USVI Public Records

Document text

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 330 555 SE 052 065 TITLE The State of Mathematics Achievement in Florida: The Trial State Assessment at Grade Eight. INSTITVTION Educational Testing Service, Princeton, 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) EDRS PRICE mFo2./Pco6 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; Calculators; *Educational Assessme't; Family Environment; *Grade 8; Homework; Junior High Schools; *Mathematics Achievement; Mathematics Instruction; Mathematics Skills; Mathematics Tests; National Programs; Problem Solving; Public Schools; *State Programs; Student Attitudes; Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Qualifications; Television siewing IDENTIFIERS *Florida; National Assessment of Educational Progress; *Numeracy; State 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 ccvered five mathematics content areas (numbers and operations; measurement; geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra and functions). In Florida, 2,534 students in 101 public schools were assessed. This report describes the mathematics proficiency of Florida eighth-graders, compares their overall performance to students in the Southeast 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, Florida students had an average proficiency of 255 compared to 261 nationwide. Many fewer students (Florida-10%; U.S.-12%) appear to have acquired reasoning ane problem solving skills. (JJK/CRW) NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS The STATE of Mathematics A le. e t in FLORIDA The Trial State Assessment at Grade Eight u S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Atcalai $4Se41,, ,,,Pft,vtaMer,1 ()09A riONAL ;4i SOL)4Ct S JISd- t)HMAT CENTE PIC, Vf,, JS !N. 005t,,, ,r rlAt ')4 r4,1, 11,f1P11 r`', ,J 61, ncS.I". 'et 11, 4 , u c, 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 tNAEP). is the only nationally representatiYe and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969. assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics. wience, writing, history/geography. and other fields. By making objective information on student performance available to policymakers at the national. state. and local levels. NAH' is an integral part of our nation's evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only information related to academic achievement is collected under this program. NAH' guarantees the privacy of individual students and their families. NAEP is a congressionally mand:.ted project of the National Center for Education Statistics. the LS. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistic% is responsible. by law. tor earrying out the NMI' project through competitive awards to qualified organiLations. NAEP reports directly to the Commissioner. who is also responsible for providing continuini- reviews, including validation studies and solicitation of put,he comment, on NAEP's conduct and usefulness In 198S. Congress created the National Aswssment Governing Board iNMIBi to formulate polic y. guidelines for NAEP. The hoard is responsible for selecting the subject areas to Iv assessed. which may include adding to those specified by Congress: identifying appropnate achievement goals for each age and grade: developing assessment objectives: developing test specilwations, designing the assessment methodology: developing guideline% and standards for data analysis and for reporting aod disseminating results: deseloping standards and procedures for interstate. regional, and national comparisons: improving the form and use of the National Assessment. and ensuring that all items selected for use in the National Assessment are free from racial, cultural, gender, or regional hias The National Assessment Governing Board Richard A. Boyd. Chairman Executive Director Martha Holden Jennings Ilmndation Cleveland. Ohio Phyllis Williamson Aldrich Curriculum Coordinator Saratoga-Warren B.O.C.E.S. Saratoga Springs. New York Franck Alexander Associate Superintendent California I7partment of Education Sacramento, California David P. Battini High School History Teacher Cairo-Durham High School Cairo, New York Parris C. Battle Teacher lioraCe Mann Elementary School Miami. Honda Mary R. Blanton Attorney Cromwell, Porter. Blanitin & 141.inton Salisbury. North Carolina Boyd W. Boeh lje Attorney Caass. Klyn, & Boehlje Pella. Iowa Linda R. Bryant Teachet (ireenway Middle School Teacher Centel Pittsburgh. Iknnsylvama Honorable Michael N. Castle Gosernor of Delaware Carve] State Office Building Wilmington, Delaware Honorable Naomi K. Cohen State of Connecticut Hot lie Of RepresentanY e% egislatiYe Office Building Hart! ord, (*Millet:than Chester E. Finn, Jr. Professor of liducatkin and Pithily 'tilley Vanderbilt 1.1111%ersIt} Washington, D.C. Michael S. Clode Wytuning State Board of liducation Saratoga. Wyoming Christine Johnson Principal .Abraham Lincoln High School Denver. Coloraci., John Lindley Principal South Colby Elementary School Port Oichard. Washington Carl J. Moser Director of School% The I.utheran Church Missouri S,,nint International Center St. Limo, Missouri Mark D. Musick President Southern Regional liducation Board Atlanta. Georgia How/rabic Carolyn Pollan Arkansas House of Representative% Fort Smith. Arkansas Matthew W. Prophet, Jr. . Superintendent Portland Oregon School 0Nrict Portland. Oregon Honorable William T. Randall Commissioner of Education State Department of Ethic:awn Denver. Colorado Dorothy K. Rich President Home and Schtiol Instoute Special Projects Office Washington. D.C. Honorable Rkhard W. Riley Attorney Nelson. Mullins, Riley anti Sea:borough Columbia. South Carolina 'Dimas Topuies Attimiey I..11s4 Offices of l-rank Rogonenslo Coronado. Calitornia Herbert J. Walberg Professor of Education UniYersity of Illinois Chicago. Illinois Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement (Ex Officitii L',S lkipartment ot ktucation Washington, DC Roy. Truhy Executive Director. NAGB Washington. DC. NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS The STATE of Mathematics Achievement in FLORIDA The Trial State Assessment at Grade Eight THE NATION'S REPORT CARO 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 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 Avenu, NW Washington, D.C. 20208-5641 or call 1-800-424-1616 (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 Nauccal Center for Education S. .istics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, by Educational Testing Service. Educational Testing Service is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Educational Testing Service, ETS, and Si are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 7 Overview of the 1990 Trial State Assessment This Report 9 Guidelines for Analysis Profile of Florida 14 Lighth-Grade School and Student Characteristics 14 Schools and Students Assessed 15 PART ONE How Proficient in Mathematics Are Eighth-Grade Students in Florida Public Schools? 1 7 Chapter 1. Students* Mathematks Performance I S lcvels of 4athematics Proficiency Content Area Performance 19 Chapter 2. Mathematics Performance b Subpopulations 24 Race. Fthnicity 24 Type of Communit Parents` 1.ducation 14.: ci 29 Gender Content Area Performance 1 Hi.. 1,190 \ S I AI I. ASSISSMEN PA RT TWO Finding a Context for Understanding Students' Mathematics Proficiency 37 Chapter 3. What Are Students Taught in Mathematics? Curriculum Coverage 41 \1athcmatic Ikunework Instructional Emphasis 45 Summary 4S Chapter 4. How Is Mathematics Instruction Delivera' 49 Availability of Resources 49 Patterns in Classroom Instruction r. Collaborating in Small Groups 54 Using Mathematical Objects Materials for Mathematics Instruction Summary 59 Chapter 5. How Are Calculators Used' 60 The Availability of Calculators 62 The I se of Calculators 63 When To I:sc a Cakulator 64 Summar 66 (hapter 6. Who Is Teaching Eighth-Grade Mathematics? 67 Educational Background 68 Summar) 71 Chapter 7. The Conditions Beond School that Facilitate Mathematics Learning and Teaching 73 Amount of Reading Materials in the !Ionic 74 Hours of Television Watched per Da> 75 Student Absenteeism 76 Students Perceptions of Mathematics Summart ..... . 7() PROCEDURAL APPENDIX 51 DATA APPENDIX 9- 7 1990 \AU' I RIAI SI Al F ASSI-SSMEN1 Florida THE NATION'S REPORT CARD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In I9SS. Congress passed new legislation 1%:i. the National Assessrnent of I'ducational Progress (NiNI:Pi. which included lue first time in the project's history -- a provision authorizing voluntary s;,ate-by -state as-:ssments on a trial basis. in addition to continuing its primary mission, the national asses.anents that NAH' has conducted since its inception. As a result of the legislation, the 1q)0 NAl l' program included a Trial State Assessment Prol...i-am in eighth-grade mathematics. National assessments in mathematics. reading. writ*. and science were conducted simultaneously in I9911 at grades fimr, eight. and tw elve. l'or the I rial State Assessment, eighth-grade public-school students were assessed in each of 37 states. the Distnet of Columbia. and two temtories in I cbruary 1990. The sample was carefully designed to represent the eighth-grade publie-school population in a state or territol, Within each selected school, students were randomly chosen to participate in the program. I ocal school district personnel administered all assessment sessions, and the contractor's stall monitored 50 percent of the sessions as part of the quality assurance program designed to ensure that the Sessions were being condueted uniformly "I he results of the monitoring indicated a high degree ol quality and uniformity across sessions. I III 199(1 I RIAI SI Al \ 1 1 Florida In Florida, 101 public schools participated in the assessment. The weighted school participation rate was 98 percent, which means that all of the eighth-wade students in this sample of schools were representative of 98 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students in Florida. In each school, a random sample of students was selected to participate in the assessment. As estimated by the sample, 3 percent of the eighth-gade public-school population was classified as limited English Proficient (I IT), while 9 percent had an Individualized :'ducation Plan (IFP). An IFP is a plan, written for a student who has been determined to be eliOble for special education, that typically sets forth goals and objectives for the student and describes a program of activities and or related services necessary to achieve the goals and objectives. Schools were permitted to exclude certain students from the assessment. To be excluded from the assessment, a student had to be categorized as limited English Proficient or had to have an Individualized Education Plan and (in either case) be judged incapable of participating in the assessment. The students who were excluded from the assessment because they were categorized as I .FP or had an IFP represented 2 percent and 5 percent of the population, respectively. In total. 2,5.4 eighth-wade Florida public-school students were assessed. The weighted student participation rate was 92 percent. This means that the sample of students who took part in the assessment was representative of 92 percent of the digible eighth-wade publie-school student population in Florida. Students' Mathematics Performance The average proficienc) of eighth-grade public-school students from I'lorida on the \ mathematics scale is 255. This proficienc) is lower than that of students across the nation (261). Average proficienc) on the NA11) scale provides a global view of eighth waders' 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 weater detail. !SAFI' 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 \MT scale 9 TM.. 1990 NALP 1 RIAL SI Al 1 : ASSISSMLN I Florida In Horida, 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). ilowever, many fewer students in Florida (10 percent) and 12 percent in the nation appear to have acquired reasoning and problem-solving skills involving fractions. decimals, percents. elemental) geometric properties, and simple algebraic manipulations (level 3(H)). The Trial State Assessment included five content areas -- \umbers and Operations; Measurement: (ieometry; Data Anal> sis, Statistics, and Probability: and Algebra and Functions. Students in Florida 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 ilerformance of various subpopulations of the Florida eighth-gade student population defined b> race ethnicit>, type of communit>. parents' education level, and gender, In Florida: White students had higher averagc mathematics proficienc> than did Black or Hispanic students and about the same mathematics proficienc> as did Asian students. Further. a greater percentage of White students than Black or llispanic students and about the same percentage of White as Asian students attained level 300. Ihe results II\ t p of communit> indicate that the average mathematics performance of the Florida 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 llorida. the average mancinatics proficiene> of eighth-grade public-school students having at least one parent who gaduated from college was approximatel> 30 points higher than that of students whose parents did not graduate from high school. 1 he results 11> gender show that there appears to be no dillerenee in the average mathematics proticiene> of eighth-grade males and females attending public schools in Florida. In addition, a geater percentage of males than females in Ilorida attained level 100. ( 'ompared to the national results. females in FloriLL. performed low el than females across the countr>: males in 1.1orida perlomied lower than males across the eountr> . t) 1990 \Ail' I RIAI Si All. ASS)-.SSMIA1 3 Florida A Context for Understanding Students' Mathematics Proficiency Information on students' mathematics proficiency is valuable in and of itself, hut it becomes more useful for improving instruction and setting policy when supplemented with contextual information about schools, teachers, and students. To gather such information, the students participating in the 1990 Trial State Assessment. their mathematics teachers, and the principals or other administrators in their schools were asked to complete questionnaires on policies, instruction, and programs. Taken together, the student, teacher, and school data help to describe some of the current practices and emphases in mathematics education, illaminate 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 Florida are as follows: About three-quarters of the students in Florida (74 percent) were in schools where mathematics was identified as a special priority. This is about the same percentage al; that for the nation (63 percent). In Florida, g4 percent of the students .:ould take an algebra course in eighth gade for high-school course placement or credit. A greater percentage of students in Florida were taking eighth-gade mathematics (63 percent) than were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra (33 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-gade students in public schools in Florida spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day; according to the students, most of them spent either 15 or 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 Students whose teachers placed heavy instruci;onal emphasis on Algebra and Functions had higher proficiency in this content area than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on Algebra and Tuncti(,ns. Students whose teachers placed heav) 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 .1 III. 990 \ ALI' 1 RIAI. SI Al 1: ASSESSMF's I Florida In Horida, 15 percent of the eighth-gxade students had mathematics teachers who reported getting all of the resources they needed, while 32 percent of the students were taught by teachers who got only some or none of the resources they needed. ACToss the nation, these figures were 13 percent and 31 percent, respectively. In Florida, 26 percent of the students never used a calculator to work problems in class, while 49 percent almost always did. In Florida, 45 perLent 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 half of 'the students (55 percent) had teachers who had the highest level of teaching certification available. This is different from the figure for the nation, where 66 percent of students were taught by teachers who were certified at the highest level available in their states. Students in Florida who had four types of reading materials (an encyclopedia, newspapers, magazines, and more than 25 books) at home showed higher mathematiLs 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. Some of the eighth-grade public-school students in Florida (12 percent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 19 percent watched six hours or more. Average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students who spent six hours or more watching television each day. iJL 1990 \ AFT 1 RAM- SI Al k ASSESSMIA 1 5 Florida THE NATION'S REPORT imp 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 Camlina Guam Indiana North Dakota Virgin Islands THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 7 Florida This report describes the performance of the eighth-gxade public-school students in Florida and consists of three sections: This Introduction provides background information P.bout the "trial State Assessment and this report. It also provides a profile of the eighth-gxade public-school students in Florida. Part One describes the mathematics performance of the eighth-gxade public-school students in Florida, the Southeast region, and the nation, Part Two relotes students mathematics performance to contextual information about the mathematics policies and instruction in schools in Florida, 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 (NALP), which included -- for the first time in the project's histor> -- a provision authorizing voluntary state-by-state assessments on a trial basis, in addition to continuing its primary mission, the national assessments that NAT.!' has conducted since its inception: The National Assessment shall develop a trial mathematicc assessment survey instrument Pr the eighth grade and shall conduct a demonstration of du' instrument in /990 in States which wish to participate, with the purpose of determining whether such an UsSeSsmeni yields valid, reliable State representative data. (Section 405 (i) ( 2 ,i((')( i of the General Education Provisions Act, as amended by Pub, 1,. 100-297 (20 1:S.C. I 221e-I i (2 ( As a result of the leOslation. the 1990 NAL P program included a Trial State Assessment Prop.= in eighth-gxade 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 carefully designed to represent the eighth-grade public-school population in the state or territory. Within each selected school, students were randomly chosen to participate in the program. Local school district per.,onnel administered all assessment sessions, and the contractor's staff monitored 50 percent of the sessions as part of the qualit assurance program desitmed to ensure that the sessions were being conducted unitörmly. The results of the monitoring indicated a high degree of quality and uniformity across sessions. 8 TIM 1990 ALP IRIAI. SlAIE ASSISSMIAT Florida The Trial State Assessment was based on a set of mathematics objectives newly developed for the program and pat med after the consensus process described in Public Law 98-511, Section 405 (E), which authorized NAEP thmugh 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 standards 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 levek as to what content should be assessed. There was an extensive review by mathematics educators, scholars, states mathematics supervisors, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and the Assessment Policy Committee (APC), a panel that advised on NAEP policy at that time. The objectives were further refined by NAEP's Item Development Panel, reviewed by the Task Force on State Comparisons, and resubmitted to NCES for peer review. Because the objectives needed to be coordinated across all the grades for the national program. the final objectives provided specifications for the 1990 mathe,aatics assessment at the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades rather than solely for the Trial State Assessment in grade eight. An overview of the mathematics objectives is provided in the Procedural Appendix. This Report This is a computer-generated report that describes the performance of eighth-grade public-school students in Florida. in the Southeast region. and for the nation. Results also an: provickd for poups of students defmed by shared characteristics -- race ethnicity, type of community. parents' education level. and gender. Definitions of the subpopulations referred to in this report are presented below. The results for Florida are based only on the studems included in the Trial State Assessment Prop-am. However, the results tin the nation and the regiun of the country are based on the nationall) and rePonally representative samples of public-school students who were assessed in Januar) or February as part of the 1990 national NAFP prop-am. Use of the regional and national results from the 1990 national NALP prop-am was necessary because the voluntary nature of the Trial State Assessment Progam did not guarantee representative national or re0ona1 results. since not even state participated in the program. \ ationa).Council of leachers of Mathematics, Currio41urn and Ilaluation Standards pr Si hoot t (Reston, N A: \ational Council of leachers of Mathematics. 1989). ME 1990 NAEP 1 121AL STA/ I. ASSESSMLNI 9 Florida RACE/ETHNICITY Results are presented for students of different racialiethnic 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 Florida. TYPE OF COMMUNITY Results are provided for four mutually exclusive community types -- advantaged urban, disadvantaged urban, extreme rural, and other -- as defined below: Advantaged Urban: Students in this group live in metropolitan statistical areas and attend schools where a high proportion of the students parents are in professional or managerial positions. Disadvantaged (rban: Students in this group live in metropolitan statistical areas and attend schools where a high proportion of the students' parents are on welfare or are not regularl) employed. Extreme Rural: Students in this goup live outside metrot.olitan statistical areas, live in areas with a population below JOAO, and attend schools where many of the students' parents are farmers or farm workers. Other: Students in this categoi-) attend schools in areas other than those defined as advantaged urban, disadvantaged urban, or extreme rural. The reporting of results by each type of communit) 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 nct finish high school, gaduated high school, some education after high school. or gaduated college. The response indicating the higher level of education was selected tor reporting. 0 10 1 tiL 1990 NAEP TRIAL SlATE ASSFSSMENT Florida 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 eacu region are shown in Figure 1. All 50 states and the District of Columbia are listed, 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 I Regions of the Country NORTHEAST SOUTHEAST CENTRAL WEST _ Connecticut Alabama Alaska Delaware Arkansas beau Arizona District el COW:shin Flo* la Iowa California Maine Georgia Kansas Colorado Maryland Kentucky Michigan Hawaii Massachusetts Lordelana MInrossota Idaho New Hampshire Mississippi Missouri Montana New Jersey North Carolina Hobnails Nevada Now York South Carolina North Dakota New Mike Penneyhards Tennessee Ohio Oklahoma Pod. Mend V14111114 South Dakota Oregon Vermont innAla West Virginia Wisconsin Texas Utah Washington Wyoming 4 pn, THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 11 Florida Guidelines for Analysis This report describes and compares the mathematics proficiency of various subpopulations of students -- for example, those who have certain demogaphic characteristics or who responded to a specific backgound question in a particular way. The report examines the results for individual subpopulations and individual background questions. It does not include an analysis of the relationships among combinations of these subpopulations or background questions. Because the proportions of students in these subpopulations and their average proficiency are based on samples -- rather than the entire population of eighth gyaders 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 arc 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 goups in the sample -- is strong enough to conclude that the means or proportions are really different for those goups 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 goup) -- regardless of whether the sample means or sample proportions appear to be about the same or not. If the evidence is not sufficient]) strong (i.e., the difference is not statistial) significant), the means or proportions are described as being about the same -- again, regardless of Nk holler the sample means or sample proportions appear to he about the same or widely discrepant. .1 he reader is cautioned to rel) on the results cf the statistical tests -- rather than on the apparent maglitude of tile difference hlween sample means or proportions -- to determine whether those sample differences are likely to represent actual difkrences between the groups in the population. If a statement appears in the report indicating that a particular group had higher ( or lower i average proficiency than a second group. the 95 percent confidence interval tor the dillerence between groups did not contain the value zero. When a statement indicates that the average proficiene) or proportion of some attribute was about the same for two groups. the confidence interval included zero. and thus no difference could he assumed between the groups. When three or more groups are being compared. a Bonferrori procedure is also used. The statistical tests and Bonferroni procedure are discussed in greater detail in the Procedural Appendix. 3 12 1 14. 1990 AEI) I MAI. SI Al L ASSI:SSMEVI Florida It is also important to note that the confidence intervals pictured in the figures in Part One of this report are approximate 95 percent confidence intervals about the mean of a particular population of interest. Comparing such confidence intervals for two populations is not equivalent to examining the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference between the means of the populations. If the individual confidence intervals for two populations do not overlap, it is true that there is a statistically sigMficant 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 [Oven 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-goup percentages reported in the text and used in all statistical tests arc based on unrounded estimates (i.e., estimates calculated to several decimal places) of 'he percentages in each group. The percentages shown in the tables are rounded to integers. Ilence, the percentage for a combined group (reported in the text) may differ slightly from the sum of the separate percentages (pre:ented 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). 