document resume ed 166 019 .se 025 480 · 2014-02-11 · page comparing 13-year-old reporting...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 166 019 .SE 025 480
AUTHOR Ghiselin, Diane "3.; And_ OthersTITLE Connecticut Assessment of Educational Progre'ss:
Mathematics. 1976-77 Results Report.INSTITUTION National Evaluation Systems, Inc., Amherst, Mass.SPONS AGENCY Connecticut State Dept. of Education, Hartford.
Bureau of Research, Planning, andEvaluation.PUB DATE Aug 77NOTE 376p.; For related document, see' SE 025 481; Not
available in hard -copy due to marginal legibility oforiginal document
EDRS PRICE ' mi0-$0.83 Plus Postage. HC Not Available from EDRS.DESCRIPTORS *Achievement; Age Differences; *Comparative Analysi'S;
*Educational Assessment; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Group Norms; *Mathematics Education; RuralUrban Differences; Sex Differences; *Test Results
IDENTIFIERS *Connecticut
ABSTRACTThe design and methodology of the program of
assessment is described and the student achievement data generated bythe assessment are presented. Test results are reported for each goalarea, each objective, and each test'item by all 9-, 13-, and17-year-olds, and by males and females within each age group. Theresults on test items in common with the three age groups arecompared. Comparisons are made between groups of students formed onthe basis of to questionnaires. The results of each agegroup are compared to the performance of students nationally.. Resultsof a student queStionnaire and of a principal questionnaire arereported. Copies 'of instruments are contained in the appendix.(MP)
1.
1
************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ** from the original'docuient. 1.(z ************************************************************************
0 Alb
,;5.
171 O..0 .IIO. 4.0
0A.0.40
0 0". ;. *a.
OOoOree . IL
. t M* 111..:" If OOOOOOO 000 ' ere
00 nwill,.,. , . .... ... ., . , .. I.010041.009......, .p: I. .4.0.0ses. se
. .000e.... 05 is
000 .0S .1. *60*.. . ..
l'o111 i -..........--::::::. . e.r
04 l
.0 I.. 00 SOO. .S 0,fl.4. O. 1 0111 140.4Os 00,1
SIC.. 44 l. ...OSS OS O..
.t - 04 4. ......"0 00. Fee....05 :2[MMEMItr . 004 Ou4 a
t_.2
O0Oat 100
.0410
;00lt 1111106
. gel 4,044100 Og O 01.00 ad. OsOled040
. . .1/1 OM. sel "e. 2- *p -.goo ses- se:4o sies 0.0.110' SOse .,.:4;1... .... . 1,DS 51"t.
g eol.. ....... 04'tte
iiies. .4::1:14-.-'77. .0.4141001 sees.4 "Stool. .. .
....404Od 1940 eeseft0 a .
.. 515. 5.. 089.11041.0s, .0.00. OOOOO al'me.. 0045 00111 140.
090I.d. 4. . O..O . .. I
. '.s. .
sv e . .. 04'5 SOO 4010.., OOO 40
.
es.0. 5 5Mg WO ses00.. :::4r. .. a00.00
oe 0 0"..0
.
.41111111._
.
.
4e114 8
/ . ed CO..40
I..- sna"
s'.........1r; ''II10:$
0.og .ierl
' f.0611004.00. 40410 4.eo 60
.0 $401.
es
OOOOOO 511e.:410It
I 0
441e5555Oes
.....es.,
A.. . .6..0
SOS O ip O. n o
.
A,FS
1,0090 se10.11
00005
00ee tgo 00Ogee .4 OOOOOO
g
TITLE:
AUTHORS:
Connecticut Assessment of Educational PrOgressMathematics
1976-77 Results,Report
Diane J. GhiselinPeter SchriberBrian M. Miller
National Eyaluation Systems, Inc.Post Office Box 226Amherst, Massachusetts 01002
Telephone: (413) 549-1011
, FEDERAL 1,D. #: 04-2524119
cr$'
DATE: August, 1977
SPONSOR: Bureau of Research, Planning and EvaluationConnecticut State Department of EducationBox 2219Hartford, Connecticut 06115
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The 1976 -71 Connecticut Assessment of ducational Progress (CAEP)
In Mathematics was a joint effort by the Bur au of Research, Planning and
oEvaluati n and the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education of the
Connecticut State Department. of Education (CSDE),and National Evaluation
Systems, Inc. (NES).
The assessment involved substantial,effort by many people. Dr. James.
p M. Burke, Dr. George D. Kinkade, Miss Elizabeth Glass, and Mr. Douglas
Rindone of CSDE were responsible for the overall direction of .the assess-
ment. Substantial contributions to the development of testing materials
and the interpretation of results were provided by an Advisory Committee
of ConnectiCut educators. We extend sincere appreciation for their effort
and involvement to the committee members: Dr. Lynn Anderson, Dr. Linda
Ball, Dr. Vincent Glennon, Mrs. Katherine Gundersen, Mr. Steven Leinwand,
Mr, Harry Levitin, Mr. Michael Stecyk, and Dr. Robert Washburn. Special
thanks go to Mrs. Katherine Gundersen, special consultant to the project,
whose support, advice, and enthusiasm throughout the program were
0
invaluable.
NES personnel were chiefly responsible for the implementation,of the
assessment. Dr. Sherry Ann Rubinstein, Director of Project Services,
provided general guidance and technical expertise. Ms. Diane J. Ghiselin
served as Project Manager and was assisted by Mr. Brent Campbell, Mr.
James Finley,--an4-1 . Jonathan Pyenson. The authorcof,this report
were Ms. Ghiselin, Dr. Peter Schriber, and Mr. Brian Miller, with direction
and assistance, from Dr. Rubinstein. Dr. Paul Pinsky, with assistance from
Dr. Dorit Sejwacz, was responsible for conducting the data processing and
data analysis for the assessment. Special recognition is 'extended to
William P. Gorth for technical support and guidance in the design and
conduct of the study.
Clerical and secretarial support were essential to the assessment.
Thanks go to Ms. Linda Sundwall of CSDE as well as to Ms. Gay Flannelly,
Ms. Barbara H. Gilmour, and Ms. Wendy Feldman of NES, Ms. Priscilla Ling,
in charge of tes scoring and handligg at NES, was assisted by Mr. Richard
1Kanter and Ms. R byn Wilson.ys
NES wishes to thank the staff, members of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, especially Mr. Vern A. Achtermann, for-continuing
help and cooperation.
Focus to the ReaderNA,
If you are interesqd in a detailed breakdown of the achievement
of Connecticut stitdents,on each test item --turn to Chapter 2 and
Appendix A.
If you would like to knowhow Connecticut students performed on each
,objective and goal. areaturn to Chapter 2. (
If you want_to study differences in achievement across different age
groups of studeXts within Connecticutturn to Chapter 3.
Lf you want to compare the achievement of selected groups of Connec-
ticut studentsas defined by each region, size of community, and sex
of studentturn to Chapter 4 and Appendix B.
If you want to compare the achievement of selected groups of Connec-
ticut students as defined by responses to questionnaires administered
as part of the programturn to Chapter 4 and Appendix E.
Lf you want to compare Connecticut students' performance with that
of students across the nation and in the Northeast regionturn to
Chapter 5.
If you are interested in Connecticut students' responses to questions
about their home and school life--turn to Chapter 6.
If you would like to know how principals in Connecticut described
aspects of their-schoolsturn to Chapter 7.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pige
ii
FOCUS TO THE READER iv
CHAPTER I: eofsign and Methodology .
1'+iv
Overview1
Outline of This Report. 3
Measurement Instruments 4Sampling Design IA"
0, 13,
. Field Contact 23Test Administration , 25Coding, Scoring, and Data Prgeesing 26Data Analysis Plan 28Data Interpretation 29The Local Option . 0 , _ . . 4 ......... 31
CHAPTER 2: Achievement Results for All Connecticut9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Olds
(8 5
Data Analysis 35Summary Tables for 9-, 13 -, and 17-Year-Olds 37Interpretative 4sues 37Achievement Results for 9-Year-Olds 47AchievementResults for 13-Year-Olds 53Achievement-Results for 17-Year-Olds
. . 61Summary 69
CHAPTER 3: Comparing Age Groups Within Connecticut 76
Introduction 76Achievement Re lts Across Age Groups 76Summary 86
CHAPTER 4: Comparin the Achievement of ConnecticutReporting Groups
Introduction
Comparing -Year-Old Reporting Groups
-v-
88
8890 ,
Page
Comparing 13-Year-Old Reporting Groups l 9'8
Comparing 17-Year-Old Reporting Groups 107Summary 116
0
CHAPTER 5:, Comparing Connecticut with the Nationend the Northeast Region 123
Introduction 123Interpretation of Result
-125
Comparative Results for 9-Year-Olds 126
comparativekftResults for 13-Year-Olds' r3o
Comp4rative(Results for 17-Year-Olds , 136SuMmary 143
CHAPTER 6: R-e-s-u-lts of the Student Questionnaire 150
Introduction 150
Sex of Student 157
Discussion of .Schaal with Parents 158Parental Encouragement 159
Parental'Assistance with Schoolwork , 159TelevisiohaWatching 160
Fooling: About School 162
feelings About Mathematics 163
Usefulness of Mathematics Compared to Other Subjects. . 165
Usefulness of Mathematics Outside of School 166
Years of\ Mathematics 167
Educational Aspirations 167Summary 168
CHAPTER 7: Results of the Principal Questionnaire° 170
InfrodOction 170
Grade Level Organization of Class.rooms 174
Achievement Level Organization of Classrooms 176
Program Organization of Classrooms 178
Math Class Instructional - Format 179
Consultants or Specialists in Mathematics 180
Mathematics Curriculum Development 181
Funds for Mathematics Supplies 182
Audiovisual Materials . . y . . 183
Teacher Preparation Time 185
Page
Class Si2e. ..... . .: . . .,.,, ........... .. . . 186Total School Enrollment '187In=Grade Enrollment , - 190Average Math tlass Size 192Number of Instructional,Aides 193
',Hours of Math Per Class Per Week, 194
APPENDICES-
A: Copies of Test Items for 9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Olds,with Corresponding Percentages of All StudentsSelecting Each Response
8: Percentage of 9-; 13-, and 17-Year-Olds in ConnecticUt'by Sex of Student, in Each Region, and in Each Sizeof Community Answering Correctly Each Test Item
--C: Copies of Student Questionnaire Instruments
,
D: Copies of Principal Questionnaire Instruments
E: Tables of Achievement Results by Reporting Groupson Total Test, Goals, and Objectives
LIST OF'TABLES
Table Page
1.1: Mathematics Objectives (Grade 4/9-Year-Olds) 5
1.2: Mathematics Objectives (Grade 8/13-Year-Olds) 6
1.3: Mathematics Objectives (Grade 11/17-Year-Olds) 8
1.4:' Map of Connecticut RegiOnal Edutational Service Centers . . 16
1.5: Schematic piagr4m of Sampling,Strata 17
1.6: Number of Students Tested at Each Age Leveland-in Each Reporting Group 22
2.1: Average Percentage of-Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Goal Area by All 9-Year-Oldsand by Males and Females 38
4
2.2: Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Eac4 Goal Area by 1611 13-Year-Oldsand by Males and Females 39
2.3: Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Cortrectlyin Each Goal Area by All 17-Year-Oldsand by Males and Females 4O
2,4: Average Percentage of Tet Items Answered Correctlyin Each Objective by All 9-Year-Oldsand by Males and Females 41
2.5: Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Objective by All 13-Year-Olds:and by Males and Females 43
2.6: Average Percentage of Test Items Answered: Correctlyin Each Objective by All 17-Year-Oldsand by Males and Females 45
*2.7: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Tes; Item forthe Goal Area of Mathematical Concepts for 9-Year-Olds 49
10
Table Page
2.8: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and'Test'Itemfor the Goal Area of Computation for 9-Year-Olds . 50
2.9: Average Percentage'Correct by Objective and Test Itehfor the Goal Area of Measurement for 9-Year-Olds 51
2.10: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Area of Applicatioas/Problems for 9-Year-Olds 52
2.11: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Area of Charts and Graphs for 9-Year-Olds 53
2.12: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Area of Mathematical Concepts'for 13-Year-Olds . . . 55
2.13: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Computation for 13-Year-Olds . . . 56
2.14: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test. Item,for the Goal Area of MO4urement for 13-Year-Olds 58'
2.15: Average Percentage Correct by ,Objective and Test Item forthe Goal -Area of Charts and Graphs for 13-Year-Olds
2.16: Average Percentage Correct by Objective, and Test Item for. .the Goal Area of Applications/Rroblems'for 13-Year-,Olds . 60
2.17: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Geometry for 13-Year-Olds '61
2:18: Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Area of Mathematical toncepts,for 17-Year-Olds . . . 63
2..19: Average Percentage Corrett by, Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area bf Comtation for 17-Year-Olds ......... 64
tt
2.20: Average Percentage Correct..6y-ObjectiVe and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of MeasuAmn for 17-,Year-Olds '66
2.21: Average Percentage Correct by*bfeative arid.Tett Item forthe Goal Area of Charts and.GraWfor'17-Yealdt 67,
2.22: Average Percentage Correct by ObjectiVe anijett Item forthe Goal Area of Applications /Problems fa- 1.-g7Year-Olds . ,68
Table 'Page
2.23: Average Percentage Correct by Objective land Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Geometry for 17-Year.-Olds : 69
2.24: Graph of Achievement-on Goal Areas by Age Group , 70
2.25,i Graph of Achievement'on Objectives: 9-Year-Olds 71
2.26: Graph of Achievement on Objectives: 13-Year-'01ds 72
2.27: Graph of,Achievement on Objectives: 17-Year-Olds .,. 73,.
, .3.1: Comparison of AchievementIstross Age Groups on Shared Itemsfor the Goal Area of Mathematical Concepts ...... . . 78
3.2: Comparison of Achievement across Age Groups on Shared Itemsfor the Goal Area of Computation (.Whole. Numbers). . . , 80
3.3: Comparison of Achievement across Age Groups. on Shared IteMs -for,the Goal Area of Computation (Decimals and fractions) - 81
3.4: Comparison of Achievement across. Age Groups on Shared Items -
for the Goal Area of Measurement-. 83
3.5: Student Performance on the Mr. SimmonsItem Appearing on All Three Tests 84
3.6: Comparison of Achievement across Age Groupson Shared Itemsfor the Goal Area of Problem Solving , 85
3.7: Comparison of Achievement acrossAge Groups on Shared Itemsfor, the Goal, Area of .Charts and Graphs 87
4.1: Graph of Achievement on Total 'Test by Size of Community . . 117
4.2: Graph of Achievement on Total, Test by Region 119
5.1: Comparative ResOts on individual NAEP Items forConnecticut, Natiorlal, and Northeast 9-Year-Olds. . 4 ..... 1L7
5,2: Comparative Results on Individual NAEP Items forConnecticut, National, and Northeast 13-Year-Olds 131
-x-
\
Table, Page
5.3: Comparative Results on Individual NAEP Items forConnecticut, National, andNOrtheast 17-Year-Olds , 137
5,4: Graph of 9-Year-Olds' Performance y Goal Area:, Connecticut, the Nation, and the Northeast 144
5.5: Graph of 13-Year-Olds' Performance by Goal Area:Connecticut, the Nation, and the Northeast 145
5.6: Graph of 17-Year-Olds' Performance by Goal Area:Connecticut, the Nation, and the Northeast 146
5.7: Summary Graphs of Connecticut 9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Olds'Performance Relative to the Nation and the Northeast 147
6.1: Responses of 9-Year-Old Students to Questionnaire Items,Crosstabulated by Region and Size of Community,and Reported in Percentages 151
6.2: Responses of 13-Year-0id Students to Questionnaire Items,Crosstabulated by Region and Size of Community,and Reported in Percentages 153
6.3: Responses of 17-Year-Old Students to Questionnaire Items,Cros'stabulated by Region and Size of Community,and Reported in Percentages 155
7.1: Crosstabulations,of Major Principal Questionnaire Results(9-Year-Old Level) by,Size of Community and Region,Reported in Percentages 171
7.2: Crosstabulations of Major Principal Questionnaire Results(13-Year-Old Level) by Size of Community and Region,Reported in Percentages 172
7.3: Crosstabulations of Major Principal Questionnaire Results(1.7-Year-Old Level) by Size of 'Community and Region,Reported in Percentages 173
7.4: Means for Selected Principal Questionnaire Variablesby Size of Community 188
7.5: Means for Selected Principal Questionnaire Variablesby Region of State 18'9
C H.A PTER 1
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
0.
Vverview
The state of Connecticut conducted the fifth annual Connecticut
Assessment of Educational Progress (CAEP) in 1976-77. Three age levels
(9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds) were assessed in the subject area of mathe-
matics. The Connecticut Assessment of Educational Progress, as mandated
by the Connecticut General Assembly, is a continuing program designed to
"measure objectively the adequacy and efficiency of the educational pro-
grams offered by the public schools." ,
The CAEP program is modeled after the National Assessment of Educa-
tional Progress (NAEP) in its basic goals, design, and instrumentation.
NAEP was founded in 1964 and began actual testing in 1969 with the goal
of providing continuous systematic reporting on the knowledge, skills,
understanding, and attitudes of American children and young adults based
on annual national surveys. Each year one or more subject areas (or
related subject areas) are tested. The NAEP testing program generates
data on national achievement levels against which statewide data can be
compared.
CAEP began in 1971-72 with an assessment of reading' achievement.
In 1973-74 career guidance was assessed, in 1974-75 science, and in
1975-76 reading was assessed again. In coming years, Connecticut plans,
to continue annual assessment in a given subject area or areas in order'
-2-
to continually evaluate the adequacy of the educational system within
the .state.
The 1976 -77 assessment in mathematics was conducted by National
Evaluation Systems, Inc. (NES), Amherst, Massachusetts, under contract
to the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE). The goals of
the mathematics assessment were (1) to collect baseline data for deter
mining student growth in mathematics knowledge'in future years, (2) to
collect information permitting the comparison of the present mathematics
achievement of Connecticut students with the achievement of students
nationally, (3) to provide achievement results useful in decision-making
regarding curricula and instruction at both the state and local levels,
and (4) to encourage school districts to adopt criterion-referenced
assessment procedures for local planning and evaluation.
In response to these purposes, the program included the developmehL
and administration of three criterion-referenced mathematics test, one
for each of the three age levels assessed. These tests were administered
on a statewide basis to a probability sample of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds.
In designing the tests, an advisory panel of Connecticut educators devel-
oped high-priority mathematics learning objectives for the 'state, drawing
heavily on NAEP materials. In conjunction with the statewide assessment,
CSDE provided a valuable opportunity to local school districts by offering
the state's custom-designed materials for use in comprehensive testing of
their own students. This portion of Connecticut's assessment activities,
called "Phase 2: The Local Assessment Option," permitted participating
15
-.3-
di,stricts to use the statewide tests for local planning and evaluation.
Only the methodology of Ph'ase 2 is described in this report. All local
achievement results were reported to the respective districts.
This report does contain; however, a complete desctAiption of Phase 1
of CAEP, the statewide testing program. The report describes in detail the
deSign and methodology of the program, as well as presenting the student
achievement data generated by the assessment. This information can serve
as a valuable resource to CSDE and to others in determining strengths and
weaknesses of Connecticut students in the area of mathematics. Considera-
tions of and action in response to these findings may bring about improve-
ments in the education of Connecticut students.
Outline of This Report
This report consists of several major parts. Chapter 1' describes
the design and methodology of the study, including development of testing
materials, sampling, test administration procedures, data analysis proce-
dures, and a description of the Local Option.
Chapter 2 presents the results of the tests of Connecticut 9-, 13-,
and 17-year-olds on each test item and for each objective and goal area.
Chapter 3 compares results across age groups on items administered
to more than one age group within Connecticut.
Chapter 4 compares test results for selected groups of Connecticut
students, groups defined by responses to questionnaires administered as
part of the program.
-4-
Chapter 5 presents a comparison of the test performance-of Conne.aicut
students with that of students in the nation and in the Northeast region
tested by NAEP. These comparisons are available only for thosa test items
deve.oped by NAEP and administered at the same age level by both CALP and
NAEP:
Chapters 6 and 7 present the complete results of the student and
'principal questionnaires, respectively.
Measurement Instruments
The design of the assessment required extensive developmental activi-
ties aimed at the production of (1) diktomized achievement tests comprised
of exercises referenced to important learning objectives in mathematics,
(2) student questionnaires with which to collect information on individual
student and home variables, and (3) principal questionnaires with which
to collect information on school-related variables. These developmental
activities were the primary responsibility of the Mathematics Advisory
Committee (MAC), composed of educators from across the state involved
in many aspect and levels of mathematics education.
Achieve tests. The first activity of MAC was the development
of appropria nstruments with which to measure student achievement in
mathematics. in order to accomplish this task the committee selected
goal areas and identified high-priority objectives for each of the three
target age groups within Connecticut. Tables 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 list the
1
-5-
TABLE 1.1
Mathematics Objectives (Grade 4/9-Year-t0lds)
Goal Area Objective
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS 1. The student demonstrates ,an understanding ofplace value for whole numbers.
2. The'Student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of whole numbers.,
3.. The student demonstrates an understanding of °
fractional'notation.
.COMPUTATION 4. The student demonstrates the ability to awhole numbers.
5. The student demonstrates the ability'tosubtra'kt whole numbers.
6. The Student demonstrates the ability tomultiply whole numbers.
/
-MEASUREMENT 7. The student demonstrates the ability/toconvert U.S. units of currency to larger orsmaller units.
8. The student demonstrates the ability toidentify and compute time from a clock face.
9. The student demonstrates,a working knowledgeof linear units of measure.
PROBLEM SOLVING 10. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving mathematicalskills.
11. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving real worldsituations.
CHARTS AND GRAPHS 12. The student demonstrates the ability tointerpret data from charts and graphs.
1
--6-
TABLE 1.2
Mathematics Objectives (Grade 8/13-Year-Olds)
Goal Area Objective
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
COMPUTATION
MEASUREMENT
1,,° The student demonstrates an understanding ofrational numbers in the form of fractionsand decimals.
2. The student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of decimals, fractions, and wholenumbers.
3. The student demonstrates the ability to addand subtract whole numbers.
4. The student d( onstrates the ability tomultiply whole numbers.
5. The student demonstrates the ability todivide whole numbers.
6. The student demonstrates the ability to addand subtract decimals.
7. The student demons (;rates the ability to
multiply decimals.8. The student demonstrates the ability to add
and subtract fi',.actions and mixed numbers.
9. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply fractions and mixed numbers.
10. The student demonstrates a working knowledgeof area and perimeter.'
11. The student demonstrates the ability toconvert a U.S. unit of measure to larger orsmaller units.
12. The student demonstrates knowledge of metricunits of measure.
CHARTS AND GRAPHS 13. The student demonstrates the ability tointerpret data from charts and graphs.
19
-7-
-TABLE 1.2 (continued)
I-
Goal Area Objective
APPLICATIONS
GEOMETRY
leel. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problemS involving mathematicalskills.
15. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving real worldsituations.
16. The student demonstrates knowledge of basicgeometric concepts.
I
TABLE 1.3
Mathematics Objectives (Grade 11/17-Year-Olds)
Goal Area Objective'fi
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
COMPUTATION
MEASUREMENT
1. The student demonstrates an understanding ofrational numbers in the form of fractionsand decimals.
2. The student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of decimals, fractions, and whole.numbers.
3. The student demonstrates the ability to addand subtract whole numbers.
4. The student demonstrates the ability to'multiply whole numbers.
5. The student demonstrates the ability todivide whole numbers.-
6. The student demonstrates the ability to addand subtract decimals.
7. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply ,and divide decimals.
8. The student demonstrates the ability to addand subtract fractions and mixed numbers.
9. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply and divide, fractions and mixednumbers.
10. The student demonstrates a working knowledge'of area, perimeter, and'volume.
11. The student demonstrates the ability toconvert a U.S. unit of measure to larger orsmaller units.
12. The student demonstrates knowledge of metricunits of measure.
CHARTS AND GRAPHS 13. The student demonstrates the ability tointerpret data from charts and graphs.
2i
-9-
TABLE 1.3 continued-)
Goal Area Objective
APPLICATIONS
GEOMETRY
14. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve ward Ablems involving mathematicalskills.
15. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving real worldsituations.
16. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve problems involving basic geometricconcepts.
,a9
-10-
goal areas andilibe objectives within each goal area for 9-, and
1] -year -olds, respectively. The committee then selected appropriate test
/ xercises to match each objective.
The following guidelines directed the development of each of thO\Jhree
tests:
The dcmains assessed should focus on basic mathematics concepts,
computational skills, basic concepts of measurement and geometry,
and practical application of these skills in problem-solving
situations.
All objectives at each age level should meet the criterion of
expressing mastery in relation to content that can be assumed to
be within, the educational experience of all children at that level.
In no way should the oblpctives to be tested attempt to represent
aZZ of the Skills and concepts being taught at each level.
The process of selecting test exercises began with a review of NAEP
Aalerials, with careful attention to Connecticut's priorities. Where NAEP
exercises did not suffice, they were supplemented by materials froM the
NES item bank; the Newington (Connecticut) Evaluation Program; the West
Hartford (Connecticut) Individualized Mathematics Program; and by items
developed by the committee under the supervision of NES staff.
MAC met seven times over a period. of several months to define the
three test instruments and the questiOnnaires. After careful review
and examination of the materials, the committee selected theJollowing
number of items at each age level:
At the 9-year-old level 60 items were,selected.
At the 13-year-old level 66 items were selected.
i At the 17-year-old level 64 items )were selected.
A number -of the items on the tests were drawn'from NAEP materials,
some modified minimally or substantially. However, there were 14.itemS
for 9-year-olds, 17 items for 13-year-olds, and 20 items for 17-year-olds
that were identical (unmodified) NAEP itms.
Many of the iteys were administered to more than one age group--that
iS, appeared on, more than one test. Four items were administered to 9- and
13-year-olds only; 38 items to 13- and 17--year-olds only, and six items to
all age groups. Of the tofal 60 items for 9-year-olds, 50 were unique to
that age group; of 66 66 items for 13-year-olds, 18 were unique; and of
the 64 items for 17-year-olds, 20 were unique,
The majority of items were in multiple-choice format, although a num-
ber of open-ended exercises were included n order to retain comparability
with NAEP format. The items were assembled into one test booklet for each
age level. AdministratiOn,time wgs one hour for 9-year-olds and 13 -year-
olds,.. and 50 minutes for 17-year-olds. Copies of the test exercises
appear. in Appendix A of this report.
Appendix A gives. the 'percentage of students selecting each response
for each item on the tests. Appendix B gives the percentage of students
-12-
"responding correctly to each item, referenced bpi region and size of com-
munity (as defined by thekampling plan; see pages 14-20) as well as by
sex of student.
Student and principal questionnaires. FolloWing the development
of the achievement tests, the advisory committee focused on the task of
designing questionnaires which vould be used to collect information on
student, home, and school variables which might be shown to be related
to achievement. The student questionnaires were similar, at-though not
identical, for the three age levels, and were printed at the front of
each test booklet. The principal questionnaire was mailed to principals
of all schools, involved in statewide testing.
1
There were 11 questionnaire items for 9- and 13-year-ol1s, and 13
items for 17-year-olds. Copies of the student questionnaires appear in
,Appendix C of this report. The student q6(tionnaire items dealt with
holt things as the sex of the student, the amount of television watched
by the student, the- degree of parental involvement in and encouragement
of the student's schoolwork, and the student's attitudes toward mathe-
matics and school.a
The principal questionnaires contained 10 identical questions for
the principals of 9- and 13-year-olds, and nine questions for those of
17-year-olds. The questionnaires, administered to principals of all
participating schools, included,questions on the size of the school,
the size. of the mathematics classes, the number of teachers and aides
assigned to mathematics classes, the typo of classroom organization
21)
-13-
'in'the-school,program deVelOpment activities and problems related to
mathematics'education-in the school. Principals' responses to the ques-
tionnaires were matched to the data record of each student in that school
so that the performance of students could be related to factors,in the
school environment. Copies of the principal questionnaires appear in
Appendix D of this report.
Sampling Desi_ga
In order to increase the reliability of the data collected and to
reduce the impact on schools of statewide testing activities, a sampling
approach to assessment was adopted. A two-stage, stratified cluster
design was used to select a separate random sample for each age level.
The sampling plan, which was the same for each of the three age groups,
adhered to the following set of standards:
(1) All public schools enrolling students of the given target age
were included in the student sampling fraMe.
(2) The sampling of schools and students was done on a probability
basis.
(3) The sample of each age level was representative of the entire
target population in terms of the selected stratification
variables (region and size of community).
-14-
(4Y4The size of the sample drawn at each age level was sufficiently
large to allow for precise generalization to.the performance of
all 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds in Connecticut and-to the perfor-,,
-3: mance of selected sub-populations.
Because.CAEP provided a local option, certain constraints ad to be
imposed on the sampling design which affected comparability with national
(NAEP) data. The primary modification was that only those age-eligible
students (as defined by NAEP) enrolled in the target grade for that age
were selected for testing. That is, (1)Ahose in the fourth grade bori
during calendar year 1967 (9-year-olds), (2) those in the eighth grade
born during calendar year 1963 (13-year-olds), and 0) those in the elev-
enth grade born between October 1, 1959 and September 30, 1960, inclusive
(17-year-olds). NAEP samples from all students born in the designated
time periods regardless of current grade, while CAEP sampled only those
age-eligible.students in the target grades. Therefore, the "age" and
"grade" terminologies may both be used appropriately for this assessment
(bearing in mind that no all students of a given age or grade were eli-
gible for testing). The age designation (e.g., 9-year-olds) is used in
connection with statewide testing; the grade designation (e.g., fourth-
graders) is used in connection with the Local Option.
General fr:piework of the sampling plan. Two stratification variables
were selected for the sampling plan: (1) region and (2) size of community.
Categories of the region variable were based on the six Connecticut
27
-15-
Regional Educational Service Centers: ,(1) Regional Educational Services
Concepts (through) Unified Effort (RESCUE), (2) Cooperative Educational
Services, (3) Capital Region Education Council (CREC), (4) Area Cooperative
Educational Services.(ACES), (5) Project Learn, and (6) Northwest Area
Regional Special Educational Services (N.A.R.S.E.S.). Table 1.4 describes
in map form the division of the state into the six regions.
categories of the size of community variable were defined as follows:
(1) "Big Cities"--towns of more than 100,000 population
(2) "Fringe Cities" towns whose borders are contiguous with Big
Cities and whose population exceeds 10,000
(3) "Medium Cities"--towns of more than 25,000 population which
are not Big Cities or Fringe,Cities
(4) "Smaller Places"--all other towns
According to this stratification, schools with similar characteristics
could be grouped together and assigned to one of the 24 stratification
categories which resulted from a crossing of the two variables. From each
grouping (or cell), a proportional number of sItOents could be sampled.
Table 1.5 diagrams the framework of the sampling plan.
Sample size. The size of the sample of students to be tested was
determined on the basis of (1) the level of precision desired in making
generalizations from the performance of the sample to that of the student
population as a whole and to that of the various stratified reporting
groups, and (2) the size of the student population in the state at each
2J
-16-
TABLE 1.4
Map of Connecticut Regional Educational Service Centers
CONNECTICUT REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTERS
2
(1)
(6)
TABLE 1.5
Schematic Diagram of Sampling Strata
ISi ze of Community
Smaller Places Medium Cities Fringe Cities Big Cities
30
-18-
age level and in each stratified reporting'group. Whenever estimates are
to be made about a population based on data collected from a sample, those
estimates are subject to error. Error is the probable differqnce between
the score of the sample and the true score of the population: Sampling
precision refers to the maximum degree of error which will_ be tolerated
in making such generalizations. Toleration of a sampling error of .2
(2 percentage points), for example, would mean the following: if, in a
sample 4f 17-year-olds, an average of 80% of the items are answered cor-
rectly,7the true score of the population probably lies between 78% and
82%..
The 4pve probability statement is malin educational practice at
a 95% confidence level. That is, in 95 out of every 100 samples, if the
sample average score is 80% the true population average is expected to
lie somewhere between 78% and 82%. For 5% of the samples which could be
drawn, the true score will lie outside of this range. level of con-
fidence is generally considered sufficient for the purposes of educational
research.
After consideration of these issues, the sample size for each age
level was set at 2,880 students. This sample size was chosen to provide
sufficient statistical precision for generalizing to the state and the
si
desired reporting group . The proportion of students sampled from each
reporting category was de on the basis of the proportion of students
in the population at the given age level. The formula for determining.
e"*
sample size follows:
A
-19-
No2n-
ND + (32
where: N = number of students in population
A
0 = ±.02 (error)
D =f32
.00014
Sampling weights,ultim'ately computed and 'applied on the basis of
the actual number of students who took the test, ensure that the average
scores for the population and reporting groups are correctly estimated
from the sample scores.
Implementation of the samplinzplan. The implementation o1 the
sampling design involved several steps:
Step 1: A sampling "frame," or list, of all eligible schools was
constructed for each age level. Each school within the
frame was assigned a region status and a community size
status (see Table 1.5).
Step 2: The sampling frame at each age level was divided into
separate frames for each stratified category, or cell,
represented in Table 1.5. Thus, the frame for each age,
level was broken down into 24 separate lists (one for
'each cell).
Step 3: On a random basis, a proportional number of schools was
selected,from each of the 24 lists at each age level. The
outcome of this step was a list of schools selected from
each stratification category within each age level. If a
school was randomly selected only once, only One test ses-
Alion was assigned to it. If the school .was selected more
than 'once, an additional test session was assigned to it
for each additional selection.
Step 4A: (This step represents the second stage of the sampling
procedure7-the selection of students--aS it was'applied
for schools participating'in statewide testing only.)
From rosters of all grade- and age-eligible students
within each selected school, 24 studentS for each test
administration_assiuned'to the school were randomly
selected,
Step. 4B: An alternative method for selecting'students was applied
for schools participating ilfboth the Local Option .and.
statewide testing. In order to avoid; double of
these students;:indiVidual students we sampled
testing by drawing at random test booklets returned by
the districts for ,processing (24 per assigned session).
Only those students who .were age-eligible (as reported
on the student questionnaire) mere eligible for selection.-
33
-21-
(This method was used only where districts census-tested;
where districts used the Local Option for only a sample of
-students, the procedure in Step 4A was used.)
'In the implementation of the school sampling procedure; the number of
students who could be selected from each eligible school was proportional
to the size of the school. Larger schools could be selected more than once
and consequently assigned more than one test administration. A, total of
120 test adminiStrations were assigned across all categories,at each age
level. Each test administration represented the testing of 24 students,
for a total of 2,880 selected students at each age level. This provision
allowed for an attrition of 17%, which was expected on the basis of previ-
ous educational assessments. It was therefore expected that, after attri-
tion, assessment data Would be available from approximately 2,390 students
at each grade level. In fact, attrition was lower than expected at the
9 -'nd 13-year-old levels, and only slightly higher than expected at the
17-year-old level.
Student participation. The number of students actually participating
in testing at each age level and within each reporting category is shown
in Table 1.6. The participation rate was 85% at the 9-year-old level, 95;,',
at the 13-year-Old level, an 82% at the 17-year-old ,level. The major
causes for attrition were student absence on the day of testing, (2)
student withdrawal or transfer from the school, and (3) student failure/
to complete the test due to illness,. etc. The sampling procedure
-22-
TABLE 1.6
Number of Students Tested at Each Age Leveland in Each Reporting Group
Reporting Category*Number of Students
9-Year-Olds 13- ear-Olds 17-Year-Olds
Region 1 31g 323 357.
Region 2 353 306 352
Region 3 562 552 485
Region 4 372 527' 358
Region 5 281 301 329.
_
Region 6 72 67 65 .
*
Big Cities 478 669 416
Fringe Cities 647 697 634
'Medium Cities 638 688 658
Smaller Places 674 691 654
* The number of students participating from each region does not includestudents in "big cities."
35
-23-;4
protected the anonymity of all students, schools, and schoOl districts
participating in the assessment.
Implications for. data analysis. Because it was known, based on
previous Connecticut assessment information, that the scores of students
\I'll "Big Cities" tend to differ from those of students in therest of a
given region, it was decided that all data analyses (e.g., average test
scores) would separate scores of "Big City" students 'from the respective
region results.
Field Contact
Contact with school and district personnel, initiated in May and June
of 1976, was designedlko alert local personnel to the assessment and to-
provide detailed information on both the statewide and local phases of the
. assessment. Related activities included substantial contact with school
'and district personnel, both by mail and by telephone.
After initial contact with local personnel had been made by CSDE, NES
mailed letters to the superintendents of every Connecticut school district I
describing both phases of the assessment, inviting them to participate in
the Local Option, and enclosing sample result reports for the ,focal Option.
NES sent follow-up mailings to those districts which did not respond in
order to ensure that each district had received the information and had
conside,red local participation in Phase 2. Close contact was maintained
throughout the school year with those districts which chose to participate
-24-
in order to provide direction and as.s as needed.
Following is a brief description of subsequent contact by NES staff
at each age level with school and district personnel involved only in the
statewide sample:'
(1) A letter was mailed to superintendents of all school districts,
involved, outlining the schedule of events and listing by name
thoseschools selected in their districts as well as the numter
of test administrations .(consisting of 24 students per session)
needed in each school.
(2) A letter was mailed to principals of all selected schools
describing_the assessment program, outlining.scheduled principal
responsibilities, indicating the number of ipest administrations
assigned, and requesting the submission of a roster of all age-
eligible students.
(3) Telephone calls were, -made to all participating principals to
schedule appointments for testing sessions. The NES staff made
every effort to accommodate the's-cheduling needs of individual
1
schools.
(4) A letter was mailed to all participating principals providing,
the names of selected students for each testing session and
confirming the dates and times of the scheduled testing
appointments.
-25-
(5) A letter enclosing the principal questionnaire and requesting
its completion was mailed to the principals of all schoolsAL4.
containing statewide Sample groups.
(6) A letter expressing thanks for their cooper'ation and participa-
tion was mailed to all superintendents and principals involved'
in the statewide sample.
NES staff made every effort to describe fully the aims and activities
of the program, to describe with Clarity the responsibilities of school
personnel, and to foster cooperation with the program. Throughout the
contact period, 'NES encouraged school personnel to call collect with any
questions or concerns relative to the assessment.
Test Administration
To limit the burdens placed on school personnel, and to standardize
administration procedures for the assessment, 13 persons from Connecticut
with backgrounds in education were hired and trained by NES staff to con-
duct testing in the schools. Two regional test administrators' workshops
were conducted by the NES staff for each age level of testing. At these
workshops, test administrators were thoroughly trained with respect to
(1) the research design of the assessment program, (2) school and student
selection procedures, (3) test administration, (4) administration of the
student questionnaires, (5) classroom procedures (including assembling,
of students, troducing the test, distribution and collection of
-26-
materials, and handling of common and unusual situations), (6) special
responsibilities (including advance telephone calls to principals to verify
appointments; procedures for cancellation, postponement, or rescheduling of
testing sessions; and handling of student rosters), and (7) field editing
procedures.. These procedures were described in detail in a test adminis-
trators' manual.
Tests were administered in October and November 1976 for 13-year-olds,
in February 1977 for 9-year-olds, and in April 1977 for 17-year-olds. The
test administration procedures were similar to those used by NAEP but did
not include paced audionpes accompanying the tests. Testing sessions
began with a brief explanation of the purpose of the test, followed by
the administration of the student. questionnaires read aloud to students.
When all students had completed the questionnaires, the directions for
answering exercises were read aloiid, and the students then proceeded to
answer the test luestions independently.
Following the testing session, test administrators performed a pre-
liminary edit of testing materials and coded each response booklet with
adistrict, school, and student identification number. At the close of
each testing period, all materials were returned to NES for final editing,
coding, and data processing.
Coding, Scoring, and Data Processing_
All test booklets were subjected to all in-house edit at NES, including
) a check on the coding of student, school, and district identification
3E-)
-27-
information; (2) a cheer the completeness of the student questionnaire
. responses; and (3) an edit for stray marks and double responses to the
multiple-choice questions.
Following the coding activities, NES staff hand-scored all responses
to'the open-ended exercises according to scoring guidelines provided by
the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP scoring categories
foreach open-ended item 'appear in Appendix A of this report immediately
following the text of the respective item. The responses ,.for each student
were th6n keypunched and verified at the NES offices, and the cards were
listed on a data tape for each age level.
The data tape for each age level contained one record for each student
completing the test package. This record included: (1) information given
by the student on the student questionnaire; (2) the student's responses,to
each of the exercises; (3) a numerical identification code which permitted
the rematching of each student record to its original testdocunlit Should
that prove necessary; and (4) the responses on.lthelliatching school princi--.
pal questionnaire and stratification information 'for the student's school,
each matched to appropriate student records. -Prior tvdata processing,
the data tape was scanned for invalid entries and updated where ne.cessarY,
All response data on the data tape were entered-in raw Sco0e:form and were
converted to the percentage form as needed. Data reductioni,needswere
determined and files were transformed where appropriate, including proper
weighting of scores to provide estimates of the population from sample
data. All student data (test scores and questionnaire data) were
-28-
weighted; only principal questionnaire data remained unweihte
sampling was based on generalizing to students, not schools.
Data Analysis Plan
Th0 basic elements of the analysis plan were decided upon jointly by
NES, and tSDE. Th major purpose of the data analysis plan was to help to
ensure that the askessment results and reports provided information which4
could be interpreted and utilized by C6nnecticut educators in determiningtr
critical needs and improving the educational system% The outcome of the
analysis plan was a comprehensive description of the mathematics test
performtace of Connecticut 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds. In addition, the
analysis plan called for an in -depth report on the results of the student
and principal questionnaire in terms of both the actual distribution of
responses and the relationship of responses to student .achievement.
The basic data generated for'result reporting are given in percent-
ages. These percentage scores include: (1) the average percentage
items answered correctly within each of the goal areas; (2) the average
percent of the items answered correctly within each of the objectives
matched to those goal areas; (3) the percentage of students scoringCor-
rectly on each of the exercises included on the tests; (4) the percentage
of individuals selecting each choice on each item of the student and the
school principal questionnaires; and (5) the percentage of Students in
the nation and in the Northeast region tested by NAU answeri ng
the NAEP items correctly, provided for comparison purposes.
41.
-29-
All ( the Connecticut results, provided in the form described above,
are provided in this report for each age level and for each reporting group
selected by CSDE and the Advisory Committee. Where comparisons of perfor-
mance are provided (for example, between a given reporting group and the
statewide average), statistical tests were carried out to determine the
significance of the difference.
Data Interpretation
Some of the data analyses conducted for this study involved tests
of statistical significance on. differences between scores of two separate
groups of students. For example, Chapter 4, which compares the achievement
of groups of students within Connecticut, and Chapter 5, which compares the
achevement,of, Connecticut students with that of students across the nation.,
. bot:71 inclgdeYiTiformation on whether or not the difference in scores between
respective groups was statistically significant. The reader must'bear in
mind that assertions of statistical significance are statements based on
probability assumptions.
The percent correct reported for the state as a whole and for the
individual reporting groups are estimates based on probability samples,
and, as such, have standard errors associated with them.. The reported
differences in performance between a given group'and the state average
(effects) are also estimates and have associated standard errors. The
standard error of an effect depends on the size of the two samples, the
percent of each group answering the item correctly, and other
-30-
stratification and clustering effects. Therefore, the magnitudes of the
standard errors vary considerably from comparison to comparison. An effect
that is twice, the size.of its associated standard error is considered to
be significant at the .05 level.
The differences presented in this report are those which were statis-
tically.significant at the '.05 level of confidence. In other words, a
differenceof the given magnitude could be expected to occur in repeated
samplings only five times in 100 if, in fact, there were no differences
between groups. While these results very likely reflect the actual per-
formance differences between groups, they should not be used to infer the
causes of these differences. For example, it may be shown that students
who talk more frequently about schopl with their parents perform above
the state average, but this does not imply that this activity cause()
higher performance.
It should be noted that'some rather large effects are occasionally
not statistically significant, while some rather small effects are in
some instances significant. This is due to the fact that statistical
significance is determined by the ratio of the effect to its standard
error. For this reason, the reader should exercise caution in inter-
preting statistically significant differences. Statistical significance)
should not be equated with practical importance or educational meaning-
fulness.. Just as acceptable levels of performance must be judged on the
.
basis of educational expectations, the magnitude of differences observed
between groups should-similarly be judged not only on the basis of
it)
-31-
statistical significance but also on the basis of educational meaning-
fulness.
The reader should also be careful not to infer causality from the
differences observed between the performance of Connecticut students and
those in the nation and the Northeast region. The fact that Connecticut
students surpaSsed the nation's or the Northeast region's students, or
failed to perform as well, does not necessarily mean that Connecticut
schools are causing the-difference in performance. Community character-
istics, family background, and personal characteristics of Connecticut'
students should be considered as bearing a relationship to performance
results.
The variables used in reporting the results were selected by CSDE
on the basis,of their conceptual importance. That is, it was considered
that these variables, should they prove to bear a lat-onship to student
achievement in the area of mathematics, would contribute important infor-
mation to state and local-level decision-makers in setting policy for
the educational delivery system.
The Local Option
The Local Option phase of the assessment allOwed participating
districts to examine in detail the achievement of their own students in
a single class or throughout the district by contracting directly with
NES. Results permitted participating districts to (1) examine students,
classes, schools, and the district as a whole; and (2) compare local
-32--
,achievement results with those in Connecticut the nation, and the
Northeast region. Materials, as well as regional workshops in test
administration and interpretation, were provided by CSDE through NES.
Distri,cts absorbed the costs of data processing only, on a per cap
basis.
The Local Option testing was _onducted in the same time period
as the statewide sample testing. Overlap of schedules facilitated the
organization and execution of testing for both phases and eliminated
many activities for those statewide sampled schools that elected to
participate in the Local Option (see Step 4B, page 20).
The following services were provided by NES to those districts
participating in the Local Option:
O training of test coordinators or administrators in test admin-
istration procedures at one of two regional workshops
delivery and pick-up of test booklets
editing and scoring of tests and data anal sis
O complete result reports as described below
O assistance with interpretation of results at one of two regional
workshops held after results had been returned to the districts
Two copies of each result report produced by NES were.provided.
The reports are listed below.
45
-33-
For each class:
(1) a Student Objective Achievement Report
(2) a Class Item Analysis Report
(3) a Class Objective Summary Report
(4) a Class Questionnaire Report-
For each school:
(1) a School Item Analysis Report
(2) a School Objective Summary Report
(3). a School Questionnaire Report,
For the district:
(1) a District Item Analysis Report
(2) a District Objective Summary Report
(3) a District Questionnaire Report
7
Fifty-three Connecticut school districts participated in the Local
Option at one or more grade levels. Overall, 8,851 fourth-grade students,
.411*10,385 eighth-grade students, and 7,057 eleventh-grade students were
tested. Each district received the reports listed above,. and all were
invited to attend one of two r6ional workshops on test interpretation.
These workshops proved to be valuable,;not only for interpretative issues
but also as forums for discuSsion of usage of the results, presentations
to local boards of education, and suggestions for improving t4 result
reports. As one result, NES has added a fifth report to CAEP 1977-78's
Local Option reporting, displaying the response each student gave to
An
-34--
each ciyOtion on the test. This report increasesitA diagnostic value
of the testing.
NES made every effort to ensure that the special needs of individual
school districts were net wherever possible. Schools participating in
the Local Option may 'compare their own results With thd results for the
state and the respective groups as given in this report.
-35--
C H,A P T E R 2
ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS FOR ALL
CONNECTICUT 9-, 13-, AND 17-YEAR-OLDS
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the test performance of
Connecticut 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds. The performance' of each age group
is described (1) for the goal areas of mathematics within each grade-level
test, (2) for each of the objectives matched to the goal areas for each
test, and (3) on each of the items matched to the objectives.
Data Analysis
The achievement results for each grade level will be desCribed sepa-
rately. Achievement results are described first for the goal areas and
then by,the objectives and their related test items. Performance within
each goal area is given in terms of the average percentage of the matching
test items that the students answered correctly. If, for example, students
at a given age level show an average of 72% for a particular goal area,
this means that on the average the students correctly answered 72% of the
items assessing that goal area.
The data analysis for each objective parallels that for individual
goal areas. The items for each objective are grouped together, and the
average percentage of items answered correctly is presented.
In addition to results by goal area and objective, the percentage.
of students who answered correctly each item on the test is presented.
Copies of the items appear in Appendix A of this report 'along with the
percentage of students at each age level selecting each response choice.
All of the above results are described in narrative form in the text
of this chapter. It is important to note that these results are by age
level of students in the target grade for that particular age level.
Thus the sampling included 9-year old students in the fourth grade only,
13-year-old students in the eighth grade only, and 17-year-old students
in the eleventh grade only.
All open-ended items were National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) items and Were scored according to NAEP guidelines. The scoring
criteria for open-ended items appear in Appendix A along with the text of
the item and the data on the distributiOn of responSes. The NAEP scoring
guidelines for student responses include one "a*eptable category and a
number of "unacceptable" categories, each with several response possibil-
ities. Appendix A presents the percentage of students who scored in each
of these categorieS. Students who did not respond or whose responses were
incomprehensible are not reported. For purposes of the present chapter,
percentage-correct averages for goals and objectives containing open-ended
items are computed-using the percentage of students scored "acceptable"
on these items.
49
-.37-
Summary_Tables for 9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Olds
Tables 2.1, 2\2, and 2.3 show, for each gUil area, the'average percen-
tage of matching items answered correctly by all 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds,
respectively, and by males and females within each age group. Performance
of males and females which is significantly different (at the .05 levelI
of confidence) from the state average for all students is indicated by.
an asterisk to the right of the percentage value.
Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 show similar data for each objective. Again,
statistically significant differences are indicated by asterisks tax-the
right of the percentage values.
Interpretative Issues
When interpreting results from the tables, the reader should bear in
mind that the scores of the 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds for a given goal area
or objective which they may share in common do not always reflect perfor-
mance on-the same set of items. Students in all three age groups received
-some items in common. However, while all three age groups were assessed
on some of the same goal areas and objectives, each age group may have
ived different numbers of items or some entirely different items for
a given goal area or objestive. Somr goal areas and objectives were not
shared by all three age groups. The reader is referred to Chapter 3,
"Comparing Age Groups, Within Connecticut," for a description comparing
achievement results across age groups.
5 I)
-38-
TABLE 2.1
Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Goal Area by All -Year-Olds
and by Males and Females
Goal Area
t\ 9-Year-Olds
Al 1 Males Females
1. Mathematical Concepts 74.4 74.8 74.1
2. Computation 78.6 76.7* 80.4*
3. Measurement 81.7 83.5* 80.1*
4. Applications/Problems 54.6 56.0* 53.3*
5. ,Charts and Graphs 78.4 79.8* 77.1*
TOTAL TEST 74.3 74.8 74.0
* RepreSents significant difference from score of all students in theage group. 9
Nt,
--,
TABLE 2.2
Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Goal Area by All 13-Year-Olds
and by Males and Females
Goal Area
13-Year-Olds,
All Males Females.\
1. Mathematical Concepts 61.2 64.6* 58.4*
2. Computation 80.1 79.9 80.2.
3. Measurement 72.2 77.2* 68.0*.)
4. Charts and Graphs 89.1 89.4 88.9
5. Applications/Problems 66.9 70.4* 64.0*
6. Geometry .78.9 81.4* 76.7*
TOTAL TEST p 74.8 76.7* 73.1*
* Represents significant difference from score of all students in theage group.
10^
L :2
-40-
TABLE 2.3
Ayerage'Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Goal Area'hy All 17-Year-Olds
and by Males and Females
Goal Area
17- Year. -Olds
All Males Females
1. Mathematical Concepts 68.4 74.4t. 63.8*
2: Computation 82.4 82.7 82.2
3. Measurement 80.4 85.9* 76.2*
4. Charts and Graphs 93.2 93.8* 92.8*
5. Applications/Problems 66.7 71.7* , 63.0*
6. Geometry . 48:7 55.4* 43.7*
TOTAL TEST 76.9 79.9* 74.6*
*,Repretnts,s'ignificant difference from score of all student in the
Ile group.4
5 "
-41-
TABLE 2.4
Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Objective by All 9-Year-Olds
and by Males and Females
Goal/Objective ,
9-Year-Olds
All Males Females.
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS:
1. The student demonstrates awonderstand-ing of place value for whole numbers.
2. The student demonstrates an under-standing of ordering of whole numbers.
3. The student demonstrates an under-standing of fractional notation.
COMPUTATION:
4. The student demonstrates the ability toadd whole numbers.
5. The student, demonstrates the ability tosubtract whole numbers.
6. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply whole numbers.
79.3 80,3 78.3
77.7 79.1* 76.5*
66,4 65.1 67.5
81.5 80.0* 82.8*
73.5 71.5* 75.3*
81.0 78.6* 83.0*
* Represents significant difference from score of all students in the agegroup.
t
-42-
TABLE 2.4 (continued)
Goal/Objective
9-Year-Olds
All Males Females
MEASUREMENT:
7. The student demonstrates the ability toconvert U.S. 'units of currency to 83.4 85.2* 81.7*larger or smaller units.
8. The student deMonstrates the ability toidentify and compute time from a clock 74.8 77.2* .72.7*face.
9. The student demonstrates a working.
knowledge of linear units of Measure.
APPLICATIONS/PROBLEMS:
10. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involvingmathematical skills.
11. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving realworld situations.
CHARTS AND GRAPHS:0
12. The student demonstrates the ability tointerpret data from charts and graphs.
87.0 88.2* 85.9*
54.4 55.0 54.0
54.7 57.1* 52.6*
78.4 79.8* 77.1*
55
"43-
TABLE 2.5
Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Objective by All 13-Year-Olds
and by Males and Females
Goal/Objective13-Year-Olds
All Males Females'
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS:
1. The student demonstrates an'Understanding of rational numbers inthe form of fractions and decimals
qts
4 ,
2. The studentidemonstrates anunderstanding of ordering of decimals,fractions, and whole numbers.
COMPUTATION:
3. The student demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract whole numbers.
The student demonstrates the 'ability.toMultiply whole numbers,
5. The student demonstrates the abilil y todivide whole numbers.
6. The student demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract decimals.
7. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply decimals.
8. The student demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract fractions and mixednumbers.
9. The student demonstrates the ability to.
multiply fractions and mied numbers.
61.5 63.1* 60.1*
60.5 65.5* 56.2*
92.8 92.6 93.1
89.9 88.7* 9f.0*
84.8 84.3 85.2
81.0 81.6 80.5
75.3 ' 74.6 76.0
62.7 62.8 62.6
74.1 75.2* 73.3k
* Represents significant difference from score or all students in the age,group
S ft,
-44-
TABLE 2.5 (continued)
Goal /Objective13-Year-Olds
MEASUREMENT:
10. The student demonstrates a workingknowledge of area and perimeter.
11. The student demonstrates the ability toconvert a U.S unit of measure tolarger or smaller units.
12;. The student dethonstra-tes knowledge ofmetric units of measure.
CHARTS AND GRAPHS:
. 13. lhe student demonstrates the ability tointerpret-data from charts and graphs.
.APPIANIONS/PROBLEMS
14. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving'mathematical skills.
15. The studerrt demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving-. realworld situations.
GEOMETRY:
ma 16: The student' demonstrates knowledge of. basic geometric concepts.
All Males Females
65.7 68.9* 62:9*
77.0 82.5* 72.4*
73.9 80.2* 68.6*
89.1 89.4 88.9
62.6 65.5* 60.2*
71.2 75.2* C7.9*
78.9 81,4* 76.7*
-45-
TABLE 2.6
Average Percentage of Test Items Answered Correctlyin Each Objective by All 17-Year-Olds
and by Males and Females
Goal/Objective17- Year -Olds
All Males Females.
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS:
1. The student demonstrates an. understanding of rational numbers in
the form of fractions and decimals.
2. The student demonstrates pnunderstanding of orderipg of decimals,fractions, and whole numbers.
COMPUTATION:
3. The student demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract whole numbers.
4. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply whole numbers.
5. The student demonstrates the ability todivide whole numbers.
6., The student demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract decimals.
7. The student demonstrates the ability tomultiply and divide decimals.
8. The 5tudent demonstrates the ability toadd and subtract fractions and mixednumbers.
9. The student demonstrates the ability to_multiply and divide fractions and mixednumbers.
68.5 71.3* 66.4*
67.8 77.2* 60.8*
94.9 94.5 95.2
91.6 90.7* 92.3*
87.6 \s8.1 87.3
88.9 88.5 89°2
72.3 72.0 72.5
69.4 72.2* 67.3*
72.3 73.2 71.6
* Represents significant difference from score of all .stu,dents in the agegroup.
-46-
TABLE 2.6 (continued)
Goal/Objective17-Year-Olds
All Males FeMale's
IMEASUREMENT:
10. The student demonstrates a workingknowledge of area,, perimeter, andvolume.
11. The student demonstrates the ability toconvert a U.S. unit of measure tolarger or smaller units.
12. The student demonstrates knowledge ofmetric units of measure.
CHARTS AND GRAPHS: I
13. The student demonstrates the ability tointerpret data from charts and graphs.
APPLICATIONS/PROBLEMS:
14. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving-,mathematical skills.
15. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve word problems involving realworld situations.
GEOMETRY:
'16. The student demonstrates the ability tosolve problems involving basicgeometric concepts.
73.0 79:0* 68.4*
85.9 89.9* 32.8*
82',2 88.8* 77.1*
93.2 93.8* 92.8
70.9 76.3* 66.8*
62.1 66.8* 58./6*
48.7 55.4* 43.7*
4
-47-
When interpreting differences in scores betweemmales and females,
statistical significance should not necessarily be the deciding factor.
