MATHEMATICS: A CLOSER LOOK



2005-2006

Achievement and College Readiness

Data Analysis

Your School

[pic]

Prepared by

SMC Curriculum

Mathematics: A Closer Look

Your School 2005-2006

Figure 1.1

[pic]

CIM Mathematics Overall Results

Figure 1.2

[pic]

➢ Historically Your School’s CIM Mathematics assessment results have been flat, as seen in Figure 1.1. Over the last two years however, Your School has seen a seven percentage point gain in achievement. This gain has narrowed the gap between Your School’s achievement scores and the state average.

➢ CIM assessment scores can be broken down into five categories. Scores corresponding to these categories can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Figure 1.2, over a third of Your School’s students fell into the “Nearly Meets” category. This indicates a high potential for future growth in achievement.

➢ Note that only 20% of students fall into the “Low” and “Very Low” categories.

Sophomore Class Placement

One of the first things that should be considered when looking at the test scores for Your School is the level of mathematics that students are enrolled in as sophomores. Students in Geometry during their sophomore year are considered at grade level. Algebra and Pre-Algebra would be considered below grade level while Algebra II and higher is above grade level.

Figure 1.3

[pic]

➢ Sixty-two percent of the 2005-2006 sophomore class was enrolled in math courses at or above grade level.

➢ Only 10% of the 2005-2006 sophomore class was enrolled in math courses two or more years below grade level.

Achievement and Class Placement

There is a strong correlation between the level of mathematics a student is enrolled in and his or her success on the state achievement test. State studies have shown that students just one year below grade level pass the CIM Mathematics Assessment at a rate of only 12%. Having students at or above grade level in their sophomore year is key to attaining a high rate of achievement.

Figure 1.4

[pic]

➢ As seen in Figure 1.3, nearly half of Your School’s sophomores were enrolled in Geometry. This group passed a rate that was below state average for similarly placed students (Figure 1.4).

➢ Students enrolled in Algebra at Your School met standards at a rate more than twice the state average for similarly placed students.

Your School’s Sub-Populations

Not only is it important to examine overall achievement for Your School, but also to look at the achievement of different sub-populations. The sub-populations that will be examined for Your School include: Gender, English Language Learners (ELL), Special Education, Economically Disadvantaged (Low SES), Talented and Gifted (TAG), Hispanic and African American.

Figure 1.5

[pic]

Gender

Figure 1.6

[pic]

Figure 1.7

[pic]

➢ Male achievement has remained consistent over time (Figure 1.7) while female achievement has experienced sizable growth over the last two years (Figure 1.6).

Figure 1.8

[pic]

Figure 1.9

[pic]

➢ As stated previously, class placement is a strong indicator of success on the Mathematics State Assessment. Seventy percent of Your School’s females were enrolled in courses at or above grade level for 2005-2006 (Figure 1.8) while just over half of Your School’s males were enrolled in courses at or above grade level.

English Language Learners

Figure 1.10

[pic]

Figure 1.11

[pic]

➢ Figure 1.11 shows that 87% of sophomore ELL students at Your School were enrolled in courses below grade level in 2005-2006. Achievement for this sub-population was consistently higher than the state average.

Special Education

Figure 1.12

[pic]

Figure 1.13

[pic]

➢ Figure 1.13 shows that 91% of sophomore Special Education students at Your School were enrolled in courses below grade level in 2005-2006. Achievement for this sub-population has been consistently higher than the state average since 2002-2003.

Economically disadvantaged

Figure 1.14

[pic]

Figure 1.15

[pic]

➢ Figure 1.15 shows that Economically Disadvantaged students are normally distributed throughout the math course offerings with the mean student one year below grade level in Algebra.

Talented and Gifted

Figure 1.16

[pic]

Figure 1.17

[pic]

➢ Figures 1.16 shows that achievement for Talented and Gifted students in mathematics has declined in recent years. State averages for Talented and Gifted students are only available for 2004-2005 (95.7%). Your School’s TAG students achieve at a far lower rate.

Hispanic

Figure 1.18

[pic]

Figure 1.19

[pic]

➢ As shown in Figure 1.18, Hispanic achievement rates at Your School have been stagnant over the last five years but remain above state average.

African American

Figure 1.20

[pic]

Figure 1.21

[pic]

➢ African American students make up approximately 5% of Your School’s student population. Small sample size likely contributes to the fluctuations from year to year seen in Figure 1.20.

Reading and Writing:

A Closer Look

Your School 2005-2006

Figure 2.1

[pic]

Figure 2.2

[pic]

CIM Reading Overall Results

Figure 2.3

[pic]

➢ Reading achievement scores at Your School have remained generally consistent over the last five years with students achieving slightly above state average (Figure 2.1).

➢ CIM assessment scores can be broken down into five categories. Scores corresponding to these categories can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Figure 2.3, only 16% of Your School’s students achieved far below the state standard.