11th 1990 NW TRIAL SIMI ASSESSMIAT 13 Florida Profile of Florida EIGHTH-GRADE SCHOOL AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS Table 1 provides a profile of the demographic characteristics of the eighth-grade public-school students in Florida, the Southeast region, and the nation. This profile is based on data collected from the students and schools participating in the Trial State Assessment. TABLE 1 1 Profile of Florida Eighth-Grade Public-School I Students PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation _. DEMOGRAPHIC SUBGROUPS Race/Ethnicity White 80 ( 2.0) 63 ( 3.0) 70 ( 0.5) Black 20 ( 1.2) 32 ( 3.0) 16 ( 0.3) Hispanic 17 ( 2.1) 3 ( 0.8) 10 ( 0.4) Asian 2 ( 0.4) 1 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.5) American Indian 1 ( 0.2) ( 0.1) 2 ( 0.7) Type of Community Advantaged urban 15 ( 3.7) 0 ( 0.0) 10 ( 3.3) Disadvantaged urban 18 ( 3.2) 2 ( 2.3) 10 ( 2.8) Extreme rural 8 ( 1.9) 9 ( 5.3) 10 ( 3.0) Other 59 ( 4.6) 89 ( 5.8) 70 ( 4.4) Parents* Education Did not finish high school 9 ( 0.9) 14 ( 2.1) 10 ( 0.8) Grad:iatel high school 26 ( 0.9) 27 ( 1.8) 25 ( 1.2) Some education after high school 18 ( 0.7) 18 ( 1.7) 17 ( 0.9) Graduated college 37 ( 1.3) 32 ( 3.3) 39 ( 1.9) Gender Male 51 ( 1.1) 49 ( 2.8) 51 ( 1.1) Female 49 ( 1.1) 51 ( 2.8) 49 ( 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 thi: entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages for RaGC,, 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 "1 don't know." Throughout this report, percentages less than 0.5 percent are reported as 0 percent. 14 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS ASSESSED Table 2 provides a profile summarizing participation data for Florida schools and students sampled for the 1990 Trial State Assessment. In Florida, 101 public schools participated in the assessment. The weighted school participation rate was 98 percent, which means that all of the eighth-grade students in this sample of schools were representative of 98 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students in Florida. TABLE 2 I Profile of the Population Assessed in Florida EIGHTH-GRADE PUBLIC SCHOOL PARTICIPATION Weighted 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 98% 98% 101 101 EIGHTH-GRADE PUBLIC-SCHOOL STUDENT PARTICIPATION Weighted student participation rate after make-ups Number of students selected to participate in the assessment Number of students withdrawn from the assessment Percentage of students who were of Limited English Proficiency percentage of students excluded from the assessment due to Limited English Proficiency Percentage of students who had an Individualized Education Plan Percentage of students excluded from the assessment due to Individualized Education Plan status Number of students to be assessed Number of students assessed 92% 3,153 209 3% 2% 9% 5% 2,744 2.534 For one school in Florida, an assessment was conducted, but the materials were destroyed in shipping via the U.S. Postal Service. The school was included in the counts of participating schools, both before and after substitution. However, in the weighted results, the school was treated in the same manner as a nonparticipating school because no student responses were available for analysis and reporting. I., I THE 1990 NAL':,P TRIAL I'ATE ASSESSMENT 15 Florida In each school, a random sample of students was selected to participate in the assessment. As estimated by the sample, 3 percent of the eighth-grade public-school population was classified as limited English Proficient (LEP), while 9 percent had an Individaized Education Plan (IEP). An IEP is a plan, written for a student who has been determined to be eligible tbr special education, that typically sets forth goals and objectives for the student and describes a program of activities and,or related services necessary to achieve the goals and objectives. Schools were permitted to exclude certain students from the assessment. To be excluded from the assessment, a student had to be categorized as limited English Proficient or had to have an Individualized Education Plan and (in either case) be judged incapable of participating in the assessment. The students who were excluded from the assessment because they were categorized as LEP or had an IEP represented 2 percent and 5 percent of the population, respectively. In total, 2,534 eighth-grade Florida public-school students were assessed. The weighted student participation rate was 92 percent. This means that the sample of students who took part in the assessment was representative of 92 percent of the eligible eighth-grade public-school student population in Florida. 16 'rliE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida THE NATION'S REPORT CARD PART ONE How Proficient in Mathematics Are Eighth-Grade Students in Florida Public Schools? The 1990 Trial State Assessment covered five mathematics content areas -- Numbers and Operations; Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and Functions. Students' overall performance in these content areas was summarized on the NMI' 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 Florida. Chapter 1 compares the overall mathematics pertbrmance of the students in Florida to students in the Southeast regjon and the nation. It also presents the students average proficiency separately tin- the live 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. 3 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMEN1 17 Florida CHAPTER 1 Students' Mathematics Performance As shown in Figure 2, the average proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students from Florida on the NAEP mathematics ....vale is 255. 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 hlatheinatics Sad* 200 225 250 275 300 500 Avorag ProfIckoncy Florida 255 ( Southeast 253 21) peo Nation 2.1 ( 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, denoted by I÷4). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations. 2 Differences reported are statistically different at about the 95 percent certainty level. This means that with about 95 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 Florida LEVELS OF ITIEMATICS PROFICIENCY Average proficiency on the NAY!' scale provides a global view of eighth graders' mathematics achievement; however, it does not revea; the specifics of what the students know and can do in the subject. To describe the nature of students' proficiency in gyeater NAFP 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 NMI) 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 meaninOU1 levels of mathematics proficiency beyond the four presented here. Defmitions of the four levels of mathematics proficiency are given in Figure 3, It is important to note that the definitions of these levels are based solely on student performance on the 1990 mathematics assessment. The levels are not judgmental standards of what ought to he achieved at a particular grade. Figure 4 provides the percentages of students at or above each of these proficiency levels. In Florida. 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 20(i). However, many fewer students in Florida (10 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). (ONTENT AREA PERFORNIAMI 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 Florida, Southeast re0on. and national results for each content area. Students in liorida performed lower than students in the nation in all of these live content areas. t) THE 1990 NALP 1 R1AL SI Al L ASSISSMLNI 19 Florida HOUR!' 3 I Levels of Mathematics Proficiency ME NATION'S REPORT CARD LEVEL 200 Simple Additive Reasoning and Problem Solving with Whule 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 four-dign number in a list. In measurement, these students can read a ruler as well as common weight and graduated Scales. They also can make volume comparisons basee on visualization and determine the value of coins. In geometry, Mese students can recognize simple figures. In data analysis, they are able to read simple bar graphs. In the algebra dimensioi , "oiese students can recognize translations of word problems to numeriCal Sentences and extend simple pattern Sequences. LEVEL 250 Simple Multiplicative Reasoning and Two-Step Problem Solving Students at this level have extended their understanding of quantitative reasoning with whole numbers from additive to multiplicative settings. They can solve routine one-step multiplication and division problems involving remainders and two-step aci-dition and subtraction problems Involving money. Using a calculator, they can identify solutions to other elementary two-step word problems. In these basic problem-solving situations, they can identify missing or extraneous information and have some knowledge of when to use computational estimation. They have a rudimentary understanding of such concepts as whole number place value, "even," "factor." and "multiple." In measurement, these students can use a ruler to measure objects, convert units within a system when the conversions require multiplication, and recognize a numerical expression solving a measurement word problem. In geometry, they demonstrate an initial understanding of basic terms and properties, such as parallelism and symmetry. In data analysis, they can complete a bar graph. sketch a circle graph, and use information from graphs to solve simple problems. They are beginning to understand tne relationship between proportion and probability. In algebra. they are beginning to deal informally with a variable through numerical substitution in the evaluation of simple expressions. 20 THE 1990 NALP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida FIGURE 3 I Levels of Mathematics Proficiency (continued) I THE NAM'S REPORT CARD LEVEL 300 IIM=11. 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 tractions and decimals on number lines, simplify fractions, and recognize the equivalence between common tractions 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 ot 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 scale drawings. In geometry, they have Some mastery of the definitions and properties of geometric figures and solids. In data analysis, these students can calculate averages, select and interpret data from tabular displays. pictographs. and line graphs, compute relative frequency distributions, and have a beginning understanding of sample bias. In algebra, they can graph points in the Cartesian plane and perform simple algebraic manipulations such as simplitying an expression by collecting like terms, identifying the solution to open linear sentences and inequalities by Substitution, and checking ano graphing an interval representing a compound inequality when it is described in words. They can determine and apply a rule for simple functional relations and extend a numerical pattern. LEVEL 350 Reasoning and Problem Solving Involving Geometric Relationships, Algebraic Equations, and Beginning Statistics and Probability Students at this level have extended their knowledge of number and algebraic understanding to include some properties of exponents They Can recognize scientific notation on a calculator and make the transition between scientific notation and decimal notation. In measurement, they can apply their )nowledge of area and perimeter ot rectangles and triangles to S..lve problems They can find the circumferences of circles and the surface areas of solid tures. In geometry, they can apply the Pythagorean theorem to solve problems involving indirect surement. These students also can apply their knowledge of the properties of geometric figures to solve problems. such as determining the slope hne In data analysis, these students can compute means from frequency tables and determine the probability of a simple event in algebra. they Lan identify an equation describing a linear relation provided in a table and solve literal equations and a System of two linear equations. They are developing an understanding of linear functions and their graphs. as well as functional notation, including the composition of functions. They can determine the nth term of a sequence and give counterexamples to disprove an algebraic generalization. el '1 1990 NiAIT t RIM SIM ASSESSMI.VI 21 Florida FIGURE 4 I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School I Mathematics Proficiency LEVEL 350 State Region Nation LEVEL 300 State Region Nation LEVEL 250 State Region -Nation LEVEL 200 State Region Nation 1,-trommi M1011 20 40 so 80 100 Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value for each population of interest is within t 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by H-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 Pwcantage 0 ( 0.0) 0 ( 0.0) 0 ( 0.2) 54 ( 1.7) 52 ( 3.2) 64 ( 1.6) 96 ( 0.7) 94 ( 2.2) 97 ( 01) Florida FIGURE 5 I Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics I Content Area Performance State Region Nation State Region Nation State Region Nation State Region Nation State Region Nation 0 200 225 250 275 300 Average Proficiency 260 ( 1.2) 259 ( 2.9) 266 ( 1.4) 251 ( 1.4) 246 ( 3.8) 258 ( 1.7) 251 ( 1.3) 249 ( 2.6) 259 ( 1.4) 255 ( 1.5) 250 ( 3.3) 262 ( 1.8) 255 ( 1.3) 254 ( 2.7) 260 ( 1,3) SOO Mathematics Subscaie Proficiency The standard errors are piesented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by I-4-4). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 23 Florida 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 ethnieity, 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 raciaLethnic group is sufficient in size to be reliably reported (at least 62 students). Average mathematics performance results for While, Black, Hispanic, and Asian students from Florida are presented in Figure 6. As shown in Figure 6. White students demonstrated higher average mathematics proficiency than did Black or Hispanic students and about the same mathematics proficienc as did Asian students. Figure 7 presents mathematics performance by proficiency kvels. The figure shows that a greater percentage of White students than Black or Hispanic students and about the same percentage of White as Asian students attained level 300. 24 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida FIGURE 6 I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity NAEP Mathematics Scale 200 225 250 275 300 500 Average Proficiency 144 Florida White I ( 414), Black ,( IA) Hispanic Si 4 2.4) 's Asian .igat t 444 Southeast White SOS 3.0) Black 2 ( 4.111) Hispanic JIM ( Asian yori **1 Nation White SO ( 1.5) Black 211) Hispanic ( LEO Asian ( 5.6)1 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 i4-1). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations, ! Interpret with caution -- tbe nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *" Sample size is msuffmient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 studer.ts). ; THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 25 Florida THE WIWI REPORT FIGURE 7 I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School CARD Mathematics Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity LEVEL 300 State White Black Hispanic Asian 11.910n White Black Hispanic Asian Nation White Black Hispanic ASian LEVEL 250 smut White Black Hispanic Asian Region White Black Hispanic Asian Nation White Black Hispanic Asian LEVEL 200 State White Black Hispanic Asian Region White Black Hispanic Asian Nattion White Black Hispanic Asian 0 20 40 60 80 Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels 100 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 1.44). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations, Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimattd mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 2 2 26 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 14 ( 1.5) 2 ( 0.7) ( 1.1) 22 ( 5.3) 11 ( 2.7) 2 ( 1.6) Plat ( *41 110101 Lt41 16 ( 1.5) 2 ( 1.3) 3 ( 1.1) 31 ( 6.2)1 97 ( 2.0) 23 ( 2.5) 41 ( 4.0) 73 ( 6.1) (16 ( 3.6) 27 ( 5.1) ..) RRX 74 ( 1.8) 30 ( 3.4) 41 ( 4.5) SO ( 5.6)1 91) ( 0.4) S O ( 1.8) 03 ( 2.0) Se ( 1.6) SO ( 1.3) ( 5.3) sots ( *..) itita fail ( 0.4) ee ( 3.1) 93 ( 1.6) 97 ( 2.5)1 Florida 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 Florida with student samples large enough to be reliably reported.) The results indicate that the average mathematics performance of the Florida 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 MEP kiantamatics Scale 0 200 225 250 275 300 500 Aveirage Proficsoncy Florida Hof Advantaged urban 271 ( 1 s)4 Disadvantaged urban 2410 2.2) 1010.4 Extreme rural PSI Other 2.1) Southeast Advantaged urban Disadvantaged urban *ea ( ( ft.) Extreme rural 241 113.90 Other 2W 3.0) Nation P""Poll Advantaged urban 211 ( IAN P"4"."4 Disadvantaged urban 241 ( 3.5p Extreme rural 201 4.1 )1 Other 221 1.1) The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within + 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by 1.4-4). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populauons. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample srze is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 27 Florida FIGURE 9 Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by Type of Community LEVEL 300 State Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other Raglan Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other Nation Adv. urban Dlsadv. urban Ext. rural Other LEVEL 250 State Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other RIP9kon Mv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other Nation Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other LEVEL 200 State Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other Raglan Mv. urban Dmadv. urban Ext. rural Other Nation Adv. urban Disadv. urban Ext. rural Other 0 20 40 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 )-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 msufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 100 28 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT I9 ( 2.5)1 3 ( 1.1) O ( 2.0)1 11 ( 1.6) Ear ( win 4 ( 4.2)1 9 ( 1.9) 20 ( 4.8)1 7 ( 2.1)1 ( 2.3)1 12 ( 1.2) 75 ( 2.8)1 33 ( 3.4) 48 1 3.7y 56 ( 2.6).) wait «) 49 (17.4)1 63 ( 3.9) 93 ( 4.8)1 49 ( 5.0)i 68 ( 8.2)1 04 ( 2.3) 98 ( 0.7)1 92 ( 1.5) 90 ( 1.5)1 96 ( 1.1) AA* orsa 90 94 ".) 0".1 (13.5)1 2.2) 100 ( 0.0) 96 ( 1.5)i 97 ( 2.8)1 97 ( 1.0) Florida PARENTS' EDUCATION LEVEL Previous NAEP findings have shown that students whose parents are better educated tend to have higher mathematics proficiency (see Figures 10 and 11). In Florida, the average mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students having at least one parent who graduated from college was approximately 30 points higher than that of students who reported that neither parent graduated from high school. As shown in Table 1 in the Introduction, about the same percentage of students in Florida (37 percent) and in the nation (39 percent) had at least one parent who graduated from college. In comparison, the percentage of students who reported that neither parent graduated from high school was 9 percent for Florida and 10 percent for the nation. FIGURE 10 I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by Parents' Education WAEP Mathematics Scale 100117 Average 0 200 225 250 275 300 SOO Proficiency ARPMPPRPROPPINWIIPINIMMII Florida P-toi HS non-graduate 239 ( 2.3) HS graduate 2441 ( 1.4) Pei Some college 243 ( 1.6) PM College graduate 247 ( 1.6) Southeast HS non-graduate W( 3.3) P-10-04 HS graduate 20 ( 4.1) Some college a ( 3.7) COII ege graduate XIS ( 2.8) Nation HI HS non-graduate 24$ ( 2.0) Pei HS graduate 244 ( 14) PM Some college 2110 ( 1.7) 144 College graduate 204 ( The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within I 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidencx interval, denoted by 1-41). 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 Florida ME NATION'S REM FIGURE 11 I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School CARD i Mathematics Proficiency by Parents' Education LEVEL 300 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 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 conege College grad. Region HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. Nation HS non-grad. HS graduate Some college College grad. Hq4 1...4m"4I4"4 immompollim4 twlommunNwill 0'4 Im.411 1.4"4 0114.4 1 10=411111111111 11....11 h.41 Ps 1411 te'1 1.'+'1 1.44 Pli P41 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 ioterest is within 2 standard errors of the estimated perctntage (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. 100 30 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 2 1.0) 4 1.0) 12 1.6) 18 1.7) 1 0.0) 3 1,7) 8 2.3) 19 3.8) 1 0.9) 5 1.5) 12 1.4) 21 1.9) 33 ( 3.9) 41 ( 2.5) 69 ( 2.41 69 ( 2.3) 29 ( 6.9) 46 ( 5.4) 61 ( 6.3) 72 ( 3.5) 37 ( 4.6) 58 ( 2.7) 71 ( 2.6) 78 ( 2.0) 139 ( 3.2) 94 ( 1.3) 99 ( 0.7) 98 ( 0.7) 93 ( 3.5) 93 ( 2.4) 97 ( 2.5) 97 ( 2.6) 96 ( 1.9) 97 ( 0.13) 99 ( 0.7) 99 ( 0.7) Florida GENDER ,,=11,,1=11MIM 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 Florida. Compared to the national results, females in Florida performed lower than females across the country; males in Florida mfoimed lower than males across the country. FIGURE 12 I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School i Mathematics Proficiency by Gender NAEP Mathematics Scale WONT Average cor 0 200 225 250 275 300 500 Proficiency 144 1+4 Florida Male Female Southeast Mate Female Nation Male Female The stanliard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by I-4-1). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a staustically significant differenix between the populations. As §hown in Figure 13, there was no difference between the percentages of males and females in Florida who attained level 200. The percentage of females in Florida who attained level 200 was similar to the percentage of females in the nation who attained level 200. Also, the percentage of males in Florida who attained level 200 was similar to the percentage of males in the nation who attained level 200. r1 pok, THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 31 Florida FIGURE 13 I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School 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 TIE NATION'S REPORT CARD 0 Percentage 12 ( 1.2) 8 ( 1.1) 10 ( 1.9) 7 ( 2.0) 14 ( 1.7) 10 ( 1.3) 66 ( 2.3) 63 ( 1.8) 60 ( 3.6) 54 ( 3.8) 64 ( 2.0) 84 ( 1.8) 144 96 (0.9) hP4 96 0.7) 93 3.0) 95 1.9) P41 97 I 97 1 0.8) 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value for each population of interesz is within 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95 percent confidence interval, denoted by I-1-1). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is statistically signincant 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 Florida In addition, a greater percentage of males than females in Florida attained level 300. The percentage of females in Florida who attained level 300 was similar to the percentage of females in the nation who attained level 300. Also, the percentage of males in Florida who attained level 300 was similar to the percentage of males in the nation who attained level 300. CONTENT AREA PERFORMANCE Table 3 provides a summary of content area performance by race ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender. THE 1990 \ AH' 'HUM, S1 Al l. ASSESSMEA1 33 Florida TABLE 3 I Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics I Content Area Performance by Subpopulations AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY OF STUDENTS 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT NuinbeOoerZonsand MLasurement C1.12n*" Data Analysis' Staprot=114nd Algebra and Functions clonal,* TOTAL Proficiency PrOfiCienCy Proficiency Profidency Pr Oficiency State 260 ( 1.2) 251 ( 1.4) 251 ( 1.3) 255 ( 1.5) 255 ( 1.3) Region 259 ( 2.9) 246 ( 3.8) 249 ( 2.6) 250 ( 3.3) 254 ( 2.7) Nation 266 ( 1.4) 258 ( 1.7) 259 ( 1.4) 262 ( 1.8) 260 ( 1.3) RACE1ETHNICITY White State 269 ( 1.3) 263 ( 1.5) 260 ( 12) 269 ( 1.6) 284 ( 1.4) Region 268 ( 3.0) 258 ( 4.2) 259 ( 3.5) 263 ( 3.4) 284 ( 3.4) Nation 273 ( 1.6) 267 ( 2.0) 267 ( 1.5) 272 ( 1.8) 268 ( 1.4) Black State 240 ( 1.8) 223 ( 2.5) 229 ( 1.9) 223 ( 2.4) 232 ( 2.1) Region 242 ( 5.1) 222 ( 5.8) 22$ ( 4.2) 227 ( 6.5) 235 ( 4.5) Nation 244 ( 3.1) 227 ( 3.6) 234 ( 2.8) 231 ( 3.8) 237 ( 2.7) HisPanic State Region 251 ( .4. 2.4) ...) 242 ( 2.7) 241 ( 2.9) 244 ( .44 3.1) 247 ( 2.5) Nation 248 ( 2.7) 238 ( 3.4) 243 ( 3.2) 239 ( 3.4) 243 ( 3.1) Asian State Region 280 ( 4. ( 5.1) fit ) 268 ( IHrk 5.7) 264 ( 4A) 288 ( 5.3) ...) 279 ( 4.7) ...) Nation 285 ( 5.9)1 278 ( 6.3)1 275 ( 5.9)1 282 ( 6.9)1 278 ( 6.7)1 TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Region 274 ( 1.7)1 267 ( 444 ( 2.8)1 267 ( ( 2.7)1 444) 273 ( 3.0)1 272 ( *eV ( 2.4)1 11.41. Nation 283 ( 3.2)1 281 ( 3.2)1 277 ( 5.2)' 285 ( 4.8)1 277 ( 4.8)1 Disadvantaged urban State Region Nation .4. 255 ( ...) 3.1)1 242 ( 4.9)1 248 ( 3.7)1 247 *IP* 4.6)1 247 ( 3.2)1 Extreme nwal State 254 ( 2.8)1 250 ( 2.7)1 245 ( 3.9)1 248 ( 2.6)1 247 ( 3.1)1 Region 254 ( 9.8)' 241 (17.1)! 244 (18.4)1 245 (13.7)1 251 (14.7)1 Nation 258 ( 4.3)1 254 ( 4.2)1 253 ( 4.5)1 257 ( 5.0)1 258 ( 4.8)1 Other State 281 ( 1.9) 262 ( 2.5) 252 ( 2.0) 258 ( 2.6) 257 ( 2.2) Region 259 ( 3.3) 246 ( 4.0) 249 ( 2.7) 251 ( 3.8) 255 ( 3.0) Nation 266 ( 1.9) 267 ( 2.4) 259 ( 1.7) 261 ( 2.2) 261 ( 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 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. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 34 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 16i TABLE 3 I Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics ("mtinued) I Content Area Performance by Subpopulations AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY OF STUDENTS 1960 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT - Numbers a nd Operations - Measurement Geometry Data Analysis ' Statistics, and Probability - Algebra and Ftmetions TOTAL Proficiency Proficiency Profligate,/ Proficiancy Pro Wormy State 260 ( 12) 251 ( 1.4) 251 ( 1.3) 255 ( 1.5) 255 ( 1.3) Region 259 ( 2.9) 248 ( 3.8) 249 ( 2.6) 250 ( 2 3) 254 ( 2.7) Nation 288 ( 1.4) 258 ( 1.7) 259 ( 1.4) 262 ( 8) 280 ( 1.3) PARENTS EDUCATION HS non-graduate State 243 ( 2.8) 232 ( 3.5) 232 ( 32) 231 ( 3.1) 238 ( 2.8) Region 243 ( 4.5) 227 ( 6.1) 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) HS graduate State 251 ( 1.5) 240 ( 1.7) 241 ( 1.5) 242 ( 2.1) 246 ( 11) Region 252 ( 4.7) 235 ( 5.3) 242 ( 3.3) 242 ( 5.4) 247 ( 4.5) Nation 259 ( 4.8) 248 ( 2.1) 252 ( 1.8) 253 ( 2.2) 253 ( 2.0) Some college State 268 ( 1.6) 260 ( 2.7) 257 ( 1.6) 266 ( 2.2) 263 ( 2.0) Region 285 ( 3.5) 257 ( 6.3) 253 ( 4,2) 260 ( 3.9) 260 ( 5.7) Neon 270 ( 1$) 264 ( 2.7) 262 ( 2.0) 269 ( 2.4) 263 ( 2.2) College graduate State 271 ( 1.5) 264 ( 1.9) 262 ( 1.6) 268 ( 22) 266 ( 1.7) Region 275 I 3.9) 264 ( 4.6) 263 ( 3.6) 267 ( 4.6) 270 ( 4.1) Nation 278 ( 1.8) 272 ( 2.0) 270 ( 1.6) 276 ( 2,2) 273 ( 1.7) GENDER Male State 260 ( 1.6) 256 ( 2.1) 254 ( 1.7) 257 ( 2.0) 255 ( 1,8) Region 257 ( 3.6) 249 ( 4.4) 249 ( 3.2) 249 ( 3.9) 253 ( .2) Nation 266 ( 2.0) 262 ( 2.3) 260 ( 1.7) 262 ( 2.1) 260 ( 1.6) Female State 260 ( 1.2) 247 ( 1.7) 248 ( 1.4) 252 ( 1.7) 265 ( 1.4) Region 281 ( 2.9) 243 ( 4.0) 248 ( 2.4) 251 ( 3.7) 255 ( 2.6) Nation 2661 1.4) 253 ( 1.6) 258 ( 1.5) 281 ( 1.9) 260 ( 1.4) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent altainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the enure population is within t. 