Since,;given a large sample size, very smafl differences moy prove to be
statistically significant, the actual magnitude of the differences between
percentages should be considered for purposes of determining educational
meaningfulness.II
Finally, the reader should *ec't caution in making inferences
about'goal-level and Objective-level achievement. The objectives selected
for each goal area are not necessarily representative of all the ,objectives
that could have been selected. The same is true, for the items selected for
each objective. Therefore, inferences should be made conditional upon the
content of the four or five items used to measure each objective. Items
selected represent the collective opinion of the Connecticut Mathematics
Advisory Committee about the appropriateness of the items in terms of their
mh to their respective objectives and about the usefulness of the 'items
aS measures of valuable mathematics skills in their own right.
Achievement Results for 9-Yfar-Olds
Results for each of the three age levels will be described for goal
area, objective within goal area, and item. The test for the 9-year-olds
consisted of 60. test items, measuring six goal areat and a total of 16
objeCtives. Each objective was measured by five test items. Seven of
the 60 test items were openended; the rest were multiple-choice in
Go
formatb. Each of the tables in this section' Presents the results for the
items and objectives by goal area.
I. Mathematical Concepts. There were three objectives for this goal
area, containing a total of 15.test ite:Ms. On the average, 9-year-olds
correctly answered 74,4% of all items VI the goal area. Table 2,7 di Cpla
the results for the three objlftiveS and 15 test,items in the goal area.
II. Computation. There'Were.three objectives and 15 test items for
this goal area. On the average, 9- year -olds correctly answered 78.6% of
all items in the goal area. Table 2.8 contains the results for the three
objectives-and 15 test items.
III. Measurement. There were three objectives and 15 test items
fo this goal, area. On the average; 9-year-olds correctly an veered 81%
of 411 items in the goal area. Table 2.9 contains the re'sults for the
three objectives and 15 items.
IV. Applications /Problems. There were two objectives and 10 test
,items for this goal area. On the average, 9-year-olds correctly answered
54.6 of all itenis in the goal area. Table 2.10 contains' the results for
the- two objectives and 10 items.
Item 12 for Objective 11, which required students to determine how
much fencing was necessary for a garden 9 feet by 5 feet, was answered
correctly by only 8.3 of the 9- year -olds. Forty-three percent added
9 and 5, and 3.1.8 multiplied 9 by 5.
-49-
TABLE 2.7
Avero'ge Percentage. Correct by Objective and Test lt.em forthe Goa Area of MatheMatitaT.COnCepts for 9-Year--Olds
Item.
Positionon Test
Description of ItemAveragePercentageCorrect
Objective 1: The student demonstrates an understanding ofplace value for whole numbers. 79.3
8. ' Identify digit jn tens place 79.114, ' Place values in 762 80.925. Sum of hundreds, tees, ones 78.4'43. Place value ofia in 7000 77.755. Value of 4 in 3654 . 80.1
Objective 2: The student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of whole numbers 77.7
-17.
4. Which Is greatest (4-digit numbers ending in 00) 87.410. Which is greatest (5-digit numbers) 64.715. Which number is least (whole numbers) 83.242. Next number after 98, 99, 100, 94.:.6
58. Number 10 more than 4375 58.8
Objectiye, 3: The student demonstrates an understanding offractional notation.
2. Fractional part of rectangle shaded (1/4) 60.727. Fractional part of circle shaded' (96) 63.236. Fraction of dots lbred in (2/7) 73.441. `Fractional part of circle shaded (2 /s) 71.752. Tractiorial part of rectangle shaded (''/8) 62.9
66.4
-.0
-50-
TABLE 2.8
Average Percentage Correctipy.gbjective and Test Itemfor the-Goal Area of CIDOOtapon fOr 9-Year-;Olds
-/
ItemPositionon Test
Dekription,,of ItemAverage
PercentaCorrect
:Objective 4: The student demonstrates the ability-toadd whole numbers.
20.*22.*
D..
380-:19
$3.06 10.00 + 9.1432. 826 +.786 =53. 634 -1-41 +.5122 =
59. 725 + 203 =
5.10 =
81.5
88.848.486.6 -
90.992.8
Objective 5: The student demonstrates-the ability to 73.5subtract whole numbers.
13.* 1054 - 865 =
21.* 36 - 19 =29. 659 - 20745. 476 - 38 =56. 861 - 583 =
IlkObjective 6: The stud, 6nstratesmultiply , numbers.
the
_ .
3. 4613 x 5 =
11. 402 x 7 =
31. 36 X 3 =34.
.
312 x 4 =
40. AO!':4' 63 x 3 =
* Open-ended item
ability to
50.977.388.476.174.7
81.0
78.367.580.889.289.0
-51-
TABLE 2.9
Average,Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Measurement for 9-Year-Olds
Item
Positionon Test
Description of -ItemAverage
PercentageCorrect
Objective The student demonstrates the 'bility to convertU,S, units 9f currency to 1 ger or smaller units.
5. A quarter equals how many nickels16. A nickel equals how any pennies44. A half-dallar'eqUals how many dimes49. Twenty pennies equals- how,many nickels6O dollar equals how many quarters
83.4
91.9
4064.4 1
78.986.6
Objective 8: The student demonstrates the ability to identify - 74.8and compute time from clock face.
'6. Time shown on clock (7.:55) 68.524. Time shown on clock (10 to 4) 75.647. y. Time shown on clock (6:25) 83.051. Time it was two hours ago , 67.757. Time it will be in one-half hour 89.4
Objective :, The Student demonstrates a working knowledge of 87.0linear units.. of measure.
7. Estimate height of girl in fourth grade 68.426. Best unit to measure between two cities 94.730. Best unit to measure toothbrush 86.933. Length of pencil to nearest inch 92.648. Length of nail to nearest centimeter 92.4
ItemPoSi n
on est
TALE 2.10
4"Xrierag Percentage Correct, by Objective and Test Itemfor the G al Area of Applications/Problems for 9-Year-Olds
Description of Item9
AveragePercentAge
Obje tive la; The student demonstrates the ability td solveWord problems involving mathematical-skills,
1. At rate of 5 minutes per window, how Could.onefigure how many minutes. to wash 10 windowsRocket aimed at target 525 miles south,- landed 39.4624 miles south. Missed target by how manymiles ' .
.
.
23.* At 2 biscuits per day:, bOW long-until dog..'eatS',24 biscuits .
.
46. Amount of change fromp$5 for a $1.40 purchase. : 9.154. Total of 8 apples, 17 .'apples, and 37'apples 81.7
19.)
61.1
50.7
Objective 11: The student demonstrates' the ability to soliword problems involving-real world situations.
9. At $2 per shirt, how much would 7. shirts cost12.*' Feet Of fencing to enclose garden 9 feet long,
ti 5 feet wide28. Figure which has the same area as figure shown
(all rectangles)From 4:25 to 5:00 P.M. is how many minutesTwo nickels, 1 quarter, and 4. pennies equalshow much money
35.
50.
*:.Open-ended item
54.7
85.28.3
53.9
45.081.4
65
(
-53-
V. Charts and Graphs. There was one objective and'five test items
for this goal area. On the average, 9-year-olds correctly answered 78.4%
of all items in the goal area. Table2.11 contains the results for the
objectiVe and items:
TABLE 2.11
Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Charts and "Graphs fpc 9-Year-,Olds
Item vAverage
Position TesCripticin of Item Percentage,on Test Correct:
Objecti 12: The student demonstrates the ability to 78.4interpret data from charts and igraphs.
11. Pictographon which day did most people use 94.8the library (symbol=20 people)
18. Pictographhow many people usedlibrary on 37_6specific day (symbol-20 people)
37. Bar graph--who weighs most . . J 95.538.. Bar graphwho weighs closest to .50 'pounds 69.639, Bar graph who weighs least 94.4
Achievement Results for 13-Year-Olds
The test for the 13-year-olds consisted of 66 test items which meas-
ured seven goal areas with 16 objectives. Fourteen objectives were meas-
ured by four test items each, and two objectives were measured by five
items each. Seventeen of the 66 items were open-ended, and the rest
- 5*4 -
Wet4e multillie-choice items. The results of :the tests are presented. by
goal area, with the results by objectives and items presented in taIlles
by goal area.
1.
7'74d7
:MathOtlatital Concepts. There were two objectives for this goal
ayea, having a total of eight test items. On the average, 11Fyear-olds
e
)1
Correctly answered 61.2% of all items in the goal area. Table 2.12
contains the results for the two objectives and eight items of the goal
area.
II. Computation. There were seven objectives for this goal area,
having a total of 28 test items. On the average, 13-year-olds correctly
,
answered 80.1% of all items in the goal area. T ble 2.13 contains the
results for the'seven objectives and 28 items of the goal area.
III. , Meassurement. There were three objectives and 12 test. items for
thlt*al:area. On the average, 13-year-olds correctly answered 72.2% of
all itemOnfkthegoal *-ea. Table 2.14 contains the results for the three
objectives and 12 items of the goal area':
IV. ChartS_and Graphs .b There was one tfj test items
to--MeaSoure trriS goal area. On the average, 13-year-oids'correctly answered
89.1 Of all items in the goal area. Table 2.15 contains- the results for
the one objective.and four items of the goal irea.
V. Applications/Problems. There were two objectives and 10 test
items for this goal' area. On- the aveage, 13-year-olds correctly answered
-557
Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe GoalN\rea of Mathematical Concepts for 13-Year-Olds
%41
ItemPositionon fiest
Objective
15N._
Description of Item
.
1: The student demonstrates .anan ofrational numbers, in the form of fractions anddecimals.
5. 13:boys and 15 girls in a group; what frattio'halpart is boys
6. .009 is equivalent to what fraction18. Fractional part of circle shaded A25.* 1/5 is equivalent to what'pkreeht
Objective 2:
7.
14.
66.
The student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of decimals, fractions, and wholenumbers..
Which number is least (wholeAumbersFraction that is greatestNumber that is greatest (decimals)Ordering frattions
AveragePercentageCorrect
61.5
32,4
54::5
60.5
97.930.085.531.8
* Open-ended item
-56-
TABLE 2.13
Averafje Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item'for the Goal Area of Computation for 13-Year-Olds
Item
Positionon Test (-\,
Des cri pti on oi)- Item'
AveragePercentageCorrect.
Objective 3: The-student demonstrate's the ability to add and 92.8 .
subtract whole numbers.
3.* :38 + 19 = 95.68. 826 + 786 = 96.89.* '36 - 19 = 83.1
12.* 1054.- 865 = 86.8
.*.
Objective 4: The student demonstrates the ability to multiply 89.9whole numbers.
1.* 38 x 9 =16. 46 x 5020. 74 x 3832. 609 x 73 -
Objective 5: The student demonstrates thewhole numbers. .
714- 7 =
$8.96 : 4 =125 : 5 =
339 22 =
. ,
we/6: The student dem'onstrates the :ability to add andsubtract decimals.
86.794.788.991.3
divide 84.8
Open-ended item;
0.6 + 8 + .24 -$3.06 + 10.00 + 9.14 5.10 =If 23.8 is subtracted from' 62.1-$10.00 - 1.93 =
.:1
73.6
90.993.583.5
81.0
82.788.1
72.385.1'
Item'Positionon Test.
Objective 7:
29..
36.
42.
43.
Objective. 8:
22.
35.
59.
Objective 9:
34.
38.
47.
56.
4
-57-
TABLE 2.13 (continued)
Description of ItemAverage
PercOntageCorrect
The student demonstrates the ability to multiplyJletimals.
4.2 x 0.3 =425 x 0.33 -
nl
75.1 .
70.386.0
. 498 x 4 = 92.2$1.29 x 0.06 = 56.9
The student.:clemonstrates the ability to add andsubtract fractions and mixed numbers.
1/2+ 1/3
62.7
59.6
41/2 21/,
5/6
80.4
53.4
27'41 + 37/, = 63.8
The student demonstrates the to multiplyfractions and mixed numbers.
1/2 )1P.1/{
74.1
79.5
2/3 x 78.8
41/. x 3 68.3
3/R x 2 73.0
.\,
-58-
TABLE 2.14
Average Percent4ge-Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the toal'Area of Measurement for 13-Year-Olds
I
..,4-,.
Position ,,X2,- .:,..,,4,- Description Of Iton Test _-,if'
,..
Average,PerceAageCorrect
,... ---4. _I'
'',-:; ..- .r ...,.- , .
Objectivel0e. T4e student demonstrates a porking knowledge of',1,.-i-,A7,. . -.7 area.4nd perimeter.' ,
..--,.-,..v,
-:--'.3 ..k. Feet of fencing. to enclose gayden 9 feet longand 5 feet-wide
33. Area of rectangle shown (6 inches by 2 inches)55. Perimeter of triangle shown (17 cm by 24' cm by
32 cm)
57. figure which has same area as figure shown (allrectanglds).
Objec-Cive 11: The student demonstrates the ability to converta U.S. unit of meas'ure to larger or smaller Uni_tS.
2. ,.. 30 inches = feet : inches40. -. 2 'hours 20 mfnutes = minutes49.* : , P.,-, POOH' -
.
ounces62. 8 quar-t gallons
Objective 12: The student demonstrates knowledge of metricunits of measure. . - --: . ,
.
,ii-
., ,.,
31. MeAric unit used te, mea:sqre d-istance betjeen twocities
37. Met Unit used to measure,page of test44. Small. t metric unit of reasurement58. Gram, s. used th. weasure,(weight)
65.7
44.8
55.781.7
84.1
77.0_
86.392.557.576.2
73.9
72.9
70.968.185.0 '''
* Open-ended item
-5y-
TARLE 2.15
Average Fercentage (,,,ect by djective and Test Itemfor 'the Goal Area of Charts and Graphs for 137Year-Olds
Item
Positionon Test
^ Description of Item
,
Ayeragq,4.'Oercentage
Correct
Objective 13:. The student demonstrates the ability tointerpret,dat:t from charts and graphs.-
89.1
41. ReadAg a circle graph 87.446. Reading a table of sock sizes 88.1.5q. Reading a -2h-ct: with sygibol for kind of unit. 9'2.5,65.* Reading a bus graph 91..6
* Open-ended item
t4-.., t
-60-
66.91/, ofJill items in the goal area. Table 2.15 contains the-results for
the t44 objectives and 10 items of the goal area.
TABLE 2.16
Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Alec of Application/Problem for 13-Year:0lds
Item
Position Test
Description of Item
Objective It: The student demonstrates the ability to solveword problems involving mathematical skills.
10.* Several people received votes; what* percentageof total vote did one of the people receive.
26.* Person left for work at 7:45 A.M. , returned home 79.
10 hours later at that time42.* Mary took four tests and received four different
numbers of items correct; how many items wereincorrect
51.* Three people earned money; what was-avera(geamount earned
52.* Rocket aime.d at target missed target by Ogr , 81.3many miles
Averag:PercentageCorrect
76.4
55.7
Objective 15: The student demonstrates the ability to solve 71.42
word problems involving real world situations.
11. * At' 10-1 and 15-1 discounts, what is the difference 60.9in prices for TV set regularly priced at 5100
22. Distance on map is 3 inches; at scale of 1 inch 95.1= 45 miles, what is actual distance between cities
30. Sales tax of 3 cents on a dollar, what is tax on 94.5a $10 purchuar
54. At aVeraw speed of 50 f'il'l!, how many hours to 50.6trave'r275 miles
64. Sales'bx of 5..1, what is tax on $200 TV set: 59.5
* Open-endeci item
-61-
VI. Geometry.- There was one objective and four test4vi terns for this
goal area. On the avera'ge, 13-year-olds .torrectly answered 78.K of all
items in the goal area. Table. 2.17 contains the results for -the one
objective and four items of the goal area.
2.17
Average Percentage Correctj2 Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of A !tr± for 13-Year-Olds
Item
Positionon Test
Description of ItemAverage
PercentageCorrect ,
Objective 16: The student demonstrates knowledge of basicgeometric concepts.
78.9
'4. Picture of pa ral 1 el lines 04.213. Lihe se4r.krlt in a circle which is The diameter -73.539. Kind of angle found .in a square 70.545,- Shape most like an orange (sphere) 82.5
Achievement Results for 17-Year-Olds
The test forthe 17-year-olds consisted of 64 test items which meas-
urea six goal areas wlkh 16 objectives: All objectives were measured.4
^.
fol;
;,:iSms °oath Nineteen of the 64 i tems were open-ended; the rest were,,,
mu4i pl ethol ce i te The 'results of the tests 'are presented by goal
area ,,wi* resul ts bY4bjeeti ves and i tems presented in tables by goal
area .(see Tables 2.18 thrOUgli'.2.23)._,
7 1;
k.i -62-
I. Mothematical Concepts. There were tw, objectiv for this goal
area, havinga.tOtal of eight test items. On the 1 je, 17-year-olds
correctly answered 68,X.of all test items-in the goal area.- Table 2.18
contains the results'TOr the two objectives and eight items of the goal
area.
II. Computation. There were seven objectives for this goal area,
having a total of 28 test items. On he- average, 17-year-olds correctly
answered 82.4 of all items in the goal area. Table 2.19 contains the
results for the seven objectives and 28 items of the goal area.
III. Measurement. There were three objectives for this goal area,
having a total of 12 test items. On the average, 17vear-olds correctly
answered 80.4M. of all item-, in the goal area. Table 2.20 contains the
results for the three objectives and 12 items of the goal area.
IV. Charts and Graphs. There was one objective for this pal area,
having a total of four test items. On the average, 17-year-olds correctly
answered 93.2'f of all items in the goal area. Tabft,2.21 contains the
rtsults for the objective and four test items of the goal area.
V. Applications/Problells. There were two objectiveS and eight test
itevs for this goal area. On tiw average, 17-year-olds correctly answered
66.7. of all items in the goal area, Table 2.2? contains the results for
the two objectives and-CiAt items of the goal area.
Item
Positionon Test
TABLE 2.18
Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item forthe Goal Area of Mathematical Concepts for 17-Year-0lds
Description of Item
Objqotive 1: The student demonstrates an understanding ofrational numbers in the form of fractions.anddecimals.
Averag,ePercentagecorrect
68.5
7.* 1/5 is equivalent of what percent 63.09. Fraction describing shaded portion of figure 86.0
35; .009 is equivalent to what fraction 73.562. 13 boys and 15 girls in a group; what fractional 51.5
part is boys
Objective 2: The student demonstrates an understanding ofordering of decimals and fractions.
22. Ordering fractions49. Number that is greatest (decimals)53. -Number that is smallest (decimals)59. Fraction that is greatest
pen-tnded item
7 3
67.8
56.592.676.
45.4
ItemPos.tionon est
-64-
TABLE 2.19
Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of Computation for 17-Year-Olds
Description of ItemAverage
PercentageCorrect
Objective 3: The" stiMt demonstrates the ability to add and 94.9subtract whole numbers.
6.* 38 + 19 = 97,014.*, 3,6- 19 =26.1rs. 1054 865 -28. 826 + 786 = 95.2
Obje,ive 4: The student demonstrates. the ability to multiplywhole numbers.
4.* 38 x 9 =20. 609 x 73 =52. 74 x 38 =55. 46 ?( 50 =
88.095.088.595.0
Objective 5: The student demonstrates the ability to divides 87.6whole numbers.
1. 714 : 7 =
10. 339 22
17.* 125 5 =
36. $74.46 17
77.2
90.994.787.7
Objective 6: The student demonstrates the ability to add and 88.9
subtract decimals.
3. M 4 8.+ .24 = 87.015.* 53.05 + 10.00 + 9.14.+ 5.10 - 94.024.* If 23.8 is suhtracL.ed from 62.1 84.437. $10.00 - 1.98 = 90.2
* Open-ended item
-65-
TABLE 2.19 (continued
ItemPositionon Test
Descriptiqn of ItemAverage
PercentageCorrect
Objective The, student demon_ rates the ability to multiply 72.3and divide decimals.
38. $1.29 x 0.06 = 71.145. 425 x 0.33 = 87.747. 1.96 : 0.4 - 70.551. 17 : 0.25 = 59.8
Objective 8: The student demonstrates the ability to add and 69.4subtract fractions and mixed numbers
2. 41/4 216 = 63.5
46.54, 1/3 ' 66.1
56. 23/8 + 31k3 = 76.4
61. 16 + VI = 71.7"
Objective 9: The student demonstrates the ability to multiply 72.3and divide fractions and mixed numbers.
32.
34.
54.
63.
41/2 x 3 =
16 X , 1/11
3/8 2=3 : 3/3 =
80.4
84.7
65.6
58.4
4
r
-66-
TABLE 2.20'
Average Percentace Correct by, Objective and Test itemfor the Goa Arec of Measurement for 17-Year-01 ds
ItemPositionon Test
Description of , I tem
AveragePercentageCorrect
Objective 10: The student',demonstrates a wo rk i ng knowledgeof area, perimeter, and vo 1 ume.
73.0
.
12. One gallon of paint covers 250 square feet; howmany gal Tons :z0heeded to cover a wa 1 1 48 feet
70.4
, by 10 .feet 'i
25.* Feet of fencing to enclose garden,' 9 feet'clongand 5 f6et wide
58.8
29. Given: formula fOr area of triangle, find areaof triangl e wi th- b ,- 4 and h - 10
87.9
44. Find volume of box 74.7
Objecti ve 11: Tfip student .demops trates the ahi 1 i ty to convert a 85.
''U.,S. unit of measure to larger or smaller units.
18. 8 quarts = .gal 1 ons 83.733. 30 inches - . feet inches 92.040.* 11 pounds - ounces 74.264. 2 hours 20 'minutesnutes - minutes 93.7
Objective 12:
. .,,; -.,
The student demonstrates knowledge of metricunits of 'measure
i
82.2
.19. Metric unit used to Measure distance between two 765:cities
31. Gram is used to measure (wei qht) a-.)48.. Metric( uni L used to p*,,as ure capaci ty of gasoline
tank ...t;-':
85.7
57: Smal lest metri c unitof measurement 73.1
* Open- ended i tent
e
79
ItemPositionon Test
Objective 13: The 'Audent demonstrates the ability to.interpret data from charts-and'graphs.
TABLE 2.21
. .
Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Itemfor. the Goal Area of Charts and Gra0s4or 17- Year -Olds
Description of Item,
4
* Open-ended item
j
Reading a table of sock sizesReading a bar graphReading a circle graphReading a line graph
3
..41. JAI
AveragePercentageCorrect.
TABLE 2.22
Average Percentage Correct by Objective and Test Item fortheGOal Area of Applications/Problems for 17-Year-Olds.
ItemPositionon Test
DesCription of ItemAverage
PercentageCorrc:t
Objective 14! The studek demonstrates the ability to solveword problems involving matheMatical skills.
8.* Several people received votes; what percentageof total vote did one of the people receive
16..* Three people earned money; what was the averageamount earned
27.* If 300 calories in 9 ounces of food, how manycalories in 2 .,ounces of.the food
43.* Person,leftrfdt work at 7:45 A.M., returned.home 10 hours later at what time
Objective 15: The student, demonstrates the ability to solveword pro61ems involving real world situations
30. Sales tax of what is tax on $200 TV set39.* How much more Would -a person pay to buy a -
certain car on credit than by paying cash41.* Parking lot charges 35C first hour, 25e'each
additional hour or fraction; what is the costto park from 10:45 A.M. to 3:05 'P.M.
58. At average speed of 50 MPH, hoW many'hours,totravel 275 miles
* Open-ehded item
70.9
45.7
72.1
79.1
86.5
62.1
79.756.9
54.3
57.5
-65
VI. Geomottry There was one oh Jctiye for the goal area, having a
total of four test items. On the average, 17-yelr-olds correOtly answered
48.7Y, of all items in the goal area. iaLle 2.23 contains the results for
the objective and four items of the goal area.
'Atern
Positionon Test
Objective
42.*60.
TAUT: ?,23
Average Pe'reentapc Correct Objecti,:e and Test Itemfor the Goal Area of GeoHetry for 17-Year-Olds
AveragePercentageCorrect
Description of Ite4
16: The student (1,1r,Tint'ilt,... the ability to solve 48.7problems -involving tialf. geometric concepts.
Degroesof angle [unwed by hands of clock at 71.73 o'clock.
He-Nat of' tent pole (w.e of right triangle) 39.0Dngries of third angle ot a triangle . 51.S,Est.i.mate circumference of circle given thediameter
32.3
* Ape'-ended item
:Table 2.24 displays in graphic form EI summary of achievement on each
goal area by each age level. Tables through ay2.27 display sumries
of achievent on each objective for,c,icii age level, respeCtively.
8 A."
,
:*g Graph of Achievement on Goal Areas by Age Croup
-70-
TABLE 2.24
Math Concepts
, Computation
Measurement
Charts, and Graphs
Problem SOlving
13-YEAR-OLDS
,Math Concepts
Computation
Measurement
Charts'and Graphs
Problem Solving
Geornetrt,
, .61.2 .°
I 72.2
80.1
89.1
17- YEAR -OLDS -
Math Concepts
CONelltati on
. -
66.9 ,
1 78.9
4.,
025 50 75 , A 100
1 82.4
Meastirement 81.7
Chat ts and.Gr 93.2
Problem SolvinciAL.
47;0
50
66.7
,AVEBAGE PERCENTAGE,OF QUESTIONS ANSWERED POlirlECTLY
.1. Place Value
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF TEST QUESTIONS' ANSWERED CORRECTLY..
NA
oNW
C.1
1c.:. o
cn
4=.
(7)
a)a)
1C
OC
OC
O(.
00
OC
711
0C
-17
0C
770
C.7
70
C.7
70
070
'
1
-
11
11
11
,I
'-
1
.9;
,(ie
t,
5.
I.Vh-
.11:
i\::n
11)!
rs (
)
7, Uney
/a
9. Linear Measure
JO. Math Problems
11. Zeal
Problems
lb
Alt
.@
,
CO
i
th
CD
CD
Ci13.
r-s- 0
ca
I
Om
CT
rsa
12.
pre
tr7(
,-1Charts
CrGr.`aphs
O
AV
ER
A4
PE
RC
F44
E O
F Q
UE
ST
ION
S A
NS
WE
RE
D C
OR
RE
CT
LY ..
r..)
r...t
_.co
to.a
-De
01tti
,.0.
)c>
;xi
o01
oc.
n\-.
0C
r.0
01o
CJ1
-.0
'-n
11
.
1I
1\ I
Ii
'I
I
'`1
.R
atio
nal N
um;b
ers
2. O
rd,n
-ing
3. W
hole
Num
bers
(+
,7-)
.5.
c;,.'
hole
Num
bers
( -
)
1'23
41
Gt
-.4
-:4,
.,.0
Crl
I,.
r00 0 i
-
:.it*
isi;.
.'.to
: ,tib
-'.9
*O
S.:-
4I'A
T3
--1
6. D
e 4)
als(
+,)
(
r.
7: D
ecim
als
(x)
tie(
+, )
9.F
t act
ions
(x)
10. P
erim
eter
& A
rea
.'
C-5
01
11..
U.S
. Cci
nver
sipn
o.
12. -
Met
ric U
nits
13. I
nter
pret
ing
Cha
rts
& G
raph
s .
14, M
ath
Pro
blem
s
15. R
eal V
i,lor
ld P
robl
ems
16. G
eope
try
Con
Cep
ts/
Ct)
N.)
t'
1.R
atio
n'! N
umbe
rs,
4. 4
AV
ER
AG
E P
ER
CE
NT
AG
E O
f QU
ES
TIO
N A
NS
WE
RE
EV
CO
RR
EC
TLY
3N
.)N
..)cz
.r..
- C
O8
Cf
Cs
c..3
1p
c(r
O,'
o.
001
I.,
I.1
I-
II
1-I
I1
I1,
TT
2. b
rdt:r
ing
3. V
:hol
k2-N
urnl
iNs
(+,)
drV
.
4. lA
lhoI
e N
umT
w:s
(x)
.
Cl
co
5. t'
ince
N'u
rphe
rs,(
÷1
l'pz
ri.;`
,.c..4
;l'os
(÷
,)
<I
7.D
LY.tr
iiJI5
(x,
÷).
"*--
8. E
rdct
K3n
s (+
)m
-
.9.
It a
ctic
ins
iG.)
Per
;rne
tei A
a &
Vol
ume
rN L.
4
11. U
.S. a
onvo
r'sio
n
Met
ri U
nits
*
A--
--T
3. p
t pro
ting
eKirr
s &
Grip
lis1
14. M
ath
Prc
.)b
°,15
. Rea
rW
oric
ttrob
lem
s
G. G
iJom
etry
t pc,
-(,.p
ts
co _N
'..t
Goal area achievement. Ilin ear-olds scored. quite' highly on four)
of the:five goal areas, ansttierin Orreftly Al 'average of over 74% of theN. ,_..
matchirig:test items in the goal theeatital.-Concepts; Computation,
c.
Measurement. and Charts-and Graphs-- esteperformance..by 9-year-oldS' was
in the goal aka of Problem Sofving cove,c0.4
PerfoOmance of 13-year-oTds,,was More variable across-the objectives.A
Their achievement ranged from a high of et,1% correct on Charts and Graphs
to a low of 61,Z% on'MatheMftical Concepts.
The widest 'range in achieilement across goal areas was tisplayed.by
17-year-olds, Wno scored above 90(it on one goal are(Charts and Graphs),
just above 80% on two goal areas (Comput*tidkapd Measurement), 66-68% on -14V,areas
.
.,1 ,.4} .two other goal areas (Mathematical ConieptS and Problem Solving),
, *
low -as 4S on Geometry.'
-. 4vAchlaementAin objectives._ Nine-year-olds.scored an-average of over
441SWCoieect on fourAfthe'12 objectives assessedtoat their, level (Addg
c 0
Whole Nutbers, jlultiplYing Whole Nu 'r':, loney,Ind Linear Measure).,
Lowest perfolaue was on Math ProL, aXAJO Wejrld Problems (both 54;.;.,,
, k
w correct) afd Fractions (66%)., On all other oW,t . .
ain'the 73-79range.
/6
Thirteen7yearlops scored."rage of arounlOg correct1 4b.r., ' ,
'N ) .,' 10 .
of the 16 obje -ssed at that ag level (Multiplyilipholkumburs
Adding a Su t cting Whole um6eS, Itite*retArig Charts and.Graphs).?.- . .
On f,' othe tives, perforMance4
NumbsTNering, 0 g -anrub
0.0
scored-year-olds cored
"\ -,,
was in -(4 60-65%,rangerlona,. .4.,
ing Fractions, PO'imeter an Aa,
1
0
and Math Problems). On the remaining eight' objectives, 13-year-olds scored
in the 71 -85% range.
Seventeen-year-olds performed most highly on the same three objectives
On which 13-year-old performanCe was highest: Adding and Subtracting Whole
NuMbers (951', Mul4plying Whole Numbers (91%), and Interpreting Charts and41
,Graphs (931.'-' By Contrast, however, the performance of 17-year-olds was..-:
-,.56t.-,*
. lowestOOke Geometry Concepts objectiVeI0 t 49%). The items for-this
objecti'ipwever, were more complex at t'li-617-year-old level. These stu-li
41Vdents. scored in the 82-897, range o four other objectives (Dividing Whole
Numbers, Adding and Subtracting DeimalS, U.S. C6hVersion and Metric
exercises). They scored in the G2-73% range on the remaining eight
v411.',.,
. ,
,4. ett: .
Th:.e 17-year-ofids performed-better than the 13-year-olds,.and the .
......, ,. . ,
dar;..old.44 erfOrmed better than the'Dtar-olleson items' which were
dehti.cal for each pair of.aee groups. Generally, thedifferenCe.beten
ie performance of 9- and 13-year-olds was greater th 4anfi the differel:i,,
betwIkthe performinpe of 1,- and 17-year-olds.
,
f.
41
IntroduCtion
C.The purpose of this chapter is to compare the perf nce Connee_:
-76-
CHAPTER.
. COMPARING AGE GROUPS WITHIN CONNECTICUT
ticut students on test iteW(516 which 9-, 1314...and/or 174:year-old students
were tested, in common. When theAdentieal test item was used on two or
all th'reQ tests,' this ,chapter presliptS the comparison results.
, 16The use of the same item'for mare than one age leVel permits a com
pari son to, determine tne extent .to which stLidents of di fferent'age levels
diffef- i n achievement: Irt such comparisons it 9s hOFied that achievement
inerbas,gs as the Veve increases . a A,
docrease .achievement provi des
rmation useful for r p1 Toll'nkh since it is one incli.ction
that a- mathematics skill or knowledge judged impor ant by. Connectidue4pii7
cators is not uniformly retained or reinforced a oss he school years.
Roschtlevement ulA.
ross Age Groups
44 - .tone tthan summarized by itemThefitems appearing On more an onesare suarzey
'rwsition orY the tests Tables 3.1 throzh 3.8. Each able covers one
,goal area. ,61:iAtives to which the itefilsare referenced are nat included;-
4
. 41, .
because, in some ances an item was referenced to one objective:on one
test add Ao anOther objeCtive-:Onano4
14aart3onal pert '6f4t)le ft.gure.
nAte For .example, the 'item:.
-'t shaded ?" was. referenced4
A
for 9- year- ,olds to Objective 3: "The student demonstrates -aliwtrn-de.rstandtg g
of fractional notation," whit: pi 13-year-olds it was referenced to
tive4:ve 4: "The student demonstrates ),) understanding of rational numbers."
Since the intent of the test developers was to focus on individual items
for compa'ri-Son parpose, across tests, cOmparison by objective will not be
mad
Goal area: "Mathernatial Concepts. Table 3.1 contains description
of the.ikrns,Aich appeare.d on tests -tvw 4 all three age groups for
99 a) -;',1,X'e-a, of .11,a the rila -ii al Co n'a ltis Pt . ,,
-1-413.
s. expected, 13-yea void' students fterfc4rmed better than 97year-., ,
tts' on two AI ch the tests -had in common. Seventeen--..,
,..
year-old. student
to the .reader is t 'e,rnaqinitude 6 e difference in performance and the
o performed better thar0 13-yearrol.ds..Of interest
nature''' f the 1 tern- Di f, e ces° betw the 9--v and 13 -year -olds
4sfere d amatic. i The difference b' eer*- 13- and 17: r-olds ap ared-k 7 .
I.. 4.1
..t be lessdramatic. This result is also to .be4expected, since nip., t ofr,
the Lteirs..content. would have been taught either during or after fourth
grade and,Ahus, some of the content Auld be nevi' for many ourth- raders;.',
.
however, all. of the content supposedly woul d,be 'review worl*No b' 137, and/ V
17-year-olds -and, thu1,1 the .expeoyfation tinht be that those' two age grO___... . twould tend to perform somewhat sirlicla'rly on elem4ntarjshool.5athem6 icts
,,
.
Gontent-.110 tk- 4/- ,;,.Theread9rSlroy/td note that for the three it referencing ff.actiorN, .
, / . - ....7z-' -' ,.
. ..
.4
`
only ,.which both 13- and 17-year-old's 'tad-in covhon, ,onlY.,about.:a thirdip
/
' t iib
.49
0,78'2
TABLE .3.1
JY
s
Comparison of Achi6ement across A coups oneSharejd Itemsfor the gal Area of Mathem ical Concept j.
Item Number
13
Percentage of StudentsScoring CorreLtly
41 18 Fractional part of figure shade-d(ircle)
25
I"
62, 13 boy and 15 girls irf a group,ftactignal part of group
71.7 93.1
1/5 enalt.to whatpercen
.009 is eciOrivale whatfrac n?
19 .49 Wlich,0 tuber is reatelit?
59 W ?ch factiOn is neatest?
54.5
69.,7. 73.5`'
14,
'15 7 Mich number is 144? (whol e
.nuMbers)/'
63.0
85. 6
30.0 45.4
3.2 93 .'134
66 22 Ordering- fra 31.8 -56.
'
,<..)'AV'',
-79-
(30.0% t0 "32.4 %) of the 13-year-olds and about half (45.4% to 56.5%) of
the 17-year-olds answered the item correctly.
Goal area: Computation. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 contains descriptions of
the items which were shared by tests of two or al 1 three-age groups for the
goal, area of Computation.
As was expeCted, 13- and 17-year-old students performed better thanat'qty, .
9-year-olds on 'i tems assessing computation with whole numbers (see Tab,14
3.2). The range in percentages of students scoring cdrrectly for 9 -year-
olds on the four items i m cyrnmon was 50.9% to 88,,8%, whereas the range was
sma.ile'r for the other two age gro s on their, 71 common items (73.6% to
^. A.8% for 13-year-olds and 77.2'Z, t097.0% fer 17-year-olds) .
On the 11. items in common for the 13- and 17-year-olds on computation
-wi;th who e num -)rs7.i. both age groups- performed .veri,similarly; 17-year-olods,-4, lit
on. theta eragc, performed only slightly better than th 13-year-bids. In
summitry, both the 13- and 17-year-O=lds achieved high percentages corre,ct
on these 11 items.,
Table 3.3 displays performance on compytation items fbr decimals and- % ';'''..:'' ..,,
fracti ons . Only one- i tem on compUtatiOn. wi,,th' decimals and fract Ap i se
.#, )"Table= 3.3) wias shared by .all three age, groups. ,required stude-n., t1 ,..
,fpur. eCi.mal*. Only 48.4-,41 of ther9-4ear-o1115 correctly answered. the i e.
. . . ,..
whereas 3.-,,it' of the 13-year-bla* and 9 0% of the 17-year:olds .co4ryanswered -,"4". i--;,' answe.red i t . On 'Alp si x itottems`4_ * - to':... A 4..i.., , ,4.
'$4-^-,A. . ,-:,...k '1)u t a i O-n Of. : dt?.cim- . ,...
-aretby e 13- nd 17-year-Olds (dom-gr
fohlied better than 13-year-Oleds
t* pein 1 tett twi th ,4-t.'"hge of 't-wo,4
-80-
TABLE 3.2
Comparison of-Achievement across Age Groups on Shared ',terns'
for 'the Goal Area:, of Computation (Whole Numbers)
IteM Number
9 13 17
Percentage of StudentsScoring Correctly,,,;
20
21 14
32 8 28
13 --12
1
-16 531,
,20 52_
32 20
27 17
15- 1
60 10'
38 + 19=
36 - 19 =
+ 786 .=
865 -=
88,.8
.
86.6
50.9
46 x 50 =
4 74 x 38 =
609 x 73 =
125 5 =.
714 7
339 22 =
.44
95.6 97.0
93.1 95.0
96.8 '95.2
86.8 92.3
86.74 88t
94..9 . 95.0
£18.9 88.5
91.3 65.0
93.5 94.7,;1
73.6 77.a
83.5 90.9
a
6 )
TABLE 3.3
Comparison of Achiev'ement across Age Groups . on Shared Itemsfor the Goal Area of Computation 1DecimalS and Fractions)
Item Number.
.17
Percentage of (StudentsScor4 ng Correctly
13 17'13 )17
22 24 15
61 37
17, 3
50 24
. 36 45.
V, 38
tts
$3.06, + 10.00 + 9.14 + 5.10
$10.00 - 1.98 =
.0.6 -744"8' + .24 =
If 23.8 is, subtracted from'62.1
,/4)5 x 0.33
ZIt?.$1.29 x 0.06 =
1
1/2 13
23/8 A;
44 88.1 1141(o
85.1 90.2
87.0
84.4
3/3 =
x3
87.7 ,
56.9 71.1
59.6 71.7
638 76%4
4 :64.1
80.'468..2
79, 5 '&&.7
-82-
14 percentage- points).
The difference in performance between the 13- and 17-year-ol ds' on the
five items for computation of fractions was very marked. The 17- year -olds
performed better by an average of nearly 11 percentage ;:pints per item
(with a range of five to 13 'perhntage nts ).
Goal area: Measurement. Table 3.4 contains a de5.;,,-..ripti on of the
items which appeared on Tests for two or all three age c.soups for the
goal area of Measurement.
As has 6eeli the case, with all of the goal areas far, each sue-
ceeding age group performed better than the .onepqfOr:e i3t. Of ,special' #
interest is -the first test item descrypep, in TablL3.4-' This was an
dp6n-ended i tem' that read :i..5
,,-.,
Mr. Simmons putta 'wire fence 411' the way around h4i.-, rectpgpi argarden. The garden is 9. feet long and 5, feet wide.. How Owfeet of fencing did he use? / .(r-,..
k..Students who-an wered the item incorrect4 ,pneral ly-iiiper multi pile
9 by 5° or added 9 and 5. Table 3.5 shows the resul AtIle three
groups for the item.
From Table. 3.5, the reader should note that there =.1're large di
ences beteen age tiro ps in term of the percentage of ,f:tulients correctly.La
\
answering the i tem and i n terms of noe-adding 9 and 5 t.7. get an incorrect
response.. However, the was a consistent ;rend for, a three ag groups11
to multiply-9 by 5, arriving. at an ilcorrect' response,(
?-the .reader can readily se;.: that my twoReturning to Table ;3,4,
0
4. 1
-83-
TABLE 3.4
Comparison of_Achievement across Age Groups on ShSred Itemsfor the Goal Area of Measurement
a
Item Number.
Description of Item
4..Percentage of StudentsScoring Correctly
9 13 . 17
A 40
54'; 18
40 644
2 33
, 31' 19
.reet.of fencing neede,pprectAngular garden
9 feet long-A-nd.5:feet wide*4;
Which figure has same,,areaas, figure shown:above-(a1.I
rectangles)'
11/2 pounds = ounces,
8 qUarts = gallons
2 hours 20 minutes =
minutes. ,
30 inches = feet' inches
Unit of measure, for distancebetween two.cities (metric)
,
S (metric)
GraMlmeasuiV (weight)
.
m listed yn44.rgoal
8,3 44.8 58.8
53. . 841
area of prob
57 .19
76.2
74.2
92.5 93.7
86.3 Y2.0
72:9 76.5
68.1 1173.]
85.0 93./
em solving for 9-year-olds.
-84-:
TABLE 3.5
Student Performance on the Mr:. Simmons-Item Appearing-on All Three Tests
Response
Correct Answer:
45 (9 x 5)
14 (9 +
28
Percentage Giving Response
9-Year-Olds 13-Y6ar-Olds. 17-Year-Olds3
8.3
31.8-
43.0
44.8
26.9
16.2
58.8
25.3
7.3
.measurement items were administered to both the 9- and 13-year-olds, am!
13-year-olds performed Much better on both items. On the eight items in
common for both 13- and 17 -year -olds, the 17-year-olds performed better
on each itenLand did so by an average of nearly eight percentage points
per item.
Goal area: Problem Solving. Table 3.6 contains a description of the
items that were administered tici more than one age group in the goal area
of Problem,Solving. The 17-year-olds clearly performed better than the
13-year-olds on the five items common to these age groups, with an average
of nearly 14 percentage points between the groups. The 13-year-olds aver-\
aged only 51.6: correct, compared to the 17-year-olds, who. averaged 6.3:
correct. The smallest difference was 7 and the largest 20:. On the one
item shared by and 13-year-olds, 13-year-olds performed better than
9-year-olds, with more than twice as many versus'39.4.1 correctly
-85-
4 t,
TABLE 3.6_2
7'comparison of Achievement Across Age Groups onShared Items For the Goal Area of Problem Solving
AP'
Item Number
9 13 17
51 16
10 8
26 43
54 58
64 30
19 52
4i
. DescriRtion of Item.
T earned ,$205, C earned $62,D earned $400. What is theaverage? .
J received 120 votes, Mreceived 50, G received 30.What percent of total votesdid J receive?
Arrived at job at 7:45 A.M.returned hone 10 hours later.What time did person arriveTome?
At 50 MPH, how many hours togo 0 miles?
Sales tax rate is 6 Whatis tax on $200 televisionset.?
A rocket was directed at atarget. 525 miles south of thelaunching point. It landed624 miles south of the launch-ing point. By how many mil (2sdid it miss its :target? )
Percentage of StudentsScoring Correctly
9 13 17
55.7 72.3
27.2 45.7
79.6 86.5
50.5 57.5
59.9 79.7
39.4 81.3
answering the item (a difference of 42 percehtage points).
One item was. incluckd in the goal area of Problem Solving for 97year-/
olds, but matched to the goal, area of MeasureMent for 13- and 17-year-olds.
Results across age levels are displayed separately in Table 3.5, along with
an indication of the percentage of students selecting incorrect responses.
&much larger percentage of 13- and 17-year-olds could compute the perimeter
of Mr. Simmons' garden (45 and 59, respectively) than could- 9iyear-olds
-,_ (81. The pattern of incorrect response choice varied in that the most
common wrong answer giyen by 9-year-olds was 14 (9 + 5), while the most
common incorrect response by 13- and. 17-year-olds was 45 (9 x 5).
Goal area: Charts.and Graphs. Table 3.7 contains a description of
the items which were.shared by tests of the 13- and 17-:year-old age groups
for the goal area of Charts.and Graphs. No items assessing this skill for
9-year-olds were used on tests for the 13- and 17-year-olds.
Both 13- and 17-Year-olds showed high achievement on the three items,
with 13-year-olds_perfoming slightly better than the 17-year-olds on one
of the three items.,
Summary
The 17-year-olds performed better than the 13-year-.olds, and the
13-year-olds performed better than the 9-year-olds on items which were
identical for each pair of age groups. Generally, the difference between
the performance of 9 and 13-year-olds was greater than the difference
between the. performance of 13- and 17-year-olds.
TABLE 3.7
Compfarison of Achievement AcrOss Age GroupsShared Items for the Goal Area of ,Charts and Graphs
Item Number
17
65 73
46 11
41 21
Description of Item
Percentage of StudentsScoring Correctly'
9 13 17
Bar graph shpwing number oftrees planted for five-dayperiod. Question: How manytrees planted on certain day?
Table of sock sizes forparticular shoe sizes.Question: If wear particularshoe size, what is sock size?
Reading a circle graph forsmallest portion
91.6 90.8
88.1 93.7
87.4 95.5
(
IntroduCfion
-88-
CHAPTER- 4
COMPARING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
REPORTING GROUPS
4
) The purpose of this chapter is to describe and com,Jare the mathematics
achievement of selected groups of students within Connecticut. Each of the
selected groups is defined on the basis of responses to the principal and
student ques ionnaires. A total of 12 questions from t i student question-
naire and seven from the principal questionnaire were selected' to define
reporting groups, although some of these questions are trot applicablie to
all three age groups assessed.
In the case of student question4re items, studen s were separated
into'groups based on their responses to the questions, .nd the., average for
achievement was computed for each group. For principal questionna
items, students were grouped in terms of the responses ivet(by their A
.
respective principals, andthe-average Achievment was computed-for the
student group. In each case, the average for the reporting group is com-
pared to that for all students at that age level within Connecticut (the
state average)'. The purpose of these analyses was to 1.:entity ,those
Characteristics A students and their schools that bear a relationship, to
student achievement.
Achievement is defined in most cases as performanc on the total test,
that is the average percentage of all items on the test answered correctly
1 0 '7
-89-
by students in,a given group. However, for three of the variables (sex
of student, size of community, and region of the state) difference's in
achievement are also described'on the basis of goal area and objective
scores. These more detailed analyses were performed on only these three
variables. The latter two variables were obtained not from the 'question-
naires but from the sampling stratification of the schools. It should be
noted that all results.by region of the state are gi'ven exclusive_ of big
cities (seep. 20):
The results for Connecticut- reporting groups are described in nitra-
tive form. The discussion highlights all of the major differences between
groups. The reader is referred tp Appendix G for a display of all data- for
all reporting groups in tabular form.
The results described in this chapter are organized by age'level.
Results are presented first for all reporting groups at the 9-year-old
level, then for 13-year-olds, and, lastly, for 17-year-olds. A concludT
ing summary provides an overview of results for all age groups on each
variable.
The differences between groups described in the chapter are those that
were statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence. The reader
is referred to the section on "data interpretation" in Chapter 1 for
cautionary statements regardiig inferences drawn from these....cesults. Sw11
differences between groups may be c',Iip,zi.ra4t;,however, they
may be too small to be educationally meaningful. The reader is directed to
consider the magnitude of the differences in scores between groups to
determine educational meaningfulnes.
-90-
Comparing 9-Yea.r-Old Reporting Groups
Sex of student.. At the 9-year-old level, there was no significant
difference from the state on total test score for either male or female
students.
On goal area;S4 res, males scored significantly above and females
-scored significantly below the state on three goal a.,yeasGoal Area'3
(Measurement), Goal Area 4 (Problem Solving), and Coal Area 5 (Charts and
.
Graphs). Females scored significantly above and males scored significantly
below the state in Goal Area 2 (Computation), and no significant difference
from the state, was found .for either group in-Goal Area 1 Wathematical Con-:
cepts). The largest difference above the state across goal areas acid
reporting groups/was found in Goal Area 3 (Measurement), with males scoring
1.8 above th state. The largest difference below,the state was found in
Goal Area 2 (Computation), with males scoring below the .State.
No significant differences from the state for either males or females.
were found on Objective 1 (Understanding of Place Value for Whole NuMbers),
Objective 3 (Understanding.of Fractional Notation), and Objective 10(Math
Skills Word Problems). Females performed significantly above the state and
males performed significant` below the state on Objective 4 (Ability to
Add Whole Numbers), Objectiv 5 .(Abilityto Subtract Whole Numbers), and
Objective 6 (Ability to Mu l t ply Whole Numbers) . Males perfonfled signifi-
cantly above and females performed significantly below the state on the
other six ohicctives. The largest difference above the state across objec-
tives and reporting groups was found on Objective ll (Real World Word
103
-91-
4
Problems), with males 2:4% above the state. -The largest difference below
the state across objectives and reporting groups was found on Objective 6
(Ability to Multiply Whole Numbers), with males scoring 2.3% blow the
state.
1
Sizeofcommunity: V-Terst scores,were grouped aLcording to the size of
the student's community: big city, fringe city, medium city, or smallrr
community. Significant difrences from the state on total test score were
found for each reporting group except the medium cities. Big cities scored
12.2% below the state, fringe cities seored,L6 above the state, and
smaller communities scored 4.0% above the state.
In every goal area, the big cities scored'significantly below the
state, with the largest difference (14'.7% below the state) occurring in
Goal Area 1 (Mathematical Concepts) and the smallest difference (10.E
below the state) occurring in Goal Area 2 (Computation). The medium cities
)44rwere not significantly different from the state in any goal area. The
fringe cities were significantly above the state in every goal'area except
Goal Area.5 (Charts and Graphs) \, e io significant d4ffeinee was found.
The smaller comunities scored significantly above. the state in every goal
area, with the largest difference (4.91c above the state) occurring in Goal
Area 5 and the smallest difference (3.4% above the state) occurring in Goal
Area 2 (Computation). The magnitude of the difference between the small
Communities and the state exceeded the magnitude of the difference between
the fringe cities and the stele in every goal area.
The bio scored significantly bolo..; stag in all twAve
objectives, with the largest difference (17.3: 1-)e he state) occurrini,
A
-92-
on Objective. 1 (Understanding.of Place Value for Whole Numbers) and the
smallc;st difference (7.9:, below the state) occurring dn. Objective 6 (Abil-
ity to Multiply Whole Numbers). The medium cities showed no signlfic.ant
difference irOm the state. on any objective except Objective 7 (Ability to
Convent U.S. Units of Currency)Aere they Were 2.n above,the state. The
fringe cities were significantly abbve the state on eight of the objectives
but showed no significant differences from the state, on Objective 3 (Under-.11
standing of Tractional Notation), Objective 4 (Ability to Add Whole
Withes), Objective 8 (Ability to Compute Time), and Objective 12 (Ability
to Interpret Cilarts and; Graphs). Of the objectives for which significant
,,diffetrisces were found, the greatest magnitude, for the'fringe cities (4.1.
above the state) was observed on Objectiv6 6 (Ability to Multiple Whole
Numbers), and the smallest significant difference above the state)
was sound on Objective 9 ,(knowledge of Linear Units. of Measure) . Smaller
communities were significantly above the state on all objectives, with the
largest difference (5.3:', above the state) occurring on Objective 8 (Ability
to Compute Time) and Objective 10 (Math Skills Word Problems) and the
smallest difference (2.1 above the state) occurring on Objective 11 (Real
World Word Problems).
Region'nf state. lest scores were grouped according to region of the
,state: Region 1 RESCUE, Region 2Cooperative educational Services, ;ogiw
3CRLC, Region 4ACES, Region 5Project Learn, and Region 6--41A.R.$.E.S:
The "big cities," however, were from'their respective regions.
Significant differences frnm the state on total test score were found in
-93-
Region 2 (5.1% above thistateigion 5 (4.0% above the state), and
Region 3 (2.8% above the tote). No significant. 'd'ifferences from the state
on total test score were observed in the remaining three regions.
Region 2 scored significantly above the state in ail -goal areas, with
the largest difference (6.6% a[sove thei'state) occurring in Goal Area 4
(Problem solving) and the smallest difference (2.9% above the state) occur-
ring in Goal Area 5 (Charts and Graphs) . Region 5 scored above the state
in every .goal area except Goal Area 1 (Mathematical Concepts), with the
largest significant difference (5.0% above the state) occurring in Goal
. Area 5 (Charts and Graphs) and the smallest significant difference (3.6%
above the state) occurring in Goal Area 4. Region 3 scored significantly'
above the state in every 9nol area except Goal Area 2 (Computation), with
the largest difference (4.0% above the state) found in Goal Area 1 (Mathe-
maf,ical Concepts) and the smallest significant difference (2.8% above tine
state) found in Goal Area 4. Region.1 scored significantly above the state
(2.7%) only on Goal Area .(Charts and Graphs) and showed 6o significant
differences from the state in any other goal area. Region 4 and Region 6
showed no significant differences from the state in any goal area.
Region 2 scored significantly abOve the state on all 12 objectives,
with the largest difference (10.0% above the state) found on Objective 3
(Understanding of Fraction:1 Notiotion) and the smal4;''st difference (2.9Y.4
above the state) found on ObjeCtive 12 (Ability to Interpret Charts and
Graphs). Region 3 scored significantly above.the state .on every objective
except Objective 3, Objective 6 (Ability to Multiply Whole Numbers), and
-94-
Objective 9 (Knowledge of Linear Units of (lew.,ure). Among those objeCtives .
for which significant differences were found, the largest difference for
Region 3 (5.441 above the state) was found on' Objective' 1 (Understanding of
Place Value for Whole Numtwes), and the smallest significant difference
(1.9Z above the state) was found on'Objective 11 (Real World Word Problems).
Region 5 scored significantly above the staite on every objective except
Objective 2 (Understanding of Ordering of Whole Numbers), Objectiv0,3,
Objective 5 (Ability to Subtract Whole Numbers): and Objective 11. Among
the objectives for which significant differences were ,found,- the largest
difference for Region 5 (7.2 above the state) was found on Objective 6,
and the smallest significant difference .(3.77, above the state) was found on
Objective 9 (*knowledge of Linear Units of Measure). Region 1 scored signi-
ficantly above the state on Objectives 1, 2, 5, and 12, with the largest'
difference (4 2.; above the state) occurring on Objeictive 5 and the smallest
significant difference (2,'U above the state) occurring.on Objective 12.
Region 1 was not significantly different from the state on the other eight
.(
objectives. Region 4 scoreq significantly above the state on Objective 2
(2. 1 above) and Objective 9'(2.5 above) and shoeckno significant differ-/
ences from the state on any other objective. Region 6 scored significantly
below the state on Objective 6 (11<.8> bklo0.) and showed no significant
differences-from the state on any other o4 active.
Socioeconomic status. Total test scores:Are grouped aticO:Ning to
three levels of socioeconomic status high, medium,.and l'ew,17-f3ased on af
ratio of people to rooms in thel'home obtained from student questionnaires.
1 ii
-95-
Significant differences from the.state.on total test score were found for
epch reporting group, with performance improving as socioeconomic status
.improved. Specifically, the low socioeconomic status group was 5.6% below. .
the state, the mediuM socioeconomic- stratus group was 2.3 above the state,
and the high ,socioeconomic-stoLus,group wa's above the 'state.-.-.
Parental discussion_ of sehool.. Students were asked whether they
talked to their parents about school "dai ly," "weekly," "monthly," or
"hardly ever.", Significant differences from .the state on total test score
were observed in the "hardly ever" group, which' was 5.2% below the state,
and in he "weekly" group, which was 3.3 above th. .stote-. No significant
differences from the state were Found in the other two reporting groups.
. Parental assistance with schoolwork.. Students were asked -Whether or
not their parents helped thew-with the schoolwork. SignifiLant differences
from the state on total test score were observed for both reporting groups,o
with students reporting parental assistance scoring 1.1% i)(27,0;,) the state
and students reporting no assistance scoring 2.9%o'd.:2 the state.
Television watching. Students were asked how many hourS.of televison.
they watched each day. Responses were "less than one hour," 'between one
and two hours," "between two and three hours," "between three and four
hours," and "more than four huurs. Significant differences from the.stte
ron total test score were found for every reporting group. Performance
relative to the state improved as television watching increased up to th,,
two to three hour limit and then declined with Furl incruHints of
10
-96/
spent watching:' Specifically, those who viatChed less t.-?.'n one hour daily
scored t..1% below the state, the "one to two, hour" grot, s(:.ored 2.2 above ,
the state, thte "two to three hour" group scored 4..4 at...T.-, the state, the
"thl'ee,to four hour" group scored 2.1 at)eve the state, .d the ",more than
foLr hours" group scored 2.7c/:,/ below the state.
Attitude toward school Students viere asked how P.'s. h they liked
schOol. ke.spOnses werp'PIllate it," "I don't like it, "Tt's O.K.," "I4
like it," and 1'4 it a lot." Significant differed" from the state
4_,on total test s.core/were observed in the "I hate it," like it," and
like it a lot" gra6s.. Performance relative to the stat.i improved as
`attiWde toward school became more positive up,to the positive
response, where performance relative to the state dec ...: Specifically,
those who rate school scored 4.4 below the state, the, who. like i L
scored 4.9 above the state, but those who like dt "a '7.JH:" scored 2.1:
bc7c) the state.
