USVI Public Records

Document text

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 330 547 SE 052 057 TITLE The State of Mathematics Achievement in Alabama: The Trial State Azisessment at Grade Eight. INSTITUTION Educational Testtng Service, Princetcn, 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 executive 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) EDPS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; Calculators; *Educational Assessment; Family Environment; *Grade 8; Homework; Junior High Schools; *Mathematics Achievement; Ma`hematics Instruction; Mathematics Skills; Mathematics Tests; National Programs; Problem Solving; Public Schools; *State Programs; Student Attitudes; Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Qualificationc; Television Viewing IDENTIFIERS *Alabama; National Assessment of Educational Progress; *Numeracy; 1,t,ate Mathematics Assessments; Trial State Assessment (NAEP) 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 the 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 c.perations; measurement; geometrY; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra and functions). In Alabama, 2,531 students in 98 public schools were assessed. This report describes the mathematics proficiency of Alabama eighth-graders, compares their overall performance to students in the Sc,utheast 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 community, 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, Alabama students had an average proficiency of 252 compared to 261 nationwide. Many fewer students (A1abama-7%; U.S.-12%) appear to have acquired reascning and problem solving skills. (JJK/cRw) NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS The STATE of Mathematics A vement in ALABAMA The Trial State Assessment at Grade Eight THE NATION'S REPORT CARD mt. "'Tv LLE S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION r f.clu slional Ftesrart P cl ImCvo.ermer,f IDu TIONAL RE SOURCES .INFORMATON CENTER tEPICI okh .rnent ?los rwer` ,e0,00.x ed as r is,von Pc, *? eo" , CacilrfZaton or,v,nalriy m,nor na,,p tver, racse f .rnpro.r `r1),odui Non gu 1111p ---- ---''-- ..r* op5 SIAtp(1,,, dOC mpnl C, 04)? vXSa,Iv ,44CreSlen? (TE If poston of poi, Prepared by Educational Testing Service under Contract with the National Center for Education Statistics Office of Educational 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 jx-riodically in reading, mathematics. science. writing, history/geography, and other fields. By making objective information on student performance available to policymakeN 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 collectedunder this program. NAEP guarantees the privacy of Individual students and their families. NAEP 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 also responsible for providing continuing reviews, including validation studies and solicitation of public comment, on NAEP's conduct and usefulness ln 1988, Congr,...ss created the National Assessment Governing Board INAGB, to formulate policy guidelines for NAEP. The board is responsible for selecting the subject areas to be assessed, which may inelude adding to those specified by Congress; identifying appropriate achievement goals for each age and grade; developing assessment txhjectives: developing test specifications: designing the assessment methodology: developing guidelines and standards tOr data analysis and for reporting and disseminating results: developing standards and priveedures for Interstate, regional. and national comparisons; improving the form and use of the National Assessment; and ensunng that all items selected for use in the National Assessment are free from racial, cultural, gender. or regional bias. The National Assessment Governing Board Richard A. Boyd, Chairman Executive Director Martha Hoiden Jennings Foundation Cleveland, Ohio Phyllis Williamson Aldrich Curriculum Coordinator Saratoga-Warren B.O.C.E.S, Saratoga Springs, Yew York Francie Alexander Associate Superintendent California Department of Education Sacramento, Calif ornia David P. Battini High School History 'reacher CamoDurham High School Cairo, New York Parris C. Battle Teacher Horace Mann Elementary School Miami, Honda Mary R. Blanton Attorney. Cromwell. Porter. Blanton & Blanton Salisbury. North Carolina Boyd W. Koehlje Attorney. Ciaass. Klyn. & Boehhe Pella. low a Linda R. Bryant Teacher Greenway Middle School 'Teacher Centel Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania Honorable Michael N. Castle Governor of Delaware Carvel State Office Building Wilmington, Iklaware Honorable Naomi K. ( ohen State ot Connecticut House of Representatives I.egislative Office Building I lanford. Connecticut Chester E. Finn. Jr. Professor of Education and Public Policy Vanderbilt University Washington, D.C. Michael S. (dode Wyoming State Board ot Education Saratoga, Wyoming Christine Johnson Principal Abraham Lincoln High School Iknver, Colorado John lindley Principal South 'olhy Elementary School Port Orchard. Washington Carl J. Moser Director of Schools The Lutheran Church Internatuinal ( 'enter St. Low... MIY,otal Missour i Sy nod Mark I). NIu.sick President Southern Regional Education Board Atlanta. Geoigia Honorable Carolyn Pollan Arkansas House ot Representatives Eon Smith, Arkansas 3 Matthew W. Prophet, Jr. Superintendent Portland Oregon School District Portland, Oregon Honorable William T. Randall Commissioner of Education State Ikpartment ot Education knv er. Colorado Dorothy K. Rich ['resident Home and School Institute Special Projects Office Washington, D.0 Honorarily Richard W. Riky Attorney Nelson, Riley and Scarborough Columbia. South ("angina Thomas Topazes Attorney Law Offices ot Erank Rogorienski Coronado, California Herbert J. Walberg hole...lir or Education University of Illinois Chicago. Illinois Assistant Secretary lor Educational Research and Improvement (Ex.Officio) CS. Department of Education Washington. D Roy Trull Executive Director. N Atilt Washing, .1, D.C. NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS The STME of Mathematics Achievement in AIABAMA The Trial State Assessment at Grade Eight THE NATION'S REPORT CARD 111--- 0 0/ o 6 o 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 Education 11 U.S. Department of Education Lamar Alexander Secretary Office of Educational Research and Improvement Bruno V. Manno Acting Assistant Secretary 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 ordering 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 1-800424-1616 (in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area call 202-219-1651). Library of Congress. Catalog Card Number: 91.61478 ISBN: 0-88685-14-9 The work upon which this publication is based was performed for the National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educ.ational Research and Improvement, by Educational Testing Service. Educational Testing Service is an equal opportunity/affirmative laical employer. Educational Testing Service. ETS, and are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION ,..1 Overview of the 1990 Trial State Assessment 8 This Report 9 Guidelines for Analysis 12 Profile of Alabama 14 Eighth-Grade School and Student Characteristics 14 Schools and Students Assessed 15 PART ONE How Proficient in Mathematics Are Eighth-Grade Students in Alabama Public Schools? 17 Chapter 1. Students Mathematics Performance 18 I evels of Mathematics Proficiency 19 Content Area Performance 19 Chapter 2. Mathematics Performance by Subpopulations 24 Race/ Ethnicity 24 Type of Commun .y 27 Parents' Education Level 29 Gender 31 Content Area Performance 33 THE 1990 NAEP 'TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT fl 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 Delivere0 49 Availability of Resources 49 Pa'Aerns in Classroom Instruction 51 Collaborating in Small Groups 54 Using Mathematical Objects 55 Materials for Mathematics Instruction 56 Summary 59 Chapter 5. How Are Calculators Used? 60 The Availability of Calculators 62 The Use of Calculators 63 When To Use a Calculator 64 Summary 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 lIours of Television Watched per Day 75 Student Absenteeism 76 Students' Perceptions of Mathematics 78 Summary 79 PROCEDURAL APPENDIX DATA APPENDIX 97 iv THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A labama THE NATION'S REPORT CARD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1988, Congress passed new legislation for the National Assessmzns. of Educational Progress (NAEP), which included -- for the first time in the project's history -- a provision authorizing voluntary state-by-st,r.47 assessments on a trial basis, in addition to continuing its primuy mission, the natio7:,± assessments that NAEP has conducted since its inception. As a result of the 14slation, the 1990 NAEP program included a Trial State Assessment Progxam in eighth-gade mathematics. National assessments in mathematics, reading, writing, and science were conducted simultaneously in 1990 at grades 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 thc 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. Li THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 1 A labama In Alabama, 98 public schools participated in the assessmcmt. The weightod school participation rate was 97 percent, which means that all of the eighth-grade students in this sample of schools were repreientative of 97 percent of the eighth-grade public-school stLdents in Alabama. In each school, a random sample of students was selected to participate in the assessment. As estimated by the sample, 0 percent of the eighth-grade public-school population was classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP), while 10 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 descriLes 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 c.At.her case) be judged incapable of participating in the assessment. The student3 who were excluded from the assessment because they were categorized as LEP or had an IEP represented 0 percent and 6 percent of the population, respectively. In total, 2,531 eighth-rade Alabama public-school students %We assessed. The weighted student participation rate was 95 percent. This means that the sample of students who took part in the assessment was representative of 95 percent of the eligible eighth-grade public-school student population in Alabama. Students' Mathematics Performance The average proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students from Alabama on the NAEP mathematics scale is 252. This proficiency is lower than that of students across the nation (261). Average proficiency on the NALP scale provides a global view of eighth gaders' 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, N.NEP used the results from the 1990 national assessments of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-gade students to define the skills, knowledge, and understandings that characterize four levels of mathematics perfomiance -- levels 200, 250, 300, and 350 -- on the NMI' scale. 9 2 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASS ESSM ENT Alabama In Alabama, 96 percent If the eighth graders, compared to 97 percent in the nation, appear to have acquired skills involving simple additive reasoning and problem solving vith whole numbers (level 200). However, many fewer students in Alabama (7 pervent) 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 Thal State Assessment included five content areas -- Numbers and Operations; Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and Functions. Students in Alabama performed lower than 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 reporting on the performance of various subpopulations of the Alabama eighth-grade student population defined by race/ethnicity, type of community, parents education level, and gender. In Alabama: 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 Alabama students attending schools in advantaged urban areas was higher than that of students attending schools in disadvantaged urban areas, extreme rural areas, or areas classified as "other". In Alabama, the average mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students having at least one parent who graduated from college was approximately 24 points higher than that of students whose parents did not graduate from high school. The results by gender zillow that there appeals to be no difference in the average mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade males and females attending public schools in Alabama. In addition, there was no difference between the percentages of males and females in Alabama who attained level 300. Compared to the national results, females in Alabama performed lower than females across the country; males in Alabama performed lower than males across the country. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 3 Alabama 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 peincipals 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 Alabama are as follows: More than half of the students in Alabama (60 percent) were in schools where mathematics was identified as a special priority. This is about the same percentage as that for the nation t63 percent). In Alabama, 65 percent of the students could take an algebra course in eighth grade for high-school course placement or credit. A greater percentagr of students in Alabama were taking eighth-grade mathematics (66 percent) than were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra (32 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 Alabama spent either 15 or 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day; according to the students, most of them spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day. ACTOSS 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 Algebra and Functions had higher proficiency in this content area than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on Algebra and Functions. 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. 4 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama In Alabama, 20 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers who reported getting all of the resources they needed, while 31 percent of the students were taught by teachers who got only same or none of the resources they needed. Across the nation, these figures were 13 percent and 31 percent, respectively. In Alabama, 30 percent of the students never used a calculator to work problems in class, while 47 percent almost always did. In Alabama, 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. About one-quarter of the students (29 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 vere certified at the highest level available in their states. Students in Alabama who had four types of reading matenals (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 all four types of materials showed higher mathematics proficiency than did students who had zero to two types. Relatively few of the eighth-grade public-school students in Alabama (10 per,-:ent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 18 percent watched six hours or more. Average mathematics proficiency was lowest for studcnts who spent six hours or more watching television each day. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 5 A labama THE 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 February 1990 with the following participants: Alabama Iowa Ohio Arizona Kentucky Oklahoma Arkansas Louisiana Oregon California Maryland Pennsylvania Colorado Michigan Rhode Island Connecticut Minnesota Texas Delaware Montana Virginia District of Columbia Nebraska West Virginia Florida New Hampshire Wisconsin Georgia New Jersey Wyoming Hawaii New Mexico Idaho New York Illinois North Carolina Guam Indiana North Dakota Virgin Islands THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 7 A labanw This report &scribes the performance of the eighth-grade public-school students in Alabama and consists of three sections: This Introduction provides background information about the Trial State Assessment and this report. It also provides a profile of the eighth-grade public-school students in Alabama. Part One describes the mathematics performance of the eighth-grade public-school students in Alabama, the Southeast region, and the nation. Part Two relates students' mathematics performance to contextual information about the mathematics policies and instruction in schools in Alabama, the Southeast 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: The 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 (0( 2) (C) (i) of the General Education Provisions Act, as amended by Pub. L. 100-297 (20 U.S.C. 1221e-1(0(2)(0(W) 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 grades four, eight, and twelve. For the Trial State Assessment, eighth-grade public-school students were assessed in each state or territory. The sample was carrfully designed to represent the eighth-jgade public-school population in the state or territory. Within each selected school, students were randomly chosen to participate in the proigarn. Local school district personnel adminietered all assessment sessions, and the contractor's staff monitored 50 percent of the sessions as part of the quality assurance program designesd 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 NAM) TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama 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 Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education to issue a special grant to the Council of Chief State School Officers in mid-1987 to develop the objectives. The development process included careful attention to the standar& developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,' the formal mathematics objectives of states and of a sampling of local districts, and the opinions of practitioners at the state and local levels as to what content shia...A 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 fowth, 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 Alabama, in the Southeast 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. Defmitions of the subpopulations referred to in this report are presented below. The results for Alabama 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 nationrIly 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 NAFP 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 Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 9 Alabama RACE/ETHNICITY Results are presented for students of different racial/ethnic groups based on the students' self-identification 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 students 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 Alabama. 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 arc in professional or managerial positions. Disadvantaged Urban: Students in this group live in metropolitan statistiral 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, ai I attend schools where many of the students' parents arc farmers or farm workers. 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, gaduated high school, some education after high school, or gaduated college. The response indicating the higher level of education was selected for reporting. 10 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama 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 are shown in Figure I. All 50 states and the District of Columbia are listeL, with the participants in the Trial State Assessment highlighted in boldface type. Territories were not assigned to a region. Further, the part of Virginia that is included in the Washington, DC, metropolitan statistical area is included in the Northeast region; the remainder of the state is included in the Southeast region. Because most of the students are in the Southeast region, regional comparisons for Virginia will be to the Southeast. FIGURE 1 f Regions of the Country NE NATION'S REPORT CARD , NORTHEAST SOUTHEAST CENTRAL WEST Connecticut Alabama Illinois Alaska Delaware Arkansas Indiana Arizona District of Columbia Florida Iowa California Maine Georgia Kansas Colorado Maryland Kentucky Michigan Hawaii Massachusetts Louisiana Minnesota Idaho New Hampshire Mississippi 'Missouri Montana New Jersey North Carolina Nebraska Nevada New York South Carolina North Dakota New Mexico Pennsylvania Tennessee Ohio Oklahoma Rhode island Virginia South Dakota Oregon Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Texas Virginia Utah Washington Wyoming ME 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 11 Alabama Guidelines for Analysis This report describes and compares the mathematics proficiency of larious 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 subporulations and individual background questions. It does not include an analysis of the relationships among combinations of these subpopulations or background questions. Because the proportions of students ira these subpopulations and their average proficiency are based on samples -- rather than the entire population of eighth gradeis 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 cenclude 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. 12 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama 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 int.trval for the difference between the means of the populations. If the individual confidence interals 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 gr.:dip (reported in the text) may differ slight!y 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). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 13 Alabama Profile of Alabama EIGHTH-GRADE SCHOOL AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS Table 1 provides a profile of the demographic characteristics of the eighth-grade . public-school students in Alabama, the Southeast region, and the Lation. This profile is based on data collected from the students and schools participating in the Trial State Assessment. TABLE I I Profile of Alabama Eighth-Grade Public-School I Students PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 1SSO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation _ DEMOGRAPHIC SUBGROUPS Percentage Percentage Percentage Race/Ethnicity White 64 ( 1.9) 63 ( 3.0) 70 ( 0.5) Black 29 ( 1.8) 32 ( 3.0) 16 ( 0.3) Hispanic 5 ( 0.6) 3 ( 0.8) 10 ( 0.4) Asian 1 ( 0.3) 1 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0$) American Indian 1 ( 0.2) 0 ( 0.1) 2 ( 0.7) Type of Community Advantaged urban 10 ( 2.8) 0 ( 0.0) 10 ( 3.3) Disadvantaged urban 12 ( 3.0) 2 ( 2.3) 10 ( 2.8) Extreme rural 12 ( 3.5) 9 ( 5.3) 10 ( 3.0) Other 66 ( 5.3) 89 ( 5.8) 70 ( 4.4) Parents Education Did not finish high school 12 ( 0.8) 14 ( 2.1) 10 ( 0.8) Graduated high school 30 ( 1.0) 27 ( 1.6) 25 ( 1.2) Some education after high school 18 ( 0.7) 18 ( 1.7) 17 ( 0.9) Graduated college 34 ( 13) 32 ( 3.3) 39( 1.9) Gender Male 50 ( 1.0) 49 ( 2.8) 51 ( 1.1) Female 50 ( 1.0) 51 ( 2.8) 49 ( 1.1) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear sn 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 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 permnt are reported as 0 percent. 