Click for next page ( 150


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 149
APPENDIX State Data INTRODUCTION Education is a state responsibility that the states share with local districts; what happens in science and mathematics education is determined largely at those levels. Therefore, there is a need for information specific to each state. Nationally aggregated data on supply or demand for teachers do not necessarily reflect conditions in a particular state; national trends in enrollment may or may not be the same as in different states; etc. Seemingly comparable data that are not derived from comparable samples can yield quite misleading information. For example, ranking all the states by mean SAT scores of high school seniors, as an index of educational quality, would be patently inappropriate because the percentage of students who choose to take the SATs ranges from 69 to 3, and there is an associated systemic variation in scores: see Table Al. Even somewhat more sophisticated attempts at ranking (see, for example, Bell, 1984) may lead to questionable correlations between SAT or ACT scores and teacher salaries or other resource investments. Even when data appear to be similar, often they cannot be compared because of definitional and methodological differences in the way they were collected, as in the case of high school course enrollment data available in a number of states. The committee gratefully acknowledges the assistance of officials in the states who made data available; they are listed at the end of the Appendix. 149

OCR for page 149
150 ~ ~ a, ~ to or oo ~ ~ 0 O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ to tD Up or U] so o .,, VO o m 1 CO 0 ~ c) - ~ cad In ~ a) ~ of ~ 0 v U] En Al Q hi: 0 ~ 0 ~ s En ` Cal 0D s .-, :t U) I-; ~' at: S U] ~ al up :O . - En Ed 5: U. U) 0 .~t . - up En o 0 S ~ A ~ S ~ . - Cal U) ~ en 0D ~ 0 ~ ~ to ~ co ~ up at ~ ~ O ~ ID LO up ~ ~ LO ~ In ~ ~ ~ up rat rn ~ cat ~ co ED GO ~ ~ ~ ~ Cal or ~ or up 0 ~ 0 a' ~ al a, ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ al oo ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ cat o 0D co ~ ~ or ~ ~ ~ Up Dot d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ED O ~ ~ 0D rem at 0 Go ~ ~ rat or ~ ~ up ~ ~ ~ O ID ~ ~ ~ ~ ED Up ~ ~ or ~ ~ ~ up 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ at a, up at ~ ~ ~ ~ to at ~ a, 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ CO CX) oo al up al cat CO ~ 0 ~ ~ cat al ~ ~ cat ~ ' ~ ' ~ d' r. ~ ~ ED ~ ED al a, 0 ~ ~ of a, ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ a' 0 a, ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 a, ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ a, Go 0 CD Up ~ Cal to ~ Up or 0 rat oo ED 0 cat ~ al al ~ co Cal ~ 0 Go ~ ~ ~ oo 0 a) ~ a, 0 ~ Up ~ ~ Up Up ~ ~ Up oo ~ a) O ~ OD Up ~ d O US ~ `~ Go al or In rn CO or ~ 4~ ~ ~ :' -' i) ~ U) ~ ~ U) ~ O ~ ~ U1 ~ ~ ~5 ~ ~ ~ - ~ - tI5 ~d ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ c: s ~ O U] U] O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O c: U) ~ ~ ~ V ~ U) en ~ ~ Y O ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ Up 0) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .Q up be ~ ~ o c: ~ ~ ~ A s ~ id ~ up O 0 3 ~ ~1 ~ 3 Al ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~1 0) ~ 7:S ~ c: O to al O (I) ~ (3 ~ ~4 0 I: H H H H A; lo:;