Attitude toward mathematics. Students were asked hether they liked,
mathematics "very much," "somewhat," or "not at all." F.F:Inificant
ences from the state on total test score were observe:- r, every reporting
. group except those repcirting that they like r...athematic." 'very much." Those
who reported that they did not like mathelhatics at al cored 4.8 belw
the-state, whereas those who like mathematics "somewir.- scored 1.4... above
the state.
Perceived utility of mathematics con'' rcJ to othY. _Hbiects. Stndonts
were asked whether, in compdrison to other suhjects studied lu scheol,
11
-97-
..'
tlfey found m;_ltheatics "very useful," "sunewhat useful," or "not very
useful." Signific;nit differcnc0 from the st6te on tttal test score more
found for every repor.titil gi:oup except those idin reported that they found
mathematics "very useful." Those who find mothtics "not very useful"
scored /.: bol ow tic o stote, wheied6 those who rind wilthematics "SOWeYhOt
use H. " ,Th'',-. . 7 cibuvc the si.,.
OiiitV of sonul'f..ants- or sTecialists. Scores were grouped
according IN) l7tI0 OH 0 princiN1 repoctA thol. con;ultrits or
specios worked with wthe:uatics teaaprs in the schools. Significant
differences flew the state on LO H] test score tere ohserved or both
reporting grew with studeilL, whose principdL reported that consultants
or s) -h-llist',; - avollahle scoring 3.1 :, 2, i..., the F.toi: rind students
ahle scorinl 1.5 .4,:,.,:. the stte. This sceminfjly anom,ilous result m.,y he
p-incipr.-, reprtH ly.hdL cow,Hltonts or spLciolit!:, were avail-
explained by the Hot th,it Lo:-,I1 tiInts or 4eciolists tend\ cd to he more
av-ailahle in the hig ciLie':, (see Chapter 7: Remlts of the\PrinclHH
Quc--,tionwtive) ond thot the "hig city" 9-year-olds scored considolmbly
below the SLILE2 en Lola! Lest score (see ahove).
Achievrit level orn,-.Iniz.ation of clo,ssroorIL Scores were grouped
according Lo whetHr a student's principal reported that the prodoiJin(Ite
form of classrom organization in the school ww.-, according to achievoH(.111
. level or irreHpective of adliev(:-.Tni, level. No differences
the s Li to HI observed for either reporting grot.lp.
1
-93--
-Type of mathematics instruction. Scores were grouped according to
whether a student's principal reported that the typical mathematics class-
room utilized traditional teacher-centered activities or individualized
instruction. No significant differences from the state on total test score
were found for the teacher-centered group, whereas the individualized
instruction group scored 2.7 below the state. Again, this particular
group effect may be clue to the fact that individualized instruction -ended
to prevail in the "big cities" rather than in other areas.
Curriculum or program development. Scores were grouped according to
whether or not a student's principal reported that major curriculum or pro-
gram development in mathematics had taken place in the school in the last
five years. No significant differences from the state on total test score
were found for eith-r r<Trting group.
Class Size. Scores v!ere grouped according to whether or not a stu-
dent's principal reported that mathematics *eachers in the school felt that
class sizes were too large. Significant differences from the state were
observed for both reporting groups, with stR1,1nts from schools with report-
edly over -sized classes scoring 5.3: below the state and students from
schools with reportedly non-over-sized classes scoring 1.8 above the
state.
Comparing 13-Year-Old Reporting Groups
Sex o TN tudent. At the 13-year-old level, results on total test score
for both males and females v.ere stotistie6ily significant..in comparison to
-09
the state. The averaye for males was 1. 9.1 Love the state, and the average
rifor females was 1.7: below the state.
The trend across goal areas paralleled the results on total test score
in tour of the six goal areas. The greatest significantgliffernces con-
sistcnt with the trend on total test score were found in Goal Area 3
(Mea!--urement), with rcHles scoring 5 Olf above the state and females scoring
4.3,', below the state. The smallest significant differences consistent with
the total test score trend were found in Goal Area 6 (Geometry), with males
2. 5.. above the state and females 2.:L below the state. The exceptions to
the total test score trend were found in Goal Area 2 (Computation) and Goal
Area 4 (Charts and Graphs), for which there were no significant differences
from the state averge for' either males or females for either goal.
Ti=, results on objective scores parallelcLa.A.,he_resnits on total test
score for nine of the 16 ohjeetives. The largest differences consistent
with the tot1 Lest trend were found on Objective 12 (Knowledge of Metric.
Uniis of Measure), with eel es 6.3:' above the state and feholes 5.4Y. below
the state. The smallest significant differences consistent with the toti.,1
test trend were found on Ohjoetive 9 (Ability to Multiply and Divide Frue-
tions and riiyA2d Numbers), with moles 1.0. above the state and femdles 0.
below the state. On obJeotivo 4 (Ability to Multiply Whole Numbers), th,
trend reversed, with females scoring tiignificantly higher (1.0: above thr
state) and mules scoring significantly lower (1.21 below the state). On
six ohjective':, no u -i(111-ifietit dilferen:es from the state were observed or
either males or feed os: Objective 6 (Ability to Add and Subtract Dec i-
::,11:;), ObjeLLive. N (Ability to /1,'Id and Subtract 1-1"-i0W;), 0,1,0qAiVe 13
-100-
(Ability to Interpret Charts and Graphs) , Objective 3 (Ability to 'Add and '
Subtract Whole'Numbers), Objective S (Ability to'Divide Whoie Numbers), and
- a
Objective 7 (Ability to Multiply Decimals).,
ISize of coununitv. Test results wgre reported according to the size
of community. There were four reporting groups for this variable: big
city students, fringe city students, medium city students, end smaller cowl-
munity students. Significant differences from the state, average on total
test score were"-6und in commnities of all sizes with the ,exception of the
medium cities. The big city students scored 12.4 below the state, whereas
fringe city students scored 3.0 above the state, and smaller cominunity
students scored 3.F above the state.
In five of the six goal areas, the trend exactly parelleled the trend
on total test score. That is, the big:cities reported scores significantly
below the state, the medium cities reported scores not significantly dif-
ferent from the state, and the fringe cities and smeller communities
reported scores significantly above the state, with the sMaller communities
showing slightly higher scores than the fringe communities. The one excep-
tion as Goal Area 5 (Problem Solving)(, in which the only difference from
the total test trend was that the fringe cities showed a slightly higher
score than the smaller communities. The largest differenceswere observed
in Goal Area 3 (i ieasurement), with big cities 16.2.: below the state and
small communities 4.Pt above the state. The smallest signifiCant differ-
ences w(e oberved in Goal Area 4 (Charts and Graphs), with the big c4.ties
9.6t below the state and the small cc nunities 2.7Y, above the state.
sr-
-101-
L____)',the Leend across object:Hes also closely r,3sebled the trend on tot
test score, although on four objectives the fringe cities slightly out-
Scored the sm-ill (:!,, Linities, rather than vice versa (Objective l': Ability
to F,ultiply Decimals, Objeetive 12: Knowledge of Mitric Units of Measure,
Objectiv th probl alud Objective 15: Real World
Word Problops In 60,dition, fringe city scores on Objective 5 (Ability
to Divide Umbers) were not significantly'different from the statP.
The largest difi'erences were found on Objective 8 (Ability to Add and
Subtr,_,LL Fraclions), with the big cities 19.9: below the state and small
CUI uniti s `>.St above the staLe, and on Objectl'ie 12 (Rnowledge of Metric
Units of mc_:(-1Hic0, with the big cities 20.0': below and the fringe cities
6.5 above the state. significant' differences were found m,
Objective 3 (,'M-ility to Add Subtract Whol,e Hullibers) , with the big
cities :3.6 belo.the state aid gnitjes 1.3_ above the state.
Region of Test r-esults were reported according to the s ix
region; of the state: Region 1--RLSCUE, Region 2Cooperative Educations I
Services, Region 3--CRU, Region 4--UES, Region --Project. Learn, and
SiTlificanL.differences fro the stateton total
test score w(Te found in R(L'ioll 2 (1.9' above the state), Region 3 (2.J (
above the state) ani Pejien 4 .2,. above the state). 'Region 1, Region
and Region 6 scores were not sigHficani:ly different from the state.
Differem:es by regton across go 1 areas were somewhat, similar to those
found on total test score. bugion 2 was sip] icantly above the(state in
all (10,-11 ar'C':1!--, Go it four 2 (Ccr;Tut,,tion:, where there ws no
-102-
significant difference. Region 4 was significantly above the state in all
goal areas except Goal Area 1 ('hthematical Concepts), where there was no
significant difference. Region 1 was significantly above the state in Goal
Area 4 (Charts and Graphs) and Goal Area 6 (Geometry), and showed no signi-
ficant differences in the pther goal areas. Region 6 was not significantly
different from the state in five goal areas but was significantly below in
Goal Area 6.
There was somewhat more variability in the results by region across
objectives. Region 3 was significantly above the state on Objective 1
(Underst-dnding of Rational (lumbers), Objective 2 (Understanding of Ordering
of Numbers), Objective 6 (Ability to Add and Subtract Decimals), Objective
10 (Knowledge of Area and Perimeter), Objective 11 (Ability to Convert U.S.
Units of Measure), Objective 12 (Knowledge o, Metric Units of Measure),
Objective 13 ([,h ii to Interpret Charts and Graphs), Objective 14 (Math
Skills Word Problems), Objective 15 (Real World Word Problems), and Objec--
tive 16 (Knowledgc of Geometric Concepts ).
Region 2 was significantly above the state on Objective 2, Objective 4
(Ability LoAltiply Whole Numbers), Objective 5 (Ability to Divide Whole
Numbers), Objective 6, Objective 7 (Ability to Multiply Decimals), Objective
8 (Ability to Add and Subtract Fractions), Objective 9 (Ability to Multiply
Fractions and Mixed-Numbers), Objective 10, Lhjective 11, Objective 12,
Objective 13, Objective 14, and Objective 16.
Region 1 was significantly above the state on Objective 3 (Ability to
Add and Subtract Whole Numbers), Objective 6, Objective 7, Objective 12,
Objective 13, and Objective 16.
irJ
-103-
PC(jOrl 4 was :,:glilicuntiy above thetate on Objective 3, (fljecti vu 4,
Objective' 7, Objective 11, Objec\tive 12, Objective 13, and Objective 16.
Region 6 sighltieuu-tiy below Lhc Situ onObjealves 2, 14, and lb.
Region 5 sh6wA no iiunifiLant diffcrences on any objective.
Scieeconc.'ic -;LJIhus. ionl Lcst,scores worn Yeported accord in to
three level of socionconei,ric u1iigi, Hedinh, and low. Significant1
differelves liHjli Mn sM on total le'A scm-u were observed in all thri..e
r000 flog grot:p:: with the lciw .>(:)c iper.();owc st:ans group 6.0 , below the
st6t(:,, the 1,iedioH socioecoHuiiiic status group 1.4. above the ',Uite, and the
Iii gh socioecovic ,,taLns croup 4.9. above the state.
Parente; di.,cur::.iun or S Lode: Lu were asked whether they L.alLed
to their pareHL,..; 61JoHt. "(Lily," "wo(=kIY," "r1oothlY," or "hardlY
ever.' riL,,nt fm:: the '...tate on total test score were
oberved for every uruup C:::,Lpt the group that ruported spearng to parcrts
weekly. Thre was u (cinsi'_,Lcat trend for student', dici,tssing school more
frepently to have higher scores relative to the state. Specifically, the
group that reported "Ift.rdly ever" 'tiavinu .c_uich discussions scored 4.Ot. below
the state, the grout' thi,t reported monthly discw,,lon scored 2.7: below the
stalerand the graup that cpurted daily discussions scored 0.8: above the
state.
Parental enC(Mr: 7,ehoolwOrl.. Students were whether
- they received "a lot," "quite a bit," only a little," or "hardly any"
encoge:::Pnt fro] their prcnts about schoolwork. Sicjnificant diCfreo(:is
-104-
from, the state on total test wore ve.e observed only the 6roups
reporting "only a little" tncourgement (2.8:: below trp. 1:,tats) and "a
"iot" of encouragement (1.1"/, above the state).
Tel watching. Students were asked whether -oh day they
watched television "less than ore hour," "be'ween one , ' two hours,"
"between two and three hours," "between three and fouc or "more
than four hours." Significant differences ff'om the sta._ on total test
score were observed in every croup ecept that reportiH, between three
and four hours of televisicn watching daily. There we a a consistent
trend for scores to increase re-La-Live to the state as television watching
c.,oecifieally, the "more than four hours" p",--'d'ay group scored
4.4: below the state, the "two to thethrccc hour" group s'ad 1.V. above
the s1,1 thL "one to LvT, hour' groiJo scored 2.4 V12 state, and
une "les than one hour" group scored ".-1.) above the
Attitudo 1rd sch-ool. Students were 'asked ho'., eh they liked
school. P, sponses were "I hate it;" "I don't like it., "It's 0. K.," "I
like it," and "I like it a lot." Significant differ:. from the state
on total test score wore found for every response cjrc?,. except that
reporting ;Le school a lot, with p-rfomance rela 'e to the stir to
generally increasing consistently as ,-Attitude toward became Is )re
positive. Speolfluilly, the "hate sckuor group scm. 3.1 below the
state, the "don't like school" groupse red below the state, the
"school's O. K." group scored 1.3: below the state, me h.; the "like school'.
group spored 2. above the sLIte.
-105-
Stunt!:, botch ''r1-4;tk,c
"vory HIlt " " s u i i ( 2 , 1 ; H t , " Or That o t oil . " S i i l lricoq.t. it 1 r-i'Qr-010 110: ti 01, 7.hoid tot61 st !corc nra ohervcd In thrLn
with vriu0hHni:i2 st.Ac. LH.rovin# os attitud,,.2
on to iH' LTh,q2. Hy:c.i Li ii ly, those- who (*it
(IL all scured who 11 h-2 ro L on rds(Jred 0.1 [I to 1.11, rod tilo 0 o 11 jr thcticn, "vry
scorch sLite,
Pin crif 1 ; Lo,.:.;-_tred 10) otkec St;Adnts
'.11 teur, in son to othnr sul).wcts they felt
Li dt "very " or,,iti I 5 " or not vary u octul ."
Significdnt Li no: sL:r2 on tot1 Loot vjorQ w(l.re found in
'kH 1 Pr'f 1 rico rcH,..:ti, yr to LiH Ho to -L,provi tH Er,
Hoc. foul that :ctiio::oticc 10.
"not v(Tii Hrhn thosr! 0110 tol Hot it In
scor H 1 tO hub.; thQ ILOLO, 0l tho':7,6 fool it is"vry 14erul" !;corrd ).6 love the sthte.
or lotA1 test scores 1.11 0
ei)or LC'd 0O oh 1. to oh thur or nu 1. 'student' s nc Hot (,;(41--
sult-mt-, or --,pc( id is to w,)I.Lcd wi Lt) Leacher!--: in tho 0011001. No
S -rui!, Up:2 S LOLa (2(,-.1-ve(i for cithur reporti nc;
Hvel i on 0 C a`f,c.1(:)('M. TOL1,1 ter=,t .00105 1.011
I-Vt)Or ;Jr..LULtri , [-)C 1;1( Lid 1rHt tin'
-106-
predominate form of classrsie organization in the school was according tp
achievement 1 vel or irrespective of achievement level. No significant
differknce from the state were observed for either reporting group.
car
Type nf indwwdtics insLruction. Total test scores were reported
according to whether a student's principal stated that the typical 'Lan-
ccmatics classroom for 13-year-olds ,utilized traditional teacher-centered
activities or individualized instruction. No significandifferences from
the state were found for eitirza reporting group.
Curriculum or program development. Total test scores were rWorted
according to whether o: not a student's principal stated that there had
been major curriculum or program development in mathematics in the school
dun in i-ive years. No signitiLant differences Frcii the state were
found for either reporting group.
Class size. Total test scores were reported according to whether or
not a studett's _principal stated that mathematics teachers in the school
felt that class sizes were too large. A significant difference from the
state v.s, observed in the group of students whose principals reported that
mathematics teachers felt that classes were not too large, with this group
scoring 0.9, above the state. No significant difference from the ste.te was
found in they other' reporting group.
-101-
I! Yr-OH
Sex ii ile»t. T:-.)tai.istica 11y HyiHi ic,-.1rit di if Prencer.i; Iroti the H
O ti A,(-0 Le!;L. score \Tre ohL-,erved Hr Loth !1:,iles (3.0 ahove thQ stote) and
! (2.3 lie 1 e H. H i e ) .
nAle ,udenLsy7r(A end fi'mialec., scored
HiOlti Lan t.1:: mice the s tote in every goii I ere c>mept GeH Arc,a 2,taten), where HO differences from the sttc werc, 1w)served.
difierenr.les w,,.!re found in'G')H Arcd 6 (.'IceHtry),
ahove [Hai os 5.0, [How the state. The
sifibliest differcrics were found in [Oil Area 4
(Cho r Gr,.!pir,.), 0.6 aheve.. the st,:te and LtiiIe `, 11.4 be (u!
the S Cato.
On in o HI-, (H 1 1 can 1. ly :-Cuovu the H Li
1,)elow the .,Late. The ldrycr.J.
di f tetete tutu foi;!-;.,1 nit CHit LIcic (tincic:i,tmiritpl 0.i0et-ing et
wi obey e and f H.i,e1 es / 0. 1)nlew the state. The (.--ddal 1
List ei ly Lensi the tre.w.1 Ofl tcHoi test
!,core ;1,1.10 ;+y! emt1 ire 0,-..,1(s; the stake) were found on
Live 13 (ALi 1 -i ty IC) interp! tt. (thirt-,,; att,d Graphs), wiTh illTile-,, 0. 6'. shove i.: id1
.i . I
frets let; 0.4 hel nw ti;,,_ '.;-Lat.Q. The trend ,found on total test core wF,
re,v(2)'5 nd tin OH nc Li Vu 4 (Alvi hty to tlul Ci ply Colt , wi-th 1 eilia inS
11 can t (O. V) and Ina sinni Hcontly kJ ow O.() ) the
No H I ('2 1 -Ica MI d i I I ertnce t.Fi H Lt L. Mre -;-eilnd for ei tiler si 1 ie or
1,1.1 in OH,;((. L (Ahi 1 ty Co Hy H Uirole ), Ohim' I ive L
(Ability to Add and Subtract Decimals), Objective 7 (AL I ity to Multi ply
and.. Di vide Decimal s ) , and Objective 9 (Ability to Multi ply and Divide
Fractions) .
Size of commurvi ty. Test scores were repot' Led acco..H 'Inc] to the s i ze of
the s L.,dentl ommuni ty big city, fringe meditiH city, or small com-
'muni ty. On total test score, significant i I fere.nces the state were
found in each reporting group. The big d ti es were 1 low the state,
the ti es were 1. 5;1, above the state, meth um di t: were 2.2:: hove
the sta to, all-! smal 1 cemeni Lies vere 2.4'5 above the s
s goal areas, the big cities were signi fi cant 1., below the state
in every goal area. The largest difference for this found in
dual Area 3 (Me,r-wrement.), with big cities 17.9... below !. Ilo state. Smaller
CflLIMWIi tics Si i i tly above the Stetu in (!el,',. teal a=rea. The
6iffrence was observed in CoJ Arua 6 (Gem;-
, wi tin s t i l l cow-
LInni ti scot- i 1.91 6Hve OI(' s tat P. The L!,:,di um c I scored s (Jni f l
eantly dhove .Qe state i n al 1 hut two goal areas (Go,, roe 1 : flathcHat c: 1
C:(Jn cep t.!, and Carl Geometry), where no slglll If erenc s were
It)unc. The fr1i trio c I Li es scored s i gn i [-loan l 1.v alAovc.' sLaI. in Only tv,:o
heel arca a ((,, 1 Area I : P bane Li c Concvp L'-, and P,r(t 4: Charia
and Gr(ios ) , ond show( d HO V i q h j f i C H I d i iThsynces Cr. the Late I n the
Other 10Hr g0,; dre,L11.
s o ye, the hig CILIA'. sco.1 .v be low the to e
on al I °Hod rn(!,,, di 1 lercn cc he oc. curri nct o
Objec ve 10 ( ('doe of /001 and I ecime L('r ), where 5 1 (:I1 i es scored
OH
20. ..j!D: 61-id H d hniuoo o 3OIUO H:(:?
La Le occ.,HIT-ilim, ru Ohju.L ivo3 HUH I H H Py:Li oH ouoL fItinlu NtmLy:Hrs),
hi orurc 1 H hu iou flu Lu. ho wiL c,Lorrx1
0(901 f .i(HHtly 00 1 01),J (2C (1: li:li1CTS11011CH 11(') ol
nq (H. 0 '.1.1-1,j of i\l.) I 1 *i ty to
0-i V U 1 201111 13' H) fill Lip1",' 0.H Di ul:H Frj.C.1-,i011F,,i_11:(1 13:
rly ,11111 1Ar;vd31 , cmd oh id ro ol gni ricant di Frey-,.
on (oly (I 01.00 HydiuH c Li cu 's.cored uf;ove
hilio ubtsc-J-Hv(s LO t y iolu 6:
i\hi 1 i 10) Rd(i.HH /11.ri LiLy 'L.() c
-h out jul11,. 10: V.n.,,r;i1(!d,...;:. of e\r-L,: id Nr-iiiictrr, 11: ,Nyi liLy Lu Couv.o L
1",»0r,,H1ilo Hut 3: 13:
i..,1,; ify H 111f Cat , 11: NHLh ffilh ', lord.
1 b:
f
(:!( ho otir:r 00001d
LIP ',1o; ()II 11 ujuiLivoo (2, 5, (3, 7. 0, 10, '11, 12, 17i,
?,-i(! liltOlUli (.1 i thu
n'LLHrliwl liv(! 01)HcLivc. imP 91'c0..(:t dirfl.cmc.;! dhnvc: thr,:
Iroup' ro';.', di 1 iou' round on Of cinc-
L t.hL, of Li.
-_11to rnportod ric,udi ncj to the
re,ri on'-, lilt- 1-- Pr(j iii ",,)---Coornrr:i ducAl 0;w:1
P,! .Y--Lh U, Ho on 4 Peri-kJ 'i---Prk4juct, I ruru, :1111
i (1;1 i i froH I ;HP (11.,-1-1
12'
-110-
test score were fou "yin Region 2.13.6% above the state), Region 3 (3.2%
above the state), and Region 1 (2.3% above the state). No significant
differences from the state on total test scone were found in other regions.4Ft
Across goal areas, Region 2 and Region 3 scored significantly above
the state in all six goal areas. Region 1 scored significantly above the
state in all areas except Goal Area 1. (Mathematical, Concepts) and Goal Area
4 (Charts and Graphs), where performance was not'significantly different
from the state. Region.6 scored significantly ,above the state in Goal Area
3 (Measurement), Goal Area 4 (Charts and Graphs), and Gbal Area 5 (Problem
Solving) but was not significantly different from the state in the other
three goal areas. Region 5 scores were not significantly different from the
state in any gbal area. Region 4 scored significantly below the state in
Goal ,Area 6 (Geometry) but was not signifikantly different from the state in
the other five goal areas. The greatest significant difference above the
state across all goal areas for all regions was observed in Goal Area 5
(Problem Solving), where Region 6 scored 6.2;:, above the state and (in Goal
Area 6 (Geometry), where Region 2 scored 6.r above the state. The greatest
significant difference below the state across all goal areas for all regions
was found in Goal Area 6 (Geometry),_ where Region 4 scored 4.7.below the
-state
Across objectives, Region 3, Stored -significantly above the state on all
objectives excerpt Objective 3 (Ability to Add and Subtract Whole Numbers
Objective 7 (Ability to Multiply and Divide Decimals), and Objective 9
(Ability to Multiply and Divide Fractions), in 'each of which no significant
differences from state were found. Region 2 scored significantly
above the state on alJ objectives except Objective 4 (Ability to Multiply
Whole-Numbers), Objective 7 (Ability to Multiply and Divide Decimals),
Objective 9 (Ability to Multiply)and'DAide .Fractions), Objective 11
(Ability to Convert U.S. Units-of Measure), and Objective 15 Meal World
Word Problems),'in each or which no significant differences from the staLa
were observed. Region 1 scored significantly above the state on half of
the objectives: Objective 6 (Ability to Add and Subtract Decimals),
Objective l (Ability Co Add and Subtract Fraction, Objective 9 (Ability
to Multiply and Divide Fractions), Objective 10 (Knowledge of Area and
Perimeter), Objective 11 (Ability to Cohypiit U.S. Units. of MeJsure),44,
Objective 12 (Lnowid of Hetric Units of-Measure), Objective 15 (Real
World Word Prolat'ems), and Okjective 16 (Knowledge Of basic Geometric.
Colicepts). Region 6 scored signifftantly above the stage on four objec-
r-tives: Objective 10, Objective 11, Objective 13 (Ability to Interpret
_Chants and Graphs), end Objective 14 (1lath'Skills Word Proh}ems). Region
5 scored significantly above the state on three objectives. Objective 4,
Objective 5 (Ability to Divide 1JX1e Numbers), and Objective 11. Region 4
scored significantly below the state on two objK:tives: Objective 6 and
Objective 16. The> largest diP+erence above the state across all objectives
for all regions was observed on Objective 10, where Region 6 scored 9.7:
above the state. The lar_gest difference below the state across all objec-
tive:, for all regions was observed on-Ol3jective 16, where Region 4 scored
4.7_ below the state.
1 21;
-112-
Socioeconomic status. Total test scores were reported according to
three levels of socioeconomic status high, medium, and low. Significant
differences from the state on total, test score were found in all three
reporting groups, with low socioeconomic-status students 5.2% below the
state, medium socioeconomic - status students 1.6% above the state, and 'high
socioeconomic status students 3.6%, above the state.
Parental encouralenient of schoolwork. Students were asked whether
they received "a lot," "quite a bit," 'only a little," or "hardly any"
encouragement from their parents about schoolwork. A significant differ-
ence from the state on total test score was.observed only for the group
reporting "hardly any" parental encourapuent. This group scored 3.6%
below the state.
Television watchin. Studedts were asked whether each day they
watched television "less than one hour," "between one and two hours,"
"between two and three hours," "betvieen three and four hours," or "more.
than four hours." Performance relative to the state improved consistently4
as amount of daily television watching declined, with all reporting groups
except' that watching television between two and three hours daily showing
significant differeIrces'from the state. Specifically, the "more than fou
hours" per day ,gro4 scored 9.5 below the state, the "three to four hours"
group scored 2.9:, below the state, the "one to two hours" group scored
above the state, and the "less than one hour" group scored 4.4r above the
state.
-113-
Attitude toward sc.klpol. Students were asked how much they liked
school. Response option mro "I hate it," "I don't like it," "It's O.K.,"
"I like it," "I like it a lot."- Significant differences from the state on
total test score were found for every reporting group, and performance
improved iairly consistently as attitude toward school became more posi-
tive. Specifically, the group hating school scored 5.1'/, below the state,
the group not liking school scored 2.1r: below the state, the group thinking
school is "O. K." shored 1.4;Y below the state, the group liking school "a
lot" scored 2..2 above the state, and the group liking school scored 2.9'/
above the state.
School aspirations. Students were asked to state the highest level of
schooling they would like to attain. The response options were "not finish
high school"; "graduate from njgh school"; "graduate from a vocational,
technical, or fiusiness school after high school"; "go to a two-year coll(ge";
0 "go to a four year college"; and "go to graduate or professional11
school
after collCge." Significant differenCes.from the state on total test score
were found for all reporting groups except that not wanting to complete
high school. Performance relative to the state consistently improved as
educational ambitions increased. Specifically, those wanting only to fin-
I
ish high -school scored 11.9 )elow the state, those wanfing to attend .a
vocational or technical school scored 6.5': below the state, those wantilr
to attend a two-year collage scored 3.2s below the state, those wanting to
'attend a four-year college sc--)red 4.9:: above tlr: state, and those wantin
to attend graduate or professional school su-el 10.6": above the state.
-114-
Attitude toward mathematics. Students were asked whether they liked
Nathematics 'very much," "somewhat," or "not at all." Significant differ-
-fences from the state on total test score were observed for every reporting
.group xccpt those liking mathematics "somewhat." Performance relative to
the state improved as attitude toward mathematics became more positive,
with those not liking it at all scoring 6.2% below the state and those
liking it "very much" scoring 6.6% above the state.
Perceived utility of mathematics compared to other subjects. Students
were asked whether, in comparison to other subjects they studied, they felt
that mathematics was "very useful," "somewhat useful," or ."not very use-
ful.' Significant differences from the state on total test score were
observed for all reportig groups, with performance consistently improving
as perceived usefulness increased. Specifically, those who felt mathematics..
was "not very useful" in comparison to other subjects scored 5.5% below the
state, those who felt it was "somewhat useful" scored 1.2% below the state,
and those who felt it was "very useful" scored 3.3% above the State.-
Perceived utility of mathematics outside of school. Students were
asked whether, in their lives outside of school, they found mathematics
"very useful," "somehwat useful," or "not very useful." Significant dif-
ferences from the state on total test sco re were found for every reporting-
group except those stating that they found mathematics "not very useful."
In contrast to the results obtained on perceived utility of mathematics in
1, .
comparison to other subjects studied, on this variable studefitI;:who found
12 7
-115-
. 4
A
mathematics "very useful" scored significantly Iric; the state (2.7%
below), whereas those who found mathematics "somewhat useful" scored icdni-
ficantly above the state (0.9% above). This apparent anomaly may be
explained by the facts that a higher percentage of "big city studnts
reported that they found mathematics "very useful" (See Chapter 6: Results
of the Student Questionnaire) and that "big city" studenOscored somewhat
below the state'on total test score (see this chapter, above)!.
Years of rothematics. Seventeen-year-olds were asked how many years
of mathew,tics instruction they had in grades nine, 10, and 11 ("none, "
"1 year," "2 years," or "3 years "). Significant differences from the state
on total test score were found for all reporting grroUps, with performance
consistently improving as number of years of matheqatics instruction
increased. Specifically, those with no mathema*s instruction in thes,e
three grades scored 22.7% below the state, those with one year scored 17.2%
below the state, those with two years scored 8.37 below the state, and
those with three years- scored 4.6% above thg. state.
Availability of consultants or specialists. Total test scores. clere
reported according to whether or not a student's principal reported that
consultants or specialists worked with. mathematics-teachers in the school.
No significant differences from the state were found for either reportiinc
group.
Achieyement level Organization. of cl.assroos. Total' test scores were
grouped accordteg to whether 'a student's' principal reported that the
1 ",
predominate farm of classroom organiption in the school was by achievement
level or irrespective of aehievement level. No significant differences
from the state were found for either reporting group.
Curriculum or program development. Total test scores were grouped
according to whether or not a student sl)rincipal reported that major cur-
riculum or program develtelent in ma ematics had occurred in the school
during the last five years. No significant differences-from the state were
observed for either reporting group.
Class size. Total test scores were grouped according to whether or
not a student's principal reported that mathematics teachers in the sch'ito1
felt that class Sizes were too large:. No signifiCant differences from-the
state were found for either. reporting,
Summarya
Nine-year-old males and females performed.the same as the state, whereas
'13 and 17-year-old males performed above and.13- and 17-year -old females
performed below the state, with the magnitude of the differences increas4.
ing at the upper age level.
Big city students at each age level performed well below the state.
Medium city 9- and 13-year-olds performed the same as the state, although
their 17-year-olds performed above the state. Fringe city and smaller.
commulity students at each age level exceeded fhe:state, with smaller'
communities above fringe cities at each age level.(See Table 4.1).
.1.P
-117-
TABLE 4.1-
Graph of Achievement on Total Test by Size of Community
9-YEAR-OLDS Lill student)
Oig
Fringe Cities
PI;ick-s;
13-YEAR-OLDS Lill stu&nts)
ftg
Frirlq2 Citi()s
ri,!dium
17-YEAR.OLDS (z;11 stucIP.nts)
Bkje,
Fringe Gine;
Mc:dium Cit
Sn)tIler,
0' 1 74
62
r
7E)
73
-
...
r
.1 78
79
79
20 40 60 80 l:.)0
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF ITUIS Ohr-:OTAL TEST ANSVVERED CORR::C-!' LY
130
-118-
Regions 2 and 3 students of all age levels performed above the state,
with Region 3 below Region 2 at each age level. In addition, Region 5
9- year -olds, Region 4 13-year-olds, and Region Z 17-yer.-olds performed
above the state (see Table 4.2).
There was a consistent trend at each age level for performance relative
the state to improve as socioeconomic status improvA, with low socio-
economic status students somewhat below, medium socioeconomic status
students slightly above, and high socioeconomic status. students somewhat
above the state.
There was a tendency for performance of 9- and.13-year olds relative to
the state to improve as frequency of discussion of scftaol with parents
increased., This trend was slightly more pronounced far 9-year-olds.
(This variable was not assessed for 17-year-olds.)
O Nine-year-olds whose parer as helped them with'schoolwc.rk scored slightly
below the state, whereas those whose parents did not help scored slightly
above the ,state. (This variable was not assessed for 13- and 17-year-
olds.)
e There was some tendency for the performance of 13- any! 17-year-olds rela-
tive to the state to improve as parental, encouragement of schoolwork
increased, with this trend more pronounced for 13-yearOlds. (This
variable was not assessed for 9-year-olds.)
o At the 9-yearold level, performr e relative to the .1-fate im roved, then
declined; as time watching television increased. In i.(,:ontrast, at the
131
-119-
TABLE 4.2
Graph of Achievewent on''Total Te'st by Region*
9-YEAR-OLDS (:111;170-!pts)
Region 1
flrgioio 2
Ri.Tion
Region 3
11,-.gi,.)i] 0
r74
13- YEAR -OLDS (an 1.tlidurw,)
Po.:gion
2
Region :i
sIkAirill
fi,:,p()11 5
Rogion
17-YEAR-OLDS (n11 students)
11,,:gion 1
lift)on 2
Ficgir:m
Rf,gioo 4
Region
RE:gion S
79
..I 80
J
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS ON TOTAL TEST ANSWERED CORRECTLY
-A-; ,, f r.- 0v1:- :: i '; n.lt i -,1,,r, Ly r 1";i;`,r; 1, c_l''..' ,'..:Ir',.',, r' (. ty ,,,i,
!
t;':,ri .,) ,Ji ';',. I- , c; f rt,.., : In ')",i," ;'-,:':(. t i '1;i' r-,r;a (... : co' !!. 1 r rf to in,,,rr 11.-;, fry;.._, -..r._.., ri., ,--v,--,i'.-.-D,. ..1,1.., in L011.,-t. , Li
-120-
13- and 17-year-old levels, performance steadily declined as time watch-
ing television increased, with this trend somewhat more pronounced at the
17-year-old level.
There was a general trend at each age level for performance relative to
the state to improve as the student's attitude toward schOol became more
positive.
There was a general trend at each age level for performance relativeo
the state to improve as the student's attitude toward mathematic became
more positive with this trend most pronounced at the 17-year-old level.
There was a fairly strong tendency at each level for performance to
improve as the student's perception of the utility of mathematics com-
pared to other subjects studied became more positive.
0 Seventeen-year-olds who find mathematics "very useful" outside of school
scored somewhat bacv the state, those who find it "somewhat useful"
scored slightly czow the state, and those who find it "not very useful"
scored the same as the state. (This variable was not assessed at the 9-
and 13-year-old levels.)
At the 17 1year-old level, there was a very strong tendency for perfor-
mance to improve as years of mathematics instruction increased. (This
variable: was not assessed at the 9- and 13-year-old levels)
There was a strong tendency for performance to improve as educational
aspirations increased. Those students who aspired to a two- -year college
-121-
scoring 3.8'1, -b,:14,,14 the state. Those wanting to attend a four-year
collegebr grodUate school scoring abo-oc the state by 4,97, and 10.V,,
respectively.
Nine- year -olds in schools with mathematics specialists or consultants
scored below the state, whereas those in schools without specialists or,
consultants scored above the state. No .differences were cibservud at lid
13- and 11-year-old levels.
O NO differences from the state at any age level were found according to
whether or not students attended schools that generally assigned stu-
dents to classes on the hasis of achievement level.
o No differences from the state at any age level were found according to
.Aiji-Wer.or-not-students attended sch9o1s that have,.b44major mathematics
curriculum or prprodoveloptooa. in the .last five years.
o No differences fromjhu st4ite at the 13-year:old level were found
according to whether ,Ladents attended schools that generally employed
traditional te,:icher-eelt,r2rod activities or generally employed indivi-
dualized instruction in 1.1 therm tics, although at the 9- year -old level
students attending schools generally utilizing indiVidualized instruc-
tion scored below tie state. (This variable was not assessed at the
17-year-old level.)
Nine-year-olds who attended schools whose principals reported that
mathematics teachers Wt that classes were too large scored -somewhat.
1
-122-
below the state, whereas 9-, and 13-year-olds who attended schools whose
principals reported that mathematics teachers felt that classes were not
too larL( scored slightly above the state. No.other differences from the
state wc'e observed.
-123-
CHAPTER 5
COMPARING CONNECTICUT WITH THE
NATION AND THE NORTHEAST REGION
Introduction
lhis chapter compares the performance of Connecticut 9-, 13-, and
17-year-old vtudents to the performance of students in the nation and the
Northeast region of the United States on selected items in the goal area
ofqlathematics. Results for studentS nationwide and in the Northeast were
collected by the Notional Asse;smentopf Educational Progress (NAEP) and
include data only for students ho were currently enrolled in school.
A.sr;,-all number of the NAEP items used in the Connecticut Assessment of4
Educational Progress in MathematiCs were drawn from HAEP's goal area of
Uri.)er and Occupational Development (numerical skills useful in the world
of work).
Comparative results are available only for thoseitems on the/tests
that were- developed by NAEP and administered ';iti(2rZ Con-
necticut at the same age levels at which MEP administered thee. While
a number of items on the CAEP tests were dram from NALP rkaterials and
modified by -the'Advisory-Comvoittee (e.g., changes in distractois, conV'et-
sion from open-ended to multiple-choice format), appropriate comparative
data are not available for these iteMs. lhe results presented in this
chapter are limited to a description of-the 14 items for 9-year-olds,
-121-
the 20 i tetras for 13-yea r-ol ds , and tht 23 i teim-> for 17-year-ol ds that
were i c? n Li cal tiAEP i ter:. .
Conv iri son groups . At each grade l eve] , resul is far Connec ti cut
students are cnmpared to resul ts for theYcorresponding groups of students
assessed by urp nati oncii de and . i n rc ilortheai:t , yi ci di ng the fol 1 owl ng
comparis ons :
(1) al l students
Conpecti cu t students versus Uni ted States students
Connect i cu t s Ludents versus- NortHeas t s. Lucien is
(2) comHrisons hy sex
Coanicti cu 1. males verso:; Uni ted States mal es
Connecticut .1cmal versl.!s States `trona] es
Hits anal fol i is ar r, presented as the percentage
of s tident: cho ansv,ered each o f the selected i ten-is correctly. These
percentages are cji ven at each ape 1-e-vel .-for (1) al 1 national students , (2)
national males, (3) nat-i °nal reinal , (1) al I iiorthcasL students, (b) al I
Connecticut: stu,:en , (6) Conn, cti cut tildes, cnd (7) Connecticut femal es .
Tab les J. , 5.2, and U.?, present comi)ar,t-i ve results for 9-, 13- , and
17- year -olds re. per Lively. In the , the HA it I [ems ore 1 is tcd by0,-*N
tem number (questi oar posi Lion) on tir, Lest. ,ind (lisp] ayed un*(1,,:is the god- r.
area wi thin IWhich the i He Ic ici ridt. An atank!; he!->si do.
a value in the I e i (ate', p,.r m,rh,,ince of the «wp,Iris.on
Tf'
25-
group wits signilic,-.9iLly diff,erent from that ol ConnecLieul, ':_;-Ludo L':. A or
hfvond th.e 95: level
Interprotlii00 01
cohlid,nce.
y
There 000 &rtin dif-Hrences betyfeen CALF testing and NUJ' test;iiiq
thn her on iiw inHrpri Htion of resij t.s Firt, no pacJA au0(ii_pcs
were u',,ed for Hs L ion: in Conrki-cti cut ; ri\i'..1) uses p,-Iccid c,udi o-
tupus for te's:t toot for every Lost item. Second, Connncticnt
't.es tr'd ape-1 crinl (...n )u'ps of in the only. thnr;,
tested hy CACP wt.:re ,!± oceording to NNIP
9-yr-ol(k wep drawn from tFio fourth grade 13-year-
01d `. einhlh
from LI elovnth ci H BALI sctHpi 0(1
nd 1/yo,i-old::, in (5 iii
S Ii HIS solLly on the ie is
of Lile' prod in which th LrjdenLs H000
enrol led. Iti reildc,should when drawing,infer,:nces
frow the coi.r;'llive 12ilt',, Haring 111 mind 'these difternew, in the
Cat and ilfdP
The nexi. thr(J. !,-cl.O-)w; of thl!., chapHr descrihe comparative resulis
for 9-, 13-, ohd respectively. Lich Loins u
tdble diploving individ 'I Ii ;es,nits for all coTH.rion
Olapier con( a !.m;m.,ry oi thew cktia ih harrntivc., and grohic
form.
138
-126-,
Convdrative Peul is f or 9-Year.-01 dr;
Tablc/5.1 contains a comparison between CAEP and NAEP results for
the 14 NAEP items appearing CA the test fOr 9-year-olds.
Mathematical ,Cencepts. Ther'e were two NAEP items measuring M&the-
m(ltical Concepts for 9-r-ear-olds. On both N, P itecs the total group of
Connecticut 9- ,year -old s performed significantly better than 9-Year-olds
natiohally and equally as well as Northeast 9-year-olds. On both items,
Connecticut 9-year-old males performed equally as well as 9-year-old males
nationally. Connecticut 9- -year -old females performed significantly better
than 9-year-old fonialo;) nationally on one item and equally a> well on the
other'.`
Com,-11 Hun. On ail fair 4ACPoptem measuring Comput,t-ion, the
Connecticut 9-year-olds significantly outperformed the,IT national counter-
par,. However, with respect; to Northeast s-Atudents, Connecticut 9-year-
olds performed sicinificantly. better on two of the four items and equally
as well on the other hie item. ,Nine near old Cohnecticut. males performed
significantly bettwr than male 9-year-olds nationally on all four items.
Connecticut 9-.Lar-old, females perfoi i e l sienificantly boti-,ir than female
9-year-olds halionrilly on three or the four i tone 1iiid eibly on the
fourth item.
h old tin On furry of I lir five P i Lem:, on .,:1(.111 So I v-H,J!,
''-yy,ir-o Ilia, it (;cull]) lwrioL!Hcl i i 1 ( Iwt.ter t 11,1n
T45LE 5.1
Crparative Results on Vivithial EP Items
for Connecti cut, Nationl, Ofl "Ilortheast 9-Yev-0lds
PCnrintice,I
orLI I I
All 9-Y.ur-0ids Males
Connecticut .
N;Jtional
FFales
EEP
NortheastConnecticut
Ht in 79.1 75.2* 31.4
tr.s place
14. Ma:: Val2S in iDL 83,9 74,3* 79,9
105.4
(open-en)
4 19
(cHn-cnded)
i9
1 11,00 -I-
NationalP
hatConnecticut .1 ,
!oral
79.8 75.5 73.5 74.9
cl
76,.5 80,2 72,0*
25.3* 53.1 28.5*50.9 27.2* 33.8* 48,4
0,0
77.3
48,4
1
79.0*
55.0'
39.9'
87.3 /0-le 4,
90.2 81.2'
73,3
49.1
frr HP at cr,byonc!. the .F level of confidence.
TABLE,5,1 (continued)
Lr)scription of
Males Females
AEP HAEPConnecticut ,
wAlonal lortheast
NAEPConnecticut
", JAEP
Connecticut'National
rate of 5 rinutes
cc,1",
1u
.2sh I)
12. r1)(-Tiri.
fet,
(opn-ended)
ID,
Lu, nre
ar2.6 the
42
0
39./1.
61.1 50.4* 55.6
6.9 7.5
21.5* 26,3*
ssed
50.7 36,7* 41.7*
53.9 38.2' 41,2*
10 8.6
40.0 22,6*
55.0 40,4*
57,3 37.5*
5.9 5.2
38.9 20.4*
47,0
50,9 38,8*
143
- _
LE 5,1 (continued)
:cTtlon of Itc
11'
,, 7),
(maim
.c171
!nds?
14,
A11 9-_o1ds
1.11',77!
Uanil
)5,5
69.6
ales Fepales
Nati.c)n.J ", rth eastConnecticut
NAFPuonnem cut
"nrr,
Natioral
CO q*.0
60.6* 65.6 7.0
95.2 07 11* L.U.),*;
94.9
93,7
88.5'
f 1.4:)
-130-
9-year-olds nationally, and the same was true of Connecticut males and
females, respectively. Nine-year-olds as a grOup significantly outper-
.t formed their Northeast counterparts on three of the five items. Connec-
ticut. 9-year-olds performed comparably with the nation and the Northet
on the remaining cases.
Charts and Graphs. Connecticut 9-year-old students as a group, male
9-year-olds, anctfemale 9-year-olds performed significantly better than
their respective national counterparts on all three NAEP item in the
Charts and Graphs goal area. The comparison with the Northeast region
Shows that Connecticut students performed significantly better on one of
the three items and comparably on the other two.
Comparative Results for 13-Year-Olds
Table 5.2 contains a comparison between CAEP and NAEP results for the
20;' NADI items'appearingon the test for 13-year-olds.
MathernaticJ Concepts. There were three NAEP items for this goal area
. and, as a group, Connecticut 13-year-olds performed significantly better
than 13.-y r-olds natiCally on trio, of the three NAEP items and equally as
well on the third. Compared to 13-year-olds in the Northeast, Connecticut
-4
13-year-olds performed equally as well on 1 three items. However, Con7,
necticut 13-year-old males performed significantly better on all three
items than did 13-year-old males nationally, whereas females performed
141i
L.\
'!),(icri-,,,tio of Iten
TABLE 5,2
Cowative Results on Individual NAEP Ltms
for Crnecti cut, National, and 'Ortheast 13-Year-Olds
All 13- ear-0,(A, ales Females
r,
1ED
Tr,EPConnocticdL Anneotar: 0onc.ctjcutr'tortjc.)...st rational Naticnal
1r7
1. A ',J11
-
tgi
26,2* 23.4 39.5 31.4* 22.0 21.1
54.5 40,9' 60,4
nr(2,),/ 82.6* 85.7
943* 95,5
J92.1
90,5 87.3* 81.4
59.9
85,2
95.1
42.4'
tu7o n.:) *
50.0
09.0
93.0' 96.0
92.6 86 1* 93.4
n( 7
39,5*
0'6.0
95.5
91,5
frt.:" v'Hnvlq inn :05 of confid:ce,
iar,?.er aid Occ4ational Dsveler?'nnt 1923-74,
H"
14,)
TABLE 5.2 (continued
Ds"cription of Item
0TUTATIO (cone d)
125 : 5
(opm-ended)
2')j, is
frorl
61.1 (vn-corded),
Yr-lc!hni!nr"
1
CgRTS Gr.),UHS
46. 8ccdinq ti)hieI I
01 7:1, SlLY"
All 13-Year-Olds Males Females
CcrlecticutN
NAEP
tional Northeast
NAEConnecticut. -NationP
al
ConnecticutatNiAFPonal
85.8 80.0* 83.4 86,2 78,1* 86.9. 82.0*
88.1 84,3* 88.6 8.1 81.7* 89.0 87.1
93.5 88,5* 91.8 93:3' 87.1* 93.5 89.8*
72.3 . 63.5* 71,3 72,3 57,7* 72,4 63.3*
57.5 67,9* 68,5* 66.4 69,9 50.1' 65.8*
88.1 , 66.6* 69,5* 88.1 61,6,
4
4
88,1 71.1*
TABLE 5.2 (continued
.1:
.Bescription of Iteki
13-YeF,r-Olds
NA E P Of PConnecticut
Nati oral Northc.,.\st,
Males Foal es
ConnecticuNAEP
t
National0Alecticut
National
P )CilAUS G,APH d
65. P.eading a bar Tr'ap'n 91,6 91,6* 95.5 91,4 93.5-r 91.7 95.8*(.,oen-endLli a
10, Several pen', e
received votes ; what
of total
did one of the,
(Ef,).P'fld)
id and
ejsco,,ts, vil;,,t are
.oc1ei.
f',n' s:,:t 11T.1"1:Inly
i)ricd (It SIM
11,
emrCO,
1
12:(:) 51 IC' j.,1)
I , ,
retuilDi har,e 10
r gat ,.That
)
151
4
'27.2 17,4* 24.8
60.9ri 0 *
32,5 20.7* 22.3
0J,r
m
.
I
49.0* 57.1
9,7 62.6* 70,7* 82.2 64.71*
(
a
14.3 ,
4u. *
77.5 60.3*
'
.4
TABLE 5.2 (continued
De5cription of Item
All 13-Year-Olds Males Females
ConnecticutfJAFP NAEP
National NortheastConnecticut
NAEP
NationalConnecticut
NAEP
National
.PMEN'SOLVMG (c6nt'd)
48. 'Mary took four tests
and received four
.difiereht wAers
of item correct.
Mow many items were
'incorrect? Nen-
endod)
51. Three pcoole earned
mq(2y. via
tn2-,avoraje a'rount:
earned? (open- ended)
52 ,Ret aired at
targot, E25 riles
so f}; 1failaea 62V
miles south.
tar(!g.t by how .'any
miles? (open - ended)
GLKTRY
13. Li ne'secjmentsiit'a 1:21.
circle.; \rl'hith is
.
76.4 60.0* 69.5
55.7 38.4* , 46,0*
81.3 38.4* 46.0*
Cl-
73.5 68.0*, 69.0
71.0 59,7*
58.8 37.5*
58.8 437.9*
77:.6 71.8*
75.9 60:3*
53.0
53.0 38.9* ,
70.0 64.1*
significantly better on one of the three items and equal] y as well on
the other two compared to 13-yffr-old females nationally.
Computation. On all seven of the NAEP items for this. goal area,
Connecticut 13-year-olds as a group performed significantly better than
13-year-olds nationally. By contrast, Connecticut 13-year-olds as a gro4
performed eq.uolly as well as Northeast 13-year-olds on all seven items.
Connecticut 13-year-old males performed significantly better than 13-year-
old 'males nationally on all seven items,..while Connecticut 13-year-old
females perford significantly better on three of the items and equally
as well on the other four item compared to 13-year-Old,females nationally.
Measureif:ent.. On the one NAEP item for this goal , Connecticut 13-year-.
of s performed'significantly less well than 13-year-olds nationally and in
the Northeast. Connecticut 13-year-old females'also performed significantly
less well than 13-year-old females nationally, while Connecticut males per
formed about the same as their nati-oral counterparts.
Charts rend Graphs. Thera were two items from NAEP for this goa-1 area.
On one item Connecticut 13-year-olds uniformly outperformed all na,ional
and Northeast co..T1paison group ;. On the second item, 13- year -old females
in ConnLcticut performed-significantly less well than13-year-old-femles
nation:ally, s: did the total group of 13-year-olds relative to their
naJonal cennterodrts. On coarisons for Connecticut moles with narionat
ales and for all Connecticut 1 3-var-olds with Northeast 13-year-old:.,
perf,orance wa.,,,about the s
if
w -136-
Problem SolviiN.' On all six NAEP items for this goal, Connecticut
13-year-olds as a igoup performed, signifiCantly better than 13-/ yearcol#
nationally, Compari ns with Northeast 13-year-olck show that COhnecticut
13-year.-olds r4rforted significantly better on only ,,three of the six items
and equally as well. as\Northeast 13-year-olds on the other three. Both
Connecticut 13-year-olci\males and females PerfOrmed significantly Ater.
than their national counterparts, on all si, x.items.
4
Geowtry., On the one NAEP item for this goal, Connecticut 13-yay-
olds as a-group perfOrmed better. than 13,_-year-olds nationally and equally
as well as Northeast 13-year-olds. -The-comparisons for 13-year-old male
and female groups show that Connecticut students performed significantly
better than their national counterparts.
Comparative Results for 17-Year-Olds
Table- contains a compariSon between CAEP and NAEP results for
the 23 MEP items appearing on the test Tor 17-year-olds,
Mathematical Conceyts. In results for all comparisons on the four
NAEP items for this goal, Connccticut students' performance was equivAlent
to that of their national and Northeast counterparts, with two exceptions:
on one item, the total gkoup of Connecticut students performed significantly
less well than their Northeast counterparts; and,on another if6 Connecticut
males performiYisi(jnificantly less-well than idles nationally.
15-
TABLE 5;3
Comparative Results pn,Individual NAEP Items
for Connecticut, Nhtionai, and Northeast 17-1'ear-Olds
Description of Item
All 17-Year-Q1 d5 Hales Females
NAEPConnecticut
National
MITHEXATICAL CONCEPTS
7. is eauiu.lent
to what percent?
'(Open-endA)
.;'..1.Jber that is
gratest.(dec'imals)
53. Nufter that is
(dociHis)
Frction. that is
(
63.0 64,7
NAEP
Nort:heas
NArPConnecticut
National,onn"t1c.utc,
rati ona
68,8
92,6' 92. 3 92.4
76.9' 75:3 75.1
45.4 49 Z 54.9*
0') 1 07 ;l!O.J Ur.v 82.2
a.
,
68.3 53.9 61,7
95.0 94.2
82.8 77.7*
60.6 59.5
90.9 91.3
72.5 72.9'
33.8 38.7
86.0 87.9 88,91 87.1
97.0 96.8 94.6 96.7 97.6 97.3 96.1
* Sic,H:Tkitly different frog C4EP at or beyond the .05 level of confidence.
r an4 Oc.cutional Devenent 1973-74.
TABLE 5.3 .,continued
All 17-Year-Olds
rJescription of Item
)
IConnecticutNAEP PREP
National northeast
71PaT10.1 (cont 'd)
14,,'136 - 19
(open-rended).
nr
33:06 + 10.00'
+ 9.14 + '5.10
(Open-ended)
FiLJ J
(open-cled)
I, 23, is
sObtracto,d from
62.1 (o0en- enc;rd)
-uJ,
hpen-uld)
1 pounds 7,
uncos
Ha(
, 04 .0),t
Males Females
Connecticutr\AEP
Natid alConnecticu
NAEP
National
91.6* 93.4
92.5 93.9
94.7 , 93 2 95.0
84.4 78.0* 80.0*
92.3 88.8* 90.3
94.8 89.7* -95.2 93.2
93.1 89.7* 4'17 Ot
94.4 92.2 94,9 94.0
dP1
82.4 1 76.9* 86.0 79.2*
91.4 87.0* 93,1 90.5*
V
TABLE 5.3 (continued)
4
DescHptIon. of Item
All 17-Year-Olds Males Females
ConnecticutNAEP NAEP
National NortheastConnecticut
NAEP
NationalConnecticut
NAEP
National
CHARTS GRAPHS
11. Reading a table of
sock sizesa
13, Reading a bar graph
(open-ended) a
PROBLEM SOLVING
8 Several peop ,e
received vote what
percentage of total
vote did one i if the
People receive?
'(open.-ended)
4 .4.
16 Three people earned
,What was
the avivage amount
d(-t6
earned?,
/
pen-ended)
27. ',If 30 alories in
,9 ounces of a flood,
how many calories in
3 ounces?
(open-ended)
A
93.7' 85,9*, 86,4*
J90,8 97.4* 97.2*
(),7 4415 47.9
72.3 66,0* 16.6*
79,1 70.0*'
93,1 83.7*
97.8*
58,8 53,4
76 4 67.4*
81.5 74,2*
94,1 88,1*
88,8 97.0*
36,4 36.0
69.2 64,6
77.4 66,4*
I,H
Description of Item
PR,OBLEM.SOLVICCont',d)
,.
39. How much qorelwould
a person day to buy
paying\ sh?
a certai car on
credit t an byes
, (open-ended)
11. Park* ldt cfrai'ges
35 first hour, Hit
each additional'hour
or fraction. What
,........i.s..Ahe cost to park
from 10:45 A.M. to
3:05 P.M.? ,
(open-ended), ,
43. Person left for work
at 7:45 A.M. and
,returped,home
,114dater,it what
tinIMOPOde0)
TABLE 5.3 (continued)
All 17-Year-Olds Males \ Females
ConnecticutNAEP NAEP
(7 National NortheastConnecticut
NAEP
Nationol
56.9 55.8 61.8
54.3 46,7* 53,1
86.5 82.4* 87.1
54.5 56.1
51 :8 44.1* t:40
84.4 80.4*
163
y. °li r
I
i
164
Y
r
{.4,1.1i1 01 (,O ;L1
r)
5,3/(cont1nurd)
, 11 0 7
f'
t011 rl L C1.,: L !,1 e T1 C
lw%
Femles.
connecticut
32e 1
4tA
u
44
Computo tl en. The total grou0 or Connocti cut 17-yea r-ol ds performedic .
.
gni fi c anti y Letter than 17-year-ol nati onal ly on three of the seven 4
NAEr Comp unt i on i t i2:r6 , and signi fi eanOty Letter than the Northeast ol-,t onet. ,
of th,ese 111 Compari sons by sex show tn-at Conriecti cut r- o 1 r.f 'tjyt 1 es
perf ned siTil ,-'t i can Lly, better than r17-yea-ol d ma] e naS ti onal 4 c foar.
. ...; .1, .. . . . .
the seven hi P i terns , ,Atil r - ConngtWit 'i'ema 1 c!!'; perf -med Oc_ ,, than
,,f,4,1:-..... .
. ,:!.'-., . ;.:',"),.;7y:`":-17'
femdlLc.'; netLi onai 1 y wfrtwo of trife .:.even i In ..-_-, . Al 1 other comparisons show
that CoRneeti--cUtt fri:,y..,a-t-ol ds pe rfo rrne 6 equal 1 y as- wel 1 as the NALP groups ..., o -
., ---,._..., i.v R, .