14 TIIE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS ASSESSED Table 2 provides a profile summarizing participation data for Alabama schools and students sampled for the 1990 Trial State Assessment. In Alabama, 98 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 Alabama. TABLE 2 I Profile of the Population Assessed in Alabama WIRTH-GRADE PUBLIC SCHOOL PARTICIPATION We:fled school participation rate before substitution Weighted school participation rate after substitution Number of schools originally sampled Number of schools not eligible Number of schools in original sample participating Number of substitute schools provided Number of substitute schools participating Total number of participating schools 86% 97% 106 5 87 13 11 98 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT EIGHTH-GRADE PUBUC-SCHOOL STUDENT PARTICIPATION Weighted student participation rate after make-ups 05% Number of students selected to participate in the assessment 3,007 Number of students withdrawn from the assessment I 186 Percentage of students who were of Limited English Proficiency 0% Percentage of students excluded from the assessment due to Limited English Proficiency 0% Percentage of students who had an Individualized Education Plan 10% Percentage of students excluded from the assessment due to Individualized Education Plan status 6% Number of students to be assessed 2,659 Number of students assessed 2,531 15 A labama In each school, a random sample of students was selected to participate in the assessment. As estimated by the sample, 0 percent of the eighth-grade public-school population was classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP), while 10 percent had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). An IEP is a plan, wtitten 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 6e 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 0 percent and 6 percent of the population, respectively. In total, 2,531 eighth-grade Alabama public-school students were assessed. The weighted student participation rate was 945 percent. This means that the sample of students who took part in the assessment was representative of 95 percent of the eligible eighth-gxade public-school student population in Alabama. '22 16 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama THE NATION'S REPORT CARD PART ONE How Proficient in Mathematics Are Eighth-Grade Students in Alabama 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. Studerits' 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 Alabama. Chapter 1 compares the overall mathematics performance of the students in Alabama to students in the Southeast 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 A labama CHAPTER 1 Students' Mathematics Performance As shown in Figure 2, the average proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students from Alabama on the NAEP mathematics scale is 252. This proficiency is lower than that of students across the nation (261).2 FIGURE 2 I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School 1 Mathematics Proficiency NAEP Mathematics Scale 200 225 250 275 300 500 Tte ODOM CAM Avarage Proficiency Pm Alabama 252 ( 1.2) p-e-4 Southeast 253 ( 2.7) Nation 261 ( 1.4) 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, denated by 0-1-4). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a stausucally significant difference between the populations. 2 Differences reported are statistically ditierent at about the 95 percent certainty level. This means that with about 95 percent certainty there is a real difference in the average mathematics proficiency between the two populations of interest. 18 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama LEVELS OF MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY Average proficiency on the NAEP scale provides a global view of eighth graders' mathematics achievement; howevu, it does not reveal the specifics of 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 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. Definitions 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 judgnental standards of what ought to be achieved at a particular grade. Figure 4 provides the percentages of students at or above each of these proficiency levels. In Alabama, 96 percent of the eighth graders, compared to 97 percent in the nation, appear to have acquired skills involving simple additive reasoning and problem solving with whole numbers (level 200). However, many fewer students in Alabama (7 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 Alabama, Southeast region, and national results for each content area, Students in Alabama performed lower than students in the nation in all of these five content areas. ME 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 19 Alabama FIGURE 3 I Levels of Mathematics Proficiency LEVEL 200 Simple Addruve 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 and division problems. These students can identify solutions to one-step word prOblems and select the greatest tour-digit number in a list. in measurement, these students can read a ruler as well as common weight and graduated srales. 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 Simple Multiplicative Reasoning and Two-Stop Problem Solving 1 mh Students at this level have extended their understanding of quantitative reasoning with whole numbers from additive to multiplicative settings. They can salve 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 missirg 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 conveusions 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 IntormaHy with a variable through numerical substitution in the evaluation of simple expressions. 20 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama FIGURE 3 I Levels of Mathematics Proficiency (continued) I NE RATION'S REPORT CARD LEVEL 300 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, and 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 of percentageS to solve simple problems. These Students demonstrate some evidence of using mathematical 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 scam 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 and 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 (Wend 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 ind measurement. These students also can apply their koowledge of the properties of geometric figures tL olve 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 com;:ositton of functions. They can determine the nth term of a sequence and give counterexamples to disprove an algebraic generalization. I THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 21 FIGURE 4 I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency LEVEL 350 State Region Nation LEVEL 300 State Region Nation LEVEL 250 State Region Nation LEVEL 200 State Region Nation 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels The standard errors are prfisented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value for each populatton of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (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. 22 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 0 ( 0.1) O ( 0.0) O ( 0.2) 7 ( 0.7) 8 ( 1.8) 1... ( 1.2) 52 ( 1.7) 52 ( 3.2) 64 ( 1.6) 96 ( 0.7) 94 ( 2.2) 97 ( 0.7) Alabama FIGURE 5 I Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematim Content Area Performance State Region Nation State Region Nation State Region Nation State Region Nation State Region Nation 200 225 250 275 300 Average Proficiency 259 ( 1.2) 259 ( 2.9) 266 ( 1.4) 247 ( 1.4) 246 ( 3.8) 258 ( 1.7) 248 ( 1.2) 249 ( 2.6) 259 ( 1.4) 251 ( 1.6) 250 ( 3.3) 262 ( 1.8) 251 ( 1.4) 254 ( 2.7) 260 ( 1.3) 500 Mathematics Subsea le Proficiency The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within t 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by 1+4). 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 CHAPTER 2 Mathematics Performance by Subpopulations In addition to the overall state results, 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 group is sufficient in size to be reliably reported (at least 62 students). Average mathematics performance results for White, Black, and Hispanic students from Alabama 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. 24 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama FIGURE 6 I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School i Mathematics Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity NAEP Mathematics Scale 0 200 225 250 275 300 500 Average Proficiency Is PM IV*44 P-11,001 P-VI 141 Alabama White SU (14 Black 23) 441) Hispanic Southeast White . 349 Black 2:13 ( 4.0) Hispanic w ( *in Nation White ( 1.5) Black 2311 1 2.0) Hispanic 2010 ( 2..) 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 F4-4). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 25 Alabama THE NATION'S 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 Stat. White Black Hispanic Region White Black Hispanic Nation White Black Hisparuc LEVEL 200 State White Black Hispanic Region White Black Hispanic Nation White Black Hispanic 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 t 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (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. Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level. ** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). Percentage 10 ( 0.9) I ( 0.5) 2 ( 1.3) 11 ( 2.7) 2 ( 1.6) %um 15 ( 1.5) 2 ( 1.3) 3 ( 1.1) 67 ( 1.7) 25 ( 2.2) 17 ( 4.5) 69 ( 3.6) 27 ( 5.1) mint 74 ( 1.8) 30 ( 3.4) 41 ( 4.5) 99 ( 0.3) se ( 1.7) 85 ( 4.3) 99 ( 1.3) 96 ( 5.3) OtItft ( 90 ( 0.4) 89 ( 3.1) 93 ( 1.6) 100 f") 4 26 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSFSSMENT Alabama TYPE OF COMMUNITY Figure 8 and Figure 9 present the mathematics proficiency results for eighth-grade students attending public schools in advantaged urban areas, disadvantaged urban areas, extreme rural areas, and areas classified as "other". (These are the "type of community" groups in Alabama with student samples large enough to be reliably reported.) The results indicate that the average mathematics performance of the Alabama students attending schools in advantaged urban areas was higher than that of students attending schools in disadvantaged urban areas, extreme rural areas, or areas classified as "other". FIGURE 8 Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by Type of Community NAEP Mathematics Scal 0 200 225 250 275 300 500 MOM CAN Average Proficiency Alabama Advantaged urban 2e. ( 4.7)1 Disadvantaged urban 245 3.4)1 Extreme rural 245 ( 15)1 Other 262 ( 1.8) Southeast Advantaged urban Disadvantaged urban 1.-**) Extreme rural 246 (13.9)1 Other 263 ( 3.0) Nation Advantaged urban 211 ( 3.8)1 Disadvantaged ur Dan ( 3$)1 Extreme rural 266 ( 4.1)1 HI Other 261 ( 1.8) The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within t 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by 1-4-1). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populauons. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. ** Sample SIM is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 27 Alabama FIGURE 9 LEVEL 300 State Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other 1101 Adv. urban ()Indy. urban Ext. rural Other Makin Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other LEVEL 260 Stat Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other 11111en Adv. urban D1sadv. urban Ext. rural Other Nation Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other LEVEL 200 Mat Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other 14.91con Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other Nation Mv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by Type of Community .11.1 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-4-4). 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 estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 19 ( 3.8)1 ( 1.8)1 3 ( 1.3)1 5 ( 0.7) (( "") 4 ( 4.2)1 9 ( 1.9) 26 ( 4.8)1 7 ( 2.1)1 ( 2.3)1 12 ( 1.2) 67 ( 5.9)1 42 ( 5.7)1 43 ( 5.2)1 63 ( 2.8) ( .") ( 48 (17.4)1 53 ( 3.9) 83 ( 4.6)1 48 ( 5.0)1 58 ( 6.2)1 34 ( 2.3) 99 ( 0.6)1 93 ( 1.7)1 93 ( 2.3)1 90 ( 0.9) ( *) suta ) 90 (13.5)1 94 ( 2.2) 100 ( 0.0) 95 ( 1.5)1 97 ( 2.8)1 97 ( 1.0) 100 3 4 28 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama PARENTS' EDUCATION LEVEL Previous NAEP fmdings have shown that students whose patents ate better educated tend to have higher mathematics proficiency (see Figures 10 and 11). In Alabama, the average mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students having at least one parent who graduated from college was approximately 24 points higher than that of students who reported that neither parent graduated from high school. As shown in Table 1 in the Introduction, a smaller percentage of students in Alabama (34 percent) than 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 12 percent for Alabama and 10 percent for the nation. FIGURE 10 I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by Parents' Education MAEP Mathematics Scala 200 225 250 275 300 500 CANN Average Profteloney PM P44 HI PM Alabama HS non-graduate HS graduate Some college College graduate 2311( 20 ( .2N1 212 ( 1.7) 1.7) 1.6) 2.0) Southeast 1-4-N4 HS non-graduate 2a7 ( 3.3) HS graduate 24$ ( 4.1) Some college 2110 ( 3.7) 1,-t4 College graduate 2118 ( 3.6) Nation 1-1,4 HS non-graduate 243 ( 2.0) M4 HS graduate 254 ( 1.5) Some college 211$ ( 1.7) M4 Col lege graduate 274 ( 1.6) 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, denotef4 by H-4). 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 29 Alabama NE NATION'S IrceORT FIGURE I 1 I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School CARD I Mathematics Proficiency by Parents' Education LEVEL 300 State MS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. Re9ton HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. Nation HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. LEVEL 250 State HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. Region HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. Nation HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. LEVEL 200 State HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. Region HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. Nation HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. 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 71. 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by 1-4-4). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a staustically significant difference between the populations. Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level. 100 30 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT O ( 0.0) 2 ( 0.9) ( 1.4) 14 ( 1.9) 1 ( 0.0) 3 ( 1.7) ( 2.3) 19 ( 3,8) ( 0.9) 5 ( 1.5) 12 ( 1.4) 21 ( 1.9) ( 3.1) 44 ( 2.6) 84 ( 3.0) 64 ( 2.9) 29 ( 6.9) 46 ( 5.4) 81 ( 6.3) 72 ( 3.5) 37 ( 4.6) Se ( 2.7) 71 ( 2.6) 78 ( 2.0) 93 ( 1.4) 94 ( 1.5) 98 ( 1.0) 98 ( 0.8) 93 ( 3.5) 93 ( 2.4) 97 ( 2.5) 97 ( 2.6) 98 ( 1,9) 97 ( 0.8) 99 ( 0.7) 99 ( 0.7) Alabama GENDER As shown in Figure 12, there appears to be no difference in the average mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade males and females attending public schools in Alabama. Compared to the national results, females in Alabama performed lower than females across the country; males in Alabama performed lower than males across the country. FIGURE 12 I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by Gender NAEP Mathematics Scal 200 225 250 275 300 500 Average Proficiency Alabama Male Female 2is 1-2) Southeast P-4114 Male 252 4 3.2) 1-401 Female 253 ( 2.5) Nation Phi Male 242 ( 1.5) HI Female ( 1.3) The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is withm ± 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. As shown in Figure 13, there was no difference between the percentages of males and females in Alabama who attained level 200. The percentage of females in Alabama who attained level 200 was similar to the percentage of females in the nation who attained level 200. Also, the percentage of males in Alabama who attained level 200 was similar to the percentage of males in the nation who attained level 200. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 31 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 State Male Female Region Male Female Nation Male Female LEVEL 200 State Male Female Region Male Female Nation Male Female -> q<eV 0 140004 114004 S.Itoiwa, ( 1.0) ( 0.8) 10 ( 1.9) ( 2.0) 14 ( 1.7) 10 ( 1.3) 54 ( 2.1) 51 ( 1.9) 50 ( 3.6) 54 ( 3.8) 64 ( 2.0) 64 ( 1.8) Pm 96 ( 0.7) PPwl 05 ( 1.0) 93 ( 3.0) 11--4Pw4 95 ( 1.9) 97 ( 0.9) 97 ( 9.8) 20 40 SO 80 100 Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels The standard errors are presented in paretiheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value for each population of interest is withm ± ;c standard errors of the estimated percentage (95 percent 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. Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level. 32 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama In addition, there was no difference between the percentages of males and females in Alabama who attained level 300. The percentage of females in Alabama who attained level 300 was smaller than the percentage of i'emales in the nation who attained level 300. Also, the percentage of males in Alabama who attained level 300 was smaller than the percentage of males in the nation who attained level 300. CONTENT AREA PERFORMANCE Table 3 provides a summary of content area peifonnance by race/ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT- 33 Alabama TABLE 3 I Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Content Area Performance by Subpopulations AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY OF STUDENTS - 1000 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Numbers and Operations idaaawalnani Gaan latrY Data Analysis, Stadatidas and Probability _ Aigebninrrialpnaand TOTAL Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency Wolk Wray Pro edam State 259 ( 12) 247 ( 1.4) 248 ( 1.2) 251 ( 1.6) 251 ( 14) Region 259 ( 2.9) 246 ( 3.8) 240 ( 2.6) 250 ( 3.3) 254 ( 2.7) Nation 266 ( 1.4) 268 ( 1.7) 250 ( 14) 262 ( 1.8) 260 ( 1.3) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 263 ( 12) 280 ( 1.3) 258 ( 1.3) 264 ( 1.4) 281 ( 12) Region 268 ( 3.0) 258 ( 42) 269 ( as) 263 ( 3.4) 264 ( 3.4) Nation 273 ( 1.6) 267 ( 2.0) 267 ' 1$) 272 ( 1.8) 268 ( 1.4) Black State 242 ( 1.0) 224 ( 1.7) 230 ( 1,8) 226 ( 2.8) 233 ( 2.1) Region 242 ( 5.1) 222 ( 5.8) 228 ( 4.2) 227 ( 6$) 235 ( 4S) Nation 244 ( 3.1) 227 ( 3.8) 234 ( 2.8) 231 ( 3.8) 237 ( 2.7) Hispanic State Region ( ...) 212 ( ( 3.8) ...) 222 ( ( 4.3) ...) 219 ( ITO ( 6.4) ( Nation 248 ( 2.7) 238 ( 3.4) 243 ( 3.2) 239 ( 3.4) 243 ( 3.1) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Region 273 ( ( 4.9)1 ...) 264 ( ( 5.1)1 ...) 265 ( ( 43)1 ...) 271 ( ( 5.3)1 ...) 266 ( ( 4,7)1 ...) Nation 283 ( 3.2)1 281 ( 3.2)1 277 ( 5.2)1 285 ( 4.8)1 277 ( 4.8)1 Disadvantaged State Region 253 ( 444 ( 3.2)1 GNI) 234 ( 1144 ( 4.4)1 NH) 243 ( ( 3.3)1 ...) 241 ( ( 5.3)1 ...) 245 ( ( 3.7)1 Nation 255 ( 3.1)1 242 ( 4,9)1 248 ( 3.7)1 247 ( 4.6)1 247 ( 32)1 Extreme rural State 252 ( 3.0)1 240 ( 4.7)1 241 ( 4.1)i 241 ( 4.7)1 24.5 ( 3.3)1 Region 254 ( 9.8)1 241 (17,1)1 244 (18.4)1 245 (13.7)1 251 (14.7)f Nation 258 ( 4.3)1 254 ( 4.2)1 253 ( 4.5)1 257 ( 5.0)1 256 ( 4.8)1 Other State 258 ( 1.8) 248 ( 2.1) 248 ( 1.7) 251 ( 2.4) 251 ( 2.1) Region 269 ( 3.3) 248 ( 4.0) 249 ( 2.7) 261 ( 3,8) 255 ( 3.0) Nation 266 ( 1.9) 257 ( 2,4) 269 ( 1.7) 281 ( 2.2) 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 ± 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). 34 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE 3 I Eighth-Grade. Public-School Mathematics (continued) Content Area Performance by Subpopulations AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY OF STUDENTS 19MI NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT , Numboparatizr Manauramant °Imam IdarY - _ Data Analysis' Statistics' and Probability . Algebra and Functions TOTAL Proadency Proncitmo Proikieriby Prigie IOW Pro fidettey State 259 ( 1.2) 247 ( 1.4) 248 ( 1.2) 251 ( 251 ( 1.4) Region 259 ( 2.9) 246 ( 3.8) 249 ( 2.0) 250 ( 3.3 254 ( 2.7) Nation 206 ( 1.4) 258 ( 1.7) 259 ( 1.4) 2tX2 ( 1.8 206 ( 1.3) PARENTS' EDUCATION NS non-graduate State 246 ( 1.4) 235 ( 3.0) 235 ( 1.6) 233 ( 2.7 239 ( 2.8) Region 243 ( 4.5) 227 ( 8.1) 237 ( 4.1) 234 ( 4.7) 240 ( 3.5) Nation 247 ( 2.4) 237 ( 3.6) 242 ( 2.2) 240 ( 3.1) 242 ( 3.0) NS graduate State 254 ( 1.8) 241 ( 2.2) 241 ( 1.6) 242 ( 2.3) 245 ( 2.1) Region 252 ( 4.7) 235 ( 5.3) 242 ( 3.3) 242 ( 5.4) 247 ( 4.5) Nation 259 ( 1.8) 248 ( 2.1) 252 ( 1.6) 253 ( 22) 253 ( 2.0) Some college State 264 ( 1.8) 257 ( 2.1) 253 ( 1.9) 260 ( 22) 259 ( 2.1) Region 265 ( 3.5) 257 ( 6.3) 253 ( 4.2) 200 ( 3.9) 260 ( 5.7) Nation 270 ( 1.5) 264 ( 2.7) 262 ( 2.0) 269 ( 2.4) 263 ( 2.2) College graduate State 268 ( 2.2) 256 ( 2.3) 259 ( 2.0) 264 ( 2.4) 261 ( 2.0) Region 275 ( 3.9) 264 ( 4.6) 263 ( 3.6) 267 ( 4.6) 270 ( 4.1) Nation 278 ( 1.8) 272 ( 2.0) .770 ( 1.6) 276 ( 22) 273 ( 1.7) GENDER Male State 259 ( 1.5) 251 ( 1.8) 251 ( 1.5) 253 ( 2.0) 250 ( 1.8) Region 257 ( 3.6) 249 ( 4.4) 249 ( 3.2) 249 ( 3.9) 253 ( 3.2) Nation 266 ( 2.0) 262 ( 23) 260 ( 1.7) 262 ( 2.1) 260 ( 1.8) Roma!'" State 258 ( 1.4) 244 ( 1.6) 246 ( 1.4) 248 ( 1.6) 252 ( 1.5) Region 2151 ( 2.9) 243 ( 4.0) 248 ( 2.4) 251 ( 3.7) 255 ( 2.6) Nation 266 ( 1.4) 253 ( 1.6) 258 ( 1.5) 261 ( 1.9) 260 ( 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. R 4 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 35 Alabama 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, teach J 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 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 A labama 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, incoiporating 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 tune each day watching television than doing mathematics homework. Part Two consists of five chapters. Chapter 3 discusses instructional 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 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama CHAPTER 3 What Are Students Taught in Mathematics? In resp6.13e 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 Alabama 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: More than half of the eighth-grade students in Alabama (60 percent) were in public schools where mathematics was identified as a special priority. This compares to 63 percent for the nation. Curtis McKnight, et al., The Underachieving Curriculum Assessing US, School Mathematics frorn an International Perspective, A Natilnal Report on the Second International Mathematics Study (Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company, 1987). Lynn Steen, Ed. Everybody Counts A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 39 A labanw In Alabama, 65 percent of the students could take an algebra course in eighth grade for higA school course placement or credit. Almost all of the students in Alabama (90 percent) were taught mathematics by teachers who teach only one subject. More than half (60 percent) of the students in Alabama were typically taught mathematics in a class that was grouped by mathematics ability. Ability grouping was equally prevalent across the nation (63 percent). TABLE 4 I Mathematics Policies and Practices in Alabama Eighth-Grade Public Schools PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Southeast Nation Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools that identified mathematics as receiving special emphasis In school-wide goals and objectives, Instruction, in-service training, etc. Percentage of eighth-grade public-school students who are offered a mune 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 ciass by their ability In mathematics Percentage of eighth-grade students In public schools who receive tour or more hours or mathematics instruction per week CO ( 4.9) 70 (10.8) 63 ( 5.9) 66 ( 44) 00 (10.9) 78 ( 4.8) 90 ( 3.0) 77 (10.6) 01 ( 3.3) 60 ( 4.1) 58 ( 8.0) 83 ( 4.0) 60 ( 4.3) 51 (Mil 30 ( 4.4) 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 enure population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 40 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama CURRICULUM COVERAGE To place students' mathematics proficiency in a curriculum-related context, it is necessary to examine the extent to which eighth graders in Alabama are taking mathematics courses. Based on their responses, shown in Table 5: A greater percentage of students in Alabama were taking eighth-grade mathematics (66 percent) than were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra (32 percent). Across the nation, 62 percent were taking eighth-gade mathematics and 34 percent were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra. Students in Alabama 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 cuniculum. TABLE 5 I Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class i They Are Taking PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO MEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT I Alabama Southeaet Nation What kind of mathematics class are you taking this year? Eighth-grade mathematics Pro-algebra Algebra Percentage and Proficiency Percentage Percentage and and Proficiency Proficiency 86 ( 2.5) 64 ( 3.7) 62 ( 2.1) 243 ( 1.6) 241 ( 3.4) 251 ( 1.4) 20 ( 1.9) 23 ( 4.4) 19 ( 1.9) 263 ( 2.1) 269 ( 4.6)1 272 ( 2.4) 11 ( 1.2) 11 ( 2.2) 15 ( 1.2) 287 ( 3.0) 296 ( 4.8)1 296 ( 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. 