattern

9ar,"-olds ,''SlighUy more than .1-tiakf °WM' 9,-year-old4tudents like

' - * .

matheliatf Cs*. y'rriOcW1 os compared o only'20.f7% of 13-yevar-olds andA,

b 2 1 :3;). 1714-year-oldsr-

!..-7tt(-`

thhe '41-y4r-olds dra..riot

!Nlit

ected this regtonse. Similarly, only 9:6%

atAttics

r-cids d 22. , of this -way.

Areas m of th6 r

4"

_

Di f

; fit

the bi I's and medium-sized cities have somewhat aer ,-,ercentages of

students who:Like mathematics "verY much" (about 60% in each),, and small41t

communit*ftehave the lowest percentage of students in this category ,( 2.5%).

-164-

. ,.e.,1..i.,,!'

'''

l)y region and communi ty, size...-..-,

-,:

Bar-old level

The distribution by region reveals that s4i0tly more than half of the

9-year-olds in Regions 3, 4,. and 5 like mathematics "very much," whereas

-only about160% in'Regions 1 and 6 have this strong positive feeling.

At-the 13-year-old level, the distribution of responses by communiy:

size reveals that fringe-city students have more negative attitudes toward

mathematics than students in other areas, whereas the big cities show the

highest .percentage of students who like .mathematics "very Much'' (36.5°k).

NW- The distribution by region reveals that:

"Is

per&e.ntages oVstudents whotio not like

16.5%; -respectively), and Region 5 had

who like mathematfts "very nwch"' (34. )..

ions 2. an

tirds

hav the highest

-(15.3%, and

eStF percentge of. students

At the 17-year-did level , the distributions of responses by community

size were generally similar to the statewide pattern . However, there%Was

a considerable difference between the bercentage of big-city students who

4 like mathematics "very much" (29.30Pand theyercenta1P-oTliMe-city

.students in this category (17.3%). In general-,e distributions of 17-

S

year-olds' responses,by region were the same as the

state as a whole.

-se

ribution inthe

Usefulness 0

I a.

s Col:area to Oder Subjects

f403"'Students at all I three. age I eVels were asked to deftri be how usefulY

they'fAt mathemat'i'cs was Ain comparison. to Other subjects they study

schoot ( "very useful, "somewhat useful ," or "not very useful").

.'Surnmary:tr, age 1 evel ._very useful ", in comparison to tnei r other subjects declines as age level

/".The percentage of students, who find mathemati csA

ql )ireases wi th 'almost rds of the 9-year-old s1 p.yer half

and" only:a 1 ittle over one-thi rd of the 17-yekr-olds

, .

selectingthis response. However, the percentage of StudentO - f.i.nd

.if,,,g414L A.*:.--;-,n,),,mathematics "somewikat useful " 1 ricrea4N14with age, ranging frOnAlpout

of the ,9- year -olds 'to about 86° 4.,oi- the `17-yean-olds. ".Relat, _ . .

any age level fi n'4--

d mathematics of little usefulns .

). ..

i ''''Di fferences by;, region arid c mun ty -size. At the 9-year-old level ,

.ii.ributions of 'respoves by cofmm nity size and region were generally

..siMi 1 ar to the statewide distribution, ( tti the exception that a s'ornew

10 centage of Region 6 students findina4hematics very ul' (-53. 51Y.

at the 13tear-old ev di stri butionS,, o esponses

e resembled thetateA p a ern , wa th, thpx e*Ceriti on that

,irOF-the b6i.q7city StudentS find- matheqatic "very useful?" and onlyo

<1.., z 44 of' .tie medi ty' stu.dents 'f 11 info 'this. category. s"Distributions

n a iso eivrally rese n> ed.-tWe. overalls,,,distributiCrn, with the,,

exception th Regyori 6 students . and only itS.z.1% of Region 2

`stodentt find mathemacs' "very useful .

,

*1,1

I 4

.1

--166-

iS

'Among 17-year-olds:, the distribution of, responses both, by comnjunity

size-and region were approximately the same as tht .statewide pattern.

Usefulness of Mathematics Outside of School

. ,

Seventeen-year-old students were also asked whether they find the

mathematics they study in school useful 'outsi,-de of school Although.51%

find mathematics "somewhat useful" in extracurricular life, a somewhat

larger drtentage find it "not very, useful" (30%) than 'find it '"very

°

Differences by region and community size. The perce ages of 17=

ttiematjcsyear-olds across communitiesties of diffdrent sizes wile find''., . .

somewhat useful "outside ofe school a,r&approximately the same as the,

_ -`

ty 40). Flowever, a. somewhat larger pelkentagc%

b.V

,,r,

percentage statewide (about 50

of students in big citie find mSthematics "very useful" (Z8:3%) than in

other-sized communities, and a Somewhatlafglyi percentage o students in

fringe cities find mathematics "not very useful" (35.1%) in compari8-on

to students -in other-sized' commusiities.C. The distributions of responses by- region 7eveal that a somewhat.

,

larger percentage ofstudents in Regions 1 and 2 find mathematics' "not

very, useful" in comparison. to o her Pegions , and,,-a' somewhat larger per-

lkatage of studedis in Region 6 firid mathemaSomewhat useful" in ',

compacison to other regions and the total sample. Otherwise, the pattern

respo.nses by ,region is simil-ar, to the stAteWide pattern.,

J4

-a:

4

("-

T.

ears of Mathemati c&

Seventeen7year-ol ds Vjere asiced. how many ye0.s.of,'mathemat,ics edi.icaticn

they have had in ninth, tenth, and eleventh grade. Approximately 60% have'

ad three years, 24s?; have had two years, 7%, have had one year, and 16ss

than r' have not "studi d$1 mathemati cs i n these three "grades_.

Differences, by region and _community sill, A similar pattern appeared.

jn:.ebmmunities ofdifferesizes, al thougf) sltghtJy lower rerOentages of

students 0i0Oties and small 'commimi ti es hbye St4klited mathematics -fcfr

th-ree years, i oarison to stUdents §tateM4c. Thejcattern, across. ,

reions was lly'sim4lar"to that statewide, although more Regiot 2t

. t.studOlIs (almost 80 %) have had three year's of mathematics, and more Region

3 and- 6 students (ablCOA have had only, one year of mathematics.

Educati onal A&pir,ationst

Seyenteen-year-olds were asked to tiescribe their. aspiratibns for

g.::. Responses r'anged from "not finish hi gh school " to, .

[

or prOfessilibnal :sCh 'Among all 17-yea r-ol ds , thef

1 /

spires fva fOur-ye colle*educatiOn (38%)'", followed

, ...,s1Wish Ao "; plete a vocati or.1al. or business school.111

Almost everybile lans to fib

qs.t. gg"A .

by about. 20% w

sh jfigh, school', and only about 13% plan

only to graciu te front high' s.chool..,-

Di f,fe re es by region, and 4friniCinity size.. The distributions by

I-

1/4

-168-

community size reveal that fringecity students have the highest expecta-

tions, with almost 60% planning to attend four or more years of college

(compared to about 54% of students statewide). Big cities had the smalle

percentage of students in these combined categories (48.4%) and the largest

percentage aspiring to a vocational school education (23.4%). In general,

however, there were no,striking'differencet' across communities of different

sizes.

The distributions by region reveal that in all regions, either a

sizeable plurality or a majority aspire to four or more years of college,

ranging from 46.1% of Region 6 students to 68.1% of Region 2 students in

this category. Region.6 had a somewhat higher percentage of students who

'seek only a high school education (26.2%) than.other regions, but this

region also had the-second highest percentage of students who aspire to

graduate or professional school (21.5%).

Summary

Student home measures.

Roughly 8(Y, of 9- and 13-year-olds have at least weekly discussions

with their parents about school.

At least three-quarters of 13- and 17-year-olds receive "quite a

bit" or "a lot" of parental encouragement about school.

Approximately 72% of 9-year-olds obtain parental assistance with

schoolwork.

t-169-

Television viewing declines,with age, butbig-city.childreN o

7three age levels. tend to watch more television thin student f

communities of other sizes.

A

Student school measures.

As students' get older, they report less positive feelings about

school, although a pldrality at each of the three.age levels think

school is."0.K."

The appeal of mathematics declines tiith age, although big-city

students of all ages tend to like mathematics more than students

in communities ofother sizes.

The perceived 'usefulness of mathematics in comparison to other

subjects declines with age; although relatively few any age

level find it of minimal use:

Approximately 80% of 17-year-olds find mathematics either somewhat

or very useful outside of school.

Sixty-nine percent of 17-year-olds have had three years of high

school mathematics, and only 7% have had only one year.

Almost all 17-year-olds plan to finish high school, and only about

13% plan to finish high school'but pursue no further schooling.

Fringe-city students have the highest aspirations, mith about 60%

(as cjnpared to about 54% statewide) planning on four or more

years of college.

CHAPTER 7

RESULTS OF THE,PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Introduction

The purpose of the principal questionnaire administered princip el s

of all participating schools was to collect information on schAol variables

1

that might prove to bear a relationship to achievement (see Chapter 4).

However, the responses of the principals to the questionnaire items are

interesting in and of themselves as a general characterizatiorLOff the,

schools in which testing occurred.

The queStionnaires for principals of 9-, 13-, and 17-year4old students

were 'similar but not identical; therefore, data for all three age levels' is

not provided fOr all questionnaire items. The data is generally given as

the percentage of principals for each age level selecting each response to

each questionnaire item. These data are presented in Table 7.1, 7.2, and

7.3 for principals of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds, respectively. The tables

display results for principals in the total Sample and in each region and

size of community.

Separate analyses were performed for the five open-ended questionnaire

items that required principals tof write in a response: (1) total school

enrollment, (2) in-grade enrollment (fourth, eighth, or eleventh), (3) math

class size, (4) number of instructional aides, and (5) hours of math per

class per week. For these items,- an average (mean) was computed for all

PRE 7.1,

Crosstabulations'of Major Principal Questionnaire Results (9-Year-01d bevel)

by Size'of Community and Region, Reported in Percentages

A3S:W.3:

cf

f.5

5f ac!',I6.c..1.nt

0?,

IT 21 1.2T

IU

;,3:':31!,

ot\

cf t. fr

of CH!v

Total .

010,

2 3 4 5 6xjes .Placo

I o

k

56.6

26.8

3E.3

4.5

59.6

31.6

3,9

33.9

t,3.1

57.6

32.5

23.5

11.1

29.2

1'.0a

4.G

3.0

24,0

3.0

66,7

33.3

0

63.3

32.0

66.7

33.3

76.3

.0

.50,3

45.3

22.8

17,2

24.1

72.4

3.4

46.1

43.3

'10.0

20.0

73.0

33,3

36.7

5,7

26,7

23,3

93.3

1.3

- 3,3

23.6

34.3

7.1

73.3

L,-,. .6

10.0

4,'30,0

,AQ.,.v

62.3

36,7

73.0

43,3

41.4

s5.7

41.3

. 66.7

0

36.7

30.0

13.3

23.3

7"6.1

76.7

23.3

10.0

33.3

113

100

0

0

14.3

35.7

0

6.7

0

13.3

,3

133

36.7

73,3

"13.7

J 21.3

20,7

94,1

5.;

0

17.6

73.6

4j

'A.3

33,3

5.9

41.2

556

94,1

5.9

, 5.9

17.3

52.;

37,5

79.2

15.7

47.8

43.5

L.7

45.3

3'..,.0

16.0

35,0

64.0

79.3

24.0

16.0

10.0

26

23.3

1L,3

23.5

76.5

9

0:.3

Ljt.Iil ^...,-,

11.8,

,u3.2

54.7

35.3

35.7

17.5

23.1

0

3:2:3

40.2

0

% 4.7

41.2

.,7

23,2

76.3

75,5

23.2

7.7

7.;

OV.

1,1

0

33.1

C.7

0

0

33.3

:65.7

33.3

'16.7

23.3

,44q

TABLE 7.2

Crosstabulations of Major Principal Questionnaire Results (13-Year-Old Level)

by Size of Community and Region, Reported in Percentages

Total

Site of Cominity Regioni

8ig

CitiesFrinye

Citiestedium

CitiesSmaller

Places2 3 4 5 6

.

',;..',:n ;rdJe 92.5 81.8 92.9 96.3 96.7 100 92.3 95,8 95.5 100 66.7

2,:;.:ralss of grade $ .

r./....,'

.

7.5 ,

0

I

12.2

0

7.1

0

3,7

0,

3.3

0

0

0

7.7

0

4,2

0

4.5

.0

0

0

3:;.3

0

,',.c:. to .;.,',i.',-:-.:i:rit 70.4 65.2 -75.0 . 71.4 69.0 55.6 76.9 75.0 69.6 76.9 65.7

P:::f.: y, cf ,::;,4,crent 29.6 34.8 25,0 28.6 31,0 44.4 23,1 25.0 30.4 23.1 .33.3:...il 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 ' 0 0 0 0

7'?::. !,Td CLASS 1:.

'.'noit1 73.4 65.2 1 75.0 75.0 76.7 80.0 76.9 70.8 73.9 76.9 100

:-.1ii..e.lzy-,' 19.3 30.4 I 17.9 14,3 16.7 0 23,1 25.0 17.4 7.7 0

2o...- 7,3 43 7.1 10.7 6.7 20.0 0 4.2 8.7 15.4 0

, ., , . ,l .M.

'

,,:% Y.,',"H -,:.!..ChEPL?

,

:,, 32.4 54.5 39,3 10./ 30.0 0 45.2 33.3 26.: 23.1 C

',o , 67.6 45.5 60.7 89,3 70.0 100 51.8 66.1 73.9 76.9 100

, )

;';7,1 C:'.?.:D.V. 0 PlOP.Z ',

7,EL:PW :: PAST S I'EAS?7

4.. 73.4 60.6 67.9 78,6 76.7 60.0 76.9 87.5 78.3 53.8 66.7

%c 26.6, 30.4 32.1 21,4 23.3 40.0 23.1 12.5 21.7 46.2 33.3

;I::....S ;.,:,-.:::',3 70 TEA6H:;5:

l!'.4 or -:..; fcr 7"' --plies. ,, . ,-1

:.~AlesL.v.,', v ,:.-:, 7,..c..criGis

30.8

19,4

63.6

27.3

18.5

14,3

21.4

:4.3

25.7

23.3

30.0

10.0

16.7

15.4

20.8

16.7

21.7

21.7

23.1

15.4

33.3

33.3

La.k of '!-:i,1iri5 ..7f. fdr teacilers 23.1 22.7 21.4 21.4 26.7 30.0 7,7 37.5 13.0 23.1 33.3

Clas Si:;!: t'..:. lar:.,eP

31.1 18.2 39.3 46.2 20.0 44.4 23.1 41.7 30.4 30.8 0

TABLE 7.3

Crosstabulations of Major Principal Questionnaire R, suits (17-Year-Old Level)

by Size of Community and Region, Reported in Percentages

Si:e of ConnitY

Totd1Big

Cities

Fringe

Cities

M2u..11

Cities

Sr7aller

Places1 2 3 4 5 6

57.,:ZNTS A ASSIGH):

pit. in grace 13.5 7,1 12.5 9.5 20,0 27.3 0 15.3 17.5 20.0 079.3 92.9 83.3 P1,9 70,0 63.6 100 78 9 73,6 50.0 ' 1003.4 0 4.2 4.3 3.3 9.1 0 5.3 5.) 0 0

1T:'ITS WA1V,D:

:-.7.4i7; to a!',:,cii.,7ent 62,9 57.1 70,8 61.9 60.0 54.5 53.3 73.7 02.4 50.0 33.:a.,.rd;'as ;` acjee..erit 29.2 35.7 20.8 2..5 33.3 45,5 40.3 13.5 11.8 413.0

r_TL::%TS APS i',SS1G:,E0:

5.6 7.1 8.3 4.1 3.3 C 627 15.3 0

to progrri 32.6 14.3 29,2 42.9 36.7 35,4 10 36.8 !.1.2 40.3 65.7R. armless of prorjwn 61.8 78.6 66.7 52.4 56,7 54.5 73.3 57.9

ne 510 33.I

2.2 0 4.2 4.;) 0 0 6.? 5.3 0

A. ',,4 ILMK):

22.5 14.3 41,7 23,8 10,,0 0

77.5 35,7 58.3 76.2 90.0 100 63.0 73.7 64.7 U 100

CP, P;a7:4,H

;N PAST 5 i,ARS?

70,4 05,7 65.7 73,1 E4.5.. 83.0 73.7 02,423.6 14,3 33,3 14.3 26.7 45,5 20.0 26.3 :7.6 23.0

.:,,Z:, ;0.',.:,::: TO T.:;...S:

L..., .,f '..:r ...;:1 .,.41er, 27.0 42.9 2:.8 23.E 26.7 1,',.2 23.0 26.3 30.2 IC.3 :1L,','...i,:i ..,f ,:,:,:ov.s. 7..it,,:ri!'. 20.2 35.7, 20.8 14.3 16.7 0 0 26.3 23,4 23.3 .13,31x:1..0 ,i-.:n1f,; . , f,',1. tuohers 14.6 21.4 8.3 19.0 13.3 0.1 t',...

,.... ,.,, .-1 33 30.0 33,3

0)::.s sins too 1:..rr;e 8.1 i 35.7 20.3 42.9 20,0 0 20.0 42,: 29.4 23,0 66,7

schools in the sample at epch grade level and for schools in eaqi region,

and in each size of community. Table 7.4 displays the date by af com-

munity, while Table 7.5 displays the data by region.

The chapter is organized by questionnaire item with soporting narra-

tive describing the highlights of the results for all principel% for each

age level (overview) and the major differences in responses for principals

in different'regions and sizes of community. The reader snoOd note that

the grouping of priecipals by region does not include principals of schools

in-"big cities".14ithose regions. The responses of princiP,a1 of "big

k)city" schools are reported separately under the size of community Brea down.

Grade Level Organization of GlassropMs.1\

Principals of students at all three age levels were asked to indicate

whether classrooms in their schools were organized predominately by grade

level or irrespective of grade level.

Overview. Prindipals of 9-year-olds and 13-year-oldsgolQpally indi-

cated that classes are organized accor it to grade level (86'e% and 92.5%,

respectively), whereas- principals of 17-year-olds overwhelmingly indicated

that classes are organized irrespective of grade level (79.80'

.*

Differences by size of community. Although the overall Ntter0 for a. \

given student age level in communities of all different si2e5 ,1as similar

to the statewide pattern y.. that grade level, some differences in degree

of similarity were obsery : 7/99

-175-

;4 someviat higher percentage of big city schools for 13- and 17-

year -olds Jorganize classrooms: irrespective of grade level than

statewide (18.2% and 92.9% versus 7.5% and 79.8%, respectively)..

A somewhat lower percentagdN: smaller Community schools for 17-

year -olds organize classrooms irrespective of grade level than

statewide (70Z versus 79.8%4.-tir

Difference by region! Although the overall pattern for a given age

level in each different region resembled the statewide Pattern for'that

age leyel, there was considerable variability between regions in the degree

of similarity:

,Region 1 had a somewhat higher percentage of principals of schools

for each age level with classes organized by grade level than was

found statewide.

Region 2 had a considerable higher percentage of principals of

schools for 17-year-oldswith-non-graje-level organization of

classrooms (100% versus -/.,.8%,statewide).

Region 3 had a somewhat higher percentage of principals for each age

level with students assigned to classes according to achievement

level than was found statewide.

Region 4 had a slightly lower percentage of principals of schools

for 17-year-olds with non - grade -level organization than was found

statewide (70.6Z versus 79.8% statewide).

-176-

Region 5 had a somewhat lower percentage of princ4pals of schools

for-17-year-olds with non-grade-level organization of classes (60%

, versus 79.8Z statewide).

Regiod 6 had a somewhat lower percentage of principals of schools

for 9-year-olds with non-grade-level organization'(OZ versus 11.4%

statewide) but a considerably higher percentage of principals of

schools with such organization for 13- and 17- year -olds (33.3% and

100% versus 7.5% and 79.8% statewide, respectively).

AchiKeTent Level Organization of Classrooms

A Principals of schools for students of each grade level were asked

whether classrooms in their schools were generally organized according to

achievement level or irrespective of achievement level.

4.0

Overview. About two - thirds of the principals of schools for 9-year-

olds indicated that classroom organization was not based on achievement

leVel, whereas slightly over two-thirds of the principals of schools for

13-year-olds and slightly under two-thirds of the principals of schools

for 17-year-olds indicated that classes were generally organized on that

basis.

se--

Differences by_ size of community. The overall pattern for a given-

level in communities. of eact) size'paralleled the statewide pattern\fairly

closely, with the following variations in degree of similarity:

-177-

A somewhat higher percentage of big city principals of schools for

9- year -olds aQd a somewhat lower percentage of smaller community

principals at that age level have classrooms generally organized

irrespective of achievement level (W.and 56.7%, respectively,

versus 68.fi% statewide).

2A slightly higher percentage of fringe city principals of sch'ools

for 17-year-olds reported that clAsrbom organization is generally

achievement-based (70.8% versus 62.9% statewide).

Differences by region. The overall pattern within each region for a

given age level usually resembled the statewide pattern, with the following

variations and exceptions:

In general, a somewhat lower percentage of Region 1 principals of

schools for each age level reported achievement-based organization

of classrooms compared to statewide results.

-rn Region 2, a slightly higher percentage of principals of schools

for 13- and 17-nor-olds and a slightly lower percentage of princi-

pals of schools for 9-year-olds reported achievement-based organiza-

tion compared to statewide results.

In Region' 3, a slightly higher percentage of principals of schools

for 13 and 17-year-olds and a consideraiJly lower percentage of

principals of schools for 9-year-olds reported achievement- based.,

organization compared to statewide resul:

-178-

In Region 4, a considerably higher percentage of principals of

schools for 47-year-olds reported achievement -based organizatibn

compared to principals statewide.

In Region 5, the percentage of principals reporting achievement-

based organization was cA6iderably higher for schools for 9 -year-\

olds and slightly higher for schoOls for 13-year-olds, though,4

somewhat lower for schools for 17-year-olds compared to principals

statewide.

In Region 6, a considerably lower percentage of principals of schools

for 17-year-olds reported achievement-based organization, compared

to statewide results. -

,5c2aram Organization of Classrooms

/

Principals of schools for 17-year-olds were asked, whether classes were

generally organized according to curricular programs or irrespective of.

programS.

Overview. Statewide, the resd14 reveal that a majority (61.8%) of

the principals' schools do not generally organize classrooms on the basis

of programs.

D-ifferences by size of community. TWretiltS.,by .sizgL of community.

pa6lIelecithestateWideresulfs,witherabledifferkesin degree .

-,

in the\big cities, where a somewhat higher percentage of'Principals'

reported that their schools do not generally. have program-based erganiza-

tion (78.61, and in the mediuM cities, where a somewhat lower percentage.

so reported (52.*1.

pi_fferenCmtvregion, In every region except -Region 6, where the

pattern was -reversed, a majority reported nen-program-baSed classes are theo

general rule. A somewhat higher percentage in Region 2 (73.31 reported

6that non7Trogram-based classes predominated in their schools in comparison

to the statewide resul ts.

Math pass Instructional Fbrmat. . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ .

Principals schools for 9- and 13-year;-olds were asked whether the

typical mathematics class in their school utilized traditional teacher!,

.

centered activities or individuali.zed instruction techniques.

Overview. Approximately M of principals'ef schools for 13-year-olds .

and 6E of principals of schools for 9-year-olds indicated that traditional

techniques predominate in their schools.

Differences_ y stzeofcommunity. In consonance with the statewide-

pl,ttern, th.e largest group of principals of schools for each age level in

'communities of each size indicated that traditional methods prevail. Howl. Iever, in comparison to the statewide results, a somewhat higher 'percentace

of fringe city principals of schools for 9-year-olds and big city Princi-

pals of schools for 13-year-olds reported that individualized instruction

prevails at their schools.4

-180-

pifferencesbyLregion. In everyregion except Region 6, where then

pattern ila& reversed, a majority.of principals of schools for 9-year-olds

, reported that traditional method prevail. In every region except Region

6, 20 -30% of the prinCipals of 13-year-olds reported that individualized

instruction prevails. In Region 6, all of the principals of schools for

13-year-ords reported that traditional methods predominate.

Consultants Or Specialists in Mathematics

Privipals of schools for each age level were asked whether there were

consultants or specialists who worked with mathematics teachers in their

schools.

Overview. Only 22.5% of principals of schools for 17-year-olds

reported the availability of consultants or specialists, but a slightly

higher percenta&of principals of schools for 13- and 9-year-olds

responded positively (about one-third of each group).

Differences by size of community. The pattern across communities of

different sizes for principals of schools for 17-year-olds invariably

resembled the statewide distribution; although compared to statewide

results a considerably higher percentage of fringe city principals reported.

the availability,of consultants'or spe&lalists and somewhat lower.perdent-

ages of big city and smaller conaunity principals responded -positively.

At the 9- and 131'Year-old'level,.the pattern across communities of

different sizes reSembled,the statewide pattern everywhere except in the

.big cities, where the pattern was reversed (i.e., a majority reported that

ti

2 I)

-181-

consultants or specialists are available). A somewhat smaller percentage

of medium-sized city principals at each of these age levels reSpended

positively compared to the statewide results (10.7 versus 32.4T at the

13-year-old level and 20% versus 33.9% at the 9-year-old level).

Dif,_ -Qnces by region. The basic pattern, of responses resembled the

statewid pattern in every region fbr principals of schools for each age

level of student, i.e., a majority of the principals. in each group reported

that consultants or specialists are not available. However, there was con

siderable variability in the degree'of similarity to the statewide pattern:

Region 2 had the lowest percentage of principals of schools for each

grade level who stated that consultants or specialists are not

available.

Regions 1 and 6 generally show0d the highest percentages of princi-

pals of schools for each age level who responded negatively, with

el- of the Region 1 principals reporting that consultants or special-

ists are not available and all of the Regi'On 6 principals for 17- and

13-year-olds and two-thirds of the principals for 9-year-olds

responding negatively.

Mathematics Curriculum Development

Principals of schools for each age level were asked whether there had

been any major curriculum or program development in mathematics in their

schools during the last five years.

-182-

Overview. A clear majority of the principals for each age level

responded positively, with approximately three-fourths of the principals

of schools for 17- and 13-year-olds and about two-thirds of the principals

for 9-year-olds reporting recent curriculum or program development.

Differences by size of community. The pattern at each age level

across all different-sized communities resembled the statewide pattern,

with only minor variations in the degree of similarity to statewide

results.'

Differences by region. In general, a majority of principals for each

age level in each region reported recent mathematics curriculum or program

development. The only exceptions to this pattern were in Regions 1 and 6,

where only 26.7 and 33.3%, respectively, of the principals for 9-year-olds

reported such development.

In Region 1, even at the 17- and 13-year-old level, where a majority

did respond positively, the percentage so reporting was somewhat lower,than

statewide. In contrast, in comparison to statewide results, a somewhat

higher percentage of principals in Region 2 responded positively.

Funds for Mathematics Supplies

Principals of schools for each age level were asked whether, according

to their mathematics teachers, there was a lack of funds for mathematics

supplies in their schools.

Overview. Well under half of the principals for each age level

"reported that teachers feel there is a lack of funds (26.1% at the

2t_G'0

-183-

9-year-old level, 30.8% at the 13-year-old level, and,27% at the 17-year-

old level).

Differences by size of community. The only departure from the state-.

wide results was found in theibig cities, where 42.9% at the 17-year-old

level, 63.6% at the 13-year-old leVel, and 76% at the 9-year-old level

reported teacher sentiment about insufficient funds. In comparison to

statewide results, the fringe cities generally showed a somewhat smaller

percentage of principals reporting teacher sentiment about lack of funds.

Differences_by region. The pattern by region at each age level

resembled the statewide results. The following differences in degree of

,simiarity were observed:

Only 10:, of Region 5 principals of 17-year-olds reported lack of

funds according to their teachers.

Only 16.7% of Region 2 principals of 13-year-olds reported lack of

funds according to their teachers.

None from Region 6, only 5.9% from Region 2, and 7.7% from Region 5

reported lack of funds at the 9-year-old level.4

Audiovisual Materials

Principals of schools for each age level were asked whither, according

to their mathematics teachers, there was a lack of audiovisual materials in

their schools.

21) -;

-184-

Overview. Relatively few principals at any age level responded posi-,

tively to this question: 20.2% at the 17-year-old level, 19.4% at the 13-

year-old level, and'23.5% at the 9-year-old level.

Differences by size of community. In comparison to statewide results,

a higher percentage of big city principals of schools for each age level

indicated that their teachers report an insufficiency of audiovisual mate

rials. trend was most pronounced at the 9-year-old level, where 48%

of the big city principals reported a lack of such materials, in comparison

to only 6.7% of smaller community principals of schools for 9-year-olds who

gave this'respqnse.

DiffeTinces by region. ,In consonance with the statewide results, no

region, t any age level showO a high percentage of principals reporting

insufficient audiovisual-materials. However, there was some degree of

variability between regions at different age levels:

None of the RegiOns 5 and 6 principals of schools for 9-year-plds

reported an insufficiency, whereas 35.3% of Region 4 principals at

this age level did.

Only 10% of Region 1 principals of schools for 13-year-olds reported

an insufficiency of audiovisual materials, although one-third of

Region 6 principals at this level did.

None of the Regions 1 and 2 principals of schools for 17-year-olds

responded positively, but one-third of the Region 6 principals at

this level did.

-185-

4Teacher Prepatation Time

Principals of schools for each age level were asked whether their

mathematics teachers felt there was a lack of planning time for teachers in

their schools.

rOveview. Statewide, the percentage of principals responding posi-

tivelytively decreased uniformly from 39.1° at the 9-year-old level to 14.6% at-a.

the 17-year-old level.

Differences by size of community. At the 13-year-old level, there

were no differences by community size.

At the 17-year-old level, compared to statewide results, a slightly

higher percentage of big city principals (21.4;x\ and a slightly lower per-

centage of fringe ty principals (8.31 reported lack 9f planning time.-

At the 9-year-old level, compared to statewide results, a considerably

higher percentage of big city principals (56%) and a somewhat lower percent-

age of fringe city principals (26.7%) reported_an insufficiency of planning

time.

Differences by region. At the 17-year-old level, compared to state-

wide results, a somewhat high r percentage of Regions 5 and 6 principals

reported lack'of planning time \(30% and 33.3%, respectively).

At the 13-y94r-old level, compared to statewide results-, a somewhat

r)higher percentage of Region 3 principals (37.5%) and a somewhat lower per-

centage of Region 2 principals (7.7%) reported 'lack of planning time for

teachers.

-186-

At the 9-year-old level, compared to statewide results, a somewhat

higher percentage of Region 2 principals (52.9 %)'and a somewhat lower per:

centage of Region 5 principals (7.7%) reported a lack of teacher planning

time.

Class Size

Principals of schools for each age level were asked whether their

mathematics teachers generally 41t,that class sizes were too large in

their schools.

Overview. At each age level, approximately 30% of the principals

responded positively to this question.

Differences by size of community. At the 17-year-old leA, compared

to statewide results, a somewhat higher percentage of big and medium

city principals reported oversized classes (35.7% and 42.9%, respectively).

At the"134ear-old level, compared to statewide results, a somewhat

higher percentage of fringe and medium city principals reported oversized

classes (39.3% and 46.2%, respectively).


higher percentage of big and medium city principals reported oversized

classes (45.8% and 41.4%, respectively), whereas only 10% of smaller com-

munity principals reported such overcrowding of classrooms.

Differences by region. At the 17-year-old level, compared to state-

wide results, a much higher' percentage of Region 6 principals (66.7%), a

21_

-187-\

somewhat higher percentage of Region 3 principals (42.1%), and a-consider-.

ably lower percentage of Region 1 principals (0%) reported oversized classes.


higher percentage of Region 1 principals (44.4%) and Region 3 principals

(41.7%) and a considerably lower percentage of Region 6 principals (0%)

reported oversized classes.

the 9-- year -old level, compared to statewide resVts, a somewhat

higher percentage of Region 2 priipcipals (37.5%) and a considerably lower

percentage of Region 6 principals (0%) reported overcrowded classrooms.

Total School Enrollment

Principall'ofk schools for each age-level student_werie asked to report

figures on the total school enrollni7Yit in their schools (see Tables 7.4 and

7.5).

Overview. The average school enrollment at the 9-year-old level was

approximately 396; at the 13-year-old level it was approximately 722; and at

the 17-year-old level it was approximately 1,341.

(Differences by size of community.. At the 17-year-old level, the

average school enrollment in smaller communities was about 30% lower than

the statewide average, whereas the average school enrollments in communities

of other sizes were only slightly higher than the statewide average.