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL, STM'E, ASSESSMENT 15 Florida 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, hut it becomes more useful for improving instruction and settilg polic when supplemented with contextual information about schools, teachers. and st 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' proficieno in the subject, and provide an educational context for understanding infOrmation on student achievement. It is important to note that the \ATP 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 infOnnation provided in Part I wo 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. THF 1990 NALP1 RIAI, SI Al ASSESS'IL\ 37 Florida 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 strateOes work best to help students learn. For example. research has indicated new and more successful was of teaching and learning, incorporating more hands-on activities and student-centered learning techniques; however, as described in Chapter 4, NATI) data indicate that classroom work is still dominated by textbooks or worksheets. Also, it is widely recoimized that home environment has an enormous impact on future academic achievement. Yet, as shown in Chapters 3 and 7. proportions of students report having spent much more time each day watching television than doing mathematics homework. Part Two consists of five chapters. Chapter 3 discusses 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 h provides information about teachers, and Chapter 7 examines students' home support for learning. 38 THU 1990 \ AFT I RIM. SI Ai I. ASSESSNIIA I Florida CHAPTER 3 What Are Students Taught in Mathematics? In response to the continuing swell of information about the poor mathematics achievement of American students, educators and policymakers have recommended widespread reforms that are changing the direction of mathematics education. Recent reports have called for fundamental revisions in curriculum, a reexamination of tracking practices. improved textbooks. better assessment, and an increase in the proportions of students in high-school mathematics programs! This chapter focuses on curricular and instructional content issues in Florida public schools and their relationship to students' proficienc). Table 4 provides a profile of the eighth-grade public schools' policies and staffing. Some of the salient results arc as follow's: About three-quarters of the eighth-gade students in llorida (74 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 , Me t'nderaiiiieving Currii ulurn Asse.s3ing Scitoot Aluthernaths _from an International Perspotive. A \ ational Report on the Second International Mathematics Stud) (Champaign. II Styes Publishing Compan), I.)nn Steen. fd I. wri,11,,...6 C,,toits .4 Rrport i, iii. Naiion ,,n tin 1141141"r tfailurnali, Lauf ati.,n (aslungton. I)(' ational ,6:adem) Press, I9SY) I '11-1F 199(1 NAF,P 1 RIM, STATE ASSESSMF.VI Florida In Florida, 84 percent of the students could take an algebra course in eighth grade for high school course placement or credit. Almost all of the students in Florida (95 percent) were taught mathematics by teachers who teach only one subject. About three-quarters (77 percent) of the students in Florida were typically taught mathematics in a class that was grouped by mathematics ability. Ability grouping was less prevalent across the nation (63 percent). TABLE 4 I Mathematics Policies and Practices in Florida Eighth-Grade Public Schools PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 19110 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation Percentage of eighth-grade students in pubhc schools that identified mathematics as receiving special emphasis in school-wide goats and objectives, instruction, in-service training, etc. Percentage of eighth-grade public-school students who are offered a course in algebra for high school course placement or credit Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools who are taught by teachers who leach only mathematics Percentage of eighth-grade Students in public schools who are assigned to a mathematics class by their ability in mathematics Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools who receive four or more hours of mathematics instruction per week Percentage Percentage Percentage 74 ( 4.9) 70 (10.6) 63 ( 5.9) 84 ( 3.8) 60 (10 9) 78 ( 4.6) 95 ( 2.3; 77 (10.6) 91 ( 3.3) 77 ( 3.0) 58 ( 8.0) 63 ( 4.0) 39 ( 2.9) 51 (11.1) 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 t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 40 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSFSSMENT Florida CURRICULUM COVERAGE TO place students' mathematics proficiency in a curriculum-related context, it is necessary to examine the extent to which eighth graders in Florida are taking mathematics courses. Based on their responses, shown in Table 5: A greater perorntage of students in Florida were taking eighth-grade mathematics (63 percent) than were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra (33 percent). Across the nation, 62 percent were taking eighth-grade mathematics and 34 percent were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra. Students in Florida who were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra COUTSes exhibited higher average mathematics proficiency than did those who were in eighth-grade mathematics courses. This result is not unexpected since it is assumed that students enrolled in pre-algebra and algebra courses may be the more able students who have already mastered the general eighth-grade mathematics curriculum. TABLE 5 1 Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class They Are Taking PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation _ What kind of mathematics class are you taking this year? Perconiaga and Proackew Parcantag and Proficiency Pemantaga and Profidancy Eighth.grade mathematics 83 ( 1.6) 64 ( 3.7) 62 ( 2.1) 242 ( 1.4) 241 ( 3.4) 25% ( 1.4) Pro-algebra 19 ( 1.2) 23 ( 4.4) 19 ( 1.9) 271 ( 1.8) 269 ( 4.6)! 272 ( 2.4) Algebra 14 ( 1.0) 11 ( 2.2) 15 ( 1.2) 298 ( 1.8) 296 ( 4.8)' 298 ( 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 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 41 Florida Further, from Table A5 in the Data Appendix:4 About the same percentage of females (33 percent) and males (33 percent) in Florida were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses. In Florida, 38 percent of White students, IS percent of Black students, 32 percent of Hispanic students, and 48 percent of Asian students were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses. Similarly, 50 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 25 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 31 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 33 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-gade students in public schools in Florida spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day: according to the students, the greatest percentage spent either 15 or 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 I able A6 in the Data Appendix): In Floriia, 4 percent of the students spent no time each day on mathematics homework, compared to 1 percent for the nation. Moreover. 5 percent of the students in Florida and 4 percent of the students in the nation spent an hour or more on mathematics homework each da . For ever table in the bodv of the report that mi.:Iudes estimates ot average prolicieno, the Data Appendix provides a orresponding table presenting the results lor the I out subpopulations -- race ethnicity. type 01 community. parents' education level. and gender. 42 THE 1990 NMI' TRIAL SI Al I. ASSESSMEAT Florida The results by race/ethnicity show that 5 percent of White students, 3 percent of Black students, 6 percent of Hispanic students, and 10 percent of Asian students spent an hour or more on mathematics homework each day. In comparison, 3 percent of White students, 6 percent of Black students, 6 percent of Hispanic students, and 7 percent of Asian students spent no time doing mathematics homework. In addition, 1 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 5 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 16 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 4 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" spent an hour or more on mathematics homework daily. In comparison, 1 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 6 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 1 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 6 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 IM athematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY - 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation About how much time do students spend on mathematics homework each day? None 15 minutes 30 minutes 45 minutes An hour or more Pen:ants** and Proficiency Porcentar and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency 4 ( 235 ( 0.9) 5.8)1 1 ( 1.0) 1 ( 0.3) 41 34 ( 2.8) 44 ( 7.5) 43 ( 42) 246 ( 1.9) 248 ( 5.1)1 256 ( 2.3) 47 ( 2.6) 44 ( 7.8) 43 ( 4.3) 259 ( 2.0) 260 ( 5.4)1 266 ( 2.6) 11 ( 1 3) 10 ( 1.0) 277 ( 3.6) 272 ( 5.7)1 5 ( 270 ( 1.1) 7.9)1 3 ( ( 13) .01 4 ( 278 ( 0.9) 5.1)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in arentheses. 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 43 Florida TABLE 7 1 Students' Reports on the Amount of Time They I Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY - HMO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation About how much time do you usually spend each day on mathematics homework? Percentage and Proficiency Percentro end Proficiency Percentage and Profkiency None 12 ( 0.8) 11 ( 1.0) 9 ( 0.8) 248 ( 2.0) 237 ( 5.4) 251 ( 2.8) 15 minutes 31 ( 1.0) 25 ( 1.6) 31 ( 2.0) 255 ( 1.4) 253 ( 3.3) 264 ( 1.9) 30 minutes 31 ( 1.0) 33 ( 2.5) 32 ( 1.2) 259 t 1.8) 258 ( 3.0) 263 ( 1.9) 46 mirutes 15 ( 0.7) 17 ( 22) 16 ( 1.0) 254 ( 2.2) 261 ( 2.5) 266 ( 1.9) An hour or more 11 ( 0.7) 14 ( 1.4) 12 ( 1.1) 257 ( 2.9) 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 .t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. And, according to the students (Table 7 and Table A7 in the Data Appendix): In Florida, some of the students (12 percent) reported that they spent no time each day on mathematics homework, compared to 9 percent for the nation. Moreover, 11 percent of the students in Florida 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 10 percent of White students, 12 percent of Black students, 13 percent of Hispanic students, and 23 percent of Asian students spent an hour or more on mathematics homework each day. In comparison, 12 percent of White students, 11 percent of Black students, 14 percent of Hispanic students, and 5 percent of Asian students spent no time doing mathemafics homework. 44 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida In addition, 10 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 11 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 13 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 12 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" spent an hour or more on mathematics homework daily. In comparison, 7 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 12 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 13 percen, in schools in extreme rural areas, and 13 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" spent no time doing mathematics homework. INSTRUCTIONAL EMPHASIS According to the approach of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), students should be taught a broad range of mathematics topics, including number concepts, computation, estimation, functions, algebra, statistics, probability, geometry, and measurement.5 Because the Trial State Assessment questions were designed to measure students' knowledge, skills, and understandings in these various content areas -- regardless of the type of mathematics class in which they were enrolled -- the teachers of the assessed students were asked a series of questions about the emphasis they planned to give specific mathematics topics during the school year. Their responses provide an indication of the students' opportunity to learn the various topics covered in the assessment. For each of 10 topics, the teachers were asked whether they planned to place "he.Avy." "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. 'I'eaebers were asked about emphasis placed on live topics: whole number operations. common fractions, decimal fractions, ratio or proportion, and percent. Measurement. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on one topic: measurement. Geometry. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on one topic: geometi). Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on two topics: tables and graphs, and probabilit and statistics. Algebra and Functions. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on one topic; algebra and functions. ational Council of leacher. of NlathernatitA, Curt-ill/hem and I-valuation Standard% 1r Vtathernatb (Reston. Ai National Council of I eachers ot Mathematics, 1989). 3 THE 1990 NAB' 'I RIM. STAVE ASSESSMIA I 46 Florida 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 proficiency in each content area. For the emphasis questions about numbers and operations, for example, the proficiency reported is the average student performance in the Numbers and Operations content area. Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on 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. *1 HU, 1990 \ ALP TRIM. Si ATE ASSESSNIV.N.I Florida 1 ABLI. 8 I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to 1 Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 41M~owlm111 1990 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation ir. Teacher 'emphasis" categories by content areas Percentage and Proliciancy Percootego and Proficiency Porcentage end Prolickatay Numbers and Operations Heavy emphasis 58 ( 2.4) 59 ( 7.3) 49 ( 3.8) 253 ( 1.6) 256 ( 3.1)1 260 ( 1.8) Little or no emphasis 12 ( 1.3) 15 ( 4.8) 15 ( 2.1) 292 ( 3.4) 282 ( 7.7)1 287 ( 3.4) Measurement Heavy emphasis 18 ( 2.3) 13 ( 6.8) 17 ( 3.0) 240 ( 2.9) 242 ( 7.6)1 250 ( 5.6) Little or no emphasis 28 ( 2.5) 22 ( 5.1) 33 ( 4.0) 287 ( 3.2) 259 (10.7)1 272 ( 4.0) Geometry Heavy emphasis 16 ( 2.4) 22 ( 7.0) 28 ( 3.8) 255 ( 2.7) 253 ( 7.5)l 260 ( 3.2) Little or no emphasis 32 ( 3.1) 22 ( 8.8) 21 ( 3.3) 251 ( 2.6) 253 ( 8.7)1 264 ( 5.4) Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability Heavy emphasis 16 ( 2.0) 19 ( 5.9) 14 ( 2.2) 256 ( 3.1) 274 ( 5.6)1 269 ( 4.3) Little or no emphasis 58 ( 2.7) 54 (104) 53 ( 4.4) 255 ( 2.4) 246 ( 5.4)1 261 ( 2.9) Algebra and Functions Heavy emphasis 42 ( 2.2) 42 ( 6.0) 46 ( 3.6) 279 ( 2.0) 277 ( 5.6) 275 ( 2.5) Little or no emphasis 29 ( 2,3) 21 ( 8.1) 20 ( 3.0) 233 ( 2.1) 238 ( 6.7)1 243 ( 3.0) l'he standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 9$ percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within -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. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 47 Florida SUMMARY Although many types of mathematics learning can take place outside of the sehool emir.mment, there are some topic areas that students are unlikely to study unless they are covered in school. Thus, what students are taught in school becomes an important determinant of their achievement. The information on curriculum coverage, mathematics homework, and instructional emphasis has revealed the following: About three-quarters of the eighth-gade students in Florida (74 percent) were in public schools where mathematics was identified as a special priority. This compares to 63 percent for the nation. In Florida, 84 percent of the students could take an algebra course in eighth gade for high-school course placement or credit. A greater percentage of students in Florida were taking eighth-grade mathematics (63 percent) than were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra (33 percent). Across the nation. 62 percent were taking eighth-gade mathematics and 34 percent were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra. Accord Mg to their teachers, the geatest percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools in Florida spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day: according to the students, most of them spent either 15 or 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each da . 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 Florida. some of the students (12 percent) reported that the spent no time each da on mathematics homework. compared to 9 percent for the nation, Moreover. 11 percent of the students in Florida and 12 percent of students in the nation spent an hour or more each da on mathematics homework. Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Algebra and Functions had higher proficiene in this content area than students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on Algebra and Functions. Students whose teachers placed heav 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. r, 4 8 1 E 1990 \ ALP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMIA Florida CHAPTER 4 111111111118111111111111111 1111111111111111111211 11111111111111111.111111111 11111111111111111111,11111 1111111111111111111111,111 lissillt 111111111811111 1111111111M,;RIMIlls 111US IMMESHa IISR mr,seue tomelleaull Arne OMEN How Is Mathematics Instruction Delivered? 'Feathers facilitate learning through a variety of instructional practices. Because a particular teaching method may not he 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 backgxounds 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. AVAILABILM OF RESOURCES Teachers' use of resources is obviously constrained by the availability of those resources. Thus. the assessed students' teachers were asked to what extent they were able to obtain all of the instructional materials and other resources they needed. atIonal Count.11 of leacher of NialhematkA. Pr o nIi Standards 4,r thi. ra, /ling 01 tfatlit'mati, (Reston. ettionaICourml of I eac:hers of. Mathernattt.s. 19911. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 49 Florida From Table 9 and Table A9 in the Data Appendix: In Florida, 15 percent of the eighth-grade students bad mathematics teachers who reported getting all of the =sources they needed, while 32 percent of the students were taught by teachers who got on*, some or none of the resources they needed. Across the nation, these figures were 13 percent and 31 percent, respectively. In Florida, 22 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 7 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 2 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 16 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" had mathematics teachers who got all the resources they needed. By comparison, in Florida, 16 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban arms, 62 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 29 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 30 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" were in classrooms where only some or no resources were available. Students whose teachers got all the resources they needed had higher mathematics achievement levels than those whose teachers got only some or none of the resources they needed. TABLE 9 I Teachers' Reports on the Availability of I Resources PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 11180 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT florIda Soitiust 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 med. I get most of the resources I need. I get some or none of the resource need. Percentage and Praddency Percentage Percentage and and forcitclency PreAcIency 15 ( 22) 8 ( 4.0) 13 ( 2.4) 264 ( 3.5) 258 (12.2)1 265 ( 42) 53 ( 3.1) 71 ( 9.5) 56 ( 4.0) 256 ( 1.6) 255 ( 3.3)1 265 ( 2.0) 32 ( 3.1) 21 ( 9.7) 31 ( 42) 252 ( 2./) 257 ( 8.011 261 ( 2.9) The standard errors of the estimated staustics 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 tht ntimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the vanability of this estimated mean proficiency. 50 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida PAITERNS IN CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION Research in education and eopitive psychology has yielded many insights into the types of instructional activities that facilitate students' mathematics learning. Increasing the ust: of "hands-on" examples with concrete materials and placing problems in real-world contexts to help children construct useful meanings for mathematical concepts arc among th e. 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 fbr classroom instruction by the mathematics teachers of the assessed students. According to their teachers: About half of the students in Florida (4S 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 (63 percent) used objects like rulers. counting blocks, or geometric shapes kss than once a week; some never used such objects (16 percent). In Florida. 76 percent of the students were assigned problems from a mathematics textbook almost every day; 3 percent worked textbook problems about once a week or less, I ess than half of the students (15 percent) did probkms from worksheets at least several times a week: less than half did worksheet problems less than weekly (32 percent). lhomas Rontheri: A Common Cur r itulurn for t1athernano.- Diffcroi, r and the ( (urri,ulurn fightv-Aewnd Fearhook the National Nor it'll lor the Smdv i1 Liu,ation (Chicago. 11: 1..ruversn> of Chgo Press, 1983). THE 1990 NAEP 'TRIAL &IMF ASSESSMEM 51 Florida TABLE 10 I Teachers' Reports on Patterns of Mathematics i Instruction PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation About how often do students work problems in small groups? At least once a weak Lass than onto a weak New About how often do students use objects like rulers, counting blocks, or geometric solids? At least mama* Less than once a week Never Penantene Pentealage fltereacif end and liflikknef Preapieeny 43 ( 3.2) 44 ( $2) SO ( 4.4) 264 ( 2.0) 265 ( 47)1 260( 22) 34 ( 2.6) 4$ ( 5.3) 43 ( 4.41 200 ( 1.0) 250 ( 3.9)4 264 ( 24) 111( 2.4) 7 4.1) ( 2.0) 250 ( 3.2) 2T7 $.4)1 Percentage Perventege Percentage and and and arefloiency Proficiency Proficiency 21 ( 2.7) 254 ( 2.8) 19 ( 82) 243 ( 4.3)1 85 22 ( 3.7) 254 ( 3.2) 89 83 ( 257 ( 48 ( 258 ( 2.8) 1.8) 2.5) 3.8) (10.3) 257 3.8)1 18 ( 8.1) ( 4144) ( 263 ( 9 ( 282 ( 3.9) 1.9) 28) 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 estir.iate 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). t) 52 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE 1 1 I Teachers' Reports on Materials for i Mathematics Instruction PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rorida Southeast Nation Percentage and Proficiency Powia:wage and Praddency Percentage and Prodding About how often do students do problems from textbooks? Almost every day 78 ( 2.8) 75 ( 7.8) 62 ( 3.4) 281 ( 1.3) 259 ( 3.7) 287 ( 1.8) Several times a week 21 ( 2.7) 22 ( 7.8) 31 ( 3.1) 244 ( 2.7) 246 ( 5.2)1 254 ( 2.9) About once a week or less 3 ( 0.8) ( *41 No* ( FIN ) 7 ( 1.8) 260 ( 5.1)1 1 About how often do students do problems on worksheets? Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and Prolkiency Proficiency Proliciency At least several tinws a week 35 ( 2.8) 30 ( 6.6) 34 ( 3.8) 248 ( 2.4) 251 ( 3.4)1 256 ( 2.3) About once a week 33 ( 2.9) 44 ( 9.1) 33 ( 3.4) 259 ( 1.9) 256 ( 3.7)1 260 ( 2.3) Less than weeldy 32 ( 2.7) 27 ( 8.6) 32 ( 3.6) 264 ( 2.7) 283 ( 6.0)1 274 ( 2.7) 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 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. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). The next section presents the students' responses to a corresponding set of questions, as well as the relationship of their responses to their mathematics proficiency. It also compares the responses of the students to those of their teachers. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 53 Florida COLLABORATING IN SMALL GROUPS In Florida, 51 percent of the students reported never working mathematics problems in small groups (see Table 12); 26 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 MVO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 1_ Florida Southeast Nation -1 IHow often do you work in small groups in your mathematics class? _J At least once a week Lass than once a week New Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency 26 ( 1.9) 26 ( 3.9) 28 ( 2.5) 251 ( 2.2) 251 ( 4.8) 258 ( 2.7) 23 ( 12) 26 ( 22) 28 ( 1.4) 261 ( 1.9) 259 ( 3.9) 267 ( 2.0) 51 ( 1.9) 49 ( 4.8) 44 ( 2.9) 255 ( 1.6) 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 r 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. Examining the subpop Itions (Table Al2 in the Data Appendix): In Florida, 19 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 31 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 29 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 26 percent in schools in areas classified as "other" worked in small groups at least once a week. Further, 24 percent of White students, 28 percent of Black students, 28 percent of Hispanic students, and 27 percent of Asian students worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week. Females were as likely as males to work mathematics problems in small gyoups at least once a week (25 percent and 26 percent, respectively). 54 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida 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: About half of the students in Florida (51 percent) never used mathematical objects; 24 percent used these objects at least once a week. Mathematiatl objects were used at least once a week by 28 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 31 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 19 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 22 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 (25 percent and 23 percent, respectively). In addition, 22 percent of White students, 29 percent of Black students, 25 percent of Hispanic students, and 23 percent of Asian students used mathematical objects at least once a week. TABLE 13 I Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematics i Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY _ 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Fior Ida Southeast Nation _- -,-,-- .