USVI Public Records

Document text

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 330 579 SE 052 089 TITLE The State of Mathematics Achievement in Rhode Island: The Trial State Assessment at Grade Eight. INSTITUTION Educational Testing Service, Princetor, N.J.; National Assessment of Educational Progress, Princeton, NJ. SPONS AGENCY National Center for Education Statistics (ED), Washington, DC. REPORT NO ETS-21-ST-02; ISBN-0-88685-14-9 PUB DATE Jun 91 NOTE 146p.; The entire Report consists of a composite report, an eAecutive summary, and 40 separate reports for 37 states, DC, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, respectively; see SE 052 055-096. AVAILABLE FROM Individual state reports are available directly from the assessment division of the appropriate State Department of Education. PUB TYPE Statistical Data (110) -- Reports - Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; Calculators; *Educational Assessment; Family Environment; *Grade 8; Homework; Junior High Schools; *Mathematics Achievement; Mathematics Instruction; Mathematics Skills; Mathematics Tests; National Programs; Problem Solring; Public Schools; *State Programs; Student Attitudes; Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Qualifications; Television Viewing IDENTIFIERS National Assessment of Educational Progress; *Numeracy; *Rhode Island; State Mathematics Assessments; Trial State Assessment (NAM) ABSTRACT In 1990, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) included a Trial State Assessment (TSA); for the first time in the NAEP's history, voluntary state-by-state assessments (37 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and tne Virgin Islands) were made. The sample was designed to represent the 8th grade public school population in a state or territory. The 1990 TSA covered five mathematics content areas (numbers and operations; measurement; geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra and functions). In Rhode Island, 2,675 students in 51 public schools were assessed. This report describes the mathematics proficiency of Rhode Island eighth-graders, compares their overall performance to students in the Northeast region of the United States and the nation (using data from the NAEP national assessments), presents the average proficiency separately for the five content areas, and summarizes the performance of subpopulations (race/ethnicity, type of comrunity, parents' educational level, and gender). To provide a context for the assessment data, participating students, their mathematics teachers, and principals completed questionnaires which focused on: instructional content (curriculum coverage, amount of homework); delivery of math instruction (availability of resources, type); use of calculators; educational background of teachers; and conditions facilitating math learning (e.g., hours of television watched, absenteeism). On the NAEP math scale, Rhode Island students had an average proficiency of 260 compared to 261 nationwide. Many fewer students (Rhode Island-12%; U.S.-12%) appear to have acquired reasoning and problem solving skills. (JJK/CRW) NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS A aties e in RHODE ISLAND The Trial State Assessment at Grade Eight THE NATION'S REPORT- I CARD MT COPY AVAILABLE Ii S DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION ()Mc. C.t Edocaffonal Rivanarrn and Improvement E DUCA IONAL RF SOURCES INFORMATION CENTER tERICt n,s cimument ?las been rsivoducee fece.vect from me person or organqat.on orvnat,mg Mmor changes bare been midi. ImPtOve rekproductton quahty PontS of .44* 0, opo,orti Voted rnthrs dr:Ku ment do not beCessarrfre fopfeSent 0Mo/hi OE PI pos,ton or pohcy Prepared by Educational Testing Service under Contract with the National Center for Education Statistics Office of Educatiunal Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Education What is The Nation's Report Card? THE NATION'S REPORT CARD, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, history/geography. and other fields. By making objective information on student performance available to policymakers at the national, state, and local levels. NAEP is an integral part of our nation's evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only information related to academic achievement is collected under this program. NAEP guarantees the privacy of indivUlual students and their families. N AEP is a congressionally mandated project of the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible, by law, for carrying out the NAEP project through competitive awards to qualified organizations. NAEP reports directly to the Commissioner, who is altio responsible for providing continuing reviews, including validation studies and solicitation of public comment, on NAFT's conduct and usefulness. In 1988. Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGS) to formulate policy guidelines for NAF.P. The board is responsible for selecting the subject areas to be assessed, which may include adding to those specified by Congress; identifying appropriate achievement goals for each age and grade; developing assessment objectives; developing test specifications; designing the assessment methodology; developing guidelines and standards for data analysis and for reporting and disseminating results; developing standards and procedures for interstate. regional, and national comparison.... improving the form and use of the National Assessment; and ensuring that all items selected for use in the National Assessment are free from racial, cultural, gender, or regionJ bias. The National Assessment Governing Board Richard A. Boyd, Chairman Executive Director Martha Holden Jennings Foundation Cleveland, Ohio Phyllis Williamson Aldrich Curriculum Coordinator Saratoga-Warren B.O.C.E.S, Saratoga Springs. New York Francie Alexander Associate Superintendent California Department a Education Sacramento. California David P. Battini High School History Teacher Cain- -Durham High School Cairo, New York Parris C. Battle Teacher Horace Mann Elemental-) School Miami, Florida Mary R. Blanton Attorney Cromwell, Porter. Blanton & Blanton Salisbury, North Carolina Boyd W. Boehlje Attorney Gaass. Klyn. & Boehlje Pella, Iowa Linda R. Bryant Teacher Oreenway Middle School Teacher Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Honorabk Michael N. Castle Governor of Delaware Carve] State Office Building Wilmington, Delaware Honorabk Naomi K. Cohen State of Connecticut House of Representatives Legislative Office Building Hartford, Connecticut Chester E. Finn, Jr. pRifessor of Education and Public Policy Vanderbilt University Washington, D.C. Michael S. Glode Wyoming State Board ot Education Saratoga, Wyoming Christine Johnson Principal Abraham Lincoln High School Iknver. Colorado John Lindley Principal South Colby Elementary School Port Orchard. Washington Carl J. Moser Director of Schools The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod International Center St. Louis, Missouri Mark D. Mu.sick President Southern Regional Education ioard Atlanta, Georgia Honorable Carolyn Pollan Arkansas House of Representatives Fort Smith, Arkansas 3 Matthew W. Prophet. Jr. Superintendent Portland Oregon School District Portland, Oregon Hononibk William T. Randall Commissioner of Education State Department of Education Denver, Colorado Dorothy K. Rich President Home and School Institute Special Projects Office Washington, D.C. Honorable Richard W. Riley Attorney Nelson. Mullins. Riley and Scarborough Columbia. South Carolina Thomas Topuzes Attorney Law Offices of Frank Rogoiienski Coronado, California Herbert J. Walberg Professor of Education University of [Ili lois Chicago, Illinois Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement (Ex-Officio) U.S. Department of Education Washington. D.C. Roy Truby Executive Director. NAGS Washington. D.C. NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS The MTh of Mathemalies Achievement hi RHODE ISLAND The Trial State heeeesaseat at Grade Eight THE NATION'S REPORT CARD Report No: 21-ST-02 June 1991 Prepared by Educational Testing Service under Contract with the National Center for Education Statistics Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Edination U.S. Department of Education Lamar Alexander Secretary Office of Educational Research and Improvement Bruno V. Manno Acting Assistant Sectuary National Center for Education Statistics, Emerson J. Elliott Acting Commissioner FOR MORE INFORMATION: Copies of the 1990 NAEP Trial State Assessment's individual State reports are available directly from the participating States. For ordering information, please contact the assessment division of your State Department of Education. For ordain information on the composite report of results for the Nation and all State participants, or for single copies of the Executive Summary while supplies last, write: Education Information Branch Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Education 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20208-5641 or call 1-800-424-1616 (in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area call 202-2194651). Library of Contest Catalog Cani Number: 91-61478 LSBN: 0-88685-14-9 Ilse work upon which this publication is based was performed for the National Carter for Education Statistics. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.. by Educational Testing Service. Educational Thsting Service is an equal opponunity/affinnative action employer. Educaticvsal Testing Service, ETS, and art registemd trademarks of Educational Testing Service. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 7 Overview of the 1990 Trial State Assessment 8 This Report 9 Guidelines for Analysis 12 Profile of Rhode Island 14 Eighth-Grade School and Student Characteristics 14 Schools and Students Assessed 15 PART ONE How Proficient in Mathematics Are Eighth-Grade Students in Rhode Island Public Schools? 17 Chapter 1. Students' Mathematics Performance 18 Levels of Mathematics Proficiency 19 Content Area Performance 19 Chapter 2. Mathematics Performance by Subpopulations 24 Race Ethnicity 24 Type of Community 27 Parents' Education I vel 29 Gender 31 Content Area Performance 13 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT PART TWO Finding a Context for Understanding Students' Mathematics Proficiency 37 Chapter 3. What Are Students Taught in Mathematics'' 39 Curriculum Coverage 41 Mathematics Homework 42 Instructional Emphasis 45 Summary 48 Chapter 4. How Is Mathematics Instruction Delivered(' 49 Availability of Resources 49 Patterns in Classroom Instruction 51 Collaborating in Small Groups 54 Using Mathematical Objects 55 Materials for Mathematics Instruction 56 Summary 59 Chapter S. How Are Calculators Used' 60 The Availability of Calculators 62 The Use of Calculators 63 When To Use a Calculator 64 Summary 66 Chapter 6. Who Is Teaching Eighth-Grade Mathematics'' 67 Educational Background 68 Summary 71 Chapter 7. The Conditions Beyond School that Facilitate Mathematics Learning and Teaching 73 Amount of Reading Materials in the Home 74 Hours of Television Watched pa Day 75 Student Absenteeism 76 Students' Perceptions of Mathematics 78 Summary 79 PROCEDURAL APPENDIX 81 DATA APPENDIX 97 iv THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island NE NATION'S REPORT CARD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1985, Congress passed new legisiation for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAFP), which included -- for the first time in the project's history -- a provision authorizing voluntary state-by-state assessments on a trial basis, in addition to continuing its primary mission, the national az.,ssments that NAEP has conducted since its inception. As a result of the, legislation, thr, 1990 NAEP program included a Trial State Assessment Program in eighth-grade mathematics. Nalional assessments in mathematics, reading, writing, and science were conducted simultaneously in 1990 at gxades four, eight, and twelve. For the Trial State Assessment, eighth-grade public-school students were assessed in each of 37 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories in February 1990. The sample was carefully designed to represent the eighth-grade public-school population in a state or territory. Within each selected school, students were randomly chosen to participate in the program. Local school district personnel administered all assessment sessions, and the contractor's staff monitored 50 percent of the sessions as part of the quality assurance program designed to ensure that the sessions were being conducted uniformly. The results of the monitoring indicated a high degree of quality and uniformity across sessions. 8 THE 1990 NALP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island In Rhode Island, 51 public schools participated in the assessment. The weighted school participation rate was 97 percent, which means that all of the eighth-grade students in this sample of schools were representative of 97 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island. In each school, a random sample of students was selected to participate in the assessment. As estimated by the sample, 4 percent of the eighth-grade public-school population was classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP), while 12 percent had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). An IEP is a plan, written for a student who has been determined to be eligible for special education, that typically sets forth goals and objectives for the student and describes a program of activities and/or related services necessary to achieve the goals and objectives. Schools were permitted to exclude certain students from the assessment. To be excluded from the assessment, a student had to be categorized as Limited English Proficient or had to have an Individualized Education Plan and (in either case) be judged incapable of participating in the assessment. The students who were excluded from the assessment because they were categorized as LEP or had an IEP represented 2 percent and 5 percent of the population, respectively. In total, 2,675 eighth-grade Rhode Island public-school students were assessed. The weighted student participation rate was 93 percent. This means that the sample of students who took part in the assessment was representative of 93 percent of the eligible eighth-grade public-school student population in Rhode Island. Students' Mathematics Performance The average proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students from Rhode Island on the NAEP mathematics scale is 260. This proficiency is no different from that of students across the nation (261). Average proficiency on the NAEP scale provides a global view of eighth graders' mathematics achievement; however, it does not reveal specifically what the students know and can do in the subject. To describe the nature of students' proficiency in greater detail, NAEP used the results from the 1990 national assessments of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students to define the skills, knowledge, and understandings that characterize four levels of mathematics performance -- levels 200, 250, 300, and 350 -- on the NM'. P scale. 2 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island In Rhode Island, 96 percent of the eighth graders, compared to 97 percent in the nation, appear to have acquired drills involving simple additive reasoning and problem solving with whole numbers (level 200). However, many fewer students in Rhode Island (12 percent) and 12 percent in the nation appear to have acquired reasoning and problem-solving skills involving fractions, decimals, percents, elementary geometric properties, and simple algebraic manipulations (level 300). The Trial State Assessment included five content areas -- Numbers and Operations; Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and Functions. Students in Rhode Island performed comparably to students in the nation in all of these five content areas. Subpopulation Performance In addition to the overall results, the 1990 Trial State Assessment permits reportingon the performance of various subpopulations of the Rhode Island eighth-grade student population defined by race/ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender. ln Rhode Island: White students had higher average mathematics proficiency than did Black or Hispanic students. Further, a greater percentage of White students than Black or Hispanic students attained level 300. The results by type of community indicate that the average mathematics performance of the Rhode Island students attending schools in advantaged urban areas was higher than that of students attending schools in disadvantaged urban areas or areas classified as "other". In Rhode Island, the average mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students having at least one parent who graduated from college was approximately 36 points higher than that of students whose parents did not graduate from high school. The results by gender shov, that eighth-grade males in Rhode Island had a somewhat higher average mathematics proficiency than did eighth-grade females in Rhode Island. In addition, there was no difference between the percentages of males and females in Rhode Island who attained level 300. Compared to the national results, females in Rhode Island performed no differently from females across the country; males in Rhode Island performed no differently from males across the country. I 0 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 3 Rhode Island A Context for Understanding Students' Mathematics Proficiency Information on students' mathematics proficiency is valuable in and of itself, but it becomes more useful for improving instruction and setting policy when supplemented with contextual information about schools, teachers, and students. To gather such information, the students participating in the 1990 Trial State Assessment, their mathematics teachers, and the principals or other administrators in their schools were asked to complete questionnaires on policies, instruction, and programs. Taken together, the student, teacher, and school data help to describe some of the current practices and emphases in mathematics education, illuminate some of the factors that appear to be related to eighth-grade public-school students' proficiency in the subject, and provide an educational context for understanding information about student achievement. Some of the salient results for the public-school students in Rhode Island are as follows: About half of the students in Rhode Island (47 percent) were in schools whem mathematics was identified as a special priority. This is a smaller percentage than that for the nation (63 percent). In Rhode Island, 90 percent of the students could take an algebra course in eighth grade for high-school course placement or credit. A greater percentage of studei:ts in Rhode Island were taking eighth-grade mathematics (52 percent) than were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra (45 percent). Across the nation, 62 percent were taking eighth-grade mathematics and 34 percent were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra, According to their teachers, the greatest percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools in Rhode Island spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day; according to the students, most of them spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day. Across the nation, teachers reported that the largest percentage of students spent either 15 or 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day, while students reported either 15 or 30 minutes daily. Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability and Algebra and Functions had higher proficiency in these content areas than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on the same areas. Students whose teachers placed heavy instnictional emphasis on Numbers and Operations and Measurement had lower proficiency in these content areas than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on the same areas. 1 1 4 THE 199G NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island In Rhode Island, 14 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers who reported getting all of the resources they needed, while 32 percent of the students were taught by teachers who got only some or none of the resources they needed. Across the nation, these figures were 13 percent and 31 percent, respectively. In Rhode Island, 36 percent of the students never used a calculator to work problems in class, while 39 percent almost always did. In Rhode Island, 48 percent of the students were being taught by mathematics teachers who reported having at least a master's or education specialist's degree. This compares to 44 percent for students across the nation. Almost all of the students (90 percent) had teachers who had the highest level of teaching certification available. This is different from the figure for the nation, where 66 percent of students were taught by teachers who were certified at the highest level available in their states. Students in Rhode Island who had four types of reading materials (an encyclopedia, newspapers, magazines, and more than 25 books) at home showed higher mathematics proficiency than did students with zero to two types of these materials. This is similar to the results for the nation, where students who had ali four types of materials showed higher mathematics proficiency than did students who had zero to two types. Some of the eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island (13 percent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 12 percent watched six hours or more. Average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students who spent six hours or more watching television each day. TI-F. 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 5 ME NATION'S REPORT CARD INTRODUCTION As a result of legislation enacted in 1988, the 1990 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) included a Trial State Assessment Program in eighth-grade mathematics. The Trial State Assessment was conducted in Febniary 1990 with the following participants: Alabama Iowa Ohio Arizona Kentucky Oklahoma Arkansas Louisiana Orsenn California Maryland Pennsylvania Colorado lkfichigam Rhode Island Connecticut Minnesota Texas Delaware Montana Willis District of Columbia Nebraska West Virginia Florida New Hampshire Wisconsin Georgia New kney Wyoming Hawaii New Mexico Idaho New York Illinois North Carolina Guam Indiana North Dakota Vugin Islands THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island This report describes the performance of the eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island and consists of three sections: This Introduction provides background information about the Trial State Assessment ani this report. It also provides a profile of the eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island. Part One describes the mathematics performance of the eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island, the Northeast region, and the nation. Part Two relates students' mathematics performance to contextual information about the mathematics policies and instruction in schools in Rhode Island, the Northeast region, and the nation. Overview of the 1990 Trial State Assessment In 1988, Congress passed new legislation for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which included -- for the first time in the project's history -- a provision authorizing voluntary state-by-state assessments on a trial basis, in addition to continuing its primary mission, the national assessments that NAEP has conducted since its inception: Me National Assessment shall develop a trial mathematics assessment survey instrument for the eighth grade and shall conduct a demonstration of the instrument in 1990 in States which wish to participate, with the purpose of determining whether such an assessment yields valid, reliable State representative data. (Section 406 (i)( 2)(0(0 of the General Education Provisions Act, as amended by Pub. L. 100-297 (20 U.S.C. 1221e-1(!)(2)(0(i))) As a result of the legislation, the 1990 NAEP program included a Trial State Assessment Program in eighth-grade mathematics. National assessments in mathematics, reading, writing, and science were conducted simultaneously in 1990 at gjades four, eight, and twelve. For the Trial State Assessment, eighth-grade public-school students were assessed in each state or territory. The sample was carefully designed to represent the eighth-grade public-school population in the state or territory. Within each selected school, students were randomly chosen to participate in the program. Local school district personnel administered all assessment sessions, and the contractor's staff monitored 50 percent of the sessions as part of the quality assurance program designed to ensure that the sessions were being conducted uniformly. The results of the monitoring indicated a high degree of quality and uniformity across sessium. 1 4 8 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island The Trial State Assessment was based on a set of mathematics objectives newly developed for the program and patterned after the consensus process described in Public Law 98-511, Section 405 (E), which authorized NAEP through June 30, 1988. Anticipating the 1988 legislation that authorized the Trial State Assessment, the federal government arranged for the National Scier Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education to issue a special grant to the Council of Chief State Sthool Officers in mid-1987 to develop the objectives. The development process included careful attention to the standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,' the formal mathematics objectives of states and of a sampling of local districts, anó the opinions of practitioners at the state and local levels as to what content should be assessed. There was an extensive review by mathematics educators, scholars, states' mathematics supervisors, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and the Assessment Policy Committee (APC), a panel that advised on NAEP policy at that time. The objectives were further refined by NAEP's Item Development Panel, reviewed by the Task Force on State Comparisons, and resubmitted to NCES for peer review. Because the objectives needed to be coordinated across all the grades for the national program, the fmal objectives provided specifications for the 1990 mathematics assessment at the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades rather than solely for the Trial State Assessment in grade eight. An overview of the mathematics objectives is provided in the Procedural Appendix. This Report This is a computer-generated report that describes the performance of eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island, in the Northeast region, and for the nation. Results also are provided for groups of students defined by shared characteristics -- race/ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender. Definitions of the subpopulations referred to in this report are presented below. The results for Rhode Island are based only on the students included in the Trial State Assessment Program. However, the results for the nation and the region of the country are based on the nationally and regionally representative samples of public-school students who were assessed in January or February as part of the 1990 national NAEP program. Use of the regional and national results from the 1990 national NAEP program was necessary because the voluntary nature of the Trial State Assessment Program did not guarantee representative national or regional results, since not every state participated in the program. National Council of Teachet s of Mathematics, Currkulum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989). 1 5 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 9 Rhode Island RACE/ETHNICITY Results are presentee for students of different racial/ethnic groups based on the students' self-identiacation of their race/ethnicity according to the following mutually exclusive categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian (including Pacific Islander), and American Indian (including Alaskan Native). Based on criteria described in the Procedural Appendix, there must be at least 62 students in a particular subpopulation in order for the results for that subpopulation to be considered reliable. Thus, results for racial/ethnic groups with fewer than 62 stadents are not reported. However, the data for all students, regardless of whether their racial/ethnic group was reported separately, were included in computing overall results for Rhode Island. TYPE OF COMMUNITY Results are provided for four mutually exclusive community types -- advantaged urban, disadvantaged urban, extreme rural, and other -- as defined below: Advantaged Urban: Students in this group live in metropolitan statistical areas and attend schools where a high proportion of the students' parents are in professional or managerial positions. Disadvantaged Urban: Students in this group live in metropolitan statistical areas and attend schools where a high proportion of the students' parents are on welfare or are not regularly employed. Extreme Rural: Students in this group live outside metropolitan statistical areas, live in areas with a population below 10,000, and attend schools where many cf the students' parents are farmers or farm woirs. Other: Students in this category attend schools in areas other than those defined as advantaged urban, disadvantaged urban, or extreme rural. The reporting of results by each type of community was also subject to a minimum student sample size of 62. PARENTS' EDUCATION LEVEL Students were asked to indicate the extent of schooling for each of their parents -- did not finish high school, gxaduated high school, some education after high school, or graduated college. The response indicating the higher level of education was selected for repovting. 