CIM Writing Overall Results

Figure 2.4

[pic]

➢ While the state average in Writing achievement has been steadily growing, Your School’s scores have trended downward from a high of 65% in 2002-2003 to a current low of 56% for 2005-2006 (Figure 2.2).

➢ Figure 2.4 shows that a shift in students from nearly meeting to meeting is imperative for Your School’s future growth in Writing achievement.

Sophomore Class Placement

English classes at Your School have been classified into three levels of placement. For the purposes of this analysis any sophomore placed below English 10 or an equivalent English offering is considered below grade level. Honors English, though not considered above grade level, is the advanced track for sophomore students.

Figure 2.5

[pic]

➢ It is important to note that while the majority of sophomores are enrolled in grade level English courses, there are twice as many enrolled in the advanced track compared to those enrolled in courses below grade level (Figure 2.5).

Achievement and Class Placement

Although state data for Reading and Writing is not available to show a direct relationship between class placement and achievement, careful analysis of Your School’s data shows distinct differences in achievement levels based on class placement.

Figure 2.6

[pic]

Figure 2.7

[pic]

➢ The decline in Writing achievement scores at Your School over the last five years should lead to examining possible program deficits. Over half of Your School’s sophomore students are enrolled in English 10 courses. With only 46% of this group passing the Writing assessment, writing instruction in English 10 offerings may need to be examined (Figure 2.7).

Your School’s Sub-Populations

Not only is it important to examine overall achievement for Your School, but also to look at the achievement of different sub-populations. The sub-populations that will be examined for Your School include: Gender, English Language Learners (ELL), Special Education, Economically Disadvantaged (Low SES), Talented and Gifted (TAG), Hispanic and African American.

Figure 2.8

[pic]

Figure 2.9

[pic]

Gender - Reading

Figure 2.10

[pic]

Figure 2.11

[pic]

➢ Females consistently outperform males in reading achievement at Your School. Note, however, that males have tended to achieve higher than the state average.

Gender - Writing

Figure 2.12

[pic]

Figure 2.13

[pic]

➢ The gender discrepancy in achievement found in Writing is consistent with the gender discrepancy in Reading achievement.

➢ Note that in the year 2004-2005 conditionally meets were no longer included in the meet and exceed category.

Gender – Class Placement

Figure 2.14

[pic]

Figure 2.15

[pic]

➢ As seen in Figures 2.10 through 2.13, the female population at Your School achieves higher than the male population. The graphs above show that a large portion of females are placed in higher courses than males.

English Language Learners Achievement

Figure 2.16

[pic]

Figure 2.17

[pic]

➢ Over the last five years, English Language Learners at Your School have lagged behind state averages for Reading and Writing compared to other ELL students across the state.

English Language Learners

Class Placement

Figure 2.18

[pic]

➢ For the purposes of this analysis ELL and ESL courses were considered to be below English 10 level. The content in these courses most likely does not cover all CIM-level state standards in reading and writing and therefore leads to low achievement in these two areas.

Special Education Achievement

Figure 2.19

[pic]

Figure 2.20

[pic]

➢ Your School’s Special Education students have shown little growth over the past five years in Reading and Writing, but do remain consistently close to the state average for this sub-group.

Special Education Class Placement

Figure 2.21

[pic]

➢ Similar to the ELL sub-population, a high percentage of Special Education students do not take courses at English 10 or above. This is a leading indicator of low student achievement.

Economically disadvantaged Achievement

Figure 2.22

[pic]

Figure 2.23

[pic]

➢ Other than 2003-2004, Reading and Writing achievement for Economically Disadvantaged students has been comparable to the state average for this sub-population.

➢ Figure 2.22 shows that Reading achievement has been flat across time while Figure 2.23 shows that Writing achievement is declining.

Economically disadvantaged Achievement

Figure 2.24

[pic]

➢ A majority of Your School’s Economically Disadvantaged students were placed at or above grade level in 2005-2006.

➢ Referring back to Figure 2.5, 31% of the overall population took Honors English courses while only 4% of Economically Disadvantaged were enrolled in an Honors English course.

Talented and Gifted Achievement

Figure 2.25

[pic]

Figure 2.26

[pic]

➢ Your School’s Talented and Gifted population has shown strong achievement over time.

Talented and Gifted Class Placement

Figure 2.27

[pic]

➢ Over two-thirds of Your School’s TAG students took Honors English courses in 2005-2006 while none were enrolled in courses below grade level.

Hispanic Achievement

Figure 2.28

[pic]

Figure 2.29

[pic]

➢ Hispanics at Your School have achieved at a far higher rate than Hispanics across the state in both Reading and Writing.

➢ Despite high achievement rates in Reading, over the last two years the trend in Reading achievement has been downward (Figure 2.28).