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 3990 NABP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 43 A khan:a Further, from Table A5 in the Data Appendix:* A greater percentage of females (36 percent) than males (27 percent) in Alabama were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses. In Alabama, 35 percent of White students, 24 percent of Black *students, and 22 percent of Hispanic students were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses. Similarly, 37 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 29 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 18 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 34 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 Alabama spent either 15 or 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 Alabama, 4 percent of the students spent no time each day on mathematics homework, compared to 1 percent for the nation. Moreover, 3 percent of the students in Alabama and 4 percent of the students in the nation spent an hour or more on mathematics homework each day. For every table in the body of the report that includes estimates of average proficiency, the Data Appendix provides a corregponding table presenting the results for the four subpopulations race,ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender. 42 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A Iabama The results by race/ethnicity show that 4 percent of White students, 2 percent of Black students, and 0 percent of Hispanic students spent an hour or more on mathematics homework each day. In comparison, 4 percent of White students, 4 percent of Blacsk students, and 9 percent of Hispanic students spent no time doing mathematics homework. In addition, 8 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 2 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 0 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 3 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" spent an hour or more on mathematics homework daily. In comparison, 0 percent of students attendi4 schools in advantaged urban areas, 3 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 0 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 5 percent in 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 1990 NAV TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation _ Percentage and ProNdency 4 ( 1.1) 243 ( 6.sp POMO/1611/11 and !tendency Percentage and Pronclency -- ( .11 1 About how much time do students spend on mathematics homework each day? None 16 minutes 39 ( 3.7) 44 ( 7.5) 43 ( 42) 247 ( 1.9) 248 ( 5.1)! 258 ( 2.3) 30 minutes 41 ( 3.2) 44 ( 7.8) 43 ( 4.3) 253 ( 1.8) 280 ( 5.4)1 286 ( 2.8) 46 minutes 13 ( 2.5) 8 ( 2.7) 10 ( 1.9) 284 ( 4.3) ( 272 ( 5.7)1 An hour or more 3 ( 0.8) 3 ( 1.3) 4 ( 0.9) 283 ( 7.7)1 278 ( 5.1)i The standard errors of the estimated statistics appt.ar in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the vtilue 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). 4 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 43 Alabama 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 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation About how much time do you usually spend each day on mathematics homework? 15 minutes a) minutes 45 minutes An how or mono Percentage and Pre Wang Percentage Percentage and and Pr**, Cy Amadeu:iv 9 ( 1.0) 11 ( 1.9) 9 ( 0.8) 252 ( 2.1) 237 ( 5.4) 251 ( 2.8) 27 ( 1.1) 25 ( 1.6) 31 ( 2.0) 256 ( 1.7) 253 ( 3.3) 264 ( 1.9) 32 ( 0.9) 33 ( 2.5) 32 ( 12) 252 ( 1.5) 251 ( 3.0) 263 ( 1.9) 16 ( 09) 17 ( 2.2) 16 ( 1.0) 251 ( 2-3) 261 ( 2.5) 266 ( 1.9) 16 ( 1.0) 14 ( 1.4) 12 ( 1.1) 2510 ( 2.2) 247 ( 4.8) 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. And, according to the students (Table 7 and Table A7 in the Data Appendix): In Alabama, relatively few of the students (9 percent) reported that they spent no time each day on mathematics homework, compared to 9 percent for the nation. Moreover, 16 percent of the students in Alabama 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 14 percent of White students, 20 percent of Black students, and 19 percent of Hispanic students spent an hour or more on mathematics homework each day. In comparison, 10 percent of White students, 7 percent of Black students, and 7 percent of Hispanic students spent no time doing mathematics homework. 44 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A labarna In addition, 17 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 17 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 19 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 15 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" spent an hour or more on mathematics homework daily. In comparison, 4 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 6 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 6 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 11 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.' Because the Trial State Assessment questions weir 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 numbex 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. D2fil 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 asKet; :ibout emphasis placed on one topic: algebra and functions. s National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evah4ation Standards for School Mathematics (Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 45 Alabama 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 1 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 pmficiency 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 Algebra and Functions had higher proficiency in this content area than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on Algebra and Functions. Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Numbers and Operations and Measurement had lower proficiency in these content areas than students whose tea.chers placed little or no emphasis on the same areas. 46 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE 8 I Teaches' Reports on the Emphasis Given to I Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Teacher 'emphasis* categories by co-ntent areas Numbers and Operation Heavy emphasis 58 ( 8.0) 59 ( 7.3) 49 ( 3.8) 254 ( 12) 258 ( 3.1)1 200 ( 1.8) Little or no emphasis ( 1.4) 15 ( 4.8) 15 ( 2.1) 282 ( 5.7)1 282 ( 7.7)1 287 ( 3.4) Measuryment Heavy emphasis 24 ( 3.3) 13 ( 6.8) 17 ( 3.0) 244 ( 3.7) 242 ( 70)1 250 ( 5.6) Little Of 110 emphasis 19 ( 3.0) 22 ( $.1) 33 ( 4.0) 260 ( 3.9) 259 (10.7)1 272 ( 4.0) Geometry Heavy emphasis 26 ( 3.0) 22 ( 7.0) 28 ( 3.8) 251 ( 2.4) 253 ( 7.5)1 280 ( 32) Little or no emphasis 24 ( 3.2) 22 ( 8.8) 21 ( 3.3) 249 ( 3.4) 253 ( 8.7)1 264 ( 5.4) Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability Heavy emphasis 11 ( 1.8) 19 ( 5.9) 14 ( 2.2) 242 ( 5.6) 274 ( 5.8)' 269 ( 4.3) Little or no emphasis 55 ( 3.2) 54 (10.4) 53 ( 4.4) 251 ( 2.2) 248 ( 5.4)1 261 ( 2.9) Algebra and Functions Heavy emphasis 41 ( 3.0) 42 ( 6.0) 46 ( 3.6) 266 ( 1.8) 277 ( 5.6) 275 ( 2.5) Little or no emphasis 21 ( 2.9) 21 ( 8.1) 20 ( 3.0) 234 ( 3.0) 238 ( 6.7)1 243 ( 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 is not included. ! 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 47 SUMMARY Although many types of mathematics learning can take place outside of the school environment, there are some topic areas that students arc 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: More than half of the eighth-grade students in Alabama (60 percent) were in public schools where mathematics was identified as a special priority. This compares to 63 percent for the nation. In Alabama, 65 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 Alabama were taking eighth-grade mathematics (66 percent) than were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra (32 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 Alabama spent either 15 or 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 Alabama, relatively few of the students (9 percent) reported that they spent no time each day on mathematics homework, compared to 9 percent for the nation. Moreover, 16 percent of the students in Alabama 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 Algebra and Functions had higher proficiency in th;s content area than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on Algebra and Functions. Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Numbers and Operations and Measurement had lower proficiency ix: these content areas than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on the same areas. 48 THE 1990 NAEF TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama CHAPTER 4 ifaxis -22-4 NOM 111.11M II 111-11111-11111MIIIMI 1111111111111111111111F Ell 11181111110111111211 111111./11111111 am !.11./.... NIS1111RfAms. IMMO& up MO 1111111a,V,O101111 Mus IMMO 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 othet resources they needed. 6 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Professional Standards for the Teaching of Mathematics (Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 49 A lama From Table 9 and Table A9 in the Data Appendix: In Alabama, 20 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers who reported getting all of the resources they needed, while 31 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 Alabama, 22 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 16 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 24 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 20 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" had mathematics teachers who got all the resources they needed. By comparison, in Alabama, 18 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 42 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 40 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 28 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 Resources PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1090 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation . Which of the following statements is true about how well 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 I need. I get most of the resources ! id I get some or none of the resources I need. Percentage Percentage Percentage and and and Prolidency Proficiency Proficiency 20 ( 4.1) $ ( 4.0) 13 ( 2.4) 281 ( 2,4)1 258 (12.2)1 285 ( 4.2) 49 ( 4.8) 71 ( 9.5) 58 ( 4.0) 252 ( 2.1) 255 ( 3.3)! 265 ( 2.0) 31 ( 4.0) 21 ( 9.7) 31 ( 42) 248 ( 2.8) 257 ( co) 261 ( 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 t 2 smndard errors of the estimate for the sample. g. Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability ol this estimated mean proficiency. 50 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabanw PATTERNS EN 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-world contexts to help children construct useful meanings for mathematical concepts are among the recommended approaches.' 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 11 provides information on materials used for classroom instruction by the mathematics teachers of the assessed students. According to their teachers: Less than half of the students in Alabama (34 percent) worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week; some never worked mathematics problems in small groups (18 percent). The largest percentage of the students (77 percent) used objects like rulers, counting blocks, or geometric shapes less than once a week; relatively few never used such objects (6 percent). In Alabama, 85 percent of the students were assigned problems from a mathematics textbook almost every day; 1 percent worked textbook problems about once a week or less. Less than half of the students (38 percent) did problems from worksheets at least several times a week; about one-quarter did worksheet problems less than weekly (22 percent). 7 Thomas Romberg, "A Common Cumculum for Mathematics," Individual Differences and the Common Curriculum. Eighty-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983). ) 0 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 51 TABLE 10 I Teachers' Reports on Patterns of Mathematics 1 Instruction PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 11180 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSEUMENT , Meanie Southeast _ , Nation . Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and About how often do students work problems in small groups? Proficiency Preficiency Proficiency At least once a week 34 ( 4.2) ( 8.2) 50 ( 4.4) 247 ( 22) 255 ( 4.7)1 ( 22) Less than once a week 48 ( 4.1) 48 ( 8.3) 43 ( 4.1) 257 ( 2.0) 258 ( 3.9)1 264 ( 2.3) Never 18 ( 3.5) 252 ( 2.4) 7 ( 4.1) glh11* ( 8 ( 2.0) 277 ( 5.4)1 About how often do students use objects Percentage Percentage Percentage like rulers, counting blocks, or geometric and and and solids? Proficiency Proficiency P Solway At least once a week 17 ( 2.7) 19 ( 8.2) 22 ( 3.7) 248 ( 3.4) 243 ( 4.3)1 254 ( 32) Len than once a weak 77 ( 2.8) 65 (10.3) 89 ( 3.9) 253 ( 1.3) 257 ( 3.8)1 263 ( 1.9) 6 ( 1.3) 9 ( 2.6) 270 ( 5.7)1 282 ( 5.9)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). 52 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A labanw TABLE 11 I Teachers' Reports on Materials for Mathematics Instruction PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 MEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation ....... Percentage Percentage Percentage About how often do students do problems and and arid from textbooks? Proliciency Priapism:1y Anal:140CW Almost every day 85 ( 2.5) 75 ( 7.8) 62 ( 3.4) 255 ( 1.2) 259 ( 3.7) 267 ( 1.8) Several times a week 14 ( 2.5) 22 ( 7.8) 31 ( 3.1) 243 ( 4.1) 248 ( 5.2)1 254 ( 2.9) About once a week or less ( 0.5) 44 ( 3 ( 2.8) ***) 7 ( 1.8) 260 ( 5.1)1 About how often do students do problems Percentage Percentage Percentage on worksheets? and and end ProOdency Proficiency Proficiency At least several times a week 38 ( 3.3) 30 ( 6.8) 34 ( 3.8) 249 ( 2.2) 251 ( 3.4)1 258 ( 2.3) About once a week 41 ( 3.4) 44 ( 9.1) 33 ( 3.4) 252 ( 1.7) 256 ( 3.7)1 260 ( 2.3) Less than middy 22 ( 3.1) 27 ( 8.6) 32 ( 3.6) 262 ( 3.1) 263 ( 8.0)1 274 ( 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 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). The next section presents the students' responses to a corresponding set of questions, as well as the relationship of their re.;ponses to their mathematics proficiency. It also compares the responses of the students to those of their teachers. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 53 A labama COLLABORATING IN SMALL GROUPS In Alabama, 63 percent of the students reported never working mathematics problems in small groups (see Table 12); 15 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 _ 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabarna Southeast Nation , _ Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency How often do you work in small groups in your mathematics class? L At least once a week 15 ( 1.3) 26 ( 3.9) 28 ( 2.5) 246 ( 2.4) 251 ( 4.8) 258 ( 2.7) Less than once a week 23 ( 1.5) 26 ( 22) 28 ( 1.4) 256 ( 1.6) 259 ( 3.9) 267 ( 2.0) Never 63 ( 2.0) 49 ( 4.8) 44 ( 2.9) 253 ( 1.4) 252 ( 2.4) 261 ( 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 .t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. Examining the subpopulations (Table Al2 in the Data Appendix): In Alabama, 12 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 14 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 14 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 16 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" worked in small groups at least once a week. Further, 13 percent of White students, 21 percent of Black students, and 15 percent of Hispanic students worked mathematics problems in small goups at least once a week. Females were as likely as males to work mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week (14 percent and 16 percent, respectively). 5 54 THE 1990 NAEP1RIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama 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 A 13 in the Data Appendix summarize these data: Less than half of the students in Alabama (42 percent) never used mathematical objects; 26 percent used these objects at least once a week. Mathematical objects were used at least once a week by 26 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban arms, 35 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 24 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 25 percent in schools in areas classified as "other". Males were as likely as females to use mathematical objects in their mathematics classes at least once a week (29 percent and 24 percent, inspectively). In addition, 22 percent of White students, 34 percent of Black students, and 30 percent of Hispanic students used mathematical objects at least once a week. TABLE 13 I Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematics 1 Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation How often do you work with objects like-1 rulers, counting blocks, or geometric solids in your mathematics class? At least once a week Less than once a week Percentage Percentage Percentage and and and Profidency Pro Odom PrOticieney 26 ( 1.8) 24,5 ( 2.4) 32 ( 1.6) 260 ( 12) 42 ( 2.3) 252 ( 1.3) 23 ( 3.4) 242 ( 3.6) 29 ( 2$) 261 ( 3.5) 4$ ( 4$) 254 ( 3.0) 28 ( 1.8) 258 ( 2.6) 31 ( 1.2) 269 ( 1.5) 41 ( 2.2) 259 ( 1.6) The st: idard 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 55 A labama MATERIALS FOR MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION The percentages of eighth-grade public-school students in Alabama who frequently worked mathematics problems from 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 A 14 in the Data Appendix): Many of the students in Alabama (83 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 85 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 78 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 88 percent in schools in extreme rural arms, and 82 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 - MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation How often do you do mathematics problems from textbooks in your mathematics class? Percentage and Proficiency Percentage end Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Almost every day 83 ( 1.2) 78 ( 2.4) 74 ( 1.9) 255 ( 1.2) 257 ( 2.0) 267 ( 1.2) Several limes a week 12 ( 0.9) 14 ( 1.9) 14 ( 0.8) 246 ( 2.0) 246 ( 4.4) 252 ( 1.7) About once a week or less 6 ( 0.6) 8 ( 2.7) 12 ( 1.8) 233 ( 3.3) 222 ( 5.3)1 242 ( 4.5) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said wah 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. (; 56 THE 1990 NAPP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama And, for the frequency of worksheet usage (Table 15 and Table Al5 in the Data Appendix): Less than half of the students in Alabama (34 percent) used worksleets at least several times a week, compared to 38 percent in the nation. Worksheets west used at least several times a week by 41 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 41 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 27 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 34 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 1960 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation How often do you do mathematics problems on worksheets in your mathematics class? Percentage and Prat:fancy Percentage and Progickincy Percentage and ProficiencY At lent several times a week 34 ( 2.0) 38 ( 4.3) 38 ( 2.4) 245 ( 1.9) 245 ( 4.3) 253 ( 22) About once a week 31 ( 1.6) 32 ( 1.5) 25 ( 1_2) 251 ( 1.8) 254 ( 2.8) 261 ( 1.4) Less than weeidy 35 ( 2.6) 29 ( 3.9) 37 ( 2.5) 261 ( 1.6) 263 ( 3.3) 272 ( 1.9) The standard errors of the estimated staustic.s 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 7 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. Table 16 compares students' and teachers' responses to questions about the patterns of classroom instruction and materials for mathematics instruction. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 57 Alabama TABLE 16 Comparison of Students' and Teachers' Reports on Patterns of and Materials for Mathematics Instruction PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS- MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation ... Patterns of classroom Instruction Perouttage Percentage Percentage Students Teachers Students Teacher* Students Teac:hers Percentage of students who work mathematics problems In small groups At least once a week 15 ( 1.3) 34 ( 42) 26 ( 3.9) 44 ( 8.2) 28 ( 2.5) 50 ( 4.4) Less than once a week 23 ( 1.5) 43 ( 4.1) 26 ( 2.2) 48 ( 8.3) 28 ( 1.4) 43 ( 4.1) Never 63 ( 2.0) 18 ( 3.5) 49 ( 4.8) 7 ( 4.1) 44 ( 2.9) 6 ( 2.0) Percentage of students who use objects I. Mars, courting blodcs, or geometric solids At least once a week 26 ( 1.8) 17 ( 2.7) 23 ( 3.4) 19 ( 8.2) 28 ( 1.8) 22 ( 3.7) Less than once a week 32 ( 1.6) 77 ( 2.8) 29 ( 2.5) 65 (10.3) 31 ( 1.2) 69 ( 3.9) Never 42 ( 2.3) 6 ( 1.3) 43 ( 4.5) 16 ( 8.1) 41 ( 2.2) 9 ( 2.6) Materials for mathematics instruction Percentage of students who use a mathematics textbook Almost every day Several times a week About once a week or less Percentage of students who use a mathematics worksheet At least several times a week About once a week Less than weekly Percentage Percentage Percentage Students Teachers Students Teachers Students Teachers 83 ( 1.2) 85 ( 2.5) 78 ( 2.4) 75 ( 7.8) 74 ( 1.9) 62 ( 3.4) 12 ( 0.9) 14 ( 2.5) 14 ( 1.9) 22 ( 7.8) 14 ( 0.8) 31 ( 3.1) 6 ( 0.6) 1 ( 0.5) 8 ( 2.7) 3 ( 2.8) 12 ( 1 8) 7 ( 1,8) 34 ( 2.0) 38 ( 3.3) 38 ( 4.3) 30 ( 6.6) 38 ( 2.4) 34 ( 3.8) 31 ( 1.6) 41 ( 3.4) 32 ( 1.5) 44 ( 9.1) 25 ( 1.2) 33 ( 3.4) 35 ( 2.6) 22 ( 3.1) 29 ( 3.9) 27 ( 8.6) 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 I 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 58 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama SUMMARY Because classroom instructional time is typically limited, teachers need to make the best possible use of what is known about effective instructional delively practices and resources. It appears that mathematics textbooks and worksheets continue to play a major role in nathematics teaching. Although there is some evidence that other instructional resources and practices are emerging, they are not yet commonplace. According to the students' mathematics teachers: Less than half of the students in Alabama (34 percent) worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week; some never worked in mall groups (18 percent). The largest percentage of the students (77 percent) used objects like rulers, counting blocks, or geometric shapes less than once a week, and relatively few never used such objects (6 percent). In Alabama, 85 percent of the students were assigned problems from a mathematics textbook almost every day; 1 percent worked textbook problems about once a week or less. Less than half of the students (38 percent) did problems from worksheets at least several times a week; about one-quarter did worksheet problems less than weekly (22 percent). And, according to the students: In Alabama, 63 percent of the students never worked mathematics problems in small groups; 15 percent of the students worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week. Less than half of the students in Alabama (42 percent) never used mathematical objects; 26 percent used these objects at least once a week. Many of the students in Alabama (83 percent) worked mathematics probleins from textbooks almost every day, compared to 74 percent of students in the nation. Less than half of the students in Alabama (34 percent) used worksheets at least several times a welk, compared to 38 percent in the nation. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 59 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' are 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 mathemat;cs class and students were asked about the availability and use of calculators. 8 National Assessment of Educauonal Progress, Mathematics Objectives. 1990 Assessment (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). 60 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Table 17 provides a profile of Alabama eighth-grade public schools' policies with regard to calculator use: In comparison to 33 percent across the nation, 21 percent of the students in Alabama had teachers who allowed calculators to be used for tests. A smaller percentage of students in Alabama than in the nation had teachers who permitted unrestricted use of calculators (7 percent and 18 percent, respectively). TABLE 17 I Teachers' Reports of Alabama Policies on Calculator Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS _ - 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation Percentage of elghth-grade students in public scnools whose teachers permit the unrestricted use of calculators Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools whose teachers permit the use of calculators for tests Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools whose teachers report that students have access to calmdators owned by the school Percentage Percentage Percentage 7 ( 1.5) 6 ( 3.1) 18 ( 3.4) 21 ( 3.5) 15 ( 8.1) 33 ( 4.5) 40 ( 5,2) 56 (11.8) 56 ( 4.6) 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. r r.1 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 61 Alabama THE AVAILABILITY OF CALCULATORS In Alabama, most students or their families (97 percent) owned calculators (Table 18); howeva, fewer students (44 percent) had teachers who explained the use of calculators to them. From Table A18 in the Data Appendix: In Alabama, 39 percent of White students, 51 percent of Black students, and 61 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 (42 percent and 45 percent, respectively). TABLE 18 Students' Reports on Whether They Own a Calculator and Whether Their Teacher Explains How To Use One PERCENTAGE OF S7UDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation Do yOu Or your family Own a CalCulator? Yes Does your mathematics teacher explain how to use a calculator for mathematics problems? Percentage and Proficiency 97 ( 0.4) 253 ( 1.2) 3 ( 0.4) 235 ( 4.1) Percentage Percergage and and Proficiency Proficiency 96 ( 1.2) 254 ( 2.4) 4 ( 12) 97 ( 0.4) 263 ( 1.3) 3 ( 0.4) 234 ( 3.8) Percentage Percentage Percentage and and and Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency 44 ( 2.6) 248 I 1.6) 56 ( 2.6) 256 ( 1.4) 48 ( 5.9) 250 ( 3.9) 54 ( 5.9) 256 ( 2.5) 49 ( 2.3) 258 ( 1.7) 51 ( 2.3) 266 ( 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 t. 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample sure is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). C 82 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama THE USE OF CALCULATORS As previously noted, calculators can free students from tedious computations and allow them to concentrate instead on problem solving and other important skills and content. As part of the Tiial State Assessment, -lents were asked how frequently (never, sometimes, almost always) they used C. .,ators for working problems in class, doing problems at home, and taking quizzes or tests. As reported in Table 19: In Alabama, 30 percent of the students never used a calculator to work problems in class, while 47 percent almost always did. Some of the students (18 percent) never used a calculator to work problems at home, compared to 28 percent who almost always used one. Less than half of the students (37 percent) never used a calculator to take quir..es or tests, while 28 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 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Soedheast Nation Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proack.ncy How often do you use a calculator for the following tasks? Working problems In class Almost always 47 ( 1.3) 46 ( 3.0) 48 ( 1.5) 243 ( 1.3) 243 ( 2.8) 254 ( 1.5) Never 30 ( 2.0) 26 ( 4,0) 23 ( 1.9) 265 ( 1.6) 266 ( 3.1) 272 ( 1,4) Doing problems at home Almost always 28 ( 13) 29 ( 3.1) 30 ( 1.3) 246 ( 1$) 252 ( 3.6) 261 ( 1,8) Never 18 ( 1.1) 18 ( 1.8) 19 ( 0.9) 264 ( 1.9) 258 ( 4.4) 263 ( 1.8) Taking quizzes or tests Almost always 28 ( 1.2) 31 ( 2.1) 27 ( 1.4) 240 ( 1.4) 240 ( 3.8) 253 ( 2.4) Never 37 ( 1.7) 35 ( 3.1) 30 ( 2,0) 268 ( 1.4) 270 ( 3.1) 274 ( 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 pqrcent because the "Sometimes" category is not included. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 63 Alabama WHEN TO USE A CALCULATOR Part of the Trial State Assessment was designed to investigate whether students know when the usc 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 use. 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 sections, 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 calculator 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, the students who responded to one or both of the calculator sections wen, 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 thq had used the calculator for less than half of the calculator-active items they were presented. C 64 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A labama The data presented in Table 20 and Table A20 in the Data Appendix are highlighted below: A smaller percentage of students in Alabama were in the High group than were in the Other group. A smaller percentage of males than females were in the High group. In addition, 48 percent of White students, 42 percent of Black students, and 48 percent of Hispanic students were in the High group. TABLE 20 I Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation - Pen:adage and Proficiency Percentage end Proficiency Percentage end Profigtency "Calculator-use" group High 40 ( 1.2) 42 ( 2.4) 42 ( 1.3) 258 ( IA) 264 ( 2.9) 272 ( 1.6) Other 54 ( 1.2) 58 ( 2.4) 53 ( 1.3) 247 ( 1.8) 247 ( 2.6) 255 ( 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 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 65 Alabama SUMMARY Given the prevalence 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, 21 percent of the students in Alabama had teachers who allowed calculators to be used for tests. A smaller percvntage of students in Alabama than in the nation had teachers who permitted unrestricted use of calculators (7 percent and 18 percent, respectively). In Alabama, most students or their families (97 percent) owned calculators; however, fewer students (44 percent) had teachers who explained the use of calculators to them. In Alabama, 30 percent of the students never used a calculator to work problems in class, while 47 percent almost aiways did. Some of the students (18 percent) never used a calculator to work problems at home, compared to 28 percent who almost always used one. Less than half of the students (37 percent) never used a calculator to take quizzes or tests, while 28 percent almost always did. 7 1 66 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama 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 anc certifying teachers.' Many states have begun to raise teacher certification standards and strengthen teacher training programs. As shown in Table 21: In Alabama, 48 percent of the students were being taught by mathematics teachers who reported having at least a master's or education specialist degree. Tliis compares to 44 percent for students across the nation. About one-quarter of the students (29 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 (92 percent) had mathematics teachers who had a mathematics (middle school or secondary) teaching certificate. This compares to 84 percent for the nation. N ational Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Professional Standards for the 7ahin, of Alaihemailcs (Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991), THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 67 A labama TABLE 21 I Profile of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Teachers PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast I Nation Percentage of students whose mathematics teachers reported having the following degrees Percentage Percontage Percerdege Bachelor's degree 52 ( 4.7) Se ( 8.2) 50 4.2) Master's or specialist's degree 48 ( 4.6) 39 ( 8.4) 42 4.2) Doctorate or professional degree 0 ( 04) ( 5.1) 2 1.4) Percentage of students wawa, mathematics teachers have die blowing types of teaching certificates that are recognized by Alabama No regular certification ( 0.6) 5 ( 2.3) 4 ( 1.2) Regular certification but less than the highest available 70 ( 3.9) 53 (10.4) 29 ( 4.3) Highest certification available (permanent or long-term) 29 ( 3.8) 42 (10.7) 66 ( 4.3) Percentage of students whose mathematics feathers have the following types of teaching certificates that are recognized by Alabama Mathematics (middle school or secondary) 92 ( 2.2) 84 ( 5.1) 84 ( 2.2) Education (elemertary or middle school) 7 ( 2.1) 14 ( 4.6) 12 ( 2.6) Other ( 0.4) 2 ( 1.5) 4 ( 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. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUM) 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. 68 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Teachers' responses to questions concerning their undergraduate and graduate fields of study (Table 22) show that: In Alabama, 66 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. About one-quarter of the eighth -grade public-school students in Alabama (25 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 gaduate school. TABLE 22 Teachers' Reports on Their Undergraduate and 1 Graduate Fields of Study PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 19610 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation _ What was your undergraduate major, Percentage Percentage Percentage Mathematics 66 ( 4.2) 44 ( 9.0) 43 ( 3.9) Education 24 ( 3.8) 43 ( 9.0) 35 ( 3.8) Other 10 ( 2.8) 14 ( 6.5) 22 ( 3.3) What was your graduate major', Percentage Percentage Percentage Mathematics 25 ( 3.3) 15 ( 6.4) 22 ( 3.4) Education 32 ( 4.0) 43 ( 9.8) 38 ( 3.5) Other or no graduate level study 42 ( 4.1) 41 ( 8.1) 40 ( 3.4) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of unerest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. -t THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 69 Alabama Teachers' responses to questions concerning their in-service training for the year up to the Trial State Assessment (Table 23) show that: In Alabama, 27 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 teachers who spent at least that much time on similar types of in-service training. Some of the students in Alabama (15 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. TABLE 23 I Teachers' Reports on Their In-Service Training PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 1990 KAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation During the last year, how much time in total have you spent on in-service education in mathematics Or the teaching Iof mathematics? None One to 15 hours IS hours or more Percentage Peoventage Percentage 15 ( 2.9) 11 ( 8.0) 11 ( 2.1) 57 ( 3.9) 48 (12.0) 51 ( 4.1) 27 ( 3.8) 43 (10.1) ( 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 merest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. pal - (I) 70 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A labama 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 Alabama, 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. About one-quarter of the students (29 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 Alabama, 66 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. About one-quarter of the eighth-grade public-school students in Alabama (25 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 (Prmceton, NJ: Center for the Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service, 1985). 11 Ina V.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 Thal Assessment of the States (Princeton, N. National Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service, 1991). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 71 Alabama In Alabama, 27 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. Acmss the nation, 39 percent of the students had teachers who spent at least that much time on similar types of in-service training. Some of the students in Alabama (15 percent) had mathematics teachcrs 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. 72 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A Iabanw CHAPTER 7 The Conditions 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 greatly 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. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 73 Alabama AMOUNT OF READING MATERIALS LN THE 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, magazines, 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 . _ 19SO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nattan _ 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 types Three types FOUr types Percentage and Random ,, Percentage Plircimillits and and Proficiency Proficiency 22 ( 1.1) 26 ( 2.3) 21 ( 1.0) 239 ( 1.9) 235 ( 3.4) 244 ( 2.0) 32 ( 0.8) 29 ( 2.4) 30 ( 1.0) 250 ( 1.4) 248 ( 4.4) 258 ( 1.7) 46 ( 1.4) 46 ( 2.7) 48 ( 1.3) 260 ( 1.2) 266 ( 2.8) 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 Alabama reveal that: Students in Alabama 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 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, 74 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama A smaller percentage of Black 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 disadvantaged urban areas or areas classified as "other" and about the same percentage of students in schools in advantaged urban areas as in extreme rural areas had all four types of these reading materials in their homes. HOURS OF TELEVISION WATCHED PER DAY Excessive television watching is generally seen 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 (Table 25). TABLE 25 I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent l Watching Television Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 19110 itAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Southeast Nation t How much television do watch each day? One hour or less Two hours Three hours 1 Four to five hours Six hours or more Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency POITSItiall and Proficiency you usually 10 ( 0.5) 12 ( 1.3) 12 ( 08) 258 ( 2.2) 282 ( 8.2) 289 ( 22) 18 ( 0.8) 19 ( 2.1) 21 ( 0.9) 281 ( 2.0) 258 ( 4.2) 288 ( 1.8) 22 ( 0.9) 22 ( 1,9) 22 ( 0.8) 254 ( 1.9) 258 ( 3.3) 285 ( 1.7) 34 ( 0.9) 2$ ( 1.8) 28 ( 1.1) 253 ( 1.2) 251 ( 3.8) 280 ( 1.7) 18 ( 0.9) 18 ( 1.4) 18 ( 1.0) 239 ( 2.0) 238 ( 2.8) 246 ( 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 ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 75 A labama From Table 25 and Table A25 in the Data Appendix: In Alabama, average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students who spent six hours or more watching television each day. Relatively few of the eighth-grade public-school students in Alabama (10 percent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 18 percent watched six hours or more. About the same percentage of malls and females tended to watch six or more hours of television daily. However, a somewhat smaller percentage of males than females watched one hour or less per day. In addition, 12 percent of White students, 30 percent of Black students, and 29 percent of Hispanic students watched six hours or more of television each day. In comparison, 11 percent of White students, 7 percent of Black students, and 7 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 Alabama, average mathematics proftciency was lowest for students who missed three or more days of school. About half of the students in Alabama (48 percent) did not miss any school days in the month prior to the assessment, while 18 percent missed three days or more. In addition, 19 percent of White students, 16 percent of Black students, and 19 percent of Hispanic students missed three or more days of school. 76 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Similarly, 18 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 24 perceni in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 16 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 11 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 NAP TRUk:. ':.,. . ASSESSMENT _ Alabama 1 Southeast Nation How many days of school did you miss last month? One or two days Three days or more Parcentage Parcentasa Parcontaga and and and Madam Ploaciandy Proactency 411 ( 1.3) 254 ( 1.8) 34 ( 1.0) 253 ( 1.3) 18 ( 1.0) 246 ( 1.9) 48 ( 1.8) 253 ( 3.4) 32 ( 1.7) 280 C 2.6) 22 ( 1.5) 242 ( 3.7) 45 ( 1.1) 265 ( 1.8) 32 ( 0.9) 266 ( 1.5) 23 ( 1.1) 250 ( 1.9) The standard errors of the estimated stausucs 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 77 Alabama STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF MATHEMATICS According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, learning mathematics should require students not only to master essential slcills and concepts but also.to develop confidence in their mathematical abilities and to value mathematics as a discipline." Studelits were asked if they agreed or disagreed with five statements designed to elicit their perceptions of mathematics. These included statements about: Personal expetience with mathematics, including students' enjoyment of mathematics and level of confidence in their mathematics abilities: I like mathematics; I am good in mathematics. Value of mathematics, including students' perceptions of its present utility and its expected relevance to future work and life requirements: Almost all people use mathenuaics in their jobs; mathematics is not nwre for boys than for girls. The nature of mathematics, 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 I (indicating very positive attitudes about the subject), those who responded "agree" were given a value of 2, and those who responded "imdecided," "disagree," or "strongly disegree" were given a value of 3. Each student's responses were averaged over the five statements. The students 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 tei ded to be undecided, to disagree, or to strongly disagree with the statement: (an index of 3). Table 27 provides the data for the students' attitudes toward mathematics as defined by their perception index. The following results were observed for Alabama: Average mathematics pioficiency was highest for students who were in the "stnngly wee" category and lowest for students who were in the "undecided, disagree, strongly disagree" category. About one-quarter of the students (30 percent) were in the "strongly agree" category (perception index of l). This compares to 27 percent across the nation. About one-quarter of the students in Alabama (22 percent), compared to 24 percent across the nation, were in the "undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree" category (perception index of 3). 3 2 National Council of Teachers of Matherratks, Currklilum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Reston, VA: National Council of Teac.hers c 'Iathemaucs, 1989). 3 78 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE 27 J Students' Perceptions of Mathematics PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1980 NAEP TRIAL, STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama Sou/bust Nation Port:ening' and Padkdoncy Parcadage aid Pro Sawa Parnentage and Pro Monty Student "perception index" groups Strongly agree 30 ( 1.1) 30 ( 2.7) 27 ( 1.3) ("perception index" of 1) 259 ( 1.4) 285 ( 17) 271 ( 1.9) Agri* 48 ( 0.9) 45 ( 2.1) 49 ( 1.0) ("perception index" of 2) 251 ( 1.8) 251 ( 3.4) 262 ( 1.7) Undecided, disagree, strongly disagree 22 ( 1.2) 25 ( 3.0) 24 ( 1.2) ("perception index" of 3) 248 ( 1.4) 244 ( 2.7) 251 ( to) 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. SUMMARY Some out-of-school factors cannot be changed, but others can be altered in a positive 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 Alabama 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 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 Lad zero to two types. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 79 Alabanw Relatively few of the eighth-grade public-school students in Alabama (10 percent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 18 percent watched six hours or more. Average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students who spent six hours or more watching television each day. About half of thc students in Alabama (48 percent) did not miss any school days in the month prior to the assessment, while 18 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 (30 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 agree" category and lowest for students who were in the "undecided, disagree, strongly disagree" category. 