16 10 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island GENDER Results are reported separately for males and females. REGION The United States has been divided into four regions: Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West. States included in each region asz shown in Figure I. All 50 states and the District of Columbia are listed, with the participants in the Trial State ASMISMent highlighted in boldface type. Territories welt not assigned to a region. Further, the part of Virginia that is included in the Wallington, DC, metropolitan statistical area is included in the Northeast region; the mnainder of the state is included in the Southeast reeon. Because most of the students are in the Southeast region, regional comparisons for Virginia will be to the Southeast. FIGURE 1 I Regions of the Country NORTHEAST SOUTHEAST CENTRAL WEST Connect lad Means Wools Alaska Delmar, Arkansas Indiana Arizona District of Columbia Florida Iowa California Maine Georgis Kansas Colorado Illory land Kentucky Michigen Hawaii Massachusetts Lornalana killneesota Idaho New flospeldre .Mississippi Missouri 'Montana New Jamey North Carolina Nebraska Nevada New Tort South Carolina North Dakota New Mexico Penney Wads Tennessee Ohio Oklahoma node 'Wed Virginia South Dakota Oregon Vermont West Vkgin WIsconskt Tease Utah Washington Wyoming THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 1 1 Rhode Island Guide Pyles for Analysis This report describes and compares the mathematics proficiency of various subpopulations of students -- for example, those who have certain demographic characteristics or who responded to a specific background question in a particular way. The report examines the results for individual subpopulations and individual background questions. It does not include an analysis of the relationships among combinations of these subpopulations or backgiound questions. Because the proportions of students in these subpopulations and their average proficiency are based on samples rather than the entire population of eighth graders in public schools in the state or territory -- the numbers reported are necessarily estimates. As such, they are subject to a measure of uncertainty, reflected in the standard error of the estimate. When the proportions or average proficiency of certain subpopulations are compared, it is essential that the standard error be taken into account, rather than relying solely on observed similarities or differences. Therefore, the comparisons discussed in this report are based on statistical tests that consider both the magnitude of the difference between the means or proportions and the standard errors of those statistics. The statistical tests determine whether the evidence -- based on the data from the groups in the sample -- is strong enough to conclude that the means or proportions are really different for those groups in the population. If the evidence is strong (i.e., the difference is statistically significant), the report describes the group means or proportions as being different (e.g., one group performed higher than or lower than another group) -- regardless of whether the sample means or sample proportions appear to be about the same or not. If the evidence is not sufficiently strong (i.e., the difference is not statistically significant), the means or proportions are described as being about the same -- again, regardless of whether the sample means or sample proportions appear to be about the same or widely discrepant. The reader is cautioned to rely on the results of the statistical tests rather than on the apparent magnitude of the difference between sample means or proportions -- to determine whether those sample differences are likely to represent actual differences between the groups in the population. If a statement appears in the report indicating that a particular group had higher (or lower) average proficiency than a second group, the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference between groups did not contain the value zero. When a statement indicates that the average proficiency or proportion of some attribute was about the same for two groups, the confidence interval included zero, and thus no difference could be assumed between the groups. When three or more groups are being compared, a Bonferroni procedure is also used. The statistical tests and Bonferroni procedure are discussed in greater detail in the Procedural Appendix. 8 12 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island It is also important to note that the confidence intervals pictured in the figures in Part One of this report are approximate 95 percent confidence intervals about the mean of a particular population of interest Comparing such confidence intervals for two populations is not equivalent to examining the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference between the means of the populations. If the individual confidence intervals for two populations do not overlap, it is true that there is a statistically significant difference between the populations. However, if the confidence intervals overlap, it is not always true that there is not a statistically significant difference between the populations. Finally, in several places in this report, results (mean proficiencies and proportions) are reported in the text for combined groups of students. For example, in the text, the percentage of students in the combined group taking either algebra or pre-algebra is given and compared to the percentage of students enrolled in eighth-grade mathematics. However, the tables that accompany that text report percentages and proficiencies separately for the three groups (algebra, pre-algebra, and eighth-grade mathematics). The combined-group percentages reported in the text and used in all statistical tests are based on unrounded estimates (i.e., estimates calculated to several decimal places) of the percentages in each group. The percentages shown in the tables are rounded to integers. Hence, the percentage for a combined group (reported in the text) may differ slightly from the sum of the separate percentages (presented in the tables) for each of the groups that were combined. Similarly, if statistical tests were to be conducted based on the rounded numbers in the tables, the results might not be consonant with the results of the statistical tests that are reported in the text (based on unrounded numbers). dfl TIIE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 13 Rhode Island Profile of Rhode Island EIGHTH-GRADE SCHOOL AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS Table 1 provides a profile of the demographic characteristics of the eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island, the Northeast regjon, and the nation. This profile is based on data collected from the students and schools participating in the Trial State Assessment. TABLE l 1 Profile of Rhode Island Eighth-Grade I Public-School Students PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 1900 NAEP TRIAL STAU ASSESSMENT Rhoda bland 1110111siaat Mien DEMOGRAPHIC SUBGROUPS Rams/Ethnicity White 13 Ink Hispanic Asian SS ( 00 5 0.51 1 0.5 2 (0.3) American Indian 1 ( 0.2) Type of Community Advantaged urban 10 ( 0.4) Disadvantaged urban 17 ( 1.7) Extreme rural ( 0.0) Other ( 1.4) Parsed, Education Did not ttnish high school 5 OA Graduated high school 20 (1.0) Some education atter high WIWI 15 (0.7) Graduated college 41 ( 1.0) Gander Male 50 ( 0.0) Female 51 ( 0.0) 1/0 ( TO ( 12 ( 0.,S 5 1 10 04 3 1.1 2 1 0.3 2 ( 0.7 23 ( 7.3) 10 3.3) I( 5.7) 10 14 (10.3) 10 3.0 56 (112) 70 4.4 7 ( 2.2) 10 0i 23 ( 25 11 15 ( 3.0) 17 0.0 40 ( 5.1) 30 ( 1.0 50 ( 2.1) 51 ( 1.1) 50 ( 2.1) 40 ( 1.1) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 9$ percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 atandard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages for Race/Ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because some students categorized themselves as "Other." This may also be true of Parents' Education, for which some students responded "I don't know." Throughout this report, percentages less than 0.5 percent are reported as 0 percent. 20 14 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode !skid SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS ASSESSED Table 2 provides a profile summarizing participation data for Rhode Island schools and students sampled for the 1990 Trial State Assessment. In Rhode Island, 51 public schools participated in the assessment. The weighted school participation rate was 97 percent, which means that all of the eighth-grade students in this sample of schools war trpresentative of 97 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island. TABLE 2 I Profile of the Population Assessed in I Rhode Island EIGHTH-GRADE PURIM SCHOOL PARTICIPATION Weighted school participation rate before substitution Weighted schoo4 participation rate after substitution Number of schools originally sampled Number of schools not eligible Number of schools in orlinal sample participating Number of substitute schools Provided Number of substitute schools participating Total number of participating Sch Ools 52 49 2 2 51 EIGHTH-GRADE Pusucaiewoot. STUDENT PARTICIPATION Weighted student participation rate after make-ups Number of students seleded to participate In the assessment Number of students withdrawn from the assenment Percentage of students who were of Limited English Proficiency Percentage of students excluded from the assessment due to Umited English Proficiency Percentsge of students who had an Individualized Education Plan Percentage of students excluded frOm the assessment due to Individualized Education Plan status Number of students to be assessed Number of students assessed 3,243 173 4%. 2% 12% 5% 2,857 2,675 In Rhode Island, the Trial State Assessment was based on all eligible schools. There was no sampling of schools. THE 1990 NAEP TR1AL. STATE ASSESSMENT 15 Rhode Island In each school, a random sample of students was selected to participate in the assessment. As estimated by the sample, 4 percent of the eighth-gxade public-school population was classified as limited English Proficient (LEP), while 12 percent had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). An IEP is a plan, written for a student who has been determined to be eligible for special education, that typically sets forth goals and objectives for the student and describes a prow-an:1 of activities and/or related services necessary to achieve the goals and objectives. Schools were permitted to exclude certain students from the assessment. To be excluded from the assessment, a student had to be categorized as Limited English Proficient or had to have an Individualized Education Plan and (in either case) be judged incapable of participating in the assessment. The students who were excluded from the assessment because they were categorized as LEP or had an IEP represented 2 percent and 5 percent of the population, respectively. In total, 2,675 eighth-grade Rhode Island public-school students were assessed. The weighted student participation rate was 93 percent. This means that the sample of students who took part in the assessment was representative of 93 percent of the eligible eighth-gade public-school student population in Rhode Island. 2 2 16 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island THE NATION'S REPORT CARD PART ONE How Proficient in Mathematics Are Eighth-Grade Students in Rhode Island Public Schools? The 1990 Trial State Assessment covered five mathematics content areas -- Numbers and Operations; Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and Functions. Students' overall performance in these content areas was summarized on the NAEP mathematics scale, which ranges from 0 to 500. This part of the report contains two chapters that describe the mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island. Chapter 1 compares the overall mathematics performance of the students in Rhode Island to students in the Northeast region and the nation. It also presents the students' average proficiency separately for the five mathematics content areas. Chapter 2 summarizes the students' overall mathematics performance for subpopulations defined by race/ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender, as well as their mathematics performance in the five content areas. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 17 Rhode Island CHAPTER 1 Students' Mathematics Performance As shown in Figure 2, the average proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students from Rhode Island on the NAEP mathematics scale is 260. This proficiency is no different from that of students across the nation (261).2 FIGURE 2 I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School I Mathematics Proficiency NAEP Matheniatics Scale 200 225 250 275 300 500 Average Praildinay Rhoda Island Notiboast Nation The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by 1.4-4). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations. 2 Differences reported are statistically different at about the 95 percent certainty level. This means that with about 95 peroent certainty there is a real difference in the average mathematics proficiency between the two populations of interest. 18 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island LEVELS OF MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY Average proficiency on the NAEP scale provides a global view of eighth graders' mathematics achievement; however, it does not reveal the specifics of what the students know and can do in the subject. To describe the nature of students' proficiencyit. greater detail, NAEP used the results from the 1990 national assessments of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students to define the skills, knowledge, and understandings that characterize four levels of mathematics performance levels 200, 250, 300, and 350 -- on the NAEP scale. To define the skills, knowledge, and understandings that characterize each proficiency level, mathematics specialists studied the questions that were typically answered correctly by most students at a particular level but answered incorrectly by a majority of students at the next lower level. They then summarized the kinds of abilities needed to answer each set of questions. While defining proficiency levels below 200 and above 350 is theoretically possible, so few students performed at the extreme ends of the scale that it was impractical to define meaningful levels of mathematics proficiency beyond the four presented here. Defmitions of the four levels of mathematics proficiency are given in Figure 3. It is important to note that the definitions of these levels are based solely on student performance on the 1990 mathematics assessment. The levels are not judgmental standards of what ought to he achieved at a particular grade. Figure 4 provides the percentages of students at or above each of these proficiency levels. In Rhode Island, 96 percent of the eighth graders, compared to 97 percent in the nation, appear to have acqui7ed skills involving simple additive reasoning and problem solving with whole numbers (level 200). However, many fewer students in Rhode Island (12 percent) and 12 percent in the nation appear to have acquired reasoning and problem-solving skills involving fractions, decimals, percents, elementary geometric properties, and simple algebraic manipulations (level 300). CONTENT AREA PERFORMANCE As previously indicated, the questions comprising the Trial State Assessment covered five content areas -- Numbers and Operations; Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and Functions. Figure 5 provides the Rhode Island, Northeast region, and national results for each content area. Students in Rhode Island performed comparably to students in the nation in all of these five content areas. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 19 Rhode Island FIGURE 3 J Levels of Mathematics Proficiency LEVEL 200 Simple Additive Reasoning and Problem Solving with Whole Numbers Students at this level have some degree of understanding of simple quantitative relationships involving whole numbers. They can solve simple addition and subtraction problems With and without regrouping. Using a calculator, they can extend theSe abilities to multiplication arid division problems. These students can identify solutions to one-step word problems and Select the greatest four-digit number In a list. In measurement, these students can read a ruler as well as commoti weight and graduated scales. They also can make volume comparisons based on visualization and determine the value of coins. In geometry, these Students can reCognize simple figures. In data analysis, they are able to read Simple bar graphs. In the algebra dimension, these students can recognize translations of word problems to numerical sentences and extend simple pattern sequences. LEVEL 250 I Simple Multiplicative Reasoning and Two-Step Problem Solving Students at this levet have extended their understanding of quantitative reasoning with whole numbers from additive to multiplicative settings. They can solve routine one-step multiplication and division problems involving remainders and two-step addition and subtraction problems involving money. Using a calculator, they can identify solutions to other elementary two-step word problems. In these basic problem-solving situations, they can identify missing or extraneous information and have some knowledge of when to use computational estimation. They have a rudimentary understanding of such concepts as whole number place value, 'even," "factor," and "multiple." In measurement, these students can use a ruler to measure objects, convert units within a System when the conversions require multiplication, and recognize a numerical expression solving a measurement word problem. In geometry, they demonstrate an initial understanding of basic terms and properties, such as parallelism and symmetry. In data analysis, they can complete a bar graph, sketch a circle graph, and use information from graphs to solve simple problems. They are beginning to understand the relationship between proportion and probability. In algebra, they are beginning to deal informally with a variable through numerical substitution in the evaluation of simple expressions. 20 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island FIGURE 3 I Levels of Mathematics Proficiency (continued) I LEVEL 300 ANM Reasoning and Problem Solving involving Fractions, Decimals, Percents, Elementary Geometric Properties, and Simple Algebraic Manipulations Students at this level are able to represent, interpret, and perform simple operations with fractions and decimal numbers. They are able to locate fractions and decimals on number lines, simplify fractions, an4 recognize the equivalence between common fractions and decimals, including pictorial representations. They can interpret the meaning of percents leSs than and greater than 100 and apply the concepts ot percentages to Solve Simple problems. These students demonstrate some evidence of using mathernatical notation to interpret expressions, including those with exponents and negative integers. In measurement, these students can find the perimeters and areas of rectangles, recognize relationships among common units of measure, and use proportional relationships to solve routine problems involving similar triangles and scale drawings. In geometry, they have some mastery of the definitions and properties of geometric figures and solids. In data analysis, these students can calculate averageS, Select and interpret data from tabular displays. pictographs, and line graphs, compute relative frequenCy distributions, and have a beginning understanding of sample bias. In algebra, they can graph points in the Cartesian plane arid perform simple algebraic manipulations such as simplifying an expression by collecting like terms, identifying the solution to open linear sentences and inequalities by substitution, and checking and graphing an interval representing a compound inequality when it is described in words. They can determine and apply a rule for simple functional relations and extend a numerical pattern. LEVEL 350 Reasoning and Problem Solving involving Geometric Relationships, Algebraic Equations, and Beginning Statistics and Probability Students at this level have extended their knowledge of number and algebraic understanding to include some properties of exponents. They can recognize scientific notation on a calculator and make the transition between scientific notation and decimal notation. In measurement, they can apply their knowledge of area and perimeter of rectangles and triangles to solve problems. They can find the circumferences of circles and the surface areas of solid figures. In geometry, they can apply the Pythagorean theorem to solve problems involving indirect measurement. These students also can apply their knowledge of the properties of geometric figures to Solve problems, such as determining the slope of a line. In data analysis, these students can compute means from frequency tables and determine the probability of a simple event. In algebra, they can identify an equation describing a linear relation provided in a table and solve literal equations and a system of two linear equations. They are developing an understanding of linear functions and their graphs, as well as functional notation, including the composition of functions. They can determine the nth term ot a sequence and give counterexamples to disprove an algebraic generalization, THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 21 Rhode Island FIGURE 4 I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency LEVEL 350 State Region Nation LEVEL 300 State Regiorl Nation LEVEL 250 State Region Nation LEVEL 200 State Region Nation 0 20 40 eo 80 100 Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by 0-1-1). If the confidence interval: for the populations do not overlap, there is a statisticall significant difference between the populations. 26 22 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT ( 0.1) O ( 0.5) O ( 0.2) 12 ( 0.8) IS ( 2.7) 12 ( 1.2) 51 ( 0.8) 72 ( 4.8) 64 ( 1.6) 96 ( 0.5) 99 ( 0.6) 97 ( 0.7) Rhode Island FIGURE 5 I Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics I Content Area Performance State Region Nation State Region Nation State Region Nation State Region Nation State Region Nation ' 0 200 225 250 275 300 Averse" Pron.:kin 264 ( 0.6) 271 ( 3.1) 266 ( 1.4) 256 ( 0.8) 266 ( 4.7) 258 ( 1.7) 256 ( co) 26$ ( 3.6) 259 ( 1.4) 258 ( 0.6) 273 ( 3.8) 262 ( 1.8) 261 ( 0.8) 267 ( 3.4) 269 ( 1.3) 500 Mathematics Subscale Proficiency The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by 1-0-1). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 23 Rhode Island CHAPTER 2 Mathematics Performance by Subpopulations In addition to the overall state resuks, the 1990 Trial State Assessment included reporting on the performance of various subgroups of the student population defined by race/ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender. RACE/ETHNICITY The Trial State Assessment results can be compared according to the different racial/ethnic groups when the number of students in a racial/ethnic goup is sufficient in size to be reliably reported (at least 62 students). Average mathematics performance results for White, Black, and Hispanic students from Rhode Island are presented in Figure 6. As shown in Figure 6, White students demonstrated higher average mathematics proficiency than did Black or Hispanic students. Figure 7 presents mathematics performance by proficiency levels. The figure shows that a greater percentage of White students than Black or Hispanic students attained level 300. 30 24 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT FIGURE 6 I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity Rhode Island White Slack Hispanic WMe Northeast SISCk Hispanic Nation White Slack Hispanic The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within * 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by N-I). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is statistically significant difference between the populations. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 3 1 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 25 Rlwde Island THE HAIM REPORT FIGURE 7 I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School CARO I Mathematics Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity LEVEL 300 State White Black Hispanic Region White Black Hispanic Nation White Black Hispanic LEVEL 250 State White Black Hispanic 191(10 White Black Hispanic Nation White Bleck Hispanic LEVEL 200 State White Black Hispanic R.91on White Black Hispanic Nation White Black Hispanic 0 20 40 60 80 Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by I-4-1). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations. Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level. 1. Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. "* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 100 26 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 14 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.0) 2 ( 1.0) 18 ( 2.5) 3 ( ***) 115 ( 1.5) 2 ( 1.3) 3 ( 1.1) ( 0.9) 19 ( 3.3) 23 ( 3.6) 78 ( 4.8) 30 (10.9)1 74 ( 1.8) 30 ( 3.4) 41 ( 4.5) 98 ( 0.4) ( 6.5) 83 ( 3.1) 100 ( 0.0) 93 ( 3.0)1 am* -.) 11/9 ( 0.4) ( 3.1) 93 ( 1.8) Rhode Island TYPE OF COMMUNTIT Figure 8 and Figure 9 present the mathematics proficiency results for eighth-grade students attending public schools in advantaged urban areas, disadvantaged urban areas, and areas classified as "other". (These are the "type of community" groups in Rhode Island with student samples large enough to be reliably reported.) The results indicate that the average mathematics performance of the Rhode Island students attending schools in advantaged urban areas was higher than that of students attending schools in disadvantaged urban areas or areas classified as "other". FIGURE 8 Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by Type of Community The standard errors are preserne4 in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percen, confidence interval, denoted by 14.4). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. fit rN t THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 27 Rhode Island THE NATION'S FIGURE 9 Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School REPORT Mathematics Proficiency by Type of CARO Community LEVEL 300 State Adv. urban D1sadv. urban Other Rieke, Adv. urban ()Indy. urban Other Nation Adv. urban D1sadv. urban Other LEVEL 250 state Adv. urban Disadv. urban Other Realm Adv. urban Dlsadv. urban Other Nation Adv. urban Disadv. urban Other LEVEL 200 State Adv. urban 1111 ( 0.3) Disadv. urban W ( 2.3) Other W ( 0.3) Rglon Adv. urban 100 ( 0.0) Disadv. urban 113 ( 2.7)1 Other ( 0.8) Nation Adv. urban 100 ( 0.0) Disadv. urban 05 ( 1.5)1 Other 97 ( 1.0) "44: .;s1g;s4 0' ;`-/& s. 24 ( 22) ( 1.7) 10 ( 1.1) 22 ( 8.7)1 ( 4.0)1 18 ( 2.8) 28 ( 4.8)1 ( 2.1)1 12 ( 1.2) 70 ( 1.7) 42 ( 4.5) 110 ( 1.1) ( 9.5)1 (11.9)1 77 ( 4.4) 23 ( 4.6)! 41 ( 5.0)1 14(2.3) 0 20 40 60 BO Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by 1-1-I). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations. Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this esfunated mean proficiency. 100 28 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island PARENTS' EDUCATION LEVEL Previous NAEP fmdings have shown that students whose parents are better educated tend to have higher mathematics proficiency (see Figures 10 and 11). In Rhode Island, the average mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students having at least one parent who graduated from college was approximately 36 points higher than that of students who reported that neither parent graduated from high school. As shown in Table 1 in the Introduction, about the same percentage of students in Rhode Island (41 percent) and in the nation (39 percent) had at least one parent who graduated from college. In comparison, the percentage of students who reported that neither parent graduated from high school was 8 percent for Rhode Island and 10 percent for the nation. FIGURE 10 I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by Parents' Education NAEP Mathematics Scala 200 225 250 275 300 500 Average Proficiency N. 144 Rhode Island HS non-graduate HS graduate Some college College graduate Northeast HS non-graduate P-404 HS graduate opt Some college College graduate 144 144 144 Neon HS non-graduate HS graduate Some college College graduate The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by I-4.4). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difierence between the populations. 0** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). r't P. t ) THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 29 Rhode bland TN won RE INT FIGURE 1 1 I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School LAW I Mathematics Proficiency by Parents' Education LEVEL 300 State HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. Nation HS non-grad. HS graduate Some c011ege Coiiege grad. LEVEL 250 State HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. R4on HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. Nation HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. LEVEL 200 iltato HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. RIK Ilan HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. Nation HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. 20 40 00 80 Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value for each population of interest is within + 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by 1-44). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations. Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level. *1* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 100 30 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 2 1.3) 4 ( 1.0) ft ( 1.9) 22 ( 1.5) ( 2.8) 13 ( 2.7) 29 ( 4.3) 1 ( 0.9) ( 1.5) 12 ( 1.4) 21(1.9) 34 ( 3.6) ( 1.8) 70 ( 2.8) 77 ( 1.4) *** 92 ( 5.9) 71 ( 4.5) W ( 4.6) 37 ( 4.6) 191 ( 2.7) 71 ( 2.0) 79 ( 2.0) 91 ( 1.7) N ( 0,8) 09 ( 0.7) ( 0.3) "a* ( 0.9) ft ( 1A) N ( 0.4) N ( 1.9) 97 ( 04) 99 ( 0.7) ( 0.7) Rhode Island GENDER As shown in Figure 12, eighth-grade males in Rhode Island had a somewhat higher average mathematics proficiency than did eighth-grade females in Rhode Island. Compared to the national results, females in Rhode Island performed no differently from females across the country; males in Rhode Island performed no differently from males across the country. FIGURE 12 I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School 1 Mathematics Proficiency by Gender The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by 1-1-1). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a staustically significant difference between the populations. As shown in Figure 13, there was no difference between the percentages of males and females in Rhode Island who attained level 200. The percentage of females in Rhode Island who attained level 200 was similar to the percentage of females in the nation who attained level 200. Also, the percentage of males in Rhode Island who attained level 200 was similsir to the percentage of males in the nation who attained level 200. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 31 Rhode Island FIGURE 13 I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School I Mathematics Proficiency by Gender LEVEL 300 State Male Female Region Male Female Nation Male Female LEVEL 250 Stat. Male Female Region Male Female Nation Male Female LEVEL 200 State Male Female Region Male Female Nation Male Female 0 20 40 BO 80 100 Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by 1-1.4). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant diffitence between the populations. Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level. S 32 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 92 ( 1.5) 80 ( 1.3) 72 ( 5.8) 72 ( 4.5) 114 ( 2.0) 64 ( 1.8) 98 ( 0.6) 98 ( 0.7) 99 ( 0.7) ea ( 0.7) 97 ( 0.9) 97 ( 0.8) Rhode Island In addition, there was no difference between the percentages of males and females in Rhode Island who attained level 300. The percentage of females in Rhode Island who attained level 300 was similar to the percentage of females in the nation who attained level 300, Also, the percentage of males in Rhode Island who attained level 300 was similar to the percentage of males in the nation who attained level 300. CONTENT AREA PERFORMANCE Table 3 provides a summary of content area performance by race/ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 33 Rhode Island TABLE 3 I Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Content Area Performance by Subpopulations AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY OF STUDENTS tin NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Numbers and Operations Idliasummegd "dim" Data Analysts. Statistics' and Probability Algabra and Flinctl°ns TOTAL. State Region Nation RACE/ETHNICITY WM* State Region Nation Stack State Region Nation Hispanic State Region Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantased urban State Region Nation Disa*artiged State Region Nation Other State Region Nation iltsvacesnay 264 ( 0.6) 271 ( 3.1) 268 ( 1.4) 200 ( 275 ( 3.1) 273 ( 1.6) 232 ( 2.2) 250 ( 54 ); 244 ( 3.1) 235 ( 2.4 .a.a4 248 ( 2.7) 278 ( 2.0) 262 ( asp 263 ( 3.2)t 249 ( 1.9) . 251 ( 7.2p 255 ( 3.1)1 203 ( 0.7) 274 ( 3.7) 2.6 ( 1.9) Ityliciency Prelkletay 250 ( 0.6) 256 ( 0.6) 2110 ( 4.7) 206 ( 3.6) 256 ( 1.7) 259 ( 1.4) 263 ( 0.0) 261 0.7) 272 ( 4.8) 272 3.1) 267 ( 2.0) 267 ( 1.5) 217 ( 4.1 223 ( 233 ( 9.411 243 ( 9.9 227 ( 3.6 234 ( 2.16) 224 ( otit 3.0) v.* ( 238 ( 3.4) 243 ( 3.2) 278 ( 1.8) 274 ( 2.3) 279 ( tSP 276 ( 9.6)1 281 ( 3.2)1 277 ( 5.2)I 23e ( 2.6) 241 ( 2.2) 238 (13.8)1 242 (13.5)1 242 ( 4.0)1 246 ( 3.7)1 254 ( 1.3) 265 ( 0.8) 206 ( 8.5) 272 ( 3.3) 257 ( 2.4) 259 ( 1.7) Priddency firedisisacy 251 0.6) 273 $.6) 262 11) 265 ( 0.6) 279 ( 3.1) 272 ( 1.6) 211 ( 4.3) 244 ( 1.2)f 231 ( 3.8) 217 ( 3.7) .44 ( ) 239 ( 3.4) 278 ( 1.13) 282 ( 6.5)1 265 ( 4.6)1 236 ( 3.2) 245 (11.8)I 247 ( 4,6)1 255 ( 0.9) 277 ( 3.9) 201 ( 2.2) 2111 ( 02 207 ( 3.4 200 ( 1.3) 208 ( 0.9) 271 ( 3.0) 208 ( 1.4) 233 ( 4.0) 242 C REP 237 ( 2.7) 229 ( 3.7) 243 ( 3.1) 277 ( 2.4) 273 (10.1)1 277 ( 4.8)1 240 ( 2.8) 243 (12.6)1 247 ( 3.2)1 260( 1.1) 271 ( 3.4) 281 ( 1.7) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 0 34 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode island TABLE 3 I Eighth-Grz, ublic-School Mathematics (continued) i Content Axea Performance by Subpopulations AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY OF STUDENTS 0 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Numbers and Operations Measurement Owens try - Data Statistic% Ind Functions Probability TOTAL Proficiency Proficiency Pro *Macy Pro Odom Proficiency State 204 0.5) 258 ( 0.8) 258 ( 03) 25$ ( 0.0) 281 ( 0.8) Region 271 ( 3.1) 200 ( 4.7) 208 ( 33) 273 ( 3.0) 207 ( 3.4) Nation 208 ( 1.4) 258 ( 1.1) 251111. 1.4) 252 ( 1.3) 200 ( 13) PARENTS EDUCATION HS non-graduate State 245 ( $.4) 2331 23) 230 ( 1.4P 234 ( 3.1) 239 ( 3.2) Region *** ( it.s.) ,.... *ire) re, ( fmti dm* ( il *** ( 441 Nation 247 ( 2.4) ^37 ( 3.6) 242 ( 2.2) 240 ( 3.1) 242 ( 3.0) NS graduate State 264 ( 1.3) 246 ( 1.6 246 ( 1.5) 249 ( 1.5) 252 ( 1.4) Region 260 ( 2.7) 255 ( 5.1) 25$ ( 3.2) 264 ( 4.6) 254 ( 2.9) Nation 259 ( 1.8) 248 ( 2.1) 262 ( 1.6) 253 ( 2.2) 253 ( 2.0) Some college State 271 ( 2.0) 264 ( 24) 280 ( 14) 254 ( 24) 203 ( 2.1) Region 287 ( 2.3) 261 ( 5.7) 267 ( 3.4) 273 ( 3.4) 262 ( 23) Nation 270 ( 1.5) 264 ( 2.7) 262 ( 2.0) 269 ( 2.4) 263 ( 2.2) Cottage graduate State 277 ( 1.0) 271 ( 1.4) 270 ( 1.2) 276 ( 1.2) 275 ( 1.3) Region 265 ( 3.6) 279 ( 5.5) 277 ( 3.8) 287 ( 3.5) 260 ( 318) Nation 27$ ( 1.6) 272 ( 2.0) 270 ( 1.6) 276 ( 2.2) 273 ( 1.7) GENDER Maio State 265 ( 1.0) 262 ( 1.5) 257 ( 0.9) 258 ( 4.1) 200 ( 1.4) Rector 272 ( 3.9) 271 ( 53) 209 ( 4.0) 274 ( 4.1) 266 ( 4.1) Nation 206 ( 2.0) 262 ( 2.3) 280 ( 1.7) 282 ( 2.1) 293 ( 1.6) Femal State 262 ( 1.0) 251 ( 1.1) 255 ( 0.9) 25$ ( 1,1) 261 ( 1.2) Region 270 ( 3.1) 261 ( 4.3) 266 ( 4.1) 273 ( 3.6) 26$ ( 3.7) Nation 260 ( 1.4) 253 ( 1.6) 251 ( 13) 261 ( 1.9) 260 ( 14) The st.ndard errors of the estimated stitistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 ...andard errors of the estimate for the sample. *" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 35 Rhode Island THE NATION'S REPORT CARD PART TWO Finding a Context for Understanding Students' Mathematics Proficiency Information on students' mathematics proficiency is valuable in and of itself, but it becomes more useful for improving instruction and setting policy when supplemented with contextual information about schools, teachers, and students. To gather such information, the students panic in the 1990 Trial State Assessment, their mathematics teachers, and the principals or administrators in their schools were asked to complete questionnaires on policies, instruction, and programs. Taken together, the student, teacher, and school data help to describY some of the current practices and emphases in mathematics education, illuminate some of the factors that appear to be related to eighth-grade public-school students' proficiency in the subject, and provide an educational context for understanding information on student achievement. It is important to note that the NAEP data cannot establish cause-and-effect links between various contextual factors and students' mathematics proficiency. However, the results do provide information about important relationships between the contextual factors and proficiency. The contextual information provided in Part Two of this report focuses On four major areas: instructional content, instructional practices, teacher qualifications, and conditions beyond school that facilitate learning and instruction -- fundamental aspects of the educational process in the country. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 37 Rhode Island Through the questionnaires administered to students, teachers, and principals, NAEP is able to provide a broad picture of educational practices prevalent in American schools and classrooms. In many instances, however, these findings contradict our perceptions of what school is like or educational researchers' suggestions about what strategies work best to help students learn. For example, research has indicated new and more successful ways of teaching and learning, incorporating more hands-on activities and student-centered learning techniques; however, as described in Chapter 4, NAEP data indicate that classroom work is still dominated by textbooks or worksheets. Also, it is widely recognized that home environment has an enormous impact on future academic achievement. Yet, as shown in Chapters 3 and 7, large proportions of students report having spent much more time each day watching television than doing mathematics homework. Part Two consists of five chapters. Chapter 3 discusses instnictional content and its relationship to students' mathematics proficiency. Chapter 4 focuses on instructional practices -- how instruction is delivered. Chapter 5 is devoted to calculator use. Chapter 6 provides information about teachers, and Chapter 7 examines students' home support for learning. 38 TUE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode island CHAPTER 3 What Are Students Taught in Mathematics? In response to the continuing swell of information about the poor mathematics achievement of American students, educators and policymakers have recommended widespread reforms that are changing the direction of mathematics education. Recent reports have called for fundamental revisions in curriculum, a reexamination of tracking practices, improved textbooks, better assessment, and an increase in the proportions of students in high-school mathematics programs.' This chapter focuses on curricular and instructional content issues in Rhode Island public schools and their relationship to students' proficiency. Table 4 provides a profile of the eighth-grade public schools' policies and staffing. Some of the salient results are as follows: About half of the eighth-gade students in Rhode Island (47 percent) were in public schools where mathematics was identified as a special priority. This compares to 63 percent for the nation. 3 Curtis McKnight, et al., The Underachieving Curriculum Assessing U.S. School Mathematics from an International Perspective, A National Report on the Second International Mathematics Study (Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company, 1987). Lynn Steen, Ed. Everybody t..,..unts A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989). 4 A L THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 39 Rhode Island In Rhode Island, 90 percent of the students could take an algebra course in eighth grade for high school course placement or credit. Almost all of the students in Rhode Island (96 percent) were taught mathematics by teachers who teach only one subject. Many (89 percent) of the students in Rhode Island were typically taught mathematics in a class that was grouped by mathematics ability. Ability grouping was less prevalent across the nation (63 percent). TABLE 4 I Mathematics Policies and Practices in Rhode Island Eighth-Grade Public Schools PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 1890 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Northeast Nation Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools that identified mathematics as receiving special emphasis in scrrool-wide goals and objectives, Instruction, in-service training, etc. Percentage of eighth-grade public-school students who are offered a course in algebra for high school course placement or credit Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools who are taught by teachers who teach only mathematics Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools who are assigned to a mathematics class by their ability in mathematics Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools who receive four or more hours of mathematics instruction per week Percentage Percentage Percentage 47 ( 1.0) 45 (16.5) 83 ( 5.9) 90 ( 1.6) 90 ( 7.3) 78 ( 4.6) 96 ( 0.1) 100 ( 0.0) 91 ( 3.3) 89 ( 0.7) .11 (10.1) 63 ( 4.0) 43 ( 0.8) 14 ( 5.5) 30 ( 4.4) The standard errors of the estimated statist.= appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of Interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 4;5 40 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island CURRICULUM COVERAGE To place students' mathematics proficiency in a curriculum-related context, it is necessary to examine the extent to which eighth graders in Rhode Island are taking mathematics courses. Based on their responses, shown in Table 5: A greater percentage of students in Rhode Island were taking eighth-grade mathematics (52 pe: -tat) than were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra (45 percent). Across the nation, 62 percent were taking eighth-grade mathematics and 34 percent were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra. Students in Rhode Island who were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses exhibited higher average mathematics proficiency than did those who were in eighth-grade mathematics courses. This result is not unexpected since it is assumed that students enrolled in pre-algebra and algebra courses may be the more able students who have already mastered the general eighth-grade mathematics curriculum. TABLE 5 I Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class I They Are Taking PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1980 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Rollout Nation a Percentage and Proickincy Percentage and Preedancy Parcentage and Preacienay What kind of mathematics class are you taking thts year? Eighth-grade mathematics 52 ( 1.1) 63 ( $4) 62 ( 2.1) 243 ( 0.7) 259 ( 2,9) 251 ( 1.4) Pre-algebra 29 ( 04) 16 ( 3.9) 19 ( 1.9) 272 ( 0.9) 2711 ( 272 ( 2.4) Algebra 18 ( 04) 18 ( 3.3) 15 ( 1.2) 290 ( 1.7) 297 ( 3.6) 290 ( 24) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because a small number of students reported taking other mathematics courses. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 41 Rhode Island Further, from Table A5 in the Data Appendix:4 A greater percentage of females (49 percent) than males (41 percent) in Rhode Island were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses. In Rhode Island. 48 percent of White students, 31 percent of Black students, and 26 percent of Hispanic students were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses. Similarly, 56 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 39 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 45 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses. MATHEMATICS HOMEWORK To illuminate the relationship between homework and proficiency in mathematics, the assessed students and their teachers were asked to report the amount of time the students spent on mathematics homework each day. Tables 6 and 7 report the teachers' and students' responses, respectively. According to their teachers, the greatest percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools in Rhode Island spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day; according to the students, the greatest percentage spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day. Across the nation, according to their teachers, the largest percentage of students spent either 15 or 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day, while students reported spending either 15 or 30 minutes daily. Further, as reported by their teachers (Table 6 and Table A6 in the Data Appendix): In Rhode Island. 2 percent of the students spent no time each day on mathematics homework, compared to 1 percent for the nation. Moreover, 4 percent of the students in Rhode Island and 4 percent of the students in the nation spent an hour or more on mathematics homework each day. 4 For every table in the body of the report that Includes estimates of average proficiency, the Data Appendix provides a corresponding table presenting the results for the four subpopulations -- race ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender, '7 42 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island The results by race/ethnicity show that 4 percent of White students, 9 percent of Black students, and 3 percent of Ifispanic students spent an hour or more on mathematics homework each day. In comparison, 2 percent of White students, 8 percent of Black stu.. ts, and 5 percent of Hispanic students spent no time doing mathematics homework. In addition, 3 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 7 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 4 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" spent an hour or more on mathematics homework daily. In comparison, 0 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 2 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 4 percent br schools in areas classified as "other" spent no time doing mathematics homework. TABLE 6 Teachers' Reports on the Amount of Time Students Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Northeast About how much bme do students spend Percentage Pertentage Percentage and and on mathomatics homework each day? Proildwcy Proficiency sind Proficiency 2 ( *** ( 0.3) *41 0 ( 0.0) 1 ( MHO ( 0.3) 441 15 minutes 29 ( 1.1) 54 (13.2) 43 ( 4.2) 245 ( 1.3) 264 ( 4.7)1 250 ( 2.3) 30 minutes 445 ( 1.1) 35 (12.5) 43 ( 43) 281 ( DA) 270 ( 288 ( 2.6) 45 minutes 19 ( 0.8) 9 ( 2.7) 10 ( 1.9) 282 ( 1.8) 272 ( 5.7)1 An hotx or more 4 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.8) 4 ( 0.9) 272 ( 4.9) «04 278 ( 8.1)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean rroficiency. 1" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 43 Rhode Island TABLE 7 I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time They I Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Northeast About how much time do you usually spend each day on mathematics homework? None 15 minutes 90 minutes 45 mInutos IAn hour or more Penemtage Percentage Percentiles and and and Pnolaciency Praffakincy Prolkdanay 7 ( 0.5) ( 1.2) 9 ( 0.8) 24$ ( 2.2) 251 ( 2.8) 33 ( 0.8) 37 ( 3,3) 31 ( 2.0) 259 ( 1.0) 269 ( 2.4) 284 ( 1.9) 37 ( 0.9) 34 ( 2.8) 32 ( 1.2) 283 ( 1.1) 271 ( 6.0) 263 ( 1.9) 15 ( 0.7) 15 ( 2.3) 18 ( 1.0) 246 ( 1.8) 272 ( 6.5) 288 ( 1.9) 9 ( 0.8) 8 ( 1.7) 12 ( 1.1) 285 ( 3.0) ...... ( ....h) 258 ( 3.1) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). And, according to the students (Table 7 and Table A7 in the Data Appendix): In Rhode Island, relatively few of the students (7 percent) reported that they spent no time each day on mathematics homework, compared to 9 percent for the nation. Moreover, 9 percent of the students in Rhode Island and 12 percent of students in the nation spent an hour or more each day on mathematics homework. The results by race/ethnicity show that 8 percent of White students, 14 percent of Black students, and 14 percent of Hispanic students spent an hour or more on mathematics homework each day. In compaiison, 6 percent of White students, 9 percent of Black students, and 8 percent of Hispanic students spent no time doing mathematics homework. 44 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island In addition, 9 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 11 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 8 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" spent an hour or more on mathematics homework daily. In comparison, 3 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 6 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 8 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" spent no time doing mathematics homework. INSTRUCTIONAL EMPHASIS According to the approach of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), students should be taught a broad range of mathematics topics, including number concepts, computation, estimation, functions, algebra, statistics, probability, geometry, and measurement.5 Because the Trial State Assessment questions were designed to measure students' knowledge, skills, and understandings in these various content areas regardless of the type of mathematics class in which they were enrolled -- the teachers of the assessed students were asked a series of questions about the emphasis they planned to give specific mathematics topics during the school year. Their responses provide an indication of the students' opportunity to learn the various topics covered in the assessment. For each of 10 topics, the teachers were asked whether they planned to place "heavy," "moderate," or "little or no" emphasis on the topic. Each of the topics corresponded to skills that were measured in one of the five mathematics content areas included in the Trial State Assessment: Numbers and Operations. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on five topics: whole number operations, common fractions, decimal fractions, ratio or proportion, and percent. Measurement. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on one topic: measurement. Geometry. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on one topic: geometry. Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on two topics: tables and graphs, and probability and statistics. Algebra and Functions. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on one topic: algebra and functions. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Alathematks (Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989). 4 ) THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 45 Rhode Island The responses of the assessed students' teachers to the topic emphasis questions for each content area were combined to create a new variable. For each question in a particular content area, a value of 3 was given to "heavy emphasis" responses, 2 to "moderate emphasis" responses, and I to "little or no emphasis" responses. Each teacher's responses were then averaged over all questions related to the particular content area. Table 8 provides the results for the extreme categories -- "heavy emphasis" and "little or no emphasis" -- and the average student proficiency in each content area. For the emphasis questions about numbers and operations, for example, the proficiency reported is the average student performance in the Numbers and Operations content area. Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability and Algebra and Functions had higher proficiency in these content areas than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on the same areas. Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Numbers and Operations and Measurement had lower proficiency in these content areas than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on the same areas. 46 THE 199O NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE 8 I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Wand Not Iheast Nation Teacher emphasis* categories by Pertmedais and Perands. POlelleige avid and content areas Polk:fancy Prellakmay Pralkimay Matters and Operations Heavy emphasis 32 ( 1.0) 41 ( 6.9) 49 ( 3.8) 252 ( 0.7) 266 ( 2.9) 200 ( 1.5) Little or no emphasis 1$ ( 1.1) 21 ( 65) 15 ( 2.1) 269 ( 2.1) ( 00) 267 ( 3.4) Measurement Heavy emphasis 13 ( 0.5) 32 (11.5) 17 ( 3.0) 250 ( 2.6) 257 (11.7)1 250 ( 5.6) Lithe or no emphasis 40 ( 1.5) 34 ( 413) 33 ( 4.0) 264 ( 1.5) 262 ( 4.6)1 272 ( 4.0) Geomeby Heavy emphasis 17 ( 0.7) 48 (11.9) 26 ( 3.6) 261 ( 2.1) 264 ( SA)7 2604 3.2) Little or no emphasis 39 ( 1.3) ( 1.9) 21 ( 3.3) 255 ( 1.6) 204 ( 5.4) Data Malys's, Statistics, and Probability Heavy emphasis 10 ( 05) 12 ( 0.1) 14 ( 22) 274 ( 2.6) 269 ( 4.3) Little or no emphasis 71 ( 0.9) 48 (10.1) 53 ( 4.4) 254 ( 1.1) 279 ( 5.4)1 261 ( 2.9) Mgebra and Functions Heavy emphasis 43 ( 1.0) 52 (11.5) 48 ( 3.0) 266 ( 1.1) 273 ( 6.8)1 275 ( 2.5) Little or no emphasis 27 ( 0.6) 14 ( 6.6) 20 ( 3.0) 232 ( 15) ) 243 ( 3.0) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate emphasis" category it not included. I Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). c; THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 47 Rhode Island SUMMARY Although many types of mathematics learning can take place outside of the school environment, there are some topic areas that students are unlikely to study unless they are covered in school. Thus, what students are taught in school becomes an important determinant of their achievement. The information on curriculum coverage, mathematics homework, and instructional emphasis has revealed the following: About half of the eighth-grade students in Rhode Island (47 percent) were in public schools where mathematics was identified as a special priority. This compares to 63 percent for the nation. In Rhode Island, 90 percent of the students could take an algebra course in eighth grade for high-school course placement or credit. A greater percentage of students in Rhode Island were taking eighth-grade mathematics (52 percent) than were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra (45 percent). Across the nation, 62 percent were taking eighth-wade mathematics and 34 percent were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra. According to their teachers, the weatest percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools in Rhode Island spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day; according to the students, most of them spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day. Across the nation, teachers reported that the largest percentage of students spent either 15 or 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day, while students reported either 15 or 30 minutes daily. In Rhode Island, relatively few of the students (7 percent) reported that they spent no time each day on mathematics homework, compared to 9 percent for the nation. Moreover, 9 percent of the students in Rhode Island and 12 percent of students in the nation spent an hour or more each day on mathematics homework. Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability and Algebra and Functions had higher proficiency in these content areas than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on the same areas. Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Numbers and Operations and Measurement had lower proficiency in these content areas than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on the same areas. 48 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island CHAPTER 4 B IMMO NM 111O111111111111111111111 111111111-11111111111111. ME 111111111101111111-11111f111 1311111111111111111rill 1111111111111111111111111/11111 OM 1.1111111,11111111 14:1111111110011fallai 111111111111 IMMO MOOS Ir.1111111111 111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 How Is Mathematics Instruction Delivered? Teachers facilitate learning through a variety of instructional practices. Because a particular teaching method may not be equally effective with all types of students, selecting and tailoring methods for students with different styles of learning or for those who come from different cultural backgrounds is an important aspect of teaching.° An inspection of the availability and use of resources for mathematics education can provide insight into how and what students are learning in mathematics. To provide information about how instruction is delivered, students and teachers participating in the Trial State Assessment were asked to report on the use of various teaching and learning activities in their mathematics classrooms. AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES Teachers' use of resources is obviously constrained by the availability of those resources. Thus, the assessed students' teachers were asked to what extent they were able to obtain all of the instructional materials and other resources they needed. 6 National CounCil Of Teachers Of Mathematics, Professional Standards for the Teaching of Mathematks (Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991). fly #.1 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 49 Rhode Island From Table 9 and Table A9 in the Data Appendix: In Rhode Island, 14 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers who reported getting all of the resources they needed, while 32 percent of the students were taught by teachers who got only some or none of the resources they needed. Across the nation, these figures were 13 percent and 31 percent, respectively. In Rhode Island, 10 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 6 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 18 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" had mathematics teachers who got all the resources they needed. By comparison, in Rhode Island, 12 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 37 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 37 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" were in classrooms where only some or no resources were available. Students whose teachers got all the resources they needed had higher mathematics achievement levels than those whose teachers got only some or none of the resources they needed. TABLE 9 I Teachers' Reports on the Availability of i Resources PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1080 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Northeast Nation Which of the following statements is true about how welt supplied you are by your school system with the instructional materials and other resourceS you need to teach your class? I get all the resources ! need. I get most of the resources I need. I get some or none of the resources I need. Percentage and Pro agency Percentage Percentage mid and Proficiency Proficiency 14 ( 0.6) 26 ( 0.6) 13 ( 2.4) 263 ( 2.0) 271 ( 7.2)1 285 ( 4.2) 54 C 1.2) 35 (11.7) 58 ( 4.0) 284 ( 1.0) 272 ( 2.9)1 285 ( 2.0) 32 ( 0.a) 38 (11.8) 31 ( 4.2) 254 ( 12) 274 ( RS)! 261 ( 2.9) The standard errors of the v lated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each populi..,on of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 1 Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of' this estimated mean proficiency. 