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 150
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 151
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 152
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 153
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 154
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 155
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 156
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 157
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 158
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 159
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 190
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 191
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 192
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 193
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 194
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 195
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 196
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 197
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 198
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 199
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 200
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
Representative terms from entire chapter:
science teachers