1-C. 3 80 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama 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 abmssment were developed through a consensus process managed by the Council of Chief Stat.. School Officers, and the items were developed through a similar process managed by Educational 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 mathematics 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 block was designed to be completed in 15 minutes. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 51 Alabama The blocks were then assembled into assessment booklets so that each booklet contained two background 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 design, the blocks were assiped to the assessment 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 sptraled 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 obj ctives for the Trial State Assessment Program were developed using a broad .based consensus process, as described in the introduction to this report.' The assessment framework 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 Al). The three mathematical 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 mathcmatics proficiency for each jurisdiction and for various subpopulations, based on students' performance on the set of mathematics items they received. 1RT provides a common scale on which performance can be reported for the nation, each jurisdiction, and su..copulations, even when all students do not answer the same set of questions. This common scale makes it possible to report on relationships between students' characteristics (based on their responses to the background questions) and their overall performance in the assessment. National Assessment of Educational Progress, Mathematics Objectives 1990 Assessment (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1988). 57 82 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama FIGURE AI I Content Areas Assessed THE NATION'S REPORT CARD Numbers 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, and percents Is emphasized. Students' abilities In estimation, mental computation, use of calculators, generalization of numerical patterns, and verification of results are also included. Measurement This content area focuses on students' ability to describe real-world objects using numbers. Students are asked to identify 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 on their skills in worktng 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 geometnc ideas. in addition, students should be able to use informal reasoning to establish geometric relationships. Data Analysis, Statist Icci, and Probability This content area focuses on data representation and analysis across all disciplines and reflects the imporance and prevalence of these activities in our society. Statistical knowledge and 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. IAlgebra and Functions This content area IS broad in scope, covering algebraic and functional concepts in more informal, exploratory ways tor the eighth-grade Trial State Assessment. 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 of algebraic formulas, but also in terms of verbal descriptions, tables of values, and graphs. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 83 Alabama FIGURE A2 I Mathematical Abilities The follcwing three categories of mathematical abilities are not to be cs. , rued as hierarchical. For example, problem solving involves interactions between conceptual knowledge and procedural skills, but what is considered Complex problem solving at one grade level may be considered conceptual understanding or procedural knowledge at another. Conceptual Understanding Students demonstrate conceptual understanding in Maine MatICS 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 sinns, 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. Procedural Knowledge Students 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 mathematic,. 'hat 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 noncomputationai skills such as rounding and ordering. rProblem Solving In problem solving, students are required to use their reasoning and analytic ie ities 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, and relevant mathematics: generate, extend, and modify procedureS: use reasoning (i.e., spatial, inductive, deductive, statistical, and proportional): and judge the reasonableness and correctness of solutions. 84 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama 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 performance 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 of 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 define perfermance at each of the four levels on the scale, NAEP analyzed sets of mathematics it,ins from the 1990 assessment that discriminated well between adjacent levels. The criteria for selecting there "benchmark" items were as follows; ro define performance at level 200, items were chosen that were answered correctly 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 SO 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 highee than the percentage of students at the next lower level who answered it correctly. n 0 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMEN1 85 A labama 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 level. 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 in 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 die 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 for the Trial State Assessment, the responses to the mathematics teacher questionnaire do not necessarily represent all eighth-grade mathematics teachers in a state or territory. 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 C.)ne exemplifying level 350 is from the twelith-grade national assessment. an 1 86 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama FIGURE.A3 I Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels Level 200: Simple Additive Reasoning and Problem Solving with Whole Numbers EXAMPLE "I TroA0 0 Coif kwbi Ode asso 7. Undo hod Ono IMP beite all A. moo Oat ood slows Whom leo& at We al obeys arm. U she NU sock km with the Lod of halls shown. which box vi3 love A. *woe Lao of OD no boa wok tie soots lolls Tbo bac outs do soli UM 11we boo with tobtor lac Cli) You coal soid. EXAMPLE 2 so so 0 IOW Of MIT MOM AT FARAWAY VAA.A43 11101 10ad SU; Ri lbri We* LAMYEPIIE OriPth*. M=1 . Ho« wry bolo of °soaps woo picked co Tharodayi OD SS CI) 60 CIO 70 clb so CID sta (Z) I deal know. Grade 4 Overall Percentage CofflOct 73% Percentage Correct for Anchor Lovely a5Q 65 91 100 Grade 4 Overall Percenta.A Tea 80% Percentage Corm% ior Anchor Levels: 222 g512 75 91 100 Grade 8 Overall Percentage Correct 89% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels; ig42 aCg 76 87 98 100 r") FIGURE A3 I Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels (continued) Level 250: Simple Multiplicative Reasoning and Two-Step Problem Solving EXAMPLE 1 7. Whit is the value af a + S when a a 3 ? Answer. EXAMPLE 2 KAM MCA SURVEY 101.11.7% SUMP cow al Mae Mann 17 50 23 Tags Tbe ishk above thews the Mutts of a way el heis ealos. On du circ1e beiew, =Ake a dick pap% In alumna the stau in the whir Labei sub pan al the dub paph with the gnaws hair sake. rod you uu the cakuLnas on ehts tsuesSon! 0 'Yu 0 No EXAMPLE 3 6. Kathleen is paasns baseballs ism baxes. Each box holds iS baseballs. She has 24 balk. With minks seesaw* will beip ha find out haw =any bona she will nose IT r 6 4 (1) 24 + eri 24 + 6 0 CI) 24 % 6 = 0 CV I elasie know. 88 Grade 8 Overall Percentage Percentage Correct 22Q MR 28 69 Grade 8 Overall Percentage Percentage Correct COMIC* 76% far Anchor Longs: absg 95 98 Conga 73% fat Mellor Lavels: 2i& 2512 24Q 114 21 68 92 92 Grad. 8 Metall Percentage Percentage Correct 211 37 71 Correct: 77% tor Anchor Levels: af2 95 100 THE 1990 NAEP T1UAL STATE ASSESSMENT nouRE A3 I Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels (continued) Level 300: Reasoning and Problem Solving Involving Fractions, Decimals, Percents, Elementary Geometric Properties, and Simple Algebraic Manipulations EXAMPLE 'I z 10. Much al tbe folkway AGRAP 01 fkapuas the above utaagle ova As Um lb 00 ar4 EXAMPLE 2 ,t) the abbe) towel tbm a clase !again. s ea; 15 lea Jose apreserazail by a auk tai4:1 3 Ladies lats. It the wee teak a used. bona $5 fat Itabh would be acpassentea ay a sale model haw zany teats h1h1 i you wee the calculetee aa thaa 044030 Vas OlJo Grade 8 Overa0 Percentage Correct 60% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: 122 igg 33 49 77 90 Grade 12 Overall Percentage Correct 75% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: ZCI2 ZSI 22Q 2§9 46 79 96 Grade 8 (Nora Parcentage Percentage Cefillei 17 46 Correct: 59% for Anchor Levels: 'THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT $9 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 EXAMPUE 1 111. Chisodonno 16-17 Wet to dis Wow sts plum of dos-1 vies I 0 I 2 I & . If *his mien of doo-liowes to continuo& how many doto win he in ihe 100th f ;surd 100 42) 101 199 clp 200 49 201 EXAMPLE 2 It. Explain how you found low wawa ao iouewhon 16. Mown Grade 8 Overall Percentage Correct 34% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: 22/ 214 13 19 53 88 Grade 12 Overall Percentage Correct: 49% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: 21X1 rag aQ2 22 48 90 Grade 8 Overall Percentage Correct: 15% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: 2,22 222 2S24 222 1 4 28 74 Grade 12 Overall Percentage Oorrect: 27% Percer.laga Correct for Anchor Levels: 224 2§Q a2 222 3 22 74 90 ME 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENr Alabama 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 tLe questionnaires, there 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 reizived by representative samples of eighth-grade students in public schools. Although this approach may provide a different pe-:spective from that which would be obtained by simply collecting information 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 pefformance 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) are 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 representative 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 tenitory were assessed. Virtually all statistics that are based on samples (including those in NAEP) are subject to a certain dew= of uncertainty. The uncertainty attributable to using samples of students is referred to as sampling error. Like almost all estimates based on assessment measures, NAErs total group and subgroup proficiency estimates are subject to a second source of uncertainty, in addition to sampling error. As previously noted, each student who participated in the Trial State Assessment was administered a subset of questions from the to' al set of questions. If each student had been administered a different, but equally 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 administemd a subset of the total pool of questions. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 91 A labama In addition to reporting estimates of average proficiencies, proportions of students at or above particular scale-score levels, and proportions of students giving various responses to background questions. this report also provides estimates of the magnitude of the uncertainty associated wig), these statiscs. 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 jackknife pmcedure 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 particular sample of students assessed. One uses the results from the sample -- taking into account the uncertainty associated with all samples to make inferences about the population. The use of confidence interva, 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 90 percent ) or extremely small (less than 10 percent). For extreme percentages, confidence intervals constructed in the above Trimmer may not be appropriate and procedures for obtaining accurate confidence intervals are quite complicated. fl 7 92 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama 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 students' responses to background questions such as About how much time do you usually spend each day on mathematics 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 averckge 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, onc may be tempted to conclude that that group does have higher achievement than the group who reported spending 15 minutes or less on homework. FloweveY, 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 poups 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 had been repeated with a different sample of students or a different, but equivalent, set of questions, the performances of various groups would have been different. Thus, to determine whether there is a real difference between the mean proficiency (or proportion of a certain attribute) for two groups in the popplation, 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 (If 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 group man or proportion is used, the standard error of the difference can be used to help determine whether differences between groups in the population are real. The difference between the mean proficiency or proportion of the two goups ± 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 thc interval does not contain zero, the difference between groups is statistically significant (different) at the .05 level. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 93 Alabama As an example, suppose that one were interested in determining whether the average mathematics proficieacy 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 N./ 2.02 + 2.12 = 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 poup, the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference between groups did not contain 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. The reader is cautioned to avoid drawing conclusions solely on the basis of the magnitude of thc 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. 3 The procedure described above (especially 'he estimation of the standard error of the difference) 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 of the difference was used. 94 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama The procedures described in this section, and the certainty ascribedto 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 ievel for the set of comparisons at a particular level (e.g., .95), adjustments (called multiple comparison procedu.-es) 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 The standard errors for means and proportions reported by NAEP are statistics and therefore are subject to a certain degree of uncertainty. In certain cases, typically when the 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 cautiously. Further details concerning procedures for identifying such standard errors are discus3ed in the Trial State Assessment technical report. Minimum Subgroup Sample Sizes Results for mathematics proficiency and background variables were tabulated and reported for groups defined 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 regdons 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 sin 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. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 95 I I 1 Alabama 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 deviation of the proficiency in the total population. If the true difference between subjoup 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 choo&ing 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 Desctiption of Text In Report p = 0 None 0 < p :5 10 Relatively few 10 < p _<_. 20 Some 20 < p 5. 30 About one-quarter 30 < p ...S. 44 Less than half 44 < p 5.. 55 About half 55 < p ',_. 69 More than half 69 < p ._ 79 About three-quarters 79 < p .15. 89 Many 89 < p < 100 Almost all p = 100 All 96 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT ME NATION'S REPORT CARD DATA APPENDIX For each of the tables in the main body of the report that presents mathematics proficiency results, this appendix contains correspondin data for each level of the four reporting subpopulations -- race/ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender. in2 ME I 99O NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 97 Alabama TABLE AS I Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class I They Are Taking PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Eighth-grade Mathematics Preelgebra Algebra TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percantage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency State ee ( 2.5) 20 ( 1,9) ( 1.2) 243 ( 1.6) 268 ( 2.1) 287 ( 3.0) Nation 62 ( 2.1) 19 ( 1.9) 15 ( 1.2) 251 ( 1.4) 272 ( 2.4) 296 ( 2.4) RACEMTHNICITY White State 63 ( 2.8) 22 ( 2.0) 13 ( 1.0) 253 ( 1.3) 275 ( 2.1) 294 ( 2.7) Nation 59 ( 2s9 ( 2.5) 1.6) 21 ( 277 ( 2.4) 22) 17 ( 300 ( 1.5) 2.3) Black State 73 ( 3.2) 17 ( 2.7) 8 ( 1.6) 226 ( 1.7) 251 ( 2.5) ( Nation 72 ( 4.7) 18 ( 3.0) 9 ( 2.2) 232 ( 3.4) 246 ( 6.4) Hispanic State 73( 219 ( 5.8) 3.5) 13 ( 3.9) 9 ( 2.8) ***) Nation 75 ( 240 ( 4.4) 2.4) 13 ( 3.9) .41 6 ( 1.5) TYPE Of COMMUNITY Mvantaged urban State 60 ( 4.6) 21 ( 2.3) 16 ( 3.7) 253 ( 3.6)I *** ( ***) 306 ( 4.2)! Nation 55 ( 9.4) 21 ( 4.4) 269 ( 2.5)1 ( Disadvantaged urban State 83 ( 8.5) 17 ( 3.1) 234 ( 3.5)1 41.41. Nation 85 ( 240 ( 6.0) 4.0)1 16 ( ( 4.1) *4.) 14 ( 287 ( 3.3) 4.2)I Extreme nen! State 80 ( 4.8) 17 ( 4.7) 2 ( 0.9) 239 ( 4.1)1 11.*4 ***) *44 ( +04) Nation 74 ( 249 ( 4.5) 3.1)1 14 ( 5.0) 7 ( *** 2.2) Other State 65 ( 3.5) 23 ( 2.9) 11 ( 1.8) 243 ( 2.4) 266 ( 2.2) 284 ( 4.1) Nation 61 ( 2.2) 20 ( 2.1) 16 ( 1.4) 251 ( 2.0) 272 ( 2.8) 294 ( 2.7) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each porlation of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 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. *4* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). iLi 98 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE AS I Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class (continued) I They Are Taking PERCENTAGE OF STUDEN1T AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Eighth-grad Mathematics _ Pre-algebra _ Algebra TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Poramtage and Proficiency Percentage and ProficienCy State 68 ( 2.5) 20 ( 1.9) 11 ( 1.2) 243 ( 1$) 268 ( 2.1) 287 ( 3.0) Nation 62 ( 2.1) 19 ( 1.9) 15 ( 1.2) 251 ( 1.4) 272 ( 2.4) 296 ( 2.4) PARENTS' EDUCATION HS non-graduate State 79 ( 3.2) 12 ( 22) 236 ( 1.9) .... ( ...v. ) Nation 77 ( 3.7) 13 ( 3.4) 3 ( 1.1) 241 ( 2.1) iiiii, ( «H) HS gradual. State 74 ( 3.4) 17 ( 2.9) 6( 12) 239 ( 1.9) 265 ( 2.5) Nation 70 ( 2.8) 18 ( 2.4) 8 ( 1,1) 249 ( 1.9) 266 ( 3.5) 277 ( 5.2) Some college State 61 ( 3.9) 23 ( 3.1) 13 ( 1.8) 251 ( 2.1) 259 ( 4.1) *Int ( 0+1 Nation 60 ( 3 1i 21 ( 2.9) 15 ( 1.9) 257 ( ',Z, a ) 276 ( 2.8) 295 ( 32) College graduate State 55 i i.5) 25 ( 2.0) 18 ( 2,0) 248 : 2.0) 273 ( 2,7) 293 ( 3.5) Nation 51 ( 2.7) 21 ( 2.3) 24 ( 1.7) 25:)( 1.5) 278 ( 21) 303 ( 2.3) GENDER Male State 71 ( 2.2) 17 ( 1,5) 9 ( 1.2) 245 ( 1.8) 275 ( 2,4) 289 ( 3,5) Nation 63 ( 2.1) 18 ( 1.8) 15 ( 1.2) 252 ( 1.6) 275 ( 2.9) 299 ( 2.5) Female State 61 ( 3.1) 23 ( 2.5) 13 ( 13) 240 ( 1.7) 263 ( 2.2) 285 ( 3.6) Nation 61 ( 2.6) 20 ( 2.3) 15 ( 1.7) 251 ( 1.5) 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 alue 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. s's Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (feuvr than 62 students). 4 TH E 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 99 A labama TABLE A6 Teachers' Reports on the Amount of Tilde Students Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT None 16 Minutes 30 Inman 45 Minutes An Hour or Yore TOTAL Poraentage and Pre liclincy Pesuatage and Pronciancy Paroadage and *Adam Paraentsp and Plalidency Parma lay and Pro Wow State 4( 1.1) 39 ( 3.7) 41 ( 3.2) 13 ( 2.5) 3 ( 0,8) 243 ( 6.8)1 247 ( 1.9) 253 ( 1.6) 264 ( 42) 283 ( 7.7)1 Nation 1 ( 0.3) 43 ( 42) 43 ( 4.3) 10 ( 12) 4 ( 0.9) 256 ( 2.3) 286(2.6) 272 ( 53)1 278 ( 5.1)1 RACE/ETHNICITY white State 4 ( 1,1) ss ( 4.1) 40 ( 3.4) 14 ( 2.8) 4 ( 1.1) MI* ( 4,4141 257 ( 1.7) ( 1.5) 273 ( 3.6) 288 ( 72)1 Nation 1 ( 0.3) 39 ( 4.5) 45 ( 5.1) 11 ( 2.4) 4 ( 0.9) ( 266 ( 2.2) 270 ( 2.7) 277 ( 7.8)3 279 ( 5.8)1 Black State 4 ( 1.5) 40 ( 4.9) . 44 ( 4.6) 11 ( 33) 2 ( 1.0) 228 ( 2.6) 236 ( 2.4) 238 ( 8.7)1 Nation 1 ( 0.7) 55 ( 7.8) 40 ( 62) 3 ( 12) 2 ( 0.8) ( 232 ( 3.1) 248 ( 5.3) *** ( t") HIspanic State 9 ( 4.4) 41 ( 8.5) 43 ( 6.7) 2.8) 0 ( 0,5) ( ( Nation ( ( 0.8) "") 46 ( 245 ( 7.8) 3.0)! 34 ( 8,8) 251 ( 42)1 41ra ( 7 ( 2.1) 001 TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 0 ( 0.4) 27 ( 7.7) 48 ( 5.0) 17 ( 5.8) 8 ( 5.3) 247 ( 4,7)1 267 ( 5,5)1 " ( ") ' ( "1 Nation 1 ( 0.9) 81 (11.3) 32 ( 5.6) 5 ( 3.4) 0 ( 0.0) 273 ( 3.9 "" ( ) ... ( e") ... ( ".) Disadvantaged urban State 3 ( 2.1) 35 ( 7,5) 47 ( 5.2) 13 ( 8.3) 2 ( 1.2) 245 ( 5.1)1 249 ( 4,4)1 " ( ") ' ( ") Nation 0 ( *** ( 0.0) ***) 41 (12,6) 238 ( 2.1)1 36 ( 9.4) 263 i 9.0)1 12 ( ( 52) "") 10 ( *** ( 6.2) ***) Extreme rural State 0 ( 0,0) 28 ( 8.2) 62 (10.1) 13 ( 7 2) 0 ( 0.0) " ( ") 239 ( 5.6)1 248 ( 3.9)I "4 ( ") " ( "1 Nation 0 ( 0.0) 68 (142) 14 (10.9) 8 ( 5.6) 10 ( 7.3) 253 ( 5.4)1 ( """) *** ( ***) Other State 5 ( 1.9) 44 ( 5,4) 38 ( 4.6) 12 ( 3.0) 3 ( 1.0) 245 ( 5.8)1 249 ( 2.5) 254 ( 3.0) 265 ( 8.5)1 I"' ( ***) Nation 1 ( 0.4) 37 ( 4.3) 49 ( 5.1) 10 ( 2.4) 4 ( 1.1) ' ( .") 258 ( 3.1) 285 ( 24) 278 ( 8.6)1 282 (11.6)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. ! 