..
MaasurQs.lent. ..0,1-f:the one NALP i tem for this goat , al t Connecti cut
, f-kt- , .,.
repel fi.g groups' scored s i gni fi cantly l owe r than their national and thenr
:,ftrtheast counterparts.
Charts and GrcipLs. There were 1.1c) N,Tp i ttms for this go 1 area.
Ur, one u tlissn i Lei , a i I compari sans show that Connecti cut reporti ng
groupsperlefmed si(Hificantly (wtter than 1,1feir natieuaf and Northea5t-
coini LerparLs. Honvn, on the other- NUJ' tem ( T tem 1.3---= an open-ended
Orem requiling stunts LO reaa graph), Connecticut 17-yea r-ol ds
perrormed siunificJatly less well than nitional and Northeast 17-year-
olds in all comparisons.
ProhlrH Thc-,,Aital (ewn) COnnecf. 1 cut 17/-year-ol d stçidatn
per I mined s i ( a i l I i c Hi [Hy he t Ler'othan 1 7 o r-ol ds nati onal ! 7 OH four of tHe,.
.
si x Pret.A.em ()1 vi u j tem.. , and Si OH ii i rsi.(1,1y he I. Le th,i; No its 17-ye::1
on mi.., or H it,;,- Pb (.11 1N.F! inilnj i ims' v:itil one excep Li on ,
t.11,,' ,11 np 0 r Cow 1,L ( 114, ;;;11 I ; ;
-1
-113-
thuir HAL.' OHn 0OJ The exception Ites 16'; on ',dr.' (1 thu
COrinr.C. ]/' 50-,ed siqni ficnntiy 1 o. thdrt di d HortirLd.17-year-01 ds. ...e.r's sine that Conner-t d males
yrrirericed r)a than ftH ui one corrnferitrt..,-). Oil four
ol thu si x iuis, aid Connec -Females di d so on three of
the six i
ry, bur r,. FUV,I" i Lure for this (2oal area. On one
'0 Ftiusu i LL.Lill 5.) '0'11 Conift-2c-1,-; cut reporting groups did not sc.or'e. . .
siH fi ran Lly di r fercn iy ,from their od onal and lortheast counter-pa
Oft thu u nj tin treis. the only siciii fi Cant iUrencis uere on .1-te.ro
23, \ I Li rwoup O ConneciA oittper formed thei r"
Hi I us e di d tot wales , and on T t.cricl 42, Id
Lhu Lot.:".1 IH!; H Ceunet i perLor-mr-id luss vii] then 17-year.-
oid in ion.
ry
I ,.1 Lem,. for 9---ye.7r-old!,, 20 for 1ear-olds
and _;; iriC id-ntici on both the rind C.:\,;12
dl (I 5.6 ',he..., the avcr%aerr Lri 01' cc usHr. . -
in an':,k,fered corref..1" yor-LI i II C.onnec!ti etL ,therri ,
nu 00. do I ry Prot-LH:15i: eit tHe Lb rue 1 Pr Li vu 1,elic15. r).
of t hoc, u ftfdt 1 Lu on ab 1 rh ii 1)
OIL
Ir
-144-
TABLE 5.4
Graph of 9 -Year -Olds' Performance by GoalConnetticut, the Nation, and the NortheasL
9-YEAR-OLDS
,
MATH CONICE 't S Joon
Ci:lint!cocilt
(2 it,w(s)
CO:, ;.)TAT;ON(4 it:21ps)
PRO$1.alSOLVI;-:
U.)
ANL) {(3 r
tit
tlww,t
(Coni1;,..ticHt
I\LttiQn
Nc,:tlieit
,t)
112.6
...
/0.0
'e,!.(1
AVCI70:; A61. 0; I : (.(n1i;D II
IA 5--
1,r\lq.1.:.
o1 OS PC:C) .y I /r11"'ct(:00)(' t:, f;ti :ind
57.0
1,U\ c,0
CU; ".i'f) :t j.
It-ms)
''',.'..c.x.104.1 . t ,,.,,,',, t
P
LAT!! CONCLP1L;(4 itk!rus)
COiVH'UTATION( / nerns)
I.SUL3UMFNT(I itoni)
CLICT.ISAND 01iAPIr,
Pro Lr.1SO LA/
(6 iteii)s)
n;;;10
-146-
TABLE 5.6
(Caph of 17-Vt.:or-GI cls Per fort.cance 1.)S, Goal Arei,k,..,.,Conheeticut, the Nation, and t1L_, Nor thea s
1j-YEAR OLDS
Connecticut
Ncitiori
Nor 110,1A
COE l'ItCliCU
Nor thnitit
Connecticut
N.,umo
North.ii.t
CurlInClit:Llt
ri(Ji
)
inst
Inc; ti'r
1\101:1,7
r
I 69.5
; , - r ?.. 7 0
I.3
N3 I)
2)) i0
6E,
6.8
72.8
74.2
. ; (,;;0.7-
3 81.o
AV1_11.1. 0.! ICI r\(11 0! I i; (;.--)1;lii I.
91.8
T1=',L;(.11 5.7
CuilH , 13- ; and 17- Your-01(1,,--,Per r,Jt-Hi (-ind N
() 1 !)',,
I.:13;F It
1:
nri tir
-148-
group scored higher, lower, and not significantly different than the
nation and the Northeast.' The Northeast region is defined by NAEP as
including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Rhode Island, New.York, New Jersey, Washington, D.C:, Pennsylvania, and
Maryland.
,Comparisons with the nation. on no-Ile of these test.items did Con-
necticut 9-year-olds score,signifidntly lower than their national coun-
terparts. Both Connecticut 13- and 17-year-olds performed-significantly
lower on only two items relative to students nationally.
Connecticut 9- and 13- year -olds scored significantly above the nation
on almost all items, while Connecticut 17-year-olds achieVed more highly
than the nation On 39% of the items administered to them.
In terms of the average percentage of test items answered correctly,
Connecticut 9-year-olds -substantially outscored their national counterparts
in all goal areas. For this .Connecticut age group, the largest differ?
from the national average was in Computation (16%) and the smallest di fl
ference was in Mathematical Concepts, (5.51.
Connecticut 13 -year olds also outscored their nationdl.counterparts
(by 5-13q in all goal areos,:with one exception. In Measurement, Con=..--
necticut,13-year-olds scored lower than the nation by .approximately 10 %.
By contrast, Connecticut 17-year-olids scored above the nation on only
four of the six goal areas, and then only by a small margin.
Comparins with Northeast. Connecticut 9-year-olds scored
loer teen the Liorthr.,,-. on on the tee I Ieee, 'hi le ]
01 d,-; ,.:;corcH 1 0./t-/ air N (eon. of Ole I c I 1.7-yea r- old.;
cier err 22. ( tee of the tee ;. i rtlu.-taciL.. count,:Dr't:s
Of the Co the best oar
, thm that e ;,rt.hoc_yyL counterp,-IrLs cni
of 1par-o'l dc, ecHoed h-i(j'rit,..r than the tiort.h.v7,1-.
on 20. H. i[nd Conb.,-ict cut, i7--year--aide (in 131 (a total
d L'uf.:1, en I ol COrlrieC CH. students wdc,
thee tto;t --of tHH on thrni.2 or the 1000 (J,ial
as No t .s.tnc_Lrits, an fiHoet
co.1 LH:1;*(AHLHL abov:-: the
on jiL, LH OH Cul,..iLjtiom end
be-Hut. .,!) (;%,
L s iii. ,Lc!) -and
and on GccJp}-1,. , and
Probl.1b
OVI'L.VH.7. qt.M.:! -; O \''T! cicrH[nce of the Corti
no Hon no tiHn- HHt p1 the cotfl
Ikmuver, tine Corn 0CC of Li cot ala r;roups \tor, 1W-A ter
in be Lhc: tic--1 (011000 to It!:: t..
1
CHAPTER 6
RESULTS OF THE STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Introduction
the vurpose of this chapter is to summarize :the responses of 9-, 13-,
and 147-year-old Connecticut student's to each item On the student question-
naires. One questionnaire was developed for each age group, with several
questions duplicated across questionnaiyes. The purpose of administering
these questionnaires. was to identify factors about students and their home
and school lives that might be related tb achievement. Results on the
relationthips that were observed are presented in Chapter 4.
These summaries of questionnaire responses are provided for all stu=
dents within each grade'and for students in each region and in each size
of community. The data reported are the percentages of students in each
group selecting -each response to each questionnaire item.
The data summaries are presented in.Table 6.1 for 9-year-olds, in..
Table 6.2 for 13-year-Olds, and in Table 6.3 for 17-year-olds. The narra:
tive that accompanies the tables 11.0i-flights these results. The narrative
is orgAnized by questionnaire item and presents for each one a summary of
all students at a given age level as well as highlights of the differences
between regions and communities of differentsizes. For each questionnaire
item, the discussion focuses first on 9- year - olds, and subsequently on 13-
and 17-year-olds respectively:
'
frfa 6 1
g.
Respons2s of 9-Year. -Cjo*Studo4 tosQuestionnaire It Crossta ulat4;io
.
by ,Renand Size of Cox:Jnityt,'and Reported in Percentes
4.
'
- ,
17J°
\.'1
0
Total
Or
'TABLE 6.1 (contipued
J
slzo of Co runny
Big Frinne STaller
R;,,gthn
3 5
J1 2.1 9.6 10.1 7.9 9.3 10.8 10.6 11.9 8.6 10.1 1.0 . '11.1
Sr, , It 3).0 30.0 31.5 46.6 42.3 39.8 37.2 42 .
61.4 59.9 . 49.1 59'2 42.5 .40,9 46.2 , 51,6., 52.8 5 .8 37.5'
5.0 3.9 3,8 3,3 4,6 3.7 6.2 3.6 2.8 4,2
2),4 19.6 31.6 25,2 36.0 25,9 26.0 X3.3 29.5 36.8 42,3
72,8 64.5 70,9 0.2 695 '70,3 60.5 66.9 60.4 . 53,5
4
. r
'!
4
RY.F.onKs of 13-Year-01d Students to Qostonnare Items, CrostAultedby P,,r;iiryl anc,1 Sin of o mi i n' P,enrtod in Percentces
.71' i
6
2
.1
0
ii
A.
o, '
IR
;V '4' 't4,
1,
TABLE 6. (continued)
4
r
4
.,Size of Commuqi,ty
Gig Frile Medium Smaller
Cities, . Cities Cities Places
Lid
iQz.,! mer ' 1
it 4'
ri,ch A'
Lira it a 10
LIKE V.417
!.at is all
;Lry
,
C 42,:u OTO 3:JECTS?
err;
4,8N,
)" 4.8 . 5.2 -5.5:
8,5 C.1 6,0 9.4 9,9
46.5 45.6 49.3 42.6 / 46.9
29.0 26.9 29.2 30.2 29.0
11.2 13,6 10,4 14.4 8.6
13.1
:p
23.7
49.0 15.4 14.9. 11,4",
54,5 4 59.5 59.6', 574
35.5 24.1 25.5 ,
: 3,4 3,4 4,5. Y 3.8
4L1 35.0 45.7 47:9 , 42.5
52,1 57,5 50,9 ''47.5 .53.6,
Region
3 4 6
I ti
P
-
2.2 3:6 4° 4;1 5.3 : 6.0 1
8,0 . 7,4 10.4 7.8 3.1 7,5
47.7 36.3 50.7 43.8 45.3 49,3
'30.5 35,9 A 27.7 25.7 .01.7 023.9
11.6 16,8- t'1 `7.1 12.5. 9.1 7.5
;)
r
12,4 '15,5 15.3 13.9 5.3 . 14.9
56.0 63.1 56.1 E0,0 57,2 61.2
29.6 20.4 28.6 26.1 34,5 23.9
0
2,0 5.5 3.6 3.1 4:4 .6.0
44.6 49.2 45.3 44.8 42,5 35,8
63.4 45,4 , 51.1 52.2 , 53.1 53:2
e )
4
Responses of 17-Year-Old St4ents to Questionnaire Items, CrosStabUlated
by Region and Size of Community, and.Reported in Percentages
TABLE 6.3
' Total !.
4CltleS
Frin'qe
.tCi;leS
S:f
s.",11A
ulc.!
, .
43.5
50.5
43.5 44,1
551
SCY,,,\NO7,0
4t all (- 4.5 6.3 4.1
Ny ,11.,s,t:.li! -i., 21.5 1!",9' 21.6
10.1 44.9.;,1- .. ''
,
r),17.y !":,7:4y4 1..t.
22.0 35.7 29.4
Cl* 3,7
thr, 1 hr. ,!15.5 25,4
22.S i9.2 22,1
13.5, .17.7
yy.5.3
11.3/
13.3'114.1)
423 4.2.!')1
l!,31.0
444.2
.
21,.1 29,3
E7,1-
17.2.
4444441444.444.-
A I.1':;
I
,
is Srral ler
3
44.0 42,0 42,6
.55,0 50.4 57,4
4.2
21,6 I
r4E.7
26,0
In
42,6
33.4
10.7
23.3
6),2
,
4,1
0
2.4
43.7
56,3
3.4
15.5
20.3
4,7.1, 1
.4.1
4? .1
24.1
22.7 23.7 ',...'.i, 0 25,7. .
34.7 'KJ , ./.').3 31,3
21.1 22.2 1,3
4 . 5 4
.,, 7.
.41 ,
,:
i 1 ...
44 4 ...
8!5 11.7 ,.).6 .,.,
,
.,
6.2
1..6
9.5
6.1
ii:34,9
34.c!
12.6
4 5 6
43.2, :44f,
53.2 56.9,
3,4r.,.4 4 6.2
21f! 21.5, 26.2
43,5
17.1)
31,4 23.1
0.! 1
--St11'6 ,
E. 0 4.6
.!;1! '
qt ..!.
..
OF
23,7 1J.2 r,,',' 2.3 "i..'..2!
L El: '56.5 ' 56.3, 55.7
2' , 1'';,2!' k "--.20.4 21,0
ril
,
90
C.1,,10111
21.:
.0
It c,),
TABLE 6.3; continued)
0V.
,,
CrUnity '
MOM11417,
JIKMedium Smaller
Cities Places
Region
5
!',;TH a1,
SEFdL
:5114,1) TO OMR SUUECTS7
'Lot very useful
krc.,'r,at useful'fiery :useful
PATi USEFUL
;C:i:OL?
i6t v.ry usc.,%1
L,sefu
;try sef..J1
lEAS OF MAN?
9.0
55,9.35.1
a sx 12.7 , 7.9 7.4
50.4 5t.5 54.8 59.3
41.7 ' 31.8 37.3 33.3
'it30.0 35.1 28'.9 . 29.4ji,p, 47..5,
P47,7 52.3 53.9
9.0, '28,2 17,1' '18.8 16.8
ire 0,3
year 6.g
y ars . 23.7
69.2 4",
1V; ilal. I PATIONS7
: 4 D:
e 2
I I
15t f., sh high schgol 0.2 '0.1 0,2 0.2 0.2 0 0.6 0.3 0 te 0
Ar 2d j !: hir,h scaol I? 13.4 14,5 9.8 1. 14,0 15,4 4 6,8 12,5 17.$' . 14.7 25.15catior,a1 svool , 18.8 ' 23,4 19.2 18,4 19.9 16,7 18,4 23.7 '' 21.7 10.3 ,.
!year ccllege * 12,7 13.5 11.5 13.3 12.9 14,9 i, 7.8 '14.0' , 11.2 , 15.2 16.9lyear olle-je 33,0. 31 1 40.9 39.1 36.4 45.4 40.7 34.1 35.2 24.6'Ire.,..;te sm,s1 .15.8 i .11. 18,3 14.9 15.3 22.7 . 14).1 13.5 .. 13.4 21.5
.;.5 r
;.t 5,1
. 30.6 . 22,0
61.7 72 :9
8.5 11.1 9.1 10.2 5.8 e 4.659,2 52.6 59.0 , 56.4 56.4 56.,232.3 35.7 32.0 33.4 37.8 38.$
,/37.1 37.,t 1B.9 g9.1 28.4 16.9;47.3 48.4 55.0 484 51,3 . 63415.5' .# 13.9 16.1 21.1 ' 20.3 10,0
I9 0.4 ' 0.1 0.2 ,0.2. 0 0
5.4 ,V 9.0 6.2 2.5 9.C: 6.2 .5.2 10.8)9,,5 23.2 ,113:7 11.4 24.14 25.3 ,s '21.4 16.971,1 61.7 69.6 .79.4 65.3 68.3 72.4 72.3
(1.
'
-157-.
4 13
,When interpreting- the 'k:rtoricci between reg,ion, the r'easider is
.,;!cautiort.ed to-bear in mind tha the,"big cities." have b44en extracted fromj..,,. 1.. 'A.-4-
t ,
'4.11-iel r respecLi ve regions .' , That i s.;. th6 ,responseS of students from "big._ .
cities: within Region 3, for exaMple, :arse not -included in the sumftnries-,,,,.
'.' for that .regton, Responses ,o,f Student's from "big cities" are, t'rea.teel ep-lit
:-(
.. size,
..
arate4ly in that categoro of size of 4mmunity. ''. The reader is. directed Ito.
, ,.. ,.., Chapter 1 for definitions of the region .9~ is.zw- community scategoti es ..
,,--,
4.404,'ve-,,kfi
* . ' ''''' ''''. o Ve i' ''4-of Student
ASlightly highen percentage ci' females than Trials ilit each, of t,u . ...
:three age I ,2vel-s partioililted' in t-h% assess.raefie (.approximately 547, verus.
461 , with the Vsi.r enta9e of 'al es incr sing slightly as 1.1* age level..
d indreases. ro,-.....t.-
At the 9-year-old level the distributions by commun size and region
were similar to those foy the age level as a whole, pith the exception of
Region 6.; where the patterQ Was revers_e-eout 54% males and 216%,females
'`At the13-year-old level, the distributions by community size4and1111region were similar to the distribution found for all 13.r -olds, again
with the exception of Region -6, where approximately 617-of the students
\\..4 assessed were female.
At the 17-year-old level the distrib,ut ons by communi t ize 'and.
region were sirriil ar-ro the distribution foi- all ,17-year -olds with the
exception .of, lig cities," where approximately"' 59'", of thestudentst'assessed were female,
40'
1
1,
Discussion of School with Parents-\Nine- and 13year-o14 were asked whe
anc1 experiences with adults ih their homes:el&
or "hardly ever or never."
Sumrrry424yageLle211. More, than half of theistudents at each age
level discuss schoolwork daily with.a slightly higiftr percentage of
year-olds (59.5%) than 13-year-olds (54.9%) this category. -Less than
a
A ,disaussed schoolwork.
ekly'" nmonthly046,
18% at either age level have only monthlyl'O'r 1 es frequent discussions
of school with adults at home.I .%
, . .
Differences by re9iorrafid community titze. At?, ths,-. -year-old level',', ,...
120e distributions' of responses,- by commtInity. size fibre similar to the 8is-,,p ., .,tiVibution-found far the age level as a whole, The big ,c-ities, display the7
0_ ± .
most striking' contrasts "r porting the highest percentage of ,9-yearzolds
rarely 'or net^ dl,soussing schoolwork '(14.7%) and the largest percentage
of 9- year -olds di,,COssing schoolwork daily (63 7%) The diTkributions of
responseS by region wertNalso quite similar tc fiie Al di,sqribution.
for 9-yeiar-olds, with, /the exception of'Regvion 6, whjch/est percentage of 9- year }olds Who rarely or Aver discus's
andOe "owest percentage of daily' di scussants---(-111.7%)
At 'the ,13-year-,old 1 'distributions 6 responses acct'
jar o the di'stribto region.and size o c °ntnity, were ess
ti on for all r-3-y every region and in every i?ize commu ity
s 1 i °Wry more than half of the 13-yea ds have daily di s cuss i arm about
school and 25-3V have week ly di s cuss' i on"s
Pa r:entril Encouraoerrent
Thi rteQn- and 17-yeah, -ol dswere ;as ked whether the'i r parents gave the,
encour-newen t in .thet schoolwork "a 1 ot , " "#lui te a ,bil-.4"Vonly a lit Ll , "
or "0 a rdl y --*at- al 1
(Sulky: by_ (:i_ge Level . Approxi ma tely 46;:. at 64ch age 1 evel recei ve
qui tc 4 bi t" of encouragement from -paren is vever - a hi gher percentage
of 17 :,yQ0r--01A .than 13.- year -olds1 ds recei ve "only a little" or 'hardly any"
encpur,*c .1111Wrs us 18.3Z) ; less -00: 5$!t thertitie level get,
.. ..:, ,
"hardly an ouragement :
>/. Di ffereh s by regi.,n and' cemmuni ty size. At tl* 1 1 .anOi7-yea N 01 4.
4- , AL, . ,
1 eve'l s the atirl huti ons of rewonSes by region were quite si mi ler, to the
di strihu
Pa re n
i on ?meg in the respective age 1 evel 4. as a whole.
1 Assistance with Schoolwork(
)
t'ilft-year-01 d students were asked, whether_ their parents usually(' 1 pj
1111h them tivi thchoOTWork.
a \Approximate ly ,72(: of al 1 rr-
I
,
i h / o 5 t ri bOt %h'?- of re s 01) s ,by .Comb4 ; -
5 sai d "that their parents
1'
' .
usually
size reveal that a4,
I"
-160-
. . . -slightly highr/ percentage'..,-of students in medium-sizecrbities (76.8%)
and a slightly loWer, percentage of studdnts in smaller,,communities (69.5 %)
obtain parental assistance as compared with 9-year-olds overall.0
The distributions of responses b region reveal that'.'Regjon 2 has' a
somewhat lower perCentage of sttVents. reCeiving help from parents 4.4%)
and Region 4 has a sOr.:what higher percentage receiving help (82.3 -than..
.9- year -odds across the state in general
Tel evision-Watching
lAtudents, at all three age leVels were asked how many hours they watch
televfsion daily.u
Summary' by ,Age! 1 evel .h gene 'la tel evisi onjWaichi ng docl i ries at
the higOer ag Thus, whereas about 40% oe 7-year-olds watch*
more than fouk hours of TV a-day, o'n1.) about 25% of-the 13-ye r-olds, and."
10% of the 17-year-blds watch television this much. Conver ly, a little
O-Nielhtkl f the 17-year-ulds.watch two hours or less ea day, whereas.
yonly .0ou-t-24Of the 13-year 'and 20% of the 2-year-ol ds restrict
their vi ewi rig -to this -extent
,N .
Differencesby region and comMunity stze. At the 9-year-ol d jevel ,
i -the b'sic pattern of restontes across students in di;,,,fferent corrmunity sizes
. 46"...
same, witliiktlie larg'est,group in each size of community watchingwas t
teltelevises more tha9 fouiihours daily,, -I-fowever VIA bi4 Citips had the
40-4A2-..444.: /, '17Vargest percentage dn'fudents in. -dategor %) and the small
°
-161:
t.:.s
cowinnities had the smallest percentage (35.4Z). Ho :.never, her is con-ALL.
siderably lesS variation between different -.rnmuni,ties in terns of
the percentages of Studer is Whowatch o)- )ours of television
daily (ranging from:5.4: in src(laCler in big cities)., The.
distributions of rest w: ,es by region were quite similar to the6overall p'at-
As
tern among.9-ypar-olds,although Region 1 h' ft somewhat similar percentage
1. more, than .four hou'rsAail'y (31.51 than in A.Ae totalof students watc
sample.
At the 13-yeal'-(410,,j*kel, the distributions 7k7r05pOliSS by community.,
.s4e_wer.e.-Si 1 tiOtfiat'foryear- lds-statwide, with4the exception ,4,..
-.., \ .. ..411 _
,,\0
pf:t,-,,..
W-city students hp ytch wore thanAfcruir hours- L4'.r ..: '
id rsAtZ5.44;',.ir totac amiN) The'distributions.of,
rx, spaises- ,region'fai-r1S, -c si tently resembledthe di'strib tian for ,
. / ' . ,,
13-year-bids State:41,de: HOwev4,'-14q,:ar-pld Region's 1 nd 2 watchw
.5.,, i .. , ,...
,.levision slightly lew.6fteri thanitWsIuA . -_ .
.3141 ther)egions.
At th 17 l7year-oldjgve, studthts in bi7citJ sVA
atch tel'<,7. .
. .,
-.so4..ewhat more often thin Students statewide,The distrIbutikons of 17-
r
year-dids: respoises in cou,muh'ities of ot41-95izes were similar to the
statewide ctistribution. The distributions of respollses-'by rebion remove:
\-
that a considerabTy hi.gher percentage of 17-yn6r-olds jn'Region 6 watc6-°. 14 , - .
three or more hoUrs lo_televis'ion,daily than ngthe otiper ciOns,. wikr'&'-\._'
, 1 ,. .,, -
the distributions were bentraliy similar to the statewide,dist40n.)
. ,
-
eelings.About School
rY
-162-.
41kil r
Students in all three age groups were askeittb select
of t eir feelings about school. Descriptors ranged from "I
"I like it a lot."
a description
hate it" to
Summary by?fe level. 'In general, the pattern of responses selected
by 9-year-olds differed from the pattern'.founil.at the 13- and 17-year:-old
levels,Calthough in all three age g .ro about 5% of the studentS
"hate" schbol.' However,---d" considerably lower p tentage of 13- and 17-
year.-olds than 9-year-olds like school "a lot" (about 10% versus aboUt
35%), and a skewhat higher percentage of 13- and ,17-year-olds than 9-
year -olds 1 i key school "pretty MUC 30% versus about 18%).
Di fferVcd 'by region'and.comMun size At the 9-year-il d I evel ,
there were geneffally 'few differences i n respons terns of students i n
communities of different sizes. 'Rela4vely few tudents, in'any type of0,
community "don't like" or "hate" OfroOl. Howev sonewhat higher per-
centages of tud ts in big citie and medium-stz dscities like school
"pretty nln" or "a lot" (abou 7% in each case)T in fringe..
cities
and smaller areas 01.2% d. 47.2%, respeCtAel :the di stri buti onsf by ,
r'egidn reveal thct a h her percentage of Regio 9Lyekr-ol ds "don ' t
like" or "-hatel schoo 5.6%) than in other' regions;'where aboUt.-10r '4ki, '''.. ,
.
fall into these ca4egorieS. .A little oZr half ., egion-1,,11.,,I and!,.
s___, Nk
du , . ,
-r---'- tudents like school "pretty much" or I-1-d 1ctf ,;! ,r7";-t,q et* uVer ha ,, -,0.4 , . '724. ,, ,
ion 4:students fall i n 'these categories , and .a4boilt 40.%3T R4giA .
) - 1", , 1, .1A. °
4
IP
-163-
and 6. s6dents fall into these categories.
At the 13-year-old level, all of the distributions of responses by
size of community are essentially similar to the statewide pattern. The
di stributions by region, 'however, reveal that a somewhat larger, percentage.
of Region 2 13-year-olds positive feelings bout school than students
in other regions, and a somewhat larger percentage of Region 6 students
have negative feelings about school than students in other ,regions.
At the 17-year-old level , all of the distributions of i'esporises by
size of community and region are essentially similar to, the pattern foUnd
i n the- tate , as a. who] e.(
lt
g 4e:
, ,
Feel frig*, Abut Mathematics
, ..
tt.1 ttdents at. al three a64 levels were asked whether they.'.. ,* r., ,
1GS 6very much;"- "somewhat," or,
"not at al,,l."-,
ary by age- . In general , the appeal of mathematics ,declines
as age.; increases, although the pattern of respons0 lelected by 11- and,
17-yOr-olAikres6mbled one another more than 61061.-'resembYed the pattern
9ar,"-olds ,''SlighUy more than .1-tiakf °WM' 9,-year-old4tudents like
' - * .
matheliatf Cs*. y'rriOcW1 os compared o only'20.f7% of 13-yevar-olds andA,
b 2 1 :3;). 1714-year-oldsr-
!..-7tt(-`
thhe '41-y4r-olds dra..riot
!Nlit
ected this regtonse. Similarly, only 9:6%
atAttics
r-cids d 22. , of this -way.
Areas m of th6 r
4"
_
Di f
; fit
the bi I's and medium-sized cities have somewhat aer ,-,ercentages of
students who:Like mathematics "verY much" (about 60% in each),, and small41t
communit*ftehave the lowest percentage of students in this category ,( 2.5%).
-164-
. ,.e.,1..i.,,!'
'''
l)y region and communi ty, size...-..-,
-,:
Bar-old level
The distribution by region reveals that s4i0tly more than half of the
9-year-olds in Regions 3, 4,. and 5 like mathematics "very much," whereas
-only about160% in'Regions 1 and 6 have this strong positive feeling.
At-the 13-year-old level, the distribution of responses by communiy:
size reveals that fringe-city students have more negative attitudes toward
mathematics than students in other areas, whereas the big cities show the
highest .percentage of students who like .mathematics "very Much'' (36.5°k).
NW- The distribution by region reveals that:
"Is
per&e.ntages oVstudents whotio not like
16.5%; -respectively), and Region 5 had
who like mathematfts "very nwch"' (34. )..
ions 2. an
tirds
hav the highest
-(15.3%, and
eStF percentge of. students
At the 17-year-did level , the distributions of responses by community
size were generally similar to the statewide pattern . However, there%Was
a considerable difference between the bercentage of big-city students who
4 like mathematics "very much" (29.30Pand theyercenta1P-oTliMe-city
.students in this category (17.3%). In general-,e distributions of 17-
S
year-olds' responses,by region were the same as the
state as a whole.
-se
ribution inthe
Usefulness 0
I a.
s Col:area to Oder Subjects
f403"'Students at all I three. age I eVels were asked to deftri be how usefulY
they'fAt mathemat'i'cs was Ain comparison. to Other subjects they study
schoot ( "very useful, "somewhat useful ," or "not very useful").
.'Surnmary:tr, age 1 evel ._very useful ", in comparison to tnei r other subjects declines as age level
/".The percentage of students, who find mathemati csA
ql )ireases wi th 'almost rds of the 9-year-old s1 p.yer half
and" only:a 1 ittle over one-thi rd of the 17-yekr-olds
, .
selectingthis response. However, the percentage of StudentO - f.i.nd
.if,,,g414L A.*:.--;-,n,),,mathematics "somewikat useful " 1 ricrea4N14with age, ranging frOnAlpout
of the ,9- year -olds 'to about 86° 4.,oi- the `17-yean-olds. ".Relat, _ . .
any age level fi n'4--
d mathematics of little usefulns .
). ..
i ''''Di fferences by;, region arid c mun ty -size. At the 9-year-old level ,
.ii.ributions of 'respoves by cofmm nity size and region were generally
..siMi 1 ar to the statewide distribution, ( tti the exception that a s'ornew
10 centage of Region 6 students findina4hematics very ul' (-53. 51Y.
at the 13tear-old ev di stri butionS,, o esponses
e resembled thetateA p a ern , wa th, thpx e*Ceriti on that
,irOF-the b6i.q7city StudentS find- matheqatic "very useful?" and onlyo
<1.., z 44 of' .tie medi ty' stu.dents 'f 11 info 'this. category. s"Distributions
n a iso eivrally rese n> ed.-tWe. overalls,,,distributiCrn, with the,,
exception th Regyori 6 students . and only itS.z.1% of Region 2
`stodentt find mathemacs' "very useful .
,
*1,1
I 4
.1
--166-
iS
'Among 17-year-olds:, the distribution of, responses both, by comnjunity
size-and region were approximately the same as tht .statewide pattern.
Usefulness of Mathematics Outside of School
. ,
Seventeen-year-old students were also asked whether they find the
mathematics they study in school useful 'outsi,-de of school Although.51%
find mathematics "somewhat useful" in extracurricular life, a somewhat
larger drtentage find it "not very, useful" (30%) than 'find it '"very
°
Differences by region and community size. The perce ages of 17=
ttiematjcsyear-olds across communitiesties of diffdrent sizes wile find''., . .
somewhat useful "outside ofe school a,r&approximately the same as the,
_ -`
ty 40). Flowever, a. somewhat larger pelkentagc%
b.V
,,r,
percentage statewide (about 50
of students in big citie find mSthematics "very useful" (Z8:3%) than in
other-sized communities, and a Somewhatlafglyi percentage o students in
fringe cities find mathematics "not very useful" (35.1%) in compari8-on
to students -in other-sized' commusiities.C. The distributions of responses by- region 7eveal that a somewhat.
,
larger percentage ofstudents in Regions 1 and 2 find mathematics' "not
very, useful" in comparison. to o her Pegions , and,,-a' somewhat larger per-
lkatage of studedis in Region 6 firid mathemaSomewhat useful" in ',
compacison to other regions and the total sample. Otherwise, the pattern
respo.nses by ,region is simil-ar, to the stAteWide pattern.,
J4
-a:
4
("-
T.
ears of Mathemati c&
Seventeen7year-ol ds Vjere asiced. how many ye0.s.of,'mathemat,ics edi.icaticn
they have had in ninth, tenth, and eleventh grade. Approximately 60% have'
ad three years, 24s?; have had two years, 7%, have had one year, and 16ss
than r' have not "studi d$1 mathemati cs i n these three "grades_.
Differences, by region and _community sill, A similar pattern appeared.
jn:.ebmmunities ofdifferesizes, al thougf) sltghtJy lower rerOentages of
students 0i0Oties and small 'commimi ti es hbye St4klited mathematics -fcfr
th-ree years, i oarison to stUdents §tateM4c. Thejcattern, across. ,
reions was lly'sim4lar"to that statewide, although more Regiot 2t
. t.studOlIs (almost 80 %) have had three year's of mathematics, and more Region
3 and- 6 students (ablCOA have had only, one year of mathematics.
Educati onal A&pir,ationst
Seyenteen-year-olds were asked to tiescribe their. aspiratibns for
g.::. Responses r'anged from "not finish hi gh school " to, .
[
or prOfessilibnal :sCh 'Among all 17-yea r-ol ds , thef
1 /
spires fva fOur-ye colle*educatiOn (38%)'", followed
, ...,s1Wish Ao "; plete a vocati or.1al. or business school.111
Almost everybile lans to fib
qs.t. gg"A .
by about. 20% w
sh jfigh, school', and only about 13% plan
only to graciu te front high' s.chool..,-
Di f,fe re es by region, and 4friniCinity size.. The distributions by
I-
1/4
-168-
community size reveal that fringecity students have the highest expecta-
tions, with almost 60% planning to attend four or more years of college
(compared to about 54% of students statewide). Big cities had the smalle
percentage of students in these combined categories (48.4%) and the largest
percentage aspiring to a vocational school education (23.4%). In general,
however, there were no,striking'differencet' across communities of different
sizes.
The distributions by region reveal that in all regions, either a
sizeable plurality or a majority aspire to four or more years of college,
ranging from 46.1% of Region 6 students to 68.1% of Region 2 students in
this category. Region.6 had a somewhat higher percentage of students who
'seek only a high school education (26.2%) than.other regions, but this
region also had the-second highest percentage of students who aspire to
graduate or professional school (21.5%).
Summary
Student home measures.
Roughly 8(Y, of 9- and 13-year-olds have at least weekly discussions
with their parents about school.
At least three-quarters of 13- and 17-year-olds receive "quite a
bit" or "a lot" of parental encouragement about school.
Approximately 72% of 9-year-olds obtain parental assistance with
schoolwork.
t-169-
Television viewing declines,with age, butbig-city.childreN o
7three age levels. tend to watch more television thin student f
communities of other sizes.
A
Student school measures.
As students' get older, they report less positive feelings about
school, although a pldrality at each of the three.age levels think
school is."0.K."
The appeal of mathematics declines tiith age, although big-city
students of all ages tend to like mathematics more than students
in communities ofother sizes.
The perceived 'usefulness of mathematics in comparison to other
subjects declines with age; although relatively few any age
level find it of minimal use:
Approximately 80% of 17-year-olds find mathematics either somewhat
or very useful outside of school.
Sixty-nine percent of 17-year-olds have had three years of high
school mathematics, and only 7% have had only one year.
Almost all 17-year-olds plan to finish high school, and only about
13% plan to finish high school'but pursue no further schooling.
Fringe-city students have the highest aspirations, mith about 60%
(as cjnpared to about 54% statewide) planning on four or more
years of college.
CHAPTER 7
RESULTS OF THE,PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Introduction
The purpose of the principal questionnaire administered princip el s
of all participating schools was to collect information on schAol variables
1
that might prove to bear a relationship to achievement (see Chapter 4).
However, the responses of the principals to the questionnaire items are
interesting in and of themselves as a general characterizatiorLOff the,
schools in which testing occurred.
The queStionnaires for principals of 9-, 13-, and 17-year4old students
were 'similar but not identical; therefore, data for all three age levels' is
not provided fOr all questionnaire items. The data is generally given as
the percentage of principals for each age level selecting each response to
each questionnaire item. These data are presented in Table 7.1, 7.2, and
7.3 for principals of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds, respectively. The tables
display results for principals in the total Sample and in each region and
size of community.
Separate analyses were performed for the five open-ended questionnaire
items that required principals tof write in a response: (1) total school
enrollment, (2) in-grade enrollment (fourth, eighth, or eleventh), (3) math
class size, (4) number of instructional aides, and (5) hours of math per
class per week. For these items,- an average (mean) was computed for all
PRE 7.1,
Crosstabulations'of Major Principal Questionnaire Results (9-Year-01d bevel)
by Size'of Community and Region, Reported in Percentages
A3S:W.3:
cf
f.5
5f ac!',I6.c..1.nt
0?,
IT 21 1.2T
IU
;,3:':31!,
ot\
cf t. fr
of CH!v
Total .
010,
2 3 4 5 6xjes .Placo
I o
k
56.6
26.8
3E.3
4.5
59.6
31.6
3,9
33.9
t,3.1
57.6
32.5
23.5
11.1
29.2
1'.0a
4.G
3.0
24,0
3.0
66,7
33.3
0
63.3
32.0
66.7
33.3
76.3
.0
.50,3
45.3
22.8
17,2
24.1
72.4
3.4
46.1
43.3
'10.0
20.0
73.0
33,3
36.7
5,7
26,7
23,3
93.3
1.3
- 3,3
23.6
34.3
7.1
73.3
L,-,. .6
10.0
4,'30,0
,AQ.,.v
62.3
36,7
73.0
43,3
41.4
s5.7
41.3
. 66.7
0
36.7
30.0
13.3
23.3
7"6.1
76.7
23.3
10.0
33.3
113
100
0
0
14.3
35.7
0
6.7
0
13.3
,3
133
36.7
73,3
"13.7
J 21.3
20,7
94,1
5.;
0
17.6
73.6
4j
'A.3
33,3
5.9
41.2
556
94,1
5.9
, 5.9
17.3
52.;
37,5
79.2
15.7
47.8
43.5
L.7
45.3
3'..,.0
16.0
35,0
64.0
79.3
24.0
16.0
10.0
26
23.3
1L,3
23.5
76.5
9
0:.3
Ljt.Iil ^...,-,
11.8,
,u3.2
54.7
35.3
35.7
17.5
23.1
0
3:2:3
40.2
0
% 4.7
41.2
.,7
23,2
76.3
75,5
23.2
7.7
7.;
OV.
1,1
0
33.1
C.7
0
0
33.3
:65.7
33.3
'16.7
23.3
,44q
TABLE 7.2
Crosstabulations of Major Principal Questionnaire Results (13-Year-Old Level)
by Size of Community and Region, Reported in Percentages
Total
Site of Cominity Regioni
8ig
CitiesFrinye
Citiestedium
CitiesSmaller
Places2 3 4 5 6
.
',;..',:n ;rdJe 92.5 81.8 92.9 96.3 96.7 100 92.3 95,8 95.5 100 66.7
2,:;.:ralss of grade $ .
r./....,'
.
7.5 ,
0
I
12.2
0
7.1
0
3,7
0,
3.3
0
0
0
7.7
0
4,2
0
4.5
.0
0
0
3:;.3
0
,',.c:. to .;.,',i.',-:-.:i:rit 70.4 65.2 -75.0 . 71.4 69.0 55.6 76.9 75.0 69.6 76.9 65.7
P:::f.: y, cf ,::;,4,crent 29.6 34.8 25,0 28.6 31,0 44.4 23,1 25.0 30.4 23.1 .33.3:...il 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 ' 0 0 0 0
7'?::. !,Td CLASS 1:.
'.'noit1 73.4 65.2 1 75.0 75.0 76.7 80.0 76.9 70.8 73.9 76.9 100
:-.1ii..e.lzy-,' 19.3 30.4 I 17.9 14,3 16.7 0 23,1 25.0 17.4 7.7 0
2o...- 7,3 43 7.1 10.7 6.7 20.0 0 4.2 8.7 15.4 0
, ., , . ,l .M.
'
,,:% Y.,',"H -,:.!..ChEPL?
,
:,, 32.4 54.5 39,3 10./ 30.0 0 45.2 33.3 26.: 23.1 C
',o , 67.6 45.5 60.7 89,3 70.0 100 51.8 66.1 73.9 76.9 100
, )
;';7,1 C:'.?.:D.V. 0 PlOP.Z ',
7,EL:PW :: PAST S I'EAS?7
4.. 73.4 60.6 67.9 78,6 76.7 60.0 76.9 87.5 78.3 53.8 66.7
%c 26.6, 30.4 32.1 21,4 23.3 40.0 23.1 12.5 21.7 46.2 33.3
;I::....S ;.,:,-.:::',3 70 TEA6H:;5:
l!'.4 or -:..; fcr 7"' --plies. ,, . ,-1
:.~AlesL.v.,', v ,:.-:, 7,..c..criGis
30.8
19,4
63.6
27.3
18.5
14,3
21.4
:4.3
25.7
23.3
30.0
10.0
16.7
15.4
20.8
16.7
21.7
21.7
23.1
15.4
33.3
33.3
La.k of '!-:i,1iri5 ..7f. fdr teacilers 23.1 22.7 21.4 21.4 26.7 30.0 7,7 37.5 13.0 23.1 33.3
Clas Si:;!: t'..:. lar:.,eP
31.1 18.2 39.3 46.2 20.0 44.4 23.1 41.7 30.4 30.8 0
TABLE 7.3
Crosstabulations of Major Principal Questionnaire R, suits (17-Year-Old Level)
by Size of Community and Region, Reported in Percentages
Si:e of ConnitY
Totd1Big
Cities
Fringe
Cities
M2u..11
Cities
Sr7aller
Places1 2 3 4 5 6
57.,:ZNTS A ASSIGH):
pit. in grace 13.5 7,1 12.5 9.5 20,0 27.3 0 15.3 17.5 20.0 079.3 92.9 83.3 P1,9 70,0 63.6 100 78 9 73,6 50.0 ' 1003.4 0 4.2 4.3 3.3 9.1 0 5.3 5.) 0 0
1T:'ITS WA1V,D:
:-.7.4i7; to a!',:,cii.,7ent 62,9 57.1 70,8 61.9 60.0 54.5 53.3 73.7 02.4 50.0 33.:a.,.rd;'as ;` acjee..erit 29.2 35.7 20.8 2..5 33.3 45,5 40.3 13.5 11.8 413.0
r_TL::%TS APS i',SS1G:,E0:
5.6 7.1 8.3 4.1 3.3 C 627 15.3 0
to progrri 32.6 14.3 29,2 42.9 36.7 35,4 10 36.8 !.1.2 40.3 65.7R. armless of prorjwn 61.8 78.6 66.7 52.4 56,7 54.5 73.3 57.9
ne 510 33.I
2.2 0 4.2 4.;) 0 0 6.? 5.3 0
A. ',,4 ILMK):
22.5 14.3 41,7 23,8 10,,0 0
77.5 35,7 58.3 76.2 90.0 100 63.0 73.7 64.7 U 100
CP, P;a7:4,H
;N PAST 5 i,ARS?
70,4 05,7 65.7 73,1 E4.5.. 83.0 73.7 02,423.6 14,3 33,3 14.3 26.7 45,5 20.0 26.3 :7.6 23.0
.:,,Z:, ;0.',.:,::: TO T.:;...S:
L..., .,f '..:r ...;:1 .,.41er, 27.0 42.9 2:.8 23.E 26.7 1,',.2 23.0 26.3 30.2 IC.3 :1L,','...i,:i ..,f ,:,:,:ov.s. 7..it,,:ri!'. 20.2 35.7, 20.8 14.3 16.7 0 0 26.3 23,4 23.3 .13,31x:1..0 ,i-.:n1f,; . , f,',1. tuohers 14.6 21.4 8.3 19.0 13.3 0.1 t',...
,.... ,.,, .-1 33 30.0 33,3
0)::.s sins too 1:..rr;e 8.1 i 35.7 20.3 42.9 20,0 0 20.0 42,: 29.4 23,0 66,7
schools in the sample at epch grade level and for schools in eaqi region,
and in each size of community. Table 7.4 displays the date by af com-
munity, while Table 7.5 displays the data by region.
The chapter is organized by questionnaire item with soporting narra-
tive describing the highlights of the results for all principel% for each
age level (overview) and the major differences in responses for principals
in different'regions and sizes of community. The reader snoOd note that
the grouping of priecipals by region does not include principals of schools
in-"big cities".14ithose regions. The responses of princiP,a1 of "big
k)city" schools are reported separately under the size of community Brea down.
Grade Level Organization of GlassropMs.1\
Principals of students at all three age levels were asked to indicate
whether classrooms in their schools were organized predominately by grade
level or irrespective of grade level.
Overview. Prindipals of 9-year-olds and 13-year-oldsgolQpally indi-
cated that classes are organized accor it to grade level (86'e% and 92.5%,
respectively), whereas- principals of 17-year-olds overwhelmingly indicated
that classes are organized irrespective of grade level (79.80'
.*
Differences by size of community. Although the overall Ntter0 for a. \
given student age level in communities of all different si2e5 ,1as similar
to the statewide pattern y.. that grade level, some differences in degree
of similarity were obsery : 7/99
-175-
;4 someviat higher percentage of big city schools for 13- and 17-
year -olds Jorganize classrooms: irrespective of grade level than
statewide (18.2% and 92.9% versus 7.5% and 79.8%, respectively)..
A somewhat lower percentagdN: smaller Community schools for 17-
year -olds organize classrooms irrespective of grade level than
statewide (70Z versus 79.8%4.-tir
Difference by region! Although the overall pattern for a given age
level in each different region resembled the statewide Pattern for'that
age leyel, there was considerable variability between regions in the degree
of similarity:
,Region 1 had a somewhat higher percentage of principals of schools
for each age level with classes organized by grade level than was
found statewide.
Region 2 had a considerable higher percentage of principals of
schools for 17-year-oldswith-non-graje-level organization of
classrooms (100% versus -/.,.8%,statewide).
Region 3 had a somewhat higher percentage of principals for each age
level with students assigned to classes according to achievement
level than was found statewide.
Region 4 had a slightly lower percentage of principals of schools
for 17-year-olds with non - grade -level organization than was found
statewide (70.6Z versus 79.8% statewide).
-176-
Region 5 had a somewhat lower percentage of princ4pals of schools
for-17-year-olds with non-grade-level organization of classes (60%
, versus 79.8Z statewide).
Regiod 6 had a somewhat lower percentage of principals of schools
for 9-year-olds with non-grade-level organization'(OZ versus 11.4%
statewide) but a considerably higher percentage of principals of
schools with such organization for 13- and 17- year -olds (33.3% and
100% versus 7.5% and 79.8% statewide, respectively).
AchiKeTent Level Organization of Classrooms
A Principals of schools for students of each grade level were asked
whether classrooms in their schools were generally organized according to
achievement level or irrespective of achievement level.
4.0
Overview. About two - thirds of the principals of schools for 9-year-
olds indicated that classroom organization was not based on achievement
leVel, whereas slightly over two-thirds of the principals of schools for
13-year-olds and slightly under two-thirds of the principals of schools
for 17-year-olds indicated that classes were generally organized on that
basis.
se--
Differences by_ size of community. The overall pattern for a given-
level in communities. of eact) size'paralleled the statewide pattern\fairly
closely, with the following variations in degree of similarity:
-177-
A somewhat higher percentage of big city principals of schools for
9- year -olds aQd a somewhat lower percentage of smaller community
principals at that age level have classrooms generally organized
irrespective of achievement level (W.and 56.7%, respectively,
versus 68.fi% statewide).
2A slightly higher percentage of fringe city principals of sch'ools
for 17-year-olds reported that clAsrbom organization is generally
achievement-based (70.8% versus 62.9% statewide).
Differences by region. The overall pattern within each region for a
given age level usually resembled the statewide pattern, with the following
variations and exceptions:
In general, a somewhat lower percentage of Region 1 principals of
schools for each age level reported achievement-based organization
of classrooms compared to statewide results.
-rn Region 2, a slightly higher percentage of principals of schools
for 13- and 17-nor-olds and a slightly lower percentage of princi-
pals of schools for 9-year-olds reported achievement-based organiza-
tion compared to statewide results.
In Region' 3, a slightly higher percentage of principals of schools
for 13 and 17-year-olds and a consideraiJly lower percentage of
principals of schools for 9-year-olds reported achievement- based.,
organization compared to statewide resul:
-178-
In Region 4, a considerably higher percentage of principals of
schools for 47-year-olds reported achievement -based organizatibn
compared to principals statewide.
In Region 5, the percentage of principals reporting achievement-
based organization was cA6iderably higher for schools for 9 -year-\
olds and slightly higher for schoOls for 13-year-olds, though,4
somewhat lower for schools for 17-year-olds compared to principals
statewide.
In Region 6, a considerably lower percentage of principals of schools
for 17-year-olds reported achievement-based organization, compared
to statewide results. -
,5c2aram Organization of Classrooms
/
Principals of schools for 17-year-olds were asked, whether classes were
generally organized according to curricular programs or irrespective of.
programS.
Overview. Statewide, the resd14 reveal that a majority (61.8%) of
the principals' schools do not generally organize classrooms on the basis
of programs.
D-ifferences by size of community. TWretiltS.,by .sizgL of community.
pa6lIelecithestateWideresulfs,witherabledifferkesin degree .
-,
in the\big cities, where a somewhat higher percentage of'Principals'
reported that their schools do not generally. have program-based erganiza-
tion (78.61, and in the mediuM cities, where a somewhat lower percentage.
so reported (52.*1.
pi_fferenCmtvregion, In every region except -Region 6, where the
pattern was -reversed, a majority reported nen-program-baSed classes are theo
general rule. A somewhat higher percentage in Region 2 (73.31 reported
6that non7Trogram-based classes predominated in their schools in comparison
to the statewide resul ts.
Math pass Instructional Fbrmat. . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ .
Principals schools for 9- and 13-year;-olds were asked whether the
typical mathematics class in their school utilized traditional teacher!,
.
centered activities or individuali.zed instruction techniques.
Overview. Approximately M of principals'ef schools for 13-year-olds .
and 6E of principals of schools for 9-year-olds indicated that traditional
techniques predominate in their schools.
Differences_ y stzeofcommunity. In consonance with the statewide-
pl,ttern, th.e largest group of principals of schools for each age level in
'communities of each size indicated that traditional methods prevail. Howl. Iever, in comparison to the statewide results, a somewhat higher 'percentace
of fringe city principals of schools for 9-year-olds and big city Princi-
pals of schools for 13-year-olds reported that individualized instruction
prevails at their schools.4
-180-
pifferencesbyLregion. In everyregion except Region 6, where then
pattern ila& reversed, a majority.of principals of schools for 9-year-olds
, reported that traditional method prevail. In every region except Region
6, 20 -30% of the prinCipals of 13-year-olds reported that individualized
instruction prevails. In Region 6, all of the principals of schools for
13-year-ords reported that traditional methods predominate.
Consultants Or Specialists in Mathematics
Privipals of schools for each age level were asked whether there were
consultants or specialists who worked with mathematics teachers in their
schools.
Overview. Only 22.5% of principals of schools for 17-year-olds
reported the availability of consultants or specialists, but a slightly
higher percenta&of principals of schools for 13- and 9-year-olds
responded positively (about one-third of each group).
Differences by size of community. The pattern across communities of
different sizes for principals of schools for 17-year-olds invariably
resembled the statewide distribution; although compared to statewide
results a considerably higher percentage of fringe city principals reported.
the availability,of consultants'or spe&lalists and somewhat lower.perdent-
ages of big city and smaller conaunity principals responded -positively.
At the 9- and 131'Year-old'level,.the pattern across communities of
different sizes reSembled,the statewide pattern everywhere except in the
.big cities, where the pattern was reversed (i.e., a majority reported that
ti
2 I)
-181-
consultants or specialists are available). A somewhat smaller percentage
of medium-sized city principals at each of these age levels reSpended
positively compared to the statewide results (10.7 versus 32.4T at the
13-year-old level and 20% versus 33.9% at the 9-year-old level).
Dif,_ -Qnces by region. The basic pattern, of responses resembled the
statewid pattern in every region fbr principals of schools for each age
level of student, i.e., a majority of the principals. in each group reported
that consultants or specialists are not available. However, there was con
siderable variability in the degree'of similarity to the statewide pattern:
Region 2 had the lowest percentage of principals of schools for each
grade level who stated that consultants or specialists are not
available.
Regions 1 and 6 generally show0d the highest percentages of princi-
pals of schools for each age level who responded negatively, with
el- of the Region 1 principals reporting that consultants or special-
ists are not available and all of the Regi'On 6 principals for 17- and
13-year-olds and two-thirds of the principals for 9-year-olds
responding negatively.
Mathematics Curriculum Development
Principals of schools for each age level were asked whether there had
been any major curriculum or program development in mathematics in their
schools during the last five years.
-182-
Overview. A clear majority of the principals for each age level
responded positively, with approximately three-fourths of the principals
of schools for 17- and 13-year-olds and about two-thirds of the principals
for 9-year-olds reporting recent curriculum or program development.
Differences by size of community. The pattern at each age level
across all different-sized communities resembled the statewide pattern,
with only minor variations in the degree of similarity to statewide
results.'
Differences by region. In general, a majority of principals for each
age level in each region reported recent mathematics curriculum or program
development. The only exceptions to this pattern were in Regions 1 and 6,
where only 26.7 and 33.3%, respectively, of the principals for 9-year-olds
reported such development.
In Region 1, even at the 17- and 13-year-old level, where a majority
did respond positively, the percentage so reporting was somewhat lower,than
statewide. In contrast, in comparison to statewide results, a somewhat
higher percentage of principals in Region 2 responded positively.
Funds for Mathematics Supplies
Principals of schools for each age level were asked whether, according
to their mathematics teachers, there was a lack of funds for mathematics
supplies in their schools.
Overview. Well under half of the principals for each age level
"reported that teachers feel there is a lack of funds (26.1% at the
2t_G'0
-183-
9-year-old level, 30.8% at the 13-year-old level, and,27% at the 17-year-
old level).
Differences by size of community. The only departure from the state-.
wide results was found in theibig cities, where 42.9% at the 17-year-old
level, 63.6% at the 13-year-old leVel, and 76% at the 9-year-old level
reported teacher sentiment about insufficient funds. In comparison to
statewide results, the fringe cities generally showed a somewhat smaller
percentage of principals reporting teacher sentiment about lack of funds.
Differences_by region. The pattern by region at each age level
resembled the statewide results. The following differences in degree of
,simiarity were observed:
Only 10:, of Region 5 principals of 17-year-olds reported lack of
funds according to their teachers.
Only 16.7% of Region 2 principals of 13-year-olds reported lack of
funds according to their teachers.
None from Region 6, only 5.9% from Region 2, and 7.7% from Region 5
reported lack of funds at the 9-year-old level.4
Audiovisual Materials
Principals of schools for each age level were asked whither, according
to their mathematics teachers, there was a lack of audiovisual materials in
their schools.
21) -;
-184-
Overview. Relatively few principals at any age level responded posi-,
tively to this question: 20.2% at the 17-year-old level, 19.4% at the 13-
year-old level, and'23.5% at the 9-year-old level.
Differences by size of community. In comparison to statewide results,
a higher percentage of big city principals of schools for each age level
indicated that their teachers report an insufficiency of audiovisual mate
rials. trend was most pronounced at the 9-year-old level, where 48%
of the big city principals reported a lack of such materials, in comparison
to only 6.7% of smaller community principals of schools for 9-year-olds who
gave this'respqnse.
DiffeTinces by region. ,In consonance with the statewide results, no
region, t any age level showO a high percentage of principals reporting
insufficient audiovisual-materials. However, there was some degree of
variability between regions at different age levels:
None of the RegiOns 5 and 6 principals of schools for 9-year-plds
reported an insufficiency, whereas 35.3% of Region 4 principals at
this age level did.
Only 10% of Region 1 principals of schools for 13-year-olds reported
an insufficiency of audiovisual materials, although one-third of
Region 6 principals at this level did.
None of the Regions 1 and 2 principals of schools for 17-year-olds
responded positively, but one-third of the Region 6 principals at
this level did.
-185-
4Teacher Prepatation Time
Principals of schools for each age level were asked whether their
mathematics teachers felt there was a lack of planning time for teachers in
their schools.
rOveview. Statewide, the percentage of principals responding posi-
tivelytively decreased uniformly from 39.1° at the 9-year-old level to 14.6% at-a.
the 17-year-old level.
Differences by size of community. At the 13-year-old level, there
were no differences by community size.
At the 17-year-old level, compared to statewide results, a slightly
higher percentage of big city principals (21.4;x\ and a slightly lower per-
centage of fringe ty principals (8.31 reported lack 9f planning time.-
At the 9-year-old level, compared to statewide results, a considerably
higher percentage of big city principals (56%) and a somewhat lower percent-
age of fringe city principals (26.7%) reported_an insufficiency of planning
time.
Differences by region. At the 17-year-old level, compared to state-
wide results, a somewhat high r percentage of Regions 5 and 6 principals
reported lack'of planning time \(30% and 33.3%, respectively).