At the 13-year:-old level, the average school enrollment in smaller

communities was about 15% lower than the statewide average, whereas the

2`,/

-188-

TABLE 7.4

Means for Selected Principal Questionnaire Viariable5by Size of Community

Variable Total

9-YEAR-OLDS

Total. School Enrollment 396.2Fourth-Grade Enrollment 64.5Math Class -Size 22.2

Number of Instructional Aidet 1.2

Hours of Math per Class per Week 4.1

13-YEAR-OLDS

Total School Enrollment 721.9

Eighth -Grade Enrollment 236.9Math Class Size 24.1

Number of Instructional Aides 0.3


17-YEAR-OLDS

Total School Enrollment 1340.9

Eleventh-G-ade Enrollment 346 5Math Class Size 22.1

Number of Instructional Aides 0.1


Size cr.f commonity

Big

Cities

FringeCitias

Ne() umCirs

smal 1 er

Places

401.8 380_ 1 39,, 6 405.359.0 63..33 P '. 4 77.421-.0 22..2 22.9 ,22.3

1.4 /0_5 1%1 - 1.7

4.2 4_0 4.4 4.0

753.6 761_6 76,1;s5624.5

236.9 218_7 29,.6 248.0

25.6 24.-2 VI',6 22.5

0.8 0_1 °SO 0.4

3.7 3_6 3.8 / 3.9

1475.1 157T_9. 15.6 933.4

330.4 44T_2 4,q.7 211.7

21.7 22'_3 23.0 21.6

0.2 a,..10.1 0.0

3.4 3_3 .5 3.3

21,1,

TABLE 7..5

Means for Selected Principal Questionnaire Variables by Region of State

Variable

9-YEAR-OLDS


Fourth-Grade Enrollment

Math Class Size

Number of Instructional Aides

Hours of Math per Class per Week

13-YEAR-OLDS

ToLLil School Ehrollment

Eighth-Grade ,Enrollment

Math Class Size

Number of Instkictional Aides


17-YEAR-OLDS


Eleventh-Grade Enrollment

Math Class Size

Number 0 Instructional Aides


396.2

64.5

22.2

1.2

4.1

Region of State

396.1 397.9 408.0 334.6 435.8 419.3

71.6 65.7 65.9 54.9 72.9 73.7

22.1 22.9 22.6 21.9 22.8 22.7

0.1 0.2 1.5 0.3 1.8 10.7

3.4 3.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4,3

721.9 804.5 799.8 780.2 687.5 519,5 540.3

236.9 276.6 326.1 258.6 213.5 175.5 129.3

24.1 24.1 23.7 23.9 24.8 22.0 20.7

0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0

3 7 3.2 3.4 4.0 3.8 6.3

1340.9

346,5

22.1

0.1

3.4

1130.0 1733.7 1374.9 1375.3 869.9 840.3

258.9 415.1 388.5 354.2 220.3 203.0:

21.6 23,0 22.1 22.9 20.8 21.7

0 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0

3.0 3.2 3.1 3.7 3.4 4.7

average sch9o1 enrollments in communities of other sizes were only slightly

higher than the statewide average.

At the 9-year-old level, there were no sizeable differences across

regions in average school enrollment in comparison to the statewide aver

Dif rences by region. At the 17-year-old level, the averagVchool,

en,'ollp nt in Region 2 was about 30% higher than the statewide average,

asin Regions 5 and 6 the average school enrollment was about 35% lower

than the statewide average.

(

At the 13-year-old l410eVel, the average school enrollment was 28% lower

than the statewide average in Region 5, 25% lower in Region 6, and about 5%

lower in Region 4, and was slightly higher than thestatewiduaverage in

the other three regions.

At the 9-year-old level, there were no sizeable differences from the

statewide average school enrollment in any region.

In-Grade Enrollment

Principals for each age level student were asked to indicate what the

"in-grade" enrollment wasfor the age-level student being tested in his or

-her school (i.e., fourth, eighth, or eleventh grade enrollment, respec-

tively, for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds).

Overview. Statewide, the average fourth-grade enrollment per school

was approximately 65; the average eighth-grade enrollment per school was

approximately 237; and the average eleventhl'grade enrollment per school _was

approximately 347.

-191

Differences by size of-comqunity. At the 17-year-old level, the big4

city eleventh-grade mean enrollment was about the same as the statewide-

average. The fringe city and- medium city mean enrollment was about 30;.;

higher than the statewide average, and the smaller community eleventh-grade

mean enrollment was about 40V. lower than the statewide average.

At the 13-Tear-old level, the big and medium c..y eighth-grade mean

enrollment was about the same as the statewide average. In contrast, the

average eighth-grade enrollment in schools in smaller Ace's was about 21;

lower than the statewide average, and the average in fringe cities was

about 23'7_, higher than the statewide average.

At the 9-year-old level, the big city, fringe city, and medium city

fourth-grade mean enrollment was about the same as the statewide average,

whereas the smaller community fourth -grade mean enrollment was approxi-I

mately 18 higher than the statewide average.

Differences by region. the 17- year -old level, Region 3 and 4

eleventh-grade mean enrollment was about the same as the statewide average,

whereas the Region 2 eleventh-grade mean enrollment was about 40;,; higher

than the statewide average. In contrast, the Region 1 eleventh-grade

average was about 25?(, above the statewide average., and the Regions 5 and 6

averages were about 40% above the s'tatewid'e average.

At the 13-year-old level, the average eighth-grade enrollment in

Regions 3 and 4 was about the same.as the stateaide average. In contrast,

the average was about 38% higher than the statewide average in Region 2 and

about 16% higher than the statewide, average in I:egion I, the average in

2 !

-192-

Region 6 was about 46% lower than the statewide average, and the average

in Region 5 was about 26% lower than the statewide average.

At the 9-year-oldlevel, there were!no sizeable differences from the

statewide average fourth-grade enrollment\ in any region.

' Average Math Class Size

Principals of students of each age level were asked to indicate what

the average mathematics class size Was in their schools.

Overview. The statewide average mathematics class size for 9-year-

olds was approximately 22; for 13-year-olds it was approximately 24; and

for 17-year-olds it was approximately 22.


were no sizeable differences from the statewide averaae across communities

of different sizes.

At the 13-yearold level, there were no large differences from the

statewide average math class size across communities of different sizes.

At the 9 -Rear -old level, there were no sizeable differences from the

?statewide average across communities of different sizes.

Differences by region. At the 17-year-old level, there were no size-

' able differences from the statewide average mathematics class size across

different regions.

At the 13-year-old level, the average math class size was about the

same as the statewide average in every region except Region 6, where the

average was about 14% lower than the statewide average.

-193-

At the' 9 --year -old level, there were no sizeable differences from the

statewide average across different regions.

Number of Instructional Aides

Principals of Students of each age level were asked to indicate how

many Anstructional aides.in mathematics were available in their s-chools.

-Overview. At the 9-yearT-old level,, -statewide, there was about one

aide per school, Whereas at the 13- and 17-year-old levels, statewide,

there was less than one aide per school.


was less than one aide per school across communities of different sizes.

At the 13-year-old level, on the average, there was less than one

aide per school across communities of different sizes.

At the 9-year-old level, there was less than one aide per school1n

the fringe cities, about one aide per school" in the big and medium cities,

and close to two aides per school in the smaller communities.

Differences by region. At the 17-year-old level, there was less than

one aide per school in every region.

At the 13-year-old level, on the average, there was less than one aide

per school in every region.

At the 9-year-old level, there was less than one aide per school in

Regions 1, 2, and 4, whereas the average number of aides per school was 1.5

in Region 3, 1.8 in Region 5, and 10.7 in Region 6.

-194-

Hours of Math oteClass per Week1A9

Principals of students,;of each age level. were asked to indicate how

many hours of mathematics instruction were given per class per week.

Overview. At the 9-year-old level, statewide, the average number of

hours of mathematict per class per weekAas 4.1; at the 13-year-old,level;

the statewide average was 3.7 houi's; at the 17-year-old level, the state-

wide average was 3.4 hours.

Differences by size of community. At the 17-yea)Ziold level, no size-

able differences from the statewide average were found across communities

of different sizes.

At the 13-year-old level, there were no sizeable differences from the0

statewide average number of hours of math per calss per.week across com-,

munities-ofodifferent sizes.

At the 9-year-old leVel,no sizeable differences from the statewide

average were found across communities of different sizes.

ilifferences _by region. At the 17-year-old level, average hours of

math, per class per week were about the same as the state in every region

except Region 6, where the average mas about'38% higher than the statewide ;

average.

At the 13-year-old level there were no sizeable differences from the

statewide average in any region except Region 6, where the average number

of hours of math per class per week was approximately 70% highertman t1

statewide average.

21,i

-195-

At the 9-year-old level, average hours of math per claSs per week were

about the same as the.statewide average in every region except Region 1,

where the average was about 17% lower than the statewide average.

APPENDIX A

Copies of Test Items for 9-, 13-, and17-Year-Olds, with Corresponding Percentages

of All Students Selecting Each Response

KEY FOR APPENDIX A

GOAL AREAObjective (in abbreviated form;see Tables 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 forcomplete objective lists) 9 13 17 "4 Age level

Question as it appeared in test 4-

(reduced size)

NumberS'1

2

%

%

%

%

%

---%corresponding 1

'% % %

to choices% % %

* NAEP item 1

** Modified NAEP item

Indicates that the item appears exactlythe same on another page in Appendix A,as it was also tested in .a differentobjective for a different age level.

-- The correct answer is darkened formultiple-choice questions andentered on the line for open-endedquestions.

-- Numerical descriptions of responsechoices are keyed to multiple-choiceresponses or, in the case of open-endeditems, to the NAEP scoring cateirieslisted below the item.

22:

<Itempositionon test

Percentageof studentsselectingeachresponse

. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS1. Place Value (9),

9 13 17

What digit is in the ten's place in 4263?118

1 0 2 I, _

1 10%2 0 32 4%

3 0 4 3 6%4 e 6 4 79%

1

.

Which one of the following is the sum of three hundreds, eight tens, and four ones? 1125

1 0 151 2%

2 e 384 2 78%.3 0 300,804 3 13%

4 0 3840 0' 4 5%

.,

762 = .

t 0 7 + 6 + 21

1114

12%2 0 7 + 60 i 2002 4%

3 0 700 1 60 I 2 3 81%0 70 + 60 4 20 4 2%

In which number does 7 stand fOr 7 thousand? 1143

0 27351 1 %

2 0 80792 3%,

3' 0 17,204 q. t 784 ,

0 24,716. 4 4%

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS1. Place Val ue (9) 9 13 17

In 3654 the 4 means: #55

I 0 401 2%

2 0 400 2 4%3 4 3 80%4 0 4000 4 10%

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS1. Rational Numbers (13, 17)

9 13 17

1

bis equivalent to what percent?

.

. .

ANSWER: a() 96'

1

2

3

1

2

3'4

1

3

4

.

#25

55%

1%.15%

li

#6

10%70%19%

1%

#7

63%4%

14%

.

#35A

7%

74%18%

1%

/19

6%

3%

86%3%

NAEP SCORING CRITERIA

1) 202) .20(3) 5;,.05

.009 is equivalent to,

1 r-N 900'1 -1066

6 9166-ci

9

° 156-

co4(--) --IV&

.Which set of fractions

'° 42

4-s- )64 2 1

3

i- -2- -;-30 i 4 '

1 7 34 0 2- , j- . 6-,,

t_

what

describes

__......_

fraction?

.

the...

,

shaded

.

portion of the figure below? 'a

.

.

,.

225

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS1. Rational Numbers (13, ) 9 13 1

,0 .

What fractional part of the figure below is shaded? t,

11111110_

I 0 3-

2 C) i.

.

.

3 ID i

4 0 ii. .

.

r

.

There are 13 boys and 1F., girls in a group. What fractional part of the group isboys?

,

... 3I---,, 1 ki

2C) t;i3 -

3 ° 28

13A Alb 13,

-' 28

.. ,

1

23

4

_

1

2"

34

#41

23%3%

71%1%

.

,

.

#18

6%

1%

93%0

.

#5

9%

53%5%

32% .

.

.

#62,

10%31%

6%

52%

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS2. Ordering (9)

9 13 17

Which number is GREATEST?

I 0 66,4492 0 66,646

3 0 64,6470 64,999

Which number is 10 more than 4375?

0 53752 0 44753 0 43804 4385

Which number comes next? 98 99 100

I 0 2002 0 2 0 1

3 0 1104 0 101

1

2

3

4

#10._

6%65%1%

28%

#58

1 19%2 10%3 .10%

4 59%

#42

1 - 2%2 1%

3 2%4 95%

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS2.. Ordering (9, 13, 17) 9 11 17

.Which number is GREATEST?

IC) 0.5

2 0 5.0

3C) 0.005

4 0 0.05

e

1

2

3

4

#19

3%86%11%0

#49

2%93%4%1%

Which fraction is GREATEST? #14 #59

10 -!IF 1 38% 31%2 12% 13%

=4/r

3 30% 45%20

4 20% 9%

30 4

ir

.0 I

Which number is LEAST? / #15 #7

1 2979

2 0 29972

83%3%

98%1%

3 0 7297 3 2% 04 O7196 4 11% 1%

29 )

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS2. Ordering (9,.13, 17)

13, 17.

.

Which\fraction should be_in the spacg, so that the fractionssmallest to greatest/

i 3. I4 8

.

.

are ordered Gm

1

2

34

#66

32%,23%18%26%

#22

57t12%.

15%

16%5

' 16

!, 0 -le

i30 i.

4 0 -1 .

Which number is the 1ALLEST7 tp

,

#53

I 0 0.0221 77%2 0 0.2022 6%

30 0.22 3 10%4 0 2.002 4 7%-

..

, .Which number is G REATEST?

i 0 3000 .

#4

2 A 32002

1 1

8

0%

7%3 0 2100 , .0 120034

1 %..

%

1

2 ?3.

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS3. Fractions(9)

T 13 17

What fractional

1 0.-,8i

2 0 4

3Qq

.

. .. ..

What fraction of

00001 0 :

2Q

3Q2

4 JD 27

..

part of the figure below is shaded?

..

......., .

in?

0 0

.

,..

.

..

,

,

...

?

.

.

. .

.

,

.

;

',..

-

.

1

2

3

4

. . .

3,

4

#52

14%63%19%2%

#36

20%73%

.

.

:4

.-..,

_

. .

.

,

.

.

all the dots are colored

0,..

c\,.

.MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS3. Fractions (9)

0

What fractional pact of the figure below is shaded?

4

What fractional part of the figure below is shaded?

0

2 0 41

9 13 17'

2:

/118

1 23% \ 6%2 3% 1%

3 72% 93%4 1% 0

/127

1 12%2 3%3 17%4 63%

MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS3. Frgctions (9)

40,

What fractional part of the figure below is shaded?

0

2

3 o

401

gat

#2

1 19%2 61%3 .13%

4 6%

ti

COMPUTATION3. Whole Numbers (+ -)/("l3, 17)4. Whole Numbers (+) (9)5. Whole Numbers (-) (9)

9 .7'13 17

/

Add: 3819

A NSW E : 1/4.51


1

2 71.,1

3 47

4) 19; 295) other unacceptable response

Subtract: 36

19

ANSWER: 7 1


1) 172) 273) 55

6

455 other unacceptable response

23

Do the following additiop:, 8264 786

10 1502

20 1612

30 1602

4C) 1512

2 93

#20 #3 #6

1 89% 96% 97%2 1% 0 0

3 3% 2% 1%4 0 0 0

5 6% 2%/

2%

1121 #9 #14

1 77% 93% 95%2 2% 1% 1%3 1% 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 11% 5% 4%6 7% 0 0

'1

2

3

4

#32 #8 #28

2% -0 0

87% 97% 95%3%. :1% 2%7%. 2%. 3%

COMPUTATION3. 'Whole Numberf (F -) (73, 77)4. Whole Number_ ,f) (9)5. Whole Numbers (-) (9)

9 13 17

NAEP

Do

ANSWER:

NAEP

1)189

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

Add:

ANSWER:

1)

2)

3)

ti6

Add:

2

3

4

ithe following subtraction: 1054

- 865

/ Py

%__

.

.

lw

J

,

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

..

#13

51%2%9%1%.

26%6%4%

#22

48%27%5%0

0

18%

#53

2%2%3%

91%

#12

87%0

4%0

8%0

1%

#24

88%'5%

2%0

0

4%

'

#26

92%0

2%0

4%0

1%

#15

94%1%1%0

0

3%

SCORING CRITERIA

199; 289any attempt to add; e.g. -1919.other unacceptable response

+ -11;+-211; +-1811; -11; +-811y89; 1299; 1199; 1289

0

- $ 3.0610.009.14

+ 5 10------

$ 02,

_7,i_46,

SCORING CRITERIA

$27.30; 27.302730; $2730 (any decimal error)27.20; $27.20; 17.30; $17.30can misplace declool

=cc:other unacceptable response

decimal=0;$V(1) darril

634

41

+ 5122.._..

CAW0 197

0 6797

0 r,91

11 ...

(\

i

COMPUTATION4. Whole Numbers ( (9)5. Whole Numbers (- ) (9)

13

Add:

1 0 908q 2 0 728

725+ 203

1

2

3

#59

3 %,3%

93%

3.928 4 0

4 0 807

Subtract:.

861583

, #56

1 5%1 0 378 2 75%2 0 2/8 3 6%

3 0 388 4.. 10%

4 0 322'

(e

Subtract: 659 #29207

1 7%

1 0 4022 0 452

, 2

388%

2%

3 0 552 4 2%

4 0 453S

Subtract: 476 #4538.

, .

1 7%

1 0 338 2 6%

2 0 448 3 9%

li 0 41? 4 76%

4 4 438..,

..

1

2i

COMPUTATION4. Whole Numbers (x) (13, 17)

9 13 17

Multiply: 38 #1 #4x 9

1 87% 88%

ANSWER: 3 y 2

3

0

0

0

0NAEP SCORING CRITERIA 4 0 0

3425 12% 11%

2 2723 27724) 2975) other unacceptable response

Multiply: 46 #16 #55x 60

1 2% 1%

10 23,000 2 2% 2%

2 0 230 3

4

1%

95%1%

95%30 200040 2300

Multiply: 74 #20 #52x 38

1 3% 4%

10 2782 2 2% 2%

20 2912 3

4

5%

89%4%

89%30 27124Q 2812

Multiply: 609 #32 #20x 73

1% 1%I 0 6090 2 3% 2%

20 44,497 3 3% 1%

30 48,097 4 91% 95%

et 44,457

2

COMPUTATION6. Whole Numbers (x) (9)

9 13 17

Multiply: 63x 3

I 189

2 0 993 0 1864 0 96

Multiply: 312x 4

0 1258.2 0 756

1248

4 0 1346

Multiply: 36x 3

0 982 0 9183 108

4 0 69

Multiply: 402x

0 28042 0 28743 0 29144 2814

Multiply: 4613x 5

1 0 2:3,065

0 23,1053 0 20,055

4 0 23,055

23

1

2

3

4

1/40

89%4%2%4%

#34

1 3%2 5%3 89%4 1%

#31

1 7%2 5%

3 81%4 5%

#//

1 12%2 14%3 5%4 68%

'//3

1 78%2 7`'3 84 5%

COMPUTATION5. Whole Numbers ( =) (13, 17)

9 13 17

Divide:

ANSWER: 1

2

3

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

#27

94%.10/0

5%

#60

84%5%5%

4%

#21

6%2%

91%1%

05

22%2%

74%2%'

07

95%1%

4%

#10

91%3%

2%

#36

7%2%

2%

88%

#1

19%

1"/)

77%

2%

.1.441) SCORING CRITERIA

(1) 25(2) 21

(3) other unacceptable response

Divide: 22)339

15 119

20 10 119

30 10 111940 11 817

Divide: 4 )-$8.9-

10 $2.2820 $2.21361 $2.24

40 $428.00

Divide: 17 1s74.46-

10 $43.8020 $3.1830 $14.384 0 $4.38

Divicte: 7)114-

tO 1220 101 R4

30 102

4 0 120

COMPUTATION6. Decimal s (+ -) (13, 17)

13 17

Subtract the following numbers:

10 $8.122 0 $9.98A .

3 0. $8.02

4 0 $9.02

0.6 t 8 + .24 .--

10 8.842() 113() 1104() 1.10

$10.001.98

If 23.8 is subtracted from 62.1 the result is:

ANSWER:


(038.3; 38 3/10(2) correct subtraction'

but misplaced decimalr5) -38.3

4) 49.3; 493; 4.93) 85.9; 859; 8.59

(6) other unocuptable response(7) 483; 393;

(can c,isplace decimal)(8) 4-417; 4-17; 4-617

(can misplace decimal)

2.7n

1

2

34

1

2

3

4

1

2

34

56

8

#61 #37

5% 3%

-2% 1%k

85% 90%7% 5%

#17 #3

83% 87%2% 2%2% 2%

10% 7%

#50 #24

72% 84%7% 4%0 1%0 0

(1%1% 8%2% 1%

4% 11'

COMPUTATION6. Decimal s. (+ -) (13, 17)

17

Add the following numbers: $ 3.0610,00

9.14+ 5.10

rw

1

23 ,

#22

48%27%

5%

#24

88%5%

2%

#15

94%1%

1%gri+

ANSWER: $ r27.3 4 0 0 05 0 0 06 18% 4% 3%


2 /r36r$27302

27.30

i

1 (any decimal error)3) 27.20; $27.20; 17.30; $17.30

can misplace decimal4) 17.20; $17.20 can misplace decimal5) 117210; 11721 can misplace decimal6) other unacceptable response

\

I .

1

7 .,!

COMPUTATION7. Decimal s (x) (13)7. Decimals (x :)

13 17

'5Multiply: $1.98

x 4

t 0 $7.62

20 $7.9230 $4.92

40 $782

Multiply: 4251x 0.31,

10 .01.4025

2 0 140.20

30, 1402.540 14.025

Multiply: $1.29x 0.06

10 $7,742 (111, $.0774

3 d$00)7.440 $.774

Multiply: 4.2x 03

10 12.670 .126

,1.26

40 .0126

(

2 4 .1,

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

//42

3%

92%4%1%

#36 #46

4% 4%86% 88%3% 1%7% 6%

114 3

32%57%7%

4%

1129

27%1%

70%1%

1138

20%71%5%3%'

COMPUTATION7. Decimals (x :) (27)

Divide: 0.4 rii91-6 #47

1 0 49 1 8%

2 0 490 2 . 1%

3 4.93 71%

0 0.494 18%

Divide: 0.25 1-17 #51, .

'0 0.68 1 24%20 6.8 2 8%

30 68 3 60%

0 0.068 4 4%

,

/

,

.

.

,

COMPUTATION8. fractions (+ -) (13, 17)

9 13 17

po the following addition:

to

2O

40

5

6

5

32

Do the following addition:

10 6 180

220 58

3 0 68

40 6 4

5 1

6 3

0

°3 0 1

0

23

7a- 38

t\

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

Fs;

#22 1/61

60% 72%29% 17%7% -6%3% 3%

#63 1/56

13% 9%11% 7%11% 7%64% 76%

1/59 #46

39% 26%53% 66%4% 5%2% 2%

COMPUTATION8. Fractions (4- -) (13, 17)

13 17

142#35

1

/-2 Ti1 1%

2 4%

IP 1-78

34

14%80%

201--

3O2-

#2221 19%

is 2 64%3 5%

)0 2-14 4 12%

2. 11,

30 ..

'0212

ar

2.

COMPUTATION9. _Fractions (x) (13)9. Fractions (x :) (17)

Multiply:

13-2

20

1

2

0 122

x 3

Do the following multiplication:

0

2

4-2

4

3

2 33 4

30 1172

54Q

9

A

1

2

3

4

1

2

4

1

2

3

4

13 17

#47 #32

68% 80%7% 1%9% 5%

13% 12%

04 #34

-6% 3%

80% 85%6% 5%8% 6%

2%

79%7%

11%

4

COMPUTATION9. Fraction (x) (13).9. Fractions (x i) (17)

9 13 17

,

Multiply:

5208

40 -66--

..

Divide:

10 ÷16

440 -111-

Divide:

10 --:-

20 --i

30

4 0 4

....-1_

-4- x8

3 -- 28-

3 + 1

2 =

-

/

..

.

.

.

,

ae

,

,

.

.

----

,

4 i

.

.......

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

.

#56

17%5%

3%

q3%

....

li.

.

#54 :'

19%8%

5%

66%,

#613`:

4%24%,

10%58%

2 /I 0.* .

MEASUREMENT7. Money (9)

9 13 1.4

A quarter has the same value as how many nickels?

1 0 3

.2 05c 3 0 4 4

4 0 6

A nickel has the same value as how many pennies? ,

1 0 12 0 5

-40 io ,

.

,

Khali dollar has the same value as how many dimes? ,

1 0 25- _

2 0 5.

3. 0 io, 4 so so

Twenty pennies have the same value as how many nickels?-

1

0162 0 4

3 0 54 0 2

----._

,

A dollar has the same value as how many (twirlers?

IC) io20253 0 500 4

1

23

4

1

234

aol.2

3

4

2

.1

4

1

2

3

4

115

1.%

92%2%

4%

#16

1%

95%03%

#44

3%

64%11%

21%

#49

11%79%

6%

4%

.

#60

2%

4%

6%

87%

r

247

MEASUREMENT.8. Time (9)

9 13 17

What time does the,clock show?

11to9 3

s .

r

.

,

t

r

.

. _

,

(

234

j-k i

23,4

1

23

4

#47

83 %,3%

9%

3%

#6

34%3%.,5.%

58%

g4

6%

76%15%

2 %=

.

-

1 6:252 0 6:35'3 10 5:35

j4 06:05

What time does the clock show?

12ii 1

0 2

3

$ 47 56

.1 0 8:053 0 10:403 0 11:554 07:55 J

What time is it on this clock?

ii10 .

9. 3

i 0 4 minute,. after 102 0 10 minute; tefoi-e 4

3 0 20 minutes after lb

4 0 211minutes before 10

MEASUREMENT8. Time (9)

9 13 17

,.

,

.

!,

,.

What time was, it two hours ago?

12 .

10 2

9 .4.--<" 3

8 47

6 5

.

1 012:45 .

2 0 1:45 ..

3 7:10

409:10'

. ,

.

.

.,..

r.

What t,rne will it be in one half hour?

12ii 1

. io i 2

; - 9 ..4 3.

,

1 010:00.

2 0 12:303 0 9. 30

4 0 1:1,

,

. k

-.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.,

,

...,

N

_

.

.

.

.

,

.

v.,

.

-

.

.,

,

,

.

.,

_

.

.

,

.

r

.

.

.

.

.

.

,

.

s..

,

,.

.

1

2

4

.

i234

#51

9%

3%

19%

'

5%.2%

89%2%

.

.

,

.

.

e

r

i

d

24 4

MEASUREMENT9. Linear Measure (S)

9 13 17

0 .

Debbie is in the'fourth grade. She is probably about how tall? # 7

I 50 inches1 68%

2 0 500 inches 2 4%3 0 20 inches 3 18%4 0 200 inches 4 9%

-.

.

Which is the BEST unit to measure the length of a toothbrush? #30

1 0 foot3 inch ,

1

2

9%87%

3 0 Yard 3 2%. 0 mile 4 1%

,:-

Which is the BEST unit to measure the distance from New York to Boston? #26

1 0 inch1 1%2 0 yard2 2%

3 43 foot. 3 ,1%

4 mile 4 95%

23u

MEASUREMENT,9. Linear Measure (9)

9 13 17

The length of the pencil is nearest to what number of inches?

01

inch es

I 0 3 inches

2 4 inches

3 0 5 inches4 0 6 inches

71 I I

34

What is the length of the nail to the nearest centirneter?

I 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6

cm

IC) el Cm

2 0 3 cm3 0 5 cm4 0 6 cm

#33

1 0

2 93%3 5%

4 1%

#48

1 6%2 92%3 0

4 1%

MEASUREMENT10. Perimeter and Area (23)10. Perimeter, Area and Volume (27) 3 17

iWhat is to perimeter of triangle ABC?

-

#55

1 3%f 2 4%

4 -82%

32 can, ;

,, 10 24 cm20 41-cm,30 56 cm40 73 cm

..

What is the area of the rectangle shown below? #33

6 in. .1 2%

2 in. 2 12%3 56%4 30%

I C56'square inchesg

20 8 square inches

3410 12 square inches

-4O 16 square inches

iii_

A gallon of paint will cover about 250 square feet of surface area. This paint is sold #12in gallon cans only. How many gallon cans are needed to paint a wall 48 feet longand 10 feet wide?

1 3710 20 0 2 70%

AD 2 3 15%

30 4 ' 4 10%

4-0 1

27; -9

MEASUREMENT

10. Perimeter and Area (13)10. Perimeter, *rea and Vol ume (17).

A

13

0

. Mr. Simmons put a wire fence all The way around his rectangular garden. The gardenis 9 feet long and 5 feet wide. How many feet of fencing did he use?

.

ANSWER : - 07 ? feet, 1

'

1

234

--.4.-,

1

2

8%

32%

43%,14%

4

.

#28

37%

5%

.

45%27%16%10%

,

.

.

#57

13%

2%

59%25%

7%

.7%

.

,

.

'

.

NAEP

,

,,

!SCORING CRITERIA i'

1) 28; 28 feet2 45; attempt to multiply 9 x 53 14; attempt to add 9 and 54 other unacceptable response 0 I

,

. .

.,. ,

,

4/ 0

Which one of the figures below ha's the sane area as the figure above?

10 . 20 - 3e)

3 ,6

__

85 0, .--

, . 3

2

.....,

2 -...

MEASUREMENT10. Perimeter, Area and Volume (17)

13*, 17

The formula for finding

In, a triangle whereA.

t

10 10

hA 11 X,

1

23

#29

1%

88%8%

the area of a` triangle is -t A

4 and h = 10, what is the area .(A)?

.

2 20 4 2%

30 400 83

,

inch.'

.i )

6 inches

Find the volume of the box. #44

10 11 cubic inches2Q 24 cubic inches 1

214%.8 %30 4 cubic inches

3 1%40 40 cubic inches

4 75%

. .

'.

S.

MEASUREMENT

11. U.S. Conversion (13, 17)13

-.,..,,

.

\

.,

11/4 lbs. .., mnce*.

)

1

,

,!

.

.,,.«.,...

;-. t.

u,

1

23

4567

1

23

4

.

1

23

4

1

23'4

''-

.

#49

58%0

3,2 %

1%

0O.. .;0

...-..i?,

.--J

#62

3%

76%

3%

17%

#40

'3%92%

3%

2%

1/2

5%

86%4%

4% ,

1140

, 74%

, 020%

1%

000

'#18.

2%

84%1%

13%

.

#64

2%.94%

2%

2%

/133

3%

92%2%

3%

ANSWER: r)2 ey ,

NAEP-SCORIIIG CRITERIA V.

(1):24; 1' 1/2 x 16; 48/2 '.(2) garbage(3) other unacceptable response(4) 15; 15. x 10; 15056 31/VL.7 24 with wrong unit

,

8 quarts .. gallons

.

- 10 120 230 3.p4

,

Now many minutes are equal to 2 hours and 20

1 0 120 minutes

2 0 140 minutes

30 220 minutes40 240 minutes

/.... ..

30 inches = feet inches

10 1 foot G inches20 2 feet 6 inches

30 3 feet 0 inches

0 3 feet 6 inches

2,

MEASUREMENT /12. Metric Units (13, 17)

9. 13 17

r

Which of he following would generally be BEST to measure the distancebetween twocities?

I0 kilometer ..20 meter ' .

30 centimeter4Q millimeter

,

.

Which of the following is the SMALLEST unit of measurement?

i milligram2Q gram

$

30 centigram40 kilogram t

The gram is a metric unit that measures:

.i . weight20 capacity30 area40 distance

The size of this page would BEST be measured in:

.10 kilometers3 0 milliliters ,

30 meters40 centimeters ri

/.

Which of the following would generally be BEST to measure the capacity of agasoline tank?

I 0 metera 0 liter

.3 0 grail:),1

4 0 kilometer

.

2-34

1

234

1

23

1

234

1

234

#31

73%17%

4%

6%

#44

68%16%10%

6%

#58

85%5 %.

4%

4%

#37

3%

8%11%77%

#19

77 %,15%

3%

4%

#57

73%7%

12%7%

WS/

93%4%

,1%2%

#48

6%

86%,4`

3`,

\Js

CHARTS & GRAPHS I.

12. Interpreting )Data (9)13 -17

This graph shows

Bill

Hen

. Tom

I

the AllY1,91Wpou ds of four boys.,

.

,

50 pounds?

.

it

1

2

3

4

1

2

34

1

2

3

4

1137

1%.

%'

96 ,%t2%

//38

70%6%

3%

21%

1139

3%

94%1%

1%

.