50 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island PATTERNS IN CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION Research in education and cognitive psychology has yielded many insights into the types of instructional activities that facilitate students' mathematics learning. Increasing the use of "hands-on" examples with concrete materials and placing problems in real-worla contexts to help children construct useful meanings for mathematical concepts are among the recommended approaches.7 Students' responses to a series of questions on their mathematics instruction provide an indication of the extent to which teachers are making use of the types of student-centered activities suggested by researchers. Table 10 presents data on patterns of classroom practice and Table I I provides information on materials used for classroom instruction by the mathematics teachers of the assessed students. According to their teachers: About one-quarter of the students in Rhode Island (27 percent) worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week; less than half never worked mathematics problems in small groups (32 percent). The largest percentage of the students (62 percent) used objects like rulers, counting blocks, or geometric shapes less than once a week; about one-quarter never used such objects (24 percent). In Rhode Island, 71 percent of the students were assigned problems from a mathematics textbook almost every day; 8 percent worked textbook problems about once a week or less. Less than half of the students (43 percent) did problems from worksheets at least severa! times a week; about one-quarter did worksheet problems less than weekly (30 percent). Thomas Romberg. "A Common Curriculum for Mathematics," Individual Differences and the Common Curriculum Eighty-second Yearbook of the National Society pr the Study of Education (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983). r, THE 1990 NAEP MAL STATE ASSESSMENT 51 Rhode Island TABLE 10 I Teachers' Reports on Pattern of Mathematics I Instruction PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1960 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Northeast Nation About how often do students work problems in small groups? At least once a week Less than once a week Never About how often do students use objects like rulers, counting blocks, or geometric solids? At least once a week Less than once a week New Pima gee Pogo Waille end friadatill ROOM 27 ( 0.8) 44 ( SA) 260 ( 1.2) 214 ( Ur 41 ( 0.0) 25S ( 12) 2: 1 la 32 ( OA) 41 i ei 2e, ( 12) 0 Porovillap 0 . Jo) 4.1) 1,I14 4 2-1) 277 ( Paraarday Peraeataip Paroods. aral and aid Prolkkaay Prallaisma Prelkikacr 14 ( 0.5) Z I L51 2142 I :II 2s0 ( 1.8) 62 ( 1-1) 7$ ( 18) ISO ( SA) 25a ( 0-8) 209 ( 1.6) 263 ( 1.8 24 ( 12) 9 ( 3.5) 21: 1 144 263 ( I I A) ( 1 ...4. « The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 52 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE 11 I Teachers' Reports on Materials for 1 Mathematics Instruction PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode island !Whitest Nation About how often do students do problems from textbooks? Almost event day Several times a week about once a vim* ar ken About how often do students do problems on worksheets? At least several times a week About once a week Lass than weeidy PercutINS and lindiciony Percentage and firellkdway .10,009111110 Ora0c404$3, 71 ( 205 21 255 $ 221 1.0) ( 0.6) ( 0.$) ( 1.2) ( 0.5) ( 2.4) 276 31 261 13 la34.41 ( $3) ( 1.2)1 ( 2.6) *el 26762 $1 ( 254 ( ( 240 ( "14 3.1) 2.9) 1.6) 5.1)I Pereenties Percentage Ponlodue and and old 'roadway Prolkieney Pro0olemy 43 ( 0.9) 53 (11.3) 34 ( 3.6) 259 ( 0.0) 262 ( 43)! 256 ( 2.3) 27 ( 041) 32 ( 1.2) 33 ( 3.4) 259 ( 1.41) 270 ( 3.4)! 260 ( 2.3) 30 ( 0.9) 15 ( 4.6) 32 ( 3.1) 262 ( 1.3) 4.41 274 ( 2.7) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is withm ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). The next section presents the students' responses to a corresponding set of questions, as well as the relationship of their responses to their mathematics proficiency. It also compares the responses of the students to those of their teachers. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 53 Rhode Island COLLABORATING IN SMALL GROUPS In Rhode Island, 67 percent of the students reported never worldng mathematics problems in small groups (see Table 12); 14 percent of the students worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week. TABLE 12 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Small i Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Northeast Nation _ How often do you work n small groups in your mathematics class? At least ono. a week Lass than once a week PirrismaaVII mid Prelidency 14 ( 0.5) 256 ( 2.3) 19 ( 0.5) 267 ( 1.4) 67 ( 0.7) 259 ( 0.7) Poicentage Percentage and Mid PriaCklACY Preitclaw/ 27 ( 6.7) 260 ( 4.8)1 22 ( 2.8) 271 ( 5.0) 51 ( 7.9) 273 ( 45) 28 ( 2.5) 258 ( 2.7) 2$ ( 1.4) 267 ( 2.0) 44 ( 2.9) 261 ( 1.0) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. I Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. Examining the suupopulations (Table A 12 in the Data Appendix): In Rhode Island, 12 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 17 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 12 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" worked in small groups at least once a week. Further, 13 percent of White student3, 11 percent of Black students, and 17 percent of Hispanic students worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week. Females were as likely as males to work mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week (13 percent and 15 percent, respectively). 54 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 4,101W Rhode Island USING MATHEMATICAL OBJECTS Students were asked to report on the frequency with which they used mathematical objects such as rulers, counting blocks, or geometric solids. Table 13 below and Table A13 in the Data Appendix summarize these data; Mort than half of the students in Rhode Island (59 percent) never used mathematical objects; 20 percent used these objects at least once a week. Mathematical objects were used at least once a week by 23 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 18 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 18 percent in schools in areas classified as "other". Males were more likely than females to use mathematical objects in their mathematics classes at least once a week (23 percent and 16 percent, respectively). In addition, 20 percent of White students, 16 percent of Black students, and 26 percent of Hispanic students used mathematical objects at least Once a week. TABLE 13 I Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematics Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENT:.) AD AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY -_ 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Northeast Nation , How often do you work with objects like rulers, counting blocks, or geometric solkls in your mathematics class? Al least once a week LOSS than once a week Percents. Percents.* Peoventsge end and Ind Proficiency Proficiency Prolidency 20 ( 0.8) 259 ( 1.8) 22 ( 0.9) 270 ( 1.4) 59 ( 1.0) 257 ( 0.0) 30 ( 4.3) 265 ( 8.9) 30 ( 32) 277 ( 19) 40 ( 4.8) 266 ( 3.9) 2$ ( 1.8) 258 ( 2.11) 31 ( 1.2) 209 ( 1.5) 41 ( 2.2) 259 ( 1.6) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 0 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT SS Rhode Island MATERIALS FOR MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION The percentages of eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island who frequently worked mathematics problcms fiom textbooks (Table 14) or worksheets (Table 15) indicate that these materials play a major role in mathematics teaching and learning. Regarding the frequency of textbook usage (Table 14 and Table A14 in the Data Appendix): About three-quarters of the student!. in Rhode Island (75 percent) worked mathematics problems from textbooks almost every day, compared to 74 percent of the students in the nation. Textbooks were used almost every day by 80 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 65 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 76 percent in schools in areas classified as "other". TABLE 14 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of I Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY IWO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhoda bland North.ast Nation How often do you do mathematics problems from textbooks in your Mathematics class? Percentage and Proficiency Rwanda. and Proliciency Peroentaie and Proficiency Almost ivory day 76 ( 0.6) ( 5.3) 74 ( 1.9) 265 ( 0.7) 275 ( 3.7) 267 ( 1.2) Savona times a weak 13 ( 0.5) 14 ( 12) 14 ( 02) 253 ( 1.0) 281 ( 4,5) 252 ( 1.7) About once a wok or lass 12 ( 0.5) 14 ( 4.3) 12 ( 1.8) 234 ( 1.6) 249 ( 7.4)1 242 ( 4.5) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample.. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accuratc determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. 56 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island And, for the frequency of worksheet usage (Table 15 and Table AlS in the Data Appendix): Less than half of the students in Rhode Island (38 percent) used worksheets at least sevesal times a week, compared to 38 percent in the nation. Worksheets were used at least several times a week by 44 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 41 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 35 percent in schools in areas classified as "other". TABLE 15 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of I Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSUENT Rhode Island Northeast Radon How often do you do mathematics problems on worksheets In your mathematics class? Peradities Poniestly Pindolidle and dad add Prollialow limikiency liondkolosew At least wand tams a ~6 Ati ( 0.9) 44 ( 5.9) 36 ( 241 250 ( 1.1) 281 ( 3.8) 253 ( 29) About once a week 24 ( 0.8) 22 ( 1.8) :5 I 1.1) ) 280 ( 14) 268 ( 16) 21 1 Lass than weakly 38 ( 1.0) 34 ( 5.5) 37 ( 24 ) 270 ( 1.1) 262 ( 4.3)1 272 ( 1.9) viIMMINNIININIBMINFMINNIMINNIII The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within * 2 standar(' Arrors of the estimate for the samp14. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow ai....4rate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. Table 16 compares students' and teachers' responses to questions about the patterns of classroom instruction and materials for mathematics instruction. 62 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 57 Rhode Island TABLE 16 Comparison of Students' and Teachers' Reports on Patterns of and Materials for Mathematics Instruction PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 10S0 NAEP TRIAL ASSESSMENT STATE Rhode tabloid Patterns of classroom instruction Perm* IP Stodents Tanners Piweentsse Si Wads Teaders Pttesseil MOM twain Percentage of students who wok mathematics problems in moan groups At least once a week 14 ( 0.5) 27 ( 0.6) 27 ( 0.7) 44 ( 8.4) 29 ( 50 ( 4.4) Less than once a week 19 ( 0.5) 41 ( 0.9) 22 ( 2.8) 30 ( 9.9) 23 ( 1.4 43 ( 4.1) Never $7 ( 0.7) 32 ( 0.8) 51 ( 7.9) 17 ( OS) 44 ( 2.9 ( 2.0) Percentage of students who use oblects like niers, counting Mocks, or geontetrtc solids At least once a week 20 ( 0.6) 14 ( 0.5) 30 ( 4.3) 14 ( 5.5) 20 ( 1.8) 22 ( 3.7) Less than once a week 22 ( 0.9) 62 ( IA) 30 ( 3.2) 78 ( OA) 31 ( 1.2) 69 ( 3.9) Never 59 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1.2) 40 ( 4.8) 9 ( 3.5) 41 ( 2.2) 9 ( 2.6) Materials for mathematics instruction Percentage Students TM:11M Percentege Students Towhees Pereentass Students Teachers Percentage ot students who use a mathematics textbook Almost every day 75 ( 0,$) 71 ( 1.0) 72 ( 5.3) 57 ( 9.3) 74 ( 1.9) 62 ( 3.4) Several times a week 13 ( 0.5) 21 ( 0.9) 14 ( 1.6) 31 ( 8.3) 14 ( 0,8) 31 ( 3.1) About once a week or less 12 ( 0.5) 8 ( 0.5) 14 ( 4.3) 13 ( 2.8) 12 ( 1.8) 7 ( 1.8) Percentage of students who use a mathematics worksheet At least several times a Week 38 ( 0.0) 43 ( 0.9) 44 ( 5.9) 53 (11.3) 3$ ( 2,4) 34 ( 3.8) About once a week 24 ( 0.8) 27 ( 0.9) 22 ( 1.8) 32 ( 5.2) 25 ( 1.2) 33 ( 3.4) Less than weekly 38 ( 1.0) 30 ( 0.9) 34 ( 65) 15 ( 4.6) 37 ( 2.5) 32 ( 3.6) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 Ntandard errors of the estimate for the sample. 6 3 58 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island SUMMARY Because classroom instructional time is typically limited, teachers need to make the best possible use of what is known about effective instructional delivery practices and resources. It appears that mathematics textbooks and worksheets continue to play a major role in mathematics teaching. Although there is some evidence that other instructional resources and p.tctices are emerging, they are not yet commonplace. According to the students' mathematics teachers: About one-quarter of the students in Rhode Island (27 percent) worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week; less than half never worked in small groups (32 percent). The largest percentage of the students (62 percent) used objects like rulers, counting blocks, or geometric shapes less than once a week, and about one-quarter never used such objects (24 percent). In Rhode Island, 71 percent of the students were assigned problems from a mathematics textbook almost every day; 8 percent worked textbook problems about once a week or less. Less than half of the students (43 percent) did problems from worksheets at least several times a week; about one-quarter did worksheet problems less than weekly (30 percent). And, according to the students: In Rhode Island, 67 percent of the students never worked mathematics problems in small groups; 14 percent of the students worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week. More than half of the students in Rhode Island (59 percent) never used mathematical objects; 20 percent used these objects at least once a week. About three-quarters of the students in Rhode Island (75 percent) worked mathematics problems from textbooks almost every day, compared to 74 percent of students in the nation. Less than half of the students in Rhode Island (38 percent) used worksheets at least several times a week, compared to 38 percent in the nation. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 59 Rhode Island CHAPTER 5 How Are Calculators Used? Although computation skills are vital, calculators -- and, to a lesser extent, computers -- have drastically changed the methods that can be used to perform calculations. Calculators arc important tools for mathematics and students need to be able to use them wisely. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and many other educators believe that mathematics teachers should help students become proficient in the use of calculators to free them from time-consuming computations and to permit them to focus on more challenging tasks. The increasing availability of affordable calculators should make it more likely and attractive for students and schools to acquire and use these devices. Given the prevalence and potential importance of calculators, part of the Trial State Assessment focused on attitudes toward and uses of calculators. Teachers were asked to report the extent to which they encouraged or permitted calculator use for various activities in mathematics class and students were asked about the availability and use of calculators. s National Assessment of Educational Progress, Mathematics Objectives 1990 ,4ssessment (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 1988). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 1989). C5 60 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Table 17 provides a profile of Rhode Island eighth-grade public schools' policies with regard to calculator use: In comparison to 33 percent across the nation, 23 percent of the students in Rhode Island had teachers who allowed calculators to be used for tests. About the same percentage of students in Rhode Island and in the nation had teachers who permitted unrestricted use of calculators (19 percent and 18 percent, respectively). TABLE 17 I Teachers' Reports of Rhode Island Policia on I Calculator Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS MO MEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Wand Northeast Won 111111111MIV Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools whose teachers permit the unresbicted use oi calculatosu Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools whose teachers permit the use ot calculators tor tests Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools whose teachers report that students have access to eaksalators owed by the school doentimlege POINN110110 OA) 20 (11.41) 10 SA) 23 ( 0.8) 14 ( 9.2) SS ( 44) 52 ( 1.1) 2$ (11.2) 4 AMMI AMINI114111.1.11110=1.14 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample, G THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 61 Rhode Island ME AVAIIABIIITY OF CALCULATORS In Rhode Island, most students or their families (97 percem) Owned calculators (Table 18); however, fewer students (38 percent) had teachers who explained the use of calculators to them. From Table A18 in the Data Appendix: In Rhode Island, 38 percent of White students, 33 percent of Black students, and 41 percent of Hispanic students had teachers who explained how to use them. Females were as likely as males to have the use of calculators explained to them (38 percent and 38 percent, respectively). TABLE 18 Students' Reports on Whether They Own a Calculator and Whether Their Teacher Explains How To Use One PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1909 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode bland Northeast Nation Do you or your family own a calculator? Yes No Percentage Poroontage Percentage and and and Pro Selena Proficiency Proficiency 97 ( OA) 90 ( 0.7) 97 ( 0.4) 261 ( 0.5) 269 ( 3.3) 203 ( 1.3) 3 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.7) 3 ( 0.4) 225 ( 3.9) ( 234 ( 3.8) Perconbye and Proficiency Porcentage and Polidency Penonfaile and Proficiency Does your mathematics teacher explain how to use a calculator for mathematics problems? Yee 38 ( 0.8) 30 ( 4.0) 49 ( 2.3) 256 ( 1.0) 258 ( 4.3) 256 ( 1.7) No 02 ( 0.8) 70 ( 4.0) SI ( 2.3) 242 ( 0.7) 274 ( 3.4) 246 ( 1.5) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 62 67 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island THE USE OF CALCULATORS As previously noted, calculators can free students from tediou.s computations and allow them to concentrate instead on problem solving and other important skills and content. As part of the Trial State Assessment, students were asked how frequently (never, sometimes, almost always) they used caJ .ors for working problems in class, doing problems at home, and taking quizzes or tests. As reported in Table 19: In Rhode Island, 36 percent of the students never used a calculator to work problems in class, while 39 percent almost always did. About one-quarter of the students (23 percent) never used a calculator to work problems at home, compared to 30 percent who almost always used one. Less than half of the students (43 percent) never used a calculator to take quizzes or tests, while 24 percent almost always did. TABLE 19 I Students' Reports on the Use of a Calculator I for Problem Solving or Tests PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY IWO NMP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Northeast Nation How often do you use a calculator for the floventago and Peresniage Perestapp following tasks? Illreldenty Preliciemy Preezioncy Working problems ki class Almost always 30 ( 1.0) 40 ( 4.0) 48 ( 1.5) 247 0.9) 255 ( 3A) 254 ( 1.5) Never IS ( 0.9) 30 ( 6.0) 23 ( 1.9) 273 ( 1.0) 252 ( 23) 272 ( 14) Doing problems it home Almost always 30( 1.1) 30 ( 3.3) 30 ( 1.3) 230 ( 1.0) 264 ( 56) 261 ( 1.5) Never 23 ( to) 22 ( 2.5) 19 0.9) 267 ( 1.2) 275 ( 23) 263 1.45) Taking Ones or tests Almost always 24 ( 0.7) 23 ( 34) 27 ( 1.4) 248 ( 13) 250 ( SA) 253 ( 2.4) Never 43 ( 0.9) 45 ( 5.1) 30 ( 2.0) 275 ( 1.0) 264 ( 2.1) 214 ( 1.3) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within * 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Sometimes" category is not included. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSECSMENT 63 Rhode Island WHEN TO USE A CALCULATOR Part of the Trial State Assessment was designed to investigate whether students know when the use of a calculator is helpful and when it is not. There were seven sections of mathematics questions in the assessment; however, each student took only three of those sections. For two of the seven sections, students were given calculators to usc. The test administrator provided the students with instructions and practice on how to use a calculator prior to the assessment. During the assessment, students were allowed to choose whether or not to use a calculator for each item in the calculator settions, and they were asked to indicate in their test booklets whether they did or did not use a calculator for each item. Certain items in the caFulator sections were defined as "calculator-active" items -- that is, items that required the student to use the calculator to determine the correct response. Certain other items were defined as "calculator-inactive" items -- items whose solution neither required nor suggested the use of a calculator. The remainder of the items were "calculator-neutral" items, for which the solution to the question did not require the use of a calculator. In total, there were eight calculator-active items, 13 calculator-neutral items, and 17 calculator-inactive items across the two sections. However, because of the sampling methodology used as part of the Trial State Assessment, not every student took both sections. Some took both sections, some took only one section, and some took neither. To examine the characteristics of students who generally knew when the use of the calculator was helpful and those who did not, thc students who responded to one or both of the calculator wctions were categorized into two groups: High -- students who used the calculator appropriately (i.e., used it for the calculator-active items and did not use it for the calculator-inactive items) at least 85 percent of the time and indicated that they had used the calculator for at least half of the calculator-active items they were presented. Other -- students who did not use the calculator appropriately at least 85 percent of the time or indicated that they had used the calculator for less than half of the calculator-active items they were presented. 64 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island The data presented in Table 20 and Table A20 in the Data Appendix are highlighted below: A smaller percentage of students in Rhode Island were in the High group than were in the Other group. About the same percentage of males and females were in the High group. In addition, 48 percent of White students, 36 percent of Black students, and 36 percent of Hispanic students were in the High group. TABLE 20 I Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators PERCENTACZ OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 10110 MAO TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Mend Northeast Nation "Calculator-use" group Nigh Other Perventaps Peva Neap Pentads. SIM Pro Mum Aral Mow Pre Ildellqt 48 1.11 ( 2.5) 272 44 2.4) 42( is) 272 ( 1.8) 54 ( 1.1) 58 ( 2.5) 55 ( 14) 252 ( 0.9) 283 ( 2.9) 255 1.5) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear i parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value tor the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 7 0 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 65 Rhode Island SUMMARY Given the pievalence of inexpensive calculators, it may no longer be necessary or useful to devote large portions of instructional time to teaching students how to perform routine calculations by hand. Using calculators to replace this time-consuming process would create more instructional time for other mathematical skill topics, such as problem solving, to be emphasized. The data related to calculators and their use show that: In comparison to 33 percent across the nation, 23 percent of the students in Rhode Island had teachers who allowed calculators to be used for tests. About the same percentage of students in Rhode Island and in the nation had teachers who permitted unrestricted use of calculators (19 percent and 18 percent, respectively). In Rhode Island, most students or their families (97 percent) owned calculators; however, fewer students (38 percent) had teachers who explained the use of calculators to them. In Rhode Island, 36 percent of the students never used a calculator to work problems in class, while 39 percent almost always did. About one-quarter of the students (23 percent) never used a calculator to work problems at home, compared to 30 percent who almost always used one. Less than half of the students (43 percelt) never used a calculator to take quir/rs or tests, while 24 percent almost always did. 71 66 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island CHAPTER 6 Who Is Teaching Eighth-Grade Mathematics? In recent years, accountability for educational outcomes has become an issue of increasing importance to federal, state, and local governments. As part of their effort to improve the educational process, policymakers have reexamined existing methods of educating and certifying teachers.' Many states have begun to raise teacher certification standards and strengthen teacher training programs. As shown in Table 21: In Rhode Island, 48 percent of the students were being taught by mathematics teachers who reported having at 'cast a master's or education specialist's degree. This compares to 44 percent for students across the nation. Almost all of the students (90 percent) had mathematics teachers who had the highest level of teaching certification available. This is different from the figure for the nation, where 66 percent of the students were taught by mathematics teachers who were certified at the highest level available in their states. Almost all of the students (96 percent) had mathematics teachers who had a mathematics (middle school or secondary) teaching certificate. This compares to 84 percent for the nation. 9 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Professional Standards for the, naching of Mathematics (Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991). el. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 67 Rhode Island TABLE 21 I Profile of Eighth-Grade Public-School I Mathematics Teachers PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 11190 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT leads island Northeast Nation Paraillta. Iftromgolle Percentage of students whom mathematics teachers reported having the Mooing depees .11410111100. Bachelor's degree Master's or specialist's degree :021111 544:1M1 41142 Doctorate or professional degree 0 0,0 0 0.0 2 ( 1.4 Percentage of students slue* mathematics teachers have the Waving tipee al leaching certificates that we recognized by Meal island No regular certification 3 ( 0,2) 0 ( 4 ( 1.2) Regular certification but ten than the highest available 7 ( 0.9) 19 014 29 ( 4.3) Highest certification available (permanent or long-term) 00 ( 0.9) 91 (114 55(4.3) Percentege of students whose mathematics teachers have the Miming types of teaching mirtMcates that are recognized by Rhode island Mathematics (middle school or secondary) 90 ( 0.3) 99 ( 31) 54 ( 2.2) Education (elementary or middle school) 3 ( 0.2) ( 3,6) 12 ( 2.0) Other ( 0.2) 4 ( 3.7) 4 ( 1.3) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be :aid with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Although mathematics teachers are held responsible for providing high-quality instruction to their students, there is a concern that many teachers have had limited exposure to content and concepts in the subject area. Accordingly, the Trial State Assessment gathered details on the teachers' educational backgrounds -- more specifically, their undergraduate and graduate majors and their in-service training. 73 68 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode island Teachers' responses to questions concerning their undergraduate and graduate fields of study (Table 22) show that: In Rhode Island, 55 percent of tbe eighth-grade public-school students were being taueit mathematics by teachers who had an undergraduate major in mathematics. In comparison, 43 percent of the students =on the nation had mathematics teachers with the same major. Less than half of the eighth-gade public-school students in Rhode Island (32 percent) were taught mathematics by teachers who had a graduate major in mathematics. Across the nation, 22 percent of the students were tau& by teachers who majored in mathematics in graduate school. TABLE 22 I Teachers' Reports on Their Undergraduate and I Graduate Fields of Study PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS iasa NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode island Northeast What was your undergraduate major? Porasnasee Parcords. PertoWsip Mathematics SS ( 0.9) 44 ( 9.2 43 ( 3.9) Education Si ( 99) 34 ( $A) SS ( 34) Other 14 ( Ma) 22(9.1 22 ( 33) What was your graduate major? Pensentage Peresidase Parcestage Mathematics 32 0.9) 22 (9.7) 22 ( 34) Education 37 OS) 42 92) *. Other or no gnuluato levet study 32 0.7) 37 44) 40 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 69 Rhode Island Teachers' responses to questions concerning their in-service training for the year up to the Trial State Assessment (Table 23) show that In Rhode Island, 22 percent of the eighth-gade public-school students had teachers who spent at least 16 hours on in-sernce education dedicated to mathematics or the teaching of mathematics. Across the nation, 39 percent of the students had teachess who spent at least that much time on similar types of in-service ttaining. About one-quarter of the students in Rhode Island (24 percent) hati mathematics teachers who spent no time on in-service education devoted to mathematics or the teaching of mathematics. Nationally, 11 percent of the students had mathematics teachers who spent no time on similar in-service training. TABLE 23 I Teachers' Reports on Their In-Service Training PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WOO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Norlhesst Nation During the last year, how much time lip total have you spent on in-service education in mathematics or the teaching of mathematics? None One to 15 hour* 10 hours or more Porcentoge 24 ( 0.5) Percentage Paranoia,* 25 ( 7.0) 54 ( 1.1) 22 ( 0.7) 37( 4.1) 38 ( 8.4) S1 ( 4.1) 39 ( 3.8) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 70 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island =111M11.,ffl.m.R.IPMmII!!!!1IMPINIII1111=1.111111.10- SUMMARY Recent results from international studies have shown that students from the United States do not compare favorably with students from other nations in mathematics and science achievement." Further, results from NAEP assessments have indicated that students' achievement in mathematics and science is much lower than educators and the public would like it to be." In curriculum areas requiring special attention and improvement, such as mathematics, it is particularly important to have well-qualified teachers. When performance differences across states and territories are described, variations in teacher qualifications and practices may point to areas worth further exploration. There is no guarantee that individuals with a specific set of credentials will be effective teachers; however, it is likely that relevant training and experience do contribute to better teaching. The information about teachers' educational backgrounds and experience reveals that: In Rhode Island, 48 percent of the assessed students were being taught by mathematics teachers who reported having at least a master's or education specialist's degree. This compares to 44 percent for students across the nation. Almost all of the students (90 percent) had mathematics teachers who had the highest level of teaching certification available. This is different from the figure for the nation, where 66 percent of students were taught by mathematics teachers who were certified at the highest level available in their states. In Rhode Island, 55 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students were being taught mathematics by teachers who had an undergraduate major in mathematics. In comparison, 43 percent of the students across the nation had mathematics teachers with the same major. Less than half of the eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island (32 percent) were taught mathematics by teachers who had a graduate major in mathematics. Across the nation, 22 percent of the students were taught by teachers who majored in mathematics in graduate school. '° Archie E. Lapointe, Nancy A. Mead, and Gary W. Phillips, A World of Differences An International Assessment of Mathematics and Science (Princeton, NJ: Center for the Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service, 1988). 