--,-- How often do you work with objects like rulers, counting blocks, or geometnc solids in your mathematics class? Percentage and Proficiency Percentage aid Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency At least once a week 24 ( 1.7) 23 ( 3.4) 28 ( 1,8) 250 ( 22) 242 ( 3.8) 258 ( 2.8) Less then once a week 25 ( 1.3) 29 ( 2$) 31 ( 1.2) 264 ( 1.8) 281 ( 3$) 289 ( 1$) Ne We 51 ( 2.2) 48 ( 4.5) 41 ( 2.2) 254 ( 1.5) 254 ( 3.0) 259 ( 1.8) 011ownmma 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 55 Florida MATERIALS FOR MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION The percentages of eighth-grade public-school students in Florida 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 A14 in the Data Appendix): About three-quarters of the students in Florida (76 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 82 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 68 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 76 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 77 percent in schools in areas classified as "other". TABLE 14 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of I Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY IWO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida southeast Nation How often do you do mathematics problems from textbooks in your mathematics class? Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Almost every day 76 ( 1.4) 78 ( 2.4) 74 ( 1.9) 261 ( 1.3) 257 ( 2.6) 267 ( 1.2) Several times a week 14 ( 0.0) 14 ( 1.9) 14 ( 0.8) 243 ( 1.6) 246 ( 4.4) 252 ( 1.7) About once a week or less 9 ( 1.0) 8 ( 2.7) 12 ( 1.8) 230 ( 2.8) 222 ( 5.3)1 242 ( 4.5) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. G I 56 THE 1990 NAL.'" TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida And, for the frequency of worksheet usage (Table 15 and Table AlS in the Data Appendix): Less than half of the students in Florida (35 percent) used worksheets at least several times a week, compared to 38 percent in the nation. Worksheets were used at least several times a week by 38 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 44 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 29 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 33 percent in schools in areas classified as "other". TABLE 15 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY _.. - 1900 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation How often do you do mathematics problems on worksheets in your mathematics class? At least several times a week 1 About once a week Less than wesidy Percentage and Pr:Adam Percentage and Pnglakincy Percentage and Prancianay 35 ( 1.9) 38 ( 4.3) 38 ( 2.4) 243 ( 1.3) 245 ( 4.3) 253 ( 21) 29 ( 1.2) 32 ( 1,5) 25 ( 12) 257 ( 1.7) 254 ( 2.8) 261 ( 1.4) 36 ( 1.8) 29 ( 3.9) 37 ( 2.5) 2861 1.7) 263 ( 3.3) 272 ( 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. 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 Florida TABLE 16 Comparison of Students' and Teachers' Reports on Patterns of and Materials for Mathematics Instruction PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation Patterns of classroom instruction Percentage Students Teachers Percentage Students Teachers Percentage Students Teachers Percentage of students *so work mathematics problems in snail groups At least once a week 26 ( 1.9) 48 ( 3.2) 26 ( 3.9) 44 ( 8.2) 28 ( 2.5) SO ( 4.4) Less than once a week 23 ( 12) 34 ( 2.8) 26 ( 22) 48 ( 8.3) 28 ( 1.4) 43 ( 4.1) Never 51 ( 1.9) 18 ( 2.4) 49 ( 4.8) 7 ( 4.1) 44 ( 2.9) 8 ( 2.0) Percentage of students who use objects like nders, counting blocks, or geomebic solids At least once a week 24 ( 1.7) 21 ( 2.7) 23 ( 3.4) 19 ( 8.2) 28 ( 1.8) 22 ( 3.7) Less than once a week 25 ( 1.3) to ( 2.8) 29 ( 2.5) 65 (10.3) 31 ( 1.2) 69 ( 3.9) Never 51 ( 22) 16 ( 25) 49 ( 4.5) 16 ( 8.1) 41 ( 2.2) 9 ( 2.6) Materials for mathematics Percentage Percentage Percentage instruction Students Teachers Students Teachers Students Teachers Percentage of students who use a mathematics textbook Almost every day 76 ( 1.4) 78 ( 2.6) 78 ( 2.4) 75 ( 7.8) 74 ( 1.9) 82 ( 3.4) Several times a week 14 ( 0.9) 21 ( 2.7) 14 ( 1.9) 22 ( 7.8) 14 ( 0.8) 31 ( 3.1) About once a week or less 9 ( 1.0) 3 ( 0.8) 8 ( 2.7) 3 ( 2.8) 12 ( 1.8) 1 ( 1.8) Percentage of students who use a mathematio worksheet At least several times a week 35 ( 1.9) 35 ( 2.8) 38 ( 4.3) 30 ( 6.6) 38 ( 2.4) 34 ( 3.8) About once a week 29 ( 1.2) 33 1 2.9) 32 ( 1.5) 44 ( 9.1) 25 ( 1.2) 33 ( 3.4) Less than weekly 38 ( 1.8) 32 ( 2.7) 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 populauon is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. C 3 58 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida SUMMARY Because classroom instructional time is typically limited, teachers need to make the best possible use of what is known about effective instructional delivery practices and resources. It appears that mathematics textbooks and worksheets continue to play a major role in matherrotics teaching. Although there is some evidence that other instructional resources and practices are emerging, they are not yet commonplace. According to the students' mathematim tmehers: About half of the students in Florida (48 percent) worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week; some never worked in small gmups (18 percent). The largest percentage of the students (63 percent) used objects like rulers, counting blocks, or geometric shapes less than once a week, and some never used such objects (16 percent). In Florida, 76 percent of the students were assigned problems from a mathematics textbook almost every day; 3 percent worked textbook problems about once a week or less. 1 v- than half of the students (35 percent) did problems from worksheets at least several times a week; less than half did worksheet problems less than weekly (32 percent). And, according to the students: In Florida. 51 percent of the students never worked mathematics problems in small goups: 26 percent of the students worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week. About half of the students in Florida (51 percent) never used mathematical objects; 24 percent used these objects at least once a week. About three-quarters of the students in Florida (76 percent) worked mathematics problems from textbooks almost every day. compared to 74 percent of students in the nation. Less than half of the students in Florida (35 percent) used worksheets at least several times a week, compared to 38 percent in the nation. C .1 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSFSSMEN1 59 Florida 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. Cakulators are important tools for mathematics and students need to be able to use them wisely. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and man) 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. (iiven the prevalence and potential importance of calculators. part of the Trial State Assessment tOcused on attitudes toward and uses of calculators. Teachers were asked to report the extent to which they encouraged or permitted calculator use for various activities in mathematics class and students were asked about the availabilit) and use of calculators. National Assessment of iducatwnal Progress. tfathernatos 06.1r( PITA /99v A.sst..S mew (Princeton, I'duatIondl I estity. Set e. 19551. atfonal Counol of. leak:hers Mithernaucs, Curriculum a'rci rvItialion StandarJ1 f(q .5( ho,)1 Wathernari,% (Reston. S A. \ atumal Coumil of leak:hers of 51 at hermit THE 1990 NAEP IRIAI.SIMI. ASSESSMENT Florida Table 17 provides a profile of Florida eighth-grade public schools' policies with regard to calculator use: In comparison to 33 percent across the nation, 23 percent of the students in Florida had teachers who allowed calculators to be used for tests. About the same percentage of students in Florida and in the nation had teachers who permitted unrestricted use of calculators (12 percent and 18 percent, respectively). TABLE 17 I Teachers' Reports of Florida Policies on 1 Calculator Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS MO MEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rorlda Sangho's! Nation Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools whose teachers permit the unrestricted itee of ealculaters Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools whose teachers permit the uso calculators For toots Percentage of eighth-grade students in pubhc schools whose teachers report that students have access to calculators owned by the school flarants. Peramtags Pseuds., 12 ( 1.6) ( 3.1) 18 ( 3.4) 23 ( VI) 15 ( 8.1) 33 ( 4.5) 59 i 4.61 56 111.8) t 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 withm ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 61 Florida THE AVAILABILTTY OF CALCULATORS In Florida, most students or their families (96 percent) owned calculators (Table 18); however, fewer students (45 percent) had teachers who explained the use of calculators to them. Fmm Table A 18 in the Data Appendix: In Florida, 44 percent of White students, 53 percent of Black students, 40 percent of Hispanic students, and 40 percent of Asian students had teachers who explained how to use them. Females were as likely as males to have the use of calculators explained to them (44 percent and 46 percent, respectively). TABLE 18 Students' Reports on Whether They Own a Calculator and Whether Their Teacher Explains How To Use One PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY------ 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE M9E5WEAT Florida Southeast Nation Do you or your family own a carculator2 Does your mathematics teacher explain how to use a Calculator for mathematics problems? Yes Percentage Percentege Percentage and and and Prof leliancy Proficiency Prodency 96 ( 0.5) 258 ( 1.2) 4 ( 0.5) 226 ( 3.8) Percentage and Pro 'idiocy 48 ( 2.2) 250 ( 1.3) 55 ( 2-2) 280 ( 1.7) 96 ( 1.2) 254 ( 2.4) 4 ( 1.2) ( *41 97 ( 0.4) 283 ( 1.3) 3 ( 0.4) 234 ( 3.8) Percentage Percentage and and Proficiency Proficiency 48 ( 5.9) 250 ( 3.9) 54 ( 5.9) 256 ( 2.5) 49 ( 2.3) 258 ( 1.7) 51 ( 2.3) 286 ( 1.5) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parenthese. ft can be said with about 95 percent (*Minty 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 ts insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than b2 students). 62 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT THE USE OF CALCULATORS Florida 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 Trial State Assessment, student e asked how frequently (never, sometimes, almost always) they used calculators lor working problems in class, doing problems at home, and taking quizzes or tests. As reported in Table 19: In Florida, 26 percent of the students never used a calculator to work problems in class, while 49 percent almost always did. About one-quartes of the students (21 percent) never used a calculator to work problems at home, compared to 26 percent who almost always used one. Less than half of the students (34 percent) never used a calculator to take quizzes 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 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rork la Southeast Nation How often do you use a calculator for the Pertantage and Pimento.* Pircintogo feW and following tasks? Proficiency Prolickincy Prolicioncy Working problems in class Almost always 49 ( 1.2) 48 ( 3.0) 48 ( 1.5) 248 ( 1.4) 243 ( 2.8) 254 ( 1.5) Never 20 ( 1.5) 26 ( 4.0) 23 ( 1.9) 271 ( 1.6) 200 ( 3.1) 272 ( 1.4) Doing problems at home Almost always 26 ( 12) 29 ( 3.1) 30 ( 1.3) 253 ( 1.7) 252 ( 3.8) 261 ( 1.8) Never 21 ( 1.0) 1$ ( 1.8) 19 ( 0.9) 262 ( 1.7) 25$ ( 4.4) 283 ( 1.8) Taking cpsiszes or tests Almost always 2$ ( 1.0) 31 ( 2.1) 27 ( 1.4) 243 ( 1.8) 240 ( 3.9) 253 ( 2.4) Never 34 ( 1.5) 35 ( 3.1) 30 ( 2.0) 272 ( 1.3) 270 ( 3.1) 274 ( 1.3) 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 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Sometimes" category is not included. 1'; THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 63 Florida WHEN TO USE A CALCULATOR .j.imllimi0.111111111111111 Part of the Trial State Assessment was designed to investigate whether students know when the use of a calculator is helpful and when it is not. There were seven sections of mathematics questions in the assessment; however, each student took only three of those sections. For two of the seven sections, students were given calculators to 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 thc calrulator sections were defined as "calculator-active" items -- that is, items that required the student to use the calculator to determine the correct response. Certai :. 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 tine 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, sonic: 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 were categorized into two goups: High -- students who used the -..alculator 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 55 percent of the time or indicated that they had used the calculator for less than half of the calculator-active items they were presented. 64 T1- 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida The data presented in Table 20 and Table A20 in the Data Appendix are highlighted below: A smaller percentage of students in Florida were in the High group than were in the Other group. About the same percentage of males and females were in the High group. In addition, 44 percent of White students, 39 percent of Black students, 42 percent of Hispanic students, and 54 percent of Asian students were in the High group. TABLE 20 1 Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Mirka Southoast Nation "Calculator-use* group Nigh Other Percentage and Proliciency 43 ( 1.2) 263 ( 1.5) Percentage Percentage and and Proficiency Preaching 42 ( 2.4) 42 ( 1.3) 264 ( 2.9) 272 ( 1.6) 57 ( 1.2) 55 ( 2.4) 58 ( 1.3) 24a ( 14) 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 !q90 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 65 Florida 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, 23 percent of the students in Florida had teachers who allowed calculators to be used for tests. About the same percentage of students in Florida and in the nation had teachers who permitted unrestricted use of calculators (12 percent and 18 percent, respectively). In Florida, most students or their families (96 percent) owned calculators; however, fewer students (45 percent) had teachers who explained the use of calculators to them. In Florida, 26 percent of the students never used a calculator to work problems in class, while 49 percent almost always did. About one-quarter of the students (21 percent) never used a calculator to work problems at home, compared to 26 percent who almost always used one. I vss than half of the students (34 percent) never used a calculator to take quizzes or tests, while 28 percent almost always did. 71 66 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STAT!: ASSESSMENT Florida CHAPTER 6 Who is Teaching Eighth-Grade Mathematics? In recent years, accountability for educational outcomes has become an issue of increasing importance to federal. state, and local governments. As part of their effort to improve the educational process, policymakers have reexamined existing methods of educating and certifying teachers.' Many states have begun to raise teacher certification standards and strengthen teacher training programs. As shown in Table 21: In Florida. 45 percent of the students were being taught by mathematics teachers who reported having at least a master's or education specialist's degee. This compares to 44 percent for students across the nation. About half of the students (55 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 (93 percent) had mathematics teachers who had a mathematics (middle school or secondary) teaching certificate. This compares to 84 percent for the nation. .tional Council of leacher% of NIathematiLs. Pr, le%sii,nal Standard.% !or the hathinx c?1 ilathernati, A A Rolcm. A- \ ational Council of 'leachers of Niathemaucs, 19911. THE 1990 !% AEA TRIAL STATE ASSISSMEAT Florida TABLE 21 I Profile of Eighth-Grade Public-School I Mathematics Teachers PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rorida I Swiftest Won POVIIMill. Percentage Pawn bee Percentage of students slue* mathematics teachen reported having the following degrees Bachelor's degree 55 Si) 50( 02) 50( 42) Master's or specialist's degree 45 32) 42 ( 42) Doctorate or professional degree ( 0.3) ( SI) 2 ( 1.4) Percentage of students vitae. mathematics teachers have tie following twee of teaching oolitic:ides that are recognized by Florida No regular certification ( 1.9) 2.3) 4 ( 1.2) Regular certification but less than the highest available 30 ( 3.1) 53 104) 22 ( 4.3) Highest certification available (permanent or long-term) 55 ( 3.0) 42 tlOJ ) 00 ( 4.3) Percentage of students whose mathematics leachen have the followksg twee ot teaching certiScates ihat are recognized by Florida Mathematics (middle schcol or secondary) 93 ( 1.2) 04 ( 5.1) 64 ( 22) Education (elementary or middle school) 5 ( 1.0) 14 ( 4.8) 12 ( 2.0) Other 3 ( 0.8) 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 BACKGROUND Although mathematics teachers are held responsible for providing high-quality instruction to their students, there is a concern that many teachers have had limited exposure to content and concepts in the subject area. Accordingly, the Trial State Assessment gathered details on the teachers' educational backgrounds -- more specifically, their undergraduate and graduate majors and their Ili-service training. P°16 J 68 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Rork Teachers' responses to questions concerning their undergraduate and graduate fields of study (Table 22) show that: In Florida, 32 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 =OM the nation had mathematics teachers with the same major. Some of the eighth-grade public-school students in Florida (14 percent) were taught mathematics by teachers who had a graduate major in mathematics. Across the nation, 22 percent (le the students were taught by teachers who majored in mathematics in graduate school. TABLE 22 I Teachers' Reports on Their Undergraduate and Graduate Fields of Study PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation What was your undergraduate major? Mathematics Education Other What was your graduate major? Mathematics Education Other or no gradual. level study 411 Parma. Perainiage floweesta. 32 2.9) 41 3.5) 27 2.5) 44 ( SA) 43 ( ao) 14 ( 64) 43 ( 35 ( 3.$ 22 ( 3.3 Percentage Percentage Perantlage 14 ( 2.1) 36 43 15 SA) 22 ( 3.4) ( 32) 51 ( 3.1) 41 $.1) OA) 3$ ( 3.5) 40 ( 3A) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 69 Florida Teachers' responses to questions concerning their in-service training for the year up to the Trial State Assessment (Table 23) show that: In Florida, 44 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students had teachers who spent at least 16 hours on in-service education dedicated to mathematics or tht 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 Florida (14 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 ieo NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation During the last year, how much time in total have you spent on in-service education in mathematics or the teaching of mathematics? None One to 15 hours 16 hours or more Percentage Pen= gage Percentage 14 ( 2.5) 11 ( 6.0) 11 ( 2.1) 42 ( 3.7) 46 (12.0) 51 ( 4.1) 44 ( 3.5) 43 (10.1) 39 ( 3.6) The standard errors of the esnmated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 70 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida SUNLMARY 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 athievement." 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.' 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 backigounds and experience reveals that: In Florida, 45 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 half of the students (55 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 Florida. 32 percent of the eighth-gade public-school students were being taught mathematics by teachers who had an undergraduate major in mathematics. In compaiison, 43 percent of the students across the nation had mathematics teachers with the same major. Some of the eighth-gxade public-school students in Florida (14 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 Lapointe, N ancy A. Mead, and (jary W. Phillips. A World of Differences An International Assessment ol Mathematics and Science (Princeton, NI Center for the Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational Testing Service, 1988). Ina V.S. Mulhs, John A. Dossey. Eugene IL Owen. and Gary W. Phillips. The State of Mathematics ,4(hirvement %AEI's 1990 Assessnu7nt of the .Vation and the Trial Assessment of the States (Princeton, \J: wional Assessment of Educational Proeress. Educational Testing Service, 1991), THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 71 Florida In Florida, 44 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students had teachers who spent at least 16 hours on in-3ervice education dedicated to mathematics or the teaching of mathematics. Across the nation, 39 percent of the students had teachers who spent at leasi that much time on similar types of in-service training. Some of the students in Florida (14 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. 7 72 '111E. 7990 NAPE 1 RIAI. STATE ASSESSMENT Florida 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 arc powerful influences. Togethcs, 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 proficienc), students participating in the Trial State Assessment were asked a series of questions about themsdves, their parents or guardians, and home factors related to education. 1 990 NAEP 1 MAL SI AM ASSESSMENT 73 Florida AMOUNT OF READING MATERIALS IN 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 parkipating 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 zcro 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 21 I Students' Reports on Types of Reading I Materials in the Home PERCENTAGE OF STUOENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation Does your family have, or receive on a regular basis, any of the following items: mere than 25 books, an encyclopedia, newspapers, magazines? Zero to two types Three types Four types Pertentase Percentage and and and Preecianoy PrsIkkincy 27 ( 12) 23 ( 2.3) 21 ( 1.0) 241 ( 1.7) 235 ( 3.4) 244 ( 2.0) 33 ( 0.9) 29 ( 2.4) 30 ( 1.0) 255( 1.5) 248 ( 44) 258 ( 1.7) 40 ( 1.4) 48 ( 2.7) 43 ( 1.3) 283 ( 1.4) 200 ( 2.8) 272 ( 1.5) 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 data for Florida reveal that: Students in Florida 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. 7J 74 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida A smaller percentage of Black, Hispanic, and Asian students had all four types of these reading matzrials in their homes than did White students. A greater percentage of students attending schools in advantaged urban areas than in disadvantaged urban area5 or extreme rural areas and about the same percentage of students in schools in advantaged urban areas as in areas classified as "other" had all four types of thve 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 wele 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 Watching Television Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation Percentip and PretIcIencY Percentage and Paventage aid PreftchineY How much television do you usually watch each day? One hour cr less 12 ( 0.7) 12 ( 1.3) 12 ( 0.8) 261 ( 2.5) 262 ( 6.2) 260 I 22) Two hors 19 0.2) 19 ( 2.1) 21 ( 0.9) 2e2 ( 2.1) 258 ( 4.2) 268 ( 1.8) Three hours 21 ( 0.8) 22 ( 1.9) 22 ( 0.8) 258 ( 1.6) 258 ( 3.3) 265 ( 1.7) Far to five hours 29 ( 0.9) 28 ( 1.6) 28 ( 1.1) 256 ( 1.4) 251 ( 3.6) 2E0 ( 1.7) Six hours or more 19 ( 1.0) 18 ( 1.4) 16 ( 1.0) 241 ( 2.0) 236 ( 2.8) 245 ( 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 i 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 75 Florida From Table 25 and Table A25 in the Data Appendix: In Florida, average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students who spent six hours or more watching television each day. Some of the eighth-grade public-school students in Florida (12 percent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 19 percent watched six hours or more. About the same percentage of males and females tended to watch six or more hours of television daily. Similarly, about the same percentage of males and females watched one hour or less per day. In addition, 13 percent of White students. 36 percent of Black students, 22 percent of Hispanic students. and 9 percent of Asian students watched six hours or more of television each day. In comparison, 13 percent of White students, 7 percent of Black students, 13 percent of Hispanic students. and 10 percent of Asian 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 proficienc). the students participating in the Trial State Assessment were asked to report on the number of days of school the) missed during the one-month period preceding the assessment, From Table 26 and Table :126 in the Data Appendix: In Florida. average mathematics proficienc) was lowest for students who missed three or more days of school. Less than half of the students in Florida (41 percent) did not miss an) school days in the month prior to the assessment. while 27 percent missed three days or more. In addition. 29 percent of White students. 22 percent of Black students. 25 percent of Hispanic students. and 9 percent of Asian students missed three or more days of school. S I 7c, 1 HE 1990 NAEP TRIAL SI AIL. ASSLSSMEN1 Florida nmo!II Similarly, 27 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban arms, 32 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 27 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 24 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 1 School Mis' sed PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 18110 NAEP TRIAL STATE .YMENT Florida Soulhosst Nation How many days of school did you miss last month? None Oro or two days Throe days or more orogen. Rwanda", Parandage and and Preildincy Peallalency Pralkinicy 41 ( 1.1) 46 ( 1.8) 45 ( 1.1) 261 ( 1.7) 253 ( 3.4) 285 ( 1.6) 33 1.0) 32 0.11) ( ( 1.7) 32( 238 ( 1.5) 260 ( 2.6) 2118 ( 1.3) 27 ( 1.0) 22 ( 15) 23 ( 1.1) 245 ( 1.6) 242 ( 3.7) 250 ( 1.9) Alp 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 77 Florida STIAWNTS PERCEPTIONS OF MATHEMATICS According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, learning mathematics should require students not only to master essential skills and concepts but also to develop confidence in their mathematical abilities and to value mathematics as a discipline." Students were asked if th,,y agreed or disageed with five statements desiped to elicit their perceptions of mathematics. These included statements about: Personal experience with mathematics, including students' enjoyment of mathematics and level of confidence in their mathematics abilities: I like mathematics; I am good in mathematics. Value of mathematics, including students' perceptions of its present utility and its expected relevance to future work and life requirements: Almost all people use mathonatics in their jobs; mathematics is not more for boys than for girls. The nature of mathematics. including students' ability to identify the salient features of the discipline: Mathematics is useliil .for solving ',,veryday 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 "undecided.