.,f ^

.

4a

,

.

--)

.

.........i

_I

Peter . -71.,

In the grapl

1 0 um''?0 Henry

...

?-^, 3 0 Tom

1 0 Peter

In the graph

1 0 Bill

2 0 Henry

3 0 Torn4 0 Peter

In the graph

r 0 Bill2 t iienry3 GlomA 0 Peter

. .

.

t l J10 20 30 '40 50 60

Weight in Pounds

above, which boy weighs the most?

0

4bove, which bby weighs c sest to

_

above, which boy weighs the least?

257

CHARTS & GRAPHS12. Ifterpreting Data (9)

9 13 17

.

-,,,

(

On

1

2

3

4

How

1

2

3:

. ,

Study. the graph

i

and use it to answer the questions which follow.

.

ro

s

.

1.23

4

1

234

-

CI;1%2%

95%1%

#18

2%

3%

57%38%'

..

.

...

,

DayNumber of People Using the Library

X = 20 people)

MOnday.

Tuesday

Wednesday

/Thursday

Friday...,,

X 1 ..

I 1. X

X..,-

9.'

1 1 1 1

X I

which day did the greatest number of people use the library?

0 Monday0 Tuesday , .

0 ThUrSdaY,

0 Friday

many people used the library on Monday?

O200 300 3

60 .

CHARTS & GRAPHS13. Intetpreeting Data (13)

13 17

o.

U.S.'Rural Population for Nine Regions in 1970

a RegionRural Population

(0 -., 1 million persons}.,

New England 0 0 0

2. Middle Atlantic 0 0 0'. 0 0 0 0

3. East North Centralt

0 0 0 0 ,O 0 0 0 0 0

4. West North Central 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. South Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. East South'Cuntral 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. West South Central. 0-0 0 0 0

8. Mountain 0 0

9. Pacific 0 0,0 0

Accdrifiriy tb thiichaet.,,..r4i4Ch TWO regionS Of. the U.S. had the largest ruralpopulattorisrin,1970? 4'

n 2. Middle Atlantic and3 East North Central

1. New England2 8. Mountain

5. South All6ntic and3. East North COrtral

5. South Atlantic and4 6. Last South Cential

Irk

1

2

3

/153

1%

2%

93%4%

CiWtTS & GRAPHS? 13. Interpretirig;Da'ta .13; 1;7) 13 17

Below is a bar graplithat shows the number of trees plaptdd along a highWay in

4V' .

1

f23

1

2

3

456

c

,, t

#65,

92%0

. 8%

t

'4!'

.

,

#46

'1 %

1%

4`,';

3;.:

2%

88%

,

#23

95%.,,O.

'd4%

A

.

#11

01%

2Y2;::

1-k

947,

100.... -

1%,

E 60

t ,

Z

r ..

'.,

ri

Zj

f

0 ` Monday Tuesday Wednesday. Thursday Friday

Day of the Week

.

Hew many trees were planted On Wednesday?

ANSWER: ZOONAEP SCORING CRITERIA

il) 58-62 f t.

. 2) garbage -

3) other unacceptable response,

Size Table for Socks

ShoeSite

SockSize

WA

10

10'6

ShoeII Size

9.9%

10-10Yi

11-11%i

SockSize

- - ---:

6.6Y.

771/4

8 13V:

11 -

11%

12

According to the table, what size socks should you boy if you wear size 10shoes?

'O 7. ,,,

2 0 7'./2

30 10,

40 101/2

60 11sse 11'4' ,

26j

CHARTS & GRAPHS13. . Intertireting Data (2.-.1y 17)

13 17

According to the graph, on what did the Harris family spend the LEAST amount ofmoney?

SAVINGS10%-

CLOTHING12%

FAMILY CAI(10%

FOOD25%

HAI INGEXPENSES

0111F.H",EXPENSES

15%

The Harris Fanuly fits(lout

operatilly expenses

2(j savings

30 other ex.pws,es

40: food

v.

'

1

2

34

1141

87%2%

2%

9%

.5

1121

CHARTS & GRAPHS13. Interpreting Data (17)-

13 17

MONTHLY PRODUCTION IN 1,000'S OF UNITS 1971

*A

,/

- ---P&I

a I

L 4-1...

§

-...

.,..Feb. Mar. A n. May June Ju lxv Auk Sept.( Oct. Nov. Doc.

.

The greatest drop in production from one month to the next occurred between " #450what two months?

10 August%

to September e,

1

2.

4%

1%; ()April t May3 1%

40 May u June t.,-.., 4 93%

4 0 Septtinb,er to October

/

PROBLEM SOLVING,10. Math Pro bl ems , (9)

9 13 17

,

4-.:14r othy washei Windows at the rate of five minutes per window. To figure outir i Bow many minutes it will tale her to wash ten windows,;slie could:

. ,

(6 add 5 and 10

...1 2 Q divide 10 by 5..

'3.0 multiply 5 by. 10.,4 4r

, 4.0 subtract 5 from 10 '

..r.7

'. i

r...

Marcus gave the cashier a $5 bill for a 51.40 purchase. How much,money did hereceive in chavr?

1 0 S2 60

? 0 53.40-3 0 53.60

4 0 $4.604--

l'')

i'tBob picked 8 apples from an apple treevlohn picked 17 apples, arid LarryVicked 31,How many apples did they pe k in alt?:

'o.1 ®62 e:,

' * '.

32 0 52 Ai

3 0-55 .

.4 0422, , .

. 1- 5

0

1

. 23

4.

1,

2

34

1

2

34

# i

20%11'6117%

/146

9%

8%

39%42%

/154

82%7%

5%.r

.

.

I

1

PROBLEM SOLVING10. Math Problems (9)

9 13 17, .

-'d!',;0., .1-'1- ,

A rocket was directed at a target 525 miles south or the launching point. It.4..A:j. 444

#19 #52 '',."landed 624 miles south of the launching point. By how many miles did it missits targetZ,

1 39%. 81%2 5% 3%

ANSWER: 77 3 14% 2%

4 2% 1%t

5`13% 6%NAEP SCORING CRITERIA6 22% 6%

,

.(I) 99; 99 nines,

.:.(2) correct process With no answeror wrong answer; 624-525 = 109

V.- :".(3) 1149; any atterfiptto add,

(4) 109 with no work shown(5) 101 with no work shown(6) other unacceptable response

(

.

, .

Betty's dog eats two biscuits every day. How many days will it take the dog to #23finish the package of 24 biscuits?

1 51%2 0ANSWER: ).Z- .

3 0.

.4;....

4 6%

NAER SCUT 'iG CRITERIA 5 . .4V1) 12; days .

7. 2%2).12 wi to wrailif in, i ts (hi SCu i ts')3) 2402; atter.pt to divide 24 by 24) 22; a t-t6-,21ryt to subtract 2 from 245 26; attempt Co a.dd 24 and 26) 48; atteinp,t 1.,) multiply 24 by.27) 24 ,

8) other unacceptable response

., 8 20%

!, I'

2

PROBLEM SOLVING11, Real World Problems (9)

13 17

4t

If you have two nickels, one quarter and four pennies, how much money do youhave all together?

® 39V

2 0 703 059V4 0 34w

Sally worked from 4:25 P.M. to 5 GO P.M How many minutes did she work?

I C) 25 minutes

1 0 35 minutes.4.

3 0 1 hour and 25 minutes

4 0 75 minutes

John found shirts on sdlit at $2.00 each. He decided to buy seven shirts. How muchmoney did he spend?

1 0 $9.002 C) $12.003 0 $14.00

$16.00

ra

#50

1 81%'2 2%3 8%4 .8%

1

2

3

4

1735

9%45%'23%

21%

#9

1 7%2 5%3 85%4 3%

PROBLEM SOLVING11'. Real World Problems (9)

9 13 17,

.

CI

Mr. Simmons put a wire fence all the way around his rectangular garden. Thegarden is 9 feet long and 5 feet wide. How many feet of fencing did he use? #12 #23 #25

. .

ANSWER: r)/ fe-f---1

28%

32%45%27%

59%

25%3 43% 16% 7%

4 14% 10% 7%NAEP SCORING CRITERIA

(1). 28; 28 feet45; attempt to multiple 9 x 5i2)

3) 14; attempt to add 9 and 5

4) other unacceptable response

.

.

`.. 0 4

Which of the figures below has the same area as the figure above? #28 #57

1 37% 13%2 5% 2%

2Q 30 3 54% 84%

'...,,

3<,4".+, v 6

i .

..._..S

34

*

2

.,

2

PROBLEM SOLVING14. Math Problems (13, 17)

Marie took four spelling tests. Each test had 30 words. On the four teststhe spelled correctly the following numbers of words:

25, 23, 27, and 24,

Altogether, how many words did she MISS on all four tests?

ANSWER:


(1) 21; 21 words(2) correct process,

subtracts then adds(3) correct process,

adds then subtracts() 99; 99 words

s

attempt to add(5) 11 4 words(6) 'other unacceptable response

Last summer Todd earned $205, Charlotte earned $562, and Dale earned $400."What is the average Of their summer incomes?

ANSWER: 6 6


r3)-389.00; 389

2) 400.00; 400) correct process with noor wrong answer ,

(4) 1101.00 (con change daimal);any atte'.1.pt to add

(5) other unacceptable response

L_

1

2

3

4

6

2

1 3

4

5

13 17

114 8

#52 #16

56% 72%1% 1%

5% 2%

24% 11%.11% 12%

PROBLEM SOLVING14. Math Problems 17) 9 13

In a school election with three candidates, Joe received 120 votes, Mary received50 votes, and George received 30 votes. What percent of the total number of votes

did Jut; receive?

ANSWER: 0 %

1

2

3

45

67

8

1

2

3

4

#10,

27%

1%

3%

013%

30%

12%7%

#8

46%01t,0,

11%..2: 9%2;9,%

cz

5%

#27

79%

03%

14%


(1 60)

(2) correct process, no answer orwrima answer

(3) ecitir fraction: e.g., 120/200(4) 5/3; 1.67; attempt to

divide 200/120

6 0the4r/5ununacceptable7 120

;2/5 response

8) 66 2/3; 66; 67; 200/3; 80/120..

If there are 300 calories in nine ounces of a certain food, how many calories ate

'there in a three-ounce out hurl of that food?

-ANSWER: /Z1./)...---\

,

_ i.. NAEP SCORING CRITERIA ,

(1) 100; 109 calories(2) correct procc..', with

no answer- ur wrong .Ik answer; 300/(11 = x/3

(3) 900; 9b0 calories(4) other unacceptable response

t

.--

PROBLEM SOLVING14. Math Problems (13, 17)

13 17

A worker went to his job at 7:45 A.M. and returned home exactly 10 hourslater. At what l.me did he reach horn.?

ANSWER.:1

2

3

4

5

#26

80%0

3%

4%13%


(1) 5:45; 17:45any written equivalent

(2) 5:45 a.-111.-; 5111

7! 74) 4'4' 445; 4:45{

4:45a.m.

5) other un4cceptable response

E3

krocket was (iirected at a t.rry-.! 5?5 rinks south of its launching point. It landed624 miles south of the 1,Airicl.ifri p e t. B tryiv many miles chil it 10 155 its mark? #12 /152

1 39% 81%ANSWER: miles772 5% 3%:

3 14% 2%NAEP SCORING CRITERIA 4 2% 1%

5 13% 6%(1) 99; 99 miles(2) correct process with no answer

or virong ansi;er; 624 - 525 ...,109

6 22% 6%

3) 1)49; any attiet to add4 10J with no work slic,wn5 101 with no work SW:WIb other cuiiiicc ept,i Li L 1 CSpCifISC

2

1/43

87%1%0

3%

8%

fro

r

-4!M

PROBLEM SOLVING15. Real World Problems (13)

3

13 _17

On a map the distance from Charlestown to Lakeside is 3 inches.scale is 1 inch .. 45 miles. What is the actual distance?

.

The map

..

1

234

#28

3%

95%-,,,:i %

ID

k., Ctiatiestowe

C2)

.,..

32,nz-

e s

x0

...sra

0to

4-C0,

.I.

tgt

lakeside.Mirror

Lake

A'.'.Johnstown/

10 15 miles

20 135 miles , i,5

30 66 2- miles3

40 666 2-- miles

J

;)

4 ,

..._

. f41.........

g

PROBLEM SOLVING15. Real. World Problems (13, 17).

.If John drives at an average speed of 50 miles an hour, howit take him to drive 275 miles?

Q 5V, hours ,7Q 5 hours 25 minutes

30,,i19%, hours

/0 6% hours

A sales tax rate is 6%. What is the tax on a $200 TV set?",

10 $1.20'7 $3.00

3 0 $3.33ei $12.00

Television Sets are on sale at two stores. One offers a 10 pwhile the other offers 15 percent. Vihat is the difference i

the two story, of in I V !xt tho' priced at 5100?

'ANSWEIt:

NAEP. SCORING CRITERIA

3

4

5.00; 5; 85.90; 5X of 100?5;15; 10; 10';;; 15`.,

other unaccectatile response

A s-ilos tax is on eech dollar. What is the tax on$10.00?

1() 31'2() 13130 3010 33;

porch

9 13 ' 17

many .hours will

1

2

3

4

. ,

04

51%36%

4%

8%

1/58

58%'24%

2%

15%

1164 00

1 10% 3%2

°3-9%

17%3%

13%4 60% .80%

ercent discountthe sale price or. 1/21

1 61%2 2%

3 4%4 '21%.

ase that costs 00. .

1

2s-..0

2%..

3 95%4 3%

. . . A

271

4 ."

PROBLEM SOLVING15. Real World Problems (1?) 9 13 17

=

Jr

hour3:05

ANSWER:

NAEP

,

Anof

,buying

ANSWER:

NAEP

(1)(2)

(3)

(5)(6)

(7)

.

,-

A parking lot charges 35 cents for the first hour and 25 cents for each additionalor fraction of an hour. For a car ParkeO from 10:45 in the morning untilin the afternoon, haw flinch money should be charged?

..-'3 I 3,5:,4,,,

1

2

3

45

67

8

1

. 2

3`,4567

.

k. ois,

'N,

,

,

,

i

,

ii42

54%

6%

1%-.

.9%..

1%

02%

, 23%

.:! ,P, '.,,,t .... k.A i,

11''

#39

57%2%

01%

6%

..1%:27%

-

,

.

SCORING CRITERIAr

1) 1.352) 1.10; 1103 1.25; 1254 1.60; 160 r5 1.75; 75-6 1.95; 95

7 2.10; 2 0

/

8 other unacceptable response

.', r

automobile can be bought for cash for S2,850 or on credit with a down payment$400 and S130 a month for three years. How rnuch MORE would a person pay by

on credit than by buying the car for- cash?.

$ ,V3 /.) \-7,

SCORING CRITERIA

430; 430 with wrong unit. .

correct process with add /malt

error; any .iieciL'Jl of 4303280-250 with sfl.roct error

4) 3280; clecirAl of 3,7,:',0;' atterpt -

to salve (36 x ,-,0) + 40330; atte;nt to solve 136 x 80l - 2850attempt to mul tply by +,

wrong WiL-ber 0" 1..!nt,h; .

other_ unacceptable response

i

_._._

GEOMETRY16. COncepts (13)

..

9 13 . 17

fWhich Picture below shows parallel lines?

-:,

// 4.

.1 94%

....,

1®

,...

to

2 1% ..11 -,-----...

'-- 3 2%

4 2%

2 0

3p.

0 e

.... 4

A

Angle A is what kind of an angle? 1/39

10 acute 1 12% .

2 0 Obtuse 2 6%' .

30 right ,;:, 3 71%

4 0 straight 4 10%

.

.

).

Yhich of the following has a,shape MOST like an orange?, .

1145

1 0 coneto (..,,he

1

22%

2%to cyliricH- 3 13% .

1 () sphere T.4 83%

GEOMETRY16. Concepts (13, 17)

9 13 17

i

1104.

ti.- Which line segment is a DIAMETER? #13 .

10 EG1 2%

20 HK 2 5%3 HM 3 74%

. 4 18%40 NP.

,

I

. -If the measure of angle F is 500 and the measure of angle G is'105°: what is themeasure of angle E? #42

1 52%ANSWER: -c-,R_d 2 9%

3- 1%. .

4 , 9%NAEP SCORING CRITERIA

5 4%

1) 25 (must have degrees sign) 6 17%2) 25 (no sign for degreeS)3) 90 with/without degrees sign4) 5; 55 rj.th/witho-ut degrees .

5) ; 205 with /without degrees6) other unacceptable response;

e.g. acute

.

.1

.

27

. .

GEOMETRY, .16. once (17)x,

e 9 13 17

What is the meriure in degrees of the angle fortited byWhen the time isthree o'clock?

ANSWER;

SC

eir"11

d"le° ''N/tEr SCORING CR RIA

(1) 90 with/without degrees sign(?) 270 irith/without degrees sign(3) 90 percent; 9G with ,mislabel(4) 3 o'clock' ,,

45 loi th/willout degrees signother unacceptable response

7 '1/4 of circle; 1/4 of turn; 1/4

the hands of the efock

To ,set up a tent having the dirnerviions shoWn in the dra.4ing, the vertical tent pples.

used slsot.41r1l)e how many feet high?

ANSWER: 10_NAEP SCORING 'CRITERIA

(I) 8; 611 under radical.(2) COrt,iWn. processing;-no

answer ,or;',w!c.ng answer,(3) any/ ti.eplit to find, square

. rout of AO. ,Squar e, 4 6, square;136 nder, radical*

L to find square root. square, or - 10 square

4

614'11

8

10; 16.

Other tina.cceptable response °

feet

A

1'23

r

.7

GEOMETRY

16. Concepts (17)17

4 inches

The distance around this circle is ABOUT:

10 8 inches,2 Q 10 inches ,

3 12 inches <,

0 16 inches Az%

,23%3% ..

32%'4CT%

74,1, .

O.,

; *

Percentag bf 9 -, 13-, and. 17-Year-Olds in'ConnectiCut by .Sex. of Student, in Each Region,

Each SiZe. of-Community AnsweringfOorrectly,Eaoh Test Item

.

I

S',

or.

.0, .

* TALE B.1

f

,It*, , t, ,

0,

Test Item Penformanii of 9-Year-old -Grad6s in Connecticut,

by Sex of Student, In EaCh'RegJon; and in Each Size of Community

with. National (NAEP) Results Where Applicable

; ' e.

.41

Question .Number

4

Oetcription. Of Item , 4f17.4'f

'4;

1 At rate' cif 5,minutes per WndoW, hoW-cgidd

one figurejloW many minutes to:wash 10windgws

2 'Fractional part of rectangle shaded 00461] x.5 t'

4 Which is ,#reatest (4-digicumbers ending

in 00) ..41*

5 -A quarter Nil many nickelsTi click .(1:5t)Estite fourth Alkientify.dflirtagns place

,q At par Whir 1H9rFn 11PR11

cast

'10 Which is greatest (5-dtgit numbers11 402 x

12" Feet of fenCing to enclose garden 9 eet

long 5. feet Wide13" 1054)- ast.',14 P1'ace values' in 762

15 Which number is lea whole numbers)

16 A nicker equals how ma pennies

-11 Pictographon which d 'diAlost people'.use library

8 Pictographhow_many peo le used libraryog, specific day (symbol 20 people)

19 Roc et aimed target.525 m es south

landed 624 miles south,. Mis d tarby hoW many miles

20** 38 0,19

, 4

AllSex

5tudeats4 5, 6f; 1 2 3 4

61 62 61 -,59 70 V68 58 64 48 66 60

.61 . 59 62 60 -A 63 Ed " 64 51 47 64 59

78 f.74 79 84 75 79' 86 60, 76t .82 74. 8Q

.87, t 93 90' '89 90 .88 88 76 90 90

'92 -,93 91 94, 94. '93 9 1954 , 90 BO, 92 93 94

59 ' t 55 62 70 63 58 57 46 61 60 62

sa 72sti 65' 74 19 14 68. 52 71 69' 75.

'V' 79 41 .01 ..fA5 41 PI .49 0?' 8? og

§g §4 gi PI Pi it, 01 '01, It gg §S §§

65 66 64 69 70 . )64 63 51' . 68 69 66

68 65, 70 69 74 61 69 78 5.1 96 7)3 68

13 11 6 8 12' 7. 121 4 7 11

51 48 53 57 (5-9 . 51 56 52 43. 37 51 5681 82 BO 85 83 87 81. 87 19 64 84 84 :1 6083 83 83 86 86 84 86 86 82 3 86 83

95 95. 45-At 96 96 97 , 97 y 98 94 88 9 96 98

95 94 96 97 97 n 91 95 90 97 86 6 95 99

38 40 e.366' 4i 43 47 33 (46' 42 15 9 40 47

39 4'0 39 43 48 44 45 43 31 19 43 43: 45

89 87 90 89 91 ..417 90 92 82 82 91 89. 91

, ercentage of.Students. ring Correctly

P' ConiRctiiut

Size of Community, Nation,.

*

IMM11111

50

15

d.

22

l 19

21'1 36 - 19 .4. S3,06 4 10.00 '1 9.14 .'5.1C '

At .1 biscuits per du.'how long until dog

6ts',1,14,Liscuits*

:3:24 ' Tirr shown on cijck (10 to 4)

''25 Sum of hunJreds, tees, onesi.

-26 Best unit to measure between two'cities

27 Fractional Part of ciir.'e shaded (V.)

28 Figure which has the s'd:T area as figure

shown (311 rectangles) "N g

, i9 659 - 207

42 '3est oi, '.0 rd&sure.too'hbrush

.11 3t; x 3 ''

\l.32 K6 i : ,6 , , ,. 33 11 tunItIcto .,104:14 10 ".-.9-est inch

34 3!,: ( 4c

r 35 Frnr 4:25 to 5:0:s ',m is how many minutes

, 36 FraLti(in)f Ici;', 01,,od i,r, (11

31' ' .ilm. :!-,.,.'--.v..l'o ii-lcIll.. .,.M.

-33 liar ,i1:4m---who wio\ iUsest to 50 pounds

39 Ear Irmill ...wrip wol,:h lose ,

40 6.), 'r 3

41 Fractional part of circle shaded ,,)

42 l,ot nuT'.er after 9,-i, 99. 10,

43 Place value of 7 in ;000 .'

il; A half dollar eoals how many dimes,

45 . '476 1138 ,. .

46 Ailouat of chaitqe frb S5 for a $1,40c purchase

47 Titre ',hown on cloel. (6:25)

01 Length of pail to 'nearest centimeter

49 Twenty 'Airinies eq,ial hpw Pany, nickel%

50 2 nicLols, lluarten, amr;' 4.pennies equal

how ,,:li lilorloy

51 ?Pie it Wd5 two nn,Ir'd vo 152 FraP.tional vart of recCangle Shaded (LY0)

53 631 4 41 4 51,':,

,

54 -',0t,! of N, vr.10.0, 17 pples. and 37

aprdes

. 55 .Value .of 4 ',i 365i .f.c.

56 86L 583 . A

57' T'in'e. it will bra in one-half hour

11 53 N1;..0:, 10 ,,ore than h37

°Ike41 59 725 ;'203 =.(- 60 .1, dollar e41.Jals how'r.lany quarters

!.Regions do rot include "Big

,"'Open -ended

'p.

77

48

51

7678'

95

63

54

88

31

87

93

89

45

13

96

70

b9

95

78

64

76

39

9

81

68

63'9]

52

80

75

59

93

P 57

0

76 79

47' 49

55 47

76 75.

80 77

96 '14

62 64

51

.89

86

8

82 80 76

46 55 53: 56

55 57 54 ''.651

132 77 79

82 84 84 81

96 97 94 9664 74 65 64

:53 66;. '154 52

89 94 91 90

89 91 89 8'7

'79 r82 85'

;NU '88.931. ;95 94 ',Ho ''96

'87, 91 89', 93 94

52 1 '49 , .42 447; .52 . 78 74 77

96 .95 . 98 97 97 97 91-74 '56 ,''1. 74" 74 73 76

35 ',196 ,98 96 .98

84; 90. , c! 90 93,4.41, '92 95

7'Q '73.. 30 '.81 .76 75 , 74y., 95': a '98 97' 96 97 98

.76 83 8l 80 81

bv 60 66 10 71 61 11

73 79 . 81 82 75. 77

38 41 39 45 42 39 47

83

56

69

80

80

91

.69

53

92

'89

88

16. 81

93 92

1 pie

.1 70 65

61 . 64

89, 9Z

83

81 .'1,7.9

72 77

91 SS

64 550'91 94

89 .S6

82 90 87 81

92 94 93 96

80 84 84 80

85

91

88

0

44 3

if' 63

, 12 c, 63

90 91

49 50

44 1 48

81

, 84

85

86,;;

85 86 85 81 85

,67 73 " 75 69 71

61 , 72 68 65 68

91, 94. 92 92 95

83 85, 83 '16 87

36 4, 86 ,

TR.., 77

§1!' 92

x.63,., ;56 64

92 , 9

91 91 90

84

77

91

61

93

86

86

76

94

63

95

90 .

74

97

684

97

83

65

93

81

67,

11'

33

83

88

71..

71

15'

56

90

74,

79,

91

49

93

88

8Q

77

70

79

85

82

36

57

87

52

83

81

57

85

64

46

63

26

73

84

62

71

45

50

83

71

57

60

,78

40

87

.73

79 79 82

.49 15 54

.54 '52 ,; 51

15 77 81

84. 80 82

97 94 96

67 65) 67

55 55 55

89 ' 90 91

89 87 90

85 77 86

.,88. 88 89

94 93 96

1.12 Iii9 91

47 47 47.

77 14 79

96 98 97

72. 72 76

97 96 98

93 86 92

77 70 17

97 96 97

80 81 81

65 68' 71

81 75 81

3g. 41 45

85 84 87

93 94

83 82 '4'83

84 83. 84

71 67 78

65 63 68

,93 92 93

'83 82 86

'86 82 87

79 .75

'91 91 94'

94 9

59

9

'90 89

55

49,37

38

89

61'

84,

27

TABLE R.2

Test Item Performance of 13;Year-01A Eighth-Graders in Connecticut,

by Sex of Student, in Eacp Region, and in Each Size of Community

with National (PEP) Results Where Applicable

F

Question,.Nuipber

Descriptidh of Item

Percentage of Students Answering Correctly

AllStudents

Connecticut

Sex Region'

os.1" 38 )t 9 *2 30. inches

3" 38 t 19 =4 PictUre of paralAl lines

13 boys, and 15 girls ih a group, whatfractional part is boys

.009 is equivalent to what fractionWhich number is least (whole numbers)

8 826 + 7869" 36 - 19 =

10" Several people received votes, whatPercentage of total vote did one of the

.,4.pgop,te receive1.1** ,and 15 diacount, what is the

,* .once ices for TV set

at $100

. ,irdii*nt in a circle whiclr Is. the'Ater

14 1 ction that is greatest15' '71 :.r.,-,

--16 461x 50 --.. ' A17 0.6 8 + .24 =18,, F ctional part of 'c rcie shaded

19 , utter that is great, st (decimals)20 ,74,4 38'.21 .0161.: 4

2 Feet of fencing toenclose garden 9 feet ,

' lo and 5 feet wideto

° 4" $3. 10.00 + 9.14 + 5.1Q =

25" , 'A uivalent to what percent( 26" Person left for work at 7:45 A18.,' returned

home 10 hours later at what time21** 125 : 5 = .'

28, Distance on map is 3 inches. At'scale of1 inch = 45 miles,. what is actualdistance between the citiesilA :

87

86

96

94

32

70

98

97

93

27

61

Eir

74

30

74

95

83

86

89

91

60

45

88

55

80

94

95

-

85 88*90 93

95 ,96

9 93,

0 69"8 98

97

,93 * 93

33 23

141JY:17

9

)4

.861.'

85 81',A,

.93 94

91 81

87 90

90 92

59 80

53 38

ek 89

60 50

82w

78

93 94

96 94

Site of Community Nation

i 86 89 86 88

89 88 89 88

'97 95 96 96 95' 94

, 93 95 96 96 96 85'

28 32 36 34 33 36

71 69 ,73 72 66 73

98 99.." 98 98 97 99

99 97' 97 96 96 99.

93 94 93 ,95 91 93

26 34 32 24 27 19

56 '

v

TU- 64 62' 64 57

89, 86 87 89 87 90

74 78 76 75 68 69

'29 33 36 29 28 21

72 79 73,, 26 72 61

lao2 89,. 84 82 67,4

, 94 97 .96 94 94

lmel lb, 95 91. 87-86 92' 89 86, 80 -79',87 92 90 ,1.1 86 88

911 92 93 9 , 88 91

61 69 60 461 456 61

40 49 51 . 47: 41 40.

87 93 -01 611 86 93

52 59 63 53 ,,51, 58

82 81183

80 79) 69

95 i7 1 '34, 94 , 91 8/

97 96 96 96 94 , 97

1 2 3

81 86 87 89

67 81 86 91

93 96 96 96,82 96 v, 93'

96,'="

25 34 30

'55 70. 70 73

96 98 97 99

96 97 96 97

90 94 92 94 89

15 30 24 30 17

45 63 60 . 63'

,)*

77 88 86 .89 80

60 76 73 71

161 31 ." 26,

66 74.88 96 9

67 84 8

824,95 9

69 89 83 4

80 90, 88 91

37

86 92

1

) 8958 '66

9,1.

27 .4 .44 ',f13

76 91. 86 90 84

30 59 50 61 41

63 83 78 82 63

95 92 95 89

85 4" -96 95 97

29 x 0,3

30 Sales tax of 3 cents on a dc,'7ar, what istax on a SlO purchase

31 Metric unit used to measure distance

between two cities

32 609 14 13 .

33 Area of rectangle shown (6 inches by 2inches)

34 x 1/4 7.

35 4V. - 21/,

36 425 x 0,33

37 Metric up' Ysecl':tOreasure page of test

38 :/ x.

39 kind of :.11,41e fotN1 in a square40 2 hour's 20 minutes minutes41 Re.,din9 cille graph42. x 4 =

43 51.29 x 0 '3544 S:.4111Ps1,t. unit of measurement45 Shape 4st 'like an grane (sphere)46, R,.'ading a table of ..00. sires41 4 x3°48** M,P'y too'.. four tests and r eived four,

differont rin;rs i 'correct. Ho

anY itons we incorrt49** Ili; bounds ounces

50** If 23. 0 is subtracted,from 62.1

, 51* Thee people earned inoney.What was

er'age aTliounti earner

52** Roe, t aimed at target i.iissed target by

how ri,any .11 les

53 ,Readin9 a chart with .syrql for aVindebf,.unit

0

54 At average speed of 50 !IN, how wanytr-

hours

to truqe1 275-mi1(i5

55, PeriHletr:.r..pf triangle show (17 cm by 24

c) by 32 c',)56 '4 x 2 , , , , $651 Figure Ethic" ii: saint; area as figure shown

(nlicri'd'cti.:Igles)

53. is used to measure (weight)

594 '1'. li, ,

60. .2339 ;' 22 ..,:.

61 SlO.00 - 1.98: I60 8 quarks'. M1 Lon's ;

. . 63 , 2'.'-' + 3;,, .

Salet ...tax,,of 6'.. whet .is tax on Si. 0 TV. 9ei.

65" Pc;',It...;i ne 6. be 'qr.i. ph ;,'.'

55 ertiering fra,-.tiofqt---

* Reg ions,ddsnot ,inclo Cities."** Open- 'ended

10

95

7.3

91

56

80

80

86

77

74

71

.93

87

9257

68

81

A

68 72

95 94

82 65

90 92

58 54

78 SI

73 82

86 86

21 74

60 78

77) 69

95 91

6897

56' 53

15 53

26 80

84 83

71 66

76 7;

58 56 50

72 72 4

56 59. 53

81 y2 81

93

51 ' 44

82 3,1

73 73

84 81

85 82

53 . 54

84 ti?