OCR for page 149
151 al ~ rn al r O Cad ~ A) [r) ~ N _1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Cad O tD Us O ~ It) In ~ r a) ~ O Cot t ID ID I (D N Us ~ ~ ~ lo u~ U~ ~ ~ er ~ ~ ~ ~ un u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ u~ ~ u~ ~ ~ u~ 0 ~ ~ co eo r~ ~ u~ a~ a~ ~ er ~ ~ c~ ~r ~ ~r ~ ~ er 0 ~ u~ u~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ co ~ ~ u~ a' a' ~ c~ ~ a:, ~ a' ~ 0 rn ~ ~ ~ ~ co r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d~ ~ 1D {X) N ~ C~ ~ It) N C~ _I Oi ~) 0 C~ ~ ~ _I aN 1 0 U~ _t u~ ~ ~D ~ _~ ~ u~ ~ ~ ~ In lr) ~1 _1 ~ co 0 u~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo a~ kD ~ U~ ~ ~ 0O a:~ ~ ~ ~ c~ 0 co 0 a~ ~ a, ~ 0 a, ~ ~ 0 r~ ~ u, tD ~ ~ ~ ~ u~ o u~ r~ 0 rn kD ~ ~ ~ ~ u~ O4 0 0O ~ O kD ~ ~ r~ 0 ~ 0 oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ a~ ~ co ~ tD a ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~n rn ~ ~ o ~ o er \0 OD ~ ~ U~ ~ c~ ~ o un u~ o ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 a, u, ~ a, c~ oo tD ~ O u~ r~ ~ u~ ~ o ~ un ~ er CD In e, O a~ kD ~D 0 a' ~ 0 ~D ~ ~ ) ~ ~ co o ~ tD o a, 0 ~ ~ a, a, 0 ~ co u~ er rn ~r ~r - s~ ~ ~ .-l ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ O ~ ~ ns ~ ~ .'l en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ `: . - y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - . - k4 X ~ O O ~ ~ H O s:: u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ Y O ~: ~ ~ y ca c: a ~ ~ :r: ~ ~ ^ ta ~ s 0 tn a) ~ ~ a~ u~ O ~, ~ ~ a 0 ~ ~ ~= ~ a ~ ru s rs~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a) s Y ~ ~ S . Q' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . - Z Z z Z z Z z Z O O O ~ ~ u~ u~ E~ E~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 3 tn ~0 .,. ~; O h a o q~ 4~ ~: .,' tn a V o s JJ o ~q E~ ~: ~q s 4 cn Y ~ O o U] 4 o o U) .,' s o s~ z - O E~ :^ O Z ~: a a' ~4 U' y h o 3 z o U~ q} a O C) 00 . H . ~: ~a ~ ~ O O U) S S tn 00 U] 0 3 )- a O Z ~3 e 4 O CO

OCR for page 149
152 States vary enormously with respect to the amount and kind of information they collect pertinent to the four indicators of science and mathematics education discussed in this report. Table A2 provides a very brief summary of some of the relevant data bases that have been com- puterized in each of the states. State assessment of student performance has taken on an increasingly impor- tant role. As of spring 1984, 34 states had assessment programs in selected grades and subjects. As shown in Table As, 33 states have assessment programs for mathe- matics, and 11 states have assessment programs for science . In an attempt to illustrate the kinds of data avail- able to state education systems, this appendix summarizes information provided on science and mathematics education for 10 states: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington. These states were selected because they are among the leaders in their collection and analyses of pertinent data; no attempt was made to be representative of all 50 states, although among the 10 there is at least 1 in each region of the country. Several of the 10 states have also participated at a state level in B S and NAEP. With agreement of each of the 10 chief state school officers, the individuals listed at the end of the Appendix were asked to comment on the committee's selection of indicators and on what relevant state data and reports they had available. The brief summaries below cannot do justice to the work going on; the excerpts presented (with permission) from the materials supplied by the 10 states are intended as examples of their information activities rather than as comprehensive reports. Some of the excerpts do illustrate, however, instances of similarities or differences regarding con- ditions in a given state compared with those in the nation at large. TEACHERS With respect to the quality of teachers, states use certification as the primary measure of competence. As discussed in Chapter 3, this entails a great variety of more or less highly specified requirements for a bache- lor's degree, usually including some professional education courses. In addition, 20 states--mostly in the South and Southwest--have recently added minimum-

OCR for page 149
153 C a' ~ ~ o U. ~ a' E~ ~ c s o ~a Y ~ o o o ~ C X ~ a' c E~ U) ~5 a) N . - S~ o C) o o H m ~: E~ c JJ ~ C U] a~ u ~ U] 4~ U] U] 5: U) C C O a) - ~ c) O = O C h P4 U] 0 C J c E oe h `1) 0 ~ q~ ~ ~ O ~ C C C-) O ~ ~ U) O ,~, ~ O ~ U' S U] C C) ~ aJ U] C: C-) JJ CO X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X U) ~ ~ - . U: C O - CJ U) :~ C ~ ~ C ~ - - .,_' ~ y ~ C s ~ O C ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~-- - O C ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `t Y O C ~ ~ 0) 3 - ~ - O C tt ~1 ~ U: ~ _' (O - C' -1 0 .~ U1 N tI5 O C t\S L~ t ~ I ~ U) 4~ ~ C: >~ U) ~C C U] U) 0 ra y I _~ C _I O 0 3 ~I ~ 3 f:: ~ ~ Ll U] O C U) U) _t _I L~ Ll ~1 0 0 ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ c O n5 ~ tl5 ~ t1~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ O a ~ co ~ - - - - ~ = ~ ~ ~: = ~ ~ ~:

OCR for page 149
154 C a' o cn a :~: h a' S ~ C) ~ ~ h a E~ ~ C ~ a S ~ ~ O E~ ~ Y h O O O J~ ~ C X a, c E~ H C E C U] ~n U. ~ U) U] ~: U) 4~ C C O a) -~ O = h O C h O3 P a) ~. o - U) 4J UO C C UO h h <1) 0 ~ ~ ~ h O ~ C C o O C) ~n O h ~ O J~ U) S U) C u' a ~: E~ u X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Y c oe a h n5 C O ~ ~ :~: Z Z h .,' =; U) ~ U] h ~a a 3 3 Z Z - CO a~ - ~n h . - o o o U. ~a C C: G5 C C '-' .,' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C C 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - O O ~ ~ H O O ~ ~ ' - h y O ~ ~ Ll Y U] C C. C h C C a n~ ~ O u~ a, n5 615 ~ U) O ~ -l ~ O - oa 0 ~ ~ c=o ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c 0 c X ra ~ ~ ~ O ~ y h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - ~ . - Z Z o 0 o P. ~ U~ u) E~ ~ :> 3 3 3 3 U) .,, s o .,l o C~ . ~; o U]

OCR for page 149
155 lo 0 - a: C) .= at In So o .,, CQ EN c) o C) . - .,, a: ' 0 to al ~ 0 o {Q Ed a: ~ o U) ~ z Rev ~ a) m 0 a: ~ U] o 8 In U] U] U] ~ on 0 a' C) En . {A o z ~ ~ U) v En o a, s o 3 In so a: ma a, . - v O ~ U) U] v .,, v U] -a. -a' 3 U] v .,, s a: .,, so C' ~ In ~ ~ co ~ ~ ID ~ At a' ~ u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ oo ~ ~ 0 u~ u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 rn u~ c~ ~ ~ ~ {~ ~ ~ ,-1 0 0 rn ~5 - 0 - o ra a) o o tn co a, - ~n v ~l o O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ o o s v u] u] D - o-d s c) o u~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ cO ~ ~ ~ u~ ~ ~ tn o ~ z ~ u) Co ~ o ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ E~ v ~ - 3 O C~ - .e O O U) P; .

OCR for page 149
156 competency tests to certification procedures. Reference to Table 6 and the accompanying comments in Chapter 3 are pertinent as a reminder of the variation among states with respect to certification. As far as the quantity of teachers is concerned, both the Howe and Gerlovich (1982) survey and the survey by the Education Commission of the States (Flakus-Mosqueda, 1983) discussed in the report demonstrate differences among the states as to their perceptions of teacher supply and demand in mathematics and science. California In the past, a secondary school teaching certificate allowed a California teacher to teach any high school subject, regardless of the teacher's preparation in that subject. A number of teachers so certified are still in the schools. At this time, California is one of three states that require both a state-constructed test and the National Teacher Examination for teacher certification. The state routinely prepares reports on the salaries and on the characteristics of professional staff. State officials have become concerned about the distribution of science teachers throughout the state and has prepared a density map showing for each county the number of science teachers per 1,000 students. Generally, the northern and eastern portions of the state are above the statewide median of 1.63, the western and southern sections below. Variations within the state are considerable: for example, from 1.18 science teachers per 1,000 students in Los Angeles County to 3.29 per 1,000 students in sparsely populated Mono County; or even between adjacent areas, for example, from 1.48 science teachers per 1,000 students in Contra Costa County to 2.56 per 1,000 students in Marin County. Connecticut Connecticut prepares teacher supply and demand reports, but they do not now include separate statistics on the numbers and preparation of mathematics and science teachers. However, such data on teachers in the system are available from detailed retirement records kept for every teacher. Because of recently enacted legislation