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 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A lobar= TABLE A6 (continued) Teachers' Reports on the Amount of Time Students Spent on Mathematics Homework Each My PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT None 15 Minutes 30 Minutes 46 Minutes - An HOW or More _ TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proaciency Percentage and Proiktioney Percentage and Proficiency State 4 ( 1.1) 39 ( 3M 41 ( 3.2) 13 ( 2.5) 3 ( 0.8) 243 ( 8,8)1 247 ( 1.9) 253 ( 1.8) 264 ( 4.3) 283 ( 7.7)1 Nation 1 ( 0.3) 43 ( 41) 43 ( 4.3) 10 ( 1.9) 4 ( 0.9) ( 256 ( 2.3) 260 ( 2.6) 272 ( 5.7)1 278 ( 5.1)1 PARENTS' EDUCATION HS non-graduate State 7 ( ( 2.8) ***) 41 237 ( 5.4) ( 3$) 37 ( 243 ( 4$) 2.6) 13 ( 3.9) *h.) 2 ( 1.0) Nation ( ** ( 0.8) ***) 49 240 ( 8.3) ( 2.8) 40 ( 246 ( 8.1) 3.7) ( 1.7) 4 ( ( 1.3) HS graduate State 4 ( 1.1) 43 ( 4.7) 40 ( 4.0) 11 ( 2.6) 2 ( 0.6) ( ***) 241 ( 3.1) 250 ( 2.6) 253 ( 3.8)1 ( ) Nation ( 011,* 0.5) 1141 43 249 ( 5.2) ( 3.1) 44 ( 258 ( 5.8) 2.7) 9 ( 3.1) 3 ( 1.0) .011 Scene college State 2 ( 0.8) 43 ( 4.8) 39 ( 4.0) 13 ( 2.6) 3 ( 1.1) ( '") 257 ( 2.2) 258 ( 3.0) ( ***) Nation 44 ( 5.4) 43 ( 8) ( 2.1) 4 ( 1.0) ( 265 ( 2.6) 270 ( 3.6) ( "") College graduate State 3 ( ( 1.4) 33 256 ( 3.3) ( 2$) 43 ( 261 ( 3.5) 2.6) 16 ( 276 ( 2.8) 5.7) 5 ( 1.7) 0.4.4) 0 ( 0.3) 40 265 ( 4.7) ( 2$) 44 ( 277 ( 4.1) 3.0) 11 ( 287 ( 2.3) 6.1)1 5 ( 4-4* 1.3) 444) GENDER Male State 5 ( 1.2) 41 ( 3.6) 41 ( 3.0) 11 ( 2.4) 250 ( 2.3) 255 ( 1.9) 266 ( 5.7)1 ( ***) Nation ( 0.3) 44 ( 4.4) 43 ( 4.3) 9 ( 1.9) 5 ( 1.3) 257 ( 2.9) 268 ( 2.9) 273 ( 7.3)1 279 ( 7.7)1 Female State 3 ( 1.1) 38 ( 4.0) 41 ( 3.6) 14 ( 2.7) ) 245 ( 2.2) 251 ( 2.2) 262 ( 4.8) Nation 41 ( 4.4) 43 ( 4.7) 11 2.0) 4 ( 0.9) ;,.55 ( 2.3) 264 ( 2.8) 272 ( 5.7)I 4-0* ( ) The standard errors of the estimated statistic:: appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interes:, die 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 estimred mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students), THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 101 A labanw TABLE A7 I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time They Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT None 15 bandits 30 Minutes 45 Minutes An Hour or More TOTAL Percertage and Proticiew Poundage and Pro ficham Pavan lags and Profidency Percentage and Proficiency Poundage and Proi Idiocy State ( 1.0) 27 ( 1.1) 32 ( 0$) 16 ( 0.5) 16 ( 1.0) 252 ( 2.1) 256 ( 1.7) 252 ( 1.5) 251 ( 2.3) 250 ( 2.2) Nation ( Oh) 31 ( 2.0) 32 ( 1.2) 16 ( 1.0) 12 ( 1.1) 251 ( 2.8) 264 ( 1.9) 263 ( 1.9) 260 ( 1.9) 258 ( 3.1) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 10 ( 1.3) 29 ( 1.5) 31 ( 1.2) 16 ( 1.0) 14 ( 1.1) 260 ( 2.5) 264 ( 1.6) 262 ( 1.6) 261 ( 2.4) 265 ( 2.3) Nation 10 ( 1.0) ( 2.4) 32 ( 1.3) 15 ( 0.9) 11 ( 1.3) 258 ( 3.4) 270 ( 1.9) 270 ( 2.1) 277 ( 2.2) 268 ( 3.3) Mack State 7 ( 1.0)) 24 ( 236 ( 1.8) 2.8) 34 ( 234 ( 1.7) 2.3) 16 ( 232 ( 1.3) 3.8) 20 ( 229 ( 1.7) 2.7) Nation 7 ( 1.5).) 26 ( 241 ( 2$) 3.8) 33 ( 237 ( 2.7) 3.5) 18 ( 240 ( 2.3) 3.6) 16 ( 232 ( 1.9) 3.7) Hispanic State 28 ( 3.9) 31 ( 5.1) 16 ( 3.7) 19 ( 5.0)) Nation 12 ( 1.8)) 27 ( 246 ( 3.0) 3.6) 30 ( 248 ( 2.6) 3.4) 17 ( 241 ( 2.1) 4.3) 14 (. 1.7).) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban Stat6 4 ( 5 1.0) 29 ( 270 ( 2.4) 3.8)1 31 ( 264 ( 2.0) 5.9)1 19 ( 1.6) 17 ( ( 2.3) 5") Nation 8 ( 2.5) 41 (12.5) 31 ( 6.6) 12 ( 3.3) ( 3.4) 278 ( 3.0)1 280 ( 4.6)I 4" ( ) C" "C) Disadvantaged urban State 6 ( 1.3) 26 ( 2.6) 33 ( 2.7) 18 ( 2.5) 17 ( 3.4) 246 ( 5.6)1 246 ( 5.0)1 4" ( ") 4" () Nation 12 ( 4" ( 3.7) 4") 24 ( 253 ( 3.3) 4.9)1 31 ( 247 ( 3.0) 4.7)1 20 ( 250 ( 1.9) 4.8)1 14 ( 4 ( 2.2) 4) Extreme rural State 6 ( 1.8) 23 ( 257 ( 3.1) 5.4)1 35 ( 240 ( 3.0) 3.8)1 17 ( 1.3) ..) 19 ( 4" ( 2.9) 4") Nation 8 ( 2.3)) 36 ( 260 ( 4.6) 3$)1 31 ( 255 ( 2.9) 5.1)1 18 ( 3.8) ..) 7 4" ( 444) Omar State 11 ( 1.4) 28 ( 1.3) 31 ( 1.2) 14 ( 1.1) 15 I 1.3) 251 ( 2$) 255 ( 2.1) 253 ( 2.0) 252 ( 3.6) 248 ( 3.3) Nation 9 ( 1.0) 30 ( 1.8) 32 ( 1.3) 15 ( 1.1) 13 ( 1.1) 250 ( 3.8) 263 ( 2.3) 264 ( 2.3) 267 ( 2.1) 258 ( 3.6) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 pervnt 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 or the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. ** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable esumate (fewer than 62 students). 102 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE A7 I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time They ("mtinued) I Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROF!CIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT None 16 Minutes 30 Minutes 45 Minutes An Hour or More TOTAL Peroeniage and Proficiency Pen:~ and Proficiency Percentege and Praficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percergage and Proficiency State 9 ( 1.0) 27 ( 1.1) 32 ( 69) 10 ( 0.8) 16 ( 1.0) 252 ( 2.1) 256 ( 1.7) 252 ( 1.5) 251 ( 2.3) 250 ( 2.2) Nation ( 0.8) 31 ( 2.0) 32 ( 1.2) 18 ( 1.0) 12 ( 1.1) 251 ( 2.8) 264 ( 1.9) 263 ( 1.9) 203 ( 1.9) 256 ( 3.1) PARENTS EDUCATION HS non-grackiste State 9 ( 1.6) 29 ( 3.0) 33 ( 3.2) 14 ( 2.0) 244 ( 3.5) 239 ( 2.9) Nation 17 ( 3.0) 26 ( 246 ( 3.3) 4.0) 34 ( 248 ( 4.4) 2.6) ( 10 ( 2.2) *4.1 HS graduate State 10 ( 1.9) 27 ( 1.7) 32 ( 1.6) 16 ( 1.7) 14 ( 1.7) 249 ( 2.9) 250 ( 2.8) 24.4 ( 2.7) 243 ( 3.1) 242 ( 2.9) Nation 10 ( 1.7) 33 ( 22) 31 ( 1.9) 16 ( 1.4) 11 ( 1.5) 246 ( 4.2) 259 ( 3.2) 254 ( 2.4) 256 ( 2.6) 24.4 ( 3.4) Some college State 10 ( 1_9) 31 ( 2.0) 28 ( 2.0) 16 ( 1.7) 16 ( 1.8) 259 ( 2.5) 259 ( 2.2) 260 ( 3.8) 262 ( 3.5) Nation 9 ( 1.2) 30 ( 2.7) 36 ( 2.1) 14 ( 1.8) 11 ( 1.5) ..**, ( ..... ) 268 ( 3.0) 266 ( 2.8) 274 ( 3.5) College graduate State 8 ( 0.8) 24 ( 1.8) 33 ( 1.8) 16 ( 1.2) 18 ( 1.6) 265 ( 3.3) 266 ( 2.5) 263 ( 2.5) 259 ( 3.5) 258 ( 4.4) Nation 7 ( 0.9) 31 ( 3.4) 31 ( 2.9) 18 ( 1.2) 14 ( 1.9) 265 ( 3.6) 275 ( 2.0) 275 ( 2.5) 278 ( 3.2) 271 ( 2.8) GENDER Male State 11 ( 1.3) 29 ( 1.5) 31 ( 1.4) 15 ( 1.0) 15 ( 1.3) 254 ( 2 9) 259 ( 2.3) 254 ( 2.4) 249 ( 2.6) 248 ( 3.1) Nation 11 ( 1.1) 34 ( 2.4) 29 ( 1.3) 15 ( 1.2) 11 ( 1.4) 255 ( 3.9) 264 ( 2.6) 266 ( 2.4) 265 ( 3.0) 258 ( 4.1) Female State 7 ( 1.0) 25 ( 1.4) 33 ( 1.4) 17 ( 1.1) 18 ( 1.3) 249 ( 3.1) 251 ( 2.0) 250 ( 1.7) 253 ( 3.1) 252 ( 3.1) Nation 7 ( 0.9) 28 ( 2.0) 35 ( 1.7) 17 ( 1.0) 13 ( 1.3) 246 ( 4.1) 263 ( 1.5) 260 ( 2.0) 267 ( 2.4) 258 ( 3.3) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. lt 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). s THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMZNT 103 Alabama TABLE A8 I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given To 1 Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Numbers and Operations Measurement Geometry Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis Heavy Little or No Emphasis Emphasis TOTAL Parcentage and Proficiency 58 ( 3.0) 264 ( 1.8) 49 ( 3.8) 263 ( 1.8) 57 ( 3.1) 262 ( 1.8) 48 ( 3.7) 267 ( 2.2) 60 ( 4.7) 239 ( 3.0) 54 ( 7.9) 243 ( 4.3) 57 ( 8.4) 47 ( 8.7) 246 ( 4.6) 66 ( 7.2) 261 ( 5,5)1 28 (13.0) ..) 55 (11.7) 245 ( 3.2)1 48 (12.1) 255 ( 6.3)1 70 (10,9) 251 ( 4.7)1 53 (12.4) 257 ( 7.1)4 56 ( 4.3) 255 ( 2.7) 52 ( 4.1) 260 ( 2.3) Percentage and Proficiency 6 ( 1.4) 282 ( 5.7)I 15 ( 2.1) 287 ( 3.4) 7 ( 1.8) 292 ( 4.6)1 16 ( 2.4) 289 ( 3.5) 5 ( 1.5) 11 ( 3.3) ( 4 ( 2.2) ....) ( .") 15 ( 6.7) 14. ...) 16 ( 4.2) *44 ) *IN ( NI* ) 9 ( 4.0) ...) 3 ( 2.2) . ) 6 ( 3.6) .4. 5 ( 1.4) 280 ( 9.2)1 16 ( 2.7) 286 ( 3.6) Percentage ord Proficiency 24 ( 3.3) 244 ( 3.7) 17 ( 3.0) 250 ( 5.6) 23 ( 3.9) 258 ( 3.0) 14 ( 3.4) 2$9 ( 6.9)1 28 ( 4.6) 224 ( 3.3) 25 ( 7.4) 228 ( 2.8)1 25 ( 5.8) ...) 23 ( 4.1) ...) 28 ( 7.0) 255 ( 9.4)1 9 ( 7.0).) 15 ( 6.8) Mk* **4 ) 39 (10.3) 238 ( 8.4)1 26 (10,7) 229 (12.6)1 6 ( 4.9) 25 ( 4.5) 247 ( 5.1)1 16 ( 3.9) 253 ( 7.1)1 Percentage and Proficiency 19 ( 3.0) ( 3.9) 33 ( 4.0) R?: ( 4.0) 20 ( 3.3) 272 ( 3.9) 36 ( 4.7) 277 ( 4.3) 18 ( 3.9) 232 ( 44)1 23 ( 5.7) 238 `, 8.1)1 17 ( 5.8) .44 ( ...) 34 ( 5,8) 255 ( 4.4)1 27 ( 7.6) 291 ( 6.7)1 ...) 28 ( 9.9) 253 ( 9.5)1 ...) ) 33 (11.7) 265 ( 9.1)1 19 1 3.7) 256 ( 4.6)1 34 ( 5.3) 270 ( 4.8) Pereentage and Profioier Ny 26 ( 3.0) 251 ( 2.4) 28 ( 3.8) 260 ( 3.2) 25 ( 3.3) 261 2.4) 27 ( 4.4) 265 ( 3.3) 27 ( 4.4) 234 ( 3.3) 33 ( 7.9) 242 ( 5.6)1 20 ( 4.6) .4. ...) ...) 29 ( 6.7) 266 ( 5.4)1 38 ( 9.4) 267 ( 4.9)1 23 ( 7.7) 251 ( 4.6)1 33 (11.8) 248 ( 8.2)1 39 (10.6) 239 ( 5.8)1 9 ( 6.1) ...) 24 ( 3.8) 252 ( 3.7) 28 ( 4.6) 260 ( 3.9) Percentage and Proficiency 24 ( 3.2) 249 ( 3.4) 21 ( 3.3) 264 ( 54) 22 ( 3.4) 261 ( 3.1) 22 ( 3.4) 273 ( 5.8) 30 ( 4.9) 231 ( 4.1) 24 ( 7.3) 233 ( 4.7)1 ( ***) 16 ( 5.5) ** ( 4") 21 ( 6.4) 279 ( 9.1)1 13 ( 3.2) ) ...) 18 ( 7.6) 25 ( 7.8) 231 ( 5.6)1 16 ( 7.9) . 44) 26 ( 4.9) 248 ( 4.1)1 24 ( 4.3) 265 ( 5.7) State Nation RACE/ETHNICITY White State Nation Black State Nation Hispanic State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation Extreme rural State Nation Other State Nation TLe 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. 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 accarate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. ** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1'. 104 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE A8 I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to ("mtinued) I Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Numbers and Operations ---.. Little or No Emphasis Meastrement Geometry Heavy Emphasis Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis Heavy Emphasis -.. Little or No Emphasis TOTAL Pimmitmp Prolkiemy Neramtqw soW Proftionw Rmantilip moW ProlkUm* Permintaip ProftWmy Pommitow solM Prokismy PorceMorge NW ProlkWmy State 58 ( 3.0) 6 ( 1.4) 24 ( 33) 19 ( 3.0) 26 ( 3.0) 24 3.2) 254 ( 1.8) 282 ( 5.7)I 244 ( 3.7) 2E0 ( 3.9) 251 ( 2.4) 249 3.4) Nation 49 ( 3.8) 15 1 2.1) 17 ( 3.0) 33 ( 4.0) 28 ( 3.8) 21 3.3) WO ( 1.8) 287 ( 3.4) 250 ( 5.8) 272 ( 4.0) MO ( 3.2) 264 ( 5.4) PARENTS EDUCATION tiS non-graduate State 67 ( 246 ( 4.1) 2.3) 4 ( 1.8) ...) 28 238 ( ( 4.8) 8.5) 16 ( ( 4.0) 20 ( 3.7) 24 ( 227 ( 4.9) 4.6)1 Nation 60 ( 251 ( 6.9) 3.4) 7 (( 2.3) 22 ( 5.3) 4.4.1 25 ( (44.444) 5.3) 32 ( 6.3) 20 ( a.. ( 6.7) .41 HS graduate State 61 ( 3.7) 4 ( 1.1) 23 ( 44) 15 ( 3.0) 26 ( 3.9) 22 ( 3.5) 251 ( 2.3) *44 240 ( 6.1) 244 ( 5.0) 246 ( 3.3) 240 ( 4.4) Nation 55 ( 259 ( 4.8) 2.9) 11 ( 2.8) ...) it 251 ( 3.9) ( 6.1)1 27 ( 253 ( 5.0) 4.7)1 27 ( 255 ( 4.5) 4.2) 24 ( 246 ( 51) 4.8)I SompaShoge State 56 ( 4.4) 6 ( 2.0) 26 ( 4.0) 20 ( 3.8) 26 ( 4.1) 22 ( 4.1) 260 ( 2.7) ( .") 255 ( 5.1) 4.4) 258 ( 3.5) 252 ( 4.6) Nation 47 ( 4.4) 17 ( 3.3) 12 ( 2.7) 39 ( 5.5) 27 ( 5.0) 23 ( 4.1) 265 ( 2.6) 284 ( 4.1)1 444 ( 279 ( 4.5) 262 ( 4.8)1 270 ( 4.7) College graduate State 54 ( 3.6) 10 ( 2.5) 23 ( 3.1) 24 ( 3.6) 28 ( 3.0) 28 ( 3.4) 261 ( 3.1) 296 ( 5.5)1 248 ( 5.2) 274 ( 41) 257 ( 3.8) 267 ( 4.6) Nation 44 ( 4.1) 19 ( 2.4) 16 ( 3.3) 37 ( 3.8) 243( 3.4) 21 ( 2.9) 269 ( 2.6) 298 ( 3.4) 264 ( 7.2)1 283 1 3.8) 270 ( 3.8) 280 ( 6.4) GENDER Male State 60 ( 2.9) ( 1 1) 26 ( 3.6) 18 ( 2.8) 26 ( 3.4) 23 ( 2.9) 256 ( 2.0) 284 ( 7.7) 248 ( 4.7) 266 ( 4.6) 254 ( 3.0) 250 ( 3.5) Nation 48 ( 4.1) 14 ( 2.1) 17 ( 3.3) 32 ( 3.9) 29 ( 4.1) 20 (3-3) 261 ( 2.5) 287 ( 4.4) 258 ( 6.7) 275 ( 4.8) 263 ( 3.8) 266 ( 6.8) Female State 56 ( 3.5) 7 ( 1.9) 23 ( 3.3) 20 ( 3.5) 25 ( 2.9) 25 ( 3.6) 253 ( 2.2) 281 ( 5.8)1 240 ( 3.6) 256 ( 4.7) 249 ( 3.0) 249 ( 4.3) Nation 51 ( 3.9) 15 ( 2.4) 17 ( 3.2) 35 ( 4.3) 27 ( 3.9) 23 ( 3.5) 260 ( 2.0) 286 ( 3.3) 241 ( 5.4) 288 ( 4.1) 256 ( 3.3) 283 ( 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 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The permntages 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. "1* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 105 Alabama TABLE AS I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given To (continued) 1 Specific MathrInatics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 199O NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability Algebra and Functions Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis TOTAL Parcantago and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Profidancy Percerdage and Proficiency State 11 ( 1.8) 55 ( 3.2) 41 ( 3.0) 21 ( 2.9) Nation 242 ( 14 ( 5.6) 2.2) 251 53 ( 2.2) ( 4.4) 266 ( 46 ( 1.6) 3.6) 234 ( 20 ( 3.0) 3.0) 269 ( 4.3) 261 ( 2.9) 275 ( 2.5) 243 ( 3.0) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 8 ( 1.7) 55 ( 3.8) 45 ( 3.7) 19 ( 3.1) 263 ( 4.7) 264 ( 2.0) 274 ( 2.0) 243 ( 3.1) Nation 14 ( 2.4) 53 ( 5.0) 48 ( 4.2) 18 ( 2.8) 276 ( 4.1) 271 ( 3.1) 281 ( 3.0) 251 ( 3.3) Slack State 18 ( 4.1) 54 ( 3.6) 34 ( 3.0) 23 ( 3.9) 220 ( 7.4)1 224 ( 3.3) 246 ( 3.3) 218 ( 3.1) Nation 14 ( ( 3.4) .41 53 225 ( 8.2) ( 4.3) 39 ( 253 ( 7.1) 6.3) 27 ( 226 ( 6.9) 2.2)1 Hispanic State 56 ( 6.0) 33 ( 5.9) 35 7.4) ( **lb ) *4. ( ) Nation 15 ( 44" 4.1) 444) 56 246 ( 6.3) ( 4.4) 46 ( 257 ( 5.9) 4.0)1 18 ( 4.2) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban state 4 ( 2.8) 67 ( 8.6) 49 ( 9.4) 14 ( 5.7) "4 ( 444) 273 ( 7.6)1 282 ( 7.0)1 Nation 11 ( ... ( 6.6) ...) 65 284 (19.4) ( 7.4)1 41 ( 296 ( 8.9) 7.9)1 18 ( 5.3) -*) Disadvantaged urban State 13 ( 444 ( 5 1) "4) 35 247 ( 7.3) ( 8.7)1 42 ( 259 ( 8.0) 6.4)1 Nation 19 ( .., ( 9.4) ...) 34 236 (11.4) ( 8.2)1 53 (11.8) 254 ( 6.3)1 20 (- 9.4) Extreme rwal State 15 ( 7.1) 58 (12.4) 41 ( 9.3) 33 ( 8,6) '4' ( "4) 243 ( 4.3)1 259 ( 4.7)1 231 ( 5.6)1 Nation 5 ( 5.4) 65 (16.9) 33 ( 8.1) 42 (16.0) ... () 254 ( 6.7)1 1-04 ( ." ) 241 ( 5.9)1 Other State 12 ( 2.8) 57 ( 4.4) 39 ( 4.3) 20 ( 4.0) 245 (10.2)1 249 ( 2.9) 267 1 2.8) 233 ( 3.7)1 Nation 15 ( 2.9) 53 ( 5.2) 47 ( 4.3) 17 ( 3.3) 267 ( 4.7) 260 ( 3.4) 276 ( 2.8) 245 ( 4.4)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said .h 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 reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 106 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE M I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given To (mitinued) I Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Data Anairsis, Statistics, and Probability Algebra and Functions H vy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis Heavy Emhasis p Little or No Emphasis TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Perceriage and Proficiency Pereaniage and Prolkiency State 11 ( 1.8) 55 ( 32) 41 ( 3.0) ( 2.9) 242 ( 5.6) 251 ( 2.2) 286 ( 1.8) 234 ( 3,0) Nation 14 ( 2.2) 53 ( 4.4) 48 ( 3.6) 20 ( 3.0) 289 ( 4.3) 281 ( 2.9) 275 ( 2.5) 243 ( 3.0) PARENTS EDUCATION NS non-graduate State 12 ( 2.4) 62 ( 45) 31 ( 4.4) 31 ( 5.3) ( 233 ( 3.5) 249 ( 4.3) 227 ( 5.7) Nation 9 ( 0441 3.0) 53 ( 240 ( 7.7) 6.2) 28 ( .44 ( 5.2) 29 ( ( 6.9) 01 NS graduate State 11 ( 1.d) 55 ( 4.0) 33 ( 42) 22 ( 3.8) 237 ( 6.4) 242 ( 3.4) 258 ( 3.1) 229 ( 3.8) Nation 17 ( 3.7) 54 ( 5.4) 44 ( 4.8) 23 ( 3.9) 261 ( 6.0)1 247 ( 2.9) 285 ( 3..5) 239 ( 3.4) Some college State 10 ( 2.1) 51 ( 4.5) 42 ( 4.0) 18 ( 3.4) 01.4, 261 ( 3.0) 270 ( 3.6) 247 ( 5.0) Nation 13 ( 2.5) 57 ( 5.8) 48 ( 4.8) 270 ( 3.7) 278 ( 3.0) College graduate State 11 ( 2.5) 52 ( 3.4) SO ( 2.9) 15 ( 2.2) 250 ( 82)1 266 ( 3.6) 275 ( 2,6) 243 ( 4.4) Nation 15 ( 2.4) 53 ( 4.4) SO ( 3.9) 18 ( 2.4) 282 ( 4.5) 275 ( 3.8) 188 ( 3.0) 249 ( 4.0) GENDER Male State 11 ( 2.0) 55 ( 3.4) 37 ( 3.3) 23 ( 3.1) 244 ( 5.5) 254 ( 2.9) 266 ( 2.2) 232 ( 3.0) Nation 13 ( 2.2) 54 ( 4.7) 44 ( 4.1) 22 ( 3.6) 275 ( 5.8) 260 ( 3.5) 276 ( 3.2) 243 ( 3.0) Female State 11 ( 1.8) 54 ( 3.5) 46 ( 3.1) 18 ( 3.0) 241 ( 7.3) 248 ( 2.6) 266 ( 2.1) 235 ( 3.7) Nation 16 ( 2.4) 53 ( 4.5) 48 ( 3.6) 18 ( 2.9) 263 ( 44) 262 ( 2.8) 274 ( 2,7) 244 ( 3.9) 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 t 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 reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 2 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 107 Alabama TABLE A9 I Teachers' Reports on the Availability of I Resources PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL I Get All the RHOUrCils I ! Get Most of the I Oct Some or None of STATE ASSESSMENT Need Resources I Need the Resources I Need TOTAL State Nation RACE/ETHNICITY White State Nation Slack State Nation Hispanic Stata Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation Extreme rural State Nation Other State 1 Nation Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Pommel") and Prolidency 20 ( 4.1) 49 ( 4.8) 31 ( 4.0) 261 ( 2.4)1 252 ( 2.1) 248 ( 2.6) 13 ( 2.4) 56 ( 4.0) 31 ( 4.2) 265 ( 4.2) 265 ( 2.0) 201 ( 2.9) 22 ( 4.6) 50 ( 5.1) 28 ( 3.7) 270 ( 2.0)1 261 ( 1.8) 261 ( 2.0) 11 ( 2.5) 58 ( 4.6) 30 ( 4.6) 275 ( as); 270 ( 2.3) 267 ( 3.3) 17 ( 4.2) 48 ( 6.6) 37 ( 6.3) 240 ( 2.5)1 233 ( 2A) 230 ( 3.1) 15 ( 4.2) 52 ( 6.6) 33 ( 7.2) 241 ( 5.3)1 242 ( 2,4) 236 ( 4.9) 044 ( 041) 53 ( 9.6) ...) 34 (10.2) 23 ( 7.6) 44 ( 4.9) 34 ( 7.7) 246 ( 7.7)1 250 ( 2.9) 244 ( 3.0)1 22 ( 7.0) 60 (11,4) 18 ( 7.5) 280 ( 5.6)1 263 ( 6.6)1 .. ( .) 38 ( 9.2) 59 ( 8.9) 3 ( 3.1) 272 ( 8.5)1 286 ( 1.3)t 16 ( 8.2) 43 (13.3) 42 (13.4) () 238 ( 7.3)1 252 ( 4.2)1 10 ( 6.8) 40 (13.1) 50 (143) FAY *41 251 ( 5.4)! 253 ( 5.5)1 24 (11.6) 36 (11.6) 40 (12.5) 246 ( 4.9)1 243 ( 5.5)1 2 ( 2.6) 54 (10.4) 43 (10.3) ( ... 260 ( 8.8)1 257 ( 5.0)1 20 ( 5.1) 52 ( 6.2) 28 ( 5.0) 282 ( 2.7)1 253 ( 2.2) 246 ( 4.0) 11 ( 2.9) 58 ( 5.4) 31 ( 5.6) 265 ( 3.9)1 264 ( 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 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 or this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 108 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A labanur TABU' A9 I Teachers' Reports on the Availability of (continued) I Resources PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY , 1990 NAEP TRIAL I Get All the Resources 1 I Get Most of the I Get Some or None of STATE ASSESSMENT Need Resources I Need the RIMIUrces I Need _ TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency State 20 ( 4.1) 49 ( 4.8) 31 ( 4.0) 261 ( 2.4)1 252 ( 2.1) 245 ( 2.6) Nation 13 ( 2.4) 53 ( 4.0) 31 ( 4.2) 265 ( 4.2) 265 ( 2.0) 261 ( 2.9) PARENTS' EDUCATION NS non-graduat State 11 ( 32) 58 ( 52) 31 ( 5.3) IIHrt ( .1.1 ) 240 ( 2.2) 236 ( 4.0) Nation 5 ( 2.6) 54 ( 5.7) 38 ( 6.3) rm. 1 ...,...) 244 ( 2.7) 243 ( 33)1 HS graduate State 20 ( 4.4) 49 ( 5.4) 31 ( 4.5) 248 ( 2.9)1 24$ ( 2.7) 242 ( 2.8) Nation 10 ( 2.5) 54 ( 4.9) 35 ( 4.9) 253 ( 4,8)1 256 ( 1.9) 256 ( 2.8) Some college State 21 ( 52) 48 ( 5.6) 32 ( 4.7) 269 ( 2.9)1 256 ( 2.9) 258 ( 25) Nation 13 ( 3.3) 62 ( 4.3) 25 ( 4.1) ....., ( ....) 269 ( 2.5) 267 ( 3.8) College gradual State 23 ( 4.5) 48 ( 5.4) 29 ( 4.1) 271 ( 3.4)1 261 ( 3.4) 257 ( 3.6) Nation 15 ( 2.9) 56 ( 4.9) 30 ( 5.1) 276 ( 5.4)1 276 ( 2.2) 273 ( 3.7) GENDER Male State 20 ( 3.9) 47 ( 4.7) 33 ( 4.2) 260 ( 2.5)1 254 ( 2.3) 250 ( 2.9) Nation 13 ( 2.6) 57 ( 4.0) 30 ( 4.0) 264 ( 5.0)1 265 ( 2.6) 264 ( 3.3) Female State 20 ( 4.3) 51 ( 5.2) 29 ( 3.9) 262 ( 3.1)1 250 ( 2.2) 246 ( 2.8) Nation 13 ( 2.4) 55 ( 4.4) 32 ( 4.7) 266 ( 3.9) 264 ( 2.0) 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 caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this esumated mean proficiency. " Sample size is insufficient to r 11 a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 109 Alabama TABLE AlOa 1 Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of Small Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Once a Week Loss Than Once a Week Never TOTAL Percentage and Pro Odeon Paroontage and Pnincirmaty Ponsentage and Prolkdoncy State ( 4.2) 45 ( 4.1) 18 ( 3.5) 247 ( 2.2) 257 ( 2.0) 252 ( 2A) Nation 50 ( 4.4) 43 ( 4.1) 8 ( 2.0) 260 ( 2,2) 264 ( 2.3) 277 ( 54)I RACE/ETHNICITY Whits State 31 ( 4.2) 50 ( 4.4) 19 ( 3.7) 258 ( 2.1) 267 ( 1.5) 260 ( 2.8) Nation 49 ( 4.6) 43 ( 4.5) 8 ( 23) 265 ( 2.7) 271 ( 2.2) 285 ( 4.9)! Stack State 41 ( 6.0) 43 ( 6.1) 16 ( 4.0) 231 ( 3.0) 234 ( 2.3) 232 ( 2.3)1 Nation 47 ( 8.1) 45 ( 7.0) 9 ( 4.1) 240 ( 3.4) 238 ( 4.0) Hispanic State 40 ( 7.9) 43 ( 8.2) 17 ( 6.1) f** ** 4/4* Hrl ( 441 Nation 64 ( 7.2) 32 ( 6.9) 4 ( 1.4) 246 ( 2.5) 247 ( 8.3)1 TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 38 (10.7) 55 (12.7) 7 ( 5.3) 252 ( 6.7)1 277 ( 5.2)1 ( *Al Nation 39 (22.9) ..., ( ..«.) 41 (17.9) 273 ( 6.0)1 20 (12.2) ( Sip.) Disadvantaged la ban State 42 ( 9.7) 30 (10.3) 28 ( 8.6) 241 ( 4.1)1 245 ( 5.9)1 ( Nation 70 (11.7) 21 ( 9.0) 0 t 8.5) 248 ( 4.8)i 249 ( 8.7)1 ( Extrema rural State 4.9 (11.5) 33 ( 9.8) 19 (10.8) ( Nation 35 (14.6) 58 (17.1) 9 ( 9.6) 255 ( 5.5)1 258 ( 5.9)1 Othsr State 31 ( 5.1) 51 ( 5.7) 18 ( 4.0) 248 ( 3.1) 258 ( 2.6) 251 ( 3.2)1 Nation 50 ( 4.4) 44 ( 4.5) 6 ( 1.8) 260 ( 2.4) 264 ( 2.8) 277 ( 8.3)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. lt 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. *5* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 110 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMEN1 Alabama TABLE A10.3 I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of Small (continued) Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Week Never TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency State 34 ( 42) 48 ( 4.4) ( 3.5) 247 ( 2.2) 257 ( 2.0) 252 ( 2.4) Nation 50 ( 4.4) 43 ( 4.1) 8 ( 2.0) 260 ( 2.2) 264 ( 2.3) 277 ( 5.4)1 PARENTS EDUCATION NS non-graduate State 34 ( 237 ( 4.8) 3.2) 48 ( 241 ( 5.3) 2.5) ( ...) Nation 60 ( 244 ( 6.4) 32) 39 ( 244 ( 6.5) 3.2)1 1 ( .4. ( 1.4) ...) NS graduate State 35 ( 4.5) 47 ( 4.6) 18 ( 4.0) 240 ( 3.2) 251 ( 2.3) 247 ( 3.1)1 Nation 49 ( 252 ( 4.8) 2.8) 45 ( 257 ( 5.1) 2.7) *** ***) Some college State 34 ( 4.9) 50 ( 5.1) 16 ( 3.3) 256 ( 3.0) 261 ( 2.2) 263 ( 4.6) Nation 51 ( 266 ( 5.2) 3.1) 42 ( 268 ( 5.1) 3.2) 7 ( 2.3) .4.) College graduate State 33 ( 4.5) 49 ( 4.7) 18 ( 3.6) 256 ( 3.6) 267 ( 2.9) 262 ( 4.0)1 Nation 46 ( 5.2) 43 ( 4.4) 11 ( 2.7) 271 ( 2.6) 276 ( 3.0) 285 ( 4.9)1 GENDER Mate State 34 ( 4.3) 49 ( 4.3) 17 ( 3.4) 248 ( 2.6) 259 ( 2.0) 264 ( 2.8) Nation 50 ( 4.5) 42 ( 4.0) 8 ( 2.1) 261 ( 3.0) 265 ( 3.1) 278 ( 5.3)1 Female State 34 ( 4.3) 46 ( 4.2) 20 ( 3.8) 246 ( 2.5) 255 ( 2.5) 251 ( 3.0) Nation 50 ( 4 7) 43 ( 4.7) 7 ( 2.1) 259 ( 2.2) 263 ( 2.1) 275 ( 6.6)1 The standard errors of the estimated statisliCS 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 esumated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a rehable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 117 Alabama TABLE AM I Teachers' Reports on the Use of Mathematical Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT ,, At Least Once a Weak Loss Than Once a Week Never _ TOTAL Rwanda. and Proficiency Percentage and Proffdanw Mourning, and Proficiency State 17 ( 2.7) 77 ( 2.5) ( 1.3) 245 ( 3.4) 253 ( 1.3) 270 ( 5.7)1 Nation 22 ( 3.7) 99 ( 3.9) ( 2.6) 254 ( 3.2) 283 ( 1.9) 282 ( 5.9)1 RACE/ETHNIC1TY White State 15 ( 2.5) 79 ( 2.7) 6 ( 1.31 259 ( 3.1) 262 ( 1.2) 283 ( 4.7)1 Nation 17 ( 4.0) 72 ( 4.2) 10 ( 2.7) 261 ( 3.8)1 269 ( 2.1) 288 ( 6.2)1 Slack State 22 ( 4.5) 232 ( 4.0)1 71 ( 4.8) 232 ( 1.9) 7 ( 2.0) *44(44*) Nation 22 ( 5.9) 70 ( 6.3) ( 3.9) 233 ( 5.9)1 241 ( 2.9) Hispanic State 13 ( 3.3) 82 ( 4.2) 6 ( 2.7) 223 ( 4.3) Nation 39 ( 73) 55 ( 73) 7 ( 2.6) 247 ( 3.8) 245 ( 3.8)1 ( TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantagad urban State 7 ( 2.4) 4-,,,, ( ..,t) 88 ( 3.0) 267 ( 5.3)1 5 ( 2.0) ,ii-,.. ( Hrf Nation 23 (14.4) 83 (11.5) 15 ( 9.3) MHO ( IIIP.I 1 ) 278 ( 5.6)1 4-44 ( *4k4 11 Disadvantaged urban State 16 ( 8.4) 4,... ( 4.-.) 71 (10.2) 242 ( 3.1)1 13 ( 4.3) 4...., ( .....-.) Nation 39 (11,4) 59 (12.1) 2 ( 1.8) 247 ( 7.5)1 253 ( 7.0)1 ,-sii ( .) Extreme rural State 13 ( 7.9) . ( .) 87 ( 7.9) 247 ( 3.8)1 0 ( 0.0) NM ( *GO Nation 27 (14.9) 65 (14.8) 8 ( 3.9) .... ( 41-.) 