85

76 E: 11"64 65 63

4 64 55

91 92

32 39 .., 26

74 80 69 71

95 96 96 94

78. 81 ,..75 75

132 95 -;91 91

63 64 n59 52

79 92 179 79

'79 86 82 80

39 88 , 85 89

19 84 79 79

73 84 81 81

76 74 .74 3 73

92 95 , 94

88' 89 89 89

94 94 92 92

60 62 57 160

67 79 13 71

83 85 83 86

90 93 89 91

70 14 10 63

75 81' 79 78

52 57 62 62

73 . 77. 16 ..74

61 64 60, 58

ir

66 7.3

94 94 ,

65. .54

91 94

53 45

80 87

83 79

83 88

73 72

80 82

66 49

91 93

86 84

95 91

t1 63

62 51

78 6/

86

69 '64

76 63

58

69

46 4f3

80 88 84 82 79 76

94 94 93 92 92 88

,

i6 52 57 54 46 '40

4,180 83 83 82 .,84 75

73 72 75 74 75 , 69

86 89 86. 33 80 ''79

,87 89 .87 68 82 72

58 62 l 53 53 55 46

86 85 \-W 84 . 82 78

98 89 86 84 82 85

73 79 81 377 71

62 73 65 66 64' 64

. 59 . 59 , 64 60 51 63

93 91 . .93 93 90

30 35437. 31 3Q 25

Y

51 75 64 77

88 96 95 95

54 77 70 76

85 93 91 93

36 59 49 64

17 80 17 82

64 81 32 82

74 90 83 87

54 81 15 81

64 81 76 84

46 72 71 75

79 94 92 96

78 89 86 90

85 92 92 94

18 63 .51 60

40 74 64 73

67_ 83 485

69 91 91

49 72 65 72

61 79 76 78

41 )03 56 61

74 71 76

#1 61 53 59'

64 85* 78 84

87 93 92 94

34 54 49 52

72 A 81 82

58 76 71, '76

14 89 81. 84

68, :90 82 86

31 '57 51 58

73 84 84 85

78 86 85 86

62 79 7.4 79

40 _ 6.7 61 68'

53 60 61.. ;61

84 93, 91 93

18 , 34 32 33..

60

61,

A

72

43ABI:E B.3

Test Item Performance of 17-Year-Old E1 eventh4raders In Conn icut

by Sex of Student, in Each Region, and,in'Each Size of Comm ty'

with National MEP) ReAlts Where Applicable,

MI

:7!

' / ,,' Percentage of Students Answering Correctly,,I _.t. ..,

4' Connecticut ,Question .

IIescription of Item ' eVNumber '

AllSex, ., ..' ;'`Region .! `Size of Community Nation

. ..t Students ,

M

,,

3 4 6 1 2 3 , 4,....

,.

1. 7111,,4 7,

.77 79 76. '79 78 77, 81 : 81 75' 66 .19 77 80

2 40,21/2 "64 t 72 57 68 67 67 61 66 ,71' 46 . 63 61 68 '14,;!,.;,,.3 0 . 5 8 + . 2 4 : s 87 a 87 87 94 90 83, 89 92 ),75, 88 90 89 It4** 38 x 9

;;171 ',',:,;, . - ?. , 88, 87. 89 81. 88 90 ;86 90 .83 86' 89 89 .88 88 :

5** Degrees of angle fdrine0y ti 3 of clock72 , 78 61 79\-:77 :19 A.67, 14 65,' 52 75 16 75 73', at 3 o'clock p -i

6** 38 + 19 =. ..44t1,,,i;,,, '1\ 4,7 ,97 97, ;# 97 91 95 98 99 ,. .97 91 , 97 97

7** 1/,, i s:equivalent to iw.iia.that; '1 ., 63' ,68 60 'g.t#65 67 62 59 1.1 45 p 68, 64 , 66. DAA ,fr*' ' '561611 1)e ple*ece ved votes, what .' \

4 ,,t.t total vote ,did ono, the 46 59' 36 s. '47 53 'i 50 45 46 54.. 30 .41 51 47 45

\ "lw ;

i s t ,}I, portion of86 6 86 85 el 88 it A 81 86 81. 88 86 87i

JN'91

'1 91 "92 93 Al 91 91 94 )31 94 , 93 91

0..)e oft4k sites 0" '. 94' 93, -11i0 94 99 96 95' 95 99, 83 96 ,, 96 95

,- Wf pain vtr.s, 50-Aqu a :d

d

Nk 4, many galtd are.neped to . 70 77 . 65 77 ,16 77 66. 10 72, 51 '12 74 75

11 wall 48.feet by 10 feet ' 1

' 13" Readiri a bar graph t 91 93 89. 91. 92 92 90 93 94 85, 93 91 91

14** 36 '.. 95 .95 ' 95. 94 97 96 96 95 95 92 96 97 ,95 92

15"' $3:06 + 10.06 + 9.14 + 5.,10 94,' 93 ',,',95 _' 95 .96 93 92 .95 94 92 9,4 95 . 94 .9316** Three eople earnkenZney. What was thg

sii, 4., -76 79 13 77 18 7 77 83. 51 73 ;16 78 66aver ge,amount e ed.),. -

t 95 , 14 9D' 7 t,,,95 93 96, 92A 91 96- 95 , 951, 93

4' .,1' n , 0 86 86 86 81 1'2. 71 84 88 85

7 ' 81 1.6 /I'. 81'' .11 82 72 a iik, 57,4176 80 82

17" 125 : 5 : el '18 8 quarts : gallon ,.,,,. ,

19, 'Metric unit used to measur4 di stanCe . .

0 609bext

iier% two c i tie

21 Readin a circle graft z.1

22 , Orderin ractions

. 495 96 9& 4 .95 98 97 91 9' 96 97

96 95 96 96 97 97 95 96. 89 97. .-*965177 . 70 46 ' 60 `;1` 63 6,2. 54 57 6 .37 58 ,.;;83

.,..2::** Height of nt pole(8Se 01 right

39 47 33, 41 51 , '44 14 36 43 23 42 .1 42 34triangle)24"' I If 23.8 is subtracted,,from 62.1 84 82r 86 89 88 86. 8 85 BB 72 86 6 87 78

25 ** .',,;,,, Feet of fencing to enclose garden 9 flet59 s71 50 62 83 63 60 64 71 34 59 6) , '66

long and. 5 f4t wide '26** 1054 - 865 : 92 91 i,,,R, -94....-.13. 95 91 .93 95 86 92 ',*94 '94 89

.,

1,

IlrIl-- .. 4

..

tiN./ y.300.calories in 9 ounces of 'n food, how

..' '''ihY canaries in ves of the food8.7;6 ., 21,1

iOtrula fOr arprOfArlangle, find.41.0.14.014. wfth b 3 w4 'and h , 10

,,4ii111, igi4t is tai on 5200 TV set, 2,ft,-u's.ed to npsure (weight)

043 x 3 :.

33 30 ipches: feet _inches34 ; V,,3'1 `'...)..01 i% Nuiyale),t tomhat fraction36 $7. ..,,iii , 17

37" S10...10 - 1.9138 S1.. ,. 4 x 0,06

.

33t4 !6,,,Y4 "H,1_11 nOri .104;,1 ; parson pay-... e ca,' Jii . idl than by p3yino

1:1

49*, i..,. ;.,:..1,', (",A(....,,41* Par,, 1'1.1 tot'n.ir.e; 16..t iii:st hour, 25C

0'. e....'1 :ldf t ;irii heor'or fraction,wilii. .4, t: a unt to earl, fro 10:45 7,!)1,t; 1:1.. ^.!1. .,

42 1(' ;r3e1 Df thirt .iiil. of ..1 triingleth 41" Pcr'.i. 10' fv: n', .7 ':45 Ili7., ret.i...12d

i)o. 0 10 il.i.e-4, r a 11',1t. tlIne '44

fin.1 v.:.1;, p pi i:,),42; 3 0.3.4

1.9f. . U.448 ;,. retri Alt used to reasure capacity of

gasoline txlk,:i4:,' 1r: that 1. ...;re,it...,t ((lac ima 1s)4')

50 Rpo,,i60 a :in,. ,p;,,pii.,o. 1% :: C.75,...

74 .6':1. '1'r. 1,1 ),,/ I

tl

to buy a

44

41

54

56

57

53

59

50

in srallest (decrals)

44, 3 1 .1

): 4

1:0541(. G111t of ;.i.easure;,t a111:0 s:-)eod 50 Mril, how rany'hours

to tf,w,f,aLtiq j is.grn.).test

Cir.ci're!KJ! ofdiaoter

, f61 1( 1.

62 13 11oy, Jr.! 15 gi . s in a lrnup, 0,11.14 fiiai.i741:anal 'par 4 t(lv

64

63 .1-

2 hou,Ct, r,..it S , minutes.

circle given the

Cities."** fican-andnd

79

95

88

80

93

60

9?

85

74

88'9071

.17

14

8? 71

95 95

813 /

9 18

97 91

71

94' 90

63 .36

70

91 90

70 ,72

60 55

81 69

82,, 80

'ii!97 97

4)4

86 79

95 95

85 85

9S 95

86 86

75 3D

89 90

-92 . 91

416,;:',?':, 74

59, ..60

78 14

54 ,-,F9 58 52 59 59

52

87

75

63

66

11

86741,

93

93

60

89

71

'66

95

16

73

53

45

55 49 59 57

344 94 88 89

.1'1

85

,f26

7,1

71 3 , 76 81

90 90 39

66,4 71 75

70 :71, 76I A'

88 91

1

,4r. 92

50

no'

73

66 66

94

;1.762

33

(15

76

7.9 V

67 50

61 34

-)S

'71

SO

58

9,3

96 96

95 96

60 59

,7 91

7 35

70 69

97 94

79 80

76 82,

59 62

44 54

34 35

77 n`"\5t t6

'62 58

95. 95

15 19 81 88

95 96594

4.90 87 89 9

82 .79 78 8695 94 96 95

83 80 82 85

95 92 95 94

83 85 84 95

78 73 73 79

91 87 90 88

93 88 4 91 92

72 69 74 79

62 ' 56 61 63

16 78 17

54 55 57

55 '44 59 45

89 89 87 '91

80 13 76 89

89 83 90 91

72 60 69 66.72. 68 75 74

88 8,6 89 94

96

95

66,

92

82

69

97

81

80

63

92

93

62

87

74

62

95

78

73

94 94

94 95

65 60

89 91-

80 83,

'70 74

96 94

78 80

73 79

57 56, 60

52 46 43 49

35 31 3Z 34,

76 69 74 68

55 46 51 49

64 58 59 59

96 96 94 97,

91 97

4; 811

114(62 81 0

9

72 90 90 91

72 81- 81

'82 95 95

#2 82 8 83``77 94 94 95

83 87-` 84 84

58 79 73 76

78 89 89 89

'85 89 92' 92

59 74 .71 74

39 60 62 58

51 3.74 79 80

40 55. 1. 58. 57

36 50 53 59

74 89 89 88

54

Lo77

44

59,

.68

75

90

69

72

§8

78

90

. 70

71

80

89

69

74

89 89

7.9 95 96 94

82 94 95 96

44 60. 63 63

83 89 91 89

57 81 79 8049 67 68 69

90 95 97 96

53 79 80 8050 75 79 779

45 60 59 60

27 50 48 46

23 32

52 74 .15 '.75

42 51 54 N54

47 64 61

83 96 96 95

56

47

52

82

93 -I

75

4,9

ti

14,

cl

(

APPENDIX C

Copies of Student QuestionAke InstrunientsN

41,

1. 14*.ou: S;) a boy? 2 Q a girl?

4

2.- During which month were' you born? (Fill in ONE circle.)

1 M January

-2 0 February

7 0 Julya 0 August

3 0 March 9 0 September

4 0 April 10 0 October

5 0 May 11 0 November

6 0,June 12 0 December

During which year were YOu bOrn?, (Fil etbircle.)

1 0 19652 0 19663 0 1967

4 0 19685 0 1969

FOURTH GRADE

1

4. How many people live in your höiSe or apartment? Count yourself,, brothers-andsisters, parents, grandparents, and other people who live with you.

Write the number-here:

,

\--5. How many 'rooms are there our .house r apartment? 'Oon't.co

Write themumber herb;

4,40-

athrooms.

HOW of ten-do y,

3

4

abOut.yoi- school work at home? (kill in

ever$

,

once% tw e,a month

once or twice a week

'just about every day

ecirole.)

Iliyodpari>rits usuallyelp yOu with your school work? (Fill in ONE cirtle.)

0 yes C) go

1.

Do ypu like-VOur school? Tiink about it.OVE RAI_ L., thot just (::1'0.a.);/or thisWeek.(Fill in ONE circle.) 1

0 I hatejt.2' 0 drion't.kike it very much.

I Ii14, pretty irtuch.

I like'it a lot.

,9.:ii.

About how many hourueach day cid./ Tp.4

less thart lhour

C) between l- d 2 hburs

0 between 2 'qiid 3 ,furs

.between 3 ani1_44.hours

e than .4 liours

3

Hay m ch do you !il:e

OtTcrra t all 70.sornewhat

0 very Much ..1

-4N

u.watch TV?' (Fill in ONE circle,)

9

ONE circle.

11. How useful do you feel math is compared tui.the other subjects you st,.. /?(Fill in ONE circle.)

not very useful

soeiewhat useful

3 C) very useful

DONOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO.

9

,c?

Ui

,A*

Questions Abair

. Are siou: 1 0 Male? 2 female?

2. During hrch month were you born?

pJanuary01) February'

A,

0 MaI`Z:".April

6: 0

7 0 July8'Q August

9 -0 SepOmber,

110 Q OptoRber

II 0 Noyeentom

12 Q December

During which yllirtere you born?

;.C:,,1961

'2 0 19623 0 1963,,4 0 1964'

4.

EIGHTH GRADE

A

.1

ny r.e!ople live Ain yoUr hor4)? Count yoo,,...rW brothers arid sisters, paren4. grandp rents-, and:pibert.people who.live wit4ou.

Write the umber here:,e"..%)

5. How any rooms are there in your kiorner uon't cou,4t bathrooms:

Write he number here:C

6. How often do you and the adults in your home talk about your school work andschool experiences? (Fill in ONE circle.)

1 0 never or hardly ever

2 Q once or twice a month

3 Q once or twice a week

4 Q just about. every day

7. How much encouragement do you feel your parentsgive you in your school work?

Q hardly any at all

2 Q only a little3 Q quite a bit

4Q a lot

8. How do you like your school? Think about it OVERALL, not just today or thisweek. (Fill in ONE circle.)

0 I hate it.2 0 I don't like it very much.

4

3Q It's O.K.4 0 I like it pretty much.

5 0 I like it a lot.

9. About how many hours each day do you watch TV? (Fill in ONE circle.

1 0 less than 1 hour

2 0 between 1 and 2 hours



5 0 more than 4 hours

2

2c-

101 How much do you like math?

1 0 not at all

2 0 Somewhat

3 0 very much

11. HoW useful do you feel math is compared to the other subjects you study?(Fill in ONE circle.)

1 0 not very usettil

2 0 somewhat useful

0 very useful

DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO.

2 nc

ELEVENTH GRADE

QUeStiOtIS About Y014

1. Are you: 10 male? 0 female?

During which month were you born?

0 January2 0 February

3 0 March4 0 April

5 0 May6 0 June

-70 July9'0 August90 September

10.0 October

110. Noverriber

12 Q Decerhbei

During which yearwere you born?

10 1958

2 0 1959

3 0 1960

4 0 1961

0 1962

4. How many people live in your house? Count yourself, brothers and sisters, parents,grandparents, and other people who live with you.

Write the number here:

5. How many rooms are there in your home? Don't count bathrooms.

Write the number here:

1

6. Now mutt) encouragement do you feel your parents give you in your school work.?(Fill in ONE circle.)

10 hardly any at all25, only a little30 quite a bit

a lot

7. How-do you like your school? Think about it/OVERALL, not just today or thisweek. (Fill in ONE circle.)

IQ I hate it.

2Q I. doe it very much.30 It's O.K.

40 I like it pretty much.

50 I like it a lot.

8. All in all, what is the highe:,t'level of schooling which you would LIKE to attain inthe future? (Fill in ONF cigc.e.)

10 not finish high schco:t'-20 grackiate from high scaoDI

30 graduate from high school and then go to a vocational,technical, or business school.

to a two-year, comr)iunity, or junior college

o to a four-year College or university

6Q go to a graduate or professional school after college

9. About how many hours each day do you watch TV? (Fill in ONE circle.)

102Q

3040

less than 1 hour

between 1 and 2 hours



more than 4 hours

29z

10. How much do you like math? (Fill in ONE circle.)

1Q2Q

30

not at all

somewhat

very much

11. How useful do you feel math is compared to the other subjects yoti study? (Fill inONE circle.)

1 0 not very useful

20 somewhat useful

3Q very useful

12. Do you find the math you study useful in your life outside of school? (Fill in ONEcircle.)

1Q not very useful2Q somewhat useful

3Q very useful

13. Considering grades 9, 10, and 11, how many years have you had math? (Fill in ONEcircle.)

10 none20 1 year

_ 30 2 years40 3 years

DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO.

29

APPENDIX D

Copies of Prindpal 'Questionnaire Instruments

29;

Connecticut Assessment of Educational ProgressMathematics 1976-77

SCHOOL PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Fourth Grade

Please provide the following infor, :ion for your school.

1. Total student enrollment:

2. Fourth-grade enrollment:

3. What is the average size c,f math classes in your school?

4. Do you have any consultants or specialists who work with teachers in math?

[i] yes no

v

5. Number of instructional teacher aides (in full-time equivalents). Include only aides whowork directly with teachers in regular math classes:

6. Indicate 'the type of classroom organization which predominates in your school. (Checkone box in each category.)

a. Students are assigned:

b. StudentS are assigned:

wit in,,grade level

D irre ective of grade level(inc des multi-grade classrooms)

according to achievement level(most classes are homogeneous)

irrespective of achievement level(most classes are heterogeneous)

2 ,4:j

7. How would you best descr be your typic'al fourth-grade math classroom? Check one.)

traditional teacher-centered activities

individualized instruction

8. Hai any major curriculum or program de'velopment \mathematics taken place in yourschool during the. last five years?

yes no

9. According to your mathematics teachers, do any of the problems listed below exist inyour school? (Check one box for each item.)

a. Lack of funds for mathematics supplies

b. Lack of audio-visual materials

c. L4ck of planning time for teachers

d: Class sizes too large

yes no

El

10. In your school, how many hours are allocated to mathematics instruction per class perweek?

hours

246A

Connecticut Msessment of Educational ProgressMaThematics 1976-77

SCHOOL PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Eighth Grade

Please provide the following information for your school.

1. Total studeenrollment:

2 Eighth-grade enrollment:

3. What is the average size of math classes in your school?

4. Dt) you haveny consultants or specialists who work with teachers in math?

nyes n no

5. Number of instructional teacher- aides (in full-time equivalents). Include only aides whowork directly with teachers in regular math classes:

6. Indicate the type of classroom organization which predominates in ol..r school. (Checkone box in each category.)

a. Student.: .2re assigned: I I within grade

b. Students are assigned:

nirrespective of grade levol(includes multi-grade classrooms)

naccording to achievement level(most classes are homogeneous)

nirrespective of achievement level(most classes are heterogeneous)

2

7. How would you best describe your typical eighth-grade math classroom? (Check one.)

[ tri)iditional teacher centered activities

nindividualized instruction.

8. Has any major curriculum or program development in mathematics taken place in yourschool during the last five years?

nyes n no

9. According to your mathematics teachers, do any of the problems listed below exist inyour school? (Check one box for itern.)

-a. Lack of funds for mathematics supplies


c. Lack of planning time for teachers

d. Class sizes too large

r1

no

10. In your school, how many hours are allocated to mathematics instructioh per class perweek?

hours

Connecticut Assessment of Educational ProgressMathematiCs 1976-77

SCHOOL. PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Eleventh Grade

Please provide the following information for your school:

1.- Total student enrollment:

2. Eleventh-grade enrollment:

. What is the average size of math classes in your school?

4. Do you have any consultants or specialists who work with teachers in math?

El yes Ei no

5. Number of instructional teacher aides, (in full-time equivalents).work directly with teachers in regular math classes:

Include only aides who

6. Indicate the type of classroom organization which predominates in your school. (heckone box in each category.)

a. Students are assigned: J within grade level

Elirrespective of grade level(includes multi-§0e4.classrooms)

b Students are assigned: EI according to achieverileriOevel(most classes are homaide4us)

irrespettive of achieVemept.level(most classes are hetero'geneous)

43

c. Students are assigned: Ellaccording to curricular program(e.g., college, general)

irrespective. of curricular program

7. Has any rrraior curriculum or program development in mathematics taken place in yourschool during the last five years?

yes El no

8. According to your mathematics teachers, do any of the problems listed below exist inyour school? (Check one box for each item.)

a. Lack of funds for mathematics supplies


c. Lack of planning time for teachers

d. Class sizes too large

yes no

9. In your school, how.many hours are allocated-to mathematics instruction per classper week?

L-7

hours

.1

APPENDIX E

Tables of Achievement Results by ReportingGroups on Total Test, Goals, and Objectives

KEY FOR APPENDIX E

The analysis by reporting groups provides the following informationfor the total test, each goal area, and each objective. The P-VALUEis the estimated average percentage of test items answered correctlyby students in the population or in the particular reporting group.SE OF P-VALUE is the standard error of measurement for the p-value.GROUP EFFECT is the difference between the state average (all students)and that for the reporting group. An asterisk (*) means that the groupeffect (the difference) t significant at the 95% confidence level.SE OF EFFECT is the standard error of measurement of the group effect.SAMPLE SIZE is the actual number of students in the reporting groupwho took the test.

tt.

NATIJA6 ,;v;,..6f,T1jv

C=NK;CT1CuT

SY..;%mS,

s'iTATE1Jc:

%TA',

INC. CCTT ANALYSIS6Si.SSNIL:NT 474 ;RAK

BY RPOUING GROUPSFLURuARY 1977

P-VALUE.

ir.orlopia10011MOMdbialll

sr Cr GUUP L: OF0 1G 20 30 40 50 50 70 80 9051L, REPGRTINV GROuP. _

r.QALL STUDENTS 4,00014q1404000111014#044;5011*M44

STZ_J",

W1400#040*******44100404440044444*r. Ir. 1,'A c.,;( 129,41011,40444144400404100004404#44#44

(.100;40000000014i141*444;4*4**444q441441444114*444 }4 #4.40444440444**0440,A

10, C,'1 C1;1 44#4# 44444$44 4;'4

ANDLY EV:R 04 50444444044****141**00140410441..]; 121 Qah,Y 444441.41444 444441.444. 441.1

.!1 r, 3,(;,s' o44. 4#14.4114)444)-00*4441.4 +#0144,ii41pr.4,4________-_.

C.71 :,2) CiL I4U1 OILY 441444404444.14#4404444i-401401*444.444

n,0A moMMA

7c.A401100440004*/*44C0440044#**4*444

' 5n NJ 4# 44444444444+4444 144444444 +444444044{4.440.4144

,., Li..:: G.;:', .CriujL? -.....

1.:,± -:.1::0 1,;,7 12,d__________.I. HAT: ITi 0,4414,41**0**44411100041,;*#4,04f7 -,''.

, r

:,,q

r.J1

(',.7:

-',,,,,

)..k,

4,,i..i

1,. , ,

.4 4

;0.;0

1j0j64431

1 D'..01. LIKE IT

li,S JK

1 L',.:::. IT

s.40,01(*01q41444:444440;.t44q#4;44444

44v0.1040000014144414,4*;40(4414.11#104.

*411,404***#0444440444*44444444.4444'444,) i.4

-2.14 4 ,4c, 1 LKH IT A LOT 04**4000410014444A*0011441,140141

,COS TV7

"..(,'"' I ao 14. l.L..) TH,',N 1 hi

4:,' ___ ,.7' ,1,4 __________U.N If2 ft'S - ......._

-;,:f ..5 4'..;1 '..$LTiLN 2',.3 oi;5

:,.'7' u.c,z, 47) L.,,:7ALN i14 f-i',-,

....2.73o i,..; 1013 !,',X-,. 'HAN 4 FW3

1,C.4 rJT

4444444444 4' ,444 #4;4;10'

#44(4;*44*4444444444,:444**V4,,#,*

4c.O*4m44c4.4441,444y,00,*4**40444,414

444444,444*444#444;44+1444.044447$414

***#*000.01444#01,4**41,,(44411,41004444:114*

1114 #01414444414111*;.**04404441004A41,04Mr,h-,7) ."4 (./44

-;.1?

,L 5Uvj:CrS

11

, ,:24

loll

NC,7 '110 6'.',=6L

44 ,444044441414444114;0,44'444444114

Oft44044,440404141#0100***L*44041*#;#4____

4441410141044,444C44444+41004.44+44*444i0.4'41414 44**41t,4#444***),4440,,,4+/4W,.4

4444,,400**4414414444044.4*4414+444444

31.)

100

9

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC, *. =NT ANALYSIS UY REPORTING GROUPS

CCNNi.CTICT STATEdT ASSESSOT,.. 4TH GRADE, !. FEBRUARY 1977

1 TOTAL SURE

S'E 01' GROUP 5c OF SAMPC.

J.VALUL1,_.3-VALUE--EFF:CT__ EFF:CT

74,33 0.63

PsYALUZ

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70' 80 90 1

2437 ALL STUDENTS ****4.***************************imk*

SKC!A.NTS1.4U d3.1:170 1.18 011

1,464 0,64 1025

1.25 1,39 1 01 663

-0,21 52 15c0

71,2 31:.,'J -2,90 3,.39 110

YATH

741°

7f.h? 1,56 -2.724

1;,63 1431

1,24 753

t..---(".!PIC6.1., CR PR.} AM U/' A;117

'411-) ,,a4 o.41 o i 166D

73.61 1.01 -0,91 0. 5 740

100 LAGE1.f5

.

:F C,)PUN17Y

52.11 1,n -12.22*

(,76 M7.11

1..d!J f I4

1713

.)4.1110

110

YES

NU

BOTH

M.MM

TEACHER CENTERED

INDIVIDUALIZED

rrrr

YES

NJ

YSNJ

1.6 476 BIG CITIES

)18J 647 FRINGE CITIES

1.17 Mi:DIUM CITIES

7@. 31 ^IT) 3.q* 0,79 674 S'ALLER PL,ACES

"""P'..GION THE STATE

'6.3. .1,13 .,1,7 319

70,79 1.22 3',1

77.17 1.07 MO 1.N 5275,51 '495 1.18 1.00 372

RESCUE

COUP ED SERVICES

CREC

ACES

701.31. 1,39 3054 1,05.___291_____ __PRJP-',CTLEARN

17,4,4 3.4,t. 72 NARSES

04q110411MAI*044410141$01400004111041441,0:04441$401.4******004414$4***044*******

04 4#111144111 #4 ## ##411110110 440101141 #0441 #.y

1111011141130y144****Wit**0144#*141.10*;*

1

;4***************110~0f**7****Ifo*000111*******4**0440/We.**k**MMIM

4

***4410:1040****04******410400,10141114

004140104,0041144100*W;#**$#$#0*

lit**1044,04t****).#411#W$1**ff004*0494**********41***01,i****4 #11 .40;4441*

04#010.7114,04041*P$11********,1410ylooli44******soPoolit#,10,404***Iitil

04*0(***********410.1044,404014.4$*#4441440..#111*****1144******00.0410#01111

*W0104*1014#4101400****0404104W0141441

SIII#014*****0******4mwsw144414q4;10.4

1t*410**4***#****1041144 *4**1 slif10141$

wt()4***440******0101#54*4****$444144*0000*.colgolv10411***40(44440**,,*14114$

***i*Wicill$1;401o01444*4**4404414040

GOAL

NATIONAL Cv.41AATIJN CO1TEN7 WOES JY REPNTING GROUPSA.;;S:SSNT 4*H t',POE FEbRUARY 1976

C..vVs.PTc,loormar......moorto=.....Pftwol. rooreplIWO

2+' (aUP SC Of SAI,A;;

P-VL.,UZ P-V,LUE :FF4C7 EFFLC-.

OF Tk(.: STO:NT

74.1! C.') C.30 0.46 114b

T,17, CW*UAITY

:o:6 -14.694

i.e

1.22 4,4,,1*

sionftworwwimioallpl

RONTIMC GROUP

P-vALUc10 20 30 40 30 50 70 60 90 100

Id111111116 1111111111114111511111111111 Old 1111,14 /II

44,140101411410*4 $44***0144 44($*** 10*

**4$404#4***44004414404i0%4-------4041.****4440414W4444444W4$441444

1

1.81 478 Ulu CITIES *1444****444«444***4**104*#444 1

1.13- :47---- FRING:. :ITIFS ------4,0,05pe04#44t4lkoc44k**444f4 *444i4*#1.2J (,23 '11.):U0 ...T175 4.1.044*#*~1400$04440004004101.4441.3d 674 /

ThE STATE

:.;21.04' .,,2; ,

1.25 '1.2o

11 .-3 1--

2,37 3.25 2.20

71.10 4,,5 -3.33 41.:7,4

SNAI L.: PACES

319 .11:5COE

CL,jr) SERVICEJ62

281 PRJJ:.:T LEARN

72 NA; (3.,:S.

01$44**4..10****.40..***4444.1.444(lqw****

Il44444*4 rf44400040k4441 *4 }141444,',444,4

mt00.014444(TA***44+4444**01;001.4(41;

*00(44;4***410#444441(44,*404-10h.444444------410+44444**),L0v4***44 04,,.4 qotto it*

*Y##44( 44*04#0004444041 3*0444(0$44410444ONWA***404;000044.f4.04#1

tATI:;AL .::VALUAT1JN

VATEI)E

GOAL 2 CiNiuT;.71.1'l

S`6TV3,

ASSESO!EIT

CO'r;::NT ANALYSIS 3Y

FE6RUARY

REPORTING GROUPS

1976

PVALUSC, OF G,Z2.0 S OF SAPLE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100P-VALUE Ei-FLOT SIZE RLPORTING GROUP,111,1111,011ko..ii,I411,41111,111.s1,11.11.11divildolli

'STUDbiTS4104144014***#044444:01444410140444-NT-----

JF Thy STUDLN7' 0041.(.1.Y -1.94* 0,43 114o 'MALE

4010g#*#401100(000;w0w4n444k44***411P.79.

TH: CO!NATY'2.24 -r.%0 1.9:i 476

moM.A

iIO CITIES

)440004440444;04*144040044404144**44_

*;44****w.*****1000.***044.444.40411117

Of;IS--------------*rnm#*4*****#o*vo4444.q$4rrn$.0(##4os.ii------ILs I. 1.t7 -C.09 1,39 o39 M;'.),10 CIYJES ...0*.4*.o400.44.*I0*4440.04,:0**4444#r(1.13 3.424 0,99 L74 SALLER P_ACS 44411 *40(1[4**0**44 O4 #S *t4414****44***4;#4:1*

:117;

.-''' '1.69 319 :444*WW;4,1404410.44401A'0,010.14;1.Hz A6.94 1,73 23.; EGJP 20 SERV:CE #444 X441 #4404*,M4P0004i44*44 4440);4011$

1,2,) 1125 62241****A1t*4*4414x4:44*41,44144444);'

1.46----372444-i44440#04444444441.4444 44404#A0444*

4.574 1.t0 281, 'R3Jj.CT LEARN,0004114044***;*44214***;4**444**44;44410411$

,2 SlAi6ciS 044**4$44440400004014440044444c40

3030r

NATIONAL EVALUATION

CONNLCT1CLg

GOAL 3 .':.4SLI;0.:1,1

SYSTEMS, INC, CONTENT ANALYSIS

STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT-. 4TH GRADE .