At the 13-y94r-old level, compared to statewide results-, a somewhat
r)higher percentage of Region 3 principals (37.5%) and a somewhat lower per-
centage of Region 2 principals (7.7%) reported 'lack of planning time for
teachers.
-186-
At the 9-year-old level, compared to statewide results, a somewhat
higher percentage of Region 2 principals (52.9 %)'and a somewhat lower per:
centage of Region 5 principals (7.7%) reported a lack of teacher planning
time.
Class Size
Principals of schools for each age level were asked whether their
mathematics teachers generally 41t,that class sizes were too large in
their schools.
Overview. At each age level, approximately 30% of the principals
responded positively to this question.
Differences by size of community. At the 17-year-old leA, compared
to statewide results, a somewhat higher percentage of big and medium
city principals reported oversized classes (35.7% and 42.9%, respectively).
At the"134ear-old level, compared to statewide results, a somewhat
higher percentage of fringe and medium city principals reported oversized
classes (39.3% and 46.2%, respectively).
At the 9-year-old level, compared to statewide results, a somewhat
higher percentage of big and medium city principals reported oversized
classes (45.8% and 41.4%, respectively), whereas only 10% of smaller com-
munity principals reported such overcrowding of classrooms.
Differences by region. At the 17-year-old level, compared to state-
wide results, a much higher' percentage of Region 6 principals (66.7%), a
21_
-187-\
somewhat higher percentage of Region 3 principals (42.1%), and a-consider-.
ably lower percentage of Region 1 principals (0%) reported oversized classes.
At the 13-year-old level, compared to statewide results, a somewhat
higher percentage of Region 1 principals (44.4%) and Region 3 principals
(41.7%) and a considerably lower percentage of Region 6 principals (0%)
reported oversized classes.
the 9-- year -old level, compared to statewide resVts, a somewhat
higher percentage of Region 2 priipcipals (37.5%) and a considerably lower
percentage of Region 6 principals (0%) reported overcrowded classrooms.
Total School Enrollment
Principall'ofk schools for each age-level student_werie asked to report
figures on the total school enrollni7Yit in their schools (see Tables 7.4 and
7.5).
Overview. The average school enrollment at the 9-year-old level was
approximately 396; at the 13-year-old level it was approximately 722; and at
the 17-year-old level it was approximately 1,341.
(Differences by size of community.. At the 17-year-old level, the
average school enrollment in smaller communities was about 30% lower than
the statewide average, whereas the average school enrollments in communities
of other sizes were only slightly higher than the statewide average.
At the 13-year:-old level, the average school enrollment in smaller
communities was about 15% lower than the statewide average, whereas the
2`,/
-188-
TABLE 7.4
Means for Selected Principal Questionnaire Viariable5by Size of Community
Variable Total
9-YEAR-OLDS
Total. School Enrollment 396.2Fourth-Grade Enrollment 64.5Math Class -Size 22.2
Number of Instructional Aidet 1.2
Hours of Math per Class per Week 4.1
13-YEAR-OLDS
Total School Enrollment 721.9
Eighth -Grade Enrollment 236.9Math Class Size 24.1
Number of Instructional Aides 0.3
Hours of Math per Class per Week 3.7
17-YEAR-OLDS
Total School Enrollment 1340.9
Eleventh-G-ade Enrollment 346 5Math Class Size 22.1
Number of Instructional Aides 0.1
Hours of Math per Class per Week 3.4
Size cr.f commonity
Big
Cities
FringeCitias
Ne() umCirs
smal 1 er
Places
401.8 380_ 1 39,, 6 405.359.0 63..33 P '. 4 77.421-.0 22..2 22.9 ,22.3
1.4 /0_5 1%1 - 1.7
4.2 4_0 4.4 4.0
753.6 761_6 76,1;s5624.5
236.9 218_7 29,.6 248.0
25.6 24.-2 VI',6 22.5
0.8 0_1 °SO 0.4
3.7 3_6 3.8 / 3.9
1475.1 157T_9. 15.6 933.4
330.4 44T_2 4,q.7 211.7
21.7 22'_3 23.0 21.6
0.2 a,..10.1 0.0
3.4 3_3 .5 3.3
21,1,
TABLE 7..5
Means for Selected Principal Questionnaire Variables by Region of State
Variable
9-YEAR-OLDS
Total School Enrollment
Fourth-Grade Enrollment
Math Class Size
Number of Instructional Aides
Hours of Math per Class per Week
13-YEAR-OLDS
ToLLil School Ehrollment
Eighth-Grade ,Enrollment
Math Class Size
Number of Instkictional Aides
Hours of Math per Class per Week
17-YEAR-OLDS
Total School Enrollment
Eleventh-Grade Enrollment
Math Class Size
Number 0 Instructional Aides
Hours of Math per Class per Week
396.2
64.5
22.2
1.2
4.1
Region of State
396.1 397.9 408.0 334.6 435.8 419.3
71.6 65.7 65.9 54.9 72.9 73.7
22.1 22.9 22.6 21.9 22.8 22.7
0.1 0.2 1.5 0.3 1.8 10.7
3.4 3.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4,3
721.9 804.5 799.8 780.2 687.5 519,5 540.3
236.9 276.6 326.1 258.6 213.5 175.5 129.3
24.1 24.1 23.7 23.9 24.8 22.0 20.7
0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0
3 7 3.2 3.4 4.0 3.8 6.3
1340.9
346,5
22.1
0.1
3.4
1130.0 1733.7 1374.9 1375.3 869.9 840.3
258.9 415.1 388.5 354.2 220.3 203.0:
21.6 23,0 22.1 22.9 20.8 21.7
0 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0
3.0 3.2 3.1 3.7 3.4 4.7
average sch9o1 enrollments in communities of other sizes were only slightly
higher than the statewide average.
At the 9-year-old level, there were no sizeable differences across
regions in average school enrollment in comparison to the statewide aver
Dif rences by region. At the 17-year-old level, the averagVchool,
en,'ollp nt in Region 2 was about 30% higher than the statewide average,
asin Regions 5 and 6 the average school enrollment was about 35% lower
than the statewide average.
(
At the 13-year-old l410eVel, the average school enrollment was 28% lower
than the statewide average in Region 5, 25% lower in Region 6, and about 5%
lower in Region 4, and was slightly higher than thestatewiduaverage in
the other three regions.
At the 9-year-old level, there were no sizeable differences from the
statewide average school enrollment in any region.
In-Grade Enrollment
Principals for each age level student were asked to indicate what the
"in-grade" enrollment wasfor the age-level student being tested in his or
-her school (i.e., fourth, eighth, or eleventh grade enrollment, respec-
tively, for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds).
Overview. Statewide, the average fourth-grade enrollment per school
was approximately 65; the average eighth-grade enrollment per school was
approximately 237; and the average eleventhl'grade enrollment per school _was
approximately 347.
-191
Differences by size of-comqunity. At the 17-year-old level, the big4
city eleventh-grade mean enrollment was about the same as the statewide-
average. The fringe city and- medium city mean enrollment was about 30;.;
higher than the statewide average, and the smaller community eleventh-grade
mean enrollment was about 40V. lower than the statewide average.
At the 13-Tear-old level, the big and medium c..y eighth-grade mean
enrollment was about the same as the statewide average. In contrast, the
average eighth-grade enrollment in schools in smaller Ace's was about 21;
lower than the statewide average, and the average in fringe cities was
about 23'7_, higher than the statewide average.
At the 9-year-old level, the big city, fringe city, and medium city
fourth-grade mean enrollment was about the same as the statewide average,
whereas the smaller community fourth -grade mean enrollment was approxi-I
mately 18 higher than the statewide average.
Differences by region. the 17- year -old level, Region 3 and 4
eleventh-grade mean enrollment was about the same as the statewide average,
whereas the Region 2 eleventh-grade mean enrollment was about 40;,; higher
than the statewide average. In contrast, the Region 1 eleventh-grade
average was about 25?(, above the statewide average., and the Regions 5 and 6
averages were about 40% above the s'tatewid'e average.
At the 13-year-old level, the average eighth-grade enrollment in
Regions 3 and 4 was about the same.as the stateaide average. In contrast,
the average was about 38% higher than the statewide average in Region 2 and
about 16% higher than the statewide, average in I:egion I, the average in
2 !
-192-
Region 6 was about 46% lower than the statewide average, and the average
in Region 5 was about 26% lower than the statewide average.
At the 9-year-oldlevel, there were!no sizeable differences from the
statewide average fourth-grade enrollment\ in any region.
' Average Math Class Size
Principals of students of each age level were asked to indicate what
the average mathematics class size Was in their schools.
Overview. The statewide average mathematics class size for 9-year-
olds was approximately 22; for 13-year-olds it was approximately 24; and
for 17-year-olds it was approximately 22.
Differences by size of community. At the 17-year-old level, there
were no sizeable differences from the statewide averaae across communities
of different sizes.
At the 13-yearold level, there were no large differences from the
statewide average math class size across communities of different sizes.
At the 9 -Rear -old level, there were no sizeable differences from the
?statewide average across communities of different sizes.
Differences by region. At the 17-year-old level, there were no size-
' able differences from the statewide average mathematics class size across
different regions.
At the 13-year-old level, the average math class size was about the
same as the statewide average in every region except Region 6, where the
average was about 14% lower than the statewide average.
-193-
At the' 9 --year -old level, there were no sizeable differences from the
statewide average across different regions.
Number of Instructional Aides
Principals of Students of each age level were asked to indicate how
many Anstructional aides.in mathematics were available in their s-chools.
-Overview. At the 9-yearT-old level,, -statewide, there was about one
aide per school, Whereas at the 13- and 17-year-old levels, statewide,
there was less than one aide per school.
Differences by size of community. At the 17-year-old level, there
was less than one aide per school across communities of different sizes.
At the 13-year-old level, on the average, there was less than one
aide per school across communities of different sizes.
At the 9-year-old level, there was less than one aide per school1n
the fringe cities, about one aide per school" in the big and medium cities,
and close to two aides per school in the smaller communities.
Differences by region. At the 17-year-old level, there was less than
one aide per school in every region.
At the 13-year-old level, on the average, there was less than one aide
per school in every region.
At the 9-year-old level, there was less than one aide per school in
Regions 1, 2, and 4, whereas the average number of aides per school was 1.5
in Region 3, 1.8 in Region 5, and 10.7 in Region 6.
-194-
Hours of Math oteClass per Week1A9
Principals of students,;of each age level. were asked to indicate how
many hours of mathematics instruction were given per class per week.
Overview. At the 9-year-old level, statewide, the average number of
hours of mathematict per class per weekAas 4.1; at the 13-year-old,level;
the statewide average was 3.7 houi's; at the 17-year-old level, the state-
wide average was 3.4 hours.
Differences by size of community. At the 17-yea)Ziold level, no size-
able differences from the statewide average were found across communities
of different sizes.
At the 13-year-old level, there were no sizeable differences from the0
statewide average number of hours of math per calss per.week across com-,
munities-ofodifferent sizes.
At the 9-year-old leVel,no sizeable differences from the statewide
average were found across communities of different sizes.
ilifferences _by region. At the 17-year-old level, average hours of
math, per class per week were about the same as the state in every region
except Region 6, where the average mas about'38% higher than the statewide ;
average.
At the 13-year-old level there were no sizeable differences from the
statewide average in any region except Region 6, where the average number
of hours of math per class per week was approximately 70% highertman t1
statewide average.
21,i
-195-
At the 9-year-old level, average hours of math per claSs per week were
about the same as the.statewide average in every region except Region 1,
where the average was about 17% lower than the statewide average.
APPENDIX A
Copies of Test Items for 9-, 13-, and17-Year-Olds, with Corresponding Percentages
of All Students Selecting Each Response
KEY FOR APPENDIX A
GOAL AREAObjective (in abbreviated form;see Tables 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 forcomplete objective lists) 9 13 17 "4 Age level
Question as it appeared in test 4-
(reduced size)
NumberS'1
2
%
%
%
%
%
---%corresponding 1
'% % %
to choices% % %
* NAEP item 1
** Modified NAEP item
Indicates that the item appears exactlythe same on another page in Appendix A,as it was also tested in .a differentobjective for a different age level.
-- The correct answer is darkened formultiple-choice questions andentered on the line for open-endedquestions.
-- Numerical descriptions of responsechoices are keyed to multiple-choiceresponses or, in the case of open-endeditems, to the NAEP scoring cateirieslisted below the item.
22:
<Itempositionon test
Percentageof studentsselectingeachresponse
. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS1. Place Value (9),
9 13 17
What digit is in the ten's place in 4263?118
1 0 2 I, _
1 10%2 0 32 4%
3 0 4 3 6%4 e 6 4 79%
1
.
Which one of the following is the sum of three hundreds, eight tens, and four ones? 1125
1 0 151 2%
2 e 384 2 78%.3 0 300,804 3 13%
4 0 3840 0' 4 5%
.,
762 = .
t 0 7 + 6 + 21
1114
12%2 0 7 + 60 i 2002 4%
3 0 700 1 60 I 2 3 81%0 70 + 60 4 20 4 2%
In which number does 7 stand fOr 7 thousand? 1143
0 27351 1 %
2 0 80792 3%,
3' 0 17,204 q. t 784 ,
0 24,716. 4 4%
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS1. Place Val ue (9) 9 13 17
In 3654 the 4 means: #55
I 0 401 2%
2 0 400 2 4%3 4 3 80%4 0 4000 4 10%
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS1. Rational Numbers (13, 17)
9 13 17
1
bis equivalent to what percent?
.
. .
ANSWER: a() 96'
1
2
3
1
2
3'4
1
3
4
.
#25
55%
1%.15%
li
#6
10%70%19%
1%
#7
63%4%
14%
.
#35A
7%
74%18%
1%
/19
6%
3%
86%3%
NAEP SCORING CRITERIA
1) 202) .20(3) 5;,.05
.009 is equivalent to,
1 r-N 900'1 -1066
6 9166-ci
9
° 156-
co4(--) --IV&
.Which set of fractions
'° 42
4-s- )64 2 1
3
i- -2- -;-30 i 4 '
1 7 34 0 2- , j- . 6-,,
t_
what
describes
__......_
fraction?
.
the...
,
shaded
.
portion of the figure below? 'a
.
.
,.
225
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS1. Rational Numbers (13, ) 9 13 1
,0 .
What fractional part of the figure below is shaded? t,
11111110_
I 0 3-
2 C) i.
.
.
3 ID i
4 0 ii. .
.
r
.
There are 13 boys and 1F., girls in a group. What fractional part of the group isboys?
,
... 3I---,, 1 ki
2C) t;i3 -
3 ° 28
13A Alb 13,
-' 28
.. ,
1
23
4
_
1
2"
34
#41
23%3%
71%1%
.
,
.
#18
6%
1%
93%0
.
#5
9%
53%5%
32% .
.
.
#62,
10%31%
6%
52%
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS2. Ordering (9)
9 13 17
Which number is GREATEST?
I 0 66,4492 0 66,646
3 0 64,6470 64,999
Which number is 10 more than 4375?
0 53752 0 44753 0 43804 4385
Which number comes next? 98 99 100
I 0 2002 0 2 0 1
3 0 1104 0 101
1
2
3
4
#10._
6%65%1%
28%
#58
1 19%2 10%3 .10%
4 59%
#42
1 - 2%2 1%
3 2%4 95%
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS2.. Ordering (9, 13, 17) 9 11 17
.Which number is GREATEST?
IC) 0.5
2 0 5.0
3C) 0.005
4 0 0.05
e
1
2
3
4
#19
3%86%11%0
#49
2%93%4%1%
Which fraction is GREATEST? #14 #59
10 -!IF 1 38% 31%2 12% 13%
=4/r
3 30% 45%20
4 20% 9%
30 4
ir
.0 I
Which number is LEAST? / #15 #7
1 2979
2 0 29972
83%3%
98%1%
3 0 7297 3 2% 04 O7196 4 11% 1%
29 )
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS2. Ordering (9,.13, 17)
13, 17.
.
Which\fraction should be_in the spacg, so that the fractionssmallest to greatest/
i 3. I4 8
.
.
are ordered Gm
1
2
34
#66
32%,23%18%26%
#22
57t12%.
15%
16%5
' 16
!, 0 -le
i30 i.
4 0 -1 .
Which number is the 1ALLEST7 tp
,
#53
I 0 0.0221 77%2 0 0.2022 6%
30 0.22 3 10%4 0 2.002 4 7%-
..
, .Which number is G REATEST?
i 0 3000 .
#4
2 A 32002
1 1
8
0%
7%3 0 2100 , .0 120034
1 %..
%
1
2 ?3.
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS3. Fractions(9)
T 13 17
What fractional
1 0.-,8i
2 0 4
3Qq
.
. .. ..
What fraction of
00001 0 :
2Q
3Q2
4 JD 27
..
part of the figure below is shaded?
..
......., .
in?
0 0
.
,..
.
..
,
,
...
?
.
.
. .
.
,
.
;
',..
-
.
1
2
3
4
. . .
3,
4
#52
14%63%19%2%
#36
20%73%
.
.
:4
.-..,
_
. .
.
,
.
.
all the dots are colored
0,..
c\,.
.MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS3. Fractions (9)
0
What fractional pact of the figure below is shaded?
4
What fractional part of the figure below is shaded?
0
2 0 41
9 13 17'
2:
/118
1 23% \ 6%2 3% 1%
3 72% 93%4 1% 0
/127
1 12%2 3%3 17%4 63%
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS3. Frgctions (9)
40,
What fractional part of the figure below is shaded?
0
2
3 o
401
gat
#2
1 19%2 61%3 .13%
4 6%
ti
COMPUTATION3. Whole Numbers (+ -)/("l3, 17)4. Whole Numbers (+) (9)5. Whole Numbers (-) (9)
9 .7'13 17
/
Add: 3819
A NSW E : 1/4.51
NAEP SCORING CRITERIA
1
2 71.,1
3 47
4) 19; 295) other unacceptable response
Subtract: 36
19
ANSWER: 7 1
NAEP SCORING CRITERIA
1) 172) 273) 55
6
455 other unacceptable response
23
Do the following additiop:, 8264 786
10 1502
20 1612
30 1602
4C) 1512
2 93
#20 #3 #6
1 89% 96% 97%2 1% 0 0
3 3% 2% 1%4 0 0 0
5 6% 2%/
2%
1121 #9 #14
1 77% 93% 95%2 2% 1% 1%3 1% 0 0
4 0 0 0
5 11% 5% 4%6 7% 0 0
'1
2
3
4
#32 #8 #28
2% -0 0
87% 97% 95%3%. :1% 2%7%. 2%. 3%
COMPUTATION3. 'Whole Numberf (F -) (73, 77)4. Whole Number_ ,f) (9)5. Whole Numbers (-) (9)
9 13 17
NAEP
Do
ANSWER:
NAEP
1)189
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Add:
ANSWER:
1)
2)
3)
ti6
Add:
2
3
4
ithe following subtraction: 1054
- 865
/ Py
%__
.
.
lw
J
,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
..
#13
51%2%9%1%.
26%6%4%
#22
48%27%5%0
0
18%
#53
2%2%3%
91%
#12
87%0
4%0
8%0
1%
#24
88%'5%
2%0
0
4%
'
#26
92%0
2%0
4%0
1%
#15
94%1%1%0
0
3%
SCORING CRITERIA
199; 289any attempt to add; e.g. -1919.other unacceptable response
+ -11;+-211; +-1811; -11; +-811y89; 1299; 1199; 1289
0
- $ 3.0610.009.14
+ 5 10------
$ 02,
_7,i_46,
SCORING CRITERIA
$27.30; 27.302730; $2730 (any decimal error)27.20; $27.20; 17.30; $17.30can misplace declool
=cc:other unacceptable response
decimal=0;$V(1) darril
634
41
+ 5122.._..
CAW0 197
0 6797
0 r,91
11 ...
(\
i
COMPUTATION4. Whole Numbers ( (9)5. Whole Numbers (- ) (9)
13
Add:
1 0 908q 2 0 728
725+ 203
1
2
3
#59
3 %,3%
93%
3.928 4 0
4 0 807
Subtract:.
861583
, #56
1 5%1 0 378 2 75%2 0 2/8 3 6%
3 0 388 4.. 10%
4 0 322'
(e
Subtract: 659 #29207
1 7%
1 0 4022 0 452
, 2
388%
2%
3 0 552 4 2%
4 0 453S
Subtract: 476 #4538.
, .
1 7%
1 0 338 2 6%
2 0 448 3 9%
li 0 41? 4 76%
4 4 438..,
..
1
2i
COMPUTATION4. Whole Numbers (x) (13, 17)
9 13 17
Multiply: 38 #1 #4x 9
1 87% 88%
ANSWER: 3 y 2
3
0
0
0
0NAEP SCORING CRITERIA 4 0 0
3425 12% 11%
2 2723 27724) 2975) other unacceptable response
Multiply: 46 #16 #55x 60
1 2% 1%
10 23,000 2 2% 2%
2 0 230 3
4
1%
95%1%
95%30 200040 2300
Multiply: 74 #20 #52x 38
1 3% 4%
10 2782 2 2% 2%
20 2912 3
4
5%
89%4%
89%30 27124Q 2812
Multiply: 609 #32 #20x 73
1% 1%I 0 6090 2 3% 2%
20 44,497 3 3% 1%
30 48,097 4 91% 95%
et 44,457
2
COMPUTATION6. Whole Numbers (x) (9)
9 13 17
Multiply: 63x 3
I 189
2 0 993 0 1864 0 96
Multiply: 312x 4
0 1258.2 0 756
1248
4 0 1346
Multiply: 36x 3
0 982 0 9183 108
4 0 69
Multiply: 402x
0 28042 0 28743 0 29144 2814
Multiply: 4613x 5
1 0 2:3,065
0 23,1053 0 20,055
4 0 23,055
23
1
2
3
4
1/40
89%4%2%4%
#34
1 3%2 5%3 89%4 1%
#31
1 7%2 5%
3 81%4 5%
#//
1 12%2 14%3 5%4 68%
'//3
1 78%2 7`'3 84 5%
COMPUTATION5. Whole Numbers ( =) (13, 17)
9 13 17
Divide:
ANSWER: 1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
#27
94%.10/0
5%
#60
84%5%5%
4%
#21
6%2%
91%1%
05
22%2%
74%2%'
07
95%1%
4%
#10
91%3%
2%
#36
7%2%
2%
88%
#1
19%
1"/)
77%
2%
.1.441) SCORING CRITERIA
(1) 25(2) 21
(3) other unacceptable response
Divide: 22)339
15 119
20 10 119
30 10 111940 11 817
Divide: 4 )-$8.9-
10 $2.2820 $2.21361 $2.24
40 $428.00
Divide: 17 1s74.46-
10 $43.8020 $3.1830 $14.384 0 $4.38
Divicte: 7)114-
tO 1220 101 R4
30 102
4 0 120
COMPUTATION6. Decimal s (+ -) (13, 17)
13 17
Subtract the following numbers:
10 $8.122 0 $9.98A .
3 0. $8.02
4 0 $9.02
0.6 t 8 + .24 .--
10 8.842() 113() 1104() 1.10
$10.001.98
If 23.8 is subtracted from 62.1 the result is:
ANSWER:
NAEP SCORING CRITERIA
(038.3; 38 3/10(2) correct subtraction'
but misplaced decimalr5) -38.3
4) 49.3; 493; 4.93) 85.9; 859; 8.59
(6) other unocuptable response(7) 483; 393;
(can c,isplace decimal)(8) 4-417; 4-17; 4-617
(can misplace decimal)
2.7n
1
2
34
1
2
3
4
1
2
34
56
8
#61 #37
5% 3%
-2% 1%k
85% 90%7% 5%
#17 #3
83% 87%2% 2%2% 2%
10% 7%
#50 #24
72% 84%7% 4%0 1%0 0
(1%1% 8%2% 1%
4% 11'
COMPUTATION6. Decimal s. (+ -) (13, 17)
17
Add the following numbers: $ 3.0610,00
9.14+ 5.10
rw
1
23 ,
#22
48%27%
5%
#24
88%5%
2%
#15
94%1%
1%gri+
ANSWER: $ r27.3 4 0 0 05 0 0 06 18% 4% 3%
NAEP SCORING CRITERIA
2 /r36r$27302
27.30
i
1 (any decimal error)3) 27.20; $27.20; 17.30; $17.30
can misplace decimal4) 17.20; $17.20 can misplace decimal5) 117210; 11721 can misplace decimal6) other unacceptable response
\
I .
1
7 .,!
COMPUTATION7. Decimal s (x) (13)7. Decimals (x :)
13 17
'5Multiply: $1.98
x 4
t 0 $7.62
20 $7.9230 $4.92
40 $782
Multiply: 4251x 0.31,
10 .01.4025
2 0 140.20
30, 1402.540 14.025
Multiply: $1.29x 0.06
10 $7,742 (111, $.0774
3 d$00)7.440 $.774
Multiply: 4.2x 03
10 12.670 .126
,1.26
40 .0126
(
2 4 .1,
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
//42
3%
92%4%1%
#36 #46
4% 4%86% 88%3% 1%7% 6%
114 3
32%57%7%
4%
1129
27%1%
70%1%
1138
20%71%5%3%'
COMPUTATION7. Decimals (x :) (27)
Divide: 0.4 rii91-6 #47
1 0 49 1 8%
2 0 490 2 . 1%
3 4.93 71%
0 0.494 18%
Divide: 0.25 1-17 #51, .
'0 0.68 1 24%20 6.8 2 8%
30 68 3 60%
0 0.068 4 4%
,
/
,
.
.
,
COMPUTATION8. fractions (+ -) (13, 17)
9 13 17
po the following addition:
to
2O
40
5
6
5
32
Do the following addition:
10 6 180
220 58
3 0 68
40 6 4
5 1
6 3
0
°3 0 1
0
23
7a- 38
t\
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Fs;
#22 1/61
60% 72%29% 17%7% -6%3% 3%
#63 1/56
13% 9%11% 7%11% 7%64% 76%
1/59 #46
39% 26%53% 66%4% 5%2% 2%
COMPUTATION8. Fractions (4- -) (13, 17)
13 17
142#35
1
/-2 Ti1 1%
2 4%
IP 1-78
34
14%80%
201--
3O2-
#2221 19%
is 2 64%3 5%
)0 2-14 4 12%
2. 11,
30 ..
'0212
ar
2.
COMPUTATION9. _Fractions (x) (13)9. Fractions (x :) (17)
Multiply:
13-2
20
1
2
0 122
x 3
Do the following multiplication:
0
2
4-2
4
3
2 33 4
30 1172
54Q
9
A
1
2
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
4
13 17
#47 #32
68% 80%7% 1%9% 5%
13% 12%
04 #34
-6% 3%
80% 85%6% 5%8% 6%
2%
79%7%
11%
4
COMPUTATION9. Fraction (x) (13).9. Fractions (x i) (17)
9 13 17
,
Multiply:
5208
40 -66--
..
Divide:
10 ÷16
440 -111-
Divide:
10 --:-
20 --i
30
4 0 4
....-1_
-4- x8
3 -- 28-
3 + 1
2 =
-
/
..
.
.
.
,
ae
,
,
.
.
----
,
4 i
.
.......
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
.
#56
17%5%
3%
q3%
....
li.
.
#54 :'
19%8%
5%
66%,
#613`:
4%24%,
10%58%
2 /I 0.* .
MEASUREMENT7. Money (9)
9 13 1.4
A quarter has the same value as how many nickels?
1 0 3
.2 05c 3 0 4 4
4 0 6
A nickel has the same value as how many pennies? ,
1 0 12 0 5
-40 io ,
.
,
Khali dollar has the same value as how many dimes? ,
1 0 25- _
2 0 5.
3. 0 io, 4 so so
Twenty pennies have the same value as how many nickels?-
1
0162 0 4
3 0 54 0 2
----._
,
A dollar has the same value as how many (twirlers?
IC) io20253 0 500 4
1
23
4
1
234
aol.2
3
4
2
.1
4
1
2
3
4
115
1.%
92%2%
4%
#16
1%
95%03%
#44
3%
64%11%
21%
#49
11%79%
6%
4%
.
#60
2%
4%
6%
87%
r
247
MEASUREMENT.8. Time (9)
9 13 17
What time does the,clock show?
11to9 3
s .
r
.
,
t
r
.
. _
,
(
234
j-k i
23,4
1
23
4
#47
83 %,3%
9%
3%
#6
34%3%.,5.%
58%
g4
6%
76%15%
2 %=
.
-
1 6:252 0 6:35'3 10 5:35
j4 06:05
What time does the clock show?
12ii 1
0 2
3
$ 47 56
.1 0 8:053 0 10:403 0 11:554 07:55 J
What time is it on this clock?
ii10 .
9. 3
i 0 4 minute,. after 102 0 10 minute; tefoi-e 4
3 0 20 minutes after lb
4 0 211minutes before 10
MEASUREMENT8. Time (9)
9 13 17
,.
,
.
!,
,.
What time was, it two hours ago?
12 .
10 2
9 .4.--<" 3
8 47
6 5
.
1 012:45 .
2 0 1:45 ..
3 7:10
409:10'
. ,
.
.
.,..
r.
What t,rne will it be in one half hour?
12ii 1
. io i 2
; - 9 ..4 3.
,
1 010:00.
2 0 12:303 0 9. 30
4 0 1:1,
,
. k
-.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
,
...,
N
_
.
.
.
.
,
.
v.,
.
-
.
.,
,
,
.
.,
_
.
.
,
.
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
s..
,
,.
.
1
2
4
.
i234
#51
9%
3%
19%
'
5%.2%
89%2%
.
.
,
.
.
e
r
i
d
24 4
MEASUREMENT9. Linear Measure (S)
9 13 17
0 .
Debbie is in the'fourth grade. She is probably about how tall? # 7
I 50 inches1 68%
2 0 500 inches 2 4%3 0 20 inches 3 18%4 0 200 inches 4 9%
-.
.
Which is the BEST unit to measure the length of a toothbrush? #30
1 0 foot3 inch ,
1
2
9%87%
3 0 Yard 3 2%. 0 mile 4 1%
,:-
Which is the BEST unit to measure the distance from New York to Boston? #26
1 0 inch1 1%2 0 yard2 2%
3 43 foot. 3 ,1%
4 mile 4 95%
23u
MEASUREMENT,9. Linear Measure (9)
9 13 17
The length of the pencil is nearest to what number of inches?
01
inch es
I 0 3 inches
2 4 inches
3 0 5 inches4 0 6 inches
71 I I
34
What is the length of the nail to the nearest centirneter?
I 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6
cm
IC) el Cm
2 0 3 cm3 0 5 cm4 0 6 cm
#33
1 0
2 93%3 5%
4 1%
#48
1 6%2 92%3 0
4 1%
MEASUREMENT10. Perimeter and Area (23)10. Perimeter, Area and Volume (27) 3 17
iWhat is to perimeter of triangle ABC?
-
#55
1 3%f 2 4%
4 -82%
32 can, ;
,, 10 24 cm20 41-cm,30 56 cm40 73 cm
..
What is the area of the rectangle shown below? #33
6 in. .1 2%
2 in. 2 12%3 56%4 30%
I C56'square inchesg
20 8 square inches
3410 12 square inches
-4O 16 square inches
iii_
A gallon of paint will cover about 250 square feet of surface area. This paint is sold #12in gallon cans only. How many gallon cans are needed to paint a wall 48 feet longand 10 feet wide?
1 3710 20 0 2 70%
AD 2 3 15%
30 4 ' 4 10%
4-0 1
27; -9
MEASUREMENT
10. Perimeter and Area (13)10. Perimeter, *rea and Vol ume (17).
A
13
0
. Mr. Simmons put a wire fence all The way around his rectangular garden. The gardenis 9 feet long and 5 feet wide. How many feet of fencing did he use?
.
ANSWER : - 07 ? feet, 1
'
1
234
--.4.-,
1
2
8%
32%
43%,14%
4
.
#28
37%
5%
.
45%27%16%10%
,
.
.
#57
13%
2%
59%25%
7%
.7%
.
,
.
'
.
NAEP
,
,,
!SCORING CRITERIA i'
1) 28; 28 feet2 45; attempt to multiply 9 x 53 14; attempt to add 9 and 54 other unacceptable response 0 I
,
. .
.,. ,
,
4/ 0
Which one of the figures below ha's the sane area as the figure above?
10 . 20 - 3e)
3 ,6
__
85 0, .--
, . 3
2
.....,
2 -...
MEASUREMENT10. Perimeter, Area and Volume (17)
13*, 17
The formula for finding
In, a triangle whereA.
t
10 10
hA 11 X,
1
23
#29
1%
88%8%
the area of a` triangle is -t A
4 and h = 10, what is the area .(A)?
.
2 20 4 2%
30 400 83
,
inch.'
.i )
6 inches
Find the volume of the box. #44
10 11 cubic inches2Q 24 cubic inches 1
214%.8 %30 4 cubic inches
3 1%40 40 cubic inches
4 75%
. .
'.
S.
MEASUREMENT
11. U.S. Conversion (13, 17)13
-.,..,,
.
\
.,
11/4 lbs. .., mnce*.
)
1
,
,!
.
.,,.«.,...
;-. t.
u,
1
23
4567
1
23
4
.
1
23
4
1
23'4
''-
.
#49
58%0
3,2 %
1%
0O.. .;0
...-..i?,
.--J
#62
3%
76%
3%
17%
#40
'3%92%
3%
2%
1/2
5%
86%4%
4% ,
1140
, 74%
, 020%
1%
000
'#18.
2%
84%1%
13%
.
#64
2%.94%
2%
2%
/133
3%
92%2%
3%
ANSWER: r)2 ey ,
NAEP-SCORIIIG CRITERIA V.
(1):24; 1' 1/2 x 16; 48/2 '.(2) garbage(3) other unacceptable response(4) 15; 15. x 10; 15056 31/VL.7 24 with wrong unit
,
8 quarts .. gallons
.
- 10 120 230 3.p4
,
Now many minutes are equal to 2 hours and 20
1 0 120 minutes
2 0 140 minutes
30 220 minutes40 240 minutes
/.... ..
30 inches = feet inches
10 1 foot G inches20 2 feet 6 inches
30 3 feet 0 inches
0 3 feet 6 inches
2,
MEASUREMENT /12. Metric Units (13, 17)
9. 13 17
r
Which of he following would generally be BEST to measure the distancebetween twocities?
I0 kilometer ..20 meter ' .
30 centimeter4Q millimeter
,
.
Which of the following is the SMALLEST unit of measurement?
i milligram2Q gram
$
30 centigram40 kilogram t
The gram is a metric unit that measures:
.i . weight20 capacity30 area40 distance
The size of this page would BEST be measured in:
.10 kilometers3 0 milliliters ,
30 meters40 centimeters ri
/.
Which of the following would generally be BEST to measure the capacity of agasoline tank?
I 0 metera 0 liter
.3 0 grail:),1
4 0 kilometer
.
2-34
1
234
1
23
1
234
1
234
#31
73%17%
4%
6%
#44
68%16%10%
6%
#58
85%5 %.
4%
4%
#37
3%
8%11%77%
#19
77 %,15%
3%
4%
#57
73%7%
12%7%
WS/
93%4%
,1%2%
#48
6%
86%,4`
3`,
\Js
CHARTS & GRAPHS I.
12. Interpreting )Data (9)13 -17
This graph shows
Bill
Hen
. Tom
I
the AllY1,91Wpou ds of four boys.,
.
,
50 pounds?
.
it
1
2
3
4
1
2
34
1
2
3
4
1137
1%.
%'
96 ,%t2%
//38
70%6%
3%
21%
1139
3%
94%1%
1%
.
.,f ^
.
4a
,
.
--)
.
.........i
_I
Peter . -71.,
In the grapl
1 0 um''?0 Henry
...
?-^, 3 0 Tom
1 0 Peter
In the graph
1 0 Bill
2 0 Henry
3 0 Torn4 0 Peter
In the graph
r 0 Bill2 t iienry3 GlomA 0 Peter
. .
.
t l J10 20 30 '40 50 60
Weight in Pounds
above, which boy weighs the most?
0
4bove, which bby weighs c sest to
_
above, which boy weighs the least?
257
CHARTS & GRAPHS12. Ifterpreting Data (9)
9 13 17
.
-,,,
(
On
1
2
3
4
How
1
2
3:
. ,
Study. the graph
i
and use it to answer the questions which follow.
.
ro
s
.
1.23
4
1
234
-
CI;1%2%
95%1%
#18
2%
3%
57%38%'
..
.
...
,
DayNumber of People Using the Library
X = 20 people)
MOnday.
Tuesday
Wednesday
/Thursday
Friday...,,
X 1 ..
I 1. X
X..,-
9.'
1 1 1 1
X I
which day did the greatest number of people use the library?
0 Monday0 Tuesday , .
0 ThUrSdaY,
0 Friday
many people used the library on Monday?
O200 300 3
60 .
CHARTS & GRAPHS13. Intetpreeting Data (13)
13 17
o.
U.S.'Rural Population for Nine Regions in 1970
a RegionRural Population
(0 -., 1 million persons}.,
New England 0 0 0
2. Middle Atlantic 0 0 0'. 0 0 0 0
3. East North Centralt
0 0 0 0 ,O 0 0 0 0 0
4. West North Central 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. South Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. East South'Cuntral 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. West South Central. 0-0 0 0 0
8. Mountain 0 0
9. Pacific 0 0,0 0
Accdrifiriy tb thiichaet.,,..r4i4Ch TWO regionS Of. the U.S. had the largest ruralpopulattorisrin,1970? 4'
n 2. Middle Atlantic and3 East North Central
1. New England2 8. Mountain
5. South All6ntic and3. East North COrtral
5. South Atlantic and4 6. Last South Cential
Irk
1
2
3
/153
1%
2%
93%4%
CiWtTS & GRAPHS? 13. Interpretirig;Da'ta .13; 1;7) 13 17
Below is a bar graplithat shows the number of trees plaptdd along a highWay in
4V' .
1
f23
1
2
3
456
c
,, t
#65,
92%0
. 8%
t
'4!'
.
,
#46
'1 %
1%
4`,';
3;.:
2%
88%
,
#23
95%.,,O.
'd4%
A
.
#11
01%
2Y2;::
1-k
947,
100.... -
1%,
E 60
t ,
Z
r ..
'.,
ri
Zj
f
0 ` Monday Tuesday Wednesday. Thursday Friday
Day of the Week
.
Hew many trees were planted On Wednesday?
ANSWER: ZOONAEP SCORING CRITERIA
il) 58-62 f t.
. 2) garbage -
3) other unacceptable response,
Size Table for Socks
ShoeSite
SockSize
WA
10
10'6
ShoeII Size
9.9%
10-10Yi
11-11%i
SockSize
- - ---:
6.6Y.
771/4
8 13V:
11 -
11%
12
According to the table, what size socks should you boy if you wear size 10shoes?
'O 7. ,,,
2 0 7'./2
30 10,
40 101/2
60 11sse 11'4' ,
26j
CHARTS & GRAPHS13. . Intertireting Data (2.-.1y 17)
13 17
According to the graph, on what did the Harris family spend the LEAST amount ofmoney?
SAVINGS10%-
CLOTHING12%
FAMILY CAI(10%
FOOD25%
HAI INGEXPENSES
0111F.H",EXPENSES
15%
The Harris Fanuly fits(lout
operatilly expenses
2(j savings
30 other ex.pws,es
40: food
v.
'
1
2
34
1141
87%2%
2%
9%
.5
1121
CHARTS & GRAPHS13. Interpreting Data (17)-
13 17
MONTHLY PRODUCTION IN 1,000'S OF UNITS 1971
*A
,/
- ---P&I
a I
L 4-1...
§
-...
.,..Feb. Mar. A n. May June Ju lxv Auk Sept.( Oct. Nov. Doc.
.
The greatest drop in production from one month to the next occurred between " #450what two months?
10 August%
to September e,
1
2.
4%
1%; ()April t May3 1%
40 May u June t.,-.., 4 93%
4 0 Septtinb,er to October
/
PROBLEM SOLVING,10. Math Pro bl ems , (9)
9 13 17
,
4-.:14r othy washei Windows at the rate of five minutes per window. To figure outir i Bow many minutes it will tale her to wash ten windows,;slie could:
. ,
(6 add 5 and 10
...1 2 Q divide 10 by 5..
'3.0 multiply 5 by. 10.,4 4r
, 4.0 subtract 5 from 10 '
..r.7
'. i
r...
Marcus gave the cashier a $5 bill for a 51.40 purchase. How much,money did hereceive in chavr?
1 0 S2 60
? 0 53.40-3 0 53.60
4 0 $4.604--
l'')
i'tBob picked 8 apples from an apple treevlohn picked 17 apples, arid LarryVicked 31,How many apples did they pe k in alt?:
'o.1 ®62 e:,
' * '.
32 0 52 Ai
3 0-55 .
.4 0422, , .
. 1- 5
0
1
. 23
4.
1,
2
34
1
2
34
# i
20%11'6117%
/146
9%
8%
39%42%
/154
82%7%
5%.r
.
.
I
1
PROBLEM SOLVING10. Math Problems (9)
9 13 17, .
-'d!',;0., .1-'1- ,
A rocket was directed at a target 525 miles south or the launching point. It.4..A:j. 444
#19 #52 '',."landed 624 miles south of the launching point. By how many miles did it missits targetZ,
1 39%. 81%2 5% 3%
ANSWER: 77 3 14% 2%
4 2% 1%t
5`13% 6%NAEP SCORING CRITERIA6 22% 6%
,
.(I) 99; 99 nines,
.:.(2) correct process With no answeror wrong answer; 624-525 = 109
V.- :".(3) 1149; any atterfiptto add,
(4) 109 with no work shown(5) 101 with no work shown(6) other unacceptable response
(
.
, .
Betty's dog eats two biscuits every day. How many days will it take the dog to #23finish the package of 24 biscuits?
1 51%2 0ANSWER: ).Z- .
3 0.
.4;....
4 6%
NAER SCUT 'iG CRITERIA 5 . .4V1) 12; days .
7. 2%2).12 wi to wrailif in, i ts (hi SCu i ts')3) 2402; atter.pt to divide 24 by 24) 22; a t-t6-,21ryt to subtract 2 from 245 26; attempt Co a.dd 24 and 26) 48; atteinp,t 1.,) multiply 24 by.27) 24 ,
8) other unacceptable response
., 8 20%
!, I'
2
PROBLEM SOLVING11, Real World Problems (9)
13 17
4t
If you have two nickels, one quarter and four pennies, how much money do youhave all together?
® 39V
2 0 703 059V4 0 34w
Sally worked from 4:25 P.M. to 5 GO P.M How many minutes did she work?
I C) 25 minutes
1 0 35 minutes.4.
3 0 1 hour and 25 minutes
4 0 75 minutes
John found shirts on sdlit at $2.00 each. He decided to buy seven shirts. How muchmoney did he spend?
1 0 $9.002 C) $12.003 0 $14.00
$16.00
ra
#50
1 81%'2 2%3 8%4 .8%
1
2
3
4
1735
9%45%'23%
21%
#9
1 7%2 5%3 85%4 3%
PROBLEM SOLVING11'. Real World Problems (9)
9 13 17,
.
CI
Mr. Simmons put a wire fence all the way around his rectangular garden. Thegarden is 9 feet long and 5 feet wide. How many feet of fencing did he use? #12 #23 #25
. .
ANSWER: r)/ fe-f---1
28%
32%45%27%
59%
25%3 43% 16% 7%
4 14% 10% 7%NAEP SCORING CRITERIA
(1). 28; 28 feet45; attempt to multiple 9 x 5i2)
3) 14; attempt to add 9 and 5
4) other unacceptable response
.
.
`.. 0 4
Which of the figures below has the same area as the figure above? #28 #57
1 37% 13%2 5% 2%
2Q 30 3 54% 84%
'...,,
3<,4".+, v 6
i .
..._..S
34
*
2
.,
2
PROBLEM SOLVING14. Math Problems (13, 17)
Marie took four spelling tests. Each test had 30 words. On the four teststhe spelled correctly the following numbers of words:
25, 23, 27, and 24,
Altogether, how many words did she MISS on all four tests?
ANSWER:
NAEP SCORING CRITERIA
(1) 21; 21 words(2) correct process,
subtracts then adds(3) correct process,
adds then subtracts() 99; 99 words
s
attempt to add(5) 11 4 words(6) 'other unacceptable response
Last summer Todd earned $205, Charlotte earned $562, and Dale earned $400."What is the average Of their summer incomes?
ANSWER: 6 6
NAEP SCORING CRITERIA
r3)-389.00; 389
2) 400.00; 400) correct process with noor wrong answer ,
(4) 1101.00 (con change daimal);any atte'.1.pt to add
(5) other unacceptable response
L_
1
2
3
4
6
2
1 3
4
5
13 17
114 8
#52 #16
56% 72%1% 1%
5% 2%
24% 11%.11% 12%
PROBLEM SOLVING14. Math Problems 17) 9 13
In a school election with three candidates, Joe received 120 votes, Mary received50 votes, and George received 30 votes. What percent of the total number of votes
did Jut; receive?
ANSWER: 0 %
1
2
3
45
67
8
1
2
3
4
#10,
27%
1%
3%
013%
30%
12%7%
#8
46%01t,0,
11%..2: 9%2;9,%
cz
5%
#27
79%
03%
14%
NAEP SCORING CRITERIA
(1 60)
(2) correct process, no answer orwrima answer
(3) ecitir fraction: e.g., 120/200(4) 5/3; 1.67; attempt to
divide 200/120
6 0the4r/5ununacceptable7 120
;2/5 response
8) 66 2/3; 66; 67; 200/3; 80/120..
If there are 300 calories in nine ounces of a certain food, how many calories ate
'there in a three-ounce out hurl of that food?
-ANSWER: /Z1./)...---\
,
_ i.. NAEP SCORING CRITERIA ,
(1) 100; 109 calories(2) correct procc..', with
no answer- ur wrong .Ik answer; 300/(11 = x/3
(3) 900; 9b0 calories(4) other unacceptable response
t
.--
PROBLEM SOLVING14. Math Problems (13, 17)
13 17
A worker went to his job at 7:45 A.M. and returned home exactly 10 hourslater. At what l.me did he reach horn.?
ANSWER.:1
2
3
4
5
#26
80%0
3%
4%13%
NAEP SCORING CRITERIA
(1) 5:45; 17:45any written equivalent
(2) 5:45 a.-111.-; 5111
7! 74) 4'4' 445; 4:45{
4:45a.m.
5) other un4cceptable response
E3
krocket was (iirected at a t.rry-.! 5?5 rinks south of its launching point. It landed624 miles south of the 1,Airicl.ifri p e t. B tryiv many miles chil it 10 155 its mark? #12 /152
1 39% 81%ANSWER: miles772 5% 3%:
3 14% 2%NAEP SCORING CRITERIA 4 2% 1%
5 13% 6%(1) 99; 99 miles(2) correct process with no answer
or virong ansi;er; 624 - 525 ...,109
6 22% 6%
3) 1)49; any attiet to add4 10J with no work slic,wn5 101 with no work SW:WIb other cuiiiicc ept,i Li L 1 CSpCifISC
2
1/43
87%1%0
3%
8%
fro
r
-4!M
PROBLEM SOLVING15. Real World Problems (13)
3
13 _17
On a map the distance from Charlestown to Lakeside is 3 inches.scale is 1 inch .. 45 miles. What is the actual distance?
.
The map
..
1
234
#28
3%
95%-,,,:i %
ID
k., Ctiatiestowe
C2)
.,..
32,nz-
e s
x0
...sra
0to
4-C0,
.I.
tgt
lakeside.Mirror
Lake
A'.'.Johnstown/
10 15 miles
20 135 miles , i,5
30 66 2- miles3
40 666 2-- miles
J
;)
4 ,
..._
. f41.........
g
PROBLEM SOLVING15. Real. World Problems (13, 17).
.If John drives at an average speed of 50 miles an hour, howit take him to drive 275 miles?
Q 5V, hours ,7Q 5 hours 25 minutes
30,,i19%, hours
/0 6% hours
A sales tax rate is 6%. What is the tax on a $200 TV set?",
10 $1.20'7 $3.00
3 0 $3.33ei $12.00
Television Sets are on sale at two stores. One offers a 10 pwhile the other offers 15 percent. Vihat is the difference i
the two story, of in I V !xt tho' priced at 5100?
'ANSWEIt:
NAEP. SCORING CRITERIA
3
4
5.00; 5; 85.90; 5X of 100?5;15; 10; 10';;; 15`.,
other unaccectatile response
A s-ilos tax is on eech dollar. What is the tax on$10.00?
1() 31'2() 13130 3010 33;
porch
9 13 ' 17
many .hours will
1
2
3
4
. ,
04
51%36%
4%
8%
1/58
58%'24%
2%
15%
1164 00
1 10% 3%2
°3-9%
17%3%
13%4 60% .80%
ercent discountthe sale price or. 1/21
1 61%2 2%
3 4%4 '21%.
ase that costs 00. .
1
2s-..0
2%..
3 95%4 3%
. . . A
271
4 ."
PROBLEM SOLVING15. Real World Problems (1?) 9 13 17
=
Jr
hour3:05
ANSWER:
NAEP
,
Anof
,buying
ANSWER:
NAEP
(1)(2)
(3)
(5)(6)
(7)
.
,-
A parking lot charges 35 cents for the first hour and 25 cents for each additionalor fraction of an hour. For a car ParkeO from 10:45 in the morning untilin the afternoon, haw flinch money should be charged?
..-'3 I 3,5:,4,,,
1
2
3
45
67
8
1
. 2
3`,4567
.
k. ois,
'N,
,
,
,
i
,
ii42
54%
6%
1%-.
.9%..
1%
02%
, 23%
.:! ,P, '.,,,t .... k.A i,
11''
#39
57%2%
01%
6%
..1%:27%
-
,
.
SCORING CRITERIAr
1) 1.352) 1.10; 1103 1.25; 1254 1.60; 160 r5 1.75; 75-6 1.95; 95
7 2.10; 2 0
/
8 other unacceptable response
.', r
automobile can be bought for cash for S2,850 or on credit with a down payment$400 and S130 a month for three years. How rnuch MORE would a person pay by
on credit than by buying the car for- cash?.
$ ,V3 /.) \-7,
SCORING CRITERIA
430; 430 with wrong unit. .
correct process with add /malt
error; any .iieciL'Jl of 4303280-250 with sfl.roct error
4) 3280; clecirAl of 3,7,:',0;' atterpt -
to salve (36 x ,-,0) + 40330; atte;nt to solve 136 x 80l - 2850attempt to mul tply by +,
wrong WiL-ber 0" 1..!nt,h; .
other_ unacceptable response
i
_._._
GEOMETRY16. COncepts (13)
..
9 13 . 17
fWhich Picture below shows parallel lines?
-:,
// 4.
.1 94%
....,
1®
,...
to
2 1% ..11 -,-----...
'-- 3 2%
4 2%
2 0
3p.
0 e
.... 4
A
Angle A is what kind of an angle? 1/39
10 acute 1 12% .
2 0 Obtuse 2 6%' .
30 right ,;:, 3 71%
4 0 straight 4 10%
.
.
).
Yhich of the following has a,shape MOST like an orange?, .
1145
1 0 coneto (..,,he
1
22%
2%to cyliricH- 3 13% .
1 () sphere T.4 83%
GEOMETRY16. Concepts (13, 17)
9 13 17
i
1104.
ti.- Which line segment is a DIAMETER? #13 .
10 EG1 2%
20 HK 2 5%3 HM 3 74%
. 4 18%40 NP.
,
I
. -If the measure of angle F is 500 and the measure of angle G is'105°: what is themeasure of angle E? #42
1 52%ANSWER: -c-,R_d 2 9%
3- 1%. .
4 , 9%NAEP SCORING CRITERIA
5 4%
1) 25 (must have degrees sign) 6 17%2) 25 (no sign for degreeS)3) 90 with/without degrees sign4) 5; 55 rj.th/witho-ut degrees .
5) ; 205 with /without degrees6) other unacceptable response;
e.g. acute
.
.1
.
27
. .
GEOMETRY, .16. once (17)x,
e 9 13 17
What is the meriure in degrees of the angle fortited byWhen the time isthree o'clock?
ANSWER;
SC
eir"11
d"le° ''N/tEr SCORING CR RIA
(1) 90 with/without degrees sign(?) 270 irith/without degrees sign(3) 90 percent; 9G with ,mislabel(4) 3 o'clock' ,,
45 loi th/willout degrees signother unacceptable response
7 '1/4 of circle; 1/4 of turn; 1/4
the hands of the efock
To ,set up a tent having the dirnerviions shoWn in the dra.4ing, the vertical tent pples.
used slsot.41r1l)e how many feet high?
ANSWER: 10_NAEP SCORING 'CRITERIA
(I) 8; 611 under radical.(2) COrt,iWn. processing;-no
answer ,or;',w!c.ng answer,(3) any/ ti.eplit to find, square
. rout of AO. ,Squar e, 4 6, square;136 nder, radical*
L to find square root. square, or - 10 square
4
614'11
8
10; 16.
Other tina.cceptable response °
feet
A
1'23
r
.7
GEOMETRY
16. Concepts (17)17
4 inches
The distance around this circle is ABOUT:
10 8 inches,2 Q 10 inches ,
3 12 inches <,
0 16 inches Az%
,23%3% ..
32%'4CT%
74,1, .
O.,
; *
Percentag bf 9 -, 13-, and. 17-Year-Olds in'ConnectiCut by .Sex. of Student, in Each Region,
Each SiZe. of-Community AnsweringfOorrectly,Eaoh Test Item
.
I
S',
or.
.0, .
* TALE B.1
f
,It*, , t, ,
0,
Test Item Penformanii of 9-Year-old -Grad6s in Connecticut,
by Sex of Student, In EaCh'RegJon; and in Each Size of Community
with. National (NAEP) Results Where Applicable
; ' e.
.41
Question .Number
4
Oetcription. Of Item , 4f17.4'f
'4;
1 At rate' cif 5,minutes per WndoW, hoW-cgidd
one figurejloW many minutes to:wash 10windgws
2 'Fractional part of rectangle shaded 00461] x.5 t'
4 Which is ,#reatest (4-digicumbers ending
in 00) ..41*
5 -A quarter Nil many nickelsTi click .(1:5t)Estite fourth Alkientify.dflirtagns place
,q At par Whir 1H9rFn 11PR11
cast
'10 Which is greatest (5-dtgit numbers11 402 x
12" Feet of fenCing to enclose garden 9 eet
long 5. feet Wide13" 1054)- ast.',14 P1'ace values' in 762
15 Which number is lea whole numbers)
16 A nicker equals how ma pennies
-11 Pictographon which d 'diAlost people'.use library
8 Pictographhow_many peo le used libraryog, specific day (symbol 20 people)
19 Roc et aimed target.525 m es south
landed 624 miles south,. Mis d tarby hoW many miles
20** 38 0,19
, 4
AllSex
5tudeats4 5, 6f; 1 2 3 4
61 62 61 -,59 70 V68 58 64 48 66 60
.61 . 59 62 60 -A 63 Ed " 64 51 47 64 59
78 f.74 79 84 75 79' 86 60, 76t .82 74. 8Q
.87, t 93 90' '89 90 .88 88 76 90 90
'92 -,93 91 94, 94. '93 9 1954 , 90 BO, 92 93 94
59 ' t 55 62 70 63 58 57 46 61 60 62
sa 72sti 65' 74 19 14 68. 52 71 69' 75.
'V' 79 41 .01 ..fA5 41 PI .49 0?' 8? og
§g §4 gi PI Pi it, 01 '01, It gg §S §§
65 66 64 69 70 . )64 63 51' . 68 69 66
68 65, 70 69 74 61 69 78 5.1 96 7)3 68
13 11 6 8 12' 7. 121 4 7 11
51 48 53 57 (5-9 . 51 56 52 43. 37 51 5681 82 BO 85 83 87 81. 87 19 64 84 84 :1 6083 83 83 86 86 84 86 86 82 3 86 83
95 95. 45-At 96 96 97 , 97 y 98 94 88 9 96 98
95 94 96 97 97 n 91 95 90 97 86 6 95 99
38 40 e.366' 4i 43 47 33 (46' 42 15 9 40 47
39 4'0 39 43 48 44 45 43 31 19 43 43: 45
89 87 90 89 91 ..417 90 92 82 82 91 89. 91
, ercentage of.Students. ring Correctly
P' ConiRctiiut
Size of Community, Nation,.
*
IMM11111
50
15
d.
22
l 19
21'1 36 - 19 .4. S3,06 4 10.00 '1 9.14 .'5.1C '
At .1 biscuits per du.'how long until dog
6ts',1,14,Liscuits*
:3:24 ' Tirr shown on cijck (10 to 4)
''25 Sum of hunJreds, tees, onesi.
-26 Best unit to measure between two'cities
27 Fractional Part of ciir.'e shaded (V.)
28 Figure which has the s'd:T area as figure
shown (311 rectangles) "N g
, i9 659 - 207
42 '3est oi, '.0 rd&sure.too'hbrush
.11 3t; x 3 ''
\l.32 K6 i : ,6 , , ,. 33 11 tunItIcto .,104:14 10 ".-.9-est inch
34 3!,: ( 4c
r 35 Frnr 4:25 to 5:0:s ',m is how many minutes
, 36 FraLti(in)f Ici;', 01,,od i,r, (11
31' ' .ilm. :!-,.,.'--.v..l'o ii-lcIll.. .,.M.
-33 liar ,i1:4m---who wio\ iUsest to 50 pounds
39 Ear Irmill ...wrip wol,:h lose ,
40 6.), 'r 3
41 Fractional part of circle shaded ,,)
42 l,ot nuT'.er after 9,-i, 99. 10,
43 Place value of 7 in ;000 .'
il; A half dollar eoals how many dimes,
45 . '476 1138 ,. .