- "disagree." or "strongl disagree" were given a value of 3. Full student's responses sere averaged over the five statements. The students were then af,signed perception index according to whether theN tended to strongly agree with the statements (an index of I ). tended to agee with the statements (an index of 2). or tended to be undecided, to disagree. or to strongl disagree with the statements (an index of 3). Table 27 provides the data for the students' attitudes towa,d mathematics as defined by their perception index The following results were observed for Florida: Average mathematics proficiene) was highest for students who were in the "strongl agee- categon and lowest for students who were in the "undecided. disagree. strongl> disagee- category About one-quarter of the students (2( percent) were in the "strongl agcy.' category (perception index of 1 r This compares to 27 percent across the nation. About one-quarter of the students in Florida (23 percent), compared to 24 percent across the nation, were in the -undecided, disagee. or strongl disagree'. categon (perception index of 3). 1 \ational Council of I eac.hers of 11:,thematics. Curri,ulurn ar JillI fl Standaray for Wathernatitl ;Reston \ N. \ auonal Counci of leacher.; of Mathematics. 1989) '8 THE 1990 \ AEP TRIAL StAlE ASSESSME\T Florida TABLE 27 J Students' Perceptiuns of Mathematics PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1980 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT Florida Southeast Nation Parosnesas sad Prolicismay Percorgapa anti Percantags and Ptvgdasoy Student "perception index" groups Strongly agree 2$ ( 0.9) SO ( 2.7) 27 ( 1. ("perception Index" of 1) 282 ( 1.1) 205 ( 3.7) 271 ( 1.9) Agra. 51 ( 1.0) 45 ( 2.1) 49 ( 1.0) ("perception index" of 2) 255 ( 1.6) 251 ( 33) 2.2 ( 1.7) Undecided, disagree, strongly disagree 23 ( 0.9) 25 ( 3.0) 24 ( 1.2) ("perception index" of 3) 249 ( 1.6) 244 ( 2.7) 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, 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 Florida 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 had zero to two types. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 79 Florida Some of the eighth-grade public-school students in Fk,rida (12 percent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 19 percent watched six hours or more. Average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students who spent six hours or more watching television each day. Less than half of the students in Florida (41 percent) did not miss any school days in the month prior to the assesmnent, while 27 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 (26 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, stiongly disagree" category. 5 80 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida THE NATION'S REPORT CARD PROCEDURAL APPENDIX This appendix provides an overview of' the technical details of the 1990 Trial State Assessment Program. It includes a discussion of the assessment design, the mathematics framework and objectives upon which the assessment was based, and the procedures used to analyze the results. The objectives for the assessment were developed through a consensus process managed fr, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the items were developed through a similar process managed by Iducatioi,:el Testing Service. The development of the I'rial State Assessment Program benefitted from the involvement of hundreds of representatives from State Lducation Agencies who attended numerous NETWORK meetings. served on committees, reviewed the framework. objectives, and questions, and, in general. provided 'mportant suggestions on all aspects of the program. Assessment Design The 1990 Trial State Asses!.ment was based on a forused balanced iwomplele Mirk ( ) .vpiral matrix design a design thlt enables broad coverage of mathematics content while minim/mg the burden for any one student. In total, I 37 cognitive mathematics items were developed for the assessment. including 35 open-ended item.. The first step in implementing the 13113 design required dividing the entire set of mathematics items into seen units called blinks. I ach block was designed to he completed in 15 minutes. E L`; IMF 1990 \ NI I' I RIAI SI AI I. ASSISSAill.% I XI Florida The blocks were then assembled into assessment booklets 'o that each booklet contained two background questionnaires -- the first consisting of general background questions and the second consisting of mathematics backwound questions -- and three blocks of cognitive mathematics items. Students were given five minutes to complete each of the backgound questionnaires and 45 minutes to complete the three I5-minute blocks of mathematics items. Thus, the entire assessment required approximately 55 minutes of student time. In accordance with the 11113 design, the blocks were assitmed 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 spiraled or interleaved in a systematic sequence so that each booklet appeared an appiopriate number of times in the sample. The students within an assessment session were assipted 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 Mudents in the session received the same booklet. Assessment Content The framework and objectives for the Trial State Assessment Piogram were developed using a broad-based consensus rnocess, as described in the introduction to this report) The assessment framework consisted of two dimensions: mathematical eoritent areas and abilities. The five content areas assessed were Numbers and Operations; Measurement; (ieometr) ; Data Analy sk, Statistics, and Probability': and Algebra and Functions (see l'igure A ). Ilw three mathematical ability areas assessed were Conceptual I .nderstanding. Prtwedural 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 mmresponse. Analyses were then conducted to determine the percentages of students who gave various responses to each eopitive and background question. Item response theory (IR 1 ) was used to estimate average mathematics proficiency fbr 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 subpopulations. even when all students do not answer the same set of questions. This comm n scale makes it possible to report on relationships between students' characteristics (based on their responses to the background questions) and their overall peribrmance in the assessment. I \ ;World{ Nssc,ornictIl of I dut:anorial l'ropres.. Vathr.rnati, N objc4 thr% Ivy(' f snr,j (Vrincelon. \J: 18lltmal I est ing v 1)5s), cj 7 52 .1-11E 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida FIGURE Al I Content Areas Assessed 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 working with this knowledge. These skills are important at all levels of schooling as well as in practical applications. Students need to be able to model and visualize geometric figures in one, two, and three dimensions and to communicate geometric ideas. In addition. students should be able to use informal reasoning to establish geometric relationships, Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability Th!s content area focuses on data representation and analysis across all disciplines and reflects the Importance and prevalence of these activities in our society. Statistical knowledge 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. Algebra and Functions This content area is broad in scope, covering algebraic and functional concepts in more informal, exploratory ways for the eighth-grade Trial State Assessment, Proficiency in this concept area requires both manipulative facility and conceptual uoderstanding: it involves the ability to use algebra as a means of representation and algebraic proce3sing 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. } 8 THE 3990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 83 Florida FIGURE A2 I Mathematical Abilities The following three categories of mathematical abilities are not to be construed se `lierarchical. For example, problem solving involves interactions between conceptual knowledge and ; ;edural skills, Out 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 mathematics when they provide evidence that they can recognize, label, and generate examples and counterexamples of concepts: can use and interrelate models, diagrams, and varied representations of concepts: can identify and apply principles: know and can apply facts and definItiOns: can compare, contrast, and integrate related concepts and principles: can recognize, interpret, and apply the signs, symbols, and terms used to represent concepts: and can interpret the assumptions and relations involving t.oncepts in mathematical Settings. Such understandings are essential to performing procedures in a meaningful Way and applying them in problem-solving situations. 1 Procedural Knowledge -=1111.,M 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 mathematics that have been created as tools to meet specific needs in an efficient manner. It also encompasses the abilities to read and produce graphs and tables, execute geometric constructions, and perform noncomputational skills such as rounding and ordering. Problem Solving In problem solving, students are reouired to use their reasoning and analytic abilities when they encounter new situations. Problem solving includes the ability to recognize and formulate prob,ems: 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 ST ATE ASSESSMENT Florida A scale ranging from 0 to 500 was created to report performance for each content arca. 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 oducational 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. Thr. 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 performance at each of the four levels on the scale, NAEP analyzed sets of mathematics items froni 'he 1990 assessment that discriminated well between adjacent levels. The criteria for t...:;,ecting these "benchmark" items were as follows: To 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 deane performance at each of the higher levels on the scale, items were chosen that were: a) answered correctly by at least 65 percent of students whose proficiency was at or near that level: and b) answered incorrectly by a majority (at least 50 percent) of the students performing at or near the next lower level. he percentage of students at a level who answered the item correctly had to be at least 30 points higher than the percentage of students at the next lower level who answered it correctly. THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMEN1 85 Florida 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 dermed 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 oducational areas: curriculum, instructional practices, teacher qualifications, educational standards and reform, school conditions, and conditions outside of the school that facilitate learning and instruction. Similar to the development of the materials given to students, the policy guidelines and the teacher and school questionnaires were prepared through an iterative process that involved extensive development, field testing, and review by external advisory groups. MATHEMATICS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaire for eighth-grade mathematics teachers consisted of two parts. The first requested information about the teacher, such as race, ethnicity and gender, as well as academic degrees held, teaching certification, training in mathematics, and ability to get instructional resources. In the second part, teachers were asked to provide information on each class they taught that included one or more students who participated in the Trial State Assessment Program. The information included, among other things, the amount of time spent on mathematics instruction and homework, the extent to which textbooks or worksheets were used, the instructional emphasis placed on different mathematical topics, and the use of various instructional approaches. Because of the nature of the sampling for the Trial State Assessment, the respoises 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. = Since there were insufficient numbers of eighth-grade questions at levels 200 and 350. one of the questions exemplifying level 200 is from the fourth-grade national assessment and one exemplifying level 350 is from the twelfth-grade national assessment. S 86 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida FIGURE A3 I Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels I Leval 200: Simple Additive Reasoning and Problem SolAng with Whole Numbers EXAMPLE 1 TOWN/ Iih GeV Oaf 7. Link bel sbree iwee teem the maw seee sad thies &Beam klaao beIb obeira sinve.11 ditt Me web baS wii6 Lad ei begs Aiwa. why* bose wig Move the few* lab * itt CD Ilse bee with tie isaide CD The his wish tbe gig We 0 The her Ow maw bah 0 lam *We a& EXAMPLE 2 10(011 OF MIT PICOT, AS FARAWAY FAIL60 Mas law lioS Thus Dip Of Ifs Week Onellotinsa= ft. tiaw aseas bum at maple were picked am Illaresiayf OD SI dD 60 0 70 0 10 0 0 0 deal Maw. Grade 4 Overall Percentage Correct 73% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: fa Nit 65 91 100 Grade 4 Conran Percentage Percentage Correct ZQD 75 91 Grade 8 Overall Percentage Percentage Correct 24Si 2E2 78 87 Correct &A for Anchor Unt.is: 2§11 100 Correct 89% for Anchor tavola: 96 100 ThE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 87 Florida FIGURE M I Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels (continued) Level 250: Shnple Muftiplicative Reasoning and Two-Step Problem Solving EXAMPLE 1 7. What is the value of a + 5 when a = 3 ? Answer EXAMPLE 2 NAM C(LOR SURVIT 21311.71 ID 23 The 'shit shawl shows she snobs el a worm of bah coke. On As &eh belowf mho s ehecit graph so ghouls she dess io she sable. Wel ma pan o she axle pooh wsek she MOM kW mho. Dad yibu un the Wallow so shis 0 Ws 0 No EXAMPLE 3 O. hadikes se peciang basebelle Lem bona. ?Acta We holds 6 bacchalic Stu hes 24 balk Which cutiabee seocence will help hes kind out how way bases ehe will Deed; CD 24 6 CP 24 + 6 w 61, + - 014)(6-0 i3) 1 dam c know. Grade 8 OveraN Pe/cottage Paratntage Comet gra 28 89 Grade 8 Overall Percentag Pe:ventage Correct 222 2162 21 68 Correct 76% for Anchor Levels: Ng Up 05 98 Grade 8 Overall Percentage Piweentsge corrct 224 21512 37 71 r Correct 73% for Anchor Levels: 242 92 92 Correct: 77% fetf Anchor Levels: 222 95 100 ME 19 90 NAL3P TRIAL sum ASSESSMENI" Florida FIGURE 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 1 Li Wbech at cbra folierias shows lbw slogs el ilipoof th. labov instv), ants tha1a. gt CD EXAMPLE 2 la th, stat1 tow that a clase *WILLA! oi cm 15 ins /mg is repotociatti 31. a mac rattiel 3 beats Ions. I/ the same sulk As mat haws 35 kV b#01 would be reptesteesd by, se.alg soda krer am *Ass Up? oil you use tbe cAlcultrar ea thee epetalaat 0 Us 0 Pio Grad* 6 Overall Percentage Correct 60% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: 2112 21Q 2S1 33 49 77 90 Grade 12 Overall Percentage Correct: 75% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: 2124 2112 202 46 79 96 Grade 8 Overall Percentage Correct: 59% Percentap Correct for Anchor Levels: gg.Q g§g 224 2§Q 17 48 88 99 Florida FIGURE A3 f Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels (continued) Level 350: Reasoning and Problem Solving Involving Geometric Relationships, Algebraic Equations, and Beginning Statistics and Probability EXAMPLE 1 110 Questitoo 1647 mks to the kW% mum of dochsures 0 0 I 2 2 14. It Ws tatsau O 661-figuris sa coodumod. bow *say dou will loc i Ow 100do figutti CD 100 0101 0199 200 Clo 201 EXAMPLE 2 11. Ezp1oia Isow you Await vow Lamm va quatioa 1 6. Amvror Grade 8 °Vita Percentage Correct 34% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: 2S14 224 13 19 53 88 Grad* 12 Overall Percentage Correct 49% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: 144 222 244 224 22 48 90 Grade 8 Overall Porcentige Correct 15% Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels: 224 224 244 224 1 4 28 74 Grade 12 Overall Percentage °meet 274 Percentage Correct for Mchor Levels: 244 224 244 224 3 22 74 90 ME 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS AND POLICIES QUESTIONNAIRE An extensive school questionnaire was completed by principals or other administrators in the schools participating in the Trial State Assessment. In addition to questions about the individuals who completed the questionnaires, 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 received by representative samples of eighth-grade students in public schools. Although this approach may provide a different perspective from that which would be obtained by simply collecting information from a sample of eighth-giade mathematics teachers or from a sample of schools, it is consistent with NAEP's goal of providing information about the educational context and performance of students. Estimating Variability The statistics reported by NAFP (average proficiencies, percentages of students at or above particular scale-score levels, and percentages of students responding in certain ways to ackgound questions) are estimates of the corresponding information for the population of eighth-gade students in public schools in a state. These estimates are based on the performance of a carefully selected, representative sample of eighth-gade public-school students from the state or territory. If a ditkrent 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-gade public-school student in the state or territory were assessed. Virtually all statistics that are based on samples (including those in NAFI't are subject to a certain degree of uncertaint . The uncertainty attributable to using samples of students is referred to as sampling erroi . ike almost all estimates based on assessment measures, NAY lys total group and subt.woup proficiency estimates are subject to a second source of uncerta.nty, in adOition to sampling error. A., previously noted, each student who participated in the Trial State Assessment vkas administered a subset of questions from the total 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 diaerent estimates of total goup and subgroup proficiency' might have been obtained. Thus, a second source of uncertaint arises because ea h student was administered a subset of the total pool of questions. n I I t) 1990 NAV!' 1RIAI SI A11 ASSISSVIIA1 91 Florida 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 with these statistics. These measures of the uncertainty are called standard errors and are Oven 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 poups) reflect only sampliog error. NAFP uses a methodology called the jackknife procedure to estimate these standard errors. Drawing inferences from the Results One of the goals of the Trial State Assessment Program is to make inferences about the overall population of eighth-o-ade students in public schools in each participating state and ten-itory 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. 'Ile use of confidence intervals. based on the standard errors, provides a way to make inferences about the population means and proportions in a manner that reflects the uncertainty associated with the sample estimates. An estimated sample mean proficiency 2 standard errors represents a 95 percent confidence interval for the corresponding population quantity . This means that with approximately 95 percent certainty, the average performance of the entire population of interest (e.g., all eighth-grade students in public schools in a state or territory) is within ± 2 standard errors of the sample mean. As an example, suppose that the average mathematics proficiemy 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 (1.1) '7 2 56 ± 2.4 -- 256 2.4 and 256 -1- 2.4 253.6, 25S.4 Thus. one can conclude with 95 percent certainty that the average proficiency for the entire population of eighth-gade students in public schools in that state is between 253.6 and 25S.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 lO percent ). For extreme percentages, confidence intervals constructed in the above manner may not be appropriate and procedures for obtaining accurate confidence intervals are quite complicated. (Thi ? 92 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL, STMT. ASSESSMI.N1 Florida Analyzing Subgroup Differences in Proficiencies and Proportions In addition f.0 the overall results. this report presents outcomes separately for a Varict 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 .4bout how much tone 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 thwrested in answering the question: Do students who reported spending 45 minutes or more doing mathmatirs homework each day exhibit higher average mathematics proficiency than s(udents wiw reported spending LS rtlinUteS Or le3A: To answer the question posed aboNe. one begins b comparing the average mathematics proficiency for the two groups being analyzed. If the nwan for the group who reported spending 45 minuws or more on mathematics homework is higher. one may be tempted to conclude that that group does have higher achWvement than the group who reported spending. 15 minuws Or less on homework. Ilow ever. even though the means differ. there ma be no real difference in performance between the two groups in the population because of the uncertainty associated with the estin.ated average proficiency of the groups in the sampk. Remember that the intent is to make a stawment 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 &gee of uncertaint associated with it. It is therdbre 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 rya/difference between the mean proticiene (or proportion of a certain attribute) for two goups in the popuhition. one must obtain an estimate of the deeree of uncertaint associated with the difkrenee between the proficienc means or proportions of those goups for the sample. This estimate of the de!..5ec of uncertaint -- called the vandard error ot the difference between the groups -- is obtained takMg 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 w hich the standard enor for an indiidual group MCall or proportion is used. the tandarci error 01 tlw dillerence can be used to help determine whether differences hem ccn croups in the population arc real. 'the difference betwe,m the mean prolicienc cr proporticn of the two groups ± 2 .ctandard crtor.i of the dilterence represents an approximate 95 percent confidence imenal. If the resulting interval includes rero. one should conclude that there is insufficient evidence to claim a real difference between groups in the population. If the Mten al does not contain zero. the ditleronee bow een groups is statiqica/L significant (different( at the .05 le\ el. 1 1 3 F 1990 \ Af-P I RI AI SI Al F ASSISS11- \ I Florida As an example. suppose that one were interested in determining whether the average mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade females is higher than that of eighth-grade males in a particular state's public schools. Suppose that the sample estimates of the mean proficiencies and standard errors for females and males were as follows: Group Average Proficiency Standard Error Female 259 2 0 Male 255 2 1 The difference between the estimates of the mean proficiencies of femaks and males is four points (259 - 255). l'he standard error of this difference is \ 2.0 -4- 1.1= - 2,9 'I bus. an approximate 95 percent eonfidence inter\ al for this difference is Mean difference ± 2 stindard errors of the difference = 4 ± 2 (1.9) = 4 ± 5.S 4 - 5.S and 4 + 5.s = -1.S. 9.5 The value tyro is within this confidence inter\ al. which extends from -1.S to 9,S (i.e.. /ern is betwoen -1.5 and 9.S). Thus. one should conclude that there is insutil t ...c.en. evidence to claim a difference in aN crap mathematics prolicienc between the population of eighth-gade females and males in public schools in the state.' Throughout this report . when the mean proficionc or proportions for two groups Were compared. procedures like the one described abo% e were used to draw the conclusions that arc presented. If a statement appears in the report indie:ging that a particular group had higher or /01cer average prolielene than a second group, the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference between irroups did not contain tern. When a statetnent indieates that the aerage protieiene or proportion of some attribute w a about /he same tor t o groups, the eonfidence inten al ineluded tyro, and thus no difkrence could be assumed between the groups 'I he reader is cautioned to in oid drawing conclusions solef on the basis of the ,napitude of the differences. difference between two groups in the sample that appears to he slie.ht nia represent a statisticall signitieant differenee in the population beeause ot thy maputude of the standard errors. Con% ersel . a difference that appears to be large ina not be statisneall significant. I 's :he k. 1/4..01d.i7d CrrO. o! the 6;!!t:!-L".10: ,:)frc ar',;`..' .rdt d .,"1 !! .!.. ,Ahtsro;'!'.ite e,t,r1,tc the " " ,1, 1111. 