OCR for page 149
157 - providing $5,000 per year of college to college students preparing to teach in shortage areas, the state will need to develop demand/supply projections for mathematics and science teachers, including not only the numbers teaching and numbers needed, but also information on the quality of the current staff. A competency-based approach is being considered to ensure the quality of mathematics and science teachers in the state. Illinois - Illinois prepares an annual demand report on unfilled positions. It also collects information on the number of teachers employed and the percentage of teachers who are certified to teach In grades 9-42. Since some local- ities--especially Chicago--levy extra certification requirements beyond those of the state, the data from different districts are not comparable. Since periodic recertification requires continuing education, retraining is also recorded. The state has not found a satisfactory answer at the state level to tracking the quality of the teaching staff beyond certification and retraining, although some local districts have evaluation systems in place; instead, state authorities work with the teacher preparation institutions in the state to upgrade their education programs. In the last few years, every state university but one has been cited as needing to improve its programs. In 1983 the Illinois State Board of Education (1983) produced a report on the supply and demand for mathe- matics and science teachers in the state. Table A4, covering the previous 6 years, indicates that, for both mathematics and science teachers, the number of new teachers prepared was higher than the number of new, first-time teachers hired. Though the supply of newly trained teachers has been decreasing, so has the demand (i.e., the number of teachers hired). Although data for the Chicago public school system are not available for earlier years, in 1982-1983 10 science teachers were hired by the system, all reentering, and 13 mathematics teachers, of whom 12 were reentering and 1 was a new, first-time hire. The report notes (p. 2): "In mathe- matics, supply decreased by 35.5% from 1977-78 to 1982-83 while demand for mathematics teachers decreased by 35.4% during the same period. The supply of science teachers decreased by 36.2% from 1977-78 to 1982-83 while demand

OCR for page 149
158 TABLE A4 Supply and Demand for Mathematics and Science Teachers in Illinois .. Number of Persons Number of Persons Completing Hired by Illinoisan Other Preparation Public High Math Subjects in Illinois Schools (Demand) Turnover Turnover Year (New Supply) (Begin + Reenter = Total) (No.) (%) (I) Mathematics 1977-1978 197 72 + 103 1978-1979 155 79 + 108 1979-1980 123 62 + 89 1980-1981 123 58 + 93 1981-1982 129 54 + 76 1982-1983 127 48 + 65 Science 1977-1978 218 103 + 91 1978-1979 185 88 + 99 1979-1980 156 70 + 107 1980-1981 142 64 + 84 1981-1982 157 54 + 59 1982-1983 139 39 + 62 = = 175 217 (8.3) (9.6) 187 216 (8.3) (9.5) 151 199 (7.7) (10.1) 151 195 (7.5) (8.2) 130 180 (7.0) (8.2) 113 138 (5.4) (7.0) 194 211 (7.9) (9.6) 187 205 (7.7) (9.5) 177 248 (9.5) (10.1) 148 192 (7.5) (8.2) 113 157 (6.2) t8.2) 101 137 (5.5) (7.0) NOTES: NEW SUPPLY: New teacher graduates prepared by Illinois colleges and universities. NEW (BEGINNING) DEMAND: Persons hired as teachers for the first time (with no previous experience). REENTERING DEMAND: Persons hired as teachers who have taught in the past, have left teaching for at least one year, and are again employed as teachers. TOTAL DEMAND: Estimated total incoming teachers (beginning and reentering) in Illinois public schools. TURNOVER: The group of individuals which for any reason terminated their employ- ment with a public school district between May and September, and did not undertake employment in another Illinois public school district. Exclusive of Chicago, for which data are not available. SOURCE: Illinois State Board of Education (1983) decreased by 47.9%. In Illinois, the new supply and the reserve pool of previously prepared teachers seem to be keeping up with demand." These statistics do not take account of the new demand that may be created by Illinois' increased requirements for high school graduation--2 years of mathematics and 1 year of science. The potential impact of the new requ~re- ments is not yet known, since 80 percent of Illinois high schools currently require one year of each to graduate, while 10.5 percent require two years of mathematics;