46 Ailouat of chaitqe frb S5 for a $1,40c purchase
47 Titre ',hown on cloel. (6:25)
01 Length of pail to 'nearest centimeter
49 Twenty 'Airinies eq,ial hpw Pany, nickel%
50 2 nicLols, lluarten, amr;' 4.pennies equal
how ,,:li lilorloy
51 ?Pie it Wd5 two nn,Ir'd vo 152 FraP.tional vart of recCangle Shaded (LY0)
53 631 4 41 4 51,':,
,
54 -',0t,! of N, vr.10.0, 17 pples. and 37
aprdes
. 55 .Value .of 4 ',i 365i .f.c.
56 86L 583 . A
57' T'in'e. it will bra in one-half hour
11 53 N1;..0:, 10 ,,ore than h37
°Ike41 59 725 ;'203 =.(- 60 .1, dollar e41.Jals how'r.lany quarters
!.Regions do rot include "Big
,"'Open -ended
'p.
77
48
51
7678'
95
63
54
88
31
87
93
89
45
13
96
70
b9
95
78
64
76
39
9
81
68
63'9]
52
80
75
59
93
P 57
0
76 79
47' 49
55 47
76 75.
80 77
96 '14
62 64
51
.89
86
8
82 80 76
46 55 53: 56
55 57 54 ''.651
132 77 79
82 84 84 81
96 97 94 9664 74 65 64
:53 66;. '154 52
89 94 91 90
89 91 89 8'7
'79 r82 85'
;NU '88.931. ;95 94 ',Ho ''96
'87, 91 89', 93 94
52 1 '49 , .42 447; .52 . 78 74 77
96 .95 . 98 97 97 97 91-74 '56 ,''1. 74" 74 73 76
35 ',196 ,98 96 .98
84; 90. , c! 90 93,4.41, '92 95
7'Q '73.. 30 '.81 .76 75 , 74y., 95': a '98 97' 96 97 98
.76 83 8l 80 81
bv 60 66 10 71 61 11
73 79 . 81 82 75. 77
38 41 39 45 42 39 47
83
56
69
80
80
91
.69
53
92
'89
88
16. 81
93 92
1 pie
.1 70 65
61 . 64
89, 9Z
83
81 .'1,7.9
72 77
91 SS
64 550'91 94
89 .S6
82 90 87 81
92 94 93 96
80 84 84 80
85
91
88
0
44 3
if' 63
, 12 c, 63
90 91
49 50
44 1 48
81
, 84
85
86,;;
85 86 85 81 85
,67 73 " 75 69 71
61 , 72 68 65 68
91, 94. 92 92 95
83 85, 83 '16 87
36 4, 86 ,
TR.., 77
§1!' 92
x.63,., ;56 64
92 , 9
91 91 90
84
77
91
61
93
86
86
76
94
63
95
90 .
74
97
684
97
83
65
93
81
67,
11'
33
83
88
71..
71
15'
56
90
74,
79,
91
49
93
88
8Q
77
70
79
85
82
36
57
87
52
83
81
57
85
64
46
63
26
73
84
62
71
45
50
83
71
57
60
,78
40
87
.73
79 79 82
.49 15 54
.54 '52 ,; 51
15 77 81
84. 80 82
97 94 96
67 65) 67
55 55 55
89 ' 90 91
89 87 90
85 77 86
.,88. 88 89
94 93 96
1.12 Iii9 91
47 47 47.
77 14 79
96 98 97
72. 72 76
97 96 98
93 86 92
77 70 17
97 96 97
80 81 81
65 68' 71
81 75 81
3g. 41 45
85 84 87
93 94
83 82 '4'83
84 83. 84
71 67 78
65 63 68
,93 92 93
'83 82 86
'86 82 87
79 .75
'91 91 94'
94 9
59
9
'90 89
55
49,37
38
89
61'
84,
27
TABLE R.2
Test Item Performance of 13;Year-01A Eighth-Graders in Connecticut,
by Sex of Student, in Eacp Region, and in Each Size of Community
with National (PEP) Results Where Applicable
F
Question,.Nuipber
Descriptidh of Item
Percentage of Students Answering Correctly
AllStudents
Connecticut
Sex Region'
os.1" 38 )t 9 *2 30. inches
3" 38 t 19 =4 PictUre of paralAl lines
13 boys, and 15 girls ih a group, whatfractional part is boys
.009 is equivalent to what fractionWhich number is least (whole numbers)
8 826 + 7869" 36 - 19 =
10" Several people received votes, whatPercentage of total vote did one of the
.,4.pgop,te receive1.1** ,and 15 diacount, what is the
,* .once ices for TV set
at $100
. ,irdii*nt in a circle whiclr Is. the'Ater
14 1 ction that is greatest15' '71 :.r.,-,
--16 461x 50 --.. ' A17 0.6 8 + .24 =18,, F ctional part of 'c rcie shaded
19 , utter that is great, st (decimals)20 ,74,4 38'.21 .0161.: 4
2 Feet of fencing toenclose garden 9 feet ,
' lo and 5 feet wideto
° 4" $3. 10.00 + 9.14 + 5.1Q =
25" , 'A uivalent to what percent( 26" Person left for work at 7:45 A18.,' returned
home 10 hours later at what time21** 125 : 5 = .'
28, Distance on map is 3 inches. At'scale of1 inch = 45 miles,. what is actualdistance between the citiesilA :
87
86
96
94
32
70
98
97
93
27
61
Eir
74
30
74
95
83
86
89
91
60
45
88
55
80
94
95
-
85 88*90 93
95 ,96
9 93,
0 69"8 98
97
,93 * 93
33 23
141JY:17
9
)4
.861.'
85 81',A,
.93 94
91 81
87 90
90 92
59 80
53 38
ek 89
60 50
82w
78
93 94
96 94
Site of Community Nation
i 86 89 86 88
89 88 89 88
'97 95 96 96 95' 94
, 93 95 96 96 96 85'
28 32 36 34 33 36
71 69 ,73 72 66 73
98 99.." 98 98 97 99
99 97' 97 96 96 99.
93 94 93 ,95 91 93
26 34 32 24 27 19
56 '
v
TU- 64 62' 64 57
89, 86 87 89 87 90
74 78 76 75 68 69
'29 33 36 29 28 21
72 79 73,, 26 72 61
lao2 89,. 84 82 67,4
, 94 97 .96 94 94
lmel lb, 95 91. 87-86 92' 89 86, 80 -79',87 92 90 ,1.1 86 88
911 92 93 9 , 88 91
61 69 60 461 456 61
40 49 51 . 47: 41 40.
87 93 -01 611 86 93
52 59 63 53 ,,51, 58
82 81183
80 79) 69
95 i7 1 '34, 94 , 91 8/
97 96 96 96 94 , 97
1 2 3
81 86 87 89
67 81 86 91
93 96 96 96,82 96 v, 93'
96,'="
25 34 30
'55 70. 70 73
96 98 97 99
96 97 96 97
90 94 92 94 89
15 30 24 30 17
45 63 60 . 63'
,)*
77 88 86 .89 80
60 76 73 71
161 31 ." 26,
66 74.88 96 9
67 84 8
824,95 9
69 89 83 4
80 90, 88 91
37
86 92
1
) 8958 '66
9,1.
27 .4 .44 ',f13
76 91. 86 90 84
30 59 50 61 41
63 83 78 82 63
95 92 95 89
85 4" -96 95 97
29 x 0,3
30 Sales tax of 3 cents on a dc,'7ar, what istax on a SlO purchase
31 Metric unit used to measure distance
between two cities
32 609 14 13 .
33 Area of rectangle shown (6 inches by 2inches)
34 x 1/4 7.
35 4V. - 21/,
36 425 x 0,33
37 Metric up' Ysecl':tOreasure page of test
38 :/ x.
39 kind of :.11,41e fotN1 in a square40 2 hour's 20 minutes minutes41 Re.,din9 cille graph42. x 4 =
43 51.29 x 0 '3544 S:.4111Ps1,t. unit of measurement45 Shape 4st 'like an grane (sphere)46, R,.'ading a table of ..00. sires41 4 x3°48** M,P'y too'.. four tests and r eived four,
differont rin;rs i 'correct. Ho
anY itons we incorrt49** Ili; bounds ounces
50** If 23. 0 is subtracted,from 62.1
, 51* Thee people earned inoney.What was
er'age aTliounti earner
52** Roe, t aimed at target i.iissed target by
how ri,any .11 les
53 ,Readin9 a chart with .syrql for aVindebf,.unit
0
54 At average speed of 50 !IN, how wanytr-
hours
to truqe1 275-mi1(i5
55, PeriHletr:.r..pf triangle show (17 cm by 24
c) by 32 c',)56 '4 x 2 , , , , $651 Figure Ethic" ii: saint; area as figure shown
(nlicri'd'cti.:Igles)
53. is used to measure (weight)
594 '1'. li, ,
60. .2339 ;' 22 ..,:.
61 SlO.00 - 1.98: I60 8 quarks'. M1 Lon's ;
. . 63 , 2'.'-' + 3;,, .
Salet ...tax,,of 6'.. whet .is tax on Si. 0 TV. 9ei.
65" Pc;',It...;i ne 6. be 'qr.i. ph ;,'.'
55 ertiering fra,-.tiofqt---
* Reg ions,ddsnot ,inclo Cities."** Open- 'ended
10
95
7.3
91
56
80
80
86
77
74
71
.93
87
9257
68
81
A
68 72
95 94
82 65
90 92
58 54
78 SI
73 82
86 86
21 74
60 78
77) 69
95 91
6897
56' 53
15 53
26 80
84 83
71 66
76 7;
58 56 50
72 72 4
56 59. 53
81 y2 81
93
51 ' 44
82 3,1
73 73
84 81
85 82
53 . 54
84 ti?
85
76 E: 11"64 65 63
4 64 55
91 92
32 39 .., 26
74 80 69 71
95 96 96 94
78. 81 ,..75 75
132 95 -;91 91
63 64 n59 52
79 92 179 79
'79 86 82 80
39 88 , 85 89
19 84 79 79
73 84 81 81
76 74 .74 3 73
92 95 , 94
88' 89 89 89
94 94 92 92
60 62 57 160
67 79 13 71
83 85 83 86
90 93 89 91
70 14 10 63
75 81' 79 78
52 57 62 62
73 . 77. 16 ..74
61 64 60, 58
ir
66 7.3
94 94 ,
65. .54
91 94
53 45
80 87
83 79
83 88
73 72
80 82
66 49
91 93
86 84
95 91
t1 63
62 51
78 6/
86
69 '64
76 63
58
69
46 4f3
80 88 84 82 79 76
94 94 93 92 92 88
,
i6 52 57 54 46 '40
4,180 83 83 82 .,84 75
73 72 75 74 75 , 69
86 89 86. 33 80 ''79
,87 89 .87 68 82 72
58 62 l 53 53 55 46
86 85 \-W 84 . 82 78
98 89 86 84 82 85
73 79 81 377 71
62 73 65 66 64' 64
. 59 . 59 , 64 60 51 63
93 91 . .93 93 90
30 35437. 31 3Q 25
Y
51 75 64 77
88 96 95 95
54 77 70 76
85 93 91 93
36 59 49 64
17 80 17 82
64 81 32 82
74 90 83 87
54 81 15 81
64 81 76 84
46 72 71 75
79 94 92 96
78 89 86 90
85 92 92 94
18 63 .51 60
40 74 64 73
67_ 83 485
69 91 91
49 72 65 72
61 79 76 78
41 )03 56 61
74 71 76
#1 61 53 59'
64 85* 78 84
87 93 92 94
34 54 49 52
72 A 81 82
58 76 71, '76
14 89 81. 84
68, :90 82 86
31 '57 51 58
73 84 84 85
78 86 85 86
62 79 7.4 79
40 _ 6.7 61 68'
53 60 61.. ;61
84 93, 91 93
18 , 34 32 33..
60
61,
A
72
43ABI:E B.3
Test Item Performance of 17-Year-Old E1 eventh4raders In Conn icut
by Sex of Student, in Each Region, and,in'Each Size of Comm ty'
with National MEP) ReAlts Where Applicable,
MI
:7!
' / ,,' Percentage of Students Answering Correctly,,I _.t. ..,
4' Connecticut ,Question .
IIescription of Item ' eVNumber '
AllSex, ., ..' ;'`Region .! `Size of Community Nation
. ..t Students ,
M
,,
3 4 6 1 2 3 , 4,....
,.
1. 7111,,4 7,
.77 79 76. '79 78 77, 81 : 81 75' 66 .19 77 80
2 40,21/2 "64 t 72 57 68 67 67 61 66 ,71' 46 . 63 61 68 '14,;!,.;,,.3 0 . 5 8 + . 2 4 : s 87 a 87 87 94 90 83, 89 92 ),75, 88 90 89 It4** 38 x 9
;;171 ',',:,;, . - ?. , 88, 87. 89 81. 88 90 ;86 90 .83 86' 89 89 .88 88 :
5** Degrees of angle fdrine0y ti 3 of clock72 , 78 61 79\-:77 :19 A.67, 14 65,' 52 75 16 75 73', at 3 o'clock p -i
6** 38 + 19 =. ..44t1,,,i;,,, '1\ 4,7 ,97 97, ;# 97 91 95 98 99 ,. .97 91 , 97 97
7** 1/,, i s:equivalent to iw.iia.that; '1 ., 63' ,68 60 'g.t#65 67 62 59 1.1 45 p 68, 64 , 66. DAA ,fr*' ' '561611 1)e ple*ece ved votes, what .' \
4 ,,t.t total vote ,did ono, the 46 59' 36 s. '47 53 'i 50 45 46 54.. 30 .41 51 47 45
\ "lw ;
i s t ,}I, portion of86 6 86 85 el 88 it A 81 86 81. 88 86 87i
JN'91
'1 91 "92 93 Al 91 91 94 )31 94 , 93 91
0..)e oft4k sites 0" '. 94' 93, -11i0 94 99 96 95' 95 99, 83 96 ,, 96 95
,- Wf pain vtr.s, 50-Aqu a :d
d
Nk 4, many galtd are.neped to . 70 77 . 65 77 ,16 77 66. 10 72, 51 '12 74 75
11 wall 48.feet by 10 feet ' 1
' 13" Readiri a bar graph t 91 93 89. 91. 92 92 90 93 94 85, 93 91 91
14** 36 '.. 95 .95 ' 95. 94 97 96 96 95 95 92 96 97 ,95 92
15"' $3:06 + 10.06 + 9.14 + 5.,10 94,' 93 ',,',95 _' 95 .96 93 92 .95 94 92 9,4 95 . 94 .9316** Three eople earnkenZney. What was thg
sii, 4., -76 79 13 77 18 7 77 83. 51 73 ;16 78 66aver ge,amount e ed.),. -
t 95 , 14 9D' 7 t,,,95 93 96, 92A 91 96- 95 , 951, 93
4' .,1' n , 0 86 86 86 81 1'2. 71 84 88 85
7 ' 81 1.6 /I'. 81'' .11 82 72 a iik, 57,4176 80 82
17" 125 : 5 : el '18 8 quarts : gallon ,.,,,. ,
19, 'Metric unit used to measur4 di stanCe . .
0 609bext
iier% two c i tie
21 Readin a circle graft z.1
22 , Orderin ractions
. 495 96 9& 4 .95 98 97 91 9' 96 97
96 95 96 96 97 97 95 96. 89 97. .-*965177 . 70 46 ' 60 `;1` 63 6,2. 54 57 6 .37 58 ,.;;83
.,..2::** Height of nt pole(8Se 01 right
39 47 33, 41 51 , '44 14 36 43 23 42 .1 42 34triangle)24"' I If 23.8 is subtracted,,from 62.1 84 82r 86 89 88 86. 8 85 BB 72 86 6 87 78
25 ** .',,;,,, Feet of fencing to enclose garden 9 flet59 s71 50 62 83 63 60 64 71 34 59 6) , '66
long and. 5 f4t wide '26** 1054 - 865 : 92 91 i,,,R, -94....-.13. 95 91 .93 95 86 92 ',*94 '94 89
.,
1,
IlrIl-- .. 4
..
tiN./ y.300.calories in 9 ounces of 'n food, how
..' '''ihY canaries in ves of the food8.7;6 ., 21,1
iOtrula fOr arprOfArlangle, find.41.0.14.014. wfth b 3 w4 'and h , 10
,,4ii111, igi4t is tai on 5200 TV set, 2,ft,-u's.ed to npsure (weight)
043 x 3 :.
33 30 ipches: feet _inches34 ; V,,3'1 `'...)..01 i% Nuiyale),t tomhat fraction36 $7. ..,,iii , 17
37" S10...10 - 1.9138 S1.. ,. 4 x 0,06
.
33t4 !6,,,Y4 "H,1_11 nOri .104;,1 ; parson pay-... e ca,' Jii . idl than by p3yino
1:1
49*, i..,. ;.,:..1,', (",A(....,,41* Par,, 1'1.1 tot'n.ir.e; 16..t iii:st hour, 25C
0'. e....'1 :ldf t ;irii heor'or fraction,wilii. .4, t: a unt to earl, fro 10:45 7,!)1,t; 1:1.. ^.!1. .,
42 1(' ;r3e1 Df thirt .iiil. of ..1 triingleth 41" Pcr'.i. 10' fv: n', .7 ':45 Ili7., ret.i...12d
i)o. 0 10 il.i.e-4, r a 11',1t. tlIne '44
fin.1 v.:.1;, p pi i:,),42; 3 0.3.4
1.9f. . U.448 ;,. retri Alt used to reasure capacity of
gasoline txlk,:i4:,' 1r: that 1. ...;re,it...,t ((lac ima 1s)4')
50 Rpo,,i60 a :in,. ,p;,,pii.,o. 1% :: C.75,...
74 .6':1. '1'r. 1,1 ),,/ I
tl
to buy a
44
41
54
56
57
53
59
50
in srallest (decrals)
44, 3 1 .1
): 4
1:0541(. G111t of ;.i.easure;,t a111:0 s:-)eod 50 Mril, how rany'hours
to tf,w,f,aLtiq j is.grn.).test
Cir.ci're!KJ! ofdiaoter
, f61 1( 1.
62 13 11oy, Jr.! 15 gi . s in a lrnup, 0,11.14 fiiai.i741:anal 'par 4 t(lv
64
63 .1-
2 hou,Ct, r,..it S , minutes.
circle given the
Cities."** fican-andnd
79
95
88
80
93
60
9?
85
74
88'9071
.17
14
8? 71
95 95
813 /
9 18
97 91
71
94' 90
63 .36
70
91 90
70 ,72
60 55
81 69
82,, 80
'ii!97 97
4)4
86 79
95 95
85 85
9S 95
86 86
75 3D
89 90
-92 . 91
416,;:',?':, 74
59, ..60
78 14
54 ,-,F9 58 52 59 59
52
87
75
63
66
11
86741,
93
93
60
89
71
'66
95
16
73
53
45
55 49 59 57
344 94 88 89
.1'1
85
,f26
7,1
71 3 , 76 81
90 90 39
66,4 71 75
70 :71, 76I A'
88 91
1
,4r. 92
50
no'
73
66 66
94
;1.762
33
(15
76
7.9 V
67 50
61 34
-)S
'71
SO
58
9,3
96 96
95 96
60 59
,7 91
7 35
70 69
97 94
79 80
76 82,
59 62
44 54
34 35
77 n`"\5t t6
'62 58
95. 95
15 19 81 88
95 96594
4.90 87 89 9
82 .79 78 8695 94 96 95
83 80 82 85
95 92 95 94
83 85 84 95
78 73 73 79
91 87 90 88
93 88 4 91 92
72 69 74 79
62 ' 56 61 63
16 78 17
54 55 57
55 '44 59 45
89 89 87 '91
80 13 76 89
89 83 90 91
72 60 69 66.72. 68 75 74
88 8,6 89 94
96
95
66,
92
82
69
97
81
80
63
92
93
62
87
74
62
95
78
73
94 94
94 95
65 60
89 91-
80 83,
'70 74
96 94
78 80
73 79
57 56, 60
52 46 43 49
35 31 3Z 34,
76 69 74 68
55 46 51 49
64 58 59 59
96 96 94 97,
91 97
4; 811
114(62 81 0
9
72 90 90 91
72 81- 81
'82 95 95
#2 82 8 83``77 94 94 95
83 87-` 84 84
58 79 73 76
78 89 89 89
'85 89 92' 92
59 74 .71 74
39 60 62 58
51 3.74 79 80
40 55. 1. 58. 57
36 50 53 59
74 89 89 88
54
Lo77
44
59,
.68
75
90
69
72
§8
78
90
. 70
71
80
89
69
74
89 89
7.9 95 96 94
82 94 95 96
44 60. 63 63
83 89 91 89
57 81 79 8049 67 68 69
90 95 97 96
53 79 80 8050 75 79 779
45 60 59 60
27 50 48 46
23 32
52 74 .15 '.75
42 51 54 N54
47 64 61
83 96 96 95
56
47
52
82
93 -I
75
4,9
ti
14,
cl
(
APPENDIX C
Copies of Student QuestionAke InstrunientsN
41,
1. 14*.ou: S;) a boy? 2 Q a girl?
4
2.- During which month were' you born? (Fill in ONE circle.)
1 M January
-2 0 February
7 0 Julya 0 August
3 0 March 9 0 September
4 0 April 10 0 October
5 0 May 11 0 November
6 0,June 12 0 December
During which year were YOu bOrn?, (Fil etbircle.)
1 0 19652 0 19663 0 1967
4 0 19685 0 1969
FOURTH GRADE
1
4. How many people live in your höiSe or apartment? Count yourself,, brothers-andsisters, parents, grandparents, and other people who live with you.
Write the number-here:
,
\--5. How many 'rooms are there our .house r apartment? 'Oon't.co
Write themumber herb;
4,40-
athrooms.
HOW of ten-do y,
3
4
abOut.yoi- school work at home? (kill in
ever$
,
once% tw e,a month
once or twice a week
'just about every day
ecirole.)
Iliyodpari>rits usuallyelp yOu with your school work? (Fill in ONE cirtle.)
0 yes C) go
1.
Do ypu like-VOur school? Tiink about it.OVE RAI_ L., thot just (::1'0.a.);/or thisWeek.(Fill in ONE circle.) 1
0 I hatejt.2' 0 drion't.kike it very much.
I Ii14, pretty irtuch.
I like'it a lot.
,9.:ii.
About how many hourueach day cid./ Tp.4
less thart lhour
C) between l- d 2 hburs
0 between 2 'qiid 3 ,furs
.between 3 ani1_44.hours
e than .4 liours
3
Hay m ch do you !il:e
OtTcrra t all 70.sornewhat
0 very Much ..1
-4N
u.watch TV?' (Fill in ONE circle,)
9
ONE circle.
11. How useful do you feel math is compared tui.the other subjects you st,.. /?(Fill in ONE circle.)
not very useful
soeiewhat useful
3 C) very useful
DONOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO.
9
,c?
Ui
,A*
Questions Abair
. Are siou: 1 0 Male? 2 female?
2. During hrch month were you born?
pJanuary01) February'
A,
0 MaI`Z:".April
6: 0
7 0 July8'Q August
9 -0 SepOmber,
110 Q OptoRber
II 0 Noyeentom
12 Q December
During which yllirtere you born?
;.C:,,1961
'2 0 19623 0 1963,,4 0 1964'
4.
EIGHTH GRADE
A
.1
ny r.e!ople live Ain yoUr hor4)? Count yoo,,...rW brothers arid sisters, paren4. grandp rents-, and:pibert.people who.live wit4ou.
Write the umber here:,e"..%)
5. How any rooms are there in your kiorner uon't cou,4t bathrooms:
Write he number here:C
6. How often do you and the adults in your home talk about your school work andschool experiences? (Fill in ONE circle.)
1 0 never or hardly ever
2 Q once or twice a month
3 Q once or twice a week
4 Q just about. every day
7. How much encouragement do you feel your parentsgive you in your school work?
Q hardly any at all
2 Q only a little3 Q quite a bit
4Q a lot
8. How do you like your school? Think about it OVERALL, not just today or thisweek. (Fill in ONE circle.)
0 I hate it.2 0 I don't like it very much.
4
3Q It's O.K.4 0 I like it pretty much.
5 0 I like it a lot.
9. About how many hours each day do you watch TV? (Fill in ONE circle.
1 0 less than 1 hour
2 0 between 1 and 2 hours
3 0 between 2 and 3 hours
4 0 between 3 and 4 hours
5 0 more than 4 hours
2
2c-
101 How much do you like math?
1 0 not at all
2 0 Somewhat
3 0 very much
11. HoW useful do you feel math is compared to the other subjects you study?(Fill in ONE circle.)
1 0 not very usettil
2 0 somewhat useful
0 very useful
DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO.
2 nc
ELEVENTH GRADE
QUeStiOtIS About Y014
1. Are you: 10 male? 0 female?
During which month were you born?
0 January2 0 February
3 0 March4 0 April
5 0 May6 0 June
-70 July9'0 August90 September
10.0 October
110. Noverriber
12 Q Decerhbei
During which yearwere you born?
10 1958
2 0 1959
3 0 1960
4 0 1961
0 1962
4. How many people live in your house? Count yourself, brothers and sisters, parents,grandparents, and other people who live with you.
Write the number here:
5. How many rooms are there in your home? Don't count bathrooms.
Write the number here:
1
6. Now mutt) encouragement do you feel your parents give you in your school work.?(Fill in ONE circle.)
10 hardly any at all25, only a little30 quite a bit
a lot
7. How-do you like your school? Think about it/OVERALL, not just today or thisweek. (Fill in ONE circle.)
IQ I hate it.
2Q I. doe it very much.30 It's O.K.
40 I like it pretty much.
50 I like it a lot.
8. All in all, what is the highe:,t'level of schooling which you would LIKE to attain inthe future? (Fill in ONF cigc.e.)
10 not finish high schco:t'-20 grackiate from high scaoDI
30 graduate from high school and then go to a vocational,technical, or business school.
to a two-year, comr)iunity, or junior college
o to a four-year College or university
6Q go to a graduate or professional school after college
9. About how many hours each day do you watch TV? (Fill in ONE circle.)
102Q
3040
less than 1 hour
between 1 and 2 hours
between 2 and 3 hours
between 3 and 4 hours
more than 4 hours
29z
10. How much do you like math? (Fill in ONE circle.)
1Q2Q
30
not at all
somewhat
very much
11. How useful do you feel math is compared to the other subjects yoti study? (Fill inONE circle.)
1 0 not very useful
20 somewhat useful
3Q very useful
12. Do you find the math you study useful in your life outside of school? (Fill in ONEcircle.)
1Q not very useful2Q somewhat useful
3Q very useful
13. Considering grades 9, 10, and 11, how many years have you had math? (Fill in ONEcircle.)
10 none20 1 year
_ 30 2 years40 3 years
DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO.
29
APPENDIX D
Copies of Prindpal 'Questionnaire Instruments
29;
Connecticut Assessment of Educational ProgressMathematics 1976-77
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Fourth Grade
Please provide the following infor, :ion for your school.
1. Total student enrollment:
2. Fourth-grade enrollment:
3. What is the average size c,f math classes in your school?
4. Do you have any consultants or specialists who work with teachers in math?
[i] yes no
v
5. Number of instructional teacher aides (in full-time equivalents). Include only aides whowork directly with teachers in regular math classes:
6. Indicate 'the type of classroom organization which predominates in your school. (Checkone box in each category.)
a. Students are assigned:
b. StudentS are assigned:
wit in,,grade level
D irre ective of grade level(inc des multi-grade classrooms)
according to achievement level(most classes are homogeneous)
irrespective of achievement level(most classes are heterogeneous)
2 ,4:j
7. How would you best descr be your typic'al fourth-grade math classroom? Check one.)
traditional teacher-centered activities
individualized instruction
8. Hai any major curriculum or program de'velopment \mathematics taken place in yourschool during the. last five years?
yes no
9. According to your mathematics teachers, do any of the problems listed below exist inyour school? (Check one box for each item.)
a. Lack of funds for mathematics supplies
b. Lack of audio-visual materials
c. L4ck of planning time for teachers
d: Class sizes too large
yes no
El
10. In your school, how many hours are allocated to mathematics instruction per class perweek?
hours
246A
Connecticut Msessment of Educational ProgressMaThematics 1976-77
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Eighth Grade
Please provide the following information for your school.
1. Total studeenrollment:
2 Eighth-grade enrollment:
3. What is the average size of math classes in your school?
4. Dt) you haveny consultants or specialists who work with teachers in math?
nyes n no
5. Number of instructional teacher- aides (in full-time equivalents). Include only aides whowork directly with teachers in regular math classes:
6. Indicate the type of classroom organization which predominates in ol..r school. (Checkone box in each category.)
a. Student.: .2re assigned: I I within grade
b. Students are assigned:
nirrespective of grade levol(includes multi-grade classrooms)
naccording to achievement level(most classes are homogeneous)
nirrespective of achievement level(most classes are heterogeneous)
2
7. How would you best describe your typical eighth-grade math classroom? (Check one.)
[ tri)iditional teacher centered activities
nindividualized instruction.
8. Has any major curriculum or program development in mathematics taken place in yourschool during the last five years?
nyes n no
9. According to your mathematics teachers, do any of the problems listed below exist inyour school? (Check one box for itern.)
-a. Lack of funds for mathematics supplies
b. Lack of audio-visual materials
c. Lack of planning time for teachers
d. Class sizes too large
r1
no
10. In your school, how many hours are allocated to mathematics instructioh per class perweek?
hours
Connecticut Assessment of Educational ProgressMathematiCs 1976-77
SCHOOL. PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Eleventh Grade
Please provide the following information for your school:
1.- Total student enrollment:
2. Eleventh-grade enrollment:
. What is the average size of math classes in your school?
4. Do you have any consultants or specialists who work with teachers in math?
El yes Ei no
5. Number of instructional teacher aides, (in full-time equivalents).work directly with teachers in regular math classes:
Include only aides who
6. Indicate the type of classroom organization which predominates in your school. (heckone box in each category.)
a. Students are assigned: J within grade level
Elirrespective of grade level(includes multi-§0e4.classrooms)
b Students are assigned: EI according to achieverileriOevel(most classes are homaide4us)
irrespettive of achieVemept.level(most classes are hetero'geneous)
43
c. Students are assigned: Ellaccording to curricular program(e.g., college, general)
irrespective. of curricular program
7. Has any rrraior curriculum or program development in mathematics taken place in yourschool during the last five years?
yes El no
8. According to your mathematics teachers, do any of the problems listed below exist inyour school? (Check one box for each item.)
a. Lack of funds for mathematics supplies
b. Lack of audio-visual materials
c. Lack of planning time for teachers
d. Class sizes too large
yes no
9. In your school, how.many hours are allocated-to mathematics instruction per classper week?
L-7
hours
.1
APPENDIX E
Tables of Achievement Results by ReportingGroups on Total Test, Goals, and Objectives
KEY FOR APPENDIX E
The analysis by reporting groups provides the following informationfor the total test, each goal area, and each objective. The P-VALUEis the estimated average percentage of test items answered correctlyby students in the population or in the particular reporting group.SE OF P-VALUE is the standard error of measurement for the p-value.GROUP EFFECT is the difference between the state average (all students)and that for the reporting group. An asterisk (*) means that the groupeffect (the difference) t significant at the 95% confidence level.SE OF EFFECT is the standard error of measurement of the group effect.SAMPLE SIZE is the actual number of students in the reporting groupwho took the test.
tt.
NATIJA6 ,;v;,..6f,T1jv
C=NK;CT1CuT
SY..;%mS,
s'iTATE1Jc:
%TA',
INC. CCTT ANALYSIS6Si.SSNIL:NT 474 ;RAK
BY RPOUING GROUPSFLURuARY 1977
P-VALUE.
ir.orlopia10011MOMdbialll
sr Cr GUUP L: OF0 1G 20 30 40 50 50 70 80 9051L, REPGRTINV GROuP. _
r.QALL STUDENTS 4,00014q1404000111014#044;5011*M44
STZ_J",
W1400#040*******44100404440044444*r. Ir. 1,'A c.,;( 129,41011,40444144400404100004404#44#44
(.100;40000000014i141*444;4*4**444q441441444114*444 }4 #4.40444440444**0440,A
10, C,'1 C1;1 44#4# 44444$44 4;'4
ANDLY EV:R 04 50444444044****141**00140410441..]; 121 Qah,Y 444441.41444 444441.444. 441.1
.!1 r, 3,(;,s' o44. 4#14.4114)444)-00*4441.4 +#0144,ii41pr.4,4________-_.
C.71 :,2) CiL I4U1 OILY 441444404444.14#4404444i-401401*444.444
n,0A moMMA
7c.A401100440004*/*44C0440044#**4*444
' 5n NJ 4# 44444444444+4444 144444444 +444444044{4.440.4144
,., Li..:: G.;:', .CriujL? -.....
1.:,± -:.1::0 1,;,7 12,d__________.I. HAT: ITi 0,4414,41**0**44411100041,;*#4,04f7 -,''.
, r
:,,q
r.J1
(',.7:
-',,,,,
)..k,
4,,i..i
1,. , ,
.4 4
;0.;0
1j0j64431
1 D'..01. LIKE IT
li,S JK
1 L',.:::. IT
s.40,01(*01q41444:444440;.t44q#4;44444
44v0.1040000014144414,4*;40(4414.11#104.
*411,404***#0444440444*44444444.4444'444,) i.4
-2.14 4 ,4c, 1 LKH IT A LOT 04**4000410014444A*0011441,140141
,COS TV7
"..(,'"' I ao 14. l.L..) TH,',N 1 hi
4:,' ___ ,.7' ,1,4 __________U.N If2 ft'S - ......._
-;,:f ..5 4'..;1 '..$LTiLN 2',.3 oi;5
:,.'7' u.c,z, 47) L.,,:7ALN i14 f-i',-,
....2.73o i,..; 1013 !,',X-,. 'HAN 4 FW3
1,C.4 rJT
4444444444 4' ,444 #4;4;10'
#44(4;*44*4444444444,:444**V4,,#,*
4c.O*4m44c4.4441,444y,00,*4**40444,414
444444,444*444#444;44+1444.044447$414
***#*000.01444#01,4**41,,(44411,41004444:114*
1114 #01414444414111*;.**04404441004A41,04Mr,h-,7) ."4 (./44
-;.1?
,L 5Uvj:CrS
11
, ,:24
loll
NC,7 '110 6'.',=6L
44 ,444044441414444114;0,44'444444114
Oft44044,440404141#0100***L*44041*#;#4____
4441410141044,444C44444+41004.44+44*444i0.4'41414 44**41t,4#444***),4440,,,4+/4W,.4
4444,,400**4414414444044.4*4414+444444
31.)
100
9
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC, *. =NT ANALYSIS UY REPORTING GROUPS
CCNNi.CTICT STATEdT ASSESSOT,.. 4TH GRADE, !. FEBRUARY 1977
1 TOTAL SURE
S'E 01' GROUP 5c OF SAMPC.
J.VALUL1,_.3-VALUE--EFF:CT__ EFF:CT
74,33 0.63
PsYALUZ
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70' 80 90 1
2437 ALL STUDENTS ****4.***************************imk*
SKC!A.NTS1.4U d3.1:170 1.18 011
1,464 0,64 1025
1.25 1,39 1 01 663
-0,21 52 15c0
71,2 31:.,'J -2,90 3,.39 110
YATH
741°
7f.h? 1,56 -2.724
1;,63 1431
1,24 753
t..---(".!PIC6.1., CR PR.} AM U/' A;117
'411-) ,,a4 o.41 o i 166D
73.61 1.01 -0,91 0. 5 740
100 LAGE1.f5
.
:F C,)PUN17Y
52.11 1,n -12.22*
(,76 M7.11
1..d!J f I4
1713
.)4.1110
110
YES
NU
BOTH
M.MM
TEACHER CENTERED
INDIVIDUALIZED
rrrr
YES
NJ
YSNJ
1.6 476 BIG CITIES
)18J 647 FRINGE CITIES
1.17 Mi:DIUM CITIES
7@. 31 ^IT) 3.q* 0,79 674 S'ALLER PL,ACES
"""P'..GION THE STATE
'6.3. .1,13 .,1,7 319
70,79 1.22 3',1
77.17 1.07 MO 1.N 5275,51 '495 1.18 1.00 372
RESCUE
COUP ED SERVICES
CREC
ACES
701.31. 1,39 3054 1,05.___291_____ __PRJP-',CTLEARN
17,4,4 3.4,t. 72 NARSES
04q110411MAI*044410141$01400004111041441,0:04441$401.4******004414$4***044*******
04 4#111144111 #4 ## ##411110110 440101141 #0441 #.y
1111011141130y144****Wit**0144#*141.10*;*
1
;4***************110~0f**7****Ifo*000111*******4**0440/We.**k**MMIM
4
***4410:1040****04******410400,10141114
004140104,0041144100*W;#**$#$#0*
lit**1044,04t****).#411#W$1**ff004*0494**********41***01,i****4 #11 .40;4441*
04#010.7114,04041*P$11********,1410ylooli44******soPoolit#,10,404***Iitil
04*0(***********410.1044,404014.4$*#4441440..#111*****1144******00.0410#01111
*W0104*1014#4101400****0404104W0141441
SIII#014*****0******4mwsw144414q4;10.4
1t*410**4***#****1041144 *4**1 slif10141$
wt()4***440******0101#54*4****$444144*0000*.colgolv10411***40(44440**,,*14114$
***i*Wicill$1;401o01444*4**4404414040
GOAL
NATIONAL Cv.41AATIJN CO1TEN7 WOES JY REPNTING GROUPSA.;;S:SSNT 4*H t',POE FEbRUARY 1976
C..vVs.PTc,loormar......moorto=.....Pftwol. rooreplIWO
2+' (aUP SC Of SAI,A;;
P-VL.,UZ P-V,LUE :FF4C7 EFFLC-.
OF Tk(.: STO:NT
74.1! C.') C.30 0.46 114b
T,17, CW*UAITY
:o:6 -14.694
i.e
1.22 4,4,,1*
sionftworwwimioallpl
RONTIMC GROUP
P-vALUc10 20 30 40 30 50 70 60 90 100
Id111111116 1111111111114111511111111111 Old 1111,14 /II
44,140101411410*4 $44***0144 44($*** 10*
**4$404#4***44004414404i0%4-------4041.****4440414W4444444W4$441444
1
1.81 478 Ulu CITIES *1444****444«444***4**104*#444 1
1.13- :47---- FRING:. :ITIFS ------4,0,05pe04#44t4lkoc44k**444f4 *444i4*#1.2J (,23 '11.):U0 ...T175 4.1.044*#*~1400$04440004004101.4441.3d 674 /
ThE STATE
:.;21.04' .,,2; ,
1.25 '1.2o
11 .-3 1--
2,37 3.25 2.20
71.10 4,,5 -3.33 41.:7,4
SNAI L.: PACES
319 .11:5COE
CL,jr) SERVICEJ62
281 PRJJ:.:T LEARN
72 NA; (3.,:S.
01$44**4..10****.40..***4444.1.444(lqw****
Il44444*4 rf44400040k4441 *4 }141444,',444,4
mt00.014444(TA***44+4444**01;001.4(41;
*00(44;4***410#444441(44,*404-10h.444444------410+44444**),L0v4***44 04,,.4 qotto it*
*Y##44( 44*04#0004444041 3*0444(0$44410444ONWA***404;000044.f4.04#1
tATI:;AL .::VALUAT1JN
VATEI)E
GOAL 2 CiNiuT;.71.1'l
S`6TV3,
ASSESO!EIT
CO'r;::NT ANALYSIS 3Y
FE6RUARY
REPORTING GROUPS
1976
PVALUSC, OF G,Z2.0 S OF SAPLE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100P-VALUE Ei-FLOT SIZE RLPORTING GROUP,111,1111,011ko..ii,I411,41111,111.s1,11.11.11divildolli
'STUDbiTS4104144014***#044444:01444410140444-NT-----
JF Thy STUDLN7' 0041.(.1.Y -1.94* 0,43 114o 'MALE
4010g#*#401100(000;w0w4n444k44***411P.79.
TH: CO!NATY'2.24 -r.%0 1.9:i 476
moM.A
iIO CITIES
)440004440444;04*144040044404144**44_
*;44****w.*****1000.***044.444.40411117
Of;IS--------------*rnm#*4*****#o*vo4444.q$4rrn$.0(##4os.ii------ILs I. 1.t7 -C.09 1,39 o39 M;'.),10 CIYJES ...0*.4*.o400.44.*I0*4440.04,:0**4444#r(1.13 3.424 0,99 L74 SALLER P_ACS 44411 *40(1[4**0**44 O4 #S *t4414****44***4;#4:1*
:117;
.-''' '1.69 319 :444*WW;4,1404410.44401A'0,010.14;1.Hz A6.94 1,73 23.; EGJP 20 SERV:CE #444 X441 #4404*,M4P0004i44*44 4440);4011$
1,2,) 1125 62241****A1t*4*4414x4:44*41,44144444);'
1.46----372444-i44440#04444444441.4444 44404#A0444*
4.574 1.t0 281, 'R3Jj.CT LEARN,0004114044***;*44214***;4**444**44;44410411$
,2 SlAi6ciS 044**4$44440400004014440044444c40
3030r
NATIONAL EVALUATION
CONNLCT1CLg
GOAL 3 .':.4SLI;0.:1,1
SYSTEMS, INC, CONTENT ANALYSIS
STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT-. 4TH GRADE .
'OY
FEBRUARY
0
REPORTING GROUPS
1976
100
0-
SE CF GROUP
/.1,,AjE P.vALUE EUc:CT
81:70 0;57
c....5EX OF THE STUDENT
53.51 0,66 10114
OF THE CDqUfilTY
1)2 1.7f8 -1:.7e$
0,97 1.26
85.66 0,69 3,954
- 4".".3F.GTOTOF
91.19 102 1.79
35012 C,Hd 4,124
94.62 C.99 2I0)2#
15.79 1007 4,091
80.52 3.10 .1.0S
SE OF
EFFECT
0.33
1,4'd
0,E7
0166
1.04
0,93
C.yl
1.08
3.03
I (
SAMPLE
SIZE ROUTING GROUP
P-VALO
10 201 30 40 SO 60 70 80
$000****************1404144040144i444144*
04144$44440****4'040444*044404;404414
.1;00,4,*****-5044040044*;**4#444**W*44
****444*44****$$#*04$*401000**4 #44.14444
**00164****04**$44404#444040404,411(44144;410
*******04*****441414414044040#47**144444
44044**44044410i041,44044444**0444;4;414
$;f0(100;#***01444$4,044044*f$1,10:44,yv#4441_
ili004*##4A4M4440m(44444444444,$0#1iiA
40040,100*4J4k4i0400444*O44#41444014$1*******0***4444044004040$410$41440.41
90
STUDENTS
11.111110
1146 MALE
411104(41(4***ooy**********044444,4404.4**$$
290-----FEHALa
.1.44.6*
478 31'j CITIES 01410401.1(24414**44$4,000.14444;04
FRINGE.CITIES-
638 ML:DIUM CITIES
674 SMALLER PACES
319 RESCUE
353 CJP 0 SERVICE5i2 CA =C
281 PSUJECT EARN
72 NARSES
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS,
CONNCTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT
GOAL 4 PRjtLEM SOLVING
hC, CONTENT ANALYSIS
- 4TH GRADE -
BY
FEaRJARY
REPORTING GROUPS
1976110011111.1MNIMIlli
SF OF GROUP SE CF SAMPLE 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 70 80 90 100P..4.1JE P..YALUE, EFFECT EFFECT SIZE REORTING CROUP, 16,,,*,11,,,1,..,1,1,,144,,141,1111,111111
OF THE STUDBT mammal
ALL STUDENTS 0404****404444404,144441
.1E,02 C.83 1.46*' 0.42 1146 4A.E 44$00#4.0444144********0***53.30 ----0.60 .1.274 -Ca') -1290 FLMALE 44444040440444444444404.4
OF THE CC!'IMUNITY
.1,)3 1,33 11.53' 1,63 478 OIL, CITIES 444#443*440000(#4***04---C.93-- --2,34i7-0196 647 FRINGE CITIES 10,44**1,*********q4,44.0*4*44
55.54 1.21 C.98 1.08 633 MEDIUM CITIES #00**(scpr*;$**,4***414111444***
58.25 1.14 3,694 0.93 674 SmALL:R PLACES *******1400**0444***44444 i4
OF THE-STATE----
tq.11 1136 1.45 1,35 319 RESCT. 44**4 0144104411414040474$4**6:170 lao b,b441 1.2 353 COUP ED SERVICE 404#4444*3440444444#41044400400437.17 1.11 2.114 1.c. 662, C:C 0444*4 .,),11,4#41$ 4444*44! 4 4,;4 44454,72 4100844404444i44444*44**44441
53411 1,70 3,554 1,61 281 R:UJECT LEARN 44#44***04041$444441***fc44114448,16 3,97 ..6.51 J.E7 72 NARSES 000101******444 44110*404
NAT1NAL 2V ALXIJN SYSTEMS. 1vCUNTENT ANALY5i$1,0Y REPORTING GROUPS
sTATLw10;,. AS:X.,NT Fi3ri'ORY 1970
G'.34t. 5 CjIA:fl'S ,;ROHS,
SE OF CH1UP sa 11,2-v4AF. P-AL07. Ef,t,CT
%.77 0.63
OF 77,
7').P ,1,5
L7.75
REPORTING GROu?
2437 STUN:
CO41.`0 .-13 1.4:: 47a 31C, CIT11-.3
C.3--. 1. 7 Oa---6471.14
r.o3 4.t"O'
!,', 1.3: .2."'., 1,3 2.W.,0
1.10 . -J.T.4
1.0 b2.6
0.7o c74
1.2'.) ,31,
1.2 );,3
1..;)1 t,a2
ClilES
SALLER PLACES
P-vALik
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100
***#0040411104 **0404441410#**4 i4001(4
4Ork0.g$4**********4404.1***$24o4fmmill*.14**40401(****441004,144004441.1441(444
411($*01)*****40%**144***4#4.44,Yof
W44**,00***4*****n*400140004***11(t44410414 *4440414444000pW;40444 44441).#*1040,
444404***4441044**41,44**4444144444444404
cr:s.:0.. 4**woo(4#444**A;a421cv*.40/44404:444(
20,P :.) 5'..;,'u:CE *..k.o.**4*,,,,A0,,,i4+,,0,440....,,,*04,;,44064.
CM, ,
ii.4lc4ziro4o1*11$44.0o4n4**0441,4,3444,444444.74 :.1.0.,3 c.7,4 -- -c6 37: ----Acis-----------4444v4444444440,44444K4444#444404444q
ow44*4**044***4014i*44;40,;;444+441**443.t 0::.,) 4,'&f 1. 2:11 =T L',:_ARV.26 3.92 1.'4 3.0.1 72
k(4401#v****1.40(**01144441,444440##40144441
311'
NATIONAL rVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC., CONTP1' INAtys/s ny REPORTING *UPS
CINNECTICUT STATEWIDE A5SFSSMENT FEBRUARY 1976
CEJEC7P/L.1Z==Za=4,==1=ZZFZ344,S r CF '(1i1UP Sr OF
P-VALUE P-VALUE EFFECT FFFECT
.h;
79,26 0,,5
OF THr STUDENT
SAMPLE
51r
2477
11.6.1
PEPOPTING UV.
ALL STUDENTS;
AO, Pa 1,02_ 1001 .0495 YALE
9,32 1,00 -0,93 0,90 , 1290 FEMALE
Cr TFF cnmmomn.y4C7 71 -FYI* ?.# 1F1,, _
910 019 14 11 1,07 f11,20 1,E9 105 1,4.1 618
:.415 400* 110) 674
----1-GIDN or Th^ STA T: 1'4)o 1 0'9 1, 3 244 1,1 :19
loCr1 1,;1747 1. A7 153
1,41 517 I 1/.s. c,f)2
11,12 1,16 1,24 17.2.
L17,3A '1,01 11 1, 7ri 291
0100 1,27 0,74 315 72
PEJECILVE.
8I5 CITIES
FRINGE CITIES
pFolUm CITIES
SYALLFR PLACES
P -VALUE
10 20 .0 40 59 60 70 BO 100ooedOisidesolle11.6.1.410111118114 isileillil
$444 0440***011************141041***04*
14,4************1144************** ***Ot****A*A00,14**********4***4***41414***,$0
*****4(011**04441404t****04 ti4* i***14140****Illi4 illt**********S sS***114411,10,1,10,44
illistit**********stictImil 4.1111441* 041014041**4o*4 4404***************************$t***411
RF9m7 **4*****),4 4*****0*4 0(4[W! 40#410******40
COP, ED SE0v10E ***40(***#Aii*4tOL***,Ita 44 044*410 4;41i 04ik 444
C?==C $0t044111,401h440'40101P4**WS44Vt440044014ACS **#*4*****##*******0***A4**T*4.4414*;#0**PPJECT LFAFN 040( t***********s itil**$ tA*t* 40104,000
NAPSFS 011**********41W*****illt$********,*,*4409,*
NATI1NAL rvAL01TfON SYSTEMS, -- (0,0r102' ANALYSIS RY REPPPING GROUPS
CONNFCTICLT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - ATh rptor FEBRUARY 1976iimaimmoose.
STOW noCPPTF';
Sr Cr GP1J0
P-VALur. C-vALuF. strr:'cr
77,72 0,67
OF !Hr. STUDr.V
79,10 11116 1117*
74.,40 3,77 -1,31*
rE Thr Crimvw,ITY
1,61
.005 0,72
/900 1,11
000! 1,14
uNpc.nr;TANMV, OF rwp!NG OF wi, lo9rpF
5F CF
EFFECT
SAMPLE
517E
2477
0,46 11460,42 1290
16441,430 3,R3
1.13 1,091,?9 0,91
Th'E STATP.
'Ile% 1,C! 4.01*1,14 A.'S'1,11
77,6 3.72 ?,14%
79,64 1,55 1,11
74,72 1.20 -3.00
31
1.711.3'0
1.1900P
. 1,49'
3,14
47}
647
674
119
773c61
272
291
72
REPORTING (Y RP
ALL STUDENTS
P-VALUE
0 10 20 30 40 5 60 73 BO )) 100
14,161.61..oalop,$1.,411140.611,4441.0e6filliito
********4****4***************14*******4
MALE
,FiNIALF
111
osts1 *****1***JuAk**0*****4o4****444**A#0iiiii4****t**1,0********0010,11*1040***11044
OK CITIES 4104440140,0,04.141000t40**44*O4FRINGE CITIES ****************$*41.****0**sistow10,04**PF010 CITIES 44000k******#010410***As4****4s**t4g*$4SMALLER PLACEE ***A**4*01141,41*********10i4****0104 *104**
p7CUF ,s44ksocoskis.sootittiol.twiv,44,s.sasost410ss4
(CE;' FD SEPVICE,
Cr'rC
o4troovhotsAs4**00q,s44.40*****s4gissssviSt
**0044****4# ***sits*****7its041***01$44014
AC'S *ilios40***4iqs01.****14440,4i,sofcs4I44****41
PROJECT LEARN is01**************ss******1****14***44404*
NAPSCS 01,40************0********O44sis#01001I
NATIONAL rl/ALUAT!ON 5YqTrYSI -- Pl(YSIS RY REPOPTING PRUPSCr,NN:VICO STATFW!PE ASSESSMENT . 1.1". - FEBRUARY 1976
'.'2gCuiVE 1 rlin"lv "."\lrATre Ir7;7'TA0PINr, FrACTI.P'AL Nf11171,r11IllmmillImaluiWar~ImplaamlYrarrmileamommrermi
P'VALU7SE CFD-VALUs P-VALV FFC7
10.7
---SFX OF 7NE STUVNT6r114 1177 .1424
loS9 1,11
cr rirt7FFEcT
S.A"11.E
APE FTDOPT!NG.GPCUP
7 ALL s7orrls
066) 114t MAO:016i 110 a FFkAF.
0 010 20 10 Al 50 60 70 lb 93 100
luorg!III4glose6.11611.1116.11.1111m/d14,011101,
61411*******************0011100***
**404******************44000141(100.111****11141**********11410$4******
1 lE CF T CC4'40 1:7 s'4)). 7,(7)
',...,___ VI
Nil .M.M11
r's CT.TT.'S , 1144*******************4_.!4,:,9,..._
7',i;' , rk, .., . 7,44 (41 , 5PtY1(7 Cil"r **)4***114 *****40#140***4tAii44****#.01Ff,!F ),VA .1.12. /00 (.".
PINU/1 CrrIFS' iii1r ***4.104110(0000.040400.***,*/1457 abc7 5o2 62.24.' '''.7 F74 F.PALLEP PLACE,
:41.114*******0104*******010441044$044***r` THF STA
402 -1,56 '447 '10 PEquF*****0**************ii*****i1047;,7)
,q111 /02 1) c(1p ED 5FAVICF ******1004*****10Witi**0000014*0;44'040).-7,Q4 4.1.3 7177 771 kCFS**4**4***************001,04**04414 .
4011 1,71 4,41 2A1 PrgCT IFAPN14044401************4*Ii****4******1'O.K4 9,11 .7,41 r,g17 72 ;MAPSFS1***************W1*******0104 I
NATIONAL_ FVALVA7 ION SYCITsiSt .!NC, r(407CY ANALYSIS BY R5PORING GPOUPSc.q,4;Fc7CLI STA7POPE, ASSESS -!NT ctf.DF FEBRUARY 1976
kLJ'7.
q11.50
010,11
Sr cc c:-,1,1D.
P-v \LQF.
0,65
OF THS.STUfn'
Fk!'S'rlAT7S ARt1'Y Yi Anr UMFrPc
P -VALUE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1$1,.14.11.14.$1111wItio014...1.4.1wilkokdlis*
*******0***************1*********4*how
110
i mige~~~0~dimmeasummorr.womoreabrK iAqnLE
S12F qPIPT!MG UCIJP
2417 ALL 5TODs.N7!.,
0,1,1 ",42$0011***********************************1.20',
TH7 COvmUY1TY
N37 oel
"rue MO
FFMALFs****************************0*********i
)01 19._ 47P**41''(***1$***400414*****4 ati********647 'F1 r.!Tirc, ****************11*******M400**04****M*01'1!,C4 1,16 1,c; 1.02 Alp
Prplo *********************** $10 04****14404$00/****141,10 1103 201* 0,43) 674s9k.L.Fq PLACES
********0*************00*40*******WA***THF sT4-r
i':471 1427 7 1.10 31P c'SCUF ***.votA0044***04t******1044t14,...*044 044.140;1 1.13 4,c,* 1,21 251 CrA T)VICE,A**;40(**0411444.k*4441.4.41kAii#dt,*0.$1.04****47173 1.V!
400040(tt*#t**0441(1y******..i&o.#4 *.o44# .10441441
5.51
, 2..73
1,26 4,00*142h 7721,1? 2p1
ACT'S
PPrfiFC7 LcAPN***00,k44441 ***144601040*t*A4**A44****.440***0**********444**1**1*y****40.0,40*******76,94 5,40 .4,56 54n 72 .
c NAC'SFS******************04***44*I0414444444010 i
3
310
J
NA TVINAL !VALUATION SYSTEMS INC. CCKTPIT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPScmqviro STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT /ITN
womormbuommosrPAPF - FEBRUARY 1976
VJECIVI 5 RTIllENT DEPANST9ATES ARILITY TO SURTPAC' NUMI3FRS... w
IIIIMOMENNWIMINOMOBal.00101110.0.2101011
q
P.VALT
IQ 20 11 )4n 99 69 7 80 97 100klosliii0101111011 11114001080$41.111111414,11100
1 6
SF CF MOP SF nF
R-VALUE P-VALUE EFFECT 7FFECT
73,4e6 SO
----erX OF TW-7 STUDENT
71845 . 1.15 -',010(....._ 0862
75,26 1402 1,804 0,54
CF COMM9NITY
SAvPLF
SIZE
2437'
..1146
1290
;PORTING rPOuP
ALL STUDFNTS
ALE'
EMALE_
A78 , HIC, Cr/FE75,14 1110 2,77* 1,10 647 FFINGE/1,0 h90 1,37 S, F9 678 MF11UM CITIFF7*7112 1,27 4,458 1,13 674 SMALLER PLACES
RrGIOrr lc THE STATE WM VI MI
77,64 1l64 4,10 146 119 RESCUE7P491 2.45 5o13* 2,'06 351 j CCP Ell sEpvIcrT 0CP 1.15 /o CRFC74.74 1.11 1,27 1108 272 ACES7501 7,54 1,44 /116 281 PPIJECT LEARN69,06 2,0 -5.41 2,86 72 NAPSES
wwwwqwwww.
0100********440140011****44,0******
*************************************F ***************************************
1
***0*******************800**0110 ********,0q***********************************************80*********************************************0*****
***************AttmoosOol****************4114**********4**************40*****t*****************8***10844*******************488*******018i41,***Ii4i4***8*******(********0****48*******441t8******************************40044* I
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, CTNIENT ANALYSIS RV REPORTING
CONNECTICLT STATBIOF ASSESSMENT - ATH 6rADE FEBRUARY 19761111.10011=1100.
nejEum_ 6. sTun~NT nckoNTD4TrS 49ILITYT' ouLTIFty nt.F Nupials .
SF rF GolUP
P-vALuE F-vALuF EFFECT
. .
'30,95 1.05
-.--SCX OF THF410ENT75i51 1111 -2,14*
47104 1.12 1,01*
....clu ,CF THE COHmjNITY
Sr OF SAMPLE
FFFECT SIZE
2437
)155 PIO0,48 1200
pFpoRTING GROUP
_ .ALL STUOENTS
MALE
FEMALE
T1610 L7P, CITIES95,0; 1,49 4,10* 1,50 647 FPINGE fITIFf78,71 1,76 -2,11 200 613 -KOIUM CITIES130' 1.51 3,02* 1.39 674 SVALLER PLACES
OF ThE STATE MI. Ob.