Hispanic Class Placement

Figure 2.30

[pic]

➢ A majority of Hispanic students at Your School were placed in grade level courses.

➢ Note that only 7% of Hispanic students enrolled in Honors English.

African American Achievement

Figure 2.31

[pic]

Figure 2.32

[pic]

➢ Much like Hispanic students at Your School, African Americans achieved at considerably higher levels in Reading than their peers across the state (Figure 2.31).

African American Class Placement

Figure 2.33

[pic]

➢ Note that 28% of Your School’s African Americans were placed in Honors English courses while only 10% were placed in courses considered below grade level.

Science: A Closer Look

Your School 2005-2006

Figure 3.1

[pic]

CIM Science Overall Results

Figure 3.2

[pic]

➢ Your School’s CIM Science assessment results have remained very close to the state average over the past five years (Figure 3.1). Your scores have bounced back and forth, both above and below average.

➢ CIM assessment scores can be broken down into five categories. Scores corresponding to these categories can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Figure 3.2, the largest group of Your School’s sophomores met (42%) and the next largest group nearly met (26%).

➢ Note that only 15% of students fall into the “Low” and “Very Low” categories.

Sophomore Class Placement

Your School offers three class offerings which sophomores can enroll in: Physical Science, Biology, and Chemistry. The CIM Science Assessment’s testable topics are in the areas of Physical Science, Life Science, and Earth & Space Science. Approximately 33% of the items on the assessment fall into each category. It is crucial for students to have completed at least Physical Science and Biology Courses before attempting the assessment when possible.

Figure 3.3

[pic]

➢ Eighty-three percent of Your School’s sophomores have completed a minimum of Biology, giving them a stronger chance of having been introduced to the state standards which are assessed.

Achievement and Class Placement

There is a strong association between the level of science a student is enrolled in and his or her success on the state achievement test. Your School’s results remain consistent with most schools across the state with Chemistry students passing at the highest rate.

Figure 3.4

[pic]

➢ Figure 3.4 illustrates the strong correlation between being enrolled in higher-level science courses and the passing rate on the Science CIM Assessment. Eighty-four percent of Chemistry students passed the assessment.

➢ Physical Science is an offering that most students should complete during 8th or 9th grade. Seventeen percent of your sophomores were enrolled in this course.

Your School’s Sub-Populations

Not only is it important to examine overall achievement for Your School, but also to look at the achievement of different sub-populations. The sub-populations that will be examined for Your School include: Gender, English Language Learners (ELL), Special Education, Economically Disadvantaged (Low SES), Talented and Gifted (TAG), Hispanic and African American.

Figure 3.5

[pic]

Gender

Figure 3.6

[pic]

Figure 3.7

[pic]

➢ Both the female and male populations in Your School have performed better than the state average over the past three years. The males have maintained a slightly higher passing rate than the females during most years.

Figure 3.8

[pic]

Figure 3.9

[pic]

➢ The male and female populations at Your School were very consistent in their distribution in the three science course offerings in 2005-06.

English Language Learners

Figure 3.10

[pic]

Figure 3.11

[pic]

➢ Figure 3.11 shows only 14% of sophomore ELL students at Your School were enrolled in Chemistry while over 40% were enrolled in the lowest general science class offering in 2005-2006. Achievement for this sub-population has remained nearly even with the state average over the past four years.

Special Education

Figure 3.12

[pic]

Figure 3.13

[pic]

➢ Note that over half of Your School’s special education students were enrolled in the lowest level of science offered in 2005-06 (Figure 3.13). This could be a strong contributing factor to the low rate of success on the Science assessment for this group.

Economically disadvantaged

Figure 3.14

[pic]

Figure 3.15

[pic]

➢ A larger percentage of the economically disadvantaged students at Your School are in lower-level science class offerings than the general population. This sub-population has fallen below the state average repeatedly over the past five years.

Talented and Gifted

Figure 3.16

[pic]

Figure 3.17

[pic]

➢ Figures 3.16 shows that achievement for Talented and Gifted students appears to have reached a plateau with nearly all students passing the assessment. State averages for Talented and Gifted students are only available for 2004-2005 (96.8%).

Hispanic

Figure 3.18

[pic]

Figure 3.19

[pic]

➢ Hispanic achievement rates on the Science Assessment at Your School have been much higher than the state average for the past five years.

African American

Figure 3.20

[pic]

Figure 3.21

[pic]

➢ Figure 3.21 shows that nearly one-third of Your School’s African American sophomores were enrolled in Physical Science, a course below grade level. Even with low placement, African American students at Your School have faired considerably better than the state average for the past five years.