1990 P I RINI SI \II. ASSI-SS\II.5.1 Florida The procedures described in this section, and the certainty ascribed to intervals (e.g., a 95 percent confidence interval), are based on statistical theory that assumes that only one confidence interval or test of statistical significance is being performed. However, in each chapter of this report, many different groups are being compared (i.e., multiple sets of confidence intervals are being analyzed). When one considers sets of confidence intervals, statistical theory indicates that the certainty associated with the entire set of intervals is less than that attributable to each individual comparison from the set. If one wants to hold the certainty level for the set of comparisons at a particular level (e.g., .95), adjustments (called multiple comparison procedures) must be made to the methods described in the previous section. One such procedure -- the Bonferroni method was used in the analyses described in this report to form confidence intervals for the differences between groups whenever sets of comparisons were considered. Thus, the confidence intervals in the text that are based on sets of comparisons are more conservative than those described on the previous pages. A more detailed description of the use of the Bonferroni procedure appears in the Trial State Assessment technical report. Statistics with Poorly Determined Standard Errors The standard errors for means and proportions reported by NAY P are statistics and therefore are subject to a certain degee of uncertaint>. In certain cases. typicall 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 uncertaint associated with the standard errors may he 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 intenals or sigiificance tests involving these standard errors -- should he interpreted cautiousl. I-urther details concerning procedures for identiling such standard errors are discussed in the Trial State Assessment technical report. Nlinimum Subgroup Sample Sizes Results for mathematics proficienc and background variables were tabulated and reported for goups defined b race ethnicity and type of school communit, as well as by gender and parents education level. NAFP collects data for fi%e racial ethnic subgroups (White. Black. Hispanic. Asian Pacific Islander. and American Indian Alaskan Native) and four tpes of communities (Advantaged I. .rhan. Disadvantaged l'rhan, I xtrernc Rural. and Other Communities). However. in man states or territories, and tor some regions of the countr . the number of students in some of these groups was not suffieientl high to permit accurate estimation of proficienc 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 an subgoup. a minimum sample size of 62 students was required. This number was determined b computing the sample size required to detect an effect size of .2 with a proKibiht of or greater. Hf 1990 \ AFT 1 R1A1. ASSISSMI,N 1 95 Florida The effect size of .2 pertains to the true ditkrence between the average proficiency of the subgroup in question and the average proficienc for the total eighth-grade public-sehool population in the state or terntor), divided by the standard deviation of the proficiency in the total population. If the true difference between .;uhluoup and total goup mean is .2 total-group standard deviation units, then a sample size of at least 62 is required to detect such a difkrence with a probabilit 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 arc given quantitative descriptions. For example. the number of students being taught b) teachers with master's degrees in mathematics might be described as "relatively few" or "almost all," depending on the sin. of the percentage in question. An) convention for choosing descriptive terms for the magnitude of percentages is to some degree arbitrar). The dexcriptive phrases used in the report and the rules used to select them are shown below. Percentage Description of Text in Report i p 0 None 0 . p 10 Relatively tew to) P 20 Some 20 p 30 About one-quarter 30 p 44 Less than half 44 p 55 About half 55 p 59 More than halt 59 p 79 About three-quarters 79 p 89 Many 89 p 100 Almost all p 100 All , VI 1 r I III. 199p \ p IR! AI Assi.ssw. \ I Florida THE NATION'S REPORT CARD DATA APPENDIX I or caLli of Mc 1:11,11... in thi: main bod ot th k. report that presents mathematics proticiene re,ult ,. this appendix contains ccniespcmding klata tor each level of. the tour reporting %uhpopulations ethnici1 \. tpe cominunit . parent .. education le\ el. And gender. I III. I94A) \ Mt I RIM Si .A I I SSktiSNIIA I 97 Florida TABLE AS I Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class They Are Taking PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL Eighth-grade STATE ASSESSMENT Mathematics Pre-algebra TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Pareentage and Pralichin Percentage and PreSdency State 63 ( 1.0) 19 ( 12) 14 ( 1.0) 242 ( 1.4) 271 ( 11) 296 ( 1.3) Nation 62 ( 2.1) 19 ( 1.9) 15 ( 1.2) 251 ( 1.4) 272 ( 2,4) 296 ( 2.4) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 57 ( 2.1) 21 ( 1.8) 17 ( 1.3) 251 ( 12) 278 ( 2.0) 301 ( 1.9) Nation 59 ( 2.5) 21 ( 2.4) 17 ( 1.5) 259 ( 1.6) 277 ( 22) 300 ( 2.3) Black State 80 ( 2.3) 11 ( 1.8) 225 ( 1.6) ( Nation 72 ( 4.7) 18 ( 3.0) 9 ( 22) 232 ( 3.4) 246 ( 8.4) ( **) Hispanic State 64 ( 3.2) 21 ( 2.4) 11 ( 1.7) 235 ( 2.8) 258 ( 2.8)I Nation 75 ( 240 ( 4.4) 2.4) 13 ( 3.9) ( b ) 6 ( ( 1.5)*) Asian State 48 ( 5.3) 20 ( 4.8) RM. - 1,4 link* Nation 32 ( 6.5) 41 ( 74) ( TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 45 < 5.5) 30 ( 3.6) 19 ( 3.1) 253 ( 2.9)1 277 ( 2.3)1 ( 3.4)1 Nation 56 ( 269 ( 9.4) 2$)I 22 (. 7.9) 21 f 4.4) ) Disadvantaged urban State 70 ( 2.9) 13 ( 2.3) 11 ( 1.5) 230 ( 2.1) Nation 65 ( 6.0) 14 ( 3.3) 240 ( 4.0)! 287 ( 4.2)1 Egtrinne rural State 67 ( 5.6) ( 2.7) 239 ( 3.3)1 ( Nation 74 ( 4.5) ( 2.2) 249 ( 3.1)1 Other State 63 ( 2.4) 1$ ( 1.6) 15 ( 1.4) 243 ( 2.1) 270 ( 3.1) 300 ( 2.5) 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 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 utking other mathematics courses. ! Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the vanability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). r J t 98 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A5 Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class (continued) i They Are Taking PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT EOM-grade Mathamafica Pre-algebra Aigebra TOTAL ihroantaga and Pro Ilkdanc0 Percentage ank4 Prokiency pacvmdega and PraNakmaY State 63 ( 1.6) 10 ( 1.2) 14 ( 1.0) 242 ( 14) 271 ( 1.61) 20$ ( 1.8) Nation 62 ( 2.1) 19 ( 1.9) 15 ( 1.2) 251 ( 1.4) 272 ( 2.4) 206 ( 2.4) PARENTS EDUCATION HS nort-graduate State 73 ( 229 ( 3.5) 2.3) 14 ( *04 ( 2.9) 441 7 ( Mir ( 1.6) *11 Nation 77 ( 241 ( 3.7) 21) 13 ( 3.4) 3 ( **a, 1.1) HS graduate State 69 ( 2.2) 17 ( 1.7) 10 ( 1.0) 236 ( 1.8) 262 ( 2.2) 287 ( 4.1) Nation 70 ( 29) 18 ( 2.4) 8 ( 1.1) 249 ( 1.9) 266 ( 3.5) 277 ( 5.2) Senn catlegs State 81 ( 2.7) 21 ( 2.0) 15 ( 2.0) 251 ( 1.9) 278 ( 3.8) 296 ( 3.3) Nation 60 ( 3.1) 21 ( 2.9) 15 ( 1.9) 257 2,1) 276 ( 2.8) 295 ( 32) College graduate State .1/4? 2.4) 22 ( 1.7) 21 ( 1.7) 249 ( ii) 276 ( 2.4) 3C3 ( 1.9) Nation 53 ( 2.7) 21 ( 2.3) 24 ( 1.7) 259 ( 1.5) 278 ( 2.8) 303 ( 2.3) GENDER Mats State 63 ( 2.0) 18 ( 1.5) 15 ( 1.2) 244 ( 1.7) 272 ( 2.5) 300 ( 2.5) Nation 63 ( 2.1) 18 ( 1,8) 15 ( 1.2) 252 ( 1.6) 275 ( 2.9) 299 ( 2.5) Female State 82 ( 1.8) 20 ( 1.4) 14 ( 1.2) 240 ( 1.4) 269 ( 1.8) 295 ( 2.6) Nation 81 ( 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 value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percer tages may not total 100 percent because a small number of students reported taking other mathematics courses. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a rehable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 99 Florida TABLE A6 Teachers' Reports on the Amount of Time Students Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT None 16 Minutes 30 Minutes _ 45 Minutes . An Hour or Mere TOTAL Percantaga and Pox:Adam 4 ( 0.9) 235 ( 5.8)! 1 ( 0.3) 3 ( 0.8) ( 6 ( 1.9) 1110. 11,141 ( 0.7) 6 ( 1.6) ( 2.9) *44 ( *4*) 0 ( 0.0) ( ".) 1 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.9) 6 ( 2,0) ( .44) 0 ( 0.0) 1 ( 0.8) ) 0 ( 0.0) ...) 6 ( 1.8) 240 ( 7.9)1 Parcentaga and Medan 34 ( 2.8) 240 ( 1.9) 43 ( 42) 256 ( 2.3) 32 ( 3.1) 253 ( 1.8) 39 ( 4.5) 28"..; 22) 38 ( 4.8) 228 ( 2.9) 55 ( 7.8) 232 ( 3-1) 32 ( 3.1) 237 ( 3.3) 46 ( 7.8) 245 ( 3.0)1 30 ( 7.5) f/** ( Al 29 ( 7.8) ...) 24 ( 43) 253 ( 6.0)1 61 (11.3) 273 ( 3.1)! 37 ( 7.1) 235 ( 2.8)1 41 (12.6) 236 ( 2.1)1 30 (15.5) 68 (14.9) 253 ( 5.4)1 34 ( 3.5) 248 ( 2.9) 37 ( 4.3) 258 ( 3.1) Parcentasa and Proft Panty 47 ( 2.6) 259 ( 2.0) 43 ( 43) 296 ( 2.6) 4.8 ( 3.0) 269 ( 1.9) 45 ( 5.1) 270 ( 2.7) 45 ( 4.7) 234 ( 2.6) 40 ( 6.7) 248 ( 5.3) 46 ( 3.7) 249 ( 4.3) 34 ( 6.8) 251 ( 4.2)1 ) 58 ( 6.7) 275 ( 2.1)1 32 ( 8.6) ..) 48 ( 7.6) 246 ( 2.6)1 36 ( 9.4) 253 ( 90)1 52 (10.0) 252 ( 4.2)1 14 (10.9) 44 ( 3$) 258 ( 3.1) 49 ( 5.1) 265 ( 2.5) Pen:Wage and Pro Adam 11 ( 1.3) 277 ( 3.6) 10 ( 1.9) 272 ( 5.7)1 12 ( 1.5) 287 ( 3.7) 11 ( 24) 277 ( 7.8)1 8 ( 2.1) 3 ( 1.2) ....) 10 ( 2.3) 13 ( 2.9) "* ( ".) 15 ( 5.2) 10 ( 5.4) - ( 54 ) 16 ( 3.8) ...) 5 ( 3.4) ) 4 ( 1.3) 12 ( 5.9) 2 ( 2.0) 8 ( 5.6) 41-04 13 ( 1.9) 275 ( 4 8) 10 ( 2.4) 276 ( 8.6)1 Pannadage and Prodicioncy 5 ( 1.1) 270 ( 7.9)1 4 ( 0.9) 276 ( 5.1)f 5 ( 1.3) 282 ( 6.9)1 4 ( 0.9) 279 ( 5.8)1 3 ( 1.4) ( "4) 6 ( 2.1) ) 7 ( 2.1) ) 24 (10.2) ( 0.8) ( *" *** 5 ( 2.5) 4,4-4 ) 10 ( 8.2) I" ( ***) 16 ( 6.8) a** ( 10 ( 7.3) 4 ( 1.1) 282 (11,6)1 State Nation RACE/ETHNICITY White State Nation Slack State Nation Hispanic State Nation Asian State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation Extrema rural Etate 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 t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 100 F 5 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A6 (continued) Teachers' Reports on the Amount of Time Students Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT None _ 16 Minutes - 30 Minutes 45 Minutes An HOW or More TOTAL Percentart and Progkiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency State 4 ( 0.9) 34 ( 2.8) 47 ( 2.6) 11 ( 1.3) 5 ( 1,1) 235 ( 5.8)1 24/3 ( 1A) 259 ( 2.0) 277 ( 3.6) 270 ( 7.9)1 Nation 1 ( 0.3) 43 ( 42) 43 ( 4.3) 10 ( 1.9) 4 ( 0.9) ( 266 ( 2.3) 268 ( 2.6) 272 ( 5.7)1 278 ( 5.1)1 PARENTS EDUCATION KS non-graduate State 6 ( 1.7) 42 ( 234 ( 4.9) 3.0) ( 238( 3.7) 42) 12 ( 3.3) 6 ( 2.4) *44(44*) Nation 1 ( 0.8) **-41 49 ( 240 ( 6.3) 2.8) 40 ( 246 ( 8.1) 3.7) 6 ( 1.7) ) 4 ( 1.3) ( HS graduate State 5 ( 1.2) 36 ( 3.3) 47 ( 3.3) ( 1.5) 4 ( 12) 240 ( 2.1) 250 ( 2.2) ) Nation 1 ( ( 0.5) 43 ( 249 ( 5.2) 3.1) 44 ( 258 ( 5.8) 2.7) 9 ( 3.1) 4+4 ( «HI ( ***) Some college State 4 ( 1.2) 34 ( 3.6) 46 ( 3.3) 11 ( 2.0) 5 ( 1.3) 250 ( 3.1) 267 ( 2.9) ( **) ( *") Nation ( .91 44 ( 285 ( 5.4) 26) 43 ( 270 ( 5.8) 3.6) ( ( 2.1) "4) - College graduate State 28 ( 2.8) SO ( 3.2) 14 ( 2.1) ( "") 255 ( 3.2) 269 ( 2.6) 287( 42) ( "*) Nation 40 ( 4.7) 44 ( 4.1) 11( 2.3) 5( 1.3) 265 ( 2.5) 277 ( 3.0) 287 ( 6,1)1 "' ( "*) GENDER Male State 5 ( 1.1) 34 ( 2.8) 45 ( 3.0) 10( 1.5) "" ( "4) 246 ( 2.1) 262 ( 2.4) 278 ( 5.1) Nation 1 ( 0.3) 44 ( 4.4) 43 ( 4.3) ( 1.9) 5 ( 1.3) 257 ( 2.9) 268 ( 2.9) 273 ( 7.3)1 279 ( 7.7)1 Female State 4 ( 0.9) 33 ( 3.1) 48 ( 2.7) 11 ( 1.5) ( 44") 245 ( 2.2) 257 ( 2.2) 276 ( 3,6) Nation 41 ( 4.4) ( 4.7) 11 ( 2.0) 4 ( 0.9) ( ".) 255 ( 2.3) 264 ( 2.8) 272 ( 5.7)! '" ( .4-4) The standard errors of the estimated sti-ilistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with at,out 95 percent certainty that, for each population of inte7est, the value for the entire population is within .t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. 11" Sample We is insufficient to permit a rehable estimate (fewer than 62 students). s r :1 r ( THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 101 Florida TABLE A7 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 , None 15 Minutes 30 Minutes 45 Minutes An Hour or More TOTAL State Nation RACE/ETHNICITY State Nation Black State Nation Hispanic State Nation Asian State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation I Disadvantaged urban State Nation Extreme rural State Nation Other State Nation Percentage Persentage Peroodage Percentage Percentage and and and and and Preliciency Prolkiency Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency 12 ( 0.8) 248 ( 2.0) 9 ( 0.8) 251 ( 2.8) 12 ( 0.9) 254 ( 2.0) 10 ( 1.0) 258 ( 3.4) 11 ( 1.5) 7 ( 1.5) 14 ( 1.8) ... vs..) 12 ( 1.8) ... 5 ( 2.6) ( ".) 4 ( 2.0) 7 ( 0.9) vs.) 8 ( 2.5) *int LI,111 12 ( 2.2) 12 ( 3.7) 13 ( 3$) ...) 8 ( 2.3) VIP* ( 13 ( 1,0) 248 ( 2.7) 9 ( 1.0) 250 ( 3.8) 31 ( 1.0) 255 ( 1.4) 31 ( 2.0) 264 ( 1.9) 34 ( 1.3) 264 ( 1.3) 33 ( 2.4) 270 ( 1.9) 25 ( 2.0) 230 ( 2.4) 26 ( 2.5) 241 ( 3.8) 26 ( 2.0) 244 ( 3.6) 27 ( 3.0) 246 ( 3.6) 22 ( 4.8) ...) 20 ( 3.0) 269 ( 3.2)1 41 (123) 278 ( 3.0)1 38 ( 3.3) 242 ( 2.7)1 24 ( 3.3) 253 ( 4,9)1 30 ( 2.6) ...) 38 ( 4.6) 260 ( 3$)1 30 ( 1.1) 257 ( 2.2) 30 ( 1.8) 263 ( 2.3) 31 ( 259 ( 32 ( 263 ( 31 ( 269 ( 32 ( 270 ( 33 ( 236 ( 33 ( 237 ( 32 ( 248 ( 30 ( 248 ( 25 ( e. 31 ( ( 35 ( 274 ( 31 ( 280 ( 28 ( 240 ( 31 ( 247 ( ( 255 ( 31 ( 281 ( 32 ( 264 ( 1.0) 1.8) 1.2) 1.9) 1.4) 1.8) 1.3) 2.1) 2.0) 2.6) 2.7) 3.5) 2.1) 3.4) 2.6) 3.4) 5.0) 5.6) 2.8) 2.7)1 8.6) 4.6)1 2.4) 3.4)1 3.0) 4.7)1 14H ) 2.9) 5.1)1 1,4) 2.8) 1.3) 2.3) 15 ( 254 ( 16 ( 268 ( 13 ( 269 ( 15 ( 277 ( 19 ( 229 ( 1$ ( 240 ( 18 ( 243 ( 17 ( 241 ( 18 ( 18 12 ( 14 ( 20 ( 250 ( 13 ( 18 ( 15 ( 257 ( 15 ( 267 ( 0.7) 2.2) 1.0) 19) 0.8) 2.6) 0.9) 2.2) 1.8) 3.0) 2.3) 3.6) 2.0) 5.5) 2.1) 4.3) ...) 3.9) 3.3) ***) 1.9) 4.8)1 2.1) 3.8) 0.9) 34) 1.1) 2.1) 11 ( 257 ( 12 ( 258 ( 10 ( 266 ( 11 ( 268 ( 12 ( 16 ( 232 ( 13 ( 14 ( *** ( 23 ( IP** ( ( 7 ( 11 ( 14 ( 13 ( .. 12 ( 256 ( 13 ( 258 ( 0.7) 2.9) 1.1) 3.1) 0.8) 3.9) 1.3) 3.3) 1.6) 1.9) 3.7) 1.8) 1.7) "") 6.0) ...) ) ***) 3.4) ***) 2.2). 3.3) *IP* ) ....) 0.9) 4.4) 1.1) 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 enure 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 , 102 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A7 1 Students' Reports on the Amount of Time They (e'lltinued) I Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT None 15 Minutes 30 Minutes 45 Minutes An Hour or More TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percentage Mod Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency State 12 ( 0.8) 31 ( 1.0) 31 ( 1.0) 15 ( 0.7) 24$ ( 2.0) 255 ( 1.4) 259 ( 1.8) 254 ( 22) Nation 9 ( 251 ( 0.8) 2.8) 31 ( 264 ( 2.0) 1.9) 32 ( 263 ( 1.2) 1.9) 16 ( 2ea ( 1.0) 1.9) PARENTS' EDUCATION HS non-graduate State ( .41 29 ( 237 ( 3.4) 4.0) 26 ( ( 3.0) Nation 17 ( ( 3.0) .44) 26 ( 246 ( 3.3) 4.0) 34 ( 246 ( 4.4) 2.6) HS graduate State 13 ( 1.4) 34 ( 1.8) 29 ( 1.9) 14 ( 1.2) 240 ( 3.9) 246 ( 2.1) 246 ( 2.4) 245 ( 2.9) Nation 10 ( 1.7) 33 ( 2.2) 31 ( 1.9) 16 ( 1.4) 246 ( 4.2) 259 ( 3.2) 254 ( 2.4) 256 ( 2.8) Some epilog. State 29 ( 2.0) 32 ( 2.3) 1$ ( 1.4) *IN ( it ) 264 ( 2.5) 267 ( 2.7) 265 ( 4.0) Nation 9 ( 1.2) 30 ( 2.7) 36 ( 2.1) 14 ( 1.8) 11. 266 ( 3.0) 266 ( 2.6) 274 ( 3.5) College graduat State 1 1 ( 1.0) 20 ( 1.5) 34 ( 1.8) 14 ( 1.0) 257 ( 2.9) 268 ( 2.1) 268 ( 2.3) 269 ( 3.1) Nation 7 ( 0.9) 31 ( 3.4) 31 ( 2.0) 18 ( 1.2) 265 ( 3.6) 275 ( 2.0) 275 ( 2.5) 278 ( 3.2) GENDER Male State 14 ( 1.1) 33 ( 1.3) 30 ( 1.2) 12 ( 0.9) 250 ( 2.4) 259 ( 2.0) 261 ( 2.4) 255 ( 3.9) Nation 11 ( 1.1) 34 ( 2.4) 29 ( 1.3) 15 ( 1.2) 255 ( 3.9) 264 ( 2.8) 266 ( 2.4) 265 ( 3.0) Female State 10 ( 0.9) 28 ( 1.3) 33 ( 1.5) 18 ( 1.1) 244 ( 2.7) 251 ( 1.6) 257 ( 2.2) 254 ( 2.7) Nation 7 ( 0.9) 28 ( 2.0) 35 ( 1.7) 17 ( 1.0) 246 ( 4.1) 263 ( 1.5) 260 ( 2,0) 267 ( 2.4) Percentage and Proficiency 11 ( 0.7) 257 ( 12 ( 1.1) 258 ( 3.1) 12 ( 2.1) ..) 10 ( 1.1) 250 ( 4.1) 11 ( 1.5) 244 ( 3,4) 13 ( 1.5) ...) 11 ( 1.5) 12 ( 1.2) 267 ( 4.7) 14 ( 1.a) 271 ( 2.8) 11 ( 0.9) 257 ( 3.4) 11 ( 1.4) 258 ( 4.1) 11 ( 0.9) 257 ( 4.0) 13 ( 1,3) 258 ( 3.3) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within -± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample, *** Sample size is insufficient to 2ermit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). IHE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSF.SSMENT 103 Florida TABLE A8 I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given To I 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 Empnasis Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis Heavy Emphasis Uttfe or No Emphasis TOTAL Percentoge and Pnet !clingy 56 ( 2.4) 253 ( 1.6) 49 ( 3.8) 260 ( 1.8) 52 ( 2.3) 262 ( 1.6) 4$ ( 3.7) 267 ( 2.2) 67 ( 4.5) 238 ( 2.2) 54 ( 7.9) 243 ( 4.3) 60 ( 4.$) 244 ( 3,1) 47 ( 8.7) 246 ( 4.6) 52 ( 6.8) 32 ( 9.8) 04* ( 0.41 47 ( 5.7) 264 ( 2.6)1 28 (13.0) 56 ( 8,6) 242 ( 3.1)1 48 (12,1) 255 ( 6.3)1 6. 01.11 251 ( 2.9) 53 (12.4) 257 ( 7.1)1 57 ( 3.1) 256 ( 2,7) 52 ( 4.1) 260 ( 2.3) Pimentos* old Proldency 12 ( 1.3) 292 ( 3.4) 15 ( 2.1) 237 ( 3.4) 15 ( 1.8) 293 ( 3.4) 16 ( 2.4) 289 ( 3.5) felt, ( **111 ( e") INN) ( 2.2) ( 17 ( 4,3) 16 ( 42) IMHIO) 11 ( 2,2) *** ) 6 ( 3.6) 44 ( 13 ( 1.8) 292 ( 5.2) 16 ( 2.7) 286 ( 3.6) Percentase and Prie kieeicY 10 ( 2.3) 240 ( ?!..ro, 17 ( 3.0) 250 ( 4,2) 17 ( 2.2) 251 ( 3.J) 14 ( 3.4) 259 ( 6.9)1 24 ( 3.9) 220 ( RA) 25 ( 7.4) 223 ( 2.8)1 23 ( 4.1) 232 ( 5.2)1 23 ( 4.1) 0414 ( 40 ) 1$ ( 6.7) .41 23 ( 5.1) 249 ( 5,9)1 9 ( 7.0) ) 20 6.8) **1 *** ) 39 (10.3) 238 ( 8.4)1 14 (11.7) Mr* *411 6 ( 4.9) 19 ( 3.0) 242 ( 4.8) 16 ( 3.9) 253 ( 7.1)1 Percentage and Profit:kW)/ 28 ( 2,5) 267 ( 3.2) 33 ( 4.0) 272 ( 4.0) 31 ( 2.7) 278 ( 3.4) 36 ( 4.7) 277 ( 4.3) 21 ( 4.1) 227 ( 6.3)t 23 ( 5.7) 238 ( 8.1)1 28 ( 5.2) 253 ( 5.5)1 34 ( 5.8) 255 ( 4.4)1 ( ( 35 ( 5.8) 281 ( 6.5)1 33 ( 6.7) 247 ( 3.3)1 21 ( 6.5) 34 (14.4) 32 (11.7) 285 ( 9.1)1 25 ( 2.3) 271 ( 5.4) 34 ( 5.3) 270 ( 4.8) Percentese and ProgebeneY 18 ( 2.4) 255 ( 2.7) 2$ ( 3.8) 260 ( 3.2) 18 ( 2.8) 262 ( 3.2) 27 ( 4.4) 265 ( 3.3) 17 ( 2.8) 238 ( 5.6) 33 ( 7.2) 242 ( 5.8)1 17 ( 3.4) 27 ( 6.8) 441 34 ( 9.2) ( "s) 23 ( 6.7) 280 ( 7.8)1 38 ( 9.4) 267 ( 4.9)1 22 ( 6.5) 239 ( 3.4)1 33 (11.8) 248 ( 8.2)1 11 ( 63) 9 ( 6.1) 18 ( 3.5) 259 ( 3.3)1 28 ( 4,6) 200 ( 3.9) Percentage and PraidencY 32 ( 3.1) 251 ( 2.6) 21 ( 3.3) 264 ( 5.4) 31 ( 3.1) 264 ( 2.9) 22 ( 3.4) 273 ( 5.8) 34 ( 4.7) 223 ( 4.2) 24 ( 7.3) 233 ( 4.7)1 36 ( 6.2) 239 ( 4.9)1 16 ( 5.5) ( 30 ( 5.5) 278 ( 5.2)1 13 ( 32) 31 ( 6.8) 236 ( 5.6)1 18 ( 7.5) 36 (13.6) ) 16 ( 7.9) ) 34 ( 4.0) 252 ( 3.2) 24 ( 4.3) 265 ( 5.7) State Nation RACE/ETHNICITY White State Nation Black State Nation Hispanic State Nation Asian State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation Extreme nral State Nation Otter 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 I 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because thc "Moderate emphasis" category is not included. 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). r'.) 104 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSM:. tT Florida TABLE A8 I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given tU (continued) Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Nufters and Operations Measurement Geomeby Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis . Heavy Emphasis - Little or No Emphasis TOTAL Pewter and Proficiency Percentago and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Prnecion6Y Percentage and PRAW61161, %montage and ProacioncY State 56 ( 2.4) 12 ( 1.3) 19 ( 2.3) 28 ( 2.5) 18 ( 2.4) 32 ( 3.1) 2$$ ( 1.8) 292 ( 34) 240 ( 2.9) 287 ( 32) 255 ( 2.?) 251 ( 2.6) Nation 49 ( 3.6) 15 ( 2.1) 17 ( 3.0) 33 ( 4.0) 2$ ( 3.8) 21 ( 3.3) 280 ( 1.8) 287 ( 3.4) 250 ( 5.8) 272 ( 4.0) 280 ( 3.2) 264 ( 5.4) PARENTS'_EDUCATION NS non-graduate State 58 ( 237 8.8) 3.4) 9 ( *** 2.8) 26 ( 3.7) *Me ) 33 ( 4.8) ( *se) Nation SO ( 251 ( 0.9) 34) 7 ( ( 2.3) *IN) 22 ( 5.3) 441 ( *41 32 ( 0.3) 20 ( 6.7) Mr* ***) NS graduate State 61 ( 3.1) 21 ( 3.1) 27 ( 3.4) 15 ( 2.6) 34 ( 3.8) 248 ( 2.1) 4.111* 11-111 232 ( 5.3) 250 ( 4.0) 244 ( 3.7) 240 ( 3.3) Nation 55 ( 4.8) 1 1 ( 2.8) 17 ( 3.9) 27 ( 5.0) 27 ( 4.5) 24 ( 5.1) 259 ( 2.9) 251 ( 6.1)1 253 ( 4.7)1 255 ( 42) 246 ( 4.8)1 Some college State 55 ( 3.2) 15 ( 2.3) 19 ( 2.7) 28 ( 3.2) 20 ( 3.3) 33 ( 3.5) 261 ( 2.6) 246 ( 0.7) 271 ( 5.1) 202 ( 4.8) 253 ( 4.2) Nation 47 ( 4.4) 17 ( 3.A) 39 ( 5$) 27 ( 5.0) 23 ( 4.1) 265 ( 2.6) 284 ( 4.1)1 111÷1 279 ( 4.5) 262 ( 4.8)1 270 ( 4.7) CoH ago graduate State 52 ( 2.4) 17 ( 1.9) 16 ( 2.6) 34 ( 2.7) 17 ( 2.7) 32 ( 3.0) 262 ( 1.9) 297 ( 3.7) 251 ( 4.9) 282 ( 3.8) 264 ( 4.1) 287 ( 3.8) Nation 44 ( 4.1) 19 ( 2.4) 16 ( 3.3) 37 ( 3.8) 26 ( 3.4) 21 ( 2.9) 269 ( 2 8) 298 ( 3.4) 284 ( 7.2)1 283 ( 3.8) 270 ( 3.8) 280 ( 6.4) GENDER Male State 55 ( 2.7) 13 ( 1.4) 18 ( 2.3) 29 ( 2.4) 16 ( 2.3) 34 ( 3.3) 253 ( 2.1) 293 ( 4.0) 244 ( 3.9) 273 ( 4.0) 258 3.5) 255 ( 2.9) 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 ( 0.7) 275 ( 4.8) 263 ( 3.8) 266 ( 6.8) Female State 57 ( 2.6) 12 ( 1.7) 21 ( 2.7) 28 ( 2.9) 19 ( 2.8) 30 ( 33) 254 ( 1.8) 290 ( 3.9) 235 ( 3.3) 262 ( 3.6) 252 ( 3.3) 247 ( 3.1) 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) 268 ( 4.1) 256 ( 3.3) 263 ( 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 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). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 105 Florida TABLE A8 I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given TO (continued) I Specific l'.;,athematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP THAL STATE ASSESSMENT Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis Algebra and Functions I Little or No Heavy Emphasis Emphasis Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage and and and and TOTAL State Nation RACE/ETHNICITY Proficiency 16 ( 2.0) 25e ( 3.1) 14 ( 2.2) 269 ( 4.3) 16 ( 2.4) 200 ( 3.2) 14 ( 2.4) 278 ( 4.1) 17 ( 2.6) 230 ( 5.7) 14 ( 3.4) ,Ho* *el 15 ( 3.4) .441 *4141 ( 11,11 17 ( 5.2) Ogre ( OM* ) 34 ( 8.7) 04,* 11 ( 8.6) *** 19 ( 9.4) 12 ( 8.8) 5 ( 5.4) ***) 18 ( 3.1) 259 ( 3.5)1 15 ( 2.9) 267 ( 4.7) Proficiency 56 ( 2.7) 255 ( 2.4) 53 ( 4.4) 281 ( 2.9) 57 ( 3.0) 209 ( 2.2) 53 ( 5.0) 271 ( 3.1) 81 ( 4.3) 221 ( 3.8) 53 ( 82) 225 ( 4.3) 61 ( 3.4) 245 ( 4.0) 56 ( 8.3) 248 ( 4.4) 55 ( 8.1) 35 ( 7.1) *4 ) 58 ( 5.2) 278 ( 42)t 85 (19.4) 284 ( 7.4)1 80 ( 7.3) 240 ( 3.8)1 34 (11.4) 236 ( 8.2)1 52 ( $.7) 241 ( 8.8)1 65 (18.9) 254 ( 8.7)1 58 ( 3.7) 255 ( 4.1) 53 ( 52) 280 ( 3.4) Madam, 42 ( 2.2) 279 ( 2.0) 40 ( 3.6) 275 ( 2.5) 48 ( 2,5) 288 ( 2.2) 48 ( 42) 281 ( 3.0) 26 ( 3.5) 255 ( 3.4) 39 ( 7.1) 253 ( 8.3) 40 ( 4.5) 289 ( 8.1)1 46 ( 5.9) 257 ( 4.0)1 51 ( 8.8) ( *** ( ***) 58 ( 3.7) 288 ( 3.5)1 41 ( 8.9) 298 ( 7.9)1 39 ( 4.4) 268 ( 3.9)1 53 (11.8) 254 ( 8.3)1 50 ( 6.4) 202 ( 33 ( $.1) 35 ( 3.0) 284 47 ( 4.3) 278 ( 2.8) Pro Adana 29 ( 2.3) 233 ( 2.1) 20 ( 3,0) 243 ( 3.0) 26 ( 2.3) 243 ( 1.9) 1$ ( 2.8) 251 ( 3.3) 39 ( 3.7) 215 ( 2.9) 27 ( 8.9) 228 ( 2.211 30 ( 3.1) 229 ( 3.2) 18 ( 42) ***) 24 ( 8,3) 44* ( 14 ( 3.5) ( 30 ( 7.3) 218 ( 4,8)! ( 9,4) 4111) 42 (18.0) 241 ( 5.9)1 34 ( 32) 238 ( 2.8) £7 ( 3.3) 245 ( 44)1 Whit. State Nation Black State Nation Hispanic State Nation Asian State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged State Nation Extreme twill 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. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate emphasis" category is not includef,;. Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insuffic ent to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). I 106 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A8 I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given To (continued) I Specific Mathematics Content Areas PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT I. Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability Algebra and Functions Heavy Emphasis Little or No Empnasis Heavy Emphasis Little or No Emphasis TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency Percentage and Proficiency State 18 ( 2.0) 56 ( 2.7) 42 ( 2:2) 29 ( 2.3) 256 ( 3.1) 255 ( 2.4) 279 ( 2.0) 233 ( 2.1) Nation 14 ( 2.2) 53 ( 4.4) 46 ( 3.6) 20 ( 3.0) 269 ( 4.3) 2e1 ( 2.9) 2M ( 24) 243 ( 10) PARENTS' EDUCATION NS non-graduate State 20 ( 42) 56 ( 4.3) 35 ( 5.7) 34 ( 4.1) 231 ( 4.9) 261 ( 4.3)1 222 ( 3.6) Nation 9 ( 3.0) 53 ( 7.7) 28 ( 5.2) 29 ( 6.9) 4414 *** ) 240 ( 8.2) HS graduate State 14 ( 2.3) 56 ( 3.7) 34 ( 2.7) 34 ( 3.2) 247 ( 42) 242 ( 2.6) 268 ( 4.0) 231 ( 3.6) 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 21 ( 2.9) 55 ( 3.7) 45 ( 2.9) 29 ( 2.8) 269 ( 5.7) 266 ( 3.6) 283 ( 2.8) 243 ( 3.9) Nation 13 ( 2.5) 57 ( 5.8) 48 ( 4,8) 17 ( 3.1) 270 ( 3.7) 278 ( 3.0) College graduate State 15 ( 2.5) 60 ( 3.0) 50 ( 2.3) 22 ( 2.0) 262 ( 5.8) 270 ( 3.0) 290 ( 1.9) 239 ( 3.8) Nation 15 ( 2.4) 53 ( 4.4 50 ( 3.9) 18 ( 2.4) 282 ( 4.5) 275 ( 3.8) 288 ( 3.0) 249 ( 4.0) GENDER Male State 15 ( 2.2) 59 ( 2.7) 40 ( 2.4) 30 ( 2.4) 260 ( 3.5) 258 ( 3,0) 281 ( 2.8) 234 ( 2.5) Nation 13 ( 2.2) 54 ( 4.7) 44 ( 4.1) 22 ( 3.6) 275 ( 5.8) 260 ( 34) 276 ( 3.2) 243 ( 3.0) Female State 18 ( 2.2) 57 ( 3.1) 43 ( 2.5) 29 ( 2.6) 254 ( 3.9) 252 ( 2.6) 278 ( 2.1) 233 ( 2.3) Nation 16 ( 2.4) 53 ( 4.5) 48 ( 3,6) 18 ( 2.9) 263 ( 4.4) 262 ( 2.8) 274 ( 2,7) 24.4 ( 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 enure 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). 1 7 r4,) I THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 107 Florida TABLE A9 I Teachers' Reports on the Availability of Resources PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT r I Get AU the Resources I Need I Get Most of the Resources I Need . I Get Some or None of the Resources I Need - TOTAL Percentage and 1.1oticiency Percentage and Prolickincy Penamtage and Proficiency State 15 ( 2.2) 53 ( 3.1) 32 ( 3.1) 264 ( 3.5) 256 ( 1.8) 252 ( 2.1) Nation 13 ( 2.4) se ( 4.0) 31 ( 4.2) 265 ( 4.2) 265 ( 2.0) 261 ( 2.9) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 17 ( 2$) 56 ( 3.3) 27 ( 2.9) 273 ( 3.1) 265 ( 1.5) 263 ( 2.5) Nation 11 ( 2$) 58 ( 4.6) 30 ( 4.6) 275 ( 3$)1 270 ( 2.3) 267 ( 3.3) Black State ( Mirk) 48 ( 4.7) 232 ( 2.7) 40 ( 5.3) 232 ( 2.6) Nation 15 ( 4.2) 52 ( 6.8) 33 ( 7.2) 241 ( 5.3)1 242 ( 2.4) 236 ( 4.9) Hispanic State 16 ( 3.4) ( .41 47 ( 4.3) 244 ( 3.5) 3$ ( 4.7) 246 ( 2.4) Nation 23 ( 7.6) 44 ( 4.9) 34 ( 7.7) 246 ( 7.7)1 250 ( 2.9) 244 ( 3.0)1 Asian State 20 ( 6.6) .. -.) 41-4 ( **) Nation Mt* ( - **Al 44 (12.71 TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 22 ( 5.8) 62 ( 7.3) 16 ( 5.2) 279 ( 3,9)1 271 ( 2.6)1 Nation 38 ( 9.2) 272 ( 8.5)1 59 ( 8.9) 286 ( 1.3)1 3 ( 3.1) .. Disadvantaged urban State 7 ( 2.7) 32 ( 8.1) 62 ( 9.5) 239 ( 3.3)1 244 ( 2.7)1 Nation 10 ( 6.8) 40 (13.1) SO (14.5) 251 ( 5.4)1 253 ( 5.5)1 Extreme rural State 2 ( 0.5) 69 (123) 29 (12.7) 251 ( 2.8)1 247 ( 1.7)1 Nation 54 (10.4) 43 (10.3) 260 ( 8.8)1 257 ( 5.0)1 Other State 16 ( 3.1) 53 ( 4.3) 30 ( 4.2) 266 ( 4.3)i 256 ( 2$) 254 ( 32) Nation 11 ( 2.9) 58 ( 5.4) 31 ( 5.6) 265 ( 3.9)1 264 ( 2.1) 283 ( 4.2) The standard errorr of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is msufficrent to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 108 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TARLE A9 I Teachers' Reports on the Availability of (co-dnued) i Resources PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL 1 Oat AM the Resources I 1 Oat Most of the 1 Oat Soma or Nona of STATE ASSESSMENT Need Resourcas 1 Hood the Resources 1 Mod - _ TOTAL Porarnfaga and Proficiency Poicsidaga and Proficiency Perarillap and Prole/ono State 15 ( 2.2) 53 ( 3.1) 32 ( 3.1) 264 ( 34) 258 ( 1.8) 252 ( 2.1) Nation 13 ( 2.4) 56 ( 4.0) Si ( 42) 265 ( 4.2) 205 ( 2.0) 281 ( 2.9) PARENTS EDUCATION 143 non-graduate State 10 ( 2.1) 53 ( 5.3) 38 ( 5.6) ( 238 ( 2.9) 237 ( 4.0)1 Nation 8 ( 2.6) 54 ( 5.7) 38 ( 6.3) 244 ( 2.7) 243 ( 3.5)1 liS graduate State 18 ( 2.8) 53 ( 3.4) X ( 3.6) 250 ( 4.7) 247 ( 1.7) 244 ( 2.4) Nation 10 ( 2.5) 54 ( 4.9) 35 ( 4.9) 253 ( 4.8)1 256 ( 1.9) 258 ( 2.8) Soma **ago State 18 ( 2.9) 53 ( 3.5) 31 ( 3.8) 270 ( 4.5) 205 ( 2.1) 258 ( 3.2) Nation 62 ( 4.3) 25 ( 4.1) ( 269 ( 2$) 267 ( 3.8) Collage graduate State 17 ( 2.6) 53 ( 3.4) 30 ( 3.2) 278 ( 3.6) 268 ( 2.0) 260 ( 3.5) Nation 15 ( 2.9) 56 ( 4.9) 30 ( 5.1) 276 ( 5.4)1 276 ( 22) 273 ( 3.7) GENDER Maio State 15 ( 2.2) 54 ( 3.1) 32 ( 3.1) 268 ( 3.9) 258 ( 2.1) 253 ( 2.7) Nation 13 ( 2.6) 57 ( 4.0) 30 ( 4.0) 264 ( 5.0)1 265 ( 2.6) 264 ( 3.3) Female State 16 ( 2,5) 52 ( 3.4) 31 ( 3.6) 260 ( 4.2) 254 ( 1.5) 250 ( 2.1) Nation 13 ( 2.4) 55 ( 4.4) 32 ( 4.7) 206 ( 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 she estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 7 4 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 109 Florida TABLE Al Oa I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of Small Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSRSSMENT At Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Week Never . TOTAL PoroentINts and Pronclency postentage and PraNciency Percentage and Proficiency State 46 ( 32) 34 ( 2.8) 18 ( 2.4) 254 ( 2.0) 200 ( 1.9) 250 ( 3.2) Nation 50 ( 4.4) 43 ( 4.1) 8 ( 2.0) 200 ( 2.2) 264 ( 2.3) 277 ( 5.4)1 RACE/ETHNICITY White State 48 ( 3.1) 37 ( 3.0) 17 ( 2.7) 265 ( 2.0) 267 ( 1.8) 266 ( 2.6) Nation 49 ( 4.8) 43 ( 4.5) 8 ( 2.3) 265 ( 2.7) 271 ( 2.2) 285 ( 4.9)1 Black State 50 ( 4.9) 33 ( 4.4) 17 ( 3.1) 226 ( 2.9) 239 ( 2.8) 232 ( 4.1) Nation 47 ( 8.1) 240 ( 3.4) 45 ( 7.0) 238 ( 4.0) 9 ( 4.1) 4.