11 Ina %/S. Mullis, John A. Dossey, Eugene H. Owen, and Gary W. Phillips, The State of Mathematics Achievement NA EP's 1990 Assessment of the Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States (Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service, 1991). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 71 Rhode Island In Rhode Island, 22 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students had teachers who spent at least 16 hours on in-service education dedicated to mathematics or the teaching of mathematics. Across the nation, 39 percent of the students had teach= who spent at least that much time on similar types of in-service training. About one-quarter of the students in Rhode Island (24 percent) had mathematics teachers who spent no time on in-service education devoted to mathematics or the teaching of mathematics. Nationally, 11 percent of the students had mathematics teachers who spent no time on similar in-service training. 77 72 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island CHAPTER 7 The Condition Beyond School that Facilitate Mathematics Learning and Teaching Because students spend much more time out of school each day than they do in school, it is reasonable to expect that out-of-school factors grtatly influence students attitudes and behaviors in school. Parents and guardians can therefore play an important role in the education of their children. Family expectations, encouragement, and participation in student learning experiences are powerful influences. Together, teachers and parents can help build students' motivation to learn and can broaden their interest in mathematics and other subjects. To examine the relationship between home environment and mathematics proficiency, students participating in the Trial State Assessment were asked a series of questions about themselves, their parents or guardians, and home factors related to education. 78 THE 2990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 73 Rhode Island AMOUNT OF READING MATERIALS IN ME HOME The number and types of reading and reference materials in the home may be an indicator of the value placed by parents on learning and schooling. Students participating in the Trial State Assessment were asked about the availability of newspapers, magaimes, books, and an encyclopedia at home. Average mathematics proficiency associated with having zero to two, three, or four of these types of materials in the home is shown in Table 24 and Table A24 in the Data Appendix. TABLE 24 I Students' Reports on Types of Reading Materials in the Home PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 16I0 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode bland Northeast Nation Does your family have, or receive on a regular basis, any of the following items: more than 25 books, an encyclopedia, newspapers, magazines? Zero to two typos Throe typos Fair typos Permits's Perms Imo Permitses ant and and Powicianty Widen" Pteliciancy 20 ( OA) 13 ( 2.0) 21 ( 1.0) 237 ( 1.2) 252 ( $.9) 244 ( 2.0) 30 09) 31 2.7) 30 1.0) ( ( ( 258 ( 1.1) 284 ( 2.9) 258 ( 1.7) 50 ( 0.9) 50 ( 3.7) 4$ ( 1.3) 271 ( 0.8) 278 ( 4.3) 272 ( 1.5) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The data for Rhode Island reveal that: Students in Rhode Island who had all four of these types of materials in the home showed higher mathematics proficiency than did students with zero to two types of materials. This is imilar to the results for the nation, where students who had all four types of materials showed higher mathematics proficiency than did students who had zero to two types. 7 74 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island A smaller percentage of l3lack and Hispanic students had all four types of these reading materials in their homes than did White students. A greater percentage of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas than in disadvantawd urban areas or areas classified as "other" had all four types of these reading materials in their homes. HOURS OF TELEMION WATCHED PER DAY Excessive television watching is generally sem as detracting from time spent on educational pursuits. Students participating in the Trial State Assessment were asked to report on the amount of television they watched each day ( fable 25). TABLE 25 I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent I Watching Television Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 11110 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Northeast Notion How much television do you usually watch each day? Ono how or less Two hours rim hours FOLW to ffvo hours Six hours or more Poicantags int Proficiency Perowlege Parassises Pividamay Prelkistiay 13 ( OA) 2OS ( 2-1) 12 ( 1.3) an ( 4.4) 12 ( 2$0 ( 01) 22) 22 ( 13) 21 ( 33) 31 i ty...2 270 ( 1.5) 271 ( 3.1) 25 ( 01) 23 ( 1.2) 22 it 03) 202 ( 1.4) 271 ( 3.5) 205 ( 1.7) 20 ( 1.0) 28 ( 21) 28 ( 1.1) 256 ( 1.1) VS ( 4.1) NO ( 1.7) 12 ( 03) 237 ( 12) 15 ( 254 ( 3.3) 55)1 1$ ( 245 ( 1.0) 1.7) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with *bout 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. 8 0 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 73 Rhode Island From Table 25 and Table A25 in the Data Appendix; In Rhode Island, average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students who spent six hours or more watching television each day. Some of the eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island (13 percent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 12 percent watched six hours or more. About the same percentage of males and females tended to watch six or more hours of television daily. Similarly, about the same percentage of males and females watched one hour or less per day. In addition, 9 percent of White students, 31 percent of Black students, and 22 percent of Hispanic students watched six hours or more of television each day. In comparison, 13 percent of White students, 11 percent of Black students, and 10 percent of Hispanic students tended to watch only an hour or less. STUDENT ABSENTEEISM Excessive absenteeism may also be an obstacle to students' success in school. To examine the relationship of student absenteeism to mathematics proficiency, the students participating in the Trial State Assessment were asked to report on the number of days of school they missed during the one-month period preceding the assessment. From Table 26 and Table A26 in the Data Appendix: In Rhode Island, average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students who missed three or more days of school. Less than half of the students in Rhode Island (39 percent) did not miss any school days in the month prior to the assessment, while 28 percent missed three days or more. In addition, 26 percent of White students, 37 percent of Black students, and 37 percent of Hispanic students missed three or more days of school. 76 THE 1990 NAEF TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island Similarly, 24 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 34 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, and 27 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" missed three or more days of school. TABLE 26 I Students' Reports on the Number of Days of School Missed PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL. ria-7s AssEssufita Rhode Island Northeast How many days of school did you miss last month? One or two days Three days or more lignankale Pannialaga ironinangs and and fithl Peolideacy Pollaimay Prolleimmy 30 ( 1.1) 43 ( 2.2) 45 ( 1.1) 264 ( 1.1) 275 ( SA) 265 ( 1.4) 33 ( 0.9) 37 ( 31.1) 32 ( 09) OM ( 1.1) 271 ( 2.6) 258 ( 1.5) 25 ( 0.9) 21 ( 3.0) 23 ( 1.1) 250 ( 1.0) 255 ( 5.5) 250 ( 1.9) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appeat in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 62 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 77 Rhode Island STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF MATHEMATICS According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, :earning mathematics should require students not only to master essential skills and concepts but also to develop confidence in their mathematical abilities and to value mathematics as a discipline." Students were asked if they agreed or disagreed with five statements designed to elicit their perceptions of matlInnatics. These included statements about: Personal experience with mathematics, including students' enjoyment of mathematics and level of confidence in their mathematics abilities: I like mathematics; I am good in mathematics. Vahie of mathematics, including students' perceptions of its present utility and its expected relevance to future work and life requirements: Almost all people use mathematics in their jobs; mathematics is not more for boys than for girls. The nature of matherizatics, including students' ability to identify the salient features of the discipline: Mathematics is useful for solving everyday problems. A student "perception index" was developed to examine students' perceptions of and attitudes toward mathematics. For each of the five statements, students who responded "strongly agree" were given a value of 1 (indicating very positive attitudes about the subject), those who responded "agree" were given a value of 2, and those who responded "undecided," "disagree," or "strongly disagree" were given a value of 3. Each student's respons:s were averaged over the five statements. The studerts were then assigned a perception index according to whether they tended to strongly agree with the statements (an index of I), tended to agree with the statements (an index of 2). or tended to be undecided, to disagree, or to strongly disagree with the statements (an index of 3). Table 27 provides the data for the students' attitudes toward matheriatics as defined by their perception index. The following results were observed for Rhode Island: Average mathematics proficiency was highest for students who were in the "strongly agree" category and lowest for students who were in the "undecided, disagree, strongly disagree" category. About one-quarter of the students (24 percent) were in the "strongly agree" category (perception index of I). This compares to 27 percent across the nation. About one-quarter of the students in Rhot1e Island (23 percent), compared to 24 percent across the nation, were in the "undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree" category (perception index of 3). 12 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. I98t. t3 75 THE MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE 27 I Students' Perceptions of Mathematics PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVEPAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 11100 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhpda Island Northeast Student "perception Index' groups Strongly &grin ("perception Index" of 1) API* ("perception index" of 2) Undecided, disagrea, strongly disagree ("perception Index" of 3) Peral1111.11 24 ( 0.8) 206 ( 11) 53( 1.1) 201 ( 1.0) 23 ( 1.0) 250 ( 1.5) Paramilmoi POWOSAIROI and Preigiemw iffickm 27(13) 271( 19) 24 ( 1.2) 251 ( 1.0) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within * 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. SUMMARY Some out-of-school factors cannot be changed, but others can be altered in a poktive way to influence a student's learning and motivation. Partnerships among students, parents, teachers, and the larger community can affect the educational environment in the home, resulting in more out-of-school reading and an increased value placed on educational achievement, among other desirable outcomes. The data related to out-of-school factors show that: Students in Rhode Island who had four types of reading materials (an encyclopedia, newspapers, magazines, and more than 25 books) at Lome showed higher mathematics proficiency than did students with =TO to two types of materials. This is similar to the results for the nation, where students who had all four types of materials showed higher mathematics proficiency than did students who had zero to two types. 4 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 79 Rhode Island Some of the eighth-grade public-school students in Rhode Island (13 percent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 12 percent watched six hours or more. Average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students who spent six hours or more watching television each day. Less than half of the students in Rhode Island (39 percent) did not miss any school days in the month ptior to the assessment, while 28 percent missed three days or more. Average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students who missed three or more days of school. About one-quarter of the students (24 percent) were in the "strongly agree" category relating to students' perceptions of mathematics. Average mathematics proficiency was highest for students who were in the "strongly awe" category and lowest for students who were in the "undecided, disagree, strongly disagree" category. 65 SC) THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island THE NATION'S REPORT CARD PROCEDURAL APPENDIX This appendix provides an overview of the technical details of the 1990 Trial State Assessment Program. It includes a discussion of the assessment design, the mathematics framework and objectives upon which the assessment was based, and the procedures used to analyze the results. The objectives for the assessment were developed through a consensus process managed by the Council of Chief State Scl'aol Officers, and the items were developed through a similar process managed by Eeacational Testing Service. The development of the Trial State Assessment Program benefitted from the involvement of hundreds of representatives from State Education Agencies who attended numerous NETWORK meetings, served on committees, reviewed the framework, objectives, and questions, and, in general, provided important suggestions on all aspects of the program. Assessment Design The 1990 Trial State Assessment was based on a focused balanced incomplete block (BIB) spiral matrix design -- a design that enables broad coverage of mathemmies content while minimizing the burden for any one student. In total, 137 cognitive mathematics items were developed for the assessment, including 35 open-ended items. The first step in implementing the BIB design required dividing the entire set of mathematics items into seven units called blocks. Each bloek was designed to be completed in 15 minutes. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 51 Rhode Island The blocks were then assembled into assessment booklets so that each booklet contained two backpound questionnaires -- the first consisting of general background questions and the second consisting of mathematics background questions -- and three blocks of cognitive mathematics items. Students were given five minutes to complete each of the background questionnaires and 45 minutes to complete the three 15-minute blocks of mathematics items. Thus, the entire assessment required approximately 55 minutes of student time. In accordance with the BIB desi?n, the blocks were assigned to the as.sessment booklets so that each block appeared in exactly three booklets and each block appeared with every other block in one booklet. Seven assessment booklets were used in the Trial State Assessment Program. The booklets were spiraled or interleaved in a systematic sequence so that each booklet appeared an appropriate number of times in the sample. The students within an assessment session were assigned booklets in the order in which the booklets were spiraled. Thus, students in any given session received a variety of different booklets and only a small number of students in the session received the same booklet. Assessment Content The framework and objectives for the Trial State Assessment Program were developed using a broad-based consensus process, as described in the introduction to this report.' The assessment framewo,4 consisted of two dimensions: mathematical content areas and abilities. The five content areas assessed were Numbers and Operations; Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and Functions (see Figure A 1). The threemathematical ability areas assessed were Conceptual Understanding, Procedural Knowledge, and Problem Solving (see Figure A2). Data Analysis and Scales Once the assessments had been conducted and information from the assessment booklets had been compiled in a database, the assessment data were weighted to match known population proportions and adjusted for nonresponse. Analyses were then conducted to determine the percentages of students who gave various responses to each cognitive and background question. Item response theory (IRT) was used to estimate average mathematics proficiency for each jurisdiction and for various subpopulations, based on students' performance on the set of mathematics items they received. IRT provides a common scale on which performance can be reported for the nation, each jurisdiction, and subpopulations, even when all students do not answer the same set of questions. This ce.nmon scale makes it possible to report on relationships between students' characteristics (based on their responses to the backgound question3) and their overall performance in the assessment. National Assessment of Educational Progress, Mathematics Objectives 1990 Assessment (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1988). 82 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island FIGURE AI I Content Areas Asseued THE NATION'S REPORT CARO INumbers and Operations This content area focuses on Students' understanding of numbers (whole numbers, fractions, decimals, Integers) and their application to real-world situations, as well as computational and estimation situations. Understanding numerical relationships as expressed in ratios, proportions, arid percents is emphasized. Students' abilities in estimation, mental Computation, use of calculators, generalization of numerical patterns, and verification of reSults are also included. IMeasurement This content area focuses on students' ability to describe real-world objects using numbers. Students are asked to 1dentifj attributes, select appropriate units, apply measurement concepts, and communicate measurement-related ideas to others. Questions are included that require an ability to read instruments using metric, customary, or nonstandard units, with emphasis on precision and accuracy. Questions requiring estimation, measurements, and applications of measurements of length, time, money, temperature, maSS/weight, area, volume, capacity, and angles are also included in this content area. Geometry This content area focuses on students' knowledge of geometric figures and relationships and ontheir skills In working with this knowledge. These skills are important at all levels of schooling as well as in practical applications. Students need to be able to model and visualize geometric figures in one, two, and three dimensions and to communicate geometric ideas. In addition, students should be able to use informal reasoning to establish geometric relationships. Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability This content area focuses on data representation and analysis across all disciplines and reflects the importance and prevalence of these activities in our society. Statistical knowledge ,/nd the ability to interpret data are necessary skills in the contemporary world. Questions emphasize appropriate methods for gathering data, the visual exploration of data, and the development and evaluation of arguments based on data analysis. Algebra and Functions This content area is broad in scope, covering algebraic and functional concepts in more informal, exploratory ways for the eighth-grade Trial State kssessment. Proficiency in this concept area requires both manipulative facility and conceptual understanding: it involves the ability to use algebra as a means of representation and algebraic processing as a problem-solving tool. Functions are viewed not only in terms ot algebraic formulas, but also in terms of verbal descriptions, tables of values, and graphs. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 83 Rhode Island FIGURE A2 I Mathematical Abilities ME wag REPORT mip CARD The following three categories of mathematical abilities are not to be construed as hierarchical. For example, problem solving involves Interactions betWeen conceptual knowledge $ procedural skills, but what is considered complex problem solving at one grade level may bt considered conceptual understanding or procedural knowledge at another. IConceptual Understanding Students demonstrate conceptual understanding in mathematics when they provide evidence that they can recognize, label, and generate examples and counterexamples of concepts: can use and Interrelate models, diagrams, and varied representations of concepts: can identify and apply principles: know and can apply facts and definitions; can compare, contrast, and integrate related concepts and principles: can recognize, interpret, and apply the signs, symbols, and terms used to represent concepts: and can interpret the assumptions and relations involving concepts in mathematical settings. Such understandings are essential to performing procedures in a meaningful way and applying them in problem-solving situations. S%idents demonstrate procedural knowledge in mathematics when they provide evidence of their ability to select and apply appropriate procedures correctly, verify and justify the correctness of a procedure using concrete models or symbolic methods, and extend or modify procedures to deal with factors inherent in problem settings. Procedural knowledge includes the various numerical algorithms in mathematics that have been created as tools to meet specific needs in an efficient manner. It also encompasses the abilities to read and produce graphs and tables, execute geometric constructions, and perform noncomputational skills such as rounding and ordering. Problem Solving In problem solving, students are required to use their reasoning and analytic abilities when they encounter new situations. Problem solving includes the ability to recognize and formulate problems: determine the sufficiency and consistency of data: use strategies, data, models, anr relevant mathematics: generate, extend, arid modify procedures: use reasoning (I.e., spatial, inductive, deductive, statistical, ard proportional): and judge the reasonableness and correctness of solutions. 84 Tlik Iwo NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island A scale ranging from 0 to 500 was created to report performance for each content area. Each content-area scale was based on the distribution of student pedormance across all three grades assessed in the 1990 national assessment (grades 4, 8, and 12) and had a mean of 250 and a standard deviation of 50. A composite scale was created as an overall measure of students' mathematics proficiency. The composite scale was a weighted average of the five content area scales, where the weight for each content area was proportional to the relative importance assigned to the content area in the specifications developed by the Mathematics Objectives Panel. Scale Anchoring Scale anchoring is a method for defining performance along a scale. Traditionally, performance on educational scales has been defined by norm-referencing -- that is, by comparing students at a particular scale level to other students. In contrast, the NAEP scale anchoring is accomplished by describing what students at selected levels know and can do. The scale anchoring process for the 1990 Trial State Assessment began with the selection -f four levels -- 200, 250, 300, and 350 -- on the 0-to-500 scale. Although proficiency levels below 200 and above 350 could theoretically have been defined, they were not because so few students performed at the extreme ends of the scale. Any attempts to define levels at the extremes would therefore have been highly speculative. To defme performance at each of the four levels on the scale, NAEP analyzed sets of mathematics items from the 1990 assessment that discriminated well between adjacent levels. The criteria f. r selecting these "benchmark" items were as follows: To define performance at level 200, items were chosen that were answered correc.ly by at least 65 percent of the students whose proficiency was at or near 200 on the scale. To defme performance at each of the higher levels on the scale, items were chosen that were: a) answered correctly by at least 65 percent of students whose proficiency was at or near that level; and b) answered incorrectly by a majority (at least 50 percent) of the students performing at or near the next lower level. The percentage of students at a level who answered the item correctly had to be at least 30 points higher than the percentage of students at the next lower level who answered it correctly. 90 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 85 Rhode island Once these empirically selected sets of questions had been identified, mathematics educators analyzed the questions and used their expert judgment to characterize the knowledge, skills, and understandings of students performing at each levet Each of the four proficiency levels was defined by describing the types of mathematics questions that most students attaining that proficiency level would be able to perform successfully. Figure 3 in Chapter 1 provides a summary of the levels and their characteristic skills. Example questions for each level are provided fir Figure A3, together with data on the estimated proportion of students at or above each of the four proficiency levels who correctly answered each question.' Questionnaires for Teachers and Schools As part of the Trial State Assessment, questionnaires were given to the mathematics teachers of assessed students and to the principal or other administrator in each participating school. A Policy Analysis and Use Panel drafted a set of policy issues and guidelines and made recommendations concerning the design of these questionnaires. For the 1990 assessment, the teacher and school questionnaires focused on six educational areas: curriculum, instructional practices, teacher qualifications, educational standards and reform, school conditions, and conditions outside of the school that facilitate learning and instruction. Similar to the development of the materials given to students, the policy guidelines and the teacher and school questionnaires were prepared through an iterative process that involved extensive development, field testing, and review by external advisory groups. MATHEMATICS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaire for eighth-grade mathematics teachers consisted of two parts. The first requested information about the teacher, such as race/ethnicity and gender, as well as academic degrees held, teaching certification, training in mathematics, and ability to get instructional resources. In the second part, teachers were asked to provide information on each class they taught that included one or more students who participated in the Trial State Assessment Program. The information included, among other things, the amount of time spent on mathematics instruction and homework, the extent to which textbooks or worksheets were used, the instructional emphasis placed on different mathematical topics, and the use of various instructional approaches. Because of the nature of the sampling 1..)r the Trial State Assessment, the responses to the mathematics teacher questionnaire do not necessarily represent all eighth-grade mathematics teachers in a state or territogi. Rather, they represent the teachers of the particular students being assessed. 2 Since there were insufficient numbers of eighth-grade questions at levels 200 and 350, one of the questions exemplifying level 200 is from the fourth-grade national assessment and one exemplifying level 350 is from the twelfth-grade national assessment. 