262 ( 2.8)1 Other State 18 ( 3,3) 75 ( 3.4) 7 ( 1.7) 246 ( 4.4)1 253 ( 1.8) 265 ( 7.1)1 Nation 19 ( 4.3) 72 ( 5.0) 9 ( 3.3) 253 ( 3.9)1 263 ( 2.2) 281 ( 7.1)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 t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accui ate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** S4smple size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 312 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE AIM I Teachers' Reports on the Use of Mathematical (cmtinued) Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1000 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Al Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Week Never TOTAL and Pro Odom Perandap and Preedency Pardentage and Proachency State 17 ( 2.7) 77 ( 2.8) ( 1.3) 246 ( 3.4) 253 ( 1.3) 270 ( 5.7)1 Nation 22 ( 3.7) 09 ( 3.9) 9 ( 2.6) 254 ( 3.2) 263 ( 1.9) 282 ( sio PARENTS EDUCATION 109 non-gracksate State 20 ( 4.0) 76 ( 4.0) 3 ( 1.8) ..... ( 4144) 241 ( 2.0) grille V44) Nation 25 ( 5.6) ES ( 7.2) 9 ( 6.5) 4.414 ( 044) 243 ( 2.2) IIS graduate State 15 ( 2.8) 80 ( 2.8) 4 ( 1.3) Nation 23 ( 4.8) 70 ( 5.3) 7 ( 2.8) Some college State 15 ( 2.8) 78 ( 3,5) 44. ( Nation 18 ( 4.0) 73 ( 4.3) Coi lege graduate State 17 ( 2.9) 74 ( 3.5) 9 ( 2.0) 258 ( 4.6) 262 ( 22) 281 ( 53)1 Nation 20 ( 3.9) 69 ( 3.7) 11 ( 2.5) 266 ( 35)1 274 ( 2.2) 297 ( 4.2)1 GENDER M. State 17 ( 2.7) 77 ( 2.9) 6 ( 1.4) 246 ( 3.6) 255 ( 1.5) 266 ( 6.3)1 Nation 22 ( 4.1) 69 ( 4.1) 8 ( 2.0) 255 ( 4.1) 265 ( 2.1) 287 ( 72)1 Female State 17 ( 2.8) 77 ( 3.0) 7 ( 1.4) 248 ( 4.0) 250 ( 14) 275 ( 6.0)1 Nation 21 ( 3.6) 69 ( 4.2) 10 ( 3.3) 254 ( 3.3) 282 ( 1.9) 278 ( 6.0)t 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 vahin ± 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 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 113 Alabama TABLE Alla I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1980 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Almost EVery Day Several Times a Week __.... About Once a Week or Lots TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and ProficiencY Percentage and Proficiency State 85 ( 2.5) 14 ( 2.5) 255 ( 1.2) 243 ( 4.1) 114, 111 Nation ( 3.4) 31 ( 3.1) 7 ( 1.8) 287 ( 1.8) 254 ( 2.9) 280 ( 5.1)1 RACE/ETHNICITY Whits State 88 ( 2.2) 11 ( 2.1) 264 ( 1.0) 256 ( 2.9) .41 Nation 64 ( 3.7) 28 ( 3.2) 8 ( 2.3) 272 ( 1.9) 264 ( 3.4) 264 ( 5.4)1 Slack State 80 ( 4.5) 18 ( 4.6) 2 ( 0.6) 234 ( 1.7) 227 ( 4.0)1 *** V") Nation 56 ( 7.7) 41 ( 7.9) 2 ( 1.4) 244 ( 4.0) 233 ( 3.9)f 4" I ") Hispanic State 80 ( 8.4) 19 ( 8.4) 1 ( 0.8) 228 ( 3.8) m ***) Nation 61 ( 6.8) 32 ( 5.3) 15 1 2.3) 251 ( 3,1) 240 ( 4.3)1 TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 95 ( 3.6) 269 ( 4.9)1 3 ( 1,7).) ( Nation 63 (15.9) 23 ( 5.2) 14 (14.6) 283 ( 7.3)1 4") Disadvantaged urban State 78 (10.5) 249 ( 2.2)i 20 (10.7) 1. ( ***) Nation 66 (10.7) 31 (11.1) 4 ( 2.2) 252 ( 4.7)1 243 ( 8.0)1 Extreme rural State 93 ( 4,2) 246 ( 3.8)1 5 1 2.8).) ( a") Nation 50 (10.6) 40 (10.0) 10 ( 7.3) 268 ( 4.0)1 247 ( 7.6)1 4 **4 ) Other State 83 ( 3.5) 16 ( 3.5) 1 ( 0.6) 255 ( 1.9) 242 ( 4.6)1 a" ( a") Nation 63 ( 3.9) 31 ( 3.5) ( 1,9) 267 ( 2.3) 255 ( 3.1) 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 sge is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 114 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE A 1 la Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of (continued) Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Almost Every Day Several Times a week About Once a Week or Less TOTAL Percentage red Proficiency Parcantaga and Prancioncy Percentage and Pranclancy State 85 ( 2.5) 14 ( 2.5) ( 0.5) 265 ( 1.2) 243 ( 4.1) ( Nation ( 3.4) 31 ( 3.1) ( 1.8) 287 ( 1.1) 254 ( 2.9) 280 ( 5.1)1 PARENTS' EDUCATION HS non-graduate State 78 ( 4.9) 21 ( 4.9) 1 ( 09) 242 ( 1.8) ( Nation 67 ( 245 ( 5.5) 3.2) 27 ( 5.2) .41 *** ( HS graduate State 85 ( 248 ( 3.0) 1.8) 14 ( 239 ( 3.0) 8.4)! ( 94. ( 0.8) Nation 81 ( 4.4) 34 ( 1 7) ( 1.5) 257 ( 2.5) 250 ( 2.9) ( Some college State 87 ( 2.7) 12 ( 2.7) ( 0.8) 281 ( 1.6) Nation 88 ( 272 ( 42) 2.7) 28 ( 258 ( 3.7) 52) ( 1.8) eie eee) College graduate State 87 ( 265 ( 2.4) 2.1) 12 ( 253 ( 2.3) 4.8) eee ( eee) Natiort 81 ( 4.0) 31 ( 3.9) 8 ( 3.1) 281 ( 2.2) 265 ( 3.1) *44 *** ) GENDER Male State 84 ( 2.5) 14 ( 2.5) 2 ( 0.6) 257 ( 1.5) 245 ( 3.7) Nation 60 ( 3.7) 33 ( 3.4) 7 ( 1.9) 269 ( 2.4) 256 ( 3.6) 261 ( 6.7)1 Female State 86 ( 2.9) 13 ( 2.9) 253 ( 1.4) 240 ( 5.2)1 Nation 65 ( 266 ( 3.6) 1.8) 28 ( 253 ( 3.3) 2.5) eee The standard erro, s 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. *4* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students), 1 Co THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 115 Alabama TABLE Al lb I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS t...ND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY .. 1690 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT , At Least Several Tinos a Week About Once a Week _ _ Lees than Weekly TOTAL Pansantage and Praidency Percentage and Prafickincy Pennntaga and Praficiancv State 38 ( 3.3) 41 ( 34) 22 ( 3.1) 249 ( 2.2) 252 ( 1.7) 262 ( 3.1) Nation 34 ( 3.8) 33 ( 3.4) 32 ( 3.6) 256 ( 2.3) 200 ( 2.3) gm ( 2.7) RACE/ETHNICITY *bite State 38 ( 3.9) 40 ( 4.1) 22 ( 3.4) 256 ( 1.9) 281 ( 1.5) 274 ( 3.1) Nation 32 ( 4.1) 33 ( 3.5) 35 ( 3.8) 264 ( 2.9) 264 ( 2.7) 279 ( 2.9) Saadi State 35 ( 4.7) 43 ( 4.3) 22 ( 42) 229 ( 2.5) 234 ( 2.9) 23$ ( 3.0)1 Nation 45 ( 7.5) 31 ( 7.6) 23 ( 6.3) 232 ( 3.1)1 243 ( 2.3)1 246 ( 7.0)1 Hispanic State 45 ( 0.4) 17 ( 4.7) Nation 41 ( 7.7) 26 ( 5.3) 33 ( 73) 242 ( 3.2)1 244 ( 5.1)1 257 ( 2.3)1 TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 57 (11.9) 30 (10.1) 262 ( 6.1)1 264 ( 4.9)1 Mt, 11-11 Nation 59 (13.9) 273 ( 3.4)1 Disadvantaged urban State 38 ( 9.5) 45 ( 7.3) 17 ( 6.2) 243 ( 5.1)1 244 ( 4.0)1 ( Nation 50 (13.9) 22 (11.2) 28 (10.7) 237 ( 24)1 258 ( 8.3)1 263 ( 4.1)1 Extrenie rural State 30 (10,8) 59 (10.5) 10 ( 53) 247 ( 8.9)1 243 ( 2.8)1 Nation 27 (14.3) 49 (12.7) 24 (10.1) 256 ( 6.7)1 Other State 36 ( 4,3) 39 ( 4.3) 24 ( 4.3) 247 ( 2.9) 254 ( 2.7) 259 ( 3.7)1 Nation 30 ( 44) 35 ( 4.3) 38 ( 4.2) 256 ( 3,3) 259 ( 2.6) 272 ( 29) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear m 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 aandard 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. .2° Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 116 THE 1990 NAEF TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE Al lb I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of (coainued) I Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL At Least Several TWOS STATE ASSESSMENT a Week About Once a Wsek Less than Weeidy TOTAL Percentage and PreilciancY Percentage and Preliciency Percentage and Progiciency State Nation 38 ( 3.3) 249 ( 22) 34 ( 3.8) 41 ( 3.4) 252 ( 1.7) 33 ( 3.4) 22 ( a.1) ae2 ( 3.1) 32 ( 3.6) 258 ( 2.3) 2C0 ( 2.3) 274 ( 2.7) PARENTS" EDUCATION t15 non-graduat State 43 ( 4.4) 38 ( 4.3) 18 ( 42) 235 ( 3.2) 242 ( 3.0) Nation 35 ( 8.0) 29 ( 8.3) 36 ( 8.9) 239 ( 3.5) «ph ( ...) 250 ( 4.5)! MS graduate State 37 ( 4.1) 44 ( 4.4) 19 ( 3.9) 242 ( 2.8) 247 ( 2.7) 253 ( 4.0)1 Nation 35 ( 5.3) 36 ( 4.5) 30 ( 4.8) 250 ( 3.8) 250 ( 2.7) 263 ( 3.4) Same college State 32 ( 3.9) 45 ( 4.6) 23 ( 3.6) 256 ( 3.2) 259 ( 2.2) 266 ( 5.8) Nation 33 ( 4.7) 32 ( 4.0) 35 ( 4.1) 260 ( 2.8) 266 ( 42) 278 ( 2.6) College graduate State 39 ( 3.4) 36 ( 32) 25 ( 3.1) 260 ( 3.3) 259 ( 25) 273 ( 4.1) Nation 35 I 3.8) 32 ( 3.4) 33 ( 3.5) 264 ( 2.6) 271 ( 2.4) 289 ( 2.9) GENDER Male State 39 ( 35) 41 ( 3.6) 20 ( 3.3) 250 ( 2.5) 255 ( 2.2) 263 ( 3.4) Nation 35 ( 4.1) 35 ( 3.6) 31 ( 3.5) 257 ( 3.2) 261 ( 2.8) 275 ( 3.2) Female State $6 ( 3.5) 41 ( 3.6) 23 ( 3.1) 248 ( 2.4) 249 ( 1.9) 260 ( 3.6) Nation 34 ( 4.1) 32 ( 3.7) 34 ( 4.1) 254 ( 2.1) 258 ( 2.3) 273 ( 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. ! 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 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 117 Alabama TABLE Al2 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Small I Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Once a Weak Less Than Once a Week Never TOTAL Partantags end Pranciancy Pereintage and Proliciancy Paraadaga and Proliciancy State 15 ( 1.3) 23 ( 1.5) 63 ( 2.0) 248 ( 2.4) 258 ( 1.6) 253 ( 1.4) Nation 28 ( 2.5) 28 ( 1.4) 44 ( 2.9) 258 ( 2.7) 267 ( 2.0) 261 ( 1.6) RACE/ETHNIC(TY Whit. State 13 ( 1.5) 23 ( 1.6) 85 ( 2.4) 281 ( 2.7) 266 ( 1.6) 262 ( 1.3) Nation 27 ( 2.9) 29 ( 1.7) 44 ( 3.5) 288 ( 3.1) 272 ( 1.9) 270 ( 1.7) Black State 21 ( 1.9) 22 ( 1.7) 58 ( 2.4) 228 ( 3.0) 238 ( 2.6) 233 ( 22) Nation 28 ( 3.0) 24 ( 3.6) 48 ( 4.7) 234 ( 3.0) 245 ( 4.6) 234 ( 3,1) Hispanic State 17 ( 2.5) «hp ) 87 228 ( 4.8) ( 3.7) Nation 37 ( 5.2) 22 ( 3.6) 41 ( 5.0) 242 ( 3.9) 250 ( 3.4) 240 ( 2.8) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 12 ( 4.0) 29 ( 5.7) 59 ( 6.6) 288 ( 3,4)1 288 ( 6.8)1 Nation 27 (13.9) 44) 33 ( 286 ( 4.5) 5,4)1 40 279 (13.4) ( 33)1 Disadvantaged tzban State 14 ( 2.3) .4.4) 22 ( 253 ( 5.1) 4.0)1 64 245 ( 5.7) ( 3.7)1 Nation 31 ( 5.7) 20 ( 2.8) 48 ( 8.3) 245 ( 4.0)7 287 ( 84)/ 245 ( 3.7)1 Extrem nwal State 14 ( 2.8) 18 ( 3.1) 68 ( 4.3) ) 245 ( 4.2)1 Nation 34 (10.8) 27 ( 3.8) 39 (11.6) 249 ( 5.2)1 264 ( 3.5)7 258 ( 8.2p Othiw State 16 ( 1.6) 23 ( 1.8) 61 ( 2.4) 246 ( 32) 254 ( 2.5) 254 ( 1.9) Nation 27 ( 2.8) 28 ( 1.7) 45 ( 3.3) 260 ( 3.3) 264 ( 282 ( 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 t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determinauon of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 118 THE 1990 NAEP TRJAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE All I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Small (continued) I Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Week Never PercelltAffe Percentage Pementage and and TOTAL PrOficiancy Proficiency and Proficiency State 15 ( 1.3) 23 ( 1.5) 63 ( 2.0) 248 ( 2.4) 256 ( 1.6) 253 ( 1.4) Nation 28 ( 2.5) 28 ( 1.4) 44 ( 2.9) 258 ( 2.7) 287 ( 2.0) 261 ( 1.6) PARENTS' EDUCATION NS non-graduate State 15 ( 2.4) 22 ( 2.9) 64 ( 3.9) 245 ( 3.1) 240 ( 2.1) Nation 29 ( 43) 29 ( 3.0) 42 ( 4.5) 242 ( 3.4) 244 ( 3.0) 242 ( 2.7) HS graduate State 14 ( 1.8) 21 ( 2.0) 66 ( 2.8) 242 ( 3.8) 243 ( 2.4) 247 2,1) Nation 28 ( 3.0) 28 ( 1.8) 43 ( 3.4) 251 ( 3.7) 261 ( 2.6) 252 ( 1.7) Some college State 17 ( 2.2) 21 ( 22) 63 ( 2.8) 254 ( 4.2) 266 ( 2.9) 259 ( 2.1) Nation 27 ( 3.9) 27 ( 2.4) 46 ( 3.8) 265 ( 3.6) 268 ( 3.3) 266 ( 2.1) College graduate State 15 ( 1,8) 25 ( 2.1) 60 ( 2.4) 255 ( 4.1) 266 ( 2.9) 263 ( 2.3) Nation 28 ( 3.0) 28 ( 1.9) 44 ( 3.6) 270 ( 2.7) 278 ( 2.8) 275 ( 2.2) OENDER Male State 16 ( 1.4) 22 ( 1.5) 63 ( 2.0) 243 ( 2.9) 257 ( 2.1) 256 ( 1.7) Nation 31 ( 2.9) 28 ( 1.7) 41 ( 2.9) 259 ( 3.3) 268 ( 2.6) 282 ( 1.8) Female State 14 ( 1.7) 24 ( 1.9) 62 ( 2.4) 249 ( 3.1) 255 ( 2.3) 250 ( 1.5) Nation 26 ( 2.4) 27 ( 1.8) 47 ( 3.2) 257 ( 2.8) 266 ( 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 value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. "* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students), A THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMEN1 119 A labama TABLE A 13 I Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematics I Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Al Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Week Never TOTAL MI6 Proficiency Parttontago and Proficiency Poiventege and Prsiiidoney State 26 ( 1.8) 32 ( 'LS) 42 ( 2.3) 245 ( 2.4) 280( 1.2) 252 ( 13) Nation 26 ( 1.8) 31 ( 1.2) 41 ( 22) 258 ( 2.8) 269 ( 1.5) 259 ( 1.1) RACE/ETHNICITY %Witte State 22 ( 1.9) 35 ( 1.8) 43 ( 2.6) 259 ( 1.9) 267 ( 1.3) 261 ( 1.3) Nation 27 ( 1.9) 33 ( 1.6) 40 ( 25) 266 ( 2.6) 275 ( 1.6) 268 ( 1.8) Black State 34 ( 3.3) 27 (.2.2) 39 ( 3.1) 226 ( 2.8) 240 ( 2.6) 233 ( 1.0) Nation 27 ( 3.3) 27 ( 3.2) 40 ( 4.5) 234 ( 3.7) 248 ( 4.5) 232 ( 2.0) Hispanic State 30 ( 5.1) di* ( 17 ( 32) 53 ( 8.4) «Hi) Nation 38 ( 42) 23 ( 2.0) 40 ( 4.0) 241 ( 4.6) 253 ( 4.3) 240 ( 1.9) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 26 ( 4.9) 39 ( 3.5) 35 ( 6.0) 263 ( 5.8)1 271 ( 4.0)1 288 ( 6.9)1 Nation 38 (10.3) 33 ( 4.8) 32 (11.1) 278 1. 6.1)1 284 ( 3.2)1 281 ( 5.9)1 Disadvantaged urban State 35 ( 4.6) 28 ( 3.2) 38 ( 62) 236 ( 5.2)1 253 ( 3.0)1 248 ( 42)1 Nation 35 ( 6.6) 19 ( 2.1) 48 ( 8.4) 249 ( 5.3)1 256 ( 5.7)1 248 ( 4.8)1 Extreme rural State 24 ( 3.0) 43 ( 3$) 33 ( 3.6) 245 ( 3.8)! 252 ( 4.0)1 237 ( 32)1 Nation 21 ( 3.1) 37 ( 4.7) 43 ( 5.0) 262 ( 4.7)1 251 ( 52)1 Other State 25 ( 2.4) 29 ( 2.1) 46 ( 3.0) 243 ( 3.3) 280 ( 2.0) 253 ( 1$) Nation 27 ( 2.0) 31 ( 1.4) 41 ( 2.4) 256 ( 2.9) 270 ( 1.8) 260 ( 22) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of Interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 1 Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 120 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A labama TABLE A 13 I Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematics (continued) I Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO KAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Week Now TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency State 26 ( 1.8) 32 ( 1.6) 42 ( 2.3) 245 ( 2.4) 260 ( 1.2) 252 ( 1.3) Nation 2$ ( 1.8) 31 ( 1.2) 41 ( 2.2) 258 ( 2.6) 269 ( 13) 259 ( 1.6) PARENTS EDUCATION MS non-graduate State 26 ( 4.3) 26 ( 3.0) 47 ( 4.4) 232 ( 4.1) 247 2.7) 238 ( 2.1) Nation 27 ( 4.2) 26 ( 2.7) 47 ( 5.0) 237 ( 3.0) 253 ( 3.5) 240 ( 2.3) HS graduate State 24 ( 1.8) 30 ( 2.3) 46 ( 2.7) 238 ( 2.6) 254 ( 2.5) 245 ( 2.1) Nation 27 ( 2.7) 31 ( 2.4) 43 ( 3.3) 250 ( 2.4) 259 ( 2.7) 253 ( 2.1) Some college State 22 ( 2.3) 37 ( 2.8) 41 ( 3.1) 255 ( 3.3) 263 ( 2.2) 25$ ( 2.7) Nation 29 ( 2.6) 36 ( 2.3) 35 ( 2.6) 261 ( 3.5) 274 ( 2.2) 263 ( 2.1) College graduate State 28 ( 2.3) 33 ( 2.5) 38 ( 3.1) 252 ( 3.7) 269 ( 2.1) 264 ( 2.8) Nation 30 ( 2.5) 32 ( 2.0) 38 ( 2.6) 269 ( 3.0) 278 ( 2.0) 275 ( 2.0) GENDER Male State 29 ( 2.2) 30 ( 1.9) 41 ( 2.3) 246 ( 2.4) 261 ( 2.1) 254 ( 1.8) Nation 32 ( 2.0) 30 ( 1.5) 38 ( 2.2) 258 ( 2.9) 271 ( 2.1) 260 ( 1.8) Female State 24 ( 2.0) 33 ( 1.8) 43 ( 2.7) 243 ( 2.9) 259 ( 1.8) 250 ( 1.6) Nation 25 ( 2.0) 31 ( 1.9) 44 ( 2.6) 257 ( 3.0) 268 ( 1.5) 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. 1 c' THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 121 Alabama TABLE A 14 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of I Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Almost Every Day Several Times a Week About Once a Week or Less TOTAL and Proficiency .1111401111110 and Prettekacy Percents.* mid Praticiency State 83 ( 1.2) 12 ( 0.9) ( 0.8) 255 ( 1.2) 248 ( 2.0) 233 ( 3.3) Nation 74 ( 1.9) 14 ( 0.8) 12 ( 1.8) 267 ( 1.2) 252 ( 13) 242 ( 4.5) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 85 ( 1.5) 11 ( 12) 5 ( 0.7) 264 ( 1.1) 257 ( 2.4) 245 ( 3.9) Nation 76 ( 2.5) 13 ( 0.8) 11 ( 2.2) 274 ( 1.3) 258 ( 2.2) 252 ( 5.1)1 Black State 79 ( 1,7) 14 ( 1.5) ( 0.8) 234 ( 1.6) 234 ( 3.8) Nation 71 ( 2.8) 15 ( 1.7) 14 ( 3.2) 240 ( 2.9) 232 ( 31) 223 ( 6.1)1 Hispanic State 74 ( 229 ( 4.8) 3.7) 10 ( 3.6) ***) Nation 61 ( 3.7) 21 ( 2.9) 17 ( 2.7) 249 ( 2.3) 242 ( 5.1) 224 ( 3.4) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 85 ( 4.8) 10 ( 2.6) 270 ( 5.0)i ( ") Nation 73 (11I) 286 ( 4.6)1 13 ( 1,7) 14 (10.4) ( ) Disadvantaged urban State 78 ( 4.5) 17 ( 3,1) 5 ( 1.9) 246 ( 3.6)i ( ") Nation 69 ( 2.8) 15 ( 2.5) 15 ( 2.2) 253 ( 3.7)! 243 ( 4.4)1 235 ( 6.5)1 Extreme rural State 88 ( 2.5) 8 ( 2.0) 246 ( 3.4)1 * * Nation 68 (11.3) 17 ( 8.2) 263 ( 4.2)1 Other State 82 ( 1.5) 12 ( 1-3) 6 ( 0.8) 255 ( 1.9) 244 ( 2.5) 231 ( 4.2) Nation 75 1, 2.2) 14 ( 1.0) 10 ( 1.9) 267 ( 1.6) 252 ( 2.6) 239 ( 4.3)1 all1110111=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 mterest, 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 Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 122 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSM ENr Alabama TABLE A14 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of (continued) Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Almost Every Day Several Times a Week About Once a Week or Less TOTAL Percentage and PnatIciency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency State 83 ( 1.2) 12 ( 0.9) 0 ( 0.6) 255 ( 1.2) 246 ( 2.0) 233 ( 3.3) Nation 74 ( 1.9) 14 ( 0.8) 12 ( 1.8) 267 ( 1.2) 252 ( 1.7) 242 ( 4.5) PARENTS' EDUCATION HS non-graduat State 80 ( 2.1) 14 ( 1.9) 6 ( 1.5) 241 ( 2.0) ..e.i. ( ..**) *04 ( Nation 64 ( 3.4) 18 ( 2.0) 18 ( 3.1) 245 ( 2.3) ..... ( *44) 4,1111 1111.11 ) NS graduate State 82 ( 1.9) 11 ( 1.5) 6 ( 1.1) 247 ( 1.8) 246 ( 3.0) Nation 71 ( 3.6) 16 ( 1.8) 13 ( 2.8) 258 ( 1.6) 249 ( 3.2) 239 ( Some college State 83 ( 1.8) 12 ( 1.4) 5 ( 1.3) 261 ( 1.5) ..... ( 44) Mr* ( *MI Nation 80 ( 2.0) 11 ( 1.2) 9 ( 1.7) 270 ( 1.9) .. ( ....) ( .") College graduate State 84 ( 285 ( 1.6) 2.1) 11 ( 250 ( 1.3) 3.0) 5 ( *. 1.0) Nation 77 ( 2.7) 13 ( 0.9) 10 ( 2.3) 279 ( 1.6) 260 ( 2.8) 257 ( 6.4)i GENDER Male State 81 ( 1.4) 12 ( 1.1) 7 ( 0.8) 256 ( 1.5) 249 ( 2.7) 234 ( 3.8) Nation 72 ( 2.4) 18 ( 1.2) 12 ( 2.1) 268 ( 1.0) 252 ( 2.5) 242 ( 6.1) Female State 84 ( 1.5) 12 ( 1.2) 4 ( 0.7) 253 ( 1.4) 242 ( 2.7) . ( ....) Nation 76 ( 1.8) 13 ( 1.0) 11 ( 1.6) 265 ( 1.3) 250 ( 2.5) 242 ( 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 I. 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 S THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 123 Alabama TABLE A15 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of I Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY _ 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Siworal Times a weak About Once a Wash Loss Than Waaidy _ TOTAL Panama*. and Prandeacy Percentage and Ora Odom Porcaltage and Prodlcioncy State 34 ( 2.0) 31 ( 1.0) 35 ( 2.6) 245 ( 1.9) 251 ( 1.6) 261 ( 1.6) Nation 38 ( 2.4) 25 ( 1,2) 37 ( 2.5) 253 ( 2.2) 201 ( 1,4) 272 ( 1.9) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 33 ( 2.4) 30 ( 2.1) 37 ( 3.0) 258 ( 1.7) 261 ( 1.6) 269 ( 1.7) Nation 35 ( 2.9) 24 ( 1.3) 41 ( 3.0) 262 ( 2.5) 269 ( 1.5) 277 ( 2.0) ENack State 37 ( 2.6) 33 ( 1.5) 30 ( 3.0) 225 ( 2.7) 235 ( 1.9) 239 ( 2.1) Nation 48 ( 3.8) 32 ( 2.7) 20 ( 3.1) 232 ( 4.3) 241 ( 2.9) 241 ( 4.4) Hispanic State 42 ( 5.4) 28 ( 4.3) 30 ( 4.2) Nation 44 ( 4.1) 25 ( 3.4) 32 ( 4.3) 238 ( 3.9) 247 ( 3.3) 248 ( 3.3) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantagad urban State 41 ( 9.7) 27 ( 5.1) 32 ( 9.6) 261 ( 6.6)1 273 ( 6.7)1 273 ( 8.6)1 Nation 50 ( 271 ( 9.0) 3.3)1 19 ( - ( 4.9) 44.) 31 ( 299 ( 9.3) 5.3)1 Diudvantaged urban State 41 ( 3.1) 32 ( 4.0) 28 ( 4.2) 238 ( 4.9)1 246 ( 4.0)I 254 ( 4.1)1 Nation 37 ( 5.8) 23 ( 3.6) 41 ( 6.7) 240 ( 4.8)1 253 ( 4.1)l 255 ( 4.2)1 Extrarna rural State 27 ( 42) 36 ( 3.7) 37 ( 5.6) 235 ( 4.9)1 242 ( 3.2)1 255 ( 4.7)1 Nation 42 (10.1) 30 ( 4.4) 28 ( 7.5) 249 ( 4.0)1 258 ( 3.4)1 267 ( 7.3)1 Other State 34 ( 2.8) 31 ( 2.0) 35 ( 3.6) 245 ( 2.5) 251 ( 2.3) 281 ( 2.3) Nation 36 ( 2.9) 26 ( 1.2) 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). 124 .1! r r; THE 1990 NAM' TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A labama TABLE A15 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of (wntinued) I Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Several Times a Week About Once a Week - . Lase Than Weekly TOTAL percentage and Proticisecy Percentage and Prelicktecy Perowlega Praideacy State 34 ( 2.0) 245 ( A.S) 31 251 1 35 261 ( ( Nation 38 , 2.4) 25 1.2 37 ( 2 253 ( 2.2) 261 ( 1.4) 272 ( PARENTS' EDUCATION 145 non-graduate State 33 ( 3.9) 29 ( 3.1) 37 ( 44) 233 ( 2.7) 236 ( 2.6) 247 ( 2.9) Nation 41 ( 4.5) 30 ( 2.7) 29 ( 4.0) 235 ( 3.1) 243 ( 2.7) 253 ( 2.13) HS graduate State 34 ( 240 ( 2.2) 2.8) 30 242 2.1) 2.2) 25411 4 23.5i Nation 40 ( 3.2) 29 ( 2.2) 32 ( 319 247 ( 2.7) 258 ( 25) ae2 ( 2.2) Sam college State 35 ( 3.2) 30 ( 2.4) 35 ( 3.5) 250 ( 2.5) 200( 2.6) 267 ( 2.8) Nation 34 ( 3.4) 26 ( 22) 40 ( 3.6) 259 ( 2.3) 269 ( 2.8) 271 ( 2.8) College graduate State 34 ( 2.7) 33 ( 2.3) 33 ( 2.7) 255 ( 3.1) 260 ( 2.7) 272 ( 24) Nation 381 2.8) 22 ( 1.8) 41 ( 2.6) 264 ( 2.6) 273 ( 2.5) 285 ( 2.3) GENDER Male State 37 ( 1.9) 30 ( 1.7) $3 ( 24) 247 ( 22) 253 ( 1.9) 262 ( 2.2) Nation 38 ( 2.7) 25 ( 1.6) 35 ( 2.7) 253 ( 2.7) 263 ( 2.3) 274 ( 2.4) Female State 32 ( 2.4) 32 ( 1.8) 96 ( 3.0) 244 ( 24) 249 ( 1.9) 259 ( 1.9) Nation 37 ( 2.5) 25 ( 1.5) 38 ( 2.6) 253 ( 2.1) 259 ( 1.8) 209 ( 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. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 125 Alabama 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 MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Cakulator Teacher Explains Calculator Use Yes No Yes No TOTAL Percentage and Prodciency Percentaga and Proficiency NW* Mall* and Proficiency Pareantage and Proficiency State ( 0.4) 3 ( OA) 44 ( 2.6) 56 ( 2.6) 253 ( 1.2) 235 ( 4.1) 244 ( 1.6) 256 ( 1.4) Nation 97 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.4) 49 ( 2.3) 51 ( 2.3) 283 ( 1.3) 234 ( 34) 258 ( 1.7) 201( 1.5) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 98 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.4) 39 ( 3.1) 61 ( 3.1) 263 ( 1 .0) Ma ( it.,) 261 ( 1.7) 264 ( 1.2) Nation 98 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.3) 46 ( 2.6) 54 ( 2.6) 270 ( 1.5) 41410 ( 41111 268 ( 1.8) 273 ( 1.8) Black State 95 ( 0.8) 5 ( 0.8) 51 ( 3.5) 49 ( 3.5) 233 ( 1.7) ..«. ( tr**) 230 ( 2.2) 238 ( 1.8) Nation 93 ( 1.5) 7 ( 1.5) 53 ( 4.9) 47 ( 4.9) 237 ( 2.8) .4.., ( .....,) 235 ( 3.6) 239 ( 2.7) Hispanic State 04 ( 227 ( 2.6) 33) 8 ( ,... 1 2.8) .41 61 ( 223 ( 4.6) 4.7) 39 ( ( 4.6) .41 Nation 92 ( 12) 8 ( 1.2) 63 ( 4.3) 37 ( 4.3) 245 ( 2.7) r-. ( .) 243 ( 3.4) 245 ( 2.9) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 29 ( 0.4) 1 ( 0.4) 36 ( 4.8) 84 ( 4.8) 268 ( 4.8)1 ..... ( ....) 262 1 4.9p 271 ( 5.8)1 Nation 99 ( 1.0) 1 ( 1.0) 45 (12.2) 55 (12.2) 281 ( 3.8)1 444 1 ***) 276 ( 2.5)l 285 ( 6.4)1 Disadvantaged urban State 98 ( 0.7) 2 ( 0.7) 55 ( 5.0) 45 ( 5.0) 245 ( 34)1 . ( 11-11.11, ) 241 ( 3.9)1 249 ( 3.8)1 Nation 94 ( 1.2) 6 ( 1.2) 53 ( 7.5) 47 ( 7,5) 250 ( 34)1 ..... ( .....) 247 ( 4.1)1 251 ( 3.6)1 Extreme nrai State 95 ( 14) 5 ( 1.5) 49 ( 6.4) 51 ( 8.4) 246 ( 3.7)1 ....., * t* ) 245 ( 4.1)1 248 ( 3.9)1 Nation 96 ( 1.3) 4 ( 1.3) 42 ( 8.7) 58 ( 8.7) 257 ( 3.9)1 .-- ( ...) 251 ( 4.8)1 261 ( 4.4)1 Other State 97 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.5) 4.3 ( 3.7) 57 ( 3.7) 253 ( 1.8) ,..... ( 11.1.* ) 248 1 2.5) 256 ( 1.7) Nation 97 ( 0.5) 3 ( 04) 50 ( 2.7) 50 ( 2.7) 263 ( 1.7) 233 ( 5.4) 258 ( 2.1) 266 ( 2.0) The standard errors of the estimated statiStIcs appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certamty 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 aocurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). I 1 126 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE A18 (continued) Students' Reports on Whether They Own a Calculator and Whether Their Teacher Explains How To Use One PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Calculator Teacher Wain, daieuiator use Yes No Yes No TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percentage mid Proficiency Percentage and Pro Mow Percentage and Proficiency State 97 ( 0.4) 3 ( 0.4) 44 ( 2.6) 56 ( 2$) 253 ( 1.2) 235 ( 4.1) 248 ( 1.6) 256 ( 1.4) Nation 97 ( OA) 3 ( 0.4) 49 ( 2.3) ( 13) 2fr3 ( 1.3) 234 ( 3.8) 258 ( 1.7) 206 ( 1.5) PARENTS EDUCATION HS non-graduate State 93 ( 1.7) 7 ( 1.7) 38 ( 3.5) 62 ( 3.5) 239 ( 1.8) *** ( 236 ( 2.0) 241 ( 1.8) Nation 92 ( 1.6) 8 ( 1.6) 53 ( 4.6) 47 ( 4.6) 243 ( 2.0) 242 ( 2.9) 243 ( 2.5) HS graduate state 96 ( 246 ( 0.8) 1.7) 4 *** ( 0.8) ( ***) 44 ( 240 ( 3.5) 1.9) 56 ( 250 ( 35) 2.1) Nation 97 ( 255 ( 0.6) 1$) 3 ( 0.6) 41 54 ( 252 ( 3,0) 1.9) 46 ( 253 ( 3.0) 2.0) Some collage State 99 ( 259 ( 0.6) 1$) *** ( 0.6) ( ***) 41 ( 254 ( 3.9) 2.7) 59 ( 263 ( 3.9) 1.9) Nation 96 ( 268 ( 0.9) 15) 4 ( 0.9) .