OCR for page 149
159 TABLE AS Supply and Demand for Mathematics and Science Teacher s in I 11 inois by Ma in Ass ignment: 19 82-19 83 Number of Persons Number of Persons Completing Hired by Illinois Ma jor Area Preparation Public High of Prepar- in Illinois Schools (Demand) Turnover ation (New Supply) (Begin + Reenter = Total) (No. ) (% ) Sc fence Biology 83 15 + 22 = 37 50 (4.8) Chemistry 27 4 + 13 = 17 27 (5. 4) Earth science 3 3 + 8 = 11 14 (8~2) General science 4 9 + 10 = 19 27 (9.1) Physical science 5 4 + 4 = 8 7 (5~4) Physics 7 4 + 4 = 8 7 ( 3. 5) Other 10 0 + 1 = 1 5 ( 3. 4) Total 139 39 + 62 = 101 137 (5.5) Mathematics ~ Algebra a 30 + 29 = 59 81 (5.4) Geometry ~ 1 + 8 = 9 22 (5.3) Elasic/general math a 16 + 22 = 38 29 (6.6) Other math 1 + 6 = 7 6 (3.3) Total 127 48 + 65 = 113 138 ( 5. 4) NOTE: For definitions of captions, see Table A4. Molly the total supply of mathematics teachers is known. Ma jor area of preparation in mathematics is not designated by specific course or subject. SOURCE: Illinois State Board of Education (1983). hnw~v~r shiv R Dercent of Illinois seniors report taking 90 ~ , ~ , no mathematics beyond grade 9, implying that over percent already take 1.5 years of mathematics or more in -trades 9-12 (see Table All, below). Table A4 also shows that, for Illinois, the per- centages of mathematics and science teachers leaving these fields do not differ substantially from the percentages leaving other teaching specialities; they are, in fact, somwehat lower. Nevertheless, the number of people leaving suggests that the need for newly prepared teachers continues. Table AS shows demand and supply statistics for specific mathematics and science specialities in 1982- 1983. Only for general science were there more new hires than newly trained teachers, but for earth science, physical science, and physics, the number of newly prepared teachers was less than the total number hired, suggesting that the need for newly prepared teachers is greater in these areas than in biology and chemistry. In general, the data in the report do not address the quality of the hired teachers, although it is presumed in the report that they have valid teaching certificates.

OCR for page 149
190 state adds its own items. The intent is to hold a sufficient number of items constant in order to have a 12-year comparison period. For example, a comparison of performance on identical items in the 1974 and 1978 mathematics tests showed that there was a small overall increase in 1978 in grade 4 (1.2 percent more items answered correctly) and a small decrease in 1978 in grades 8 and 11 (1.3 percent fewer items answered correctly in each grade) (Minnesota Department of Education, 1980a). Use of NAEP test items and student samples also makes possible comparisons of the performance of Minnesota students with national and regional results. As Table A28 shows, in 1978 Minnesota students performed somewhat better than regional and national samples of students in mathematics and about the same in science. New Jersey Since 1978 the New Jersey College Basic Skills Placement Test (NJCBSPT) has been required of all students entering public colleges in New Jersey; as of 1982, 10 independent colleges in New Jersey had also joined the testing program. Table A29 gives the results for the three basic skills assessed in the test: verbal skills, computation, and elementary algebra. As indi- TABLE A28 1978 Minnesota and National Comparisons in Mathematics and Science Performance, Grades 4, 8, and 11 Overall Percent Correct, NAEP Items Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11 Mathematics Minnesota 75.6 60.4 63.6 National 70.0 56.1 59.8 Central United States 73.0 59.6 62.1 Science Minnesota 66.7 58.5 50.5 National 63.0 59.7 50.0 Central United States 65.9 61.7 50.3 SOURCE: Minnesota Department of Education (1980a,b).

OCR for page 149
191 U) m C) z o Ed o s CO a) sol 0 a' a Id 8 s v U) a: .,, :r: o A U] .,. 3 a) U) o o A .,, sot o C) a, cat At: Ed 1 ~ CD At; EN i: a' Al P' ~4 :' A P4 o a' a) a' z P. z `: A o' Or ~ ~ o o o o a, ~ a, a' ~ co ID low N (D CO ~ ~ ID Or 0 d. a' ID ~ Cal ~ ret ~ 0 ~ Or a' ~ co a, a' 0 ~ UP O Cat CO ~ UP ~ O CO I ~ N 1 CO O ~0 N ~ ~n N ~ ~ a' ~ 0 ~D N ~ O ~ rn ~ _I _I N ~ _I O ~ U~ ~r O U~ U~ U~ ~ _I k0 N N as kD 0O ~ O a' 0 r~ ~ N N O u~ N =, r~, a~ u~ un O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r 0 a' C~~ J t' ~ O N ~ a~ co ~ ~ ~ kD CO U~ ~0 ' ' O ' r N ' ~ O ~ o _I ~ _1 _ ~ ~r a~ ~ tD ~ O In u~ N ~ N ~1 N ~ tD cr) _I tD ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ rn ~ a' CO ~ ~ ~ Cn ~ CO O iD N aN U~ ~ ~ _I N r N ~ a~ I ~ o C C C .~' . - . - ~1 1 :^ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ :> C) ~ ~ ~ t) ~ C C C C D C C a' _~ ,4 u~ ~ ~ - ~ u~ a' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ,~ .~~ a~ a~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~) a~ O ~ C ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ s" O -/ O O ~ ~ C) O O O ~ J~ U >' O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ )- 54 -1 ~ ~ ~ ' Q. Q. a~ o4 S~ Q~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ =1 O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O Y ~ O ~ ~ ~ Y Y O ~ ~ ~ Y Y O C.) ~ ~n ~ Q, ~ ~ 0 u~ ~ ~ a~ ~ t) u~ Q Q. Q4 ,~ ~ ~ ~ <: ~ ~ ~ ~: O C) CO a, - ~ ~q a~ C: a q~ ~ O Pd P. C ~ O U' ,, U] . - s E~ C C .,, ~ 4J o s ~a ~ C O O c .,, C) c o U) c U] ~ O U] U] O ~ ~: cn . C) C H O ~a1 u~