'x1,28 107 ':1,13 2,01 710 pFRCUE4,7? 2440 4,7A* 7.110 751 CCOP El SERVICE7(,q9 2,77_
CFFC_-1.0!____._.2,04 -_5421.55 2.76 1,91 177 ACES
1161 1,79 701* 1,97 281 OPNECT LFAFN69117 5.52 -11079* 5,40 72 NARSES
3L
GROUPS
P-VALUr
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 100
loseolossollosblawlsoldolsoloo001188811.8018888
*400* 00*******************************************44*******************8********
_
*******************048**k***t*****48**00***********************************4t****
***************************8*********osi**********************4 *14,1***.km********4
1
********************************4404w4*********************************************
4110***,*0( tke* 4"414******10k *111 * ***WA
*44.********#***********04s4wo$14*4*10***
***ot************#*/****A*****************00**********************************0 I
4'1710'0L rV4IWATI04 tYSTFMS, INC, ". Cfl.TW ANALYS1n 4Y 4PNIPTIVI PUPSrICNN7C/ICLT STAWnE ASSFSSONY
(11nr FE6PUAPY 1976
c7 C; P70p...VALV nolALUE CrF.P7
A'1.15 01673
(1; STrc.Xac, :' 0677 10'14*
die 1.1,P1 -lon3.
TI
STtir.gCT IN:prs4c17,17C
S..' or !:,,,i0LF
'SECT
2417.
10111TY T0 Crr;vrr.- 11.FA
PPOPTING ($0UP
ALL STUDENTS
:7 CF The. CIVVLM1TY
14 /14 10,7
007 !0!* ,'800
lon ?$170 1,0r1,Vit 0,0.0
Nun
17-'"ALE
6711 _PG__
647 FF1NG5 CIT!Fs6?F4 !.1E)1P C1T1FS
SMALLER PLACE'
7" THE STA'r:
10.4 le" 1,15
leg
1.10 14q?* ,1.19 153
Ion 56"_"1.1 0,;ti 1.01 172
404 1120 4,61k 1,70 PA1
P1.c4 1.65 1,56 7?
FESCUE
(C^2 ED SPVICE,CFTC
(ACES
PPOJFCT LEAPN
MA05ES
PN1T5 OF CURDENCY,
MALTI10 20 70 40 50, 60 70 80 90 100
up011141111,1 uteltketill!otissoll411411/0011111i ,61111141t
so*********************Ot04***44**********
*1
________************0410,****41110100*************At_ .
lir*****4***************4,00***********0*
000****0110000t***000***11*********0**********************St*****0004***04
********t***04**********100001044*0***0110#*********************#****014*******WM
ilk***44#114*******t#1414***41***6********4*****solt*********#******$*************0********
**************0010******4******04****Ws**,************************#tift****1044.14**0
111,14*************ii**********0***0004100000
******01*********10************0***$******1
N4710':AL TVALLAT:,r,N SYSTMS, -- CONTFMT ANALYSIS AY PFPORTING GROUPSCf1NN":1C.,./ STATEW105 ASEE55VNT
bh"F".'C,...'
RE FEARUARY 19761"
nPjrcrivc 5 STI ).Wr. r:11r4ocT047ES AP1L1TY "0 CC r11"1" "11F .
Sr. CE S0700 SE Or S.A0PLF
0-VALUE C.-VALUE FErECT EFFECT 51Zr.
74,01 :4,77
OF '1-i5 STUDENT
PFPOPTING 6F019'
2417 ALL STUOENT5
IN 40.0
7741°. 'WO MALE72,7i C4c5 ..31!0* Ino rFyy:
(C1049":!TY11 .01 ..?*
',27
Itl: 0017 IIIP 61P9.,1,; 1..07 511'* 0177 674
4W5,
tOP N,7
nC .S7A7-
:,C7 1.71 1.64 710
11.P 9.61* 1,41 353
4 /11 Wi1.4° 147 1 17,
14F:C 14914 IL$67 291
4.16 14)1 4.7.5 7?
319
FriNCE 1/4:171ES
yr010 Crr1F5
SMALLER PLACES
01.5CUE
CC?:' ED sFpvicE
CF'!".0
t,cFs
Pc%ECT LEM1NAP5.:S
MALV0 10 20 10 40 50 60 70 80 90 !00
*****00440141$11**1011,14,01**444141***011
1
**************************4*******40****0111*****A0000***********ti(**0***0
****,.10114**********001********# -t*****************************001,00.41,0,004***140*************A0**1****04**********Ail*******.**1.04************
***044#0************10****0*****$,,0**************4tilh),Slitc*SOW*00Aii**%G**1*0101*****0,10******t*Mit:0***WkOROA* ....,**,:*04040(04416****4101,4*,*******41,,iliIi***********4**i******ttiol,4***W:***010.1*****041*0*******404********44**4.
326
4t
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS INC, -- CeNTDIT 'ANAL YSIS fly REPORTING°RT,14ci cum.
CDNMECTICLT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT 4T14 CAW FEBRUOPY
SF CF SOUPFJVALUr VALVE EFFECT
97,00
.. - -SEX OF THE STuONT
0101111.111114111
STPAIT=47,10, KNaM1dime
P-VALID8F. flF SAMPLE 0 1? 7131 10 40 60 70 80 10
EFEECT SUE REPORTING GPCUP 1,011"664,1,,,,Isoos ism 1,46Ilmil4114441400ki*******e
2437 0 -11****************Ow ***0*******4*All .STUDENTS
144.***************444014*******************00401*************44***W*4*****4************
....0517F OF TFF COMmUNITf
9904 0,64 __I, 244_ 001_1146_ MALE
TA5150 009 (.11100. 130 1290 FEMALE.
Uftftim
_____,106_____!1,354 .142S _ 47888,P4 1170 1,1$14 0172 64787169 1.0? 1,69 007 61890600 0.70 1,084 0,64 674
.---FEGI ON OE THE ST4 TrA9.72 0,qo 1,71 0,99 319 c FESCUE
10,21 1,C5 31214 1,02 353 \. COOP ED SEPVTCE37,9 1 101 1,17 MI 562 CFEC___ _ ..._ _ _________ .., .____.e c, 49 3,64 ?.494 0,79 372 ACS00,6q 1,06 loqt 1,03 261 PFOJECT LEARN84617 2,78 -2,94 7,72 72 WRVS
BIG CITIES , _
FPINGF CITIES'
MFDIUM CITIES
SMALLEP PLACES
..
i****"********0***44444***************************44,0******4***********4****4**4411104!!******************************4444***4****079" *****0****************44444******44$
0,4,0*****,********4*****osioio*************4****"******************44w*******4*********$***0************************44444.04.********------- *44444.s*** 01
-16 ******************114**********14$****4******************** 0144444 44404,.**.********************************4.4400pt****44
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, CONTENT ANALYSIS BY qEPOPT I NGGROUPS
CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE. ASSESSMENT - 4TH GPADE - EEBRUAPY 1976
r)Emnazox:L2921=1:F 'r_IFA P C'")(11-1.R'P,...08,1E,CTLya'_1,0_,STUIENT
SE SE IF SAMPLE
P7vALuF r-vALue. EFFECT EFFECT SUE REPORTING GPCUP
----SE4 OF THE STUDENT
5AG° 1.03 ,35 8160 ___ 1146 _ MALE ,63,56 1,07 .1,44 0,54 1290 FF'IALF
54140 0.86 ,
. 2417 ALL STUDENTS
OF TH'7 COYMW1:71(
19,29 _2131 ___715,11 _201____ 478_56,85 1,111 2,451! 101 647
, 5560. 1,61 .1.21 '1,41 618
59.68 1637 5,271, 1,12 674
na.,1;41.
FID ING58IG CITIES .
MEDIUM CMFSSMALL, PLA CF.S
f.
----PFMN OF THE 5.f&TF.'--.
wmftm'
55169 1,91 1,21 1015 319 Pr:q0C.
60,91 1,74 11,41* 1.fli 353 COOP. ED SEP VICE
5e.01 1,41_ 56? CF:C . _, L...
55.86 1,67 1.45 1651 372 ACES
59617 1.96 5,57* 1,88 261 PPOJECT LFAPN
48661 4,18 .6,79'. 4,10 72 NAPSES
3'
P-VALUE0 )0 20
30,, 40 50 60 71 80 L 10011,01""141,1,Z,41.,111614611611***0*****"*****,*****4)*stii
10,0***?!********0*********
"4444."*******************
***** * ilipt****0****$*0004*******
*******************i**4014444410014******************4444414*
*** 4****44004446*******
**141"4""44****0***A4*****_____________ *t**"*******44tritio-440+****. ._., _.
*40********************40**::::::::::::::::::::::::""I'
**000011441***V*******41**00(0*********
WIAV40/z4u4*/42toi414/41040*/***kwis*** 010,4****/044/m4***4*Otc=v1010144*** --- Cw*Olytt0**101401****A00#1***0040* *0;14.%ttOr.17oi414141/f5.0674M**04#04414
414.*Att(04k,ti*****T**milo,4000441******miwv
10,04 iW44,#*114***411 rx410*/#**W4**4*t.0* 4h*********11,41*0***11***4#**4414#4****W*4
t*0000(01,141**4*4*******44001,
*****4**04100$414.**************0$ '*******0*****w4o#***4******$******44***414
S]SdVN i e4 . ZOE
N3131 i)nrCAti ;,,z tiO'
si)v Z44 WI 331A3s 03 c5J3) ,-st:
):)S,J,J bit.
0.. N.
S3)410
S:4111) !)IJ
'e.b.',E VOU, (yb'is..
Y.,... VO'l :0,.
' 1- - . - .1 6:41:i,
4W-c LC", j:';',)
,v4,. N,15:,;""
71.9 $00'7 JOt VI'l 1C'QJ /00 1.Y:
--Pr G7'; ---rCbst I- 10'1 r74 AiMntiO
31Vvi,J4 Obri ;L',
J714 O.; 4.4% Ws'i ik3W1S
/04
1
*4414* **0410*4*,#**4***i****************# SINNniS 114
willosoltosolosooloolplotoeiwolourslowlem
001 06 09 CL 09 Ov Ov Of 03 01 0
1.A1VA-d
003'; 0N4d.brid.JJ
LV
;;(110t. 31doi+ Ju ofiCc0 6)
SHiiVot) unv a.dVrid 43J.J.J.J/N1 Ll IN;;L;11 -31 -;.A1-/-?;Cu'-'
9461 ,u40'.:1 14.; - 11)1.;;) Won 9i1160d3u SI,SA1V4 ')NI IpiN31,SAS NO1/711vAi 1V,Oi.gN,
4***W0*************00* 0040***1000*********0***** 00040*****4041******4*****
00*****0*********M00414 *004140***41**40414**********
v4 $0440f1v***44**40110404
/40(V44******004***444***** **11*00100144010#00***** 4044,1441*04400440110*******
**************4410***41
v$040441****************** 400$440*/****044144040 *****
******11$10****4********011i sofflusolompimil'41114011'.4141,./1$$1515.1
0 1 C6 09 CL 09 06 Ov GE' CZ CI 0 .311VA-d
1,11,1a i%J)
S'jV/r1
NdVJI .1)f0J,1
SzJ4
03 cl,d)
SyJVId c311VAS
S 4411) OILJA
'411D SI6
;1m
i2G(115 Ily
tirJJ'J (2N11dU(73:1
e4
Zcf EyJ
biZ
v44
Ft.;
Ly;
tit7
LoZ
i:411C COL., t0i, Osi., O'i i.V1
V-Iljsi S,'' l',.
7i`1 ti`l- 4.I'' 6';':::,
cicisi 4W9 4i'1 uC'i/ iLl'i Wi WI t. i,
.01S :::i-i.L 1,, rLlr,,,z_
ib% OZ'l 1100 t.c.0 'loft ,y7.
Ob°0 'v'C :109:7
AliNflmA0) JJ
S,"C
Ltie
.N.j001S
79'0 1v6
4)' 1);:lJd 3n17n-d ,30 oft,6 ,J3
JJJ JA iva u1 Ali 110 II 34.n( 0 pitywirnprerry
9161 AtVn6b33 3C1A3IVIS 11)ii):INNO WIL4.91,411606P J.A31v0 4I1711VA 1VNuI17N1
NATIUNAL :VALUATION SYjT5MS+ INC, -.. CO: T:NT ANALY51S jY RLPURTING GkUUPSCCOECTIC41 STATiwIOE AS5OSMENT - STH Ok4F . NOENdER 1976
I TOTAL Tat SCOR1vimodwommairmws
RVAL4 -.SE OF GROUP S! OF ,SAY.PLI:0 10 20 :10 40 SP: 60 l0 60 90 1001,,,,11,,,I,,,,i1.41,,I.,.,4+,81111+4,1,,,,,I,,,,,,I.,..
. A-VALUE ...P11AL,UF-IFFECT-EinCL_SILc, - ---RCPORTING GROUP
I74,74 0,49 2745 ALL STUDENTS 0404****/******114014100i,0041POW
.--iEX OF THE STuDE;11.... ... ...... .____!,..rft....._ __________I i ... _76,72 ,:,7 104* -0127 12!35 MALE ***4+0,4**041*****0 ***********444.072.14 C67 m1,654 0,23 104 F V ALL: *y/04*****Mico0400t0llowl4+0114 lg0µ0o
,
,
*****410410144***401,44144*****,(44104*NJ01********i4**********41****40,4,4;4101
40141141044414414004;4$1414444#4114
...!.---nCIO.ECNICAIC_STATUt............. _ , .......-,,,,
66,75 0.79 -6,C4* 0,47 994 LUW;
76:16 C,60 1,49$ 00.5 937 MLDIU479164 0.:48 d 0E14 0144 609 HIGH
-... . ..._.. , ..,..... .. ,..,.., ,., .. .-............., , -. -- ...- - .4.-wa...-ir ......YOU AND PRENTS TALK 420JT SL:hiJOL ...... ,
70,01 1,.!, .407* 1.. 17472!1 1.C6 -2,670 0,64 26
.....r,i,i _ C.6.t 0.',,C .0,40_ .76a_%,::4 miii 0.76* C,ZI 1520
HARDLY OVER ***44o,(4034;404,010144,tio,'40440N,JiT1LY **44014444444***4w44444444444',0404WE:KLt_ **444*****44,44144144444444444444444444* ,_ __DAILY
44444**44:44444***4444***4444**4#4.4;i#44 k
-......^2:C)URAGNT FROq PARENTS - cfoCHUGL 014K----.....72, -43.. ,.,.. 1, 8..._....-115 _____1145_._ a HARDLY, ANY...........--..- .-....*****c****041,W4,1.00444 1100444.40*$:. _ ___72,(1 9.')I: -2.70 0,69 .426 UNLY A LITTLE 10$41414**#*0140#00*fO4 µ44i4446i**175,C f",63 9.25 C.2:3. 1249 QUITE A BIT. 4*****4*,01**104,604*****44 4444004;0'0475.e.4 Col .1.CtJ'* 0,.:á 986 A LOT . **************041,4*4444640404444;$
YOU Lt K,: YOUR SCh.;1.7 ....I
_
?1,i3 1,36. -3,14'4 1,17 130 I HA% IT 4y44I4*41,044w)**********,-.****0011A)72.4, 1.32 -2.t34 1,C; 223 I DON'T LIKE IT 4044***44.444t*04****t0*****44144440i_?3.:-.2 C.,,;1 -1,2,60_,Q141312_,.. _IT'S 3K 44#4**04,440;14#04440(44144141.04,4477,1» C,64 2,7o1 0.43 775 I 1.1K IT44*44440w4444****4444$4444,444polt4foo476.4 4 , 1,14 1,45 0E2 303 I LIK.: IT A LOT,
4
.......C,3i_NOY4!.1Aii5 PER 00....WATCING_TV7 ....-...78,72 1.49 3,94* 146.1 WI 1Z.:)5 THAN 1 47619 ,oti 3,41* 0,E-, 442 SC.6E:EN 1+2 HRS76,57 (2,31 1,19* 0,33 642 ULTviEEiJ 2+3 MRS
_74,i,.9 ........ t,73 ___-0,10 _____Co1.6_7:]6_ _iiZTE6N 3+4.HRS .... _.7f,`,.!1 0,73 ..41424 0,3 769 MGRE THAN 4 hRS'
46--.1)41 MUCK ,r.) YOU 1.1)NE MATH? . ......... 7C175 .,_ 7,99 ___-4.03g____,W5._ 33.)_ NOT AT ALL__ .._-_. 3444444441****40,0444444****444 $$
74,32 C,54 -0.464 0.23 1591 SOm.:WhAT E4*****4444**4400444*****444444444**4477 3: C,75 266* 0$40 626
1$
1*4441****444*OW004144**4444#14411410414
440440****1004444*,*410044iO4A44404,4*****:104#401##0444**44141***001440µ4,41
101044***44***4**411**414#0140044444f4
***44M10000****10444 *04}0444444041
VZRY :WO*444***0****244414444**444**********444*
1
.
1
......4ATH UFEYQL COMPARU) TO °ThEA 5U6JUCTS ----......_ ......
.
,4,
7:42C 1.41 -4.79* 1,12 , Ti MI VERY USEFUL $00.**4****4:04**A4w41 ,(44444444**43.27 C.60 -1,51* 0,20 1194 SCi1 41-1AT l6iFUL
#410440444***4144*4444**4444240.**76.38 C.57 1,60* 0.23 1454 vESY USEFUL. ******A444404,0444414444444444444444,444
3)J
,
NAT,1CNAL EVALU.TIJN SYMMS. INC. -- CO1TCNT ANALYSIS 0 ROORTING GROUPS1 (CW.CTICUT STATe.wIJE A$46mENT dTH 6140E NOV61,13ER 1976
TrrA;._TT SCCRL:imaimehdo.......immine.4.
CC rF GROUP Sc. LF SApPLi.
REPORTING
e.49 2.745
,,--::21SUOANTS
r4J6 -C.22 C,7, e60 YEStl.b5 0.32 0.:4 180 NJ
ASsIGN:0 oY..A(016vEY'.:NT.7.'12 C.:6 0.24 1u42;4.1;; -0.1 0.;;; 676CV' C.0 -74;7841 0.44 0 tiD7K,
----**P1CAL W,TH CLAHUOI74.7, (.6 -C.06 0,23 20197!,,17 1.:19 1,2t 622
ALL STUD.:ATS
N" own.*
----11.,AR1CULUs1 OR PRIAAM DEVELC1-14,...:NT
C.C6 0,32 2CI574.,14 1,C0 -C.14 C,r7 740
----c4A5S 61LF TOJ L47-6t:7.:"11 (...1) . -C.C!3 0.7e., 794
,
3F 1.1,0NITy)2.A3 1.22 -12.35* 1.05 66977., 0,7.1 6,c7
6d3_,
1749
II. IN 1.
C.77 3.57* 0,01 t;1
&TAT,
1.21t.('M 4,V4 ;50
7704 c.92 2.il1'))4 C.(0 2.1t, 0,Qy so
1.24_ ;,;01,71.5'7 3.26 -3.11 3,1`.'
P-VALJE0 10 20 30 40 60 DO 70 80 9Q 100
I
********44***,********014**4**4014011,
I
**************************************4***4**********************************
-- 1
***4****0110**0*******001141'0444404414*****4$4144,10,444*****144144**444***01)1%
YES
NU
ra11
....
-7!-,,,7.4 0(6 066+ 0.4.2 140
TILAVO GENTZREO
ANDlYIDUk.1a0
Yc5
Jrc, CITIESC11TES
**1144,0000*************************************00********,1*44**0******
*1*******************,**********:0********************************1***44*****
4p*OW004$101011044001 *****00,44/4***
******444040$0***/1114**440011111141444
******************4$40********4111*1 *01*****0**1***0114*441444**444*44***
*************4*********0*******4***A*
CkCC
ACES
SmLLER PLACES ***0**********,*.4**********4 u*4«.t*******
******41004,404sook**4*4*14***44,*.of44044C3U1.1 ao szolcs 444$01.0.000440494#4.0.404,040,*0.0,,4004
40****11440,404,6***44'400P14*04)911444,4***
0444**40********01144*Mic*#*4440444 44PLJECT_LEARN 4.**********v*,**4,40(oo4#44**14444****_.............___NASE.S 4414444,444140410040441414#404011
f.Jy
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS OY REPORTING GROUPS
CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT 8TH GRADE NOVEMBER 1976
--- -GOAL- L. NATHENATICAL CONCEPTS4111011141114.11iliiiinpley
SE OF
P*VALUE P -VALUE
61,24 MO
- -- -SEX OF THE STUDENT
58.40 0.70
.***S!tE OF THC COMMUNITY
GROUP
EFFECT
SE OF
EFF,:CT
SAAPLE
SIZE
2745
=VIM=
1490*2.84* 0,24
669_____
6305 1.13 1,75* 0.96 697
60.26 1.22 *0,98 1.03 668
65.25 0.93 4,01* 0474 691
CF THE STATE
61,99 146u 0.76 1.6d ,323
65.07 1,52 3,83* 1.40 306
9.45 0.3' 1.21 O.6B 527
6!,79 1,60 0,55 1.63 301
59.95 3.36 *1.25 3.25 67
P4VALUE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100
REPORTING GROUP
ALL STUDENTS --101414*******0:11***********W1044,
MALE 00******************************FEMALE 0404************144******01**
.PIG CITIES
FRINGE CITIES
MEDIUM CITIES
SMALLER PLACES
RESCUE
COUP ED SERVICE
004014400440***444440000444401440404444440010144004
*0044M04144044444401$404$4411,$1
11104***40000***10444#44140144**04
1014*******00****4***;#04014*$
04111***41444*******104***$6404$4;
AL'S *****4440(444040*****11,04*v,$44
PROJECT LEARN 044441144o1o444404****v410444**
NARSES 0**************0*****4m,4,44$1
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS 8Y REPORTING GROUPS
CONNECTIC1T STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT.d161 ~118TH GRAD: * NOVEMBER 1976
1111M1
GOAL .. a_. C.OvUTATION
1 SE OF GROUP
P -VALUE P -VALUE EFFECT
5E CF SAMPLE
LFFECT SIZE REPORTING GROUP
2745 ALL STUDENTS
.**SEX OF THE STUDENT 111
0.60_*0,14._____0.30 1255 MALE
30.20 C.60 0.13 C.25 1490 FEMALE
****SIZE OF THE COMMUITY MaraMi
0452 1.21 669 CITIES___T10.1)*
82.64 0460 24574 0.73 697
_
FRINGE CITIES
79445 1.02 '0,62 0,7 688 MEDIUM CITIES
83,26 0,81 3.19* 0.63 691 SMALLER PLACES
-- RLG1ON OF T1 STATE
A2,21 1.52 2,14 1,37 323 RESCUE
64.)3 0,90 4,86* C.c6 306 CUSP ED,SERVICE
61497 0476 1.890 0.73 527 ACES
81.15 1,49 1.07 1.26 301 PROJECT LEARN
79.54 3,29 q443 3.17 67 NARSES
3 rr
P-VALUE
0 10 20 30 40 50 40 70 dO 90 100
1,146.1,16osi.1411.#4,11ea4ow4sol,111.04111,4
410*****ww********Ww**Ww**441110410000.
_,*********0104444*****1140101#$10,410'1400f
***4414**14140404101140104404140441044 '440
I
;,
44**0014410*#40tifolWt14041WF 1.
$41444;44440444.04104$ 44#40.40ft$44#4144#$
1411400***440444$444014444044o44004$011
040140141114*44****04344444444*404114041144
44444010,040**40.11414.04f444.3.$14444114414444.0144,414111404t10**144414Mil(44
**41W***11440i#000f4**ft
*1**00104414104444#101$01414vove4o444 ,4$4
4444,44444w614444440#4.414140.1144$34044.4$
$011111441144410404$04104.1MT04441414e$1,0
tie\,
NATIONAL EVALUATIJN SYSTEMS* INC* CONTENT ANALYSIS 4Y REPORTING GROUPSCCY\...CTICuT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT,- GRADE NOVEMBER 1976
GOAL NTsue.4-44.64Krilaromis
SE CF GROUP aC Cr '401,2LE
EFFECT tliCT REPORTING GROUP
72.Z2 C*63 2745 ALL STUDENTS
----SEx OF THE STUDENT 1601.11
77o23 C.Tn._MAL°
. _ _
E,7.'' 1 C.76 -4.270
CF CGUJNITY
0.21 1490
wraw
FaY.ALE
D1',j CITIESh.33 1.15 4.114 1.,% 6q7 FkINGE CITIES71.19 1106 -1.03 Mc 663 MEDIU1,CITIE577.2 1.:7 4,a4
:.'t 1C CThE STATE
0.1 691
alwww1
SMALLER PLACES
1.0 2.0 1,42 323 RESCUEr.3b 6.-P4 1.29 300 COOP ED SERVICE
4,174L__1.06 CWC527 ACES
1.11 3.Ccw 1.03'7:!,67 1..34 0.45 1.71 301 PR3JECT LEARN6s*%, 4.13 -6,16 4.C2 67 NARSES
P-ULUE
- ,..P-VALUc:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
41441110400041*********101****p*.***
I
004400:4414******00414140414tc**Mt_-4004404,0**440040000404410040
f444.4000401440*440ff44t+
4$4(0044440****13,4,44404100$44*010410041 001(044,410,400.144*44$044404
1011.4**4410400410004444404***004041;
004044*********404000104004141140W40.044401.1*400 40,404 447444
00i4444444,4014Wi404;1-)04.ei;.0,441tOs
4*444*100444i444440W40*1.10$441*00.44444 ****040004*4#040***040'.
04.44011***4444001140414****4#010$44' I
NATIONAL EVALUATION'SYSTEMS, INC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNrCTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - GRADE - NUEMOER 1975
AV (,',DHS
SE Cr CF
P-4aLUE EFT' CT EI4ECT .71,E
fl.13 0.42
77.1NOFc).) C.54 -0.21
CF CUOIATY1t:7
0.80 -0.13
0.7S 2.724
----FC:CNCf 7K STATETh7
1.3
. 0.1:1
L.23 0,13L.32 3120 -3,31
331
274;
REP;PTING GROUP
ALL STUDE=NTS'
M11111=1
...11
P-VALUE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 100,
1,1111111111.114.40141114144#1114011111$11i,411111111,1110
04,1404000***400 0****101**4$00040404004111.01U.
I
__,,4444444404440***S0444****44*4***Wwwk.mtwwr,,c) 14A IMALL1.1140410F4.4)***114004**14404.44.4440,4.404044
CITIES.4****04044p144140******;041$4044100M#____0.51 69, FRINGE CITIES*4*040404400.4******4444*4 #404444$ 4,4044*0.E6 63' Mt:DIV CITIES04414044440#44;440034.4#04004.404$4114oil SOLLER PLACESli**$***04#000100*014#440$04*****44*4C4**1
0.0 323 RESCUE014040**tit*SV3040$Wi,040*14444440,11H1;*Co',6 306 CLO ED KRVICE W04140* 00(44.40310410);NN:Wk44A!0,,io0i410,ct*o41114004,4iilltJ.0P744,4014,i'MC't'40,,,S.r.,0443,72 AL'S1141L-4044400144**440+42040140,1,4011:4to$41;:4441Iti4 301 PRJJECT LEARN *IV 440144414114 400404044 41,4444+4+4044011*3.Cd (7 NARSES10$44010M1$044**4140414100444441440;M*4WIF
^ -^
P -VALUE
0
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT NTH GRADE NOVEMBER 1976
wommomisamos
_GOAL-LazAlual
SE CF GROUP SE CF SAMPLEP -VALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE
66.93 0.60
VEX CF THE STUDENT
.. 3.42* ,...._013t_1258 MALE54.02 C.72 -2.91* 0.31 1490 FEMALE
P -VALUE
0 10 20 30 40 50 6D 70 '110, 90 109
illoollooli.114.11.4111.1111111.4.1111millostsol1161.REPORTING GROUP
2745 ALL STUDENTS#4441**),(114404001******144*****4414
1#044#000404104001404044041011***4444444414***1040*Aorv44,4441
-,Sasso
'CF THE STATE
Usl'S 1.55 1.22 1.42 32372,'6 1.74 5413* 1.57 306
5526L.(,2 C. 1.68* 0.60 521
67.91 ,141,!,4 C.97 1.43 30161.79 3.28 5.14 3.17 67
1.111-0
MOO.,
..--5:ZE OF THE COMMUNITY
....53459___!_,..1.44_2113000,-11,6_4__669.------__BIG CITIES70.51 1f10 3.63* 0.94 697 FRINGE CITIES66.87 1.11 -0.06 0.57 688 MEDIUM CITIES70,49 C.99 3.16* 0,70 691
SMALLER PLACES
0000001414**W0401 HI,voll*Wig*****00(0044404 040440
*******0$04***4**$0441144,pf4**1
$04*******444$**044**$040440:42000
RESCUE44100444****4,4**84#404;***040
COJP ED SERVICE0,4*****4*********erni#14444.14$14**
i.REC *1****440q***4***rnownefocfitlwACES
444(****40******44,1040100,4***I$4444PRJJECT LEARN
lit**4****01,.***************4444*****NARSES
O*4414******10044141***0$44004
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT .-10.119RLE; NOVEM3ER 1976
_ _GOAL,_6_,42/J7F,Y
SE CF GROUP ,SE CF SAMPLEP -VALUE P-VALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE
78.86 0.72 2745
OF THE STUDENT
0.M4.___ 2,491. _009_125576.74 '0.64 .-2.1341 0.34 1490
4
-.7. S
81055r:.21
02.57
e3,92
82.94
7.61
6764
3
E COMMUNITY
1.08 2.891
1.24 1.34
1.40 3.70*
CF TH1: STATE
169 4.19*
1.78 4.965
1.03 4,07*7 1,49 ..1,.25
2.76 - 11.33*
0.9d
1.11
0.;2
_669
697
668
691
1.47 323
1.65 306
1.01 527
1,45 301
2,71 67
REPORTING CROUP
ALL STUDENTS
MALE
FEMALE
P -VALUE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
***********#*********4****0044**19 oiwo
************44*****Siwiloiwiti***44*MiOwtI
*41444000044,0444#011444/40$144044
--r-IG CITIES
bINOE CITIES
MEDIUM CITIES
SMALLER PLACES
RESCUE
CUPID SERVICECFCACSPRJJECT LEARN
NARSES
04(04,4404111000444444001$0
W1441#040411044401404040000141v4$****41*440044****404,0#4$**4,401*4414*
44444$044****01,4$44444444***044414.04440
***0$4440114044**$$$*0401440144*44444f41114*****041 410114440404**4444004,444444
04400*4440$00$0140MM44,4144444444____-__00***0044*;00014,034040.44444ty4414/M
104,4,0014414*4$4444441ififtWo4,0,404$4.
00004,044.40****too4414444140m4
NATIONAL
ill
EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. -- CENITNT ANALYSIS ey REPORTING GROUPS CCNNECTICL7 STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - 7TH CPAPR ..
scVFmeFR 1976 --....----- COECTIVF
1 STURCNT rEMCNSTPATES UNDOSTAMOING Er c.ATIONAI NumnrP5
P -VALUE .
SF CF GROW' SE DA SA1.4PLC 10 ' 2.0 0 1 .1 30 40 50 ' 60 73 80 100
P-VALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE 1.."....."1....1....1....1....l ...1....1....1....
PFPORTING CPCuP, 0.77 '
THE STUDENT
2145 -
4. 0.97 1.66* 0.45 1255 ' 3'.SC H1.41* 0.37-- 14C0
IF TI-E CCKMUNITY 1.57 - 13.64* ...SO 669 1.29' 2.F1,,, 1.14 - fc7 -------------- 1.57 ' -0.96 1.33 FOS .1.27
. 4.52 .00 691
CIF THE STATE 2.25 0.36 2.05 723 1.00 7.27 1.77 306 1.40 5.0.6'. 1,25 552
.
1.22 1.65 1.18 527 2.46 1.2-0 2.22 201 54C:5 1.95 5.69 67
ALL STUDENTS
MALE FEMALE
910 CITIES FRINr,E CITIES mEt)I: CITIES 5'4L. t.. PLACES
RESCUE CCOP ED SERVICE CPEC).,
ACES PROJECT LEARN NARSES
y***********9******************. 1
1
**.--"H**.s.*********4 1.4....../.6. 4,4*********4*4**44,*****0*4**4**
*411,4"******%************* ig**44***************444********** '*********44********thilt******4.
*4P'"*""t*************4****444.4,
**********"******************** *11$4.***"*******400i.4tsilk4***4*
*****!4******4ft**8******44****+##
*4 }1*********741,A*****448*****,,* p1 ************4**4*********A*4.4
.***********4*4ki***************4*
REPORTING CCNNECTICLT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - 9Tt. GP N'VEMPER 1976
GROUPS NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY
CEJECTIVE 2 STUDENT DFmCNSTRATES UNDEF:STAN1ING Er rr..,-7pTIN6 rF/m1,0Pr"
- 1111. SE CF GROUP :-VALUE EFFECT
3.57
' THE STUDENT 0.77 5.07' 3.72
F TFF C041.!!NTTY 1.5'5 -10.7'
1. 2.61 1.14 ..C.,14 C.C7 1.45.
EF THE STATE 1.5R 1.15 1.45 6.79* 1.36 4.54* 1.C3 - 0.75 1.54 -3.12 1.93 .-4.54*
33i
SE EFFECT
SAMPLE SIZE
2745
0.47 1255 0.41 1490
0.08 669 0.q5 t97 0.6 3171 691
1.52 322 1.32 736, 1.06 652 0.92 527 1.43 301 1.91 67
REPORTING GPCUP
ALL STUDENTS
MALE. - FEMALE
PIG CITIES FRINGE CITIES M7DIUM CITIES imALLER PLACES
RESCUE CC2.P ED SERVICE CREC
---- ------ ACES PROJECT LEARN NARSES
P.VALUS 0 20
30 40 50 0 60 70 80 90 I 00
...*#***************4.********1..
1 1
**********4*'************A00.
,4 ,0*4*****,,k,*********** 44*********************6**,"1,,**
0,01,****.****44*.4 ..*****,0,*,,*.
1
*4,0*:*:**::********************** *Algo'''
***4 ****"***4A..***1.......***14..* 4,00"4"4***.....4***...444*** 4************44***********44.** *****"*"*"*****************
336
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. CPNTFNT ANALYSTS 1Y REPORTING GROUPSGONNECT10.1 STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT . PTH GP, NOVEMOER 1976maaittomoso
OEJECTIVE 1 STUDENT tEMCNSTRATES 481L1TY TO ADP ANP SUBTRACT, WHELK NonFas
SE CF 'SOU°P.YAUE P.VALUE EFFECT
CF SAMPLE
EFFECT SIZE REPORTING GROUP
1204 0,27 2745 ALL STUDENTS
...-5Ex OF THE STUDENT92465 0440 .04 9 0426 1255 MALE1:V1i 0118 045 0,22 1490 FEMALE
- -- -SIZE? OF THE COMMUNITY
35425
--;247304E9
0448
-34594' 0461
0094-0440--669
697-. - --
5IG CITIES
FRINGE CITIES+2.31 0456 0453 0.45 655 MEDIUM CITIES94411 0447' 1.274 0.33 ' 691
SMALLER PLACES
-.--REGION !_?F THE STATE
54,60 0.75 1.764 0.68 323 RESCUEq24C9 08E9 0425 0463 306 COOP ED SERVICE92419 00 El 0.15 0449 552 CPEC94400 04 60 1.174 0.44 E27 ACES12.75 0,19 0,01 0. 72 301 PROJECT LEARN93466 1,69 0.82 1.54 67 NARSES
P.VALUE0 10 20 30 40 60 60 73 80 93 100sosellotelsti4144141444414444144,41444414.41i4441
44444*****44444444 44***0044144014444****4044#
00*********4****110110$$#0**4 ****04400000414140440#4011******4****0444****114440144***0444
1
414444******00444 44****01,001044;44,4444*$*0
04144**********4400;k10444044**4m4*W444444#
40t044**0*****i1.0****004**4*000404444,0414******4****44440144*****4100440004**#*,004**444
1
404400014441414******Mii***4044,400A0w#010'44**4104.4)1144******40(4110401,400$4W4410410**4044404804******1411444100a***0400;4**$4144404.44$0.40.41444#44),40044i*10444)044.414040FP04
444444****************444400440)040$4444***444404144***********001140401*****44****414,044
NATIONAL EVALLATION SYSTEMS, INC, CONTRT ANALYSIS 9Y REP ING GROUPSCONNECTICLI'STATEIIIDE ASSESSMENT . PTH GRIPE NOVEMBER 19/6
OEJECTIVE 4 STUDENT DEMCNSTRATES ABILITY TO PutTirty tHOtF4440401.1~1.04....4SE CF GROUP SE OF . SAMPLE
P.VALUE P -VALUE EFFECT EFFECT' S17E 'REPORTING GPCUP
89193 0.38 2745 ALL STUDENT E
0.00---S7A OF THE STUDENT8?,74 0467 -141941 0435 1255 Mr.90,95 0460 14020-- 0.28 49C- FEMALE
...SIZE OF ThE COMMUNITY --OS83,49 1.11 -604* 0,99 669 SIG CITIES51419 0471 1.264 0.59 697 FRINGE CITIES9949.5 0.72 0401 it0462 688 MEDIUM CITI FSq148,1 0,67 ,1490* 410 48 691 SMALLER PLACES
Oh CF THE S7AE
CC427 1402 0;41 0,92 323 RESCUE9141 04E9 1,384 0,67 306 CCOP ED SERVICE90433 04;4 0440 0476 552 CgFC91494 0.71 2014 0463 527 ACES39491 0,39 ..04 02 04 91 301 PROJECT LEARN9140 2.30 1411 2.22 67 NARSES
PVALUE
r1)1111111111111111161310111141101111:101.11610111071C111of8o(ila ott)jitm00
40,4*********4*****144444i********404#4444,40,4
10401*****************4(*t****0*****Wittlir:
410444001044*****,444,01444W#0*(*(410411414
******410140140*********004 ******0**********
440kittp***$**W4**408***41044114**044*sit**$k*4
0/041******44*****1i41v*44*****40;044041,04*****#1*******;44***********440to4;***1$4040
*************WWW1M4SMAliii$44#444****4*4***44114****0010$4 lit*Olk*10*04014441k4iik**014**41144 1000(****Alt4M***8**M44#4414401
*114404444******440441414441044#0401(**;14,#*44***101.04****014*****104W1410*0**00044*4114444,011044i***0***440114404$4011410/4101040044004144
NAT M. NALOT!ONSYSTFHS, INC. Cr1,11-NT ANKY51S HY IrPOPT11G GROUPSCOW:CTICLT STAT0I0E ASSn'VENT pCVN9ER 1976804....",,,,m0
curctIvF, S yoFNT V-VNsTPAT7SAnItITY 71 r)!V!^F 0,01.F HIPFRS
St', CF GROUPP-VALUE' P-VALUE EFFECT
'402 Of:1
--57X OF 7)-'F. STUDENT
719,
Ilunenswommiimerwri
or saoLF,
414.ECT SIZE
2745
RPORT!NG (Rcup
ALL cTUCFNTS
0,f(, 01410.0 0,42
Cr TI.E CemooNI"y
0136
0.29
1258
140MALT
FFMALE
1111,25 -E).6.!* '816 t,6g PIG CIT1F51.C5 1.3B 2,t75
CMFF.0.Y 0.72 0,0T"Cv CIT:F500°0 1,761 0665 691
PLACE'S
r1P. STATE
14,37 3:1 RESCUE0,r;0
706 COP 50 5F7V10E2.;" 10:2 0,;5 F52 CFTC1.;5 1,53 0.90 !;27 ACES
\1,:'5 -0,62 1,A1 301 Pc:1,15.C1 LEARN3,Y ,5,71 3,83 67 NARSE3
P -VAIAF
10 20 30 40 EC 62 70 80 100
**************************oo**0#0o********
***********444**WW*A-i44********a4000411400010010*****4004$t tt144********1**10*
*****40*** 0***********r**4****004** 1
*4**********11$4****4444444**t0044.4**4**
*******4*******0*******4100*7444044***01$*0*****01*****0*****4***0[4041.04**4*4**44
*00444**********0004********1044*1141*****1011**0;***14****01****0410.04K00400***001A
******00t********11**1044*AuA;444-441t4;404
*4404004,44*****140***74*4A0104:411010;4
00***44***0*********000044***4404t1**1044***1$4844140***********041****0404** 1
NATIONAL '.:VALUATICOSYSTEXS, INC. CONTENT ANALYSTS BY REPIPT1NG GROUPSCM7.0TICUI STATEWIDE AS555SkiENT Gr1PP 'ACvEN 1976
umagpmamumAtoso .
OEJFCTIVE 6
S CF S11010
P-VALUE P-VALUE EFECT
STT5NT 0Eur,N5TRATc OILITY TO Ion 5uPTPArT nPrIM1111.1104.1rmiit Aommouwerftrismurisareftwoikow4r+dwahabermlisirimisaamliira
5E SAMPLE
ErrFc.
CF T'E STUOC',;7
0.77
C,74 -G.'2
CF THE ComgolTy
0,43
0,36
UP.%
1255
1.
1,51 ^12,0?* 1.24 66.9
1,O2 2.70,*
100 0.54 04()4 6,51
1,C1 203* 0.75 691
..!,4,01 1,45
1.22 610:;* 1116 2061107
1.23
2.961
1011
0094
1,04
55?
'27-------0.01 1,52 301
2.18 -3,77 2,16 67
33J
P-VALUE0 10 20 50 60 70 BO 95 100REPORTING CROUPIsimillsosiefook.o.140 1141116111.'61mkossissabio#11o1
ALL STUD5N1**0040110004401***4A44100*********41044
MALF********01,014*********Wits***44t*I*04*FFMM***0111440401000($51140400*****wit*o*414
FIG CtTIFS60111t#1404*****M*0**4Wok44*0*
FRINGE CITIES
YPIIUM CITIF5
FNLL.P.4 PLACF5
0****14,1***40*044#04444440***44440,11,004110;04**WAtikt;101.1.4Att***11******40*4******************00140***4444144*414104
Pr5CUC*4444444*0*****tvill4koltui0M4******1001$*10*
5FPVICE *040****14144 ****i*******t4t4**444044****CVC
**40404W104*****4j0004*t**.04404$1*1ACES
A(***1444****1******044**1000104444441$1*PROJECT LEAH`
*****40******$0**044110,001t0100;1*****4*NARCES 4410444 4****
34
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, Ins -- CONTENT ANALYSIS 4Y REPORTING GROUPS. CONNECTICL1 STATEWIDE AssESsmENT a PTW 6PADF NOVEMBER 1976
OEJECTIVr.. 7, F,T0FNT (IENrp4TRATFS ABILIY 11 NUITIPIY DECIMALS.luroo..s4.8.46misomeamonoiloisieftwommoomookauftsa~mulb.
SE CF GROUP
PPVALuE P-VALUE EFFECT
75 3,1 0.73
SE OF
;FFECT
OF THE STUDENT
74057 0.S? -0476 0,46
754CS. c.e7 0.65 --0e39.
CF P'S, COMMUNITY
61423 1469 713440* 1,49 669
7;439 1.1P 1,04 -7. 07
128:0 141S. q462* 1,18 6A879467 1428 44345 0,95 691
SAMPLE
SUE
2745
REPOFING GROUP
ALL STUDENTS
1255 MALE
1490 FEMALE
."'";EGION rF THE: STATE
9c.co1.42
4,0'1
S>St-0A10
7?423 1.43 1,0*.
75.e7 1,90 0.54
7e,73 4,16 3.40
1,87
1,39
1,7.4
1071,79
4,59
323
'306
552
52q
301
67
1,100.a.
\ NG CITIES
FRINGE CITIES
MEDIUM CITIESSMALLER PLACES
RESCUE
CCflP ED SEpVICE
WCACE'S
PROJECT LEARN
NOSES
P-vALUE
10 20 30 40 ,..10 60 70 80 90
41041.04414444144141$44414444144,441o44410404 Imo
1
**04******1440040**044444***********
100
0,10044***********001,414444441111411044411
********044*swit***********10*41,*444,*4
******10044(04*************04
011******00******A**k.4040440***044*00*$41010404***044*****41004104100
10040040****100#01144110***014***11
1*40001****0404*****4***4#114#*****14****1000440**************10414041140***014
41100401******0100iit*O4*404****04;40A
*****4114****401004141404404k104t*41114 ***
411004**ii14400$01044044#440144*040090*****0*********44004044400*
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS Ell' REPORTING GROUPS
CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSEFSMENT tsCVE49ER 1976
OEJECTIVE R aaTZ10T
SE CF GROUP SE OFP -VALUE P -VALUE EFFECT EFFECT
62.71 1118
OF THE STUDENT
SAMPLE
SIZE
.2745
MID11,1
REPORTING GROUP
ALL STUDENTS
62,F0 1445 0410 0473 1255 HALF.
52463 1427 0.61 1490 FEMALE
----S!;E OF THE. COMmUNITY 15410111
42,79 2,53 -194914 2122 669_ NG CITIES66472 1456 44024-1476 697 ' FRINGE CITIES62,02 2449 0.31 2.11 66e MEDIUM CITIES65.71 1456 5,61$ 1,52 691 SMALLER PLACES
STATc 166,01 3,67 3433 34 29 323 FEcrUr72,7' 1418 114100 2,92 306 (OCR ED SERVICE
eff.fi 2422 1o93 1.97 CrEC
1473 2,64 1468 527 AUS66427' 3.29 3.57 3,09 301 PRJECT LEARN62469 f 7456 ...0402 7,29 67 NAPSES
3
FRACTIONS, FT(.
P, -VALUE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100
44.41414414/441144,14stissisetk:ii10.0*
*******qp**0****4***404*4****
**44144,414**444100*o*444***40.40,1414********0******011440040144***
14*********040*************0**4 lve*******04*$*******001
Itilk*W91****0**t******0444****444
0014$414100404********0****01100
i)4144#044*****t**1410444.44101104040
4****41410444f1004446**4*404***6$0041100**41104044440010144444*1444001444f0
*******************401108**Woc$
WWW111*****41WM***4*$04(1*****$
***040/0041144014$0,10440401,4
P-'VALUE
11
NATIONAL FVALUATICNSYSTES,INC. -- CCN77NT MAYSIS 1Y REPORTING GROUPSCMNECTICLI STATE1110E ASSESSvENT - P*1. mot' . KCVNER 1976
oftwammommus
FPACT1CNS NNO MIKE' NUvIERSOEJECTINIE 9 STU1rNT
Mairroo..arendamuk
SE. CF GROUP' SF CF SAMPLEP.WAU7 EFF11CT EFFrcf sizc
oltrty to Y
'; 74,14 0103
REPORTING 69CUP
2745 7-7ALL'STUOENTS
OF 74. ',,i71.0ENT
7F,,1) ,1102 1,04' 0,51 125572.26 L58 Y' 0143 1490
----51ZE CF COMMJNITY1,(9 ..12,0741 1454
77,C-1 102A 2014 10237?.C3 1,71 ...2,11k 1,4576f0 1,9 4,564 1,11
OF THE STATE
2,72 ..3012
201°) '3,19*
1,0 1,4;3
1010 1,792,65 4,14
75,37, 4,25. 1.23
P.:vALUE
2641
2,02
1.46
1.30
2,311
4,12
"ALE
11.11111111
69 016 CITIF697 CITIES603 Mr010' CITIES691 .0.PL'A 'PLACES
273 , FESCUE.306 CCCP ED SERVICE5E2 CP7C
527 ----sb ACES201 PPOJECT LEARN67 NAPSF,S
NAT1O",AL EVALUATION SYSTEPS, INC, CCNTFq ANALYCCW:CTICOIST4TEWIOE ASSESSMENT - (,;'4t
sTIncNT pcurNJ97RATcktCPKING OVIWIJNF CF IAFCA
'
EFFEJ
CEJECT1Vc, 10
SE CFP-VALUE
POUPEFFECT
0
PV'ALLE,0 10 20 110 40 50 60 TO 80 0) 100
****41,41******04440**************0**.
***************************************
***********************4**************
*404********************A******
**********************0**************4**************0k*********************1,
i******11******4************************
*************14*************t401***4*
1**********0********)114*****0********0**
110.00A**************4****4*******c***
********************************4******
*********************************m***$
******************************40,040***
sts'ElY REPORTING GROUPSNCVEM!!, 1976
ANO PC.;!CTER
sAvPLE
SIZE
0.71' 2745,--
--SEX OFfl4, SfUD:NTC,90 11* 0.500,57 *28756 0.42
----51ZE QF ThE COMMUNITY,52 0!4 14J2 '13.53C 1025
1,13 1,12* 101351,93 1.26 -1,76 1.1170.E) 1.29 4,938 0.95
--;-:761ON Cc THE STATE.
1,r97 1031 1,78
7106.5 1.4 'TAY' +1.54
1,F9 1,421,24
_.
0.63 1.146,23 2.05 0,54 169059,70 3.27 .5.c6 3.19
310
PEPOPTING GPI
ALL, STUDENTS
vcs MALE1490 rENIAL!
669
07680
691
OIG CITIES
FRINGE CITIES
MEDIUM CITIES
SN'ALLEP PLACES
323 PCSUE205 COOP .E0 SERVICEc.52 CPEC527 ACES301 PfTJECT 'LEARN67 NARSES
.10,111111111
P-VALLE0 10 20 30 40 E0' 60 70 80 .40 103
111..p.$111168*.181011.0141*.e.144.0,1**18,*$1*
*********************************
1 .1*************************k*** **A * w....
***************************4 * *
*********i*****4****4****** _ .*************************4*************t*****04*********4************.1144t***NA***.****40********44**
**.j(********.**********4********,****1z***t*****44*t**:;4444v4..4440**************00(**4*****AWA*4y410******#.***,01t44**.**014***ft*.****************************$***********'4*!*******************4** I
1
314
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT ATh GRAPE . NOVEMBER 1976
'OEJECTIVE 11 STUDENT DEMCNSTRATFS ABILITY TO CONVERT U.S. UNITS CF FASUPF
$S CF POOP SE OF SAMPLE
MAUE P'VALUE EFFECT. EFFECT SIZE REPORTING.GROUP
77803 01E7 2745 ALL STUDENTS ************************iiti*************
P -VALUE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70. 80 94 100
lesitoleeldoseolossoleoeslossolle$0111,14,11.11,11et
OF T E-STUDENT---------,12,S2 0,71 . 5,49 '0016
72.35. Ot$1. -4468* 442
t°"- -SIZE OF TFE COMMUNITY
62119 10;2 ..14,35* 1458
75171 1427 ' 2,670 we7604 1.26 .0,10 1.09
51,66 106 4,51* 0.78
CF,THE STATE
76,47 1,86 -0,57 '1468
30.03 1,45 , 3,00* 1,41
'F1,69 4,660 It:2
12.045 1.16 3.524'_-1.077';,39 1.78 2,36 1.64
16,49 1,56 0.54 1,97
t
01100
1254 MALE
1490 FEMALE
669 FIG CITIES
697 FRINGE CITIES
688 MEDIUM CITIES
691 SMALLER PLACES
323 RESCUE?06 COOP ED SERVICE
552 GEC527 ACES301 PFOJECT LEARN
67 NARSES
1411,411s00**,*444111141****41040$1*****0010)1t0
*****414111$4044***14***4104010*****444$41/1
0001001010041***4$41****#001.10#*,
11141041110114$0**********011000014#101004*
100014************4*4100****041040444*******4410044441101***10000110#0*****10
1
**41,144********101.40********A*404004,*00.4.00**************411,4**,,t**40v4,,,$0,00111****110h4toto**,44001410,44s4.44.04,00,1.*0040,44,400,0,444*.00,0414***4,004***1044**6*******4.***04444o44444414.444014401144104144004111,1444111011$41,0104****0011
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, !NC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPS
CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT .41221L. NOVEMBER 1976
OEJECTIVE 12 STUDENT ODONSTRATES KNOKEDGE OF NETPIC UNITS CF MFASHPP
CF SCUP SE OF SANPLE
P7YALUE PVALUE. EFFECT 'EFFECT SIZE
'2-- 73491 ,01c4
...SEX OF THE STUDENT.
80118 1400 6,27* 0,46 1255 MALE
-7 6E455 -71811 -543--- 0.42 '1490 7--------FEMALE
kPORTING GROUP
2745-
ALL STUDENTS
OF Th,',MMUNITY.534P9 '14E9 -2001* 1.82 669
8:09 105 ,60ra1"---1,35'-- 697-
72.6,1 1470 ..1,19 1,50' 688
7e.84 1,84 403' 1.31 691
79120 ,
'i?,86
77,44
72417
6104
BIG CITIES
FRINGE CITIES
MEDIUM CI TI FS
SMALLER PLACES
OF THE STATE 4111=0
1,12 ... 51.10* 26024 ;23 PFShE,103 9054 1e7C #.1,306 COOP ED SERVICE
106 34541 1.56 ..",1052 ..C(EC
104 407* 1.'16 "'527 -.ACS2,73 164" 2451 301 PROJECT LEAN8655 -1106 8,57-- 67 NARSES
'
PYALUE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
**************************************
$10004400010*011004110i$01$41014**110104
0$0110140104,11410$00**1040010i004
401*******0******0****44441******444,4114#1*********4,4*404444$14$4.of410001****************0104***********000**1014,4***************40,4#*****0
0:44***004*********04$41004*********o4**
***Oh404*********o****i**4*444***044.****
*******4000114410#1440*00**044000(********141/401414101(***********4*****0*
**110******01414,r.4*04*.4*440101**;44$
1 6,0**4044.41044*4044*4440104
NATINAL EVALUATION SYSTFMS4 INC, CrAT7t,1 ANAL+YSISlY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICL1 ST4%14IDE ASSFS.WNT - PTh (prp - SCVEMeE4 1976
4~444 04.40.wor
DEJECT1VE 13 STO1FT OFuMTRAIFS ASILITY T1
P.VALUESE CF
P'VkLVE
114ftrorommiudpi
C,Q1UP SE C. SA9PLEEFFECT EFFECT SIZE
13 0442 2745
----EFX OF THE STUOEITN-..-
'v;,?1 3,54 0,24 001 I255ZE,c1 0,54 -0121 0,26 1490
CF T!-F. CON(MUNITY
7;47 1.27 -)454,S 66(1
Ct,1 697OotiO .3411 Contl 69N0475 2.721 0454 691
OF THE STATEq14q7 040 2,1141 0,84 323
9:,01 1.0'.! 2481s 0.95 7060466 145741 4,61 552
'0,2? 0.F? 2414' 0.72 527',9,26 1.23 0412 1.12 301F5,82 3,00 -3.31 3,08 67
P -VALUE
INTrW:FT CRAFTS AND CRAPHC
RFPORTING GRCUP
' -ALL sTupErs
aisOMI
MALF
FEMALE
MAINAMAII,
E1G CITIES
raINIGE CITIES
YCNUM CITIFF
0
itsw***************************4****4******01.
P-VALUE. IO 20 30 40 5C 60 70 SO 90
Mf
********************AAA44004,0*40A0,04010,
1
sw***********************4********ewwwwww4w_
**************************c******04****
***4*A********************floo4 #4444**********k4so*****44******4 *******40**4),4*o****i444tv
too
SMM PLACES******************0*****Ii**444**00****s4itio4
1
RYECUE**********************t*******04**00$441****V
CCOP ED .,FRVICE *000:01***********444 il4****0*Wh4****,*4404#CREC
01144*****0*****i*04#**01004111c4 ***4**444001;ACES *404444,0*********0***********044(1444044poJccT LFARN
6******1100***10,444***44$4040111**414********$NARSES
1111******4****1144*****************40140014 1
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC, -- 'CO7FNT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING CROUPSCONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - ATH r,ctr; - KVEYBER 1976
OEJFCTIVE 14 STUDENT OFm7NCTRATrS APIL1TY TO SrIvr 4CrO rPc9Lt,ms (vATH SKILLRI
53 CF C,OuP Or sAvPLEr.vALVE EFFECT EFFECT SUE
REPORTING GFCUP
r:2,63 0,77 2745 ALL STUDENTS
OF ThE STUDNT(:49 0.11 1180
O. ...2445*
0.47 1255
0,39 1490
CF T FE CONmnITyl.f4!",12 1472 ..15,(u11l 1,57
1;747;7. 1472 44'?"- 1.15'14'1 1,44 ..14q4 1,?6
1425 4.031 1,00
7F THE STATE'
2oC?
^'.452 14C7
t701 14C1
'4423 1,16
'244 ).4.06
:2441 2424
347
3,06
7,291
4,66*
1,70
0,82
1P51,76
10.;
loll
1,41
3,73
MALE
FEMALE
69 PIG CITIES697 F,INGE CITIES6Ri tAED1M CITI FF691 SMALLER PLACES
323
301
67
RESCUE
CO3° ED SFr, VICE
CF,FC
ACFS
n;OJECT LEARN!
NARSES
P -VALUE0 1.0 21 10 40 4 EC 60 73 80 95 111
**********www****0**4ows****4#
1
*************************04001ww*******14014,044ww4***040104**
*011400*****4'94 ******#*140.400101.4101***11****40444Ooltswt*4*****4******4011011(***14***4.0.041404011444041*******$1940*,#*$
I \b*******Y4*****104'4***044*4000*******04**04:40i4r****000#44444Joil4'****040A*04140**4#0004**4.,.*IttA*****4*******t****44111**40*
***010,44y**4**10****milltw****4#
01W11144101,0*4********000$*
I 31 6
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICLI STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT.. PTh GRAPE NOVEMBER 1976
CEJECTIVE 15 STUDENTS ENCNSTRATES ABILITY' TO SOLVE WOPO PROBLEMS
SE CF GROUP SE OF SAMPLER.VALUE P.VALUE EFFECT EFFECT SHE
7 71.24 01E5 2745
- -- -SEX OF THE STUDENT
75.19 0168 196* 0140 1255 MALE67.66 0.71 ' .3137* 0,34 1490 FEMALE
REPORTING GPCUP
ALL STUDENT S
CF 1.F.E COMMUNITY.