-** Hispanic State 52 ( 5.5) 28 ( 4.1) 22 ( 3.7) 248 ( 3.2) 249 ( 5.6)1 245 ( 6.4)1 Nation 64 ( 7.2) 32 ( 6.9) 4 ( 1.4) 246 ( 2.5) 247 ( 6.3)1 '74 Asian State 45 ( 8.0) *** .**) 35 ( 7.8) Nation 60 ( 82) ( 37 ( 7.9) *.*) ( TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 36 ( 9.3) 41 ( 8.9) 23 ( 7.3) 270 ( 5.3)1 275 ( 2.5)1 288 ( 4.7)1 Nation 38 (22.9) 41 (17.9) 20 (12.2) .4") 273 ( 6.0)1 Disadvantagad urban State 54 ( 8.6) 27 ( 6.4) 19 ( 6.1) 240 ( 4.3)1 245 ( 3.9)1 243 ( 5.8)1 Nation 70 (11.7) 21 ( 9.0) 9 ( 8.5) 248 ( 4.8)1 249 ( 8.7)1 Extreme rural State 58 (14.8) 246 ( 1.6)1 41 (15.4) 254 ( 5.3)1 ( 444) Nation 35 (14.6) 255 ( 55)1 56 (17.1) 256 ( 5P)I 9 ( 9.6) *v. ( Other State 49 ( 3.9) 35 ( 3.4) 17 ( 2.6) 256 ( 3.1) 260 ( 2.3) 256 ( 4.0) 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 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. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 110 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE AlOa I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of SIllall (continued) Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 111.0 ?MEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMEt4T At Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Weak /Hover TOTAL Percentage and Proficiency Parcentege and Preliciainy Percentage Proficiency State 46 ( 32) 34 ( 2.8) 11) ( 2.4) 254 ( 2.0) 2eo ( 1.9) 258 ( 32) Nation 50 ( 4.4) 43 ( 4.1) 8 ( 2.0) 260 ( 2.2) 264 ( 2.3) 277 ( 5.4)1 PARENTS EDUCATION 14$ nors-graduate State 53 ( 5.3) 93 ( 4.7) 15 ( 3.1) 236 ( 3.5) 241 ( 4.1) ( 144) Nation 00 ( 244 ( 8.4) 3.2) 39 ( as) 244 ( 31)1 ** ( 1.4) .***) HS graduate State 48 ( 3.8) 32 ( 3.4) 20 ( 2.9) 24$ ( 2.1) 24$ ( 2.5) 245 ( 3.5) Nation 49 ( 4.6) 45 ( 5.1) 6 ( 2.5) 25.2 ( 2.6) 257 ( 2.7) ( 111 Some college State 48( 35) 36 ( 31) 1 ( 2.8) 260 ( 2.8) 271 ( 2.0) 258 ( 4.2) Nation Si ( 266 ( 5.2) 3.1) 42 ( 268 ( 5.1) 3.2) ip ( 2.3) 41-4 ) College gra(uate State 46 ( 4.0) 36 ( 35) 18 ( 2.9) 287 ( 2.5) 270 ( 2.6) 271 ( 3.7) Nation 46 ( 5.2) 43 ( 44) 11 ( 2.7) 271 ( 2.6) 27$ ( 3.0) 285 ( 4.0)1 GENDER Male State 4$ ( 3.3) 33 ( 2.7) 19 ( 2.5) 255 ( 2.7) 282 ( 2.4) 259 ( 3.0) Nation 50 ( .4.6) 42 ( 4.0) ( 2.1) 261 ( 3.0) 265 ( 3.1) 2711 ( 5.3)1 Female State 47 ( 3.6) 36 ( 3.2) 17 ( 2.7) 253 ( 2.0) 258 ( 1.8) 253 ( 45) Nation 50 ( 4.7) 43 ( 4.7) ( 2.1) 259 ( 2.2) 263 ( 2.1) 275 ( 8.8)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT I I I Florida TABLE MOb I Teachers' Reports on the Use of Mathematical Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE 14IATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Waik Nom TOTAL Parton Naga and Prod@ fancy Pareardipo and Pnaldenay 9anandage and Pinollkdana State 21 ( 2.7) 33 2.8) 10 ( 2.5) 254 ( 2.8) 257 1.6) 250 ( 3.0) Nation 22 ( 3.7) 69 3.9) ( 2.0) 254 ( 3.2) 283 ( 12) 282 ( s.ap RACE/ETHNICITY Mite State 2i ( 2.8) 64 ( 3.2) 15 ( 2.2) 265 ( 2.9) 2t6 ( 1.6) 272 ( 4.0) Nation 17 ( 4.0) 72 ( 4.2) 10 ( 2.7) 201 ( 3.04 269 ( 2.1) 288 ( 8.2)1 !Rack State 24 ( 4.4) 00 ( 4.0) 16 ( 4.1) 229 ( 4.8) 233 ( 22) Nation 22 ( 5.9) 233 ( s.sp 70 ( 0.3) 241 ( 2.9) 8 ( 3.9) ( oeir) Hispanic State ie ( 3.4) 59 ( 4.5) 25 ( 4.6) ( SI/ 250 ( 3.1) 240 ( SN)1 Nation 39 ( 7.5) 55 ( 7.3) 7 ( 2.6) 247 ( 3.8) 245 ( 3.8$ ( Asian State 18 ( 4.3) .H.R) 52) ( 441 12 ( 4.6) ( .41 Nation 42 ( OS) 41 52 ( 5.7) ( *el 0 ( 42) ( TYPE OF COMMUNIU Advantartd urban State 15 ( 5.8) 70 ( 6.3) 15 ( 3.7) 27$ ( 1.8)1 ( Nation 23 (14.4) imo) 63 (11.5) 278 ( 5.6)1 15 ( 9.3) Disadvantagad urban State 37 ( 8.8) 47 ( 7 2) 16 ( 6.1) 240 ( 6.1$ 241 ( 3.8)1 Nation 39 (11.4) 59 (12.1) 247 ( 7.5)1 253 ( 7.0)1 Extrema nral State 29 (12.1) 114* ***) 52 (13.8) 243 ( 2.5P 20 ( 9.8) es* *4,1 Nation 27 (14.9) 05 (14.6) S ( 3.9) 262 ( 2.8)1 Othar State 18 ( 2.8) 66 ( 3.7) 16 ( 3.3) 258 ( 3.5) 257 ( 24) 259 ( 5.7)1 Nation 19 ( 4.3) 5.0) 9 ( 3.3) 253 ( ;may 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 accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). .1 I 112 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE AlOb I Teachers' Reports on the Use of Mathematical (c°ntinued) i Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Al Least One io a Week Less Than Once a Week Never TOTAL. NW Prolicilaw Porcentago and Profidency iborcooloso mod *Wicklow State 21 ( 2.7) (I3 ( 2.8) 18 ( 2.5) 254 ( 2.8) 257 ( 1.6) 258 ( 3.8) Nation 22 ( 3.7) 69 ( 3.9) la( 2.6) 254 ( 3.2) 233 ( 1.9) 262 ( 5.9)1 PARVITS' EDUCATION KS neogradtate State 22 ( 5.2) 54 ( 5.8) 24 ( 5.3) 235 ( 2.9) Nation 25 ( .4* ( 5.6) .41 ( 443 ( 7.2) 22) 9 (( 8.5) HS graduate State 22 ( 3.5) 62 ( 3.4) 16 ( 3.0) 243 ( 3.3) 247 ( 1.6) 249 ( 3.5) Nation 23 ( 248 ( 4.8) 4.0)1 70 ( 255 ( 5.3) 2.2) 7 (( 22) .41 Some college State 18 ( 3.0) 67 ( 3.5) 15 ( 2.9) 261 ( 4.3) 264 ( 2.0) ( *41 Nation 18 ( 4.0) ( 4.3) 9 ( 2.4) 261 ( 4.4)1 269 ( 2.3) Coltege graduate State 23 ( 2.8) 62 ( 3.0) 15 ( 22) 266 ( 42) 269 ( 22) 272 ( 5.4) Nation 20 ( 3.9) 89 ( 3.7) 11 ( 2.5) 266 ( 15)1 274 ( 2.2) 297 ( 4.2)1 GENDER Maki State 20 ( 2.6) 63 ( 2.9) 17 ( 25) 258 ( 3.4) 259 ( 2.2) 257 ( 4.4) Nation 22 ( 4.1) 69 ( 4.1) ( 2.0) 255 ( 4.1) 265 ( 2.1) 287 ( 7.2)1 Female State 21 ( 3.0) 63 ( 3.1) 16 ( 2.7) 253 ( 3.0) 255 ( 1.7) 258 ( 3.7) Nation 21 ( 3.6) 09 ( 4.2) 10 ( 33) 254 ( 3.3) 280 ( 1,8) 276 ( 6.0)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of ',merest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 s THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 113 Florida TABLE Alla I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1980 NAEP TRIAL STATE MSESSIAENT Almost Even, Day Several noes a Week About tbics a Week or Less TOTAL and Pmadeacy TO ( 281 ( 1.3) 62 ( 3.4) 287 C 1.8) 80 ( 23) 270 ( 1.5) 64(3.7) 272 ( 1.9) 89 ( 3.8) 237 ( 2.1) 58 ( 7.7) 244 ( 4.0) 88 ( 4.8) 251 ( 2.9) 81 ( 8.8) 251 ( 3.1) 89 ( 7.4) ( 83 ( 8.9) 264 ( 7,0)1 88 ( 4.8) 275 ( 2.3)1 83 (15.9) 283 ( 7.3)1 71 ( 8.5) 248 ( 3.1) 08 (10.7) 25.2 ( 4.7)1 77 ( 9.8) 253 ( 2.9)1 50 (10.6) 266 ( 4.0)1 73 ( 3.6) 262 ( 2.1) 63 ( 3.9) 267 ( 2.3) and Prelkieneaf 21 ( 2.7) 244 ( 2.7) 31 ( 3.1) 254 ( 2.9) 2.8) 254 ( 2.5) 28 ( 32) 264 ( 3.4) 27 ( 3.4) 222 ( 4.4) 41 ( 7.9) 233 ( 3.9)1 27 ( 4.8) 241 ( 3.6)1 32 ( 5.3) 240 ( 4.3)1 29 ( TA) «h. 10 ( 32) ( 2.6) *el 23 ( 52) 24 ( 6.2) 228 ( 3.9)1 31 (11.1) 243 ( 6.0)1 17 (13.5) 40 (10.0) 247 ( 7.6)1 20 ( 3.6) 247 ( 3.4) 31 ( 3.5) 255 ( 3.1) and PrEdidando 34 0.8) 1111,* 7 ( 1.8) 200 ( 5.1)1 2 ( 0.7) writ ( eel 8 ( 2.3) 264 ( 5.4)1 4 ( 12) . ( 2 ( 1.4) "R ( ***/ 5 ( 2.2) *0» ( 4.64) 2 ( 1.6) 7 ( 5.1) in ( 4 ( 2.8) *** ***) 14 (14.8) 4 ( 22) ( ( 5.1) .0.9) 10 ( 7.3) .44) ( ( 1.9) 257 ( 5.8)1 State Nation RAEETHNICITV White State Nation Mack State Nation Hispanic State Nation Asian State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State NatiOn Disadvantaged urban State Niton Extreme rural State Nation Ottor State Nation The standasd errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 114 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE Al la Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of (continued) Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1090 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Almost Every Day Sewn Times a Week About Ones a Week or Loss TOTAL Porandaya and Pr Okiergy Percontsgo and Proficiency Porcontago and Proficiently State 76 ( 2.0) 21 ( 2.7) 3 ( 0.6) 201 ( 15) 244 ( 2.7) Nation $2 ( 3.4) 31 ( 3.1) 7 ( 1.11) 267 ( 1.8) 254 ( 2.9) 200 ( 5.1)1 PARENTS' EDUCAT1QN NS non-graduat State 07 ( 241 ( 4.5) 3.0) 31 ( *. 4.8) 2 ( 1.1) Nation $7 ( 245 ( 5.5) 3,2) ( 8 ( 2.1) ***) 143 gradual,* State 73 ( 3.1) 22 ( 32) 5 ( 1.3) 251 ( 1.5) 238 ( 4.0) Nation 61 ( 4,4) 34 ( 3.7) 6 ( 1,5) 257 ( 2.5) 250 ( 2.9) Soma collage State 77 ( 3.8) 21 ( 3.5) 2 ( 1.1) 268 ( 1.8) 255 ( 3.6) *** V") Nation 68 ( 42) 26 ( 3.7) 8 ( 1.9) 272 ( 2.7) 258 ( 52) ( ***) Callao* graduat State 81 ( 2.4) 18 ( 2.4) 2 ( 0,8) 273 ( 1.5) 252 ( 3.8) Nation 61 ( 40) 31 ( 3.9) ( 3.1) 281 ( 2.2) 265 ( 3,1) GENDER Mate State 75 ( 263 ( 2,7) 1,8) 22 ( 245 ( 2.8) 3,1) .. Nation 60 ( 3.7) 33 1 3.4) 7 ( 1.9) 280 ( 2.1) 258 ( 3.6) 261 ( 6.1)t Female State 76 ( 259 ( 2.8) 1$) 21 ( 244 ( 2.9) 2.9) *** ( ***) Nation ( 3.6) 28 ( 3.3) 7 ( 22) 268 ( 1.8) 253 ( 2.5) 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 accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. el" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 r) THE 3990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 315 Florida TABLE Al ib I Teaches' Reports on the Frequency of 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 Less than Weekly 114.33103,4 ard Proldesqr Permigne ard Proldencv Parosstage and Prailkivicy TOTAL State 35 ( 2.0) 32 ( 27) Nation 248 ( 2.4) 34 ( 3.6) 1.9}33 34 204 ( 2.7) 32 ( 3.6) 258 ( LS) 200 (2.3) 274 ( 2.7) RACEIENNiCITY White State 32 ( 22) 33 ( 2.9) 3 35 11 259 ( 22) 287 ( 2.2) 2 .81 73 2 Nation 32 ( 4.1) 33 ( 3.5) 35 ( 3.8) 264 ( 2.7) 264 ( 2.1) 279 ( 2.9) Black State 42 ( 4.9) 32 ( SA) 20 ( 3.3) 220 ( 3.0) 238 ( 3.3) 234 ( 3.7) Nation 45 ( 7.5) 31 ( 7.8) 23 ( 0.3) 232 ( 243 ( 2.3)t 243 ( 7.0)1 Hispanic State 41 ( 32) 30 ( 3.5) 30 ( 3.5) 240 ( 3.2) 253 ( 4.3) 252 ( 6.0) Nation 41 ( 7.7) 26 ( 5.3) 33 ( 7.5) 242 ( 32)1 244 ( 5.1)1 257 ( 2.3)1 Asian State 33 ( 7.3) 14* ( 041 34 ( 6.4) ( .41 32 ( 7.4) Nation 37 ( 6.3) .44 ( 35 ( 9.7) el» ( «41 27 (10.4) «Hp ( ire) TYPE Of COMMUNITY Advantairad urban State 29 ( 6.1) 42 ( 7.8) 29 ( 4.0) 259 ( 3.7)1 267 ( 4.1)1 292 ( 4.4)1 Nation 59 (13.9) 273 ( 3.4)1 20 ( ILO) .0*.) 21 ( 8.2) Mont ( 0-11.1 Disadvantaged urban State 40 (10,5) 29 ( 8.8) 32 ( 9.8) 235 ( 3.2)1 244 ( 4.8)1 249 ( 4.2)1 Nation 50 (13.9) 22 (11.2) 2$ (10.7) 237 ( 2.4)1 258 ( 8.3)1 263 ( 4.1)i Extreme nral State 35 (13.6) 22 (132) 43 (15.1) 242 (11.3)1 ( ***) 258 ( 3.0)1 Nation 27 (14.3) 49 (12.7) 24 (10.1) 25$ ( 6.7)1 Other State 36 ( 3.2) 31 ( 3.3) 33 ( 3.0) 251 ( 3,8) 263 ( 2.6) 261 ( 3.8) Nation 30 ( 4.4) 35 ( 4.3) 38 ( 42) 256 ( 3.3) 259 ( 2,8) 272 ( 2.9) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! 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). 116 1 '2 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE Al lb 1 Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of (continued) i Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY _ . 1060 NAEP TRIAL At Least Several Times STATE ASSESSMENT a Week About Qv* a Week Less than Weekly , TOTAL State Nation PARENTS' EDUCATION NS noel-graduate State Nation weasels State Nation Some college State Nation College graduate State Nation GENDER Male State Nation Female State Nation Pmemodoso mod 35 2.8 24$ 2.41 34 3.8 258 2.$ 39 ( 4.6) 229 ( 3.7) 36 ( to) 2219 ( 3.5) 38 ( 3.4) 240 ( 2.5) 35 ( 5.3) 250 ( 3.8) 33 ( 3.5) 260 ( 2.9) 33 ( 4.7) 260 ( 2.5) 32 ( 3.2) 258 ( 3.6) 35 ( 3.5) 264 ( 2.8) 35 ( 2.5) 250 ( 3.1) 35 ( 4.1) 257 ( 32) 38 ( 3.0) 248 ( 21) 34 ( 4.1) 254 ( 2.1) Pow** mod Roolloisocy 25393 Porommlagm Prididemoy 32 ( 2.7) 264 ( 2.7) 33 3.4 32 ( 3.6) 200 ( 2.33 274 ( 22) 30 ( 0441 ( 3.6) 4141 31 .14 ( 3.9) ( sin 29 ( 0.3) dos ( saw) 36 250 ( 15A1) ( 4.5)I 32 ( 3.8) 31 ( 3.8) 247 ( 2.3) 254 ( 2.8) 30 ( 4.5) 30 ( 4.8) 250 ( 2.7) 283 ( 3.4) 34 ( 3.5) 38 ( 32) 264 ( 32) 287 ( 3.7) 32 ( 4.0) 35 ( 4.1) 268 ( 4.2) 278 ( 2.8) 35 ( 3.3) 33 ( 3.0) 270 ( 3.0) 277 ( 3.0) 32 ( 3.4) 33 ( 3.5) 271 ( 2.4) 259 ( 2.9) 33 ( 2.9) 32 ( 2.7) 283 ( 2.7) 263 ( 3.0) 35 ( 3.8) 31 ( 3.5) 281 ( 2.8) 275 ( 3.2) 32 ( 3.1) 32 ( 3.1) 255 ( 2.0) 264 ( 12) 32 ( 3.7) 34 ( 4.1) 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 reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 117 Florida TABLE Al2 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Small Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT AI Least Once a Week Uwe Than Once a Week Never TOTAL and pniNdemiy emd5- and Prollickna State 25 ( 1.9) 211 ( 1.2) 251 ( 22) 261 ( 1.9) 255 15 Nation 26 ( 24) 28 ( 14) 44 2.9 256(2.7) 757 ( 2.0) 261 15) WffMNJSM White State 24 ( 2.0) 25 ( 1.5) 51 ( 2.1) 282 ( 22) ( 2.1) 265 ( 1.5) Nation 27 ( 2.9) 29 ( 1.7) 44 ( 3.5) 288 ( Si) 272 ( 1.9) 270 ( 1.7) Wadi State 28 ( 34) 24 ( 49 ( 3.0) 228 ( 25) 235 ( 3.4 232 3.0) Nation 2$ ( 3.0) 24 ( 3.6 48 ( 41) litspadc 234 (3.0) 245 ( 4.6) 234 ( 3,1) State 28 ( 3.4) 16 ( 1.9) 56 3.4) 242 ( 5.1) 256 ( 4.3) 246 2.5) Nation 37 ( 5.2) 22 ( 3.6) 41 5.0) 242 ( 3.9) 250 ( 3,4) 240 ( 2.8) Asian State 27 (( 5.8) 19 ( 5.5) .41 54 ( «Hp 5.3) ( Nation 211.( 6.4) 32 ( 4.0) 40 ( 62) Mr* ( ( eel TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged titan State 19 ( 45) 25 ( 3.6) 57 ( 65) 265 ( 7.3)1 280 ( 3.8)1 270 ( 1.5)1 Nation 27 (13.9) ay. ( 33 ( 286 ( 4.5) 5.4)1 40 (13.4) 279 ( 34)1 Dleadvamaged urban State 31 ( 5.6) 21 ( 2.1) 48 ( 5.7) 23$ ( 4.2)1 245 ( 42)1 239 ( 3.1)1 Nation 31 ( 5.7) 20 ( 25) 49 ( 6.3) 245 ( 4.0)1 207 ( 0,4)1 245 ( 3.7)1 Extreme rural State 29 ( es. ( 8.7) 31 ( .4* ( $.8) 39 ( 248 7.5) ( 5.1)1 Nation 34 (10.8) 27 ( 3.8) 39 (11.8) 249 ( 5.2)1 ( 35)1 258 ( cu)! Other State 20 ( 2.1) ( 1.5) 51 ( 22) 254 ( 3.2) 202 ( 2.0) 258 ( 2.3) Nation 27 ( 2.6) 2$ ( 1.7) 45 ( 3.3) 200 ( 3.3) 264 ( 2.1) 202 ( 2.2) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 1 t. IS THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A 12 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Small (continued) I Group Work PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1980 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Lead Once a Weak Loss Than Ones a Week Neve r TOTAL and 111Wailalancy 26 ( 1.9) 251 2.2) 28 ( 2.5) 256 ( 2.7) 22 ( 2.5) *Mk ( *NI Perontinle and Pro6a1660 23( 1.2) 261 ( 1.9) 28 ( 1.4) 207 ( 2.0) 25 ( 3.5) *4* ( «al narand868 and Ponddiany 51 ( 1.9) 255 ( 1.6) 44 ( 2.9) . 201 ( 1.6) 53 ( 3.7) 236 ( 2.9) State Nation PARENTS' EDUCATION NS non-graduats State Nation 29 ( 4.5) 29 ( 3.0) 42 ( 4.5) 249 ( 3.4) 244 ( 10) 242 ( 2.1) NS graduate State 29 ( 2.6) 22 ( 2.1) 43 ( 2.6) 243 ( 2.6) 251 ( 23) 244( 2.1) Nation 2$ ( 3.0) 2$ ( 1.8) 43 ( 3.4) 251 ( 3.7) 261 ( 2.8) 252 ( 1.7) Sam college State 25 ( 2.5) 27 ( 2.3) 48 ( 2.7) 25$ ( 3.6) 268 ( 3.5) 264 ( 1.7) Nation 27 ( 3.9) 27 ( 2.4) 46 ( 3.8) 265 ( 3.8) 263 ( 13) 2as ( 2.1) CoNage gracksats State 25 ( 2.3) 23 ( 1.7) 52 ( 2.8) 263 ( 2.8) 271 ( 2.6) 267 ( 2.0) Nation 23 ( 3.0) 23 ( 1.9) 44 ( 3.6) 270 ( 2.7) 278 ( 2.8) 276 ( 2.2) GENDER Male State 26 ( 1.9) 23 ( 1.6) 51 ( 2.0) 253 ( 3.1) 206 ( 2.4) 257 ( 1.8) Nation 31 ( 2.9) 23 ( 1.7) 41 ( 2.9) 250 ( 3.3) 266 ( 2.6) 2a2 ( 1.8) Female State 25 ( 2.1) 23 ( 1.5) 52 ( 2.3) 250 ( 2.1) 257 ( 2.2) 254 ( 1.8) Nation 28 ( 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 withm ± 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 119 Florida TABLE A13 I Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematics I Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY - - 1900 MEP MCI. STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Once a Week Less Than Once a Week Never . _. . TOTAL 4442.6114.4 W02101204y 24 (12) 250 20 1 .6 2$1 22 ( 1.8) 261 ( 2.6) 27 ( 1A) 266 ( 2.6) Psno1101111110 0,444106cy 25 ( 264 ( 1.6 31 ( 12 221 ( 1.5) 29 ( 1.7) 270 ( 11) 33 ( 11) 2/3 ( 1.6) State Notion SACEIETHNICITY Vihite State Nation Slack State 22 ( 2.7) 20(22 ) 231 ( 3.0) 240 3.2) Nation 27 ( 3.3) 27 3.2) 234 ( 32) 248 4.5) Hispanic State 25 ( 30) 20 ( 2.3) 240 ( 4.1) 259 ( 3.7) Nation 32 ( 4.2) 23 ( 2A) 241 ( 4.6) 253 ( 4,3) Asian State 22 ( 5A) OFR MIMP 111111 Nation 32 3.7) 110* 1141111) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 2$ ( 4.4) 28 ( 32) 266 ( 63)1 277 ( 3.0)1 Nation 36 (10.3) 33 ( 4.8) 278 ( 6.1)1 284 ( 32)1 Disadvantaged urban State 31 ( 4.0) 21 ( 22) 234 ( 3.4)1 249 ( 19)1 Nation 35 ( 6.6) 19 ( 2.1) 249 ( 5.3)1 256 ( 53)1 Extreme.neal State 19 ( 3.7) «ip.) 33 ( 4 .7) 257 ( 5.4) Nation 21 ( 3.1) 37 ( 4.7) 262 ( 4:7)1 Other State 22 ( 1.8) 25( 1.8) 254 ( 2.9) 205 ( 2.5) Nation 27 ( 2.0) 31 1.4) 258 ( 2.9) 270 ( 13) Parc44086 Prandway 51 ( 2.2) 254 ( 1.5) 41 ( 2.2) 25. (1.0) 49 ( 2.7) 264 ( 1.5) 40 ( 2.5) 21311( 1.5) 51 ( 2.9) 223 ( 2.8) 46 ( 45) 232 ( 2.11) 55 ( 3.1) 244 ( 2.5) 40 ( 4.0) 240 ( 1.9) 55 ( 5.1) 114* ( 38 ( 4.7) **op ( 44 ( 6.0) 270 ( 2.1)1 32 (11.1) 281 ( 5.9)1 47 ( 3.9) 239 ( 3.6) 46 ( SA) 248 ( 43)1 49 ( 43) 248 ( 2.1)1 43 ( 5.0) 251 ( 52)1 53 ( 2.8) 253 ( 2.3) 41 ( 2.4) 230 ( 2.2) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *5* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 120 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A 13 I Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematics (continued) I Objects PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT A2 Least Owe Week Less Than Once a Weak Mover . .. TOTAL mad iNuliteincy mad Priiakincy Prilkisnoy State 24 ( 25$ 13) 51 ( 2.2) 250 ( 22) 234 ( 1,8) 254 ( 13) Nation 28 ( 1.10 31 ( 1.2) 41 ( 2.2) 2511 ( 2.(I) 269 ( 1.5) 239 ( 1.6) EMI TE t_Upggilt0.3 HS non-graduate State 22 ( 4.1) 20 ( 2.6) 50 ( 4.9) ..... () ipae, ( ore) 241 ( 3.1) Nation 27 ( 4.2) 25 ( 2.7) 47 ( 5.0) 237 ( 3.0) 253 ( 34) 240 ( 2.3) RS graduate State 22 ( 2.1) 23 ( 2.0) SS ( 2.7) 239 ( 2.7) 254 ( 2.11) 244 ( 2.1) Nation 27 ( 2.7) 31 ( 2.4 43 ( 3.3) 250 ( 2.4) 259 ( 2.7) 263 ( 2.1) Some college State 22 ( 2.2) 27 ( 2.1 51 ( 2.7) 200 ( 3.5) 272 ( 2.8) 200 ( 23) Nation 29 ( 2.6) 36 ( 2.3 35 ( 245) 281 ( 3.5) 274 ( 2.2) 263 ( 2.1) Collage gradual* State 27 ( 2.1) 29 ( 1.8) 44 ( 2.7) 261 ( 2.7) 273 ( 2,5) 267 ( 2.0) Nation 30 ( 2.5) 32 ( 2.0) 38 ( 2.6) 209 ( 3.0) 278 ( 2.0) 275 ( 2.0) GENDER Maio State 25 ( 1.7) 26 ( 1.6) 49 ( 2.5) 252 ( 2.5) 267 ( 24) 255 ( 2.0) Nation 32 ( 2.0) 30 ( 1.5) 38 ( 2.2) 258 ( 2.9) 271 ( 2.1) 260 ( 14) Finial* State 23 ( 2.1) 25 ( 1.5) 52 ( 23) 248 ( 2,6) 281 ( 1.9) 252 ( 1.5) Nation 25 ( 2.0) 31 ( 1.9) 44 ( 2.6) 257 ( 3.0) 268 ( 1.5) 257 ( 1.9) Am.miglinomm.Ml The standard errot 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. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable esthnate (fewer than 62 students), 1 f:46 THE 1990 NAB? TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 121 Florida TABLE A 14 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Aimed Every Day _ Several Tinos a Week Aboul Once a Week or Leas TOTAL Piressuage ail Prolielimay State 78 14 ) 281 13) Nation 74 1.9) 287 ( 1.2) RACEJETHWTY 14111te State 80 ( 1.4) 270 ( 1.2) Nation 78 ( 2.5) 274 ( 1.3) Slade State 71 ( 2.5) 235 ( 2.0) Nation 71 ( 2.6) 240 ( 2.9) Hispanic State 72 ( 2.6) 250 ( 3.1) Nation 81 ( 3.7) 249 ( 2.3) Asian State 74 ( 8.5) Nation 79 ( 4.9) 289 ( 5.0)1 TYPE Of COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 82 ( 3.5) 276 ( 1.8)1 Natiori 73(11.1) 268 ( 4.8)1 Disadvantaged urban State 83 ( 4.1) 245 ( 2,5)1 Nation 69 ( 2,8) 253 ( 3.7)1 Extreme rural State 78 ( 3.8) 254 ( 24)1 Nation 86 (113) 283 ( 42)1 Other State 77 ( 1.8) 262 ( 2.2) Nation 75 ( 22) 287 ( 1.8) Peramtaips and Orsedemy INWOINOMP lireadialey 14 0.9) 9 (1 243 1.6) 230 2111 14 0.13) 12 1.8 252 1.7) 242 (5) 13 ( 1.0) 250 ( 2.0) 13 ( 0.8) 258 ( 22) 18 ( 1.5) 229 ( 32) 15 ( 1.7) 232 ( 3.1) 15 ( 1.6) 0.* ( 21 ( 2.9) 242 ( 5.1) 16 ( 4.9) .44,) 13 ( 3.4) 41 11 ( 1.6) te..) 13 ( 1.7) ( hp) 17 ( 2.4) 238 ( 33)1 15 ( 2.5) 243 ( 4,4)1 13 ( 42) 15 ( SA) 14 ( 1.1) 245 ( 2.6) 14 ( 1.0) 252 ( 2.8) ( 1.0) 237 ( 32) 11 ( 2.2) 252 ( 5.1)! 11 ( 1.9) «Do ( 14 ( 3.2) 223 ( 8.1)! 13 ( 2.0) ( NMI 17 ( 2.7) 224 ( 3.4) 11 ( 4.1) ( 2.6) ( 7 ( 2.4) «pd. 14 (10.4) ( 11 15 ( 3.3) 223 ( 2.7)1 15 ( 2.2) 235 ( 8,5)1 11 ( 3,9) ( 041 17 ( 82) MI! ( 9 ( 12) 233 ( 4.8) 10 ( 1.9) 239 ( 4,3)1 The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret witb caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determinati ni of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than t52 students). 122 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A14 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of (continued) i Mathematics Textbook Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY _ MO NAEP TRIAL Almost EVary Day Several Thais Abad Once a Week or STATE ASSESSMENT a Weak Lass , TOTAL, State Nation PARENTS' EDUCATION NS non-graduate State Nation le graduate State Nation Some code,* State Nation CoNtgo graduate State Nation OEPIK9 Mato State Nation Female State Nation Parconlais and Ihnikiancy 76 1.4) 261 1.3) 74 1.9) 201 1.2) 68 ( 3.6) 240 ( 2.9) 84 ( 3.4) 245 ( 2.3) 75 ( 1.5) 250 ( 1.6) 71 ( 3.6) 258 ( 1.6) 81 ( 2.1) 267 ( 1.7) 80 ( 2.0) 270 ( 1.9) 79 ( 2.0) 272 ( 1.4) 77 ( 2.7) 279 ( 1.0) 75 ( 1.8) 263 ( 1.7) 72 ( 2.4) 268 ( 10) 78 ( 1.5) 258 ( 1.4) 76 ( 1.8) 265 ( 1.3) Perom011a and Pralloiongy Penman. and Pasdainnell 14 ( 9 ( 1.0) 243 ( 230 ( 2.8) 14 ( 0.8 12 ( 1.8) 252 ( 1. 242 ( 4.5) 18 ( 3.2) *el 14 ( ( 24) *41r ) 18 ( 2.0) 16 ( 3.1) ( 14 ( 1.2) 11 ( 1.3) 234 ( 3.0) 226 ( 3.6) 16 ( 1.8) 13 ( 2.8) 249 ( 3.2) 239 ( 3.4)1 12 ( 1.8) ( 1.0) 0+0 ( 11 ( 1.2) ( «HI 9 ( 1.7) 15 ( 1.3) 6 ( 1.1) 250 ( 2.6) IPA* ( *** ) 13 ( 0.9) 10 ( 2.3) 290 ( 2.8) 257 ( 6.4)1 15 ( 1.2) 10 ( 1.2) 245 ( 2.2) 230 ( 3.5) 16 ( 1.2) 12 ( 2.1) 252 ( 2.5) 242 ( 0.1) 13( 1.1) 9 ( 1.0) 241 ( 2.5) 229 ( 3.1) 13 ( 1.0) 11 ( 14) 250 ( 2.5) 242 ( 31) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within * 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. I Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 123 Florida TABLE A15 I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1980 NAEP TRIAL Al Least Several Times STATE ASSEUMENT a Mask About Ones a Weak Less Than Wooldy . TOTAL State Nation RACE/ETHNICITY White State Nation Made State Nation Hispanic State Nation Asian State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation Extreme rural State Nation Other State Nation Persoodept awl aralloiency SS ( la) 243 ( 1.3) 35(24 ) 233( 2.2) 25 12) 257 1.7) 231 14) 1.21 99 272 31 ( 1.9) 29 ( 1.5) 41 2.4) 253 ( 1.5) 267 ( 15) 273 1.6) 35 ( 2A) 202 ( 2.5) 24 ( 269 ( 4.3) 15) 41 277 ( 3.0) 2.0) 43 ( 2.7) 32 ( 2A) 25 ( 2.1) 220 ( 2.2) 232 ( 2.8) 240 ( 2.9) 43 ( 3.8) 32 ( 2.7) 20 ( 3.1) 232 ( 4,3) 241 ( 2A) 241 ( 4.4) 45 ( 3.1) 27 ( 2.0) 22 ( 2.5) 234 ( 3.2) 255 ( 2.2) 255 ( 4.4) 44 ( 4.1) 25 ( 3.4) 32 ( 4.3) 23$ ( 3.9) 247 ( 3.3) 24$ ( 3.3) 38 ( ( 6.8) 18 ( 5.4) OM) 45 ( 7.8) 32 ( *** ( 5.1) 17 ( 3.5) 51 ( 5.9) 38 ( 3.8) 30 ( 211) 31 ( 4.8) 250 ( 3,4)1 277 ( 2.5)1 234 ( 34)! 50 ( 271 ( 9.0) 3.3)1 18 ( 4.9) *41 31 ( 290 ( 83) 5.3)1 44 ( 5.3) 27 ( 2.5) 29 ( 4.1) 234 ( 21)1 238 ( 3.3)! 251 ( 3.1)1 37 ( 5.8) 23 ( 3.6) 41 ( 6.7) 240 ( 4.3)1 253 ( 4.1)1 255 ( 4.2)1 29 ( 0.0) 26 ( 5.0) 45 ( 7.1) WIN ( 255 ( 44)! 42 (10.1) 30 ( 4.4) 2$ ( 7.5) 248 ( 4.0)1 256 ( 3,4)1 267 ( 7.3)1 33 ( 2.4) 29 ( 1.4) 38 ( 2.5) 243 ( 2.2) 259 ( 2.5) 260 ( 2.3) 30 ( 2.9) 26 ( 1.2) 38 ( 2.9) 252 ( 3.0) 201 ( 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;) THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A 15 1 Students' Reports on the Frequency of (continued) I Mathematics Worksheet Use PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS ANO AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 KAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT At Least Swing Tknss a Wolk About Ono* a Week ._ Lass Than Woakly . - TOTAL State Nation PARENTS EDUCATION Pnlio9NES 35 ( 1.9) /43 ( 1.3) 2111a2li nom-gradtsata State 45 ( 3.8) 229 ( 3M Nation 41 ( 4.5) 235 ( SA) K9 graduate State 34 ( 2.4) 235 ( 22) Nation 40 ( 32) 247 ( 2,7) SO110 I:~ State 33 ( 2.5) 253 ( 2.3) Nation 34( 3.4) 259 ( 2.3) Collage graduate State 34 ( 2.5) 253 ( 2.1) Nation 36 ( 2.8) 264 ( 2.6) GENDER Mato State 37 ( 2.3) 245 ( 1.7) Nation 39 ( 2.7) 253 ( 2.7) Female State 34 ( 2.0) 241 ( 1.7) Nation 37 ( 2.5) 253 ( 2.1) Poryoulap Prolhokow 29( 12) 257 ( 1.7) 25 ( 1.2) 261(14) 27 ( 1604 *a* 30 ( 243 ( 23) 32 (2.1) 248 (2.8) 29 C 2.2) 256 ( 23) 28 ( 2.2) 264 ( 2.3) 26 ( 2.2) 269 ( 2.8) 29 ( 1.5) 270 ( 2.1) 22 ( 1.8) 273 ( 2.5) 29 ( 13) 260 ( 2.4) 25 ( 1.6) 263 ( 2.3) 29 ( 1.2) 255 ( 2.0) 25 ( 1.5) 259 ( 19) lierosnlor Praciency 118 ( 37 I ;...75) 272 ( 1.9) 211 ( 3.0) es. ( 29 ( 4.0) 253 ( 2.8) 34 ( 2.5) 254 ( 2.3) 32 ( 3.6) 262 ( 2.2) 39 ( 3.2) 271 ( 2.6) 40 ( 3.6) 271 ( 2.8) 37 ( 2.3) 278 ( 2.1) 41 ( 23) 285 ( 2.3) 34 ( 2.1) 268 ( 2.1) 35 ( 2.7) 274 ( 2.4) 37 ( 2.1) 283 ( 1.9) 38 ( 2.6) 269 ( 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 125 Florida TABLE Al8 Students' Reports on Whether They Own a Calculator and Whether Their Teacher Explains How to Use One PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1900 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT .. Own a Calculator Teacher &pains Calculator Use Yes No Yes No TOTAL ilercenlage amd Prat* Noy State 90 ( 05) 250 Nation 9/ OA 283 13 NNICITY White State ( OA) 200 ( 1.2) Nation 911 ( 0.3) 270 ( 15) Slack State 93 ( 1.3) 232 ( 1.8) Nation 93 ( 1.5) 237 ( 2.8) Illspank State 92 ( 1.5) 248 ( 2.2) Nation 92 ( 1.2) 245 ( 2.7) Aslan State 100 ( 0,0) 273 4.0) Nation 99 ( 0.9) 282 ( 5.3)1 TYPE OF COMMUNITY AdVantaged tr ban State 97 ( 0.8) 272 ( 2.0)1 Nation 99 ( 1.0) 281 ( 3.8)1 Olsadvautaeed urban Stotts 94 ( 1.1) 241 ( 2-5) Nation 94 ( 1.2) 250 ( 3,5)1 Extreme rural State 97 ( 2.2) 251 ( 2.1)1 Nation 90 ( 1.3) 257 ( 3.9)1 Other State 116 ( 0.7) 258 ( 1.9) Nation 97 ( Oh) 283 ( 1.7) Illavadase aid Pracksacy 2 (0.4) 2 ( 7 ( 13) *Go ( .41 ( 1.5) ( .41 8 ( 12) *.** 0 ( 0.0) .4" ( Preeninge parandles and and Prelaioney Oinikapno 45 ( 2.2 250 49 ( 1.31 ( 2.3 2 e057 (1 2137 25$ ( 1.7) 206 ( 44 ( 2.3) 56 ( 2 261 ( 1.5) 249 ( 1.1 40 ( 2.6 54 ( 2.6 268 ( 1.6 273 ( 1.8 53 ( 3.6) 47 ( 227 ( 2.1) 236 ( 53 ( 4.9) 47 4.9 23$ ( 3.6) 239 ( 2. 40 ( 4.6) SO ( 4.6) 241 ( 3.7) 250 ( 2.9) 63 ( 4.3) 37 ( 43) 243 ( 3.4) 245 ( ad) 40 04* ( 4.9) ( SO ( 4.9) ( 441 52 ( 4.8) 44 ( 4.6) fit* 11441 11144 ( 041 45 ( 6.1) 56 ( 6.1) 264 ( 3.4)1 278 ( 24)1 45 (12.2) 55 (122) 278 ( 2.5)1 26$ ( OA)! 45 ( 5.9) 55 ( 5.9) 233 ( 1.7)1 245 ( 3.4)1 53 ( 7.5) 47 ( 7.5) 247 ( 4.1)! 