College Readiness at Your School

Graduating Class of 2006

In order to be considered college-ready by the Oregon University System (OUS), a senior must graduate with the following:

➢ Four Years of English

➢ Three Years of Social Studies

➢ Three Years of Math Including Algebra II

➢ Two Years of Science Including a Lab Science

➢ Two Years of Foreign Language

➢ GPA of 3.0 or Greater (All Oregon Public Universities except SOU and WOU require 3.0 GPA. SOU and WOU require 2.75 GPA)

Your School’s 2006 graduating class consisted of 257 students. The students who graduated met the state graduation requirements and the requirements for Your School. Analysis of a student’s transcript leads to determining if the Oregon University System considers the student college-ready. The information in the following report stems from careful analysis of each graduate.

Figure 4.1

[pic]

Figure 4.1 shows that while 33% of Your School’s graduating class of 2006 was qualified to enter the Oregon University System, 67% of the 257 students were not.

College Readiness by Requirement

Students may be college-ready in some areas but fail to meet other requirements. Most students meet requirements in areas that are strictly guided by state and school graduation requirements such as Language Arts/English.

Figure 4.2

[pic]

➢ It is important to note that only 43% of Your School’s graduates had a Grade Point Average (GPA) of 3.0 or higher, allowing them to be considered college-ready under this requirement.

➢ After Grade Point Average, the requirements that held the most number of students back from being ready for college in the OUS system were Mathematics and Foreign Language. As seen in Figure 4.2, less than 60% completed Algebra II and only two-thirds of students completed a minimum of two years of foreign language.

Number of Deficiencies

Many graduates of Your School had multiple requirements that were holding them back from being considered college-ready by the Oregon University System standards.

Figure 4.3

[pic]

➢ It is important to note that one quarter of all graduating students at Your School are college-ready deficient in only one category. Correcting this alone would nearly double the number of students graduating college-ready.

➢ Nearly one-fourth of all graduates in 2006 at Your School were deficient in at least three OUS college-readiness categories.

Barriers for Non-College-Ready Students

While 33% of the students at Your School graduated college-ready, two-thirds did not. The remainder of this analysis will focus on the deficits of the non-college-ready graduates. Remember that most of the students now under consideration are deficient in multiple categories.

Figure 4.4

[pic]

➢ Out of the 172 students that were not college-ready, 85% lacked the minimum 3.0 GPA required by OUS standards.

➢ In conjunction with the information presented in Figure 4.2, it is clear that in order to increase the number of graduating students who are college-ready, Your School needs to examine ways to encourage students to take more Math and Foreign Language courses.

Sub-Population College Readiness

Not only is it important to examine overall college readiness for Your School, but also to look at the college readiness of different sub-populations. The sub-populations that will be examined for Your School include: Gender, English Language Learners (ELL), Special Education, Economically Disadvantaged (Low SES), Talented and Gifted (TAG), Hispanic and African American.

Figure 4.5

[pic]

Gender

Figure 4.6

[pic]

Figure 4.7

[pic]

➢ Figures 4.6 and 4.7 show a 10-percentage point discrepancy between male and female college-readiness. This warrants further analysis over time to see if this trend remains constant.

Figure 4.8

[pic]

Figure 4.9

[pic]

➢ By far the largest barrier to college readiness for males is the category of Grade Point Average (Figure 4.8). Females also had GPA as their largest barrier.

➢ It is important to note that 76% of non-college-ready females failed to complete Algebra II compared to only 48% of non-college-ready males.

English Language Learners

Figure 4.10

[pic]

Figure 4.11

[pic]

➢ Seven of the eight ELL graduates that were considered non-college-ready did not meet the GPA or the minimum math requirements to enter the Oregon University System. Such a small population calls for following this statistic over time.

Special Education

Figure 4.12

[pic]

Figure 4.13

[pic]

➢ No special education students from Your School graduated ready to enter the Oregon University System. One hundred percent of the special education students did not complete two years of foreign language and most did not meet the GPA or Math requirements.

Economically disadvantaged

Figure 4.14

[pic]

Figure 4.15

[pic]

➢ Nearly 33% of Your School’s 2006 graduates were classified as economically disadvantaged. Only 14% of these students were ready to move into the university system. Every single graduate that fell in this classification and was not college-ready did not have the minimum 3.0 GPA.

Talented and Gifted

Figure 4.16

[pic]

Figure 4.17

[pic]

➢ Figure 4.17 shows that all ten TAG students who were not college-ready failed to meet the 3.0 GPA requirement. It must be noted that most of those students also fell short in other components of the OUS system.

Hispanic

Figure 4.18

[pic]

Figure 4.19

[pic]

➢ Hispanics make up the largest ethnic group at Your School. Twenty-three percent of the students in the 2006 graduating class were Hispanic. Of this group, only 24% could be classified as college-ready.

African American

Figure 4.20

[pic]

Figure 4.21

[pic]

➢ African American students make up approximately 5% of Your School’s student population. Small sample size necessitates following data over time to provide more reliable information.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download