**) 48 ( 265 ( 32) 2.4) 52 ( 288 ( 3.2) 2.2) College graduate State 99 ( 0.3) 1 ( 0.3) 45 ( 2.8) 55 ( 2.8) 263 ( 2.2) *Sr* ( **do ) 257 ( 2,7) 267 ( 2.5) Nation 99 ( 275 ( 0.2) 1.8) 0.2) ***) 46 ( 268 ( 2.6) 22) 54 ( 280 ( 2.8) 1.9) (SENDER Male State 97 ( 0.5) 3 ( OS) 45 ( 2.9) 55 ( 2,9) 254 ( 1,5) *" "Pi 249 ( 1.9) 258 ( 1.8) Nation 97 ( 0,5) 3 ( OS) 51 ( 2.0) 49 ( 2.6) 264 ( 1.7) 258 ( 2.1) 268 ( 2.1) Roma]. State 97 ( 252 ( 0.5) 1.2) 3 *** ( 0.5) ( ***) 42 ( 247 ( 2.9) 1.9) 58 ( 255 ( 2.9) 1.7) Nation 97 ( 0.5) 47 ( 2.5) 53 ( 2.5) 262 ( 1.3) 258 ( 1.7) 203 ( 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* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 127 Alabama 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 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT "ring Prnbinins In Class Doing Problems at Hone Taking Quizzes or Tests Almost Always Never Almost Always Never Almost Always Never TOTAL Pareintaga and foreaciency 47 ( 13) 243 1.3) 48 1.5) 254 1.5) State Motion MEEOLMII Mita State 43 ( 1.6) 253 ( 1.4) Nation 48 ( 1.7) 262 ( 1.7) Slick State 55 ( 2.3) 228 ( 2.0) Nation 57 ( 3.2) 232 ( 2.4) Hispanic State 61 ( 4.3) 220 ( 3.3) Nation 51 ( 2.9) 239 ( 2.8) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 44 ( 3.4) 254 ( 4.2)1 Nation Si ( 5.4) 270 ( 4.7)1 Disadvantaged State 47 ( 4.0) 234 ( 42)1 Nation 52 ( 3.1) 241 ( 3.8)4 Extreme rtral State 50 ( 3.2) 237 ( 3.2)1 Nation 48 ( 7.4) 248 ( 4.3)1 Othiw State 48 ( 1.8) 243 ( 2.0) Nation 46 ( 1.9) 264 ( 2.1) Pamenta. and Mildew 90 265 1.6 23 1.9 272 1.4) 34 ( 2.5) 272 ( 1.7) 24 ( 2.2) 27$ ( 1.3) 23( 2A) 245( 2.4) 20( 3.9) 249 ( 4.0) 17 ( 4.8) *Imp 4141 18 ( 3.5) 252 ( 3.3)1 32 ( 4.5) 281 ( 62)1 23 (10.7) 25 1 2.4) 261 ( 3.7)1 22 ( 4.5) 259 ( 5.4)1 24 ( 4.8) 252 ( 4.0)1 29 ( 6.5) 268 ( 6.1 31 ( 22) 265 ( 1.8) 22 ( 2.0) 272 ( 1.8) Parearaan and Poolicliency Panuntap and Praia levy Parcentaa and Pra Nam Pemintags led Proadancy 18 ( 26 1.2) 37 ( 1.7) 246 1.5 264 ( 1.9 240 ( 1.4) 268 ( 1.4) 30 1.3 19 ( 0.9 27 ( 1.4) 30 ( 2.0) 261 ( 1.8) 283 ( 1.8) 253 ( 2.4) 274 ( 1.3) 28 ( 1.6) 21 ( 1.4) 23 ( 1.2) 43 ( 2.0) 258 ( 1.4) 270 ( 2.0) 252 ( 1.3) 274 ( 14) 31 ( 1.5) 18 ( 1/) 25 ( 12) 32 ( 2.3) 270 ( 1.7) 269 ( 2.3) 263 ( 2.5) 279 ( 33 ( 1.5) 13( 1.4) 36 ( 2.1) 27 ( 1.9) 229 ( 2.0) 244 ( 2.9) 227 ( 2.5) 247 ( 2.4) 31 ( 2.9) 18 ( 1.9) 38 ( 3.3) 24 ( 3.1) 233 ( 3.3) 248 ( 5.5) 230 ( 3.6) 251 ( 4.1) 30 ( 4.1) 4.41,1 12 ( RIM 3.3) ***) 37 ( 3.5) 19 ( 45) 441 20 ( 3.2) 21 ( 2.1) 28 ( 2.7) 22 ( 3.1) 238 ( 4.8) 244 ( 3.1) 237 ( 3.2) 256 ( 4.2) 30 ( 4.1) 19 ( 34) 24 ( 3.9) 43 ( 6.1) 263 ( 5.7)1 ( 256 ( 4.0)1 282 ( 5.8)1 32 1 8.1) 15 ( 2.4) 31 ( 3.8) 2$ ( 9.8) 274 ( 4.9)1 ( 281 ( 7.6)1 285 ( 42)1 28 ( 1.8) 14 ( 1.4) 34 ( 4.7) 32 ( 2.5) 235 ( 4.0)I ( 232 ( 4.5)1 267 ( 4.7)1 30 ( 3.3) 24 ( 2.3) 27 ( 2,9) 27 ( 4.8) 246 ( 52)4 254 ( 4.8)4 240 ( 4.9)4 263 ( 5.0)1 31 ( 3,3) 11 ( 1.8) 26 ( 2.8) 31 ( 3.0) 238 ( 4.1)1 239 ( 32)1 256 ( 3-4)1 20 ( 2.5) *14(.$*) 23 ( 263 ( 3.9) 4.4)1 24 ( 6.6) 37 ( 270 ( 8.3) 4-0)4 28 ( 1.0) 20 ( 1.8) 2$ ( 1.5) 37 ( 2.4) 248 ( 2.2) 264 ( 2.3) 240 ( 2.1) 267 ( 1 7) 32 ( 1.7) 18 ( 1.1) 27 ( 16) 29 ( 2.1) 263 ( 2.3) 263 ( 2.8) 253 ( 2.7) 275 ( 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 I 2 standard errors of the ertimate 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. 8" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 128 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE A 19 I Students' Reports on the Use of a Calculator (continued) I for Problem Solving or Tests PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT orking Problems fl Class Doing Problems at Homo Taking Quizzas or Tests Almost Nwaym Mwer Almost Always Mwer Almost Always Mwer TOTAL Porimmtage soW Proficisomy Pommityp mW MOkimmy Nmmamp doW FroOkimmy Prantqpi NW Madam, NmmMege aid Madam Penseitmp mW ProftWmoy State 47 ( 1.3) 30 ( 2.0) 2$ ( 1.3) 18 ( 1.1) 28 ( 1.2) 37 ( 1.7) 243 ( 1.3) 265 ( 1.8) 246 ( 1.5) 264 ( 1.9) 240 ( 1.4) 268 ( 1.4) Nation 48 ( 1.5) 23 ( 1.0) 30 ( 1.3) 19 ( 01) 27 ( 1.4) 30 ( 2.0) 254 ( IS) 272 ( 1.4) 281 ( 1.6) 263 ( 1.8) 253 ( 2.4) 274 ( 12) PARENTS EDUCATION HS non-graduate State 58 ( 3.0) 28 ( 3.5) 25 ( 2.4) 19 ( 2.2) 29 ( 3.1) 32 ( 3.2) 233 ( 2.2) 251 ( 2.4) 236 ( 2.4) ( 231 ( 3.0) 251 ( 2.6) Nation 54 ( 3.3) 19 ( 3.8) 26 ( 3.1) 22 ( 2.0) a? ( 3.0) 24 ( 3.2) 240 ( 2.3) ( ") 244 ( 3.8) 244 ( 4.2) 237 ( 2.3) 251 ( 4.6) NS gilitluato state 52 ( 2.4) 27 ( 2.8) 30 ( 1.9) 16 ( 1.6) 29 ( 1.9) 34 ( 2.4) 238 ( 1.7) 259 ( 2.5) 239 ( 2.4) 255 ( 3.3) :35 ( 2.2) 281 ( 2.3) Nation 52 ( 2.5) 20 ( 2.4) 29 ( 1.9) 18 ( 1.5) 26 ( 1.8) 27 ( 2.2) 249 ( 1.4) 265 ( 2.7) 250 ( 2.4) 256 ( 2.4) 246 ( 2.8) 265 ( 2.0) Soma collage State 45 ( 2.9) 31 ( 2.8) 26 ( 2.7) 18 ( 2.1) 28 ( 2.0) 37 ( 2.5) 252 ( 2.5) 269 ( 1.8) 251, ( 3.0) 267 ( 3.0) 250 ( 2.6) 270 ( 1.9) Nation 48 ( 2.8) 26 ( 2.8) 28 ( 2.0) 20 ( 1.9) 26 ( 2.4) 35 ( 2.5) 258 ( 2.1) 272 ( 2.5) 267 3.0) 265 ( 3.2) 255 ( 3.6) 275 ( 2.0) 00119119rAWMir State 42 ( 1.9) 34 ( 2.0) 27 ( 1.7) 20 ( 1.8) 24 ( 1.8) 43 ( 2.8) 250 ( 2.7) 275 ( 2.8) 255 ( 3.4) 275 ( 3.1) 248 ( 3.3) 277 ( 2.3) Nation 45 ( 1.9) 25 ( 2.4) 33 ( 2.0) 18 ( 1.4) 26 ( 1.6) 33 ( 2.7) 265 ( 1.7) 284 ( 1.8) 274 ( 2.2) 278 ( 2.8) 266 ( 2.6) 285 ( 2.0) GENDER Male State 52 ( 1.9) 27 ( 2.2) 28 ( 1.6) 20 ( 1.6) 27 ( 1.4) 35 ( 243 ( 1S) 270 ( 2.1) 248 ( 1.7) 266 ( 2.6) 239 ( 1.9) 272 ( 1.8) Nation 50 ( 1.7) 20 ( 2,0) 29 ( 1.8) 19 ( 1.3) 27 ( 1,5) 26 2.1) 255 ( 1.9) 275 ( 2.2) 264 ( 2.8) 263 ( 2.5) 256 ( 3.0) 277 ( 1.9) Female State 43 ( 1.6) 33 ( 2.3) 28 ( 1.5) 17 ( 1.3) 28 ( 1.6) 40 ( 2.0) 242 ( 1.7) 262 ( 1.8) 245 ( 2.1) 260 ( 2.3) 242 ( 1.9) 264 ( 1.0) Nation 46 ( 2.0) 26 ( 2.1) 32 ( 1.6) 18 ( 1.2) 27 ( 1.8) 33 ( 2.1) 252 ( 1.7) 269 ( 1.8) 259 ( 1.7) :ifa ( 2.1) 251 ( 2.4) 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. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 129 Alabama TABLE A20 j Students' linowledge of Using Calculators PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT High "Calculator-Liu" Group Othor "Calculator-Use" Grow Percentage and Prancingly Parceatapd and PrvIchoncy TOTAL State 40 ( 1.2) 34 ( 12) 258 ( 1.4) 247 ( 1.0) Nation 42 ( 1.3) 58 ( 1.3) 272 ( 1.6) 255 ( 1.5) RACE/ETHNICITY Whits State 46 ( 1.5) 32 ( 1.5) 288 ( 1.4) 257 ( 1.4) Nation 44 ( 1.4) 56 ( 1.4) 277 ( 1.7) 203 ( 1.7) Black State 42 ( 22) 58 ( 2.2) 239 ( 2.1) 229 ( 2.7) Nation 37 ( 34) 63 ( 3.4) 249 ( 3.9) 231 ( 3.0) Hispanic State 411 ( 3.8) 52 ( 3.8) ..44) Nation 38 ( 4.2) 64 ( 4.2) 254 ( 4.6) 238 ( 3.0) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 51 ( 4.2) 49 ( 42) 278 ( 4.3)1 256 ( 4.9)1 Nation 50 ( 3.8) 50 ( 3.8) 288 ( 4.9)1 275 ( 4.4)1 Disadvantagad urban State 45 ( 2.4) 55 ( 2,4) 252 ( 35)1 239 ( 4.6)1 Nation 38 ( 4.2) 02 ( 4.2) 262 ( 5.6)1 24.4 ( 3.9)1 Extreme nraI State 52 ( 2.4) 48 ( 2.4) 247 ( 4.1)1 240 ( 3.4)1 Nation 39 ( 5.6) 81 ( 5.6) 269 ( 4.4)1 248 ( 4,3)1 Other State 45 ( 1.4) 55 ( 1.4) 258 ( 1.9) 247 ( 2.3) Nation 42 ( 1.4) 58 ( 1.4) 271 ( 1.9) 255 ( 2.0) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parenthems. It can bc said with about 95 peroent 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). r 0"-' t ) 130 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE A20 I Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators (continued) I PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO NAEP TRIAL "Calculator-Use" "Calculator-Use" STATE ASSESSMENT High Grow Other Grow TOTAL Percentage and Pretielency Percentage and Prodelency Statk; 48 ( 12) 54 ( 1.2) 258 ( 247 ( 1.6) Nation 42 ( 1.3) 58 ( 1.3) 272 ( 1.6) 265 ( 1.5) PARENTS' EDUCATION NS non-graduate State 42 ( 3.7) 58 ( 3.7) 242 ( 3.4) 236 ( 2.4) Nation 34 ( 3.3) 66 ( 3.3) 248 ( 4.4) 242 ( 2.4) KS graduate State 41 ( 2.0) 59 ( 2.0) 253 ( 2.5) 240 ( 2.1) Nation 40 ( 2.2) 60 ( 2.2) 263 ( 2.0) 249 ( 1.8) Some college State 48 ( 2.7) 52 ( 2.7) 261 ( 2.2) 256 ( 2.5) Nation 48 ( 22) 52 ( 2.2) 277 ( 2.6) 258 ( 2.5) College graduate State 51 ( 1.8) 49 ( 1.8) 269 ( 2.4) 256 ( 2.8) Nation 46 ( 2.0) 64 ( 2.0) 282 ( 2.1) 268 ( 1.9) GENDER Male State 43 ( 1.9) 57 ( 1.9) 261 ( 1.8) 247 ( 1.8) Nation 39 ( 2.0) 61 ( 2.0) 274 ( 2.0) 255 ( 2.3) Female State 50 ( 1.6) 50 ( 1.6) 256 ( 1.6) 246 ( 2.2) Nation 45 ( 1.8) 55 ( 1.8) 269 ( 1.7) 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. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 131 Alabama TABLE A24 I Students' Reports on Types of Reading Materials in the Home PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY - HMO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Zero to iNvo pipes Three Types FOX Types TOTAL State Nation RACE/ETHNICITY White State Nation INadc State Nation Hispanic State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation Extreme rural State Nation Other State Nation and Prelidency 22 239 21 244 18 250 18 251 28 226 31 232 31 44 237 Percentage and Proidella Percentage and Pndlciency ( 1.1) 32 ( OS) 445 ( 114) ( 1.9) 250 ( 1.4) 20( 1.2) ( 1.0) 30 ( 1,0) 4$ ( 1.3) ( 2.0) 258 ( 1.7) 272 ( 1.5) ( 12) 31 ( 1.1) 51 ( 1.6) ( 2.0) 261 ( 1.3) 268 ( 1.3) ( 1.1) 29 ( 1.3) 56 ( 1.5) ( 22) 268 ( 1.5) 276 ( 1.7) ( 1.9) 36 ( 1.7) 36 ( 2.2) ( 2.7) 231 ( 1.8) 239 ( 1.8) ( 1.9) 38 ( 22) 33 ( 2.4) ( 3.2) 233 ( 3.9) 245 ( 3.3) ( 6.1) 33 ( 5.1 ) 37 ( 5.2) IMO" ( 911111) 044 ( *** ) ( 3.0) 30 ( 2.4) 26 ( 2.3) ( 3.4) 244 ( 4.3) 253 ( 2.4) ( 1.9) 27 ( 2.6) 59 ( 4.2) *44 ) 262 ( 4.7)1 275 ( 4.9)1 ( 3.8) 61 ( 4.9) *VIP ) 287 ( 3.6)1 ( 3.7) 35 ( 2.3) 36 ( 3.0) ( 43)1 243 ( 4.3)1 252 ( 4.2)1 ( 3.9) 31 ( 2.3) 37 ( 3.6) ( 2.9)1 247 ( 3.7)1 257 ( 4.9)1 ( 2.6) 32 ( 3.2) 46 ( 4.0) ( 4.4p 239 ( 4.5)1 253 ( 3.1)1 ( 4.9) 33 ( 3.2) 50 ( 5.1) ) 253 ( 4.3)1 263 ( 5.6)1 ( 1.6) 33 ( 1.1) 46 ( 1.9) ( 2.7) 250 ( 2.0) 260 ( 1.7) ( 1.5) 30 ( 1.3) 48 ( 1.5) ( 2.6) 259 ( 2_2) 272 ( 1.7) 14 ( 13 29 237 32 243 22 236 17 21 240 22 244 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each pop ation of interest, the value for the entire population is within 1. 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). I32 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A labanta TABLE A24 I Students' Reports on Types of Reading (cmtinued) Materials in the Home PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Zero to Two Types Three Types Four Types , TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proedency Percentage and Proadeftqf State 22 ( 1.1) 32 ( 0.8) 46 ( 1.4) 239 ( 1.9) 250 ( 14) 200 ( 1.2) Nation 21 ( 1.0) 30 ( 1A) 48 ( 1.3) 244 ( 2.0) 258 ( 1.7) 272 ( 1.5) PARENTS EDUCATION 143 non-graduato State 42 ( 3.3) 29 ( 2.6) 29 ( 2.6) r . 5 ( 2.7) 239 ( 3.1) 243 ( 2.8) Nation 47 ( 4.0) 28 ( 3.0) 25 ( 2.8) 240 ( 3.4) 243 ( 3.3) 248 ( 3.3) NS graduate State 26 ( 1.7) 37 ( 1.9) 37 ( 2.2) 251 ( 2.2) Nation 26 ( 22) 33 ( 1.9) 40 ( 1.7) 260 ( 2.1) Some college State 14 ( 1.6) 38 ( 2A) 48 ( 2.3) 285 ( 1.9) Nation 17 ( 1.5) 32 ( 1.7) 51 ( 2.0) 274 ( 1.9) College graduate State 13 ( 1.1) 27 ( 1.6) 60 ( 22) 246 ( 3.4) 257 ( 2.5) 268 ( 2.1) Nation 10 ( 0.8) 2$ ( 1.8) 62 ( 2.0) 254 ( 2.8) 280 ( 1.8) GENDER Mali State 21 ( 1.3) 33 ( 1.3) 48 ( 1.6) 240 ( 2.4) 252 ( 2.1) 261 ( 1.6) Nation 21 ( 1.5) 31 ( 1.5) 48 ( 1.4) 244 ( 2.3) 259 ( 2.1) 273 ( 2.0) FI/Mii State 22 ( 1.5) 32 ( 1.1) 46 ( 1.9) 239 ( 2.4) 247 ( 1.6) 260 ( 1.4) Nation 22 ( 1.2) 29 ( 1.4) 49 ( 1.9) 244 ( 2.2) 25$ ( 1.9) 270 ( 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 ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 1 3 S THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 133 Alabama TABLE A25 I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent Watching Television Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT - One Hour or Less Two Hours Th ree Hours Four to Five Hours Six Hours or More TOTAL Percentage and ProNclency 10 ( 0.5) 258 ( 2.2) 12 ( 0.8) 269 ( 2.2) 11 ( 0.8) 267 ( 2.4) 13 ( 1.0) 276 ( 2.5) 7 ( 1.1) *** ( .44) 6 ( 0.8) ". ( ***) 7 ( 2.2) ( ***) 14 ( 2.4) ( "*) 14 ( 1.1)) 18 ( 1.4)) 7 ( 1.8) ( - 9 ( 1.2)) 9 ( 1.0)) 14 ( 3.3) 44.4 ( *1* 10 ( 0.7) 256 ( 3.4) 12 ( 1.0) 268 ( 2.6) Percentage and Prong:fancy 10 ( 0.6) 261 ( 2.0) 21 ( 0.9) 288 ( 1.8) 19 ( 1.0) 268 ( 2.0) 23 ( 2) 275 ( 22) 10 ( 0.9) 233 ( 3.8) 13 ( 1.7) 239 ( 7.0) 11 ( 3.1) 20 ( 2.5) 24.5 ( 3.2) 22 ( 2.8) 278 ( 65)1 25 ( 43) , 13 ( 1.6) 17 ( 3.1) 250 ( 4.0)1 19 ( 2.6) 16 ( 0.9) 260 ( 2.6) 21 ( 1.0) 269 ( 2.3) Pweentage and Prneciartoy 22 ( 0.9) 254 ( 1.9) 22 ( 0.8) 265 ( 1.7) 25 ( 12) 284 ( 1.6) 24 ( 1.1) 272 ( 1.9) 18 ( 12) 230 ( 2.8) 17 ( 2.1) 239 ( 5.0) ( 19 ( 2.1) 242 ( 5.6) 21 ( 2.4) 272 ( 6.5)1 21 ( 1.8)) 19 ( 1.5)-) 19 ( 2.1) 255 ( 5.0)1 21 ( 1.7) .4,0) 23 ( 2.0) *44 23 ( 1.2) 253 ( 2.6) 23 ( 1.2) 265 ( 2.1) Percentage and Proaedincy 34 ( 0.9) 253 ( 1.2) 28 ( 1.1) 260 ( 1.7) 33 ( 1.2) 261 ( 1.5) 27 ( 1.4) 267 ( 1.7) 35 ( 1.7) 238 ( 1.8) 32 ( 1.8) 239 ( 4.0) 31 IP** ( *111) 31 ( 3.1) 247 ( 3.5) 32 ( 2.8) 259 ( 46)1 ( 4.3)) 32 ( 2.9) 247 ( 2.7); 34 ( 2.4) 251 ( 4.7)1 41 ( 1.7) 247 ( 3.9)1 26 ( 2.7) 256 ( 3.6)1 33 ( 1.2) 255 ( 1.9) 27 ( 1.2) 259 ( 2.2) Percentage and Prendertcy 18 ( 0.9) 239 ( 2.0) 16 ( 1.0) 245 ( 1.7) 12 ( 0.8) 254 ( 25) 12 ( 1 2) 253 ( 2.6) 30 ( 1.8) 228 ( 2.0) 32 ( 22) 233 ( 2.5) folrit 17 ( 1.7) 236 ( 3.8) .111. 4.11.41 29 ( 2.6) 231 ( 5.4)1 20 ( 3.2) 238 ( 4.5)1 *** 19 ( 3.8) 0*. ) 18 ( 1.1) 239 ( 2.1) 17 ( 1.4) 24$ ( 2.6) State Nation RACE/ETHNICITY White State Nation Slack State Nation Hispanic State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation Extreme rural 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. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. ' Sample sire is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 134 1 1 111 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE A25 I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent (""itinued) I Watching Television Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT One Hour or Lass Two Hours Unto titxirs Ray to Five Hours Six Flours or Mora TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency 10 ( 0.5) 258 ( 2.2) 12 ( 0.8) 209 ( 22) State Nation PARENTS' EDUCATION HS non-graduate State 11 ( 1.9) Ihf* ***) Nation 12 ( 2.2) HS graduate State 6 ( 0.8) ( Nation 8 ( 1.0) 249 ( 4.7) Soma collage State 10 ( 1.4) Nation 10 ( 1.4) College graduate State 12 ( 1.0) 271 ( 3.8) Nation 17 ( 1.3) 282 ( 2.6) GENDER Male State 8 ( 0.8) 257 ( 3.0) Nation 11 ( 0.9) 269 ( 3.3) Female State 11 ( 0.9) 258 ( 3.8) Nation 14 ( 1.1) 269 ( 2.8) Percentage and Proficiency 18 ( OA) 201 ( 2.0) 21 ( 0.9) 1.5) 15 ( 1.9) 44, 20 ( 3.1) v.) 16 ( 1.3) 253 ( 3.8) 17 ( 1.4) 257 ( 2.8) 14 ( 1.3) 266 ( 4.0) 25 ( 2.4) 275 ( 2.7) 19 ( 1S) 272 ( 3.1) 22 ( 1.0) 280 ( 2.5) 15 ( 1.0) 261 ( 2.9) 22 ( 1.2) 267 ( 2.6) 17 ( 1.0) 261 ( 2.4) 20 ( 1.3) 269 ( 2.2) Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proliciency Percentage and Proldency 22 ( 0.9) 34 (0.9) 1$ ( 0.9) 254 ( 1.9) 253 ( 12) 239 ( 2.0) 22 ( 0.8) 2$ ( 1.1) 10 ( 1.0) 205 ( 1.7) 200 ( 1.7) 245 ( 1.7) 24 ( 2.4) 31 ( 2.4) 238 ( 3.9) 243 ( 2.5) frff *el 21 ( 2.8) 23 ( 244 ( 2.9) 3.2) 20 ( 2.4)) 22 ( 1.6) 38 ( 1.9) 18 ( 1.7) 24$ ( 2.8) 249 ( 2.3) 234 ( 32) ' 23 ( 2.0) 32 ( 2.3) 19 ( 1.6) 259 ( 32) 253 ( 2$) 245 ( 3.0) 28 ( 2.0) 32 ( 2.0) 18 ( 2.1) 265 ( 23) 258 ( 2.0) 243 ( 3.8) 23 ( 2.6) 28 ( 22) 14 ( 1.5) 269 ( 3.5) 267 ( 2.5) 242 ( 3.4) 19 ( 1.2) 33 ( 1.8) 17 ( 1.$) 266 ( 2.8) 260 ( 2.2) 245 ( 3.2) 23 ( 1.1) 25 ( 1 5) 12 ( 1.1) 277 ( 2.2) 270 ( 2 4) 255 ( 3.2) 22 ( 1.4) 38 ( 1.3) 19 ( 11) 254 ( 2.9) 255 ( 1.6) 243 ( 25) 22 ( 1.0) 28 ( 1.3) 17 ( 1.5) 267 ( 2,2) 262 ( 21) 248 ( 2.5) 22 ( 1.0) 32 ( 1.2) 17 ( 1.0) 254 ( 2.1) 250 ( 1.4) 234 ( 2.4) 23 ( 1.4) 28 ( 1.6) 15 ( 1.2) 264 ( 1.8) 258 ( 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). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 135 Alabama TABLE A26 I Students' Reports on the Number of Days of School Missed PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1090 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT None One or Two Days Three Days or More TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency State 45 ( 1.3) 34 ( 1.0) 18 ( 1.0) 254 ( 1.6) 253 ( 1.3) 246 ( 1.9) Nation 45 ( 1.1) 32 ( 0.9) 23 ( 1.1) 265 ( 1.8) 266 ( 1.5) 250 ( 1.9) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 4.5 ( 1.6) 36 ( 1.2) 19 ( 1.3) 266 ( 1.5) 252 ( 1.3) 2$5 ( 1.9) Nation 43 ( 12) 34 ( 1.2) 23 ( 1.2) 273 ( 1.8) 272 ( 1.7) 258 ( 2.1) Black State 55 ( 2.0) 29 ( 1.8) 16 ( 1.4) 235 ( 2.2) 234 ( 1.8) 223 ( 3.0) Nation 55 ( 3.1) 21 ( 1.8) 23 ( 2.5) 240 ( 3.2) 240 ( 4.1) 224 ( 3.5) Hispanic State 46 ( 45) .114 35 ( *** ( 4.6) NF* ) 19 ( .44 3.7) Nation 41 ( 3.3) 32 ( 2.2) 27 ( 2.6) 245 ( 4.6) 250 ( 3.3) 235 ( 3.1) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged trim State 48 ( 272 ( 3.4) 5.9)1 36 ( 285 ( 3.1) 5.6)1 18 ( #4. 1.5) Nation 47 ( 2.3) 38 ( 2.6) 284 ( 4.4)1 279 ( 43)! Disadvantaged urban State 43 ( 2.0) 33 ( 2.1) 24 ( 2.1) 244 ( 4.2)1 249 ( 3.4)1 240 ( 6.0)1 Nation 42 ( 3.3) 28 ( 12) 32 ( 2.7) 254 ( 3.7)1 256 ( 4.2)1 238 ( 6.3)1 Extreme nral State 49 ( 3.7) 35 ( 2.4) 16 ( 3.0) 249 ( 3.7)1 244 ( 4.3)1 1141- ) Nation 43 ( 257 ( 4.4) 4.1)1 32 ( 264 ( 4.2) 5.8)1 25 ( 3.9) 4-.4) Other State 49 ( 1.7) 34 ( 1.6) 17 ( 1.1) 254 ( 2.1) 264 ( 1.9) 245 ( 2.6) Nation 45 ( 1.3) 32 ( 1.1) 23 ( 1.1) 265 ( 2.2) 235 ( 1.9) 251 ( 2.4) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses, lt can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 136 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Alabama TABLE A26 I Student' Reports on the Number of Days of ("mtanued) School Missed PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY , 11100 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT None One or Two Days Three Days or More , TOTAL Parcenhis and Oiraliceency 4$ ( 1,3) 264 ( 1.6) 4S ( 1.1) 205 ( 1.11) Pam*. and "Widow 34 ( tO) 253 ( 1.3) 32 ( 0.0) 200 ( 1.5) Paresatuns and Prollnism 16 ( tO) 240 ( 1.0) 23 ( 1.1) 250 ( ta) State Nation PARENTS' EDUCATION HS non-graduate State 37 ( 2.6) 30 ( 2.2) 28 ( 3.1) 241 ( 3.1) 242 ( 2.3) 232 ( 3.0) Nation 36 ( 3.2) 26 ( 3.1) 38 ( 3.5) 245 ( 3.0) 249 ( 3.3) 237 ( 3.1) HS graduate State 47 ( 1.8) 35 ( 1.6) 18 ( 1.5) 247 ( 2.1) 247 ( 2.7) 241 ( 2.7) Nation 43 ( 2.1) 31 ( 1.9) 27 ( 1.9) 255 ( 2.0) 257 ( 2.6) 249 ( 2.4) Some college State 44 ( 2.9) 39 ( 2.5) 16 ( 1.9) 260 ( 2.6) 259 ( 2.3) 258 ( 3.2) Nation 40 ( 1.8) 37 ( 1.6) 23 ( 1.6) 270 ( 3.0) 271 ( 2.5) 253 ( 3.1) College graduate State 53 ( 2.0) 31 ( 1.7) 16 ( 1.5) 265 ( 2.5) 262 ( 2.3) 258 ( 3.0) Nation 51 ( 1.6) 33 ( 1.2) 16 ( 1.3) 275 ( 2.1) 277 ( 1.7) 266 ( 3.1) GENDER Male State 48 ( 1.5) 34 ( 1.5) 17 ( 1.0) 255 ( 1.9) 255 ( 1.9) 250 ( 2.3) Nation 47 ( 1.6) 31 ( 1.4) 22 ( 1.4) 268 ( 2.0) 267 ( 2.1) 250 ( 2.6) Female State ( 1.9) 34 ( 1.5) 19 ( 1.3) 254 ( 1.9) 252 ( 1.6) 242 ( 2.3) Nation 43 ( 1,4) 32 ( 1.1) 25 ( 1.3) 284 ( 2.3) 266 ( 1.7) 250 ( 1.8) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. lt 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 137 Alabama TABLE A27 J Students' Perceptions of Mathematics PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 MEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Wm* Ai MN A91100 Undecided, Disagree, Shim* Disagree TOTAL Percentage and Pronaisncy Pertentage and Proficiency Paramdaga and Prandial:1y State 30 ( 1.1) 46 ( 0.9) 22 ( 1.2) 259 ( 1.4) 251 ( 1.8) 248 ( 1.4) Nation 27 ( 1.3) 43 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1.2) 271 ( 1.9) 262 ( 1.7) 251 ( 1.8) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 28 ( 1.4) 48 ( 1.5) 24 ( 1.6) 271 ( 1.6) 263 ( 1.3) 253 ( 1.3) Nation 25 ( 1.6) 43 ( 1.3) 26 ( 1.5) 279 ( 2.0) 272 ( 1.8) 257 ( 2.0) Slack State 34 ( 1.9) 49 ( 1.9) 17 ( 1.4) 241 ( 2.3) 229 ( 1.8) 225 ( 3.3) Nation 32 ( 23) 52 ( 2.3) 18 ( 1.9) 247 ( 4.1) 233 ( 3.3) 227 ( 4.2) Hispanic State 32 ( 3.6) .4r.) 49 ( NM. 4.7) 10-44 19 ( ( 3.3) Nation 24 ( 23) 48 ( 2.8) 28 ( 2.1) 257 ( 5.5) 244 ( 2.2) 236 ( 3.8) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 28 ( 3.3) 49( 3.9) 23 ( 3.8) 260 ( 6.4)1 267 ( 5.431 255 ( 5.1)! Nation 17 ( 3.2) 55 ( 2.4) 28 ( 4.2) 111.44 ( MO 280 ( 4.1)1 Disadvantaged urban State 39 ( 3.1) 46 ( 2.7) 15 ( 2.0) 248 ( 2.2)1 245 ( 4.2)1 ( Nation 26 ( 2.9) 48 ( 2.9) 26 ( 3.2) 260 ( 5.6)1 249 ( 4.6)! 240 ( 4.5)1 Extreme rural State 26 ( 1.4) 48 ( 1.8) 28 ( 1.9) 257 ( 5.0)1 241 ( 4.2)1 240 ( 3.4)I Nation 34 ( 2.8) 49 ( 2.2) 17 ( 1.4) 270 ( 3.9)! 252 ( 4.1)1 Other State 30 ( 1.5) 49 ( 1.3) 21 ( 1.4) 259 ( 2.0) 251 ( 2.3) 246 ( 2.1) Nation 27 ( 1.4) 48 ( 1.2) 25 ( 1.4) 271 ( 2.4) 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 estimte for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimattxI mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than b2 students). 138 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A labama TABLE A27 I Students' Perceptions of Mathematics (continued) I PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Strongly A. Agree _ Undecided. Disagree, Strongly Maws, TOTAL State Nation PARENTS' EDUCATION liS non-gaduate State Nation College graduate State Nation GENDER Mile State Nation Female state Nation Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency 30 ( 1.1) 259 ( 1A) 27 ( 1.3) 271 ( 1.9) 32 ( 3.1) 47 ( 3.3) 21 ( 2.4) 240 ( 2.6) 241 ( 2.2) ...4. ( .41 20 ( 2.6) 50 ( 3.3) 30 ( 3.6) .4, I **-1 243 ( 2.6) 238 ( 4.3) HS graduate Some college 31 ( 1.4) 49 ( 1.4) 20 ( 1.3) 270 ( 2.6) 260 ( 2.8) 256 ( 2.3) 30 ( 2.3) 51 ( 1.6) 19 ( 1.8) 280 ( 2.4) 274 ( 2.2) 266 ( 2.5) 27 ( 1.3) 50 ( 1.5) 22 ( 1.4) 260 ( 2.0) 253 ( 2.0) 248 ( 1.7) 28 ( 1.5) 48 ( 1.2) 24 ( 1.4) 273 ( 2.3) 263 ( 2.0) 251 ( 2.4) 33 ( 1.7) 46 ( 1.3) 21 ( 1.6) 259 ( 1.7) 249 ( 1.9) 243 ( 2.2) 26 ( 1.7) 50 ( 1.7) 25 ( 1.9) 269 ( 2.1) 262 ( 1.8) 252 ( 1.9) 48 ( 0.9) 251 ( 1.6) 49 ( 1.0) 282 ( 1.7) 22 ( 1.2) 248 ( 1.4) 24 ( 1.2) 251 ( 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 Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than (2 students). 144 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 139 Acknowledgments The design, 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 (NUS), Educational Testing Service (ETS), Westat, and National Computer Systems (NCS). The program benefitted from the contrilutions of hundreds of individuals at the state and local levels Governors, Chief State School Officers, State and District Test Directors, State CoorrTmatom and district administrators who tireleuly provided their wisdom, experience, and hard work. Finally, and most importantly, MAEP 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 contrlutions to the program, especially its management of the National Assessment 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 Projeet. The Trial State Assessment was funded through NCES, in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the U.S. 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 collegially with ETS, Westat, and NCS staff and played a andel role in all aspects of the program. The members of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and NAGB staff also deserve aedit for their advice and guidance. We owe a great deal to the Mathematics Item Development and Mathematics Scale Anchoring Panels. These people from school districts, colleges and universities, and State Education Agencies worked tirelessly to help ETS staff develop the assessment and a framework for interpreting the results. Under the NAEP contract to FL'S, Archie Lapointe served as the project director and Ina Mullis as the deputy director. Statistical and psychometric activities were led by John Mazzeo, 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 mat this challenge, a computerized report generation system was built, combining the speed and accuracy of computes-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 for this report John Ferris, David Freund, Bruce Kaplan, Edward Kulick, and Phillip Leung collaborated to generate the data and perform analyses. They were assisted by Drew Bowker, Laura McConkey, and Craig Pizzuti. Debra Kline coordkated the efforts of the data analysis staff. Stephen Kale: virote the teal for the report. Kent Ashworth was responsible for coordinating the cover design 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 test and the analysts who checked the data. U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1991 0 - 293-275 (aK.1) QL 3 fA 0 Li 0