'OY

FEBRUARY

0

REPORTING GROUPS

1976

100

0-

SE CF GROUP

/.1,,AjE P.vALUE EUc:CT

81:70 0;57

c....5EX OF THE STUDENT

53.51 0,66 10114

OF THE CDqUfilTY

1)2 1.7f8 -1:.7e$

0,97 1.26

85.66 0,69 3,954

- 4".".3F.GTOTOF

91.19 102 1.79

35012 C,Hd 4,124

94.62 C.99 2I0)2#

15.79 1007 4,091

80.52 3.10 .1.0S

SE OF

EFFECT

0.33

1,4'd

0,E7

0166

1.04

0,93

C.yl

1.08

3.03

I (

SAMPLE

SIZE ROUTING GROUP

P-VALO

10 201 30 40 SO 60 70 80

$000****************1404144040144i444144*

04144$44440****4'040444*044404;404414

.1;00,4,*****-5044040044*;**4#444**W*44

****444*44****$$#*04$*401000**4 #44.14444

**00164****04**$44404#444040404,411(44144;410

*******04*****441414414044040#47**144444

44044**44044410i041,44044444**0444;4;414

$;f0(100;#***01444$4,044044*f$1,10:44,yv#4441_

ili004*##4A4M4440m(44444444444,$0#1iiA

40040,100*4J4k4i0400444*O44#41444014$1*******0***4444044004040$410$41440.41

90

STUDENTS

11.111110

1146 MALE

411104(41(4***ooy**********044444,4404.4**$$

290-----FEHALa

.1.44.6*

478 31'j CITIES 01410401.1(24414**44$4,000.14444;04

FRINGE.CITIES-

638 ML:DIUM CITIES

674 SMALLER PACES

319 RESCUE

353 CJP 0 SERVICE5i2 CA =C

281 PSUJECT EARN

72 NARSES

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS,

CONNCTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT

GOAL 4 PRjtLEM SOLVING

hC, CONTENT ANALYSIS

- 4TH GRADE -

BY

FEaRJARY

REPORTING GROUPS

1976110011111.1MNIMIlli

SF OF GROUP SE CF SAMPLE 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 70 80 90 100P..4.1JE P..YALUE, EFFECT EFFECT SIZE REORTING CROUP, 16,,,*,11,,,1,..,1,1,,144,,141,1111,111111

OF THE STUDBT mammal

ALL STUDENTS 0404****404444404,144441

.1E,02 C.83 1.46*' 0.42 1146 4A.E 44$00#4.0444144********0***53.30 ----0.60 .1.274 -Ca') -1290 FLMALE 44444040440444444444404.4

OF THE CC!'IMUNITY

.1,)3 1,33 11.53' 1,63 478 OIL, CITIES 444#443*440000(#4***04---C.93-- --2,34i7-0196 647 FRINGE CITIES 10,44**1,*********q4,44.0*4*44

55.54 1.21 C.98 1.08 633 MEDIUM CITIES #00**(scpr*;$**,4***414111444***

58.25 1.14 3,694 0.93 674 SmALL:R PLACES *******1400**0444***44444 i4

OF THE-STATE----

tq.11 1136 1.45 1,35 319 RESCT. 44**4 0144104411414040474$4**6:170 lao b,b441 1.2 353 COUP ED SERVICE 404#4444*3440444444#41044400400437.17 1.11 2.114 1.c. 662, C:C 0444*4 .,),11,4#41$ 4444*44! 4 4,;4 44454,72 4100844404444i44444*44**44441

53411 1,70 3,554 1,61 281 R:UJECT LEARN 44#44***04041$444441***fc44114448,16 3,97 ..6.51 J.E7 72 NARSES 000101******444 44110*404

NAT1NAL 2V ALXIJN SYSTEMS. 1vCUNTENT ANALY5i$1,0Y REPORTING GROUPS

sTATLw10;,. AS:X.,NT Fi3ri'ORY 1970

G'.34t. 5 CjIA:fl'S ,;ROHS,

SE OF CH1UP sa 11,2-v4AF. P-AL07. Ef,t,CT

%.77 0.63

OF 77,

7').P ,1,5

L7.75

REPORTING GROu?

2437 STUN:

CO41.`0 .-13 1.4:: 47a 31C, CIT11-.3

C.3--. 1. 7 Oa---6471.14

r.o3 4.t"O'

!,', 1.3: .2."'., 1,3 2.W.,0

1.10 . -J.T.4

1.0 b2.6

0.7o c74

1.2'.) ,31,

1.2 );,3

1..;)1 t,a2

ClilES

SALLER PLACES

P-vALik

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100

***#0040411104 **0404441410#**4 i4001(4

4Ork0.g$4**********4404.1***$24o4fmmill*.14**40401(****441004,144004441.1441(444

411($*01)*****40%**144***4#4.44,Yof

W44**,00***4*****n*400140004***11(t44410414 *4440414444000pW;40444 44441).#*1040,

444404***4441044**41,44**4444144444444404

cr:s.:0.. 4**woo(4#444**A;a421cv*.40/44404:444(

20,P :.) 5'..;,'u:CE *..k.o.**4*,,,,A0,,,i4+,,0,440....,,,*04,;,44064.

CM, ,

ii.4lc4ziro4o1*11$44.0o4n4**0441,4,3444,444444.74 :.1.0.,3 c.7,4 -- -c6 37: ----Acis-----------4444v4444444440,44444K4444#444404444q

ow44*4**044***4014i*44;40,;;444+441**443.t 0::.,) 4,'&f 1. 2:11 =T L',:_ARV.26 3.92 1.'4 3.0.1 72

k(4401#v****1.40(**01144441,444440##40144441

311'

NATIONAL rVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC., CONTP1' INAtys/s ny REPORTING *UPS

CINNECTICUT STATEWIDE A5SFSSMENT FEBRUARY 1976

CEJEC7P/L.1Z==Za=4,==1=ZZFZ344,S r CF '(1i1UP Sr OF

P-VALUE P-VALUE EFFECT FFFECT

.h;

79,26 0,,5

OF THr STUDENT

SAMPLE

51r

2477

11.6.1

PEPOPTING UV.

ALL STUDENTS;

AO, Pa 1,02_ 1001 .0495 YALE

9,32 1,00 -0,93 0,90 , 1290 FEMALE

Cr TFF cnmmomn.y4C7 71 -FYI* ?.# 1F1,, _

910 019 14 11 1,07 f11,20 1,E9 105 1,4.1 618

:.415 400* 110) 674

----1-GIDN or Th^ STA T: 1'4)o 1 0'9 1, 3 244 1,1 :19

loCr1 1,;1747 1. A7 153

1,41 517 I 1/.s. c,f)2

11,12 1,16 1,24 17.2.

L17,3A '1,01 11 1, 7ri 291

0100 1,27 0,74 315 72

PEJECILVE.

8I5 CITIES

FRINGE CITIES

pFolUm CITIES

SYALLFR PLACES

P -VALUE

10 20 .0 40 59 60 70 BO 100ooedOisidesolle11.6.1.410111118114 isileillil

$444 0440***011************141041***04*

14,4************1144************** ***Ot****A*A00,14**********4***4***41414***,$0

*****4(011**04441404t****04 ti4* i***14140****Illi4 illt**********S sS***114411,10,1,10,44

illistit**********stictImil 4.1111441* 041014041**4o*4 4404***************************$t***411

RF9m7 **4*****),4 4*****0*4 0(4[W! 40#410******40

COP, ED SE0v10E ***40(***#Aii*4tOL***,Ita 44 044*410 4;41i 04ik 444

C?==C $0t044111,401h440'40101P4**WS44Vt440044014ACS **#*4*****##*******0***A4**T*4.4414*;#0**PPJECT LFAFN 040( t***********s itil**$ tA*t* 40104,000

NAPSFS 011**********41W*****illt$********,*,*4409,*

NATI1NAL rvAL01TfON SYSTEMS, -- (0,0r102' ANALYSIS RY REPPPING GROUPS

CONNFCTICLT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - ATh rptor FEBRUARY 1976iimaimmoose.

STOW noCPPTF';

Sr Cr GP1J0

P-VALur. C-vALuF. strr:'cr

77,72 0,67

OF !Hr. STUDr.V

79,10 11116 1117*

74.,40 3,77 -1,31*

rE Thr Crimvw,ITY

1,61

.005 0,72

/900 1,11

000! 1,14

uNpc.nr;TANMV, OF rwp!NG OF wi, lo9rpF

5F CF

EFFECT

SAMPLE

517E

2477

0,46 11460,42 1290

16441,430 3,R3

1.13 1,091,?9 0,91

Th'E STATP.

'Ile% 1,C! 4.01*1,14 A.'S'1,11

77,6 3.72 ?,14%

79,64 1,55 1,11

74,72 1.20 -3.00

31

1.711.3'0

1.1900P

. 1,49'

3,14

47}

647

674

119

773c61

272

291

72

REPORTING (Y RP

ALL STUDENTS

P-VALUE

0 10 20 30 40 5 60 73 BO )) 100

14,161.61..oalop,$1.,411140.611,4441.0e6filliito

********4****4***************14*******4

MALE

,FiNIALF

111

osts1 *****1***JuAk**0*****4o4****444**A#0iiiii4****t**1,0********0010,11*1040***11044

OK CITIES 4104440140,0,04.141000t40**44*O4FRINGE CITIES ****************$*41.****0**sistow10,04**PF010 CITIES 44000k******#010410***As4****4s**t4g*$4SMALLER PLACEE ***A**4*01141,41*********10i4****0104 *104**

p7CUF ,s44ksocoskis.sootittiol.twiv,44,s.sasost410ss4

(CE;' FD SEPVICE,

Cr'rC

o4troovhotsAs4**00q,s44.40*****s4gissssviSt

**0044****4# ***sits*****7its041***01$44014

AC'S *ilios40***4iqs01.****14440,4i,sofcs4I44****41

PROJECT LEARN is01**************ss******1****14***44404*

NAPSCS 01,40************0********O44sis#01001I

NATIONAL rl/ALUAT!ON 5YqTrYSI -- Pl(YSIS RY REPOPTING PRUPSCr,NN:VICO STATFW!PE ASSESSMENT . 1.1". - FEBRUARY 1976

'.'2gCuiVE 1 rlin"lv "."\lrATre Ir7;7'TA0PINr, FrACTI.P'AL Nf11171,r11IllmmillImaluiWar~ImplaamlYrarrmileamommrermi

P'VALU7SE CFD-VALUs P-VALV FFC7

10.7

---SFX OF 7NE STUVNT6r114 1177 .1424

loS9 1,11

cr rirt7FFEcT

S.A"11.E

APE FTDOPT!NG.GPCUP

7 ALL s7orrls

066) 114t MAO:016i 110 a FFkAF.

0 010 20 10 Al 50 60 70 lb 93 100

luorg!III4glose6.11611.1116.11.1111m/d14,011101,

61411*******************0011100***

**404******************44000141(100.111****11141**********11410$4******

1 lE CF T CC4'40 1:7 s'4)). 7,(7)

',...,___ VI

Nil .M.M11

r's CT.TT.'S , 1144*******************4_.!4,:,9,..._

7',i;' , rk, .., . 7,44 (41 , 5PtY1(7 Cil"r **)4***114 *****40#140***4tAii44****#.01Ff,!F ),VA .1.12. /00 (.".

PINU/1 CrrIFS' iii1r ***4.104110(0000.040400.***,*/1457 abc7 5o2 62.24.' '''.7 F74 F.PALLEP PLACE,

:41.114*******0104*******010441044$044***r` THF STA

402 -1,56 '447 '10 PEquF*****0**************ii*****i1047;,7)

,q111 /02 1) c(1p ED 5FAVICF ******1004*****10Witi**0000014*0;44'040).-7,Q4 4.1.3 7177 771 kCFS**4**4***************001,04**04414 .

4011 1,71 4,41 2A1 PrgCT IFAPN14044401************4*Ii****4******1'O.K4 9,11 .7,41 r,g17 72 ;MAPSFS1***************W1*******0104 I

NATIONAL_ FVALVA7 ION SYCITsiSt .!NC, r(407CY ANALYSIS BY R5PORING GPOUPSc.q,4;Fc7CLI STA7POPE, ASSESS -!NT ctf.DF FEBRUARY 1976

kLJ'7.

q11.50

010,11

Sr cc c:-,1,1D.

P-v \LQF.

0,65

OF THS.STUfn'

Fk!'S'rlAT7S ARt1'Y Yi Anr UMFrPc

P -VALUE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1$1,.14.11.14.$1111wItio014...1.4.1wilkokdlis*

*******0***************1*********4*how

110

i mige~~~0~dimmeasummorr.womoreabrK iAqnLE

S12F qPIPT!MG UCIJP

2417 ALL 5TODs.N7!.,

0,1,1 ",42$0011***********************************1.20',

TH7 COvmUY1TY

N37 oel

"rue MO

FFMALFs****************************0*********i

)01 19._ 47P**41''(***1$***400414*****4 ati********647 'F1 r.!Tirc, ****************11*******M400**04****M*01'1!,C4 1,16 1,c; 1.02 Alp

Prplo *********************** $10 04****14404$00/****141,10 1103 201* 0,43) 674s9k.L.Fq PLACES

********0*************00*40*******WA***THF sT4-r

i':471 1427 7 1.10 31P c'SCUF ***.votA0044***04t******1044t14,...*044 044.140;1 1.13 4,c,* 1,21 251 CrA T)VICE,A**;40(**0411444.k*4441.4.41kAii#dt,*0.$1.04****47173 1.V!

400040(tt*#t**0441(1y******..i&o.#4 *.o44# .10441441

5.51

, 2..73

1,26 4,00*142h 7721,1? 2p1

ACT'S

PPrfiFC7 LcAPN***00,k44441 ***144601040*t*A4**A44****.440***0**********444**1**1*y****40.0,40*******76,94 5,40 .4,56 54n 72 .

c NAC'SFS******************04***44*I0414444444010 i

3

310

J

NA TVINAL !VALUATION SYSTEMS INC. CCKTPIT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPScmqviro STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT /ITN

womormbuommosrPAPF - FEBRUARY 1976

VJECIVI 5 RTIllENT DEPANST9ATES ARILITY TO SURTPAC' NUMI3FRS... w

IIIIMOMENNWIMINOMOBal.00101110.0.2101011

q

P.VALT

IQ 20 11 )4n 99 69 7 80 97 100klosliii0101111011 11114001080$41.111111414,11100

1 6

SF CF MOP SF nF

R-VALUE P-VALUE EFFECT 7FFECT

73,4e6 SO

----erX OF TW-7 STUDENT

71845 . 1.15 -',010(....._ 0862

75,26 1402 1,804 0,54

CF COMM9NITY

SAvPLF

SIZE

2437'

..1146

1290

;PORTING rPOuP

ALL STUDFNTS

ALE'

EMALE_

A78 , HIC, Cr/FE75,14 1110 2,77* 1,10 647 FFINGE/1,0 h90 1,37 S, F9 678 MF11UM CITIFF7*7112 1,27 4,458 1,13 674 SMALLER PLACES

RrGIOrr lc THE STATE WM VI MI

77,64 1l64 4,10 146 119 RESCUE7P491 2.45 5o13* 2,'06 351 j CCP Ell sEpvIcrT 0CP 1.15 /o CRFC74.74 1.11 1,27 1108 272 ACES7501 7,54 1,44 /116 281 PPIJECT LEARN69,06 2,0 -5.41 2,86 72 NAPSES

wwwwqwwww.

0100********440140011****44,0******

*************************************F ***************************************

1

***0*******************800**0110 ********,0q***********************************************80*********************************************0*****

***************AttmoosOol****************4114**********4**************40*****t*****************8***10844*******************488*******018i41,***Ii4i4***8*******(********0****48*******441t8******************************40044* I

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, CTNIENT ANALYSIS RV REPORTING

CONNECTICLT STATBIOF ASSESSMENT - ATH 6rADE FEBRUARY 19761111.10011=1100.

nejEum_ 6. sTun~NT nckoNTD4TrS 49ILITYT' ouLTIFty nt.F Nupials .

SF rF GolUP

P-vALuE F-vALuF EFFECT

. .

'30,95 1.05

-.--SCX OF THF410ENT75i51 1111 -2,14*

47104 1.12 1,01*

....clu ,CF THE COHmjNITY

Sr OF SAMPLE

FFFECT SIZE

2437

)155 PIO0,48 1200

pFpoRTING GROUP

_ .ALL STUOENTS

MALE

FEMALE

T1610 L7P, CITIES95,0; 1,49 4,10* 1,50 647 FPINGE fITIFf78,71 1,76 -2,11 200 613 -KOIUM CITIES130' 1.51 3,02* 1.39 674 SVALLER PLACES

OF ThE STATE MI. Ob.

'x1,28 107 ':1,13 2,01 710 pFRCUE4,7? 2440 4,7A* 7.110 751 CCOP El SERVICE7(,q9 2,77_

CFFC_-1.0!____._.2,04 -_5421.55 2.76 1,91 177 ACES

1161 1,79 701* 1,97 281 OPNECT LFAFN69117 5.52 -11079* 5,40 72 NARSES

3L

GROUPS

P-VALUr

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 100

loseolossollosblawlsoldolsoloo001188811.8018888

*400* 00*******************************************44*******************8********

_

*******************048**k***t*****48**00***********************************4t****

***************************8*********osi**********************4 *14,1***.km********4

1

********************************4404w4*********************************************

4110***,*0( tke* 4"414******10k *111 * ***WA

*44.********#***********04s4wo$14*4*10***

***ot************#*/****A*****************00**********************************0 I

4'1710'0L rV4IWATI04 tYSTFMS, INC, ". Cfl.TW ANALYS1n 4Y 4PNIPTIVI PUPSrICNN7C/ICLT STAWnE ASSFSSONY

(11nr FE6PUAPY 1976

c7 C; P70p...VALV nolALUE CrF.P7

A'1.15 01673

(1; STrc.Xac, :' 0677 10'14*

die 1.1,P1 -lon3.

TI

STtir.gCT IN:prs4c17,17C

S..' or !:,,,i0LF

'SECT

2417.

10111TY T0 Crr;vrr.- 11.FA

PPOPTING ($0UP

ALL STUDENTS

:7 CF The. CIVVLM1TY

14 /14 10,7

007 !0!* ,'800

lon ?$170 1,0r1,Vit 0,0.0

Nun

17-'"ALE

6711 _PG__

647 FF1NG5 CIT!Fs6?F4 !.1E)1P C1T1FS

SMALLER PLACE'

7" THE STA'r:

10.4 le" 1,15

leg

1.10 14q?* ,1.19 153

Ion 56"_"1.1 0,;ti 1.01 172

404 1120 4,61k 1,70 PA1

P1.c4 1.65 1,56 7?

FESCUE

(C^2 ED SPVICE,CFTC

(ACES

PPOJFCT LEAPN

MA05ES

PN1T5 OF CURDENCY,

MALTI10 20 70 40 50, 60 70 80 90 100

up011141111,1 uteltketill!otissoll411411/0011111i ,61111141t

so*********************Ot04***44**********

*1

________************0410,****41110100*************At_ .

lir*****4***************4,00***********0*

000****0110000t***000***11*********0**********************St*****0004***04

********t***04**********100001044*0***0110#*********************#****014*******WM

ilk***44#114*******t#1414***41***6********4*****solt*********#******$*************0********

**************0010******4******04****Ws**,************************#tift****1044.14**0

111,14*************ii**********0***0004100000

******01*********10************0***$******1

N4710':AL TVALLAT:,r,N SYSTMS, -- CONTFMT ANALYSIS AY PFPORTING GROUPSCf1NN":1C.,./ STATEW105 ASEE55VNT

bh"F".'C,...'

RE FEARUARY 19761"

nPjrcrivc 5 STI ).Wr. r:11r4ocT047ES AP1L1TY "0 CC r11"1" "11F .

Sr. CE S0700 SE Or S.A0PLF

0-VALUE C.-VALUE FErECT EFFECT 51Zr.

74,01 :4,77

OF '1-i5 STUDENT

PFPOPTING 6F019'

2417 ALL STUOENT5

IN 40.0

7741°. 'WO MALE72,7i C4c5 ..31!0* Ino rFyy:

(C1049":!TY11 .01 ..?*

',27

Itl: 0017 IIIP 61P9.,1,; 1..07 511'* 0177 674

4W5,

tOP N,7

nC .S7A7-

:,C7 1.71 1.64 710

11.P 9.61* 1,41 353

4 /11 Wi1.4° 147 1 17,

14F:C 14914 IL$67 291

4.16 14)1 4.7.5 7?

319

FriNCE 1/4:171ES

yr010 Crr1F5

SMALLER PLACES

01.5CUE

CC?:' ED sFpvicE

CF'!".0

t,cFs

Pc%ECT LEM1NAP5.:S

MALV0 10 20 10 40 50 60 70 80 90 !00

*****00440141$11**1011,14,01**444141***011

1

**************************4*******40****0111*****A0000***********ti(**0***0

****,.10114**********001********# -t*****************************001,00.41,0,004***140*************A0**1****04**********Ail*******.**1.04************

***044#0************10****0*****$,,0**************4tilh),Slitc*SOW*00Aii**%G**1*0101*****0,10******t*Mit:0***WkOROA* ....,**,:*04040(04416****4101,4*,*******41,,iliIi***********4**i******ttiol,4***W:***010.1*****041*0*******404********44**4.

326

4t

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS INC, -- CeNTDIT 'ANAL YSIS fly REPORTING°RT,14ci cum.

CDNMECTICLT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT 4T14 CAW FEBRUOPY

SF CF SOUPFJVALUr VALVE EFFECT

97,00

.. - -SEX OF THE STuONT

0101111.111114111

STPAIT=47,10, KNaM1dime

P-VALID8F. flF SAMPLE 0 1? 7131 10 40 60 70 80 10

EFEECT SUE REPORTING GPCUP 1,011"664,1,,,,Isoos ism 1,46Ilmil4114441400ki*******e

2437 0 -11****************Ow ***0*******4*All .STUDENTS

144.***************444014*******************00401*************44***W*4*****4************

....0517F OF TFF COMmUNITf

9904 0,64 __I, 244_ 001_1146_ MALE

TA5150 009 (.11100. 130 1290 FEMALE.

Uftftim

_____,106_____!1,354 .142S _ 47888,P4 1170 1,1$14 0172 64787169 1.0? 1,69 007 61890600 0.70 1,084 0,64 674

.---FEGI ON OE THE ST4 TrA9.72 0,qo 1,71 0,99 319 c FESCUE

10,21 1,C5 31214 1,02 353 \. COOP ED SEPVTCE37,9 1 101 1,17 MI 562 CFEC___ _ ..._ _ _________ .., .____.e c, 49 3,64 ?.494 0,79 372 ACS00,6q 1,06 loqt 1,03 261 PFOJECT LEARN84617 2,78 -2,94 7,72 72 WRVS

BIG CITIES , _

FPINGF CITIES'

MFDIUM CITIES

SMALLEP PLACES

..

i****"********0***44444***************************44,0******4***********4****4**4411104!!******************************4444***4****079" *****0****************44444******44$

0,4,0*****,********4*****osioio*************4****"******************44w*******4*********$***0************************44444.04.********------- *44444.s*** 01

-16 ******************114**********14$****4******************** 0144444 44404,.**.********************************4.4400pt****44

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, CONTENT ANALYSIS BY qEPOPT I NGGROUPS

CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE. ASSESSMENT - 4TH GPADE - EEBRUAPY 1976

r)Emnazox:L2921=1:F 'r_IFA P C'")(11-1.R'P,...08,1E,CTLya'_1,0_,STUIENT

SE SE IF SAMPLE

P7vALuF r-vALue. EFFECT EFFECT SUE REPORTING GPCUP

----SE4 OF THE STUDENT

5AG° 1.03 ,35 8160 ___ 1146 _ MALE ,63,56 1,07 .1,44 0,54 1290 FF'IALF

54140 0.86 ,

. 2417 ALL STUDENTS

OF TH'7 COYMW1:71(

19,29 _2131 ___715,11 _201____ 478_56,85 1,111 2,451! 101 647

, 5560. 1,61 .1.21 '1,41 618

59.68 1637 5,271, 1,12 674

na.,1;41.

FID ING58IG CITIES .

MEDIUM CMFSSMALL, PLA CF.S

f.

----PFMN OF THE 5.f&TF.'--.

wmftm'

55169 1,91 1,21 1015 319 Pr:q0C.

60,91 1,74 11,41* 1.fli 353 COOP. ED SEP VICE

5e.01 1,41_ 56? CF:C . _, L...

55.86 1,67 1.45 1651 372 ACES

59617 1.96 5,57* 1,88 261 PPOJECT LFAPN

48661 4,18 .6,79'. 4,10 72 NAPSES

3'

P-VALUE0 )0 20

30,, 40 50 60 71 80 L 10011,01""141,1,Z,41.,111614611611***0*****"*****,*****4)*stii

10,0***?!********0*********

"4444."*******************

***** * ilipt****0****$*0004*******

*******************i**4014444410014******************4444414*

*** 4****44004446*******

**141"4""44****0***A4*****_____________ *t**"*******44tritio-440+****. ._., _.

*40********************40**::::::::::::::::::::::::""I'

**000011441***V*******41**00(0*********

WIAV40/z4u4*/42toi414/41040*/***kwis*** 010,4****/044/m4***4*Otc=v1010144*** --- Cw*Olytt0**101401****A00#1***0040* *0;14.%ttOr.17oi414141/f5.0674M**04#04414

414.*Att(04k,ti*****T**milo,4000441******miwv

10,04 iW44,#*114***411 rx410*/#**W4**4*t.0* 4h*********11,41*0***11***4#**4414#4****W*4

t*0000(01,141**4*4*******44001,

*****4**04100$414.**************0$ '*******0*****w4o#***4******$******44***414

S]SdVN i e4 . ZOE

N3131 i)nrCAti ;,,z tiO'

si)v Z44 WI 331A3s 03 c5J3) ,-st:

):)S,J,J bit.

0.. N.

S3)410

S:4111) !)IJ

'e.b.',E VOU, (yb'is..

Y.,... VO'l :0,.

' 1- - . - .1 6:41:i,

4W-c LC", j:';',)

,v4,. N,15:,;""

71.9 $00'7 JOt VI'l 1C'QJ /00 1.Y:

--Pr G7'; ---rCbst I- 10'1 r74 AiMntiO

31Vvi,J4 Obri ;L',

J714 O.; 4.4% Ws'i ik3W1S

/04

1

*4414* **0410*4*,#**4***i****************# SINNniS 114

willosoltosolosooloolplotoeiwolourslowlem

001 06 09 CL 09 Ov Ov Of 03 01 0

1.A1VA-d

003'; 0N4d.brid.JJ

LV

;;(110t. 31doi+ Ju ofiCc0 6)

SHiiVot) unv a.dVrid 43J.J.J.J/N1 Ll IN;;L;11 -31 -;.A1-/-?;Cu'-'

9461 ,u40'.:1 14.; - 11)1.;;) Won 9i1160d3u SI,SA1V4 ')NI IpiN31,SAS NO1/711vAi 1V,Oi.gN,

4***W0*************00* 0040***1000*********0***** 00040*****4041******4*****

00*****0*********M00414 *004140***41**40414**********

v4 $0440f1v***44**40110404

/40(V44******004***444***** **11*00100144010#00***** 4044,1441*04400440110*******

**************4410***41

v$040441****************** 400$440*/****044144040 *****

******11$10****4********011i sofflusolompimil'41114011'.4141,./1$$1515.1

0 1 C6 09 CL 09 06 Ov GE' CZ CI 0 .311VA-d

1,11,1a i%J)

S'jV/r1

NdVJI .1)f0J,1

SzJ4

03 cl,d)

SyJVId c311VAS

S 4411) OILJA

'411D SI6

;1m

i2G(115 Ily

tirJJ'J (2N11dU(73:1

e4

Zcf EyJ

biZ

v44

Ft.;

Ly;

tit7

LoZ

i:411C COL., t0i, Osi., O'i i.V1

V-Iljsi S,'' l',.

7i`1 ti`l- 4.I'' 6';':::,

cicisi 4W9 4i'1 uC'i/ iLl'i Wi WI t. i,

.01S :::i-i.L 1,, rLlr,,,z_

ib% OZ'l 1100 t.c.0 'loft ,y7.

Ob°0 'v'C :109:7

AliNflmA0) JJ

S,"C

Ltie

.N.j001S

79'0 1v6

4)' 1);:lJd 3n17n-d ,30 oft,6 ,J3

JJJ JA iva u1 Ali 110 II 34.n( 0 pitywirnprerry

9161 AtVn6b33 3C1A3IVIS 11)ii):INNO WIL4.91,411606P J.A31v0 4I1711VA 1VNuI17N1

NATIUNAL :VALUATION SYjT5MS+ INC, -.. CO: T:NT ANALY51S jY RLPURTING GkUUPSCCOECTIC41 STATiwIOE AS5OSMENT - STH Ok4F . NOENdER 1976

I TOTAL Tat SCOR1vimodwommairmws

RVAL4 -.SE OF GROUP S! OF ,SAY.PLI:0 10 20 :10 40 SP: 60 l0 60 90 1001,,,,11,,,I,,,,i1.41,,I.,.,4+,81111+4,1,,,,,I,,,,,,I.,..

. A-VALUE ...P11AL,UF-IFFECT-EinCL_SILc, - ---RCPORTING GROUP

I74,74 0,49 2745 ALL STUDENTS 0404****/******114014100i,0041POW

.--iEX OF THE STuDE;11.... ... ...... .____!,..rft....._ __________I i ... _76,72 ,:,7 104* -0127 12!35 MALE ***4+0,4**041*****0 ***********444.072.14 C67 m1,654 0,23 104 F V ALL: *y/04*****Mico0400t0llowl4+0114 lg0µ0o

,

,

*****410410144***401,44144*****,(44104*NJ01********i4**********41****40,4,4;4101

40141141044414414004;4$1414444#4114

...!.---nCIO.ECNICAIC_STATUt............. _ , .......-,,,,

66,75 0.79 -6,C4* 0,47 994 LUW;

76:16 C,60 1,49$ 00.5 937 MLDIU479164 0.:48 d 0E14 0144 609 HIGH

-... . ..._.. , ..,..... .. ,..,.., ,., .. .-............., , -. -- ...- - .4.-wa...-ir ......YOU AND PRENTS TALK 420JT SL:hiJOL ...... ,

70,01 1,.!, .407* 1.. 17472!1 1.C6 -2,670 0,64 26

.....r,i,i _ C.6.t 0.',,C .0,40_ .76a_%,::4 miii 0.76* C,ZI 1520

HARDLY OVER ***44o,(4034;404,010144,tio,'40440N,JiT1LY **44014444444***4w44444444444',0404WE:KLt_ **444*****44,44144144444444444444444444* ,_ __DAILY

44444**44:44444***4444***4444**4#4.4;i#44 k

-......^2:C)URAGNT FROq PARENTS - cfoCHUGL 014K----.....72, -43.. ,.,.. 1, 8..._....-115 _____1145_._ a HARDLY, ANY...........--..- .-....*****c****041,W4,1.00444 1100444.40*$:. _ ___72,(1 9.')I: -2.70 0,69 .426 UNLY A LITTLE 10$41414**#*0140#00*fO4 µ44i4446i**175,C f",63 9.25 C.2:3. 1249 QUITE A BIT. 4*****4*,01**104,604*****44 4444004;0'0475.e.4 Col .1.CtJ'* 0,.:á 986 A LOT . **************041,4*4444640404444;$

YOU Lt K,: YOUR SCh.;1.7 ....I

_

?1,i3 1,36. -3,14'4 1,17 130 I HA% IT 4y44I4*41,044w)**********,-.****0011A)72.4, 1.32 -2.t34 1,C; 223 I DON'T LIKE IT 4044***44.444t*04****t0*****44144440i_?3.:-.2 C.,,;1 -1,2,60_,Q141312_,.. _IT'S 3K 44#4**04,440;14#04440(44144141.04,4477,1» C,64 2,7o1 0.43 775 I 1.1K IT44*44440w4444****4444$4444,444polt4foo476.4 4 , 1,14 1,45 0E2 303 I LIK.: IT A LOT,

4

.......C,3i_NOY4!.1Aii5 PER 00....WATCING_TV7 ....-...78,72 1.49 3,94* 146.1 WI 1Z.:)5 THAN 1 47619 ,oti 3,41* 0,E-, 442 SC.6E:EN 1+2 HRS76,57 (2,31 1,19* 0,33 642 ULTviEEiJ 2+3 MRS

_74,i,.9 ........ t,73 ___-0,10 _____Co1.6_7:]6_ _iiZTE6N 3+4.HRS .... _.7f,`,.!1 0,73 ..41424 0,3 769 MGRE THAN 4 hRS'

46--.1)41 MUCK ,r.) YOU 1.1)NE MATH? . ......... 7C175 .,_ 7,99 ___-4.03g____,W5._ 33.)_ NOT AT ALL__ .._-_. 3444444441****40,0444444****444 $$

74,32 C,54 -0.464 0.23 1591 SOm.:WhAT E4*****4444**4400444*****444444444**4477 3: C,75 266* 0$40 626

1$

1*4441****444*OW004144**4444#14411410414

440440****1004444*,*410044iO4A44404,4*****:104#401##0444**44141***001440µ4,41

101044***44***4**411**414#0140044444f4

***44M10000****10444 *04}0444444041

VZRY :WO*444***0****244414444**444**********444*

1

.

1

......4ATH UFEYQL COMPARU) TO °ThEA 5U6JUCTS ----......_ ......

.

,4,

7:42C 1.41 -4.79* 1,12 , Ti MI VERY USEFUL $00.**4****4:04**A4w41 ,(44444444**43.27 C.60 -1,51* 0,20 1194 SCi1 41-1AT l6iFUL

#410440444***4144*4444**4444240.**76.38 C.57 1,60* 0.23 1454 vESY USEFUL. ******A444404,0444414444444444444444,444

3)J

,

NAT,1CNAL EVALU.TIJN SYMMS. INC. -- CO1TCNT ANALYSIS 0 ROORTING GROUPS1 (CW.CTICUT STATe.wIJE A$46mENT dTH 6140E NOV61,13ER 1976

TrrA;._TT SCCRL:imaimehdo.......immine.4.

CC rF GROUP Sc. LF SApPLi.