251 ( 3M1 55 (11.8) 45 (11.8) 247 ( 13)1 2$) ( 44)1 42 ( L7) 58 ( 8.7) 251 ( 4.8)1 261 ( 44)1 43 ( 2.7) 57 ( 2.7) 252 ( 2.1) 281 ( 2.4) 50 ( 2.7) 50 ( 2.7) 2$8 ( 2:1) 241 ( 2.0) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 126 1 (", I THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE Al8 (continued) Students' Reports on Whether They Own a Calculator and Whether Their Teacher Explains How To Use One PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1060 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Oi a Caku later 'Maher Explains Calculator Um Yes No Yes No TOTAL Pardentage and Pranideni Percentoor and Proficiency P41,015111P and Praikeellgi Perosidage dad Prelidsicy State 96 ( 0.5) 4 (0.5) 45 ( 22) 55 ( 256 1.2 226 ( SA) 1.3) 260 ( 1.7 Nation 97 0.41 3 ( OA) 49 2.3) 51 ( 2.3 203 1.3 224 ( 3.5) 2X11 1.1) 208 ( 1.5) PARENTS' EDUCATION KS non-graduate State 91 ( 2.0) 9 ( 2.0) 45 ( 4.8) 55 ( 45) 240 ( 2.3) 1141* ( 233 ( 3.0) 241 ( 2.9) Nation 92 243 ( 1.6) ( 2.0) 8 ( 1.6) Ina 53 ( 242 ( 45) 2.9) 47 ( 243 ( 4.6) 2.5) HS graduate State 95 ( 0.8) 5 ( OA) 4$ ( 2.6) 52 ( 2.6) 248 ( 1.4) 240 ( 1.6) 250 ( 2.1) Nation 97 255 ( OA) ( 1.5) 3 ( 0.6) 4.1 54 ( 252 ( 3.0) 1.9) 48 ( 258 ( 3.0) 2.0) Some coNoge State 98 264 ( OD) ( 1.6) 4 ( 0.9) *in 43 ( 261 ( 3.4) 28) 57 ( 265 ( 3.4) 22) Nation 98 ( 0.9) 4 ( OA) 4$ ( 32) 52 ( 32) 268 ( 1.8) 265 ( 2.4) 288 ( 22) **ego graduate State 99 ( OA) ( 0.4) 45 ( 2.5) 55 ( 2.5) 267 ( 1.5) 260 ( 1.9) 273 ( 2.3) Nation 99 275 ( 0.2) ( 1.6) ( 02) iHro ( 45 ( 268 ( 2.6) 2.2) 54 ( 280 ( 2.6) 1.9) GENDER Maio State 96 ( 0,8) 4 ( 0.6) 46 ( 23) 54 ( 2.5) 258 ( 1.8) ( 251 ( 1.8) 263 ( 2.1) Nation 97 ( 0.5) 51 ( 2.6) 49 ( 2.8) 254 ( 1.7) 258 ( 2.1) 260 ( 2.1) Female State 96 ( 0.6) 4 ( 0.6) 44 ( 2.4) 56 ( 2.4) 254 ( 12) 111.0 V11) 249 ( 1.5) 257 ( 1.7) Nation 97 ( 05) 3 ( 0.5) 47 ( 2.5) 53 ( 2.5) 262 ( 1.3) 258 ( 1.7) 263 ( 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 62 students), THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 127 Florida TABLE A19 I Students' Reports on the Use of a Calculator I for Problem Solving or Tests PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY ----Wonting MOO SAES TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Problems in Class Doing Problems at Nome Taking Quizzes or Tests Almost Aiwa' , I Never Almost Always Never Almost Always Never I TOTAL State Nation RACE/ETHNICITY White State Nation Mack State Nation Hispanic State Nation Asian State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advardaged *skim State Nation Disadvantaged eirban State Nation Extreme rural State Nation Othar State Nation llarasataad Padanna. Parantap .9aseatisa Panaestaaa and awl and and and and Pra Wool Penlakalay May PlieekodY PrOCIWICY Praddingar I 49 1.2 346 11 42 1.5 254 1.5 44 ( 1.4) 257 ( 1.5) 40 ( 1.7) 262 ( 1.7) 32 ( 91) 227 ( 57 ( 3.2 232 ( 2.4 sti ( 2.7) 237 ( 3.0) 51 ( 24) 239 ( 2.0) 41 1 5.7) imp* *in 36 ( 6.3) "" ( "I 47 ( 3.0) 262 ( 3.3)4 51 ( 5.4) 270 ( 4.7$ 54 ( 3.4) 232 ( 3.0) 52 ( 3.1) 241 i 34)1 53 ( 2.0) 237 ( 24)4 48 ( 7.4) 246 ( 4.3)4 46 ( 1.7) 247 ( 2.4) 46 ( 1.9) 254 ( 2.1) 271 1 a iti 23 1 272 ( 14) 29 277 1.7 24 2,2 278 1.3) 19 ( 2.4) 248 ( 24) 20( SA) 249( 4.0) 26 ( 2.4) 264 ( 4.2) 16 ( 3.5) 252 ( 3.3)! 32 ( 6.",) ..... ( ***) 29 ( 5.8) a" V") 24 ( 12 1.7 30 1 2.1 14 26 ( 262 ( 1.3 31 ( 1.5 270( 1.7) 28 ( 231 ( 2.0 31 ( 2A 293 ( 3.3) 2.3) 245 4.2) 26 3.2) 23e ( 4.8) 28 ( 5.8) so* ( oil 30 ( 3.3) a" ( "1 : 21 11 . 262 1.? 19 OA 20 11) 22 1.2) 20$ 1.3 13 1.2 2te 23 17 ( 2.0) 243( 3.3) 18 ( 1,9) 248 ( 54) . 23 ( 14) 252 ( 4.0) 21 ( 2.1) 244 ( 3.1) 22 ( 5.4) *.i. ( ....) 23 ( 44) "a ( a") .,2r3 1 ;..5 : 271 1.4 25 1.4) 254 1.3 95 1,43 263( 2.3 3.1) 225 2.1) 3$ 3.3) 230 ( 3.6) 20 ( 2.0) 235 ( 42) 261 2.7) 221 ( 3.2) 30 ( 5.5) ..... ( .....) 23 ( 5.8) a" ( aaa) 27 ( 4.1) 28 ( 2.1) 21 ( 3.1) 23 ( 1.3) 284 ( 2.3)4 267 ( 3.7)4 274 ( 3.6)1 258 ( 3..3)4 23 (10.7) 32 ( BM 15 ( 24) 31 ( 3.8) ( 4") 2 7 , ( 44s - ( -) 281 ( 7.6)1 25 ( 34) '.8 ( 33) 20 ( 2.6) 34 ( 2.9) 255 ( 2.7)4 238 ( 3.3)4 243 ( 3.7)4 231 ( 3.3)1 22 ( 4.5) 30 ( 3.3) 24 ( 2.3) 27 ( 24) 259 ( sA)4 246 ( 5.2)4 254 ( 4.6)4 240 ( 44$ 20 4.8) 241 3.1) 22 2.0) 31 ( 4.7) .. eel 1 .... en fee* *in 1 oiro ( 104) 29 ( 64) 20 ( 2.5) 23 ( 34) 24 ( SA) 288 ( am; - ( -) 243 ( 4.4)f "a ( "s) 29 ( 2.2) 25 ( 1.4) 22 ( 1.3) 26 ( 1.4) 271 ( 2.3) 255 ( 2.3) 263 ( 2.4) 245 ( 2.3) 22 ( 2.0) 32 ( 1.7) 18 ( 1.1) 27 ( 14) 272 ( 1.8) 263 ( 2.3) 263 ( 24) 253 ( 2.7) ...2g 11 273(1 11 98 1.7) 277 1$ 32 2.3 279 1.2 23 2.7) 250 2.8) 24 3.1) Si ( AM) 30 ( 24) 267 ( 3.3) 22 ( 3.1) 256 ( 4.2) 42 ( 63) *so. ( .1 46 ( 8.4) a" ( a") 39 ( 4.0) 284 ( 2.5 p 26 ( 2.8) 246 ( 42)4 28 ( 40) 256 ( 3.3$ 27 ( 4.8) 263 ( 5.0)1 30 2.9) **a 0**) 37 8.3) 270 4.01 38 ( 2.1) 213 ( 1.9) 29 ( 2.1) 275 ( 14) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent aertainty 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 "Sometime?' category is not included. I Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency, "*" Sample size is insiffitiefil to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 128 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida 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 1980 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Working Problems In Class Doing Problems al Home Taking Quizzes or Tests Almost Always Never Almost Always Never Almost Always -.... Never TOTAL State Nation PARENTS' EDUCATION HS non-gradust State Nation MS graduate State Nation Some college State Nation Coney. graduals State Nation GENDER M. State Nation Fame le State Nation Percentage Percentage Paean tap Percentiles Poreentses Penzantago and and and mod and end Proiciency Proficiency Pco Seism PrOad8INY Pie 'WNW *WNW I 2:: 11} 2g1 11 46 14 23 1.9 254 13) 272 ( 1.4 52 ( 21 ( 2.7) 228 ( 2.8 IN» ( 44.) 54 ( 3.3 19 ( 3.10) 240 ( 2.3) ( ***) 53 ( 1,5) 23 ( 1.6) 240 ( 1.9) 259 ( 3.2) 52 ( 2.5) 20 ( 24) 249 ( 1.4) 265 ( 2.7) 45 ( 2.2) 31 ( 2.2) 255 ( 24) 273 ( 2.2) 48 ( 2.8) 20 ( 24) 253 ( 2.1) 272 ( 2.5) 47 ( 1.8) 30 ( 2.4) 255 ( 1.9) 283 ( 2.1) 45 ( 14) 25 ( 2.4) 265 ( 1.7) 264 ( 14) 52 ( 1.4) 24 ( 1.0) 248 ( 1.8) 276 ( 2.0) SO ( 1.7) 20 ( 2.0) 255 ( 1.9) 275 ( 2.2) 46 ( 1.8) 28 ( 1.8) 245 ( 1.6) 267 ( 2.2) 48 ( 2.0) 26 ( 2.1) 252 ( 1.7) 289 ( 1.8) 21 ilf at 1 111 2,24 301 1.41 19 OA 1 27 261 ( 1.8 283 ( 1.8 253 28 ( 3.0) 21 ( 3.0) 38 **a. ( *in 224 26 ( 3.1) 22 ( 2.6) 32 244 ( 3.8) 244 ( 4.2) 237 26 ( 1.8) 21 ( 1.0) 29 245 ( 24) 249 ( 3.3) 238 29 ( 1.9) 18 ( 14) 28 250 ( 24) 248 ( 24) 248 24 ( 1.8) 23 ( 2.1) 26 263 ( 2.6) 268 ( 2.7) 258 28 ( 2.0) 20 ( 1.9) 28 267 ( 3.0) 268 ( 3.2) 255 27 ( 1.7) 19 ( 1.7) 25 264 ( 2.2) 270 ( 2.8) 250 33 ( 2.0) 16 ( 1.4) 26 274 ( 2.2) 278 ( 2.8) 268 25 ( 1.4) 20 ( 1.5) 27 235 ( 2.4) 264 ( 2.5) 244 29 ( 1.6) 19 ( 1.3) 27 264 ( 2.8) 263 ( 2.5) 258 28 ( 1.5) 21 ( 1.4) 29 231 ( 2.0) 260 ( 2.0) 242 32 ( 1.8) 18 ( 1.2) 27 259 ( 1.7) 263 ( 2.1) 251 1,11 n341 13 1.41 2au ;:.:} (24) 274 ( 1.3 ( 2.9) 25 ( 2.8) 8.7) sw84.) ( 3.8) 24 ( 3.2) ( 2.3) 251 ( 4.8) ( 2.0) 31 ( 1.9) ( 1.9) 259 ( 2.5) ( 1.8) 27 ( 2.2) ( 2.8) 285 ( 2.0) ( 2.0) 38 ( 2.2) ( 3.8) 274 ( 2.1) ( 2.4) 35 ( 2.5) ( 3.8) 275 ( 2.0) ( 1.5) 38 ( 2.3) ( 2.4) 284 ( 1.7) ( 1.8) 33 ( 2.7) ( 2.8) 265 ( 2.0) ( 1.4) 3 1.8) ( 2.5) 274 ; 1.7) ( 1.5) 26 ( 2.1) ( 3.0) 277 ( 1.9) ( 1.8) 37 ( 1.8) ( 1.7) 268 ( 1.7) ( 1.8) 33 ( 2.1) ( 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 "Someumes"category is not included. ." Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 129 Florida TABLE A20 I Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 t4AEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT High "Calculator-Use" Gnat* Other "Calculator-Use" Group TOTAL State Nation RACE/ETHNICITY White State Nation Mack State Nation Hispanic State Nation Asian State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State Nation Disadvantaged irrban State Nation Extreme, noel State Nation Other State Nation IM11 Poventess and Preaching, and Prollidoody 43 ( 1.2) 57 ( 12) 203 ( 14) 249 ( 14) 42 ( '13) 51 ( 1.3) 272 ( 1.0) 255 ( 1,5) 44 ( 1.7) 50 ( 1.7) 273 ( 1.5) 259 ( 1.5) 44 ( 1.4) 50 ( 1.4) 277 ( 13) 203 ( 1.7) 39 ( 2.7) SI ( 2.7) 238 ( 3.1) 227 ( 2.3) 37 ( 34) 153 ( 3.4) 246 ( 3.9) 231 ( 3.0) 42 ( 2.8) SS ( 2.8) 264 ( 3.1) 241 3.7) 315 ( 4.2) 64 ( 42) 254 ( 4.6) 233 ( 3.0) 54 ( 5.8) 46 ( 5.13) 611 50 ( 4.8) . ) SO ( 4.8) **,.) 46 ( 4.2) 54 ( 4.2) 274 ( 2.7)1 271 ( 2.3)1 50 ( 3.8) SO ( 34) 288 ( 4.9)1 275 ( 4.4)1 ( 2.7) 06 ( 2.7) 245 ( 3,4)1 235 ( 2.6) 38 ( 4.2) 62 ( 4.2) 282 ( 5.6)1 244 ( 3.9)1 44 ( *44 3.7) 56 ( 247 ( 3.7) 4.9)1 39 ( 5.6) 81 ( 5.6) 269 ( 4.4)1 248 ( 4.3)1 44 ( '1.4) 50 ( 1.4) 205 ( 2.1) 248 ( 2.3) 42 ( 1.4) 58 ( 1.4) 271 ( 1.9) 255 ( 2.0) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. 1"'" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). ; 130 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 1 Florida TABLE A20 I Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators (continued) I PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 10 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT top "Cats:dater-Use" Group Other "Ca leulator-Use" Grow TOTAL Perventell and Pre Mem, Parcantaga and Proficiency State 43 ( 1.2) 57 ( 12) 263 ( 1,5) 24S ( 1.5) Nation 42 ( 1.3) 511 ( 1.3) 272 ( 1.6) 255 ( 14) PARENTS' EDUCATION KS non-graduate State 36 ( 4.5) 84 ( 4.5) 232 ( 3.6) Nation 34 ( 3.3) 06 ( 3.3) 245 ( 4.4) 242 ( 2.4) NS graduate State 41 ( 2.1) 59 ( 2.1) 251 ( 2.5) . 242 ( 22) Nation 40 ( 2.2) 00 ( 22) 263 ( 2.0) 249 ( 1.8) Som =dg State 50 ( 3.0) 50 ( 3.0) 286 ( 2.5) 255 ( 2.5) Nation 48 ( 2.2) 52 ( 2.2) 277 ( 2.6) 258 ( 2.5) Coilage graduate State 45 ( 2.0) 55 ( 2.0) 274 ( 22) 200 ( 1.8) Nation 46 ( 2.0) 54 ( 2.0) 282 ( 2.1) 268 ( 1.9) GERDER Male State 41 ( 1.7) 59 ( 1.7) 204 ( 2.4) 251 ( 2.0) Nation 39 ( 2.0) 61 ( 2.0) 274 ( 2.0) 255 ( 2.3) Female State 45 ( 1.8) 55 ( 1.6) 282 ( 1.8) 246 ( 1.6) Nation 45 ( 1.8) 55 ( 1.8) 269 ( 1.7) 254 ( 1.2) 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). 1.'36 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 131 Florida TABLE A24 I Students' Report on Types of Reading I Materials in the Home NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY Zero to TWo Types TYPett Four Types forosialos P.M Moo Pomp lege awl MINI mid TOTAL Pro Ebbw 27 ( 12) 041.04101181f SS( Pliecialay 40( 1A) State Nation 241 ( 21 I 1.0 1.5 SS I 244 ( 0 2. 238 1.7 272 1 RACE/ETHNICITY White State 18 ( 1.4) 32 ( 1.1) 50 ( 1.5) 253 ( 1.5) 242 271 ( 14) Nation iS ( 1.1) 29 1.3 Se( 1.5) 251 ( 2.2) 2161 13 276 ( 11) Black State 39 ( 34 ( 2.0) 27 ( 2.4) 226 ( 2 282 ( LS) 237 ( 2.3) Nation 31 ( 1.9 30 ( 2.2) 33 ( 2.4) 232 ( 32) 233 ( 32) 245 ( 33) State 45 ( 2.5) 32 ( 2.1) 23 ( 23) 237 ( 3.4) 249 ( 2.4) 256 ( 32) Nation 44 ( 3.0) 30 ( 2.4) 26 ( 2.3 237 ( 3.4) 244 ( 4.3) 253 ( 2.4) Asian State 43 ( 62) 27 ( 6.3) 30 ( 5.7) IIMP* ( *In *44 ( IN* ) Illti ( 41 Nation 28 ..6. ( 8.0) 33 ( 5,8) ,,. ( ....) 38 .... ( ( 4.2) .44,) TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged urban State 20 ( 2.7) 34 ( 24) 48 ( 33) 257 ( 4.4)1 280 ( 3.8)1 279 ( 3.1)1 Nation 13 ( 3.8) 28 ( 2.1) 01 ( 42) 207 ( 32)1 Diudvantagad urban State 33 ( 2.1) 35 ( 2.1) 33 ( 2.8) 231 ( 4.0) 243 ( 2.5) 246 ( 3.1)1 Nation 32 ( 3.9) 31 ( 2.3) 37 ( 3.13) 243 ( 2.9)1 247 ( 32)1 257 ( 49)1 Extreme rural State 31 ( 2.0) 3$ ( 4.0) 34 ( 2.7) 252 ( 24)1 Nation 17 ( 42) 33 3.2) 50 ( 5.1) 253 ( 43)1 263 ( 5.6)1 Mbar State 28 ( 12) 31 ( 12) 41 ( 2.2) 242 2.3) 255 ( 23) 266 ( 1.9) Nation 22 ( 13) 30 ( 13) 44 ( 1.5) 244 ( 2.8) 259 ( 22) 272 ( 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. I Interpret with caution the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 132 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A24 I Students' Reports on Types of Reading ("mtintled) Materials in the Home PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY _ 1003 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Zero to Two Typos Throe Twos Fotr Typos , TOTAL NMI Mb. P14001011141 Ihsramtegs mad Pod Wow Ipmesplase and Proldisacy State 27 f 33 40 ( 1.4) 241 ( /11 286 ( 1A) Nation 21 ( 1.0 3) 1.0 4$ ( 1.3) 244 2.0 258 ( 13) 272 ( 1.5) MEW IS' EDUCATION IU noniyaduato state 46 ( 3.4) 37 ( 3.3) 18 ( 3,0) 230 ( 4.1) 241 ( 32) ( Nation 47 ( 4.0) 28 ( 3.0) 25 ( 2.8) 240 ( 34) 243 ( 3.3) 246 ( 3.3) 1411 graduate State 32 ( 1A) 36 ( 2.0) 32 ( 2.1) 238 ( 2.7) 249 ( 2.1) 250 ( 1.9) Nation 26 ( 22) 33 ( 1.9) 40 ( 1.7) 248 ( 22) 253( 2.7) 260 ( 2.1) Sem college State 24 ( 1.8) 35 ( 2.1) 44 ( 2.3) 25$ ( 3.1) 261 ( 22) 269 ( 2.3) Nation 17 ( 1.5) 32 ( 1.7) 51 ( 2.0) 251 ( 4.0) 202 ( 2.6) 274 ( 14) Collage graduate State t 27 ( 1.5) 58 ( 2.2) 249 ( 3.5) 264 ( 273 ( 1.8) Nation 10 ( 0.8) 2$ ( 1.8 62 ( 2.0) 254 ( ZS) 209 ( 2.5 280 ( 1.8) GENDER M. State 2$ ( 14) 31 ( 1.2) 41 ( 1.7) 243 ( 2.1) 257 ( 2.2) 287 ( 1.9) Nation 21 ( 1.5) 31 ( 1.5) 48 ( 1.4) 244 ( 2.3) 258 ( 2.1) 273 ( 2.0) Renato State 26 ( 1.3) 34 ( 1.3) 40 ( 1.7) 238 2.1) 252 ( 1.6) 264 ( 1.5) Nation 22 ( 1.2) 2$ ( 1A) 49 ( 14) 244 ( 2.2) 258 ( 14) 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. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 133 Florida TABLE A25 I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent I Watching Television Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT One Hour or Less Two Hours Three Hours Four to Fivs Hours Six Hours or More TOTAL Peropedigs Perm tad and and Pro Waxy 19ndloisacy lindialormy 12 ( 0.7) 19 ( 0.9 21 ( ON) 261 ( 2.5) 292 ( 258 ( 1.6) 12 ( 0.41) 21 ( 0.9 22 ( OA) 299 ( 2.2) 2011 ( 1.8 205 ( 1.7) 13 ( 1.0 21 ( 1.2) 24 ( 12) 271 ( 2.6 270 ( 2.4) 266 ( 1.6) 13 ( 1.0) 23 ( 1.2) 24 ( 1.1) 27aS ( 2.5) 275 ( 22) 272 ( 1.9) 11 ( 13) 18 ( 1.3) 01141 imp* f «en 230 ( 3.6) 6 ( 0.6) 13 1.7) 17 ( 2.1) 239 ( 7.0) 22. ( 5.0) 13 ( 1.9) 16 ( 1.6) 17 ( 1.5) *el 247 ( 4.5) 247 ( 4.2) 14 ( 2.4) 20 ( 2.5) 19 ( 2.1) *MI ( Gel 245 ( 3.2) 242 ( 5.6) 10 ( 4.1) 26 ( 5.8) 28 ( 6.6) 0.0. .4.41 44.11. *01 15 ( 5.0) 24 ( 4.2) 22 ( 3.1) %WM ( **Al 17 ( 1.5) 18 ( 2.4) 23 ( 2.3) 272 ( 2.9)! 16 ( 1.4) 25 ( 4.3) 21 ( 1.8) i 44.0 6.44 11 ( 1.7) 18 ( 1.3) 20 ( 1.9) 245 ( 4.3) 242 ( 3.2)1 at*IV ( 1.2) 17 ( 3.1) 19 ( 2.1) 250 ( 4.0)1 255 ( 5.0)1 10 ( 2.4) 13 ( 2.3) 24 3.3) .44 it** ( *el 14 ( 3.3) 19 ( 2.8) 23 ( 2.0) ihm *1 4 11 ( 0.9) 20 ( 1.4) 20 ( 1.1) 260 ( 4.1) 265 ( 2.7) 261 ( 2.4) 12 ( 1.0) 21 ( 1.0) 23 ( 1.2) 266 ( 2.8) 269 ( 2.3) 265 ( 2.1) Perowdage and Pro Waxy 29( OA) 250 ( 1A) 28 ( 1.1) 260 ( 1.7) 29 ( 1.3) 264 ( 1.6) 27 ( 1.4) 267 ( 1.7) 30 ( 2.1) 236 ( 2.0) 32 ( 14) 239 ( 4.0) 29 ( 2.3) 248 ( 3.0) 31 ( 3.1) 247 ( 3.5) 26 ( 5.5) ( 4,1 23 ( 4.7) *MI ( IMO ) 29 ( 2.3) 266 ( 3.1)1 30 ( 4.3) 44* ) 28 ( 1.7) 245 ( 3.1)1 34 ( 24) 251 ( 4.7)1 31 ( 1.7) 20 ( 2.7) 250 ( as) 30 ( 1.3) 258 ( 2.1) 27 ( 1.2) 259 ( 2.2) Pews lap and Preedeacy 19( CO) 241 ( 2.0) 18 ( 1.0) 245 ( 1.7) 13 ( 1.2) 250 ( 24) 12 ( 1.2) 253 ( 2.6) 30 ( 227 ( 3.1 32 ( 2.2 223 ( 2.5) 22 ( 245 ( 3.7 17 ( 1.7) 228 ( 3.6) 9 ( 34) **V Itt.) 13 ( 4.0) SO* ( 44, ) 13 ( 2.1) 6 ( 2.0) IS* 4411) 26 ( 2.9) 229 ( 3.4)1 20 ( 3.2) 238 ( 44)I 22 ( 3.7) 19 35) *4* ( 441 18 ( 1.4) 241 ( 3.3) 17 ( 1,4) 240 ( 2.5) State Nation RACE/ETHNICiTY State Nation Black State Nation Hispanic State Nation Asian State Nation TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advantaged twban State Nation Disadvantaged urban State Nation Extreme rural State Nation Other State Natron 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). 134 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A25 I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent (continued) i Watching Television Each Day PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY _ 1900 NAEP TRIAL One Hour or Four to Fivo Stx Hours or STATE ASSESSMENT Lass Taro Hours Three Hours Nours Mora ' TOTAL State Nation PARENTS' RUCATION NS nowgracklats State Nation NS graduate State Nation Some college State Nation Collage gracksata State Nation 9ENDER, Maio State Nation Femal State Nation Vereesiase ,09mOsio fiers~ 14,900311, Percoesie aa9 sit aml frolaisny ilmadsomy 0r94kiem Mom 9re8dancy 12 0.7) 20112 0$ 200 ( 12 2.3) 4,44,) 12 2.2) 11 ( 249 (( tO 249 1 4. 13 ( 1.4) wo ow) 13 ( 1.2) 273 ( 2.7) 17 ( 1.3) 282 ( 2.0) 11 ( 1,0) 261 ( 3.5) 11 ( OA) 209 ( 3.3) 13 ( 1.1) 200 ( 3.2) 14 ( 1.1) 209 ( 2.8) 19 202 I till ( 11 17 ( 2.9) ***1 20 ( 3.1) 18 ( 1.4) 25017 15A1 257 ( 2.8) 21 ( 2.0) 269 ( 23) 25 ( 2.4) 275 ( 2.7) 20 ( 1.6) 275 ( 23) 22 f, 13) 200 ( 2.5) 1$ ( 12) 204 ( 2.8) 22 ( 1.2) 267 ( 2A) 19 ( 1.2) 260 ( 2.3) 20 ( 1.3) 20$ ( 2.2) 1.19 22 ( 2.4) ow, ( ion ao(1.7 26 ( 2.5) *Me 41.10.) 21 ( 2.6) 29 ( 2.9) ( 244 ( 32) 21 ( 30 ( 1.9) 244 ( 241 ( 1.111) 23 ( 2A 32 ( 23) 259 ( 32 253 ( 2.5) 10 ( 1.6) 30 ( 2.4) 262 ( 3.9) 263 ( 23) 23 ( 2.6) 2$ ( 22) 209 ( 3.5) 237 ( 2.5) 24 ( 1.4) 29 ( 1.6) 271 ( 2.4) 264 ( 2.4) 23 ( 1.1) 25 ( 13) 277 ( 22) 270 ( 2.4) 21 ( 1.0) 30 ( 12) 259 2.5) 261 ( 14) 22 1.0) 2$ ( 1.3) 267 22) 202 ( 2.1) 21 ( 29 ( 1.4) 256 2.0 250 ( 1.7) 23 ( 1.4 28 ( 1.6) 264 ( 1.8) 25$ ( 14) 19 ( 1.0) 241 ( 2.0) 16 ( 1.0) 245 ( 1.7) 24 ( 2A) ( ow) 20 ( 2.4) wo ow) 22 ( 1.9) 238 ( 3.0) 19 ( 1.6) 248 ( 3.0) 18 ( 1.9) 254 ( 3-5) 14 ( 1.5) 242 ( 3.4) .14 ( 1.3) 24$ ( 3.5) 12 ( 1.1) 255 ( 3.2) 20 ( 1.2) 242 ( 2.8) 17 ( 1.5) 246 ( 2.5) 18 ( 1.3) 239 ( 2.6) 15 ( 12) 241 ( 2.2) Tbe standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be 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. "* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). I 4 0 THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT 135 Florida TABLE A26 I Students' Reports on the Number of Days of I School Missed PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT None One or Two Days Three Days or More *Si 1106110Cy and and Orsideacy PraNalsocy TOTAL State 41 ( 1.1) 33 ( tO) 1.0) 201 ( 1.7) 25. (14) 243 1.6) Nation 45 ( 1.1) 32 ( 0.9) 23 1.1) 205 (1.8) 200 ( 1.5) 250 ( 1.0) RACE/ETHNICITY White State 30 ( 1.3) 35 ( 1.3 29 ( 1.3) 273 ( 16) 267 ( 1.7) 253 ( 1.7) Naticn 43 ( 1.2) 34 ( 1-2 23 ( 1.2) 273 ( 16) 272 ( 1.7) 258 ( 2.1) Black State 51 ( 2.3) 27 ( 1 7 22 ( 2.2) 235 ( 2.4) 235 ( 2.3 221 C 2.4) Nation 58 ( 3.1) 21 ( 1.8 23 ( 2.5) 240 ( 3.2) 240 ( 4.1) 224 ( 3.5) Hispanic State 42 ( 2.4) 30 ( 2.2 23 ( 2.3) ( 26) 246 ( 3.3) 234 ( 3.7) Nation 41 ( 3.3) 32 ( 22) 27 ( 2$) 245 ( 4.6) 250 ( 3.3 235 ( 3.1) As State 80 ( 5.9) 22 ( 5.8 ( 3.8) 41 Nation 62 ( 5.6) 27 ( 5.3) 1 1 ( 4.9) 287 ( 4.7)1 val TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advent* 9ad urban State 44 ( 2.8) 30 ( 1.6) 27 ( 26) 277 ( 2.4)1 273 ( 4.2)1 259 ( 3.8)1 Nation 47 ( 2.3) 33 ( 2.6) 15 ( 3.7) 284 ( 4,4)1 279 ( 4.5)1 Disadvantaged urban State 37 ( 3.4) 31 ( 2.5) 32 ( 2.8) 241 ( 2.4)1 244 ( 2.5)1 238 ( 3.3) Nation 42 ( 3.3) 2e ( 1.8) 32 ( 2.7) 254 ( 3.7)1 256 ( 4.2)1 238 ( 8.3)1 Extreme rural State 38 ( 2.5) 37 ( 2.4) 27 ( 2.6) 255 ( 3.4)1 252 ( 25)1 Nation 43 257 ( 4.4) ( 4.1)1 32 ( 42) 284 ( &CI 25 ( 4.4. ( 3,9) Other State 42 (15) 34 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1.3) 281 ( 2.8) 200 ( 2.3) 244 ( 2.4) Nation 45 ( 1.3) 32 ( 1.1) 23( 1.1) 285 ( 2.2) 288 ( 1.9) 251 ( 2.4) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. I Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of.the variability of this dstimated mean proficiency. 'I's* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 136 THE 1990 NAEP TR.IAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A26 I Students' Reports on the Number of Days of (continued) I School Missed PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT NO1141 _ 1 One or Two Days Three Days ar Mare TOTAL Pandinialle and Podidancy Paraantap and Pradaloacy Peroannipa and pralialancY State 41 ( 1.1) 33 ( CO) 27 1.0) 261 ( 1.7) 25$ ( 1.5) 245 ( 12) Nation 45 ( 1.1) 2es ( 1.8) 32 ( 0.9) 203 ( 1.5) 23 ( 1.1) 250 ( 12) PARENTS EDUCATION 1$8 non-graduate State 32 ( 3.2) 33 ( 3.2) 35 ( 3.0) 244 ( 3.7) 238 ( 3.8) 230 ( 3.4) Nation 38 ( 3.2) 28 ( 3.1) 38 ( 3.5) 245 ( 3.0) 249 ( 3.3) 237 ( 3.1) 11$ graduate State 38 ( 1.9) 33 ( 12) 29 ( 1.9) 249 ( 2.0) 248 ( 2.3) 239 ( 2.4) Nation 43 ( 2.1) 31 ( 1.9) 27 ( 1.9) 255 ( 2.0) 257 ( 22) 249 ( 24) Sane college State 41 ( 2.5) 33 ( 2.8) 20 ( 1.8) 284 ( 24) 287 ( 2.5) 2S9 ( 3.0) Nation 40 ( 1.8) 37 ( 12) 23 ( 12) 270 ( 3.0) 271 ( 2.5) 253 ( 3.1) College graduate State 48 ( 1.7) 34 ( 1.5) 21 (1.4) 272 ( 2.4) 288 ( 2.1) 2.53 ( 22) Nation 51 ( 1.8) 33 ( 1.2) 18 ( 1.3) 275 ( 2.1) 277 ( 1.7) 285 ( 3.1) GENDER Male State 44 ( 12) 31 ( 1.3) 25 ( 1.6) 263 ( 2.2) 259 ( 1.9) 248 ( 2.2) Nation 47 ( 1.0) 31 ( 1.4) 22 ( 1.4) 286 ( 2.0) 287 ( 2.1) 250 ( 2.8) Female State 38 ( 1.5) 34 ( 1.4) 28 ( 1.3) 256 ( 2.0) 2ST ( 1.8) 243 ( 1.9) Nation 43 ( 1A) 32 ( 1.1) 25 ( 1.3) 264 ( 2.3) 208 ( 1.7) 250 ( 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 137 Florida TABLE A27 I Students' Perceptions of Mathematics PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1SSO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT - Stroll* Ai PP* ASP*0 Undecided, INsagme. Strongly Disagree TOTAL parandado and Pre Wow Parcenta. and Prelialmtri Peramisw and lindidenty State 20 ( 0,9) 51 ( 1.0) 23 ( 0.9) 202 ( 1.7) 255 ( 1.8) 248 ( VI) Nation 27 ( 1.3) 49 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1,2) 271 ( 1.9) 282 ( 1.7) 251 ( 1.41) RACE/ETHNICITY Mita State 25 ( 1.1) 50 ( 1.1) 25 ( 1.1) 272 ( 1.9) 205 ( 1.8) 25$ ( 1.7) Nation 28 ( 1.8) 4$ ( 1.3) 28 ( 1.5) sack 279 ( 2.0) 272 ( 1.8) 257 ( 2.0) State 'N( 1.9) 52 ( 2.1) 19 ( 1.7) 237 ( 2.9) 232 ( 2.4) 221 ( 3.9) Nation 32 ( 2.5) 52 ( 2.3) lOt 1.9) 247 ( 4.1) 233 ( 3.3) 227 ( 42) HIspank State 28 ( 2.7) 53 ( 3.0) 21 ( 2.8) 255 ( 3.7) 248 ( 3.0) 238 ( 3.2)1 Nation 24 ( 2.5) 4 ( 2.8) 28 ( 2.1) 257 ( 5.6) 244 ( 22) 238 ( 3.8) Asian State 52 ( 82) 18 ( 4.8) .44 ( 441 Nation 29 ( 5.5) 44. ( 441 53 ( 5.8) 17 ( 4.9) *Me feel TYPE OF COMMUNITY Advanaafrod urban State 29 ( 2.3) 51 ( 2.0) 20 ( 1.8) 27$ ( 3.4)1 271 ( 2.4)1 264 ( 4.4)1 Nation 17 ( 32) 55 ( 2.4) 28 ( 4.2) 280 ( 4.1)1 Ir .0.11 Disadvarttagird urban State 28 ( 1.9) 48 ( 1.7) 27 ( 2.9) 243 ( 4.4)1 240 ( 2.7) 235 ( 3.8)1 Nation 26 ( 2.9) 48 ( 2.9) 28 ( 3.2) 280 ( 5.6)1 249 ( 4.8)1 240 ( 4.5)1 Dimino neva State 31 ( 4.0) 50 ( 4.4) 19 ( 0.9) 250 ( 3.2)1 Nation 34 ( 2.8) 4111 ( 22) 17 ( 1.4) 270 ( 3.9)1 252 ( 4.1)1 IN* ) Otfiar State 25 ( 1A) 52 ( 1.41 23 ( 1.3) 284 ( 24) 257 ( 2.8) 250 ( 2.7) Nation 27 ( 1.4) 48 ( 12) 2S ( 1.4) 271 ( 2.4) 283 ( 22) 250 ( 1.9) The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. 1 Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *0* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 138 I THE 3990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Florida TABLE A27 I Students' Perceptions of Mathematics (continued) i PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 1lle0 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT Strongly Agree Ace* Undecided, Disagree, Strongly Disagree TOTAL Percentage and Pro Wesley Percentage and Proliclency Percentage end Proficiency State 28 ( 0.9) 51 ( 1.0) 23 ( 0.9) 262 ( 1.7) 255( 1.6) 249 ( 1.6) Nation 27 ( 1.3) 49 ( 1.0) 24 ( 1.2) 271 ( 1.9) 262 ( 1.7) 251 1.8) PARENTS EDUCATION HS non-graduat State 31 ( 3.5) 45 ( 3.3) 24 ( 3.1) 242 ( 4.7) 236 ( 3.4) r* itn Nation 20 ( 2.6).) 50 ( 243 ( 3.3) 2.6) 30 ( 238 ( 3.6) 4.3) HS graduate State 23 ( 1.7) 49 ( 1.7) 27 ( 1.8) 247 ( 2.4) 246 ( 2.0) 243 ( 2.3) Nation e7 ( 2.1) 47 ( 2.3) 26 ( 2.0) 262 ( 2.7) 255 ( 2.3) 245( 2.4) Some college State 30 ( 2.5) 50 ( 2.7) 20 ( 1.9) 271 ( 2.8) 261 ( 2.1) 260 ( 2.8) Nation 28 ( 2.5) 47 ( 2.4) 25 ( 1.8) 274 ( 3.1) 267 ( 1.9) 258 ( 3.2) College graduate State 29 ( 1.3) 53 ( 1.4) 19 ( 1.4) 272 ( 2.1) 267 ( 2.0) 260 ( 2.5) Nation 30 ( 2.3) 51 ( 1.6) 19 ( 1.8) 280 ( 2.4) 274 ( 2.2) 266 ( 2.5) GENDER Male State 27 ( 1.0) 51 ( 1.6) 22 ( 1.4) 264 ( 2.0) 258 ( 1.9) 250 ( 2.7) Nation 28 ( 1.5) 48 ( 1.2) 24 ( 1.4) 273 ( 2.3) 263 ( 2.0) 251 ( 2.4) Female State 2$ ( 1.3) 51 ( 1.2) 24 ( 1.3) 259 ( 2.6) 253 ( 1.8) 248 ( 1.8) Nation 26 ( 1.7) 50 ( 1.7) 25 ( 1.9) 209 ( 2.1) 2:52 ( 1.8) 252 ( 1.0) The standard errors of the estimated statist* appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students). 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 (NCES), Educational Testing Service (ETS), Westat, and National Computer Systems (NCS). The program benefitted from the contributions of hundreds of individuals at the state and local levels Governors, Chief State School Officers, State and District Test Directors, State Coordinators, and district administrators who tirelessly provided their wisdom, experience, and hard work. Finally, and most importantly, NAEP is grateful to the students and school staff who participated in the Trial State Assessment. Special recognition is due the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) for its considerable contributions 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 nate the significant contrilmtions of Ramsay Selden, Director a the State Education Assessment Center for the CCSSO and the members of the Steering. Mathematics Objectives, and Analysis and Reports Committees of the National Assessment Planning Project. The Trial State Assessment was funded through NCES, in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the 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 Raid Garza worked clog* and collegially with EIS, Westat, and NCS staff and played a crucial role in all aspects of the program. The members of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and NAGB staff also deserve credit for their advice and guidance. We owe a great deal to the Mathematics Item Development and Mathematics 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 ETS, Archie Lapointe served as the project director and Ina Mullis as the deputy director. Statistical and psychometric activities were led by John Mazzez, with consultation from Eugene Johnson and Donald Rock. John Barone managed the data analysis activities; Jules Goodison, the operational aspects; Walter MacDonald and Chancey Jones, test development; David Hobson, the fiscal aspects; and Stephen Koffler, state services. Sampling and data collection activities were carried out by Westat under the supervision of Renee Slobasky, Keith Rust, Nancy Caldwell, and the late Morris Hansen. The printing, distribution, and processing of the materials were the responsibility of NCS, under the direction of John O'Neill and Lynn Zaback. The large number of states and territories participating in the first Trial State Assessment introduced many unique challenges, including the need to develop 40 different reports, customized for each jurisdiction based on its characteristics and the results of its assessed students. To meet this challenge, a computerized report generation system was built, combining the speed and accuracy of computer-generated data with high resolution text and graphics normally found only in typesetting environments. Jennifer Nelson created the system and led the computer-based development of the report. John Mazzeo oversaw the analyses 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 McCamley, and Craig Pizzuti. Debra Kline coordinated the efforts of the data analysis staff. Stephen Koffier wrote the text 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 text and the analysts who checked the data. US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1991 - 293-275 QL 3 (Book 9) 1.'-J) I 4 E;