OCR for page 149
192 cased, there has been little change in results over the 5 years: nearly 40 percent of the students entering the participating colleges lack proficiency computation, and 50 percent lack proficiency in elementary algebra. Moreover, even students who had completed 3 years of high school mathematics (algebra I, geometry, and algebra II) did not fare well: half of these students could not answer 50 percent of the algebra problems presented, and 36 percent of the same students lacked proficiency in 6th-grade arithmetic (defined as answering correctly 20 of the 30 problems presented). Thus, while there is a correlation between the number of mathematics courses taken and performance in the NJCBSPT, the completion of high school mathematics courses does not necessarily lead to proficiency in mathematics (Advisory Council on Math/Science Teacher Supply and Demand, 1983). New York At the elementary level, mathematics and reading are tested in grades 3 and 6; in the future, the mathematics test will include computer-related items. Writing is tested in grade 5; the state plans to add tests in social studies and in science to be administered at the end of grade 6. At the secondary level, the Board of Regents exams that test achievement in specific subjects are optional, but they are intended to guide the curriculum in all schools. About three-fourths of the students who take the Regents exams in various levels of mathematics pass the tests; more than 80 percent do so in the sciences (biology, earth science, chemistry, physics). Although scores on Regents exams are not comparable from year to year, the data show that the percentage of students passing the exam in three of the four sciences--biology, earth science, chemistry--has gone up since 1975. How- ever, the numbers of students taking the exams in each of these sciences have decreased slightly. In physics, the percentage passing has remained stable, even though the number of students taking the physics exam has increased by 16 percent in spite of declining total high school enrollments. The percentage passing the various Regents exams in mathematics has remained stable or increased slightly. In 1983, 45 percent of the 194,128 students receiving diplomas in New York received Regents diplomas (University of the State of New York/The State Department of Education, 1983b).

OCR for page 149
193 State examinations are also prepared for non-Regents courses in several science subjects and mathematics as well as tests for minimum competency in mathematics, reading, and writing. The minimum-competency tests are first administered in the 8th and 9th grades to identify students needing remediation, then in the middle of 10th grade to ensure students' readiness for graduation. Only 1 percent of diploma candidates fail to graduate because of failure to pass the competency exams. North Carolina Statewide assessments have been carried out in mathematics (and other basic subjects) in North Carolina since 1978, in grades 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9. The California Achievement Test (QT) is used for grades 3, 6, and 9; the Diagnostic Mathematics Inventory (DMI) is used for grades 1 and 2. The results for mathematics are presented in Table A30. Science performance was tested in grade 3 in 1973-1974, in grade 6 in 1974-1975, and in grade 9 in 1975-1976. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania's Educational Quality Assessment (EQA) was designed to help local districts improve their educational programs by providing schools with informa- tion about the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of their students. Eight cognitive areas, including mathematics, are tested each year in grades 5, 8, and 11. Local school districts volunteer to participate; the number of schools involved has increased considerably since 1978 when the tests were first given; in 1983 more than 1,000 schools participated. Despite the fact that the test population may be changing from year to year, with Philadelphia and Pittsburgh sometimes included and some- times not, mathematics scores have stayed quite stable over the 6 years that EQA has operated: for grade 5, the mean score every year has been 37 (of 60; standard devia- tion around 4); for grade 8, 32 (of 60; standard deviation 3.3 to 4.7); for grade 11, 35 (of 60; standard deviation around 3).