86 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT' Rhode Island FIGURE A3 I Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels Level 200: Simple Additive Reasoning and Problem Solving with Whole Numbers EXAMPI.E Seth 7. Leeds had thee I. hem ad di sem sin sad dew ethesee beds el be& as thews am. Vohs Ms ace Ire that doe el kW thews. Meth bee re hew the Meth Wish' JO m ma bar ulab die mole both The ha IA* de perk& The km lekh the maw bah Tee ern loth EXAMPLE 2 se N 90=1. Of MST MOOD AT FARAWAY FARM 11the lee the Iles ale Otthelleth limeses= athethes I. How sway iteer of athempe wore *bed ea Theridele 55 CID d0 di! 70 the 410 CD 90 CD deal boor. Grads 4 OvereS Percentage Ckirrect 73% Peroentage Correct for Anchor Level*: 2Cli 22Q 2112 85 91 100 Grade 4 Overall Percentage Correct- 80% Percentage Correct for .avels: azo ZOO 222 75 91 100 Grade 8 Overall Percentage Correct 89% Percentage Correct for Anchor unets: 222 214 202 arg 78 ST 96 100 92 THE 1990 NABP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT $7 Rhode Island FIGURE A3 1 Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels (continued) 1 Level 250: Simple Multiplicative Reasoning and Two-Step Problem Solving EXAMPLE 1 7. What is the value ai a + 5 when n am 3 ? EXAMPLE 2 Nan OMR AMY 10311.T41 Oft if loperee 21 tows PIO 1) to* Ha The sable aleve shwa the Pooh of a swop of hide cake. Oa death War, Nuke a Oath are* so Mawr* the dna deo obis. Labsi lade pa of doe *de pa" with ales asoata It* sake. 3:41 414 dif 0/0014144 ea this *KO& Ito Cs, EXAMPLE 3 6. KNOWN I peek* lereloglie tato Woo. face boa MI6 6 bootlegs. Stw has 24 bib. Wtt& awaher isotats will kip twe Hai out how way beam AS win aeo6 CDUSa, 24 4-4 0 024 4-41:1 C1) 24 x 4 w 42$ I deal koow. Grade 9 Overall PIIIVIIMII111 Correct 76% Percentage correct for Anchor Levels: 2110 SO 25 430 95 96 Grade II (Wendt Percentage Correct: 73% Percentage comet for Mehor Levies: 210 2310 21 fr 92 92 Grade 8 OveraN Percenisge Correct: 77% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: 2:2 2211 11Q 37 71 95 100 as ME 1990 NAM' TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island FIGURE A3 I Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels (continued) Level 300: Reasoning and Problem Solving involving Fractions, Decimals, Percents, Eiernentasy Geomeldo Properties, and Min* Algebraic Manipulations EXAMPLE I IL Math ei the fabowtag sham Oa mak i Simms* the &bays masale ota aka liaa It EXAMPLE 2 is nado) toms Aso s elms if WNW. ii3S las *ft* rall****14 by a mak ',old I Saari Wall Al au* wale arad..aleasu 11 law WO wadi he rapreamad by a sada maid haw way WasMO? Thi you saa *a *Waimea ea this gasatleat O N. BEST COPY AVAILABLE Grade 8 Oaten Pimento. Convict 80% Percontege Comet fat Anchor Leval*: ata laa 33 40 77 90 Grade 12 Oventil Percentage Cornet: 75% Percentage Owed for Anchor Lewis: 2Q2 2112 310 46 79 95 Grade 8 Oman Percentage COMIC!: 59% Percentage Correct for Anchor Loyola: ag2 210 222 17 48 88 99 Rhode Island FIGURE A3 I Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels (continued)[ Level 350: Reasoning and Problem Solving Involving Geometric Relationships, Algebraic Equations* and Beginning Statistics and Probability EXAMPLE I 111. g000riais 16-17 mks es dot iollooiog poen of ilbe-f wow. * It It a s 1 2 2 IC If of fottemes so comot000t, law many doe will fro I* oho FOCA <11) IUD (1) oI cl) I flf9 4110 220 70 I EXAMPLE 2 *Mk how rat kiwi yow Nova is ouestfoo It "Lwow Grads Overall Percentage Correct 34% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: at MI ZS no 13 19 53 88 Grade 12 Omni Percentage Correct 49% Percentage Collect for Anchor Levels: 2C0 Zig WI 2111 22 48 90 Grade 8 Merall Pementage Correct 15% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: Ett 220 1 4 28 74 Grade 12 Overall Percentage Correct 27% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: 202 =I Ma 3 22 74 90 ME 1990 NAEP TRIAL srms ASSIISSMENT Rhode Island SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS AND POLICIES QUESTIONNAIRE An extensive school questionnaire was completed by principals or other administrators in the schools participating in the Trial State Assessment. In addition to questions about the individuals who completed the questionnaires, these were questions about school policies, course offerings, and special priority areas, among other topics. It is important to note that in this report, as in all NAEP reports, the student is always the unit of analysis, even when information from the teacher or school questionnaire is being reported. Having the student as the unit of analysis makes it possible to describe the instruction received by representative samples of eighth-grade students in public schools. Although this approach may provide a different perspective from that which would be obtained by simply collecting infonngion from a sample of eighth-grade mathematics teachers or from a sample of schools, it is consistent with NAEP's goal of providing information about the educational context and performance of students. Estimating Variability The statistics reported by NAEP (average proficiencies, percentages of students at or above particular scale-score levels, and percentages of students responding in certain ways to background questions) axe estimates of the corresponding information for the population of eighth-grade students in public schools in a state. These estimates are based on the performance of a carefully selected, representative sample of eighth-grade public-school students from the state or territory. If a different represeatative sample of students were selected and the assessment repeated, it is likely that the estimates might vary somewhat, and both of these sample estimates might differ somewhat from the value of the mean or percentage that would be obtained if every eighth-grade public-school student in the state or territory were assessed. Virtually all statistics that are based on samples (including those in NAFP) arc subject to a certain degs-ee of uncertainty. The uncertainty attributable to using samples of students is referred to as sampling error. Like almost all estimates based on assessment measures, NAEP's total group and subgroup proficiency estimates are subject to a second source of umertainty, in addition to sampling error. As previously nottd, each student who participated in the Trial State Assessment was administered a subset of questions from the total sei of questions. If each student had been administered a different, but equalli appropriate, set of the assessment questions -- or the entire set of questions -- somewhat different estimates of total group and subgroup proficiency might have been obtained. 'Thus, a second source of uncertainty arises because each student was administered a subset of the total pool of questions. 6 THE. 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 91 Rhode Island In addition to reporting estimates of average proficiencies, proportions of students at or above particular scale-score levels, and proportions of students giving various msponses to background questions, this report also provides estimates of the magnitude of the uncertainty associated with these statistics. These measures of the uncertainty are called standard errors and are given in parentheses in each of the tables in the report. The standard errors of the estimates of mathematics proficiency statistics reflect both sources of uncertainty discussed above. The standard errors of the other statistics (such as the proportion of students answering a background question in a certain way or the proportion of students in certain racial/ethnic groups) reflect only sampling error. NAEP uses a methodology called the jacklmife procedure to estimate these standard errors. Drawing Inferences from the Results One of the goals of the Trial State Assessment Program is to make inferences about the overall population of eighth-grade students in public schools in each participating state and territory based on the particulaz sample of students assessed. One uses the results from the sample taking into account the unc, rainty associated with all samples -- to make inferences about the population. The use of confidence intervals, based on the standard errors, provides a way to make inferences about the population means and proportions in a manner that reflects the uncertainty associated with the sample estimates. An estimated sample mean proficiency ± 2 standard errors represents a 95 percent confidence interval for the corresponding population quantity. This means that with approximately 95 percent certainty, the average performance of the entire population of interest (e.g., all eighth-grade students in public schools in a state or territory) is within ± 2 standard errors of the sample mean. As an example, suppose that the average mathematics proficiency of the students in a particular state's sample were 256 with a standard error of 1.2. A 95 percent confidence interval for the population quantity would be as follows: Mean ± 2 standard errors = 256 ± 2 (1.2) = 256 ± 2.4 = 256 - 2.4 and 256 + 2.4 = 253.6, 258.4 Thus, one can conclude with 95 percent certainty that the average proficiency for the entire population of eighth-grade students in public schools in that state is between 253.6 and 258.4. Similar confidence intervals can be constructed for percentages, provided that the percentages are not extremely large (greater than 9(1 percent) or extremely small ( less than 10 percent). For extreme percentages, confidence Antervals constructed in the above manner may not be appropriate and procedures for obtaining accurate confidence intervals are quite complicated. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode island Analyzing Subgroup Differences in Proficiencies and Proportions In addition to the overall results, this report presents outcomes separately for a variety of important subgroups. Many of these subgroups are defined by shared characteristics of students, such as their gender, race/ethnicity, and the type of community in which their school is located. Other subgroups are defined by studcnts' responses to background questions such as About how much time do you usual& spend each day on mathen:atics homework? Still other subgroups are defined by the responses of the assessed students' mathematics teachers to questions in the mathematics teacher questionnaire. As an example, one might be interested in answering the question: Do students who reported spending 45 minutes or more doing mathematics homework each day exhibit higher average mathematics proficiency than students who reported spending 15 minutes or less? To answer the question posed above, one begins by comparing the average mathematics proficiency for the two groups being analyzed. If the mean for the group who reported spending 45 minutes or more on mathematics homework is higher, one may be tempted to conclude that that group does have higher achievement than the group who reported spending 15 minutes or less on homework. However, even though the means differ, there may be no real difference in performance between the two groups in the population because of the uncertainty associated with the estimated average proficiency of the groups in the sample. Remember that the intent is to make a statement about the entire population, not about the particular sample that was assessed. The data from the sample are used to make inferences about the population as a whole. As discussed in the previous section, each estimated sample mean proficiency (or proportion) has a degree of uncertainty associated with it. It is therefore possible that if all students in the population had been assessed, rather than a sample of students,'or if the assessment bad been repeated with a different sample of students Jr a different, but equivalent, set of questions, the performances of various grnup, would have been different. Thus, to determine whether there ts a real difference between the mean proficiency (or proportion of a certain attribute) for two groups in the population, one must obtain an estimate of the degree of uncertainty associated with the difference between the proficiency means or proportions of those groups for the sample. This estimate of the degree of uncertainty -- called the standard error of the difference between the groups -- is obtained by taking the square of each group's standard error, summing these squared standard errors, and then taking the square root of this sum. Similar to the manner in which the standard error for an individual goup mean or proportion is used, the standard error of ihe difference can be used to help determine whether differences between groups in the population are real. The difference betwevn the mean proficiency or proportion of the two groups * 2 standard errors of the difference represents an approximate 95 percent confidence interval. If the resulting interval includes zero, one should conclude that there is insufficient evidence to claim a real difference between groups in the population. If the interval does not contain zero, the difference between groups is statistically significant (different) at the .05 level. 8 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 93 Rhode Island As an example, suppose that one were interested in determining whether the average mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade females is higher than that of eighth-grade males in a particular state's public schools. Suppose that the sample estimates of the mean proficiencies and standard errors for females and males were as follows: Group Average Proficiency . Standard Error _ Female 259 2.0 Male 255 2.1 The difference between the estimates of the mean proficiencies of females and males is four points (259 - 255). The standard error of this difference is = 2.9 Thus, an approximate 95 percent confidence interval for this difference is Mean difference ± 2 standard errors of the difference = 4 ± 2 (2.9) = 4 ± 5.8 = 4 - 5.8 and 4 + 5.8 = -1.8, 9.8 The value zero is within this confidence interval, which extends from -1.8 to 9.8 (i.e., zero is between -1.8 and 9.8). Thus, one should conclude that there is insufficient evidence to claim a difference in average mathematics proficiency between the population of eighth-grade females and males in public schools in the state.' Throughout this report, when the mean proficiency or proportions for two groups were compared, procedures like the one described above were used to draw the conclusions that are presented. If a statement appears in the report indicating that a particular group had higher (or lower) average proficiency than a second group, the 95 percent confidence interval for thc difference between groups did not contain zero. When a statement indicates that the average proficienq or proportion of some attribute was about the same for two groups, the confidence interval included zero, and thus no difference could be assumed between the p-oups. The rea&r is cautioned to avoid drawing conclusions solely on the basis of the magnitude of the differences. A difference between two groups in the sample that appears to be slight may represent a statistically significant difference in the population because of the magnitude of the standard errors. Conversely, a difference that appears to be large may not be statistically significant. 'the procedure described above (especially the estimation of the standard error of the differenW is, in a strict sense, only appropriate when the statistics being compared come from independent samples. For certain comparisons in the report, the groups were not independent. In those cases, a different (and more appropriate) estimate of the standard error qf the difference was used. r 94 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island The procedures described in this section, and the certainty ascribed to intervals (e.g., a 95 percent confidence interval), are based on statistical theory that assumes that only one confidence interval or test of statistical significance is being performed. However, in each chapter of this report, many different groups are being compared (i.e., multiple sets of confidence intervals are being analyzed). When one considers sets of confidence intervals, statistical theory indicates that the certainty associated with the entire set of intervals is less than that attributable to each individual comparison from the set. If one wants to hold the certainty level for the set of comparisons at a particular level (e.g., .95), adjustments (called multiple comparison procedures) must be made to the methods described in the previous section. One such procedure -- the Bonferroni method was used in the analyses described in this report to form confidence intervals for the differences between groups whenever sets of comparisons were considered. Thus, the confidence intervals in the text that are based on sets of comparisons are more conservative than those described on the previous pages. A more detailed description of the use of the Bonferroni procedure appears in the Trial State Assessment technical report. Statistics with Poorly Determined Standard Errors Thc standard errors for means and proportions reported by NAEP are statistics and therefore arc subject to a certain degree of uncertainty. In certain cases, typically when thc standard error is based on a small number of students, or when the group of students is enrolled in a small number of schools, the amount of uncertainty associated with the standard errors may be quite large. Throughout this report, estimates of standard errors subject to a large degree of uncertainty are followed by the symbol "!". In such cases, the standard errors -- and any confidence intervals or significance tests involving these standard errors -- should be interpreted cauti9usly. Further details concerning procedures for identifying such standard errors are discussed in the Trial State Assessment technical report. Minimum Subgroup Sample Sizes Results for mathematics proficiency and backinound variables were tabulated and reported for groups defmed by race/ethnicity and type of school community, as well as by gender and parents' education level. NAEP collects data for five racial/ethnic subgroups (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaskan Native) and four types of communities (Advantaged Urban, Disadvantaged Urban, Extreme Rural, and Other Communities). However, in many states or territories, and for some regions of the country, the number of students in some of these groups was not sufficiently high to permit accurate estimation of proficiency and/or background variable results. As a result, data are not provided for the subgroups with very small sample sizes. For results to be reported for any subgroup, a minimum sample size of 62 students was required. This number was determined by computing the sample size required to detect an effect size of .2 with a probability of .8 or greater. 10 0 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 95 Rhode bland The effect size of .2 pertains to the true difference between the average proficiency of the subgroup in question and the average proficiency for the total eighth-grade public-school population in the state or territory, divided by the standard deL.tion of the proficiency in the total population. If the true difference between subgroup and total group mean is .2 total-group standard deviation units, then a sample size of at least 62 is required to detect such a difference with a probability of .8. Further details about the procedure for determining minimum sample size appear in the Trial State Assessment technical report. Describing the Size of Percentages Some of the percentages reported in the text of the report are given quantitative descriptions. For example, the number of students being taught by teachers with master's degrees in mathematics might be described as "relatively few" or "almost all," depending on the size of the percentage in question. Any convention for choosing descriptive terms for the magnitude of percentages is to some degree arbitrary. The descriptive phrases used in the report and the rules used to select them are shown below. Percentage Description of Text in Report p = 0 None 0 < p s 10 Relatively few 10 < p S. 20 Some 20 < p 5_ 30 About one-quarter 30 < p s 44 Less than half 44 < p S 55 About half 55 < p s 69 More than half 69 < p s 79 About three-quarters 79 < p s 89 Many 89 < p < 100 Almost all p = 100 All , , 1 n 96 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island THE NATION'S REPORT CARO DATA APPENDIX For each of the tables in the main body of the report that presents mathematics proficiency results, this appendix contains corresponding data for each level of the four reporting subpopulations race/ethnicity, typ, of community, parents' education level, and gender. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 97 Rhode Island TABLE AS I Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class They Are Taking PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 MAEP TRIAL EOM-grads STATE ASSESSMENT Mathematics Pro-aigebra Algebra _ TOTAL State Nation NACEIETNNOCITY Olawasnanp and Preikiency tI 243 0.7) 02 2.1) 251 1.4) 49 1.2) 249 0.7) 59 25) 259 ( 1.8) 82 ( 2115 ( 3.3 72 ( 4.7 232 ( 3.4) 220 ( 2.5 75 ( 4.4 240 ( 2.4) 42 ( 3.2) 255 ( 1.2) 545 ( 9.4) ( 2.5)1 57 ( 3.8) 229 ( 3.3) OS ( 0.0) 240 ( 4.0)1 51 ( 1.2) 243 ( 0.7) 01 ( 22) 251 ( 2.0) Pereoldago end Praildency 29 0.8 272 0.91 19 1.9 272 ( 2A 30 ( 0.9) 278 ( 0.8) 21 ( 2.4) 277 ( 2.2) 24 ( 4.4) gal* 18 3.0) 2443 ( 8.4) 15 ( 1.9) ( *41 13 ( 3.0) 34 ( 14) 253 ( 1.3) 22 ( 7.9) ***) 25 ( 2.2) 258 ( 3.8) 10 ( 4.1) 20 ( 1.1) 271 ( 1.1) 20 ( 2.1) 272 ( 24) flarcahloge and Proficiency 18 ( 290 ( 1.7) 15 ( 1.2) 298 ( 2,4) 17 0.9) 300 ( 1.4) 17 ( 1.5) 300 ( 2.3) ( 2.5) ( Mel ( 22) Mt* ( 12 ( 2.9) ( 8 ( 14).) 22 ( 1.8) 309 ( 2.1) 21 ( 4.4) ( +el 14 ( 2.0) *Of eel 14 ( 3.3) 287 ( 4.2)1 10 ( 1.2) 294 ( 1.8) 10 ( 14) 294 ( 2.71 White State Nation Oink State Nation Hispanic State Nation TYPE Cif COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation Other State Nation The standard error" of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because a small number of students reported taking other mathematics courses. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does notallow accurate determination -LI' the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 98 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE AS Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class (continued) I They Are Taking PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY fSile° NAEP TRIAL TATE ASSESSMENT Eighth-grade Mathematics Pro-algebra Algebra 1 rot& State Nation mow EDUCATION Posaidep and Prdildsay 52 ( 1.1) 243 (0.7) 112 (2.1) 251 ( 14) 08 ( 3.4) 231 ( 2.2) 77 ( 3.7) 241 ( 2.1) Pdratda Mm Prodoloncy 0.11) 272 0.9) 19 1.9) 272 ( 2.4) 20 ( 32) 13 ( 3.4) «hi Peraidapp and Prolkdiety 16 ( 0.6) 290 ( 1.7) 15 ( 1.2) 296 ( 2.4) 10 ( 2.5) *4%4 3( 1.1) a 14. non-graduate State Nation NS graduate State SO ( 1.9) 27 ( 1.6) 9 ( 1.1) 240 ( 1.4) 267 ( 1.7) 265 ( 3.7) Nation 70 ( 2.11) 18 ( 2.4) 8 ( 1.1) 249 ( 1.9) 266 ( 3.5) 2/7 ( 5.2) $011141 college State 50 ( 2.2) 31 ( 2,0) 17 ( 2.1) 253 ( 2.0) 278 ( 2.2) 292 ( 4.1) Nation eKI ( 3.1) 21 ( 2.9) 15 ( 1.9) 257 ( 2.1) 276 ( 2.8) 295 ( 3.2) College graduate State 39 ( 1.5) 34 ( 1.5) 24 ( 1.3) 253 ( 1.1) 279 ( 1.4) 303 ( 1.9) Nation 53 ( 2.7) 21 ( 2.3) 24 ( 1.7) 259 ( 1.5) 278 2.8) 3t33 ( 2.3) GENDER Mate State 58 ( 1.8) 26 ( 1.1) 15 ( 1.3) 245 ( 12) 276 ( 1.5) 298 ( 2.6) Nation 63 ( 2.1) 18 ( 1.8) 15 ( 1.2) 252 ( 1.6) 27$ ( 2.9) 290 ( 2.5) Penults State 4$ ( 1.8) 32 ( 1.4) 17 ( 0.9) 241 ( 1.0) 289 ( 1.1) 293 ( 2.0) Nation 81 ( 2.8) 20 ( 2.3) 15 ( 1.7) 251 ( 14) 269 ( 3.0) 293 ( 2.8) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not toul 100 percent because a small number of students reported taking other mathematics courses. 1". Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 114 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 99 Rhode Island TABLE A6 Teachers' Reports on the Amount of Time Students Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Nom 15 Mimes* - 30 Minutes - 45 Minutes An Hour Or More TOTAL State Nation RAcvEraigia Wan State Nation Back State Nation Hispanic State Nation TYPE OF cOMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged State Nation Ottrr State Nation Iliettent800 Paula. allowitalle add add sod Pralloissoy Pnaddeqf Praliekocy 0.3) Imo 1 AV ime 2 ( 0.2) 014 ( 1 ( 0.3) Oa* ( 114/ 8 ( 21) Mir ( ( 03) *44 ( 441 5 ( 11) ( OA) 0 ( 0.0) ( 0.9) ( 2 ( DS) do** ( 441 0 0.0) inn ( DS) 1 { 0.4) 20 1.1 245 131 43 4.2 250 ( 2.3) 27 ( 2S1 ( 1.4 ( 43 39 65 ( 2.2 2 2$ (3.3) Mil en SS ( 71) 232 ( 3.1) 42 ( 2.8) 220 ( 43) 43 ( 7.8) 245 ( 3.0)4 12 ( 21) 01 (111) 273 ( $.1)1 43( 3.3) 230 ( SA) 41 (12.6) 296 2.1)I 33 ( 1.3) 249 ( 1.0) ST ( 4.3) 258 ( 31) 46 ( 28143 43 288 2.0 47 ( 1.4 288 0 45 111.1 270 2.7 1 42 ( 43) *44) 2411 2136 2:1 tt, 70 ( 3.3) 270 ( 11) 32 ( SA) 23034 { 3421 38 OA 203 ( 3034 44 ( 1.4) 2$9 ( 1.3) 49 SA) 205 (24) 212 111 272 10 Me .0) 211 1 4. 20 1.0) 11 24) 277 MP 270 08 .4.3 1 1 2 t .0101 400) 0 VI) 2 0 o. .85 13 ( 3.2) 3 I 11 00* 13 i "2.; .6.1 1.0) ... 4 7 2.1) 16 ( 1.11) 3 ( 1.0) 303 ( 3.4) 5 1 !II ... .1. *61 0 0) 0 14 ( 2.0) 7 09) 04i. .....) 12 5.9) 10 0.21 +4,4 eel O..d. *41 211 ( 2.2 278 ( 18 ( 10 ( 24 4 / 1.1i 4 ( 0.1) 282 113)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proriciency. "" Sample sin is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 100 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE A6 Teachers' Reports on the Amount of Time (continued) Students Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STULANTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSUENT Diem 15 Minutu 30 Minutes 45 Minutes An Hew or Meng TOTAL State Nation PARENTS' EDUCATION HS rem-graduate State Nation HS graduate State Nation Some coneys State Nation College graduat State Nation GENDER Male State Nation Female State Nation Pereenage Parsordo. Parsonage and and and kylialoacv Progdoncy Prallidency 03) imm 1 0.3) ( NM) 5 ( 2.0) «44, ( 0.8) *o ( ote.) 3 ( 0.7) ( **al 1 ( 05) v.* ( ( 0.5) ***) 1 ( 0.9) 1111. ( Mot) ( 0.3) WI* ( *el ( 0.3) ( *el 3 ( 0.8) ( *I/ ( 0.3) *44 ( 2 ( 0.8) «K.) ( 0.4) 1.1) 246 1.3) 43 42) 25e ( 23) 30 ( 42) 227 ( 3.0) 49 ( 03) 240 I 2.8) 30 ( 2.4) 243 ( 1.9) 43 ( $2) 249 ( 3.1) 20 ( 2.2) 258 ( 3.1) 44 ( 5.4) 2E6 ( 2.8) 22 ( 1.5) 255 ( 2.4) 40 ( 4.7) 265 ( 25) 29 ( 1.4) 250 ( 1.8) 44 ( 4.4) 257 ( 2.9) 23 ( 1.8) 240 ( 1.9) 41 ( 4.4) 256 ( 2.3) ( 1.1 261 43 4.3 266 2.6 40 ( 4.7) 241 ( 3.7) 40 ( 6.1) 240 ( 3.7) 44 ( 2.2) 253 ( 23) 44 ( 5.5) 258 ( 2.7) SO ( 3.5) 264 ( 2.2) 43 ( 54) 270 ( 3.8) 43 ( 1.8) 273 ( 1.3) 44 ( 4.1) 277 ( 3.0) 47 ( 14) 200 ( 14) 43 ( 4.3) 260 ( 2.9) 48 ( 14) 261 ( 1.8) 43 ( 4.7) 264 ( 2.8) flaraantaln mad Pragalonew 0.1) 2.2to 272 5/ 10 ( 2.0) ..**) 8 ( 1.7) 14 ( 1.7) 267 ( 3.0) 9( 3.1) MI* .01 19 ( 3.0) 205 ( 3.1) ( 2.1) ( 25 ( 2.0) 293 ( 2.3) f 2.3) 287 I. 3,1)t 17( 1.1) 287 ( 2.9) 9 ( 1.9) 273 ( 7,3)1 20 ( 1.2) 270 ( 2.0) 11 ( 2.0) 272 ( 5.7)1 Paraentain and givikanoy 4 ( 272 ( 4 4 ( (LS 27$ ( 5. ( 1.2) 00* ( 4 (13) elm ( 3 ( 0.9) ipew 04.1 3 (1.0) «an 4 ( 1.2) CM* ( 4 } 1.0) iped.) 4 ( 0.7) .41 4 ( 02) 5 ( 1.3) 279 ( 7,7)1 4 ( 02) 0. ( The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear Ili parentheses. It um be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value ror the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret With C41111.i0i1 - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. * Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). Inc THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 101 Rhode Island TABLE A7 I Students' Reports an the Amount of Time They I Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Ilene 15 Minutes I ,. 30 Minutes I _ 45 Wide* An Hair er Mere TOTAL iNweRatase and Prelldwow Planatage and Prokiency Peresitlege and Prefidency AMMO. Prallicgsney Peroselege Prolidev4 State ( 0.5) SS ( 0.8) S7 ( 15 ( 0.7) 0.0) 240 ( 2.2) 259 ( 1.0) 240 1.1 206 ( 1.8) 255 3.3) Nation ( 0.8) SI ( 2.0) 32 12 16 ( 1.0) 12 1.1) 251 ( 2.8) 264 ( 1.9) 263 1.9) 254 ( 1A1) 2515 $.1) RACE/ETHNICITY Whit. State ( 0.6) 34 ( 0.8) 37 ( 1.0) 15 ( 0.7) ( 3.7 252 ( 2.3) 264 ( 1.0) 267 ( 1.1) 271 ( 1.6) 207 ( 2.9 Nation 10 ( 1.0) 33 ( 2.4) 32 ( 13) 15 ( 0.9) 11 ( 13 255 ( 3.4) 270 ( 1.9) 270 ( 2.1) 277 ( 2.2) 260 ( 331 Slack State 9 ( 3.6) e") 33 (3.3) 27 ( 4.6) ( 441 17 ( 3.4) .044) 14 ( 2.0) Nation 7 ( et. 1.5) 28 ( 241 2.5) ( 3.8) 33 237 ( 2.7) ( 3.5) 18 ( 240 ( 2.3) 3.6) 10 ( 232 ( 1.9) 37) Hispanic State 8 ( 2.4) 28 ( 3.3) 38 235 ( 3.7) ( 33) 15 ( elm ( 2.1) .41 14 ( 2.3) elm ( air) Nation 12 ( 1.8) .44) 27 248 ( ( 3.0) 3.8) 30 248 ( 2.6) ( 3.4) 17 ( 241 ( 2.1) 4.3) 14 ( 1.7) 44.11^ 4,41 TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged trban State 3 ( 0.9) 30 ( 2.4) 39 ( 1.9) 1$ ( 1.8) ( 1.2) 274 ( 3.0) 275 ( 2.0) 2$1 ( 42) Nation 41 (12.5) 31 ( 6.6) 12 ( 33) 7 ( 34) ( ".) 276 ( 3.0)1 250 ( 4.6)1 ( .") Disadvantaged trban State ( ( 1.3) 32 240 ( 2.0) ( 39) 39 248 2.6) ( 3.2) 11 ( IhN0 1.8) 401 11 (( 1.4) 441 Nation 12 ( 3.7) *el 24 253 ( ( 3.3) 44)1 31 247 ( 3.0) ( 4.7)I 20 ( 250 ( 1.9) 4.8)) Other State 8 ( 04) 34 ( 1.0) 30 13) 13 ( 0.9) 6 ( 0.9) 248 ( 1.9) 25$ ( 1.3) 2E* 1.5) 262 ( 2.5) 257 ( 5.1) Nation ( 1.0) 30 ( 14) 32 1.3) 15 ( 1.1) 13 ( 1.1) 250 ( 3.8) 263 ( 23) 264 ( 2.3) 207 ( 2.1) 258 (3.6) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population it within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. "* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 r 102 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE A? I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time They (continued) I Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 UAEP TAIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Nem 15 Minutes 30 Mitudes 45 Mktutee An Nor or More TOTAI, State Nation PARNTS' EPUCATO Pralloiency 241; .0112 9 0.3) 251 (2.8) 1$ ( 32) 17 ( 3.0) et* ( ( 1.1 ) OM* ( 441 10 ( 11) 246 ( 4.2) 5 ( 12) 9 ( 1.2) IPRIP *01 4 ( 0.6) OR* 41 T ( 02) 265 ( 3.6) MS non-graeltat State Nation HS graduat State Nation Sam college State Nation College graduate State Nation GENDER M. State 9 ( 0.9) 24$ ( 2.6) Nation 11 ( 1.1) 255 ( 3,9) Fantele State 5 ( 0.6) ORM ( 114/ Nation ( 02) 240 ( #.1) Pimillolincy 211 2:14 14 $ 3 4.1) 23. SA) $$ 3.3) 248 4.0) 30 ( 1.5) 25$ ( 2.1) 33 C 2.2) 250 ( 3,2) 33 ( 2.5) 242 ( 3.1) 30 ( 2.7) 266 (3.0) 30 ( 1.1) 273 ( 1.7) 31 ( 3.4) 275 ( 2.0) ( 1.5) 201 ( 1.6) 34 ( 2.4) 264 ( 2.3) 30 ( 25e ( 1.7) 28 ( 2.0) 263 ( 1.5) Palmtop and . and Pfilidincy Prellaisma Preildency 37(0.9 15 V) ( 0,S) 283 ( 1.1 200 1.8) 235 32 ( 1.2 18 1.0) 12 1.1) 283 ( 1.0) 208 1.0) 233 3.1) 33 ( 3.7) 243 ( 3.8) 34 ( 4.4) 248 ( 2.6) 35 ( 1.9) 234 ( 2.1) 31 ( 1.9) 254 ( 2.4) 36 ( 2.6) 267 ( 2.5) 36 ( 2.1) 206 ( 2.6) 39 ( 1.2) 276 ( 1.8) 31 ( 2.0) 275 ( 2.5) 33 ( 1.1) 266 ( 2.0) 29 ( 1.3) 266 ( 2.4) 40 ( 1.1) 260 ( 14) 35 ( 1.7) 260 ( 2.0) 11 ( 4144 ( 2.4) 0419 9 ( 40.4. 1.8) eon 12 ( .4* ( 2.5) 10 ( 2.2) con 12 ( 1.3) ( 1.1) 253 ( 3.6) MI* ( 1141 ( 1.4) 11 ( 1.5) 258 ( 2.8) 244 ( 3.4) 16 ( 1.5) .44,) 11 ( 18) 14 ( 1.8) 11 ( 1.5) 274 3.5) ( ***) 18 ( 1.1) 9 ( 1.0) 278 ( 2.6) 271 ( 3.2) 18 ( 1.2) 14 ( 1.9) 278 ( 3.2) 271 ( 2.8) 14 ( 1.0) 0 ( 0.n) 263 ( 2.7) 258 4.0) 15 ( 12) 11 ( 1.4) 265 ( 3.0) 258 ( 4.1) 10 ( 1.2) 10 0.3) 268 ( 2.4) 253 ( 38) 17 ( 1.0) 13 ( 1.3) 267 ( 2.4) 258 ( 3.3) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 8 THE. 