60156 100 10.284 lip 669
73.6! 1.06 697.-72,04 1.00 0181 0.87 6887'4.52 0ec4 2,28* 0.70 691
OF THE STATE76.E.1 1.37 -0,63 1126 32374,21 1.72 2.97 1,54 30675425 1,10 4,01* 004 552
72450 u.44 1,66 006 5277206 1.50 1.12 1,36 30170.15 3.09 .1.09 209 67
-WOO
(PEAL 0411
P-VALUE0', 10 20 20 40 50 60 70 80 OJ 100
40111,101111111411116.1,,,Imolobni1,1,,
*0***04#004****44****smisssisom
************410144$4100440*************_
I4410***00114**11110***1044+A****4i ."--7
I1,
a
PIG CITIES:. ,' *******4***************11,4**** A
FRINGE CITIES 1 ************rt4****0t4,....41******141* -.1\'.,MEDIUM CITIES'
;,'it144;***j.,,,4**a*****4***Wiov4r:.**i4
SMALLER PLACES,
( ,
*. Wo",00, ,Y
RESCUE ***ok..***********4 omiroi*,*,,,(0COOP ED JEPVICE **q***********e0,4****40.**t41,4**44"MC V , Werii144*******.iiitl,,4***,....t.4.**1+0[*ACES
....
110***4i4***Wwi********1140**,#4*14
,
PROJECT LEARN *******************0444400*****,**iNARSES
******001441144444***444414404*44444
NATIONAL EVALLATI ON SYSTEMS. INC. .. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECT= STATEWIDE W.CFSSMFNT - Ali! GWF NCVEM8ER 1476
mftworwermarro
CIEJECTIVE 6 STZENT DEMONSTRATES KNOMOGE CF FASIC Gr.CMETOIC CONCEPT
..."1"11..."".."6111"."11111.4161.5"1.1"1".......141.11.1111.116.1"IMM.... P.OLUFSE CF ORO D 5,7 OF
P.VALUE P.VALUE EFFECT EFFECT
7806 002
....SEX OF THE STUDENT
SAMPLE
SIZE REPORTING GROUP
ALL STUDENTS2745-
91,16 0.84 7.49* 0.39 1255 MALE7- 7,504E C,24 -.2,13*---- 0.34 1490 FEMALE
----SIZE CF TFE COMMON! TY
61,66 1.67 715,22* 1.44 .669 , 8IG CITIES'81,75 2$8;*----0.98 697-- FFINCF, CIT1FS
8:421 1.24, 1,34 1.11 688 MEDIUM CITIES.82657 \,) 1120 3170* 0.92 691 SMALLER PLACES
CF THE STATE WOO O.*
,91.05 1.59 4,194 1.47 323 FESCUE53.41 108 406* 1,65 306 COOP ED SERVICEe-'4062634
1.24:
1.03
4,17,1
44 07*
1,12
1.01
552
527
CFEC
ACES77461 1,4; -1.25 1.45 301 ' PROJECT LEARN67.54 2.76 .11633* 2,71 67 NARSES
31
0 10 20 , 30 40 .50 60 .70 80 90 100'
Irrorirrir lob .S1111,4111 jilt oar le ordered Wads, re
*0104011011****4400#4*$$$4************
*****4*****444*********#00.**********rni*******46******* 4 #4o**040110144****444**
1
_____ 41440044**************014***vi4 441$0404********004***4**41*************
*****0****M********1211$4****044***M4********10000400000**01404o.to,t4o011
I
,
, 1
***14***Ort40t401004$0*****$**44,411004*********,0*****A*r**4*****Ok**;$111grOrtr****
1114***4i(***4* 440410tk%114 014044 41444,0440
********44**),k040044*#40004.00;#****4400
*1144***W*04404.441****64 r4r***0400$4*
0401*******************040***14**
3jj
UG
p, : . ii*****140****4104,4410,44004*pOq'tillt., .
11**!4t4.***4,:yWiriStIt::10,4401,04*.#10W,'
.
1 t"vtlk!'00;01V44'**41,44*#'010g44;44#4
I 1 *******"00*10,11+wortsoot*$******. '0$0****11(1W0A*141[%1Y*****,*#
,
******0401'0014****11#441******x$*
______, 1
W44 A01#/4$1044****#W)**01***1h i:(0;*t*IM:0$#q4 *4*WvV*411p04itg
4101**,?*M40111/4444141414,*401060M04,
*00,7****WO*0(/444 #44.01144,444:14.00.141 0,g,01****($0*;*04#1114t**11000**11****4t010
I
1****0*00114*1#.#4****1#*;v*44**V****,**1****$ 011(***01***414*tli**v1 i0****044441*****
00**Ivlootyr,4****YWq4****01*** lowypoovsovilio***,****1#o*w**,
Iolool4144 vv4,1444,400t$tx4tli*** **stY040,4m4.44****44,4**114.44
t!:
*********01104#M *******#*4400* *4000* **Y0000*vo,****************04044* 01 Fla,
AppitikAli44 10444W*44****4**01**0** 'I*4111404#14****0*V*0.141ii#0#*,#****iiiii*
000 VO*44*4*************!i*V0***** Wi*** 10******14****4#0**0******** ow** 44*104$1*********4.***0****;
4*******1;44*****0104****14******0*
'r
040m4i~******44$*********,0104111*** **06*****411108*******111110110$4**1
104,044*MM,4**114**0101101**A1***4/1/4
04******40001*********14*****400***** 44*0**0*******141****014440**4$1*0******
I
'
*******1**********044414440011004144*
si4 /1144.1 'doll. sosi .$$101,4144
001: C6 08 CL 09 OS 01 OE' --OZ Or' 0 4(111A-d
iSE
1044S0 AUA -
410 I0s0 METE il'G lnosn ivHADJS y,:c1 Ivo *u't- A3A 40S 40Z' 90'1 *Z9'S- Etol
d41110 01 'Jera0) 11J-zS1
4)1Th AdBA
iVHA5ki0B
111 IV ,LON___
401 41-4)0 1
11 SW 1
xg.s.4t. J)111 l'INCO I
AI B111.1 I
101 1 lIdV34I!10
311411 V CND ANV AlOtiVH.
H91H
oto;!
Irrormirm,
91; v9'0 *R5 °9
91C1 9E'0 ;co .
!PC N1%11 ')+11 cv, H:u
A:: 40'1 to,;".)-
"L"1 WZ4 941:; iVC- 54"C vt9 bt.'0 ',10,01 14'G, it; 45'O c*C.; 6'4 ;4k,
LAI )1,&-IpiVX d:d strviA ANY
=4S'01 U0 1?c '
_
(3.0
.
Ci64' 4L1 11°0 11; Or.° '
Vic tIVI 241 V 40i." ISLIP '^'Plj
3X11 c-Inok(1L`,c 40,13/11)----:
09Z WO ,4E*1 cu kq.'0
';%'C _!..,ICE",- t)!?t
9SE E011 tl."4
111 ZI'l *9C'S- ;,. ;4 410GH)S d00Ap.11 noA
WO 06'G .400 S4'44
4401 '900 i;E'G' ,99'0 5C'44 Zbtl LOO VS'o- ,CPC G094
""'NliCA:tq)S " '4N3dVd
h4" SV'C *SSq C960
.
254_ 4S'1 04 WO 164'5- EPft 14.'14
6241
3116 1201 tt'0 yi. 4d.6i 1ti4C0/S B'ril 40 V::S--"
51N)onis 1Pc sPiL
3'41S' 03:4i3 3t11v,1 -d 31,915 4 BS 001,0 4 SS
ad;)S lial 111)4 1
cif13t0 DNIitiOdd
4 Or11.1~41/11111104 /161 11dd - 31/41t0 H1(1 1X3KSS3SS1 301A3LVIS o'ioNNo) 006 9NI1d0d36 AE S1SAT4N1 ')N1 'SWilSAS 911111VA3 114141N
NATIONAL EVALLATI ON SYSTEMS, INC. CONTFNT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT + 11TH 6PADE - APRIL 1977
elLaw=mallyis
! ;C SE CF GROUP SEDE SAMPLE! P4VALUE PdVALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE
185 0,517
.40ATH USEFUL OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL17 0.73 0.32 0,46
0.11*-- 0.31
1607 -2.69* 0675
78
'1:16
2352
705
1189
463
REPORTING G1UP
HALL STUDENTS
+++41.1bW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU 1.0 MAIM?' +56t1A.,f 3'.25 +2217141. 3.17S;00 it 1,26. 017115' 1.17 152
los,t1:,,.i 0.84 34* 0.63 567
61,45.16 0,47 4,634 0.30 16
"--crooLT ANTS OR, SPECIALISTS770111 4. 0.88 007 0.'9 612
76,45$ '0 +0040 0.'8 1720
...+++STUDWS ASSIGNED BY APilEVF 6,441 LEVEL ..+++'77401 ,11474' 04 '04 139e,
711162 04%, - +0423 Oi 9 788L,F1,52 44C5 2 103
.........CURRICULU9 CR PRURAM DEVFL PMEAT OW.10
7 5, 6) 0,63 +:), 22 003 171777,2; -1417- 00) 110 4157
..".,'CLASS SP! TOO L APGE
.
+++4.SIZE CF MONTY
1E415 '4124 +1470 1. 701
'). E4 0.51'0.44 1615.
elMe.
PV ALUE
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 93 10061661i6661666,1616611,6616,1616061106661646.611664
#*1 *1* *, **41 *1111 #11 *140**1t* **141 *P0*0i
NOT VERY USEFOL.
SCMEWHAT USCFUL
VERY USEFUL
NONE
1 YEAR
2 YEARS
3 YEARS
0400***0040,10411$14****0*******14404
************000********00**0140444$*********100************401040414.44*
414***************M44$04404
*****011404144444414441****g**41
**10410***1414410*****444414*********
********414444********************4144444***
1
****104i**0************i*14***i********
********#100********4440,i*04**'**41
1
*****4*************************40******
*********************0********* ****(40
04144444**i**0444144*****0.04410m#***. , '1
,
*i***140001***************tiii*****(**4.
,__i__
___--...
i
YES ,
NO
YES,
NO'.
BOTH 7-7
YES
NO
YES
14044****14*4*************11044010**m*
444100********44144********************
**144i010****018**************0414110*NO
E3,96,. 1,34 ..12090 1,73 416 - BIG CITIES * 0*************************14rn,S2C-7.0.74 624
.154 0.73 658
11371. 0.70 654
7.8.37 0,9478,99 00,94 2
79.11 0491, 2
CF THE'S7J7-*---79113 0,E, 210414
:,
0.84 257
°0.,40 14.0i 3.5510,' '1.03 352
60,02 0,85T 3.17* 0,81 .485
--7E08-7-1.44-7-'1067---1,26----358-----7-7414 1,16 1,49 1.22 '32980'020 2,08 3.35 2.048° 65
FPTN.GE cm 100*****t***),**44********6**********604MEDIUM CITIES .1,0,so,01,00,4,**ovo,,4*******,;***,,***
SALLE'R PLACES'. *****0641,1i******04****i***********,*****
- . . , - ,,-- .- - - _ ---... 4--------- I
RESCUE 0400041014144*****4#444***,***********0****COOP ED SERVICES ' *****Wil!**4******Ig**,*(004*********CFEC 41 4***C410**i4 *****************V00.**4 MS
..
ACES : -----7'4-7 *****4**401440****0444**0104µ41 wn*PROJECT LEARN *40041**********4***o.O.,.****0000,000NARSES ************W**********4*0******o******
, -
NAI NAL 'FV ALLAY! C4 SYSTEMS, iNC COnTrrl ANAlYS1S 'BY REPORTING SOPSCONNEZTICUT ,STAMIIIOF ASSFSSMSNT - 11TH cpArc, .APAR.IMPANAMMOINIII1
GOAL I m ATHrcAT IC AL Cr,NCPDTS1i4404:4~0-todion
SE Cr PIUD SC); 1.:4,4114
10P-VALUE PAvALuE EFFECT ! EJECT SIZE,
lAEPORTINGCAC%
F2130 3012:62 ALL STUDENTS
4441444004111444044410444444440444OF THE STUDENT
1977
P-.OLLE10 20 30, AI !I 60 70.
imlostelleoshisoolosediusolitisolomimekt6? 90 100
i4142 0,1i7 600 0.54-.K1;e2
1021
1339ym
414011010444411*********44441440444/#44
404444041044440104444444404444--INV.
CO'ouNFTY w...2,18 -1,01* x,97
PIC444404001140040444*744444471,77 s 1,11 2,1,*-- 101 4 -4. EP1V,F. CITIES440I44044*********0*****4**4004 40
e;,77 1,C1 1..76 '11600 658401041041144040****14*****4444444 4
71,03 1.4T. , 106 654PLACES
44444444****************00,04***04-----W..C1014 CF Ti5 STATE' loia''0.2o 115s 1.90' j.42 357 RESCUE f
*****to******$*********00400000474T- 1:A 5 t2 W 4.49 n2 COOP EO ErP VICE
14400,04**04**00**44tool***m*A4***77,7§ 1,14 4,110 '1,0 05 CoEC
Ot0,4***il***00,0*000w/.04011#c'',77 1,',6 -1 ,,')2. 101 3S0 ACES**044004****40wAi44v*t4 o,00**1
i:,.125 2,00 -0,11 108 ) 329 VOJECT LEARN
, *4*******(10**************i**00***72,31 3,d7 3.92 305 65 NAPS ES*****000****04*****10*******101004.
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS; INC, CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPS'CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMCNT,- 1!TH GRACE APRIL 1977
p.vALu5
2,37
G3~ 2 Z:,D.T.
SE CF nOu3P-vALu5 EFFECT
0,47
OF !HE STUIDE:NT
Ut4P2L5
SIZE
..4.a
SE
EFFECr
Vic, 0.17 002 10211!.; --0,21 1339
CF rh, COvmA:I'Y
7:*!! 102' -1.74' 1.6 4161,27 7 0, 71 634
1,714: 0.75 658,.1,'"09 1,61* 0.61 65A
CF I STA.T7,
cAc0
, ,,-, , 1"g64,16' 1;7 1,-/`
6'40;6 2.4» '2,39 18
257
.352405
,
REP° pT1 Nc. tpcup
ALL STUDENTS
PALE
FEMALE
PIG CIMSFRINGE c1TIER
PEN UN CITIES
SmAL LE R PLACES
P.VALtP,0 10 20 20 ,40 50 60 73 BO rJ 1006.111611110161111104111111114411111.' 11 116)11
I*800401,0400044 ,
1
1,Oh ************Itrd6**********044tO ***40g#k*')0,444***00***000***0**41041***0144441
*******4444***01104**A0:061/*440II
444444444444440i*****1*******4400*0****,II40***Amotv1 m40**4444***4440444444ill*******************x4444******40104$410***
P5CUF , 1
*14040010***AW10:111101A*0***1(04.04040140*,,1CEV E0 SEpvIcE*t**404+!440,,t4I4****14*1',dk0,.*t04001444
cfr-C .44144 vAtit;c44040.040(ri#00(.1/4g11144PPOKA 44010.,ACES
*4*4***4-***44u***4***41A*0**0i044#14,*1 7',.K.OJECT LEARN ***0*****1I0.44000,4*****0***0*0***4-NARSES
**************0440***********004*$***04*..
rul
GO
NATIONAL EVALUATION, SYSTEMS, INC,,.-- CONTiNT ANALYSIS BY REPOPTING GROUPS
CONNECTICUT STATEODE ASSESSMENT - 11TH CPAPE APRIL 1977sammerasamo
3 HcASUPrMNI
SF CF GROUP
?*VALUE P-VALUE° EFFECT
8043.9 Os
- -- -SEX OF THE STUONT
'E,c3 0467 5,95416415 0,E1 -4,72;
...--SIZE F THE. COmmAlly
6247., 2,10 ..1719S*
911t ...\'' 0152 101,9
7,7? 0482 1430E4,07 110'5 3,604
CF THE STATE
4C7 3,02t
14,22 4,01t
;)4q' 4403
1.77 -0421
1,44 2410
2411 5470#
GOAL
P..YALUESF OF SAMPLE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 . 80 9D 100,EFFECT SIZE REPORTING GROUP 'fool 14,14 o.s14861441 '4448 1441118414Itiom
2:42 ALL STUDENTS 4it*******04********440*44*********50414
0142 1021 MALE 004*****1*****04410114**t#0****01000440#110/12 1339 FEMALE 114****01044111010040***04****0440004
.12428
0,86
416
654
PIG MIFF--FRINGE CITIES
$***4004#01#1****1*****4114004
*00404******114$44404**4114p**11144000f0, 80 0*, MEDIUM WIFE 04**00***4*****14,00A[004*O0140;110110410010,83 SMALLER PLACES 4i4 #414274***014*44***4400044404W000*
Row no
11807 '357 RESCUE $40.1(40004*******4*144:**0404;***4*****v4**1.17 752 COOP EO SERVICE Pi***0111**404etotk*i.**4071(0044006.0;#(If 65 05
3,-Ja
(PEC
ACES4****1401044*404**0440***#$010044/04K40,40$40.4444004'4441,40014444411444o**1
1.31 329 PROJECT LEARN ilL4**i*4ki*******0044112044111***04404444442.09 65 NARSES
411400111114W**0110(40004441014041110150140411
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS; INC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING 'GROUPCONNECTICUT STATE110E ASSESSMENT - 117H GPArE - APRIL 1977
4 OWTS qNC CPA4c
SE CF GROUP SE 001,,SAOLE
P.VALLiE EFFECT EFFEC/ SIZE
043 0,73
X OF. THE STUDENT
. 0.47 0.59.4
0419 -0441*
CF THE CO0uNITy
.64469 1452 ..145f,*
4467 . 0 0 1,0494665 0450 14414
041446 045,5 1427$
OF THE STATE
001 053 3575445 04E4 242341 0.0 352
1o4# 0,48. 465
041.x5 7.0111 7, 005 358
!3:2679*., 65
4,6
,,
2:362.
dollmwe'
REPORTING GROUP
ALL STUDENTS,:
0.27 1021 MALE,
0,20 1339 FEMAtE
1,35
0,45
0,44
0142
41,6
634
658
654
17.
810 CITIES
FRINGE CITIES
NEDIVM CITIES
SNALLEP PLACES
RESCUE'
CCO0 'ED SERVICE
CFEC----ACES
PROJECT LEARN
NARSES
P-VALUF
0 10 20 30 41 50 6V) 70tV00'.o 400
Holisilipl.,11.61164,11.164,01,111.1,1114'il..1166,161
*0111400040 $11104**************14114$4100*$*214,*0
1
1
44041****040***00040044iiiit$14**AI0i OO414****/**************04040401444004 t0li64 1
4 ***001****4****04****0*******04*444*011
1
1
$4***********04 *****mt4*00404001141,0W144+.*
1004k4:***00401100t4*****4***;104A ;ON 44 p*00004410 00 40*M11114* 4 itC,**4 4* ***4,2*;4r4
00044(i**t4**04**040110*v**0(44*004***;4tior0
4'w44**4400040i1.0103)0444i,A104'4464it**01,X0!0444*4414***W0m014111(00140.4400:t404igii-o4
*****09*******4010k00***10*WW;*4440A1400110;**4*******WitiOtt10110001400#***40444
1**,4011111*444************4*01014#*4A4400$00
r"VALU!
NATI cvtL E V ALLAI ICJ.N1 SYSTEMS; INC, AI!ALYSIS REPTATINGIt)T STAIN ASSESSMENT 1171-4 f.r' - APRIL 1977,
'''CAL 5 Ar7)L.CATIc!
SE, CF MO' BAFFLEP-VALUE EFFECT EErc:CT
7r PtilhNT540
CF
C,,52
5'4'39
161 1.0()
0.L(s
2,0 '31% 0
.. ,..' .,,
t '' kV''C,.:,17.:5:::
SST
,(e`
, p 1,.i.,4ft , ',,i r)111 1126';$'1 . 11:6
'1,'1 1.19
.21;',A.4 05 11477',91 :, ;,, 6 41,6 0 24 55
..
P-VP,L)E
PFP.Or* GP.CUP
2302 ALL STUrk.to's
1021'1330-7,77
.5'4
Ii
rpALF.
ris
PLACES
CC.32. SEP VICE
gtLrA6!
ARSESa
'0,
T,,VALUE
10 20 31 40 SO 60 '7)- 8D 90 100
**104PF040*******001044111010**$
-
000,4**110(41*********4r **00**,*'*******40.4*00400*******itt* .
#4**Ot(c00101****t**$******* 1*00***41o1W**41A0.16+4*****0010t/1
******4144441t4(*****A*4*0)4***4;0;
*****01,*4401********O144 4t4444***
1
0000114.1:*,'. #0,4400:0404104***0444*tt14404,,. 4(14.440(tiw**1.0444;4004
04*****1.4PA**101041000t000044W404q,44A* 44,;(* ***44,044[0;(404144000*****#04**04104(000t04#**4w14$
i**111****************10401M0104****
NtiUt%:,1 ALUATtpAI" SY'SIENS; INC UNTEN!' ANALYSIS BY REP097INC1 GROOPScm:D7tVTITI,TEODE, ASSESSMENT - + i \FArr - APRIL 1977 4 ,)
,
dAl. 6 CFC1'7TO,
G9r0 ,r_,F SA1P'..V4LUE 4EFFECT
2362
OF TH.t., 6TUONII.
!,fit {' 0,6H 10 71el :,..
1'4! 750r5 ;.:9 1:179
'1
cF,,7:cnoyuN: TY202 416
C114!.'i 2.10 113Q
`,t 4'"0 1457 757641c.* 2,21 '252
`. 4 1462 4!.50,7 2.27
1.),5 2447 329!:), 72. 65'4.
FEPOFTIN,G GFC(1)
_ .
ALL STUCENTS
' YALE
rEMAVr..
. CITESCITIES
CrISSPq.LE ;-,LACF
PFSCU
CLCP EP SFRVI6'CPEC
PDtaT LEAPSNAPsEs
4
L_
i P-VALU;0 10 20 30 40 :50 60 73 BO L 10\4411416,4414,441,44.1441,1,44.i44,41,144,1444.144,0
1
114*****4 0111040;040441*
*04**************4 4**01*Ov***
40*******#404:,t****4**
]
*4t`4', *44444r #4;114#
****0044,4****A*0444444
0.144440* *044014 04
'4 1
*t*Itt11:i0iti60(400;(***A4t***
1640t8 .40;(44:1440:1 44144
1044-t#11i44740***40144144i
140144lt01140011 044As
01,044141;04 4*****4t444*1;
*4404.4401t****0444 0**41
k.
36
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS. BY REPORTING GROUPS
--..,,-013JECTIVE,
SE OF GROUP
P.oLuc P -VALUE EFFECT
ee.50 C.79
...SEX OF THE STUDENT ,
_710 _.1.02__6609 1,02 ...2.1;14
OF I< COKMITY
71.57 .1.2i 3,07*
69.23 1.42 0.73
7C.53 1.59 '2,03
---REGION.OF THE STATE
70,74 1.90 2.24
74.37 1.92 6,d7i
72.12 1.43 --- 3.2r.,',60,66 2,04 -1,d4
I)," 6,rat 2.14 -0.97.
1 4 7,0 2,65.t01
CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT . 11TH GRADE APRIL 1977amemoommowe
STU060 UEMD.NSTRAT.ItiO:aTAN!.....2.111.U.141.0.2LIWI. 011.
P- VALUE
SE CF SAMPLE 0 10 20 30 ' 40 50 60 TO 80 90 10D
EFFECT eSIZEJ REPORTING GROUP looldnullsosoloesol.loolloodeselloololorod....
2362 ALL STUDENTS 01410440.044****4110WWwWW4WWw*Www
obAlag.
MALE 44*******#*#00$0110011*********4 #11##
1339 FEMALE 444*********fWwWWWW14,****w****W40450 l
.0010w
CITIES t***Ott0.0114000.4440t00634
___BIG
FRINGE CITIES1.12 $040.4444.** **41440444444144400****1120 65d 4E)IU14 CITIES 01400444$41014***IttwItitittottttittt1115 654 SMALLER PLACES ttlt*****IttttOttttit******ttiOtOttt.
011.0-. .
100 S57' RESCUE ,041411414*440,04404414040:44014414*0
1,75 152 COP ED SERVICE 44040444****444 **401010011144#040,00#
444**44,14,4404444.444
1.60 355 ACES ********44***4**c1 #***f44444***1
1.91 329 PROJECT LEARN '44of**#$$44o4.44*,0***44.4444004*
4',54 65 NARSES 40444*#4144#441114,60*41'$441114i$W4*$$
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUP
CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT 11TH GRADE APRIL 1917 '
MlimiAssillimigh01111
,TuDENT OCONSTRATES UNDERSTANDING OF ORDERING
5F. OF GROUP SE ;CF SAMPLE
MALUE PVALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE REPORTING GROUP
67494 4.77 2362 ALL STUDENTS
H.----SEX OF THE STUDENT
77115_____0.92,-,9s32____0.58____102160.30 0.96 ..1.43* 0.42 1329
,14IZE CF THE COmIJNITY
_
7C174 1.20 2.91; 1,0
69,S4 1.15 2.00 1.06
71422 1.56 3,30 1.13
-.6,CION CF THE STATE 1
69.3) 1,59 1,5 1.48 357 RESCUE
74,60 1,83 6.17; 1,,,A ,n2 COOP al SERVICE
- 72.98_-.-L: 1.22____ '5.14,11_____1.15_____465 CVO66.40 7 24..6 -1.43 ,I.,;1 353 ACES
60.65 )1/ 2 07 0.71 1.85 329 PROJECT LEARN
,; 73.00 .,
qA.:76 5.24 3a6 65 NARSES
11.111110M
MALE
FEMALE
OF NUASERS, ___________444,1414,
0 10 20 30 40.i* , .50,, 70 (30 90'
I. 1 .4 ....1.,..1....1 ,,ti,..,..itt,..,A.4,,,,lp,..11$
.. . _______ 44:wly.:#-- ),c
*4***44440*******41**400040040tH
CITIES.
624 FRINGE CITIES
658 MEDIUM CITIES
654 SMALLER 'PLACES
111101.
ttotwittttoottmlitttwottottt t i4 *
********ti4444*******$***4*1 t14,
4444044444440144**/4141111114444444*****4444444444144444*44
44.0404*****#*4444$44414#1 ***1444*
0040044**/#$#;4140141044414#01000$
**4144**.41041040444440tA4$40014$
Oillvo444** 1041(20444i041)144io4444*4441
0;M**lI4#Iiq4*$*l.A;Vd*0*.af4iqW4O4$;',Ii-
*#4*4lM.O4*f*S#0Wt;t44444$;4$,t4444(
04*****444******14044414044044,0114
$4****+4414*****444414114044**4414.404*#
4
t
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, !AC, CONTENT ANA0iWBYUnNECTICUT STATE4I3E, ASS SSMENT - 11TH ORIL
JEmC6TL'AT'I") A'31LITY T3 Afl EInTP,ACT
REPORTING GROUPS
1977
,F
P-VALUECF GROUP LE CFC 10 2( 30 40 50 60 70 80 90. 100
PVALUE P-vALUE EFFECT EFeLtiT SIZE RENRTING CR0uP ,
sold111.011111111111411111111tell54,67 0.20 Z362 . ALL STU1)EITS #444014'',(41.4014**tomvio**************''
----S;X CF Tt STUDNTC.112.
01$ $041($0110044441( Wilit*$*0 ItiOV.471k104.000**..._
.
c:c.12 C.34" 0.3U 0.T9 1339 ':?EnLEI4404fOr40114# itus0***$11t**41440444$,M444441$4141W4
OF COmmulI7Y
C.YCITIES /00409,0#411140401440c4W4WWW44*.ti4est*iC.45 0,40 C.4 634 FRINGE CITIES
041,4414****0#1004*****#***W140444000144#**C4Y1C,41 7?.60 C.41 62d mECIUM CITIES4**0***a**4#4*******44.044******4**$44444.14100****C'034 0.53 0.47 0,29 654 S11ALLER PACES #4$44440**1114********4440444 44140114e00,44,044,4**_
CF. TH2 STATE 1.41.1.
C,d3 0,37 0.72 357 RcSCWE***$014444$40444***44444*41;*410444.04**441.62'
CddP iD.SERvICE04#2;$044#*0#414*44.W4W444444kOW).4,4440,40,0.6t,44; + 00,044441k4004lq004#44a444444lot14._
_
C.L1 0.:7 3CS ACES44***4i4***10*044***04$444144044#04444444C,73 C.11 Get5 329 P,QJECT LEARN *****$********444****6 # ;4l4W44m044ro4**44*441**Co.54 1,12 1,ti7 1,10 65 NARiES441444100******1041144400444**44114.00444444 44
NATICNAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS. INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS dY REPORTING GROUPSCNzLTICLI STATEJIDE ASSESSMENT 7JITH 6R00E - APRIL 1977 ,
G-JJECTIVE c3TJC-,T I1:'ENSTRATFS A91Llim.TO vIJLTIPLY WHOLNuMriERSliMI.W04140 . .1.1~INWOO.1....0k.A.m.,kwWW146111.,,GA*055. CF GPZUP CF
F -VALUE Eri'LCT C:L
0.38 2.362
OF Twf STU,;ENiy;.74
0.,t5 C.67*, 0.24 P3q
OF ToE CJNJITY
C.O -0.11 0.t5C,:;4 1.42+ 0,5.1
ri2.32 Co9 0,4d
----::G1'JN (-:=' ThL. STATE
., , C.'r, ',),..', 0.74 357 RESCUE..',..'. -C.0,..' 3.i:4 3:12 Cu' P E0 SE VICE
,14.;...__,.(,71,..._____11:.,Co______:-':4:., Cr ECc,:.'::, 1.00 -0.0 04,.. :1;;t2 4C=b .
4.:16 %,T,Y., 1,13$ 0,77 329, Pk3JECT LEARN
91.15 . I.6d -C443 , 1ic2 65 NARSES
.aimas
16.111,
RF:wnTING CROJP
ALL STUDENTS
P-VALUE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 30 90
omoo*****wiskoo****im444,4****44,4********
MALE _
,0.4#0,0714***,****044**poomm,,mqztft,400tl,_.._FLMALE#44+4,(00WF$#*441444441444#444*4440(4*W.4444*OV4
100
JIG CITIES
FkINGE CITIES
mEDIum CITIESSgALLER PLACES
*010#1*****1****144**4' 4WWW4t 0;14%11144
*06404400144****0470001464s1444*4$444440006
**44440*$444404444441+4*404***44*04040,4****4w4**********44****04**4$14444444*446 0440*
40111040444004410(00W44#;i4444144(4Mcc3414441k44.***c*44444c4kqt44404t4411,44144rW41+
W400+0*04444*kt44744144:41,f444;44--L*4(440a411404014$44114444**0444(4444.4.014441
144#440444444400444014444444**404444*4444444
00444110410404406004044444444444',4441***
NATIONAL EVALUATION.SYSTEMS1 INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPSCCNNECTICUT STATOIDE ASSESSMENT 11TH GRADE - APRIL 1977
__OBJECLIVES_ IODFST DEOSTRATES ABILITY TO DIVIDE WHOLE NuCERS .41404,4.4,09au wawareabagmwatrairsiamma.wei"..wordowalmwoMALUE
SC OF GPoop
P-VALU: P-VALUE EFFECT
__.C87.63 A6
----SEX OF ThE STUDENT
87,32 0,61 -0,31
OF THE COMMUNITY
89,47 C.85 1.64;
08.461 C.64, 0,96
6e,42 0.71 1.29$
f .
F THE STATE
90,20 166 1,57
1.79 1.81*
_,a(1.27
0,91 1.C8 Cad89.39 0.82 I,70*
87,31 2.19 -0,32
SE CF SAMPLE
EFFECT SIZE
23U
0431 1339 FOALE
CITIES0,6 824 FRINGE CITIES0,5 658. mEDIO CITIES0,57 654 SAA4.LER PLACES
1
C1
1.01 357 0 RtscpE0.76 352 COOP ED SERVICE
CR:.:C,
O. 368 ACES
0,78 329 PROJECT LEARN2.13 65 NARSES
.11..1111
WOOVIII1
REPORTING GROUP
ALL STUDENTS
0 10 20 3C 40 50 60 70 50. 100
.11.11/11.1/.0111111.1.1./1.1,.41,14S.1.1.14,11,611
4 *************4***$***0**48444014;4440m4t4
****$$$$****1$$$$$******$#$****0$$$$$$$04$144____.******************$$*;4***to****$4*****4***$
$004$044$440018400($441***$$$44, ****,$41.. ____$4,",*$$#$$$$$*;****************4**$44*4$4*****$****0$$$$$$$$$$$$*****04$$***$4*****$$$#;****4***04***************4**40*****14*$$$$$440$
4 ##**44******114444,4c044**#4140*04111044444***4
4o44M4444 11444441444N444 # 4044,44k414#44444r0944244
444044W114/W4. #(*441'44*4 oG4V44M44W,(810.0.
*********0*1,1444M4*44**44 $40114r..444404
****44*07.4444*4400.4**41;4440$444,M*44*****
4444044441044****44.44*00*.0**4444444440
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS/ INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY'REPURTING GROUPS,,LENNECTICuT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT - 11TamH GRADE APRIL 1977
assamemsrue
_____OEJECTIE 6_ ETATNT DEMONSTRATES ABILITY TO ADD AND SU3TRACT DECIMALS
SE CF GROUP CF SAMPLEP-VALUE P-VALUE EFFECT EFFECT SIZE
88.55, 0,43
----SEX OF ThE STUDENT
AM1 0,59 0,35_0,38___102189.19 0.55 0.33 C.28 1339
----'11ZE OF THE COMMUNITY
1.7,4 4160.16 C,80' 0.30 0,66 634'cdc,SA C.E9 1.72* 0.58 65890,80, 0.75 1.74; 0,56 654
234,
Cr THE STATE
01.72 0.,:4 1,86* 0,64 35792.34 0.78 3,404 C.74 ..152
EC.67 1.34 1.'2,29$ 1,16 356
;142 0.'40 1,26 0.63 32;
SI.c.,A 2.11 2.88 2,0S 65
41
061.1.1
W001,
MALE
F&1ALE
1:11G 'CITIES
FRINU. CITIES
MEDIUA CITIES
SMALLER PLACES
RESCUE
CUSP ED SERVICE
AL:5'
IDDJECT LEARN
NARSZS
REPORTING GROUP
ALL STUDENTS
I
11111..1.
P-VALUE0 10 20 20 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
**t*w144*****************4*4woow****#,**11444*
4414444*********44********844444wif***44****___'4444444** ** 4# 14444 ;41414 # #; ;#4t ;444444444;4#44*
001,044 #614W*4004 0-44c#4,00404;444K44
40,10044000.401184******4410844**444144404,0,*
*4444444444**0**4044**4114111,44*14440,441441*4
*0041044******************#400444441*/0144414004
444444441440404 *444P444**4.1401444444444048814.,:141'441r **441( *441444444404;14440441**0#444441/8440W;. ,00#,W;#41Ok'Mc14(144o,4_,..,44444.44444440 44414441440444t441444411110144440444o03 *44 01,44.144444044414am1q4444
4114144.040040110444410014**0104404.444+0404
NT10* EvALuAT1JN SYSTEMS, INC -- CCA,,:JT WALYSIS e REPORTING GROUPSCCNtv.:CTICO,STATE41C);:: ASSESSgLT GRA01: - APRIL 19/7
_.O JECTIVE 7. STS!` T 697,NSTRaTES A':i1LITY10k,..1JTvLY Asv0 DIvIk
eN
P-VALUESC CF c;cjP 7,SE CF W;LE0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70, BO 90 100
P-MAJE EFr:cT
MILMA.A.A.M.114.,
c.d5
oF .THEIsTuDE,NT
1.c22
c; .CA C.22
u: \cc:siITY
2,24.
2362
'CCU.4C.
kEPORTING GROUP
1...
ALL STuUENTS
C1 T1
Ito 04110110111111111111111.1/11111114016t01041111111,111$1111.
064040411111**4**140**0144#0404***v
, 1
,40**114410041010011/#*00***0441040
**41,1.440w40.004440A(0i4*401**4440A*
:4.744114,
1.29 2.46*
Cr To!: STATE.
4.Co 3.A
c.
1,07
1.43
3.c,61
c.5`3,
(;)4
X19
LJ
!),E):U1 CIT:E3
SqLLEi1 PLACES
)ASCU:
67;r4ICZ
NRJJCT LEARNNARSES
___44#001#twl*4#44440#14#vi*4 1.
#$*4+144.44***Lool*v.:4***41.44#0,110*iv#* .4 liok 4 14 * * +,1* 41 'PO * 4( 0(i4.;4044* )11 444***011440,.4041444414 44444
. 1
,,44410444t4.141:444**44444441040.4i.414i44
41.4*.,4.4)y1,$0440147r4W0;4.144
01;1444*440.404110440tWil4.4#;40.q44**44$ Mµ' k****1114414**44****441144440**
10.0444#000#0*4444444441400444411444
NATION4 ,,/ALIJAN SYSTEMS, INC, 7- 6WENT ANALYSIS, UY Re:PORTING GROUPSCLLTICO STATEiIOE ASSESSnNT' 11TH .GRACE *. APRIL 1)77
CE:ZETIVL /I 7,^', f !-),=.!;',;z!'s,A7-75 Aoi 'TY l'1,P1 ,'e-',q1.17Q,,CT 5P,ACTI:)%19 Trc.
,.44,.. ., ....P.14.-1-:,:-.-khaff444A1J.Voi-A4.UALt.. 44 40....:41, ..-.4.4;.:,.4441.1NA644.4.
.A.Ar:i44...1.A. .P-VALUE'
_....'
*01," 10 '2.0' JO 40 0 60 70 60 0 100
C',:OuP SE. CF Smi',LE. .
is.,,,j,w1,,,,,,,1,6,611,64.1,,,,ii,,,,41,1,1414101k..4
EFF:T EFFECT -SIL REPNTING 6RNP
SE Cr,
P-VALUE
tr,.4r; 0.c4 2JOZ.
ALL STUOENTS
----;EX OF 7nE STLI3LNT.r).) 1,11
;1; 1.L2
7;E Ccv'',)11TY
;err/
1:3) 3.47'
1.44
1.2c;
G.14
tA
1.0411111s
1111 E
......
....._.1 C:rr':.
ckIN6..i, L1.'ES
IDIUM CITIES61:4 P!ALER P,i,C45
TriE STAT1: 7".4.37, 337
-2,C;; 'I' 1Ct.!Jri
;:,A -2.32 .2,41J 3-06"71.7 2.21 P'qJECT LEARNTi..J 4103 1,75 4. NARSES
1 Ni
411,44444.1404440***444044.4444t14414.,.
$ 1
04011014****f*****041014*W0tIcP44(0.,
opcli.04410(041m144*;*44i16#..
J_k400x(40******104*000#1. ..
04m100.44040A4040;It4.4444,0(004,. , os*sw$4***Ww4v4tom;14:;;#441.w
.
****4444****P4444014$4.4toow.$44*
hA1
I
4*0444*W440040400,44riWt4(ril,;;440*44,44,04,+$0:;04714(441.;444.4.,41.444**44q*#*wy.orol,444;,utN040,4,1oti4,0,44totc:40,(.w44.40,441'
*040#iit***44444444011(W;444444444141(4
#14140044**14101444044400*14$0,
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMSi INC, -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING GROUPS
CONNECTICUT STA%410E ASSESSMENT - IITH GRADE APRIL 191?
BJECTIVE'A ,STOD;NT DEqNSTRATES AGILITY TO MULTIPLY AND DIVIDE FRACTIONS, ETC, ..
CF GROUP .3:-.. CF AMPLE
*IFR-VA4UE
. 0 VD 20 30 40 50 60 70 , 80' .90 100
0-vALuE. 'yALUE EFFECT Er4ECTI, 5I/E4: l'
REPORTING GROUP .,,,,1,,,,I,,,1,,,d,,,,I,41,1,,,,I,,,,16,4,d,,,,,,
12,2.7' r, o.82 2362 ALL STUDENTS 01140o*****#f***/***********p$114
..0?--SE:;( OF THE STUDENT 4.6WRO1
fl.18',___C99_. C,90_-0160-1021---------__MALE . ........4______________***4,4440kw.4*,***6***cct*4w*$(41,ro
T771,2 145 -40,65
OF TH-.1. CCMOUNITY
1403 1,33 2,614
7,4.51 1.t)3 244/140 1,55 1.13
'6G1Or4i CF THE STATE
;, 634
1.35 658
1'46 , 654
44.44.44
0POO
BIG CITIES
FRINGE CITIES
MEDIUM CITIES
SMALLER PLACES
0,45 1.33* FOALE #4
1
144 3,264 1.26
7465 MA 2,37 L1,77
1,6,4t,15.,7!.12 2.03' ..1'.15 1.62
73,73 2.50 1.46 240:
76,U 4.22 5,61 4.C9 ,
***4 40$#,444***#444044#****wo,
, I
4osoltim#40foll#mt4f,14,Sy. .,1....L. -4444**41144*041,t***44o4,444444****444 4
witot410,00o*,44'4$40**44tolo4m4011 ',
*************ow40444444 #41044$4111#044 : "
357 .RESCUE
352 CLLP ED SERVICE
356. ACES
329 PROJECT LEARN
65 NiRSES
Act*T4i4***041**0***44444Wri**4444$41Wlig,;00401***w4t**m4mo440,*014;4401041444*4011004#0440441041414i14O44,4101444;04144i**
44044444401400100*0001444414C0410144401440#1044441,0411*4114#440W4444$41
.01.10.
NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. CONTENT ANALYSIS BY REPORTING, GROUPS
Ct:NNECICUT 3TATEolDE ASSESS:4ENT'- I1TH GRADE - APRIL 1Q77
01,1JECTIVE 10 ST0j:'NT D:MJNSTRATES WORKIW KNNLEDGE CF AREA AND PERIVEXER _P-VALUE
Sf., OF , UOP S[:.OF SAMPLE
P-VALUE P-VALUE` EFf:CT EFFCI 514E REPORTING GROUP
_ , .......,
7205 C.76 -, 2,362 ALL, STUDENTS
i
..'
P....-SEX OF THE STUDENT
78 A 6 C " ) f ) . 0 1 4 0 59 1021__
66.39 0)7 .4,564 0,44 1339
0 10, 20 30 10 50 '-60 70 60 90 101
*4********************144**y****,4*44
$I
I.
I
MAL; 0*****4444044*****444444444004144 ---FEMALE 447444.444444444444444440444144,4444441444 1
L...- , ' !
144044144444**$.0fs1ilv;* ... ___
W***q.,4****41044440;4044444444$ft
*****04010LM****$4444,11401444$41411W04
111(4,04$04$*#440414114Wo**04444*#4,0*
0440,4004114**40,41W4,44 #000,(441,4444*
44444440114*44444*4044441,4V*4410+;4444
10;44,6 00444 #4i*L*)0Wit1100414#41(*040. ____
4444.011144000444****44444144041,44444001 . '
0*******44p44444#0144!4;444#44fft0
401144404**041040044$1044e4044$10111441
----S1ZE OF THE'C3mmuN1TY.......
',2,7C ._2_,,.4.02 ___;;C.2441_,..2,68 X416 I:)IG CITIES
74;9 1.31 1.15 1,1:, 0:3 FRINGE CITIES
4 75449, 1.lb 3.054 4. 1,07 ()IA) MEDIUM CITIES
'7Z.N,
1 4 6, 4,92* 1,05 654 SMALLER PLACES
t. ' :
..-!r-R:GION CF THE ST),7E ......
,7E.55 1.29 30.1* .123 :357 RESCUE
76SA '\ 1.57 5.604 1,50 ' 352 COP ED SERVICE
_77,56 1_,1.71)____,,4,614, _1,21. 425. C:C 4
71.46 2.27 -1,49 1,0 363 Aii'A
' 34,66 2.01 1.73 1,81 329 PkUJECT LEARN
821.69 106 9,741 210 65 PARSES
3
-
-NATIONAL :VALUATION Sr'i1'EmS4 11C4 C3'aEN7 ANALYSIS BY REPJRUNG GROUPS,.(4ChL,CTICul ASSENT 11TH GqA% - APRIL 1977
00":J.ECT:vE 11444,';T°."T °P:q(11T0r4L'IL.:`,1,111II.4.c.-av:22T mtafeum
AS OF. CROUP $20W SAP-VALtiCP-VALUE FJECT EFFECT t;ti
,,,
o ALL STuDEAS.
oF:Tri,E 5.TU0:AT
11.'7 4.0041 0'44_ 1-3.034 0,34 a
PM VALUE
0 10 20 30, 40 50. 60 .70 40 90 100REPORTING. GAUP 1.1.11....1.....k...1...6.1....i....1441.14,..
*****04******410*!*********01,00144$14441404c,
11
i
O A.
O
-..-.....+..m., .. O*00401**IMM 0004 44 01#**,#$*t 4441$4414 4**F# SILArAr.
4.40/0 ii4404111414414114$44 44;15444C MI 41$014444 4
--- -SIZE CF 70, COOJNITY ,: .,1,
$;,,7' ,\.2,1.)..__.10,::*______::o 4_41. 6
LL'4:ii C'79 , .1.0' G ,7V 634d').1 ti' C.76, , 3.211 0.1.6 ,, used34Y. C.94 ,' 2f 741, 0,75' ° 654
_MALE _L.
F.:4ALC
EAT, CITIES y**00,040',44#440******141,0FqINGE CITES
. 444**********44104444(44****4440,414im***0,MED1,N CITIES *******04********44r4'4400,41mw4140,1441440*4
PLACES
---- :G:i;N U THE STAFF., .
6,'..) 1.19, .,. 2*704 1,11 557b ' , 'iESCYJE .
'i'..ao 1.14 C.Y. ) 1.C7 352'. tow) 'i:0 sERyICE ,
_ "4- (.66__ .3.61*. C,'E4L.4(a. _4 Cl,:C,r7.,r..,... 1.43 1.61 1.22 3:6 ACES ,
:' ,.53" 1.C7 2:664 1 1.02 3i9 Pi,:JJECT LEARN1.001 1.67 44134, 1
'
68 L 65 ,NAR$5.. , n '
kkk*****(4************* 044#004#14400*
********4444********** *#4(444;4444o***4r;k441401,400***k4044103,1rk 0440**4440104$10
ko1r0c,04414044flrkruiVk?14100,441kt$11L__,,,...-114104444114411:044V110041444044444#44-41$1444440$
p i1koW*********10400490.044k44M4011440k**10$10
kri#104$4k******11.1014k4****.#00644410kkk.
AoDm
b$
NAT1CNAL 7.JALUATION SYSTEMS, INC. -- CONTENT ANALYSIS BY1 PORTING GROUPSC'EcT1c,LT STATE0I DE ASSES;.NENT ..,1:1,TJ(24p1- APRIL -1977'
. . -.
.,
'I '
,,_. 02.1:CTIVE__11 ,1,,fl NT ').:0,7"LfiLtaLoyl pit Fi)rF (1; ,,77';MC /UNITS OF YcA.Suqr. .
,...
P- VALUESE CF GROUP SZ ;., afoqu: 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 lb 80 90 100
1...1..a.....1....1.,..i....1....j..,.1,t.1,...
,2.1) 'C ,7 4 2262 ALL STUOENTi. k
k
40440********0444$40,44*****4****44t0044/A
CF Th':. STUNT °,.
.... , .
"'
41
.C,75 _5,04 C.55,_._1021 _______mAL -- _:_,____i___L.1o',2 -5.0b 0.424 1339 FiiIALE
f'-vALE EFFECT EFrE:T SilE GROUP
---SIZE OF TE CjMnNITy_.... 2.11 !1:1,134_,L, 44'11-L416
1.24 '1.32 634f 507 1.4 , 0,6d+ 656
1.27 3.441;1! 0'.59 664
---,:crJn 'CT 'HE STATE:,3 2.73* 1,39 357 REScUE
1.3k, C 04-#-CD1.174 :;;CA ,4.04 4b'j
1,15 '1.0 3561.4,11 ,1.79 2.12 1.t20g'..19 3.57 3.19 3,4d '65
)((**#40410100***V410*1400644444$001.01°M0-*W0111*****#100*********1**qt4P444444144$
'd .
' . '
__BIG CVIES ' ..Wrtr.riO!v,***Irk*rciPirtiMtitOrPo.,....ERIN4 CilL:S ktor*,00q0**lori*o***40**w0Aro$4400ifiva '
.NEDIV CITIES , '0440.440k444444044440011Fi4444**044SMALLER PLACES . 444r4olar;:cr4r444o944,44$4444444444444444444
ir
i .
, 1
t,04tt0004*;1/4 0,*4*4*4.,41W,44#44soontas4.',:
*****4#44100444,4040;it464.4.7-4Iikifiq '
0,:-IC 2....___L_ *0****V0400**#';0*;0$44#10444'41141F4t.._. I __7-17"'"--ACi.S , ' , . **44410411**4440410111,0004140440,4#e41140
,
PROJECT LEARN 444.041**44,,,40044**4444*****f4444,s44.4****4NASES,
., . *444444**********04444***444444440*****, .
r.
Ili
A
I(
NAT1CNAL, EVALUATION SYSTEMSANCI; CONTENT ANALVSIS'DY ,REPORTING GROUPSCCOECT1CYT STATEWIDE ASSESPEO 11TH GRADE .APRIt 1977
4008.4a/00,00.
.-.t.._.__......_.,OBJECTIVg..13osmaaNLrR4Tjia..t.j.Z...L..L.LJIITYTO N .RPRET HARTA GRAPH
" P -VALUESt CF ' GROUP se'cl, tiAMPL, P 20 30 40 50 60 70' dO 90' 100
-P- VALUE, P.-VALUE'' EFFACT EFFECT Sl:C REPORT;NG GROUP " iti0i40;1.1"11""1"11410'.11 sooslooedaws,4411,41444 o
4
R3,23 C433 '/362 IL STUDENTS
4.-SEX OF 11:E STU6ENT;a:1VA..1021 MALE
:139 ' lEMAL,E
,i4le.-SIZE OF TH4 C3MmuIirTY:106. II;.2 416 CITIES.
94.72 0.50 4.4d4'..4$44,' .63 FRINGC,CITIES')4.65 0,50 1.414-,',01,44qeC 458. NI.DIUA CITIES
.
011111410'****044,4*******0***$ffi**010#4Si$**41,b4
,
I
41**tfi*******1100,1141***;*4***44044$$Clittilk$04"4 0014,044410441,04*****4001440400141444040
94.46' , (155 ; 4A24t. 404,; 654, SMALLER PLACES
rF THE STATE
S4.17 C.620 ;7.93 t458. 357C. Mr* 352
55,,C8
13.12 0.15'94.sc col .1,27' oen96.92 C.C6 3.6941 CiE7
RESCUE
,COOP ED SERVICE
C$'C.4C2S
PROJECT LEARN
NARSES
J007.1Wfv.144**00.441004/1114#0$tpito*4iO4..__..i.7
*$.41044.0110044t*Ip0,41/4#44;c4p444,004444401*
,4*11441404********114411411.4044t4oitt4444404404Ip014414$1444y******441004411014$44****44***0041
k . .. .. aP.M.
44104440******0**440,4404,*0.,$4,44osivi#44;**4404**st****4444#04,144,44*044$'
$44**444#44**000140;;Ont4fw$04ory4:4414.#f*'404**4!1400$6;14*#714)44440$044w**«Wit********44444***411;4****400144441is;0444444v
.
4411544**444**********41010#01404.$4444;4!****Itt;4$4
#
NATIONAL EVALUATION-SY gMblICe CONTENT'ANAaStS BY REPORTING GROUPS.CCNNECTICUT STA E' ASSESSMENT 11Ti4A21; 107,
$Tu ENT iONSTRATES A WTI, TO SOLVE'W02,0 PROBLEM 01.
7 -*/ .P.NALUE0-. 10 io, 40 70 80 90 100'
1r+!±1,44.11;461ets114444Triso144.41.4.414s4414444
1
**41§440****440 614*******:404$$4-
alminulio44441001144.4
SE F GROUP OF SA'NPL, P..VALUE'' 1:6V ALUE EFFECT EFFECT
, 7C491 4.73 a362
-=--SEX OF ThE STUDENT
5139* 0154._ IQ21 SALE *******4***************44404,4 44*96484 0.91 r4.071, 0;44 1.334' FEMAL *******rit4O*4100$4*****44 1/4****
0 ,
REIRTIN6 GROUP
ALL STUDENTS
-
. I
---51ZE OF THE COMMOUY .01416 :BIGACT16
'4)4f I.. 1,24 1.6i 1.C8 634 FkINGE CITIES
74. C,93 3.1!111, 4.52 658 M DIU14 CITIES74. 1.45 .,1406 PLACE$
72(4174,63
_75,3371.C3
414#10044*****0*,4*0**0*444fl 404*00444440444,044*44***.04414444,4**4
$1444144g********44,01s4444*/**41-00$4401010114,444*********440444;4W4*4*44
CF THE STATE -771.66 1.50 1.E1 357 ,.a
1.46 3,14 1.39
2.05 0,12 I.E.' 35872,73 1. 1 '1.31 loU 32,mas 2.61 Y.944 Zstiti ES
s
3
RESCV.:
CCOr) ED
Cx.0 Lam_ACcS
PROJ'i.CT LEARN
NARSES
. ,.
S$041*04,1441 $. ***1,444tC0411V4 k441-1r;A4 $04, 140#4;444474444.*
_044W40(411****4tV4***t#t*4;0(M#y**0.,:f...11404******4444,444404444010,410441WWi$41***:444.4004.4444444/000440,1'
W144V4441444#01444,41414.444444*440410#441
0
.,
1,. .,C.,:. NATIONAL cVALUA71QN SYSTEMS 1NC. .CONTENT ANALYSIS BY RdeuRTAG'als1.- ''.-. ccri)Acric47 STATE/10'E A55ESSAZNT - 11TH GPM' APRIL 1977 .., 444%.0.4011..1101114,40 4. , '
. '
- - ......QcJgctik .1.4. ,,Tw!:,,I 1-,-.61.. ,00.-.;..ulicl /1 PP, J'7 'Iori)._2.111,1,f?:,Aly.s.1 'will ro __L_.. . :t, -. alfaifa...c.0&;.....,1p4mumwmia Jghter..A.444.16.4 -.---
Jr,,,.'. 5,,.. CF C.,.OUP SE CH SAN,-,Li;
p.t.vALw!
f r,pr40 L. ,FLcT EI:Fcr ,s1./.z, h.PORTINC,UOUP ,
leS,
6z43 1 (.71
4. ...4 X' OP' 7rE STUD t7 _ 66.75......_1,C7____.4.654_ 0661_1C21
A7...,;7 #.36' -3.511 0.4)% 1339
23d --nLJ:ST1J4,4,
MALE
FE;IALE
0.*Ale
l'i5CCOun1Ty
. 1.0b14.111. 1.14 2.521 1,C2 656,t4.03 1.37 1.00 tiA
----,7G101 CF THE STATE. t
, 1.39 3.724 1,30. , 357,
c 1,74 2.7d 1:.57 J52 COuP ED '1A1P,CE,,'
AUSPALECT LEO
-NAt2SEA,
91(.; CIT1S
FilMEmt.3.+J1 CITIES
PLACES
1,3Z 1.61 .
52.374 1,0(3 0,52. ;1291. 60.54 5.03 4,46 4.e4 '
1
0 10 20 30 , 46 50j 60 70 80 90 100
.********00**0,44,4104**4444
I
4444,*'4,*****0***00**;40,*4
,401
(444041(**44**444********* '1*1440004w*644 $4*.w400t*#4444,404040,10,044140040q*,$4*4 ",4w,404,4444410104004*****#*4**
kt444444pcf.44*****440040*4*,441.40$f442444:10,44.4o41,4444,./P,4441.4440.0:444444+04444444444;if.kg40,:q4oe,..#41441,4441444444***1044041444.444;44;,9***4444014444.404440M44u,q4,4444# ##/444 4044w 44414 4444444444444
NATIONAL ,:VALUATION STEMS,, INC. -7 CNTENT ANALYSIS BY kPQRTING GRV.435.C.CNNECT1CuT STATEiIuE ASS:SV,ENy 117H RAOE - APRIL 1977
;, 0
_.:.:3JECTIvE,15:,,a0 ,),'''N';'' r. 0.1w1 Pr. n5-":1S!C C,FfiofTfilt CONCEPTS.
P-VALUC'0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 , AO 90, 100;LAMING AUP
5E CF kuP SZ 'F SAMPLEP-.(ALU:: P-vAt(JE EFFECT
471 W;5
Tr,;, st4:NT'
U1,2'
1.2C C.
.p4A9 '
MMOIM
. 1.64
1,6)
!.,11,62
PZ,1C
1,42
1139
. 041663
,
1,e9 3,94*
C, siSTALC.
357
2.42: .352
2.:)3 -4,74*
144 4 ,.,-3Z9.461:14 5.92 5.74" .!.'6
375 r.
11"441.41 16.46,41,1,i1.4.4116.01'
' I
01#*********q*0 4+0
ALL STUDENTS44,*$*************°41"1
MALE.iY
31G
FtMGt: CITIESREDIu;4 C1TIE511
SWIER
PESCuE
:3D,f ED 3ERvICE
AUSPRu.:ECT LEARN'
NARSESr,
;11%***40011040,0411144414
it$1411441.464*,?.****t
4$440.0****404441004***4
4.0.11.414i04401046444004 20441t0444*4**4***004,04#4
a , I
,4140444****m 1100$40440(4:$44.44100s4 1.1o44.4c444404*'i4A44,f44.k44t,4oTwrito40,w444 #oiwit444 #141.0441404******44404044#544.4*$
44040.44444111000*404i