OCR for page 149
194 TABLE A30 Mathematics Achievement Results and Differences in Performance Between 1979-1980 and 1982-1983 Gain, 1979- 1980- 1981- 1982- 1979- Grade 1980 1981 1982 1983 1983 1 (DMI) 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 0.2 2 (DMI) 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 0.2 3 (CAT) 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1 0.2 6 (CAT) 6.9 7.3 7.5 7.5 0.6 9 (CAT) 9.4 9.9 10.0 10.0 0.6 NOTE: Results are presented as grade equivalents; national averages equal the seventh month of each grade level. The grade equivalents for grades 1 and 2 are estimates based on linking DMI results to CAT scores. SOURCE: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (1983:6). Washington Washington has had a statewide testing program since 1975. For the first 3 years, the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CT8S) were used; in 1979, a change was made to the California Achievement Test (CAT). Table A31 presents results for 7 years. The state also administers the Washington Pre-College test; each year, about 28,000 students (more than 50 percent of each cohort) take this test.

OCR for page 149
195 TABLE A31 Comparison of Median Percentile Rank (MPR) in Mathematics Achievement and Percentages of 4th Grade Students Scoring in Each Norm Group Quarter Norm (I) 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 25 (top) quartile) 24% 23% 25% 27% 29% 28% 29% 25 25 25 26 28 29 29 29 25 31 32 31 26 26 27 26 25 (bottom quartile) 20 21 17 19 16 17 16 MPR 53 52 54 54 58 56 57 NOTE: The median percentile ranks (MPR's) for the 1976-1978 CTBS have been converted to their CAT equivalents. SOURCE: Data made available by Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, Washington. REFERENCES Advisory Council on Math/Science Teacher Supply and Demand 1983 Report to the Advisory Council on Math/Science Teacher Supply and Demand. Trenton, N.J.: Department of Higher Education and Department of Education. Anderson, Beverly 1984 Status of State Assessment and Minimum Competency Testing. Denver, Colo.: Education Commission of the States. Bell, Terrell H. 1984 State Education Statistics: State Performance Outcomes, Resource Inputs, and Population Characteristics, 1972 and 1982. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Brouillet, Frank B. 1982 Washington High School Course Enrollment Study: A Focus on Grades 9-12. Tumwater, Wash.: Superintendent of Public Instruction .

OCR for page 149
196 Brouillet, Frank B., Rasp, Alfred Jr., and Ensign, Gordon B. 1982 Washington High School and Beyond: A Profile of the 1980 Senior Class. Olympia, Wash.: Superintendent of Public Instruction. The College Board 1983 Readability Report, Academic Year 1983-84. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Council of Chief State School Officers 1982 An Information Exchange on the Status of Statistical and Automated Information Systems in State Education Agencies. A joint product of the National Center for Education Statistics and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Commission on Evaluation of Information Systems, Washington, D.C. 1984 A Review and Profile of State Assessment and Minimum Competency Testing Programs. Prepared for meeting of Chief State School Officers, August 1984. Dorwart, James P. 1983 Science and Mathematics Teacher Supply and Demand and Educational Needs Analysis: A Pennsylvania Report. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Department of Education. Flakus-Mosqueda, Patricia 1983 Survey of States' Teacher Policies. Working Paper No. 2. Prepared for the Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo. Hirsch, Christian 1982 Preparedness of Junior High School Mathematics Teachers. Memorandum to NCTM Executive Board Michigan Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Lansing. 1983 Preparedness of Junior High School Mathematics Teachers. Updated Memorandum to NCTM Executive Board. Michigan Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Lansing. Howe, Trevor G., and Gerlovich, Jack A. 1982 National Study of the Estimated SUPP1Y and Demand of Secondary Science and Mathematics Teachers. Ames: Iowa State University. . Illinois State Board of Education 1980a Special Report on Mathematics. Springfield: Illinois State Board of Education. 1980b Special Report on Science. Springfield: Illinois State Board of Education.