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 103 Rhode Island TABLE A8 I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given To Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 9990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Numbers and Operations 1 Meastrement - Geometry Heavy Emphasis I Little or No Emphasis Heavy Emphasis 1 Little or No Emphasis Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis TOTAL Percenteor and Proficiency 251 49 State Nation E82MILUCI Whit* State 49 ( 1.1) 257 ( 1.0) Nation 48 ( 3.7) 267 ( 2.2) Mack State 81 ( 3.4) 230 ( 3.1) Nation 54 ( 7.9) 243 ( 4.3) Hispanic State 62 ( 3.7) 230 ( 2.3) Nation 47 ( 5.7) 246 ( 4.8) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 44 ( 2.1) 263 ( 1.8) Nation 28 (13.0) Disadvantaged State 52 ( 3.4) 234 ( 2.1) Nation 48 (12.1) 255 ( 63)1 Other State 57 ( 1.3) 253 ( 1.1) Nation 32 ( 4.1) 280 ( 23) Parcerdene Parcentage Percentarn Percontene Parconlano and and and and and Proliciency Widow Proliciritcy Vollaintcy Proficiency 24; 2.1 1? LI 274 4.0 2$ 3.8 21 3.31 18 141 0.1 17 ;it 18 ( 1.3) 12 ( 0.8) 43 ( 1.8) 296 ( 2.6) 258 ( 3.7) 268 ( 1.8) 16 ( 2.4) ¶4 9.4) 98 ( 4.7) 289 ( IS) 250 ( top 277 ( 4.3) 10 ( 2.6) 14 ( 3.7) 23 ( 4.4) ( *e) ( ( 11 ( 9.3) 25 ( TA) 23 ( 5.7) ( ***) 228 ( 2.8)4 238 ( 8.1)1 18 ( 3.3) 17 ( 2.8) 29 ( 3.3) fmr imp.) 44) ( .41 8 ( 2.2) 23 ( 4.1) 34 ( 5.8) *** ( "*) ( ***) 255 ( 4.4)1 18 ( 2.0) 08 ( 4.8) 16 ( 4.2) ..**) 22 ( 3.8) 274 ( 4.1)1 9 ( 4.0) 4,4,1 15 ( 1.4) 291 ( 2.7) 16 ( 2.7) 286 ( 3.6) 13 ( 1.0) fn. ( *Est) 9 ( 7.0) ..**) 10 ( 1.4) a*. ( .44) 30 (10.3) 238 ( 8.4)1 13 ( 0.7) 244 ( 3.8) 18 ( 3.9) 253 ( 7.1)1 32 ( 2.7) 290 ( 3.5) 40 ( 8.5) ( *0,1 56 ( 5.13) 251 ( 2.6)1 21 ( 6.5) 4 .4.41 39 ( 1.0) 250 ( 2.3) 34 ( 5.3) 270 ( 4.8) 19 ( OA) 39 ( 1.5) 263 ( 1.8) 261 ( 1A) 27 ( 4.4) 22 ( 3.4) 265 ( 3.3) 273 ( 5.8) 9 ( 2.9) 4) 461 5.2) 33 ( 7.9) 24 ( 73) 242 ( 5.8)4 233 ( 4 . 7 ( 1.8) 42 ( 3.7) 231 ( 4.3) 27 ( 8.1)) 16 ( 5.5) ( .1") *** ( ***) 23 ( 1.8) 44 ( 2.2) 276 ( 3.2) 274 ( 3.9) 38 ( 9.4) 13 ( 3.2) 267 ( 4.9)1 3 ( 0.7) 47 ( 5.9) 236 ( 2.1) 33 (11.8) 248 ( 8.2)1 18 ( ( 7.6) .11 16 ( 0.8) 38 ( 1.2) 251 ( 3.4) 257 ( 2.3) 28 ( 4.8) 24 ( 4.3) ( 3.9) 265 ( 5.7) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate emphasis" category is not included. ! interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a rehable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 104 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE AS I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to (continued) 1 Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY ambers and Operadone Measurement Geometry 1 1900 NAEP TRIAL Ab. STATE ASSESSMENT Heavy 'Little or No Heavy 1 Little or No Heavy 1 Utile or No Emphasis Emphasis Emphasis Emphasis Emphasis Emphasis TOTAL State Nation ?AUNTS EDUCATION RS non-graduate State Nation HS graduate State Nation Some coke, State Nation College graduate State Nation GENDER Male State Nation FOITIIII0 State Nation Pfroests. Ihmsilmia 04mants. Oinsiodso 1$064olamo 6441.112.6 tad *NO WO 48.0 iMs0 pi Pisalicianiv Pralaimay Pralkiensw Proaciono OrsOollecv litaillbwit 13 33 1.0 252 0.7 40 SA 250 ( 1.6 82 ( 34) 237 OD 32 251 3.4 10 1.1 20 2.1 15 Zi 217 3,4 12 I 2,2) " % ft) 1 ( 2,$) *** t "1 a 17 250 131 221 "1" 05 30 5.6 ) 31) !.31 ILO 11.1 * 272 4.0 * 3.4 25 VI 2g :71 2: al 3.1) 21 200 3.2 264 6 ( Et 51 (!.! 30 1 0.3$ 20 "417 ,... 41101 68 12 ( 1.5 11 I 0 (2.5) 1. 2441 23 245 2.1 271 ( 51 X6 34) XI OA 65 4.$ 11 ( 2.$ 17 1 Sail V (10) 27 4.5 24 I 5.1 250 ( 2.0) *** ( "" 251 ( 0.10 253 41)1 255 ( 4.2 246 ( 4$ 1 52 1 231 jiis i e) 11 1 1.11 401 2.5) 14 $7 3.0 ) 241 3.11 210 32 47 ( 4.4) 17 i SA) 12 ( 2.7) 301 5.5) 21 5.0 22 4.1 265 ( 2.0) 2$4 ( 4.1)1 *** ( ) 4.8) 242 4.1 270 ( 4.7 43 ( 13) 14 ( 1.$) 12 1 0:29) 43 ( 21 ( 1.5) $7 13) 252 ( 1.3) 304 ( 2.$) 270 ( 2.1 271 ( 2.8 VS 44 ( 4.1) 14 ( 21 151 11) 37 ( SA 2$ ( $.41 21 2.8 204 ( 23) SS ( 3.4 $ 233 ( 33) 270 ( SA 280 414 54 ( 1.2) 18 ( 1.7 14( 1.1) 30 1.8 18( 1.1) V ( 1 254 ( 1.1) 291 ( 3.3 255 ( 4.2) 200 2.2 202 255 2.1 48 ( 4.1) 14 ( 2.1 17 ( 3.3) $2 SA 20 4.1 20 3.3 241 ( 2.5) 257 ( 4.4 St 5 5 ( 0.7) 275 4.8 25$ 3.5 200 SA 51 ( 1.0) 18 ( 1.2) 11 ( 0.0 41 ( 13 ) 15 ( 0.0 41 ( 1.4 287 ( 245 ( 4.0 258 ( 2.1 240 ( 3.2 254 1.II} 51 3.0 15 ( 2.4 17 ( 3.2 35 ( 4.3 27 ( 3.4 23 3.5 200 2.0 286 ( 3.3 241 ( 5.4 248 ( 4.1 250 ( 3.3 253 5.0) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 stsndard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate emphasis" category is not included. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 105 Rhode Island TABLE AS Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given To (continued) Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability . Algebra and Functions Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis Heim, Emphasis I Little or No as Emphis TOTAL P4wesnlaga and Illeveletancy Perantage and Praesianey ponandaw and Proficiency State 10 0.5) 71 ( 0.0) 43 ( 1.0) 274 2.6) 254( 1.1) 266 ( 1.1) Nation 14 ( 2.2) 53 ( 44) 46 ( 32) 290 ( 4.3) 261 ( 2.0) 275 ( 24) Whit* State 10 ( 0.7) 71 ( 1.1) 48 ( 12) 278 ( 2.2) 262 ( 12) 269 ( 12) Nation 14 ( 2.4) ea ( 5.0) 43 ( 42) 276 ( 4.1) 271 ( 3.1) 2S1 ( 3.0) Black State ( 2.3) 74 ( 3.9) 23 ( 4.3) 11.1 208 ( 4.7) IMINt Nation 14 3.4) 53 ( 8.2) 39 ( 1.1) 225 ( 4.3) 253 ( 8.3) Hispanic State ( 1.6) ...) 75 ( 3.2) 212 ( 5.1) 28 ( 3.5) ...) Nation 15 ( 4.1) 56 ( 0.3) 461( 5.9) 246 4.4) 257 ( 4.0)1 TYPE Of COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 14 ( 1.4) SO ( 1.3) 58 ( 3.0) 281 ( 4.1) 271 ( 2.4) 291 ( 2.5) Nation 11 ( 0. 8.8) ) 65 (19.4) 284 ( 7.4)1 41 ( 8.P) 296 ( 7.9)4 Disadvantaged urban Sta,a 86 ( 1.7) 33 ( 2.1) ihtre 235 ( 3.5) 281 ( 24) Nation 19 ( 9.4) 34 (11.4) 53 (11A) 236 ( 82)1 254 ( 6.3)1 Other State 8 ( 0.7) 74 ( 1.0) 40 ( 1.3) Nation 274 ( 15 ( 2.0) 2.9) 255 ( 1.6) 53 ( 5.2) 286 ( LS) 47 ( 4.3) 267 ( 4.7) 260 ( 3.4) 276 ( 26) Panamiso and Pralsioney 27 06) 232 1 20 $.11 243 11.0 25 ( 0.9) 290 ( 16) 18 ( 24) 251 ( 3.3) 41 ( 5.6) 444 ( ***) 27 ( 69) 220 ( 2.2)1 44 ( 3.6) 213 ( 4.8) 18 ( 42) ...) 17 ( 1.3) 242 ( 3.8) 18 ( 5.3) .41 37 ( 3.5) 217 ( 24) 20 ( 9.4) 44,1 30 ( 1.0) 237 ( 2.0) 17 ( 13) 245 ( 4.4)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 Adard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate emphasis" category is not included. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. egs Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 106 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE AS I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given To ("mtillued) 1 Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability Afgsbra and Functions Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis - Heavy Emphasis _ Little or No Emphasis TOTAL Pareaniago and lindiclancy Psoventase and Pro **NW Paraentage and Prat:4110W State 10 ( 0.5) 71 ( 0.9) 43 ( 1.0) 274 ( 2.6) 254( 1.1) 266 ( 1.1) Nation 14 ( 2.2) 53 ( 4.4) 48 ( 3.6) 200 ( 43) 261 ( 2.9) 275 ( 2.5) PARENTS EDUCATION HS non-graduate State ( 2.5) 78 ( 3.1) 29 ( 3.4) ( 641 229 ( 3.4) Nation 9 ( 3.0) 53 ( 240 ( 7.7, 82) 28 ( 5.2) HS graduate State 78 ( 1.8) 30 ( 2.0) ( 245 ( 2.1) 275 ( 2.8) Nation 17 ( 3.7) 54 ( 5.4) 44 ( 4.8) 261 ( 6.0)1 247 ( 2.9) 265 ( 3.5) Soma coaage State 12 ( 2.3) 87 ( 2.8) 44 ( 2.6) *I* ( 441 261 ( 2.5) 286 ( 3.0) Nation 13 ( 2.5) $7 ( 5.8) ( 4.8) 270 ( 3.7) 278 ( 3.0) College graduate State 12 ( 1.0) 68 ( 1.7) $5 ( 1.6) 283 ( 3.6) 274 ( 2.0) 294 ( 1.6) Nation 15 ( 2.4) 53 ( 4.4) 50 ( 3.9) 282 ( 4.5) 275 ( 3.8) 288 ( 3.0) RENDER Mats State 11 ( 0.8) 72 ( 1.4) 40 ( 1.4) 273 ( 3.7) 255 ( 1.6) 286 ( 1.8) Nation 13 ( 22) 54 ( 4.7) 44 ( 4.1) 276 ( 52) 280 ( 32) 276 ( 3.2) Fs mate State 8 ( 0.7) 71 ( 1.4) 46 ( 1.7) 275 ( 3.6) 253 ( 1.7) 285 ( 1.3) Nation 16 ( 2.4) 53 ( 4.5) 48 ( 3.6) 283 ( 4.4) 262 ( 2.8) 274 ( 2.7) Parasniaga and Preadancy 27 ( 0.6) 232 ( 1.5) 20 ( 3.0) 243 ( 3.0) 41 4.1) 2191 4.5) 29 6.9) *se ( 32 ( 1.9) 229 ( 2.5) 23 ( 3.9) 239 ( SA) 28 ( 2.3) 239 ( 3.6) 17 ( 3.1) ( «in 16 ( 1.1) 242 ( 3.2) 18 ( 2.4) 249 ( 4.0) 30 ( 1.1) 234 ( 2.0) 22 ( 3.6) 243 ( 3.0) 25 ( 1.4) 230 ( 2.0) 18 ( 2.9) 244 ( 3.9) NNW The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not tota.1 100 percent because the "Moderate emphasis" category is not included. Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determinnion of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 2 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 107 Rhode Island TABLE A9 I Teachers' Reports on the Availability of i Resources PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY - VW NAEP TRIAL I CM AN the Resources I I 040 Most of the I Got Some or None et STATE ASSESSMENT Need Resources I Mind the Resources I Need TOTAL 0144nantage ant Prelickney 14 ( 0.0) 203 ( 2.0) IS ( 2.4) 205 ( 4.2) 14 ( 0.4) 270 ( 1.6) 11 ( 2.5) 275 ( 3.5)I 22 ( 5.3) State Nation gmgmtmit4 White State Nation Mack State et* fen Nation 1$ ( 42) 241 ( 3.3)4 Hispanic State 10 ( . ( 22) Nation 23 ( 7.6) 244 ( 1.7)4 TYPE OF COMMUNITY Achrentagett urban State 10 ( tar. ( 0.3) 4441 Nation 38 ( 9.2) 272 ( 8,5)1 Disadvantaged urban State 6 (( 1.1) *41 Nation 10 ( 6.8) 4.11* 11111 Other State 18 ( 02) 258 ( 2.5) Nation 11 ( 2.2) 285 ( 32)1 lidetallatage and Proffaioncy 54 1.2) 204 1.0) 58 4.0) 285 2.0) Pareastaga and Piolialancy I 14711 201 2.0 58 ( 1.5) SOt 12) 288 ( 1.1) 261 ( 12) 5$ ( 4.8) 30 ( 4.8) 270 ( 2.3) 287 ( 3.3) 42 ( 52) 33 ( 4.4) 52 ( 8.8) 33 ( 7.21 242 ( 2.4) 234 ( 4.9 41 ( 3.1) 44 ( 3.1) 235 ( 3.3) 223 ( 3.6) 44 ( 42) 34 ( 7.7) 250 ( 22) 244 ( 3.0)4 78 275 ( 1.5) ( 2.1) 12 ( 1.6) +in 59 286 ( 8.9) ( 13)4 3 ( 3.1) 4.4,41 54 (.5.8) 37 ( 5.3) 250 ( 2.7)1 233 ( 2.8) 40 (13.1) 50 (144) 251 ( 54)1 25$ ( 5.5)1 44 ( 12) 37 ( 1.0) 261 ( 1.4) 25$ ( 1.3) 58 ( 54) 31 ( 5.6) 284 ( 2.1) 263 ( 4.2) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *1* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 a, 3 10$ THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE A9 I Teachers' Reports on the Availability of (mitinued) I Resources PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY - , 1000 NAEP TRIAL I OM AN the Resources 1 I Gat Most of tho I Gat Some or Nona of STATE ASSESSMENT Need Resources I hood the Resources I Mod TOTAL and Prelidoney 14 263 2.0 13 24 2E6 4.2 16 2.9) ( 2.6) *4* ( **I State Nation PARENTS EDUCATION MS non-graduata State Nation KS graduate State 14 ( 1.7) 240 ( 24) Nation 10 ( 2.$) 2s3 4.6)1 Soma =Naga State 14 ( ( 1.6) 441 Nation 13 ( 3.3) .41 College graduate State 13 ( 1.1) 285 ( 2.6) Nation 15 ( 2.9) 278 ( 5.4)1 GENDER Mak State 14 ( 1.0) 264 ( 3.2) Nation 13 ( 26) 204 ( 5.0)1 Female State 14 ( 0.6) 261 ( 2.7) Nation 13 ( 2,4) 200 ( 3.9) arol PrvIcisney Peromiip prollatescy 54 1,2) 2:24 12 264 1.0) 56 4.0) 31 ( 42 205 2.0) 201 ( 2.9 50 4.1) 239 3.1) 54 5.7) 244 ( 2.7) 54 ( 2.3) 2511 1.71 54 ( 4.0) 256(1.0) 52 ( 2.7) 270 ( 2.2) 82 ( 4.3) 269 ( 2.5) 58 ( 1.7) 278 ( 1.2) 58 ( 4.9) 278 ( 22) 54 ( 1.7) 265 ( 1.4) 57 ( 4.0) 205 ( 211) 54 ( 1.3) 262 ( 1.3) 55 ( 4.4) 204 ( 2.0) 33 ( 3.7) 235 ( 53 35(03 243 ( 3.6)1 32 ( 2.6) 245 ( 1.11) $6 ( 49) 260 ( 2.6) 34 ( 2.6) 260 ( 25 ( 4.1) 291 ( 3.6) 29 ( 1.5) ( 2.1) 30 ( 5.1) 273 ( 3.7) $2 ( 1.4) 255 1.5) 30 ( 4.0) 264 ( 3.3) 32 1.2) 252 ( 1.9) 32 ( 4.7) 257 ( 3.0) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with mution - the nature of the sample does not allow aocurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 4 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 109 Rhode Island TABLE AlOa I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of Small Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 11100 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Once a week Less Than Ones a Walk Never TOTAL Ardent** itelaissey 21(0.6 Pereelds. 41 ( State Nation 200 ( 50 ( 44 12 43 4.1 200 ( 2.2) 2114 RACE/ETHNICITY Mite State 26 ( 0.9) 41 ( 1.0) 26$ ( 1.4) 204 ( 1.4) Nation 49 ( 4.0) 43 ( 4.5) elick 266 ( 2.7) 271 ( 2.2) State 31 (( 5.5) .41 39 44. ( 5.1) ( Nation 47 ( 8.1) 45 ( 7.0) 240 ( 3.4) 298 ( 4.0) Hispanic State 30 (( 2.7) 444) 224 ( 35) ( 4.3) Nation 84 ( 7.2) 32 ( 6.9) 248 ( 2.5) 247 ( 6.3)1 TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 90 ( 0.9) 38 ( 1.3) 283 ( 2.5) 281 ( 3.8) Nation 39 (22.9) ( ....) 41 (17.9) 273 ( 8.0)1 Disadvantaged urban State 21 ( 2.7) 36(35 ) 240 ( 3.8) 24$ ( 2.9) Nation TO (112) 21 ( 9.0) 248 ( 4.6)1 249 ( 8.7)1 Other State 25 ( 1.1) 1.1) 251 ( 1.8) 259 1.8) Nation 50 ( 4.4) 44 4.5) 200 ( 24) 264 ( 2.8) Pralleisimy OA 261 1.2 S 2.01 237 54 33 ( 1.0 287 ( 1.31 ( 2.3 285 ( 4.9)1 SO ( 4.0) 44. 441 9 ( 4.1) ( 2.0) *44 ( ***) 4 ( 1.4) 32 ( 15) 206 ( LS) 20 (12.2) 44. ( 4 43 ( ZS) 245 ( 42) ( $.5) dr 33 ( 0.9) 204 ( 0 ( 1.8 277 ( 5.3 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. I Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient topermit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 110 THE 1990 NAa TRIAL STATE AssEssmENT Rhode Island TABLE AlCla I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of Small (cmtinued) I Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY - . 181K1 NAEP TRW. STATE ASSESSMENT Al Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Weak Never DIAL woe sot freldesay State 27 ( 41 32 ( 200( 12 250(t2) 1.2 Nation SO ( 4.4 43 ( 4.1 Z30 ( 2.2) 264 ( 2.3) 227 5.4 Easaujaram 141 non-graduate State 21 SA) 44 ( 35) ( 3.7) 238 ( 4.0) 2111 ( 3.3) Nation 60 ( 8.41 244 ( 3.2 39 ( 8.5) 244 ( asp 1 (1.4) 0. *HI $8 graduate State 23 45 ( 2.2) 32 ( 2.1) 244 2.5 251 ( 1.9) 254 ( 2.0) Nation 49 4.8 45 ( 5.1) 0 ( 2.5) 253 23) 257 ( 23) Some college State 22 ( 2.1) 41 2.4) 97 3.0) 263 ( 3.8) 287 2.4) re 2.3) Nation Si ( S.2) 42 5.1) 7 2.3) 268 ( 3.1) 21$ ( 32) Cottage graduate State 32 ( 1.5) 37 ( 1.8) 31 ( 1.4) 270 ( 2.0) 275 ( 2.0) 274 ( 1.6) Nation 48 ( 5.2) 43 ( 4.4) 11 ( 2.7) 271 ( 2.8) 270 ( 3.0) 285 ( 4.9)1 OENDER M. State 28 ( 1.2) 41 ( 1.5) 91 ( 14) 202 ( 2.2) 261 ( 1.4) 263 ( 11) Nation 80 ( 4.8) 42 ( 4.0) 8 ( 2.1) 201 ( 3.0) 265 ( 3.1) 278 ( 5.3)1 Female State 215 ( 1.2) 41 ( 1.4) 33 ( 1.2) 258 ( 2.2) 258 ( 1.6) 250 ( 2.1) Nation SO ( 41) 43 ( 4.7) 7 ( 2.1) 250 ( 2.2) 263 ( 2.1) 275 ( 8.6)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within * 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. I Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit st reliable estimate (fzwer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 111 Rhode Island TABLE A lOb I Teachers' Reports on the Use of Mathematical Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT AI IJAtSt Once a Weak Lass Then Once a weak Now TOTAL and Pnolidellky aml Pnackacqr State 14 ( 0.5) 42 ( 1.1) 200 ( 1.6) 259 ( Oh) Nation 22 ( 3.7) ( 49) 254 ( 12) 263 1.9) RACE/ETHNICITY WNW State 13 ( 0.6) 81 ( 13) 269 ( 1.7) 26$ ( 1.0) Nation 17 ( 4.0) 72 ( 42) 261 ( 3.8)1 269(2.1) Mack State 17 ( 3.1) 06 ( 5.2) 22$ ( 3.6) Nation 22 ( 5.9) TO ( 6.3) 233 ( 5.9)1 241 ( 2.9) Hispanic State 20 ( 3.4) «in NS ( 3.2) 227 ( 3.1) Nation 39 ( 7.5) SS ( 7.3) 247 ( 3.8) 245 ( 3.6)1 TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 19 ( 0.5) 67 ( 1.0) 286 ( 4.0) 273 ( 1.0) Nation 23 (14.4) 03 (t1.5) 276 ( 5.0)1 Disadvantaged urban State 9 ( 1.9) ***) 50 ( 32) 235 ( 3.0) Nation 39 (11.4) 59 (12.1) 247 ( 1.5)1 253 ( 7,0)1 Other State 12 ( 0.7) 84 ( 1A) 2$0 ( 1.9) 257 ( 1.2) Nation 19 ( 42) 72 ( 5.0) 253 ( 39)1 263 ( 22) Paresstage and Prelideney 24 263 1.6 9 2.9 262 5.9 28 ( 1.5) 297 ( 1.5) 10 ( 2.7 ( 6.2p 17 5.11 3.9) .40* ( iS ( 2.6) ( eel 7 ( 2.8) IMP.) 14 ( 1.8) 282 4.2) 15 9.31 42 ( 4.4) 252 ( 2.4)1 2 (1.8) its* ) 24 ( 1.1) 287 2.1) 9 32) 281 7.1)1 The standard errors of the estimated stabstics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within * 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 112 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE A 10b I Teachers' Reports on the Use of Mathematical (cmitinued) Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1NO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Week Never _ TOTAL and Prolkftacy Pralibacy Poreollega and Prolidem State 14 ( 62 1.1) 24 ( 12) Nation 20 22 1.41 33 250 80 02) 3.0) 263 9 1 2,711 254 3 263 12) 282 5.9 PARENTS' EDOCATM 1.11 nan-graduats State 14 ( 2.7) 56 ( 236 ( 32) 3.4) 31 3.2) '41 Nation graduate 25 MO* ( SA) GB ( 243 ( 7.2) 22) 9 gm* ( 63) State 11 ( 1.3) ( 2.4) 2$ ( 2.3) 249 ( 256 ( 3.0) Nation 23 ( 4.8) TO ( 5.3) 7 ( 2.8) 248 ( 4.0)1 255 ( 22) ( Same Wiese State 12 ( 1.5) 62 ( 3.0) ( 3.0) OM* ( 264 ( 2.1) 272 ( 5.3) Nation 18 ( 4.0) 73 ( 4.3) ( 2.4) 261 ( 4.4)1 269 ( 2.3) ( College graduate State 15 ( 0.8) 63 ( 1.5) 22 ( 1.3) 281 ( 3.3) 272 ( 1.5) 278 ( 2.3) Nation 20 ( 3.9) 89 ( 3.1) 11 ( 2.5) 2e6 ( 3.5)1 274 ( 2.2) 227 ( 42)1 GENDER Male State 14 ( 1.0) 84 ( 1.6) 22 ( 1.6) 259 ( 3.0) 281 ( 1.1) 26$ ( 2$) Nation 22 ( 4.1) 09 ( 4.1) 8 ( 2.0) 256 ( 4.1) aes ( 2.1) 287 ( 7.2)1 Female State 14 ( 0.8) 80 ( 1.7) 27 ( 1.6) 200 ( 21) 258 ( 1.3) 261 ( 2.4) Nation 21 ( 3.6) 09 ( 4.2) 10 ( 3.3) 254 ( 3.3) 282 ( 1.9) 278 ( 6.0)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. I Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. "* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). us THE 1990 NABP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 113 Rhode Island TABLE AI la I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Almost &fry Day _ Several Tknes a Walk _ About Once a Week or LOU TOTAL State Nation BegralLgil White State Nation Wick State Nation Hispanic State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation Other State Nation Panetta* sad Prollalanoy 71 ( 1.0) 265 ( Oh) 02 ( 34) 287 ( 1.8) 74 ( 1.2) 270 ( OA) 84 ( 3.7) 272 ( 1.0) 53 ( 5.0) 56 ( 7.7) 244 ( 4.0) 57 ( 3.3) 233 ( 32) ( 62) 251 ( 3.1) 84 ( 1.6) 280 ( 1.8) 63 (15.9) 283 ( 7.3)1 50 ( 3.0) 251 ( 2.6) 66 (10.7) 252 ( 4.7)! 66 ( 1.3) 263 ( 1.2) 63 ( 3.9) 267 ( 2.3) tbarotwitapa and Pralklancy 21 ( 0.51) 255 ( 12) 31 ( 3.1) 254 ( 2.0) 21 ( 1.1) 250 ( 1.5) 28 ( 3.2) 264 ( 3.4) 17 ( 3.2) 41 233 ( 3.9)I 24 ( 2.3) ., ( 4+1 32 ( 5.3) 240 ( 4.3)1 10 ( 1.6) 255 ( 1.7) 23 ( 5.2)) 23 ( 2.9) 239 ( 32)1 31 (11.1) 24 ( 8.0)1 24 ( 12) 257 ( 1.7) 31 ( 3.5) 255 ( 3.1) Pancantaga and Prelicionny 8 ( 22$ ( ( 1.5 200 ( 5.1)i ( 0.5) 240 ( 3.3) ( 2.3) 264 ( 3.4)1 30 ( 4.9) ( 1141) 2 ( 1.4) 040 ( «in 19 ( 2.1)) $ ( 2.3) ( ".) o ( 0.0) it4 11411 14 (14.6) ft.* ( ch. ) 16 ( 2.0) 229 ( 52) 4 ( 2.2) ***) 9 ( 0.7) 228 1.8) ( 1.9) 257 ( 5.8)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within * 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 114 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE A 1 la I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of (cmtinued) Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1NO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT , Almost Every Day I- Several Tim es a Week t O et Abou nce a Week Lees TOTAL State Nation PARENTS EDUCATION loaresall. 3110 trakilegy 71 203 0.. 32 3.4 267 ( 1.11) 115 non-graduate State 71 ( 3.2) 242 ( 2.7) Nation 67 ( 5.5) 245 ( 32) 14$ graduate State 85 ( 2.3) 256 ( 1.5) Nation ei ( 4.4) 257 ( 2.5) Some collage State 72 ( 2.4) 270 ( 1.5) Nation 85 ( 42) 272 ( 2.7) College graduate State 70 ( 12) 275 ( 12) Nation 81 ( 4.0) 281 ( 2.2) GENDER Male State 70 ( 1.3) 287 ( 12) Nation 90 1 3.7) 259 ( 2.1) Female State 72 ( 1.6) 264 ( 1.1) Nation 65 ( 3.5) 206 ( 1.8) SINIONINSP SAS 2i5 I t.121 31 SA 254 IA 21 (3.0) 27 5.2) *4* ell 21 ( 2.0) 247 ( 3.4) 34 ( 3.7) 250 ( 2,9) 21 2.3) 264 (4.2) 28 (3,7) 258 ( 5.2) 20 ( 1.0) 267 ( 24) 31 ( 3.9) 265 ( 3.1) 22 ( 1.3) 257 ( 1.7) 33 ( 286 ( 3.e) 2014) 252 2.5) 28 11.3) 253 ( 2.5) 0( 2 L 0.7) 232 3.1) 7 1.41) SMI 5 0.6) 225 3.7) 7 2.2) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. **" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 20 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 115 Rlwde Island TABLE Al lb I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of i Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 100 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Al Least Sawa Times a Wu& About Ones a Waak Lass than Womb Ty Powsvadage Ind Prolkioncy Povele1400 Pircontals ant Prololongi Pridlobacy State 43 ( OA) 27 ( 0.9) $0 ( 0.9) 250 ( 0.9) 2S0 ( 1.4) 202 ( Noon 34 ( 3.3) 33 ( 3.4) 32 ( 3.0 250 ( 2.3) 200 ( 2.3) 274 ( 2.7 RACE/ETHNICITY *tit. State 45 ( 1.1) 27 ( 1.1) 28 ( 1.1) 264 ( 1.1) 265 ( 1.5) 270 ( 1.6) Nation 32 ( 4.1) 33 ( 3.5 35 ( 3.8) 264 ( 2.7) 264 ( 2.7) 279 ( 2.9) Black State 34 4.3) elm) 24 ( 5.1) es* tin 42 ( 4.9) «11 Nation 45 ( 7.5) 31 ( 7.6) 23 6.3) 232 ( 3.1)1 243 ( 2.3)1 243 ( 7.0)1 Hispanic State 37 ( 3.3) 28 ( 2.7) 37 ( 3.6) 220 ( 42) ( 230 ( 4.7) Nation 41 ( 7.7) 26 ( 53) 33 ( 7.5) 242 ( 32)1 244 ( 5.1)1 257 ( 2.3)1 TYPE Of COMMUNITY Advantagod urban State 51 ( 2.0) 30 ( 1.5) 19 ( 14) 275 ( 2.1) 273 ( 2.8) 290 ( 4.3) Nation 59 (13.9) 273 ( 3.4)1 21 ( 8.2) .4* ( Disadvantaged urban State 32 ( 3.2) 14 ( 2.0) 54 ( 2.6) 242 ( 3.8)1 11** *el 251 ( 2.6) Nation 50 (13.9) 22 (112) 28 (10.7) 237 ( 2.4)1 258 ( $.3) 263 ( 4.1)1 Other State 45 ( 1.3) 28 ( 0.9) 27 ( 1.0) 256 ( 1.3) 258 ( 2.2) 264 ( 2.0) Nation 30 ( 44) 35 ( 4.3) 36 ( 4.2) 256 ( 3.3) 259 ( 2.8) 272 ( 2.9) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 1 Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiAncy. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 116 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE Al lb I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of (cantinued) i Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCFNTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY - 1060 NAEP TRIAL At Least Sown' Tknes STATE ASSESSMENT a Week About One* a Week LASS than Wieldy . , TOTAL Percentage Percaslay and Praildsticy Preadwn Preficierny 27 C 30 ( 2511 0011 259 1.4 202 ( 13 $4 ( 34) $3 3.4 32 ( 34 258 ( 23) 200 ( 2.5) 274 ( 2.7) 35 ( 34) 31 3.0) 34 ( 3.0) 239 2.7) 230 ( 4.7 35 (6.0) 29 ( 19A 36 ( 6.0 299 (34) ( ie) 2501 4.511 State Nation PARENTS EDUCATION HS non-graduate State Nation its graduate state 47 ( 2.1) 25 ( 14) 1.9) 250 ( 251 ( 2.4) 250 Nation 35 ( 5.3 36 ( 4.5) 30 4.8 250 ( 250 ( 2.7) 283 3.4 Some college State 41 ( 2.7) 30 ( 24) 30 ( 2.5) 289 ( 2.6) 203 ( 2.8) 255 ( 3.0) Nation 33 ( 4.7) 32 ( 4.0) 35 ( 4.1) 240 ( 2.8) 280 ( 42) 278 ( 2.6) College graduate state 43 ( 14) 28 ( 1.5) 31 ( 14) 272 ( 1.5) 274 ( 2.1) 270 ( 2.1) Nation 35 ( 34) 32 ( 3.4) 33 ( 3.5) 254 ( 2.5) 271 ( 2.4) 249 ( 2.9) GENDER Yale State 44 ( 1.1) 27 ( 1.3) 29 ( 1.2) 260 ( 1.3) 200 ( 1.9 1.8) Nation 35 ( 4.1) 3$ ( 3.6) 31 3.5) 2$7 ( 3.2) 281 ( 2.8) 275 ( 3.2) Female State 42 ( 14) 27 1.2) 31 ( 12) 258 ( 1.8) 258 2.1) 258 ( 2.1) Nation 34 ( 4.1) 32 ( 3.1) 34 I 4.1) 254 ( 2.1) 258 ( 2.3) 273 ( 24) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. "1* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 117 Rhode Island TABLE A 12 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Small I Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 111110 MEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT At Lath Once a Week Less Than Om a Week Never - TOTAL and *Wow PIMPIPM11.0 1.111 Priliahmay Peresida99 and Pralloimey State 14 ( 41Si 67 2.3 259 0.7 Nation 2$ 2,5 24 1.4 44 2.9 258 23 267 ( 2.0 261 1.6 Batattlp_.3 TY Witte State i3 ( 0.5) 21 ( 00 ( 264 ( 2.5) 209 ( 13 205 ( 0.7 Nation 27 ( 2.9) 29 ( 1.7 44 ( 35 ( 11) 272 ( 149) 270 ( 1.7) State 11 ( 3.4) 12 2.91 4«. 71$ ( 4.2) 225 2.6) Nation 23 3.0) 24 ( 3.0) 41 4.7) 234 ( 3.0) 245 ( 4.0) 234 (3.1) Hispanic State 17 ( 1.7) *v. 444) 12 ( 2.4) 71 ( 2.9) 229 ( 2.9) Nation 37 ( 5.2) 22 ( 30) 41 ( 54) 242 ( 3.9) 250 ( 3.4) 240 ( 23) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 12 ( 1.1) gm. 21 ( 12) 278 ( 24) ( 1.7) 277 ( 1.7) Nation 27 (13.9) *iv ( 4.1 33 ( 4.6) 281 ( 5.4)1 40 (13.4) 279 ( 35)1 Disadvantaged urban State 17 ( 1.2) 14 ( 1.13) ea ( 1.8) ( 243 ( 2.6) Nation 31 ( 5.7) 20 ( 24) 41 ( 03) 245 ( 4.0)1 2e7 ( 0.4)1 245 ( 3.7)1 Other State 12 ( 0.7) 19 ( 0.7) 89(0.5) 254 ( 32) 283 ( 2.0) 259 ( 0.9) Nation 27 ( 2.6) 28 ( 1.7) 45 ( 3.3) 260 ( 3.3) 284 ( 2.1) 282 ( 2.2) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It citAi be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. f Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (few!. than 62 students). 1 3 jig THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE A 12 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Small ("nitinued) I Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY - MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Ones a Week Less Than Ones a Week Never - TOTAL Perowdase and Pndiaisacy Pareentate and Proliciancy Percentage and Prolciancy State 14 ( 0.5) 19 ( MS) 0? ( 0.7) 258 ( 25) 20? ( 1.4) 250 ( Of Nation 28 ( 2.5) 28 ( 1.4) 44 ( 2.9 258 ( 2.7) 267 ( 2.0) 261 ( 1.8 PARENTS EDUCATION HS non-graduate State 14 ( 2.6) 16 1,4 ( 2.8) 44) 70 ( 239 ( 2.5 Nation 29 ( 4.5) 29 ( 3.0) 42 ( 4.5 242 ( 3.4) 244 ( 3.0) 242 ( 2.7) HI graduate State 12 ( 1.4) 19 ( 1.5) 09 ( 1.9) 239 ( 4.8) 290 ( 2,i) 251 ( 1.4) Nation 23 ( 3.0) 23 ( 1.8) 43 ( 3.4) 251 ( 3.7) 261 ( 2.6) 252 ( 1.7) Sostto colieg State 12 ( 1.7) 20 287 ( 2.0) ( 36) 6$ ( ) 2es ( 1.9) Nation 27 ( 3.9) 27 ( 2.4) 46 ( 3.8) 265 ( 3.6) 208 ( 3.3) 266 ( 2.1) College graduat State 15 ( 1.0) 21 ( 1.0) 64 ( 1.2) 275 ( 3.1) 278 ( 1.6) 273 ( 1.2) Nation 28 ( 3.0) 28 ( 1.9) 44 ( 3.6) 270 ( 2.7) 278 ( 2.8) 275 ( 2.2) GENDER Maio State 15 ( 0.9) 21 ( 1.1) 65 ( 1.4) 258 ( 2.8) 267 ( 2.3) 261 ( 1.3) Nation 31 ( 2.9) 2$ ( 1.7) 41 ( 2.8) 259 ( 3.3) 268 ( 2.6) 262 ( 1.8) Amato State 13 ( 0.8) 16 ( 0.9) 70 ( 1.2) 254 ( 2.8) 266 ( 1.9) 258 ( 1.0) Nation 26 ( 2.4) 27 ( 1.8) 47 ( 3.2) 257 ( 2.8) 206 ( 1.7) 260 ( 1,8) The standard errors 'of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the slue for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estirnate (fewer than 62 students). 124 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 119 Rhode Island TABLE A13 I Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematics I Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Once a Week Lees Than Oraue a Week Never TOTAL Parapalage Nei 1Prodialesa 25212:0 1 3 258 State Nation MfftgETAMInil State 20 ( 1.0) 264 ( 1.8) Nation 27 ( 14) 200 ( 2.0) Slack State 18 ( 3.4) 4,4, ( on Nation 27 ( 3.3) 234 ( 3.7) Hispanic State 28 ( 2.9) ( *el Nation 38 ( 4,2) 241 ( 4.6) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 23 ( 1.5) 274 ( 2.3) Nati n 36 (10.3) 276 ( 13.9 Disadvantaged urban State 16 ( 2.0) 244 ( 43)! Nation 95 ( 6.6) 240 ( 5.3)1 Ofttar State 18 ( 0.11) 256 ( 2.1) Nation 27 ( 2.0) 256 ( 2.0) Paresti. aid Pralloisiogr Paresulago and 22 OA) SD 1 270 1.4) $I 1.2) 907 41 2.2 203 1.5) ( IA) 22 ( OA 274 ( 1.4 33 ( 141 275 ( 1.8 20 ( .4.-. ...,. 27 3.2 244 4.5 10 ( 2.5) des vin 23 ( 2.0) 253 ( 4.3) 26(2.1) 276 ( 1.8) 33 ( 4.8) 284 ( 3.2)1 12 ( 1.6) 10 ( 2.1) 256 ( 5.7)1 21 ( 1.1) 2110 ( 1.8) 31 ( 14) 270 ( 1.8) 5. ( 1 .1 211340 La} ( 13) 9 24 ( 4.3) 232 ( 2.8) 58 ( 4.1) 220 ( 2.9) 40 ( 4.0) 240 ( 1.9) 48 ( 2,4) 278 ( 15) 32 (11.1) 261 ( 53)1 70 ( $.4) 243 ( 3.0) 40 ( 0A) 248 ( 43)1 81 ( 1.3) 258 ( 0.9) 41 ( 2.4) 200 ( 2,2) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variabil4 of this estimated mean proficiency. 11" Sampte size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 120 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE A13 I Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematics (continued) I Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO NAEP 'TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Week Never TOTAL Pen0801818 and flariltiessy OA 258 1A 28 'IA lievolope Pralkdomy 22( 270( 1A 31( 1.2 GO 1 IV 41 ( 12 State Nation 258 ( 288( 1.8) 2N1( PARENTS' EDUCATIOR HS non-graduate State 18( 2.8) Oh* 11 2.0) 73 3.01 Nation 27 ( 4.2 28( 21) ( 5.0i 237 ( 3.01 2:0 ( SA) 240( 2.3) HS graduate State 2o ( 1.8) 19 ( 1.5) ( 2.1) 249 ( 2.8) 280( 2.8) 249 ( CS) Nation 27 ( 23) 31 ( 2.4) 43 ( 3.3) 250 ( 2.4) 259 ( 2.7) 2$3 ( 2.1) Some west,* State 21 ( 1.8) 23 ( 2.2) 58 2.8) 25$ ( 3.5) 273 ( 2.8) 205 2.4) Nation 29 ( 25) 36 ( 2.3) S5 2.8) college graduate 261 ( 3.5) 274 ( 2.2) 263 ( 2.1) State 21 ( 1.5) 26 ( 1.5) 53 ( 1.8) 273 ( 2.2) 281 ( 1.6) 272 ( 1.4) Nation ") ( 2$) 32 ( 2.0) 36 ( 2.8) 269 ( 3.0) 278 ( 2.0) 275 ( 2.0) GENDER Male State 23 ( 1.4) 21 ( 1.2) 58 ( 14) 280 ( 2.2) 272 ( 2.3) 258 ( Nation 31( 2.0) 30 ( 1S) 36 ( 2.2 258 ( 2.9) 271 ( 2.1) 280 ( 1.8 Female State 18 ( 1.0) 22 ( 1.2) 02 ( 1.5) 257 ( 2.3) 267 ( 1.9) 258 ( Nation 25 ( 2.0) 31 ( 1.9) 44 ( 2.8 257 ( 3.0) 268 ( 1$) 257 ( 1.9 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 121 Rhode Island TABLE A14 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of I Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Almost Every Day Several Times a Week AbotA Once a Week or Leas TOTAL Paresmbor ard Pna Odom Paradreap aal Praediaay Peroaatage and PrallidiocY State 75 04) 13 ( OA. 12 0.5) 206 0.7) 253 ( 1.9) 234 ( 1.15) Nation 74 1.9) 14 ( 0..) 12 ( 1.8) 287 ( 1.2) 252 ( 1.7) 242 ( 45) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 77 ( 0.9) 14 ( 0.6) 9 ( 0.5) 270 ( 0.8) 257 ( 2.0) 244 1.8) Nation 10 ( 2.5) 13 ( 0.8) 11 21) 274 ( 1.3) 258 ( 2.2) 252 5.1):1 Slack State 56 ( 232 ( 3.7) 3.6) 10 ( 64* ( 2.4) 33 ( 4.8) $44,) Nation 71 ( 2.8) 15 1.7) 14 ( 3.2) 240 ( 2.9) 232 ( 3.1) 223 ( 5.1)1 Hispanic State 83 ( 234 ( 3.0) 10) 12 ( 2.0) 25 ow, ( 2.7) ( Nation 81 ( 3.7) 21 ( 2.9) 17 ( 2.7) 249 ( 2.3) 242 ( 5.1) 224 ( 3.4) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 80 ( 1.6) 12 ( 1.1) 7 ( 1.0) 281 ( 1.5) Nation 73 (11.1) 238 ( 4.13)1 13 ( 4*. ( 1.7) 14 (10.4) fit ( *61 Disadvantaged urban State 85 ( 2.43) 14 ( 1.3) 21 ( 2.1) 251 ( 29) 1111. ( 225 ( 3.8) Nation 15 ( 2.5) 15 ( 2.2) 263 ( 3.7)1 243 ( 4.4)1 235 ( Otter State 78 ( 1.1) 13 ( 0.6) 11 ( 0.8) 204 ( 1.0) 252 ( 2.4) 234 ( 2.0) Nation 75 ( 2.2) 14 ( 1.0) 10 ( 1.9) 207 ( 1.8) 252 ( 2.6) 239 ( 4.3)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. I Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 r P-7 j. A... 122 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE A14 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of ("mtinued) i Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1100 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Almost Every Day Several Timm a Wm* About Once a Wu* or LOU TOTAL Peromaimes Prelkisma Paramis. and Prollekway State 75 ( CA 12I( 0.5) 12 195 253 ( 234 1 Nation . 74 1.9 14 ( 0.9 12 1.9 W 12 262 ( 1.7 242 4.5 Runriorams HI ow-graduate State 72 ( 12 ( 1.9) 18 ( 2.2) 243 ( 2.2 011* 0114) Nation 04 ( 3.4 245 ( 2.3) 13 ( . ( 2.0) 18 ( 3.1) - ( tope HS graduate State 70 ( 1.7) 15 ( 1.4) 15 ( 1.1) 250 ( 1.4) 249 ( 33) 230 ( 2A) Nation 71 ( 3.0) 10 ( 1.8) 13 ( 2.8) 25$ ( 1.6) 249 ( 32) 239 ( 3.0 Soma collage State Nation 79 ( 2.4) 209 ( 1.9) 00 ( 2.0) 270 ( 1.9) 13 ( 1.7) *en 11 ( 12) tee ( immi) 8 ( 1.4) *MP ***) 9 ( 1-7) ( "1) Co le9e gradate State BO ( 1.4) 13 0.9) 8 ( 0.8) 278 ( 1.1) 262 ( 2.0) 251 ( 2.0) Nation 77 ( 2.7) 13 ( 0.9) 10 ( 2.3) 279 ( 1-8) 200 ( 2.8) 257 ( $.40 °ENDER Male State 74 ( 1.3) i4 ( 1.0) 12 ( 0.8) 267 ( 1.0) 252 ( 2.5) 239 ( 2.1) Nation 72 ( 2.4) 115 ( 1.2) 12 ( 2.1) 208 ( 1.6) 252 ( 2.5) 242 ( 0.1) Female State 75 ( 1.3) 12 ( 0.9) 12 ( 0.8) 284 ( 1.0) 253 ( 2.7) 230 ( 2.6) Nation 78 ( 1A) 13 ( 1.0) 11 ( 1.6) 265 ( 1.3) 250 ( 2.5) 242 ( 3.6) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (few than 62 students). 