REPORTING

e.49 2.745

,,--::21SUOANTS

r4J6 -C.22 C,7, e60 YEStl.b5 0.32 0.:4 180 NJ

ASsIGN:0 oY..A(016vEY'.:NT.7.'12 C.:6 0.24 1u42;4.1;; -0.1 0.;;; 676CV' C.0 -74;7841 0.44 0 tiD7K,

----**P1CAL W,TH CLAHUOI74.7, (.6 -C.06 0,23 20197!,,17 1.:19 1,2t 622

ALL STUD.:ATS

N" own.*

----11.,AR1CULUs1 OR PRIAAM DEVELC1-14,...:NT

C.C6 0,32 2CI574.,14 1,C0 -C.14 C,r7 740

----c4A5S 61LF TOJ L47-6t:7.:"11 (...1) . -C.C!3 0.7e., 794

,

3F 1.1,0NITy)2.A3 1.22 -12.35* 1.05 66977., 0,7.1 6,c7

6d3_,

1749

II. IN 1.

C.77 3.57* 0,01 t;1

&TAT,

1.21t.('M 4,V4 ;50

7704 c.92 2.il1'))4 C.(0 2.1t, 0,Qy so

1.24_ ;,;01,71.5'7 3.26 -3.11 3,1`.'

P-VALJE0 10 20 30 40 60 DO 70 80 9Q 100

I

********44***,********014**4**4014011,

I

**************************************4***4**********************************

-- 1

***4****0110**0*******001141'0444404414*****4$4144,10,444*****144144**444***01)1%

YES

NU

ra11

....

-7!-,,,7.4 0(6 066+ 0.4.2 140

TILAVO GENTZREO

ANDlYIDUk.1a0

Yc5

Jrc, CITIESC11TES

**1144,0000*************************************00********,1*44**0******

*1*******************,**********:0********************************1***44*****

4p*OW004$101011044001 *****00,44/4***

******444040$0***/1114**440011111141444

******************4$40********4111*1 *01*****0**1***0114*441444**444*44***

*************4*********0*******4***A*

CkCC

ACES

SmLLER PLACES ***0**********,*.4**********4 u*4«.t*******

******41004,404sook**4*4*14***44,*.of44044C3U1.1 ao szolcs 444$01.0.000440494#4.0.404,040,*0.0,,4004

40****11440,404,6***44'400P14*04)911444,4***

0444**40********01144*Mic*#*4440444 44PLJECT_LEARN 4.**********v*,**4,40(oo4#44**14444****_.............___NASE.S 4414444,444140410040441414#404011

f.Jy

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS OY REPORTING GROUPS

CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT 8TH GRADE NOVEMBER 1976

--- -GOAL- L. NATHENATICAL CONCEPTS4111011141114.11iliiiinpley

SE OF

P*VALUE P -VALUE

61,24 MO

- -- -SEX OF THE STUDENT

58.40 0.70

.***S!tE OF THC COMMUNITY

GROUP

EFFECT

SE OF

EFF,:CT

SAAPLE

SIZE

2745

=VIM=

1490*2.84* 0,24

669_____

6305 1.13 1,75* 0.96 697

60.26 1.22 *0,98 1.03 668

65.25 0.93 4,01* 0474 691

CF THE STATE

61,99 146u 0.76 1.6d ,323

65.07 1,52 3,83* 1.40 306

9.45 0.3' 1.21 O.6B 527

6!,79 1,60 0,55 1.63 301

59.95 3.36 *1.25 3.25 67

P4VALUE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100

REPORTING GROUP

ALL STUDENTS --101414*******0:11***********W1044,

MALE 00******************************FEMALE 0404************144******01**

.PIG CITIES

FRINGE CITIES

MEDIUM CITIES

SMALLER PLACES

RESCUE

COUP ED SERVICE

004014400440***444440000444401440404444440010144004

*0044M04144044444401$404$4411,$1

11104***40000***10444#44140144**04

1014*******00****4***;#04014*$

04111***41444*******104***$6404$4;

AL'S *****4440(444040*****11,04*v,$44

PROJECT LEARN 044441144o1o444404****v410444**

NARSES 0**************0*****4m,4,44$1

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS 8Y REPORTING GROUPS

CONNECTIC1T STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT.d161 ~118TH GRAD: * NOVEMBER 1976

1111M1

GOAL .. a_. C.OvUTATION

1 SE OF GROUP

P -VALUE P -VALUE EFFECT

5E CF SAMPLE

LFFECT SIZE REPORTING GROUP

2745 ALL STUDENTS

.**SEX OF THE STUDENT 111

0.60_*0,14._____0.30 1255 MALE

30.20 C.60 0.13 C.25 1490 FEMALE

****SIZE OF THE COMMUITY MaraMi

0452 1.21 669 CITIES___T10.1)*

82.64 0460 24574 0.73 697

_

FRINGE CITIES

79445 1.02 '0,62 0,7 688 MEDIUM CITIES

83,26 0,81 3.19* 0.63 691 SMALLER PLACES

-- RLG1ON OF T1 STATE

A2,21 1.52 2,14 1,37 323 RESCUE

64.)3 0,90 4,86* C.c6 306 CUSP ED,SERVICE

61497 0476 1.890 0.73 527 ACES

81.15 1,49 1.07 1.26 301 PROJECT LEARN

79.54 3,29 q443 3.17 67 NARSES

3 rr

P-VALUE

0 10 20 30 40 50 40 70 dO 90 100

1,146.1,16osi.1411.#4,11ea4ow4sol,111.04111,4

410*****ww********Ww**Ww**441110410000.

_,*********0104444*****1140101#$10,410'1400f

***4414**14140404101140104404140441044 '440

I

;,

44**0014410*#40tifolWt14041WF 1.

$41444;44440444.04104$ 44#40.40ft$44#4144#$

1411400***440444$444014444044o44004$011

040140141114*44****04344444444*404114041144

44444010,040**40.11414.04f444.3.$14444114414444.0144,414111404t10**144414Mil(44

**41W***11440i#000f4**ft

*1**00104414104444#101$01414vove4o444 ,4$4

4444,44444w614444440#4.414140.1144$34044.4$

$011111441144410404$04104.1MT04441414e$1,0

tie\,

NATIONAL EVALUATIJN SYSTEMS* INC* CONTENT ANALYSIS 4Y REPORTING GROUPSCCY\...CTICuT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT,- GRADE NOVEMBER 1976

GOAL NTsue.4-44.64Krilaromis

SE CF GROUP aC Cr '401,2LE

EFFECT tliCT REPORTING GROUP

72.Z2 C*63 2745 ALL STUDENTS

----SEx OF THE STUDENT 1601.11

77o23 C.Tn._MAL°

. _ _

E,7.'' 1 C.76 -4.270

CF CGUJNITY

0.21 1490

wraw

FaY.ALE

D1',j CITIESh.33 1.15 4.114 1.,% 6q7 FkINGE CITIES71.19 1106 -1.03 Mc 663 MEDIU1,CITIE577.2 1.:7 4,a4

:.'t 1C CThE STATE

0.1 691

alwww1

SMALLER PLACES

1.0 2.0 1,42 323 RESCUEr.3b 6.-P4 1.29 300 COOP ED SERVICE

4,174L__1.06 CWC527 ACES

1.11 3.Ccw 1.03'7:!,67 1..34 0.45 1.71 301 PR3JECT LEARN6s*%, 4.13 -6,16 4.C2 67 NARSES

P-ULUE

- ,..P-VALUc:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

41441110400041*********101****p*.***

I

004400:4414******00414140414tc**Mt_-4004404,0**440040000404410040

f444.4000401440*440ff44t+

4$4(0044440****13,4,44404100$44*010410041 001(044,410,400.144*44$044404

1011.4**4410400410004444404***004041;

004044*********404000104004141140W40.044401.1*400 40,404 447444

00i4444444,4014Wi404;1-)04.ei;.0,441tOs

4*444*100444i444440W40*1.10$441*00.44444 ****040004*4#040***040'.

04.44011***4444001140414****4#010$44' I

NATIONAL EVALUATION'SYSTEMS, INC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNrCTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - GRADE - NUEMOER 1975

AV (,',DHS

SE Cr CF

P-4aLUE EFT' CT EI4ECT .71,E

fl.13 0.42

77.1NOFc).) C.54 -0.21

CF CUOIATY1t:7

0.80 -0.13

0.7S 2.724

----FC:CNCf 7K STATETh7

1.3

. 0.1:1

L.23 0,13L.32 3120 -3,31

331

274;

REP;PTING GROUP

ALL STUDE=NTS'

M11111=1

...11

P-VALUE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 100,

1,1111111111.114.40141114144#1114011111$11i,411111111,1110

04,1404000***400 0****101**4$00040404004111.01U.

I

__,,4444444404440***S0444****44*4***Wwwk.mtwwr,,c) 14A IMALL1.1140410F4.4)***114004**14404.44.4440,4.404044

CITIES.4****04044p144140******;041$4044100M#____0.51 69, FRINGE CITIES*4*040404400.4******4444*4 #404444$ 4,4044*0.E6 63' Mt:DIV CITIES04414044440#44;440034.4#04004.404$4114oil SOLLER PLACESli**$***04#000100*014#440$04*****44*4C4**1

0.0 323 RESCUE014040**tit*SV3040$Wi,040*14444440,11H1;*Co',6 306 CLO ED KRVICE W04140* 00(44.40310410);NN:Wk44A!0,,io0i410,ct*o41114004,4iilltJ.0P744,4014,i'MC't'40,,,S.r.,0443,72 AL'S1141L-4044400144**440+42040140,1,4011:4to$41;:4441Iti4 301 PRJJECT LEARN *IV 440144414114 400404044 41,4444+4+4044011*3.Cd (7 NARSES10$44010M1$044**4140414100444441440;M*4WIF

^ -^

P -VALUE

0

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT NTH GRADE NOVEMBER 1976

wommomisamos

_GOAL-LazAlual

SE CF GROUP SE CF SAMPLEP -VALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE

66.93 0.60

VEX CF THE STUDENT

.. 3.42* ,...._013t_1258 MALE54.02 C.72 -2.91* 0.31 1490 FEMALE

P -VALUE

0 10 20 30 40 50 6D 70 '110, 90 109

illoollooli.114.11.4111.1111111.4.1111millostsol1161.REPORTING GROUP

2745 ALL STUDENTS#4441**),(114404001******144*****4414

1#044#000404104001404044041011***4444444414***1040*Aorv44,4441

-,Sasso

'CF THE STATE

Usl'S 1.55 1.22 1.42 32372,'6 1.74 5413* 1.57 306

5526L.(,2 C. 1.68* 0.60 521

67.91 ,141,!,4 C.97 1.43 30161.79 3.28 5.14 3.17 67

1.111-0

MOO.,

..--5:ZE OF THE COMMUNITY

....53459___!_,..1.44_2113000,-11,6_4__669.------__BIG CITIES70.51 1f10 3.63* 0.94 697 FRINGE CITIES66.87 1.11 -0.06 0.57 688 MEDIUM CITIES70,49 C.99 3.16* 0,70 691

SMALLER PLACES

0000001414**W0401 HI,voll*Wig*****00(0044404 040440

*******0$04***4**$0441144,pf4**1

$04*******444$**044**$040440:42000

RESCUE44100444****4,4**84#404;***040

COJP ED SERVICE0,4*****4*********erni#14444.14$14**

i.REC *1****440q***4***rnownefocfitlwACES

444(****40******44,1040100,4***I$4444PRJJECT LEARN

lit**4****01,.***************4444*****NARSES

O*4414******10044141***0$44004

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT .-10.119RLE; NOVEM3ER 1976

_ _GOAL,_6_,42/J7F,Y

SE CF GROUP ,SE CF SAMPLEP -VALUE P-VALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE

78.86 0.72 2745

OF THE STUDENT

0.M4.___ 2,491. _009_125576.74 '0.64 .-2.1341 0.34 1490

4

-.7. S

81055r:.21

02.57

e3,92

82.94

7.61

6764

3

E COMMUNITY

1.08 2.891

1.24 1.34

1.40 3.70*

CF TH1: STATE

169 4.19*

1.78 4.965

1.03 4,07*7 1,49 ..1,.25

2.76 - 11.33*

0.9d

1.11

0.;2

_669

697

668

691

1.47 323

1.65 306

1.01 527

1,45 301

2,71 67

REPORTING CROUP

ALL STUDENTS

MALE

FEMALE

P -VALUE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

***********#*********4****0044**19 oiwo

************44*****Siwiloiwiti***44*MiOwtI

*41444000044,0444#011444/40$144044

--r-IG CITIES

bINOE CITIES

MEDIUM CITIES

SMALLER PLACES

RESCUE

CUPID SERVICECFCACSPRJJECT LEARN

NARSES

04(04,4404111000444444001$0

W1441#040411044401404040000141v4$****41*440044****404,0#4$**4,401*4414*

44444$044****01,4$44444444***044414.04440

***0$4440114044**$$$*0401440144*44444f41114*****041 410114440404**4444004,444444

04400*4440$00$0140MM44,4144444444____-__00***0044*;00014,034040.44444ty4414/M

104,4,0014414*4$4444441ififtWo4,0,404$4.

00004,044.40****too4414444140m4

NATIONAL

ill

EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. -- CENITNT ANALYSIS ey REPORTING GROUPS CCNNECTICL7 STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - 7TH CPAPR ..

scVFmeFR 1976 --....----- COECTIVF

1 STURCNT rEMCNSTPATES UNDOSTAMOING Er c.ATIONAI NumnrP5

P -VALUE .

SF CF GROW' SE DA SA1.4PLC 10 ' 2.0 0 1 .1 30 40 50 ' 60 73 80 100

P-VALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE 1.."....."1....1....1....1....l ...1....1....1....

PFPORTING CPCuP, 0.77 '

THE STUDENT

2145 -

4. 0.97 1.66* 0.45 1255 ' 3'.SC H1.41* 0.37-- 14C0

IF TI-E CCKMUNITY 1.57 - 13.64* ...SO 669 1.29' 2.F1,,, 1.14 - fc7 -------------- 1.57 ' -0.96 1.33 FOS .1.27

. 4.52 .00 691

CIF THE STATE 2.25 0.36 2.05 723 1.00 7.27 1.77 306 1.40 5.0.6'. 1,25 552

.

1.22 1.65 1.18 527 2.46 1.2-0 2.22 201 54C:5 1.95 5.69 67

ALL STUDENTS

MALE FEMALE

910 CITIES FRINr,E CITIES mEt)I: CITIES 5'4L. t.. PLACES

RESCUE CCOP ED SERVICE CPEC).,

ACES PROJECT LEARN NARSES

y***********9******************. 1

1

**.--"H**.s.*********4 1.4....../.6. 4,4*********4*4**44,*****0*4**4**

*411,4"******%************* ig**44***************444********** '*********44********thilt******4.

*4P'"*""t*************4****444.4,

**********"******************** *11$4.***"*******400i.4tsilk4***4*

*****!4******4ft**8******44****+##

*4 }1*********741,A*****448*****,,* p1 ************4**4*********A*4.4

.***********4*4ki***************4*

REPORTING CCNNECTICLT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - 9Tt. GP N'VEMPER 1976

GROUPS NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY

CEJECTIVE 2 STUDENT DFmCNSTRATES UNDEF:STAN1ING Er rr..,-7pTIN6 rF/m1,0Pr"

- 1111. SE CF GROUP :-VALUE EFFECT

3.57

' THE STUDENT 0.77 5.07' 3.72

F TFF C041.!!NTTY 1.5'5 -10.7'

1. 2.61 1.14 ..C.,14 C.C7 1.45.

EF THE STATE 1.5R 1.15 1.45 6.79* 1.36 4.54* 1.C3 - 0.75 1.54 -3.12 1.93 .-4.54*

33i

SE EFFECT

SAMPLE SIZE

2745

0.47 1255 0.41 1490

0.08 669 0.q5 t97 0.6 3171 691

1.52 322 1.32 736, 1.06 652 0.92 527 1.43 301 1.91 67

REPORTING GPCUP

ALL STUDENTS

MALE. - FEMALE

PIG CITIES FRINGE CITIES M7DIUM CITIES imALLER PLACES

RESCUE CC2.P ED SERVICE CREC

---- ------ ACES PROJECT LEARN NARSES

P.VALUS 0 20

30 40 50 0 60 70 80 90 I 00

...*#***************4.********1..

1 1

**********4*'************A00.

,4 ,0*4*****,,k,*********** 44*********************6**,"1,,**

0,01,****.****44*.4 ..*****,0,*,,*.

1

*4,0*:*:**::********************** *Algo'''

***4 ****"***4A..***1.......***14..* 4,00"4"4***.....4***...444*** 4************44***********44.** *****"*"*"*****************

336

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. CPNTFNT ANALYSTS 1Y REPORTING GROUPSGONNECT10.1 STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT . PTH GP, NOVEMOER 1976maaittomoso

OEJECTIVE 1 STUDENT tEMCNSTRATES 481L1TY TO ADP ANP SUBTRACT, WHELK NonFas

SE CF 'SOU°P.YAUE P.VALUE EFFECT

CF SAMPLE

EFFECT SIZE REPORTING GROUP

1204 0,27 2745 ALL STUDENTS

...-5Ex OF THE STUDENT92465 0440 .04 9 0426 1255 MALE1:V1i 0118 045 0,22 1490 FEMALE

- -- -SIZE? OF THE COMMUNITY

35425

--;247304E9

0448

-34594' 0461

0094-0440--669

697-. - --

5IG CITIES

FRINGE CITIES+2.31 0456 0453 0.45 655 MEDIUM CITIES94411 0447' 1.274 0.33 ' 691

SMALLER PLACES

-.--REGION !_?F THE STATE

54,60 0.75 1.764 0.68 323 RESCUEq24C9 08E9 0425 0463 306 COOP ED SERVICE92419 00 El 0.15 0449 552 CPEC94400 04 60 1.174 0.44 E27 ACES12.75 0,19 0,01 0. 72 301 PROJECT LEARN93466 1,69 0.82 1.54 67 NARSES

P.VALUE0 10 20 30 40 60 60 73 80 93 100sosellotelsti4144141444414444144,41444414.41i4441

44444*****44444444 44***0044144014444****4044#

00*********4****110110$$#0**4 ****04400000414140440#4011******4****0444****114440144***0444

1

414444******00444 44****01,001044;44,4444*$*0

04144**********4400;k10444044**4m4*W444444#

40t044**0*****i1.0****004**4*000404444,0414******4****44440144*****4100440004**#*,004**444

1

404400014441414******Mii***4044,400A0w#010'44**4104.4)1144******40(4110401,400$4W4410410**4044404804******1411444100a***0400;4**$4144404.44$0.40.41444#44),40044i*10444)044.414040FP04

444444****************444400440)040$4444***444404144***********001140401*****44****414,044

NATIONAL EVALLATION SYSTEMS, INC, CONTRT ANALYSIS 9Y REP ING GROUPSCONNECTICLI'STATEIIIDE ASSESSMENT . PTH GRIPE NOVEMBER 19/6

OEJECTIVE 4 STUDENT DEMCNSTRATES ABILITY TO PutTirty tHOtF4440401.1~1.04....4SE CF GROUP SE OF . SAMPLE

P.VALUE P -VALUE EFFECT EFFECT' S17E 'REPORTING GPCUP

89193 0.38 2745 ALL STUDENT E

0.00---S7A OF THE STUDENT8?,74 0467 -141941 0435 1255 Mr.90,95 0460 14020-- 0.28 49C- FEMALE

...SIZE OF ThE COMMUNITY --OS83,49 1.11 -604* 0,99 669 SIG CITIES51419 0471 1.264 0.59 697 FRINGE CITIES9949.5 0.72 0401 it0462 688 MEDIUM CITI FSq148,1 0,67 ,1490* 410 48 691 SMALLER PLACES

Oh CF THE S7AE

CC427 1402 0;41 0,92 323 RESCUE9141 04E9 1,384 0,67 306 CCOP ED SERVICE90433 04;4 0440 0476 552 CgFC91494 0.71 2014 0463 527 ACES39491 0,39 ..04 02 04 91 301 PROJECT LEARN9140 2.30 1411 2.22 67 NARSES

PVALUE

r1)1111111111111111161310111141101111:101.11610111071C111of8o(ila ott)jitm00

40,4*********4*****144444i********404#4444,40,4

10401*****************4(*t****0*****Wittlir:

410444001044*****,444,01444W#0*(*(410411414

******410140140*********004 ******0**********

440kittp***$**W4**408***41044114**044*sit**$k*4

0/041******44*****1i41v*44*****40;044041,04*****#1*******;44***********440to4;***1$4040

*************WWW1M4SMAliii$44#444****4*4***44114****0010$4 lit*Olk*10*04014441k4iik**014**41144 1000(****Alt4M***8**M44#4414401

*114404444******440441414441044#0401(**;14,#*44***101.04****014*****104W1410*0**00044*4114444,011044i***0***440114404$4011410/4101040044004144

NAT M. NALOT!ONSYSTFHS, INC. Cr1,11-NT ANKY51S HY IrPOPT11G GROUPSCOW:CTICLT STAT0I0E ASSn'VENT pCVN9ER 1976804....",,,,m0

curctIvF, S yoFNT V-VNsTPAT7SAnItITY 71 r)!V!^F 0,01.F HIPFRS

St', CF GROUPP-VALUE' P-VALUE EFFECT

'402 Of:1

--57X OF 7)-'F. STUDENT

719,

Ilunenswommiimerwri

or saoLF,

414.ECT SIZE

2745

RPORT!NG (Rcup

ALL cTUCFNTS

0,f(, 01410.0 0,42

Cr TI.E CemooNI"y

0136

0.29

1258

140MALT

FFMALE

1111,25 -E).6.!* '816 t,6g PIG CIT1F51.C5 1.3B 2,t75

CMFF.0.Y 0.72 0,0T"Cv CIT:F500°0 1,761 0665 691

PLACE'S

r1P. STATE

14,37 3:1 RESCUE0,r;0

706 COP 50 5F7V10E2.;" 10:2 0,;5 F52 CFTC1.;5 1,53 0.90 !;27 ACES

\1,:'5 -0,62 1,A1 301 Pc:1,15.C1 LEARN3,Y ,5,71 3,83 67 NARSE3

P -VAIAF

10 20 30 40 EC 62 70 80 100

**************************oo**0#0o********

***********444**WW*A-i44********a4000411400010010*****4004$t tt144********1**10*

*****40*** 0***********r**4****004** 1

*4**********11$4****4444444**t0044.4**4**

*******4*******0*******4100*7444044***01$*0*****01*****0*****4***0[4041.04**4*4**44

*00444**********0004********1044*1141*****1011**0;***14****01****0410.04K00400***001A

******00t********11**1044*AuA;444-441t4;404

*4404004,44*****140***74*4A0104:411010;4

00***44***0*********000044***4404t1**1044***1$4844140***********041****0404** 1

NATIONAL '.:VALUATICOSYSTEXS, INC. CONTENT ANALYSTS BY REPIPT1NG GROUPSCM7.0TICUI STATEWIDE AS555SkiENT Gr1PP 'ACvEN 1976

umagpmamumAtoso .

OEJFCTIVE 6

S CF S11010

P-VALUE P-VALUE EFECT

STT5NT 0Eur,N5TRATc OILITY TO Ion 5uPTPArT nPrIM1111.1104.1rmiit Aommouwerftrismurisareftwoikow4r+dwahabermlisirimisaamliira

5E SAMPLE

ErrFc.

CF T'E STUOC',;7

0.77

C,74 -G.'2

CF THE ComgolTy

0,43

0,36

UP.%

1255

1.

1,51 ^12,0?* 1.24 66.9

1,O2 2.70,*

100 0.54 04()4 6,51

1,C1 203* 0.75 691

..!,4,01 1,45

1.22 610:;* 1116 2061107

1.23

2.961

1011

0094

1,04

55?

'27-------0.01 1,52 301

2.18 -3,77 2,16 67

33J

P-VALUE0 10 20 50 60 70 BO 95 100REPORTING CROUPIsimillsosiefook.o.140 1141116111.'61mkossissabio#11o1

ALL STUD5N1**0040110004401***4A44100*********41044

MALF********01,014*********Wits***44t*I*04*FFMM***0111440401000($51140400*****wit*o*414

FIG CtTIFS60111t#1404*****M*0**4Wok44*0*

FRINGE CITIES

YPIIUM CITIF5

FNLL.P.4 PLACF5

0****14,1***40*044#04444440***44440,11,004110;04**WAtikt;101.1.4Att***11******40*4******************00140***4444144*414104

Pr5CUC*4444444*0*****tvill4koltui0M4******1001$*10*

5FPVICE *040****14144 ****i*******t4t4**444044****CVC

**40404W104*****4j0004*t**.04404$1*1ACES

A(***1444****1******044**1000104444441$1*PROJECT LEAH`

*****40******$0**044110,001t0100;1*****4*NARCES 4410444 4****

34

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, Ins -- CONTENT ANALYSIS 4Y REPORTING GROUPS. CONNECTICL1 STATEWIDE AssESsmENT a PTW 6PADF NOVEMBER 1976

OEJECTIVr.. 7, F,T0FNT (IENrp4TRATFS ABILIY 11 NUITIPIY DECIMALS.luroo..s4.8.46misomeamonoiloisieftwommoomookauftsa~mulb.

SE CF GROUP

PPVALuE P-VALUE EFFECT

75 3,1 0.73

SE OF

;FFECT

OF THE STUDENT

74057 0.S? -0476 0,46

754CS. c.e7 0.65 --0e39.

CF P'S, COMMUNITY

61423 1469 713440* 1,49 669

7;439 1.1P 1,04 -7. 07

128:0 141S. q462* 1,18 6A879467 1428 44345 0,95 691

SAMPLE

SUE

2745

REPOFING GROUP

ALL STUDENTS

1255 MALE

1490 FEMALE

."'";EGION rF THE: STATE

9c.co1.42

4,0'1

S>St-0A10

7?423 1.43 1,0*.

75.e7 1,90 0.54

7e,73 4,16 3.40

1,87

1,39

1,7.4

1071,79

4,59

323

'306

552

52q

301

67

1,100.a.

\ NG CITIES

FRINGE CITIES

MEDIUM CITIESSMALLER PLACES

RESCUE

CCflP ED SEpVICE

WCACE'S

PROJECT LEARN

NOSES

P-vALUE

10 20 30 40 ,..10 60 70 80 90

41041.04414444144141$44414444144,441o44410404 Imo

1

**04******1440040**044444***********

100

0,10044***********001,414444441111411044411

********044*swit***********10*41,*444,*4

******10044(04*************04

011******00******A**k.4040440***044*00*$41010404***044*****41004104100

10040040****100#01144110***014***11

1*40001****0404*****4***4#114#*****14****1000440**************10414041140***014

41100401******0100iit*O4*404****04;40A

*****4114****401004141404404k104t*41114 ***

411004**ii14400$01044044#440144*040090*****0*********44004044400*

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS Ell' REPORTING GROUPS

CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSEFSMENT tsCVE49ER 1976

OEJECTIVE R aaTZ10T

SE CF GROUP SE OFP -VALUE P -VALUE EFFECT EFFECT

62.71 1118

OF THE STUDENT

SAMPLE

SIZE

.2745

MID11,1

REPORTING GROUP

ALL STUDENTS

62,F0 1445 0410 0473 1255 HALF.

52463 1427 0.61 1490 FEMALE

----S!;E OF THE. COMmUNITY 15410111

42,79 2,53 -194914 2122 669_ NG CITIES66472 1456 44024-1476 697 ' FRINGE CITIES62,02 2449 0.31 2.11 66e MEDIUM CITIES65.71 1456 5,61$ 1,52 691 SMALLER PLACES

STATc 166,01 3,67 3433 34 29 323 FEcrUr72,7' 1418 114100 2,92 306 (OCR ED SERVICE

eff.fi 2422 1o93 1.97 CrEC

1473 2,64 1468 527 AUS66427' 3.29 3.57 3,09 301 PRJECT LEARN62469 f 7456 ...0402 7,29 67 NAPSES

3

FRACTIONS, FT(.

P, -VALUE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100

44.41414414/441144,14stissisetk:ii10.0*

*******qp**0****4***404*4****

**44144,414**444100*o*444***40.40,1414********0******011440040144***

14*********040*************0**4 lve*******04*$*******001

Itilk*W91****0**t******0444****444

0014$414100404********0****01100

i)4144#044*****t**1410444.44101104040

4****41410444f1004446**4*404***6$0041100**41104044440010144444*1444001444f0

*******************401108**Woc$

WWW111*****41WM***4*$04(1*****$

***040/0041144014$0,10440401,4

P-'VALUE

11

NATIONAL FVALUATICNSYSTES,INC. -- CCN77NT MAYSIS 1Y REPORTING GROUPSCMNECTICLI STATE1110E ASSESSvENT - P*1. mot' . KCVNER 1976

oftwammommus

FPACT1CNS NNO MIKE' NUvIERSOEJECTINIE 9 STU1rNT

Mairroo..arendamuk

SE. CF GROUP' SF CF SAMPLEP.WAU7 EFF11CT EFFrcf sizc

oltrty to Y

'; 74,14 0103

REPORTING 69CUP

2745 7-7ALL'STUOENTS

OF 74. ',,i71.0ENT

7F,,1) ,1102 1,04' 0,51 125572.26 L58 Y' 0143 1490

----51ZE CF COMMJNITY1,(9 ..12,0741 1454

77,C-1 102A 2014 10237?.C3 1,71 ...2,11k 1,4576f0 1,9 4,564 1,11

OF THE STATE

2,72 ..3012

201°) '3,19*

1,0 1,4;3

1010 1,792,65 4,14

75,37, 4,25. 1.23

P.:vALUE

2641

2,02

1.46

1.30

2,311

4,12

"ALE

11.11111111

69 016 CITIF697 CITIES603 Mr010' CITIES691 .0.PL'A 'PLACES

273 , FESCUE.306 CCCP ED SERVICE5E2 CP7C

527 ----sb ACES201 PPOJECT LEARN67 NAPSF,S

NAT1O",AL EVALUATION SYSTEPS, INC, CCNTFq ANALYCCW:CTICOIST4TEWIOE ASSESSMENT - (,;'4t

sTIncNT pcurNJ97RATcktCPKING OVIWIJNF CF IAFCA

'

EFFEJ

CEJECT1Vc, 10

SE CFP-VALUE

POUPEFFECT

0

PV'ALLE,0 10 20 110 40 50 60 TO 80 0) 100

****41,41******04440**************0**.

***************************************

***********************4**************

*404********************A******

**********************0**************4**************0k*********************1,

i******11******4************************

*************14*************t401***4*

1**********0********)114*****0********0**

110.00A**************4****4*******c***

********************************4******

*********************************m***$

******************************40,040***

sts'ElY REPORTING GROUPSNCVEM!!, 1976

ANO PC.;!CTER

sAvPLE

SIZE

0.71' 2745,--

--SEX OFfl4, SfUD:NTC,90 11* 0.500,57 *28756 0.42

----51ZE QF ThE COMMUNITY,52 0!4 14J2 '13.53C 1025

1,13 1,12* 101351,93 1.26 -1,76 1.1170.E) 1.29 4,938 0.95

--;-:761ON Cc THE STATE.

1,r97 1031 1,78

7106.5 1.4 'TAY' +1.54

1,F9 1,421,24

_.

0.63 1.146,23 2.05 0,54 169059,70 3.27 .5.c6 3.19

310

PEPOPTING GPI

ALL, STUDENTS

vcs MALE1490 rENIAL!

669

07680

691

OIG CITIES

FRINGE CITIES

MEDIUM CITIES

SN'ALLEP PLACES

323 PCSUE205 COOP .E0 SERVICEc.52 CPEC527 ACES301 PfTJECT 'LEARN67 NARSES

.10,111111111

P-VALLE0 10 20 30 40 E0' 60 70 80 .40 103

111..p.$111168*.181011.0141*.e.144.0,1**18,*$1*

*********************************

1 .1*************************k*** **A * w....