OCR for page 149
197 High School and Beyond: Illinois Students. Springfield: Illinois State Board of Education. 1982 Student Achievement in Illinois: An Analysis of Student Progress. Springfield: Illinois State Board of Education. 1983 The Supply and Demand for Illinois Mathematics . and Science Teachers. Springfield: Illinois State Board of Education. Laverty, Grace E. 1983 Investigating Mathematics and Science Teacher Supply and Demand in Pennsylvania; A Synthesis of POE Data. Harrisburg: Department of Education. Law, Alexander I. 1984 Student achievement in California schools. 1982-1983 Annual Report. Sacramento: California State Department of Education. Michigan Department of Education 1983 Highlights of High School Commission's Survey, An Overview of Pennsylvania 1983. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. Michigan State Board of Education 1981 Science Education Interpretive Report. 1984 Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education. Results from the 1983-84 Michigan Educational Assessment Program. Presented to the Michigan State Board of Education, Lansing. Minnesota Department of Education 1980a Minnesota Statewide Educational Assessment in l Mathematics, 1978-79. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education. 1980b Minnesota Statewide Educational Assessment in Science, 1978-79. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education. 1984 Report of the 1983 Minnesota survey of Science , Education. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics 1981 A Capsule Description of High School Students: A Report on High School and Beyond, A National Longitudinal Study for the 1980s. Prepared by Samuel S. Peng, William B. Fetters, and Andrew J. Kolstad. Supt. of Doc. No. NCES 0-729-575/2100. Available from the U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.:

OCR for page 149
198 National Evaluation Systems, Inc. 1980 Connecticut Assessment of Educational Progress: Science 1979-80. Prepared for Connecticut State Board of Education, Bureau of Research, Planning and Evaluation. Hartford: Connecticut State Board of Education. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction 1983 Report of Student Performance. Raleigh: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. Roeber, Edward D. 1984 Survey of Large-Scale Assessment Programs, Fall 1983. Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education. University of the State of New York/The State Education Department 1982 High School and Beyond: A National Longitudinal Study for the 1980's. Report No. 1, A Description of High School Students in New York State and the Nation, 1980. Albany, N.Y.: State Education Department Information Center on Education. 1983a Public School Professional Personnel Report, New York 1982-1983. Albany, N.Y.: State Education Department Information Center on Education. 1983b Regents Examination, Regents Competency Test, and High School Graduation Statistics for the 1982-83 School Year. Albany, N.Y.: Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Testing Programs. 1983c Teachers in New York State, 1968 to 1982. Albany, N.Y.: State Education Department Information Center on Education. Weiss, Iris S. 1978 Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies Education. Prepared for the National Science Foundation. Supt. of Doc. No. 083-000-00364-0. Available from the U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. Wolfe, Martin S. 1980 Connecticut Assessment of Educational Progress: Mathematics 1979-80. Prepared for Connecticut State Board of Education, Bureau of Research, Planning and Evaluation. Hartford: Connecticut State Board of Education.

OCR for page 149
199 STATE PERSONNEL California ALEX LAW, Chief, Planning, Evaluation and Research, California State Department of Education MARK FETLER, Coordinator, Educational Planning and Information Center, California State Department of Education CLAIRE QUINLAN, Consultant, Division of Planning, Evaluation, and Research, California State Department of Education Connecticut PASCAL D. FORGIONE, Chief, Bureau of Research, Planning and Evaluation, Connecticut State Department of Education JOAN BARON, Project Director, Connecticut Assessment of Educational Progress Illinois MERV BRENNAN, Program Evaluation and Assessment Specialist, Illinois State Board of Education NORMAL STENZEL, Program Evaluation and Assessment Specialist, Illinois State Board of Education Michigan DAVID L. DONOVAN, Assistant Superintendent, Technical Assistance and Evaluation, Michigan State Department of Education EDWARD D. ROEBER, Supervisor, Michigan Educational Assessment Program, Michigan State Department of Education Minnesota LOWELL TORNQUIST, Director, Planning and Policy Research, Minnesota State Department of Education RICHARD C. CLARK, Specialist, Science Education, Minnesota Department of Education

OCR for page 149
200 New Jersey CONSTANCE O'DEA, Education and Program Specialist, New Jersey State Department of Education New York JOHN MURPHY, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Elementary/Secondary and Continuing Support Services, New York State Education Department JOHN J. STIGLMEIER, Director, Information Center for Education, New York State Education Department North Carolina WILLIAM BROWN, Special Assistant for Research, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Pennsylvania ROBERT BURROWS, Educational Statistical Associate, Pennsylvania Department of Education, J. ROBERT COLDIRON, Chief, Division of Educational Testing and Evaluation, Pennsylvania Department of Education RICHARD LATTANZIO, Educational Statistical Supervisor, Pennsylvania Department of Education JOHN J. McDERMITT, Senior Science Advisor, Pennsylvania Department of Education JOHN A. REBERT, Director, Professional Standards and Practices Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Education Washington ALFRED RASP, Director, Testing, Evaluation and Accounting, Washington State Department of Public Instruction