1 7 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 123 Rhode bland TABLE A15 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of I Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1080 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT AI Least Sawa Times a Week - *WWI Cow a Week Less Than Wee: ly a Ilereenta. mod Mildewy Porambiga and Prolichincy Porcomtage and Pollaissay State 38 ( 0.9) 24 ( 0.8) 38 ( 250 ( 1.1) 200 ( 1.4) 270 ( 1.1 Nation 38 ( 2.4) 2$ ( 12) 37 2.5 263 ( 22) 201 ( 1.4) 272 ( 1.9) RACVETHNICITY *Me State $S ( 1.0) 25 ( 1.0) 40( 1.1) 257 ( 264 ( 1.3) 274 1.1) Nation 35 ( 2.9 24 1.3) 41 3.0) 202 ( 2.5 209 ( 1.5) 277 2.0) Mack State ST ( 249 ( 3.8) 3.9) 22 ( 144r 3.4),i ati Nation 48 ( 3.8) 32 ( 2.71 20 ( 3.1 232 ( 4.3) 241 ( 2.9) 241 ( 4.4 Hispanic State 51 ( 221 ( 3.0) 3.3) 17 ( 2.5) ( «HI 33 C 3.7) 240 (3.8) Nation 44 ( 4.1) 25 ( 34) 32 (43) 238 ( 34) 247 ( 3.3) 24$ ( 3.3) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 44 ( 1.5) 24 ( 3.6) 32 ( 2.8) 266 ( 1.7) 272 ( 2.9) 295 ( 2.7) Nation 50 ( 271 ( 9.0) 3.3)1 19 ( 4.9) *in.) 31 299 ( 9.3) ( 5.3)4 Disadvantaged urban State 41 ( 1.7) 14 ( 1.2) 45 ( 2.3) 222 ( 4.1) 259 ( 3.1) Nation ( 51) 23 ( 3.6) 41 ( 8.7) 240 ( 4.8)1 253 ( 4.1)1 255 ( 42)4 Other State 35 1.5) 27 ( 1.0) 39 ( 1.5) 249 1.5) 260 ( 1.4) 268 ( 1.3) Nation 36 2.9) 26 ( 12) 38 ( 2.9) 252 ( 3.0) 261 ( 2.1) 272 ( 1.8) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within * 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 124 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE A15 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of ("mtinued) Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1080 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Leas! Several nines a Weak About Ones a Week Lass Than Weddy /ELL State Nation PARENTS' EDUCATION NS nan-graduate State Nation NS graduate State Nation sema collage State Nation College precast* State Nation GENDER Mal* State Nation state Nation Pre604410Y 36 ( 0.9) 250 ( 1.1) 36 ( 24) 253 ( 2.2) 24 ( 26025 1.2 141 251 1.4 44 ( 3.1) 44 ( 4.5) 30 ( 2.7) 22 ( 2.3) 231 ( 2.2) din 241( 44 29 ( 4.0 SS( 235 ( 3.1) 243 ( 22) Ifi3 ( 242 ( 2.0 247 ( 2.7 37 ( 258 ( 2.5) 29 ( 2.2) 253 ( 2.4) 11 25 ( 1.5) 50 ( Ili 40 ( 3.2 211 I ill 37(1.7) 5 37 ( 23 ( 2.4) 40 ( 3.0) 257 ( 2. 265 3.5) 26 22) 274 ( 2.5) 34 ( 34 40 ( $.01) 259 ( 2.3) 209 2.8) 271 ( 2.1) 35 1.8) 25 1.5) 40 ( 1.8) 272 1.8) 264 2.6) 38 2.6) 273 ( 2.5) 22 1.8) 265 ( 1.6 215( 2.3 41 ( 2.6 25 36 ( 39 ( 1.5) 251 1.3) 39 2.7) 261 2.0 25 1 272 ( 1.8 9$ ( 2. 253 2.7) 263 2.3) 274 ( 2.4 246 ( 1.5) 37 ( 2.5) 250 ( 25 ( 1.5 2118 1.5 40 30 36 ( 1.2) 24 ( 1.1) 253 ( 2.1) 259 ( 1.8 269 22) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample size is insufficient to per:lit * reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 130 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 125 Rhode Island TABLE A18 Students' Reports on Whether They Own a Calculator and Whether Their Teacher Explains How to Use One PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Oval a Calculator ... Taster Eng tains Calculator Use Yes No - Yes No , TOTAL State Nation AACEIETNNICITY nannn**98 and Poi liclow 07 ( ( 0.5 97 ( 0.4 203 ( 1.3) 98 ( 0.4) 200 ( 0.6) 98 ( 02) 270 ( 1.5) 90 ( 3.4) 227 ( 2.5) 93 ( 1.5) 237 ( 2.8) $9 ( 22) 230 ( 2.4) 92 ( 12) 245 ( 2.7) 96 ( 0.7) 277 ( 1.6) 99 ( 1.0) 281 ( 34)1 92 ( 1.1) 246 ( 2.1) 04( 1.2) 250 ( 3.5)1 96 ( OS) 260 ( 0.8) 97 ( 0.5) 263 ( 1.7) Poraenta. and Prallakney 3 ( 0.4) 225 ( 3,9) 3 ( 04) 234 ( 3.6) 2 ( 0.4) *re ( 441 2 ( 0.3) ( *el 10 ( 3.4) ( 1.5) «pi 11 ( 2.2) ( 8 ( 1.2) 2 ( 0.7) ***) ( ".) 8 ( 1.1) ev.) 6 ( 12) ***) 2 ( 0.5) *4-1 3 ( 0.5) 233 ( 5.4) 98.60691141 and Poidelancy 30 ( 250 ( 1.0 ) 49 ( 2.3 ) 25$ ( 1.7) 3$ ( tO) 262 ( 40 ( 24 260 ( 1.8 33 ( 5.9) IF** ( 53 ( 4.9) 235 ( 3.6) 41 ( 3.6) 223 ( 3.5) 53 ( 4.3) 243 ( 3.4) ( 1.8) 26$ ( 2.2) 45 (12.2) 276 ( 2.5)1 24 ( 2.7) 235 ( 4.1) 53 ( 7.5) 247 ( 4.1)1 35 ( 1.2) 256 ( 1.7) 50 ( 2.7) 256 ( 2.1) Perealings. Vxdaimai 02 ( 0.41 202 ( 0.7 51 ( 231 . 260 ( 1,5 82 ( 1.0) 268 ( 0.8) 54(24 ) 273 ( 13) 67 ( 5.9) 228 ( 35) 47 ( 4.9) 229 ( 2.7) 59 ( 3.6) 232 ( 2.9) 37 ( 4.3) 245 ( 2.9) SO ( 16) 283 ( 1.8) 55 (122) 265 ( 64)1 76 ( 2.7) 247 ( 2.1) 47 ( 75) 251 ( 34)1 65 ( 1.2) 261 ( 0.9) 50 ( 2.7) 266 ( 2.0) White State Nation Mack State Nation HIspanIc State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urbat State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation Other State Nation The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. I Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 126 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSEMMENT Rkode Island TABLE All Students' Reports on Whether They Own a (c°11tinued) Calculator and Whether Their Teacher Explains How To Use One PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT wn a Calculator Teacher Explains Calculator Use Yes No Yes 1 , No TOTAL and Pfeadefla 91(04) 261 (0.5) 97 (OA) 263 (1.3) State Nation PARENTS' EDUCATION IIS non-radiate State 95 ( 1.9 239 ( Nation 92 ( 1.6 243 ( 2.0 145 graduate State 97 ( 0.6) 251 ( 1.1) Nation 97 ( 0.6) 255 ( 1.5) Sem college State 94 ( 0.6) 267 ( 1.6) Nation 26 ( OA) 226 ( 1.6) College graduate State 99 ( 0.5) 275 ( 0.9) Nation 99 ( 0.2) 275 ( 1.6) OSPIDER Male State 94 0.7) 263 1.0) Nation 97 OS) 264 11) Female State 98 ( 0.3) 259 ( 0.9) Nation 97 ( 03) 262 ( 13) and aid Inirnollanay Prelialsacy Prellalagoar , 234 3.4 3.9 0.4 225$ OA 5 ( 1.9) '1" ( ( 1.6) oft ( 3 ( 0.8) ea* 0.1 3 ( .4* 2 ( 04) *el 4 ( 0.9) 41 2 0.5) * *a 1 02) sire seit) 4 0.7) 040.6 41,1 3 0.5) Me *en 2 0.3) *. .) 3 0.5) *** ( 3$ OA) 230 49 2.3} 254 ( 4.7 52 0.8) 282 0.1 31 2.3} 208 1.5 40 ( SA) 00 230 3.0) 241 2.$ 53 4.0) 47 242 2.9) 243 ( 2 40 ( 1.7) 00 ( 1.7) 248 ( 1.7) 2113 1 It 54 ( 3 i .0) 252 ( 1.9) 258 2.0 3$ ( 2.4) 85 ( 2.4) 263 ( 32) 237 ( 1.9) 48 ( 3.2) 52 ( 3.2) 205 ( 2.4) 26$ ( 2.2) 37 ( 1.5) 83 271 ( 1.4) 215 1.3 46 ( 2.6) 54 2. 264 ( 2.2) 200 1.9 34 ( 1.4) 259 ( 1.7) 51 ( 2.6) 258 ( 2.1) 34 (1.3) 254 (14) 47 24) 251 ( 1.7) 62 ( 1 264 ( 40 ( 2.5 ( 2.1 62 13 281 1.0 53 2.51 243 ( 1.5 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 9S percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 127 Rhode Island TABLE A 19 I Students' Reports on the Use of a Calculator i for Problem Solving or Tests PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1910 NMP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT Woe Idno Problem In Class Doing Problems at Home Takin9 Quizzes or Teets Almost Always Neve' ... Almost t Never Aiways Almost Always Never TOTAL State Nation nosmigm White State Nation Black State Nation Hispanic state Nation TYPE cw cotatumiy Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged isban State Nation Other State Nation Poway Parceases Peramage P4ramtaam Paamts. Parcintqa gad ad and ad ad owl Pralkimmay Preedam Pirdidway Podalone PrellkIency Paddisay 347 OS 23711 41111 30 ( 1.1 23 1.0 NU 1.0 287 1.2 411 1.5 30 1.3 19 0.9 258 ( 1.5 272 1.4 261 1.1 203 13 ) V ( 1.1 ST ( 1.1 26 ( 1.2) 24 1.2) 253 1.0 277 1.1 20 ( 1.3) 271 48 1.7 24 2.2 31 ( 1.5) 16 1.2 282 1.1 278 1.3 270 ( 1.7) 280 2.3 50 ( 51 29 ! 4.91 31 3.71 18 ( 3.8) 1 IMM ( 44, *** *** eire ( lel 57 ( 3.2) 20 i 3.9) 31 ( 2.9) 18 ( Ca) 232 ( 2.4) 249 ( 4.0) 233 ( 3.3) 246 ( 5.5) 44 ( n( 3.5) 31 ( 3.3) 20 ( 2.9) 220 ( 2.4 242 ( 3.4) 225 ( 3.4) IP" ( ") 51 ( 2.9 18 ( 3.5) 26 ( 32) 21 ( 2.1) 230 ( 25) 252 ( 3.3)1 238 ( 4.6) 244 ( 3.1) 38 ( 2.8) 30 ( 1.4) 35 ( 1.9) 22 ( 1.7) 263 ( 290 ( 3.2) 271 ( 1.9) 286 ( 3.9) 51 ( 5.4 23 (10.7) 32 ( 8.1) IS ( 2.4) 270 ( 4.7 *** ( ***) 274 ( 4.2); -- ( -) 42 ( 3.4 44 3.1 29 ( 4.4) 27 ( 3.4) 229 3.7 HO 3.1 236 ( 3.0) 257 ( 2.3) 52 3.1 22 4.5 30 ( 3.3) 24 ( 2.3) 241 35 250 5.4 246 ( 5.2)1 254 ( 4.6)1 37 ( 1.2) 37 ( 1.2 26 ( 1.4) 24 ( 1.3) 246 ( 1.1) 271 I 1.2 25$ ( 1.5) 285 ( 1.5) A ( 1.9) 22 ( 2.0 32 ( 1.7) 18 ( 1.1) 254 ( 2.1) 272 ( 1.8 263 ( 2.3) 263 ( 2.8) 24 ( 0.? 43 0.9 246 ( 1.3 275 1.0 27 ( 1.4 30 2.0 263 ( 2.4 ) 274 ( 1.3 23 ( OA) 48 ( 1.1) 253 ( 1.5) 27e ( 1.0) 25 ( 1.8) 32 ( 2.3) 263 ( 2.8) 279 ( 1.2) 29 ( 44) SS ( 5.2) VI* ( ell IN* ( ***) 811 ( 3.3) 24 ( S.1) 230 ( 3.8) 251 ( 4.1) 26 ( 3.2) 29 ( 3.7) m ( "*) 247 ( 3.3) 26 ( 2.7) 22 ( 3.1) 237 ( 3.2) 258 ( 4.2) 21 ( 1.5) 4$ ( 2.2) 267 ( 3.3) 288 ( 2.5) 31 ( 3.8) 28 ( 9.8) 281 ( 7.8)1 285 ( 4.2)1 24 ( 43 ( 2.3) 232 ( 3.5 263 ( 2.9) 27 ( 2.9 27 ( 4.8) 240 ( 4.9)1 283 ( 5.0$ 23 ( 1.1) 44 ( 1.2) 244 ( 12) 274 ( 1.2). 27 ( 1.8) 29 ( 2.1) 253 ( 2.7) 275 ( 14) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Sometimes" category is not included. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 128 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT AIL Rhode Island TABLE A19 Students' Reports on the Use of a Calculator ("mitinued) for Problem Solving or Tests PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT , Working Probionss in Class Doing Problems at Nam Taking Quizzes or Tests Al MOSt Atways - Never Almost Always ' Never Almost Always 4 Never state Nation PARENTS' EPUCATiON KS non.graduate State Nation liS graduate State Nation Saw colege State Nation Coliege graduate State Nation GERM M. State Nation Female State Nation Pewits., Parandass Parents. Pirandane Ponnahnis Pannistign end and owl and and we Prelkdany Preliniany liVelkinney Praliokno2 Illnkalintil ProlkilloW 30 247 441 254 48 ( 229 ( 54 ( 240 ( 42 240 52 249 ( 37 ( 259 ( 48 ( 258 ( aS ( 258 ( 45 ( 265 ( 39 ( 245 ( 50 ( 255 ( 38 ( 245 ( 48 ( 252 ( 1.0 30 ( 90 0.2 1.5 273 ( 1.0 23 ( 1.9 256 30 1.5 272 ( 1.4) 261 32 ( 3A) 24 2.7 254 ( 3.4) 235 $.3 19 ( $.6) 25 2.3) *** ( "I 244 2.4) 32 ( 2.0) 29 2.0) 285 ( 1.6) 249 2.5) 20 ( 2.4) 20 1.4) 285 ( 2.7) 250 2.7) 42 ( 2.7) 31 2.6) 272 ( 2.4) 256 2.6) 26 ( 2.11) 26 2.1) 272 ( 2.5) 267 1.5) 319 ( 1.7) 31 1.2) 285 ( 1,5) 205 1.9) 25 ( 24) 33 1.7) 264 ( 1.II) 274 1.4) 35 ( 1.3) 26 1.4) 278 ( 1.5) 259 1.7) 20 ( 2.0) 29 1.9) 275 ( 2.2) 284 1.3) 37 ( 1.2) 31 1.3) 271 ( 1.4) 254 2.0) 28 ( 2.1) 32 1.7) 269 ( 1.8) 259 1.1 29 24 %II 244 01 1.0 287 12 1.3 10 0.9 27 1.4 al 2.0 12 283 1.6) 253 34 274 13 ( 3.7 26 ( 3.7) 25 Si) 34 ( 3.9 ( $.4 *** ( 11) .0. i 257 ( S.? ( 3.1 22 ( 2.6) 32 3.9) 24 ( 32 ( 3.8 244 ( 4,2) 237 2.3) 251 ( 4.5 ( 1.5) 22 ( 2.0) 27 ( 1.7) 40 ( ( 1.0) 256 ( 2.5) 240 ( 2.4) MS ( LS ( 1.9) 18 ( 1.5) 20 ( 1i) 27 ( 2.2 ( 2.4) 256 ( 2.4) 248 ( 2.11) 26$ ( 2.0) ( 3.1) 22 ( 23) 25 ( 2.2) 48 ( ( 2.7) 273 ( 3.8) 25$ ( 38) 274 ( 2.2 ( 2.0) 20 ( 1.9) 28 ( 2.4) 3$ ( 28 ( 3.0) 288 ( 3.2) 255 ( 3.8) 275 ( 2.0) ( 1,4) 24 ( 1.6) 22 ( 1.2) 48 ( 1.5) ( 1.4) 2$1 ( 2.1) 280 ( 2.1) 257 ( 1.4) ( 2.0) 16 ( 1.4) 26 ( 111) 33 ( 2.7) ( 2.2) 276 ( 2.8) 256 ( 2.3) 265 ( 2.0) ( 1.4) 25 ( 1.3) 23 ( 1.1) 41 ( 1.4) ( 1.3 267 ( 1,7) 247 ( 1.11) 279 ( 1.5) ( 1.8 19 ( 1.3) 27 ( 1.5) ,16 ( 2.1) ( 2.8 263 ( 2.5) 250 ( 3.0) 2?? ( 1.9) ( 1.4) 21 ( 13) 25 ( 0.9) 4$ ( ( 14) 268 ( 1.9 248 ( 1.8) 272 ( 1.2 ( 1.8) 18 ( 1.2 27 ( 1i) 33 ( 2.1 ( 12) 263 ( 2.1 251 ( 24) 271 ( 1.5) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Sometimes" category is not included. a" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1:14 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 129 Rhode Island TABLE A20 I Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO PIMP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT High "Calculator-Use" Ora* Other "Caldulater-Ustr Oeme wilriNrPimmMONNIPMFNINOMMOMMOmlimaimmip.M.111. yout State Nation 'RACE/ETHNICITY White State Nation Slack Sts`e Nation Hispanic State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation 05ter State Nation ,Prosniage add Pro &keg 14 1.1 Si 12 25S 12 2/: I its! 02 1.2 250 1.1 44 1.4 SS 141 277 1.7 2$2( 13 4.5) srs 33.1) SS 311 221( 3.11 3.1) 223 31 4.2) $1 42 254 4.1) 230 10 53 ( 2.7) 207 2.5) 50 &A) 268 4.11)I 41 ( 2.2) 253 ( 33) $11( 4.2) 252 ( 5.0)I 40 ( 1.0) 205 ( 1.1) 42 ( 1A) 271 ( 1.9) 417 2.7) 205 2.0) SO Si) 275 ( 4.4y 5O ( 2.2) 231 ( 25 22 4.2 244 ( 3911 55 1.0 25$ 1.31 55 14 255 2.0) The stPndard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 fercent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within * 2 standakd errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow aocurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). I 3 130 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESLMENT Rbode Island TABLE A20 I Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators (continued) I PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 19110 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT High "Calculator-Use" Group Other "Cala dater-Us " Dray TOTAL State Nation PARENTS' EDUCATION NS non-graduate State Nation 14S graduate State Nation Same college State Nation College graduate State Nation GENDER Male State Nation Female State Nation Porainesis ind trallokincy 46 1.1) 208 42 1.3 272 1.6 37 ( 4.5) 34 ( 3.3) 249 ( 4.4) 39 ( 2.4) 259 ( 2.8) 40 ( 2.2) 263 ( 2.0) 47 ( 3.1) 273 ( 2.4) 49 ( 2.2) 277 ( 2.8) ( 1.9) 290 ( 1.4) 46 ( 2.0) 282 ( 2.1) 45 ( 1.4) 270 ( 1.8) 39 ( 2.0) 274 ( 2.0) 47 ( 1.7) 267 ( 1.6) 45 ( 1.8) 269 ( 1.7) Parandies and Illrallkakmey 1.1) 252 0 5613 255 t5 03 ( 4.5) 234 ( 33) SS ( 3.3) 242 ( 2.4) 81 ( 2.4) 246 ( 1.7) 00 ( 2.2) 249 ( 1.8) 53 ( 3.1) 200 ( 2.2) 52 ( 2.2) 258 ( 2.5) 47 ( 1.9) 2er ( 1.3) 64 ( 2.0) 268 ( 1.9) 55 ( 1.4) 254 ( 1.5) 01 ( 2.0) 255 ( 2.3) 53 ( 1.7) 251 ( 1.4) 55 ( 1.8) 254 ( 1.3) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). _V: 6 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 131 Rhode Lk. TABLE A24 I Students' Reports on Types of Reading Materials in the Home PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Zara to 1I*0 TYPIts _ Three Types Raw Typos TOTAL Percentage and *olio Way Peissidage and Staliciensy Penaentage and Preliakacy State 20 ( 0.9) 30 ( OS) t 0) 237 ( 1.2) 2$P ( 1.1) 24 Nation 21 ( 1.0) 30 ( 1.0) 4111i 13 244 ( 2.0) 2S8 ( 1.1) 272 1.3 RACE/ETKNICITY Mita State 14 0.7) 30 ( 02) 56 ( 0.9) 247 ( 1.6) 261 ( 1.1) 273 ( Nation 18 ( 1.1) 29 ( 1.3) 56 ( 13 251 ( 22) 214 ( 1.5) 276 ( 1.7 Mack State 42 ( 3.9) 044 ( 11.) 371 4.3) 21 ( 32) ... ( efip) Nation 31 ( 12) 38 ( 2.2 ) 33 ( 2.4) 232 ( 32) 233 ( 3.0) 245 ( 3.3) Hispanic State 53 ( 3.7) 222 ( 3.1) 27 ( 32) ...... ( ....) 20 ( 3.0) *41 Nation 44 ( 3.0) 30 ( 2.4) 26 ( 2.3) 237 ( 3.4) 244 ( 4.3) 253 ( 2.4) TYPE Of COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 6 ( 1.1) *kb ( *el 23 ( 1.9) 209 ( 2,5) 00 ( 2.2) 253 ( 12) Nation 13 ( 3.6) .41 24 ( 2.1) 61 ( 49) 257 ( 3.6)1 Disadvantaged urban State 34 ( 42) 31 ( 2.9) 35 ( 22) 224 ( 2.0) 245 ( 3.6) 262 ( 2.0) Nation 32 ( 3.9) 31 ( 23) 37 ( 18) 203 ( 2.9)1 247 ( 3.7)1 257 ( 42)1 Other State 16 ( 1.2) 33( 1.1) 49 ( 1.2) 242 ( 1.6) 257 ( 1.2) 267 ( 1.3) Nation 22 ( 1 5) 30 ( 1$) 4$ ( 1.5) 244 ( 22) 259 ( 22) 272 ( 1.7) The standard errors of the estimted statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population if interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. : Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable esni.....te (fewer than 62 students). 132 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode island TABLE A24 I Students' Reports on Types of Reading (wintillued) I Materials in the Home PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Zero to Two Types Throe Types Four Twos 123:1S State Nation eaffi NS noniraduats State Nation 1411 graduate State Nation Some college State Nation College graduate State Nation GENDER Male State Nation Fared* State Nation 20 21 I ;.0 244 2.0 45 4.2 232 31 47 4.0 240 ( a4 21 ( 1.6) 239 ( 29) 26 ( 2.2) 246 ( 2.2) 14 ( 2.1) 04* *el 17 ( 1.5) 251 ( 4.0) ( OA) 252 ( 4.0) IU ( 0.8) 254 ( 2.8) 20 ( 0.9) 237 ( 1A) 21 ( 1.5) 244 ( 2.3) 19 ( 1.3) 238 ( 1.9) 22 ( 1.2) 244 ( 2.2) SP) 216 { 10.11 10 1.0 258 ( 13 32 P3.11) 240 3.1) 28 SA) 243 ( $3) 36 2.1) 249 2.1) 33 1.9) 253 2.7) 37 ( 29 263 ( 2.51 32 ( 1.7 262 ( 2.6) 24 ( 200 ( 28 ( 1. , 269 ( 2.5) 30 ( 1.1) 258 ( 1.6) 31 ( 14) 259 ( 2.1) 30 ( 1.5) 254 ( 1.7) 29 ( IA) 258 (1.9) 211(09) ( 13) 272 (1.6) 23 ( 3.3) cm* 25 ( 251 246 ( 34 43 2.1) 258 1.6) 40 1.7) 260 ( 2.1) 50 ( 2.7) 272 ( 2.2) 51 ( 2.0) 274 ( 19) MI ( 1.5) 279 1.2) 62 2.0) 280 15) 50 ( 1.2) 273 ( 1.3) 48 ( 1A) 273 ( 2.0) 50 ( 269 1.1 49 1.9 270 1.7) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parenthesos. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. "* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 133 Rhode Island TABLE A25 I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent 1 Watching Television Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY , 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT , One How or la= 11tv Hours rime Mount FOUr to Five Hors Six Hours or Mors Nation mmitig_TY INHfte State Nation Black State Nation Hispanic State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged trban State Nation Disadvantaged State Nation Other State Nation Peraantage Ponnintage and andany 13 ( 0.6) 22 ( 1.0) 289 2.1) 270 ( 1.5) 12 0.6 21 ( 0.9) 269 2.2) 286 ( 1.0) 13 ( 0.9) 24 ( 1.1) 276 ( 2.0) 274 ( 1.5) 13 ( 1.0) 23 ( 12) 276 ( 2.5) 275 ( 2.2) 12 ( 2.3) fele ( 8 ( 0.8) 13 ( 1.7) *6* ( *41 239 ( 7.0) 10 ( 2.5) 16 ( 2.5) 14,-* 14 ( 2.4) 20 ( 2.5) *Iv* ( ***) 245 ( 3.2) 16 ( 1.1) 27 ( 2.7) 284 ( 2.6) 285 ( 3.0) 18 ( 1.4) 25 ( 4.3) .14. 4") 14 ( 2.9) 18 ( 2.6) 4+1 257 ( 3.7)1 9 ( 1.2) 17 ( 3.1) **-6. *4 1 250 ( 4.0)! 11 ( 0.9) 22 ( 1.3) 2e7 ( 3.2) 287 ( 2.0) 12 ( 1.0) 21 ( 1.0) 288 ( 2.6) 289 ( 2.3) Pamela. and Prollciancy 25 ( 0.6) 282 ( 1.4) 22 ( 0.6) 285 ( 1.7) 25 ( 1.0) 288 ( 1.4) 24 ( 1.1) 272 ( 1.9) 17 ( 4.3) 41 17 ( 2.1) 239 ( 5.0) 19 ( 2.5)) 19 ( 2.1) 242 ( 5.6) 26 ( 1.7) 275 ( 2.5) 21 ( 1.8) 22 ( 1.9) 249 ( 4.3) 19 ( 2.1) 255 ( 5.0)1 24 ( 1.1) 281 ( 1.9) 23 ( 1.2) 265 ( 2.1) Paroentap and Pnalldency 29 ( 1.0) 258 ( 1.1) 26 ( 1.1) 2430 ( 1.7) 29 ( 1.1) 281 ( 1.2) 27 ( 1.4) 267 ( 1.7) 29 ( 2.8) 32 ( 1.8) 239 ( 4.0) 32 ( 2.9) 231 ( 4.5) 31 ( 3.1) 247 ( 3.5) 22 ( 2.0) 269 ( 2.4) 30 ( 4.3) ( 30 ( 2.8) 242 ( 4.0) 34 ( 2.4) 251 ( 4.7)1 31 ( 1.5) 256 ( 1.4) 27 ( 1.2) 259 ( 2.2) Parapataga and Pralidaney 12 ( 0.5) 237 ( 1.9) 16 ( 1.0) 245 ( 11) ( 0.5) 246 ( 2.7) 12 ( 1.2) 253 ( 2.6) 3t ( 4.2) ( Imre) 32 ( 2.2) 233 ( 2.5) 22 ( 2.2) *el 17 ( 1.7) 238 ( 3.8) ( 1.5) 6 ( 2.0) ( 18 ( 2.0) «6. ( 20 ( 3.2) 238 ( 4.5)1 13 ( 0.7) 241 ( 2.1) 17 ( 1.4) 246 ( 2.5) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 134 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE tSSESSMENT Rlwde Island TABLE A25 I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent (continued) i Watching Television Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1160 MEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT One How or Loos Two Hours Throe Han For to Flys Hours Six News or Moro TOTAL State Nation maranuarcem IIS non-Graduate State Nation KS grackiste State Nation Some college State Nation College graduate State Nation GENDER Mato State Nation Female State Nation lioramotap favaszitiwp and Psighatmev 'es orisokapv 211323.43 1101103or i 20 2.2 20 1.$ 205 1.7) 200( 1 245 WS 2.1 270 ' 13 22 ( SS( OA) 13 12 0.1 21 19 M( 1.4) X. 1.1 237 22 ( OA) 20 1.1 15 12 ( 2.5) «Hp ( 12 2.2) 01. *on 10 ( 1.6) 253 ( 5.0) 8 ( 1.0) 249 ( 4.7) 44 ( 1.6) 10 ( 1.4) ( eel 16 ( 4.4) 285 ( 2.6) 17 ( 1.3) 282 ( 2.8) 13 ( 12) 272 ( $.0) 11 ( 0.9) 20a ( U) 13 ( 03) 208 ( 3.3) 14 ( 1.1) 2e9 ( 2.8) 17 ( 2.0)) 20 ( 3.1) ote, ime) 19 1.5) 255 17 1.4 257 2.II 20 ( 2.1) 261 ( U) 7$ ( 2.4) 275 ( 2.7) 29 ( 1.7) 203(2.0) 22 ( 13) 280 ( 2.5) 22 ( 1.3) 272 ( 2.6) 22 ( 12) 267 ( 2.0) 2$ ( 1.2) 263 1.9 20 1.3 269 2.2) n ( 21 ( 2.6 on 24 ( 14) 212 2.5) 23 2.0) 259 32) 29 273 23 269 25 273 23 277 24 261 22 287 25 263 23 264 33 3. 2 41 9 422. 23 944 3.2 34 ( 1.9 2S4 ( 32 ( 2.3 aMt ( 2.5 2.7) 20 21 101111 *MI 2ri is 1 2411 2.7) SA) 2.6) ( 5.5) 20 .4 261 2.0 211 2.2 207 2.5 111 14 ( 1.5 242 ( &A ( 1.5) 24 ( 1.5) 0.11 ( 2.1) 205 ( 2.2) 249 41 ( 1.1) 25 ( 1.5) 12 1.1 ( 2.2) 270 ( 2.4) 255 31 (1.3) 29 ( 1.3) 13 ( 0.3 (13) 25. ( 1.5) 242 ( 2.7 (1.0) 20 ( 1.3) 17 ( ( 22) 262 ( 2.1) 245 ( ( 21 ( 1.2) 11 OA) ( 22 253 ( 1.4) 232 2.3) ( IA 2. (15) 15 1.2) ( 1.8 256 ( 1.9) 241 2.2) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 140 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 135 Rhode Island TABLE A26 I Students' Reports on the Number of Days of I School Missed PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1020 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT None One or Two Days Three Days or More TOTAL State Nation RACEJETNNICITY *wow lass and Widow Se ( 1.1) 264 ( 1-1) 45 ( 411) 2IS ( 1.8) Persolage awl Proldwqr 83( 264 ( 32 ( 0.9 263 ( 1.5) Par64664114 14411 Preiskew 24 250 1 23 1.1 250 ( t.9 White State 40 ( 1.2) 34 ( 1.0) 211 ( 1.0) 270 ( 1.1) 26e ( 1.2) 256 ( 1.2) Nation 43 ( 1.2) 34 ( 1.2) 23 ( 12) 273 ( 1.8) 272 ( 1.7) 258 ( 2.1) Slack State 36 ( 5.4) 26 ( 32) ( 37 ( 04.* 5.1) .41 Nation 56 ( 3.1) 21 ( 1.8) 23 ( 2.5) 240 ( 3.2) 240 ( 4.1) 224 ( 3.5) Hispanic State 35 ( 3.0) 27 ( 2.4) 37 ( 32) 232 ( 3.7) 224 ( 5-2) Nation 41 ( 3.3) 32 ( 2.2) 27 ( 2-6) 245 ( 4.8) 250 ( 3.3) 235 ( 3.1) TYPE Of COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 40 ( 3.0) 38 ( 2.2) 24 ( 2.2) 283 ( 2.5) 278 ( 1.8) 265 ( 3.4) Nation 47 ( 2.3) 38 ( 2.8) 15 ( 3.7) 284 ( 44)1 279 ( 4.5)! 114* 11111 Disadvantaged urban State 38 ( 1.9) 30 ( 1.9) 34 ( 2.5) 248 ( 2.4) 250 ( 3.2) 237 ( 2.8) Nation 42 ( 3.3) 20 ( 16) 32 ( 2.7) 254 ( 3.7)! 258 ( 4.2)! 23$ ( 0.3)1 Other State 40 ( 1.8) 33 ( 1.4) 27 ( 1.1) 263 ( 1.8) 282 ( 1.8) 250 ( 1.4) Nation 45 ( 1.3) 32 ( 1.1) 23 ( 1.1) 285 ( 22) 288 ( 1.9) 251 ( 2.4) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. f Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. "" Semple size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 136 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode Island TABLE A26 I Students' Reports on the Number of Days of (continued) I School Missed PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL TE ASSESSMENT STA , None . Om or Two Days Three DaYs or Mom TOTAL and Praidency Percentage and Prallidency Perardies and Pralidancy State 39 ( 1.1) 33 ( 0.9) 28 ( 0.9) 264 ( 1,1) 264 ( 1.1) 250 ( Nation 45 ( 1.1) 32 ( 0.9) 23 1.1 285 ( 1.8) 266 ( 1.5) 250 ( 1.9 PARENTS' EDUCATION NS non-graduats State 31 ( 3.4) 30 ( 3.0) 39 ( 3.5) 241 ( 4.2) 243 ( 3.8) 230 (3.0) Nation 38 ( 3.2) 20 ( 3.1) 38 (3.5) 245 ( 3.0) 249 ( 3.3) 237 ( 3.1) NS graduate State 37 ( 1.7) 34 ( 1.6) 30 ( 254 ( 1.9) 250 ( 2.0) 242 ( 22) Nation 43 ( 2.1) 31 ( 1.9) 27 ( 1.9) 255 ( 2.0) 257 ( 2.6) 249 ( 2.4) Some college State 38 ( 2.3) SS ( 2.8) 29 ( 2.6) 271 ( 2.5) 264 ( 3.0) 261 ( 3.1) Nation 40 ( 1.8) 37 ( 1.6) 23 ( 1.6) 270 ( 3.0) 271 ( 2.5) 253 ( 3.1) College gradust State 42 ( 1.7) 34 ( 1.4) 23 ( 12) 277 ( 1.6) 27$ ( 1.4) 263 ( 2.2) Nation 51 ( 1.8) 33 ( 12) 18 ( 1.3) 275 ( 2.1) 277 ( 1.7) 265 ( 3.1) GENDER Male State 41 ( 1.5) 32 ( 1.3) 27 ( 1.1) 265 ( 1.4) 265 ( 1.7) 254 ( 1,8) Nation 47 ( 1.8) 31 ( 1.4) 22 ( 1.4) 28$ ( 2.0) 267 ( 2.1) 250 ( 2.6) Female State 38 ( 1,5) 33 ( 1.4) 219 ( 14) 263 ( 1.8) 253 ( 1.5) 246 ( 1.7) Nation 43 ( 1.4) 32 ( 1.1) 25 ( 1.3) 264 ( 2.3) 208 ( 1/) 250 ( 12) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. I 4 2 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 137 Rhode Island TABLE A27 I Students' Perceptions of Mathematics PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT , StrtwilllY NO* *am Undecided, Disagree, Strongly Maine TOTAL State Nation RACEJETHNICITY Mite State Nation Black State Nation Hispanic State Nation TYPE Of 00anduNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disedvantaged when State Nation Other State Nation Raven lap awl lindlidency 24 as) 2.6 1,e) 27 im 271 1.9) 24 ( 0.9) 274 ( 1.6) 20 ( 1.6) 279 ( 2.0) 27 ( 3.8) eite 32 ( 2.5) 247 ( 4.1) 25 ( 2.8) 1141 **0 24 ( 2.5) 257 ( 5.5) 29 ( 24) 286 ( 4.1) 17 ( 3.2) ( *01 22 ( 2.5) 251 ( 3.5) 26 ( 2.9) 260 ( 5.6)1 23 ( 1.0) 267 ( 1.9) 27 ( 1.4) 271 ( 2.4) Porteditig. and Proffolency Poosstais andøy 53 ( 1.1) 23 ( 1.0) 201 ( 250 (1.5) 40 ( 1,0 24 1.2) 2.2 ( 13 251 1.6) 53 ( 1.2) 23( 1.1) 200 ( 1.0) 257 ( 1.5) 48 ( 1.3) 26 ( 1.5) 272 ( 1.8) 257 ( 2.0) 40 ( .44 ( 5.5)) 26 ( 42) 52 ( 23) 16 ( 1.9) 233 ( 3.3) 227 ( 4.2) 49 ( 4.0) 26 ( 3.3) 229 ( 3.3) ( 48 ( 2.6) 28 ( 2.1) 244 ( 2.2) 230 ( 3.8) 51 ( 2.9) 20 ( 1.3) 277 ( 1.8) 262 ( 2.3) 55 ( 2.4) 28 ( 4.2) 280 ( 4.1)1 51 ( 2.5) 27 ( 3.3) 243 ( 2.9) 241 ( 4.1) 48 ( 2.9) 26 ( 3.2) 240 ( 4.0)1 240 ( 4.5)1 53 ( 1.4) 24 ( 1.2) 200 ( 1.4) 250 ( 1.8) 48 ( 12) 25 ( 1.4) 263 ( 2.2) 250 ( 1.9) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *" Sample size is insufTicient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 138 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rhode island TABLE A27 I Students' Perceptions of Mathematics (continued) I PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 11100 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT _ Ulu,* *Pie Alm Undecided, Disagree, Wong Sy Disagree TOTAL State Nation and OrsieddiRlf 24 ( 26810 ( 27 ( 13 271 ( 1.9) and Prairkiny 63 201 ( 1.0 40 ( 262 C t7) aNd PumIstrt 23 230 ( f.5 24 ( 1.2 2$1 (1.0 PARENTS' EDUCATION IfS non-graduate State 20 ( .44 ( 2.8) 50 ( 242 ( 3.5) 2.8) 30 229 ( 3.8) ( 3.7 Nation 20 ( 2.8) 50 ( 3.3) 30 ( 3.8 ( 243 ( 2.8) 238 ( 4.3) NS graduate State 24 ( 1.7) 51 ( 2.5) 25 ( 2.1) 258 ( 22) 251 ( 1.7) 247 ( Nation 27 ( 2.1) 47 ( 2.3) 213 ( 2.0 262 ( 2.7) 255 ( 2.3) 245 ( 2.4 $ome college State 28 ( 2.3) 51 ( 2.3) 24 ( 2.6) 272 ( 2.5) 267 ( 22) 258 ( 3.8) Nation 25 ( 2.5) 47 ( 2.4) 25 ( 1.8) 274 ( 3.1) 267 ( 1.9) 258 ( 3.2) Co Nevi graduate State 26 ( 1.4) 541 1.7) 21 ( 1.6) 281 ( 2.5) 275 ( 1.3) 265 ( 2.4) Nation 30 ( 2.3) 51 ( 1.6) 19 ( 1.8) 260 ( 2.4) 274 ( 22) 298 ( 24) GENDER Male State 24 ( 1.3) 54 ( 1.4) 22 ( 1.2) 272 ( 1.9) 262 ( 12) 251 ( 2.3) Nation 28 ( 1.5) 48 ( 1.2) 24 ( 1.4) 273 ( 2.3) 263 ( 2.0) 251 ( 2A) Female State 24 ( 1.2) 52 ( 1.5) 25 ( 1.4) 284 ( 2:0) 260 ( 1.6) 249 ( 2.1) Nation 26 ( 1.7) 50 ( 1.7) 25 ( 1.9) 28D ( 2.1) 262 ( 1.8) 252 ( 1.9) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. ft can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within * 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 't 4 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 139 Acknowledgments The desigp, development, analysis, and reporting of the first Trial State Assessment was truly a collaborative effort among staff from State Education Agencies, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Educational Testing Service (EIS), Westat, and National Computer Systems (NCS). The program benefitted from the contrilnitions of hundreds of individuals at the state and local levels Goveznors, Chief State School Officers, State and District Test Directors, State Coordinators, and district administrators who tirelessly provided their wisdom, experience, and hard work. Finally, and most importantly, NAEP is grateful to the students and school staff who participated in the Trial State Assessment Special recognition is due the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) for its considerable contautions to the program, especially its management of the National Auessment Planning Project. That project resulted in the mathematics framework and objectives for the assessment and recommendations about reporting the results of the program. In particular, we note the significant contributions of Ramsay Selden, Director of the State Education Assessment Center for the CCSSO and the members of the Steering, Mathematics Objectives, and Analysis and Reports Committees of the National Assessment Planning Project. The Trial State Assessment was funded through NCES, in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the US. Department of Education. Emerson Elliott, NCES Acting Commissioner, provided consistent support and guidance. The staff particularly Gary Phillips, Eugene Owen, Stephen Gorman, Maureen Treacy, and Raul Garza -- worked closely and colle,gially with ETS, Westat, and NCS staff and played a crucial role in all aspects of the progam. The members of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and NAGB staff also deserve credit for their advice and guidance. We owe a great deal to the Mathematics Item Development and Mathematics Seale Anchoring Panels. These people -- from school districts, colleges and universities, and State Education Agencies worked tirelessly to help ETS staff develop thc assessment and a framework for interpreting the results. Under the NAEP contract to ETS, Archie Lapointe served as the project director and Ina Mullis as the deputy director. Statistical and psychometric activities were led by John Mazzo), with consultation from Eugene Johnson and Donald Rock. John Barone managed the data analysis activities; Jules Goodison, the operational aspects; Walter MacDonald and Chancey Jones, test development; David Hobson, the fiscal aspects; and Stephen Koffler, state services. Sampling and data collection activities were carried out by Westat under the supervision of Renee Slobasky, Keith Rust, Nancy Caldwell, and the late Morris Hansen. The printing, distribution, and processing of the materials were the responsibility of NCS, under the direction of John O'Neill and Lynn Zaback. The large number of states and territories participating in the first Trial State Assessment introduced many unique challenges, including the need to develop 40 different reports, customized for each jurisdiction based on its characteristics and the results of its assessed students. To meet this challenge, a computerized report generation system was built, combining the speed and accuracy of computer-generated data with high resolution text and graphics normally found only in typesetting environments. Jennifer Nelson created the system and led the computer-based development of the report. John Mazzeo oversaw the analyses far this report. John Ferris, Davit; Freund, Bruce Kaplan, Edward Kulick, and Phillip Leung collaborated to generate the data and perform analyses. They were assisted by Drew Bowker, Laura McCamley, and Craig Pizzuti. Debra Kline coordinated the efforts of the data analysis staff. Stephen Koffler wrote the text for the report. Kent Ashworth was responsille for coordinating the cover desigi and final printing of this report. Special thanks are also due to many individuals for their invaluable assistance in reviewing the reports, especially the editors who improved the text and the analysts who checked the data. 1 5 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFTICE : 1991 0 - 233-275 QL 3 (BK 34) 146