***************************4 * *

*********i*****4****4****** _ .*************************4*************t*****04*********4************.1144t***NA***.****40********44**

**.j(********.**********4********,****1z***t*****44*t**:;4444v4..4440**************00(**4*****AWA*4y410******#.***,01t44**.**014***ft*.****************************$***********'4*!*******************4** I

1

314

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT ATh GRAPE . NOVEMBER 1976

'OEJECTIVE 11 STUDENT DEMCNSTRATFS ABILITY TO CONVERT U.S. UNITS CF FASUPF

$S CF POOP SE OF SAMPLE

MAUE P'VALUE EFFECT. EFFECT SIZE REPORTING.GROUP

77803 01E7 2745 ALL STUDENTS ************************iiti*************

P -VALUE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70. 80 94 100

lesitoleeldoseolossoleoeslossolle$0111,14,11.11,11et

OF T E-STUDENT---------,12,S2 0,71 . 5,49 '0016

72.35. Ot$1. -4468* 442

t°"- -SIZE OF TFE COMMUNITY

62119 10;2 ..14,35* 1458

75171 1427 ' 2,670 we7604 1.26 .0,10 1.09

51,66 106 4,51* 0.78

CF,THE STATE

76,47 1,86 -0,57 '1468

30.03 1,45 , 3,00* 1,41

'F1,69 4,660 It:2

12.045 1.16 3.524'_-1.077';,39 1.78 2,36 1.64

16,49 1,56 0.54 1,97

t

01100

1254 MALE

1490 FEMALE

669 FIG CITIES

697 FRINGE CITIES

688 MEDIUM CITIES

691 SMALLER PLACES

323 RESCUE?06 COOP ED SERVICE

552 GEC527 ACES301 PFOJECT LEARN

67 NARSES

1411,411s00**,*444111141****41040$1*****0010)1t0

*****414111$4044***14***4104010*****444$41/1

0001001010041***4$41****#001.10#*,

11141041110114$0**********011000014#101004*

100014************4*4100****041040444*******4410044441101***10000110#0*****10

1

**41,144********101.40********A*404004,*00.4.00**************411,4**,,t**40v4,,,$0,00111****110h4toto**,44001410,44s4.44.04,00,1.*0040,44,400,0,444*.00,0414***4,004***1044**6*******4.***04444o44444414.444014401144104144004111,1444111011$41,0104****0011

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, !NC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPS

CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT .41221L. NOVEMBER 1976

OEJECTIVE 12 STUDENT ODONSTRATES KNOKEDGE OF NETPIC UNITS CF MFASHPP

CF SCUP SE OF SANPLE

P7YALUE PVALUE. EFFECT 'EFFECT SIZE

'2-- 73491 ,01c4

...SEX OF THE STUDENT.

80118 1400 6,27* 0,46 1255 MALE

-7 6E455 -71811 -543--- 0.42 '1490 7--------FEMALE

kPORTING GROUP

2745-

ALL STUDENTS

OF Th,',MMUNITY.534P9 '14E9 -2001* 1.82 669

8:09 105 ,60ra1"---1,35'-- 697-

72.6,1 1470 ..1,19 1,50' 688

7e.84 1,84 403' 1.31 691

79120 ,

'i?,86

77,44

72417

6104

BIG CITIES

FRINGE CITIES

MEDIUM CI TI FS

SMALLER PLACES

OF THE STATE 4111=0

1,12 ... 51.10* 26024 ;23 PFShE,103 9054 1e7C #.1,306 COOP ED SERVICE

106 34541 1.56 ..",1052 ..C(EC

104 407* 1.'16 "'527 -.ACS2,73 164" 2451 301 PROJECT LEAN8655 -1106 8,57-- 67 NARSES

'

PYALUE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

**************************************

$10004400010*011004110i$01$41014**110104

0$0110140104,11410$00**1040010i004

401*******0******0****44441******444,4114#1*********4,4*404444$14$4.of410001****************0104***********000**1014,4***************40,4#*****0

0:44***004*********04$41004*********o4**

***Oh404*********o****i**4*444***044.****

*******4000114410#1440*00**044000(********141/401414101(***********4*****0*

**110******01414,r.4*04*.4*440101**;44$

1 6,0**4044.41044*4044*4440104

NATINAL EVALUATION SYSTFMS4 INC, CrAT7t,1 ANAL+YSISlY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICL1 ST4%14IDE ASSFS.WNT - PTh (prp - SCVEMeE4 1976

4~444 04.40.wor

DEJECT1VE 13 STO1FT OFuMTRAIFS ASILITY T1

P.VALUESE CF

P'VkLVE

114ftrorommiudpi

C,Q1UP SE C. SA9PLEEFFECT EFFECT SIZE

13 0442 2745

----EFX OF THE STUOEITN-..-

'v;,?1 3,54 0,24 001 I255ZE,c1 0,54 -0121 0,26 1490

CF T!-F. CON(MUNITY

7;47 1.27 -)454,S 66(1

Ct,1 697OotiO .3411 Contl 69N0475 2.721 0454 691

OF THE STATEq14q7 040 2,1141 0,84 323

9:,01 1.0'.! 2481s 0.95 7060466 145741 4,61 552

'0,2? 0.F? 2414' 0.72 527',9,26 1.23 0412 1.12 301F5,82 3,00 -3.31 3,08 67

P -VALUE

INTrW:FT CRAFTS AND CRAPHC

RFPORTING GRCUP

' -ALL sTupErs

aisOMI

MALF

FEMALE

MAINAMAII,

E1G CITIES

raINIGE CITIES

YCNUM CITIFF

0

itsw***************************4****4******01.

P-VALUE. IO 20 30 40 5C 60 70 SO 90

Mf

********************AAA44004,0*40A0,04010,

1

sw***********************4********ewwwwww4w_

**************************c******04****

***4*A********************floo4 #4444**********k4so*****44******4 *******40**4),4*o****i444tv

too

SMM PLACES******************0*****Ii**444**00****s4itio4

1

RYECUE**********************t*******04**00$441****V

CCOP ED .,FRVICE *000:01***********444 il4****0*Wh4****,*4404#CREC

01144*****0*****i*04#**01004111c4 ***4**444001;ACES *404444,0*********0***********044(1444044poJccT LFARN

6******1100***10,444***44$4040111**414********$NARSES

1111******4****1144*****************40140014 1

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, -- 'CO7FNT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING CROUPSCONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - ATH r,ctr; - KVEYBER 1976

OEJFCTIVE 14 STUDENT OFm7NCTRATrS APIL1TY TO SrIvr 4CrO rPc9Lt,ms (vATH SKILLRI

53 CF C,OuP Or sAvPLEr.vALVE EFFECT EFFECT SUE

REPORTING GFCUP

r:2,63 0,77 2745 ALL STUDENTS

OF ThE STUDNT(:49 0.11 1180

O. ...2445*

0.47 1255

0,39 1490

CF T FE CONmnITyl.f4!",12 1472 ..15,(u11l 1,57

1;747;7. 1472 44'?"- 1.15'14'1 1,44 ..14q4 1,?6

1425 4.031 1,00

7F THE STATE'

2oC?

^'.452 14C7

t701 14C1

'4423 1,16

'244 ).4.06

:2441 2424

347

3,06

7,291

4,66*

1,70

0,82

1P51,76

10.;

loll

1,41

3,73

MALE

FEMALE

69 PIG CITIES697 F,INGE CITIES6Ri tAED1M CITI FF691 SMALLER PLACES

323

301

67

RESCUE

CO3° ED SFr, VICE

CF,FC

ACFS

n;OJECT LEARN!

NARSES

P -VALUE0 1.0 21 10 40 4 EC 60 73 80 95 111

**********www****0**4ows****4#

1

*************************04001ww*******14014,044ww4***040104**

*011400*****4'94 ******#*140.400101.4101***11****40444Ooltswt*4*****4******4011011(***14***4.0.041404011444041*******$1940*,#*$

I \b*******Y4*****104'4***044*4000*******04**04:40i4r****000#44444Joil4'****040A*04140**4#0004**4.,.*IttA*****4*******t****44111**40*

***010,44y**4**10****milltw****4#

01W11144101,0*4********000$*

I 31 6

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICLI STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT.. PTh GRAPE NOVEMBER 1976

CEJECTIVE 15 STUDENTS ENCNSTRATES ABILITY' TO SOLVE WOPO PROBLEMS

SE CF GROUP SE OF SAMPLER.VALUE P.VALUE EFFECT EFFECT SHE

7 71.24 01E5 2745

- -- -SEX OF THE STUDENT

75.19 0168 196* 0140 1255 MALE67.66 0.71 ' .3137* 0,34 1490 FEMALE

REPORTING GPCUP

ALL STUDENT S

CF 1.F.E COMMUNITY.

60156 100 10.284 lip 669

73.6! 1.06 697.-72,04 1.00 0181 0.87 6887'4.52 0ec4 2,28* 0.70 691

OF THE STATE76.E.1 1.37 -0,63 1126 32374,21 1.72 2.97 1,54 30675425 1,10 4,01* 004 552

72450 u.44 1,66 006 5277206 1.50 1.12 1,36 30170.15 3.09 .1.09 209 67

-WOO

(PEAL 0411

P-VALUE0', 10 20 20 40 50 60 70 80 OJ 100

40111,101111111411116.1,,,Imolobni1,1,,

*0***04#004****44****smisssisom

************410144$4100440*************_

I4410***00114**11110***1044+A****4i ."--7

I1,

a

PIG CITIES:. ,' *******4***************11,4**** A

FRINGE CITIES 1 ************rt4****0t4,....41******141* -.1\'.,MEDIUM CITIES'

;,'it144;***j.,,,4**a*****4***Wiov4r:.**i4

SMALLER PLACES,

( ,

*. Wo",00, ,Y

RESCUE ***ok..***********4 omiroi*,*,,,(0COOP ED JEPVICE **q***********e0,4****40.**t41,4**44"MC V , Werii144*******.iiitl,,4***,....t.4.**1+0[*ACES

....

110***4i4***Wwi********1140**,#4*14

,

PROJECT LEARN *******************0444400*****,**iNARSES

******001441144444***444414404*44444

NATIONAL EVALLATI ON SYSTEMS. INC. .. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECT= STATEWIDE W.CFSSMFNT - Ali! GWF NCVEM8ER 1476

mftworwermarro

CIEJECTIVE 6 STZENT DEMONSTRATES KNOMOGE CF FASIC Gr.CMETOIC CONCEPT

..."1"11..."".."6111"."11111.4161.5"1.1"1".......141.11.1111.116.1"IMM.... P.OLUFSE CF ORO D 5,7 OF

P.VALUE P.VALUE EFFECT EFFECT

7806 002

....SEX OF THE STUDENT

SAMPLE

SIZE REPORTING GROUP

ALL STUDENTS2745-

91,16 0.84 7.49* 0.39 1255 MALE7- 7,504E C,24 -.2,13*---- 0.34 1490 FEMALE

----SIZE CF TFE COMMON! TY

61,66 1.67 715,22* 1.44 .669 , 8IG CITIES'81,75 2$8;*----0.98 697-- FFINCF, CIT1FS

8:421 1.24, 1,34 1.11 688 MEDIUM CITIES.82657 \,) 1120 3170* 0.92 691 SMALLER PLACES

CF THE STATE WOO O.*

,91.05 1.59 4,194 1.47 323 FESCUE53.41 108 406* 1,65 306 COOP ED SERVICEe-'4062634

1.24:

1.03

4,17,1

44 07*

1,12

1.01

552

527

CFEC

ACES77461 1,4; -1.25 1.45 301 ' PROJECT LEARN67.54 2.76 .11633* 2,71 67 NARSES

31

0 10 20 , 30 40 .50 60 .70 80 90 100'

Irrorirrir lob .S1111,4111 jilt oar le ordered Wads, re

*0104011011****4400#4*$$$4************

*****4*****444*********#00.**********rni*******46******* 4 #4o**040110144****444**

1

_____ 41440044**************014***vi4 441$0404********004***4**41*************

*****0****M********1211$4****044***M4********10000400000**01404o.to,t4o011

I

,

, 1

***14***Ort40t401004$0*****$**44,411004*********,0*****A*r**4*****Ok**;$111grOrtr****

1114***4i(***4* 440410tk%114 014044 41444,0440

********44**),k040044*#40004.00;#****4400

*1144***W*04404.441****64 r4r***0400$4*

0401*******************040***14**

3jj

UG

p, : . ii*****140****4104,4410,44004*pOq'tillt., .

11**!4t4.***4,:yWiriStIt::10,4401,04*.#10W,'

.

1 t"vtlk!'00;01V44'**41,44*#'010g44;44#4

I 1 *******"00*10,11+wortsoot*$******. '0$0****11(1W0A*141[%1Y*****,*#

,

******0401'0014****11#441******x$*

______, 1

W44 A01#/4$1044****#W)**01***1h i:(0;*t*IM:0$#q4 *4*WvV*411p04itg

4101**,?*M40111/4444141414,*401060M04,

*00,7****WO*0(/444 #44.01144,444:14.00.141 0,g,01****($0*;*04#1114t**11000**11****4t010

I

1****0*00114*1#.#4****1#*;v*44**V****,**1****$ 011(***01***414*tli**v1 i0****044441*****

00**Ivlootyr,4****YWq4****01*** lowypoovsovilio***,****1#o*w**,

Iolool4144 vv4,1444,400t$tx4tli*** **stY040,4m4.44****44,4**114.44

t!:

*********01104#M *******#*4400* *4000* **Y0000*vo,****************04044* 01 Fla,

AppitikAli44 10444W*44****4**01**0** 'I*4111404#14****0*V*0.141ii#0#*,#****iiiii*

000 VO*44*4*************!i*V0***** Wi*** 10******14****4#0**0******** ow** 44*104$1*********4.***0****;

4*******1;44*****0104****14******0*

'r

040m4i~******44$*********,0104111*** **06*****411108*******111110110$4**1

104,044*MM,4**114**0101101**A1***4/1/4

04******40001*********14*****400***** 44*0**0*******141****014440**4$1*0******

I

'

*******1**********044414440011004144*

si4 /1144.1 'doll. sosi .$$101,4144

001: C6 08 CL 09 OS 01 OE' --OZ Or' 0 4(111A-d

iSE

1044S0 AUA -

410 I0s0 METE il'G lnosn ivHADJS y,:c1 Ivo *u't- A3A 40S 40Z' 90'1 *Z9'S- Etol

d41110 01 'Jera0) 11J-zS1

4)1Th AdBA

iVHA5ki0B

111 IV ,LON___

401 41-4)0 1

11 SW 1

xg.s.4t. J)111 l'INCO I

AI B111.1 I

101 1 lIdV34I!10

311411 V CND ANV AlOtiVH.

H91H

oto;!

Irrormirm,

91; v9'0 *R5 °9

91C1 9E'0 ;co .

!PC N1%11 ')+11 cv, H:u

A:: 40'1 to,;".)-

"L"1 WZ4 941:; iVC- 54"C vt9 bt.'0 ',10,01 14'G, it; 45'O c*C.; 6'4 ;4k,

LAI )1,&-IpiVX d:d strviA ANY

=4S'01 U0 1?c '

_

(3.0

.

Ci64' 4L1 11°0 11; Or.° '

Vic tIVI 241 V 40i." ISLIP '^'Plj

3X11 c-Inok(1L`,c 40,13/11)----:

09Z WO ,4E*1 cu kq.'0

';%'C _!..,ICE",- t)!?t

9SE E011 tl."4

111 ZI'l *9C'S- ;,. ;4 410GH)S d00Ap.11 noA

WO 06'G .400 S4'44

4401 '900 i;E'G' ,99'0 5C'44 Zbtl LOO VS'o- ,CPC G094

""'NliCA:tq)S " '4N3dVd

h4" SV'C *SSq C960

.

254_ 4S'1 04 WO 164'5- EPft 14.'14

6241

3116 1201 tt'0 yi. 4d.6i 1ti4C0/S B'ril 40 V::S--"

51N)onis 1Pc sPiL

3'41S' 03:4i3 3t11v,1 -d 31,915 4 BS 001,0 4 SS

ad;)S lial 111)4 1

cif13t0 DNIitiOdd

4 Or11.1~41/11111104 /161 11dd - 31/41t0 H1(1 1X3KSS3SS1 301A3LVIS o'ioNNo) 006 9NI1d0d36 AE S1SAT4N1 ')N1 'SWilSAS 911111VA3 114141N

NATIONAL EVALLATI ON SYSTEMS, INC. CONTFNT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT + 11TH 6PADE - APRIL 1977

elLaw=mallyis

! ;C SE CF GROUP SEDE SAMPLE! P4VALUE PdVALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE

185 0,517

.40ATH USEFUL OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL17 0.73 0.32 0,46

0.11*-- 0.31

1607 -2.69* 0675

78

'1:16

2352

705

1189

463

REPORTING G1UP

HALL STUDENTS

+++41.1bW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU 1.0 MAIM?' +56t1A.,f 3'.25 +2217141. 3.17S;00 it 1,26. 017115' 1.17 152

los,t1:,,.i 0.84 34* 0.63 567

61,45.16 0,47 4,634 0.30 16

"--crooLT ANTS OR, SPECIALISTS770111 4. 0.88 007 0.'9 612

76,45$ '0 +0040 0.'8 1720

...+++STUDWS ASSIGNED BY APilEVF 6,441 LEVEL ..+++'77401 ,11474' 04 '04 139e,

711162 04%, - +0423 Oi 9 788L,F1,52 44C5 2 103

.........CURRICULU9 CR PRURAM DEVFL PMEAT OW.10

7 5, 6) 0,63 +:), 22 003 171777,2; -1417- 00) 110 4157

..".,'CLASS SP! TOO L APGE

.

+++4.SIZE CF MONTY

1E415 '4124 +1470 1. 701

'). E4 0.51'0.44 1615.

elMe.

PV ALUE

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 93 10061661i6661666,1616611,6616,1616061106661646.611664

#*1 *1* *, **41 *1111 #11 *140**1t* **141 *P0*0i

NOT VERY USEFOL.

SCMEWHAT USCFUL

VERY USEFUL

NONE

1 YEAR

2 YEARS

3 YEARS

0400***0040,10411$14****0*******14404

************000********00**0140444$*********100************401040414.44*

414***************M44$04404

*****011404144444414441****g**41

**10410***1414410*****444414*********

********414444********************4144444***

1

****104i**0************i*14***i********

********#100********4440,i*04**'**41

1

*****4*************************40******

*********************0********* ****(40

04144444**i**0444144*****0.04410m#***. , '1

,

*i***140001***************tiii*****(**4.

,__i__

___--...

i

YES ,

NO

YES,

NO'.

BOTH 7-7

YES

NO

YES

14044****14*4*************11044010**m*

444100********44144********************

**144i010****018**************0414110*NO

E3,96,. 1,34 ..12090 1,73 416 - BIG CITIES * 0*************************14rn,S2C-7.0.74 624

.154 0.73 658

11371. 0.70 654

7.8.37 0,9478,99 00,94 2

79.11 0491, 2

CF THE'S7J7-*---79113 0,E, 210414

:,

0.84 257

°0.,40 14.0i 3.5510,' '1.03 352

60,02 0,85T 3.17* 0,81 .485

--7E08-7-1.44-7-'1067---1,26----358-----7-7414 1,16 1,49 1.22 '32980'020 2,08 3.35 2.048° 65

FPTN.GE cm 100*****t***),**44********6**********604MEDIUM CITIES .1,0,so,01,00,4,**ovo,,4*******,;***,,***

SALLE'R PLACES'. *****0641,1i******04****i***********,*****

- . . , - ,,-- .- - - _ ---... 4--------- I

RESCUE 0400041014144*****4#444***,***********0****COOP ED SERVICES ' *****Wil!**4******Ig**,*(004*********CFEC 41 4***C410**i4 *****************V00.**4 MS

..

ACES : -----7'4-7 *****4**401440****0444**0104µ41 wn*PROJECT LEARN *40041**********4***o.O.,.****0000,000NARSES ************W**********4*0******o******

, -

NAI NAL 'FV ALLAY! C4 SYSTEMS, iNC COnTrrl ANAlYS1S 'BY REPORTING SOPSCONNEZTICUT ,STAMIIIOF ASSFSSMSNT - 11TH cpArc, .APAR.IMPANAMMOINIII1

GOAL I m ATHrcAT IC AL Cr,NCPDTS1i4404:4~0-todion

SE Cr PIUD SC); 1.:4,4114

10P-VALUE PAvALuE EFFECT ! EJECT SIZE,

lAEPORTINGCAC%

F2130 3012:62 ALL STUDENTS

4441444004111444044410444444440444OF THE STUDENT

1977

P-.OLLE10 20 30, AI !I 60 70.

imlostelleoshisoolosediusolitisolomimekt6? 90 100

i4142 0,1i7 600 0.54-.K1;e2

1021

1339ym

414011010444411*********44441440444/#44

404444041044440104444444404444--INV.

CO'ouNFTY w...2,18 -1,01* x,97

PIC444404001140040444*744444471,77 s 1,11 2,1,*-- 101 4 -4. EP1V,F. CITIES440I44044*********0*****4**4004 40

e;,77 1,C1 1..76 '11600 658401041041144040****14*****4444444 4

71,03 1.4T. , 106 654PLACES

44444444****************00,04***04-----W..C1014 CF Ti5 STATE' loia''0.2o 115s 1.90' j.42 357 RESCUE f

*****to******$*********00400000474T- 1:A 5 t2 W 4.49 n2 COOP EO ErP VICE

14400,04**04**00**44tool***m*A4***77,7§ 1,14 4,110 '1,0 05 CoEC

Ot0,4***il***00,0*000w/.04011#c'',77 1,',6 -1 ,,')2. 101 3S0 ACES**044004****40wAi44v*t4 o,00**1

i:,.125 2,00 -0,11 108 ) 329 VOJECT LEARN

, *4*******(10**************i**00***72,31 3,d7 3.92 305 65 NAPS ES*****000****04*****10*******101004.

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS; INC, CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPS'CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMCNT,- 1!TH GRACE APRIL 1977

p.vALu5

2,37

G3~ 2 Z:,D.T.

SE CF nOu3P-vALu5 EFFECT

0,47

OF !HE STUIDE:NT

Ut4P2L5

SIZE

..4.a

SE

EFFECr

Vic, 0.17 002 10211!.; --0,21 1339

CF rh, COvmA:I'Y

7:*!! 102' -1.74' 1.6 4161,27 7 0, 71 634

1,714: 0.75 658,.1,'"09 1,61* 0.61 65A

CF I STA.T7,

cAc0

, ,,-, , 1"g64,16' 1;7 1,-/`

6'40;6 2.4» '2,39 18

257

.352405

,

REP° pT1 Nc. tpcup

ALL STUDENTS

PALE

FEMALE

PIG CIMSFRINGE c1TIER

PEN UN CITIES

SmAL LE R PLACES

P.VALtP,0 10 20 20 ,40 50 60 73 BO rJ 1006.111611110161111104111111114411111.' 11 116)11

I*800401,0400044 ,

1

1,Oh ************Itrd6**********044tO ***40g#k*')0,444***00***000***0**41041***0144441

*******4444***01104**A0:061/*440II

444444444444440i*****1*******4400*0****,II40***Amotv1 m40**4444***4440444444ill*******************x4444******40104$410***

P5CUF , 1

*14040010***AW10:111101A*0***1(04.04040140*,,1CEV E0 SEpvIcE*t**404+!440,,t4I4****14*1',dk0,.*t04001444

cfr-C .44144 vAtit;c44040.040(ri#00(.1/4g11144PPOKA 44010.,ACES

*4*4***4-***44u***4***41A*0**0i044#14,*1 7',.K.OJECT LEARN ***0*****1I0.44000,4*****0***0*0***4-NARSES

**************0440***********004*$***04*..

rul

GO

NATIONAL EVALUATION, SYSTEMS, INC,,.-- CONTiNT ANALYSIS BY REPOPTING GROUPS

CONNECTICUT STATEODE ASSESSMENT - 11TH CPAPE APRIL 1977sammerasamo

3 HcASUPrMNI

SF CF GROUP

?*VALUE P-VALUE° EFFECT

8043.9 Os

- -- -SEX OF THE STUONT

'E,c3 0467 5,95416415 0,E1 -4,72;

...--SIZE F THE. COmmAlly

6247., 2,10 ..1719S*

911t ...\'' 0152 101,9

7,7? 0482 1430E4,07 110'5 3,604

CF THE STATE

4C7 3,02t

14,22 4,01t

;)4q' 4403

1.77 -0421

1,44 2410

2411 5470#

GOAL

P..YALUESF OF SAMPLE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 . 80 9D 100,EFFECT SIZE REPORTING GROUP 'fool 14,14 o.s14861441 '4448 1441118414Itiom

2:42 ALL STUDENTS 4it*******04********440*44*********50414

0142 1021 MALE 004*****1*****04410114**t#0****01000440#110/12 1339 FEMALE 114****01044111010040***04****0440004

.12428

0,86

416

654

PIG MIFF--FRINGE CITIES

$***4004#01#1****1*****4114004

*00404******114$44404**4114p**11144000f0, 80 0*, MEDIUM WIFE 04**00***4*****14,00A[004*O0140;110110410010,83 SMALLER PLACES 4i4 #414274***014*44***4400044404W000*

Row no

11807 '357 RESCUE $40.1(40004*******4*144:**0404;***4*****v4**1.17 752 COOP EO SERVICE Pi***0111**404etotk*i.**4071(0044006.0;#(If 65 05

3,-Ja

(PEC

ACES4****1401044*404**0440***#$010044/04K40,40$40.4444004'4441,40014444411444o**1

1.31 329 PROJECT LEARN ilL4**i*4ki*******0044112044111***04404444442.09 65 NARSES

411400111114W**0110(40004441014041110150140411

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS; INC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING 'GROUPCONNECTICUT STATE110E ASSESSMENT - 117H GPArE - APRIL 1977

4 OWTS qNC CPA4c

SE CF GROUP SE 001,,SAOLE

P.VALLiE EFFECT EFFEC/ SIZE

043 0,73

X OF. THE STUDENT

. 0.47 0.59.4

0419 -0441*

CF THE CO0uNITy

.64469 1452 ..145f,*

4467 . 0 0 1,0494665 0450 14414

041446 045,5 1427$

OF THE STATE

001 053 3575445 04E4 242341 0.0 352

1o4# 0,48. 465

041.x5 7.0111 7, 005 358

!3:2679*., 65

4,6

,,

2:362.

dollmwe'

REPORTING GROUP

ALL STUDENTS,:

0.27 1021 MALE,

0,20 1339 FEMAtE

1,35

0,45

0,44

0142

41,6

634

658

654

17.

810 CITIES

FRINGE CITIES

NEDIVM CITIES

SNALLEP PLACES

RESCUE'

CCO0 'ED SERVICE

CFEC----ACES

PROJECT LEARN

NARSES

P-VALUF

0 10 20 30 41 50 6V) 70tV00'.o 400

Holisilipl.,11.61164,11.164,01,111.1,1114'il..1166,161

*0111400040 $11104**************14114$4100*$*214,*0

1

1

44041****040***00040044iiiit$14**AI0i OO414****/**************04040401444004 t0li64 1

4 ***001****4****04****0*******04*444*011

1

1

$4***********04 *****mt4*00404001141,0W144+.*

1004k4:***00401100t4*****4***;104A ;ON 44 p*00004410 00 40*M11114* 4 itC,**4 4* ***4,2*;4r4

00044(i**t4**04**040110*v**0(44*004***;4tior0

4'w44**4400040i1.0103)0444i,A104'4464it**01,X0!0444*4414***W0m014111(00140.4400:t404igii-o4

*****09*******4010k00***10*WW;*4440A1400110;**4*******WitiOtt10110001400#***40444

1**,4011111*444************4*01014#*4A4400$00

r"VALU!

NATI cvtL E V ALLAI ICJ.N1 SYSTEMS; INC, AI!ALYSIS REPTATINGIt)T STAIN ASSESSMENT 1171-4 f.r' - APRIL 1977,

'''CAL 5 Ar7)L.CATIc!

SE, CF MO' BAFFLEP-VALUE EFFECT EErc:CT

7r PtilhNT540

CF

C,,52

5'4'39

161 1.0()

0.L(s

2,0 '31% 0

.. ,..' .,,

t '' kV''C,.:,17.:5:::

SST

,(e`

, p 1,.i.,4ft , ',,i r)111 1126';$'1 . 11:6

'1,'1 1.19

.21;',A.4 05 11477',91 :, ;,, 6 41,6 0 24 55

..

P-VP,L)E

PFP.Or* GP.CUP

2302 ALL STUrk.to's

1021'1330-7,77

.5'4

Ii

rpALF.

ris

PLACES

CC.32. SEP VICE

gtLrA6!

ARSESa

'0,

T,,VALUE

10 20 31 40 SO 60 '7)- 8D 90 100

**104PF040*******001044111010**$

-

000,4**110(41*********4r **00**,*'*******40.4*00400*******itt* .

#4**Ot(c00101****t**$******* 1*00***41o1W**41A0.16+4*****0010t/1

******4144441t4(*****A*4*0)4***4;0;

*****01,*4401********O144 4t4444***

1

0000114.1:*,'. #0,4400:0404104***0444*tt14404,,. 4(14.440(tiw**1.0444;4004

04*****1.4PA**101041000t000044W404q,44A* 44,;(* ***44,044[0;(404144000*****#04**04104(000t04#**4w14$

i**111****************10401M0104****

NtiUt%:,1 ALUATtpAI" SY'SIENS; INC UNTEN!' ANALYSIS BY REP097INC1 GROOPScm:D7tVTITI,TEODE, ASSESSMENT - + i \FArr - APRIL 1977 4 ,)

,

dAl. 6 CFC1'7TO,

G9r0 ,r_,F SA1P'..V4LUE 4EFFECT

2362

OF TH.t., 6TUONII.

!,fit {' 0,6H 10 71el :,..

1'4! 750r5 ;.:9 1:179

'1

cF,,7:cnoyuN: TY202 416

C114!.'i 2.10 113Q

`,t 4'"0 1457 757641c.* 2,21 '252

`. 4 1462 4!.50,7 2.27

1.),5 2447 329!:), 72. 65'4.

FEPOFTIN,G GFC(1)

_ .

ALL STUCENTS

' YALE

rEMAVr..

. CITESCITIES

CrISSPq.LE ;-,LACF

PFSCU

CLCP EP SFRVI6'CPEC

PDtaT LEAPSNAPsEs

4

L_

i P-VALU;0 10 20 30 40 :50 60 73 BO L 10\4411416,4414,441,44.1441,1,44.i44,41,144,1444.144,0

1

114*****4 0111040;040441*

*04**************4 4**01*Ov***

40*******#404:,t****4**

]

*4t`4', *44444r #4;114#

****0044,4****A*0444444

0.144440* *044014 04

'4 1

*t*Itt11:i0iti60(400;(***A4t***

1640t8 .40;(44:1440:1 44144

1044-t#11i44740***40144144i

140144lt01140011 044As

01,044141;04 4*****4t444*1;

*4404.4401t****0444 0**41

k.

36

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS. BY REPORTING GROUPS

--..,,-013JECTIVE,

SE OF GROUP

P.oLuc P -VALUE EFFECT

ee.50 C.79

...SEX OF THE STUDENT ,

_710 _.1.02__6609 1,02 ...2.1;14

OF I< COKMITY

71.57 .1.2i 3,07*

69.23 1.42 0.73

7C.53 1.59 '2,03

---REGION.OF THE STATE

70,74 1.90 2.24

74.37 1.92 6,d7i

72.12 1.43 --- 3.2r.,',60,66 2,04 -1,d4

I)," 6,rat 2.14 -0.97.

1 4 7,0 2,65.t01

CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT . 11TH GRADE APRIL 1977amemoommowe

STU060 UEMD.NSTRAT.ItiO:aTAN!.....2.111.U.141.0.2LIWI. 011.

P- VALUE

SE CF SAMPLE 0 10 20 30 ' 40 50 60 TO 80 90 10D

EFFECT eSIZEJ REPORTING GROUP looldnullsosoloesol.loolloodeselloololorod....

2362 ALL STUDENTS 01410440.044****4110WWwWW4WWw*Www

obAlag.

MALE 44*******#*#00$0110011*********4 #11##

1339 FEMALE 444*********fWwWWWW14,****w****W40450 l

.0010w

CITIES t***Ott0.0114000.4440t00634

___BIG

FRINGE CITIES1.12 $040.4444.** **41440444444144400****1120 65d 4E)IU14 CITIES 01400444$41014***IttwItitittottttittt1115 654 SMALLER PLACES ttlt*****IttttOttttit******ttiOtOttt.

011.0-. .

100 S57' RESCUE ,041411414*440,04404414040:44014414*0

1,75 152 COP ED SERVICE 44040444****444 **401010011144#040,00#

444**44,14,4404444.444

1.60 355 ACES ********44***4**c1 #***f44444***1

1.91 329 PROJECT LEARN '44of**#$$44o4.44*,0***44.4444004*

4',54 65 NARSES 40444*#4144#441114,60*41'$441114i$W4*$$

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUP

CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT 11TH GRADE APRIL 1917 '

MlimiAssillimigh01111

,TuDENT OCONSTRATES UNDERSTANDING OF ORDERING

5F. OF GROUP SE ;CF SAMPLE

MALUE PVALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE REPORTING GROUP

67494 4.77 2362 ALL STUDENTS

H.----SEX OF THE STUDENT

77115_____0.92,-,9s32____0.58____102160.30 0.96 ..1.43* 0.42 1329

,14IZE CF THE COmIJNITY

_

7C174 1.20 2.91; 1,0

69,S4 1.15 2.00 1.06

71422 1.56 3,30 1.13

-.6,CION CF THE STATE 1

69.3) 1,59 1,5 1.48 357 RESCUE

74,60 1,83 6.17; 1,,,A ,n2 COOP al SERVICE

- 72.98_-.-L: 1.22____ '5.14,11_____1.15_____465 CVO66.40 7 24..6 -1.43 ,I.,;1 353 ACES

60.65 )1/ 2 07 0.71 1.85 329 PROJECT LEARN

,; 73.00 .,

qA.:76 5.24 3a6 65 NARSES

11.111110M

MALE

FEMALE

OF NUASERS, ___________444,1414,

0 10 20 30 40.i* , .50,, 70 (30 90'

I. 1 .4 ....1.,..1....1 ,,ti,..,..itt,..,A.4,,,,lp,..11$

.. . _______ 44:wly.:#-- ),c

*4***44440*******41**400040040tH

CITIES.

624 FRINGE CITIES

658 MEDIUM CITIES

654 SMALLER 'PLACES

111101.

ttotwittttoottmlitttwottottt t i4 *

********ti4444*******$***4*1 t14,

4444044444440144**/4141111114444444*****4444444444144444*44

44.0404*****#*4444$44414#1 ***1444*

0040044**/#$#;4140141044414#01000$

**4144**.41041040444440tA4$40014$

Oillvo444** 1041(20444i041)144io4444*4441

0;M**lI4#Iiq4*$*l.A;Vd*0*.af4iqW4O4$;',Ii-

*#4*4lM.O4*f*S#0Wt;t44444$;4$,t4444(

04*****444******14044414044044,0114

$4****+4414*****444414114044**4414.404*#

4

t

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, !AC, CONTENT ANA0iWBYUnNECTICUT STATE4I3E, ASS SSMENT - 11TH ORIL

JEmC6TL'AT'I") A'31LITY T3 Afl EInTP,ACT

REPORTING GROUPS

1977

,F

P-VALUECF GROUP LE CFC 10 2( 30 40 50 60 70 80 90. 100

PVALUE P-vALUE EFFECT EFeLtiT SIZE RENRTING CR0uP ,

sold111.011111111111411111111tell54,67 0.20 Z362 . ALL STU1)EITS #444014'',(41.4014**tomvio**************''

----S;X CF Tt STUDNTC.112.

01$ $041($0110044441( Wilit*$*0 ItiOV.471k104.000**..._

.

c:c.12 C.34" 0.3U 0.T9 1339 ':?EnLEI4404fOr40114# itus0***$11t**41440444$,M444441$4141W4

OF COmmulI7Y

C.YCITIES /00409,0#411140401440c4W4WWW44*.ti4est*iC.45 0,40 C.4 634 FRINGE CITIES

041,4414****0#1004*****#***W140444000144#**C4Y1C,41 7?.60 C.41 62d mECIUM CITIES4**0***a**4#4*******44.044******4**$44444.14100****C'034 0.53 0.47 0,29 654 S11ALLER PACES #4$44440**1114********4440444 44140114e00,44,044,4**_

CF. TH2 STATE 1.41.1.

C,d3 0,37 0.72 357 RcSCWE***$014444$40444***44444*41;*410444.04**441.62'

CddP iD.SERvICE04#2;$044#*0#414*44.W4W444444kOW).4,4440,40,0.6t,44; + 00,044441k4004lq004#44a444444lot14._

_

C.L1 0.:7 3CS ACES44***4i4***10*044***04$444144044#04444444C,73 C.11 Get5 329 P,QJECT LEARN *****$********444****6 # ;4l4W44m044ro4**44*441**Co.54 1,12 1,ti7 1,10 65 NARiES441444100******1041144400444**44114.00444444 44

NATICNAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS dY REPORTING GROUPSCNzLTICLI STATEJIDE ASSESSMENT 7JITH 6R00E - APRIL 1977 ,

G-JJECTIVE c3TJC-,T I1:'ENSTRATFS A91Llim.TO vIJLTIPLY WHOLNuMriERSliMI.W04140 . .1.1~INWOO.1....0k.A.m.,kwWW146111.,,GA*055. CF GPZUP CF

F -VALUE Eri'LCT C:L

0.38 2.362

OF Twf STU,;ENiy;.74

0.,t5 C.67*, 0.24 P3q

OF ToE CJNJITY

C.O -0.11 0.t5C,:;4 1.42+ 0,5.1

ri2.32 Co9 0,4d

----::G1'JN (-:=' ThL. STATE

., , C.'r, ',),..', 0.74 357 RESCUE..',..'. -C.0,..' 3.i:4 3:12 Cu' P E0 SE VICE

,14.;...__,.(,71,..._____11:.,Co______:-':4:., Cr ECc,:.'::, 1.00 -0.0 04,.. :1;;t2 4C=b .

4.:16 %,T,Y., 1,13$ 0,77 329, Pk3JECT LEARN

91.15 . I.6d -C443 , 1ic2 65 NARSES

.aimas

16.111,

RF:wnTING CROJP

ALL STUDENTS

P-VALUE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 30 90

omoo*****wiskoo****im444,4****44,4********

MALE _

,0.4#0,0714***,****044**poomm,,mqztft,400tl,_.._FLMALE#44+4,(00WF$#*441444441444#444*4440(4*W.4444*OV4

100

JIG CITIES

FkINGE CITIES

mEDIum CITIESSgALLER PLACES

*010#1*****1****144**4' 4WWW4t 0;14%11144

*06404400144****0470001464s1444*4$444440006

**44440*$444404444441+4*404***44*04040,4****4w4**********44****04**4$14444444*446 0440*

40111040444004410(00W44#;i4444144(4Mcc3414441k44.***c*44444c4kqt44404t4411,44144rW41+

W400+0*04444*kt44744144:41,f444;44--L*4(440a411404014$44114444**0444(4444.4.014441

144#440444444400444014444444**404444*4444444

00444110410404406004044444444444',4441***

NATIONAL EVALUATION.SYSTEMS1 INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCCNNECTICUT STATOIDE ASSESSMENT 11TH GRADE - APRIL 1977

__OBJECLIVES_ IODFST DEOSTRATES ABILITY TO DIVIDE WHOLE NuCERS .41404,4.4,09au wawareabagmwatrairsiamma.wei"..wordowalmwoMALUE

SC OF GPoop

P-VALU: P-VALUE EFFECT

__.C87.63 A6

----SEX OF ThE STUDENT

87,32 0,61 -0,31

OF THE COMMUNITY

89,47 C.85 1.64;

08.461 C.64, 0,96

6e,42 0.71 1.29$

f .

F THE STATE

90,20 166 1,57

1.79 1.81*

_,a(1.27

0,91 1.C8 Cad89.39 0.82 I,70*

87,31 2.19 -0,32

SE CF SAMPLE

EFFECT SIZE

23U

0431 1339 FOALE

CITIES0,6 824 FRINGE CITIES0,5 658. mEDIO CITIES0,57 654 SAA4.LER PLACES

1

C1

1.01 357 0 RtscpE0.76 352 COOP ED SERVICE

CR:.:C,

O. 368 ACES

0,78 329 PROJECT LEARN2.13 65 NARSES

.11..1111

WOOVIII1

REPORTING GROUP

ALL STUDENTS

0 10 20 3C 40 50 60 70 50. 100

.11.11/11.1/.0111111.1.1./1.1,.41,14S.1.1.14,11,611

4 *************4***$***0**48444014;4440m4t4

****$$$$****1$$$$$******$#$****0$$$$$$$04$144____.******************$$*;4***to****$4*****4***$

$004$044$440018400($441***$$$44, ****,$41.. ____$4,",*$$#$$$$$*;****************4**$44*4$4*****$****0$$$$$$$$$$$$*****04$$***$4*****$$$#;****4***04***************4**40*****14*$$$$$440$

4 ##**44******114444,4c044**#4140*04111044444***4

4o44M4444 11444441444N444 # 4044,44k414#44444r0944244

444044W114/W4. #(*441'44*4 oG4V44M44W,(810.0.

*********0*1,1444M4*44**44 $40114r..444404

****44*07.4444*4400.4**41;4440$444,M*44*****

4444044441044****44.44*00*.0**4444444440

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS/ INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY'REPURTING GROUPS,,LENNECTICuT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - 11TamH GRADE APRIL 1977

assamemsrue

_____OEJECTIE 6_ ETATNT DEMONSTRATES ABILITY TO ADD AND SU3TRACT DECIMALS

SE CF GROUP CF SAMPLEP-VALUE P-VALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE

88.55, 0,43

----SEX OF ThE STUDENT

AM1 0,59 0,35_0,38___102189.19 0.55 0.33 C.28 1339

----'11ZE OF THE COMMUNITY

1.7,4 4160.16 C,80' 0.30 0,66 634'cdc,SA C.E9 1.72* 0.58 65890,80, 0.75 1.74; 0,56 654

234,

Cr THE STATE

01.72 0.,:4 1,86* 0,64 35792.34 0.78 3,404 C.74 ..152

EC.67 1.34 1.'2,29$ 1,16 356

;142 0.'40 1,26 0.63 32;

SI.c.,A 2.11 2.88 2,0S 65

41

061.1.1

W001,

MALE

F&1ALE

1:11G 'CITIES

FRINU. CITIES

MEDIUA CITIES

SMALLER PLACES

RESCUE

CUSP ED SERVICE

AL:5'

IDDJECT LEARN

NARSZS

REPORTING GROUP

ALL STUDENTS

I

11111..1.

P-VALUE0 10 20 20 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

**t*w144*****************4*4woow****#,**11444*

4414444*********44********844444wif***44****___'4444444** ** 4# 14444 ;41414 # #; ;#4t ;444444444;4#44*

001,044 #614W*4004 0-44c#4,00404;444K44

40,10044000.401184******4410844**444144404,0,*

*4444444444**0**4044**4114111,44*14440,441441*4

*0041044******************#400444441*/0144414004

444444441440404 *444P444**4.1401444444444048814.,:141'441r **441( *441444444404;14440441**0#444441/8440W;. ,00#,W;#41Ok'Mc14(144o,4_,..,44444.44444440 44414441440444t441444411110144440444o03 *44 01,44.144444044414am1q4444

4114144.040040110444410014**0104404.444+0404

NT10* EvALuAT1JN SYSTEMS, INC -- CCA,,:JT WALYSIS e REPORTING GROUPSCCNtv.:CTICO,STATE41C);:: ASSESSgLT GRA01: - APRIL 19/7

_.O JECTIVE 7. STS!` T 697,NSTRaTES A':i1LITY10k,..1JTvLY Asv0 DIvIk

eN

P-VALUESC CF c;cjP 7,SE CF W;LE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70, BO 90 100

P-MAJE EFr:cT

MILMA.A.A.M.114.,

c.d5

oF .THEIsTuDE,NT

1.c22

c; .CA C.22

u: \cc:siITY

2,24.

2362

'CCU.4C.

kEPORTING GROUP

1...

ALL STuUENTS

C1 T1

Ito 04110110111111111111111.1/11111114016t01041111111,111$1111.

064040411111**4**140**0144#0404***v

, 1

,40**114410041010011/#*00***0441040

**41,1.440w40.004440A(0i4*401**4440A*

:4.744114,

1.29 2.46*

Cr To!: STATE.

4.Co 3.A

c.

1,07

1.43

3.c,61

c.5`3,

(;)4

X19

LJ

!),E):U1 CIT:E3

SqLLEi1 PLACES

)ASCU:

67;r4ICZ

NRJJCT LEARNNARSES

___44#001#twl*4#44440#14#vi*4 1.

#$*4+144.44***Lool*v.:4***41.44#0,110*iv#* .4 liok 4 14 * * +,1* 41 'PO * 4( 0(i4.;4044* )11 444***011440,.4041444414 44444

. 1

,,44410444t4.141:444**44444441040.4i.414i44

41.4*.,4.4)y1,$0440147r4W0;4.144

01;1444*440.404110440tWil4.4#;40.q44**44$ Mµ' k****1114414**44****441144440**

10.0444#000#0*4444444441400444411444

NATION4 ,,/ALIJAN SYSTEMS, INC, 7- 6WENT ANALYSIS, UY Re:PORTING GROUPSCLLTICO STATEiIOE ASSESSnNT' 11TH .GRACE *. APRIL 1)77

CE:ZETIVL /I 7,^', f !-),=.!;',;z!'s,A7-75 Aoi 'TY l'1,P1 ,'e-',q1.17Q,,CT 5P,ACTI:)%19 Trc.

,.44,.. ., ....P.14.-1-:,:-.-khaff444A1J.Voi-A4.UALt.. 44 40....:41, ..-.4.4;.:,.4441.1NA644.4.

.A.Ar:i44...1.A. .P-VALUE'

_....'

*01," 10 '2.0' JO 40 0 60 70 60 0 100

C',:OuP SE. CF Smi',LE. .

is.,,,j,w1,,,,,,,1,6,611,64.1,,,,ii,,,,41,1,1414101k..4

EFF:T EFFECT -SIL REPNTING 6RNP

SE Cr,

P-VALUE

tr,.4r; 0.c4 2JOZ.

ALL STUOENTS

----;EX OF 7nE STLI3LNT.r).) 1,11

;1; 1.L2

7;E Ccv'',)11TY

;err/

1:3) 3.47'

1.44

1.2c;

G.14

tA

1.0411111s

1111 E

......

....._.1 C:rr':.

ckIN6..i, L1.'ES

IDIUM CITIES61:4 P!ALER P,i,C45

TriE STAT1: 7".4.37, 337

-2,C;; 'I' 1Ct.!Jri

;:,A -2.32 .2,41J 3-06"71.7 2.21 P'qJECT LEARNTi..J 4103 1,75 4. NARSES

1 Ni

411,44444.1404440***444044.4444t14414.,.

$ 1

04011014****f*****041014*W0tIcP44(0.,

opcli.04410(041m144*;*44i16#..

J_k400x(40******104*000#1. ..

04m100.44040A4040;It4.4444,0(004,. , os*sw$4***Ww4v4tom;14:;;#441.w

.

****4444****P4444014$4.4toow.$44*

hA1

I

4*0444*W440040400,44riWt4(ril,;;440*44,44,04,+$0:;04714(441.;444.4.,41.444**44q*#*wy.orol,444;,utN040,4,1oti4,0,44totc:40,(.w44.40,441'

*040#iit***44444444011(W;444444444141(4

#14140044**14101444044400*14$0,

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMSi INC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPS

CONNECTICUT STA%410E ASSESSMENT - IITH GRADE APRIL 191?

BJECTIVE'A ,STOD;NT DEqNSTRATES AGILITY TO MULTIPLY AND DIVIDE FRACTIONS, ETC, ..

CF GROUP .3:-.. CF AMPLE

*IFR-VA4UE

. 0 VD 20 30 40 50 60 70 , 80' .90 100

0-vALuE. 'yALUE EFFECT Er4ECTI, 5I/E4: l'

REPORTING GROUP .,,,,1,,,,I,,,1,,,d,,,,I,41,1,,,,I,,,,16,4,d,,,,,,

12,2.7' r, o.82 2362 ALL STUDENTS 01140o*****#f***/***********p$114

..0?--SE:;( OF THE STUDENT 4.6WRO1

fl.18',___C99_. C,90_-0160-1021---------__MALE . ........4______________***4,4440kw.4*,***6***cct*4w*$(41,ro

T771,2 145 -40,65

OF TH-.1. CCMOUNITY

1403 1,33 2,614

7,4.51 1.t)3 244/140 1,55 1.13

'6G1Or4i CF THE STATE

;, 634

1.35 658

1'46 , 654

44.44.44

0POO

BIG CITIES

FRINGE CITIES

MEDIUM CITIES

SMALLER PLACES

0,45 1.33* FOALE #4

1

144 3,264 1.26

7465 MA 2,37 L1,77

1,6,4t,15.,7!.12 2.03' ..1'.15 1.62

73,73 2.50 1.46 240:

76,U 4.22 5,61 4.C9 ,

***4 40$#,444***#444044#****wo,

, I

4osoltim#40foll#mt4f,14,Sy. .,1....L. -4444**41144*041,t***44o4,444444****444 4

witot410,00o*,44'4$40**44tolo4m4011 ',

*************ow40444444 #41044$4111#044 : "

357 .RESCUE

352 CLLP ED SERVICE

356. ACES

329 PROJECT LEARN

65 NiRSES

Act*T4i4***041**0***44444Wri**4444$41Wlig,;00401***w4t**m4mo440,*014;4401041444*4011004#0440441041414i14O44,4101444;04144i**

44044444401400100*0001444414C0410144401440#1044441,0411*4114#440W4444$41

.01.10.

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING, GROUPS

Ct:NNECICUT 3TATEolDE ASSESS:4ENT'- I1TH GRADE - APRIL 1Q77

01,1JECTIVE 10 ST0j:'NT D:MJNSTRATES WORKIW KNNLEDGE CF AREA AND PERIVEXER _P-VALUE

Sf., OF , UOP S[:.OF SAMPLE

P-VALUE P-VALUE` EFf:CT EFFCI 514E REPORTING GROUP

_ , .......,

7205 C.76 -, 2,362 ALL, STUDENTS

i

..'

P....-SEX OF THE STUDENT

78 A 6 C " ) f ) . 0 1 4 0 59 1021__

66.39 0)7 .4,564 0,44 1339

0 10, 20 30 10 50 '-60 70 60 90 101

*4********************144**y****,4*44

$I

I.

I

MAL; 0*****4444044*****444444444004144 ---FEMALE 447444.444444444444444440444144,4444441444 1

L...- , ' !

144044144444**$.0fs1ilv;* ... ___

W***q.,4****41044440;4044444444$ft

*****04010LM****$4444,11401444$41411W04

111(4,04$04$*#440414114Wo**04444*#4,0*

0440,4004114**40,41W4,44 #000,(441,4444*

44444440114*44444*4044441,4V*4410+;4444

10;44,6 00444 #4i*L*)0Wit1100414#41(*040. ____

4444.011144000444****44444144041,44444001 . '

0*******44p44444#0144!4;444#44fft0

401144404**041040044$1044e4044$10111441

----S1ZE OF THE'C3mmuN1TY.......

',2,7C ._2_,,.4.02 ___;;C.2441_,..2,68 X416 I:)IG CITIES

74;9 1.31 1.15 1,1:, 0:3 FRINGE CITIES

4 75449, 1.lb 3.054 4. 1,07 ()IA) MEDIUM CITIES

'7Z.N,

1 4 6, 4,92* 1,05 654 SMALLER PLACES

t. ' :

..-!r-R:GION CF THE ST),7E ......

,7E.55 1.29 30.1* .123 :357 RESCUE

76SA '\ 1.57 5.604 1,50 ' 352 COP ED SERVICE

_77,56 1_,1.71)____,,4,614, _1,21. 425. C:C 4

71.46 2.27 -1,49 1,0 363 Aii'A

' 34,66 2.01 1.73 1,81 329 PkUJECT LEARN

821.69 106 9,741 210 65 PARSES

3

-

-NATIONAL :VALUATION Sr'i1'EmS4 11C4 C3'aEN7 ANALYSIS BY REPJRUNG GROUPS,.(4ChL,CTICul ASSENT 11TH GqA% - APRIL 1977

00":J.ECT:vE 11444,';T°."T °P:q(11T0r4L'IL.:`,1,111II.4.c.-av:22T mtafeum

AS OF. CROUP $20W SAP-VALtiCP-VALUE FJECT EFFECT t;ti

,,,

o ALL STuDEAS.

oF:Tri,E 5.TU0:AT

11.'7 4.0041 0'44_ 1-3.034 0,34 a

PM VALUE

0 10 20 30, 40 50. 60 .70 40 90 100REPORTING. GAUP 1.1.11....1.....k...1...6.1....i....1441.14,..

*****04******410*!*********01,00144$14441404c,

11

i

O A.

O

-..-.....+..m., .. O*00401**IMM 0004 44 01#**,#$*t 4441$4414 4**F# SILArAr.

4.40/0 ii4404111414414114$44 44;15444C MI 41$014444 4

--- -SIZE CF 70, COOJNITY ,: .,1,

$;,,7' ,\.2,1.)..__.10,::*______::o 4_41. 6

LL'4:ii C'79 , .1.0' G ,7V 634d').1 ti' C.76, , 3.211 0.1.6 ,, used34Y. C.94 ,' 2f 741, 0,75' ° 654

_MALE _L.

F.:4ALC

EAT, CITIES y**00,040',44#440******141,0FqINGE CITES

. 444**********44104444(44****4440,414im***0,MED1,N CITIES *******04********44r4'4400,41mw4140,1441440*4

PLACES

---- :G:i;N U THE STAFF., .

6,'..) 1.19, .,. 2*704 1,11 557b ' , 'iESCYJE .

'i'..ao 1.14 C.Y. ) 1.C7 352'. tow) 'i:0 sERyICE ,

_ "4- (.66__ .3.61*. C,'E4L.4(a. _4 Cl,:C,r7.,r..,... 1.43 1.61 1.22 3:6 ACES ,

:' ,.53" 1.C7 2:664 1 1.02 3i9 Pi,:JJECT LEARN1.001 1.67 44134, 1

'

68 L 65 ,NAR$5.. , n '

kkk*****(4************* 044#004#14400*

********4444********** *#4(444;4444o***4r;k441401,400***k4044103,1rk 0440**4440104$10

ko1r0c,04414044flrkruiVk?14100,441kt$11L__,,,...-114104444114411:044V110041444044444#44-41$1444440$

p i1koW*********10400490.044k44M4011440k**10$10

kri#104$4k******11.1014k4****.#00644410kkk.

AoDm

b$

NAT1CNAL 7.JALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY1 PORTING GROUPSC'EcT1c,LT STATE0I DE ASSES;.NENT ..,1:1,TJ(24p1- APRIL -1977'

. . -.

.,

'I '

,,_. 02.1:CTIVE__11 ,1,,fl NT ').:0,7"LfiLtaLoyl pit Fi)rF (1; ,,77';MC /UNITS OF YcA.Suqr. .

,...

P- VALUESE CF GROUP SZ ;., afoqu: 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 lb 80 90 100

1...1..a.....1....1.,..i....1....j..,.1,t.1,...

,2.1) 'C ,7 4 2262 ALL STUOENTi. k

k

40440********0444$40,44*****4****44t0044/A

CF Th':. STUNT °,.

.... , .

"'

41

.C,75 _5,04 C.55,_._1021 _______mAL -- _:_,____i___L.1o',2 -5.0b 0.424 1339 FiiIALE

f'-vALE EFFECT EFrE:T SilE GROUP

---SIZE OF TE CjMnNITy_.... 2.11 !1:1,134_,L, 44'11-L416

1.24 '1.32 634f 507 1.4 , 0,6d+ 656

1.27 3.441;1! 0'.59 664

---,:crJn 'CT 'HE STATE:,3 2.73* 1,39 357 REScUE

1.3k, C 04-#-CD1.174 :;;CA ,4.04 4b'j

1,15 '1.0 3561.4,11 ,1.79 2.12 1.t20g'..19 3.57 3.19 3,4d '65

)((**#40410100***V410*1400644444$001.01°M0-*W0111*****#100*********1**qt4P444444144$

'd .

' . '

__BIG CVIES ' ..Wrtr.riO!v,***Irk*rciPirtiMtitOrPo.,....ERIN4 CilL:S ktor*,00q0**lori*o***40**w0Aro$4400ifiva '

.NEDIV CITIES , '0440.440k444444044440011Fi4444**044SMALLER PLACES . 444r4olar;:cr4r444o944,44$4444444444444444444

ir

i .

, 1

t,04tt0004*;1/4 0,*4*4*4.,41W,44#44soontas4.',:

*****4#44100444,4040;it464.4.7-4Iikifiq '

0,:-IC 2....___L_ *0****V0400**#';0*;0$44#10444'41141F4t.._. I __7-17"'"--ACi.S , ' , . **44410411**4440410111,0004140440,4#e41140

,

PROJECT LEARN 444.041**44,,,40044**4444*****f4444,s44.4****4NASES,

., . *444444**********04444***444444440*****, .

r.

Ili

A

I(

NAT1CNAL, EVALUATION SYSTEMSANCI; CONTENT ANALVSIS'DY ,REPORTING GROUPSCCOECT1CYT STATEWIDE ASSESPEO 11TH GRADE .APRIt 1977

4008.4a/00,00.

.-.t.._.__......_.,OBJECTIVg..13osmaaNLrR4Tjia..t.j.Z...L..L.LJIITYTO N .RPRET HARTA GRAPH

" P -VALUESt CF ' GROUP se'cl, tiAMPL, P 20 30 40 50 60 70' dO 90' 100

-P- VALUE, P.-VALUE'' EFFACT EFFECT Sl:C REPORT;NG GROUP " iti0i40;1.1"11""1"11410'.11 sooslooedaws,4411,41444 o

4

R3,23 C433 '/362 IL STUDENTS

4.-SEX OF 11:E STU6ENT;a:1VA..1021 MALE

:139 ' lEMAL,E

,i4le.-SIZE OF TH4 C3MmuIirTY:106. II;.2 416 CITIES.

94.72 0.50 4.4d4'..4$44,' .63 FRINGC,CITIES')4.65 0,50 1.414-,',01,44qeC 458. NI.DIUA CITIES

.

011111410'****044,4*******0***$ffi**010#4Si$**41,b4

,

I

41**tfi*******1100,1141***;*4***44044$$Clittilk$04"4 0014,044410441,04*****4001440400141444040

94.46' , (155 ; 4A24t. 404,; 654, SMALLER PLACES

rF THE STATE

S4.17 C.620 ;7.93 t458. 357C. Mr* 352

55,,C8

13.12 0.15'94.sc col .1,27' oen96.92 C.C6 3.6941 CiE7

RESCUE

,COOP ED SERVICE

C$'C.4C2S

PROJECT LEARN

NARSES

J007.1Wfv.144**00.441004/1114#0$tpito*4iO4..__..i.7

*$.41044.0110044t*Ip0,41/4#44;c4p444,004444401*

,4*11441404********114411411.4044t4oitt4444404404Ip014414$1444y******441004411014$44****44***0041

k . .. .. aP.M.

44104440******0**440,4404,*0.,$4,44osivi#44;**4404**st****4444#04,144,44*044$'

$44**444#44**000140;;Ont4fw$04ory4:4414.#f*'404**4!1400$6;14*#714)44440$044w**«Wit********44444***411;4****400144441is;0444444v

.

4411544**444**********41010#01404.$4444;4!****Itt;4$4

#

NATIONAL EVALUATION-SY gMblICe CONTENT'ANAaStS BY REPORTING GROUPS.CCNNECTICUT STA E' ASSESSMENT 11Ti4A21; 107,

$Tu ENT iONSTRATES A WTI, TO SOLVE'W02,0 PROBLEM 01.

7 -*/ .P.NALUE0-. 10 io, 40 70 80 90 100'

1r+!±1,44.11;461ets114444Triso144.41.4.414s4414444

1

**41§440****440 614*******:404$$4-

alminulio44441001144.4

SE F GROUP OF SA'NPL, P..VALUE'' 1:6V ALUE EFFECT EFFECT

, 7C491 4.73 a362

-=--SEX OF ThE STUDENT

5139* 0154._ IQ21 SALE *******4***************44404,4 44*96484 0.91 r4.071, 0;44 1.334' FEMAL *******rit4O*4100$4*****44 1/4****

0 ,

REIRTIN6 GROUP

ALL STUDENTS

-

. I

---51ZE OF THE COMMOUY .01416 :BIGACT16

'4)4f I.. 1,24 1.6i 1.C8 634 FkINGE CITIES

74. C,93 3.1!111, 4.52 658 M DIU14 CITIES74. 1.45 .,1406 PLACE$

72(4174,63

_75,3371.C3

414#10044*****0*,4*0**0*444fl 404*00444440444,044*44***.04414444,4**4

$1444144g********44,01s4444*/**41-00$4401010114,444*********440444;4W4*4*44

CF THE STATE -771.66 1.50 1.E1 357 ,.a

1.46 3,14 1.39

2.05 0,12 I.E.' 35872,73 1. 1 '1.31 loU 32,mas 2.61 Y.944 Zstiti ES

s

3

RESCV.:

CCOr) ED

Cx.0 Lam_ACcS

PROJ'i.CT LEARN

NARSES

. ,.

S$041*04,1441 $. ***1,444tC0411V4 k441-1r;A4 $04, 140#4;444474444.*

_044W40(411****4tV4***t#t*4;0(M#y**0.,:f...11404******4444,444404444010,410441WWi$41***:444.4004.4444444/000440,1'

W144V4441444#01444,41414.444444*440410#441

0

.,

1,. .,C.,:. NATIONAL cVALUA71QN SYSTEMS 1NC. .CONTENT ANALYSIS BY RdeuRTAG'als1.- ''.-. ccri)Acric47 STATE/10'E A55ESSAZNT - 11TH GPM' APRIL 1977 .., 444%.0.4011..1101114,40 4. , '

. '

- - ......QcJgctik .1.4. ,,Tw!:,,I 1-,-.61.. ,00.-.;..ulicl /1 PP, J'7 'Iori)._2.111,1,f?:,Aly.s.1 'will ro __L_.. . :t, -. alfaifa...c.0&;.....,1p4mumwmia Jghter..A.444.16.4 -.---

Jr,,,.'. 5,,.. CF C.,.OUP SE CH SAN,-,Li;

p.t.vALw!

f r,pr40 L. ,FLcT EI:Fcr ,s1./.z, h.PORTINC,UOUP ,

leS,

6z43 1 (.71

4. ...4 X' OP' 7rE STUD t7 _ 66.75......_1,C7____.4.654_ 0661_1C21

A7...,;7 #.36' -3.511 0.4)% 1339

23d --nLJ:ST1J4,4,

MALE

FE;IALE

0.*Ale

l'i5CCOun1Ty

. 1.0b14.111. 1.14 2.521 1,C2 656,t4.03 1.37 1.00 tiA

----,7G101 CF THE STATE. t

, 1.39 3.724 1,30. , 357,

c 1,74 2.7d 1:.57 J52 COuP ED '1A1P,CE,,'

AUSPALECT LEO

-NAt2SEA,

91(.; CIT1S

FilMEmt.3.+J1 CITIES

PLACES

1,3Z 1.61 .

52.374 1,0(3 0,52. ;1291. 60.54 5.03 4,46 4.e4 '

1

0 10 20 30 , 46 50j 60 70 80 90 100

.********00**0,44,4104**4444

I

4444,*'4,*****0***00**;40,*4

,401

(444041(**44**444********* '1*1440004w*644 $4*.w400t*#4444,404040,10,044140040q*,$4*4 ",4w,404,4444410104004*****#*4**

kt444444pcf.44*****440040*4*,441.40$f442444:10,44.4o41,4444,./P,4441.4440.0:444444+04444444444;if.kg40,:q4oe,..#41441,4441444444***1044041444.444;44;,9***4444014444.404440M44u,q4,4444# ##/444 4044w 44414 4444444444444

NATIONAL ,:VALUATION STEMS,, INC. -7 CNTENT ANALYSIS BY kPQRTING GRV.435.C.CNNECT1CuT STATEiIuE ASS:SV,ENy 117H RAOE - APRIL 1977

;, 0

_.:.:3JECTIvE,15:,,a0 ,),'''N';'' r. 0.1w1 Pr. n5-":1S!C C,FfiofTfilt CONCEPTS.

P-VALUC'0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 , AO 90, 100;LAMING AUP

5E CF kuP SZ 'F SAMPLEP-.(ALU:: P-vAt(JE EFFECT

471 W;5

Tr,;, st4:NT'

U1,2'

1.2C C.

.p4A9 '

MMOIM

. 1.64

1,6)

!.,11,62

PZ,1C

1,42

1139

. 041663

,

1,e9 3,94*

C, siSTALC.

357

2.42: .352

2.:)3 -4,74*

144 4 ,.,-3Z9.461:14 5.92 5.74" .!.'6

375 r.

11"441.41 16.46,41,1,i1.4.4116.01'

' I

01#*********q*0 4+0

ALL STUDENTS44,*$*************°41"1

MALE.iY

31G

FtMGt: CITIESREDIu;4 C1TIE511

SWIER

PESCuE

:3D,f ED 3ERvICE

AUSPRu.:ECT LEARN'

NARSESr,

;11%***40011040,0411144414

it$1411441.464*,?.****t

4$440.0****404441004***4

4.0.11.414i04401046444004 20441t0444*4**4***004,04#4

a , I

,4140444****m 1100$40440(4:$44.44100s4 1.1o44.4c444404*'i4A44,f44.k44t,4oTwrito40,w444 #oiwit444 #141.0441404******44404044#544.4*$

44040.44444111000*404i

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 166 019 .SE 025 480 · 2014-02-11 · Page Comparing 13-Year-Old Reporting...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME ED 166 019 .SE 025 480 · 2014-02-11 · Page Comparing 13-Year-Old Reporting...